Intellectual Risk Taking When Learning about Technology: Case of Prospective Science Teachers

Year 2019, Volume: 39 Issue: 1, 37 - 61, 20.03.2019

Mustafa Serdar Köksal , Pınar Köseoğlu

Abstract

Learning about technology in a classroom
environment necessitates intellectual risk taking because intellectual risk
taking involves active participation in learning. Hence prospective science
teachers should adopt high intellectual risk-taking levels when learning about
technology to improve their participation in learning. By determining their
level of intellectual risk taking and ways of promoting such risk taking, we
can decide on the degree of intellectual risk taking of prospective teachers
and which ways of increasing intellectual risk taking are effective in learning
about technology. Accordingly, this study explores the intellectual risk-taking
levels of prospective science teachers when learning about technology and ways
of increasing intellectual risk taking during their learning. The participants
comprised 207 prospective science teachers from departments of science
education at universities in Turkey. For the data collection, three
“intellectual risk-taking questionnaires about learning technology” and
“personal information forms” were utilized. For analysing data, inductive content
analysis was used. The findings revealed that the intellectual risk-taking
level of prospective teachers was higher than their avoidance of taking
intellectual risks. The findings also showed that conditions of intellectual
risk taking are an important factor in taking intellectual risks when learning
about technology. This study provides implications for shaping an environment
in which to take the required level of intellectual risk in learning about
technology in teacher education programmes and presents examples of
intellectual risk taking.

Intellectual Risk Taking When Learning about Technology: Case of Prospective Science Teachers

Abstract

Sınıf ortamında teknolojiyi öğrenmek, zihinsel risk
almayı gerektirdiğinden, öğrenme sürecine aktif katılım gerektirir. Bu nedenle,
fen bilgisi öğretmenleri, öğrenmeye katılımlarını geliştirmek için teknoloji
hakkında bilgi alırken, yüksek zihinsel risk almayı benimsemelidir. Zihinsel
risk alma düzeylerini ve bu tür riskleri almanın yollarını belirleyerek,
öğretmen adaylarının zihinzel risk alma derecesine ve zihinzel risk alma
süreçlerini hangi yollarla geliştireceğine karar verebiliriz. Bu çalışma, fen
bilgisi öğretmenlerinin zihinzel risk alma düzeyleri araştırılmıştır.
Katılımcıları Türkiye'deki üniversitelerde fen eğitimi bölümlerinden 207
öğretmen adayı oluşturdu. Veri toplama için “öğrenme teknolojisine ilişkin zihinzel
risk alma anketleri” ve “kişisel bilgi formları” kullanılmıştır. Verileri
analiz etmek için tümevarımcı içerik analizi kullanıldı. Bulgular, öğretmen
adaylarının zihinsel risk alma düzeylerinin zihinzel risk almalarından daha
yüksek olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bulgular ayrıca, zihinzel risk alma
koşullarının, teknolojiyi öğrenirken zihinzel risklerin alınmasında önemli bir
faktör olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, öğretmen eğitimi programlarında
teknoloji hakkında bilgi sahibi olmak için gerekli zihinzel risk düzeyini
yakalayabilecek ve zihinzel risk alma örneklerini sunacak bir ortamın
şekillendirilmesi için anlamlar sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Intellectual risk taking, Learning about technology, Prospective science teachers

References

• Akkaya, G. (2016). Rol model içerikli animasyonlarin ustun yetenekli 4. sinif ogrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersinde zihinsel risk alma davranislari ve ogrenmelerine etkisi, Inonu Universitesi, Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Yayinlanmamis Doktora Tezi, Malatya, Turkiye.
• Akdag,E. M., Koksal, M.S.& Ertekin, P. (2017). Ustun Yetenekli Ortaokul Ogrencilerinin Fen Ogrenmede Zihinsel Risk Alma Davranislarinin Sinif Duzeyi ve Cinsiyet Degiskenleri Açisindan Incelenmesi, Adnan Menderes Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 4 (2), 16-25.
• Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
• Beghetto, R. A. (2007a). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29, 265–270
• Beghetto, R. A. (2007b). Creativity research in the classroom: From pitfalls to potential. In A. G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A Handbook for teachers. Singapore: World Scientific
• Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Prospective teachers’ beliefs about imaginative thinking in K-12 schooling, Thinking Skills and Creativity 3 (2), 134–142.
• Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (2), 210–223.
• Besoluk, S., Kurbanoglu, N. I., & Onder, I. (2010). Educational technology usage of preservice and in-service science and technology teachers. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 389-395.
• Brown, P.U., Parsons, S.C. & Worley, V. (2005) Pre-Service Teachers Write about Diversity: A Metaphor Analysis, Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 3(1), 87-102.
• Byrnes, J. P. (1998). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Cakir, E. & Yaman, S. (2015). The relationship between students’ intellectual risk-taking skills with metacognitive awareness and academic achievement, Gazi Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 163-178.
• Cetin, B., Ilhan,M., & Yilmaz, F. (2014). An investigation of the relationship between the fear of receiving negative criticism and of taking academic risk through canonical correlation analysis, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 135-158.
• Clifford, M.M. (1991). Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 263-297.
• Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. Jackson (ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
• Cohen, D. K. & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Dasci, A.D. & Yaman, S. (2014). Investigation of Intellectual Risk-Taking Abilities of Students According to Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development and Education Grade, Kuramsal Egitimbilim Dergisi, 7(3), 271-285.
• Deci, E. L., & Porac, J. (1978). Cognitive evaluation theory and the study of human motivation, In M. R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• de Souza Fleith, D. (2000) Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment, Roeper Review, 22(3), 148-153.
• Elo S. & Kyngas, H. (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107–115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
• Fullan, M. G. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Goktas, Y., Yildirim, Z., & Yildirim, S. (2008). A review of ICT related courses in pre-service teacher education programs. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9, 168–179.
• Henriksen, D. & Mishra, P. (2013). Learning from creative teachers, Educational Leadership, 70 (5). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb13/vol70/num05/Learning-from-Creative-Teachers.aspx Ilhan, M., Cetin, B., Oner-Sunkur, M, & Yilmaz, F. (2013). An Investigation of the Relationship between Study Skills and Academic Risk Taking with Canonical Correlation, Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 3(2), 123-146.
• Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 383–408.
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 87–106). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Koksal, M. S., Yaman, S., & Saka, Y. (2016). Analysis of Turkish prospective science teachers’ perceptions on technology in education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.2
• Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the relationship between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 185-211.
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.
• Oner Sunkur, M. (2015). An investigation into the relationship between academic risk taking and chemistry laboratory anxiety in Turkey, Educational Research and Reviews, 10 (2), 153-160.
• Robinson, L.E. (2012). Academic risk-taking in an on-line environment, University of Connecticut, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation
• Streitmatter, J. (1997). An exploratory study of risk-taking and attitudes in a girls-only middle school math class. The Elementary School Journal, 98(1), 15-26.
• Styhre, A. (2006). Science-based innovation as systematic risk-taking. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 300–311.
• Tomlinson, C.A. & Javius, E.L. (2012) Teach up for excellence, Educational Leadership, 69(5), 28-33.
• Turkmen, H., Pedersen, J., & McCarty, R. (2007). Exploring Turkish science education preservice teachers’ understanding of educational technology and use. Research in Comparative & International Education, 2(2), 162-171.
• Weingrad, P. (1998). Teaching and learning politeness for mathematical argument in school. In M. Lampert, & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 213-237). Cambridge: University Press.
• Yaman, S.& Koksal, M.S. (2014). Fen Ogrenmede Zihinsel Risk Alma ve Yordayicilarina Iliskin Algi Olçegi Turkçe Formunun Uyarlanmasi: Geçerlik ve Guvenirlik Çalismasi, Journal of Turkish Science Education. 11(3), 119-142.