Teknoloji stresine karşı bir tampon olarak dijital okuryazarlık: Görevdeki müzik öğretmenlerinin bilişim teknolojilerine yönelik tutumlarından elde edilen bulgular

Öz

Bu çalışma, teknostres, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine (BİT) yönelik tutumlar ve dijital okuryazarlık arasındaki ilişkileri incelemiş; özellikle müzik öğretmenleri bağlamında dijital okuryazarlığın aracılık rolüne odaklanmıştır. Veriler, Türkiye’nin farklı bölgelerinden 202 müzik öğretmeninden toplanmış ve SPSS ile PROCESS Macro kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, teknostresin BİT tutumlarını olumsuz yönde etkilediğini, buna karşılık dijital okuryazarlığın teknostresi azalttığını ve BİT’e yönelik olumlu tutumları güçlendirdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, dijital okuryazarlığın teknostres ile BİT tutumları arasındaki ilişkide kısmi aracılık rolü üstlendiği belirlenmiştir. İş Talepleri–Kaynaklar (JD-R) Modeli, Stresin İşlemsel Modeli ve Bilişsel Yük Kuramı çerçevesinde yorumlanan bu sonuçlar, dijital okuryazarlığın öğretmenlerin teknolojik taleplerle başa çıkmalarına yardımcı olan, bilişsel yükü azaltan ve teknolojiyi bir tehditten ziyade bir fırsat olarak algılamalarını sağlayan temel bir kişisel kaynak işlevi gördüğünü göstermektedir. Çalışma, müzik eğitiminde teknostresi azaltmak ve BİT entegrasyonuna yönelik olumlu tutumları geliştirmek için dijital okuryazarlığın artırılmasının kritik rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Uygulama açısından bulgular, öğretmen yetiştirme programları ile hizmet içi eğitimlerin dijital pedagojiyi ve müziğe özgü teknolojileri önceliklendirmesi gerektiğine işaret etmektedir. Ayrıca bu bulgular, yerel girişimlerin küresel dijital yeterlik standartlarıyla uyumlaştırılması bağlamında, öğretmen eğitimi ve mesleki gelişim için karşılaştırmalı uluslararası çıkarımlar sunmaktadır. Politika yapıcıların ise ulusal standartları DigCompEdu ve ISTE gibi uluslararası çerçevelerle daha fazla uyumlu hâle getirmesi gerekmektedir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, özellikle müzik öğretmenleri bağlamında dijital okuryazarlığın teknostres ile BİT tutumları arasındaki ilişkideki aracılık rolünü ortaya koyarak alanyazına özgün katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dijital okuryazarlık
• teknostres
• bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri (BİT)
• teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (TPAB)
• öğretmen eğitimi

Digital literacy as a buffer against technostress: Evidence from the ICT attitudes of in-service music teachers

Öz

This study examined the relationships among technostress, attitudes toward information and communication technologies (ICT), and digital literacy, focusing on the mediating role of digital literacy among music teachers. Data were collected from 202 music teachers across different regions of Turkey and analyzed using SPSS and PROCESS Macro. The findings revealed that technostress negatively influenced ICT attitudes, while digital literacy reduced technostress and strengthened positive ICT attitudes. Furthermore, digital literacy partially mediated the relationship between technostress and ICT attitudes. Interpreted through the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model, the Transactional Model of Stress, and Cognitive Load Theory, these results suggest that digital literacy functions as a key personal resource that helps teachers manage technological demands, lowers cognitive load, and enables them to perceive technology as an opportunity rather than a threat. The study highlights the critical role of enhancing digital literacy to mitigate technostress and foster positive ICT integration in music education. Practically, the findings imply that teacher education programs and in-service training should prioritize digital pedagogy and music-specific technologies. These findings also offer comparative international implications for teacher education and professional development, especially when aligning local initiatives with global digital competence standards. Policymakers should further align national standards with international frameworks such as DigCompEdu and ISTE. Overall, the study provides novel evidence by demonstrating the mediating role of digital literacy in the technostress–ICT attitude relationship specifically among music teachers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• digital literacy
• technostress
• information and communication technology
• technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
• teacher education

Kaynakça

1. Ahtola, S., Eronen, L., & Juvonen, A. (2025). Developing musical creativity through technology–how Finnish teachers utilize technology and implement creative and productive music education. Nordic Research in Music Education, 6, 143-162. https://doi.org/10.23865/nrme.v6.6471
2. Akgün, F. (2019). Examining the relationship between lecturers’ acceptance of information and communication technologies and technostress perceptions. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 9(2), 40-66. https://doi.org/10.22521/jesr.2019.92.1
3. Akgün, F. (2020). Evaluation of pre-service teachers’ information and communication technology competences and computational thinking skills in terms of various variables. Trakya University Journal of Social Sciences, 22(1), 629-654. https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.679581
4. Akinwale, J. O., & Olafare, F. O. (2017). Assessment of ICT literacy needs and competency level of pre-service teachers in University of Lagos. International Journal of Innovative Technology Integration in Education, 1(1), 9-14. https://ijitie.aitie.org.ng/index.php/ijitie/article/view/27
5. Aksoy, N. C., Karabay, E., & Aksoy, E. (2021). The Investigation of the digital literacy levels of classroom teachers. Journal of Selcuk Communication, 14(2), 859-894. https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.871290
6. Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suárez-Rodríguez, J., & Díaz-García, I. (2016). Teachers’ information and communication technology competences: A structural approach. Computers & Education, 100, 110-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.002
7. Altun, D. (2019). Investigating Pre-Service Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Competencies Regarding Digital Literacy Skills and Their Technology Attitudes and Usage. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(1), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n1p249
8. Arnetz, B. B., & Wiholm, C. (1997). Technological stress: Psychophysiological symptoms in modern offices. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(97)00083-4

9. Arslan, H., Şahin, Y. L., Ferhan Odabaşı, H., & Okur, M. R. (2022). An investigation of change in teachers’ technostress levels before and after the Covid-19 outbreak. Educational Media International, 59(2), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2022.2101202
10. Avcı, A. (2020). Music education in digital literacy. Akra Journal of Culture Art and Literature, 8(20), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.31126/akrajournal.650884
11. Aydın, M. K., & Semerci, A. (2017). Development of Teachers’ ICT Attitudes scale. Journal of National Education, 46(213), 155-176. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/milliegitim/issue/36137/405974
12. Ayhan, F., & Gürler, D. A. (2023). Investigation of music teachers’ views on the use of technology. Folklore Academy Journal, 6(1), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.55666/folklor.1263703
13. Babacan, M. D., & Babacan, E. (2022). Müzik öğretmen adaylarinin dijital okuryazarlik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Academic Social Resources Journal, 7(43), 1348-1351. https://doi.org/10.29228/ASRJOURNAL.65839
14. Bağcı, H., Üngören, Y., Horzum, M. B., & Ünsal, İ. (2020). Investigation of information and communication technologies skills of prospective teachers. Journal of Interdisciplinary Education: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 43-54. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jietp/issue/54500/733793
15. Başol, G. (2013). Measurement and evaluation in education. Pegem Academy.
16. Bayram, N. (2010). Introduction to structural equation modelling AMOS applications. Ezgi Bookstore.
17. Beckstead, D. (2001). Will Technology Transform Music Education?: Although technological advances make composing easier, music educators tend to use these tools to make traditional methods more accessible rather than explore new possibilities in composing. Music Educators Journal, 87(6), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399692
18. Beşer, U. (2010). Evaluation of Technology Use in Music Education in terms of Music Educators (Publication No. 29157930) [Master’s thesis, Sakarya University]. PQDT Open. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/müzik-eğitiminde-teknoloji-kullanımının/docview/2689297351/se-2
19. Best, J. W., & Khan, J. V. (2017). Research methods in education. Education Publishing House.
20. Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
21. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Çakmak, E. K., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Scientific research methods. Pegem Academy.
22. Can, A. A., & Aras, T. (2017). Evaluation of teachers’ views on the use of information technologies in elementary music lessons. Atatürk University Journal of Fine Arts Institute, (39), 9-30. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunigsed/issue/32733/338400
23. Champion, S. (1988). Technostress: Technology’s toll. School Library Journal, 35(3), 48-51.
24. Chiappetta, M. (2017). The Technostress: Definition, symptoms and risk prevention. Senses and Sciences, 4(1), 358-361. https://doi.org/10.14616/sands-2017-1-358361
25. Council of Higher Education. (2018). Teacher training undergraduate programme. https://egitim.yok.gov.tr/documentFiles/17683031271.Muzik_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf
26. Çapar, F., & Vural, Ö. F. (2013). Obstacle to e-government: Digital division. Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 1674-1692. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/2599/1170
27. Çoklar, A. N., & Bozyiğit, R. (2021). Determination of technology attitudes and technostress levels of geography teacher candidates. lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education, 26(44), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.933183
28. Çoklar, A. N., Efilti, E., & Sahin, L. (2017). Defining teachers’ technostress levels: A scale development. Online Submission, 8(21), 28-41. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/37926
29. Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. PROSPECTS, 49, 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
30. Demir, H. (2023). Technostress levels of primary school teachers. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 9(118), 9830-9841. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/sssj.74021
31. Doğan, C., & Birişçi, S. (2022). Examining the digital literacy levels of teachers with the Covid-19 process. Aegean Journal of Educational Technologies, 6(1), 53-76. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/eetd/issue/70271/1152403
32. Doğan, S. (2023). Digital literacy as factor in the attitudes of EFL teachers towards ICTs’ use [Master’s Thesis, Atatürk University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
33. Erdem, E. G., Başar, F. B., Toktay, G., Yayğaz, İ. H., & Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R. (2021). Contribution of eTwinning projects to digital literacy skills of teachers. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 7(3), 204-219. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.901129
34. Feng, X., & Liu, H. (2024). I feel blue– teacher, can you help me? A study on the effect of digital literacies on language learners’ technostress, on-line engagement, autonomy, and academic success. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01637-5
35. Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Román-Graván, P., Reyes-Rebollo, M. M., & Montenegro-Rueda, M. (2021). Impact of educational technology on teacher stress and anxiety: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 548. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020548
36. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2014). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Finnish National Board of Education.
37. Fuglseth, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2014). The effects of technostress within the context of employee use of ICT. Computers in Human Behavior, (40), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.040
38. Gall, M. (2017). TPACK and music teacher education. In The Routledge companion to music, technology, and education (pp. 329-342). Routledge.
39. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley&Sons. Inc.
40. Gökbulut, B. (2021). Öğretmenlerin teknostres ve teknopedagojik yeterlikleri arasindaki ilişki. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 22(1), 472-496. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/60452/929603
41. Gökbulut, B., & Dindaş, S. (2022). Investigation of professional burnout and technostress levels of teachers. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 13(47), 42-59. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.3096
42. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching, 8(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
43. Hair, J. F., Binz Astrachan, C., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(3), 100392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100392
44. Hietanen, L., Sepp, A., & Ruismäki, H. (2022). Music lecturers’ professional development through distant coteaching between two universities in Finland. Research Studies in Music Education, 44(2), 363-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X211017553
45. Ho, W. (2004). Use of information technology and music learning in the search for quality education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00368.x
46. Hussain, I., Sabir, M. R., ur Rehman, N., Ghaffar, I., & Majeed, K. B. (2022). A spatial of digital technology, digital literacy, performance expectancy and techno stress in pandemic conditions in Technological institutes. Journal of Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, 13(1), 140-149. https://sersc.org/journals/index.php/IJDRBC/article/view/37873
47. International Society for Technology Education. (2020a). International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) Standart. https://cms-live-media.iste.org/ISTE-Standards-One-Sheet_Combined_11-22-2021_vF4-1-4.pdf
48. International Society for Technology Education. (2020b). ISTE Standards for Educators. https://www.iste.org/standards
49. Jan, S. (2018). Investigating the relationship between students’ digital literacy and their attitude towards Using ICT. International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 26-34. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1197718.pdf
50. Jena, R. K. (2015). Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning environment: An empirical study among Indian academician. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1116-1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.020
51. Kalaycı, Ş. (Ed.). (2006). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
52. Karaman, M. K., & Karataş, A. (2009). Media literacy levels of prospective teachers. Elementary Education Online, 8(3), 798-808, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ilkonline/issue/8597/106997
53. Karaönçel, F., & Çiftci, E. (2022). The effect of virtual and acoustic instrument accompanied song teaching practices on singing skills. Erzincan University Journal of Faculty of Education, 24(2), 272-286. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1007964
54. Kay, R. H. (2008). Exploring the relationship between emotions and the acquisition of computer knowledge. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1269-1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.002
55. Kıymet, Ç., & Çakır, R. (2023). Examining the attitudes, digital competences and experiences of secondary school teachers towards emergency distance education. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 13(1), 101-133. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.1103720
56. Köksal, S. (2019). Ecognition and use of music software of students of music education department, Journal of Art and Human, 3(1), 62-78. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10614894
57. Köksal, S. (2022). A comparative examination of music teachers’ levels of job satisfaction and professional attitude and the attitudes of students too music course (Thesis No. 770806) [Doctoral dissertation, İnönü University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
58. Kumari, V., & D’Souza, F. (2016). Secondary school teachers’ digital literacy and use of ICT in teaching and learning. International Journal of Computational Research and Development, 6(1), 1418-1427. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1802628.pdf
59. Kürün, A. R. (2017). Müzik öğretmeni adaylarının güncel müzik yazılımlarını okul şarkılarına destek amaçlı kullanmalarının incelenmesi [Master’s thesis, İnönü University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
60. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). New literacies: Research and social practice [Paper presentation]. Plenary address for annual meeting of the national reading conference, San Antonio, Texsas, USA. https://www.academia.edu/1977153/New_Literacies_2nd_edn_
61. LaRose, R., Gregg, J., & Eastin, M. (1998). Audiographic telecourses for the Web: An experiment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00093.x
62. Laspinas, M. L. (2015). Technostress: Trends and challenges in the 21st century knowledge management. European Scientific Journal, 11(2), 205-217. https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/4970
63. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
64. Leong, S. (2012). Navigating the emerging futures in music education. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 4(2-3), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.4.2-3.233_1
65. Martin, A. (2006). Literacies for the digital age: Preview of Part 1. Digital Literacies for Learning, 1(3), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.29085/9781856049870.003
66. Martín-Gutiérrez, Á., Díaz-Noguera, M. D., Hervás Gómez, C., & Morales-Pérez, G. L. (2022). Models of future teachers’ adaptation to new post-pandemic digital educational scenarios. Sustainability, 14(21), 14291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114291
67. Martinovic, D., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Situating ICT in the teacher education program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 461-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.001
68. Mert, E., & Şen, Ü. S. (2019). The effect of using technology-assisted teaching materials in primary education 7th grade music teaching on academic achievements of the students. Atatürk University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 23(4), 2113-2139. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunisosbil/issue/51800/553839
69. Mills, J., & Murray, A. (2000). Music technology inspected: Good teaching in Key Stage 3. British Journal of Music Education, 17(2), 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505170000022X
70. Ministry of National Education. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretmenlik-meslegi-genel-yeterlikleri/icerik/486
71. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
72. Murat, A., & Erten, H. (2018). The use of information and communication technologies of science teacher candidates and their opinions about integration of these technologies in learning- teaching process. Fırat University Journal of Social Sciences, 28(1), 61-71. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.388068
73. Muslimin, A. I., Mukminatien, N., & Ivone, F. M. (2023). TPACK-SAMR digital literacy competence, technostress, and teaching performance: Correlational study among EFL lecturers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(2), ep409. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12921
74. Öztürk, G., & Öztürk, Ö. (2019). Müzik öğretmenlerinin hizmet içi eğitim programlarına katılım durumu ve beklentileri. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.458211
75. Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165
76. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
77. Román-García, S., Chao-Fernández, R., & Chao-Fernández, A. (2017). ICT in the music classroom. Achieving Musical Literacy in the 21st Century. In EDULEARN17 Proceedings (pp. 6205-6213). https://library.iated.org/view/ROMANGARCIA2017ICT
78. Sami, L. K., & Pangannaiah, N. B. (2006). “Technostress” A literature survey on the effect of information technology on library users. Library Review, 55(7), 429-439. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610682146
79. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass Publishers
80. Solís, P., Lago-Urbano, R., & Real Castelao, S. (2023). Factors that impact the relationship between perceived organizational support and technostress in teachers. Behavioral Sciences, 13(5), 364. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13050364
81. Sulak, S. E. (2022). Development of digital literacy scale: Validity and reliability study. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 5(31), 1329-1342. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.1345
82. Syvänen, A., Mäkiniemi, J.-P., Syrjä, S., Tammi, K. H., & Viteli, J. (2016). When does the educational use of ICT become a source of technostress for finnish teachers?. Seminar.net, 12(2), 95-109. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2281
83. Şad, S., & Nalçacı, Ö. (2015). öğretmen adaylarinin eğitimde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini kullanmaya ilişkin yeterlilik algilari. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 177-197. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mersinefd/issue/17396/181802
84. Tams, S., Hill, K., de Guinea, A. O., Thatcher, J., & Grover, V. (2014). NeuroIS-alternative or complement to existing methods? Illustrating the holistic effects of neuroscience and self-reported data in the context of technostress research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(10), 723-753. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00374
85. Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side: Examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the ACM, 54(9), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403
86. Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 413-424. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1201
87. Tibbe, T. D., & Montoya, A. K. (2022). Correcting the bias correction for the bootstrap confidence interval in mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 810258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810258
88. Tomei, L. A. (2005). Taxonomy for the technology domain. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-524-5
89. Tor, D., Başaran, S. D., & Arık, E. (2022). Examining of the digital literacy level of teacher candidates. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 23(2), 2027-2064. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/article/1047590
90. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
91. Tunç, T., Nas, Ş., & Demir, E. E. (2022). An input-output analysis of the information and communication technologies sector in Türkiye. Sosyoekonomi, 30(53), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2022.03.21
92. UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
93. Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Mäkitalo‐Siegl, K., & Sointu, E. (2018). Differences in pre‐service teachers’ knowledge and readiness to use ICT in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12225
94. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
95. Wang, K., Shu, Q., & Tu, Q. (2008). Technostress under different organizational environments: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 3002-3013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.007
96. Wang, Q., & Zhao, G. (2023). Exploring the influence of technostress creators on in‐service teachers’ attitudes toward ICT and ICT adoption intentions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(6), 1771-1789. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13315
97. West, J. J. (2023). Professional development among US music and non-music teachers: Comparative evidence from the 2017-2018 National Teacher and Principal Survey. Journal of Research in Music Education, 72(2), 113-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294231180084
98. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Seçkin Publications.
99. Yılmaz, G., & Temiz, E. (2023). The place and importance of digital literacy in music education. Turkish Studies Educational Sciences, 18(3), 1123-1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.65770
100. Yüceland, E. (2022). Analysis of the in-service training of music teachers in Turkey in terms of various variables and determination of their needs (Thesis No. 770813) [Doctoral dissertation, İnönü University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.