SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1

Examination Of Preservice Science Teachers' Views On Web 2.0 Tools

Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Web 2.0 Araçlarına Yönelik Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Dilek Karışan(Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi)0000-0002-1791-9633
Ezgi Karasulu(ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0005-6828-9378
Pages
25–51
Publication Date
2026-04-24
🏛️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)

The findings revealed that teacher candidates perceive Web 2.0 tools as highly functional and multidimensional in both teaching and learning processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine science teacher candidates’ views on Web 2.0 tools.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was conducted during the 2024–2025 academic year with 29 science teacher candidates at a university in western Turkey, using a qualitative case study design.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that teacher candidates perceive Web 2.0 tools as highly functional and multidimensional in both teaching and learning processes.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024–2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Web 2.0 araçları · Dijital araçlar · Fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine science teacher candidates’ views on Web 2.0 tools. The research was conducted during the 2024–2025 academic year with 29 science teacher candidates at a university in western Turkey, using a qualitative case study design. Participants were selected through criterion sampling based on whether they had taken a course related to Web 2.0 tools. Data were collected through written opinion forms and face-to-face interviews, and analyzed using content analysis. The findings revealed that teacher candidates perceive Web 2.0 tools as highly functional and multidimensional in both teaching and learning processes. They emphasized that these tools contribute significantly to enriching lesson content, increasing student participation, creating personalized learning environments, and supporting material development. Advantages such as virtual experiment opportunities, time management, and instructional support were also highlighted. The study concludes that Web 2.0 tools offer interactive, student-centered, and constructivist learning environments, making them effective in science education. As a recommendation, future research could explore the use of Web 2.0 tools across different subjects and grade levels to gain broader insights.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik görüşlerini incelemektir. 2024-2025 eğitim-öğretim yılında Türkiye’nin batısındaki bir üniversitede öğrenim gören 29 öğretmen adayıyla yürütülen çalışmada, nitel araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar, ilgili dersleri alıp almama durumlarına göre ölçüt örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilmiştir. Veriler, yazılı görüş formları ve yüz yüze görüşmelerle toplanmış; içerik analiziyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarını hem öğretme hem de öğrenme süreçlerinde çok işlevli ve etkili araçlar olarak gördüklerini ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle ders içeriklerini zenginleştirme, öğrenci katılımını artırma, bireyselleştirilmiş öğrenme ortamları sunma ve materyal geliştirme gibi alanlarda bu araçların önemli katkılar sağladığı belirtilmiştir. Ayrıca sanal deney ortamları, zaman yönetimi ve öğretim sürecini kolaylaştırma gibi avantajları da vurgulanmıştır. Web 2.0 araçlarının etkileşimli, öğrenci merkezli ve yapılandırmacı öğrenmeye uygun ortamlar sunduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Gelecekte farklı branş ve düzeylerde benzer çalışmalar yapılması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karışan, D., Karasulu, E. (2026). Examination Of Preservice Science Teachers' Views On Web 2.0 Tools. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1, 25–51. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1775578

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Adam, I. (2020). Web 2.0 Tools in Classroom: Enhancing Student Engagement through Technology Enabled Active Learning. International Journal of Creative Multimedia, 1(1), 41-55.
  2. Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?. Educause Review, 41(2), 32.
  3. Ali, N. (2024). An investigation into the impact of educational technology on the teaching-Learning process in higher education. International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Techology, 8(5), 142-149 https://doi.org/10.47001/irjiet/2024.805022.
  4. Antonietti, C., Cattaneo, A., & Amenduni, F. (2022). Can teachers’ digital competence influence technology acceptance in vocational education?. Computers in Human Behavior, 132, 107266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107266
  5. Atalmış, S., ve Şimşek, G. (2022). Sosyal bilgiler ve fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin web 2.0 araçlarını kullanım yeterlilikleri [Socialstudies and science teachers competence in using web 2.0 tools competence]. Journal of Innovative Research in Social Studies, 5(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.47503/jirss.1039178
  6. Blanc, S., Conchado, A., Benlloch-Dualde, J. V., Monteiro, A., & Grindei, L. (2025). Digital competence development in schools: A study on the association of problem-solving with autonomy and digital attitudes. International Journal of STEM Education, 12, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00534-6
  7. Bünül, R., & Yapıcı, İ. Ü. (2021). The views of preservice science teachers about the use of web 2.0 tools in teaching. Turkish Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(1), 72-89.
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Çakmak, E. K. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (24. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  9. Caliskan, S., Guney, Z., Sakhieva, R., Vasbieva, D., & Zaitseva, N. (2019). Teachers’ views on the availability of web 2.0 tools in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(22), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i22.11752
  10. Carter, I. S., & Akerson, V. L. (2024). Elementary teacher candidates’ experiences with and ıdeas about digital science notebooks. Research in Science Education, 54(4), 671-685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10155-8
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
  12. Çakıroğlu, E. (2013). Özel eğitim-öğretim kurumlarında ders aracı olarak blog kullanımının öğrencinin motivasyonuna etkisi (Tez No. 331153) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi], İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi.
  13. Çelik, T. (2021). Web 2.0 araçları kullanımı yetkinliği ölçeği geliştirme çalışması geliştirme çalışması [Development of a web 2.0 tools proficiency scale]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 51, 449-478.
  14. Donkoh, S., & Mensah, J. (2023). Application of triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Applied Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 10(1), 6-9.
  15. Fırat, E. A., ve 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.067
  16. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  17. Frisch, J. K. (2019). Use of a “hybrid” science notebook by preservice elementary education teachers: Combining paper and digital tools. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(6), 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1589847
  18. Geçim, B., & Çetin, N. İ. (2023). Öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanabilme yetkinlikleri: Bir karma yöntem araştırması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 19(1), 97-122. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.1198098
  19. Gursoy, G., ve Goksun, D. O. (2019). The experiences of preservice science teachers in educational content development using web 2.0 Tools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(4), 338-357. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.634168
  20. Gün, E. (2024). Beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmeni ve öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanım düzeyleri ve içerik üretme öz yeterlik inançlarının incelenmesi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi], Marmara Üniversitesi.
  21. Hao, Y., & Lee, K. S. (2015). The investigation of preservice teachers’ concerns about web 2.0 technologies in education. In E-Learning Systems, Environments and Approaches: Theory and Implementation (pp. 165-179). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  22. Huang, C. K., Chao, Y. C., & Lin, C. Y. (2008, August 5-8). Web 2.0 in and out of the language classroom [Conference Session]. Proceedings of the WorldCALL 2008 Conference. Foukoka: Japan.
  23. Hursen, C. (2021). The effect of problem-based learning method supported by web 2.0 tools on academic achievement and critical thinking skills in teacher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(3), 515-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09458-2
  24. 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). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.157
  25. Kale, U. (2014). Can they plan to teach with Web 2.0? Future teachers’ potential use of the emerging web. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(4), 471-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.813408
  26. Kanthimathi, S., & Raja, B. W. D. (2025). The role of mentorıng ın educatıon: Creatıng synergıes between teachers and students. Archives. https://doi.org/10.25215/9349154188.40
  27. Korucu, A., ve Yücel, A. (2015). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenlerinin dinamik Web teknolojilerini eğitimde kullanmalarına yönelik görüşleri [Opinionsof information technologyon the use of dynamic web technologies in education]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(2), 124-152. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.78815
  28. Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Kontturi, H., Nenonen, S., Parpala, M., Tahvanainen, V., & Valtonen, T. (2025). Examining teacher educators’ roles in developing preservice teachers’ digital competence. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2025.2505021
  29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  30. Meng, L. (2024). The changes and challenges of educational technology innovation on the role of teachers. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology, 8(05), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.23977/aetp.2024.080526.
  31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  32. Mölgen, L., Asshoff, R., & Heuckmann, B. (2024). Development and application of a domain-specific TPACK questionnaire—Findings from a longitudinal study on teaching human biology using digital tools. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(4), 607-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10108-w
  33. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
  34. Nguyen, L. A. T., & Habók, A. (2024). Tools for assessing teacher digital literacy: a review. Journal of Computers in Education, 11(1), 305-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00257-5
  35. Onbasili, Ü. I. (2020). The effects of science teaching practice supported with web 2.0 tools on prospective elementary school teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(2), 91-110.
  36. Oskarita, E., & Arasy, H. N. A. (2024). The role of digital tools in enhancing collaborative learning in secondary education. International Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.62951/ijer.v1i1.15
  37. Özturk, G., Karamete, A., Çetin, G., ve Korkusuz, M. (2022). The web 2.0 workshop for the teacher candidates: A mixed method research. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 15(1), 38-51. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.15.1.4
  38. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
  39. Ramsurrun, H., Elaheebocus, R., & Chiniah, A. (2024). Digital tools in informal science education sites: A systematic literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(4), 569-589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10105-z
  40. Redecker, C. (2009). Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe. European Commission Joint Research Centre.
  41. Rizal, R., Setiawan, W., & Rusdiana, D. (2019, February). Digital literacy of preservice science teachers. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, No. 2, p. 022058). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022058
  42. Roberts, C. W. (Ed.). (2020). Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts. Routledge.
  43. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring preservice teachers' beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59(3), 937-945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.001
  44. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 37-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9410-9
  45. Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., Wade, C. A. & Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002
  46. Susanta, A. (2025). Literacy skills through the use of digital STEAM-inquiry learning modules: A comparative study. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Retrieved from https://www.ejmste.com/article/literacy-skills-through-the-use-of-digital-steam-inquiry-learning-modules-a-comparative-study-of-16170.
  47. Talan, T., ve Batdı, V. (2022). Öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 araçlarını eğitimde kullanma yeterliliklerine ilişkin görüşlerinin rasch ölçme modeli ve maxqda ile analizi [Analysis of prospective teachers' views on their proficiency in using Web 2.0 tools in education using the Rasch measurement model and maxqda]. Elektronik Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(21), 66-85. https://doi.org/10.55605/ejedus.1066101
  48. Turan, S., ve Avcı, E. K. (2018). 2018 Sosyal bilgiler öğretim programı'nın dijital vatandaşlık bağlamında incelenmesi [An examination of the 2018 social studies curriculum in the context of digital citizenship]. Journal of Education and New Approaches, 1(1), 28-38.
  49. Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  50. Uçak, E., ve Şaka, C. (2022). The effect of using web 2.0 tools in the teaching of socio-scientific issues on preservice science teachers: The effect of 2.0 tools in the teaching of socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 14(3), 2679-2710.
  51. Uyulgan, M. A., & Güven, N. A. (2022). Web 2.0 tools in chemistry teaching: An analysis of pre-service chemistry teachers’ competencies and views. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning, 3(1), 88-114. https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1127618
  52. Volti, R., & Croissant, J. (2024). Society and technological change. Waveland Press.