Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

EĞİTİM ALANINDA BİREYSEL YENİLİKÇİLİK KONUSUNDA YAPILMIŞ LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM TEZLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 52, 224 - 242, 26.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.1008025

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, eğitim alanında bireysel yenilikçiliğe ilişkin lisansüstü eğitim tezlerini yıllara, kademelere, üniversitelere, enstitülere, bölümlere, araştırma yöntemlerine, örnekleme yöntemlerine ve veri toplama araçlarına göre incelemektir. Araştırmada bireysel yenilikçilik ile ilgili tezler incelendiği için nitel araştırma yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Çalışma grubunu 2011-2021 yılları arasında yapılmış 40 lisansüstü eğitim tezi oluşturmaktadır. Elde edilen verilerin analizinde betimsel analiz kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları; eğitim alanında bireysel yenilikçilik konusunda en fazla tezin 2019 yılında ve en az 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 yılında yürütüldüğü görülmüştür. Tezlerin 3 tanesinin doktora düzeyinde ve 37 tanesinin yüksek lisans düzeyinde olduğu görülmüştür. Konu ile ilgili Anadolu, Gazi, Bartın, Necmettin Erbakan ve Yıldız Teknik Üniversitelerinde 3’ er tez yürütülmüştür. En fazla tez eğitim bilimleri ve sosyal bilimler enstitülerinde yürütülürken, en az tez sağlık bilimleri ve lisansüstü eğitim enstitülerinde yürütülmüştür. En fazla tezin eğitim bilimleri anabilim dalında, en az tezin erken çocukluk eğitimi, çocuk gelişimi ve eğitimi, yaşam boyu öğrenme, spor yönetimi bilimleri, eğitim yönetimi ve planlaması, Türkçe ve sosyal bilimler eğitimi, özel eğitim, beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmenliği, uzaktan eğitim, eğitim teknolojisi anabilim dallarında yürütüldüğü görülmüştür. Tezlerin 39 tanesinde nicel ve 1 tanesinde karma yöntem tercih edilmiştir. Tezlerde en fazla tercih edilen seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemi, en az tercih edilen ölçüt, kartopu, amaçlı, küme ve oranlı eleman örnekleme yöntemidir. Tezlerin 39 tanesinde ölçek ve 1 tanesinde yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır.
Anahtar kelimeler: bireysel yenilikçilik, tez, inceleme

Kaynakça

  • Akgül, Y., Yaman Selçi, B., Geçgil, G., Yavuz G. (2020). Yenilik Ekonomisi Üzerine Bibliyometrik Bir İnceleme. The Journal of International Lingual Social and Educational Sciences, 6(1), 66-81.
  • Aksaraylı, M.F. (2014). A thematic analysis of master and doctoral studies on job satisfaction in Turkey. The Journal of International Social Research, 7(35), 666-680.
  • Akyol,B., Yavuzkurt, T., Tanrısevdi, F. & Gidiş,Y. (2021). The Analysis of Organizational Behaviour Studies in Educational Administration (2011-2017). Başkent University Journal of Education, 8(1), 67-80.
  • Akyol, B. & Akçay, R. C. (2015). Analysis of organizational behavior studies in Turkey. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(1), 149-170.
  • Cancino, C. A., Merigo, J.M. & Marques, D. P. (2015, Outubro). A bibliometric analysis of innovation research. Paper Presented at the Altec, Brasil.
  • Durán-Sánchez, A., Peris-Ortiz, M., Álvarez-García, J. & del Río, M. D. L. C. (2018). Entrepreneurship and social ınnovation for sustainability. Bibliometric analysis. Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation içinde (11-29). Springer, Cham.
  • Çelik, N. (2016). Evaluation of PhD dissertations regarding to innovation by content analysis method. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 2 (1), 29-42.
  • Gülmez, M., Oğuz, S. & Yalçıntaş, D. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of publications in social innovation by visual mapping method. Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal, 11(Ek), 90-101.
  • Fırat, N. & Tösten, R. (2021). Analysis of post-graduate theses on school health in Turkey. Cihanşümul Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 42-61.
  • Gardner, J.W. (1990). Yenilikçi birey, zinde toplum (Translate:San Özalp and Hikmet Seçim). İstanbul: İlgi.
  • Gül, H. & Beyşenova, A. (2019). Evaluation of theses on leadership properties in Turkey by content analysis. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1), 438-446.
  • Handa, M. & Gupta, N. (2009). Gender influence on the innovativeness of young urban Indian online shoppers. VISION—the Journal of Business Perspective, 13(2), 25-32.
  • Jackson, J. D., Yi, Y. M. & Park, J. S. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50 (2013), 154–161.
  • Karadağ, E. (2010). Research models used in doctoral dissertations in the area of education sciences in Turkey: Quality of Research and Analytical Errors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 49-71.
  • Kayasandık, E. (2017). Teachers’ indıvıdual innovativeness and readiness for change relation with perceived organizatıonal support: A study in Samsun. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 5(24), 511-527.
  • Kılıçer, K. (2011). Individual innovativeness profiles of prospective teachers in computer education and instructional technology. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
  • Koşar, D. (2018). Analysis of organizational citizenship behaviors studies conducted in Turkey: A Content Analysis. GUJGEF 38(2), 779-802.
  • Köyüstü, S. (2018). Bibliographic analysis of graduate theses on the organizational commitment and motivation (2008-2017). International Journal of Academic Value Studies,4(19),467-477.
  • Kutanis,R., Özsoy,E., Karakiraz, A., Aras,M. Erol, E., & Uslu, O. (2015). Examining organization culture studies in terms of method and scope: An inquiry on the graduate theses. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 123-142.
  • Leavitt, C., & Walton, J. (1975). Development of a scale for innovativeness. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 545-554.
  • Lumsden, C.J. (1999). Evolving creative minds: stories and mechanism. (Ed.; R.J.Stenberg). Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University.
  • Nail, A. H. K. (1994). Managerial innovation in the civil service in Jordan: A field study. Journal of Management Development, 13(9), 52-60.
  • Oke, A., Munshi, N. & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The influence of leadership on ınnovation processes and activities. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 1, 64–72.
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). New York: The Free.
  • Sönmez, V. & Alacapınar, F. G. (2013). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı.
  • Uzkurt, C. (2008). Pazarlamada değer yaratma aracı olarak yenilik yönetimi ve yenilikçi örgüt kültürü. İstanbul: Beta.
  • Ülker, P., Örnek, N. & Çalhan, H. (2020). Bibliometric profile of innovation related articles published in academic tourism journals. Journal of Travel and Hospitality Management, 17(1), 103-123.
  • Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.
  • Vardarlıer, P. & İncesu, E. (2021). Investigation of theses on organizational justice and organizational cynicism. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(40), 704-727.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
  • Yıldız, A. (2004). Türkiye’deki yetişkin eğitimi araştırmalarına toplu bakış. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1),78-97.
  • Yuan, F. & Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academic Management Journal, 53 (2), 323-342.

EXAMINATION OF POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION THESES ON INDIVIDUAL INNOVATIVENESS IN THE EDUCATION FIELD

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 52, 224 - 242, 26.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.1008025

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the postgraduate education theses on individual innovativeness in the field of education. Qualitative research method was preferred. The study group consists of 40 postgraduate education theses made between 2011-2021. Descriptive analysis was used. Findings of the research; Theses on individual innovativeness in the field of education were conducted between 2011 and 2021. The most theses on this subject was conducted in 2019 and the least thesis was conducted in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. It was observed that 3 of the theses were at the doctoral level and 37 of them were at the master's level. Three theses were conducted at Anadolu, Gazi, Bartın, Necmettin Erbakan and Yıldız Technical Universities. The most theses were conducted in educational sciences and social sciences institutes, the least thesis was conducted in health sciences and graduate education institutes. The most theseswere in the department of educational sciences, the least thesis was early childhood education, child development and education, lifelong learning, sports management sciences, educational administration and planning, Turkish and social sciences education, special education, physical education and sports teaching, distance education, educational technology departments. Quantitative method was preferred in 39 of the theses and mixed method in 1 of them. The most preferred method was random sampling method and the least preferred criterion, snowball, purposive, cluster and proportional element sampling method. Scale was used in 39 of the theses and semi-structured interview form was used in 1 of theses.

Kaynakça

  • Akgül, Y., Yaman Selçi, B., Geçgil, G., Yavuz G. (2020). Yenilik Ekonomisi Üzerine Bibliyometrik Bir İnceleme. The Journal of International Lingual Social and Educational Sciences, 6(1), 66-81.
  • Aksaraylı, M.F. (2014). A thematic analysis of master and doctoral studies on job satisfaction in Turkey. The Journal of International Social Research, 7(35), 666-680.
  • Akyol,B., Yavuzkurt, T., Tanrısevdi, F. & Gidiş,Y. (2021). The Analysis of Organizational Behaviour Studies in Educational Administration (2011-2017). Başkent University Journal of Education, 8(1), 67-80.
  • Akyol, B. & Akçay, R. C. (2015). Analysis of organizational behavior studies in Turkey. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(1), 149-170.
  • Cancino, C. A., Merigo, J.M. & Marques, D. P. (2015, Outubro). A bibliometric analysis of innovation research. Paper Presented at the Altec, Brasil.
  • Durán-Sánchez, A., Peris-Ortiz, M., Álvarez-García, J. & del Río, M. D. L. C. (2018). Entrepreneurship and social ınnovation for sustainability. Bibliometric analysis. Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation içinde (11-29). Springer, Cham.
  • Çelik, N. (2016). Evaluation of PhD dissertations regarding to innovation by content analysis method. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 2 (1), 29-42.
  • Gülmez, M., Oğuz, S. & Yalçıntaş, D. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of publications in social innovation by visual mapping method. Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal, 11(Ek), 90-101.
  • Fırat, N. & Tösten, R. (2021). Analysis of post-graduate theses on school health in Turkey. Cihanşümul Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 42-61.
  • Gardner, J.W. (1990). Yenilikçi birey, zinde toplum (Translate:San Özalp and Hikmet Seçim). İstanbul: İlgi.
  • Gül, H. & Beyşenova, A. (2019). Evaluation of theses on leadership properties in Turkey by content analysis. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1), 438-446.
  • Handa, M. & Gupta, N. (2009). Gender influence on the innovativeness of young urban Indian online shoppers. VISION—the Journal of Business Perspective, 13(2), 25-32.
  • Jackson, J. D., Yi, Y. M. & Park, J. S. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50 (2013), 154–161.
  • Karadağ, E. (2010). Research models used in doctoral dissertations in the area of education sciences in Turkey: Quality of Research and Analytical Errors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 49-71.
  • Kayasandık, E. (2017). Teachers’ indıvıdual innovativeness and readiness for change relation with perceived organizatıonal support: A study in Samsun. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 5(24), 511-527.
  • Kılıçer, K. (2011). Individual innovativeness profiles of prospective teachers in computer education and instructional technology. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
  • Koşar, D. (2018). Analysis of organizational citizenship behaviors studies conducted in Turkey: A Content Analysis. GUJGEF 38(2), 779-802.
  • Köyüstü, S. (2018). Bibliographic analysis of graduate theses on the organizational commitment and motivation (2008-2017). International Journal of Academic Value Studies,4(19),467-477.
  • Kutanis,R., Özsoy,E., Karakiraz, A., Aras,M. Erol, E., & Uslu, O. (2015). Examining organization culture studies in terms of method and scope: An inquiry on the graduate theses. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 123-142.
  • Leavitt, C., & Walton, J. (1975). Development of a scale for innovativeness. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 545-554.
  • Lumsden, C.J. (1999). Evolving creative minds: stories and mechanism. (Ed.; R.J.Stenberg). Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University.
  • Nail, A. H. K. (1994). Managerial innovation in the civil service in Jordan: A field study. Journal of Management Development, 13(9), 52-60.
  • Oke, A., Munshi, N. & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The influence of leadership on ınnovation processes and activities. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 1, 64–72.
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). New York: The Free.
  • Sönmez, V. & Alacapınar, F. G. (2013). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı.
  • Uzkurt, C. (2008). Pazarlamada değer yaratma aracı olarak yenilik yönetimi ve yenilikçi örgüt kültürü. İstanbul: Beta.
  • Ülker, P., Örnek, N. & Çalhan, H. (2020). Bibliometric profile of innovation related articles published in academic tourism journals. Journal of Travel and Hospitality Management, 17(1), 103-123.
  • Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.
  • Vardarlıer, P. & İncesu, E. (2021). Investigation of theses on organizational justice and organizational cynicism. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(40), 704-727.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
  • Yıldız, A. (2004). Türkiye’deki yetişkin eğitimi araştırmalarına toplu bakış. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1),78-97.
  • Yuan, F. & Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academic Management Journal, 53 (2), 323-342.

МАГИСТЕРСКИЕ РАБОТЫ И ДОКТОРСКИХ ДИССЕРТАЦИИ НА ТЕМЕ ОБ ИНДИВИДУАЛЬНЫХ ИННОВАЦИЯХ В СФЕРЕ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 52, 224 - 242, 26.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.1008025

Öz

Целью данного исследования является изучение тезисов последипломного образования об индивидуальных инновациях в области просвещения. В данной исследовании они сгруппированы по годам, уровням, университетам, институтам, кафедрам, методам исследования и отбора и сбора данных. Предпочтение было отдано качественному методу исследования. В нижеследующей исследовании рассматривались тезисы об индивидуальной инновационности. Было исследовано 40 диссертаций и магистерской работы, выполненные в период 2011-2021 гг. При анализе полученных данных использовался описательный метод. Результаты исследования: было установлено, что больше всего тезисов по индивидуальным инновациям в сфере образования было выполнено в 2019 году, а меньше всего в 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 годах. Надо отметить, что из них 3 диссертации были докторские, а 37 из них магистерские работы. По нашей теме в технических университетах Анадолу, Гази, Бартын, Неджметтин Эрбакан и Йылдыз были выполнены по три диссертации. Большинство диссертаций было выполнено в институтах социальных наук, а меньше всего диссертаций было выполнено в медицинских институтах и институтах по образованию пост-бакалавриата. Больше всего диссертаций посвящено педагогическим наукам, меньше всего - дошкольному образованию, развитию и образованию детей, обучению на протяжении всей жизни, наукам спортивного менеджмента, управлению и планированию образования, турецкому языку и общественным наукам, специальному образованию, физическому воспитанию и преподаванию спорта, дистанционному обученю и образовательным технологиям. Количественный метод был предпочтён в 39 тезисах, а смешанный метод - в 1-ом. В диссертациях и магистерских работах больше всего предпочтаются метод случайной выборки. Меньше всего предпочтительным является метод критериев, т.н. снежок, кластерного и пропорционального элементов. Шкала использовалась в 39 тезисах, а полуструктурированная форма интервью использовалась в 1-ом из них.

Kaynakça

  • Akgül, Y., Yaman Selçi, B., Geçgil, G., Yavuz G. (2020). Yenilik Ekonomisi Üzerine Bibliyometrik Bir İnceleme. The Journal of International Lingual Social and Educational Sciences, 6(1), 66-81.
  • Aksaraylı, M.F. (2014). A thematic analysis of master and doctoral studies on job satisfaction in Turkey. The Journal of International Social Research, 7(35), 666-680.
  • Akyol,B., Yavuzkurt, T., Tanrısevdi, F. & Gidiş,Y. (2021). The Analysis of Organizational Behaviour Studies in Educational Administration (2011-2017). Başkent University Journal of Education, 8(1), 67-80.
  • Akyol, B. & Akçay, R. C. (2015). Analysis of organizational behavior studies in Turkey. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(1), 149-170.
  • Cancino, C. A., Merigo, J.M. & Marques, D. P. (2015, Outubro). A bibliometric analysis of innovation research. Paper Presented at the Altec, Brasil.
  • Durán-Sánchez, A., Peris-Ortiz, M., Álvarez-García, J. & del Río, M. D. L. C. (2018). Entrepreneurship and social ınnovation for sustainability. Bibliometric analysis. Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation içinde (11-29). Springer, Cham.
  • Çelik, N. (2016). Evaluation of PhD dissertations regarding to innovation by content analysis method. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 2 (1), 29-42.
  • Gülmez, M., Oğuz, S. & Yalçıntaş, D. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of publications in social innovation by visual mapping method. Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal, 11(Ek), 90-101.
  • Fırat, N. & Tösten, R. (2021). Analysis of post-graduate theses on school health in Turkey. Cihanşümul Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 42-61.
  • Gardner, J.W. (1990). Yenilikçi birey, zinde toplum (Translate:San Özalp and Hikmet Seçim). İstanbul: İlgi.
  • Gül, H. & Beyşenova, A. (2019). Evaluation of theses on leadership properties in Turkey by content analysis. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 20(1), 438-446.
  • Handa, M. & Gupta, N. (2009). Gender influence on the innovativeness of young urban Indian online shoppers. VISION—the Journal of Business Perspective, 13(2), 25-32.
  • Jackson, J. D., Yi, Y. M. & Park, J. S. (2013). An empirical test of three mediation models for the relationship between personal innovativeness and user acceptance of technology. Information & Management, 50 (2013), 154–161.
  • Karadağ, E. (2010). Research models used in doctoral dissertations in the area of education sciences in Turkey: Quality of Research and Analytical Errors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 49-71.
  • Kayasandık, E. (2017). Teachers’ indıvıdual innovativeness and readiness for change relation with perceived organizatıonal support: A study in Samsun. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 5(24), 511-527.
  • Kılıçer, K. (2011). Individual innovativeness profiles of prospective teachers in computer education and instructional technology. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
  • Koşar, D. (2018). Analysis of organizational citizenship behaviors studies conducted in Turkey: A Content Analysis. GUJGEF 38(2), 779-802.
  • Köyüstü, S. (2018). Bibliographic analysis of graduate theses on the organizational commitment and motivation (2008-2017). International Journal of Academic Value Studies,4(19),467-477.
  • Kutanis,R., Özsoy,E., Karakiraz, A., Aras,M. Erol, E., & Uslu, O. (2015). Examining organization culture studies in terms of method and scope: An inquiry on the graduate theses. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 123-142.
  • Leavitt, C., & Walton, J. (1975). Development of a scale for innovativeness. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 545-554.
  • Lumsden, C.J. (1999). Evolving creative minds: stories and mechanism. (Ed.; R.J.Stenberg). Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University.
  • Nail, A. H. K. (1994). Managerial innovation in the civil service in Jordan: A field study. Journal of Management Development, 13(9), 52-60.
  • Oke, A., Munshi, N. & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). The influence of leadership on ınnovation processes and activities. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 1, 64–72.
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed). New York: The Free.
  • Sönmez, V. & Alacapınar, F. G. (2013). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı.
  • Uzkurt, C. (2008). Pazarlamada değer yaratma aracı olarak yenilik yönetimi ve yenilikçi örgüt kültürü. İstanbul: Beta.
  • Ülker, P., Örnek, N. & Çalhan, H. (2020). Bibliometric profile of innovation related articles published in academic tourism journals. Journal of Travel and Hospitality Management, 17(1), 103-123.
  • Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers’ class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.
  • Vardarlıer, P. & İncesu, E. (2021). Investigation of theses on organizational justice and organizational cynicism. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(40), 704-727.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
  • Yıldız, A. (2004). Türkiye’deki yetişkin eğitimi araştırmalarına toplu bakış. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1),78-97.
  • Yuan, F. & Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academic Management Journal, 53 (2), 323-342.
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ayşegül Ayyıldız 0000-0003-1958-6104

Yayımlanma Tarihi 26 Aralık 2021
Gönderilme Tarihi 11 Ekim 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Sayı: 52

Kaynak Göster

APA Ayyıldız, A. (2021). EXAMINATION OF POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION THESES ON INDIVIDUAL INNOVATIVENESS IN THE EDUCATION FIELD. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, 1(52), 224-242. https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.1008025