Evaluation Across Contexts

Which Technologies Do Pre-Service Teachers Prefer to Use While Presenting Their Teaching Skills and for What Purposes Do They Use These Technologies?

“…According to the results of the study by Tarman and Baytak (2011) with the pre-service teachers who studied in the field of social studies, some of the participants perceived technology only as a tool that positively affected education, whereas some of them perceived it as an effective instructional strategy. According to Smolin and Lawless (2011), technology has the potential to expand learning in ways. With respect to the impact of technology on the concretization of concepts, Hannafin and Land (1997) commented: "Technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments often facilitate understanding of abstract concepts via concrete experience".…”

“…The literature contains many studies that emphasize the importance of the integration of technology into education and into the learning process (Duran, Brunvand, & Fossum, 2009;Chay, Wong, & Gao, 2009;Tor & Erden, 2004;Keeler, 2008;Smolin & Lawless, 2011). According to Bell (2011), learners, teachers and managers are trying to integrate technology into learning in formal and informal settings.…”

Course Management System’s Compatibility with Teaching Style Influences Willingness to Complete Training

“…Additionally, faculty members are more proficient in basic rather than high-level technologies (Allen & Seaman, 2012;Chitiyo & Harmon, 2009;Kinuthia, 2005;Rocca, 2010), and Allen and Seaman (2012) as well as Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Lefwich (2010) suggested that faculty are more likely to use IT to facilitate traditional rather than new instructional techniques. Also, although the literature suggests that faculty IT training is one factor that influences adoption of IT in the classroom (deNoyelles et al, 2012;Goktas et al, 2009;Kidd, 2010;Masalela, 2009;McBride & Thompson, 2011;Porter, 2011;Potter & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012;Samarawickrema & Stacey, 2007;Smolin & Lawless, 2011), it also suggests that many faculty members are unwilling to complete formal IT training (Hassan, 2011;Hurtado et al, 2012;Pereira, 2015;Yohon & Zimmerman, 2006). Because of the low faculty adoption rates (Green, 2010;Unwin et al, 2010) and costs associated with implementing a CMS at higher education organizations, many researchers have focused on studying barriers to CMS adoption, as well as studying factors that may improve faculty adoption rates (Bennett & Bennett, 2003;Green, 2010;Keesee & Shepard, 2011;Mallinson & Krull, 2013;Samarawickrema & Stacey, 2007;West, Waddoups, & Graham, 2007).…”

“…However, CMS adoption rates by faculty are low (Green, 2010;Unwin et al, 2010). The lack of faculty training on information technology (IT) is one factor that contributes to low faculty IT adoption rates (deNoyelles, Cobb, & Lowe, 2012;Goktas, Yildirim, & Yildirim, 2009;Masalela, 2009;Smolin & Lawless, 2011). Yet, researchers have found that many faculty members are unwilling to complete IT training (Hassan, 2011;Hurtado, Eagan, Pryor, Pereira, 2015;Whang, & Tran, 2012).…”

Eği̇ti̇m Teknoloji̇leri̇ni̇n Okullarda Kullanimina İli̇şki̇n Okul Yöneti̇ci̇leri̇ni̇n Görüşleri̇: Fenomenoloji̇k Bi̇r Araştirma

“…Eğitimdeki mevcut reformlar böylelikle teknolojinin müfredata entegrasyonu ve öğretimde, öğrenmede ve okulların yönetiminde kullanılmasına yönelik bir vurgu yapmaktadır (Nordin, Yusof & Jusoff, 2010). Bu bağlamda teknolojinin eğitim ortamlarıyla, eğitim müfredatlarıyla ve öğrenme süreçleriyle bütünleştirilmesi beklenmektedir (Chay, Wong & Gao, 2009;Keeler, 2008;Smolin & Lawless, 2011). Eğitim hizmetlerini daha geniş kitlelere daha kaliteli biçimde götürebilmek için çağdaş eğitim teknolojilerinin tüm olanaklarından etkili biçimde yararlanmak gereklidir (Yüksel, 2003).…”