SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies / 2022 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

The Effect of Teachers' Cognitive Flexibility on Attitudes towards Compulsory Distance Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Fatmanur Özen(GIRESUN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3232-7484
Adem Selçuk Üçüncü0000-0003-1937-5729
Pages
492–508
Publication Date
2022-03-26
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The findings obtained from the research are discussed with other research results.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The period when education services were tried to be provided remotely due to the COVID-19 epidemic enabled teachers to be intertwined with technology-supported teaching platforms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The acquisition of the technology required to use the platform, adaptation of the existing teaching strategies, methods, and techniques to the platform, and the need to stay in touch with all stakeholders related to education in this process have led to new experiences for teachers and many challenging situations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings obtained from the research are discussed with other research results.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Cognitive flexibility · compulsory distance education · attitude towards compulsory distance education

Abstract

The period when education services were tried to be provided remotely due to the COVID-19 epidemic enabled teachers to be intertwined with technology-supported teaching platforms. The acquisition of the technology required to use the platform, adaptation of the existing teaching strategies, methods, and techniques to the platform, and the need to stay in touch with all stakeholders related to education in this process have led to new experiences for teachers and many challenging situations. During this process, it was predicted that teachers frequently use their cognitive flexibility, which enables them to think about different solutions and make functional changes for different or problematic situations. The research is a survey study. Data were collected from teachers with the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory and the Attitude Scale towards Compulsory Distance Education. Their validity and reliability were retested within this research's scope. The results of this study, in which the data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, show that the cognitive flexibility of the teachers participating in the research was high during the epidemic period. They had attitudes that could not be evaluated positively or negatively regarding compulsory distance education. Although there is a relationship between teachers' cognitive flexibility levels and their attitudes towards compulsory distance education, it is low. The cognitive flexibility of teachers can predict a very small part of their attitudes towards compulsory distance education. The findings obtained from the research are discussed with other research results.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özen, F., Üçüncü, A. S. (2022). The Effect of Teachers' Cognitive Flexibility on Attitudes towards Compulsory Distance Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 492–508. https://ajindex.com/articles/1497339

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (87)

  1. Akyürek, M. I. (2020), Uzaktan eğitim: bir alanyazın taraması. Medeniyet Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 1-9. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mead/issue/56310/711904
  2. Almond, D. V. (2006). Is the 1918 influenza pandemic over? Long-term effects of in Utero influenza exposure in the post-1940 U.S. population. Journal of Political Economy, 114(4), 672-712. https://doi.org/10.1086/507154
  3. Arat, T., & Bakan, Ö. (2014). Uzaktan eğitim ve uygulamaları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 14(1-2), 363-374. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/selcuksbmyd/issue/11302/135148
  4. Aytaç, T. (2021). The problems faced by teachers in Turkey during the COVID-19 pandemic and their opinions. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), 404-420. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.329.26
  5. Balcı, A. (2004). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (4. Ed.). PegemA.
  6. Barbour, M. K., LaBonte, R., Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, M. A.Hill, P., & Kelly, K. (2020). Understanding pandemic pedagogy: differences between emergency remote, remote, and online teaching. Canadian eLearning Network. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/101905/understanding-pandemic-pedagogy.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  7. Basilaia, G., & Kvavadze, D. (2020). Transition to online education in schools during a SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic in Georgia. Pedagogical Research, 5(4), em0060. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7937
  8. Bawa, P. (2020). Learning in the age of SARS-COV-2: A quantitative study of learners’ performance in the age of emergency remote teaching. Computers and Education Open, 1, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2020.100016
  9. Bingöl, S. (2020). Attitudes of the academics in sports sciences towards distance education. African Educational Research Journal, 8(4), 799-805. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.84.20.185
  10. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to coronavirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i-vi. http://www.asianjde.org/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/447/297
  11. Cauchemez, S., Ferguson, N. M., Wachtel, C., Tegnell, A., Saour, G., Duncan, B., & Nicoll, A. (2009). Closure of schools during an influenza pandemic. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 9(8), 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70176-8
  12. Cauchemez, S., Van Kerkhove, M. D., Archer, B. N., Cetron, M., Cowling, B. J., Grove, P., Hunt, D., Kojouharova, M., Kon, P., Ungchusak, K., Oshitani, H., Pugliese, A., Rizzo, C., Saour, G., Sunagawa, T., Uzicanin, A., Wachtel, C., Weisfuse, I., Yu, H., &, Nicoll, A. (2014). School closures during the 2009 influenza pandemic: national and local experiences. BMC Infectious Diseases, 14(1), 207. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-207
  13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Pegem.
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Araştırma deseni: Nicel, nitel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (4. ed. trans.). Eğiten Kitap.
  15. Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
  16. De Oliveira M. M. S., Penedo A. S. T., & Pereira V. S. (2018). Distance education: Advantages and disadvantages of the point of view of education and society. Dialogia, 29, 139-152. https://doi.org/10.5585/Dialogia.n29.7661
  17. Delling, R. M. (1987). Towards a theory of distance education. ICDE Bulletin, 13, 21-5.
  18. Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
  19. Esen–Aygun, H. (2018). The relationship between pre–service teachers’ cognitive flexibility and ınterpersonal problem solving skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(77), 105-128. http://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ejer/issue/42545/512704
  20. Foti, P. (2020). Research in distance learning in Greek kindergarten schools during the pandemic of COVID-19: Possibilities, dilemmas, limitations. European Journal of Open Education and E-Learning Studies, 5(1), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.383906
  21. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
  22. Gabrys, R. L., Tabri, N., Anisman, H., & Matheson, K. (2018). Cognitive control and flexibility in the context of stress and depressive symptoms: the cognitive control and flexibility questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02219
  23. Giner-Sorolla, R. (1999), Affect in attitude: immediate and deliberative perspectives. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 441-61). The Guilford.
  24. Guohong, G., Ning, L., Wenxian, X., & Wenlong, W. (2012). The study on the development of internet-based distance education and problems. Energy Procedia, 17, 1362-1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.02.253
  25. Guthrie, K. L., & McCracken, H. (2010). Making a difference online: Facilitating service-learning through distance education. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 153-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.02.006
  26. Hebebci, M. T., Bertiz, Y., & Alan, S. (2020). Investigation of views of students and teachers on distance education practices during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(4), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.113
  27. Higher Education Council (HEC). (2020). COVID-19 bilgilendirme notu: 1. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/coronavirus_bilgilendirme_1.aspx (04.02.2021)
  28. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 27, 1-12. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-andonline-learning
  29. Hooper, D, Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M (2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
  30. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  31. İnal, İ., Sakarya, G., & Zahal, O. (2021). COVID-19 pandemi döneminde EBA platformunda gerçekleştirilen müzik derslerine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Eurasian Journal of Music and Dance, 18, 232-253. https://doi.org/10.31722/ejmd.960092
  32. Jelińska, M., & Paradowski, M.B. (2021). Teachers’ engagement in and coping with emergency remote instruction during COVID-19-induced school closures: A multinational contextual perspective. Online Learning Journal, 25(1), 303-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2492
  33. Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural quation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Erlbaum.
  34. Kaçay, Z., Güngör, N. B., & Soyer, F. (2021). The mediating role of cognitive flexibility in the effect of empathic tendency on teacher professionalism. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(1), 124-134. https://doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2021.8.1.167
  35. Kara, S. (2021). An investigation of visual arts teachers’ attitudes towards distance education in the time of COVID-19. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences (IJonSES), 3(3), 576-588. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.246
  36. Karagöz, Y. (2017). SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı nitel nicel karma bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve yayın etiği. Nobel.
  37. Karakaya, F., Arık, S., Çimen, O., & Yılmaz, M. (2020). Investigation of the views of biology teachers on distance education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 6(4), 246-258. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.792984
  38. Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (11. ed.). Nobel.
  39. Karbeyaz, A., & Kurt, M. (2020). COVİD-19 sürecinde Eğitim Bilişim Ağı (EBA) ile ilgili öğretmen tutumları: Bir karma yöntem çalışması. Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 84(Aralık), 39-66. https://doi.org/10.17753/Ekev1646
  40. Kayri, M. (2009). Araştırmalarda gruplar arası farkın belirlenmesine yönelik çoklu karşılaştırma (post-hoc) teknikleri. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(1), 51-64.
  41. Keegan, D. (1990). Foundations of distance education. Routledge.
  42. Klapproth, F., Federkeil, L., Heinschke, F., & Jungmann, T. (2020). Teachers’ experiences of stress and their coping strategies during COVID-19 induced distance teaching. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(4), 444-452. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2020062805
  43. Kline, T. J. B. (2005). Psychological testing: a practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.
  44. Koçoğlu, E., & Tekdal, D. (2020). Analysis of distance education activities conducted during COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(9), 536-543. http://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2020.4033
  45. Lashley, M. A., Acevedo, M., Cotner, S., & Lortie, C. J. (2020). How the ecology and evolution of the COVID‐19 pandemic changed learning. Ecology and Evolution, 10(22), 12412–12417. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6937
  46. Leonardi, P. (2020). You're going digital-now what? MITSloan Management Review, 61(2), 28-35. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/youre-going-digital-now-what/
  47. MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2020). Language teachers’ coping strategies during the Covid-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress, wellbeing and negative emotions. System, 102352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102352
  48. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623-626. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623
  49. Mather, M., & Lighthall, N. R. (2012). Risk and reward are processed differently in decisions made under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 36-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429452
  50. McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2016). Örgütsel davranış. (A. Günsel & S. Bozkurt, Trans. Ed.). Nobel.
  51. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2020a, 12 March). Bakan Selçuk, korona virüse karşı eğitim alanında alınan tedbirleri açıkladı. http://www.meb.gov.tr/bakan-selcuk-koronaviruse-karsi-egitim-alaninda-alinan-tedbirleri-acikladi/haber/20497/tr (08.31.2021)
  52. Moçoşoğlu, B., & Kaya, A. (2020). Koronavirüs hastalığı (COVID-19) sebebiyle uygulanan uzaktan eğitime yönelik öğretmen tutumlarının incelenmesi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 2(1), 15-43. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1309984
  53. MoNE (2020b, 7 May). EBA, 1.2 milyar tıklanma sayısıyla kendi rekorunu güncelledi. https://www.meb.gov.tr/eba-12-milyar-tiklanma-sayisiyla-kendi-rekorunu-guncelledi/haber/20862/tr (09.21.2021)
  54. Moore, A. & Malinowski, P. (2009). Mediation, mindfulness, and cognitive flexibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(1), 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.12.008
  55. Nguyen, M. H., Hargittai, E., & Marler, W. (2021). Digital inequality in communication during a time of physical distancing: the case of COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106717
  56. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Corwith, S. (2011). Distance education: where it started and where it stands for gifted children and their educators. Gifted Child Today, 34(3), 16–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751103400306
  57. Özdamar, K. (2015). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (10th ed.). Nisan.
  58. Özer, M. (2020). Educational policy actions by the Ministry of National Education in the times of COVID-19. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(3), 1124-1129. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.722280
  59. Öztürk, G., Karamete, A., & Çetin, G. (2020). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ cognitive flexibility levels and techno-pedagogical education competencies. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 7(1), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.623668
  60. Polatoğlu, E. (2018). Özel gereksinimli bireylerle çalışan öğretmenlerin bilişsel esneklik düzeyleri ile yaratıcılık ve empati düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. (Publication no. 529376)[Master dissertation, Marmara University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
  61. Sapmaz, F., & Doğan, T. (2013). Bilişsel esnekliğin değerlendirilmesi: Bilişsel Esneklik Envanteri Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(1), 143-161. https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/bilissel-esneklik-envanteri-toad.pdf
  62. Saygı, H. (2021). Covid-19 pandemi uzaktan eğitim sürecinde sınıf öğretmenlerinin karşılaştığı sorunlar. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 109-129. https://doi.org/10.51948/auad.841632
  63. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Seçkin.
  64. Sezgin, F. (2009). Ölçme ve değerlendirmede temel istatistiksel işlemler. E. Karip (Edt.). Ölçme ve değerlendirme (3. Ed.) (pp. 51-88). Pegem.
  65. Sułkowski, Ł. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic; recession, virtual revolution leading to de-globalization? Journal of Intercultural Management, 12(1), 1-11. https://10.2478/joim-2020-0029
  66. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Edt.). Pearson.
  67. Tabata, L. N., & Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9094-7
  68. The World Bank. (2020). How countries are using edtech (including online learning, radio, television, texting) to support access to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/edutech/brief/how-countries-are-using-edtech-to-support-remote-learning-during-the-covid-19-pandemic (09.10.2021)
  69. Türker, E., & Dündar, E. (2020). COVID-19 Pandemi sürecinde Eğitim Bilişim Ağı (EBA) üzerinden yürütülen uzaktan eğitimlerle ilgili lise öğretmenlerinin görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.37669/millieğitim.738702
  70. Tzivinikou, S., Charitaki, G., & Kagkara, D. (2020). Distance education attitudes (DEAS) during Covid-19 crisis: factor structure, reliability and construct validity of the brief DEA Scale in Greek-Speaking SEND teachers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09483-1
  71. UNESCO. (2020a). COVID-19 impact on education. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse (08.10.2020)
  72. UNESCO. (2020b). COVID-19 Educational disruption and response. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse (07.18.2020)
  73. UNESCO. (2020c). COVID-19: 10 recommendations to ensure that learning remains uninterrupted. (08.10.2020)
  74. UNESCO. (2020d). School, health and nutrition: Why COVID-19 demands a rethink of education to address gender inequalities. https://en.unesco.org/news/school-health-and-nutrition-why-covid-19-demands-rethink-education-address-gender-inequalities (11.10.2020)
  75. UNESCO. (2020e). Distance learning solutions. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/solutions (09.01.2021)
  76. UNESCO. (2021). Global monitoring of school closures coused by COVID-19. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse#schoolclosures (09.01.2021)
  77. Uysal, D. (2021). Emergency distance education experiences of primary school teachers teaching, first grade students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 229-250. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.15
  78. Üzümcü, B., & Müezzin, E. E. (2018). Öğretmenlerin bilişsel esneklik ve mesleki doyum düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(1), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.325679
  79. van Deursen A. J. (2020). Digital inequality during a pandemic: quantitative study of differences in COVID-19–related internet uses and outcomes among the general population. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8), e20073. https://doi.org/10.2196/20073
  80. Vieira A.L.(2011). Preparation of the analysis. Interactive LISREL in practice. Springer.
  81. Westbrook, S. R., Hankosky, E. R., Dwyer, M. R., & Gulley, J. M. (2018). Age and sex differences in behavioral flexibility, sensitivity to reward value, and risky decision-making. Behavioral Neuroscience, 132(2), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/bne0000235
  82. Yahşi, Ö., & Kırkıç, K. A. (2020). Uzaktan eğitim sürecinde öğretmenlerin uzaktan eğitime yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi. Turkish Studies - Education, 15(5), 3827-3847. https://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.46136
  83. Yaşar, O. (2019). Yönetici kararları ve bilişsel esnekliği: Yöneticiler nasıl karar alıyor? Nörobilim ne diyor?. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(71), 1176-1194. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.491522
  84. Yazgan, A. D. (2021). Öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel esneklik düzeyleri ile kültürel zekâ düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1), 212-231. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.803469
  85. Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: a new look at an old concept. D. BarTal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), In The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315-34). Cambridge University.
  86. Zheng, Y., & Walsham, G. (2021). Inequality of what? An intersectional approach to digital inequality under Covid-19. Information and Organization, 31(1), 100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100
  87. Yaşar, O. (2019). Yönetici kararları ve bilişsel esnekliği: Yöneticiler nasıl karar alıyor? Nörobilim ne diyor?. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(71), 1176-1194. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.491522