Öğretmenlerin BİT Entegrasyon Yaklaşımlarının Ölçülmesine Yönelik Ölçek Geliştirme

Year 2016, Volume: 24 Issue: 2, 975 - 992, 15.07.2016

Erdoğan Tezci

Abstract

Bu araştırmada öğrenme öğretme sürecine Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri (BİT) entegrasyon yaklaşımlarını belirlemeye yönelik ölçek geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Ölçek, geleneksel entegrasyon (GE), bilişsel yapılandırmacılık (BY) ve Sosyo-kültürel (SK) entegrasyon olmak üzere üç farklı yaklaşımı içeren 5’li likert türündedir. 24 madde olarak hazırlanan ölçeğin kapsam geçerliğini belirlemek için 18 uzman görüşü alınmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğinin belirlenmesi için 625 öğretmene uygulama yapılmıştır. En çok olabilirlik metodu ile açımlayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Bu analiz sonucunda öz değeri düşük, binişiklik gösteren ve birden fazla faktör altında yer alan 3 ve hiçbir faktör altında yer almayan 1 madde ölçekten çıkarılmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi ile belirlenen 3 farklı entegrasyon yaklaşımına dayalı 20 maddelik ölçek yapısının uygunluğu doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğunu göstermiştir. Analiz sonuçları üç farklı entegrasyon yaklaşımını içeren ölçeğin güvenirlik düzeylerinin yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Bilgi ve İletişim teknolojileri(BİT), BİT Entegrasyon Yaklaşımları, Öğretmen Eğitimi, Ölçek Geliştirme

Developing A Scale For Measuring ICT Integration Approaches For Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a survey in order to identify teachers’ beliefs about ICT integration in the learning and teaching process. The 24-item survey based on 5 point Likert scale includes three approaches: Traditional Integration (TI), Cognitive Constructivist Integration (CCI) and Socio-Cultural Integration (SCI). 18 experts were asked to revise the survey for content and face validity. The survey was conducted on 625 teachers and exploratory factor analysis with maximum likelihood method was used to provide the construct validity. Considering the results of the analyses four items excluded from survey. Three of the eliminated items had low consistency and related to more than one factor and one of the deleted item didn’t reveal any correlation with the all factors. The remaining 20-item survey which is based on three different integration approaches was exposed to confirmatory factor analysis to test the construct validity. The analyses results indicated that the goodness of fit statistics for data shows acceptable model fit. Also this survey that includes three integration approaches has a high reliability based on Cronbach alpha values.

Keywords

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), ICT Integration Approaches, Teacher Education, Scale Development

References

• Abbott. J. A., & Farris, S. (2000). Integrating technology into preservice literacy instruction: A survey of elementary education students’ attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 149-61.
• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Akbulut, Y. (2010). Structural model proposal for Turkish faculties of education regarding ICT inte- gration indicators. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(4), 322-334.
• Akbulut, Y., Kesim, M. & Odabaşı, F. (2007). Construct validation of ICT indicators measurement scale (ICTIMS). International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3(3), 60-77.
• Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers and Education 47(4), 373–98.
• Alev, N. (2003). Integrating information and communications technology (ICT) into preservice science teacher education: The challenges of change in a Turkish faculty of education. Unpub- lished EdD Thesis, University of Leicester.
• Alghazo, I. M. (2006). Quality of Internet use by teachers in United Arab Emirates. Educa- tion,126(4), 769-781.
• Ankem, K. (2004) Adoption of Internet resource-based value-added processes by faculty in LIS education. Library and Information Science Research, 26(4), 482-500.
• Arabacıoğlu, T., & Dursun, F. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının web pedagojik içerik bilgisi algı düzey- lerinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(1), 197-210.
• Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86.
• Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş. Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi.
• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). SigniŞcance tests and goodness of Şt in the analysis of co- variance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
• Britten, J. S. & Cassady, J. C. (2005). The technology integration assessment instrument: Understand- ing planned use of technology by classroom teachers. Computers in the Schools, 22(3), 49-61.
• Bull, G., Bell, R., & Kajder, S. (2003). The role of “computers in the schools” revisited. Computers in the Schools, 20(1/2), 59-76.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2003). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı: Ankara: Pegem Yay.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Şekercioğlu, G., & Çokluk, O. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İsta- tistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yay.
• Cattell, R. B. (1978). The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis. New York, Plenum.
• Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
• Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovators Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
• Demiraslan, Y., & Usluel, Y. K. (2008). ICT integration processes in Turkish schools: Using activity theory to study issues and contradictions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 458-474.
• Demirli, C. (2013). ICT usage of pre-service teachers: Cultural comparison for Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 095-1105.
• 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.
• European Commission (2001). Survey report: Students’ perceptions of the use of ICT in university learning and teaching. Erişim Tarihi: 8 Haziran 2011: http://www.spotplus.odl.org/downloads/ Survey_report_Şnal.pdf
• Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
• Kuskaya-Mumcu, F., & Kocak-Usluel, Y. (2010). Teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi modeline göre BİT’in öğrenme-öğretme sürecine entegrasyonuyla ilgili ölçek geliştirme [Scale develop- ment related to integration of ICT into learning teaching process according to TPACK model]. In Proceedings of 10th International Educational Technology Conference (pp. 1419-1423).
• Luan, W. S., Mee, L. Y., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2010). CLES-ICT: A scale to measure ICT constructivist learning environments in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 295-299.
• Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership 59(8), 16–21.
• Gooden, A. R. (1996). Computers in the Classroom. USA: Jossey-Bass and Apple Press.
• Harris, S. (2002). Innovative pedagogical practices using ICT in schools in England. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 449-458.
• Hsu, S. (2010). Developing a scale for teacher integration of information and communication tech- nology in grades 1–9. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 175-189.
• Hughes, M., & Zachariah, S. (2001). An Investigation into the Relationship Between Effective Ad- ministrative Leadership Styles and the use of Technology, 5 (5). IEJLL: International Electron- ic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5, 1–10.
• Hung, Y.-W., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2007). Examining teachers’ CBT use in the classroom: A study in sec- ondary schools in Taiwan. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 233-246.
• İşman, A., & Çelikli, G. E. (2009). How does student ability and self-efficacy affect the usage of computer technology? The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 8(1), 33–8.
• Jedeskog, G., & Nissen, J. (2004). ICT in the classroom: Is doing more important than knowing? Education and Information Technologies, 9(1), 37-45.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), In- structional-Design Theories and Models (215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: ScientiŞc Software International Inc.
• Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide To Factor Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2002). Impact of new information technologies on teachers and students. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 369-376.
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Con- temporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. Erişim Tarihi: 2 Mayıs 2014: http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1 /general/article1.cfm
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personal Psychology, 28, 563-575.
• Lee, G. G., Lin, H. F., & Pai, J. C. (2005). Influence of environmental and organizational factors on the success of internet-based interorganizational systems planning. Internet Research, 15(5), 527-543.
• Liu, L., Maddux, C., & Johnson, L. (2008). Assessment of integration of technology in education: countering the “no signiŞcant differences” argument. Computers in the Schools, 25(1/2), 1-9.
• Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2006). Type II applications of information technology in educa- tion: The next revolution. Computers in the Schools, 23(1/2), 1–6.
• Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2005). Information technology, type II classroom integration, and the limited infrastructure in schools, Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 22(3-4), 1-5.
• Maddux, C. D., Johnson, D. L., & Willis, J. W. (2001). Educational computing: Learning with to- morrow’s technologies, 3rd Ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Markauskaite, L. (2007). Exploring the structure of trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: The main compo- nents of and relationships between general and technical capabilities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 547-572.
• MEB (2005). Müfredat Geliştirme Süreci. Ankara. Erişim tarihi:10 Eylül 2009: http://ttkb.meb.gov. tr/programlar/program_giris/yaklasim_2.htm.
• Moseley, D., & Higgins, S. (1999). Ways Forward with ICT: Effective Pedagogy using ICT for Literacy and Numeracy in Primary Schools. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.
• Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integrati- on. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523-1537.
• Palak, D., & Walls, T. R. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A Mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417-441.
• Perkmen, S. & Tezci, E. (ed.) (2011). Eğitimde Teknoloji Entegrasyonu: Materyal Geliştirme ve Çoklu Ortam Tasarımı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
• Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution. Edu- cational Technology 52(2), 71-75.
• Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technolo- gy. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112.
• Smarkola, C. (2008). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: Beliefs that contribute to computer usage inten- tions of student teachers and experienced teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1196-1215.
• Straub, D. W. (1994). The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-Mail and FAX in Japan and the US. In- formation Systems Research, 5(1), 23-47.
• Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical Methods (8th ed.). Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel.
• Tay, L. Y., Lim, S. K., Lim, C. P., & Koh, J. H. L (2012). Pedagogical approaches for ICT inte- gration into primary school English and mathematics: A Singapore case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 740-754.
• Tekin, H. (2000). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme, (14. Baskı). Ankara: Yargı.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
• Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: Applying and extending the Technology Acceptance Model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65-79.
• Tezci, E. (2009). Teachers’ effect on ICT use in education: The Turkey sample. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1285-1294.
• Tezci, E. (2010). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin eğitimde BİT kullanımına yönelik özgüven düzeyle- ri. NWSA: Education Sciences, 5(3), 981-992.
• Tezci, E. (2011a). Factors that influence pre-service teachers’ ICT usage in education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 483-499.
• Tezci, E. (2011b). Turkish primary school teachers’ perceptions of school culture regarding ICT integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 429-443.
• Thomas, A., & Stratton, G. (2006). What we are really doing with ICT in physical education: A national audit of equipment, use, teacher attitudes, support, and training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 617-632.
• Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J. & Valcke, M. (2007). Towards a typology of computer use in prima- ry education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 197-206. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2006.00205.x
• van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2004). Explaining different types of computer use among primary school teachers. European Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(4), 407–422.
• Vanderlinde, R., Dexter, S., & van Braak, J. (2012). School-based ICT policy plans in primary education: Elements, typologies and underlying process. British Journal of Educational Tech- nology, 43, 505-519. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01191.x
• Veen, W. (1995). Factors affecting the use of computers in the classroom: Four case studies. In D. Watson, D. Tinsley (Eds.), Integrating Information Technology into Education, (169-184). London: Chapman & Hall.
• Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern reco- very. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-251.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Yuen, H. K. (2000). ICT implementation at the school level. In N. Law, H. K. Yuen, W. W. Ki, S. C. Li, Y.Lee, & Y. Chow (Eds.), Changing Classroom and Changing schools: Study of Good Prac- tices in Using ICT in Hong Kong Schools (pp. 119–124). Hong Kong: Centre for Information Technology in School and Teacher Education, The University of Hong Kong.
• Yuen, H. K., Fox, R. M. K., & Law, N. W. Y. (2004). Curriculum innovations and multi-level e-leadership requirements: Putting research into practice. Asia-Pacific Cybereducation Jour- nal, 1(1), 11-18.