PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(2) 91-110

The Effects of Science Teaching Practice Supported With Web 2.0 Tools on Prospective Elementary School Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Ümit İzgi Onbaşılı

pp. 91 - 110   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.7   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1911-16-0001

Published online: April 02, 2020  |   Number of Views: 40  |  Number of Download: 124


Abstract

This study aims to analyse the effects of science teaching practices supported by Web 2.0 tools on prospective elementary school teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy beliefs in using Web 2.0 tools. The study was conducted in pre test-post test quasi-experimental design with no control group, and it was supported with qualitative data. The research was conducted with the participation of 40 prospective teachers registered in Elementary School Teaching Department of a state university in 2017-2018 academic year. The study was conducted throughout a semester (for 14 weeks) within the scope of the course Science and Technology Teaching II. The lessons were taught in consistence with constructivist learning approach directed to all the gains available in the 3rd and 4th grade Science teaching curriculum prepared by the Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2018) on the basis of student-centred methods and techniques by supporting with Web 2.0 tools. 23 Web 2.0 tools in total were used throughout the study. The “Web 2.0 Rapid Content Development Self-efficacy Scale” developed by Birişci, Kul, Aksu, Akaslan and Çelik (2018) in addition to an interview form of open-ended questions developed by the researcher to obtain prospective teachers’ views on the use of Web 2.0 tools in science teaching were used in this study. Consequently, it was found that science teaching practices supported by Web 2.0 tools had positive effects on prospective elementary school teachers’ their self-efficacy perceptions on the use of Web 2.0 tools. An examination of the participants’ responses to the open-ended questions demonstrated that the participants said that Web 2.0 tools had positive impacts especially on the learning process and they were innovative and they improved upper order thinking skills, creativity and imagination and that they could be used especially in eliminating the anxiety and misconceptions in science teaching.

Keywords: Web 2.0 Tools, Self- Efficacy, Science Teaching, Prospective Elementary School Teacher


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Onbasili, U.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. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.7

Harvard
Onbasili, U. (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), pp. 91-110.

Chicago 16th edition
Onbasili, Umit Izgi (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. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.7.

References
  1. Acar, T. (2019). Öz yeterlik kavramı üzerine [About self-efficacy concept]. https://docplayer.biz.tr/2094979-Oz-yeterllk-self-effcacy-kavrami-uzerne-tulin-acar.html retrieved in 9 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akkoyunlu, B., & Orhan, F. (2003). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi (BÖTE) bölümü öğrencilerinin bilgisayar kullanma öz yeterlik inancı ile demografik özellikleri arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between computer and self-efficacy beliefs and demographic characteristics of computer and instructional technology education (CITE) students] TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 86-93. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akkaya, A. (2019). Bilgisayar donanımı konusunda web 2.0 araçlarıyla geliştirilen etkinliklerin öğrenci başarısına etkisi [The effects of activities developed with web 2.0 tools on computer hardware on student achievement]. Ubpublished master's thesis. Balıkesir University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  4. Altıok, S., Yükseltürk, E., & Üçgül, M. (2017). Web 2.0 eğitimine yönelik gerçekleştirilen bilimsel bir etkinliğin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of a scientific activity for Web 2.0 education]: Katılımcı görüşleri. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 6(1), 1-8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ata, F. (2011). Üniversite öğrencilerinin web 2.0 teknolojilerini kullanım durumları ile bilgi okuryazarlığı öz-yeterlik algıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the relationship between the use of web 2.0 technologies and university literacy self-efficacy perceptions of university students]. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. [Google Scholar]
  6. Atıcı, B., & Yıldırım, S. (2010). Web 2.0 uygulamalarının e-öğrenmeye etkisi [The effect of Web 2.0 applications on e-learning]. Akademik Bilişim, XII. Akademik Bilişim Konferans Bildirileri, 10-12 Şubat 2010, Muğla Üniversitesi. https://ab.org.tr/ab10/kitap/atici_yildirim_AB10.pdf retrieved in 9 October, 2019 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bağdiken, P., & Akgündüz, D. (2018). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi özgüven düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of science pedagogical field knowledge self-confidence levels of science teachers]. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 38(2), 535-566. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baltacı Göktalay, S., & Özdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about web 2.0 technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4737-4741. [Google Scholar]
  9. Batıbay, E. F. (2019). Web 2.0 uygulamalarının Türkçe dersinde motivasyona ve başarıya etkisi: Kahoot örneği [The effect of Web 2.0 applications on motivation and success in Turkish lesson: Kahoot case]. Ubpublished master's thesis. Hacettepe University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  10. Birişçi, S., Kul, Ü., Aksu, Z., Akaslan, D., & Çelik, S. (2018). Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz-yeterlik algısını belirlemeye yönelik ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Web 2.0 rapid content development self-efficacy perception scale]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama [Educational Technology Theory and Practice], 8(1), 187-208. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolatlı, Z., & Korucu, A. T. (2018). Secondary school students' feedback on course processing and collaborative learning with web 2.0 tools-supported STEM activities. Bartın University Journal of Education, 7(2), 456-478. [Google Scholar]
  12. Borich, G. D. (2017). Effective teaching methods research-based practice. M. Bahaddin Acat (Çev.). Eight edition, ISBN: 978-605-133-938-2, Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  13. Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., Yamak, H. ve Kavak, N. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarını teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisine sahip öğretmenler olarak nasıl yetiştirebiliriz? [How can we train prospective science teachers as teachers with technological pedagogical field knowledge?] IHES Uluslararası Yükseköğretim Sempozyumu, 17- 19 Ekim, Aksaray. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  15. Creswell, John W. (2014). Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları araştırma deseni [Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches research design]. (Çev. S. Beşir Demir). Ankara. Eğitin Kitap. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dağhan, G., Nuhoğlu Kibar, P., Menzi Çetin, N., Telli, E., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2017). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının bakış açısından 21. Yüzyıl öğrenen ve öğretmen özellikleri [21st century learner and teacher characteristics from the perspective of information technology teacher candidates]. Educational Technology Theory And Practice, 7 (2), 215-235. Doi: 10.17943/etku.305062.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Efe, H. A., Söylemez, H. N., Oral, B., & Efe, R.  (2014). Ortaöğretim fen ve matematik alanları öğretmen adaylarının web 2.0 kullanım sıklıkları [Pre-service teachers' web 2.0 frequency of use in secondary science and mathematics]. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 3(5), 31-42. [Google Scholar]
  18. Efe, H. A. (2015). The relation between science student teachers’ educational use of web 2.0 technologies and their computer self-efficacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1), 142-154. [Google Scholar]
  19. Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 tools for 21st century teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 243-254. [Google Scholar]
  20. E-twining, Retrieved October 9, 2019. http://etwinning.meb.gov.tr/etwnedir/  [Google Scholar]
  21. Günüç, S., Odabaşı, H., & Kuzu, A. (2013). 21. Yüzyıl öğrenci özelliklerinin öğretmen adayları tarafından tanımlanması: bir twitter uygulaması [The defining characteristics of students of the 21st century by student teachers: a twitter activity]. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 9(4), 436-455. [Google Scholar]
  22. Horzum, M. B. (2010). Öğretmenlerin web 2.0 araçlarından haberdarlığı, kullanım sıklıkları ve amaçlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısında incelenmesi [Investigation of teachers' awareness of web 2.0 tools, usage frequency and aims in terms of various variables]. Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1), 603-634. [Google Scholar]
  23. MEB (2006). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri [Teacher qualifications], Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü. Retrieved October 30, 2019. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/13161921_YYretmenlik_MesleYi_Genel__YETERLYKLERi_onaylanan.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  24. MEB (2018). Talim Terbiye Başkanlığı, Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Ministry of National Education], Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  25. Meriç, G. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi konusunda öz güven seviyelerinin belirlenmesi [Determining the pre-service science and technology teacher candidates' self-confidence in technological pedagogical field knowledge]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama[Theory and Practice in Education], 10(2), 352-367 [Google Scholar]
  26. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2. Baskı). Thousan Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Retrieved November 15, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/99246/. [Google Scholar]
  28. Özdemir, S. M. (2008). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğretim sürecine ilişkin öz-yeterlik inançlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Examining the self-efficacy beliefs of the prospective classroom teachers in terms of various variables]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration in Theory and Practice], 54(54), 277-306. [Google Scholar]
  29. Özdemir, S. ve Esen, B. (2018). İlkokul öğretmenlerinin ölçme-değerlendirme amaçlı kullanabilecekleri eğlenceli web 2.0 araçları [Fun web 2.0 tools that primary school teachers can use for assessment]. 1st International Contemporary Education and Social Sciences Symposium, 22-25 Kasım, Antalya, 811-819. [Google Scholar]
  30. Özerbaş, M. A., & Mart, Ö. A. (2017). İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının Web 2.0 kullanımına ilişkin görüş ve kullanım düzeyleri [Pre-service English teachers' opinions and levels of use of Web 2.0]. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(3), 1152-1167. [Google Scholar]
  31. Özer, Ü., & Özer, E. A. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler ile bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri öğretmeni adaylarının eğitimde web 2.0 kullanımına yönelik görüşleri [Opinions of prospective teachers of social studies and computer and instructional technologies about using web 2.0 in education], ICPESS (International Congress on Politic, Economic and Social Studies),3, 106-118. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pedró, F. (2006). The new millennium learners: Challenging our views on ICT and learning. Inter-American Development Bank. [Google Scholar]
  33. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.  [Google Scholar]
  34. Scientix, Retrieved October 9, 2019. http://scientix.meb.gov.tr/ [Google Scholar]
  35. Shank, P. (2008). Web 2.0 and beyond: The changing needs of learners, new tools, and ways to learn. 2008). The e-learning handbook, 241-278. [Google Scholar]
  36. Timur, B. & Taşar, M. F. (2011). Teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi öz güven ölçeğinin (TPABÖGÖ) Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Adaptation of technological pedagogical field knowledge self-confidence scale (TPFKSC) to Turkish]. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (http://sbe.gantep.edu.tr/), 10(2), 839 -856. [Google Scholar]
  37. Uçak, N. Ö., & Çakmak, T. (2010). Hacettepe üniversitesi bilgi ve belge yönetimi öğrencilerinin web 2.0 araçlarını kullanım özellikleri [Hacettepe University information and document management students use the web 2.0 tools]. International 2nd Symposium on Information Management in a Changing World, 22-24 Eylül 2010, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 44-53. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ünlüer, S. (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenliği alan yeterlikleri çerçevesinde öğretmen adaylarının web 2.0 araçlarını kullanma deneyimleri [Experiences of prospective teachers using web 2.0 tools within the framework of competencies in information technology teaching]. 1st International Contemporary Education and Social Sciences Symposium, 22-25 Kasım 2018, Antalya, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  39. Vialatte, F. ve Cichocki, A. (2008). Split-test Bonferroni correction for QEEG statistical maps. Biol. Cybern., 98(4), 295–303. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yalçın, S. (2018). 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve bu becerilerin ölçülmesinde kullanılan araçlar ve yaklaşımlar [21st century skills and tools and approaches used to measure these skills]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 51(1), 183-201. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yanpar, T., Sancar Tokmak, H., Özgelen, S. & İncikabı, L. (2013). Fen ve matematik eğitiminde teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi temelli öğretim tasarımı [Instructional design based on technological pedagogical field knowledge in science and mathematics education]. Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yıldırım A. & Şimşek H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri(Qualitative research methods in the social sciences), 6. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yılmaz, M. B. (2017). Dijital değerlendirme araçlarının ortaokul öğrencilerinin derse bağlılıklarına etkisi: iki farklı okulda durum [The effect of digital assessment tools on the commitment of secondary school students: situation in two different schools]. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 17 (3), 1606-1620. [Google Scholar]