Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Metaphoric Perceptions and Views of Preschool and Elementary Teachers on the Concept of "Web 2.0 Tools"

Year 2020, , 142 - 165, 31.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.800117

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to determine the perceptions of the concept of "Web 2.0 tools" through metaphors based on the Web 2.0 tools used by preschool and elementary school teachers in their education and training processes and to reveal their views about the Web 2.0 tools they use. In line with this general purpose, the following questions were asked in the study:
1. What metaphors do the participating teachers refer to relating to the concept of "Web 2.0 tools"?
2. What common features do the conceptual themes of the metaphors share?
3. What are the opinions of the participating teachers about the Web 2.0 tools they use in the education process? The purpose of the research was to guide researchers, academicians, and educators who research on Web 2.0 tools and want to improve themselves in this field, to provide information and to reveal their use in the education process from the perspective of teachers. For this purpose, this research, which was created as a qualitative study, has a phenomenological design. In line with the main purpose of the study, participating teachers were asked to fill out voluntarily an online form. The participants group of the study consisted of 70 teachers working in educational institutions affiliated with the Ministry of National Education in the first period of the 2019-2020 academic year. A content analysis technique was used to analyze the data. At the end of the study, it was determined that the teachers produced 54 metaphors related to the concept of Web 2.0 tools. It is seen that the first three metaphors most produced by teachers are “tree, child and game” metaphors. In line with the analysis made; three themes were created: "Web 2.0 tools in terms of the benefits of use in the education process", "Web 2.0 tools in terms of the necessity to be used by teachers in the education process" and Web 2.0 tools in terms of its continuous development and change. A total of 45 metaphors were developed under the theme "In terms of the benefits of using Web 2.0 tools in education and training process". In the research, it is seen that metaphors are mostly developed in this theme. A total of 17 metaphors have been developed under the theme, as Web 2.0 tools should be used by teachers in the education and training process. Among these metaphors, it is seen that the metaphors of tree and child mostly take place. With tree and child metaphors, teachers emphasize that Web 2.0 tools are constantly evolving and that teachers can create beautiful products in the education process by following innovations and improving themselves in this field. With these metaphors, they indicated that participant teachers should follow developments in using Web 2.0 tools in the education process. Eight metaphors were developed in the Web 2.0 tools theme in terms of its continuous development and change, which is the last theme in the research.

References

  • 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.
  • Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4), 181-198.
  • Altun, A. (2008). Yapılandırmacı öğretim sürecinde viki kullanımı. In International Educational Technology Conference (IETC), Eskişehir, Türkiye.
  • Bonk, C. J. (2009). The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). We 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106.
  • Conole, G., &Alevizou, P. (2010) A Literature Review of the Use of Web 2.0 Tools in Higher Education. York: Higher Education Academy.
  • Demir, Ö. (2017). İDKAB teaching candidates’ perception on environment. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(5), 1700-1714.
  • Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148. doi: 10.1080/01587910500081376.
  • Elmas, R., ve Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.
  • Forceville, C. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1-14.
  • Hamann, K., Pollock, P., &Wilson, B. (2006). Measuring active learning: Discussion participation in online classes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Washington, DC.
  • Horzum, M. B. (2010). Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarından haberdarlığı, kullanım sıklıkları ve amaçlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7 (1), 603-634.
  • 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.
  • Kaya, Z., ve Yılayaz, Ö. (2013). Öğretmen eğitimine teknoloji entegrasyonu modelleri ve teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(8), 57-83. Keser, A., (2005). İş doyumu ve yaşam doyumu ilişkisi: Otomotiv sektöründe bir uygulama. Çalışma ve Toplum, 4, 77-96.
  • Lu, J., Lai, M., & Law, N. (2010). Knowledge building in society 2.0: Challenges and opportunities. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds) New science of learning: Computers, cognition and collaboration in Education (pp. 553-567). Newyork, Springer.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  • O’Reilly T. (2007). What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(Jan), 17-37.
  • O’Connor-Petruso, S.A. (2010). Embedding asynchronous and synchronous technologies & sourceware into curricula. In S. A. O’Connor-Petruso & F. Girelli-Carasi (Eds.), Globalization: Technology, literacy & curricula (pp. 13-33). Boston: Pearson Custom.
  • Reynard, R. (2009). Challenges to wiki use in instruction. Campus Technology. http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/02/11/3-challenges-to-wiki-use-in-instruction.aspx.
  • Richardson, W. (2009). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tavares, N. J., Chu, D., Ho, S. Y., Chow, K., Siu, F. L. C., & Wong, M. (2012). Developing upper primary students' 21st century skills: Inquiry learning through collaborative teaching and Web 2.0 technology. Hong Kong: Centre for Information Technology in Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.

Okul Öncesi ve Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin “Web 2.0 Araçları” Kavramına Yönelik Metaforik Algıları ve Değerlendirmeleri/Metaphoric Perceptions and Views of Preschool and Elementary Teachers on the Concept of "Web 2.0 Tools"

Year 2020, , 142 - 165, 31.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.800117

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, okul öncesi ve sınıf öğretmenlerinin eğitim- öğretim süreçlerinde kullandıkları Web 2.0 araçlarından yola çıkarak “Web 2.0 araçları” kavramına yönelik algılarının metaforlar aracılığıyla belirlenmesi ve kullandıkları Web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik görüşlerinin ortaya konulmasıdır. Bu amaçla nitel bir çalışma olarak oluşturulan bu araştırma, olgu bilim desenindedir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 2019-2020 öğretim yılının birinci döneminde Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’na bağlı eğitim kurumlarında çalışmakta olan 70 öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın temel amacı doğrultusunda çalışma grubunda yer alan öğretmenlerden gönüllülük esasına dayalı olarak online bir form doldurmaları istenmiştir. Formdan elde edilen nitel verilerin çözümlenmesinde içerik analizi tekniğinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma sonunda öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçları kavramına ilişkin toplamda 54 metafor geliştirdikleri tespit edilmiştir. Öğretmenler tarafından en fazla “ağaç, çocuk ve oyun” metaforlarının geliştirildiği görülmektedir. Yapılan analizler doğrultusunda; “Eğitim-öğretim sürecinde kullanım yararları açısından Web 2.0 araçları”, “Eğitim-öğretim sürecinde öğretmenler tarafından kullanılma gerekliliği açısından Web 2.0 araçları” ve “Sürekli gelişmesi ve değişmesi açısından Web 2.0 araçları” olmak üzere üç tema oluşturulmuştur. Bu metaforlar ile katılımcı öğretmenler Web 2.0 araçlarının sürekli gelişen bir alan olduğu, eğitim sürecinde Web 2.0 araçlarının kullanımının gerekli olduğu yönlerinde benzetimler yapmışlardır. Ayrıca öğretmenlerin büyük bir kısmının Web 2.0 araçlarının eğitim sürecinde kullanımının çeşitli yararlarını vurguladıkları, öğretmenlerin derslerinde Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanmaya istekli oldukları ve bu araçları meslektaşlarına da tavsiye ettikleri görülmüştür.

References

  • 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.
  • Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4), 181-198.
  • Altun, A. (2008). Yapılandırmacı öğretim sürecinde viki kullanımı. In International Educational Technology Conference (IETC), Eskişehir, Türkiye.
  • Bonk, C. J. (2009). The World is Open: How Web Technology is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). We 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106.
  • Conole, G., &Alevizou, P. (2010) A Literature Review of the Use of Web 2.0 Tools in Higher Education. York: Higher Education Academy.
  • Demir, Ö. (2017). İDKAB teaching candidates’ perception on environment. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(5), 1700-1714.
  • Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148. doi: 10.1080/01587910500081376.
  • Elmas, R., ve Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.
  • Forceville, C. (2002). The identification of target and source in pictorial metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1-14.
  • Hamann, K., Pollock, P., &Wilson, B. (2006). Measuring active learning: Discussion participation in online classes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference, Washington, DC.
  • Horzum, M. B. (2010). Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarından haberdarlığı, kullanım sıklıkları ve amaçlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7 (1), 603-634.
  • 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.
  • Kaya, Z., ve Yılayaz, Ö. (2013). Öğretmen eğitimine teknoloji entegrasyonu modelleri ve teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(8), 57-83. Keser, A., (2005). İş doyumu ve yaşam doyumu ilişkisi: Otomotiv sektöründe bir uygulama. Çalışma ve Toplum, 4, 77-96.
  • Lu, J., Lai, M., & Law, N. (2010). Knowledge building in society 2.0: Challenges and opportunities. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds) New science of learning: Computers, cognition and collaboration in Education (pp. 553-567). Newyork, Springer.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  • O’Reilly T. (2007). What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(Jan), 17-37.
  • O’Connor-Petruso, S.A. (2010). Embedding asynchronous and synchronous technologies & sourceware into curricula. In S. A. O’Connor-Petruso & F. Girelli-Carasi (Eds.), Globalization: Technology, literacy & curricula (pp. 13-33). Boston: Pearson Custom.
  • Reynard, R. (2009). Challenges to wiki use in instruction. Campus Technology. http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/02/11/3-challenges-to-wiki-use-in-instruction.aspx.
  • Richardson, W. (2009). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Tavares, N. J., Chu, D., Ho, S. Y., Chow, K., Siu, F. L. C., & Wong, M. (2012). Developing upper primary students' 21st century skills: Inquiry learning through collaborative teaching and Web 2.0 technology. Hong Kong: Centre for Information Technology in Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.
There are 22 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Fatma Avcı 0000-0002-7513-9870

Hatice Atik 0000-0002-4480-6220

Publication Date December 31, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020

Cite

APA Avcı, F., & Atik, H. (2020). Okul Öncesi ve Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin “Web 2.0 Araçları” Kavramına Yönelik Metaforik Algıları ve Değerlendirmeleri/Metaphoric Perceptions and Views of Preschool and Elementary Teachers on the Concept of "Web 2.0 Tools". Nitel Sosyal Bilimler, 2(2), 142-165. https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.800117