ÇEVRİMİÇİ ÖĞRENME ORTAMLARINDA FARKLI GERİBİLDİRİM STRATEJİLERİNİN ÖĞRENCİLERİN SOSYAL BİLİŞSEL VE ÖĞRETİMSEL BULUNUŞLUK ALGILARI İLE AKADEMİK BAŞARILARINA ETKİSİ

Year 2014, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 243 - 261, 01.05.2014

Yusuf Ziya Olpak Ebru Çakmak

Abstract

Bu araştırma kapsamında; araştırma topluluğu oluşturmada ve devamlılığını sağlamada işe koşulabilecek stratejiler dikkate alınarak tasarlanan çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında farklı geribildirim stratejilerinin öğrencilerin sosyal, bilişsel ve öğretimsel bulunuşluk algıları ile akademik başarılarına etkisi incelenmiştir. Açıklayıcı desen kullanılarak yürütülen araştırma, uygulama sürecine düzenli bir şekilde katılan 41 öğrenciden elde edilen veriler ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğrencilerin uygulama süreci sonunda elde ettikleri akademik başarı puanları, uygulanan geribildirim stratejisine göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemiştir. Öğrencilerin sosyal, bilişsel ve öğretimsel bulunuşluk algıları ile araştırma topluluğu ölçeğinin genelinden aldıkları puanlar da, uygulanan geribildirim stratejisine göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemiştir. Son olarak; her iki gruptaki öğrencilerin büyük çoğunluğu, kullandıkları çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamını iyi olarak nitelenmiş ve aldıkları eğitimden memnun kaldıklarını ifade etmişlerdir.

Keywords

araştırma topluluğu çerçevesi, sosyal bulunuşuk, bilişsel bulunuşluk, öğretimsel bulunuşluk, akademik başarı

Effects of Different Feedback Strategies on Students’ Perceptions of Social Cognitive and Teaching Presence and Academic Achievements in Online Learning Environments

Abstract

This study aims to identify the effects of different feedback strategies on students’ perceptions of social, cognitive and teaching presence and academic achievements in the online learning environments designed in consideration of strategies which can be put to work to build a community of inquiry and ensure its continuity. In this regard, explanatory design used in the study. All analyses were made on the data from 41 students. The feedback strategies practiced in the study failed to demonstrate significant differences in terms of the students’ final academic achievement scores. The feedback strategies practiced in the study failed to demonstrate significant differences in terms of the students’ perceptions of social, cognitive and teaching presence, and scores from the community of inquiry scale in general. Finally, majority of the students from both groups found the online environment they used and the educational activities satisfactory

Keywords

community of inquiry framework, social presence, cognitive presence, teaching presence, academic achievement

References

• Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 3–22.
• Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Critical thinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in an audio teleconference context. Higher Education, 29(2), 183–199.
• Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
• Aragon, S. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57–68.
• Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73–85.
• Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2005). Contextual factors that influence ALN effectiveness. Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1, 123–144.
• Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 133–136.
• Bach, S., Haynes, P., & Smith, J. L. (2007). Online learning and teaching in higher education (p. 209). McGraw-Hill International.
• Berge, Z. L., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Haneghan, J. V. (2002). Barriers to distance education and training: Survey results. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 409–418.
• Cavanaugh, J. (2005). Teaching online-A time comparison. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1).
• Conceição, S. C., & Schmidt, S. W. (2010). How non-content related forums influence social presence in the online learning environment. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 19(2), 73–85.
• De Bruyn, L. L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67–81.
• Drago, W., Peltier, J., & Sorensen, D. (2002). Course content or the instructor: Which is more important in on-line teaching? Management Research News, 25(6/7), 69–83.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287–303.
• Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
• Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
• Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.
• Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
• Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 61–74.
• Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31–36.
• Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. Greenwood Publishing Group Inc..
• Henri, F., & Rigault, C. R. (1996). Collaborative distance learning and computer conferencing. In In Advanced Educational Technology: Research Issues and Future Potential (pp. 45–76). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
• Holmberg, B. (1991). The feasibility of a predictive theory of distance education: What are we allowed to expect. In B. Holmberg & G.Ortner (Eds.), Research Into Distance Education.
• Katz, Y. J. (2000). The comparative suitability of three ICT distance learning methodologies for college level instruction. Educational Media International, 57(1), 25–30.
• Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. O. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: How to“ be there” for distance learners. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
• Li, Q. (2004). Knowledge building community: Keys for using online forums. TechTrends, 48(4), 24–29.
• Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Routledge.
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning, 3rd ed.: A Systems View of Online Learning. Toronto:Wadsworth.
• O’Quinn, L., & Corry, M. (2002). Factors that deter faculty from participating in distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(4), 1–18.
• Öztürk, E. (2012). Araştırma topluluğu ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 11(2), 408–422.
• Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the online classroom. (Second Edi.). Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
• Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285–297.
• Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36–59.
• Scollins-Mantha, B. (2008). Cultivating social presence in the online learning classroom: A literature review with recommendations for practice. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(3).
• Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 35–44.
• Soo, K. S., & Bonk, C. J. (1998). Interaction: What does it mean in online distance education?. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED428724
• Tavşancıl, E., & Keser, H. (2002). İnternet kullanımına yönelik likert tipi bir tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 1(1), 79–100.
• Tomei, D. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 531–541.
• Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
• Uşun, S. (2006). Uzaktan eğitim. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Van Tryon, P. J. S., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291– 315.
• Weiss, R. E. (2000). Humanizing the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(84), 47–51.
• Winn, W. (1999). Learning in virtual environments: A theoretical framework and considerations for design. Education Media International, 36(4), 271–279.