SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

TURKISH ADAPTATION OF MOBILE LEARNING READINESSSCALE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEORY OF PLANNEDBEHAVIOR

Kibar SUNGUR GÜL
Hüseyin ATEŞ
Journal
IOJET
Pages
814–831
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

It was found that the level of internal consistency value was 0.93 and sub-factors of MLRS were at a good level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study is to conduct the validity-reliability study of mobile learning readiness scale (MLRS) developed by Cheon, Lee, Crooks, and Song (2012) in the framework of the theory of planned behavior by adapting it to Turkish.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants determined using convenience sampling method consist of 344 pre-service science teachers studying at two different faculties of education (Nevşehir Hacı Bektas Veli University and Kırşehir Ahi Evran University) in the spring semester of 2018-2019 in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that the level of internal consistency value was 0.93 and sub-factors of MLRS were at a good level.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of the study is to conduct the validity-reliability study of mobile learning readiness scale (MLRS) developed by Cheon, Lee, Crooks, and Song (2012) in the framework of the theory of planned behavior by adapting it to Turkish. The participants determined using convenience sampling method consist of 344 pre-service science teachers studying at two different faculties of education (Nevşehir Hacı Bektas Veli University and Kırşehir Ahi Evran University) in the spring semester of 2018-2019 in Turkey. The construct validity of the scale adapted to Turkish was carried out via the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method. The reliability of the scale was tested by computing Cronbach’s alpha (α) as internal consistency levels. It was found that the level of internal consistency value was 0.93 and sub-factors of MLRS were at a good level. In conclusion, the Turkish version of the MLRS in the framework of the theory of planned behavior consists of four main factors including attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention and three external beliefs including Attitudinal Beliefs (Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness), Normative beliefs (Instructor Readiness, Student Readiness), and Control beliefs (Perceived Self-efficacy, Learning Autonomy) as in the original model.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜL, K. S., ATEŞ, H. (2022). TURKISH ADAPTATION OF MOBILE LEARNING READINESSSCALE IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEORY OF PLANNEDBEHAVIOR. IOJET, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 814–831. https://ajindex.com/articles/493120

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Alkiş, N. & Coşkunçay, D. F. (2018). Mobile learning acceptance: A systematic literature review, Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(2), 571-589.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  3. Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations, Internet Resources, Retrieved from www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf, accessed 09th of November 2020.
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior (1th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice-Hall. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453- 474. Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: A commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology Review. doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.883474. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
  6. Baran, E. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32.
  7. Basey, J., Sackett, L., & Robinsons, N. (2008). Optimal science lab design: Impacts of various components of lab design on students’ attitudes toward lab. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 1-15.
  8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus editions, 154, 136-136.
  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (23. Baskı). Ankara:
  10. Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (1st ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chen, C. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236.
  11. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054-10