SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 26

The Comparison of Discourse Patterns in Synchronous Online versus F2F Groups in Problem Solving Process

Çevrimiçi Eşzamanlı ve Yüz-yüze Grupla Problem Çözme Süreçlerindeki Söylem Örüntülerinin Karşılaştırılması

Salih BİRİŞÇİ
Hasan KARAL
Pages
447–476
Publication Date
2018-12-31
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)

Given the structural phases of discourses it is possible to say that online groups have more active role to contributing the group and they are more task oriented than face-to-face ones.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It was aimed to compare discourse patterns that revealed in the process of group based mathematical problem solving process among online and face-to-face discussion groups.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study involved 27 pre-service teachers enrolled in a Basic Mathematics-II course and they were divided into two groups: Synchronous Online (SO, n=12) and Face-to-Face (F2F, n=15).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Given the structural phases of discourses it is possible to say that online groups have more active role to contributing the group and they are more task oriented than face-to-face ones.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bilgisayar aracılı iletişim · grup çalışması · söylem analizi

Abstract

It was aimed to compare discourse patterns that revealed in the process of group based mathematical problem solving process among online and face-to-face discussion groups. This study involved 27 pre-service teachers enrolled in a Basic Mathematics-II course and they were divided into two groups: Synchronous Online (SO, n=12) and Face-to-Face (F2F, n=15). Students in each group were required to solve four ill-structured problems collaboratively under problem solving sessions over a six-week period. Data was collected through video recordings of online and audio recordings of face-to-face discussions. Transcripts from SO and F2F discussions were analyzed using discourse analysis method via Discourse Identification Form (DIF) which was developed by researcher. For analyzing discourses in both groups MAXQDA 10 software was used. Based on both face-to-face and online discussion transcripts much more discourses were revealed for F2F groups than SO one. Given the structural phases of discourses it is possible to say that online groups have more active role to contributing the group and they are more task oriented than face-to-face ones.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, çevrimiçi ve yüz-yüze ortamlarda gerçekleştirilen grupla matematik problemleri çözme sürecinde ortaya çıkan söylem örüntülerinin karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemini sınıf öğretmenliği bölümü Temel Matematik-II dersi kapsamında öğrenim gören 27 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın genelinde grupla çalışma süreci yürütülmüş olup, örneklem kapsamında yer alan öğretmen adayları çevrimiçi (n=12) ve yüz-yüze (n=15) ortamlarında grupla problem çözme etkinlikleri gerçekleştirmiştir. Dört öğrenme alanına ait ayrı problem çözme oturumlarının ele alındığı bu çalışma altı haftalık süreçte yürütülmüş ve her iki ortamdaki grup çalışmalarında gerçekleşen etkinlikler dijital ortamda kayıt altına alınarak veriler toplanmıştır. Kayıtların incelenmesiyle oluşturulan yazılı transkriptler, nitel araştırma yöntemi kapsamında söylem analizinden faydalanılarak niceliksel ve niteliksel açıdan çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular neticesinde, çevrimiçi ortamdakilere oranla yüz-yüze grup çalışmalarında daha fazla söylem belirlenirken, grup çalışmalarına katkı sağlama noktasında çevrimiçi gruplardaki öğrencilerin daha görev odaklı söylem ortaya koymaya çalıştıkları belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BİRİŞÇİ, S., KARAL, H. (2018). The Comparison of Discourse Patterns in Synchronous Online versus F2F Groups in Problem Solving Process. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 26, 447–476. https://ajindex.com/articles/55897

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2009). Aktif öğrenme (11. Baskı). İzmir:
  2. Kanyılmaz Matbaası. Adeyemi, B. A. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on junior secondary school students’ achievement in social studies. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Physchology, 6(3), 691-708.
  3. Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson and F. Elloumi (Eds.). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca: Creative Commons. Arnseth, H.C., & Hatlevik, O.E. (2010). Challenges in aligning pedagogical practices and pupils’ competencies with the Information Society’s demands: The case of Norway. In S. Mukerji & P. Triphati (Eds.), Cases on technological adaptability and transnational learning: Issues and challenges. Hershey: IGI global. Aydede, M. N. & Kesercioğlu, T. (2012). Aktif öğrenme uygulamalarının öğrencilerin kendi kendine öğrenme becerilerine etkisi. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 37-49.
  4. Aydın, S., & Atalay, T. D. (2014). Öz-düzenlemeli öğrenme (2. Baskı). Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
  5. Baepler, P., & Walker, J.D. (2014). Active learning classrooms and educational alliances: Changing relationships to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(137), 27–40.
  6. Balaji, M.S. & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from ‘Media Richness Theory’ perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1). Blanco, L.J., Guerrero, B.E., & Caballero, C.A. (2013). Cognition and affect in mathematics problem solving with prospective teachers. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1), 15. Brindley, J.E., Walti, C. & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). Cáceres, M., Nussbaum, M., Marroquín, M., Gleisner, S. & Marquínez, J. T. (2018) Building arguments: key to collaborative scaffolding. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 355-371. Cho K.L. & Jonassen D.H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 5–22.
  7. Çepni, S. (2005). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş (2.Baskı). Trabzon: Derya Kitapevi. Deiglmayr, A., & Spada, H. (2010b). Developing adaptive collaboration support: The example of an effective training for collaborative inferences. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 103–113.
  8. Delice, A., & Taşova, H. İ. (2011)