october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 Smith, M., & Berge, Z. L. (2009). Social learning theory in Second Life. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no2/ berge_0609.htm Wagner, C., & IP, R.K. F. (2009). Action learning with Second Life- A Pilot study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 249-256. Wang, X., Qi Wang, C. H., Fikis, D., Nguyen, T. D., & Page, J. (2010, October). Learning with Chinese Students in Second Life: Reflection by ESL student teachers. AECT, Anaheim, California. Warburton, S. (2009). Second in higher education: Assessing potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414–426. Wills, S., Leigh, E., & IP, A. (2011). The power role-based e-learning: Designing and moderating online role play. Taylor & Francis, UK. Zhu, Q., Wang, T., & Jia, Y. (2007, November). Second Life: a new platform for education. Paper presented at the First IEEE International Symposium on Information Technologies and Applications in Education (ISITAE). Kunming, China. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 263
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE IN EDUCATION: A STUDY OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS IN TURKEY Ayşe Aypay Eskişehir Osmangazi University ayseaypay@hotmail.com Halil Coşkun Çelik Siirt University coskunc@hotmail.com Ahmet Aypay Eskişehir Osmangazi University aypaya@yahoo.com Mustafa Sever Ankara University severmustafa@gmail.com ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to test a model that predicts the level of technology acceptance across pre-service teachers at the faculties of education in Turkey. The relationship among the factors that have influence on technology acceptance was investigated. Adopting a questionnaire developed by Timothy (2009) data was collected from 754 pre-service teacher education students attending five faculties of education. In addition to presenting descriptive statistics of the research variables, correlation, ANOVA, and regression analyses were carried out in the study. For the validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used. The results indicated that there is a good fit between the model and data. A path analysis was also conducted to test the model. Contrary to the expectations, self-efficacy was not found to be very effective on technology acceptance levels of pre-service teachers. Keywords: Technology acceptance, Pre-service teachers, higher education I. INTRODUCTION Technology acceptance issue has been occupying a central location in the literature concerning educational technology. This is mainly related to growing interest in integrating technology into classroom settings in an attempt to foster learning as well as advancing students’ problem solving skills through utilizing technology. Towards this end, policy makers have set technology integration as the crucial part of educational reforms while beholding teachers as the major vehicles of this process who will carry technology into classrooms (Schlechty, 2001). Teachers’ level of technology acceptance, therefore, has been regarded as one of the major determinants of such agenda. As Martin (2000) puts it, without teachers’ acceptance of technology, it is almost impossible to develop educational technology projects. This is because teachers are both gatekeepers of technology and the most important sources of delivering information in the classrooms. The current study attempts to test a model that predicts the level of technology acceptance across pre-service teachers at the education departments in Turkey. It sets out to further our understanding about how perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness impact teachers’ acceptance level of technology. There have been various models developed for integrating technology into educational settings, one of which and the most popular is Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM gained popularity across researchers rapidly with the help of empirical support particularly coming from the fields of business and education. However, this model couldn’t find as much space in education as it did in the business field, possibly due to the nature of educational organizations which have more complex and undefined dynamics and have porous boundaries in comparison to clearly structured and well-defined business organizations. Besides, rather than scrutinizing organizational problems of integrating technology into educational settings, there exists a tendency towards blaming teachers’ autonomy for almost all breakdowns of integration process (Hu, Clark, & Ma, 2003; Timothy, 2009). On the other hand, TAM provides an extremely useful theoretical tool in understanding how teachers’ technology acceptance level impacts technology integration. Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw (1989) first introduced the TAM as a theoretical extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). TRA congregates beliefs, attitudes, norms, intentions, and behaviors of individuals and asserts that these are all linked. According to this model, a person’s behavior is determined by his/her behavioral intention of performing it. This intention is itself determined by the person’s attitudes and his/her subjective Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 264
Page 2 and 3:
THE TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCA
Page 4 and 5:
Dear Colleagues, TOJET: The Turkish
Page 6 and 7:
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Annotation retrieval TOJET: The Tur
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Stage 2 Process Stage 3 Output Stag
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Learning effectiveness TOJET: The T
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix A: Questionnaire TOJET: Th
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 TOJET: The Turk
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Computer Use Transformational Leade
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 226 and 227: Diverger TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 248 and 249: clarify their misconceptions. TOJET
Page 262 and 263: *p < .05 TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 300 and 301: section to the user. TOJET: The Tur
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Statement Analysis TOJET: The Turki
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Appendices TOJET: The Turkish Onlin
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 414 and 415:
TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427:
eactions TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470:
show all

october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?