Kimya Öğretiminde Web 2.0 Araçları: Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Yeterlikleri ve Görüşlerinin Analizi

Year 2022, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 88 - 114, 30.06.2022

Melis Arzu Uyulgan Nalan Akkuzu Güven

https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1127618

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu araştırma, kimya öğretmeni adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma yeterliklerini ve bu araçlara ilişkin görüşlerini kimya öğretimi bağlamında araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Betimleyici araştırma tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar, Türkiye'de bir devlet üniversitesinin Kimya Eğitimi Bölümü'nde öğrenim gören 27 öğretmen adayıdır. Veriler Web 2.0 Araçları Kullanım Yeterliliği Ölçeği ve Yapılandırılmış Görüşme Formu aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, adayların Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma konusunda orta düzeyde yetkin olduğunu göstermiştir. Adayların çoğu bu araçları bu çalışma çerçevesinde ilk kez deneyimlemişlerdir ve önceden herhangi bir uzmanlığa sahip değillerdir. Görüşme sonuçları, adayların kimya kavramlarının soyut anlamlarından dolayı anlaşılmasının zor olduğunu ve herhangi bir konunun bir karikatür veya animasyon şeklinde Web 2.0 araçları kullanılarak görselleştirildiğinde daha başarılı bir şekilde öğretilebileceğini düşündüklerini göstermiştir. Araştırma sonuçları göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, Web 2.0 teknolojileri konusunda çeşitli projeler, çalıştaylar ve hizmet içi eğitimler düzenlenerek öğretmenlerin ve öğretmen adaylarının bilgi ve yeterlilik kazanmaları önerilmiştir.

Keywords

Web 2.0 araçları, Kimya Eğitimi, Öğretmen Adayları, Yeterlik

Web 2.0 Tools in Chemistry Teaching: An Analysis of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Competencies and Views

Abstract

This research aimed to explore the competencies of the pre-service chemistry teachers (PSCTs) to use Web 2.0 tools and their views on these tools in the context of chemistry teaching. A descriptive design was used. The participants were 27 PSCTs studying at the Department of Chemistry Education at a state university in Turkey. Data were collected through Web 2.0 Tools Usage Competence Scale and Structured Interview Form. The results demonstrated that the PSCTs were moderately competent in using Web 2.0 tools. The majority of them experienced these tools for the first time within the framework of this study and had no prior expertise. The interview results showed that the PSCTs thought that most chemistry subjects are difficult to comprehend due to their abstract sense, and that any subject can be taught more successfully using Web 2.0 tools to visualize it as a comics or animation. Considering the results, it was suggested that pre-service teachers and teachers could acquire knowledge and competencies in Web 2.0 technologies by organizing various projects, workshops and in-service trainings.

Keywords

Web 2.0 tools, Chemistry Education, Pre-Service Teachers, Competency

References

• Aikina, T. Y., & Zubkova, O. M. (2015). Integrating online services into English language teaching and learning: The case of Voki. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 10(3), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i3.4546
• Albion, P. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 181-198.
• Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educational Review, 41(2), 33-44.
• Altıok, S., Yükseltürk, E., & Üçgül, M. (2017). Evaluation of a scientific activity about use of web 2.0 technologies in education: The participants` views. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 6(1), 1-8.
• Arslan, K. & Arı, A. G. (2021). Online science teaching supported by Web 2.0 tool: Virtual museum event. Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 4(2), 285-313. https://doi.org/10.53048/johass.977133
• Avcı, Ü., Kula, A., & Haşlaman, T. (2019). Teachers’ opinions on technology that they want to integrate into the learning-teaching process. Acta Infologica, 3(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.26650/acin.556003
• Bower, M. (2012). A framework for developing pre-service teachers’ Web 2.0 learning design capabilities. In P. C. Mims & K. A. Persichitte (Eds.), Developing technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 58–76). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47, 177-198.
• Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: The implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 1-10.
• Brownstein, E., & Klein, R. (2006). Blogs: Applications in science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(6), 18-22.
• Butler, J. (2012). Grappling with change: Web 2.0 and teacher education. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. A. Persichitte (Eds.), Developing technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 135–150). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Byrne, R. (2009). The effect of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 50-53.
• Bünül, R. (2019). Views of pre-service science teachers on the use of web 2.0 tools in teaching [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. Diyarbakır, Dicle University Institute of Educational Sciences.
• Cardellini, L. (2012). Chemistry: why the subject is difficult?. Educación Química, 23, 305-310.
• Costa, C. (2014). The habitus of digital scholars. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.21274
• Cullen, T. A., & Greene, B. A. (2011). Preservice teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and motivation about technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 29-47.
• Çelik, T. (2021). A scale development study of competence in using web 2.0 tools. Pamukkale University Journal of Education Faculty, 51, 449-478.
• Deebom, M. T., & Amaso, T. F. (2017). The application of web 2.0 in enhancing teaching and learning of technology educational courses in tertiary institutions in rivers state. International Journal of Advanced Academic Research, 3(4), 22-33.
• DoBell, R. (2013). The relationship between Montana science teachers’ self-efficacy and the integration of Web 2.0 elements in the classroom in schools with a student population over 900 [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Missoula, The University of Montana.
• Dönmez-Usta, N., Turan-Güntepe, E., & Durukan, Ü.G. (2020). Competencies of prospective teachers be able to integrate into web 2.0 technologies to learning environment. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(2), 519-529.
• Elmas, R., & Geban, O. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.
• Erdoğdu, F., & Şengül, Ö. A. (2021). The effect of digital teaching materials designed with peer feedback support on problem solving and information-communication technologies competence perceptions. The Journal of Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 11(1), 129-159.
• Ergül Sönmez, E., & Çakır, H. (2021). Effect of Web 2.0 technologies on academic performance: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 5(1), 108-127.
• Faboya, O. T., & Adamu, B. J. (2017). Integrating Web 2.0 tools into teaching and learning process through mobile device technology in Nigerian schools: current status and future directions. International Journal of Education and Research, 5(5), 113-124.
• Fadini, K., & Finardi, K. (2015). Web 2.0 tools for the L2 class. In International Conference on Education and New Developments (pp. 603-607). https://blog.ufes.br/kyriafinardi/files/2018/01/Fadini-Finardi-2015.pdf
• Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2018). The uses and misuses of graphic organizers in content area learning. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 763-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1693
• Franklin, T., & Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-29.
• Fox, W., & Bayat, M. S. (2007). A guide to managing research. Juta Publications.
• Geçgel, H., Kana, F., & Eren, D. (2020). Investigation of the concept of digital competence in terms of different variables in Turkish education. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 8(3), 886-904.
• Gömleksiz, M. N., & Pullu, E. K. (2017). The effect of digital stories developed by using Toondoo on students’ academic achievement and attitudes. Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(32), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12717
• Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
• Gürsoy, G., & Göksun, D. O. (2019). The experiences of pre-service science teachers in educational content development using Web 2.0 tools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(4), 338-357.
• Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183–198.
• Horzum, M. B. (2007). New web-based teaching technologies: Web 2.0 tools. Education Sciences and Implementation, 6(12), 99-121.
• Horzum, M. B. (2010). Investigating teachers’ Web 2.0 tools awareness, frequency and purposes of usage in terms of different variables. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1), 603-634.
• Hung, H., & Yuen, S. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 703-714.
• Hussein, F., & Reid, N. (2009). Working memory and difficulties in school chemistry. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(2), 161-185.
• Hurlburt, S. (2008). Defining tools for a new learning space: Writing and reading class blogs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 182-189.
• Jbeili, I. M. A. (2013). The impact of digital mind maps on science achievement among sixth grade students in Saudi Arabia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1078–1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.435.
• Karadağ, B. F., & Garip, S. (2021). Use of learning apps as Web 2.0 in Turkish teaching. Children, Literature and Language Education Journal, 4 (1), 21-40. https:// doi.org/10.47935/ceded.897374
• Kıyıcı, F. B. (2010). The definitions and preferences of science teacher candidates concerning Web 2.0 tools: A phenomological research study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 185-195.
• Koehler, A. A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2017). Examining the role of Web 2.0 tools in supporting problem solving during case-based instruction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 182-197.
• Kohnke, L. (2020). Make beliefs comix. RELC Journal, 51(2), 321-323.
• Kokoç, M. (2019). Flexibility in e-Learning: Modelling its relation to behavioural engagement and academic performance. Themes in eLearning, 12(12), 1-16.
• Kompen, R. T., Edirisingha, P., Canaleta, X., Alsina, M., & Monguet, J. M. (2019). Personal learning Environments based on Web 2.0 services in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 194-206.
• Konstantinidis, A., Theodosiadou, D., & Pappos, C. (2013). Web 2.0 tools for supporting teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 287-295.
• Kutlu Demir, Ö. (2018). 21st century learning: Integration of Web 2. 0 tools in Turkish adult language classrooms [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Mersin, Çağ University.
• Lawrie, G. A. (2016). Using Web 2.0 technology in assessment of learning in chemistry: Drawing threads between teaching as practice and teaching as research. In M. Schultz, S. Schmid & T. Holme (Eds.), Technology and Assessment Strategies for Improving Student Learning in Chemistry (pp. 47-66). American Chemical Society.
• Lip, P. C. H. (2008). Helping technophobic teachers ease the burden of marking with easy-to-use online quizzes. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 1(2), 97-120.
• Marvasti, A.B. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. London: Sage Ltd.
• Masters, J., & Barr, S. (2010). Young children online: E-learning in a social networking context. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 1(4), 295–304.
• McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath and A. Soong Swee Kit (Ed.). ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Singapore: Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Techn. (pp. 664-675) https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/download/58d33e2eda9f20d9d89087835a2f4ccb3a39970568240035692ba1c5bb672b13/233495/mcloughlin.pdf
• Megawati N.M.S & Utami I.G.A.L.P (2020). English learning with Powtoon animation video. Journal of Education Technology. 4(2), 110-119.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Morais, C., Moreira, L., Paiva, J. C., Monteiro, J., Vieira, H., & Santos, D. (2017). Chemistry 2.0: Building and disseminating chemistry through students generated Web 2.0 content. https://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/23456/Carla%20Morais,%20Luciano%20Moreira,%20Jo%C3%A3o%20C.%20Paiva,%20Juliana%20Monteiro,%20Hugo%20Vieira,%20Diogo%20Santos.pdf?sequence=1
• Myers, J., M. & Halpin, R. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes and use of multimedia technology in the classroom: Constructivist-based professional development training for school districts. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(4), 133-140.
• Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129–132.
• Okoro, E. A., Hausman, A., & Washington, M. C. (2012). Social media and networking technologies: An analysis of collaborative work and team communication. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 5(4), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v5i4.7273
• O’Reilly T. (March, 2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. International Journal of Digital Economics, 65, 17-37.
• 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.
• Pascopella, A. (2008). Web tools: The second generation. District Administration, 44(6), 54-58.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705
• Punie, Y., & Cabrera, M. (2006). The future of ICT and learning in the knowledge society. Luxembourg: European Communities. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22218en.pdf
• Redecker C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of Web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. European Commission Joint Research Center. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC55629.pdf
• Rhoads, R. A., Berdan, J., & Toven‐Lindsey, B. (2013). The open courseware movement in higher education: Unmasking power and raising questions about the movement's democratic potential. Educational Theory, 63(1), 87-110.
• Rich, M. (2008). Millennial students and technology choices for information searching. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 73-76.
• Richards, R. (2010). Digital citizenship and Web 2.0 tools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 516-522.
• Romero, R. M., Vidal Espinosa, L. O., & Hernandez, D. R. (2019). Organic chemistry basic concepts teaching in students of large groups at higher education and Web 2.0 tools. Revista Electrónica “Actualidades Investigativas en Educación”, 19(1), 1-31.
• Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 37-64.
• Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers' beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59(3), 937-945.
• Satpute, T., & Bansode, P. (2016, December). Augmented reality in higher education supported with Web 2.0: A case study in chemistry course. In Techno-Societal 2016, International Conference on Advanced Technologies for Societal Applications (pp. 1033-1041). Springer, Cham.
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2000). Research methods for business students. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
• Say, S., & Yıldırım, F. S. (2020). Investigation of pre-service teachers' Web 2.0 rapid content development self-efficacy belief levels and their views on Web 2.0 tools. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 345-354.
• Şad, S. N. & Özer, N. (2019). Using Kahoot! as a gamified formative assessment tool: A case study, International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 5(1), 43-57.
• Thompson, J. (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for web 2.0 students?. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(4), No: 5. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=innovate
• Unger, K. L., & Tracey, M. W. (2014). Modeling online teaching and learning to pre- and in-service teachers through the use of the Web 2.0 social networking tool NING. In I. Management Association (Ed.), K-12 Education: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 671–687). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
• Uyulgan, M. A., & Akkuzu, N. (2018). Educational short videos to utilize in the biochemistry laboratory: Opinions of university students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(3), 496-510.
• Van Driel, J. H. & De Jong, O. (2015). Empowering chemistry teachers’ learning: Practices and new challenges. In J. García-Martínez & E. Serrano-Torregrosa (Eds.), Chemistry education. Best practices, opportunities and trends (pp. 99-121).
• Vona-Kurt, E. (2017). Evaluation of the high learning contribution of web 2.0 practices in university students perspective. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 7(1), 417-434.
• Wang, S. & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us?. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412-430.
• Weller, A. (2013). The use of Web 2.0 technology for pre-service teacher learning in science education. Research in Teacher Education, 3(2), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.85w24
• Weyant L., & Gardner, C. (2010). Web 2.0 application usages: implications for management education. Journal of Business, Society and Government, 2(2), 67-78.
• Williams, J., & Chinn, S. J. (2009). Using Web 2.0 to support the active learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 165-174.
• Xiao, N. (2008). Web 2.0 as catalyst: Virtually reaching out to users and connecting them to library resources and services. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 55. https://doi.org.//10.5062/F40C4SPW
• Záhorec, J., Hašková, A. & Munk, M. (2021). Self-reflection of digital literacy of primary and secondary school teachers: Case study of Slovakia. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 10(2), 496-508.