COMMUNICATION BARRIERS :
A STUDY OF TEACHER CANDIDATES OF USING
TECHNOLOGY
Ph.D. ,Full Time Prof. Dr. Aytekin İşman
Sakarya University, Hendek, Sakarya, TURKEY
Research Assistant Özlem Canan
Sakarya University, Hendek, Sakarya, TURKEY
Research Assistant Onur İşbulan
Sakarya University,Hendek, Sakarya, TURKEY
Research Assistant Zeliha Demir
Sakarya University,Hendek, Sakarya, TURKEY
ABSTRACT
Communication and technology have an important role in life and especially in education. Nowadays, students generally use technology for
communication. When using technology in education, there may be some communication barriers. In this research, it is studied about
communication barriers that prevent teachers’ candidates to use technology. The aim of this research is to find the communication barriers which
teachers’ candidates face when they utilize technology.
Keywords: Communication, Technology, Communication Barriers
issues, copyright issues, and faculty resistance to name a
few.
According to Rogers (1995), communication is a process in
which participants create and share information with one
another in order to reach a mutual understanding.
Communication channels, as he suggests, are important
factors in the diffusion of technological innovations of
education.
There are some specific stages in the communication
process. These are source, sender, communication
INTRODUCTION
Global society is now in an information century. In this
century, people are witnessing communication revolution.
In this revolution, the communication technologies have
been developing very fast. This development has altered
the structure of education system. New education system is
more efficiency and effective because teachers and
students use new technologies for teaching and learning.
Educators must redesign technology based instructional
system to create intellectual environment for their students.
When teachers use technology effectively in their
classroom, the teaching is more successful and helpful for
students to put knowledge into their long term memory.
Teachers teaching with technology say they:








channels and receivers. Sender sends messages through
communication channels to receivers. If there is a problem
with communication channels, receiver may misunderstand
the sending messages.
This misunderstanding creates
some types of communication barriers.
According to previous researches such as Berge (1998),
Berge and Mrozowski (1999), İşman and Dabaj (2004),
Clark (2002), Wallace (2004), and Erven(2006) with respect
to these barriers, communication barriers that are faced
when using technology are :
 Physical barriers (time, environment, comfort, needs,
physical medium)
 Perceptional barriers (viewing what is said from your
own mindset, responsibility, motivation, awareness)
 Emotional barriers (personal feelings at the moment,
fear, mistrust, suspicion)
 Cultural
 Language barriers (variations in language -accent,
dialect- , slang, jargon, colloquialism, acronyms and
abbreviations)
 Gender barriers
 Personal barriers
These barriers are playing a key role in communication
process to send and receive message among people. For
this reason, educators should find communication barriers to
accomplish their education goals.
Expect more from their students and expect their
students to take more care in preparing their work
Can present more complex material
Believe students understand more difficult concepts
Can meet the needs of individual students better
Can be more student-centered in their teaching
Are more open to multiple perspectives on problems
Are more willing to experiment
Feel more professional because, among other things,
they spend less time dispensing information and more
time helping students learn (Knapp, & Glenn, p. 17,
1996).
Using technology in the classroom sometimes creates some
communication barriers for students and teachers.
According to Berge & Collins (1995), certainly there are
barriers to technologically rich learning environments:
faculty reward structures, high front-end costs, training,
equal access, student support, administrative, technical
169
The Aim of the Research
preferences, student and teacher resistance to new
methods, and lack of student and faculty support services,
and the lack of adequate training and technical support were
found as all common problems faced by both students and
teachers. These problems were categorized in nine main
factors: academic, fiscal, geographic, governance, labormanagement, legal, student support, technical and cultural.
Berge and Muilenburg (2000) implemented the survey about
barriers to distance education to the managers and
administrators. In this survey, six factors were mentioned.
These were 1) work place (e.g., community college,
government); 2) job function (e.g., support staff; manager,
researcher, student); 3) type of delivery system used (e.g.,
audio-tape, computer conferencing, ITV); 4) expertise of the
individual regarding distance education; 5) the stage of the
respondent’s organization with regard to capabilities in
delivering distance education; and 6) the area in which the
respondent primarily works (e.g., fine arts, engineering,
education).
Communication barriers are one of the most important
problems of education. If there are lots of communication
barriers, there can not be an affective education. For this
reason, communication barriers have to be searched and
removed from the new technology based structure of
education. The main aim of this research is to find the
communication barriers which are faced when using
technology in education.
Literature Review
There are some references in the literature to barriers in
using technology, especially in distance education. Not only
communication barriers, but also the other barriers are
defined in these researches.
In his research, İşman (1997) analyzed the acceptance and
implementation of the innovation of distance education in
higher education in Turkey with using Roger’s diffusion
theory. He emphasized that the problems of distance
education are related about organization, technology and
perceptions.
With the respect of technology education, Bussey, Dormody
and VanLeeuwen(2000) studied about some factors
predicting the adoption of technology education in New
Mexico public schools. This research results support the
perception that technology education has not been met with
widespread teacher acceptance.
Webster and Hackley (1997) did a study about teaching
effectiveness in technology-mediated distance education. In
this study, technical characteristics (such as the number of
media used), student characteristics (such as extraversionintroversion), course characteristics (undergraduate versus
graduate), and instructor characteristics (past training and
experiences with technology, or past teaching evaluations)
influenced teaching effectiveness.
Berge and Muilenburg (2001) defined barriers to distance
education. The ten factors found were (1) administrative
structure, (2) organizational change, (3) technical expertise,
(4) social interaction and quality, (5) faculty compensation
and time, (6) threat of technology, (7) legal issues, (8)
evaluation/effectiveness, (9) access, and (10) studentsupport services. Also, Berge and Muilenburg(2001) made
another study for higher education about obstacles by
implementing same criteria. At this study, the same survey
was used. The result of this study, the same factors was
examined as a barrier.
Meyen and Yang (2003) studied part of a planning project to
develop guidelines for implementing large-scale online staff
development programs for classroom teachers. The four
most significant barriers, as judged by the total group of
respondents, were as follows: lack of effective technical
support and troubleshooting, lack of resources, getting
schools to choose online activities as a required or optional
staff development activity, lack of attention to connecting
staff development with student outcomes.
Pajo and Wallace (2001) discussed barriers to the uptake of
web-based technology by university teachers. The results of
study indicated that different barriers are influential at
different stages in the diffusion process. These barriers
were the teachers’ attitudes, resistance to change, concerns
of findings, training deficiencies, inadequate access, time
constraints, lack of technical support, time pressures, a
perceived lack of training and skills, scarcity of
organizational support, adoption and personal barriers.
The Commonwealth of Learning and the British Council
(1998) did a study about barriers information and
communication technologies encountered by women. In this
study, language barriers, insufficient education and skills in
Bangladesh, political, geographical, economic, cultural and
social barriers in India, lack of access to ICTs, especially the
Internet in Malaysia , the cost of computers, the cost of
phone connection and usage charges, barring higher levels
of education, the language problem, computer literacy, in
attending the study centre and sharing computers, the
problem of female segregation in Pakistan, media images, a
dearth of role models, how courses are taught, teacher bias,
or unappealing games and content in Sri Lanka were the
indicated barriers.
Berge, Muilenburg and Haneghan(2002) made clarification
about barriers to distance education and training. The
survey results showed the factors that were faculty
compensation and time, organizational change, lack of
technical expertise/support, social interaction and quality,
student support services, legal issues, threatened by
technology and administrative structure.
Barrett (2002) explains how to overcome transactional
distance as a barrier to get effective communication over
internet. Making people feel vulnerable, existence of cultural
differences among university and students, socio-emotional
space between students and their postings, non-verbal
forms of communication, the late arrival of teaching
materials, inability to respond to errors or omission in the
teaching materials, delay in providing feedbacks, general
lack of communication between students and peers and
teachers resulting feelings of isolation are the indicated
problems in distance learning and teaching courses.
Berge (1998) discussed barriers in online teaching and
learning in post secondary institutions. Cultural, people’s
attitudes, technology, faceless teaching, increased time
required for both online contacts and preparation materials,
the position of the person, the maturity of online program
and the policies of the educational institution sanctioning the
program, the lack of system reliability, lack of connectivity
barriers were found.
Berge and Mrozowski (1999) examined barriers to online
teaching in elementary, secondary and teacher education.
The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to online
teaching in elementary, secondary, and teacher education
environments and compare these results. Lack of computer
access, increased time demands, differences in individual
Berge and Muilenburg (2003) provided a similar assessment
of barriers to distance education perceptions of K-12
educators. This study included the same barriers(faculty
compensation and time, organizational change, lack of
170
METHODOLOGY
technical expertise and support, access, evaluation, student
support services, social interaction and quality concerns,
administrative structure, legal issues and threatened by
technology) that Berge and Muilenburg(2001) found.
Operational definition of variables
This study was designed to examine students’ perceptions
of communication barriers on using technology and to
compare their perceptions based on department, class level,
gender, high school, student’s family’s geographical region,
student’s family’s living place, student’s family’s income,
having a computer, having Internet, and having a
technology course.
İşman and Dabaj (2004) wrote communication barriers in
distance education. In their research, these barriers are
access to the internet, training and experience with the
communication system, and greater interactivity to stimulate
student-to-student, student-to-instructor, and student-tocontent interactions. In 2004, physicians studied about
communication barriers with a group. This group consisted
of patients and barriers were defined as lack of time, cost,
lack of motivation, not my responsibility, limited awareness.
Independent variables
Students characteristics: department, class level, gender,
high school, student’s family’s geographical region,
student’s family’s living place, student’s family’s income,
having a computer, having Internet, and having a
technology course.
İşman and Altınay (2005) analyzed in their exploratory
Eastern Mediterranean University students’ and teachers’ of
online program and courses. Technological, physical,
semantic and psychological barriers are determined as
communication barriers in this study.
Identification of population
Berge and Muilenburg (2005) explained student barriers to
online learning. This research’s goal was to seek out
barriers, issues, and success factors from the students’
perspectives that may affect the learning outcomes. They
found the eight factors from the factor analysis. These were
(a) administrative issues, (b) social interaction, (c) academic
skills, (d) technical skills, (e) learner motivation, (f) time and
support for studies, (g) cost and access to the Internet, and
(h) technical problems.
The population under investigation included students at the
faculty of education in Sakarya University in Turkey.
Sample
Sample selected by the method of random sampling as 433
students from the Education Faculty of Sakarya University in
Turkey in Spring Semester 2007-2008 academic year.
Instrument
Clark (2002), classed barriers to online learning into four
groups: barriers to learners who are socially- or
economically-disadvantaged, barriers for tutors, barriers for
organizations, and barriers for communities. Learner
barriers include access to technologies, inappropriate
learning materials, a lack of tutors and support staff, cost,
lack of special equipment if needed, and personal lack
including confidence, motivation, incentive, and basic skills.
For this research study, a questionnaire was used. After
reviewing the literature, the questionnaire was developed by
the researchers. Their responses are on a series five point
Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: undecided,
4: agree, 5: strongly agree). A pilot study was done to
increase the level of reliability and validity. There were 41
items in the questionnaire for measuring communication
barriers in pilot study. A factor analysis was applied on the
questionnaire in the pilot study. According to the results of
the factor analysis, 21 items were eliminated because of the
level of validity. In addition, five factors were found. These
factors are (1) physical barriers, (2) emotional barriers, (3)
language barriers, (4) gender barriers and (5) personal
barriers. After factor analysis, 20 of 41 items were accepted
to collect data. The reliability analysis test revealed that the
Cronbach’s alpha score of this questionnaire is 0,723.
According to Berge and Cho (2002), there were several
barriers to their efforts that they were likely to encounter
when people within an organization plan for using distance
training and education. These barriers were grouped in ten
clusters like the other research: 1)technical expertise,
2)administrative structure, 3) evaluation/effectiveness,
4)organizational change, 5)social interaction and quality,
6)student support services, 7) threatened by technology, 8)
access, 9)faculty compensation and time, and 10) legal
issues.
Wallace (2004) studied about perceived barriers to the
implementation of web enhancement of courses by full-time
Tennessee Board of Regents Faculty and broke the barriers
into six basic categories:1)time, workload related issues,
compensation, and recognition issues, 2)problems with
technology, lack of support, lack of access, and fear of
technology,3)gender, 4)newer faculty (fewer years of
service), 5)disciplines, 6)limited number of responses from
individual institutions, categorization of institutions according
to Rogers’ Categories of Adopters. Increased time
commitment, concerns regarding faculty work load, lack of
person-to-person contact, and difficulty keeping current with
technological changes were also cited.
Erven(2006) cited barriers to communication. These barriers
suggested opportunities for improving communication.
Muddled messages, stereotyping, wrong channel, language,
lack of feedback, poor listening skills, interruptions, and
physical distractions were barriers.
All studies indicate that there are some communication
barriers to use technology in schools.
Statistical Method for this Research
The research study was based on quantitative research
method. Technique of questionnaire was used in order to
gather multiple data. Frequencies, t-test and One-Way
ANOVA were applied to find the significance differences
between the variables using the statistical program. Data
were analyzed by using the SPSS 15.
The Demography of the participating students
The departments of the students completing the
questionnaire was 7,4% (32)of the students from the
department of Primary Education, 9% (39)of the students
from the department of Social Science Education, 15,2%
(66)of the students from the department of Computer and
Instructional Technology Education, 11,8% (51)of the
students from the department of Science Education, 8,1%
(35)of the students from the department of Primary Math
Education, 5,3% (23)of the students from the department of
Special Education, 5,3% (23) of the students from the
department of Pre-Primary Education, 15,5% (67)of the
students from the department of Turkish Language
171
Education and 22,4% (97) of the students from the
department of Counseling and Psychological Education.
There were 13 items that student responses were less
positive. At least, 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed that:
1. I believe that female students have negative attitudes
towards using technology.( 61,9%);
2. I believe that I feel socially isolated because of having
lack of person to person contact during using
technology. ( 68,9%);
3. I believe that I have negative attitudes towards
innovation of using technology. ( 62,1%);
4. I believe that I’m frightened in the process of learning
how to use technology. (62,6 %);
5. I believe that female students have less interest in
technology. (55,4 %);
6. I believe that I have no connection with my friends
during using technology. ( 54,8%);
7. I believe that female students are frightened of
technology. ( 63,1%);
8. I believe that I don’t like to explore innovations during
technology based education. (66,1 %);
9. I believe that the structure of culture of society in where
I live blocks using technology. ( 70,4%);
10. I believe that writing guide book in different foreign
language prevents me to use technology. (60,1 %);
11. I believe that I don’t use technology when it is used for
non-ethics. (60,5 %);
12. I believe that my belief affects using technology. (73,6
%);
13. I believe that I don’t understand the abbreviations
during using technology. (67 %).
The class level of the respondents were 30,7% (133) in the
first class, 38,8% (169) in the second class, 22,2% (96) in
the third class and 8,3% (36) in the fourth class.
The gender of the students completing the questionnaire
was 43,9% (190) male and 55,7% (241) female.
Students were graduated from 41,3% (179) of the students
from general high school, 0,2% (1) of the students from
science based high school, 7,9% (34) of the students from
professional technical high school, 20,3% (88) of the
students from language based high school, 19,6% (88) of
the students from Anatolian high school, 0,5% (2) of the
students from art high school, 9,5% (41) of the students
from the other kind of high schools.
Students’ families were living in the region 39,5% (171) of
Marmara, 10,4% (45) of Aegean, 10,9% (47) of
Mediterranean, 12% (52) of Black Sea, 16,9% (73) of Inside
Anatolia, 3,7% (16) of Eastern Anatolia, 6,5% (28) of
Southeastern Anatolia.
Students’ families were living in 33,3% (144) of states,
19,9% (86) of cities, 29,3% (127) of countries, 7,2% (31) of
towns, 9,7% (42) of villages.
Students’ families income was 9,7% (42) of 500 TL or less,
39,7% (172) of between 500 TL and 1000 TL, 33,7% (146)
of between 1000 TL and 1500 TL, 14,8% (64) of 1500 TL or
more.
Statistical Analysis
After the questionnaire was completed and the percentages
were taken, it was important to see if the results showed any
significant variations due to the asked independent
variables. Therefore, t-test and one-way ANOVA were
applied to find the differences. While doing so, the value of
alpha (α) was accepted if the finding value is lower than α:
0,05. All analysis was made according to this value.
The answer to the question of having computer showed
that, 67% (290) of students had a computer and 24,2%
(105) of students didn’t have a computer.
Answers to the question of having internet connection at
home indicated that 48,5% (210) of students had an internet
connection at home but 50,8% (220) of students didn’t have
an internet connection at home.
Results of t-test analysis
This section presents the results of the statistical test of the
four independent variables in the study. Research
independent variables of the study were investigated by
using t-test. The results of the quantitative data analysis
show that there were some significant relationships between
gender, having a computer, internet connection at home,
and having technology course and student perceptions.
(Appendix 1)
The t-test revealed significant differences between student’s
gender on six of the survey items. The t-test noted
significant differences for the following variables.
1- I believe that there is a lack of incentives and
release time during using technology. (p=0,032)
The analysis of t-test indicated that male students
agree on the survey question more than female
students.
2- I believe that female students have negative
attitudes towards using technology. (p=0,000) The
analysis of t-test indicated that male students
agree on the survey question more than female
students.
3- I believe that female students have less interest in
technology. (p=0,000) The analysis of t-test
indicated that male students agree on the survey
question more than female students.
4- I believe that female students are frightened of
technology. (p=0,000) The analysis of t-test
indicated that male students agree on the survey
question more than female students.
5- I believe that I don’t use technology when it is
used for non-ethics. (p=0,046) The analysis of t-
And finally, 22,9% (99) of students responded yes to the
question “Have you ever educated about technology?” while
76,4% (331) didn’t have a technology course before.
Frequencies of Individual Items
According to the single item indicating overall perceptions
with communication barriers, it appears that the Sakarya
University Faculty of Education students were not satisfied
with using technology. However for 7 of 20 specific items,
more than 50% of the students indicated that they were
satisfied. At least, 50% agreed or strongly agreed that:
1. I believe that I don’t take an effective education
because of having many problems during using
technology.(66,1%);
2. I believe that there are no well organizations to catch
different units during using technology.(52%);
3. I believe that there is a lack of incentives and release
time during using technology.(51,2%);
4. I believe that I need non-verbal feedback
communication during technology based learning
activities. (69%);
5. I believe that taking technology based education
irritates me.(71,8%);
6. I believe that gender plays a key role to use
technology.(61,2%);
7. I believe that male students use technology more than
female students.(63,7%).
172
6-
test indicated that male students agree on the
survey question more than female students.
I believe that my belief affects using technology.
(p=0,012) The analysis of t-test indicated that
male students agree on the survey question more
than female students.
analysis of t-test indicated that students who did
not have technology course agree on the survey
question more than students who had technology
course.
One-Way-ANOVA Analysis and Results
The t-test revealed significant differences between having a
computer on four of the survey items. The t-test noted
significant differences for the following variables.
1- I believe that I don’t take an effective education
because of having many problems during using
technology. (p=0,046) The analysis of t-test
indicated that students who do not have a
computer agree on the survey question more than
students who have a computer.
2- I believe that I have negative attitudes towards
innovation of using technology. (p=0,003) The
analysis of t-test indicated that students who do
not have a computer agree on the survey
question more than students who have a
computer.
3- I believe that I’m frightened in the process of
learning how to use technology. (p=0,000) The
analysis of t-test indicated that students who do
not have a computer agree on the survey
question more than students who have a
computer.
4- I believe that I don’t like to explore innovations
during technology based education. (p=0,010)
The analysis of t-test indicated that students who
do not have a computer agree on the survey
question more than students who have a
computer.
This section presents the results of the statistical test of the
six independent variables in the study. Research
independent variables of the study were investigated by
using one way ANOVA test. The results of the quantitative
data analysis show that there were some significant
relationships. (Appendix 2)
The one way ANOVA test revealed significant differences
between departments on eight of the survey items. The one
way ANOVA test noted significant differences for the
following variables.
1- I believe that female students have negative
attitudes towards using technology. (p=0,008) The
analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated that
there is a significant differences based on
departments.
2- I believe that I have negative attitudes towards
innovation of using technology.(p=0,037) The
analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated that
there is a significant differences based on
departments.
3- I believe that female students have less interest in
technology. (p=0,000) The analysis of one way
ANOVA test indicated that there is a significant
differences based on departments.
4- I believe that female students are frightened of
technology. (p=0,011) The analysis of one way
ANOVA test indicated that there is a significant
differences based on departments.
5- I believe that I don’t like to explore innovations
during technology based education. (p=0,013)
The analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated
that there is a significant differences based on
departments.
6- I believe that the structure of culture of society in
where I live blocks using technology. (p=0,042)
The analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated
that there is a significant differences based on
departments.
7- I believe that I don’t use technology when it is
used for non-ethics. (p=0,016) The analysis of
one way ANOVA test indicated that there is a
significant differences based on departments.
8- I believe that my belief affects using technology.
(p=0,001) The analysis of one way ANOVA test
indicated that there is a significant differences
based on departments.
The one way ANOVA test revealed significant differences
between class levels on five of the survey items. The one
way ANOVA test noted significant differences for the
following variables.
1- I believe that there are no well organizations to
catch different units during using technology.
(p=0,029) The analysis of one way ANOVA test
indicated that there is a significant differences
based on class levels.
2- I believe that I have no connection with my friends
during using technology. (p=0,034) The analysis
of one way ANOVA test indicated that there is a
significant differences based on class levels.
3- I believe that the structure of culture of society in
where I live blocks using technology. (p=0,035)
The analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated
that there is a significant differences based on
class levels.
4- I believe that gender plays a key role to use
technology. (p=0,004) The analysis of one way
The t-test revealed significant differences between having
internet at home on three of the survey items. The t-test
noted significant differences for the following variables.
1- I believe that I don’t take an effective education
because of having many problems during using
technology. (p=0,012) The analysis of t-test
indicated that students who do not have internet
at home agree on the survey question more than
students who have internet at home.
2- I believe that I’m frightened in the process of
learning how to use technology. (p=0,001) The
analysis of t-test indicated that students who do
not have internet at home agree on the survey
question more than students who have internet at
home.
3- I believe that I have no connection with my friends
during using technology. (p=0,006) The analysis
of t-test indicated that students who do not have
internet at home agree on the survey question
more than students who have internet at home.
The t-test revealed significant differences between having
technology course on three of the survey items. The t-test
noted significant differences for the following variables.
1- I believe that I don’t take an effective education
because of having many problems during using
technology. (p=0,001) The analysis of t-test
indicated that students who did not have
technology course agree on the survey question
more than students who had technology course.
2- I believe that there are no well organizations to
catch different units during using technology.
(p=0,039) The analysis of t-test indicated that
students who did not have technology course
agree on the survey question more than students
who had technology course.
3- I believe that I have negative attitudes towards
innovation of using technology. (p=0,015) The
173
5-
ANOVA test indicated that there is a significant
differences based on class levels.
I believe that my belief affects using technology.
(p=0,002) The analysis of one way ANOVA test
indicated that there is a significant differences
based on class levels.
items. The one way ANOVA test noted significant
differences for the following variables.
1- I believe that I don’t take an effective education
because of having many problems during using
technology. (p=0,048) The analysis of one way
ANOVA test indicated that there is a significant
differences based on incomes.
2- I believe that there is a lack of incentives and
release time during using technology. (p=0,042)
The analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated
that there is a significant differences based on
incomes.
3- I believe that I feel socially isolated because of
having lack of person to person contact during
using technology. (p=0,017) The analysis of one
way ANOVA test indicated that there is a
significant differences based on incomes.
4- I believe that I’m frightened in the process of
learning how to use technology. (p=0,007) The
analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated that
there is a significant differences based on
incomes.
5- I believe that I need non-verbal feedback
communication during technology based learning
activities. (p=0,029) The analysis of one way
ANOVA test indicated that there is a significant
differences based on incomes.
The one way ANOVA test revealed significant differences
between high schools on two of the survey items. The one
way ANOVA test noted significant differences for the
following variables.
1- I believe that female students have negative
attitudes towards using technology. (p=0,032) The
analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated that
there is a significant differences based on high
schools.
2- I believe that I don’t use technology when it is
used for non-ethics. (p=0,049) The analysis of
one way ANOVA test indicated that there is a
significant differences based on high schools.
The one way ANOVA test revealed significant differences
between student’s family’s geographical regions on five of
the survey items. The one way ANOVA test noted significant
differences for the following variables.
1- I believe that I feel socially isolated because of
having lack of person to person contact during
using technology. (p=0,001) The analysis of one
way ANOVA test indicated that there is a
significant differences based on geographical
regions.
2- I believe that I need non-verbal feedback
communication during technology based learning
activities. (p=0,047) The analysis of one way
ANOVA test indicated that there is a significant
differences based on geographical regions.
3- I believe that I don’t like to explore innovations
during technology based education. (p=0,011)
The analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated
that there is a significant differences based on
geographical regions.
4- I believe that my belief affects using technology.
(p=0,000) The analysis of one way ANOVA test
indicated that there is a significant differences
based on geographical regions.
5- I believe that I don’t understand the abbreviations
during using technology. (p=0,016) The analysis
of one way ANOVA test indicated that there is a
significant differences based on geographical
regions.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The main goal of this research is to find out communication
barriers of using technology. This research was done in
Faculty of Education, Sakarya University in Turkey. The
results of factor analysis show that there are five
communication barriers factors in this research. These are
physical barriers, emotional barriers, language barriers,
gender barriers and personal barriers.
The results of t-test demonstrate that there are some
significant differences based on gender, having a computer,
internet connection at home, and having technology course.
The results of one way ANOVA reveal that there are some
significant differences based on departments, class levels,
high schools, student’s family’s geographical regions,
student’s family’s living places and student’s family’s
incomes.
In respect of these results, it is clear to see that some
factors have influenced on the students when they use
technology. If these factors are removed from
communication process, communication barriers will not
come out.
REFERENCES
The one way ANOVA test revealed significant differences
between student’s family’s living places on three of the
survey items. The one way ANOVA test noted significant
differences for the following variables.
1- I believe that I feel socially isolated because of
having lack of person to person contact during
using technology. (p=0,021) The analysis of one
way ANOVA test indicated that there is a
significant differences based on living place.
2- I believe that I have negative attitudes towards
innovation of using technology. (p=0,000) The
analysis of one way ANOVA test indicated that
there is a significant differences based on living
place.
3- I believe that writing guide book in different
foreign language prevents me to use technology.
(p=0,030) The analysis of one way ANOVA test
indicated that there is a significant differences
based on living place.
Barrett, S. (2002). Overcoming transactional distance as a
barrier to effective communication over the
internet. International Education Journal, 3(4), 3442.
Berge, Z. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in postsecondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it?
Online
Journal
of
Distance
Learning
Administration, 1(2). Retrieved March, 03, 2008,
from http://westga.edu/~distance/Berge12.html
Berge, Z. (2001). Obstacles faced at various stages of
capability regarding distance education in
institutions of higher education. Tech Trends,
45(4), 40-45.
Berge, Z. ; Muilenburg, L.Y.(2000). Barriers to Distance
Education as Perceived by Managers and
Administrators: Results of a Survey. In Melanie
The one way ANOVA test revealed significant differences
between student’s family’s incomes on five of the survey
174
Isman , A.; Altınay, F. “Communication Barriers: A Study of
Eastern Mediterranean University Students’ and
Teachers’ of Online Program and Courses”.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance EducationTOJDE October 2005 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 6
Number: 4 Article: 13
Clay (Ed.), Distance Learning Administration Annual 2000.
Berge, Z.L.; Collins, M.P. (1995). Technology and changes
in higher education. In the 1995 IEEE
International
Professional
Communication
Conference Proceedings: Smooth Sailing to the
Future. Savannah, GA. September 27-29.
Knapp, L. Roehrig ; Glenn, Allen D. (1996). Restructuring
schools with technology. Allyn & Bacon, USA.
Berge, Z.L.; Mrozowski, S. (1999). Barriers to online
teaching in elementary, secondary, and teacher
education. Canadian Journal of Educational
Communication, 27(2): 125-138.
Meyen E.L. ; Yang C.H.(2003). Barriers to Implementing
Large-Scale Online Staff Development Programs
for Teachers. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 6(4). Retrieved March 05, 2008
from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter64/m
eyen64.htm
Berge, Z.L.; Muilenburg, L.Y. (2003). Barriers to distance
education: Perceptions of K-12 educators.
Proceedings of the Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference. Albuquerque, New Mexico USA,
March 24-29. Issue 1, pp. 256-259.
Pajo, K. & Wallace, C. (2001). Barriers to the uptake of webbased technology by university teachers. In
Journal of Distance Education/Revue de
l'enseignement à distance 16(1). Retrieved March
03,
2008,
from
http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol16.1/pajoetal.html
Berge, Z.L., Muilenburg, L.Y., and Haneghan, J.V. (2002).
Barriers to distance education and training:
Survey results. The Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 3(4), pp: 409-418.
Physician Perspectives On Communication Barriers(2004).
Insights From Focus Groups With Physicians Who
Treat Non-English Proficient And Limited English
Proficient Patients. The Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation. Lake-Snell-Perry Associates Inc.
Berge, Z.L.; Muilenburg, L.Y. (2001).Barriers to distance
education: A factor-analytic study. The American
Journal of Distance Education. 15(2): 7-22.
Berge, Z.L.; Muilenburg, L.Y. (2005). Student barriers to
online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance
Education: An International Journal, 26(1): pp. 2948.
Rogers, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. New York:
The Free Press.
The
Bussey, J.M.; Dormody, J.T.; VanLeeuwen, D. (2000).
Some Factors Predicting the Adoption of
Technology Education in New Mexico Public
Schools. Journal Of Technology Education, 12(1).
Cho, S.K.; Berge, Z.L. (2002). Overcoming Barriers to
Distance Training and Education. Education at a
Distance [USDLA Journal] (16)1. Retrieved
February
8,
2008
from
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN02_Issue/art
icle01.html
Clark, A., (2002). Online learning and social exclusion
(Report No. CE083833). Leicester, (England):
National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED468654)
Erven,B.L.(2006).
Overcoming
Barriers
To
Communication.Communication and Education
Using ICT, 2(2). Retrieved March 8, 2008 from
http://www-agecon.ag.ohiostate.edu/people/erven.1/HRM/communication.pdf
Guirdham, M. (1995) Interpersonal Skills at Work. Prentice
Hall.
Hackley, P.; Webster, J.(1997). Teaching Effectiveness in
Technology-Mediated Distance Learning. The
Academy of Management Journal, 40(6) , 12821309. Retrieved March, 03, 2008, from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00014273%28199712%2940%3A6%3C1282%3ATEIT
DL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E
İşman, A.(1997). Diffusion of Distance Education in Turkish
Higher Education. Educational Technology
Research and Development. Volume 45, Number
2, p: 124-128.
İşman, A.; Dabaj,F.(2004). Communication Barriers in
Distance Education: “Text-Based Internet-Enabled
Online Courses”
175
Commonwealth of Learning and the British
Council(1998) Barriers to Information and
Communication Technologies Encountered by
Women. New Delhi, INDIA Country Presentations.
Appendix 1: t-test values
Survey items
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
(p)value
gender
having a
computer
internet
connection
having
technology
course
I believe that I don’t take an effective education
because of having many problems during using
technology.
I believe that there are no well organizations to
catch different units during using technology.
0,624
0,046*
0,012*
0,001*
0,476
0,255
0,156
0,039*
I believe that there is a lack of incentives and
release time during using technology.
I believe that female students have negative
attitudes towards using technology.
I believe that I feel socially isolated because of
having lack of person to person contact during
using technology.
I believe that I have negative attitudes towards
innovation of using technology.
I believe that I’m frightened in the process of
learning how to use technology.
I believe that female students have less interest in
technology.
I believe that I have no connection with my friends
during using technology.
I believe that female students are frightened of
technology.
I believe that I need non-verbal feedback
communication during technology based learning
activities.
I believe that taking technology based education
irritates me.
I believe that I don’t like to explore innovations
during technology based education.
I believe that the structure of culture of society in
where I live blocks using technology.
I believe that writing guide book in different foreign
language prevents me to use technology.
I believe that gender plays a key role to use
technology.
I believe that I don’t use technology when it is
used for non-ethics.
I believe that male students use technology more
than female students.
I believe that my belief affects using technology.
0,032*
0,789
0,233
0,482
0,000*
0,532
0,566
0,662
0,905
0,196
0,838
0,461
0,172
0,003*
0,060
0,015*
0,252
0,000*
0,001*
0,412
0,000*
0,494
0,337
0,260
0,102
0,097
0,006*
0,061
0,000*
0,837
0,972
0,913
0,625
0,563
0,560
0,660
0,526
0,249
0,430
0,206
0,994
0,010*
0,778
0,069
0,390
0,305
0,933
0,599
0,517
0,660
0,681
0,850
0,113
0,974
0,741
0,248
0,046*
0,110
0,213
0,611
0,242
0,055
0,105
0,344
0,012*
0,946
0,799
0,282
0,104
0,573
0,802
0,206
20. I believe that I don’t understand the abbreviations
during using technology.
176
Appendix 2: One way ANOVA test values
Survey items
(p)value
department
class
level
high
school
geo.
region
place
income
1. I believe that I don’t take an effective education
because of having many problems during using
technology.
2. I believe that there are no well organizations to
catch different units during using technology.
0,139
0,308
0,603
0,237
0,089
0,048*
0,094
0,029*
0,606
0,637
0,400
0,980
3. I believe that there is a lack of incentives and
release time during using technology.
4. I believe that female students have negative
attitudes towards using technology.
5. I believe that I feel socially isolated because of
having lack of person to person contact during
using technology.
6. I believe that I have negative attitudes towards
innovation of using technology.
7. I believe that I’m frightened in the process of
learning how to use technology.
8. I believe that female students have less interest
in technology.
9. I believe that I have no connection with my
friends during using technology.
10.
I believe that female students are frightened
of technology.
11.
I believe that I need non-verbal feedback
communication during technology based
learning activities.
12.
I believe that taking technology based
education irritates me.
13.
I believe that I don’t like to explore
innovations during technology based education.
14.
I believe that the structure of culture of
society in where I live blocks using technology.
15.
I believe that writing guide book in different
foreign language prevents me to use technology.
16.
I believe that gender plays a key role to use
technology.
17.
I believe that I don’t use technology when it
is used for non-ethics.
18.
I believe that male students use technology
more than female students.
19.
I believe that my belief affects using
technology.
20.
I believe that I don’t understand the
abbreviations during using technology.
0,272
0,531
0,771
0,599
0,105
0,042*
0,008*
0,816
0,032*
0,215
0,457
0,284
0,777
0,495
0,203
0,001*
0,021*
0,017*
0,037*
0,918
0,094
0,494
0,000*
0,135
0,474
0,658
0,104
0,329
0,705
0,007*
0,000*
0,313
0,740
0,594
0,862
0,425
0,146
0,034*
0,737
0,453
0,840
0,165
0,011*
0,805
0,450
0,357
0,681
0,318
0,166
0,984
0,062
0,047*
0,618
0,029*
0,334
0,739
0,392
0,063
0,449
0,359
0,013
0,225
0,921
0,011*
0,347
0,602
0,042
0,035*
0,733
0,445
0,143
0,295
0,620
0,298
0,112
0,274
0,030*
0,449
0,626
0,004*
0,167
0,620
0,875
0,117
0,016*
0,745
0,049*
0,728
0,415
0,392
0,343
0,239
0,393
0,235
0,502
0,399
0,001*
0,002*
0,277
0,000*
0,105
0,592
0,424
0343
0,509
0,016*
0,501
0,170
Significiant at prob. < 0,05
177