The Role Of The Socio-Cultural Context In Designing Appropriate Support Services And Enhancing Interaction In Distance Education In Turkey

Year 2006, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 57 - 69, 01.09.2006

Salih Usun

Abstract

Understanding the socio-cultural context is the key to developing appropriate support systems for distance learners. The socio-cultural context in Turkey is a critical ingredient in the development of Turkish distance education programmes, in which two elements of Turkish culture - patronage and an oral tradition - seem to play a significant role. The main aim of this study is to determine the role of the socio-cultural context in designing appropriate support services and enhancing interaction in the Turkish Distance Education System, namely, the Open Education Faculty (OEF). The study firstly introduces the technologies and socio-cultural context of the OEF then presents for consideration the influence of that context in designing appropriate support services and enhancing interaction; and finally provides a number of suggestions to enhance learner support and interaction according to the prevailing socio-cultural context.

Keywords

Socio-Cultural Context; Learner Support; Interaction; Distance Education; Open Education Faculty; Turkey

References

• AKKOYUNLU, B.,& Orhan, F.(2001).The use of computers in K-12 Schools in Turkey. TechTrends; 45(6), 29-31.
• BATES, A. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education ,New York, Routledge.
• DEMIRAY, U. (1997). A review of the literature on the Open Education Faculty (1982-1997). An expanded and revised third edition. Anadolu University Publications, No:1015/558, Eskisehir, Turkey.
• DEMIRAY, U., & Isman, A. (2002). History of distance learning.
• 09.2002.Available at: http://home.anadolu.edu.tr/~udemiray/&Histo.htm.
• DILLON, C., & Blanchard, D. (1991,May). Education for each: Learner driven distance education. Invited paper presented at The Second American Symposium on Research in Distance Education, The American Center for the Study of Distance Education, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
• EVANS, T. (1998). Thinking globalisation: Issues for open and distance educators in
• Australia and the South Pacific. In F. Nouwens, (Ed.), Distance education: Crossing
• frontiers, (pp. 357-361). Central Queensland University: Rockhampton, Australia.
• GUY, R. (1991). Distance education in the developing world: Colonisation, collaboration, and control. In T. Evans & B. King, (Eds.), Beyond the text: Contemporary writing in distance education, (pp. 152-175). Deakin University Press.
• HYMAN, H. H., Payaslioglu, A., & Frey, F. W. (1958). The values of Turkish college youth, Public Opinion Quarterly, 22, 275-291.
• IMAMOGLU, E. 0. (1987). An interdependence model of human development. In Q. Kagitcibasi (Ed.). Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 138-145). Lisle, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
• IMAMOGLU, E. O., & Karakitapoglu, Aygun, Z. (1999). 1970lerden 1990lara degerler: Universite duzeyinde gozlenen zaman, kusak ve cinsiyet farkliliklari [Value preferences from the 1970s to 1990s: Generation, gender, and epoch differences at a Turkish university]. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14, 1-22.
• KAGITCIBASI, C. (1973). Psychological aspects of modernization in Turkey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4, 157-174.
• KAGITCIBASI, C. (1984). Sex roles, value of children and fertility in Turkey. In Q. Kagitcibasi (Ed.). Sex roles, family, and community in Turkey (pp. 151-180). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• LEVIRA, Modest, A. (1997). Instructional technology in developing countries. At the crossroads: Should The Countries Go Electronic? International Journal of Instructional Media, 0092815, 24(2).
• McIsaac, M.S. (1996). Learning for the future. Paper presented at First Turkish International Distance Education Symposium. 12-15 November, 1996, MONE, FRTED,Ankara, Turkey. XXVI. XXXIII.
• MURPHY, K. L. (1991a). Socio-cultural context of Turkish distance learning.
• Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning,
• Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 224-230.
• MURPHY, K. L. (1991b). Patronage and oral tradition: Influences on attribution ofdistance learners in a traditional society (a qualitative study) Distance Education; 12(1), 27-53.
• MURPHY, K. (1996). Enhancing Interaction in Turkish Distance Education. Paper presented at the First Turkish International Distance Education Symposium, 12-15 November, 1996, MONE, FRTED, Ankara, Turkey, 417-425.
• ORSON, C. M. & Greenbert, B., (1990). Innovations in instructional materials at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, Africa. International Journal of Instructional Media, 17(2) 163-167.
• PATSULA, P. J. (2002). Practical guidelines for selecting media: An international perspective. The Usableword Monitor, February 1, Web Usability and Information Design Issues.
• RAJESH, M. (2003). A study of the problems associated with ICT adaptability in developing countries in the context of distance education, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, April 2003, ISSN 1302-6488, 4(2).
• SEELS, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: the definition and domains of the Field Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Washington. DC.
• TEKIN, C., & Demiray, U. (1989). A short profile of the first graduates of the Open Education Faculty at Anadolu University in Turkey. Retrieved August 25, 2003, from: http://home.anadolu.edu.tr/-udemiray