An Investigation into the Information Technology Self Efficacy Level of Secondary School Maths Teachers’ according to Gender Variable

Abstract

In the research, it is aimed at to examine the self-efficacy levels of information technology of secondary school mathematics teachers according to gender. The study also finds out whether the self-efficacy levels of male and female teachers differ according to professional experience. In the study, a causal comparative research design one of the quantitative research methods is used. The research population is composed of secondary school mathematics teachers taught in Çanakkale. Based on the principle of volunteering, participants were reached by using "random sampling technique". A total of 168 teachers, 71 males and 97 females, participated in the research. With this technique, the "Self-efficacy Perceptions Scale of Teachers' Information Technology" developed by Ekici, Ekici and Kara (2012), consisting of 27 items, was used as data collection tool. The results of the study revealed that male and female mathematics teachers' self-efficacy levels of IT are "high" (over total score) according to the rating between "very low" and "very high". It was found out that self-efficacy levels of male teachers are higher than self-efficacy levels of female teachers. In addition, it was seen that self-efficacy levels of male teachers are higher than female self-efficacy levels in each professional experience.

Keywords

• self-efficacy,secondary school mathematic teachers,information and technology self-efficacy,math achievement

Ortaokul Matematik Öğretmenlerinin Bilişim Teknolojileri Öz-yeterlik Düzeylerinin Cinsiyet Değişkenine Göre İncelenmesi

Öz

Türkiye’nin matematik başarısı dikkate alındığında, bazı sınırlılıkların olduğu görülmektedir. Matematik başarısını etkili kılmak için, eğitim sistemi içerisindeki en etkin paydaşlardan birisi matematik öğretmenleridir. Bilişim teknolojilerinin, matematik öğretimi üzerindeki rolü ve etkisi önemlidir. Matematik başarısını için, matematik öğretmenlerinin bilişim teknolojileri öz-yeterliklerinin belirleyici olma potansiyeli mevcuttur. Ayrıca, alanyazında, öz-yeterlik ve bilişim teknolojileri öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin cinsiyet değişkenine göre farklılaştığı görülmektedir. Araştırmada, ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin bilişim teknolojileri öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin cinsiyet değişkenine göre incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Ayrıca, kadın ve erkek öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin mesleki deneyime göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı da incelenmektedir. Araştırma, nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden nedensel karşılaştırma deseninde çözümlenmektedir. Araştırma evrenini Çanakkale’de görev yapan ortaokul matematik öğretmenleri oluşturmaktadır. Gönüllülük ilkesine dayanarak, tesadüfi örneklem tekniği kullanılarak katılımcılara ulaşılmıştır. Araştırmaya 71’i erkek, 97’si kadın olmak üzere toplam 168 öğretmen katılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak 27 maddeden oluşan, Ekici, Ekici ve Kara (2012) tarafından geliştirilen “Öğretmenlerin Bilişim Teknolojileri Öz-yeterlik Algıları Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, kadın ve erkek matematik öğretmenlerinin bilişim teknolojileri öz-yeterliklerinin “yüksek” düzeyde olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Erkek öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin kadın öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlik düzeylerinden daha yüksek olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Ayrıca her bir mesleki deneyim (kıdem) aralığında, erkek öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin kadın öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlik düzeyinden yüksek olduğu görülmektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Özyeterlik,bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri özyeterliği,matematik başarısı,ortaokul matematik öğretmenleri

Kaynakça

1. Alrajhi, M., Aldhafri, S., Alkharusi, H., Albusaidi, S., Alkharusi, B., Ambusaidi, A. & Alhosni, K. (2017). The predictive effects of math teachers' emotional intelligence on their perceived self-efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 378-388.
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
3. Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In: Flavell, J. H., & Ross, L. D. (Eds.), Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 200–239). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
6. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077.
7. Brosnan, M. (1999). New methodology, and old story? Gender differences in the ‘‘draw-a-computer-user’’ test. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(3), 375– 385.
8. Canales, A. & Maldonado, L. (2018). Teacher quality and student achievement in Chile: Linking teachers' contribution and observable characteristics. International Journal of Educational Development, 60, 33-50.

9. Chesnut, S. R. & Burley, H. (2015). Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 1–16.
10. Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in urban schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 233-257.
11. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 4(40), 323-337.
12. Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320–334.
13. Cousins, B., Ross, J., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 385-400.
14. Çelik, S., Örenoğlu Toraman, S., ve Çelik, K. (2018). Öğrenci başarısının derse katılım ve öğretmen yakınlığıyla ilişkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(1), 209-217. doi:10.24106/kefdergi.378129
15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
16. Donnell, L. A., & Gettinger, M. (2015). Elementary school teachers’ acceptability of school reform: Contribution of belief congruence, self-efficacy, and Professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 47–57. ttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.003.
17. Durndell, A., Haag, Z., Laithwaite, H. (2000). Computer self efficacy and gender: a cross cultural study of Scotland and Romania. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1037-1044.
18. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–172.
19. Eisenberg, N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (1996). Gender development and gender effects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 358–396). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
20. Eraslan, A. (2009). Finlandiya’nın PISA’ daki Başarısının Nedenleri: Türkiye için Alınacak Dersler. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 3(2), 238-248.
21. Fackler, S. & Malmberg, L-E, (2016). Teachers' self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 56, 185-195
22. Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S. & Dishaw, M. M. (1981). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An Overview. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17(1),2-15.
23. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. & Hyun, H.H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (eight edition). USA: McGrawHill. ISBN-10: 0-07-809785-1
24. Gunn, C., McSporran, M., Macleod, H., & French, S. (2003). Dominant or different? Gender issues in computer supported learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 14-30.
25. Guskey, T., & Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: a study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627-643.
26. Hargittai, E. & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in Actual and Perceived Online Skills: The Role of Gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432-448.
27. Hartzel, K. S. (2003). How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 167–171.
28. Hatlevik, O. E., & Christophersen, K. -A. (2013). Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education, 63, 240–247.
29. Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy in the context of online learning environments: A review of the literature and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3–4), 7–25. DOI: 10.1002/piq
30. Jenson, J., Castell, S. & Bryson, M. (2003). ‘‘Girl Talk’’: Gender, equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 26(6), pp. 561 – 573, doi 10.1016/j.wsif.2003.09.010
31. Klassen, R. M. & Tze, V. M.C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.
32. Lau, W.W.F. & Yuen, A.H.K. (2015). Factorial invariance across gender of a perceived ICT literacy scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 79–85.
33. Lim, K., & Meier, E. B. (2011). Different but similar: Computer use patterns between young Korean males and females. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 575–592.
34. Littleton, Karen, & Hoyles, Celia (2002). The gendering of information technology. In Nicola Yelland & Andee Rubin (Eds.), Ghosts in the machine: Women’s voices in research with technology ( pp. 3 – 32). New York: Peter Lang.
35. Malmberg, L.-E., Hagger, H., & Webster, S. (2014). Teachers' situation-specific mastery experiences: teacher, student group and lesson effects. European Journal of Educational Psychology, 29(3), 429-451.
36. 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 and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019003245
37. MEB (2016a). PISA 2015 ulusal raporu. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
38. MEB (2016b). TIMSS 2015 ulusal matematik ve fen ön raporu (4. ve 8. sınıflar). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
39. MEB (2017). 2016-2017 Eğitim öğretim yılı ii. dönem merkezi ortak sınavı test ve madde istatistikleri. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü Veri Analizi, İzleme ve Değerlendirme Daire Başkanlığı.
40. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247e258.
41. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp. 1017–1054.
42. Moghadam, H. (2015). An investigation of the relationship between Iranian high school EFL teachers' emotional intelligence and their self-efficacy. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 5(3), 509-518.
43. Najati, R., Hassani, M., & Sahrapour, H. (2014). The relationship between gender and student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management of Iranian EFL teachers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(6), 1219-1226. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.6.1219-1226.
44. NCWIT (2014). NCWIT's women in IT: By the numbers. Retrieved, from http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/btn_02282014web.pdf.
45. Nikoopour, J., Farsani, M., Tajbakhsh, M., & Kiyaie, S. (2012). The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Iranian EFL teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(6), 1165e1174. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.6.1165-1174
46. ÖSYM (2017a). 2017-YGS Sayısal Bilgiler. “https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2017/OSYS/YGS/SAYISAL28032017.pdf” adresinden alınmıştır.
47. ÖSYM (2017b). 2017-Lisans Yerleştirme Sınavları (2017-LYS) Sonuçları. “https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2017/osys/LYS/SayisalBilgiler11072017.pdf” adresinden alınmıştır.
48. Plumm, K. M. (2008). Technology in the classroom: Burning the bridges to the gaps in gender-biased education?. Computers & Education, 50, 1052–1068.
49. Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
50. Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
51. Rutherford, T.,Long, J.J. & Farkas, G. (2017). Teacher value for Professional development, self-efficacy, and student outcomes within a digital mathematics intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 22–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.05.005
52. Sarfo, F., Amankwah, F., Sam, F., & Konin, D. (2015). Teachers' Self-efficacy Beliefs: The relationship between gender and instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement. GJDS, 12(1&2), 19-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/gjdsv13i1&2.2.
53. Sarıçoban, G. (2015). Academic self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service elementary school teacher candidates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 28-32.
54. Scherer, R., & Siddiq, F. (2015). Revisiting teachers' computer self-efficacy: A differentiated view on gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 48-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.038.
55. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harward Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
56. Skinner, E.A., Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
57. Tella, A. (2008). Teacher variables as predictors of academic achievement of primary school pupils mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(1), 16-33.
58. Tran, N. A., Schneider, S., Duran, L., Conley, A., Richland, L., Burchinal, M., & Martinez,M. E. (2012). The effects of mathematics instruction using spatial temporal cognition on teacher efficacy and instructional practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 340–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.003.
59. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202.
60. Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D., Mack, C. E., et al. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 50(1), 29-34.
61. Usher, E.L. & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), pp. 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456
62. Vekiri, I. & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51, 1392–1404.
63. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).
64. Whitley, B.E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1-22.
65. Witkin, H. A. (1973). The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher‐student relations. ETS Research Report Series, 1973(1), i-29.
66. Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Huang, W., & Wang, Q. (2010). Internet inequality: The relationship between high school students' Internet use in different locations and their Internet self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1405–1423.