International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(6) 1-15

Reflections of a Web Based Application Tool on Classroom Management

Pınar Girmen, Müyesser Ceylan & İrfan Süral

pp. 1 - 15   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.382.1   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2009-22-0003

Published online: December 03, 2021  |   Number of Views: 150  |  Number of Download: 322


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine how a web-based assessment tool developed for a social studies course is reflected on classroom management and how much students reflect their learning at school to their lives. In line with this purpose, the study was designed according to the mixed method research where both quantitative and qualitative methods are used. The participants of the study consisted of students who were in the second grade of a primary school with a medium socio-economic environment. The quantitative data of the study were based on the scores the students achieved in the assessment tool. The qualitative data of the study were collected through semi-structured interviews with both the students and the teachers.  According to the results obtained from the study, it was observed that using a web-based assessment tool in the learning environment positively affected both the students’ motivation and the process of attracting their attention. However, it was observed that the students could not reflect their learning at school to their lives.

Keywords: Primary School, Classroom Management, Social Studies, Web-Based Application


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Girmen, P., Ceylan, M. & Sural, I. (2021). Reflections of a Web Based Application Tool on Classroom Management . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(6), 1-15. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.382.1

Harvard
Girmen, P., Ceylan, M. and Sural, I. (2021). Reflections of a Web Based Application Tool on Classroom Management . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(6), pp. 1-15.

Chicago 16th edition
Girmen, Pinar, Muyesser Ceylan and Irfan Sural (2021). "Reflections of a Web Based Application Tool on Classroom Management ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (6):1-15. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.382.1.

References
  1. Akça, M. A., Barut, E., ve Önder, R. (2014). Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi için Web Tabanlı Öğrenme Ortamı. International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (s. 190-196). Konya: Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi. [Google Scholar]
  2. An, Y.-J., Aworuwa, B., Ballard, G., ve Williams, K. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 Technologies: Benefits, Barriers and Best Practices. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7, 41-48. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, P. (2007). What is web 2.0. Ideas, technologies and implications for education. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barak, M., Lipson, A., Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless Laptops as Means For Promoting Active Learning in Large Lecture Halls. Jorunal of Research on Technology in Education 38(3):245-264. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environment: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 235 - 245. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bromley, H. (1998). Data-Driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education/Technology/Power: Educational computing as a social practice (pp. vii, 263). Albany: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Çetinkaya, M., ve Taş, E. (2016). Web Destekli ve Etkinlik Temelli Ölçme Değerlendirme Materyali Geliştirilmesi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 21-28. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chou, C., Lee, Y. (2017) The Moderating Effects of Internet Parenting Styles on the Relationship between Internet Parenting Behavior, Internet Expectancy, and Internet Addiction Tendency. The Asia-Pasific Education Researcher 26(6). [Google Scholar]
  9. Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, technology, and change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309-328. [Google Scholar]
  10. Clarke, J., Dede, C., & Dieterle, E. (2008). Emerging technologies for collaborative, mediated, immersive learning. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 901-909). Springer, Boston, MA. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crane, B.E. (2012). Using Web 2.0 and Social Networking Tools in the K-12 Classroom. Chicago: Neal-Schuman, an imprint of ALA Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitaive and qualitative research (3. ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River. [Google Scholar]
  13. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eyal, L. (2012). Digital Assessment Literacy — the Core Role of the Teacher in a Digital Environment. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 37–49. [Google Scholar]
  15. FatimahA. S., & SantianaS. (2017). Teaching In 21st Century: Students-Teachers’ Perceptions Of Technology Use In The Classroom. Script Journal: Journal of Linguistics and English Teaching, 2(2), 125-135. https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v2i2.132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Fırat, M , Yurdakul, İ , Ersoy, A . (2014). Bir Eğitim Teknolojisi Araştırmasına Dayalı Olarak Karma Yöntem Araştırması Deneyimi . Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi , 2 (1) , 64-85 . DOI: 10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.2s3m [Google Scholar]
  17. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., ve Airasian, P. W. (2006). Educational research: competencies foranalysis and applications (8. Baskı b.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gürkan, Tanju; Erten Gökçe. Türkiye’de ve Çeşitli Ülkelerde İlköğretim. Siyasal Kitapevi. Ankara, Ekim 1999. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., Ingraffea, A. (2007). Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers and Education, 49(2), 309-329. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hue, M., Li, W. (2008). Classroom Management –Creating a Positive Learning Environment. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. International Society for Technology in Education (2012). A Constructivist Approach to the NETS. https://id.iste.org/docs/excerpts/connet-excerpt.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson, R.B., Christensen, L. (2014). Educational Research-Quantitative, Qulatitative, and Mixed Approaches. Fifth Edition. Washington DC: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 14-26 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jones, S. M., Bailey, R., & Jacob, R. (2014). Social-emotional learning is essential to classroom management. Phi Delta Kappan, 96, 19-24. Retrieved November 15, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=99541498 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer‐mediated communication in distance education. American journal of distance education, 9(2), 7-26. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kay, R., Lauricella, S. (2011). Unstructured vs. Structured Use of Laptops in Higher Education. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice. Vol 10:33-42 [Google Scholar]
  27. Korucu, A. T. (2013). Problem temelli isbirlikli ogrenme ortaminda dinamik web teknolojilerinin akademik basari ile akademik ugrasiya etkisi. Yayinlanmamis Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi. [Google Scholar]
  28. Meyer, K.A. (2010). A comparison of Web 2.0 tools in a doctoral course. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 226-232. [Google Scholar]
  29. MEB. (2018). Hayat bilgisi dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul 1,2 ve 3.sınıflar). Ankara: MilliEğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  30. Middleton, B. M., & Murray, R. K. (1999). The impact of instructional technology on student academic achievement in reading and mathematics. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(1), 109-110. [Google Scholar]
  31. Miles, M, B., Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with Laptops. Journal of Research on technology in Education 40(4):447-472. [Google Scholar]
  34. National Assessment Governing Board. (2004). NAEP 2009 science framework development: Issues and recommendations. Washington, D.C.: Author. https://www.nagb.gov/focus-areas/reports/2009-science-framework-issues.html [Google Scholar]
  35. Özmen, F., Aküzüm, C., Çakmak, M.S., Baysal, N. (2012). Sosyal Ağ Sitelerinin Eğitsel Ortamlardaki İşlevselliği. NWSA-Education Sciences. 7(2). [Google Scholar]
  36. Paliç, G., ve Akdeniz, A. R. (2012). Beyin Temelli Öğrenmeye Dayalı Web Destekli Bir  Öğretim Materyalinin Tasarlanması ve Değerlendirilmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 6(1), 67-93. [Google Scholar]
  37. Prensky, M. (2007). How to Teach with Technology: Keeping Both Teachers and Students Comfortable in an Era of Exponential Change. Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2, 40-46. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., Fenn, K.M. (2017). Logged in and zoned out: How laptop internet use relates to classroom learning. Psychological sciene 28(2): 171-180 [Google Scholar]
  39. Richards, J. C.; Schmidt, R.W. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., Dösinger, G. and Tochtermann, K. (2007) ‘The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies’, Int. J. Learning Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 87–107. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., Dosinger, G., Tochtermann, K. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International Journal of learning Technology 3(1). pp87-107. [Google Scholar]
  42. Samson, P.J. (2010). Deliberate Engagement of Laptops in Large Lecture Classes to Improve Attentiveness and Engagement. Computers in Education, (20) 2. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shulman, L. S. (2013). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Journal of Education, 193(3), 1-11. [Google Scholar]
  44. Shihab, M. M. (2008). Web 2.0 tools improve teaching and collaboration in high school English language classes [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Nova Southeastern University Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences, USA. [Google Scholar]
  45. Solomon, G., Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools. Washington DC: International Society for Technology in Education. [Google Scholar]
  46. Soodak, L.C., McCarthy M.R. (2013). Classroom Management in Inclusive Settings. In Handbook of Classroom Management- Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues. (Ed. Evertson, C.M& Weinstein, C.S) [Google Scholar]
  47. Türnüklü, A. (2001). Eğitim bilim alanında aynı araştırma sorusunu yanıtlamak için farklı araştırma tekniklerinin birlikte kullanılması. Eğitim ve Bilim Cilt 26, Sayı 120. [Google Scholar]
  48. Trimmel, M., Bachmann, J. (2004). Cognitive, Social, Motivation and Health Aspects of Students in Laptop Classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 20(2):151-158. [Google Scholar]
  49. Trotter, A. (2007). Technology Counts ’07: A digital decade. Getting up to speed. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/29/30tcpolicy.h26.html [Google Scholar]
  50. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 705-714). ACM. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilson, J. D., Notar, C. C., & Yunker, B. (2003). Elementary in-service teacher’s use of computers in the elementary classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(4), 256. [Google Scholar]
  53. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics?. In D. M. Kaplan (Ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Technology (pp. 289-203). Albany: Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar]
  54. Winner, L. (2000). The voluntary complexity movement. Science as Culture, 9(1), 103-107. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2013). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 9th Press. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers college record, 104(3), 482-515 [Google Scholar]