Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Using Digital Tools in Turkish Course: Experiences of Prospective Primary School Teachers in Preparing Activities / Türkçe Dersinde Dijital Araçların Kullanımı: Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Etkinlik Hazırlama Deneyimleri

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 5, 395 - 420, 22.10.2023

Mehmet Aşıkcan

https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1356773

Öz

The purpose of this study is to investigate the digital activities prepared by prospective primary school teachers for a Turkish course and the processes involved in organizing activities. The research used a case study design, with data collected through semi-structured interviews and document analysis. The study group comprised 24 final year prospective primary school teachers selected from the Department of Primary School Education at a university in Konya-Turkey, who were eligible for criterion sampling. They were tasked with designing activities using digital tools for their respective learning domains (listening, speaking, reading and writing) and grade levels (second, third and fourth). Accordingly, each grade level is associated with eight potential prospective teachers, and each learning domain is associated with six potential prospective teachers. The prospective teachers described their experiences in preparing activities using digital tools through a semi-structured interview form, which was also shared with the students online. The researcher actively followed the form during this process and immediately intervened in cases that were not understood or needed clarification. The semi-structured interview form comprises four questions. Data analysis was conducted using content analysis. To ensure the research's validity and reliability, various approaches specific to qualitative research were used in terms of internal and external validity, internal and external reliability, credibility, confirmability, transferability, and consistency. According to the findings, prospective primary school teachers benefited from different digital tools, designed original activities, and considered the suitability of the activities to the curriculum and the level of the students. Nevertheless, some prospective teachers struggled with technical issues, content development, and the selection of suitable tools. Prospective teachers recommended using more digital tools in class and having access to paid tools. Lastly, although the prospective teachers believed that their undergraduate education and individual skills were generally sufficient for technology integration, they stressed the importance of hands-on experience. At the conclusion of the study, recommendations aligned with the research findings are provided.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Digital tools Digital literacy Preparing activity Prospective primary school teachers Turkish course

Kaynakça

  • Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44.
  • Alnasib, B. N. (2023). Digital competencies: are pre-service teachers qualified for digital education?. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 11(1), 96-114.
  • Altun, N. (2019). Temel eğitim programları ve ders kitaplarının dijital okuryazarlık bağlamında incelenmesi [Investigation of primary education curricula and textbooks in the context of digital literacy]. Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp, Erişim tarihi: 27.06.2023.
  • Altun, N., & Bangir Alpan, G. (2021). Temel eğitim programlarında dijital okuryazarlık [Digital literacy in primary education curricula]. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Research in Education and Society], 8(2), 280-294.
  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.
  • Arslan, S. (2019). İlkokullarda ve ortaokullarda görev yapan öğretmenlerin dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of digital literacy levels of teachers working in primary and secondary schools in terms of various variables]. Doktora tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp, Erişim tarihi: 27.06.2023.
  • Aydemir, Z., Sakız, G., & Doğan, M. C. (2019). İlkokul düzeyinde dijital okuryazarlık becerileri rubriğinin geliştirilmesi [Development of digital literacy skills rubric at primary school level]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi [Journal of National Education], 48(1), 617-638.
  • Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices, 30(2008), 17-32.
  • Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
  • Belet Boyacı, Ş. D. & Güner Özer, M. (2019). Öğrenmenin geleceği: 21. yüzyıl becerileri perspektifiyle Türkçe dersi öğretim programları [The future of learning: turkish language course curricula from the perspective of 21st century skills]. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(2), 708-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.578170
  • Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14.
  • Borthwick, A. C., & Hansen, R. (2017). Digital literacy in teacher education: Are teacher educators competent?. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(2), 46-48.
  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  • Byker, E. J., Michael Putman, S., Polly, D., & Handler, L. (2018). Examining elementary education teachers and preservice teachers’ self-efficacy related to technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Self-Efficacy in Instructional Technology Contexts, 119-140.
  • Cabezas-González, M., Casillas-Martín, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2021). The digital competence of pre-service educators: The influence of personal variables. Sustainability, 13(4), 2318.
  • Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.
  • Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
  • Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
  • Coutinho, C. P. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in pre-service teacher education programs: An example from Portugal. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), The proceedings of the 7th European conference on e-learning (pp. 239–245). Academic Publishing Limited.
  • Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Araştırma tasarımı: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları [Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches], (Çev.: E. Karadağ). Nobel Yayıncılık.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
  • Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth Edition). Sage Publications.
  • Çetinkaya-Özdemir, E., & Durmuş, M. (2023). İlk okuma yazma öğretimine yönelik teknoloji eğitiminin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknoloji kullanım düzeylerine katkısının incelenmesi [Investigation of the contribution of technology education for primary literacy teaching to the technology usage levels of primary school teacher candidates]. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14 (1), 265-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1219346
  • Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91-96.
  • Duran, E., & Özen, N. E. (2018). Türkçe derslerinde dijital okuryazarlık [Digital literacy in turkish lessons]. Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 3(2), 31-46.
  • Dursun, H., & Tertemiz, N. I. (2021). Çevirim-içi yapılan web 2.0 araçları öğretiminin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematik ders planlarına yansıtma durumlarının incelenmesi [Examining reflections of the training on the web 2.0 tools through online education on mathematics lesson plans developed by the pre-service classroom teachers]. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 16(1).
  • Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Methods of scientific research]. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
  • Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Publications Office of the European Union.
  • Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448.
  • Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449.
  • Gilster, P., & Glister, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub.
  • Gökbulut B., (2021). Öğretmenlerin dijital okuryazarlık düzeyleri ile hayat boyu öğrenme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of teachers’ digital literacy levels and life long learning tendencies]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi [Journal of Higher Education and Science], 11(3), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2021.466
  • Gömleksiz, M. N., & Fidan, E. K. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi öz-yeterliklerine ilişkin algı düzeyleri [Self-efficacy perception levels of prospective classroom teachers toward technological pedagogical content knowledge]. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(1), 87-113.
  • Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Sense Publishers.
  • Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2), 105-112.
  • 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.
  • Guernsey, L., Levine, M., Chiong, C., & Severns, M. (2012). Pioneering literacy in the digital wild west: Empowering parents and educators. New America Foundation & Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
  • Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  • Hechter, R., & Vermette, L. A. (2014). Tech-savvy science education? Understanding teacher pedagogical practices for integrating technology in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(1), 27-47.
  • Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Knight commission on the information needs of communities in a democracy. The Aspen Institute.
  • Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight: Young children and their internet use. EU Kids Online.
  • Hsu, P. S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60, 30-40.
  • Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.
  • Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37-45.
  • Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The MIT Press.
  • Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., & Çoklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 363-376.
  • Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., Odabaşı, H. F., Kılıçer, K., Çoklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964-977.
  • Karadeniz, Ş., & Vatanartıran, S. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin incelenmesi [Primary school teachers’ technological pedagogical content Knowledge]. İlköğretim Online [Elementary Education Online], 14(3), 1017-1028.
  • Karalar, H., & Aslan Altan, B. (2016). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi yeterliklerin ve öğretmen özyeterliklerinin incelenmesi [Examining pre-service primary education teachers’ tpack competencies and teacher selfefficacies]. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5(5), 15-30.
  • Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408.
  • Kaya Özgül, B., Aktaş, N. & Özdemir, E. Ç. (2023). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [Examination of digital literacy levels of primary school teachers and primary school teacher candidates according to various variables]. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 12(1), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1191366
  • Keskin, H. & Küçük, G. (2021). Sınıf öğretmenlerin kendilerine yönelik dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of digital literacy levels of classroom teachers in terms of different variables]. Temel Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Research in Elementary Education], 1(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.29228/tead.9
  • Kol, Ş., Batıhan, E., Keleş, Ü., Denk, B. & Demir, G. (2022). Sınıf öğretmelerinde dijital okuryazarlığın değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of digital literacy in classroom teachers]. Avrasya Eğitim ve Literatür Dergisi [Eurasian Academy of SciencesEurasian Education & Literature Journal], (16), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.17740/eas.edu.2022-V16-07
  • Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160-173.
  • Korkmaz, M. (2020). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin dijital okuryazarlık seviyelerinin belirlenmesi [Determining digital literacy levels of primary school teachers]. Yüksek lisans tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp, Erişim tarihi: 27.06.2023.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
  • Kuru, E. (2019). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının eğitim teknolojisi kavramına ilişkin metaforik algıları [The metaphorical perceptions of classroom teacher candidates of the concept of education technology]. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 257-278.
  • Lachner, A., Fabian, A., Franke, U., Preiß, J., Jacob, L., Führer, C., ... & Thomas, P. (2021). Fostering pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A quasi-experimental field study. Computers & Education, 174, 104304.
  • Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335.
  • Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). EBOOK: New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet. Polity.
  • Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style. EU Kids Online.
  • Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in İnformation and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249-267.
  • Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2016). The mobile Internet: Access, use, opportunities and divides among European children. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1657-1679.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  • MoNE (MEB) [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı], (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı [Turkish course curriculum]. MEB.
  • Mothibi, G. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between e-learning and students' academic achievement in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(9), 6-9.
  • 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.
  • Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078.
  • O’Neal, L. J., Gibson, P., & Cotten, S. R. (2017). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in 21st-century teaching and learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 34(3), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1347443
  • OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection, PISA. OECD Publishing.
  • O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O'Reilly Media. Retrieved from https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
  • Öztürk, E. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi [Prospective classroom teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge assessment in terms of some variables (TPCK)]. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Usak University Journal Of Social Sciences], 6(2), 223-228
  • Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration And Policy in Mental Health And Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533-544.
  • Pamuk, S., Sungur, S., & Öztekin, C. (2017). A multilevel analysis of students’ science achievements in relation to their self-regulation, epistemological beliefs, learning environment perceptions, and teachers’ personal characteristics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 1423-1440.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and evaluation methods] (Çev.: M. Bütün & S. B. Demir). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Pezalla, A. E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M. (2012). Researching the researcher-as-instrument: An exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity. Qualitative research, 12(2), 165-185.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On The Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
  • Prestridge, S. (2010). ICT professional development for teachers in online forums: Analysing the role of discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 252-258.
  • Radesky, J.S., Weeks H.M., Ball R., et al. (2020). Young children’s use of smart phones and tablets. Pediatrics,146(1), e20193518.
  • Sağlam-Kaya, Y. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının teknopedagojik eğitim yeterliklerinin çeşitli değişkenler ve öğretmen öz yeterlikleri bağlamında incelenmesi [Investigation of preservice teachers’ technopedagogical teaching competencies and teacher’s self-efficacy in terms of various variables]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 12(1), 185-204.
  • Şahin, A., Özkan, R. A., & Turan, B. N. (2022). İlkokul öğrencilerine yönelik dijital okuryazarlık ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Development of the digital literacy scale for primary school students: a study of validity and reliability]. Ana Dili Eğitim Dergisi [Journal of Mother Tongue Education], 10(3), 619-630. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1109283
  • Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.
  • Sauro, S. (2005). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 486-487.
  • Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35.
  • Shelton, C. (2017). Giving up technology and social media: Why university lecturers stop using technology in teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3), 303-321.
  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
  • Tezci, E. (2011). Factors that influence pre-service teachers’ ICT usage in education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 483-499.
  • Tomczyk, Ł., Fedeli, L., Włoch, A., Limone, P., Frania, M., Guarini, P.& Falkowska, J. (2023). Digital competences of pre-service teachers in Italy and Poland. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(2), 651-681.
  • Tondeur, J., Roblin, N. P., 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.
  • Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555-575.
  • Toprakçı, E. (2006). Obstacles in integration of the schools into information and communication technologies according to the opinions of the teachers and principals of primary and secondary schools in Turkey, thee-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-JIST), 9(1), 1-16. Retrieved: https://ascilite.org/archived-journals/e-jist/docs/vol9_no1/papers/commentary/toprakci.htm
  • Toprakçı, M.S.,Hepsöğütlü, Z. B. & Toprakçı, E. (2021) The perceptions of students related to the sources of problems in distance education during the covid-19 epidemic (example of İzmir Anatolian High School. E-International Journal of Pedandragogy (e-ijpa) 1(2), 41-61. TrDoi: https://trdoi.org/10.27579808/e-ijpa.40
  • Uluyol, Ç., & Eryılmaz, S. (2015). 21. yüzyıl becerileri işığında FATİH projesi değerlendirmesi [Evaluation of FATIH project in the consideration of 21st century skills]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 209-229.
  • Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403-413.
  • Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. The lancet, 395(10228), 945-947.
  • Warschauer M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. Teachers College Press.
  • Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education, 34(1), 179-225.
  • Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage.
  • Yamaç, A. (2018). Yeni okuryazarlığa genel bir bakış: Karar alıcılar, araştırmacılar ve öğretmenler için bazı öneriler [An overview of new literacy: some recommendations for policy makers, researchers, and teachers]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 11(3), 383-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.370469
  • Yang, L., Martínez-Abad, F., & García-Holgado, A. (2022). Exploring factors influencing pre-service and in-service teachers´ perception of digital competencies in the Chinese region of Anhui. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12469-12494.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (12. Ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yılmaz, E., & Esmer, B. (2021). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık becerilerinin incelenmesi [Examination of digital literacy skills of prospective primary school teachers]. 19. Uluslararasi Sinif Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu (Usos 2021) [19th International Primary Teacher Education Symposium] [IPTES 2021] 12-14 November 2021/Online, 74-79.
  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
  • Yontar, A. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeyleri [Digital literacy levels of teacher candidates]. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi [Journal of Mother Tongue Education], 7(4), 815-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.16916/aded.593579

Türkçe Dersinde Dijital Araçların Kullanımı: Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Etkinlik Hazırlama Deneyimleri / Using Digital Tools in Turkish Course: Experiences of Prospective Primary School Teachers in Preparing Activities

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 5, 395 - 420, 22.10.2023

Mehmet Aşıkcan

https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1356773

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının Türkçe dersi için hazırladıkları dijital etkinliklerin ve bu etkinlikleri hazırlama süreçlerinin incelenmesidir. Araştırmada durum çalışması deseni kullanılmış, veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve doküman analizi yoluyla toplanmıştır. Çalışma grubu, Konya'daki bir üniversitenin Sınıf Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı’ndan ölçüt örnekleme uygun son sınıf 24 sınıf öğretmeni adayından oluşmaktadır. Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarından öğrenme alanlarına (dinleme, konuşma, okuma ve yazma öğrenme alanları) ve sınıf düzeylerine (ikinci, üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf düzeyleri) göre dijital araçlarla etkinlik tasarlamaları istenmiştir. Buna göre, her bir sınıf düzeyine sekizer ve her bir öğrenme alanına ise altışar öğretmen adayı karşılık gelmiştir. Öğretmen adayları bu dijital araçlara dayalı etkinlikleri hazırlama sürecinde edindiği tecrübeleri görüşme formuna yansıtmışlardır. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu öğrencilerle çevrimiçi ortamda paylaşılmıştır. Araştırmacı bu süreçte aktif olarak formu takip ederek anlaşılmayan ya da açıklığa kavuşturulması gereken hususlarda hemen devreye girmiştir. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu dört sorudan oluşmaktadır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırmanın geçerlik ve güvenirliğini sağlamaya ilişkin; iç ve dış geçerlik, iç ve dış güvenilirlik, inandırıcılık, teyit edilebilirlik, aktarılabilirlik ve tutarlılık hususlarında nitel araştırmaya özgü çeşitli yaklaşımlara başvurulmuştur. Bulgulara göre, sınıf öğretmeni adayları farklı dijital araçlardan faydalanmış, özgün etkinlikler tasarlamış ve etkinliklerin müfredata ve öğrenci seviyesine uygunluğunu göz önünde bulundurmuştur. Bununla birlikte, bazı öğretmen adayları teknik sorunlar, içerik geliştirme ve uygun araçların seçimi konularında zorlanmıştır. Aday öğretmenler, sınıfta daha fazla dijital araç kullanılmasını ve ücretli araçlara erişim sağlanmasını tavsiye etmiştir. Son olarak, aday öğretmenler lisans eğitimlerinin ve bireysel becerilerinin teknoloji entegrasyonu için genel olarak yeterli olduğuna inanmakla birlikte, uygulamalı deneyimin önemini vurgulamışlardır. Araştırmanın sonunda araştırma sonuçları doğrultusunda önerilere yer verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dijital araçlar Dijital okuryazarlık Etkinlik hazırlama Sınıf öğretmeni adayları Türkçe dersi

Kaynakça

  • Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44.
  • Alnasib, B. N. (2023). Digital competencies: are pre-service teachers qualified for digital education?. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 11(1), 96-114.
  • Altun, N. (2019). Temel eğitim programları ve ders kitaplarının dijital okuryazarlık bağlamında incelenmesi [Investigation of primary education curricula and textbooks in the context of digital literacy]. Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp, Erişim tarihi: 27.06.2023.
  • Altun, N., & Bangir Alpan, G. (2021). Temel eğitim programlarında dijital okuryazarlık [Digital literacy in primary education curricula]. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Research in Education and Society], 8(2), 280-294.
  • Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.
  • Arslan, S. (2019). İlkokullarda ve ortaokullarda görev yapan öğretmenlerin dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of digital literacy levels of teachers working in primary and secondary schools in terms of various variables]. Doktora tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp, Erişim tarihi: 27.06.2023.
  • Aydemir, Z., Sakız, G., & Doğan, M. C. (2019). İlkokul düzeyinde dijital okuryazarlık becerileri rubriğinin geliştirilmesi [Development of digital literacy skills rubric at primary school level]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi [Journal of National Education], 48(1), 617-638.
  • Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices, 30(2008), 17-32.
  • Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
  • Belet Boyacı, Ş. D. & Güner Özer, M. (2019). Öğrenmenin geleceği: 21. yüzyıl becerileri perspektifiyle Türkçe dersi öğretim programları [The future of learning: turkish language course curricula from the perspective of 21st century skills]. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 9(2), 708-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.578170
  • Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14.
  • Borthwick, A. C., & Hansen, R. (2017). Digital literacy in teacher education: Are teacher educators competent?. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(2), 46-48.
  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  • Byker, E. J., Michael Putman, S., Polly, D., & Handler, L. (2018). Examining elementary education teachers and preservice teachers’ self-efficacy related to technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Self-Efficacy in Instructional Technology Contexts, 119-140.
  • Cabezas-González, M., Casillas-Martín, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2021). The digital competence of pre-service educators: The influence of personal variables. Sustainability, 13(4), 2318.
  • Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.
  • Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
  • Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.
  • Coutinho, C. P. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in pre-service teacher education programs: An example from Portugal. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), The proceedings of the 7th European conference on e-learning (pp. 239–245). Academic Publishing Limited.
  • Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Araştırma tasarımı: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları [Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches], (Çev.: E. Karadağ). Nobel Yayıncılık.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
  • Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth Edition). Sage Publications.
  • Çetinkaya-Özdemir, E., & Durmuş, M. (2023). İlk okuma yazma öğretimine yönelik teknoloji eğitiminin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknoloji kullanım düzeylerine katkısının incelenmesi [Investigation of the contribution of technology education for primary literacy teaching to the technology usage levels of primary school teacher candidates]. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14 (1), 265-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1219346
  • Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91-96.
  • Duran, E., & Özen, N. E. (2018). Türkçe derslerinde dijital okuryazarlık [Digital literacy in turkish lessons]. Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 3(2), 31-46.
  • Dursun, H., & Tertemiz, N. I. (2021). Çevirim-içi yapılan web 2.0 araçları öğretiminin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematik ders planlarına yansıtma durumlarının incelenmesi [Examining reflections of the training on the web 2.0 tools through online education on mathematics lesson plans developed by the pre-service classroom teachers]. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 16(1).
  • Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Methods of scientific research]. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.
  • Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Publications Office of the European Union.
  • Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448.
  • Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J. J. (2017). Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441-449.
  • Gilster, P., & Glister, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub.
  • Gökbulut B., (2021). Öğretmenlerin dijital okuryazarlık düzeyleri ile hayat boyu öğrenme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of teachers’ digital literacy levels and life long learning tendencies]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi [Journal of Higher Education and Science], 11(3), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2021.466
  • Gömleksiz, M. N., & Fidan, E. K. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi öz-yeterliklerine ilişkin algı düzeyleri [Self-efficacy perception levels of prospective classroom teachers toward technological pedagogical content knowledge]. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(1), 87-113.
  • Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Sense Publishers.
  • Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2), 105-112.
  • 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.
  • Guernsey, L., Levine, M., Chiong, C., & Severns, M. (2012). Pioneering literacy in the digital wild west: Empowering parents and educators. New America Foundation & Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
  • Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
  • Hechter, R., & Vermette, L. A. (2014). Tech-savvy science education? Understanding teacher pedagogical practices for integrating technology in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(1), 27-47.
  • Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Knight commission on the information needs of communities in a democracy. The Aspen Institute.
  • Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight: Young children and their internet use. EU Kids Online.
  • Hsu, P. S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60, 30-40.
  • Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277-302.
  • Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37-45.
  • Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The MIT Press.
  • Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., & Çoklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK competencies based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4), 363-376.
  • Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., Odabaşı, H. F., Kılıçer, K., Çoklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964-977.
  • Karadeniz, Ş., & Vatanartıran, S. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin incelenmesi [Primary school teachers’ technological pedagogical content Knowledge]. İlköğretim Online [Elementary Education Online], 14(3), 1017-1028.
  • Karalar, H., & Aslan Altan, B. (2016). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi yeterliklerin ve öğretmen özyeterliklerinin incelenmesi [Examining pre-service primary education teachers’ tpack competencies and teacher selfefficacies]. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5(5), 15-30.
  • Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408.
  • Kaya Özgül, B., Aktaş, N. & Özdemir, E. Ç. (2023). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [Examination of digital literacy levels of primary school teachers and primary school teacher candidates according to various variables]. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 12(1), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1191366
  • Keskin, H. & Küçük, G. (2021). Sınıf öğretmenlerin kendilerine yönelik dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigation of digital literacy levels of classroom teachers in terms of different variables]. Temel Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Research in Elementary Education], 1(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.29228/tead.9
  • Kol, Ş., Batıhan, E., Keleş, Ü., Denk, B. & Demir, G. (2022). Sınıf öğretmelerinde dijital okuryazarlığın değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of digital literacy in classroom teachers]. Avrasya Eğitim ve Literatür Dergisi [Eurasian Academy of SciencesEurasian Education & Literature Journal], (16), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.17740/eas.edu.2022-V16-07
  • Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160-173.
  • Korkmaz, M. (2020). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin dijital okuryazarlık seviyelerinin belirlenmesi [Determining digital literacy levels of primary school teachers]. Yüksek lisans tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp, Erişim tarihi: 27.06.2023.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
  • Kuru, E. (2019). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının eğitim teknolojisi kavramına ilişkin metaforik algıları [The metaphorical perceptions of classroom teacher candidates of the concept of education technology]. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 257-278.
  • Lachner, A., Fabian, A., Franke, U., Preiß, J., Jacob, L., Führer, C., ... & Thomas, P. (2021). Fostering pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A quasi-experimental field study. Computers & Education, 174, 104304.
  • Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335.
  • Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). EBOOK: New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet. Polity.
  • Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style. EU Kids Online.
  • Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in İnformation and Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249-267.
  • Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2016). The mobile Internet: Access, use, opportunities and divides among European children. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1657-1679.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  • MoNE (MEB) [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı], (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı [Turkish course curriculum]. MEB.
  • Mothibi, G. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between e-learning and students' academic achievement in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(9), 6-9.
  • 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.
  • Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078.
  • O’Neal, L. J., Gibson, P., & Cotten, S. R. (2017). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in 21st-century teaching and learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 34(3), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1347443
  • OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection, PISA. OECD Publishing.
  • O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. O'Reilly Media. Retrieved from https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
  • Öztürk, E. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi [Prospective classroom teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge assessment in terms of some variables (TPCK)]. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Usak University Journal Of Social Sciences], 6(2), 223-228
  • Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration And Policy in Mental Health And Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533-544.
  • Pamuk, S., Sungur, S., & Öztekin, C. (2017). A multilevel analysis of students’ science achievements in relation to their self-regulation, epistemological beliefs, learning environment perceptions, and teachers’ personal characteristics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 1423-1440.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and evaluation methods] (Çev.: M. Bütün & S. B. Demir). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • Pezalla, A. E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M. (2012). Researching the researcher-as-instrument: An exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity. Qualitative research, 12(2), 165-185.
  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On The Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
  • Prestridge, S. (2010). ICT professional development for teachers in online forums: Analysing the role of discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 252-258.
  • Radesky, J.S., Weeks H.M., Ball R., et al. (2020). Young children’s use of smart phones and tablets. Pediatrics,146(1), e20193518.
  • Sağlam-Kaya, Y. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının teknopedagojik eğitim yeterliklerinin çeşitli değişkenler ve öğretmen öz yeterlikleri bağlamında incelenmesi [Investigation of preservice teachers’ technopedagogical teaching competencies and teacher’s self-efficacy in terms of various variables]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 12(1), 185-204.
  • Şahin, A., Özkan, R. A., & Turan, B. N. (2022). İlkokul öğrencilerine yönelik dijital okuryazarlık ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Development of the digital literacy scale for primary school students: a study of validity and reliability]. Ana Dili Eğitim Dergisi [Journal of Mother Tongue Education], 10(3), 619-630. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1109283
  • Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.
  • Sauro, S. (2005). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 486-487.
  • Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13-35.
  • Shelton, C. (2017). Giving up technology and social media: Why university lecturers stop using technology in teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(3), 303-321.
  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
  • Tezci, E. (2011). Factors that influence pre-service teachers’ ICT usage in education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 483-499.
  • Tomczyk, Ł., Fedeli, L., Włoch, A., Limone, P., Frania, M., Guarini, P.& Falkowska, J. (2023). Digital competences of pre-service teachers in Italy and Poland. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(2), 651-681.
  • Tondeur, J., Roblin, N. P., 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.
  • Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555-575.
  • Toprakçı, E. (2006). Obstacles in integration of the schools into information and communication technologies according to the opinions of the teachers and principals of primary and secondary schools in Turkey, thee-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-JIST), 9(1), 1-16. Retrieved: https://ascilite.org/archived-journals/e-jist/docs/vol9_no1/papers/commentary/toprakci.htm
  • Toprakçı, M.S.,Hepsöğütlü, Z. B. & Toprakçı, E. (2021) The perceptions of students related to the sources of problems in distance education during the covid-19 epidemic (example of İzmir Anatolian High School. E-International Journal of Pedandragogy (e-ijpa) 1(2), 41-61. TrDoi: https://trdoi.org/10.27579808/e-ijpa.40
  • Uluyol, Ç., & Eryılmaz, S. (2015). 21. yüzyıl becerileri işığında FATİH projesi değerlendirmesi [Evaluation of FATIH project in the consideration of 21st century skills]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 209-229.
  • Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403-413.
  • Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. The lancet, 395(10228), 945-947.
  • Warschauer M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. Teachers College Press.
  • Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education, 34(1), 179-225.
  • Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Sage.
  • Yamaç, A. (2018). Yeni okuryazarlığa genel bir bakış: Karar alıcılar, araştırmacılar ve öğretmenler için bazı öneriler [An overview of new literacy: some recommendations for policy makers, researchers, and teachers]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 11(3), 383-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.370469
  • Yang, L., Martínez-Abad, F., & García-Holgado, A. (2022). Exploring factors influencing pre-service and in-service teachers´ perception of digital competencies in the Chinese region of Anhui. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12469-12494.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (12. Ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yılmaz, E., & Esmer, B. (2021). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık becerilerinin incelenmesi [Examination of digital literacy skills of prospective primary school teachers]. 19. Uluslararasi Sinif Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu (Usos 2021) [19th International Primary Teacher Education Symposium] [IPTES 2021] 12-14 November 2021/Online, 74-79.
  • Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
  • Yontar, A. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeyleri [Digital literacy levels of teacher candidates]. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi [Journal of Mother Tongue Education], 7(4), 815-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.16916/aded.593579
Toplam 112 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Alan Eğitimleri (Diğer)
Bölüm Sayı Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Mehmet Aşıkcan 0000-0002-8347-0811

Yayımlanma Tarihi 22 Ekim 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023Cilt: 14 Sayı: 5

Kaynak Göster

APA Aşıkcan, M. (2023). Using Digital Tools in Turkish Course: Experiences of Prospective Primary School Teachers in Preparing Activities / Türkçe Dersinde Dijital Araçların Kullanımı: Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Etkinlik Hazırlama Deneyimleri. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(5), 395-420. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1356773
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Creative Commons Lisansı
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)


[email protected]        http://www.e-ijer.com       Adres: Ege Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi  Bornova/İzmir