This study showed that most of the Turkish science education faculty members supposed they are called themselves in intermediate (46.8%) and/or in advanced (46.8%) level technology user (See Table 2). The rank of faculty may play an important role regarding technology usage in preparing science teachers. Although most of the faculty members (Teaching assistant, Instructor, Assistant professor) do not have enough experience as educators, because they are in beginning of their carriers, they have taken technology courses, and have had proficiency in the English language in order to earn their Ph.D. (See Table 3). This provides opportunities to read and understand current research and new approaches that utilize technology for education. It would seem that assistant professors have an advantage over instructors and are able to gain a broader understanding of technology through their program of study and subsequent reading and study.
Table 2: Skill and Gender for Faculty Counterparts
Table 3: Rank and Gender Differences for Faculty Counterparts
There was obviously clear that most of Turkish science education faculty members had not taken enough technology or computer courses. In light of these data, the sample of Turkish science education faculty members had some sort of technology/computer classes at the undergraduate level and attended technology workshop (Table 4).
Table 4: Technology or Computer Classes Demographic Data
Section B of the questionnaire is related to general information about educational technology and use of technology in science courses. The total mean of Turkish faculty members with degrees from Turkish universities was 3.885. There are a few responds for questions 1, 10, 11, and 14, in the strongly agree or agree level. These responds were related to basic use of technology, such as word processing, power point, email, and ethical/legal implication of technology. Remaining responds were in disagree or strongly disagree level. Interestingly, 6.2% Turkish faculty members with degrees from Turkish universities selected the "does not apply" option for at least one question.
The results showed that Turkish science education faculty members do not have much educational technology knowledge because their mean scores fell between 3.1 and 3.9 (between disagree and agree levels). Thus, they are relatively unfamiliar with the advantages of educational technology and do not maximize its use.
Table 3: Means for Section B of Questionnaire for Science Education Faculty
The following tables provide the current and desired means, mean differences and significance of the one-way ANOVA test. The average mean score of Turkish science education faculty members' was 3.199 in current knowledge level and 4.244 in desired knowledge level. In Table 4, the responses were ranked in descending order by mean differences scores between current versus desired levels of knowledge. The item with the greatest difference for Category C1, "Ways in which computers can be used to," was in question 8, "teach students at distance" (1.839). The lowest mean difference was in question 5, "entertain oneself (games)" (.420). The mean differences were in minimum (<.51) between current and desired levels for only question 5, "entertain oneself (games)," the differences for other questions were in medium or large level. Using the following as a definition of range: 1.000 to 1.999 is "very low," from 2.000 to 2.999 is "low," from 3.000 to 3.999 "medium," 4.000 to 4.999 "high," and 5.000 "advanced" level, the Turkish science education faculty members' current knowledge was in the "medium" range and their desired knowledge level was in the "high" range.
Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation for Category C1.
In Category C2, "How to use a computer in science for," the average mean score of Turkish faculty members for "current knowledge" was 2.951 and 4.237 in desired knowledge level.
The item with the greatest difference for Category C2 was in question 13, "Communication tools (e.g., list-servers, chat, discussion boards)," (2.222) and the lowest mean difference was in question 12, "e-mail" (.597). The mean differences were large (>1.17) between current and desired levels for each item.
The important set of questions addressed using technology, computers and the Internet to enhance teaching and learning. Creating websites and learning advanced web programming, such as Web publishing (e.g., Dream Weaver, Page-Mill, Navigator, Web-CT or other similar programs), other multimedia authoring software (e.g., Author-ware, Hyper-studio, Macromedia), and Video editing software (e.g., iMovie, Adobe Premiere), were of lowest interest to Turkish faculty members. The exception was for "web search techniques" (question 20). The responses in Category C2, "How to use a computer in science for," revealed a need to better understand how computers might be used as scientific research tools, such as library search, gathering and storing data, modeling and demonstrating, analyzing and communicating findings.
Table 5: Mean and Standard Deviation for Category C2.
The data in Table 6 were based on knowledge about computers' effects on classroom management, presentations and preparing for class all produced large mean differences. The average mean score of Turkish faculty members in current knowledge was 3.458 and the highest mean score for a single question was 3.667 (question 4) and the lowest mean score for a single question was 3.048 (question 1) respectively. Using the previously defined ranges, it is apparent that Turkish faculty members' current knowledge of "effects of computer use on" was in the "medium" range. The average mean was 4.575 in desired knowledge. The item with the greatest difference for Category C3, "Effects of computer use on," was in question 1, "Classroom management" (1.18) and the lowest mean difference was in question 3, "Professional presentations" (.823).
Table 6: Mean and Standard Deviation for Category C3.
The average mean score of Turkish faculty members was 3.098 in current knowledge level and the highest mean score for a single question was 4.097 (question 5) and the lowest mean score for a single question was 2.129 (question 3) respectively. For "desired knowledge," their mean score was over 4.000 which would indicate that they desire to have a higher level of knowledge about "How to use other technology in the classroom".
The item with the greatest difference for "How to use other technology in the classroom" was in question 4, "Hypermedia" (1.548) and the lowest mean difference was in question 5, "Overhead projector" (.019). The results indicated that overhead projector, calculator, and slides were the most used educational tools in Turkish classrooms. Also all faculty members agreed that hypermedia and interactive video are the least used technological tool. Perhaps, this is because this technological tool is rather new and new technologies, like computer, interactive video, hypermedia, and digital camera are not well integrated into the Turkish educational system. The mean differences were in large (>1.17) and in medium (1.16-.51) between current and desired levels for each item, except questions 5, and 8.
Table 7: Mean and Standard Deviation for Category C4.
A survey of the Turkish faculty was undertaken in an effort to establish both current uses of educational technologies and to determine the gaps between current and desired levels of knowledge. The greater gap, the more valuable it would be to profession to address those technologies. It appears that among science education faculty members there were substantial and specific areas for which technology uses were important. It seems that each questions required professional knowledge.
The results of this study showed that the Turkish faculty members have the low mean scores in current knowledge level of educational technology usage and needs of science education, indicating they may not be prepared with skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. That means, teacher educators do not sufficiently model appropriate use of computers for instructional purposes, either in courses or field experiences. Indeed, science education faculties tend to focus more on the older and simpler instructional applications of computer technology (e.g., computer assisted instruction, word processing) and older educational technologies (e.g., overhead projectors, calculators, slides) and less on exposure to and practice with newer, more sophisticated tools (e.g., electronic networks, hypermedia, digital cameras, integrated media, problem-solving applications), which support development of students' higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills. The results from this study corroborate Cagiltay, Cakiroglu, Cagiltay, and Cakiroglu, (2001) study which found similar results about Turkish teachers' view of using computers in education.
The results of this study showed that Turkish faculty members, who taught in public or private K-12 schools or universities (Section A, question 3), do not have enough information about how useful educational technology can be and they indicate an inadequacy in their preparation to use computers and other technological tools in their classroom (see Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). In some cases, Turkish faculty members (educated in Turkey), who taught in public or private K-12 schools or universities, work with Turkish faculty members with degrees from western universities. However, they still are not using the available educational technology on a regular basis (see Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).
It is not enough to purchase the equipment, it is also important to have support and be empowered to become effective learners themselves. As an example, in this study many universities have computer rooms for students and offer technology courses. Almost every faculty member in Turkey has a personal desktop or laptop computer (Turkmen & Pedersen, 2005; Usun, July 2003b). Yet, the results showed that Turkish faculty members with degrees from Turkish universities did not use educational technology in their classrooms (see Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). The data from this study also reflects that the differences observed among faculty rank were mainly found between "Instructors and Assistant Professors" (see Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). One possible explanation is that most faculty members in Turkish universities have a Ph.D. In order to earn your Ph.D. degree, you must take technology courses, and have proficiency in the English language. This provides opportunities to read and understand current research and new approaches that utilize technology for education. It would seem that assistant professors have an advantage over instructors and are able to gain a broader understanding of technology through their program of study and subsequent reading and study. On the other hand, a lack of effective leadership and a lack of confidence to try technology integration themselves may be the primary reasons why technology integration is not being accomplished. Munday, Windham, and Stamper (1991) and Davies (2001) found that older teachers lack the confidence to use technology and prefer not to change their teaching style.
There might be many reasons for why older Turkish faculty members are one step behind where they need to be. They might lack the time and motivation to learn technology skills or use technology. Technology could be very intimidating for many because learning how to use new technology always requires new learning, especially in the current rapidly changing educational system. Older Turkish faculty members must become more informed about educational technology and become more involved in integrating technology in their classrooms. Turkey needs more science education faculty members, like assistant professors, using technology to improve the learning environment for their students. In turn, their students (pre-service teachers) will improve the learning environments for their K-12 students.
This study also showed that Turkish faculty members with Turkish degrees do not have ability to use technology efficiently in science classes. According to current OECD research (over 250 thousand 15 years-old students from 41 countries), Turkey is significantly behind many other OECD countries in science, problem solving in math, and reading, (Elevli, 2004). This corroborates the current study and other researchers who found that the most common reasons given for the low level of computer use in schools are limited access to equipment and lack of training (Akkoyunlu, & Orhan, 2001; Saglik, & Ozturk, 2001; Usun, 2003; Yedekcioglu, 1996).
From the current study, it is evident that these new professionals believe that technology support should become an integral part of teacher education and classroom curricula (see Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). New model programs should be characterized by required courses for pre-service teachers which teach them how to use instructional technologies and expose them to technology-rich higher education classrooms.
Technology has captured primary role in education. Global ICT was constructed by developing information technology and affected the structure of education and learning environment of education. Thus, computer, television, digital devises, and satellite have been using in order to teach as a powerful tool for children's learning by doing. We think that technology must be thought of as an integral component of the curriculum, a chameleon-like tool that can be used with almost any content. Computers can be used as writing tools, spreadsheets, and mathematical problem-solvers.
In developing Turkey, educational technology paid attention and placed in Turkish education system. Most importantly, computer has been integrated the science education curricula. In order to incorporate technology more fully into the classroom, teachers should be provided with the time and support to explore technology on their own. The government should provide the time ands pace for teachers, who now suffer from larger classes and more responsibility than ever, to take a break from teaching to start learning. Moreover, teachers should be treated like the professionals they are. Teacher creativity is a powerful force for positive educational change, but it can thrive only if it is unleashed and supported by Turkish government.
Finally, the Turkish politics and educators should make their interpretations of the current-desired knowledge gaps between Turkish faculties and somewhat confident that the technology aligns with standards, supports inquiry, advances students learning, then proceed in good conscience that the time and money invested in the technology should wisely spent. The modern technology that could potentially be incorporated into science curricula and teacher preparation program seem to be increasing at a rapid rate. And we do not forget that "technology alone does not create educational change. The power is not in the tool but in the community that can be brought together and the collective vision that they share for redefining classroom learning (Riel 1990, p 35)".
Akkoyunlu, B., & Orhan, F. (2001). The Use of Computers in K-12 Schools in Turkey. TechTrends: for leaders in education and training, 45(6), 29-31.
Bailey, G. D., Ross, T., & Griffin, D. L. (1996). Barriers to curriculum-technology integration in education. Educational Considerations, 23(2), 4-17.
Bell, L. (2001). Preparing tomorrows' teachers to use technology: Perspectives of the leaders of twelve national education associations. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education [Online Serial] 1. Retrieved December 22, 2004, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss4/currentissues/general/article1.htm
Elevli, N. (2004, December 8). Iste Egitimin Hali: Anlamiyoruz Cozemiyoruz. Milliyet. [Online]. Available: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2004/12/08/guncel/gun10.html
Hizal, A. (1991). Turkiyede Egitim Teknolojisi Egitim Bilimlerinde Cagdas Gelismeler. [New Educational Technology Approaches in Educational Sciences in Turkey]. Eskisehir: Anadolu Universitesi, Acik Ogretim Fakultesi Yayini. [Eskisehir: Anadolu University, Open Educational College Press.]
McIsaac, M. S., Murphy, K. L., & Demiray, U. (1988). Examining Distance Education in Turkey. Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 106-119.
Metiri Group. (2001). Metiri group Faculty Technology Survey. Retrieved May 11, 2004 from http://tools.metiri.com/survey/samples/FacultySurveySample.pdf
Odom, A., L., Settlage, J., & Pedersen, J. (2002). Technology knowledge and use: A survey of science educators. Journal of Science Education Technology, 11(4), 391-398.
Pedersen, J. & Jernick, R. (2000). Technology in science teacher education: Survey of current uses and desired knowledge among science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 131-153.
Petrakis, E., (1996). Using a portfolio to assess pre-service teachers' technology competence. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13, 12-13.
Riel, M. (1990). Building a new foundation for global communities. The Writing Notebook (January/February), p.35- 37.
Saglik, M., & Ozturk, S. (2001). Television as an Educational technology: Using Television at Open Educational Faculty, Anadolu University. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. ISSN 1302-6488, 2(1).
Stanley, R. B., Lindauer, P., & Petrie, G. (1998). Factors that influence teachers' use of computer technology. ERS Spectrum, 16(3), 42-46.
Turkmen, H. & Pedersen, J. (2005). Examining the Technological History of Turkey Impacts on Teaching Science. Science Education International, 17(2), 115-123.
Usun, S. (2003). Educational Uses of Internet in the World and Turkey (A Comparative Review). The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. ISSN 1302-6488, 4(3).
Yedekcioglu, O. A. (1996). Use of Computer at High Schools in Turkey. Online Journal Technological Horizon in Education, 3(6), 64-69.
Windelspecht, M. (2001). Technology in the Freshman Biology Classroom: Breaking the Dual Learning Curve. The American Biology Teacher, 63(2),
Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
Original article at: http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id=163&layout=html