3B SENKRON ORTAMLARA ÖĞRETİCİNİN GÖRÜNTÜLÜ VEYA AVATARLA KATILIMININ ÖĞRENCİLERİN MEMNUNİYET DÜZEYİNE ETKİSİ

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 35 - 51, 15.06.2015

Murat Çoban , Arif Topuz Embiya Çelik Selçuk Karaman

Öz

Uzaktan eğitimde en önemli konulardan birisi etkileşimdir. Etkileşim sayesinde öğ-
renciler birbirleriyle ve öğreticiyle daha verimli iletişim kurabilirler. Bu çalışmada
3B senkron ortamlarda öğreticinin öğrencilerle ve öğrencilerin birbirleriyle olan
etkileşimi incelenmiştir. Bu araştırmanın amacı; öğreticinin 3B senkron ortama
canlı web kamera görüntüsüyle veya avatarıyla katılımının öğrencilerin memnuniyet
düzeyine olan etkisini araştırmaktır. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum
çalışması modelinin kullanıldığı araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Atatürk Üniversitesi
Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü’nde öğrenim gören üçüncü sınıf
öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. 25 öğrencinin katıldığı çalışma sonunda rastgele dokuz
öğrenci seçilmiş ve bu öğrencilerle odak grup görüşmesi yapılmıştır. Toplanan veriler
içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen kod ve temalar betimlenerek
özet tablolarla görselleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda öğrenciler; öğreticinin
ders sürecine avatarıyla katılmasından ziyade canlı görüntüsüyle katılmasının daha
etkili olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir. Bu araştırmadan elde edilen bulguların, 3B sanal
ortamlarda öğretici-öğrenci ve öğrenci-öğrenci etkileşiminin arttırılması konusunda
yapılacak çalışmalar için yararlı olabileceği düşünülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uzaktan Eğitim, 3B Sanal Dünyalar, Avatar Öğretici, Çevrimiçi Öğrenme, Senkron Eğitim

Kaynakça

• Anderson, R., Beavers, J., VanDeGrift, T., & Videon, F. (2003, November). Videoconferencing and presentation support for synchronous distance learning. In Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003 33rd Annual (Vol. 2, pp. F3F-13). IEEE.
• Baddeley, A. (1993). Your Memory: A User’s Guide. New York: Avery Publishing Group.
• Berge, Z.L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary web-based learning. Educational Technology, 31(1), 5–11.
• Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance‐learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305.
• Can, T. (2012). Yabancı dil öğretimi bağlamında öğrenen özerkliğinin sanal öğrenme ortamları yoluyla desteklenmesi. Hasan Âli Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 72-85.
• Carrell, L. J. & Menzel, K. E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms.Communication Education, 50(3), 230-240.
• Christou, C. (2009). Virtual Reality in Education. Affective, Interactive, and Cognitive Methods for E-Learning Design: Creating an Optimal Education Experience, 228.
• Dalgarno, B., & Hedberg, J. (2001). 3D learning environments in tertiary education. In Ascilite’01: Meeting at the crossroads (pp. 33-36).
• Dannenberg, R. A. (2010, March). Computer Games and Virtual Worlds: A New Frontier in Intellectual Property Law. American Bar Association: USA.
• Dehn, D. M., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 52, 1–22.
• Dickey, M.D. (2003). 3D Virtual Worlds: An Emerging Technology for Traditional and Distance Learning. Proceedings of Ohio Learning Network. OH: Columbus.
• Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education, 49(3), 677-690.
• Ekiz, D. (2003). Eğitimde araştırma yöntem ve metotlarına giriş: Nitel, nicel ve eleştirel kuram metodolojileri. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
• Fırat, M. (2010). Learning in 3D virtual worlds and current situation in Turkey.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 249-254.
• Godwin, R. (2003). Tools for Distance Education: Toward Convergence and Integration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 18-22.
• Green, J.M, Draper A.K & Dowler E.A (2003) Short cuts to safety: risk and ‘rules of thumb’ in accounts of food choice. Health, Risk and Society, 5, 33–52.
• Guynup, S., & Carlson, K. (2000). Avatar as content delivery platform. Future Generation Computer Systems, 17(1), 65-71.
• Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning?. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27-54.
• Holdford, D. (2008). Content analysis methods for conducting research in social and administrative pharmacy. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2), 173-181.
• Jain, P., Stubbins, J., & Uddin, R. (2006). Interactive Virtual Laboratory for Distance Education in Nuclear Engineering. American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, IL 60526 (United States).
• Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments.International Journal of Artificial intelligence in education, 11(1), 47-78.
• Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
• Kane, S. F., & Duranske, B. T. (2008). Virtual Worlds, Real World Issues. American Bar Association, 1(1), 9-16.
• Kim, C., Lee, S. G., & Kang, M. (2012). I became an attractive person in the virtual world: Users’ identification with virtual communities and avatars.Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1663-1669.
• Lawless-Reljic., & Karine, S. (2010). The effects of instructor-avatar immediacy in Second Life, an immersive and interactive three-dimensional virtual environment, Unpublished doctora thesis, University of San Diego and San Diego State University, California, USA.
• Lester, J. C., Stone, B., & Stelling, G. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9, 1–44.
• Liu, S. L. (2008). Student interaction experiences in distance learning courses: A phenomenological study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,11(1).
• Marcus, T. (2003). The role of the discussion group in asynchronic distance-learning courses as a beneficial factor in the learning process. Communication, technology and education. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
• Markwood, R. A., & Johnstone S.M. (1994). New Pathways to a Degree: Technology Opens the College and New Pathways to a Degree: Seven Technology Stories. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
• Martínez, J. I., Mata, C. D., Carmona, O. S., & Narbona, D. G. (2008). Animal flocks as natural and dynamic spatial clues in adventure video-games. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 7(2), 73-80.
• Massaro, D. W. (2004). A framework for evaluating multimodal integration by humans and a role for embodied conversational agents. In Proceedings of international conference on multimodal interfaces ’04 (pp. 24–31). State College, PA: Association for Computing Machinery.
• Mayadas, A.F. (1999). What is ALN?, http://www.aln.org/alnweb/aln.htm adresinden 4 Temmuz 2013 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Messinger, P. R., Stroulia, E., Lyons, K., Bone, M., Niu, R. H., Smirnov, K., & Perelgut, S., (2009). Virtual worlds — past, present, and future: New directions in social computing. Decision Support Systems. 47(3), 204-228.
• Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. http://www.ajde.com/index.htm adresinden, 10 Haziran 2013 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Moore, M.G., & Thompson, M.M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature. Research Monograph No. 2. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education. (ED 330 321).
• Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2000). Montreal, Canada.
• Morozov, M., Gerasimov, A., & Fominykh, M. (2012, September). vAcademia--Educational Virtual World with 3D Recording. In Cyberworlds (CW), 2012 International Conference on (pp. 199-206). IEEE.
• Morozov, M., Tanakov, A., Gerasimov, A., Bystrov, D., & Cvirco, E. (2004, August). Virtual chemistry laboratory for school education. In Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on(pp. 605-608). IEEE.
• Münzer, S. (2003). An evaluation of synchronous co-operative distance learning in the field: The importance of instructional design. Educational Media International, 40(1-2), 91–100.
• O'Connell, J., & Groom, D. (2010). Virtual Worlds. Australian Council for Educational.
• Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1172-1183.
• Pan, Z., Cheok, A. D., Yang, H., Zhu, J., & Shi, J. (2006). Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Computers & Graphics, 30(1), 20-28.
• Park, Y.J., & Bonk, C.J. (2007a). Is online life a breeze? A case study for promoting synchronous learning in a blended graduate course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 307-323.
• Petrakou, A. (2010). Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1020-1027.
• Picciano, A.G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in on-line course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1). http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln-vol6issue1.htm adresinden 29 Haziran 2013 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Prasolova-Førland, E., Fominykh, M., & Leong, P. (2013, March). 3D recording as enabling technology for serious games and educational roleplaying. InProceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games (pp. 177-177). ACM.
• Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the nutrition society, 63(4), 655.
• Rowley, J. (2002). Using Case Studies in Research. Management Research News, 25(1), 16-27.
• Stewart, A. R., Harlow, D. B., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students’ experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments. Distance Education, 32(3), 357-381.
• Tuovinen, J. E. (2000). Multimedia distance education interactions. Educational Media International, 37(1), 16-24.
• Velthuijsen, A., Hooijkaas, C., & Koomen, W. (1987). Image size in interactive television and evaluation of the interaction. Social Behaviour, Vol 2, 113-118.
• Verduin, J.R., & Clark, T.A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Waiti, P. (2005). Evaluation of Kaupapa Ara Whakawhiti Matauranga (KAWM). Wellington: Research Division, Ministry of Education.
• Wang, Y. (2004). Distance language learning: Interactivity and fourth-generation Internet-based videoconferencing. CALICO journal, 21(2), 373-395.
• Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2007). Online synchronous language learning: SLMS over the Internet. Innovate, 3(3), 1-7.
• Western, J. (2006). Internet video conferencing: A new technology for teaching and learning. Computers in New Zealand Schools, 18(3), 12–21.
• Wilson, B & Cole, P. (1994, April). An Instructional-Design Review of Cognitive Teaching Models. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
• Yang, Z., & Liu, Q. (2007). Research and development of web-based virtual online classroom. Computers & education, 48(2), 171-184.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
• Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 1-6.