Pre-service Teachers' Interaction Tool Preferences in Blended Learning and Their Views on Google Classroom

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to determine the opinions of pre-service teachers who receive education through blended learning regarding Google Classroom support and their interaction preferences in blended learning environments. Methodology: The research was conducted using a case study design, one of the qualitative research designs. Data were collected from 11 pre-service teachers who participated in a teaching practice course, utilizing a semi-structured interview form. The collected data were coded and categorized using descriptive and content analysis methods. Findings: The study found that students primarily utilized Google Classroom for assignments and interactions with instructors, other students, and course content. Students emphasized their need for interaction with the instructor as the most significant aspect of blended learning, followed by content interaction and interaction with other students. Pre-service teachers' views towards Google Classroom were positive. Their opinions were categorized under the categories of contribution to self-regulation, an interactive assignment system, ease of use, and student-student interaction. Highlights: Google Classroom can be used as a support for LMSs. When it is used with activities that will attract students' interest, it may be possible to increase students' satisfaction. Students were very satisfied with the detailed and quick feedback on their assignments. Another prominent feature of Google Classroom is that the documents are systematically organized and always accessible. One may suggest that LMSs that do not have these features should take precautions at this point. All of the students plan to use Google Classroom in their professional life.

Keywords

• Google classroom
• Interaction
• Blended learning
• Web 2.0
• LMS

References

1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive learning environments, 31(2), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
2. Akgün, Z., Hacıhasanoğlu, P., & Saydam, S. (2021). Determining the Adoption Level of Google Classroom Application: Sample of Yozgat Bozok University (YOBU) During Covid-19. Journal of University Research, 4(3), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.902325
3. Alqahtani, A. 2019. Usability testing of google cloud applications: students' perspective. Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE), 9(3), 326-339. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.585
4. Azhar, K. A., & Iqbal, N. (2018). Effectiveness of Google classroom: Teachers’ perceptions. Prizren Social Science Journal, 2(2), 52. Retrieved from https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=940663
5. Barman, B., & Karthikeyan, J. (2019). Facilitating ELT through Moodle and Google Classroom. Restaurant Business, 118(10), 506-518. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-Karthikeyan-3/publication/336952096_Facilitating_ELT_through_Moodle_and_Google_Classroom/links/5e3a6889299bf1cdb90e54ab/Facilitating-ELT-through-Moodle-and-Google-Classroom.pdf
6. Bates, A. W. T. (2018). Teaching in a digital age: guidelines for desinging teaching and learning. Vancouver BC: Tony Bates.
7. Carley, H. (2015). Going Green: The Paperless Classroom. Newsletter of the “Global Issues in Language Education” Special Interest Group (GILE SIG) of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT), 91, 10-13. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283540718_Going_Green_The_Paperless_Classroom
8. Council of Higher Education (2021a). Higher education information management system. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/

9. Council of Higher Education (2021b). Küresel salgında eğitim ve öğretim süreçlerine yönelik uygulamalar rehberi [A guide to practices for education and training processes in the global pandemic.] Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/2021/kuresel-salginda-egitim-ve-ogretim-sureclerine-yonelik-uygulamalar-kilavuzu-2021.pdf
10. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. California: Sage.
11. Çınar, M., Doğan, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2015). Eğitimde dijital araçlar: Google sınıf uygulaması üzerine bir değerlendirme [Digital tools in education: An evaluation on Google classroom application]. XVII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı [Academic Informatics Conference], Eskişehir. Retrieved from http://enformatik.ankara.edu.tr/2015/02/18/%E2%99%A6-egitimde-dijital-araclar-google-sinif-uygulamasi-uzerine-bir-degerlendirme/
12. Google Classroom (2022). Classroom Support. Retrieved from https://support.google.com/edu/classroom/answer/6020279?hl=tr#
13. Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage.
14. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. (Eds. Curtis J. Bonk & Charles R. Graham). The handbook of blended learning, 3-21.
15. Harjanto, A. S., & Sumarni, S. (2021). Teachers’experiences on the use of google classroom. English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC),Semarang, Indonesia. Retrieved from https://jurnal.unimus.ac.id/index.php/ELLIC/article/view/4704/4231
16. Karadeniz, O. (2023). Reflections of teacher candidates thoughts on the concept of “distance education” on their mind maps. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 8(21), 588-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.579
17. Korkmaz, E. (2021). Distance education and google classroom in the Covid-19 pandemic era: Attitudes and views of prospective mathematics teachers. Journal of Kâzım Karabekir Education Faculty, 42, 207-228. https://doi.org/10.33418/ataunikkefd.831517
18. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E., & Kuo, Y. T. (2014). A case study of integrating Interwise: Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and satisfaction in synchronous online learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 161-181. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1664
19. Lincoln, S. Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
20. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook. New Delhi: Sage.
21. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~ed220ri/reading/Moore_Interaction.pdf
22. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Trans.). Ankara: Pegem.
23. Poyraz, G. T., & Özkul, A. E. (2019). Bir öğrenme ortamı olarak Google Sınıf’ın incelenmesi [An examination of Google Classroom as a learning environment.]. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Open Education and Research], 5(3), 8-27. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/853587
24. Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The internet and higher education, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00158-6
25. Mohd Shaharanee, I. N., Jamil, J., & Mohamad Rodzi, S. S. (2016). The application of Google Classroom as a tool for teaching and learning. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 8(10), 5-8. Retrieved from https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/20521/
26. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) (Tec. Rep. No. 91-B–004). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education.
27. Rhode, J. S. (2008). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. Doctoral Dissertation. Capella University, School of Education, Minneapolis.
28. Salim, M. A., & Tresnadewi, B. Y. 2020. Effect of integrating google classroom and gba on the students' writing achievement across personalities. International Journal of English and Education, 9(1), 257-267. Retrieved from http://repository.um.ac.id/110103/
29. Sansinadi, I. T., & Winarko, W. (2020). Teacher's perspectives toward Google Classroom as a tool for improving ELT classroom interaction. Getsempena English Education Journal, 7(2), 370-381. https://doi.org/10.46244/geej.v7i2.1174
30. Sukmawati, S., & , N. (2019). The role of Google Classroom in ELT. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Studies, 1(2), 142-145. Retrieved from https://ojs.unimal.ac.id/ijevs/article/view/1526
31. Stern, D. M., & Willits, M. D. (2011). Social media killed the LMS: Re-imagining the traditional learning management system in the age of blogs and online social networks. In Educating educators with social media (Vol. 1, pp. 347-373). Emerald Group.
32. Ülker, F. T., Ünlü, S., & Usta, E. (2021). Review of the views of science teacher candidates on the use of e-portfolio: Action research. Turkish Journal of Primary Education, 6(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.52797/tujped.747510
33. Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 428-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01195.x
34. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods. Ankara: Seçkin.
35. Yılmaz, E. O. (2020). The integration of google classroom distance education system and investigation of student satisfaction levels in pandemic process. Future Visions Journal, 4(3), 42-55. https://doi.org/10.29345/futvis.143
36. Yükselturk, E. (2009). Do entry characteristics of online learners affect their satisfaction?. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), 263-281. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/25266/