Distance Education from Teacher and Learner Perspective

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 131 - 146, 31.03.2023

Nesrin Hark Söylemez

https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1158906

Abstract

This study aims to determine the views of individuals who have experienced the distance education process as both students and teachers. The study group consists of individuals whom both enrolled in graduate education programs of a state university and taught actively at K-12 institutions. Study is conducted with phenomenological design. Miles Huberman model was used in the analysis of the data. The problems faced by the participants in the distance education process, in which they took part both as teachers and students, were grouped under “instructor dimension, student dimension, family dimension, infrastructure, hardware and physical environment dimension, social interaction dimension and process dimension”. The views of the participants on the assessment and evaluation processes in distance education as students were grouped under “measured learning outcomes, assessment and evaluation tools, assessment and evaluation system, other factors that affect evaluation, negative situations and positive situations”. When the views on assessment and evaluation processes in distance education are examined from the perspective of the teacher, same sub-themes with the exception of positive situations occurred. Views on e-teacher qualifications were grouped under “technical knowledge, knowledge of instructional design, social skills, knowledge of pedagogical content, management skills and knowledge of assessment and evaluation”.

Keywords

distance education, e-teacher competencies, graduate student, K-12 teacher, problems in distance education

References

• Albrahim, F. A. (2020). Online Teaching Skills and Competencies. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n3p187
• Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.510182
• Atherton, M., Shah, M., Vazquez, J., Griffiths, Z., Jackson, B., & Burgess, C. (2017). Using learning analytics to assess student engagement and academic outcomes in open access enabling programmes. Open Learning, 32(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2017.1309646
• Bailie, J. (2011). Effective online instructional competencies as perceived by online university faculty and students: A sequel study. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 82–89.
• Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. TechTrends, 58(5), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0791-0
• Barton, D. C. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on field instruction and remote teaching alternatives: Results from a survey of instructors. Ecology and Evolution, 10(22), 12499–12507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6628
• Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age – Second Edition. Vancouver, B.C.: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
• Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236536
• Beaudoin, M. F., Kurtz, G., & Eden, S. (2009). Experiences and Opinions of E-learners: What Works, What are the Challenges, and What Competencies Ensure Successful Online Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 5, 275–289. https://doi.org/10.28945/78
• Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
• Bruhn, A., McDaniel, S., & Kreigh, C. (2015). Self-monitoring interventions for students with behavior problems: A systematic review of current research. Behavioral Disorders, 40(2), 102–121. https://doi.org/10.17988/BD-13-45.1
• Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12243
• Chiemeke, S., & Imafidor, M. O. (2020). Web-based Learning In Periods of Crisis: Reflections on the Impact of Covid-19. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 12(3), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcsit.2020.12303
• Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228381038_Bloom’s_Digital_Taxonomy
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Içinde New York: Sage (5. baskı). SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The Determinants of Students’ Perceived Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Update*. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097
• Flick, U. (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Içinde The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243
• Guasch, T., Alvarez, I., & Espasa, A. (2010). University teacher competencies in a virtual teaching/learning environment: Analysis of a teacher training experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.018
• Gunn, C. (2010). Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687769.2010.492848
• Gurung, R. A. R., & Stone, A. M. (2020). You can’t always get what you want and it hurts: Learning during the pandemic. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000236
• He, L., Yang, N., Xu, L., Ping, F., Li, W., Sun, Q., … Zhang, H. (2021). Synchronous distance education vs traditional education for health science students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education, 55(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14364
• Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and Practice of Distance Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203973820
• Horzum, M. B. (2013). Uzaktan Eğitimde Transaksiyonel Uzaklığın Öğrencilerin Özyeterlilik Algılarına Etkisi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama.
• Hsieh Chang, S. H., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learner-centered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2008.10782514
• Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational Research Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (7th baskı). SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional Distance among Open University Students: How Does it Affect the Learning Process? European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 17(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0002
• Kent, C., Laslo, E., & Rafaeli, S. (2016). Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers and Education, 97, 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.002
• Koç, E. S. (2021). Nasıl bir uzaktan eğitim? 1 yılın sonunda yapılan çalışmaların değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 13–26.
• Larreamendy-Joerns, Jorge Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the Distance With Online Education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567.
• Lee, K., Fanguy, M., Lu, X. S., & Bligh, B. (2021). Student learning during COVID-19: It was not as bad as we feared. Distance Education, 42(1), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869529
• Mailizar, Almanthari, A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ views on e-learning implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7). https://doi.org/10.29333/EJMSTE/8240
• Marshall, S. (2012). Improving the quality of e-learning: Lessons from the eMM. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00443.x
• Martin, F., & Parker, M. (2014). Use of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms: Why, Who, and How? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.
• Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family Relations and the Internet: Exploring a Family Boundaries Approach. Journal of Family Communication, 6(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0602_2
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Sage Publications.
• Mladenova, T., Kalmukov, Y., & Valova, I. (2020). Covid 19-A major cause of digital transformation in education or just an evaluation test. TEM Journal, 9(3), 1163–1170. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM93-42
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning (3. baskı). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Naylor, D., & Nyanjom, J. (2021). Educators’ emotions involved in the transition to online teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 40(6), 1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1811645
• Nordmann, E., Horlin, C., Hutchison, J., Murray, J. A., Robson, L., Seery, M. K., & MacKay, J. R. D. (2020). Ten simple rules for supporting a temporary online pivot in higher education. PLoS Computational Biology, 16(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008242
• Nyland, R., Davies, R. S., Chapman, J., & Allen, G. (2017). Transaction-level learning analytics in online authentic assessments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9122-0
• Oliveira, M. M. S. de, Penedo, A. S. T., & Pereira, V. S. (2018). Distance education: advantages and disadvantages of the point of view of education and society. Dialogia, (29), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.5585/dialogia.n29.7661
• Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2011). The Excellent Online Instructor: Strategies for Professional Development. Içinde Online Teaching and Learning com.
• Parahoo, S. K., Santally, M. I., Rajabalee, Y., & Harvey, H. L. (2016). Designing a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1083511
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Içinde Sage (4th baskı). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1415-65552003000200018
• Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (8. baskı). Pearson.
• Rose, P., Beeby, J., & Parker, D. (1995). Academic rigour in the lived experience of researchers using phenomenological methods in nursing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(6), 1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061123.x
• Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.035
• Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504769
• Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities the key to active online learning (2. baskı). Routledge, New York NY.
• Shin, M., & Hickey, K. (2021). Needs a little TLC: examining college students’ emergency remote teaching and learning experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(7), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1847261
• Simonson, M., Zvacek, S., & Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and learning at a distance - Foundations of distance education (7. baskı). ‎ Information Age Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00034-3
• van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of Practice. Phenomenology of Practice. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315422657
• Van Weert, T. J. (2006). Education of the twenty-first century: New professionalism in lifelong learning, knowledge development and knowledge sharing. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3–4), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-006-9018-0
• Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835779
• Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters - The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(3), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3417
• White, E. (2019). Teacher Self-Assessment of Feedback Practices in an EFL Academic Writing Class - A Reflective Case Study. Içinde Learning and Performance Assessment: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. (ss. 1200–1224). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0420-8.ch057
• Woodard, B. S. (2003). Technology and the constructivist learning environment: Implications for teaching information literacy skills. Research Strategies, 19(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2005.01.001
• Yen, S. C., Lo, Y., Lee, A., & Enriquez, J. M. (2018). Learning online, offline, and in-between: comparing student academic outcomes and course satisfaction in face-to-face, online, and blended teaching modalities. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 2141–2153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9707-5