E-PORTFOLYO OLUŞTURMANIN ÖĞRENCİNİN AKADEMİK ÖZ DÜZENLEME BECERİSİNE ETKİSİ

Year 2020, Volume: 49 Issue: 227, 117 - 140, 01.08.2020

Ergün Akgün , Cansu Şahin Kölemen

Abstract

Bu çalışmada e-portfolyo oluşturmanın öğrencilerin akademik öz düzenleme becerisine etkisi incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemi belirlenirken, öğrencilerin teknoloji okuryazarı olup e-portfolyo uygulamasını sorunsuzca kullanabilmeleri için Bilgi Teknolojileri dersini almış olmaları şartı aranmıştır. Bu şartı sağlayan 88 ön lisans öğrencisi ile araştırma yürütülmüştür. Araştırma deseni olarak nicel araştırma yöntemleri içerisinde yer alan Solomon dörtlü grup modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak Kaplan (2014)’ın Akademik Öz Düzenleme Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde gruplar arası öntest ve sontest puanlarına ilişkin farklılıkları belirlemek için gruplar arası bağımsız t-testi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucuna göre e-portfolyo etkinlikleri uygulanan grubun uygulanmayan gruba göre öz düzenleme becerilerinin daha yüksek olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Keywords

e-portfolyo, akademik öz düzenleme becerisi, otantik değerlendirme

References

• Ahn, J. (2004). Electronic portfolios: Blending technology, accountability & assessment. The Journal, 31(9).
• Akbaba, S. (2006). Eğitimde motivasyon. Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 343-361.
• Alexiou, A. ve Paraskeva, F. (2010). Enhancing self-regulated learning skills through the implementation of an e-portfolio tool. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3048-3054.
• Bandura, A. (2010). Self‐efficacy. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1-3.
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A. ve Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of educational research, 61(2), 213-238.
• Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e‐portfolio assessment: an approach to the netfolio system. British journal of educational technology, 40(2), 342-357.
• Barrett, H. (2004). Differentiating electronic portfolios and online assessment management systems. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (ss. 46-50). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Başol, G. (2008). Bilimsel Araştırma Süreci ve Yöntem. In O. Kılıç ve M. Cinoğlu (Eds.), Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri (ss. 113-143). İstanbul: Lisans Yayıncılık.
• Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design issues, 17(4), 3-23.
• Bulunuz, M. ve Bulunuz, N. (2013). Fen öğretiminde biçimlendirici değerlendirme ve etkili uygulama örneklerinin tanıtılması. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(4), 119-135.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Cazan, A.-M. ve Indreica, S. E. (2014). Traditional assessment of learning versus online assessment. In The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, 3, 96.
• Chang, C. C. (2001). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of web‐based learning portfolio (WBLP). British journal of educational technology, 32(4), 435-458.
• Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational researcher, 22(2), 14-22.
• Ćukušić, M., Garača, Ž. ve Jadrić, M. (2014). Online self-assessment and students' success in higher education institutions. Computers & Education, 72, 100-109.
• Custer, R. L., Schell, J., McAlister, B. D., Scott, J. L. ve Hoepfl, M. (2000). Using Authentic assessment in vocational education: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Information Series No. 381.
• Dabbagh, N. ve Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8.
• Faber, J. M., Luyten, H. ve Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 106, 83-96.
• Fischer, C., Xu, D., Rodriguez, F., Denaro, K. ve Warschauer, M. (2019). Effects of course modality in summer session: Enrollment patterns and student performance in face-to-face and online classes. The Internet and higher education, 100710.
• Gaytan, J. ve McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117-132.
• Gül, E., Çokluk, Ö. ve Gül, Ç. D. (2015). Development of an attitudes scale toward online assessment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 529-536.
• Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C. ve Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning: Routledge New York.
• Hussin, W. N. T. W., Harun, J. ve Shukor, N. A. (2019). Online Interaction in Social Learning Environment towards Critical Thinking Skill: A Framework. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(1), 4-12.
• Im, T. ve Kang, M. (2019). Structural Relationships of Factors Which Impact on Learner Achievement in Online Learning Environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(1).
• Kaplan, E. (2014). Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinde Öz-Düzenleme: Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya.
• Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (17. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Katherine, W. (2017). Teaching Tips/Notes. NACTA Journal, 61(3), 264-267.
• Kearney, S. (2013). Improving engagement: the use of ‘Authentic self-and peer-assessment for learning’to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 875-891.
• Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C. ve Hsu, C.-N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees' intentions to use e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 124-137.
• Lorenzo, G. ve Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause learning initiative, 1(1), 1-27.
• Martinez-Pons, M. (2000). Effective Transfer as a Self-Regulatory Process: Implications for Adult Education. In Royaumont Symposium on Self-Learning, Paris.
• Mason, R., Pegler, C. ve Weller, M. (2004). E‐portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses. British journal of educational technology, 35(6), 717-727.
• Newmann, F. M. ve Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
• Olfos, R. ve Zulantay, H. (2007). Reliability and validity of authentic assessment in a web based course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 156-173.
• Padayachee, P., Wagner-Welsh, S. ve Johannes, H. (2018). Online assessment in Moodle: A framework for supporting our students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(5), 211-235.
• Robles, M. ve Braathen, S. (2002). Online assessment techniques. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 44(1), 39-49.
• Russell, J., Elton, L., Swinglehurst, D. ve Greenhalgh, T. (2006). Using the online environment in assessment for learning: a case‐study of a web‐based course in primary care. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 465-478.
• Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.
• Serdyukov, P. ve Hill, R. (2013). Flying with clipped wings: Are students independent in online college classes. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 6(1), 52-65.
• Simonson, M., Zvacek, S. M. ve Smaldino, S. (2019). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education 7th Edition: IAP.
• Sung, E. ve Mayer, R. E. (2013). Online multimedia learning with mobile devices and desktop computers: An experimental test of Clark’s methods-not-media hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 639-647.
• Suwandi, S., Nurkamto, J. ve Setiawan, B. (2019). Teacher Competence in Authentic and Integrative Assessment in Indonesian Language Learning. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 701-716.
• Wang, C.-H., Shannon, D. M. ve Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302-323.
• Wang, S., Iwata, J. ve Jarrell, D. (2018). Exploring Japanese Students' E-Learning Habits. JALT CALL Journal, 14(3), 211-223.
• Wetcho, S. ve Na-Songkhla, J. (2019). The different roles of help-seeking personalities in social support group activity on e-portfolio for career development. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 14(2), 124-138.
• Wiewiora, A. ve Kowalkiewicz, A. (2019). The role of authentic assessment in developing authentic leadership identity and competencies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(3), 415-430.
• Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 30(4), 173-187.
• Yusof, N., Amin, M. M., Arshad, M., Dahlan, H. M. ve Mustafa, N. (2012). Authentic assessment of industrial training program: experience of universiti teknologi Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 724-729.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of educational psychology, 81(3), 329.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American educational research journal, 45(1), 166-183.
• Zimmerman, B. J. ve Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American educational research journal, 23(4), 614-628.