Investigation of Private School Teachers' Perceptions on Management of Educational Technologies Integration Processes

Abstract

This study aims to determine the perceptions of teachers working in private schools regarding technology integration management. This study used a descriptive survey method and a quantitative research model. The study group consisted of 220 private schoolteachers working in Istanbul. Demographic information form and "Teachers' Perception Scale on Technology Integration Processes" were used to collect data. The frequency and percentage distributions of the demographic information obtained from the scale were determined. Because the distribution of bivariate groups was expected, a t-test was applied to these groups. One-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA) was applied to three or more variables, and the "Kruskal Wallis Test" was applied to the "Type of School" variable with fewer than 30 groups. According to the results of the research, it was determined that private school teachers' perceptions of technology integration management were at an "undecided" level. It was found that private school teachers' perceptions of technology integration management did not differ significantly according to gender. However, their perceptions of technology integration management differed significantly depending on their educational status, the type of school in which they worked, and the level of use of educational technologies. In addition, the research results showed no significant difference between private school teachers' age, professional seniority, and seniority in the institution regarding their perceptions of technology integration management.

Keywords

• Educational technology
• Management of technology integration
• Perception of teachers
• Private school
• Technology integration

References

1. Akıncı, A., Kurtoğlu, M. ve Seferoğlu, S. S. (2012). Bir teknoloji politikası olarak FATİH projesinin başarılı olması için yapılması gerekenler: Bir durum analizi çalışması. (What needs to be done for the FATİH project to be successful as a technology policy: A case analysis study]), Akademik Bilişim 2012, Uşak Üniversitesi.
2. A’mar, F., & Eleyan, D. (2022). Effect of principal's technology leadership on teacher's technology integration. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 781–798. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15145a
3. Akram, H., Abdelrady, AH., Al-Adwan, A.S., &Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers' perceptions of technology integration in teaching-learning practices: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology. 13:920317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920317
4. Al-Abdullatif, A. M., & Gameil, A. A. (2021). The Effect of Digital Technology Integration on Students' Academic Performance through Project-Based Learning in an E-Learning Environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(11), 189-210. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i11.19421
5. Banoğlu, K., Madenoğlu, C., Uysal, Ş. ve Dede, A. (2014). FATİH projesine yönelik öğretmen görüşlerinin incelenmesi: Eskişehir ili örneği (Examining teachers' opinions about the FATİH project: Eskişehir province example). Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi (EBAD), 4(1), 39-58.
6. Barri M. A., (2013). The integration of technology into school curriculum in Saudi Arabia: factors affecting technology implementation in the classroom, (Doktora Tezi, University of Kansas)
7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
8. Burton, J.K., Moore, D.M., & Holmes, G.A. (1995). Hypermedia concepts and research: An overview. Computers in HumanBehavior, 11, (3–4), 345–369.

9. Chen, F. H., Looi, C. K., & Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technology in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teachers’ knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 470–488.
10. Chubb, J. E. & Moe, T. M. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. American Political Science Review, Vol. 82-4 1065-1087
11. Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–96.
12. Demirci, A., Taş H. İ., & Özel, A. (2007), Türkiye'de ortaöğretim coğrafya derslerinde teknoloji kullanımı (Use of technology in secondary school geography courses in Turkey). Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 15, 37-54.
13. Dexter, S. (2002). eTIPS-educational technology integration and implementation principles. In P. Rodgers (Ed.), Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning. New York: Idea Group Publishing. (56–70)
14. Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. J. Voogt ve G. A. Knezek (Ed.). International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education içinde (pp. 543–553). Springer Press.
15. Dexter, S., Seashore, K. R., & Anderson, R. E. (2002). Contributions of professional community to exemplary use of ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 489–497.
16. Dexter, S., Seashore, K. R., & Anderson, R. E. (2003). Leading the learning: Expertise and technology integration support staff. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
17. Dönmez, E. (2023), Türkiye’de okullarda eğitim teknolojileri entegrasyonu yönetimine ilişkin bir model önerisi (A model proposal for educational technology integration management in schools in Turkey), (Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi), YÖKTEZ. 785797
18. Education Reform Initiative ERG. (2013). Fatih projesi eğitimde dönüşüm için bir fırsat olabilir mi. Politika Analizi ve Önerileri, Eğitim Reformu Girişimi. 20.03.2019 tarihinde https://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/FAT%C4%B0H-Projesi-E%C4%9Fitimde-D%C3%B6n%C3%BC%C5%9F%C3%BCm-%C4%B0%C3%A7in-Bir-F%C4%B1rsat-Olabilir-mi-Politika-Analizi-ve-%C3%96nerileri-Raporu.pdf adresinden erişildi.
19. Fu, J. S. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 9(1), 112.
20. Gomez, F.C., Trespalacios, J., Hsu, YC. et al. Exploring Teachers’ Technology Integration Self-Efficacy through the 2017 ISTE Standards. TechTrends 66, 159–171 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00639-z
21. Gomez, F. C., Trespalacios, J., Hsu, Y. C., & Yang, D. (2022). Exploring teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy through the 2017 ISTE Standards. TechTrends, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00639-z
22. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers' integration of computers, American Journal of Education 101(3), 261–315.
23. Huang, H. J. (2006). Promoting multicultural awareness through electronic communication. International Electronic Journal For Leadership in Learning, 10(7).
24. Ifinedo, E., & Kankaanranta, M. (2021) Understanding the influence of context in technology integration from teacher educators’ perspective, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(2), 201-215, https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1867231
25. İlgar, L., (2014), Özel okul ve devlet okulunda görev yapmış sınıf öğretmenlerinin sınıf yönetimindeki farklılıklara ilişkin görüşleri: nitel bir çalışma (Opinions of classroom teachers who worked in private and public schools regarding differences in classroom management: A qualitative study), Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11, (22), 2014-2, 259-285
26. Joan R., Denisia S. P. & Sheeja, Y. (2013). Technology integration in curriculum progress to meet knowledge explosion, i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 8 (3).
27. Kaya, Y. (1993), Eğitim Yönetimi (Kuram ve Türkiye’deki Uygulama) [Educational Management (Theory and Practice in Turkey)], Set Ofset Matbaacılık, Ankara
28. Kaya, Z., & Yılayaz Ö., 2013, Öğretmen eğitimine teknoloji entegrasyonu modelleri ve teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (Technology integration models in teacher education and technological pedagogical content knowledge), Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, (57-83)
29. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom Interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79,(4),457-76.
30. Liu, M. & Reed, W. M. (1995). The effect of hypermedia assisted instruction on second-language learning, Journal of Computing Research, 12, (2), 159–175.
31. Little-Reynolds, L. & Takacs, J. (1998). Distance Collaboration and Technology Integration between Two Institutions, Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference.
32. Marri, A. (2005). Educational technology as a tool for multicultural democratic education: The case of one US.. history teacher in an underresourced high school. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(4), 395–409.
33. Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis 3, 245–275.
34. Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5, 707–750.
35. Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C. C., Remz, A. R., & Zorfass, J. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
36. Metin, M. (2014). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri (Scientific Research Methods in Education from Theory to Practice). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
37. Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2023). Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim 2022/2023, [Online] https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=508 (Access Date: 21 February 2024)
38. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), (2000), Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston: Association Drive. [Online] https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/ (Access Date: 20 December 2023)
40. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. [Online] https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/five-standards-of-authentic-instruction (Access Date: 12 December 2023)
41. Özgan, H., Yiğit, C., Aydın, Z & Küllük, M.C. (2011), İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin sınıf yönetimine ilişkin algılarının incelenmesi ve karşılaştırılması (Examination and comparison of primary school teachers' perceptions of classroom management). Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2011 10(1):617- 635
42. Perreault, H. R. (1999). Authentic activities for business education. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 41(1), 35-41 Reiner, M. (2009). Sensory cues, visualization, and physics Learning, International Journal of Science Education, 31:3, 343-364
43. Richardson, S. (2009). Mathematics teacher's development, exploration, and development of technological pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching and learning of Algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 117–130.
44. Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. (2000). Technology support: Its depth, breadth, and impact on America’s schools: Teaching, learning, and computing Center for Research on Information, Technology, and Organizations at University of California, Irvine.
45. Sagnak, H. C., & Baran, E. (2021). Faculty members’ planned technology integration behaviour in the context of a faculty technology mentoring programme. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5912
46. Shah, S. S. (2022). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 2(2), 133-140. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijert.v2i2.43554
47. Şahin, İ. (2003). Küreselleşme, dijital teknoloji ve eğitim’de yeni yaklaşımlar (Globalization, digital technology, and new approaches in education). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(4).
48. Şen, N., & Yildiz Durak, H. (2022). Examining the relationships between English teachers’ lifelong learning tendencies with professional competencies and technology integrating self-efficacy. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 5953-5988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10867-8
49. Şişman, M. (2012), Öğretim liderliği (Educational leadership), Ankara: Pegem Akademi
50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA (Vol. 724). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
51. Tansu, F. & Iscioglu, E. (2014). Use of mobile tablets in the learning environment: Perspective of the computer teacher candidates. Journal of Educational & Instructional Studies in the World, 4(2).
52. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection, OTA-EHR-616. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
53. Ural, M.N. (2015). Antik Yunan'da "teknik": Teknoloji felsefesi tarihine genel bir bakış (“Technique” in ancient Greece: an overview of the history of the philosophy of technology). Mavi Atlas(4), 136-144. https://doi.org/10.18795/ma.73791
54. Usluel, Y. K., Mumcu, F. K. & Demiraslan, Y. (2007), Öğrenme-öğretme sürecinde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini: öğretmenlerin entegrasyon süreci ve engelleriyle ilgili görüşleri (Information and communication technologies in the learning-teaching process: teachers' views on the integration process and obstacles). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 164-178.
55. Xie, K., Nelson, M. J., Cheng, S. L., & Jiang, Z. (2023). Examining changes in teachers’ perceptions of external and internal barriers in their integration of educational digital resources in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2), 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.195140
56. Yılmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology ıntegration in education on prospective teachers’ critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st century skills and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163-199. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.35.8.2