Education Faculty Students’ Views About Distance Education Materials Developed with Web 2.0 Tools

Öz

The importance of the development, management and use of digital materials is increasingly gaining importance for educational activities. In recent years, the transfer of digital information and the development of its storage and of communication methods have made it possible for students to reach these materials independently of time and place. In addition, combining digital learning materials with a digital learning environment via the Internet for educational purposes provides a number of important innovations to develop a student-centered approach and to meet students’ personal needs in their daily lives in any place. The present study aimed to examine education faculty students’ perceptions regarding Web 2.0 tools and related educational applications. In the study, the case study method was used as the research method. The study was conducted with 82 students taking the course of Distance Teaching in the Spring Term of the academic year of 2016-2017. In the study, the students’ views were determined using the Qualities of Instructional Materials Scale developed by Seferoğlu and Dağhan 2012 . Also, with the help of interview forms prepared, face-to-face interviews were held with the students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Materials
• Distance education
• web 2.0

Web 2.0 Araçlarıyla Geliştirilen Uzaktan Eğitim Materyallerine Yönelik Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Görüşleri

Öz

Dijital materyallerin kullanımı, yönetimi ve oluşturulması eğitim-öğretim faaliyetleri için giderek daha fazla önem kazanmaktadır. Son yıllarda dijital bilgi aktarımı, depolama ve iletişim yöntemlerinin gelişmesi, bu materyallerin zaman ve konum fark etmeksizin öğrencilere ulaşılabilmesini mümkün kılmıştır. Çalışma, eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim görmekte olan öğrencilerin Web 2.0 araçları ve eğitim uygulamaları hakkındaki algılarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Vaka çalışması yaklaşımı, bu çalışmanın metodolojik çerçevesini oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma, 2016-2017 bahar döneminde uzaktan öğretim dersini alan 82 öğrenciyle yürütülmüştür. Ders sırasında öğrenciler çeşitli paket programlar kullanarak bulmaca, kavram haritaları, çalışma sayfaları, sunumlar ve posterler gibi dijital materyaller hazırlamıştır. Ayrıca, dersin amacı için öğrenilmesi gereken çok sayıda Web 2.0 araçları da öğrencilere tanıtılarak Moodle öğrenme yönetim sistemine yüklenmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan öğrencilerin, Seferoğlu ve Dağhan 2012 tarafından geliştirilen Öğretim Materyallerinin Nitelikleri Anketi ile alınmıştır. Ayrıca, yüz yüze görüşmeler yapılarak da öğrencilerin görüşleri alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Materyaller
• Uzaktan eğitim
• web 2.0

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
2. Avci, U., & Askar, P. (2011). The comparison of the opinions of the university students on the usage of blog and wiki for their courses. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 194–205.
3. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology and Society, 11(4), 29–40.
4. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183e198.
5. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf
6. Bektaş, F., Nalçacı, A., & Ercoşkun, H. (2009). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının “öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme/tasarımı” dersinin kazanımlarına ilişkin görüşleri. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 2(2), 19-31.
7. Bircan, E. Y. Ü. P. (2012). Türkçe Öğretmeni Adaylarının Öğretim Teknolojilerini Kullanmaya Yönelik Öz Güvenleri. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2012(9).
8. Churchill, D. (2014). Presentation design for “conceptual model” learning objects. British Journal of Education Technology, 45(1), 136e148.

9. Churchill, D. (2013). Conceptual model design and learning uses. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(1), 54-67.
10. Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Education Technology Research and Development, 55, 479e497.
11. Churchill, D. (2011). Conceptual model learning objects and design recommendations for small screens. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 203e216.
12. Cych, L. (2006). Social networks. Emerging Technologies for Learning Retrieved 6 April, 2006, from http://www.becta.org.uk/corporate/publications/
13. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self- regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8.
14. D. Shen, J. Laffey, Y. Lin, and X.X. Huang, “Social Influence for Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-Use of Course Delivery Systems,” Journal of Interactive Online Learning, vol. 5, no. 3, 2006, pp. 270-282.
15. Duruhan, K. (2011). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Materyal Tasarımında Yaratıcılıklarının Değerlendirilmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2011(6).
16. Dumitrescu, V. M. (2015, April). One step ahead: From Web 1.0 to web 2.0 technologies in higher education. Paper presented at the 4th International Scientific Conference: eLearning and Software for Education: eLSE, Bucharest. Romania: CAROLI, National Defence University Publishing House.
17. Farkas, M., (2012). Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy. Library Hi Tech,30 (1), 82-94.
18. Green, A. J., Tanford, S., & Swift, A. (2018). Determinants of Student Satisfaction with Using Instructional Technology: The Role of Active Learning. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 1-10.
19. Holmberg, B. (1977), Distance Education: A Survey and Bibliography, Kogan Page, London.
20. Jamornmann, U. (2004). Techniques for assessing students’e Learning achievement. International Journal of the Computer, the Internetand Management,12(2),26–31.
21. Jung, I., Wong, T. M., Li, C., Baigaltugs, S., & Belawati, T. (2011). Quality assurance in Asian distance education: Diverse approaches and common culture. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 63-83.
22. Keegan, D. (2013). Foundations of distance education. Routledge.
23. Kotsiantis, S., Tselios, N., & Xenos, M. (2017). Students' evaluation of tutors in distance education: a quasi-longitudinal study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 12(1), 26-41.
24. Lau, W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2010). Promoting conceptual change of learning sorting algorithm through the diagnosis of mental models: the effects of gender and learning styles. Computers & Education, 54(1), 275–288.
25. Lau, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2009). Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: implications for programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 696–712.
26. Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40–49.
27. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge Press.
28. Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance education, 29(3), 231-252.
29. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
30. O’Reilly, T (2005) What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-Web-20.HTML of Software.
31. Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing whats tudents know: the science and design of educational assessment. NationalAcademiesPress.
32. Du Plessis, E. C., Marais, P., Van Schalkwyk, A., & Weeks, F. (2010). Adapt or die: The views of Unisa student teachers on teaching practice at schools. Africa Education Review, 7(2), 323-341.
33. Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computer in Entertainment, 1(1), 21.
34. Reeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48-52.
35. Rogers-Estable, M. (2014). Web 2.0 use in higher education. European Journal of Open, Distance and eLearning,17(2):129-141.
36. Ross, J. L., Drysdale, M. T., & Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in two postsecondary computer application courses. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 400–412.
37. Seferoğlu, S. & Dağhan, G. (2011). Öğretim Materyallerinin Nitelikleri Anketi, https://spreadsheets0.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dHl5WFJQR1V6V EpLeENMdmpVd3Nza2c6MA
38. Sigala, M. (2002). The evolution of Internet Pedagogy: Benefits for tourism and hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education, Vol.1, No.2, p. 29 – 45.
39. Sigala, M. & Christou, E. (2003). Enhancing and complementing the instruction of tourism and hospitality courses through the use of on-line educational tools. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 15, 1, pp. 6 – 16.
40. Sönmez, Ö. F., Çavuş, H. & Merey, Z. (2009). Coğrafya öğretmenlerinin öğretim teknolojileri ve materyalleri kullanma düzeyleri. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları 213-228. Dergisi. 2
41. Stewart, B. L., Goodson, C. E., Miertschin, S. L., Norwood, M. L., & Ezell, S. (2013). Online student support services: A Case based on quality frameworks. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 290-303.
42. Uzoğlu, M., & Bozdoğan, A. E. (2015). Investigation of primary school students’ attitudes toward tablet computers according to different variables. Volume: 12 Issue: 1
43. Vergidis, D., Abrahamsson, Κ., Davis, R., & Fey, R. (1999). Adult Education: social and economic aspects, Greek Open University, Patras. Original Title: Δ. Βεργίδης, Κ. Abrahamsson, R. Davis, R. Fey, Εκπαίδευση Ενηλίκων: Κοινωνική και οικονομική λειτουργία, Ελληνικό Ανοιχτό Πανεπιστήμιο.
44. Yalman, M. (2013). EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN BİLGİSAYAR DESTEKLİ UZAKTAN EĞİTİM SİSTEMİ (MOODLE) MEMNUNİYET DÜZEYLERİ. Electronic Turkish Studies, 8(8).
45. Yalman, M., Basaran, B., & Gonen, S. (2017). Education Faculty Students’ Levels of Satisfaction with E-Learning Process. European Journal of Contemporary Education, (6-3), 604- 611.
46. Yanpar, T., Koray, Ö., Parmaksız, R. Ş., & Arslan, A. (2006). İlköğretim öğretmen adayları tarafından hazırlanan el yapımı ve teknoloji temelli materyallerin yaratıcılık boyutları açısından incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 12(1), 129- 148.
47. Y.S. Park, “An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, 2009, pp. 150-162.
48. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.