Öğretim Elemanlarının Bireysel Yenilikçilik Özellikleri ve Öğretim Teknolojilerine Yönelik Kabulleri

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı Eğitim Fakültesinde görevli öğretim elemanlarının bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile öğretim teknolojilerine yönelik kabullerinin incelenmesidir. Karma yöntemsel yaklaşımla incelenen araştırmanın çalışma grubunda 2013-2014 Öğretim yılında bir devlet üniversitesinde görev yapan 92 öğretim elemanı yer almaktadır. Araştırmada nicel veriler için Hurt, Joseph ve Cook (1977) tarafından geliştirilen ve Türk kültürüne uyarlaması Kılıçer ve Odabaşı (2010) tarafından gerçekleştirilen “Bireysel Yenilikçilik” ölçeği ve Davis, tarafından geliştirilen “Teknoloji Kabul Ölçeği (TAM) ”kullanılmıştır (Davis, 1989). TAM ölçeği araştırmacı tarafından Türk kültürüne uyarlanmıştır. Nitel veriler ise yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılarak farklı uzmanlık alanı ve kıdeme sahip 13 öğretim elemanından toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin çözümlenmesinde istatiksel testlerden, nitel verilerin çözümlenmesinde ise içerik analizinden yararlanılmıştır. Nicel ve nitel verilerden elde edilen bulgulara göre öğretim elemanlarının yüksek düzeyde bireysel yenilikçi özelliğine sahip olup, öncü olma karakterinde oldukları ve öğretim teknolojilerine yönelik kabul, kullanım ve yarar algısına ilişkin olumlu görüş içerisinde bulundukları ortaya çıkmıştır. Katılımcıların bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ve öğretim teknolojilerine yönelik kabul algıları arasında pozitif yönlü ve anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada ayrıca nicel ve nitel verilerin birbirini desteklediği görülmüş ve katılımcılar tarafından yenilikçilik ve öğretim teknolojilerinin kabulüne ilişkin yorumlarda bulunulmuş ve araştırmacı tarafından bazı öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bireysel yenilikçilik,teknoloji kabulu,öğretim teknolojileri,öğretim elemanı

Investigation of Instructional Technology Acceptance and Individual Innovativeness of Academicians

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate individual innovativeness and instructional technologies acceptance of academicians in Faculty of Education. The participants of this mixed methods study are 92 academicians on duty between the years of 2013 and 2014 in public universities. This study was conducted using a scale of “Individual Innovativeness”, created by Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1997) and adapted by Kılıcer and Odabasi to comply with Turkish culture. Another scale of “Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)” developed by Davis (1989) was also used for the purpose of this study. TAM scale was adapted by the researcher to comply with Turkish culture. Qualitative data were collected from 13 academicians with different specialty areas and seniority using semi-structured interview form. Statistical tests were used to analyze quantitative data, and content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. According to the findings obtained from quantitative and qualitative data that academicians have high levels of individual innovative characteristics such as leadership characteristic. The academicians also have positive perspectives towards acceptance, usage, and usefulness of instructional technologies. This study found a positive and significant relationship between participants’ individual innovativeness characteristics and acceptance perception towards instructional technology. This study also showed that qualitative and quantitative data supported one another. The researcher made suggestions regarding innovativeness and instructional technology acceptance.

Keywords

• Individual innovativeness,technology acceptance,instructional technologies,academicians

Kaynakça

1. Akman, I., & Mishra, A. (2015). Sector diversity in green ınformation technology practices: Technology acceptance model perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 477–486.
2. Akdeniz, A., & Kadı, A. (2016, July). Investigating individual innovativeness levels and lifelong learning tendencies of students in TMSC. ICLEL 2016, July 21th-23th, Leipaja University, Liepaja-LATVIA.
3. Al-Husseini, S. Elbeltagi, I. (2016). Transformational leadership and innovation: A comparison study between Iraq's public and private higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 159-181. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.927848
4. Argon, T., İsmetoğlu, M., & Yılmaz, Çelik-Yılmaz, D. (2015). Branş öğretmenlerinin teknopedagojik eğitim yeterlilikleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerine ilişkin görüşleri [The opinions of branch teachers about their technopedagogical education competencies and individual innovativeness levels]. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(2), 319-333.
5. Arı, E., Yılmaz, V., & Bekteş, R. (2016). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sosyal ağ kullanımına ilişkin davranışlarının teknoloji kabul modeli ile araştırılması [Researching the behaviours of the university students regarding social networking by technology acceptance model]. Int. Journal of Management Economics and Business, 12(27), 67-81.
6. 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]. Jounal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 42-59.
7. Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 533-548.
8. Baki, A., & Gökçek, T. (2012). Karma Yöntem Araştırmalarına Genel Bir Bakış. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(42), 1-21.

9. Bolat, Y., İ, Aydemir, M. ve Karaman, S. (2017). Uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin öğretimsel etkinliklerde mobil internet kullanımlarının teknoloji kabul modeline göre incelenmesi [Investigation of Distance Learners’ Mobile Internet Usage for Instructional Activities Based on The Technology Acceptance Model]. GUJGEF, 37(1), 63-91
10. Brenner, A. M., & Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that promote and inhibit technology ıntegration transfer in early career teachers. TechTrends, 60, 136–144.
11. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis: For applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12. Bülbül, T., & Çuhadar, C. (2012). Okul yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği öz-yeterlik algıları ile bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine yönelik kabulleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Analysis of the relationship between school administrators’ perceptions of technology leadership self-efficacy and their acceptance of ICT]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 23, 474 - 499.
13. Chang, C, T., Hajiyev, J., & Su, C., R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use elearning in Azerbaijan? The General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-learning approach. Computers and Education, 111, 128-143.
14. Chen, H. J., & Lu, J. T. (2016) Clarifying the impact of social escapism in users’ acceptance for online entertaining services—An extension of the technology acceptance model based on online karaoke television services users. Information Systems Management, 33(2), 141-153, doi: 10.1080/10580530.2016.1155949
15. Cheng, C. I., Chen, S. C., & Yen, D. C. (2015). Continuance intention of e-portfolio system: A confirmatory and multi-group invariance analysis of technology acceptance model. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 42, 17–23.
16. Chuttur, M.Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Association for Information Systems, 9(37), 1-20.
17. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Çoklar, A. N., & Özbek, A. (2017). Analyzing of relationship between teachers’ individual innovativeness levels and their tpack self-efficacies. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(1), 427-440. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4413
19. Davis, F. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results, (unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
20. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of ınformation technology. Retrieved from www.jstor.org
21. Demir Başaran, S., & Keleş, S. (2015). Yenilikçi kimdir? Öğretmenlerin yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Who is Innovative? Examination of Teachers’ Innovativeness Level]. H.U. Journal of Education, 30(4), 106-118.
22. Demiralay, R., Bayır, E. A., & Gelibolu, M. F. (2016). Öğrencilerin bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile çevrimiçi öğrenmeye hazır bulunuşlukları ilişkisinin incelenmesi [Investigation of relationship between students’ personal innovativeness and readiness for online learning]. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(1), 161-168.
23. Demircioğlu, T., Yavuz Konokman, G., & Akay, C. (2016). Eğitim Fakültesi öğretim elemanlarının yenilikçilik düzeylerinin Avrupa Birliği hayat boyu öğrenme projelerine yönelik tutumlarına etkisi [The effect of Proactivitiy of Academicians’ at Education Faculty on their attitudes towards European Union lifelong learning projects]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 15(59), 1120-1137.
24. Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 210-232.
25. Frankel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGrawHill.
26. Goldsmith, R.E., & Foxall, G.R. (2003). The measurement of innovativeness. In L.V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation (pp.321-329). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
27. Gökçearslan, Ş., Karademir, T., & Korucu, A., T. (2017). Preservice Teachers’ Level of Web Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Assessment by Individual Innovativeness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1) 70–94.
28. Hannan, A. (2005). Innovating in higher education: Contexs for change in learning technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 975-985.
29. Hannafin, M. J. (2012). Student-centered learning. In N. Seel (Ed), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learnıng (Part 19, 3211-3214). New York, NY: Springer.
30. Hong, J., C., Lin, P., H., & Hsieh P., C. (2017). The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 264-272.
31. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.
32. Jaskyte, K.,Taylor, H., & Smariga, R. (2009). Student and faculty perceptions of innovative teaching. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 111–116.
33. Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods resarch: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7).
34. Karasar, N. (1999). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
35. Kelly, H. (2014). A path analysis of educator perceptions of open educational resources using the Technology Acceptance Model. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2).
36. Kılıç, H., & Ayvaz Tuncel, Z. (2014, May). İlköğretim branş öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeyleri ve yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri. Paper presented at the Conference 3. Ulusal Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Kongresi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep.
37. Kılıçer, K. (2008). Teknolojik yeniliklerin yayılmasını ve benimsenmesini arttıran etmenler [Factors increasing the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 209–222.
38. Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel Yenilikçilik Ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması.
39. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education) 38, 150-164.
40. Kim, M., & Chai, S. (2017). The impact of supplier innovativeness, information sharing and strategic sourcing on improving supply chain agility: Global supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 187, 42–52.
41. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43, 740–755.
42. Kwee-Meier, S. T., Bützler, J. E., & Schlick, C. (2016). Development and validation of a technology acceptance model for safety-enhancing, wearable locating systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(5), 394-409, doi:10.1080/0144929X.2016. 1141986.
43. Lu, J., Yao, J. E., & Yu, C. S. (2005). Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless ınternet services via mobile technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(3), 245-268.
44. Luan, W. S., & Teo, T. (2011). Student teachers’ acceptance of computer technology: An application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In T. Teo (Ed.), Technology Acceptance in Education: Research and Issues (pp. 43-61). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
45. Masrom, M. (2007, May). Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Paper presented at 12th International Conference on Education, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education University Brunei Darussalam.
46. Ma, W.W., Anderson, R., & Strith, K. O. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 387-395.
47. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
48. Moore G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2(3),192–222.
49. Ntemana, T. S., & Olatokun, W. (2012). Analyzing the influence of diffusion of innovation attributes on lecturers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies. An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 8(2), 179–197.
50. Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlar ileistatiksel veri analizi-1 [Statistical data analysis with packet programs-I ] (5th ed.). Eskişehir: Kaan Bookstore.
51. Özgür, H. (2013). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Exploring of the relationship between critical thinking tendencies and individual innovativeness of CEIT department pre-service teachers]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2), 409-420.
52. Öztürk, Z. Y., & Summak, M. S. (2014). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçiliklerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of primary school teachers individual innovativeness]. Special Issue on the Proceedings of the 3rd ISCS Conference, SI(1), 844-853.
53. Persico, D., Manca, S., & Pozzi, F. (2014). Adapting the Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate the innovative potential of e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 614–622.
54. Pollock, K. (2008). The four pillars of ınnovation: An elementary school perspective. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(2), 1-20.
55. Powell, L., & Wimmer, H. (2016). Parental perceptions and recommendations of computing majors: A technology acceptance model approach. Proceedings of the EDSIG Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada USA.
56. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
57. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
58. Rosen, P.A. (2005). The effect of personal ınnovatıveness on technology acceptance and use (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University. Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
59. Samancıoğlu, M., Bağlıbel, M., Keser Özmantar, Z., & Çetin, H. (2015). Okul yöneticilerinin eğitim yönetimi bilgi sistemlerine ilişkin görüşleri: Memnuniyet, algılanan fayda ve göreve uygunluk arasındaki ilişki [School administrators’ opinions regarding to educational management information systems: The relationship among satisfaction, perceived usefulness and task fit]. Balıkesir University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 18(34), 193-212.
60. Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2006). Exploring the influence of gender on the web usage via partial least squares. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(1), 19-36.
61. Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247–256.
62. Shih, Y., Y., Lu, Y., H., Liu, T., Y., & Wu, M., F. (2017). The staffs’ adoption intention of knowledge management system in green hospital— the theory of technology acceptance model applied. The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 9(3), 27-36.
63. Şahin, I., & Thompson A. (2006). Using Rogers’ Theory to ınterpret ınstructional computer use by COE Faculty. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 81-104.
64. Şahin İzmirli, & Gürbüz (2017). An investigation of the relationship between the individual innovativeness and problem solving skills of teacher candidates: The Case of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 29-43.
65. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. (5th ed.) New York: Allynand Bacon.
66. Tarhini, A., Scott, M., Sharma, S., & Abbasi, M. (2015). Differences in intention to use educational RSS feeds between Lebanese and British students: A multi-group analysis based on the Technology Acceptance Model. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(1), 14-29.
67. 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
68. Teo, T. (2011). Technology Acceptance in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
69. Timucin, M. (2009). Diffusion of technological innovation in a foreign languages unit in Turkey: A focus on risk aversive teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 75-86.
70. Turan, A. H., & Çolakoğlu, B. E. (2008). Yüksek öğrenimde öğretim elemanlarının teknoloji kabulü ve kullanımı: Adnan Menderes Üniversitesinde ampirik bir değerlendirme [Faculty’s acceptance and use of technology in higher education: An empirical assessment at Adnan Menderes University]. Doğuş University Journal, 9(1), 106-121.
71. Usluel, Y. K., & Mazman, S. G. (2010). Eğitimde yeniliklerin yayılımı, kabulü ve benimsenmesi sürecinde yer alan öğeler: Bir içerik analizi çalışması [The factors that play role in the process of diffusion, acceptance or adoption of innovations in education]. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 3(39), 60-74.
72. Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. V. (2011). A new ICT curriculum for primary in flanders: Defining and predicting teacher’s perceptions of ınnovation attributes. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 124-135.
73. Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297-326.
74. Yavuz Konokman, G., Yokuş, G., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2016). Yenilikçi materyal tasarlamanın sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yenilikçilik düzeylerine etkisi [The effect of designing innovative material on the elementary school pre-service teachers’ innovativeness]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(3), 857-878.
75. Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (8th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
76. Yılmaz, O., & Bayraktar, D. M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of educational technologies and their individual innovativeness categories. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3458 – 3461.
77. Zhu, C. (2015). Organisational culture and technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 65–79.