Akademisyenlerin Dijital Okuryazarlık Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Year 2023, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 1885 - 1906, 24.07.2023

Hacı Mehmet Yeşiltaş Meral Çelikoğlu Gökhan Dağdalan Göknur Aydın Murat Çetinkaya

https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1191057

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı eğitim fakültesi öğretim üyelerinin dijital okuryazarlık hakkındaki görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Akademisyenlerin dijital okuryazarlık kavramına ilişkin algılarını belirlemek amacıyla yürütülen çalışmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden fenomenoloji (olgubilim) deseni kullanılmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çalışma bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesinde matematik ve fen bilimleri eğitimi bölümünde yer alan 12 öğretim üyesi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma da veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formundan yararlanılmıştır. Veri toplama aracının uygulanmasından sonra elde edilen veriler içerik analizden yararlanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Akademisyenlerden alınan görüşler doğrultusunda elde edilen temalar, öğretim durumları, materyal seçimi, kişisel gelişim, kaynak tercihi ve duyuşsal değerler şeklindedir. Oluşan temalarda öğrenme ve öğretme etkinliklerinde seçilen yöntem ve tekniklerin etkili olduğu görülmektedir. Akademisyenlerin dijital okuryazarlık alt bileşenleri incelendiğinde, ağırlıklı olarak bilişsel dijital okuryazarlık boyutunda yer aldıkları görülmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra akademisyenlerin genellikle dijital okuryazarlığın tüm boyutlarına değil daha çok bilişsel ve sosyo duyuşsal dijital okuryazarlık boyutlarına sahip oldukları tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Dijital Okuryazarlık, Akademisyen, Eğitim Fakültesi, Teknoloji

Research On Academician’s Opinions on Digital Literacy

Abstract

This study aims to determine the views of academic members of faculty education about digital literacy. In the study, which was carried out to determine the perceptions of academicians about the concept of digital literacy, phenomenology design, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was used. For this purpose, the study was carried out with 12 faculty members working in the department of mathematics and science education in the education faculty of a state university. The study used a semi-structured interview form prepared by the researchers as a data collection tool. The data obtained after the application of the data collection tool were analyzed using content analysis. The themes obtained in line with the opinions received from the academicians are teaching situations, material selection, personal development, resource preference, and affective values. The methods and techniques selected in the learning and teaching activities are effective in the themes. When the digital literacy sub-components of the academicians are examined, it is seen that they mainly take part in the cognitive digital literacy dimension. In addition, it has been determined that academicians generally have cognitive and socio-affective digital literacy dimensions rather than all dimensions of digital literacy.
Keywords: Digital Literacy, Academician, Faculty of Education, Technology

Keywords

Digital Literacy, Academician, Faculty of Education, Technology

References

• Allan, M., Grudziecki, J. (2006) DigEuLit: Concepts and Tools for Digital Literacy Development, Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 5:4, 249-267. DOI: 10.11120/ital.2006.05040249
• Anisimova, E. (2020). Digital Literacy of Future Preschool Teachers. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(1), 230-253.
• Atoy Jr, M. B., Garcia, F. R. O., Cadungog, R. R., Cua, J. D. O., Mangunay, S. C., & de Guzman, A. B. (2020). Linking Digital Literacy and Online Information Searching Strategies of Philippine University Students: The Moderating Role of Mindfulness. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(4), 1015-1027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000619898213
• Bawden, D. (2008). Origin and Concepts of Digital Literacy. C. Lankshear, M. Knobel, (Ed.), Digital Literacies içinde (17-33 ss.). Peter Lang Publishing: New York. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=doVQq67wWSwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA17&dq=Gilster+digital+literacy&ots=h5S4gwbD3x&sig=N56bv2lOjYUlQiipLFdJSkbpdw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Gilster%20digital%20literacy&f=false adresinden 23.05.2021 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
• Cordell, R. M. (2013). Information Literacy and Digital Literacy: Competing or Complementary?. Communications in Information Literacy, 7(2),177-183.DOI: https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2013.7.2.150
• Çelikoğlu, M., Taş, E., Ayyıldız H., & Yeşiltaş, H. M. (2022). Evaluation of Science and Mathematics Textbooks in Context of Digital Competence. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 10(19), 259-286.
• Ebert, C., Duarte, C. H. C. (2018). Digital Transformation. IEEE Softw., 35(4), 16-21.
• Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1),93-106.
• Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449-2472.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4 Gobble, M. M. (2018). Digital strategy and digital transformation. Research-Technology Management, 61(5), 66-71.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1495969
• Gökbulut, B., Keserci, G., Akyüz, A. (2021). Eğitim Fakültesinde Görev Yapan Akademisyen ve Öğretmenlerin Dijital Materyal Tasarım Yeterlikleri. Sosyal Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 4(1), 11-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53047/josse.917536
• Gümüşoğlu, E. K., & Akay, E. (2017). Measuring technology acceptance level of teachers by using unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, Online Submission. International Journal of Language Education and Teaching. 5 (4), 378-394.
• Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52-61.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
• Korkmaz, Ö, Mahiroğlu, A. (2009). Üniversiteyi Yeni Kazanmış Öğrencilerin Bilgisayar Okuryazarlık Düzeyleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(3), 983-1000.
• Karabacak, Z. İ., & Sezgin, A. A. (2019). Türkiye’de Dijital Dönüşüm ve Dijital Okuryazarlık. Türk İdare Dergisi, 1(488), 319-343.
• Lankshear, C., Knobel, M. (2006). Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies: Policy, Pedagogy and Research Considerations for Education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 1(1), 12-24. DOI: 10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2006-01-03
• Ng, Wan. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers and Education, 59, 1065-1078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
• Reyna, J., & Meier, P. (2018). Using the learner-generated digital media (LGDM) framework in tertiary science education: a pilot study. Education Sciences, 8(3), 106.DOI: 10.3390/educsci8030106
• Rogers, D. (2016). The digital transformation playbook. Columbia University Press. Sağıroğlu, Ş., Bülbül, H. İ., Kılıç, A., Küçükali, M. (2020). Dijital Okuryazarlık: Araçlar, Metodolojiler, Uygulamalar ve Öneriler. Nobel Yayınevi.
• Silamut, A. A., Petsangsri, S. (2020). Self-Directed Learning with Knowledge Management Model to Enhance Digital Literacy Abilities. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 4797-4815.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10484-5
• Straits Times, (2015). The jobs - they are a-changing. ttps://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/the-jobs-they-are-a-changing adresinden 23.05.2021 tarihinde edinilmiştir. Tabrizi, B., Lam, E., Girard, K., Irvin, V. (2019). Digital Transformation is not About Technology. Harvard Business Review, 13, 1-6.
• Tohara, A. J. T. (2021). Exploring Digital Literacy Strategies for Students with Special Educational Needs in the Digital Age. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(9), 3345-3358.DOI: https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i9.5741
• Yıldız, E. P. (2020). Opinions of Academicians on Digital Literacy: A Phenomenology Study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(3), 469-478. DOI: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9987-9857