Digital Literacy Skills and Attitudes towards E-Learning

Year 2019, Issue: 16, 93 - 107, 25.07.2019

Nazire Burçin Hamutoğlu , Merve Savaşçı , Gözde Sezen-gültekin

https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.509293

Cited By: 15

Abstract

This study
aimed to investigate the attitudes towards e-learning and digital literacy
skills of prospective teachers (N =
47) enrolled in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional
Technology at a state university in Turkey. The study also investigated whether
these variables vary in terms of gender and prior e-learning experience as well
as the potential relationship between their attitudes and their digital
literacy skills. Adopting a quasi-experimental pre-posttest design with an
experimental group, this study sought to discover the effects of a five-week
treatment on prospective teachers’ digital literacy skills and attitudes toward
e-learning. The data for the study came from two data collection tools namely, Attitudes
towards E-learning Scale (Haznedar & Baran, 2012) and Digital Literacy
Scale (Ng, 2012). Findings indicated the effectiveness of the treatment on the
participants’ attitudes towards e-learning platforms. Furthermore, the findings
of the regression tests demonstrated that tendency is one of the most
significant predictors of digital literacy skills. 

Keywords

Attitudes, Digital literacy, Edmodo, e-learning, quasi-experimental.

References

• Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices, 30: 17-32.
• Burnett, C. & Merchant, G. (2014). Points of view: Reconceptualising literacies through an exploration of adult and child interactions in a virtual world. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1):36-50.
• Cakiroglu, U. (2014). Evaluating students’ perspectives about virtual classrooms with regard to seven principles of good practice. South African Journal of Education, 34(2):1-12.
• Cheng, Y.H. & Weng, C.W. (2017). Factors influence the digital media teaching of primary school teachers in a flipped class: A Taiwan case study. South African Journal of Education, 37(1):1-12.
• Chou, H. L. & Chen, C. H. (2016). Beyond identifying privacy issues in e-learning settings: Implications for instructional designers. Computers & Education, 103:124-133.
• Concannon, F., Flynn, A. & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus‐based students think about the quality and benefits of e‐learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3):501-512.
• Cuceloglu, D. (1991). Human and behavior: Basic concepts of psychology. İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.
• Fryer, L. K., Bovee, H. N. & Nakao, K. (2014). E-learning: Reasons students in language learning courses don't want to. Computers & Education, 74:26-36.
• Gagne, R. M. & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Chaka, G. J. & Govendar, I. (2017). Students’ perceptions and readiness towards mobile learning in colleges of education: A Nigerian perspective. South African Journal of Education, 37(1):1-12.
• Hamutoglu, N. B. (2013). The attitudes of blended students towards social networks Facebook (SAU college of education sample). Master Thesis. Sakarya: Sakarya University.
• Hamutoğlu, N. B., Gungoren-Canan, O., Uyanik-Kaya, G. & Erdogan-Gur, D. (2017). Adapting digital literacy scale into Turkish. Ege Journal of Education, 18(1):408-429.
• Haznedar, O. & Baran, B. (2012). Development of a general attitude scale towards e-learning for faculty of education students. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 2(2):42-59.
• Lee, M. C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54(2):506-516.
• Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M. & Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(4):1066-1080.
• Manyike, V. T. (2017). Postgraduate supervision at an open distance e-learning institution in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 37(2):1-12.
• Martinovic, D. & Zhang, Z. (2012). Situating ICT in the teacher education program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3):461-469.
• Martins, L. L. & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students' acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1):7-26.
• Mohammadyari, S. & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education, 82:11-25.
• Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59:1065-1078.
• Ngai, E. W., Poon, J. K. L. & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2):250-267.
• Ong, C. S. & Lai, J. Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5):816-829.
• Ozkan, S. & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4):1285-1296.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5):1-6.
• Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2):396-413.
• Sun, P.C., Tsai, R.J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y. & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4):1183-1202.
• Ustundag, M. T., Gunes, E. & Bahcivan, E. (2017). Turkish Adaptation of digital literacy scale and investigating pre-service science teachers’ digital literacy. Journal of Education, 12:19-29.
• Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2):273-315.
• Zhang, D. & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: an overview of e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2):207-218.