İletişim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Teknoloji Kullanımları ve Dijital Teknolojilere Yönelik Tutumlarının İncelenmesi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 19 - 34, 31.01.2022

Mücahit Sami Küçüktığlı

https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1038512

Öz

İçinde bulunduğumuz dönem ve özellikle Korona salgın hastalığının yoğun olarak varlığını gösterdiği zamanlar dijital teknolojilerin kullanımını artırmıştır. Dijitalleşme iletişim imkanlarını geliştirmiştir. Bu imkanları almış oldukları eğitimle orantılı bir şekilde en iyi İletişim Fakültesi öğrencilerinin kullanabilmesi gerekir. İletişim Fakültelerinde dijital teknolojilerin avantajlarından ne ölçüde yararlanılabileceği, teknoloji temelli öğrenmenin kalitesini etkileyen belirli değişkenlere bağlıdır. Bu bağlamda kaliteyi etkileyen değişkenlerden biri, öğrencilerin teknoloji kullanımı, dijital teknolojilerdeki yeterlik ve tutumlarıdır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada nedensel karşılaştırma modeli temelinde İletişim Fakültesi öğrencilerinin teknoloji kullanımları ve dijital teknolojilere yönelik tutumları, cinsiyet ve sınıf değişkenlerine göre karşılaştırılarak ilişkisel bir yaklaşımla incelenmiştir. Araştırma Konya, Isparta ve Kayseri’de farklı üniversitelerde öğrenim gören 262 İletişim Fakültesi öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak “Teknoloji Kullanım” ve “Dijital Teknolojilere Yönelik Tutum” ölçekleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma verilerinin analizi sonucu İletişim Fakültesi öğrencilerinin teknoloji kullanımlarının orta düzeyde olduğu; buna karşın dijital teknolojilere yönelik tutumlarının ise yüksek ve olumlu bir eğilim gösterdikleri bulunmuştur. Ayrıca İletişim Fakültesi öğrencilerinin cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeylerine göre teknoloji kullanımları ve dijital teknolojilere yönelik tutumları farklılıklar göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İletişim Fakültesi, Üniversite öğrencisi, Teknoloji kullanımı, Tutum, Gençlik

Teşekkür

Kayseri Erciyes İletişim Dergisi Editörü Kıymetli Hocamıza Teşekkür ederim.

Investigation of Communication Faculty Students’ Use of Technology and Attitudes to Digital Technologies

Öz

The extent to which the benefits of digital technologies can be utilized in the faculty of communication depends on certain variables having an impact on the quality of technology-based learning. In this context, one of the variables affecting the quality is the students’ use of technology, their competence concerning digital technologies and their attitudes towards them. As such, the technology use and the attitudes of the students at the faculty of communication towards digital technologies were compared according to the variables of gender and grade levels and examined with a relational approach based on the causalcomparative model. The research was conducted with the participation of 262 students studying at the faculty of communication in different universities located in Konya, Isparta and Kayseri. In the study, “Technology Usage” and “Attitude towards Digital Technologies” scales were used as data collection tools. As a result of the analysis of the research data, it was found that the technology use of the students at the communication faculty was at a moderate level, while their attitudes towards digital technologies indicated a high and positive tendency. Furthermore, the technology use and the attitudes towards digital technologies differ according to gender and grade levels of the students studying at the faculty of communication

Anahtar Kelimeler

Attitude, Youth, Faculty of Communication, University Student, Use of Technology

Kaynakça

• Aksoy, C. (2018). Teknoloji Kullanım Ölçeğinin Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirliğinin Ölçülmesi: Üniversite Öğrencilerine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1111-1131.
• Amodu, L., Odiboh, O., Usaini, S., Yartey, D., & Ekanem, T. (2019). Data on security implications of the adoption of Internet of Things by public relations professionals. Data in brief, 27, 104663.
• Asrar, Z., Tariq, N., & Rashid, H. (2018). The impact of communication between teachers and students: A case study of the Faculty of Management Sciences. Karachi, Pakistan.: Europen Scientific Journal.
• Barber, M. D., Couch, G., Darnowski, C., Johnson, T., & Kazolea, L. (2012). The PR professional of 2015: Analyzing the future of public relations. Public Relations Tactics, 14-15.
• Brill, J. M., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors’ integration of technology in classroom‐based practices. British Journal of Educational Technology, 95-105.
• Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. The Internet and Higher Education, 1-10.
• Brunner, B., Zarkin, K., & Yates, B. (2018). What do employers want? What should faculty teach? A content analysis of entry-level employment ads in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Education, 21-50.
• Cuccio‐Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official. Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,.
• Daugherty, E. L. (2011). The public relations internship experience: A comparison of student and site supervisor perspectives. Public Relations Review, 470-477.
• Dempsey, J. V., Fisher, S., Wright, D. E, D., & Anderton, E. (2008). Training and support, obstacles, and library impacts on elearning activities. College Student Journal.
• Doyle, A. (2019). Top skills employers seek in college grads. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/top-skills-employers-seek-in-college-grads-4030755
• Dozier, D., Shen, M., Sweetser, K., & Barker, V. (2016). Demographics and Internet behaviors as predictors of active publics. Public Relations Review, 82-90.
• Freberg, K. &., & Kim, C. (2018). Social media education: Industry leader recommendations for curriculum and faculty competencies. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 379-391.
• Fredericks, B., & Alexander, G. (2021). A framework for improved classroom communication in the South African schooling context. Heliyon.
• Gesualdi, M. (2019). Revisiting the relationship between public relations and marketing: Encroachment and social media. Public Relations Review, 372-382.
• Hakkarainen, K., Muukonen, H., Lipponen, L., Ilomäki, L., & Rahikain. (2001). Teachers’ information and communication technology (ICT) skills and practices of using ICT.. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 181-197.
• Ilomäki, L., & Lakkala, M. (2018). Digital technology and practices for school improvement: innovative digital school model. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 1-32.
• Kaminski, K., & Bolliger, D. (2012). Technology, learning, and the classroom: Longitudinal evaluation of a faculty development model. The Journal of Faculty Development,,13-17.
• Martirosyan, N. M., Kennon , J., Saxon, D., Edmonson, S., & Skidmore, S. (2017). Instructional technology practices in developmental education in Texas. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 3-25.
• Osakwe, R. N. (2009). Dimensions of communication as predictors of effective classroom interaction. Studies on Home and Community Science, 57-61.
• Paskin, D. (2013). Attitudes and perceptions of public relations professionals towards graduating students’ skills. Public Relations Review, 251-253.
• Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal), 19-33.
• Seyitoğullari, O., & Yalçınsoy, A. (2016). International Journal Of Social Academia. Günümüz Gençliğinin İnovasyon Ve Teknoloji Algılarına Yönelik Ampirik Bir Araştırma, 13-23.
• Sha, B. L. (2011). 2010 practice analysis: professional competencies and work categories in public relations today. Public Relations Review, 187-196.
• Surry, D. W., Ensminger, D., & Jones, M. (2002). A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. American Educational Research Association. New Orleans.
• Swart, C. (2014). An assessment of work-integrated learning for public relations in an open distance learning context. Public Relations Review, 387-396.
• Tabata, L. N., & Johnsrud, L. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation. Research in higher education, 625-646.
• Tang, T. L., & Austin, M. (2009). Students’ perceptions of teaching technologies, application of technologies, and academic performance. Computers & education, 1241-1255.
• The Commission on Public Relations Education. (2018). Fast forward foundations + future state. Educators + practitioners. The commission on public relations education 2017 report on undergraduate education. http://www.commissionpred.org/wp-content/uploads/2.
• US Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. US Department of Education.
• Usaini, S., Okorie, N., Bamgboye, O., Amodu, L., Afolabi, O., & Adesina, E. (2019). Internet, Socıal Medıa And Computermedıated Relatıonshıp Among Engıneering Undergraduate Students. International Journal Of Civil Engineering And Technology.
• Wickersham, L. E., & McElhany, J. (2010). Bridging the divide: Reconciling administrator and faculty concerns regarding online education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,.
• Yurt, E., & Sunbul, A. (2012). Effect of Modeling-Based Activities Developed Using Virtual Environments and Concrete Objects on Spatial Thinking and Mental Rotation Skills. Educational Sciences. Theory and Practice, 1987-1992.
• Zincirkiran, M., & Tiftik, H. (2014). Innovation or technological madness? a research on the students of business administration for their preferences of innovation and technology. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences.