SavedAdd your journal

Journals / AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology / 2019 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 36

An Interaction Framework for Open and Distance Learning: Learning Outcomes, Motivation, Satisfaction, and Perception

Açık ve Uzaktan Öğrenme için Bir Etkileşim Çerçevesi: Öğrenme Çıktıları, Motivasyon, Memnuniyet, Algı

Alper Tolga KUMTEPE
Eda ATASOY
Özlem KAYA
Serap UĞUR
Gökhan Deniz DİNÇER
Erdem ERDOĞDU
Cengiz Hakan AYDIN
Pages
7–26
Publication Date
2019-02-15
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)

The practical dimension of the well-known interaction in the theoretical sense is discussed in the context of distance education.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Interaction is often heard in the design of online learning environments as well as centuries of educational environments.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Online tools have different types of interaction.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The practical dimension of the well-known interaction in the theoretical sense is discussed in the context of distance education.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Etkileşim · E-Öğrenme · Açık Ve Uzaktan Öğrenme

Abstract

Interaction is often heard in the design of online learning environments as well as centuries of educational environments. Online tools have different types of interaction. It is one of the aims of this article to summarize the theoretical framework for interaction, which online tools should be used for which type of interaction while designing learning environments. In addition, the study focuses on the relationship between interaction and learning outcomes, interaction and learning motivation, satisfaction and perception. The practical dimension of the well-known interaction in the theoretical sense is discussed in the context of distance education.

Özet

Etkileşim terimi, yüzyüze eğitim ortamlarının yanı sıra günümüzde çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarının tasarımında sıklıkla duyulmaktadır. Çevrimiçi araçlar farklı etkileşim türlerini barındırmaktadır. Etkileşim üzerine kuramsal çerçeveyi özetlemek, öğrenme ortamları tasarlanırken hangi etkileşim türü için hangi çevrimiçi araçların kullanılması gerektiği bu makalenin amaçlarından biridir. Ayrıca çalışmada, etkileşim ile öğrenme çıktılarının ilişkisi, etkileşim ile öğrenen güdülenmesi, memnuniyet ve algı ilişkileri üzerine durulmaktadır. Kuramsal anlamda yeterince bilinen etkileşimin uygulama boyutu, uzaktan eğitim bağlamında tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUMTEPE, A. T., ATASOY, E., KAYA, Ö., UĞUR, S., DİNÇER, G. D., ERDOĞDU, E., AYDIN, C. H. (2019). An Interaction Framework for Open and Distance Learning: Learning Outcomes, Motivation, Satisfaction, and Perception. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 36, 7–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/899015

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E.M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, (Special Issue: Improving Interaction in Distance Education Through Research), 23 (2-3), 82-103. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 126–141.
  2. Anderson, T., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education. (p. 97-112).
  3. Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing. Beard, L. A., & Harper, C. (2002). Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction. Education, 122, 658-663.
  4. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. a., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. a.,& Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Booher, R. K., & Seiler, J. W. (1982). Speech communication anxiety: An impediment to academic achievement in the university classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction 18(1), 23-27.
  5. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman. Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: a technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279.
  6. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
  7. Dooley, K. E., Lindner, J. R., & Dooley, L. M. (2002). Facilitating interactions for e-Learning. Dunlap, B. J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Supporting students’ cognitive processing in online courses: Designing for Deep and Meaningful Student-to-Content Interactions, TechTrends, 51(4), 20-31.
  8. Erdoğdu, E. (2016). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme kapsamında etkileşimli ekitaplar: etkileşim, teknoloji, üretim boyutu ve örnekleri. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3). Ertmer, P. a., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: the role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher