KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Web 2.0 Araçları ile İlgili Bilgi ve Deneyimleri

Pre-service Chemistry Teachers' Knowledge and Experience with Web 2.0 Tools

Ayse Zeynep Şen(Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi)0000-0002-1798-4048
Sayfa
838–862
Yayın Tarihi
2025-04-28
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Gelecekteki araştırmalarda, KÖA'ların özellikle kimya öğretimi ve öğreniminde yapay zeka desteği sunan Web 3.0 ve yapay zekaya ek olarak artırılmış gerçeklik desteği sunan Web 4.0 konusundaki bilgi ve deneyimlerine odaklanılması önerilmektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Web 2.0 araçları, kullanıcıların etkileşimli bir şekilde içerik oluşturmasına ve bu içeriği paylaşmasına olanak tanıyan bir dizi internet tabanlı uygulamadan oluşmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Kimya eğitiminde, Web 2.0 araçları; tanecik boyutunda kavraması güç olan konuları somutlaştırması, interaktif bir öğrenme ortamı sunması, iş birlikli çalışmaya fırsat tanıması, zaman ve mekandan bağımsız olarak herhangi bir kaynağa erişimi kolaylaştırması sebebiyle sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Gelecekteki araştırmalarda, KÖA'ların özellikle kimya öğretimi ve öğreniminde yapay zeka desteği sunan Web 3.0 ve yapay zekaya ek olarak artırılmış gerçeklik desteği sunan Web 4.0 konusundaki bilgi ve deneyimlerine odaklanılması önerilmektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2023-2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Web 2.0 araçları · Kimya öğretmen adayları · Kimya öğretimi

Özet

Web 2.0 araçları, kullanıcıların etkileşimli bir şekilde içerik oluşturmasına ve bu içeriği paylaşmasına olanak tanıyan bir dizi internet tabanlı uygulamadan oluşmaktadır. Kimya eğitiminde, Web 2.0 araçları; tanecik boyutunda kavraması güç olan konuları somutlaştırması, interaktif bir öğrenme ortamı sunması, iş birlikli çalışmaya fırsat tanıması, zaman ve mekandan bağımsız olarak herhangi bir kaynağa erişimi kolaylaştırması sebebiyle sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, kimya öğretmen adaylarına (KÖA) odaklanarak, katılımcıların Web 2.0 araçlarına ilişkin bilgi ve deneyimlerinin incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, 2023-2024 eğitim-öğretim yılı bahar döneminde 62 KÖA ile nitel bir yaklaşım benimsenerek yürütülmüştür. Veriler, açık uçlu sorular ve görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Veriler analiz edildiğinde, KÖA'ların yarısından fazlasının Web 2.0 araçlarını ve özellikle Kahoot'u daha önce duyduğu, bu araçlardan çoğunlukla alan eğitimi dersleri yoluyla haberdar oldukları belirlenmiştir. Web 2.0 araçlarını kullanmanın avantaj ve dezavantajlarına dair görüşleri incelendiğinde önerdikleri avantajlara kıyasla daha az sayıda dezavantaj önerisinde bulundukları belirlenmiştir. En yaygın avantaj olarak bu araçların öğrenmeyi kolaylaştırıcı yönüne, en yaygın dezavantaj olarak da teknolojik donanım gerektirmesine değindikleri belirlenmiştir. Ek olarak kimya öğretimi açısından Web 2.0 araçlarının yanlış kavramaya neden olabileceği yönünü olası bir dezavantaj olarak dile getirdikleri saptanmıştır. Gelecekteki araştırmalarda, KÖA'ların özellikle kimya öğretimi ve öğreniminde yapay zeka desteği sunan Web 3.0 ve yapay zekaya ek olarak artırılmış gerçeklik desteği sunan Web 4.0 konusundaki bilgi ve deneyimlerine odaklanılması önerilmektedir.

Abstract

Web 2.0 tools consist of a series of internet-based applications that allow users to create and share content interactively across many different disciplines. In chemistry education, Web 2.0 tools are frequently used because they help concretize concepts that are difficult to grasp at the particle level, provide an interactive learning environment, encourage students to collaborate, and, most importantly, overcome time and space limitations by granting students access to resources from anywhere, at any time. This study focused on pre-service chemistry teachers (PCTs) and aimed to examine their knowledge and experiences with Web 2.0 tools. The study was conducted using a qualitative approach with 62 PCTs during the spring term of the 2023-2024 academic year. Data were collected through open-ended questions and interviews. The findings revealed that more than half of the PCTs had heard of Web 2.0 tools, especially Kahoot, and that they were mostly introduced to these tools through field education courses. When examining their views on the advantages and disadvantages of using Web 2.0 tools, it was found that they suggested fewer disadvantages compared to the advantages. The most commonly mentioned advantage was the tools' facilitation of learning, while the most common disadvantage was the need for technological equipment. Additionally, it was found that they referred to the potential for Web 2.0 tools to cause misconceptions in chemistry education as a possible disadvantage. It is recommended that future research focus on the knowledge and experiences of PCTs, particularly in relation to Web 3.0, which offers artificial intelligence support, and Web 4.0, which includes both artificial intelligence and augmented reality support, especially in the context of chemistry teaching and learning.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Şen, A. Z. (2025). Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Web 2.0 Araçları ile İlgili Bilgi ve Deneyimleri. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 838–862. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1560226

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (68)

  1. Abeid, A. H. (2016). Adoption of Web 2.0 tools as learning instrument in Tanzania higher education. where are we?. International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research, 5(5), 266-274. https://doi.org/10.7753/ijcatr0505.1007
  2. Alhassan, R. (2017). Exploring the relationship between Web 2.0 tools self-efficacy and teachers’ use of these tools in their teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p217
  3. Antoniou, K., Mbah, E., and Parmaxi, A. (2016). Teaching Turkish in low tech contexts: opportunities and challenges. In S. Papadima-Sophocleous, L. Bradley and S. Thouësny (Eds), CALL communities and culture. (pp. 32-36). https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.eurocall2016.534
  4. Arabaci, İ. B., and Akilli, C. (2021). English teachers' views on the use of Web 2.0 tools in educational environments. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 7(2), 115-125. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2021.72.115.125
  5. Azzubairiyah, N., Erman, E., and Susiyawati, E. (2022). Examining student responses of Phet simulations after virtual laboratory practices. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 17(4), 517-519. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v17i4.3624
  6. Balcı Çömez, C., Çavumirza, E., and Yıldırım, M. (2022). Investigation of the effect of Web 2.0 supported 5E learning model on students' success and opinion in teaching pressure unit in distance education. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 9(1), 73-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.22.5.9.1
  7. Baltacı, A. (2018). A Conceptual review of sampling methods and sample size problems in qualitative research. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 231-274. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/bitlissos/issue/38061/399955
  8. Banday, T. M. (2013). Web 2.0 in e-Learning. EAI Endorsed Transactions on e-Learning, 1(3), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/el.1.3.e2
  9. Baydaş, Ö. and Çiçek, M. (2019). The examination of the gamification process in undergraduate education: a scale development study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(3), 269-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1580609
  10. Biçen, H., and Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(02), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467 Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., and Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 10, 73-103. https://doi.org/10.28945/1384
  11. Bryant, S. G., Correll, J. M., and Clarke, B. M. (2018). Fun with pharmacology: Winning students over with Kahoot! game-based learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(5), 320. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180420-15
  12. Bower, M. (2015). A typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2020/4/typology-of-free-web-based-learning-technologies
  13. Bower, M., and Torrington, J. (2020). Typology of free-web based technologies. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2020/4/typology-of-free-web-based-learning-technologies
  14. Chaiyo, Y., and Nokham, R. (2017). The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student's perception in the classrooms response system. 2017 International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), Thailand, 2017, pp. 178-182. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904957
  15. Creswell, J. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Sage.
  16. Ekici, E., and Döner Aydoğan, G. (2023). The effects of Web 2.0 tools supported inquiry-based activities on students' attitudes towards chemistry lesson. International Technology and Education Journal, 7(2), 60-68. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1413398
  17. Elmas, R., and Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2012, 4(1), 243-254. https://iojes.net/index.jsp?mod=tammetinandmakaleadi=andmakaleurl=IOJES_795.pdfandkey=41244
  18. Ergun, M. (2019). Fen eğitiminde Web 2.0 araçları. İçinde (Ed. Devrim Akgündüz), Fen Eğitiminde Teknolojik Yaklaşımlar (1st ed., pp. 142-163). Anı.
  19. Faizi, R., Chiheb, R., and El Afia, A. (2015). Students’ perceptions towards using Web 2.0 technologies in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(6), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i6.4858
  20. Gabel D. L. (1993). Use of the particle nature of matter in developing conceptual understanding. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 193-194. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p193
  21. Gencer, S., Oluk, N., Kadayifçi, H., and Yalçın-Çelik, A. (2023). The purposes and justifications for preferences of Web 2.0 tools used by pre-service chemistry teachers in their teaching practices in distance education environment. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 11(S1-Jan), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v11is1-jan.5908
  22. Grundy, J., Hosking, J., Cao, S., Zhao, D., Zhu, N., Tempero, E., and Stoeckle, H. (2007). Experiences developing architectures for realizing thin‐client diagram editing tools. Software: Practice and Experience, 37(12), 1245-1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.803
  23. Harinarayana, N.S. and Raju, N.V. (2010). Web 2.0 features in university library web sites. The Electronic Library, 28(1), 69-88. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011023388
  24. Harris, J. B., Koehler, M. J., and Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Journal, 9(1), 60-70. https://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT7050/articles/KoehlerMishra.pdf
  25. Herrera‐Viedma, E., and López-Herrera, A. G. (2010). A review on information accessing systems based on fuzzy linguistic modelling. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 3(4), 420-437. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.2010.3.4.3
  26. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x
  27. Kim, H. J., and Jang, H. Y. (2015). Motivating pre-service teachers in technology integration of Web 2.0 for teaching internships. International Education Studies, 8(8), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n8p21
  28. Kocaman, B. (2022). Investigating secondary school students' level of 21st century skills. Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 17(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9734/arjass/2022/v17i330306
  29. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., and Spector, J.M. (2015). TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge). In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (pp. 1-10). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346397
  30. Kuloğlu, A. and Karabekmez, V. (2022). The relationship between 21st century teacher skills and critical thinking skills of classroom teacher. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 9(1), 91-101. https://dx.doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2022.9.1.551
  31. Lee, C. C., Hao, Y., Lee, K. S., Sim, S. C., and Huang, C. C. (2019). Investigation of the effects of an online instant response system on students in a middle school of a rural area. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.034
  32. Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., and George, J. L. (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(9), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8
  33. Malecela, I. O., and Hassan, S. S. S. (2019). Investigating Web 2.0 tools use and students cognitive engagement in selected tanzanian higher institutions: preparing towards 21st learning. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 6(1), 173-183. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.6.1.24
  34. Miles, M, B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Sage.
  35. Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
  36. Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  37. Miterianifa, M., Ashadi, A., Saputro, S., and Suciati, S. (2021). Higher order thinking skills in the 21st century: critical thinking. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Social Science, Humanities, Education and Society Development, ICONS 2020, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.30-11-2020.2303766
  38. Özçınar, Z., Sakhieva, R. G., Pozharskaya, E. L., Popova, O. V., Melnik, M. V., and Matvienko, V. V. (2020). Student's perception of web 2.0 tools and educational applications. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(23), 220-233. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i23.19065
  39. Öpengin, E., and Elmas, İ. (2023). The examination of the relationship between prospective teachers’ creative self-efficacy and teaching 21st century skills. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty, 7(4), 804-818. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.1271748
  40. P21 (2019). Framework for 21st century learning definitions. https://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/p21_framework_definitionsbfk.pdf
  41. Padayachee, I., and Moodley, K. (2022). Factors influencing Web 2.0 technology usage among academics. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 18(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijthi.293189
  42. Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative Research. John Wiley and Sons.
  43. Peterson-Ahmad, M. B., Stepp, J., and Somerville, K. (2018). Teaching pre-service teachers how to utilize Web 2.0 platforms to support the educational needs of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Education Sciences, 8(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020080
  44. Punie, Y., Zinbauer, D., and Cabrera, M. (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. European Communities. https://www.academia.edu/13544870/A_review_of_the_Impact_of_ICT_on_Learning
  45. Ruiz, J.G., Mintzer, M.J., and Leipzig, R.M. (2006), The impact of e-learning in medical education. Academic Medicine, 81(3), 207-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002
  46. Sadi Yılmaz, S., and Yaşar, M. D. (2023). Effects of Web 2.0 tools (Kahoot, Quizlet, Google Form Example) on formative assessment in online chemistry courses. Journal of Science Learning, 6(4), 442-456. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1413599
  47. Salame, I. I., and Makki, J. (2021). Examining the use of phet simulations on students’ attitudes and learning in general chemistry II. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(4), Article: e2247. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/10966
  48. Sari, E. F., Khairani, D., Subchi, I., Durachman, Y., Rifai, A., and Rosyada, D. (2021). Application of phet simulation media in physics learning during a pandemic covid-19. 3rd International Colloquium on Interdisciplinary Islamic Studies, ICIIS. Jakarta, 20-21 October 2020. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.20-10-2020.2305146
  49. Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., and Shin, T.S. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Journal of Education, 193(3), 13 - 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300303
  50. Sundari, F. N., Novita, L., and Herlina, E. (2023). Analysis of 21st century skills through thematic learning in elementary schools. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran Guru Sekolah Dasar (JPPGuseda), 6(1), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.55215/jppguseda.v6i1.7526
  51. Sweetser, P., and Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/1077246.1077253
  52. Şahin-Topalcengiz, E., and Yıldırım, B. (2020). Teachers’ opinions about distance Web 2.0 tools training and teachers in-class Web 2.0 practices. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 17(4), 561-577. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.45
  53. Şeker, E., and Yalçın Çelik, A. (2023). The use of Web 2.0 applications in chemistry teaching: Acids, bases and salts unit. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 8(2), 244-256. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.1231713
  54. Taber, K. S., and García-Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452868
  55. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of ‘structure of matter’. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123-2136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802578025
  56. Tetskyi, A., Kharchenko, V., Uzun, D., and Nechausov, A. (2021). Architecture and model of neural network based service for choice of the penetration testing tools. International Journal of Computing, 20(4), 513-518. https://doi.org/10.47839/ijc.20.4.2438
  57. Tünkler, V. (2021). Sosyal bilgilerde kavram öğretiminde Web 2.0 araçları: öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 53, 234-260. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.795619
  58. Turan, Z., and Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus to non-game-based: The ımpact of student response systems on students’achievements, engagements and test anxieties. Informatics in Education, 17(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.07
  59. Uyulgan, M. A., and Akkuzu Güven, N. (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
  60. Virkus, S., and Bamigbola, A. A. (2011). Students' conceptions and experiences of Web 2.0 tools. New Library World, 112(11/12), 479-489. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801111190473
  61. Yapıcı, İ. Ü. (2022). The experiences of biology education master students in Web 2.0 content development. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(2), 336-352. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1086146
  62. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8th ed.). Seçkin.
  63. Yilmaz, K., Koçaşlı, S., and Taştan, S. (2021). Is web based training effective on nursing skills in multimodal analgesia?. International Archives of Nursing and Health Care, 7(4). 1-10. https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5823/1510168
  64. Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers and Education, 82, 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004
  65. Wang, Y. H. (2017). The effectiveness of integrating teaching strategies into IRS activities to facilitate learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12164
  66. Wirda, W., Mauvizar, E., Lubis, S. P. W., and Muzana, S. R. (2023). Utilization of phet simulations in replacing real laboratories for physics learning. Radiasi: Jurnal Berkala Pendidikan Fisika, 16(2), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.37729/radiasi.v16i2.3539
  67. Wu, Y. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected journals from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 73-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01349.x
  68. Zulkifli, Z., Azhar, A., and Syaflita, D. (2022). Application effect of phet virtual laboratory and real laboratory on the learning outcomes of class xi students on elasticity and hooke's law. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 8(1), 401-407. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v8i1.1274