Investigation of Emerging Technology Usage Characteristics as Predictors of Innovativeness

Year 2018, , 225 - 245, 16.07.2018

Kerem Kilicer , Salih Bardakci İbrahim Arpaci

https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.444100

Abstract

For today’s societies trying to cope with the
current globally increased competition, existence of individuals who can take
risks, solve problems and adopt changes an innovation has gained more
importance when compared to the past. This situation brings responsibility to
educational institutions for increasing the number of innovative individuals
and the qualifications of these individuals. Therefore, in the process of designing
and developing any kind of in-class activities which will contribute to innovativeness,
it is important to determine the technology usage characteristics that can be
used to define individuals who have high levels of innovativeness. The purpose
of the present study was to determine the variables related to technology which
will be used to discriminate between individuals who have high and low levels
of innovativeness. In the study, which was carried out using the
causal-comparative design, a logistic regression model was formed by using
technology-related variables, and which technology-related variables managed to
predict high level of innovativeness was tested. In the logistic model, the
technology budget (purchases, internet, and phone bills), technology ownership
(smart phones, tablets, laptops, personal computers, internet, websites,
blogs), technology renewal/update time (smart phones, computers), the number of
utilized internet applications and internet usage habits were analyzed as
predictors. The study was conducted with 244 university students from different
class grades at a state university in Turkey. The results revealed that among
the variables examined, only the variables of Internet usage habit, the number
of Internet applications used, blog ownership and the money spent on technology
use were significant predictors. In addition, the model in which these
variables were used was found to classify high and low levels of innovativeness
with accuracy of 71%. Implications are discussed. 

Keywords

Emerging technology, Innovativeness, Technology usage habits, Preservice teachers

References

• Abu-Al-Aish, A. & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students' acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5), 82-107.
• Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.204
• Aston, M. (2002). The development and use of indicators to measure the impact of ICT use in education in the United Kingdom and other European countries. Retrieved on 09 March 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001311/131124e.
• Beal, G. M. & Bohlen, J. M. (1956). The diffusion process. Farm Foundation, Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies, 111-121. Retrieved on 08 January 2016 from http://purl.umn.edu/17351
• Celik, K. (2013). The relationship between individual innovativeness and self-efficacy levels of student teachers. Inernational Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 6(1), 56-67.
• Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
• Cuhadar, C., Bulbul, T., & Ilgaz, G. (2013). Exploring of the relationship between individual innovativeness and techno-pedagogical education competencies of pre-service teachers. Elementary Education Online, 12(3), 797-807.
• Daud, N. M. & Zakaria, H. (2017). Impact of antecedent factors on collaborative technologies usage among academic researchers in Malaysian research universities. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(3), 189-209.
• Drucker, P. (1985). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 5-10.
• Elci, S. (2006). Innovation: The key for development and competition (2nd Ed.). Ankara: Nova.
• Fagan, M., Kilmon, C., & Pandey, V. (2012). Exploring the adoption of a virtual reality simulation: The role of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 117-127.
• Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
• Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. & Hyun, H.H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010068703786
• Geoghegan, W. (1995). Stuck at the barricades: Can information technology really enter the mainstream of teaching and learning? Change, 27(2), 22-30.
• Gokcearslan, S., Karademir, T. & Korucu, T. (2017). Preservice teachers’ level of web pedagogical content knowledge assessment by individual innovativeness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 70-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116642593
• Goldsmith, R.E. & Foxall, G.P. (2003). The measurement of innovativeness. In L.V. Shavinina (Eds.), The international handbook of innovation (pp.321-329). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences.
• Haelermans,C. & Blank, J.L.T. (2012). Is a schools’performance related to technical change?–A study on the relationship between innovations and secondary school productivity, Computers & Education, 59, 884-892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.027
• Huang, Y.H., Li, E.Y., & Chen, J.S. (2009). Information synergy as the catalyst between information technology capability and innovativeness: empirical evidence from the financial service sector. Information Research, 14(1), 1-16.
• Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.
• Jackson, J.D., Yi, M.Y., & Park, J.S. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50(4), 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.02.006
• Jeong, H. I. & Kim, Y. (2017). The acceptance of computer technology by teachers in early childhood education. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 496-512.
• Kilicer, K. & Odabasi, H.F. (2010). Individual innovativeness scale (IS): The study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 150-164.
• Kilicer, K. & Odabasi, H.F. (2013). Exploring the perceived barriers to innovativeness: Views of Turkish pre-service teachers as technology leaders. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(2), 246-265.
• Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629.
• Koroglu, A.Y. (2014). Research on information and communication technologies self-efficacy perception, technological materials usage attitude and individual innovativeness level of pre-school teachers and pre-school preservice teachers (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.
• Kozma, R. B. (2005). National policies that connect ICT-based education reform to economics and social development. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1(2), 117-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.2005355
• Kozma, R. B. (2008). Comparative analysis of policies for ICT in education. In J. Woogt and G. Knezek (Eds.). International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary schools (pp.1083-1096). Berlin: Springer Science.
• Lai, H. & Chen, C. (2011) Factors influencing secondary school teachers’ adoption of teaching blogs, Computers & Education, 56, 948-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.010
• Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Umarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring innovativeness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia, Computers & Education, 58, 808-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.005
• Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C.S., & Wang, K. (2008). Determinants of accepting wireless mobile data services in China. Information & Management, 45, 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.11.002
• Lu, J., Yao, J.E., & Yu, C.S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless internet services via mobile technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.003
• Mahmood, K. (2009). Gender, subject and degree differences in university students’ access, use and attitudes toward information and communication technology (ICT). International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 5(3), 206-216.
• Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237.
• Marcinkiewicz, H.R. & Grabowski, B. (1992). The relationship of personological variables to computer useby elementary school teacher: Report of phase one's baseline data. 14th Annual Proceedings of Selected Research Presentations at National Convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, 527D542. Washington DC: AECT.
• Ngafeeson, M. N. & Sun, J. (2015). The effects of technology innovativeness and system exposure on student acceptance of e-textbooks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 55-71.
• OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd Edition). Paris, France: OECD.
• Ozcan, S., Gokcearslan, S., & Solmaz, E. (2016). Investigation into attitudes of pre-service teachers towards e-learning with respect to their individual innovativeness levels. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 6(2), 31-38.
• Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysing using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, Open University Press.
• Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. Retrieved on 8 January 2016 from http://www.p21.org/storage/ documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdf
• Pelgrum, W. J. & Law, N. (2003). ICT in education around the world: trends, problems and prospects. UNESCO International Instutite for Educational Planning. Retrieved on 9 March 2019 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136281e.pdf
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
• Prensky, M. (2009). H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3), Article 1. Retrieved on 8 January 2016 from https://stevekolb.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/digital-wisdom.pdf
• Robertson, T. S. (1967). The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. Journal of Marketing, 31(1), 14-19.
• Rogers, E. M. (1963). What are innovators like? Theory into Practice, 2(5), 252-256.
• Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd Ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Rosen, A.P. (2004). The effect of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology (PIIT) on the acceptance and use of technology: A working paper. Proceeding of the 35th Decision Sciences Institute. Boston, MA.
• Rosen, A.P. (2005). The effect of personal innovativeness on technology acceptance and use. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. Retreived on 08 January 2016 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download; jsessionid= 097C6DA1895EEDC8301B8F0CAEA2DD04?doi=10.1.1.425.1935&rep=rep1 &type=pdf
• Sahin, İ. & Thompson A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 81-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782474
• Salkind, N.J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Los Angeles: Sage.
• Suki, N.B.M. & Suki, N.B.M. (2006). Internet use adoption among academicians: Comparing innovative adopters and other adopter types. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 21-31.
• Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Thakur, R., Angriawan, A., & Summey, J.H. (2016). Technological opinion leadership: The role of personal innovativeness, gadget love, and technological innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2764-2773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.012
• UNESCO. (2005). Information and communication technologies in schools. a handbook for teachers. Retrieved on 8 January 2016 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/ 001390/139028e.pdf
• UNESCO. (2007). The UNESCO ICT in education programme. Bangkok: UNESCO. Retrieved on 8 January 2016 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001567/156769e.pdf
• Urun, O., Orhan, D., Donmez P., & Kurt, A.A. (2015). Exploring the relationship between individual innovativeness and technology attitude of teacher candidates. Trakya University Journal of Education, 5(1), 65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.292135
• Van Rijnsoever, F. J. & Donders, A. R. T. (2009). The effect of innovativeness on different levels of technology adoption. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 984-996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21029
• Yilmaz, O. & Bayraktar, D. M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies and their individual innovativeness categories. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3458-3461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.783
• Zayim, N., Yildirim, S., & Saka, O. (2006). Technology adoption of medical faculty in teaching: Differentiating factors in adopter categories. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 213-222.