International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2021, Vol. 16(1) 194-209

The Influence of Active Learning Provided By Distance Education on Academic Achievement, Self-Efficacy And Attitudes in Art Education

Sehran Dilmaç

pp. 194 - 209   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.334.11   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2009-06-0003.R1

Published online: March 24, 2021  |   Number of Views: 34  |  Number of Download: 184


Abstract

This research was carried out to examine the effects of active learning methods, which take the information away from memorization and make it applicable in daily life, on the achievement, attitude and self-efficacy of the ‘Contemporary Art Practices’ course taken by the undergraduate students. In the study, single group pretest-posttest experimental design, which is one of the quantitative research approaches, was used. The research was carried out on 15 students studying at the 1st and 2nd Grades of Izmir Katip Çelebi University in the fall semester of 2019-2020 in Turkey on the pandemic process. Contemporary Art Practices course was conducted by using active learning methods 'brainstorming, demonstration, speech ring, story creation and Phillps 66'. In this study, 'Contemporary Art Practices Course Achievement Test', 'Attitude Scale' and 'Self-Efficacy Scale' developed by the researcher were used as data collection tools. In the study, it was examined whether the data obtained had a normal distribution. For this, Shapiro-Wilk test was used. Relationship sample t-test was used to compare the data obtained before and after active learning activities. Analyzes were made using statistical program. The results of the research are that active learning methods have a significant effect on the achievements, attitudes and self-efficacy of the ‘Contemporary Art Practices’ course that the undergraduate students take via distance education.

Keywords: Art Education, Active Learning, Distance Education, Pandemic Process


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Dilmac, S. (2021). The Influence of Active Learning Provided By Distance Education on Academic Achievement, Self-Efficacy And Attitudes in Art Education . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(1), 194-209. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.334.11

Harvard
Dilmac, S. (2021). The Influence of Active Learning Provided By Distance Education on Academic Achievement, Self-Efficacy And Attitudes in Art Education . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(1), pp. 194-209.

Chicago 16th edition
Dilmac, Sehran (2021). "The Influence of Active Learning Provided By Distance Education on Academic Achievement, Self-Efficacy And Attitudes in Art Education ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 16 (1):194-209. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.334.11.

References
  1. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2005), Aktif öğrenme. [Active learning ]. Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  2. Artut, P. D., & Bal, A. P. (2018). Learning implementations about cooperative learning method: a case study in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(6). 168-176. https://doi.10.29329/ijpe.2018.179.13 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayaydın, A., Vural, D. Ü., Tuna, S., & Yılmaz M. G. (2009), Sanat eğitimi ve görsel sanatlar öğretimi, [Art education and visual arts teaching ]. (Ed. A. O. Alakuş, L. Mercin), Pegem Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aydede, M. N. (2006). İlköğretim altıncı sınıf fen bilgisi dersinde aktif öğrenme yaklaşımını kullanmanın akademik başarı, tutum ve kalıcılık üzerindeki etkisi. [The effect of using active learning approach in primary school sixth grade science course on academic achievement, attitude and retention of learning ]. (Publication no. 205749). [Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi].  Retrived October 15, 2020, from, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=ePX_SaJ0b35Gq45swKG3lAruE2ol7i2123Jp7fxv1xFt67sPxAOxeF1oYhjHYp31 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aydede, M, N., & Matyar, F. (2009). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde aktif öğrenme yaklaşımının bilişsel düzeyde öğrenci başarısına etkisi, [The effect of active learning approach in science teaching on student achievement at cognitive level]. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 6 (1), 69-81. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from, http://static.dergipark.org.tr/article-download/bd64/6725/928b/5d122585b3985.pdf? [Google Scholar]
  6. Birenbaum,  M.  (2003).  New  insights  into  learning  and  teaching  and  their  implicationsfor  assessment.  M.  Segers,  F.  Dochy  &  E.  Cascallar  (Eds.), in Optimising  New Modes   of   Assessment:   In   Search   of   Qualities   and   Standards, (pp.   13-36). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  7. Buyurgan, S., & Buyurgan, U. (2007). Sanat eğitimi ve öğretimi, [Art education and training].Pegem Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cengizhan, S. (2016). Öğretim yöntemleri. [Teaching methods ]. T. Yanpar Yelken & C. Akay (Eds.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (pp. 223-256). Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cooper,H .,  Lindsay,  J.  J.,  Nye,  B.,  &  Greathouse,  S .  (1998).  Relationships   among  attitudes   about  homework, amount of  homework assigned and completed  and student achievement. Journal  of  Educational Psychology, 90(2), 70–83. Retrived November 15, 2020, from; https://www.jstor.org/stable/20152658?seq=1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Creswell, J W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson [Google Scholar]
  11. Dağ, F., Şumuer, E., & Durdu, L. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions and experiences: courses based on the active learning model and environment. Journal of Learning Spaces. 8(2), 41 -56. Retrieved December 08, 2020, from,  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1229466.pdf [Google Scholar]
  12. Dolan,  E.  L.,  & Collins,  J.  P.  (2015).  We  must  teach  more  effectively:  Here  are  fourways to get started. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 26(12), 2151-2155. . https://doi. 10.1091/mbc.E13-11-0675 [Google Scholar]
  13. Drexler,  W.  (2010). The  networked  student  model  for  construction  of  personal  learning. Language  Learning  & Technology, 26(3), 369-85. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1081 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Greene,  H.  (2011).  Freshmen  marketing:  A  first-year  experience  with  experiential learning. Marketing Education Review,21(1), 79-88. . https://doi. 0.2753/MER1052-8008210111 [Google Scholar]
  15. Günhan, B. C. (2006). İlköğretim ikinci kademe matematik dersinde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin uygulanabilirliği üzerine bir araştırma. [A research on the applicability of problem-based learning in elementary secondary mathematics lesson]. (Publication no. 206025). [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. Retrived October 18, 2020, from, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=ePX_SaJ0b35Gq45swKG3lCjs1s63_rP4eJUNN365cuppEwDAQhdfFK0SI-N3VKU3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hawtrey,  K.  (2007).  Using  experiential  learning  techniques. The  Journal  of  EconomicEducation, 38(2), 143-152. . https://doi.  10.3200/JECE.38.2.143-152 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyun, J., Ediger, R., & Lee, D. (2017). Students’ satisfaction on their learning process in active learning and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 29 (1), 108-118. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135821.pdf [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaasila, R., & Lauriala, A. (2010). Towards a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 854–862. https://doi.10.1007/s11409-008-9020-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Karasar, N. (2004). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. [Scientific research method]. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kırışoğlu, O. T. (2001). Sanatta eğitim. [Education in the arts ]. Pegem Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kırışoğlu, O., & Stokrocki, M. (1997). Ortaöğretim sanat öğretimi. [Secondary art education]. YÖK/ Dünya Bankası Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kısakürek, M. A. (1985). Sınıf atmosferinin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. [The effect of classroom atmosphere on student achievement]. AÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Yayınları [AU Faculty of Educational Sciences Publications [Google Scholar]
  23. Köse, E., & Küçükoğlu, A. (2009). Evaluation of class learning environment in faculties of education in terms of some variables. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 61-73. Retrived July 02, 2020, from http://kefad2.ahievran.edu.tr/arsiv/103.html [Google Scholar]
  24. Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers’ professional growth in self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00131014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Küçükoğlu, A., & Köse, E. (2008). Yükseköğretim düzeyinde sınıf atmosferinin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. [Effect of classroom atmosphere on student achievement at higher education level]. Atatürk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(8), 176-188. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from,  https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunisosbil/issue/2822/38072 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lin,  C.  C.,  Chan,  H.  J.,  &  Hsiao,  H.  S.  (2011).  EFL  students'  perceptions  of  learningvocabulary  in  a  computer-supported  collaborative  environment. Turkish  Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(2), 91-99. Retrieved December 24, 2020, from, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ932229.pdf [Google Scholar]
  27. Lynch, R., Mannix McNamara, P., & Seery, N. (2012). Promoting deep learning in a teacher education programme through self-and peer-assessment and feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643396 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Michel,  N.,  Cater,  J.  J., &Varela,  O.  (2009).  Active  versus  passive  teaching  styles:  Anempirical  study  of  student  learning  outcomes. Human  Resource  Development Quarterly, 20(4), 397-418. . https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Mills,  S.  C.  (2006). Using  the  internet  for  active  teaching  and  learning.  Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  30. Okumuş, S., Özdilek, Z., & Arslan, A. (2020). The  effect  of  cooperative  learning  methods  and  individual  learning  method  on  pre-service science teachers’ sub-micro  level  conceptual  understanding  at  equilibrium chemistry. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research. 15(3). 394-425. https://doi.10.29329/epasr.2020.270.19 [Google Scholar]
  31. Orak, S., & Demirci, C. (2017). Application examples and student views on active learning approach integrated withbranches of art. Cypriot Journal of Education Sciences. 13(1), 53-65. Retrieved September 16, 2020, from, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1176994.pdf [Google Scholar]
  32. Özkal, N. (2000). İşbirlikli öğrenmenin sosyal bilgilere ilişkin benlik kavramı, tutumlar ve akademik başarı üzerindeki etkileri. [The effects of cooperative learning on self-concept, attitudes and academic achievement regarding social studies]. (Publication no. 99725). [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. Retrived September 27, 2020, from, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=KOgdn9H3uVnWeb15j2W4h-7QNqqLyao_LWSd99M5xum46A-8AEf_Zkya76DaScfG. [Google Scholar]
  33. Özsoy, V. (2003). Görsel sanatlar eğitimi, resim-iş eğitiminin tarihsel ve düşünsel temelleri. [Visual arts education, historical and intellectual foundations of art education].  Ümit Ofset Matbaacılık. [Google Scholar]
  34. Quinlan,  A.,  &  Fogel,  C.  A.  (2014).  Transcending  convention  and  space:  strategies  forfostering   active   learning   in   large   post-secondary   classes. Higher   Education Studies, 4(6), 43. . https://doi.10.5539/hes.v4n6p43 [Google Scholar]
  35. Riedler, M. & Eryaman M.Y.  (2016). Complexity, Diversity and Ambiguity in Teaching and Teacher Education: Practical Wisdom, Pedagogical Fitness and Tact of Teaching. International Journal of Progressive Education. 12(3): 172-186 [Google Scholar]
  36. Saygı, C. & Bilen, S. (2009).  Aktif öğrenmenin müzik tarihi dersine ilişkin başarı, tutum ve özyeterlik üzerindeki etkisi, [The effect of active learning on achievement, attitude and self-efficacy regarding the history of music course ]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 23(1), 723-755. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.52273 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Servetti,  S.  (2010).  Cooperative  learning  groups  involved  in  a  writtenerror-correctiontask: A case study in an Italian secondary school. European Education, 42(3), 7-25. https://doi. 10.2753/EUE1056-4934420301 [Google Scholar]
  38. Shaban, A. E. (2017). The use of socrative in ESL clasroom towards active learning. Teaching English with Technology, 17(4), 64-77. Retrived June 27, 2020, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159109.pdf [Google Scholar]
  39. Shariff,  S.  A.  B.  (2012).  The  effects  of  individual  versus  group  incentive  systems  on  student  learning  and  attitudes  in  a  large  lecture  course. (Publication no. 3519490). [Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shieh, R. S., Chang, W., & Tang, J. (2010). The impact of implementing technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) in university physics in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(3), 401-415. Retrived June 22, 2020, from https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=4037 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of activelearning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Educationand Training International, 37(4), 381-389.  https://doi.org/10.1080/135580000750052991 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Süzen, S. (2007) Aktif öğrenme teknikleriyle desteklenmiş fen ve teknoloji eğitiminin öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. [The effect of science and technology education supported by active learning techniques on learning products]. (Publication no. 208132). [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi].  Retrived August 12, 2020 from, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=ePX_SaJ0b35Gq45swKG3lNgFeJFeAlJGqtB4wgE4GZ5kh8lkRQQT4Lwm5jnLx5sE [Google Scholar]
  43. Tekin, H. (1991). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Yargı Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  44. Virtanen, P., Niemi, H. M., & Nevgi, A. (2017). Active learning and self-regulation enhancestudent teachers’ professional competences. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 42(12), 1-20. Retriveed July 18, 2020, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1164999.pdf [Google Scholar]
  45. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching.  Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  46. Wong, N. Y. (1993). Psychosocial environments in the Hong Kong mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 12(1), 303-309. Retrieved July 11, 2020, from the ERIC database. (EJ484119). [Google Scholar]
  47. Yalın, U. M.   (2015).   Öğrenen   merkezli   öğrenme-öğretme   yaklaşımları. [Learner-centered learning-teaching approaches].  Saracaloğlu,  A.   S &    Küçükoğlu,  A. (Eds.),  Öğretim  İlke  ve  Yöntemleri  (pp.  291-324). Pegem Akademi [Google Scholar]