A Structural Equation Modelling of Factors Affecting the Prospective Teachers’ Innovativeness Level

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 219 - 231, 03.06.2022

Esra Açıkgül Fırat , Fatma Torun

https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.927884

Abstract

This study aims at investigating the factors affectıng the prospectıve teachers 'ınnovatıveness level by structural equatıon modelıng. For this purpose, the predictive relationships between gender, grade level, department, and risk-taking behaviors, and pre-service teachers' innovativeness levels were analyzed by path analysis. In the study, the correlational predictive design was used to investigate the relationship between variables. The participants of the study consisted of 293 science, social studies, and elementary prospective teachers. The Innovativeness Scale and The Scale of Academic Risk-taking were used to collect the data. According to the results of the study, it is concluded that grade level is not a statistical predictor of both risk-taking and innovativeness. However, gender has a significantly small effect on ART. Furthermore, it was concluded that risk-taking behavior is an important predictor of the pre-service teachers' level of innovativeness. So it can be suggested that prospective teachers should be planned to increase their risk-taking behaviors during the teaching process.

Keywords

Innovativeness, Risk-taking, Prospective teachers, Structural equation modeling

References

• Açıkgül, K. & Şahin, K. (2019). Investigation of Secondary School Students' Perceptions On Their Mathematics-Orıented Academic Risk-Taking Behaviors In Terms of Gender, Grade Level, Metacognition and Attitude Variables. Adıyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, 32, 1-30.
• Akdağ, E. M., Köksal, M. S., & Ertekin, P. (2017). Investigating gifted middle school students’ intellectual risk-taking behaviors in learning science across gender and grade. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 4(2), 16-25.
• Aydin, U., & Ubuz, B. (2010). Turkish Version of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory: An Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Education and Science, 35(157), 30-45. Badger, E. H. (2009). The influence of risk-taking on student creation of mathematical meaning: Contextual risk theory (Doctoral Dissertation). Brigham Young University, Department of Mathematics Education.
• Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk-taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 210-223.
• Beghetto, R. A., & Baxter, J. A. (2012). Exploring student beliefs and understanding in elementary science and mathematics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 942-960.
• Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate software, Inc.
• 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.
• Buijs, J. (2007). Innovation leaders should be controlled schizophrenics. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(2), 203-210.
• Burns, D. J., & Krampf, R. F. (1992). Explaining Innovative Behaviour: Uniqueness-Seeking and Sensation-Seeking. International Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 227-237.
• Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D., & Schafer, W. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367 – 383.
• Clifford, M. M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten-to twelve-years-old students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 15-27.
• Clifford, M. M. (1991). Risk-taking: Theoretical. Empirical. and Educational Considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 263-297. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653135
• Clifford, M. M., Lan, W. Y., Chou, F. C., & Qi, Y. (1989). Academic risk-taking: Developmental and cross-cultural observations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57(4), 321-338.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Çuhadar, C., Bülbül, T., & Ilgaz, G. (2013). Exploring of the relationship between individual innovativeness and techno-pedagogical education competencies of pre-service teachers. Elementary Education Online, 12(3), 797-807.
• Daşcı, A. D., & Yaman, S. (2014). Investigation of intellectual risk-taking abilities of students according to Piaget's stages of cognitive development and education grade. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 7(3), 271-285.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). Internal validity. How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 166-83.
• Hasan, N., Sobnom, S., & Uzzaman, S. The Effect of Risk Taking Behavior in Gender and Educational Level (Secondary and Higher Secondary). International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 3(5), 15-21.
• Horvath, P., & Zuckerman. M. (1993). Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky behavior. Personality and individual differences, 14(1), 41-52.
• House. D. J. (2002). Investigation of the Effects of Gender and Academic Self-efficacy on Academic Risk-taking for Adolescent Students (Doctoral Dissertation). Oklahoma State University.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• Hurt, H. T., Joseph. K., & Cook. C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65.
• Jaeger, D. A., Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., and Bonin, H. (2010). Direct evidence on risk attitudes and migration. Rev. Econ. Stat. 92, 684–689.
• Kavas. M. (2017). A Quantitative and Qualitative Research on Factors Affecting Individual Innovative personality and Innovative Behavior. Science Journal of Turkish Military Academy, 27(2), 137-156.
• Kemer, A. S., & Altuntas, S. (2017). Adaptation of the Individual Innovativeness Scale in Nursing Profession: Turkish Validity-reliability study. Journal of Education and Research in Nursing, 14(1), 52-62.
• Kılıçer, K. (2011). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik profilleri (Doctoral Dissertaion). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
• Kılıçer, K. & Odabaşı H.F. (2010). Individual innovativeness scale (IS): The study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 39, 150-164.
• Kline, R. B. (2010). Promise and pitfalls of structural equation modeling in gifted research. In B. Thompson & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness (pp. 147-169). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
• Koloba, H. A. & May, C. (2014). Innovation and risk-taking propensity of Generation Y students in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(21), 19-26.
• Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). Characteristics and Change Adaptation, Innovation and Organizational Performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 165-211.
• Konukman, G. Y., Yokuş, G., & Yelken, T. Y. (2016). The Effect of Designing Innovative Material on the Elementary School Pre-service Teachers’ Innovativeness. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(3), 857-878.
• Korkmaz, H. (2002). Fen eğitiminde proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin yaratıcı düşünme, problem çözme ve akademik risk alma düzeylerine etkisi (Doctoral Dissertaion). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Köksal, M. S., & Köseoğlu, P. (2019). Intellectual Risk-Taking When Learning about Technology: Case of Prospective Science Teachers. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 39(1), 37-61.
• Le Fevre, D. M. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: The role of teachers' perceptions of risk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 56-64.
• McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and knowledge. New York: Methuen/Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Mykhailyshyn, H., Kondur, O., & Serman, L. (2018). Innovation of education and educational innovations in conditions of modern higher education institution. Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 5(1), 9-16.
• Pierre, Y. (2015). Academic risk-taking in higher education. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1427&context=sferc retrieved on 03.07.2020.
• Olorunsola, E. O., & Olayemi, A. O. (2011). Teachers’ participation in decision-making process in secondary schools in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International journal of educational administration and policy studies, 3(6), 78-84.
• Ponticell, J. A. (2003). Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher risk-taking: A case study. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(3), 5-24.
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (Fifth Edition). New York: Free Press.
• Roberts, A. M. (2015). What's new? A different way to describe innovators (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia.
• Robinson, L. E. (2011). Academic risk-taking in an online environment (Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Connecticut.
• Robinson. L. E.. & Bell. A. (2012). Exploring adult risk propensity and academic risk-taking within the online learning environment. In Adult Education Research Conference. Saratoga, 258-264.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Shantz, D. (1995). Teacher education: Teaching innovation or providing an apprenticeship?. Education, 115(3), 339-344.
• Sharma, S. (2015). Promoting risk-taking in mathematics classrooms: The importance of creating a safe learning environment. Mathematics Enthusiast, 12 (2), 290–306.
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Chapter 13 principal components and factor analysis. In Using Multivariate Statistics. London: Pearson.
• Taylor, M. E. (2010). Teaching efficacy, innovation, school culture, and teacher risk-taking (Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Louisville.
• Yapıcı, İ. Ü. (2016). Investigation of the Individual Innovativeness Levels of the Pre-Service Biology Teachers. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(4), 348-353.