Factors affecting the application of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in distance education: (A case study of Turkey)

Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2004, Pages

  Usun, Salih ^a  

^a ÇANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Developing countries; Distance education; Instructional technology; Open Education Faculty; Turkey

Indexed keywords

EID: 15944416750     PISSN: 13026488     EISSN: 13026488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Demiray, U. (1997). A review of the literature on the Open Education Faculty (1982-1997). An expanded and revised third edition. Anadolu University Publications, No: 1015/558, Eskişehir, Turkey.
2. Evans, T. (1998). Thinking globalisation: Issues for open and distance educators in Australia and the South Pacific. In F. Nouwens, (Ed.), Distance education: Crossing frontiers, (pp. 357-361). Central Queensland University: Rockhampton, Australia.
3. Guy, R. (1991). Distance education in the developing world: Colonisation, collaboration, and control. In T. Evans & B. King, (Eds.), Beyond the text: Contemporary writing in distance education, (pp. 152-175). Deakin University Press.
4. Hyman, H. H., Payaslioglu, A., & Frey, F. W. (1958). The values of Turkish college youth, Public Opinion Quarterly, 22, 275-291.
5. Imamoglu, E. O. (1987). An interdependence model of human development. In Q. Kagitcibasi (Ed.). Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 138-145). Lisle, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
6. Imamoglu, E. O., Kuller, R., Imamoglu, V., & Miller, M. (1993).The social psychological worlds of Swedes and Turks in and around retirement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 26-41.
7. Imamoglu, E. O., & Karakitapoglu, Aygün, Z. (1999). 1970lerden 1990lara degerler: Universite düzeyinde gözlenen zaman, kuşak ve cinsiyet farkliliklari [Value preferences from 1970s to 1990s: Cohort, generation and gender differences at a Turkish university]. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14, 1-22.
8. Kagitcibasi, C. (1973). Psychological aspects of modernization in Turkey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4, 157-174
9. Kagitcibasi, C. (1984). Sex roles, value of children and fertility in Turkey. In Q. Kagitcibasi (Ed.). Sex roles, family and community in Turkey (pp. 151-180). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
10. Levira, Modest, A. (1997). Instructional technology in developing countries At the crossroads: Should The Countries Go Electronic?. International Journal of Instructional Media, 0092815, 24(2).
11. McIsaac, M.S. (1996, November). Learning for the future. Paper presented at Turkey First International Distance Education Symposium. 12-15 November, 1996, MONE, FRTED, Ankara, Turkey. XXVI. XXXIII.
12. Murphy, K. L. (1991a). Sociocultural context of Turkish distance learning. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI: Universty of Winconcin-Madison, 224-230.
13. Murphy, K. L. (1991b). Patronage and oral tradition: Influences on attribution of distance learners in a traditional society (a qualitative study) Distance Education; 12(1), 27-53.
14. Murphy, K. (1996, November). Enhancing Interaction in Turkish Distance Education. Paper presented at the Turkey First International Distance Education Symposium, 12-15 November, 1996, MONE, FRTED, Ankara, Turkey, 417-425.
15. Orson, C.M. & Greenbert, B., (1990). Innovations in instructional materials at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, Africa. International Journal of Instructional Media, 17(2) 163-167.
16. Patsula, P. J. (2002). Practical guidelines for selecting media: An international perspective. The Usableword Monitor, February 1, Web Usability and Information Design Issues.
17. Rajesh, M. (2003). A study of the problems associated with ICT adaptability indeveloping countries in the context of distance education, Turkish On-line Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, April 2003, ISSN 1302-6488, 4(2).
18. Seels, B.B., & Richey, R.C. (1994). Instructional technology: the definition and domains of the field Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Washington. DC.