SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Health Science / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Observing the Relationship between Physiotherapy Undergraduate Students Individual Innovation Level and Lifelong Learning Tendencies

Fatma Erdeo(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0266-229X
Zeliha Başkurt(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7488-9242
İsmail Ceylan(KIRŞEHİR AHİ EVRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6465-0243
Özgü İnal Özün(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GÜLHANE TIP FAKÜLTESİ, GÜLHANE TIP PR. (ANKARA))0000-0002-0351-1821
Ozlem Ozcan(MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3860-9308
Burcu Talu(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Ayla Günal(TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Duygu Turker(UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, GÜLHANE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, GÜLHANE MEDICINE PR. (ANKARA))0000-0003-2470-5737
Pages
97–103
Publication Date
2025-05-15
🏛️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)

There is a statistically significant relationship to the overall score of the undergraduate students who participated in the research with the total score of innovation, motivation, resilience, lack of learning regulation, absence of curiosity and overall scores of lifelong learning trends in a positive direction (r= 0.44, 0.44, 0.38, 0.48; P<0.05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Technological developments in neurorehabilitation are rapidly increasing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study included 7 state universities in Türkiye to assess the relationship between these two dimensions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is a statistically significant relationship to the overall score of the undergraduate students who participated in the research with the total score of innovation, motivation, resilience, lack of learning regulation, absence of curiosity and overall scores of lifelong learning trends in a positive direction (r= 0.44, 0.44, 0.38, 0.48; P<0.05).
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Individual innovativeness · Lifelong learning tendencies · Physiotherapy

Abstract

Technological developments in neurorehabilitation are rapidly increasing. Students who grow up in the field of rehabilitation should be open to innovation and eager to learn in order to keep up with this rapid development. The purpose of this study was to observing the relationship between physiotherapist candidates' individual innovation levels and lifelong learning tendencies. A relational screening model is used in the study. The study included 7 state universities in Türkiye to assess the relationship between these two dimensions. The demographic form, the "Lifelong Learning Tendency Scale" to determine undergraduate students' lifelong learning tendencies, and the "Individual Innovation Scale" to determine individual innovativeness levels were used in the research. There is a statistically significant relationship to the overall score of the undergraduate students who participated in the research with the total score of innovation, motivation, resilience, lack of learning regulation, absence of curiosity and overall scores of lifelong learning trends in a positive direction (r= 0.44, 0.44, 0.38, 0.48; P<0.05). There are many studies that evaluate innovation and lifelong learning. But, as far as we know, no such work has been done in the rehab field. This study is believed to contribute to literature in terms of innovation against rapid technological developments and the development of new educational and teaching strategies that will enhance lifelong learning.

Özet

Technological developments in neurorehabilitation are rapidly increasing. Students who grow up in the field of rehabilitation should be open to innovation and eager to learn in order to keep up with this rapid development. The purpose of this study was to observing the relationship between physiotherapist candidates' individual innovation levels and lifelong learning tendencies. A relational screening model is used in the study. The study included 7 state universities in Türkiye to assess the relationship between these two dimensions. The demographic form, the "Lifelong Learning Tendency Scale" to determine undergraduate students' lifelong learning tendencies, and the "Individual Innovation Scale" to determine individual innovativeness levels were used in the research. There is a statistically significant relationship to the overall score of the undergraduate students who participated in the research with the total score of innovation, motivation, resilience, lack of learning regulation, absence of curiosity and overall scores of lifelong learning trends in a positive direction (r= 0.44, 0.44, 0.38, 0.48; P<0.05). There are many studies that evaluate innovation and lifelong learning. But, as far as we know, no such work has been done in the rehab field. This study is believed to contribute to literature in terms of innovation against rapid technological developments and the development of new educational and teaching strategies that will enhance lifelong learning.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erdeo, F., Başkurt, Z., Ceylan, İ., Özün, Ö. İ., Ozcan, O., Talu, B., Günal, A., Turker, D. (2025). Observing the Relationship between Physiotherapy Undergraduate Students Individual Innovation Level and Lifelong Learning Tendencies. Black Sea Journal of Health Science, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.19127/bshealthscience.1536806

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Brottman MR, Char DM, Hattori RA, Heeb R, Taff SD. 2020. Toward cultural competency in health care: A scoping review of the diversity and inclusion education literature. Acad Med. 95(5): 803-813.
  2. Coşkun Diker Y, Demirel M. 2012. Üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri. Hacettepe Üniv Eğit Fak Derg, 42: 108-120.
  3. Çuhadar C, Bülbül T, Ilgaz G. 2013. Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile teknopedagojik eğitim yeterlikleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 12(3): 797-807.
  4. Dikmen Y, Uslu-Yuvacı H, Erol F. 2017. The investigation of lifelong learning tendencies in medical faculty students. J Human Sci, 14(3): 2399-2408.
  5. Edwards-Schacter M, García-Granero A, Sánchez-Barrioluengo M, Quesada-Pineda H, Amara N. 2015. Disentangling competences: Interrelationships on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Think Skills Creat, 16: 27-39.
  6. Erdoğan DG, Güneş DZ. 2013. The relationship between individual innovatiness and change readiness conditions of students attending faculty of education. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci, 106: 3033-3040.
  7. Gay LR, Mills GE, Airasian PW. 2012. Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson Publishing, New York, US, pp: 637.
  8. Genç E, Yavuz K, Aydemir S. 2017. Üniversite öğrencilerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi. ASOS J, 5(61): 321-333.
  9. Hisrich RD, Kearney C. 2014. Managing innovation and entrepreneurship. Sage Publications Ltd, London, UK.
  10. Kılıçer K, Odabaşı F. 2010. Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniv Eğit Fak Derg, 38: 150-164.
  11. Kılıçer K. 2011. Individual innovativeness profiles of prospective teachers in computer education and instructional technology. PhD Thesis, Anadolu University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir, Türkiye, pp: 241.
  12. Kivunja C. 2014. Innovative pedagogies in higher education to become effective teachers of 21st century skills: Unpacking the learning and innovation skills domain of the new learning paradigm. Int J Higher Educ, 3(4): 37-48.
  13. Korucu AT, Olpak YZ. 2015. Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik özelliklerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Eğitim Teknol Kuram Uyg, 5(1): 111-127.
  14. Meng X, Ren G, Huang W. 2021. A quantitative enhancement mechanism of university students’ employability and entrepreneurship based on deep learning in the context of the digital era. Scient Program, 2021: 1-12.
  15. Önder H. 2018. Nonparametric statistical methods used in biological experiments. BSJ Eng Sci, 1(1): 1-6.
  16. Pallister JG, Foxall GR. 1998. Psychometric properties of the Hurt–Joseph–Cook scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Technovation, 18(11): 663-675.
  17. Rogers Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York, US.
  18. Savcı C, Çil Akıncı A. 2022. Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ve yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri: Tanımlayıcı araştırma. Turkiye Klin J Nurs Sci, 14(1): 83-93.
  19. Tellis GJ, Yin E, Bell S. 2009. Global consumer innovativeness: Cross-country differences and demographic commonalities. J Int Market, 17(2): 1-22.
  20. Trott P. 2012. Innovation Management. Financial Times Prentice-Hall, Pearson Publications, New York, US.
  21. Tynjälä P. 1999. Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. Int J Educ Res, 31(5): 357-442.
  22. Villa Sánchez A, Poblete Ruiz M. 2011. Evaluación de competencias genéricas: principios, oportunidades y limitaciones. Revista de pedagogía, Bordón, Spain.
  23. Yenice N, Tunç GA. 2019. Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğit Derg, 27(2): 753-765.