SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 1

Learning Strategies Predicting the Perception of Social Presence of Distance Education Students

Uzaktan Eğitim Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Bulunuşluk Algılarını Yordayan Öğrenme Stratejileri

Yusuf Ziya Olpak
Ebru Kılıç Çakmak
Pages
—
Publication Date
2018-02-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Study results shows that e-learners perceived co-presence could be predicted with two variables; organization and help seeking, e-learners perceived influence could be predicted with three variables; organization, help seeking and effort regulation, e-learners perceived cohesiveness could be predicted with three variables; help seeking, organization and effort regulation, and e-learners perceived social presence could be predicted with three variables; organization, help seeking and effort regulation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research has been planned for presenting the relations between the social presence and self-regulation in e-learning process which is very important for distance education students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this respect, it is tried to determined the learning strategies which predict the social presence perceptions of the students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Study results shows that e-learners perceived co-presence could be predicted with two variables; organization and help seeking, e-learners perceived influence could be predicted with three variables; organization, help seeking and effort regulation, e-learners perceived cohesiveness could be predicted with three variables; help seeking, organization and effort regulation, and e-learners perceived social presence could be predicted with three variables; organization, help seeking and effort regulation.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Social presence · Co-presence · Influence

Abstract

This research has been planned for presenting the relations between the social presence and self-regulation in e-learning process which is very important for distance education students. In this respect, it is tried to determined the learning strategies which predict the social presence perceptions of the students. The research which is carried out according to the survey model, is actualize with the data obtained from 61 students giving appropriate answers to the questions in data collection tools. In collecting the data; motivated strategies for learning questionnaire, social presence scale and personal information form which is developed by the authors, has been used. In analyzing the data; descriptive statistics, stepwise regression analysis and one way ANOVA are used. Study results shows that e-learners perceived co-presence could be predicted with two variables; organization and help seeking, e-learners perceived influence could be predicted with three variables; organization, help seeking and effort regulation, e-learners perceived cohesiveness could be predicted with three variables; help seeking, organization and effort regulation, and e-learners perceived social presence could be predicted with three variables; organization, help seeking and effort regulation. Besides, the social presence perception of the students, do not show a significant difference according to the gender, class level and department variables.

Özet

Bu araştırma uzaktan eğitim öğrencileri için oldukça önemli olan sosyal bulunuşluk ve öz-düzenlemenin e-öğrenme sürecinde bir biri ile ilişkisini ortaya koymak amacıyla planlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda öğrencilerin sosyal bulunuşluk algılarını yordayan öğrenme stratejileri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Tarama modeline göre yürütülen araştırma, kullanılan veri toplama araçlarındaki sorulara uygun şekilde yanıtlar veren 61 öğrenciden elde edilen veriler ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin toplanmasında; güdülenme ve öğrenme stratejileri ölçeği, sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeği ve yazarlar tarafından geliştirilen kişisel bilgi formu kullanılmıştır. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde ise; betimsel istatistikler, adımsal regresyon analizi ve ilişkisiz örneklemler için tek faktörlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları öğrencilerin ortak bulunuşluk algılarının; düzenleme ve yardım isteme ile, etkileme algılarının; düzenleme, yardım isteme ve emek yönetimi ile, kaynaştırma algılarının; yardım isteme, düzenleme ve emek yönetimi ile ve son olarak sosyal bulunuşluk algılarının ise; düzenleme, yardım isteme ve emek yönetimi ile yordanabileceğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin sosyal bulunuşluk algıları; cinsiyet, sınıf ve bölüm değişkenlerine göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Olpak, Y. Z., Çakmak, E. K., *, E. K. Ç. (2018). Learning Strategies Predicting the Perception of Social Presence of Distance Education Students. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 7 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.365218

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (49)

  1. Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Critical thinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in an audio teleconference context. Higher Education, 29(2), 183–199.
  2. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Özkahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). Güdülenme ve öğrenme stratejileri ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 4(2), 207–239.
  3. Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 191-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  4. Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287–303.
  5. Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
  6. Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. Rogers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–360). IGI Global.
  7. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.
  8. Harasim, L. M. (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. Greenwood Publishing Group Inc.
  9. Henri, F., & Rigault, C. R. (1996). Collaborative distance learning and computer conferencing. In In Advanced Educational Technology: Research Issues and Future Potential (pp. 45–76). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  10. Holmberg, B. (1991). The feasibility of a predictive theory of distance education: What are we allowed to expect. In B. Holmberg & G.Ortner (Eds.), Research Into Distance Education.
  11. Kang, M., Choi, H., & Park, S. (2007). Construction and validation of a social presence scale for measuring online learners’ involvement. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2007(1), 1829–1833.
  12. Katz, Y. J. (2000). The comparative suitability of three ICT distance learning methodologies for college level instruction. Educational Media International, 57(1), 25–30.
  13. Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512–1520.
  14. Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. O. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: How to“ be there” for distance learners. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
  15. Lowenthal, P. R., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). From pixel on a screen to real person in your students’ lives: Establishing social presence using digital storytelling. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 70–72.
  16. Lu, Y., Huang, W., Ma, H., & Luce, T. (2007). Interaction and social presence in technology-mediated learning: A partial least squares model. In In Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2007. WiCom 2007. International Conference on (pp. 4411-4414). IEEE.
  17. Montalvo, F. T., & Torres, M. C. G. (2004). Self-regulated learning: Current and future directions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 1–34.
  18. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 20–35). Routledge.
  19. Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Routledge.
  20. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning, 3rd ed.: A Systems View of Online Learning. Toronto:Wadsworth.
  21. Olpak, Y. Z., & Kılıç Çakmak, E. (2009). E-öğrenme ortamları için sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeğinin uyarlama çalışması. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 142–160.
  22. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston. Heinle & Heinle Publishing.
  23. Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  24. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  25. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
  26. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338122
  27. Richardson, J. C., & 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.
  28. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education / Revue de l’Éducation À Distance, 14(2), 50–71.
  29. Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285–297.
  30. Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1).
  31. Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36–59.
  32. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications. New York: Routledge.
  33. Shen, D., Nuankhieo, P., Huang, X., Amelung, C., & Laffey, J. (2008). Using social network analysis to understand sense of community in an online learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39, 17–36.
  34. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  35. Soo, K. S., & Bonk, C. J. (1998). Interaction: What does it mean in online distance education?. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED428724
  36. Swan, K., & Shih, L. F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.
  37. Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
  38. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-based learning. Educational Media International, 37(2), 105–111.
  39. Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
  40. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 728-748), San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  41. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), (pp. 315-327). New York: MacMillan Company.
  42. Whiteman, J. A. M. (2002). Interpersonal communication in computer mediated learning. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED465997&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED465997
  43. Winn, W. (1999). Learning in virtual environments: A theoretical framework and considerations for design. Education Media International, 36(4), 271–279.
  44. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187.
  45. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17.
  46. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional model. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Guilford.
  47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
  48. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Achieving academic excellence: A Self-regulatory perspective. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 85-110). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  49. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-72.