SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1

Comparative Analysis of Psychosocial Aspects of Two Higher Education Institutions’ Blended Learning Environments

İki Yükseköğretim Kurumunun Harmanlanmış Öğrenme Ortamlarının Psikososyal Boyutlarının Karşılaştırmalı Olarak İncelenmesi

G. Alev Özkök(Hacettepe üniversitesi)
Hidayet Tütüncü(HOCA AHMET YESEVİ ULUSLARARASI TÜRK-KAZAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4140-8008
Pages
923–953
Publication Date
2022-04-29
🏛️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)

As a result of the research, it was observed that there is a higher psychosocial perception towards A university in terms of instructor support, university B in terms of student interaction and collaboration, personal relevance, authentic learning, active learning and student autonomy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, blended learning environments of two higher education institutions are investigated comparatively within the scope of the psychosocial perceptions of learners.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, DELES-TR, the Turkish version of the Distance Education Learning Environments Scale developed by Walker (2003), was used to measure the perceptions of the learners towards the psychosocial dimensions of the blended learning environment of both universities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the research, it was observed that there is a higher psychosocial perception towards A university in terms of instructor support, university B in terms of student interaction and collaboration, personal relevance, authentic learning, active learning and student autonomy.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Harmanlanmış E-Öğrenme · Psikososyal Öğrenme Ortamları · Uzaktan Eğitim

Abstract

In this study, blended learning environments of two higher education institutions are investigated comparatively within the scope of the psychosocial perceptions of learners. The virtual classroom and e-platform commercial blended e-learning system used by A university and the virtual classroom (commercial) and e-platform (open source) blended e-learning environments used by B University were examined in terms of students' psychosocial perceptions. For this purpose, DELES-TR, the Turkish version of the Distance Education Learning Environments Scale developed by Walker (2003), was used to measure the perceptions of the learners towards the psychosocial dimensions of the blended learning environment of both universities. Correlational survey model was used in this research. The study group of the research consists of 276 students who study for a master's degree at two public universities. The data of the research were collected in the Spring semester of 2015-2016 academic year. As a result of the research, it was observed that there is a higher psychosocial perception towards A university in terms of instructor support, university B in terms of student interaction and collaboration, personal relevance, authentic learning, active learning and student autonomy.

Özet

Bu çalışmada iki yükseköğretim kurumunun harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamları, öğrenenlerin ortama yönelik psikososyal algıları kapsamında karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmıştır. A üniversitesinin kullandığı sanal sınıf ve e-platform ticari harmanlanmış e-öğrenme sistemi ile B üniversitesinin kullandığı sanal sınıf (ticari) ile e-platform (açık kaynak kodlu) harmanlanmış e-öğrenme ortamları öğrencilerin psikososyal algıları açısından incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla, her iki üniversitenin harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamının psikososyal boyutlarına dönük öğrenen algılarını test etmek için Walker (2003) tarafından geliştirilen Uzaktan Eğitim Öğrenme Ortamları Ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonu olan DELES-TR kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, iki devlet üniversitesinde yüksek lisans öğrenimi gören 276 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri 2015-2016 öğretim yılı Bahar döneminde toplanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, öğretmen desteği boyutunda A üniversitesine, öğrenci iletişimi ve işbirliği, kişisel ilgi, otantik öğrenme, aktif öğrenme ve öğrenci özerkliği boyutlarında B üniversitesine yönelik daha yüksek psikososyal algıya sahip olunduğu görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özkök, G. A., Tütüncü, H. (2022). Comparative Analysis of Psychosocial Aspects of Two Higher Education Institutions’ Blended Learning Environments. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1, 923–953. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.764064

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1974). Learning environments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating Educational Performance: A Sourcebook of Methods, Instruments and Examples. Berkeley: Calif.: McCutchan Pub. pp. 81-98.
  2. Ansong, E., & Boateng, R. (2018). Organisational adoption of telecommuting: Evidence from a developing country. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1002/isd2.12008
  3. Beatty, B, & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle learning management system. TechTrends, 50(4), 36-45. doi: 10.1007/s11528-006-0036-y
  4. Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers, biases and opportunities of communication and cooperation with computers: Introduction and overview. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. Springer, Boston, MA. pp. 1-14.
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (10. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  6. Cole, J., & Foster, H. (2007). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system. O'Reilly Media.
  7. Cummings, C., Mason, D., Shelton, K., & Baur, K. (2017). Active learning strategies for online and blended learning environments. In C. Cummings, D. Mason, K. Shelton, & K. Baur (Eds.), Flipped Instruction: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. IGI Global, pp. 88-114.
  8. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Edition). New York: The McGraw Hill Companies.
  9. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and application. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7-33. doi: 10.1023/A:1009932514731
  10. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30-50. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12020
  11. Goh S. C., & Tobin K. (1999). Student and teacher perspectives in a computer-mediated learning environment in teacher education. Learning Environments Research, 2, 169–190. doi: 10.1023/A:1009921907828
  12. Graffam, B. (2007). Active learning in medical education: Strategies for beginning implementation. Medical Teacher, 29(1), 38-42. doi: 10.1080/01421590601176398
  13. Hastie, M., Hung, I.-C., Shen, N.-S., & Kinshuk (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24. doi: 10.1080/14703290903525812
  14. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55. Retrieved June 25, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/101357/
  15. Jegede, O., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. (1998). Development, validation and use of a learning environment instrument for university distance education settings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
  16. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  18. Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Constructs of student-centered online learning on learning satisfaction of a diverse online student body: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 97-122. doi: 10.2190/EC.48.1.e
  19. Kunnan, A. J. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling for language assessment research. Language Testing, 15(3), 295-332. doi: 10.1177/026553229801500302
  20. Lewin, K. (1935). Psycho-sociological problems of a minority group. Character & Personality; A Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies, 3, 175-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1935.tb01996.x
  21. Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), ELI Paper 1, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved March 1, 2020 from http://www.lmi.ub.edu/cursos/s21/REPOSITORIO/documents/Lombardi_2007_Authentic_learning.pdf
  22. Maor, D. (1999). A teacher professional development program on using a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 307–330. doi: 10.1023/A:1009915305353
  23. Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 401–421. doi: 10.1080/0950069960180402
  24. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. G. (1996). Distance education: A system view. Wadsworth Pub. Co.
  25. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
  26. Morrison, D (2003). E‐learning strategies: How to get implementation and delivery right first time. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
  27. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233. Retrieved June 24, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/97576/.
  28. Özkök, G. A., Walker, S. L., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the DELES. Learning Environments Research, 12(3), 175-190. doi: 10.1007/s10984-009-9060-0
  29. Özkök, G. A. (2013). Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the web-based learning environment instrument (WEBLEI). Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(2), 335-347.
  30. Özkök, A., Keskin, S., & Akın, T. (2013). Blackboard ve Moodle öğrenim yönetim sistemlerinin psikososyal boyutlarının karşılaştırılması. 1st International Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education Symposium. Trabzon, Türkiye.
  31. Paulsen, M. F. (2002). Online education systems: Discussion and definition of terms. http://www.porto.ucp.pt/open/curso/modulos/doc/Definition%20of%20Terms.pdf adresinden 03.04.2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  32. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In T. Herrington (Ed.), Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education. Jamison, ACT: HERDSA 2002. pp. 562-567.
  33. Stern, G. G. (1974). B=f(P,E). In R. H. Moos & P. M. Insel (Ed.), Issues in Social Ecology: Human Milieus. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books. pp. 559-568.
  34. Walker, S. L. (2003). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Western Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
  35. Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 289-308. doi: 10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3
  36. Zhang, Z. (2016). Using ICT (information and communication technologies) as a partnership enabler: Challenges and recommendations. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Services, 2(3), 180-187. doi: 10.1504/IJQRS.2016.082646