A practice of e-learning platform in fostering professional development

  • Zenal Sözgün
  • Zehra Altinay
  • Muhammet Berigel
  • Hasal Karal
  • Fahriye Altinay


As a result of this study, provided considerable contributions to examine the e-learning practices from the point of views and experiences of academicians who enrolled academic writing course with the support of Adobe Connect Programme during 10 weeks and also research findings revealed that authentic learning environment enriches critical friendship, dialogue however they have faced with barriers during the process. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of e-learning application by using adobe program on fostering academic writing skills of adult learners as regards to their evaluation. During 10 weeks academic writing course with the support of e-learning practice, participants were asked to indicate their experiences about each of the ten barriers (1) administrative structure, (2) organizational change, (3) technical expertise, (4) social interaction and quality, (5) faculty compensation and time, (6) threat of technology, (7) legal issues, (8) evaluation/effectiveness, (9) access, and (10) student support services. Qualitative research design was employed and action research approach was implemented in this inductive process. (developed by Muilenburg and Berge). In this research, one of the qualitative research approach, the “action research” carried out within the scope of the pattern, a five-phase collaborative coaching model (FCCM) was developed to awareness regarding teaching and learning processes during the course. The process employed authentic learning criteria as critical reflection, preparation, presentation, chat, video, dialogue and facilitation tools. Self-reflection report was used as data collection technique and analysed through thematic analysis.


Academic writing Adobe programme Barriers E-learning Professional development 


  1. Akcil, U., Altinay, F., Altinay, Z.: Assessing the effects of managers in the digital age on the management process of digital citizenship roles. The Antropologist 23(1–2), 209–217 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. Akcıl, U., Aksal, F.A., Mukhametzyanova, F.S., Gazi, Z.A.: An examination of open and technology leadership in managerial practices of education system. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13(1), 119–131 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. Altınay, F., Dagli, G., Altınay, Z.: Role of technology and management in tolerance and reconciliation education. Quant. Qual. Int. J. Methodol. (2016). doi: 10.1007/s11135-016-0419-x Google Scholar
  4. Altınay, L., Parakevas, A.: Planning Research in Hospitality and Tourism. Elsevier, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  5. Bogdan, R.C., Biklen, S.K.: Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Method. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  6. Bates, A.W.: Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  7. Billett, S.: Workplace learning: its potential and limitations. Educ. Train. 37(5), 20–27 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berge, Z.L., Cho, S.K.: Overcoming barriers to distance training and education. Educ. Distance—the USDLA J. ( (2002)
  9. Boulton, J.: Web-Based Distance Education: Pedagogy, Epistemology, and Instructional Design. (2002)
  10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K.: Research Methods in Education. RoutledgeFalmer, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cartaut, S., Bertone, S.: Co-analysis of work in the triadic supervision of pre-service teachers based on neo-Vygotskian activity theory: case study from a French University Institute of Teacher Training. Teach. Teach. Educ. 25, 1086–1094 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. SAGE, London (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Dick, B.: Theory in Action Research. Action Res. 7(5), 5–12 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond, R.M.: The institutional change agency: the expanding role of academic support centers. In: Chadwick-Blossey, S., Robertson, D.R. (eds.) To Improve the Academy, vol. 23, pp. 24–37. Anker Publishing Co., Bolton (2005)Google Scholar
  15. Dooley, L.M., Metcalf, T., Martinez, A.: A study of the adoption of computer technology by teachers. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2(4), 107–115 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.: Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Sage, London (2003)Google Scholar
  17. Dimbleby, R., et al.: More than Words: An Introduction to Communication. Routledge, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  18. Epstein, R.M., Hundert, E.M.: Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 287(2), 226–235 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, R.: Constructivist examined. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 27(1), 23–35 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galusha, J.M.: Barriers to learning in distance education. Interpers. Comput. Technol. Electron. J. 21st Century 5(3/4), 6–14 (1997).
  21. Gazi, Z.A., Aksal, F.A.: Technology as mediation tool for improving teaching profession in higher education practices. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13(3), 803–813 (2017). doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00644a Google Scholar
  22. Hansson, A., Hjeltnes, A.: Cost effectiveness and cost efficiency in e-learning. Interoper. Stand. E-Learning (2005)Google Scholar
  23. Haber, J., Mills, M.: Perceptions of barriers concerning effective online teaching and policies. Commun. Coll. J. Res. Pract. 32, 266–283 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrington, C., Weaven, S.: Action research and reflection on student approaches to learning in large first year university classes. Aust. Educ. Res. 35(3), 111–136 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, S.M., Mally, W., Blevins, L.A., Munroe, J.E.: The U. S. marine corps distance learning program. In: Moore, M.G., Anderson, W.G. (eds.) Handbook of Distance Education, pp. 641–654. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, A.P.: A Short Guide to Action Research. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  27. Joyce, K.M., Brown, A.: Enhancing social presence in online learning: mediation strategies applied to social networking tools. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 12(4). University of West Georgia (, Distance Education Center (2009)Google Scholar
  28. Kaasila, R., Lauriala, A.: Towards a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 854–862 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King, K.P., Lawler, P.A.: New Perspectives on Designing and Implementing Professional Development of Teachers of Adults. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, vol. 98. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  30. Keiny, S.: ‘Conceptual change’ as both revolutionary and evolutionary process. Teach. Teach. Theory Pract. 14(1), 61–72 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lezburg, A.K.: Accreditation: quality control in higher education. In: Moore, M.G., Anderson, W.G. (eds.) Handbook of Distance Education, pp. 425–434. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  32. Lohman, M.C.: Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: a case study of public school teachers. Adult Educ. Q. 50(2), 83–101 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehman, D.: Barriers to Distance Education. (1998)
  34. Morrison, D., Lauzon, A.C.: Reflection on some technical issues of “connecting” learners in online education. Res. Distance Educ. 4(3), 6–9 (1992)Google Scholar
  35. Muilenburg, L.Y., Berge, Z.L.: Barriers to distance education: a factor analytic study. Am. J. Distance 15(2), 7–22 (2001). (
  36. Mills, G.E.: Action Research. A Guide for Teacher Research. Person Education, London (2003)Google Scholar
  37. Mapuva, J., Muyengwa, L.: Conquering the barriers to learning in higher education through e-learning. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 21(2), 221–227 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. Merrill, P.F., Hammons, K., Tolman, M.N., Christensen, L., Vincent, B.R., Reynolds, P.L.: Computers in Education, 2nd edn. Allyn and Bacon, Neddham Heights (1992)Google Scholar
  39. Pardue, S.L.: The virtual revolution. Distance education-new solution to old problem. Poult. Sci. 80(5), 553–561 (2001).
  40. Plomp, T., Anderson, R.E., Law, N., Quale, A.: Cross-National Information and Communication Technology: Policies and Practices in Education. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte (2009)Google Scholar
  41. Post, A.L.: E-learning success model: an information systems perspective electronic. J. E-learning 7(1), 61–70 (2009).
  42. Postholm, M.B.: Cultural historical activity theory and Dewey’s idea-based social constructivism: consequences for educational research. Crit. Soc. Stud. 1, 37–48 (2008)Google Scholar
  43. Park, S.H., Ertmer, P.A.: Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: using a performance support systems approach. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 39(4), 631–643 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rezabek, R.: A Study of the Motives, Barriers, and Enablers Affecting Participation in Adult Distance Education Classes in an Iowa Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service). (1999)
  45. Renyi, J.: Teachers Take Charge of Their Learning. Transforming Professional Development for Student Success and Executive Summary. Washington, DC: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 251) (1996)Google Scholar
  46. Salīte, I., Mičule, I., Kravale, M., Iliško, D., Stakle, A.: Toward the sustainability in teacher education: promise of action research. In: Pipere, A. (ed.) Education and Sustainable Development: First Steps Toward Changes, vol. 2, pp. 263–292. Daugavpils University Academic Press “Saule”, Daugavpils (2007)Google Scholar
  47. Salīte, I., Gedžūne, G., Gedžūne, I.: Educational action research for sustainability: seeking wisdom of insight in teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 11(2), 14–30 (2009)Google Scholar
  48. Salīte, I.: Educational action research for sustainability: constructing a vision for the future in teacher education. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 10, 5–16 (2008)Google Scholar
  49. Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A.E., Eddy, P.L., Beach, A.L.: Creating the Future of Faculty Development: Learning from the Past, Understanding the Present. Anker Publishing Company Inc., Bolton (2006)Google Scholar
  50. Schifter, C.: Perception differences about participating in distance education. Age 94 (2002)Google Scholar
  51. Swail, W.S.: Higher education and the new demographics: questions for policy. Change 34(4), 15–23 (2002)Google Scholar
  52. Sherry, L.: Issues in distance learning. Int. J. Educ. Telecommun. 1(4), 337–365 (1996).
  53. Tham, Chee M., Werner, Jon M.: Designing and evaluating e-learning in higher education: a review and recommendations. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 11, 15–25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Valentine, D.: Distance learning: promises, problems, and possibilities. Online J. Distance Learn. Adm. 5(3), (2002)Google Scholar
  55. Whitehead, J.: Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies. Action Res. 7(1), 85–99 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yates, J.M.: Interactive Distance Learning in Prek-12 Settings. Greenwood Publishing, Westport (2003)Google Scholar
  57. Yıldırım, S.: Current utilization of ICT in Turkish basic education schools: a review of teacher’s ICT use and barriers to integration. Int. J. Instr. Media 34(2), 171–186 (2007)Google Scholar
  58. Zirkle, C., Norris, C., Ainegardner, A., Frustaci, E.: Distance education programming in business education teacher preparation programs in the United States. Career Tech. Educ. Res. 31(2), 101–118 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zenal Sözgün
    • 1
  • Zehra Altinay
    • 1
  • Muhammet Berigel
    • 2
  • Hasal Karal
    • 2
  • Fahriye Altinay
    • 1
  1. 1.Near East UniversityNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.Karadeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations