Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

An Investigation of Distance Education Students’ Interaction Experiences

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 381 - 392, 15.01.2024

Esma Yıldız Hakan Tüzün

https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1199744

Öz

The purpose of the study is to investigate the interaction experiences of distance education students within the framework of interaction types. The interaction experiences of 10 undergraduate distance education students were examined in the study using the phenomenological method. Research data were collected using a semi-structured interview form and analyzed using a seven-step phenomenological analysis method. How students make sense of interaction in distance education was defined by four themes: interobjectivity, timing, intimacy and immediacy, and readiness. The study discussed the propositions of interaction equivalence theory in light of the participants’ views. The results suggest that other types of interaction can be ignored when student-content or student-instructor interaction is at a high level. The results also show that student-content, student-instructor, and student-student interaction are important in distance education, ranked from most important to least important. The common opinion of all participants is that the most important type of interaction in distance education is student-content interaction. The findings obtained by this study can raise awareness among stakeholders by understanding the interaction experiences of distance education students, and help proactively increase their potential interaction experiences.

Anahtar Kelimeler

distance education interaction experience

Kaynakça

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.
  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2). https://doi. org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
  • Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Atwood Publishing.
  • Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289-304.
  • Balat, Ş., Kayalı, B., Karaman, S., & Kurşun, E. (2020). Çevrimiçi ortamlarda motivasyonel geri bildirimin öğrenenlerin öz-düzenleme, öz-yeterlilik, kaygı ve başarı puanlarına etkisi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 19-36.
  • Banna, J., Lin, M. F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching/MERLOT, 11(2), 249-261.
  • Becker, J. D., & Schad, M. (2022). Understanding the lived experience of online learners: Towards a framework for phenomenological research on distance education. Online Learning, 26(2), 296-322.
  • 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.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi. org/10.1080/0969595980050106
  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
  • Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262.
  • 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.
  • Cilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 487-510.
  • Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist’s views it. In Valle, R. S. & King, M. (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction (1th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE
  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
  • Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764
  • Dictionary, A. H. C. (2020). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. https://www.ahdictionary.com/ word/search.html?q=experience
  • Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2) 1-13.
  • Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331.
  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, (1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943 60.2010.512631
  • Hattie, J. A. (1987). Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: A synthesis of meta analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 187–212.
  • Han, S., Min, J., & Lee, H. (2015). Antecedents of social presence and gratification of social connection needs in SNS: A study of Twitter users and their mobile and non-mobile usage. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 459- 471.
  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learnerinterface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
  • Husserl, E. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Routledge.
  • Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
  • Ke, F. (2013). Online interaction arrangements on quality of online interactions performed by diverse learners across disciplines. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 14-22.
  • Kelsey, K. D., & D’souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance: Does interaction matter. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2), 1-10.
  • Kite, J., Schlub, T. E., Zhang, Y., Choi, S., Craske, S., & Dickson, M. (2020). Exploring lecturer and student perceptions and use of a learning management system in a postgraduate public health environment. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(3), 183-198.
  • Kuo, C. Belland, B. R., Schroder, K.E. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35(3), 360-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919 .2015.955265
  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge.
  • Li, X., Lin, X., Zhang, F., & Tian, Y. (2022). What matters in online education: Exploring the impacts of instructional interactions on learning outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792464
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1984). The mediation of experience and educational technology: A philosophical analysis. ECTJ, 32(3), 153-167.
  • Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013) Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08 874417.2013.11645667
  • McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
  • Moustakas, C. (1994). Transcendental phenomenology: Conceptual framework. SAGE.
  • Miyazoe, T. (2009). LMS-based EFL blended instructional design: Empirical research on the sense of class community, learning styles, and online written interaction [Doctoral dissertation, Tokyo International Christian University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
  • Miyazoe, T. ve Anderson, T. (2010). The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9, 94–104.
  • Özsarı, G. (2019). Anadolu Üniversitesi açıköğretim sistemindeki öğrenenlerin etkileşim türü tercihlerinin belirlenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  • Özsarı, G., & Aydın, C. H. (2021). Interaction preferences of distance learners in Turkey. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080 /02680513.2021.1981279
  • Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., & Armellini, A. (2015). Expanding the interaction equivalency theorem. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 298-317.
  • Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2004). What works: Student perceptions of effective elements in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 277-291.
  • Rhode, J. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl. v10i1.603
  • Sabry, K., & Baldwin, L. (2003). Web-based learning interaction and learning styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 443-454.
  • Sales, G. C. (2010). Can modern e-learning development follow a process that ensures quality? Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 93-94.
  • Saykılı, A. (2019). Etkileşim eşdeğerliği kuramı: Alanyazındaki araştırmalar ve öneriler. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(4), 92-104.
  • Soo, K. S., & Bonk, C. J. (1998). Interaction: What does it mean in online distance education?. ERIC.
  • Sun, H. L., Sun, T., Sha, F. Y., Gu, X. Y., Hou, X. R., Zhu, F. Y., & Fang, P. T. (2022). The influence of teacher–student interaction on the effects of online learning: Based on a serial mediating model. Frontiers in psychology, 13. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.779217
  • Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.
  • Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123-135.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165.

Uzaktan Eğitim Öğrencilerinin Etkileşim Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 381 - 392, 15.01.2024

Esma Yıldız Hakan Tüzün

https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1199744

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin etkileşim deneyimlerini, etkileşim türleri çerçevesinde araştırmaktır. Fenomenoloji yöntemi kullanılan çalışmada, 10 lisans öğrencisinin uzaktan eğitimde üç farklı tür etkileşim deneyimi incelenmiştir. Veriler, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formuyla toplanmış ve yedi aşamalı fenomenolojik analiz yöntemi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Öğrencilerin uzaktan eğitimde etkileşimi nasıl anlamlandırdıkları ve deneyimledikleri anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmada etkileşimin tanımına ilişkin bulgular; nesneler arasılık, zamanlama, samimiyet ve yakınlık, hazırbulunuşluk olmak üzere dört tema olarak raporlanmıştır. Çalışmada Etkileşim Eşdeğerliği Kuramı tezleri, katılımcı görüşleriyle ele alınmıştır. Bu noktada araştırma bulguları; etkileşim türlerinden öğrenci-içerik veya öğrenci-öğretici etkileşiminin yüksek seviyede olması halinde kalan iki etkileşim türünün gözardı edilebileceği şeklindedir. Bulgulara göre, uzaktan eğitimde etkileşim türleri için bir önem sırası yapılacak olursa ilk olarak öğrenciiçerik etkileşimi, ardından öğrenci-öğretici etkileşimi son olarak ise öğrenci-öğrenci etkileşimi gelmektedir. Tüm katılımcıların ortak fikri ise uzaktan eğitimde en önemli etkileşim türünün öğrenci- içerik etkileşimi olduğu yönündedir. Bulgular, uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin etkileşim deneyimlerini anlayarak paydaşların farkındalığını arttırabilir. Sonuçta proaktif olarak potansiyel etkileşim deneyimlerini arttırmaya yardımcı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

uzaktan eğitim etkileşim deneyim

Kaynakça

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.
  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2). https://doi. org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
  • Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Atwood Publishing.
  • Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289-304.
  • Balat, Ş., Kayalı, B., Karaman, S., & Kurşun, E. (2020). Çevrimiçi ortamlarda motivasyonel geri bildirimin öğrenenlerin öz-düzenleme, öz-yeterlilik, kaygı ve başarı puanlarına etkisi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(4), 19-36.
  • Banna, J., Lin, M. F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching/MERLOT, 11(2), 249-261.
  • Becker, J. D., & Schad, M. (2022). Understanding the lived experience of online learners: Towards a framework for phenomenological research on distance education. Online Learning, 26(2), 296-322.
  • 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.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi. org/10.1080/0969595980050106
  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
  • Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262.
  • 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.
  • Cilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 487-510.
  • Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist’s views it. In Valle, R. S. & King, M. (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction (1th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE
  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.
  • Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764
  • Dictionary, A. H. C. (2020). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. https://www.ahdictionary.com/ word/search.html?q=experience
  • Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2) 1-13.
  • Driscoll, A., Jicha, K., Hunt, A. N., Tichavsky, L., & Thompson, G. (2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student performance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 312-331.
  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, (1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943 60.2010.512631
  • Hattie, J. A. (1987). Identifying the salient facets of a model of student learning: A synthesis of meta analyses. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 187–212.
  • Han, S., Min, J., & Lee, H. (2015). Antecedents of social presence and gratification of social connection needs in SNS: A study of Twitter users and their mobile and non-mobile usage. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 459- 471.
  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learnerinterface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
  • Husserl, E. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Routledge.
  • Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
  • Ke, F. (2013). Online interaction arrangements on quality of online interactions performed by diverse learners across disciplines. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 14-22.
  • Kelsey, K. D., & D’souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance: Does interaction matter. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2), 1-10.
  • Kite, J., Schlub, T. E., Zhang, Y., Choi, S., Craske, S., & Dickson, M. (2020). Exploring lecturer and student perceptions and use of a learning management system in a postgraduate public health environment. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(3), 183-198.
  • Kuo, C. Belland, B. R., Schroder, K.E. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35(3), 360-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919 .2015.955265
  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge.
  • Li, X., Lin, X., Zhang, F., & Tian, Y. (2022). What matters in online education: Exploring the impacts of instructional interactions on learning outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792464
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1984). The mediation of experience and educational technology: A philosophical analysis. ECTJ, 32(3), 153-167.
  • Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013) Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in is research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08 874417.2013.11645667
  • McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
  • Moustakas, C. (1994). Transcendental phenomenology: Conceptual framework. SAGE.
  • Miyazoe, T. (2009). LMS-based EFL blended instructional design: Empirical research on the sense of class community, learning styles, and online written interaction [Doctoral dissertation, Tokyo International Christian University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
  • Miyazoe, T. ve Anderson, T. (2010). The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9, 94–104.
  • Özsarı, G. (2019). Anadolu Üniversitesi açıköğretim sistemindeki öğrenenlerin etkileşim türü tercihlerinin belirlenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  • Özsarı, G., & Aydın, C. H. (2021). Interaction preferences of distance learners in Turkey. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080 /02680513.2021.1981279
  • Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., & Armellini, A. (2015). Expanding the interaction equivalency theorem. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 298-317.
  • Reisetter, M., & Boris, G. (2004). What works: Student perceptions of effective elements in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 277-291.
  • Rhode, J. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl. v10i1.603
  • Sabry, K., & Baldwin, L. (2003). Web-based learning interaction and learning styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 443-454.
  • Sales, G. C. (2010). Can modern e-learning development follow a process that ensures quality? Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 93-94.
  • Saykılı, A. (2019). Etkileşim eşdeğerliği kuramı: Alanyazındaki araştırmalar ve öneriler. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(4), 92-104.
  • Soo, K. S., & Bonk, C. J. (1998). Interaction: What does it mean in online distance education?. ERIC.
  • Sun, H. L., Sun, T., Sha, F. Y., Gu, X. Y., Hou, X. R., Zhu, F. Y., & Fang, P. T. (2022). The influence of teacher–student interaction on the effects of online learning: Based on a serial mediating model. Frontiers in psychology, 13. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.779217
  • Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.
  • Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123-135.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165.
Toplam 56 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Eğitim Üzerine Çalışmalar
Bölüm Ampirik Araştırma
Yazarlar

Esma Yıldız 0000-0002-0916-9924

Hakan Tüzün 0000-0003-1153-5556

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Ocak 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Yıldız, E., & Tüzün, H. (2024). Uzaktan Eğitim Öğrencilerinin Etkileşim Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 13(3), 381-392. https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1199744
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Yükseköğretim Dergisi, bünyesinde yayınlanan yazıların fikirlerine resmen katılmaz, basılı ve çevrimiçi sürümlerinde yayınladığı hiçbir ürün veya servis reklamı için güvence vermez. Yayınlanan yazıların bilimsel ve yasal sorumlulukları yazarlarına aittir. Yazılarla birlikte gönderilen resim, şekil, tablo vb. unsurların özgün olması ya da daha önce yayınlanmış iseler derginin hem basılı hem de elektronik sürümünde yayınlanabilmesi için telif hakkı sahibinin yazılı onayının bulunması gerekir. Yazarlar yazılarının bütün yayın haklarını derginin yayıncısı Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi'ne (TÜBA) devrettiklerini kabul ederler. Yayınlanan içeriğin (yazı ve görsel unsurlar) telif hakları dergiye ait olur. Dergide yayınlanması uygun görülen yazılar için telif ya da başka adlar altında hiçbir ücret ödenmez ve baskı masrafı alınmaz; ancak ayrı baskı talepleri ücret karşılığı yerine getirilir.

TÜBA, yazarlardan devraldığı ve derginin çevrimiçi (online) sürümünde yayımladığı içerikle ilgili telif haklarından, bilimsel içeriğe evrensel açık erişimin (open access) desteklenmesi ve geliştirilmesine katkıda bulunmak amacıyla, bilinen standartlarda kaynak olarak gösterilmesi koşuluyla, ticari kullanım amacı ve içerik değişikliği dışında kalan tüm kullanım (çevrimiçi bağlantı verme, kopyalama, baskı alma, herhangi bir fiziksel ortamda çoğaltma ve dağıtma vb.) haklarını (ilgili içerikte tersi belirtilmediği sürece) Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND4.0) Lisansı aracılığıyla bedelsiz kullanıma sunmaktadır. İçeriğin ticari amaçlı kullanımı için TÜBA'dan yazılı izin alınması gereklidir.