Öğretmenlerin Harmanlanmış Programlama Öğrenme Topluluğunun İncelenmesi

Öz

Teknolojinin gelişmesiyle birlikte programlama öğrenmek hayatımızın her alanında giderek daha önemli hale gelmiştir. Her öğretmenin derslerinde kullanabilmesi için programlama öğrenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle öğretmenlerden oluşan bir araştırma topluluğu kurulmuş ve öğretmenlerin harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarını kullanarak programlama öğrenmeleri sağlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada nitel araştırma modellerinden biri olan durum çalışması deseni tercih edilmiştir. Araştırma grubu 18 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmanın verileri görüşme formu, yansıtıcı raporlar, ders video kayıtları, anlık mesajlaşma ve forum mesajlaşma kayıtları aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Katılımcılardan elde edilen veriler nitel veri analiz yöntemlerinden biri olan içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Veri analizi sonucunda problemi tanımlama, bilgi alışverişinde bulunma, çözüm üretme ve uygulama yapma gibi bilişsel bulunuşluğun göstergeleri belirlenmiştir. Öğretmenlerin kendini açma davranışları ve grupla sürekli tartışma ve hitap etmelerinin sosyal bulunuşluğun önde gelen göstergeleri olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Ortamı etkili bir şekilde kullanma, tartışmayı kolaylaştırma, değerlendirme ve açıklayıcı geri bildirim yoluyla öğrenmeyi pekiştirme gibi öğretimsel bulunuşluk kategorileriyle ilgili göstergeler belirlenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında ortaya konulan göstergeler ilgili alanyazına dayalı olarak tartışılmış, programlama eğitimi, karma öğrenme ve araştırma topluluğu için önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Bu çalışma kapsamında ortaya konulan sosyal, bilişsel ve öğretimsel bulunuşluk göstergelerinin, programlama eğitimi üzerine yapılacak gelecekteki araştırmalara rehberlik edeceği ve harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamlarında araştırma topluluğuna dayalı teorik ve uygulamalı çalışmalara katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• araştırma topluluğu
• programlama eğitimi
• harmanlanmış öğrenme
• öğretmen eğitimi

Investigation of the Blended Programming Learning Community of Teachers

Abstract

With the development of technologies, learning programming has become increasingly critical in every aspect of our lives. Every teacher needs to learn programming to use it in their lessons. For this reason, researchers established a community of inquiry consisting of teachers, and teachers were enabled to learn programming using blended learning environments. A qualitative case study design was adopted in this research. The study group consisted of 18 teachers. Data was collected through multiple sources, including interview forms, reflective reports, lecture video recordings, instant messaging exchanges, and forum discussion records. The collected data were analyzed using content analysis, a widely employed method in qualitative research. Results revealed that indicators of cognitive presence, including defining the problem, exchanging information, creating solutions, and making applications, were identified. It was concluded that teachers' self-disclosure behaviors and their continued discussion and addressing of the group are the leading indicators of social presence. Indicators related to the categories of teaching presence, such as utilizing the environment effectively, facilitating discussion, and consolidating learning through evaluation and explanatory feedback, have been identified. The indicators revealed within the scope of the research were discussed based on the literature, and suggestions were made for programming education, blended learning, and the community of inquiry. The social, cognitive, and teaching presence indicators revealed within the scope of this study will guide future research on programming education and contribute to theoretical and applied studies based on the community of inquiry in blended learning environments.

Keywords

• community of inquiry
• programming education
• blended learning
• teacher education

Kaynakça

1. Adigun, O. T., Mpofu, N., & Maphalala, M. C. (2025). Fostering self‐directed learning in blended learning environments: A constructivist perspective in Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(1), e12572. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12572
2. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x
3. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Özden, M. Y. (2009). Online and blended communities of inquiry: Exploring the developmental and perceptional differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(6), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.765
4. Armellini, A., & De Stefani, M. (2016). Social presence in the 21st century: An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1202-1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12302
5. Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding-Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. European Schoolnet. http://www.eun.org/resources/detail?publicationID=481
6. Berelson, B. (1952). Content Analysis in Communication Research. Illinois: The Free. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271625228300135
7. Carroll, N., Lang, M., & Connolly, C. (2024). An extended community of inquiry framework supporting students in online and digital education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2326658
8. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

9. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed., p.1-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Constructivism. Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.) (p. 384-410). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
11. Duffy, T. M., & Cunnigham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Macmillan.
12. ElSayad, G. (2023). Higher education students’ learning perception in the blended learning community of inquiry. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00290-y
13. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
14. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
15. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley ve Sons.
16. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit.
17. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definitions, current trends and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Ed.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives Local Designs (p:3-21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
18. Hanson, K. S., & Clem, F. A. (2006). To blend or not to blend. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Ed.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives Local Designs (p.136-149). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
19. Kaczkó, É., & Ostendorf, A. (2023). Critical thinking in the community of inquiry framework: An analysis of the theoretical model and cognitive presence coding schemes. Computers & Education, 193, 104662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104662
20. Kalelioğlu, F. (2018). Türkiye’de programlama öğretimi. In Yasemin Gülbahar & Hasan Karal (Ed.) Kuramdan Uygulamaya Programlama Öğretimi (p. 67-89). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
21. Lee, R., Hoe Looi, K., Faulkner, M., & Neale, L. (2021). The moderating influence of environment factors in an extended community of inquiry model of e-learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1758032
22. Lim, J., & Richardson, J. C. (2022). Considering how disciplinary differences matter for successful online learning through the Community of Inquiry lens. Computers & Education, 187, 104551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104551
23. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students' lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 70-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.004
24. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Second Edition. California: Sage Publications.
26. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
27. Öztürk, E. (2015). Facebook as a new community of inquiry environment: an investıgation in terms of academic achievement and motivation. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/15.14.20
28. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29. Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1976). A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content. Review of Educational Research, 46(4), 665-690. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046004665
30. Reisoğlu, İ. (2014). Teaching, social and cognitive presence in 3D virtual learning environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Atatürk University, Erzurum.
31. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/153
32. Sampson, D., Kampylis, P., Moreno-León, J., & Bocconi, S. (2025). Towards high-quality informatics K-12 education in Europe: key insights from the literature. Smart Learning Environments, 12(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00366-5
33. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
34. Sundgren, M., Jaldemark, J., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2023). Disciplinary differences and emotional presence in communities of inquiry: Teachers’ expressions of digital technology-enabled teaching. Computers and Education Open, 4, 100134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100134
35. Wang, J. (2026). Research on the Interaction Mechanism of Presence Elements and Optimization Strategies in Blended Learning from the Perspective of Community of Inquiry. Foro de Educacion, 24(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.14201/fde.24102
36. Wicks, D. A., Craft, B. B., Mason, G. N., Gritter, K., & Bolding, K. (2015). An investigation into the community of inquiry of blended classrooms by a Faculty Learning Community. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.001
37. Zydney, J. M., deNoyelles, A., ve Seo, K. K. J. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 58(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.009