SOSYAL BİLİMLER ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN TEMEL BİLGİ TEKNOLOJİLERİ VE YÖNETİM BİLİŞİM SİSTEMLERİ DERSLERİNE YÖNELİK GERİ BİLDİRİMLERİ VE GERİ BİLDİRİMLERİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLER

Abstract

İşletme ve iktisat gibi sosyal bilimler lisans programlarında okuyan öğrencilerin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri kullanımı, iş hayatının ihtiyaçlarını karşılamaya yönelik olmak zorundadır. Bu çalışmada, işletme ve iktisat gibi sosyal bilimler lisans programlarında yer alan temel teknoloji ve bilişim dersleri, öğrenci bakış açısıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışma, bir devlet üniversitesinde, 2014-2019 yılları arasında, temel bilgi teknolojileri dersini almış 239 ve yönetim bilişim sistemleri dersini almış 384, toplamda 623 öğrencinin bu dersler hakkındaki geribildirimlerine dayanmaktadır. Toplanan veriye içerik analizi yapılarak olumlu geribildirim, olumsuz geribildirim ve öneri ana kodları altında alt kodlar oluşturulmuştur. Öğrenci bilgi birikimi, dersin mesleki önemi, dersin işleniş yöntemi ve öğretim elemanı, öğrenci bakış açısını belirleyen en önemli faktörler olarak belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Sosyal bilimler
• Temel bilgi teknolojileri
• Yönetim bilişim sistemleri
• Uzaktan eğitim
• öğrenci geri bildirimleri

FEEDBACK OF SOCIAL SCIENCES STUDENTS ON FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS COURSES AND THE FACTORS AFFECTING FEEDBACK

Abstract

The use of information and communication technologies by students studying in social sciences
undergraduate programs such as business and economics must meet the needs of business life. In this
study, fundamental technology and informatics courses in social sciences undergraduate programs such
as business and economics are evaluated from perspective of students. This study is based on the
feedback of 623 students, 239 who have taken the fundamental information technologies course and 384
who have taken the management information systems course in a state university between 2014-2019.
Sub-codes were created under the main codes of positive feedback, negative feedback and suggestions
by applying content analysis to the collected data. The student knowledge, the professional importance
of the course, the method of teaching the lesson and the instructor have been identified as the most
important factors that determine the student feedback.

Keywords

• Social Sciences
• Fundamental Information Technologies
• Management Information Systems
• Distance Education
• Student Feedback

References

1. AACSB (2019). “A Collective Vision for Business Schools” https://www.aacsb.edu/publications/researchreports/collective-vision-for-business-education (Erişim Tarihi 30.04.2019).
2. Accenture (2015). “How to Design and Scale Digital and Blended Learning Programs to Improve Employment and Entrepreneurship Outcomes”.
3. https://www.accenture.com/t20160119T105855__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/PDF-5/Accenture-Digital-Learning-Report-and-How-To-Guide_Full.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 19.04.2019).
4. Ali, R., ve Katz, I. R. (2010). Information and communication technology literacy: What do businesses expect and what do business schools teach?. ETS Research Report Series, 2: i-20.
5. Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P.K. ve Ragavan, N.A. (2016). Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty?: A study of international students in Malaysian public universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1):70-94.
6. Berg, B. L., ve Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Essex, England: Pearson.
7. Chimgee, D., Naranchimeg, L., Enerel, A., Bolor, A., Erdenebileg, S., ve Bilguun, A. (2020). Integrating SAP in business school: Outcomes of SAP hands-on exercises in business information systems course. 9th International Conference on Educational and Information Technology, February 2020, Oxford, United Kingdom.
8. Corbin, J.M. ve Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 13(1): 3-21.

9. Downey, J.P., McGaughey, R. ve Roach, D. (2011). Attitudes and influences toward choosing a business major: The case of information systems. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 10 (1): 231-251.
10. Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., ve Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2): 215-235.
11. Firat, M. ve Bozkurt, A. (2020) Variables affecting online learning readiness in an open and distance learning university, Educational Media International, 57(2): 112-127.
12. Finnegan, C., Morris, L. V., ve Lee, K. (2008). Differences by course discipline on student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses of undergraduate general education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory ve Practice, 10(1): 39-54.
13. Fu, J. (2013). Complexity of ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of education and Development using ICT, 9(1): 112-125.
14. Gallagher, K. P., Kaiser, K. M., Simon, J. C., Beath, C. M., ve Goles, T. (2010). The requisite variety of skills for IT professionals. Communications of the ACM, 53(6): 144-148.
15. Hamilton, D., McFarland, D., ve Mirchandani, D. (2000). A decision model for integration across the business curriculum in the 21st century. Journal of Management Education, 24(1): 102-126.
16. Hara, N. (2000). Student distress in a web-based distance education course. Information, Communication ve Society, 3(4): 557-579.
17. Havelka, D., Beasley, F., ve Broome, T. (2004). A Study of Computer Anxiety Among Business Students, American Journal of Business, 19(1):63-71.
18. Hawawini, G. (2005). The future of business schools, Journal of Management Development, 24(9): 770-782.
19. Karsten, R., ve Schmidt, D. (2008). Business student computer self-efficacy: Ten years later. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(4): 445.
20. Krovi, R., ve Vijayaraman, B. S. (2000). E-commerce content in business school curriculum: opportunities and challenges. The Internet and higher education, 3(3): 153-160.
21. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
22. Lyons, A., Reysen, S., ve Pierce, L. (2012). Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and social presence in online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1): 181-186.
23. Marriott, N., Marriott, P., ve Selwyn, N. (2004). Accounting undergraduates' changing use of ICT and their views on using the Internet in higher education–a research note. Accounting Education, 13: 117-130.
24. Martins, J., Branco, F., Gonçalves, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Oliveira, T., Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Cruz-Jesus, F. (2019). Assessing the success behind the use of education management information systems in higher education, Telematics and Informatics, 38: 182-193.
25. Merriam, S.B. (2015). Nitel Araştırma Desen ve Uygulama İçin Bir Rehber. Çev. Ed. Selahattin Turan. Ankara: Nobel.
26. Miles, M.B., ve Huberman, A.M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage.
27. Mupinga, D.M., Nora, R.T., ve Yaw, D.C. (2006). The Learning Styles, Expectations, and Needs of Online Students, College Teaching, 54(1): 185-189.
28. Paechter, M., Maier, B., ve Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & education, 54(1): 222-229.
29. Reynoldson, C., ve Vibert, C. (2005). Creating value in ICT-enabled business education. Frontiers of e-Business Research.
30. Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M. ve Coates, D. (2000). University students' expectations of teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 25(3): 309-323.
31. Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., ve Guba, E. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 114: 11-25.
32. Shotick, J. ve Stephens, P.R. (2006). Gender Inequities of Self-Efficacy on Task-Specific Computer Applications in Business, Journal of Education for Business, 81(5):269-273.
33. Sun, J. C. Y., ve Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2): 191-204.
34. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., ve Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of educational research, 76(1): 93-135.
35. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Şeçkin: Ankara.
36. Wang, C., 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.