Visual Communication in Online Education: Social Analysis of Camera Usage in Virtual Classroom Experience

Yıl 2022, , 344 - 357, 30.12.2022

Ayşegül Akdemir , Balca Arda

https://doi.org/10.52835/19maysbd.1013179

Cited By: 1

Öz

Online distance education, which had been a rising trend globally and in Turkey as a result of the developments in information and communication technologies,
has become a necessity with the pandemic. It was crucial to support this education model with visuality and participation with cameras to gain maximum benefit
from online education and to create a public space close to a ‘real’ classroom experience, nevertheless the majority of students were hesitant towards this practice.
This study which explores the attitudes and behavior regarding the use of cameras during online classes is based on an online survey conducted with 325
university students and the data have been analysed by using quantitative descriptive analysis. This research, which uses general screening model, aims to grasp
how university students perceive online education which is a new phenomenon. The study demonstrates that the student participants juxtapose personal comfort
with using a camera during virtual classes. Students also underestimate their own contribution to the classes and argue that their interest in a course cannot be
measured by their behavior of turning on their cameras. It has been shown that the blurring of public and private spheres affects the possibilities and practices
of visual communication.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Visual communication, higher education, online education, gender, pandemic

Çevrimiçi Eğitimde Görsel İletişim: Sanal Sınıf Deneyiminde Kamera Kullanımının Toplumsal Analizi

Öz

Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin yükselişe geçmesi ile yaygınlaşan çevrimiçi uzaktan eğitim, pandemiyle birlikte bir zorunluluğa dönüştü. Bu süreçte öğrencilerin çevrimiçi eğitimden azami yararlanması ve ‘gerçek’ sınıf deneyimine yakın bir kamusal alan oluşturulması için bu eğitim modelinin görsellikle desteklenmesi ve kamera ile görüntülü derse katılım önem arz etmiştir. Ancak öğrencilerin pek çoğu bu uygulamaya sıcak bakmamıştır. Çevrimiçi derslerde kamera kullanımına dair tutum ve davranışları inceleyen bu çalışma 325 üniversite öğrencisi ile yapılan çevrimiçi bir ankete dayanmaktadır. Katılımcılar kişisel rahatlık olgusu ve kamera açma davranışını bir karşıtlık içinde tanımlamaktadır. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre öğrenciler derse kendi katkılarını azımsamakta ve derse ilginin kamera açma davranışı ile ölçülemeyeceğini savunmaktadır. Ayrıca toplumsal cinsiyete dair kalıp yargılar görsel iletişimi etkilemekte olup kadın katılımcıların derse görüntülü katılım öncesi kendi görünüşlerini ve çevrelerini değiştirmek için erkek katılımcılara kıyasla daha fazla zaman ayırdıkları saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

yüksek öğrenim, çevrimiçi eğitim, toplumsal cinsiyet, Covid-19, pandemi, görsel iletişim, Visual communication, higher education, online education, gender, pandemic

Kaynakça

• Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. Moore (Ed.) Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 129–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Anderson, J. A. & Meyer, T. P. (1988). Mediated communication: A social action perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Akan, V. (2003) Birey ve Toplum. İhsan Sezal (ed.), Sosyolojiye Giriş içinde s: 79-104. Ankara: Martı.
• Bayne, S. (2008) Higher education as a visual practice: seeing through the virtual learning environment, Teaching in Higher Education, 13:4, 395-410, DOI: 10.1080/13562510802169665.
• Berger, J. (2017). Görme Biçimleri, Metis Yayınları.
• Birişçi, S. (2013). Video konferans tabanlı uzaktan eğitime ilişkin öğrenci tutumları ve görüşleri. Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Öğretmen Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 24-40.
• Booher, R. K., and W. J. Seiler. 1982. Speech communication anxiety: An impediment to academic achievement in the university classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction 18(1):23-27
• Bordo, S. (2004). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Univ of California Press.
• Codreanu, T., & Celik, C. C. (2013). Effects of webcams on multimodal interactive learning. ReCALL: the Journal of EUROCALL, 25(1), 30.
• Daniel C. A. Hillman , Deborah J. Willis & Charlotte N. Gunawardena (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, DOI: 10.1080/08923649409526853.
• Datareportal (2020) https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-turkey.
• David, N. (2004) The More We Know, the More We See: The Role of Visuality in Media Literacy. American Social Behaviour, 48 (2):238-247.
• Demir, E. (2014). Uzaktan Eğitime Genel Bir Bakiş. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (39).
• DiSerio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2012). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 1–11.
• Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction, 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Fonseca, David et. al. (2014). Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of Augmented Reality technology for visualized architecture models. Computers in Human Behavior: 30.
• Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Gorea, Michelle (2018). Snap, Scroll, Repeat: Routine Engagements with and Understandings of Visual Communication Among Youth. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society. Copenhagen, Denmark.
• Kathryn G. (2010) Conceptualising Visual Learning as an Embodied and Performative Pedagogy for all Classrooms. Encounters on Education. Volume 11, Fall 2010 pp. 13-23.
• Holden, J. T., & Westfall, P. J.-L. (2006). An instructional media selection guide for distance learning. Boston: United States Distance Learning Association.
• Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of distance education based on empathy. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 79–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Jewitt, C. 2005. Multimodality, ‘reading’, and ‘writing’ for the 21st century. Discourse 26, no. 3: 315-331. Kress, G. 2003. Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge
• Kürüm, R. S., & Akdemir (2021) A. Sosyoloji ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Eğitimlerinin Kesişiminde Ters-Yüz Sınıf Modeli: Covid-19 Öncesi ve Sonrası Uygulamaları. International Journal of Economics Administrative and Social Sciences, 4, 1-17.
• Lee, I. S. (2002). Gender differences in self-regulated on-line learning strategies within Korea's university context. Educational Technology Research and Development, 101-111.
• Liao, W.C. (2012). Using short videos in teaching a social science subject: Values and challenges. Journal of the NUS Teaching Academy, 2(1): 42-55.
• Locatelli, Elizabetta. (2017) Images of Breastfeeding on Instagram: Self-Representation, Publicness, and Privacy Management. Social Media & Society. 3 (2)
• Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2002). Does gender influence discussion forum participation in online education?. In ASCILITE (pp. 421-430).
• Moore, M. G. 1989. Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education 3(2): 1-6.
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
• Neuwirth, L. S., Jović, S., & Mukherji, B. R. (2020). Reimagining higher education during and post-COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 1477971420947738.
• Peters, J. D. (1994) The gaps of which communication is made. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11:2, 117-140, DOI: 10.1080/15295039409366891.
• Schroeder, J. E., & Borgerson, J. L. (1998). Marketing images of gender: A visual analysis. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 2(2), 161-201.
• Shah, R., & Tewari, R. (2016). Demystifying “selfie”: A rampant social media activity. Behavior & Information Technology, 35, 864–871.
• Shale, D., and D. R. Garrison. (1990). Introduction. In Education at a Distance, eds. D. R. Garrison and D. Shale, 1-6. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company
• Sezgin, S. (2021). Acil Uzaktan Eğitim Sürecinin Analizi: Öne Çıkan Kavramlar, Sorunlar ve Çıkarılan Dersler. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 273-296.
• Telli, S. G., & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrimiçi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-34.
• Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339−362.
• Wargo, J. (2017). “Every selfie tells a story …”:LGBTQ youth lifestreams and new media narratives as connective identity texts. New Media & Society Vol. 19(4) 560– 578.
• Younghee Wo ve Thomas C. Reeves. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet and Higher Education 10: 15–25.