Web 2.0 Practical Content Development Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Teachers in the Context of Digital Literacy and Innovation

Abstract

The aim of the study is to determine teachers' self-efficacy beliefs towards Web 2.0 practical content development, their digital literacy status and innovativeness, and to investigate the relationship between these phenomena. Single and relational survey models were used in this study, which was designed in accordance with the survey model. A sample of 1019 teachers was formed in the study using the simple random sampling method. Web 2.0 Practical Content Development Self-Efficacy Scale, Digital Literacy Scale, and Individual Innovation Scale were used as data collection tools. Findings revealed that the Web 2.0 Practical Content Development Self-Efficacy beliefs of participant teachers were moderate, and their digital literacy levels were quite high. In addition, the individual innovativeness mean scores of teachers were above 80, which showed that they were innovative teachers. The study also found a positive relationship between teachers' digital literacy level and skills and Web 2.0 practical content development beliefs, and a negative relationship between innovation level and Web 2.0 rapid content development self-efficacy beliefs. In other words, it was observed that the beliefs about practical content development on Web 2.0 increased as teachers' digital literacy and skills increased, while the increase in innovation tendencies did not show the expected effect on the self-efficacy beliefs of rapid content development on Web 2.0.

The impact of instruction on Web 2.0 tools on pre-service mathematics teachers' self-efficacy beliefs and their activity development experiences

“…Many studies have been conducted to examine the competencies, opinions, attitudes, beliefs and self-efficacy of teachers and prospective teachers regarding the use of Web 2.0 tools (e.g. Erduran, 2019;Günbaş & Yıldız, 2020;Saracoğlu & Kocabatmaz, 2019;Özpınar, 2020;Muslu, İmer Çetin & Okulu, 2022;Kurt et al, 2022;Arabacı & Orbay, 2022;Uzunkavak & Gül, 2022). There are, however, very few studies specific to mathematics education in these studies.…”