Uzaktan Eğitim Ortamlarında Sosyal Yazılım Kullanımının Kabulünü Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Sosyal yazılımların özellikle genç nesiller arasındaki popülaritesi son yıllarda bu teknolojilerin eğitsel amaçlı kullanılabilirliğinin sorgulanmasına neden olmaktadır Bu çalışmanın amacı, uzaktan eğitim programlarında sosyal yazılımlara karşı öğrencilerin kullanım niyetlerini belirleyen faktörlerin belirlenmesidir. Sosyal yazılımların uzaktan eğitimde kabulüne ilişkin enstrümanların az olması nedeniyle, bu çalışmada yerleşik kuram yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. 574 uzaktan eğitim öğrencisine eğitimlerinde eğitsel sosyal yazılım kullanımı ile ilgili olumlu ve olumsuz beklentilerini içeren iki açık-uçlu soru yöneltilmiştir. Cevaplar QDA Miner programı ile kodlanmış ve analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin eğitsel sosyal yazılımları kullanma niyetlerini ortaya koymak adına, beklentileri ve endişeleri mevcut teknoloji kabul modelleri ile ilişkilendirilerek karma bir model önerisinde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Uzaktan Eğitim, Eğitsel Sosyal Yazılım, Yerleşik Kuram, TKM

A Study on Identifying the Factors Affecting the Use of Social Software in Distance Education Environments

Abstract

The popularity of social software -especially among younger generations-,has arisen the question of whether these technologies can be used for educational purposes. The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that influence the acceptance of social software for distance learning students. Since there are little guiding instruments with respect to the acceptance of social software for distance learners, the grounded theory has been adopted in this study. 574 distance learners were asked two open ended questions that sought to gather the positive and negative expectations concerning the use of social networking software in their distance education programming. The answers given to these questions were then coded and analyzed using QDA Miner. In order to examine distance learners' behavioral intention to use social software, their expectations and concerns were integrated with prior technology acceptance models, suggesting a hybrid acceptance model.

Keywords

• Distance Learning, Educational Social Software, Grounded Theory, TAM

References

1. Adamson, J., Donovan, J .L. (2002). Research in Black and White.
2. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6): 816-825. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179-211.
3. Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCASE Review, 41(2): 32-44.
4. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology & Standarts Watch.
5. Anderson, T. (2005). Distance Learning: Social Software’s Killer App? http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/2328/ l /distance_learnin g.pdf
6. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding Information Systems Continuance:
7. An Expectation-ConŞrmation Model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3): 351- Birks, M., Mills, J. (2011). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
8. Brady, K.P., Holcomb, L.B., Smith, B.V. (2010). The Use of Alternative

9. Social Networking Sites in Higher Educational Setting: A Case Study of the E-Learning BeneŞts of Ning in Education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2): 151-170. Cadotte, E.R., Woodruff, R.B., Jenkins, R.L. (1987). Expectations and Norms in Models of Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3): 305-314.
10. Chung, J.E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age
11. Differences in Perceptions of Online Community Participation Among Non-users: An Extension of The Technology Acceptance Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6): 1674-1684.
12. Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed
13. Methods Research (2. Sürüm b.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User
14. Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319- Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User Acceptance of
15. Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8): 982-1003.
16. Fetscherin, M., Lattemann, C. (2008). User Acceptance of Virtual Worlds.
17. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 9(3): 231-242. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. New York: Wiley.
18. Garrett, N., Thoms, B., Soffer, M., Ryan, T. (2007). Extending the Elgg
19. Social Networking System to Enhance the Campus Conversation. http://map.ipgkti.edu.my/resource/ppismptesl/refer-intemet_htm _tiles/Elgg-social network system to enhance campus conversation.pdf Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
20. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Adline Publishing Company. Hartshome, R., Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining Student Decisions to Adopt
21. Web 2.0 Technologies: Theory and Empirical Tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3): 183-198. Hsu, C.L., Lin, J. (2008). Acceptance of Blog Usage: The Roles of
22. Technology Acceptance Social Inşuence and Knowledge Sharing Motivation. Information & Management, 45: 65-74. Johnson, M.J., Hanna, D.E., Olcott, D. (2003). Bridging the Gap:
23. Leadership, Technology, and Organizational Change for Deans and Department Chairs. Madison: Atwood Publishing. Kamel Boulos, M., Wheeler, S. (2007). The Emerging Web 2.0 Social
24. Software: An Enabling Suite of Sociable Technologies in Health and Health Care Education. Health Information and Libraries, 24(1): 2- Kaplan, B., Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods for
25. Evaluating Computer Information Systems. J. Anderson, C. Aydin içinde, Evaluating the Organizational Impact of Healthcare Information Systems (s. 30-55). New York: Springer. Kwon, O., Wen, Y. (2010). An Empirical Study of The Factors Affecting
26. Social Network Service Use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2): 263. Lee, M.J., McLoughlin, C. (2010). Beyond Distance and Time Constraints:
27. Applying Social Networking Tools and Web 2.0 Approaches in Distance Education. In G. Veletsianos, Emerging Technologies in Distance Education (pp. 61-87). Edmonton: AUPress. Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P. (2003). Why Do People Use
28. Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 40: 191-204. Lenhart, A. (2011, July). Pew/Internet Research Center. http://pewintemet.org/Trend-Data—(Teens).aspx
29. Lewis, R., Maas, S. (2007). QDA Miner 2.0: Mixed-Model Qualitative Data
30. Analysis Software. Field Methods, 19(1): 87-108. Lin, K.Y., Lu, H. (2011). Why People Use Social Networking Sites: An
31. Empirical Study Integrating Network Extemalities and Motivation Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3): 1152-1161.
32. Liu, X. (2010). Empirical Testing of a Theoretical Extension of the Technology Empirical Testing of a Theoretical Extension of the Technology. Communication Education, 59(1): 52-69.
33. Lu, Y., Zhou, T., Wang, B. (2009). Exploring Chinese Users’ Acceptance of
34. Instant Messaging Using the Theory of Flamed Behavior, The Technology Acceptance Model, and The Flow Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1): 29-39. Mason, R., Rennie, F. (2008). E—Learning and social Networking Handbook:
35. Resources for Higher Education (1 b.). New York: Routledge. Minocha, S. (2009). Role of Social Software Tools in Education: A
36. Literature Review. Education + Training, 51(5/6): 353-369. Oliver, R.L. (1980). A Cognitive Model for the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 17: 469.
37. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.
38. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pavlic, L., Pusnik, M., Hericko, M., Sumak, B. (2011). Qualitative Analysis:
39. IdentiŞcation of the Factors Inşuencing e-Learning System Acceptance. The Third Conference on Mobile, Hyrid, and On-line Learning, (s. 40-45). Guadeloupe, France. Poellhuber, B., Anderson, T. (2011). Distance Students' Readiness for Social
40. Media and Colloboration. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6): 101-125. Reason, P. (1981). Issues of Validity in New Paradigm Research. P. Reason,
41. & J. Rowan içinde, Human Inquiry (s. 239-250). New York: John Wiley. Strauss, A., Corbin, J .M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research.'Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks,
42. CA: Sage Publications. Tsai, J .H.C., Choe, J.H., Lim, J.M., Acorda, E., Chan, N.L., Vicky, T., et al. (2004). Developing Culturally Competent Health Knowledge: Issues of Data Analysis of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Language Qualitative
43. Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(4): 16-27. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a
44. Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2): 273- Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.
45. Management Science, 46(2): 186-204. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D. (2003). User
46. Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A UniŞed View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425-478. Williams, J.B., Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the Use of Blogs as Learning
47. Spaces in the Higher Education Sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2): 232-247.