Sınıf öğretmenleri covid 19 döneminde Türkçe ve ilk okuma yazma öğretimine web 2.0 araçlarının entegre edilmesi hakkında ne düşünüyor?

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, sınıf öğretmenlerinin ilk okuma yazma ve Türkçe öğretiminde Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanımlarına ilişkin deneyimlerini incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda araştırmada nitel araştırma desenlerinden biri olan keşfetmeye dayalı durum çalışması deseni kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu resmi ve özel ilkokullarda görev yapmakta olan 33 sınıf öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmenler ölçüt örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak seçilmiş, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılarak görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiş ve cevaplar içerik analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda Web 2.0 araçlarının öğrencilerin derslere karşı motivasyonlarını arttırmada ve aktif öğrenmeyi sağlamada yararlı bir araç olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Katılımcıların ifade ettikleri görüşler, Web 2.0 araçlarının değerlendirme, pekiştirme, tekrar ve dilbilgisi konularının öğretiminde kullanıldığını ve birçoğunun konuyu anlattıktan sonra Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanmayı tercih ettiğini ortaya koymuştur. Katılımcı öğretmenler, eğitim süreçlerine katkılar kategorisinde ilkokul öğrencilerinin dijitalleşme yoluyla kavram ve konuların somutlaştırılması ve sınıf içi etkileşimin artırılmasından bahsederken, bu araçların kullanımında yaşanan sorunları Türkçe dil seçeneğinin olmaması, bu araçlar ve bu araçlara erişimde zorluk olarak ifade etmişlerdir. Ayrıca öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma konusundaki yetersizlikleri de sorun olarak ifade edilmiştir. Yaşanan sorunlara çözüm olarak alternatif Web2.0 araçları kullanılarak dil engeli sorununun aşılabileceği, Web 2.0 kullanımının hizmet içi eğitimlerle öğretmenler arasında yaygınlaştırılabileceği ve idare tarafından çalışmalar yapılabileceğini belirtmişlerdir. Türkiye Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, öğretmenlerin teknolojiye ve internete erişimleri için daha iyi fırsatlar sunmak için çalışmalar yapılabilir. Çalışmanın bulguları ışığında öğretmenlere bu araçların dil öğretiminde nasıl kullanılacağına dair somut önerilerde bulunulmuş ve yazılımcılara bu araçların farklı dillerde tasarlanması için önerilerde sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Digital device
• mother tongue education
• Web 2.0 Tools
• primary teachers
• learning and teaching process.

What do Turkish primary teachers think about integration of Web 2.0 literacy tools in primary schools during covid 19?

Abstract

This study aims to understand the Turkish primary teachers' use of Web 2.0 tools when teaching literacy in the Turkish language. The data were collected from 33 teachers teaching in public and private primary schools across Turkey. Teachers were selected using a criterion sampling method and interviewed using a semi-structured interview form and their responses were analyzed using content analysis. Research results show that Web 2.0 tools are useful in terms of increasing students’ motivation towards lessons and ensuring active learning to occur. The opinions expressed by the participants have revealed that Web 2.0 tools are used for evaluation, reinforcement, revision and teaching grammar subjects and that many of them prefer to use Web 2.0 tools after explaining the subject. While the participating teachers mentioned the concretization of concepts and subjects through digitalization for primary school students and increasing classroom interaction in the category of contributions to educational processes while the problems experienced in the use of these tools were expressed to be the absence of Turkish language option in these tools and difficulty in having access to these tools. In addition, teachers’ inadequacies in using Web 2.0 tools were also expressed as a problem. As solutions to the problems experienced, they stated that the language barrier problem can be overcome by using alternative Web2.0 tools, that the use of Web 2.0 can be made more widespread among teachers through in-service trainings and works can be conducted by the Ministry of National Education of Turkey to provide better opportunities for teachers to have access to technology and internet. In light of the findings of the study, concrete suggestions were made to teachers on how to use these tools in language teaching and suggestions were made to the software developers to design these tools in different languages.

Keywords

• Digital device
• mother tongue education
• Web 2.0 Tools
• primary teachers
• learning and teaching process.
• Digital device, mother tongue education, Web 2.0 Tools, primary teachers, learning and teaching process.

References

1. Adel, A. (2020). Utilizing technologies of fog computing in educational IoT systems: privacy, security, and agility perspective. Journal of Big Data, 7(1), 1-29.
2. Adel, A., & Dayan, J. (2021). Towards an intelligent blended system of learning activities model for New Zealand institutions: an investigative approach. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-14.
3. Ahmed, V., & Opoku, A. (2022). Technology supported learning and pedagogy in times of crisis: the case of COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 365-405.
4. 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.
5. Akcay, A., & Arslan, A. (2010). The using of blogs in Turkish education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1195-1199.
6. Altun, A. (2008). The use of Wiki in the constructivist teaching process. Paper presented at the 8th International Educational Technology Conference, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
7. Arabacıoğlu, T., & Dursun, F. (2015). Examination of the pedagogical content knowledge of pre-service teachers in terms of some variables. Kastamonu Education Journal, 23(1), 197-210.
8. Avcı, F., & Atik, H. (2020). Metaphoric perceptions and views of preschool and elementary teachers on the concept of "web 2.0 tools". Qualitative Social Sciences, 2(2), 142-165. doi:https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.800117

9. Aytan, T., & Basal, A. (2015). Investigation of Turkish teacher candidates’ perceptions towards web 2.0 tools. Turkish Studies (Electronics), 10(7), 149-166.
10. Baltaci-Goktalay, S., & Ozdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about web 2.0 technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4737-4741.
11. Bamoallem, B., & Altarteer, S. (2022). Remote emergency learning during COVID-19 and its impact on university students perception of blended learning in KSA. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 157- 179.
12. Baran, E., Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S., & Mesutoğlu, C. (2015). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) public service announcement (psa) development activitiy. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 5(2), 60-69.
13. Barseghyan, l. (2015). The role and importance of audio-visual aids in teaching. Retrieved from http://publications.ysu.am/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/Barseghyan_L..pdf. http://publications.ysu.am/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/Barseghyan_L..pdf
14. Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational research, 45(2), 143-154.
15. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
16. Blannin, J. (2015). The role of the teacher in primary school Web 2.0 use. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(3), 188-205.
17. Bolatli, Z., & Korucu, A. T. (2018). Secondary school students' feedback on course processing and collaborative learning with web 2.0 tools-supported STEM activities. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 7(2), 456-478.
18. Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2012). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs: John Wiley & Sons.
19. Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177-198.
20. Brown, R. (2009). Public Relations and the Social Web: How to use social media and web 2.0 in communications: Kogan Page Publishers.
21. Byrne, R. (2009). The effect of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 50-53.
22. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106.
23. Connelly, L. M. (2020). Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Medsurg Nursing, 29(2), 125-116.
24. Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy.
25. Creswell, J. (2016). Qualitative research methods (Translation Editors: M. Bütün and SB Demir). Ankara: Siyasal Publication.
26. Çaka, C., Doğan Barut, E., & Şahin, Y. (2015). The examination of online information searching strategies of students that use social network. Trakya University Journal of Education, 6(1), 1-13.
27. Çetin, O., Çalışkan, E., & Menzi, N. (2013). The views of academics about web-based instruction. Ilkogretim Online, 12(3), 886-902.
28. Dağhan, G., Kibar, P. N., Çetin, N. M., Telli, E., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). A qualitative study on prospective teachers’ usage of social media supported scientific communication. Turkish Librarianship, 29(2), 258-274.
29. Efe, H. A. (2014). Science and mathematics student teachers’ frequency of using web 2.0. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 3(5).
30. Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254.
31. Eren, E., Avci, Z. Y., & Kapucu, M. S. (2015). Pre-service teachers' competencies and perceptions of necessity about practical tools for content development. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 91-104.
32. Eva, N., & Nicholson, H. (2011). DO get technical! Using technology in library instruction. The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 6(2).
33. Fattah, S. F. E. S. A. (2015). The Effectiveness of using whatsapp messenger as one of mobile learning techniques to develop students' writing skills. Journal of Education and practice, 6(32), 115-127.
34. Fırat, E. A., & Köksal, M. S. (2017). The relationship between use of Web 2.0 tools by prospective science teachers and their biotechnology literacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 44-50.
35. Franklin, C. (2007). Teaching evidence-based practices: Strategies for implementation: A response to Mullen et al. and Proctor. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(5), 592-602.
36. Genç, Z. (2010). Use of web 2.0 advancements in education: A case study of Facebook in education. Akademic Informatics, 10, 10-12.
37. Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478-482.
38. Gulbahar, Y., Kalelioglu, F., & Madran, O. (2010). Educational use of social networks. Paper presented at the XV. Internet Conference in Turkey, İstanbul Teknik University, İstanbul.
39. Gün, S. (2015). The Effect of web 2.0 visual and auditory communication (skype) applications on the speaking ability in Turkish teaching as a foreign language. (Master Thesis). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale.
40. Hassan, I., BaraU Gamji, M., Yahaya Nasidi, Q., & Latiff Azmi, M. N. (2021). Challenges and benefits of web 2.0-based learning among international students of English during the Covid-19 pandemic in Cyprus. Arab World English Journal Special Issue on Covid 19 Challenges (1), 295-306.
41. Horzum, M. B. (2007). Web-based new instructional technologies: Web 2.0 tools. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 6(12), 99-121.
42. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
43. Huang, Y.-M., Jeng, Y.-L., & Huang, T.-C. (2009). An educational mobile blogging system for supporting collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 163-175.
44. Hueseo, L. C. (2020). Digital education taken seriously and the right to education in times of the coronavirus. Education and Law Review, 21.
45. Ince, M., & Akdemir, Ö. (2013). The investigations of using web 2.0 technologies on English writing skills of students with different learning styles. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 93-106.
46. Jimoyiannis, A., Tsiotakis, P., Roussinos, D., & Siorenta, A. (2013). Preparing teachers to integrate Web 2.0 in school practice: Toward a framework for Pedagogy 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 248-267.
47. Karadağ, B. F., & Garip, S. Use of learning apps as a web 2.0 application in Turkish teaching. Journal of Child, Literature and Language Education, 4(1), 21-40.
48. Kaur, A., Bhatia, M., & Stea, G. (2022). A Survey of smart classroom literature. Education Sciences, 12(2), 86.
49. Korucu, A. (2015). Effect of the usage of dynamic web technologies on motivation about course and academic achievement at the professional English course. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 16(3).
50. Korucu, A., & Yücel, A. (2015). İnformation technologies teachers’ ideas about dynamic web technologies use in education. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(2), 126-152.
51. Korucu, A. T., & Sezer, C. (2016). Teacher opinions regarding the effects of usage frequencies of web 2.0 technologies on academic success. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(2), 379-394.
52. Kovacic, A., Bubas, G., & Coric, A. (2012). Mobilising students’ grammar skills through collaborative e-tivities with Web 2.0 tools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 132-136.
53. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology: Sage publications.
54. Krouska, A., Troussas, C., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2022). Mobile game-based learning as a solution in COVID-19 era: Modeling the pedagogical affordance and student interactions. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 229-241.
55. Kutlu Demir, Ö. (2018). 21st century learning: Integration of Web 2. 0 tools in Turkish adult language classrooms. (Doctoral Thesis). Çağ University, İstanbul.
56. Laire, D., Casteleyn, J., & Mottart, A. (2012). Social media's learning outcomes within writing instruction in the EFL classroom: Exploring, implementing and analyzing storify. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 442-448.
57. Lu, J., Lai, M., & Law, N. (2010). Knowledge building in society 2.0: Challenges and opportunities. In New science of learning (pp. 553-567): Springer.
58. Magnuson, M. L. (2013). Web 2.0 and information literacy instruction: Aligning technology with ACRL standards. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 244-251.
59. McGrail, E., & Davis, A. (2011). The influence of classroom blogging on elementary student writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 415-437.
60. Nair, S. S., Tay, L. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2013). Students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching practices towards the use of blogs for writing of online journals. Educational Media International, 50(2), 108-119.
61. Nandhini, M. (2016). Web 2.0 tools in education. Paper presented at the In National Conference on Higher Education in the Knowledge Age: Techno-Pedagogical Perspectives and İnnovations.
62. Ng, D. T., Ng, E. H., & Chu, S. K. (2022). Engaging students in creative music making with musical instrument application in an online flipped classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 45-64.
63. Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2008). Exploring two teacher education online learning designs: A classroom of one or many? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 475-495.
64. O'reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & strategies(1), 17.
65. Patino, C. M., & Ferreira, J. C. (2018). Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies: definitions and why they matter. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 44, 84-84.
66. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qulitative Research and evaluation methods (M. B. S. B. Demir, Trans.): Pegem A Yayıncılık.
67. Prashnig, B. (2006). Pocket PAL: Learning styles and personalized teaching: A&C Black.
68. Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: journal of online education, 5(3).
69. Punie, Y., & Cabrera, M. (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22218en.pdf. from European Communities http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22218en.pdf
70. Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. (2014). Integrating educational technology into teaching.(Sixth). Essex. In: Pearson Education. Retrieved from www. pearsoned. co. za.
71. Sarsar, F., Başbay, M., & Başbay, A. (2015). Use of social media in learning and teaching process. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11(2), 418-431.
72. Shih, R.-C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5). 829-845.
73. Shon, H., & Smith, L. (2011). A review of Poll Everywhere audience response system. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(3), 236-245.
74. Sofia, H. (2015). Teaching technical writing skills using Web 2.0 technology–an experimental study. (Unpublished PhD thesis). BS Abdur Rahman University İndia.
75. Tatlı, Z., Akbulut, H. İ., & Altınışık, D. (2016). The impact of Web 2.0 tools on pre-service teachers’ self confidence levels about TPCK. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 7(3), 659- 678.
76. Thompson, J. (2007). Is Education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(4).
77. Thompson, K., Jowallah R. & Cavanagh TB (2019). “Solve the big problems”: Leading through strategic ınnovation in blended teaching and learning. In: Technology Leadership for Innovation in Higher Education. IGI Global.
78. Turhan, O., & Bayram, B. (2017). Web 2.0 tools for writing skills in teaching Turkish as a foreign language: Poll everywhere sample. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(3), 1233-1248.
79. Velagapudi, M. (2017). Free Web 2.0 tools for teachers. In: A publication of WizIQ, Inc. Accessed on.
80. Venngage Tool. (https://infograph.venngage.com/edit/205df45e-c946-40d8-8e81-512089343e98 )
81. Virkus, S., & Bamigbola, A. (2013). Educational use of web 2.0 tools: a phenomenographical study. Information and Society: Proceedings of the Department of Information and Library Studies, 255-265.
82. Wang, A. I., & Lieberoth, A. (2016). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot. Paper presented at the European conference on games based learning.
83. Warnich, P., & Gordon, C. (2015). The integration of cell phone technology and poll everywhere as teaching and learning tools into the school History classroom. Yesterday and Today, 13, 40-66.
84. Yükseltürk, E., Altıok, S., & Üçgül, M. (2017). Evaluation of a scientific activity about use of web 2.0 technologies in education: The participantsviews. Journal of Instructional Technologies and Teacher Education, 6(1), 1-8.
85. Zhang, Y. (2022). Implementation of virtual learning community and web 2.0 technologies under covid-19 pandemic in high education: opportunities and challenges. (Master Thesis). University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario, Canada.