Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Prospective Science Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Perspectives on Instructional Technologies in Science Education: Online Instructional Technology Training

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 370 - 389

Esra Benli Özdemir

Öz

This study aims to investigate the effects of activities focused on preparing digital teaching materials using web 2.0 tools, conducted within the framework of online instructional technology training, on prospective science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and perspectives regarding instructional technologies. In this research, an explanatory mixed-method model was used. A quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design without a control group was employed in the study. The study group consisted of 41 (nmale=3, nfemale=38) science prospective teachers enrolled in the first year at a university in Ankara. Science prospective teachers participated in activities related to preparing digital teaching materials using Web 2.0 tools for ten weeks as part of their online instructional technology training. The study's quantitative data were obtained by administering the “Self-Efficacy Scale for Instructional Technologies in Science Education" as pre-and post-tests. Qualitative data were collected by using a "Semi-Structured Interview Form on Instructional Technologies in Science Education." The results indicated that the activities focused on preparing digital teaching materials using web 2.0 tools conducted online positively and significantly impacted the development of prospective science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in instructional technologies. Interviews conducted after the implementation revealed that using web 2.0 digital teaching tools in science education enabled prospective teachers to gain teaching professional experience and technological competence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Instructional technologies web 2.0 self-efficacy belief online education prospective science teachers.

Kaynakça

  • Adıgüzel, A. (2010). The status of instructional technology in the primary schools and classroom teachers’ level of using these technologies. Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education Journal, (15), 1-17.
  • Akbaba, K., & Ertaş Kılıç, H. (2022). The effect of web 2.0 applications in science teaching on students’ attitudes towards science and technology use. Journal of Erzincan University Faculty of Education, 24(1), 130-139. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.880542
  • Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 181-198.
  • Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Technical report, JISC.Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf. Accessed April 14 2015.
  • Arıkan, R. (2000). Araştırma teknikleri ve rapor yazma [Research techniques and report writing]. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
  • Aslan, S., & Güner, T. (2022). An investigation of science teachers' experiences with online learning (sync) environments. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 11(1), 398-421.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  • Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G., (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534.
  • Bircan (2022). Investigation of primary school teachers' instructional technologies self-efficacy levels in science courses in terms of different variables. (Master’s thesis) Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Institute of Social Sciences, Kırşehir.
  • Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100-107.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Deneysel desenler. [Experimental patterns]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Council of Higher Education. (2023). https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2023/universitelerde-bahar-egitim-ve-ogretim-donemi-acilisi-ikinci-bir-duyuruya-kadar-gecici-olarak-ertelendi.aspx
  • Coutinho, C. P. (2009). Challenges for teacher education in the learning society: Case studies of promising practice. In H. H. Yang & S. H. Yuen (eds.) Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning: Issues and trends. (pp. 385-401). Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
  • Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 3-14). Routledge.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Çakır, R., Yükseltürk, E., & Top, E. (2015). Pre-service and ın-service teachers’ perceptions about using web 2.0 in education. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 2(2), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.10.2.2
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
  • Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 5-10.
  • Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
  • Gürleroğlu, L., & Yıldırım, M. (2022). Investigation of secondary school students’ views on web 2.0 supported educational web site. The Journal of National Education, 51(233), 191-217. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.776977
  • Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. Pfeiffer.
  • Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research methodology]. Ankara: Nobel Yay.
  • Karataş, Z. (2017). Paradigm transformation in social sciences research: Rise of qualitative approach. Turkish Journal of Social Work Research, 1(1), 68-86.
  • Kartal, T., Kartal, B., & Uluay, G. (2016). Technological pedagogical content knowledge self-assessment scale (TPACK-SAS) for pre-service teachers: Development, validity and reliability. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 7(23), 1-36.
  • Korkmaz, Ö. (2015). New trends on mobile learning in the light of recent studies. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 2(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.14.16.2.1
  • Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
  • Mishra, P., & 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
  • Okoro, E. A., Hausman, A., & Washington, M. C. (2012). Social media and networking technologies: An analysis of collaborative work and team communication. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(4), 295–9.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sag.
  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Framework for 21st centurylearning. http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  • Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş. [Introduction to social research]. (Translation) Bayrak D., Arslan H. B. & Z. Akyüz, Ankara: Siyasal Bookstore.
  • Qureshi, M. I., Khan, N., Raza, H., Imran, A. & Ismail, F. (2021). Digital technologies in education 4.0. Does it enhance the effectiveness of learning? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(04), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i04.20291
  • Ribble, M. S., & Bailey, G. D. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. International Society for Technology in Education.
  • Schrum, L., Thompson, A., & Sprague, D. (2005). Foundations of educational technology: Integrating teaching strategies and exemplary resources (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
  • Schwartz, S., & Digiovanni, L. (2009). About, for, and with students: Connecting teaching and teacher education through digital literacy. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2047-2050). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
  • Scott, A., & Ryan, J. (2009). Digital literacy and using online discussions: Reflections from teaching large cohorts in teacher education. In J. Zajda & D. Gibbs (eds.), Comparative information technology: Languages, societies and the internet. (pp. 103- 120). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  • Soylu, Ü. İ., & Bozdoğan, A. E. (2019). Determination of smart board usage status of science teachers: Example of Tokat province. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2019 (13), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.590327
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedurs and tecniques. Newbury Park, C. A.: Sage.
  • Şeker, R., & Kartal, T. (2017). The effect of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in science education. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(1), 17-29.
  • Taşdemir, A. (2021). Development of the self-efficacy scale for instructional technologies in science education. 12th International Scientific Research Congress (Oral Full Paper Presentation), Ankara. https://ubaksymposium.org/duzenle.php?alias=program_ozet adresinden alınmıştır.
  • Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., &Shen, R. (2008). Why Web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. In WWW 2008 (pp. 705-714). Beijing, China.
  • Voithofer, R. (2007). Web 2.0: What is it and how can it apply to teaching and teacher preparation? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Conference. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C7EC6A6242E3A3B4BA64 A6FFECFC8083?doi=10.1.1.94.5875&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Accessed April 14 2014
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  • 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.

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Eğitiminde Öğretim Teknolojilerine Yönelik Özyeterlik İnançları ve Görüşleri: Çevrimiçi Öğretim Teknolojisi Eğitimi

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 370 - 389

Esra Benli Özdemir

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, çevrim içi olarak düzenlenen öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi kapsamında uygulanan web 2.0 araçları ile dijital öğretim materyali hazırlama etkinliklerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının öğretim teknolojileri özyeterlik inançları ve görüşleri üzerine etkisinin araştırılmasıdır. Araştırmada açıklayıcı karma yöntem araştırma modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu, 2022-2023 eğitim ve öğretim yılı bahar döneminde Ankara’da bir üniversitede birinci sınıfta öğrenim görmekte olan 41 (nerkek=3, nkız=38) fen bilgisi öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları çevrim içi olarak on hafta boyunca öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi kapsamında web 2.0 araçları ile dijital öğretim materyali hazırlama ile ilgili etkinliklere katılmışlardır. Araştırmanın nicel verileri, “Fen Eğitiminde Öğretim Teknolojileri Özyeterlik Ölçeği” ile ön ve son test olarak uygulanması sonucu elde edilmiştir. Nitel veriler ise, “Fen Eğitiminde Öğretim Teknolojilerine Yönelik Yarı Yapılandırılmış Görüşme Formu” ile toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde SPSS programı, nitel verilerin analizinde ise içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, çevrim içi olarak düzenlenen web 2.0 araçları ile dijital öğretim materyali hazırlama etkinliklerinin öğretmen adaylarının öğretim teknolojileri özyeterlik inançlarının gelişiminde olumlu ve yüksek düzeyde etkiye sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Uygulama sonrasında yapılan görüşmelerde, öğretmen adaylarının web 2.0 dijital öğretim araçlarının fen eğitiminde kullanımının deneyim kazanmalarını ve teknolojik yetkinliğe sahip olmalarını sağladığı ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğretim teknolojileri web 2.0 özyeterlik inancı çevrim içi eğitim fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı.

Teşekkür

Teşekkür eder, iyi çalışmalar dilerim.

Kaynakça

  • Adıgüzel, A. (2010). The status of instructional technology in the primary schools and classroom teachers’ level of using these technologies. Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education Journal, (15), 1-17.
  • Akbaba, K., & Ertaş Kılıç, H. (2022). The effect of web 2.0 applications in science teaching on students’ attitudes towards science and technology use. Journal of Erzincan University Faculty of Education, 24(1), 130-139. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.880542
  • Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3/4), 181-198.
  • Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Technical report, JISC.Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf. Accessed April 14 2015.
  • Arıkan, R. (2000). Araştırma teknikleri ve rapor yazma [Research techniques and report writing]. Ankara: Gazi Kitapevi.
  • Aslan, S., & Güner, T. (2022). An investigation of science teachers' experiences with online learning (sync) environments. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 11(1), 398-421.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  • Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G., (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534.
  • Bircan (2022). Investigation of primary school teachers' instructional technologies self-efficacy levels in science courses in terms of different variables. (Master’s thesis) Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Institute of Social Sciences, Kırşehir.
  • Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100-107.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Deneysel desenler. [Experimental patterns]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Council of Higher Education. (2023). https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2023/universitelerde-bahar-egitim-ve-ogretim-donemi-acilisi-ikinci-bir-duyuruya-kadar-gecici-olarak-ertelendi.aspx
  • Coutinho, C. P. (2009). Challenges for teacher education in the learning society: Case studies of promising practice. In H. H. Yang & S. H. Yuen (eds.) Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning: Issues and trends. (pp. 385-401). Hershey, New York: IGI Global.
  • Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 3-14). Routledge.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Çakır, R., Yükseltürk, E., & Top, E. (2015). Pre-service and ın-service teachers’ perceptions about using web 2.0 in education. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 2(2), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.10.2.2
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
  • Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 5-10.
  • Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
  • Gürleroğlu, L., & Yıldırım, M. (2022). Investigation of secondary school students’ views on web 2.0 supported educational web site. The Journal of National Education, 51(233), 191-217. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.776977
  • Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. Pfeiffer.
  • Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research methodology]. Ankara: Nobel Yay.
  • Karataş, Z. (2017). Paradigm transformation in social sciences research: Rise of qualitative approach. Turkish Journal of Social Work Research, 1(1), 68-86.
  • Kartal, T., Kartal, B., & Uluay, G. (2016). Technological pedagogical content knowledge self-assessment scale (TPACK-SAS) for pre-service teachers: Development, validity and reliability. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 7(23), 1-36.
  • Korkmaz, Ö. (2015). New trends on mobile learning in the light of recent studies. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 2(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.14.16.2.1
  • Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
  • Mishra, P., & 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
  • Okoro, E. A., Hausman, A., & Washington, M. C. (2012). Social media and networking technologies: An analysis of collaborative work and team communication. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(4), 295–9.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sag.
  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Framework for 21st centurylearning. http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
  • Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş. [Introduction to social research]. (Translation) Bayrak D., Arslan H. B. & Z. Akyüz, Ankara: Siyasal Bookstore.
  • Qureshi, M. I., Khan, N., Raza, H., Imran, A. & Ismail, F. (2021). Digital technologies in education 4.0. Does it enhance the effectiveness of learning? A systematic literature review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(04), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i04.20291
  • Ribble, M. S., & Bailey, G. D. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. International Society for Technology in Education.
  • Schrum, L., Thompson, A., & Sprague, D. (2005). Foundations of educational technology: Integrating teaching strategies and exemplary resources (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
  • Schwartz, S., & Digiovanni, L. (2009). About, for, and with students: Connecting teaching and teacher education through digital literacy. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2047-2050). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
  • Scott, A., & Ryan, J. (2009). Digital literacy and using online discussions: Reflections from teaching large cohorts in teacher education. In J. Zajda & D. Gibbs (eds.), Comparative information technology: Languages, societies and the internet. (pp. 103- 120). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  • Soylu, Ü. İ., & Bozdoğan, A. E. (2019). Determination of smart board usage status of science teachers: Example of Tokat province. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2019 (13), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.590327
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedurs and tecniques. Newbury Park, C. A.: Sage.
  • Şeker, R., & Kartal, T. (2017). The effect of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in science education. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(1), 17-29.
  • Taşdemir, A. (2021). Development of the self-efficacy scale for instructional technologies in science education. 12th International Scientific Research Congress (Oral Full Paper Presentation), Ankara. https://ubaksymposium.org/duzenle.php?alias=program_ozet adresinden alınmıştır.
  • Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., &Shen, R. (2008). Why Web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes. In WWW 2008 (pp. 705-714). Beijing, China.
  • Voithofer, R. (2007). Web 2.0: What is it and how can it apply to teaching and teacher preparation? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Conference. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C7EC6A6242E3A3B4BA64 A6FFECFC8083?doi=10.1.1.94.5875&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Accessed April 14 2014
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  • 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.
Toplam 49 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Esra Benli Özdemir 0000-0002-2246-2420

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 19 Haziran 2025
Yayımlanma Tarihi
Gönderilme Tarihi 27 Nisan 2024
Kabul Tarihi 15 Mayıs 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Benli Özdemir, E. (2025). Prospective Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Perspectives on Instructional Technologies in Science Education: Online Instructional Technology Training. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2), 370-389. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1474402

e-ISSN: 2147-1606