october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 disadvantages of learner in classroom. Therefore, introvert learners may turn to be more active e-learners in a SL environment. The isolation and loneliness experiences of learners as an obstacle for learning were indicated in the literature (Löfström & Nevgi, 2007). Second, chance of changing avatars’ character and physical appearance in SL might give e-learning adapters to use SL for role playing. Higher education began to require students to explore and articulate the others’ viewpoints. Therefore, SL appears to have a big potential to be used as an online role playing environment (Inman, Wright & Hartman, 2010; Wills, Leigh & IP, 2011). The findings also showed that SL users prefer to attend the activities which allow them to move their avatars actively. They expressed that these kinds of activities take their attention. Hence, e-learning designs should include these kinds of activities like role playing and future studies might explore effective online role playing design possibilities in SL. Moreover, the learning context may be enhanced with the various designs which could not be possible to actualize in real classroom settings. According to Mansour et al (2009), providing e-learners a communication environment which enables more realistic face-to-face interaction with others should be the focal point for designers and educators of the online courses. Furthermore, it is apparent that users are willing to attend activities related with learning a second language. In the literature, there are many research studies explored the potential of SL as a learning medium for language learning (Wang, Qi Wang, Hunt, Fikis, Nguyen & Page, 2010; Samur, Dannenberg & Evans, 2010; Li, 2006) and many people started to use SL for these kind of purposes. According to results of this study not knowing a second language could discourage SL users from communicating internationally. Given that SL provides unlimited opportunities for learners to interact with each other verbally, SL instructors employ all of the strategies which social learning theory proposes. Evaluation of Second Life and the educational value The main result of this study is that many active SL users do not have specific thoughts about the applicability of SL in education, or most are not willing to participate in the educational activities that are readily available. The results showed that most of the SL users were ambivalent about the educational applications in SL. This might be a consequence of not encountering educational applications in SL/perceiving SL as an educational setting and the common sense of SL is not designed for educational purposes. This finding is in opposition to some previous ones in the literature which support the use of SL in education (Helmer & Learning Light 2007; Calongne & Hilles, 2008; De Lucia, Francese, Passero & Tortora, 2009). This study showed that most active SL active users are more interested in the entertainment feature than its educational potential. Similarly, Baran (2010) found that university students were not ready to embrace the use of social networking tools in formal education as the primary aim of these technologies was not education. People use social networking tools generally making new friends and maintaining existent relationship (Mazman & Usluel, 2011). However, our results also showed that there exist a considerable number of users who have a positive attitude towards the educational use of SL and are willing to participate in educational applications. The response we obtained might be a result of special characteristics of the Turkish community in SL. Since they are generally adult users with a high level of education and are employed in various occupations, they may not identify a personal need for education in SL. Adults are generally known to prioritize education opportunities where the knowledge so obtained is directly applicable to their occupation or work situation. Therefore, this type of adult SL members should be presented with learning opportunities that are perceived to be directly relevant to their real lives. Another study revealed that SL students’ perceived value of learning was high when the environment was designed according to action learning principles. That is, students passing the process of planning, action, experience and understanding and experiencing real life skills perceived value of learning in SL (Wagner & IP, 2009). According to the results, most SL users agreed with the idea “SL makes me communicate better with people”. This idea can be concluded that SL may reduce learner-learner distance in e-learning in addition to reducing teacher-learner distance (De Lucia, Francese, Passero & Tortora, 2009). As mentioned before, this study does not attempt to prove an idea about SL. Instead it opens a window to its use and potential from a Turkish point of view. If SL is to be used in e-learning, it should be remembered that SL is a recent innovation for e-learners and requires time and diffusion strategies for adaption to educational use. The main suggestions arose from this study is that the experiences of the users could be increased to disseminate the applicability of SL as an educational environment. According to results, active SL users were also using Web 2.0 technologies frequently; the designers can provide combination of these applications. Especially, SL could be a solution for introverted students who were not able to express themselves adequately in classroom. The main limitation for this study is the narrow participant number. This study may be replicated with a wider group of people from Turkey and beyond. In addition, international comparisons may be beneficial for examining possible similarities and differences among countries, education systems and e-learning communities and applications. Additionally, foreign language learning in SL differences between Turkish students and students from different cultures could be explored by using SL as a learning medium. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 261
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 REFERENCES Atkins, C., & Caukill, M. (2009). Serious fun and serious learning: The challenge of Second Life. In J. Molka- Danielsen & M. Deutschmann (Eds.), Learning and teaching in the virtual world of second life (pp. 79– 89). Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press. Baker, S. C., Wentz, R. K., & Woods, M. M. (2009). Using virtual worlds in education: Second Life: As an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 59–64. Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213-262). Rand McNally & Company. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John, Handbook of personality (pp. 154-196). New York, Guildford publications. Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional tool. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), E146-149. Baran, B., Kilic. E., Bakar, A., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Turkish university students’ technology use profiles and their thoughts about distance education. Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 235-242. Bowers, K. W., Ragas, M.W., & Neely, J.C. (2009). Assessing the value of virtual worlds for post-secondary instructors: a survey of innovators, early adopters and the early majority in Second Life. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(5), 327-337. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Calongne, C., & Hiles, J. (2008). Blended realities: A virtual tour of education in Second Life. Retrieved from http://edumuve.com/blended/ BlendedRealitiesCalongneHiles.pdf Cheal, C. (2007). Second Life: hype or hyperlearning? On The Horizon, 15 (4), 204-210, Childress, M. D., & Braswell, R. (2006). Using massively multiplayer online role-playing games for online learning. Distance Education, 27(2), 187–196. De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I. & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a virtual campus on Second Life: the case of SecondDMI, Computers & Education, 52(1), 220-33. Deutschmann, M., & Panichi, L. (2009). Instructional design, teacher practice and learner autonomy. In J. Molka-Danielsen & M. Deutschmann (Eds.), Learning and teaching in the virtual world of second life (pp. 27–44). Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press. Edirisingha, P., Nie, M., Pluciennik, M., & Young, R. (2009). Socialisation for learning at a distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (3), 458–479. Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: at the tipping point. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(4), 261-275. Gulbahar, Y. (2010). E-ogrenme [E-learning]. Pegem Akademi, Ankara, Turkey. Helmer, J., & Learning Light. (2007). Second Life and virtual worlds. Learning Light, Retrieved from http://www.norfolkelearningforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/virtual-worlds_ll_oct_2007.pdf Inman, C., Wright, V. H., & Hartman, J. A. (2010). Use of Second Life in K-12 and higher education: A review of research. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 44-63. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: a definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Keskitalo, T., Pyykkö, E., & Ruokamo, H. (2011). Exploring the meaningful learning of students in Second Life. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 16–26. Latchem, C., Simsek, N., Cakir Balta, Ö., Cedimoglu, I. H. & Altunkopru, A. (2009). Are we there yet? A progress report from three pioneers in Turkish universities distance education and e-learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ Li, D. (2006). Motivation in second language acquisition in Chinese research students in the UK. Evaluation and Research in Education, 19(1), 38-58. Löfström, E., & Nevgi, A. (2007). From strategic planning to meaningful learning: diverse perspectives on the development of web-based teaching and learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 312-324 Mansour, S., Bennett, L., & Rude-Parkins, C. (2009). How the use of Second Life affects e-learners’ perceptions of social interaction in online courses. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 7(2), 1-6 Mazman, S. G. & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Gender differences in using social networks. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(2), 133-139. Midura, J. C., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, Technology and Change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309-328. Samur, Y., Dannenberg, D., & Evans, M. A. (2010, October). Second Life as a language learning tool (EFL). AECT, Anaheim, California. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 262
Page 2 and 3:
THE TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCA
Page 4 and 5:
Dear Colleagues, TOJET: The Turkish
Page 6 and 7:
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Annotation retrieval TOJET: The Tur
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Stage 2 Process Stage 3 Output Stag
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Learning effectiveness TOJET: The T
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix A: Questionnaire TOJET: Th
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 TOJET: The Turk
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Computer Use Transformational Leade
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 226 and 227: Diverger TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 248 and 249: clarify their misconceptions. TOJET
Page 262 and 263: *p < .05 TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 300 and 301: section to the user. TOJET: The Tur
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Statement Analysis TOJET: The Turki
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Appendices TOJET: The Turkish Onlin
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 414 and 415:
TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427:
eactions TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470:
show all

october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?