The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Effects of Science Teaching Practice Supported With Web 2.0 Tools on Prospective Elementary School Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Open accessAbstract
This study aims to analyse the effects of science teaching practices supported by Web 2.0 tools on prospective elementary school teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy beliefs in using Web 2.0 tools. The study was conducted in pre test-post test quasi-experimental design with no control group, and it was supported with qualitative data. The research was conducted with the participation of 40 prospective teachers registered in Elementary School Teaching Department of a state university in 2017-2018 academic year. The study was conducted throughout a semester (for 14 weeks) within the scope of the course Science and Technology Teaching II. The lessons were taught in consistence with constructivist learning approach directed to all the gains available in the 3rd and 4th grade Science teaching curriculum prepared by the Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2018) on the basis of student-centred methods and techniques by supporting with Web 2.0 tools. 23 Web 2.0 tools in total were used throughout the study. The “Web 2.0 Rapid Content Development Self-efficacy Scale” developed by Birişci, Kul, Aksu, Akaslan and Çelik (2018) in addition to an interview form of open-ended questions developed by the researcher to obtain prospective teachers’ views on the use of Web 2.0 tools in science teaching were used in this study. Consequently, it was found that science teaching practices supported by Web 2.0 tools had positive effects on prospective elementary school teachers’ their self-effica…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Studies examining professional learning processes emphasize that sustained, practice-oriented training produces stronger integration outcomes than short-term technical workshops (Onbaşılı, 2020;Taşlıçay Arslan & Demirkan, 2019;Unal & Uzun, 2019).”
From From Digital Consumers to Knowledge Creators: Reconceptualizing Web 2.0 Integration through a Pedagogical Maturity Continuum in Primary Education (2026) · cites this paper as Onbaşılı, 2020
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gürhan, E. (2026) · Muallimun: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan dan Keguruan · doi:10.23971/muallimun.v6i1.11267 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Mersin University, & İzgi Onbaşılı, Ü.
- Venue
- International Journal of Progressive Education
- Publisher
- Pen Academic Publishing
- Published
- 2020-04-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 91-110
- ISSN
- 1554-5210 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3014911968
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 6.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- International Journal of Progressive Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Mersin Üniversitesi Açık Erişim Sistemi/Mersin University Open Access System (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Learning Interventions
- Keywords
- Web 2.0 tools, self-efficacy, prospective elementary school teachers, science education, teacher professional development, constructivist learning, student-centered learning, technology integration in science education, creativity and imagination, science misconceptions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
