Tasarım Stüdyosu Eğitiminde Web 2.0 Araçlarının Araştırma Amaçlı Kullanımı: Kullanıcı Kaynaklı Videolar Örneği

Öz

Blog, vlog, wiki, anlık mesajlaşma ve podcast gibi Web 2.0 araçları, internet kullanıcılarının içerik oluşturup paylaşmalarına ve işbirliği yapmalarına olanak tanırlar, eğitim ve araştırma amaçlı kullanımlar için yaratıcı fırsatlar sunarlar. Kullanıcı kaynaklı içerik (KKİ) sunan çevrimiçi ortamlardan bir tanesi de video paylaşım platformlarıdır. Özel yaşamdan çalışma yaşamına ve kamusal alana, bilimsel ve teknik alanlardan eğitime kadar birçok farklı alanda video kullanımının ve paylaşımının büyük bir hızla artması, araştırmacıların çevrimiçi video paylaşım platformlarını zengin bir veri kaynağı olarak değerlendirmesine yol açmıştır. Birçok getirisine rağmen bu tür platformların eğitim ve araştırma amaçlı kullanımı çeşitli teknik ve etik zorlukları da beraberinde getirir. Bu çalışma, Web 2.0 platformlarındaki kullanıcı kaynaklı videoların (KKVler) tasarım stüdyosu eğitiminde araştırma amaçlı kullanımına odaklanmakta, KKVlerin tasarım stüdyosu eğitiminde nitel araştırmalarda veri kaynağı olarak kullanımının teknik ve etik yönlerini tartışmakta ve öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kullanıcı kaynaklı içerik
• Kullanıcı kaynaklı video
• Tasarım araştırması
• İnternet araştırması etiği
• Tasarım stüdyosu eğitimi

The Use of Web 2.0 Tools for Research Purposes in Design Studio Education: The Case of User-Generated Videos

Abstract

Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, vlogs, wikis, instant messaging and podcasts allow internet users to create, share and collaborate on content, and offer creative opportunities to use them for educational and research purposes. Video sharing platforms are one of the online environments that provide user-generated content (UGC). The rapid increase in the use and sharing of videos in many different fields, from private life to working life and the public sphere, from scientific and technical areas to education, has led researchers to consider online video sharing platforms as rich data sources. Despite their many benefits, the use of such media for educational and research purposes also brings various technical and ethical challenges. This study focuses on the use of user-generated videos (UGVs) on Web 2.0 platforms in design studio education for research purposes. It discusses the technical and ethical aspects of using UGVs as a data source in qualitative research in design studio education and offers recommendations.

Keywords

• User-generated content
• User-generated video
• Design research
• Internet research ethics
• Design studio education

Kaynakça

1. Adami, E. (2009). “We/YouTube”: Exploring sign-making in video interaction. Visual Communication(8), 379-399.
2. Agazio, J. Ve Buckley, K. M. (2009). An Untapped Resource. Nurse Educator, 34(1), 23–28. http://doi.org/10.1097/01.nne.0000343403.13234.a2
3. Alexveer, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review 41(2). 32–44.
4. Azer, S. A. (2012). Can “YouTube” help students in learning surface anatomy? Surgical ve Radiologic Anatomy, 34(5), 465–468. doi:10.1007/s00276-012-0935-x
5. AoIR (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. 01 Şubat 2021 tarihinde https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf adresinden alındı.
6. AoIR, (2019). Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. 01 Şubat 2021 tarihinde https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf adresinden alındı.
7. Bakardjieva, M. ve Feenberg, A. (2001). Involving the virtual subject: Conceptual, methodological ve ethical dimensions. Journal of Ethics and Information Technology, 2(4), pp. 233-40.
8. Berger, I. (2012). YouTube as a source of data. Psychology Postgraduate Affairs Group Quarterly (83), 9-12.

9. Berry, D. (2004). Internet research: privacy, ethics and alienation- an open-source approach. Internet Research, 14(4), 323–332. http://doi.org/10.1108/10662240410555333.
10. Blikstad‐Balas, M. (2017). Key challenges of using video when investigating social practices in education: Contextualization, magnification, and representation. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 40(5), 511– 523. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.1181162
11. Brandwatch (2018). 57 Fascinating and Incredible YouTube Statistics. 26 Aralık 2018, tarihinde https://www.brvewatch.com/blog/youtube-stats/#:~:text=YouTube%20usage%20statisticsvetext=YouTube%20is%20the%202nd%20most,Netflix%20ve%20Facebook%20video%20combined.vetext=The%20average%20mobile%20viewing%20session%20lasts%20more%20than%2040%20minutes adresinden alındı.
12. Caron, C., Raby, R., Mitchell, C., Théwissen-LeBlanc, S., ve Prioletta, J. (2017). From concept to data: Sleuthing social change-oriented youth voices on YouTube. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(1), 47-62.
13. Choi, G. Y., ve Behm-Morawitz, E. (2017). Giving a new makeover to STEAM: Establishing YouTube beauty gurus as digital literacy educators through messages and effects on viewers. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 80-91.
14. Desmet, C. (2009). Teaching Shakespeare with YouTube. English Journal, 99(1),65–70.
15. Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron B., Engles R. A., Erickson F., Goldman R., Hall R. et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology ve ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 19(1): 3–53.
16. Duncan, I., Yarwood-Ross L., Haigh, C. (2013). YouTube as a source of clinical skills education. Nurse Education Today, 33(12):1576-80. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.013. Epub 2013 Jan 14. PMID: 23332710.
17. eBizMBA, eBusiness MBA Guide (2018). Top 15 Most Popular Video Websites | May 2018. 26 Aralık 2018 tarihinde http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/video-websites adresinden alındı
18. Eren, G. H. & Korkut F. (2017a). Combining the Digital and the Analog: Exploring Unfamiliar Problem Domains through Video Blogs and Role-Playing in Industrial Design Education. LearnXDesign Conference Bildiri Kitabı içinde (s. 18-25), G. Pritchard and N. Lambert (Ed.), Londra, İngiltere, 27-30 Haziran.
19. Eren, G. H. & Korkut F. (2017b). Design Exploration through Online User-Generated Video Material. ISIDE 2nd InternationalSymposium on Industrial Design & Engineering Bildiri Kitabı içinde (s. 99-111), Nevehir, Türkiye, 15-17 Eylül.
20. Eren, G. H. & Korkut F. (2018). Çocuklar için Kullanıcı Odaklı Tasarım: Pediatrik Muayene Masası ve Çevresi Örneği (User-Centered Design for Children. 5th International Furniture Congress Bildiri Kitabı içinde (s. 787-805), F. Curaoğlu ve M.E. Arslan (Ed.), Eskişeihir, Türkiye, 1-4 Kasım.
21. Eren, G. H. (2020). Exploring unfamiliar problem domains through user-generated video content and role-playing in industrial design education. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
22. Erickson, F., ve Shultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. New York: Academic Press. Frobenius, M. (2014). Audience design in monologues: How vloggers involve their viewers. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 59-72.
23. Goldman, R. (2007). Video representations and the perspectivity framework: epistemology, ethnography, evaluation, and ethics. R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, S.J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (s. 383–395). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
24. Goodman, E., Kuniavsky, M., and Moed, A. (2012). Observing the user experience: A practitioner’s guide to user research (2nd ed.). Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
25. Haase, D. (2009). The YouTube makeup class. The Physics Teacher, 47(5), 272–273.
26. Haw, K. ve Hadfield, M. (2011). Video in social science research. London: Routledge.
27. Hardey, M. (2011). Ubiquitous Connectivity: User-Generated Data and the Role of the Researcher (s. 87-106.), Hesse-Biber, S.N. (Ed.) (2011). Emergent technologies in social research. Oxford ve New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Harley, D., ve Fitzpatrick, G. (2009). Creating a conversational context through video blogging: A case study of Geriatric1927. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 679-689.
29. Harris, R. (2020). Evaluating Internet research sources. 25 Aralık 2020 tarihinde https://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm#:~:text=The%20author%20or%20source%20of,title%20or%20position%20of%20employment adresinden alındı
30. Ho, J. C. (2019). Should Researchers Be Allowed to Use YouTube Videos and Tweets? 5 Kasım 2019 tarihinde https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/youtube-twitter-irb-human-subjects-research-social-media-mining.html adresinden alındı.
31. Howard, S., Carroll, J., Murphy, J., ve Peck, J. (2002). Using “Endowed Props” in Scenario-Based Design. Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction- NordiCHI’02, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1145/572021.572022
32. Jaffar, A. A. (2012). YouTube: An emerging tool in anatomy education. Anatomical Sciences Education 5(3): 158–164. doi:10.1002/ase.1268.
33. Jewitt, C. (2012). An Introduction to Using Video for Research. National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper, 1–22.
34. Jones T. ve Cuthrell K. (2011) YouTube: Educational Potentials and pitfalls. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 75-85. DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2011.553149
35. Juffinger, A., Granitzer, M., ve Lex, E. (2009). Blog Credibility Ranking by Exploiting Verified Content. Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on Information credibility on the web WICOW’09. (pp. 51-58). ACM. Madrid, Spain, April 20, 2009.
36. Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J., ve Soeffner, H. (2012) Video analysis: Methodology and methods. Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology (3rd ed.). Frankfurt. Peter Lang.
37. Knösel, M., Jung, K., ve Bleckmann, A. (2011). YouTube, dentistry ve dental education. Journal of Dental Education, 75(12), 1558-68.
38. Laurier, E. (2016). YouTube: Fragments of a video-tropic atlas. Area (48), 488-495.
39. Lee, D.Y., ve Lehto, M.R. (2012). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers and Education (2)61, 193-208
40. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 38(3), 296-316.
41. Lomborg, S. (2013). Personal internet archives and ethics. Research Ethics, 9(1), 20-31.
42. Longhurst, R. (2009). YouTube: A new space for birth? Feminist Review, 93, 46-63.
43. Markham, A. N. (2017). Ethnography in the digital internet era: From fields to flows, descriptions to interventions. In N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.), (s. 650-698). Thous and Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44. Mavers, D. (2012). Transcribing video. National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper, 1–22. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2877/4/NCRM_working_paper0512.pdf
45. Mayora, C. (2009). Using YouTube to encourage authentic writing in the EFL classrooms. TESL Reporter, 42(1), 1–12.
46. McNeilly, D. P. (2008). YouTube and the emerging worlds of video-sharing for behavioral science education. Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education, 14(1), 25–30.
47. Misoch, S. (2014). Card stories on YouTube: A new frame for online self-disclosure. Media ve Communication, 2(1), 2-12.
48. Morrow, O., Hawkins, R., ve Kern, L. (2015). Feminist research in online spaces. Gender, Place ve Culture, 22, 526-543.
49. Mura, G. (2014). Utilizing User-Generated Photos as a Source of Inspiration for Design Ideation. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul.
50. Netpaths (2018). 67 video sharing websites to publish your videos. Retrieved December 26, 2018, from https://www.netpaths.net/6-video-sharing-websites/
51. Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 140(4), 32–48.
52. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
53. Oum, S., ve Han, D. (2011). An empirical study of the determinants of the intention to participate in user-created contents (UCC) services. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12), 15110–15121.
54. Patterson, A. N. (2018). YouTube generated video clips as qualitative research data: One researcher’s reflections on the process. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(10), 759-767.
55. Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography (2. Baskı). Sage.
56. Porter, A., Hellsten, I. (2014). Investigating participatory dynamics through social media using a multideterminant “frame” approach: The case of climategate on YouTube. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 19, 1024-1041.
57. Rees, J. (2008). Teaching history with YouTube. Perspectives on History, 46(5). 18 Haziran 2018 tarihinde https://www.historians.org/publications-ve-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2008/teaching-history-with-youtube adresinden alındı
58. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford, UK; Madden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 2002; 2nd ed.
59. Rotman, D., Golbeck, J., Preece, J. (2009). The community is where the rapport is—On sense ve structure in the YouTube community. In Proceedings from 4Th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (s. 41-49). New York, NY: ACM Publications.
60. Sharoff, L. (2011). Integrating YouTube into the nursing curriculum. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 16(3):6. DOI: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol16No03PPT03
61. Sherer P. ve Shea T. (2011) Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56-59, DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2010.511313
62. Snelson, C. (2009). Web-based videowhite for e-Learning: Tapping into the YouTube phenomenon. In H. Yang ve S. Yuen (Ed.), Collective Intelligence ve E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking (s.147-166). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
63. Snelson, C. (2010). Web-based video for e-Learning: Tapping into the YouTube phenomenon. In H. Yang ve S. Yuen (Ed.). Collective ıntelligence and e-learning 2.0: ımplications of web-based communities and networking (s. 147-166). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Snelson, C. (2011). YouTube across the disciplines: a review of the literature. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 7(1). 159-169.
64. Snelson, C., Rice, K., ve Wyzard, C. (2012). Research priorities for YouTube and video-sharing technologies: A delphi study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 119-129.
65. The Global Lives Project (t.y.). 4 Nisan 2016 tarihinde from https://globallives.org/ adresinden alındı.
66. Tseng, H. ve Fogg, B.J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.
67. Whiting R., Symon G., Roby H., ve Chamakiotis P. (2016). Who’s behind the lens? A reflexive analysis of roles in participatory video research. Organizational Research Methods 21(2), 316-340.
68. Wunsch-Vincent, S. ve Vickery, G. (2007). Participative Web: User-Created Content DSTI/ICCP/IE(2006)7/FINAL. Report presented to Working Party on the Information Economy of OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
69. Xu, W. W., Park, J., ve Park, H. W. (2017). Longitudinal dynamics of the cultural diffusion of Kpop on YouTube. Quality and Quantity, 51, 1859-1875.
70. Ylirisku, S., ve Buur, J. (2007). Designing with video: Focusing the user-centred design process. London: Springer. ISBN:9781846289613.
71. YouTube (2021). YouTube’s Community Guidelines (YouTube Help). Copyright and rights management. Fair use in YouTube. 01 Şubat 2021 tarihinde https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9783148?hl=en adresinden alındı
72. YouTube (2021). Community Guidelines (YouTube Help). Child Safety on YouTube. 01 Şubat 2021 tarihinde https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801999?hl=enveref_topic=9282679 adresinden alındı.
73. YouTube Official Blog, (2019). Making our strikes system clear and consistent. 01 Şubat 2021 tarihinde https://blog.youtube/news-ve-events/making-our-strikes-system-clear-and adresinden alındı.