Dergiler / Participatory Educational Research / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4

Structure in Distance Learning: A Systematic Literature Review

Sayfa
139–170
Yayın Tarihi
2021-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Since technological platforms are the basic elements of communication, they should be used extensively in learning environments.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The research aims to determine the elements under the structural component in distance learning environments.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The research was conducted on a total of 54 studies.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Since technological platforms are the basic elements of communication, they should be used extensively in learning environments.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:distance education · transactional distance · course structure

Abstract

The research aims to determine the elements under the structural component in distance learning environments. The research was conducted as a systematic literature review. The research was conducted on a total of 54 studies. The studies were accessed through the electronic databases accessible at Gazi University. A PRISMA flow chart was used to select the studies. The classification of the studies into categories and codes was done using content analysis, in terms of the structural component. A total of 78 codes were found in 5 categories under which 5409 codings were made. It was found that under the structural component, the Technology category was the most frequently used. This category is followed by flexibility-rigidity, assessment, guidance and curriculum. The most frequently used code in the studies is individual feedback, which falls under the flexibility-rigidity category. As a result of the study, some suggestions were made for designers of distance education media. They should pay maximum attention to the flexibility-rigidity category to support students’ sense of belonging. It is recommended to use different (textual, audio/video) feedback methods in the learning environment. They are expected to pay more attention to the Curriculum category to support learner success. The roles of teachers and learners should be clearly defined. Technology should be planned to support all processes such as interaction, access to content, communication, sharing, collaboration, and evaluation that may be experienced in the learning environment. Formative evaluation should be considered important and more than one method of performance assessment should be used. Since technological platforms are the basic elements of communication, they should be used extensively in learning environments.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KANDEMİR, B., ÇAKMAK, E. K. (2021). Structure in Distance Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Participatory Educational Research, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 4, 139–170. https://ajindex.com/articles/239014

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Aghaee, N., Byron Jobe, W., Karunaratne, T., Smedberg, Å., Hansson, H., & Tedre, M. (2016). Interaction gaps in PhD education and ICT as a way forward: Results from a study in Sweden. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 360–383.
  2. Alhih, M., Ossiannilsson, E., & Berigel, M. (2017). Levels of interaction provided by online distance education models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2733–2748. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01250a
  3. Ali, M. N. (2018). A Correlational Study of Types of Interactions and Student Satisfaction in Online Community College Mathematics, English, or Information Technology Courses. Morgan State University. Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562
  4. Anderson, L. (2018). The Influence of Virtual Community Participation on Transactional Distance in an Online Computer Science Course. Arizona State University. Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In Handbook of Distance Education. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97.
  5. Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2013). Communication and Social Presence: The Impact on Adult Learners’ Emotions in Distance Learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(1), 78–93.
  6. Atwater, C., Borup, J., Baker, R., & West, R. E. (2017). Student perceptions of video communication in an online sport and recreation studies graduate course. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(1), 3–12.
  7. Banas, J., & Wartalski, R. (2019). Designing for Community in Online Learning Settings. Library Technology Reports. Retrieved from https://www.journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/6999
  8. Barana, A., Marchisio, M., & Rabellino, S. (2015). Automated assessment in mathematics. Proceedings - International Computer Software and Applications Conference, 3, 670–671. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2015.105
  9. Bashir, K. (2019).
  10. Modeling E-Learning Interactivity, Learner Satisfaction and Continuance Learning Intention in Ugandan Higher Learning Institutions. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(1), n1. Bates, T. (2014). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOO