Web-based Support of a Higher School Teacher

Vitaliy V. Achkan

1 a

, Kateryna V. Vlasenko

2,3 b

, Iryna V. Lovianova

4 c

, Olha H. Rovenska

5 d

Iryna V. Sitak

6 e

, Olena O. Chumak

7 f

and Serhiy O. Semerikov

4,8,9,10 g

Berdyansk State Pedagogical University, 4 Shmidta Str., Berdyansk, 71100, Ukraine

Department of Mathematics, National University of “Kyiv Mohyla Academy”, 2 Hryhoriya Skovorody Str., Kyiv, 04655,

Ukraine

Technical University “Metinvest Polytechnic” LLC, 71A Sechenov Str., Mariupol, 87524, Ukraine

Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, 54 Gagarin Ave., Kryvyi Rih, 50086, Ukraine

Donbass State Engineering Academy, 72 Academychna Str., Kramatorsk, 84313, Ukraine

Volodymyr Dahl East Ukrainian National University, 59A Tsentralnyi Ave., Severodonetsk, 93400, Ukraine

Donbas National Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 14 Heroyv Nebesnoy Sotni Str., Kramatorsk, 84333,

Ukraine

Institute for Digitalisation of Education of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, 9 M. Berlynskoho

Str., Kyiv, 04060, Ukraine

Kryvyi Rih National University, 11 Vitalii Matusevych Str., Kryvyi Rih, 50027, Ukraine

University of Educational Management, 52A Sichovykh Striltsiv Str., Kyiv, 04053, Ukraine

Keywords:

Mathematics Teachers, Types of Activities, Web-Tools, a Personal E-Learning Environment Model.

Abstract:

The article looks into the issue of theoretical aspects of using Web 2.0 technology in higher education. This

paper describes the answers of 87 respondents who have helped to ﬁnd out the types of activities that higher

school teaches carry out and determine such Web 2.0 tools that can make this activity full. The authors carry

out a theoretical analysis of researches and resources that consider the development of theoretical aspects of

using Web tools in higher education. The research presents the characteristics common to online courses,

principles of providing a functioning and physical placement of online systems in Web space. It is reasonable

to make a conclusion about the feasibility of promoting online courses, the aim of which is to get Mathematics

teachers acquainted with the technical capabilities of creating educational content developed using Web 2.0

technology.

1 INTRODUCTION

With the emergence of Web education, scientists have

faced an important task which is to create a perspec-

tive new system of education. The use of teach-

ing aids in the educational process, based on using

Web 2.0 tools, has enabled it. Rosen and Nelson

(Rosen and Nelson, 2008) have stated that these tools

have a great potential for education providing a new

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8669-6202

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8920-5680

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3186-2837

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3034-3031

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2593-1293

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3722-6826

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0789-0272

quality of students’ self–study.

Yadav and Patwardhan (Yadav and Patwardhan,

2016) have stated the actuality of Web 2.0 technology

during education, while analyzing an economically

proﬁtable solution to the integration of their tools.

University Mathematics teachers are not an excep-

tion, since their professional activity comprises not

only teaching students, but also doing research, anal-

ysis, and statistical processing of the information, do-

ing calculations, publishing research papers, popular

science materials, presenting reports and materials,

communication and collaboration, etc. but, accord-

ing to (Bennett et al., 2012; Yadav and Patwardhan,

2016), teachers mostly are not familiar with social

media and other useful resources of Web 2.0. Livotov

(Livotov, 2015) has raised issues connected with the

pedagogical use of Web 2.0 technology. In the scien-

Achkan, V., Vlasenko, K., Lovianova, I., Rovenska, O., Sitak, I., Chumak, O. and Semerikov, S.

Web-based Support of a Higher School Teacher.

DOI: 10.5220/0010930500003364

In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology (AET 2020) - Volume 2, pages 245-252

ISBN: 978-989-758-558-6

245

tist’s opinion, despite all the barriers of involving such

services, Web-oriented education is a rapidly grow-

ing educational area. With the help of these services,

we can offer a bright educational environment cre-

ated with the use of different strategies and technolo-

gies of education. While making a selection of Web-

resources, every person has an opportunity to design

Personal Learning Environments (PLE) according to

their line of work. All things considered, master-

ing new resources and designing their PLE calls forth

timeliness of developing methods and ways to help

and support Mathematics teachers.

We have investigated the experience of scientists

who have contributed to the implementation of Web

technologies in higher education. Carrying out such

analysis we have studied recommendations by Kom-

pen et al. (Kompen et al., 2009) who point out the

importance of describing Web 2.0 tools and services

that may be chosen to collect and process the informa-

tion. Tautkevi

cien

e and Dubosas (Tautkevi

cien

e and

Dubosas, 2014) have emphasized the need to develop

such Web 2.0 tools that will encourage students’ de-

sire for publishing and sharing the knowledge created

by them.

Among studies on the methods for designing Per-

sonal Learning Environments, the ones focused on de-

signing PLE for schoolers and students prevail. Their

goal is e-learning, remote, or non-formal learning.

Thus, Kompen et al. (Kompen et al., 2019) drafted

general guidelines for the implementation and use of

the personal learning environment by students in a

formal format in higher education (University level).

Alharbi et al. (Alharbi et al., 2013) tried to allow

students to design their technologies of PLE, such

as blogs, websites, and Web 2.0 services. The re-

searchers offered a model for designing PLE, which

covers both traditional formal (in Universities), and

informal (private) academic learning.

Shaikh and Khoja (Shaikh and Khoja, 2012) em-

phasize the necessity to study the role, which a

teacher plays in the learning process. The researchers

outline the competencies, necessary for teachers who

help students plan or design Personal Learning En-

vironments. Couros (Couros, 2006) holds the same

opinion and states that a teacher can provide online

learning better if they designed their PLE model.

Building a teacher’s PLE model requires under-

standing the essence of the term Personal Learning

Environments. There are different approaches to de-

termine it given in (Attwell, 2007; Drexler, 2010; van

Harmelen, 2006; Kompen et al., 2019; Segura and

Quintero, 2010; Shaikh and Khoja, 2012), but there

is no general deﬁnition of the term PLE.

The authors of this article will follow a deﬁnition,

suggested by Kompen et al. (Kompen et al., 2019),

who consider PLE to be a set of Web-technologies

having a different level of integration and which help

users manage the ﬂows of information on education,

knowledge creation, and skills development. Such an

approach, according to Perikos et al. (Perikos et al.,

2015) will help to identify the most suitable tools to

create content for PLE. Moreover, scholars ﬁrmly be-

lieve, that such research will contribute to the devel-

opment of educational online courses on how to use

Web 2.0 tools. Following the conclusions made by

scientists, we can see the use of such an approach to

develop online courses with the purpose to prepare

higher school Mathematics teachers. Relevance and

timeliness of the issue to design PLE for Mathematics

teachers was discussed during the International Con-

ference on Sustainable Future: Environmental, Tech-

nological, Social and Economic Matters (ICSF 2020)

(Vlasenko et al., 2020b), the participants of which

concluded the necessity to develop and implement on-

line support for Mathematics teachers in designing

PLE.

According to the research conducted by Vlasenko

et al. (Vlasenko et al., 2020a), ﬁrst of all, designing

PLE requires ﬁnding out the types of activities that

the teacher carries out, and, secondly, determination

of those Web 2.0 tools that can make this activity full.

This article is aimed at the presentation of a

Mathematics teacher’s PLE model and description of

Web 2.0 tools that support the teacher during their ac-

tivities.

2 METHOD

Applying deductive content analysis of research pa-

pers (Couros, 2006; Kadle, 2010; Morrison, 2013;

Quinn, 2009), the authors of the present paper con-

cluded the necessity to structure PLE of University

Mathematics teachers, based on the types of their ac-

tivities. When singling out the types of such activi-

ties, the authors also took into consideration the sur-

vey results. The survey, which had 16 questions, was

designed with the help of an open online service and

uploaded to the platform “Higher school Mathematics

teacher” (Vlasenko, 2019).

87 respondents were involved in the survey, of

which 70% have more than 15 years of experience in

higher education. 56.5% of respondents hold the po-

sition of associate professor, and 30.4% – professor.

At the same time, 87% of respondents have a doctoral

degree.

The questions were aimed at deﬁning the aware-

ness level of the academic staff about using Web-

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

246

resources for various types of teaching activity

(Vlasenko and Chumak, 2020):

1) arranging the learning process;

2) searching for information;

3) doing research, analysis, and statistical processing

of the information;

4) doing the calculation;

5) publishing research papers;

6) publishing popular science materials;

7) designing presentations;

8) collaborating and communicating;

9) saving data.

We analyzed the data from the Web-resources

Statcounter (gs.statcounter.com, 2020), Free Maths

The Geek Page (thegeekpage.com, 2019), Top

Tools for Personal & Professional Learning

(www.toptools4learning.com, 2020), Emergin-

gEdTech (Walsh, 2014), the blog eLearning industry

(Pappas, 2013), where ranking of Web-tools takes

place according to their demand, popularity, and

spreading. This data allowed us to create a PLE

model for higher school Mathematics teachers

(ﬁgure 1) (Vlasenko et al., 2020a).

We offer a short review of Web 2.0 tools that can

support the teacher’s activities.

Arranging the learning process. Prometheus

(courses.prometheus.org.ua, 2021), Coursera

(www.coursera.org, 2021), edX (www.edx.org,

2021), LinkedIn Learning (www.linkedin.com,

2021), Khan Academy (khanacademy.org, 2021) help

a teacher to choose the courses that will encourage

the improvement of teaching subjects. The teacher

can take such courses to enlarge their experience

and get knowledge and skills that do not concern

teaching. Moreover, they can recommend some

courses to their students to ensure mixed learning of

the subject. It is also important that choosing and

taking most courses will encourage the improvement

of teacher’s training in a different language.

Searching for information. Google Search, Ya-

hoo!, Yandex will help a teacher to ﬁnd the necessary

information to write a scientiﬁc article or prepare for

the lesson. The teacher can ﬁnd and select for ac-

quaintance and analysis some modern scientiﬁc arti-

cles on different subjects in peer-reviewed European

and American online journals using, for instance, the

service Google Scholar. The fact that search is sup-

ported in documents of different formats allows the

teacher to learn how to work with such formats as

PDF, RTF, PostScript, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Ex-

cel, Microsoft PowerPoint. Also, for instance, Google

Maps allows the teacher to ﬁnd the locations neces-

sary for work. Editing these locations enables the cre-

ation of interactive tasks for students.

Doing research, analysis, and statistical pro-

cessing of the information. The teacher will be glad

to software and cloud calculations for carrying out re-

searches, analysis and statistical information process-

ing. A full set of business and scientiﬁc graphics of

software STADIA, MS Excel will allow the Mathe-

matics teacher to visualize the results of solving prob-

lems by graphic illustrations. Using MATLAB the

teacher can organize the visualization of research data

through building 3D graphics and the creation of ani-

mated videos and demonstrate them to students while

teaching a subject. More than 250 statistical functions

of the pack STATISTICA the teacher can use to carry

out statistical research of any complexity to show the

results of their scientiﬁc researches. Using SYSTAT

and QtiPlot the teacher can represent analytical infor-

mation of reports in form of graphics, conduct para-

metric and non-parametric data analysis. Also, the

teacher can offer this software to students to carry

out statistical information processing in course and

diploma projects.

Doing the calculation. The systems of computer

Mathematics MATLAB, Maple, MathCAD and on-

line calculators Math Editor, Cantor, KAlgebra allow

optimizing the solution of many mathematical prob-

lems. Mathematics teachers’ use of these programs

in their professional activities allow using a complex

mathematical machine without learning algorithms at

the professional level, in particular, while training

specialists in engineering, and during the implemen-

tation of a project method while learning Mathemat-

ics (Bobyliev and Vihrova, 2021). Modern systems

of computer Mathematics that are equipped with text

editors allow teachers to use them while preparing sci-

entiﬁc publications.

Publishing popular scientiﬁc materials. The

presentation of your achievements is the most com-

mon type of activity among Internet users all over the

world. The teacher can post video lessons, video lec-

tures, practical classes using the platforms YouTube,

and TED Talks. Teachers can popularize their expe-

rience having a personal blog on Blogger, in Google

applications or mathematical pages on Instagram.

Publishing research papers. Using Open Sci-

ence in Ukraine (openscience.in.ua, 2021) helps the

teacher, would-be scientist, postgraduate students,

and Master students to ﬁnd sites with the list of

specialized editions of Ukraine and Ukrainian edi-

tions that are indexed in Scopus and Web of Sci-

ence. If the teacher has publications in the edi-

tions that are indexed in Scopus and Web of Sci-

Web-based Support of a Higher School Teacher

247

Figure 1: PLE model of University Mathematics teachers.

ence, then the registration in the world database Sco-

pus (www.scopus.com, 2021) and database Publons

(publons.com, 2021) will allow the teacher to get a

h-index in Scopus and h-index in Web of Science,

accordingly. Being registered in Google Scholar the

teacher can monitor the citation of their publications

in the editions of another level. Having a personal

identiﬁer ORCID iD (orcid.org, 2021) the teacher

identiﬁes himself / herself as a scientist and author

of researches. The identiﬁer ORCID iD guarantees

the scientist: correct citation of their articles, the pos-

sibility to publish articles in prestigious international

scientiﬁc editions, possibility to form a personal rat-

ing in Ukrainian scientiﬁc citation index, a possibility

to take part in international ratings, a possibility to

apply for grants.

Designing presentations. The teacher’s learning

of at least one of the programs PowerPoint, Keynote,

Google Slides, Prezi, Quick Slide Show, Zoho Show,

Google Presentation to work out stream presentations

will allow supporting a speech with a presentation to

visualize materials of a lecture or a practical class.

The presentation and its demonstration to students es-

pecially during online education encourage a more ef-

ﬁcient understanding of the material presented by the

teacher.

Collaboration. Learning such tools as CoCalc,

Google Drive, Evernote, OneNote, Blackboard Col-

laborate, Wikipedia will allow the teacher to cre-

ate notes, have an event calendar, discuss new ideas

with colleagues, use possibilities of common docu-

ment editing by several users, organize communica-

tion with students (Popel et al., 2017).

Communication. Services of online communica-

tion such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Yammer, e-

mail, Skype are better in the teacher’s communication

with colleagues and students. Using the service Zoom

will allow the teacher to hold classes in form of video

conferences and online meetings with colleagues and

students. Using WhatsApp allows users an immediate

exchange of text messages via voice and video con-

nection.

Storing data. Services Microsoft HDInsight,

Skydrive, Google Drive, Dropbox will help the

teacher to organize efﬁciently data storing. The use

of these services enables the teacher to store ﬁles in

the cloud, synchronize on several devices, easily ex-

change big ﬁles, and cooperate using them with col-

leagues and students.

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

248

3 RESULTS

Creating a selection of Web-tools that support the

teacher’s activities we considered the respondents’

answers to the survey questions.

From the offered types of activities of a higher

school teacher’s PLE model, the respondents consider

the organization of learning activities the most im-

portant (78.3% of respondents). The second place

is given to such types of activities as carrying out

researches, analysis, and statistical information pro-

cessing, and publication of scientiﬁc materials. Co-

operation is in the third place (60.9%), and the fourth

is given to communication (52.2%).

Let’s show the division of teachers’ opinions re-

garding the use of Web-tools according to the types

of their activities.

To the question: what tools for the organization of

learning activities do you use most often – the respon-

dent in 80.4% of cases answered Moodle, the plat-

form Coursera took the second place – 23.9% (ﬁg-

ure 2).

Figure 2: Tools for the organization of learning activities.

Google is most often used during the searching ac-

tivities – 89.1% (ﬁgure 3).

Figure 3: Tools for searching activities.

In order to carry out research, analysis, and sta-

tistical information processing respondents use differ-

ent software, in particular, 87% choose QtiPlot, Sta-

tistica, StatGraphics, SYSTAT, MS Excel, STADIA;

21.7% mainly use online-calculators (ﬁgure 4).

Figure 4: Tools to carry out research, analysis, and statisti-

cal information processing.

In order to carry out calculations, 73.9% of re-

spondents use different software such as MathCad,

Maple, MATLAB, Cantor, KAlgebra, Mathomatic,

Scilab, Maxima, Octave, FreeCAD, PythonCAD,

QCAD, Varkon, Linuxcad, Varicad, Cycas, Tomcad,

Thancad, Fandango, Lignumcad (ﬁgure 5).

Figure 5: Calculation tools.

More than half of respondents don’t use any tools

for publishing scientiﬁc–popular materials; others

prefer YouTube (21.7%) (ﬁgure 6).

95.7% of the participants publish scientiﬁc articles

in specialized publications, 80.4% publish in publica-

tions indexed in Scopus and Web of Science; 89.1%

of the respondents participate in conferences and pub-

lish theses (ﬁgure 7).

80% of the teachers choose PowerPoint among the

tools to create presentations of speeches and materi-

als, only 31.1% of the participants search for its alter-

Figure 6: Tools for publishing scientiﬁc-popular materials.

Web-based Support of a Higher School Teacher

249

Figure 7: Publication level for publishing scientiﬁc articles.

natives (ﬁgure 8). 67.4% of the teachers use Google

Docs for cooperation, notes, common work over the

documents (ﬁgure 9). 93.5% of the surveyed teachers

use email for communication, 89.3 % of respondents

use communication tools messages WhatsApp, Viber

80.4% of respondents use Facebook (ﬁgure 10).

Figure 8: Tools for creating presentations.

Figure 9: Tools for cooperation organization.

Google Drive is popular for storing data among

the majority of respondents (84.8%) (ﬁgure 11).

Thus, this survey has shown that university Math-

ematics teachers are not knowledgeable enough in us-

ing PLE tools for different types of activities. In most

cases, teachers use the same means for years. It is

also proved by the fact that 39.1% of the respondents

agreed to take a test according to the program “Survey

of Adult Skills” (PIAAC, 2019) that assesses adults’

knowledge in key skills of processing information, in

particular, the use of their skills at home, at work and

in public (ﬁgure 12).

The survey shows that university Mathematics

teachers require support in using PLE tools for dif-

Figure 10: Communication tools.

Figure 11: Tools for storing data.

ferent types of activities.

4 DISCUSSION

Identifying the activities of University Mathematics

teachers, the researchers in this study also consider

the opinions of Shaikh and Khoja (Shaikh and Khoja,

2012), who believe that the teacher’s professional ac-

tivity is so various, as it comprises a lot of roles, for

instance, Instructive Role, Cognitive Role, Designing

Role, Planning Role, Social Role, Managerial Role.

Analyzing the results of (Yadav and Patwardhan,

2016; Bennett et al., 2012; Perikos et al., 2015), as

well as responses of Ukrainian University Mathemat-

ics teachers, the authors of this paper concluded the

deﬁcient level of awareness of Ukrainian University

Mathematics teachers about Web 2.0 tools usage.

Taking into account the conclusions of the

(Tautkevi

cien

e and Dubosas, 2014; Scherer Bassani

and Ferrari Barbosa, 2018) about the limited involve-

ment of Web 2.0 tools by teachers, we completely

agree with Alhassan (Alhassan, 2017) that teachers’

acquaintance with the involvement of technical tools

to create educational content for its integration to

pages of online courses has to be carried out grad-

ually. The research by Yadav and Patwardhan (Ya-

dav and Patwardhan, 2016) has proved our idea about

the necessity to carry out a theoretical analysis of the

technical capabilities of Web 2.0 technology, the use

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

250

Figure 12: Teachers’ distribution according to their agree-

ment to take a PIAAC test (in%).

of which can interest teachers.

Ranking Web 2.0 services and their distribution

following the types of activities carried out by a Math-

ematics teacher ensures the development of a useful

personal environment that will enable the teacher to

use different learning strategies and technologies dur-

ing students’ training. Searching for a solution to this

problem, Perikos et al. (Perikos et al., 2015) proposed

developing online courses for non-formal teachers’

education. The idea of developing online courses

aligns with the conclusions by Lovianova et al. (Lo-

vianova et al., 2020) that studied the matter of devel-

oping online courses.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the resources and research papers sup-

ported the assumption, made by the authors of the

present study concerning the necessity to use a wide

range of Web 2.0 tools for carrying out various types

of activities by teachers and students. Relevance and

timeliness of designing a PLE model of a Univer-

sity Mathematics teacher result from speciﬁcities of

a Mathematics teacher’s professional activities, and

from the necessity to constantly improve their ability

to use new resources.

Using deductive content analysis and taking into

consideration the results of the survey, conducted

among the Ukrainian teachers made it possible to

identify the types of activities carried out by a Uni-

versity Mathematics teacher. With the help of the in-

ductive content analysis method, the authors of the

present paper processed the data on ranking Web-

tools by demand, popularity, and prevalence. The re-

spondents’ answers to the survey questions and iden-

tifying awareness of Ukrainian teachers about the use

of Web-resources for each type of activity became de-

termining in designing a PLE model.

The authors of the present study are concerned

that the solution to this problem lies in developing

an online course for University Mathematics teach-

ers to show them the advantages of using a personal

e-learning environment and methods for designing it.

The course can also be used by Master students ma-

joring in Mathematics and all those who are interested

in designing a personal e-learning environment.

REFERENCES

Alharbi, M. T., Platt, A., and Al-Bayatti, A. H. (2013). Per-

sonal learning environment. International journal for

e-learning security, 3(1):280–288.

Alhassan, R. (2017). Exploring the relationship between

web 2.0 tools self-efﬁcacy and teachers use of these

tools in their teaching. Journal of Education and

Learning, 6(4):217–228.

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the

future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, 2(1–7).

Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., and

Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 tech-

nologies in higher education: A collective case study.

Computers & Education, 59(2):524–534.

Bobyliev, D. Y. and Vihrova, E. V. (2021). Problems and

prospects of distance learning in teaching fundamental

subjects to future mathematics teachers. Journal of

Physics: Conference Series, 1840(1):012002.

Couros, A. V. (2006). Examining the Open Move-

ment: Possibilities and implications for educa-

tion. PhD thesis, The University of Regina.

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/118036.

courses.prometheus.org.ua (2021). Prometheus. https://

courses.prometheus.org.ua/.

Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model

for construction of personal learning environments:

Balancing teacher control and student autonomy.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,

26(3):369–385.

gs.statcounter.com (2020). Statcounter globalststs.

https://gs.statcounter.com.

Kadle, A. (2010). Elements for constructing social learning

environments. https://tinyurl.com/9jc4fp7u.

khanacademy.org (2021). Khan Academy. https://

khanacademy.org/.

Kompen, R. T., Edirisingha, P., Canaleta, X., Alsina, M.,

and Monguet, J. M. (2019). Personal learning envi-

ronments based on Web 2.0 services in higher educa-

tion’. Telematics and Informatics, 38:194–206.

Kompen, R. T., Edirisingha, P., and Monguet, J. M. (2009).

Using web 2.0 applications as supporting tools for per-

sonal learning environments. In Lytras, M. D., Or-

donez de Pablos, P., Damiani, E., Avison, D., Naeve,

A., and Horner, D. G., editors, Best Practices for the

Knowledge Society. Knowledge, Learning, Develop-

ment and Technology for All, pages 33–40, Berlin,

Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Livotov, P. (2015). Web-based asynchronous distance ed-

ucation in new product development and inventive

Web-based Support of a Higher School Teacher

251

problem solving for industrial companies. Procedia

Engineering, 131:123–139.

Lovianova, I., Vlasenko, K., Sitak, I., Akulenko, I., and

Kondratyeva, O. (2020). Model of the on-line course

for training master students majoring in mathematics

for teaching at university. Universal Journal of Edu-

cational Research, 8(9):3883–3894.

Morrison, D. (2013). How to create a personal

learning environment to stay relevant in 2013.

https://tinyurl.com/3fdxnemu.

openscience.in.ua (2021). Open Science in Ukraine. https:

//openscience.in.ua/.

orcid.org (2021). ORCID. https://orcid.org.

Pappas, C. (2013). The 5 best free collaboration tools

for teachers. https://elearningindustry.com/the-5-best-

free-collaboration-tools-for-teachers.

Perikos, I., Grivokostopoulou, F., Kovas, K., and Hatzi-

lygeroudis, I. (2015). Assisting tutors to utilize Web

2.0 tools in education. In International Conference

e-Learning, pages 121–128.

PIAAC (2019). Survey of Adult Skills. https://www.oecd.

org/skills/piaac/.

Popel, M., Shokalyuk, S., and Shyshkina, M. (2017). The

learning technique of the SageMathCloud use for stu-

dents collaboration support. CEUR Workshop Pro-

ceedings, 1844:327–339.

publons.com (2021). Publons. https://publons.com.

Quinn, C. (2009). The performance environment.

https://blog.learnlets.com/2009/08/the-performance-

environment/.

Rosen, D. and Nelson, C. (2008). Web 2.0: A new

generation of learners and education. Computers in

the Schools, 25(3):211–225. https://www.learntechlib.

org/p/104752.

Scherer Bassani, P. B. and Ferrari Barbosa, D. N. (2018).

Experiences with Web 2.0 in school settings: A

framework to foster educational practices based on a

personal learning environment perspective. Educac¸

em Revista, 34.

Segura, J. A. and Quintero, L. J. C. (2010). Los entornos

personales de aprendizaje (ples): una nueva manera de

entender el aprendizaje. In Vila, R. R. and Fiorucci,

M., editors, Claves para la investigaci

on en inno-

vaci

on y calidadeducativas. La integraci

on de las Tec-

nolog

ıas de la Informaci

on y la Comunicaci

on y la In-

terculturalidad en las aulas. Stumenti di ricerca per

l’innovaziones e la qualit

a in

ambito educativo. La

Tecnologie dell’informazione e della Comunicaziones

e l’interculturalit

a nella scuola, pages 19–30. Marﬁl

– Roma TRE Universita degli studi, Alcoy.

Shaikh, Z. A. and Khoja, S. A. (2012). Role of teacher

in personal learning environments. Digital Education

Review, 21(2):23–32.

Tautkevi

cien

e, G. and Dubosas, M. (2014). The purposes

of students’ use of Web 2.0 tools for learning at the

university. Journal of emerging trends in computing

and information sciences, 5(12):963–967.

thegeekpage.com (2019). Top 30 best free math software

you can use. https://thegeekpage.com/best-free-math-

softwares/.

van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments.

In Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced

Learning Technologies (ICALT’06), pages 815–816.

Vlasenko, K. (2019). Higher school mathematics teacher.

http://formathematics.com/.

Vlasenko, K. and Chumak, O. (2020). Personal e-

learning environment of the maths teacher.

http://formathematics.com/courses/imt/personal-

e-learning-environment-of-the-maths-teacher/.

Vlasenko, K., Chumak, O., Achkan, V., Lovianova, I., and

Kondratyeva, O. (2020a). Personal e-learning envi-

ronment of a mathematics teacher. Universal Journal

of Educational Research, 8(8):3527–3535.

Vlasenko, K., Chumak, O., Lovianova, I., Kovalenko, D.,

and Volkova, N. (2020b). Methodical requirements

for training materials of on-line courses on the plat-

form ”Higher school mathematics teacher”. E3S Web

of Conferences, 166:10011.

Walsh, K. (2014). 20 fun free tools for

interactive classroom collaboration.

https://www.emergingedtech.com/2014/05/20-

excellent-free-tools-for-interactive-collaboration-

experiences-in-the-classroom/.

www.coursera.org (2021). Coursera. https://www.coursera.

org/.

www.edx.org (2021). edX. https://www.edx.org/.

www.linkedin.com (2021). LinkedIn Learning. https://

www.linkedin.com/learning/.

www.scopus.com (2021). Scopus. https://www.scopus.

com.

www.toptools4learning.com (2020). Top tools for learning

2020. https://www.toptools4learning.com/.

Yadav, A. K. S. and Patwardhan, A. A. (2016). Use and

impact of Web 2.0 tools in higher education: A litera-

ture review. In Parmar, S. and Siwach, A. K., editors,

Academic Libraries in Electronic Environment, pages

218–246. Intellectual Foundation, India.

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

252