Kitlesel Açık Çevrimiçi Derslerin Öğretmen Eğitimindeki Rolleri: Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Öğretmen Adaylarının Programlamaya Yönelik Kitlesel Açık Çevrimiçi Ders Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi

Year 2020, Issue: 1, 166 - 177, 01.04.2020

Sezan Sezgin

Abstract

Kitlesel açık çevrimiçi dersler KAÇD , dünyadaki farklı üniversiteler veya eğitmenler tarafından sunulan, genellikle ücretsiz ve yüksek öğrenen sayılarına sahip derslerdir. Yaşamboyu öğrenme bağlamında öz-düzenlemeye dayalı öğrenme deneyimleri sunabilen bu dersler, kişisel ve mesleki gelişim için önemli eğitsel kaynaklardır. Bu çalışma, bilişim teknolojileri alanında öğrenim görmekte olan öğretmen adaylarının programlama öğretimine yönelik KAÇD’lerdeki ders deneyimlerini incelemeyi amaçlayan nitel bir bütüncül tek durum çalışmasıdır. Araştırma kapsamında 34 Bilişim Teknolojileri öğretmen adayı bir yarıyıl süresince programlamaya yönelik en az bir KAÇD tamamlamış, öğretmen adaylarının ders deneyimlerine ilişkin görüşleri yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Katılımcı görüşleri tümevarımsal içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiş, görüşme verilerinin temel olarak dokuz farklı tema altında kümelendiği belirlenmiştir. Bu temalar anlatıcı-eğitmen, geri dönüt-teknik destek-danışmanlık, anlatım, uygulama, bilgi hazırbulunuşluğu, kullanılan medya özellikleri, ölçme ve değerlendirme, ders süresi, dil bariyerleri ve reklam temalarıdır. Bununla beraber KAÇD’lere karşı katılımcı görüşlerinin çoğunlukla %71 olumlu olduğu gözlenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, elde edilen temalar bağlamında çevrimiçi ders tasarımı önerileri ve KAÇD’lerin öğretmen eğitiminde programlama gibi spesifik konularda kullanımlarına yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur

Keywords

Kitlesel açık çevrimiçi dersler, Öğretmen eğitimi, Programlama eğitimi

Roles of Massive Open Online Courses in Teacher Education: Examining the Massive Open Online Course Experiences of Preservice Computer and Instructional Technologies Teachers about Programming

Abstract

Massive open online courses MOOCs are free courses provided by different universities or independent instructors, which may have massive learner numbers. In the context of lifelong learning, MOOCs present self-regulation based learning experiences for both individual and professional development. This study is a qualitative holistic single case study that seeks to examine the views of preservice teachers in the field of instructional technologies about the course designs of programming related MOOCs. Accordingly, 34 preservice teachers in the field of Computer and Instructional Technologies CEIT , participated in the study. Participants completed at least one MOOC through the semester. Semi-structured interviews were used to gather the views of participants. Inductive content analysis steps were conducted to examine the data obtained. Content analysis of views of participants revealed nine different themes, namely; narrativeinstructor, feedback-technical support-mentoring, presentation, practice, knowledge readiness, media attributes, assessment-evaluation, course duration, language barriers, and advertisements. It was also identified that the views of preservice teachers are mostly 71% positive about MOOCs. In the context of themes revealed, several suggestions were made in reference to online course design and using MOOCs in specific topics as programming education

Keywords

Massive open online courses, Teacher education, Programming education

References

• Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Cormier, D. & Delgado- Kloos, C. (2014). Proposal for a conceptual framework for educators to describe and design MOOCs. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20, 1, 6–23
• Beaven, T., Comas-Quinn, A., Hauck, M., de los Arcos, B. & Lewis, T. (2013). The Open Translation MOOC: Creating Online Communities to Transcend Linguistic Barriers. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (1). Retrieved from https:// www.learntechlib.org/p/153010/.
• Bozkurt, A. (2019). Açık Eğitsel Kaynaklardan Açık Eğitsel uygulamalara: Türk yükseköğretimi bağlamında ekolojik bakış açısıyla bir değerlendirme. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 127-150.
• Clark, D. (2013, April 16). MOOCs: Taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb. blogspot.com/2013/04/moocs-taxonomy-of-8-types-of- mooc.html
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books.
• Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2012) Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and Information Technologies, 18(4), 661-685.
• Cohen L., Manion L.,& Morrison K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://islmblogblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rme-edu- helpline-blogspot-com.pdf
• Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. RED-Revista de Educación a Distancia, 50(2). Retrieved from https://www.um.es/ead/red/50/conole.pdf
• Cormier, D. (2010, December 8). What is a MOOC [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc
• Daniels, J., Gold, M. K., Anderson, S. M., Boy, J., Cahill, C., Gieseking, J. J., … Tucker, Z. (2014). The InQ13 POOC : A participatory experiment in open, collaborative teaching and learning. Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy (JITP), (5), 1–40.
• Dasarathy, B., Sullivan, K., Schmidt, D. C., Fisher, D. H., & Porter, A. (2014). The past, present, and future of MOOCs and their relevance to software engineering. In Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering (pp. 212-224). ACM. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2593882.2593897
• Davidson, C. (2013, November 21). Are MOOCs really the worst threat to the future of universities? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/2013/06/23/ are-moocs-really-worst-threat-future-universities
• Del Fatto V., Dodero G., Gennari R., Gruber B., Helmer S., Raimato G. (2018) Automating assessment of exercises as means to decrease mooc teachers’ efforts. In: Mealha Ó., Divitini M., Rehm M. (eds) citizen, territory and technologies: smart learning contexts and practices. SLERD 2017. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 80. Springer, Cham
• Educause - Learning Initiative. (2011, November 9). 7 Things you should know about MOOCs [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2011/11/7-things- you-should-know-about-moocs
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1 43–52.
• McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from https://www. oerknowledgecloud.org/archive/MOOC_Final.pdf
• McGreal, R., Anderson, T., & Conrad, D. (2015). Open educational resources in Canada 2015. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5), 161-175.
• Meek, S. E., Blakemore, L., & Marks, L. (2017). Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 1000-1013.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications, Inc.
• Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification.In Proceedings 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL (pp. 323–329), Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Europe.
• Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online- courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html?pagewanted=all
• Parry, M. (2012). 5 Ways that edX could change education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle. com/article/5-Ways-That-edX-Could-Change/134672/
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A., & Koller, D. (2013). Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.2579.pdf
• Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luján-Mora, S. (2014). KAÇDs gone wild. In Proceedings of the 8th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED 2014) (pp. 1449-1458). Valencia (Spain), March 10-12 2014. ISBN: 978-84-616-8412-0. ISSN: 2340-1079.
• Scagnoli, N. I., McKinney, A., & Moore-Reynen, J. (2015). Video lectures in eLearning. In Handbook of research on innovative technology integration in higher education (pp. 115-134). IGI Global.
• Spector, J. M. (2014). Remarks on MOOCs and Mini-MOOCs. Edu- cational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 385- 392
• Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer.
• The Association of Commonwealth Universities. (2013). MOOCs: disrupting the academic profession?” ACU Insights. Issue No. 5. Retrieved from https://www.acu.ac.uk/membership/ acu-insights/acu-insights-5/moocs-disruptingacademic- profession.
• The Innovative Pedagogy Report (2013). Retrieved from http:// www.open.ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/ Innovating_Pedagogy_report_2013.pdf
• programming MOOCs. In 2017 IEEE 33rd International
• Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) (pp. 1259-1270). IEEE.
• Wiley, D. (2009, November 16). Defining the ‘open’ in open content [Blog]. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/ archives/1123
• Yuan, L. & Powell S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. A white paper. Centre for Educational Technology, Interoperability and Standards (JISC CETIS). Retrieved from https://publications.cetis.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education. pdf
• Open education conference. Retrieved from https://archive. org/details/OpenEd2005ARealityCheckforOpenEducation