1. WEB 2.0 AWARENESS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY BASED ON INNOVATION-DECISION PROCESS Assoc. Prof. Yasemin KOÇAK USLUEL Hacettepe University, Ankara kocak@hacettepe.edu.tr Pınar NUHOĞLU Hacettepe University, Ankara pnuhoglu@hacettepe.edu.tr Esra Telli Hacettepe University, Ankara esratelli@hacettepe.edu.tr Gökhan Dağhan Hacettepe University, Ankara gokhand@hacettepe.edu.tr EDULEARN12 International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies Barcelona/Spain 2 - 4 July2012 HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY Faculty of Education Computer Education and Instructional Technology

2. Aim of the study This study handles time element of DoI and investigates Web 2.0 awareness of preservice teachers based on innovation-decision process within a longitudinal perspective. Web 2.0 Technologies social networks, learning management systems, search engines, blogs, podcasts and wikis Innovation Decision Process Stages “No awareness” “Knowledge” “Implementation” “Confirmation”

3. Innovation Decision Process Stages “The innovation-decision process is the process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision.” (Rogers 2003, p.12). The Innovation Decision Process (Rogers, 2003)

4. Innovation Decision Process Stages No awareness

5. Individual seeks reinforcement Individual begin to use the innovation. Individual exposed to the innovation and gains some information about its function Implementation Knowledge Individual has not reached the knowledge stage Innovation Decision Process Stages No awareness Confirmation It is aimed to provide findings related web 2.0 adoption processes by determining which of the technologies are at the beginning or end of their diffusion process.

6. Web 2.0 Technologies Web 2.0 Social Networks Podcasts Wiki Blogs Search Engines LMS

7. Method Study Group FemaleMaleTotal Education ProgramsElementary Mathematics Educationf 341044 %24%7%7%31% Primary School Educationf 562581 %40%18%58% Elementary Science Educationf 13215 %10%1%1%11% Totalf 10337 140 %74%26%100% The study group comprised of 140 students (73.5% female, 26.5% male) studying at teacher education programs of a public university. The data were collected in two phases in the year 2009 and 2011 from the same preservice teachers. Genders Across to the Education Programs

8. Method Data Collection Tools “Innovation Decision Process Questionnaire” Individual seeks reinforcement Individual begin to use the innovation. Individual exposed to the innovation and gains some information about its function Implementation Knowledge Individual has not reached the knowledge stage in innovation-decision process No awareness Confirmation ‘I never heard.’ ‘I heard but I’m not using.’ ‘I’m using.’ ‘I used to use.’ Confirmation Rejection 6 Months >> Implementation Confirmation Adoption

9. Findings Social Network

10. Findings Blog

11. Findings Learning Management System

12. Findings Search Engines

13. Findings Wiki

14. Findings Podcast

15. Conclusion Based on DoI theory, the innovation-decision process could also be investigated within a more simple binary classification as “awareness” and “no awareness”. Social Network

16. Conclusion Based on DoI theory, the innovation-decision process could also be investigated within a more simple binary classification as “awareness” and “no awareness”. Blog

17. Conclusion Based on DoI theory, the innovation-decision process could also be investigated within a more simple binary classification as “awareness” and “no awareness”. Learning Management System

18. Conclusion Based on DoI theory, the innovation-decision process could also be investigated within a more simple binary classification as “awareness” and “no awareness”. Search Engines

19. Conclusion Based on DoI theory, the innovation-decision process could also be investigated within a more simple binary classification as “awareness” and “no awareness”. Wiki

20. Conclusion Based on DoI theory, the innovation-decision process could also be investigated within a more simple binary classification as “awareness” and “no awareness”. Podcast

21. Conclusion As observed in the study; the diffusion of an innovation may differ according to each technology. Within two years; the percentages of awareness in all web 2.0 technologies are increased.

22. Conclusion Nearly completed. The Diffusion Process

23. Conclusion Critical mass has been exceeded. The Diffusion Process

24. Conclusion Progressing slowly. The Diffusion Process

25. Future Studies The future studies about the reasons of these differences may contribute to DoI theory. In addition, technology characteristics and individual expectations should be matched with concrete proposals for solutions, because of the possible impact of these characteristics and expectations to the diffusion of technologies. Social Networks Podcasts Wiki Blogs Search Engines LMS

26. Future Studies Thus web 2.0 technologies have positive effects on learning and interaction, future studies in educational context could Social Networks Podcasts Wiki Blogs Search Engines LMS determine the advantages and disadvantages of technologies that have slow diffusion process. In addition to these researches it is needed to be investigated how to provide awareness about unknown technologies which could help the actors of the educational system.

27. References [1] Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: theory and emprical tests. The Internet and Higher Education 11(2), pp. 71-80. [2] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2), pp. 179-211. [3] Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. London, Sage Publications. [4] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), pp. 319-340. [5] Doll, W. J., & Ahmed, M. U. (1983). Managing User Expectations. Journal of Systems Management 34(6), pp. 6-11. [6] Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. [7] Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill. [8] Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 21, pp. 183-198. [9] Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., & Gray, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24(1), pp. 108-122. [10] Li, Y. & Lindner, J. R. (2007). Faculty adoption behaviour about web-based distance education: a case study from China Agricultural University. British Journal of Educational Techology 38(1), pp. 83-94. [11] Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., &Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education 57(3), pp. 1893-1906. [12] Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. [13] Simões, L., & Gouveia, L. B. (2008). Web 2.0 and higher education: Pedagogical implications. Higher Education: New Challenges and Emerging Rolesfor Human and Social Development. 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education Technical University of Catalonia (UPC). 31 March, 1-2 April. [14] Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research 79(2), pp. 625–649. [15] Thompson, R. L., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly 15(1), pp. 125-143. [16] Usluel, Y. K., Mazman, S. G., Arıkan, A. (2009). Prospective teachers’ awareness of collaborative web 2.0 tools. Presented at IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2009, Rome, 19 - 22 November, Italy. [17] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., &Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), pp. 425-478.

28. WEB 2.0 AWARENESS OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY BASED ON INNOVATION-DECISION PROCESS Assoc. Prof. Yasemin KOÇAK USLUEL Hacettepe University, Ankara kocak@hacettepe.edu.tr Pınar NUHOĞLU Hacettepe University, Ankara pnuhoglu@hacettepe.edu.tr Esra Telli Hacettepe University, Ankara esratelli@hacettepe.edu.tr Gökhan Dağhan Hacettepe University, Ankara gokhand@hacettepe.edu.tr EDULEARN12 International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies Barcelona/Spain 2 - 4 July2012 HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY Faculty of Education Computer Education and Instructional Technology THANKS…