SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES OF EFL TEACHERS TOWARDS WEB 2.0 TOOLS

Year 2021, , 235 - 250, 31.12.2021

Eyyup Yaprak Gülden Tüm

https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1031764

Abstract

Web 2.0 technologies have increased the importance of foreign languages in recent years. Teachers are expected to encourage students to use these tools, which can be easily included in many of the activities done in the classroom. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate EFL teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools. The mixed method design including the quantitative and qualitative data was utilized. The data was collected from 202 EFL teachers from 183 different public schools in Diyarbakır-Turkey. The quantitative data was gathered through a questionnaire consisting of four parts including demographic information, Web 2.0 Tools Integration Instrument (W2TII), Web 2.0 Tools Integration Self-Efficacy Instrument (WTISEI), and the Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour (DTPB) Model to Measure Attitudes. In the qualitative data collection phase, a set of semi-structured interview questions developed by Farah (2011) were used to gather data in considerable detail from the 10 volunteer teachers of English. The data was analysed through SPSS edition 24.0 program and content analysis. The findings unveiled that there was not any significant difference between the self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes of the EFL teachers and their Web 2.0 tools usage according to the demographic variables. However, the results revealed a significant difference between self-efficacy and attitudes of the EFL teachers towards the Web 2.0 tools.

Keywords

WEB 2.0 Tools, Self-efficacy Beliefs, EFL Teachers

Supporting Institution

-

Project Number

-

Thanks

-

İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN WEB 2.0 ARAÇLARINA YÖNELİK ÖZYETERLİK İNANÇ VE TUTUMLARI

Abstract

Web 2.0 teknolojilerinin yaygın kullanımı son yıllarda yabancı dillerin önemini artırmıştır. Öğretmenlerin, öğrencileri sınıfta yaptıkları pek çok etkinliğe kolayca dahil edilebilen ve öğrencilerin eğitim hayatını kolaylaştıracak bu araçları kullanmaya teşvik etmeleri beklenmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada İngilizce öğretmenlerinin Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanımına yönelik öz-yeterlilik inançları ve tutumları incelenmiştir. Çalışma, nicel ve nitel verileri içeren karma yöntemle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler, Diyarbakır ilinde bulunan 183 farklı devlet okulunda çalışan gönüllü İngilizce öğretmenlerden toplanmıştır. Nicel veriler, Web 2.0 Araçları Entegrasyon Aracı (W2TII) ve Web 2.0 Araçları Entegrasyon Öz-Yeterlik Aracı (WTISEI), Tutumları Ölçmek için Ayrıştırılmış Planlanan Davranış Teorisi (DTPB) Modeli içeren dört bölümden oluşan bir anket aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Farah (2011) tarafından geliştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme soruları detaylı veri toplamak için kullanılmıştır. Veriler SPSS 24.0 programı ve içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin öz-yeterlik inançları, tutumları ve Web 2.0 araçları kullanımı arasında demografik değişkenlere göre anlamlı bir fark olmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Bununla birlikte, sonuçlar, İngilizce öğretmenlerinin Web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik öz-yeterlikleri ile tutumları arasında anlamlı bir fark olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

Web 2.0 Araçları, Öz-yeterlilik İnançları, İngilizce Öğretmenleri, tutumlar, İngilizce Öğrenimi

Project Number

-

References

• Abbitt, J., (2011). An Investigation of the Relationship between Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Technology Integration and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) among Preservice Teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143. 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.
• Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
• Batsila, M., Vavougios, D., Tsihouridis, C., & Ioannidis, G. S. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of Web 2.0 tools in educational practice - A critical approach. 2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL). Presented at the 2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL).
• Brown, R. (2009). Public relations and the social web: How to use social media and web 2.0 in communications. Kogan Page.
• Chartland, R. (2012). Social networking for language learners: Creating meaningful output with Web 2.0 tools. Knowledge Management and E-learning: An International Journal, 4(1), 97-101.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd Ed.). Erlbaum.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
• Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. York, UK: HEA Academy.
• Data Reportal. (2019). Digital in 2019: Turkey. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-turkey
• Davies, J. & Merchant, G. (2008). Web 2.0 for Schools: Learning and Social participation. Peter Lang Publishing.
• Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.
• Demirkan, O. (2019). Pre-service Teachers’ Views about Digital Teaching Materials. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(1), 40-60.
• Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
• Farah, A. C. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ technology self-efficacy: A case study. Published Doctoral Dissertation, Liberty University.
• Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Ed.). Sage publications.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed.). McGraw Hill.
• Gabriel, M. A., and Macdonald, C. J. (1996). “Preservice teacher education students and computers: how does intervention affect attitudes?”, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 4(2), 91-116.
• Haydn, T.A. and Barton, R. (2007). Common need sand different agendas: How trainee teachers make progress in their ability to use ICT in subject teaching. Some lessons from the UK. Computers and Education, 49(4), 1018–1036.
• Horzum, M. B. (2007). Web tabanlı yeni öğretim teknolojileri: Web 2.0 araçları [New Web-based teaching technologies: Web 2.0 tools]. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 6(12), 99-121.
• Horzum, M. B. (2011). Adaptation of Web Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey to Turkish. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 257–272.
• Kia Heirati, J., & Ahmadi Alashti, L. (2015). Attitudes toward using the Internet for language learning: A case of Iranian English teachers and learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(1).
• Kostoula-Christina, K. (2016). Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of Web 2.0 tools in EFL teaching. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 46.
• Kreijns, K., Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., & Buuren, H. (2013). What stimulates teachers to integrate ICT in their pedagogical practices? The use of digital learning materials in education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(1), 217–225.
• LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.
• Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Garcia, L., Reifsneider, D., & Baas, J. (2009). Leadership for Web 2.0 in education: Promise and reality. Metiri Group.
• Lodico, M., Spaulding, D. & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. Jossey-Bass.
• Ministry of National Education. (1997). Çağı Yakalama 2000 Projesi [Three-Year Catch 2000 Project]. Ankara: MEB Araştırma, Planlama ve Koordinasyon Kurulu.
• Ministry of National Education. (2011). the FATIH Project. http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/en/?page_id=10
• Neuman, W. (2013). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
• O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software? Communications & Strategies, 65, 17-37.
• Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is It Age or IT: First Steps towards Understanding the Netgeneration. In D. Oblinger, & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1-2.20). Educause.
• Özel, A. G., & Arikan, A. (2015). The Use of the Internet and Web 2.0 Tools among EFL Instructors. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 5(1), 313–313.
• Pacis, D., Sytsma, C., Weegar, M. A., Keough, P., Wheeler, D., & Bustillos, T. (2012). Educational achievement and satisfaction through generations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 21, 57-62.
• Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-service teachers’ self-efficacy, professional development, and Web 2.0 tools for integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28–40.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: A new way to look at our kids and ourselves. On the Horizon, 9(5).
• Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.
• Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (3rd ed.). SAGE.
• Schulmeister, R. (2008). Is There a Net Generation in the House? Dispelling a Mystification. eLeed. http://eleed.campussource.de
• Smith, M.B. (1968). Attitude change. International encyclopaedia of the social sciences. Crewell Collier and Mac Millan.
• Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Eugene, Or: International Society for Technology in Education.
• Thompson, J. (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for web 2.0 students?. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(4), No: 5.
• Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., and Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142.
• Ursavaş, Ö. F., Şahin, S. & McIlroy, D. (2014). Technology Acceptance Measure for Teachers : T-TAM. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(4), 885-917.
• Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540