Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşim üzerine bir bibliyometrik analiz çalışması

Yıl 2024, , 55 - 95, 31.07.2024

Enise Çınar , Gülsüm Orhan , Sedef Sezgin

https://doi.org/10.51948/auad.1509279

Öz

Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmenin hızla yaygınlaşması, etkileşim türlerinin ve bunların öğrenme çıktıları üzerindeki etkilerinin daha iyi anlaşılmasını gerektirmiştir. Bu çalışma Scopus veri tabanında 1988-2024 yılları arasında açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşim üzerine gerçekleştirilen makalelerin bibliyometrik analizini yapmayı hedeflemektedir. Araştırmanın amacını yerine getirebilmek için 1988-2024 yılları arasında yayınlanmış 602 makaleye ulaşılmıştır. Scopus veri tabanında bulunan 602 bilimsel makalenin bibliyometrik verileri VOSviewer 1.6.20 programı aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler Scopus, VOSviewer ve Microsoft Office Excel programları aracılığıyla görselleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre, 602 çalışma 75 farklı ülkeden araştırmacılar tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşim çalışmalarında öncü kurum Malezya Teknoloji Üniversitesi’dir. Computers and Education Dergisi 22 yayın ve 1453 atıfla ilk sırada yer almaktadır. Araştırmalarda yer alan anahtar sözcükler incelendiğinde covid-19, işbirlikli öğrenme, sosyal bulunurluk, memnuniyet, öğrenme toplulukları, öğrenme analitikleri ve öz-denetimli öğrenme kavramları ön plana çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Etkileşim, Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme, Bibliyometrik analiz, Eğilimler

A bibliometric analysis study on interaction in open and distance learning

Öz

The accelerating diffusion of open and distance learning has encouraged a better understanding of the types of interactions and their effects on learning outcomes. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the articles on interaction in open and distance learning between 1988 and 2024 in the Scopus database. In order to fulfill the aim of the study, 602 articles published between 1988 and 2024 were accessed. The bibliometric data of 602 scientific articles in the Scopus database were analyzed through the VOSviewer 1.6.20 program. The data obtained were visualized through Scopus, VOSviewer and Microsoft Office Excel programs. According to the findings of the study, 602 studies were accomplished by researchers from 75 different countries. The pioneering institution in interaction studies in open and distance learning is the Malaysian University of Technology. The Journal of Computers and Education is ranked first with 22 publications and 1453 citations. When the keywords in the articles are analyzed, the concepts of covid-19, collaborative learning, social presence, satisfaction, learning communities, learning analytics and self-regulated learning have come to the forefront.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Interaction, Open and Distance Learning, Bibliometric Analysis, Trends

Kaynakça

• Abubakar, Y. A. (2022). The Effects Of Quality, Interaction, Motivation, And User-Characteristics On Students’ Satisfaction And Learning In An Open And Distance Learning Environment (Doctoral dissertation). https://erepo.usm.my/entities/publication/a4c043f7-6afa-489b-aa90-9dc911092e1d/full
• Aitokhuehi, O. (2022). How well are student teachers prepared for e-learning and teaching? a case study from the university of lagos. Teacher Education through Flexible Learning in Africa (TETFLE) , 3(1). https://doi.org/10.35293/tetfle.v3i1.4123
• Al Mamun, M. A. & Lawrie, G. (2023). Student-content interactions: Exploring behavioral engagement with self-regulated inquiry-based online learning modules. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00221-x
• Alismaiel, O., Cifuentes‐Faura, J., & Al-Rahmi, W. (2022). Online learning, mobile learning, and social media technologies: an empirical study on constructivism theory during the covid-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 14(18), 11134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811134
• Anderson, T. (2003a). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
• Anderson, T. (2003b). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. M. G. Moore ve W. G. Anderson (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education, 1, 129–144.
• Anderson, T. (2006). Interaction in learning and teaching on the educational semantic web. C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (s. 141–155) içinde. Routledge.
• Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
• Artsın, M. (2020). Bir metin madenciliği uygulaması: VOSviewer. Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknoloji Dergisi B - Teorik Bilimler, 8(2), 344–354. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/estubtdb/issue/56628/644637
• Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
• Bozkurt, A. (2015). Sosyal ağlar ve yaşamboyu öğrenme deneyimi. Akademik Bilişim 2015, (s. 113–118). 4-6 Şubat 2015, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335723613_Sosyal_aglar_ve_yasamboyu_ogrenme_deneyimi adresinden 19 Mayıs 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır. Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik değerlendirmeler: Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması. AUAd, 6(3), 112–142.
• Bozkurt, A. (2022). A retro perspective on blended/hybrid learning: systematic review, mapping and visualization of the scholarly landscape. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.751
• Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279.
• Debourgh, G. A. (2003). Predictors of student satisfaction in distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: what matters most? J. Prof. Nurs. 19, 149–163. DOI: 10.1016/S8755-7223(03)00072-3
• Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2013). Socio-emotional connections: identity, belonging and learning in online interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 243–265. https://doi-org.offcampus.anadolu.edu.tr/10.1080/1475939X.2013.813405
• Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2).
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
• Elizondo-Garcia, J., & Gallardo, K. (2020). Peer feedback in learner-learner interaction practices: Mixed methods study on an xMOOC. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(2), 122–135.
• Fırat, M. ve Kabakçı Yurdakul, I. (2015). Eğitsel web arayüz tasarımında metaforlar: EMMA adımları. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 8(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.17671/btd.57664
• Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2). http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_fredericksen.asp
• Fuller, R. G., Kuhne, G. W. ve Frey, B. A. (2011). Distinctive distance education design: models for differentiated instruction. Information Science Reference.
• Garrison, D. R. ve Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. RoutledgeFalmer.
• Gosmire D., Morrison, M., & Van Osdel, J. (2009). Perceptions of interactions in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 609–617
• Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
• Hettiarachchi, S., Damayanthi, B., Heenkenda, S., Dissanayake, D., Ranagalage, M., & Ananda, L. (2021). Student satisfaction with online learning during the covid-19 pandemic: a study at state universities in Sri Lanka. Sustainability, 13(21), 11749. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111749
• Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (114–122). Croom Helm.
• Japanese Science and Technology Indicators (2023). NISTEP Research Material, 328, 1-20, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.15108/rm328e
• Jiang, H., Islam, A. Y. M., Gu, X., & Spector, J. M. (2021). Online learning satisfaction in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A regional comparison between Eastern and Western Chinese universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6747–6769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10519-x
• Jiang, Y. J., Bai, X. M., Wu, W. C., and Luo, X. J. (2019). Analysis of the structural relationship of influencing factors of the online learning experience. Mod. Distance Educ. 1, 27–36. DOI: 10.13927/j.cnki.yuan.2019.0004
• Joksimovíc, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12107
• Jonassen, D.H. & Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face to face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. 49(1), 35–51.
• Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290252934603
• Kara, İ. ve Altındağ, T. (2022). Covid-19 pandemisiyle yaygınlaşan açık ve uzaktan öğrenme alanı bir disiplin mi?. Oğuz Emre Balkar (Ed.), Covid-19 Pandemisi Sürecinde Türkiye: Eğitim ve Finans Alanlarında İncelemeler (s. 53-67) içinde. Çizgi Kitabevi Yayınları.
• Kellogg, D. L. & Smith, M. A. (2009). Student‐to‐student interaction revisited: A case study of working adult business students in online courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(2), 433–456.
• Keskin, M. ve Özer Kaya, D. (2020). COVID-19 sürecinde öğrencilerin web tabanlı uzaktan eğitime yönelik geri bildirimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 59–67.
• Kumtepe, A.T., Büyük, K., Güneş, İ., Öztürk, A., Tuna, G., Gümüş, S., ve Atak, N. (2017). Kitlesel uzaktan eğitimde öğrenen-içerik etkileşimi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemi örneği. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 9–36.
• Kumtepe, E. G., Toprak, E., Öztürk, A., Büyükköse, G. T., Kılınç, H., & Menderis, İ. A. (2019). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede destek hizmetleri: Yerelden küresele bir model önerisi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 41–80.
• Kurucay, M. ve Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education. 115 (20–37). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010
• Lin, C. H., Zheng, B., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48, 730–748. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12457
• Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning Journal, 26(1), 325–359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of Transactional Distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (22–29). Routledge.
• Mu, S., & Wang, X. J. (2019). Research on deep learning strategies in online learning. Distance Educ. China 10, 29–39.
• Offir, B., Barth, I., Lev, J. ve Shteinbok, A. (2005) Can interaction content analysis research contribute to distance learning? Educational Media International, 42(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980500060324
• O’Keefe, L., Rafferty, J., Gunder, A., & Vignare, K. (2020). Delivering high-quality instruction online in response to COVID-19: Faculty playbook. Every Learner Everywhere. http://olc-wordpress-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/05/Faculty-Playbook_Final-1.pdf
• Özsari, G. ve Aydin, C. H. (2024) Interaction preferences of distance learners in Turkey. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 39(3), 258–279, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2021.1981279
• Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
• Reece, J. M. (2024). Faculty and student perceptions about online interactions: Do faculty and student perceptions differ? https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/faculty-student-perceptions-about-online/docview/3050004693/se-2
• Safsouf, Y., Mansouri, K., & Poirier, F. (2020). An analysis to understand the online learners’ success in public higher education in morocco. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 19, 087–112. https://doi.org/10.28945/4518
• Santoso, H. B., Riyanti, R. D., Prastati, T., FA. Triatmoko, H. S., Susanty, A., & Yang, M. (2022). Learners’ online self-regulated learning skills in Indonesia Open University: implications for policies and practice. Education Sciences, 12(7), 469. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070469
• Su Tonga, E. ve Şahin, S. (2023). Interaction in distance education: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies . e -Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 10, 52–75.
• Sun, H. L., Sun, T., Sha, F. Y., Gu, X. Y., Hou, X. R., Zhu, F. Y., & Fang, P. T. (2022) The Influence of Teacher–Student Interaction on the Effects of Online Learning: Based on a Serial Mediating Model. Front. Psychol. 13:779217. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.779217
• Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49.
• Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (13–45). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
• Şahin, M. D., Kılınc, H., ve Altınpulluk, H. (2020). An Analysis of The Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Social Presence Scale Developed for Open and Distance Learning Environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(Special Issue-IODL), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.770937
• Telli Yamamoto, G. ve Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrimiçi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.711110
• Thurmond, V. A. & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9–26.
• Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a Web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169–189.
• Tosun, N. & Özgür, H. (2009, 7-9 Ekim). E-öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci-içerik etkileşimi. 3th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium içinde (s. 327–331). Trabzon, Türkiye.
• van der Stap, N., van den Bogaart, T., Rahimi, E., & Versendaal, J. (2024). Fostering online interaction in blended learning through social presence and convergence: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12981
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://akjournals.com/view/journals/11192/84/2/article-p523.xml
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks In Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., & Wolfram, D. (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285–320). Springer. https://link-springer-com.offcampus.anadolu.edu.tr/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
• Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65(4), 605–632.
• Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The efect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-33.
• Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, S. M. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.
• Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526852
• Wang, X. (2023). Multimedia teaching mode in colleges and universities based on psychology-based human-computer interaction interface design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2189817
• Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123–135, https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982
• Ye, Z. & Pang, L.J. (2021). The nature and characteristics of teacher-student interaction. Educational Research. 4, 30–34.
• Yılmaz, E. O., & Aktuğ, S. (Şubat, 2011). Uzaktan eğitimde çevrimiçi ders veren öğretim elemanlarının uzaktan eğitimde etkileşim ve iletişim üzerine görüşleri. Paper presented at the XIII. Academic Informatics Conference, 501–512.
• Zancanaro, A., Todesco, J. L., & Ramos, F. (2015). A bibliometric mapping of open educational resources. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1960
• Zha, S. & Adams, A. H. (2015). Designing a nonformal open online learning program that encourages participant-to-content interaction. B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, M. W. Tracey vd. (Ed.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (s. 127–137) içinde. Springer International.
• Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004
• Zheng, B., Ganotice, F., Lin, C., & Tipoe, G. (2023). From self-regulation to co-regulation: refining learning presence in a community of inquiry in interprofessional education. Medical Education Online, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2217549
• Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302