Yükseköğretimde Teknoloji Entegrasyonu: Öğretim Elemanlarının Durumları

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 717 - 733, 31.12.2021

Erkan Çalışkan Nezih Önal Semirhan Gökçe

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.608630

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Hem öğretme hem de öğrenme süreçleri açısından eğitimde teknoloji kullanımı oldukça önemli görüldüğünden öğretim ortam ve yöntemlerine teknoloji entegrasyonu bir gereklilik olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu gereklilik tüm öğretim aşamalarındaki kurumlar için vazgeçilmez olduğu gibi yükseköğretim kurumları için de çok önemlidir. Bu noktada öğretim sürecinde teknoloji kullanımı sadece öğrenci başarısını artırmakla kalmayıp, öğretim elemanlarına da birçok avantaj sağlamaktadır. Öğretim elemanlarının teknolojiden eğitsel amaçlarla yararlanmaları için öncelikle teknolojiyi kullanmayı kabullenmeleri, var olan durumlara destek olarak kullandıktan sonra öğretimlerini teknoloji ile yeniden yapılandırma sürecine girmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir Anadolu üniversitesinde görevli öğretim elemanlarının teknoloji entegrasyonuna yönelik durumlarının ve yaşadıkları sorunların belirlenmesidir. İlişkisel tarama modelinde desenlenen çalışmada nitel ve nicel veri çözümleme teknikleri birlikte kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen verilerin çözümlenmesi sonucu, öğretim elemanlarının teknopedagojik eğitim yeterliliklerinin gelişmiş ve bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine (BİT) yönelik yüksek düzeyde teknoloji kabul ve kullanım durumlarının olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öğretim elemanları teknoloji entegrasyonu konusunda yoğun olarak sınıf ortamında görsel vb. içeriklerin sunu biçiminde yansıtılmasından yararlandıklarını ifade etmelerine rağmen süreç içerisinde karşılaşılan sorunların ağırlıklı olarak altyapı, kişisel, destek hizmetleri, öğrenci ve yazılım kaynaklı sorunlar olduğunu belirtmişlerdir. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular, öğretim elemanlarının aldıkları eğitimlerden ziyade günlük hayat tecrübelerinin teknopedagojik yeterliklerini daha fazla geliştirdiğini ortaya çıkarmıştır.

Keywords

Öğretim elemanı, teknoloji entegrasyonu, teknoloji kabul modeli, teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi, teknopedagojik yeterlilik, yükseköğretim

Supporting Institution

Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi

Project Number

2016/03- HIDEP

Technology Integration in Higher Education: Situations of Faculty Members

Abstract

Since the use of technology in education is considered critical in terms of both teaching and learning, technology integration into instructional methods and teaching environments is a must. This requirement is indispensable for the education organizations at all levels of education, including higher education organizations. The use of instructional technology not only increases the success of the students but also offers many advantages to the academic staff. To benefit from technology for educational purposes, the staff must first adopt the technology and use it to support their teaching and then restructure their teaching experience with technology. The purpose of this study is to investigate the issues in technology integration of academic staff at a Turkish university located in Central Anatolia. Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques were used in this study designed as a correlational survey research. The results showed that the techno-pedagogical competence of academic staff was almost at the advanced level. Moreover, the staff had high level of information and communication technologies (ICT) acceptance so they used technology in their teaching quite often. The participants reported that they used technology during the presentation of slides, and listed their major problems as insufficient infrastructure, limited ICT skills, inadequate technical support, and student- and software- related problems. The findings indicated that it was the daily life experiences of the academic staff rather than the in-service trainings that enhanced their technological and pedagogical skills.

Keywords

Academic staff, higher education, techno-pedagogical competence, technological pedagogical content knowledge, technology acceptance model, technology integration

Project Number

2016/03- HIDEP

References

• Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91–100.
• Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson, & F. Ellouimi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 33–60). Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University
• Ashrafzadeh, A., & Sayadian, S. (2015). University instructors’ concerns and perceptions of technology integration. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 62–73.
• Baki, A. (2002). Öğrenen ve öğretenler için bilgisayar destekli matematik. İstanbul: Ceren Yayın Dağıtım.
• Bate, F. (2010). A bridge too far? Explaining beginning teachers’ use of ICT in Australian schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 1042–1061.
• Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 5(3), 235–245.
• Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 8(1), 136– 155.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: PegemA.
• Castro, W. (2016). An activity theory approach to study barriers of Faculty regarding technology integration in higher education. Paper presented at the 10th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED2016), March 7–9, 2016, Valencia, Spain.
• Curir, A., de Romeri, V., & Murante, G. (2010). Evolution and instabilities of disks harboring super massive black holes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
• Çakır, R., & Yıldırım, S. (2009). Bilgisayar öğretmenleri okullardaki teknoloji entegrasyonu hakkında ne düşünürler? İlköğretim Online, 8(3), 952– 964.
• Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45–52.
• Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2018). The influence of sociocultural and structural contexts in academic change and development in higher education. Higher Education, 76(6), 1051–1069.
• Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
• Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
• Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Gao, P., Wong, A. F., Choy, D., & Wu, J. (2011). Beginning teachers’ understanding performances of technology integration. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), 211–223.
• Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690–696.
• Grajek, S. (2014). Top-Ten IT Issues, 2014: Be the change you see. Educause Review, March/April 2014, 10–54. Erişim adresi https://er.educause.edu/-/media/files/article-downloads/erm1421.pdf (23 Ocak 2019).
• Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21–46.
• Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
• Ismail, I., Bokhare, S., Azizan, S., & Azman, N. (2013). Teaching via mobile phone: A case study on Malaysian teachers’ technology acceptance and readiness. Journal of Educators Online, 10(1), 1–38.
• ISTE (2008). ISTE standards – Teacthers. Erişim adresi https://id.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf (30 Haziran 2019).
• Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., Odabaşı, H. F., Kılıçer, K, Çoklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964–977.
• Karppinen, P. (2005). Meaningful learning with digital and online videos: Theoretical perspectives. AACE Journal, 13(3), 233–250.
• Kaya, Z., & Yılayaz, Ö. (2013). Öğretmen eğitimine teknoloji entegrasyonu modelleri ve teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(8), 57–83.
• Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565.
• Khurmyet, G. (2016). Mobil eğitim teknolojisi olarak tablet bilgisayarın etkin öğrenim amaçlı kullanımı: Özel ortaöğretim kurumları üzerine bir araştırma. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Kyei-Blankson, L., Keengwe, J., & Blankson, J. (2009). Faculty use and integration of technology in higher education. AACE Journal, 17(3), 199–213.
• Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.
• Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–213.
• Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerine entegrasyonu: Modeller ve göstergeler. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 1(1), 62–79.
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
• Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.
• Önal, N. (2018). Öğretimde kullanılabilecek teknoloji destekli uygulamalar. N. Önal (Ed.), Eğitim örnekleriyle zenginleştirilmiş eğitimde teknoloji uygulamaları içinde (s. 1–13). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Önal, N. & Çakır, H. (2015). Eğitim fakültesi öğretim elemanlarının teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgilerine ilişkin özgüven algıları. Hasan Âli Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 117–131.
• Özüdoğru, G. & Çakır, H. (2014). Öğretim elemanlarının bilişim teknolojileri kullanımında öğretmen adaylarına model olma farkındalıklarının incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 15(2), 207–226.
• Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441.
• Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3. baskı). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Rick, S., & Weber, R. A. (2010). Meaningful learning and transfer of learning in games played repeatedly without feedback. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 716–730.
• Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal), 1(13), 19–33.
• Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in Education. ERIC Number: ED322900. Erişim adresi https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED322900.pdf (9 Temmuz 2019).
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
• Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research. London: Sage.
• Sjöberg, L. (1998). Worry and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 18(1), 85–93.
• Surry, D. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use technology. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(2), 145–153.
• Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561–570.
• Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 235–251.
• Ursavaş, Ö. F. (2014). Öğretmenlerin bilişim teknolojilerini kullanmaya yönelik davranışlarının modellenmesi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• US Department of Education (2003). Federal funding for educational technology and how it is used in the classroom: A summary of findings from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology. Washington, D.C: Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service. Erişim adresi https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/iset/summary2003.pdf (12 Nisan 2019).
• Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
• Venkatesh, V., Rabah, J., Fusaro, M., Couture, A., Varela, W., & Alexander, K. (2016). Factors impacting university instructors’ and students’ perceptions of course effectiveness and technology integration in the age of web 2.0. McGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 51(1), 533–561.
• Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118.
• Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511–535.
• Yılmaz, G. K. (2015). Türkiye’deki teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi çalışmalarının analizi: Bir meta-sentez çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178), 103– 122. ¬