Distance Education Capacities of Universities During the Covid-19 Pandemic Process

Öz

The COVID-19 pandemic emerging in China has affected and continues to affect the whole world widely. The returns of the pandemic were deeply reflected in educational institutions. In Turkey, along with primary, secondary and high schools, instruction in universities is tried to be carried out by distance and alternative education methods. In this context, the main purpose of this study is to determinate and evaluate distance education capacities of universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this study is expected to contribute to the higher education system and the development of distance education applications by evaluating the distance education capacities of Turkish universities and determining a realistic situation regarding the current process. In line with this purpose, the distance education capacities, human resources, software and hardware infrastructures, budgets and future projections of 30 universities, 20 of which are state universities and 10 foundation universities, were examined according to the number of students. The data were obtained using the “Distance Education Capacity Assessment Form” developed within the scope of the study. The findings and results of the research showed that distance education capacities of universities in Turkey, in terms of human resource, hardware and software infrastructure and capacity, content capacity, test infrastructure and capacity and budgets- were low and inadequate. In addition, it was observed that qualifications of the distance education center of the universities did not differ significantly in terms of the type, size and age of the university. This study offers policy makers alternatives and methods for data-based applications in terms of shaping the future of distance education in higher education and applying in similar emergencies. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Higher Education, Turkey, universities, COVID-19, pandemic, distance education, capacity.

Covid-19 Pandemisi Sürecince Üniversitelerin Uzaktan Eğitim Kapasiteleri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı; COVID-19 pandemisi sürecinde üniversitelerin uzaktan eğitim kapasitelerinin belirlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesidir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışmada öğrenci büyüklüklerine göre 20’si devlet üniversitesi 10’u vakıf üniversitesi olarak toplamda 30 üniversitenin uzaktan eğitim kapasiteleri, insan kaynakları, yazılım ve donanım altyapıları, bütçeleri ve gelecek projeksiyonları inceledi. Çalışmada veriler, çalışma kapsamında geliştirilen ‘Uzaktan Eğitim Kapasitesi Değerlendirme Formu’ kullanılarak elde edildi. Sonuçlar Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin uzaktan eğitimde insan kaynakları, donanım ve yazılım alt yapıları ve kapasiteleri, içerik üretim kapasiteleri, sınav alt yapıları ve kapasiteleri ve bütçeleri açısından düşük ve yetersiz olduğu gösterdi. Ek olarak üniversitelerin uzaktan eğitim merkezlerinin yeterlilikleri üniversite türü, büyüklüğü ve yaşı açısından anlamlı olarak farklılaşmadığı görüldü.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yükseköğretim
• COVID-19
• uzaktan eğitim

Kaynakça

1. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J. (2014) Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States, Newburyport.
2. Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater-Steel, A., & Soar, J. (2013). IT infrastructure services as a requirement for e-learning system success. Computers and Education, 69, 431–451.
3. Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (2004). Theory and practice of online learning. Creative Commons.
4. Basak, S. K., Wotto, M., & Belanger, P. (2018). E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(4), 191-216.
5. Bergdahl, N., & Nouri, J. (2020). Covid-19 and crisis-promted distance education in Sweden. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 0123456789.
6. Bergeron, M. Z., & Fornero, S. C. (2018). Centralized and decentralized approaches to managing online programs. In Leading and Managing e-Learning (pp. 29-43). Springer.
7. Britto, M., Ford, C., & Wise, J.-M. (2014). Three institutions, three approaches, one goal: adressing quality assurance in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 17(4), 11–24.
8. Chen, C. C., & Shaw, R. S. (2008). Online synchronous vs. asynchronous software training through the behavioral modeling approach: A longitudinal field experiment. Strategic Applications of Distance Learning Technologies, 4(December), 14–29.

9. Commonwealth of Learning. (2017). Open educational resources: Global report 2017. http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/2788
10. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Glowatz, M., Malkawi, B., Burton, R., … Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 1–20.
11. DeBourgh, G. A. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: student satisfaction in distance learning. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. San Antonio, TX.
12. Docebo. (2018). e-Learning trends 2019, Docebo.
13. Gaba, A. K. (2004). Cost analysis in open and distance learning. Indira Gandhi National Open University.
14. Hansch, A., Hillers, L., McConachie, K., Newman, C., Schildhauer, T., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Video and online learning: critical reflections and findings from the field. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2577882
15. Huang, C., Wang, Y., Li, X. … Cao, B. (2020) Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet, 395, 497-506.
16. Huang, R. H., Liu, D. J., Tlili, A., Yang, J. F., & Wang, H. H. (2020). Handbook on facilitating flexible learning during educational disruption: The Chinese experience in maintaining undisrupted learning in COVID-19 outbreak. UNESCO.
17. Ifijeh, G., & Yusuf, F. (2020). Covid – 19 pandemic and the future of Nigeria’s university system: The quest for libraries’ relevance. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(6), 102226.
18. International Baccalaureate Organization (2020). Online learning, teaching and education continuity planning for schools. IBO.
19. Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(1), 4-29.
20. Konetes, G. D. (2011). Distance education’s impact during economic hardship: How distance learning impacts educational institutions and businesses in times of economic hardship. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(1), 7-16.
21. König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. J., & Glutsch, N. (2020). Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 608–622.
22. Lassoued, Z., Alhendawi, M., & Bashitialshaaer, R. (2020). An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the covid-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 10(9), 1–13.
23. Liguori, E., & Winkler, C. (2020). From offline to online: challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurship education following the COVID-19 pandemic. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 346–351.
24. Limperos, A. M., Buckner, M. M., Kaufmann, R., & Frisby, B. N. (2015). Online teaching and technological affordances: An experimental investigation into the impact of modality and clarity on perceived and actual learning. Computers & Education, 83, 1-9.
25. Luyt, I. (2013). Bridging spaces: Cross-cultural perspectives on promoting positive online learning experiences. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(1), 3-20.
26. Lynch, W. (1998). Communications technology and video production: an evolutionary study of their effects. World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications.
27. Martel, C., Dupont, D., & Bedard, J. (2015). Online and distance education capacity of Canadian universities: analysis and review. Global Affairs.
28. Moore, R. L., & Fodrey, B. P. (2018). Distance education and technology infrastructure: Strategies and opportunities. In Leading and Managing e-Learning (pp. 87-100). Springer.
29. Murphy, E., Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583–591.
30. Nuere, S., & de Miguel, L. (2020). The digital/technological connection with COVID-19: An Unprecedented challenge in university teaching. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 0123456789.
31. Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1172–1183.
32. Peña-López, I. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? UNESCO.
33. Peters, M. A. & Arndt, S., Marek T., ... Besley, T. (2020) Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-22.
34. Rumble, G. (2001). The costs and costing of networked learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2), 75–96.
35. Tamrat, W., & Teferra, D. (2020). COVID-19 Threat to higher education: Africa’s challenges, responses, and apprehensions. International Higher Education, 102, 28-30.
36. Tesar, M. (2020). Towards a post-Covid-19 ‘new normality?’: Physical and social distancing, the move to online and higher education. Policy Futures in Education, 18(5) 556-559
37. The World Bank Education Global Practice (2020). Rapid response guidance note: Educational television & COVID-19. WorldBank
38. The World Bank Education Global Practice. (2020). Remote learning and the COVID-19 outbreak. WorldBank
39. OECD. (2020). Education responses to COVID-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration. OECD.
40. Yuan, J., Li, M. & Lu, Z. K. (2020). Monitoring transmissibility and mortality of COVID-19 in Europe. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 95, 311-315
41. Zhao, F. (2003). Enhancing the quality of online higher education through measurement. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(4), 214–221.