Bu kaydın yasal hükümlere uygun olmadığını düşünüyorsanız lütfen sayfa sonundaki Hata Bildir bağlantısını takip ederek bildirimde bulununuz. Kayıtlar ilgili üniversite yöneticileri tarafından eklenmektedir. Nadiren de olsa kayıtlarla ilgili hatalar oluşabilmektedir. MİTOS internet üzerindeki herhangi bir ödev sitesi değildir!

Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Topluluklarında İletişim Aracı Türünün ve Sanal Konukların Bilişsel ve Toplumsal Buradalık Üzerindeki Etkisi

Diğer Başlık: The effect of type of computer mediated communication tools and virtual guests on social and cognitive presence in online learning community

Oluşturulma Tarihi: 2009

Niteleme Bilgileri

Tür: Tez

Alt Tür: Doktora

Yayınlanma Durumu: Yayınlanmış

Dosya Biçimi: PDF

Dil: Türkçe

Konu(lar): EĞİTİM, Eğitim teorisi ve uygulaması,

Yazar(lar): ÖZTÜRK, Ebru (Yazar),

Emeği Geçen(ler): DERYAKULU, Deniz (Tez Danışmanı),


Yayınlayan: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı Eğitim Teknolojisi Doktora Programı Yayın Yeri: Ankara Yayın Tarihi: 2009 Yayınlandığı Sayfalar: 195


Dosya:
file show file
Görüntüle
download file
Kaydet

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilgisayar aracılı iletişim, sanal konuk, çevrimiçi öğrenme toplulukları, araştırma toplulukları, toplumsal buradalık, bilişsel buradalık, harmanlanmış öğrenme, sınıf topluluğu hissi, toplumsal yetenek, Computer mediated communication (CMC), scynhronous and ascynhronous communication, virtual guest, online learning community, inquiry community, social presence, cognitive presence, blended learning, sense of classroom community, social ability


Özet

Bu araştırma harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamları için tasarımlanan
çevrimiçi öğrenme topluluklarındaki bilişsel ve toplumsal buradalık
düzeylerinin, iletişim aracı türü ve sanal konuk katılımından etkilenip
etkilenmediğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır.
Araştırma, 2x2 faktöryel desende yürütülmüştür. Bu desende bağımlı
değişkenler üzerinde etkisi incelenen 2 faktör bulunmaktadır. Çalışma
Ankara Üniversitesi ve Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim
Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü III. sınıfında öğrenim gören 36’sı kız, 49’u erkek
85 öğrenci üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın bağımsız değişkenleri,
eşzamanlı ve eşzamansız iletişim araçlarından oluşan ortam türü (forum ve
sohbet) ve sanal konuk katılımından oluşmaktadır. Bağımlı değişkenleri ise
araştırma topluluğu modelinin temel ögelerinden olan bilişsel ve toplumsal
buradalıktır. Ayrıca çevrimiçi öğrenme topluluklarındaki öğrencilerin
toplumsal yetenek ve sınıf topluluğu hislerinin, cinsiyete göre anlamlı olarak
farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı da araştırma kapsamında ele alınmıştır.
Araştırmanın bağımlı değişkenleri toplumsal ve bilişsel buradalık
puanlarına, deneysel işlemlerde kullanılan öğrenme içerik yönetim
sisteminin veri tabanına kayıt edilen tartışmaların içerik çözümlemesi ile
ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen veriler, Mann Whitney U-testi, Kruskal
Wallis H-testi ile incelenmiştir. İçerik çözümlemesini yapan iki kodlayıcı
arasındaki tutarlık ise Pearson korelasyon katsayısı, Spearman Brown Sıra
Farkları korelasyon katsayısı ve Kendall Tau-b katsayısı ile
değerlendirilmiştir.Araştırma sonuçlarına göre iletişim aracı türü, öğrencilerin toplumsal
(U=136.50, p<.05) ve bilişsel (U=97.00, p<.05) buradalıklarında istatistiksel
olarak anlamlı bir fark oluştururken; sanal konuk katılımı gerek bilişsel
(U=329.00 p>05) gerekse toplumsal buradalık (U=253.00, p>05) üzerinde
anlamlı bir etki yaratmamıştır. Bunlara ek olarak cinsiyet değişkeni ile sınıf
topluluğu hissi arasında anlamlı bir ilişki yokken (U=685.00, p>05); kızlar
topluluk hissinin alt faktörlerinden olan “öğrenme” (U=572.00, p<05) alt
boyutunda erkeklere göre daha yüksek puan almışlardır. Benzer biçimde
cinsiyet ile toplumsal yetenek arasında anlamlı bir ilişki yokken (U=714.00,
p>05); kişisel bilgilerin paylaşımındaki rahatlık alt boyutunda kızların
erkeklerden anlamlı olarak daha yüksek puan aldıkları (U=616.00, p<05)
ortaya konmuştur. Bir başka deyişle kızlar çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında
kişisel biligilerini paylaşırken erkeklere göre daha rahat davranmışlardır.


İçindekiler



Açıklamalar



Haklar



Notlar



KaynakçaFinegold, A. R. D., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the attitudes, experiences and dynamics of interaction in online groups. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 201-15.Duvall, J. B., Powell, M. R., Hodge, E., & Ellis M. (2007). Text messaging to improve social presence in online learning. Educause Quarterly, 30(3), 24-28. 15 Aralık 2008 de erişildi. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0733.pdfDriscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights MA: Allyn & Bacon.De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous Deryakulu, D. (2000). Yapıcı öğrenme. (Editör: A. Şimşek), Sınıfta Demokrasi içinde (ss. 53-77). Ankara: Eğitim-sen Yayınları.Çalışkan, H. (2002, Mayıs). Çevrimiçi (online) eğitimde öğrenci etkileşimi. Açık ve Uzaktan Eğitim Sempozyumunda sunuldu. 12 Ocak 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://aof20.anadolu.edu.tr/bildiriler/Hasan_Caliskan.doc.Corich, S., & Lynn, M. S. (2006, Nisan). Measuring critical thinking within discussion forums using a computerised content analysis tool. International Conference on Networked Learning’de sunulan bildiri. 25 Haziran 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. ttp://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/abstracts/pdfs/P07%20Corich.pdfClements, M. (2001b, Haziran). Using guests in the virtual classroom. 9th Annual Learning & Teaching Conference Nottingham’da sunulan bildiri. 16 Ekim 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.sulc.org/mac/Clements, M. (2001a, Haziran). Role of tutors and guests in discussions in the virtual classroom. Annual EDINEB International Conference Nice’da sunulan bildiri. 16 Ekim 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.sulc.org/mac/Chung, C. J. (2004). Learning experiences of science teachers in a computermediated communication context. Yayınlanmamış eğitimde doktora tezi, The University of Iowa, Iowa.Chen, G. W., & Chiu, M. M. (2006, Temmuz). Online discussion processes: effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies konferansında sunuldu.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9054-2Caspi, A., Chajut, E., & Saporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and online discussions: Gender differences. Computers & Education, 50(3), 718- 724.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.Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri çözümlemesi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Deneysel desenler öntetst-sontest kontrol grubu desen ve veri çözümlemesi. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1993.21.2.145Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1176008http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1993.21.2.144http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290500048978Braza, P., Braza, F., Carreras, M. R. & Munoz, J. (1993). Measuring the social ability of preschool children. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 21(2), 145-157.Bostock, S. J., & Lizhi, W. (2005). Gender in student online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42 (1), 73- 85Boris, G., & Hall, T. (2005, Ağustos). Critical thinking and online learning: A practical inquiry perspective in higher education. 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning konferansında sunuldu. 19 Haziran 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/04_1288.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523980110105150Bober, M. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2001). Intersubjectivity: Facilitating knowledge construction in online environments. Educational Media International, 38(4), 241−250.Beuchet, A., & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums. Distance Education, 26(1). 18 Ekim 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn =0158-7919&volume=26&issue=1&spage=67http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220970209599512Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., & Pedretti, E. (2001). Multi-media case methods in preservice science education: enabling an apprenticeship for praxis. Science Education, 31, 191-209.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), 345-36.Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-359.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.006Baker, 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.Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 53-72. 20 Mart 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/pdf/v4n2_aviv.pdfAtaizi, M. (2002, Mayıs). Çevrimiçi (online) yapılandırmacı öğrenme çevreleri. Açık ve Uzaktan Eğitim Sempozyumunda sunuldu. 12 Ocak 2007tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://aof20.anadolu.edu.tr/bildiriler/Murat_Ataizi.dochttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133–136.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ace.119Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57-68.Annetta, L. A., & Holmes, S. (2006). Creating presence and community in a synchronous virtual learning environment using avatars. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(8). 18 Ekim 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Aug_06/index.htmhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00302Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Bonk, C. J. (2003). Communication in a webbased conferencing system: The quality of computer-mediated interactions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 31–43.Akgün, Ö. E. (2005). Kavramsal değişim stratejileri, çalışma türü ve bireysel farklılıkların öğrencilerin başarı ve tutumları üzerindeki etkisi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.Altun, A. (2005). Toward an effective integration of technology: Message boards for strengthening communication. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4 (1). 18 Mart 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.tojet.net/articles/419.htmhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.003Fraenkel, T. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York. Mc Graw-Hill (6th ed.).Garland, D. (2005). Do gender and learning style play a role in how online courses should be designed. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(2).Garrison, D. R. (2006a). Online collabration principles. Journal of Synchronous Learning Networks, 10(1). 19 Kasım 2006 tarihinde ulaşıldı.http://www.sloan-c-wiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:JALNGarrison, D. R. (2006b). Cognitive presence for effective asyncronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. 25 Kasım 2006 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/SLOAN%20CP%20C hapter%202003.docdiscussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6–28.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a textbased environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, (2-3), 87- 105.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6Garrison, 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_.p dfGarrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmerhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203166093Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilating cognitive presence in online learning: interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2Gerbic, P., & Stacey, E. (2005). A purposive approach to content analysis: Designing analytical frameworks. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 45-59.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.003Gibbs, W. J. (2006). Visualizing interaction patterns in online discussions and indices of cognitive presence. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 18(1), 30−54http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03032723Gold, S. (2001). A constructivist approach to online training for online teachers. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1). 17. Şubat 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı.http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n1/pdf/v5n1_gold.pdfGraff, M. (2003). Individual differences in sense of classroom community in a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Media, 2-3 (8), 203-210.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1358165032000165635Guiller, J., & Durndell, A. (2006b). I totally agree with you: Gender interactions in educational online discussion groups. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 368–381.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00184.xGuiller, J., & Durndell. A. (2007). Students’ linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (5), 2240-2255.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.004Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147- 166.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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970Hakinken, P., & Jarvela, S. (2006). Sharing and constructing perspectives in web-based conferencing. Computers & Education, 47, 433–447.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.015Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation. Journal of Applied Testing Technology. 1 Ekim 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.testpublishers.org/Documents/journal0114.pdfHanoğlu, Ö. ve Mineoğlu, E. (2007). Sanal Dünyalar. Bilim ve Teknik. 478, 34-42.Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28, 115-152.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003764722829Harasim, L. (2002). What makes online learning communities successful? The role of collaborative learning in social and intellectual development. In C. Vrasidas & G. Glass (Eds.), Distance education and distributed learning (pp. 181-200). Greenwich, Co: Information Age Publishing.Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). 17 Mayıs 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/heckman.htmlHemphill, 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00622.xHerring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications, The CPSR Newsletter,18(1). 05 Ocak 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.htmHew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ling, C. S. (2009). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Sience. Online first.Hewitt, J. (2003). How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational ComputingnResearch, 28(1), 31−45.Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in synchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Bromme, R. (2007). Coding discussions and discussing coding: Research on collaborative learning in computersupported environments. Learning and Instruction, 17, 460-464http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.004Hickerson, C., & Giglio, M. (2009). Instant messaging between students and faculty: A tool for increasing student-faculty interaction. International Journal on E-Learning. 8(1), 71-88.Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. California, London, Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Im, Y., & Lee, O. (2003–2004). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 155–170.John, M. St., & Stokes, L. (2003). Opening windows onto classrooms: promises and challenges in the design of video cases for professional development in mathematics and science. 05 Ocak 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.inverness-research.org/reports/ab_videocasesconf.htmJonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face to face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 35-51.Jone, E. R., & Martinez, M. (2007). Learning orientations in university webbased courses. 7 Nisan 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~ejones/papers/webnet01.pdfKanuka, H., Liam Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260-271.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00620.xKanuka, H., & Garrison, D. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education Spring, 15(2), 30-49.King, L. J. (2000). Gender issues in online communities. The CPSR Newsletter, 18(1). 05 Ocak 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/king.htmKreijns, K. (2004). Sociable CSCL environments: Social affordances, sociability, and social presence. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands.Kreijens, K, Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Van Buuren, H. (2005). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.004Laffey, J. M., Lin, G. Y., & Lin, Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 163-177.Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Reflective conversation in the virtual classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43-61.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.Larson, J. J., Whitton, S. W., Hauser, S. T., & Allen, J. P. (2007). Being close and being social: Peer ratings of distinct aspects of young adult social competence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(2), 136-148.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701468501PMid:17764391Levin, B., He. Y., & Robbins, H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers’ reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 439–460.Lin, Y. M., Lin, G. Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2008). Building a social and motivational framework for understanding satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 1-27.http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EC.38.1.aLittleton, K., & Whitelock, D. (2005). The negotiation and co-construction of meaning and understanding within a postgraduate online learning community. Learning, Media and Technology, 30(2), 147−164.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880500093612Mabrito, 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2002_4Marra, R. M., & Moore, J. L. (2004). Content analysis of online discussion forums: A comparative analysis of protocols. ETR&D, 52(2), 23-40.Mercer, D. M. (2002). Synchronous communication in collaborative online learning: Learners' perspectives. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. University of Toronto, Canada.Misanchuk, M., & Anderson, T. (2001). Building community in an online learning environment: Communication, cooperation and collaboration. Proceedings of the Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference’da bildiri olarak sunuldu. 18 Ekim 2006 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/19.htmlMurphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2).Murphy, K. L., Mahoney, S.E., Chen, C.Y., Mendoza-Diaz, N. V., & Yang, X. (2005). A constructivist model of mentoring, coaching, and facilitation online discussions. Distance Education, 26(3), 341-366.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910500291454Naidu, S., & Jarvela, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what? Computers & Education, 46, 96-103.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.001Newhouse, C. P., Lane, J., & Brown, C. (2007). Reflecting on teaching practices using digital video representation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 1-12.Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 427-440.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008621827601Oliver, K. (1999). Using online technologies to support problem based learning: Learners' responses and perceptions. Australian Journal of EducationalTechnology, 15(1), 58-79.Overbaugh, R. C., & Lin, S. Y. (2006). Student characteristics, sense of community, and cognitive achievement in web-based and lab-basedlearning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 205–223.Owston, R. D. (1997). The world wide web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 26 (2), 27-33.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026002027http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1176036Özyurt, B. E. (2004). Cinsiyet. (Editörler:Y. Kuzgun ve D. Deryakulu) Eğitimde Bireysel Farklılıklar içinde (ss. 315-344). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.Öztürk, E. (2008). Toplumsal yetenek ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(2), 97-120.Öztürk, E. (incelemede). Sınıf topluluğu hissi ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi.Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005, Ağustos). Online leaarning commuities revisited. 21. Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. 15 Şubat 2009 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/05_1801.pdfPate, A. (2008). Creating social presence through online discussion forums. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Dekalb, Illinois.Paulus, T. M., & Phipps, G. (2008), Approaches to case analyses in synchronous and asynchronous environments. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication. 13,(2), 459 – 484.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00405.xPena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42, 243–265.Perry, G., & Talley, S. (2001). Online video case studies and teacher education. A new tool for preservice teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(4), 26-31.Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21−40. 16 Mayıs 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/pdf/v6n1_picciano.pdfPolhemus, L., Shih, L. F., & Swan, K. (2001, Nisan). Virtual interactivity: The representation of social presence in an online discussion. American Educational Research Association’da bildiri olarak sunulmuştur.Prammanee, N. (2003). Understanding participation in online courses: A case study of perceptions of online interaction. Gorgia Üniversitesi Web sitesinden 17 Aralık 2006 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper68/paper68.htmlRoblyer, M. D., Freeman, J., Donaldson, M. B., & Maddox, M. (2007). A comparison of outcomes of virtual school courses offered in synchronous and asynchronous formats. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 261–268.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.003Romiszowski, 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., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using web-based, group communication systems to support case study learning at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2). 2 Aralık 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001b). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education. 25 Ocak 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.htmlRourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001a). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.Rovai, A. P. (2002b). 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.xRovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57−73.Rovai, A. P. (2002a). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1Rovai, A. P. (2003). The relationships of communicator style, personalitybased learning style, and classroom community among online graduate students. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 347–363.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.07.004Rovai, A. P. (2007a). A constructivist approach to online college learning. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 79–93.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.10.002Rovai, A. P. (2007b). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education,10, 77–88.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Ammon, B. (2002). Effects of training on computermediated communication in single or mixed gender small task groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(3), 257-26.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00048-6Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Oesterreich, E. (1999). Judgments of gender in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2),185-194.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00017-5Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science, 32(6), 475-502.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2518-7Schwier, R. A., & Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2). 7 Mayıs 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.2/schwier_balbar.hSchunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: an educational perspective (4th Ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş. temel ilkeler ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks.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.Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., & Davison, S. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50-67.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90013-3Sotillo, S. M. (1999). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119.Stein,D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, et al. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 103–115.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.02.002Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2007). Methodological challenges for collaborative learning research. Learning and Instruction, 17, 389-393.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.004Swan, K. (2002). Building communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Education,Communication and Information, 2 (1), 23-49.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1463631022000005016Tallent-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(1), 93–135.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093Tsai, C. C. (2007). The relationship between internet perceptions and preferences towards internet-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technolog, 38, 167–170.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00627.xTu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). Research in online learning community. 25 Aralık 2006 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/docs/html2002/chtu_frame.htmlTu, C. (2007). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45 – 60.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523980010021235Tu, C., & Cory, Michael (2002). Research in online learning community. Electronic Journal of Instructional Science and Technology. 28 Ekim 2008 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/docs/html2002/pdf/chtu.pdfUbon, A. N., & Kimble, C. (2005, Temmuz). Supporting the creation of social presence in online learning communities using asynchronous textbased CMC. Conference on Technology in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education’da bildiri olarak sunulmuştur. 17 Kasım 2007’de ulaşıldı. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2.5935Vaughan, N. (2005). Investigating how a blended learning approach can support an inquiry process within a faculty learning community. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, University of Calgary (Canada), Canada.Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1-12.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asyncronous discussion and assesment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.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.Wanstreet, C. E. (2007). The effect of group mode and time in course on frequency of teaching, social, and cognitive presence indicators in a community of inquiry. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Ohio State University, Ohio.Waterman, M. A., & Stanley, E. D. (1998). Case based learning in your classes. 15 Mayıs 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı.http://cstl-csm.semo.edu/waterman/CBLWearmouth, J., Smith, P. J., & Soler, J. (2004). Computer conferencing with access to a guest expert’in the professional development of special educational needs coordinators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35 (1), 81-93.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00370.xXu,Y. (2005). Creating social presence in online environment. (Ed. B. Hoffman). Encyclopedia Of Educatioanal Technology. 15 Kasım 2006 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/creatsp/start.htmYamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computermediated communication: experimental study. Computers & Education, 52, 820–833.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.007Yang, C. C., Tsai, I. C., Kim, B., Cho, M. H., & Laffey, J. M. (2006). Exploring the relationships between students' academic motivation and social ability in online learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 277–286.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.002Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2003). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Şeçkin Basımevi.Yodkamlue, B. (2008). Online texts of non-native speakers in an L2 electronic discussion forum: an analysis of social presence and cognitive presence. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. University of South Carilona.Yum, Y. O., & Hara, K. (2005). Computer-mediated relationship development: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1). 15 Mayıs 2007 tarihinde ulaşıldı. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/yum.html.


Atıf Yapanlar

Gözat Sayfasına Dön

 

Sosyal Medya ve Araçlar

İstatistikler

  • Kayıt
    • Bu ay: 15
    • Toplam: 31125
  • Online
    • Ziyaretçi: 132
    • Üye: 0
    • Toplam: 132

Detaylı İstatistikler