Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Kişilik Tiplerine Göre Web 2.0 Araçlarını Kullanım Durumları

Year 2017, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 481 - 512, 07.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.289140

Abstract

Araştırmada üniversite öğrencilerinin yeniliğe açıklık-kapalılık ve
dışadönüklük-içedönüklükleri ile web 2.0 kullanım tercihleri arasındaki ilişki
incelenerek eğitimde hangi araçların kullanımının hangi tip öğrencilere daha
çok hitap ettiği belirlenmeye çalışılmış ve bu araçların eğitimde nasıl
kullanılabileceği tartışılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 2014-2015 güz
yarıyılında Sakarya Üniversitesi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi
Bölümü’nde 3. Sınıfta eğitim gören 22 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Bu öğrencilerden
5 kişi içedönük, 5 kişi dışadönük, 6 kişi yeniliğe açık ve 6 kişi yeniliğe
kapalı olma özelliği taşımaktadır. Bu öğrenciler sıfatlara dayalı kişilik
testine tabi tutulan 30 öğrenci arasından istenilen özellikleri göstermeleri
bakımından amaçlı örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilmiştir. Araştırmada elde edilen
sonuçlara göre öğrencilerin kişilik özelliklerine bağlı olarak sosyal medya
araçlarını kullanım tercihlerinin farklılaştığı görülmüştür. Bu araçlar
arasında en fazla Facebook, Twitter ve Instagram’ın tercih edildiği ifade
edilmiştir. Araştırmada elde edilen diğer sonuçlara göre farklı kişilik
özelliklerine sahip öğrencilerin derse uyum sağlayabilmesi için en
kullanılabilir ve tercih edilebilir olan web 2.0 araçlarının göz önünde
bulundurulması gerekmektedir. Bunun yanında bu araçların getirebileceği olumsuz
sonuçları engelleyebilecek önlemler de alınmalıdır.

References

  • Adalı, S., & Golbeck, J. (2014). Predicting personality with social behavior: a comparative study. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 1-20. doi:10.1007/s13278-014-0159-7
  • Bacanlı, H., İlhan, T., & Aslan, S. (2009). Beş faktör kuramına dayalı bir kişilik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: sıfatlara dayalı kişilik testi (SDKT). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 261-279. http://www.tebd.gazi.edu.tr/
  • Bachrach, Y., Kosinski, M., Graepel, T., Kohli, P., & Stillwell, D. (2012, June). Personality and patterns of Facebook usage. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (pp. 24-32). ACM. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
  • Baş, T. ve Akturan, U., (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: NVivo 7.0 ile nitel veri analizi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • Boulos, M., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health. Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x
  • Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.003
  • Burger, J. M. (2006). Kişilik. (Çev. İ. D. Erguvan Sarıoğlu). İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (OnYedinciBaskı). Ankara: PegemA. Yayıncılık.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (OnİkinciBaskı), Ankara: PegemA. Yayıncılık.
  • Coddington, M. (2010). A quick guide to the maxims of new media. Mark Coddingto’s website, 30 Ocak, 2010, http://markcoddington.com/2010/01/30/a-quick-guide-to-the-maxims-of-new-media/
  • Dal, N. E., ve Dal, V. (2015). Kişilik Özellikleri Ve Sosyal Ağ Sitesi Kullanım Alışkanlıkları: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(11), 144-162. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/makusobed/
  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational researcher, 38(4), 246-259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671
  • Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001
  • La Sala, L., Skues, J., & Grant, S. (2014). Personality Traits and Facebook Use: The Combined/Interactive Effect of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Social Networking, 3, 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/sn.2014.35026
  • Magnuson, M. L. (2013). Web 2.0 and information literacy instruction: Aligning technology with ACRL standards. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 244-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.01.008
  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore, 664-675. http://www.dlc-ubc.ca/
  • O'reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & strategies, (1), 17. http://www.citeulike.org/
  • Quercia, D., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Crowcroft, J. (2011). Our Twitter profiles, our selves: Predicting personality with Twitter. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE Third Inernational Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on (pp. 180-185). IEEE. ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/
  • Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in human behavior, 25(2), 578-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
  • Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
  • Skues, J. L., Williams, B., & Wise, L. (2012). The effects of personality traits, self-esteem, loneliness, and narcissism on Facebook use among university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2414-2419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.012
  • Staples, D. S. (2009). Web 2.0 social networking sites. Social Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (Ed. Subhasish Dasgupta), 1, 248.
  • Stefanone, M. A., & Jang, C. Y. (2007). Writing for friends and family: The interpersonal nature of blogs. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication,13(1), 123-140. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00389.x
  • Techataweewan, W. (2012). Perceptions and use of Web 2.0 of Thai academic librarians. Truy cập từ http://rizal. lib. admu. edu. ph/2012conf/fullpa per/FINAL% 20Full, 20. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
  • Wise, L. Z., Skues, J., & Williams, B. (2011). Facebook in higher education promotes social but not academic engagement. Changing demands, changing directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart, 1332-1342. http://www.ascilite.org/
  • Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Nitel veri analizi. Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Genişletilmiş 9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types

Year 2017, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 481 - 512, 07.12.2017
https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.289140

Abstract

The aim of the research is to examine the relationship between students’
personality types (extraversion, introversion, openness to experience and
closeness to experience) and their preference of various Web 2.0 tools to
describe how these tools can be utilized in educational settings. Specifically,
the study investigates which of the Web 2.0 tools are preferred and best meet
the need of the different personality types. The participants included 22
students who were in their third year in the Department of Computer Education
and Instructional Technologies of the Sakarya University during the semester of
Fall 2014. Five of these students were introvert, five were extrovert, six of
them were open to experience and six were closed to experience. These students
were selected with the purposive sampling method out of 30 students who were
subjected to the Adjective-Based Personality Test. According to the results,
students’ preferences of using social media differed by their personality
types. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram were the most popular tools among
students. Results from the study also indicate that it is critical to utilize
the most preferable and practical web 2.0 tools so that students with different
personality traits could adapt to the class. 
Furthermore, measures need to be taken to prevent possible negative
consequences of using these tools.

References

  • Adalı, S., & Golbeck, J. (2014). Predicting personality with social behavior: a comparative study. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 1-20. doi:10.1007/s13278-014-0159-7
  • Bacanlı, H., İlhan, T., & Aslan, S. (2009). Beş faktör kuramına dayalı bir kişilik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: sıfatlara dayalı kişilik testi (SDKT). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 261-279. http://www.tebd.gazi.edu.tr/
  • Bachrach, Y., Kosinski, M., Graepel, T., Kohli, P., & Stillwell, D. (2012, June). Personality and patterns of Facebook usage. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (pp. 24-32). ACM. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
  • Baş, T. ve Akturan, U., (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: NVivo 7.0 ile nitel veri analizi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • Boulos, M., & Wheeler, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health. Information and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x
  • Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.003
  • Burger, J. M. (2006). Kişilik. (Çev. İ. D. Erguvan Sarıoğlu). İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (OnYedinciBaskı). Ankara: PegemA. Yayıncılık.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (OnİkinciBaskı), Ankara: PegemA. Yayıncılık.
  • Coddington, M. (2010). A quick guide to the maxims of new media. Mark Coddingto’s website, 30 Ocak, 2010, http://markcoddington.com/2010/01/30/a-quick-guide-to-the-maxims-of-new-media/
  • Dal, N. E., ve Dal, V. (2015). Kişilik Özellikleri Ve Sosyal Ağ Sitesi Kullanım Alışkanlıkları: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(11), 144-162. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/makusobed/
  • Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational researcher, 38(4), 246-259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671
  • Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001
  • La Sala, L., Skues, J., & Grant, S. (2014). Personality Traits and Facebook Use: The Combined/Interactive Effect of Extraversion, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Social Networking, 3, 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/sn.2014.35026
  • Magnuson, M. L. (2013). Web 2.0 and information literacy instruction: Aligning technology with ACRL standards. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 244-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.01.008
  • McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore, 664-675. http://www.dlc-ubc.ca/
  • O'reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & strategies, (1), 17. http://www.citeulike.org/
  • Quercia, D., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Crowcroft, J. (2011). Our Twitter profiles, our selves: Predicting personality with Twitter. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE Third Inernational Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on (pp. 180-185). IEEE. ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/
  • Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in human behavior, 25(2), 578-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
  • Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004
  • Skues, J. L., Williams, B., & Wise, L. (2012). The effects of personality traits, self-esteem, loneliness, and narcissism on Facebook use among university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2414-2419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.012
  • Staples, D. S. (2009). Web 2.0 social networking sites. Social Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (Ed. Subhasish Dasgupta), 1, 248.
  • Stefanone, M. A., & Jang, C. Y. (2007). Writing for friends and family: The interpersonal nature of blogs. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication,13(1), 123-140. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00389.x
  • Techataweewan, W. (2012). Perceptions and use of Web 2.0 of Thai academic librarians. Truy cập từ http://rizal. lib. admu. edu. ph/2012conf/fullpa per/FINAL% 20Full, 20. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
  • Wise, L. Z., Skues, J., & Williams, B. (2011). Facebook in higher education promotes social but not academic engagement. Changing demands, changing directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart, 1332-1342. http://www.ascilite.org/
  • Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Nitel veri analizi. Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Genişletilmiş 9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
There are 26 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Ebru Albayrak

Mübin Kıyıcı

Publication Date December 7, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 8 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Albayrak, E., & Kıyıcı, M. (2017). Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 8(3), 481-512. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.289140
AMA Albayrak E, Kıyıcı M. Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). December 2017;8(3):481-512. doi:10.16949/turkbilmat.289140
Chicago Albayrak, Ebru, and Mübin Kıyıcı. “Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 8, no. 3 (December 2017): 481-512. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.289140.
EndNote Albayrak E, Kıyıcı M (December 1, 2017) Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 8 3 481–512.
IEEE E. Albayrak and M. Kıyıcı, “Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types”, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 481–512, 2017, doi: 10.16949/turkbilmat.289140.
ISNAD Albayrak, Ebru - Kıyıcı, Mübin. “Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 8/3 (December 2017), 481-512. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.289140.
JAMA Albayrak E, Kıyıcı M. Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). 2017;8:481–512.
MLA Albayrak, Ebru and Mübin Kıyıcı. “Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), vol. 8, no. 3, 2017, pp. 481-12, doi:10.16949/turkbilmat.289140.
Vancouver Albayrak E, Kıyıcı M. Computer Education and Instructional Technologies Department Students’ Web 2.0 Tools Use Cases According to Personality Types. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). 2017;8(3):481-512.