UZAKTAN ÖĞRENENLER İÇİN KİŞİLERARASI ETKİLEŞİM SÜRECİ: DİJİTAL YERLİ VE DİJİTAL GÖÇMEN KAVRAMLARI KAPSAMINDA TÜRKİYE’DEN BİR ÖRNEK

Year 2017, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 294 - 310, 31.07.2017

Fırat Tufan

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesakademia.310633

Abstract

Çalışma kapsamında, İstanbul Üniversitesi Uzaktan Eğitim
Fakültesi’nde öğrenim gören, farklı bölümlerden 8 dijital yerli olarak
tanımlanabilecek uzaktan yüksek öğretim öğrencisi ve 8 dijital göçmen
olarak tanımlanabilecek uzaktan yüksek öğretim öğrencisi ile odak grup görüşmesi
gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğrencilere, uzaktan eğitim sistemi dahilinde tüm
paydaşlarla hangi iletişim araçlarıyla iletişim kurmayı tercih ettikleri,
iletişim sürecinde yaşadıkları sorunların ve beklentilerinin neler olduğuna
yönelik sorular sorulmuştur. Sonuçolarak, dijital yerli ve dijital göçmen öğrencilerin
iletişim kurma süreçlerinde farklılıklar olduğu ortaya konmuşve bu farklılıkların,
onların öğrenme süreçlerine de yansıdığı tespit edilmiştir. Dijital yerli
olarak tanımlanan öğrenciler, kurumsal dijital öğrenme ortamları üzerinde
sosyal ağlar aracılığıyla daha çok etkileşim beklentisi içinde iken, dijital
göçmenler sistem üzerindeki uygulamalar aracılığıyla grup çalışmasına yönelik
girişimlerin güçlendirilmesini talep etmektedir. Teknik sorunlar, her iki
grubun öğrenme faaliyetlerini olumsuz yönde etkileyen faktörlerdir.

 

Keywords

Dijital Yerli, Kişilerarası İletişim, Uzaktan Eğitim, Etkileşim, Dijital Göçmen

INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION PROCESS FOR DISTANCE LEARNERS: AN EXAMPLE FROM TURKEY IN LINE WITH THE CONCEPTS OF DIGITAL NATIVES AND DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS

Abstract

            Within
the scope of the study, a focus group interview was conducted with the 8
distance education students who can be defined as digital natives and 8
distance education students who can be defined as digital immigrants. Students
were chosen from different departments in Istanbul University’s Faculty of Open
and Distance Education. Among the important questions that asked as a part of
the study are what communication tools they prefer to communicate with all
stakeholders under the distance education system, what kind of problems they
experience in the communication process and what their expectations are
regarding the communication practices. In conclusion, it is determined that
there are some differences in communication habits between digital native and
digital immigrant students. It is revealed that such differences are able to
reflect on their learning practices. While digital natives expected to enjoy
more interaction opportunities on the formal educational software through the
social networks, digital immigrants expected some initiatives for collaborative
studies. Technical problems are important factors that adversely affect the
learning activities for both groups.

Keywords

Interpersonal Communication, Distance Education, Interaction, Digital Native, Digital Immigrant

References

• Abrami, P. C. & Bernard, R. M. & Bures, E. M. & Borokhovski, E. & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 23, 82-103.
• Advertising Research Foundation. Qualitative Research Council. (1985). Focus groups: issues and approaches. California University: Advertising Research Foundation.
• Allen, M. & Bourhis, J. & Burrell, N. & Mabry, E. (2002) Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis, American Journal of Distance Education. 16(2), 83-97.
• Berge, Z. L. (2013). Barriers to communication in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 14(1). Article 31, 374-388.
• Berger, N. S. (1999). Pioneering experiences in distance learning: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 23 (6), 684-690.
• 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. Internet and Higher Education. 15, 118-126.
• Buckley, C. A. & Pitt, E. & Norton, B. & Owens, T. (2010). Students’ approaches to study, conceptions of learning and judgements about the value of networked technologies. Active Learning in Higher Education. 11(1), 55-65.
• Casey, D. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education through technology. March/April. TechTrends, 52(2), 45-51.
• Chang, H. H., Hung, C. J., Hsieh, H. W. (2014) Virtual teams: cultural adaptation, communication quality and interpersonal trust. The journal of total quality management and business excellence. Vol. 25 No. 12 pp. 1318-1335.
• Collins, G. R. & Van Hoof, H. B. (2001) Issues in Web- based Distance Education. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education. 13(5), 3-7.
• Correa, T. (2016). Digital skills and social media use: how Internet skills are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital natives’. Information, Communication & Society, 19 (8), 1095-1107.
• Desai, M., Hart, J., & Richards, T. (2009). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education. Educa- tion, 129(2), 327–334.
• Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm, London.
• Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40– 50.
• Hardy, K., & Bower, B. (2004). Instructional and work life issues for distance learning faculty. New Directions for Community Colleges, 128, 47–54.
• Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenials Rising: The Next Generation. New York: Vintage Books.
• Jones, J. & Ramanau R. & Cross S. & Healing G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education. 54, 722-732
• Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K.-L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: are they digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.
• Keyton, J. (2000). The relational side of groups. Small Group Research, 31(4), 387–396.
• Kirk, C. P. & Chiagouris, L. & Lala, V. & Thomas, J. D. E. (2015). How Do Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants Respond Differently to Interactivity Online? A Model for Predicting Consumer Attitudes and Intentions to Use Digital Information Products. Journal of Advertising Research. 55(1), 81-94.
• Kolikant, Y. B. D. (2010). Digital natives, better learners? Students’ beliefs about how the Internet influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behavior. 26, 1384–1391.
• Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage Publications.
• Kuo, Y. C. & Walker, A. E. & Belland, B. R. & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A Predictive Study of Student Satisfaction in Online Education Programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 14(1), 16-39.
• Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education. 56, 429-440.
• Metallo, C. & Agrifoglio, R. (2015). The effects of generational differences on use continuance of Twitter: an investigation of digital natives and digital immigrants. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34 (9), 869-881
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principle of distance education. London: Routledge. 22-38.
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. New York, NY: Wadsworth.
• Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning. Cengage Learning.
• Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millenials: Understanding the new students. Educause Review 37–47.
• Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation, An Educause e-book publication. <http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf> [03/08/2016].
• Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
• Prensky, M. (2001). “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1”, On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6
• Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education. 5(3), Article 1
• Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH. Charles E. Merrill.
• Rubin, R. B. & Perse, E. M. & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and Measurement of Interpersonal Communication Motives. Human Communication Research. 14(4), 602- 628.
• Smith, R.O. (2008). The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups. Distance Education, 29(3), 25–340.
• Smolin, L. I., & Lawless, K. A. (2003). Becoming literate in the technological age: New responsibilities and tools for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 570-577.
• Strauss, W. & Howe, N. (1992). Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069. US: Quill; Reprint edition.
• Strauss, W. & Howe, N. (1997). The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy-What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. US: Broadway Publisher.
• Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw- Hill.
• Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the Net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Venkatesh, V. & Jedwab, J. & Rabah, J. & Thomas, T. & Varela, W. & Alexander, K. (2013). From disconnected to connected: Insights into the Future of Distance Education and Web 2.0 Tools in Higher Education. International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education. 10(3), 6-13.
• Wade, C. E., Cameron, B. A., Morgan, K. and Williams K. C. (2011). Are interpersonal relationships necessary for developing trust in online group projects? Journal of Distance Education. Vol. 32, No.3, pp. 383-396.