Distance and Face-To-Face Students’ Perceptions Towards Distance Education: A Comparative Metaphorical Study

Year 2019, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 191 - 207, 01.01.2019

Ayse Bagrıacık Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.522705

Cited By: 32

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine and compare the metaphorical perceptions of face-to-face and distance education students towards distance education. The research was conducted using phenomenology pattern. Research data were obtained from 80 distance education students and 56 face-to-face education students using metaphorical perception form for distance education. Data were analyzed with the content analysis technique. Analysis of the data showed that distance education students produced 66 metaphors while face-to-face students produced 55 metaphors. In both groups, metaphors were grouped under three categories. Considering the categories, it was seen that “provided opportunities” and “limitations” categories emerged in both groups. Distance education is not indispensable for face-to-face students. Some of the distance education students prefer distance education because of desperation. As for sub-categories, it was seen that unlike face-to-face students, distance education students -perceived distance education as a road to dreams and they thought that distance education provided them to study while working in a job. While the most repeated metaphors in distance education students were “a golden blessing, a great opportunity, and indispensable”, face-to-face students repeated the “essential” metaphor the most.

Keywords

Distance education, student perceptions, metaphorical perception, qualitative research

References

• Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education,16(2), 83-97. Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In Terry Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15-45). Canada: Athabasca University Press. Al-Ashmoery, Y., Messoussi, R., & Touahni, R. (2015). Analytical tools for visualisation of interactions in online e-learning activıties on LMS and semantic similarity measures on text. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 73(1). Andrade, M. S. (2015). Teaching Online: A Theory-based Approach to Student Success. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 1-9. Bhagat, K. K., Wu, L. Y., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Development and validation of the perception of students towards online learning (POSTOL). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 350-359. Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126. Chen, T. L., & Chen, T. J. (2006). Exploring learner perception of e-learning effectiveness in the workplace learning context based on diffusion of innovations (DOI) model. Online Submission. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518676.pdf. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel arastırma yontemleri: Bes yaklasıma gore nitel arastırma ve arastırma deseni. (Mesut Butun & Selcuk Besir Demir, Trans. Eds.). Ankara: Siyasal. Cigdem, H., & Topcu, A. (2013). Students’ perception of e-learning in the technical vocational school. Science Journal of Turkish Military Academy, 23(2), 1-19. Ekici, G. (2016). Ogretmen Adaylarının "Bilgisayar" Kavramına İliskin Metaforik Algıları. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(3). Falconer, L. (2008). Evaluating the use of metaphor in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 117-129. Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate students' perceptions of online learning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27, 1. Jung, I. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: from the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445-464. Jung, I. (2012). Asian learners’ perception of quality in distance education and gender differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 1-25. Kemp, E. (1999). Metaphor as a tool for evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1), 81-89. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Lenka, S. K., & Kant, R. (2012). A Study of Attitude and Perception of the Learners towards Distance Education in Relation to Their Biographical Factors. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 236-244. Meyer, K. (2005). Common metaphors and their impact on distance education: What they tell us and what they hide. The Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1601-1625. McHaffie, P. (2000). Surfaces: tacit knowledge, formal language, and metaphor at the Harvard Lab for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis. International journal of geographical information science, 14(8), 755-773. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Sage. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view. USA: Thomson Learning. Naidu, S. (2014). Enabling time, pace and place independence. In J. Michael Spector, M. David Merrill, Jan Elen, M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp.259-268).NewYork:Springer.Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=oVlHAAAAQBAJ&dq=time+and+place+independence&hl=tr&lr= Oteng-Ababio, M. (2011). Door of hope or despair: Students' perception of distance education at University of Ghana. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 12(3). Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & education, 54(1), 222-229. Patton, M. K. (2014). Nitel arastırma ve degerlendirme yontemleri Qualitative research and Evoluation Methods]. (M. Butun-S. B. Demir, Trans. Eds.). Ankara: Pegem. Powell, D. C. (2007). Student satisfaction with a distance learning MPA program; A preliminary comparison of on-campus and distance learning students’ satisfaction with MPA courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(1). Robinson, B. (2008). Using Distance Education and ICT to Improve Access, Equity and the Quality in Rural Teachers' Professional Development in Western China. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1-17. Saban, A. (2009). Ogretmen adaylarının ogrenci kavramına iliskin sahip oldukları zihinsel imgeler. Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2). Saban A. Kocbeker B. N. Saban A.(2006) Ogretmen adaylarının ogretmen kavramına iliskin algılarının metafor analizi yoluyla incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri 6(2). Shen, D., Cho, M. H., Tsai, C. L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 10-17. Simonson, M. 1997. Does anyone really want to learn at a distance? Contemporary Education 68(2), 104-7. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance. Foundations of distance education. North Carolina: Information Age. Senyuva, E., & Kaya, H. (2013). Metaphors for the internet used by nursing students in Turkey: A qualitative research. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 87-106. Tuncay, N., & Ozcinar, Z. (2009). Distance sducation students’ “metaphors”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2883-2888. Ward, M. E., Peters, G., & Shelley, K. (2010). Student and faculty perceptions of the quality of online learning experiences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 57-77. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastırma yontemleri[Qualitative Research in Social Sciences]. Ankara: Seckin. Zhao, H., Chen, L., & Panda, S. (2014). Self-regulated learning ability of Chinese distance learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 941-958.