SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

AN INVESTIGATION OF USES AND GRATIFICATIONS FOR USING WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Sevinç GELMEZ BURAKGAZİ
İclal CAN
İlknur ÇELİK
Journal
IOJET
Pages
88–102
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

The results indicated that the facultymembers were selective in their use of Web 2.0 tools and utilized a variety of Web 2.0 tools togratify their cognitive, affective, social integrative and personal integrative needs in relation toinstructional processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although the use of Web 2.0 in higher education has been a hot topic for the last decade, alack of guidelines on how to use Web 2.0 tools has constrained their wider adoption.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore,understanding why and how educators use Web 2.0 is a necessary step towards promoting theireffective use in teaching and learning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicated that the facultymembers were selective in their use of Web 2.0 tools and utilized a variety of Web 2.0 tools togratify their cognitive, affective, social integrative and personal integrative needs in relation toinstructional processes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although the use of Web 2.0 in higher education has been a hot topic for the last decade, alack of guidelines on how to use Web 2.0 tools has constrained their wider adoption. Therefore,understanding why and how educators use Web 2.0 is a necessary step towards promoting theireffective use in teaching and learning. This study draws upon the uses and gratificationsperspective to explore faculty members’ uses of Web 2.0 tools in instructional processes in aninternational higher education context. We gathered data from 15 faculty members via semistructuredinterviews as part of a phenomenological study design applying maximum variationsampling. We analyzed the data using content analysis. The results indicated that the facultymembers were selective in their use of Web 2.0 tools and utilized a variety of Web 2.0 tools togratify their cognitive, affective, social integrative and personal integrative needs in relation toinstructional processes.

🔖

Cite This Article

BURAKGAZİ, S. G., CAN, İ., ÇELİK, İ. (2022). AN INVESTIGATION OF USES AND GRATIFICATIONS FOR USING WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING. IOJET, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 88–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/542326

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ahmed, A. M. (2015). The current use of Web 2. 0 tools in university teaching from the perspective of faculty members at the college of education. In ISER-10th International Conference on Education and Social Science (ICESS-2015) (Vol. 10, pp. 1–5).
  2. Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.9114a
  3. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
  4. Anderson, P., Hepworth, M., Kelly, B., & Metcalfe, R. (2007). What is Web 2.0 ? Ideas, technologies and implications for education by. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, 60(1), 64. https://doi.org/www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2007/twweb2.aspx
  5. Aymerich-Franch, L., & Fedele, M. (2015). Students’ privacy concerns on the use of social media in higher education. Social Media and Networking: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications, 4(4), 1963–1983. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8614-4.ch090
  6. Batsila, M., Vavougios, D., & Ioannidis, G. S. (2015). Factors that Influence the application of Web 2.0 based techniques for instructional purposes – A case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(4), 15–21.
  7. Celik, I., Akilli, G. K., & Onuk, T. C. (2014). Social media for academics: Motivation killer or booster? In Proceedings - IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2014), pp. 480–482. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.142
  8. Costa, C., Alvelos, H., & Teixeira, L. (2016). The use of Web 2.0 tools by students in learning and leisure contexts: a study in a Portuguese institution of higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1057611
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. CA: Sage.DiBella, K. S., & Williams, K. G. (2015). Beneficial Web 2.0 Tools to Engage Learners and Maximize Learning. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 11(2), 75-81.
  10. Enskat, A., Hunt, S. K., & Hooker, J. F. (2017). A generational examination of instructional Facebook use and the effects on perceived instructor immediacy, credibility and student affective learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1354065
  11. Gelmez-Burakgazi, S. (2012). Connecting science communication to science education: A phenomenological inquiry