GÜZEL SANATLAR ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN BİLGİ VE KALICILIK SEVİYELERİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI: TEMEL TASARIM DERSİNE WBCL MODELİ UYGULANMASI

Öz

This study discusses the utilization of Web-based Collaborative Learning (WbCL) within the Basic Design course. WbCL is expected to confer benefits to art students’ knowledge and retention levels. This empirical study is conducted to examine WbCL and human-tutored models in the colour design element of the course at the six weeks period of the study. The sample for the research constituted of two group of students in the Basic Design course at the Faculty of Arts and Design at Gazi University, Turkey. Each randomly assigned group consists of 20 students. Data was analyzed by T test for independent and paired samples and Two-way Variance Analysis were used to get a better understanding of the students’ knowledge and retention levels. The results showed that students in the WbCL group performed better in knowledge tests. However, the reduction between the post-test and retention test scores of both groups is not significant

Anahtar Kelimeler

• WbCL, knowledge-retention levels, basic design

GÜZEL SANATLAR ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN BİLGİ VE KALICILIK SEVİYELERİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI: TEMEL TASARIM DERSİNE WBCL MODELİ UYGULANMASI

Öz

Bu araştırmada, temel tasarım dersinde Web Tabanlı İşbirlikli Öğrenim modelinin kullanımının öğrencilerin bilgi düzeylerinin yükseltilmesi ve bilginin kalıcılık seviyesine sağladığı avantajlar incelenmektedir. Bu deneysel çalışmada altı haftalık süre içerisinde tasarım elemanlarında renk konusu üzerine yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmada örneklem için Gazi Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Fakültesi’nde aynı eğitmenden ilk defa temel tasarım dersi alan birinci sınıf öğrencileri arasında 2 grup için toplam 40 öğrenci seçilmiştir. Gruplardan biri deney, diğeri kontrol grubu olarak seçkisiz rasgele atanmıştır. Deney ve kontrol grubu öğrencilerinin puanlarının karşılaştırılmasında bağımsız gruplar için T testi ve öğrencilerin bilgi ve kalıcılık seviyelerini daha iyi anlamak için 2 yollu varyans analizi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre Web Tabanlı İşbirlikli Öğrenim modeliyle öğrenim gören öğrenciler testlerde daha yüksek puanlar almışlardır. Ancak, araştırma sonunda her iki gruptaki öğrencilerin araştırma süresince öğrendikleri bilgilerin aynı seviyede kalıcı olduğu görülmüştür

Anahtar Kelimeler

• WbCL, bilgi-kalıcılık seviyesi, temel tasarım

Kaynakça

1. ALAKUŞ, A. O. & ÖZSOY, V. (2011).Görsel Sanatlar Eğitiminde Özel Öğretim Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
2. ARMELLINI, A. & AIYEGBAYO, O. (2010). “Learning design and assessment with e-tivities”, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 922-935.
3. AINSWORTH, S. (2006). “DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple Representations”, Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
4. ANDREWARTHA, G. & WILMOT, S. (2001). “Can multimedia meet tertiary educational needs better than the conventional lecture? A case study”, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 1- 20.
5. BEAUFILS, A. (2000). “Tools and strategies for searching in hypermedia environments”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 114-124.
6. BOUCHARENC, C. G. (2006). “Research on Basic Design Education: An International Survey”, The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 1-30.
7. BUTLER, R. (2007). “Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientations and Associations with Teachers’ Help Seeking: Examination of a Novel Approach to Teacher Motivation”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241-252.
8. BUSBY, N., Parrott, L. & OLSON, M. (2000). “Use of Computers as a Tool in Fine Art”, The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 19(2), 189-199.

9. CHEN, J. L. (2011). “The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning Acceptance”, Computers & Education, 57, 1501-1511.
10. CHOU, S. W. & LIU, C. H. (2005). “Learning effectiveness in a web-based virtual learning environment: a learner control perspective”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 65-76.
11. CHUA, A. Y. K. & HENG, S. K. (2010) “A knowledge management perspective on Art Education”, International Journal of Information Management, 30, 326-334.
12. CRESS, U., WODZICKI, K., BIENTZLE, M. & LINGNAU, A. (2011). “CSCL for intellectually disabled pupils: Stimulating interaction by using a floor control mechanism”, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 307-321.
13. ÇAĞLARCA, S. (1996). Perspektif Resim ve Gölge Çizim. İstanbul: İnkılap.
14. DECOO, W. (1984). “An Application of Didactic Criteria to Courseware Evaluation”, CALICO Journal, 2(2), 42-46.
15. DELACRUZ, E. (2009). “Old World Teaching Meets the New Digital Cultural Creatives”, The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 28(3), 261-268.
16. DEMIRBAŞ, O., O.; DEMIRKAN, H. (2003). “Focus on architectural design process through learning styles”, Design Studies, 24(5), 437-456.
17. FORSBLOM, N. & SILIUS, K. (2004). “What is the Added Value of Web-based Learning and Teaching? The Case of Tampere University of Technology”, The New Educational Benefits of ICT in Higher Education, 18-25.
18. GURI-ROSENBILT, S. (2005). “‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing”, Higher Education, 49, 467–493.
19. HAIMERL, C. & FRIES, S. (2010). “Self-fulling prophecies in media-based learning: Content relevance moderates quality expectation effects on academic achievement”, Learning and Instruction, 20, 498-510.
20. HILBERT, T. S.; RENKL, A.; SCHWORM, S.; KESSLER, S. & REISS, K. (2007). “Learning to teach with worked-out examples: a computer-based learning environment for teachers”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 316-322.
21. HÖFFLER, T. N. & LEUTNER, D. (2007). “Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta- analysis”, Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
22. KARAKAYA, A. F. & ŞENYAPILI, B. (2008). “Rehearsal of professional practice: impacts of web-based collaborative learning on the future encounter of different disciplines”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 101-117.
23. KIRSCHENMANN, J. (2001). “The electronic Prometheus and its consequences for art education”, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 20(1), 11-18.
24. KIRSCHNER, P. A., MARTENS, R. L. & STRIJBOS, J. W., (2004). CSCL in Higher Education?, In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, R. L. Martens (Eds) What We Know about CSCL and Implementing It in Higher Education, (pp. 3-30). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
25. KRANGE, I. & LUDVIGSEN, S. (2008). “What does it mean? Students’ procedural and conceptual problem-solving in a CSCL environment designed within the field of science education”, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 25-51.
26. LAND, S. M. & GREENE, B. A. (2000).. “Project-based learning with the world wide web: A qualitative study of resource integration”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45- 66.
27. LAUER, D. A. & PENTAK, S. (2007). Design Basics, Belmont-CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
28. LINDSTRÖM, L. (2011). “The Multiple Faces of Visual Arts Education”, The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 30(1), 7-17.
29. MAYER, E. R. & MORENO, R. (2002). “Aids to computer-based multimedia learning”, Learning and Instruction, 12, 107-119.
30. MAYER, E. R. (2003). “The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media”, Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
31. MCGILL, T. J. & HOBBS, V. J. (2008). “How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 191- 202.
32. MCINNERNEY, J. M. & ROBERTS, T. S. (2004). Collaborative or Cooperative Learning? In T. S. Roberts (Eds.) Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice, (pp. 203-214) Hershey-PA: Idea Group Publishing.
33. MICKLETHWAITE, P. (2005). “Discussing art and design education: themes from interviews with UK design Stakeholders”, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24(1), 84-92.
34. MITCHELL, T. J. F.; CHEN, S. Y. & MACREDIE, R. D. (2005). “Hypermedia learning and prior knowledge: domain expertise vs. system expertise”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 53-64.
35. MORENO, R. & MAYER, R. (2007). “Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Special Issue on Interactive Learning Environments: Contemporary Issues and Trends”, Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326.
36. NITSCHE, S., DICKHÄUSER, O.; FASCHING, M. S. & DRESEL, M. (2011). “Rethinking teachers’ goal orientations: Conceptual and methodological enhancements”, Learning and Instruction, 21, 574- 586.
37. OLLILA, M. & CARLING, E. (2000). “Bring art into computer graphics education”, Computer & Graphics, 24(4), 617-622.
38. ÖZTUNA, H. Y. (2007). Görsel İletişimde Temel Tasarım. İzmir: Tibyan Yayıncılık.
39. RODICIO, H. G. & SÁNCHEZ, E. (2011). “Aids to computer-based multimedia learning: a comparison of human tutoring and computer support”, Interactive Learning Environments, 1-17.
40. RUTTUN, R. (2009). “The effects of visual elements and cognitive styles on students’ learning in hypermedia environment, Proceedings of World Academy of Science”, Engineering and Technology, 37, 1007-1016.
41. SÄLJÖ, R. (2010). “Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 53-64.
42. SANG, A. N. H. (2009). “The creation of the ‘Hong Kong Visual Arts Education Web’ and the use of the inquiry-based teaching approach”, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(2), 215-224.
43. SANGIN, M.; DILLENBOURG, P.; REBETEZ, C.; BÉTRANCOURT, M. & MOLINARI, G. (2008). “The effects of animations on verbal interaction in computer supported collaborative learning”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 394-406.
44. SCHOOR, C. & BANNERT, M. (2011). “Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning scenario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition”, Learning and Instruction, 21, 560-573.
45. SEYLAN, A. (2005) Temel Tasarım. Samsun: Dağdelen Basın Yayın.
46. SITTHIWORACHART, J. & JOY, M.S. (2008). “Computer Support of Effective Peer Assessment in an Undergraduate Programming Class”, Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 24 (3). pp. 217- 231.
47. SPANBROEK, N. (2010). “Strategic Teaching: Student Learning through Working the Process”, The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(2), 111-120.
48. SO, H.-J., & BONK, C. J. (2010). “Examining the Roles of Blended Learning Approaches in Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environments: A Delphi Study”. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 189–200.
49. TEAL, R. (2010) “Developing a (Non-linear) Practice of Design Thinking”, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(3), 294-302.
50. TEAL, R. (2011). “Foundational history an integrated approach to basic design, history, and theory”, Journal of Architectural Education, 37-45.
51. TEKIN, H. (1996). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (Measurement and Evaluation in Education), Ankara: Yargı Yayınları.
52. TEPECİK, A. (2002). Grafik Sanatlar. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
53. ULLRICH, C. & MELIS, E. (2010). "Complex Course Generation Adapted to Pedagogical Scenarios and its Evaluation", Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 13(2), pp. 102-115.
54. WANG, K.H.; WANG, T.H.; WANG, W. L.; Huang, S. C. (2006). “Learning styles and formative assessment strategy: enhancing student achievement in Web-based learning”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 207-217.
55. WANG, T. (2010). “A New Paradigm for Design Studio Education”, The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(2), 173-183.
56. YANTAÇ, A. E. & ÖZCAN, O. (2006). “The effects of the sound-image relationship within sound education for interactive media design”, Digital Creativity, 2, 91-99.
57. YANTAÇ, A. E.; ÖZCAN, O. & EMENGEN, A. (2011). “Participatory design in interactive media design education for the solution of unfamiliar design problems: a case study on a disabling environment and an emerging technology”, Digital Creativity, 22(1), 40-48.