Çevrimiçi Tartışmalara İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşleri

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Çevrimiçi Tartışmalara İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşleri

Öz

Öğrencilerin kendi bakış açısını, zamandan ve mekandan bağımsız olarak akranları ve kendinden daha bilgili kişilerle tartışmasına, farklı bakış açılarını inceleyip, kendi bakış açısına gelen eleştiriler ışığında anlam oluşturmasını sağlayan çevrimiçi tartışmalar, araştırma ve uygulama alanlarında kullanılmaktadır. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme ile gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmada, durum çözümlemesi amacıyla yapılan çevrimiçi tartışmaları engelleyen ya da kolaylaştıran unsurlar, öğrenci görüşleri ile incelenmiştir. Görüşmelerle elde edilen verilerde yinelenen temaların belirlenmesi için sürekli karşılaştırmalı içerik çözümlemesi yöntemi kullanılmıştır (Glasser ve Strauss, 1967). 15 öğrenciye ait görüşme verilerinin çözümlenmesi sonucundaki ana temalar şunlardır; (1) öğrenci sayısı, (2) tartışma gruplarının farklı üniversiteden oluşturulması, (3) öğretmen katılımı, (4) çevrimiçi tartışma deneyiminin olup olmaması, (5) içerikle ilgili yeterli bilginin olup-olmaması, (6) yöneticinin tartışmaya etkisi, (7) çevrimiçi tartışmaların ders-geçme notuna etkisi. Bu ana temalara ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri incelendiğinde, yöneticinin tartışmaya katılımının gerekliliği gibi bazı konularda görüş birliği olduğu ancak grup büyüklüğü gibi bazı konularda farklı öğrenci görüşleri olduğu belirlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevrimiçi tartışma, durum tartışmaları, öğrenci görüşleri

Kaynakça

1. Baker, B. D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 1-13.
2. Berge, Z. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Educational Technology, 35 (1), 22-30.
3. Beck, R. J., King, A & Marshall, S. K. (2002). Effects of Videocase Construction on Preservice Teachers’ Observations of Teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (4), 345-361.
4. Bratitsis T., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2008). Interaction analysis as a multi-support approach of social computing for learning, in the “Collaborative Era”: Lessons learned by using the DIAS system. In P. Diaz, Kinshuk, I. Aedo, E. Mora (eds) the 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2008), IEEE Computer Society, 536-538.
5. Brown, A.L. & Palinscar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individualized knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick, eds., Knowing, learning and instruction: essays in honour of robert Glaeser, pp. 393–451. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
6. Chan, Y. K. B (2003). A Qualitative study of teachers’ cognitive activities when ınteracting with video ethnography. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Brigham Young University, Brigham.
7. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 323–346.
8. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.

9. Dolen, W.M. van, Dabholkar, P.A., & Ruyter, J. (2007) . Satisfaction with online commercial group chat: the ınfluence of perceived technology attributes, chat group characteristics, and advisor communication style, Journal of Retailing, 83, (3), 339-358.
10. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23. 15 Ocak 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/CogPresPaper_June30_.pdf
11. Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
12. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of DistanceEducation, 11(3), 8-26.
13. Gunawardena, C.N. (1995). Social Presence Theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1, 147–166.
14. Hemphill, L. S., & Hemphill, H. H. (2007). Evaluating the impact of the guest speaker posting in online discussions. British Journal of educational technology, 38(2), 287-293.
15. Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, (6), 573-595.
16. Hughes, M., Ventura, S., & Dando, M. (2007). Assessing social presence in online discussion groups: a replication study. Innovations in Education and teaching International, 44(1), 17-29.
17. Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & B. B. Haag. (1995) Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 9(2), 7-26.
18. Karasar, N. (1998). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (8. Basım). Ankara: Nobel yayın dağıtım.
19. Kiefer, K. (2006). Complexity, class dynamics, and distance learning, Computers and Composition. 23, 125–138.
20. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A.C., Feltovich, P.J., & Barrows, H.S. (1996). Computer- supported problem-based learning: a principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T.D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Lai, M. (2006, February). Scaffolding at the ınter-group level: an ınternational collaboration experience between hong kong and canada students CITE Research Symposium 2006, Hong Kong, China, 205-213
22. Lapadat, J. S. (2002). Written interaction: a key component in online learning. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 27 Ocak 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html.
23. Leahey, T.H., & Harris, R.J. (1997). Learning and cognition (4 th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
24. Lee, H. (2008). Students’ perceptions of peer and self assessment in a higher online knowledge sharing. Education Tech Research Dev.55:573–595
25. Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.
26. Levinsen K.T. (2006). Qualifying online teachers--Communicative skills and their impact on e-learning quality. Education and Information Technologies.12 (1).41- 51.
27. Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 93-107.
28. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007) . When to jump in: the role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers&Education. (49),2, 193-213
29. McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: a summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96.
30. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2001). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: we know why but do we know how? Teaching & Learning Forum 2000, Curtin University of Technology, Australia. http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf2000/abstracts/mcloughlinc2.html
31. Moller, L. (1998, March). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous
32. distance education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of. The American
33. Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
34. Orton-Johnson, K. (2007). The online student: lurking, chatting, flaming and joking. Sociological Research Online, 12(6).
35. Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers and Education, 42, 243-265.
36. Perry, G. (2002). The use fo online video case studies and teacher education. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Pepperdine University.
37. Powell, R. (2000). Case based teaching in homogeneous teacher education context. a study of pre-service teachers’ situative cognition. Teaching and Teacher Education. 16, 389-410
38. Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 397-431). (2nd ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
39. Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education. Quebec City. 27 Ocak 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı.
40. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International review of research in open and distance learning. 3,(1). 18 Kasım 2006 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.icaap.org/iuicode?149.3.1.x
41. Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education,10, 77–88.
42. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. Kagan-Page, London
43. Salmon, G., & Giles, K. (1997, October). Moderating online. presented to the online education, Berlin. 17 Ocak 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/gilly/MOD.html
44. Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: an educational perspective (4th Ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
45. Siva Kumari, D. (2001). Connecting graduate students to virtual guests through asynchronous discussions - analysis of an experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 53-63.
46. Shulman, J. H. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case Methods in Teacher Education (p. 50–63). New York: Teachers College Press.
47. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93-135.
48. Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asyncronous discussion and assesment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.
49. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.
50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5(3), 6-18.
51. Wade, S. E., & Fauske, J. R. (2004). Dialogue online: Prospective teachers’ discourse strategies in computer-mediated discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 134–160.
52. Wang, S. K. (2008). The effects of a synchronous communication tool (yahoo messenger) on online learners’ sense of community and their multimedia authoring skills. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7(1), 59-74.
53. Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9 (2- 3), 155-173.
54. Williams, S. & Pury, C. (2002). Student attitudes toward and participation ın electronic discussions. International Journal of Educational Technology. 3 (1)
55. Yıldırım, A. Y. ve Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.