THE USE OF WEB 2.

0 TOOLS IN EDUCATION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FUTURE TEACHERS

E. Krelja Kurelovi*, J. Tomljanovi**, M. Rui-Baf***
Polytechnic of Rijeka Vukovarska 58, Rijeka, Croatia * elena@veleri.hr ** jasminka.tomljanovic@veleri.hr *** Sveuilite Jurja Dobrile u Puli, Odjel za odgojne i obrazovne znanosti I.M.Ronjgova 1, Pula, Croatia mruzic@unipu.hr

Abstract: The main characteristics of Web 2.0 technologies, such as openness, interactivity, collaboration, social networking and collective intelligence are consistent with the contemporary considerations in the teaching practice (constructivism and connectivism). Web 2.0 tools have thus found their application in education, resulting in what is today called e-education 2.0. New Web 2.0 technologies provide students at all levels with a different way of communicating and cooperating, simple creating, exchanging and commenting on their contents, learning in a more interesting way and the independent publishing of projects and other papers. Web 2.0 tools make students change from receivers of information to persons that can actively generate information and it allows them to learn through experience. However, the question is, how much have Web 2.0 tools penetrated into our reality of education and whether the students of teaching studies, the future teachers, have recognized the pedagogical value of Web 2.0 tools. This is the crucial research question dealt with in this paper, which presents the results of research conducted on a sample of students of junior and senior elementary school teaching studies at the Universities of Rijeka and Pula.

tagging, bookmarking and social networking in teaching activities that enables students at all levels to connect, cooperate, exchange ides and publish contents, but also to acquire new knowledge and experiences, which all contribute to learning objectives [2], [7], [11], [13]. Web 2.0 emphasizes cooperation and sharing, and social software allows the continuation of the teaching process based on the previously discerned advantages of peer learning. The way in which we learn is, at the same time, given more emphasis than the exact content of our learning [7]. According to [9], Web 2.0 tools provide support to students of the net-generation, who are used to an interactive and fast surrounding, and to student-oriented learning based on the principles of creativity, communication, cooperation and sharing. Learning is implemented through new, smaller planned forms of knowledge building. Schools must be able to take advantage of modern electronic media and Web 2.0 tools to promote active incorporation of students in the learning process because Web 2.0 tools respect students' interests, needs and behaviour patterns [10]. Instead of standardized, individually focused, teacher mediated curricula, Web 2.0 technologies call for knowledge construction in a collaborative, production oriented, often in a nonlinear manner with access to knowledge mediated by its users [5]. The so far mentioned arguments point to a considerable potential of Web 2.0 tools in their implementation in education, which has also been confirmed by research results [1]. The Web 2.0 mediated learning is closest to the constructivist theory of learning which puts active participation, cooperation, personal interpretation of content based on personal and non-personal experience in its centre [1], [4]. Nevertheless, [12] considered the existing learning theories not to be adequate to learning in today's digital era, and has introduced a new theory of learning connectivism. Connectivism focuses on

I.

INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon called Web 2.0 has introduced significant changes to the way the Internet is used as it puts the user in the centre enabling him to actively create, publish and share data. In addition it enables interactivity, communication, cooperation and social networking thus becoming a generally accepted social platform containing numerous services and tools whose usage creates collective intelligence where every individual gives his personal contribution. The development of Web 2.0 tools has launched new trends in the ways of teaching and learning, which ended in the emergence of e-learning 2.0. Various descriptions of the e-learning 2.0 agree that it is this use of Web 2.0 tools, such as wikis, blogs, RSS, photo and video sharing,

connecting information and the creation of social connections which enable learning. In today's period of time, when search for new information is relentless, what is of utmost importance is the ability to distinguish important information from unimportant, i.e. to know how to choose what to learn, how to connect various sources of information, how to see connections between different fields, concepts and ideas, and how to maintain these connections to facilitate continuous learning because knowledge is possessed by learning communities, and not by an individual [12], [7], [8]. Acquisition of up-to-date information is the intent of all connectivist learning activities, and the possibility to acquire new knowledge is more critical than the current knowledge. To sum up, this theory emphasises the skills required by students to be successful in the digital era where, according to Siemens, the capacity to learn what we are going to need tomorrow is more important than what we know today [7]. According to [10], connectivism represents a model of learning which takes into consideration "tectonic shifts in society" where learning has ceased to be an individual activity strongly relying on the teacher student interaction. Reference [10] considers that today's students do not accept the traditional lecture-based teaching as it is too dull, outdated and uninteresting. Indeed, they have become used to a dynamic and interactive environment, mediated by information and communication technologies. There is a big gap between students athome and in-school use of the Web. Modern students, the so called "digital natives, use social networks, blogs, wikis, social bookmarking and other Web 2.0 activities on daily basis, but outside school and not for educational purposes [1]. On the other hand, there are teachers who often do not appreciate the advantages of learning based on Web 2.0 tools and never include them in teaching activities since they are not accustomed to such an environment [13]. We can also say there is an extensive gap between teaching staff and their technologically savvy students [5]. A research conducted in the UK in 2008 (Becta) showed that only a small number of school teachers were using Web 2.0 applications in their teaching, although 59% of them believed that Web 2.0 applications did have the potential to improve teaching and learning outcomes, but many expressed concern about the time needed for familiarisation and development [6]. The educational process requires, above all, teachers with a high level of technological-contentpedagogical knowledge because they can generate positive attitudes towards changes that innovative technologies bring into schools [3]. School teachers need competences and support for understanding Web 2.0 tools and their pedagogical benefits and for integrating them into the classrooms. It is therefore extremely important that future teachers be motivated, educated and trained for a pedagogically planned use of ICT in teaching, Web 2.0 tools included, as early as possible during their studies. Teachers' education faces the dual challenges of applying Web 2.0 tools: to enhance teacher preparation and preparing teachers for use of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom as authentic practice [2].

II.

PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES

As it has been noted previously in the text, the integration of Web 2.0 tools in educational activities, whether at a university or a lower level of formal education, has been rather slow. The critical link in the process has been the teachers. It is understandable that older teachers possess a solidly built teaching style, and ICT as a teaching and learning aid are used within the limits of their capacities and interests. However, students of teaching studies are "digital natives" and Web 2.0 tools should not be an unknown area to them. These future teachers are expected to recognize the pedagogical value of Web 2.0 tools, and to express positive attitudes towards and perception of the use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning. The objective of this research was to establish whether future teachers were disposed to accept and use Web 2.0 tools for educational purposes. Incidentally, numerous researches have confirmed that teachers attitudes and perceptions are crucial for teachers implementation of technology innovations in teaching and learning. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were assumed: H1: There is a statistically significant difference in attitudes towards and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools with regards to: sex (H1a) course of studies (H1b) year of studies (H1c). H2: Frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools positively affects attitudes towards and perception of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools.

III.

METHODS

The target group of this research were the students of the final years of teaching studies, and the research was, consequently, carried out at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Teacher Education at the University of Rijeka, and Department of PreSchool and Primary School Teaching at the University of Juraj Dobrila in Pula. A questionnaire consisting of 3 parts was devised for this research. The first part had to be filled in with general information on the respondent (sex, year and course of study). This was followed by questions regarding the frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools, and the third part contained 20 statements aimed at examining the respondents' attitudes towards and perceptions of the use of Web 2.0 tools in educational (teaching) process. The respondents were offered five ready-made responses, from 1 never / strongly disagree, to 5 very often / strongly agree, to express frequency, or their attitudes and perceptions. The survey was anonymous.

IV.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The sample comprised 83 respondents, 19% of which were male students and 81% female students. With regard to the year of studies, there were 23% third-year students, 58% fourth-year students and 19% fifth-year students. The majority of the sample (60%) comprised students of primary school teaching students, 31% of students of single-subject information science studies and

9% students of double-subject information science studies. With regard to the frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools (in free time), worth noting are: tools for media sharing (70%), instant messaging (65%) and social networks (57%). The majority of the respondents had never used tools for social bookmarking (51%) and tools for collaborative and creative learning (40%). With regard to the importance of use of Web 2.0 tools for their future job, 55% of the students consider their use is very important, for 40% of them it is moderately important, 4% students thought that use of Web 2.0 tools have little importance, and 1% that their use is irrelevant. Only 5% of the students responded that their favourite way of communicating was via social networks and 10% of the students stated that their favourite way of learning was by exchange of information, experience, opinions and knowledge via social software. Respondents prefer traditional ways of communicating (face-to-face and telephone) and learning (attendance at lectures, learning from books and other printed materials). The engagement of the students in using certain Web 2.0 tools during their study courses does not show a high frequency (Figure 1). To help them with their studies students mostly (4-often and 5-very often, together) used the wiki system for collaborative creation and publishing of contents (41%), followed by media exchange tools and social networks (35%), and document collaboration tools (34%). The lowest (1-never) frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools for educational activities during courses was associated with social bookmarking (58%), learning authoring tools (52%), and blogging (47%). The majority of the students expressed their greatest agreement (response 5 on the Likert Scale) regarding attitudes to and perceptions of the use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching on the following: o I would use educational video content published on the YouTube Service in teaching (48%) o Web 2.0 tools are suitable for use in educational

activities as they enable children to easily communicate, cooperate and publish results of group projects, homework, research etc. (42%) Students mostly agree (response 4) that: o Authoring suitable Web 2.0 activities for pupils requires too much time and effort of the teacher. (51%) o By using Web 2.0 tools in the classroom I would lose control of the teaching process. (46%) Greatest hesitation (response 3) of the students was expressed with regard to the same statements as in the previous response. The highest percentage of responses "2 disagree" was achieved by the following statements: o Use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching would allow pupils to have fun instead of learning. (35%) o Use of Web 2.0 tools is not suitable for pupils of elementary and secondary schools. (31%) Students strongly disagreed (response 1) with statements where the following response were most frequent: o Pupils should not be encouraged to write blogs as anybody can write inappropriate comments and arbitrary criticism. (18%) o Teachers who communicate with pupils via a social network (e.g. Facebook) lose their authority in the classroom. (17%) The results have shown that most of the respondents have positive attitudes to and perceptions of the use of Web 2.0 tools in the educational process.

V.

TESTING THE HYPOTHESES

In order to prove the first hypothesis in observational research, a non-parametric Friedman test was carried out, as well as a Wilcoxon test for dependent groups of attitudes to and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools regarding sex, course of studies and year of studies, and the Bonferroni correction to control the alpha error.

Figure 1. Frequencies of use of Web 2.0 tools for educational activities during studies

Friedman's test represents an extremely useful and widely applicable method which is, in term of parametric statistics, analogue to the Dual Analysis of Variance. Friedman's test was conducted in order to determine the differences in medians of defined attitudes and perceptions of the respondents with regard to Web 2.0 tools considering their: sex, course of studies and year of studies. Friedman's test (Figure 2) confirmed the existence of statistically significant differences in the medians of attitudes and perceptions ( 2(1, N=83) = 286.8960; p<0.05), and the Kendall's coefficient of concordance of (0.18) pointed to the existence of a significant bond among all the groups i.e. sex, course of studies and year of studies, with attitudes to and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools. The Kendall's coefficient of concordance for the male sex was 0.13, and for the female sex 0.23. The values of the Kendall's coefficients of concordance per

courses of studies and years of studies were: junior primary teaching 0.27, single-subject information sciences studies 0.15, double-subject information sciences studies 0.31, third year of studies 0.35, fourth year of studies 0.16 and fifth year of studies 0.20. Such obtained values clearly show that each of them is linked to the attitudes to and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools. Wilcoxon test, accompanied by the Bonferroni control of the alpha error (pckor = 0.00625 < p < 0.05) were used to carry out post-hoc analyses of the comparisons of results of relations of each group towards attitudes to and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools. It was concluded that there was a statistically significant difference of medians of the attitudes to and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools, which was least caused by sex (Figure 3), significantly increasing with the years of studies (Figure 4) and mostly by the course of studies (Figure 5), as certain
Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test (Mipro_2012_2357151719) Marked tests are significant at p <,05000 Valid T Z p-level N 83 1182,000 2,252913 0,024265 83 1112,000 0,763710 0,445041 83 982,500 0,588144 0,556436 83 1075,000 0,980241 0,326968 83 1192,000 0,492766 0,622178 83 1176,000 2,281162 0,022540 83 1176,000 2,281162 0,022540 83 1160,000 2,206292 0,027364 83 1154,000 1,257920 0,208422 83 1048,000 1,663011 0,096311 83 1192,000 2,355385 0,018504 83 1144,000 2,130762 0,033109 83 1018,500 1,310889 0,189896 83 1176,000 2,281162 0,022540 83 1219,500 1,085154 0,277854 83 1144,000 1,815194 0,069495 83 1105,000 1,349650 0,177129 83 1160,000 1,568738 0,116710 83 1109,500 1,830194 0,067222 83 1144,000 2,130762 0,033109

All Groups Friedman ANOVA and Kendall Coeff. of Concordance (Mipro_2012_2357151719) ANOVA Chi Sqr. (N = 83, df = 19) = 286,8960 p =0,00000 Coeff. of Concordance = ,18193 Aver. rank r = ,17195 Pair of Average Sum of Mean Std.Dev. Spol Rank Ranks Variable Spol 7.1 12,89759 1070,500 3,975904 0,795964 Spol 7.2 8,62651 716,000 3,156627 1,184060 Spol 7.3 8,42169 699,000 3,192771 1,204239 Spol 7.4 7,92169 657,500 3,036145 1,120167 Spol 7.5 7,65060 635,000 2,951807 1,342582 Spol 7.6 14,45181 1199,500 4,240964 0,774445 Spol 7.7 15,30723 1270,500 4,313253 0,868524 Spol 7.8 11,99398 995,500 3,795181 0,893868 Spol 7.9 8,96386 744,000 3,289157 1,053798 Spol 7.10 10,24096 850,000 3,530120 0,888097 7.11 13,56627 1126,000 4,036145 0,803131 Spol 7.12 10,56627 877,000 3,578313 0,938609 Spol 7.13 7,47590 620,500 3,000000 0,910642 Spol 7.14 12,26506 1018,000 3,831325 0,852819 Spol 7.15 8,87349 736,500 3,144578 1,149046 Spol 7.16 9,24096 767,000 3,313253 0,936101 Spol 8,97590 745,000 3,325301 1,013427 7.17 Spol 7.18 9,84940 817,500 3,361446 1,077240 Spol 7.19 10,98193 911,500 3,638554 0,957363 Spol 7.20 11,72892 973,500 3,771084 0,831180

Variables & 7.1 & 7.2 & 7.3 & 7.4 & 7.5 & 7.6 & 7.7 & 7.8 & 7.9 & 7.10 & 7.11 & 7.12 & 7.13 & 7.14 & 7.15 & 7.16 & 7.17 & 7.18 & 7.19 & 7.20

Figure 2. Result of the Friedman test

Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test (Mipro_2012_2357151719) Marked tests are significant at p <,05000 Valid T Z p-level N 83 804,0000 0,178767 0,858121 83 187,0000 4,884694 0,000001 83 221,0000 4,912520 0,000001 83 198,0000 5,278269 0,000000 83 342,0000 4,877300 0,000001 83 521,0000 2,259512 0,023852 83 445,0000 2,723028 0,006469 83 589,5000 1,317363 0,187718 83 292,5000 4,582598 0,000005 83 394,0000 3,150334 0,001631 83 651,0000 0,571003 0,567998 83 475,0000 2,634738 0,008421 83 126,0000 5,886285 0,000000 83 679,0000 0,970693 0,331702 83 326,0000 4,669043 0,000003 83 312,0000 4,207966 0,000026 83 368,0000 4,381507 0,000012 83 415,0000 3,680802 0,000233 83 607,5000 2,427778 0,015192 83 499,0000 1,537249 0,124233

Figure 3. Result of the Wilcoxon test (sex & attitudes and perceptions)
Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test (Mipro_2012_2357151719) Marked tests are significant at p <,05000 Valid T Z p-level N 83 172,0000 6,408554 0,000000 83 634,5000 3,290425 0,001000 83 328,5000 4,080217 0,000045 83 759,5000 2,370602 0,017760 83 764,5000 2,012760 0,044141 83 124,0000 6,870004 0,000000 83 198,5000 6,546762 0,000000 83 268,0000 5,702952 0,000000 83 446,0000 4,212940 0,000025 83 362,0000 4,955497 0,000001 83 117,0000 6,520041 0,000000 83 330,0000 5,246525 0,000000 83 930,0000 2,464660 0,013715 83 250,5000 5,887406 0,000000 83 709,0000 3,122139 0,001796 83 794,0000 3,463649 0,000533 83 392,5000 4,554702 0,000005 83 696,0000 3,725274 0,000195 83 260,0000 5,490802 0,000000 83 256,5000 5,770252 0,000000

Pair of Variables GS & 7.1 GS & 7.2 GS & 7.3 GS & 7.4 GS & 7.5 GS & 7.6 GS & 7.7 GS & 7.8 GS & 7.9 GS & 7.10 GS & 7.11 GS & 7.12 GS & 7.13 GS & 7.14 GS & 7.15 GS & 7.16 GS & 7.17 GS & 7.18 GS & 7.19 GS & 7.20

Pair of Variables NS & 7.1 NS & 7.2 NS & 7.3 NS & 7.4 NS & 7.5 NS & 7.6 NS & 7.7 NS & 7.8 NS & 7.9 NS & 7.10 NS & 7.11 NS & 7.12 NS & 7.13 NS & 7.14 NS & 7.15 NS & 7.16 NS & 7.17 NS & 7.18 NS & 7.19 NS & 7.20

Figure 4. Result of the Wilcoxon test (years of study & attitudes and perceptions)

Figure 5. Result of the Wilcoxon test (course of studies & attitudes and perceptions)

influence was observed with regard to all offered attitudes and perceptions. The obtained alpha error points to the rejection of the null hypothesis. Testing of the second hypothesis by the analysis of variance for regression confirmed that the groups of results were statistically significantly different in the recorded attitudes to and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools (F(3,44) = 3.4435; p<0.05) and that the rate of correlation (2) between the frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools and the attitudes to and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools was significant and amounted to 0.190143, which means that 19% of the variance of the results of attitudes and perceptions can be explained by different frequency of use. The post-hoc test proved (p = 0.0017259 < 0.05) that there was a statistically significant difference between the frequencies of use 2 and 4, which can be clearly seen in the graph above (Figure 6). Levene's Test of the equality of variances confirmed that F = 2.021459 and there was no statistically significant difference of results variance between different groups of samples, which indicates that p = 0.124722 > 0.05. Since there were no differences of results variance it can be concluded that the equality of variances requirements was satisfied. Obtained results fully confirm that the frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools positively affects the attitudes towards and perceptions of pedagogical values of Web 2.0 tools.

compatibility between Web 2.0 tools and modern education, reflected in the following: engaging, inquiry, collaboration, production and publication. Nevertheless, young people use Web 2.0 tools more extensively in their free time than for the purpose of learning, which has been proven by this research. The results clearly point out that Web 2.0 tools are used at a very low scale in the education of future primary and secondary school teachers. This represents a great loss as only engaging future teachers in appropriate activities that require them to use Web 2.0 for their own learning may develop their abilities to use Web 2.0 in classrooms [2]. Education of future teachers, as well as of the practicing ones, is essential, just as is support for a pedagogically planned application of Web 2.0 tools in education. Despite their lack of personal experience in the use of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom, the respondents have expressed largely positive attitudes and perceptions regarding the pedagogical value of Web 2.0 tools. This will, without a doubt, present an excellent prerequisite for their future application.

REFERENCES
Ajjan, H., Hartshhorne, R., Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests, Internet and Higher Education, No. 11, 2008, http://webpages.csus.edu/~sac43949/PDFs/Faculty%20 Decisions%20Web%202.0.pdf (12.12.2011) 2. Albion, P.R., Web 2.0 in Teacher Education: Two Imperatives for Action, University of Southern Queensland, Australia, http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4553/1/Albion_Web_2.0_in_te acher_education.pdf (08.12.2011) 3. Avidov-Ungar, O., Eshet-Alkakay, Y., Teachers in a World of Change: Teachers' Knowledge and Attitudes towards the Implementation of Innovative Technologies in Schools, Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and learning Objects (IJELLO), Vol. 7, 2011, http://www.ijello.org/Volume7/IJELLOv7p291303Avidov-Ungar767.pdf (05.01.2012) 4. Crook. C. at al., Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape opportunities, challenges and tensions, Becta, 2008, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1474/1/becta_2008_web2_currentla ndscape_litrev.pdf (10.01.2012) 5. Fahser-Herro, D., Steinkuehler, C., Web 2.0 Literacy and Secondary Teacher Education, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2009., http://www.crste.org/images/Herro_Web20_Literacy.pdf (18.01.2012) 6. Haydn, T., Teacher education and ICT: some points for considerations from the UK, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/29/41674026.pdf (17.12.2011) 7. Hoi Boi, E-learning 2.0, http://ahyco.ffri.hr/ (17.12.2011) 8. Kljaki, D., E-learning: Uenje za Net-generaciju, 2008, preuzeto s: http://docs.thinkfree.com (08.01.2012) 9. Ljubi Kleme, Web 2.0 alati i e-uenje u primarnom obrazovanju, http://pogledkrozprozor.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/web -2-0-alati-i-e-ucenje-u-primarnom-obrazovanju/ (15.01.2012) 10. Peri, N., Primena Web 2.0 alata u osnovnim kolama imperativ savremenog obrazovanja, Tehnologija, informatika i obrazovanje za drutvo uenja i znanja, 6. Me unarodni Simpozijum, aak, 2011., 1.

VI.

CONCLUSION

The popularity of the Web 2.0 tools is beyond any doubt, and so are the possibilities of its application in education. Web 2.0 tools can be seen as a new educational technology encouraging users to actively participate in the communities of knowledge building and knowledge sharing. Learning theories which give students a central position in the process of education, where students can gain practice and actively acquire new knowledge by cooperating with others, match the basic concept of Web 2.0. Consequently, there is
5,5

stavovi i percepcije pedagoke vrijednosti Web 2.0 alata

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5 2 3 4 5 uestalost koritenja Web 2.0 alata

Figure 6. An overview of the influence of the frequency of use of Web 2.0 tools on attitudes to and perception of their pedagogical value

http://www.tfc.kg.ac.rs/tio6/radovi/8%29%20Softveri% 20u%20nastavi/PDF/805%20Nevena%20Peric.pdf (14.01.2012) 11. Redecker. K. et al., Learning 2.0: The Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe, JRC, 2009., http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC55629.pdf (11.01.2012)

12. Siemens, G., Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2005, http://itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm (18.12.2011) 13. epanovi, S., Kreiranje i primjena okruenja za elektronsko uenje 2.0, 2010., http://www.edrustvo.org/proceedings/YuInfo2010/html/pdf/079.pdf (21.01.2012)