Comparison of Students’ Success in an International Technology Certificate Program

Abstract

Tüm dünyada sunulan teknoloji sertifika programları son on yılda hızlı bir şekilde artmıştır. Bunların tasarımı, geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması süreçlerinde dünyanın farklı bölgeleri arasındaki coğrafik, kültürel ve gelişmişlik düzeyindeki farklılıklar çok az veya hiç dikkate alınmamaktadır. Bu çalışma, teknoloji destekli öğrenimi okul bazında öğretmen kontrolüyle birleştiren, dünya çapındaki Cisco Certified Network Associate programındaki öğrencilerin başarılarını değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı program ve öğretim materyalleri aynı olduğunda demografik, yetenek ve güdüsel etkenlerin dünyanın farklı bölgelerindeki öğrenci başarılarını nasıl etkilediğini araştırmaktır. Bu çalışmanın kapsamında teknoloji eğitim programına Ağustos 2004 den Aralık 2005’e kadar 5.948 akademi ve 135 ülkede kayıt yaptırıp tamamlayan 368.159 öğrenci araştırmaya dâhil edilmiştir. ANOVA ve regresyon yöntemleri ile elde edilen sonuçlara göre öğrencilerin önceki başarılarının, teknoloji becerilerinin ve öğrenim durumlarının öğrencilerin başarılarına – bölgelerin gelişmişlik düzeylerinden bağımsız bir şekilde – etkisi olduğu görülmüştür

Keywords

• öğrenci başarısı, teknoloji destekli öğrenme ortamları

References

1. Alpern, B.E. (2000). Factors that influence community college transfer students' satisfaction with their baccalaureate institutions. Michigan.
2. Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
3. Cashion, J. and Palmieri, P. (2002). The secret is the teacher: the learner’s view of online learning. The National Centre for
4. Vocational Education Research: Adelaide, South Australia. Cassady, J.C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: a methodological note. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
5. (12). Retrieved September 26, 2007 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=12
6. Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (March, 1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.
7. Crombie, G. & Abarbanel, T. (2000). Bridging the gender gap in high-technology education. NASSP Bulletin, 84(618), 64
8. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

9. Dennis, A. R., Cakir, H., Korkmaz, A., Duffy, T., Bichelmeyer, B. A., & Bunnage, J. C. (2006). Student achievement in the Cisco Networking Academy: Performance in the CCNA1 Course. Presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
10. Eccles, J.S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
11. Gray, J. & Jesson, D. (1990). Estimating differences in the examination of performances. Oxford Review of Education, 16(2), 158.
12. Green, M.Y. (2000). Why aren't girls more tech savvy? NEA Today, 19, 31.
13. Haislett, J. & Hafer, A.A. (1990). Predicting success of engineering students during the freshman year. Career Development Quarterly, 39(1), 86-95.
14. Hakkinen, I., Kirjavainen, T., & Uusitalo, R. (2003). School resources and student achievement revisited: New evidence from panel data. Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 329-335.
15. Hill, J.R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L.M., & Han, S. (2004). Exploring research on internet-based learning: From infrastructure to interactions. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
16. Kennedy, C.A. (2000). Measuring student variables useful in the study of performance in an online learning environment.
17. Retrieved from ERIC [ED466237]. California.
18. Khan, B.H. (1998). Web-based instruction (WBI): An introduction. Educational Media International, 35(2), 63-71.
19. Kuncel, N.R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L.L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63-82.
20. Lee, V.E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 125-141.
21. Osguthorpe, R.T. & Graham, C.R. (2003). Blended learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 233.
22. Polin, L.I.E. (2004). Learning in dialogue with a practicing community. In T.M. Duffy and J. Kirkley (Eds.), Designing environments for distributed learning: Learning theory and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum and Assoc: Mahwah, NJ.
23. Shavelson, R., Webb, N., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 50-91). New York: Macmillan.
24. Papanastasiou, C. (2002). Achievements in mathematics and science in an international context. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(1), 3-12
25. Stinson, J. (2004). A continuing learning community for graduates of an MBA program: The experiment at Ohio University.
26. In , T.M. Duffy and J. Kirkley (Eds.), Designing environments for distributed learning: Learning theory and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum and Assoc: Mahwah, NJ. Walberg, H.J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 4(8), 19-27.
27. Welsh, E.T., Wanberg, C.R., Brown, K.G., & Simmering, M.J. (2003). E-Learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245-258.
28. Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
29. Young, D.J. (2000). Rural differences in student achievement: The effect of student perceptions. Educational Research & Evaluation, 6(3), 207-228. GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET