Faculties' Information and Communication Technologies Action Competencies

被引:0
作者
Kurt, Adile Askim [1 ]
Akbulut, Yavuz [1 ]
Odabasi, Hatice Ferhan [1 ]
Donmez, Onur [2 ]
Kuzu, Elif Bugra [1 ]
Ceylan, Beril [2 ]
Izmirli, Ozden Sahin [3 ]
机构
[1] Anadolu Univ, Fac Educ, Eskisehir, Turkey
[2] Anadolu Univ, Grad Sch Educ Sci, Eskisehir, Turkey
[3] Eskisehir Osmangazi Univ, Fac Educ, Eskisehir, Turkey
来源
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH | 2012年 / 12卷 / 49A期
关键词
Information and Communication Technologies Action Competence; faculty; Computer Education & Instructional Technology (CEIT) departments; PRESERVICE TEACHERS; EDUCATION; COMPUTER;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Problem Statement: Information and Communication Technologies Action Competence (ICTAC) is defined as "individual's motivation and capacity of using information and communication technologies (ICTs) in course of critically selecting and conducting possible democratic actions that may solve societal problems related or not related to ICTs". In contrast to other fields of action competence, ICTAC is a term that deals with not only solving society-wide problems in ICT field but also all problems having potential of being affected by KT-society relation. Faculties from department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology (CEIT) have significant roles in the process of helping individuals acquire ICTAC. Purpose of Study: The aim of this research is to determine ICTAC levels of faculties from CEIT departments and whether faculties' ICTAC differed with regard to their gender, seniority, academic title, and bachelor's degree. Method: The study was conducted with the use of singular and relational survey methods, and the study group included 83 faculties studying at CEIT departments of 32 different universities in Turkey. Data collected through the ICTAC Scale developed by researchers. This is a single factor scale with 0.98 reliability coefficient. Findings: Faculties frequently performed action competence examples given in data collection tool, faculties' ICTAC did not differ with regard to their gender, academic title, and bachelor's degree and faculties' ICTAC decreased while their seniority increased. Discussion and Results: Results suggested no significant difference between participants' ICTACs with respect to gender. While there is a tendency to reveal gender differences within techno-centric studies this study is an exception. Gender differences may be minimized by the fact that faculties are well educated and relatively homogenous with regard to field expertise. However revealing no significant gender differences and higher means is a positive finding. Another essential finding of this study is negative correlation between ICTAC and seniority. This finding can be explained by faculties' academic obsolescence. However this assertion needs further examination. Furthermore this can also be attributed to older faculties' lower ICT uses and competencies. There is also no significant difference with respect to participants' BA fields. A possible explanation to no significant difference results may be the fact that ICTAC deals with societal problems in which solution processes are not affected by these variables.
引用
收藏
页码:261 / 274
页数:14
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [1] Akbulut Y, 2008, TURK ONLINE J EDUC T, V7, P18
  • [2] Akbulut Y, 2011, TURK ONLINE J EDUC T, V10, P175
  • [3] Almlov M, 2008, J ED SUSTAINABLE DEV, V2, P173
  • [4] [Anonymous], INT US STAT
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2012, Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International
  • [6] Barrett M.J., 2006, ENVIRON EDUC RES, V12, P503, DOI DOI 10.1080/3504650600799273
  • [7] Investigation of first year pre-service teachers' computer and internet uses in terms of gender
    Birgin, Osman
    Coker, Bunyamin
    Catlioglu, Hakan
    [J]. INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION, 2010, 2 (02): : 1588 - 1592
  • [8] Birol C, 2009, EURASIAN J EDUC RES, V8, P185
  • [9] The progressive development of environmental education in Sweden and Denmark
    Breiting, Soren
    Wickenberg, Per
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2010, 16 (01) : 9 - 37
  • [10] Cairns K., 2001, P 30 ANN N AM ASS EN