Cooperative Learning is a Relevant Instructional Approach for Developing Content with Web 2.0s in Pre-Service Teachers Training? : A Phenomenological Research

Author :  

Year-Number: 2022-Volume 14, Issue 3
Yayımlanma Tarihi: 2022-08-11 21:16:43.0
Language : English
Konu : Educational Sciences
Number of pages: 683-704
Mendeley EndNote Alıntı Yap

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Collaboration and technology literacy skills are among the basic skills that must be acquired by pre-service teachers in pre-service teacher training programs to prepare them for the digital learner and digital teacher roles they will encounter in the 21st century. Studies show that pre-service teachers usually graduate from pre-service teacher training programs without gaining the ability to use technology and develop teaching materials using technology, and they work in learning-teaching environments that do not encourage cooperation in this process. This article, which refocuses on technology literacy skills by collaborating as a result of training in itself and developing content with Web 2.0 tools, explores what pre-service teachers think about both the collaborative approach used in content development with Web 2.0 tools and Web 2.0 tools. This study, conducted in Turkey, aimed to examine pre-service teachers' views both on the use of a collaborative learning approach in developing content with Web 2.0 tools and Web 2.0 tools. This type of insight can offer valuable knowledge about how Web 2.0 tools and collaboration in developing content with Web 2.0 tools are understood and might impact practice in teacher training programs. A qualitative study was conducted on the phenomenological design. The participants consisted of pre-service teachers from a department of a university teacher training program, and the data were collected through individual, semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis methods. The results of the research revealed that CLA is a relevant approach for developing content Web 2.0s as it improves learning. In addition, Web 2.0s are tools that can be used in professional life as these tools have benefits for students, teachers, learning environment and course content. The limitations of the study and implications for future research were discussed.

Keywords


  • Akgündüz, D. (2016). Yeni nesil okulda teknoloji entegrasyonu [Technology integration in the newgeneration school]. In M. Yavuz (Ed.), Yeni Nesil Okul-Araştıran Okul [New Generation School-Researching School] (p.p. 135–185), Egitim Yayinlari.

  • Akgündüz, D., & Akınoğlu, O. (2017). The impact of blended learning and social media-supported learning on the academic success and motivation of the students in science education. Education & Science, 42(191), 69–90. DOI: 10.15390/EB.2017.6444

  • Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3- 4), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560802368173

  • Baran, B. & Ata, F. (2013). University students' web 2.0 technologies usage, skill levels and educational usage. Education and Science, 38(169), 192-208.

  • Barnes, J., & Shirley, I. (2007). Strangely familiar: Cross-curricular and creative thinking in teacher education. Improving Schools, 10(2), 162-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480207078580

  • Başal, A. (2016). Dijmat projesi: İngilizce öğretmenlerinin dijital ders materyali geliştirme algıları [Dijimat project: English teachers' perceptions of digital course material development]. Özcan In Demirel and Serkan Dinçer (Eds). Eğitim Bilimlerinde Yenilikler ve Nitelik Arayışı [Innovations and Qualification Search in Educational Sciences]. (p.p. 1247 -1260). Pegem Akademi Press.

  • Başkale, H. (2016). Determination of validity, reliability and sample size in qualitative studies. E-Journal of Dokuz Eylul University Nursing Faculty, 9(1), 23-28.

  • Battistich, V., Solomon, D., & Delucchi, K. (1993). Interaction processes and student outcomes in cooperative learning groups. The Elementary School Journal, 94(1), 19-32.

  • Bilgin, İ. & Geban, Ö. (2004). Investıgatıng the effects of cooperative learnıng strategy and gender on re-servıce elementary teacher students’ attıtude toward scıence annd achıevement of scıence teachıng class I. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 26, 9-18.

  • Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining Twenty-First Century Skills. In: Griffin, P., McGaw, B., Care, E. (eds) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2

  • Birişçi, S., & Karal, H. (2011). Effect of collaborative studies on prospective teachers’ creative thinking skills while designing computer based material. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 12(2), 203-219.

  • Boulton, H, & Hramiak, A. (2014) Cascading the use of Web 2.0 technology in secondary schools in the United Kingdom: identifying the barriers beyond pre-service training. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802994

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  • Byrne, R. (2009). The effect of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning. Teacher Librarian, 37(2), 50-53.

  • Cecchini, J. A., Carriedo, A., Méndez-Giménez, A., & Fernández-Río, J. (2021): Highly-structured cooperative learning versus individual learning in times of COVID-19 distance learning, European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1991305

  • Chen, J., & Lin, T. F. (2020). Do cooperative-based learning groups help students learn microeconomics?. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020938699

  • Cheng, M. M., Cheng, A. Y., & Tang, S. Y. (2010). Closing the gap between the theory and practice of teaching: Implications for teacher education programmes in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470903462222

  • Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2020). Qualitative research methods. (Çev.Eds M. Bütün and S.B. Demir,.) Siyasal Kitapevi.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. California: Sage Publications.

  • Ҫakıroglu, E., & Ҫakıroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976032000088774

  • Çelik, T. (2021). Examınıng formative evaluation experiences of prospective socil studies teachers using Web 2.0 applications. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 50(231), 173-198. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.713075

  • Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002

  • Donmuş-Kaya, V. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of using Web 2.0s in educational research area. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 9(1). 194-216.

  • Erten, P. (2020). Preservıce teachers’ perceptions of 21st century skills competence and their views on gaining these skills. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49 (227), 33-64. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/milliegitim/issue/56322/778233

  • Eser, M. (2020). The investigation of pre-service teachers' Web 2.0 practical content development self-efficacy belief. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning (ITALL), 1(1), 122-137.

  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational researcher, 38(4), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671

  • Gündüz, S., & Odabaşı, F. (2004). The importance of instructional technologies and material development course at pre-service teacher education in information age. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 43-48.

  • Gürsoy, G., & Goksun, D. O. (2019). The experiences of pre-service science teachers in educational content development using Web 2.0 tools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(4), 338-357. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.634168

  • Hall, R. (2008). The impact of the read/write web on learner agency. E-Learning and Digital Media, 5(3), 284-296. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2008.5.3.284

  • Hsu, P. S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60(1), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0014-3.

  • Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (2017) The use of cooperative procedures in teacher education and professional development, Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(3), 284-295, https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1328023

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2014). Cooperative Learning in 21st Century. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 841-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201241

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (2013). Cooperation in the Classroom (9th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

  • Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010). Get out of MySpace!. Computers & Education, 54(3), 776-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.008

  • Karataş, S. & Özcan, S. (2015). The effect of creative activities in cooperative learning environment on students’ creative and critical thinking and their academic achievement. Journal of Educational Technology Theory and Practice (ETTP), 5(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.56500

  • Kimmelmann, N., & Lang, J. (2019) Linkage within teacher education: cooperative learning of teachers and student teachers, European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 52-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1547376

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Vergili, M., Çakır, R., & Erdoğmuş, F. U. (2019). Plickers Web 2.0 ölçme ve değerlendirme uygulamasının öğrencilerin sınav kaygıları ve başarıları üzerine etkisi. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 15-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.30855/gjes.2019.05.02.002

  • Kul, U., Aksu, Z., & Birisci, S. (2019). The relationship between technological pedagogical content knowledge and web 2.0 self-efficacy beliefs. Online Submission, 11(1), 198-213. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2019.01.014

  • Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital Learning İn Teacher Education, 27(4), 144-153.

  • Kurt, A.A. (2019). Web araçları [Web Tools]. In Yalın Kılıç Türel (ed.). Öğretim Teknolojileri [Instructional Technologies]. Asos Press.

  • Lai, K. W., & Hong, K. S. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725-738. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12161

  • Lamb, S., Maire, Q., & Doecke, E. (2017). Key skills for the 21st century: An evidence-based review. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/35865/1/Key-Skills-for-the-21st-Century-Analytical-Report.pdf

  • Langset, I. D., Jacobsen, D. Y., & Haugsbakken, H. (2018). Digital professional development: towards a collaborative learning approach for taking higher education into the digitalized age. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(01), 24-39. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2018-01-03

  • Liebech-Lien, B. (2021). Teacher teams–A support or a barrier to practising cooperative learning?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 103453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103453

  • Magnuson, M. L. (2013). Web 2.0 and information literacy instruction: Aligning technology with ACRL standards. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 244-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.01.008

  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1100

  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (Trans. Selahattin Turan.). Nobel Press.

  • Onbaşılı, Ü. İ. (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), 91110. DOI: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.7

  • Özer, Ü. & Özer, E. A. (2017). Social studies and computer and ınstructional technologies teacher candidates' views towards Web 2.0 in education. In International Congress on Politic, Economic and Social Studies, 3, 106-118

  • Özpınar, İ. (2020). Preservice teachers’ use of Web 2.0 tools and perspectives on their use in real classroom environments. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 11(3), 814-841. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.736600

  • Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (Trans. M. Bütün, & S. B. Demir,). Pegem Akademi.

  • Preston, J. P., Wiebe, S., Gabriel, M., McAuley, A., Campbell, B., & MacDonald, R. (2015). Benefits and challenges of technology in high schools: A voice from educational leaders with a Freire echo. Interchange, 46(2), 169–185.

  • Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012

  • Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers' beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59(3), 937-945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.001

  • Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in nursing & health, 18(2), 179-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211

  • Sharan, Y. (2015). Meaningful learning in the cooperative classroom. Education 3-13, 43(1), 83-94.

  • Siegel, C. (2005). An ethnographic inquiry of cooperative learning implementation. Journal of school Psychology, 43(3), 219-239. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.6.339-349

  • Slavin, R. E. (2014). Making cooperative learning powerful. Educational Leadership, 72(2), 22-26.

  • Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on cooperative learning. (Ed: Richard E. Mayer and Patricia A. Alexander). Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction. Routledge Press.

  • Şimşek, U., Örten, H., Topkaya, Y., & Yıllar, B. (2014). Opinions of prospective teachers about cooperative learning techniques. The Journal of Turkish Social Research, 18(1), 231-257.

  • Taşdemir, A., & Sarikaya, M. (2005). A research on the effects of cooperative learning on prospective science teachers learning of solution chemistry. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 6(2), 197-207.

  • Tatli, Z., Akbulut, H. İ., & Altinisik, D. (2019). Changing Attitudes towards Educational Technology Usage in Classroom: Web 2.0 Tools. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/mojet.2019.02.001

  • Timur, S., Yilmaz, Ş., & Küçük, D. (2021). Investigation of the Effects of Web 2.0 Applications on the Self- Efficacy Beliefs of Science Teacher Candidates. Journal of Education Faculty in Istanbul Aydın University, 7(2), 291-311.

  • Tondeur, J., Pareja‐Roblin, N., van Braak, J., Voogt, J., & Prestridge, S. (2017). Preparing beginning teachers for technology integration in education: ready for take‐off?. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 157‐ 177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1193556

  • Urhan, N., & Erdem, M. (2018). Contributions on reflective thinking of digital documentary production in collaborative project based learning process. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 51(1), 27-53. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.406235

  • Vona-Kurt, E. (2017). Evaluation of the high learning contribution of Web 2.0 practices in university students perspective. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 7(1), 417-434.

  • Yazıcı, S., Ocak, İ. & Bozkurt, M. (2021). Analysis of educational studies on Web 2.0 tools. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 474-487. https://doi.org/10.51725/etad.1009299

  • Yeşilyurt, E. (2009). The views of students on the effect of cooperative learning on student behaviors. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 19(2), 161 - 178.

  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (9th ed.). Seçkin Press.

  • Yıldız, E. (2021). The effect of cooperative story and poster practices on science teacher candidates' academic achievement. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 53(53), 342362. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.689187

  • Zorlu, F. (2020). Investigation of the preservice science teachers’ views and suggestions on the application of the cooperative learning model in distance education environments. International Journal of Social and Educational Sciences, 7(14), 219-232. https://doi.org/10.20860/ijoses.835074

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • Article Statistics