DETERMINATION OF TECHNOLOGY ATTITUDES AND TECHNOSTRESS LEVELS OF GEOGRAPHY TEACHER CANDIDATES

Öz

With the effect of the global epidemic, the use of technology has increased more, and digital technologies have been used in all fields of life. One of these fields is education. Particularly, the attitudes towards technology and technostress levels of teacher candidates in Geography education, which is the department that undertakes the role of educator of tomorrow and where technology is partially used less, have been investigated. The aim of this study is to determine the technostress levels and attitudes towards technology of geography teacher candidates. The research is in survey model and an online questionnaire form was applied to 148 teacher candidates studying at Necmettin Erbakan and Marmara University Faculty of Education, Department of Geography Education for the 2020-2021 academic years. “Determining Teachers' Technostress Levels” and “Teacher Candidates' Attitudes towards Technology” scales were used as data collection tools. The internal consistency coefficients obtained in this study were calculated as .86 and .83. As a result of the study, the attitudes towards technology and technostress levels of the geography teacher candidates were found to be medium level. The grade level and average daily internet usage time are important for technostress, but it does not make any difference according to the attitude towards technology. While gender is not an important variable for technostress, it is important in terms of attitude towards technology, men have more technology attitudes than women. There is a negative and low level relationship between attitude towards technology and technostress level. As a recommendation, It may also be suggested to provide geography teacher candidates with more applied training in order to gain an attitude towards technology and reduce their technostress’

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Technostress
• Technology Attitude
• Education
• Geography Teacher Candidate
• Covid-19

Kaynakça

1. Agar, J. (2020). What is technology?, Annals of Science, 77(3), 377-382. Doi: 10.1080/00033790.2019.1672788
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
3. Al-Fudail, M. & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1103-1110. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.004
4. Arif, A., Walayat, H. & Atiq, A. (2011). E-learning: closing the digital gap between developed and developing countries. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(11), 903-908.
5. Aydın, F. & Kara, F. N. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının teknolojiye yönelik tutumları: ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(4), 103-118.
6. Baştürk Akca, E. & Kaya, B. (2016). Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği perspektifinden dijital bölünme ve farklı yaklaşımlar. Intermedia International e-Journal, 3(5), 301-319. Doi: 10.21645/intermedia.2017.16
7. Bauer, J. & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.
8. Bode, L. (2017). Closing the gap: gender parity in political engagement on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 20(4), 587-603. Doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1202302

9. Brillhart, P. E. (2004). Technostress in the workplace: managing stress in the electronic workplace. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 302-307.
10. Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The Human Cost of The Computer Revolution. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley.
11. Çetin, İ. (2012). Tutum nedir? Tutumların özellikleri. 23 Nisan 2021 tarihinde https://www.tavsiyeediyorum.com /makale_9597.htm adresinden edinilmiştir.
12. Champion, S. (1988). Technostress: technology's toll. School Library Journal, 35(3), 48-51.
13. Chase, Z. & Laufenberg, D. (2011). Embracing the squishiness of digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(7), 535-537. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.7.7
14. Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration?. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75. Doi: 10.3200/JOER.102.1.65-75
15. Çoklar, A. N., Efilti, E. & Sahin, L. (2017). Defining teachers' technostress levels: a scale development. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(21), 28-41.
16. Çoklar, A. N., Efilti, E., Sahin, L. & Akçay, A. (2016). Investigation of techno-stress levels Of teachers who were ıncluded ın technology ıntegration processes. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Special Issue for INTE 2016, 1331-1339.
17. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
18. Dalal, M., Archambault, L. & Shelton, C. (2017). Professional development for international teachers: examining TPACK and technology integration decision making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 117-133. Doi: 10.1080/15391523.2017.1314780
19. Dargut, T. & Çelik, G. (2014). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının eğitimde teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin tutum ve düşünceleri. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(2), 28-41.
20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
21. Demirci, A., Taş, H. İ. & Özel, A. (2007). Türkiye’de ortaöğretim coğrafya derslerinde teknoloji kullanımı. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 15, 37-54.
22. Doğru, E. & Aydın, F. (2018). Coğrafya öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (TPAB) hakkındaki düşünceleri ve bunu kullanma durumları. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 88-100.
23. Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 269-322). New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Erten, S. (2002). Planlanmış davranış teorisi ile uygulamalı öğretim metodu. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2).217-233.
25. 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.
26. Gülseçen, S. & Kubat, A. (2006). Teaching ICT to teacher candidates using PBL: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 96-106.
27. Hew, K. F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.Doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
28. İpek, C. & Acuner, H. Y. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilgisayar öz-yeterlilik inançları ve eğitim teknolojilerine yönelik tutumları. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 23-40.
29. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel Arastirma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
30. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M. & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
31. King, W. R. & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 43(6), 740-755. Doi: 10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
32. Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614. Doi: 10.3102/0034654307309921
33. Lee, J. Y. (2018). Mediating effect of stress coping in the relationship between technostress and teacher efficacy of early childhood teachers. Korean Journal of Stress Research, 26(1), 46-51. Doi: 10.17547/kjsr.2018.26.1.46
34. Li, L. & Wang, X. (2021). Technostress inhibitors and creators and their impacts on university teachers’ work performance in higher education. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(2),315-330.
35. Marinoni, G., Van’t Land, H. & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on higher education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report. 23 Nisan 2021 tarihinde https://www.iau- aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau_covid19_and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
36. McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Interactions, 11(5), 42-43. Doi: 10.1145/1015530.1015549
37. Menzi, N., Çalışkan, E. & Çetin, O. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji yeterliliklerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 2(1), 1-18.
38. Mercan, N. (2015). Ajzen’in planlanmiş davraniş teorisi bağlaminda whistleblowing (bilgi ifşasi). Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 1-14.
39. Özdemir, U. & İmra, T. A. Ç. (2017). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojiye yönelik tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Uluslararası Temel Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 1-7.
40. Özgür, Ö., Orhan, D., Dönmez, P. & Kurt, A. A. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik profilleri ve teknoloji tutum düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 65-76.
41. Penado Abilleira, M., Rodicio García, M. L., Ríos-de Deus, M. P. & Mosquera González, M. J. (2021). Technostress in Spanish university teachers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1- 11. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.617650
42. Ratner, B. (2009). The correlation coefficient: Its values range between+ 1/− 1, or do they?. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17(2), 139-142. Doi: 10.1057/jt.2009.5
43. Şahin, M. C. & Namlı, N. A. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının eğitimde teknoloji kullanma tutumlarının incelenmesi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23(1), 95-112.
44. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Van Braak, J. & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010
45. Şendurur, P. & Arslan, S. (2017). Eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlerdeki değişim. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 25-50.
46. Shapka, J. D. & Ferrari, M. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 319-334. Doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00059-6
47. Shattuck, G. (2010). Understanding school leaders’ role in teachers’ adoption of technology integration classroom practices. In Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 7-28). Boston, MA: Springer.
48. Syvänen, A., Mäkiniemi, J. P., Syrjä, S., Heikkilä Tammi, K. & Viteli, J. (2016). When does the educational use of ICT become a source of technostress for Finnish teachers?. In Seminar. 20 Nisan 2021 tarihinde https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/seminar/article/view/2281 adresinden edinilmiştir.
49. Tatlı, Z. & Akbulut, H. İ. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının alanda teknoloji kullanımına yönelik yeterlilikleri. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(1), 31-55.
50. Topsakal, S. (2006). İlköğretim 6.,7. ve 8. Sınıflar Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
51. Usta, E. & Korkmaz, Ö. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar yeterlikleri ve teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin algıları ile öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumları. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 1335-1349.
52. Wang, K., Shu, Q. & Tu, Q. (2008). Technostress under different organizational environments: an empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 3002-3013. Doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.007
53. WEF– World Economic Forum, (2020). Global gender gap report-2020. 2 Mayıs 2021 tarihinde http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
54. Weil, M. M. & Rosen, L. D. (1997). Technostress: Coping with technology@ work@ home@ play (Vol. 13, p. 240). New York: J. Wiley.
55. Wilkes, R., Guppy, N. & Farris, L. (2008). No Thanks, We're Full: Individual Characteristics, National Context, and Changing Attitudes toward Immigration. International Migration Review, 42(2), 302-329. Doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00126.x
56. Zhang, Z. & Martinovic, D. (2008). ICT in teacher education: examining needs, expectations and attitudes. The Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 149-166.