Öğretmen Adaylarının Gelecekteki Derslerinde Etkileşimli Tahta Kullanma Niyetlerine Yönelik Model Önerisi

Year 2017, Issue: 1, 59 - 66, 01.04.2017

Özlem Baydaş Rabia Meryem Yılmaz

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının gelecekteki derslerinde etkileşimli tahta kullanma niyetlerine yönelik bir model önerisi geliştirmektedir. Bu kapsamda Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi kullanılarak öğretmen adaylarının davranışsal niyetlerini etkileyen faktörler ve bu faktörler arasındaki ilişki şekilleri ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcı grubunu Atatürk Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi’nde 4. sınıfta öğrenim gören toplam 153 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma sonucunda, öğretmen adaylarının gelecekteki derslerinde etkileşimli tahta kullanma niyetlerine yönelik %44 varyansın açıklandığı bir model geliştirilmiştir. Bu modele göre, öğretmen adaylarının davranışsal niyetlerini performans beklentisi ve sosyal etki faktörleri etkilemektedir. Çaba beklentisi faktörünün davranışsal niyeti anlamlı düzeyde etkilemediği görülürken, performans beklentilerini çaba beklentisi ve sosyal etki faktörlerinin etkilediği belirlenmiştir. Bu noktada hizmet öncesi öğretmen eğitiminde etkileşimli tahtaların öğretme ve öğrenmedeki işlevlerine, pozitif çıktılarına ve pratiğine odaklanılması etkili bilgisayar teknolojisi ders içeriklerinin geliştirilmesi adına önem taşımaktadır

Keywords

Etkileşimli tahtalar, Teknoloji kabul modeli, Öğretmen adayları, BTKK Modeli

A Model for Pre-Service Teachers’ Intention to Use Interactive White Boards in Their Future Lessons

Abstract

This study aims to propose a model for determining teacher candidates’ intentions to use interactive white boards in their future lessons. To this end, the factors that affect behavioral intentions of teacher candidates and the types of relations between these factors were discovered through the use of Structural Equation Modeling. The participants of the study consisted of 153 senior students in Faculty of Education at Atatürk University. The results showed that the model developed in the study explained 44% of variance in teacher candidates’ intentions to use interactive white boards in their future lessons. According to this model, the factors of performance expectancy and social influence had an impact on the behavioral intentions of teacher candidates. While the factor of effort expectancy did not affect behavioral intentions significantly, it was revealed that the factors of effort expectancy and social influence played a role in performance expectancy. In this respect, a focus during pre-service teacher education on the functions of interactive white boards in teaching and learning, their positive outputs and the issues related to practice is essential for designing effective course content of interactive computer technology

Keywords

Interactive white boards, Technology acceptance model, Pre-service teachers, UTAUT Model

References

• Al-Qirim, N (2011). Determinats of interactive white board success in teching in higher education institution, Computers & Education, 56, 827-838.
• Ateş, M. (2010). Ortaöğretim coğrafya derslerinde akıllı tahta kullanımı. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 22, 409–427.
• Baran, B. (2010). Experiences from the process of designing lessons with ınteractive whiteboard: Assure as a Road Map. Contemporary Educatıonal Technology, 1(4), 367-380.
• Becta ICT Research (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from http://www.hpedsb. on.ca/ec/services/cst/elementary/math/documents/ whiteboards_research.pdf
• Birch, A., & Irvine, V. (2009). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of ICT integration in the classroom: Applying the UTAUT model. Educational Media International, 46(4), 295-315.
• Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1-11.
• Correa, C., Perry, M., Sims, L., Miller, K., & Fang, G. (2008). Connected and culturally embedded beliefs: Chinese and U.S. teachers talk about how their students best learn mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 140-153.
• Geer, R., & Barnes, A. (2007). Cognitive concomitants of interactive board use and their relevance to developing effective research methodologies. International Education Journal, 8(2), 92-102.
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel yayın Dağıtım.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Lewin, C., Somekh, B., & Steadman,S. (2008). Embedding interactive whiteboards in teaching and learning: The process of change in pedagogic practice. Education and Information Technologies,13, 291-303.
• Marzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82.
• Preston, C., & Mowbray, L. (2008). Use of smart boards for teaching learning and assesment in kindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50-53.
• Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies using Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171- 196.
• Somyürek, S., Atasoy, B., & Özdemir, S. (2009). What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368–374.
• Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J.,Kontkanen, S., Sormunen, K., Dillo, P., & Sointu, E. (2015). The impact of authentic learning experiences with ICT on pre-service teachers’ intentions to use ICT for teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 81(2015), 49–58.
• Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
• Wang, M. J., Shen, R. M., Novak, D., & Pan, X. Y. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviours and performance: report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673–695.
• Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2013). Interactive whiteboard acceptance: applicability of the UTAUT model to student teachers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 1-10.
• Yuen, H. K., & Ma, W. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365-382.
• Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Karadağ, E., & Orhan, S. (2015). The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and use of technology. Computers & Education, 81, 169-178.