A Structural Model Proposal for Turkish Faculties of Education Regarding ICT Integration Indicators

Öz

A recent survey study with 2515 pre-service teachers suggested an underlying structure to shelter ICT integration indicators. Eleven indicators were extracted, which were Teaching-Learning Methods, E-learning, E-interaction, Learning Communities, Infrastructure, Access, Ease of Use, Technical Assistance, Policy, Special Education and Health. In addition, the study provided interrelationships among variables which could lead to an ICT integration model for teacher training institutions. The current study administered the survey to 255 pre-service teachers to confirm the suggested factor structure. Based on the relationships among constructs that were provided in the previous study, second-order analyses were conducted revealing a potential pathway to an ICT integration model. The model indicated that the Policy of the institutions was at the center predicting Infrastructure, Special Education, Health and Teaching-Learning Methods. Infrastructure predicted Access, Ease of Use and Technical Assistance; whereas Teaching-Learning Methods predicted E-interaction, E-learning and Learning Communities. Implications and recommendations for further research are provided.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Country-specific developments, Post-secondary education, Teacher training, ICT integration, Structural equation modeling

Kaynakça

1. Akbaba-Altun, S. (2006). Complexity of integrating computer technologies into education in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 176-187.
2. Akbulut, Y. (2008). Ogretmen adaylarinin bakis acisiyla egitim fakultelerinde bilgi ve iletisim teknolojileri gostergelerinin belirlenmesi (Exploration of the indicators of information and communication technologies at education faculties through pre-service teachers' viewpoints). Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey.
3. Akbulut, Y. (2009). Investigating underlying components of the ICT indicators measurement scale: the extended version. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 405-427.
4. Akbulut, Y., Kesim, M., & Odabasi, H. F. (2007). Construct validation of ICT indicators measurement scale (ICTIMS). The International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3(3), 60-77.
5. Alexander, S., McKenzie, J., & Geissinger, H. (1998). An evaluation of information technology projects for university learning: Executive summary. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/cutsd/publications/exsummary.html
6. Barton, R. & Haydn, T. (2006). Trainee teachers’ views on what helps them to use information and communication technology effectively in their subject teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 257–272.
7. Bresnahan, T., Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1999). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Working Paper No. 7136. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
8. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

9. Campbell, D. (2001). Can the digital divide be contained? The digital divide: employment and development implications. International Labour Review, 140(2), 119-141.
10. Chang, S. C. & Tung, F. C. (2008). An empirical investigation of students’ behavioral intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71-83.
11. Chin, W. C. & Todd, P. A. (1995). On the use, usefulness and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: a note of caution. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 237–246.
12. Clarke, P. J. (2007). Exploring the use of computer technology in a Caribbean context: Views of pre-service teachers. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3(1), 23-38.
13. Cornelius, F. & Glasgow, M. E. S. (2007). The development and infrastructure needs required for success – one college’s model: Online nursing education at Drexel University. TechTrends, 51(6), 32-35.
14. Doll, W. J., Xia, W. & Torkzadeh, G. A. (1994, December). A confirmatory factor analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18, 453–461.
15. Eteokleous, N. P. (2004). Computer technology integration in Cyprus elementary schools. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA.
16. Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London: Sage Publications.
17. Gay, G., Mahon, S., Devonish, D., Alleyne, P. & Alleyne, P. G. (2006). Perceptions of information and communication technology among undergraduate management students in Barbados. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 2 (4), 6-17.
18. Gibson, I. S., O’Reilly, C., & Hughes, M. (2002). Integration of ICT within a project-based learning environment. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27(1), 21-30.
19. Goktas, Y., Yildirim, Z., & Yildirim, S. (2008). The keys for ICT integration in K-12 education: Teachers’ perceptions and usage. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34, 127- 139.
20. Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.
21. Gulbahar, Y. (2008). ICT usage in higher education: A case study on preservice teachers and instructors. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(1), 32-37.
22. Gulbahar, Y. & Guven, I. (2008). A survey on ICT usage and the perceptions of social studies teachers in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 37-51.
23. Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian classrooms. Computers & Education, 49(2), 385–395.
24. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155-192.
25. Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
26. Hutinger, P. L. & Johanson, J. (2000). Implementing and maintaining an effective early childhood comprehensive technology system. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(3), 159-173.
27. Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.51. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software, Inc.
28. Jung, I. (2005). ICT-pedagogy integration in teacher training: application cases worldwide. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 94-101.
29. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Second edition). New York: The Guilford Press.
30. Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics. The Information Society, 16, 217–232.
31. Lauerma, A. (2000). Utsjoki: An example of implementing ICT in school environment in Lapland. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 37-42. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde1/index.html
32. Lin, L. J. C. (2005). Development of a questionnaire for determining the factors in technology integration among teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(4), 287-292.
33. Liu, Y. & Huang, C. (2005). Concerns of teachers about technology integration in the USA. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 35-47.
34. Mehra, P., & Mital, M. (2007). Integrating technology into the teaching-learning transaction: Pedagogical and technological perceptions of management faculty. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3 (1), 105-115.
35. 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.
36. Odabasi, F. (2000). Faculty use of technological resources in Turkey. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(2), 103-107.
37. Odabasi, F., Akbulut, Y., Cuhadar, C., Dursun, O. O., Kabakci, I., Kilicer, K., Kurt, A. A., Sendag, S., & Tanyeri, T. (2006). A proposal for baseline study on ICT integration. Ankara: Ministry of National Education Projects Coordination Center. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from http://home.anadolu.edu.tr/~fodabasi/doc/ey6.swf
38. Ololube, N. P. (2006). Appraising the relationship between ICT usage and integration and the standard of teacher education programs in a developing economy. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 2(3), 70-85.
39. Ozdemir, S. & Kilic, E. (2007). Integrating information and communication technologies in the Turkish primary school system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 907-916.
40. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead, PA: Open University Press.
41. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163-178.
42. Pompeo, J. M. (2004). A study of computer integration on public secondary schools. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. The State University of New Jersey, NJ, USA.
43. Rajesh, M. (2003). Study of the problems associated with ICT adaptability in developing countries in the context of distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), Retrieved October 19, 2010 from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde10/ index.htm
44. Reddy, V. V. & Srivastava, M. (2003). ICT & the future of distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 4 (4), Retrieved October 19, 2010 from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde12/index.htm
45. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
46. Shafiei, M. (2005). Factors contributing to participation in faculty development and integration of computer technology in the community college. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Houston, TX, USA.
47. Sife, A. S., Lwoga, E.T., & Sanga, C. (2007). New technologies for teaching and learning: Challenges for higher learning institutions in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 3(2), 57-67.
48. Smith, S. J., & Robinson, S. (2003). Technology integration through collaborative cohorts: Preparing future teachers to use technology. Remedial and Special Education, 24 (3), 154-160.
49. Steketee, C. (2006). Modeling ICT integration in teacher education courses using distributed cognition as a framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 126- 144.
50. Sumer, N. (2000). Yapisal esitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar (Structural equation models: Basic principles and sample applications). Turkish Psychological Articles, 3(6), 49-74.
51. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.
52. Toledo, C. (2005). A five-stage model of computer technology integration into teacher education curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 177-191.
53. UNESCO (2002). Information and communication technologies in teacher education: A planning guide. Retrieved October 19, 2010 from, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/ 001295/129533e.pdf
54. Warschauer, M. (2003a). Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American, 289(2), 42–47.
55. Warschauer, M. (2003b). Dissecting the digital divide: A case study in Egypt. The Information Society, 19(4), 297-304.
56. Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307-320.
57. Yucel, C., Acun, I., Tarman, B., & Mete, T. (2010). A model to explore Turkish teachers’ ICT integration stages. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 1-9.
58. Appendix – Sample items within each factor of the scale* E-learning
59. Instructors offer their courses embedded with e-learning contexts.
60. Instructors encourage us to use online learning environments.
61. Instructors consider the activities in online learning environments during evaluation. Infrastructure
62. Computers are fast enough to be used for instructional activities.
63. There is sufficient number of computers for students in laboratories.
64. Teaching-learning methods
65. Instructors select and implement technologies appropriate for our needs.
66. Instructors try to use instructional technologies sustaining higher level of interest.
67. Instructors create contexts where we can use technology for communication and problem solving. Policy
68. The administration applies to our opinions about new implementations.
69. The administration guides us in following the technological innovations.
70. We are allowed to participate in decision making processes regarding innovations. Special Education
71. There are materials appropriate for students with special needs.
72. The physical conditions of the classrooms are appropriate for students with special needs. Health
73. Tables and chairs are appropriate for comfortable use of computers.
74. Technology classrooms and laboratories are regularly ventilated.
75. Physical conditions like class setting, temperature, lighting, and seating arrangement are appropriate for instruction.
76. Learning communities
77. Instructors give importance to regular professional development.
78. Instructors make use of samples helping us to know different cultures.
79. Instructors encourage us to conduct multilateral projects with different universities. Ease of use
80. There are warnings and explanations in technology classrooms which help me use the devices easily.
81. I can easily access information regarding how to use technology classrooms and laboratories. E-interaction
82. Instructors generate online discussion groups about our field.
83. Instructors encourage us to participate in online discussion groups.
84. Instructors participate in discussions in our forums.
85. Technical assistance
86. There are sufficient numbers of staff to assist us when we have problems in technology classrooms.
87. Whenever I have a problem in laboratories, fast and effective technical support is provided. Access
88. Technology classrooms and laboratories are available whenever I need.
89. I can find devices like scanner, printer and video camera whenever I want.
90. * 28 of 61 items are provided to inform the readers about the nature of the scale. The complete
91. version of the original scale was presented in Akbulut (2009).
92. Correspondence: Yavuz Akbulut, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Education and
93. Instructional Technologies, Faculty of Education, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey.