Pre-service and In-service Teachers’ Perceptions about Using Web 2.0 in Education

Year 2015, , 70 - 83, 30.08.2015

Recep Cakir , Erman Yukselturk Ercan Top

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.10.2.2

Cited By: 7

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine teachers` perceptions
about educational technologies, usage frequencies of Web 2.0
technologies, and awareness of these technologies in education.
516 pre-service (308 male and 208 female) who enrolled CEIT
departments in education faculties and 317 in-service (229 male
and 88 female) ICT teachers who serve in public and private
primary schools participated in this study. Three instruments were
used for data collection purposes. These instruments included the
Views of Educational Technology Scale (VETS), developed by
Gomleksiz (2004), the Usage of Web 2.0 Scale (UWS), developed
by Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) developed by the researchers, and
the Awareness of Web 2.0 Scale (AWS). Descriptive survey
methods was used in this study to collect data. The results of the
study showed that the teachers had highly positive feelings about
the educational technology usage. The in-service teachers’ views
about educational technology were more positive than those of the
pre-service teachers. Besides, the pre-service teachers’ scores of
attitudes towards and perceived usefulness of Web 2.0 technologies
were higher than those of the in-service teachers. It might be
suggested that the views of school administrators, university
administrators, and faculty members in teacher training programs
might be investigated to determine and evaluate the impact of Web
2.0 technologies in a broader sense through various perspectives. 

Keywords

Perceptions about educational technologies, Web 2.0, social media in education, teacher education

References

• Ajjan, H.& Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. 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.
• An, Y.J. & Williams, K. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 technologies: Benefits, barriers and lessons learned. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(3), 41-48.
• Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education.Technical report, JISC.Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf. Accessed April 14 2015.
• Attwell, G. (2007). Web 2.0 and the changing ways we are using computers for learning: What are the implications for pedagogy and curriculum? Available at: http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media13018.pdf.Accessed April 14 2015.
• Baltaci-Goktalay, S.&Ozdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about web 2.0 technologies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4737-4741.
• Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J. &Kennedy, G., (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534
• Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100-107.
• Cara, P. (2012,(Sebtember, 15). 216 social media and Internet Statistics. Available at: http://thesocialskinny.com/216-social-media-and-internet-statistics-september-2012/ Accessed January 10 2013.
• Cifuentes, L., Sharp, A., Bulu, S., Benz, M., &Stough, L. M. (2010).Developing a Web 2.0- based system with user-authored content for community use and teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 377-398.
• Conole, G.&Alevizou, P. (2010).A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. The Open University. UK. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/EvidenceNet/Conole_Alevizou_2010.pdf.Accesse d April 14 2015.
• Coutinho, C. P. (2009). Challenges for teacher education in the learning society: Case studies of promising practice. In H. H. Yang & S. H. Yuen (eds.) Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning: Issues and trends. (pp. 385-401). Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
• Davies, J. (2012). Facework on Facebook as a new literacy practice. Computers & Education, 59(1), 19-29
• Evans, M. A. & Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design for and sustainability of communities of practice: The case of e-portfolio use in preservice teacher training. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 199-214.
• Every, V., Garcia, G.,& Young, M. (2010).A qualitative study of public wiki use in a teacher education program. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 55-62). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Available at: http://homepages.uconn.edu/~vje01002/finalSITEPaperVEvery.pdf.Accessed April 14 2015.
• Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 5-10.
• Gomleksiz, M. N. (2004). Use of education technology in English classes. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 71-77.
• Grant, M. M. & Mims, C. (2009).Web 2.0 in teacher education: Characteristics, implications and limitations.In T. Kidd & I. Chen (Eds.), Wired for learning: An educator’s guide to Web 2.0 (pp. 343-360). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
• 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.
• 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.
• HEC (The Higher Education Council) (1998).Eğitim fakülteleri öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının yeniden düzenlenmesi. T.C. Yüksek öğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı. Ankara, Turkey.
• Hew, K. F.& Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Education Technology Research Development, 55(3), 223-252.
• Ionescu, D. (2010, May 28). Google names Facebook most visited site. PC World. Available at: http://www.pcworld.com/article/197431/google_names_facebook_most_visited_site.h tml.Accessed April 14 2014.
• Internetstats (2012).Internet World Stats.2001 - 2013, Miniwatts Marketing Group.http://www.internetworldstats.com. Accessed January 15 2013
• Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2009). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 179-187.
• Lai, Y. C.& Ng, E. M. W. (2011). Using wikis to develop student teachers' learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities, Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 15-26.
• Law, N.&Plomp, T.(2003). Curriculum and staff development for ICT in education. In T. Plomp, R. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policies and practices in education (pp. 15-31). Greenwich, Connecticut: IAP.
• Loving, C. C., Schroeder, C., Kang, R., Shimek, C., & Herbert, B. (2007). Blogs: Enhancing links in a professional learning community of science and mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 178-198.
• Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning.Chronicle of Higher Education, 25(18), 26-27.
• Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009).The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 175-183.
• Moore, J. A.&Chae, B. (2007).Beginning teachers' use of online resources and communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 215-224.
• OECD (2007). Participative web and user-created content. Web 2.0, wikis and social networking. Available at: http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9307031e.pdf.Accessed April 14 2014.
• Prensky, M. (2001).Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
• Redecker, C. &Punie, Y. (2010).Learning 2.0 promoting innovation in formal education and training in Europe. In M. Wolpers, P. A. Kirschner, M. Scheffel, S. Lindstaedt, & V. Dimitro (Eds.), Proceedings of 5th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 308–323), Barcelona, Spain: Springer.
• Reigner, C. (2003). National policies and practices on ICT in education: France. In T. Plomp, R. Anderson, N. Law, & A. Quale (Eds.), Cross-national information and communication technology policies and practices in education (pp. 233-247). Greenwich, Connecticut: IAP.
• Robyler, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134-140.
• Schwartz, S. & Digiovanni, L. (2009). About, for, and with students: Connecting teaching and teacher education through digital literacy. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2047-2050). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Scott, A.& Ryan, J. (2009). Digital literacy and using online discussions: Reflections from teaching large cohorts in teacher education. In J. Zajda & D. Gibbs (eds.), Comparative information technology: Languages, societies and the internet. (pp. 103- 120). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
• Sendall, P., Ceccucci, C., & Peslak, R. P. (2010). Got Web 2.0? A review of Web 2.0 tools for the Information Systems curriculum. Information Systems Education Journal, 8(28), Available at: http://www.isedj.org/8/28/ISEDJ.8%2828%29.Sendall.pdf. Accessed April 14 2015.
• Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., &Shen, R. (2008). Why Web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. In WWW 2008 (pp. 705-714). Beijing, China.
• 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
• Voithofer, R. (2007). Web 2.0: What is it and how can it apply to teaching and teacher preparation? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Conference.Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C7EC6A6242E3A3B4BA64A6FFECFC8083?doi=10.1.1.94.5875&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Accessed April 14 2014.
• Wassell, B. & Crouch, C. (2008). Fostering connections between multicultural education and technology: Incorporating weblogs into preservice teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 211-232.
• Wheeler, S. & Wheeler, D. (2009).Using wikis to promote quality learning in teacher training.Learning, Media and Technology,34(1), 1-10.
• Wikipedia Statistics(2012).Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Statisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics#Active_counters. Accessed January 16 2013
• Youtubestatistics(2012).Youtube statistics, Viewership http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html. Accessed December 16 2014.