UYARLANMIŞ SOSYAL ETKİLEŞİM ARAÇLARININ ÖĞRENCİLERİN AKADEMİK BAŞARILARINA VE SOSYAL BULUNUŞLUK ALGILARINA ETKİSİ

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında uyarlanmış sosyal etkileşim araçlarının öğrencilerin akademik başarıları ve sosyal bulunuşluk algılarına etkisini belirlemektir. Araştırmada 3X2 faktöriyel desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü 2010-2011 yılı Güz dönemi Proje Geliştirme ve Yönetimi I dersini seçen 87 kişi oluşturmuştur. Öğrencilere 4 farklı çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamı sunulmuş, kendi tercihleri doğrultusunda 3 ortama atanmışlardır. Ardından öğrenciler, araştırmanın deneysel sürecini, 13 hafta boyunca tercih etmiş oldukları çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamında öğretim elemanı eşliğinde ve grup arkadaşlarıyla çalışarak tamamlamışlardır. Araştırmanın bağımlı değişkenleri ise öğrencilerin akademik başarıları ile sosyal bulunuşluk algılarıdır. Öğrencilerin sonuç değerlendirmeye göre akademik başarı puanlarının çalıştıkları çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamına göre değişmediği ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışma grubundaki tüm öğrencilerin akademik başarıları uygulama süreci sonunda anlamlı düzeylerde artmıştır. Bu nedenle, öğrencilere öğrenme sürecinin başlangıcında kullanmak istedikleri etkileşim araçlarını uyarlama fırsatının verilmesi tüm öğrencilerin öğrenmesi açısından faydalı olmuştur. Her 3 ortamdaki tüm öğrencilerin sosyal bulunuşluk algılarının yüksek olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Bununla birlikte öğrencilerin sosyal bulunuşluk algılarının çalıştıkları çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamına göre değişmediği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çevrimiçi öğrenme,etkileşim,uyarlama,sosyal bulunuşluk,akademik başarı,sosyal etkileşim araçları

The Effects of Adaptable Social Interaction Tools on Students’ Academic Achievements and Perceptions of Social Presence

Abstract

The aim of this research was to investigate the effects of adaptable social interaction tools on academic achievements and social presence perceptions of students. 3X2 factorial design was used in the research. 87 students, from Gazi University Faculty of Gazi Education Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, were in the sample of the research. These students were enrolled in “Project Development and Management-I” course in 2010-2011 Fall Semester. Students were asked to choose one of four different online learning environments. According to their choices, students were assigned to three groups for different learning environments. Students studied within groups with the help of an instructor in the online learning environment which they had chosen, for 13 weeks. Dependent variables of this research were academic achievement and social presence perception. Students’ academic achievements in summative evaluation did not differ according to learning environments. The academic achievements of all students significantly increased from pretest to posttest. For this reason, it can be concluded that it was beneficial in terms of achievements to give the students the opportunity to adapt the social interaction tools they demanded at the beginning of the course. The social presence perceptions of all students were found to be high. In addition, no significant difference was found between social presence perceptions of the students according to the learning environment

Keywords

• online learning,interaction,adaptable,social presence,academic achievement,social interaction tools

Kaynakça

1. Alomyan, H. (2004). Individual differences: implications for web-based learning design. International Journal of Education, 4(4), 188-196.
2. Battalio, J. (2007). Interaction online: a reevaluation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 339-352.
3. Bonk, C. J., Hansen, E. J., Grabner-Hagen, M. M., Lazar, S. A., & Mirabelli, C. (1998). Time to ‘‘Connect’’: synchronous and asynchronous case-based dialogue among preservice teachers. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discours, 289-314. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305.
5. Buboltz, W., Young, T., & Wilkinson, L. (2003). Online behavior and personality correlates of technological use. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.). Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003, 1142-1144. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
6. Bulterman D.C.A., Rutledge L., Hardman L., & Van Ossenbruggen J. (1999). Supporting adaptive and adaptable hypermedia presentation semantics. The 8th IFIP 2.6 Working Conference on Database Semantics (DS-8). Semantic Issues in Multimedia Systems. January 5-8.
7. Chen, S. Y. (2005). Evaluating the learning effectiveness of using Web-based instruction: An individual differences approach. International Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education, 1(1), 69-82.
8. Chen, S., & Caropreso, E. (2004). How does personality influence collaborative online discussion?. In R. Ferdig et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 2844-2851. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

9. De Bra, P. (1999). Design issues in adaptive hypermedia application development, Brusilovsky, P., & De Bra, P.,(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Adaptive Systems and User Modeling on the World Wide Web, 29-39, Toronto and Banff, Canada.
10. Edwards, J. T. (2009). Undergraduate students’ perceptions and preferences of computer- mediated communication with faculty. American Communication Journal, 11(1).
11. Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
12. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Tempelaar, D. T. (2009). Social presence, web-videoconferencing and learning in virtual teams. Industry and Higher Education, 23(4), 301-310.
13. Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.
14. Hannafin, M. J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 18(3), 167-179.
15. Higgs, B., & McCarthy, M. (2005). Active learning–from lecture theatre to field-work. In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching, 37-44. Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education.
16. Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
17. Hirumi, A. (2006). Analyzing and designing e-learning interactions. In C. Juwah (Ed.). Interactions in online education :Implications for theory and practice, 46-71.
18. Routledge Publishing, New York.
19. Johnson, G. M., & Johnson, J. A. (2006). Personality, Internet experience, and e- communication preference. In P. Isaias, M. B. Nunes, & I. J. Martinez (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2006, Vol. 1, 55-62. Murcia, Spain: IADIS Press.
20. Kang, M., Choi, H., & Park, S. (2007). Construction and validation of a social presence scale for measuring online learners’ involvement. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007,1829-1833.Chesapeake,VA:AACE.
21. Koch, N. (2001). Software Engineering for Adaptive Hypermedia Systems: Reference Model, Modeling Techniques and Development Process. Doctoral Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany.
22. Küçük, M. (2010). Çevrimiçi öğrenenlerin öğrenme biçimi, öğrenme stratejileri ve eşzamansız tartışmalara katılımları arasındaki ilişki. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi.
23. McLellan, H. (1999). Online education as interactive experience: Some guiding models. Educational Technology, 39(5), 36-42.
24. Miller, S. M., & Miller, K. L. (2000). Theoretical and practical considerations in the design of web-based instruction. In Abbey, B. (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education, 156-177. PA: Idea Group Publishing.
25. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
26. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In Keegan, D. (Ed.), Theoretical Principle of Distance Education. 22-38, London, New York: Routledge
27. Newberry, B. (2001). Raising student social presence in online classes. In Webnet 2001: World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings, Orlando, FL, October 23-27.
28. Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2), 31-39.
29. Olpak, Y. Z., ve Çakmak, E. K. (2009). E-öğrenme ortamları için sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeğinin uyarlama çalışması. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), ss. 142-160.
30. Oppermann, R. (1994). Adaptively supported adaptability. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 40(3), 455-472.
31. Parker, R. E., & Ingram, A. L. (2011). Considerations in choosing online collaboration systems: Functions, uses, and effects. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 7(1), 2-15.
32. Paterno, F., & Mancini, C. (1999). Designing web interfaces adaptable to different types of use. Proceedings of the Workshop Museums and the Web, Pittsburgh.
33. Poza, M. I. C. (2011). A case of computer-mediated communication and multimedia ıntegration: Breaking classroom barriers with more ınput and opportunities to communicate. Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages NECTFL, 67, 69-84.
34. Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton Publishers.
35. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Baker, J. D., Neukrug, E., & Hanes, J. (2010). The efficacy of computer mediated communication technologies to augment and support effective online helping profession education. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 28(3), 161-177.
36. Sadera, W. A., Robertson, J., Song, L. & Midon, M. N. (2009). The role of community in online learning success. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 227-284.
37. Short, J. E., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley.
38. So, H. J. (2008). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: Collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 143-160.
39. 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 and Education, 51(1), 318-336.
40. Tu, C. H. (2002). The relationship between social presence and online privacy. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 293-318.
41. Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2002). eLearning communities. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 207-218.
42. Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002), The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.