Keywords
web 2.0 tools
formative assessment
case study
How to Cite
Abstract
The integration of Web 2.0 tools into science education has gained increasing attention because of their potential to enhance student engagement, support interactive learning, and facilitate assessment processes. However, limited research has examined how these tools operate within an explicitly defined formative assessment (FA) framework. Most previous studies have focused primarily on technological affordances or learning outcomes rather than on the pedagogical processes through which these tools support formative assessment. Therefore, this study aims to explore how Web 2.0 tools can be integrated into sixth-grade science classrooms in relation to key formative assessment components.
A qualitative case study design was employed with 13 sixth-grade students during the implementation of the “Sound” unit. Kahoot, Edpuzzle, and Wordwall were integrated into classroom instruction to support the clarification of learning goals and success criteria, the elicitation of evidence of student learning, the provision of timely feedback, and students’ active involvement in the assessment process. Data were collected through student reflections, structured classroom observations, and digital activity records generated by the Web 2.0 tools. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify patterns related to formative assessment practices.
The findings indicate that these tools created valuable opportunities for eliciting evidence of learning, providing immediate feedback, increasing student participation, and supporting classroom interaction. However, their formative value depended largely on the pedagogical design of learning activities, the quality of feedback, and students’ levels of digital literacy. Rather than demonstrating causal effects on learning outcomes, the findings identify the contextual conditions under which Web 2.0 tools may effectively support formative assessment practices. This study contributes to the literature by providing a practice-oriented perspective on integrating Web 2.0 tools within a formative assessment framework, offering practical implications for science teachers, and suggesting future research using larger samples and mixed-methods designs.
References
[1] A. E. Adeshina, “The transformative role of digital resources in teaching and learning,” Open Journal of Educational Development, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2024, doi.org/10.52417/ojed.v5i1.520. (in English)
[2] B. Torun and O. Karamustafaoğlu, “Student Perspectives on the Use of ChatGPT in Science Teaching,” Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 240-249, 2025, doi.org/10.30703/cije.1609145. (in Turkish)
[3] M. Heritage, FA: Making it happen in the classroom, Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press, 2010. (in English)
[4] J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81-112, 2007, doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487. (in English)
[5] J. W. Gikandi, D. Morrow and N. E. Davis, “Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature,” Computers & Education, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2333-2351, 2011, doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004. (in English)
[6] R. Dellos, “Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning,” International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 49-52, 2015. (in English)
[7] N. Mdlalose, S. Ramaila and U. Ramnarain, “Using Kahoot! as a formative assessment tool in science teacher education,” International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 43-51, 2022, doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v11n2p43. (in English)
[8] V. Ramasany, N. M. Noor and N. M. Zaid, “Effects of learning using Edpuzzle interactive video application on students' interest, engagement and achievement in science subjects,” Innovative Teaching and Learning Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 59-72, 2022. (in English)
[9] C. Rodriguez-Escobar, J. Cuevas-Lepe and L. Maluenda-Parraguez, “Assessing the effectiveness of Wordwall.net as a vocabulary learning tool: Pre-service EFL teachers’ perspectives,” Journal of Education and Practice, vol. 14, no. 31, pp. 41-51, 2023. (in English)
[10] S. N. Robertson, S. M. Humphrey and J. P. Steele, “Using technology tools for formative assessments,” Journal of Educators Online, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1-8, 2019. (in English)
[11] A. W. Gotwals, J. Philhower, D. Cisterna and S. Bennett, “Using video to examine formative assessment practices as measures of expertise for mathematics and science teachers,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 405-423, 2015, doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9623-8. (in English)
[12] P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Developing the theory of formative assessment,” Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, vol. 21, pp. 5-31, 2009, doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5. (in English)
[13] Q. Zhang and Z. Yu, “A literature review on the influence of Kahoot! on learning outcomes, interaction, and collaboration,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 4507-4535, 2021, doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10459-6. (in English)
[14] M. Ardıç, N. T. Önal and N. Önal, “An evaluation of Edpuzzle in the context of technology supported science education,” Journal of Primary Education, vol. 20, pp. 71-85, 2023, doi.org/10.52105/temelegitim.20.5. (in Turkish)
[15] S. S. Yılmaz, “Use of web 2.0 supported formative assessment tools (Kahoot example) at different grade levels and teaching methods in science and chemistry courses,” The Educational Science and Research Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 568-585, 2023, doi.org/10.54637/ebad.1370902. (in Turkish)
[16] D. Fajaryati, E. Ratnawati,Y. Bahari, and Warneri “Utilization of Wordwall in formative assessment to improve students' learning outcomes in physics subjects,” IJESS International Journal of Education and Social Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 202-208, 2024, doi.org/10.56371/ijess.v5i2.315. (in English)
[17] G. Mayang, A. Efendi and N. T. Prakisya, “The effectiveness of problem-based learning assisted by Edpuzzle on students’ critical thinking skills,” Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 9-15, 2021. (in English)
[18] D. Herlihy and Z. Pottage, “Formative assessment in a Web 2.0 environment: Impact on motivation and outcomes,” Cambridge English: Research Notes, vol. 53, pp. 9-16, 2013. (in English)
[19] S. S. Yılmaz and M. D. Yasar, “Effects of web 2.0 tools (Kahoot, Quizlet, Google Form example) on formative assessment in online chemistry courses,” Journal of Science Learning, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 442-456, 2023, doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v6i4.60479. (in English)
[20] F. T. Ülker, Effectiveness of web 2.0-based formative assessment applied to science teacher candidates in astronomy course, Master Thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, 2022. (in Turkish)
[21] H. Özmen and O. Karamustafaoğlu, Research Methods in Education, 4th edition, Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing, 2024. (in Turkish)
[22] Ş. Büyüköztürk, E. Kılıç Çakmak, Ö. E. Akgün, Ş. Karadeniz and F. Demirel, Scientific Research Methods, 36th edition, Ankara: Pegem Academy, 2024. (in Turkish)
[23] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 4th edition, USA: SAGE Publications Inc, 2015. (in English)
[24] J. Hamari, D. J. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B. Coller, J. Asbell-Clarke and T. Edwards, “Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 170-179, 2016, doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045. (in English)
[25] N. Bergdahl, J. Nouri and U. Fors, “Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 957-983, 2020, doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09998-w. (in English)
[26] E. S. Şengün and S. C. Bilici, “The effect of asynchronous distance science education enriched with interactive video activities on students' self-directed learning, academic achievement and attitudes towards technology,” International Journal of Computers in Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 103-117, 2024, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14581026. (in Turkish)
[27] D. Zhang, L. Zhou, R. O. Briggs and J. F. Nunamaker Jr, “Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness,” Information & Management, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 15-27, 2006, doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004. (in English)
[28] A. I. Wang, “The wear out effect of a game-based student response system,” Computers & Education, vol. 82, pp. 217-227, 2015, doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004. (in English)
[29] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto and H. Sarsa, “Does gamification work? – a literature review of empirical studies on gamification,” 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2014, pp. 3025-3034, doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377. (in English)
[30] V. G. Silverajah and A. Govindaraj, “The use of Edpuzzle to support low-achiever's development of self-regulated learning and their learning of chemistry,” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, 2018, pp. 259-263, doi.org/10.1145/3290511.3290582. (in English)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Burcu Torun Karakuş, Orhan Karamustafaoğlu