Pre-Service Teachers' Individual Innovativeness and Technology Standards: An Exploratory Study

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 205 - 224

Burcu Karabulut Coşkun , Esma Aybike Bayır

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.26.12.2

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between pre-service teachers' innovativeness levels and technology standards and their prediction of each other regarding various variables. In this context, the study sample consisted of 345 pre-service teachers who were randomly selected voluntarily from among the pre-service teachers studying at the Faculty of Education of a university located in the Black Sea Region of Turkey. In the data collection process, the Demographic Information Form developed by the researchers, the "Individual Innovativeness Scale" developed by Kilicer and Odabasi (2010) and the "Technology Use Standards Scale" developed by Misirli (2013) were used. Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine the individual innovation levels and technology use standards of teacher candidates. Independent sample t-test, and one-way analysis of variance were used. In cases where statistical differences were found as a result of the analyses, the eta-squared (η2) effect size was calculated to determine the degree of difference. In addition, Bonferroni correction was made in one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to control type I errors. Pearson correlation and multiple regression analyses were applied. According to the research findings, technology standards and individual innovativeness levels of pre-service teachers show a significant difference in the direction of males according to gender and a significant difference in the direction of the CEIT department according to the department they study. While it was determined that pre-service teachers' technology standards were significantly correlated with individual innovativeness levels and sub-dimensions, it was concluded that individual innovativeness and its sub-dimensions predicted technology standards at a significant level.

Keywords

individual innovativeness, technology standards, pre-service teachers

References

• Akcanca, N. (2022). Individual innovative perceptions of preschool teacher education students. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 18(2), 156-168. doi: https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.1185084
• Apaydin, S., & Guven, S. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ evaluations of creativity in higher education. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), 58-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2022.248.4
• Aslan, H., & Kesik, F. (2018). An investigation of individual innovativeness characteristics of high school teachers according to certain variables. Journal of Human Sciences, 15(4), 2215-2228. doi: 10.14687/jhs.v15i4.5409
• Arseven, I., Orhan, A. T., & Arseven, A. (2019). Proficiency perceptions and attitudes of pre-service teachers on information and communication Technologies. International Education Studies, 12 (1), 24-36. doi:10.5539/ies.v12n1p24
• Baki, Y. (2023). Individual innovativeness characteristics of prospective Turkish teachers. International Journal of Language Academy, 11 (3), 100-125. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijla.70319
• Bhatnagar, A., Misra, S., & Rao, H. R. (2000). On risk, convenience, and Internet shopping behavior. Communications of the ACM, 43(11), 98-105. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/353360.353371
• Bitkin, A. (2012). The relationship between individual innovativeness levels and information acquisition competencies of prospective teachers. Master's thesis, Harran University, Social Sciences Institute, Sanliurfa. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Chiu, T. K., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S., & Cheng, M. (2023). Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4, 100118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Coriat, B., & Weinstein, O. (2004). National institutional frameworks, institutional complementarities and sectoral systems of innovation. Sectoral systems of innovation, concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Celikoz, M. & Kolemen, E. B. (2020). Attitudes and innovativeness level of pre-school teachers and teacher candidates towards mainstreaming. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 21(3), 1607-1649. doi: https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.853997
• Cetin, D., & Bulbul, T. (2017). Investigation of the relationship between school administrators' technostress perceptions and their innovative features. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 17(3), 12411264. doi: 10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.31178-338821
• Dedebali, N. C. (2020). Analysis of digital literacy and metaphoric perceptions of teacher candidate. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(1), 135-145 doi: 10.12973/ijem.6.1.135
• Demir, O., & Demir, M. (2023). Examining the relationship between classroom teachers’ individual innovativeness characteristics and their attitudes towards learning. Kalem International Journal of Education and Human Sciences, 13(1), 83-104. doi: 10.23863/kalem.2021.216
• Ersoy, B. A., & Sengul, C. M. (2008). Government applications towards innovation and comparison with European Union. Organization and Economy, 15(1), 59-74. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yonveek/issue/13688/165659
• Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1993). A validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker innovativeness scale. Educational and psychological measurement, 53(4), 1105-1116. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013164493053004023
• Gunes, M. G. (2019). Examination of teachers' self-efficacy related to education technology standards. Doctoral dissertation, Necmettin Erbakan University, Educational Sciences Institute, Konya. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Gunduz, S. (2020). Examining the relationship between individual innovativeness and
• digital nativeness levels of teachers. Education and Science, 46(205). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.9006
• Grigoropoulos, J. E., & Gialamas, S. (2018). Educators leaders: Inspiring learners to transform society by becoming architects of their own learning. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(5), 33-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.157.4
• Hansen, J. W. (2003). To change perceptions of technology programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 29, 16-19. Retrieved from https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTS/Summer-Fall-2003/pdf/hansen.pdf
• Hatlevik, I. K. R. & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Students' evaluation of digital information: The role teachers play and factors that influence variability in teacher behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 56-63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.022.
• Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00597.x
• International Society for Technology in Education. (ISTE) (2020). Nets for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx.
• International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
• Kert, S. B., & Tekdal, M. (2012). Comparison of individual innovativeness perception of students attending different education faculties. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 11501161. Retrieved from https://l24.im/C14pz07
• Kilicer, K. (2011). Individual innovativeness profiles of prospective teachers in computer education and instructional technology. Doctoral dissertation, Anadolu University, Educational Sciences Institute, Eskisehir. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Kilicer, K., & Odabasi, H. F. (2010). Individual innovativeness scale (is): the study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 150-164. Retrieved from https://earsiv.anadolu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11421/14828
• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. The SAGE handbook of management learning, Education and Development, 7(2), 42-68. Retrieved from https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5017664#page=69
• Korucu, A. T., & Olpak, Y. Z. (2015). Examination of teacher candidates individual innovativeness properties from the different variables. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.83117
• McQuiggan, C. A. (2006). A survey of university faculty innovation concerns and perceptions that influence the adoption and diffusion of a course management system. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International (AHRD) Conference. 1160-1167. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED492812
• Misirli, Z. A. (2013). Investigation of secondary school students’ competencies regarding educational technology standards. Doctoral dissertation. Anadolu University, Educational Sciences Institute, Eskisehir. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Misirli, Z. A. (2015). Investigation of secondary school students’ competencies regarding educational technology standards. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 2015(5), 311-337. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/goputeb/issue/34517/385024
• Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2020). The seven transdisciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards 21st-century learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09738-z
• MOne- Ministry of National Education. (2018). Ministry of National Education 2018 administration activity report. Retrieved from https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_03/01175437_MillY_EYitim_BakanlYY_2018_YYlY _Ydare_Faaliyet_Raporu_YayYn2.pdf
• Musluoglu, A. (2008). Innovation in education. Global Education Seminar Presentation. İstanbul. Retrieved from http://www.egelisesi.k12.tr/kurum_ici_egitim_detay.asp?kay%FDt=151
• OECD- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Skills for the future: The role of education and training in global competitiveness. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org
• Orun, O., Orhan, D., Donmez, P., & Kurt, A. A. (2015). Exploring the relationship between individual innovativeness and technology attitude of teacher candidates. Trakya University Journal of Education, 5(1), 65-76. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/trkefd/issue/21481/230217
• Ozciftci, M., & Cakir, R. (2015). Teachers’ lifelong learning trends and self-efficiencies about the educational technology standards. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1), 1-19. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/etku/issue/6276/84251
• Ozgur, H. (2013). Examining the relationship between information technology teacher candidates' critical thinking tendencies and individual innovativeness characteristics in terms of various variables. Mersin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(2), 409-420. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mersinefd/issue/17383/181632
• Ozturk, Z. Y., & Summak, M. (2014). Investigation of primary school teachers individual innovativeness. International Journal of Sport Culture and Science, 2(Special Issue 1), 844-853. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/intjscs/article/108134
• Pozas, M., & Letzel, V. (2023). “Do you think you have what it takes?” – exploring
• predictors of pre‑service teachers’ prospective ICT use. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28, 823–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09551-0
• Rogers, C. R. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. Harvard educational review.
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: The FreePress.
• Rogers, R. K., & Wallace, J. D. (2011). Predictors of technology integration in education: A study of anxiety and innovativeness in teacher preparation. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 12(2), 28-61. Retrieved from https://literacyandtechnology.org/past-editions/2011-2/
• Salpeter, J. (2003). 21st century skills: Will our students be prepared?. Technology and Learnıng, 24(3), 17-29. Retrieved from https://sttechnology.pbworks.com/f/Salpeter_(2008)_21st%20Century%20Skills-Will%20our%20students%20be%20prepared.pdf
• Schilling, M. A. (2022). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Shim, S., & Kotsiopulos, A. (1994). Technology innovativeness and adopter categories of apparel/gift retailers: From the diffusion of innovations perspective. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(2), 46-57. doi: 10.1177/0887302X9401200207
• Sun, Y., & Jeyaraj, A. (2013). Information technology adoption and continuance: A longitudinal study of individuals’ behavioral intentions. Information & Management, 50(7), 457-465. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.07.005
• Sun, C. & Shi, L. (2018). Model building of doctoral candidates’ innovative ability tendency test based on gray target contribution theory. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 9(1), 70-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/GS-05-2018-0024
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
• Turhan, A. (2009). The effect of culture on consumer innovativeness: An empirical investigation. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hacettepe University, Social Sciences Institute, Ankara. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Turkish Language Association (TDK) (2024). Turkish Dictionary, Retrieved from http://www.tdk.gov.tr.
• Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157. doi: 10.2190/81yv-cgmu-5hpm-04eg
• Vila, L. E., Perez, P. J., & Coll-Serrano, V. (2014). Innovation at the workplace: Do professional competencies matter? Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 752-757. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.039
• Wu, D., Zhou, C., Liang, X., Li, Y., & Chen, M. (2022). Integrating technology into teaching: Factors influencing rural teachers’ innovative behavior. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5325-5348. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10815-6
• Yilmaz, H. (2018). Reflection levels of professional values with individual innovation of primary school teachers. Master's thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal University Educational Sciences Institute, Bolu. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Yilmaz, O., & Bayraktar, D. M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies and their individual innovativeness categories. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 34583461. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.783
• Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of management journal, 53(2), 323-342. Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995
• Yilmaz, R., & Beskaya, Y. M. (2018). Investigation of lifelong learning trends and individual innovativeness level of education administrators. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 51(1), 159-181. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/auebfd/article/406246