You are here

Öğretmen Eğitiminde Bilişim Teknolojilerinin Kullanımı: Mevcut ve Beklenen Durum

Use of Information Technology in Teacher Education: Current and Expected Status

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Today, technology is in every area of life so that it is important to train pre-service teachers in technological educational environments. In this context, teacher trainers have an important role on training quality pre-service teachers. The purpose of this study is to investigate and to reveal the needs and expectations of current technology use in pre-service teacher education. In this respect data were collected from 75 faculty members from Ataturk University Kâzım Karabekir Education Faculty, in Erzurum province. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods are used to analyze data. Findings suggest that, teacher trainers use basic technological tools such as computers and projectors more than complex technologies such as camera and smartboards. Similarly, it is observed that, teacher educators prefer basic computer softwares such as word-processors and basic presentation programs more than complex ones such as educational games and social networking tools and websites. Additionally, the lack of equipment and in-service training are the basic barriers to integrate technology into the teacher education curricula in teacher training institutions in Turkey.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Teknolojinin hayatın her alanında yer aldığı günümüzde, eğitimde teknoloji entegrasyonunun başarılı bir şekilde gerçekleştirilebilmesi için öğretmenlerin bu teknolojileri iyi bir şekilde kullanması gerektiği kadar, onları yetiştiren öğretim üyelerinin de derslerini teknoloji ile bütünleştirmeleri önemlidir. Bu çalışmada eğitim fakültelerinde görev yapan öğretim üyelerinin bilişim teknolojilerini mevcut kullanım durumlarının ortaya çıkarılarak ihtiyaç ve beklentilerinin ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda Atatürk Üniversitesi Kâzım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi'nde görev yapan 75 öğretim üyesinden anket aracılığıyla veri toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel ve kestirimsel istatistiksel hesaplama yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, öğretim üyelerinin bilgisayar ve projeksiyon gibi temel teknolojik araçları etkileşimli tahta ve kamera gibi daha karmaşık araçlara göre daha çok kullandıklarını göstermiştir. Benzer şekilde öğretim teknolojisi olarak kelime işlemci ve sunum programları gibi daha temel programların, eğitsel oyunlar ve sosyal ağlar gibi daha gelişmiş araçlara göre daha fazla tercih edildiği gözlenmiştir. Ayrıca donanım ve hizmet içi eğitim yetersizliği gibi faktörlerin sınıflarda teknoloji entegrasyonunu engelleyen en önemli etmenler olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.
1
9

REFERENCES

References: 

Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information and communication technology by early career science teachers in Western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 203—219.
Ebert-May, D.,
Derting
, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience, 61(7), 550-558.
Göktaş, Y., Yıldırım Z., & Yıldırım S.(2008). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin eğitim fakültelerindeki durumu: Dekanların görüşleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(149), 30-50.
Goktas, Y., Yildirim, Z.,
&
Yildirim, S.
(2008)
. The keys for ICT integration in K-12: Teachers perceptions and usage. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34, 127-139.
Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICT integration into preservice teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society,
ÖNERİLER
KAYNAKLAR
12(1), 193-204.
7
Journal of
Educational
Sciences
Adnan Menderes
Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi
Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Haziran 2013, 4(1), 1-9
http:/ / dergi.adu.edu.tr/ egitimbilimleri/
Gulbahar, Y. (2008). ICT usage in higher education: A case study on preservice teachers and instructors. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(1), 32-37.
Haydn, T. A., & Barton, R. (2007). Common needs and different agendas: how trainee teachers make progress in their ability to use ICT in subject teaching. Some lessons from the UK. Computers & Education, 49, 1018—1036.
Kaplan. S. N. (1986). Alternatives for the design of gifted inservice and staff development. Gifted Child Quarterly 30(3) 138-139.
Langenberg, D. N., & Spicer, D. Z. (2001). The Modern Campus. Technology Leadership Communication and Information Systems in Higher Education. New Directions for Higher Education,115, 3-15.
Latchem, C., Odabaşı, F. H. and Kabakçı, I. (2006). Online professional development for university teaching in Turkey: A proposal. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(3), 20¬26.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D.T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Method in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Löfström,
E.
, & Nevgi, A. (2008). University teaching staffs' pedagogical awareness displayed through ICT-facilitated teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 101-116.
McCarney, J. (2004). Effective models of staff development in ICT. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 61-72.
Painter, S. R. (2001). Issues in the observation and evaluation of technology integration in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Computing in Education, 17(4), 21-25.
Pempek, T., Yermolayeva, A. Y., Calvert, L. S., (2009). College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30. 227-238.
Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S., & Kommers, P. (2012). Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of ethnicity, academic and social integration. Higher Education, 63(6), 685-700.
Schlicter C.L. (1986). Talents Un limited: An in service education model for teaching thinking skills.
Gifted ChildQuerterly, 30(3) 119-122.
Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional development in higher education: the state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 25-49.
Şencan, H., & Erdoğmuş, N. (2001). İşletmelerde eğitim ihtiyaç analizi. Beta Yayım Dağıtım.
Volman, M. (2005). A variety of roles for a new type of teacher; educational technology and the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1), 15-31.
Vrocharidou, A., & Efthymiou, I. (2012). Computer mediated communication for social and academic purposes: Profiles of use and University students' gratifications. Computers & Education, 58(1), 609-616.
Wepner, S. B., Ziomek, N., & Tao, L. (2003). Three teacher educators' perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education,
24(4), 53—63.
Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wood. B, Feldhusen.J.F. (1996). Creating special interes programs for gifted youth: Purdue's super saturday serves as successful model. Gifted Child Today Magasine, 19, 22-28
8
Journal of Adnan Menderes
Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi
Educational
Eğitim
Bilimleri Dergisi, Haziran 2013, 4(1), 1-9
S c i e n c e s http://dergi.adu.edu.tr/egitimbilimleri/
Wooden, S., & Babtiste, N. (1990). Pre/In Service Training Requires Planning. Day Care and Early Education, 18, 34-36.
Yalcin, S. A., Yalcin, S., Sagirli, M. O., Yalcin, P., & Koc, A. (2011). The Usage of instructional technologies by lecturers (examples of Erzincan). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28,
435—438.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52, 302—312.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com