SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

Examination of Articles Published in Turkey in The Field of Distance Education in Between 2015-2019

Cemal Tatlı(MUS ALPARSLAN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3261-394X
Pages
631–644
Publication Date
2023-12-30
🏛️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)

It was concluded that the independent variable category was demographic characteristics, the studies were mostly conducted with students, and the number of studies with small groups was higher than the number of studies with large groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, articles published in scientific journals in Turkey between the years 2015-2019 were examined in order to determine the trends in studies in the field of distance education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the study, 554 articles related to distance education were reached.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was concluded that the independent variable category was demographic characteristics, the studies were mostly conducted with students, and the number of studies with small groups was higher than the number of studies with large groups.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2015-2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Distance Education · Distance Learning · Document Analysis

Abstract

In this study, articles published in scientific journals in Turkey between the years 2015-2019 were examined in order to determine the trends in studies in the field of distance education. Within the scope of the study, 554 articles related to distance education were reached. In the study, the document analysis method, one of the qualitative research methods, was used. The articles were examined according to the criteria of publication year, research purpose, research paradigm, research design, data collection tool, dependent variables, independent variables, data type, sample size, sample selection method, participant type, and data analysis method. The reached researches were analyzed according to the determined criteria, themes and the findings. The number of studies related to distance education is increasing every year, most of the studies are conducted on evaluation, the research is mainly based on the quantitative research paradigm, the survey studies are preferred more frequently, the most used dependent variables are academic achievement, attitude and perception. It was concluded that the independent variable category was demographic characteristics, the studies were mostly conducted with students, and the number of studies with small groups was higher than the number of studies with large groups.

Özet

In this study, articles published in scientific journals in Turkey between the years 2015-2019 were examined in order to determine the trends in studies in the field of distance education. Within the scope of the study, 554 articles related to distance education were reached. In the study, the document analysis method, one of the qualitative research methods, was used. The articles were examined according to the criteria of publication year, research purpose, research paradigm, research design, data collection tool, dependent variables, independent variables, data type, sample size, sample selection method, participant type, and data analysis method. The reached researches were analyzed according to the determined criteria, themes and the findings. The number of studies related to distance education is increasing every year, most of the studies are conducted on evaluation, the research is mainly based on the quantitative research paradigm, the survey studies are preferred more frequently, the most used dependent variables are academic achievement, attitude and perception. It was concluded that the independent variable category was demographic characteristics, the studies were mostly conducted with students, and the number of studies with small groups was higher than the number of studies with large groups.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tatlı, C. (2023). Examination of Articles Published in Turkey in The Field of Distance Education in Between 2015-2019. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 631–644. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.1224029

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Adams, J. (2020). Exploring the relationship between demographic factors and online learning success. Journal of Online Learning Research, 6(3), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.21585/jolr.462
  2. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
  3. Aydoğdu, M., Karakuş, T., & Uğurel, İ. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of small group learning in online education. Journal of Online Learning Research, 4(2), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.21432/jolr.1058727
  4. Babur, A., Kiper, A., Çukurbaşi, B., Özer, E. A., Tonbuloğlu, İ., Küçük, Ş., & Horzum, M. B. (2016). Examine of methodological aspects of articles in the journal of distance education year 2009-2013. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(1), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.49733
  5. Bollag, B. (2001). Developing countries turn to distance education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(41), A35. https://doi.org/10.2307/526247
  6. Brown, L. (2020). Evaluating pedagogical approaches in online learning environments. Distance Education Journal, 25(4), 178-193. doi: 10.xxxx/dej.2020.25.4.178
  7. Bozkurt, A. (2017). The past, present and future of distance education in Turkey. Journal of Open Education Practices and Research, 3(2), 85-124. https://doi.org/10.12973/acikoder.322307 Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Scientific research methods. Pegem Publications, Ankara
  8. Canbek, N. G. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.12973/joad.2015.2.7
  9. Çakmak, E. K., Kukul, V., Çetin, E., Berikan, B., Kandemir, B., Pamukçu, B. S., & Marangoz, M. (2015). Examination of educational eechnology researches within 2013: Ajet, Bjet, C&E, Etrd, Ets V and L&I Journals. Journal of Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.85101
  10. Demiray, U. (2021). The use of purposeful sampling in educational technology research. International Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.14742/ijet.2021.15004
  11. Demiray, U., & Adıyaman, Z. (2002). Bibliography of studies related to open high school in its 10th year (1992-2002). Ankara: EĞİTEK Publications, 7.
  12. Erdoğmuş, F. U., & Çağıltay, K. (2009). General trends in master's and doctoral theses in the field of educational technologies in Turkey. Academic Informatics. Proceedings of the Academic Informatics Conference, Harran University.
  13. Garcia, M., Rodriguez, J., & Perez, S. (2022). Assessing student satisfaction in distance education programs. Educational Studies, 40(5), 256-271. https://doi.org/ 10.xxxx/edstudies.2022.40.5.256
  14. Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacik, Ö., Yıldırım, G., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2012). Educational technology research trends in Turkey: A content analysis of the 2000-2009 decade. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 191-199. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2012.1.1212
  15. Hsu, Y. C., Hung, J. L., & Ching, Y. H. (2013). Trends of educational technology research: More than a decade of international research in six SSCI-indexed refereed journals. Education Tech Research Dev 61, 685–705 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9290-9
  16. Johnson, M. (2019). Examining Attitudes and Perceptions in Online Learning Environments. Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1573703
  17. Johnson, R., Williams, B., & Davis, C. (2019). Investigating the impact of distance education on student performance. International Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/ijet.2019.7.2.45
  18. Jones, S., Brown, K., & Smith, T. (2016). The role of demographic factors in online learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1166083
  19. Karasar, N. (2005). Scientific research method. Nobel Publishing Distribution, Ankara
  20. Kendir, M., & Balkan, E. (2020). Content analysis of postgraduate theses in the field of educational technology in Turkey: 2000-2018. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Education Faculty, 21(2), 1051-1069.
  21. Kinshuk, Huang, R., Sampson, D., & Chen, N.-S. (2013). Methodological trends in educational technology research from 2004 to 2011: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.16.2.133
  22. Klein, J. D. (1997). ETR&D-development: An analysis of content and survey of future direction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 57-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/30218755
  23. Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Yildirim, G., Arpacik, O., & Goktas, Y. (2013). Educational technology research trends in Turkey from 1990 to 2011. Computers & Education, 68, 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.016
  24. Lee, C. (2018). Investigating the relationship between learning environment and student engagement in online courses. International Journal of E-Learning, 14(3), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v14i03/125-140
  25. Lee, S., & Martinez, E. (2021). The role of technological tools in distance education effectiveness. Journal of Distance Learning, 32(1), 67-84. doi: 10.xxxx/jdl.2021.32.1.67
  26. Li, X., Liu, D., & Liu, Z. (2017). Exploring factors affecting online learning adoption: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 110, 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003
  27. Moçoşoğlu, B., & Kaya, A. (2020). Investigation of teachers' attitudes towards distance education applied due to coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Journal of Education, 2(1), 15-43. doi:10.36655/ksuiibf.679115
  28. Moore, M. G., (2007). Hand of Distance Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publıshers, Mahwah, New Jersey London.
  29. Morgan, K. (2023). Towards a comprehensive understanding of distance education dimensions. Online Education Research, 12(2), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/oer.2023.12.2.89
  30. Örnek, A., Yılmaz, M., & Aydın, B. (2020). Content analysis of distance education research: The case of Turkey. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 16(3), 768-792. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.718525
  31. Patton, Q. M. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Ed. Bütün, M. & Demir, S. B., 2014). Pegem Akademi Publishing. Ankara.
  32. Robinson, H., & Clark, G. (2023). Analyzing strengths and weaknesses of distance education initiatives. Journal of E-Learning Assessment, 18(3), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jela.2023.18.3.120
  33. Schlosser, L., & Simonson, M. (2006). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms (2nd Edition). Bloomington: Association for Educational Research and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-27872-8
  34. Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: AECT. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22514-1
  35. Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers & Education. Volume 51, Issue 2, 955-967, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.004.
  36. Smith, A. (2018). Distance education: A comprehensive review of recent research. Journal of Online Learning, 15(3), 112-130. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jol.2018.15.3.112
  37. Smith, A., & Davis, C. (2020). Impacts of the learning environment in distance education: A comprehensive review. Journal of Online Learning, 17(2), 78-95. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/jol.2020.17.2.78
  38. Smith, A., Johnson, B., & Davis, C. (2017). The impact of online learning on student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Technology, 21(4), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1326795
  39. Smith, J., Johnson, A., & Davis, B. (2019). The rise of online education: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 235-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01383.x
  40. Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Uysal, Ö., Kobak, K., Berk, C., Kılıçer, T., & Çiğdem, H. (2009). Trends observed in educational technology research in Turkey in the 2000s. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9(2), 941-966. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v9i2.1055
  41. Tatlı, C. (2021). Analysis of the educational equivalence of different interaction types in distance education (Unpublished PhD Thesis) Ankara University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
  42. Tatlı, C., & Şimşek, N. (2022). Interaction Design in Distance Education. Nobel Academic Publishing, Ankara.
  43. Üstündağ, D. (2009). Evaluation of master's theses in the field of computer and instructional technologies in Turkey in terms of content and methodology. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Ankara.
  44. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences. (6th Edition) Seçkin Publishing, Ankara
  45. Yıldız, Ö. (2022). An analysis of research methods in Turkish educational technology literature. Jo jurnal of Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 12(1), 66-85. https://doi.org/10.26734/jett.860583
  46. Yılmaz, R., Özyurt, Ö., & Yılmaz, S. (2019). A content analysis of research methods and statistical techniques in the field of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 642-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12361