The Sociology of Digital Classroom: An Analytic Autoethnograhy on Interaction Problems

Year 2024, Issue: 17, 89 - 104, 26.12.2024

Muhittin Şahin

https://doi.org/10.55609/yenimedya.1522354

Abstract

There is a meaningful relationship between the technology that societies have and their lifestyles. Microelectronics-based information/communication technologies have determined today's dominant technology as digitalization; this technology permeates all areas of life, including education. The learning environment of the learners in the classroom is also affected by the technology adopted. Digital classrooms have transformed the forms of interaction that build the sociality of a classroom and are a necessity for learning. In this regard, the aim of this study is to examine the forms of communication and interaction between teachers and learners in digital classrooms. Analytical autoethnography was adopted as a method. The researcher’s (active) participation within the social context being studied, which allows for both experiencing and shaping it, has been a significant consideration in the selection of the research method. The diaries kept by the researcher in the study are the main data collection tools. According to the research findings, the status of the teacher in a digital classroom, his predisposition to digital elements, and the educational approaches he uses in the learning-teaching process are significant in the success of interaction among participants. It was found that the primary reason for lack of motivation stems from positive aspects, such as the flexibility offered by digital classrooms. Low motivation causes concentration problems; it was observed that concentration issues led students to engage in cyber-loafing activities and to follow the lesson through asynchronous recordings later. It is also among the findings that situations in which the teacher has problems with his leadership during synchronous lessons negatively affect the interaction between members.

Keywords

Digital classroom, Classroom sociology, Digital social group, Interaction, Autoethnography

Dijital Derslik Sosyolojisi: Etkileşim Sorunları Üzerine Analitik Bir Otoetnografi

Abstract

Toplumların sahip olduğu teknoloji ile yaşam biçimlerini koşullandırması arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmaktadır. Mikro elektronik tabanlı bilgi/iletişim teknolojileri, günümüzün başat teknolojisini dijitalleşme olarak belirlemiştir; söz konusu teknoloji, eğitim de dahil olmak üzere yaşamın tüm alanlarına sirayet etmektedir. Belli bir amaçla bir araya toplanan birtakım bireylerin oluşturduğu toplumsal bir grup olarak sınıf içindeki öğrenenlerin öğrenme ortamı da, söz konusu teknolojiden etkilenmektedir. Dijital derslikler, bir sınıfın toplumsallığını inşa eden ve öğrenme için bir gereklilik teşkil eden etkileşim biçimlerinde dönüşüm yaratmıştır. Bu doğrultuda bu çalışmanın problemini dijital dersliklerde öğretmen ve öğrenen ile öğrenenler arasındaki iletişim ve etkileşim biçimlerinin incelenmesi teşkil etmektedir. Nitel araştırma geleneği içerisinde gelişen analitik otoetnografi, yöntem olarak benimsenmiştir. Araştırmacının araştırılan toplumsal bağlamın tam bir katılımcısı olması, söz konusu bağlamı yalnızca deneyimlememesi ayrıca onu yaratan bir konumda olması araştırma yönteminin seçilmesinde önemli dinamikler olmuştur. Araştırmada araştırmacının tutmuş olduğu günlükler temel veri toplama aracıdır. Araştırma bulgularına göre, dijital bir derslikte öğretmenin statüsü, onun dijital unsurlara yatkınlığı ve öğrenme-öğretme sürecinde kullandığı eğitim yaklaşımları katılımcılar arasındaki etkileşimin başarısında anlamlıdır. Derslik içinde etkileşim sorunlarının en temel sebebinin motivasyon eksikliği olduğu bulunmuştur; motivasyon eksikliğinin temel kaynağı ise dijital dersliklerin sunmuş olduğu esneklik gibi olumlu özelliklerdir. Düşük motivasyon konsantrasyon sorununa sebep olmaktadır; konsantrasyon sorununun ise öğrencileri siber-aylaklık eylemlerine ve asenkron kayıtlardan dersi takip etmeye sevk ettiği görülmüştür. Senkron ders esnasında ise öğretmenin liderlik statüsünde sorunlar yaşadığı durumların, üyeler arasındaki etkileşimi olumsuz yönde etkilediği ayrıca bulgular arasındadır.

Keywords

Dijital derslik, Derslik sosyolojisi, Dijital toplumsal grup, Etkileşim, Otoetnografi

References

• Allwright, D. (1988). Obvervation in the language classroom. Longman.
• Ally, M. (2005). Using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning devices. In J. Attwell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Mobile learning anytime everywhere. (pp. 5–8). Proceedings of the Third World Conference on Mobile Learning, Rome.
• Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for onilne learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning. (pp.15-44). AU Press.
• Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395.
• Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1-14.
• Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T.Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (pp. 45-74). AU Press.
• Artal-Sevil, J.S.; Romero, E. & Artacho, J.M. (2019). Empowering teacher to apply flipped learning: digital competences and tools to transform the classroom. [Conference presentation abstract]. 13th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain.
• Atkinson, P. A.;Coffey, A. & Delamont, S. (2003). Key themes in qualitative research: Continuities and change. AltaMira Press.
• Atkinson, M.P.; Buck, A.R. & Hunt, A.N. (2009). Teaching sociology of the college classroom: Appliying sociological theory at the classroom level. Teaching Sciology, 37, 233-244.
• Avcıoğlu, A. & Altay, İ. F. (2022). An investigation of university preparatory class teachers’ attitudes towards English language teaching in distance. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 10(1). 394-427.
• Bani-Mohammad, S. & Ababneh, İ. (2023). On rapid transitioning to online learning under covid-19: Challenges and solutions at al-Bayt University. The International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 20(3A), 446-460.
• Bednar, A.K.; Cunningham, D.; Duffy, T.M. & Perry, J.D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. (pp. 88-101). Libraries Unlimited.
• Brumbaugh, D.K. & Rock, D. (2006). Teaching secondary mathematics. Routledge.
• Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an explotary theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5-24.
• Chytry, V.; Rican, J. & Medova, J. (2019). How teacher’s progressiveness in using digital technologies influences levels of pupils’ metacognitive knowledge in mathematics. Mathematics, 7(1245), 1-17.
• Derakshan, A.; Coombe, C.; Arabmofrad, A. & Taghizadeh, M. (2020). Investigating the effects of english language teachers’ professional identity and autonomy in their success. Issue Lang. Teach. 9, 1-28.
• Dewey, J. (2014). Deneyim ve eğitim (S.Akıllı, Trans.). ODTÜ Yayıncılık.
• Dönmez, İ. H. (2021). Dijital bir sosyal felsefeye çağrı (kapitalizm ve ölüm dürtüsü kitabı üzerine). Yeni Medya, 11, 180-183.
• Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology (S.D. Fox, Trans.). The Free Press.
• Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnografic reflections on life and work. Left Coast Press.
• Freire, P. (2016). Ezilenlerin pedagojisi (D. Hattatoğlu & E.Özbek, Trans.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.
• Gelles, R.J. (1980). Teaching sociology on sociology. Teaching Sociology, 8(1), 3-20.
• Giddens, A. (2004). Modernliğin sonuçları. (E.Kuşdil, Trans.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
• Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Bobbs-Merrill.
• Goldsmidt, C.A. & Wilson E. K. (1980). Passing on sociology: The teaching of a discipline. Wadsworth.
• Greenwood, J. (2003). Social facts, social groups and social explanation. Nous, 37(1), 93–112.
• Halasz, J.R. & Kauffman, P. (2008). Sociology as pedagogy: How ideas from the discipline can inform teaching and learning. Teaching Sociology, 36(4), 301-17.
• Halif, M.M.; Hassan, N.; Sumardi, N.A.; Omar, A.S.; Aziz, R.A.; et al. (2020). Moderating effects of student motivation on the relationship between learning styles and student engagement. Asian J.Univ. Educ.. 16, 94-103.
• Hargie, O. & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled interpersonal communication. Routledge.
• Hwong, A.S. (1996). Positivist and constructivist persuasions in instructional development. Instructional Science, 24(5), 343-356.
• Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth, (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (volume II): A new paradigm of instructional theory. (pp.215-240). Routledge.
• Karabıyık, C. (2021). A study on pre-service English teachers’ cyberloafing behaviors during online courses. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 10(3), 551-570.
• Koh, J.H.L.; Daniel, B.K. & Greenman, A.C. (2023). Adaptiveness for online learning: Conceptualising ‘online learning dexterity’ from higher education students’ experiences. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 58, 379-397.
• Macionis, J.J. (2010). Sociology. Pearson Education Publishings.
• Macomber, K.; Rusche, S.E. & Atkinson, M.P. (2009). From the outside looking in: The sociology of the classroom. Teaching Sociology, 37, 228-232.
• Merton, R.K. (1988). Some thoughts on the concept of sociological autobiography. In M. W. Riley (Ed.), Sociological lives. (pp. 78-99). Sage.
• Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
• Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2014). Supporting professional learning in a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 197-213.
• Mohamed, A.M; Nasim, S.M.; Alijanada, R. & Alfaisal, A. (2023). Lived experience: Students’ perceptions of english language learning post coivd-19. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 20(7-4), 12-21.
• Murray, L.B. (2023). Autoethnografy. In J. Mola Okoko, S. Tunison & K. D. Walker (Eds.), Varieties of Qualitative research methods: Selected contextual perspectives. (pp. 52-58). Springer Texts in Education.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
• Reed-Dananhay, D. (1997). Auto/ethnograhy. Berg Publishing.
• Rendueles, C. (2024). Sosyofobi: dijital ütopya çağında siyasal değişim. (A. Türker-Ok, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları.
• Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Records, 105(9), 1623-1640.
• Rob, M. & Rob, F. (2018). Dilemna between constuctivism and constructionism: Leading to development of a teaching-learning framework for student engagement and learning. Journal of International Education in Business, 11(2), 273-290.
• Ritchie, K. (2015). The metaphysics of social groups. Philosophy Compass, 10(5), 310–321.
• Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Beacon.
• Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C.; McLean, R.S.; Swallow, J. & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51-68.
• Schmuck, R., & Schmuck, P. (1976). Group processes in the classroom. Brown Company Publishers.
• Serdyukov, P., & Hill, R. (2013). Flying with clipped wings: Are students independent in online college class? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 6(1), 54-67.
• Shabani, A. & Beshtica, Q. (2016). The correlation between motivation of teachers and their competencies in students’ success in school. [Conference presentation full paper]. 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts. In Bk 1: Psychology and Psychiatry, Sociology and Healthcare (pp. 1105-1111). Albena, Bulgaria.
• Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnpgraphy: An embodied methodological praxis. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 706-732.
• Strathern, M. (1987). The limits of auto-anthropology. In A. Jackson (Ed.), Anthropology at home (pp. 16-37). Tavistock.
• Şahin, Muhittin. (2020). Dijitalleşen toplumda eğitimin dönüşümü: bağlantıcı öğrenme sorunları ve okuryazarlıkları. In B.Kayıhan (Ed.), Dijital çağda kitle kültürü, eğlence ve sanat. (pp. 427-461). Ütopya Yayınevi.
• Tombak-İlhan, B. & Gündüz, M. (2023). Derslik sosyolojisi: ilkokulda sınıfın etkileşimci inşası. İnsan & Toplum, 13(4), 94-120.
• Tombak-İlhan, B.; Alcı, B. & Güven-Hastürk, D. (2023). Teachers learning classroom sociology and social justice in primary education: An applied research Project. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 17(1), 31-51.
• Wisniewski, Z.; Polak-Sopinska, A.; Wisniewska, M.; Wrobel-Lachowska, M. (2018). Dynamics of Interactions–Motivation. [Conference presentation full paper] In: Goossens, R. (Ed.) Advances in Social & Occupational Ergonomics. AHFE 2017. (pp.155-163). Springer, Cham.
• Zimmerman, B.J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183.