Pre-Service Teachers’ Digital Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale Development

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 5, 1427 - 1436, 15.09.2018

Gürbüz Ocak Gülçin Karakuş

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1931

Cited By: 15

Öz

The purpose of this study is to determine the digital literacy self-efficacy level of pre-service teachers. In accordance with this purpose,  a likert type “Pre-service Teachers’ Digital Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale” was developed. The sample of this study consists of 334 pre-service teachers who are studying at education faculty of a university in the Aegean Region. The Cronbach-Alpha was found as 0.961. Total variance of 53% was explained. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the construct validity of the four – dimensional scale. As a result of the study, a valid and reliable scale was developed to determine the digital literacy self-efficacy level of pre-service teachers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

"pre-service teachers, digital literacy, self-efficacy

Öğretmen Adaylarının Dijital Okuryazarlık Öz-Yeterliliği Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmen adaylarının dijital okur-yazarlık öz-yeterliliğini belirlemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda “Öğretmen Adaylarının Dijital Okur-yazarlık Öz-yeterliliği Ölçeği (ÖADOÖÖ)” olarak adlandırılan likert tipi bir ölçek geliştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın örneklemini Ege Bölgesinde bir üniversitenin Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim gören toplam 334 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Ölçeğin Cronbach-Alpha iç tutarlık katsayısı ise 0.961 bulunmuştur. Ölçek toplam varyansın %53’ ünü açıklamaktadır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucu elde edilen dört faktörlü ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle test edilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda öğretmen adaylarının dijital okur-yazarlık öz-yeterliliğini belirlemeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir ölçek geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

"öğretmen adayı, dijital okur-yazarlık, öz-yeterlilik

Kaynakça

• Altun, A. (2003). E-okur-yazarlık. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 158. http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/158/altun.htm, Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2017
• Andersen, A.M., Dragsted, S., Evans, R.H. ve Sorensen, H. (2004). The relationship between changes in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the science teaching environment of danish first-year elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 25-38.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Blikstad-Balas, M. (2012). Digital literacy in upper secondary school–what do students use their laptops for during teacher instruction?. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(02), 81-96.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Brown, A. (2008). Educational Uses of Facebook. Paper presented at 2008 Conference on Information Technology in Salt Lake City, Utah, 2008. URL: http://cit.ceu.edu/mat/t/t26.pdf
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New Jersey: Guil-ford Publications.
• Cureton, E. E.ve D’Agostino, R.B. (1983). Factor analysis an applied approach. Bro-adway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.
• Çetin, O. (2016). Pedagojik formasyon programı ile lisans eğitimi fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sayısal okur-yazarlık düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Journal of Education Faculty, 18(2), 658-685.
• Eastin, M. S. ve LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self‐efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 6(1), 0-0.
• Eshet-Alkalai, Y. ve Soffer, O. (2012). Navigating in the digital era: digital literacy: socio-cultural and educational aspects. Educational Technology ve Society, 15(2), 1–1.
• Field, A.P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd edition). London: Sage Publica-tion.
• Fox, R. ve Henri, J. (2005). Understanding teacher mindsets: IT and change in Hong Kong
• schools. Journal of Educational Technology ve Society, 8(2), 161–9.
• Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.
• Goldberg, L. R. ve Velicer, W. F. (in press). Principles of exploratory factor analysis. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality: Second edition. New York, NY: Springer.
• Gülbahar, Y., Kalelioğlu, F. ve Madran, O. (2010). Sosyal ağların eğitim amaçlı kullanı-mı. XV. Türkiye’de İnternet Konferansı, 2-4.
• Hair, J.F. Jr. Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. ve Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2.
• Instefjord, E. ve Munthe, E. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology: An analysis of the emphasis on digital competence in teacher education curri cula. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 77-93.
• Jimoyiannis, A.ve Gravani,M. (2011). Exploring adult digital literacy using learners' and educators' perceptions and experiences: The Case of the Second Chance Schools in Gree-ce. Journal of Educational Technology ve Society, 14(1), 217-227.
• Kane, S. (2017). Literacy and learning in the content areas. Taylor & Francis.
• Karagöz, Y. ve Kösterelioğlu, İ. (2008). İletişim becerileri değerlendirme ölçeğinin faktör analizi metodu ile geliştirilmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21, 81-98.
• Karaman, M.K. ve Karataş, A. (2009). Media literacy levels of the candidate teachers. İl köğretim Online, 8(3), 798-808.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. NewYork: Guilford Publications, Inc.
• Lim, C.P. ve Chan, B.C. (2007). Micro lessons in teacher education: Examining pre-service
• teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Computers and Education ,48(3), 474–94.
• Meyers, E.M., Erickson, I. ve Small, RV. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning environments: an introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355-367, Doi: 10.1080/17439884.2013.783597.
• Olsson, L. and Edman-Stålbrant, E. (2008). in IFIP International Federation for Informa-tion Processing, Volume 281; Learning to Live in the Lena Olsson and Eva Edman-Stålbrant Knowledge Society; Michael Kendall and Brian Samways; (Boston: Springer), pp. 11–18.
• Özkan, Ö., Tekkaya, C. ve Çakıroğlu, J. (2002). Fen bilgisi aday öğretmenlerin fen kav-ramlarını anlama düzeyleri, fen öğretimine yönelik tutum ve öz-yeterlik inançları, V. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, ODTÜ, Ankara.
• Özmen, F., Aküzüm, C., Sünkür, M. ve Baysal, N. (2011, May). Sosyal ağ sitelerinin eğitsel ortamlardaki işlevselliği. In 6th International Advanced Technologies Symposium (IATS’11) (pp. 16-18).
• Ulrich, H. F. ve Lehrmann, E. P. (Eds.). (2008). Telecommunications research trends. Nova Publishers.
• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Rese-arch, 66(4), 543-578.
• Rehmat, A. P. ve Bailey, J. M. (2014). Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 744-755.
• Roberts, J. K., Henson, R. K., Tharp, B. Z. ve Moreno, N. (2001). An examination of change in teacher self-efficacy beliefs in science education based on the duration of in-service activities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 199-213.
• Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
• Tüzel, S. ve Tok, M. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının dijital yazma deneyimlerinin incelen-mesi. Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD), 6(15), 577-596.
• Tsai, L.S. ve Chai, K.S (2005). Developing and validating a nursing website evaluation questionnaire. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 49(4), 416–413.
• Tschannen-Moran, M. ve Hoy, A., W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
• Scherer, R. F. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Report, 62, 76-770.
• Smith, J. P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: a challenge for reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 587-616.
• Yavuz, S. (2005). Developing a technology attitude scale for pre-service chemistry teac-hers, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 17-25.
• Yun S. (2014).The aims of education and the leap of freedom. Ethics and Education, 9(3), 276-291, DOI: 10.1080/17449642.2014.980068.
• Wetzel, K., Buss, R., Foulger, T. S., ve Lindsey, L.-A. (2014). Infusing educational tech-nology in teaching methods courses: Successes and dilemmas. Journal of Digital Lear-ning in Teacher Education, 30, 89–103.
• Zusho, A. ve Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A process-oriented approach to culture: Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of culture and motivation. In F. Salili ve R. Hoosain (Eds.), Teaching, Learning, and Student Motivation in a Multicultural Context (pp. 33-65). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.