SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Temel Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

Examination of Web 2.0 Tools Used in Early Childhood Education: A cross-section from Türkiye

Erken Çocukluk Eğitiminde Kullanılan Web 2.0 Araçlarının İncelenmesi: Türkiye'den Bir Kesit

Suat Kol(SAKARYA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-8291-7546
Hilal İlknur Tunçeli(SAKARYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5305-5206
Pages
245–254
Publication Date
2025-07-31
DOI
—
🏛️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)

When the functional features of the software are examined, it is seen that it is used for image-visual-video editing, preparing educational material, creating image-poster-avatar, creating interactive stories, creating animations, communication-sharing, creating digital boards, preparing presentations, recognizing interactive celestial bodies, learning a language, preparing puzzles, drawing, following development, creating music, creating simulations, creating augmented reality and creating word clouds.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Web 2.0 tools, defined as the second-generation web platforms that support the exchange of information and ideas between users, have become a frequently preferred software type in education in terms of their ease of use, suitability for the purpose, and accessibility.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This research examines Web 2.0 tools used in early childhood in Türkiye according to different variables.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the functional features of the software are examined, it is seen that it is used for image-visual-video editing, preparing educational material, creating image-poster-avatar, creating interactive stories, creating animations, communication-sharing, creating digital boards, preparing presentations, recognizing interactive celestial bodies, learning a language, preparing puzzles, drawing, following development, creating music, creating simulations, creating augmented reality and creating word clouds.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:erken çocukluk eğitimi · dijital teknoloji · eğitim teknolojisi

Abstract

Web 2.0 tools, defined as the second-generation web platforms that support the exchange of information and ideas between users, have become a frequently preferred software type in education in terms of their ease of use, suitability for the purpose, and accessibility. For this reason, they have also started to be used effectively in early childhood education. This research examines Web 2.0 tools used in early childhood in Türkiye according to different variables. For this purpose, 52 software selected by obtaining expert opinions were analyzed by descriptive analysis. It is seen that they are generally developed by individuals or companies based in the United States, and almost all of them have Turkish language support both in terms of the features in the software and third-party software, 29 of the software are entirely free, and 23 are partially accessible. When the functional features of the software are examined, it is seen that it is used for image-visual-video editing, preparing educational material, creating image-poster-avatar, creating interactive stories, creating animations, communication-sharing, creating digital boards, preparing presentations, recognizing interactive celestial bodies, learning a language, preparing puzzles, drawing, following development, creating music, creating simulations, creating augmented reality and creating word clouds.

Özet

Web 2.0 araçları, kullanıcılar arasında bilgi ve fikir alışverişini destekleyen ikinci nesil web platformları olarak tanımlanmakta olup ve kullanım kolaylığı, amaca uygunluk ve erişilebilirlikleri açısından eğitimde sıkça tercih edilen bir yazılım türü haline gelmiştir. Bu nedenle, erken çocukluk eğitiminde de etkili bir şekilde kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu araştırma, Türkiye'de erken çocukluk döneminde kullanılan Web 2.0 araçlarını farklı değişkenlere göre incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, uzman görüşleri alınarak seçilen 52 yazılım betimsel analiz yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Genel olarak bu yazılımların Amerika Birleşik Devletleri merkezli bireyler veya şirketler tarafından geliştirildiği ve neredeyse tamamının hem yazılım içindeki özellikler hem de üçüncü taraf yazılımlar açısından Türkçe dil desteğine sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Yazılımlardan 29'u tamamen ücretsizken, 23'üne kısmen erişilebilmektedir. Yazılımların fonksiyonel özellikleri incelendiğinde; görüntü-görsel-video düzenleme, eğitim materyali hazırlama, görsel-poster-avatar oluşturma, etkileşimli hikayeler oluşturma, animasyon hazırlama, iletişim-paylaşım, dijital panolar oluşturma, sunum hazırlama, etkileşimli gök cisimlerini tanıma, dil öğrenme, bulmaca hazırlama, çizim yapma, gelişimi takip etme, müzik oluşturma, simülasyonlar oluşturma, artırılmış gerçeklik hazırlama ve kelime bulutları oluşturma gibi amaçlarla kullanıldığı görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kol, S., Tunçeli, H. İ. (2025). Examination of Web 2.0 Tools Used in Early Childhood Education: A cross-section from Türkiye. Uluslararası Temel Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 245–254. https://ajindex.com/articles/1572187

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Alkhawaldeh, M., Hyassat, M., Al-Zboon, E., & Ahmad, J. (2017). The Role of Computer Technology in Supporting Children’s Learning in Jordanian Early Years Education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(3), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1319444
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics 138(5), e20162591. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591
  3. Berger, A. A. & Cooper, S. (2003). Musical play: A case study of preschool children and parents. Journal of Research in Music Education 51(2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345848
  4. Chen, L., Chen, T. L., Lin, C. J., & Liu, H. K. (2018). Preschool teachers’ perception of the application of information communication technology (ICT) in Taiwan. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010114
  5. Christakis, D. A. (2009). The effects of infant media usage: what do we know and what should we learn? Acta Paediatrica 98(1), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01027.x
  6. Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 40(1), 179-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00865.x
  7. Clements, D. H. & Sarama, J. (2003). Young children and technology: What does the research say? Young Children 58(6), 34-40. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ784139
  8. Coklar A.N., Kilicer, K. ve Odabasi, H.F. (2007). A critical perspective on the use of technology in education: Technopedagogy. 7. Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Technologies. (39-44), Near East University, Nichosia.
  9. DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future. Print 53(4), 32-33. http://darcyd.com/fragmented_ future.pdf Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J. & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43-76.
  10. Frydenberg, M. (2008). Principles and pedagogy: The two Ps of podcasting in the information technology classroom. Information Systems Education Journal 6(6), 1-11. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=0953c93730467641f701f4154b01d0f42fd562a6
  11. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher 38(4), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671
  12. Harris, J., B., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers‟ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 393-416.
  13. Horzum, M. B. (2010). Examining teachers' awareness of Web 2.0 tools, their frequency of use and purposes in terms of various variables. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1), 604-634.
  14. Huang, Y., Li, H., & Fong, R. (2016). Using Augmented Reality in early art education: a case study in Hong Kong kindergarten. Early Child Development and Care, 186(6), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1067888
  15. Kara, N., & Cagiltay, K. (2020). In-service Preschool Teachers’ Thoughts about Technology and Technology Use in Early Educational Settings. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(2), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6191
  16. Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  17. Koehler M. J, Mishra, P., & Yahya, K (2007) Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. Computers &Education, 49(3), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
  18. Liang, A. (2022). The effect of screen media on children: The change from negative to positive. ICMETSS, 602–610. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-45-9_73
  19. Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU Kids Online: Final Report. London School of Economics and Political Science. https://eucpn.org/sites/default/files/document/files/5._eu_kids_online_-_final_report.pdf
  20. Matthews, J. (2003). Drawing and painting: Children and visual representation. Sage.
  21. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  22. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Position Statement January, 1-15. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/ps_technology.pdf
  23. Neuman, S. B. & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in pre-k. The Reading Teacher 62(5), 384-392. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.5.2
  24. O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics 127(4), 800-804. https://doi.org/ 10.1542/peds.2011-0054
  25. O’Reilly, T. (2005). Web 2.0: compact definition?, http://radar.oreilly.com/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition.html.
  26. O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies 65(1), 17-37. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1008839
  27. Özer, Ü. & Özer, E. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler ile bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri öğretmeni adaylarının eğitimde web 2.0 kullanımına yönelik görüşleri. International Congress On Politic, Economic And Social Studies, 3, 106-118.
  28. Özerdem Temel, A., & Türkoğlu, B. (2023). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin eğitimde web 2.0 araçlarının kullanımına yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesi. [Investigation of Preschool Teachers’s Opinions on the Use of Web 2.0 Tools in Education] Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(Özel Sayı), 217-243.
  29. Plowman, L., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2010). Growing up with technology: Young children learning in a digital world. Routledge.
  30. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 56(4), 487-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8
  31. Sever, R., Bayar, B. & Toker, O. (2023). Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik görüşleri. Turkish Studies - Education, 18(1), 1-13. https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.62451
  32. Su, J., Zhong, Y., & Chen, X. (2024). Technology education in early childhood education: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(6), 2848-2861.
  33. Tatlı, Z., İpek Akbulut, H., & 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. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.277878.
  34. Timur, S., Timur, B., Arcagök, S. & Öztürk, G. (2020). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin web 2.0 araçlarına yönelik görüşleri. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 21(1), 63- 107.https://doi.org/10.29299/KEFAD.2020.21.01.003
  35. Weng, J., & Li, H. (2020). Early technology education in China: A case study of Shanghai. Early Child Development and Care, 190(10), 1574–1585. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1542383
  36. Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 39(6), 987-995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x
  37. Yağan, S., Yeşil, Z., & Ertaş, Ö. N. (2023). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin web 2.0 araçlarının kullanımına ilişkin deneyimleri. [Preschool Teachers’ Experiences Of Using Web 2.0 Tools]. Sayı 44, 80-98.
  38. Yang, T., & Gunn, C. (2020). Understanding kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of the use of touchscreen technologies: An exploratory study in mainland China. E-Learning and Digital Media, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020980120
  39. Yıldırım, A & Şimşek, H. (2021). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin.
  40. Zhao, Y., Lu, J., Woodcock, S., Ren, Y. (2022). Social media web 2.0 tools adoption in language and literacy development in early years: A scoping review. Children, 9, 1901. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121901