UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ APPROACHES TO VIRTUAL EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Öz

The number of university students taking virtual training, one of the common methods of virtual mobility, is increasing day by day. In this study, it is aimed to evaluate the virtual training activity and to identify the preferred areas, the tools used, and the advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning. The study also compared the preferences of Public Relations and Advertising and Information and Document Management students with the preferences of students studying in other disciplines in order to identify similarities and differences between disciplines. In this quantitative study, an online questionnaire was applied to 173 university students who constituted the sample of this research and the data were analyzed with the SPSS program. According to the findings of the study, the most important advantages of the virtual training are that it allows repeated viewing and that it is independent of time and space. The most important disadvantages of the virtual training are "negative effects on socialization and technical problems encountered during the process". In addition, within the scope of the study, important findings were obtained regarding the relationship between the time allocated to virtual education and the virtual education area. At this point, Public Relations and Advertising students allocate more time to virtual trainings compared to the students of other departments, while Information and Document Management students allocate a similar amount of time compared to other departments. The findings suggest that addressing the shortcomings in the virtual environment is a necessity for conducting the virtual education process to its maximum benefit. Moreover, enhancing the technological competency and skills of both educators and learners during the virtual education process emerges as another crucial aspect that requires attention.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Virtual Mobility
• Virtual Training
• Virtual Learning
• Public Relations
• Advertising

ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN SANAL EĞİTİME YÖNELİK YAKLAŞIMLARI: KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Sanal hareketliliğin yaygın yöntemlerinden biri olan sanal eğitimler alan üniversite öğrencilerinin sayısı günden güne artmaktadır. Bu araştırmada, sanal eğitim etkinliğini değerlendirmek; tercih edilen alanlar, kullanılan araçlar ve sanal öğrenmenin avantaj ve dezavantajlarını tespit etmek amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada, disiplinlerarası benzerlikler ve farklılıkları tespit etmek adına Halkla İlişkiler ve Reklamcılık ve Bilgi-Belge Yönetimi öğrencilerinin yönelimleri ile diğer disiplinlerde eğitim alan öğrencilerin tercihleri de karşılaştırılmıştır. Nicel bir çalışma örneği olan bu araştırmanın örneklemini oluşturan 173 üniversite öğrencisine çevrim içi anket uygulanmış ve veriler SPSS programıyla analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre, sanal eğitimin tekrar tekrar izlemeye olanak sağlaması, zamandan ve mekândan bağımsız olması en önemli avantajları olarak gösterilmektedir. Sanal eğitimlerin en önemli dezavantajları “sosyalleşmeyi olumsuz etkilemesi ve süreç içerisinde karşılaşılan teknik sorunlar” şeklinde ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca, çalışma kapsamında sanal eğitime ayrılan zaman ve sanal eğitim alanı arasındaki ilişkiye yönelik de önemli bulgular elde edilmiştir. Bu noktada Halkla İlişkiler ve Reklamcılık öğrencileri eğitimlere diğer bölüm öğrencilerine kıyasla daha fazla zaman ayırmaktayken Bilgi-Belge Yönetimi öğrencileri diğer bölümlerle benzer oranda zaman ayırmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular sonucunda, sanal eğitim sürecinin maksimum fayda ile gerçekleştirilebilmesi için sanal ortamdaki olumsuzlukların giderilmesi bir gereklilik olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Diğer yandan sanal eğitim sürecinde öğreten ve öğrenen kişilerin teknolojik yeterlik ve yetkinliklerinin geliştirilmesi de dikkat edilmesi gereken bir diğer husus olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sanal Hareketlilik
• Sanal Eğitim
• Sanal Öğrenme
• Halkla İlişkiler
• Reklamcılık
• Bilgi-Belge Yönetimi

Kaynakça

1. Abdullayev, A. A. (2020). System of information and communication technologies in the education. Science and world International Scientific Journal, 2 (2020), 19-21.
2. Albayrak, İ. (2017). Uzaktan eğitim sistemi, uzaktan eğitim sisteminde sanal sınıf ortamı ve sanal sınıf ortamında sınıf yönetimi. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
3. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracing online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group LLC.
4. Aly (2003). Instructional Design and Online Instruction: Practices and Perception. TechTrends, 47(5). 42-45. Aslan, A. ve Atıcı, B. (2016). Öğrenme stillerine uygun sanal öğrenme çevrelerinin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 359-373.
5. Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight - The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy, 9(1), 5-25.
6. Bowman, D. A., Hodges, L. F., Allison, D., & Wineman, J. (1998). The educational value of an information rich virtual environment, GVU Technical Report; GIT-GVU-98-05, Georgia Institute of Technology.
7. Carmichael, P., & Jordan, K. (2012). Semantic web technologies for education – time for a ‘turn to practice’?. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 21(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.696788
8. Casa Nova, D.; Costa, N., Leal, R., & Oliveira, D. (2011). Curriculum development in virtual mobility educational contexts. Virtual Mobility for Teachers and Students in Higher Education (s. 35-42) içinde. Vytauto Didžiojo Universitetas.

9. CDW-G (2012, March 16). Virtual Learning in Higher Education. https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/sites/default/files/108533-wp-hied-virtual-learn-df.pdf
10. Cellini, S. R. (2021, August 13). How does virtual learning impact students in higher education? https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/08/13/how-does-virtual-learning-impact-students-in-higher-education/
11. Chou, C. (1998). The effectiveness of using multimedia computer simulations coupled with social constructivist pedagogy in a college introductory physics classroom. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.
12. Connolly, T., & Stansfield, M. (2009). Institutional transformation through best practices in virtual campus development: Advancing e-learning policies. IGI Global.
13. Coursera.org (2023, Temmuz). [Course list]. https://www.coursera.org/courses?query=free
14. Creelman, A., & Löwe, C. (2019). Mainstreaming virtual mobility – helping teachers to get onboard. A. Turula, M.
15. Kurek & T. Lewis (Eds), Telecollaboration and virtual exchange across disciplines: In service of social inclusion and global citizenship (s. 15-22) içinde. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.35.935
16. Cueva, A., & Inga, E. (2022). Information and Communication Technologies for Education Considering the Flipped Learning. Model. MDPI Education Sciences, 12(207), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030207
17. Çoban, M., & Göksu, İ. (2022). Using virtual reality learning environments to motivate and socialize undergraduates in distance learning. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 9(2), 199-218.
18. Dalgarno, B., Hedberg, J., & Harper, B. (2002). The contribution of 3D environments to conceptual understanding. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education, Auckland, New Zealand. http://www.ascilite. org.au/conferences/ auckland02/proceedings/papers/051.pdf
19. Damme, D. Van (2001). Quality issues in the internationlisation of higher education. Higher Education, 41, 415-441.
20. Daukšienė, E., Mačianskienė, N., & Volungevičienė, A. (2012). Preparedness of European educational institutions for virtual mobility implementation. Profesinis Rengimas: Tyrimai Ir Realijos, 2012(23), 170–182.
21. Davidson, J. W. (2005). The necessary components of a staff development program to prepare teachers to teach secondary online courses: A Delphi study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
22. Eradze, M., Dipace, A., & Limone, P. (2020). Hybrid flexible learning with MOOCs: A proposal to reconceptualize the COVID19 emergency beyond the crisis. 2020 IEEE Learning With MOOCS (LWMOOCS), Learning with MOOCS (LWMOOCS), 2020 IEEE, 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOOCS50143.2020.9234358
23. European Commission (2023, April 4.). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-programme-guide
24. Eryılmaz, M. (2019). Sanal öğrenme ortamlarındaki öğrenci davranışlarının kümeleme yöntemi ile analiz edilmesi. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 725–743.
25. Ferreira, R. M, Fuente, A. J., & Pérez, R.P. (2017). UbiCamp: Results of a pilot interchange of virtual mobility. Journal of Yasar University, 12 (Special Issue), 26-41.
26. Ferry, B., Kervin, L., Turbill, J., Cambourne, B., Hedberg, J., Jonassen, D., & Puglisi, S. (2004). The design of an online classroom simulation to enhance the decision making skills of beginning teachers, http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/fer04656.pdf
27. Güven, U., Karaçam, S. ve Sezer, B. B. (2022). Uzaktan eğitimde derse devamı etkileyen faktörler. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi,12(4), 1962-1977. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1065288
28. Haywood, J. (2007, December 27). Enhancing student mobility in a digital world. https://thinking.is.ed.ac.uk/jeffhaywood/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/12/SUMIT-chapter.pdf
29. Henderikx, P., & Ubachs, G. (2019, May 9). Innovative models for collaboration and student mobility in Europe. https://eadtu.eu/documents/Innovative_Models_for_Collaboration_and_Student_Mobility_in_Europe.pdf
30. Hendricks, S., & Bailey, S. (2016). Preparing educators for online learning : A careful look at the components and how to assess their value. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
31. Hocaoğlu, B. ve Gürsoy, S. (2020). Covid-19 ve AB Erasmus+ Programı’na bakış: Kırklareli Üniversitesi örneği. Journal of Social Sciences, 2020 Special Issue, 728-751
32. Iucu, R., Ciolan, L., Nedelcu, A., Zus, A., Dumitrache, A., Cartış, A., Vennarini, L., Pinedo, N. F., & Pericica, A. (2022, February 8). Digital enhanced mobility CIVIS handbook on virtual mobility. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6090251
33. Jevsikova, T., Stupurienė, G., Stumbrienė, D., Juškevičienė, A., & Dagienė, V. (2021). Acceptance of distance learning technologies by teachers: Determining factors and emergency state influence. Informatica, 32(3), 517–542. https://doi.org/10.15388/21-INFOR459
34. Karaman, G. E. (2019). Uzaktan eğitimde ders materyallerinin üretimi. E. Avcı ve A. Bilgiç (Ed.). Uzaktan Eğitim Çalıştayı , 19-20 Haziran 2019, Bildiri Kitabı (s. 79-89) içinde. Jandarma ve Sahil Güvenlik Akademisi.
35. Karasar, Ş. (1999). Sanal yüksekeğitim: yeni iletişim teknolojilerinden internet kullanımı. [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
36. Koris, R., Mato-Díaz, F. J., & Hernández-Nanclares, N. (2021). From real to virtual mobility: Erasmus students’ transition to online learning amid the COVID-19 crisis. European Educational Research Journal, 20(4), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211021247
37. Kurt, S. (2018, May 18). Fully and partially online courses: Definitions. https://educationaltechnology.net/fully-and-partially-online-courses-definitions/
38. Lytvynov, A., Topolnyk, Y., Chumak, L., Prykhodkına, N., Antonıuk, L., & Kramska, S. (2022). E-Learning technologies for future teachers: Introduction of educational innovations in higher school Practice. BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence & Neuroscience, 13(2), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.18662/brain/13.1Sup1/327
39. Maček, A., & Ritonija, N. (2016, November 25). Virtual mobility in higher education – The Case of DOBA Faculty. Studies from Education and Society. http://irisro.org/edusoc2016nov/26MacekAnita.pdf
40. Maher, D. (2014). Online learning in primary schools. J.C. Richardson, C. S. York, & P. R. Lowenthal (Eds.). Online learning : Common misconceptions and benefits and challenges (s. 125-135) içinde. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
41. Malmivuo, J. & Kybartaite, A. (2014). Innovative teaching practice and assessment with technology in International Biomedical Engineering Education. Firoz Alam (Ed.). Using Technology Tools to Innovate Assessment, Reporting, and Teaching Practices in Engineering Education (s.132-148) içinde. IGI Global.
42. Maloney-Krichmar, D. ve Abras, C. (2003). History of emergence of online communities. K. Christensen & D. Levinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of community: From village to virtual world (s.4) içinde. Sage Publication.
43. Noesgaard, S. S., & Ørngreen, R. (2015). The effectiveness of e-learning: An explorative and integrative review of the definitions, methodologies and factors that promote e-learning effectiveness. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(4), 278–290.
44. Okoye, K., Hussein, H., Arrona-Palacios, A., Quintero, H. N., Ortega, L. O. P., Sanchez, A. L., Ortiz, E. A., Escamilla, J., &
45. Hosseini, S. (2022). Impact of digital technologies upon teaching and learning in higher education in Latin America: An outlook on the reach, barriers, and bottlenecks. Education and Information Technologies: The Official Journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education, (s. 1–70) içinde. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11214-1
46. Otto, D. (2018). The challenge of virtual mobility: pedagogical models and good practices. A. López Martínez, I.Candel Torres, & L. Gómez Chova (Eds.), INTED2018 Conference Proceedings (s. 3368-3376) içinde. IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.065
47. Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: College presi- dents, public differ on value of online learning. Pew Research Center.
48. Pawlowski, J., Holtkamp, P., & Kalb, H (2015, October 30). Globalization competencies in information systems and e-Learning. https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/51147/iiholtkampsec.pdf
49. Poce, A. (2020). A massive open online course designed to support the development of virtual mobility transversal skills: Preliminary evaluation results from european participants. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 21, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2020-021-poce
50. Poce, A. , Re, M. R. and Amenduni, F. (2018). Virtual and mobility activities to promote dual learning approach in higher education: the euroduale project experience. Towards Personalized Guidance and Support for Learning Proceedings of the 10th European Distance and E-Learning Network Research Workshop, Barcelona (s. 60-69) içinde. http://www.eden-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/RW10_2018_Barcelona_Proceedings_ISSN.pdf
51. Poulová, P., Černá, M., & Svobodová, L. (2009). University Network – efficiency of virtual mobility. Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on educational technologies (EDUTE’ 09) (s. 87-92) içinde. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=5ecd559c48c277c6674d53f88e98d2b16aed5ce2
52. Pursuea, M., Warsta, M., & Laaksonen, I. (2005). Virtual university: A vehicle for development, cooperation and internationalisation in teaching and learning. European Journal of Engineering Educations, 30 (4), 439-446.
53. Rajagopal, K., Firssova, O., de Beeck, I. O., Van der Stappen, E., Stoyanov, S., Henderikx, P., & Buchem, I. (2020). Learner skills in open virtual mobility. Research in Learning Technology, 28, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2254.
54. Regan, A. (2022, November 3). Virtual mobility: a first step to creating global graduates. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/virtual-mobility-first-step-creating-global-graduates
55. Roussou, M. (2004a). Examining young learners' activity within interactive virtual environments: Exploratory studies. Technical Report No. RN/04/08. University College London.
56. Roussou, M. (2004b). Examining young learners’ activity within interactive virtual environments. Proceedings 3rd International Conference for Interaction Design & Children (s. 167-168) içinde. ACM Digital Library.
57. Roussou, M., Oliver, M., & Slater, M. (2006). The Virtual playground: An educational virtual reality environment for evaluating interactivity and conceptual learning, Virtual Reality, 10(3-4), 227- 240.
58. Rutkauskiene, D., & Gudoniene, D. (2015). Methods and technologies for JCT workers virtual mobilty. Vladimir L. Uskov, Robert J. Howlett, & Lakhmi C. Jain (Eds.). Smart Education and Smart e-Learning (s. 459-469) içinde. Springer.
59. Sarac, Y. (2021, March 3). The impact of online education during COVID-19 pandemic in Turkish higher education. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/analysis-the-impact-of-online-education-during-covid-19-pandemic-in-turkish-higher-education/2163525# Selvarian, M. E. M. (2004). Being there in the VLE: A pan-pedagogical model for enhanced learning through perceptual states of presence [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Temple University.
60. Sevilla-Pavón, A., & Haba Osca, J. (2017, January 2). Learning from real life and not books: A gamified approach to Business English task design in transatlantic telecollaboration. Ibérica, 33 (2017), 235–260. https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/165
61. Shahedifar, N. (2019, April ). Adoption of virtual mobility in Norwegian higher education the case of University of Oslo. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/70243/1/Adoption-of-Virtual-mobility-in-Norwegian-Higher-education_-Nayer-Shahedifar.pdf
62. Schelly, C., Anzalone, G., Wijnen, B., & Pearce, J. M. (2015). Open-source 3-D printing technologies for education: Bringing additive manufacturing to the classroom. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 28, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2015.01.004
63. Simonson, M., Zvacek, S. M., & Smaldino, S. E. (2019). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (7th Edition: Vol. Seventh Edition). Information Age Publishing.
64. Solak, B. ve Polat, S. (2022). Ders katılım oranı yüksek sanal sınıflardaki öğretmen ve öğrencilerin motivasyonlarını etkileyen etmenler. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(4), 477–513.
65. Steinberg, R. N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate?, Physics Education Research, American Journal of Physics Supplement, 68(7), 37-41.
66. Stone, A., Briggs, J., & Smith, C. (2002). SMS and interactivity-some results from the field, and its implications on effective uses of mobile technologies in education. Proceedings. IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Vaxjo, Sweden, (s. 147–151) içinde. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039238
67. Strojny, P., & Dużmańska-Misiarczyk, N. (2023). Measuring the effectiveness of virtual training: A systematic review. Computers & Education: X Reality, 2 (100006), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2022.100006.
68. Sun, A., & Chen, X. (2016). Online education and its effective practice: A research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 157-190. http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3502
69. Şahin, M. (2017). Mesleki ve teknik eğitimde sanal eğitim uygulaması: Beklentiler ve öğrenci başarısına etkisi. [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Selçuk Üniversitesi. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/6573
70. Taşpınar, M. T. D. ve Tuncer, M. (2007). Sanal eği̇ti̇m-öğreti̇m ve geleceği̇. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (20) , 112-132
71. World Economic Forum (2022, January 27). These 3 charts show the global growth in online learning. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/online-learning-courses-reskill-skills-gap/
72. Thulin, E., & Vilhelmson, B. (2005). Virtual mobility of urban youth: Ict-Based communication in Sweden. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic & Social Geography), 96(5), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00480.
73. Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, S. G. M. (2001). Academic pilgrims & colon; faculty mobility in the virtual world. On the Horizon, 9(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110803626
74. Vriens, M., Van Petegem, W., Op de Beeck, L., & Achten, M. (2010, 5-7 July). Virtual mobility: An alternative or complement to physical mobility? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228561095_Virtual_mobility_as_an_alternative_or_complement_to_physical_mobility
75. Volungevičienė, A., & Daukšienė, E. (2013, October 10). Quality assurance handbook for virtual mobility. https://studyonline.lt/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/D.2.1.Quality-Assurance-Handbook-for-Virtual-Mobility.pdf
76. Wallace, R. (2003). Online learning in higher education: A review of research on interactions among teachers and students. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241
77. Wise, J. (2023, February 6). How many people use laptops in 2023?. https://earthweb.com/laptop-users/#:~:text=However%2C%20according%20to%20the%20latest,their%20work%20or%20company%20laptops.
78. Yaşar, Ç. ve Yaşar, H. (2021). The examining of the importance of technological knowledge competencies of teachers in terms of virtual classroom management. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 11(4), 251-254.
79. Yılmaz, R. M, Karaman, A., Karakuş, T. ve Göktaş, Y. (2014). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin 3 boyutlu sanal öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik tutumları: second life örneği. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 15( 2), 538-555
80. Yu, T. (2014). Student Readiness for online Learning: the role of social, emotional and technical competencies. J. C. Richardson, C. York, & P. R. Lowenthal (Eds). Online Learning : Common Misconceptions and Benefits and Challenges (s. 18-31 ) içinde. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
81. Zacharia, Z. (2003). Using interactive simulations to enhance students’ explanations regarding physical phenomena. http://cblis.uniza.sk/cblis-cd-old/2003/3.PartB/Papers/ Computer_Based_Learning/Zacharia.pdf