SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama / 2014 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

TENDENCY SCALE FOR TECHNOLOGY USE IN CLASS: DEVELOPMENT, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

DERSTE TEKNOLOJİ KULLANIMINA YÖNELİK EĞİLİM ÖLÇEĞİ: GELİŞTİRME, GÜVENİRLİK ve GEÇERLİK

Selim GÜNÜÇ
Abdullah KUZU
Pages
863–884
Publication Date
2014-08-12
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)

Higher scores to be produced by TSTUC refer to the fact that there is a higher tendency towards technology use in classes or that technology use is favored more by students in classes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In related literature, there is a need for a measurement tool to examine students’ tendencies towards technology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants of the study were 796 student teachers attending the Education Faculty at Anadolu University in Turkey in the Spring Term of the academic year of 2013-2014.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Higher scores to be produced by TSTUC refer to the fact that there is a higher tendency towards technology use in classes or that technology use is favored more by students in classes.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:2013-2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Eğilim · Teknoloji · Ölçek geliştirme

Abstract

In related literature, there is a need for a measurement tool to examine students’ tendencies towards technology. For this reason, the present study aimed at developing a scale for the tendency towards technology use in class. As there is limited research in literature, the item pool was developed mostly based on the data collected via the interviews and the written compositions. The participants of the study were 796 student teachers attending the Education Faculty at Anadolu University in Turkey in the Spring Term of the academic year of 2013-2014. EFA and CFA were conducted with different samples, and a five-point Likert-type scale made up of 16 items and two factors (emotional and behavioral tendencies) was developed. The total explained variance for the two factors of TSTUC was calculated as around 60%. The Cronbach’s Alpha (α) internal consistency reliability coefficient of the total scale was calculated as .93 as a result of EFA and .953 as a result of CFA. Higher scores to be produced by TSTUC refer to the fact that there is a higher tendency towards technology use in classes or that technology use is favored more by students in classes.

Özet

Alanyazında, öğrencilerin teknolojiye yönelik eğilimlerini incelemek için bir ölçme aracına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada derste teknoloji kullanımına yönelik eğilim ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Alanyazındaki sınırlı araşmalar nedeniyle, madde havuzu önemli ölçüde katılımcılarla yapılan görüşme ve yazdırılan kompozisyonlardan elde edilen verilerle geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını 20132014 öğretim yılı bahar döneminde Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi’nde öğrenim gören 796 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. AFA ve DFA farklı örneklem gruplarla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda, iki faktör (duyuşşal ve davranışsal eğilim) ve toplam 16 maddeden oluşsan beşli likert tipinde bir ölçek geliştirilmiştir. İki faktöre ilişkin toplam açıklanan varyans %60 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğe ilişkin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayısı AFA sonucunda .93 ve DFA sonucunda .953 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçekten alınan yüksek puan, derste teknoloji kullanımına yönelik yüksek eğilime ya da derste teknoloji kullanımının daha çok tercih edildiğine işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNÜÇ, S., KUZU, A. (2014). TENDENCY SCALE FOR TECHNOLOGY USE IN CLASS: DEVELOPMENT, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 863–884. https://ajindex.com/articles/250509

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Allison, B. and Rehm, M. (2007). Effective teaching strategies for middle school learners in multicultural, multilingual classrooms. Middle School Journal, 39(2), 12-18.
  2. Brown, J. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the way people learn. Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association, 16(2), 31-36.
  3. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. NY: Guilford Publications, Inc. DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2. ed.). Sage. DeWitt, D. and Siraj, S. (2010). Learners’ perceptions of technology for design of a collaborative m-learning module. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(3), 169-185.
  4. Doppelt, Y. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of science–technology learning environments. Learning Environ Res, 9, 163–178.
  5. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll ( ed.). London: Sage Publications. Frand, J. L. (2000). The ınformation-age mindset: changes in students and implications for higher education. Educause Review, 35(5), 14-24.
  6. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P.C. and Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
  7. Gibbs, R and Poskitt, J. (2010). Student engagement in the middle years of schooling (years 7-10): A literature review. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Golubski, P. M. (2012). Utilizing Interactive Technologies to Engage, Integrate, Involve, and Increase Community amongst College Students. V. Wang, L. Farmer, J. Parker, and P. Golubski (Eds.) In Pedagogical and Andragogical Teaching and Learning with Information Communication Technologies (pp.1327). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Gunuc, S. (2013). Determining the role of technology in student engagement and examining of the relationships between student engagement and technology use in class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Anadolu University, Turkey. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Th Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
  8. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
  9. Huck, S. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6. ed.). Boston: Pearso