Cilt 15, Sayı 3, Sayfalar 37 - 49 2015-02-27

Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context

Ekrem SOLAK [1] , Recep CAKIR [2]

215 222

This purpose of this study was to understand e-learners and face to face learners’ views towards learning English through e-learning in vocational higher school context and to determine the role of academic achievement and gender in e-learning and face to face learning. This study was conducted at a state-run university in 2012-2013 academic year and subjects were 221 students from two different Vocational Higher Schools taking up English course through e-learning and traditional learning. The results of the study revealed that there was no significant difference between e-learners and face to face learners about the views towards learning English via e-learning. Furthermore, academic achievement and gender were not the strong determiners in e-learning compared with face to face learning.
Face To Face Or E-Learning, E-Learning In Language Teaching, E-Language Learning.
  • Bencheva, N. (2010). Learning Styles and E-Learning Face-to-Face to the Traditional
  • Learning. Научни Трудове На Русенския Университеt, 49, 63-67. Retrieved from http://conf.ru.acad.bg/bg/docs/cp10/3.2/3.2-11.pdf Buckley, D. P. (2002). In pursuit of the learning paradigm: Coupling faculty transformation and institutional change. EDUCAUSE Review, Retrieved from http://conf.ru.acad.bg/bg/docs/cp10/3.2/3.2-11.pdf http://conf.ru.acad.bg/bg/docs/cp10/3.2/3.2-11.pdf
  • Cantoni V., Cellario M. & Porta M. (2004). Perspectives and challenges in e-learning:
  • Towards natural interaction paradigms. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing. 15: 333-345. Caspi A., Chajut E. & Saporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and in online discussions:
  • Gender differences. Computers & Education 50, 3,718–724 Castaño-Muñoz, J., Duart, M., J., & Sancho-Vinuesa, T. (2013). The Internet in face- toface higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement?
  • BritishJournal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12007
  • Dillon, C. L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). A framework for the evaluation of telecommunications-based distance education. Paper presented at the 17th World
  • Conference for Distance Education, Birmingham, UK. Fahad, F. (2010). The Learners’ satisfaction toward online e-learning implemented in the college of applied studies and community service: Can e-learning replace the conventional system of education? Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education TOJDE 1302-6488 Volume: 11 Number: 2 Article 2.
  • Fuller, A, Awyzio, G. & McFarlane, P. (2001). Using WebCT to support team teaching
  • Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 315-3
  • Junco, R. & Mastrodicasa, J. (2007). Connecting to the Net.Generation: What higher education professionals need to know about today’s students. Washington, DC: NASPA.
  • Hofmann, J. (2002). Peer-To-Peer: The Next Hot Trend in E-Learning? ASTD Learning
  • Circuits [on-line]. http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/jan2002/hofmann.html
  • Kocoglu, Z., Ozek, Y. & Kesli, Y. (2011). Blended learning: Investigating its potential in an English language teacher training program Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(7), 1124-1134.
  • Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2003). E-learning compared with face to face: Differences in the academic achievement of postgraduate business students. Australasian Journal of
  • Educational Technology. 20(3), 316-336. Larson, D., & Sung, C. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus blended versus face to face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 13: Issue 1pp. 31-42
  • Lee, B., Yoon, J. & Lee, I. (2009). Learners acceptance of e-learning in South Korea.
  • Theories and Results. Computers and Education. 53. 1320-1329.
  • Lim, B., Hong K. S. & Tan, K. (2008). Acceptance of e-learning among distance learners:
  • A Malaysian perspective. Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008.
  • Mahle, M. (2007). Interactivity in distance education.Distance Learning, 4(4, p. 47).
  • Melton, B., Graf, H. & Chopak-Foss, J. (2009). Achievement and satisfaction in blended learning versus traditional general health course designs. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.3(1), 1-13.
  • Owston, R., York, D. & Murtha, S. (2012). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet Higher Edu., 18: 38-46.
  • Paechter, M., Maier, B, & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiencesin e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction.Computers & Education 54, 222–229.
  • Proctor, C. (2002). Proportion, Pedagogy and Processes: The Three P’s of e-learning,
  • Proceedings of the International Academy for Information Management (IAIM), Annual Conference. Ramim, M., &Levy, Y.(2006). Securing e-learning systems: A case of insider cyber attacks and novice IT management in a small university.Journal of Cases on
  • Information technology, 8(4), 24-34. Rashty, D. (2012). Traditional Learning Versus e-learning Methods. New York: Mount St. Mary's College.
  • Rovai, P., A. & Baker J. (2005). Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, perceived learning and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of
  • Distance Education, 6(1) 31-44
  • Soong, M. H. B., Chan H.C., Chua, B. C. & Loh, K. F. (2001). Critical success factors for on line course resources. Computers & Education, 36(2),101-120.
  • Stockey, D. (2003). http://derekstockley.com.au/elearning-definition.html
  • Volery, T. & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. International
  • Journal of Educational Management. 14(5), 216-223. Zhang, P. & Goel, L. (2011). Is E-Learning for everyone? An internal-external framework of e-learning initiatives. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 7, No. 2.
  • Zhanga, D. (2005). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. The American Journal of Distance Education. 19(3), 149 1 APPENDIX:
Birincil Dil en
Konular
Dergi Bölümü Articles
Yazarlar

Yazar: Ekrem SOLAK
E-posta:

Yazar: Recep CAKIR
E-posta:

Bibtex @ { tojde175965, journal = {Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education}, issn = {1302-6488}, address = {Anadolu Üniversitesi}, year = {2015}, volume = {15}, pages = {37 - 49}, doi = {10.17718/tojde.43750}, title = {Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context}, language = {en}, key = {cite}, author = {CAKIR, Recep and SOLAK, Ekrem} }
APA SOLAK, E , CAKIR, R . (2015). Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15 (3), 37-49. DOI: 10.17718/tojde.43750
MLA SOLAK, E , CAKIR, R . "Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context". Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 15 (2015): 37-49 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/tojde/issue/16893/175965>
Chicago SOLAK, E , CAKIR, R . "Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context". Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 15 (2015): 37-49
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context AU - Ekrem SOLAK , Recep CAKIR Y1 - 2015 PY - 2015 N1 - doi: 10.17718/tojde.43750 DO - 10.17718/tojde.43750 T2 - Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 37 EP - 49 VL - 15 IS - 3 SN - 1302-6488- M3 - doi: 10.17718/tojde.43750 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.17718/tojde.43750 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context %A Ekrem SOLAK , Recep CAKIR %T Face To Face Or E-Learningin Turkish Efl Context %D 2015 %J Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education %P 1302-6488- %V 15 %N 3 %R doi: 10.17718/tojde.43750 %U 10.17718/tojde.43750