Understanding Turkish students’ preferences for distance education depending on financial circumstances: A large-scale CHAID analysis

International Review of Education volume 63, pages197–212(2017)Cite this article

Abstract

In the past, distance education was used as a method to meet the educational needs of citizens with limited options to attend an institution of higher education. Nowadays, it has become irreplaceable in higher education thanks to developments in instructional technology. But the question of why students choose distance education is still important. The purpose of this study was to determine Turkish students’ reasons for choosing distance education and to investigate how these reasons differ depending on their financial circumstances. The author used a Chi squared Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) analysis to determine 18,856 Turkish students’ reasons for choosing distance education. Results of the research revealed that Turkish students chose distance education not because of geographical limitations, family-related problems or economic difficulties, but for such reasons as already being engaged in their profession, increasing their knowledge, and seeking promotion to a better position.

Résumé

Comprendre la préférence des étudiants turcs pour l’enseignement à distance en fonction de leur situation financière : Une analyse CHAID à grande échelle – Dans le passé, l’enseignement à distance servait à répondre aux besoins éducatifs de citoyens pouvant difficilement fréquenter un établissement d’enseignement supérieur. De nos jours, grâce à l’évolution de la technologie éducative, il est devenu irremplaçable au sein de l’enseignement supérieur. Cependant, il importe toujours de comprendre pourquoi les étudiants choisissent cette méthode d’enseignement. La présente étude visait ainsi à cerner les raisons pour lesquelles des étudiants turcs optent pour l’enseignement à distance et à étudier en quoi ces motivations diffèrent selon leur situation financière. Une analyse à l’aide du détecteur automatique d’interaction fondé sur le test du chi carré (méthode CHAID) a permis de déterminer les raisons pour lesquelles 18 856 étudiants turcs ont choisi l’enseignement à distance. Les résultats de cette recherche ont révélé que ce choix ne s’effectue pas en raison de restrictions géographiques mais parce que les étudiants exercent déjà une profession, souhaitent accroître leurs connaissances ou cherchent à être promus à un meilleur poste.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Malcolm Shepherd Knowles (1913–1997) suggested four principles of andragogy (the art and science of adult education). They are: (1) Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction; (2) Experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for the learning activities; (3) Adults are most interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance and impact to their job or personal life; and (4) Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented (Kearsley 2017).

  2. 2.

    A decision tree is a structure which starts with one question (a node) and then branches out (like a tree), depending on which answer (another node) is chosen, and each of those answers then branches out further into its possible consequences.

  3. 3.

    One Turkish Lira (TL) currently (Feb 2017) converts to about 0.28 US-Dollars (USD).

  4. 4.

    Named after Italian mathematician Carlo Emilio Bonferroni (1892–1960), a Bonferroni-corrected probability value counteracts the problem of multiple comparisons.

References

  1. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biggs, D., De Ville, B., & Suen, E. (1991). A method of choosing multi-way partitions for classification and decision trees. Journal of Applied Statistics, 18(1), 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds) (2015). MOOCs and open education around the world. Routledge.

  4. Bray, N. J., Harris, M. S., & Major, C. (2007). New verse or the same old chorus? Looking holistically at distance education research. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 889–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dudley, W. N., Dilorio, C., & Soet, J. (2000). Detecting and explicating interactions in categorical data. Nursing Research, 49(1), 53–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fırat, M. (2012). Determination of educators’ radical and transformative approaches on the future of schools. Journal of Future Education, 1(2), 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Firat, M. (2016). Measuring the e-learning autonomy of distance education students. Open Praxis, 8(3), 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Flinck, R. (1979). The research project on two-way communication in distance education: An overview. Epistolodidactica, 1–2, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Garrison, D. R. (1987). Researching dropout in distance education. Distance Education, 8(1), 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilbert, S. W. (1995). Why distance education?. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin., 48, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and practice of distance education. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Horner, B. S., Fireman, D. G., & ve Wang, W. E. (2010). The relation of student behavior, peer status, race and gender to decisions about school discipline using CHAID decision trees and regression modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(2), 135–161.

  13. Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online distance education compared to face-to-face education. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 10(1), article 253 [online]. Retrieved 13 October 2016 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Jahng_Krug_Zhang.pdf.

  14. Kass, G. V. (1980). An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data. Applied Statistics, 29(2), 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kayri, M., & Boysan, M. (2007). Using chaid analysis in researches and an application pertaining to coping strategies. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(2), 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kearsley, G. (2017). Andragogy (M. Knowles). In Explorations in learning & instruction: The theory into practice database [online resource]. Retrieved 21 February 2017 from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/andragogy.html.

  17. Leach, R., & Webb, R. (1993). Opportunities through open learning. In J. Calder (Ed.), Disaffection and diversity: Overcoming barriers for adult learners (pp. 91–109). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Li, F., Zhou, M., & Fan, B. (2014). Can distance education increase educational equality? Evidence from the expansion of Chinese higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1811–1822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Liu, O. L. (2012). Student evaluation of instruction: In the new paradigm of distance education. Research in Higher Education, 53(4), 471–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Michael, J., & Gordon, S. (2004). Data mining technique for marketing, sales and customer support (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Medel-Añonuevo, C., Ohsako, T., & Mauch, W. (2001). Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mupinga, D. M. (2005). Distance education in high schools: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(3), 105–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nichols, M. (2010). Student perceptions of support services and the influence of targeted interventions on retention in distance education. Distance Education, 31(1), 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ohler, J. (1991). Why distance education? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 514(1), 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pop, A. (2016). 5 important criteria to choose a distance learning programme [online article]. Distancelearningportal, 6 March. Retrieved 13 October 2016 from http://www.distancelearningportal.com/articles/366/5-important-criteria-to-choose-a-distance-learning-programme.html?attempt=1.

  27. Robinson, R. (1992). Andragogy applied to the open college learner. Research in Distance Education, 4(1), 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sweet, R. (1986). Student dropout in distance education: An application of Tinto’s model. Distance Education, 7(2), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tansel, A., & Bodur, F. B. (2012). Wage inequality and returns to education in Turkey: A quantile regression analysis. Review of Development Economics, 16(1), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tait, A. (2000). Planning student support for open and distance learning. Open Learning, 15(3), 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Türk-İş (2013). Açlık ve Yoksulluk Sınırı Araştırması, Eylül 2013 [Poverty Limit Survey, 2013]. Ankara: Türkiye İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu.

  33. Wallace, L. (2007). Changes in the demographics and motivations of distance education students. International Journal of e-Learning & Distance Education, 11(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Winograd, K. (2002). ABCs of the virtual high school. The Technology Source, March/April. Retrieved 21 August 2016 from http://www.technologysource.org/article/abcs_of_the_virtual_high_school/.

Download references

Acknowledgements

In this study, data were collected in 2013 within the scope of four years’ periodical studies on students’ opinions about open and distance education.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Distance Education, Open Education Faculty, Anadolu University, 26470, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Mehmet Firat

Authors
  1. Mehmet Firat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Firat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Firat, M. Understanding Turkish students’ preferences for distance education depending on financial circumstances: A large-scale CHAID analysis. Int Rev Educ 63, 197–212 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9633-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Distance education
  • student preferences
  • household income
  • Chi squared Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) analysis