Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Web 2.0 Applications Constructed on Learning Theories: Investigation Science Direct Database

Year 2015, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 59 - 69, 24.05.2015
https://doi.org/10.17671/btd.03676

Abstract

— The purpose of this research is the determination of the learning theories, which have been built by Web 2.0 applications between 2004 and 2013 as a matter of teaching technology. Science Direct database is investigated and 103 articles are found and analyzed with the document analysis method. According to the results, it is found that the most academic studies on the social network applications have been conducted in Web 2.0 applications. In addition, the most of the academic studies on the constructive, social and situational learning theories have been conducted in those learning theories. It has been determined that the academic studies having Web 2.0 applications were built on the learning theories started by 2008 and most of the studies were made in 2013. With this study, researchers who want to use Web 2.0 applications in learning environments can develop Learning Technologies-oriented perspectives that could be appropriate for study target and scope

References

  • Silva, J. M., Rahman, A. S., & El Saddik, A. (2008). Web 3.0: a vision for bridging the gap between real and virtual. Paper presented at the 1st ACM international workshop on Communicability design and evaluation in cultural and ecological multimedia system, Vancouver
  • British Columbia, Canada. Genç, Z. (2010, Şubat). Web 2.0 yeniliklerinin eğitimde kullanımı:
  • Bir facebook eğitim uygulama örneği, Akademik Bilişim’10 - XII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri, Muğla Üniversitesi. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0, O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  • <http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.> (2014 Ekim 21)
  • Thompson, J. (2007). Is Education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(4), 6.
  • Akçay, A., & Arslan, A. (2010). The using of blogs in Turkish education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1195-1199.
  • Carmichael, P., & Burchmore, H. (2010). Social software and academic practice: Postgraduate students as co-designers of Web 2.0 tools. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 233-241.
  • Kovacic, A., Bubas, G., & Coric, A. (2012). Mobilising students’ grammar skills through collaborative e-tivities with Web 2.0 tools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 132-136.
  • Laire, D., Casteleyn, J., & Mottart, A. (2012). Social media's learning outcomes within writing instruction in the EFL classroom:
  • Exploring, implementing and analyzing storify. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 442-448. 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. Chan, Y. M. (2010). Video instructions as support for beyond classroom learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1313- 13
  • New Media Consortium & The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, The Consortium. <http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf.> (2008). The New Media
  • Baltaci-Goktalay, S., & Ozdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions
  • Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4737-4741.
  • Schunk, D. (2009). Öğrenme teorileri: Eğitimsel bir bakışla.
  • Çeviren: M. Şahin. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım: Ankara. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitive research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2003). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Rout ledge.
  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects, Education for information 22, 63-75.
  • Forster, N. (1995). The analysis of company document. C. Cassell
  • & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage. Karaman, S., Yıldırım, S., & Kaban, A. (2008, Aralık). Öğrenme 0 yaygınlaşıyor: WEB 2.0 uygulamalarının eğitimde kullanımına ilişkin araştırmalar ve sonuçları. XIII. Türkiye’de internet konferansı.
  • Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give youwings:
  • Pedagogical affordances of mobile web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1-14. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444-453.
  • Petek, A., Kadı-Maglajlı, S., & Noica, M. (2012). Implications of
  • Web 0 Usage in Higher Education. International Journal of Management Cases, 14(1), 3-12.

Öğrenme Teorileri Üzerine İnşa Edilen Web 2.0 Uygulamaları: Science Direct Veri Tabanı İncelenmesi

Year 2015, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 59 - 69, 24.05.2015
https://doi.org/10.17671/btd.03676

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı; öğretim teknolojileri alanında 2000-2013 yılları arasında web 2.0 uygulamaları kullanılarak yapılan akademik çalışmaların hangi öğrenme teorileri üzerine inşa edildiğini belirlemektir. Belirlenen anahtar kelimelerle Science Direct veri tabanında tarama yapılmış ve belirlenen 324 makale doküman incelemesi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre; web 2.0 uygulamalarından en fazla “sosyal ağ uygulamaları”, öğrenme teorilerinden ise en fazla “yapılandırmacı, sosyal ve durumsal öğrenme teorileri” üzerine akademik çalışmaların olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Web 2.0 uygulamalarının öğrenme teorisi üzerine inşa edilerek kullanıldığı akademik çalışmaların 2008 yılı itibariyle başladığı ve en fazla çalışmanın 2013 yılında yapıldığı belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma ile web 2.0 uygulamalarını öğrenme ortamlarında kullanmak isteyenler; çalışma kapsamına ve hedeflerine uygun olabilecek öğrenme teorilerine yönelik perspektif geliştirebilirler.

References

  • Silva, J. M., Rahman, A. S., & El Saddik, A. (2008). Web 3.0: a vision for bridging the gap between real and virtual. Paper presented at the 1st ACM international workshop on Communicability design and evaluation in cultural and ecological multimedia system, Vancouver
  • British Columbia, Canada. Genç, Z. (2010, Şubat). Web 2.0 yeniliklerinin eğitimde kullanımı:
  • Bir facebook eğitim uygulama örneği, Akademik Bilişim’10 - XII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri, Muğla Üniversitesi. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0, O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  • <http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.> (2014 Ekim 21)
  • Thompson, J. (2007). Is Education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(4), 6.
  • Akçay, A., & Arslan, A. (2010). The using of blogs in Turkish education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1195-1199.
  • Carmichael, P., & Burchmore, H. (2010). Social software and academic practice: Postgraduate students as co-designers of Web 2.0 tools. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 233-241.
  • Kovacic, A., Bubas, G., & Coric, A. (2012). Mobilising students’ grammar skills through collaborative e-tivities with Web 2.0 tools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 132-136.
  • Laire, D., Casteleyn, J., & Mottart, A. (2012). Social media's learning outcomes within writing instruction in the EFL classroom:
  • Exploring, implementing and analyzing storify. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 442-448. 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. Chan, Y. M. (2010). Video instructions as support for beyond classroom learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1313- 13
  • New Media Consortium & The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, The Consortium. <http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf.> (2008). The New Media
  • Baltaci-Goktalay, S., & Ozdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions
  • Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4737-4741.
  • Schunk, D. (2009). Öğrenme teorileri: Eğitimsel bir bakışla.
  • Çeviren: M. Şahin. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım: Ankara. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitive research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2003). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Rout ledge.
  • Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects, Education for information 22, 63-75.
  • Forster, N. (1995). The analysis of company document. C. Cassell
  • & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage. Karaman, S., Yıldırım, S., & Kaban, A. (2008, Aralık). Öğrenme 0 yaygınlaşıyor: WEB 2.0 uygulamalarının eğitimde kullanımına ilişkin araştırmalar ve sonuçları. XIII. Türkiye’de internet konferansı.
  • Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give youwings:
  • Pedagogical affordances of mobile web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1-14. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444-453.
  • Petek, A., Kadı-Maglajlı, S., & Noica, M. (2012). Implications of
  • Web 0 Usage in Higher Education. International Journal of Management Cases, 14(1), 3-12.
There are 26 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Engineering
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Arif Topuz This is me

Önder Yıldırım This is me

Fatma Topu This is me

Yüksel Göktaş

Publication Date May 24, 2015
Submission Date November 19, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 8 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Topuz, A., Yıldırım, Ö., Topu, F., Göktaş, Y. (2015). Öğrenme Teorileri Üzerine İnşa Edilen Web 2.0 Uygulamaları: Science Direct Veri Tabanı İncelenmesi. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 8(2), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.17671/btd.03676