SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İlköğretim Online / 2010 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Educational technology usage of pre-service and in-service science and technology teachers

Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin ve öğretmen adaylarının eğitim teknolojilerini kullanımı

Şenol BEŞOLUK
N. İzzet KURBANOĞLU
İsmail ÖNDER
Pages
389–395
Publication Date
2010-06-26
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)

Results indicated that having an MS degree make difference on awareness of current research about the effectiveness of educational technology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Effective science education needs use of various technological tools in classroom and laboratory situations by teachers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample was composed of 33 inservice science and technology teachers and 76 pre-service senior science and technology teachers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicated that having an MS degree make difference on awareness of current research about the effectiveness of educational technology.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Educational technology · science education · teacher training.

Abstract

Effective science education needs use of various technological tools in classroom and laboratory situations by teachers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate pre-service and in-service science and technology teachers’ views and usage of technological tools in their science lessons in schools in Sakarya in Turkey. In order to get information, technology questionnaire was used. The sample was composed of 33 inservice science and technology teachers and 76 pre-service senior science and technology teachers. Results indicated that having an MS degree make difference on awareness of current research about the effectiveness of educational technology. Pre-service and in service teachers statistically differ with respect to current knowledge in the ways in which computers can be used. In-service teachers with over 15 years experience have the lowest knowledge in which ways computers can be used. Pre-service science and technology teachers indicated that their assignments sometimes require or assume the use of educational technology. Moreover, science and technology teachers defined their students’ frequency of using technological tools while preparing their homework in medium level. In general the results indicated that participants have medium level of technology knowledge but they desire to have higher level of technology knowledge.

Özet

-

🔖

Cite This Article

BEŞOLUK, Ş., KURBANOĞLU, N. İ., ÖNDER, İ. (2010). Educational technology usage of pre-service and in-service science and technology teachers. İlköğretim Online, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 389–395. https://ajindex.com/articles/999311

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Beal, M. (2000). Teaching with technology: Constructivism at work. In L. Lloyd (Ed.), Teaching with technology: Rethinking tradition. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  2. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons (pp. 229-270).
  3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  4. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.
  5. Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 67–74. Dmitrenko,T. A. (2005). Educational technologies in the system of higher education. Russian Education and Society, 47 (6), 73–82.
  6. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.
  7. Hawley, W.D. & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective Professional development: a new consensus. In: Sykes G, Darling-Hammond L (eds) Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. Jossey Bass, San Francisco. KarslX, M. D. & Gündüz, H. B. (2002). FXrsat e[itli i açXsXndan dijital bölünme ve Türkiye’deki durum. Sakarya Üniversitesi E*itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4, 238-245.
  8. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, B., Marx, R., & Soloway. E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstell, & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry: Science learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
  9. Krajcik, J., & Starr, M. (2001). Learning science content in a project-based environment. In R. Tinker,& J. S. Krajcik (Eds), Portable technologies: Science learning in context. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  10. Krajcik, J.S. (2002). The value and challenges of using learning technologies to support students in learning science. Research in Science Education, 32, 411–414.
  11. Lancashire, R. J. (2000). The use of Internet for teaching chemistry. Analytica Chimica Acta, 420, 239–244.
  12. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A.,& Bell, P. (2004). Inquir