Buradasınız

ÇEVRİMİÇİ TARTIŞMALARA İLİŞKİN ÖĞRENCİ GÖRÜŞLERİ

STUDENT OPINIONS ABOUT CASE DISCUSSIONS IN ONLINE ENVIRONMENTS

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
Online discussions, facilitates time and place independent discussion with peers and more knowledgable or experienced others, allows students to examine different perspectives and creating meaning in the light of critics of his/her perspective. For those reasons online discussions are being used greatly in the educational research and practise. This research used semi-structured interviews for investigating students opinions about factors which hinder or support discussions. The constant comparative method of data analysis (Glasser and Strauss, 1967) was used to construct categories and themes that captured the recurring patterns that emerged from the data. An analysis of the interviews of 15 student resulted in the following themes: (1) grup size; (2) participation from different universities; (3) experienced teacher participation; (4) experience in online discussions; (5) knowledge about content of discussions; (6) role of discussion facilitator; (7) grading or evaluating discussions. Students had agreed in some themes, like necesstiy of partcipation of discussion facilitator, but in some themes, like group size, students explained different opinions.
Abstract (Original Language): 
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.
157-178

REFERENCES

References: 

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.
Berge, Z. (1995). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. Educational Technology,
35 (1), 22-30.
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.
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.
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.
Chan, Y. K. B (2003). A Qualitative study of teachers’ cognitive activities when
ınteracting with video ethnography. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Brigham
Young University, Brigham.
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.
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.
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.
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
Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
qualitative research, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Karasar, N. (1998). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (8. Basım). Ankara: Nobel yayın
dağıtım.
Kiefer, K. (2006). Complexity, class dynamics, and distance learning, Computers and
Composition. 23, 125–138.
Koschmann, T., Kelson, A.C., Feltovich, P.J., & Barrows, H.S. (1996). Computersupported
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.
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
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.
Leahey, T.H., & Harris, R.J. (1997). Learning and cognition (4 th ed.). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Lee, H. (2008). Students’ perceptions of peer and self assessment in a higher online
knowledge sharing. Education Tech Research Dev.55:573–595
Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human
Development, 43, 332–360.
Levinsen K.T. (2006). Qualifying online teachers--Communicative skills and their
impact on e-learning quality. Education and Information Technologies.12 (1).41-
51.
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.
Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2007) . When to jump in: the role of the instructor in
online discussion forums. Computers&Education. (49),2, 193-213
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: a summary of recent
theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96.
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
Moller, L. (1998, March). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous
distance education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of. The American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Orton-Johnson, K. (2007). The online student: lurking, chatting, flaming and joking.
Sociological Research Online, 12(6).
Pena-Shaff, J., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning
construction in Computer Bulletin Board (BBS) discussions. Computers and
Education, 42, 243-265.
Perry, G. (2002). The use fo online video case studies and teacher education.
Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Pepperdine University.
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
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.
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.
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
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher
Education,10, 77–88.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. Kagan-Page,
London
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
Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: an educational perspective (4th Ed.).Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online
course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet
Psychology, 5(3), 6-18.
Wade, S. E., & Fauske, J. R. (2004). Dialogue online: Prospective teachers’ discourse
strategies in computer-mediated discussions. Reading Research Quarterly,
39(2), 134–160.
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.
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.
Williams, S. & Pury, C. (2002). Student attitudes toward and participation ın electronic
discussions. International Journal of Educational Technology. 3 (1)
Yıldırım, A. Y. ve Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri.
Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com