Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on their Use in Real Classroom Environments

Yıl 2020, , 814 - 841, 15.12.2020

İlknur Özpınar

https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.736600

Öz

New understandings and methods have proliferated as technology continues to root itself more deeply in an increasing number of areas within the field of education, causing, naturally, the technology-based tools to find a wider application in assessing students’ knowledge and progress. With the resulting rapid development of Web applications, Web 2.0 tools have found a niche in a great many steps of the instruction process and have emerged as an integral part of educational technology. Indeed, those studying to become teachers are, quite naturally, one of the most important factors in ensuring that further improvements in this type of technology will be incorporated in mathematics instruction. Accordingly, this study aims to examine what preservice teachers thought of a class during making up part of their teacher training in which they used Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Plickers, Kahoot, Edmodo, ZipGrade) to design activities and lesson plans that they implemented in real classroom settings, which were then discussed in together as a class. The research is conducted with the case study method and the participants consisted of 24 senior preservice teachers of primary school mathematics education in a state university in Turkey. The study’s data were collected using written interview forms and subsequently analyzed using content analysis. At the end of the study, it was found that Web 2.0 tools contribute to professional development, instruction and student-teacher-parent interaction dimensions for teachers; on the other hand, it was revealed that it contributes to affective characteristics, learning and skills dimensions in terms of students. Concerning limitations, preservice teachers stated that the need for the Internet and technological devices in order to use Web 2.0 tools were significant obstacles to their use. Based on the conclusions, it is recommended that future studies investigate the effects of different Web 2.0 tools on different content areas as part of preservice teacher training.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Web 2.0 tools mathematics instruction assessment preservice teacher

Kaynakça

  • Al-Said, K. M. (2015). Students' perceptions of Edmodo and mobile learning and their real barriers towards them. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(2), 167-180.
  • Atılgan, H. (2007). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitio-ners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
  • Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-14.
  • Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In Banks DA (Ed.) Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 96-115). IGI Global.
  • Bilgiç, H. G., Duman, D. ve Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Dijital yerlilerin özellikleri ve çevrim içi ortamların tasarlanmasındaki etkileri. Akademik Bilişim, 2(4), 1-7.
  • Bonk, C. J., Cummings, J. A., Hara, N., Fischler, R. B., & Lee, S. M. (2000). A ten level web integration continuum for higher education: New resources, partners, courses, and markets. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education (pp. 56–77). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
  • Bünül, R. (2019). Fen alanları öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarının öğretimde kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Dicle Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Diyarbakır, Türkiye.
  • Büyükgöze Kavas, A. ve Bugay, A. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının hizmet öncesi eğitimlerinde gördükleri eksiklikler ve çözüm önerileri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 13-21.
  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.
  • Carpenter, J., Rosenberg, J., Dousay, T., Romero-Hall, E., Kessler, A., Phillips, M. & Krutka, D. (2019, March). What do teacher educators think of teacher education technology competencies?. In K. Graziano (Ed.) Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 796-801). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Çankaya, S., Durak, G., & Yünkül, E. (2013). Using educational social networking sites in higher education: Edmodo through the lenses of undergraduate students. European Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 3-23.
  • Demirkan, Ö., Gürışık, A., & Akın, Ö. (2017). Teachers’ opinions about “Plickers” one of the online assessment tools. In I. Koleva and G. Duman (Eds.) Educational Research and Practice (pp. 476-486), Sofia: Kliment Ohridski University Press.
  • Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?. Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199. Ekici, D. I. (2017). The use of Edmodo in creating an online learning community of practice for learning to teach science. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 91-106.
  • Elmahdi, I., Al-Hattami, A., & Fawzi, H. (2018). Using technology for formative assessment to improve students' learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(2), 182-188.
  • Eyal, L. (2012). Digital assessment literacy—The core role of the teacher in a digital environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37-49.
  • Freeman, C. L., & Tashner, J. (2015). Technologies for formative assessment: Can web-based applications transforms the allied health science classroom and improve summative assessment outcomes. Appalachian State University, USA. Retrieved April 08, 2020 from http://www.candicelfreeman.com/uploads/3/7/9/2/37925553/technologiesforformativeassessment.pdf
  • Gürışık, A. (2018). Çevrimiçi biçimlendirmeye yönelik bir değerlendirme aracı olarak Plickers: Öğrenci ve öğretmen görüşleri (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Irving, K. E. (2015). Technology-assisted formative assessment. In Urban, M. and Falvo, D. (Eds), Improving K12 STEM Education Outcomes through Technological Integration (pp. 380-398). IGI Global.
  • Lubis, H. Z., & Sari, P. W. (2019, October). Accountıng based learnıng media use Edmodo to improve the quality of learning. Paper presented at 1st International Conference on Innovation of Small Medium-sized Enterprise, 29 April 2019, Indonesia.
  • Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71. Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014). Unpacking the “urban” in urban teacher education: Making a case for context-specific preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 128-144.
  • McCabe, M. (2006). Live assessment by questioning in an interactive classroom. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response system in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 276-288). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
  • Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], (2009). İlköğretim matematik dersi 6-8. sınıflar öğretim programı, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Muanifah, M. T., Widodo, S. A., & Ardiyaningrum, M. (2019). Effect of Edmodo towards interests in mathematics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188(1), 012103.
  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCTE] (2010, November). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  • Ningsih, S. K., & Mulyono, H. (2019). Digital assessment resources in primary and secondary school classrooms: teachers’ use and perceptions. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(8), 167-173.
  • Özkan, H. H., Albayrak, M. ve Berber, K. (2005). Öğretmen adaylarının ilköğretim okullarında yaptıkları öğretmenlik uygulamasının yetişmelerindeki rolü. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 33(168). http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/168/index3-alim.htm adresinden 23 Kasım 2019 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what teacher candidates are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191–203.
  • Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 573-618.
  • Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6), 1-6.
  • Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it. Retrieved March 03, 2020 from http://www.bu.edu/ssw/files/pdf/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-033.pdf
  • Royer, R. (2016, November). A comparison of eight digital tools for formative assessment. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 113-118). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Saracoğlu, G. & Kocabatmaz, H. (2019). A study on Kahoot and Socrative in line with peservice teachers views. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), 31-46.
  • Tan, X. & Wang, H. (2011, August). Information technology in teacher's professional skill training application. Paper presented at 6th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), Singapur.
  • 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, 7(3), 659-678.
  • Tsai, F. ( 2018). The effects of using the classroom response system in teacher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,8(4), 254-258.
  • Tuncer, M. ve Şimşek, M. (2019). Ortaokul 5. sınıf matematik dersi bölme işlemi konusunda Plickers uygulamasının matematik kaygısına ve matematik başarısına etkisi. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(19), 1-1.
  • VandeWalle, B. (2016). Affordable technology response systems. Connections, 30(2), 17.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırım, S. ve Karaman, S. (2012). Sınıf içi etkileşim uygulaması: Dinleyici yanıt sisteminin kullanımı ve değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(3), 571-587.
  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (Second Edition). London: New Delhi.
  • Zengin, Y., Bars, M. & Şimşek, Ö. (2017). Matematik öğretiminin biçimlendirici değerlendirme sürecinde Kahoot! ve Plickers uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 602-626.

Öğretmen Adaylarının Web 2.0 Araçlarını Uygulama Süreci ve Öğretim Ortamlarında Kullanımına Yönelik Görüşleri

Yıl 2020, , 814 - 841, 15.12.2020

İlknur Özpınar

https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.736600

Öz

Teknolojinin eğitim alanına girişiyle öğretimde yeni anlayış ve yöntemlerin kullanılması yaygınlaşmış; bunun doğal bir sonucu olarak teknolojik araçların ölçme-değerlendirme sürecinde kullanımı gündeme gelmiştir. Bu süreçte Web uygulamaları da gelişim göstermiş ve öğretimin birçok basamağında kullanılabilir Web 2.0 araçları eğitim teknolojisinin bir öğesi olmuştur. Söz konusu teknolojiye yönelik değişimin ve gelişimin matematik öğretiminde gerçekleşmesi için en önemli faktörlerden biri de hiç kuşkusuz geleceğin öğretmenleri olacak olan öğretmen adaylarıdır. İlgili açıklamalar doğrultusunda bu çalışmada; ilköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarını (Plickers, Kahoot, Edmodo ve ZipGrade) kullanarak etkinlikler ve ders planları hazırladıkları, gerçek sınıf ortamında uygulamalarını gerçekleştirip etkililiklerini tartıştıkları bir hizmet-öncesi eğitim süreci üzerine düşüncelerini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Özel durum çalışması kapsamında gerçekleştirilen araştırmanın katılımcılarını, bir devlet üniversitesinin ilköğretim matematik öğretmenliği programı dördüncü sınıfında öğrenim gören 24 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak yazılı görüş formları kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonunda Web 2.0 araçlarının öğretmen açısından mesleki gelişime, öğretime ve öğrenci-öğretmen-veli etkileşimi boyutlarına katkısı olduğu; öğrenci açısından ise duyuşsal özellikler, öğrenme ve beceriler boyutlarına katkısı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Çalışmada Web 2.0 araçları için internet ve teknolojik araç gereksinimi öğretmen adayları tarafından önemli bir sınırlılık olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları doğrultusunda farklı Web 2.0 araçlarının alan öğretimindeki etkilerinin her bir yazılım için araştırıldığı ve karşılaştırıldığı hizmet-öncesi çalışmaların yapılması önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Web 2.0 araçları matematik öğretimi ölçme-değerlendirme öğretmen adayı

Kaynakça

  • Al-Said, K. M. (2015). Students' perceptions of Edmodo and mobile learning and their real barriers towards them. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(2), 167-180.
  • Atılgan, H. (2007). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitio-ners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
  • Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-14.
  • Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In Banks DA (Ed.) Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 96-115). IGI Global.
  • Bilgiç, H. G., Duman, D. ve Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Dijital yerlilerin özellikleri ve çevrim içi ortamların tasarlanmasındaki etkileri. Akademik Bilişim, 2(4), 1-7.
  • Bonk, C. J., Cummings, J. A., Hara, N., Fischler, R. B., & Lee, S. M. (2000). A ten level web integration continuum for higher education: New resources, partners, courses, and markets. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of Web-based education (pp. 56–77). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
  • Bünül, R. (2019). Fen alanları öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarının öğretimde kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Dicle Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Diyarbakır, Türkiye.
  • Büyükgöze Kavas, A. ve Bugay, A. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının hizmet öncesi eğitimlerinde gördükleri eksiklikler ve çözüm önerileri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 13-21.
  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.
  • Carpenter, J., Rosenberg, J., Dousay, T., Romero-Hall, E., Kessler, A., Phillips, M. & Krutka, D. (2019, March). What do teacher educators think of teacher education technology competencies?. In K. Graziano (Ed.) Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 796-801). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Çankaya, S., Durak, G., & Yünkül, E. (2013). Using educational social networking sites in higher education: Edmodo through the lenses of undergraduate students. European Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 3-23.
  • Demirkan, Ö., Gürışık, A., & Akın, Ö. (2017). Teachers’ opinions about “Plickers” one of the online assessment tools. In I. Koleva and G. Duman (Eds.) Educational Research and Practice (pp. 476-486), Sofia: Kliment Ohridski University Press.
  • Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively?. Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199. Ekici, D. I. (2017). The use of Edmodo in creating an online learning community of practice for learning to teach science. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 91-106.
  • Elmahdi, I., Al-Hattami, A., & Fawzi, H. (2018). Using technology for formative assessment to improve students' learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(2), 182-188.
  • Eyal, L. (2012). Digital assessment literacy—The core role of the teacher in a digital environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37-49.
  • Freeman, C. L., & Tashner, J. (2015). Technologies for formative assessment: Can web-based applications transforms the allied health science classroom and improve summative assessment outcomes. Appalachian State University, USA. Retrieved April 08, 2020 from http://www.candicelfreeman.com/uploads/3/7/9/2/37925553/technologiesforformativeassessment.pdf
  • Gürışık, A. (2018). Çevrimiçi biçimlendirmeye yönelik bir değerlendirme aracı olarak Plickers: Öğrenci ve öğretmen görüşleri (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Irving, K. E. (2015). Technology-assisted formative assessment. In Urban, M. and Falvo, D. (Eds), Improving K12 STEM Education Outcomes through Technological Integration (pp. 380-398). IGI Global.
  • Lubis, H. Z., & Sari, P. W. (2019, October). Accountıng based learnıng media use Edmodo to improve the quality of learning. Paper presented at 1st International Conference on Innovation of Small Medium-sized Enterprise, 29 April 2019, Indonesia.
  • Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71. Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014). Unpacking the “urban” in urban teacher education: Making a case for context-specific preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 128-144.
  • McCabe, M. (2006). Live assessment by questioning in an interactive classroom. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response system in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 276-288). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
  • Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], (2009). İlköğretim matematik dersi 6-8. sınıflar öğretim programı, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Muanifah, M. T., Widodo, S. A., & Ardiyaningrum, M. (2019). Effect of Edmodo towards interests in mathematics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1188(1), 012103.
  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCTE] (2010, November). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  • Ningsih, S. K., & Mulyono, H. (2019). Digital assessment resources in primary and secondary school classrooms: teachers’ use and perceptions. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(8), 167-173.
  • Özkan, H. H., Albayrak, M. ve Berber, K. (2005). Öğretmen adaylarının ilköğretim okullarında yaptıkları öğretmenlik uygulamasının yetişmelerindeki rolü. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 33(168). http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/168/index3-alim.htm adresinden 23 Kasım 2019 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what teacher candidates are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191–203.
  • Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 573-618.
  • Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6), 1-6.
  • Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it. Retrieved March 03, 2020 from http://www.bu.edu/ssw/files/pdf/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-033.pdf
  • Royer, R. (2016, November). A comparison of eight digital tools for formative assessment. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 113-118). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Saracoğlu, G. & Kocabatmaz, H. (2019). A study on Kahoot and Socrative in line with peservice teachers views. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), 31-46.
  • Tan, X. & Wang, H. (2011, August). Information technology in teacher's professional skill training application. Paper presented at 6th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), Singapur.
  • 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, 7(3), 659-678.
  • Tsai, F. ( 2018). The effects of using the classroom response system in teacher education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology,8(4), 254-258.
  • Tuncer, M. ve Şimşek, M. (2019). Ortaokul 5. sınıf matematik dersi bölme işlemi konusunda Plickers uygulamasının matematik kaygısına ve matematik başarısına etkisi. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(19), 1-1.
  • VandeWalle, B. (2016). Affordable technology response systems. Connections, 30(2), 17.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırım, S. ve Karaman, S. (2012). Sınıf içi etkileşim uygulaması: Dinleyici yanıt sisteminin kullanımı ve değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(3), 571-587.
  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research design and methods (Second Edition). London: New Delhi.
  • Zengin, Y., Bars, M. & Şimşek, Ö. (2017). Matematik öğretiminin biçimlendirici değerlendirme sürecinde Kahoot! ve Plickers uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 602-626.
Toplam 48 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

İlknur Özpınar 0000-0002-3630-0991

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Aralık 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020

Kaynak Göster

APA Özpınar, İ. (2020). Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on their Use in Real Classroom Environments. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 11(3), 814-841. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.736600
AMA Özpınar İ. Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on their Use in Real Classroom Environments. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). Aralık 2020;11(3):814-841. doi:10.16949/turkbilmat.736600
Chicago Özpınar, İlknur. “Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on Their Use in Real Classroom Environments”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 11, sy. 3 (Aralık 2020): 814-41. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.736600.
EndNote Özpınar İ (01 Aralık 2020) Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on their Use in Real Classroom Environments. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 11 3 814–841.
IEEE İ. Özpınar, “Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on their Use in Real Classroom Environments”, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), c. 11, sy. 3, ss. 814–841, 2020, doi: 10.16949/turkbilmat.736600.
ISNAD Özpınar, İlknur. “Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on Their Use in Real Classroom Environments”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 11/3 (Aralık 2020), 814-841. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.736600.
JAMA Özpınar İ. Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on their Use in Real Classroom Environments. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). 2020;11:814–841.
MLA Özpınar, İlknur. “Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on Their Use in Real Classroom Environments”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), c. 11, sy. 3, 2020, ss. 814-41, doi:10.16949/turkbilmat.736600.
Vancouver Özpınar İ. Preservice Teachers’ Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Perspectives on their Use in Real Classroom Environments. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). 2020;11(3):814-41.