İngilizce Öğretmen Adaylarının Çevrimiçi Dersler Sırasında Siberaylaklık Davranışları Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Öğrenci siberaylaklığı daha çok yüz yüze eğitim ortamlarında araştırılan bir kavramdır ve çevrimiçi ortamlarda bu konuya odaklanan yalnızca birkaç çalışma mevcuttur. Bu nedenle, mevcut alan yazına bu açıdan katkıda bulunmak amacıyla, bu çalışma, öğrencilerin çevrimiçi derslerde gerçekleştirdikleri siberaylaklık etkinliklerinin türlerini, bu davranışların arkasındaki yatan nedenleri ve bunları önlemek için olası çözümlere ilişkin öğrenci görüşlerini araştırmaya çalışmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini Orta Anadolu'da bir vakıf üniversitesinden 68 İngilizce öğretmeni adayı oluşturmuştur. Bu çalışmada nitel bir anket araştırma tasarımı benimsenmiş ve bu amaçla veriler demografik bilgiler ve araştırma sorularına ilişkin üç sorudan oluşan çevrimiçi bir anket aracı kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Araştırma sorularına cevap aramak için, veriler tematik analiz kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının çok çeşitli siberaylaklık faaliyetleriyle meşgul olduklarını gösterdi. Ayrıca siberaylaklık nedenleri ile ilgili olarak ortaya çıkan temalar siberaylaklık için eğitmen, öğrenci, ders içeriği, öğrenme ortamı ve teknoloji ile ilgili nedenler iken, bunun önlenmesine yönelik olası çözümlere ilişkin temalar ise eğitmen, öğrenci ve kurum bazlı çözümlerdir.

Keywords

• siberaylaklık
• İngilizce öğretmen adayları
• yükseköğretim
• çevrimiçi eğitim.

A Study on Pre-service English Instructors' Cyberloafing Behaviors During Online Courses

Abstract

Student cyberloafing is a concept that has been mainly investigated in face-to-face educational settings and there are only a few studies that concentrate on this issue in online settings. Therefore, to contribute to the existing line of literature in this respect, the current study sought to explore the types of cyberloafing activities students engage with during online classes, their reasons behind these behaviours, and their views on the possible solutions to prevent these. The sample of the study consisted of 68 preservice English teachers from a foundation university in Central Anatolia, Turkey. A qualitative survey research design was adopted in this study and to that end, data were collected using an online survey instrument that included a demographic information form and three questions related to the research questions. To seek answers to the research questions, data were analysed using thematic analysis. The results showed that preservice English teachers engaged with a wide variety of cyberloafing activities. Moreover, emerging themes with respect to reasons for cyberloafing were instructor, student, course-content, learning environment, and technology-related reasons for cyberloafing whereas themes regarding possible solutions to prevent it were instructor, student, and institution-based solutions.

Keywords

• cyberloafing
• pre-service English teachers
• higher education
• online education

References

1. Adams, J. (2006). The part played by instructional media in distance education. Studies in Media and Information Literacy Education, 6(2), 1-12.
2. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 545–561.
3. Akbulut, Y., Dursun, O. O., Dönmez, O., & Şahin, Y. L. (2016). In search of a measure to investigate cyberloafing in educational settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 616-625.
4. Akgün, F. (2012). Investigation of High School Students’ Cyberloafing Behaviors in Classes. TED Education & Science, 45(201), 79-108. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.8419.
5. Alghamdi, A., Karpinski, A. C., Lepp, A., & Barkley, J. (2020). Online and face-to-face classroom multitasking and academic performance: Moderated mediation with self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.018
6. Arabacı, I. B. (2017). Investigation Faculty of Education Students' Cyberloafing Behaviors in Terms of Various Variables. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 16(1), 72-82.
7. Arnone, M., Small, R., Chauncey, S., & McKenna, H. (2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9190-9
8. Bağrıaçık-Yılmaz, A. (2017). Lisansüstü öğrencilerinin siber aylaklık düzeylerinin çesitli değiskenler açısından incelenmesi: karma bir çalışma [Investigation of cyberloafing levels of graduate students in terms of various variables: a mixed method study]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırsehir Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 18(2), 113-134.

9. Baturay, M. H., & Toker, S. (2015). An investigation of the impact of demographics on cyberloafing from an educational setting angle. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 358-366.
10. Baytiyeh, H. (2018). Online learning during post-earthquake school closures. Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(2), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm-07-2017-0173
11. Bozanoğlu, D. (2004). Akademik güdülenme ölçeği: Geliştirilmesi, geçerliği ve güvenirliği. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 83-98.
12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise & Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
14. Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., & McEvoy, C. (2020). The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
15. Brubaker, A. T. (2006). Faculty perceptions of the impact of student laptop use in a wireless internet environment on the classroom learning environment and teaching (unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
16. Buck, S. (2016). In their own voices: Study habits of distance education students. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 10(3–4), 137–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2016.1206781.
17. Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2014). Analysing the effect of learning styles and study habits of distance learners on learning performances: A case of an introductory programming course. The international review of research in Open and distributed Learning, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i4.1840
18. Charlier, S. D., Giumetti, G. W., Reeves, C. J., & Greco, L. M. (2017). Workplace cyberdeviance. In G. Hertel, D. L. Stone, R. D. Johnson, & J. Passmore (Eds.), Wiley Blackwell handbooks in organizational psychology. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of the Internet at work (p. 131–156). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119256151.ch7
19. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
20. Çok, R. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinde çeşitli akademik değişkenlerin siber aylaklik davranişlarini yordama durumlarinin incelenmesi [an investigation ofpredictive conditionsvarious academic variables on the university students’cyber slacking behaviors] (Master's thesis). İnönü University, Malatya, Turkey.
21. Çok, R., & Kutlu, M. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerin ders esnasında ders dışı internet kullanım davranışları ile akademik güdülenme düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. The Journal of International Lingual Social and Educational Sciences, 4(1), 1-21.
22. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting Self-Regulation in Student-Centered Web-Based Learning Environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 40-47.
23. Durik, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597-610.
24. Dursun, O. O., Dönmez, O., & Akbulut, Y. (2018). Predictors of Cyberloafing among Preservice Information Technology Teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(1), 22-41.
25. Ergün, E., & Altun, A. (2012). Öğrenci gözüyle siber aylaklık ve nedenleri [The student’s perspective of cyberloafing and ıts causes]. Eğitim Teknolojisi: Kuram ve Uygulama, 2(1), 36–53.
26. Fabito, B. S., Trillanes, A. O., & Sarmiento, J. R. (2021). Barriers and challenges of computing students in an online learning environment: Insights from one private university in the Philippines. International Journal of Computing Sciences Research, 5(1), 441-458. https://doi.org/10.25147/ijcsr.2017.001.1.51
27. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of reader choice and interest in reader engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93-114.
28. Gerow, J. E., Galluch, P. S., & Thatcher, J. B. (2010). To slack or not to slack: internet usage in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(3), 5-24.
29. Gökçearslan, Ş, Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Çevik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smartphone addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyberloafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.091
30. Greengard, S. (2000). The high cost of cyberslacking employees waste time Online. Workforce, 79(12), 22-24.
31. Harackiewicz, J., Durik, A., Barron, K. Linnenbrink, E., & Tauer, J. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 105-122.
32. Harackiewicz, J. M., & Hulleman, C. S. (2010). The importance of interest: The role of achievement goals and task values in promoting the development of interest. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00207.x
33. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
34. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
35. Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27–38.
36. Kalaycı, E. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin siber aylaklık davranışları ile özdüzenleme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [The investigation of relationship between cyberloafing and self-regulated learning strategies among undergraduate students] (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
37. Kaplan, M., & Çetinkaya, A. Ş. (2014). Sanal kaytarma ve Demografik Özellikler Açısından Farklılıklar: Otel İşletmelerinde Bir Araştırma [Meaningful Differences between Demographic Features and Cyberloafing: Case in Hotel Businesses]. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25 (1), 26-34.
38. Keser, H., Kavuk, M., & Numanoglu, G. (2016). The relationship between Cyber-Loafing and internet addiction. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 11(1), 37-42.
39. Knight, R.M. (2017). Academic Cyberloafing: A Study of Perceptual and Behavioral Differences on In-Class Cyberloafing among Undergraduate Students (unpublished master’s thesis). East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.
40. Koay, K. (2018). Assessing Cyberloafing Behaviour among University Students: A Validation of the Cyberloafing Scale. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 409-424.
41. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
42. Kurt, M. (2011). Siber Aylaklık Davranıslarının Karsılastırmalı Olarak _ Incelenmesi [Contrastive Study of Cyberloafing Behaviors]. In 5th International computer & instructional technologies symposium, 22–24 September 2011, Fırat University, Elazığ- Turkey.
43. Kushlev, K., Proulx, J., & Dunn, E. W. (2016). “Silence Your Phones”: Smartphone Notifications Increase Inattention and Hyperactivity Symptoms. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. 2016. pp. 1011-1020.
44. Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., Karpinski, A. C., & Singh, S. (2019). College Students’ Multitasking Behavior in Online versus Face-to-Face Courses. SAGE Open, 9, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018824505
45. Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of organizational behavior, 23(5), 675-694.
46. Lim, V. K., & Chen, D. J. (2012). Cyberloafing at the workplace: Gain or drain on work? Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(4), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290903353054
47. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Karabenick, S. A., et al. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355699.
48. May, K., & Elder, A. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(13), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z
49. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. McCombs, B. (2015). Learner-Centered Online Instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 144, 57-71.
51. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
52. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America, 106(37), 15583-15587.
53. Palmer, S., Chu, Y., & Persky, A. M. (2019).Comparison of Rewatching Class Recordings versus Retrieval Practice as Post-Lecture Learning Strategies. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(9), 1958-1965. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7217
54. Palmer, D. A., Dixon, J., & Archer, J. (2017). Using situational interest to enhance individual interest and science-related behaviours. Research in Science Education, 47(4), 731–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9526-x.
55. Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance (tutorial). In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 277-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of second life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157– 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048
57. Polito, A. (1997). Cyberloafing can be curbed. Workforce, 76(3), 18.
58. Pullan, M. (2011). Online support services for undergraduate millennial students. Information Systems Education Journal, 9(1), 67-98.
59. Ravizza, S. M., Hambrick, D. Z., & Fenn, K. M. (2014). Non-academic internet use in the classroom is negatively related to classroom learning regardless of intellectual ability. Computers & Education, 78, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.007
60. Roddy, C., Amiet, D. L., Chung, J., Holt, C., Shaw, L., McKenzie, S., Garivaldis, F., Lodge, J. M., & Mundy, M. E. (2017). Applying best practice online learning, teaching, and support to intensive online environments: An integrative review. Frontiers in Education, 2(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00059
61. Rodríguez-Gómez, D., Castro, D., & Meneses, J. (2018). Problematic uses of ICTs among young people in their personal and school life. Comunicar, 26(56), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.3916/c56-2018-09
62. Sarıtepeci, M. (2019). Predictors of cyberloafing among high school students: unauthorized access to school network, metacognitive awareness, and smartphone addiction. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 2201-2219.
63. Seçkin, Z., & Kerse, G., (2017). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sanal Kaytarma Davranışları ve Bu Davranışların Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi: Ampirik Bir Araştırma (Cyberloafing behaviors of university students and an examination of such behaviors in view of assorted variables: an empirical research). Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1) 87-108
64. Şenel, S., Günaydın, S., Sarıtaş, M., & Çi̇ğdem, H. (2019). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Siber Aylaklık Seviyelerini Yordayan Faktörler [The Factors Predicting Cyberloafing Behaviors of Undergraduate Students]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2376
65. Skolnik, R., & Puzo, M. (2008). Utilization of laptop computers in the school of business classroom. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(2), 1-10.
66. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–295.
67. Şumuer, E., Gezgin, D. M., & Yildirim, S. (2018). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Ders Sırasında Öğretim Amacı Dışında Mobil Telefon Kullanımına Etki Eden Faktörlerin İncelenmesi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(4), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.378459
68. Taneja, A., Fiore, V., & Fischer, B. (2015). Cyberslacking in the classroom: potential for digital distraction in the new age. Computers & Education, 82, 141–151.
69. Tanrıverdi, Ö., & Karaca, F. (2018) Investigating the relationships between adolescents’ levels of cognitive absorption and cyberloafing activities according to demographic characteristics. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions, 5(2), 285–315.
70. Terry, G., & Braun, V. (2017). Short but often sweet: The surprising potential of qualitative survey methods. In V. Braun, V. Clarke, & D. Gray (Eds.), Collecting qualitative data: A practical guide to textual, media and virtual techniques (pp. 15–44). Cambridge University Press
71. Thoman, D. B., Smith, J. L., & Silvia, P. (2011). The resource replenishment function of interest. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 592-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611402521
72. Varol, F., & Yıldırım, E. (2017). Siberaylaklik: öğretmen adayları ve mobil teknolojiler [Cyberloafing: teacher candidates and mobile technologies]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(3), 1046-1057. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.321313.
73. Varol, F., & Yıldırım, E. (2018). An examination of cyberloafing behaviors in classrooms from students’ perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 26-46.
74. Varol, F., & Yıldırım, E. (2019). Cyberloafing in higher education: Reasons and suggestions from students’ perspectives. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(1), 129–142.
75. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
76. Welford, A. T. (1967). Single-channel operation in the brain. Acta Psychologica, 27, 5–22. https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90040-6
77. Wu, J., Mei, W., & Ugrin, J. C. (2018). Student cyberloafing in and out of the classroom in China and the relationship with student performance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 21(3), 199–204.
78. Yaşar, S. (2013). Universite ogrencilerinin denetim odagı ve bilgisayar laboratuvarlarına yonelik tutumlarinin siber aylaklik davranislarina etkisi [the effects of students’ locus of control and attitudes towards computer laboratory on their cyberloafing behaviour] (unpublished master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
79. Yaşar, S., & Yurdugül, H. (2013). The Investigation of Relation Between Cyberloafing Activities and Cyberloafing Behaviors in Higher Education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 600-604.
80. Yılmaz, F. G. K., Yılmaz, R., Özturk, H. T., Sezer, B., & Karademir, T. (2015). Cyberloafing as a barrier to the successful integration of information and communication technologies into teaching and learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 290-298.