Examination on implications of Web 2.0 Tools in the field of Special Education //Examen sobre las implicaciones de las herramientas Web 2.0 en el campo de la educación especial

Sezer Kanbul; Emrah Soykan; Erinc Erçağ

doi:10.46925//rdluz.31.37

Sezer Kanbul Near East University, Distance Learning Center, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9654-5272
Emrah Soykan Near East University, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3635-8739
Erinc Erçağ University of Kyrenia, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6681-7625

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.31.37

Keywords: Web 2.0, Special Education, Content Analysis

Abstract

Abstract

The objective of this article is to analyze the published studies that bear the title Web 2.0 in the field of special education. For this, the electronic databases IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francies Online, Wiley and the search engine Google Scholar were scanned in order to locate articles titled Web 2.0. Nineteen articles were selected from the 1220 articles found in the field of special education, and they were analyzed using the content analysis technique. Data were collected using the "Article Publication Form" developed by the researchers. The data obtained in the study were interpreted based on percentage and frequency. The results obtained are believed to lead to further studies.

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo es analizar los estudios publicados que llevan el título Web 2.0 en el campo de la educación especial. Para ello, se escanearon las bases de datos electrónicas IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francies Online, Wiley y el motor de búsqueda Google Scholar a fin de ubicar artículos titulados Web 2.0. Diecinueve artículos fueron seleccionados de los 1220 artículos que se encontraron en el campo de la educación especial, y fueron analizados mediante la técnica de análisis de contenido. Los datos se recopilaron con el "Formulario de publicación de artículos" desarrollado por los investigadores. Los datos obtenidos en el estudio se interpretaron en base a porcentaje y frecuencia. Se cree que los resultados obtenidos darán lugar a más estudios.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Sezer Kanbul, Near East University, Distance Learning Center, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey

Professor Near East University, Distance Learning Center, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey

Emrah Soykan, Near East University, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey

Near East University, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey

Erinc Erçağ, University of Kyrenia, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey

Professor University of Kyrenia, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, North Cyprus, Mersin 10 Turkey

References

Bauer, Martin. W. (2003). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound London: Sage Publication, ss. 131.

Billingsley, B., Israel, M., & Smith, S. (2011). Supporting new special education teachers: How online resources and Web 2.0 technologies can help. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 20-29.

Calık, M., & Sozbilir, M. (2014). Parameters of Content Analysis. Education and Science, 39(174). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3412

Cooper, M. (2007). Accessibility of emerging rich web technologies: web 2.0 and the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A) (pp. 93-98). ACM.

Drigas, A. S., Vrettaros, J., Argiri, K., & Bardis, N. (2013). Web 2.0 learning strategies for disabled students. Journal of applied mathematics and bioinformatics, 3(4), 125.

Jay, C., Brown, A., & Harper, S. (2011). A ‘visual-centred’mapping approach for improving access to Web 2.0 for people with visual impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(2), 97-107.

Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (11. Baskı.) Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.

Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Reilly T. (2007). What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(Jan), 17-37.

Pappas, L., Schwerdtfeger, R., Cooper, M. (2010). WAI-ARIA 1.0 Primer - An introduction to rich Internet application accessibility challenges and solutions, W3C Working Draft 16 September 2010. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, W3C.

Pereira, L. S., & Archambault, D. (2018). Correlating Navigation Barriers on Web 2.0 with Accessibility Guidelines. In International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 13-21). Springer, Cham.

Peterson-Ahmad, M., Stepp, J., & Somerville, K. (2018). Teaching pre-service teachers how to utilize web 2.0 platforms to support the educational needs of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Education Sciences, 8(2), 80.

Yeni, S. (2017). Examining the effectiveness of the in-service training program on web 2.0 tools for the special education teachers. Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(23).

Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.

Zajicek, M. (2007). Web 2.0: hype or happiness?. In Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A) (pp. 35-39). Acm.