The Effects Of Different Interaction Types 
In Web-Based Teaching On The Attitudes 
Of Learners Towards Web Based Teaching And Internet

Year 2013, Volume: 14 Issue: 2, 208 - 224, 01.06.2013

Ozgen Korkmaz

Abstract

It might be said that attitudes impact success directly in web-based teaching and timely and appropriate fulfillment of learners’ expectations bear utmost significance for their success. From this perspective a properly designed web supported teaching application can provide positive contribution as well to learners’ attitudes towards web supported teaching and internet. Based on this premise, the objective of present research is to explore the effects of different interaction types in web-based teaching setting on the attitudes of learners towards web-based teaching and internet. An experimental pattern with pretest-posttest control group was used in the study. Study group of research consists of 77 students. Research data have been compiled via Attitude towards Internet Scale (α=0,77) and Attitude towards Web-based Learning Scale (α=0,86). In one of the experimental groups, synchronous web-based training interaction and in the other group asynchronous web-based training interaction and in the control group learner-content only interaction has been provided. In data analysis; standard deviation, arithmetical means, one-way variance analysis and LSD tests have been employed. As a result: Web-based training applications with synchronous interaction, compared to web-based training application with learner-content only interaction, have significantly higher contribution on learners’ attitudes towards web-based teaching. In Web-based teaching settings different types of interaction have no effect on learners’ attitudes towards internet which may be attributed to the fact that learners’ attitudes towards internet were already in quite high levels prior to the procedure.

Keywords

Web-supported Teaching, Internet, Attitude, Interaction.

References

• Akkoyunlu, B. & Kurbanoğlu, S. (2003). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgi okuryazarlığı ve bilgisayar öz-yeterlik algıları üzerine bir çalışma. (A study on the information literacy and computer self-competence perceptions of prospective teachers) Hacettepe
• Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal), 24(1), 1- 10. Alkan, C. (1989). Eğitim teknolojisi [Instructional technology]. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
• Barron, A. (1998). Designing Web-Based Training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 355-371. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8535.00081.
• Büyüköztürk,S. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi elkitabı [Data analysis hand book for Social Sciences]. (2th Ed). Ankara: PegemA publishing.
• Cao, Q. & Griffin, T.E. (2009). The importance of synchronous interaction for student satisfaction with course web sites. Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 20(3), 331-338.
• Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
• Cüceloglu, D. (1998). İnsan ve davranışı [Human and behavior]. Istanbul: Remzi Publishing.
• Davies, J. & Graff, M. (2005). Performance in e-learning: Online participation and school grades. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(4): 657–663.
• Driscoll, M. (2002). Web-based training: Creating e-learning experiences. 2nd ed. San
• Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Erdogan, Y., Bayram, S. & Deniz, L. (2007). Web based instruction attitude scale:
• Explanatory and confirmatory factor analyses. International Journal of Human Sciences, 4(2), 1-14. Eunjoo O.H. (2006). Current practices in blended instruction. PhD Thesis. Knoxville:
• The University of Tennessee. Fulford, C. P. & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3),8-21.
• Garrrison,D.R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Newyork, NY: Routledge Falmer.
• Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.
• Imel, S. (1997). Web-based training. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,
• Career, and Vocational Education Center on Education and Training for Employment College of Education. (ERIC No. ED414446)
• Jyothi, S., McAvinia, C. & Keating, J. (2012). A visualisation tool to aid exploration of students’ interactions in asynchronous online communication. Computers & Education, 58(1): 30-42.
• Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Computers as mind tools for schools: Engaging critical thinking.
• Merrill and Prentice Hall. Pennsylvania. Kearsley, G. (1998). A guide to online education. Available at: http://home.sprynet.com/-gkearsley/online.htm.
• Keser, H. (1988). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim için bir model önerisi [Suggest a model for computer assisted education]. PhD Thesis, Ankara: Ankara University, Institute of Social Science.
• Khine, M.S. (2001). Attitude Towards Computer Among Teacher Education Student in
• Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(2), 147-153. Lee, M. & Paulus, T. (2001). An instructional design theory for interactions in web- based learning environment. The National Convention of the Association for Educational
• Communications and Technology (24th, Atlanta, GA, November 8-12). IR: 021 535. Lemley, D. Sudweeks, R., Howell, R.S., Laws, D. & Sawyer, O. (2007) The effects of immediate and delayed feedback on secondary distance learners. The Quarterly
• Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 251–260. Mccroskey, J.C. & Andersen, J. F. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement among college students. Human
• Communication Research, 3,73-81. Moore, M., Keasrsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
• Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of
• Distance Education, 3(2),1-7. Nehme, Z. (2008). The social arena of the online synchronous environment. Turkish
• Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 9 (2), 238-249. Ozgür, H. & Tosun, N. (2010).İnternet destekli eğitimin e-öğrenme tutumlarına etkisi
• [Internet based education’s effect on attitude towards e-learning]. XV. Internet in Turkey Conference, 2-4 December. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University. Park, Y. J. & Bonk, C. J. (2007), Is online life a breeze? A case study for promoting synchronous learning in a blended graduate course. MERLOT Journal of Online
• Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 307-323. Perraton, H. (1988). A theory for distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan,
• Holmberg (Ed.), Distance education: International perspectives, New York: Routledge. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). What is instructional design theory and How is it changing? .
• In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, (Vol II) (s:5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Romiszowski, A. J. and Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H.
• Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (s. 438-456). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan. Sadık, A. (2006). The reality of web-based interaction in an Egyptian distance
• Education course. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5 (1), 82-100. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M. & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of
• Educational Research 76(1): 93–135. Usta, E. (2007). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ve çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarının akademik başarı ve doyuma etkisi [The Effects of Blended Learning and Online Learning on
• Academic Achievement and Learner Satisfaction]. PhD Thesis. Ankara: Gazi University. Van der Kleij , F. M., Eggen, T. J.H.M., Timmers, C. F., Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58(1): 263-272 .
• Woo, Y., Reeves, T.C. (2008). Interaction in asynchronous web-based learning environments: strategies supported by educational research. Journal of Asynchronous
• Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 179-194.