Content uploaded by Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci on Jan 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
I
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Editors
Dr. Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci
Oğuz Yılmaz
This book was typeset in 12/20 pt. Times New Roman, Italic, Bold and Bold Italic.
Cover image by fatmawatilauda on Freepik
Copyright © 2022 by ISRES Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat,
microfilm, retrieval system, or any other means, without prior written permission of the
Publisher.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Published by ISRES Publishing, International Society for Research in Education and Science
(ISRES)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN
978-605-72832-0-7
Date of Issue
December, 2022
Contact
Istanbul C. Cengaver S. No 2 Karatay/Konya/TURKEY
isresoffice@gmail.com
www.isres.org
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
II
About Book
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 is published annually from the
selected papers invited by the editors.
This edition includes 7 papers from the field of educational technologies.
All submissions are reviewed by at least two international reviewers.
The purpose of the book is to provide the readers with the opportunity of a scholarly
refereed publication in the field of educational technologies.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 is published by ISRES Publishing.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
III
Citations
Hebebci, M. T. & Yılmaz, O. (Eds.). (2022). Current Studies in Educational
Disciplines 2022. ISRES Publishing.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
IV
Foreword
The proposed book with title Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 is
primarily intended to serve as a scientific reading that deals with multidisciplinary and
currently determined topics in the field of educational technologies.The book is
published continuously, is published every year and aims to cover topics with a broader
educational setting.
The texts in the attached papers appear at the right time, should be harmonized in the
modern educational technologies tendencies of several scientific disciplines that all
have “one common denominator”, which is to improve the quality of education. There
are 7 thematic chapters, seemingly diverse, each paper is an authentic, research paper
of theoretical-empirical character that deals with very interesting, current and
insufficiently studied issues.
The content of the book is based on clearly identifying the current challenges in the
educational technologies sector, which ensures its relevance by carefully defining the
priority areas that need to be addressed in the coming period.
December, 2022
Dr. Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci
Necmettin Erbakan University, Türkiye
Oğuz Yılmaz
Necmettin Erbakan University, Türkiye
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
V
Table of Contents
New Technologies and E-Assessment ........................................................................ 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
E-Assessment in the Process of Distance Education ............................................... 3
Online Measurement and Assessment Tools ........................................................... 7
Wordwall .............................................................................................................. 7
Google Form ......................................................................................................... 7
Quizizz .................................................................................................................. 8
Socrative ............................................................................................................... 8
Nearpod ................................................................................................................ 8
Kahoot .................................................................................................................. 9
Classmarker .......................................................................................................... 9
EclipseCrossword ................................................................................................. 9
Gloster .................................................................................................................. 9
Advantages of E-Assessment ................................................................................. 10
Disadvantages of E-Assessment ............................................................................ 11
Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 12
References .............................................................................................................. 14
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World ....................................... 21
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 21
Literacy .................................................................................................................. 22
What is Digital Literacy? .................................................................................... 23
Types of Digital Literacy .................................................................................... 24
Components of Digital Literacy ......................................................................... 24
Digital Literacy Skills ......................................................................................... 25
Digital Competence ................................................................................................ 27
Digital Literacy Frameworks ................................................................................. 28
Digital Literacy Models ......................................................................................... 30
P21Model, Partnership on 21st-Century Skills (2002) ....................................... 30
Krumsvik's Model (2008) ................................................................................... 31
DIGCOMP Model (2011) and Digcompedu Model (2017) ............................... 31
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
VI
ISTE Standards (2009) ....................................................................................... 32
JISC Model (2009) ............................................................................................. 33
Digital Literacy in Education ................................................................................. 37
References .............................................................................................................. 39
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review................................................. 45
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 45
Literature ................................................................................................................ 48
Web 3.0 and Education ....................................................................................... 48
Methodology .......................................................................................................... 50
Constructing the Selection Criteria .................................................................... 51
Developing the Search Strategy ......................................................................... 52
Selecting Studies Using the Selection Criteria ................................................... 53
Coding Studies .................................................................................................... 53
Assessing the Quality of Studies ........................................................................ 54
Limitations .......................................................................................................... 56
Findings and Discussions ....................................................................................... 56
Findings on the First Sub-Problem ..................................................................... 56
Findings on the Second Sub-Problem ................................................................ 57
Findings on the Third Sub-Problem ................................................................... 58
Findings on the Fourth Sub-Problem ................................................................. 61
Conclusion and Discussion .................................................................................... 62
References .............................................................................................................. 64
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry
Lessons ...................................................................................................................... 70
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 70
Molecular-Level Animations ................................................................................. 78
References .............................................................................................................. 81
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat? ......................................................... 87
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 87
Distance Education ................................................................................................. 88
History of Distance Education ............................................................................ 90
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
VII
Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning ......................................................... 91
Blended Learning ............................................................................................... 93
Component of Distance Education ..................................................................... 94
Assessment and Evaluation in Distance Education ............................................ 95
Online Exams ......................................................................................................... 99
Positive Effects of Online Exams ........................................................................ 100
Negative Effects of Online Exams ....................................................................... 101
Academic Misconduct (Copying and Cheating) .................................................. 103
Conclusion............................................................................................................ 105
References ............................................................................................................ 107
Student Respond Systems (SRSs) ........................................................................... 119
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 119
Student Response Systems: Instructional Technologies .................................. 119
Active Learning and Student Response Systems ................................................. 122
Teaching and Learning with Clickers .................................................................. 123
Teaching with Clickers ..................................................................................... 123
Promoting Classroom Participation with Clickers ........................................... 126
Enhancing Classroom Interaction with Clickers .............................................. 128
Providing Instant Feedback with Clickers ........................................................ 129
Assessing Students’ Learning with Clickers .................................................... 130
Providing Student Anonymity with Clickers ................................................... 131
Making Learning Fun and Increasing Student Interest with Clickers .............. 132
Initiating Effective Discussions with Clickers ................................................. 133
Conclusion............................................................................................................ 135
References ............................................................................................................ 136
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change ....... 145
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 145
Digital Games and Education ........................................................................... 146
Scope of the Study ............................................................................................ 147
Game Content: Stop Climate Change .................................................................. 148
Login page ........................................................................................................ 148
Process of the Game ......................................................................................... 150
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
VIII
Non-touch Devices ........................................................................................... 150
Touch Devices .................................................................................................. 151
Game Items and Features ................................................................................. 151
Character ........................................................................................................... 152
Scoring System ................................................................................................. 152
Portal ................................................................................................................. 154
Elimination and Restarting ............................................................................... 154
Sign System ...................................................................................................... 155
Game Levels ..................................................................................................... 156
Conclusion............................................................................................................ 161
References ............................................................................................................ 163
Chapter 1
This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
1
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz
Ministry of National Education, Türkiye
Salih Gulen
Muş Alparslan University, Türkiye
To Cite This Chapter
Ayaz, M., & Gulen, S. (2022). New technologies and e-assessment In M. T. Hebebci, & O.
Yılmaz (Eds.), Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 (pp. 1-19). ISRES Publishing
Introduction
Technology is developing day by day and it is integrated into many production lines.
So much so that we are now in a period where human-robot integrated production is
becoming widespread. In 2016, the concepts of Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 were put
forward in Japan and it became clear that this era is now the era of Industry 5.0. In
addition, it has been officially stated by the European Commission that Industry 5.0
has started as of January 4, 2021. There are studies such as supply chain in the field of
specialized logistics, the use of artificial intelligence in many areas, integrating virtual
world studies into the real world, all online shopping and crypto money studies,
internet of things, virtual reality and digital mapping. These studies are the new
technologies. With Industry 5.0, (a) human-machine integration and technologies in
this field, (b) renewable smart sensors that can be embedded in materials with
biological technologies, (c) twin identity for modeling technological systems,
simulations, (d) enabling advanced systems to work with data technologies that
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
2
transmit, store and analyze, (e) artificial intelligence that can take action by solving
the working principles in complex systems, (f) technologies for efficient energy
resources and renewable-storable resources. The most interesting and assertive
concept in this period is the concept of metaverse (Tekin et al., 2022). The concept of
metaverse, which was used in 1992 by author Neal Stephenson in his book Snow
Crash, is used to mean "beyond the universe". Although this concept has a fictional
meaning, it is considered as a dimension such as "the future of the internet" or time.
Metaverse is the precious version of real world life in the virtual environment in
theory. It is estimated that the concept of metaverse will exist with its technological
infrastructure and the universe it has created. The concepts of software, artificial
intelligence, virtual reality, cloud, network, augmented reality and blockchain are
related to the metaverse.
Education-based activations in the virtual world (vitamins, morpakampüs),
cryptocurrencies and shopping with them, internet-integrated games and virtual
concerts or meetings in this game, digital-based interactions such as building a virtual
city or buying land, online shopping sites. It can be thought that a totality can be
perceived as a metaverse. In other words, it is called the new concept formed as a result
of the digital integration of these platforms in the virtual world. It is said that you can
participate in the metaverse individually and live in this world by making your own
digital face, that is, your avatar. To give a few examples; For those who want to do
sports at home, having avatars of the same or different sports coaches at the same time,
increasing the number of referees in football matches with avatars, relieving the pain
of virtual reality during childbirth, being exposed to global warming in the digital
environment and being sensitive to the environment and atmosphere in the real
environment are some examples (Gülen et al., 2022). Apart from these examples, the
use of technologies in the field of education and technology integration in education
takes a new form. This form can be called metaeducation, like the metaverse.
There are many technologies that can be used in the field of education, and with the
appropriate integration of these technologies, metaeducation can also be established in
the field of education. There are also quite ambitious theories on this subject (Tekin et
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
3
al., 2022). It is known that technology can be used widely, especially in the dimension
of student evaluations of education. Evaluations of students can be made with the help
of technology. For this, teachers need to train themselves first. In this article, teachers'
ability to make e-assessment with new technologies and examples of technologies used
in this field are given.
E-Assessment in the Process of Distance Education
Today's teacher candidates enter higher education with the hope of getting an
education according to the necessity of being a teacher in accordance with the
requirements of the age. From the first day, these pre-service teachers should have
experiences that activate and support students in the process, use technology
effectively in their classrooms and integrate technology into the teaching process
(Edwards, 2021). Academicians should provide pre-service teachers with experiences
of technology integration in the classroom, so that pre-service teachers should increase
their technological competence and help them to repeat these skills in their future
classes (Slykhuis et al., 2020). In addition, for the purpose of 21st century education,
the focus of teacher preparation programs should shift from a teacher-centered
teaching to a cooperative learning-centered situation rather than competition among
teacher candidates who integrate technology into the teaching process and use
technology effectively (Edwards, 2021).
Teacher preparation programs should ensure technology integration throughout the
breadth and depth of the program (Stokes-Beverley & Simoy, 2016). In recent years,
technology has become a key component in the learning process (Rich et al., 2018).
Teachers are now aware that technology is an important part of students' daily lives.
For this reason, many researchers have recently explored how technology integration
is experienced by teachers (Browne, 2019; Buenger, 2019). Batane and Ngwako
(2017) stated that the 21st century teaching process requires teachers who have the
skills to use technology. In addition, technology integration affects information,
communication and cooperation variables in the classroom (Alenezi, 2017).
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
4
Information and communication technology (ICT) is technology, usually a computer
system, used to store, retrieve, transmit and display data and information
electronically. ICT can be a management system operated by a certain number of users
that enables individuals and organizations to connect (Buabeng-Andoh, 2012).
Examples of ICT include computers, technological devices, mobile devices, wireless
networks, computer games, robotic devices, e-reading and smartphones. Increases in
the use of ICT require computer-based literacy competencies for the workforce in the
21st century to acquire, process, evaluate, create and communicate information
(Alenezi, 2017). Using technology for learning can help teachers in their formal
evaluation and decision-making processes when creating instructions (Herzberg et al.,
2017). ICT can be effective in five main areas for teachers: Analyzing student
thoughts, understanding best practices for creating classroom models, planning
instruction, analyzing instructional practices. Ellaway and Masters (2008) state that
student success is greatly affected by technology, as it is related to understanding
instructions (Brownell et al., 2017).
Learning using technological tools allows teachers to make the material they teach
more visible, which helps them remember information and provide effective feedback
to their students (Khatatneh & Teh, 2018). This is crucial to learning because the way
students learn has changed drastically over the past century. In this century, teaching
should benefit from technology integration that helps students acquire new knowledge
and achieve better learning outcomes (Alenezi, 2017). Technologically Integrated
learning systems allow students and teachers to participate in new learning experiences
while continuing to meet the same level of quality in education (Johnson, 2022).
Researchers have determined that computer learning also helps students develop their
creative skills, participate in teamwork, and draw conclusions on their own (Khatatneh
& Teh, 2018). Students who use technology in the classroom have the potential to gain
a deeper understanding of the content they encounter.
Rich et al. (2018), 21st century learning has required technology and computer
learning to be a part of the educational process. Technology has been used to assist
users in improving their ability to identify, absorb, and respond to important
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
5
information in a variety of ways (Jension & Hebert, 2017). Increasingly, technology
is now being applied to help develop learning standards that meet the needs of 21st
century students. Batane and Ngwako (2017) argued that 21st century learning requires
teachers to access technological resources that can be easily applied to their lessons.
Technological developments and their simultaneous penetration into the educational
process in the 21st century have made it a new way of assessing and providing
feedback on student learning (Kundu et al., 2020).
Assessment is a fundamental activity at all levels of the teaching process. Identifying
students' skills, knowledge, understanding and abilities is used to promote learning as
well as to compare students' intended learning outcomes. Assessment strongly
influences students' perceptions of the learning environment as well as their approach
to learning and study (Thomson & Falchikov, 1998). Assessment is seen as a very
important part of curricula aiming to both increase the quality of teaching and facilitate
interaction among students (Stödberg, 2012). Assessment is at the heart of the learning
experience: how students are assessed determines their progress and achievement of
curricular goals. Recent developments in higher education, ICT has become even more
important lately.
Technology can play an important role in this process because, if used appropriately,
it can add value to any of the assessment-related activities. E-assessment is a natural
partner of e-learning (Mackenzie, 2003), offering the harmonization of teaching and
assessment methods (Ashton & Thomas 2006; Gipps 2005). In this way, it offers the
opportunity to do a different variety and more authentic homework and provides
assessment of skills that cannot be easily evaluated in other ways, through eportfolios,
simulations and interactive games. The advancement of technology and e-learning
systems has put e-assessment in high demand (Brink & Lautenbach, 2011). Crisp
(2011) used the term e-assessment to refer to all assessment tasks conducted via a
computer, a digital tool and/or the web.
Educational activities such as e-learning and technology assisted learning have
become important elements providing new opportunities and approaches to teaching,
learning and assessment in higher education. Evaluation using ICT is known as e-
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
6
assessment, which includes the entire evaluation process from designing assignments
to storing results with the help of ICT. E-assessment, alternatively known as electronic
assessment, computer-based assessment, digital assessment or online assessment, is
the use of ICT in assessment. E-Assessment is the process of generating feedback and
evaluation for formative, summative, diagnostic or self-assessment using digital
technologies (Koçdar et al. (2018). Sitthisak et al. (2008) stated that e-assessment
includes supporting it using a computer, for example with web-based assessment tools.
they have stated. In other words, e-assessment involves the use of any web-based
method that allows systematic inferences and judgments to be made about a student's
skills, knowledge, and abilities. This can offer a wide range of assessments that address
a wider range of skills and qualifications that are not directly assessed through
traditional methods (De Villiers et al., 2016). E-assessment has improved the
measurement of student outcomes and made it possible for them to receive immediate
and direct feedback (Gilbert et al., 2011).
E-assessment can take different forms, such as automated administrative procedures,
digitization of paper-based systems, and multiple-choice tests and online tests that
include assessment of problem-solving skills (Ridgway et al., 2004). Osuji (2012) said
that e-assessment can be assumed as the use of ICT to facilitate the entire assessment
process, from designing and submitting assignments to their assessment. According to
Love and Cooper (2004), evaluation systems should consider interface, accessibility,
security, usability, information to be collected, hardware and software technology, and
information storage and processing.
Most studies agree that E-assessment is an electronic assessment, where all assessment
procedures from the beginning to the end of the assessment should be carried out
electronically. This means that the design, testing, recording the response, and
providing feedback are all completed using ICT (Alruwais et al., 2018). Whitelock
(2009) said that e-assessment is a new assessment paradigm and methodology playing
an increasingly important role in the transformation of higher education. E-assessment
has attracted increasing attention in the research community as a result of both the
changing nature of higher education and the expectations for e-assessment practice
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
7
(Nicol, 2007). Whitelock (2009) points to other important factors in the interest in e-
assessment research in relation to its potential and the challenges facing higher
education today. Tools and techniques for e-assessment can be used in a variety of
ways. They can be used with a stand-alone computer in classrooms or over a complex
network that includes various software and hardware solutions in distance education
(Stödberg, 2012).
Online Measurement and Assessment Tools
Wordwall
It is an application that provides students with fun and course content in different game
formats. Wordwall is a gamification-based online assessment tool for creating
different types of interactive tests such as Matching, Wheel of Fortune, Open the Box,
True False, Grouping, Anagram, Word Completion, Maze Game, Word Search,
Random Cards, multiple choice and drag and drop. Wordwall is a Web 2.0 tool that is
both easy to use and useful for creating your own teaching resources. With Wordwall,
activities specific to your class and interactive processes that students will enjoy can
be done. Wordwall events can be created both printable and interactive. There are 21
printable materials and 33 interactive course materials in the Wordwall application.
However, some of them are paid and some are free (Url 1).
Google Form
It is a tool where you can prepare online forms such as surveys, exams and evaluations
offered to users who are members of Gmail, free of charge. Google forms tool helps
you easily evaluate surveys, quizzes and other forms results. It is one of the most
preferred evaluation tools because it has both a useful and easy interface. Let's write
down what the types of questions the Forms application offers us, Short answer
answer, Paragraph type answer, Multiple choice questions, Checkboxes, Dropdown
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
8
options, File sending feature, Linear scale, Multiple choice table and Table shaped
checkboxes. It also provides services in all languages. But it does not allow to create
very complex forms (Url 2).
Quizizz
It is a web 2 tool where teachers can create course content and quizzes. In this tool,
students are given points for both correct answers and quick answers. The application
can be easily installed on computers, tablets and phones. It is also compatible with
Google Classroom. This application can be used to provide motivation before the
lesson and to make a fun introduction, and to follow the evaluation and deficiencies at
the end of the lesson.
Socrative
It is a web 2 tool that offers test preparation, the opportunity to use the test both online
and by printing. In general, it can be preferred at the end of the lesson with its fun and
fast use. Students can participate in the test prepared by their teachers through the
program, using their own names, a pseudonym, and an icon. Compatible with phone,
tablet and computer.
Nearpod
It is a web 2 tool that offers the opportunity to present online and test students
themselves. The teacher uploads the presentation about the lesson to the program (you
can add multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, or true-false questions to the intermediate
parts of the presentation), students enter the system using the codes given to them,
watch the presentation and give feedback.
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
9
Kahoot
It is a game-based learning platform used as educational technology in schools and
other educational institutions. Learning games "kahoots" are user-created multiple
choice quizzes that can be accessed via a web browser or the Kahoot app.
Classmarker
It is a preferred tool for preparing exams or tests in any language for multiple users.
Many world-famous companies or educational institutions can use this program for
satisfaction or training activities. This program can be installed on technological
devices and is easy to use and functional. Short or long structured questions can be
created, most importantly, a question bank can be created and it can select random
questions from this bank, prepare a test, and offer analysis.
EclipseCrossword
Crossword puzzles can be easily prepared with the Eclipse Crossword program, which
has a free and easy interface. It is a kind of hook puzzle that science teachers can use
in lessons and quickly prepare for science subjects or concepts in virtual or non-virtual
ways. With this puzzle, science lessons can be evaluated.
Gloster
It is a cloud-based developed platform. On this platform, concept cartoons and digital
posters can be prepared by using multimedia elements such as text, graphics, sound
and video together. In addition, Glogs developed and shared by different users can be
accessed and ideas can be obtained to create original works.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
10
Advantages of E-Assessment
With the development of technology, evaluation has become both easier and faster
(Kundu, 2020). E-assessment has made assessment improved, accurate and faster than
traditional paper-based measures (De Villiers et al., 2016). Students prefer E-
assessment as they have more control, user-friendly interfaces and tests as games and
simulations similar to learning environment and entertainment activities (Ridgway et
al., 2004). It is also fast and easy to use (Eljinini & Alsamarai, 2012). E-assessment
provides immediate feedback compared to paper testing, which helps to improve
learning level (Gilbert et al., 2011). According to Bennett (2002), technology is at the
center of learning and will continue to exist at this center. He also stated that the
technology would not only facilitate testing but would also support real assessment.
According to Hamilton and Shoen (2005), web-based tests have significant advantages
in cost reduction, ease of use, reliability, reproducibility, scoring, consolidation of
results and data management.
In many studies, it has been seen that e-assessment increases student performance
(Gilbert et al., 2011). Students' performance also increases their learning motivation
(Marriott, 2009). It also helps students in remote areas to learn and evaluate, and
provides students with the flexibility to take the exam (Way, 2012). The traditional
paper test takes time for the teacher, but the e-assessment offers the teacher the
opportunity to make the assessment more accurately and faster (Gilbert et al., 2011;
Crews and Curtis, 2010). In addition, e-assessment provides the teacher with faster
feedback to students (Ridgway et al., 2004; Way, 2012). E-assessment enables the
teacher to monitor students' performance and to analyze many assessments (Ellaway
& Masters, 2008). Using e-assessment can reduce the burden of teachers to evaluate
large numbers of students (Nicol, 2007).
E-assessment supports higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking, reflective
thinking on cognitive processes, and supports educational goals by facilitating group
work projects. E-assessment has the ability to rank questions that cannot be generated
using paper testing, for example software simulation, helps to represent knowledge
simply and quickly (Ridgway et al., 2004)
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
11
The use of e-assessment reduces the cost of evaluating the student because it saves
time (Gilbert et al., 2011). In addition, E-Assessment has its own security set that
provides the questions and the student cannot copy the questions, it also includes
authentication and password verification to verify the student's identity (Crews &
Curtis, 2010). It helps to reduce cheating by presenting the questions in different order.
Disadvantages of E-Assessment
Although e-evaluation has many advantages, e-assessment is not completely free of
disadvantages that prevent its widespread implementation and acceptance (Bacigalupo
et al., 2010). Many studies have pointed out the disadvantages of e-assessment. Isaias
and Issa (2013) state that most institutions lack technological infrastructure. Whitelock
and Brasher (2006) drew attention to the lack of trust between students and teachers,
mainly to technological inadequacies. According to Bacigalupo et al. (2010) stated that
it affects students' motivation negatively. Redecker et al. (2012) stated that he had
doubts about the effectiveness and impartiality of teachers. While saying that computer
distraction is a disadvantage for e-assessment, Mason (2014) mentioned a very
important point that affects the success of students as a whole. Whitelock (2009) states
that e-evaluation gives incomplete feedback. Kocdar et al. (2018) emphasized that
students participating in e-assessment had certain difficulties with authentication, and
Xu and Mahenthiran (2016) emphasized that there is a possibility of cheating as a
serious concern associated with e-assessment compared to traditional paper-based
assessment. Some studies have also argued that cheating and plagiarism are easier and
more common in e-evaluation (Koçdar et al., 2018). Apampa et al. (2011) and Mellar
et al. (2018) categorizes cheating and plagiarism in easy assessments such as imitation,
taking materials for exams, looking at the answers of others. Kocdar et al. (2018) and
Dermo (2009) clearly stated that such forms of malpractice undoubtedly affect the
validity and reliability of e-assessments.
There are some difficulties in applying e-assessment in higher education. Different
studies have been explored about these challenges and suggested solutions:
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
12
1. The student's technological inadequacy and inexperience negatively affect the
evaluation process (Donovan et al., 2007). In order to eliminate this, students
can be given an initial training so that they can experience e-assessment (Way,
2012).
2. Lack of computer and internet access (Crews and Curtis, 2010). To solve this
problem, it should provide students with a fully equipped laboratory with
internet access.
3. Lack or weak technological infrastructure (Way,2012). For this, the
technological infrastructure must be fully provided to establish and operate the
e-assessment system.
4. Because teachers have technological inadequacies, they need a training to
make them feel confident in using the E-assessment system (Ridgway et al.,
2004).
Conclusion
It is obvious that technology is spreading rapidly around the world. It is seen that these
technologies have an effect on all of the future plans of people from their use in their
daily lives. The concept of metaverse, which has been put forward with the integration
of these technologies recently and which is a technological life style, is a proof of this.
Like the concept of metaverse, the concept of metaeducation has of course taken on a
usable structure.
Technologies used in the field of education are likely to provide a more successful and
less costly education. When all technologies related to education are considered (such
as student and teacher avatars, online education, interactive teaching programs,
communication technologies, internet, etc.), metaeducation can be established.
Considering the teacher and evaluation dimension of this education, it is understood
that this is not impossible. With this, it will be possible for teachers to be able to
evaluate students and do them in meta-education. As a matter of fact, it is in a position
where e-assessment can be made.
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
13
E-Assessment is one of the online evaluation forms of students. There are many
computer programs available for this. Considering the advantages and disadvantages
of these evaluations, it can be said that they become usable for students and the future
of education. Although it is said that during the e-assessment process, problems of
trust between the teacher and the student may occur or that socialization will decrease
with these evaluations, it should not be forgotten that there are technologies that can
be overcome. As a result, it is known and used that online chat, video calls and instant
and effective communication can be made.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
14
References
Alenezi, A. (2017). Obstacles for teachers to integrate technology with instruction.
Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1797-1816.
Alruwais, N., Wills, G. &Wald, M. (2018). Advantages and challenges of using e-
assessment, International Journal of Information and Education Technology,
8(1), 34-37.
Apampa, K.M., Wills, G. & Argles, D. (2011). Towards a blob-based presence
verification system in summative e-assessments, International Journal of e-
Assessment, 1(1),
Ashton, H.S. & Thomas, R.C. (2006). Bridging the gap between assessment, learning
and teaching. In Proceedings of the 10th International Computer Assisted
Assessment Conference, Loughborough.
Bacigalupo, D. A., Warburton, W. I., Draffan, E. A., Zhang, P., Gilbert, L., & Wills,
G. B. (2010). A formative eAssessment co-design case study. In 2010 IEEE 10th
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 35–37.
Batane, T., & Ngwako, A. (2017). Technology use by pre-service teachers during
teaching practice: Are new teachers embracing technology right away in their
first teaching experience? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
33(1), 48–61.
Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology
and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1 (1).
Brink, R& Lautenbach, G. (2011). Electronic assessment in higher education,
Educational Studies,37(5), 503-512.
Browne, C. C. (2019). A qualitative multiple case study investigating novice
elementary teachers’ use of information communication technology in 1:1
classrooms (Order No. 27540412). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (2307784784).
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
15
Brownell, M., Kiely, M. T., Haager, D., Boardman, A., Corbett, N., Algina, J., &
Urbach, J. (2017). Literacy learning cohorts: Content-focused approach to
improving special education teachers’ reading instruction. Exceptional Children,
83(2), 143–164.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of
information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the
literature. International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 8, 136-155.
Buenger, K. A. (2019). Early childhood teachers' attitude towards and use of
technology in the classroom. Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Grand
Canyon University. (2205629848).
Crews, T. B. & Curtis, D. F. (2010). Online course evaluations: Faculty perspective
and strategies for improved response rates, Assessment & Evalution in Higher
Education, 36(7), 965–878.
Crisp, G. (2011). Teacher’s Handbook on E-Assessment: A Handbook to Support
Teachers in Using Assessment to Improve and Evidence Student Learning and
Outcomes, Creative Commons, San Francisco, California
De Villiers, R., Scott-Kennel, J. &Larke, R. (2016). Principles of effective e-
assessment: a proposed framework, Journal of International Business
Education, 11, 65-92.
Dermo, J. (2009). E-assessment and the student learning experience: a survey of
student perceptions of e-assessment, British Journal of Educational Technology,
40(2), 203-214.
Donovan, J., Mader, C. & Shinsky, J. (2007). Online vs. traditional course evaluation
formats: Student perceptions, J. Interact. Online Learn, 6,158–180.
Edwards, C., L. (2021). Experıences of teacher educators utılızıng technology ın
teacher preparatıon programs. (Doktora Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses veri tabanından erişildi.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
16
Eljinini, M. & Alsamarai, S. (2012). The impact of e-assessments system on the
success of the implementation process, Mod. Educ. Computer Science., 4(11),
76–84.
Ellaway, R. & Masters, K. E. N. (2008). AMEE guide AMEE guide 32: E-learning in
medical education part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment,” Med. Teach., 30,
455–473.
Gilbert, L., Whitelock, D. & Gale, V. (2011), Synthesis Report on Assessment and
Feedback with Technology Enhancement, Electronics and Computer Science
EPrints, Southampton
Gipps, C.V. (2005). What is the role for ICT-based assessment in universities? Studies
in Higher Education, 30 (2), 171-180.
Gülen, S., Dönmez, İ. & İdin, Ş. (2022). STEM education in Metaverse environment:
Challenges and opportunities. Journal of STEAM Education, 5 (2), 100-103.
https://doi.org/10.55290/steam.1139543
Hamilton, D. & Shoen, E. (2005). Same song, second verse: Evaluation and
improvement of an established assessment program. In K. Martell & T.
Calderon, Assessment of student learning in business schools: Best practices
each step of the way (1(2), 138-153). Tallahassee, Florida: Association for
Institutional Research.
Herzberg, T. S., Rosenblum, P., & Robbins, M. E. (2017). Teachers' experiences with
literacy instruction for dual-media students who use print and braille. Journal of
Visual Impairment & Blindness, 111(1), 49-59.
Isaías, P., & Issa, T. (2013). E-learning and sustainability in higher education: an
international case study. The International Journal of Learning in Higher
Education, 20(4), 77–90.
Jension, J., & Hebert, C. (2017). Developing serious pedagogy for serious games:
Digital game based teaching in K-12 schools. Digital Games Research
Association DiGRA.
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
17
Johnson, B. (2022). A Qualitative Descriptive Study on Reading Teachers’
Experiences with Information and Communication Technology (Doktora Tezi).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses veri tabanından 25.07.2022 tarihinde erişildi.
Khatatneh, N., & Teh, K. (2018). The effects of computerized learning games on the
third grade students in Karak governorate. International Journal of Academic
Research in Progressive Education and Development, 7(2), 96–111.
Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R. and Stoeva, V. (2018). Cheating and
plagiarism in Eassessment: students’ perspectives, Open Praxis, 10(3), 221-235.
Kundu, A., Bej, T. & Dey, K.N. (2020). Indian educators’ awareness and attitude
towards assistive technology, Journal of Enabling Technologies, 14(4), 233-251.
Love, T. & Cooper, T. (2004). Designing online information systems for portfolio-
based assessment: Design criteria and heuristics. Journal of Information
Technology Education, 3, 65-81.
Mackenzie, D. (2003). Assessment for E−Learning: What are the Features of an ideal
E−Assessment System? CAA Conference Proceedings, 185-194.
Marriott, P. (2009). Students’ evaluation of the use of online summative assessment
on an undergraduate financial accounting module,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., 40(2),
237–254.
Mason, J. C. (2014). Theorizing why in digital learning: opening frontiers for inquiry
and innovation with technologies. In D. G. Sampson, D. Ifenthaler, J. M.
Spector, & P. Isaías (Eds.), Digital systems for open access to formal and
informal learning (pp. 101–120). New York: Springer.
Mellar, H., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A. and Yovkova, B. (2018).
Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship
checking systems: Teachers’ perspectives, International Journal for
Educational Integrity, 14(1),1-21.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
18
Nicol, D. (2007). E-assessment by design: using multiple-choice tests to good effect,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(1), 53-64.
Osuji (2012). The use of e-assessments in the Nigerian higher education system, The
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 140-152.
Redecker, C., Punie, Y., & Ferrari, A. (2012). eAssessment for 21st century learning
and skills. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. D. Kloos, & D. Hernandez-Leo
(Eds.), 21st century learning for 21st century skills (pp. 292–305). Germany:
Springer.
Rich, P. J., Browning, S. F., Perkins, M., Shoop, T., Yoshikawa, E., & Belikov, O. M.
(2019). Coding in K-8: International trends in teaching elementary/primary
computing. TechTrends, 63(3), 311-329.
Ridgway, J. McCusker, S. & Pead, D. (2004). Literature review of e-assessment.
Bristol.
Sitthisak, O. Gilbert, L. and Davis, H. C. (2008). An evaluation of pedagogically
informed parameterised questions for self‐assessment,” Learn. Media
Technol.,33(3), 235–248.
Slykhuis, D. A., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., Graziano, K. J., & Foulger, T. S. (2020).
Professional expectations for teacher educators: The Teacher Educator
Technology Competencies (TETCs). In A. C.
Stokes-Beverley, C., & Simoy, I. (2016). Advancing Educational Technology in
Teacher Preparation: Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
Tekin, Z., Gülen, S., & Dönmez, İ., (2022). Metaverse ortamında STEM eğitimi.
Paradigma yayıncılık.
Thomson, K., & Falchikov, N. (1998). Full on until the sun comes out: The effects of
assessment on student approaches to studying. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education 23(4), 379–390.
New Technologies and E-Assessment
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
19
Url, 1. https://wordwall.net/features Access: 29.07.2022
Url, 2. https://www.turkceogretimi.com/egitim-amacli-yazilimlar/google-formlar-ile-
olcme-degerlendirme Access: 29.07.2022
Way, A. (2012). The use of e-assessments in the Nigerian higher education system,
Turkish Online J. Distance Educ., 13(1), 140–152.
Whitelock, D. (2009). E-assessment: developing new dialogues for the digital age,
British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 199-202.
Whitelock, D. M., & Brasher, A. (2006). Developing a roadmap for e-assessment:
which way now? In M. Danson (Ed.) Proceedings of the 10th CAA International
Computer Assisted Assessment Conference (pp. 487–501). Loughborough:
Professional Development, Loughborough University.
Xu, H., & Mahenthiran, S. (2016). Factors that influence online learning assessment
and satisfaction: Using Moodle as a Learning Management System.
International Business Research, 9(2), 1-18.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mahmut Ayaz, Salih Gulen
20
About Authors
Mahmut Ayaz completed his high school education in Ankara, his undergraduate and
graduate studies at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, and his doctorate in Hacettepe
University Basic Education Department Classroom Education. He works on e-
portfolio use in education, technology integration, measurement and evaluation
activities and e-evaluation. He still works as a science teacher in Van, Ministry of
National Education.
E-mail: mahmutzaya@hotmail.com
Salih Gulen completed his high school education in Iğdır, his undergraduate and
graduate education in Van-YYU University, and his doctorate in Ondokuz Mayıs
University Science Education. The author has worked in the fields of visual and virtual
course material preparation, concept education, STEM education, Argumentation,
Dependency, Technology integration and child development. The author received his
associate professorship in Science Education in 2021. He also taught in provinces such
as Van, Tekirdağ, Samsun and Muğla.
Chapter 2
This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Munise Seckin Kopucu
21
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in
Our Digital World
Munise Seckin Kapucu
University of Eskisehir Osmangazi, Türkiye
To Cite This Chapter
Seckin Kapucu, M. (2022). Developing digital literacy skills in our digital world. In M. T.
Hebebci, & O. Yılmaz (Eds.), Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 (pp. 21-43).
ISRES Publishing
Introduction
With the latest technological developments, the digital world concept has emerged.
Digitalization is inevitable in a world where we are intertwined with technology; we
feel and use technology every day. It is one of today's needs. Thanks to digitalization,
we meet our needs in many domains, including the public, health, education, and
shopping. The concept of digital literacy has emerged in the digitalizing world, adding
new literacy to the existing ones. Digital literacy is a dynamic process that changes
depending on the situation's needs (Martin, 2006). "Digital literacy" became critical
for active participation in training-education, work, and other parts of social life.
The ability to use the internet and ICT (Information and Communication
Technologies) transformed into digital literacy, a new form of literacy. Digital literacy
becomes a prerequisite for innovation, entrepreneurship, and creativity. Without
digital literacy, citizens will fail to fully participate in society and acquire the necessary
knowledge and skills to live in the 21st century (European Commission, 2003). Every
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
22
country is trying to raise awareness of the importance of digitally empowering their
youth.
Literacy
Digital literacy is an essential skill student should have today, such as reading and
writing. The main difference between literacy and reading-writing is that "reading-
writing is based on decoding in the alphabet system, while the concept of literacy
involves meaning" (Kurudayıoglu & Tuzel, 2010). Literacy teaches the individual the
methods of acquiring and using information. In this direction, it plays a mediating role
in transferring knowledge between generations (Goody, 1987).
The concept of literacy has been enriched by being used in different fields over time.
Therefore, we are faced with many literacy types. Digital literacy is extensively
mentioned in the literature as well. As an alternative to traditional literacy, digital
literacy is essential to work and learn in the contemporary world (Churchill et al.,
2008). This technology allows individuals to access, produce and share accurate and
necessary information.
With the rapid development of recent e-government applications, digital literacy has
gained a different dimension and created digital citizenship (Ribble, 2011). Digital
citizenship is defined as individuals taking responsibility for using updated
technologies (Mossberger et al., 2007). Ribble and Bailey (2007) examined digital
citizenship under nine headings: Digital communication, digital safety, digital access,
digital health & wellness, digital law, digital rights & responsibilities, digital
commerce, digital etiquette, and digital literacy. Digital citizenship has eliminated
country borders in communication and information acquisition; it has also contributed
to the development of digital literacy.
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
23
What is Digital Literacy?
Digital literacy was developed with the emergence of computer use in the public
sphere in the early 1980s; it was introduced into our daily lives in the 1990s and
showed a significant increase after the online networked information exchange in the
2000s (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009).
The term “digital literacy” appeared in the mid-1990s to describe the changing nature
of literacy via the Internet (Bawden, 2001). Lanham (1995) describes literacy in the
“digital age” as “the ability to understand information no matter how it is presented.”
More simply, Gilster (1997), who popularized digital literacy in his book published in
1997 with the same title, describes digital literacy as "the ability to access and use
networked computer resources." Here, Gilster underlined digital literacy's components
of accessing tools and digital skills (Feerrar, 2019). The American Library Association
(ALA, 2022) defines digital literacy as “the ability to use ICT requiring cognitive and
technical skills, to find, evaluate, create and communicate information.”
Digital literacy is the whole of the skills that those who use the digital environment
should have (Burnett & McKinley, 1998). Digital literacy is using IT to access
information, share and evaluate data from different backgrounds, and create new
knowledge (Tornero, 2004). Digital literacy is the ability to be successful in encounters
with the electronic infrastructures and tools that make the world of the 21st century
possible (Martin, 2006). Digital literacy emerges as a concept related to 21st-century
skills such as information, media, and technology skills (information literacy, ICT
literacy, and media literacy). Digital literacy is the skills, attitudes, and values
individuals should possess to use digital tools in the 21st century.
The digital literacy acquisition process is discussed in three stages: acquisition of
digital competencies, use of the competencies, and innovative digital transformation
(Martin & Grudziecki, 2006). The stage of acquiring digital competencies covers the
field's skills, concepts, approaches, and attitudes. The digital use phase includes using
and applying digital competence in a specific area. The innovative digital
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
24
transformation stage involves possessing digital competencies and practices that allow
for changes; creating a new product is related to this stage.
Despite different definitions, digital literacy, in the most general sense, is the whole of
the skills that the users of the digital environment should possess (Burnett &
McKinley, 1998). Like other fashionable terms, “digital literacy” has different
descriptions. However, the ambiguous use of this concept will lead to misconceptions
and a weakening of communication (Norton & Wiburg, 1998). According to Bawden
(2008), digital literacy is a subject with confusing terminology.
Types of Digital Literacy
Educators, students, and citizens face multiple literacies in the digital age. Digital
literacy is a broad concept encompassing many digital-related activity types (Martin,
2006). Moreover, digital literacy is apparently a multidisciplinary concept. Digital
literacy emerges as a concept related to information technology (IT), information,
technological, media, and visual literacy. Regarding content, digital literacy is broader
than ICT literacy. It includes additional elements, such as media, information, and
visual literacy (Martin, 2006). ICT, visual, information, and media literacy must all be
balanced to create an entirely digitally literate individual (Martin, 2006). Information
Literacy, Computer Literacy, Media Literacy, Communication Literacy, Visual
Literacy, and Technology Literacy are the sub-disciplines of Digital Literacy (Covello,
2010, p. 4).
Components of Digital Literacy
Digital literacy components appear in the literature under concept names such as
dimension, factor, component, and area. In the literature, researchers examine digital
literacy by dividing it into different dimensions. According to Ng (2012), digital
literacy has attitudinal, technical, cognitive, and social dimensions. According to
Pérez-Escoda et al. (2019), digital literacy consists of four dimensions: learning, being
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
25
able, making/creating, and being/practicing. Pala and Basibuyuk (2020) examined
digital literacy in four dimensions: information technologies, communication, safety
(reliability), and problem-solving. Digital literacy is defined by ALA (2013) as using
ICT to find, understand, evaluate, create and communicate digital information and
emphasizes multiple components. On the other hand, Hague and Payton (2010)
examined digital literacy in eight dimensions: creativity, critical thinking &
evaluation, cultural & social understanding, collaboration, finding & selecting
information, effective communication, e-safety, and functional skills (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The components of digital literacy (Hague & Payton, 2010)
Digital Literacy Skills
Digital literacy should refer to an individual's awareness, attitude, and ability to use
digital tools for communication, expression, and social action in certain life events
(Goodfellow, 2011). Being digitally literate is a fundamental skill required to work
and participate effectively in today's digital society. Digital literacy is the ability to
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
26
navigate inside our digital world using reading, writing, technical skills, and critical
thinking. It uses technological tools such as smartphones, computers, e-readers, and
more to find, evaluate and transfer information (Microsoft, 2022).
Digital technology's rapid and continuous development forces individuals to use
various skills (technical, cognitive, and sociological) for the performance of tasks and
problem-solving in digital environments (Eshet, 2004). According to ALA, a digitally
literate individual has the following skills and uses them to establish active
participation in civil society and contribute to a vibrant, informed, and engaged
community (ALA, 2013).
• possesses a variety of cognitive and technical skills needed to find, understand,
evaluate, create and communicate digital information in a wide variety of
formats,
• uses various technologies appropriately and effectively to search and retrieve
information, interpret search results, and evaluate the quality of the information
obtained,
• understands the relationships between technology, lifelong learning, personal
privacy, and appropriate knowledge management,
• uses these skills and appropriate technologies to communicate and collaborate
with peers, colleagues, family, and sometimes the general public.
Like information literacy, digital literacy requires critical thinking and finding & using
information. Moreover, it involves familiarity with digital tools and using them in
collaborative, communicative ways through social engagement.
Digital literacy, which consists of many dimensions and sub-literacies, requires
acquiring particular digital skills and being digitally competent. Individuals who
significantly developed their digital literacy skills comprehend internet security
fundamentals, such as creating strong passwords and understanding and enforcing
privacy settings. Surfing through a browser, using PowerPoint, making videos,
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
27
designing slides, blogging, and familiarity with applications such as Photoshop are
among the digital literacy indicators (EnglishBix, 2022).
Digital Competence
The literature shows that digital literacy and digital competence concepts are used
interchangeably. However, there are differences between these two concepts. A wide
range of competencies is needed to face today’s complex challenges. Digital skills,
sometimes called digital competencies, include the knowledge and skills to use ICT
that an individual needs to achieve goals in their personal and professional life
(Commission on Science and Technology for Development, 2018).
According to the OECD report (2005), competency is more than just knowledge and
skills. It includes the ability to meet complex demands by leveraging and mobilizing
psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a given context. Calvani et
al. (2008) discussed digital competencies under three headings: technological,
cognitive, and ethical. The technological dimension emphasizes the ability to solve
technology-related problems; the cognitive dimension emphasizes discovering the
correct and reliable sources, reading and evaluating the information, and the ethical
dimension underlines having a grasp of ICT.
Digital literacy is defined as “the ability to survive in the digital age” by Eshet-Alkalai
(2004). It is described by Martin and Grudziecki (2006) as individuals’ “awareness,
attitude and ability” to use digital tools for communication, expression, and social
action in certain life situations.
These definitions show that digital literacy and digital competence have a dynamic and
multidimensional structure. In addition, digital literacy has a broader meaning than
digital competence. It is widely used in international academic fields (Bayrakcı, 2020).
What does today's society demands of its citizens? This demand-driven approach
questions individuals’ needs to function well in society in their position, the
competencies needed to find and retain a job, and the adaptive qualities required to
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
28
cope with changing technology. Competencies are essential in how individuals
manage the world and help them shape it. Therefore, they are related to modern life's
essential features and demands; our goals’ nature, as individuals and as societies, also
determines them.
Competence is essential in how individuals cope with the world and helps them shape
it. Therefore, the nature of our goals, both as individuals and as societies, determine
competencies, as they are related to the essential features and demands of modern life
(OECD, 2005).
Digital Literacy Frameworks
The dynamic and multidimensional nature of digital literacy has made it difficult to
define the concept. For this reason, researchers have developed new definitions,
models, and frameworks to explain digital literacy. There are two conceptual
frameworks (TPACK and SAMR) in the literature for designing digital competence
programs for teacher education; they are frequently used and well supported by
empirical research (Falloon, 2020).
Figure 2. The TPACK framework (from Mishra and Koehler 2006) (Falloon, 2020)
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
29
The TPACK framework, developed by Mishra and Köhler (2006), is the integration
and intersection of technical “know-how” (technological knowledge-TK), teaching
abilities, strategies, and methods (pedagogical knowledge-PK), and “what to know”
(content knowledge-CK). It is essential to create effective use of digital technology in
education. The TPACK framework suggests that in developing good content, all these
critical sources of knowledge (technology, pedagogy, and content) should be carefully
interweaved (Figure 2).
The SAMR model includes a four-level approach for selecting, using, and evaluating
technology in K-12 education (Figure 3). According to Puentedura (2006), the SAMR
model is intended to be a tool through which K-12 teachers can identify and categorize
their classroom technology use (Hamilton et al., 2016).
SAMR is a four-stage model representing a “spectrum” of digital technology use,
ranging from substitution (old to new) to redefining learning (transformation). SAMR
levels are displayed hierarchically and best interpreted as “descriptors” of the best
technology used for the purpose (Puentedura, 2006).
Figure 3. The SAMR model (from Puentedura 2006)
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
30
Digital Literacy Models
Various digital literacy models have been suggested to explain digital literacy.
According to Pérez-Escoda et al. (2019), the proper understanding of digital literacy
requires a chronologic examination of the most important models of the 21st century
developing and conceptualizing this literacy. Therefore, this section will discuss five
models deemed significant by Pérez-Escoda et al. (2019).
P21Model, Partnership on 21st-Century Skills (2002)
In the P21 Model (Figure 3), there are different areas such as basic subjects, learning
and innovation skills, information, media and technology skills, life and career skills
(Partnership for 21st-Century Skills, 2009). Digital literacy, on the other hand,
emerges as a concept related to 21st century skills such as information, media and
technology skills (information literacy, information and communication technologies
literacy and media literacy).
Figure 3. P21 model of digital literacy (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009)
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
31
Krumsvik's Model (2008)
The researcher Krumsvik (2008) developed this digital literacy model in the context
of Norwegian education policy. Digital literacy has been introduced at all educational
levels and subjects of compulsory education to promote the development of this
literacy in Norway. The model highlights four essential skills in achieving digital
literacy: basic digital skills, didactic-ICT competence, learning strategies, and digital
literacy (Krumsvik, 2011). (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Krumsvik’s (2008) digital literacy model
DIGCOMP Model (2011) and Digcompedu Model (2017)
DIGCOMP project had a single purpose, creating a European frame of reference for
understanding and developing digital competence. It included three goals for this
purpose. These are identifying digital competence (knowledge, skills, and attitudes)
required to be digitally competents, identifying digital competency areas and other
existing frameworks, suggesting a strategy for using and developing digital
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
32
competence at different levels.The model called DigCompEdu consists of Professional
Engagement, Digital Resources, Teaching and Learning, Assessment, Empowering
Learners, and Facilitating Learners' Digital Competence (Figure 5 ).
Figure 5. The DigCompEdu Framework (Redecker, 2017)
ISTE Standards (2009)
ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) is the largest public, non-
profit organization whose mission is to educate teachers and students worldwide in
learning and education standards appropriate for the digital age. These standards
(Figure 6) have five competence areas (International Society for Technology in
Education (NETS-A, 2009).
• Facilitating and encouraging creativity and learning in students
• Designing & developing assessments and learning experiences suitable for the
digital age
• Adapting the characteristic work and education of the digital age
• Promoting and exemplifying responsibility and digital citizenship
• Being committed to professional growth and leadership
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
33
Figure 6. ISTE standards (International Society for Technology in Education
(NETS-A), 2009).
ISTE standards for educators includes a framework that determines teacher skills,
abilities, and behaviors in seven areas (continuous personal learning, digital
leadership, digital citizenship, digital collaboration, digital learning environment
designer, effective digital learning facilitator, and digital data analyst) considered as
the key to teacher digital literacy (ISTE, 2017).
JISC Model (2009)
The model that JISC suggested in the UK is a theoretical study that aims to apply the
existing literature to teaching practices by analyzing all required literacies
(information, media, technology) and students’ characteristics and capacities in a
changing environment.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
34
This study formed the basis of the Professionalism in the Digital Environment
(PRIDE) Project. The PRIDE Project was applied in academia to university students
who develop competence areas that each profession needs. These areas were presented
as a pyramid with a constructivist philosophy (Pérez-Escoda et al., 2019). The pyramid
model (Figure 7) comprises access and awareness, skills, practices, and identity steps
(Sharpe & Beetham, 2010).
Figure 7. “Pyramid model” of the digital literacy development model (Sharpe &
Beetham, 2010)
After examining these five development models of digital literacy, a new model was
developed by integrating the dimensions, areas and competencies of the other five
models (Pérez-Escoda et al., 2019). (Figure 8).
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
35
Figure 8. Dimensions of digital literacy, based on the five models
(Pérez-Escoda et al., 2019)
These four dimensions (learning, being able, making/creating, being/practicing) will
allow the development of six competence areas at different levels. Their levels depend
on the citizen’s or student’s dimension.
Apart from these models, there are different models called digital literacy or digital
competence models developed by different researchers to explain digital literacy with
all its dimensions. These are:
• The digital competency model developed by Calvani et al. (2009) handled
digital competency in three dimensions: cognitive, ethical, and technological.
• In the digital literacy model developed by Chetty et al. (2017), five disciplines
(information literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, communication
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
36
literacy, and technology literacy) and three perspectives (technical, cognitive,
and ethical) broadly outline a framework that can be adopted to evaluate and
measure digital literacy’s conceptual components.
• The digital and media literacy model developed by Hobbs (2010) determines
the basic competencies of digital and media literacy: access, analysis &
evaluation, creation, reflection, and behavior.
• In the digital literacy model developed by Ng (2012), digital literacy arises
from three intersecting dimensions: (i) technical, (ii) cognitive, and (iii) social-
emotional.
• In Hague and Payton’s (2010) digital literacy model, digital literacy is the skill,
knowledge, and understanding that enables critical, creative, distinctive, and
safe practices while dealing with digital technologies in all areas of life. It may
be helpful to think of digital literacy as a structure having several interrelated
components or dimensions. On the other hand, Hague and Payton (2010)
examined digital literacy in eight dimensions: creativity, critical thinking &
evaluation, cultural & social understanding, collaboration, finding & selecting
information, effective communication, e-safety, and functional skills.
• The DigEuLit project, which aims to establish a definition and framework for
digital literacy, developed by Martin (2009), suggested a participation model
consisting of digital competencies (I), digital uses (II), and digital
transformation (III) stages (Martin, 2006). Digital literacy can be talked about
only in stages II or III.
• The Digital Competence Building Blocks model developed by Janssen et al.
(2012) gathered 95 experts from various fields to establish a common ground
on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that constitute digital competence. The
research results show that experts see digital competence as a collection of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to various objectives domains and
levels.
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
37
Digital Literacy in Education
In the past, libraries used to mediate access to information, but today television,
computers, and mobile devices serve this function. At this point, it is vital for
individuals to filter the information they encounter and to distinguish between true and
false information.
Education, which includes the learning and teaching process, is an area where digital
settings are used. Digital technologies are used in this field. For this reason, digital
literacy is needed more than before in education. It is impossible to separate digital
literacy from the realities of daily life, including school and other aspects of education.
Students, teachers, and parents rely on the internet to get their needed information. As
digital literacy permeates every aspect of daily life, it is recommended that teachers of
all grade levels (from pre-school to university) promote digital literacy in the
classroom.
While digital technologies keep their impact on research, teaching & learning, digital
literacy programs are developed and expanded in colleges and universities, enabling
students to critically use and consume digital tools and create various content (Feerrar,
2019). Developing a vision of a digitally literate university will form a basis for
institutional strategies, policies, and processes, flourishing digital literacy (Jisc, 2015).
In short, many researchers suggested different descriptions, frameworks, and models
to explain digital literacy. Digital literacy is a broad, complex, dynamic and
multidimensional issue. Like classical literacy, it is a tool for all citizens to establish
interaction between the individual and society. It creates and shares meaning through
which actions are directed, social patterns evolve and change, and social order
advances. Whatever the name, the society we live in now is infused with digital, and
it is necessary to relate to digital to establish a relationship with this society (Martin,
2009). In the digital world, digital literacy skills and competencies are essential for
academic success. 21st-century students can indeed be digital natives. However, this
does not mean that they will always use their digital literacy skills for learning.
Individuals should be given opportunities to maintain their digital literacy for a
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
38
lifetime. In this context, individuals should be provided with environments to develop
their digital literacy skills, strategies, policies, and practices should be set, and support
services should be offered.
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
39
References
American Library Association (ALA) (2022). Digital literacy. Retrieved from
https://literacy.ala.org/digital-literacy/
American Library Association. (2013). Digital Literacy, Libraries, and Public Policy:
Report of the Office for Information Technology Policy’s Digital Literacy Task
Force.
Bawden, D. (2001), Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal
of Documentation, 57(2), 218-259.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007083
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M.
Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, and practices (pp. 15–32).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bayrakcı, S. (2020). Digital literacy as a whole of digital competences: Scale
development study. Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University,
İstanbul/Turkey.
Burnett, K., & McKinley, E. G. (1998). Modelling information seeking. Interacting
with computers, 10(3), 285-302.
Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A. & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and Instruments for
assessing Digital Competence at School. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge
Society, 4(3), 183-193. Italian e-Learning Association.
Calvani, A., Fini, A. & Ranieri, M. (2009). Valutare la competenza digitale. Modelli
teorici e strumenti applicativi. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3),
39-46.
Chetty, K., Qigui, L., Gcora, N., Josie, J., Wenwei, L., & Fang, C. (2018). Bridging
the digital divide: measuring digital literacy. Economics: The Open-Access,
Open-Assessment E-Journal, 12(1), 1–20. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-
ejournal.ja.2018-23.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
40
Churchill, N., & Ping, L.Ç., & Oakley, G., & Churchill, D. (2008). Digital storytelling
and digital literacy learning. International Conference on Information
Communication 51 Technologies in Education, Island.
Commission on Science and Technology for Development. (2018). Building digital
competencies to benefit from existing and emerging technologies, with a special
focus on gender and youth dimensions (Report of the Secretary General
E/CN.16/2018/3). United Nations.
https://unctad.org/system/files/officialdocument/ecn162018d3_en.pdf
Covello, S. (2010). A Review of Digital Literacy Assessment Instruments. Syracuse
University, School of Education.
Dobson, T., & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy. The Cambridge Handbook of
Literacy, David Olson, Nancy Torrance (ed.), p. 286-312. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press,
EnglishBix (2022). Digital and technology literacy skills with examples.
https://www.englishbix.com/digital-and-technology-literacy-skills/
Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the
Digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/4793/.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills
in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,, 93-106.
European Commission. (2003). E-learning: better elearning for europe. Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital
competency (TDC) framework. Education Tech Research Dev, 68, 2449–2472.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
Feerrar, J. (2019). Development of a framework for digital literacy. Reference Services
Review, 47(2), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-01-2019-0002
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
41
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley, New York, NY
Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies and the digital in higher
education. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 131-144.
Goody, J. (1987). The Interface between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge
University Press.
Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2010). Digital literacy across the curriculum. UK: Futurelab.
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution
augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and
suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action.Washington, DC: The
Aspen Institute.
International Society for Technology in Education NETS-A (2009). NETS for
Administrators 2009. http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-
for-administrators
International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). ISTE standards for
educators. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013).
Experts' views on digital competence: Commonalities and
differences. Computers & Education, 68, 473-481.
Jisc, (2015). DL themes. https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/en/archive
/20151003125117/http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/53896713/DL
%20themes
Krumsvik, R. (2008). The emerging digital literacy among teachers in Norway. The
story of one digital literate teacher. In R. Koboyashi (Ed.), New educational
technology (pp. 105–155). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc
Krumsvik, R. J. (2011). Digital competence in the Norwegian teacher education and
schools. Högre utbildning, 1(1), 39-51.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
42
Kurudayıoglu, M., & Tuzel, S. (2010). The types of literacy of the 21st century,
changing text comprehension and Turkish teaching. Journal of Turkology
Research, (28), 283-298.
Lanham, R. A. (1995). Digital literacy. Scientific American, 273(3), 198-200.
Martin, A. (2006). A European framework for digital literacy. Nordic Journal of
Digital Literacy, 1(2), 151-161.
Martin, A. (2009). Digital literacy for the third age: Sustaining identity in an uncertain
world. ELearning Papers, 12, 1-15.
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy
development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and
Computer Sciences, 5(4), 249-267.
Microsoft, (2022). Digital literacy? https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/digital-
literacy#:~:text=Digital%20literacy%20is%20the%20ability,%2C%20evaluate
%2C%20and%20communicate%20information.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 6, 1017–1054
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital citizenship: The
Internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?. Computers &
Education, 59(3), 1065-1078.
Norton, P., & Wiburg, K.M. (1998). Teaching with technology. New York: Harcourt
Brace.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). The
definition and selection of key competencies.
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/definition-selection-key-competencies-summary.pdf
Developing Digital Literacy Skills in Our Digital World
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
43
Pala, Ş. M., & Basıbuyuk, A. (2020). The investigation of digital literacy of fifth grade
secondary school students. Cumhuriyet International Journal of
Education, 9(3), 897-921.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
https://bit.ly/1nir7Vs
Pérez-Escoda, A., García-Ruiz, R., & Aguaded, I. (2019). Dimensions of digital
literacy based on five models of development/Dimensiones de la alfabetización
digital a partir de cinco modelos de desarrollo. Cultura y educación, 31(2), 232-
266.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology and education: A model for
technology and transformation.
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/puentedura_tte.pdf.
Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2760/159770.
Ribble, M. & Bailey, G. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. Washington, DC:
‘‘International Society for Technology in Education’’.
Ribble, M. (2011). Digital Citizenship in Schools. The International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE).
Sharpe, R. & Beetham, H. (2010). Understanding students’ uses of technology for
learning: Towards creative appropriation. In Sharpe, R., Beetham, H. & De
Freitas, S. (Eds.), Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How Learners are
Shaping Their Experiences,Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 85- 99.
Tornero, J. P. (2004). Promoting digital literacy: Final report (EAC/76/03).
Understanding digital literacy. Gabinete de Comunicación y Educación,
Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Munise Seçkin Kapucu
44
About Author
Munise Seckin Kapucu is an associate professor of Mathematics and Science
Education at Eskisehir Osmangazi University in Eskisehir, Turkey. She has studies
on science and technology program, teaching the nature of science, and the use of
different technologies in science courses.
E-mail: muniseseckin@hotmail.com
Chapter 3
This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duman, & Şehnaz Baltacı
45
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic
Review
Sevim Aydın
Mudanya University, Türkiye
Emel Duman
Bursa Uludağ University, Türkiye
Şehnaz Baltacı
Bursa Uludağ University, Türkiye
To Cite This Chapter
Aydın, S., Duman, E., & Baltacı, Ş. (2022). Using web 3.0 in education: A systematic review.
In M. T. Hebebci, & O. Yılmaz (Eds.), Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 (pp.
45-68). ISRES Publishing
Introduction
The internet, which has become an indispensable part of our lives, is rapidly
developing and changing with each passing day. In parallel with the development of
the Internet, the expected development in the Web is also observed. The first web
technologies that entered our lives along with the emergence of the Internet consist of
simple, plain, read-only content and are called Web 1.0 (Parsa, 2009; Dominic, Francis
& Pilomenraj, 2014). In Web 1.0 technologies, there are websites where the flow of
information is unidirectional, the content is limited and created by a content provider,
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
46
and users can only access the provided subject (Park, 2013; Thomas & Li, 2008). Due
to the limited use of Web 1.0, Odabaşı et al. (2012) named Web 1.0 users as content-
dependent passive readers.
After the simple-read form of Web 1.0, web 2.0 Technologies integrated readers into
the system and provided them with the opportunity to write like a writer. With Web
2.0 technologies, users can be content producers as well as information consumers
(Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). In this process, the web 1.0 layer forms the basis
and is included in all technologies described. Unlike Web 1.0, Web 2.0 includes social
communication and interaction between users, and the social use of the web and
cooperation among participants comes to the forefront (Park, 2013). Furthermore, with
this technology, even users without programming knowledge can produce, edit and
share content (Yükseltürk & Top, 2020).
Along with the advantages provided to users by Web 2.0, information redundancy
occurs and it is needed to interpret and make sense of the large amount of data obtained
through computers and software (Jersen, 2019). Web 3.0 technologies emerging for
this purpose are also called "semantic web". The biggest reason why Web 3.0 is called
as "semantic web" is that new meaningful information can be created from the
available data (Fırat & Fırat, 2021). Through Web 3.0 technology, searches that
produce content-based personalized results can be made on websites (Gyamfi, 2014).
The function of presenting the meaning of data with the semantic web or Web 3.0 is
also added to the machines that involve understanding and processing the data (Presti
& Nicolosi, 2012). As the improved-extended new version of the web we use today,
Web 3.0 is a system in which computers better understand what information and what
its meaning is (Yağcı, 2009; Kapan & Üncel, 2020).
With the evolution of the web and the widespread use of web technologies, new
opportunities have started to emerge in the field of education, as in many other fields.
With the rise of the web, traditional educational venues were replaced with digital
environments, and the idea of e-learning was born (Miranda et al, 2014). E-learning is
a web-based education system and is used on the internet, intranet or a computer
network (Aytaç, 2003). According to Lee, Tsai and Wang (2008), e-learning has
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
47
become popular and realistic with the web pages becoming interactive. The concept of
e-learning continues to evolve with the development of the internet or the World Wide
Web. Dominik et al. (2014) and Rajiv and Lal (2011) summarized the e-learning 3.0
applications that offer individual settings and various options for the use of Web 3.0
in education in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Web 3.0 tools in e-learning (Dominic et al. 2014; Rajiv & Lal, 2011).
While Web 2.0 provides opportunities such as social networking and cooperation
between designer and user, according to Figure 1, Web 3.0, also called the semantic
web, includes technologies such as big data, connected data, 3D visualization, virtual
reality, 3D wikis and games, and augmented reality. These techniques, including
augmented reality and mobile learning, are thought to be the future of information
access and hold promise for the Web 3.0 teaching approach (Dominik et al., 2014).
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
48
Literature
Web 3.0 and Education
Along with the fact that Web 3.0 offers tools and features such as personal assistants,
smart agents, 3D games, virtual worlds, and open educational resources, far beyond
the opportunities offered by Web 2.0, it is envisaged that the interaction of individuals
with the machine will be at the forefront rather than the interaction of individuals with
each other, and accordingly, the expectations and interactions of individuals regarding
the Internet will differ (Chısega-Negrıla, 2016). Collaborative, three-dimensional
virtual learning environments are supported with Web 3.0 technologies, and students
can be provided with learning environments at anytime, anywhere and as they wish
with the enrichment of e-learning environments (Hussia, 2012). Furthermore, with the
semantic web technologies in web 3.0 environments, the focus is on enabling students
to manage their learning and make their own decisions about their learning (Chisega-
Negrilă, 2013; Wadhwa, 2015).
The widespread use of web 3.0 in e-learning also brings along some questions. One of
these questions is which theories should be used for the realization of digital learning.
Learning theories provide a point of view that helps us to understand how and why
learning occurs (Smith, 1999). The learning theories are divided into four as
behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism. According to Hussian
(2012), while knowledge is transmitted directly from teacher to student in behaviorism
(may be related to e-Learning 1.0), cognitivism considers the student as a data
processor, and constructivism suggests that students acquire knowledge after the
process of structuring knowledge. According to Siemens (2004), one of the pioneers
of connectivism theory, connectivism is regarded as the learning theory of the digital
age and is described as the successor of other learning theories. In his study, Hussain
(2012) summarizes the relationship of technological changes with the principles of
connectivist learning theory in e-learning 3.0 as follows:
• Learning and knowledge are based on diversity of ideas. Social semantic
networks support this diversity by providing openness and interoperability.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
49
• Learning is the process of connecting specialized nodes or sources of
knowledge. Accordingly, big data or global data storage, connected data, cloud
computing, extended smart mobile technologies are used.
• Learning can be found in non-human devices. Machine learning, artificial
intelligence, personal avatars, 3D visualization and interaction are used in
relation to that.
• According to the connectivist learning theory, the capacity to know more is
more important than what is currently known, in this context, the function of
providing information control of the semantic web is used.
• The ability to see the connections between fields, ideas and concepts requires
a basic skill. Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate
continual learning. Semantic web and collaborative intelligent filtering
technologies are used to develop such skills.
As it can be seen above, many technologies used in e-learning supported by the
learning theories of the digital age have been developed. Furthermore, in the studies
on the use of Web 3.0 in education, the positive aspects of the use of these technologies
in education were emphasized by showing that the use of Web 3.0 tools in education
provides suitable conditions for institutions, teachers and students to reveal their
potential and social and strategic skills (Atabekova et al., 2015). The number of studies
on the use of Web 3.0 in education is increasing day by day (Bahadir, 2019; Greener,
2015; Halimi & Seridi-Bouchelaghem; 2021; Wu et al., 2020). However, it is observed
that studies that include systematic reviews in this field are not sufficient (Fırat & Fırat,
2021; Jensen, 2019).
The compilation of studies that have been systematically reviewed is considered
important in terms of determining the gaps in the literature about Web 3.0 and
providing a conceptual framework for researchers who will conduct studies on the use
of Web 3.0 in education. When the systematic review studies on the use of Web 3.0 in
education in the literature were examined, two systematic studies were found. Among
them, Jensen (2019) aimed more specifically to investigate the relationship between
technology and pedagogy in the field of Semantic Web in formal education from a
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
50
practical educational perspective. Fırat and Fırat (2021) conducted a systematic review
study of the use of Web 3.0 tools in learning environments. In that study, Fırat and
Fırat analyzed 81 English articles on the use of Web 3.0 in education, registered in
Scopus and Science Direct databases, which include web 3.0 and lower technologies,
from 2005 to 2020. Unlike the study of Fırat and Fırat (2021), this study examines
English and Turkish articles in the Web of Science, Eric and TR Index, which include
the use of Web 3.0 in education, for the years 2012-2022. The study can be considered
important in terms of providing an up-to-date and holistic view of the place of Web
3.0 in education in the last ten years, with the keywords used in the search criteria. In
this context, the relevant studies were systematically examined in order to determine
the place of Web 3.0 technologies in education, and answers to the following research
questions were sought:
1. What is the distribution of the studies on the use of Web 3.0 in education by
years?
2. What are the types of studies reviewed, in which direction is the trend?
3. What are the number of citations of the studies reviewed?
4. What are the keywords used in the studies reviewed?
Methodology
The objective of this study was to comprehensively review the research on the
application of Web 3.0 technologies in education. "Identifying, analyzing, and
interpreting all available research on a given research issue, topic area, or phenomenon
of interest" is the definition of a systematic review of the literature (Kitchenham,
2004). Although there are different definitions and stages of systematic review,
Newman and Gough's (2020) systematic review stages were used in terms of basing
educational research in this study.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
51
Figure 2. Systematic Review Process of Newman and Gough (2020)
According to Figure 2, Newman and Gough (2020) indicated the review stages as
follows. 1) Developing the research question, 2) Designing the conceptual framework,
3) Constructing the selection criteria, 4) Developing the search strategy, 5) Selecting
the studies using the selection criteria, 6) Coding studies, 7) Assessing the quality of
studies, 8) Analyzing the synthesis results of individual studies to answer the review
research question, and 9) reporting the findings. Accordingly, the stages of this study
are presented under the following subheadings.
Constructing the Selection Criteria
According to Yılmaz (2021), this stage is one of the important stages in which the
research route is determined and the road map is designed according to this route,
which acts as a sort of filter for the research. The criteria to be included or excluded
from the study are determined in this stage. The selection criteria in systematic reviews
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
52
are shaped by the research question and conceptual framework. The most commonly
used selection criteria can be listed as the characteristics of the study participants, the
country where the study is conducted, the language in which the study is reported, and
the research methods (Newman & Gough, 2020). Accordingly, in this study, the year
of the study, research type, the number of citations and keywords were determined as
the criteria for inclusion in the research.
Developing the Search Strategy
The search strategy is the plan for how to identify relevant research studies and serves
to detail the resources to be sought and the manner in which resources are sought
(Newman & Gough, 2020). Accordingly, The year of the studies to be included in the
research, the area to be researched, the keywords to be used, the types of studies, the
resources to be searched, the field to be searched and the language to be searched were
determined in the stage of determining the search strategy. The criteria determined and
used in the study are presented in the table below.
Table 1. Search Criteria
Year
2012-2022
Area to be researched
Title
Keywords
“web 3.0”, “semantic web”
Research Type
Research Article
Databases
Eric, Web of Science, Tr Index
Search Area
Educational research
Language
English and Turkish
As it is indicated in Table 1, with this systematic research, the research articles
published in ERIC, Web Of Science and TR Index databases between 2012-2022, in
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
53
English or Turkish, in the field of education, with the keywords "Web 3.0" and
"semantic web" in the study title were included in the study.
Since the use of Web 3.0 technologies in education has gained popularity in the last
ten years, the studies conducted between 2012 and 2022 were included in the study,
and studies outside this year range were excluded. Some studies were published in
books, although they were research articles. Therefore, the studies in the category of
research articles and published in books were also included in the study.
Selecting Studies Using the Selection Criteria
The search was performed between 01 April and 15 April 2022 in accordance with the
criteria indicated above. Two researchers searched different databases in the study.
While the first researcher conducted research in the Eric database, the second
researcher continued searches in the Web of Science and Tr Index. The articles were
downloaded from the databases specified by the researchers and saved in the public
folder created with the year of study, author and name.
Coding Studies
The studies selected within the scope of the search were processed in the table, which
was prepared by the researchers and created using E-tables from Google Documents
in order to allow researchers to work together, by taking into account the year of the
study, author, research purpose, research type, data collection tools, participants and
number of citations.
Rourke and Anderson (2004) argued that the use of a coding scheme proven by many
researchers would help increase the validity of content analysis. Therefore, the
classification scheme developed by Dick and Dick (1989) was used in classifying the
studies according to their types. According to this scheme, the classification of studies
is divided as in Table 2.
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
54
Table 2. Classification of Studies According to their Types (Dick & Dick, 1989)
Literature Review
Presentation of a summary of the literature
as a critique or an expression of the latest
technology.
Methodological article
Study including a new model or procedure
for carrying out a technical activity
Theoretical Article
Article that primarily benefits from and
contributes to the theoretical literature of
the field
Empirical and Experimental Studies
All studies, except assessments, that use
data to draw conclusions
Descriptive study
Presentation of information about a specific
program or event using little or no data.
Evaluation study
Presentation of data and information to
explain the effectiveness of a particular
program or method, usually in an applied
setting.
Professional article
A description of the issues related to the
instructional technology profession, such as
the determination of qualifications or
definitions of internship programs.
Assessing the Quality of Studies
The assessment of the quality of studies is an indication of the strength of the evidence
provided by the systematic review and gives information on the standards required for
future research. A number of standards with a similar effect in determining how
compilations are made or what a compilation should contain and report was established
in order to maintain accuracy and quality in systematic reviews (Gough & Thomas,
2016). The study entitled PRISMA-Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, 2020) is one of the important sources about systematic
reviews. While the PRISMA Reporting is used to assist authors in improving the
presentation of systematic review and meta-analysis research, it can also be used for
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
55
critical evaluation of the presentation (Karaçam, 2013; Moher, et al., 2009). The
PRISMA diagram of the research process is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Systematic review PRISMA flow chart (Brunton et al., 2012, slightly
changes after p.86; Moher et al., 2009, s. 8).
According to the Prisma chart above, 86 studies were found in the first search of the
databases. After the reviews, it was determined that 10 studies were repeated in the
databases and the repetitions were excluded from the research. With regard to the
inclusion criteria, two researchers analyzed 76 articles in detail. From the titles of the
articles, 23 studies that did not meet the search criteria were excluded from the
research. As a result of examining the contents of 53 articles obtained after exclusion,
two studies that were not related to education were excluded from the research. Finally,
the study was conducted with 51 articles. Regarding consensus and disagreement
among researchers, the reliability was determined by using Miles and Huberman's
(1994) Reliability=consensus/ (consensus+disagreement) formula. Two researchers
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
56
scanned 86 articles and reached an agreement of 92% on inclusion/exclusion. Then,
the researchers discussed inconsistencies and agreed on the remaining 8%.
Limitations
Research articles were included in the study. Theses and conference proceedings were
not included in the study. In future systematic analyses, the study can be expanded by
differentiating the databases and adding different types of studies. Different databases
can be used or all of them can be examined as a whole. Furthermore, variables such as
data collection tools and the number of participants were not examined in the study
since the studies in this study included a small number of experimental studies. When
the scope of the study is extended, such data can be examined from the data to be
obtained. Moreover, researchers are recommended to use the concept of semantic web
along with the concept of Web 3.0 in their studies.
Findings and Discussions
The findings section corresponds to the “analyzing the synthesis results of individual
studies to answer the review research question”, one of the systematic review steps of
Newman and Gough (2020). The findings obtained in this context are presented by
dividing them into sub-headings as follows.
Findings on the First Sub-Problem
The first sub-problem of the study includes determining the distribution of studies on
the use of Web 3.0 in education by years. The findings obtained as a result of the
reviews are presented in figure 4.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
57
Figure 4. Distribution of the studies reviewed by years
The majority of studies on Web 3.0 in education were conducted in 2012, between
2012 and 2022, according to an analysis of the distribution of studies by years. It was
observed that there was a decrease in the number of studies from 2012 until 2015. An
increase was observed again in 2015. After this increase, there was a stagnation in the
studies between 2016-2019, and it was observed that there was an increase in the
number of studies in 2020.
Findings on the Second Sub-Problem
The second sub-problem of the study includes determining the types of studies on the
use of Web 3.0 in education. The findings obtained as a result of the reviews are
presented in Figure 5.
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
58
Figure 5. Distribution of the studies reviewed by types
The types of studies reviewed were classified using the classification scheme
developed by Dick and Dick (1989). Accordingly, it was observed that the types of the
studies reviewed concentrated on methodological (38.8%) and evaluation studies
(29.6%). Nevertheless, it was observed descriptive studies (20.3%) and empirical and
experimental studies (9.2%) were also conducted. Furthermore, among the studies
reviewed, one study included the literature review, and two systematic studies were
not included in the table because there was no category. Among the studies reviewed,
no professional and theoretical articles were found.
Findings on the Third Sub-Problem
The third sub-problem of the study includes determining the number of citations of
studies on the use of Web 3.0 in education. The findings of 51 studies that were cited
among the reviewed studies are presented in Figure 6.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
59
Figure 6. Distribution of the studies reviewed by the number of citations
(K: Indicates the coding number of each study)
When Figure 6 was examined, among the studies reviewed, the study with the highest
number of citations of 39 was the study by Isotani et al. (2013) entitled “A Semantic
Web-based authoring tool to facilitate the planning of collaborative learning scenarios
compliant with learning theories” which was coded as K-18. The second most cited
study was “A systematic literature review of the use of Semantic Web technologies in
formal education” written by Jensen, coded as K-46 with 38 citations. Immediately
after, the most cited study was the study of Siadaty et al. (2012) entitled “Self-regulated
Workplace Learning: A Pedagogical Framework and Semantic Web-based
Environment” with 33 citations, which was coded as K-8. It was followed by the study
of Bhattacharya et al. (2015) entitled “Threshold concepts and the semantic web” with
26 citations. When the frequency distribution of the citation numbers of the studies
was examined, it was observed that there was an intensity in the distribution of the
studies with more than 20 citations. Therefore, studies with more than 20 citations are
presented in tables as follows.
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
60
Table 3. Studies with more than 20 citations
Number of
Citations
Authors
Name of the Study
Year
39
Isotani, S., Mizoguchi, R.,
Isotani, S., Capeli, O. M.,
Isotani, N., De
Albuquerque, A. R., Ig.
Bittencourt & Jaques, P.
Semantic Web-based authoring tool to
facilitate the planning of collaborative
learning scenarios compliant with
learning theories
2013
38
Jensen, J.
A systematic literature review of the use
of Semantic Web technologies in
formal education
2019
33
Siadaty, M., Gašević, D.,
Jovanović, J., Pata, K.,
Milikić, N., Holocher-Ertl,
T., Jeremić, Z., Ali, L.,
Giljanović, A. & Hatala,
M.
Self-regulated Workplace Learning: A
Pedagogical Framework and Semantic
Web-based Environment
2012
26
Bhattacharya, S., Cohen,
M. B., & Cohen, M. B.
Threshold concepts and the semantic
web
2015
25
Adorni, G., Coccoli, M.,
& Torre, I.
Semantic Web and Internet of Things
supporting enhanced learning
2012
25
Carmichael, P., &
Tscholl, M.
Cases, simulacra, and Semantic Web
technologies.
2013
23
Halimi, K., Seridi-
Bouchelaghem, H., &
Faron-Zucker, C
An enhanced personal learning
environment using social semantic web
technologies
2014
23
Hsu, I. C.
Intelligent discovery for learning
objects using semantic web
technologies
2012
22
Vera, M. S., Fernández, J.
T., Sánchez, J. S., &
Espinosa, M. P.
Practical experiences for the
development of educational sys-tems
in the semantic web.
2013
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
61
Findings on the Fourth Sub-Problem
The fourth sub-problem of the study includes determining the keywords of the studies
on the use of Web 3.0 in education. As a result of the reviews, the keywords that are
used more than one (1) are presented in tables as follows.
Table 4. Keywords Used in Studies and Number of their Uses
Keywords
Frequency
Semantic Web
20
E-Learning
10
Educational Technology
4
Web 3.0
3
Education
3
Semantic Technologies
3
Ontology
3
Workplace Learning
2
Higher Education
2
Online Systems
2
Technology Uses İn Education
2
İnternet
2
Scorm
2
Semantics
2
Cloud Computing
2
Participatory Design
2
Knowledge Creation
2
İnterdisciplinarity
2
Learning Objects
2
Semantic Web Technologies
2
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
62
When Table 4 was examined, the most repeated keywords were Semantic web (20), e-
learning (10), and educational technology (4). It was observed that the keywords Web
3.0, Education, Semantic Technologies, and Ontology were mentioned in three studies.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study looked at 51 research articles on the use of web 3.0 technologies in
education that were published between 2012 and 2022 in the ERIC, Web of Science,
and TR Index databases in English or Turkish and had the terms "Web 3.0" and
"semantic web" in the study title. In the systematic review, it was observed that studies
were intensely conducted in 2012. It was observed that there was an increase again in
2015 and 2020 after 2012. It was also observed that there was a decrease in the number
of studies and stagnation from time to time between these years. These findings are
consistent with Fırat and Fırat (2020) study. As a result of the systematic review of
Fırat and Fırat (2020) on the use of web 3.0 in education, it was observed that the
studies increased in 2012 and the highest number of studies was reached in 2013.
Along with the decrease after this, an increase was also observed again after 2015.
When the studies were classified according to the types of studies developed by Dick
and Dick (1989), it was observed that methodological (38.8%) and evaluation studies
(29.6%) were studied more frequently. Nevertheless, it was observed that descriptive
studies (20.3%) and empirical and experimental studies, although their number was
small (9.2%), were also conducted. Furthermore, two studies, including literature
review (Fırat & Fırat, 2021; Jensen, 2019), were also included among the studies
reviewed. Among the studies reviewed, there were no theoretical articles. These
findings revealed that the studies on the semantic web mainly consisted of studies that
included a new proposal for a new model and procedure. Since Web 3.0 technology is
a new technology for education, the number of studies on the effectiveness of its use
in education can be expected to be high. These findings are partially consistent with
the study of Fırat and Fırat (2020). In their systematic review, Fırat and Fırat (2020)
indicated that the majority of the studies consisted of experimental studies and studies
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
63
on the design or presentation of learning software, which is called "methodological"
in this study. It was considered that the number of experimental studies was higher in
their studies, unlike this study, since they included the concepts involving the
applications such as augmented reality in their systematic reviews.
It was found that the most cited studies were "A Semantic Web-based authoring tool
to facilitate the planning of collaborative learning scenarios compliant with learning
theories" (Isotani et al., 2013) and "A systematic literature review of the use of
Semantic Web technologies in formal education" (Jersen, 2019), respectively, when
the distribution of the studies according to the number of citations was examined.
Based on these findings, it can be understood from the researchers' interest in the study
that digital learning includes a learning process, so the tools developed should be based
on learning theory. It can also be said that researchers had a great interest in this
systematic study, and therefore, there is a need for such systematic studies.
Furthermore, when the articles were reviewed in detail, it can be said that
methodological studies involving a new model or procedure for the execution of the
technical activity and descriptive studies involving the definition and use of the
semantic web using little or no data received more citations. This may suggest that
there are still descriptive deficiencies in the studies on web 3.0/semantic web and that
experimental studies cannot be conducted because this technology is not fully
understood.
When the keywords used in the studies were examined, it was observed that the word
semantic web was used more than web 3.0. It is considered that future studies can be
conducted on this concept, and the studies can be extended. It was observed in the
findings that the keyword e-learning was highly used along with the keyword semantic
web (n=10). It was considered that the concept of semantic web, which is a kind of
synonym of web 3.0, was used more in the studies as a result of defining it as semantic
web in its definitions and reinforcing it with examples in this context for a better
understanding of Web 3.0 technologies.
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
64
References
Adorni, G., Coccoli, M., & Torre, I. (2012). Semantic Web and Internet of Things
supporting enhanced learning. Journal of e-Learning and knowledge Society,
8(2), 23-32.
Atabekova, A., Belousov, A., & Shoustikova, T. (2015). Web 3.0-based non-formal
learning to meet the third millennium education requirements: University
Students’ perceptions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 511-519.
Aytaç, T. (2003). Geleceğin öğrenme biçimi: E-öğrenme. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında
Eğitim Dergisi, 35(3), 26-28.
Bahadir, D. (2019). Using web 3.0 technologies for teaching English to the primary
level students: A study on augmented reality (Master's thesis, Lisansüstü Eğitim
Enstitüsü).
Brunton, G., Stansfeld, C., & Thomas, J. (2012). Finding Relevant Studies. In D.
Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An Introduction to Systematic Reviews
(pp. 107–134). London; Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
Bhattacharya, S., Cohen, M. B., & Cohen, M. B. (2015). Threshold concepts and the
semantic web. In Emerging Web 3.0/Semantic Web Applications in Higher
Education: Growing Personalization and Wider Interconnections in Learning,
159.
Carmichael, P., & Tscholl, M. (2013). Cases, simulacra, and Semantic Web
technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 31-42.
Chisega-Negrila, A. M. (2016). Impact Of Web 3.0 on The Evolution Of Learning. In
Conference proceedings of» eLearning and Software for Education «(eLSE)
(No. 01, pp. 58-62).” Carol I” National Defence University Publishing House.
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and
Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6), 1–30.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
65
Dick, W., & Dick, W. D. (1989). Analytical and empirical comparisons of the Journal
of Instructional Development and Educational Communication and Technology
Journal. Educational Technology Research and Development, 81-87.
Dominic, M., Francis, S., & Pilomenraj, A. (2014). E-learning in web 3.0.
International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 6(2), 8.
Fırat, E. A., & Firat, S. (2020). Web 3.0 in learning environments: A systematic
review. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 148-169.
Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2016). Systematic reviews of research in education: Aims,
myths and multiple methods. Review of Education, 4(1), 84-102.
Greener, S. (2015). The impact of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 on academic roles in higher
education. In Artificial Intelligence Technologies and the Evolution of Web 3.0
(pp. 1-15). IGI Global.
Gyamfi, N. K.(2014). Security challenges in implementing semantic web-unifying
logic. International Journal of Computer Science and Network, 3(6), 536-544.
Halimi, K., & Seridi-Bouchelaghem, H. (2021). Students’ competencies discovery and
assessment using learning analytics and semantic web. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 37(5), 77-97.
Halimi, K., Seridi-Bouchelaghem, H., & Faron-Zucker, C. (2014). An enhanced
personal learning environment using social semantic web technologies.
Interactive Learning Environments, 22(2), 165-187.
Hsu, I. C. (2012). Intelligent discovery for learning objects using semantic web
technologies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 298-312.
Isotani, S., Mizoguchi, R., Isotani, S., Capeli, O. M., Isotani, N., De Albuquerque, A.
R., Ig. Bittencourt & Jaques, P. (2013). A Semantic Web-based authoring tool
to facilitate the planning of collaborative learning scenarios compliant with
learning theories. Computers & Education, 63, 267-284.
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
66
Hussain, F. (2012). E-Learning 3.0= E-Learning 2.0+ Web 3.0?. International
Association for Development of the Information Society. IADIS International
Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA
2012).
Jensen, J. (2019). A systematic literature review of the use of Semantic Web
technologies in formal education. British Journal of Educational Technology,
50(2), 505-517.
Kapan, K., & Üncel, R. (2020). Gelişen web teknolojilerinin (web 1.0-web 2.0-web
3.0) türkiye turizmine etkisi. Safran Kültür ve Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi,
3(3), 276-289.
Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak
için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik
Dergisi, 6(1), 26-33.
Kitchenham, B. A. (2004). Systematic reviews. In 10th International Symposium on
Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings. (pp. xii-xii). IEEE.
Lee, M. C., Tsai, K. H., & Wang, T. I. (2008). A practical ontology query expansion
algorithm for semantic-aware learning objects retrieval. Computers &
Education, 50(4), 1240-1257.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. sage. Retrived from
https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=U4lU_-
wJ5QEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=Miles+%26+Huberman+(1994)+&ots=kFX
I_MPXWP&sig=Jh26i9AIibDm7ob2MK2b9zdce5g&redir_esc=y#v=onepage
&q=Miles%20%26%20Huberman%20(1994)&f=false
Miranda, P., Isaias, P., & Costa, C. J. (2014). E-Learning and web generations:
Towards Web 3.0 and E-Learning 3.0. International Proceedings of Economics
Development and Research, 81, 92.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
67
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Group P Sistematik
incelemeler ve meta-analizler için tercih edilen raporlama öğeleri: PRISMA
bildirimi. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.
Newman, M. ve Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research:
methodology, perspectives and application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres,
S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, K. ve Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational
research: Methodology, perspectives and application (pp. 3-22). Wiesbaden:
Springer VS.
Odabaşı, H. F., Mısırlı, Ö., Günüç, S., Timar, Z. Ş., Ersoy, M., Seçil, S.,Dönmez, F.İ,
Akçay, T.& Osman, E. (2012). Eğitim için yeni bir ortam: Twitter. Anadolu
Journal of Educational Sciences International, 2(1).
Park, S. W. (2013). The potential of web 2.0 tools to promote reading engagement in
a general education course. TechTrends, 57(2), 46-53.
Parsa, A. F. (2009). Dijital Yerlilerle Web 2.0 Önde. Habertürk Gazetesi, 3.
Presti C. A., Nicolosi M. A. (2012), Semantic Web and evaluation of learning, Journal
of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 8(2), 143-148. ISSN: 1826-6223, e-
ISSN:1971-8829.
PRISMA (2020). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Retrived from http://www.prisma-statement.org/. On 20.04.2022.
Rajiv & Lal, M. (2011). Web 3.0 in Education & Research. BVICAM’s International
Journal of Information Technology, 3.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis.
Educational technology research and development, 52(1), 5-18.
Siadaty, M., Gašević, D., Jovanović, J., Pata, K., Milikić, N., Holocher-Ertl, T.,
Jeremić, Z., Ali, L., Giljanović, A. & Hatala, M.(2012). Self-regulated
workplace learning: A pedagogical framework and semantic web-based
environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 75-88.
Using Web 3.0 in Education: A Systematic Review
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
68
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved
from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm. on 20.05.2022.
Smith, M. K. (1999-2020). ‘Learning theory’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and
informal education. Retrived from https://infed.org/mobi/learning-theory-
models-product-and-process/. Access: 15.05.2022.
Thomas, D. A., and Li, Q. (2008). From Web 2.0 to teacher 2.0. Computers in the
Schools, 25(3-4), 199- 210.
Vera, M. S., Fernández, J. T., Sánchez, J. S., & Espinosa, M. P. (2013). Practical
experiences for the development of educational sys-tems in the semantic web.
Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 2(1).
Wadhwa, D. (2015). A study of web 3.0 technologies for collaborative learning.
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied
Sciences, 3, 92-97.
Wu, L., Liu, Q., Zhou, W., Mao, G., Huang, J., & Huang, H. (2020). A semantic web-
based recommendation framework of educational resources in E-learning.
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(4), 811-833.
Yağcı Y. (2009), Web Teknolojisinde Yeni Bilgi Fırtınası: Web 3.0. ÜNAK Bilgi
Çağında Varoluş: “Fırsatlar ve Tehditler” Sempozyumu, İstanbul: Yeditepe
Üniversitesi Bildiriler Kitabı.
Yılmaz, K. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde ve eğitim bilimlerinde sistematik derleme, meta
değerlendirme ve bibliyometrik analizler. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar
Dergisi, 10(2), 1457-1490.
Yükseltürk, E., ve Top, E., (2020). Web 2.0 Teknolojilerinin Öğretmen Eğitiminde
Kullanımı. (Editörler: Göktaş, Y. ve Çağıltay, K.), Öğretim Teknolojilerinin
Temelleri, Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sevim Aydın, Emel Duran, & Şehnaz Baltacı
69
About Authors
Sevim Pilavcı is the Director of Information Technologies at Mudanya University.
She is a PhD student at Bursa Uludağ University, Department of Computer Education
and Instructional Technology. Her field of study is the formation of student-centered
instructional designs, teaching practices, techniques, methods.
E-mail: drsevimaydin@gmail.com
Emel Duman is a PhD student at the Department of Computer Education and
Instructional Technologies (CEIT) at the Faculty of Education, Bursa Uludag
University. She has studies on instructional technologies, adult education, and
cyberbullying.
E-mail: emelozduman@gmail.com
Prof. Dr. Sehnaz Baltaci is at the Department of Computer Education and
Instructional Technologies (CEIT) at Faculty of Education, Bursa Uludag University
with expertise in e-learning, teacher education, and integration of online technologies
in teacher education. She received her PhD at Instructional Technology from SUNY,
Albany, NY. She took part as coordinator or researcher in many European Union and
TUBITAK projects in the fields of technology integration and teacher education. She
has conducted a series of studies dealing with e-learning, Web 2.0, Web 3.0,
metaverse, entrepreneurship, and teacher education that were presented in
international conferences and published in different journals. She is also the Marmara
Region Coordinator of EPALE (the ePlatform for Adult Learning in Europe) since
2018, and Bursa Regional Coordinator of TUBITAK (The Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey) Research Project Competition since 2016.
E-mail: sehnazbg@uludag.edu.tr
Chapter 4
This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Ayşegül Derman
70
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of
Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
Necmettin Erbakan University, Türkiye
To Cite This Chapter
Derman, A. (2022). Pedagogical Assumptions behind the use of animations in chemistry
lessons. In M. T. Hebebci, & O. Yılmaz (Eds.), Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
(pp. 70-85). ISRES Publishing
Introduction
Students’ struggle with learning concepts in chemistry has long been known by
chemistry educators (Adadan, Trundle & Irving, 2010; Derman & Eilks, 2016; Derman
& Ebenezer, 2020). Some explanations as to why this may be the case include:
a) Some concepts of chemistry are abstract concepts that learners do not
encounter in their daily lives (Taber, 2008; Taber & Coll, 2002),
b) In order to solve problems of chemistry, students need to work with many
different concepts and data simultaneously (Johnstone, 2010; Plass, Moreno &
Bruenken, 2010),
c) Success in chemistry requires thinking and making conversions between
macroscopic, particulate (also called microscopic, molecular or
submicroscopic) and symbolic level representations (Adadan, 2013; Gabel,
1994; Johnstone, 2006; Johnstone, 2010; Derman & Ebenezer, 2020),
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
71
d) students studying chemistry tend to come to class with previous knowledge
that go against scientifically accepted theories, which can hinder learning
(Adadan, Trundle & Irving, 2010; Derman & Ebenezer, 2020; Taber, 2002).
Therefore, in order to provide better understanding of the chemistry concepts for
students, reaching strategies must be developed and assessed accordingly. Indeed,
studies have been conducted on computer aided instruction, born out of the desire felt
by teachers use a chemistry module on polymer as they believed its three-dimensional,
animated molecular models can explain polymerization and stretching processes more
easily (Dori & Barnea, 1997). Furthermore, thanks to computer models, students are
able to link their submicroscopic explanations of chemical systems with their
macroscopic observations. Through visualisation of submicroscopic processes in
chemistry it is possible for students to construct a meaningful understanding of
chemical knowledge (White, 1988) such as “strings” (symbols and equations),
“propositions” (relationships among concepts), and “logicomathematical
understanding” (mathematical problem solving—e.g., working out solution
concentration problems). Therefore, chemistry courses can be improved through the
application of appropriate teaching strategies that incorporate computer technology
(Ebenezer, 2001, p. 74). It is more common to make use of visualisations in secondary
and post-secondary chemistry classrooms as here it is possible to provide students with
greater access to the central concern of chemistry, namely structure and reactivity
(Ebenezer, 2001).
Thanks to the modern-day improvements provided by new educational technologies,
it becomes possible for educators to provide students with access to visual
representations of atomic structures, molecular interactions, and large datasets, which
can be used to aid chemistry learning. Nowadays, it is commonplace to see physical
and chemical processes demonstrated through “molecular experiments” used by
students and teachers at all levels of education using a wide range of visualizations. It
is easy to see the advantage of such tools in order to advance the learning of chemistry:
by using these tools that demonstrate visual representations of the phenomena of study
that is invisible to the eye, students can develop a richer and deeper understanding of
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
72
chemistry concepts. In chemistry education and research community, there are
currently two approaches to the design and study of visualizations as part of two major
theoretical frameworks. Although these frameworks have a lot of common ground,
they are different in kind. First, the aforementioned studies indicate that students have
difficulty connecting submicroscopic explanations of chemical systems with their
macroscopic observations in addition to finding it challenging to work in both these
levels simultaneously and comfortably (Ebenezer, 2001, p. 74).
Many designers considered these difficulties as the central obstacle for learning
chemistry, and have come up with new visualizations that present multiple levels at
the same time (Adams et al., 2008). This framework puts forward that visualizations
are effective because they lift the burden on the student to determine the relationship
between different levels. Secondly, researchers of chemistry education state that what
makes chemistry is difficult to learn is the challenge students face in coordinating the
meaning of multiple representations (Kozma & Russell, 1997; Russell et al., 1997).
Students find it difficult to understand the relationship between symbolic
representations, such as empirical formulas and structural diagrams, as multiple
representations can be used to refer to the same submicroscopic entities.
The application of these two frameworks has provided important insights into how
chemistry visualisations can be designed; however, both of these frameworks falls
short in their power to explain how and why visualizations can be used more
commonly to encourage chemistry learning across the curriculum. For visualizations
to take full effect in the classroom, what is needed is a more comprehensive
explanation of their role.
Stieff and Ryan (2013) used three theoretical frameworks founded on cognitive
learning theories to explore how molecular visualizations can make a connection with
how students learn to the design of dynamic visualizations with the aim of stirring the
discussion on the role of visualizations and the design of research programs that look
into their efficacy. This innovative look on the theory-research-practice triad explores
the ways that; (i) the potential of visualizations in supporting how domain concepts
are retained in memory according to the tripartite model of working memory
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
73
(Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Baddeley, 1992). In this model proposed by Baddeley and
Hitch’s, a multi-component model of working memory is emphasized that includes
specific mental structures that process mental representations corresponded by each of
the senses (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptualization of Baddeley and Hitch’s tripartite model of working
memory (Stieff & Ryan, 2013, p. 25)
Chemistry education research paradigms are encouraged by the tripartite model of
working memory which narrowly look into the ways in which students perceive,
encode, and recall the various representations that chemistry visualizations use. In the
tripartite model of working memory there are also multiple implications for the design
of animations and simulations in the field. First of all, the model claims that through
visualizations a primary challenge faced by students in learning chemistry can be
overcome. Many of concepts and processes taught in chemistry do not have an
equivalence in real life that have visual representations.
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
74
When students are expected to learn an idea as simple as an “atom,” this idea is solely
represented in the auditory loop as a mere word and its corresponding definition.
Hence, thanks to visual representations of atoms provided by animations or
simulations, students are provided with a concrete representation that can be encoded
in visual working memory. In the same vein, visual representations of quantitative
relationships are equally likely to improve retention and recall through visualisation.
The model welcomes questions that seek an answer to which representations are most
effective, which of them are (in) effectively paired, or how students encode molecular
representations.
ii. The potential of visualizations embedded in lessons using the contemporary
“knowledge-in-pieces” model of conceptual change to promote understanding of
concepts (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; diSessa, 1988). Despite the narrow
predictions of information processing models about retention and recall, they don’t
offer much about the quality of conceptual understanding or complex problem solving.
On the contrary, the focus of conceptual change models consists of the knowledge
structures developed by the learners from their experiences be it in formal learning
contexts or everyday life (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). From this
perspective, conceptual change models are more agnostic about the structure of the
mind and refrain from strong statements about the location of information in memory
or the processes that are a part of retention and recall. What conceptual change models
have in common is the focus on the processes through which students take in
information to make sense of the world coherently (Carey, 1986). Hence, in conceptual
change models, analyses provided not only supplement, but also extend those of
information processing models in order to account for a student’s knowledge before
and after instruction.
Today, the validity of multiple competing models of conceptual change is actively
debated by cognitive and learning scientists whose arguments differ to a great extent
in terms of their underlying assumptions about the nature of knowledge and the
processes involved in conceptual change. According to Stieff and Ryan’s (2013)
opinion, the three models taka centre stage in this debate are: models that focus on
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
75
mental model revision (Gentner et al., 1997; Gentner & Gentner, 1983), models that
focus on ontological recategorization (Chi, 2005; 2008) and the “knowledge-in-
pieces” model (Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1994; diSessa, 1988). Despite the
contrasting predictions about the efficacy of various interventions for promoting
conceptual change offered by these models, all three agree that conceptual change is
more complex than simple belief revision. In other words, while each model posits that
conceptual change necessarily involves replacing one’s false ideas with scientifically
correct models, they each also assert that belief revision alone is not adequate to make
sense of the failure of students to comprehend scientific concepts after years of
education, or the emergence of difficulties that arise while learning.
According to Stieff and Ryan (2013), each of these models can offer useful
explanations for the efficacy of visualizations in addition to clear-cut design principles;
however, they argue that the “knowledge-in-pieces” model (KiP model) offers the
most utility in terms of chemistry education researchers who study the development of
new animations and simulations at multiple levels of instruction. Unlike information
processing models, the KiP model gives no inherent value to the visualization itself;
rather, the model posits that visualizations are beneficial depending on how they are
used to aid students in putting their current understanding within the framework of
scientifically accepted ideas. Therefore, if visualizations are designed with the sole
purpose of “showing” molecular interactions, it is unlikely that they will lead to any
conceptual change in the long run. However, when students are asked to systematically
compare their observations from a visualization with their prior understanding, then
conceptual change is achieved in learning contexts. Furthermore, it must be recognised
that in such environments conceptual change is not likely to occur after a single
exposure to a visualization.
Due to the nature of conceptual change as a gradual process, students require repetitive
exposure opportunities to explore a visualization any useful conceptual change can be
achieved. If sufficient time is not given for the understanding to be revised in due time,
students’ accurate understanding can be displayed only briefly after demonstration
(DiSessa, 1993; Smith, DiSessa & Roschelle, 1993). According to the knowledge-in-
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
76
pieces model, students’ prior knowledge is accepted to be a productive resource rather
than an obstacle to be eliminated or ignored (DiSessa, 1993; DiSessa & Sherin, 1998;
Smith, DiSessa & Roschelle, 1993). Hence, it is imperative that new research agendas
with visualizations characterize the quality of students’ conceptual understanding not
only before and after instruction, but during instruction as well. (iii.) the potential of
visualizations for supporting social interactions in chemistry through the use of one
model of social cognitive learning (Bandura, 1976; Bandura, 1986). Visualizations can
promote student interaction with one another. Vygotsky’s Theory of Social
Development (Vygotsky, 1978; 1986), Lave’s Situated Learning Theory (Lave &
Wenger, 2003), and Bandura’s Social Cognitive Learning Theory (Bandura, 1976;
Bandura, 1986) are among the most common theories employed in the cognitive and
learning sciences community today.
Each theory focuses on different aspects of the social environment and offers
convergent perspectives on human learning and development. Collectively, in social
learning theories, learning is studied as a process occuring between teachers and
students as well as among individuals. Thus, in each theory, the focus is on the active
role of social agents and learning is framed as a process rather than an outcome.
According to Stieff and Ryan (2013), Bandura’s (1976) Social Cognitive Learning
Theory offers a more precise model of to explain the role social agents in human
learning and offers a clearer bridge to conceptual change and information processing
models of learning. Building on previous cognitivist perspectives, social Cognitive
Learning Theory offers a model of learning that examines how learning takes place
within a social context. Thus, social cognitive learning theory does not downplay the
analysis of mental representations: the theory attempts to explain the active role played
by social factors to help an individual learner to build mental representations during
the process of learning. For that purpose, social cognitive learning theory differs from
other social earning theories in how it directly addresses the role of motivation and
human agency in learning.
Consequently, the theory provides a basis for research on visualizations and offers
design principles for curricular structure and pedagogical methods. According to social
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
77
cognitive learning theory, when research agendas focus on how students learn with
visualizations together and how they learn from teachers who model their thinking
using visualizations. It is emphasized in social cognitive learning theory that social
interactions in the classroom and broader societal and cultural factors play an
important role. These studies involve examining changes in individual learning which
occur as a result of social factors or the quality of social processes in classrooms where
visualizations are employed. Thus, the way visualisations encourage meaningful social
interactions and the way teachers can make use of them to model their thinking
effectively as well as the way visualisations can be used to promote self-efficacy and
agency can be studied through these research paradigms
As a result of the application of social cognitive learning theory to chemistry
visualizations, two clear design principles emerge. First, the theory suggests that
visualizations should be used in ways that encourage interaction among students and
teachers, which can enable teachers and peers to use the visualization as a resource to
model their thinking and help students learn through observation of others (as opposed
to working with a visualization in isolation). As such, the visualization considered a
resource that the teachers can use to improve their thinking. Second, a high degree of
control should be offered to students in visualizations. In this way, students can
perceive the control they have of their learning, which as a result will promote self-
efficacy and agency. It is possible that students regard visualizations as environments
that offer little control in which they have no impact on the progress of their own
learning. Thus, it is advised that molecular visualizations should be designed that focus
on the ‘heart of chemistry’, which is the relationship between chemical structures and
reactivity at the molecular level. Through the exploration of this relationship, students
are able to ‘see’ representations of unseen phenomena.
Some of the issues that have a negative impact on students’ abilities to learn chemistry
concepts include chemical theories and chemical education theories. Nevertheless,
some of these other issues are actually related to psychology or cognitive learning
theories as well as theories on the optimal design and usage of multimedia programs
(Schönborn, Höst & Lundin Palmerius, 2010). Therefore, these and other chemical,
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
78
chemical education, psychology/cognitive, and multimedia theories should be
considered (Suits & Sanger, 2013, p.2).
Molecular-Level Animations
Wikipedia (“animation”, 2022) defines animation as “the rapid display of a sequence
of static images and/or objects to create an illusion of movement.” The visualizations
that display a scripted sequence of events for passive viewing constitute animations
(Oakes &Rengarajan, 2002). Using these visualizations, students are usually able to
set an initial set of conditions and restrict the displayed information, thereby
highlighting only those features most relevant to the represented concept (Stieff &
Ryan, 2013, p.18).
Animations have the potential to promote a deep understanding of chemistry (Rieber,
2005), by allowing retention of not only facts and concepts, but also an appreciation
of the processes and practices of science-making. Dynamic representations can change
the texture as well as the outcome of classroom interactions by making it possible for
students to see what they cannot normally see, manipulating variables and observing
the results of their activity, and collaborating with others to negotiate meaning and
reach conclusions. However, there are involves a number of critical design decisions
involved in developing or choosing these resources—as well as integrating them into
the chemistry curriculum—(Schwartz, Milne, Homer & Plass, 2013, p.70).
Animations of system behavior may be used to aid learners to interpret simultaneous
changes in variables by showing an underlying computational model (van der Meij &
de Jong, 2006), and embedded signalling or guidance can scaffold the learner’s
successful use of a multimedia resource by directing attention to relevant points (de
Jong, 2005; Plass, Homer & Hayward, 2009). Using animations can prove to be an
effective tool in directing students’ focus on a specific aspect of a phenomenon at the
submicroscopic level, such as the process of dissolution (Tasker, Bucat, Sleet, & Chia,
1996). Animations are representations that involve change over time (Tversky,
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
79
Morrison, & Betrancourt, 2002), created through the generation of a series of images
or frames (Betrancourt & Tversky, 2000).
In the context of science education, an animation can be used to paint a picture of a
process or phenomenon in real time, slow motion, or visualized from different points
of view; while it may also show abstract information such as a change in pressure or
the relationship between two variables (Hegarty, 2004). Using scaffolding, such as
visual cues, to draw the viewer’s attention to specific features, and incorporating
interactivity, allowing the user to stop, start, or repeat portions of the presentation can
constitute examples of animations. (Schwartz, Milne, Homer & Plass, 2013, p. 47).
Computer animations that are used to demonstrate chemical processes at the molecular
level have been subjects of study for almost two decades (Williamson & Abraham,
1995; Sanger & Greenbowe, 2000; Tasker & Dalton, 2006), and it has been shown that
they have a potential to improve students’ conceptual particulate-level understanding
of chemistry (Sanger, 2009).
Computer animations are generally divided into two categories (Rieber, 2005):
Presentation animations (which are used to present new information or to elaborate on
information presented earlier) or conceptualization animations. In most visualizations
(Williamson, 2011) that are designed for chemistry instruction, depictions are used of
atoms, molecules, and/or ions and their interactions (the particulate representation),
either as static images or as dynamic visuals with both animations (Sanger, 2009) and
simulations (Tasker, 2005). The benefit of particulate visualizations (static or
dynamic) in the chemistry education is the possibility to provide students with a view
of the behaviours and interactions between the chemical particles, which are often
abstract and challenging for students to generate by themselves. Therefore, thanks to
these visuals, the abstract interaction of atoms, molecules, and ions become more
concrete (Sanger, 2009), and the cognitive load on the student is reduced (Johnstone,
2006, Tasker, 2005, Tasker & Dalton, 2006; Kelly & Jones, 2007). Furthermore, these
visuals, combined with effective instruction, can help students make connections
between the macroscopic, particulate, and symbolic representations (Kelly & Jones,
2007; Kelly, Phelps & Sanger, 2004; Sanger, 2009; Williamson, 2011), as a result of
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
80
which they can grasp more scientific conceptions (Tasker, 2005; Sanger, 2009;
Williamson, 2011).
Depiction of dynamic visuals can be especially helpful for chemistry students as for
most chemistry concepts students need to understand how the chemical systems
change over time (e.g., reactants vs. products, before-and-after gas law experiments,
equilibrium reactions, etc.). Rieber (2005) indicated that while dynamic computer
animations were generally useful to students studying science, they can actually be
distracting if the lesson does not involve visualization, motion, or trajectory.
Animations can be considered student-centered forms of instruction (Sanger, 2009;
Williamson, 2011), which can support student learning as they develop a conceptual
understanding of chemistry topics. While molecular-level animations have been
shown to provide a deeper learning for students in chemistry, these animations can
also misfire, causing new student alternative conceptions that were not present before
viewing these animations (Kelly & Jones, 2007; Sanger, 2009; Tasker & Dalton, 2006)
and can prove distracting to students if the concepts that they focus on are not visual
in nature (Sanger & Greenbowe, 2000).
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
81
References
Adadan, E. (2013). Using multiple representations to promote grade 11 students’
scientific understanding of the particle theory of matter. Research in Science
Education, 43(3), 1079-1105.
Adadan, E., Trundle, K. C., & Irving, K. E. (2010). Exploring grade 11 students'
conceptual pathways of the particulate nature of matter in the context of
multirepresentational instruction. Journal of research in science teaching, 47(8),
1004-1035.
Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S., Perkins, K., Dubson, M., &
Wieman, C. E. (2008). A study of educational simulations Part II–Interface
Design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 551-577.
Animation (2022, 15 July). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animation
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Psychology of learning and
motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). Academic Press: New York.
Bandura, A. (1976). Social learning theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action; Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bétrancourt, M., & Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users'
performance: a review/(Effet de l'animation sur les performances des
utilisateurs: une sythèse). Le travail humain, 63(4), 311.
Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American
psychologist, 41(10), 1123.
Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some
misconceptions are robust. The journal of the learning sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
82
Derman, A., & Ebenezer, J. (2020). The effect of multiple representations of physical
and chemical changes on the development of primary pre-service teachers
cognitive structures. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1575-1601.
Derman, A., & Eilks, I. (2016). Using a word association test for the assessment of
high school students' cognitive structures on dissolution. Chemistry Education
Research and Practice, 17(4), 902-913.
DiSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. G. Forman & P.B.Pufall (Ed.),
Constructivism in the computer age (pp 49−79). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates,
Inc.: Hillsdale, NJ.
DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and
instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225.
DiSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual
change?. International journal of science education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
Ebenezer, J. V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students'
conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 10(1), 73-92.
Gabel, D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education
research: A look to the future. Journal of Chemical education, 76(4), 548.
Gabel, D. L. (1994). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning.
MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.
Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult
questions. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 343-351.
Johnstone, A. H. (2006). Chemical education research in Glasgow in
perspective. Chemistry education research and practice, 7(2), 49-63.
Johnstone, A. H. (2010). You can’t get there from here. Journal of chemical
education, 87(1), 22-29.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
83
Kelly, R. M., Phelps, A. J., & Sanger, M. J. (2004). The effects of a computer
animation on students’ conceptual understanding of a can-crushing
demonstration at the macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic levels. Chemical
Educator, 9(3), 184-189.
Kozma, R.B. & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and
novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal
of Research in ScienceTeaching, 34, 949 – 968.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (2003). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally
effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 21(1), 31-61.
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory.
Cambridge University Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Toward a theory
of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.
Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. RE
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (549-
567).Cambridge University Press.
Russel, J.W., Kozma, R.B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997).
Use of simultaneous, synchronized macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic
representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts.
Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 330 – 334.
Schönborn, K. J., Höst, G. E., & Lundin Palmerius, K. (2010). Visualizing the
Positive− Negative Interface of Molecular Electrostatic Potentials as an
Educational Tool for Assigning Chemical Polarity. Journal of chemical
education, 87(12), 1342-1343.
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
84
Schwartz, R. N., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., & Plass, J. L. (2013). Designing and
implementing effective animations and simulations for chemistry learning. In
Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in chemistry courses (pp. 43-76).
American Chemical Society.
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions Reconceived: A
Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 3(2), 115-163. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
Stieff, M., & Ryan, S. (2013). Explanatory models for the research & development of
chemistry visualizations. In Pedagogic roles of animations and simulations in
chemistry courses (pp. 15-41). American Chemical Society.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience
and grain‐size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of
Science Education, 30(8), 1027-1053.
Taber, K. S., & Coll, R. K. (2002). Bonding. In Chemical education: Towards
research-based practice (pp. 213-234). Springer, Dordrecht.
Tasker, R. (2005). Using multimedia to visualize the molecular world: educational
theory into practice. N J Pienta, M M Cooper & T J Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists'
Guide to Effective Teaching (pp 195–211). Prentice Hall.
Tasker, R. F., Chia, W., Bucat, R. B., & Sleet, R. (1996). The VisChem Project-
visualising chemistry with multimedia. Chemistry In New Zealand, 60, 42-45.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it
facilitate?. International journal of human-computer studies, 57(4), 247-262.
Van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple
representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning
and instruction, 16(3), 199-212.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Ayşegül Derman
85
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Williamson, V. M. (2011). Teaching chemistry with visualizations: What's the
research evidence?. In Investigating classroom myths through research on
teaching and learning (pp. 65-81). American Chemical Society.
Pedagogical Assumptions Behind The Use of Animations in Chemistry Lessons
Ayşegül Derman
86
About Authors
Ayşegül Derman has a Ph.D. degree in chemistry teaching. Currently, she is an
associate professor at Necmettin Erbakan University. Her study fields are science
education, chemistry teaching, environmental education, teacher training and learning.
E-mail: aderman1977@gmail.com
Chapter 5
This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
87
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci
Necmettin Erbakan University, Türkiye
Oğuz Yılmaz
Necmettin Erbakan University, Türkiye
To Cite This Chapter
Hebebci, M. T., & Yılmaz, O. (2022). Online exams: An opportunity or a threat?. In M. T.
Hebebci, & O. Yılmaz (Eds.), Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 (pp. 87-117).
ISRES Publishing
Introduction
Educational institutions benefit from distance education programs to reach more
students and provide equality of opportunity among learners. There are important
initiatives in this context on a global and national scale (Coursera, Khan Academy,
edX, & Udacity, etc.). The number of these initiatives and contents is increasing day
by day (Galante, 2002). At first, distance education was considered an alternative or
supporting factor to traditional education (face-to-face education) (Wang, 2008).
However, today, especially with the development of software and network
technologies, distance education has become much more than a supporter and
alternative to traditional education (Allen & Seaman, 2008).
At present, universities, schools, certificate programs, and courses conduct education
and training programs only through distance education. Berkeley University, Udemy,
Coursera, Khan Academy, Harvard University, and Udacity are some of these
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
88
institutions and platforms worldwide. For example, thanks to Coursera, learners could
attend the courses given by faculty members working in the world’s leading
universities worldwide without paying a higher education fee. Participation documents
and certificates can be obtained if the necessary conditions are met. edX, another
similar initiative, offers the opportunity to take courses from the world’s leading
universities, such as Harvard University, Georgetown University, and the University
of Chicago. Udacity, on the other hand, offers a nanodegree program for individuals
who want to specialize in talent or pursue a full-time career. Another similar initiative
is Udemy, which is also widely used. Udemy is a massive open online course founded
in 2010, featuring adult and student-oriented courses by expert instructors. As of July
2022, there are 75 different languages, 54 million learners, over 70 thousand
instructors, more than 200 thousand courses, and 740 million course enrollments
(Udemy, 2022).
Discussions on education continue intensely with regard to distance education.
Moreover, the most discussed topics are how exams will be conducted, how to provide
feedback to students, how to ensure exam security, and how to ensure a fair and
transparent evaluation. As a matter of fact, the contribution of unattended online exams
to overall success is low, cases of cheating are higher, and they are not effective enough
(Anderson et al., 2005; Bozkurt & Uçar, 2018).
This study evaluates online exams from a general perspective. The traditional literature
review was adopted as the research method in this direction. The information, which
is disorganized in traditional literature reviews, is handled as a whole, and a link is
established between the topics discussed to create a synthesis in the end (Baumeister
& Leary, 1997).
Distance Education
Distance education is continuously increasing its impact on education and training
environments. This has caused traditional education applications to be replaced by
technology-based online applications (Galante, 2002). Distance education is a form of
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
89
learning that is structured independently of the time and place of students, instructors,
and curriculum and is structured with a systematic approach (Gunawardena &
McIsaac, 2013). In another definition, it is the whole of formal education in which the
learner and instructor are in different physical environments, bringing together the
learner and instructor with information and communication technologies on a common
platform (Simonson et al., 2003). In other words, it can be defined as a learning process
in which students benefit and stay away from the learning source regardless of the time
and place and where the interaction is carried out with remote and online systems
(Özkul & Aydın, 2016).
Distance education is structured learning where students and instructors are separated
by place and sometimes by time. It can also be defined as the fastest-growing form of
education today. The concept, which was once considered a special form of education
using non-traditional education systems, is now becoming an important concept at the
center of education. Concepts such as networked learning, connective learning areas,
flexible learning, and hybrid learning systems have expanded the scope and changed
previous distance education models. Courses developed in the web environment are
now regarded as traditional programs that have become a competition for those who
want to attend any training with the perspective of “anytime, anywhere”
(Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2013).
In the literature, the concept of distance education also appears as distance learning, e-
learning, and virtual learning. Simonson et al. (2003) emphasize four basic elements
in distance education, which are as follows:
1. Distance education is a formal education conducted by an institution.
2. Instructors and learners are separated from each other in terms of space or time,
or both time and place.
3. Education is carried out synchronously and asynchronously using information
and communication technologies.
4. Learning Management Systems (LMS) are used.
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
90
History of Distance Education
The distance education process, which started with stenography courses by sending
letters in the USA, continues to be carried out and developed with virtual classes on
the internet and web today (NEA, 2000). In Figure 1, the periods and stages of distance
education are shown. In the literature, there are other researchers who evaluate these
phases and periods differently (Casey, 2008, Moore & Kearsley, 2011).
Figure 1. Periods, phases, and variations in distance education (Bozkurt, 2016)
Currently, distance education, which is carried out based on information and
communication technologies, has taken a completely different form from its earlier
form in the 1990s. One of the most important developments in this regard is
synchronous virtual classrooms. Virtual classrooms are environments where
instructors and students, who are physically separated, teach their lessons
synchronously. Applications such as Adobe Connect, Microsoft Teams, Big Blue
Button, and Zoom are the most preferred software with virtual classroom support
today. Through such software, courses are taught synchronously, and when necessary,
Period
Phase
Variation
Period 1
By Writing
1720
By Letter
Period 2
With Audio-Visual Tools
1925
Radio and TV
1970
Open
University
1980
Teleconference
Period 3
Informatics-
Based
1990-...
İnternet-Web
Teaching Centered Learning Centered
Distance Education Open and Distance Learning
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
91
permissions and arrangements are made, asynchronous use of the course is provided.
Many operations (right to speak to students, file sharing, etc.) done in traditional
classrooms can also be done in virtual classrooms (McBrien et al., 2009; Schullo et
al., 2007).
The worldwide interest and spread of distance education, which is greatly affected by
the rapid development of technology, is theoretically attributed to five reasons
(Cavanaugh, 2001; Oblinger, 2000), which are listed as follows:
1. Extending access
2. Providing students with flexibility
3. Reducing costs
4. Reaching different markets
5. Appearing in the form of adapting new technologies and methods
Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning
Distance education consists of two learning models: synchronous and asynchronous
(Midkiff & DaSilva, 2000). Synchronous distance education is the participation of
instructors and students in educational activities from different places simultaneously.
In this model, there is a mutual interaction. Training occurs live. In asynchronous
distance education, instructors and students participate in educational activities both
in different places and in different time periods. In this model, students can benefit
from teaching materials whenever they want. A basic comparison of the synchronous
and asynchronous models was made in Figure 2 (Margaret, 2022).
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
92
Figure 2. Asynchronous vs. Synchronous Learning
Effective implementation of synchronous and asynchronous training is directly related
to when, why, and how to use it. Planning complementary face-to-face meetings
together with synchronous methods (video conference, message, etc.) in discussing
complex issues could contribute to the effective execution of educational activities.
However, the asynchronous model is more effective for discussing complex issues that
require time. Virtual environments such as email, discussion boards, and blogs can be
used in such cases. Table 1 presents summary information on when, why, and how to
use the synchronous and asynchronous learning model.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
93
Table 1. When, why, and how to Use Asynchronous vs. Synchronous E-Learning
(Hrastinski, 2008)
Asynchronous E-Learning
Synchronous E-Learning
When?
• Reflecting on complex issues
• When synchronous meetings
cannot be scheduled because of
work, family, and other
commitments
• Discussing less complex issues
• Getting acquainted
• Planning tasks
Why?
• Students have more time to
reflect because the sender does
not expect an immediate answer.
• Students become more committed
and motivated because a quick
response is expected.
How?
• Use asynchronous means such as
email, discussion boards, and
blogs
• Use synchronous methods such as
video conferencing, instant
messaging, and chat, and
complement face-to-face
meetings.
Examples
• The students expected to reflect
individually on course topics may
be asked to maintain a blog.
• The students expected to share
reflections regarding course
topics and critically assess their
peers’ ideas may be asked to
participate in online discussions
on a discussion board.
• The students expected to work in
groups may be advised to use
instant messaging as support for
getting to know each other,
exchanging ideas, and planning
tasks.
• A teacher who wants to present
concepts from the literature in a
simplified way might give an
online lecture via video
conferencing.
Blended Learning
Recently, the blended learning model has been widely used besides the synchronous
and asynchronous learning models. Blended learning is an approach used to combine
the strengths of face-to-face and online learning to develop the knowledge and
communication skills necessary for success (Lindquist, 2006). This type of learning
aims to increase the quality of education by combining traditional education with
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
94
technology (Harriman, 2004). A schematic version of blended learning is presented in
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Blended Learning (Kolinski, 2022)
One of the important advantages of distance education is that it offers an adaptable
learning environment. In this respect, it is important to consider individual differences
regarding learning in distance education and offer learning options that can address
individuals’ learning styles. Distance education, in which adaptations are made to meet
the individual learning needs of each user in line with information such as the
individuals’ preferences, prior knowledge, attitudes, and skills, is also crucial in terms
of assessment and evaluation (İnan et al., 2016).
Component of Distance Education
It is seen that distance education is investigated from different perspectives in terms of
components. One of the previous studies was conducted by Demir (2014). According
to the researcher, distance education consists of four components. Figure 4 shows the
basic components.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
95
Figure 4. Components of distance education (Demir, 2014)
Assessment and evaluation are also important in distance education, as in traditional
face-to-face education, in planning, directing, and measuring the success of education
(Demir, 2014). In the context of distance education, assessment and evaluation tools
offer more alternatives than traditional assessment tools (Demir, 2014; Simonson et
al., 2003). Besides, the fact that instructors and students are in different environments
in online exams has brought about reliability and validity discussions (Gül & Doğan,
2011; Karahocagil et al., 2021).
Assessment and Evaluation in Distance Education
Technology, which affects every component of education, has also, directly and
indirectly, impacted the assessment and evaluation process. One of the most notable
outputs of this effect is that traditional pen-and-paper assessment and evaluation
activities are easier and less error-prone through online applications (Bayrak &
Yurdugül, 2015). Online assessment and evaluation applications tend to be used
increasingly with the rapid development of computer and mobile technologies and the
increase in internet connection speed (Başol et al., 2017). Many educational
institutions have taken initiatives in this direction on behalf of the sustainability of
education for possible force majeure reasons.
Assessment is at the center of the learning process (Baki & Birgin, 2002). Hence, the
evaluation of education given is as important as the presentation of education and
training in distance education. Here, we come across the concept of assessment and
evaluation in distance education. Assessment and evaluation in distance education are
Components of Distance Education
LMS E-Content Virtual Class Assessment and
Evaluation
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
96
defined as the online evaluation method of educational activities conducted with
distance education (Bozkurt & Tekedere, 2013). Online assessment and evaluation are
not different from traditional assessment. Assessment techniques used in traditional
teaching environments can be easily applied to online assessment environments (Cabı,
2016; Donovan et al., 2007). However, there are some important points to highlight
here. One of the biggest mistakes is transferring the pen-and-paper exams to the online
environment as they are. Online exams should not be evaluated as in traditional
assessment and evaluation tools. Instead, it is important to use assessment tools and
techniques appropriate to their nature.
Assessment and evaluation in distance education are categorized into two groups:
formative and summative, as in face-to-face education. While formative assessment
includes assessment tools such as homework, peer assessment, self-assessment tests,
and exam preparation tests, summative assessment consists of final exams, homework,
or activities that affect the achievement grade (Karadağ, 2014). All these assessment
and evaluation activities are carried out in online environments. These activities offer
quite different alternatives for summative evaluation. Another grouping includes
formal (quizzes, homework, etc.) and informal (Emails that provide feedback, etc.)
evaluation processes (Gunawardena & Lapointe, 2003).
As in all teaching activities, the main function of assessment and evaluation is to bring
learning to better levels and increase the effectiveness of teaching (Şimşek, 2011). For
this reason, it is critical to conduct an assessment and evaluation with techniques and
methods suitable for its purpose. Assessment and evaluation techniques in distance
education are discussed under two headings.
1. Traditional assessment and evaluation techniques
2. Alternative (Complementary) assessment and evaluation techniques
The comparison between traditional and alternative assessment and evaluation
techniques is given in Table 2.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
97
Table 2. Traditional vs. alternative assessment (Bailey, 1998)
Traditional Assessments
Alternative Assessments
One-shot tests
Continuous, longitudinal assessment
Indirect tests
Direct tests
Inauthentic tests
Authentic tests
Individual projects
Group projects
No feedback provided to learners
Feedback provided to the learners
Speeded exams
Untimed exams
Decontextualized test tasks
Contextualized test tasks
Norm-referenced score interpretation
Criterion-referenced score interpretation
Standardized tests
Classroom-based tests
Detailed information on some of the traditional and alternative assessment and
evaluation techniques is given below (Atılgan et al., 2019; Bahar et al., 2015; Kutlu et
al., 2017; MoE, 2007).
Traditional Assessment and Evaluation Techniques
• Multiple choice questions: They consist of a question sentence and a correct
answer with more than one distractor for the question.
• True or false questions: These are questions in which a statement is true or
false according to the available information.
• Matching questions: These are the questions that include a list of instructions,
a list of statements, and a list of answers to be connected to the statements for
matching, and the statements and answers are asked to be matched with each
other in accordance with the instructions.
• Fill-in-the-blank questions: These are the questions that are asked to write
the short sentences or words that are expected to exist in the given expression
and that are not written in the blank spaces in the expression.
• Short answer questions: These are questions answered with a word, a
sentence, or a symbol.
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
98
• Long-answer questions: These are the questions in which long written
answers are collected regarding the statement given in the form of one or more
sentences.
Alternative (Complementary) Assessment and Evaluation Techniques
• Concept maps: It is a technique based on students’ associating their existing
knowledge with newly learned information, making connections between
information, and expressing them visually.
• Diagnostic branched tree: It is a technique in which another true-false
question form linked to the chosen answer is presented depending on a question
statement given as true-false, and new questions are presented depending on
the answers.
• Word association: It is a technique in which the words evoked by a keyword
presented on a topic within a specified short time are taken as a response.
• Project: A detailed study covering achievements on a presented research topic,
individually or as a group, with broad research content and long-term and
progressive evaluation processes.
• Drama: It is the process of displaying a concept or sentence through
improvisation or play and restructuring the concept in line with the available
information.
• Demonstration: This is a technique based on the students’ practical
presentation and explanation of an event or situation.
• Structured grid: It is a technique based on placing the answers to more than
one question in a table by the instructor, the answers of which are related to
each other, and testing skills such as ordering, linking, associating, and
selecting the answers to the questions from the table.
• Product selection file (portfolio): This is a technique in which different works
carried out by the student on one or more subjects are combined and evaluated
in a purposeful, meaningful, and specific order.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
99
In countries such as Turkiye, assessment and evaluation, which is seen as a
determining part of education rather than being an integral part of it (Özkan & Turan,
2021) and always a controversial subject, has become even more controversial with its
inclusion in distance education (Güvendir & Özkan, 2021). Assessment and evaluation
as an important part of the education process cannot be carried out effectively enough
in distance education (Ocak & Karakuş, 2022). A reason for this situation is the
insufficient level of knowledge about how to perform the online assessment and how
to monitor student performance (James, 2016). To overcome this deficiency, the
determination of learning goals and the determination of criteria to measure them are
the first elements (Robles & Braathen, 2002). Another is distrust of online exams.
Online Exams
Online exams, which are frequently used in distance education activities, are system
components in which learners answer various questions prepared by an instructor on a
platform (generally LMS). They can be taken anywhere and anytime via any
smartphone, tablet, or computer with internet access.
Student achievement in exams is accepted as one of the important indicators of
education quality, which is affected by many factors. One of the most important of
these factors is the exam environment. This is a critical factor for student performance.
(Duart, 2000). The other factor is the assessment method. Brown et al. (1999) state
that the assessment method significantly affects student learning. DeSouza and
Fleming (2003) suggest that students who took an online exam were more successful
than students who took the same exam in print in the classroom, thanks to immediate
assessment and feedback. However, there are different arguments on this topic. Some
studies have indicated that the exam environment has no effect on academic
achievement (Solak et al., 2020; Yağcı et al., 2015).
Online exams have brought some negative effects as well as many positive effects.
One of the most fundamental issues about online exams is exam security (Karahocagil
et al., 2021; Solak et al., 2020). Many researchers suggest that online exams have
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
100
validity and reliability problems, which is a major obstacle to fair evaluation (Güvendir
& Özkan, 2021; Rossiter, 2020). There are also studies in the literature claiming the
opposite (Shraim, 2019). Tümer et al. (2008) consider online exams to be at least as
successful as pen-and-paper face-to-face exams and argues that they not only facilitate
the teaching process but also increase the quality. Shraim (2019) claims that online
exams are more useful on the conditions that necessary precautions should be taken.
The biggest criticism of online exams is that they are suitable for academic
irregularities such as cheating and plagiarism, as the exams are not under any
supervision. There appear to be some studies confirming this concern. As a matter of
fact, Rossiter (2020) revealed that academic irregularities in online exams due to the
COVID-19 epidemic were approximately 40% more than the previous year. Another
study suggested that the probability of cheating in online exams is four times higher
than that in face-to-face exams (Watson & Sottile, 2010). Another criticism is of
authentication. Online exams are found to be insufficient for verifying students’
identifications (Flior & Kowalski, 2010).
Positive Effects of Online Exams
Knowing the positive effects of online exams on students and instructors is among the
important factors in the effective execution of assessment and evaluation. Many
studies have reported the positive effects of online exams (Anderson et al., 2005;
Dommeyer et al., 2004). Zakrzewski and Bull (1998) state that online exams have
three important advantages: time independence, place independence, and instant
feedback. Some of the positive effects of online exams used in the distance education
process for both students and instructors are given below:
1. Cost and time savings (Callı et al., 2003)
2. Archiving and reuse of question banks (Callı et al., 2003)
3. Minimization of assessment errors (Solak et al., 2020)
4. Obtaining objective results (Anderson et al., 2005)
5. Instant announcement of results by administering exams easily (Kuhtman,
2004; Yağcı, 2012)
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
101
6. A rich display of information with the integration of multimedia elements into
exams (Liu et al., 2001; Luecht, 2001)
7. Facilitating the work of the instructors (Dommeyer et al., 2004)
8. The opportunity to always access and apply the exams (Başol et al., 2017)
9. Writing of comprehensive question banks (Natal 1998)
10. Suiting to new teaching approaches (Gül & Doğan 2011)
11. Providing variety and originality for assessment (JISC, 2010)
12. Follow-up of the learning process and correcting the misconceptions thanks to
the instant feedback (Başol et al., 2017)
13. Being supportive of learners with latency and difficulty or incompleteness
(Başol et al., 2017)
Negative Effects of Online Exams
In addition to the positive effects of online exams, the negative effects and
disadvantages should be well studied. Considering the existing disadvantages when
instructors prefer online exams will also prevent potential problems. Some negative
effects and disadvantages of online exams are listed below:
14. It is necessary to have sufficient information technology equipment and
internet infrastructure (Başol et al., 2017; Marriott & Teoh, 2019)
15. For some exams, it takes time to prepare the questions and the question bank
online (Çiğdem & Tan, 2014)
16. Setting up, operating, and managing the online system requires significant
budgets and time (Debuse & Lawley, 2014; Dommeyer et al., 2004; Wirth &
Klieme, 2003)
17. Introducing the online system to users may require additional effort and time
(Debuse & Lawley, 2014)
18. Although various technologies are used to monitor exam takers and prevent
cheating in the online environment, the process of surveillance and exam
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
102
security is very challenging (Duart, 2000; Kumar & Rathi, 2019; Solak et al.,
2020)
19. Momentary malfunctions may occur in the system, the exam process may be
interrupted, and exams may remain incomplete (Marriott & Teoh, 2019)
20. Students had to control non-exam skills such as screen reading, using time, and
preparing an exam environment at home rather than using a pen and paper.
They must deal with the negativities related to the conduct of the exam rather
than the content of the exam (Ocak & Karakuş, 2022).
Figure 5 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of online exams.
Figure 5. Positive and Negative Effects of Online Exams
•Fast implementation and evaluation
•Saving on time
•Multimedia support
•Feedback
•Ability to work with large groups
•Archiving and repeatability
•Creating a question pool
•Student tracking
•Low error rate and objectivity
•Compliance with current teaching
models
•Accessibility
•Evaluation variety
•Independence from time and place
•Advanced resource support
•LMS
•Advanced reporting
•Customization
Positive Effects
•Authentication and security
•Hardware infrastructure requirement
•Requires technology literacy
•Time
•Cost
•Inability to measure every knowledge
and skill
•Non-exam factors
•Technical issues
Negative Effects
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
103
Academic Misconduct (Copying and Cheating)
An issue that educators complain about the most in online exams is academic
misconduct. In the literature, numerous studies have dealt with this concern (Alwi &
Fan, 2010; Özen, 2016) and found the justification for these concerns (Ebaid, 2021;
Hillier, 2014; Lanier, 2006; Rossiter, 2020; Watson & Sottile 2010). To this end, King
and Case (2014) showed that 74% of students believe that cheating in an online exam
is very easy or somewhat easy. Another study showed that students’ ability to access
electronic resources quickly with technology positively affects their attitudes toward
cheating in online environments (Khan & Balasubramanian, 2012). In that study,
37.5% of the students admitted that they cheated in the exams made with paper and
pencil, and in online environments, this rate rose to 78%. Student behaviors that
threaten security in online exams can be listed as follows (Flior & Kowalski, 2010;
Yılmaz et al., 2022):
1. Switching to another browser during the exam
2. Opening another browser simultaneously
3. Using printed sources at the time of the exam
4. Benefitting from other devices along with their devices
5. Other people taking the exams instead of themselves
6. Using fake camera image software
The above-mentioned academic misconduct attracts more attention since instructors
and students are in different environments (Ramu & Arivoli, 2013). As a matter of
fact, cheating and plagiarism, which are described as academic irregularities, are not
new concepts brought about by distance education and online exams. When such
academic irregularities are evaluated more generally, they are undesirable situations
that have existed and will continue to exist in education (Lin & Wen, 2007).
Some measures to be taken could help prevent possible academic misconduct. These
measures can be categorized into two:
1. Measures to be taken with an online exam design
2. Technology-assisted measures
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
104
The online exam design is more important than technology-assisted measures. Such
negativities are less experienced in online exams prepared by instructors effectively
and carefully. In addition to this, screen sharing can be prevented, questions come
sequentially, one entry right, and time restriction can be suggested as other measures
(Guvendir & Özkan, 2021). In addition to multiple-choice test-type evaluations,
alternative evaluations, such as product files, can be included in the process (Robles
& Braathen, 2002). Hence, various performance evaluations, including exams, should
be used to ensure quality in distance education (Pekcan & Toraman, 2022). Such
measures can contribute to the solution of problems that may occur in the process.
Balta and Türel (2013) propose using performance-oriented assessments to prevent
academic misconduct. In this direction, they recommend that the assignments be
designed in stages, not all at once. The gradual requesting of homework and projects
prevents unethical behaviors and ensures that the instructor has a great command of
the assignment. Additionally, this application offers an opportunity for the instructors
to get to know the students. Another similar suggestion is that online exams are not
conducted as a single end-of-term exam (summative assessment) but as a formative
assessment to measure learning throughout the process (Shraim, 2019).
Improving the hardware, software, and technology infrastructure to ensure exam
security in online exams is among the solution suggestions (Al-Shalout et al., 2021).
One of the biggest problems with online exams is that students involve other people in
exams instead of themselves. Kınalıoğlu and Güven (2011) claim that this problem
can be prevented with systems with video, camera, or face recognition. However,
technological measures such as these cannot be used by all institutions due to their
high costs. At this point, open-source software can be used (Proctoring software, etc.).
According to Gunasekaran et al. (2002), online exams should be supervised and face-
to-face to avoid high costs. However, it will not be a practical application in force
majeure situations such as COVID-19 or when it requires learners to be in different
environments. In addition, this approach is not suitable for distance education.
Although studies are conducted in the context of authentication in the literature
(Hylton et al., 2016; Kumar & Rathi, 2019), it does not seem to have widespread use.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
105
A disadvantage of supervised online exams used for authentication is that students
must have the hardware, internet infrastructure, and technology usage skills. However,
rural regions have weaker technological infrastructure than central regions, which
might create victimization for the student and cause inequality of opportunity. Another
problem is that students from lower socioeconomic levels may not have the computer,
smartphone, or even the internet required by the examination system. Additionally, it
is another problem that the possible system or user-related technical problems cannot
be solved instantly. It is of great importance for a smooth assessment and evaluation
that the institutions that decide on video verification in this regard produce alternative
solutions at these points.
Conclusion
Distance education has started to be used widely, especially after the COVID-19
pandemic, which emerged in the world in 2019 and caused a break in face-to-face
education almost worldwide. In this process, assessment and evaluation activities,
which are indispensable components of education, were also affected, and face-to-face
exams began to be held online. During this period, online exams were used
extensively. Although online assessment and evaluation methods, which offer more
alternatives than the assessment and evaluation methods used in face-to-face
education, provide many conveniences and opportunities, such as multidimensional
evaluation and time and space independence in group work, they have also brought
some negativities. Some of the primary disadvantages of online exams include issues
such as hardware, software, and internet infrastructure requirements, the time-
consuming nature of preparing questions, budget and time requirements for managing
and operating online systems, challenges in the prevention of cheating in online exams
exam, the difficulty of ensuring the security of the system, momentary malfunctions
that may occur in the system and interruption of the exam process, are a requirement
of more preparation than face-to-face education.
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
106
The main advantages of online exams, which is one of the online assessment and
evaluation methods, can be summarized as cost and time savings, archiving and
question banks, minimum measurement errors, objective results, easy application, fast
results, use of multimedia elements, and tracking of student achievement. As a result,
efforts to minimize the disadvantages of online exams, which continue to become
widespread, should be continued, and it should be used as an assessment and
evaluation method with a design suitable for the content of education, considering the
advantages it provides.
The increase in the number of scientific research and projects to be carried out in the
context of online assessment and evaluation is of great importance in revealing the
current situation. Finally, it is clearly seen that online exams could be widely used in
the future. For this reason, it is vital that all stakeholders in education prepare
themselves in this direction and adapt to such technologies.
Note
A part of this study was presented at the International Conference on Science and
Education (IConSE), which took place on November 15-18, 2022 in Antalya, Turkey
and published in the abstract book.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
107
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United
States, 2008. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
Al-Shalout, M. I., Rasmi, M., & Hassan, M. A. (2021). Evaluation of E-exam during
Covid-19. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(1), 4604-4612.
Alwi, N. H. M., & Fan, I. S. (2010). E-learning and information security
management. International Journal of Digital Society, 1(2), 148-156.
Anderson, H. M., Cain, J., & Bird, E. (2005). Online course evaluations: Review of
literature and a pilot study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
69(1), 34-43.
Arslan, K., & Yetgin, G. (2020). Çevrimiçi değerlendirme sistemlerinin eğitimde
kullanımı: bir içerik analizi [Use of online assessment in education: A content
analysis]. Turkish Studies, 15(2), 651-671. https://doi.org/10.29228/Turkish
Studies.39646
Atılgan, H., Kan, A., & Aydın, B. (2019). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme
[Assessment and evaluation]. Anı Yayıncılık.
Bahar, M., Nartgün, Z., Durmuş, S., & Bıçak, B. (2015). Geleneksel-tamamlayıcı
ölçme ve değerlendirme teknikleri: Öğretmen el kitabı [Traditional-
complementary assessment and evaluation techniques: A teacher's handbook].
Pegem Akademi.
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: dilemmas, decisions, and
directions. Heinle.
Baki, A., & Birgin, O. (2002, September). Matematik eğitiminde alternatif bir
değerlendirme olarak bireysel gelişim dosyası uygulaması [Individual
development file application as an alternative assessment in mathematics
education] (pp. 913, 920). V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi
Kongresi. 16-18 September. Ankara, Turkey.
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
108
Balta, Y., & Türel, Y. K. (2013). Çevrimiçi uzaktan eğitimde kullanılan farklı ölçme
değerlendirme yaklaşımlarına ilişkin bir inceleme [An examination on various
measurement and evaluation methods used in online distance
education]. Turkish Studies-International Periodical For The Languages,
Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8(3), 37-45.
Başol, G., Ünver, T. K., & Çiğdem, H. (2017). Ölçme değerlendirme dersinde e-sınav
uygulanmasına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri [Student views towards e-test
applications in measurement and evaluation course]. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim
Bilimleri Dergisi, 2017(8), 111-128.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review
of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-
2680.1.3.311
Bayrak, F., & Yurdugül, H. (2015). E-değerlendirme ve e-dönüt [E-assessment and e-
feedback]. In B. Akkoyunlu, A. İşman, & H. F. Odabaşı (Eds.), Eğitim
Teknolojileri Okumaları [Educational Technology Readings] (pp. 449-465).
Ayrıntı Yayıncılık.
Bozkurt, A. (2016). Bağlantıcı kitlesel açık çevrimiçi derslerde etkileşim örüntüleri ve
öğreten öğrenen rollerinin belirlenmesi [Identifying interaction patterns and
teacher-learner roles in connectivist massive open online courses]. [Phd thesis].
Anadolu University
Bozkurt, A., & Tekedere, H. (2013). Etkileşimli çevrimiçi KPSS deneme sınavı
yazılımı [Interactive online KPSS practice exam software]. Gazi Üniversitesi
Endüstriyel Sanatlar Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 36-44.
Bozkurt, A., & Uçar, H. (2018). E-Öğrenme ve e-sınavlar: Çevrimiçi ölçme
değerlendirme süreçlerinde kimlik doğrulama yöntemlerine ilişkin öğrenen
görüşlerinin incelenmesi [E-learning and e-exams: Examination of learners’
perspectives concerning the authentication methods in online assessment
processes]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 745-755.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
109
Brown, S., Race, P., & Bull, J. (1999). Computer-Assisted Assessment in Higher
Education. Staff and Educational Development Series. Stylus Publishers Inc.
Cabı, E. (2016). Uzaktan eğitimde e-değerlendirme üzerine öğrenci algıları. Journal
of Higher Education & Science/Yüksekögretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 6(1), 94-101.
https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2016.146
Callı, İ., Torkul O., & Taşbaşı N. (2003). İnternet destekli öğretimde kullanılmak üzere
web erişimli veri tabanı yönetim sistemiyle ölçme ve değerlendirme sistemi
tasarımı [Design of assessment and evaluation system with web access database
management system to be used in internet assisted teaching]. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 108-115.
Casey, D. M. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance
education through technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 45-51.
Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The Effectiveness of interactive distance education
technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73-88.
Çiğdem, H., & Tan, Ş. (2014). Matematik dersinde isteğe bağlı çevrimiçi kısa sınav
uygulanması hakkında öğrenci görüşleri [Students’ Opinions on Administering
Optional Online Quizzes in a two-year College Mathematics Course]. Bilgisayar
ve Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(4), 51-73.
Debuse, J. C., & Lawley, M. (2014). Benefits and drawbacks of computer‐ based
assessment and feedback systems: Student and educator perspectives. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 294-301. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjet.12232
Demir, E. (2014). Uzaktan eğitime genel bir bakış [Overview of distance
education]. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (39), 203-212.
DeSouza, E., & Fleming, M. (2003). A comparison of in-class quizzes vs. online
quizzes on student exam performance. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 14, 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940941
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
110
Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. S. (2004). Gathering
faculty teaching evaluations by in‐ class and online surveys: their effects on
response rates and evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
29(5), 611-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689171
Donovan, J., Mader, C., & Shinsky, J. (2007). Online vs. traditional course evaluation
formats: Student perceptions. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 158-
180.
Duart, J. M. (2000). La motivacion como interaccion entre el hombre ordenador en los
procesos de formacion no presencial [Motivation as interaction between the
human computer in non-contact training processes]. In J. Duart & A. Sangrá
(Eds.). Aprender en la Virtualidad (pp. 87-112). Gedisa.
Ebaid, I. E. S. (2021). Cheating among accounting students in online exams during
Covid-19 pandemic: Exploratory evidence from Saudi Arabia. Asian Journal of
Economics, Finance and Management, 4(1), 9-19.
Flior, E., & Kowalski, K. (2010, April). Continuous biometric user authentication in
online examinations. Seventh International Conference on Information
Technology (ITNG2010) (pp. 488-492). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Galante, D. J. (2002). Web-based mathematics: An examination of assessment
strategies implemented in the online mathematics classroom [Phd thesis].
Illinois State University.
Gunasekaran, A., McNeil, R. D., & Shaul, D. (2002). E-learning: Research and
applications. Industrial and Commercial Training, 34(2), 44-54.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850210417528
Gunawardena, C. N., & LaPointe, D. K. (2003). Planning and management of student
assessment. In S. Panda (Ed.), Planning & Management. Distance Education
(pp.195-205). Kogan Page.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
111
Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2013). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen
(Ed.). Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology (pp. 361-401). Routledge.
Gül, E., & Doğan, Ç. (2011). Online değerlendirme güvenilir midir? [Is the online
assessment reliable?] 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies
Symposium, 22-24 September 2011, Elazığ, Turkey.
Güvendir, M. A., & Özkan, Y. Ö. (2021). Uzaktan eğitimin değerlendirmeye
yansımaları: Çevrim içi sınavlar mı sınıf içi sınavlar mı? [Distance education's
impact on assessment: Online exams or classroom exams?] Journal of Digital
Measurement and Evaluation Research, 1(1), 22-34.
https://doi.org/10.29329/dmer.2021.285.2
Harriman, G. (2004). What is blended learning. E-learning Resources, 21-38.
http://www.grayharriman.com/blended_learning.htm
Hillier, M. (2014, January). The very idea of e-Exams: student (pre) conceptions.
In Proceedings of ASCILITE 2014-Annual Conference of the Australian Society
for Computers in Tertiary Education (pp. 77-88). Sydney, Australia.
Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause
Quarterly, 31(4), 51-55.
Hylton, K., Levy, Y., & Dringus, L. P. (2016). Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to
deter misconduct in online exams. Computers & Education, 92, 53-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.002
İnan, F. A., Arı, F., Flores, R., Arı, İ. A., & Zaier, A. (2016). Uyarlanabilir çevrimiçi
öğrenme sistemleri [Adaptive online learning systems]. K. Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş
(Eds.), Öğretim Teknolojilerinin Temelleri, Teorileri, Araştırmalar, Eğilimler
[Fundamentals of Instructional Technologies, Theories, Researches, Trends]
(pp. 25-40). Pegem Yayıncılık.
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
112
James, R. (2016). Tertiary student attitudes to invigilated, online summative
examinations. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 13(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0015-0
JISC (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age a guide to technology-enhanced
assessment and feedback. https://ctl.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/digiassass_
eada.pdf
Karadağ, N. (2014). Açık ve uzaktan eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme: Mega
üniversitelerdeki uygulamalar [Assessment in open and distance education:
Practices in mega universities] [Phd thesis]. Anadolu University
Karahocagil, M. K., Çiçek, M, Güneş, A. (2021). Küresel salgının tıp eğitimi üzerine
etkileri ve uzaktan eğitim tecrübesi [The effect of pandemic on medical
education and distance learning experience]. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 20(60-1), 87-
90. https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.795634
Khan, Z. R., & Balasubramanian, S. (2012). Students go click, flick and cheat... e-
cheating, technologies and more. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 6,
1-26.
Kınalıoğlu, İ. H., & Güven, Ş. (2011). Uzaktan eğitim sisteminde öğrenci başarısını
ölçülmesinde karşılaşılan güçlükler ve çözüm önerileri [Issues and solutions on
measurement of student achievement in distance education]. Akademik
Bilişim’11 - XIII. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri (pp. 637-644).
Turkey, Malatya.
King, D. L., & Case, C. J. (2014). E-cheating: incidence and trends among college
students. Issues in Information Systems, 15(1), 20-27.
https://doi.org/10.48009/1_iis_2014_20-27
Kolinski, H. (2022). What is blended learning? Ispring.
https://www.ispringsolutions.com/blog/blended-learning-a-primer
Kuhtman, M. (2004). Review of online student ratings of instruction. College and
University Journal, 80(1), 64-67.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
113
Kumar, A. V. S., & Rathi, M. (2021). Keystroke dynamics: a behavioral biometric
model for user authentication in online exams. In Research Anthology on
Developing Effective Online Learning Courses (pp. 1137-1161). IGI Global.
Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D., & Karakaya, İ. (2017). Ölçme ve değerlendirme:
Performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme [Assessment and
evaluation: Due diligence based on performance and portfolio]. Pegem
Akademi.
Lanier, M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal
Justice Education, 17(2), 244-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250600866166
Lin, C. H. S., & Wen, L. Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education—a
nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54(1), 85-97.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9047-z
Lindquist, B. (2006). Blended learning at the University of Phoenix. In C. J. Bonk, &
C. R. Graham (pp. 223-234). The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs. Pfeiffer.
Liu, M., Papathanasiou, E., & Yung-Wei, H. (2001). Exploring the use of multimedia
examination formats in undergraduate teaching: Results from the fielding
testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 225–248.
Luecht, R. M. (2001). Challenges of web-based assessment (ED458294). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458294
Margaret (2022). What can we learn from the discussion about Distance Learning
Successes and Failures? Edutechnicallyspeaking. https://bit.ly/3HOCLFA
Marriott, P., & Teoh, L. (2019). Computer-based assessment and feedback: Best
Practice Guidelines. The Higher Education Academy.
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/Computer-basedassessmentfeed
backBestPractice.pdf
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
114
McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a
synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online
learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605
Midkiff, S. F., & DaSilva, L. A. (2000, August). Leveraging the web for synchronous
versus asynchronous distance learning. In International Conference on
Engineering Education (pp. 14-18). https://www.ineer.org/Events/Icee2000/
Proceedings/papers/MD8-2.pdf
Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2007) Program geliştirme ve ölçme değerlendirme
birimi [Program development and assessment unit]. http://talimterbiye.
mebnet.net/program-gel-birimi/olc-deg-birimi.htm
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online
learning. Cengage Learning.
Natal, D. (1998). Online assessment: What, why, how (ED419552). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED419552
National Education Association [NEA] (2000). A survey of traditional and distance
learning higher education members. Washington DC.
Oblinger, D. G. (2000). The nature and purpose of distance education. The Technology
Source Archives. Michigan Virtual University.
Ocak, G., & Karakuş, G. (2022). Üniversite öğrencilerinin çevrimiçi sınavlara yönelik
tutumlarına ilişkin ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Scale development study on
university students' attitudes towards online exams]. Afyon Kocatepe
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(1), 66-86.
Özen, Z. (2016). Kimlik doğrulaması için tuş vuruş dinamiklerine dayalı bir güvenlik
sisteminin yapay sinir ağları ile geliştirilmesi [Developing a security system for
authentication based on keystroke dynamics using artificial neural networks]
[Phd thesis]. İstanbul University.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
115
Özkan, Y. Ö., & Turan, S. (2021). Düşündürdükleri ve ötesiyle yüksek riskli sınav
gerçeği [More than meets the eye: the fact of the high stake testing]. CRES
Journal 2(2), 59-63. http:/dx.doi.org/10.22596/cresjournal.0201.59.63
Özkul, A. E., & Aydın, C. H. (2016). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmenin temelleri ve
araştırmaları. (Eds: K. Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş) Öğretim Teknolojilerinin
Temelleri, Araştırmalar, Eğilimler [Foundations of Instructional Technology:
Theories, Research, and Trends], (pp. 633-654). Pegem Akademi.
Pekcan, N., & Toraman, Ç. (2022). Covid-19 pandemisinde çevrimiçi ölçme ve
değerlendirme uygulamalarının öğretmen-öğrenci görüşlerine göre incelenmesi
[Investigation of online assessment and evaluation applications in Covid-19
Pandemia according to teacher-student opinions]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.862654
Ramu, T., & Arivoli, T. (2013). A framework of secure biometric based online exam
authentication: an alternative to traditional exam. International Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research, 4(11), 52-60.
Ricketts, C., & Zakrzewski, S.. (2004). How do the risks of a web-based CAA system
differ from those of a closed network system? Proceedings of the 8th
International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference, July 6–7,
Loughborough
Robles, M., & Braathen, S. (2002). Online assessment techniques. Delta Pi Epsilon
Journal, 44(1), 39-49.
Rossiter, S. (2020). Cheating becoming an unexpected COVID-19 side effect for
universities. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/cheating-becoming-
an-unexpected-covid-19-side-effectfor-universities-1.5620442
Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M., & Barron, A. E. (2007). Selecting a virtual
classroom system: Elluminate Live vs. Macromedia Breeze (Adobe acrobat
connect professional). MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4),
331-345.
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
116
Shraim, K. (2019). Online examination practices in higher education ınstitutions:
learners’ perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4),
185-196. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.640588.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and
learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (2nd ed.) Information
Age Publishing.
Solak, H. İ., Ütebay, G., & Yalçın, B. (2020). Uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin basılı ve
dijital ortamdaki sınav başarılarının karşılaştırılması [Comparison of the exam
success of distance education students in print and digital media]. Açıköğretim
Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 41-52.
Şimşek, N. (2011). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde alternatif ölçme değerlendirme araçlarının
kullanılması: Nitel bir çalışma [Using alternative assessment and evaluation
instruments in social studies lesson: A qualitative study]. Fırat Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 149-168.
Tümer, A. E., Şahin, İ., Aktürk, A.O. (2008). Online sınav sistemi ve bu sistem ile
ilgili öğrenci görüşleri [Online exam system and student opinions about this
system]. 5th International Educational Technologies Symposium, Anadolu
University, Eskişehir. Turkey.
Udemy (2022). We just keep growing. https://about.udemy.com/
Wang, T. H. (2008). Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: Development
and evaluation. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1247-1263. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2007.11.011
Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do students cheat more
in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1).
Web. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html.
Wirth, J., & Klieme, E. (2003). Computer-based assessment of problem solving
competence. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3),
329-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000148172
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
117
Yağcı, M., Ekiz, H., & Gelbal, S. (2015). Yeni bir çevrimiçi sınav modeli geliştirilmesi
ve uygulanması [Development and implementation of a new online exam
model]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 269-
288.
Yılmaz, E., Dinçer, H., Cengiz, A. F., & Kuzu Demir, E. B. (2022, September).
Çevrimiçi sınav güvenliğini tehdit eden öğrenci davranışları: Sistematik bir
inceleme [Student behaviors that threaten online exam security: a systematic
review]. (pp. 291-295). 15. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri
Sempozyumu, 7-9 Eylül 2022, Çanakkale, Turkey
Online Exams: An Opportunity or A Threat?
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci, & Oğuz Yılmaz
118
About Authors
Mustafa Tevfik Hebebci has completed PhD in Department of Curriculum and
Instruction. He conducts research in the field of educational technology. He has studies
in human computer interaction, instructional design, STEM education, gamification,
distance education and techology addiction etc. He is still working as an Lecturer
Doctor at Necmettin Erbakan University, Distance Education Application and
Research Center, Türkiye.
E-mail: mhebebci@gmail.com
Oğuz Yılmaz completed his master's degree in Computer Education and Instructional
Technologies Department and is a doctoral candidate. He is still continuing his
doctorate education at Gazi University, Department of Computer Education and
Instructional Technologies and is at the thesis stage. He also works as a lecturer at
Necmettin Erbakan University Distance Education Application and Research Center.
His areas of interest are instructional technologies, virtual environments and
simulation, distance education, learning management systems, database and
programming.
E-mail: oguzyilmazbt@gmail.com
Chapter 6
This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Sisman, & Banu Aras
119
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci
University of Eskisehir Osmangazi, Türkiye
Yavuz Selim Şişman
University of Eskisehir Osmangazi, Türkiye
Banu Aras
University of Eskisehir Osmangazi, Türkiye
To Cite This Chapter
Demirci, C., Sisman, Y. S., & Aras, B. (2022). Student respond systems (SRSs). In M. T.
Hebebci (Eds.), Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022 (pp. 119-143). ISRES
Publishing
Introduction
Student Response Systems: Instructional Technologies
Clickers, also known as Personal Response Systems (PRS), Student Response Systems
(SRS), and Automated Response Systems (ARS), are one of the powerful interactive
technologies in the classroom that can be used to encourage active learning (Bojinova
& Oigara, 2011; Martyn, 2007; Chien, Chang & Chang, 2016). They are small
transmitters that look like a television remote controland they allow students to quickly
answer questions presented in class. This technology, which has been in development
since the 1960s (Judson & Sawada 2002), allows the instructor to pose questions to a
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
120
class using electronic presentation software such as PowerPoint. Questions are usually
prepared in multiple choice or true/false formats (Aljaloud, Gromik, Kwan &
Billingsley, 2019). When students answer the questions, the clickers' codes appear on
the screen and students know their answers are recorded. A computer summarizes the
responses and the results are automatically displayed in graphic form, usually a
histogram. Depending on the teacher's preference, the answers can be shown
anonymously or the teacher can view which students the answers belong to. Student
Response Systems devices may differ in terms of use. Students can use a special device
such as a remote control, their computer or cell phone, to answer questions. These
response systems consist of three parts;
1. Clickers (small remote control-like devices used by students)
2. Receivers (which receive Clickers' signals),
3. A software program installed on the teacher’s computer
Clickers emit infrared signals that are received by a receiver and sent to the teacher’s
computer. (Meedzan & Fisher, 2009). After the questions are answered by the students
using one of these various devices, the student answers are immediately displayed on
the screen for everyone to see, thus allowing students to receive corrective feedback
on their answers and compare their answers with the answers of their peers (Blood &
Gulchak, 2012).
Clickers increase classroom interaction and can be used with adults or young learners.
When they are used, the rate of answering difficult multiple-choice questions is higher
than traditional in-class methods. In addition, it was seen that students who answered
using clickers were more honest in their answers (Stowell & Nelson, 2007). More
interestingly, students who use clickers during class perform better on exams and tests
than students who don't use these technological devices (Kennedy & Cutts, 2005;
Morling et al., 2008; Shaffer & Collura, 2009).
Clickers have received great attention in the educational technology literature, and
their use in college classrooms has increased significantly (MacGeorge et al., 2007).
Some research studies have shown that Clickers are useful tools for engaging students
in active learning during lessons, improving students' overall communication, and
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
121
helping instructors create a more student-centered classroom environment (Beatty,
2004; Caldwell, 2007; Draper & Brown, 2004; MacGeorge et al., 2007). It is known
that they yield many positive results in terms of curriculum and student outcomes.
Some studies show that personal response systems, when used as a teaching strategy,
are effective in motivating students to participate in clasrrom activities and learn the
subject matter (Debourgh, 2008; Hatch, Jensen & Moore, 2005; Moredich & Moore,
2007; Skiba, 2006; Stein, Challman & Brueckner, 2007).
Over the past 20 years, the technology used on university campuses has expanded from
overhead projectors and videotapes to comprehensive multimedia presentations that
include laptops, LCD projectors, online tests, and personal response systems such as
Clickers (MacGeorge, et al., 2008; Stowell & Nelson, 2007). The results of a research
revealed that the new technological possibilities of Clickers can be used to improve
the questioning and feedback skills of instructors (Trees & Jackson, 2007), to motivate
and monitor student participation (Stowell & Nelson, 2007), to encourage discussion
of important concepts (Brickman, 2006) , and to activate students' thoughts (Collins,
Moore & Shaw-Kokot, 2007). It is clear that student response systems technology is
one of the most promising ways to make classrooms more learner, knowledge,
assessment and community centered (Bransford, Brophy, & Williams, 2000). Using
clickers can be especially useful in long lessons or at the end of the day when students
and lecturers are tired.
Research in educational technology shows that the use of Clickers also improves the
interactive atmosphere in the classroom (Laurillard, 1993). When used correctly, this
technology can improve the quality of learning outcomes in lessons by increasing
students' interaction and engagement with their instructors and peers, resulting in a
remarkable transformation in the classroom (Bojinova & Oigara, 2011).
Clickers can improve reflection and understanding for students when used with small
group discussions (Brewer, 2004; Brickman, 2006). Similarly, Draper and Brown
(2004), in a multidisciplinary study on clickers usage, draw attention to several
advantages of Clickers; lessons are more fun, anonymity allows students to answer
without the risk of embarrassment, students can check that they understand the
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
122
material. The use of clickers makes learning more exciting and encourages students to
think about their own learning process and to understand the subject of the lesson.
Thanks to these devices, students immediately respond to questions asked during the
lesson. Considering the answers given by the students, a discussion activity is started
by the teacher about the lesson topic. Thus, it is ensured that students learn the
information and integrate their own knowledge with other ideas (Debourgh, 2008).
Active Learning and Student Response Systems
Faculty members at universities have shifted their pedagogical focus from traditional
teaching methods to active learning strategies. Strategies to encourage students'
participation in higher-order thinking such as analysis, synthesis, and assessment are
essential elements of active learning, unlike traditional lessons (Bonwell & Eison,
1991). Active participation requires students not only to express their ideas orally or
in writing, but to turn their thoughts into action (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). At this point,
Clickers is an important active learning tool that allows students to work actively in
collaboration. In this way, students interact and work together to achieve a goal
(Barkley, Cross & Major, 2014; Handelsman et al., 2004; Kirschner, Paas & Kirschner,
2009; Yoder & Hochevar, 2005).
The use of Clickers effectively transforms didactic teacher-centered learning
environments into interactive student-centered learning environments. Thus, it
encourages student-faculty interaction, ensures cooperation between students,
increases the retention of knowledge, provides rapid feedback, and ultimately
improves active learning (Meedzan & Fisher, 2009). Clickers can provide more
efficient learning compared to some active learning methods such as class discussions.
In a normal classroom discussion, only one or two students have the opportunity to
answer a question. Even if the answer is correct, the teacher has no way of measuring
whether the other students know the correct answer. In class discussions, a student
who is unsure of his own answer may avoid answering because he does not run the
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
123
risk of being wrong (Martyn, 2007). However, since all students have the opportunity
to respond in activities using Clickers, all given answers can be seen by the teacher.
Trees and Jackson (2007) conducted a study of the use of Clickers in large classrooms
and concluded that students benefited most from Clickers exercises that encouraged
student engagement. The results of the researches support the use of Clickers as they
increase the active participation of the students, strengthen the measurement and
testing practices and develop active learning environments. With the use of Clickers,
instructors can effectively use active learning techniques in much larger classes, such
as those done in small classes. In addition, active learning environments can be
developed and student participation can be increased by methods such as collaborative
work, group discussions, case studies or directed small group activities (Stowell &
Nelson, 2007; Tivener & Hetzler, 2015).
Clickers can increase students' focus, engagement, and interaction by allowing their
active participation even in large classrooms. Students use Clickers to respond to the
teacher's questions and can see an anonymous summary of the class's responses in real
time. Teachers can view individual student responses at any time to individually assess
a student's performance or participation (Chien, Chang & Chang, 2016; Lantz, 2010).
Teaching and Learning with Clickers
Teaching with Clickers
In a standard lesson, there is often a large amount of information, terms, or concepts
that students need to learn. Students can sometimes get confused in determining what
they need to learn from so many concepts and miss the main message. In such cases,
Student Response Systems can be used effectively to help students become aware of
the main theme and content of the lesson. Clickers questions highlight critical
information for students and draw students' attention to key ideas. As a result, when
teachers use student response systems to highlight main ideas, it can help clarify key
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
124
concepts and prevent students from accidentally learning or memorizing incorrect
information (Blood & Gulchak, 2012).
In addition to directing students' attention to the actual learning objectives of the
course, Clickers can also be used effectively to review the main themes or ideas of a
course and ensure that they are learned. In order to do this successfully, first of all, the
main ideas of the course and the basic concepts that are expected to be learned must
be clearly defined. Then, true-false or multiple-choice Clicker questions should be
prepared in accordance with these concepts. These prepared questions are presented to
the students at a time that seems appropriate during the lesson and they are asked to
answer them. Answers can be shown to students after students have been given enough
time to respond. Thus, students can get instant feedback on whether their answers are
correct on the main ideas and themes of the lesson. If most of the questions are
answered correctly, it is possible to move on to teaching the next concepts, as it shows
that the whole class has achieved these goals. However, if more than half of the class
give wrong answers, the topics can be repeated to make up for these deficiencies, as
this shows that the targeted concepts are not understood (Blood & Gulchak, 2012).
Student response systems can be used to facilitate five existing principles of teaching:
(1) uncovering student feedback, (2) identifying students' prejudices and assumptions
about course material, (3) holding small and large group discussions, (4) promoting
social cohesion in the learning community and (5) collecting anonymous data from
students to support conceptual practice. (Dong et al., 2017)
About collecting student feedback to improve learning and teaching, the use of
Clickers makes it less time-consuming to collect and interpret students' responses, and
unlike paper-based methods, Clickers data provides quick and immediate feedback
useful for formative assessment. Students can see their own and their peers' answers,
and productive group discussions can be made about why students gave these answers.
To identify students' assumptions or biases about course material, Clickers can be used
to gather information about students' opinions, assumptions, or behavioral
expectations that may affect teaching and learning processes. Compared to answering
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
125
a question by raising a hand, Clickers are an anonymous and more efficient way of
collecting data about what students expect and know about the subject.
Clicker histograms visually depict students' views and can be used to engage students
in critical discussions. Second, when students are asked about their views on a topic
or their past experience, students are expected to give more honest answers as the
answers will be given using Clickers and the answers will be displayed anonymously
(Dong et al., 2017). Students can give any answer they want using Clickers, and the
variety in the group's responses when the answers are shown provides an excellent
"starting point" for critical thinking and discussion activities (Mollborn and Hoekstra
2010). Teaching methods that use active learning, such as small group and classroom-
wide discussion methods, often result in better student learning than traditional
methods in which students play more passive roles (Bruff, 2009, p. 24). Moreover,
Clickers can be used effectively to promote social cohesion in the classroom. First, by
viewing the data of responses using Clickers over time, information sharing among
group members increases. Finally, anonymous data about students' beliefs or
experiences is perhaps most efficiently collected through Clickers (Dong et al., 2017).
According to Crossgrove and Curran (2008); the great thing about Clickers is that it
helps instructors quickly know how well students understand a topic. As a result of
determining the wrong answers received, the learning deficiencies of the students can
be detected quickly. Thus, the teacher has an opportunity to compensate for
misunderstandings and can correct learning deficiencies. The use of these devices not
only informs the teacher about the incomplete learning of the students, but also allows
the students to recognize their deficiencies by seeing their own wrong answers (Lantz,
2010).
Students can achieve more meaningful learning by using student response systems.
The Peer Instruction (PI) mentioned here provides a simple and effective model for
developing inquiry strategies. In this model, a question is asked by a teacher, students
respond to that question by using their clickers, a histogram of student responses is
displayed, students discuss with their peers for 2-3 minutes to justify their answers,
students are given a second opportunity to respond by using their clickers, and a second
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
126
histogram is prepared showing the students' responses after the discussion. Finally, the
lecturer gives the correct answer. If the responses from the second histogram reflect
limited understanding of the concept, the lecturer can then adapt the discussion to
further discussion or provide further examples (Jones et al., 2012). If the results show
that 75% of the answers are correct when the first answers are received, the teacher
can see that this subject is understood, and can move forward in the lesson faster and
focus on new subjects by passing the learned subjects (Anderson et al., 2011; White et
al., 2011).
Promoting Classroom Participation with Clickers
Teachers use a wide variety of methods and techniques to ensure active participation
of students in lessons. The common purpose of all of them is to enable students to
participate in the lessons more actively and effectively and, as a result, to help their
learning be more permanent. Clickers, also known as student response systems, are
one of the systems actively used to encourage student interaction and participation in
lessons (Bachman & Bachman, 2011; Cain et al., 2009; Hoyt et al., 2010; Sevian &
Robinson, 2011; Dong et al., 2017).
Research shows that student achievement, attention, and behavior improve when
students are given multiple opportunities to respond to teacher-created questions
during instruction. Accordingly, student response systems offer a creative way to
incorporate technology into teaching and increase the opportunity for all students in a
classroom to answer questions. All students are more likely to answer questions when
student response systems are used in classrooms. Because, in this process, all students
can answer at the same time with the answering tools they have, instead of giving them
a word to answer one by one. Similarly, some other research shows that the use of
student response systems leads to increased student engagement, learning, and
response rates. In addition, student response systems are seen positively by both
teachers and students and are believed to increase participation and interest in
classroom activities (Blood & Neel, 2008; Blood & Gulchak, 2012).
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
127
Students learn better when they are active in cognitive processes, that is, their success
increases as their active participation increases (Shernoff & Hoogstra, 2001). The
increase in the participation of the students with the Clickers questions is an indication
that the success of the students will also increase. Some scientific reports on this
subject show that the use of student response systems also improves student learning
(Beekes, 2006). These studies show that students who use student response systems
during lessons perform better in exams than students who do not (Kennedy & Cutts,
2005; Shaffer & Collura, 2009; Fallon & Forrest, 2011).
In classrooms, students are sometimes shy about expressing their thoughts because
they are not sure of their own opinions and they do not know what their friends are
thinking. In these cases Clickers can be used to overcome this problem. If you ask
students a Clicker question at the beginning of a lesson about the activities they want
to do in that lesson or the topic of discussion you will be discussing, it is likely that
everyone, including the shy students, will answer that question. In this way, you can
even involve your shy students in activities that require discussion and exchange of
ideas. These shy students, who are hesitant to answer the questions asked orally
through different methods, easily answer the questions asked through Clickers. Such
students prefer questions that they can answer using Clickers rather than traditional
questioning techniques (Lantz, 2010; Trees & Jackson, 2007). In addition, thanks to
games and competitions that require information exchange within or between groups
through Clickers, it can be ensured that students interact and all students express their
ideas (Blood & Gulchak, 2013).
Student response systems also allow teachers to keep track of who or how many of
their students are responding to questions during lessons, so teachers can continue to
get answers until all or enough of their students have responded. In this way, each
student is given enough time to answer the question. When a question is asked in
classical classroom environments, some of their friends respond quickly, other
students may not be able to complete their answers within this period. Only because
of this timing problem, such students cannot attend the class in classical classroom
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
128
environments. Such problems can be easily solved in classrooms where student
response systems are used (Bruff, 2009).
As a result; student response systems encourage active participation in the lesson.
Especially, students who are reluctant to verbal classical questions of teachers are more
willing to answer these questions when they use student response systems. Some
studies have shown that students are more likely to respond to their teachers’ questions
when they are asked to respond using clickers rather than a verbal response (Blood,
2010; Blood & Gulchak, 2012).
Enhancing Classroom Interaction with Clickers
Clickers can be used adaptively in various disciplines and levels of academic study to
improve student engagement in the learning process. Increasing student engagement
makes learning more customized, especially in large classroom settings, and can
optimize learning outcomes. They are also an effective educational tool for promoting
interactive and collaborative learning in the classroom. Clickers, by their nature, have
a great potential in terms of providing the student with the opportunity to control the
learning process and thus encouraging learning. They are generally used to increase
student participation, which is the main goal of teachers (Buskist & Benassi, 2012;
Hake, 1998; Laxman, 2011).
Clickers offer students the opportunity to think about a question and give their own
answer before the question is answered by other students. In this way, student response
systems often encourage students who wait for their friends' answers before giving
their own answers, to give their own answers without being influenced by any of the
answers. These students, who have the opportunity to express their own ideas directly,
become more interested in the lesson and then become more willing to discuss with
their peers. In this way, these students will be more willing to participate in large or
small group discussions that may take place after the questions are answered (Bruff,
2009).
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
129
Eastman, Iyer, and Eastman (2011) have found that students are more attentive when
they use Clickers, they feel more comfortable in class participation, and they enjoy the
lessons more. The increase in this two-way interaction allows students to express their
thoughts more and to increase information exchange among peers (Anderson, 2003;
Marks, 2000). Moreover, it encourages both active collaborative learning and class
participation. In other words, increasing the interaction between teacher and student
also increases students' participation in the lesson (Gallini & Moely, 2003; Blasco-
Arcas et al., 2013).
Even if the questions are simple, students think deeply to find the right answer when
trying to answer a question using Clickers. Because thinking and reviewing
background knowledge are steps that cause students to think deeply, questions
answered using Clickers cause students to use these techniques during the lesson.
When students use Clickers, they believe that they think and learn more in lessons
(Hoekstra, 2008; Lantz, 2010).
Providing Instant Feedback with Clickers
One of the most useful uses of clickers in the classroom is that they allow instant
feedback (Laxman, 2011). By providing instant feedback to students with the help of
Clickers, students are involved in active learning processes and this positively affects
students' success (DeBourgh, 2007). Clickers provide immediate feedback to the
teacher on student motivation, interest, and student understanding of content. Students
stated that Clickers helped them focus, confirm their understanding, and learn the
material more effectively (Bojinova & Oigara, 2011). While answering the questions,
the teacher allows students to discuss their answers with their peers before showing
them the correct answer. This process provides an opportunity for collaboration, active
learning, peer instruction, and interaction. It also allows students to understand which
answers they consider wrong or correct and why. In brief, Clickers help the teacher get
instant feedback on how well students are following the material presented in class,
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
130
and potentially also encourage not only student engagement but performance.
(Bojinova & Oigara, 2011).
Immediate feedback and correction of errors are very important parts of the teaching
process and allow students to identify and correct their mistakes before it is too late.
When the student responds to a question or activity, feedback is given when a message
is sent to the student by any method about the correctness or incorrectness of this
answer. In this process, with the help of Clickers, students receive instant feedback on
the correctness of their answers and what other students' answers are, just a few
seconds after they answer. Thus, students can instantly realize their wrong or
incomplete learning and focus on the areas they think they are lacking (Beatty, 2004;
Kulhavy, 1977; Lantz, 2010).
Moreover, as a result of Clickers questions, teachers can change their lesson plans and
manage their lessons more effectively as a result of the feedback they receive before
it is too late. For example, if Clickers results show that students understand a topic, the
teacher can now move on to the next topic without wasting any more time on that
topic. However, if students have deficiencies in their learning, the teacher can spend
more time addressing the missing points and correcting this missing information. It is
very difficult to implement such applications without Clickers, especially in large
classrooms (Bruff, 2009).
Assessing Students’ Learning with Clickers
Clickers can be used as assessment tools, as well as being used for different purposes
in the teaching process. Students can see the exam questions prepared by the teachers
with the help of slides and can answer the questions with the help of Clickers. The
important thing here is that each student is given enough time to answer the questions.
After the students have answered the questions, the teacher can easily evaluate the
answers, taking into account different statistics. In this way, both time and paper are
saved as the teacher does not have to evaluate the questions manually. In addition, by
using Clickers, a pre-test can be applied at the beginning of a new lesson and at the
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
131
end of the lesson, by applying the same exam as a post-test, students' learning in that
lesson can be checked. Moreover, by preparing short questions about a given
assignment, it can be checked quickly at the beginning of the lesson whether this
homework has been done (Blood & Gulchak, 2012).
Student Response Systems (Clickers) can also be used in control of students' class
attendance. In fact, it's probably not a good idea to use clickers for taking attendance
per se, especially in large classes. Responses from students do not imply that the
student is actually in the classroom, but rather assures that the clicker device is there.
It is possible for a student who will miss the lesson to give his clicker to another student
who will try to answer both students' questions in secret. While not useful for
classroom attendance control, clickers can be used to administer in-class exams.
Lincoln (2008) found that nearly three-quarters of students like clicker exams because
they get instant feedback on their performance. Also, using clickers to assess students'
retention and comprehension is effective because they provide feedback to teachers in
these areas (Anderson et al., 2010). The anonymity provided by clickers can reduce
students' anxiety. Moreover, honest answers and immediate feedback can increase
students' hope of success in a subsequent test (Fallon & Forrest, 2011)
Providing Student Anonymity with Clickers
Students often do not volunteer to answer questions when their teachers ask them
directly, as they are afraid of giving wrong answers. However, in student response
systems, students do not see which answers their other friends have given, so this helps
students answer questions anonymously more comfortably. Students, who are afraid
of giving wrong answers in front of their peers, participate more actively in the lesson
with the help of clickers questions. The anonymity provided by Clicker questions
allows a wide variety of opinions to be heard in the classroom. As a result, clickers are
very democratic tools in making classroom decisions or involving more students in
activities (Lantz, 2010).
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
132
Student Response Systems (Clickers) encourage students to actively participate in
activities and to express their understanding of the subject, thanks to the anonymous
response opportunity provided by the system. It helps students overcome the fear of
giving a wrong answer and, as a result, the fear of being ridiculed by the instructor or
other students. Clickers encourage student discussion on the topic covered in class.
This can be achieved in two ways: students can discuss possible answers on multiple
choice questions with their peers and then choose the answer they think is correct, or
alternatively, students can be asked to choose an answer based on their understanding
of the topic. After showing the distribution of results and a short discussion with their
peers, they are given a second chance to answer the same question. In addition,
Clickers provides students and instructors with quick and valuable feedback on the
class's overall understanding of the content material covered during the Q&A sessions.
Therefore, this technology can be used as a formative assessment tool and can help
instructors assess the difficulties students face in a particular subject (Bojinova &
Oigara, 2011).
Making Learning Fun and Increasing Student Interest with Clickers
Student response systems are very useful tools for engaging students who prefer to
remain passive and not answer questions in traditional lessons. Studies show that
students' interest generally increases in lessons in which student response systems are
used, and disinterested students feel more willing to participate in the lesson (Kay &
Lesage, 2007). Such students mostly prefer to stay passive in the lessons because the
lessons do not interest them or they do not feel motivated enough. However, it was
observed that when they were asked to answer a question using student response
systems, their interest increased and they felt more motivated (Elliot, 2003). In
addition, thanks to the time provided by Clicker questions, students have the
opportunity to rest and refresh their attention (Laxman, 2011). Student response
systems make the classes more fun while making the class more interactive, allow all
students to compare their knowledge with the knowledge of their other friends, and
cause even reluctant students to feel included in the lessons (Lantz, 2010.). Some
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
133
studies have stated that most of the students like the use of student response systems
in their classrooms (Barnet, 2006).
One of the reasons why some students find classroom activities boring and feel
reluctant is because they are afraid that their teachers will choose them for the answer.
The stress and anxiety caused by this situation prevent these students from enjoying
the lessons. At this stage, students find the lessons more interesting and entertaining
as student response systems allow students to answer anonymously whenever they
want (Chien et al., 2016; Stevens & Fontenot, 2017, Walker et al., 2018).
Some courses may be intense and take long periods due to their content. The intensity
of the information they need to learn in these lessons and the length of the lessons can
cause the students to get tired, lose their motivation and distract themselves as a result.
Clickers questions, which are carefully placed in some parts of these long lessons, can
cause students to rest for a short time, increase their motivation and their attention span
(Cutts et al., 2004; Lantz, 2010).
As a result, students of this age are fond of using technology and Clickers are fun to
use because Clickers follows the principles of game-based learning. Since twenty-first
century students have grown up using computer games, short sessions using Clickers
make the lesson time more enjoyable by eliminating the monotony of the lesson
(Bojinova & Oigara, 2011).
Initiating Effective Discussions with Clickers
It is very important for students to participate in small group discussions during the
lesson to improve their learning experience. Having students discuss a particular
question with their peers is one of the most beneficial ways to involve them in the
learning process. When students actively learn the subject matter, they tend to learn
the material more deeply and faster. Small group discussions allow more students to
actively participate in class-wide discussions. Student response systems can make
small group discussions more beneficial in this regard. Students who would normally
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
134
be reluctant to participate in small group discussions can express their ideas more
freely through the use of student response systems and participate more in these
discussion activities. Because classroom response systems allow instructors to monitor
student responses, students' response to a question using clickers before or after a small
group discussion creates an accountability that can encourage students to participate
more seriously in that discussion (Bruff, 2009, p. 35).
With the help of the answers given as a result of the Clickers questions you asked the
students in any part of the course, discussions with high student participation can be
started in the classroom. In order to initiate an effective discussion environment in this
way, after the students have answered the questions, some students may be asked to
explain the reasons for their answers. While students explain the reasons for their
answers, other peers can learn from their explanations. In particular, some of the
students who gave the most preferred answers may be asked to explain their reasons.
If no student volunteers in this regard, teachers can encourage students with small
explanations. Students can be asked to think about the wrong answers and to explain
why they might have been chosen (Bruff, 2009, p.32).
There are various uses of classroom response systems to generate and encourage
classroom-wide discussions. As a typical practice for doing this, the 'think-pair-share'
classroom participation technique, first proposed by Lyman (1981) and used by many
instructors, can be termed a 'think-vote-share' practice when applied by using Clickers
devices. Instructors who use clickers in this way first ask their students a multiple-
choice question. Students reflect on the question and submit their answers using their
clickers. The instructor then displays the system-generated bar graph showing the
results of the question, showing how many students chose each answer option. These
results, together with the exchange of ideas that students make before submitting their
answers, shed light on and enhance the classroom-wide discussions implemented by
the instructor (Bruff, 2009, p. 25).
During the discussion, students can be encouraged to express their thoughts about each
other's answers and comments. The discussions that the students have among
themselves voluntarily are much more productive than the discussions conducted
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
135
under the leadership of teachers. In addition, if students touch on the main ideas of the
lesson and talk about it, it should be avoided to comment on those topics
again.Students learn such ideas more permanently when they discover it on their own.
In this process, the answers to Clickers questions should not be disclosed immediately.
This will prevent students from having a discussion about that topic. Without fully
explaining the answers to the questions, students can be encouraged to continue the
discussion as much as possible (Bruff, 2009, p20).
Conclusion
Student response systems are very useful tools for both students and teachers. For
teachers, these response systems provide instant feedback on students' learning
processes and allow them to measure how well the targeted concepts in the lesson have
been learned by the students. Student response systems are also very effective tools
for actively involving students in the course process, promoting student interaction,
and providing students with feedback on their learning. Moreover, as students will feel
more comfortable, the relationship between student and teacher will improve and
students will be more willing to participate in the lessons as they enjoy the lessons
more. In summary, student response systems are devices that are useful and effective
in lesson processes for both teachers and students (Blasco-Arcas et al., 2013; Caldwell,
2007).
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
136
References
Aljaloud, A. S., Gromik, N., Kwan, P., & Billingsley, W. (2019). Saudi undergraduate
students’ perceptions of the use of smartphone clicker apps on learning
performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1)., 88.
Anderson, Lindsay & Healy, Alice & Kole, James & Bourne, Lyle. (2013). The
Clicker Technique: Cultivating Efficient Teaching and Successful Learning.
Applied Cognitive Psychology. 27. 10.1002/acp.2899.
Anderson, T. (2003), “Modes of interaction in distance education: recent
developments and research questions”, in Moore, M.G. and Anderson, W G.
(Eds), Handbook of Distance Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 129-144.
Anderson, William & Southern, Georgia & Noland, Thomas. (2010). How Remote
Response Devices Enable Student Learning: A Four-Year Analysis. American
Journal of Business Education. 3. 10.19030/ajbe.v3i8.466.
Bachman L & Bachman C (2011) A study of classroom response system clickers:
Increasing student engagement and performance in a large undergraduate lecture
class on architectural research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 22(1):
5–21.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques:
A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Barnett, J. (2006). Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture
classes: Student perceptions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
22, 474–494. Retrieved on May 20, 2020 from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/barnett.html.
Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication
systems. Education Center for Applied Research 2004(3), 1–3. Retrieved on
June 11, 2020 from http://www.educause.edu/ECAR/Transforming
StudentLearningwit/157511.
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
137
Beekes, W. (2006). The “millionaire” method for encouraging participation. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25-36.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers
in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement
in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102-110.
Blood E, Gulchak D. Embedding “Clickers” Into Classroom Instruction: Benefits and
Strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic. 2013;48(4):246-253.
doi:10.1177/1053451212462878.
Blood, E. & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based
instruction: Does
it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 16(3), 375–383.
Blood, E. (2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35,
214–228.
Bojinova, E., & Oigara, J. (2011). Teaching and learning with clickers: are clickers
good for students?. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning
Objects, 7(1), 169-184.
Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet
the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59-84.
Bojinova, E. D., & Oigara, J. N. (2011). Teaching and learning with clickers: Are
clickers good for students. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning
Objects, 7, 169-184.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the
classroom. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED340272).
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
138
Brickman, P. (2006). The case of the Druid Dracula. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 36(2), 48-53.
Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding
in biology courses. Bioscience, 54(11), 1034-1039.
Bruff, Derek. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems : creating active
learning environments. Jossey-Bass.
Bruff, D. (2010). Classroom Response Systems (“Clickers”). Vanderbilt University
Center for Teaching. Retrieved [05.25.2020] from
https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/clickers/.
Buskist, W., & Benassi, V. A. (2012). Effective college and university teaching:
Strategies and tactics for the new professoriate. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cain J, Black EP & Rohr J (2009) An audience response System strategy to improve
student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education 73(2): 1–7.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and beast-
practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
Chien, Y. T., Chang, Y. H., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A
meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research
Review, 17, 1–18.
Collins, L.J., Moore, M.E., & Shaw-Kokot, J. (2007). Livening up the classroom:
Using audience response systems to promote active learning. Medical Reference
Services Quarterly, 26(1), 81-88.
Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. (2008). Using clickers in non-ajors and majors-level
biology courses: student opinion, learning and long-term retention of course
material. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 146–154.
Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, C., & Draper, S. (2004). Maximizing dialogue in
lectures using group response systems. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 42–44.
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
139
DeBourgh, G., (2008). Use of classroom "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced
reasoning skills. Nursing Education in Practice, 8, 76-87.
Dong, J.-J., Hwang, W.-Y., Shadiev, R., & Chen, G.-Y. (2017). Pausing the classroom
lecture: The use of clickers to facilitate student engagement. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 18(2), 157–172. Retrieved on May 20, 2020 from
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417707617.
Draper, S. W., & Brown, W. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an
electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81-94.
Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., & Eastman, K. L. (2011). Business students’ perceptions,
attitudes, and satisfaction with interactive technology: An Exploratory study.
Journal of Education for Business, 86(1), 36-43.
Elliot, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching.
International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), 80-86. Retrieved on June
05, 2020 from http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/i1/elliott.htm.
Fallon, M., & Forrest, S. L. (2011). High-tech versus low-tech ınstructional strategies:
a comparison of clickers and handheld response cards. Teaching of Psychology,
38(3), 194–198. Retrieved on June 09, 2020 from
https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311411896.
Gallini, S. M., & Moely, B. E. (2003). Service-learning and engagement, academic
challenge and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 10,
5–14.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., ...
Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.
doi:10.1126/science.1096022
Hatch, J., Jensen, M., and Moore, R., (2005). Manna from heaven or "Clickers" from
hell: Experiences with an electronic response system. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 36- 39.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
140
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-
thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.
American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74. doi:10.1119/1.18809.
Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in
large college courses. Learning, Media and Technology 33, 329–341.
Hoyt A, McNulty JA, Gruener G, et al. (2010) An audience response system may
influence student performance on anatomy examination questions. Anatomical
Sciences Education 3(6): 295–9.
Jones, C., Connolly, M., Gear, A., & Read, M. (2001). Group interactive learning with
group process support technology. British Journal of Educational Technology,
32, 571–586
Judson, E. & Sawada, a.D. (2002). Learning from Past and Present: Electronic
Response Systems in College Lecture Halls. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181. Norfolk, VA: Association
for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9,
2022 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/15113/.
Kay, R. H. & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using
audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education,
53(3), 819-827. Retrieved on May 28, 2020 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Kennedy, G., & Cutts, Q. (2005). The association between students’ use of an
electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 21, 260-268.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Individual and group-based learning
from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 306–314. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008.
Kulhavy, R. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research,
47, 211–232.
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
141
Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of clickers in the classroom: Teaching innovation or
merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 556–561.
Laxman, K. (2011). A study on the adoption of clickers in higher education. In Hong,
K. S. & Lai, K. W. (Eds), ICT for accessible, effective and efficient higher
education: Experiences of Southeast Asia. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27 (8), 1291-1303. Retrieved on June 18, 2020 from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/laxman.html.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective
use of educational technology. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., & Evans,
E. (2007). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture
classes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56,125–145.
doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6.
Marks, H. M. (2000) ‘Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the
elementary, middle, and high school years’,American Educational Research
Journal, vol. 37, pp.
153!84.
Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause
Quarterly, 30(2), 71.
Meedzan, N. & Fisher, K. (June, 2009). Clickers in nursing education: an active
learning tool in the classroom. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI),
13, (2). Retrieved on May 25, 2020 from
http://ojni.org/13_2/Meedzan_Fisher.pdf.
Mollborn, S. (2010). Hoekstra, A. “A meeting of minds”: Using clickers for critical
thinking and discussion in large sociology classes. Teaching Sociology. 38 (1),
18–27.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
142
Moredich, C., & Moore, E., (2007). Engaging students through the use of classroom
response systems. Nurse Educator, 32 (3), 113-116.
Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. (2008). Efficacy of personal
response systems (‘clickers’) in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching
of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50.
Sevian H & Robinson WE (2011) Clickers promote learning in all kinds of classes—
Small and large, graduate and undergraduate, lecture and lab. Journal of College
Science Teaching 40(3): 14–8.
Shaffer, D. M., & Collura, M. J. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a personal
response system in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 273-277.
Shernoff, D. S., & Hoogstra, L. (2001). Continuing motivation beyond the high school
classroom. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 93, 73-87.
Skiba, D., (2006). Got large lecture hall classes? Use clickers. Nursing Education
Perspectives, 27 (5), 278-280.
Stein, P., Challman, S.D., & Brueckner, J., (2006). Using audience response
technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing course. Journal of
Nursing Education, 45 (11), 469-473.
Stevens, D. P., & Fontenot, G. (2017). Measuring clicker impact on student
perceptions of course and instructor. International Journal of Innovation and
Learning, 21, 21–34. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2017.080751.
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response
systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of psychology,
34(4), 253-258.
Tivener, K. A., & Hetzler, T. (2015). The Effects of an electronic audience responses
system on athletic training student knowledge and interactivity. Athletic
Training Education Journal, 11(3), 212-218.
Student Respond Systems (SRSs)
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
143
Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker
classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-
level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology,
32, 21–40.
Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve
students performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 91–95.
doi:10.1207/s15328023top3202_2.
Walker, R. J., Spangler, B. R., Lloyd, E. P., Walker, B. L., Wessels, P. M., &
Summerville, A. (2018). Comparing active learning techniques: The effect of
clickers and discussion groups on student perceptions and performance.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 74-87. Retrieved on
July 08, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3337
White, P., D. J. Delaney, D. Syncox, O. A. Akerberg, and B. Alters. 2011. Clicker
implementation models. Educause Quarterly 34(4): 1–4.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Cavide Demirci, Yavuz Selim Şişman, & Banu Aras
144
About Authors
Cavide Demirci is a professor at Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Turkey. Her areas
of interest are teacher training in Turkey and student-centered education in master’s
degree program; current debates in education and effective learning approach in
education in doctoral program; instructional technologies, micro teaching, teaching
practice and teaching principles and methods in undergraduate program.
E-mail: cdemirci@ogu.edu.tr
Yavuz Selim Şişman has completed his Master's degree in Curriculum and
Instruction. Currently, he is doing his PhD in the Department of Curriculum and
Instruction at Osmangazi University and is also working as a lecturer at a university.
His areas of interest are teaching English, program evaluation and educational
technologies.
E-mail: ysisman@erbakan.edu.tr
Banu Aras is a PhD student in Curriculum and Instruction. She now works as a
training coordinator. Her areas of interest are; teaching, scale development, robotic
coding.
E-mail: banuaras1@gmail.com
Chapter 7
This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
145
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for
Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin
The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TUBITAK), Türkiye
Orkun Koçak
TED University, Türkiye
To Cite This Chapter
Idin, S., & Koçak, O. (2022). A digital game-based Science activity for children: Stop climate
change. In M. T. Hebebci, & O. Yılmaz (Eds.), Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
(pp. 145-164). ISRES Publishing
Introduction
In recent years, we see that technology and technological applications have been used
effectively in many fields of education. Especially, during the novel coronavirus
(Covid-19) process, students and teachers could not continue their education in an area
close to the whole of the world for a long time. It has been determined that
approximately 1.5 billion students cannot continue face-to-face education due to the
Covid-19 (UNESCO, 2020). In this process, education and training activities had to
be continued remotely. It has been greatly affected by our perspective on education
and training activities during the pandemic process (Bozkurt and Sharma, 2020). The
teaching of the lessons had to be moved from the concrete environment (face to face)
to the abstract environment (online). For this reason, synchronous (Henriksen, Creely
& Henderson, 2020) and asynchronous (Lowenthal, Borup, West & Archambault,
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
146
2020) content presentation has been used extensively in online environments during
the pandemic process. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has tried to carry out
the lessons prepared within the framework of distance education activities for around
18 million students in our country through EBA TV, EBA live lessons and EBA
academic support applications (Sözen, 2020). MoNE has been working on the use of
digital technologies in education for a long time. In this context, the Movement to
Increase Opportunities and Improve Technology (FATIH) Project started to be
implemented in pilot schools in 2012. For this purpose, studies such as making internet
access available to all schools and dissemination of information technology classes
have been carried out for the use and dissemination of new technologies in education
(Işık and Bahat, 2021).
Digital Games and Education
In this study, a digital game was developed to teach the subject of Climate Change
using Unity, one of the digital game development platforms. Anastasiadis,
Lampropoulos and Siakas (2018) new generation of students has been significantly
influenced by the digital age and constantly uses Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) in their daily lives. Digital game-based learning provides further
benefits for enhancing students' learning experience and improving learning and
teaching procedures, while promoting active interaction and communication between
students and educators. Greenfield (1996) reached four basic conclusions in his
research with students aged 12-16 playing adventure games with students aged 12-16:
a) Video games help develop strategies for reading three-dimensional images. b) They
help improve learning through observation and hypothesis testing. c) 'They expand the
understanding of scientific simulations. d) They increase parallel attention strategies.
Gros (2007), video games are useful tools for learning and gaining knowledge of
certain strategies. They also enhance the learning that is characteristic of the culture of
the information society, and this learning is likely to have long-term consequences.
Although entertainment is the first factor that attracts people to spend long hours
playing games, effective principles and/or approaches in game design facilitate and
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
147
engage positive learning outcomes (Gee, 2007; Li and Tsai, 2013). Digital games
provide engaging experiences, interactive learning environments and collaborative
learning activities; therefore, they have greatly increased in popularity in recent years
(Squire, 2002; Squire, Giovanetto, Devane, and Durga, 2005). As it can be understood
from the literature, in recent years, more and more technology and its elements have
been allocated in education. Digital games will play an important role in the teaching
processes of the course of science in order to teach students the subject and its content
that are difficult to learn and to have fun while learning.
Scope of the Study
Within the scope of this study, a digital game about climate change, which has become
increasingly important in recent years, has been developed by utilizing Unity, one of
the digital game development platforms. Unity, like other "game engines", is a
"software framework", or set of tools for developers that simplifies rendering, physics,
and input, and frees them from creating sandboxes from scratch.
Many studies have been published so far on the creation of games in computer classes,
literature. Most of these studies are concerned with how games can be highly
motivating to teach computer science subjects, particularly in software engineering,
virtual reality, and computer languages (Ward, 2008). The Unity Game Development
Environment, a popular game development platform, is rarely used in computer
classes. Although Unity is used in education after high school, it has been determined
that it is rarely used for students aged 14-16 (Comber, Mayer, Motschnig, &
Haselberger, 2019). With this research, it is aimed to teach climate change and related
concepts with a digital game developed using Unity platform for primary school
students. When the literature is examined, the content within the scope of this research
that may be directly related to climate change at primary school level has not been
found.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
148
Game Content: Stop Climate Change
Login page
This page is the one that appears when we first open the game. As seen in Figure 1,
there are three choices on this page. The main song of the game plays here, as well.
On this page, we can start the game, adjust the volume of the music, and exit the game.
Figure 1. Main screen of the game (login page)
As seen in figure 1, selecting “Quit” allows us to close the game. When “Settings” is
selected, we see the screen displayed in figure 2. We can adjust the volume of the
music of the game or turn the music on and off. Pulling the bar to the right increases
the volume, while pulling it to the left decreases the volume. We can return to the home
screen by selecting “Main Menu.”
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
149
Figure 2. The settings screen
As seen in figure 3, when “Play” is selected, three different questions and an additional
level are displayed. The questions lead to the relevant levels. On this screen, there are
visuals that will help in understanding what global warming is, including CO2, Earth
and a thermometer, the Sun, and a tree.
Figure 3. The level selection screen
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
150
The player can go to the desired level of the game by clicking on the relevant question
on this screen. The order of the questions and the related levels is chronological. The
first question is “Why is climate change happening?” In this level, the player is
informed about the causes of climate change. The second question is “What happens
in the process of climate change?” In this level, the player is informed about what
happens during the process of climate change and the results through visuals and
gameplay. The third question is “What can we do to prevent global warming?” In this
level, there is information about how we can prevent global warming and the wasting
of energy sources with visuals and platform elements. In the Green World level, a
green and beautiful world, which we could obtain if we prevent global warming, is
depicted for the player. The player does not need to pass a previous level to move on
to the next one. As levels are finished, the player is directed back to the level selection
screen. It will be more beneficial for the player to proceed in chronological order, but
the level selection screen nevertheless allows players to choose levels in any preferred
order.
Process of the Game
In a game, game elements form the infrastructure of the game. This infrastructure
affects the playing of the game and provides communication with the player. While
playing the game, the player plays according to the existing game mechanics. These
mechanics are different for Windows, Android, and iOS platforms. Gameplay
mechanics include features such as the character’s movements, jumping, and
interactions with other elements.
Non-touch Devices
In Windows, we use the mouse cursor to press buttons in the game. After placing the
mouse cursor on the button that we want to press, we select it by pressing the left
mouse button. For example, when we open the game, we move the mouse cursor over
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
151
the word “Play” on the screen and left-click, and then the level selection screen
appears. We can move our character to the left by pressing the A key on the keyboard
and to the right with the D key. With the space key, we can make our character jump.
Touch Devices
To press buttons on mobile devices, clicking is enough. For example, when we open
the game and click on “Play” on the screen that appears, the level selection screen then
appears.
Joystick usage will be helpful at this point, as mobile devices do not have a keyboard
for making the character move. We can control the character with the joystick in the
lower left corner as seen in figure 4. When the joystick is moved to the left, we move
the character to the left, and the character moves to the right when the joystick is moved
to the right. When we pull the joystick up, the character makes a jumping movement.
Figure 4. The joystick is visible in the bottom left of the screen. In the figure on the
right, the character is jumping
Game Items and Features
There are four different levels in the game. Figure 4 presents an image from the “Green
World” level. We can return to the main screen with the “Main Menu” button, which
appears in the upper right in figure 5. We can exit the game from that screen or we can
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
152
adjust the volume from the settings section of the game. To change the level, we can
choose a new level after selecting “Play” from the main menu.
Figure 5. Game items
Character
The red object in figure 5 standing next to the tree and in front of the sign is the main
character of the game. The player brings life to this character by directing him. The
player passes through the selected level by moving the character left and right and
making him jump. If the main character does not move, the game cannot be played.
Therefore, the most important character of the game is the main character. His name
is Emre and he represents the player. The target audience for the game comprises
children aged 6-12 years.
Scoring System
The number “0” initially appears on the scoreboard in the upper left of the screen. In
the game, there are trees for acquiring a score in each level. As trees are collected, 5
points are added to the scoreboard. The reason for using this scoring system is to offer
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
153
a competitive element for players. In the game, tree numbers vary from level to level.
In the first level there are 5 trees, so for the first level, the total possible maximum
score is 25 points. For the second level, there are 6 trees, so the total possible maximum
score is 30 points. For the third level, there are 4 trees, so the total possible maximum
score is 20 points. Players can compete with each other using this scoring system.
In figure 6, there is a tree that the character will get, and in figure 7, in the upper left
the scoreboard total is seen to have increased. More than one of these objects can be
found in each level. Since there is more than one, players can compare scores among
themselves.
Figure 6. Before getting tree for points
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
154
Figure 7. After getting tree for points
Portal
The portal seen in figure 6 and figure 7 is visible at the end of each level. This portal
functions as a door and is located at the end of the level. The player must pass through
the portal to finish the level. The level cannot be completed without going through the
portal. The character returns to the level selection screen after passing through the
portal and can then move on to the next desired level. The aim of the game is to reach
all four portals by completing the four levels.
Elimination and Restarting
When we touch certain objects in the game, we get burned. When we are burned, we
encounter the screen shown in figure 8. These objects vary from level to level. When
the main character (Emre) touches these objects, he is eliminated. The game restarts
when the green “Restart” button is pressed under the text that appears on the screen
after the character is burned by one of these objects. Pressing “Restart” resets the
scoreboard and the character returns to the first part of the game. The game is entered
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
155
again from the level selection screen and the player tries again from the beginning to
score points and reach the portal at the end of the level.
Figure 8. When the main character eliminated
Sign System
The sign system in the game is the game’s most important element after the main
character. The signs contain the educational aspects of the game and convey
information to the students. When Emre comes in front of a sign, the text written on
the sign can be seen in a bubble that appears below it on the screen. These texts vary
from level to level and they provide answers to the questions asked for each level. For
example, one level asks “Why is climate change happening?” In this level, information
about the causes of climate change is accordingly given on the signs. As seen in the
example in figure 9, when the character stands in front of a sign, the informative text
opens in a bubble at the bottom of the screen. It is important for players to read the
contents of these signs and be informed about the concept of climate change.
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
156
Figure 9. When the main character is in front of a sign
Game Levels
“Why is Climate Change Happening?”
The theme of this level, which is the first level of the game, is as follows: People are
increasing Earth’s climate change and temperature by using fossil fuels. This adds to
the large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse
effect and causing global warming. To explain these factors that cause climate change,
background images and a gray theme are used in this level to emphasize air pollution
and the release of toxic gases into the atmosphere. In addition, the platform elements
in this level are gray. In figure 10, toxic CO2 and CO gases are seen in the cloud in the
background, and the construction of factories can be seen at the rear. Later in this level,
the player will encounter items more closely related to real life. In figure 11, the
character is seen interacting with vehicles waiting to buy gas at a gas station and he
must make his way through these vehicles. City elements are seen in the background,
placed there to help build this feeling of pollution. The player earns points by finding
trees in this section. The scores earned here do not change the course of the game but
will allow the player to compare points in conversations with other players. The level
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
157
continues until the character enters the portal. The player will gain information from
the signs in this level. The name of the level on the signs is “Why is climate change
happening?” This question is answered by the signs. The player gets information on
this subject in the bubbles that appear at the bottom of the screen whenever the
character comes in front of a sign.
Figure 10. Starting point for this level
Figure 11. The character interacts with objects
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
158
“What Happens in the Process of Climate Change?”
When we move on to the second level, we deal with the increase in the greenhouse
effect due to the presence of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides,
and other greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere of the Earth in the process known
as global warming. Students will begin to learn about the factors that cause global
warming and concepts related to climate change as a result of global warming. This
level contains two parts. In the first part, the increasing temperatures in the world are
mentioned together with the greenhouse effect, urban development, and resulting
desertification. In the second part, the melting of glaciers due to increasing
temperatures and the negative situations caused by this melting are addressed.
In the first part, a background reminiscent of desert dust, which may arise due to
desertification, is used. A platform with brown tones is used to match the background.
At the same time, if the character touches a white box, the character will be eliminated.
The “Restart” message will then appear. These white boxes are seen in the upper part
of figure 12; the character is standing on the platform there.
In the second part, the melting glaciers turn into water in the background due to the
increase in temperatures, and a snowy environment and a cold blue more suitable for
this theme are used in the background. If the character falls into the water, he will be
eliminated. In figure 13, the water and the snowy environment are seen. The player
earns points by finding trees in the first and second parts. The scores earned in this
way do not change the course of the game but will allow the player to compare points
with other players. The score in the first part is carried over into the second part, and
this level continues until the character enters the portal. The player receives
information from the signs, as in the previous level. The name of the level on the signs
is “What’s going on in the global warming process?” This question is answered as the
player accesses information on the subject in the bubbles that appear at the bottom of
the screen whenever Emre stands in front of the signs. In the first part, information
about desertification and the excessive use of concrete is given on the signs together
with information on the efficient use of water. In the second part, the signs address the
melting of glaciers and the resultant dangers that the world will face.
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
159
Figure 12. Image from the first part and the starting point of the level
Figure 13. Image from the second part
“What Can We Do to Prevent Global Warming?”
As we move on to the third level of the game, attention is drawn to elements that are
solutions to the problem of global warming caused by the emergence of greenhouse
gases. In this way, students will understand that if the factors causing global warming
are eliminated and/or reduced, the negative effects of climate change will also be
decreased. Looking at the game’s theme, we see solutions suggested to solve this
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
160
problem. For example, rather than using fossil fuels that produce harmful gases, the
importance of finding solutions with renewable energy sources depicted in the
background of the game is shown in this level. We have many natural energy sources
such as wind, water, and solar power that we can use without harming nature.
Reducing the use of fossil fuels and preferring renewable energy sources will reduce
harmful gas emissions into the air. This will be extremely beneficial for us in
preventing global warming.
To show the importance of renewable energy sources, wind turbines, water energy,
and solar panels appear in the background in this level. In this level, we can first pass
over the wind turbines; if we fall, there is a possibility of passing them from below.
Afterwards, we pass through the part where water energy is produced. In this part, the
character is eliminated if he falls into the water. Next come the solar panels. In these
parts, as players interact with these objects, they will learn more detailed information
about renewable energy sources. The water energy part is shown in figure 14.
Figure 14. Main character in the part of this level addressing water energy
The player earns points by finding trees in this level. Again, the score will not change
the course of the game, but players can compare their scores among themselves. The
level continues until the character enters the portal.
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
161
The player gains information from the signs in this level, which are titled “How can
we prevent global warming?” This question is answered when the character accesses
information from bubbles that appear at the bottom of the screen upon standing in front
of the signs. The signs contain information about renewable energy sources. Each time
the player comes to a new renewable energy source in this level, information about
that source is provided.
“A Green World”
The aim of this level, the final level of the game, is to present students with a depiction
of a world where climate change has been prevented. Through this comparison, an
effort is made to create environmental awareness among the players by prioritizing the
beauty and naturalness of a world without global warming. In this level, the player
encounters easier gameplay compared to other sections. This level is intentionally
easier and shorter to make the player feel that a world without global warming will be
comfortable and simpler. The trees, flowers, and greenery in the design of this level
facilitate that feeling.
The player gains points by finding a tree in this section. A deal is offered to the player
in the text written on a sign before the player claims the tree. A better future is offered
in this deal. The level continues until the character enters the portal.
The player will obtain information from the signs in this level. While making reference
to the previous levels on the signs, the concept of a green world is presented. The
character can access information on this subject from the bubbles that appear at the
bottom of the screen upon standing in front of the signs.
Conclusion
In recent years, when distance education activities have increased rapidly with the
Covid-19 pandemic, we see that technology and technological applications have found
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
162
more place in the teaching processes. In this context, applications such as Zoom,
Teamlink, Google Meet, Adobe Connect and Webex have been frequently used as
teaching-learning tools in distance education. In the distance education processes,
various video tools such as Udemy and Khan Academy, which have educational
content, were also used during the period when students were away from school. In
these applications and in science teaching with the help of tools, a more synchronized
distance education activity was carried out. This digital game about climate change,
which aims to teach climate change to students by endearing it to students, can be
considered more as an asynchronous distance education activity. Thus, it is aimed that
students can both play the game and have fun in the process while they are learning
climate change and related concepts, independently of each other, at any time and with
the help of a smart device they want. The aspect of this digital content developed using
the Unity platform, which distinguishes it from other applications, is that students are
active while learning the subject and concepts related to the subject.
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
163
References
Anastasiadis, T., Lampropoulos, G. and Siakas, K. (2018). Digital game-based
learning and serious games in education. International Journal of Advances in
Scientific Research and Engineering, 4(12), 139-144.
Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası
dünyada eğitime yönelik değerlendirmeler: Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim
paradigması. AUAd, 6(3), 112-142.
Comber, O., Mayer, H., Motschnig, R and Haselberger, D. (2019). Engaging Students
in Computer Science Education through Game Development 9–11 April, 2019 -
American University in Dubai, Dubai, UAEwith Unity. IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
Gee, J. P. (2007). “What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy,”
(Revised and updated edition), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007.
Greenfield, I. M. (1996). Video games as cultural artifacts. In I? M. Green- field & R.
R. Cocking (Eds), Interacting with video (pp. 35-46). Norwood: NJ. Ablex
Publishing.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning
environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38.
Henriksen, D., Creely, E., & Henderson, M. (2020). Folk Pedagogies for Teacher
Transitions: Approaches to Synchronous Online Learning in the Wake of
COVID-19. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 201-209.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216179/
Işık, M. and Bahat, İ. (2021). The Coronavirus: New Quests in Education. Journal of
University Research, 4(1), 82-89.
Lowenthal, P., Borup, J., West, R., & Archambault, L. (2020). Thinking beyond zoom:
using asynchronous video to maintain connection and engagement during the
Current Studies in Educational Disciplines 2022
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
164
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2),
383-391. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/216192/
M.C. Li, M. C. and Tsai, C. C. (2013). “Game-based learning in science education: A
review of relevant research. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
22(6), 877-898.
Sözen, N. (2020). An investigation on distance education applications in the Covid 19
process. Eurasian Journal of Researches in Social and Economics (EJRSE),
7(12), 302-319.
Squire, K. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game studies, 2(1), 1-
13.
Squire, K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B. and Durga, S. (2005). From users to designers:
Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment. TechTrends,
49(5), 34-42.
UNESCO. (2020). School closures caused by Coronavirus (Covid-19). UNESCO.
https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
Ward, J. (2008, April 29). What is a game engine? GameCareerGuide.com. Retrieved
from https://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/529/what_is_a_game_.php
A Digital Game-based Science Activity for Children: Stop Climate Change
Sahin Idin, & Orkun Kocak
165
About Authors
Şahin İdin received his Ph.D. degree in Science Education from Hacettepe University.
His research interests focus on Science Communication, STEM Education, Informal
Learning, Gifted/Talented Students, Social Justice and Equity. He is editor-in-chief of
the Journal of STEAM Education. He has been involving in several European
Commission scientific projects.
E-mail: sahinidin@hotmail.com
Orkun Koçak completed his bachelor's degree at TED University, Faculty of
Education, Department of Elementary Mathematics Teaching. I'm a graduate student
in Computer Science at Ted University. His research interest STEM Education,
Informal Learning, Digital Learning Games,Web3.0 and Artificial Intelligence.
E-mail: orkunkocak7@gmail.com
