Abstract

This study addresses a notable gap in the literature by exploring the integration of innovative strategies—specifically Web 2.0-based dialogic teaching—into out-of-school learning environments. The research investigated 7th-grade students’ awareness of Web 2.0 tools, their performance on a thought experiment (the Sugar Cube), their cognitive engagement, and reflections on the activity, all facilitated through Web 2.0 platforms. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study involved 20 volunteer students and utilized a Web 2.0 tools awareness scale, a thought experiment task, and semi-structured interviews. Findings indicate that dialogic teaching in an out-of-school context enhanced students’ awareness of Web 2.0 tools, deepened their engagement in scientific thought experiments, and supported higher-order thinking. Originally designed for seventh graders, the activity demonstrates potential adaptability across different grade levels, curricular goals, and informal learning settings. The study contributes practical strategies for fostering student engagement, guidance for improving technological access in underserved areas, and theoretical insights into the digital integration of dialogic teaching and thought experiments in science education.

Keywords

References

• Abraham, M.R., Grzybowski, E. B., Renner, J. W. & Marck, E. A. (1992). Understanding and misunderstandings of eighth graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290203
• Albano, G., Mollo, M., Polo, M. & Marsico, G. (2022). Dialogical interactions mediated by technology in mathematics education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 10, 22-40. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2022.517
• Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/%2002671522.2018.1481140
• Alexander, R.J. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge.
• Alkursheh, T. O. (2024). Factorial validation of the university students’ attitudes toward blended learning scale: An exploratory and confirmatory analysis. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 8(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202423851
• Alsuwaida, N. (2022). Designing and evaluating the impact of using a blended art course and Web 2.0 Tools in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 21, 25-52. https://doi.org/10.28945/4923
• Amhag, L., Hellström, L. & Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher educators’ use of digital tools and needs for digital competence in higher education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35, 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1646169
• Ang, K. C. (2020). Computational thinking as habits of mind for mathematical modelling. In W. C. Yang & D. Meade (Eds.), Electronic proceedings of the 25th Asian technology conference in mathematics (pp. 126-137). Mathematics and Technology, LLC.
• Arslan, K. & Görgülü Arı, A. (2021). Web 2.0 tools awareness scale development study. Ulakbilge, 60, 687–703. https://doi.org/10.7816/ulakbilge-08-60-03
• Aslan, A., & Arabacı, D. (2023). The use of Thinglink Web 2.0 Tool in out-of-school learning environments in mathematics teaching: Pre-service teachers' experiences. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 5(3), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202323919
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. (C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1
• Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9501-y
• Bascandziev, I. & Carey, S. (2022). Young children learn equally from real and thought experiments. In J. Culbertson, A. Perfors, H., Rabagliati, & V. Ramenzoni (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 142-148). Toronto CA: Cognitive Science Society.
• Bascandziev, I. (2024).Thought experiments as an error detection and correction tool. Cognitive Science, 48, 2-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13401
• Bascandziew, I. & Harris, P. L. (2018). Can children benefit from thought experiments? In A. Levy, & P. Godfrey-Smith (Eds.), The scientific imagination (pp. 262-279). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190212308.003.0012
• Bearman, M., Ajjawi, R., & O’Donnell, M. (2022). Life-on-campus or my-time-and-screen: Identity and agency in online postgraduate courses. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(5), 1117-1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2109014
• Beraldo, R., Barbato, S., & Ligorio, B. M. (2022). Dialogic approach to the analysis of the meaning-making process in a blended setting. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 10, 107-122. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2022.499
• Black, P., & Atkin, J. M. (2014). The central role of assessment in pedagogy. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 775–790). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267-38
• Bolliger, D.U. & Shepherd, E.C. (2017). An investigation of mobile Technologies and web 2.0 tools use in outdoor education programs. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education and Leadership, 9(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.18666/JOREL-2017-V9-I2-8228
• Bugawa, A. M., & Mirzal, A. (2018). The impact of web 2.0 technologies on the learning experience of students in higher education: a review. International Journal of Web- Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 13(3), 1548-1107. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2018070101
• Callanan, M. A., Casta˜neda, C. L., Megan, R. L., & Martin, J. L. (2017). Family science talk in museums: Predicting children’s engagement from variations in talk and activity. Child Development, 88(5), 1492–1504. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12886
• Chidiac, R.S.,& Ajaka, L. (2018). Writing through the 4Cs in the content areas–integrating creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and communication. European Scientific Journal, 7881, 95-102.
• Chiou, G. L., Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). High school students’ approaches to learning physics with relationship to epistemic views on physics and conceptions of learning physics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.794134
• Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students. Springer.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
• Dede, C., Richards, J., & Saxberg, B. (2020). The 60-year curriculum: new models for lifelong learning in the digital economy. Routledge.
• Delozier, S.J. & Rhodes, M.G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: a review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9
• Develi, F., & Namdar, B. (2019). Defining friction force: A proposed solution to a textbook problem. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 5(1), 91-101. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.487399
• Dyment, J. E., O’Connell, T. S., & Boyle, I. (2011). The intersection of Web 2.0 technologies and reflective journals: Possibilities, potential, and pitfalls. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 3, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.7768/1948-5123.1090
• Elgrably, H., & Leikin, R. (2021). Creativity as a function of problem-solving expertise: Posing new problems through investigations. ZDM– Mathematics Education, 53(4), 891-904. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202217414
• Elma, M., Küçük, S. & Samancı, O. (2024). The effect of using web 2.0 tools on smart boards on primary school students' mathematics lesson achievement, anxiety, and attitudes towards smart boards. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning, 5(1), 86-115. https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1409203
• Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1
• Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the teaching of science. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 189–203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3927-9_13
• Fine, P. D., Leung, A., Tonni, I., & Louca, C. (2022). Teachers’ feedback practices in COVID-19: Has anything changed? Journal of Dentistry, 120, 104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104087
• Garcia-Carrion, R., Lopez De Aguileta, G., Padros, M., & Ramis-Salas, M. (2020). Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00140
• Gardner, W. L. (2023). Thought experiments: no argument here- we need more of them. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(3), 563-568. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2684
• Goldenson, R. P., Avery, L. L., Ritu, R. G., & Durfee, S. M. (2022). The virtual homeroom: Utility and benefits of small group online learning in the COVID-19 era. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 51(2), 152–154. https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2021.06.012
• Greenhow, C., & Askari, E. (2021). Learning and teaching with social network sites: A decade of research in K-12 related education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4005–4034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10534-1
• Griffin, P. & Care, E. (2014). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Springer.
• Gu, X. & Xu, H. (2019). Missing piece in understanding student learning: out-of-school computer use. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 320-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118755494
• Güder, M., Akcay, H., & Inaltekin, T. (2024). Investigating the effect of internet-based applications on secondary school students' academic achievement in science, motivation and awareness of Web 2.0 tools. International Journal of Technology in Education, 7(4), 690-718. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.686
• Haden, C. A., Jant, E. A., Hoffman, P. C., Marcus, M., Geddes, J. R., & Gaskins, S. (2014). Supporting family conversations and children’s STEM learning in a children’s museum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(3), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.004
• Hew, K.F., Bai, S., Dawson, P., & Lo, C.K. (2021). Meta-analyses of flipped classroom studies: a review of methodology. Educational Research Review, 33, 100393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100393
• Hinchcliff, M. & Mehmet, M. (2023). Embedding canva into the marketing classroom: a dialogic and social learning approach to classroom innovation. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 13(6), 1174-1186. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-11-2022-0230
• Hsiao, H.-S., Lin, C.-C., Feng, R.T., & Li, K. J. (2010). Location-based services for outdoor ecological learning system: Design and implementation. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 98–111. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.13.4.98
• Hsu, Y.-C., Ching, Y.-H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2014). Web 2.0 applications and practices for learning through collaboration. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 747–758). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_60
• Irish, T., & Kang, N.-H. (2018). Connecting classroom science with everyday life: Teachers’ attempts and students’ insights. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(7), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9836-0
• Jahnke, I. & Liebscher, J. (2020). Three types of integrated course designs for using mobile technologies to support creativity in higher education. Computers and Education, 146, 103782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103782
• Jena, A. K., Bhattacharjee, S., Devi, J., & Barman, M. (2020). Effects of web 2.0 technology assisted slideshare, youtube and whatsapp on individual and collaborative learning performance and retention in tissues system. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 8(1), 25-36. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED603044.pdf
• Jensen, J.M. (2011). Consumer loyalty on the grocery product market: an empirical application of Dick and Basu’s framework, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 333-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761111149983
• Johnson, M., Bledsoe, C., Pilgrim, J., & Lowery-Moore, H. (2019). Twitter: A tool communities of practice. Srate Journal, 28(1), 61-75.
• Jones, B. L. (2008). Web 2.0 heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers. Wiley.
• Karvounidis, T., Chimos, K., Bersimis, S., & Douligeris, C. (2018). Factors, issues and interdependencies in the incorporation of a web 2.0 based learning environment in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 935-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9644-8
• Kelly, O., Buckley, K., Lieberman, L. J. & Arndt, K. (2022). Universal design for learning-a framework for inclusion in outdoor learning. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 25, 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-022-00096-z
• Kızıltaş, Y. & Kultas, E. (2025). The effect of web 2.0 tools on primary school students’ writing motivation and their role in developing creative writing skills. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13419-6
• Kompen, R.T., Edirisingha, P., Canaleta, X., Alsina, M., & Monguet, J.M. (2019). Personal learning Environments based on Web 2.0 services in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.003
• Korukluoğlu, P., Çeliköz, M. & Gürol, M. (2022). Investigating the effectiveness of Web 2.0-based critical thinking curriculum developed for secondary students: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 7(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1033373
• Krieglstein, F., Schneider, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022). How the design and complexity of concept maps influence cognitive learning processes. Education Technology and Research Development, 70, 99-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10083-2
• Ledger, S., & Fischetti, J. (2020). Micro-teaching 2.0: technology as the classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4561
• Lehesvuori, S., Ramnarain, U., & Viiri, J. (2018). Challenging transmission modes of teaching in science classrooms: Enhancing learner-centeredness through dialogicity. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 1049–1069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9598-7
• Lim, Y.-M., Lee, T.H., Yap, C. S., & Ling, C.C. (2016). Employability skills, personal qualities, and early employment problems of entry-level auditors: perspectives from employers, lecturers, auditors, and students, Journal of Education for Business, 91, 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1153998
• Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C. C., & zheng, L. (2014). A look at research on mobile learning in K–12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 325–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925681
• Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2021). Teaching creative thinking: developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically. Crown House Publishing.
• Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2023). Dialogic pedagogy in democratically run schools: Introduction. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 11(2), 12-20. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.559
• Meier, L.J. (2022). Can thought experiments solve problems of personal identity?. Synthese, 200, 221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03637-7
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
• Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51, 1523–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu. 2008.02.003
• National Education Association [NEA]. (2022). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: an educator’s guide to the four Cs. Author. https://www.nea.org
• Naveh, G., Tubin, D., & Pliskin, N. (2012). Student satisfaction with learning management systems: a lens of critical success factors. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.720413
• Nuroso, H., Siswanto, J. & Huda, C. (2018). Developing a learning model to promote the skills of analytical thinking. Journal of Education and Learning, 12(4), 775-780. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i4.5814
• OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Author.
• OECD. (2021). 21st-century readers: developing literacy skills in a digital world. Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en
• Okabe-Miyamoto, K., Durnell, E., Howell, R. T., & Zizi, M. (2022). Video conferencing during emergency distance learning impacted student emotions during COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100199
• Oni, O., Momoh, A. U., & Amugo, J. E. (2018). Application of web 2.0 tools for the provision of library services for teaching, learning and research in Polytechnics. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 2(3), 203-211.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
• Pausé, C. & McCarroll, E.M. (2019). Tumbling through tertiary education: an investigation of the use of Tumblr within a child development course. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636072
• Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Rapanta, C. (2021). Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogical argumentation method across the curriculum? Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103404
• Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union.
• Rios, J.A., Ling, G., Pugh, R., Becker, D., & Bacall, A. (2020). Identifying critical 21st -century skills for workplace success: a content analysis of job advertisements, Educational Researcher, 49, 80-89. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19890600
• Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-016-0002-3
• Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916
• Rochmawati, A., Wiyanto, W. & Ridlo, S. (2019). Analysis of 21st century skills of student on implementation project based learning and problem posing models in science learning. Journal of Primary Education, 8, 58-67.
• Rogoff, B., Callanan, M., Gutierrez, K. D., & Erickson, F. (2016). The organization of informal learning. Review of Research in Education, 40, 356-401. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16680994
• Sartori, L. (2023). Putting the “experiment” back into the “thought experiment”. Synthese, 201, 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-04011-3
• Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Publishing Group.
• Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic for discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
• Sedova, K. (2017). A case study of a transition to dialogic teaching as a process of gradual change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.018
• Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass.
• Shuttleworth, P.D. (2023). What matters for child participation-the role of valuation-based dialogical participation for children living in kinship care in England. Children and Youth Services Review, 149, 106959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106959
• Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.
• Soderlund, A. (2020). Implementing 21st century learning and innovation skills in classrooms. [Unpublished masters thesis]. Northwestern College, Iowa.
• Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
• Tadesse, A., Lehesvuori, S., Posti-Ahokas, H., & Moate, J. (2023). The learner-centered interactive pedagogy classroom: Its implications for dialogic interaction in Eritrean secondary school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, 101379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101379
• Teo, P. (2019). Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2019.03.009
• Teo, T., Guoyuan, S., Mei, B., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2018). Investigating pre-service teachers’ acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies in their future teaching: a Chinese perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1489290
• Tuyakova, U., Baizhumanova, B., Mustapaeve, T., Alekeshova, L., & Zhansaya, O. (2022). Developing emotional intelligence in student teachers in universities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, 155. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01173-w
• UNESCO. (2021). Education during COVID-19 and beyond: The global education response. Author. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
• Uyar, F. K. & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2022). Analysis of the thinking process of science teachers: the light absorption thought experiment. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 18(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v18i2.34243
• Uyar, F. K. (2021). Analysis of the thinking processes regarding the thought experiments of science teachers continuing their master of science education (Publication No. 696138) [Master’s thesis, Amasya University]. Council of Higher Education, Thesis Center.
• Uyar, F. K. & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2023). A thought experiment on gravity based on falling objects: investigation of science teachers’ thinking process. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices, 13(2), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2023/v13/i2/2456
• Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A.J., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st century skills and digital skills: a systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
• Vygotsky LS.(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press
• Walter, P. (2013). Greening the net generation: Outdoor adult learning in the digital age. Adult Learning, 24(4), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159513499551
• Wei, S., Yang, X., Ismail, M. H. B., Farizan, N. H., & Samsudin, S. (2024). Outdoor education program: Assessing student performance, mental health, and teacher well-being. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 8(4), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202426265
• Weng, X., Chiu, T.K.F. & Tsang, C. C. (2022). Promoting student creativity and entrepreneurship through real-world problem-based maker education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45, 101046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101046
• Willard, A. K., Busch, J. T., Cullum, K. A., Letourneau, S. M., Sobel, D. M., Callanan, M., & Legare, C. H. (2019). Explain this, explore that: A study of parent–Child interaction in a children’s museum. Child Development, 90(5), e598–e617. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13232
• Yıldırım-Polat, S. N. & Gürsoy, G. (2023). Systematic review of theses on out-of-school learning environment in science education. Journal of Research in Informal Environments, 8(1), 1-20.
• Yılmaz, S.S. & Yaşar, M. D: (2023). Effects of Web 2.0 Tools (Kahoot, Quizlet, Google Form Example) on formative assesment in online chemistry courses. Journal of Science Learning, 6(4), 442-456. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v6i4.60479
• Yoldaş, D., Çin, H., Özkul, S., Taş, M., Ayçiçek, H., Yalçın, H., Yalçın, N., & Ölmez, G. (2023). The effect of digital course contents prepared with Web 2.0 applications and tools on education and training. International Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 10(92), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.3507
• Yu, H., Liu, P., Huang, X., & Cao, Y. (2021). Teacher online informal learning as a means to innovative teaching during home quarantine in the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 596582. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596582
• Yu, Q., Yu, K., & Lin, R. (2024). A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 742. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03237-5
• Yu, Y., Bonawitz, E., & Shafto, P. (2019). Pedagogical questions in parent–Child conversations. Child Development, 90(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12850
• Zhang, M., Zhao, K., & Chen, H. (2022). Understanding digital distraction in the classroom: A literature review. Computers & Education, 190, 104592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104592
• Zhao, Y., Llorente, A.M.P. & Gomez, M.C.S. (2021). Digital competence in higher education research: a systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 168, 104212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104212

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.