Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

ISSN 2146-7242

Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020 November 2020

Prof. Dr. Aytekin İşman Editor-in-Chief

Prof. Dr. Jerry WILLIS - ST John Fisher University in Rochester, USA Prof. Dr. J. Ana Donaldson - AECT President Editors

Assist.Prof.Dr. Fahme DABAJ - Eastern Mediterranean University, TRNC Associate Editor

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Eric Zhi - Feng Liu - National Central University, Taiwan Assistant Editor

TOJET 01.11.2020

THE TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

November, 2020 Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Prof. Dr. Aytekin İşman Editor-in-Chief

Editors Prof. Dr. Jerry Willis Prof. Dr. J. Ana Donaldson

Associate Editor Assist. Prof. Dr. Fahme Dabaj

Assistant Editor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eric Zhi - Feng Liu

ISSN: 2146 - 7242

Indexed by Education Resources Information Center – ERIC SCOPUS - ELSEVIER TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

All rights reserved. No part of TOJET's articles may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrival system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Published in TURKEY

Contact Address: Prof. Dr. Aytekin İŞMAN TOJET, Editor in Chief Sakarya-Turkey

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Message from the Editor-in-Chief

Dear Colleagues,

We are very pleased to publish a Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE-2020 conferences. These papers are about different research scopes and approaches of new developments and innovation in educational technology, teacher education and distance education. Call for Papers TOJET invites you article contributions. Submitted articles should be about all aspects of educational technology. The articles should be original, unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission to TOJET.

Manuscripts must be submitted in English. TOJET is guided by its editors, guest editors and advisory boards. If you are interested in contributing to TOJET as an author, guest editor or reviewer, please send your CV to [email protected].

November 2020 Prof. Dr. Aytekin ISMAN Sakarya University

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Editorial Board

Editors Prof. Dr. Aytekin İşman - Sakarya University, Turkey Prof. Dr. Jerry Willis - ST John Fisher University in Rochester, USA Prof. Dr. J. Ana Donaldson - AECT President

Associate Editor Assist.Prof.Dr. Fahme Dabaj - Eastern Mediterranean University, TRNC

Assistant Editor Assoc.Prof.Dr. Eric Zhi - Feng Liu - National Central University, Taiwan

Editorial Board Prof.Dr. Ahmet Zeki Saka - Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Akif Ergin - Başkent University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Ali Al Mazari - Alfaisal University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Prof.Dr. Ali Ekrem Özkul - Anadolu University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Anil P. Gaikwad - Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, India Prof.Dr. Antoinette J. Muntjewerff - University of Amsterdam Prof.Dr. Arif Altun - Hacettepe University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Arvind Singhal - University of Texas, USA Prof.Dr. Asaf Varol - Fırat University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Aytekin İşman - Sakarya University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Brent G. Wilson - University of Colorado at Denver, USA Prof.Dr. Buket Akkoyunlu - Hacettepe University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Carmencita L. Castolo - Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Philippines Prof.Dr. Cengiz Hakan Aydın - Anadolu University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Chang-Shing Lee - National University of Tainan, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Charlotte N. (Lani) Gunawardena - University of New Mexico, USA Prof.Dr. Chi - Jui Lien - National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Chih - Kai Chang - National University of Taiwan, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Chin-Min Hsiung - National pingtung university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Colin Latchem - Open Learning Consultant, Australia Prof.Dr. Colleen Sexton - Governor State University, USA Prof.Dr. Demetrios G. Sampson - University of Piraeus, Greece Prof.Dr. Dimiter G. Velev - University of National and World Economy, Bulgaria Prof.Dr. Don M. Flournoy - Ohio University, USA Prof.Dr. Dongsik Kim - Hanyang University, South Korea Prof.Dr. Enver Tahir Rıza - Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Eralp Altun - Ege University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Feng-chiao Chung - National pingtung university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Ferhan Odabaşı - Anadolu University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Finland Cheng - National pingtung university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Fong Soon Fook - Uniiversiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Prof.Dr. Francine Shuchat Shaw - New York University, USA Prof.Dr. Gianni Viardo Vercelli - University of Genova, Italy Prof.Dr. Gwo - Dong Chen - National Central University Chung - Li, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Hafize Keser - Ankara University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Halil İbrahim Yalın - Gazi University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Heli Ruokamo - University of Lapland, Finland Prof.Dr. Henry H.H. Chen - National pingtung university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Ing. Giovanni Adorni - University of Genova, Italy Prof.Dr. J. Ana Donaldson - AECT President Prof.Dr. J. Michael Spector - University of North Texas, USA Prof.Dr. Jerry Willis - ST John Fisher University in Rochester, USA Prof.Dr. Jie-Chi Yang - National central university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Kinshuk - Athabasca University, Canada Prof.Dr. Kiyoshi Nakabayashi - Chiba Institute of Technology, Japan Prof.Dr. Kumiko Aoki - The Open University of Japan, Japan

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Prof.Dr. Kuo - En Chang - National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Kuo - Hung Tseng - Meiho Institute of Technology, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Kuo - Robert Lai - Yuan - Ze University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Liu Meifeng - Beijing Normal University, China Prof.Dr. Marina Stock Mcisaac - Arizona State University, USA Prof.Dr. Mehmet Ali Dikermen - Middlesex University, UK Prof.Dr. Mehmet Çağlar - Near East University, TRNC Prof.Dr. Mehmet Gürol - Fırat University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Mehmet Kesim - Anadolu University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Mei-Mei Chang - National pingtung university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Melissa Huı-Mei Fan - National central university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Min Jou - National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Ming - Puu Chen - National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Murat Barkan - Yaşar University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Mustafa Murat Inceoğlu - Ege University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Mustafa Şahin Dündar - Sakarya University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Nabi Bux Jumani - International Islamic University, Pakistan Prof.Dr. Nian - Shing Chen - National Sun Yat - Sen University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Paul Gibbs - Middlesex University, UK Prof.Dr. Petek Aşkar - Hacettepe University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Ramdane Younsi - Ecole polytechnique de Montreal, Canada Prof.Dr. Ramzan Abacı - Istanbul Ticaret University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Rauf Yıldız - Çanakkale 19 Mart University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Roger Hartley - University of Leeds, UK Prof.Dr. Rozhan Hj. Mohammed Idrus - Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Prof.Dr. Saedah Siraj - University of Malaya, Malaysia Prof.Dr. Sello Mokoena - University of South Africa, South Africa Prof.Dr. Servet Bayram - Yeditepe University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Shan - Ju Lin - National Taiwan University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Sheng Quan Yu - Beijing Normal University, China Prof.Dr. Shi-Jer Lou - National pingtung university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Shu - Sheng Liaw - China Medical University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Shu-Hsuan Chang - National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Stefan Aufenanger - University of Mainz, Germany Prof.Dr. Stephen Harmon - Georgia State University, USA Prof.Dr. Stephen J.H. Yang - National Central University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Sun Fuwan - China Open University, China Prof.Dr. Sunny S.J. Lin - National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Teressa Franklin - Ohio University, USA Prof.Dr. Toshio Okamoto - University of Electro - Communications, Japan Prof.Dr. Toshiyuki Yamamoto - Japan Prof.Dr. Tzu - Chien Liu - National Central University, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Ülkü Köymen - Lefke European University, TRNC Prof.Dr. Vaseudev D.Kulkarni - Hutatma Rajjguru College, Rajguruunagar(Pune),(M.S.) INDIA Prof.Dr. Xibin Han - Tsinghua University, China Prof.Dr. Yau Hon Keung - City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Prof.Dr. Yavuz Akpinar - Boğaziçi University, Turkey Prof.Dr. Yen-Hsyang Chu - National central university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Yuan - Chen Liu - National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Yuan-Kuang Guu - National pingtung university, Taiwan Prof.Dr. Young-Kyung Min - University of Washington, USA

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Abdullah Kuzu - Anadolu University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Adile Aşkım Kurt - Anadolu University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ahmet Eskicumalı – Sakarya University Assoc.Prof.Dr. Aijaz Ahmed Gujjar - Sindh Madressatul Islam University, Pakistan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Anita G. Welch - Ball State University, USA Assoc.Prof.Dr. Aytaç Göğüş - Okan University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Chen - Chung Liu - National Central University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Cheng - Huang Yen - National Open University, Taiwan

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ching - fan Chen - Tamkang University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ching Hui Alice Chen - Ming Chuan University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Chiung - sui Chang - Tamkang University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Danguole Rutkauskiene - Kauno Technology University, Lietvenia Assoc.Prof.Dr. David Tawei Ku - Tamkang University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Eric Meng - National pingtung university, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Eric Zhi Feng Liu - National central university, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Erkan Tekinarslan - Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ezendu Ariwa - London Metropolitan University, U.K. Assoc.Prof.Dr. Fahad N. AlFahad - King Saud University Assoc.Prof.Dr. Fahriye Altinay - Near East University, TRNC Assoc.Prof.Dr. Gurnam Kaur Sidhu - Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Assoc.Prof.Dr. Hao - Chiang Lin - National University of Tainan, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Hasan Çalışkan - Anadolu University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Hasan KARAL - Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Hsin - Chih Lin - National University of Tainan, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Huey - Ching Jih - National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Huichen Zhao - School of Education, Henan University, China Assoc.Prof.Dr. Hüseyin Yaratan - Eastern Mediterranean University, TRNC Assoc.Prof.Dr. I - Wen Huang - National University of Tainan, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. I Tsun Chiang - National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ian Sanders - University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Assoc.Prof.Dr. İsmail İpek - Fatih University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Işıl Kabakcı - Anadolu University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Jana Birova - Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia Assoc.Prof.Dr. Jie - Chi Yang - National Central University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. John I-Tsun Chiang - National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ju - Ling Shih - National University of Taiwan, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Koong Lin - National University of Tainan, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Kuo - Chang Ting - Ming - HSIN University of Science and Technology, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Kuo - Liang Ou - National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Larysa M. Mytsyk - Gogol State University, Ukraine Assoc.Prof.Dr. Li - An Ho - Tamkang University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Li Yawan - China Open University, China Assoc.Prof.Dr. Manoj Kumar Saxena - Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala, Kangra, India Assoc.Prof.Dr. Mike Joy - University of Warwick, UK Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ming-Charng Jeng - National pingtung university, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Murat Ataizi - Anadolu University, Turkey Assoc.Prof.Dr. Nergüz Serin - Cyprus International University, TRNC Assoc.Prof.Dr. Norazah Mohd Suki - Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia Assoc.Prof.Dr. Normaliza Abd Rahim - Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Assoc.Prof.Dr. Noushad Husain - Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad Assoc.Prof.Dr. Oğuz Serin - Cyprus International University, TRNC Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ping - Kuen Chen - National Defense University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Popat S. Tambade - Prof. Ramkrishna More College, India Assoc.Prof.Dr. Prakash Khanale - Dnyanopasak College, INDIA Assoc.Prof.Dr. Pramela Krish - Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia Assoc.Prof.Dr. Tzu - Hua Wang - National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Vincent Ru-Chu Shih - National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Wu - Yuin Hwang - National Central University, Taiwan Assoc.Prof.Dr. Ya-Ling Wu - National pingtung university, Taiwan Assoc.Prof Dr. Yahya O Mohamed Elhadj - AL Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud University, Saudi Arabia Assoc.Prof Dr. Yavuz Akbulut - Anadolu University Assoc.Prof.Dr. Zehra Altınay - Near East University, TRNC Assoc.Prof.Dr. Zhi - Feng Liu - National Central University, Taiwan

Assist.Prof.Dr. Aaron L. Davenport - Grand View College, USA Assist.Prof.Dr. Alper Beyazıt - Yeditepe University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Andreja Istenic Starcic - University of Primorska, Slovenija Assist.Prof.Dr. Betül Özkan - University of Arizona, USA

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Assist.Prof.Dr. Burçin Kısa Işık - Gaziantep University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Chiu - Pin Lin - National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Chun - Ping Wu - Tamkang University, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Chun - Yi Shen - Tamkang University, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Chung-Yuan Hsu - National pingtung university, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Dale Havill - Dhofar University, Sultanate of Oman Assist.Prof.Dr. Devrim Akgündüz - İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Ferman Konukman - College of Arts and Science, Sport Science Program, Qatar University Assist.Prof.Dr. Filiz Varol - Fırat University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Guan - Ze Liao - National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Hsiang chin - hsiao - Shih - Chien University, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Huei - Tse Hou - National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Hüseyin Ünlü - Aksaray University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Jagannath. K Dange - Kuvempu University, India Assist.Prof.Dr. K. B. Praveena - University of Mysore, India Assist.Prof.Dr. Kanvaria Vinod Kumar - University of Delhi, India Assist.Prof.Dr. Lotfi Salhi - University of Gafsa, Tunisia Assist.Prof.Dr. Marko Radovan - University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Assist.Prof.Dr. Min-Hsien Lee - National central university, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Mohammad Akram Mohammad Al-Zu'bi - Jordan Al Balqa Applied University, Jordan Assist.Prof.Dr. Muhammet Demirbilek - Süleyman Demirel University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Pamela Ewell - Central College of IOWA, USA Assist.Prof.Dr. Pei-Hsuan Hsieh - National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Pey-Yan Liou - National central university, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Phaik Kin, Cheah - Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Perak Assist.Prof.Dr. Ping - Yeh Tsai - Tamkang University, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. S. Arulchelvan - Anna University, India Assist.Prof.Dr. Seçil Kaya - Anadolu University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Selma Koç Vonderwell - Cleveland State University, Cleveland Assist.Prof.Dr. Sunil Kumar - National Institute of Technology, India Assist.Prof.Dr. Tsung - Yen Chuang - National University of Taiwan, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Vahid Motamedi - Tarbiat Moallem University, Iran Assist.Prof.Dr. Wong Kung Teck - Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia Assist.Prof.Dr. Yalın Kılıç Türel - Fırat University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Yasin Aslan - Sinap University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Yu - Ju Lan - National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan Assist.Prof.Dr. Zehra Alakoç Burma - Mersin University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Zerrin Ayvaz Reis - İstanbul University, Turkey Assist.Prof.Dr. Zülfü Genç - Fırat University, Turkey

Dr. Arnaud P. Prevot - Forest Ridge School of the Sacred Heart, USA Dr. Balakrishnan Muniandy - Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Dr. Brendan Tangney - Trinity College, Ireland Dr. Chan Shiau Wei - Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia Dr. Chen Haishan - China Open University, China Dr. Chin Hai Leng - University of Malaya, Malaysia Dr. Chin Yeh Wang - National Central University, Taiwan Dr. Chun Hsiang Chen - National Central University, Taiwan Dr. Chun Hung Lin - National central university, Taiwan Dr. Esra Telli - Hacettepe University, Turkey Dr. Farrah Dina Yusop - University of Malaya, Malaysia Dr. Fatma Bayrak - Hacettepe University, Turkey Dr. Gökhan Akçapınar - Hacettepe University, Turkey Dr. Gökhan Dağhan - Hacettepe University, Turkey Dr. Hj. Issham Ismail - Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia Dr. Hj. Mohd Arif Hj. Ismail - National University of Malaysia, Malaysia Dr. I-Hen Tsai - National University of Tainan, Taiwan Dr. İsmail İpek - Bilkent University, Turkey Dr. Jarkko Suhonen - University of Eastern Finland, Finland Dr. Li Ying - China Open University, China

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Dr. Norlidah Alias - University of Malaya, Malaysia Dr. Pınar Nuhoğlu - Hacettepe University, Turkey Dr. Rosnaini Mahmud - Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Dr. Sachin Sharma - Faridabad Institute of Technology, Faridabad Dr. Seetharam Chittoor Jhansi - Pushpa Navnit Shah Centre for Lifelong Learning, India Dr. Tam Shu Sim - University of Malaya, Malaysia Dr. Tiong Goh - Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Dr. Vikrant Mishra - Shivalik College of Education, India Dr. Zahra Naimie - University of Malaya, Malaysia Dr. Zari Sadat Seyyedrezaie - Islamic Azad University, Iran

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Table of Contents

About The Change in the New Age Actor and Actress Structuring in Turkish Cinema, Tv Serials and 1 Programs the Newly Formed Perception and its Possible Relationship with Digital Media (1990-2020) Digi-Slaves Nevin ALGÜL

Amigos Do Ziki: Evaluation of The Program to Promote Socio-Emotional Skillsi Preschool Children 6 Graça APARÍCIO, Isabel BICA, Cláudia CHAVES, Madalena CUNHA , Manuela FERREIRA

An Investigation of Life Science Course Curriculum within Turkish Qualifications Framework 15 İlkay AŞKIN TEKKOL

Analysis of Online Customer Complaints of Mobile Telecommunication Sector with Text Mining 22 Alper KIRAZ, Hüseyin ESKI, Anıl Özkan GEÇICI

Analysis of the Tunisian Women's Acquisitions Following the "Arab Spring" Regarding Various 34 Variables Hüdayi SAYIN, Hande ORTAY

Analysis on Philosophical Beliefs of Physical Education and Sports Teachers towards Education in 47 terms of Different Variables Mustafa Enes IŞIKGÖZ

Analyzing the Violent Tendencies of the Secondary School Students According to their Sport 56 Activities: Example of Eskişehir Odunpazarı and Tepebaşı Elif KARAGÜN, Murat GENÇ

Assistive Technology: Empowering Teachers 63 Betsy ORR

Body Perception in Physical Education Teacher Candidates Studying at Kocaeli University: A 66 Comparison in terms of 1st and 4th Grades Elif KARAGÜN, Murat GENÇ

Challenges in Developing a Joint Study Programme: The Case of the Baltic States 72 Gunta GRINBERGA-ZALITE, Andra ZVIRBULE, Ants-Hannes VIIRA, Astrida MICEIKIENE

Citizenship Education and Teacher Training: Implications for Teaching Practice 78 Ana Paula CARDOSO, Ana Sofia COSTA, João ROCHA, Manuela FERREIRA, Sofia CAMPOS

Cooperative Education in Turkey through Open and Distance Education 85 Buket KİP KAYABAŞ

Data Mining Applications: The Sample of Sakarya University Library and Documentation Department 96 Alper KIRAZ, Hüseyin ESKI

Developing Vocational School Students’ Learning Motivation in Math 102 Sinan AYDIN

Digital World, Digital Communication Area, Transparent Communication, Digital Communication and 105 Law of Interaction, Digi-Police, Digi-Inspector, Debiting the Uniqueness of Individual after Pandemic Period, Determination, Analysis, Insights and Recommendations Nevin ALGÜL

Education of Social Workers in Area of International Social Work 110 Veronika Mia ZEGZULKOVÁ

Educational Competence of Vocational School Students 113 Sinan AYDIN

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Effect of Database Oriented Learning (DBOL) in Developing Constructivism at Higher Education 117 Level R. NANDHAKUMAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN

Examination of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Opinions about Problem Solving and Reasoning 122 According to their Mathematical Thinking Levels Furkan ÖZDEMIR, Halil Coşkun ÇELİK

Examining the Motivation to Teach in Physical Education Preservice Teachers Studying at Kocaeli 136 University Elif KARAGÜN, Eyüp Sinan KUL

Factors Affecting Social Media Literacy of Farmers in Thailand 143 Patcharavadee SRIBOONRUANG, Nutcha ISARAKUL, Sutithep SIRIPIPATTANAKUL

Financing Problems Faced in Primary and Secondary Education Institutions (Schools) and Potential 150 Solutions Ali ÇOBAN

Higher Education Students' Knowledge of Human Papilloma Virus and Cervical Cancer 159 Manuela FERREIRA, Sofia CAMPOS, Graça APARÍCIO, João DUARTE, Joana ANDRADE, Lurdes SANTOS

Higher Health Literacy: Elementary and High School Portuguese Students’ Eating Habits and Harmful 165 Consumptions Manuela FERREIRA, Pedro RODRIGUES, Graça APARÍCIO, Helia DIAS, Joana ANDRADE, Sofia CAMPOS

Investigation of the Difference between Online Learning and Face-To-Face Learning on the Aspects of 176 Students’ Satisfaction and Preferences: A Study on Hong Kong Higher Education Hon Keung YAU, Sze Ting TANG

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students 189 Saadet Aylin YAĞAN

On the Developing of Mathematics Teacher Candidates’ Constructive Skills 199 Sinan AYDIN

On the Effect of Using Graf Calculator in Math Problem Solving: Vocational School Sample 202 Sinan AYDIN

Online Media Application Selection Used in Distance Education with Integrated Fuzzy Ahp and Fuzzy 206 Topsis Methods Alper KIRAZ, Hüseyin ESKI

Opinions of the Secondary and Primary Education Administrators in the TRNC about the Use of 212 Technology Gaye TÜRKER, Hülya ALTUN

Parental Attitudes of Children without Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Inclusion of Children with 219 Special Educational Needs (SEN) Sofia CAMPOS, Flávia PINTO, Manuela FERREIRA, Ana Paula CARDOSO, Célia RIBEIRO, Paula COUCEIRO

Perspectives on Digital Inclusion: Participation of Seniors in Social Networks 225 Ana PINHEIRO, Paula MEDEIROS, Mário CRUZ

Programmable Robots in the Education of Informatics and their Use by Elementary School Teachers in 237 the Czech Republic Petri MALIŠŮ, Petr ŠALOUN

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special Issue for IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE 2020

Self-Efficacy and Happiness Levels of Individuals Participating in Recreational Courses 241 Elif KARAGÜN, Betül BAKIR

Students' Perspectives of Distance Education 247 Betül ÖZAYDIN ÖZKARA

The Dependence of the Viability of the Student on the Quality of His Reflection 260 Svetlana Nikolaevna MOROZYUK, Yuri MOROZYUK, Irina A. GORBENKO, Elena KUZNETSOVA

The Effect, Importance and Functions of Music in Cinema: Example of Cahit Berkay in the Context of 265 Turkish Cinema Ayhan DOLUNAY, Hüseyin KAMBUR, Fevzi KASAP

The Explanation of the Psycho-Semiotic Language about the Roles of the Actor and Actresses Creating 279 Gender Perception in the Posters During the Yeşilçam 1960’s Period, such as Erol Taş, Ekrem Bora, Ediz Hun, Tarik Akan, Cüneyt Arkin, Suzan Avci, Filiz Akin, Belgin Doruk, etc… Nevin ALGÜL

Training in the Promotion of Mental Health in Children and Adolescents: Evidence of Validity 283 Madalena CUNHA, Ana Sofia SANTOS, André AZEVEDO, Daniela SOUTO, Filipa BORGES

Vocational School Students’ Beliefs in Scientists 293 Sinan AYDIN

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – November 2020, Special issue IETC, ITEC, IWSC & INTE

LIFELONG LEARNING TENDENCIES OF VOCATIONAL SCHOOL STUDENTS

Dr. Saadet Aylin YAĞAN Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University Faculty of Education [email protected]

Özet Meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimlerinin araştırıldığı bu çalışmada nicel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiştir. Araştırma deseni, karşılaştırma araştırması ile betimsel araştırmadır. Çalışmada Tokat ilinde bulunan 13 meslek yüksekokulunda öğrenim gören 627 öğrenciden veri toplanmıştır. Veri toplama aracı 27 madde ve dört boyuttan oluşan Yaşam Boyu Öğrenme Eğilimleri Ölçeğidir. Ölçeğin boyutları; motivasyon, sebat, öğrenmeyi düzenleme ve meraktır. Bulgular, meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin orta seviyenin üstünde bir yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri olduğunu göstermektedir. Boyutlar arasında en yüksek ortalama motivasyona en düşük ortalama merak boyutuna aittir. Cinsiyet, yaşam boyu öğrenme toplam ölçek ortalamasını farklılaştıran bir değişkendir. Kız öğrencilerin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri erkek öğrencilerden yüksektir. Ayrıca öğrenmeyi düzenleme ve merak boyutlarında da kız öğrenciler lehine anlamlı fark saptanmıştır. Sınıf düzeyi, öğrenmeyi düzenleme boyutu için anlamlı farklılık oluşturan bir değişkendir. Birinci sınıf öğrencileri ikinci sınıf öğrencilerinden daha fazla öğrenmeyi düzenleme eğilimine sahiptir. Öğrenim görülen bölüm, yaşam boyu öğrenme motivasyon eğilimlerini farklılaştırmaktadır. Teknik bilimler alanında öğrenim gören öğrenciler en yüksek motivasyon ortalamasına, sağlık bilimleri alanındaki öğrenciler ise en düşük motivasyon ortalamasına sahiptir. Aile gelir durumu, anne eğitim düzeyi ve baba eğitim düzeyi yaşam boyu öğrenme toplam ölçeği ile boyutları açısından anlamlı fark oluşturmamıştır. Öğrencilerin mezun olduktan sonraki planları merak boyutu için anlamlı bir değişkendir. Eğitimlerine devam etmek isteyen öğrencilerin merak ortalamaları işe girmek isteyen öğrencilere göre anlamlı derecede yüksektir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Yaşam boyu öğrenme, motivasyon,

Abstract In this study, which investigated lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students, quantitative research method was adopted. The research designs are comparative research and descriptive research. Data were collected from 627 students from 13 vocational schools in Tokat. Data collection tool is Lifelong Learning Tendency Scale consisting of 27 items and four dimensions. Dimensions of the scale are motivation, persistence, self-regulation and curiosity. The findings show that vocational school students have a lifelong learning tendency above the intermediate level. Among the dimensions, motivation has the highest mean while curiosity has the lowest mean. Gender is a variable that differentiates the lifelong learning total scale mean. Female students have higher lifelong learning tendencies than males. In addition, a significant difference was found in favor of female students in terms of self-regulation and curiosity. Class level is a variable that makes a significant difference for self-regulation dimension. First year students tend to be more self-regulated than second years. The major, differentiates lifelong learning motivation tendencies. The students who study in the technical sciences have the highest motivation mean, while the students study in the health sciences have the lowest. Family income, mother education level and father education level did not make a significant difference in terms of lifelong learning total scale and its dimensions. Students' plans after graduation is a significant variable for the curiosity dimension. The students who want to pursue their education have significantly higher curiosity mean than the students who want to work.

Introduction The effects of scientific, technological, and cultural changes on human life, the rapid differentiation of information and the prolongation of lifespan compared to the past force people to be in a constant state of learning. Education is not limited to schools or specific periods anymore. Scientific studies are ongoing for the education of individuals of all ages and characteristics. This perspective, which can be explained under the concept of lifelong learning is defined as all learning activities carried out throughout life in order to improve the knowledge, skills and competencies of individuals related to their professional, social and personal lives through formal or informal education. As can be understood from the definition, with lifelong learning social integration, active citizenship, personal development, self-sustainability, competitiveness, and employability are aimed (Coşkun & Demirel, 2012; Lifelong Learning Platform, 2016; Uzunboylu & Hürsen, 2011). Lifelong learning became one of the UNESCO policies in the 1970s and OECD policies in the 1980s and it started to gain importance among scientists studying in education. The most important reason for the need for lifelong learning was insufficient education provided in schools so the idea that the missions of the schools must change came forward. Today, lifelong learning is still the main paradigm of education systems and reforms in the international arena. UNESCO's (Rethinking Education: Towards a Global Common Good-2015) and United Nations' (2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) reports are based on providing inclusive and quality

education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. All fields, sectors and ages are included in the educational objectives. In Turkey, however the idea of lifelong learning has become widespread in the 2000s. General Directorate of Lifelong Learning was established under Ministry of National Education. The priorities determined in the action plan of the Directorate are as follows: Creating lifelong learning culture and awareness in the society, increasing lifelong learning opportunities and provision, increasing access to lifelong learning, developing a lifelong learning guidance system, developing a system for evaluating previous learning, developing a lifelong learning monitoring and evaluation system. (General Directorate of Lifelong Learning, 2014; Güleç, Çelik & Demirhan, 2012; Lifelong Learning Platform, 2016). General purposes of lifelong learning are personal development, social integration, and economic growth. Personal development is based on the principles such as focusing on individuals, shaping education according to their interests and needs, granting individuals the right to choose and initiate more, improving their life standards and maximizing their capacities. Social integration focuses on ensuring equal opportunities for everyone to benefit from lifelong learning rather than staying with a limited group, and strengthening democracy. Economic growth, on the other hand, has the objectives of supporting skill development, providing appropriate conditions and opportunities for skill development, and supporting initiatives that will increase economic development (State Planning Organization, 2001). In the European Reference Framework (2007), it has defined eight basic competencies related to lifelong learning. These are: communication in mother tongue, communication in foreign languages, basic competence in mathematics, science and technology, digital competence, learning to learn, social and civic competences, entrepreneurship, cultural awareness and expression. All these qualifications are equally important, and dimensions of knowledge, skills and attitudes are addressed for each. The knowledge dimension includes events, shapes, concepts, ideas and theories. The skill dimension refers to the capacity to run processes and deliver meaningful knowledge. Attitudes are related to the tendency to act or react according to ideas, people, or situations. Apart from these, values, thoughts and beliefs are considered. In addition, high-level cognitive skills such as critical thinking, creativity, initiative, problem solving, risk assessment and decision making are also associated with key competencies (European Commission, 2018). In addition to the general purposes of lifelong learning and competencies related to lifelong learning, the principles of lifelong learning have also been determined in the literature. Accordingly, lifelong learning adopts the principles of ending encyclopedic knowledge, ending illiteracy, ending the transfer of information in traditional ways, ending excessive specialization, ending traditional education methods at all levels, and democratizing education (Turkey State Planning Organization, 2001). In order for life-long learning to be successful, certain conditions must be met. Voluntary participation is the most important of these. The willingness of individuals to learn will increase their success rate. Active participation is another variable. The active participation of individuals in learning and applying what they have learned will also increase their self-confidence. Past experience is a factor that affects new learning. Appropriate methods and materials should be determined by considering what and to what extent the learners know. The learning climate is another factor. Physically and psychologically appropriate and supportive environments will increase the quality of life-long learning. Finally, determining how learners learn best will play a significant role in guiding an effective lifelong learning process (Gravani, 2012). Lifelong learning has become a necessity rather than a choice or an advantage. It is not possible for individuals who do not improve and update themselves to be successful in their business or social lives. For this reason, it is considered that lifelong learning is a subject that needs to be studied carefully. Higher education is the last step of formal education. There is no guiding on how the learning would continue after this step. It is important for individuals who graduate from higher education to have knowledge about lifelong learning in order to adapt to their professional lives, environment and changing conditions (Karaman & Aydoğmuş, 2018). Based on this idea, the tendencies of vocational school students towards lifelong learning were examined in the study. In the literature, there are a limited number of studies on the lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students, and the samples are restricted with one or two schools in these studies. This research is important as it has a large sample (n=627) and its data was collected from 13 different vocational schools in Tokat. It is also important that students gain awareness of the concept of lifelong learning. Research Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students and to investigate whether some demographic variables differentiate their lifelong learning tendencies. Research questions are below: 1. What are the lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students? 2. Do vocational school students' lifelong learning tendencies differ according to the following demographic variables? a. Gender b. Grade

c. Major d. Family income e. Mother education level f. Father education level g. Plans after graduation

Method Research Design The quantitative research method has been adopted in the research. As research designs comparative research and descriptive research were used. The sample was defined and student tendencies were revealed by using the descriptive statistics. It was investigated whether the tendencies differ in terms of demographic variables through the comparative research (Gliner, Morgan & Leech, 2009).

Sample The population of this research consists of the students studying at vocational schools in Tokat. The sample was created using convenience sampling technique which is a type of non-probability sampling. Data were collected from 661 students, but 34 participants were excluded from the study due to missing information in the data collection tool. Thus, the sample consisted of 627 participants. Demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the sample Variable Variable Levels f % Female 331 52.8 Gender Male 296 47.2 Total 627 100 1. Grade 336 53.6 Grade 2. Grade 291 46.4 As can be seen Total 627 100 in Table 1, Adalet VS 37 5.9 approximately Almus VS 76 12.1 53% (n = 331) Artova VS 83 13.2 of the sample Erbaa VS 51 8.1 Erbaa Health VS 48 7.7 are girls and Niksar Social Sciences VS 81 12.9 47% (n = 296) Niksar Technical Sciences VS 19 3 are boys while Vocational School (VS) Pazar VS 96 15.3 54% (n = 336) Reşadiye VS 30 4.8 are first year Tokat Technical VS 17 2.7 students, 46% Turhal VS 14 2.2 (n = 291) are Turhal Health VS 21 3.3 second year Zile VS 54 8.6 students. The Total 627 100 most data were 0-2000 ₺ 348 55.5 2001-3000 ₺ 156 24.9 collected from 3001-4000 ₺ 67 10.7 Pazar (n = 96, Family Income 4001-5000 ₺ 36 5.7 15%), Artova (n 5001 ₺ and more 20 3.2 = 83, 13%), Total 627 100 Niksar Social Illiterate 64 10.2 Sciences (n = Primary School 377 60.1 81, 13%) and Secondary School 124 19.8 Almus (n = 76, Mother Education Level High School 55 8.8 12%) Graduate 4 .6 Post-graduate 3 .5 vocational Total 627 100 schools. The Illiterate 13 2.1 family income Primary School 275 43.9 of the majority Secondary School 180 28.7 of the Father Education Level High School 120 19.1 participating Graduate 36 5.7 students (n = Post-graduate 3 .5 348, 55.5%) is Total 627 100 between 0-2000 Future plans Wants to work 398 63.5 ₺. Mother and

Wants to pursue his/her education 145 23.1 father education Other 84 13.4 levels of the Total 627 100 most of the students are primary school (n = 377, 60%; n = 275, 44%). While the majority of the students (n = 398, 63.5%) want to work after graduation, 23% (n = 145) of them want to pursue their education.

Table 2: Majors of the students Variable Variable Levels Variable Sub-Levels f % Banking and Insurance Penal Execution and Security Services Call Center Services Child Development Public Relations and Advertising Law Office Management and Secretariat Social Sciences 304 48.5 Business Administration Logistics Finance Accounting and Tax Practices Postal Services Local Governments Computer Programming Major Graphic Design Occupational Health and Safety Chemistry and Chemical Processing Technical Technology 162 25.8 Sciences Architecture and Restoration Private Security and Property Protection Civil Defense and Firefighting Textile Technology Physiotherapy First and Immediate Aid Medical Promotion and Marketing Health Sciences 161 25.7 Laboratory Technology Laborant and Veterinary Health Disabled Care and Rehabilitation Total 627 100

As can be seen in Table 2, the majors of the students are grouped as social sciences, technical sciences and health sciences. 48.5% (n=304) of the students study in 12 different departments in the field of social sciences while 25.8% (n=162) of them study in eight different departments in the field of technical sciences, and 25.7% (n=161) of them study in six different departments in the field of health sciences.

Data Collection Tool "Lifelong Learning Tendencies Scale" developed by Coşkun (2009) was used as data collection tool. The scale consists of 27 items and four dimensions. Dimensions are motivation (6 items), persistence (6 items), self- regulation (6 items) and curiosity (9 items). In the scale, all items in ‘‘motivation’’ and ‘‘persistence’’ dimensions were coded positive, while all items in ‘‘self-regulation’’ and ‘‘curiosity’’ were coded negative. The scale was prepared in six-point Likert type (1: Fits completely, 6: Does not fit at all). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient (α = .89) on the sample in which the scale was developed is high enough and the researcher concluded that the scale was also valid according to the confirmatory factor analysis. In this study, items related to motivation and persistence dimensions were reverse coded at the data analysis stage. Thus, high scores in all dimensions indicate high lifelong learning tendencies. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for this research is α = .87.

Data Collection Process Using Google Forms, the researcher organized the data collection tool in a form that can be filled on-line. Then, all faculty members working in vocational schools were contacted via e-mail, the study was introduced and the link of the data collection tool was sent. They shared the link with their students. Voluntary students filled out the form. Data were collected in November and December 2019.

Data Analysis Frequency, percentage, minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation statistics were used to introduce the

sample and reveal lifelong learning tendencies. Whether lifelong learning tendencies differ according to demographic data was measured by t-test and ANOVA. Since the sample size is sufficient (n>100) according to the central limit theorem, the assumptions of normality and homogeneity were accepted met (see Dimitrov, 2010).

Results

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students Table 3 shows lifelong learning tendency statistics of vocational school students.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of lifelong learning tendency scale N Min. Max. X̄ SD Total Scale 627 1.48 6.00 4.44 .81 Motivation 627 1.00 6.00 5.19 .80 Persistence 627 1.00 6.00 4.63 .97 Self-regulation 627 1.00 6.00 4.18 1.37 Curiosity 627 1.00 6.00 3.97 1.29

According to Table 3, the mean of the lifelong learning tendency scale is (X̄ = 4.44, SD = .81). It can be said that students’ lifelong learning tendencies is above the middle. Motivation has the highest mean among the four dimensions (X̄ = 5.19, SD = .80). Motivation is followed by persistence (X̄ = 4.63 SD = .97) and self-regulation (X̄ = 4.18, SD = 1.37). The dimension with the lowest mean is curiosity (X̄ = 3.97, SD = 1.29).

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students by Gender Whether lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students differ according to their gender was tested with the t test. Results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Lifelong learning tendencies according to gender t -test Scale Dimensions Groups N X̄ SD SEX̄ t df p Female 331 4.58 .77 .04 Total Scale 4.58 625 .00 Male 296 4.29 .83 .05 Female 331 5.25 .73 .04 Motivation 1.95 625 .052 Male 296 5.13 .87 .05 Female 331 4.67 .95 .05 Persistence .831 625 .40 Male 296 4.60 1.0 .06 Female 331 4.37 1.28 .07 Self-regulation 3.52 625 .00 Male 296 3.99 1.44 .08 Female 331 4.21 1.19 .07 Curiosity 4.87 625 .00 Male 296 3.72 1.35 .08

As can be seen in Table 4, there is a statistically significant difference between male and female students' lifelong learning total scale means (t = 4.58 p <.05). The total scale mean of female students (X̄ = 4.58) is higher than males (X̄ = 4.29). It can be concluded that female students have higher lifelong learning tendencies than males.

The means of self-regulation (X̄ female = 4.37, X̄ male = 3.99) and curiosity (X̄ female = 4.21, X̄ male = 3.72) dimensions differ significantly in favor of female students (t = 3.52, p <.05; t = 4.87, p <.05). On the other hand, in terms of motivation and persistence mean scores (X̄ female = 5.25, X̄ male = 5.13; X̄ female= 4.67, X̄ male = 4.60) there are not statistically significant differences between females and males (t = 1.95, p =.052; t = .83, p =.40).

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students by Grade T-test results of lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students according to their grades are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Lifelong learning tendencies according to grade t -test Scale Dimensions Groups N X̄ SD SEX̄ t df p 1.grade 336 4.48 .80 .04 Total scale 1.34 625 .18 2.grade 291 4.39 .82 .05 1.grade 336 5.19 .76 .04 Motivation .031 625 .97 2.grade 291 5.19 .85 .05 1.grade 336 4.58 .96 .05 Persistence -1.56 625 .12 2.grade 291 4.70 .99 .06

1.grade 336 4.29 1.29 .07 Self-regulation 2.02 625 .04 2.grade 291 4.07 1.44 .08 1.grade 336 4.07 1.21 .06 Curiosity 1.87 625 .06 2.grade 291 3.87 1.38 .08 Table 5 shows a significant difference between the first and second grades’ self-regulation means (t = 2.02, p <.05). First grades have a significantly higher self-regulation mean (X̄ = 4.29) than second grades (X̄ = 4.07).

There are not statistically significant differences between first and second grades in terms of total scale mean, and motivation, persistence and curiosity dimensions (t = 1.34, p =.18; t =.031, p =.97; t = -1.56, p =.12; t = 1.87, p = .06).

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students by Major One-way ANOVA results of lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students according to their majors are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Lifelong learning tendencies according to major Scale ANOVA Groups N X̄ SD SE Dimensions SS df MS F p Social sci. 304 4.45 .79 .04 Between groups .121 2 .06 Total scale Technical sci. 162 4.42 .82 .06 Within groups 410.6 624 .65 .09 .91 Health sci. 161 4.43 .83 .06 Total 410.8 626 Total 627 4.44 .81 .03 Social sci. 304 5.22 .75 .04 Between groups 5.07 2 2.53 3.99 .01 Motivation Technical sci. 162 5.27 .80 .06 Within groups 396.0 624 .63 Health sci. 161 5.04 .87 .06 Total 401.1 626 Total 627 5.19 .80 .03 Social sci. 304 4.66 .99 .05 Between groups 4.9 2 2.47 2.60 .07 Persistence Technical sci. 162 4.73 .85 .06 Within groups 593.7 624 .95 Health sci. 161 4.49 1.04 .08 Total 598.7 626 Total 627 4.63 .97 .03 Social sci. 304 4.18 1.39 .07 Between groups 3.01 2 1.50 Self- .8 .44 Technical sci. 162 4.09 1.49 .11 Within groups 1173.0 624 1.88 regulation Health sci. 161 4.28 1.17 .09 Total 1176.0 626 Total 627 4.18 1.37 .05 Social sci. 304 3.98 1.28 .07 Between groups 3.04 2 1.52 .9 .40 Curiosity Technical sci. 162 3.87 1.39 .10 Within groups 1042.4 624 1.67 Health sci. 161 4.07 1.18 .09 Total 1045.4 626 Total 627 3.97 1.29 .05

As can be seen in Table 6, there are not statistically significant differences between the major groups in terms of total scale mean, and persistence, self-regulation, and curiosity dimensions (F = .09, df2, 624, p = .91; F = 2.60, df2, 624, p = .07; F = .8, df2, 624, p =.44; F = .9, df2, 624, p = .40). On the other hand, a statistically significant difference was found between motivation means of the students according to their major (F = 3.99, df2, 624, p <,05). Students studying in technical sciences have the highest mean (X̄ = 5.27) whereas students studying in health sciences have the lowest (X̄ = 5.04). Tukey follow-up analysis has been conducted to determine which groups were different from each other. Results are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Tukey follow-up analysis results regarding to major Mean difference (I) Major (J) Major SE p (I-J) Social sciences Technical sci. -.050 .077 .79 Health sciences .183* .077 .04 Technical sci. Social sciences .050 .077 .79 Health sciences .233* .088 .02 Health sciences Social sciences -.183* .077 .04 Technical sci. -.233* .088 .02

According to Table 7, concerning motivation means, significant differences were found between social sciences and health sciences in favor of social sciences, and between technical sciences and health sciences in favor of technical sciences (p < .05; p < .05). There is not a significant difference between social sciences and technical sciences groups (p = .79).

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students by Family Income

As presented in Table 1, the family income variable consists of five groups (0-2000 ₺, 2001-3000 ₺, 3001-4000 ₺, 4001-5000 ₺ and 5001 ₺ and above). However, the number of participants is not enough in two groups (4001-5000 ₺, n = 36; 5001 ₺ and above, n = 20) compared to the others. Therefore, before the analysis, these two groups were combined with the 3001-4000 ₺ group, and the new group was titled as 3001 ₺ and above (n = 123). ANOVA was conducted over the three-group family income variable. Results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Lifelong learning tendencies according to family income Scale ANOVA Groups N X̄ SD SE dimensions SS df MS F p 0-2000 ₺ 348 4.45 .78 .04 Between groups .21 2 .10 Total scale 2001-3000 ₺ 156 4.41 .79 .06 Within groups 410.5 624 .65 .16 .84 3001 ₺ and + 123 4.44 .90 .08 Total 410.8 626 Total 627 4.44 .81 .03 0-2000 ₺ 348 5.24 .72 .03 Between groups 2.07 2 1.03 1.62 Motivation 2001-3000 ₺ 156 5.15 .81 .06 Within groups 399.0 624 .64 .19 3001 ₺ and + 123 5.10 .95 .08 Total 401.1 626 Total 627 5.19 .80 .03 0-2000 ₺ 348 4.71 .87 .04 Between groups 5.48 2 2.74 2.88 .057 Persistence 2001-3000 ₺ 156 4.49 1.11 .08 Within groups 593.2 624 .95 3001 ₺ and + 123 4.60 1.05 .09 Total 598.7 626 Total 627 4.63 .97 .03 0-2000 ₺ 348 4.11 1.38 .07 Between groups 4.58 2 2.29 Self- 1.22 .29 2001-3000 ₺ 156 4.29 1.34 .10 Within groups 1171.4 624 1.87 regulation 3001 ₺ and + 123 4.27 1.36 .12 Total 1176.0 626 Total 627 4.18 1.37 .05 0-2000 ₺ 348 3.98 1.25 .06 Between groups .45 2 .22 .13 .87 Curiosity 2001-3000 ₺ 156 3.93 1.34 .10 Within groups 1045.0 624 1.67 3001 ₺ and + 123 4.01 1.34 .12 Total 1045.4 626 Total 627 3.97 1.29 .05

According to Table 8, there are not significant differences between income groups in terms of total scale and scale dimensions’ means (F = .16, df2, 624, p = .84; F = 1.62, df2, 624, p = .19; F = 2.88, df2, 624, p = .057; F = 1.22, df2, 624, p = .29; F = .13, df2, 624, p = .87).

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students by Mother Education Level As presented in Table 1, mother education level variable consists of six groups (illiterate, primary school, secondary school, high school, graduate, postgraduate). However, the number of participants in two groups (graduate, n = 4 and postgraduate, n = 3) is not enough compared to the others. Therefore, these two groups were combined with the high school group and a new group was composed as high school and above (n = 62). ANOVA was carried out with four-group mother education level variable. Results are presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Lifelong learning tendencies according to mother education level Scale ANOVA Groups N X̄ SD SE dimensions SS df MS F p Illiterate 64 4.47 .80 .10 Between groups 1.6 2 .53 Total scale Primary sch. 377 4.42 .80 .04 Within groups 409.2 623 .65 .81 .48 Secondary sch. 124 4.52 .86 .07 Total 410.8 626 High sch. and + 62 4.33 .73 .09 Total 627 4.44 .81 .03 Illiterate 64 5.29 .66 .08 Between groups .94 2 .31 .49 Primary sch. 377 5.18 .78 .04 Within groups 400.1 623 .64 .68 Motivation Secondary sch. 124 5.18 .90 .08 Total 401.1 626 High sch. and + 62 5.13 .80 .10 Total 627 5.19 .80 .03 Illiterate 64 4.75 .78 .09 Between groups 4.67 2 1.55 1.63 .18 Persistence Primary sch. 377 4.62 1.00 .05 Within groups 594.0 623 .95 Secondary sch. 124 4.73 .97 .08 Total 598.7 626 High sch. and + 62 4.43 .97 .12 Total 627 4.63 .97 .03 Illiterate 64 4.22 1.42 .17 Between groups 4.03 2 1.34 Self- .71 .54 Primary sch. 377 4.18 1.36 .07 Within groups 1172.0 623 1.88 regulation Secondary sch. 124 4.28 1.37 .12 Total 1176.0 626 High sch. and + 62 3.97 1.37 .17 Total 627 4.18 1.37 .05 Illiterate 64 3.91 1.34 .16 Between groups 2.24 2 .74 .44 .72 Curiosity Primary sch. 377 3.95 1.25 .06 Within groups 1043.2 623 1.67 Secondary sch. 124 4.09 1.39 .12 Total 1045.4 626 High sch. and + 62 3.98 1.25 .15 Total 627 3.97 1.29 .05

As can be seen in Table 9, there are not significant differences between mother education level groups in terms of total scale and scale dimensions’ means (F = .81, df2, 623, p = .48; F = .49, df2, 623, p = .68; F = 1.63, df2, 623, p = .18; F = .71 df2, 623, p = .54; F = .44 df2, 623, p = .72).

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students by Father Education Level As presented in Table 1, the father education level variable consists of six groups (illiterate, primary school, secondary school, high school, graduate, postgraduate). However, the number of participants in three groups (illiterate, n = 13; graduate, n = 36; postgraduate n = 3) is not enough compared to the other groups. For this reason, while illiterate group was combined with primary school group, graduate and postgraduate groups were combined with the high school group. In this way, two new groups which are named ‘‘primary school or below’’ (n = 288) and ‘‘high school or above’’ (n = 159) were formed. ANOVA was conducted on three-group father education level variable. Results are presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Lifelong learning tendencies according to father education level Scale ANOVA Groups N X̄ SD SE dimensions SS df MS F p Primary sch. or - 288 4.42 .80 .04 Between gro. .46 2 .23 Total scale Secondary sch. 180 4.48 .82 .06 Within gro. 410.3 624 .65 .35 .70 High sch. or + 159 4.42 .80 .06 Total 410.8 626 Total 627 4.44 .81 .03 Primary sch. or - 288 5.19 .80 .04 Between gro. .12 2 .06 .10 .90 Motivation Secondary sch. 180 5.20 .86 .06 Within gro. 401.0 624 .64 High sch. or + 159 5.17 .72 .05 Total 401.1 626 Total 627 5.19 .80 .03 Primary sch. or - 288 4.67 .92 .05 Between gro. 3.21 2 1.60 1.68 .18 Persistence Secondary sch. 180 4.69 .93 .06 Within gro. 595.5 624 .95 High sch. or + 159 4.51 1.11 .08 Total 598.7 626 Total 627 4.63 .97 .03 Primary sch. or - 288 4.13 1.40 .08 Between gro. 1.86 2 .93 Self- .49 .61 Secondary sch. 180 4.23 1.38 .10 Within gro. 1174.2 624 1.88 regulation High sch. or + 159 4.24 1.30 .10 Total 1176.0 626 Total 627 4.18 1.37 .05 Primary sch. or - 288 3.93 1.27 .07 Between gro. 1.08 2 .54 .32 .72 Curiosity Secondary sch. 180 4.03 1.33 .09 Within gro. 1044.3 624 1.67 High sch. or + 159 3.99 1.28 .10 Total 1045.4 626 Total 627 3.97 1.29 .05

As can be seen in Table 10, there are not significant differences between father education level groups in terms of total scale and scale dimensions’ means (F = .35, df2, 623, p = .70; F = .10, df2, 623, p = .90; F = 1.68, df2, 623, p = .18; F = .49, df2, 623, p = .61; F = .32, df2, 623, p = .72).

Lifelong Learning Tendencies of Vocational School Students by Future Plans As presented in Table 1, future plans variable consists of three groups (wants to work, wants to pursue his/her education, and other). Students who want to get a job or start a business in any public or private institution after graduation formed the first group. Students who want to take the vertical transfer exam (DGS) or plan to take the university exam again were included in the second group. The other students who have not any plan yet, who want to do military duty, who want to get married or who want to trip in Turkey or abroad were consisted of the third group. While analyzing ''future plans'' variable, third group (other, n = 84) was excluded, and first and second groups were compared. T test analysis for this variable was conducted on 543 participants. Results are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Lifelong learning tendencies according to future plans Scale t -test Groups N X̄ SD SEX̄ dimension t df p Getting a job 398 4.41 .81 .04 Total scale 1.23 541 .21 Academic education 145 4.51 .84 .07 Getting a job 398 5.20 .78 .04 Motivation .014 541 .98 Academic education 145 5.20 .90 .07 Getting a job 398 4.62 .98 .04 Persistence -.330 541 .74 Academic education 145 4.66 .98 .08 Self- Getting a job 398 4.19 1.36 .06 .091 541 .92 regulation Academic education 145 4.18 1.42 .11 Getting a job 398 3.89 1.29 .06 Curiosity -2.24 541 .02 Academic education 145 4.17 1.31 .10

As can be seen in Table 11, a significant difference was found in terms of curiosity means between two groups in favor of students who want to progress academically (t = -2.24 p < .05). There are not significant differences between two groups in terms of total scale mean, and motivation, persistence and self-regulation means (t = 1.23, p = .21; t = .014, p = .98; t = -.33, p = .74; t = .091, p = .92).

Conclusion In this study, in which the lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students and the demographic factors that may affect these tendencies were investigated, data were collected from 627 students studying at 13 vocational schools in Tokat. Lifelong Learning Tendencies Scale, consisting of 27 items and four dimensions, was used as data collection tool. Dimensions of the scale are motivation, persistence, self-regulation, and curiosity. Findings show that vocational school students have a lifelong learning tendency above the medium level. While motivation has the highest mean among the scale dimensions, curiosity has the lowest. In literature, there are some studies conducted with different samples supporting these results. Karakuş (2013), examined lifelong learning competencies of vocational school students and found that students have a high-level lifelong learning tendency. Özçiftçi and Çakır (2015), studied with primary school teachers and reached the conclusion that teachers have a high level of lifelong learning tendency. They also found that among the scale dimensions motivation has the highest mean and curiosity has the lowest. Bulaç and Kurt (2019) found that pre-service teachers' lifelong learning tendencies are above the medium. Motivation has the highest and curiosity has the lowest mean in their study too. According to the results, gender is a variable that differentiates the lifelong learning total scale mean. The lifelong learning tendencies of female students are higher than males. Also, significant differences were found in favor of female students for self-regulation and curiosity dimensions. In terms of motivation and persistence, the means of female students are higher than males, but these differences are not statistically significant. Similar to these results, Özçiftçi and Çakır (2015) concluded that gender differentiates the total scale mean of lifelong learning. Researchers stated that female teachers have higher lifelong learning tendencies than male teachers. Coşkun (2009), who investigated lifelong learning tendencies of university students, revealed that the lifelong learning tendencies of female students are higher than males. Çetin and Çetin (2017) and Şahin, Sarıtaş, and Çatalbaş (2017) stated that the lifelong learning tendencies of female teacher candidates is higher than males. Since women generally spend a shorter time in formal education than men, they may be more prone to lifelong learning (Jenkins, 2004 cited in Diker-Coşkun & Demirel, 2012). Grade is a variable that makes a significant difference for the dimension of self-regulation. First grades tend to be more self-regulated than second grades. There are not significant differences between the first and second-year students in terms of total scale mean, and motivation, persistence and curiosity dimensions. In the study conducted by Diker-Coşkun and Demirel (2012), it was concluded that university students' lifelong learning tendencies differ in favor of the fourth grades. Karakuş (2013), found that lifelong learning competencies of vocational school students differ in favor of the second grades. These two studies show that the level of lifelong learning of students in upper grades is high. On the other hand, Kupana and Sazak (2019) conducted a similar study on conservatory students and concluded that grade does not affect students' lifelong learning tendencies. Considering all these results, it can be said that grade effect on lifelong learning tendencies change in different samples. The province, the major, and the school may have an impact on that change. Students' majors differentiate their lifelong learning motivation tendencies. The students studying in the field of technical sciences have the highest motivation mean, while the students studying in the field of health sciences have the lowest. Concerning motivation means, significant differences were found between social sciences and health sciences in favor of social sciences, and between technical sciences and health sciences in favor of technical sciences. There are not significant differences between the major groups in terms of total scale mean, and persistence, self-regulation and curiosity dimensions. Bulaç and Kurt (2019) conducted a similar study on preservice teachers and analyzed the data only on total scale means. The researchers concluded that the major significantly differentiates lifelong learning tendencies. Bulaç and Kurt's results are in conflict with this research. In this study, while differentiation was determined in the motivation dimension, no significant difference was found in total scale means. The variables of family income, mother education level and father education level does not make a significant difference in terms of lifelong learning total scale mean and the dimensions' means. Similar to these findings, Dikmen, Denat, Filiz, and Başaran (2016) concluded that income does not affect the lifelong learning tendencies of students studying in the nursing. Bulaç and Kurt (2019) found that the variables of mother education level and father education level do not affect prospective teachers' lifelong learning tendencies. The findings support each other. Future plans variable is statistically significant for the curiosity dimension. The curiosity mean of the students who want to progress academically is significantly higher than those who want to get a job. There are not significant differences between two groups in terms of the total scale mean, and motivation, persistence and self-regulation dimensions.

As a result, it can be said that lifelong learning tendencies of vocational school students is not high enough. Informative seminars, conferences and events can be organized to enhance student awareness about lifelong learning. The reasons why male students have low lifelong learning tendencies compared to females, and the second grades have lower self-regulation than the first grades could be revealed by conducting qualitative researches. Studies can be conducted on lifelong learning motivations of vocational school students studying in the field of health sciences. Regardless of their plans after graduation, students should be made aware that lifelong learning will help in all aspects of their lives. Studies designed with different demographic variables or research methods can be conducted on different samples on the subject.

References Bulaç, E., and Kurt, M. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. Amasya University Journal of Education, 8(1), 125-161. Coşkun, Y. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimlerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ Coşkun-Diker, Y., and Demirel, M. (2012). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 42 (1), 108-120. Çetin, S., and Çetin, F. (2017). Lifelong learning tendencies of prospective teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 1-8. Dikmen, Y., Denat, Y., Filiz, N. Y., and Başaran, H. (2016). Hemşirelik öğrencilerinde yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri. Journal of Human Rhythm, 2(1), 39-45. Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Quantitative research in education: Intermediate and advanced methods. New York: Whittier. European Commission. (2018). Proposal for a council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0014&from=EN European Reference Framework. (2007). Key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from: https://www.erasmusplus.org.uk/file/272/download General Directorate of Lifelong Learning. (2014). Hayat boyu öğrenme strateji belgesi ve eylem planı (2014- 2018). Retrieved from: http://hbogm.meb.gov.tr/str/files/hbo_eylem_plani_2014_2018.pdf Gliner, A. J., Morgan, G. A., and Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. New York: Taylor and Francis. Gravani, M. N. (2012). Adult learning principles in designing learning activities for teacher development. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(4), 419-432. Güleç, İ., Çelik, S., and Demirhan, B. (2012). Yaşam boyu öğrenme nedir? Kavram ve kapsamı üzerine bir değerlendirme. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 2(3), 34-48. Karakuş, C. (2013). Meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme yeterlikleri. Journal of Education and Instructional Research, 2(3), 26-35. Karaman, D., and Aydoğmuş, U. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri Uşak Üniversitesi Eşme MYO’da bir uygulama. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(1), 23-44. doi: 10.30783/nevsosbilen.357554 Küpana, M. N., and Sazak, N. (2019). Konservatuvar öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme yeterlikleri ve müzikal algılamaları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Fine Arts, 14(2),122-135. doi: 10.12739/NWSA.2019.14.2.D0231. Lifelong Learning Platform. (2016). Lifelong learning: Guide for the implementation of e-learning. Erasmus programme of the European Union. Retrieved from: http://lllplatform.eu/lll/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/LL@L_Guide_-english.pdf Özçiftçi, M., and Çakır, R. (2015). Öğretmenlerin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri ve eğitim teknolojisi standartları öz-yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1), 1-19. Şahin, Ü., Sarıtaş, E., and Çatalbaş, G. (2020). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimleri. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 48 (1), 379-389. doi: 10.9779/pauefd.572500 Turkey State Planning Organization. (2001). Sekizinci beş yıllık kalkınma planı. Hayat boyu eğitim veya örgün olmayan eğitim özel ihtisas komisyonu raporu (Report No: 2568) Ankara: State Planning Organization. Uzunboylu, H., and Hürsen, Ç. (2011). Yaşam boyu öğrenme yeterlik ölçeği (YBÖYÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 41(2), 449-460.