Öğretmen Adaylarının Dijital Okuryazarlık Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Günümüzde bilgi ve bilişim teknolojileri oldukça hızlı ilerlemekte ve toplumsal, ekonomik ve günlük yaşamı etkilemektedir. Bilişim teknolojileri bilgiye ulaşmayı hızlandırsa da doğru bilgiye ulaşmak ve bilgiyi etkili kullanabilmek için kazanılması gereken yeni beceri alanlarını da ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu bağlamda ele alınan Dijital Okuryazarlık kavramı, farklı teknolojilerin doğru kullanarak doğru bilgiye ulaşmayı, bilgi üretmeyi ve paylaşmayı kapsamaktadır. Dijital teknolojiyi öğrenme etkinliklerinde ve sosyal çevreleri ile iletişim kurmada etkili biçimde kullanan Z kuşağı öğrencilerinin eğitim ihtiyaçlarına cevap verebilecek, daha sistematik ve esnek sınıf ortamları tasarlayabilecek öğretmenlere gereksinim duyulduğu açıktır. Bu doğrultuda bu araştırmanın amacı öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerini belirleyerek dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin cinsiyet, program, barınma ve aile gelir durumu değişkenlerine göre değişip değişmediğini incelemektir. Bu araştırma tarama modelinde bir çalışmadır. Araştırma, 2017-2018 eğitim öğretim yılında Kayseri ili Erciyes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi’nde öğrenim gören 400 4. Sınıf öğretmen adayı ve aynı fakültede pedagojik formasyon eğitimi alan 847 öğretmen adayıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak kişisel bilgi formu ve “Dijital Okuryazarlık Ölçeği (DOYÖ)” kullanılmıştır. Veri analizi, Mann Whitney–U ve Kruskall Wallis nonparametrik istatistiksel yöntemleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeyinin düşük olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, dijital okuryazarlık düzeyi cinsiyete, aile gelir durumuna göre anlamlı düzeyde farklılaşırken, programa ve barınma durumuna göre farklılaşmamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital okuryazarlık
• Öğretmen adayları
• Teknoloji Eğitimi

Examining of the Digital Literacy Level of Teacher Candidates

Abstract

Information and information technologies progress quite rapidly, and influence social, economic, and daily life these days. Although information technologies accelerate access to information, they also reveal new areas of skills that must be acquired in order to reach the right information and use it effectively. In this context, the concept of Digital Literacy involves using different technologies correctly to access the right information, as well as to produce and share it. There is an obvious need for teachers who can design more systematic and flexible classroom environments to meet the educational needs of students from Z generation who are capable of using digital technologies effectively for their learning activities and social communication. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the digital literacy levels of teacher candidates and to investigate whether their digital literacy levels differ depending on variables such as gender, training program, housing and family income level. A survey design was used for this study. The research was carried out with 400 senior teacher candidates attending Faculty of Education at Erciyes University based in Kayseri, Turkey and 847 teacher candidates having their pedagogical formation training in the same school in the 2017-2018 academic year. Personal information forms and “Digital Literacy Scale” (DLS) were used as data collection tools. Data analysis was performed using Mann Whitney-U and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric statistical methods. The results of the research indicate that teacher candidates' digital literacy level is low. Furthermore, digital literacy levels differ significantly in terms of gender and family income whereas this is not the case for program and housing status.

Keywords

• Digital literacy
• Teacher candidates
• Technology education

Kaynakça

1. Acar, Ç. (2015). Anne ve babaların ilkokul ortaokul lise öğrencisi çocukları ile kendilerinin dijital okuryazarlıklarına ilişkin görüşleri [Parent opinions about the their own digital literacy and their primary, secondary and high school children]. Master Thesis, Ankara University Educational Science Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
2. Akkoyunlu, B., & Orhan, F. (2003). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi bölümü öğrencilerinin bilgisayar kullanma öz yeterlik inancı ile demografik özellikleri arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between computer and learning technologies education students' computer use self-efficacy belief and demographic characteristics]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 86-93.
3. Avcu, D. Ü., & Gökdaş, İ. (2012). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğretmenlerinin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine ilişkin kabul ve kullanım niyetleri [Acceptance and usage intentions related to information and communication technologies of second cycle primary school teachers]. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 42-59.
4. Bahar, E., & Kaya, F. (2013). Meslek yüksekokulu sosyal programlar öğrencilerinin bilgi teknolojileri kullanımlarına yönelik tutumları [The attitudes of social programs students in vocational high schools towards the use of information technologies]. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 3(1), 70-79.
5. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 775-786.
6. Bilgiç, H.G., Duman, D., & Seferoğlu, S.S. (2011). Dijital yerlilerin özellikleri ve çevrim içi ortamların tasarlanmasındaki etkileri [The characteristics of digital natives’ and their effects of on the design of online environments]. In Proceedings of the Academic Informatics Conference 2-4 February 2011 (pp.257-263), Inonu University, Malatya, Türkiye.
7. Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy: What do young people need to know about digital media?. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, 21-34.
8. Clark, J. A. (2007). The role of practice in learning computer literacy skills. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

9. Combe, C., Colley, A., Hargreaves, D.J., & Dorn, L. (1997) The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research, 39(2), 123-133.
10. Çam, E., & Kıyıcı, M. (2017). Perceptions of prospective teachers on digital literacy. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(4), 29-44.
11. Çetin, M., & Özgiden, H. (2013). Dijital kültür sürecinde dijital yerliler ve dijital göçmenlerin twitter kullanım davranışları üzerine bir araştırma [A research on digital natives and digital immigrants twitter user behaviour in the process of digital culture]. Gumushane University E-Journal of Faculty of Communication, 2(1), 172-189.
12. Çetin, O., Çalışkan, E., & Menzi, N. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji yeterlilikleri ile teknolojiye yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between technological competencies and attitudes of pre-service teachers towards technology]. Elementary Education Online, 11(2), 273-291.
13. Çetin, O. (2016). Pedagojik formasyon programı ile lisans eğitimi fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Examining the digital literacy levels of undergraduate science education and pedagogical formation programme preservice teachers]. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(2), 658-685.
14. Dasgupta, S., Lall, S., & Wheeler, D. (2005). Policy reform, economic growth, and the digital divide. Oxford Development Studies, 33(2), 229-243.
15. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2003). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literatüre review and agenda for research on digital inequality: Working Paper 29, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University, USA.
16. DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. Working paper no. 15. Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
17. Erdemir, N., Bakırcı, H., & Eyduran, E. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının eğitimde teknolojiyi kullanabilme özgüvenlerinin tespiti [Determination of self-confidence of teacher candidates’ use of technology in education]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(3), 99-108.
18. European Commission. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the council of 18 december 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF
19. Eshet-Alkalai, Y (2004). Dijital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 13(1). 93-106.
20. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz,W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=ict_literacy
21. Gencel, İ.E. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam boyu öğrenme yeterliklerine yönelik algıları [Prospective teachers’ perceptions towards lifelong learning competencies], Education and Science, 38(170), 237-252.
22. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
23. Güneş, E., & Bahçıvan, E. (2018). A mixed research-based model for pre-service science teachers' digital literacy: Responses to “which beliefs” and “how and why they interact” questions. Computers & Education, 118, 96–106.
24. Günüç, S. (2011). Türkiye, dijital yerlilerde çalışan bellek ve çoklu görev [Working memory and multitasking in digital natives]. In 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium 22-24 September, Fırat Universityi, Elazığ, Turkey.
25. Hamutoğlu, N. B., Canan Güngören, Ö., Kaya Uyanık, G., & Gür Erdoğan, D. (2017). Dijital okuryazarlık ölçeği: Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması [Adapting digital literacy scale into Turkish], Ege Education Journal, 18(1), 408-429.
26. Hardy, C. A. (2005). A study of midwest students' technology skills. Doctorate Dissertation, University of Nebraska, USA.
27. Hargittai, E. (2002a). Beyond logs and surveys: In-depth measures of people's Web use skills. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1239-1244.
28. Hargittai, E. (2002b). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4). Retrieved September 9, 2007 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_4/hargittai/
29. Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of Web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 23(3), 371-379. Hargittai, E. (2009). An update on survey measures of Web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 130.
30. Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the "Net generation". Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92-113.
31. Hooft Graafland, J. (2009). New technologies and 21st century children: Recent trends and outcomes (OECD Education Working Paper, No. 179). OECD Publishing.
32. Huvila, I. (2012). Information services and digital literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Chandos Publishing, Oxford, UK.
33. International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d). ISTE Standards for Educators. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators.
34. İşçioğlu, E., & Kocakuşak, S. (2012). İlköğretim sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sayısal okuryazarlık düzeyleri ve teknoloji algıları [Digital literacy level and technology perception of elementary school teacher candidates]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Special edition 2, 15-24.
35. Jones, S., Johnson-Yale, C., Millermaier, S., & Pérez, F. S. (2009). U.S. college students' Internet use: Race, gender and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 244-264. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01439.x
36. Karabulut, B. (2015). Bilgi toplumu çağında dijital yerliler, göçmenler ve melezler [In the era of information society digital natives, immigrants and hybrids]. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 21, 11-23.
37. Karasar, N. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific Research Method]. Nobel yayıncılık, Ankara.
38. Katz, I. R. (2007). Testing information literacy in digital environments: ETS’s iSkills assessment. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(3), 3–12.
39. Katz, I. R., & Macklin, A. S. (2007). Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy: Integration and assessment in higher education. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 5(4), 50–55.
40. Kaya, S., & Durmuş, A. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgi okuryazarlığı ve araştırma yaparken interneti kullanma düzeyleri [Teacher candidates’ level of information literacy and utilizing Internet while performing research]. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Computer And Instructional Technologies Symposium 16-18 April 2008 (778-786), Ege University, İzmir, Turkey.
41. Kaya, S., & Özkeş, B. (2015). Döndürülmüş sınıf (flipped classroom) temelli öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımı [Flipped classroom based learning and teaching approach] in G. Ekici (Ed.), Etkinlik örnekleriyle güncel öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımları-III [ Current learning-teaching approaches with examples of activities ] (98-145). Pegem Akademi.
42. Kazu, İ. Y., & Erten, P. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının sayısal yetkinlik düzeyleri [A prospective teachers’ digital empowerment levels]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 3(2), 132-152. doi: 10.14686/BUEFAD. 201428175.
43. Kıyıcı (Nisan, 2008). Öğretmen adaylarının sayısal okuryazarlık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Identifying digital literacy level of teachers candidates] (Unpublished master thesis). Anadolu University, Educational Science Institute, Eskişehir, Turkey.
44. Korkut, E., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2008). Yabancı dil öğretmen adaylarının bilgi ve bilgisayar okuryazarlık öz-yeterlikleri [Foreign language teacher candidates’ information and computer literacy perceived self efficacy]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34, 178-188.
45. Kurbanoğlu, S., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarına uygulanan bilgi okuryazarlığı programının etkililiği ve bilgi okuryazarlığı becerileri ile bilgisayar öz-yeterlik algısı arasındaki ilişki [Effectiveness of informatıon literacy program applied to initial teacher training students and relation between information literacy skills and perceived computer self efficacy]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 22, 98-105.
46. Korucu, A.T., & Biçer, H. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının mesleki kaygı durumları ve teknoloji kabul ve kullanım durumlarının incelenmesi [Investigation of teacher candidates’ occupational anxiety status and technology acceptance and condition of use]. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education. 6(3), 111-124.
47. Korupp, S., & Szydlik, M. (2005). Causes and trends of the digital divide. European 95 Sociological Review, 21(4), 409-422.
48. Kurt, A.A., Günüç, S., & Ersoy, M. (2013) The current state of digitalization: Digital native, digital ımmigrant and digital settler. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 46(1), 1-22.
49. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.
50. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people, and the digital divide. New Media and Society, 9, 671–96.
51. Larres, P. M., Ballantine, J. A., & Whittington, M. (2003). Evaluating the validity of selfassessment: Measuring computer literacy among entry-level undergraduates within accounting degree programmes at two UK universities. Accounting Education, 12(2), 97-112. doi:10.1080/0963928032000091729
52. Markauskaite, L. (2005). Exploring differences in trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: Does gender matter. ASCILITE 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ictesolutions.com.au/media/8692/exploring-differences-in-trainee-teachers-ict-literacy.pdf
53. Martin, A. (2005). DigEuLit – a European framework for digital literacy: A progress report. Journal of eLiteracy, 2, 130-136.
54. Merritt, K., Smith, D., & Renzo, J. (2005). An investigation of self-reported computer literacy: Is it reliable?. Issues in Information Systems, 6(1), 289-295.
55. Ministry of Education (2018). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu [Turkey’s Education Vision 2023]. Retrieved from http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/
56. Mitra, S., & Rana, V. (2001). Children and the Internet: Experiments with minimally invasive education in India. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 221-232.
57. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?. Computers & Education, 59, 1065–1078
58. Ocak, G., & Karakuş, G.(2018). Öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık öz-yeterliliği ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Pre-service teachers’ digital literacy self-efficacy scale development], Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(5), 1427-1436. doi:10.24106/kefdergi.19
59. OECD (2015). Getting Skills Right: Assessing and Responding to Changing Skill Needs. OECD Publishing.
60. Özden, M. (2018). Digital literacy perceptions of the students in the department of computer technologies teaching and turkish language teaching. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(4), 26-36. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2018.154.3
61. Özerbaş, M.A., & Kuralbayeva, A. (2018). Türkiye ve Kazakistan öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin incelenmesi [A review of digital literacy levels of future primary-school and secondary-school teachers in Turkey and Kazakhstan]. MSKU Journal of Education, 5(1), 16-25.
62. Parsa, A., & Aytaş, M. (2014). Yeni gerçeklik: Dijital yerliler ve göçmenlerle 21.yüzyıl okuryazarlığında birleşmek [New Reality: Combining digital natives and ımmigrants with 21st century literacy] In Z. B. A. Vural (Eds). Dijital panorama bilgi iletişim teknolojilerinde son gündem [Digital panorama the last agenda in information communication technologies]. Ütopya Publishing.
63. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
64. Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it. Unpublished manuscript.
65. Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital ımmigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3).
66. Reinen, I. J., & Plomp, T. (1996). Gender and new technology. In T. Plomp & D. P. Ely (Eds.). International encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 630-635). Pergamon. Rilkhye, R., Cook, S., & Berge, Z. L. (2009). Digital natives vs. digital immigrants: Myth or reality?. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(2), 3-10. Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37-51.
67. Stern, C. M. (2003). Assessing entry-level digital information literacy of in-coming college freshman. Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University, USA.
68. Şad, S.N., & Nalçacı, Ö.İ. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının eğitimde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini kullanmaya ilişkin yeterlilik algıları [Prospective Teachers’ perceived competencies about ıntegrating ınformation and communication technologies into education]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education,11(1), 177-197.
69. Şahin, M., Akbaşlı, S., & Yanpar-Yelken, T. (2010). Key competences for lifelong learning: The case of prospective teachers. Educational Research and Review, 5(10), 545-556.
70. Tally, W. J. (2006). After access: Children's computing in low and middle income homes. Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York, USA.
71. Thomas, D. H. (2008). The digital divide: What schools in low socioeconomic areas must teach. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(4), 12-17.
72. Tınmaz, H. (2004). An assessment of preservice teachers’ technology perception in relation to their subject area. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
73. Timur, B., Timur, S., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının sayısal yetkinlik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Determinig pre-service teachers’ digital empowerment level]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Researches, 33, 41-59.
74. Toker, S. (2004). An assessment of pre-service teacher education program in relation to technology training for future practice: A case of primary school teacher education program, Burdur. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
75. Tonta, Y. (2009). Dijital yerliler, sosyal ağlar ve kütüphanelerin geleceği [Digital natives, social networks and the future of libraries]. Turkish Librarianship, 23(4), 742-768.
76. TÜİK (Haziran, 2018). İstatistiklerle Türkiye 2017 [Turkey in Statistics 2017] (Publication No:4517).
77. Usta, E., Bozdoğan, A. E., & Yıldırım, K. (2007). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının Internet kullanımına ilişkin tutumlarının değerlendirilmesi [evaluatıng elementary pre-servve teachers’ attıtudes toward ınternet use]. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Education Faculty, 8 (1). 209-222.
78. Usta, E., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar yeterlikleri ve teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin algıları ile öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumları [Pre-service teachers’ computer competencies, perception of technology use and attitudes toward teaching career]. International Journal of Human Sciences, 7(1), 1335-1349.
79. Üstündağ, M.T, Güneş, E., & Bahçıvan, E. (2017). Dijital okuryazarlık ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının dijital okuryazarlık durumları [Turkish adaptation of digital literacy scale and ınvestigating pre-service science teachers’ digital literacy]. Journal of Education and Future, 12, 19-29.
80. Volman, M., & Eck, E. V. (2001). Gender equality and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613-634.
81. Waycott, J., Bennett S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B, ve Gray, K. (2010). Digital divides? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1202-1211.
82. Zogheib, S. (2006). Explaining computer use among preservice teachers: Towards the development of a richer conceptual model incorporating experience, demographic, motivation, personality, and learning style clusters of variables. Doctorate Dissertation, University of Windsor, Canada.
83. Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274-291.