Factors Affecting Interaction in a Distance Education via Video Conferencing

Yıl 2015, Cilt 4, Sayı 1, 02.07.2015

Yiğit TURGUT Hasan KARAL

Öz

The purpose of this study is to determine the factors affecting the interaction between instructor and students in a distance education process via video conferencing. In the study, case study, one of the qualitative research patterns, has been adopted and contrary case sampling, one of the purposive sampling methods, has been used. The data, which was collected through interviews and observations, have been analyzed with the method of content analysis method in the study. The findings are in the direction that the methods and techniques of the instructor with his supportive behaviors for interaction have a big impact on the interaction. In addition, the properties of students such as prior knowledge and self-confidence have been seen to affect the interaction. It has been concluded that other factors which affect the interaction were technical problems such as muting and disconnection, and communication difficulties such as the inability for eye contact and misfiring of gestures and mimics. Keywords: video-conferencing, distance education, interaction

Anahtar Kelimeler

video-conferencing, distance education, interaction

Kaynakça

• Ajadi, O.T., Salawu, O.I., &Adeoye, A.F. (2008). E-learning and distance education in Nigeria, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4). Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/
• Aşkar, P., &Halıcı, U. ( 2004). E-learning as a catalyst for innovation in education.In C.Gauido (Ed.), E- educational applications: human factors and innovative approaches (pp. 196-206). London: IDEA.
• Bozkaya, M. (2006). Learner-to-instructor interaction in video conference applications: instructors’ perceptions, SosyalBilimlerDergisi, https://www.anadolu.edu.tr/arastirma/hakemli_dergiler/sosyal_bilimler.aspx 6(1), 53-74. Retrieved from
• Carville, S., & Mitchell, D.R. (2000). It’s a bit like star trek’: the effectiveness of video conferencing, Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 42-49. doi: 10.1080/135580000362070 Coventry, L. (n.d.). Video conferencing in higher education. Retrieved from www.agocg.ac.uk/reports/mmedia/video3/video3.pdf
• Doggett, M.A. (2008). The videoconferencing classroom: what do students think?,Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(4), 29-41. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/
• Eastman, K.J., & Swift, O.C. (2001). New horizons in distance education: the online learner-centered marketing class, Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 25-34. Retrieved from http://jmd.sagepub.com/
• Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: ideas to think with, Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16–27. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/
• Ekiz, D. (2004). Eğitimdünyasınınnitelaraştırmaparadigmasıylaincelenmesi: doğalya da yapay [Investigating the world GaziÜniversitesiTürkEğitimBilimleriDergisi, 4(2), 415-439. Retrieved from http://www.tebd.gazi.edu.tr/
• Elo, S., &Kyngäs, H. (2008).The qualitative content analysis process, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107- 115.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
• Gillies, D. (2008).Student perspectives on videoconferencing in teacher education at a distance, Distance Education, 29(1), 107-118.doi: 10.1080/01587910802004878
• Göktaş, İ., &Kayri, M. (2005). E-öğrenmeveTürkiyeaçısındansorunlar, çözümönerileri [E-learning, the problems and YüzüncüYılÜniversitesiElektronikEğitimFakültesiDergisi, 2(2). Retrieved from http://efdergi.yyu.edu.tr/
• Gunawardena, C., &Zittle, R. (1995). An examination of teachingand learning processes in distance education and implications for designing instruction. In M. Koble (Ed.), The American Center for the Study of Distance Education Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education: Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda (pp. 315-340). University Park, PA: Penn State.
• Holmberg, B. (2003). Distance education in essence: An overview of theory and practice in the early twenty-first century, (2nd ed.). Germany: Oldenburg.
• Karal, H., Çebi, A., &Turgut, Y.E. (2011). Perceptions of students who take synchronous courses through video conferencing about distance education, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 276- 293. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/
• Knipe, D., & Lee, M. (2002).The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing, British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 301-311.doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00265
• Koeber, C., & Wright, W.D. (2008). On the outside teaching in : using internet video-conferencing to instruct an introductory sociology course from a remote location, Teaching Sociology, 36, 331-343. doi: 10.1177/0092055X0803600403
• Koppelman, H., &Vranken, H. (2008). Experiences with a synchronous virtual classroom in distance education. In J. Amillo, C. Laxer, E. Menasalvas, & A. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 194-198). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1384271.1384324
• MacLaughlin, E.J., Supernaw, R.B., & Howard K.A. (2004).Impact of distance learning using videoconferencing technology on student performance, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(3). Retrieved from http://www.ajpe.org/
• Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., &Adamczyk, P. (2010). Interactive video technology: enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education, Computer & Education, 54(3), 742-748. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.011
• Martin, M. (2005). Seeing is believing: the role of videoconferencing in distance learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 397-405. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00471.x
• Merriam, S.B. (1997).Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Mutlu, M.E., Özöğüt, Ö.,Kayabaş, İ., & Kip, B. (2007). Açıköğretimde e-sertifikaprogramları [The open education e-certificate programs], In M. Akgül, E. Derman, U. Çağlayan, & A. Özgit (Eds.), IX.AkademikBilişimKonferansıBildirileri (pp. 9-16). İstanbul: İnternet TeknolojileriDerneği.
• Oliver, R., &McLoughlin, C. (1997).Interactions in audiographics teaching and learning environments, American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-54.doi: 10.1080/08923649709526950
• Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Saw, K.G., Majid, O., Ghani, N.A., Atan, H., Idrus, R.M., Rahman, Z.A., & Tan, K.E. (2008). The videoconferencing learning environment: technology, interaction and learning intersect, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 475-485. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00736.x
• Smyth, R. (2005). Broadband videoconferencing as a tool for learner-centred distance learning in higher education, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 805-820. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2005.00499.x
• Stewart, R.A., Harlow, B.D., &DeBacco, K. (2011).Students’ experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments, Distance Education, 32(3), 357-381.doi: 10.1080/01587919.2011.610289
• Şimşek, H., &Yıldırım, A. (2008).Sosyalbilimlerdenitelaraştırmayöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (6th ed.). Ankara: SeçkinYayınevi.
• Whyte, S. (2011).Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms, ReCALL, 23(3), 271-293.doi: 10.1017/S0958344011000188
• Woodside, A.G. (2010). Case study research: theory, methods and practice. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
• Yiğit, N., Alev, N., Altun, T., Özmen, H., &Akyıldız, S. (2006). Öğretimteknolojilerivemateryalgeliştirme [Instructional technologies and material design] (2nd ed.). Trabzon: CeleplerMatbaacılık.
• Yozwiak, A.J., Robiner, N.W., Victor, M.A., &Durmusoğlu, G. (2010). Videoconferencing at psychology internships: interns’ perceptions of interactive television experiences and prospects, Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 17, 238-248. doi: 10.1007/s10880-010-9206-3 Appendix
• Appendix A. Interaction Observation Form
• INTERACTION OBSERVATION FORM DATE:
• Type of Interaction I-C I-S S-I S-S Social Procedural Expository Explanatory Cognitive
• The following explanations have been made in the study of Oliver and McLoughlin (1997) as for the types of
• interaction in the form of interaction observation form.
• Appendix B.Interaction Observation Form Type of Interaction Example Social
• Teacher-student talk establishing and developing rapport
• T: HelloSally, how areyou?
• S: Verywellthankyou.
• T: Great tohearfromyou; whatareyougoingto do for us? Procedural
• Teacher-student dialogue involving
• information exchange on course
• requirements and procedures
• S: Mr. Gray, can youtell me how
• manypagesyouwant us towrite?
• T: I’m lookingforabout 2 pages in total.
• S: Can weuse a topic of ourownchoice? Expository
• Student or teacher demonstrating knowledge
• or skill in response to a direct request from another
• T: Can anyonetell me how we say, “Today it is warm”? S: Samuidesu?
• T: Not quite, it is… Explanatory
• Teacher using student responses to explain
• knowledge and develop content
• T: This is how we ask thatquestion in Japanese…
• Sally, can younow ask yourquestion?
• S: Sallyasks her question…
• T: Great Sally, but didyourememberto… John,
• willyouplease ask yourquestion? Cognitive
• Teacher providing constructive feedback to a
• student to reflect and to consider an
• alternative perspective/reality
• T: Can youtell me whatyouthinkwasthe main
• reasonfor his actions?
• S: He wasangryandwantedtogeteven.
• T: But wasthatall_ Whatabout his wishtoimprove
• his positionandstanding?
• S: I suppose he did but I thoughtthat he
• wouldhavedone it differently.