Journals / Journal of Turkish Science Education / 2020 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4

Teachers' Opinions about DistanceWeb 2.0 Tools Training and Teachers' In-Class Web 2.0 Practices

Pages
561–577
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)

Furthermore, it was found that teachers used web 2.0 tools for assessment, to create opportunities for collaboration, and to improve students' learning experience and engagement.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This qualitative research aims to determine teachers' opinions about in-class web 2.0 practices after distance professional development involvement.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Web 2.0 and Distance Training Interview Form (WDTIF) was used after implementingweb 2.0 tools in the classrooms to collect data.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, it was found that teachers used web 2.0 tools for assessment, to create opportunities for collaboration, and to improve students' learning experience and engagement.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

This qualitative research aims to determine teachers' opinions about in-class web 2.0 practices after distance professional development involvement. Twelve teachers from different public schools were selected purposefullyas a sample group. The Web 2.0 and Distance Training Interview Form (WDTIF) was used after implementingweb 2.0 tools in the classrooms to collect data. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Then the data were analyzed by content analysis. The data analysis revealed that participating teachers recognized the different features of web 2.0 tools. Furthermore, it was found that teachers used web 2.0 tools for assessment, to create opportunities for collaboration, and to improve students' learning experience and engagement. Teachers also mentioned that distance education allowed them to participate in a professional learning community besides offeringtraining opportunities. Distance education was also anaffordableoption for teachers whoneeds totravel to a distant location. During the interviews, the disadvantages of distance education were pointed outas well. These disadvantages were internet connection problems, lack of motivation and confidence, and face-to-face interaction. Further investigations were carried outto understand other related impacts of using web 2.0 tools in the classroom and distance teacher learning that arose during the study.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞAHIN-TOPALCENGIZ, E., YILDIRIM, B. (2020). Teachers' Opinions about DistanceWeb 2.0 Tools Training and Teachers' In-Class Web 2.0 Practices. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4, 561–577. https://ajindex.com/articles/165253

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigatingfaculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
  2. Akpınar, Y. (2003). Öğretmenlerin Yeni Bilgi teknolojileri kullanımında yükseköğretimin etkisi: İstanbul okulları örneği (The effects of higher education on teachers' use of new technologies: The Case of Schools in Istanbul). The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2), 79-96. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v2i2/2211.pdf
  3. Alenezi, F. Y. (2019). Academic Staff Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Factors Affecting Its Implementation at Northern Border University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Dirasat: Educational Sciences,46(1).Retrieved from: https://dirasat.ju.edu.jo/ES/Article/FullText/12623?volume=46&issue=1
  4. Arat, T., & Bakan, Ö. (2011). Dıstance educatıon and applıcatıons. Journal of Selçuk University Social Sciences Vocational School, 14(1-2), 363-374.
  5. Balcı, A. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem teknik ve ilkeleri [Research Methods and Technologies in Social Science]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık [Pegem Academy Publishing]. BECTA (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning at key stages 3 and 4.Coventry, UK: British Educational Communications Technology Agency. Belanger, F. & Jordan, D.H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools, and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27, 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789498
  6. Birişçi, S., Kul, Ü., Aksu, Z., Akaslan, D., & Çelik, S. (2018). Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme özyeterlik algısını belirlemeye yönelik ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Web 2.0 rapid content development self-efficacy perception scale]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuramve Uygulama [Educational Technology Theory and Practice], 8(1), 187-208.
  7. Bingimlas, K. A. (2017). Learning and Teaching with Web 2.0 Applications in Saudi K-12 Schools. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 100-115. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152646.pdf
  8. Blannin, J. (2015). The role of the teacher in primary school Web 2.0 use. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(3), 188–205. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105760.pdf
  9. Blood, R. (2002). The weblog handbook: Practical advice on creating and maintaining your blo