Factors Affecting Interaction in a Distance Education via Video Conferencing

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine the factors affecting the interaction between instructor and students in a distance education process via video conferencing. In the study, case study, one of the qualitative research patterns, has been adopted and contrary case sampling, one of the purposive sampling methods, has been used. The data, which was collected through interviews and observations, have been analyzed with the method of content analysis method in the study. The findings are in the direction that the methods and techniques of the instructor with his supportive behaviors for interaction have a big impact on the interaction. In addition, the properties of students such as prior knowledge and self-confidence have been seen to affect the interaction. It has been concluded that other factors which affect the interaction were technical problems such as muting and disconnection, and communication difficulties such as the inability for eye contact and misfiring of gestures and mimics. Keywords: video-conferencing, distance education, interaction

Keywords

• video-conferencing, distance education, interaction

References

1. Ajadi, O.T., Salawu, O.I., &Adeoye, A.F. (2008). E-learning and distance education in Nigeria, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4). Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/
2. Aşkar, P., &Halıcı, U. ( 2004). E-learning as a catalyst for innovation in education.In C.Gauido (Ed.), E- educational applications: human factors and innovative approaches (pp. 196-206). London: IDEA.
3. Bozkaya, M. (2006). Learner-to-instructor interaction in video conference applications: instructors’ perceptions, SosyalBilimlerDergisi, https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/arastirma/hakemli_dergiler/sosyal_bilimler.aspx 6(1), 53-74. Retrieved from
4. Carville, S., & Mitchell, D.R. (2000). It’s a bit like star trek’: the effectiveness of video conferencing, Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 42-49. doi: 10.1080/135580000362070 Coventry, L. (n.d.). Video conferencing in higher education. Retrieved from www.agocg.ac.uk/reports/mmedia/video3/video3.pdf
5. Doggett, M.A. (2008). The videoconferencing classroom: what do students think?,Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(4), 29-41. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/
6. Eastman, K.J., & Swift, O.C. (2001). New horizons in distance education: the online learner-centered marketing class, Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 25-34. Retrieved from http://jmd.sagepub.com/
7. Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: ideas to think with, Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16–27. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/
8. Ekiz, D. (2004). Eğitimdünyasınınnitelaraştırmaparadigmasıylaincelenmesi: doğalya da yapay [Investigating the world GaziÜniversitesiTürkEğitimBilimleriDergisi, 4(2), 415-439. Retrieved from http://www.tebd.gazi.edu.tr/

9. Elo, S., &Kyngäs, H. (2008).The qualitative content analysis process, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107- 115.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
10. Gillies, D. (2008).Student perspectives on videoconferencing in teacher education at a distance, Distance Education, 29(1), 107-118.doi: 10.1080/01587910802004878
11. Göktaş, İ., &Kayri, M. (2005). E-öğrenmeveTürkiyeaçısındansorunlar, çözümönerileri [E-learning, the problems and YüzüncüYılÜniversitesiElektronikEğitimFakültesiDergisi, 2(2). Retrieved from http://efdergi.yyu.edu.tr/
12. Gunawardena, C., &Zittle, R. (1995). An examination of teachingand learning processes in distance education and implications for designing instruction. In M. Koble (Ed.), The American Center for the Study of Distance Education Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education: Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda (pp. 315-340). University Park, PA: Penn State.
13. Holmberg, B. (2003). Distance education in essence: An overview of theory and practice in the early twenty-first century, (2nd ed.). Germany: Oldenburg.
14. Karal, H., Çebi, A., &Turgut, Y.E. (2011). Perceptions of students who take synchronous courses through video conferencing about distance education, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 276- 293. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/
15. Knipe, D., & Lee, M. (2002).The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing, British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 301-311.doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00265
16. Koeber, C., & Wright, W.D. (2008). On the outside teaching in : using internet video-conferencing to instruct an introductory sociology course from a remote location, Teaching Sociology, 36, 331-343. doi: 10.1177/0092055X0803600403
17. Koppelman, H., &Vranken, H. (2008). Experiences with a synchronous virtual classroom in distance education. In J. Amillo, C. Laxer, E. Menasalvas, & A. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 194-198). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1384271.1384324
18. MacLaughlin, E.J., Supernaw, R.B., & Howard K.A. (2004).Impact of distance learning using videoconferencing technology on student performance, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(3). Retrieved from http://www.ajpe.org/
19. Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., &Adamczyk, P. (2010). Interactive video technology: enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education, Computer & Education, 54(3), 742-748. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.011
20. Martin, M. (2005). Seeing is believing: the role of videoconferencing in distance learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 397-405. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00471.x
21. Merriam, S.B. (1997).Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Mutlu, M.E., Özöğüt, Ö.,Kayabaş, İ., & Kip, B. (2007). Açıköğretimde e-sertifikaprogramları [The open education e-certificate programs], In M. Akgül, E. Derman, U. Çağlayan, & A. Özgit (Eds.), IX.AkademikBilişimKonferansıBildirileri (pp. 9-16). İstanbul: İnternet TeknolojileriDerneği.
23. Oliver, R., &McLoughlin, C. (1997).Interactions in audiographics teaching and learning environments, American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-54.doi: 10.1080/08923649709526950
24. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25. Saw, K.G., Majid, O., Ghani, N.A., Atan, H., Idrus, R.M., Rahman, Z.A., & Tan, K.E. (2008). The videoconferencing learning environment: technology, interaction and learning intersect, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 475-485. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00736.x
26. Smyth, R. (2005). Broadband videoconferencing as a tool for learner-centred distance learning in higher education, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 805-820. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2005.00499.x
27. Stewart, R.A., Harlow, B.D., &DeBacco, K. (2011).Students’ experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments, Distance Education, 32(3), 357-381.doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610289
28. Şimşek, H., &Yıldırım, A. (2008).Sosyalbilimlerdenitelaraştırmayöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (6th ed.). Ankara: SeçkinYayınevi.
29. Whyte, S. (2011).Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms, ReCALL, 23(3), 271-293.doi: 10.1017/S0958344011000188
30. Woodside, A.G. (2010). Case study research: theory, methods and practice. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
31. Yiğit, N., Alev, N., Altun, T., Özmen, H., &Akyıldız, S. (2006). Öğretimteknolojilerivemateryalgeliştirme [Instructional technologies and material design] (2nd ed.). Trabzon: CeleplerMatbaacılık.
32. Yozwiak, A.J., Robiner, N.W., Victor, M.A., &Durmusoğlu, G. (2010). Videoconferencing at psychology internships: interns’ perceptions of interactive television experiences and prospects, Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 17, 238-248. doi: 10.1007/s10880-010-9206-3 Appendix
33. Appendix A. Interaction Observation Form
34. INTERACTION OBSERVATION FORM DATE:
35. Type of Interaction I-C I-S S-I S-S Social Procedural Expository Explanatory Cognitive
36. The following explanations have been made in the study of Oliver and McLoughlin (1997) as for the types of
37. interaction in the form of interaction observation form.
38. Appendix B.Interaction Observation Form Type of Interaction Example Social
39. Teacher-student talk establishing and developing rapport
40. T: HelloSally, how areyou?
41. S: Verywellthankyou.
42. T: Great tohearfromyou; whatareyougoingto do for us? Procedural
43. Teacher-student dialogue involving
44. information exchange on course
45. requirements and procedures
46. S: Mr. Gray, can youtell me how
47. manypagesyouwant us towrite?
48. T: I’m lookingforabout 2 pages in total.
49. S: Can weuse a topic of ourownchoice? Expository
50. Student or teacher demonstrating knowledge
51. or skill in response to a direct request from another
52. T: Can anyonetell me how we say, “Today it is warm”? S: Samuidesu?
53. T: Not quite, it is… Explanatory
54. Teacher using student responses to explain
55. knowledge and develop content
56. T: This is how we ask thatquestion in Japanese…
57. Sally, can younow ask yourquestion?
58. S: Sallyasks her question…
59. T: Great Sally, but didyourememberto… John,
60. willyouplease ask yourquestion? Cognitive
61. Teacher providing constructive feedback to a
62. student to reflect and to consider an
63. alternative perspective/reality
64. T: Can youtell me whatyouthinkwasthe main
65. reasonfor his actions?
66. S: He wasangryandwantedtogeteven.
67. T: But wasthatall_ Whatabout his wishtoimprove
68. his positionandstanding?
69. S: I suppose he did but I thoughtthat he
70. wouldhavedone it differently.