Onur DÖNMEZ, Buğra Elif KUZU, Beril CEYLAN, Yavuz AKBULUT, Aşkım Adile KURT, Ferhan Hatice ODABAŞI, Özden İZMİRLİ ŞAHİN

Faculties' information and communication technologies action competencies

Problem durumu BİT eylem yeterliliğini, “bireylerin fark ettikleri toplumsal sorunları çözebilecek demokratik eylemleri seçme ve gerçekleştirmede kişisel çıkarlarını gözetmeksizin BİT yeter liklerini etkin bir biçimde işe koşma kapasite ve motivasyonları” şeklinde tanımlamaktadır. Görüldüğü gibi BİT eylem yeterliliği, diğer eylem yeterliliği alanlarının aksine sadece BİT alanında ortaya çıkan toplumsal sorunların çözümüne değil; BİT - toplum il işkisi tarafından etkilenme potansiyeline sahip tüm sorunlarla ilgilenen bir kavramdır. Odabaşı (2010) BİTler ile yakın ilişkide olan ve bu ilişki sonucu dönüşümler geçiren alanları (aile, sağlık, iletişim, medya, hukuk, bilimsel araştırma, öğretme – öğrenme süreci, vatandaşlık, üretim – tüketim) belirlemiştir. Bu alanlar aynı zamanda BİT eylem y eterliliğinin faaliyet alanlarıdır. Yukarıda sıralanan alanları da göz önüne alarak BİT alanında çalışanlarından beklenen, teknoloji alanında yetkin olmaları ve fark ettikleri toplumsal sorunlara teknolojiyi etkili ve verimli şekilde kullanarak çözüm sağla malarıdır. Eylem yeterliliğinin özellikle toplumu etkileme potansiyeli yüksek olan öğretmenlere kazandırılmasının önemli olduğu düşünülmektedir. BİT eylem yeterliliği bağlamında da BİT konusunda okuryazarlığı ve hazır bulunuşluğu yüksek olan Eğitim Fakült esi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi (BÖTE) Bölümü öğretim üyelerinin bu konudaki yeterliklerinin büyük önem taşıdığı düşünülmektedir. Araştırmanın Amacı Eurasian Journal of Educationa l Research 262 Bu çalışmanın amacı BÖTE bölümü öğretim üyelerinin BİT eylem yeterliliği düzeyleri ile BÖT E bölümü öğretim üyelerinin BİT eylem yeterliklerinin cinsiyetlerine, mesleki kıdemlerine, akademik unvanlarına ve mezun oldukları lisans programlarına göre değişip değişmediğini belirlemektir. Yöntem Tarama modelinde desenlenen araştırmaya 32 farklı ünive rsitenin BÖTE bölümlerinde görev yapan 83 öğretim üyesi katılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacıların geliştirdiği 44 maddeden oluşan, güvenirlik katsayısı 0.98 olan ve tek faktörlü bir yapı sergileyen Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Eylem Yeterl iliği Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Bulgular BİT eylem yeterliliği bağlamında BÖTE bölümü öğretim üyelerinin ortalama değerleri 3.95’tir (SS=.54). Elde edilen ortalamanın her zaman ile hiçbir zaman seçeneklerinin tam ortasına tekabül eden 3 değerinin anlamlı dere cede üstünde olduğu gözlemlenmektedir (t (82) =15.940; p

Öğretim üyelerinin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri eylem yeterlilikleri

Problem Statement: Information and Commu nication 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 socie tal 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 ICT - society rela tion. 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 f aculties 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 a re 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 seniori ty. 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 wi th 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.

PDF

___

Akbulut, Y. (2008). Exploration of the attitudes of freshman foreign language students toward using computers at a Turkish state university. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(1), 18-31.
Akbulut, Y., Odabaşı, H.F., & Kuzu, A. (2011). Perceptions of preservice teachers regarding the integration of information and communication technologies in Turkish education faculties. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (3), 175-184.
Almlöv, M„ & Moberg, E. (2008). Students in possession of the issues of tomorrow: An innovative student led course project. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2, 173 -179.
Barrett, M. J. (2006). Education for the environment: Action competence, becoming, and story. Environmental Education Research, 12(4), 503-511.
Birgin, O., Çöker, B., & Çatlıoğlu, H. (2010). Investigation of first year pre-service teachers' computer and internet uses in terms of gender. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2,1588-1592
Birol, C, Bekiroğulları, Z., Etçi, C., & Dağlı, G. (2009). Gender and computer anxiety, motivation, self-confidence, and computer use. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34,185-198.
Breiting, S., & Wickenberg, P. (2010). The progressive development of environmental education in Sweden and Denmark. Environmental Education Researcii, 16 (1), 9-37.
Cairns, K. (2001). Environmental Education with a Local Focus: The Development of Action Competency by Community Leaders through Participation in an Environmental Leadership Program. Proceeding of the 30th Annual North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) Conference, Georgia, USA.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deniz, S., Görgen, İ. & Şeker, H. (2006). Attitudes of prospective teachers attending master program without thesis towards technology. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 23, 62-71.
Eames, C, Law, B., Barker, M„ lies, H., McKenzie, J., Williams, P., et al. (2006). Investigating teachers' pedagogical approaclies in environmental education that promote students' action competence. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council of Educational Research. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.tlri.org.nz/projects/2004/environmental.html
Erdemir, N., Bakırcı, H., & Eyduran, E. (2009). öğretmen adaylarının eğitimde teknolojiyi kullanabilme özgüvenlerinin tespiti [Determining of student teachers' self-confidence using technology in instruction]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6 (3), 99-108.
Fontes, P. J. (2004). Action competence as an integrating objective for environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 9,148-162.
Internet World Stats (2012). Internet Usage Statistics. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http: / / www. intcrnetworldsta ts.com/ sta ts.htm
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education Research, 3 (2), 163-178.
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (2006). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12 (3-4), 471486.
Kabakçı, I., Akbulut, Y., & özoğul, P. (2009). Perceived problems of computer teachers. Eğitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational ResearcJt, 34, 199-214.
Korkut, E., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2008). Yabancı dil öğretmen adaylarının bilgi ve bilgisayar okuryazarlık öz-yeterlikleri [Foreign language teacher candidates' information and computer literacy perceived self efficacy], Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34,178-188.
Mcnzi, N., Çalışkan, E., & Çetin, O. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji yeterliliklerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Examination of the competencies of pre-service teachers in terms of some variables]. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 2(1), 1-18.
Mogensen, F. (1997). Critical thinking: A central element in developing action competence in health and environmental education. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 12 (4), 429- 436.
Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the new discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 26(1), 59-74.
Odabaşı, H. F„ Kurt, A. A., Akbulut, Y., Dönmez, O., Ceylan, B., Şahin İzmirli, Ö., Kuzu, E. B., & Karakoyun, F. (2011). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri eylem yeterliliği [Information and communication technologies (ICT) action competence]. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 2(1), 36 - 48.
Odabaşı, H.F. (Ed.) (2010). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri ışığtnda dönüşümler [Transformations in the light of information and communication technologies]. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Schnack, K. (1996) Internationalization, democracy and environmental education. ln S. Breiting & K. Nielsen (Eds) Environmental education resefilrh in the Nordic countries proceedings from the research centre for environmental and health education (pp.7-19). Copenhagen: The Royal Danish School Of Educational Studies.
Seezink, A., Poell R. F„ & Kirschner P. A. (2009). Teachers' individual action theories about competence-based education: The value of the cognitive apprenticeship model. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 61(2), 203-215.
Spork, H. (1993) Health, environment and community development, In J. Fien, (Ed.). Teaching for a sustainable world. Brisbane: Australian Association for Environmental Education.
Tones, K. (1994). Health promotion, empowerment and action comfetehce. (n B. B. Jensen and K. Schnack (Eds) Action and action competence a? kvy concepts m critical pedagogy (pp.163-183). Copenhagen: Royal Danish School of Educational Studies.
Turkish Language Association (2012). Güncel Türkçe sözlük [Contemporary Turkish dictionary]. Retrieved August 17, ?Ql2 from
http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&:guidaTDK GTS.502decl6061950.53869414
Turkish Statistical Institute (2010, Ağustos). 2010 yılı hane halkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması sonuçlan [IT usage household survey results of 2010J (Basın bülteni no: 148). Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
Ulaş, A.H. & Ozan, C. (2010). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin eğitim teknolojileri açısından yeterlilik düzeyi [The qualification level of primary school teûchers' use of educational technology]. Atatürk University Journal of Graduate &loo/ of Social Sciences, 14 (1), 63-84.