You are here

Home » Content

EXAMINATION OF THE INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS DISPLAYED BY PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS THROUGH DIGITAL DEVICES IN TERMS OF CERTAIN VARIABLES

Journal Name:

  • Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study is to examine the inappropriate behaviors displayed by prospective teachers through digital devices in terms of certain variables, and to reveal the causes of these inappropriate behaviors. Employing quantitative and qualitative research methods, the study was carried out during the 2011-2012 academic year with participation of 185 prospective teachers from a faculty of education in Turkey. Quantitative data were analyzed by use of multiple linear regression analysis and independent samples t-test. Qualitative data were analyzed through content analysis. Validity and reliability were investigated via peer-review, member checks, and inter-coder reliability processes. The findings of the study show that there is a (low-level) significant positive relationship between the inappropriate behaviors displayed by prospective teachers through digital devices and gender, social media usage status, and duration of the internet usage and mobile phone usage. It was concluded that male students displayed more inappropriate behaviors through digital devices in comparison to female students, and prospective teachers using social media displayed more inappropriate behaviors through digital devices in comparison to those not using the social media. The causes of undesired/inappropriate behaviors were found to be compulsion, absent-mindedness and indifference.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-examination-inappropriate-behaviors-displayed-prospective-teachers-through-digital-devices-terms-certain-variables.pdf
  • 1
1-12
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Adam, A. (2005). Gender, ethics and information technology. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barger, R.N. (2008). Computer Ethics: A Case-Based Approach. Cambride, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bargh, J.A. & McKenna, K.Y.A (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573-590.
Boyatsiz, R.E.
(1998)
. Thematic analysis and code development: transforming qualitative information. Thousands Oaks, London: Sage.
Brooks-Young, S. (2006). Critical Technology Issues for School Leaders. Thosuand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Brooks-Young, S. (2007). Digital Age Literacy for Teachers: Applying Technology Standards to Everyday Practice. Washington, DC: ISTE.
Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousands Oaks, London: Sage.
Freeman, L. & Graham, P. (2005). Information Ethics: Privacy and Intellectual Property. London, UK: Information Science Publishing.
Glatz, P.& Bertschi, S. (2006). People, Mobiles and Society: Concluding Insights from an International Expert Survey. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 19(2), 69-92.
ISTE (2008). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers and Performance Indicators. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.aspx
Kizza, J.M. (2010). Ethical and Social Issues in the Information Age. New York, NY: Springer London Dordrecht Heidelberg.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Thosuand Oaks, California: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen&Unwin.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Variety in qualitative inquiry: theoretical orientations. In C.D. Laughton, V. Novak, D. E. Axelsen, K. Journey, & K. Peterson (Eds.), Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousands Oaks, London: Sage.
Poole, D. (2007). A study of beliefs and behaviors regarding digital technology. New Media & Society,
9(5), 771-793.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 10-15.
Ribble, M. & Bailey, G. (2005). Developing Ethical Direction. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(7), 36-9.
Ribble, M. & Bailey, G. (2007). Digital Citizenship in Schools. Washington, DC: ISTE.
11
Mehmet SİNCAR
-
C.U.
Facult
y of Education Journal, 42(2013), 01-12
Rooksby, E. (2002). E-mail and ethics: Style and ethical relations in computer-mediated communications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shariff, S.
(2009)
. Confronting Cyber-Bullying. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sincar, M. (2011). An analysis of prospective teachers' digital citizenship behaviour norms. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, (1)2, 25-40.
Stewart, M. (2000). The Classroom, Board Room, Chat Room and Court Room: School Computers at the Crossroads. School Business Affairs, 66(9), 23-8.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Buren, C. (2001). Teaching Hackers: School Computing Culture and the Future of Cyber-rights.
Journal of Information Ethics, 10(1), 51-72.
Woodbury, M. (2003) Computer and Information Ethics. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

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