GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012)
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions about
Technology in Education
Öğretmen Adaylarının Eğitimde Teknoloji Kullanımına
İlişkin Algıları
Mustafa Serdar KÖKSAL1, Süleyman YAMAN2
1
İnönü Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, İlköğretim Bölümü, Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalı,
Malatya/TÜRKİYE, mustafa.koksal@inonu.edu.tr
Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi, Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi, İlköğretim Bölümü, Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği
Anabilim Dalı, Zonguldak/TÜRKİYE, slymnymn@gmail.com
2
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was determined as to analyze technology perceptions of Turkish prospective
teachers who are in different universities, in terms of university membership and learning style
variables. In the study, survey method was utilized by applying Kolb Learning Style Inventory and
Technology Perception Scale. The study comprised of 518 elementary school prospective
teachers. As a result of the ANOVA application, it has been found that there is a statistically
significant main effect for university membership while there is no significant main effect for
learning style variable and there is no significant interaction between university membership and
learning style variables.
Keywords: Technology perception, Learning styles, University membership.
ÖZ
Bu çalışmada, farklı üniversitelerde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının, teknolojiye ilişkin
algılarının, kayıtlı oldukları üniversite ve öğrenme stilleri açısından analiz edilmesi
amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada tarama yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama araçları olarak Kolb
Öğrenme Stilleri Envanteri ve Teknoloji Algısı Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya 518 sınıf
öğretmeni adayı katılmıştır. Veri analizi için kullanılan ANOVA uygulaması sonucunda, öğretmen
adaylarının teknoloji algılarının, öğrenim gördükleri üniversiteler açısından anlamlı bir farklılık
gösterdiği, öğrenme stilleri açısından ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği,
üniversite ve öğrenme stilleri değişkenlerinin interaksiyonun da istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir
farklılık oluşturmadığı tespit edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Teknoloji algısı, Öğrenme stilleri, Üniversite üyeliği.
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
222
INTRODUCTION
Perception, as attaching personal meanings to internal and environmental inputs
received through the senses and neural impulses, is crucial factor in processing of these
inputs (Schunk, 2000). The perception on anything is influenced by many factors such
as customs, habits, education and motivation about it (Thinkquest, 2007). Indeed, it is
more true to say that there are correlations between perception and factors mentioned
above. Because, the perception, as a personal frame, might conversely affect
motivation, understanding, personal interpretations of something, attempts to do
something which are important parts of habits and thoughts (Vaughan, 2007). The
perception does not have unaffected characteristics from social life. The perceptions
have been influenced by cultural and historical factors such as speech and tool use
which are important social factors in social and personal development (Vygotsky,
1978). The perception about social events plays important role in the most significant
parts of social changes. In addition, social changes are always related to technological
developments; TV, computers, radio, mobile phone etc. are important examples to
initiators and accelerators of social changes. Human being has perceptions about
technology as well as social events. Therefore, determination of perception on
technology in education is an important step for planning and implementing of
technological means into classrooms or labs and evaluating integration of technology
into any environment such as classrooms or laboratories as social events (İşman, 2003).
In today’s world of education, technological developments have many effects on
various aspects of education. Successful integration of technology into learning and
teaching processes might lead to enhanced learning outcomes (Cope & Ward, 2002).
The perception of teachers has also been affecting students’ approaches to teaching and
learning and indirectly quality of learning and teaching outcomes (Trigwell, Prosser &
Waterhouse, 1999). By considering students’ learning outcomes and students’
perceptions or approaches, impact of teacher’s perception about technology on students’
perceptions of or approaches to learning can be illustrated as a circular model in Figure
1.
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 223
Figure 1. Relationship between teachers’ perception of technology and students’
learning outcomes.
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003) suggested eight elements that are effective
in accepting technology, one of them included experiences regarding to technology.
Pre-service years of teachers involve different courses focusing on technology, these
courses provide experiences for their perception change and acceptance of technology.
In spite of the courses and experiences, prospective teachers do not use computers as
frequently as their experienced colleagues (Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Sherwood,
1993). This situation might be related to perception differences. Prospective teachers’
perceptions about technology are affected by some of variables. Two of the variables
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
224
that are the main points of this study are university membership variable and learning
styles of prospective teachers. These two variables reflect one external (university
membership) and one internal factor (learning styles) affecting learning in university.
Studies indicated that learning styles are important to predict training (via computer,
TV, technology or print based delivery) preference of individuals, technology use of
education is also an alternative of preference on training and teaching (Buch & Bartley,
2002). Teachers are also affected by their training history. So teacher perception about
use of technology as a teaching tool might be related to learning styles of them. At the
same time, opportunity to reach and use technology in under-graduate years is another
potential contributor of the perceptions of pre-service teachers on technology.
Universities do not provide equal opportunity to their students in term of technology
use, so difference among the universities should also be determined for understanding
perceptions of pre-service teachers.
As the first variable, the learning style concept refers to individual differences with
related to the learner’s preferences for employing different phases of the learning cycle.
With the effects of our hereditary characteristics, our experiences, and demands of our
present environment, we might develop a preferred way of choosing among the four
learning modes. We find and resolve the conflict between being concrete or abstract and
between being active or reflective in patterned, certain and specific ways (Kolb & Kolb,
2005). If the learner is to be more successful in any field, he or she needs four different
types of ability. These are classified as Concrete experience ability (CE), Reflective
observations ability (RO), Abstract conceptualization ability (AC) and Active
experimentation (AE). In consideration of these four concepts, for success, the learner is
to be able to involve her or himself fully, openly and without bias in new experiences
(CE). In addition, the learner must be able to observe and reflect on the experiences
from different perspectives (RO) and to create concepts, ideas and thoughts that
integrate her or his observations into logically certain theories (AC). As the last
competence for success, the learner must be able to use these theories in problem
solving process and to make decisions (AE) (Kolb,1981). By considering these abilities,
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 225
four types of learning styles were determined; the “diverging” including (CE) and (RO),
the “assimilating” including (AC) and (RO), the “converging” including (AC) and (AE)
and the “accommodating” including (CE) and (AE) (Kolb, Boyatzis & Mainemelis,
2001).
As the second variable, membership of a university where students experience some
important events and activities which drive their attitudes, achievements and
perceptions is another variable affecting perceptions of pre-service teachers. Every
university of Turkey does not give equal importance for the education faculties due to
funds, priorities, number of students and etc. At the same time, universities of Turkey
have some differences such as lecturer characteristics with related to technology
education, technology lab opportunities, numbers of computers, scores to enter to them
and etc. The educational system of Turkey hopes technologically literate teachers from
different universites at the same rate in spite of these differences in the universities
(Asan, 2002; İşman, et al, 2003; Usun, 2004).
As there is a great knowledge increase in the world and usefulness of educational
technology in classroom is supported by many studies, prospective teachers should have
appropriate perceptions about technology for acceptance and successful implementation
of it into educational aims. Perception about technology of prospective teachers may
determine the tendency for use of technology by prospective teachers for educational
aims. The determination of their perceptions in terms of various variables may provide a
data set for finding appropriate way to educate them for their future teaching. The aim
of this study is to assess the prospective teachers’ perceptions about technology in terms
of university membership and learning style variables.
METHOD
Participants
The study included 518 elementary prospective teachers who were enrolled in the
different grades of four different faculties in 2006-2007 semesters. The elementary
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
226
teacher education in Turkey is a four-year program. The study nearly at same rate
consisted of the prospective teachers who were at different grades. The number of
participants for each grade were the following order; 119 for the first grade, 150 for the
second grade, 110 for the third grade and 139 for the fourth grade. As 221 of the
participants were male prospective teachers, 297 of the participants were female
prospective teachers. In addition, the age range for the participants was from 18 to 25.
Instruments
The survey method was used for the study. To collect the data about learning styles,
“Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory” which was established on four fundamental
quadrants including Accommodative, Divergent, Assimilative and Convergent, was
used. This inventory was adapted to Turkish and, its validity and reliability was
reevaluated by Aşkar and Akkoyunlu (1993). As a result, they found that it was valid
and reliable for determining the learning styles in Turkish cases. This inventory has 48
items which are included in four main categories. Therefore, each style has 12 items.
The time given for applying the inventory is 10 min. For each learning styles, the range
for scores is from 12 to 60. So, the maximum total score for all items should be 120.
One example for the items of the inventory is presented below;
When I learn, I learn by
......feeling
......watching
......thinking
......doing
As another data collection tool, “Technology Perception Scale” developed by Tınmaz
(2004) was used for collection of data about prospective teachers’ perception about
technology. It is a five-point scale (Likert type). The scale has two factors; “belief of the
positive effect of technology in education” (factor 1), “effects of undergraduate
program” (factor 2). The values of the Cronbach Alpha of these factors were determined
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 227
as .89 for factor 1 and .81 for factor 2. The value of Cronbach Alpha coefficient for
complete scale was calculated as .86 and split-half coefficient was .91. The scale has 28
items. The item examples for each factor of the scale are presented below;
Example 1. Using technology in classrooms increases learning level of the subject
(Factor 1)
Example 2. The undergraduate level courses on technology I have taken, positively
contribute to my teaching ability. (Factor 2)
Procedures
The study covered the prospective teachers who participated on a voluntary basis, they
were from four different universities of Turkey; Karaelmas University (Northern Part) ,
Kırıkkale University (Middle Part), Cumhuriyet University (Eastern Part), and
Kastamonu University (Middle Part) and Elementary Education Departments. These
universities are nearly similar in terms of technology opportunities provided to their
students. The “Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory” and “Technology Perception Scale”
were administered to the participants. Then, the data gathered from the study was
entered into an SPSS sheet. The analysis for important descriptive values was carried
out by considering the frequency, mean and standard deviation. After that, a 4x4
ANOVA design was conducted to evaluate the effects of membership to four different
universities and four learning style types on the technology perception of the
prospective teachers. Assumptions of the analysis were checked and found appropriate
to go on. Post-hoc analysis was conducted by considering the Bonferroni approach to
equal error variances across groups. Analysis frame includes two main analyses for
learning style and university membership and one interaction analysis for Learning style
and University Membership.
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
228
RESULTS
The results for descriptive analysis and ANOVA test are presented in this part of the
article. The means and standard deviations for scores on “Technology Perception
Scale” and frequencies in terms of four important variables; gender, home computer,
competency and learning styles are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1. Descriptives for Scores of Total Technology Perception in Terms of Gender,
Having a Home Computer and Computer Competency Level
Technology Perception Scale Scores
Total
Descriptive
n
M
SD
Male
221
3.99
.48
Female
297
3.93
.47
302
148
68
3.88
4.06
4.04
.48
.42
.53
82
301
135
518
3.70
3.94
4.15
3.95
.40
.46
.48
.48
Gender
Home Computer
No
With Internet
Without Internet
Competency
Novice
Intermediate
Competent
Total
Table 2. Descriptives for Learning Styles of Prospective Teachers
Learning Styles of Participants
Learning Styles
Assimilative
Divergent
Convergent
Accommodative
Total
n
213
134
93
78
518
M
4.02
4.05
3.87
3.91
3.95
SD
.46
.49
.47
.49
.48
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 229
For 4x4 ANOVA design, learning styles of the prospective teachers described as
assimilative, divergent, convergent, and accommodative, and university membership
variable of the prospective teachers determined as Karaelmas University, Kırıkkale
University, Cumhuriyet University, and Kastamonu University were considered as the
independent variables of the study. In addition, the scores of the prospective teachers on
“Technology Perception Scale” were considered as the dependent variable of the study.
The analysis model of the study is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Design of the Study
Independent Variable
Value
Dependent Variable
Technology Perception
University membership ZKU / KU / CU/ KKU
Total Score
Assimilative / Divergent/
Learning Styles
Convergent /
Technology Perception
Total Score
Accommodative
The means and standard deviations for scores of the prospective teachers on
“Technology Perception Scale” and frequencies as a function of the two factors are
presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of Technology Perception Scores by
University Membership (UM), Learning Styles of Prospective Teachers
UM
ZKU
KU
Learning Styles
N
Mean
SD
Assimilative
76
3.92
.51
Divergent
52
4.15
.44
Convergent
21
3.96
.74
Accommodative
24
4.04
.35
Assimilative
43
3.99
.39
Divergent
28
3.84
.49
Convergent
32
3.79
.38
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
CU
KKU
230
Accommodative
17
3.87
.46
Assimilative
40
3.94
.54
Divergent
32
3.95
.41
Convergent
21
3.85
.39
Accommodative
21
3.80
.47
Assimilative
54
4.03
.46
Divergent
22
4.05
.46
Convergent
19
3.96
.32
Accommodative
16
3.89
.70
518
3.95
.48
Total
ZKU: Zonguldak Karaelmas University, KU: Kırıkkale University, CU: Cumhuriyet University, KKU: Kırıkkale
University
The ANOVA indicated no significant interaction between university membership and
learning styles, F(9, 502 )= 1.09, p= .37, partial η2= .02, no significant main effect for
learning styles, F(3, 502)= 1.22, p= .30, partial η 2= .01 and but a significant main effect
for university membership variable, F(3, 502)= 2.65, p= .05, partial η 2= .02. Post-hoc
test (Benforroni) showed significant differences between the scores of students in
Kastamonu University and in Cumhuriyet University in favor of the students in
Cumhuriyet University (p<.05). The Post-hoc test also revealed that there is a signficant
difference between the scores of students in Kırıkkale University and in Karaelmas
University in favor of the scores of the students in Karaelmas University (p<.05). The
findings on the comparisons are presented in table 5.
Table 5. The Results of Total Analysis of Technology Perception Scores by University
Membership (UM), Learning Styles of Prospective Teachers
Source of Variance
Learning style
University membership
Learning style * University
Membership
*.05
SS
.82
1.78
df
3
3
MS
.27
.60
F
1.22
2.65
p
.30
.05*
2.20
9
.24
1.09
.37
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 231
The main effect of university membership indicated that the prospective teachers at
different universities tended not to have equal positive perception for technology in
education. The main effect of learning styles indicated that the prospective teachers at
any level of learning styles did not tend to have greater positive perception for
technology in education than the others. Overall, the 4x4 ANOVA indicates no
significant difference between the perceptions of the prospective teachers who were
enrolled in different universities and had different learning styles.
DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION
In this study, the perceptions of prospective teachers about technology in education
were analyzed in terms of different variables; learning styles and university
membership. According to results of this study, it was seen that 41.12 % of prospective
teachers had assimilative, 25.87 % of prospective teachers had divergent, 17.95 % of
prospective teachers had convergent and 15.06 % of prospective teachers had
accommodator learning style. In her study consisted of 202 participants, Hasırcı (2006)
determined
that 41.1 % of
prospective teachers
had assimilative, 33.2 % of
prospective teachers had divergent, 17.3 % of prospective teachers had convergent and
8.4 % of prospective teachers had accommodator learning style. This result was
consistent with the findings of this study in terms of the order of style dominancy. After
the determination of learning styles of prospective teachers, result of two-way ANOVA
showed that there is no significant difference between the scores on the perceptions of
prospective teachers who had different learning styles after total score analysis (p>.05).
As a result, it was found that the perception levels of prospective teachers about
technology in education would be same for prospective teachers who have assimilative,
accommodative, convergent, divergent learning styles. This result might be explained
by previous educational histories of and examinations taken by them and common
educational environment and events shared by them. Before the university education,
they were enrolled in similar context during the high school education. As related to
this, they did not take any course regarding to technology in education. This might be a
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
232
factor for determining no difference between scores of them on technology perception
in education. At the same time, the examinations taken by them and their results on
these examinations for entering teacher education program were same or similar to each
other. In the examinations, there is no questions for evaluation of technology
competency. This might be an important factor for similarity of their expectations and
perceptions about technology. In addition to these, common educational environment
and events shared by them in university may be effective factor in their perceptions. For
example; lecturer or model person with related to technology courses in university
might construct general perception about technology because of his or her approach to
course (Al-Ruz & Khasawneh, 2011; Dawson & Rakes, 2003). and students or there
might be many problems about technology opportunities such as not having enough
computer in lab.
When looked at the results of this study in terms of university membership, it was seen
that 33.40 % of prospective teachers were at Karaelmas University , 23.17 % of
prospective teachers were at Kastamonu University, 22.01 % of prospective teachers
were at Cumhuriyet University, and 21.43 % of prospective teachers were at Kırıkkale
University. When the means of the scores of students at different universities are
considered, the mean of technology perception scores of the students who are at ZKU
and KKU are higher than scores of the students who are at CU and KU. According to
the result of two-way ANOVA, there was a significant difference between scores on the
perceptions about technology in education of prospective teachers who were at different
universities for total scores (p<.05). In fact the scores of the all participants are high
enough (3.95/5) and the highest scores belong to the students in Karaelmas University.
This might be related to feelings about competency, majority of the students feel
competent or intermediate about using technology (Koksal & Yaman, 2009; Brubaker,
2004). The results indicated that the students in Cumhuriyet University had more
positive perceptions regarding to technology than the students in Kastamonu University.
Similarly, the students in Karaelmas University had more positive perceptions regarding
to technology than the students in Kırıkkale University. The differences might be
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 233
related to opportunity differences in accessing technology in faculties and lecturer
background giving technology courses. This point is opent to research in future. Lastly,
the results of the study showed that there is no interaction between learning styles and
university membership of prospective students on total technology perception scores of
prospective students. This result might be related to common application in tech-related
labs, common learning opportunities (giving handouts and making ordinary practices in
courses) and fixed content about technology in education faculties of different
universities. No interaction between these two aspects shows universities provide
similar opportunites to apply learning styles. The “educational technologies” and
computer lab courses include limited applications on MS word, power point, paint and
etc. At the same time, these technology-related applications are limited to these courses.
The students sometimes might not find any computer to study on applications out of lab.
This general issue is common problem of Turkish universities. The academic specialists
on technology-related courses are very few in Turkish universities. Only limited number
of the universities find an expert on educational technologies. These common problems
and events might provide general point of view about technological equipments and
applications in university.
SUGGESTIONS
In educational settings for future, technology-based approaches will probably become
predominant in teaching and learning processes. So, selection and application of
appropriate technology in education will be important teacher competencies.
Perceptions of teachers about technology in education will determine their tendencies to
appropriate use of technology in education and programs’ contents prepared for giving
the competencies to teacher for future. In addition, it might be expected that prospective
teachers who have more positive perception about technology in education will provide
more effective technology use for learning and teaching. According to results of this
study, prospective teachers who have different learning styles with related to Kolb’s
learning styles have same perceptions about technology in education, but other
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
approaches for learning styles might provide cues for determining
234
the difference
between perceptions about technology in education of prospective teachers. Therefore,
perception differences of prospective teachers about technology in education should be
examined in terms of other learning style approaches. In addition, learning style based
technology classification for education should be done for effective technology use in
education.
The result for university membership of prospective teachers showed that university
membership of prospective teachers did give significant difference on point of view
about technology to them. For the difference between the students in CU and KU,
unequal distribution of frequencies on divergent and convergent styles should be
examined by focusing on these two styles. According to this result, the studies on
perception differences of Turkish prospective teachers should be extended and the
universities should be analyzed in terms of technological opportunities, applications,
context and profiles of them in terms of specialists on technology-related teaching. The
universities should be classified for the state in terms of technology and should be
analyzed to get information about these problems.
As a last point, for providing more positive perception about anything, firstly, the clear
description of anything should be given, because sometimes uncertainty might be basic
for more negative perception about anything. After this main point, other applications
and activities should be carried out.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are deeply grateful to the prospective teachers who are at Karaelmas
University, Kırıkkale University, Cumhuriyet University, and Kastamonu University in
2007 spring semester for their voluntary participation and grateful to Hasan Tınmaz for
his instruments.
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 235
REFERENCES
Al-Ruz, J. A., & Khasawneh, S. (2011). Jordanian pre-service teachers' and technology
integration: A human resource development approach. Educational Technology
& Society, 14(4), 77-87.
Asan, A. (2002). Attitudes of prospective science and social studies teachers toward
computers. Educational Research Journal. 7(1), 136-146.
Aşkar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolbs’ learning styles inventory. Education and
Science, (87), 37-47.
Brubaker, D.D. (2004). An assessment of technology learning styles, skills, and
perceptions among teachers of grades prekindergarten through four.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of North Texas, Texas.
Buch, K., & Bartley, S. (2002). Learning style and training delivery mode preference,
Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(1), 5-10.
Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The
importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1),
67-70.
Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. C. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on
integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 36(1), 29-49.
Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers'
integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261-315.
Hasırcı, K. Ö. (2006). Learning styles of prospective primary school teachers: The
Çukurova University case. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 2(1),
15-25.
İşman, A. (2003). Technology. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
2(1), 5.
İşman, A., Çağlar, M., Dabaj, F., Altınay, F., & Altınay, Z. (2003). Attitudes of students
toward computers. III. International Educational Technology Conference and
Fair 28-29-30 May 2003 Eastern Mediterranean University Gazimagusa,
Cyprus.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering &
Associates (Eds.), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory:
Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.),
Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. The educational
psychology series (pp. 227-247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions…
236
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 4(2), 193-212.
Koksal, M. S. & Yaman, S. (2009). An Analysis of Turkish Prospective Teachers’
Perceptions about Technology in Education. RELIEVE, 15(2),1-10.
Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Sherwood, C. (1993). Australian experiences with the effective classroom integration of
information technology: Implications for teacher education. Journal of
Information Technology for Teacher Education 2, 167-179.
Thinkquest, (2007). General learning concepts. Retrieved 20 February, 2007 from
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005704/content_hwl_glc.php3#anchor5.
Tınmaz, H. (2004). An assessment of preservice teachers’ technology perception in
relation to their subject area (Unpublished Master Thesis). Middle East
Technical University, Ankara.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher
Education, 37, 57-70.
Usun, S. (2004). Factors affecting the application of information and communication
technologies (ICT) in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 5(1), Retrieved August 31, 2007, from
http://www.tojet.sakarya.edu.tr.
Vaughan, P. (2007). The "power of perception". Retrieved January 25, 2007 from
http://www.dearpeggy.com/com035.html.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, F., Davis, A., & Davis, A. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view.MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Köksal & Yaman
GEFAD / GUJGEF 32 (2): 221-237 (2012) 237
GENİŞ ÖZET
Algı, duyular ve nöral impulslar aracılığıyla alınan içsel ve dışsal girdilere bireysel
anlamlar yükleme işlemidir. Algılar alınan gidilerin işlenmesinde önemli bir bileşendir.
Öğretimin temel yürütücüsü olan öğretmenlerin öğretim unsurlarına ilişkin algısı da bu
unsurlara ilişkin bilginin işlenmesinde ve kullanılmasında oldukça etkilidir. Olumlu bir
algıyla teknolojinin eğitim ortamlarına başarılı bir şekilde entegrasyonu, öğrenme
çıktılarında artışa neden olmaktadır (Cope & Ward, 2002). Bir öğretim unsuru olan
teknolojik uygulamalara ilişkin öğretmen algılarının bu teknolojinin kullanımının
planlaması ve yürütülmesinde etken olduğu belirtilmektedir (İşman, 2003). Öğretmenlik
mesleğine başlamadan önce olumlu bir algı oluşumu ve sonrasında teknolojik
uygulamların faydalarından yararlanma öğretimde teknoloji kullanımının verimliliğini
arttırması beklenmektedir. Ülkemizde öğretmen eğitimi düzeyinde teknoloji algısının
olumlu yönde değiştirilmesi için yapılandırılacak programlar, teknoloji algısıyla ilişkili
olabilecek değişkenlerin araştırılmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, farklı
üniversitelerde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının, teknolojiye ilişkin algılarının,
öğretim gördükleri üniversite ve öğrenme stilleri açısından analiz edilmesi
amaçlanmıştır.
Araştırmada
nicel
araştırma
yöntemlerinden
tarama
yöntemi
kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama araçları olarak Kolb Öğrenme Stilleri Envanteri ve
Teknoloji Algısı Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya 518 sınıf öğretmeni adayı (221 erkek,
297 kız) katılmıştır. Bu adaylardan 119’u birinci, 150’si ikinci, 110’u üçüncü ve 139’u
dördüncü sınıf öğrencileridir. Veri analizi için kullanılan 4x4 ANOVA uygulaması
yapılmıştır. Sonuçta öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji algılarının, öğrenim gördükleri
üniversiteler açısından anlamlı bir farklılık gösterdiği, öğrenme stilleri açısından ise
istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca üniversite ve
öğrenme stilleri değişkenlerinin interaksiyonunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir
farklılık olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlardan farklı üniversitelerdeki farklı
teknoloji
algısının
üniversitelere
ilişkin
çeşitli
değişkenlerin
farklılıklardan
kaynaklandığı, bu farklılıklara ilişkin değişimin gelecekteki çalışmalarda ele alınması
gerektiği söylenebilir.