Individual Innovativeness of Pre-service Elementary Grade Teachers

Romiro G. Bautista^1, , Cynthia Grace T. Valdez¹, Eleanor G. Garingan¹, Jamina G. Camayang¹, Dennis Norfel P. Horlador¹, Jefferson N. Manait¹ and Elfie S. Reyes¹

¹College of Teacher Education, Quirino State University, Philippines

Cite this paper:
Romiro G. Bautista, Cynthia Grace T. Valdez, Eleanor G. Garingan, Jamina G. Camayang, Dennis Norfel P. Horlador, Jefferson N. Manait and Elfie S. Reyes. Individual Innovativeness of Pre-service Elementary Grade Teachers. American Journal of Educational Research. 2018; 6(6):617-620. doi: 10.12691/education-6-6-6

Abstract

Individual innovativeness, as applied among teachers who are agents of change and innovations, centers the idea of being adaptive and adoptive to radical changes through risk-taking. Innovativeness is the teachers’ tendency to adapt and adopt innovations earlier than other members of their niche, in particular, and the society, in general. This study is designed to determine the individual innovativeness of pre-service elementary grade teachers as a basis in proposing an intervention program to boost their morale of being an innovative professional teacher. Using 42 senior pre-service elementary grade teachers of the SY 2017-2018 under Descriptive-Comparative Research Design, the following are known: (1) The respondents were late majority innovative with a general index of 55.70, interpreted as lowly innovative (late majority); (2) Males had higher index than their female counterparts although the mean difference of .50 is almost negligible – both males and females fall in the index range for late majority innovative; (3) The age group of 21-22 had the highest index than their 23 and above and 19-20 age group-counterparts although the mean differences of .08 and 1.50, respectively, are almost negligible – all age groups fall in the index range for late majority innovative; and (4) The Ilocanos had the highest index when compared to their Ifugao/Igorot and other ethno-linguistic group-counterparts although the mean differences of 1.63 and 1.38, respectively, are almost negligible – all ethnicity groups fall in the index range for late majority innovative.

Keywords:
innovativeness adaptation pre-service elementary grade teachers

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Anderson, J. (2010). ICT Transforming Education: A Regional Guide. Bangkok: UNESCO.
[2]	Anderson, T., Varnhagen, S., & Campbell, K. (1998). Faculty adoption of teaching and learning technologies: Contrasting earlier adopters and mainstream faculty. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28(23), 71-78.
[3]	Rogers, E.M. (2004). A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 13-19.
[4]	Yuksel, I. (2015). Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Model in Action: Individual Innovativeness Profiles of Pre-service Teachers in Turkey. Croatian Journal of Education, 17 (2), 507-534.
[5]	Davis, H., Hartshorne, R., & Ring, G. (2010). Being an innovative teacher: Pre-service teachers’ conceptions of technology and innovation. International Journal of Education, 2(1), 1-28.
[6]	Oliver, B. & Goerke, V. (2008). Undergraduate students’ adoption of handheld devices and Web 2.0 applications to supplement formal learning experiences: Case studies of Australia, Ethiopia and Malaysia. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 4(3), 78-94.
[7]	Nutley, S., Davies, H., & Walter, I. (2002). Conceptual synthesis 1: learning from the diffusion of innovation. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~cppm/Learning%20from%20the%20Diffusion%20of%20innovations.pdf.
[8]	Celik, K. (2013). The relationship between individual innovativeness and self-efficacy level of student teachers. International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 6 (1), 56-67.
[9]	Cocklar, A. (2012). Individual Innovativeness Levels of Educational Administrators. Digital Education Review: http://greav.ub.edu/der.
[10]	Soffer, T., Nachmias, R., & Ram, J. (2010). Diffusion of web supported instruction in higher education - The Case of Tel-Aviv University. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 212-223.
[11]	Ali, A. (2003). Faculty adoption of technology: Training comes first. Educational Technology, 43, 51-53.
[12]	Ali, I. (2018). Personality traits, individual innovativeness, and satisfaction with life. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge.
[13]	Su Eroz, S. (2017). The relationship between individual innovativeness and locus of control: a research on tourism faculty and students. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 5 (1), 46-52.
[14]	Hammond, M.M., Neff, N.L., Farr, J.L., Schwall, A.R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: a meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90-105.
[15]	Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
[16]	Yates, B. (2001). Applying diffusion theory: adoption of media literacy programs in schools. Conference Paper: International Communication Association Conference.
[17]	Kilicer, K. & Odabasi, H. (2010). Individual innovativeness scale: the study of adaptation to Turkish validity and reliability. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 150-164.
[18]	Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, 58-65.
[19]	Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
[20]	Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
[21]	Parminter, T. & Wilson, J. (2003). Systematic intervention in biodiversity management based upon the theory of reasoned action. Proceedings of the 1st Australian Farming Systems Association Conference.
[22]	Prochaska, J., DiClemente, C., & Norcross J. (1992). In search of how people change: applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47 (9), 1102-1112.