Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Yenilikçilik Algıları ve Yenilikçi Düşünme Eğilimleri: Bir Keşfedici Ardışık Desen

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı; ortaokul öğrencilerinin “yenilikçilik” kavramına ilişkin algılarını belirlemek, belirlenen algılara bağlı olarak ölçme aracı geliştirmek ve geliştirilen ölçme aracı ile genel eğilimlerini incelemektir. Araştırma, karma yöntem temel desenlerinden biri olan keşfedici ardışık desene göre tasarlanmıştır. Araştırmaya toplam 1300 ortaokul (5-8. sınıf) öğrencisi dahil edilmiştir. Nitel veriler, öğrenciler tarafından yazılan kompozisyonlar, doldurulan açık uçlu anket formları ve yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla elde edilmiştir. Nicel veriler ise nitel bulgulara ve ilgili alanyazına bağlı olarak geliştirilen “Ortaokul Öğrencilerine Yönelik Yenilikçi Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeği” kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Nitel verilerin analizi sonucunda oluşturulan kodlardan; yeniliğe açık olma, yenilikçi grup liderliği, yenilikçi problem çözme, yenilikçi öz-yeterlik, yenilikçi risk alma, bireysel yenilikçilik ve yenilikçi azim kategorilerine ulaşılmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizi sonucunda beş faktörlü bir yapıda (yeniliğe açık olma, yenilikçi problem çözme, yenilikçi öz-yeterlik, yenilikçi grup liderliği ve yenilikçi azim) 25 maddeden oluşan bir ölçme aracı geliştirilmiştir. Öğrencilerin genel yenilikçi düşünme eğilimlerine bakıldığında yaklaşık olarak %35’inin düşük, %19’unun orta %46’sının ise yüksek yenilikçi düşünme eğilimine sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Yenilikçi düşünme,yenilikçilik algıları,karma yöntem,keşfedici ardışık desen,ölçek geliştirme

Innovativeness Perceptions and Innovative Thinking Tendencies of Middle School Students: An Exploratory Sequential Design

Abstract

The aim of this study is firstly to determine the perceptions of middle school students with regard to innovativeness, secondly it is to develop a measurement tool based on the perceptions that have been identified, and thirdly it is to examine the general tendencies with the use of the developed measurement tool. This research was designed according to an exploratory sequential design, which is one of the mixed method research approaches. A total of 1300 middle school (5-8th grade) students participated in the study. In this study, seven categories were identified through the use of codes generated from the analysis of the qualitative data: openness to innovation, innovative group leadership, innovative problem solving, innovative self-efficacy, innovative risk taking, individual innovation, and innovative perseverance. It was determined that this instrument has 25 items and five factor structures (openness to innovation, innovative problem solving, innovative self-efficacy, innovative group leadership, innovative perseverance). Considering the general innovative thinking tendencies of the students, it was determined that approximately 35% was low, 19% was medium and 46% was high.

Keywords

• Innovative thinking,innovativeness perceptions,mixed method research,exploratory sequential design,scale development

References

1. Abernathy, W.J., & Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3-22.
2. Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 21-47.
3. Adıgüzel, A., Kaya, A., Balay, R. ve Göçen, A. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile öğrenmeye ilişkin tutum düzeyleri. Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 44(204), 135-154.
4. Akgün, F. (2017). Öğretim elemanlarının bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ve öğretim teknolojilerine yönelik kabulleri. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(3), 291-322.
5. Alacapinar, F. G. (2013). Grade level and creativity. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 247-266.
6. Alamolhodaei, H. (1996). A study in higher education calculus and students’ learning styles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
7. Ali, A., Krapfel-JR, R., & LaBahn, D. (1995). Product innovativeness and entry strategy: Impact on cycle time and break-even time. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 12(1), 54-69.
8. Alpar, R. (2011). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler (Üçüncü Baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.

9. Aslan, H. ve Kesik, F. (2016). Yenilikçi okul ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 22(4), 463-482.
10. Azizah, S. N., Dafik, D., & Susanto, S. (2018). The effectiveness of discovery based learning implementation through improving students’ innovative thinking skills in solving open-ended task of pattern generalization. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 5(8), 74-82.
11. Barak, M., Morad, S., & Ragonis, N. (2013). Students’ innovative thinking and their perceptions about the ideal learning environment. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management in Organizations, 111–125.
12. Başaran, S.D. ve Keleş, S. (2015). Yenilikçi kimdir? Öğretmenlerin yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(4), 106-118.
13. Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13.
14. Beghetto, R. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 447–459). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Berne, R.W., & Raviv, D. (2004). Eight-dimensional methodology for innovative thinking about the case and ethics of the mount graham, large binocular telescope project. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 235-242.
16. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., et al. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 17e66). Dordrecht: Springer.
17. Bitan-Friedlander, N., Dreyfus, A., & Milgrom, Z. (2004). Types of “teachers in training”: The reactions of primary school science teachers when confronted with the task of implementing an innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(6), 607-619.
18. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows. USA and Canada: Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group.
19. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2019). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (25. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
20. Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Cao, Y., & Xiao, L. (2008). The cultivation of college students' science and technology innovation ability. Journal of Hunan University of Science and Engineering, 29(8), 221-223.
22. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative ınquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. London: Sage Publication.
23. Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. California: Sage Publications.
24. Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.L.P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
25. Cronk, B. C. (2008). How to use SPSS®: A step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation (5th edition). California Corporation: Pyrczak Publishing.
26. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LİSREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
27. Deniz, S. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(9), 267-278.
28. Deveci, İ., & Çepni, S. (2017). Examination of science education curriculum (5-8 grades) in terms of entrepreneurial characteristics. Alan Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 51-74.
29. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage Publications.
30. Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C.M. (2011). The innovator’s DNA. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
31. Eminoglu, A., & Gungormus, Z. (2019). Entrepreneurial characteristics and ınclinations of nursing students. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 12(2), 684-698.
32. Erkuş, A. (2003). Psikometri üzerine yazılar. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
33. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statisticsusing SPSS (2nd edition). London. Sage Publication.
34. Fowlin, J., Amelink, C., & Scales, G. (2013). Educational affordances that support development of innovative thinking skills in large classes. IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age proceeding , 323-326 , ERIC Number: ED562200.
35. Galunic, C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombination in the firm: knowledge, structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1193-201.
36. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference (14th ed.). New York: Routledge.
37. Gül, U. (2018). Cumhuriyetten günümüze ilkokul eğitim programları ve inovatif etkisinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Yeditepe Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
38. Ha, Y., & Stoel, L. (2004). Internet apparel shopping behaviors: the influence of general innovativeness. International Journal of Retail & Distrubition Management, 32(8), 377-385.
39. Hair-JR, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). NY: Prentice Hall.
40. Holstein, B.I. (1972). Use of metaphor to induce innovative thinking in fourth grade children. Education, 93(1), 56-60.
41. Hooper, D, Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
42. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Journal of Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
43. Huey, W.S. (2010). Innovation as group process: Hierarchy, status, and the dilemma of participative leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College Park.
44. Jäkel, T. (2019). Innovative self-efficacy of municipal employees: empirical evidence from Russia’s Leningrad region. International Review of Public Administration, 24(1), 36-59.
45. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: User’s reference guide (1st ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software.
46. Julien, M.P., Chalmeau, R., Mainar, C.V., & Léna, J.Y. (2018). An innovative framework for encouraging future thinking in ESD: A case study in a French school. Futures, 101, 26-35.
47. Kartal, F. (2018). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri ile eğitimde teknoloji kullanımına yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişkilerin değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi, Kütahya.
48. Kaufman, K.J. (2013). 21 ways to 21st Century skills: why students need them and ideas for practical implementation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 78-83.
49. Kavacık, L., Yelken, T.Y. ve Sürmeli H. (2015). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinde inovasyon (yenilikçi) proje uygulamaları ve öğrenciler üzerindeki etkileri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(180), 247-263.
50. Kılıç, H. (2015). İlköğretim branş öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri ve yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri (Denizli ili örneği) (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
51. Kılıçer, K. (2011). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik profilleri (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
52. Kılıçer, K. ve Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel Yenilikçilik Ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38, 150-164.
53. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.
54. Konokman, G.Y., Yokuş, G. ve Yelken, T.Y. (2016). Yenilikçi materyal tasarlamanın sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yenilikçilik düzeylerine etkisi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(3), 857-878.
55. Korucu, A.T. ve Olpak, Y.Z. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik özelliklerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 111-127.
56. Ma, Y., Zhang, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). On the cultivation of college students' sci-tech ınnovation ability in the new era. International Conference on Humanities and Advanced Education Technology, 34-37.
57. McLean, L.D. (2005). Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Advances in developing human resources, 7(2), 226-246.
58. MEB. (2016). STEM eğitimi raporu. Ankara: SESAM Grup A.Ş. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü (YEĞİTEK).
59. MEB. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
60. Mısırlı, Z.A. (2015). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin eğitim teknolojisi standartlarına ilişkin yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5, 311-337.
61. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 85-90.
62. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or com-plement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175-199.
64. Mulaik, S.A., James, L. R., Alstine, J.V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C.D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 10, 430–445.
65. Nakano, T.D.C., & Wechsler, S.M. (2018). Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21st Century. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 35(3), 237-246.
66. Ovbiagbonhia, A. R., Kollöffel, B., & Den-Brok, P. (2019). Educating for innovation: students’ perceptions of the learning environment and of their own innovation competence. Learning Environments Research, 22(3), 387–407.
67. Özgür, H. (2013). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 409-420.
68. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008). 21st century skills, education & competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Washington DC.
69. Pyle, R. (2014). Innovation the NASA way: Harnessing the power of your organization for breakthrough success. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
70. Quah, S.R. (1985). Self-medication in Singapore. Singapore Med J, 26(2), 123-129.
71. Rank, J., Pace, V.L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Pyschology, 53(4), 518-528.
72. Raviv, D. (2002). Eight-dimensional methodology for innovative thinking. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education, 466/1-466/18.
73. Rizk, N.M.H., Attia, K.A.M., & Al-Jundi, A.A.H. (2017). The impact of metacognition strategies in teaching mathematics among ınnovative thinking students in primary school. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(3), 103-114.
74. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation, (4th edition). New York: The Free Press.
75. Sahin, I., & 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
76. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H., (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research - Online, 8(2), 23-74.
77. Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative social research methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
78. Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180. Sternberg, R.J., & Lubert, T.L. (1999). The concept of creativity: concepts and paradigms. R..I. Stemberg (Ed.) Handbook of Creativity (pp3-15), Cambridge: Carnblidge University Press.
79. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th Edition). New York: Allyn ve Bacon.
80. Tang, M., & Werner, C.H. (2017). An interdisciplinary and intercultural approach to creativity and innovation: Evaluation of the EMCI ERASMUS intensive program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 268–278.
81. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. USA: Sage Publication.
82. Tariq, B. (2007). Exploring factors influencing the adoption of mobile. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 12(3), 32–42.
83. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.
84. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148.
85. Tsang, T.L. (2019). A quantitative analysis examining differences between US humanities and STEM students’ propensity toward innovation. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(2), 149-165.
86. Van de Ven, A.H., & Angle, H.L. (1989). An introduction to the Minnesota innovation research program. In A.H. Van de Ven, H.L. Angle, & M.S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation (pp. 3-30). New York: Harper & Row.
87. Wansink, B., & Sudman, S. (2002). Predicting the future of consumer panels. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 9(4), 301-311.
88. West, M.A., & Farr, J.L. (Eds.). (1990). Innovation and creativity at work : Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.
89. Wheeler, J. (1998). The power of ınnovative thinking: let new ıdeas lead you to success. United States of America: National Press Publications.
90. Wisetsat, C., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2019). Enhancing innovative thinking of thai pre-service teachers through multi-educational ınnovations. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(3), 409-419.
91. Xie, J.Y. (2008). Analysis of university students' ability of science and technology innovation. Journal of Hubei University of Economics (Humanities and Social Sciences), 5(4), 158-159.
92. Yani, A.T., & Oikawa, S. (2019). Increasing creative and ınnovative thinking ability through the strengthening of character education in probability theory course. JETL (Journal Of Education, Teaching and Learning), 4(1), 163-168.
93. Yılmaz, F., Soğukçeşme, G., Ayhan, N., Tuncay, S., Sancar, S. ve Deniz, Y. M. (2014). İlköğretim bölümü öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yenilikçilik eğilimlerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(27), 259-276.
94. Yılmaz, H. (2018). İlkokul öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik ile mesleki mesleki değerlerini yansıtma düzeyleri (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
95. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.