SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2025 / Volume: 13 Issue: 4

Preservice physical education teachers’ adaptation of mobile learning and perception for ethical use of information technology

Kıvanç Semiz(GİRESUN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SPORTS SCIENCES)0000-0003-3051-4814
Fatih Özgül(GİRESUN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SPORTS SCIENCES)0000-0002-8671-9854
Ezel Nur Korur(ORDU UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6865-1470
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-12-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the readiness for mobile learning and the ethical use of information technologies in education showed a positive and moderate relationship among participants.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Mobile learning offers a range of pedagogical and administrative advantages for education systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, to effectively integrate mobile learning into schools, teachers in service or pre-service have to possess the necessary competencies to incorporate mobile technologies into their professional practice.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the readiness for mobile learning and the ethical use of information technologies in education showed a positive and moderate relationship among participants.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mobile Learning · Ethical Use · Preservice Teacher

Abstract

Mobile learning offers a range of pedagogical and administrative advantages for education systems. It enables learning to occur independent of time and place, supports engagement across diverse contexts, allows instructional processes to be tailored to individual learner needs, facilitates personalized learning pathways, enhances interaction among learners, and contributes to more efficient administrative management. However, to effectively integrate mobile learning into schools, teachers in service or pre-service have to possess the necessary competencies to incorporate mobile technologies into their professional practice. University education plays a crucial role in the development of pre-service teachers and citizens through sustainability education, including in cognitive, behavioral, and attitudinal domains. The purpose of the research was comparing of the pre-service physical education teachers’ adaptation of mobile learning and perception for ethical use of information technology. A total of 315 pre-service physical education teachers from various universities in Turkiye participated in the research. First, we applied descriptive statistics and normality tests using the SPSS package program (ver. 27.0) after transferring the data. Then, the Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox in MATLAB 2023b were used to perform a canonical correlation analysis and examine the relationship between the sub-dimension scores obtained from the Mobile Learning Readiness Scale and the Ethical Use of Information Technologies in Education Scale of the participants. According to the findings, only the first canonical correlation differs from zero (p = 7.5018e-04) and was significant. The other canonical correlations were not significant. There is a relationship between X (sub-dimensions of readiness for mobile learning) and Y (sub-dimensions of ethical use of information technologies). This relationship cannot be ignored. However, it is not very strong. In conclusion, the readiness for mobile learning and the ethical use of information technologies in education showed a positive and moderate relationship among participants.

🔖

Cite This Article

Semiz, K., Özgül, F., Korur, E. N. (2025). Preservice physical education teachers’ adaptation of mobile learning and perception for ethical use of information technology. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Volume: 13 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1793116

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Andrews, T., Dyson, L. E., & Wishart, J. (2015). Advancing ethics frameworks and scenario-based learning to support educational research into mobile learning. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(3), 320-334.
  2. Baysan, E., & Çetin, Ş. (2019). Eğitimde Bilişim Teknolojilerinin Etik Kullanımı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi Çalışması. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(2), 394-417.
  3. Boghian, I. (2022). Raising Students’ Awareness of Unethical Information Technology Use. In: Mâță, L. (eds) Ethical Use of Information Technology in Higher Education. EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1951-9_4
  4. Buckinghan, W. (2012). Felsefe kitabı. (E. Lakşe, Çev.). İstanbul: Alfa Kitap.
  5. Cevizci, A. (2012). Etiğe giriş. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
  6. Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-e_cacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Comput. Educ., 60, 148–158.
  7. Chang, S.E. (2005). Computer anxiety and perception of task complexity in learning programming-related skills. Comput. Hum. Behav., 21, 713–728.
  8. Cheng, Y. (2012). Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Res., 22, 361–390.
  9. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q, 13(3), 319–339.
  10. Davis, F.D. (1993). User acceptance of computer technology: system characteristics, user perceptions. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud., 38(3), 475–487.
  11. Davis, F.D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud., 45(1), 19–45.
  12. Doolittle, P. E., & MaRIanO, G. J. (2008). Working memory capacity and mobile multimedia learning environments: Individual differences in learning while mobile. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(4), 511-530.
  13. Erdoğdu, F., & Şahin, S. (2016). Yükseköğretimde her yerde öğrenmenin akademik başarı ve motivasyona etkisi. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 9(3), 285.
  14. Ervasti, M., & Helaakoski, H. (2010).“Case study of application‐based mobile service acceptance and development in Finland”. Int. J. Information Technology and Management, 9(3), 243‐259.
  15. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  16. Gecer, A., & Tosun, N. (2015). Adaptation of internet ethical attitude scale to university students: Comparison of internet ethical attitudes according to students’ departments. Eur. Sci. J., 11, 437–456.
  17. Gikas, J., & Grant, M.M. (2013). Mobile Computing Devices in Higher Education: Student Perspectives on Learning with Cellphones, Smartphones & Social Media. Internet High. Educ., 19, 18–26.
  18. Grant, M. M. (2019). Difficulties in defining mobile learning: analysis, design characteristics, and implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 361-388.
  19. Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M., Najafi, V., & Nesari, A. J. (2011). What is mobile learning? Challenges and capabilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2477-2481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.483
  20. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational technology: A definition with Commentary. New York: Routledge
  21. Johnson, D., & Simpson, C. (2005). Are you the copy cop? Learning and leading with technology, 32(7), 14-20.
  22. Kim, M., & Choi, D. (2018). Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational setting. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 155-171.
  23. 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 Innovativeness. Sustainability, 13, 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020896
  24. Lau, W.W., & Yuen, A.H. (2014). Internet ethics of adolescents: Understanding demographic differences. Computers & Education, 72, 378-385.
  25. Levin, K. (2006). Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evid Based Dent 7, 24–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375
  26. Lin, H. H., Lin, S., Yeh, C. H., & Wang, Y. S. (2016). Measuring mobile learning readiness: scale development and validation. Internet Research, 26(1), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2014-0241
  27. Meeder, R. (2005). Access denied: Internet filtering software in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 49(6), 56-58.
  28. Nadlifatin, R., Miraja, B., Persada, S., Belgiawan, P., Redi, A., & Lin, S.C. (2020). The measurement of University students’ intention to use blended learning system through technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) at developed and developing regions: Lessons learned from Taiwan and Indonesia. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., 15, 219–230.
  29. Naveed, Q.N., Choudhary, H., Ahmad, N., Alqahtani, J., & Qahmash, A.I. (2023). Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 15, 13566. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813566
  30. Özbay, Ö., Doğan, U., Yıldız, E., & Seferoğlu, S.S. (2021). Öğretmen Adaylarının Dijital Etik Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. TRT Akademi, 6(12), 494-513. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.913015
  31. Rafique, H., Ul Islam, Z., & Shamim, A. (2023). Acceptance of e-learning technology by government school teachers: application of extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2164783
  32. Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know. International Society for Technology in Education.
  33. Sarwar, N., Khan, F. N., Ali, A., Rafique, H., Hussain, I., & Irshad, A. (2019). Microchip with advance human monitoring technique and RFTS. In Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 932, pp. 560–570). Vienna, Austria.
  34. Sha, L., Looi, C. K., Chen, W., Seow, P., ve Wong, L. H. (2012). Recognizing and measuring self-regulated learning in a mobile learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 718-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.019
  35. Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., ve Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning. In Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 233-249). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_14
  36. Shih, J. L., Chuang, C. W., ve Hwang, G. J. (2010). An inquiry-based mobile learning approach to enhancing social science learning effectiveness. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 50-62.
  37. Smith, P. J. (2001). Learners and their workplaces: Towards a strategic model of flexible delivery of training in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(4), 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820100200180
  38. Smith, P. J., Murphy, K. L., ve Mahoney, S. E. (2003). Towards identifying factors underlying readiness for online learning: An exploratory study. Distance Education, 24(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910303043
  39. Söylemez, M., & Balaman, F. (2015). Bilişimin Etik Olarak Kullaniminin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açisindan İncelenmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(54). https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.83736
  40. Şata, M., Çorbacı, E. C., & Koyuncu, M. S. (2019). Mobil öğrenmeye hazırbulunuşluk ölçeği’nin uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(3), 1513-1533.
  41. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  42. Tepe, H. (1992). Etik ve Metaetik. Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu.
  43. Traxler, J. (2005). Defining mobile learning. IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning, 261-266. Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/download/4104581/200506c018.pdf.
  44. Tseng, S. S. (2021). The influence of teacher annotations on student learning engagement and video watching behaviors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s41239-021-00242-5
  45. Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British journal of educational technology, 40(1), 92-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x
  46. Yang, S., & Appleget, C. (2024). An exploration of preservice teachers’ perceptions of Generative AI: Applying the technological Acceptance Model. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2024.2367573