Teachers’ ICT Skills Scale (TICTS): Reliability and Validity

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the reliability and validity of a questionnaire developed to measure teachers’ skills for using information and communication technologies (ICT). The study consisted of three stages. In the first stage, the researchers developed an item pool including 18 items based on a five-point Likert-type style. During the second stage, we collected data from 304 teachers. To demonstrate the reliability and validity of the scale, researchers conducted an exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation. The factor analysis resulted in a 16-item and three-factor construct that explained 61.5% of the total variance. The researchers also conduct the parallel analysis to confirm the results of eigenvalue criterion. In terms of the reliability of the scale, we calculated the Cronbach’s alpha values for the overall survey, Factor-1 (3 items), Factor-2 (5 items), and Factor-3 (8 items) as .91, .74, .85, and .89, respectively. Thus, the instrument is a reliable and valid scale to investigate teachers’ ICT skills.

Keywords

• ICT,ICT integration,in-service teachers

References

1. Akin, M., (2007). Effects of using computer and internet technologies in creating applied subject matter [Bilgisayar ve internet teknolojilerinden yararlanmanin uygulama alan bilgisi olusturma yonunde etkisi (Erzincan Egitim Fakultesi ornegi)], Journal of Erzincan Education Faculty, 9(2), 49-70.
2. Alev, N. & Yigit N. (2009). Lecturers' stages of concern and stages of adoption of Information and communication technologies into teacher education programs [Ogretim elemanlarinin bilgi ve iletisim teknolojilerini ogretmen egitim programlarina uyarlamasinda ilgi-endise ve benimseme seviyeleri]. Cukurova University Journal of Education [Cukurova Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi], 37(3), 82-91.
3. Altun, T., (2012). Development of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) Co-ordinators’ Role Perceptions Scale (ICTCRPS). Elementary Education Online, 11(4), 869-881.
4. Aydin, H. (2000). Use of electronic performance support systems in teaches' trainin session. [Ogretmenlerin Hizmet Ici Egitiminde Elektronik Performans Destek Sisteminin Kullanilmasi]. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 8(8), 141-150.
5. Baki, A. & Ersoy, Y. (1998). Technology Preparation for In-service Mathematics Teachers Through a Short-Term Inservice Course, Proceedings of International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Publishers.
6. Belland, B. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353-364.
7. Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful Integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
8. Borokhovski, E. F., Bernard, R. M., Tamim, R. M., & Schmid, R. F. (2017). Technology integration in postsecondary education: a summary of findings from a set of related meta-analyses. Российский Психологический Журнал, 13(4), 284-302

9. Buyukozturk, S. (2007). Data analysis handbook for social studies [Sosyal Bilimler Icin Veri Analizi El Kitabi]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
10. Capar, F., & Vural, O. F. (2013). Obstacle to e-government: Digital division. [E-devletlesme onundeki engel: Dijital esitsizlik]. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 1674-1692.
11. Carlson, S. and C.T. Gadio. (2002). Teacher professional development in the use of technology. In W.D. Haddad and A. Draxler (Eds), Technologies for education: Potentials, parameters, and prospects. Paris and Washington, DC: UNESCO and the Academy for Educational Development. Retrieved 10 August 2011 from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gudmund_Hernes/publication/44828882_Emerging_trends_in_ICT_and_challenges_to_educational_planning/links/54415fee0cf2a76a3cc7e389.pdf#page=124
12. Chen, F. Looi, C., & Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technology in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teachers’ knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 470-488.
13. Ciftci, S., Taskaya, S. M., & Alemdar, M. (2013). The opinions of classroom teachers about Fatih Project.[Sinif ogretmenlerinin FATIH projesine iliskin gorusleri] Elementary Education Online, 12(1).
14. Cudeck, R., & O'Dell, L. L. (1994). Applications of standard error estimates in unrestricted factor analysis: Significance tests for factor loadings and correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 475-487. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.475.1994-32085-00110.1037/0033-2909.115.3.475
15. Cure, F., & Ozdener, N. (2008). Teachers’ information and communication technologies (ICT) using achievements and attitudes towards ICT. [Ogretmenlerin bilgi ve iletisim teknolojileri (BIT) uygulama basarilari ve BIT’e yonelik tutumlari]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(34).
16. Davies, R. S., Dean, D. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 563-580.
17. Dawes, J. G. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International journal of market research, 51(1).
18. Early Adopters of Technology (1999). Washington DC. Retrieved on December 21, 2012 from http://df/EDU0004.pdf++carly+adopters+of+technology+use&hl=tr&ie=utf-8
19. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
20. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
21. Eryilmaz, S. (2014). An Inquisition upon Expectations of Intervening Teachers and Students within the Context of Fatih Project and Perceptions to Usage of Information Technology. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(12), 24-35
22. European Commission (2010). i2010 Benchmarking. http://ec.europa.eu/informationsociety/ eeurope/i2010 /benchmarking/index_en.htm
23. Ezziane, Z. (2007). Information technology literacy: Implications on teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society,10(3), 175-191.
24. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
25. Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 63-79.
26. Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186-192.
27. Gokdas, I. (2003). Effect of computer and classroom settings situated learning based on student success and transfer [Bilgisayar ve sinif ortamina dayali durumlu ogrenmenin ogrenci basarisi, tutum ve transfere etkisi.] Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ankara University, Ankara.
28. Guven, I. (2001). International Aspects of teacher education [Ogretmen Yetistirmenin Uluslararasi Boyutu ](UNESCO 45. International Education Congress). Ministry of Education Journal (Milli Egitim Dergisi),150.
29. Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black,W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30. Hakkarainen, K., Homaki, L., Lipponen, L., Muukkonen, H., Rahikainen, M., Tuominen, T., Lakkala, M., Lehtinen, E., (2000). Students' skills and practices of using ICT: results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers & Education, 34, 103-117.
31. Hawkridge, D. (1983). New Information Technology in Education. Londra: Croom Helm.
32. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., ve Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-2005.
33. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological measurement, 66(3), 393-416.
34. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
35. ISTE, International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene: ISTE Publications.
36. Jenson, J., Lewis, B., & Smith, R. (2002). No One Way: Working Models For Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Technology And Teacher Education. 10, 481-496.
37. Jhurree, V. (2005). Technology integration in education in developing countries: Guidelines to policy makers. International Education Journal, 6(4), 467-483.
38. Joliffe, I. T., & Morgan, B. J. T. (1992). Principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Statistical methods in medical research, 1(1), 69-95.
39. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
40. Kalayci, S., & Humiston, K. R. (2015). Students’ Attitudes Towards Collaborative Tools In A Virtual Learning Environment. Educational Process: International Journal, 4 (1-2), 71-86.
41. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press.
42. Kogce, D., Aydin, M., & Yildiz, C. (2010). Freshman and senior pre-service mathematics teachers’ attitudes toward teaching profession. The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 1(2), 2-18.
43. Korkmaz, O. & Demir, B. (2012). The effect of MNE in-service education studies on teachers' attitude and self-effcient upon information and communication technologies [MEB Hizmetici Egitimlerinin Ogretmenlerin Bilgi Ve Iletisim Teknolojilerine Iliskin Tutumlarina ve Bilgisayar Oz-Yeterliklerine Etkisi]. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 2(1).
44. Kutluca, T., Arslan, S. & Ozpinar, I., (2010). Developing a Scale to Measure Information and Communication Technology Utilization Levels. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(4), 37-45
45. Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 365-395.
46. Manoucherhri, A. (1999). Computers and school mathematics reform: Implications for mathematics teacher education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(1), 31–48.
47. MoNE (2006). Temel egitime destek projesi “ogretmen egitimi bileseni” ogretmenlik meslegi genel yeterlikleri, Journal of Announcements [Tebligler Dergisi], 2590, 1491-1540.
48. Moore, J., Knuth, R., Borse, J., & Mitchell, M. (1999). Teacher Technology Competencies: Early Indicators and Benchmarks, Paper Presented Annual Conference of SITE’99 (Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education), USA.
49. Oncu, S. Delialioglu, O. & Brown, C.A. (2008). Critical components for technology integration: How do instructors make decisions? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 19-46.
50. Ping, R. A. (2009). "Is there any way to improve Average Variance Extracted (AVE) in a Latent Variable (LV) X (Revised)?" [on-line paper]. http://home.att.net/~rpingjr/ImprovAVE1.doc)
51. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. A&C Black.
52. Sheingold, K. (1995). Computers-Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom in Distance Learning. Computers-Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(4).
53. Shieh, CJ., & Demirkol, M. (2014). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Social Networks and their Usage by High School Students. Educational Process: International Journal, 3 (1-2), 7-18.
54. Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? (pp. 1-17). Cary: SAS Institute.
55. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th Ed.). Pearson Education. Inc:
56. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
57. Tinio, V. (2003). ICT in Education. ICT for Development, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
58. Tsai, C.-C. & Chai, C. S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology integration instruction: Implications for teacher education. In C. P. Lim & C. S. Chai (Eds), Building the ICT capacity of the next generation of teachers in Asia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1057-1060. Retrieved on 02.26.2015 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/tsai-cc.html.
59. van Prooijen, J. W., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 777–792
60. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Systematic planning for ICT integration in topic learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 148-156.
61. Watson, D.M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6, 251-266.
62. de Winter, J. C., & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,15(11), 1-12.
63. Yalin, H. I. (2001). Evaluation of professional development programs [Hizmetici Egitim Programlarinin Degerlendirilmesi]. Journal of Ministry Education [Milli Egitim Dergis]i, 150.
64. Yavuz, S. & Coskun, A. S. (2008). Attitudes and perceptions of elementary teaching through the use of technology in education [Sinif ogretmenligi ogrencilerinin egitimde teknoloji kullanimina iliskin tutum ve dusunceleri]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education [Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi], 34, 274-286.
65. Yildiz, H., Saritepeci, M., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2013). A study on the contributions of the in-service training activities within the scope of FATIH project to teachers’ professional growth in reference to ISTE teachers’ standards [in FATIH Projesi Kapsaminda Duzenlenen Hizmet-Ici Egitim Etkinlikleri ve ISTE Ogretmen Standartlari 377 Turkish]. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Education], Special issue (1), 375-392.
66. Yilmaz, M. (2007). Instructional technology in training primary school teacher [Sinif ogretmeni yetistirmede teknoloji egitimi. Gazi University Journal of Education [Gazi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi], 27(1). ISO 690
67. Yilmaz, G., Yilmaz, B., & Turk, N. (2010). Over-graduate thesis physical education and sports teacher’s self efficacy of their jobs (Nevsehir City Model) [Beden egitimi ve spor ogretmenlerinin mesleklerine iliskin oz-yeterlik duzeylerinin incelenmesi (Nevsehir Ili Ornegi)]. Selcuk Universitesi Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science, 12(2), 85-90.
68. Yorulmaz, Y. I., Altinkurt, Y., & Yilmaz, K. (2015). The Relationship between Teachers’ Occupational Professionalism and Organizational Alienation. Educational Process: International Journal, 4 (1-2), 31-44.
69. Yurdakul, I. K. (2011). Examining technopedagogical knowledge competencies of preservice teachers based on ICT usage [Ogretmen Adaylarinin Teknopedagojik Egitim Yeterliklerinin Bilgi ve Iletisim Teknolojilerini Kullanimlari Acisindan Incelenmesi]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education [Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi], 40, 397-408.
70. Yuzgec, A. (2003). Use of information technology classrooms and evaluation of their effects [Bilgi Teknolojisi Siniflarinin Kullanimi ve Etkilerinin Degerlendirilmesi], Unpublished Master's Thesis [Yayinlanmamis Yuksek Lisans Tezi], Ankara University, Ankara.