International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2019, Vol. 14(1) 40-60

Pre-service Teachers' Views about Digital Teaching Materials

Özden Demirkan

pp. 40 - 60   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1901-27-0003.R1

Published online: March 22, 2019  |   Number of Views: 384  |  Number of Download: 967


This study aims to reveal pre-service teachers’ views about digital teaching materials which they have in their Technologies in Teaching and Materials Design course. In this qualitative study, phenomenological design was used. The participants of the study consist of 55 pre-service teachers studying and taking the above-mentioned course at Gazi Faculty of Education.Data were collected through “Written Form for Pre-service Teachers’ Views about Digital Teaching Materials” developed by the researcher. Content analysis method was used to analyze the qualitative data collected. Findings of the study showed that pre-service teachers found the preparation of digital teaching materials useful, interesting and gripping, suitable for the age of technology, effective for their field of study. They also stated that the use of this kind of digital teaching materials needed to be more common. The study also revealed that pre-service teachers found Web 2.0 tools which they learnt to use such as presentation (Emaze and Powtoon), discussion (Padlet and Voice Threat) and interactive evaluation (Kahoot and Plickers) technically different, unusual, attractive, user-friendly, enhancing creativity and visually rich. The most frequently emphasized strengths of using these tools in the classroom were being interesting, attention grabbing, enhancing motivation and permanence, enabling active participation and effective discussion atmosphere, providing instant feedback. The limitations of using these digital teaching materials in the classroom were stated as such: the need for internet, many characters and features not being free of charge, it may lead to distraction if not used effectively, students might make insulting comments on each other, some students might feel unhappy when their faults are revealed, competition may lead to ambition. Challenges of using these tools in the classroom were stated as such: the need for fast internet connection, some tools have parts that are not free of charge and it hinders complete use of the tool, some tools are difficult to use. Considering the views regarding how digital teaching materials would support teaching process, it was found out that pre-service teachers thought such materials would draw and raise attention, make the lesson enjoyable; diverse, original and effective content would be created; more practice would be possible, learning would become permanent and easier; students’ active participation would be enabled; students’ motivation would be increased; effective communication would be possible; technology would be involved in the process; students’ success would increase. 

Keywords: Digital teaching materials, pre-service teachers, Web 2.0, Technologies in Teaching and Materials Design course

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Demirkan, O. (2019). Pre-service Teachers' Views about Digital Teaching Materials . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(1), 40-60. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2019.186.3

Demirkan, O. (2019). Pre-service Teachers' Views about Digital Teaching Materials . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(1), pp. 40-60.

Chicago 16th edition
Demirkan, Ozden (2019). "Pre-service Teachers' Views about Digital Teaching Materials ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 14 (1):40-60. doi:10.29329/epasr.2019.186.3.

  1. AECT (2012), AECT Standards, 2012 version. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  2. Akpınar, Y. (2003). Öğretmenlerin Yeni Bilgi Teknolojileri Kullanımında Yükseköğretimin Etkisi: İstanbul Okulları Örneği. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2).   [Google Scholar]
  3. Başal, A. (2016). “Dijmat projesi: İngilizce öğretmenlerinin dijital ders materyali geliştirme algıları.” Eğitim Bilimlerinde Yenilik ve Nitelik Arayışı, pp.1247-1260 DOI: 10.14527/9786053183563.077, [Google Scholar]
  4. Chou, C. (2017). An analysis of the 3d video and interactive response approach effects on the science remedial teaching for fourth grade underachieving students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(4), 1059-1073. [Google Scholar]
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. M. Bütün, S. B. Demir, (Ed.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. (Eserin aslı 2013’de yayınlanmıştır.) [Google Scholar]
  6. Çam, Ş.S. (2018). Öğretim Elemanlarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Geliştirilmesi İçin Bir Mesleki Gelişim Program Önerisi. Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  7. Çelik, S., ve Aytın, K. (2014), “Teachers’ Views on Digital Educational ToolsinEnglishLanguageLearning:BenefitsandChallengesintheTurkishContext.”The ElectronicJournalforEnglishasaSecondLanguage. 18(2). [Google Scholar]
  8. Çepni, S. (2012). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş. Trabzon: Celepler Matbaa. [Google Scholar]
  9. Demirkan, Ö., Gürışık, A., & Akın, Ö. (2017). Teachers’ opinions about “Plickers’’ one of the online assessment tools. I. Koleva & G. Duman (Ed.), Educational research and practice içinde (s. 476-486). Sofya: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Deni, A. ve Zainal, Z. (2015), “Let’s Write On The Wall: Virtual Collaborative Learning Using Padlet”, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – July 2015, Special Issue 2 for INTE 2015. [Google Scholar]
  11. Elmahdi, I., Abdulghani, A.-H., & Fawzi, H. (2018). Using technology for formative assessment to improve students’ learning. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 182-188. [Google Scholar]
  12. Eryaman, M. Y. (2007). Examining the characteristics of literacy practices in a technology-rich sixth grade classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET) 6(2), 26-41. [Google Scholar]
  13. ISTE  (2016), Iste Standards For Educators. International Society for Technology in Education, Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  14. Iwamoto, D., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using Kahoot™ on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80-93. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuriakose, R. B.,& Luwes, N. (2016). Student perceptions to the use of paperless technology in assessments–a case study using clickers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 78-85. [Google Scholar]
  16. Marvasti, A.B. (2004). Qualitative Research in Sociology. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  17. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and interpretation. San Francisco: Jos-sey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  18. Miles, M. B.,& Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative  data  analysis: An  expanded  sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  19. Putman, M. (2014). Teaching With Tech. Creating Collaborative Spaces Using Padlet. [Google Scholar]
  20. Richards, J. C. (2014). Foreword. In J. D. D. M. Agudo, (Ed.). English as a foreign language teacher education: Current perspectives and challenges (pp. 1-3). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  21. Rioseco, M., Paukner-Nogués, F., ve Ramírez-Muñoz, B. (2017), “Incorporating PowToon as a Learning Activity into a Course on Technological Innovations as Didactic Resources for Pedagogy Programs.”  International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 12 (6), 120-131. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sellahewa, H. (2012). Enhancing small group teaching and learning using online student response systems. STEM Annual Conference 2012.Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  23. Solmaz, E.,& Çetin, E. (2017). Ask-response-play-learn: Students'views on gamification based interactive response systems. Journal of Educational & Instructional Studies in the World, 7(3), 28-40. [Google Scholar]
  24. Yamauchi, L.G., (2008).“Effects of multimedia instructional material on students' learning and their perceptions of the instruction.” Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 15324. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  25. Yaman, İ. (2018). “Türkiye’de İngilizce Öğrenmek: Zorluklar ve Fırsatlar” RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11 (Nisan), 25, 161-175. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yapıcı, İ. Ü.,& Karakoyun, F. (2017). Gamification in biology teaching: A sample of Kahoot application. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 396-414. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yordming, R. (2017). “Teachers’ Perspective towards Digital Teaching Tools in Thai EFL Classrooms.” International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 3(2). [Google Scholar]
  28. Yıldırım, A.,& Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zengin, Y., Bars, M., & Şimşek, Ö. (2017). Matematik öğretiminin biçimlendirici değerlendirme sürecinde Kahoot ve Plickers uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 602-626. [Google Scholar]
  30. Weber, T., (2014). “Tools for teachers and students.” The Free Library, [Google Scholar]