Turizm Eğitimi Alan Öğrencilerin İnternete Dayalı Uzaktan Eğitim Yöntemine Yönelik Görüşlerinin Belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı; ön lisans düzeyinde turizm eğitimi alan öğrencilerin İnternete Dayalı Uzaktan Eğitim (İDUE) yöntemi konusundaki görüşlerini faktörler itibariyle belirlemektir. Çalışma örneklemini Gaziantep Üniversitesi Turizm ve Otelcilik Meslek Yüksekokulu’nda 2013-2014 Akademik Yılı Güz Dönemi’nde derslere devam eden 232 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada veri toplamak amacıyla araştırmacılar tarafından oluşturulan veri toplama aracı kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre araştırmaya katılan öğrenciler İDUE yönteminin en çok istenilen zamanda ve istenilen yerde derslerine devam etmelerine olanak sağlamasının önemli olduğunu belirtmişlerdir. İDUE yönteminin okullarında uygulanması gerektiğini ve bu yöntemin maliyetleri azaltacağını düşündüklerini ifade etmişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnternete temelli öğrenme, uzaktan eğitim, turizm eğitimi.

Determination of the Tourism Education of Students' Opinions on the Internet-Based Distance Education Methods

Öz

The main aim of this study; pre-bachelor education in the tourism area of Internet-based distance education students (IDU to) their views on the methods to identify as of factors. The sample consists of 232 students in the Tourism and Hotel-Vocational School of Higher Education at Gaziantep University in Turkey in 2013-2014 education year. The data collection tool was created by researchers. According to the results, students reported the importance of the IBDL method especially for eliminating the time and space constraints. Students also stated that IBDL method should be used in educational settings to reduce the costs. IDU method should be implemented in schools and stated that they thought it would reduce the costs of this method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Internet based learning, distance learning, tourism education.

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS Uygulamaları. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık.
2. Allen, I., Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the USA, 2011 Wellesley MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
3. Allen, I.E. ve Seaman, J. (2014). Grade Change, Tracking Online Education in the United States, Babson Survey Group
4. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R. , Bayraktaroğlu, S. ve Yıldırım, E. (2007). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
5. Anohina, A. (2005). Analysis of theTerminology Used in The Field of Virtual Learning. Educational Technology and Society , 8 (3), 91-102.
6. Bernard, R. M.,Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade , C. A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes, M. A., and Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79 (3), 1243-1289.
7. Bersin, J. (2004). The Blended Learning Book, Best Practices, Proven Methodologies and Lessons Learned, Pfeiffer (John Wileyve Sons Inc).San Fransisco, CA.
8. Betts, K.,Hartman, K., ve Oxholm, C. (2009). Re-examining vere positioning higher education: twenty Economic and demographic factors driving online and blended program enrollments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(4), 3-23.

9. Braten, I. ve Stromso, H.I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities, Computers in Human Behavior 22 1027–1042
10. Chute, A.G., Williams, J.O.D., ve Hancock, B.W. (2006). Transformation of sales skills through knowledge management and blended learning. In C.J. Bonk ve C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 105-119). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
11. Cook, D.A. (2007). Web-based learning: pros, consand controversies, Clinical Medicine, 7 (1), 37-42.
12. Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
13. Dos, B. (2014). Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Tasarımı Dersinde Harmanlanmış Öğrenme Modelinin
14. Uygulanabilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gaziantep.
15. Dos, B. ve Demir, S. (2013). The Analysis of the Blogs Created in a Blended Course through the Reflective Thinking Perspective, Educational Sciences: Theory ve Practice - 13(2) 1335-1344
16. Durmuş, B. , Yurtkoru, E. S. ve Çinko, M. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
17. Dziuban, C.,Hartman, J. ve Moskal, P.D. (2004). Blended Learning, ECAR Research Bulletin
18. Dziuban, C.,Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., ve Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: An institutional perspective. Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream (pp. 127-148). Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
19. Garrison,D.,&Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.
20. Gilbert, L.,ve Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.
21. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing, Higher Education(2005) 49: 467–493
22. HEA - Open and Flexible Learning, Higher Education Authority, November- 2009
23. Ireland, J., Johnson, N., Adams, D., Eboh, W., &Mowatt, E. (2009). Blended learning in education: effects on knowledge and attitude. British Journal of Nursing, 18(2), 124–130.
24. Işık, A. H., Karakış, R., ve Güler, İ. (2010). Postgraduate students’ attitudes towards distance learning (The case study of Gazi University). Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9.
25. Isaacs, E., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T., ve Tang, J. (1995) A Comparison of Face-to-face and Distributed Presentations, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (CHI '95), Denver, CO, 354-361.
26. Kolowich, Steve (8 April 2013). Coursera Takes a Nuanced View of MOOC Dropout Rates. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
27. Köksalan, B., Sevindik, T. ve Olcay, A. (2011). Web Tabanlı Öğretim Yönteminin Turizm Eğitiminde Akademik Başarıya Etkisi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(3) - s. 1115-1142
28. Leh, A. (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their online communities. Education Media International, 39(1): 31-38.
29. Lewis, N.J.,ve Orton, P.Z. (2006). Blending learning for business impact: IBM’scase for learning success. In C.J. Bonk ve C.R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 61-75). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
30. Mahesh, V.,&Woll, C. (2007). Blended learning in high tech manufacturing: A case study of cost benefits and production efficiency. Journal of A synchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 43-60.
31. Means, B.,Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., ve Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence based practices in online learning: A meta- analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Washington D.C.:Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
32. Murray, M.,Perez, J., Gesit, D. Ve Hedrick, A. (2013). Student Interaction with Content in Online and Hybrid Courses: Leading Horses to the Proverbial Water, Informing Science: The international Journal of an Emerging Trans discipline Volume 16, 2013
33. Newcombe, P.A.,Eynde, J. veSteel, C.H. (2007). Responding to learners’ need for choice: Flexible learning modes for creating an e-learning community, Proceeding sascilite Singapore 2007: Concise paper: van den Eynde, Newcombeand Steel 1041
34. Ono, H.,&Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender and the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84 , 111–121
35. Oye, N.D.,Iahad, A. N., Madar, M.J. ve Rahim, N. (2012). The Impact Of E- Learnıng On Students Performance In Tertıary Instıtutıons, IRACST – International Journal of Computer Networks and Wireless Communications (IJCNWC), ISSN: 2250-3501 Vol.2, No.2, April 2012 121
36. Ozan, Ö. (2008). Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemlerinin (Learning Management Systems-LMS) Değerlendirilmesi, inet-tr’08 - XIII. Türkiye’de İnternet Konferansı Bildirileri 22-23 Aralık 2008 Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara
37. Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket Programlarla İstatiksel Veri Analizi. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitapevi.
38. Özkul, A. E. ve Aydın, C. H. (2012). Öğrenci Adaylarının Açık ve Uzaktan Öğrenmeye Yönelik Görüşleri. XIV. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, 1-3 Şubat 2012.Uşak.
39. Roblyer M.D. ve Ekhaml, L. (Summer 2000). How interactive are your distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Adminstration, Volume 3, Number 2.
40. Rodgers, T. (2008). Student Engagement in the E-learning process and impact on their Grades: International Journal of Cyber Society and Education., 1(2), 143-156.
41. Ruiz, J.,Mintzer, M. Ve Leipzig, R. (2007). The impact of E-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine 81(3), pp. 207-212.
42. Quintana, Y. (1996). Evaluating the Value and Effectiveness of Internet- Based Montreal, Canada, 24-28 June 1996 Transforming Our Society Now Learning, INET96
43. Sahin, I.,ve Shelley, M. (2008). Cons İDUEring Students’ Perceptions: The Distance Education Student Satisfaction Model. Educational Technology ve Society.
44. Schumacher, P.,&Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95–110.
45. Sweeney, J. Ve Ingram, D. (2001). A comparison of traditional and web- based tutorials in marketing education: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 55-62.
46. Teresa, M., ve Ana, S. (2008). The role of new technologies in the learning process: Moodle as a teachingtool in Physics. Computers ve Education 52 (1), 35-44.
47. Twigg, C.A. (2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 38(5), 28, 30, 32-36, 38.
48. Wang, Yi-Chia, Robert Kraut, and John M. Levine.(2012). Tostayorleave?:the relationship of emotional and informational support to commitment in online health support groups. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 2012.
49. Yakın, İ. ve Tınmaz, H. (23-25 Ocak 2013). Uzaktan Eğitimde Önemli Bir Boyut: Öğretmen Adaylarının E-Hazırbulunuşlukları. XIV. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya.
50. Yıldız, E. (2011). Web-Tabanlı Senkron Derslerin Öğretmen Adaylarının Uzaktan Eğitime Karşı Tutumları ve Senkron Teknolojileri Kabulleri Üzerine Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
51. Yukselturk, E. ve Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for Student Success in an Online Course. Educational Technology and Society , 10 (2), 71-83.
52. Zhao, Y.,Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., ve Tan, H.S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836-1884. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00544.x
53. http://www.learningpartnership.org/lib/technology-facts-figures
54. internetworldstats.com