Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 167 - 178 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 İndeks Tarihi: 04-10-2021
Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education
Öz: To limit the spread of the coronavirus, countries have favored distance education over face-to-face education. In Turkey,as well as around the world, technology has become an integral part of education. Technological tools are evolving anddeveloping on a daily basis as a result of rapid technological development. The development of Web 2.0 apps is one ofthese tools that can be considered a technological breakthrough that promotes progress by influencing teaching-learningenvironments. Teachers and students can use Web 2.0 apps to socialize along with creating, manipulating, and controllingcontent. These opportunities inspire students to contribute to the learning process and be active participants in theclassroom. An example of these technologies is the classroom response systems used for measurement and evaluation.Quizizz, Kahoot, and Socrative are examples of Web 2.0 tools that help teachers assess their students’ knowledge andskills effectively and efficiently within the context of classroom response systems. In this study, we aimed to comparethe opinions of mathematics teachers regarding the impact of Web 2.0 tools used for measurement and evaluation indistance education during the pandemic. This was a case study, which included 11 mathematics teachers. The results ofthe mathematics teachers’ opinions on the effects of Web 2.0 apps in distance education were categorized accordingto their contribution to teaching and the use of measurement tools. According to the findings, the teachers believedthat Web 2.0 apps had a positive impact on the distance education process. This study offers important applicationcomponents for future studies
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 96-115). IGI Global. [Crossref]
- Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. John Wiley & Sons.
- Carnevale, D. (2005). Run a class like a game show: ‘Clickers’ keep students involved. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(42), B3.
- Demirkan, Ö., Gürışık, A., & Akın, Ö. (2017). Teachers’ opinions about “Plickers” one of the online assessment tools. In I. Koleva and G. Duman (Eds.) Educational Research and Practice (pp. 476-486), Sofia: Kliment Ohridski University Press.
- Domenico, L. Di, Pullano, G., Coletti, P., Hens, N., & Colizza, V. (2020). Expected impact of school closure and telework to mitigate COVID-19 epidemic in France. Erişim tarihi: 21.04.2020 Erişim adresi: https://www.epicx- lab.com/uploads/9/6/9/4/9694133/inserm_covid-19-schoolclosure-french- regions_20200313.pdf
- Elmahdi, I., Al-Hattami, A., & Fawzi, H. (2018). Using technology for formative assessment to improve students’ learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(2), 182-188.
- Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2012). 21. yüzyıl öğretmenleri için web 2.0 araçları. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4, 1.
- Ervin-Kassab, L. E. (2014). Assessing student learning with technology: A descriptive study of technology-using teacher practice and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of San Francisco. USF Scholarship Repository.
- Freeman, C. L., & Tashner, J. (2015). Technologies for formative assessment: Can web-based applications transforms the allied health science classroom and improve summative assessment outcomes. Appalachian State University, USA. 02.03.2020 tarihinde http://www.candicelfreeman. com/uploads/3/7/9/2/37925553/technologiesforformativeassessment.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
- Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th Edition). New York: Longman.
- Gürışık, A. (2018). Çevrimiçi biçimlendirmeye yönelik bir değerlendirme aracı olarak Plickers: Öğrenci ve öğretmen görüşleri. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye.
- Hens, N., Ayele, G. M., Goeyvaerts, N., Aerts, M., Mossong, J., Edmunds, J. W., & Beutels, P. (2009). Estimating the impact of school closure on social mixing behaviour and the transmission of close contact infections in eight European countries. BMC Infectious Diseases, 9(187), 1-12. [Crossref]
- Horzum, M. B. (2007). Web tabanlı yeni öğretim teknolojileri: Web 2.0 araçları. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 6(12), 99-121.
- Horzum, M. B. (2010). Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarından haberdarlığı, kullanım sıklıkları ve amaçlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 603-634.
- International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2015). ISTE standards teachers, Retrieved May 11, 2020, from https://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20- 14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf.
- Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597.
- Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71.
- Matthews, J., Matthews, M., & Alcena, F. (2015). EDD-7914–Curriculum teaching and technology. Florida, US: Nova Southeastern University
- McCabe, M. (2006). Live assessment by questioning in an interactive classroom. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response system in higher education: Applications and cases (s. 276-288). Hershey, PA: Information Science. [Crossref]
- McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era.
- Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edition). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
- Morphew, V. N. (2012). A constructivist approach to the national educational technology standards for teachers. (1st ed.) USA: ISTE.
- Musser, J., & O’reilly, T. (2007). Web 2.0: Principles and best practices. O’Reilly Media.
- Ningsih, S. K., & Mulyono, H. (2019). Digital assessment resources in primary and secondary school classrooms: teachers’ use and perceptions. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 13(08), 167-173. [Crossref]
- Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus, 2019(4), 4–9. [Crossref]
- Saraçoğlu, G., & Kocabatmaz, H. (2019). A study on Kahoot and Socrative in line with peservice teachers views. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), 31-46. [Crossref]
- Van deWalle, B. (2016). Affordable technology response systems. Connections, 30(2), 17.
- Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., Mytton, O., Bonell, C., & Booy, R. (2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4, 397-404. [Crossref]
- Wang, C., Cheng, Z., Yue, X.-G., & McAleer, M. (2020). Risk management of COVID-19 by universities in China. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(2), 36. [Crossref]
- Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
- Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (ed.). Thousand Oaks.
- Zengin, Y., Bars, M., & Şimşek, Ö. (2017). Matematik öğretiminin biçimlendirici değerlendirme sürecinde Kahoot! ve Plickers uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 602- 626. [Crossref]
| APA | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A, Gökçe S (2021). Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. , 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| Chicago | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ Arzu,Gökçe Semirhan Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. (2021): 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| MLA | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ Arzu,Gökçe Semirhan Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. , 2021, ss.167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| AMA | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A,Gökçe S Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. . 2021; 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| Vancouver | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A,Gökçe S Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. . 2021; 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| IEEE | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A,Gökçe S "Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education." , ss.167 - 178, 2021. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| ISNAD | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ, Arzu - Gökçe, Semirhan. "Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education". (2021), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| APA | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A, Gökçe S (2021). Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. Hayef:journal of education (Online), 18(2), 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| Chicago | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ Arzu,Gökçe Semirhan Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. Hayef:journal of education (Online) 18, no.2 (2021): 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| MLA | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ Arzu,Gökçe Semirhan Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. Hayef:journal of education (Online), vol.18, no.2, 2021, ss.167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| AMA | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A,Gökçe S Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. Hayef:journal of education (Online). 2021; 18(2): 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| Vancouver | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A,Gökçe S Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education. Hayef:journal of education (Online). 2021; 18(2): 167 - 178. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| IEEE | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ A,Gökçe S "Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education." Hayef:journal of education (Online), 18, ss.167 - 178, 2021. 10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
| ISNAD | AYDOĞAN YENMEZ, Arzu - Gökçe, Semirhan. "Teachers’ Opinions on Web 2.0 Tools used for Measurement and Evaluation Purposes in Distance Education". Hayef:journal of education (Online) 18/2 (2021), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.5152/hayef.2021.21008 |
