ÇEVRİMİÇİ ÖĞRENME ORTAMLARINDA ÖĞRENCİLERİN DÜŞÜNME STİLLERİNE GÖRE DÜZENLENMİŞ FARKLI ETKİLEŞİM TASARIMLARININ AKADEMİK BAŞARI VE GÜDÜLENMEYE ETKİSİ

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 39, 275 - 299, 23.10.2017

Erhan Güneş , Halil İbrahim Yalın

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı öğrencilerin farklı düşünme
stillerinin ve bu stillere göre düzenlenen farklı çevrimiçi etkileşim
tasarımlarının akademik başarı ve güdülenme üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya
koymaktır. Araştırmada 2x2 faktöriyel desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın
çalışma grubu Bilgisayar Programcılığı Bölümü’nde okuyan 66 öğrenciden
oluşmuştur.

Sonuç olarak, öğrencilerin düşünme stillerine göre
düzenlenen farklı etkileşim tasarımları öğrencilerin süreçteki akademik
başarılarında anlamlı bir farklılık yaratmıştır. Dışa dönük düşünme stiline
uygun etkileşim tasarımını sağlayan öğrenme ortamında çalışan öğrenciler daha
başarılı olmuşlardır. Öğrencilerin düşünme stillerinin farklı olması veya kendi
özelliklerine uygun etkileşim tasarımını sağlayan ortamda çalışıp çalışmamaları
sonuç değerlendirmedeki akademik başarılarında anlamlı bir farklılık
yaratmamıştır. Öğrencilerin güdülenme düzeyleri, ne farklı etkileşim
tasarımları sunan öğrenme ortamına, ne düşünme stillerine ne de düşünme
stilleri açısından kendi özelliklerine uygun etkileşim tasarımını sağlayan
ortamda çalışıp çalışmamalarına göre anlamlı farklılık göstermemiştir. Sonuçlar
göstermektedir ki dışa dönük düşünen öğrencilerin özellikleri göz önünde
bulundurularak hazırlanan çevrimiçi etkileşim tasarımı, süreç değerlendirme
açısından bakıldığında, tüm öğrenciler için daha faydalı olmuştur. Ayrıca
düşünme stilini dikkate alan farklı çevrimiçi etkileşim tasarımları,
öğrencilerin sonuç değerlendirmeden aldıkları akademik başarı puanlarında veya
güdülenme düzeylerinde anlamlı farklılık yaratmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

çevrimiçi öğrenme, etkileşim, düşünme stili

Kaynakça

• Amadieu, F., Tricot, A. and Mariné, C. (2009). Exploratory Study of Relations Between Prior Knowledge, Comprehension, Disorientation and On-Line Processes in Hypertext. The Ergonomics Open Journal, 9(2), 49-57. Anderson, T. (2002). An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63.htm adresinden 07.07.2011 tarihinde erişilmiştir. Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. Moore (Ed.) Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 129–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Anderson, T. and Kuskis, A. (2007). Modes of interaction. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 295–309). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Aypay, A. (2010). The Adaptation Study of General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale to Turkish. İnonu University Journal Of The Faculty Of Education, 11(2), 113-131. Bekele, T. A. (2010). Motivation and Satisfaction in Internet-Supported Learning Environments: A Review. Educational Technology ve Society, 13 (2), 116–127. Bishop, C. and Foster, C. (2011). Thinking Styles: Maximizing Online Supported Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 121-139. Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive Hypermedia. User Modeling and User Adapted Instruction, 11(2), 87-110. Buboltz, W., Young, T. and Wilkinson, L. (2003). Online behavior and personality correlates of technological use. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003, 1, 1142-1144. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö.E., Özkahveci, Ö. ve Demirel, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeğinin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri / Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 207-239. Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C. and Gage, N. L. (1963). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. Carabajal, K., LaPointe, D. and Gunawardena, C.N. (2003). Group development in online learning communities. In M. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp.217-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chang, Y.C., Kao, W.Y., Chu, C.P. and Chiu, C.H. (2009). A learning style classification mechanism for e-learning. Computers & Education, 53(2), 273-285. Chen, S. and Caropreso, E. (2004). How does personality influence collaborative online discussion?. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 1, 2844-2851. Childress, M. and Overbaugh, R. (2001). The relationship between learning style and achievement in a one way video, two-way audio preservice teacher education computer literacy course. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 57-71. Chyung, Y. (2001). Systemic and systematic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 36-49. Chyung, Y., Winiecki, D. and Fenner, J.A. (1999). Evaluation of effective interventions to solve the dropout problem in adult distance education. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of EDMEDIA 99, Eleventh World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Coppola, N. W. (2005). Changing roles for online teachers of technical communication. In C. H. Sides (Series Ed.) & K. C. Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Vol. Eds.), Online education: Global questions, local answers (pp. 89-99). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Daughenbaugh, R. (2002). Does personality type effect online versus in class course satisfaction?. World Conference on E- Learning in Corp.,Govt., Health, & Higher Ed. 2002, 1, 2572-2572. DeLoach, S. B. and Greenlaw, S. A. (2007). Effectively moderating electronic discussions. The Journal of Economic Education, 38(4), 419-434. Dewar, T. and Whittington, D. (2000). Online learners and their learning strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 385-403. Downs, E. and Jenkins, S. (2002). Differential characteristics of learners in online vs. traditional courses. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002, 1, 194-196. Evans, C. and Waring, M. (2009). The place of cognitive style in pedagogy: Realizing potential in practice. Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles: 169-208. Fan, W., Zhang, L. F. and Watkins, D. (2010). Incremental validity of thinking styles in predicting academic achievements: an experimental study in hypermedia learning environments. Educational Psychology, 30(5): 605-623. Freeman, P. and McFrazier, M. (2002). Personality assessment of educational leaders via technology. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002, 1, 471-472. Gilbert, L. and Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35. Godwin, S. J., Thorpe, M. S. and Richardson, J. T. E. (2008). The impact of computer-mediated interaction on distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 52-70. Grimley, M. and Riding, R. (2009). Individual differences and Web-based learning. Cognitive and Emotional Processes in Web-Based Education: Integrating Human Factors and Personalization. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global: 209-228. Gunawardena, C. N. and McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2: 355-395. Harrington, R. and Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(2), 89-95. Hill, J. R., Wiley, D., Nelson, L. M. and Han, S. (2004). Exploring research on internet-based learning: From infrastructure to interactions. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 433-460. Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J. and Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner–interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42. Horzum, M.B. (2007). İnternet Tabanlı Eğitimde Transaksiyonel Uzaklığın Öğrenci Başarısı, Doyumu ve Özyeterlilik Algısına Etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S. and Salas, E. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 66(5), 356–369. Kato, Y. and Akahori, K. (2004). E-mail communication versus face- to-face communication: Perception of other’s personality and emotional state. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004, 1, 4160-4167. Kesici, S. and Sahin, I. (2009). Analysis of cognitive learning strategies and computer attitudes, according to college students' gender and locus of control. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 529-534. Levine, J. S. (2007). The online discussion board. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2007(113), 67–74. Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48, 185-204. Liaw, S.S. (2004). Considerations for developing constructivist Web-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 309–321. Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M. and Chen, G. D. (2007). An activity-theoretical approach to investigate learners' factors toward e- learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1906-1920. Lyke, J.A. and Young, A.J.K. (2006). Cognition in context: Students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures and reported cognitive strategy use in the college classroom. Research in Higher Education, 47 (4), 477-490. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–7. Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education, 2nd ed., 89–104. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Moore, M. G. and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Nussbaum, M. E. (2002). How introverted learners versus extroverted learners approach small group argumentative discussions. Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 183-197. Okonta, O. (2010). Effects of online interaction via computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools on an e- mathematics learning outcome. Unpublished Doctorial Dissertation, Capella University School of Education, United States - Minnesota. Paechter, M. and Schweizer, K. (2006). Learning and motivation with virtual tutors. Does it matter if the tutor is visible on the net? In M. Pivec (Ed.), Affective and emotional aspects of human–computer-interaction: Emphasis on game- based and innovative learning approaches, 155–164, Amsterdam: IOS Press. Paechter, M. and Maier, B. (2010). Students' expectations of, and experiences in e- learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1), 222-229. Pintrich, P. R. and Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Merrill Columbus, OH. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. and McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-814. Popescu, E. (2010). A Unified Learning Style Model for Technology-Enhanced Learning: What, Why and How. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 8(3), 65-81. Revilla, L.F. (2004). Multi-Model Adaptive Spatial Hypertext. Ph.D Thesis, A&M University, Texas. Richardson, J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88. Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive Styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers. Romiszowski, A. and Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In: Jonassen D. (eds), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ, 397–431. Schrum, L. (2004). Learner achievement and success in online environments: Research into characteristics and strategies. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004, 1, 1033-1040. Somyürek, S. (2008). Uyarlanabilir Eğitsel Web Ortamlarının Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarısına ve Gezinmesine Etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Somyürek, S. ve Yalın, H. (2007). Bilgisayar Destekli Eğitim Yazılımlarında Kullanılan Ön Örgütleyicilerin Alan Bağımlı ve Alan Bağımsız Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(4), 587–607. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31(4), 197-224. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sünbül, A. M. (2004). Düşünme stilleri ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 29, 25-42. Taylor, J. (1998). Using synchronous computer conferencing to encourage interaction in seminar discussions. In R. Hazemi, S. Hailes, & S. Wilbur (Eds.), The digital university: Reinventing the academy (pp. 219-232), Berlin: Springer. Thorpe, M. (2008). Effective online interaction: Mapping course design to bridge from research to practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 57-72. Waldrip, B. G. and Fisher, D. L. (2003). Identifying exemplary science teachers through their classroom interactions with students. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 157-174. Wang, D. (2005). Students’ learning and locus of control in web-supplemental instruction. Innovative Higher Education, 30 (1), 67–82. Yeşilyaprak, B. (2004). Denetim odağı. Y. Kuzgun ve D. Deryakulu (Editörler). Eğitimde bireysel farklılıklar. Nobel, Ankara, ss.239-255. Zhang, D. (2005). Interactive Multimedia-Based E-Learning: A Study of Effectiveness. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 149-162. Zhang, L. F. (2000). Are thinking styles and personality types related?. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 271-283.