Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Farklı Kültürlerden Öğrenenler İçin Uzaktan Ders Tasarım İlkelerinin Belirlenmesi ve Öğrenen Görüşleri

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 32, 123 - 148, 01.04.2018
https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2018.2.008.x

Öz

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı farklı kültürlerden öğrenenlerin yer aldığı çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında kültürel farklılıkları dikkate alan ders tasarım ilkelerini belirlemek ve Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemi Azerbaycan programlarına devam eden açık ve uzaktan öğrenenlerin e-Öğrenme ortamına portala ilişkin görüş ve önerilerini tespit etmektir. Bu doğrultuda, kapsamlı bir alanyazın taraması ile elde edilen bilgiler ve Badrul Khan’ın 2005 e-Öğrenme Çerçevesi adı altında sunduğu kontrol listesinin çalışma amaçları doğrultusunda ilgili bölümleri araştırma sorusuna uyarlanarak, 6 demografik, 2 kullanım sıklığını ölçen, toplam 24 maddelik 3’lü Likert yapıda bir ölçek geliştirilmiştir. Hazırlanan ölçeğin görünüş ve kapsam geçerliliği sağlanmış ve 2014-2015 eğitim-öğretim yılı Anadolu Üniversitesi Azerbaycan Programlarına kayıtlı ve Azerbaycan Açıköğretim bürosuna kayıt ve akademik danışmanlık için gelen ve gönüllü olarak ölçeği yanıtlayan 305 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Yapılan analizler, Azerbaycanlı öğrenenlerin ders materyallerini kullanma tercih ve sıklığının, akademik etkinliklerle, programla ilgili idari konuların çözümünde tercih ettikleri iletişim yöntemlerinin kültürel farklılıklardan kaynaklandığını göstermiştir. Bunun yanı sıra e-Öğrenme ortamlarını kullanma durumu ve sıklığının, çalışmada ele alınan bazı kültürel unsurlara göre farklılık oluşturduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, katılımcılar tarafından, e-Öğrenme portalını kullanıp kullanmama gerekçeleri ile ilgili veriler elde edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarının ve geliştirilen ölçeğin farklı kültürlerden öğrenenlerin yer aldığı çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında etkili ve verimli öğrenmelerin sağlanması için, kültürel faktörleri dikkate alan ders tasarım ilkelerinin belirlenmesine katkı sağlaması öngörülmektedir. Ayrıca bu çalışma ile elde edilen sonuçların uluslararası uzaktan eğitim program, ders ve öğrenci destek hizmetleri tasarımına, MOOCs Kitlesel Açık Çevrimiçi Dersler-KAÇED gibi farklı kültürden öğrenenlerin yer aldığı çevrimiçi ortam tasarımına ve uluslararası açılım yapan veya yapmayı düşünen kurum ve üniversitelerin karar süreçlerine katkı sağlayacağı değerlendirilmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Abu-Taieh, E. (2014). Gender digital divide and social media (Facebook): Female using social media and the effect of literacy rate and gdp (ppp) and country location. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 3(6), 132-147.
  • Allen, B. A. ve Boykin, A. W. (1992). African-American children and the educational process: Alleviating cultural discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy. School Psychology Review, 21(4).
  • Aydın, C. H. ve McIsaac, M. S. (2004). The impact of instructional technology in Turkey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 105-112.
  • Babbie, E. (2008). The basics of social research. (4. baskı). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
  • Carifio, J. ve Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (3), 106-116.
  • Gavrila, M-G. ve Brandt, D. (2013). The impact of cultural distance on the success and stability of international cooperation forms: Student organizations. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(8), 89-94. Doi: 10.3182/20130606-3-XK-4037.00023
  • Goodfellow, R. ve Lamy, M. N. (2009). Introduction: A frame for the discussion of learning cultures. R. Goodfellow ve M. N. Lamy (Eds.), Learning cultures in online education içinde (s. 1-14). London: Continuum Books.
  • Gudykunst, W. B. ve Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. W. B. Gudykunst ve B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2. basım) içinde (s. 25-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gunawardena, C. N., Wilson, P. L. ve Nolla, A. C. (2003). Culture and online education. M. Moore ve B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education içinde (s. 753-775). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gunawardena, C. N. ve Zittle, F. J. (2009). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. Doi: 10.1080/08923649709526970
  • Gunawardena, C. N. (2014). Globalization, culture, and online distance learning. O. Zawacki-Richter ve T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education towards a research agenda içinde (s. 75-109). Edmonton: AU Press.
  • Gürsoy, H. (2005). A critical look at distance education in Turkey. A. A. Carr-Chellman (Ed.), Global perspectives on e-Learning: Rhetoric and reality içinde (s. 115-126). USA: Sage Publications.
  • Güvenç, B. (2002). Kültürün ABC’si. (2. baskı). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Güvenç, B. (2010). İnsan ve kültür. İstanbul: Boyut Yayıncılık.
  • Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. NY: Anchor Press.
  • Hall, E. T. (1990). The silent language. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1), 46-74. Doi: 10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358
  • Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J. ve Minkov M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. (3. baskı). New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Hofstede, G. (2014, Aralık 08). National Cultural Dimensions. [Web sayfası].
  • http://geerthofstede.nl/dimensions-of-national-cultures
  • Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaasa, A. (Ocak 2013). Culture as a possible factor of innovation: Evidence from the European Union and neighbouring countries.
  • Kartal, G., Toprak, E. ve Genç Kumtepe, E. (2015). Course design for culturally diverse learners. Pixel (Ed.), 5th International The Future of Education Conference Proceeding içinde (s. 44-48). Italy: Libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni.
  • Khan, B. (2005). Managing e-Learning strategies: Design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.
  • Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76-88.
  • Moore, M. G. (1980). Independent study. R. Boyd ve J. Apps (Eds.) , Redefining the discipline of adult education içinde (s. 16-31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education içinde (s. 22-38). New York: Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G. ve Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education a systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.
  • Moore, M. G., Shattuck, K. ve Al-Harthi, A. (2005). Cultures meeting cultures in online distance education. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledges Society, 1(2). Doi: 10.20368/1971-8829/670
  • Morgan, C. K. ve Tam, M. (1999). Unravelling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96-108. Doi: 10.1080/0158791990200108
  • Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93.
  • Tu, C. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45-60. Doi:10.1080/09523980010021235
  • Tylor, E. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom. London: J. Murray.
  • Wilson, M. S. (2001). Cultural considerations in online instruction and learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 52-64. Doi: 10.1080/0158791010220104

Culturally Sensitive Instructional Design for Distance Learners and Experiences

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 32, 123 - 148, 01.04.2018
https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2018.2.008.x

Öz

The basic aim of this research is to determine culturally sensitive course design principles in online learning environments for culturally diverse learners and to examine the opinions of distance learners studying at Anadolu University Open Education System Azerbaijan programs about the e-learning environment portal . Accordingly, based on detailed literature review and Badrul Khan’s 2005 check-list named as “e-learning Framework” a 3 point Likert type scale consisting of 24 items with six demographic and two frequency type questions was developed. The face and content validity of the questionnaire were confirmed and it was voluntarily responded by 305 students registered to Anadolu University Azerbaijani Programs who visited the student bureau for registration and academic consultancy during 2014-2015 academic year. According to the findings, cultural diversity affect the preferences and frequencies of the use of course materials, preferred communication ways throughout the academic activities and the settlement of administrative issues. Besides, the findings indicate the significant differences related with some cultural dimensions. Additionally, the data on reasons for use and non-use of the portal were obtained from the participants. The results shall contribute to better determining culturally sensitive course design principles in online learning environments for efficient and meaningful learning. The results obtained from this study will contribute to developing international programs, courses, student support services, and culturally diverse learning environments such as MOOCs Massive Open Online Courses , decision-making processes of institutions and universities that aim internationalization.

Kaynakça

  • Abu-Taieh, E. (2014). Gender digital divide and social media (Facebook): Female using social media and the effect of literacy rate and gdp (ppp) and country location. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 3(6), 132-147.
  • Allen, B. A. ve Boykin, A. W. (1992). African-American children and the educational process: Alleviating cultural discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy. School Psychology Review, 21(4).
  • Aydın, C. H. ve McIsaac, M. S. (2004). The impact of instructional technology in Turkey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 105-112.
  • Babbie, E. (2008). The basics of social research. (4. baskı). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
  • Carifio, J. ve Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (3), 106-116.
  • Gavrila, M-G. ve Brandt, D. (2013). The impact of cultural distance on the success and stability of international cooperation forms: Student organizations. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(8), 89-94. Doi: 10.3182/20130606-3-XK-4037.00023
  • Goodfellow, R. ve Lamy, M. N. (2009). Introduction: A frame for the discussion of learning cultures. R. Goodfellow ve M. N. Lamy (Eds.), Learning cultures in online education içinde (s. 1-14). London: Continuum Books.
  • Gudykunst, W. B. ve Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. W. B. Gudykunst ve B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2. basım) içinde (s. 25-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gunawardena, C. N., Wilson, P. L. ve Nolla, A. C. (2003). Culture and online education. M. Moore ve B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education içinde (s. 753-775). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Gunawardena, C. N. ve Zittle, F. J. (2009). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. Doi: 10.1080/08923649709526970
  • Gunawardena, C. N. (2014). Globalization, culture, and online distance learning. O. Zawacki-Richter ve T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education towards a research agenda içinde (s. 75-109). Edmonton: AU Press.
  • Gürsoy, H. (2005). A critical look at distance education in Turkey. A. A. Carr-Chellman (Ed.), Global perspectives on e-Learning: Rhetoric and reality içinde (s. 115-126). USA: Sage Publications.
  • Güvenç, B. (2002). Kültürün ABC’si. (2. baskı). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  • Güvenç, B. (2010). İnsan ve kültür. İstanbul: Boyut Yayıncılık.
  • Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. NY: Anchor Press.
  • Hall, E. T. (1990). The silent language. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1), 46-74. Doi: 10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358
  • Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J. ve Minkov M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. (3. baskı). New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Hofstede, G. (2014, Aralık 08). National Cultural Dimensions. [Web sayfası].
  • http://geerthofstede.nl/dimensions-of-national-cultures
  • Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaasa, A. (Ocak 2013). Culture as a possible factor of innovation: Evidence from the European Union and neighbouring countries.
  • Kartal, G., Toprak, E. ve Genç Kumtepe, E. (2015). Course design for culturally diverse learners. Pixel (Ed.), 5th International The Future of Education Conference Proceeding içinde (s. 44-48). Italy: Libreriauniversitaria.it Edizioni.
  • Khan, B. (2005). Managing e-Learning strategies: Design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub.
  • Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76-88.
  • Moore, M. G. (1980). Independent study. R. Boyd ve J. Apps (Eds.) , Redefining the discipline of adult education içinde (s. 16-31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education içinde (s. 22-38). New York: Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G. ve Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education a systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.
  • Moore, M. G., Shattuck, K. ve Al-Harthi, A. (2005). Cultures meeting cultures in online distance education. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledges Society, 1(2). Doi: 10.20368/1971-8829/670
  • Morgan, C. K. ve Tam, M. (1999). Unravelling the complexities of distance education student attrition. Distance Education, 20(1), 96-108. Doi: 10.1080/0158791990200108
  • Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93.
  • Tu, C. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45-60. Doi:10.1080/09523980010021235
  • Tylor, E. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom. London: J. Murray.
  • Wilson, M. S. (2001). Cultural considerations in online instruction and learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 52-64. Doi: 10.1080/0158791010220104
Toplam 34 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Gülten Kartal Bu kişi benim

Elif Toprak Bu kişi benim

Evrim Genç Kumtepe Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Nisan 2018
Gönderilme Tarihi 1 Nisan 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 32

Kaynak Göster

APA Kartal, G., Toprak, E., & Genç Kumtepe, E. (2018). Farklı Kültürlerden Öğrenenler İçin Uzaktan Ders Tasarım İlkelerinin Belirlenmesi ve Öğrenen Görüşleri. AJIT-E: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 9(32), 123-148. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2018.2.008.x