The Comparison of Technology Integration Experiences of Teachers and Faculties: Distance Teaching Context

Year 2025, Issue: 56

Emine Şendurur , Ayşegül Altun

https://doi.org/10.33418/education.1517507

Abstract

The study aims to compare the technology integration practices of teachers and faculties from their perspectives within the context of distance education. The study's research design is a cross-sectional survey. Technology Integration in Distance Education Questionnaire was prepared by the researchers. The instrument was administered to 189 faculties and 91 teachers with distance teaching experience. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze data. The findings suggest that participants perceived themselves as proficient in designing instruction for distance education, but no significant differences were found between teachers and faculties. EFA was conducted to determine questionnaire structure, and results showed three factors; planning the instruction, process, and post instructional process. Comparison of these factors scores showed no significant differences in planning the instruction and post-instructional process but significant differences in process between teachers and faculties. Content analysis results show that material types are divided into six main themes, namely: (i)audio, (ii)visual, (iii)audio-visual, (iv)interactive, (v)textual, and (vi)real objects/models/sources. Instructional methods are divided into three main themes, namely: (i)student-centered, (ii)teacher-centered, and (iii)mixed. In addition, content analysis results also showed that participants perceived themselves as proficient but needed clarification about methods and materials used in distance education. These findings were discussed in detail.

Keywords

technology integration practices, distance education, ICT competencies, exploratory factor analysis.

Öğretmenlerin ve Öğretim Elemanlarının Teknoloji Entegrasyonu Deneyimlerinin Karşılaştırılması: Uzaktan Öğretim Bağlamı”

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı,uzaktan eğitim bağlamında teknoloji entegrasyonunu öğretmenlerin ve öğretim elemanlarının bakış açılarına göre karşılatırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Uzaktan Eğitimde Teknoloji Entegrasyonu Anketi araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanmıştır. Anket, uzaktan eğitim deneyimi olan 189 fakülte ve 91 öğretmene uygulanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde hem niteli hem de nicelil yöntemler kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, katılımcıların kendilerini uzaktan eğitim için öğretim tasarlama konusunda yeterli olarak algıladıklarını ancak öğretmenler ve öğretim üyeleri arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmadığını göstermektedir. Anket yapısını belirlemek için AFA yapılmış ve AFA sonucunda üç faktörlü yapı ortaya çıkmıştır; öğretimi, süreci ve öğretim sonrası süreci planlamak. Bu faktörlerin puanlarının karşılaştırılması, öğretimin planlanması ve öğretim sonrası süreç te anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığını, ancak öğretmenler ve öğretim elemanları arasında süreçte anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu göstermiştir. İçerik analizi sonuçları materyal türlerinin (i)işitsel, (ii)görsel, (iii)işitsel-görsel, (iv)etkileşimli, (v)metinsel ve (vi)gerçek nesneler/ modeller/kaynaklar olmak üzere altı ana temaya ayrıldığını göstermektedir. Öğretim yöntemleri üç ana temaya ayrılmıştır: (i)öğrenci merkezli, (ii)öğretmen merkezli ve (iii)karma. Hem öğretmenlerin hem de öğretim elemanlarının materyal türü ve öğretim yöntemleri konusundaki açıklığa kavuşturulması gerekitiği sonucuna ulaşılmış ve bu bulgular ayrıntılı olarak tartışıldı

Keywords

uzaktan eğitim, BİT yeterlilikleri, açımlayıcı faktör analizi, , teknoloji entegrasyon pratikleri

References

• Akram, H., Yingxiu, Y., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Alkhalifah, A. (2021). Technology integration in higher education during COVID-19: An assessment of online teaching competencies through technological pedagogical content knowledge model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-11.
• Alvarez, J. F., & Cervera, M. G. (2015). Information literacy grade of secondary school teachers in Spain-beliefs and self-perceptions. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 23(2), 187-194.
• Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Hordatt Gentles, C., & Haynes Brown, T. (2021). Latin American and Caribbean teachers' transition to online teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic: Challenges, changes and lessons learned. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, 61, 131-163.
• Kaniawati, I., Fratiwi, N. J., Danawan, A., Suyana, I., Samsudin, A., & Suhendi, E. (2019). Analyzing students’ misconceptions about Newton’s laws through four-tier Newtonian test (FTNT). Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 110-122.
• Lestarina, A. P., Nurkamto, J. N., & Ngadiso, N. N. (2022). EFL teachers' beliefs and ICT integration practices during distance learning: employing replacement, amplification, and transformation framework. Register Journal, 15(1), 91-108.
• Li, B. (2022). Ready for online? Exploring EFL teachers’ ICT acceptance and ICT literacy during COVID-19 in mainland China. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(1), 196-219.
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University. Prentise Hall.
• Menz, C., Spinath, B., & Seifried, E. (2021). Where do pre-service teachers' educational psychological misconceptions come from?. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 35(2-3), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000299
• Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78.
• Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6.
• Moore, G. E., Warner, W. J., & Jones, D. W. (2016). Student-to-student interaction in distance education classes: what do graduate students want?. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(2), 1-13.
• Padayachee, I., & Moodley, K. (2022). Factors influencing web 2.0 technology usage among academics: a case study of two South African tertiary institutions. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 18(1), 1-22.
• Gorham-Blanco, T., & Chamberlin, S. A. (2019). Pre-service teacher statistical misconceptions during teacher preparation program. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 16(1), 461-484.
• Petko, D., Prasse, D., & Cantieni, A. (2018). The interplay of school readiness and teacher readiness for educational technology integration: A structural equation model. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 1–18.
• Pinto, M., Mariscal, D. C., & Segura, A. (2021). Experiences of information literacy and mobile technologies amongst undergraduates in times of COVID. A qualitative approach. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 74(2), 181-201.
• Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 5-29.
• St‐Onge, C., Ouellet, K., Lakhal, S., Dubé, T., & Marceau, M. (2022). COVID‐19 as the tipping point for integrating e‐assessment in higher education practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(2), 349-366.
• Stapleton, C. D. (1997). Basic concepts in exploratory factor analysis (efa) as a tool to evaluate score validity: a right brained approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeast Educational Research Association, Austin, TX.
• Tavares, C. Z., Cardoso, T. D. S. G., Lopes Jr, D., & Linhares, M. P. (2021). Professional challenges in education remote teaching during the covid-19 pandemic. Humanidades & Inovação, 8(62), 29-38.
• UNESCO. (2018). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Version 3.0. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721
• UNESCO. (2020). Global Teacher Campus: sythesis report. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374977
• Yang, L., Martínez-Abad, F., & García-Holgado, A. (2022). Exploring factors influencing pre-service and in-service teachers´ perception of digital competencies in the Chinese region of Anhui. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 12469–12494