3B sanal öğrenme ortamları için sorgulama toplulukları ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi

Year 2016, Volume: 6 Issue: 3 - Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 347 - 370, 14.07.2016

İlknur Reisoğlu Yüksel Göktaş

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, 3 Boyutlu sanal öğrenme ortamları için Sorgulama Toplulukları Modeli ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ölçeğin geliştirilmesinde, literatür taramasından, 3B sanal ortamda kış sporları konusunda oluşturulan sanal öğrenme ortamının özelliklerinden yararlanarak 51 madde geliştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen maddeler, alan ve dil uzmanları tarafından değerlendirilmiş ve 15 öğrenciyle pilot çalışma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Geliştirilen 3B sanal kış sporları öğrenme ortamında 260 5, 6, ve 7. sınıf öğrencisi uygulama yapmış, ardından geliştirilen ölçek öğrencilere uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler üzerinde açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda ölçeğin öğretimsel, sosyal ve bilişsel olmak üzere 3 faktörden oluştuğu, varyansın % 57.8'ini açıkladığı ve Cronbach alpha katsayısının. 96 olduğu belirlenmiştir. Modifikasyonun ardından modele ilişkin uyum iyiliği indeksleri X2/df =2.10 (p=.000); RMSEA= .06; GFI= .88; AGFI= .85; CFI=.98; NFI= .96; SRMR= .05] şeklinde oluşmuştur.

Keywords

3B sanal öğrenme ortamları, Öğretimsel buradalık, Sosyal buradalık, Bilişsel buradalık, Sorgulama toplulukları modeli.

Developing community of inquiry scale for 3D virtual learning environments

Abstract

This study aims at developing Community of Inquiry Model scale for 3 Dimensional virtual learning environments. 51 items were developed for the scale from the literature review based on the characteristics of a virtual learning environment which was developed for winter sports in a 3D environment. The items were reviewed by field and language experts. A pilot study was conducted with 15 students. In 3D virtual winter sports learning environment, 260 5th, 6th, and 7th grade students practiced and then the scale was implemented on them. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were carried out on the obtained data. At the end of the analyses, it was confirmed that the scale was comprised of three factors that are teaching, social and cognitive presence, and explained 57.80% of the variance and Cronbach alpha coefficient was .96. In confirmatory factor analyses conducted with three-factor structure that are teaching, social and cognitive presence, goodness of fit indexes before any modifications made on the model were as follows; [χ2/df=1.59 (p=.00); RMSEA= .07; GFI= .80; AGFI= .76; CFI=.99; NFI= .97; SRMR= .05].

Keywords

3D virtual learning environments, Teaching presence, Social presence, Cognitive presence, Community of inquiry.

References

• Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Özden, Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of ınquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. International review of research in open and distance learning,10(6), 65-83.
• Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessıng teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asenkronus Learning Networ, 5(2), 1-17.
• Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the community of inquiry framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 40–56.
• Arbaugh, J. B., & Hwang, A. (2006). Does “teaching presence” exist in online MBA courses?. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 9-21.
• Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empırıcal verıfıcatıon of the communıty of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1),73-85.
• Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of ınquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 1-21.
• 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. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133–136.
• Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 37–44.
• Bangert, A. W. (2009). Building a validity argument for the community of inquiry survey instrument. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 104–111.
• Bell, M. (2008). Toward a definition of “virtual worlds”. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research. 1(1).
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
• Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R., Donovan, M., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2004). How people learn brain, mind, experience and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
• Burgess, M. L., Slate, J. R., Rojas-LeBouef, A., & LaPrairie, K. (2010). Teaching and learning in Second Life: Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate students in instructional doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.12.003 Internet and Higher Education, 13, 84–88.
• Carlon, S. Bennett-Woods, D., Berg, B., Claywell, L., LeDuc, K., Marcisz, N., Mulhall, M., Noteboom, T., Snedden, T., Whalen, K., & Zenoni, L. (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation and results in online health care disciplines. Computers & Education, 59, 215–221.
• Cheng, Y. & Wang, Shwu-Huey (2011). Applying a 3D virtual learning environment to facilitate student’s application ability – The case of marketing. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 576–584.
• Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin, 3, 7.
• Dalgarno, B., Lee, M. J. W., & Carlson, L. (2011). An Australian and New Zealand scoping study on the use of 3D immersive virtual worlds in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 1-15.
• Díaz, S. R, Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 22–30.
• Dickey, M. D. (2005). Brave New (Interactive) Worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), 121 – 137.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (3rd edition). London: Sage.
• Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th Edt.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in atext-based environment:computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7−23.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decede of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 5-9.
• Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157–172.
• Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (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., & Shing Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31–36.
• Hu & Bentler (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Coventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
• Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B.C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01036.x
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
• Lindgren, R. (2012). Generating a learning stance through perspective-taking in a virtual environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1130–1139.
• McKerlich, R. & Anderson, T. (2007). Community of inquiry and learning in immersive environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(4), 35–52.
• McKerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in a virtual world. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3).
• Planas, C. C. (2004). The role of the community of ınquiry in the process of knowing. Analytıc Teachıng, 23(2), 84-96.
• Pojanapunya, P., & Jaroenkitboworn, K. (2011). How to say ‘‘Good-bye’’ in Second Life. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3591–3602. doı:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.010.
• Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19−48.
• Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence ın asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
• Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 48–57.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington DC: American Psychologiacal Association.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR-online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster ‘‘epistemic engagement” and ‘‘cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52 (2009), 543– 553.
• Shea, P., Hayes, S., Vickers, J., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valchova, A., & Rangan, P. (2010). A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 10–21.
• Shea, P., Hayes, S., Uzuner Smith , S., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., Gozza-Cohen, M., Wilde, J., & Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 89–95.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 74-79.
• Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, S.M., Simons, M. R., & Trinko, L. A. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 103–115.
• Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: the Community of Inquiry framework. In Payne, C. R. (Ed.) Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Swan, K. & Ice, P. (2010). The community of inquiry framework ten years later: Introduction to special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 1-4.
• Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1-12.
• Vaughan, N. D. (2010). A blended community of inquiry approach: Linking student engagement and course redesign. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 60–65.
• Wang, Shwu-huey (2012). Applying a 3D situational virtual learning environment to the real world business—an extended research in marketing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 411– 427. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01194.
• Traphagan, T. W., Chiang ,Yueh-hui V., Chang, H. M., Wattanawaha, B., Lee, H., Mayrath, M.C., Woo, J., Yoon, Hyo-Jin, Jee, M. J., & Resta, P. E. (2010). Cognitive, social and teaching presence in a virtual world and a text chat. Computers & Education, 55, 923–936.