Relationship Between Nursing Students Innovativeness Characteristics and Online Learning Systems Acceptance

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 50 - 61, 30.01.2022

Ayşe Şener Taplak , Yeter Şener

https://doi.org/10.51972/tfsd.1010403

Öz

Purpose: This study was aimed to determine the relationship between undergraduate nursing students’ individual innovativeness characteristics and technology acceptance during emergency distance learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted with 350 nursing students. Personal information form, individual innovativeness scale (IIS), and online learning systems acceptance scale (OLSAS) were used for data collection. The data were analyzed by independent samples t-test, One-way ANOVA, Duncan test, Pearson's correlation analysis.
Results: Most of the nursing students were at a traditionalist and skeptical innovativeness characteristic level. Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness sub-dimensions, and total OLSAS mean scores were 9.67 ± 3.21, 16.26 ± 6.92, and 25.92 ± 9.26, respectively. A statistically significant, weak positive correlation was found between the total IIS, opinion leadership, and risk-taking scores and the total OLSAS, OLSAS-PEU, and OLSAS-PU scores. Students with high OLSAS, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness scores expressed positive opinions toward the lesson in all dimensions, such as interest, adaptation, success, perceived benefit from the lesson, and motivation.
Conclusion: It can be said that technology acceptance is important in nursing education and as the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness increases, a positive effect is seen on outcomes, such as interest, adaptation, motivation, and success. When designing online learning systems to be used in nursing education, recommended taking into account innovativeness, the perceived usefulness, ease of use.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Distance Education, İnnovativeness, Nursing Students

Kaynakça

• Affouneh, S., Salha, S., Khlaif, Z.N. (2020). Designing quality e-learning environments for emergency remote teaching in coronavirus crisis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Science, 11(2), 135–137. 10.30476/ijvlms.2020.86120.1033.
• Aguilera-Hermida, A.P., Quiroga-Garza, A., Gómez-Mendoza, S., Del Río Villanueva, C.A., Avolio Alecchi, B., Avcı, D. (2021). Comparison of students' use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19 in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Turkey. Education and Information Technologies, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10473-8.
• Aguilera-Hermida, A.P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to Covid-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1. 10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011.
• Akgün, F. (2017). Investigation of ınstructional technology acceptance and ındividual ınnovativeness of academicians. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI), 8(3), 291-322. doi: 10.17569/tojqi.292135.
• Al-Gahtani, S.S. (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics,12(1),27–50.
• Almaiah, M.A., Jalil, M.A., Man, M. (2016). Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(4), 453–485.
• American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2020). Considerations for COVID‐19 Preparedness and Response in U.S. Schools of Nursing. https://www.aacnnursing.org/News-Information/COVID-19/AACN-Recommendations. Accessed August 2, 2020.
• Bodur, G. (2018). The Relationship Between Individual Innovativeness and Entrepreneurship Tendency of Nursing Students. Journal of Health Sciences and Professions, 5(2), 139-148. doi: 10.17681/hsp.349105.
• Crowther, M.S., Keller, C.C., Waddoups, G.L. (2004). Improving the quality and effectiveness of computer-mediated Instruction Through Usability Evaluations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 289- 303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00390.x.
• Çetintaş Öner, S., Çelik, G., Bay, H., Yeşil, Y., Çeber Turfan, E. (2018). Evaluation of midwifery distance education students e-learning readiness. Medical Sciences (NWSAMS), 13(1), 10-18. doi: 10.12739/NWSA.2018.13.1.1B0046.
• Daniel, S.J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 1–6.
• Dewart, G., Corcoran, L., Thirsk, L., Petrovic, K. (2020). Nursing education in a pandemic: Academic challenges in response to COVID-19. Nurse Educ Today, Sep;92, 104471. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104471.
• Durmuş İskender, M., Kaş Güner, C., Oluk, A. (2018). Determining of the relationship between critical thinking dispositions and individual innovativeness of nursing students. The Journal of International Social Research, 11(56), 489-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.20185639022.
• Erol, Ö., Yacan, L., Hayta, R., Şahin, İ., Yağcı, M. (2018). Innovation characteristics of nursing students and affecting factors. Journal of Educatıon and Research in Nursıng, 15 (3), 142-146. doi:10.5222/HEAD.2018.142.
• Ertuğ, N., Kaya, H. (2017). Investigating the individual innovativeness profiles and barriers to innovativeness in undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Educatıon and Research in Nursıng, 14 (3), 192-197. doi:10.5222/HEAD.2017.192.
• Geng, S., Law, K.M.Y., Niu, B. (2019). Investigating self-directed learning and technology readiness in blending learning environment. Int J Educ Technol H., 16(17). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0147-0.
• Gündüz, Ş. (2021). Examining the relationship between ındividual ınnovativeness and digital nativeness levels of teachers. Education and Science, 46(205), 261-277.
• Ho, I., Cheong, K.Y., Weldon, A. (2021). Predicting student satisfaction of emergency remote learning in higher education during COVID-19 using machine learning techniques. PloS One, 16(4), e0249423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249423.
• Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning. Accessed 22 May 2021.
• Ilgaz, H. (2008). The Contribution of Technology Acceptance and Community Sense to Learner Satisfaction in Distance Education. (Unpublished master's thesis). Aşkar, P., (consultant), Hacettepe University Institute of Science and Technology, Ankara.
• Kahyaoğlu Süt, H., Küçükkaya, B. (2016). The views of nursing students on distance education. Journal of Educatıon and Research in Nursing, 13(3), 235-243. doi:10.5222/HEAD.2016.235.
• Kemp, A.C., Palmer, E., Strelan, P. (2019). A taxonomy of factors affecting attitudes towards educational technologies for use with technology acceptance models. British Journal Education Technology, 50(5), 2394-2413. doi:10.1111/BJET.12833.
• Keskin Kızıltepe, S., Kurtgöz, A. (2020). Determination of nursing students' attitudes and views towards distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic process. The Journal of International Social Research, 13(74),558-566.
• Keskin M., Özer Kaya, D. (2020). Evaluation of students’ feedbacks on web-based distance education in the COVID-19 Process. İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Universty of Health Science Journal, 5(2), 59-67.
• Kim, E-J., Kim, J.J., Han, S-H. (2021). Understanding student acceptance of online learning systems in higher education: application of social psychology theories with consideration of user ınnovativeness. Sustainability, 13, 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020896.
• Korucu, A.T., Olpak, Y.Z. (2015). Examination of teacher candidate’s individual innovativeness properties from the different variables. Educational Technology, Theory and Practice, 5(1), 111–127.
• Li, Y., Tan, C.H., Teo, H.H., Tan, B.C.Y. (2006). Innovative usage of ınformation technology in Singapore Organizations: Do CIO characteristics make a difference? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(2), 177-190.
• Marangunić, N., Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univ Access Inf Soc 14, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
• Özbay, Ö., Çınar, S. (2020). Views of nursing students on distance education. EDUCCON, 37-45.
• Özen, N., Bal Özkaptan, B., Akyar, İ., Terzioğlu, F. (2020). Relationship between information literacy and individual innovativeness among nursing students. Koç Unıversty Journal of Educatıon and Research in Nursing, 17(2), 120-127. doi:10.5222/HEAD.2020.66742.
• Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Health-b. (2020). Decisions Taken for Institutions. https://covid19bilgi.saglik.gov.tr/tr/alinankaralar.htm. Accessed April 13, 2020.
• Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovation. Third Edition. New York: The free publication.
• Salloum, S.A., Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., Tarhini, A. (2019). Factors affecting the E-learning acceptance: A case study from UAE. Education and Information Technologies 24(1), 509–530.
• Sarıoğlu Kemer, A., Altuntaş, S. (2017). Adaptation of the individual innovativeness scale in nursing profesion: Turkish validity- reliability study. Journal of Educatıon and Research in Nursing, 14 (1), 52-61. doi: 10.5222/HEAD.2017.052.
• Sarıtaş, E., Barutçu, S. (2020). Digital transformation in education and students' readiness to learn online: A research on Pamukkale University students in the period of pandemic. Journal of Internet Applications and Management, 11(1), 5 – 22. doi: 10.34231/iuyd.706397.
• Seven, M., Abban, S. (2021). Distance nursing education during COVİD 19 pandemic: An international experience. İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Universty of Health Science Journal, 6 (1), 29-32.
• Sezgin, S., Fırat, M. (2020). Transition to distance education and the danger of digital divide in the COVİD-19 pandemic. Journal of Open Education Applications and Research, 6(4), 37-54.
• Sis Çelik, A., Bayrakçeken, E., Kılınç, T. (2020). Individual innovation characteristics according to nurses’ gender roles and affecting factors. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences, 23(3), 397 – 409. doi: 10.17049/ataunihem.618080.
• Tarhan, M., Doğan, P. (2018). The relationship between nursing students' individual innovative behaviors and autonomy levels. Journal of Health Science and Professions, 5(1),51- 58. doi: 10.17681/hsp.339991.
• Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of e-learning in developing countries: a structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306-328. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635.
• Turan, A., Özbebek Tunç, A., Zehir, C. (2015). A Theoretical model proposal: Personal ınnovativeness and user ınvolvement as antecedents of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.327.
• UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 Education Response. Education Sector Issue Notes. (2020, 16 Nisan). Retrieved from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark: /48223/pf0000373305.
• Utli, H., Vural Doğru, B. (2018). Evaluation of ındividual ınnovative characteristics of nursing and midwifery students. Gümüşhane University Journal of Health Science, 7(3), 23 – 32.
• Wallace, S., Schuler, M. S., Kaulback, M., Hunt, K., & Baker, M. (2021). Nursing student experiences of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing Forum, 56(3), 612–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12568.
• Yakubu, M.N., Dasuki, S.I. (2019). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning technologies among higher education students in Nigeria: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Information Development, 35(3), 492-502.
• Yıldız, V.A. (2020). Opınıons of unıversıty students on the educatıon they receıved durıng the pandemıc perıod. Atatürk Faculty of Education Graduate School of Educational Sciences. In: Conference Proceeding Book (p. 19). Near East University. https://icier2020.neu.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/38/2020/09/31/ICIER-2020-Proceeding-book-published-16.09.2020.pdf.
• Zengin, H., Tiryaki, Ö., Çınar, N. (2019). Innovation in nursing and related factors. Journal of Health and Nursing Management, 6(3), 207-217. doi:10.5222/SHYD.2019.74745.