Journals / Erciyes İletişim Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION PROCESS FOR DISTANCE LEARNERS: AN EXAMPLE FROM TURKEY IN LINE WITH THE CONCEPTS OF DIGITAL NATIVES AND DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS

UZAKTAN ÖĞRENENLER İÇİN KİŞİLERARASI ETKİLEŞİM SÜRECİ: DİJİTAL YERLİ VE DİJİTAL GÖÇMEN KAVRAMLARI KAPSAMINDA TÜRKİYE’DEN BİR ÖRNEK

Pages
294–311
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️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)

In conclusion, it is determined that there are some differences in communication habits between digital native and digital immigrant students.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Within the scope of the study, a focus group interview was conducted with the 8 distance education students who can be defined as digital natives and 8 distance education students who can be defined as digital immigrants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Students were chosen from different departments in Istanbul University’s Faculty of Open and Distance Education.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, it is determined that there are some differences in communication habits between digital native and digital immigrant students.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dijital Yerli · Kişilerarası İletişim · Uzaktan Eğitim

Abstract

Within the scope of the study, a focus group interview was conducted with the 8 distance education students who can be defined as digital natives and 8 distance education students who can be defined as digital immigrants. Students were chosen from different departments in Istanbul University’s Faculty of Open and Distance Education. Among the important questions that asked as a part of the study are what communication tools they prefer to communicate with all stakeholders under the distance education system, what kind of problems they experience in the communication process and what their expectations are regarding the communication practices. In conclusion, it is determined that there are some differences in communication habits between digital native and digital immigrant students. It is revealed that such differences are able to reflect on their learning practices. While digital natives expected to enjoy more interaction opportunities on the formal educational software through the social networks, digital immigrants expected some initiatives for collaborative studies. Technical problems are important factors that adversely affect the learning activities for both groups.

Özet

Çalışma kapsamında, İstanbul Üniversitesi Uzaktan Eğitim Fakültesi’nde öğrenim gören, farklı bölümlerden 8 dijital yerli olarak tanımlanabilecek uzaktan yüksek öğretim öğrencisi ve 8 dijital göçmen olarak tanımlanabilecek uzaktan yüksek öğretim öğrencisi ile odak grup görüşmesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğrencilere, uzaktan eğitim sistemi dahilinde tüm paydaşlarla hangi iletişim araçlarıyla iletişim kurmayı tercih ettikleri, iletişim sürecinde yaşadıkları sorunların ve beklentilerinin neler olduğuna yönelik sorular sorulmuştur. Sonuçolarak, dijital yerli ve dijital göçmen öğrencilerin iletişim kurma süreçlerinde farklılıklar olduğu ortaya konmuşve bu farklılıkların, onların öğrenme süreçlerine de yansıdığı tespit edilmiştir. Dijital yerli olarak tanımlanan öğrenciler, kurumsal dijital öğrenme ortamları üzerinde sosyal ağlar aracılığıyla daha çok etkileşim beklentisi içinde iken, dijital göçmenler sistem üzerindeki uygulamalar aracılığıyla grup çalışmasına yönelik girişimlerin güçlendirilmesini talep etmektedir. Teknik sorunlar, her iki grubun öğrenme faaliyetlerini olumsuz yönde etkileyen faktörlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUFAN, F. (2022). INTERPERSONAL INTERACTION PROCESS FOR DISTANCE LEARNERS: AN EXAMPLE FROM TURKEY IN LINE WITH THE CONCEPTS OF DIGITAL NATIVES AND DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 294–311. https://ajindex.com/articles/501991

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Abrami, P. C. & Bernard, R. M. & Bures, E. M. & Borokhovski, E. & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 23, 82-103. Advertising Research Foundation. Qualitative Research Council. (1985). Focus groups: issues and approaches. California University: Advertising Research Foundation. Allen, M. & Bourhis, J. & Burrell, N. & Mabry, E. (2002) Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis, American Journal of Distance Education. 16(2), 83-97.
  2. Berge, Z. L. (2013). Barriers to communication in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 14(1). Article 31, 374-388.
  3. Berger, N. S. (1999). Pioneering experiences in distance learning: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 23 (6), 684-690.
  4. Boling, E.C. & Hough, M. & Krinsky, H. & Saleem, H. & Stevens, M. ( 2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. Internet and Higher Education. 15, 118-126.
  5. Buckley, C. A. & Pitt, E. & Norton, B. & Owens, T. (2010). Students’ approaches to study, conceptions of learning and judgements about the value of networked technologies. Active Learning in Higher Education. 11(1), 55-65.
  6. Casey, D. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance education through technology. March/April. TechTrends, 52(2), 45-51.
  7. Chang, H. H., Hung, C. J., Hsieh, H. W. (2014) Virtual teams: cultural adaptation, communication quality and interpersonal trust. The journal of total quality management and business excellence. Vol. 25 No. 12 pp. 1318-1335.
  8. Collins, G. R. & Van Hoof, H. B. (2001) Issues in Web- based Distance Education. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education. 13(5), 3-7.
  9. Correa, T. (2016). Digital skills and social media use: how Internet skills are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital natives’. Information, Communication & Society, 19 (8), 1095-1107.
  10. Desai, M., Hart, J., & Richards, T. (2009). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education. Educa- tion, 129(2), 327–334.
  11. Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm, London. Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), 40– 50. Hardy, K., & Bower, B. (2004). Instructional and work life issues for distance learning faculty. New Directions fo