Abstract

This study aims at using a Web 2.0 tool supported-application to achieve digital transformation in an assessment and evaluation course. The study explored the effectiveness of application on the academic achievement, attitude and views of student teachers. Following a mixed-method research design, the quantitative part comprised the pre-test-post-test quasi-experimental research with a control group and the qualitative part utilized a case study. The study was performed in the education faculty of a state university with a total of 52 student teachers (25 in the experimental group and 27 in the control group). While the courses were supported by Web 2.0 tools in the experimental group, traditional teaching methods were applied in the control group for a 14-week course period. The assessment and evaluation achievement test and attitude scale were used to gather quantitative data, while an interview form about the learning environment supported by Web 2.0 tools and the researcher observation notes were used to obtain qualitative data. For the quantitative part of the study, t-tests were computed and the qualitative data were analyzed through content analysis. The findings yielded a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in favor of the experimental group. The findings of the content analysis showed that experimental group student teachers found the Web 2.0 tools-supported course more enjoyable, effective and attention-taking. Based on these results, suggestions have been made to change the monotonous higher education courses and design them in a way that will attract the attention of students with Web 2.0 tools. 

Keywords

References

• Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2011). Determining Teachers’ TPACK through observations and self-report data. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2314-2319). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Akgün, Ö. E., & Çakal, B. (2013, May 10-11). Investigation of the profciency of faculty members of education faculty according to technological pedagogical content knowledge model. [Conference presentation]. 6th National Postgraduate Education Symposium, Sakarya, Turkey. https://egitim.sakarya.edu.tr/sites/egitim.sakarya.edu.tr/file/ULES-Lisansustu_egitim_cilt11.pdf
• Aktaş, M., & Alıcı, D. (2012). Development of likert type attitude scale towards measurement and evaluation in education course. Journal of Qafqaz University, Philology and Pedagogy, 33, 66-73.
• Altın, H. M., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). Perceptions of students and teachers about FATIH project. Başkent University Journal of Education, 2(1), 89-105.
• Baltacı-Göktalay, S., & Özdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about Web 2.0 technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4737-4741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.760
• Baran, B., & Ata, F. (2013). University students’ Web 2.0 technologies usage, skill levels and educational usage. Education and Science, 38(169), 192-208.
• Baran, E., Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., Albayrak Sarı, A., & Tondeur, J. (2017). Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers' TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12565
• Bassani, P. B. S., & Barbosa, D. N. F. (2018). Experiences with Web 2.0 in school settings: A framework to foster educational practices based on a personal learning environment perspective. Educação em Revista, 34, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-4698162010
• Başak, M. H., & Ayvacı, H. S. (2017). A comparison is aimed at the integration of the technology in education system; as an example of “Turkey and South Korea”. Education and Science, 42(190), 465-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6710
• Baştürk, S., & Yavuz, İ. (2008, May 6-8). The difficulties of pre-service teachers in preparing lesson activities using the interactive geometry program. [Conference presentation]. 8th International Educational Technology Conference, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Batıbay, E. F. (2019). The impact of Web 2.0 applications on motivation and success in Turkish course: the example of Kahoot [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Hacettepe University Institute of Educational Sciences, Turkey.
• Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in theschools: Why it isn’thappening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.
• Baya'a, N., Daher, W., Anabousy, R., & Anabousy, A. (2017, February 1-5). The development of pre-service teachers' TPACK in the use of digital tools. [Conference presentation] Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME10), Dublin City University, Dublin. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/CERME10/public/CERME10_Complete.pdf
• Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.004
• Bolat, Y. İ., Şimşek, O., & Ülker, Ü. (2017). The impact of gamified online classroom response system on academic achievement and views about this system. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 17(4), 1741-1761.
• Bozkurt, A., & Cilavdaroğlu, A. K. (2011). Mathematics and classroom teachers’ perceptions of technology use and integration into their instruction. Kastamonu Education Journal, 19(3), 859-870.
• Brinkley-Etzkorn, K. E. (2018). Learning to teach online: Measuring the influence of faculty development training on teaching effectiveness through a TPACK lens. The Internet and Higher Education, 38, 28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.04.004
• Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to effectively integrate technology: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 46-59.
• Butler, J. (2012). Grappling with change: Web 2.0 and teacher education. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. A. Persichitte (Eds.), Developing technology-rich teacher curriculums: Key issues (pp. 135– 150). IGI Global.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik [Statistics for social sciences]. Pegem.
• Cabı, E., & Ergün, E. (2016). The impact of instructional technologies and material development course on the teacher candidates’ concern about using educational technologies. Başkent University Journal of Education, 3(1), 37-43.
• Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. (2012). Preservice science teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and self-efcacy [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Turkey.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2, 53-106.
• Creswell, W. J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design – Choosing among five approaches (Second Edition). Sage.
• Çam, Ş. S. (2019). A professional development program proposal for the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge of the teacher educators. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Gazi University Institue of Educational Sciences.
• Çam, Ş. S., & Erdamar- Koç, G. (2021). A needs analysis study on technological pedagogical content knowledge of faculty members. Education and Information Technologies, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10540-0
• Çınar, M., Doğan, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2015, February 4-6). Digital tools in education: An evaluation about Google classroom application. [Conference presentation]. 17th Conference of Academic Informatics. Eskişehir, Turkey. https://ab.org.tr/kitap/ab15.pdf
• Çubukçu, Z., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., İnci, T., & Kırcaburun, K. (2017). Evaluation of instructional technology and material design course in terms of contribution to technology integration. Anatolian Journal of Educational Leadership and Instruction, 5(2), 29-41.
• Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49-52.
• Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge.
• Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8
• 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.
• Ersoy, M., Yurdakul, I. K., & Ceylan, B. (2016). Investigating preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies through the lenses of ICT skills: An experimental study. Education and Science, 41(186), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6345
• Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Yu, J. H., Liu, W., Tomory, A., & Lee, Y. M. (2011). Facilitating students’ global perspectives: Collaborating with international partners using Web 2.0 technologies. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.005
• Faizi, R., Chiheb, R., & El Afia, A. (2015). Students’ perceptions towards using Web 2.0 technologies in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10(6), 32–36.
• Fırat, E. A., & Köksal, M. S. (2017). The relationship between use of Web 2.0 tools by prospective science teachers and their biotechnology literacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.067
• Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: current use, calculations and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2-18. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0024338
• Gill, L., & Dalgarno, B. (2017). A qualitative analysis of pre-service primary school teachers’ TPACK development over the four years of their teacher preparation programme. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 439-456.
• Göker, M., & İnce, B. (2019). The use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching Turkish as a foreign language and its effect on academic achievement. Turkophone, 6(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1287124
• Graziano, K. J., Foulger, T. S., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., & Slykhuis, D. (2017, March 5). Technology integration and teacher preparation: The development of teacher educator technology competencies [Conference presentation]. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Austin, TX, United States. https://www.learntechlib.org
• Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use Web 2.0 in higher education?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087
• Hamutoğlu, N. B., & Kıyıcı, M. (2017). An exploration of university students’ views regarding the use of Edmodo as an educational social network. Trakya Journal of Education, 7(2), 322-343.
• Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-relate dinstructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782570
• Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
• Hofer, M., Lee, J. K., Slykhuis, D. A., & Ptaszynski, J. (2016). Opportunities and challenges of TPACK-based Professional development on a global scale. In Herring, M., Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (Eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) foreducators (pp. 225-234). Routledge.
• Holland, C. & Muilenburg, L. (2011). Supporting Student Collaboration: Edmodo in the Classroom. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3232-3236). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Horzum, M. B. (2010). Investigating teachers’ Web 2.0 tools awareness, frequency and purposes of usage in terms of different variables. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1), 603-634.
• Hunter, M. A. (2016). Innovative approaches to faculty development for technology integratıon: Evaluation of a three-tiered model [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Fielding Graduate University, USA.
• Jang, S., & Chen, K. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9222-y
• Janjua, N., Li, Y., & Thomas, M. (2017). Developing information and communication Technologies for education in Haiti. VA Engage Journal, 5(1), 1-13.
• Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge frame work for science teachers professional development. Computers & Education, 55, 1259 – 1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.022
• Johns, K. (2015). Engaging and assessing students with technology: a review of Kahoot! Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89-91.
• Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., &Pérez, F. S. (2009). US college students’ Internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 244-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01439.x
• Kabakçı-Yurdakul, I., Çoklar, A. N., Birinci, G. & Kılıçer, K. (2012). Effect on technopedagogical education for preservice teachers and a model suggestion for technopedagogical education. TUBITAK Project (Project Number: 109K191).
• Kabakçı-Yurdakul, I., Odabaşı, H. F., Kılıçer, K., Çoklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2014). Constructing technopedagogical education based on teacher competencies in terms of national standards. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1185–1202.
• Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [Applied multivariate statistics techniques with SPSS]. Asil.
• Kale, U., & Goh, D. (2014). Teaching style, ICT experience and teachers’ attitude stoward teaching with Web 2.0. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9210-3
• Karaoğlu, A. (2008). The effect of web-based education on the achievement level of computer course at primary level. [Unpublished Master Thesis]. Bahcesehir Univerisity, Turkey.
• Karkoulia, K. C. (2016). Teachers' attitudes towards the integration of Web 2.0 tools in EFL teaching. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 46-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9164-x
• Keengwe, J., & Georgina, D. (2012). The digital course training workshop for online learning and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 17(4), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9164-x
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV
• Koh, J. H., & Divaharan, H. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers' technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.1.c
• Kompen, R. T., Edirisingha, P., Canaleta, X., Alsina, M., & Monguet, J. M. (2019). Personal learning Environmentsbased on Web 2.0 services in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.003
• Korkmaz, O., Vergili, M., Çakır, R., & Erdoğmuş , U. F . (2019). The impact of Plickers Web 2.0 assessment and evaluation tool on exam anxiety and academic success of students. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 5(2), 15-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.30855/gjes.2019.05.02.002
• Koruyucu, A. T., & Karalar, H. (2017). Primary school instructors’ aspects towards Web 2.0 technologies. Trakya Journal of Education, 7(2), 456-474.
• Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.726273
• Kulakli, A., & Mahony, S. (2014). Knowledge creation and sharing with Web 2.0 tools for teaching and learning roles in so-called University 2.0. Procedia-Socialand Behavioral Sciences, 150, 648-657.
• Kutluca, T. (2013). Designing a computer asssited instructional material is developed by excel software. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 2(4), 40-49.
• Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
• Lee, M. J., Miller, C., & Newnham, L. (2008). RSS and content syndication in higher education: Subscribing to a new model of teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 45(4), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980802573255
• Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B. & 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
• Lim, J., & Newby, T. J. (2019). Preservice teachers’ Web 2.0 experiences and perceptions on Web 2.0 as a personal learning environment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32, 234-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09227-w
• Lin, D. T., Ganapathy, M. & Kaur, a. M. (2018). Kahoot! it: Gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journels Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 565-582.
• Martin, B. (2015). Success ful implementation of TPACK in teacher preparation programs. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE), 4(1), 17-26.
• Mete, F. & Batıbay, E., F. (2019). The impact of Web 2.0 applications on motivation in the Turkish course: The Kahoot example. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 7(4), 1029-1047.
• Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (2002). Reflections and advice. In Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 392-397). SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Moundridou, M., & Papanikolaou, K. A. (2017, April 25-28). Educating engineer educators on technology enhanced learning based on TPACK [Conference presentation]. Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=7936435
• Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S. Y., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 71, 206-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.020
• Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.3.c
• Parette, H. P., Quesenberry, A. C., & Blum, C. (2010). Missing the boat with technology usage in early childhood settings: A 21st century view of developmentally appropriate practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0352-x
• Polat, M. (2019). Use or not use Kahoot in higher education: Prospective teachers' opinions about teaching with kahoot. National Journal of Education Academy, 3(2), 139-157.
• Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., BohleCarbonell, K., Townsend, D., Rozendal, A. P., Loo, J., Dekker, P. & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). Online training of TPACK skills of higher education scholars: a cross-institutional impact study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 480-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.801073
• Sanders, K. S. S. (2012). An examination of the academic networking site Edmodo on student engagement and responsible learning [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. University of South Carolina, USA.
• Sheffield, R., Dobozy, E., Gibson, D., Mullaney, J., & Campbell, C. (2015). Teacher education students using TPACK in science: A case study. Educational Media International, 52(3), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1075104
• Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. F. (2006). Use of classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.879802
• Tatlı, Z., İpek-Akbulut, H. & Altınışık, D. (2016). The impact of Web 2.0 tools on pre-service teachers’ self confidence levels about TPCK. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 659-678. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.277878
• The Council of Higher Education [CHE]. (2018). Öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları [Teacher training undergraduate programs]. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/YeniOgretmenYetistirmeLisansProgramlari/AA_Sunus_%20Onsoz_Uygulama_Yonergesi.pdf
• Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
• Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Çubukçu, Z., & İnci, T. (2019). A holistic view to barriers to technology integration in education. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 439-461. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.613969
• Uğurlu, R. (2009). Investigating the development of prospective mathematics teacher?s knowledge and skills of formative assessment through a program proposed using technological pedagogical content knowledge framework [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Marmara University, Turkey.
• UNESCO. (2006). Using ICT to develop literacy. Bangkok: UNESCO.
• Vannatta, R. A., & Beyerbach, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology integration among education faculty and preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 132-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2000.10782305
• Virtanen, J., & Rasi, P. (2017). Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies into face-to-face PBL to support producing, storing and sharing content in a higher education course. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1613
• Yapıcı, İ., & Karakoyun, F. (2017). Gamification in biology teaching: A sample of Kahoot application. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 396-414. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.335956
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods]. Seçkin.
• Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research. Sage.
• Zarzycka-Piskorz, E. (2016). Kahoot it or not? Can games be motivating in learning grammar? Teaching English with Technology, 16(3), 17-36.
• Zengin, Y., Bars, M., & Şimşek, O. (2017). Investigation of using Kahoot! and Plickers in formative evaluation process in mathematics teaching. Ege Journal of Education, 18(2), 602-626. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.318647

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.