CUFEJ VOL: 42 NO: 1 ALL ARTICLES

Öz

CUFEJ VOL: 42 NO: 1 ALL ARTICLES

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Arslan, A.S., Kaymakçı Y.D. & Arslan S. (2009). Alternatif Ölçme-Değerlendirme Etkinliklerinde Karşılaşılan Problemler: Fen Ve Teknoloji Öğretmenleri Örneği. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (23):1-2.
2. Bahar, M., Nartgün, Z., Durmuş, S. & Bıçak, B. (2009). Geleneksel Tamamlayıcı Ölçme ve Değerlendireme Teknikleri. 3. Press, Pegem Akademi, Ankara, pp.13-142.
3. Bayrak, B., & Erden, A.M. (2007). Fen bilgisi öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 137-154.
4. Demirel Ö. (2008). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. 11. Press, Pegem Akademi, Ankara, p.105.
5. Erginbaş, E. (2009). Teknoloji Destekli Matematik Öğretiminin Sınıf Yönetiminin Öğrenci Özellikleri Açısından Etkililiği. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Isparta,
6. Gelibolu M.F. (2009). Gerçekçi Matematik Eğitimi Yaklaşımıyla Geliştirilen Bilgisayar Destekli Mantık Öğretimi Materyallerinin 9.Sınıf Matematik Dersinde Uygulanmasının Değerlendirilmesi. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
7. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2009. s. 4087-4088. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
8. Hughes, J. (2005). The Role of teacher knowledge and learning experience in forming technology- integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2):284-302.

9. Janisch, C., Liu, X. & Akrofi, A. (2007). Implementing Alternative Assessment: Opportunities and Obstacles. The Educational Forum ,Volume 71:221-230.
10. Karahan, U.(2007). Alternatif Ölçme Ve Değerlendirme Metodlarından Grid, Tanılayıcı Dallanmış Ağaç Ve Kavram Haritaları’nın Biyoloji Öğretiminde Uygulanması. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara,
11. Mert, V. (2008). Enerji Konusunda Alternatif Ölçme Araçlarının Geliştirilmesi. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
12. MNE, (2004). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4-5. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü Basımevi.
13. MNE, (2005). Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Ortaöğretim Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı, Mirasyedioğlu, Ş. (Kom. Başk.), Ankara, pp.1-312.
14. Oldknow A. & Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching Mathematics Using İnformation and Communications Technology. 2nd edition, Continuum, London, pp.2-65.
15. Phonguttha, R., Tayraukham, S., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2009). Comparisons of Mathematics Achievement, Attitude towards Mathematics and Analytical Thinking between Using the Geometer's Sketchpad Program as Media and Conventional Learning Activities. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 3036-3039.
16. Stears M. & Gopal N. (2010). Exploring alternative assessment strategies in science classrooms. South African Journal of Education. Vol 30:591-604.
17. Şataf, H.A. (2010). Bilgisayar Destekli Matematik Öğretiminin İlköğretim 8.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin “Dönüşüm Geometrisi” Ve “Üçgenler” Alt Öğrenme Alanındaki Başarısı Ve Tutuma Etkisi (Isparta Örneği). (Unpublished Master Thesis).Sakarya Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Sakarya
18. Taşlıbeyaz, E. (2010). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Bilgisayar Destekli Matematik Öğretiminde Matematik Algılarına Yönelik Durum Çalışması: Lise 3.Sınıf Uygulaması. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
19. Turgut, M. (2010). Teknoloji Destekli Lineer Cebir Öğretiminin İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Uzamsal Yeteneklerine Etkisi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
20. Yıldırım A. & Şimşek H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 6. Press, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, pp.119-120. THE RELATIONSHIP OF ORGANIZATIONAL CORRUPTION
21. WITH ORGANIZATIONAL DISSENT AND WHISTLEBLOWING IN TURKISH SCHOOLS Murat ÖZDEMİRa*
22. aÇankırı Karatekin University, Faculty of Art, Çankırı/Turkey
23. The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship between organizational corruption,
24. organizational dissent and whistle-blowing in schools. 193 teachers, who worked at primary and
25. secondary schools in Turkey, participated in the study. Measures of organizational corruption,
26. organizational dissent, and whistle-blowing were used. Data were analyzed with correlation and
27. regression analysis. Findings revealed that there was a positive and significant relationship between
28. organizational corruption, organizational dissent and whistle-blowing and that organizational corruption
29. predicted organizational dissent and whistle-blowing. The results suggest that organizational dissent and
30. whistle-blowing are two main techniques that teachers use to resist organizational corruption in schools.
31. Aguilera, R. V.  Vadera, A. K. (2008). The dark side of authority: antecedents, mechanism, and outcomes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 431-449.
32. Aktan, C. C. (2006). Organizasyonlarda yanlış uygulamalara karşı bir sivil erdem, ahlaki tepki ve vicdani red davranışı: whistleblowing. Mercek Dergisi, 1-13.
33. Alt, J. E.  Lassen, D. D. (2003). The political economy of institutions and corruption in American states. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 341–365. Anderson, C. J.
34. Tverdova, Y. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward
35. government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 91–109.
36. Argandona, A. (2003). Private-to-private corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 253–267.
37. Avtgis, T. A., Thomas-Maddox, C., Taylor, E.  Patterson, B. R. (2007). The influence of employee burnout syndrome on the expression of organizational dissent. Communication Research Reports, 24, 97–102.
38. Balcı, A., Özdemir, M.,  Özen, F. (2009). Organizational corruption: its relation with organizational culture, job attitudes and work ethics. 11nd International Congress of European Turks. 14-16 may, Antwerp-Belgium.
39. Berkman, Ü. (1983). Azgelişmiş ülkelerde kamu yönetiminde yolsuzluk ve rüşvet. Ankara: TODAİE Yayınları.
40. Berkman, Ü. (1992). Bureaucracy and bribery: a conceptual framework. International Journal of Public Administration, 15(6), 1345-1368.
41. Brooks, L. (1993). Whistleblowers: learn to love them. Canadian Business Review, 20(2), 19–21.
42. Caiden, G. E.  Caiden, N. J. (1977). Administrative corruption. Public Administration Review, 37(3), 301-309.
43. Cannings, K. (1992). The voice of the loyal manager: distinguishing attachment from commitment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 261-272.
44. Çadırcı, M. (1997). Tanzimat döneminde Anadolu kentlerinin sosyal ve ekonomik yapısı. Ankara: TTK Yayınları.
45. Darley, J. M. (2005). The cognitive and social psychology of contagious organizational corruption. Brooklyn Law Review, 70(4), 1177-1179.
46. Davis, J. (2004). Corruption in public service delivery: experience from South Asia’s water and sanitation Sector. World Development, 32(1), 53-71.
47. De Maria, W. (2008). Whistleblowers and organizational protesters. Current Sociology, 56(6), 865-883.
48. Doig, A.  Theobald, R. (2000). Introduction: why corruption? in Alan Doig and Robin. Theobald, eds. Corruption and democratisation. London: Frank Cass. pp. 1-12. Dozier, J. B.
49. Miceli, M. P. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: a prosocial behavior
50. perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10, 823-836.
51. Dworking, T. Baucus, M. (1998). Internal vs external whistleblowers: a comparison of whistleblowing processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(12), 1281-1298.
52. Eaton, T. V.  Akers, M. D. (2007). Whistleblowing and good governance. The CPA Journal, 77(6), 66- 71.
53. Fackler, T.  Lin, T. (1995). Political corruption and presidential elections, 1929–1992. Journal of Politics, 57, 971–993.
54. Farrell, D.  Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect typology: the influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 201-218.
55. Gerring, J.  Thacker, S. C. (2004). Political institutions and corruption: the role of unitarism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 295-330.
56. Goodboy, A. K., Chory, R. M.  Dunleavy, K. N. (2008). Organizational dissent as a function of organizational justice. Communication Research Reports, 25(4), 255-265.
57. Graham, J. W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: a theoretical essay. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 1-52.
58. Hallak, J.  Poisson, M. (2007). Corrupt schools, corrupt universities: what can be done. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
59. Hegstrom, T. G. (1990). Mimetic and dissent conditions in organizational rhetoric. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18, 141-152.
60. Hegstrom, T. G. (1995). Focus on organizational dissent: A functionalist response to criticism. In J. Lehtonen eds. Critical perspectives on communication research and pedagogy (pp. 83-94). St. Ingbert, Germany: Rohrig University Press.
61. Heyneman, S. P. (2004). Education and corruption. International Journal of Educational Development, 24, 637- 648.
62. Hunbury, G. L. (2004). A “pracademic’s” perspective of ethics and honor: imperatives for public services in the 21st century Public Organization Review, 4, 187-204.
63. Johnston, M. (1986). Right and wrong in American politics: popular conceptions of corruption, Polity, 18, 367-391.
64. Johnson, R. A.  Sharma, S. (2004). The Struggle against corruption: a comparative study. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
65. Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: a model of employee dissent. Communication Studies, 48, 311-332.
66. Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(2), 183-229.
67. Kassing, J. W. (2000). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17, 58-70.
68. Kassing, J. W. (2002). Speaking up: identifying employees’ upward dissent strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 187-209. Kassing, J. W.
69. Avtgis, T. A. (1999). Examining the relationship between organizational dissent and
70. aggressive communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 13, 76-91. Kassing, J. W.
71. Armstrong, T. A. (2001). Examining the association of job tenure, employment history,
72. and organizational status with employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 18, 264-273.
73. Kassing, J. W.  Avtgis, T. A. (2001). Dissension in the organization as a function of control expectancies. Communication Research Reports, 18, 118-127.
74. Kassing, J. W.  Armstrong, T. A. (2002). Someone’s going to hear about this: examining the association between dissent-triggering events and employee’s dissent expressions. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 39-65.
75. Kassing, J. W.  DiCioccio, R. L. (2004). Testing a workplace experience explanation of displaced dissent. Communication Reports, 17, 111-120.
76. Kassing, J. W. (2006). Employees’ expressions of upward dissent as a function of current and past work experiences. Communication Reports, 19(2), 79-88. Kassing, J. W.
77. McDowell, Z. (2008). Talk about fairness: exploring the relationship between
78. procedural justice and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 25, 1–10.
79. Kayes, D. C., (2006). Organizational corruption as theodicy. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 51-62.
80. Keenan, J. P. (2000). Blowing the whistle on less serious forms of fraud: a study of executives and managers. Employee Responsibilities and Right Journal, 12(4), 199-217.
81. Klitgaard, R. ( 1998). International cooperation against corruption. Finance and Development, 35(1), 3-6.
82. Luo, Y. (2004). An organizational perspective of corruption. Management and Organization Review, 1(1), 119-154.
83. Mansbach, A.  Bachner, Y. G. (2010). Internal or external whistleblowing: nurses’ willingness to report wrongdoing. Nursing Ethics, 17(4), 483-490.
84. Mbatha, J. S. (2005). The ethical dilemmas of whistle-blowing and corruption in the South African public sector. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Zululand.
85. McCluskey, N. (2005). Corruption in the public schools: the market is the answer. Policy Analysis, 542, 1-20.
86. Miceli, M.  Near, J. (1994). Whistleblowing: reaping the benefits. Academy of Management Executive, 8, 65–73.
87. Miethe, T. D.  Rothschild, J. (1994). Whistleblowing and the control of organizational misconduct. Sociological Inquiry, 64, 322–347.
88. Mumcu, A. (1969). Osmanlı devleti’nde rüşvet. Ankara: A.Ü. Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını.
89. Near, J. P.  Jensen, T. C. (1983). The whistleblowing process: retaliation and perceived effectiveness. Work and Occupations, 10, 3-28. Near, J. P.
90. Micelli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: the case of whistle-blowing. Journal of
91. Business Ethics, 4(1), 1-16.
92. O’Reilly, C.  Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.
93. Özdemir, M. (2010). The opinions of administrators and teachers working in public high schools in Ankara Province on organizational dissent. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ankara University.
94. Palmier, L. (1983). Bureaucratic corruption and its remedies, in M. Clarke, eds. Corruption. London: Frances Printer Ltd. London, pp. 207-219.
95. Pascoe, J.  Welsh, M. (2011). Whistleblowing, ethics and corporate culture: theory and practice in Australia. Common Law World Review, 40, 144-173.
96. Payne, H. J. (2007). The role of organization-based self-esteem in employee dissent expression. Communication Research Reports, 24, 235-240.
97. Peters, J. G.  Welch, S. (1980). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 71(3), 697-708.
98. Redlawsk, D. P.  McCann, J. A. (2005). Popular interpretations of ‘corruption’ and their partisan consequences. Political Behavior, 27(3), 261-283.
99. Redding, W. C. (1985). Rocking boats, blowing whistles, and teaching speech communication. Communication Education, 34, 245-258.
100. Rodal, C. A. S.  Mendoza, E. C. (2004). Transparency in Education: report card in Bangladesh. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
101. Sayed, T.  Bruce, D. (1998). Police corruption: towards a working definition. African Security Review, 7(1), 3-14.
102. Seligson, M. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: a comparative study of four Latin American countries. Journal of Politics, 62, 408–433.
103. Schein, E. (1985). Defining organizational culture. In M. Shafritz and J. Ott, eds. Classics of Organization theory (1992). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
104. Sprague, J. A.  Ruud, G. L. (1988). Boat-rocking in the high technology culture. American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 169-193.
105. Stapenhurst, F.  Langseth, P. (1997) The role of the public administration in fighting corruption. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(5), 311 – 330.
106. Tanaka, S. (2001). Corruption in education sector development: a suggestion for anticipatory strategy. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(4), 158-166.
107. Truelson, J. A. (1989). Implications of whistleblowing for public administration education. Policy Studies Review, 8(4), 871-876.
108. Uys, T. (2008). Rational loyalty and whistleblowing: the South African context. Current Sociology, 56(6), 904-921.
109. Vinten, G. (1999). A whistleblowing code for educational institutions. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(3), 150-157. Waite, D.
110. Allen, D. (2003). Corruption and abuse of power in educational administration. The Urban
111. Review, 35(4), 281- 296.
112. Warren, M. E. (2004). What does corruption mean in a democracy? American Journal of Political Science, 48, 328–343.
113. Welch, S.  Hibbing, J. R. (1997). The effects of charges of corruption on voting behavior in congressional elections, 1982–1990. Journal of Politics, 59, 226–239.
114. Werner, S. B. (1983). New directions in the study of administrative corruption. Public Administration Review, 43(2), 146-154.
115. Wilson, J. Q. (1966). Corruption: the shame of the states. The Public Interest, 2, 28–38.
116. This paper examines the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), mainly computer,
117. for teaching and learning purposes at the university level. The paper gives a brief overview of the use of
118. ICT in learning and teaching at university level. It also discusses the students’ perceptions on the use of
119. ICT in their daily life and in school environment. For this purpose, a questionnaire consisting of 25 items
120. were given to 300 students studying at the engineering departments from 2 different universities in
121. Turkey. The result supports the necessity of using ICT for making classes more vivid, pleasant and
122. appealing to the students.
123. Key Words: ICT, computer, technology, education, engineering. INTRODUCTION
124. ICT merely stands for Information and Communication Technologies and Blurton (1999) defines it as a
125. “various set of technological tools and resources used to communicate, create, disseminate, store, and
126. manage information”. These technologies consist of computers, the Internet, broadcasting technologies
127. (radio and television), and telephony. Maximizing efficiency and effectiveness by means of using the
128. Internet and computers is an increasing interest not only for communication but also for education at all
129. levels and in both formal and non-formal settings during recent years.
130. From the earliest times when computers were commercially available, they could be found in educational
131. institutions, and educators (e.g. Bork, 1980; Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1977; Hernes,
132. 2002) strongly believed that computers would support learning. Several educational institutions,
133. including public and private schools opened CALL centers for this purpose. International dialogue and
134. international access to educational items became possible only after ICT was developed and the Internet
135. became available in schools. The development of ICT, particularly the Internet, has eased the
136. development of the globalization and therefore the quality of education. With open access to knowledge
137. and the new communication technologies, it is now possible to widen the range of opportunities for more
138. equal education even in the poorest countries provided that they have the Internet.
139. The use of ICT in education provides several benefits for extending educational opportunities to groups
140. of people. ICTs are potentially powerful tools for extending educational opportunities, for formal or/and
141. non-formal,—scattered or/and rural populations, groups traditionally excluded from education due to
142. cultural or social reasons such as ethnic minorities, females, persons with disabilities, and the elderly, as
143. well as all others who for reasons of cost or because of time constraints are unable to enroll on campus. It
144. also enables students to concentrate on the lessons as well as to become aware of the developments
145. worldwide. The benefits of ICT can be listed as:
146. Co-Author: [e-mail]
147. • Use of ICT requires no limit in time and space
148. It is possible to use the ICTs anytime and anywhere, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via asynchronous
149. learning/teaching no matter what the time lag is between the delivery of instruction and its receptor. The
150. only condition needed would be the access to the Internet. Teleconferencing, radio or TV broadcast
151. would also be possible for those in diverse areas.
152. • Resources are no more remote with ICT
153. With ICT it is possible to access a wealth of learning materials in almost every subject from anywhere at
154. any time by unlimited number of people. ICT also facilitates access to resource persons, mentors,
155. experts, researchers, peers, writers, poets, artists, professionals, politicians, etc. all over the world. With
156. the Internet it is possible to find any information about any subject.
157. • ICT provides no limit in fun
158. There are many Internet resources that provide fun for 24 hours. Music, comics, funny movies etc are
159. there to help those to enjoy life. Downloadable materials also make the family gatherings become a ceremonial event.
160. • ICT brings no limit in communication
161. Such communication sources as Facebook, Skype, Msn, Twitter, Google talk, Yahoo talk, and others
162. facilitate the communication between people on the two edges of the world, which prevents isolation as well.
163. • ICT provides no limit in learning
164. Technology helps schools provide opportunity to value deep understanding in the disciplines and take
165. into account students’ needs, interests, and strengths. Students with different learning styles can benefit
166. from the facilities ICT provides.
167. • There is no excuse for not using the ICT
168. ICT helps to improve the quality in education, prepare individuals for the workplace, and develop
169. inventive thinking and effective communication. It is particularly important to use ICT to enhance the
170. quality of education by increasing learner motivation, to provide better teacher professional career, to
171. facilitate a student-centered environment. Distant courses, remote resources, different techniques of
172. providing information underpin the multiple intelligent learning. Linking the traditional approaches to
173. the Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and matching these with complementary digital strategies, tools and
174. activities is also possible. In Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (MIs) there are eight intelligences, which is
175. a disciplinary in itself. Every individual has his own learning style as shown in the diagram below and
176. this could be developed by the help of ICT.
177. Gardner (1999) claims that “the computer revolution is already changing how students acquire and use
178. information; if schools do not rise to this technological opportunity and challenge, they risk becoming
179. completely anachronistic”. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory can best be fed and put into practice
180. by the ICT, which might provide opportunity to blend the MIs disciplines given in Figure1.
181. If designed and implemented properly, ICT-supported education can promote the acquisition of the
182. knowledge and skills that will empower students for lifelong learning no matter which type of
183. intelligence he or she has. It is, therefore, required to employ ICT in education.
184. Cradler (2002) gives seven requirements for effective use of ICT in education: -
185. Having a vision for the use of technology to support curriculum - - - - - Providing for ongoing technical support for technology use
186. Figure 1. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
187. (http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Gardners+Multiple+Intelligences+and+ICT)
188. In general, these requirements fall into five areas of impact:
189. - providing the infrastructure of hardware and software,
190. - providing curriculum and technical support for teachers,
191. - school organization, design, policies and practices, - schooling,
192. - management support.
193. The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) suggest that the effective
194. use of ICT can lead to benefits in terms of:
195. • greater motivation
196. • increased self-esteem and confidence
197. • enhanced questioning skills
198. • promoting initiative and independent learning
199. • improving presentation
200. • developing problem solving capabilities
201. • promoting better information handling skills
202. • increasing ‘time on task’
203. • improving social and communication skills (BECTA 2002).
204. Since students enjoy spending time on the computer and sharing their interests in social platforms, the
205. Internet, it should be considered wise to get them involved into the ICT used educational environment.
206. The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA 2002) also claims that ICT
207. can enable children to:
208. • combine words and images to produce a ‘professional’ looking piece of work
209. • draft and redraft their work with less effort
210. • test out ideas and present them in different ways for different audiences
211. • explore musical sequences and compose their own music
212. • investigate and make changes in computer models
213. • store and handle large amounts of information in different ways
214. • do things quickly and easily which might otherwise be tedious or time consuming
215. • use simulations to experience things which might otherwise be too difficult or dangerous for them to attempt in real life
216. • control devices by turning motors, buzzers and lights on or off or by programming them to react to changes in things like light or temperature sensors
217. • communicate with others over a distance.
218. On the other hand, the use of ICT might of course cause some handicaps in teaching especially in
219. overcrowded classes. Schacter (1999, p. 5), for instance, claims that the “level of effectiveness of
220. educational technology is influenced by the specific student population, the software design, the
221. educator’s role, and the level of student access to the technology.”
222. Teachers’ competence for the use of ICT might be another problem. Clearly with the critical role played
223. by teachers, education systems need to take account of the needs of teachers first (Lankshear & Snyder,
224. 2000). The problems teachers have with the use of computers may be viewed in terms of: access to
225. adequate infrastructure, and access to support for implementation using that infrastructure. BECTA
226. (2002) points out that the user problems are mainly due to the lack of experience of teachers and the lack
227. of consideration of appropriate educational problems to solve. All of these barriers may be addressed by
228. considering technical and curriculum support for teachers.
229. In his book entitled “Managing Technological Change: Strategies for college and university leaders”,
230. Bates (2000) draws attention to the points discussed above and states that:
231. “Although technology infrastructure plans are essential, they are not sufficient. It is
232. equally important to develop academic or teaching plans that specify the ways in
233. which technologies will be incorporated into teaching learning activities” (p. 46).
234. Bates (2000) also emphasizes that “it is important for universities and colleges to achieve high quality in
235. any technology-based teaching and learning materials and programs that they develop.” (p. 64). He
236. further stresses the necessity of computer access in departments: “The real challenge for a department considering requiring students to have computer access is in ensuring that the computer will provide genuine value-added teaching. The worst policy is to make computer access optional.” (p. 90).
237. The RATIONALE of the STUDY
238. Since ICT has so many advantages in teaching and learning, it becomes mandatory to use ICT in
239. education. With this reason in mind, we have questioned whether ICT is used at the university level and
240. the perception of students regarding the use of ICT. We gave the questionnaire to the engineering students
241. at the departments of computer engineering, electrical and electronic engineering and marine engineering.
242. The reason why we chose the engineering departments is due to reports published by UNESCO in 2010
243. and 2011.The report published by UNESCO in October 2010 was a comprehensive report on engineering
244. and development, which spells out the great importance of engineering for human society in addressing
245. and solving global issues. ICTs are a series of instruments that transform the way human collectively
246. produce and consume information on a global scale. While many teachers and students are already
247. utilizing some of its capabilities, school and government agencies must design appropriate resource
248. allocation policies to better capture these revolutionary opportunities.
249. The report in 2011 sheds new light on the need to:
250. • develop public and policy awareness and understanding of engineering, affirming the role of engineering as the driver of innovation, social and economic development;
251. • develop information on engineering, highlighting the urgent need for better statistics and indicators on engineering;
252. • transform engineering education, curricula and teaching methods to emphasize relevance and a problem-solving approach to engineering;
253. • more effectively innovate and apply engineering and technology to global issues and challenges such as poverty reduction, sustainable development and climate change – and urgently develop greener engineering and lower carbon technology (UNESCO, 2011).
254. Today’s “digital native” students are the most effective source of innovation in the formats and content of
255. ICT-enabled educational services and products. Therefore, engineering schools should be the operating
256. base for the learning activities that systematically involve engineering students and other appropriate
257. participants in the creation and refinement of ICT-enabled educational programmes and infrastructures.
258. The design and implementation process of these “learning activities” should be guided by appropriate
259. technology-independent quality standards (UNESCO, 2010).
260. FOCUS and METHODOLOGY
261. The study focuses on the use of ICT and the perceptions of the students on ICT in engineering
262. departments. The study is based on a questionnaire given to the students mainly at the engineering
263. departments at 2 different universities in Turkey. The questionnaire is adopted from the OECD
264. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA, 2009). 300 students answered the questionnaire
265. in total. The students from computer engineering, electric - electronics engineering and marine
266. engineering departments answered the questions voluntarily. The questions were mainly related to the
267. frequency of using the ICT in classroom or at home, their perceptions on the use of ICT and their
268. attitudes towards the use of ICT. The results of only seven questions are discussed in this paper because
269. of the scope and framework of the research. Due to the scope of the study, the picture painted of the general situation in Turkey is very broad-brush. Finally, again, due to the scope of the study, the findings of the research are mainly trends and should not be considered as representative “hard facts”. FINDINGS
270. Since the survey was carried out at the engineering departments, particularly Computer Engineering,
271. Electric - Electronics Engineering and Marine Engineering, our expectancy was to get highly positive
272. answers to the questions related to the use of ICT both in social and private life. We also expected very
273. high rank of the use of ICT related to school. The findings, however, were surprisingly different from
274. what we had been expecting, as seen in the following tables. The tables show the questions asked and the
275. number of the students marking the choices. The numbers in parentheses show the total percentages of the
276. students’ perceptions in all three departments.
277. Table The frequency of ICT use for the activities out of the school Never or hardly ever twice a month a week almost every day 51(17%) 39(13%) 31(10.3%) 155(51.6%) 169(56.3%)
278. Msn, chat in the facebook, twitter etc
279. Browse the Internet for fun (such
280. as watching videos, e.g. you tube)
281. Download music, movies, games or
282. software from the Internet
283. Publish and maintain a personal
284. website, weblog or blog
285. Participate in online forums,
286. virtual communities or spaces(e.g.
287. second life or my space )
288. Communicate with family and friends 119(39.6%) 24(8%) 17(5.6%) 18(6%) 62(20.6%) 114(38%) 103(34.3%) 12(4%) 79(26.3%) 170(56.6%) 33(11%) 67(22.3%) 91(30.3%) 154(51.3%) 51(17%) 31(10.3%) 39(13%) 93(31%) 64(21.3%) 66(22%) 52(17.3%) 41(13.6%) 74(24.6%)
289. Table 1 reflects the use of ICT out of school environment. Students usually use ICT for fun, listening to
290. music, watching movies, using Msn, skype or Facebook for chat as highlighted in the Table. They make
291. use of ICT at home for social and entertainment purposes rather than participating forums, conducting
292. personal websites or doing homework on the computer. This might be due to the lack of responsibility of
293. surfing the Internet for the purpose of research or assignments or it might be because their class teachers
294. do not give them responsibility of doing homework related to the ICT.
295. The departments in which this research was conducted allow students access the Internet for free almost
296. everywhere in and around their departments. Therefore, we asked the following questions related to the
297. frequency, time and effective use they devoted on the use of ICT, as shown in table 2,3 and 4.
298. Table The frequency of ICT use for the activities at school Never or hardly ever twice a month 55(18.3%) 79(26.3%) 100(33.3%) 53(17.6%)
299. I collect information for
300. homework and study of the draft
301. project from the Internet
302. I download materials or documents 81(27%)
303. I send my homework or project to
304. my department’s website
305. I play simulation games
306. I do practice with ICT at subject of courses
307. I study and do my homework as an individual
308. I join the group works and
309. communicate with other students
310. I use ICT for project work and
311. necessary to department lectures.
312. I play computer games. I use database
313. I use Table programs
314. I use word processor
315. I use desktop publishing 131(43.6%) 113(37.6%) 98(32.6%) 11(3.6%) 95(31.6%) 105(35%) 50(16.6%) 6(2%) 75(25%) 153(77.6%) 103(34.3%) 51(17%) 37(12.3%) 10(3.3%) 132(44%) 74(24.6%) 39(13%) 2(0.6%) 11(3.6%) 95(31.6%) 79(26.3%) 46(15.3%) 4(1.3%) 148(49.3%) 114(38%) 117(39%) 117(39%) 121(40.3%) 13(4.3%) 5(1.6%) 5(1.6%) 4(1.3%) 4(1.3%) 66(22%)
316. Table 2 shows that the frequency of using ICT, mainly computer, at the campus is rather low, even for
317. fun; the highest percentage is 13 % which is for downloading materials or documents to department’s
318. website and playing computer games. This fact is surprising when it is considered that these students are
319. candidates of engineers and they are somehow involved in technology. Table 2 puts forward the fact the
320. percentage of ICT use by students is very low.
321. A question might arise related to these results, inquiring the ICT literacy level of students. Table 3
322. clarifies the question of students’ knowledge level of ICT.
323. Engineering students can manage average tasks on computer namely creating file, preparing PowerPoint
324. presentations, using windows, copying shapes etc. However, they have difficulty in more subtle tasks
325. such as creating database, using spread sheet for creating graphic, web authoring tools. Creating and
326. editing files have the highest frequency of using the computer. Yet, following online courses or getting
327. involved to the scholastic forums or carrying out research using ICT requires minimum knowledge of
328. handling computer tasks.
329. Table The literacy level of using the ICT Cannot 21(7%) 55(18.3%) 86(28.6%) 111(37%)
330. I can copy digital photography or graphic shapes.
331. I can create a database 68(22.6%)
332. I can use spreadsheet for creating a graphic.
333. I can use a PowerPoint presentation
334. I can prepare a Multi-media presentation
335. Windows /other operating systems
336. File (Creating a new file- editing etc.) Word processor
337. Web authoring tools 60(20%) 137(45.6%) 84(28%) 59(19.6%) 64(21.6%) 10(3.3%) 20(6.6%) 104(34.6%) 161(53.6%) 29(9.6%) 56(18.6%) 94(31.3%) 104(34.6%) 26(8.6%) 48(16%) 99(33%) 104(34.6%) 6(3%) 41(13.6%) 68(22.6%) 168(56%) 55(18.3%) 61(20.3%) 66(22%) 74(24.6%) 45(15%)
338. When asked how much time the students spend on computer apart from their academic studies, the
339. percentage of the answers was evenly distributed, as seen in Table 4.
340. Table The time spent on ICT apart from academic studies No time 30 minutes 31-60 minutes More than 60 minutes 34(11.3%)
341. Use of ICT in one day 43(14.3%) 46(15.3%) 41(13.6%)
342. Students’ answers show an interesting distribution to this question. When asked the time they devote on
343. the ICT every day, almost equal number of students answered evenly. Yet, students claim that they do not
344. spend too much time on computer even when it is not related to their academic field.
345. Table The necessity of the ICT (including Internet access) at the following locations Not needed 14(4.6%) 20(6.6%) 100(33.3%) 176(58.6%)
346. In classrooms at the school At student’s home At dormitories
347. At the lecture halls At libraries At canteens 7(2.3%) 10(3.3%) 27(9%) 12(4%) 39(13%) 75(25%) 161(53.6%)
348. Students were asked to value the necessity of ICT in their daily life and school environment. A very high
349. percentage of students answered to this question positively. Students believe that ICT, including the
350. Internet access, is useful in their life although 81.6% believe that they need it at home or at dormitories 80.3%.
351. Table Producing assignments using ICT related tools and resources 0-25 % 135(45%) 114(38%) 99(3%) 57(19%) 18(6%) 24(8%) 161(53.6%) 63(21%) 50-75 % 38(12.6%) 46(15.3%) 57(19%) 87(29%) 98(32.6%) 89(29.6%) 52(17.3%) 31(10.3%)
352. Teacher moderated online discussions
353. When students were asked which ICT related tools they make use of while preparing the assignments,
354. publishers (38%) and references from the Internet (42,6 %) got the highest percentage. Students get
355. references from the Internet while they avoid using it as databases. Preparing PowerPoint presentation
356. and teacher moderated online discussions are also used as ICT related tools although the frequency is lower.
357. Table The need for using ICT Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree 1 2 3
358. It is very important for me to work with a computer
359. I think playing or working with a
360. computer is really fun
361. I use a computer because I am very interested
362. I download music, film etc.
363. I communicate with my family and friends
364. I search my lesson topics
365. I lose track of time when I am
366. working with the computer
367. I believe that using computers cause health problems.
368. I think computer usage is not safe
369. I am very busy. I have no time for using computer
370. I am not interested in computer usage 70(53.8%)
371. Internet usage is too expensive
372. I haven’t got a computer
373. I can’t use a computer 14(4.6%) 14(4.6%) 148(49.3%) 104(34%) 13(4.3%) 24(8%) 122(40.6%) 114(38%) 9(3%) 28(9.3%) 161(53.6%) 114(38%) 9(3%) 5(3.8%) 18(6%) 125(41.6%) 8(2.6%) 18(6%) 73(24.3%) 103(34.3%) 23(7.6%) 84(28%) 128(42.6%) 57(19%) 73(24.3%) 130(43.3%) 106(35.3%) 29(9.6%) 9(3%) 87(29%) 81(27%) 57(19%) 41(13.6%) 19(6.3%) 4(1.3%) 187(62.3%)
374. In order to measure students’ attitudes towards the ICT, the statements above were asked to be graded.
375. Most of the students agreed that it is very important to work with a computer. The most frequent reason
376. was given as “I use computer because I am very interested” (53.6%). Students also claim that they use
377. computers in order to make research on their subject areas (45.3%). However, this result contradicts with
378. the result in Table 1. This might show that students are not working systematically on computer and
379. therefore they are not guided to work on computer but they do use the computer for self-study. CONCLUSION
380. Technological developments and communication technologies help both students and teachers ease
381. learning and teaching process. ICT has become a very important tool in education. For the last 20 years,
382. many books, articles have been written, many researches have been made. Yet, the importance of ICT has
383. not been fully understood and not enough attendance has been given to the implementation of ICT in education.
384. The main purpose of this research was to find out whether students devote time on technological means
385. and if they do, how much of the time devoted to computer is spared to educational activities. Since the
386. students were purposely selected from the engineering departments, the expectancy was that the level of
387. ICT literacy and use would be quite high.
388. The result of the research did not meet our expectancy. Contrary to our expectancy, the students mainly
389. use the computer at home for fun. Using the ICT for education purposes is not given the value it deserves.
390. The new trend “Blended Teaching Method”, mixing the traditional classes with ICT, is still not used
391. adequately in our schools.
392. In traditional teaching method teacher is the center of the learning process, controlling each factor in the
393. process. Students focus on what they learn from the teacher and course books, thus they have difficulty in
394. expressing themselves freely and creatively. In blended teaching, on the other hand, ICT is regarded as a
395. compulsory element to support the process.
396. While preparing the students for the technological requirements of the time, ICT not only enriches these
397. two sources but also enables the process contemporary, contribute the classes being more vivid and
398. fruitful. However, there is a shortage of qualified and competent teachers who will be able to use ICT in
399. their classes or who can guide students use the computer in their subject areas. Therefore, it is important
400. to give teacher training courses based on digital teaching. Teachers uploading digitalized lectures, and
401. students downloading those lectures might even help reviving, saving and learning. Bringing forth these
402. lectures into the class atmosphere might make the teaching effective, participatory and enjoyable. REFERENCES
403. Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for University and College Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
404. Blurton, C. (1999). “New Directions of ICT-Use in Education”, Retrieved on 24.4. 2012 from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/lwf/dl/edict.pdf; UNESCO World Communication and Information Report.
405. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2002). The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Pupil Learning and Attainment. (ICT in Schools Research http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/0415306752/resources/pdf/05BenefitsofICT.pdf Series
406. – No.7): DfES. Retrieved on 22.4.2012 from
407. Bork, A. (1980). Preparing student-computer dialogs: Advice to teachers. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 15-52). New York: Teachers College Press,Columbia University.
408. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1977). The fourth revolution: Instructional technology in higher education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
409. Cradler, J., & Bridgforth, E. (2002). Recent research on the effects of technology on teaching and learning. Retrieved on 22.04.2012, from the World Wide Web:
410. www.wested.org/techpolicy/research.html
411. Educational origami. Gardners Multiple Intelligences and ICT. Retrieved on 22.04.2012 from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Gardners+Multiple+Intelligences+and+ICT and http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html
412. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, New York: Basic Books
413. Hernes,G. (2002),“Emerging Trends in ICT and Challenges to Educational Planning,”in Haddad,W. and A. Drexler (eds.), Technologies for Education: Potentials, Parameters, and Prospects (Washington DC: Academy for Educational Development and Paris:UNESCO),p. 25.
414. Lankshear, C., & Snyder, I. (2000). Teachers and Technoliteracy. St Leonards, NSW.: Allen & Unwin.
415. OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2009). Ict Familiarity Component For The Student Questionnaire Pısa 2009 (International Optıon) Cito Institute for Educational Measurement. Retrieved on 22.04.2012 from http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/downloads.php
416. UNESCO (2011). Policy Brief: ICTs for New Engineering Education[online]. Retrieved on 22/04/2012 from http://iite.unesco.org/publications/3214681
417. UNESCO (2010). Engineering: Issues Challenges and Opportunities for Development. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France. Retrieved on 22.04.2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001897/189753e.pdf
418. Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: what the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA.: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Schools, 41, 537-550.
419. Coutinho, S. A., & Neuman, G. (2008). A model of metacognition, achievement goal orientation, learning style and self-efficacy. Learning Environments Research 11 (2): 131–151.
420. Dinç Kahraman, S. (2010). Kadınların toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliğine yönelik görüşlerinin belirlenmesi.12.Ulusal Halk sağlığı Kongresi’nde poster olarak sunulmuştur Erciyes Üniversitesi Atatürk Sağlık Yüksekokulu Talas/ Kayseri.
421. Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117-128.
422. Dunn, K. E., Lo, W. J., Mulvenon, S. W., & Sutcliffe, R. (2012). Revisiting the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: A Theoretical and Statistical Reevaluation of the Metacognitive Self- Regulation and Effort Regulation Subscales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(2), 312-331.
423. Eraslan, A. (2009). Finlandiya’nın PISA’daki başarısının nedenleri: Türkiye için alınacak dersler. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3 (2), 238–248.
424. Ergöz, G. (2008). Investigation of self-regulated learning and motivational beliefs in mathematics achievement. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
425. Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Cai, Y. (2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept: Reconsidering structural relationships. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 499–505.
426. Garcia, T, & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Assessing Students’ Motivation and Learning Strategies in the Classroom Context: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Alternatives in Assessment of Achievements, Learning Processes and Prior Knowledge Evaluation in Education and Human Services, 42, 319-339.
427. Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 132-139.
428. Karadeniz, Ş., Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., & Demirel, F. (2008). The Turkish adaptation study of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12–18 year old children: Results of confirmatory factor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7 (4), article 12.
429. Lynch, D. J. (2010). Motivational beliefs and learning strategies as predictors of academic performance in college physics. College Student Journal, 44, 920–928.
430. Moschner, B., Anschuetz, A., Wernke, S., & Wagener, U. (2008). Measurement of epistemological beliefs and learning strategies of elementary school children. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs. Epistemological studies across diverse cultures. New York: Springer.
431. Mousoulides, N., & Philippou, G. (2005). Students’ motivational beliefs, self-regulation strategies and mathematics achievement. In Chick, H. L. & Vincent, J. L. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3, pp. 321– 328. Melbourne: PME.
432. Niemczyk, M. C., & Savenye, W. (2005). Self-regulation in a computer literacy course. Academic Exchange Quarterly 9 (4): 55–61.
433. Özturk, B., Bulut, S., & Koç, Y. (2007). Motivation and self-regulation in mathematics. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11(2): 149–154.
434. Pintrich, P. R. (1988). A process-oriented view of student motivation and cognition. In J. S. Stark & L. Mets (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning through research. New directions for institutional research, 57 (pp. 55-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
435. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(1): 33–40
436. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research 63: 167–199.
437. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning. Michigan: School of Education Building, The University of Michigan. ERIC database number: ED338122.
438. Schraw, G., & Moshman, M. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–
439. Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self reflective practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
440. Seo, D. C., & Taherbhai, H. (2009). Motivational beliefs and cognitive processes in mathematics achievement, analyzed in the context of cultural differences: A Korean elementary school example. Asia Pacific Education Review 10 (2): 193–203.
441. Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2003). Self-efficacy in mathematics and students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies during assessment events. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty, & J.T. Zilliox, Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME27), pp. 275-82. Honolulu, HI.
442. Üredi, I., & Üredi, L. (2005). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin öz-düzenleme stratejileri ve motivasyonel inançlarının matematik başarısını yordama gücü. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 250-261.
443. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1989). Test anxiety in elementary and secondary school students. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 159–183.
444. Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science 26: 27–47.
445. Yükseltürk, E., & Bulut, S. (2005). Relationships among self-regulated learning components, motivational beliefs and computer programming achievement in an online learning environment. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies 10 (1): 91–112.
446. Yükseltürk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 12–22.
447. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–72.
448. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23,( 4), 614-628.
449. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self- regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.
450. Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research (2. baskı). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
451. Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. (1985). Validity and the research process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
452. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (6.baskı). Ankara: Pegem.
453. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2. baskı). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
454. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2. baskı). London: Sage.
455. Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş (3. baskı). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
456. Day, R. A. (2000). How to write and publish scientific paper (G. Aşkar-Altay, Çev.). Ankara: Tübitak Yayınları. (Orjinal basım 1994).
457. Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
458. Ekmekçi, A., & Konaç, E. (2009). Bilimsel yazımın bazı temel kuralları. Türk Bilim Araştırma Vakfı, 2(1), 17-121.
459. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design & evaluate research in education (4. baskı). London: McGraw Hill.
460. Geray, H. (2004). Toplumsal araştırmalarda nicel ve nitel yöntemlere giriş. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
461. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607. Mart 24, 2010 tarihinde http://peoplelearn.homestead.com/MEdHOME/QUALITATIVE/Reliab.VALIDITY.pdf alınmıştır. Online: adresinden
462. Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, Ö., Yıldırım, G., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2012). Türkiye’de eğitim teknolojileri araştırmalarındaki eğilimler: 2000-2009 dönemi makalelerin içerik analizi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 177-199.
463. Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. British Medical Journal, 315(7103), 305–308.
464. Gülbahar, Y., & Alper, A. (2009). Öğretim teknolojileri alanında yapılan araştırmalar konusunda bir içerik analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 93-111.
465. Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education 9(1).
466. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2. baskı). NY: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
467. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
468. Karatay, M. (2008). Araştırmada örnekleme. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(5).
469. Lancaster, D., & Williamson, P. (2004). Design and analysis of pilot studies: Recommendation for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 10(2), 307-312.
470. LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 31-60.
471. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279 - 300.
472. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry (7. baskı). London: Pearson.
473. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2. baskı). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
474. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2. baskı). London: Sage.
475. Oliver-Hoyo, M., & Allen, D. (2006). The use of triangulation methods in qualitative educational research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 42.
476. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative eesearch and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
477. Roberts, P., & Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41-45.
478. Sözbilir, M., & Kutu, H. (2008). Development and current status of science education research in Turkey. Essays in Education, Special Issue, 1-22.
479. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçmelerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
480. Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Becit, G., Kılıçer, K., Akbulut, Y., & Yıldırım, Y. (2008). Türkiye’deki eğitim teknolojisi araştırmalarında güncel eğilimler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19, 439-458.
481. Toy, B., & Tosunoğlu, N. (2007). Sosyal bilimler alanındaki sosyal bilimler alanındaki araştırmalarda bilimsel araştırma süreci, istatistiksel teknikler ve yapılan hatalar. Ticaret ve Turizm Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 1-20.
482. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Soysal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Kitabevi.
483. Yıldırım, K. (2010). Nitel araştırmalarda niteliği artırma. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 78-92. THEPROBLEMSTHATPRIMARYSCHOOLTEACHERS’
484. ENCOUNTERINTHEFIRSTFIVEYEARSINTHEIR PROFESSIONS
485. Tuncay DİLCİ*a Gökçe DERVİŞOĞLU KALKANa
486. aCumhuriyet University, Faculty of Education, Education Sciences Department, Sivas/TURKEY
487. Nowadays, being a primary school teacher that is different from other teaching areas is remarkable in
488. terms of difficulties in the first five years of their professions. Conditions of professionalism and working
489. areas and various problems constitute an extra burden on them. The study based on the survey model
490. aims to find and describe the problems that primary school teachers have in the first five years of their
491. professions. Fort the study 189 elementary school teachers working and in their first five years in their
492. profession in Sivas were selected rarndomly. Survey was implemented and results were analyzed with
493. SPSS statistical software. According to the results, most of primary school teachers experience various
494. problems during their first assignment and early years of their profession. These problems were listed as
495. follows: lack of interests of the students, perspective of parents to school, administrative competencies,
496. material defiencies in schools, heating and substructure issues, problems related to work practices in
497. multi-grade classes etc.
498. Büyüköztürk,Ş. (1998) Anket Geliştirme http://www.tebd.gazi.edu.tr/arsiv/2005_cilt3/sayi_2/133-151.
499. Çelikten, M., Şanal, M., Yeni, Y.(2005). Öğretmenlik Mesleği ve Özellikleri.Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19, 207-237.
500. Doğan, C. ( 2005). Türkiye’de Sınıf Öğretmeni Yetiştirme Politikaları ve Sorunları, bilig, 35,133-149.
501. Eğitim Terimleri Sözlüğü.(1974).
502. Education World (2008)
503. Education World internet sitesi. http://www.educationworld.com/
504. preservice/making_plans (10.10.2011)
505. Eleser, G. (2008). İlköğretim Birinci Kademede Görev Yapan Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Karşılaştıkları Disiplin Problemleri ve Bunlarla Baş Etme Yolları. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
506. Karasar, N. (2010). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. ( 21. Baskı).Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
507. Kılıç, D., Abay, S. (2009). Birleştirilmiş sınıf uygulamasında öğretmenlerin öğrenme-öğretme sürecinde karşılaştığı problemlere ilişkin görüşleri, Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, (3), 623-654.
508. Kilmen, S., Çıkrıkçı Demirtaşlı, N. (2009). Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Ölçme ve Değerlendirme İlkelerini Uygulama Düzeylerine İlişkin Görüşleri, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 27-55.
509. Korkmaz, İ., Şaban, A., Akbaşlı., S. (2004). Göreve Yeni Başlayan Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Karşılaştıkları Güçlükler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 10(38), 266-277.
510. MEB. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü. Öğretmen Yeterlilikleri.Ankara: MEB Yayınları. 2002.
511. Özdemir,O., Özdemir, P., Kadak, M. T. Ve Nasıroğlu, S. (2012) Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar-Current Approaches in Psychiatry 2012; 4(4):566-589
512. Özpınar,R. ve Sarpkaya, M. (2010) Köyde Görev Yapan Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Sorunları Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 2010, ss. 17-29
513. Pehlivan K.P (2008) “Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Sosyo-kültürel Özellikleri ve Öğretmenlik Mesleğine Yönelik Tutumları Üzerine Bir Çalışma” Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 4, Sayı 2, , ss. 151-168.
514. Sadioğlu, Ö., Oksal, A. (2008). Sınıf Öğretmenliğinden Mezun Olan Öğretmenlerle Başka Alanlardan Mezun Olan Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin İlkokuma Yazma Öğretiminde Yaşadıkları Güçlüklerin Karşılaştırılması, İlköğretim-Online, 7(1), 71-90.
515. Şenel, E.A. (1999). Öğretmenlik sertifikası programına katılan öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumlarına öğretim uygulamalarının etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
516. Talim ve Terbiye Dairesi Başkanlığı (1982). Öğretmen Sorunları ve Eğitimleri Araştırması. MEB basımevi. Ankara