Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Web 2.0 Tools for Increasing Secondary School Students' Access to Science Courses

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 191 - 221, 30.10.2022

Hacer Efe Hatice Turan Ünsal Umdu Topsakal

https://doi.org/10.53047/josse.1180398

Öz

Bu çalışmada çevrimiçi eğitimde Web 2.0 araçları kullanımının ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersinde “Canlılarda Üreme, Büyüme ve Gelişme” ünitesindeki erişilerine etkisi incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemini 7. sınıfta öğrenim gören 14 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmaya katılacak öğrencilerin seçiminde kolay ulaşılabilir örneklem metodu kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada dersler mevcut öğretim programına uygun bir şekilde çevrimiçi ortamda web 2.0 araçları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma toplamda 6 hafta sürmüştür ve öğrencilere “Microsoft Teams” platformunda her hafta farklı bir Web 2.0 aracı uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın modeli nicel ve nitel yöntemlerin bir arada olduğu karma modeldir. Bu doğrultuda araştırmada nicel veri toplama aracı olarak Aygün ve Şimşekli (2019) tarafından geliştirilen “Canlılarda Üreme, Büyüme ve Gelişme Ünitesi Başarı Testi”, nitel veri toplama aracı olarak ise “Canlılarda Üreme, Büyüme ve Gelişme Ünitesi Çalışma Kağıdı” kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen nicel verilerin analizinde SPSS programı, nitel verilerin analizinde ise içerik analizi uygulanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda web 2.0 araçları ile desteklenen çevrimiçi eğitim uygulamalarının öğrencilerin “Canlılarda Üreme, Büyüme ve Gelişme” ünitesindeki erişilerini olumlu yönde etkilediğine ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmada öğrencilerin uygulama sonrası uygulama öncesine göre belirgin bir farkla daha fazla, doğru kod ve frekans çıktısı verdikleri, ünite kavramlarını birbirleri ile doğru bir şekilde ilişkilendirdiklerine ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca öğrencilerin üniteye ait alt başlıklarda uygulama öncesi kavram yanılgılarına sahip oldukları fakat uygulama sonrası kavram yanılgılarının büyük ölçüde giderildiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Web 2.0 araçları erişi fen eğitimi ortaokul öğrencileri

Kaynakça

  • Abdoli-Sejzi, A., Aris, B., Ahmad, M.H. & Rosli, M.S. (2015). The Relationship between Web 2.0 Technologies and Students Achievement in Virtual University. International Education Studies, 8 (13), 67-72.
  • Andersen, L. & Matkins, J.J. (2011). Web 2.0 Tools and the Reflections of Preservice Secondary Science Teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28:1, 27-38, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2011.10784677.
  • Aygün, D. (2019). Proje, Model, Deney Yoluyla 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Beceriler Geliştirme Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi.
  • Azid, N., Hasan, R., Nazarudin, N. F. M. & Md-Ali, R. (2020). Embracing Industrial Revolution 4.0: The Effect of Using Web 2.0 Tools on Primary Schools Students’ Mathematics Achievement (Fraction). International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 711-728. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13348a.
  • Baig, M.A. (2011). A Critical Study of Effectiveness of Online Learning on Students’ Achievement. Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 28-34.
  • Chawinga, W. D. & Zinn, S. (2016). Use of Web 2.0 by students in the Faculty of Information Science and Communications at Mzuzu University, Malawi. South African Journal of Information Management, 18(1), 1-12.
  • Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of web 2.0 tools in higher education. Higher Education Academy.
  • García, S., Molina, D. Lozano, M. & Herrera, F. (2009). A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms’ behaviour: a case study on the CEC’2005 special session on real parameter optimization. Journal of Heuristics, in press, doi: 10.1007/s10732-008-9080-4.
  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Griffin, K. L. & Ramachandran, H. (2010). “Science Education and Informa- tion Literacy: A Grass-Roots Effort to Support Science Literacy in Schools.” Science & Technology Libraries, 29 (4), 325–49.
  • Habibi, M., Mukminin, A., Pratama, R. & Asrial, H. (2019), “Predicting factors affecting intention to use WEB 2.0 in learning: evidence from science education.” Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18 (4).
  • Hall, G., Brent, R. C., Feick, R.D., Leahy, M.G. & Vivien, D. (2010). Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24,761-81.
  • Hardy, N., Pinto, M. & Wei, H. (2008). The impact of collaborative technology in it and computer science education: harnessing the power of web 2.0. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education, SIGITE ’08, pages 63–64, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
  • Hargadon, S. (2009). ‘Educational networking: the important role Web 2.0 will play in education’, Social Learning, Elluminate.
  • Horton, W. 2006, E‐learning by design. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
  • Hsieh, H.F. & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
  • Huang, W., D., Hood, D. W. & Yoo, S., J. (2013). Gender divide and acceptance of collaborative Web 2.0 applications for learning in higher education. Internetand Higher Education, 16(1), 57–65.
  • Jena, A. K., S. Bhattacharjee, J. D. & M. Barman. (2020). Effects of Web 2.0 Technology Assisted Slideshare, YouTube and WhatsApp on Individual and Collaborative Learning Performance and Retention in Tissues System. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning 8 (1), 25–36.
  • Konstantinidis, A., Theodostadou, D. & Pappos, C. (2013). Web 2.0 tools for supporting teaching. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ., 14, 287–295.
  • Leech, N. L. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2005, April). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Invited James E. McLean Outstanding Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
  • Malhiwsky, D.R. (2010). Student achievement using Web 2.0 technologies: A mixed on specific aspects of second language learning,such as the acquisition of vocabulary, syntax, pragmatics, and the four language skills. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
  • Midkiff, S. P. & Dasiva, L. A. Leveraging the Web for Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Distance Learning.
  • Mohammed, T. A., Assam, B. N., & Saidi, M. (2020). The use of Web 2.0 tools in the foreign language classroom. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 10(2), 177-177.
  • Mulenga, E. M. & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Is COVID-19 the gateway for digital learning in mathematics education? Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), 269.
  • Onbaşılı, 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. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.7.
  • Özenc, M., Dursun, H. & Şahin, S. (2020).The effect of activities developed with Web2.0 tools based on the 5E learning cycle model on the multiplication achievement of 4th graders. Participatory Educational Research, 7(3), 105-123.
  • Pierce, R., Stacey, K. & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students’ Attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers and Education, 48, 285-300.
  • Prashnig, B. (2006). Learning styles and personalized teaching. London, UK: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
  • Rhoads, R. A.,Berdan, J. & B. Toven-Lindsey. 2013. “The open courseware movement in higher education: unmasking power and raising questions about the Movement’s democratic potential.” Educational Theory, 63 (1), 87–109.
  • Romiszowski, A. (2004). How’s the E-learning Baby? Factors Leading to Success or Failure of an Educational Technology Innovation. Educational Technology, 44(1), 5–27.
  • Shaw, J.G., Sankineni, S., Olaleye, C.A., Johnson K.L., Locke J.L. & Patino J, et al. (2021). A novel large scale integrated telemonitoring program for COVID-19. Telemed J E Health, 27, 1317–1321.
  • Stratton, S.J. (2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1049023X21000649.
  • Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K., Ryberg, T., Buus, L., Peristeras, V., Lee, D. & Porwol, L. (2012). enabling problem based learning through Web 2.0 technologies: PBL 2.0. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 238–251.
  • Taylor, R. (2002). Pros and cons of online learning – A faculty perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(1), 24-37.
  • Uysal, M. Z., & Cayci, B. (2022). The effect of using Web 2.0 tools in the primary school 4th-grade science course on various variables. Participatory Educational Research, 9(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.8.9.1.
  • Wankel, C. & Blessinger, P. (2013). Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e-Learning Environments: Web 2. 0 and Blended Learning Technologies, Emerald Group Publishing.
  • Welk, D. (2006). The trainers application of vygotskys zone of prox-imal development to asynchronous online training of faculty facilitators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9 (4).
  • Weller, A. (2013). The use of Web 2.0 technology for pre-service teacher learning in science education. Research in Teacher Education, 3 (2), 40–46.
  • Yamamoto, G.T. & Altun, D. (2020). The coronavirus and the rising of online education. J. Univ. Res. 3, 25–34.
  • Yuen, S., Yaoyuneyong, G. & Yuen, P. (2011). Perceptions, interest and use: Teachers and Web 2.0 tools in education. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 109-123.

Web 2.0 Tools for Increasing Secondary School Students' Access to Science Courses

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 191 - 221, 30.10.2022

Hacer Efe Hatice Turan Ünsal Umdu Topsakal

https://doi.org/10.53047/josse.1180398

Öz

In this study, the effect of the use of Web 2.0 tools in online education on the achievement of secondary school students in the unit "Reproduction, Growth and Development in Living Things" was examined. The sample of the research consists of 14 students studying in the 7th grade. In the study, the lessons were carried out in accordance with the current curriculum, using web 2.0 tools in an online environment. The study lasted for 6 weeks in total and a different Web 2.0 tool was applied to the students every week on the “Microsoft Teams” platform. The model of the research is a mixed model in which quantitative and qualitative methods are combined. In this direction, the "Reproduction, Growth and Development Unit Achievement Test in Living Things" was used as a quantitative data collection tool, and the "Reproduction, Growth and Development Unit Worksheet in Living Things" was used as a qualitative data collection tool. SPSS program was used in the analysis of the quantitative data, and content analysis was used in the analysis of the qualitative data. As a result of the study, it has been found that online education applications supported by web 2.0 tools have a positive effect on students' achievement in the unit "Reproduction, Growth and Development in Living Things". In the study, it was found that the students gave more correct code and frequency outputs with a significant difference after the application, and that they correctly associated the unit concepts with each other.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Web 2.0 tools reach science education secondary school students

Kaynakça

  • Abdoli-Sejzi, A., Aris, B., Ahmad, M.H. & Rosli, M.S. (2015). The Relationship between Web 2.0 Technologies and Students Achievement in Virtual University. International Education Studies, 8 (13), 67-72.
  • Andersen, L. & Matkins, J.J. (2011). Web 2.0 Tools and the Reflections of Preservice Secondary Science Teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28:1, 27-38, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2011.10784677.
  • Aygün, D. (2019). Proje, Model, Deney Yoluyla 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Beceriler Geliştirme Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi.
  • Azid, N., Hasan, R., Nazarudin, N. F. M. & Md-Ali, R. (2020). Embracing Industrial Revolution 4.0: The Effect of Using Web 2.0 Tools on Primary Schools Students’ Mathematics Achievement (Fraction). International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 711-728. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13348a.
  • Baig, M.A. (2011). A Critical Study of Effectiveness of Online Learning on Students’ Achievement. Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 28-34.
  • Chawinga, W. D. & Zinn, S. (2016). Use of Web 2.0 by students in the Faculty of Information Science and Communications at Mzuzu University, Malawi. South African Journal of Information Management, 18(1), 1-12.
  • Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of web 2.0 tools in higher education. Higher Education Academy.
  • García, S., Molina, D. Lozano, M. & Herrera, F. (2009). A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms’ behaviour: a case study on the CEC’2005 special session on real parameter optimization. Journal of Heuristics, in press, doi: 10.1007/s10732-008-9080-4.
  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Griffin, K. L. & Ramachandran, H. (2010). “Science Education and Informa- tion Literacy: A Grass-Roots Effort to Support Science Literacy in Schools.” Science & Technology Libraries, 29 (4), 325–49.
  • Habibi, M., Mukminin, A., Pratama, R. & Asrial, H. (2019), “Predicting factors affecting intention to use WEB 2.0 in learning: evidence from science education.” Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18 (4).
  • Hall, G., Brent, R. C., Feick, R.D., Leahy, M.G. & Vivien, D. (2010). Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24,761-81.
  • Hardy, N., Pinto, M. & Wei, H. (2008). The impact of collaborative technology in it and computer science education: harnessing the power of web 2.0. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education, SIGITE ’08, pages 63–64, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
  • Hargadon, S. (2009). ‘Educational networking: the important role Web 2.0 will play in education’, Social Learning, Elluminate.
  • Horton, W. 2006, E‐learning by design. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
  • Hsieh, H.F. & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
  • Huang, W., D., Hood, D. W. & Yoo, S., J. (2013). Gender divide and acceptance of collaborative Web 2.0 applications for learning in higher education. Internetand Higher Education, 16(1), 57–65.
  • Jena, A. K., S. Bhattacharjee, J. D. & M. Barman. (2020). Effects of Web 2.0 Technology Assisted Slideshare, YouTube and WhatsApp on Individual and Collaborative Learning Performance and Retention in Tissues System. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning 8 (1), 25–36.
  • Konstantinidis, A., Theodostadou, D. & Pappos, C. (2013). Web 2.0 tools for supporting teaching. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ., 14, 287–295.
  • Leech, N. L. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2005, April). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Invited James E. McLean Outstanding Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
  • Malhiwsky, D.R. (2010). Student achievement using Web 2.0 technologies: A mixed on specific aspects of second language learning,such as the acquisition of vocabulary, syntax, pragmatics, and the four language skills. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
  • Midkiff, S. P. & Dasiva, L. A. Leveraging the Web for Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Distance Learning.
  • Mohammed, T. A., Assam, B. N., & Saidi, M. (2020). The use of Web 2.0 tools in the foreign language classroom. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 10(2), 177-177.
  • Mulenga, E. M. & Marbán, J. M. (2020). Is COVID-19 the gateway for digital learning in mathematics education? Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), 269.
  • Onbaşılı, 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. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.7.
  • Özenc, M., Dursun, H. & Şahin, S. (2020).The effect of activities developed with Web2.0 tools based on the 5E learning cycle model on the multiplication achievement of 4th graders. Participatory Educational Research, 7(3), 105-123.
  • Pierce, R., Stacey, K. & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students’ Attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers and Education, 48, 285-300.
  • Prashnig, B. (2006). Learning styles and personalized teaching. London, UK: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
  • Rhoads, R. A.,Berdan, J. & B. Toven-Lindsey. 2013. “The open courseware movement in higher education: unmasking power and raising questions about the Movement’s democratic potential.” Educational Theory, 63 (1), 87–109.
  • Romiszowski, A. (2004). How’s the E-learning Baby? Factors Leading to Success or Failure of an Educational Technology Innovation. Educational Technology, 44(1), 5–27.
  • Shaw, J.G., Sankineni, S., Olaleye, C.A., Johnson K.L., Locke J.L. & Patino J, et al. (2021). A novel large scale integrated telemonitoring program for COVID-19. Telemed J E Health, 27, 1317–1321.
  • Stratton, S.J. (2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1049023X21000649.
  • Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K., Ryberg, T., Buus, L., Peristeras, V., Lee, D. & Porwol, L. (2012). enabling problem based learning through Web 2.0 technologies: PBL 2.0. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 238–251.
  • Taylor, R. (2002). Pros and cons of online learning – A faculty perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(1), 24-37.
  • Uysal, M. Z., & Cayci, B. (2022). The effect of using Web 2.0 tools in the primary school 4th-grade science course on various variables. Participatory Educational Research, 9(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.8.9.1.
  • Wankel, C. & Blessinger, P. (2013). Increasing Student Engagement and Retention in e-Learning Environments: Web 2. 0 and Blended Learning Technologies, Emerald Group Publishing.
  • Welk, D. (2006). The trainers application of vygotskys zone of prox-imal development to asynchronous online training of faculty facilitators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9 (4).
  • Weller, A. (2013). The use of Web 2.0 technology for pre-service teacher learning in science education. Research in Teacher Education, 3 (2), 40–46.
  • Yamamoto, G.T. & Altun, D. (2020). The coronavirus and the rising of online education. J. Univ. Res. 3, 25–34.
  • Yuen, S., Yaoyuneyong, G. & Yuen, P. (2011). Perceptions, interest and use: Teachers and Web 2.0 tools in education. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 109-123.
Toplam 40 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Eğitim Üzerine Çalışmalar
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Hacer Efe 0000-0002-2963-7879

Hatice Turan 0000-0002-6842-4710

Ünsal Umdu Topsakal 0000-0002-0565-7891

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Ekim 2022
Kabul Tarihi 30 Ekim 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Efe, H., Turan, H., & Umdu Topsakal, Ü. (2022). Web 2.0 Tools for Increasing Secondary School Students’ Access to Science Courses. Journal of Social Sciences And Education, 5(2), 191-221. https://doi.org/10.53047/josse.1180398
 Kapak Resmi İndir

17387  17388  18992 18993 18997 19046 197372014220988 2099229300