CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Digital literacy in educationDigital Storytelling and EducationTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dijital Okuryazarlık ve Yenilikçilik Bağlamında Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 Hızlı İçerik Geliştirme Öz yeterlik İnançları

Open access
KURT, Adile Aşkım, TELLİ, Esra, BARDAKCI, Salih, SARSAR, Fırat, ORHAN GÖKSÜN, Derya, FİLİZ, Ozan·2022·Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International
DOI 10.18039/ajesi.1014101
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz yeterlik inançlarını, dijital okuryazarlık durumlarını ve yenilikçilik düzeylerini belirlemek ve bu değişkenler arasındaki nedensel ilişkiyi incelemektir. Tarama modeline uygun olarak desenlenen bu çalışmada tekil ve ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Basit rassal örnekleme yaklaşımından yararlanılan çalışmada 1019 öğretmen örneklemi oluşturmuştur. Araştırmada veri toplama araçları olarak Web 2.0 Hızlı İçerik Geliştirmeye Yönelik Öz yeterlik Algısı Ölçeği, Dijital Okuryazarlık Ölçeği ve Bireysel Yenilikçilik Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada katılımcı öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz yeterlik inançlarının orta düzeyde, dijital okuryazarlık düzeylerinin oldukça yüksek ve yenilikçi öğretmenler oldukları görülmüştür. Araştırmada öğretmenlerin dijital okuryazarlık düzey ve becerileri ile Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz yeterlik inançları arasında pozitif, yenilikçilik düzeyleri ile Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz yeterlik inançları arasında negatif ilişki belirlenmiştir. Bir başka deyişle öğretmenlerin dijital okuryazarlık düzey ve becerilerinin artması ile Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz yeterlik inançlarının arttığı, yenilikçilik eğilimlerindeki artışın ise Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz yeterlik inançları üzerinde ters bir ilişki yarattığı bulunmuş ve beklenen etkiyi gösteremediği görülmüştür.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18039/ajesi.1014101

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Higher levels of self-efficacy are associated with greater experimentation, increased confidence, and more frequent technology use.

    “Higher levels of self-efficacy are associated with greater experimentation, increased confidence, and more frequent technology use (Güneş & Buluç, 2017;Kurt et al., 2022).”

    From From Digital Consumers to Knowledge Creators: Reconceptualizing Web 2.0 Integration through a Pedagogical Maturity Continuum in Primary Education (2026) · cites this paper as Kurt et al., 2022

    The English Öz (abstract; page unavailable) treats Web 2.0 content-development self-efficacy as a belief about one's ability and reports that it rises with teachers' digital literacy. It does not report that higher self-efficacy is associated with greater experimentation or more frequent technology use; it instead reports a negative relationship with innovativeness. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Teachers' technological self-efficacy predicts experimentation, innovation, and sustained usage of Web 2.0 tools.

    “Teachers' technological self-efficacy has been shown to predict experimentation, innovation, and sustained usage of Web 2.0 tools (Güneş & Buluç, 2017;Kurt et al., 2022).”

    From From Digital Consumers to Knowledge Creators: Reconceptualizing Web 2.0 Integration through a Pedagogical Maturity Continuum in Primary Education (2026) · cites this paper as Kurt et al., 2022

    The Öz section examines teachers’ Web 2.0 content-development self-efficacy and innovativeness, but reports a negative relationship between them, not the positive link the citing sentence appears to imply. It does not report that self-efficacy predicts experimentation or sustained use of Web 2.0 tools. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Alexander, B. (2008). Deepening the chasm: Web 2.0, gaming, and gourse management systems. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 198-204.
  2. Area-Moreira, M., & Ribeiro-Pessoa, M. T. (2012). From solid to liquid: New literacies to the cultural changes of web 2.0. Comunicar, 19(38), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3916/c38-2012-02-01 · DOI
  3. Bayraktar, D. M. (2012). Adoption of Web 2.0 tools and the individual innovativeness levels of instructors. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (HAYEF), 9(2), 35-47.
  4. Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022 · DOI
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 · DOI
  7. Birişçi, S., Kul, Ü., Aksu, Z., Akaslan, D. ve Çelik, S. (2018). Web 2.0 hızlı içerik geliştirme öz-yeterlik algısını belirlemeye yönelik ölçek (W2ÖYAÖ) geliştirme çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8(1), 187-208. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.335164 · DOI
  8. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.256 · DOI
  9. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, First Edition (Methodology in the Social Sciences) (1st edition). The Guilford Press.
  10. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EGS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring ınstrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0101_4 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Carrington, V., & Robinson, M. (Eds.). (2009). Digital literacies: Social learning and classroom practices. Sage Publishing. · DOI
  12. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. · DOI
  13. Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8 · DOI
  14. Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-106.
  15. Fahser-Herro, D., & Steinkuehler, C. (2009). Web 2.0 literacy and secondary teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 55-62.
  16. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
  17. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09336671 · DOI
  18. Hair, J.F. Black, W.C. Babin, B.J. Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  19. Hamutoğlu, N. B., Güngören, Ö. C., Uyanık, G. K. ve Erdoğan, D. G. (2017). Dijital okuryazarlık ölçeği: Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(1), 408-429. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.329432 · DOI
  20. Harris, A. L., & Rea, A. (2009). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: A growing impact on is education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 137–144.
  21. Horzum, M. B. (2010). Öğretmenlerin Web 2.0 araçlarından haberdarlığı, kullanım sıklıkları ve amaçlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 603-634.
  22. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, ıssues, and applications (1st edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  23. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research , 4, 58-65. · DOI
  25. Kılıçer, K. ve Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38 (38), 150-168.
  26. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd Edition). Guilford Publications, Inc.
  27. Kurt, A. A. ve Orhan Göksün, D. (2018). Teknoloji ve yeni okuryazarlıklar. İçinde A. A. Kurt, (Ed.). Öğretim teknolojilerinin temelleri (s. 75-94). Nobel Yayıncılık: Ankara.
  28. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.
  29. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611-637. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3604_06 · DOI
  30. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391 · DOI
  31. Mendenhall, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2010). Fostering the development of critical thinking skills, and reading comprehension of undergraduates using a Web 2.0 tool coupled with a learning system. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.500537 · DOI
  32. Meyer, K. A. (2010). Web 2.0 research: Introduction to the special issue. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 177–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.004 · DOI
  33. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430 · DOI
  34. Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9(4), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/mitp.2007.78 · DOI
  35. Nayci, Ö. (2021). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri ile çevrim içi eğitimde rol ve yeterlilikleri arasındaki ilişki. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 4(1), 108–122. · DOI
  36. Nelson, J., Christopher, A., & Mims, C. (2009). TPACK and Web 2.0: Transformation of teaching and learning. TechTrends, 53(5), 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0329-z · DOI
  37. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016 · DOI
  38. O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17-37.
  39. Orhan Göksün, D. ve Kurt, A. A. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının 21. yy. öğrenen becerileri kullanımları ve 21. yy. öğreten becerileri kullanımları arasındaki ilişki. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(190), 107-130.
  40. Önür, Z. ve Kozikoğlu, İ. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin 21. yüzyıl öğrenme becerileri. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 9 (3), 627-648. · DOI
  41. Örün, Ö., Orhan, D., Dönmez, P. ve Kurt, A. A. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının bireysel yenilikçilik profilleri ve teknoloji tutum düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 65-76.
  42. Özdemir, G. (2020). Öğretmenlerin bireysel yenilikçilik perspektifi: Nasıl bir yenilikçiyim?. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 15 (4), 2823-2839. · DOI
  43. Özdener, N. (2018). Gamification for enhancing Web 2.0 based educational activities: The case of pre-service grade school teachers using educational Wiki pages. Telematics and Informatics, 35(3), 564–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.003 · DOI
  44. Özgür, H. (2013). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ile bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 409-420.
  45. Pilgrim, J. ve Martinez, E. E. (2013). Defining literacy in the 21st century: A guide to terminology and skills. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 1(1), 60-69.
  46. Pool, C. R. (1997). A new digital literacy: A conversation with Paul Gilster. Integrating technology into teaching. Educational Leadership, 55 (3), 6-11. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/a-new-digital-literacy-a-conversation-with-paul-gilster
  47. Rogers, M. E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th Edition). Free Press.
  48. Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 214-12. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Edition). Allyn and Bacon.
  50. Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577-588. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Vidaman, K. F., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). On specifying the null model for incremental fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 8(1), 16–37. · DOI
  52. Walker, D. A. (2010). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Attitudes Toward Research Scale. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 36 (1), 18-28.
  53. Yi, M. Y., Fiedler, K. D., & Park, J. S. (2006). Understanding the role of individual innovativeness in the acceptance of IT‐based innovations: Comparative analyses of models and measures. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 393-426. · DOI
  54. Yilmaz, O., & Bayraktar, D. M. (2014). Teachers’ Attitudes towards the Use of Educational Technologies and their Individual Innovativeness Categories. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3458–3461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.783 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
KURT, A. A., TELLİ, E., BARDAKCI, S., SARSAR, F., ORHAN GÖKSÜN, D., & FİLİZ, O.
Affiliations
  • Anadolu University (TR)
  • ERZİNCAN BİNALİ YILDIRIM ÜNİVERSİTESİ
  • TOKAT GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
  • Ege University (TR)
  • ADIYAMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ
  • Sinop Üniversitesi
ORCID
Venue
Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International
Publisher
Anadolu Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu Dergisi
Published
2022-07-01
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
608-629
ISSN
2146-4014 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.18039/ajesi.1014101
OpenAlex
W4283745896
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
tr
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Anadolu Journal Of Educational Sciences International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DergiPark (Istanbul University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DSpace-Sinop (Sinop University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital literacy in education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Storytelling and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
digital literacy, Web 2.0, teacher self-efficacy, innovation, teacher beliefs, individual innovation, digital literacy skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review