Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede öğrenenlerin sosyal bulunuşluk düzeylerinin, etkileşim örüntülerinin ve öğrenme malzemeleri tercihlerinin incelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemindeki öğrenenlerin sosyal bulunuşluk düzeyleri tercih edilen etkileşim türleri ve öğrenme malzemelerinin kullanım durumunu incelenmiştir. Nicel araştırma yöntemi kesitsel tarama deseninin kullanıldığı çalışmada veriler 2022-2023 öğretim yılı bahar döneminde Açıköğretim Sistemi Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemi üzerinden çevrimiçi ortamda toplanmıştır. Araştırma verileri 1617 gönüllü katılımcıdan toplanmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, yüksek sosyal bulunuşluğa sahip öğrenenlerin, diğer öğrenenler ve eğitmenle iletişim ve etkileşim kurarak derslerine aktif olarak katıldıklarını göstermiştir. Buna karşılık, düşük sosyal bulunuşluğa sahip öğrenenler öğrenme malzemelerini kendi kendilerine çalışmayı tercih etmiştir. Ayrıca, yüksek sosyal bulunuşluğa sahip öğrenenler görsel, işitsel, görsel-işitsel ve etkileşime dayalı öğrenme malzemeleri tercih ederken, düşük sosyal bulunuşluğa sahip öğrenenler metin tabanlı malzemelere yönelmiştir. Soru tabanlı öğrenme malzemeleri hem yüksek hem de düşük sosyal bulunuşluğa sahip öğrenenler tarafından eşit derecede tercih edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak hem çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamı hem de öğrenme malzemeleri içinde canlı derslerde sosyal bulunuşluğu artıran etkinliklerin dahil edilmesi önemli kabul edilebilir. Canlı derslerin bu tür etkinliklerle zenginleştirilmesi, tüm öğrenenler için daha çekici ve etkileşimli bir öğrenme deneyimi yaratabilir. Araştırma sonuçları tartışılmış ve gelecek araştırmalar için öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyal bulunuşluk
• Açıköğretim Sistemi
• Etkileşim türleri
• Öğrenme Malzemesi
• Canlı dersler

Investigation of learners' social presence levels, interaction patterns and learning materials preferences in open and distance learning

Öz

In this study, the social presence levels of learners in Anadolu University Open Education System, preferred interaction types and the use of learning materials were examined. In the study, in which quantitative research method cross-sectional survey design was used, data were collected online through the Open Education System Learning Management System in the spring semester of the 2022-2023 academic year. Research data were collected from 1617 volunteer participants. The findings of the study showed that learners with high social presence actively participated in their courses by communicating and interacting with other learners and the instructor, whereas learners with low social presence preferred to study the learning materials on their own. Moreover, learners with high social presence preferred visual, auditory, audio-visual and interactive learning materials, while learners with low social presence preferred text-based materials. Question-based learning materials were equally preferred by both high and low social presence learners. In conclusion, it can be considered important to include activities that increase social presence in live lessons both as an online learning environment and in learning materials. Enriching live lessons with such activities can create a more engaging and interactive learning experience for all learners. The results of the study are discussed and suggestions for future research are presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Soscial presence
• Open Education System
• Interaction types
• Learning Material
• Live Sessions

Kaynakça

1. Akcaoğlu, M. ve Lee, E. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2293
2. Anisa, A. (2022). Efl students’ perceptions and preferences of the video use as a replacement for traditional lecture method. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 310-325. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v10i1.2656
3. Arifin, W. N. (2015). The graphical assessment of multivariate normality using SPSS. Education in Medicine Journal, 7(2), 71-75.
4. Armellini, A. and Stefani, M. D. (2015). 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. Başaran, Y. K. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde örnekleme kuramı. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 47(5), 480-495.
6. Baykan, Z. and Naçar, M. (2007). Learning styles of first-year medical students attending erciyes university in Kayseri, Turkey. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 158-160. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00043.2006
7. Bonk, C. J. and Lee, M. M. (2017). Motivations, achievements, and challenges of self-directed informal learners in open educational environments and moocs. Journal of Learning for Development, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v4i1.195
8. Brockman, R., Taylor, J., Segars, L., Selke, V., ve Taylor, T. (2020). Student perceptions of online and in-person microbiology laboratory experiences in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education Online, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1710324

9. Brown, C. ve Wilson, C. (2016). One university making a difference in graduate education. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 34(4), 402-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010116633319
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
11. Cano, J. (2023). A conjoint study and segmentation on the preferred online learning attributes of senior high school learners. International Journal on Open and Distance E-Learning, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.58887/ijodel.v9i1.108
12. Caprara, L., ve Caprara, C. (2021). Effects of virtual learning environments: A scoping review of literature. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3683–3722. doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10768-w
13. Chen, Y., Lei, J., ve Cheng, J. (2019). What if online students take on the responsibility: students’ cognitive presence and peer facilitation techniques. Online Learning, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1348
14. Claypoole, V., Neigel, A., Waldfogle, G., ve Szalma, J. (2019). Evaluative social presence can improve vigilance performance, but vigilance is still hard work and is stressful. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception ve Performance, 45(5), 616-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000635
15. Cleveland-Innes, M. ve Campbell, P. (2012). Emotional presence, learning, and the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 269. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1234
16. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Pearson.
17. Cui, T. ve Wang, J. (2023). Empowering active learning: a social annotation tool for improving student engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(2), 712-730. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13403
18. Fabian, K., Smith, S., Taylor‐Smith, E., & Meharg, D. (2022). Identifying factors influencing study skills engagement and participation for online learners in higher education during covid‐19. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1915-1936. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13221
19. Feinberg, J. ve Aiello, J. (2006). Social facilitation: a test of competing theories1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(5), 1087-1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00032.x
20. Fiock, H. (2020). Designing a Community of Inquiry in Online Courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.3985
21. Geng, S., Law, K., ve Niu, B. (2019). Investigating self-directed learning and technology readiness in blending learning environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0147-0
22. Guichon, N. ve Cohen, C. (2014). The impact of the webcam on an online l2 interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 70(3), 331-354. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2102
23. Güneş, İ., Büyük, K., Öztürk, A., Tuna, G., vd. (2017). Kitlesel uzaktan eğitimde öğrenen-içerik etkileşimi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemi örneği. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları Ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 9-36.
24. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., ve Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
25. Haris, M. H. M., Husin, S. F., Rosli, R., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023). Is there connectivism in online engagement?. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(8). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i8/17736
26. Harnisch, H. and Taylor-Murison, L. (2011). Transition and technology—evaluation of blended learning delivered by university staff to 6th form students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 398-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01190.x
27. Huang, K., Law, V., ve Lee, S. J. (2018). The role of learners’ epistemic beliefs in an online community of inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1882-1895. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12684
28. Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web‐based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00222
29. Kadir, Z. A., Mohamad, F., Rathi, N. A. M., & Rashid, M. H. A. (2021). The perceived effectiveness of student engagement strategies in open and distance learning. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 12(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.18488/5007.v12i1.4388
30. Kalaycı, Ş. (2017). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Dinamik Akademi Yayın Dağıtım.
31. Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Çebi, A. ve Kan, A. (2014). E-öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik “Sosyal Bulunuşluk Ölçeği” geliştirme çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(2), 755-768. 10.12738/estp.2014.2.1847
32. Kim, H.Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry ve Endodontics, 38(1), 52-54.
33. Kopus, T., Mikhalat, E., Belozerova, E., ve Meshcheryakova, O. (2021). Instructor presence in online teaching: challenges and opportunities. SHS Web of Conferences, 127, 03002. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112703002
34. Kreijns, K., Xu, K., ve Weidlich, J. (2021). Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 139–170. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8
35. Lin, C., Zheng, B., ve Zhang, Y. (2016). Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 730-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12457
36. Lin, H. (2012). Effects of multimedia vocabulary annotations on vocabulary learning and text comprehension in esp classrooms. CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing, EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012, Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2012.000047
37. Loke, S. (2015). How do virtual world experiences bring about learning? a critical review of theories. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2532
38. Martin, F., Parker, M., ve Deale, D. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 228. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1174
39. Marriott, P. (2002). A longitudinal study of undergraduate accounting students' learning style preferences at two uk universities. Accounting Education, 11(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280210153263
40. Miao, J. ve Ma, L. (2022). Students’ online interaction, self-regulation, and learning engagement in higher education: the importance of social presence to online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.815220
41. Mykota, D., ve Duncan, R. (2007). Learner characteristics as predictors of online social presence. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(1), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.2307/20466630
42. Oh, C. S., Bailenson, J. N., ve Welch, G. F. (2018). A systematic review of social presence: Definition, antecedents, and implications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00114
43. Özsarı, G., ve Aydın, C.H. (2021). Interaction preferences of distance learners in Turkey. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1981279
44. Öztok, M. ve Kehrwald, B. (2017). Social presence reconsidered: moving beyond, going back, or killing social presence. Distance Education, 38(2), 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322456
45. Öztürk, Ö., Erorta, Ö., Güler, E., Uğurhan, Y. Z. C. (2023). Açıköğretim Sisteminde öğrenenlerin canlı derslere ilişkin görüşleri. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları Ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 337-355. https://doi.org/10.51948/auad.1198562
46. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). New York: Open University Press.
47. Peacock, S., Cowan, J., Irvine, L., ve Williams, J. (2020). An exploration into the importance of a sense of belonging for online learners. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(2), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i5.4539
48. Ren, X. (2022). Investigating the experiences of online instructors while engaging and empowering non-traditional learners in ecampus. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 237-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11153-x
49. Richardson, J. C., ve Swan, K. (2019). Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students’ Perceived Learning and Satisfaction. Online Learning, 7, 68-88.
50. Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 706-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x
51. Samardzija, N. ve Peterson, J. (2015). Learning and classroom preferences of gifted eighth graders. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 233-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592498
52. Sangineto, E., Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., ve Micarelli, A. (2007). Adaptive course generation through learning styles representation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 7(1-2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-007-0101-0
53. Sederevicˇiu ̄te ̇-Pacˇiauskiene ̇, Ž.; Valantinaite ̇, I.; Asakavicˇiu ̄te ̇, V. (2022). ‘Should I Turn On My Video Camera?’ The Students’ Perceptions of the Use of Video Cameras in Synchronous Distant Learning. Electronics 11, 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ electronics11050813
54. Shannon, C. ve Clarke, D. (2022). How teacher presence engages and supports online female postgraduate students at an australian regional university. Ascilite Publications, e22098. https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2022.98
55. Shatila, S. (2023). Not Alone When I’m Feeling Stressed: Online Adult Learner Connection and Retention. Adult Education Quarterly, 74(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136231184570
56. Sönmez, A. and Özdamar, N. (2024). Examining the factors related to learners’ intention and usage continuity of online learning. Open Praxis, 16(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.2.570
57. Swope, K., Cadigan, J., Schmitt, P., ve Shupp, R. (2008). Personality preferences in laboratory economics experiments. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 998-1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.065
58. Trespalacios, J. and Uribe-Flórez, L. J. (2019). Case studies in instructional design education: students’ communication preferences during online discussions. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753019874149
59. Vrieling-Teunter, E., Henderikx, M., Nadolski, R., ve Kreijns, K. (2022). Facilitating peer interaction regulation in online settings: the role of social presence, social space and sociability. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.793798
60. Wang, M. ve Chen, H. C. (2013). Social presence for different tasks and perceived learning in online hospitality culture exchange. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.215
61. Wang, J., Yang, Y., Liu, H., ve Aalst, J. (2021). Continuing to teach in a time of crisis: the Chinese rural educational system’s response and student satisfaction and social and cognitive presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1494-1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13129
62. Yu, Z. (2021). The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00252-3
63. Yueh, H., Lin, W., Liu, Y., Tominaga, S., & Minoh, M. (2014). The development of an interaction support system for international distance education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(2), 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2014.2308952