Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies

EMINE SU TONGA, (Kafkas Üniversitesi, Kars, Türkiye)
Sami ŞAHİN (Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ
4 0
Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 52 - 75 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201 İndeks Tarihi: 22-05-2023

Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies

Öz:
In distance education processes, interaction has a very important place in the learner's academic performance, attitude and motivation, participation in the lesson, and the acquisition of instructional goals and behaviors. The aims of this study, in which the interaction in synchronous and asynchronous distance education processes is investigated by the meta-synthesis method, are as follows: In synchronous and asynchronous distance education processes, for what purposes are the interactions established, through which features and functions can interactions be increased in distance education and what factors adversely affect this process when interactions are established?. According to these purposes, interaction in distance education is established for cognitive, affective, and cooperative purposes. Cognitive-oriented interaction is included question-answer, asking for and expressing opinions, giving feedback, making explanations, sharing information and experience, participating in discussions, and suggesting solutions and guidance. Affectively focused interaction, encouragement, and support, sharing of personal information show solidarity toward group members and provide emotional support. Collaborative interaction is determined by group qualifications (members and workspace), coordination among group members, distribution of tasks within the group (expertise), and group work processes. The categories that determine how the interaction frequency increase are: learner-teacher, learner-learner, learner-content, and multiple interactions. The most common in these categories are teaching strategies that encourage peer-to-peer counseling, course contents with detailed and explanatory demonstrations, the learner's feeling as being a part of a group, reducing social and psychological distance with a quick reply to the learner's e-mail, in-depth explanatory feedback on learner questions and comments, and using alternative web resources. Among the factors that negatively affect the interaction process are pedagogical inadequacy that negatively affects the cooperation between learners, negative experiences, slow connection or disconnection, conflicts between learners, insufficient time in an online class to interact due to the intensity of the content, and the dominant learner being at the forefront when the teacher can‘t manage the interaction process.
Anahtar Kelime: distance education distance learning interaction

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Ak, Ş., Gökdaş, İ., Öksüz, C. & Torun, F. (2021). Uzaktan eğitimde eğiticilerin eğitimi: Uzaktan eğitime yönelik öz yeterlik ve yarar algısına etkisi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 24-44.
  • Adelskold, G, Alklett, K, Axelsson R and Blomgren, G (1999) Problem-based distance learning of energy issues via computer network, Distance Education, 20(1), 129–43.
  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 9–14.
  • Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilties. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education. Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
  • Andresen, M. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249–257.
  • Baki, A., Karal, H., Çebi, A., Şılbır, L., & Pekşen, M. (2009). Uzaktan eğitimde öğretim yönetim sistemi ve senkron eğitim platformu tasarim süreci: KTÜ örneği. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 1(1), 85-101.
  • Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication, elearning, and interactivity: A review of the research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161–179.
  • Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5-21.
  • Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington: International Society for Technology in Education
  • 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.
  • Bondas, T., ve Hall, E. O. (2007). Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 113-121.
  • Booher, R. K., & Seiler, J. W. (1982). Speech communication anxiety: An impediment to academic achievement in the university classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction 18(1), 23-27.
  • Bouhnik, D., Marcus, T., (2006). Interaction in Distance Learning Courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305.
  • Bozkurt, A. (2016). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmeye yönelik etkileşimli e-kitap değerlendirme kriterlerinin belirlenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
  • Brady, L. (2004). The role of interactivity in web-based educational material. Usability news, 6(2), 1- 7.
  • Brewer, S., ve Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331-354.
  • Carlson, J. R., ve Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel Expansion Theory and The Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153-170.
  • Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N. (2011). Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess,15(43). 1- 180.
  • 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.
  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
  • Çalık, M. & Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38.
  • Çetinkaya, L., & Keser, H. (2018). Adaptation of interaction in web environments with educational content. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(3), 142-152.
  • Çınar, M., Tüzün, H., Yıldırım, D., Akıncı, A., Kalaycı, E., Bilgiç, H. G. ve Yüksel, Y. (2011, Şubat). Uzaktan eğitimde kullanılan eşzamanlı sanal sınıf araçlarının karşılaştırılması. Akademik Bilişim Konferansında sunulan bildiri, (s. 451-456). İnönü Üniversitesi.
  • Çuhadar, C. (2008). Oluşturmacılığa Dayalı Öğretimde Etkileşimin Blog Aracılığı ile Geliştirilmesi.(Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Çuhadar, C. & Kıyıcı, M. (2007) Uzaktan Eğitim Uygulamaları, Bilgisayar I-II Bilgisayar Destekli Öğretim ve Uzaktan Eğitim, (Eds) Ali Güneş. pp:117 – 159. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design in cummings. L.L. & Staw, B.M. (Eds.), pp: 191-233. Research in organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: JAI.
  • De la Varre, C., Keane, J., & Irvin, M. J. (2011). Enhancing Online Distance Education in Small Rural US Schools: A Hybrid, Learner-Centred Model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(4), 35-46.
  • Díaz, L. A., & Entonado, F. B. (2009). Are the functions of teachers in e-learning and face-to-face learning environments really different?. Journal of educational technology & society, 12(4), 331-343.
  • Daniel, J. S., & Marquis, C. (1988). Interaction and independence: Getting the mixture right. In Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 339-359). Routledge.
  • Driscoll, M.& Carliner, M. (2005). Advanced Web Based Training Strategies. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Durak, G. (2017). Uzaktan eğitimde destek hizmetlerine genel bakış: sorunlar ve eğilimler. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(4) , 160-173 .
  • Düzakın, E., Yalçınkaya, S. (2008). Web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim sistemi ve çukurova üniversitesi öğretim elemanlarının yatkınlıkları. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1), 225-244.
  • Forrer, D., Bechtel, S., Brown, K., Mabesa Jr, J., Gunn, L., Hayes, R. L. & Wilmore, T. (2019). Active Connections: Means for Faculty to Create an Environment in Which Students WANT to Engage! Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 16(1), 1-10.
  • Fuller, R. G., Kuhne, G. W., & Frey, B. A. (2011). Distinctive distance education design: models for differentiated instruction. Information Science Reference.
  • Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners. World Conference on Educational Multimedia. Paper presented on Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Chesapeake, VA, AACE.
  • Gueldenzoph, L.E. (2003). The Integration of Constructivist Theory and Socialization to Distance (Online) Learning. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, XLV (3), 173-182.
  • Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B., Craner, J., ve Duffy, T. M. (2001). Seven principles of effective teaching: A practical lens for evaluating online courses. The Technology Source, 30(5), 50.
  • Gunawardena, C. N. & Zittle, F. J. (1997) Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment, American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.
  • Güneş, İ., Büyük, K., Öztürk, A., Tuna, G., Gümüş, S. & Atak, O. N. (2017). Kitlesel uzaktan eğitimde öğrenen-içerik etkileşimi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemi örneği . Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 9-36.
  • Gürgan, S. (2012). Açık ve Uzaktan Öğrenmede Etkileşim Aracı Olarak Web 2.0 Teknolojilerinin Kullanımı: Kurumsal Bir Sosyal Ağ Sitesinin Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Holden, J. T., & Westfall, P. J. L. (2006). An instructional media selection guide for distance learning. Boston: United States Distance Learning Association.
  • Horzum, M. (2010). Uzaktan eğitimde uzakliğin boyutlari ve tasarimi: coğrafi uzakliğa karşin transaksiyonel (psikolojik ve iletişimsel) uzakliğin azaltilmasi. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 0(20), 95-118.
  • Horzum, M. (2013). Michael Graham Moore eğitim teknolojisi alanına önemli katkılar sağlayan kişi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 3(1), 113-119.
  • Huss, J. A., Sela, O., & Eastep, S. (2015). A case study of online instructors and their quest for greater interactivity in their courses: Overcoming the distance in distance education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 72-86.
  • Jackson, L., Jones, S., ve Rodriguez, R. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 78- 96.
  • Jensen, L. & Allen, M. (1996). Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 553–560.
  • Jonassen, D.H. ve Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face to face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. 49 (1), 35- 51.
  • Jong, B.-S., Lai, C.-H., Hsia, Y.-T., & Lin, T.-W. (2013). Efects of anonymity in group discussion on peer interaction and learning achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(3), 292–299.
  • Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in education and teaching international, 39(2), 153-162.
  • Kaba, E. (2019). Uzaktan eğitimde asenkron etkileşimi artıran faktörler: Bir eylem araştırması (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
  • Kanuka, H and Anderson, T (1998) Online social interchange, discord, and knowledge construction, Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57–74.
  • Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional distance among open university students: How does it affect the learning process? European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 17(1), 26-42.
  • Kaysi, F., & Aydemir, E. (2017). Uzaktan eğitim süreçlerindeki etkileşim boyutlarının değerlendirilmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(11), 778-790.
  • Kılıç, S., Horzum, M. B., & Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2016). Çevrimiçi eşzamanlı öğrenme ortamlarında öğrencilerin öğretimsel, sosyal ve bilişsel buradalık algılarının belirlenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 350-364.
  • Kelsey, K. D. (2009). Participant interaction in a course delivered by interactive compressed video technology. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 63-74.
  • Klassen, K. J., & Willoughby, K. A. (2003). In-class simulation games: Assessing student learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 2(1), 1-13.
  • Kumtepe, E. G., Toprak, E., Öztürk, A., Büyükköse, G. T., Kılınç, H., & Menderis, İ. A. (2019). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede destek hizmetleri: Yerelden küresele bir model önerisi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 41-80.
  • Kuyath, S. J., Mickelson, R. A., Saydam, C., & Winter, S. J. (2013). The efects of instant messaging on distance learning outcomes. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 3(2), 13–26
  • Lee, J., Bray, M., Carter-Wells, J., Glaeser, B., Ivers, K., & Street, C. (2004). Discovering the Meaning of Community In An Online Master's Degree Program. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, http://www.aect.org.
  • Lee, M. J., ve McLoughlin, C. (2010). Social software as tools for pedagogical transformation: enabling personalization, creative production, and part. Educational Social Software for Context-Aware Learning: Collaborative Methods and Human Interaction. (eds: N. Lambropoulos & M. Romero). Information Science Reference, 1-22.
  • Lynch, M.M. (2002). The Online Educator: A Guide To Creating The Virtual Classroom. Routledge Falmer: London.
  • Mantyla, K. (1999). Interactive Distance Learning Exercises that Really Work! Turn Classroom Exercises Into Effective and Enjoyable Distance Learning Activities. American Society for Training and Development.
  • Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 228–261.
  • Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.
  • Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1540-1557.
  • McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online Learning: Social Interaction and the Creation of a Sense of Community. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 73-81.
  • Moore, M.G. (1980). Independent study. In R. Boyd & J. Apps (Eds.), Redefining the discipline of adult education (pp. 16–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7
  • Moore, M.G. (2001). Surviving as a distance teacher. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 1-5.
  • Muhirwa, J. M. (2009). Teaching and learning against all odds: A video-based study of learner-to- instructor interaction in international distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(4).
  • Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance education, 33(1),5-30.
  • Niemann, R. (2017). A Scalable Distance Learning Support Framework for South Africa: Applying the Interaction Equivalency Theorem. International Journal of Economics & Management, 11(1), 89-102.
  • Offir, B., Barth, I., Lev, J., & Shteinbok, A. (2005). Can interaction content analysis research contribute to distance learning? Educational Media International, 42(2), 161-171.
  • Özdemir, S. & Yalın, İ. (2007). Web Tabanlı Asenkron Öğrenme Ortamında Bireysel ve İşbirlikli Problem Temelli Öğrenmenin Eleştirel Düşünme Becerilerine Etkileri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 79-94.
  • Özüdoğru, G. (2021). Problems faced in distance education during Covid-19 Pandemic. Participatory Educational Research, 8 (4) , 321-333 . DOI: 10.17275/per.21.92.8.4
  • Padavano, D., & Gould, M. (2005). Student satisfaction with faculty-student interaction. Paper presented at the 11th Sloan-C international conference on asynchronous learning networks, held in Orlando, FL 17–19 November 2005.
  • Pilanci, H. & Saltık, O. (2018). Yabancılara Türkçe Öğretiminde Dil Bilgisi İçeriğini Etkileyen Faktörler: A1, A2 Düzeyleri. Uluslararası Beşeri Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 4(9) , 122-149 .
  • Phillips, G. M., G. M. Santoro, and S. A. Kuehn (1988). The use of computer-mediated communication in training students in group problem-solving and decision-making techniques. The American Journal of Distance Education 2(1), 38-51.
  • Polat, S., & Osman, A. Y. (2016). Meta-sentez: Kavramsal bir çözümleme. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 52-64.
  • Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Toward a metasynthesis of qualitative findings on motherhood in HIV positive women. Research in nursing & health, 26(2), 153-170.
  • Simpson, M., & Anderson, B. (2012). History and heritage in open, flexible and distance education. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 16(2), 1-10.
  • Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.
  • Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Sense of community in graduate online education: Contribution of learner to learner interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 228-249
  • Stevenson, K., P. Sander, and P. Naylor. 1996. Student perceptions of the tutor's role in distance learning. Open Learning 11(1), 22-30.
  • Strobel, J. & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem- based Learning, 3(1), 44-58.
  • Tosun, N., Özgür, H., & Şahin, İ. (Ekim, 2009). E-öğrenme ortamlarinda öğrenci-içerik etkileşimi. Paper presented at the 3rd Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium, Trabzon.
  • Thorpe, M. & Godwin, S. (2006) Interaction and e-learning: the student experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(3), 203-221.
  • Tsui, A. B. M., and W. W. Ki. 1996. An analysis of conference interactions on Telenex—A computer network for ESL teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44 (4), 23-44.
  • Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American journal of distance education, 16(3), 131-150.
  • Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen. New York: Simon and Shuster.
  • Ustati, R., & Hassan, S. S. S. (2013). Distance learning students‘ need: Evaluating interactions from Moore‘s theory of transactional distance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 292-304.
  • Üstündağ, M. T., & Güyer, T. (2017). Uyarlanmış Sosyal Etkileşim Araçlarının Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarılarına ve Sosyal Bulunuşluk Algılarına Etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 501-523.
  • Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65(4), 605-632.
  • Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The efect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-33.
  • Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, S. M. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.
  • Wise, A., Chang, J., Dufy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The efects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247
  • Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15–25.
  • Wright, T.M., Marsh, G.E., & Miller, M.T. (2000). A critical comparison of graduate student satisfaction in asynchronous and synchronous course interaction. Planning and Changing, 31(1), 107–118.
  • Yıldırım, İ., & Demir, S. (2016). Oyunlaştırma temelli ―öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri‖ dersi öğretim programı hakkında öğrenci görüşleri. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 6(11), 85-101.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
  • Yılmaz, E. O., & Aktuğ, S. (Şubat, 2011). Uzaktan eğitimde çevrimiçi ders veren öğretim elemanlarının uzaktan eğitimde etkileşim ve iletişim üzerine görüşleri. Paper presented at the XIII. Academic Informatics Conference, 501-512.
  • Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152– 165.
APA SU TONGA E, ŞAHİN S (2023). Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. , 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
Chicago SU TONGA EMINE,ŞAHİN SAMİ Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. (2023): 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
MLA SU TONGA EMINE,ŞAHİN SAMİ Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. , 2023, ss.52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
AMA SU TONGA E,ŞAHİN S Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. . 2023; 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
Vancouver SU TONGA E,ŞAHİN S Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. . 2023; 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
IEEE SU TONGA E,ŞAHİN S "Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies." , ss.52 - 75, 2023. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
ISNAD SU TONGA, EMINE - ŞAHİN, SAMİ. "Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies". (2023), 52-75. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
APA SU TONGA E, ŞAHİN S (2023). Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ, 10(1), 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
Chicago SU TONGA EMINE,ŞAHİN SAMİ Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ 10, no.1 (2023): 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
MLA SU TONGA EMINE,ŞAHİN SAMİ Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ, vol.10, no.1, 2023, ss.52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
AMA SU TONGA E,ŞAHİN S Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ. 2023; 10(1): 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
Vancouver SU TONGA E,ŞAHİN S Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ. 2023; 10(1): 52 - 75. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
IEEE SU TONGA E,ŞAHİN S "Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies." KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ, 10, ss.52 - 75, 2023. 10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
ISNAD SU TONGA, EMINE - ŞAHİN, SAMİ. "Interaction in Distance Education: Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies". KAFKAS EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMALARI DERGİSİ 10/1 (2023), 52-75. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1139201
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 7:7

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları