Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
This study aims to determine the views of classroom teachers about distance education during the pandemic period, to understand how distance education was applied in Turkey, and to determine whether the findings can be generalizable. For this purpose, the study was designed with the exploratory sequential mixed research design. In the qualitative dimension, teachers’ opinions were collected through a semistructured form, and in the quantitative dimension, the scale was developed using these data. The scale was applied to a total of 719 classroom teachers throughout Turkey. Descriptive statistics were used to determine teachers’ characteristics, opinions, and suggestions; a t-test, one-way analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was a difference between teachers’ opinions according to some personal characteristics. The Scheffe test was used to determine the source of the differences. As a result of the research, it is found that 11.68% of all teachers believe that distance education practices are suitable for primary school students. Further, it is observed that there is a significant difference in some sub-dimensions such as experience, class size, place of duty, and the region where they work. But, there was no significant difference in terms of suggestions.
*Address all correspondence to: ozgulyakiin@gmail.com
1. Introduction
Education has been seen in structuring distance education with modern methods.
There are various definitions in the literature on distance education [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. When describing distance education, Moore and Kearsly [3] refer to a formation in which electronic or non-electronic systems are used as well as special education methods, techniques and practices, various communication ways, and normal teaching activities are carried out in different environments. In other words, while the objectives of teaching do not change with distance education, the method applied and the teaching environment actually change with the technique [6]. Distance education has several advantages as well as disadvantages. Among its advantages, there are features such as providing education without time and place limits, providing equal opportunities, providing the opportunity to benefit from technological tools, and providing every learner with the opportunity to learn at their own pace [7, 8], however, it has disadvantages such as negatively affecting social skills, not being able to carry out studies that require practice, creating an addiction to information technologies, and difficulty in motivating learners [6, 9].
Although distance education has become a common teaching approach thanks to the development of information and communication technologies, it is known that it is actually a much older concept [10]. Distance education, which was first discussed as a concept in the annual catalog of the University of Wisconsin in the late 1800s, was only introduced in Germany and the United States after the mid-1900s. It has become applicable in France [11]. In Turkey, while the first distance education applications were made through television and by letter, which was implemented in 1961, the capacity of using information technologies in education was developed over time [12]. EIN (Education Informatics Network), which was introduced as the online social education platform of the General Directorate of Innovation and Educational Technologies in 2012, following the Fatih Project [13] implemented by the Ministry of National Education (MEB) to adapt technological developments to education. It aims to provide access to reliable information for teachers, students, and parents [14].
Distance education studies, which have a relatively long history in Turkey and all over the world, were most prevalent during the pandemic period [15]. Because face-to-face education has been suspended in many countries [16] due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has started to affect the whole world since the first months of 2020, and educators all over the world switched to distance education in this period, and their designs were adapted to the changing needs required by the COVID-19 pandemic. They had to be adapted accordingly [17]. Distance education has been the only solution to prevent learning loss and ensure the continuity of education [18]. Many countries, including Turkey, have tried to prevent the disruption of educational activities with various measures [19]. Within the scope of the measures taken in Turkey, it was decided to switch to distance education as of March 23, 2020 [20]. While distance education allows a large number of learners to receive education services in the place where they live, the fact that the educational content and applications are provided and controlled from the center [21] has enabled it to offer an alternative way to the school during the period when education is suspended within the scope of pandemic measures. In the planned distance education process, it has been decided that the education will be carried out over the Education Informatics Network and via a national TV channel [22]. In the process of returning to school in September 2020, priority is given to first-grade students at the primary school level.
Hybrid education was gradually adopted, but with the increase in the number of cases across the country, full-time distance education was started again [23]. Due to the fact that the 2019–2020 academic year was spent in the shadow of the pandemic, most of the hybrid education was carried out with distance education tools. Although it can be said that studies on distance education started in Turkey in the early period, most of these studies are studies for higher education [12]. Based on this, it cannot be said that there is no distance education experience for primary school children in the context of Turkey. In younger age groups, it does not seem possible to quickly adapt to distance education. For this reason, the roles of classroom teachers, who undertake the education of students at the primary school level, have also changed and their responsibilities have increased significantly. Obtaining the opinions of classroom teachers on distance education practices and the prevalence of these views throughout Turkey will give important clues about the process at the country level.
As the related literature is examined, it is seen that the research on distance education in general before the pandemic and the attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of the instructors-teacher candidates toward distance education [1, 6, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30] conducting distance education with different methods [31]; students’ attitudes toward distance education [32]; distance education applications [33, 34, 35], and the developmental aspects of distance education processes [36, 37, 38]. With the pandemic, a large increase in the number of studies on distance education has been observed as a reflection of the massive transition to distance education [15, 39]. In these studies, it is seen that concepts such as emergency distance education are used in relation to distance education, especially during the pandemic period [40, 41]. It is argued that this definition differs from the classical distance education approach, especially in terms of planning, being sustainable, and being systematic [42, 43]. However, although the pandemic process of distance education practices have differences in terms of lack of planning, systematicity, and sustainability, it has given practitioners the experience of applying distance education and it is a way of applying distance education. In the current study, the literature review was carried out within the framework of the basic concept of distance education, including these concepts. It is seen that qualitative research methods are preferred more frequently in the research originating from Turkey that address the opinions of classroom teachers on distance education [44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54]. Likewise, studies conducted in Turkey that deal with the views of teachers in all branches of distance education (including classroom teachers) as a broader denominator [55, 56, 57] and the views of different stakeholders (including classroom teachers) [39, 58, 59, 60, 61], it is seen that the qualitative research method is frequently adopted. It is seen that quantitative research methods are preferred relatively less in studies in which teachers (including classroom teachers) are selected as samples for distance education applications during the pandemic period [60, 62, 63].
The implementation of distance education applications in basic education and secondary education on a full-time basis has increased the need for the opinions of teachers, who are the main executives of the process and about the process. The opinions of these practitioners, who are at the center of the process, are to prevent disruptions before they cause significant problems and to help them in the future.
It will also provide enlightening information on how the distance education process, which is expected to be used as a non-formal education model, should be developed. Unlike the studies on distance education in the literature, in this study, the views of classroom teachers on distance education practices were examined with a mixed research paradigm, in other words, it is examined whether the views received from teachers in the qualitative dimension can be generalized across Turkey in the quantitative dimension. Since the distance education application, which started to be implemented on March 23, 2020, is the largest distance education application in the history of Turkey, the views on the process will also provide the opportunity to compare with the previous research data on this widespread application. In this context, the aim of the study is to develop a scale based on the opinions of teachers in order to determine the views of classroom teachers on distance education practices during the pandemic process, and to clearly reveal the similarities and differences between the views of teachers regarding the practices carried out in Turkey as a result of the application of the scale. It is thought that the use of exploratory mixed design in the current study is important in reaching the conclusion by using the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of the research together. During the development of the scale, it is important to take as a reference the opinions of the classroom teachers working in the distance education applications during the pandemic period in Turkey as a reference. In line with the purpose of the study, answers to the following research questions are sought:
What are the views of primary school teachers about the distance education process?
Can the views of primary school teachers on the distance education process be generalized?
This study was designed in accordance with the exploratory sequential design, which is one of the mixed research methods. In the study, first of all, the views of basic education teachers on the distance education process were tried to be determined in detail. With the quantitative data collection tool prepared in light of the findings obtained as a result of the interviews, the exploratory sequential design was preferred in order to determine whether these views were accepted by other classroom teachers, in other words, whether the findings were generalizable. Teddlie and Tashakkori [64] define mixed methods research as integrated research that provides a depth of meaning by using qualitative and quantitative research methods together. Yıldırım and Şimşek [65] mention that mixed methods research has two functions. The first of these is to reveal the truth in a holistic and rich framework, while the second is to strengthen the credibility of the research results with the data collected by different methods. When the mixed research method is chosen in accordance with the purpose of the research, it eliminates the disadvantages of the two methods (qualitative and quantitative) and combines the advantages of these two methods [64]. In the exploratory sequential mixed design, the data obtained by qualitative methods provide the opportunity to determine the generalizability of the obtained data by being a source for the creation of the measurement tool to be used in the quantitative method [66]. In the research process, first of all, qualitative data were collected through a semi-structured interview form in order to determine the opinions of classroom teachers about distance education. It was used to design and develop a quantitative scale resulting from the analysis of qualitative data. As a result of the application of the quantitative measurement tool, it is aimed to test the qualitative findings and measure their generalizability. The use of quantitative and qualitative methods in the research process is symbolized as “QUAL → quan”. The research process is schematized in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Diagram of the research process structured in accordance with the exploratory sequential design.
2.2 Universe and sample
2.2.1 Qualitative working group
In the qualitative aspect of the research, the study group consists of 10 classroom teachers who work in public primary schools in Yalova, Istanbul, Ankara, and Eskişehir and carry out distance education studies with easy accessibility and purposeful sampling method (Table 1). In order to determine the opinions of classroom teachers about distance education, teachers working in different provinces and at different grade levels and with at least 5 years of professional experience were included in the study group. In addition, attention was paid to equal representation of the class level variable of the participants.
Code
Gender
Class level
Class size
Professional experience
P1
F
3
24
25 years
P2
F
2
25
32 years
P3
F
2
18
10 years
P4
M
1
30
18 years
P5
F
3
22
9 years
P6
M
4
33
10 years
P7
M
4
19
14 years
P8
M
1
20
10 years
P9
F
4
25
12 years
P10
F
3
33
28 years
Table 1.
Information on participants in the qualitative working group.
2.2.2 Sample of quantitative dimension
The universe of the study consists of classroom teachers working in state primary schools throughout Turkey. According to the 2020 data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TSI), the number of classroom teachers working in state primary schools throughout Turkey is 275,733. The sample size to collect quantitative data was calculated as 384, taking into account the 95% confidence level and 5% sampling error [67]. From this point of view, 719 classroom teachers were included in the study as a sample group with a simple random sampling method. Demographic characteristics of the sample group from which quantitative data were collected are presented in Table 2. While forming the sample group, attention was paid to the inclusion of classroom teachers from all geographical regions in the research.
Gender
F
%
Female
434
60.36
Male
285
39.63
Experience
F
%
1–5 years
94
13.07
6–15 years
245
34.07
16–25 years
219
30.45
26 years and more
161
22.39
Working Area
F
%
Marmara
115
15.99
Aegean
67
9.31
Central Anatolia
33
4.58
Mediterrenian
60
8.34
Black Sea
54
7.51
Eastern Anatolia
20
2.78
Southeastern Anatolia
58
8.06
Working Place
F
%
Provincial center
197
27.39
District center
144
20.02
Village
66
9.17
Class Size
F
%
15 persons and below (1)
133
18.49
16–25 people (2)
250
3.47
26–35 people (3)
260
3.61
36 people and above (4)
76
10.57
Table 2.
Information on demographic characteristics of the participants in the sample from which quantitative data were collected.
2.3 Data collection tools
2.3.1 Qualitative data collection tool
A semi-structured interview form was used in order to determine the participant’s views in the qualitative dimension. In the interviews, not only the questions in the interview form but also different numbers and content according to the course of the interview were included.
Interviews were made via video over an online communication program and during the interview, the conversations were recorded with a voice recorder, while research notes were kept at the same time. Interview durations varied for each participant, but lasted approximately 30–45 minutes. In the process of preparing the interview questions, first of all, a form was created by scanning the relevant literature by one of the researchers, and then it was presented to the opinion of the other researcher who is an expert in the field of educational sciences and mixed research. After the comments were received, the form was rearranged. Then, a pilot interview was conducted with two teachers who were not included in the study group. As a result of these studies, a data collection tool consisting of four questions and related drilling questions was obtained.
2.3.2 Quantitative data collection tool
In order to collect the quantitative data for the research, the scale of “Teacher Opinions and Suggestions on Distance Education Applications of the Ministry of National Education for Primary School Level” and “Personal Information Form” prepared by the researchers were used. The data collection tool used was (1) Teacher, (2) Student, (3) Parent, (4) Plan, (5) Environment, (6) Participation, (7) Method (8) Assessment, and (9) Suggestions. It consists of 9 subscales, 28 of which are negative and 18 of which are positive, a total of 46 items. The personal information form, on the other hand, consists of 14 questions including gender, years of service, grade level taught, frequency of meeting with parents, and the number of students.
In the scale development process, in the first stage, an item pool was created based on the themes reached in line with the qualitative data analysis of the research. In the creation of the item pool, attention was paid to including the common views expressed by the participants, the typical situations experienced during the distance education process, the opinions that the participants insistently emphasized, and the remarkable statements. After the item pool was created, the scope and consistency of the scale items in terms of qualitative findings were examined by two experts. In addition, two classroom teachers were evaluated in terms of face validity by applying the scale. As a result of the arrangements made, the scale consisting of 64 items was made ready for pilot application. Scale development studies were carried out in line with the data obtained as a result of the pilot application.
2.4 Process steps
In the process of analyzing the quantitative data, first of all, validity and reliability studies of the measurement tool were carried out. In order to determine the content validity, a specification table was created and the items written for each dimension were reviewed. KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = ,903) and Bartlett Sphericity test (X2 = 6155,47, sd = 1275, p = .000) were made. The obtained KMO coefficient showed that the sample size was “very good”, and the Bartlett Sphericity test result showed that there was a correlation between the scale items and also there was a sufficient relationship between the variables for factor analysis since it had a p-value less than 0.05 significance level. These obtained values prove the suitability of the research data for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) [68, 69].
According to the factor analysis results, when the suggestions dimension of the scale is excluded, the total variance explanation rate of the scale consisting of 39 items for measuring 8 factors is 61.55%, and factor loading values vary between 0.21 and 0.73. There are five items in the scale with a load value below 0.30. Since these items were not considered appropriate to be removed from the scale in line with expert opinion, they remained within the scope of the scale. In addition, the “Suggestions” dimension, which is among the scale dimensions, was analyzed independently from other dimensions, since it did not provide a significant value in terms of the total score of the scale. As a result of the factor analysis made for this dimension, it was determined that the total variance explanation rate of this dimension, which consists of 7 items, varied between 0.35 and 0.52.
In line with the reliability study of the scale, the consistency of the items in the scale was examined by using the Cronbach Alpha and split-half method. The Spearman-Brown reliability calculated by the split-half method was found to be 0.91 for the whole scale, while the Cronbach Alpha reliability was found to be 0.93. For the suggestions dimension, Cronbach Alpha reliability was found to be 0.81 and Spearman-Brown reliability was found to be 0.72. In Tables 3 and 4, factor analysis results for the scale and Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients for general and sub-dimensions are given.
Dimensions
Items
Factor loadings
Total variance explanation ratio
Cronbach Alpha confidence
1. Teacher
Teacher 4
,443
40.81
,71
Teacher 5
,447
Teacher 7
,267
Teacher 8
,510
Teacher 9
,419
Teacher 10
,363
2. Student
Student 1
,484
51.92
,62
Student 2
,429
Student 4
,704
Student 5
,683
Student 7
,534
Student 8
,468
Student 9
,334
3. Parent
Parent 1
,237
49,22
,78
Parent 2
,519
Parent 3
,586
Parent 4
,596
Parent 5
,477
Parent 6
,538
4. Plan
Plan1
,583
50.68
,51
Plan2
,486
Plan3
,452
5. Environment
Environment 9
,435
50.63
,84
Environment 1
,383
Environment 2
,589
Environment 7
,639
Environment 8
,428
Environment 3
,721
Environment 4
,435
6. Participation
Participation 1
,645
58.05
,74
Participation 2
,734
Participation 6
,259
Participation 3
,684
7. Method
Method 1
,729
72.93
,63
Method 3
,729
8. Assesment and evaluation
Assessment 1
,212
41.69
,52
Assessment 2
,624
Assessment 3
,612
Assessment 4
,219
Total (8 Dimensions)
61,55
,93
Table 3.
Factor analysis results regarding the scale.
Dimension
Items
Factor loadings
Total variance explanation ratio
Cronbach Alpha confidence
Suggestion
Suggestion 1
,445
46.48
,81
Suggestion 2
,489
Suggestion 3
,350
Suggestion 4
,486
Suggestion 7
,507
Suggestion 8
,454
Suggestion 9
,522
Table 4.
Factor analysis results regarding the recommendations dimension.
In the analysis results of the scale’s total variance explanation rates, it was seen that the first factor explained 14,842% of the total variance. Afterward, the total variance of the second factor was 11.04%, the third factor 7.31%, the fourth factor 6.79%, the fifth factor 6.76%, the sixth factor 6.53%, the seventh factor 4.64%, and the eighth factor 4%, It is seen that adding 0 contribution increases the total variance explained to 61.56%. Table 5 shows the total variance explanation rates of the scale.
Dimensions
Contribution to the explained variance
Total variance explained
1
14,482
14,482
2
11,038
25,520
3
7,313
32,833
4
6,789
39,622
5
6,755
46,377
6
6,535
52,912
7
4,636
57,548
8
4,006
61,554
Table 5.
Explanation ratios of the total variance of the scale.
As a result, it was decided to use the scale as a data collection tool in this study, since the validity and reliability analyzes of the “MoNE’s Teacher Opinions and Suggestions Scale on Distance Education Applications for Primary School 1st Level” showed that the scale is valid and reliable. The fact that the total score of the scale, calculated without including the suggestions dimension, is high, indicates that the views of the teachers on distance education practices in primary school 1st level are positive, while the low ones indicate that they are negative. Scoring of the scale items created in 5-point Likert type was scored from 1 to 5 from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”.
2.5 Data collection and analysis
2.5.1 Qualitative data collection and analysis
Before collecting the data, necessary research permission was obtained from the relevant units of the Ministry of National Education. The data collection process was carried out to cover the months of November and December for the 2020 fall semester. The interviews recorded during the research process were transcribed and combined with field notes. The transcripts were read again by the researcher and the coding process was carried out. During the coding process, attention was paid to the causal relationship between the answers, not the order of answers given to the questions. The coded data were categorized by considering the cause-and-effect relationship, the categories were associated with each other, and themes were determined in line with the purpose of the research. Content analysis was used to interpret the data. While the themes determined as a result of the content analysis constitute the sub-dimensions of the scale created for the collection of quantitative data. The codes obtained were used in the process of creating the item pool.
2.5.2 Quantitative data collection and analysis
First of all, ethics committee permission was obtained for the application of the prepared scale to the determined sample. After obtaining permission, the scale was applied to classroom teachers working in primary schools affiliated with the Ministry of National Education throughout Turkey via Google Forms. In the process of reaching the sample, support was received from the provincial and district national education directorates. Participants were included in the data collection process on a voluntary basis. The quantitative data collection process covers the spring term of 2020–2021. This process took place in a period of approximately 5 months between January and May 2021.
In the analysis of the data of the research, firstly the distribution and homogeneity of the data were tried to be determined. For this, the Skewness (skewness), Kurtosis (Kurtosis), and Kolmogorov-Smirnov values of the total teacher opinions variable were examined. The skewness coefficient was -0.49, the kurtosis coefficient was -1.72, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov 0.18. It was understood that the distribution of the data was normal and homogeneous because the skewness and kurtosis values were between +2.58 and -2.58 [70] and the Kolmogrov-Smirnov value was p >0.05 [67].
In order to determine the opinions and suggestions of teachers regarding their personal characteristics and distance education applications, the descriptive statistics frequency (f), percentage (%), arithmetic mean (Xഥ), and standard deviation (ss) are used to determine whether there is a difference between teachers’ opinions according to some personal characteristics. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and the Scheffe test were used to determine the source of the difference. A significance level of 0.05 was used to test for differences.
2.6 Ethic
In the research process, permission was obtained from the relevant institutions before starting the data collection phase. Prior to the semi-structured interviews, the participants were included in the study with their informed consent. In order to collect quantitative data, the statements and explanations at the beginning of the scale were provided to the participants to have information about the research and their consent was obtained. No information about the identity of the participants and their place of duty was given, and private information about the participants was kept confidential.
2.7 Ethics committee permission certificate
This research was approved ethically by Yıldız Technical University Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee with meeting number 2021/01 on 21.03.2021.
The findings obtained in this part of the research are discussed under two separate headings. First of all, the findings related to the qualitative data, and then the findings obtained from the quantitative data are included.
3.1 Findings obtained from qualitative data
The data obtained in the research were analyzed by content analysis. As a result of the interpretation of qualitative data with content analysis, 9 themes emerged. These are “teacher”, “student”, “parent”, “plan”, “environment”, “participation”, “method”, “assessment-evaluation” and “recommendations”. The codes obtained in line with these main themes were used as data in the creation of the quantitative data collection tool.
The codes reached within the teacher theme show that the distance education process has some physical and psychological effects on teachers. Regarding this, K2 used the following statements: “…it certainly does not hold a classroom environment. It’s also really tiring for me. I don't remember ever being this tired when I was in class…”.
The codes reached within the student theme show that some students enjoyed this process, developed their individual learning skills and had an efficient learning process; shows that some students face problems such as emotional deprivation and reluctance. An example of the negative reflections of distance education on students
K1 used the following expressions as: “… At first, they were all very excited while talking on video. Then they got bored too. They are tired of this process too…”.
Within the parent theme, codes showing that distance education has some advantages and disadvantages for parents have been reached. According to the participant’s opinions, parents should spare time for their children and be involved in teaching activities during the distance education process.
While he/she could find the opportunity, he/she also had some problems in using technological tools. At the same time, the participants stated that the parents could be uninterested in this process and that they could find the distance education applications useless. Regarding this, K5 states the following: “…The child does not sit alone and say I should study a little bit, send a message to my teacher. Many do not have enough awareness. The children of the concerned parents make more returns. There is no response from my parents who are uninterested or have a low education level and who are not in touch with technology…”
The codes reached under the theme of the plan show that classroom teachers enter into a rapid transformation and adaptation in order not to disrupt teaching during the planning process. Regarding this, K8 said, “…I benefited from my monthly and annual plans in regular education…”
when using expressions; K1 said, “…I also watch EBA TV course topics and give homework on the same subject…”.
Within the environment theme, codes showing that online environments have negative effects on the teaching process have been reached. Participants draw attention to the equipment and connection problems, as well as the lack of social interaction as a result of distance education. As an example, K4 used the following expressions: “… Being a teacher means love, especially in primary school, and warmth means one-to-one communication. Here we lack that excitement…”.
The codes reached within the participation theme show that there are some problems in the distance education process regarding student participation. Participants state that students cannot participate in distance education activities regularly, and students who participate cannot be active in the lessons. For example, K7 states the following: “…I think that live lessons for distance education are teacher-centered. The student becomes passive and listening. It only becomes active when it wants to ask questions…”
Within the method theme, codes were found showing that classroom teachers benefited from various online tools and applications in distance education, but they did not find them sufficient. The codes reached within the measurement-evaluation theme also show that it cannot perform adequate measurement with the tools used in distance education. As an example, K2 used the following statements: “…But for example, it can be done as an online test for fourth graders. I think the online test will also have many disadvantages. You don't know if your parents are telling you the answers. You can't tell if you're measuring correctly…”.
The codes reached within the theme of suggestions show that suggestions are put forward regarding providing financial support, strengthening infrastructure and communication, enriching content, parent education, and providing printed material. For example, K2 used the following statements: “…I think it would be more fair for everyone if these opportunities were provided to children who do not have an internet connection or computer at home…”
3.2 Findings obtained from quantitative data
In the quantitative dimension of the study, after descriptive analyzes of scale scores were included, findings according to variables and correlation findings were included. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistical results of the opinions and suggestions of the classroom teachers regarding distance education practices at the primary school level.
Factor
Queue
Matter
n
x¯
ss
Teacher
4
My motivation to teach is lower than face-to-face education
719
2,97
1,47
5
I'm mentally exhausted
719
1,93
1,19
7
I enjoy my lessons very much
719
3,56
1,15
8
I feel bad because there is no emotional interaction like in face-to-face education
719
2,50
1,29
9
I have communication problems with students and parents
719
3,18
1,32
10
Constantly staring at the computer screen hurts my eyesight
719
1,75
1,05
Total
719
2,65
,79
Student
1
Cannot get efficiency in the distance education process
719
2,78
,77
2
They perceive this process as a holiday.
719
2,86
1,33
4
Interested and curious
719
3,59
1,08
5
They enjoy the lessons
719
3,72
1,01
7
Reluctant to participate in events
719
3,21
1,27
8
Developed individual learning skills
719
3,53
1,09
9
They experience emotional deprivation because there is no physical contact
719
2,04
1,14
Total
719
3,10
,62
Parent
1
They have difficulty using distance education tools
719
2,63
1,30
2
Generally satisfied with the training provided
719
3,93
1,03
3
They are not interested
719
3,42
1,25
4
They can give their children the support expected of them.
719
3,52
1,18
5
They spend more time with their children
719
3,49
1,22
6
They find education useless
719
3,71
1,27
Total
719
3,45
,84
Plan
1
I can implement my plans without any problems.
719
3,72
1,10
2
I run my classes in parallel with EBA TV.
719
3,51
1,26
3
I can't reach high level gains
719
2,67
1,28
Total
719
3,30
,86
Environment
1
My students cannot obtain the necessary equipment (computer, internet, etc.) to attend the course.
719
2,68
1,29
2
My students have frequent access issues
719
2,49
1,20
3
I'm having access problems
719
3,00
1,33
4
I have difficulty interacting with students
719
3,08
1,38
7
I have difficulty concentrating on students
719
2,83
1,31
8
I can't create synergy in my lessons
719
3,13
1,34
9
My students do not have enough social interaction in the lessons
719
2,23
1,25
Total
719
2,78
,92
Participation
1
My students do not follow events regularly
719
2,94
1,26
2
They have a low level of participation
719
2,95
1,41
3
I find it difficult to get student participation
719
2,80
1,36
6
The time is not enough for my students to be active in the lesson
719
2,73
1,37
Total
719
2,86
1,02
Method
1
I cannot use effective methods and techniques that I want to use
719
2,57
1,22
3
It is not possible to discuss in class
719
2,45
1,28
Total
719
2,51
1,06
Assessment and Evaluation
1
I can have one-on-one interviews with students who cannot do their homework.
719
3,71
1,14
2
I'm having trouble checking homework
719
2,59
1,39
3
I cannot make a reliable measurement and evaluation.
719
2,46
1,24
4
My students have not forgotten their learning in the face-to-face education process
719
3,87
1,13
Total
719
3,16
,79
Suggestions
1
Financial support should be provided to students who do not have the necessary equipment.
719
4,73
,67
2
Infrastructure should be strengthened so that distance education can be carried out simultaneously for all students.
719
4,69
,75
3
The content in the EBA application should be enriched.
719
4,66
,71
4
Fun activities should be done that will attract the attention of the students.
719
4,75
,60
7
Parents should be informed about distance education.
719
4,61
,75
8
It should be ensured that teachers and parents are in constant communication.
719
4,52
,79
9
Printed materials should be provided for students.
719
4,63
,73
Total
719
4,65
,49
Table 6.
Descriptive statistics results of teachers’ opinions and suggestions on distance education applications for primary school level.
The descriptive statistics data in Table 6 show the level of participation of classroom teachers in the views on distance education practices at the primary school level. When the arithmetic averages of the sub-dimensions of the scale are examined, it is seen that the primary school teachers are teacher (x¯ = 2.65), student (x¯ = 3.10), plan (x¯ = 3.30), environment (x¯ = 2.78), participation (x¯) = 2.86), moderately agreed with the opinions put forward in the dimensions of measurement-evaluation (x¯ = 3.16); they highly agree with the opinions put forward in the dimension of parents (x¯ = 3,45). Regarding the suggestions (x¯ = 4.65) dimension, it is seen that they have a very high level of participation. Regarding the method (x¯ = 2.51) dimension, it is understood that the classroom teachers have a low level of participation. It has been observed that there is a high level of participation in the views that both students (x¯ = 3.72) and teachers (x¯ = 3.56) enjoy the lessons in distance education. Teachers are highly unanimous on suggestions for improving distance education practices. In Table 7, the results of the one-way analysis of variance, which includes the comparison data between the views of teachers on primary school distance education practices on the basis of different geographical regions throughout Turkey, are given.
One-way analysis of variance results on the comparison of teachers’ opinions and suggestions on distance education applications at primary school level by geographical regions.
P > 0.05
As can be seen in Table 6, there was no significant difference between the geographical regions in the suggestions dimension of the opinions of the classroom teachers about distance education at the primary school level. However, in teacher dimension (F = 2.19; p < .05), student dimension (F = 2.89; p < .05), parent dimension (F = 3.47; p < .05), plan dimension (F = 2.67; p < .05), medium dimension (F = 7.16; p < .05), participation dimension (F = 6.65; p < .05), method dimension (F = 2.93 ; p < .05), one-way analysis of variance on the scores according to the geographical region variable in the measurement-evaluation dimension (F = 2.17; p < .05) and the total scale dimension (F = 5.35; p < .05). As a result, it is seen that there is a statistically significant difference between the averages. In Table 8, the results of the one-way analysis of variance, which include the comparison of primary school teachers’ views on distance education practices at the primary school level, according to the variable of years of service are given.
Dimensions
Experience
n
x¯
ss
F
p
Meaning
Teacher
1–5 years (1)
94
2,48
,76
13,444
,000*
1–4 2–3 2–4
6–15 years (2)
245
2,46
,73
16–25 years (3)
219
2,73
,76
26 years and more (4)
161
2,91
,85
Student
1–5 years (1)
94
2,85
,64
7,672
,000*
1–2 1–3 1–4
6–15 years (2)
245
3,08
,58
16–25 years (3)
219
3,19
,63
26 years and more (4)
161
3,16
,61
Parent
1–5 years (1)
94
3,16
,87
15,121
,000*
1–3 1–4 2–3 2–4
6–15 years (2)
245
3,27
,89
16–25 years (3)
219
3,61
,76
26 years and more (4)
161
3,69
,75
Plan
1–5 years (1)
94
2,82
,82
22,121
,000*
1–2 1–3 1–4 2–3 2–4
6–15 years (2)
245
3,15
,87
16–25 years (3)
219
3,54
,78
26 years and more (4)
161
3,48
,81
Environment
1–5 years (1)
94
2,24
,88
27,227
,000*
1–2 1–3 1–4 2–3 2–4
6–15 years (2)
245
2,58
,83
16–25 years (3)
219
3,01
,93
26 years and more (4)
161
3,08
,87
Participation
1–5 years (1)
94
2,32
,97
17,108
,000*
1–2 1–3 1–4 2–3 2–4
6–15 years (2)
245
2,73
,98
16–25 years (3)
219
3,07
1,02
26 years and more (4)
161
3,08
,95
Method
1–5 years (1)
94
2,14
,99
9,602
,000*
1–3 1–4 2–4
6–15 years (2)
245
2,38
1,00
16–25 years (3)
219
2,63
1,09
26 years and more (4)
161
2,76
1,05
Assessment-Evaluation
1–5 years (1)
94
2,97
,81
7,995
,000*
1–3 2–3
6–15 years (2)
245
3,03
,78
16–25 years (3)
219
3,33
,82
26 years and more (4)
161
3,23
,71
Total
1–5 years (1)
94
3,21
,63
23,118
,000*
1–3 1–4 2–3 2–4
6–15 years (2)
245
3,42
,62
16–25 years (3)
219
3,72
,67
26 years and more (4)
161
3,75
,62
Suggestions
1–5 years
94
4,70
,43
1,604
,187
-
6–15 years
245
4,66
,49
16–25 years
219
4,68
,42
26 years and more
161
4,58
,59
Table 8.
One-way analysis of variance results on the comparison of teachers’ opinions and suggestions on distance education applications for primary school level by year of service.
According to Table 7, there was no significant difference in terms of years of service in the dimension of suggestions made by classroom teachers for distance education practices at the primary school level. In the teacher dimension (F = 13.44; p < .05), the student dimension (F = 7.67; p < .05), the parent dimension (F = 15.12; p < .05), the plan dimension (F = 22.12; p < .05), the medium dimension (F = 27.23; p < .05), the participation dimension (F = 17.11; p < .05), the method dimension (F = 9.60; p < .05), in the measurement-evaluation dimension (F = 8.00; p < .05) and in the total scale dimension (F = 23.12; p < .05), the opinions of the primary school teachers differ according to their professional seniority. Classroom teachers whose professional seniority is between 1 and 5 years have the lowest average in all sub-dimensions. The results of the one-way analysis of variance, which includes the comparison of primary school teachers’ views on distance education practices at the primary school level, according to the variable of a place of employment are given in Table 9.
Dimensions
Working Place
n
x¯
ss
F
p
Meaning
Teacher
Provincial center
197
2,44
,69
,816
,443
—
District center
144
2,44
,73
Village
66
2,32
,72
Student
Provincial center
197
3,07
,59
2,502
,083
—
District center
144
3,16
,63
Village
66
2,96
,61
Parent
Provincial center
197
3,42
,73
2,088
,125
—
District center
144
3,47
,82
Village
66
3,23
,93
Plan
Provincial center
197
3,26
,76
6,649
,001*
Provincial center - Village District center - Village
District center
144
3,31
,88
6,649
Village
66
2,89
,75
6,649
Environment
Provincial center
197
2,73
,90
12,105
,000*
Provincial center - Village District center - Village
District center
144
2,72
,90
Village
66
2,14
,82
Participation
Provincial center
197
2,70
1,00
4,204
,016*
Provincial center - Village District center - Village
District center
144
2,76
1,02
Village
66
2,34
1,02
Method
Provincial center
197
2,44
1,00
3,942
,020*
Provincial center - Village District center - Village
District center
144
2,47
,97
Village
66
2,08
1,09
Assessment-Evaluation
Provincial center
197
3,08
,75
3,924
,021*
District center - Village
District center
144
3,19
,81
Village
66
2,88
,71
Total
Provincial center
197
3,47
,60
6,833
,001*
Provincial center - Village District center - Village
District center
144
3,53
,63
Village
66
3,19
,62
Suggestions
Provincial center
197
4,61
,55
1,573
,209
—
District center
144
4,67
,44
Village
66
4,72
,34
Table 9.
One-way analysis of variance results on the comparison of teachers’ opinions and suggestions on distance education practices at primary school level by position.
When the data in Table 9 are examined, no significant difference was found according to the teachers, students, parents, and suggestions dimension of the views of the classroom teachers regarding the distance education practices, and according to the variable of the place of duty. When the opinions of the classroom teachers working in the city and district centers and the classroom teachers working in the villages were compared, a significant difference was found in the total scale dimension (F = 6.83; p < .05). At the same time, plan (F = 6.65; p < .05), setting (F = 12.11; p <.05), participation (F = 4.20; p < .05), method (F = 3 .94; p < .05), and assessment-evaluation (F = 3.92; p < .05)
There was also a significant difference between the views according to the variable of the place of duty in the dimensions. In Table 10, the results of the one-way analysis of variance regarding the comparison of teachers’ opinions and suggestions regarding distance education practices for the primary school level are given.
Dimensions
Classroom Size
n
x¯
ss
F
p
Meaning
Teacher
15 persons and below (1)
133
2,58
,77
1,103
,347
—
16–25 people (2)
250
2,61
,79
26–35 people (3)
260
2,71
,80
36 people and above (4)
76
2,67
,82
Student
15 persons and below (1)
133
2,98
,59
2,586
,052
—
16–25 people (2)
250
3,11
,60
26–35 people (3)
260
3,13
,63
36 people and above (4)
76
3,21
,66
Parent
15 persons and below (1)
133
3,25
,78
4,155
,006*
1–3 1–4
16–25 people (2)
250
3,44
,83
26–35 people (3)
260
3,53
,85
36 people and above (4)
76
3,60
,89
Plan
15 persons and below (1)
133
2,98
,85
9,729
,000*
1–2 1–3 1–4
16–25 people (2)
250
3,28
,85
26–35 people (3)
260
3,46
,80
36 people and above (4)
76
3,39
,94
Environment
15 persons and below (1)
133
2,54
,90
6,185
,000*
1–3 1–4
16–25 people (2)
250
2,74
,88
26–35 people (3)
260
2,85
,91
36 people and above (4)
76
3,06
1,02
Participation
15 persons and below (1)
133
2,61
1,01
4,665
,003*
1–4
16–25 people (2)
250
2,87
1,02
26–35 people (3)
260
2,89
,97
36 people and above (4)
76
3,13
1,07
Method
15 persons and below (1)
133
2,39
1,05
1,849
,137
—
16–25 people (2)
250
2,47
1,02
26–35 people (3)
260
2,55
1,06
36 people and above (4)
76
2,72
1,16
Assessment-Evaluation
15 persons and below (1)
133
3,08
,79
1,937
,122
—
16–25 people (2)
250
3,12
,82
26–35 people (3)
260
3,25
,77
36 people and above (4)
76
3,09
,76
Total
15 persons and below (1)
133
3,38
,63
5,289
,001*
1–3 1–4
16–25 people (2)
250
3,54
,65
26–35 people (3)
260
3,63
,66
36 people and above (4)
76
3,68
,73
Suggestions
15 persons and below (1)
133
4,62
,60
1,013
,386
—
16–25 people (2)
250
4,66
,48
26–35 people (3)
260
4,68
,41
36 people and above (4)
76
4,59
,53
Table 10.
One-way analysis of variance results on the comparison of teachers’ opinions and suggestions on distance education applications for primary school level by number of students.
As seen in Table 10, there is no significant difference between the views of classroom teachers on distance education in terms of classroom size, according to the results of a one-way analysis of variance in the dimensions of teacher, student, method, and measurement-evaluation. In terms of suggestions, there was no significant difference between the opinions according to the number of students. However, parent (F = 4.16; p < .05), plan (F = 9.73; p < .05), environment (F = 6.19; p < .05), participation (F = 4, 67; p < .05), and total scale (F = 5.29; p < .05) dimensions, a significant difference was found between the views according to the variable of the number of students. Classroom teachers with a class size of 15 or less have the lowest average in all sub-dimensions. In Table 11, the results of the independent t-test for the comparison of the opinions and suggestions of the classroom teachers regarding the distance education practices at the primary school level according to the gender variable are given.
Dimensions
Gender
n
x¯
ss
t
p
Teacher
Female
434
2,71
,78
2,546
,011*
Male
285
2,55
,81
Student
Female
434
3,17
,62
3,689
,000*
Male
285
3,00
,61
Parent
Female
434
3,55
,84
3,716
,000*
Male
285
3,31
,83
Plan
Female
434
3,39
,86
3,350
,001*
Male
285
3,17
,84
Environment
Female
434
2,87
,93
3,447
,001*
Male
285
2,63
,89
Participation
Female
434
2,99
1,02
4,430
,000*
Male
285
2,65
,98
Method
Female
434
2,55
1,06
1,311
,190
Male
285
2,45
1,04
Assessment-Evaluation
Female
434
3,25
,79
3,916
,000*
Male
285
3,02
,77
Total
Female
434
3,64
,67
4,426
,000*
Male
285
3,42
,64
Suggestions
Female
434
4,68
,45
1,880
,061
Male
285
4,61
,54
Table 11.
Independent t-test results on comparison of teachers’ opinions and suggestions on distance education applications for primary school level by gender.
As can be seen in Table 12, female classroom teachers are teacher (Xഥ = 2.71), student (Xഥ = 2.71), parent (Xഥ = 2.71), plan (Xഥ = 2.71), environment (Xഥ = 2.87), participation (Xഥ = 2.99), measurement-evaluation (Xഥ = 3.25), and total scale (Xഥ = 3.64) dimensions, higher participation than male classroom teachers shows. The opinions of primary school teachers on distance education practices at the primary school level do not differ significantly in terms of methods and suggestions according to gender (method dimension (t(719) = 1.31; p > .05), suggestions dimension (t(719) = 1, 88; p > .05).
Opinion of The Teachers
F
%
Yes
84
11,68
No
256
35,6
Partially
379
52,71
Table 12.
Teachers’ opinions on the appropriateness of distance education for primary school level, frequency, and percentage values.
The data obtained regarding the suitability of distance education applications for the primary school level shows that more than half of the classroom teachers find distance education partially suitable for primary school students. In Table 11, the percentage and frequency information regarding the teachers’ opinions on the suitability of distance education for the primary school level are given. As seen in Table 11, 52.71% of the classroom teachers participating in the research found distance education partially suitable for primary school students, while 35.6% did not find distance education appropriate for primary school students. A total of 11.68% find distance education suitable at the primary school level.
It is preferable to include a Conclusion(s) section which will summarize the content of the book chapter. In this study, the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the world, together with distance education at the elementary school level who practices a wide range of applications found in the opinions of classroom teachers about how the process is executed and investigated whether these views differ according to certain variables taken up throughout Turkey. As a result of the research, it is understood that the vast majority of classroom teachers do not consider the distance education applications of the epidemic period suitable for the primary school level.
Only 11.68% of the teachers participating in the research consider distance education suitable for primary school students. In the same way, Altintas Yüksel [45], Arslan and DemirOz [46], Kurt and friends [51], Yurtbakan and Akyıldız [54] also stated that distance education is not suitable for primary school students according to the research results. On the contrary, it is thought that distance education lessons are enjoyable for both students and teachers. It was revealed that the parents were satisfied with the distance education studies carried out in this process and found them insufficient or useless. At the same time, there was high participation in the opinions that parents are disinterested and are able to devote more time to their children. It can be assumed that the reason for reaching conflicting statements in this way is that the parent profile varies throughout the school, city, and region. However, there was no significant difference in the views of teachers regarding the size of the parent in terms of working in the village, provincial, or district centers. However, in terms of the geographical region where the task was performed, a significant difference was found between the views of teachers in the size of parents decisively. In the research conducted by Yurtbakan and Akyıldız [54], it was concluded that parents found the distance education activities implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic process sufficient, but found the course duration insufficient. In parallel with these research results, Fidan [50] concluded that parents are more interested in their children’s education in distance education. On the other hand, there are studies that reach the views of parents that distance education does not achieve its purpose [19].
As a result of the research, it was seen that the classroom teachers agreed with the opinion that they had communication problems with students and parents in the distance education process at a moderate level. However, a high level of participation was observed in the opinion on strengthening teacher-student communication in the dimension of suggestions. Based on this, it can be concluded that providing communication in the process is seen as an important issue and serious problems are not encountered in providing this communication. According to the results of the research conducted by Başaran et al. [58], Cakın and Akyavuz [55], Kavuk and Demirtaş [56], communication problems between teachers and students are seen as one of the important problems affecting distance education. In addition, in the qualitative dimension of the research, it was concluded that the distance education process is both physically and psychologically tiring and has negative effects on teachers’ eye health, but this view is not widely accepted. Altıntaş Yüksel [45], on the other hand, revealed in his research that long-term exposure to the computer screen causes health problems for teachers.
It has been concluded that classroom teachers do not encounter serious problems in the planning of the distance education process. There are some problems in the execution and measurement-evaluation stages of distance education. The problems experienced in the conduct of distance education become evident in the dimensions of environment and participation.
Issues related to the media dimension are primarily the problem of access and the inability to interact with students. It is seen that there is a moderate level of participation in the opinion that the students do not have the necessary equipment to attend the lesson. According to the 2020 monitoring and evaluation report published by the Ministry of National Education, 7.1% of the students who participated in the research stated that they could not attend the distance education courses and that they did not have access to the internet. However, in the distance education research conducted by Karadag and Yücel [71] in which 17,939 university students participated, it was concluded that 63% of the students did not have the internet at home to participate in distance education. Likewise, Basaran et al. [58] draw attention to the fact that students do not have the necessary tools to participate in distance education and this situation violates the principle of equal opportunity in education. Regarding participation, it is also possible for students to attend distance education courses at a sufficient level.
It was concluded that they did not participate in the study and that the participating students were still not active enough. Similarly, according to the results of the research conducted by Demir and Ozdaş [47], low participation in distance education courses is suggested as a problem. Kurnaz et al. [72] also stated in their research that students could not find the opportunity to discuss in the lesson. This result suggests that the number of students is effective in the dimension of participation. Likewise, according to the class size variable, a significant difference was found between the views of teachers who have 15 or less students and those who have 36 students or more.
In the 2020 monitoring and evaluation report of the Ministry of National Education regarding the educational activities during the epidemic process, 76% of the students participating in the research and 80% of the parents stated that their children participated in live lessons [73]. Regarding the method, the teachers who participated in the research showed low participation in the opinion that they could not use effective methods and techniques. In other words, it is thought that there are no serious problems in using effective methods in the conduct of distance education. However, Bakioglu and Cevik [74], Erbil et al. [48], Kavuk and Demirtaş [56], Uyar [75] concluded that teachers continue to benefit from traditional teaching methods in the distance education process. While it is observed that there is a high level of participation in the views that one-to-one interviews are made and the learnings in face-to-face education are not forgotten in distance education. A low level of participation was observed in the opinions about the difficulty of homework control and the lack of reliable assessment and evaluation. Kurt et al. [51], on the other hand, primary school teachers think that measurement and evaluation in distance education are insufficient. Although it is thought that the number of students is also an effective variable in the measurement-evaluation dimension, no significant difference was found between the opinions of the teachers in the measurement-evaluation dimension according to the class size variable.
As a result of the research, it was concluded that classroom teachers working in different geographical regions have different views on distance education at the primary school level. It can be thought that geographical regions in Turkey have different socioeconomic characteristics as an effect on this result. According to the variable of the place of duty determined as the province, district, and village, although there is no significant difference in the dimensions of teacher, student, and parent between the views of the classroom teachers participating in the research on distance education, a significant difference was observed regarding the processes of planning, conducting, and evaluating distance education. According to Text et al. [76] no difference was observed between the opinions of teachers about distance education regarding the variable of the place of employment. According to another research result, it was concluded that the teachers working in the province and district have a more positive attitude toward distance education [72]. It is thought that village schools, especially in rural areas, are more disadvantaged in the distance education process due to hardware and infrastructure problems [77]. In addition, a significant difference was found between the views of teachers according to the variable of years of service, which is seen as a factor that shapes the perceptions of teachers about the distance education process. Similarly, according to the results of the research conducted by Kocayigit and Uşun [60], it has been determined that there is a significant difference between professional experience and teachers’ views on distance education; differently, Karaca et al. [62], Kurnaz et al. [72], Metin et al. [57] concluded that teachers’ perceptions of distance education did not show a significant difference according to their seniority. In addition, although there are widespread criticisms around the world that distance education negatively affects students’ social interaction [78], this finding is supported in the qualitative dimension, but in the quantitative dimension of the research, primary school teachers agreed with this view at a low level.
The teachers participating in the research are largely in agreement with the suggestions put forward regarding the improvement of distance education practices. According to the variables of gender, place of duty, class size, years of service, and geographical region, there was no significant difference between the opinions of teachers in terms of suggestions. Accordingly, providing financial support to students who do not have the necessary equipment, strengthening the infrastructure so that distance education can be carried out simultaneously for all students, enriching the content in the EBA application, organizing fun activities that will attract the attention of students in distance education, informing parents about distance education, teacher-parent. It is stated that communication channels between students should be strengthened and printed materials should be provided for students. Erbil et al. [48], Demir and Ozdaş [47], Kurnaz et al. [72], Şahan and Parlar [79], it was stated that EBA contents should be developed in a similar direction. Arslan and DemirOz [46], Bakioglu and Cevik [74], Fidan [50], Can [80], Ozdogan and Berkant [39] similarly drew attention to the necessity of improvements in infrastructure and technical equipment. There are also studies that point out that the situation of students without technology or reliable internet access will cause psychological problems and call this situation “operational distance” [81]. In the monitoring and evaluation report of the Ministry of National Education for the year 2020, it was emphasized that in case the distance education process continues, it is necessary to support the students who do not have enough equipment. In this direction, the Ministry of National Education continues to provide tablets to students with insufficient economic means in 2021 [82].
In the whole scale dimension, a significant difference was determined according to the gender variable in the views of the classroom teachers participating in the research on the distance education practices applied at the primary school level. Differently, Karaca et al. [62], Kocayigit and Usun [83], Kurnaz et al. [72], Mocoşoglu and Kaya [63], Metin et al. [57], there is no significant difference between teachers’ views on distance education, depending on gender. However, Karaca et al. [62] and Kurnaz et al. [72] concluded that female teachers showed more positive development than male teachers in adapting to distance education.
One of the limitations of the study is that only primary school teachers working in primary schools affiliated with the Ministry of National Education are included in the sample. The inclusion of primary school teachers working in private schools in the research may provide both the opportunity for comparison and the acquisition of more comprehensive data. In addition, in this study, the perspective of a single stakeholder group in the process was evaluated by referring to the opinions of classroom teachers on distance education at the primary school level. It is possible to obtain different data in a more comprehensive study including primary school students, parents, and administrators.
The distance education studies implemented during the pandemic period revealed the necessity of using technology-based tools in education. For this reason, constructive steps should be taken to update teacher knowledge of educational technology and to solve technological infrastructure problems, especially in disadvantaged schools. Parents, who have become more active members of education and training activities with distance education, have been able to have more information about the process than in the past. It is clear that this will also have benefits in the face-to-face education process. Therefore, in order to provide time and space flexibility, parent education through distance education should be emphasized and active roles should be offered to parents in the education process at school.
References
1.Boz A. Ogretmen adaylarinin teknoloji kabullenme ve kullanimi baglaminda uzaktan egitim algilarinin incelenmesi. Konya: Necmettin Erbakan University; 2019
2.Demiray U. Bir cagdas egitim modeli olarak uzaktan egitim uygulamasi. Jandarma Dergisi. 1999;85:46-52
3.Moore MG, Kearsly G. Distance Education A systems View. Belmont: C. A. Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1996
4.Usun S. Uzaktan Egitim. 1st ed. Ankara: Nobel Yayinlari; 2006
5.Isman A. Uzaktan egitim, Pegem Akademi. Ankara. 2011;36-37:111
6.Agir F. Ozel okullarda & devlet okullarinda calisan ilkogretim Ogretmenlerinin uzaktan egitime karsi tutumlarinin belirlenmesi. Balikesir: Balikesir University; 2007
7.Dogan HGB. Uzaktan Egitim & Yasam Boyu Ogrenme; 2014. Available from http://www.egitimdeteknoloji.com/uzaktan-egitim-yasam-boyu-ogrenme-nedir/
8.Kaya Z, Onder H. Internet yoluyla Ogretimde ergonomi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2002;1(1):48-54
9.Akca O. Uzaktan egitim Ogrencilerinin iletisim engelleri ile ilgili Ogrenci gOrüşleri [thesis]. Sakarya: Sakarya University; 2006
10.Kirik AM. Uzaktan egitimin tarihsel gelisimi ve Türkiye’deki durumu. Marmara İletisim Dergisi. 2014;21:73-94
11.Kaya Z. Uzaktan egitim. 1st ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi; 2002
12.Zirhlioglu C. Türkiye genelinde ve bOlgeler arasinda bilgisayar kullanimi ve uzaktan egitim ile ilgili istatistiksel analiz [thesis]. İstanbul: Marmara University; 2006
13.MoNE. FATIH Projesi [Internet]. 2020a. Available from http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/
14.MoNE. EBA [Internet]. 2020b. Available from http://EBA.gov.tr/
15.Jowsey T, Foster G, Cooper-Ioelu P, Jacobs S. Blended learning via distance in pre -registration nursing education: A scoping review. Nurse Education in Practice. 2020:44
16.UNESCO. COVID-19 educational disruption and response [Internet]. 2020. Available from https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
17.Karakaya K. Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVI D -19 pandemic: A human -centered approach. Education Technology Research and Development. 2021;69:295-299
18.TEDMEM. COVID-19 sürecinde egitim: Uzaktan Ogrenme, sorunlar ve cozüm Onerileri. TEDMEM Analiz Dizisi 7. Ankara: Türk Egitim Dernegi Yayinlari; 2020
19.Er AG, Ünal S. Dünyada ve Türkiye’ de 2019 koronavirüs pandemisi [Coronavirus 2019 pandemic in the world and in Turkey]. Flora. 2020;25(1):1-8
20.MoNE. Bakan Selcuk, 23 Mart'ta Baslayacak Uzaktan Egitime İliskin Detaylari Anlatti Haberi [Internet]. 2020c. Available from https://www.meb.gov.tr/bakan-selcuk-23-martta-baslayacak-uzaktan-egitime-iliskin-detaylari-anlatti/haber/20554/tr
21.Yurdakul B. Uzaktan Egitim. O. Demirel (Ed.). Egitimde Yeni YOnelimler. PegemA Akademi: Ankara; 2005
22.MoNE. TRT EBA Tv Haberi [Internet]. 2020d. Available from https://www.meb.gov.tr/uzaktan-egitim-icin-uydu-frekans-&-yayin-platformlari-bilgileri/haber/20565/tr
23.MoNE. 18 November 2020 dated new [Internet]. 2020e. Available from https://www.meb.gov.tr/uzaktan-egitim-surecinin-detaylari/haber/21990/tr
24.Antalyali OL. Uzaktan egitim algisi ve yoneylem arastirmasi dersinin uzaktan egitim ile Verilebilirligi. Isparta: Süleyman Demirel University; 2004
25.Basar M, Arslan S, Günsel E, Akpinar M. Ogretmen adaylarinin uzaktan egitim algisi. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education. 2019;3(2):14-22
26.Ergin C. İlkOgretim Ogretmenlerinin uzaktan egitime bakis acilari (Van İl Ornegi). Turkey: Yüzüncü Yil University; 2010
27.GOk B. Uzaktan egitimde gorev alan Ogretim elemanlarinin uzaktan egitim algisi. Ankara: Gazi University Bilisim Enstitüsü; 2011
29.Kologlu TF. Ogretim elemanlarinin uzaktan egitime bakis acilari ve hazirbulunusluklari: Ordu University Ornegi. Afyon: Afyon Kocatepe University; 2016
30.Umurhan H. Ogretim elemanlarini uzaktan egitime tesvik eden unsurlar: Gazi University Ornegi. Ankara: Gazi University; 2014
31.Aker MB. Hipermedya destekli uzaktan egitimi. Ankara: Gazi University; 2002
32.Baris MF. Universite Ogrencilerinin uzaktan ogretime yOnelik tutumlarinin incelenmesi: Namik Kemal University ornegi. Sakarya University Journal of Education. 2015;5(2):36-46
33.Bayram Y. Türkiye’de uzaktan egitim & Sakarya University uygulamasi. Sakarya: Sakarya University; 2002
34.Cukadar S, Celik S. Internete dayali uzaktan Ogretim ve üniversite kütüphaneleri. Dogus University Dergisi. 2003;4(1):31-42
35.İcten T. Uzaktan egitim Ogrencileri icin web tabanli cevrimici sinav sistemi uygulamasi geliştirilmesi. Ankara: Gazi University; 2006
36.Bozkurt A. Türkiye’de uzaktan egitimin dünü, bugünü ve yarini. AUAd. 2017;3(2):85-124
37.Coban S. Uzaktan ve teknoloji destekli egitimin gelisimi. In: XVII.Türkiye’de İnternet Konferansi Bildiri Kitabi 7 - 09 Kasim 2012. İstanbul; 2013. p. 30
38.Firat M. Yüzyilda uzaktan Ogretimde paradigma degisimi. Yüksekogretim ve Bilim Dergisi. Journal of Higher Education and Science. 2016;6(2):142-150
39.Ozdogan A, Berkant H. Covid-19 pandemi dOnemindeki uzaktan egitime iliskin paydas gorüslerinin incelenmesi. In: Milli Egitim Dergisi, Salgin Sürecinde Türkiye'de ve Dünyada Egitim. Turkey; 2020. pp. 13-43
40.Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., Al-Freih, M., Pete, J., Olcott, D., Jr., Rodes, V., Aranciaga, I., Bali, M., Alvarez, A. V., Jr., Roberts, J., Pazurek, A., Raffaghelli, J. E., Panagiotou, N., de Coëtlogon, P., … Paskevicius, M. A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID -19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education. 2020, 15(1), 1–126.
41.Bozkurt A, Sharma RC. Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education. 2020;15(1):i-vi
42.Hodges CB, Moore SL, Lockee BB, Aaron Bond M, Jewett A. An instructional design process for emergency remote teaching. In Burgos, D., Tlili, A., Tabacco, A. (Eds), Radical Solutions for Education in a Crisis Context. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (pp. 37–51). Singapore: Springer; 2021
43.Milman, N. B. Pandemic Pedagogy. Available from: https://kappanonline.org/pandemi c-pedagogy-covid-19-online-milman/ 2020
44.Akan A, Kurt M. Sinif Ogretmenlerinin uzaktan egitim süreclerinde etkili okula iliskin algilari. Akademik Sosyal Arastirmalar Dergisi. 2021;8(51):531-546. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/SOBIDER.49406
46.Arslan S, Demiroz M. Sinif Ogretmenlerinin uzaktan egitime iliskin gOrüsleri. International Social Sciences Studies Journal. 2020;6(75):5633-5645
47.Demir F, Ozdas F. Covid-19 sürecindeki uzaktan egitime iliskin Ogretmen gOrüslerinin incelenmesi. Milli Egitim Dergisi: Salgin Sürecinde Türkiye'de ve Dünyada Egitim; 2020. pp. 273-292
48.Erbil DG, Demir E, Armagan Erbil B. Pandemi sürecinde uzaktan egitime yonelik sinif Ogretmenlerinin gorüslerinin incelenmesi. Turkish Studies-Education. 2021;16(3):1473-1493. Available from https://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.49745
49.Ergüc Şahan B, Parlar H. Pandemi dOneminde sinif Ogretmenlerinin karsilastigi problemler ve cOzüm yollari. OPUS–Uluslararasi Toplum Arastirmalari Dergisi. 2021;18(40):2375-2407
50.Fidan M. Covid-19 belirsizliginde egitim: İlkokulda zorunlu uzaktan egitime iliskin Ogretmen gorüsleri. Usak University Egitim Arastirmalar Dergisi. 2020;6(2):24-43
51.Kurt K, Kandemir M, Celik Y. Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde uzaktan egitime iliskin sinif Ogretmenlerinin gorüsleri. Türkiye Bilimsel Arastirmalar Dergisi. 2021;6(1):88-103. Available from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tubad/issue/62625/826114
52.Talayhan E, Gültekin M. Covid-19 pandemisinde sinif Ogretmenlerinin zorunlu uzaktan egitim sürecinde yasadiklari zorluklara iliskin gorüslerinin incelenmesi. International Social Sciences Studies Journal. 2021;7(83):2328-2336
53.Topcubasi T, Cebeci Topcubasi G, Sezgin G. Sinif ogretmenlerinin pandemi sürecinde uzaktan egitim ile ilgili gorüslerinin degerlendirilmesi. In: Uluslararasi Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Kongresi-4 15-18 November 2020. Mugla; 2021. pp. 672-685
54.Yurtbakan E, Akyildiz S. Sinif Ogretmenleri, ilkokul Ogrencileri ve ebeveynlerin Covid-19 izolasyon dOneminde uygulanan uzaktan egitim faaliyetleri hakkindaki gorüsleri. Turkish Studies. 2020;15(6):949-977. Available from https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.43780
55.Cakin M, Külekci Akyavuz E. Covid-19 süreci & egitime yansimasi: Ogretmen gOrüslerinin incelenmesi. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research. 2020;6(2):165-186
56.Kavuk E, Demirtas H. Covid-19 pandemisi sürecinde Ogretmenlerin uzaktan Ogretimde yasadigi zorluklar. E-Uluslararasi Pedandragoji Dergisi. 2021;1(1):55-73
57.Metin M, Emlik H, Gürlek EH, Demirbas S. Uzaktan egitime yonelik Ogretmen gorüslerinin farkli degiskenler acisindan incelenmesi. Studies in Educational Research and Development. 2021;5(1):19-47
58.Basaran M, Dogan E, Karaoglu E, Şahin E. Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi sürecinin getirisi olan uzaktan egitimin etkililigi üzerine bir calisma. Academia Egitim Arastirmalari Dergisi. 2020;5(2):368-397. Available from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/egitim/issue/54643/753149
59.Cokyaman M, Ünal M. Ogrenci & Ogretmenlerin covid-19 salgini dOnemindeki uzaktan egitim algisi: Bir metafor analizi. In: OPUS Uluslararasi Toplum Arastirmalari Dergisi. 2021. pp. 1684-1715
60.Kocayigit A, Usun S. Milli Egitim Bakanligina bagli okullarda gorev yapan Ogretmenlerin uzaktan egitime yonelik tutumlari (Burdur İli Ornegi). Avrasya Uluslararasi Arastirmalar Dergisi. 2020;8(23):285-299
61.Kaden U. COVID-19 school closure-related changes to the professional life of a K–12 teacher. Education Sciences. 2020;10(6):165
62.Karaca İ, Karaca N, Karamustafaoglu N, Ozcan M. Ogretmenlerin uzaktan egitimin yararina iliskin algilarinin incelenmesi. Humanistic Perspective. 2021;3(1):209-224
63.Mocosoglu B, Kaya A. Koronavirüs hastaligi (Covid-19) sebebiyle uygulanan uzaktan egitime yOnelik Ogretmen tutumlarinin incelenmesi. Kahramanmaras Sütcü İmam University Egitim Dergisi. 2020;2(1):15-43
64.Teddlie C, Tashakkori F. Karma YOntem Arastirmalarinin Temelleri (S. B. Demir, Y. Dede cev.). İstanbul: Ani Yayincilik; 2015
65.Yildirim A, Simsek H. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Arastirma YOntemleri. 1st ed. Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik; 2018
66.Cresswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Karma Yontem Arastirmalari Tasarimi & Yürütülmesi. Ankara: Ani Yayinlari; 2018
67.Can A. Spss ile Bilimsel Arastirma Süresince Nicel Veri Analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayincilik; 2014
68.Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge; 2001
69.Field A. Reliability analysis. In: Field A, editor. Discovering Statistics Using spss. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2005
70.Mayers A. Introduction to Statistics and SPSS in Psychology. Pearson Education Limited: Harlow; 2013
71.Karadag E, Yücel C. Yeni tip koronavirüs pandemisi doneminde üni&rsitelerde uzaktan egitim: Lisans Ogrencileri kapsaminda bir degerlendirme calismasi. YüksekOgretim Dergisi. 2020;2020:1-12
72.Kurnaz A, Kaynar H, Barisik CS, Dogrukok B. Ogretmenlerin uzaktan egitime iliskin gorüsleri. Milli Egitim Dergisi. 2020;49(1):293-322
73.MoNE. İzleme ve Degerlendirme Raporu 2020 “Küresel Salgin DOneminde Uzaktan Egitim” [Internet]. 2020f. Available from https://bianet.org/system/uploads/1/files/attachments/000/003/297/original/MEB_rapor.pdf?1613124134.
75.Uyar E. Covid-19 pandemisi sürecinde sosyal bilgiler Ogretmenlerinin uzaktan egitime yonelik gorüsleri. Kapadokya Egitim Dergisi. 2020;1(2):15-32
76.Metin M, Cevik A, Gürbey S. Ogretmenlerin uzaktan egitime iliskin gorüslerini belirleme olcegi: Gegerlilik ve güvenirlik calismasi. Maarif mektepleri Uluslararası Sosyal ve Beseri Bilimler Dergisi. 2021;4(1):15-35
77.Alpago H, Oduncu Alpago D. Korona virüs ve sosyoekonomik sonuclar. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2020;8:99-114
78.Yamamoto G, Altun D. Coronavirüs ve cevrimici (online) egitimin Onlenemeyen yükselisi. Universite Arastirmalari Dergisi. 2020;3(1):25-34
79.Sahan B, Parlar H. Pandemi döneminde sinif ogretmenlerinin karsilastigi problemler ve cozüm yollari. OPUS Uluslararasi Toplum Arastirmalari Dergisi. 2021;18(40):2375-2407
80.Can E. Coronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemisi & pedagojik yansimalari: Türkiye’de acik ve uzaktan egitim uygulamalari. Acikogretim Uygulamalari ve Arastirmalari Dergisi. 2020;6(2):11-53. Available from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/auad/issue/55662/761354
81.Zilka G, Cohen R, Rahimi I. Teacher presence and social presence in virtual and blended courses. Journal of Information Technology Research. 2018;17:103-126
82.MoNE. 15 April 2021 dated new [Internet]. 2021. Available from http://www.meb.gov.tr/tablet-bilgisayar-desteginin-12-fazinda-42-bin-873-tablet-daha-62-ildeki-ogrencilerimize-ulasiyor/haber/23030/tr
83.Kocayigit A, Usun S. Milli egitim bakanligina bagli okullarda gorev yapan ogretmenlerin uzaktan egitime yonelik tutumlari (Burdur ili ornegi). Avrasya Uluslararasi Arastirmalar Dergisi. 2020;8(23):285-299
Written By
Ozgul Mutluer and Mine Celikoz
Submitted: 27 November 2022Reviewed: 28 November 2022Published: 25 January 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
