Policy, practice, and reality: exploring a nation-wide technology implementation in Turkish schools

Technology, Pedagogy and Education

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 477-491

  Akcaoglu, Mete ^a   Gumus, Sedat ^b   Bellibas, Mehmet Sukru ^c   Boyer, D Matthew ^d  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MUSTAFA KEMAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

FAT H project; technology integration; Turkey

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942199286     PISSN: 1475939X     EISSN: 17475139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2014.899264     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. S.Akbaba-Altun, (2006). Complexity of integrating computer technologies into education in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 176–187.
2. M.Akcaoglu, (2008). Exploring technology integration approaches and practices of preservice and in-service English language teachers. Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12609579/index.pdf
3. T.Alkan,, A.Bilici,, T.E.Akdur,, O.Temizhan,, & H.Cicek, (2011). Increasing opportunities improving technology movement (FATIH) project. In Z.Genc (Ed.), Proceedings of 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium (pp. 370–375). Elazig, Turkey: Firat University.
4. D.Annand, (2008). Learning efficacy and cost-effectiveness of print versus e-book instructional material in an introductory financial accounting course. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 7, 152–164.
5. M.Bakia, (2005). The costs of computers in classrooms: Data from developing countries. Mimeograph. Washington, DC: The World Bank, COSPA Knowledge Base.
6. S.Bayram,, & B.Seels, (1997). The utilization of instructional technology in Turkey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 112–121.
7. A.Bilici,, T.E.Akdur,, A.Yildizbasi,, O.Gunday,, & H.Cicek, (2011). Projected benefits of FATIH in Education Project. In Z.Genc (Ed.), Proceedings of 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium (pp. 290–295). Elazig, Turkey: Firat University.
8. D.L.Brickner, (1995). The effects of first and second order barriers to change on the degree and nature of computer usage of mathematics teachers: A case study. (UMI No. 9540219).
9. V.Celik,, & E.Yesilyurt, (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60, 148–158.
10. L.Cuban, (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19, 3–13.
11. L.Cuban, (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. C.Dede, (1998). The scaling-up process for technology-based educational innovations. In C.Dede (Ed.), 1998 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 199–215). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
13. K.Dooley, (1999). Towards a holistic model for the diffusion of educational technologies: An integrative review of educational innovation studies. Educational Technology & Society, 2(4), 35–45.
14. R.S.Earle, (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology, 42, 5–13.
15. P.A.Ertmer, (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
16. P.A.Ertmer, (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
17. P.A.Ertmer,, P.Addison,, M.Lane,, E.Ross,, & D.Woods, (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 54–72.
18. FATİH Project. (2012). Fatih project webpage. Retrieved from http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/english.php
19. Y.Goktas,, Z.Yildirim,, & S.Yildirim, (2009). Investigation of K–12 teachers’ ICT competencies and the contributing factors in acquiring these competencies. The New Educational Review, 17, 276–294.
20. D.Goodhue,, & R.Thompson, (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213–236.
21. S.Gumus, (2013). Investigating the factors affecting information and communication technology (ICT) usage of Turkish students in PISA 2009. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12, 102–107.
22. R.Gungor,, & M.Akcaoglu, (2010). Technology in the Turkish educational system: Analysis of a policy document. Chicago, IL: CIES 2010.
23. B.Gur,, M.Ozoglu,, & T.Baser, (2010). Okullarda bilgisayar teknolojisi kullanımı ve karsilasilan sorunlar [Usage of ICT in schools and problems faced]. In 9. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu [9th National Teacher Education Symposium] (pp. 1–48). Elazig, Turkey.
24. K.F.Hew,, & T.Brush, (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223–252.
25. W.Khaopa,, & C.Saengpassa, (2011, July 11). Top academics oppose computer tablets plan. The Nation.
26. M.J.Koehler,, & P.Mishra, (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.
27. M.J.Koehler,, P.Mishra,, M.Akcaoglu,, & J.Rosenberg, (2013). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework for teachers and teacher educators. In R.Thyagarajan (Ed.), ICT integrated teacher education: A resource book (pp. 2–7). New Delhi: Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia.
28. M.J.Koehler,, P.Mishra,, K.Kereluik,, T.S.Shin,, & C.R.Graham, (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J.M.Specter, M.D.Merrill, J.Elen & M.J.Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101–111). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_9
29. D.Lathapipat, (2011), September 12. Potential adverse effects of the ‘One Tablet per Child’ policy. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2011/09/12/opinion/Potential-Adverse-Effects-of-the-One-Tablet-per-Ch-30165050.html
30. L.Maruping,, & R.Agarwal, (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 975–990.
31. R.E.Mayer, (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
32. P.Mishra,, & M.J.Koehler, (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Education at a glance: OECD indicators 2006. Paris: Author.
34. S.Papert, (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16, 22–30.
35. R.Prawat,, & R.Floden, (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychologist, 29, 37–48.
36. S.N.Sad,, & U.Ozhan, (2012). Honeymoon with IWBs: A qualitative insight in primary students’ views on instruction with interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 59, 1184–1191.
37. L.Schrum, (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90.
38. H.Simsek,, & A.Yildirim, (2004). Turkey: Innovation and tradition. In I.C.Rotberg (Ed.), Balancing change and tradition in global education reform (pp. 153–185). Oxford: Scarecrow Education.
39. H.Simsek,, & A.Yildirim, (2010). Turkey: Innovation and tradition: Follow up. In I.C.Rotberg (Ed.), Balancing change and tradition in global education reform (2nd ed., pp. 149–174). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
40. V.Thoopkrajae, (2011, September 3). Tablets cannot cure the cancer in Thai education. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Tablets-cannot-cure-the-cancer-in-Thai-education-30164387.html
41. Y.Türel,, & T.Johnson, (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 381–394.
42. C.Vrasidas,, & M.McIsaac, (2001). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher education: Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Educational Media International, 38, 127–132.
43. M.Warschauer,, & C.Meskill, (2000). Technology and second language teaching. In J.W.Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (1st ed., pp. 303–318). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
44. E.Wolf-Gazo, (1996). John Dewey in Turkey: An educational mission. Journal of American Studies of Turkey, 3, 15–42.
45. S.Yildirim, (2007). Current utilization of ICT in Turkish basic education schools: A review of teachers’ ICT use and barriers to integration. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(2), 171–186.
46. Y.Zhao,, & K.A.Frank, (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.
47. Y.Zhao,, K.Pugh,, S.Sheldon,, & J.Byers, (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.