Covid-19 Pandemi Sürecinde Üniversite Öğrencilerinin İşlemsel Uzaklık Algısı İle Bilişötesi Farkındalığı Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmada pandemi döneminde çevrimiçi ders alan üniversite öğrencilerinin işlemsel uzaklık algı düzeyi ve bilişötesi farkındalık düzeyi belirlenerek çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi ve birbirleri arasındaki ilişki ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada tarama modellerinden ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcılarını çalışmaya katılmayı gönüllü olarak kabul eden 2020-2021 eğitim-öğretim yılı bahar döneminde öğretimi pandemi sebebiyle zorunlu olarak uzaktan eğitim yoluyla devam eden 116 üniversite öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada kişisel bilgi formu, işlemsel uzaklık ölçeği ve bilişötesi farkındalık envanteri ile toplanmıştır. Yapılan analizlere göre öğrencilerin işlemsel uzaklık algısı düşük ve bilişötesi farkındalığı yüksek düzeyde, korelasyon katsayısına bakıldığında ise işlemsel uzaklık algısı ile bilişötesi farkındalığı arasında orta düzeyde, pozitif yönlü anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda öğrencilerin işlemsel uzaklık algısı cinsiyet, öğretim türü, yaşadığı bölge ve internette geçirilen zaman değişkenine göre değişmezken bölüm ve bilgisayar sahibi olup olmama durumuna göre anlamlı farklılık göstermektedir. Bilişötesi farkındalık düzeylerinin ise cinsiyet, öğretim türü, bölüm, yaşadığı bölge, bilgisayar sahibi olup olmama durumuna ve internette geçirilen zaman değişkenine göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşlemsel uzaklık
• Bilişötesi farkındalık
• Uzaktan eğitim
• Covid-19

Investigation Of The Relationship Between Transactional Distance Perception and Metacognitive Awareness of University Students During The Covid-19 Pandemic

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine transactional distance (TD) perception and metacognitive awareness (MA) of university students who took online courses during the pandemic period in terms of various variables by determining the level of their TD perception and MA, and to reveal the relationship between their TD perception and MA. In the study, the correlational research design was used. The participants of the study were 116 university students who voluntarily accepted to participate in the study and continued learning through distance education due to the pandemic in the spring semester of the 2020-2021 academic year. The data was obtained by the personal information form, the TD scale, and MA inventory. According to the analyses, the level of students' TD perception was low, their MA was high, and the relationship between students' TD perception and MA was significantly moderate in a positive way when the correlation coefficient was considered. Students’ TD perception significantly differed according to department and having personal computer while their perception didn’t change according to gender, daytime or evening education, region where to live, and time spent on the internet. The levels of their MA did not differ significantly according to the variables.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Transactional distance
• Metacognitive awareness
• Distance education
• Covid-19

Kaynakça

1. Akin, A., Abaci, R., & Cetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Kuram ve uygulamada egitim bilimleri, 7(2), 671.
2. Akpunar, B. (2011). Biliş ve üstbiliş (metabiliş) kavramlarının zihin felsefesi açısından analizi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 6(4), 353-365.
3. Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In D. M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Baltacı, Ö., Akbulut, Ö. F., & Yılmaz, E. (2021). Problemli internet kullanımında güncel bir risk faktörü: Covid-19 pandemisi. Humanistic Perspective, 3(1), 97-121.
5. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153.
6. Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855.
7. Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299-316.
8. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E., Weinert, & R. H., Kluwe (Ed.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9. Caliskan, S., Guney, Z., Sakhieva, R., Vasbieva, D., & Zaitseva, N. (2019). Teachers’ views on the availability of web 2.0 tools in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(22), 70-81.
10. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London: Routhledge.
11. Criollo-C, S., Luján-Mora, S., & Jaramillo-Alcázar, A. (2018). Advantages and disadvantages of M-learning in current education. In 2018 IEEE world engineering education conference (EDUNINE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
12. Delclos, V. R., & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 35-42.
13. Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452-465.
14. Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193.
15. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
16. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Ed.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Gulbinskienė, D., Masoodi, M., & Šliogerienė, J. (2017). Moodle as virtual learning environment in developing language skills, fostering metacognitive awareness and promoting learner autonomy. Pedagogika, 127(3), 176-185.
18. Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G., Yilmaz, R., Ustun, A. B., & Keser, H. (2019). Examination of critical thinking standards and academic self-efficacy of teacher candidates as a predictor of metacognitive thinking skills through structural equation modelling. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(4), 1239–1256.
19. Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive awareness and online information searching strategies. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 6(4), 447-468.
20. Karasar, N., (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi, Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
21. Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 38(1), 52-54.
22. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E., & Kuo, Y. T. (2014). A case study of integrating interwise: Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and satisfaction in synchronous online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 161–181.
23. Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: an overview. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf adresinden 4 Ağustos 2021 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
24. McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2014). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (14th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
25. Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about know- ing. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
26. Moore, M. G. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661-679.
27. Moore M. G. (2019). The theory of transactional distance. In: Moore MG, Diehl WC, editors. Handbook of distance education. 4th ed. New York (NY): Routledge; p. 32–46.
28. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Toronto: Wadsworth.
29. Mortensen, C. R., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Infection breeds reticence: The effects of disease salience on self-perceptions of personality and behavioral avoidance tendencies. Psychological Science, 21(3), 440-447.
30. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A thirddecade of research (Volume 2). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
31. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
32. Teng, F., & Reynolds, B.L. (2019). Effects of individual and group metacognitive prompts on EFL reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. PLOS One, 14(5), e0215902.
33. Teng, M. F. (2020). Effects of cooperative–metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’ writing and metacognitive awareness. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1-17.
34. Terrizzi Jr, J. A., Shook, N. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: A meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 99-108.
35. Ustun, A. B. (2019). Effects of Mobile Learning in Blended Learning Environments. Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 1(1), 1-14.
36. Ustun, A. B., & Tracey, M. W (2021). An innovative way of designing blended learning through design-based research in higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 126-146.
37. Ustun, A. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2020). An effective way of designing blended learning: A three phase designbased research approach. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1529–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09999-9
38. Üstün, A. B., Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G. & Yılmaz, R. (2020). Öğretmenler e-öğrenmeye hazır mı? Öğretmenlerin e-öğrenmeye yönelik hazır bulunuşluklarının incelenmesi üzerine bir araştırma, Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 54-69.
39. Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6).
40. Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters–The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3).
41. Yılmaz, R. (2014). Çevrimiçi öğrenmede etkileşim ortamının ve üstbilişsel rehberliğin akademik başarı, üstbilişsel farkındalık ve işlemsel uzaklığa etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
42. Yılmaz, R. & Keser, H. (2015). İşlemsel Uzaklık Ölçeğinin Uyarlama Çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(4), 91-105.
43. Yılmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2017). The impact of interactive environment and metacognitive support on academic achievement and transactional distance in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 95-122.
44. Zhang, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2008). Addressing diverse learner preferences and intelligences with emerging technologies: Matching models to online opportunities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2).