Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Eğitiminde Farklı Kurumlarda Görev Alan Akademisyenlerin Web 2.0 Araçlarına Yönelik Davranışlarının ve Kullanım Sıklığının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Teknolojik yeniliklerin hayatımızda kendini gösterdiği alanlardan biri de eğitimdir. Yaşanan gelişimlerle birlikte yükseköğretimde yeni teknolojilerin geleneksel öğretime dahil edilmesi kaçınılmazdır. Bu noktada Web 2.0 araçlarının eğitime entegre edilmesi ve sıklıkla kullanılması önemlidir. Web 2.0 araçlarının eğitimdeki rolünü etkileyen en önemli unsurlardan biri akademisyenlerin tercihleridir. Bu araştırmanın amacı ülkemizde Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon eğitiminde görev alan akademisyenlerin Web 2.0 kullanımını analiz etmek ve göstermektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Literatürde yer alan Web 2.0 araçlarını içeren bir değerlendirme formu araştırmacılar tarafından oluşturuldu. Türkiye’de Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü’nde aktif olarak eğitim veren akademisyenlerden demografik bilgi formu ile araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan değerlendirme formunu cevaplamaları istendi. Akademisyenlerin cevapları ‘Google Forms’ üzerinden kaydedildi. Bulgular: Çalışma, araştırma görevlisi (%32), öğretim görevlisi (%20), doktor öğretim üyesi-doktor (%23), doçent (%12) ve profesör (%11) olmak üzere toplamda 130 akademisyenin katılımıyla tamamlandı. Akademisyenler tarafından en çok tercih edilen Web 2.0 aracı ‘Zoom’(%96,25) olurken en az tercih edilen araç (%5,4) ile ‘Genially’ olarak belirlendi. Akademisyenlerin büyük çoğunluğunun Padlet (%83), Mindmeister (%92), edX (%88) ve Camtasia (%87) araçlarını hiç tercih etmediği bulundu. Sonuç: Genel olarak ortak çalışma alanı oluşturma, içerik geliştirme, veri toplama, interaktif soru araçları, eğitim platformu ve sosyal medya araçlarının akademisyenler tarafından eğitimde kullanılma oranları düşüktü. ‘Youtube’, ‘Google Forms’ ve ‘Zoom’ uygulamalarının ise sıklıkla tercih edildiği görüldü. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon eğitiminde akademisyenlerin Web 2.0 aracı kullanımlarının geliştirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Web 2.0
• fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon
• yükseköğretim

Evaluation of the Behaviors and Usage Frequency of Academicians Working in Different Institutions in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Education towards Web 2.0 Tools

Abstract

Objectives: One of the areas where technological innovations show themselves in our lives is education. With the developments experienced, it's inevitable to include new technologies in education in higher education. It's important to integrate Web 2.0 tools into education. One of the most important factors affecting the role of this tools in education is the preferences of academics. The purpose of this research is to analyze the use of Web 2.0 by the academicians involved in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation education in our country. Materials and Methods: An evaluation form was created by the researchers. Academicians of the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department in Turkey were asked to answer the demographic information and the evaluation form prepared by the researchers. The answers of the academicians were recorded via 'Google Forms'. Results: The research was completed with 130 academicians, including research assistants (32%), lecturer (20%), assistant professor-Ph.D. (23%), associate professor (12%) and professor (11%). While the most preferred Web 2.0 tool was 'Zoom' (96.25%), the least preferred tool (5.4%) was 'Genially'. It was found that the majority of the academicians didn't prefer Padlet (83%), Mindmeister (92%), edX (88%) and Camtasia (87%). Conclusion: In general, the use of collaborative workspace, content development, data collection, interactive question tools, educational platform and social media tools in education by academics was low. It was seen that 'Youtube', 'Google Forms' and 'Zoom' applications were frequently preferred. The results of this study show that the use of Web 2.0 tool by academicians in Physiotherapy education should be improved.

Keywords

• Web 2.0
• physiotherapy and rehabilitation
• higher education

References

1. Ahmed, A. M., AbdelAlmuniem, A., ve Almabhouh, A. A. (2016). The Current Use of Web 2.0 Tools in University Teaching from the Perspective of Faculty Members at the College of Education. International Journal of Instruction, 9(1), 179-194. http://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.9114a
2. Alblehai, F. (2016). The utilization of Web 2.0 tools in Saudi Higher Education: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Internet of Things, 5(1), 37-40. http://doi.org/ 10.5923/j.ijit.20160501.05
3. Arnavut, A., Bicen, H., & Nuri, C. (2019). Students’ approaches to massive open online courses: the case of Khan Academy. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 10(1), 82-90.
4. Atıcı, B., ve Yıldırım, S. (2010, Şubat, 10-12). Web 2.0 uygulamalarının e-öğrenmeye etkisi. [Sözel sunum]. XII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, Muğla, Türkiye.
5. Basilotta-Gómez-Pablos, V., Matarranz, M., Casado-Aranda, L.-A., ve Otto, A. (2022). Teachers’ digital competencies in higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 1-16. http://doi.org/ 10.1186/s41239-021-00312-8
6. Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., ve Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers ve education, 59(2), 524-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022
7. Besong, F., ve Holland, C. (2015). The dispositions, abilities and behaviours (DAB) framework for profiling learners’ sustainability competencies in higher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 17(1), 5-22. http://doi.org/ 10.1515/jtes-2015-0001
8. Bramstedt, K. A., Ierna, B. N., & Woodcroft-Brown, V. K. (2014). Using SurveyMonkey® to teach safe social media strategies to medical students in their clinical years. Communication & Medicine, 11(2), 117. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v11i2.27556

9. Bubas, G., Coric, A., ve Orehovacki, T. (2011, June). Strategies for implementation of Web 2.0 tools in academic education. [Sözel sunum]. 17th European University Information Systems International Congress, Dublin, Ireland.
10. Cabrera-Solano, P. (2022). Game-Based Learning in Higher Education: The Pedagogical Effect of Genially Games in English as a Foreign Language Instruction. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 8(4), 719-729. http://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.8.4.719
11. Collis, B., ve Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106. http://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802107179
12. Cortés-Pérez, I., Zagalaz-Anula, N., López-Ruiz, M. d. C., Díaz-Fernández, Á., Obrero-Gaitán, E., ve Osuna-Pérez, M. C. (2023). Study Based on Gamification of Tests through Kahoot!™ and Reward Game Cards as an Innovative Tool in Physiotherapy Students: A Preliminary Study. Healthcare, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11040578
13. Churiyah, M., Basuki, A., Filianti, F., Sholikhan, S., & Akbar, M. F. (2022). Canva for education as a learning tool for center of excellence vocational school (SMK Pusat Keunggulan) program to prepare competitive graduates in the field of creativity skills in the digital age. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 5(3), 226-234. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v5i3.228
14. Cumhur, F., ve Çam, S. S. (2021). Digital Transformation in Assessment and Evaluation Course: The Effects of Web 2.0 Tools. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(3), 15-39. http://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021370559
15. Demir, Y. P., Çirak, Y., Yilmaz, G. D., Dalkilinç, M., ve Kömürcü, M. (2014). Fizyoterapi öğrencilerinde bireysel öğrenme stillerinin önemi [The importance of individual learning styles in physiotherapy students]. Türk Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 1(25), 1-7. http://doi.org/10.7603/s40680-014-0001-1
16. Deni, A. R. M., ve Zainal, Z. I. (2018, October). Padlet as an educational tool: Pedagogical considerations and lessons learnt. [Sözel sunum]. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, Tokyo, Japan.
17. Dewitt, D., Alias, N., & Siraj, S. (2015). Collaborative learning: Interactive debates using Padlet in a higher education institution.
18. Echeng, R., ve Usoro, A. (2016). Enhancing the use of web 2.0 technologies in higher education: Students’ and lectures’ views. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 25(1), 6. http://doi.org/10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2016.0138
19. Elmas, R., ve Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254. https://www.ajindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423904346.pdf
20. Eyüp, B. (2022). Examination of Turkish Language Teachers' Competencies for Using Web 2.0 Tools. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education (INUJFE), 23(1). http://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.952051
21. George, D. R., Dreibelbis, T. D., ve Aumiller, B. (2013). Google Docs and SurveyMonkey™: lecture-based active learning tools. Medical education, 47(5), 518-518. http://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12172
22. Heart J. (2022, August 30). Top 100 Tools for Learning 2022. https://toptools4learning.com/analysis-2022/ Hermita, N., Putra, Z. H., Alim, J. A., Wijaya, T. T., Anggoro, S., ve Diniya, D. (2021). Elementary Teachers' Perceptions on Genially Learning Media Using Item Response Theory (IRT). Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 4(1), 1-20. http://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v4i2.14757
23. Hollinderbäumer, A., Hartz, T., & Ückert, F. (2013). Education 2.0-How has social media and Web 2.0 been integrated into medical education? A systematical literature review. GMS Zeitschrift für medizinische Ausbildung, 30(1). http://doi.org/10.3205/zma000857
24. Horzum, M. B. (2010). Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarından haberdarlığı, kullanım sıklıkları ve amaçlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigating teachers' Web 2.0 tools awareness, frequency and purposes of usage in terms of different variables]. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 603-634. https://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423936655.pdf
25. Katz, M., ve Nandi, N. (2021). Social media and medical education in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: scoping review. JMIR medical education, 7(2), e25892. http://doi.org/10.2196/25892
26. Krome, L. R. (2020). A review of Zoom utilization in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education, 1(1-2020), 11-26.
27. Lim, T. M., ve Yunus, M. M. (2021). Teachers’ perception towards the use of Quizizz in the teaching and learning of English: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(11), 6436. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116436
28. Lwoga, E. (2012). Making learning and Web 2.0 technologies work for higher learning institutions in Africa. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 90-107. http://doi.org/10.1108/10650741211212359
29. Martínez López, V., Campo Mon, M. Á., Fueyo Gutiérrez, E., & Dobarro González, A. (2022). Kahoot! As an innovative educational gamification proposal in Higher Education. Digital Education Review. https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2022.42.34-49
30. Mata, L., Panisoara, G., Fat, S., Panisoara, I.-O., ve Lazar, I. (2019). Exploring the Adoptions by Students of Web 2.0 Tools for E-Learning in Higher Education: Web 2.0 Tools for E-Learning in Higher Education. In Advanced Web Applications and Progressing E-Learning 2.0 Technologies in Higher Education (pp. 128-149). IGI Global. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7435-4.ch007
31. Muhanna, W. (2018). Using Camtasia videos in assigned projects for middle east university students and their attitudes towards it. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 8(11), 75-82. http://doi.org/10.30845/ijhss.v8n11p9
32. N. Bezus, S., A. Abduzhalilov, K., ve K. Raitskaya, L. (2020). Distance Learning Nowadays: the Usage of Didactic Potential of MOOCs (on platforms Coursera, edX, Universarium) in Higher Education. [Sözel sunum].. 2020 The 4th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology, New York, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/3416797.3416839.
33. Oktavia, T., Prabowo, H., & Supangkat, S. H. (2018). The comparison of MOOC (massive open online course) platforms of edx and coursera (study case: Student of programming courses). In 2018 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) (pp. 339-344). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICIMTech.2018.8528178
34. Ødegaard, N. B., Myrhaug, H. T., Dahl-Michelsen, T., ve Røe, Y. (2021). Digital learning designs in physiotherapy education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medical education, 21, 1-18. http://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12909-020-02483-w.
35. Ramachandiran, C. R., & Mahmud, M. M. (2018). Padlet: A technology tool for the 21st century students skills assessment. ICEAP 2019, 1(1), 101-107. http://doi.org/ 10.26499/iceap.v1i1.81
36. Roopa, S., ve Rani, M. (2012). Questionnaire designing for a survey. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, 46(4_suppl1), 273-277. http://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1104
37. Sari, D. E., Ftriani, S. A., ve Saputra, R. C. (2020, January). Active and interactive learning through Quizlet and Kahoot. International Conference on Online and Blended Learning 2019 (ICOBL 2019), Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
38. Shirazi, F., ve Heidari, S. (2019). The relationship between critical thinking skills and learning styles and academic achievement of nursing students. The journal of nursing research, 27(4), e38. http://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000307
39. Stander, J., Grimmer, K., ve Brink, Y. (2019). Learning styles of physiotherapists: a systematic scoping review. BMC medical education, 19(1), 1-9. http://doi.org/ 10.1186/s12909-018-1434-5.
40. Tan Ai Lin, D., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2018). Kahoot! It: Gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1).
41. Venkatesh, V., Croteau, A.-M., ve Rabah, J. (2014). Perceptions of effectiveness of instructional uses of technology in higher education in an era of Web 2.0. 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.22
42. Ward, R., Moule, P., & Lockyer, L. (2009). Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies in Education for Health Professionals in the UK: Where Are We and Why?. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(2), 165-172.
43. Weller, M., ve Dalziel, J. (2011). Bridging the gap between web 2.0 and higher education. In Virtual Communities: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 1660-1672). IGI Global. http://doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-60566-208-4.ch030.
44. Yavuz, M., Kayalı, B., Balat, Ş., ve Karaman, S. (2020). Salgin Sürecinde Türkiye’deki Yükseköğretim Kurumlarinin Acil Uzaktan Öğretim Uygulamalarinin İncelenmesi [Investigation of Emergency Distance Education Applications of Higher Education Institutions in Turkey during the Pandemic Process]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 129-154. http://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.784822