-

Öz

In the new millennium, the value of innovation increases in global scale and innovation is regarded as the key to development and a pivotal element of making a difference. With the significant increase in the number of technological innovations in recent years, resulting in shorter times for adoption of innovations, individual innovativeness became a necessity, thus giving responsibility to educators generally. This research was conducted with the intent of the detection of perceived barriers to innovativeness by pre-service teachers as technology leaders. The research was conducted with 777 fourth-grade students studying in the Computer Education and Instructional Technologies (CEIT) departments of 26 public universities in Turkey. As a result of the research, it was found out that pre-service teachers see institutional factors as the greatest barrier to innovativeness and regard the process of learning in educational institutions as more of a barrier than technological infrastructure and corporation culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• innovativeness, barriers, adopter groups, higher education

Exploring the Perceived Barriers to Innovativeness: Views of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers as Technology Leaders

Öz

İçinde bulunduğumuz yüzyılda, yenilik kavramının küresel anlamdaki değeri giderek artmaktadır. Buna paralel olarak yenilikçilik artık gelişmenin anahtarı ve fark yaratmanın olmazsa olmazı olarak görülmektedir. Özellikle son yıllarda üretilen yenilik miktarındaki hızlı artışla birlikte yeniliklere verilmesi gereken tepki süresinin kısalması, bireysel anlamdaki yenilikçiliğin gerekliliğini daha da hissedilir kılmıştır. Yenilikçi bireylere duyulan bu gereksinim, genel anlamda eğitimcilere önemli sorumluluklar yüklemektedir. Araştırma, teknoloji lideri konumundaki Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi (BÖTE) öğretmen adaylarının yenilikçiliğin önünde engel olarak algıladıkları durumların belirlenmesi amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma, Türkiye genelindeki 26 üniversitenin BÖTE bölümünde öğrenim gören 777 dördüncü sınıf öğrencisiyle yürütülmüştür. Araştırma sonucunda, öğretmen adaylarının en çok kurumsal boyuttaki durumları yenilikçiliğe ilişkin engel olarak gördüğü ve eğitim kurumlarındaki öğretim sürecinin niteliğiyle ilgili durumları teknolojik altyapı ve kurum kültürüne göre daha çok engel olarak algıladığı belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yenilikçilik, engel, yenilikçilik kategorileri, yüksek eğitim

Kaynakça

1. Adıgüzel, A. (2011, October). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri ile ahlaki olgunluk düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. [The relationship between individual innovativeness levels and moral maturitly levels of preservice teachers]. Paper presented at the Symposium of Values Education, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir.
2. Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9 (2), 204-215.
3. Andrews, P. (2007). Barriers to innovation. Leadership Excellence, 24 (10), 19.
4. Aşkar, P. & Usluel Koçak, Y. (2002a). Teknolojinin yayılım sürecinde öğretmenlerin bilgisayarın özelliklerine ilişkin algıları. [Perceptions of teachers about the characteristics of computers in the diffusion process of technology]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 22, 14-20.
5. Aşkar, P. & Usluel Koçak, Y. (2002b). Öğretmenler ve bilgisayarı kullanmaya ilişkin karar sürecinde bulundukları aşamalar. [Teachers and their stages at the time decision process related to the use of computers]. Journal of Qafqaz University, 9, 197-202.
6. Aşkar, P. & Usluel Koçak, Y. (2003). Bilgisayarların benimsenme hızına ilişkin boylamsal bir çalışma: Üç okulun karşılaştırılması. [A longitudinal study related to the rate of adoption of computers: Comparison of three schools]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 24, 15-25.
7. Beal, G. M. & Bohlen, J. M. (1956). The diffusion process. Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies, 111-1 [Available online at: http://purl.umn.edu/17351], Retrieved on November 02, 2010.
8. Bo, Y. & Ye-mei, Q. (2010). A pattern for training students’ innovative ability of computer science in independent college. Second International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science (ETCS), 752-755.

9. Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25 (2), 141-157.
10. Brahier, B.R. (2006). Examining a model of teachers’ technology adoption decision making: An application of diffusion of innovations theory. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
11. Casey, J.A., Bloom, J.W. & Moan, E.R. (1994). Use of technology in counselor supervision. In L.D. Borders (Ed.), Supervision: Exploring the effective components (pp. 37-38). Greensboro, NC.
12. Compeau, D.R., Meister, D.B. & Cristopher, A.H. (2007). From prediction to explanation: Reconceptualizing and extending the perceived characteristics of innovating. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(8), 409-4
13. Couger, J. D. (1994). Measurement of the climate for creativity in I.S. organizations. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 351-357.
14. Çelik, M. (2006). İlköğretim okullarında değişimin ve yeniliklerin uygulanmasını engelleyen faktörlerin öğretmen ve yönetici algılarına göre belirlenmesi. [An analysis of the factors hindering implementation of changes and innovations in primary schools based on teacher and principal perceptions]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.
15. Çoklar, A. (2012). Individual innovativeness levels of educational administrators. Digital Education Review, 22, 1001
16. Demirsoy, C. (2005). Yeniliğin yayılması modellerinin ve yeniliği benimseyen kategorilerinin internet bankacılığı ürünü üzerinde bir inceleme. [An investigation of innovation diffusion models and adopter categories on internet banking services]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hacettepe University, Ankara.
17. Entsminger, V. (1995). Teachers' perceptions of a pedagogic innovation: Barriers and mechanisms for successful implementation. Unpublished doctoral dessertation, Saint Louis University, St.Louis, MO.
18. Erlandson, D.A, Harris, E.L., Skipper B.L. & Allen, S.T. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
19. Esen, K. (2002). Yeniliklerin kabul süreci: Çukurova Üniversitesi öğrencileri ile yapılan bir pilot çalışma. [Adaption process of innovations: A field study with students of the Cukurova University]. Unpublished master’s thesis. Çukurova University, Adana.
20. Fill, C. (1995). Marketing communications: Frameworks, theories and applications. London: Prentice-Hall.
21. Geoghegan, W. (1995). Stuck at the barricades: Can information technology really enter the mainstream of teaching and learning? Change, 27 (2), 22-30.
22. Goldsmith, R. E. & Foxall, G. P. (2003). The measurement of innovativeness. In L.V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (p.321-329). Amsterdam: Elsevier Sciences Ltd.
23. Greene, P. (1997). Diffusion of innovations in cancer pain management and barriers to changing practice: A study of office practice oncology nurses. Unpublished Doctoral Dessertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
24. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G. & Bate, P. (2008). Diffusion of innovations in health service organizations: A systematic literature review, Chichester, GBR: John Wiley Sons Ltd.
25. Hannan, A. (2005). Innovating in higher education: contexts for change in learning technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (6), 975–985.
26. Hsua, C.L., Lub, H.P. & Hsuc, H. (2007). Adoption of the mobile Internet: An empirical study of multimedia message service (MMS). The International Journal of Management Science, 35(6), 715-726.
27. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K. & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.
28. Internet Word Stats. (2010, June 30). Top ten languages used in the web. [Available online at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm], Retrieved on March 03, 2011.
29. Kert, S.B. & Tekdal, M. (2012). Comparison of individual innovativeness perception of students attending different education faculties. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 1150-1161.
30. Kılıçer, K. & Odabaşı, H.F. (2010). Individual innovativeness scale (IS): The study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 150-164.
31. Kopcha, T.J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59, 1109-1121.
32. Könings, K., Gruwel, s. & Merrienboer, J. (2007). Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 985-997.
33. Kuşkaya Mumcu, F. (2004). Mesleki ve teknik okullarda bilişim teknolojilerinin yayılımında algılanan özelliklere ve engellere ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. [Teachers’ views regarding the perceived attributes and the obstacles in the diffusion of informatics technologies in vocational and technical schools]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
34. Levin, J., Fox, J.A. & Forde, D.R. (2010). Elementary statistics in social research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Pearson.
35. Lin, A. (1998). Exploring personal computer adoption dynamics. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 951
36. Loewe, P. & Dominiquini, J. (2006). Overcoming the barriers to effective innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 34 (1), 24Ministry of National Education. (2007). Bilişim teknolojisi formatör öğretmen görevlendirmesi. [The assignment letter of IT Teachers]. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://egitek.meb.gov.tr/egitek/HaberDuyuru/BilisimTek_For_ Ogr_Gor_Resmi_Yazi.rar.
37. Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.
38. Noone, L. (2000). Perceived barriers to innovation in higher education among key institutional decision-makers at selected regionally accredited baccalaureate degree granting institutions. Unpublished doctoral dessertation, The Union Institute & University, Cincinati, OH.
39. Odabaşı, H. F. (2007, May). Türkiye'deki Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi bölümlerinin inovasyon gündemi. Paper presented at the VII. International Educational Technology Conference, Nicosia, North Cyprus.
40. Ong, C., Wan, D. & Chng, S. (2003). Factors affecting individual innovation: An examination within a Japanese subsidiary in Sinfapure. Technovation, 23, 617-631.
41. Oxford Dictionaries. (2011). Oxford Dictionaries. [Available online at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/?attempted=true], Retrieved on February 23, 2011.
42. Özaygen, A. (2004). Diffusion of free and open source software as innovation: A case study of METU. Unpublished master’s thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
43. Pallister, J. & Foxall, G.R. (1998). Psychometric properties of the Hurt-Joseph-Cook scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Technovation, 18(11), 663-675.
44. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. [Available online at: http://www.p21.org/documents/aacte_p21_whitepaper2010.pdf], Retrieved on December 21, 2010.
45. Republic of Turkey Council of Higher Education (1998). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının yeniden düzenlenmesi [Rearrangement of teacher training programs]. Retrieved March 06, 2012, from http://www.yok.gov.tr/egitim/ogretmen/ogretmen_yetistirme_lisans/rapor.doc.
46. Rogers, E. M. (1958). Categorizing the adopters of agricultural practices. Rural Sociology, 23 (4), 347-354.
47. Rogers, E. M. (1959). A note on innovators. Journal of Farm Economics, 41 (1), 132-134.
48. Rogers, E. M. (1963). What are innovators like?, Theory into Practice, 2 (5), 252-256.
49. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (Fifth Edition). New York: Free Press.
50. Rogers, E. M. & Beal, G. M. (1958). The importance of personal influence in the Adoption of technological changes, Social Forces, 36 (4), 329-335.
51. Rosen, A.P. (2004). The effect of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology (PIIT) on the acceptance and use of technology: A working paper. Paper presented at the meeting of the 35th Decision Sciences Institute, Boston.
52. Ryan, B. & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8 (1), 15Simonson, M. (2000). Personal innovativeness, perceived organizational innovativeness, and computer anxiety. Updates scales. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(1), 69-76.
53. Student Selection and Placement Center. (2006). 2005 Yükseköğretim öğrenci kontenjanları kitabı, [Available online at: http://www.osym.gov.tr/Genel/dg.ashx?DIL=1&veBELGEANAH=32790&veDOSYAISIM=Bolum3_1.pdf], Retrieved on April 22, 2008.
54. Şahin, İ. & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 81-104.
55. Timucin, M. (2009). Diffusion of technological innovation in a foreign languages unit in Turkey: A focus on irskaversive teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 75-86.
56. Tiwari, R. & Buse, S. (2007). Barriers to innovation in SMEs: Can the internationalization of R&veD mitigate their effects? Proceedings of the First European Conference on Knowledge for Growth: Role and Dynamics of Corporate R&veD. Seville, Spain.
57. Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297-326.
58. Zayim, N., Yıldırım, S. & Saka, O. (2006). Technology adoption of medical faculty in teaching: Differentiating factors in adopter categories. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 213-222.