Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi
ISSN (Print): 1309-0682 -

Orjinal Araştırma Makalesi    |    Open Access
Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2020, Vol. 14(33) 1-24

Harmanlanmış E-Öğrenme Ortamı Bilgi Sistem Kalitesinin Öğrencilerin Psikososyal Algılarına Etkisinin İncelenmesi

G. Alev Özkök & Hidayet Tütüncü

pp. 1 - 24   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.272.1

Publish Date: Eylül 29, 2020  |   Number of Views: 355/721   |   Number of Download: 538/1.428

PDF Download

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, harmanlanmış e-öğrenme ortamlarında, bilgi sistem kalitesinin öğrencilerin ortama yönelik psikososyal algılarına etkisini incelemektir. Bu amaçla, harmanlanmış e-öğrenme ortamının, öğrencilerin psikososyal algılarına etkisini test etmek için Walker (2003) tarafından geliştirilen uzaktan eğitim öğrenme ortamları ölçeğinin Türkçe versiyonu DELES-TR (Özkök vd, 2009) ve Dağhan ve Akkoyunlu (2016a) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlanan bilgi sistemleri başarı modeli (DeLone ve McLean, 2003; Chang, 2013) ölçekleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, uluslarararası statüye sahip yarı özel bir devlet üniversitesinde lisans ve yüksek lisans öğrenimi gören 536 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri 2017-2018 öğretim yılı güz döneminde toplanmıştır. Kurulan hipotetik model yapısal eşitlik modeli ile sınanmıştır. Araştırma bulgularıyla, Moos’un (1976) sosyal ortam kuramı temel alınarak kurulan hipotetik model doğrulanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, hizmet kalitesi, bilgi kalitesi ve sistem kalitesinin öğretmen desteği, öğrenci etkileşimi ve işbirliği, bilgi kalitesi, özgün öğrenme, aktif öğrenme ve öğrenci özerkliği değişkenlerini doğrudan açıklayabildiği ve ortaya çıkan modelin geçerli, güvenilir ve iyi bir uyum sağladığı görülmüştür. Araştırma modeline göre; öğretmen desteği değişkeninin %51’inin ve öğrenci etkileşimi ve işbirliği değişkeninin %20’sinin hizmet kalitesi değişkenince açıklanabildiği, kişisel ilgi değişkeninin %79’unun, otantik öğrenme değişkeninin %72’sinin ve aktif öğrenme değişkeninin %42’sinin bilgi kalitesi değişkenince açıklanabildiği, öğrenci özerkliği değişkeninin ise %47’sinin sistem kalitesi değişkenince pozitif ve anlamlı açıklanabildiği görülmüştür. Çalışmanın sonuçları doğrultusunda, ileride yapılacak araştırmalar için öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords: Harmanlanmış E-Öğrenme Platformu, Psikososyal Öğrenme Ortamları, Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli, E-Öğrenme, Sistem Kalitesi, Bilgi Sistemleri Başarı Modeli

How to Cite this Article

APA 7th edition
Ozkok, G.A., & Tutuncu, H. (2020). Harmanlanmış E-Öğrenme Ortamı Bilgi Sistem Kalitesinin Öğrencilerin Psikososyal Algılarına Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(33), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.272.1

Harvard
Ozkok, G. and Tutuncu, H. (2020). Harmanlanmış E-Öğrenme Ortamı Bilgi Sistem Kalitesinin Öğrencilerin Psikososyal Algılarına Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(33), pp. 1-24.

Chicago 16th edition
Ozkok, G. Alev and Hidayet Tutuncu (2020). "Harmanlanmış E-Öğrenme Ortamı Bilgi Sistem Kalitesinin Öğrencilerin Psikososyal Algılarına Etkisinin İncelenmesi". Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 (33):1-24. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.272.1

References
  1. Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1974). Learning environments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating Educational Performance: A Sourcebook of Methods, Instruments and Examples. Berkeley: Calif.: McCutchan Pub. pp. 81-98. [Google Scholar]
  2. Armstrong, D. A. (2011). Students' perceptions of online learning and instructional tools: A qualitative study of undergraduate students use of online tools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 222-226. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153. doi: 10.1080/01587910600789498 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers, biases and opportunities of communication and cooperation with computers: Introduction and overview. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. Springer, Boston, MA. pp. 1-14. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, D. G. (2002). The role you play in online discussions. Syllabus, 16(5), 9. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, V., & Fisher, D. (2003). The validation and application of a new learning environment instrument for online learning in higher education. In M. S. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-Rich Learning Environments: A Future Perspective. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. pp. 1-20. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, H.-J. (2010). Linking employees’ e-learning system use to their overall job outcomes: An empirical study based on the IS success model. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1628-1639. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Chou, S.-W., & Liu, C.-H. (2005). Learning effectiveness in a web‐based virtual learning environment: A learner control perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 65-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00114.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Cummings, C., Mason, D., Shelton, K., & Baur, K. (2017). Active learning strategies for online and blended learning environments. In C. Cummings, D. Mason, K. Shelton, & K. Baur (Eds.), Flipped Instruction: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. IGI Global, pp. 88-114. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dağhan, G., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2016a). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında kullanım sürekliliğini yordayabilecek yapılara ilişkin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 17(1), 198-224. doi: 10.12984/eed.61876 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Dağhan, G., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2016b). Modeling the continuance usage intention of online learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 198-211. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.066 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95. doi: 10.1287/isre.3.1.60 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fleischer, C. (1995). Composing teacher-research. A prosaic history. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Edition). New York: The McGraw Hill Companies. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraser, B. J. (1997). Classroom environments. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and Educational Practice. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing. pp. 323-341. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fraser, B. J. (1998a). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and application. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7-33. doi: 10.1023/A:1009932514731 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 527-564. [Google Scholar]
  20. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30-50. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, New York: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  22. Graffam, B. (2007). Active learning in medical education: Strategies for beginning implementation. Medical Teacher, 29(1), 38-42. doi: 10.1080/01421590601176398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Harnar, M. A., Brown, S. W., & Mayall, H. J. (2000). Measuring the effects of distance education on the learning experience: Teaching accounting via PictureTel. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 37-49. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hastie, M., Hung, I.-C., Shen, N.-S., & Kinshuk (2010). A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 9-24. doi: 10.1080/14703290903525812 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Herner-Patnode, L., Lee, H.-J., & Baek, E.-o. (2008). Reflective e-learning pedagogy. In T. Hanssson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Digital Information Technologies: Innovations, Methods, and Ethical Issues. IGI Global. pp. 233-248. [Google Scholar]
  26. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48. doi: 10.1007/BF02319856 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55. Retrieved June 25, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/101357/ [Google Scholar]
  28. Insel, P. M., & Moos, R. H. (1974). The social environment. In P. M. Insel & R. H. Moos (Eds.), Health and the Social Environment. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. pp. 3-12. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Constructs of student-centered online learning on learning satisfaction of a diverse online student body: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 97-122. doi: 10.2190/EC.48.1.e [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Khan, B. H. (2001). Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kiritz, S., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Physiological effects of social environments. Psychosomatic Medicine, 36(2), 96-114. doi: 10.1097/00006842-197403000-00002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Lee, B.-C., Yoon, J.-O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners' acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320-1329. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Lewin, K. (1935). Psycho-sociological problems of a minority group. Character & Personality; A Quarterly for Psychodiagnostic & Allied Studies, 3, 175-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1935.tb01996.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), ELI Paper 1, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved March 1, 2020 from http://www.lmi.ub.edu/cursos/s21/REPOSITORIO/documents/Lombardi_2007_Authentic_learning.pdf [Google Scholar]
  36. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Glendale, Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  37. McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F. M. (2002). The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296-315. doi: 10.1287/isre.13.3.296.76 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of transaction. Readings in Principles of Distance Education Series No.1, 100-105. [Google Scholar]
  39. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. G. (1996). Distance education: A system view. Wadsworth Pub. Co. [Google Scholar]
  40. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  41. Neo, M., Neo, K. T.-K., & Tan, H. Y.-J. (2012). Applying authentic learning strategies in a multimedia and web learning environment (MWLE): Malaysian students' perspective. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 50-60. [Google Scholar]
  42. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233. Retrieved June 24, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/97576/. [Google Scholar]
  43. Özkök, G. A., Walker, S. L., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the DELES. Learning Environments Research, 12(3), 175-190. doi: 10.1007/s10984-009-9060-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  44. Özkök, G. A. (2013). Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the web-based learning environment instrument (WEBLEI). Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(2), 335-347. [Google Scholar]
  45. Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous e-language learning: A case study of virtual university of Pakistan. Open Praxis, 8(1), 21-39. doi: 10.5944/openpraxis.8.1.212 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2008). A model for developing high-quality online courses: Integrating a systems approach with learning theory. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 119-136. Retrieved June 05, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/104051/ [Google Scholar]
  47. Ranganathan, C., & Ganapathy, S. (2002). Key dimensions of business-to-consumer web sites. Information & Management, 39(6), 457-465. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00112-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002). Authentic activities and online learning. In T. Herrington (Ed.), Quality conversations: Research and Development in Higher Education. Jamison, ACT: HERDSA 2002. pp. 562-567. [Google Scholar]
  49. Saeed, K. A., & Abdinnour-Helm, S. (2008). Examining the effects of information system characteristics and perceived usefulness on post adoption usage of information systems. Information & Management, 45(6), 376-386. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.06.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Seddon, P. B., & Kiew, M.-Y. (1996). A partial test and development of Delone and Mclean’s model of IS success. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 90-109. doi: 10.3127/ajis.v4i1.379 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Srinivasan, A. (1985). Alternative measures of system effectiveness: Associations and implications. MIS Quarterly, 9(3), 243-253. [Google Scholar]
  52. Stern, G. G. (1974). B=f(P,E). In R. H. Moos & P. M. Insel (Ed.), Issues in Social Ecology: Human Milieus. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books. pp. 559-568. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60. [Google Scholar]
  54. Walker, S. L. (2003). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Western Australia: Curtin University of Technology. [Google Scholar]
  55. Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 289-308. doi: 10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Zhang, Z. (2016). Using ICT (information and communication technologies) as a partnership enabler: Challenges and recommendations. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Services, 2(3), 180-187. doi: 10.1504/IJQRS.2016.082646 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Vol. 14 (33)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 14 Issue 33

Eylül 2020

All Manuscript

Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi

Copyright © 2025 Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website have been created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.