Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 52 - 75, 30.04.2023

Emine Su Tonga , Sami Şahin

https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Interaction in distance education processes; It has a very important place in the learner's academic performance, attitude and motivation, participation in the lesson and the acquisition of instructional goals and behaviors. According to the data obtained as a result of the analysis in this study, in which the interaction in synchronous and asynchronous distance education processes was investigated by qualitative meta-synthesis method; In the synchronous and asynchronous distance education processes, themes emerged about the purposes for which interactions are established, which features and functions can increase interactions in distance education, and which factors negatively affect this process while the interactions are established. According to these themes, which also constitute the aims of the research, interactions in distance education processes are established for cognitive, affective and collaborative purposes. Cognitively oriented interactions; ask questions-answer, asking for and expressing opinions, feedback, making explanations, sharing knowledge and experience, participating in discussions, suggesting solutions, directing, while affectively focused; encouragement and support, sharing personal information, cooperation and emotional support, collaborative interactions; It is established for the purpose of determining group qualifications (members and work area), coordination among group members, distribution of tasks within the group (expertise), group work processes. The categories on how to increase interactions were examined as learner-teacher, learner-learner, learner-content and multiple interaction. Teaching strategies that encourage peer consultation for learning, course contents with detailed and explanatory demonstrations, the learner's sense of belonging and commitment to the group, reducing social and psychological distance with a quick reply to the e-mail sent by the learner, the learner's questions and There is in-depth and explanatory feedback on the students' comments, and asynchronous student-teacher interaction using alternative web resources. Among the factors that negatively affect the interaction process are; during the process, there are negative experiences, slow connection or disconnection, conflict between learners, insufficient online course time to interact due to the intensity of the content, the dominant student being at the forefront when the teacher cannot manage the interaction process, and pedagogical inadequacy that negatively affects the cooperation between learners.

Keywords

distance education, distance learning, interaction

References

• Ak, Ş., Gökdaş, İ., Öksüz, C. & Torun, F. (2021). Uzaktan eğitimde eğiticilerin eğitimi: Uzaktan eğitime yönelik öz yeterlik ve yarar algısına etkisi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 24-44 .
• Anderson, T., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education. Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
• Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30, 5-21.
• Bouhnik, D., Marcus, T., (2006). Interaction in Distance Learning Courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
• Çalık, M. & Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38.
• Çetinkaya, L., & Keser, H. (2018). Adaptation of interaction in web environments with educational content. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(3), 142-152.
• De la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Enhancing Online Distance Education in Small Rural US Schools: A Hybrid, Learner-Centred Model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(4), 35-46.
• Díaz, L. A., & Entonado, F. B. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to face learning environments really different?. Journal of educational technology & society, 12(4), 331-343.
• Daniel, J. S., & Marquis, C. (2020). Interaction and independence: Getting the mixture right. In Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 339-359). Routledge.
• Durak, G. (2017). Uzaktan eğitimde destek hizmetlerine genel bakış: sorunlar ve eğilimler. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3 (4) , 160-173 .
• Erbaş, Ç., & Demirer, V. (2014). Eğitimde artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamaları: Google Glass örneği. Journal of Instructional Technologies and Teacher Education, 3(2), 8-16.
• Forrer, D., Bechtel, S., Brown, K., Mabesa Jr, J., Gunn, L., Hayes, R. L., ... & Wilmore, T. (2019). Active Connections: Means for Faculty to Create an Environment in Which Students WANT to Engage!. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 16(1), 1-10.
• Fuller, R. G., Kuhne, G. W., & Frey, B. A. (2011). Distinctive distance education design: models for differentiated instruction. Information Science Reference.
• Güneş, İ. , Büyük, K. , Öztürk, A. , Tuna, G. , Gümüş, S. & Atak, O. N. (2017). Kitlesel uzaktan eğitimde öğrenen-içerik etkileşimi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemi örneği . Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2) , 9-36 .
• Horzum, M. (2010). Uzaktan eğitimde uzakliğin boyutlari ve tasarimi: coğrafi uzakliğa karşin transaksiyonel (psikolojik ve iletişimsel) uzakliğin azaltilmasi. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (20), 95-118.
• Huss, J. A., Sela, O., & Eastep, S. (2015). A case study of online instructors and their quest for greater interactivity in their courses: Overcoming the distance in distance education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 72-86.
• Jensen, L. & Allen, M. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 553–560.
• Kaba, E. (2019). Uzaktan eğitimde asenkron etkileşimi artıran faktörler: Bir eylem araştırması Atatürk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
• 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.
• Kelsey, K. D. (2009). Participant interaction in a course delivered by interactive compressed video technology. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 63-74.
• Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 228–261.
• Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.
• Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1540-1557.
• Moore, M.G. (1980). Independent study. In R. Boyd & J. Apps (Eds.), Redefining the discipline of adult education (pp. 16–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7
• Moore, M.G. (2001). Surviving as a distance teacher. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 1-5.
• Muhirwa, J. M. (2009). Teaching and learning against all odds: A video-based study of learner-to-instructor interaction in international distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(4).
• Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance education, 33(1),5-30.
• Niemann, R. (2017). A Scalable Distance Learning Support Framework for South Africa: Applying the Interaction Equivalency Theorem. International Journal of Economics & Management, 11, 89-102.
• Offir, B., Barth, I., Lev, J., & Shteinbok, A. (2005). Can interaction content analysis research contribute to distance learning?. Educational Media International, 42(2), 161-171.
• Önder, R. (2016). Eğitimde artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamaları: Aurasma ve Color Mix.
• Akademik Bilişim Konferansı’nda sunulmuş bildiri
• Padavano, D., & Gould, M. (2005). Student satisfaction with faculty-student interaction. Paper presented at the 11th Sloan-C international conference on asynchronous learning networks, held in Orlando, FL 17–19 November 2005.
• Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N. (2011). Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess,15(43).
• Polat, S., & Osman, A. Y. (2016). Meta-sentez: Kavramsal bir çözümleme. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 52-64.
• Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV‐positive women. Research in nursing & health, 26(2), 153-170.
• Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online education: Contribution of learner to learner interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 228-249
• Strobel, J. & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 44-58.
• Thorpe, M. & Godwin, S. (2006) Interaction and e-learning: the student experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(3), 203-221,
• Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen. New York: Simon and Shuster.
• Uğur, S. & Okur, M. R. (2016). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşimli video kullanımı . Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(4), 104-126 .
• Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65(4), 605-632.
• Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, S. M. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.
• Wright, T.M., Marsh, G.E., & Miller, M.T. (2000). A critical comparison of graduate student satisfaction in asynchronous and synchronous course interaction. Planning and Changing, 31(12), 107–118.
• Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Yılmaz, E. O., & Aktuğ, S. (2011). Uzaktan eğitimde çevrimiçi ders veren öğretim elemanlarının uzaktan eğitimde etkileşim ve iletişim üzerine görüşleri. M. Akgül vd.(Ed.), Akademik Bilişim, 501-512.