Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

HİZMETİÇİ ÖĞRETMENLERİN WEB 2.0 ARAÇLARINI KULLANMAYA YÖNELİK FARKINDALIKLARI

Year 2022, Issue: 63, 167 - 192, 31.07.2022

Emine Çetinel Onur Gökhan Özdemir Ahmet Önal

https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1000143

Abstract

Son yıllarda, internet teknolojisi kullanımında yaşanan dönüşüm, Web 2.0 araçlarının ortaya çıkmasına sebep olmuştur. Bu teknolojiler, öğrencileri aktif ve işbirliğine dayalı bir eğitim ortamına dâhil ederek öğrenci merkezli ve teknoloji odaklı öğrenmeyi geliştirme potansiyelleri nedeniyle eğitimcilerin dikkatini çekmiştir. Açıkça ifade etmek gerekirse bu araçlar, tüm dünyada uzaktan eğitime zorunlu bir geçişe yol açan Covid-19 salgınının, aniden patlak vermesi nedeniyle son zamanlarda ön plana çıkmıştır. Buna göre, bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanmaya yönelik algılarını incelemektir. Bu çalışmada, öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 teknolojilerine yönelik algılarını araştırmak için nicel tanımlayıcı anket araştırma deseni kullanılmıştır. Veriler, 22 maddeden oluşan beşli Likert tipi bir ölçek aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Katılımcılar, Isparta ve Afyonkarahisar illerinde devlet okullarında görev yapan 285 öğretmendir. Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik genel algılarının yüksek olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Çalışmada elde edilen bulgular, öğretmenlerin web 2.0 teknolojilerine karşı algılarının cinsiyet, branş ve deneyim yönünden bir değişiklik göstermediğini ortaya koyarken, okul seviyesi, dijital okuryazarlık düzeyi ve uzaktan eğitim deneyimi söz konusu olduğunda önemli farklar gözlemlenmiştir.

Keywords

Covid-19 pandemisi Web 2.0 araçları Uzaktan eğitim Meslekteki öğretmenler

References

  • Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71-80.
  • Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action, Computers in the Schools. 25(3/4), 181-198
  • Almekhlafi, A.G., & Abulibdeh, E.S.A. (2018). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of web 2.0 applications in the United Erab Emirates. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 15(3), 238-261.
  • Badia, A., Garcia, C., & Meneses, J. (2017). Approaches to teaching online: Exploring factors influencing teachers in a fully online university. British Journal of Educational Technology,48(6), 1193–1207.
  • Batsila, M., Tsihouridis, CH., & Vavougios, D. (2014). Entering the web-2 Edmodo world to support learning: Tracing teachers’ opinion after using it in their classes. International Journal of Educational Technology. 9(1), 53-60.
  • Beal, C. M., & Holcomb, L. B. (2010). Capitalizing on web 2.0 in the social studies context, TechTrends, 54(4), 28–33.
  • Bingimlas, K. A. (2017). Learning and teaching with web 2.0 applications in Saudi K-12 schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 99–114.
  • Buffington, L.M. (2008). What is web 2.0 and how can it further art education? Art Education, 61(3), 36-41.
  • Butler, J. W. (2012). Grappling with change: Web 2.0 and teacher educators, In Polly, D., Persichitte, K. & Mims, C. (Eds). Technology in teacher education: Key issues, 135-150 Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Cephe, P. T., & Balçıkanlı, C. (2012). Web 2.0 tools in language teaching: What do student teachers think?. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3, 1-12.
  • CIBER (2007), Information behaviour of the researcher of the future (“Google Generation” Project), CIBER, University College London, www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/ciber/downloads/
  • Crook, C., Cummings, J., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Lewin, C., (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: the current landscape-opportunities, challenges and tensions. A Report Becta.
  • Çobanoğlu, A. A., & Yücel, Z.E. (2017). İngilizce okutmanlarının teknoloji kullanımları ve eğitimde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine yönelik tutumları. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi. 3, 453-461.
  • Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. in eLearn magazine, Education and Technology in Perspective. http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1.
  • Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Collective Intelligence and Elearning, 20, 1-26.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  • Faizi, R., El Afia, A., & Chiheb, R. (2014). Social media: an optimal virtual environment for learning foreign languages. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy. 9. 64-66.
  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take "now"?. Educational Researcher, 38, 246
  • Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. J Comput High Educ, 21, 183
  • Korucu, A. T., & Karalar, H. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğretim elemanlarının web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik görüşleri. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (2), 456-474.
  • Marković, M. G., Rauker, M., & Frančić, M. (2012). Use of web 2.0 tools in teaching. Proceedings of the 35th International Convention, 1279-1283.
  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0−design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
  • Özerbaş, M. A., & Mart, Ö. A. (2017). Pre-service English teachers opinions and utilization levels on the use of web 2.0. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty Journal,18(3), 1152-1167.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
  • Prasojo, L. D., Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., & Yaakob, M. F. M. (2020). Domains of technological pedagogical and content knowledge: Factor analysis of Indonesian in-service EFL teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 593-608.
  • Rennell, N. (2020). Excellent online teaching: The ultimate guide for teachers on prepping successful online classes, developing strategies and mindset, managing time, and engaging students to achieve effective results. Independently published.
  • Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
  • Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. International Society for Technology in Education.
  • Soomro, K., Zai, S., & Jafri, I. (2015). Competence and usage of web 2.0 technologies by higher education faculty, Educational Media International, 52(4), 284-295.
  • Şimşek, Ö., & Yazar, T. (2016). Education technology standards self-efficacy (ETSSE) scale: A validity and reliability study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63, 311-334.
  • Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidel, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
  • Tatli, Z., Akbulut, H.İ., & Altinisik, D. (2016). The impact of web 2.0 tools on pre-service teachers’ self confidence levels about TPCK. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 659–678.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Nobel Yayınevi.
  • Tu, C., Blocher, M., & Ntoruru, J. (2008). Integrate web 2.0 technology to facilitate online professional community: EMI special editing experiences. Educational Media International, 45/4, 253–269.
  • Tweed, S. R. (2013). Technology implementation: Teacher age, experience, self-efficacy, and professional development as related to classroom technology integration. [Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State].
  • Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H. & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient virtual learning environment: A case study of web 2.0 tools and Windows live spaces. Computers & Education, 56(3), 720-726.
  • Wolters, C. A., & Won, S. (2017). Validity and the use of self-report questionnaires to assess self-regulated learning. In Shunk, D. H. & Greene, J. A. (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd Ed.), 307-322, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Yıldırım, B., & Akkuş, A. (2020). Developing a scale to assess teachers’ perceptions towards using web 2.0 tools in lectures (TPUWL Scale). Participatory Educational Research. 7(3), 124-138 . Yuen, S. C. Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Yuen, P. K. (2011). Perceptions, interest, and use: Teachers and web 2.0 tools in education. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 109-123.

IN-SERVICE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS USING WEB 2.0 TOOLS

Year 2022, Issue: 63, 167 - 192, 31.07.2022

Emine Çetinel Onur Gökhan Özdemir Ahmet Önal

https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1000143

Abstract

The transformation experienced in the use of Internet technology in recent years has resulted in the emergence of Web 2.0 tools. These technologies have caught the attention of the educators due to their potential to enhance student-centered and technology-oriented learning by engaging students in an active and collaborative educational environment. These tools, plainly, have come into prominence lately because of the sudden outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, which has led to a compulsory shift to distance education all over the world. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of in-service teachers towards using Web 2.0 tools. In this study, quantitative descriptive survey research design has been employed to investigate in-service teachers’ perceptions towards Web 2.0 technologies. The data were collected through a five point Likert-type scale consisting of 22 items. The participants were 285 in-service teachers working in state schools from Isparta and Afyonkarahisar. It has been found that the overall perceptions of in-service teachers towards using Web 2.0 tools are moderately high. The findings have revealed that perception of teachers does not differ in terms of gender, subject and experience; however, it significantly differs in terms of school level, digital literacy level and distance education experience.

Keywords

Web 2.0 tools In-service teachers Distance education Covid-19 pandemic

References

  • Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71-80.
  • Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action, Computers in the Schools. 25(3/4), 181-198
  • Almekhlafi, A.G., & Abulibdeh, E.S.A. (2018). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of web 2.0 applications in the United Erab Emirates. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 15(3), 238-261.
  • Badia, A., Garcia, C., & Meneses, J. (2017). Approaches to teaching online: Exploring factors influencing teachers in a fully online university. British Journal of Educational Technology,48(6), 1193–1207.
  • Batsila, M., Tsihouridis, CH., & Vavougios, D. (2014). Entering the web-2 Edmodo world to support learning: Tracing teachers’ opinion after using it in their classes. International Journal of Educational Technology. 9(1), 53-60.
  • Beal, C. M., & Holcomb, L. B. (2010). Capitalizing on web 2.0 in the social studies context, TechTrends, 54(4), 28–33.
  • Bingimlas, K. A. (2017). Learning and teaching with web 2.0 applications in Saudi K-12 schools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 99–114.
  • Buffington, L.M. (2008). What is web 2.0 and how can it further art education? Art Education, 61(3), 36-41.
  • Butler, J. W. (2012). Grappling with change: Web 2.0 and teacher educators, In Polly, D., Persichitte, K. & Mims, C. (Eds). Technology in teacher education: Key issues, 135-150 Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  • Cephe, P. T., & Balçıkanlı, C. (2012). Web 2.0 tools in language teaching: What do student teachers think?. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 3, 1-12.
  • CIBER (2007), Information behaviour of the researcher of the future (“Google Generation” Project), CIBER, University College London, www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/ciber/downloads/
  • Crook, C., Cummings, J., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Lewin, C., (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: the current landscape-opportunities, challenges and tensions. A Report Becta.
  • Çobanoğlu, A. A., & Yücel, Z.E. (2017). İngilizce okutmanlarının teknoloji kullanımları ve eğitimde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine yönelik tutumları. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi. 3, 453-461.
  • Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. in eLearn magazine, Education and Technology in Perspective. http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1.
  • Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Collective Intelligence and Elearning, 20, 1-26.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  • Faizi, R., El Afia, A., & Chiheb, R. (2014). Social media: an optimal virtual environment for learning foreign languages. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy. 9. 64-66.
  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take "now"?. Educational Researcher, 38, 246
  • Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. J Comput High Educ, 21, 183
  • Korucu, A. T., & Karalar, H. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğretim elemanlarının web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik görüşleri. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (2), 456-474.
  • Marković, M. G., Rauker, M., & Frančić, M. (2012). Use of web 2.0 tools in teaching. Proceedings of the 35th International Convention, 1279-1283.
  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0−design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
  • Özerbaş, M. A., & Mart, Ö. A. (2017). Pre-service English teachers opinions and utilization levels on the use of web 2.0. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty Journal,18(3), 1152-1167.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
  • Prasojo, L. D., Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., & Yaakob, M. F. M. (2020). Domains of technological pedagogical and content knowledge: Factor analysis of Indonesian in-service EFL teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 593-608.
  • Rennell, N. (2020). Excellent online teaching: The ultimate guide for teachers on prepping successful online classes, developing strategies and mindset, managing time, and engaging students to achieve effective results. Independently published.
  • Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
  • Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. International Society for Technology in Education.
  • Soomro, K., Zai, S., & Jafri, I. (2015). Competence and usage of web 2.0 technologies by higher education faculty, Educational Media International, 52(4), 284-295.
  • Şimşek, Ö., & Yazar, T. (2016). Education technology standards self-efficacy (ETSSE) scale: A validity and reliability study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63, 311-334.
  • Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidel, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
  • Tatli, Z., Akbulut, H.İ., & Altinisik, D. (2016). The impact of web 2.0 tools on pre-service teachers’ self confidence levels about TPCK. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 659–678.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Nobel Yayınevi.
  • Tu, C., Blocher, M., & Ntoruru, J. (2008). Integrate web 2.0 technology to facilitate online professional community: EMI special editing experiences. Educational Media International, 45/4, 253–269.
  • Tweed, S. R. (2013). Technology implementation: Teacher age, experience, self-efficacy, and professional development as related to classroom technology integration. [Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State].
  • Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H. & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient virtual learning environment: A case study of web 2.0 tools and Windows live spaces. Computers & Education, 56(3), 720-726.
  • Wolters, C. A., & Won, S. (2017). Validity and the use of self-report questionnaires to assess self-regulated learning. In Shunk, D. H. & Greene, J. A. (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd Ed.), 307-322, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Yıldırım, B., & Akkuş, A. (2020). Developing a scale to assess teachers’ perceptions towards using web 2.0 tools in lectures (TPUWL Scale). Participatory Educational Research. 7(3), 124-138 . Yuen, S. C. Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Yuen, P. K. (2011). Perceptions, interest, and use: Teachers and web 2.0 tools in education. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 109-123.
There are 38 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Emine Çetinel 0000-0002-1817-3642

Onur Gökhan Özdemir 0000-0002-4969-2963

Ahmet Önal 0000-0002-5325-4958

Publication Date July 31, 2022
Submission Date September 24, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2022 Issue: 63

Cite

APA Çetinel, E., Özdemir, O. G., & Önal, A. (2022). IN-SERVICE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS USING WEB 2.0 TOOLS. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi(63), 167-192. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1000143

Creative Commons Lisansı

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.