Journals / Contemporary Educational Technology / 2018 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Investigation of Emerging Technology Usage Characteristics as Predictors of Innovativeness

Pages
225–245
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Implications are discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:For today’s societies trying to cope with the current globally increased competition,existence of individuals who can take risks, solve problems and adopt changes an innovationhas gained more importance when compared to the past.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was conducted with 244 university students fromdifferent class grades at a state university in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Implications are discussed.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

For today’s societies trying to cope with the current globally increased competition,existence of individuals who can take risks, solve problems and adopt changes an innovationhas gained more importance when compared to the past. This situation brings responsibilityto educational institutions for increasing the number of innovative individuals and thequalifications of these individuals. Therefore, in the process of designing and developingany kind of in-class activities which will contribute to innovativeness, it is important todetermine the technology usage characteristics that can be used to define individuals whohave high levels of innovativeness. The purpose of the present study was to determine thevariables related to technology which will be used to discriminate between individuals whohave high and low levels of innovativeness. In the study, which was carried out using thecausal-comparative design, a logistic regression model was formed by using technologyrelated variables, and which technology-related variables managed to predict high level ofinnovativeness was tested. In the logistic model, the technology budget (purchases,internet, and phone bills), technology ownership (smart phones, tablets, laptops, personalcomputers, internet, websites, blogs), technology renewal/update time (smart phones,computers), the number of utilized internet applications and internet usage habits wereanalyzed as predictors. The study was conducted with 244 university students fromdifferent class grades at a state university in Turkey. The results revealed that among thevariables examined, only the variables of Internet usage habit, the number of Internetapplications used, blog ownership and the money spent on technology use were significantpredictors. In addition, the model in which these variables were used was found to classifyhigh and low levels of innovativeness with accuracy of 71%. Implications are discussed.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇER, K., ARPACI, İ., BARDAKCI, S. (2022). Investigation of Emerging Technology Usage Characteristics as Predictors of Innovativeness. Contemporary Educational Technology, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 225–245. https://ajindex.com/articles/476626

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abu-Al-Aish, A. & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students' acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5), 82-107.
  2. Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.204
  3. Aston, M. (2002). The development and use of indicators to measure the impact of ICT use in education in the United Kingdom and other European countries. Retrieved on 09 March 2018 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001311/131124e.
  4. Beal, G. M. & Bohlen, J. M. (1956). The diffusion process. Farm Foundation, Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies, 111-121. Retrieved on 08 January 2016 from http://purl.umn.edu/17351
  5. Celik, K. (2013). The relationship between individual innovativeness and self-efficacy levels of student teachers. Inernational Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 6(1), 56-67.
  6. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Cuhadar, C., Bulbul, T., & Ilgaz, G. (2013). Exploring of the relationship between individual innovativeness and techno-pedagogical education competencies of pre-service teachers. Elementary Education Online, 12(3), 797-807.
  7. Daud, N. M. & Zakaria, H. (2017). Impact of antecedent factors on collaborative technologies usage among academic researchers in Malaysian research universities. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(3), 189-209.
  8. Drucker, P. (1985). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 5-10.
  9. Elci, S. (2006). Innovation: The key for development and competition (2nd Ed.). Ankara:
  10. Nova. Fagan, M., Kilmon, C., & Pandey, V. (2012). Exploring the adoption of a virtual reality simulation: The role of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 117-127.
  11. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd Ed.). London: Sage. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. & Hyun, H.H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010068703786
  12. Geoghegan, W. (1995). Stuck at the barricades: Ca