Investigation of Secondary School Students’ Competencies Regarding Educational Technology Standards

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 2015 Sayı: 5, 311 - 337, 31.10.2015

Zeynel Abidin Mısırlı

Öz

The aim of this study is to identify 8th grade students competencies in terms of educational technology standards who are studying in public schools in Turkey. In this regard, this study aimed to develop a scale to investigate 8th graders’ competencies regarding the educational technology standards based on ISTE-NETS. After a review of relevant literature, an item pool was prepared. The pool was improved through expert opinions and factor analysis. The items were administered to 1960 Turkish students from 13 different cities. A four-factor structure with a total of 21 items emerged which explained 51 percent of the total variance. Factors were named technical proficiency, creativity, digital citizenship and participation, and innovativeness.Findings revealed that students thought they met the technology standards sufficiently.It was observed that students with working parents had higher scores on the scale. Furthermore, the test scores were positively affected by parents’ education levels, having a computer, internet access and other technological devices at home.

The results of the study are thought that it provides some important findings for program developers by firstly National Education Ministry and Higher Education Institute also lecturers of education faculty and then teachers. In addition, it is thought that it will be a guide for related person and institutions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Technology integration, Technology literacy, Educational technology standards, NETS-S, Scale development

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Eğitim Teknolojisi Standartlarına İlişkin Yeterliklerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’deki
devlet okullarında öğrenim gören öğrencilerin eğitim teknolojileri standartları
açısından yeterliklerinin belirlenmesidir. Bu bağlamda çalışma ortaokul dördüncü
sınıflar için ISTE-NETS’i temel alan eğitim teknolojileri standartlarını ölçmek
amacıyla bir ölçek geliştirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde ilgili
alanyazın incelendikten sonra madde havuzu hazırlanmış, uzman görüşü alınmış ve
istatistiksel analizler uygulanmıştır. Ölçme aracı 13 ildeki 1960 öğrenciye
uygulanmıştır. Geliştirilen ölçeğin 4 faktör ve 21 maddeden oluşan yapısı
toplam varyansın %51’ini açıklamaktadır. Bu faktörler teknoloji okuryazarlığı,
yaratıcılık, dijital vatandaşlık ve katılım, yenilikçilik olarak adlandırılmıştır.Bulgular,
öğrencilerin teknoloji standartlarını büyük ölçüde karşıladıkları görüşünde
olduklarını göstermektedir. Diğerbir diğer bulgu ise öğrencilerin puanlarının
cinsiyete göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemesidir.
Anneleri ve babaları çalışan öğrenciler ölçek genelinden daha yüksek puan almışlardır.
Öğrencilerin teknoloji standartları ölçeğinden aldıkları puanların, annelerinin
ve babalarının eğitim ve çalışma durumlarından, bilgisayar, internet bağlantısı
ve diğer teknolojik araçlara sahip olma durumlarından olumlu olarak etkilendiği
görülmektedir.

Çalışmanın
sonuçları Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu'ndaki program geliştiriciler,
eğitim fakültesindeki öğretim üyeleri ve öğretmenler için önemli bulgular içermektedir.
Ayrıca çalışmanın ilgili kurum ve kuruluşlara rehber olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Teknoloji Entegrasyonu, Teknoloji Okuryazarlığı, Öğretim Teknolojileri Standartları, NETS-S, Ölçek Geliştirme

Kaynakça

• Akbaba-Altun, S. (2006). Complexity of integrating computer technologies into education in Turkey.Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 176–187.
• Akbulut, Y. (2008a). Exploration of the indicators of information and communication technologies at education faculties through pre-service teachers' viewpoints. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Anadolu University, Eskişehir - Turkey, 15/12/2008.
• Akbulut, Y. (2009). Investigating underlying components of the ICT indicators measurement scale: the extended version. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40 (4), 405-427.
• Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları: Sık kullanılan istatistiksel analizler ve açıklamalı SPSS çözümleri. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür & Yayıncılık.
• American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2007). Standards for the 21st Century Learner http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_LearningStandards.pdf adresinden 15 Mayıs 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
• Aslanidou, S., & Menexes, G. (2008). Youth and the Internet: Uses and practices in the home. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1375-1391.
• Balcı, A. (2001).Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem teknik ve ilkeler.Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C. ve Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the national technology standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 489–507.
• Becker, H. J. ve Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356–384.
• Bennett, R. E. (1999). Using new technology to improve assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18 (3), 5–12.
• Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: a review of the literature.Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Publication.
• Comrey, A.L ve Lee, H.L. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Çelik, F., Kocaman, F. ve Önal, A.S., (2008). Burdur Ili Merkez Ilçe Ilköğretim Ögretmenlerinin Bilgisayar Okur-Yazarlik Seviyeleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(15), 1-13.
• Dinçer, S., & Şahinkayası, Y. (2011). A cross-cultural study of ict competency, attitude and satisfaction of Turkish, Polish and Czech University students. The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 31-38.
• Dionys, D. (2012). Introduction of ICT and multimedia into Cambodia’s teacher training centres.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1068–1073.
• Eisenberg, M.B. ve Johnson, D. (2002).Learning and teaching information technology: Computer skills in context. New York: ERIC Digest.
• Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship.Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
• Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows (2nd Edition). London: Sage Publications.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• George, D. ve Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows: Step by step (3rd edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(3), 532–560.
• Gündüz, Ş. ve Odabaşı, F. (2004). Bilgi çağında öğretmen adaylarının eğitiminde öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme dersinin önemi [The importance of instructional technologies and material development course at pre-service teacher education in information age]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3 (1).
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L.ve Black, W.C., (1998).Multivariate data analysis (5th edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Hansen, J. W. (2003). To change perceptions of technology programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 29, 16-19.
• Henson, R. K.ve Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
• Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.Educational Technology Research & Development, 55, 223–252.
• International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), (2007b). The ISTE National educational technology standards (NETSS) and performance indicators for students.http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS_for_Students_2007_Standards.pdf adresinden 15 Nisan 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
• International Society for Technology in Education. (2010). Nets for Students. http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx
• International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
• Kass, R.A.ve Tinsley, H. E.A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 120-138.
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
• Knezek, G., Miyashita, K. ve Sakamoto, T. (1993). Cross-cultural similarities in attitudes toward computers and the implications for teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 2(2), 193–204
• Kotrlik, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2009). Analysis of teachers’ adoption of technology for use in instruction in seven career and technical education programs.Career and Technical Education Research, 34(1), 47–77.
• Kozma, R. (Ed.). (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: a global perspective. Eugene, OR: International Society for Educational Technology.
• Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2007).Temel egitim projesi II. fazı BT entegrasyonu temel arastirmasi. Ankara: Bilgitek Egitim Danismanlik ve Taahhut A.S.
• National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Internet access in public schools and classrooms: 1994–99. Stats in brief. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
• Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J. ve Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15–27.
• PISA 2009 key findings. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2009keyfindings.htm adresinden15 Nisan 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
• Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead, PA: Open University Press.
• Pearson, G. ve Young, T. (Ed.). (2002). Technically speaking: why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Ringstaff, C. ve Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA: WestEd RTEC.
• Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
• Sanchez, A. (2011).Obstacles to integrating technology into the middle school curricula. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Walden University.
• Sandholtz, J. H. ve Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487–512.
• Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. & Çinko, M. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS ile Veri Analizi 2. Bası. Beta Basım A.Ş. Istanbul
• Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2005). Using multivariate statistics (4th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Trotter, A. (1997). Taking technology’s measure. In Technology counts: Schools and reform in the information age. Education Week 17(11), 6–11.
• UNESCO (2005). Why a summit on the information society. World Summit on the information Societies. http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html adresinden 15 Nisan 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
• U.S. Department of Education [USDE]. (2000).Teachers’ tools for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
• Usluel, Y. K., Mumcu, F., & Demiraslan, Y. K. (2007). ICT in the learning-teaching process: teachers’ views on the integration and obstacles.H. U. Journal of Education, 32,164–179.
• Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L. ve Shulha, L. (2003). A dynamic framework to guide the implementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 8(3), 267–285.
• Worthington, R.L.ve Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838.