KİTLESEL ÇEVRİMİÇİ AÇIK DERSLERİN ÖĞRENCİ ETKİLEŞİMİNDE TASARIM ODAKLI DÜŞÜNME DERSİ ÖRNEĞİ

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 3, 606 - 624, 01.07.2022

Can Güvenir , Hatice Hümanur Bağlı , Özge Demirbaş

Abstract

Günümüzde giderek yaygınlaşmakta olan Kitlesel Açık Çevrimiçi Dersler (KAÇD) uygulamaları öğrenen ihtiyaçları çerçevesinde gelişmekte ve bu içeriklerin bazıları farklı eğitsel yaklaşımlara ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Özellikle eğitmen etkileşimlerinin önemli olduğu uygulamalı eğitimlerin, eğitmen etkileşimini azaltan KAÇD formatına taşınmasıyla öğrenenin sosyal etkileşim biçimlerinin önemi artmıştır. Bu araştırma, günümüzde yaygınlaşmakta olan Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme (TOD) eğitimleri odağında verilen KAÇD’ lerin öğrenen sosyal etkileşim biçimlerini keşfetmeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu çerçevede 2020 yılı Ekim ayında verilmekte olan 15 adet TOD KAÇD’leri analiz edilmiş ve öğrenen-öğrenen etkileşimlerinin mesajlaşma, forum ve teslim üzerinden olmak üzere üç çeşit etkileşim biçiminde olduğu çıkarımına varılmıştır. Örneklem olarak alınan Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme eğitimlerinde, sosyal etkileşimi sağlayan forum, teslim ve mesajlaşma araçları incelenmiş ve bulgular toplanmıştır. Ayrıca bu etkileşim çeşitlerinin kullanımlarının eğitim kurgusu çerçevesinde nasıl şekil aldıkları tartışılmıştır.
Kitlesel açık çevrimiçi Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme eğitimlerinin, öğrenen ve etkileşimi üzerindeki etkileri incelendiğinde, eğitim kurgusu ve platform yapısının etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Aynı platformdaki eğitimler benzer özelliklere sahip olsa da deneyimdeki asıl belirleyici, eğitimin kurgusu ve bu kurguda platformu nasıl kullanılacağının kurgusudur. Eğitim kurgusunda platform bir araç olarak değerlendirilebilir. Eğitim yapısı ve eğitimin verildiği platformun yapısı, öğrenim deneyimi olarak bir bütün olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Eğitim, platformun özelliklerine bağlı olarak şekillendirilmiştir ve platformun izin verdiği ölçüde ulaşılabilir ve kullanılabilirdir. Eğitim ve platform yapısı birbirini karşılıklı olarak etkilemektedirler. Eğitim kurgusunu platformun sunduğu özelliklerle beraber ele aldığımızda eğitimin kurgusu platform yapısına bağlıdır diyebiliriz.

Keywords

Tasarım Odaklı Düşünme, KAÇD, Eğitim, Etkileşim, Eğitim Platformu

DESIGN THINKING COURSE EXAMPLE IN THE STUDENT INTERACTION IN MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES

Abstract

Mass Open Online Courses (MOOCs) applications, which are becoming more and more widespread today, are developing within the framework of learner needs, and some of these contents need different educational approaches. The importance of the learner's social interaction forms has increased, especially with the transfer of practical trainings, where instructor interactions are important, to the MOOC format, which reduces instructor interaction. This research aimed to explore the learning social interaction forms of MOOCs, which are given in the focus of Design Thinking (TOD) trainings, which are becoming widespread today. In this context, 15 TOD MOOCs were analyzed and it was concluded that learner-learner interactions are in three types of interaction: messaging, forum and submission. In the Design Thinking courses taken as a sample, forum, submission and messaging tools that provide social interaction were examined and the findings were collected. In addition, it has been discussed how the use of these types of interaction takes shape within the framework of the educational structure. When the effects of massive open online design thinking courses on the learner and their interaction are examined, it is seen that the educational structure and platform structure are effective. Although the courses on the same platform have similar features, the main determinant in the experience is the structure of the training and how to use the platform in this setup. The platform can be considered as a tool in the educational structure. The education structure and the structure of the platform where the education is given appear as a whole as a learning experience. The training is shaped depending on the features of the platform and is accessible and usable as much as the platform allows. Education and platform structure mutually affect each other. When we consider the educational setup together with the features offered by the platform, we can say that the setup of the education depends on the platform structure.

Keywords

Design Thinking, MOOC, Education, Interaction, Course Platform

References

• Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97
• Aydın, C. H. (2011). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme. Pegem Akademi, Ankara. Banks, B. (2001), Learning Theory and Learning Objects. FD Learning Ltd. (accessed on November 2019), [available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/400f/b86fe4128771b1c394cf00714b9b030e21e9.pdf ].
• Bates, T (2012). What's right and what's wrong about Coursera-style MOOCs? http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/08/05/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-about-coursera-style-moocs/
• Bozkurt, A. (2015). Kitlesel Açık Çevrimiçi Dersler (Massive Online Open Courses - MOOCs) ve sayısal bilgi çağında yaşam boyu öğrenme fırsatı AUAd, 1(1), 56-81.
• Bozkurt, A. (2016). Öğrenme analitiği: e-öğrenme, büyük veri ve bireyselleştirilmiş öğrenme. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(4), 55-81.
• Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman
• Brown, J.S. ve Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review,
• Brown, T. ( 2009), ‘'Change by Design'', Harper Collins.
• Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of product innovation management, 28(3), 381-383.
• Cross, A. (1983), “The Educational Background to the Bauhaus”, Design Studies, 4 (1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(83)90007-8
• Dewey, J. (1928), Researcher’s Connection/Background to the Problem, A Case Study of Adolescent English Language Learners’ Literacy Practices in an After School Tutoring Center.
• Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’and its application. Design studies, 32(6), 521-532.
• Ehlers, U.-D., & Conole, G. (2010). Open Educational Practices: Unleashing the Power of OER. In UNESCO Workshop on OER in Namibia.
• Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 2(1), 8-33.
• Gardner, H. (2010), Five Minds for the Future, Mcgraw-Hill Professional.
• Geser, G. (2007). Open educational practices and resources - OLCOS roadmap 2012. Salzburg. 20 Kasım 2019 tarihinde https://www.olcos.org/cms/upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf adresinden erişildi.
• Henriques, L. (1997), “A Study to define and verify a Model of Interactive Constructive Elementary School Science Teaching (Ph.D. dissertation)”, Publication Number: AAI9819946; ISBN: 9780591715828.
• Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
• Holloway, M. (2009), “How Tangible is your Strategy? How Design Thinking can turn your Strategy into Reality”, Journal of Business Strategy, 30 (2/3), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660910942463
• Horwitz, R. A. (1979). Psychological effects of the “open classroom.” Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049001071
• IDEO (2012), ‘’Design Thinking for Educators’’, IDEO, (accessed on November 2019 ), [available at: https://www.ideo.com/post/design-thinking-for-educators].
• Jobst, B., Köppen, E., Lindberg, T., Moritz, J., Rhinow, H., & Meinel, C. (2012). The faith-factor in design thinking: Creative confidence through education at the design thinking schools Potsdam and Stanford?. In Design thinking research (pp. 35-46). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creativity and innovation management, 22(2), 121-146.
• Kelley, T. ve Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO, America's leading design firm. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
• Kelley, D. ve Kelley,T. (2013), ‘’Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All’’, IDEO, Crown Business.
• Lane, A. (2009). The Impact of Openness on Bridging Educational Digital Divides. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl. v10i5.637
• Lane, A., & McAndrew, P. (2010). Are Open Educational Resources Systematic or Systemic Change Agents for Teaching Practice? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 952–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01119.x
• Littlejohn, A., & Hood, N. (2016). How Educators Build Knowledge and Expand Their Practice: The Case of Open Education Resources: How Educators Build Knowledge and Expand Their Practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12438
• Marshall, H. H. (1981). Open classrooms: Has the term outlived Its usefulness? Review of Educational Research, 51(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170194
• Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 227-261.
• McAndrew, P., Scanlon, E., & Clow, D. (2010). An Open Future for Higher Education. Educause Quarterly, 33(1).
• McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice.
• Meinel, C., Leifer, L. ve Plattner, H. (2011), Design Thinking: Understand - Improve - Apply. Hasso Plattner Institut für Softwaresystemtechnik GmbH: Potsdam.
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, A., Thienen, J., Erdmann, J. ve Meinel, C. (2012), “Towards a Paradigm Shift in Education Practice: Developing Twenty-First Century Skills with Design Thinking. In: Design Thinking Research, Springer, 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_5
• O'Dennell, A. (2012), “Constructivism”, In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook 1, Theories, Constructs, and Critical Issues, 61-84, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Olssen, M. (1996), ”Radical Constructivism and its Failings. Anti-realism and Individualism”, British Journal of Educational Studies, 44 (3), 275-95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3122456
• Piaget, J. (1970), Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child, New York: Orion Press.
• Pink, D. (2006), A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future, Penguin Group.
• Plattner, H., Meinel, C. ve Weinberg, U. (2009), Design Think!ing. Innovation lernen, Ideenwelten öffnen. München: mi-Wirtschaftsverlag.
• Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B. ve Meinel,C. (2010), “Design Thinking: An Educational Model towards Creative Confidence”, In T. Taura and Y. Nagai (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2010), Kobe, Japan, 11, 2010. London: Springer.
• Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford Like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning
• Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. eLearnspace. http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/ accessed 2012-09-21
• Vaganti, R.(2009), Design-driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean, USA: Harvard Business Press.
• Wagner, T. (2011), The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need--And What We Can Do about It, New York: Basic Books.
• Wheatley, G. (1991), “Constructivist Perspectives on Science and Mathematics Learning”, Science Education, 75 (1), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750103
• Wilson, B. (1997), “Reflections on Constructivism and Instructional Design”, Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
• Wrigley, C., Mosely, G., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Design thinking education: a comparison of massive open online courses. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 4(3), 275-292.
• ELEKTRONİK KAYNAKLAR URL-1 https://www.coursera.org/learn/uva-darden-design-thinking-innovation/discussions (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• URL-2 https://www.coursera.org/learn/uva-darden-design-thinking-innovation/peer/syLUz/reflection/discussions (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• URL-3 https://plusacumen.novoed.com/#!/courses/design-kit-2020-3/lecture_pages/1094123 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• URL-4 https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:RWTHx+MTI004x+3T2020/discussion/forum/0ad893ce4660d7c1743d8d12e7c9b0c3e71b4824/threads/5fa14a65c6986d095138ac99 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• URL-5 https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/innovation-enterprise/9/activity-feed (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• URL-6 https://www.coursera.org/learn/uva-darden-design-thinking-innovation/course-inbox (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• Kaynak: URL-7 https://plusacumen.novoed.com/#!/courses/design-kit-2020-3/teams/237856/workspace (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• URL-8 https://www.coursera.org/learn/uva-darden-design-thinking-innovation/peer/syLUz/reflection/review-next (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)
• URL-9 https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/design-innovation/design-thinking/content-section-3 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.03.2022)