Teacher Training for Interactive Learning Tools and Determining Their Attitudes
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to determine the attitudes of teacher candidates toward interactive learning tools. This research was carried out in the survey model. The sample group of the research consisted of 242 teacher candidates studying at various universities in Kazakhstan in the 2022-2023 academic year. Pre-service teachers participating in the research were given 5-week interactive learning tools training. The Attitude Scale for Teachers Towards Interactive Online Teaching, which is a data collection tool, was developed by the researchers. Parametric tests were performed on the data set. In the evaluation of the data; descriptive statistics, t-test, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were applied. As a result of the research, it has been determined that teacher candidates' attitudes towards interactive online teaching are on high positive way. It is seen that there is a significant difference in the attitudes of teacher candidates toward interactive learning tools according to the gender variable, in favor of male teacher candidates. There was no significant difference in the attitudes of the teacher candidates participating in the research towards interactive learning tools according to the class variable they were studying. It is recommended that teacher candidates studying in all teaching fields in education faculties be trained on interactive learning tools by creating course content solely for this purpose.
Downloads
References
Aguillon, S. M., Siegmund, G. F., Petipas, R. H., Drake, A. G., Cotner, S., & Ballen, C. J. (2020). Gender differences in student participation in an active-learning classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(2), ar12. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/abs/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0048
Al Mamun, M. A., & Lawrie, G. (2023). Student-content interactions: Exploring behavioral engagement with self-regulated inquiry-based online learning modules. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40561-022-00221-x
Al- Momani M. O., & Alrabadi, I. G. (2022). A total quality approach to university education in an information and technological age. International Journal of Innovation Research in Education, 9 (2), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijire.v9i2.7866
Alhassan, R. (2017). Exploring the relationship between Web 2.0 Tools Self-Efficacy and Teachers ' Use of These Tools in Their Teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 6 (4), 217-228. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1150445
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. Handbook of distance education, 129-144. https://jgregorymcverry.com/readings/Moore2003HandbokkofDistanceEducation.pdf#page=155
Barnett-Itzhaki Z., Dizza B., Arava T. (2023). Using a Variety of Interactive Learning Methods to Improve Learning Effectiveness: Insights from AI Models Based on Teaching Surveys. Online Learning Journal, 27(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i3.3575
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender, and experience with computers. Journal of Education Computing Research, 26 (2), 133-153. https://doi.org/10.2190/JGJR-0KVL-HRF7-GCNV
Cheon, J., Song, J., Jones, D. R., & Nam, K. (2010). Influencing preservice teachers ' intention to adopt Web 2.0 services. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27 (2), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2010.10784658
Coutinho, C. P. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in pre-service teacher education Programs: an example from Portugal. academic conferences and Publishing International (ACPI), 239-245. https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/8467
Creswell, J. W. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (7). Prentice Hall upper saddle River, NJ. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594549
Frye, N. E., & Dornisch, M. M. (2008). teacher technology use and students’ evaluations: The moderating role of the content area. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 36 (3), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.36.3.g
Graves, SM, Abbitt, J., Klett, MD. and Wang, C. (2009). A Mentoring Model for Interactive Online Learning in Support of a Technology Innovation Challenge Grant. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(1), 5-16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ856112.pdf
Gunther, J. (2016). Teaching a student to Read through a Screen: Using SKYPE to Facilitate a Field Experience. School- University Partnerships, 9 (1), 14-16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1107085
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher education: The search for evidence-based practice _ educational research review, 9, 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.08.001
Keser, H. & Semerci, A. (2019). Technology trends, Education 4.0 and beyond. Contemporary Educational Research Journal. 9 (3), 39-39. https://doi.org/10.18844/cerj.v9i3.4269
Khasawneh, N. A. S. (2021). The effect of letter (c) modeling on developing the skills of handwriting performance among learners of Arabic speaking other languages. Cypriot Journal of Education Science. 16 (6), 2223 - 2235. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i5.6304
Korkut, Ş. E. V. K. İ. Y. E., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2008). Foreign language teacher candidates's information and computer literacy perceived self-efficacy. HACETTEPE UNIVERSITESI EGITIM FAKULTESI DERGISI-HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, (34). https://avesis.hacettepe.edu.tr/yayin/61dce119-6d0f-464c-ab85-2e8e9fb5eef6/foreign-language-teacher-candidatess-information-and-computer-literacy-perceived-self-efficacy
Kulakli, A., & Mahony, S. (2014). Knowledge creation and sharing with Web 2.0 tools for teaching and learning roles in so-called University 2.0. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 648-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.084
Lewohl, J. M. (2023). Exploring student perceptions and use of face-to-face classes, technology-enhanced active learning, and online resources. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 48. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41239-023-00416-3
Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in an e-learning environment. Computers & Education, 60 (1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015
Ma, B., Lu, M., Taniguchi, Y., & Konomi, S. I. (2021). CourseQ: the impact of visual and interactive course recommendation in university environments. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 16, 1-24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41039-021-00167-7
Martay, J.L.B., Hugo Martay, H. and Carpes, FP. (2021). BodyWorks: Interactive interdisciplinary online teaching tools for biomechanics and physiology teaching. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(4), 715-719, https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00069.2021
Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of computers assisted learning, 33 (5), 403-423.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments: Special issue on interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309-326. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
Morimoto, J., & Ponton, F. (2021). Virtual reality in biology: could we become virtual naturalists? Evo Edu Outreach 14, 7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-021-00147-x
Mukhtar, K., Javed, K., Arooj, M., & Sethi, A. (2020). Advantages, Limitations, and Recommendations for online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic era _ Pakistani Journal of Medical Sciences, 36 (COVID-19-S4), 27. https://doi.org/10.12669%2Fpjms.36.COVID19-S4.2785
Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2008). On its way to K–12 classrooms, Web 2.0 goes to graduate school. Computers in the Schools, 25 (3-4), 163-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560802368116
Ong, C. S., & Lai, J. Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in humans’ behavior, 22 (5), 816-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006
O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & strategies, (1), 17. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008839
Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-Service Teachers ' Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, and Web 2.0 Tools for Integration. New Horizons in Education, 59 (3), 28-40. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ955543
Perry, B. (2006) Using photographic images as an interactive online teaching strategy The Internet and Higher Education. 9(3), 229-240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.008
Correa, Y. (2015). Skype™ conference calls: a way to promote speaking skills in the teaching and learning of English. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 17 (1), 143-156. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/prf/v17n1/v17n1a09.pdf
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers ' intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45 (2), 171-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782602
Shapka, J. D., & Ferrari, M. (2003). computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher’s candidates. Computers in Human Behavior, 19 (3), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00059-6
Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Education Technology, 27 (5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.934
Sangwan, A., Sangwan, A. & Punia, P. Development and Validation of an Attitude Scale towards Online Teaching and Learning for Higher Education Teachers. Tech Trends 65, 187–195 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00561-w
Theo, T., Sang, G., Mei, B., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2019). Investigating pre-service teachers ' acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies in their future teaching: A Chinese perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 27 (4), 530-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1489290
Tyagi, S. (2012). Adoption of Web 2.0 technology in higher education: A case study of universities in the national capital Region, India. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8 (2), 28-43. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/42347/
Uppal, A. M., Ali, S., Zahid, Z., & Basir, M. (2021). Assessing the impact of interaction on e-learning quality: A quantitative investigation in higher education institutes of Pakistan, Psychology and Evaluation, 58 (3), 3132-3145. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Muhammad-Uppal/publication/350856816_Assessing_the_Impact_of_Interactivity_on_E-learning_Quality_A_Quantitative_Investigation_in_Higher
Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). the efficient virtual learning environment: A case study of web 2.0 tools and Windows live spaces. Computers & Education, 56 (3), 720-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.014
Vona Kurt, E. (2017). Evaluation of the high learning contribution of web 2.0 practices from university students’ perspective. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 7 (1), 417-434. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328903060_Evaluation_of_the_High_Learning_Contribution_of_Web_20_Practices_in_University_Students_Perspective
Vroom, K., Gehrtz, J., Apkarian, N., Alzaga Elizondo, T., Ellis, B., & Hagman, J. (2022). Characteristics of interactive classrooms that first-year students find helpful. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40594-022-00354-y
Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments: A review of the literature. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7 (4), 399-411. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/106711/
Wright, B., & Akgunduz, D. (2018). The relationship between technology pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) self-efficacy belief levels and the usage of web 2.0 applications of pre-service science teachers. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10 (1), 52-69. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1196042
Xie, Y., Huang, Y., Luo, W., Bai, Y., Qiu, Y., & Ouyang, Z. (2023). Design and effects of the teacher-student interaction model in the online learning spaces. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(1), 69-90. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-022-09348-9
Yaslica, E. (2020). The effect of interactive teaching material on achievement and attitude in virtual classroom environment. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 20 (1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.700328
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker Jr., J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effect. Information & Management, 43 (1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004
Copyright (c) 2024 Distance Education Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. El Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (la editorial) conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (texto legal). Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que: i) se cite la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra); ii) no se usen para fines comerciales; iii) se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones pre-print (versión antes de ser evaluada) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica. Color RoMEO: verde.
