Examining Pre-service Teachers’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Intentions Related to Using Educational Technologies

Öz

One of the most common strategies used to integrate technology in teacher education programs is single technology courses. Technology integration is not modeled adequately in teacher education or schools. Therefore, the content of technology courses is crucial. This study aims to investigate the effect of a single technology course on 65 pre-service teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to use computers. Course focused to make pre-service teachers think reflectively about technology use. Single group pretest-posttest was utilized. Data collection tool (survey) was administered to participants both at the beginning and end of the course and data was analyzed via descriptive analysis, independent samples t-test, ANCOVA, and correlation analysis. At the beginning of the course, data was collected to describe participants’ technological background. Pre-service teachers mostly reported their computer proficiency as “intermediate” or “upper intermediate”. Findings show a significant increase in pre-service teachers’ attitudes and intentions at the 0.001 level and self-efficacy beliefs at the 0.05 level. Also, a positive moderate relationship (r =0.501) was found between attitudes and intentions. In the light of the findings, it is suggested to engage pre-service teachers with activities that persuade them to teach with technology and improve their attitudes pertaining to technology integration.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pre-service teachers
• educational technologies
• attitudes towards educational technology
• computer self-efficacy
• technology course

Öğretmen Adaylarının Eğitim Teknolojilerine İlişkin Tutumlarının, Öz Yeterliklerinin ve Kullanım Amaçlarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Öğretmen eğitimi programlarında yaygın bir biçimde kullanılan teknoloji entegrasyonu stratejilerinden birisi teknoloji dersleridir. Okullarda veya öğretmen eğitimi programlarında teknoloji kullanımı yeterli derecede modellenemediğinden teknoloji derslerinin içeriği büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada, içeriği öğretmen adaylarını teknolojinin kullanımı hakkında derin bir biçimde düşünmeye sevk etmeye odaklanmış bir bilgisayar dersinin 65 öğretmen adayının tutumları, öz yeterlik inançları ve bilgisayarı kullanım amaçları üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma tek gruplu ön test-son test deneysel desen olarak tasarlanmıştır. Dersin başında ve sonunda öğretmen adaylarına uygulanan eğitim teknolojilerine ilişkin tutum, öz yeterlik ve bilgisayar kullanma amacı ölçeklerinden elde edilen veriler betimsel analiz, t-testi, ANCOVA ve korelasyon analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Dersin başında öğretmen adaylarının teknolojik birikimlerinin tasvir edilmesi amacı ile toplanan verilere göre, öğretmen adayları bilgisayar kullanma düzeylerini orta veya iyi olarak belirtmişlerdir. Dersin sonunda öğretmen adaylarının tutum ve bilgisayar kullanım amaçlarında 0,001 seviyesinde; öz yeterliklerinde ise 0,05 seviyesinde anlamlı bir artış olduğu, öğretmen adaylarının tutum ve kullanım amaçları arasında orta derecede (r = 0,501) olumlu bir ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular ışığında, öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji ile öğretim yapabilecekleri konusunda ikna olmalarını, teknoloji hakkında yansıtıcı bir biçimde düşünmelerini ve tutumlarının gelişmesini sağlayacak etkinlikler ile meşgul edilmeleri gerektiği önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen adayları
• eğitim teknolojileri
• eğitim teknolojilerine ilişkin tutum
• bilgisayar öz yeterliği
• bilgisayar dersi

Kaynakça

1. Abdüsselam, M. S., & Yıldız, C. (2015, September 09-11). Trends of middle and secondary school students toward computer use. 3rd International Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education Symposium, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.
2. Abdüsselam, M. S., Yıldız, C., & Göl, R. (2016). Middle and secondary school students’ approaches to computer and internet. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social Sciences, 4, 508-518.
3. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitude structure and behavior relations. In A. R. Partkanis, S. T. Berckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
5. Akçay, N. O., & Halmatov, M. (2015). Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar destekli eğitim yapmaya ilişkin tutumlarının incelenmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 44-50.
6. Albion, P. R. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers' preparedness for teaching with technology. InSociety for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference(pp. 1602-1608). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
7. Anderson, S. E., & Maninger, R. M. (2007). Pre-service teachers' abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151-172.
8. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.

9. Baki, A., Kutluca, T. & Birgin, O. (2008). Matematik öğretmeni adaylarının bilgisayar destekli eğitime yönelik öz-yeterlik algılarının incelenmesi. VIII. International Educational Technology Conference Bildiriler Kitabı, 6–9 May, 77–81, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
10. Baltacı, S., Yıldız, A., Kıymaz, Y., & Aytekin, C. (2016). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilere yönelik GeoGebra destekli etkinlik hazırlamak için yürütülen tasarım tabanlı araştırma sürecinden yansımalar. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 70- 90.
11. Baltaci, S. & Yildiz, A. (2015). GeoGebra 3D from the perspectives of elementary pre-service mathematics teachers who are familiar with a number of software programs. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 12-17.
12. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
13. Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51),1-31.
14. Berkant, H. G., & Efendioğlu, A. (2010). Sınıf öğretmenliği bölümü öğrencilerinin bilgisayarla ilgili öz-yeterlik algıları ve bilgisayar destekli eğitim yapmaya ilişkin tutumları. 9. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu, (20-22 Mayıs 2010), Elâzığ.
15. Blackmore, M., Stanley, N., Coles, D., Hodgkinson, K., Taylor, C., & Vaughan, G. (1992). A preliminary view of students’ information technology experience across UK initial teacher training institutions. Journal of Information Technology in Teacher Education, 1(2), 241–254.
16. Brawner, C., & Allen, R. (2006). Future teachers’ classroom applications of technology. Computers in the Schools, 23(1/2), 33-44.
17. Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of research on technology in education, 39(1), 22-43.
18. Brown, D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). From the university to the elementary classroom: Students’ experiences in learning to integrate technology in instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 599-621.
19. Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641.
20. Chen, R. J. (2010). Investigating models for pre-service teachers’ use of technology to support student-centered learning. Computers & Education, 55(1), 32-42.
21. Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411- 434.
22. Clark, K. D. (2001). Urban middle school teachers’ use of instructional technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 178-195.
23. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education (6th Ed.). London: Routledge.
24. Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 198-211.
25. Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158.
26. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education.
27. Drenoyianni, H., & Selwood, I. (1998). Conceptions or misconceptions? Primary teachers’ perceptions and use of computers in the classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 3, 87-99.
28. Ertmer, P. A., Evenbeck, E., Cennamo, K. S., &Lehman, J. D. (1994). Enhancing self-efficacy for computer Technologies through the use of positive classroom experiences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 45-62.
29. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll) (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publication.
30. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). Validity and reliability, how to design and evaluate research in science education (8th Ed.). McGraw-HillCompanies.
31. Francis, L. J. (1994). The relationship between computer related attitudes and gender stereotyping of computer use. Computers & Education, 22(4), 283-289.
32. Geoghegan, W. H. (1994, July 17–20). Whatever happened to instructional technology? Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association, Baltimore, Maryland.
33. Gerçek, C., Köseoğlu, P., Yılmaz, M., & Soran, H. (2006). Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilgisayar Kullanımına Yönelik Tutumlarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30), 130-139.
34. Gunter, G. A. (2001). Making a difference: Using emerging Technologies and teaching strategies to restructure an undergraduate technology course for pre-service teachers. Educational Media International, 38(1), 13-20.
35. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
36. Imbimbo, J. (2003). The voice of the new teacher. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.
37. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154.
38. Kanaya, T., Light, D., & Culp, K. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes from a technology focused Professional development program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 313-329.
39. Kartal, B., & Kartal, T. (2018). Examining pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance. Polat, Ü. & Bay, E. (Eds). New direction in Education, IV. International Symposium on Educational and Social Sciences in Turkish Cultural Geography.(s.12-20)içinde. Baku / AZERBAIJAN.
40. Kartal, T. (2017). Fen Eğitiminde Teknoloji Entegrasyonu. İçinde Demirci Güler, M. P. (Ed.), Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi: Yaklaşımlar ve Kazanımlar Doğrultusunda Uygulama Örnekleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
41. Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383–408.
42. King, J., Bond, T., & Blandford, S. (2002). An investigation of computer anxiety by gender and grade. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 69–84.
43. Kutluca, T., & Ekici, G. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar destekli eğitime ilişkin tutum ve öz-yeterlik algılarının incelenmesi.Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(38), 177-188.
44. Lambert, J., & Cuper, P. (2009). Multimedia Technologies and familiar spaces: 21st century teaching for 21st century learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(3), 264–276.
45. Lambert, J., & Gong, Y. (2009, June). 21st Century Pre-service Teacher Technology Training: What Do Five Years of Research Tell Us?. In EdMedia + Innovate Learning (pp. 2199- 2204). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
46. Lambert, J., & Gong, Y. (2010). 21st century paradigms for pre-service teacher technology preparation. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 54-70.
47. Lambert, J., Gong, Y., & Cuper, P. (2008). Technology, transfer and teaching: The impact of a single technology course on pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes and ability. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(4), 385-410.
48. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom: Development scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.
49. Lin, C. Y. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using technology in the mathematics classroom. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(3), 341-360.
50. Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 220-237.
51. McRobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S., &Stein, S. J. (2000). Pre-service primary teachers' thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 81-101.
52. Milbrath, Y. C. L., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 373-396.
53. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
54. Niess, M. L. (2013). Central component descriptors for levels of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 173-198.
55. Oh, E., & French, D. R. (2004). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of an introductory instructional technology course. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 3(1), 37-48.
56. Olpak, Y. Z., Baltacı, S., & Arıcan, M. (2018). Investigation the effects of peer instruction on pre-service mathematics teachers' achievements in statistics probability, Education and Information Technologies, 23, 2323–2340.
57. Piper, D. (2003). The relationship between leadership, self-efficacy, computer experience, attitudes, and teachers’ implementation of computers in the classroom. In C. Crawford, D. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Journal of Research on Technology in Education Teacher Education International Conference2003 (pp. 1057–1060). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
58. Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
59. Ropp, M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in pre-service teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402-424.
60. Sanders, D. W., & Morrison-Shetlar, A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 251-262.
61. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103-112.
62. Savenye, W. C. (1993). Measuring teacher attitudes toward interactive computer technologies. New Orleans: Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED362200.)
63. Shamburg, C. (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for urban early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004(1) 227–244.
64. Simonson, M., & Maushak, N. (1996). Instructional technology and attitude change. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communication and technology (pp. 984-1016). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
65. Spaulding, M. (2016, March). Does a Web 2.0 based technology integration course develop TPACK ready preservice teachers?. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3075-3081). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
66. Sutton, S. R. (2010). A case study exploring the pre-service technology training experiences of novice teachers (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
67. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics(6th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/ Pearson Education.
68. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312.
69. Wang, F., Kinzie, M. B., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying technology to inquiry-based learning in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 381- 389.
70. Wang, L., Ertmer, A. P., & Newby, J. T. (2004). Increasing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250.
71. Willis, E. M., & de Montes, L. S. (2002). Does requiring a technology course in preservice teacher education affect student teacher’s technology use in the classroom?. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(3), 76-80.
72. Wilson, B. (1999). Redressing the anxiety imbalance: computer phobia and educators. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(6), 445-453.
73. Yenilmez, K., Turgut, M., & Ersoy, M. (2011). İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmeni Adaylarının Eğitsel İnternet Kullanımına Yönelik Öz-Yeterlik İnançları. Education Sciences, 7(1), 371-379.
74. Yıldırım, S. (2002). Effects of an educational computing course on pre-service and in-service teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 479-495.
75. Yıldız, A., & Baltacı, S. (2017). Reflections from the lesson study for the development of techno-pedagogical competencies in teaching fractal geometry. European Journal of Educational Research, 6(1), 41-50.
76. Yıldız, A., & Baltacı, S. (2017a). Bilim Sanat Merkezi matematik öğretmenlerinin kurdukları geometrik inşa problemlerine bilişsel seviye düzeyleri açısından ders imecesi çalışmalarının etkisi. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 1481-1516.
77. Yıldız, A., Baltacı, S., & Demir, B.K. (2017). Reflection on the analytic Geometry Courses: The GeoGebra software and its effect on creative thinking, Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(4), 620-630.
78. Yılmaz, M., Gerçek, C., Köseoğlu, P., & Soran, H. (2006). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Biyoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilgisayarla İlgili Öz-Yeterlik İnançlarının İncelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30), 278-287.