The views of teachers on distance education during Covid-19 process

Year 2023, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 221 - 233, 31.01.2023

Hasan Hüseyin Kılınç , Faruk Medeni

https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1148197

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the views of teachers on distance education, which is carried out using various platforms due to the pandemic in Turkey. The case study design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the research. Convenience sampling method was used in the selection of the participants. The participants were selected on the criteria that they conducted live lessons through distance education platforms and worked at a public school during the pandemic. The data of the study were collected through an interview form prepared by the researchers. The data collection instrument consists of two parts. The first part consisted of questions related to demographic information of the participants. The second part of the form included questions to determine teachers' views on distance education. The data of the study were analyzed with a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis program. The participants stated that distance education has the advantages in terms of communication, flexibility in time and place, high number of participants, and economy. On the other hand, they stated that distance education has limitations in terms of technological reasons, limited active learning, socio-economic reasons, receiving instant feedback, supervision and control, and disadvantaged groups' inability to benefit. Although it was concluded that the participants considered themselves sufficient to manage the distance education process effectively, it was determined that the teachers did not receive any in-service training in order to plan, implement and evaluate the distance education processes. In this context, the participants stated that they want to receive in-service training on the use of Web 2.0 tools, live lesson management, distance education planning training, infrastructure training, presentation techniques. The participants offered suggestions to teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders about the solutions of the problems they experienced.

Keywords

Distance Education, Distance education effectiveness, Teachers’ views

References

• Almalı, H. & Yeşiltaş, E. (2020). The effect of web 2.0 technologies used teaching geography topics in social studies education on students’ academic achlevement and attitudes. Turkish Scientific Researches Journal, 5(2), 64-81.
• Bakioğlu, A. & Can, E. (2014). Quality and accreditation in distance education. Ankara: Vize Publishing..
• Balaman, F. & Hanbay Tiryaki, S. (2021). The Opinions of Teachers about Compulsory Distance Education due to Corona Virus (Covid-19). Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 10 (1) , 52-84 .
• Berge, Z. & Muilenburg, L. (2000). Barriers to distance education as perceived by managers and administrators: Results of a survey. In M. Clay (Ed.), Distance learning administration annual 2000. Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland.
• Cavanaugh, C.S. (2001). The Effectiveness of Interactive Distance Education Technologies in K-12 Learning: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73-88.
• Citation: Hannum, W. H., Irvin, M. J., Banks, J. B. & Farmer,T. W. (2009). Distance education use in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(3).
• Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2013) Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. London: Sage.
• Çengel, M. (2014). A Study on the factor saffecting student’s satisfactions with and successes in the distance education: The case of Sakarya. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Sakarya University, Institute of Social Sciences.
• Düzakın, E. & Yalçınkaya, S. (2008). Web-based distance education system and the predispositions of Çukurova University lecturers. Journal of Çukurova University Institude of Social Sciences, 17(1), 225-244.
• Elçiçek, M. (2021). Tendencies in Turkey-based academic studies on distance education during the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning , 4 (3) , 406-417 .
• Elitaş, T. (2017). New communication technologies in distance education license period: Ataturk University Distance Education Center, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Marmara University, Institute of Social Sciences.
• Elmas, R. & Geban, Ö (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.
• Hannum, W. H., Irvin, M. J., Banks, J. B. & Farmer,T. W. (2009). Distance education use in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(3).
• Hongmei Li (2002) Distance Education: Pros, Cons, and the Future. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED461903.pdf
• İşman, A. (2008). Distance Learning. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing..
• Johnson, J. & Strange, M. (2007). Why Rural Matters 2007: The Realities of Rural Education Growth. Rural School and Community Trust.
• Karalar, H. & Özdemir, S. (2013). Impact Of Guidance In Semantic Web Based Instruction On Attainment And Retention. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 1(1), 1-16.
• Karataş Z. (2015). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Journal of Spiritual Based Social Work Research, 1(1), 62-80.
• Keegan, D. (1990). The foundations of distance education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge
• Kekeç Morkoç, D. & Erdönmez, C. (2015). The effect of web 2.0 technology in the training processes: the sample of vocational school of Çanakkale Social Sciences. Journal of Higher Education and Science 5(3), 335-347.
• Kırmızıgül, H. (2020). The covıd-19 pandemıc and the resultıng educatıon process. Eurasian Journal of Researches in Social and Economics, 7(5), 283-289.
• König, J., Jäger-Biela, D. & 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.
• Maushak, N. J. & Ellis, K. A. (2003). Attitudes of graduate students toward mixedmedium distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4 (2), 129-141.
• Menchaca, M. P. & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252.
• Mete, F. & Batıbay, E. F. (2019). The Impact of Web 2.0 Applications on Motivation in the Turkish Course: The Kahoot Example. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 7(4), 1029-1047.
• Moore M.G. & Kearsley G. (2005) Distance Education: A Systems View, 2nd edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
• Muilenburg, L. Y. & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29-48.
• 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
• Özdoğan, A. Ç. & Berkant, H. G. (2020). The examination of stakeholders’ opinions on distance education during the covid-19 epidemic. Turkish Journal of National Education, 49(1), 13-43.
• Özen, E. & Baran, H. (2019). Trends in distance education: content analysis of theses published in proquest database between 2016-2018. Journal of Open Education Practices and Research. 5 (3), 28-40.
• Özmen, F., Aküzüm, C., Sünkür, M. & Baysal, N. (2011). Functionality of social networking sites in educational settings. 6th International Advanced Technologies Symposium (IATS’11), Elazığ, Turkey
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications.
• Prensky, M. (2009). Homosapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital
• Schlosser, L. A., & Simonson, M. (2009). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms (3rd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Schrum, L. (2000). Online teaching and learning: Essential conditions for success. In L. Lau (Ed.), Distance learning technologies: Issues, Trends, and opportunities (pp. 91–106). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
• Simonson, M. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Souleles N, Laghos A. & Savva S. (2021). From face-to-face to online: assessing the effectiveness of the rapid transition of higher education due to the coronavirus outbreak–the student perspective. Proceedings of INTED2021 Conference,
• Taşçı, S. (2021). Evaluation of emergency distance language education: Perspectives of ELT students. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of ISS, 11(1), 286-300.
• TDK (2021). Writing rules. http://tdk.gov.tr/category/icerik/yazim-kurallari/
• Tunaz, M. & Önem, E. E. (2017). ELT teachers working in underprivileged districts of Turkey and their perspective of continuous professional development opportunities. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(3), 2483-2494.
• UNESCO (2020). Distance learning solutions. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/solutions,
• Uşun, S. (2006). Distance Learning. Ankara: Nobel Publication Distribution
• Valenta, A., Therriault, D., Dieter, M. & Mrtek, R. (2001). Identifying student attitudes and learning styles in distance education. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 5(2), 111-127.
• Walsh, M. (2003). Teaching qualitative analysis using QSR NVivo. The Qualitative Report, 8(2), 251-256.
• Willis, B. (1994). Distance education: Strategies and tools. Educational Technology Publications.
• Yenen, E. T. & Yöntem, M. K. (2020). Teachers’ professional development needs: AQ method analysis. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 11(2), 159-176.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H., (2008). Qualitative research methods in the social science. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing..
• Zerey, B. S. (2019). Examining the views of parents about the protection of children from sexual abuse who are disabled and non-disabled children. Unpublished Master Thesis. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences.