Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Online Interface and Social Inclusion: A MOOC Study in Turkey Cover

The Online Interface and Social Inclusion: A MOOC Study in Turkey

Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Volume 2020 (2020): Issue 1
By: Serpil Meri-Yilan  
Open Access
|May 2020

References

  1. 1Aharony, N and Bar-Ilan, J. 2016. Students’ perceptions on MOOCs: An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Life Long Learning, 12: 145–162. DOI: 10.28945/3540
    Back to article
  2. 2Arinto, PB, Hodgkinson-Williams, C and Trotter, H. 2017. OER and OEP in the Global South: Implications and recommendations for social inclusion. In: Hodgkinson-Williams, C and Arinto, PB (eds.), Adoption and Impact of OER in the Global South, 577–592. Cape Town & Ottawa: African Minds, International Development Research Centre & Research on Open Educational Resources for Development project. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1043829
    Back to article
  3. 3Aydin, CH. 2015. Status of OER & MOOCs in Turkey. In: IETC, Istanbul, Turkey on 27–29 May 2015, 1–19. Available at http://www.iet-c.net/keynote_speech/ietc2015/CengizHakanAYDIN.pdf.
    Back to article
  4. 4Aydin, CH. 2017. Current status of the MOOC movement in the world and reaction of the Turkish Higher Education Institutions. Open Praxis, 9(1): 59–78. DOI: 10.5944/openpraxis.9.1.463
    Back to article
  5. 5Balaban, U. 2015. Social inclusion policies in Turkey: An employment-oriented strategy for 2014–2018. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi. Available at https://www.academia.edu/14874099/Social_Inclusion_Policies_in_Turkey_An_Employment-Oriented_Strategy_for_2014-2018.
    Back to article
  6. 6Bonk, CJ, Lee, MM, Reeves, TC and Reynolds, TH. (eds.) 2015. MOOCs and open education around the world. New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315751108
    Back to article
  7. 7Canbek, NG and Hargis, J. 2015. Educational innovation in e-learning: MOOCs and OER movements in Turkey. Glokalde, 1(1): 19–32.
    Back to article
  8. 8Cheng, JC. 2014. An exploratory study of emotional affordance of a massive open online course. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning, 17(1): 43–55. DOI: 10.2478/eurodl-2014-0003
    Back to article
  9. 9Coetzee, D, Fox, A, Hearst, MA and Hartmann, B. 2014. Should your MOOC forum use a reputation system? In: The 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 1176–1187. Maryland, USA on 15–19 February 2014. DOI: 10.1145/2531602.2531657
    Back to article
  10. 10Conole, G. 2013. MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 39. Available at https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/234221 [Last accessed 19 February 2020].
    Back to article
  11. 11Conole, G. 2015. Designing effective MOOCs. Educational Media International, 52(4): 239–252. DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2015.1125989
    Back to article
  12. 12Cormier, D and Siemens, G. 2010. Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and engagement. EDUCAUSE Review, 45: 30–39.
    Back to article
  13. 13Ercetin, SS, Acikalin, SN, Akbasli, S, Cevik, MS, Gorgulu, D, Gungor, H and Celik, M. 2019. Main problems of Turkish education system and current discussions on education. International Science Association. Available at http://iscass.org/uploads/img/tes-sorunlari-kitapcik-isbn.pdf [Last accessed 4 January 2020].
    Back to article
  14. 14Frary, RB. 2013. A Brief to Questionnaire Development. Available at http://www.ericae.net/ft/tamu/vpiques3.htm [Last accessed 28 November 2019].
    Back to article
  15. 15Gidley, J, Hampson, G, Wheeler, L and Bereded-Samuel, E. 2010. Social inclusion: Context, theory and practice. The Australasian Journal of University-Community Engagement, 5(1): 6–36.
    Back to article
  16. 16Gorter, D. 2018. Methods and techniques for linguistic landscape research: About definitions, core issues and technological innovations. In Putz, M and Mundt, N (eds.), Expanding the Linguistic Landscape: Multilingualism, Language Policy and the Use of Space as a Semiotic Resource, 38–57. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI: 10.21832/PUTZ2159
    Back to article
  17. 17Guo, PJ, Kim, J and Rubin, R. 2014. How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In: The first ACM Learning@ Scale Conference, New York on 4–5 March 2014, 41–50. DOI: 10.1145/2556325.2566239
    Back to article
  18. 18HEIMS (Higher Education Information Management System). 2019. The number of students according to the level of education, 21 May 2018. Available at https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ [Last accessed 28 November 2019].
    Back to article
  19. 19Hsieh, HF and Shannon, SE. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9): 1277–1288. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687
    Back to article
  20. 20Inan, M and Demir, M. 2018. Eğitimde fırsat eşitliği ve kamu politikaları (Equality of Opportunity in Education and Public Policies: The Case of Turkey). Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 337–359.
    Back to article
  21. 21Johnson, RB and Onwuegbuzie, AJ. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14–26. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
    Back to article
  22. 22Kesim, E and Altinpulluk, H. 2014. Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the use of MOOCs. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4): 62–85. DOI: 10.17569/tojqi.83986
    Back to article
  23. 23Kurt, S. 2019. The case of Turkish university students and MOOCs. American Journal of Distance Education, 33(2): 120–131. DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2019.1582284
    Back to article
  24. 24Lambert, SR. 2018. Changing our (dis) course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of Open Education. Journal of Learning for Development-JL4D, 5(3).
    Back to article
  25. 25Lambert, SR. 2020. Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014–18. Computers & Education, 145. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693
    Back to article
  26. 26Miles, M and Huberman, M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
    Back to article
  27. 27Muzafarova, T and Kaya, E. 2014. Survey of awareness of massive open online courses (MOOC)–A case of international Black Sea university students, Georgia. Journal of Education, 3(2): 15–19. Accessible at https://jebs.ibsu.edu.ge/jms/index.php/je/article/view/100.
    Back to article
  28. 28Perris, K. 2015. Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on MOOCs: Course evaluation. Commonwealth of Learning, Learning for Sustainable Development. Available at http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/568.
    Back to article
  29. 29Polat, RK. 2012. Digital exclusion in Turkey: A policy perspective. Government information quarterly, 29(4): 589–596. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.002
    Back to article
  30. 30Rodrigo, C. 2014. 7 Accessibility in Language MOOCs. In: Martin-Monje, E and Madera, B (eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, 106–126. Transcending Boundaries. Berlin: DeGruyter Open.
    Back to article
  31. 31Rodrigo, C and Iniesto, F. 2015. Holistic vision for creating accessible services based on MOOCs. In: Open Education Global Conference 2015, 1–6. Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Banff, Alberta, Canada on 22–24 April 2015.
    Back to article
  32. 32Rolfe, V. 2015. A systematic review of the socio-ethical aspects of Massive Online Open Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 18(1): 52–71. DOI: 10.1515/eurodl-2015-0004
    Back to article
  33. 33Sekret, I and Jansen, D. 2019. Multilevel Study of the Higher Education Challenges Caused by the Migration Crisis in Turkey. In: Smyrnova-Trybulska, E, Kommers, P, Morze, N and Malach, J (eds.), Universities in the Networked Society: Cultural Diversity and Digital Competences in Learning Communities, 155–170. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-05026-9_9
    Back to article
  34. 34Sharples, M, Kloos, CD, Dimitriadis, Y, Garlatti, S and Specht, M. 2015. Mobile and Accessible Learning for MOOCs. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(4): 1–8. DOI: 10.5334/jime.ai
    Back to article
  35. 35Shigeta, K, Koizumi, M, Sakai, H, Tsuji, Y, Inaba, R and Hiraoka, N. 2017. A survey of the awareness, offering, and adoption of OERs and MOOCs in Japan. Open Praxis, 9(2): 195–206. DOI: 10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.568
    Back to article
  36. 36Teixeira, A, Mota, J, García-Cabot, A, García-Lopéz, E and De-Marcos, L. 2016. A new competence-based approach for personalizing MOOCs in a mobile collaborative and networked environment. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 19(1): 143–160. DOI: 10.5944/ried.19.1.14578
    Back to article
  37. 37Trotter, H and Hodgkinson-Williams, C. 2018. Degrees of social inclusion: Open educational resources and practices in the Global South. In: OE Global, Delft, The Netherlands on 24 April 2018. Available at https://www.slideshare.net/ROER4D/oe-global-presentation [Last accessed 28 November 2019].
    Back to article
  38. 38Turkish Statistical Institute. 2018. National education statistics database. Available at http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1018 [Last accessed 4 March 2020].
    Back to article
  39. 39URAP (University Ranking by Academic Performance). 2019. 2019–2020 – TABLO 8: Tüm Üniversitelerin Genel Puan Tablosu, 18 October 2019. Available at http://tr.urapcenter.org/2019/2019_t9.php [Last accessed 28 November 2019].
    Back to article
  40. 40Wise, AF and Cui, Y. 2018. Learning communities in the crowd: Characteristics of content related interactions and social relationships in MOOC discussion forums. Computers & Education, 122: 221–242. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.021
    Back to article
  41. 41Wong, JS, Pursel, B, Divinsky, A and Jansen, BJ. 2015. An analysis of MOOC discussion forum interactions from the most active users. In Agarwal, N, Xu, K and Osgood, N (eds.), Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction, 452–457. SBP 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9021. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16268-3_58
    Back to article
  42. 42World Bank. 2019. Social Inclusion. Available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/social-inclusion [Last accessed 28 November 2019].
    Back to article
  43. 43Yucer, E and Erener, A. 2018. Examining urbanization dynamics in Turkey using DMSP–OLS and socio-economic data. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 46(7): 1159–1169. DOI: 10.1007/s12524-018-0785-z
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.558 | Journal eISSN: 1365-893X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Nov 30, 2019
Accepted on: Mar 10, 2020
Published on: May 11, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
social inclusion,
MOOC,
online interface,
Turkey,
higher education

© 2020 Serpil Meri-Yilan, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 2020 (2020): Issue 1Next article