SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1

Field Experts' Perspectives about the Web 2.0 Tool to Be Developed For Measurement and Assessment

Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Amaçlı Geliştirilecek Web 2.0 Aracına İlişkin Alan Uzmanlarının Görüşleri

Zeynep Tatlı(TRABZON UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER AND EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES EDUCATION)0000-0001-9503-3048
Sibel Er Nas(TRABZON UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING)0000-0002-5970-2811
Havva Yaman(TRABZON UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE TEACHING)0000-0003-2952-2075
Şeyma Turan(TRABZON UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER AND EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES EDUCATION)0000-0001-5930-0495
Pages
104–125
Publication Date
2022-01-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is recommended that the specified Web 2.0 tool should include outcome-based and graphical-based reporting features.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the research is to reveal the features of a Web 2.0 tool for measurement and assessment that will be developed for primary education teachers, in line with the opinions of Computer Education and Instructional Technology Departments (CEIT) and Primary Education field experts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Participants were consists of 20 field experts, including 10 CEIT and 10 Primary Education field experts with professional experiences ranging from 1 to 27 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is recommended that the specified Web 2.0 tool should include outcome-based and graphical-based reporting features.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ölçme ve değerlendirme · Web 2.0 aracı · temel eğitim

Abstract

The aim of the research is to reveal the features of a Web 2.0 tool for measurement and assessment that will be developed for primary education teachers, in line with the opinions of Computer Education and Instructional Technology Departments (CEIT) and Primary Education field experts. Case study is one of the qualitative research methods used in this research. Participants were consists of 20 field experts, including 10 CEIT and 10 Primary Education field experts with professional experiences ranging from 1 to 27 years. The opinions of the field experts were received through semi-structured interviews. The findings obtained in the research are evaluated in general, it has been determined that the measurement and assessment Web 2.0 tool to be developed for the use of primary education teachers, should have an easy of use interface and a question/answer design with multimedia support, include awards/competition and teamwork' interaction in order to be preferred by students and ensure ease of use, be supported by MoNE and stakeholders in order to be preferred by teachers. It is recommended that the specified Web 2.0 tool should include outcome-based and graphical-based reporting features. Especially in the Covid-19 pandemic process, in order for parents to support their child and follow the student's progress, it is recommended that a detailed statistical development report be included in the parent interface limited to their own children only.

Özet

Araştırmanın amacı, Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü (BÖTE) ve Temel Eğitim alan uzmanlarının görüşleri doğrultusunda sınıf öğretmenleri için geliştirilecek bir Web 2.0 ölçme ve değerlendirme aracının özelliklerini ortaya koymaktır. Bu araştırmada durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar, mesleki deneyimleri 1 ile 27 yıl arasında değişen 10 BÖTE ve 10 Temel Eğitim Bölümü olmak üzere 20 alan uzmanından oluşmaktadır. Alan uzmanlarının görüşleri yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla alınmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgular genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde sınıf öğretmenlerinin kullanımına yönelik geliştirilecek olan ölçme ve değerlendirme Web 2.0 aracının öğrenciler tarafından tercih edilmesi için kullanımı kolay bir arayüze ve multimedya destekli soru/cevap tasarımına sahip olması, ödül/yarışma ve takım çalışması etkileşimini içermesi gerektiği belirlenmiştir. Öğretmenler tarafından tercih edilmesi için ise kullanım kolaylığı sağlanmalı, MEB ve paydaşlar tarafından desteklenmesi belirtilmiştir. Geliştirilecek olan ölçme ve değerlendirme Web 2.0 aracının sonuca dayalı ve grafik tabanlı raporlama özelliklerini içermesi önerilmiştir. Özellikle Covid-19 pandemi sürecinde velilerin öğrencilere destek olabilmeleri ve öğrencinin gelişimini takip edebilmeleri için veli arayüzüne yer verilmesi ve bu arayüzde sadece kendi çocukları ile sınırlı olarak detaylı istatistiksel gelişim raporunun yer alması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tatlı, Z., Nas, S. E., Yaman, H., Turan, Ş. (2022). Field Experts' Perspectives about the Web 2.0 Tool to Be Developed For Measurement and Assessment. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 104–125. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.951094

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (71)

  1. Acar, S., Peker, B., & Küçükgençay, N. (2020). Opinions of secondary school teachers from various departments about online education platforms. Journal Of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 6(27), 901-925. https://doi.org/10.31589/JOSHAS.347
  2. Adıgüzel, A. (2020). Salgın sürecinde uzaktan eğitim ve öğrenci başarısını değerlendirmeye ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 253-271.
  3. Akgül, F., Küpeli, E., & Kır, İ. (2015). Identifying the computer literacy skill levels of primary school teachers: The case of Kahramanmaras. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 14(55), 207-219.
  4. Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4), 181-198.
  5. Almazon, R. S., Gil-García, J. R., Luna-Reyes, L. F., Luna, D. E., & Díaz-Murillo, G. (2011). The use of Web 2.0 on mexican state websites: A three-year assessment. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 9(2), 107-121.
  6. Altınışık, S., & Orhan, F. (2002). The effects of multimedia learning environment on the students' attitudes and achievement in social studies. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 41-49.
  7. Amoroso, D. (2005). Use of online assessment tools to enhance student performance in large classes. Information Systems Education Journal, 3(4), 1-10. Assessment Reform Group [ARG] (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. University of Cambridge School of Education.
  8. Arslan, S. & Şendurur, P. (2017). Eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlerdeki değişim. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(3), 25-50.
  9. Aytaçlı, B. (2012). A detailed analysis on case study. Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Education Journal of Education Sciences, 3(1), 1-9.
  10. Bakar, F., & Avan, Ç. (2019). Use of technology in measurement and evaluation: Electronic portfolios. Social Scientific Centered Issues, 1(2), 37-42.
  11. Bakioğlu, B., & Çevik, M. (2020). Science teachers' views on distance education in the COVID-19 pandemic process. Turkish Studies, 15(4),109-129.
  12. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–144.
  13. Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik değerlendirmeler: Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması AUAd, 6(3), 112-142.
  14. Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., … & Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572.
  15. Bower, M. (2015). A typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies. Educause, 8(2), 2015.
  16. Brader, A., Luke, A., Klenowski, V., Connolly, S., & Behzadpour, A. (2014). Designing online assessment tools for disengaged youth. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(7), 698-717.
  17. Buluş Kırıkkaya, E., Dağ, F., Durdu, L., & Gerdan, S. (2016). CAI software for 8th grade natural processes unit and its effect on academic success. Elementary Education Online, 15(1) 234-250.
  18. Burke, J., & Dempsey, M. (2020). COVID-19 practice in primary schools in Ireland report. Maynooth University of Education. http://www.into.ie/app/uploads/2020/04/Covid-19-Practice-in-Primary-Schools-Report-1.pdf
  19. Büyüköztürk Ş., Çakmak E., Akgün Ö. E., Karadeniz Ş., & Demirel F. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  20. Can, E. (2020). Coronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemisi ve pedagojik yansımaları: Türkiye’de açık ve uzaktan eğitim uygulamaları. AUAd, 6(2), 11-53.
  21. Cesur, E., & Yelken, T. (2015). Teachers' opinions about intel teacher programme in-service training with face to face education and distance education. Journal of International Social Research, 8(38), 673-688.
  22. Chiheb, R., Faizi, R., & Afia, A. E. (2011). Using objective online testing tools to assess students’ learning: Potentials and limitations. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 24(1), 69-72.
  23. Cho, V., Cheng, T. E., & Lai, W. J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers & Education, 53(2), 216-227.
  24. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
  25. Çakır, H., & Topçu, H. (2005). Bir iletişim dili olarak internet. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 71-96.
  26. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology-A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
  27. Drenoyianni, H., & Selwood, I. D. (1998). Conceptions or misconceptions? Primary teachers' perceptions and use of computers in the classroom. Education and information Technologies, 3(2), 87-99.
  28. Doğan, S., & Koçak, E. (2020). A study on distance learning activities in the context of the EBA system. Journal of Economics and Social Research, 7(14), 111-124.
  29. Durak, H., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2017). Öğretmenlerin teknoloji kullanım yeterliklerinde etkili olan faktörlerle ilgili bir inceleme. H. F. Odabaşı, B. Akkoyunlu ve A. İşman (Ed.), Eğitim teknolojieri okumaları 2017 (ss. 537-556). TOJET-The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.
  30. 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.
  31. Ertmer, P. A., Paul, A., Molly, L., Eva, R., & Denise, W. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 54-72. doi: 10.1080/08886504.1999.10782269
  32. Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15, 195-219.
  33. Guha, S. (2003). Are we all technically prepared? —Teachers’ perspective on the causes of comfort or discomfort in using computers at elementary grade teaching. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2003(1), 317-349.
  34. Günther, J. (2007). Digital natives and digital immigrants. Studienverlag.
  35. Handal, B. (2004). Teachers’ instructional beliefs about integrating educational technology. e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 17(1), 1-10.
  36. Hart, J. (2008). Understanding today’s learner. Learning Solutions Magazine, 22,1-11.
  37. Harvey, T. (2019). Using ipads and seesaw for formative assessment in k2 classrooms. [Conference presentation]. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 2019, Philadelphia, United States. https://conference.iste.org/2019/program/search/detail_session.php?id=112113249
  38. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27(03), 1-15.
  39. İnal, E. & Arslanbaş, F. (2021) Türkçenin yabancı dil olarak uzaktan öğretiminde iletişim odaklı web 2.0 araçları ve uygulama örnekleri. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(Special Number), 228-249.
  40. Karadağ, A. (2020, May 5). Meb kurumları yönetmeliğinde değişiklik resmî gazete'de. Anadolu Agency https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/meb-kurumlari-yonetmeliginde-degisiklik-resmi- gazetede/1833220
  41. Karaoğlan-Yılmaz, F. G., & Binay-Eyüboğlu, F. A. (2018). Investigation of the relationships between lifelong learning attitudes, digital native status and technology acceptance of teachers in terms of each other and various variables. International Journal of Education Science and Technology, 4(1), 1-17.
  42. Kapuler, D. (2014). Top 100 sites and apps of 2014. Tech &Learning, 35(6),14-16.
  43. Keskin, M., & Kaya, D., Ö., (2020). COVID-19 sürecinde öğrencilerin web tabanlı uzaktan eğitime yönelik geri bildirimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 59-67.
  44. Konan, N. (2010). Computer literacy levels of teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2567-2571.
  45. Lake, R., & Olson, L. (2020). Learning as we go: Principles for effective assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
  46. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363-374.
  47. Martínez-Villaseñor, M. D. L., González-Mendoza, M., & Danvila Del Valle, I. (2014). Enrichment of learner profile with ubiquitous user model interoperability. Computación Sistemas, 18(2), 359-374.
  48. Ministy of National Education [MoNE] (2020). Sınıf eğitimi öğretmen rehber kitapçığı. https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_08/26145857_Sinif.pdf
  49. Orhan-Göksün, D., Filiz, O., & Kurt, A. A. (2018). Eğitim Çantası: Web 2.0 araçlarını kategori bazlı sunan sosyal bir web sitesinin geliştirilmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2), 505-533.
  50. Özer, M. (2020). Educational policy actions by the ministry of national education in the times of covid-19 pandemic in Turkey. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(3), 1124-1129.
  51. Pamuk, S., Ülken, A., & Dilek, N. (2012). The investigation of preservice teachers’ technology integration competencies from technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute 9(17), 415-438.
  52. Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Corwin A Sage Company.
  53. Seo, Y. J. & Woo, H. (2010). The identification, implementation, and evaluation of critical user interface design features of computer-assisted instruction programs in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 55(1), 363-377.
  54. Sugar, W. (2002). Applying human-centered design to technology integration: Three alternative technology perspectives. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(1), 12-17.
  55. Süral, İ., & Girmen, P. (2019). Hayat bilgisi dersinde dijital bir değerlendirme. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,, 20(04), 289-304.
  56. Şimşek, Ö., Bars, M., & Zengin, Y. (2017). The use of information and communication technologies in the assessment and evaluation process in mathematics instruction. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies (IJOCIS), 7(13), 189-207.
  57. Taşlıçay Arslan, Ș. (2019). New generation exam tool Flipquiz. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(4), 1538-1549.
  58. Tatlı, Z. (2019). Ölçme değerlendirmede Web 2.0 Pegem Akademi.
  59. Tatlı, Z., İpek Akbulut, H., & Altınışık, D. (2019). Changing attitudes towards educational technology usage in classroom: Web 2.0 tools. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 1-19.
  60. Tuluk, A., & Yurdugül, H. (2020). Design and development of a web based dynamic assessment system to increase students’ learning effectiveness. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(4), 631-656.
  61. UNESCO. (2020a). School closures caused by Coronavirus (Covid-19). UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
  62. UNESCO. (2020b). Startling digital divides in distance learning emerge. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/news/startling-digital-divides-distance-learning-emerge
  63. UNICEF. (2020). UNICEF and Microsoft launch global learning platform to help address COVID-19 education crisis. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-and-microsoft-launch-global-learning-platform-help-address-covid-19-education
  64. Vitanova, V., Atanasova-Pachemska, T., Iliev, D., & Pachemska, S. (2015). Factors affecting the development of ICT competencies of teachers in primary schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1087-1094.
  65. Wang, W.-T., & Wang, C.-C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53, 761–774.
  66. World Health Organization [WHO] (2020, March). WHO director-general's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-COVID-19.
  67. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin Publisher.
  68. Yurdugül, H., & Bayrak, F. (2014). The acceptance of Web based formative assessment system for primary school students. Educational Sciences and Pratice,13(26), 167-186.
  69. Zarzycka-Piskorz, E. (2016). Kahoot it or not? Can games be motivating in learning grammar?. Teaching English with Technology, 16(3), 17-36.
  70. Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311–333.
  71. Bozkurt, A., Jung, I., Xiao, J., Vladimirschi, V., Schuwer, R., Egorov, G., Lambert, S. R., … & Paskevicius, M. (2020). A global outlook to the interruption of education due to COVID-19 pandemic: Navigating in a time of uncertainty and crisis. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-126. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3878572.