web 2.0 awareness of preservice teachers: a longitudinal study based on innovation-decision process...

WEB 2.0 AWARENESS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY BASED ON

INNOVATION-DECISION PROCESS Assoc. Prof. Yasemin KOÇAK USLUEL

Hacettepe University, Ankarakocak@hacettepe.edu.tr

Pınar NUHOĞLU

Hacettepe University, Ankarapnuhoglu@hacettepe.edu.tr

Esra Telli

Hacettepe University, Ankara esratelli@hacettepe.edu.tr

Gökhan DağhanHacettepe University, Ankara gokhand@hacettepe.edu.tr

EDULEARN12 International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies Barcelona/Spain 2 - 4 July2012

HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY Faculty of EducationComputer Education and Instructional Technology

Aim of the study

This study handles time element of DoI and investigates Web 2.0 awareness of preservice teachers based on innovation-decision process within a longitudinal perspective.

Web 2.0 Technologiessocial networks, learning management systems, search engines, blogs,

podcasts and wikis

Innovation Decision Process Stages“No awareness”“Knowledge”“Implementation”

“Confirmation”

Innovation Decision Process Stages

“The innovation-decision process is the process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision.” (Rogers 2003, p.12).

The Innovation Decision Process (Rogers, 2003)

No awareness

Individual seeks reinforcement

Individual begin to use the innovation.

Individual exposed to the innovation and gains some information about its function

ImplementationKnowledge

Individual has not reached the knowledge stage

No awareness Confirmation

It is aimed to provide findings related web 2.0 adoption processes by determining which of the technologies are at the beginning or end of their diffusion process.

Web 2.0 Technologies

Web 2.0

Social Networks

Podcasts

SearchEngines

Method Study Group

Female Male Total

Education Programs Elementary Mathematics Education f 34 10 44% 24% 7% 31%

Primary School Education f 56 25 81% 40% 18% 58%

Elementary Science Education f 13 2 15% 10% 1% 11%

Total f 103 37 140% 74% 26% 100%

The study group comprised of 140 students (73.5% female, 26.5% male) studying at teacher education programs of a public university.

The data were collected in two phases in the year 2009 and 2011 from the same preservice teachers.

Genders Across to the Education Programs

Method Data Collection Tools“Innovation Decision Process Questionnaire”

Individual seeks reinforcement

Individual begin to use the innovation.

Individual exposed to the innovation and gains some information about its function

ImplementationKnowledge

Individual has not reached the knowledge stage in innovation-decision process

No awareness Confirmation

‘I never heard.’‘I heard but

I’m not using.’

‘I’m using.’

‘I used to use.’

ConfirmationRejection

6 Months

> >Implementation Confirmation Adoption

FindingsSocial Network

No awareness

Knowledge

Implementation

Confirmation - Rejection

Confirmation - Adoption

CE660n660l

CE660n660lCE660n660l

CE660n660l

20092011

FindingsBlog

No Knowledge

Knowledge

Implementation

CE660n660l

CE660n660lCE660n660lCE660n660lCE660n660l

CE660n660l

20092011

FindingsLearning Management System

No Knowledge

Knowledge

Implementation

CE660n660l

CE660n660lCE660n660lCE660n660l

CE660n660l

20092011

FindingsSearch Engines

No Knowledge

Knowledge

Implementation

CE660n660l

20092011

FindingsWiki

No Knowledge

Knowledge

Implementation

CE660n660l

CE660n660l20092011

FindingsPodcast

No Knowledge

Knowledge

Implementation

CE660n660l

20092011

ConclusionBased on DoI theory, the innovation-decision process could also be investigated within a more simple binary classification as “awareness” and “no awareness”.

Social Network

CE665n665l CE665n665l CE665n665lCE660n660l

CE660n660l

CE660n660l CE660n660l

CE660n660l CE660n660lno awarenessawareness

CE660n660l

No awarenessAwareness

Learning Management System

CE660n660l

Search Engines

CE660n660l

CE660n660l No awarenessAwareness

CE660n660l

Podcast

CE660n660l

CE660n660l No awarenessAwareness

Conclusion

Social Network Blog LMS Search Engines Podcast WikiCE660n660l

CE660n660l

20092011

As observed in the study; the diffusion of an innovation may differ according to each technology.

Within two years; the percentages of awareness in all web 2.0 technologies are increased.

Conclusion

CE660n660l

20092011

Nearly completed.

The Diffusion Process

Conclusion

CE660n660l

20092011

Critical mass has been exceeded.

Conclusion

CE660n660l

20092011

Progressing slowly.

Future Studies

The future studies about the reasons of these differences may contribute to DoI theory.

In addition, technology characteristics and individual expectations should be matched with concrete proposals for solutions, because of the possible impact of these characteristics and expectations to the diffusion of technologies.

Social Networks

Podcasts

SearchEngines

Future Studies

Thus web 2.0 technologies have positive effects on learning and interaction, future studies in educational context could

Social Networks

Podcasts

SearchEngines

determine the advantages and disadvantages of technologies that have slow diffusion process.

In addition to these researches it is needed to be investigatedhow to provide awareness about unknown technologies which could help the actors of the educational system.

References[1] Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: theory and emprical tests. The Internet and Higher Education 11(2), pp. 71-80.[2] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2), pp. 179-211.[3] Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. London, Sage Publications.[4] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), pp. 319-340.[5] Doll, W. J., & Ahmed, M. U. (1983). Managing User Expectations. Journal of Systems Management 34(6), pp. 6-11.[6] Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.[7] Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill.[8] Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 21, pp. 183-198.[9] Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., & Gray, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24(1), pp. 108-122.[10] Li, Y. & Lindner, J. R. (2007). Faculty adoption behaviour about web-based distance education: a case study from China Agricultural University. British Journal of Educational Techology 38(1), pp. 83-94.[11] Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., &Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education 57(3), pp. 1893-1906.[12] Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.[13] Simões, L., & Gouveia, L. B. (2008). Web 2.0 and higher education: Pedagogical implications. Higher Education: New Challenges and Emerging Rolesfor Human and Social Development. 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education Technical University of Catalonia (UPC). 31 March, 1-2 April.[14] Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), pp. 625–649.[15] Thompson, R. L., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly 15(1), pp. 125-143.[16] Usluel, Y. K., Mazman, S. G., Arıkan, A. (2009). Prospective teachers’ awareness of collaborative web 2.0 tools. Presented at IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2009, Rome, 19 - 22 November, Italy.[17] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., &Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), pp. 425-478.

WEB 2.0 AWARENESS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY BASED ON

INNOVATION-DECISION PROCESS Assoc. Prof. Yasemin KOÇAK USLUEL

Hacettepe University, Ankarakocak@hacettepe.edu.tr

Pınar NUHOĞLU

Hacettepe University, Ankarapnuhoglu@hacettepe.edu.tr

Esra Telli

Hacettepe University, Ankara esratelli@hacettepe.edu.tr

Gökhan DağhanHacettepe University, Ankara gokhand@hacettepe.edu.tr

EDULEARN12 International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies Barcelona/Spain 2 - 4 July2012

HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY Faculty of EducationComputer Education and Instructional Technology

THANKS…

web 2.0 awareness of preservice teachers: a longitudinal study based on innovation-decision process...

Documents

t.c. gÖlbaŞi kaymakamliĞi Şehit sebahattin koçak kız

ahmet koçak***, fahri adali°, murat tosun°°, sefa celik...

2h. yasemin mumcu prometheus - core

murat kara, Şemseddin koÇak, esin Ünal, erkan kaynak,

the usage of social networks in educational context sacide...

dİĞer psİkotİk bozukluklar uz. dr. yasemin görgülü

yasemin kocak usluel, h.tugba dogan, ayse atasayar, ibrahim...

therapeutic class overview ophthalmic nonsteroidal anti...

weld joint mismatch koçak

adverbs yasemİn Çatak 1090610160 İngilizce...

adoption of web 2.0 tools in distance education yasemin...

akran danişmanlığı / teachıng assıstants yağmur akar ...

this game is designed by yasemin islah @teachaboo

profesyonel müsabakalar - tffistanbul.org · alİ t....

assoc. prof. yasemin koÇak usluel hacettepe university ,...

international st ceramic jewelery exhibition ·...

evaluator: f. yasemin aysan - united nations escap f....

duyuru - ministry of national...

kırşehir eğitim fakültesi...

yasemin sungur gelişim enstitüsü