Uzaktan eğitim kalite standartları ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, uzaktan eğitimin kalite standartlarına uygunluğunu belirlemeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Araştırma, tarama modeli kapsamında yürütülmüş olup çalışma evrenini Kırklareli Üniversitesi ve Ordu Üniversitesi’nde öğrenim gören lisans öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde iki farklı örneklem kullanılmış; Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi 352, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ise 226 öğrenci üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Alanyazın taraması ve uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda oluşturulan 25 maddelik taslak ölçek pilot uygulama sonrası analiz edilmiştir. Yapı geçerliği için KMO ve Bartlett testleri uygulanmış, ardından temel bileşenler analizi ve Varimax döndürme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular dört faktörlü bir yapı ortaya koymuş ve bu yapı DFA ile doğrulanmıştır. Ölçek; sistem yeterliği, öğrenci merkezlilik, altyapı yeterliği ve etik yeterlik alt boyutlarından oluşmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, 21 maddelik ölçek uzaktan eğitim uygulamalarının kalite düzeyini değerlendirmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olup farklı öğretim kademelerinde kullanılabilir niteliktedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uzaktan Eğitim
• Kalite
• Kalite Standartları Ölçeği
• Geçerlik

Quality standards in distance education scale: a validity and reliability study

Öz

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement instrument to assess the extent to which distance education complies with quality standards. The study was conducted within a survey research design, with the study population consisting of undergraduate students enrolled at Kırklareli University and Ordu University. Two independent samples were employed during the scale development process: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted with 352 participants, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with 226 participants. A 25-item draft scale was generated based on an extensive literature review and expert opinions, and subsequently tested through a pilot study. For construct validity, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were applied, followed by principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. The findings revealed a four-factor structure, which was confirmed through CFA. The scale comprises four dimensions: system adequacy, student-centeredness, infrastructure adequacy, and ethical competence. As a result, the final 21-item scale was found to be a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the quality of distance education practices and can be utilized across different levels of education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Distance Education
• Quality
• Quality Standards Scale
• Validity

Kaynakça

1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(5), 863-875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
2. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
3. Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Athabasca University Press.
4. Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2021). Cultural impacts on e-learning systems’ success. Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106699
5. Arbaugh, J. B. (2014). System, scholar, or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.07.004
6. Aydın, C. H. (2011). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme: Öğrenci adayları ve öğretim elemanları için. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
7. Balcı, A. (2004). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma, yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
8. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 301-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09824-5

9. Bozkurt, A. (2019). From distance education to open and distance learning: A holistic evaluation of history, definitions, and theories. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty, 3(3), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.593003
10. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i-vi.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
12. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471548.
13. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Multivariate applications book series. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
14. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
16. Daniel, J., & Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (2013). A guide to quality in online learning. Commonwealth of Learning. https://www.col.org
17. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
18. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
20. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.
21. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
22. Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
24. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
25. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
26. Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080-1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004
27. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 215-239. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Jung, I. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: From the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9171-4
29. Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
30. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
31. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
32. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
33. Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009
34. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.
35. Nunnally, J.C. (1979). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
36. Online Learning Consortium [OLC]. (2019). OLC quality framework. Newburyport, MA: Online Learning Consortium.
37. Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi: Çok değişkenli analizler. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
38. Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education (Report). Institute for Higher Education Policy.
39. Quality Matters. (2018). Higher education rubric (6th ed.). Maryland: Quality Matters.
40. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the COVID-19 crisis. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923-945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
41. Selwyn, N. (2020). Online learning: Rethinking teachers’ roles in digital education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(4), 341-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1807921
42. Shelton, K. (2011). A review of paradigms for evaluating the quality of online education programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(1), 1-5. https://ojdla.com/archive/spring141/shelton141.pdf
43. Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
44. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
45. Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during COVID-19. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641
46. Yurdugül, H., & Alsancak Sırakaya, D. (2013). The scale of online learning readiness: A study of validity and reliability. Education and Science, 38(169), 391- 406.
47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2