European Journal of Education Studies
ISSN: 2501 - 1111
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.292951
Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON
STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCES AND ATTITUDES
Gürhan Duraki, Serkan Cankaya,
Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
Computer Education and Instructional Technology,
Balikesir University, Balikesir, Turkey
Abstract:
Despite the widespread use of Social Learning Networks (SLNs), there is little research
on the effectiveness of these sites in related literature. Therefore, there is a need for
studies investigating but use of SLNs in educational environments and their effects on
learners’ academic achievements. In this study, the purpose was to investigate the
effects of use of Edmodo, a leading SLN site, on students’ performances and attitudes
towards online learning according to certain variables. In line with this purpose, using
the pretest-posttest method, an experimental study with a control group was carried
out with 79 learners taking the courses of Special Teaching Methods in the department
of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies in the Education Faculty of a
university in Turkey. In addition to face-to-face courses given to the experimental
group students, various activities related to the course (group works, individual
assignments, discussions) were carried out under the guidance of the course teacher via
Edmodo. As for the control group students, they carried out the activities in class
environment without using Edmodo. The results revealed that students who used
Edmodo were more successful than those who did not. Based on this result, it could be
stated that Edmodo had positive contributions to learners’ academic achievements.
Keywords: social learning network, students’ performances, students’ attitudes
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gürhan Durak, Department of Computer
Education and Instructional Technologies, Balikesir University, Balikesir, Turkey. Contact:
gurhandurak@balikesir.edu.tr, +905558084404
i
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 – 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
312
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
1. Introduction
Research on social Networking Sites SNS , which draw millions of users’ attention,
shows that the most common reasons for the popularity of SNSs included such factors
as communication (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, 2011; Pempek,
Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009; Quan-Haase & Young, 2010; Shier, 2005; Wodzicki,
Schwämmlein, & Moskaliuk, 2012; Yu, Tian, Vogel, & Chi-Wai Kwok, 2010) and
forming communities (Gunawardena et al., 2009; Shier, 2005) (Baruah, 2012; Boyd &
Ellison, 2007; Cheung et al., 2011; Haytko & Parker, 2012; Lenhart & Madden, 2007;
Mazman & Usluel, 2011; Yu et al., 2010). In this respect, considering the fact that
countless number of students frequently participate in discussions and group activities
in SNSs on voluntary basis, it is an undeniable fact that SNSs can be used as a potential
educational tool (Bosch, 2009; Kabilan, Ahmad, & Abidin, 2010; Odabasi et al., 2012;
Selwyn, 2009; Tonta, 2009).
When the features of SNSs are examined, it is seen that they support
communication between individuals, forming a community, multimedia sharing and
cooperation. These concepts overlap the propositions of the constructive learning
theory and social-cognitive theory regarding the learning process (Kert & Kert, 2010). In
addition, it is advised that the feeling of community for students who do not have the
chance for face-to-face communication with teachers and other students in online
environment should be developed (Brady, Holcomb, & Smith, 2010). Also, social
presence is claimed to be an important component of teaching and learning (Garrison,
Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Social presence, naturally supported by SNSs, could be said
to be important for online learning environments as well (Anderson, 2005; Cheung et
al., 2011; Cobb, 2009; Dawson, 2006). Besides all, in traditional education, some students
do not participate sufficiently in class activities for various reasons. It is known that
these students fail to establish healthy communication with their classmates as with
their teachers (G. Miller, 2011). According to Miller (2011), virtual communities like
SNSs could allow removing the problems experienced by such students. In related
literature, there are several studies demonstrating that SNSs can used successfully by
transforming them into an online learning environment (Al-Rahmi & Othman, 2013;
Ekici & Kiyici, 2012; Forkosh-Baruch & Hershkovitz, 2012; Grosseck, Bran, & Tiru, 2011;
Hung & Yuen, 2010; R. Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011; Kabilan et al., 2010; Lawson,
Kleinholz, & Bodle, 2011; Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2007, 2009; Wodzicki et al., 2012).
When the related literature is examined, it is seen that use of SNSs in education
environments could have negative effects on the learning process as well (Karpinski &
Duberstein, 2009; Rouis, Limayem, & Salehi-sangari, 2011; Wang, Chen, & Liang, 2011).
In SNSs, the teacher and the student are in a position of friendship. It was found that
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
313
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
this situation could lead to role conflict and weaken the authority of the teacher
(Warner & Esposito, 2009). In some studies, it was reported that students’ average
scores at school decrease as use of SNS increases (Cohen, 2011; Reynol Junco, 2012;
Kirschner & Karpinski,
O’”rien,
. “nother study revealed that students do
not consider SNSs to be useful for their academic processes; that they are unwilling to
communicate with the instructor via SNSs; and that they do not believe in the need for
the integration of SNSs into their educational processes (Cohen, 2011). In other words, it
could be stated that educational use of SNSs, which are mostly favored by individuals
to interact with friends, is regarded as an intervention to their private lives and that
SNSs are thus not useful for their education processes.
SNSs lack such features as library, examination and assignment included in
learning management systems like Moodle and Blackboard and thus do not basically
serve an educational purpose. In addition, since SNSs are for general use, noneducational contexts may exist in such environments. For this reason, besides SNSs,
other educational sites similar to SNSs in terms of functioning have appeared. These
sites can be called Social Learning Networks (SLNs) (Al-kathiri, 2015; Balasubramanian,
Jaykumar, & Fukey, 2014; Bicen, 2015; Trust, 2012). Examples of these sites include
Edmodo, Ning, Elgg and ValuePulse. SLNs minimize safety and privacy concerns that
could appear while using SNSs and allow teachers and students to use social network
technologies for educational purposes (Brady et al., 2010).
Edmodo, the most popular SLN established in 2008, has reached more than 58
million users. Among the reasons for such a large spread of Edmodo throughout the
world is the fact that it is totally free of charge; that membership is easy; that it provides
multilanguage support; that besides its educational features, it has many of the features
of an SNS; that it has a design similar to SNSs in terms of use; and that students,
teachers and parents can easily register to the system. In addition to the capability SNSs
to allow free sharing and to act as a source of news, Edmodo has such features found in
LMSs as lesson planning tool, assignment, examination, questionnaire applications and
teacher’s account.
Another concept constituting the basis of the present study is the cooperative
learning approach. This approach requires students to study in small groups for a
common purpose (Wendt & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2014). In this way, students are
expected to learn by studying together and thus by helping one another (Jacobsen,
Eggen, & Kauchak, 2002). According to the cooperative learning approach, students are
expected to individuals, who can think, produce and share their productions with
others (Tarim & Akdeniz, 2003). The benefits of cooperative learning have been
reported in many studies related to education (Bye, Smith, & Rallis, 2009; Ding &
Harskamp, 2011; R. L. Miller & Benz, 2008; Parveen & Batool, 2012; Yu et al., 2010).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
314
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
These benefits include motivation, feelings of success, mutual interdependence (R. L.
Miller & Benz, 2008), communication, level of satisfaction (Zhu & Chang, 2012),
cognitive growth, and socio-emotional growth (Parveen & Batool, 2012; Wendt &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2014). Thanks to collaboration, students can build meaningful
knowledge by sharing ideas and obtaining feedback from peers as mentioned in the
constructivist learning theory (Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, & Broers, 2007;
Stump et al., 2011).
There are several studies demonstrating that effective and productive online
cooperative learning environments contribute as much to students’ success as face-toface cooperative learning environments do (Erlandson, Nelson, & Savenye, 2010; R. L.
Miller & Benz, 2008). Social networks provide students in different places with the
opportunity of social and active learning and support cooperative learning (Ajjan &
Hartshorne, 2008; Ozdamli & Uzunboylu, 2008). Johnson and Johnson (2004), in their
study, reported that students’ success increases when online learning environments are
supported with cooperative learning. In addition, it was pointed out that these
educational benefits of social networks were due to cooperative learning resulting from
the sharings and interactions among students (Inaba & Mizoguchi, 2004; Mora-Soto,
Sanchez, Medina, & Dominguez, 2009; Tinmaz, 2013). In a study conducted on the use
of SLNs in education, it was found that university students believed reading their
classmates’ comments contributed to their learning Wolf, Wolf, Frawley, Torres, &
Wolf, 2012).
On the other hand, it was stated that text-based communication in online
cooperative learning environments could be problematic and that these communication
problems could increase misunderstandings and lack of higher-order thinking (Hewitt,
2003; Rovai & Jordan, 2004). In another experimental study with the pretest and posttest
design which compared cooperative learning via Edmodo and cooperative learning in
class revealed that face-to-face cooperative learning in class was more effective than
cooperative learning via Edmodo that face-to-face cooperative learning students had
fewer misconceptions regarding the course of science (Wendt & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2014).
When related literature is examined, it is seen that there is little research
demonstrating that Edmodo could be beneficial for examining teachers and students’
views (Brady et al., 2010; Bynum, 2011; Cankaya et al., 2013; Enriquez, 2014; Kongchan,
2008; Sanders, 2012). There is no experimental research conducted to comparing the
Influence of the cooperative environment in Edmodo on students’ success with the faceto-face cooperative learning environment (Nee, 2014). The present study revealed that
learners using Edmodo in biology course were more successful than those taking the
same course on face-to-face basis.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
315
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
There are also cases where Edmodo was used as a support to traditional courses which
do not involve use of cooperative learning technique in class. However, as required by
its nature, Edmodo somehow makes such courses cooperative. In this respect, it is
necessary to compare class environments in which cooperative learning technique is not
applied with those in which Edmodo is used as a support. From this perspective, it
could be stated that there is a need for experimental research investigating effects of use
of Edmodo as a cooperative learning environment on students’ performances and
attitudes. For this reason, the present study was conducted to examine the effects of use
of Edmodo within the scope of the course of Special Teaching Methods-I (STM-I) on the
participants’ academic performances and on their attitudes towards online learning
with respect to certain variables. In line with the purpose of the present study, which is
thought to have important contributions to the related literature in Turkey, the
following research questions were directed:
1. Is there any difference between the achievement scores of the learners using
Edmodo in the course of STM-I and those of the learners taking the same
course with the traditional teaching method?
2. Is there any difference between the attitudes of learners using Edmodo in the
course of STM-I towards online learning and those of learners taking the
same course with traditional teaching method?
3. Is there a relationship between the experimental and control group learners’
attitudes towards online learning and their achievement scores in the course
of STM-I?
4. Is there any influence such variables as Cumulative Grade Point Average
(CGPA) gender, type of school, frequency of use of the Internet and social
networks and online learning experience on the learners’ achievement scores
in the course of STM-I?
2. Method
2.1 Research Model
The present study, which was conducted with the experimental research design,
investigated influence of Edmodo both on learners’ achievement scores in the course of
STM-I and on their attitudes towards online learning. In addition, the study also
examined the relationships between the independent variables and the dependent
variables.
The independent variables used in the study were cumulative grade point
average (CGPA) online learning experience, type of school, gender and the frequency of
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
316
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
use of the Internet and social networks. As for the dependent variables, they were
achievement score in the course of STM-I and attitudes towards online learning.
2.2 Participants
The participants of the study were 79 3rd-grade learners attending the department of
Computer Education and Instructional Technologies in Necatibey Education Faculty of
”alıkesir University. The experimental and control groups were formed with the
convenience sampling method. Accordingly, the learners taking their courses in
daytime constituted the experimental group, and those taking night courses constituted
the control group.
2.3 Data Collection Tools
In the study, a multiple choice achievement test prepared by the course teacher for the
course of STM-I was applied as the data collection tool. For content validity, all the
questions in this multiple choice achievement test were prepared considering the
subjects taught within the scope of the related course. In this respect, all the behaviors
intended to be measured were included in the data collection tool. The questions were
examined by field experts and found appropriate the course content. Following this, the
comprehensibility of the statements found in the questions was checked. For the
distribution of the questions, special attention was paid to the fact that there would be
only one question regarding a subject; that the statement used in a question would not
provide a clue for the answer to another question; and that the correct choices would be
balanced. Also, the measurement tool could be said to be reliable as the pretest
Cronbach-Alpha coefficient was found to meet the value of .80.
“nother data collection tool used in the study was Online Learning “ttitude
Scale made up of two sub-factors with 25 items. These sub-factors were resistance and
adoption. This scale was developed by Erdoğan, ”ayram and Deniz
, and the
researchers were asked for their written consents to use the scale in the present study.
The Cronbach “lpha internal reliability coefficient for the scale was found by Erdoğan
and colleagues as 0,917 (2007), by Özcan (2009) as 0,931 and by Durak (2013) as 0,923 in
previous studies.
2.4 Data Analysis
In the study, for the comparison of the groups’ achievement scores and their attitudes
towards online learning, tests for mixed measures and normality were applied to see
whether there was a normal distribution or not (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilk).
In addition, for the homogeneity of the variances, Levene test was used. Besides these,
for the purpose of determining the relationship between the students’ achievement
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
317
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
scores for the course of STM-I and their attitude scores regarding online learning,
correlation analysis was used, and to find the extent to which the independent variables
in the study influenced the dependent variables, multiple regression analyses were
conducted. For the analysis of the data, SPSS 21 package software was used.
2.5 Application Process
The content of the course of Special Education Methods-I given in the department of
Computer Education and Instructional Technologies included such subjects as
examining the Elementary School Computer Education Curriculum (Ministry of
National Education, 2006) and the related coursebooks, instructional methods and
techniques, mind mapping, instructional materials like worksheets, examining the
measurement and evaluation methods and techniques and applying them to the
subjects in the curriculum, and explaining how to make a lesson plan for teaching the
subjects in the curriculum. As appropriate to this content, the students were given outof-class assignments. These assignments included preparing a report about the basic
features of the curriculum, preparing instructional activities with inventions for the
subjects in the curriculum, preparing questions appropriate to the gradual classification
of cognitive behaviors for each step selected from the curriculum (Ta<pınar,
,
preparing a mind map for each step in the curriculum, preparing a worksheet regarding
a related subject in the curriculum, preparing a structured grid and branched trees for
the related subjects in the curriculum, and preparing a lesson plan for each subject
selected from the curriculum.
In the study, 39 students (experimental group) taking the course of STM- in the
Spring Term of the academic year of I 2013-2014 were asked to sign up Edmodo. The
students were divided into a total of five groups based on their own preference via
Edmodo: four groups each including eight members and one group including seven
members. The assignments mentioned above were given to the students on weekly
basis, and the students were asked to do one assignment individually for each week
and to share it in their own groups. The students were asked for their comments
regarding the assignments shared in their own groups. The course teacher examined
the sharings and made comments when necessary. The sharings found appropriate
were also projected in class and presented to all the students, and related discussions
were done as a whole class.
The students who were not included in the experimental group constituted the
control group. These students were taught the same subjects in class as well. They were
also given the same assignments and were asked to do them individually in to hand in
these assignments to the teacher.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
318
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
3. Findings
This part of the study first presents the frequencies of the learners’ use of the Internet
and social networks and the related percentages and frequencies regarding the social
networking sites they used (Table 1). Following this, the findings in relation to the subproblems in the study are given under related headings.
Table 1: Findings Regarding Internet and Social Network Use
Internet Use Frequency
Frequency (f)
Percentage (%)
Less than an hour a day
6
8
Between 1-3 hours a day
27
34
More than 3 hours a day
46
58
Less than an hour a day
20
25
Between 1-3 hours a day
40
51
More than 3 hours a day
19
24
Social Network Use Frequency
Social Networks Used
Facebook
76
96
WhatsApp
76
96
YouTube
71
90
Google+
56
71
Instagram
46
58
Foursquare
26
33
LinkedIn
17
22
Flicker
4
5
When Table 1 is examined, it is seen that a great majority of the students (58%) used the
Internet for more than three hours a day. It was also found that almost half of the
learners used social networks for 1 to 3 hours a day and that 24% of them used social
networks for more than three hours a day. When the students’ preferences of social
networks were examined, it was seen that they favored Facebook and WhatsApp most,
which were followed by YouTube, Google+ and Instagram.
3.1 Findings related to the first sub-problem
The first sub-problem in the study was the question of Is there any difference between the
achievement scores of the students using Edmodo in the course of STM-I and those of the
students taking the same course with traditional methods? . In order to test this subproblem, the experimental and control groups took a pretest before the experimental
process and a posttest at the end of the process. Table 2 presents the pretest-posttest
mean scores and the related standard deviations for both groups of students.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
319
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
Table 2: Achievement Test Mean Scores and Standard Deviations
Group
Pretest
Posttest
N
X
S
N
X
S
Experimental Group
39
16.74
3.65
39
21.92
3.39
Control Group
40
15.25
4.95
40
16.48
5.52
As can be seen in Table 2, there was an increase in the mean scores of both groups of
students. Before comparing the pretest and posttest scores between the two groups, the
groups’ normal distribution values were examined with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The
p value was found to be higher than .05 for the pre-attitude and post-attitude scores.
Based on this result, it could be stated that both groups demonstrated a normal
distribution. For the purpose of determining whether the change presented in Table 2
was statistically significant or not, two–way analysis of variance was conducted. The
results can be seen in Table 3 below.
Table 3: ANOVA Results for the Pretest-Posttest Scores of the Experimental and
Control Groups
Source of Variance
KO
F
P
1
475,76
17,4
.000
2106,32
77
27,36
1542,74
79
Measurement (Pretest-Posttest)
404,99
1
404,99
31,71
.000
Group*Measurement
Error
154,4
983,35
1
77
154,4
12,78
12,1
.000*
4124,82
157
Between Groups
Group (Individual/Group)
Error
Within Groups
Total
KT
Sd
2582,08
78
475,76
*p<.01
According to Table 3, the achievement test scores of the experimental and control
groups demonstrated a significant difference before and after the experimental process.
In other words, the common effects (group*measurement) of conducting repeated
measurements (pretest and posttest) and being in a different group (experimental and
control groups on the students’ achievement scores were found to cause a significant
difference (F(1-77)= 12,1; p<.01).
Two-way ANOVA was repeated taking the CGPA value as covariate. According
to the test results, a significant difference was found between the groups’ achievement
scores (p<.01).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
320
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
3.2 Findings related to the second sub-problem
The second sub-problem in the study was the question of Is there a difference between the
attitudes of students using Edmodo in their course and those of students taking the same course
with traditional method towards online learning? . In order to test this sub-problem, the
experimental and control groups took the pre-attitude test before the experimental
process and the post-attitude test following the experimental process. Table 4 presents
the preattitude-postattitude mean scores and the related standard deviations for both
groups of students.
Table 4: Total Attitude Scores and Standard Deviations
Group
Pre-Attitude
Post-Attitude
N
X
S
N
X
S
Experimental Group
39
81.21
8.03
39
83.87
8.22
Control Group
40
83.58
6.67
40
82.40
11.59
According to Table 4, there was an increase in the attitude scores of the experimental
group students, while a decrease was observed in those of the control group students.
Before comparing the preattitude and postattitude scores between the groups, the
groups’ normal distribution values were examined with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The
p value was found to be higher than .05 for the preattitude and postattitude scores of
the two groups. Therefore, it could be stated that both groups demonstrated a normal
distribution. For the purpose of determining whether the change presented in Table 4
was statistically significant or not, two–way analysis of variance was conducted. The
results can be seen in Table 5 below.
Table 5: ANOVA Results for the Preattitude-Postattitude Scores of the
Experimental and Control Groups
Source of Variance
Between Groups
Group(Individual/Group)
Error
KT
sd
26208,725
78
29,555
26179,17
Within Groups
Measurement(Preattitude-Postattitude)
Group*Measurement
Error
Total
KO
F
P
1
29,555
34,94
.000
77
339,99
79
206,89
1
206,89
2,49
.119
1,37
1
1,37
0,016
.898*
63,99
77
83,11
272,25
157
*p>.01
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
321
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
According to Table 5, no significant difference was found in relation to the attitude test
scores of the experimental and control groups before and after the experimental
process. In other words, the common effects (group*measurement) of conducting
repeated measurements (pretest and posttest) and being in a different group
(experimental and control groups) on the attitude scores did not cause a significant
difference (F(1-77)= 1,37; p>.01).
3.4 Findings related to the third sub-problem
The third sub-problem in the study was the question of Is there a relationship between the
achievement scores of the experimental group and control group students regarding the course of
STM-I and their attitudes towards online learning? . In order to determine the level of
relationship between the students’ pretest scores and their attitude scores regarding
online learning, correlation analysis was conducted. Depending on the results of this
analysis, it could be stated that there was quite a low level of relationship between the
students’ pretest achievement scores and their preattitude scores r=.
. “ similar
relationship was also observed between the students’ posttest scores and their
postattitude scores regarding online learning (r=.01).
3.5 Findings regarding the fourth sub-problem
The fourth sub-problem in the study was the question of Do the variables of gender,
school type, frequency of social network use and online learning experience on students’
achievement scores regarding the course of STM I? .
Table 6: t-Test results for the experimental group students’ posttest scores with
respect to certain variables
Variable
Online Learning Experience
School Type
Gender
N
X
S
sd
t
p
Yes
21
22.57
3.4
37
1.30
.201
No
18
21.17
3.31
Vocational High School
34
22.59
2.60
37
-3.69
.001*
5
17.40
4.93
Female
22
22.68
2.34
37
-1.62
.113
Male
17
20.94
4.28
Other
*p<.01
According to Table 6, no significant difference was found between the achievement
scores of the experimental group students who previously had online learning
experience (X=22.57) and those of the students who did not (X=21.17) (p>.01). When the
students were examined with respect to their school type, a significant difference was
found between the achievement scores of the students who graduated from a vocational
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
322
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
school (X=22.59) and those of the students who graduated from other types of schools
(X=17.40) in favor of the former p<.
. Lastly, the students’ achievement scores were
compared in terms of the variable of gender, and it was found that gender did not have
any significant influence on the students’ achievement scores p>.
.
Table 7: t-Test results for the control group students’ posttest scores with respect to
certain variables
Variable
Online Learning Experience
School Type
Gender
N
X
S
Sd
t
p
Yes
29
16.10
5.43
38
-.69
.50
No
11
17.45
5.90
Vocational High School
25
17.16
5.61
38
-1.01
.318
Other
15
15.33
5.36
Female
15
17.33
7.54
38
-.757
.454
Male
25
15.96
3.96
According to Table 7, no significant difference was found between the achievement
scores of the control group students who had online learning experience (X=16.10) and
those of the students who did not (X=17.45) (p>.01). When the students were examined
with respect to their school type, it was found that there was no significant difference
between the achievement scores of the students who graduated from a vocational
school (X=17.16) and those of the students who graduated from other types of schools
X=
.
p>.
. Lastly, the students’ achievement scores were compared in terms of
the variable of gender. It was found that the female students’ achievement mean score
was
.
and that the male students’ achievement mean score was
.
. Thus, gender
did not have any significant influence on the students’ achievement scores p>.
.
In order to examine the relationship of the students’ achievement scores with the
frequency of their Internet use and with their levels of social network use, one-way
ANOVA was applied. The results did not reveal any significant difference between the
students’ achievement scores and the frequencies of the students’ Internet use and
social network use in both groups (p>.01).
4. Conclusion, Discussion and Suggestions
In this experimental study, the students taking the course of STM-I were divided into
groups: experimental group and control group. The experimental group students used
Edmodo as a support to face-to-face courses, while the control group students did not
use it. The achievements of these two groups of students in the related course and their
attitudes towards online learning were tested before and after the experimental process,
and the results obtained were compared. In addition, the students’ achievement scores
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
323
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
were examined with respect to such variables as attitudes towards online learning,
gender, academic mean score, Internet and social network use, school type and online
learning experience.
The students found in the experimental group formed within the scope of the
course of STM-I actively used Edmodo. These students shared in their groups,
participated in discussions and did assignments via Edmodo. The results of the pretest
applied at the beginning of the academic term did not reveal any significant difference
between the experimental and control groups. According to the posttest results of the
experimental group students who took the course of STM-I via Edmodo throughout the
academic term, they were more successful than the control group students. Depending
on this result, it could be stated that Edmodo made positive contributions to learners’
success. Similarly, in one study carried out by Nee (2014), the researcher reported that a
course taught via Edmodo contributed to students’ success more than traditional
methods did. However, on the contrary to these result, Wendt & Rockinson-Szapkiw
(2014), in their experimental study misconceptions in the course of Science, found that
face-to-face learners had fewer misconceptions than those taking their course via
Edmodo. This result could be explained with the fact that the course taught included
experimental applications; that learners cannot thus pay enough attention to
experiments via an asynchronous platform; and that a good-quality instructional
environment cannot eventually be created.
In the study, the influence of the students’ past achievements academic mean
score) on their achievement scores in the course of STM-I was examined. In this respect,
the variable of academic mean score was kept constant, and it was found that the
experimental process applied did not have any influence on the students’ achievement
scores. In other words, of the two students with the same academic mean score, the one
involved in the experimental process had a higher score in the achievement test. This
result is consistent with other experimental research results examining academic mean
score in related literature (Durak, 2014; Yunkul, 2014).
When the frequencies of the students’ Internet and social network use were
examined, it was seen that almost all of them used the Internet and especially social
networks quite intensively. This result could be due to the fact that the participants
were students in the department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technologies. Among the social networks most favored by the students were Facebook
and WhatsApp, which were followed by twitter, YouTube, Google+ and Instagram.
These findings are parallel to those obtained in other studies carried out by Ayres (2012)
and Miah, Omar &Allison-Golding (2012).
In the present study, besides the comparison of the academic performance, the
students’ attitudes towards online learning were examined as well. According to the
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
324
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
preattitude and postattitude scores of the students, no significant difference was found
between the two groups of students. This result could be due to the fact that the
students were from the department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technologies and that they were thus familiar with online learning environments.
Besides the lack of a significant difference between the attitude scores, the low level of
relationship between the attitude scores and achievement scores could be said to
demonstrate consistency between the findings obtained in the study.
Lastly, in the study, the influence of the variables of gender, school type, social
network use frequency and online learning experience on the experimental group
students’ achievement scores in the course of STM-I was examined. It was found that
the variable of gender did not have any influence on the students’ achievement scores.
In other studies which examined the influence of gender on students’ achievement and
which did not reveal any significant difference Fettahlioğlu, G(ven, “ka, Çibik, &
Ydoğdu,
Kiliç & Karadeniz,
Yunkul,
, similar results were obtained.
Also, in the study, when the variable of school type was taken into account, the
achievement scores of the students who graduated from vocational high schools were
higher than those of the students who graduated from other types of schools. This
result could be explained with the fact that the students took more computer courses
during their education at vocational schools. This result is also supported with the
findings obtained in other similar experimental studies (Durak, 2009, 2014). Lastly, in
the study, the influence of online learning experiences on students’ achievement scores
was examined, and it was found that this variable did not have any influence on the
students’ achievement scores. This result could be explained with the fact that Edmodo
allows easy use (Durak, Cankaya, & Yunkul, 2014); that it has a design similar to that of
Facebook (Cankaya et al., 2013); and that there is no need for online learning experience
to make effective use of the platform.
In line with the results obtained in the present study, the following suggestions
could be put forward for trainers, researchers and for institutions.
1. Instructors teaching at all education levels from elementary school to higher
education are suggested to use Edmodo in their courses. In this way, lessons will
be more active, more interactive and more controllable.
2. In this experimental study, traditional education and Edmodo-aided education
were compared in terms of students’ academic achievement. In addition, other
researchers could experimentally compare a course taught only via Edmodo with
the one taught with traditional method.
3. Researchers could develop an attitude scale regarding the use of SLN in
education and conduct a large-scale application.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
325
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
4. Comparative studies could be conducted by applying Edmodo to different
disciplines. In this way, the areas to which it is more appropriate could be
investigated.
References
1. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web
2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education,
11(2), 71–80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
2. Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Othman, M. S. (2013). The impact of social media use on
academic performance among university students: A pilot study. Journal Of
Information Systems Research And Innovation, 4(2), 1–10.
3. Anderson, T. (2005). Distance learning – Social software’s killer ap? In Conference
of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia (ODLAA) (pp. 1–12).
Adelaide, South Australia: University of South Australia.
4. Baruah, T. D. (2012). Effectiveness of Social Media as a tool of communication
and its potential for technology enabled connections : A micro-level study.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 2(5), 1–10.
5. Bosch, T. E. (2009). Using online social networking for teaching and learning:
Facebook use at the University of Cape Town. South African Journal for
Communication Theory and Research, 35(2), 185–200.
6. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
7. Brady, K. P., Holcomb, L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social
networking sites in higher educational settings : A case study of the e-learning
benefits of ning in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 151–170.
8. Bye, L., Smith, S., & Rallis, H. M. (2009). Reflection Using an Online Discussion
Forum: Impact on Student Learning and Satisfaction. Social Work Education, 28(8),
841–855. doi:10.1080/02615470802641322
9. Bynum, S. L. (2011). Utilizing social media to increase student engagement: A study of
Kern County public schools. (Unpublished master’s thesis . California State
University Department of Public Policy and Administration, Bakersfield.
10. Cankaya, S., Durak, G., & Yunkul, E. (2013). Using educational social networking
sites in higher education: edmodo through the lenses of undergraduate students.
European Journal of Education Technology, 1(1), 3–23.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
326
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
11. Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P.-Y., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online social networks:
Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337–1343.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028
12. Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning : A current view from a
research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241–254.
13. Cohen, A. (2011). Higher education students’ perspectives of the relevance of the online
social networking site Facebook to education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Walden University College of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
14. Dawson, S. (2006). A study of the relationship between student communication
interaction and sense of community. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 153–
162. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.007
15. Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & ”roers, N. J.
. Students’
experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 496–
514. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.021
16. Ding, N., & Harskamp, E. G. (2011). Collaboration and Peer Tutoring in
Chemistry Laboratory Education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6),
839–863. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.498842
17. Durak, G. (2009). “lgoritma Konusunda Geliştirilen Programlama Mantığı ÖğreticiP.M.Ö Yazılımının Öğrenci ”aşarısına Etkisi. Journal of Chemical Information and
Modeling. ”alıkesir University.
18. Durak, G. (2013). Programlama Dillerinin Cevrimici Ogretimi: Ogrenenlerin
Tutumlarinin,
Memnuniyetlerinin
ve
Akademik
Basarilarinin
Incelenmesi.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitusu,.
19. Durak, G. (2014). The effects of a distance education programming language
course on student performance. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(1),
202–219.
20. Durak, G., Cankaya, S., & Yunkul, E. (2014). Egitimde egitsel sosyal ag sitelerinin
kullanimi: edmodo ornegi. Dumlupınar University Journal of Social Sciences, 41,
309–316. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
21. Ekici, M., & Kiyici, M. (2012). Sosyal aglarin egitim baglaminda kullanimi. Usak
Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 156–167.
22. Enriquez, M. “. S.
. Students’ Perceptions on the Effectiveness of the Use of
Edmodo as a Supplementary Tool for Learning. DLSU Research Congress, 1–6.
23. Erlandson, B. E., Nelson, B. C., & Savenye, W. C. (2010). Collaboration modality,
cognitive load, and science inquiry learning in virtual inquiry environments.
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
327
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
58(6),
693–710.
24. Fettahlioğlu, P., G(ven, E., “ka, E. Ġ., Çibik, “. S., & Ydoğdu, M. “.
. The
Educational
Technology
Research
and
Development,
doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9152-7
Effect of Science Teacher Candidates’ Self- Efficacy towards Science Education on
Academic Achievement. “hi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fak(ltesi Dergisi, 12(3), 159–
175.
25. Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israeli highereducation institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social
networks.
The
Internet
and
Higher
Education,
15(1),
58–68.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.003
26. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a textbased environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and
Higher Education, 2(3), 87–105.
27. Grosseck, G., Bran, R., & Tiru, L. (2011). Dear teacher, what should I write on my
wall? A case study on academic uses of Facebook. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 15(2011), 1425–1430. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.306
28. Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., &
Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of
practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3–16.
Retrieved
from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbdv.200490137/abstract
29. Haytko, D. L., & Parker, R. S. (2012). Social networking tools in a university
setting : a student’s perspective. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 9, 1–9.
30. Hewitt, J. (2003). How Habitual Online Practices Affect the Development of
Asynchronous Discussion Threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
28(1), 31–45. doi:10.2190/PMG8-A05J-CUH1-DK14
31. Hung, H.-T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking
technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 703–714.
doi:10.1080/13562517.2010.507307
32. Inaba, A., & Mizoguchi, R. (2004). Learners Role and Predictible Benefits in
Collaborative Learning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Intellegent
Tutoring Systems (pp. 285–294). Alagoas.
33. Jacobsen, D. A., Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2002). Methods for teaching (6. ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
34. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
(2nd
ed.,
pp.
785–812).
Erlbaum.:
Mahwah.
Retrieved
from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GgCPAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=P
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
328
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
A401&dq=Cooperation+and+the+use+of+technology&ots=A71ZGNQ3p9&sig=ov
Gabn-bVDpFyow24eKvLVi0ktA
35. Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use,
participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers &
Education, 58(1), 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004
36. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college
student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–
132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
37. Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online
environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The
Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179–187. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.003
38. Karpinski, A. C., & Duberstein, A. (2009). A description of Facebook use and
academic performance among undergraduate and graduate students. In
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. San Diego, California.
39. Kert, S. B., & Kert, A. (2010). The usage potential of social network sites for
educational purposes. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2),
486–507.
40. Kiliç, E., & Karadeniz, Ş.
. Cinsiyet ve 5ğrenme Stilinin Gezinme Stratejisi
ve ”a<arıya Etkisi The Effects of Gender and Learning Style on Navigation
Strategy and Achievement. Gazi Eğitim Fak(ltesi Dergisi, 3, 129–146.
41. Kirschner, P. a., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook® and academic
performance.
Computers
in
Human
Behavior,
26(6),
1237–1245.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.024
42. Kongchan, C. (2008). How a non-digital-native teacher makes use of edmodo. In
5th Intenational Conference ICT for Language Learning. Florence.
43. Lawson, T. J., Kleinholz, S. A., & Bodle, J. H. (2011). Using Facebook to connect
alumni, current students, and faculty: A how-to guide. Teaching of Psychology,
38(4), 265–268. doi:10.1177/0098628311421327
44. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, Privacy & Online Social Networks How
teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of Findings.
Washington, D.C.: Pew Inrernet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2007/PIP_Teens_Privacy_SN
S_Report_Final.pdf.pdf
45. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J.
. I’ll see you on Facebook
The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation,
affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1–17.
doi:10.1080/03634520601009710
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
329
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
46. Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher selfdisclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology,
34(2), 175–183. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655
47. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Gender differences in using social
networks. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 133–139.
48. Miller, G. (2011). Social scientists wade into the tweet stream. Science, 333(6051),
1814–1815.
49. Miller, R. L., & Benz, J. J. (2008). Techniques for Encouraging Peer Collaboration:
Online Threaded Discussion or Fishbowl Interaction. Journal of Instructional
Psychology,
35(1),
87–93.
Retrieved
from
https://login.proxy.library.msstate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/log
in.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=31780834&login.asp&site=ehost-live
50. Milli Eğitim ”akanlığı ME” .
. İlköğretim ”ilgisayar Dersi 1-8 Sınıflar
Programı. “nkara ME” Yayınları.
51. Mora-Soto, A., Sanchez, M.-I., Medina, S. F., & Dominguez, A. A. (2009).
Collaborative learning experiences using social networks. Retrieved February 15,
2014, from http://library.iated.org/view/MORASOTO2009COL
52. Nee, C. K.
. The Effect of Educational Networking on Students’
Performance in Biology. International Journal on Integrating Technology in
Education, 3(1), 21–41. doi:10.5121/ijite.2014.3102
53. O’”rien, S. J.
. Facebook and other Internet use and the academic performance of
college students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Temple University
Graduate School.
54. Odabasi, H. F., Misirli, O., Gunuc, S., Timar, Z. S., Ersoy, M., Som, S.,
Erol, O.
(2012). Egitim icin yeni bir ortam: Twitter. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences
International, 2(1), 89–103.
55. Ozdamli, F., & Uzunboylu, H. (2008). Ogretmen adaylarinin teknoloji destekli
isbirlikli ogrenme ortamina yonelik. Cypriot Journal Of Educational Sciences, 5, 28–
36.
56. Ozkan, B., & McKenzie, B. (2008). Social networking tools for teacher education.
In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
(pp. 2772–2776). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
57. Parveen, Q., & Batool, S. (2012). Effect of cooperative learning on achievement of
students in general science at secondary level. International Education Studies, 5(2),
154–158. doi:10.5539/ies.v5n2p154
58. Pempek, T. “., Yermolayeva, Y. “., & Calvert, S. L.
. College students’
social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30(3), 227–238. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
330
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
59. Quan-Haase, a., & Young, a. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A
comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society, 30(5), 350–361. doi:10.1177/0270467610380009
60. Rouis, S., Limayem, M., & Salehi-sangari, E. (2011). Impact of Facebook usage on
students’ academic achievement roles of self-regulation and trust. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 961–994.
61. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. M. (2004). Blended Learning and Sense of Community:
A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1–13.
62. Sanders, K. S. (2012). An examination of the academic networking site Edmodo on
student engagement and responsible learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of South Carolina College of Education.
63. Selwyn, N.
Facebook.
. Faceworking exploring students’ education-related use of
Learning,
Media
and
Technology,
34(2),
157–174.
doi:10.1080/17439880902923622
64. Shier, M. T. (2005). The way technology changes how we do what we do. New
Directions for Student Services, 2005(112), 77–87. doi:10.1002/ss.186
65. Smith, B. V. (2009). Use of online educational social networking in a school
environment. Unpublished master’s thesis . North Carolina State University
Graduate Faculty, Raleigh, North Carolina.
66. Stump, G. S., Hilpert, J. C., Husman, J., Chung, W., Kim, W., & Education, E.
(2011).
Collaborative
Learning
in
Engineering
Students:
Gender
and
Achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 475–497. doi:10.1002/j.21689830.2011.tb00023.x
67. Tarim, K., & Akdeniz, F. (2003). IIlkogretim matematik derslerinde kubasik
ogrenme yonteminin kulanilmasi. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi,
24, 215–223.
68. Ta<pınar, M.
. Kuramdan Uygulamaya Öğretim Yöntemleri. Elazığ Üniversite
Kitapevi.
69. Tinmaz, H. (2013). Sosyal ag web siteleri ve sosyal aglarin egitimde kullanimi. In
K. Cagiltay & Y. Goktas (Eds.), Ogretim Teknolojilerinin Temelleri: Teoriler,
Arastirmalar, Egilimler (pp. 615–630). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
70. Tonta, Y. (2009). Dijital yerliler, sosyal aglar ve kutuphanelerin gelecegi. Turk
Kutuphaneciligi, 23(4), 742–768.
71. Wang, Q., Chen, W., & Liang, Y. (2011). The effects of social media on college
students. Johnson & Wales University ScholarsArchive@JWU MBA Student
Scholarship. Retrieved from http://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/mba_student/5/
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
331
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
72. Warner, B., & Esposito, J.
. What’s not in the syllabus
Faculty
transformation, role modeling and role conflict in immersion service-learning
courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3),
510–517.
73. Wendt, J. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2014). The effect of online collaboration
on middle school student science misconceptions as an aspect of science literacy.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1103–1118. doi:10.1002/tea.21169
74. Wodzicki, K., Schwämmlein, E., & Moskaliuk, J.
learn
. “ctually, I wanted to
Study-related knowledge exchange on social networking sites. The
Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 9–14. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.008
75. Wolf, M. M., Wolf, M., Frawley, T., Torres, A., & Wolf, S. (2012). Using social
media to enhance learning through collaboration in higher education: a case
study. In Agricultural Economics Association 2012 Annual Meeting. Seattle,
Washington.
76. Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogel, D., & Chi-Wai Kwok, R. (2010). Can learning be
virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts.
Computers & Education, 55(4), 1494–1503. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.015
77. Yunkul, E. (2014). Çoklu Ortam Tasarım İlkelerine Göre Hazırlanan Öğretim
Yazılımının ”aşarı ve Tutuma Etkisi. Balikesir University.
78. Zhu, C., & Chang, Z. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge
construction in online collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society,
15(1),
127–136.
Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=72954727&site
=eds-live\nhttp://www.new.ifets.info/index.php/ifets/article/view/18
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
332
Gürhan Durak, Serkan Cankaya, Eyup Yunkul, Gülcan Ozturk
THE EFFECTS OF A SOCIAL LEARNING NETWORK ON STUDENTS’ PERFORM“NCES “ND “TTITUDES
Creative Commons licensing terms
Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall
not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violatio ns and
inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access
Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 3 │ 2017
333