University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Assessing students' and professors' attitudes toward the use of computer -based technology in the classroom: A case study at the University of Jordan

(USC Thesis Other)

Assessing students' and professors' attitudes toward the use of computer -based technology in the classroom: A case study at the University of Jordan

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ASSESSING STUDENTS’ AND PROFESSORS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF COMPUTER-BASED TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM: A CASE STUDY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN by Waleed Eyadat A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATON August 2006 Copyright 2006 Waleed Eyadat Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3236499 Copyright 2006 by Eyadat, W aleed All rights reserved. IN F O R M A T IO N TO U S E R S The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignm ent can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3236499 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Com pany 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 481 06 -1 34 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my dearest parents, my loving wife and my two wonderful children. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to God, and may His peace and blessings be upon His prophet for granting me the chance and the ability to successfully complete this study. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Professor William M. Rideout, for his infallible support throughout the course of this work. My special thanks go to Professor Edward Kazaluskas, for his outstanding support, for always finding time to provide me with his valuable advice and sincere comments. I am also grateful to Professor Richard Dekmejian for his valuable encouragements. I am indebted to the officials of the University of Jordan, for allowing me to conduct research on their institution. My sincere thanks go to all my friends, relatives, and supporters who have made this happen, especially to Sylvain Mbele, whose ideas and suggestions were of great help and Said Tahir for his encouragements, and Dr. Bertha Clark, for her direction, assistance, and guidance, which help me in many ways. I am extremely thankful to my parents, sisters and brothers for their support, especially to Doctor Hyethem Eyadat and Professor Zaid Eyadat, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I am deeply grateful to my loving wife Hamida Al-adwan, our daughter Yara, and our son Qais, for their love, support, encouragement, and patience throughout my studies. Without them, this dissertation would not have come to life. Waleed Eyadat February 1,2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii ABSTRACT ix CHAPTER 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Technology and Higher Education in Jordan 8 The Purpose of The Study 13 Methodology 14 Significance of the Study 15 CHAPTER 2 24 LITERATURE REVIEW 24 The Impact of Computers in Education 24 The Impact of Technology in Undergraduate Education 29 Attitudes Toward Computer Technology 38 College Students’ Attitudes Toward Computers 42 Professors’ Attitudes Toward Computer Technology 47 A Theory on Attitudes Toward Computer Technology 53 Goal Setting and Motivation 58 Summary 59 CHAPTER 3 62 RESEARCH DESIGN 62 Methodology and Procedures 62 Setting of the Study and Population 65 Data Collection and Procedure 66 Data Analysis Procedure 68 Translation 68 Summary 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY The Sample’s Demographic Characteristics Analysis and Research Questions Summary CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Summary and Discussion Conclusions Recommendations for Future Study REFERENCES APPANDIXES A Sample of Questionnaire permission letter to use The Computer Attitude Scale B Permission letter to use The Computer Attitude Scale C Letter to the President of the University of Jordan Permission to conduct a research study at the University of Jordan D Permission letter to conduct the study at the University of Jordan E Sample of Letter to Professors Participants F Sample of Letter to Students Participants G Student’s Survey of Attitudes toward Learning about and Working With Computers H Survey on Professors’ Attitudes toward Computers I IRB Approval Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. J Sample of Letter to the president of the University of Jordan Permission to conduct a research study at the University of Jordan (Arabic Version) K The Computer Attitude Scale (Arabic Version) L Sample of Letter to Professors Participants (Arabic Version) M Questioners Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) for Students (Arabic Version) N Questioners Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) for Professors (Arabic Version) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES vii 1 Students’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom 2 Professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom 3 T-test results for students’ attitudes based on gender 4 ANOVA analysis for students’ attitudes toward computer Use based on age 5 T-test results for professors’ attitudes toward computer use Based on computer ownership/access 6 ANOVA analysis for students’ attitudes toward computer use Based on experience/training level 7 L.S.D post hoc test results for means of students’ attitudes Toward computer use based on based experience/training level 8 Pearson correlation coefficients for students’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on psychological variables 9 ANOVA analysis of Professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on experience level 10 Results of L.S.D post hoc test for the means of professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on experience level 11 Results of ANOVA analysis of professors’ attitudes vis-a-vis the use of computers in the classroom based on computer skills level 12 Results of post hoc test for professors’ attitudes toward computer use based on computer skills level 13 Results of ANOVA analysis for professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on computer knowledge 71 72 73 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 80 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 Results of LS.D post hoc test for the means of professors’ level of computer-related knowledge 15 Pearson correlation coefficients for professors’ attitudes toward computer use based on the four psychological variables Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ix ABSTRACT This study investigated professors’ and students’ attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan during the spring semester, 2005. The Computer Attitude Scale (CAS), developed by Loyd and Gressard, (1984) was used to gather information regarding participants’ attitudes measured in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety toward computers. The students’ demographics - gender and age - and computer-related experience, skills/knowledge, and weekly use were examined as possible determinants of their attitudes. For professors, experience, skills/knowledge, and ownership of/access to a computer, were studied as factors. Seven hundred students and a hundred and fifty professors were surveyed. The results of the data analysis indicated a significant correlation between students’ attitudes toward computers in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and computer-related experience, skills/knowledge, and weekly use, on the other. Similarly, the study found a strong correlation between professors’ attitudes measured with the same variables, and levels of experience, skills/knowledge, and ownership of/access to a computer. Those students and professors who used computers more frequently and had more than a year of computer experience had the most positive attitudes toward computers on all (CAS) subscale. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. While age played no role, this study found gender to be an important factor in students’ attitudes toward computer technology, with male students showing a more positive attitude. Overall, both students and professors had a positive attitude toward computers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Much of the world today appears to be embarking on massive and accelerating change. This affects many of our attitudes, beliefs, expectations, behaviors, organizations, and management styles (Al-Ghamdi, 1982). In fact, the turn of the 21st century is a time of change and development in which societies are witnessing some of the greatest technological, economic, and social alterations (Irma & Schmida, 1998). All of this rapid growth and change is emphasized in technological terms. In particular, the accelerated progresses in the fields of computers and communications have altered our perception of the world and, thus, the world itself (Ginsburg, 1999). Computer technology is the predominant technology of our time. The central role of computer technology is at the heart of modem organizations and systems, as well as in science and daily life (Innes, 2004). The proliferation of the personal computer, combined with the development of the Internet, has precipitated far-reaching changes in society. Electronic and digital networks are transforming the way we work and are reshaping inter-personal communications and entertainment (Anderson & Falsa, 2002). This transformation has had a tremendous and dramatic impact on society, particularly in the field of education (Mehlinger & Powers, 2002). Realizing the impact of computers on individuals and society as a whole, schools and colleges Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have included computer technology as an integral part of students’ learning and experiences and as a way to equip them with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in the 21st century (Kay, 1999; Jochers, Merrlenbore, & Koper, 2004). According to projections from the Department of Labor, the fastest growth in jobs for the 1998-2012 periods will be in computer-related industries. More specifically, over 2.5 million new Information Technology (IT) jobs will be created in the United States between 2000 and 2010 (Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment projections, 2004). Moreover, a survey by the U.S. Bureau of Census reveals that the percentage of U.S. workers using computers at work increased from 25% in the year 1994 to 56% in 2001 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003). Furthermore, the National Center for Education Statistics notes a steady annual increase in the number of computers used in K-12 schools (NCES, 1999). Nationwide, statistics on the use of computers in education show great progress in the equipment of schools with computers, with a jump of 600% in just a decade as the computer-student ratio climbed from 12.1 in 1990 to 19.1 in 1999 (Moursund & Bielefedt, 1999). With the advent of computer-based interactive multimedia, education has become more exciting for students of all ages. Dramatic improvements in reading, drastic reductions in both absenteeism and dropout rates, and an impressive progress in analytical and reasoning skills among students have all been attributed to the introduction of interactive multimedia learning technology into school systems in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California, Florida, and Ohio (Boling, 1996). Many studies have indeed shown that the use of computers in schools can have a beneficial effect not only on the students’ achievement but also on their motivation to learn, on the atmosphere in the classroom, and on the teachers' willingness to experiment with a new and innovative instructional approach (Kulik, 1994; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Schacter, 2001; Gulek, 2003). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 78% of the American youth aged 12- 17 who go online say that they believe that the Internet helps them with schoolwork, with 94% of them declaring their use the Internet for school-related research (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Similarly, 79% of college students state that the use of the Internet has had a positive impact on their college academic experience. Also, 87% of the parents of young people who go online believe that the Internet helps their children in school. All of the above is confirmed by Kulik (1994) who concludes that students learn more in less time when they receive computer-based instruction, and that they enjoy their classes more and develop a positive attitude when computers are used in the instruction process. A report by the Census Bureau indicated that by 2000 one or more computers had been installed in 51% of Americas’ 54 million households, up 42% from 1998. The same report adds that 9 out of 10 school-aged children had access to a computer, with 4 out of 5 using computers at school, and 2 out of 3 using one at home. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 (Newbarger, 2000). Furthermore, the American Library Associations’ (ALA) annual conference indicated in 2005 that 98.9% of all public libraries offer free public access to computers and the Internet, which represents a growth of more than 400% since 1996 (American Library Association, 2005). Computer technology may indeed have the potential to play a major role in transforming all levels of education. However, schools and instructors should focus on learning with computer technology, rather than on computer technology itself (Reynolds, Trechme, & Tripp, 2003). In other words, schools should focus on what students ought to be taught and on how to train educators in the use of technology (Wilson, 1995). As computer use becomes more common in higher education, colleges, and universities are realizing more than ever the importance of computer literacy (Reinkin, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998). Students are growing up in an information-based society that requires knowledge of computer technologies in order to succeed both at the personal and professional levels (Kurt, 2001). These trends, already identified in the business world, are also evident in the field of education. For this reason, the core curriculum of many colleges and universities includes computer literacy as a mandatory requirement for graduation (Young, 1997). Other universities have developed traditional courses using online tools and are offering online degrees (Arsham, 2002). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The success of integrating computer technology into education is dependant on a number of factors. Hong (2002) suggests that the frequency and nature of computer use have a great impact on students’ attitudes toward computer technology. Over the last two decades, numerous studies in a variety of developed countries have examined students' attitudes toward computer technology, at levels of education ranging from pre-school to graduate ((Selwyn, 1998; Colley, 2003; Kadijevich, 200; Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001; Tsai, 2004).Conversely, in developing countries such as Jordan, where computer technology is relatively new, such studies are often missing. Negative attitudes towards computers in children, generated by such factors as fear, anxiety and dislike can limit the success of the integration of computers in the curriculum (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Dupagne & Krendi, 1992; Francis-Pelton & Pelton, 1996; Ropp; 1999, Yaghi, 1997; Zammit, 1992; Yildimir, 2000). Thus, students' attitudes toward computers influence their current and future use of computers (Selwyn, 1997) as well as their future career path (Liaw, 2002; Tsia & Lin, 2001). For those students who show a positive attitude, these studies demonstrate learning how to use a computer was a rewarding and pleasant experience. Ajzen and Fishben (1977) argue that by understanding an individual’s attitude toward an object, one can predict his/her overall pattern of response to the object. A positive relationship has been shown to exist between the experience level Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with the computer and a favorable attitude toward it (Carlson & Wright, 1993; Colley, Gale, & Harris 1994; Necessary, & Parish, 1997). If the computer-anxious user has a positive attitude toward computers, he or she can expect to reduce anxiety through continued experience with them (Holt & Crocker, 2000). Some studies have indicated that students who have a positive experience in education programs that use computer technology will develop a positive attitude toward computers and will possibly pursue careers in technology; they would therefore be more interested in learning about technology (Willis, 1995; Brosna, 1998; Boser, Palmer, & Dougherity, 1998; Selwyn, 1997; Bush, 1995). Marcoulides (1988) pointed out that computer-related anxiety level is an important predictor of a student's achievement in computing skills. The author concluded that the level of anxiety significantly influences the degree to which computers can be used effectively and that accrued computer experience does diminish the anxiety to some extent. Moreover, the differences in attitudes toward computer technology based on gender have been consistently documented (Williams, Gletree, Woodbum, & Reffeled, 1993). Findings by researchers have repeatedly indicated that males show a more favorable attitude toward computers than females (Collis, 1985; Levin & Gordon, 1989; Trukle, 1988; Masoud, 1991; Williams et al., 1993; Tapscott, 1997; Kadijevich, 2000). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 Similarly, professors' attitudes toward working with computers are important indicators of their future use of them in instructional settings (Dupagne & Krendl 1992; Winnas & Brow, 1992). Negative attitudes manifested by professors toward computer use may result in a reduction in terms of the integration and use of computers in their teaching; this would also impact negatively on the students’ learning (Woodrow, 1991; Muller, Husband, Christou & Sun 1991; Ropp, 1999). Professors' attitudes toward computers will undeniably play a crucial role in the implementation of any computer skills that the teachers have acquired (Nash & Morzo, 1997; McFarlane, Hoffman, & Green, 1997; Chen, 2001). Therefore, it is important for professors to have a positive attitude toward computers if they are to use them in teaching. Offering to teachers training courses designed to help them learn how to integrate computer use in their instruction will help reduce their negative attitudes toward computers and hence improve students’ learning (Abbott & Fairs, 2000; Marra, 1999; Woodrow, 1992; Yildirim, 2000). For institutions to fully benefit from their investment in technology, faculty must learn to use and feel comfortable with the equipment put at their disposal as a tool to enhance their teaching and the students’ learning (Epper & Bates, 2001). Due to the nature of academics and the individual faculty member's differing levels of interest, the use of technology in higher education has progressed faster in some academic disciplines than in others (Gillespie, 1998). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Despite the increasing availability of computer technologies and recent offers to connect each classroom to the information superhighway, the integration of computers in teaching by college faculty has not kept pace (Mitra & Steffensmeier, 2000). A 1999 survey reports that on the average 33% of the students and more than 50% of the faculty at US colleges has direct access to a personal computer (Green, 1999). Yet for several reasons, most faculty have at least some doubts and concerns about incorporating technology into their teaching. One deterrent is the reversal of the teacher's role into becoming the student as he/she has to learn about new technologies (McPhee, 2003). These changes have prompted some faculty members to resist the introduction of computer technology in the classroom (Sandholtz, Ringsraff, & Dwyer, 1997; Clark, 2000; Cuban, 2001). Technology and Higher Education in Jordan History and Prospect Jordan is like many developing nations, having been faced with many problems in its efforts towards economic, social, cultural, and political development (Al-Tall, 1987). The higher education system is one area that needs critical analysis in order to determine its contributions to the country’s growth and future (Shaw, 1997). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As the advances in computer technology have reached global proportions, countries around the world now realize the potential benefits of incorporating computers into their education systems. Hence, they have begun to equip their schools with computers while developing computer literacy programs (Williams, 1998). Jordan is no exception in embracing this trend. The country of Jordan, located in the Middle East, has embarked on efforts to develop competitive and productive manpower in science and technology in order to achieve its vision and to participate more actively in a future global economy (World economic Forum Bank, 2005). The Jordanian government has also taken steps to develop the nation’s capacity in information and communication technology. Yet, this task is far from complete. In a recent study, Jordan ranked 14th out of 80 countries in assessing the priority that governments give to technology. The study also showed that Jordan ranked 58th out of 80 countries in terms of personal computer use (Hamdan, 2004). Jordan is continuing its preparations to implement its initiative aimed at bringing computers and the Internet to every household, hence permitting the largest section of its society to become computer and Internet literate. Under this initiative, citizens will be able to buy a personal computer, get an Internet line and pay the cost in installments by way of monthly bills (Oula, 2001). Hence, technological development is at the core of Jordan’s higher education policy. Higher education is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 becoming more and more important in the achievement of an individual’s occupational, financial, social, and political position in Jordanian society. This has lead to an increase in the demand for higher education on the part of individuals. Furthermore, key industries and the economy as a whole depend on the availability and distribution of scientific and technological manpower and knowledge, which are becoming increasingly important as factors of production, with higher education playing a key role in providing them (Shaw, 1997). Improved technological capacity brings an array of benefits to the higher education community by providing a unique educational opportunity to students, as well as an innovative and efficient teaching environment for administrators (King, 2004). Technology creates an accessible interface for a more responsive interaction between the university, the community and the business world. The expanding role of learning technologies in the global society necessitates educators being aware of how that interaction impacts their students and how these technologies are used in teaching. The attitudes of both teachers and students towards the use of technology need to be examined as an important factor in evaluating the effectiveness of technology-oriented teaching (West, 1999). To date, the Ministry of Education has secured loans from various sources, including the World Bank, to install computer labs in 1,320 public schools, as well as to provide basic computer literacy training to the kingdom’s 56,738 teachers (World Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bank, 2000). Currently, the Internet is growing rapidly and it is estimated to be accessible to 127,000 users via Internet Service Provider (ISP's) and 170 Internet cafes dispersed throughout the kingdom, thanks partially to the passage of the Telecommunication Law of 1995, which opened all non-fixed line services to the private sector (Academy for Educational Development, 2004). The University o f Jordan Founded in 1962, the University of Jordan is the oldest and most prestigious public 4-year institution of higher education in the country. The university has 13 academic facilities which house 63 academic departments offering more than 3,500 courses a year. The university has a diverse student body of 23,000, including 1,800 international students. It offers extracurricular activities such as 19 on-campus clubs, including sports, music, the environment, public service, health, literature, art, volunteer work, seminars, and lectures (University of Jordan, 2005). At the undergraduate level, students can choose from 63 different programs. For those interested in graduate education, the university also offers 26 doctoral programs, 68 masters programs, 16 programs in higher specialization in medicine. From the international perspective, the university offers 63 international programs at the undergraduate level, and another 130 at the graduate level in various fields of specialization (University of Jordan, 2005). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 F aculty’ s Access to Technology The technology available for faculty to work with students includes computerized classrooms with stations provided for student’s work and projection units for instructors. All full-time faculty members are provided computers in their offices. Assistant instructors have access to computers through computer stations located in divisional office areas. Moreover, all faculty members have staff support from the computer help center that includes professional staff who can respond immediately to software issues as well as technical staff who can assist with hardware and more complex software problems. The help desk is available from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the workweek (University of Jordan, 2005). Instructional Uses o f Technology Instructors use electronic technology in a variety of ways at the University of Jordan. Although on-line courses are often featured, other classroom-based uses are predominant. In a community where over two-thirds of the university’s students have access to the Internet, many instructors are using E-mail to communicate with their students. Instructors also use websites to provide basic information about their courses and to refer students to resources. Some instructors create simulations or gather resources such as photographs or artifacts through the computer to illustrate concepts (University of Jordan, 2005). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Students ’ Access to Technology Because basic computer literacy has become a requirement for higher education, the students’ access to technology has become a major concern for the university (see the University of Jordan at www.ju.edu). Even though more and more students have computers and internet accounts at home or elsewhere, the University of Jordan acknowledges its responsibility to provide them sufficient access on campus. The university provides students with E-mail accounts and generous computer time so that faculty can legitimately use on-line resources (University of Jordan, 2005). The Purpose o f the Study This study investigates professors' and students' attitudes toward computer technology, which were evaluated using the professors' and students' perceptions of their experience with computers and their exposure to them. Attitudes of both the students and the professors were examined through levels of perceptions measured in terms of liking, confidence, usefulness, and anxiety toward computers. Using these variables, the study evaluated the students' and professors' attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan in the year 2005. The primary focus of the study was to explain the interwoven relation between attitudes and technology and the mutual effects caused by one or the other. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 It investigated students, and professors' attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan, through the variables of confidence, liking, usefulness, and anxiety toward computer technology. By identifying and explaining the students’ and faculty's attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom at the higher education level, it is possible to identify ways and methods to improve the educational process, enhance the educational system, and redesign Jordan’s higher education policy benefiting from the study’s finding and recommendations. Methodology In order to answer the key research questions outlined in this study, the investigation was based on a quantitative approach that used data gathered through a set of two questionnaires. The first questionnaire was administered to 700 students, and the second to 150 professors, both samples being selected from the University of Jordan. The study followed the Likert Scale survey method to define students’ and professors’ attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom using a standardized Computer Attitude Scale (CAS). After obtaining the descriptive statistical results, the means of the results from the surveys were compared using the SPSS statistical software program as suggested by Green and Salkind (2003) and Christensen and Johnson (2000). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 This study relied on constructivist theories, which hold that knowledge is constructed and reconstructed by the learners’ experience both in and out of the classroom (Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Schunk, 2004). This is particularly helpful in assessing the student-computer relationship because of the potential for this relationship to take on a deeply personal meaning. This approach also allows changes in students’ attitudes to be situated within the broader context of their entire learning experience. The complexity involved with understanding students’ attitudes lends itself to this approach because of the need for a keen, yet contextualized interpretation of data (Creswell, 1998,). Significance o f the Study Computer technology has transformed the communication process, altered the business environment and set up new job requirements (Ben-Chaimn & Zoller, 1996). Students who are preparing themselves for higher education, the workplace or research need to learn the basics of computer use. Hence, the primary goal of computer instruction is to prepare students for the next competitive stage in their lives, be it in school or in the job market (Vlosky & Wilson, 2004). Learning computer technology will help students know about the world around them, enter new social networks or reinforce the present ones, and enhance their reading, writing, and reasoning skills (Fey, 2001; Jorie, 2000). In sum, the need to master Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. new learning technologies is on equal footing with the need to read and write. In the age of the information revolution, the difference between students who know how to use these technologies and those who do not is similar to the one that used to separate literate and illiterate persons. The increase in classroom use of technology in higher education results from a combination of students’ needs, faculty’s interest, and financial conditions (Atkins, Duderstadt, & Houweling, 2002). As a result, the computer has become more and more important in the educational environment. These elements are in themselves evidence that management strategies and leadership styles will have to be renovated in order to keep pace with an increasingly rapid and mobile world. To respond to these trends, the University of Jordan has been, since the early 1990s, requiring all students to take an introductory computer course (Farawati, 2001). Students’ attitudes towards technology may play an important role in their learning success (Hunt, Eagle & Kitchen, 2000). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology will undeniably be a crucial factor in the application of any computer skills that teachers acquire (Nash & Morzo, 1997; McFarlane, Hoffman, & Green, 1997; Chen, 2001). However, the attitudes of the academic community in Jordan are largely unknown. While many studies on computer-related attitudes have been conducted in the United States and other countries (Selwyn, 1999) considerably fewer such investigations have taken place in Jordan. This study of students’ and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 professors’ attitudes towards technology will therefore contribute to the body of knowledge regarding their attitudes toward the use of computer technology in education. This study is expected to encourage universities in their efforts to integrate computer technology into their teaching and learning processes. It aims to identify ways and methods to improve the educational process and to enhance the educational system at the University of Jordan. Furthermore, this investigation is significant for research in educational computer technology as well as it is for inquiry into the relationship between students and professors at the University of Jordan. Most important, this study lays down a pioneering work for the University of Jordan in assessing for the first time the attitudes of the institution’s students and professors with regard to the use of computer technology in the classroom. Moreover, this work is aimed at identifying negative attitudes toward computer technology on the part of both students and professors, and at recommending appropriate measures to build positive ones in each group. Finally, this study is expected to provide an insight for instructors and administrators at the University of Jordan in their efforts to integrate computer technology into their teaching and learning processes. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 Research Questions to be Answered: 1. What are students’ attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? 2. What are professors' attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? 3. Are there a statistically significant difference between students' attitudes toward computers based on gender and age? 4. Is there a statistically significant difference between professors' attitudes toward computers based on their access to/ownership of a computer? 5. Is there a correlation between students’ attitudes toward computer technology as measured by confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and computer-related experience, skills/knowledge, and weekly use, on the other? 6. Is there a correlation between professors' attitudes toward computer technology in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and levels of computer experience, skills/knowledge, and training, on the other? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 Hypotheses: 1. There is no statistically significant difference between students’ attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan based on gender and age. 2. There is no statistically significant difference between professors’ attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan based on access to/ownership of a computer. 3. There is no statistically significant correlation between students’ attitudes toward computers as measured in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and computer-related experience, skills/knowledge, and weekly use, on the other. 4. There is no statistically significant correlation between professors' attitudes toward computer technology expressed in levels of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and computer-related experience, skills/knowledge, and training, on the other. Definitions: The following selected terms have been used throughout this study. These short definitions are aimed at assisting the readers in their understanding: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Attitude: Technology: 20 A precise definition of attitude is difficult because this overlaps with other psychological concepts, and it is in this regard that some clarifications must be attempted first (Halloran, 1967). As early as 1935, Gordon Allport defined attitude as a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a direct dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations (Collins, Miller & Kiesier, 1969, p. 2). Attitude can also be understood as an organization of several benefits focused on specific objects; or a person, group, or idea, revealing a tendency to react in a favorable or unfavorable way. In this perspective, attitude has three components: A knowledge component, a feeling aspect (like vs. dislike), and an action tendency (Champagen & MacFe, 1987, p. 37). Technology (from the Greek techne, translated as art, craft, or skill) was conceived by the ancient Greeks as a particular activity and as kind of knowledge. Plato viewed techne and episteme (systematic) as a type of knowledge or scientific knowledge. For Aristotle, techne Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 was the systematic use of knowledge for intelligent human action. Techne is not only the name for the activities and skills of the craft person but also for the arts of the mind and the fine arts (Sattler, 1990, p. 3). • In schools and other settings, technology can also be used to refer to computers and the peripheral hardware and software that support their use (Mehlinger & Power, 2002, p. 10). • Technology is a process that combines people, tools, plans, and principles in a systematic approach to accomplish a purpose (Los Angeles County Board of Education). Education Technology The development, application, and evaluation of systems, techniques, and aids to improve the process of human learning, and the application of scientific knowledge about learning and the conditions of learning to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching and training (Ellington, Percival, & Race, 1995). For the specific purpose of this study, the term technology is applied to a computer-based, user-controlled system of information acquisition, and point-and-click navigation. It includes Internet access, Web search, E-mail, and all combinations of texts, graphics, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 animation, photographs, and digitized video and audio. The user may use education technology to obtain information for educational and/or entertainment. Computer Attitudes They usually refer to peoples' reactions to computers. These reactions include liking, confidence in use, belief in the usefulness of, gender-related stereotypes, and stereotypes about the ability to use computers (Liao, 1999). Assumptions For the purpose of this study, the following assumptions are made: 1. The participants responded accurately to all measures and the data were accurately recorded and analyzed. 2. Reliability and validity of the measures are accurate enough to permit accurate assumptions. 3. A sufficiently objective measure for students’ and professors’ attitudes towards computer technology in the classroom will be obtained. 4. The sample selected is representative of the population studied. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Limitations The following limitations are relevant to the present study: 1. The sample size is limited to subjects who voluntarily agreed to participate. 2. Internal and external validity are limited to the reliability of the instruments used in this study. 3. Validity is limited to the honesty of the subjects’ responses to the questionnaires. 4. The sample size of the study is limited to the number of students enrolled in the participating university courses during the academic year 2005-2006. Delimitations The study is subject to the following delimitations, which may serve to narrow its focus: 1. This study is limited to a sample of undergraduate students from the University of Jordan. 2. The sole instrument used to assess students' attitudes toward computers was the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) (Loyd & Gressard, 1984). Conclusions may be representative of the University of Jordan and other academic institutions of higher learning in Jordan but not extended beyond the population sampled. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides a literature review that offers a framework for investigating students’ and professors' attitudes towards technology use in the classroom along with the factors that influence these attitudes. It is organized in six main sections: (a) the impact of computers in education, (b) computer technology in undergraduate education, (c) attitudes toward computer technology, (d) students' attitudes toward computer technology, (e) professors' attitudes toward computer technology, and (f) a theory regarding attitudes towards computer technology. The Impact of Computers in Education In most countries, computers have become an integral part of education. Many schools are equipped with computers, a growing number of teachers use them along with other new technologies, and textbooks often have whole chapters devoted to these technologies. Several experiments have been conducted on the topic, with the results being published in a variety of journals (Watson & Tinsley, 1995). Computers have increasingly become sophisticated and efficient, easy to use, and cheaper. As Beats & Epper (2000) point out, computers have become so embedded in the way we work and communicate that we often take for granted the remarkable technological advances and the speed of the expanding reach of technology. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 A report by the Census Bureau indicates that by the year 2000 one or more computers had been installed in 51% of Americas’ 54 million households, up by 42% from 1998. According to the same report, 9 out of 10 school-aged children had access to a computer, with 4 out of 5 using computers at school and 2 out of 3 having access to one at home. (Newbarger, 2000). More recently, a 2005 report released by the ALA annual conference indicates that 98.9% of all US public libraries offer free public access to computers and the Internet, a growth of more than 400% since the year 1996 (American Library Association, 2005). The United States Census Bureau (2001) has reported that nearly two-thirds (65%) of all children aged 3 to 17 years had access to a computer and the Internet at home in 2000 (up from 55% in 1999), while 30% of children used the internet at home (up from 19% in 1998). With the advent of computer-based interactive multimedia, education has become more exciting for students of all ages. Dramatic improvements in reading, drastic reductions in both absenteeism and dropout rates, and an impressive progress in analytical and reasoning skills among students were all attributed to the introduction of interactive multimedia learning technology into school systems in California, Florida, and Ohio (Boling, 1996). Studies have indeed shown that the use of computers in schools can have a beneficial effect not only on the students’ achievement but also on their motivation to learn, on the atmosphere in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 classroom, and on the teachers' willingness to experiment with a new and innovative instructional approach (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Schacter, 2001; Schofield & Davidson, 2002; Gulek, 2003). According to the US. Census Bureau (2003), 78% of online youths aged 12- 17 say that they believe the Internet help them with school work, and 79% of college students agree that Internet use have had a positive impact on their college academic experience. More specifically 87% of parents of online young people believe that the Internet helps their children in school and 94% of youth ages 12-17 who have Internet access say they use it for school research (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). In his conclusion, Kulik (1994) indicates that students learn more in less time when they receive computer-based instruction, and that they enjoy their classes better and develop a positive attitude when computers are used in the instruction process. A number of researchers have indicated that computers can be most efficient as an instructional tool in the areas of problem solving, critical thinking, and conceptual development (Sherman, 1998; Selwyn, 1998; Thomas & Knezek, 1999). A survey conducted by Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) reveals that third-grade students find it easier to work with a keyboard than with a pencil or a pen (Project, 2002). Miller (1992) adds another explanation for the increase of computer use in classrooms. According to him, computers have had a positive impact on students, thus increasing their motivation to learn, explore, and discover. This has, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 in turn, extended their mental capacity and motivated many to achieve levels of learning they were incapable of in the past. Using different databases, students can now search for answers to questions and become actively involved with the subject matter, thereby increasing their desire for inquiry and enhancing their analytical and problem-solving skills. Barker, Frisbie, and Patrick (1993) state that learning projects involving the use of telecommunication technologies such as cable television, fiber optics, microwaves, slow-scan television, satellites, and microcomputer networks have opened opportunities for school districts to coordinate schedules and share resources, thus providing an expansion of curricular offerings and educational opportunities for students. Verity (1994) argues that the use of computers in education offers tutors, teachers, and motivators almost unlimited opportunities. As such, educators have devoted their careers to developing new ways to use computers in the classroom. Computers are no longer viewed as toys, but as essential electronic tools in schools throughout the USA. Schools everywhere, including in Jordan, are desperate for computer equipment so that they can take advantage of the new and exciting educational software available. Businesses and entire industries are helping them meet these needs, as their employment requirements include computer literacy. There is little doubt that information technology has changed the way the world does Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 business and that students need to be prepared to cope with its promise as well as its potential in order to fully participate in society (Rosen, & Weil, 1996). Some researchers have focused on the merits of computers, along with the materials and different methods of instruction that accompany them, as a valuable instructional tool for teachers (Lonergan, 1997; Gamer & Gillingham, 1996; Jonassen & Reeves, 1996; Kearsley, Hunter, & Furlong, 1992; Weir, 1992). Electronic database programs can be used to store and organize large sets of information across various topics. With the help of computers, teachers can examine, analyze, and present the material to students by selecting the most effective out of a variety of methods (Gordon, 2003; Harries, 1999; Hancock, 1997; Crook, 1994; Morrelli, 1990). The advantages of integrating computers into the educational system at every level extend far beyond the classroom (Mehlinger, 1995). Familiarization with computer technology has become a requirement for students joining the workforce at the end of their studies. Computer-related knowledge acquired while in school opens opportunities for students as they search for the best jobs. Conversely, the lack of adequate in computer training will prevent students from contributing to the new economy. Consequently, the nation’s educational system must adapt and prepare the students for the job market in this age of information technology. Not only the students, but teachers also must be trained in the use of computers (Tileston, 2004), and so must Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 administrators as they support and foster the use of computers in the classroom (Kazaluskas, 1995). An effort to promote students' computer literacy may require the full understanding of the relationship between technology and literacy in the context of a broad range of interacting socio-cultural and historical trends (Renking et al., 1998). Furthermore, a sound strategy ought to be put in place to explain to both teachers and students the purpose for using computers in the classroom. This purpose may be sharing experiences or ideas on a topic, or debating an issue, sharing vision and skilled educators, professional development, and technical support (Raizan, Sellwood, Todd & Vickers, 1995; National Educational Technology for Students, 2000). Equally vital is the understanding of students' attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom. Hong and Koh (2002) argue that those students’ attitudes towards computers impact greatly on the frequency with which they use them as well as the nature of that use. Negative attitudes such as fear, anxiety, or dislike may limit the students’ achievement. The Impact of Technology in Undergraduate Education Both globalization and the digital information age are reshaping the way we live, learn, work, and play; and this trend is likely to continue (Goodman, 2002). Some of the effects are the rapid accumulation of knowledge, the sharing of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. information in nanoseconds, people being able to stay in contact from nearly anywhere on the globe and around the clock, and new innovations in technology arising at a fast pace (Hyatt, 2003). Through E-mail, the World Wide Web, and multimedia technology, the Internet has become a pervasive part of the learning process in higher education (Brown, 2002). These communication realities offer a wealth of opportunity to the core activity of colleges and universities. According to the 1997 Campus Computing survey, almost one-third (23.8%) of all college courses make use of the E-mail, up from 25% in 1996 and 8% in 1994. One-fourth (24.8%) of all college courses draw on resources available on the Internet, compared to 15.3% that use multimedia, up from 8.4% in 1996 and 4% in 1994 (Green, 1997). As computer use becomes increasingly common in higher education, colleges and universities are becoming more aware of the benefits of computer literacy (Enghagen, 1997; Reinkin et al., 1998). Students are growing up in an information- based society that requires the knowledge of computer technologies to succeed at both the personal and the professional levels (Martinez & Mead, 1988; Kurt, 2001 Sanders & Shetlar, 2001). This reality, already evident in the business world, also applies in education. Academic journals and other publications often feature articles on the recent developments in information technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education, for instance, devotes one of its seven major news sections exclusively to information technology. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 The Campus Computing Project (1998), which conducts annual surveys on computer use in higher education, has estimated that in 1998 nearly 45% of college and university courses used E-mail (a 40% increase from 1994). Moreover, according to the same source, one third of all courses used Internet resources in that year (up by 100% since 1996) and nearly one quarter used Web pages (up by 35% from 1994) (Green, 1998). Change Magazine, a well-known publication of higher education, dedicated its entire March/April 1996 issue to the challenges of teaching and learning in the computer age. The focus was on the use of computers, particularly the Internet, which has grown exponentially in the last few years (see issue 1996). Comford and Pollock (2003) state that computer technology is having a dramatic impact not only on higher education, but also at the elementary and secondary levels. Computer use is now common in just about all campuses. It is an interactive medium available to most individuals and in use in all academic departments. Soloman (1994) reports that higher education has witnessed three different revolutions over the past 20 years. The first was the advent of television. It was to change the very foundation of education by bringing the world to the classroom and providing more attractive and innovative material to the students. The second revolution was the microcomputer, which revolutionized the very foundation of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 education by going even further than television. Finally bringing dramatic changes to the classroom was multimedia computing. As a growing influence on higher education, computer technology has driven institutions from being knowledge-based to becoming information-based, while the classroom has been witnessing demographic changes, i.e., cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender diversity (Nasser, 2000). These transformations have been accompanied with new challenges to academic staff with regard to curriculum design and which attitudes to adopt (Andrews & Becker, 2004; Pittinsky, 2003). Moreover, these changes have created a pressure for higher education structures to respond to the new realities while providing accessibility and flexibility in the learning process. Sophisticated networks and software environments have freed higher education from constraints of space and time, thereby making learning accessible to more people at anyplace and time (McPhee, 2003). Online and distance learning have revolutionized the way knowledge is transmitted from teachers to learners by eliminating distance (Tapscott, 1998). Higher education is no longer constrained to place "campus" or time "class period" (Cole, 2000). Powerful economic, market, and geographical influences can limit access to traditional education (Dede, 1989). Because of the return of the adult learner, the introduction of the life-long learning concept, the need for more affordable education choices and population shift to various geographical locations Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Wilson & Mosher, 1994). More and more people want to obtain training and education credits on their time schedule and at their designated location. One educational approach that has emerged to meet this need is distance education. Education-on-demand is no longer future scenario— it is now a reality. Distance education is being called upon to meet some of the needs in countries all over the world (Sharma, 2000). The nature of needs varies from country to country, depending upon the stage of development. The necessity for distance education is being recognized both in developed and developing countries for a variety of reasons, some of which are common to all, while others are specific to particular countries depending on their individual requirements (Lumumba, 2004). Further, continuing education is necessary to meet the changing requirements of the workplace. Reddy (1994) stated that in developing countries there is a need to meet shortages of technical manpower which the existing conventional universities are unable to provide. The impact of communication technologies on teaching and learning have therefore been dramatic and brought about dramatic change, even allowing many universities to develop traditional courses using online tools and to offer on-line degrees (Shank, & Sitze, 2004). Moreover, according to a survey by the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), 72% of colleges and universities offered distance education courses in 2001; in 1999, only 48% of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 institutions offered such courses. Furthermore, 77% of colleges provided online enrollment for prospective students in 2001, up from 68% in 1998 (National Association for College Admission Counseling, 2001). According to Derlin & Erazo (1997), through technology, distance learning enhances opportunities for interaction, cooperative learning, and the formation of communities of learners, which makes it more advantageous than traditional face-to-face lecture and query instructional strategies. Learning being the ultimate purpose of the educational process, it requires active involvement by the students (Dombo & Eaton, 2000). Urban education employs a variety of instructional strategies geared toward this end. In an urban setting, students in the same classroom may have widely disparate skill levels. Rogoff (1990) demonstrate that in such a classroom it is important for educators to create a learning community in which students are encouraged to have an input in the designing of the teaching methods to be used in order account for the diversity. Motivational problems may also arise in urban settings, especially when students cannot readily connect the education that they receive with the desired outcomes. Instructional strategies designed with the diversity among students in mind will foster a sense of self-efficacy in students and thus enhance their motivation. By giving students some measure of control over their learning process and the goals; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 they will be more eager to participate and to achieve these goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). In a student-centered learning environment, the teacher is no longer a provider or a manager, but rather a teacher acting as a facilitator to create an effective learning setting. By designing a learning process in which students are encouraged to collaborate among themselves while sharing their experiences, the instructor becomes more of a consultant or a coach (Barab, Thomas, & Merrill, 2001). Consequently, the educational process has a dual purpose: the first is to provide a meaning from a personal perspective, and the second to incorporate this understanding into a collaborative learning community (Anderson & Garrison, 2003). This idea is supported by the constructivist learning theory, according to which knowledge or meaning is not fixed, but rather constructed by individuals through their own experiences (Schunk, 2004). Research suggests that learning environments based on the constructivist theory are a strategic and effective way to train students in cross-disciplinary thinking, a requirement in today’s world (Oliver & Hannafin, 2000; Wilson, 1997; von Glasersfeld, 1996; Cooper, 1993; Rogoff, 1991). This helps students build on their experiences, construct their own meaning of them, create products, solve problems, and enhance their motivation and their achievement level (Collins, 1991; Sudzina, 1997; Stefanou, Salisbury, & Glennon, 2002). Constructivism emphasizes the use of computer technology as a tool to access Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 and organize information and to construct personal knowledge (Oliver & Hannafi, 2000). Al-Farra (1998) argues that educational technology stimulates students’ interest and motivates them towards greater participation in acquiring experience while also providing them with a better source of feedback. The author also maintains that technology helps enhance the efficiency of both the teachers and the educational process Ronenking et al. (1998) suggest that electronic communications will make faculty more outward-looking and increase national and international exchanges among them. While technology has the capability to improve and enrich teaching, it also poses certain threats to many colleges and universities. Guithut (2004) warned that computer technology in the classroom without appropriate settings or adequate planning may present integration problems with the pedagogy used. Darci (2001) outline four possible barriers that may overlap or reinforce one another: (a) faculty not using or not making adequate use of the technology, (b) dependence on a single type of technology, (c) non-access to the technology, and (d) the students lacking the ability to transfer their technological skills into the classroom. Hence, the integration of computer technology in the classroom requires an infrastructure that is open and compatible with the available systems, along with adequate faculty training (Groves Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 & Zemel, 2000). On this latter point, the information age has called for a pedagogical shift as the instructor has been transformed from teacher to learner (Ginsburg, 1999). Moreover, the learning environment needs to shift from the traditional teacher-centered approach to student-centered methods. In today’s world, the teachers' role as transmitters of knowledge is no longer sufficient; instead, teachers must use technology in ways that improve the students’ participation and achievements (Ko & Rossen, 2001). For their part, students need to realize that the computer, Internet, and other communication technologies have become necessary in the acquisition of the skills required to succeed in today’s world (Di-Benedetto, 2005). The growing importance of digital technology in the global economy has forced universities to cope with these rapid changes. (Hoffman & Novak, 2000). In 2004, the e-economy was $7 trillion in size, roughly 20% of the global economy (Iwata, 2000), which reinforces the view that universities must be able to function in an increasingly digital world by making E-commerce, E-business, and E-economy an integral part of themselves, if they are to survive in the digital age (Atkins et al.. 2002). Today’s planners face new challenges, too. Migration from rural to urban centers is putting even greater pressure on cities in the developing world. In industrialized countries such as the United States, a proper definition of urban Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. education must now take into account not only the city centers, but also the suburbs within their metropolitan areas (Stone, 1998). Due to their complexity, characterized by a sharp sociopolitical and economic stratification as well as diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and language, urban centers provide both challenges and opportunities for educational planners. In order to deal with the unequal access to resources that often results from such a situation, approaches need to be adopted that ensure the provision of education to all students. In higher education, this translates into a greater need for consistent leadership. The challenges of urban education as described above necessitate a strong and balanced leadership style that is capable of carrying a vision through to its realization while developing an organization empowered to implement it (Eggins, 2003). Hence, leadership at every level of the institutions of higher learning must first recognize the changes taking place, in order to be able to adapt them to the changing environment (Northouse, 2004). Those who recognize how these changes affect the institution, and adapt the structures in order to better cope with them, will be able to unveil greater opportunities than those who do not. Attitudes Toward Computer Technology Although abundant research in this area was conducted during the 1980s and in the early 1990s (Leite, 2000), most of it was limited to the field of education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Thus, the particularity of this study, which extends beyond that area to also include the attitudes of the public at large by examining households and industries. This is aimed at providing a better understanding of the demographic differences reflected on students' and professors' attitudes toward computer technology. While reviewing the literature, the different works are classified according to four different attitudes toward computer technology: confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety (Loyd & Gressard, 1984). Craig (1994) presents a review of the research on this topic. In his analysis, he outlines ways to deal with the stress and anxiety resulting from learning how to use and/or operate a computer. Loyd and Gressard (1985) describe computer anxiety as the fear of the computer or the learning of computer use. Research in communication apprehension and computer anxiety indicates that individuals with these fears will avoid the use of computers (Anderson, 1996; Ayersman, 1996; Brosnan, 1998; Igbaria & Chakrabarti, 1990; Necessary & Parish, 1996). A 2002 study of American households reveals that feelings of anxiety toward computers and computer use is common, affecting 30 to 40% of the US population (Lenhart, 2003). This anxiety is attributable to the lack of experience in handling procedural changes, the fear of destroying data, and the desire not to appear stupid in comparison to other users (Rheingold, 1990). Such cases of anxiety are sometimes referred to as technophobia. According to findings by Rosen and Weil (1995), a technophobic Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 teacher may be old or young, experienced or a novice, male or female, and white or black. Such a teacher's attitude is likely to result in limited integration and use of the computer in his/her teaching and learning. Some other research on computer-related attitudes suggests that prior computer experience may exert a degree of influence on the students' levels of liking, anxiety, and confidence in the use of computers (Champbell, 1989; Champbell & Perry, 1989; Chen, 1986; Loyd & Loyd 1988; Loyd & Gessard, 1984, 1986, 1988). According to this literature, the longer the education majors’ prior exposure to computers and the more type of computers they have previously used, the more positive their attitude. Similarly, gender has been found to play a role in the way people relate to computers. Young (2000) investigated gender differences in attitudes of 462 middle and high school students towards computers via an attitude survey. In this survey she attempted to measure the following five factors associated with computer attitudes: confidence, perception of computers as a male domain, positive teacher attitudes, negative teacher attitudes, and perceived usefulness of computers. Her findings include the following: • Boys spend significantly more time on computers, at both school and home, than do girls. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 • Boys strongly consider computers to be a male domain, but girls reject this. • Boys tend to have higher confidence levels with regard to the use of computers. • While boys are more likely to perceive teachers’ attitudes toward them as negative, this does not affect their confidence. • While girls feel more encouraged in using computers, this does not help raise their confidence levels. According to a report from the United States Census Bureau, 55% of males and 59% of females aged 18 to 24 years had access to a computer at home (Newburger, 2000). Nevertheless, most studies have found that males display a more positive attitude to computers, even when prior computer experience is controlled for (Kadijevich, 2000). For instance, both boys and girls tend to rate the use of computers as a masculine activity rather than a feminine one (Chen, 1985; Wilder, Mackie & Cooper, 1985; Arenz & Miheon, 1990; Bernard, 1997) with this tendency being more pronounced among boys than girls (Arenz & Miheon, 1990; Wilder et al., 1985). Gender-related differences regarding the use of the Internet start showing as early as kindergarten. It has been shown that among children of that age group, boys display a preference for computer games and mechanical toys, while girls are more interested in participating in social activities (Dorman, 1998). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A nation-wide online report conducted between 2001 and 2003, focuses on the effect of age differences on computer and Internet use. The results show that 42% of children between the ages of 5 and 9 use the Internet. The percentage increases to 67.3% for those users aged 10 to 13, and culminates at 79% for those in the age range of 14 to 17. The percentage of Internet users then starts declining, respectively to 71% for persons aged 18 to 24, and 68.0% for those 25 to 49 years old; it falls further to 45% for individuals aged 50 and over.(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003). College Students ’ Attitudes Toward Computers According to Goodman (2001), computer technology has transformed the communication process, altered the business environment, and set up new job requirements. Several researchers have emphasized the growing importance of computer applications for education (Harmon, 2000; Dutton & Loader, 2002; Hazemi, Hailes & Wilbur, 1998). Thanks to computers, they argue, opportunities for using technology to make an impact on higher education have never been greater, and neither have opportunities for conducting research (Schaumburg, 2001) and the next few decades must be a time for taking full advantage of both. In this environment, students’ attitudes toward computers are a key component to understanding their acceptance of, and satisfaction with computer and information Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 technologies (Mitra, & Steffensmeier, 2000; Brosnan, 1998, Al-Jabri & Al-Khaldi, 1997; Anderson et al., 1979). According to Ajzen and Fishben (1977), understanding an individual’s attitude toward and object can help predict his/her pattern of response to the object. This applies to college students, whose attitudes toward computer technology are shaped by their experience with, exposure (access) to, and training in computers (Gorry, 2003; Brown, 2002; Necessary & Parrish, 1996; Busch, 1995). Exposure (access) - along with gender and experience - constitutes one of three factors that affect students’ attitudes toward computers (Rosen & Weil, 1995). Donnell (2004) conducted a study of 45 faculty members and 306 undergraduate students in advanced art classes at Tennessee State University, the results of which showed that students’ exposure to computers tended to determine their attitude. In this regard, students who own computers or have greater access to them have been shown to display a more positive attitude vis-a-vis computers (Kirkman, 1993; Martin, 1991). Several other researchers have linked a positive attitude toward computer technology with a high access to computers (Taghavi, 2001; Kessell,1999; Anderson & Harris, 1997; Downes,1995; Maurer, 1994; Kirkman, 1993; Loyd & Gressard, 1984; Martin, 1991). A report released by the United States Census Bureau (2000) finds that nearly two-thirds (65%) of all children aged 3 to 17 years old lived in a household with a computer in the year 2000 (up from 55% in 1998), and 30% of them use the Internet Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 at home (up from 19% in 1998) (Newbarger, 2000). Though at a smaller scale, the Middle-Eastern country of Jordan has also been witnessing a rapid growth of the Internet, of which access and use have remained free from government restriction or censorship. According to the World Development Statistics report, 87,500 users representing 21.16 % of Jordan’s population had access to the Internet in 2000. As a second factor, several authors have studied the effects of gender on attitudes toward computers based on societal conceptions. They have drawn their findings from the fact that most of society views computer technology as a male domain (Campbell & McGabe, 1984; Arenz & Miheon, 1990; Chen, 1985; Wilder, Mackie & Cooper, 1985; Charles & Bradley, 2005). As a result, it has consistently been demonstrated that males, in general, show a more favorable attitude toward computers than do women (Levin & Gordon, 1989; Williams, Gletree, Woodbur, & Raffels, 1993). At the college level, a survey conducted by Poovich, Hide & Zakrejsek (1987) and aimed at examining the attitudes of undergraduate students toward computers indicates that female students present a more negative reaction to computers than do male students. Similarly, Ogazalek’s (1989) survey of 212 computer science students to determine their attitude toward computers shows that female students display more contradictions and confusion in their attitudes toward computers. Another study by Massoud (1991) finds male students to have a more positive attitude toward computers than their female counterparts in all of the three Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 subscales measured— anxiety, confidence, and liking. A study of 202 undergraduate students consisting of 87 males and 115 females in an introductory computer science course at the University of Pittsburgh indicates that female students have less interest and less confidence in computers than do male students (Shashaani, 1997). However, Levin and Gordon (1989) argue that gender has a lesser effect on students’ attitudes than does prior exposure/access to computers (particularly, having a computer at home). As in the cases of exposure and gender, a positive relationship has been shown to exist between one’s experience level with computers and one’s attitude toward them (Necessary & Parish, 1996). Computer technology affects the students’ experience, knowledge, and, ultimately, their attitudes (Brown, 2002; Gurry, 2003). In this respect, a user who displays anxiety toward computers is expected to reduce his anxiety through continued use of them (West, 1999; Clement, 1981). To reinforce this view, Marcoulides (1988) points out that the level of anxiety with computers is an important predictor of a student's achievements in computing skills. He argues that experience with computers diminishes the student’s anxiety level. In a study aimed at evaluating students’ attitudes before and after taking a computer literacy course at the Mississippi State University, Taghari (2001) shows that prior experience with, and access to computers significantly influence the overall attitudes of students towards computers. A similar study conducted by Alesbil (2004) on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. undergraduate students at King Saoud University confirms that the more computer experience the students have, the more positive their attitude toward computers. More findings have reinforced the view that those users with more experience working and studying with computers tend to have a more positive attitude toward them (McKinnon, Nolan, & Sinclair, 2000; Strassman, 1997; Yaghi, 1997). Further, Clarke (1987) points out that individuals with direct experience with computers have more knowledge, better defined evaluations, more effective responses, and a greater willingness to engage in related behaviors, than those persons whose familiarity with computers is only achieved indirectly, through observation or reading. According to Chen (2001), taking computer classes contributes to computer experience, and those students who have taken more of such courses tend to display a more favorable attitude toward computers than do those who have taken fewer of them. Maurer (1994) argues that the experience level with computers plays a greater role than do exposure (access) and training, in determining the student’s attitudes and levels of anxiety. This view is supported by Busch (1995), who administered the CAS to 146 undergraduate students in business administration who were enrolled in a compulsory computer course at a Norwegian college. Busch’s findings confirm prior experience with computers as the best predictor of students’ attitudes toward them. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 However, some studies have illustrated the difficulty to dissociate the effects of exposure to, and experience with computers on students’ attitudes toward technology. In this respect, Pope-Davis and Twing (1991) define experience in terms of the duration of the use of computers. The longer one uses computers, he argues, the more experience he/she accumulates, and the more positive his/her attitude toward computer technology. Similarly, Sutton (1991) argues that experience refers to the access that students have to a computer, as well as the purposes for which they are used, making the distinction between experience and access even harder. Furthermore, Chen (1994) has shown that prior experience with computers while in high school interacts with the students’ gender to influence their attitudes vis-a-vis computer technology. His study demonstrates that male students with prior experience display higher levels of interest and confidence, and less anxiety, than do females in the same situation. Professors' Attitudes Toward Computer Technology Studies on professors' attitudes toward computer technology have concentrated on computer-related experience, skills, knowledge, and training. Computer technology and education have become increasingly intertwined in the classroom, in all programs and at all levels. This is especially true in the training of teachers, who are expected to use various types of technology in the classroom. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hence, the need for educational institutions to invest in technological equipment, and for faculty members to use them effectively in teaching. College professors must leam to use and feel comfortable with technology as a tool to enhance teaching and learning (Bates et al., 2001). Due to the particularities of individual fields of studies, along with the personal interests of each faculty member, the use of technology in teaching has progressed faster in some academic disciplines than in others (Gillespie, 1998). Despite the increasing availability of computer technology and efforts to connect each classroom to the information superhighway, some faculty members have been reluctant to adopt computers and revise their pedagogy (Dusick, 1998 Hunt & Bohlin, 1995; Yildirim, 2000), and are not fully aware of the importance of these advances as substantiated by several studies in neuroscience and cognitive psychology (Atkins et al., 2002; McKenzie & Clary, 1995). Many are making an offer to improve their knowledge in computer technology and planning ahead to enhance their teaching using computer technology (Bai-Chuvessiripom & Lehman, 2001). Indeed, Kazlauskas (2003) discusses the complex changes that have to be made to introduce technology in the classroom. For various reasons, most college professors have at least some doubts and concerns about incorporating technology into their teaching. Some of those apprehensions are based on the reversal of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 teacher's role, as he/she becomes a student to learn to use and incorporate new technologies into the teaching process (McPhee, 2003). According to findings by Bennett and Bennerr (1994), some teachers are overwhelmed by the perspective of having to learn to use a computer and integrate it into their curriculum. Indeed, as revealed in a 1999 study by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), teachers are being asked to learn new methods of teaching, while at the same time they are facing challenges attached to rapidly increasing technological changes and greater diversity in the classroom. This has in some cases resulted in faculty members resisting the introduction of technology in the classroom (Crook, 1994 ). This view is embraced by Kaye (1999), who considers the difficulty of learning how to use computers and the associated amount of time as a deterrent that causes some teachers to shy away from using them. Consequently, as found by a 1999 Nationwide faculty survey conducted by UCLA, "keeping up with information technology was a significant source of stress for 67% of college faculty during the past six years." Moreover, the Computing Campus Project reported in the year 2000 that 39.2% of faculty members identify "instructional integrating" as their most significant challenge, up from 33.2% in 1998 and 29.6% in 1999 (Green, 2000). Furthermore, the NCES reveals that while 99% of public schools provided access to some type of technology in 2000, less than 32% of educators reported Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 regularly integrating technology into their classroom practice during that same year (NCES, 2001). The above statistics show that making technology available to instructors constitutes no guarantee that they will integrate it into their teaching. For, as Woodrow (1991) points out, the success of any new educational program that incorporates computer technology depends strongly upon the support and attitude of the teachers involved. McFarlane, Haffman, and Green (1997) agree with him. As such, a professor’s negative reaction or belief that using computers in their teaching will not be successful may result in his/her rejecting or reducing the integration of this tool in his/her pedagogy. Faculty members’ attitudes toward computer technology have not been uniform, however, as some have adopted it as a classroom tool while others have remained more apprehensive about learning and integrating it into their teaching (Poindexter, 2003). College professors with prior experience with computers tend to show greater interest in integrating computer technology into their curriculum (Bradley & Russell, 1997; Chu & Spires, 1991; Fletcher & Deeds, 1995; Liu & Reed, 1992; Mclnemey et al., 1994; Reed & Overbaugh, 1993; Ropp, 1999; Woodrow, 1992), whereas the others are more hesitant to follow suit (Kay, 1999). This lack of knowledge and experience on the part of the latter leads to reduced confidence in their attempts to introduce this technology into their teaching process Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Oppenheimer, 1999). On this point, a survey of 117 full-time and part-time faculty members was conducted by Dusick and Yildrim (2000) at California community colleges to determine their level of computer use for instruction and administration, and their feelings toward computers in an educational setting. According to the findings, computer users and nonusers prefer different styles of training, as determined by their levels of confidence, anxiety, and competence. While experienced users requested to be trained on specific high-end software, nonusers clearly favored short sessions during which personal attention was paid to them, and expressed reservations about the benefits of using computers for education. The researchers concluded that the inexperienced teachers were more concerned with reducing their anxiety while the experienced ones were focused on improving their skills. Teachers’ lack of interest and limited knowledge and experience with computers could therefore constitute a major barrier to technology integration and use. Some studies have pointed to the lack of training and experience as the greatest impact on faculty’s attitudes toward the integration and use of computer technology (Thorsen & Barr, 1997; Vagel & Collge, 1995; Yaghi, 1997; Yildirim & Kiraz, 1999; Cuitho, 2001; Yildirim 2001). A similar study was conducted by Vakalis (1991) on full-time faculty members of suburban community colleges in the state of Michigan. According to his findings, those who integrated computers into their teaching perceived them to be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 more useful, expressed greater levels of confidence and liking, and showed less anxiety. The author also found them to be the ones with higher levels of prior exposure to, and experience with computers. This again confirms prior use and experience as factors that shape positive attitudes toward computer technology. Beside experience, Berkowitz (2000) lists time, access to equipment, and support from the administration as determinants of whether teachers will incorporate computer technology into their teaching. Other studies have shown training to have a positive impact on professors’ self-perception, knowledge, confidence, and attitudes toward computer technology (Kluever, Green, Hoffman & Swearinen 1994; Gilmore, 1999). This confirms the results of other studies that were conducted at the elementary school level by Loyd and Gressard (1986) and Christensen (1997) and which have demonstrated that after receiving computer training teachers were less anxious and more confident, and displayed more enthusiasm in integrating computer technology into their teaching. At the college level, a study of 125 full-time faculty members from Texas Wesley University and 230 faculty members from Texas Christian University found computer training, knowledge, and skills to be a major determinant of faculty members’ attitudes toward computer technology. Specifically, the research found the professors who had received training to be less anxious, less apprehensive, and more confident and productive with computer technology (Gilmore, 1998). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 A Theory on Attitudes Toward Computer Technology Self-efficacy refers to personal beliefs about one’s capability to learn or perform an action at a designated level (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b, 1986, 1993, 1997). According to Schunk (2004), it is a belief about what one is capable of doing. In the educational context, self-efficacy beliefs refer to students’ judgments about their capabilities to accomplish a specific academic task or to attain a specific goal (Schunk, 1991). Thus computer self efficacy is a belief of one's capability to use the computer (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). Bandura (1986) distinguishes efficacy from outcome expectation. While outcome expectation lies on the belief that the environment is responsive for one’s action on a task, efficacy belief has to do with one’s capability to successfully apply the required behavior in order to produce a desired outcome. This distinction has significant implications for research and practice, since one may possess a relatively high efficacy in computer technology but at the same time display low expectations for his/her grades on a computer examination. Consistent with social cognitive theory, Bandura (2001) argues that individuals’ self-efficacy perception and beliefs, including self-efficacy, mediate between knowledge and action. These competence beliefs are hypothesized to influence choice, effort, and persistence, which in turn affect performance. Moreover, perceived efficacy has been shown to influence motivation, which eventually affects performance. For instance, some studies have found perceived Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 self-efficacy with computers to be a critical predictor of the use of computer technology (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000). Furthermore, some studies have shown that females generally have lower self-efficacy with reference to a computer technology (Durndell, & Haage, 2002; Jackson, Ervin, Gardner, & Schmit,2001; Whitley, 1997).In their study, Pajares and Miller (1994) explore the effects of gender, prior experience in math, math self-concept, perceived usefulness of math, and math anxiety, on performance. They conclude that math self-efficacy has a stronger direct effect on problem solving in mathematics than do self-concept, perceived usefulness, or prior experience. Self- efficacy has also been found to mediate the effects of gender and prior experience on self-concept, perceived usefulness, and problem-solving. Research on technology-related self-efficacy has grown in importance as the infusion of technology into society in general, and into the educational setting in particular, has increased steadily. Nowadays, most colleges and universities offer computer literacy courses, many of which are a requirement for the students. Hence, it is primordial to determine the relationship between motivation and various learning strategies, as they affect the students’ learning performances in these courses. According to Brown, Holcom, Hulikowich & Zheng (2003), examining the development process of computer self-efficacy provides a better understanding of how individuals come to feel capable about using computers. This, in turn, can be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 used to help develop materials and strategies that enable students and teachers to enhance their computer skills. As such, technology-related self-efficacy has come to play a crucial role in the educational context through the implementation of these skills in the classroom. Applying Banduras’ theory of self-efficacy to computer-based learning confirms that a high level of computer anxiety reduces self-efficacy, subsequently reducing the learning performance (Abd-Elfttah, 2005). An individual with a high level of computer self-efficacy will therefore be more likely to engage in computer tasks and will show greater persistence in completing these tasks; conversely, one with a lower level of self-efficacy will more likely avoid computer tasks or give up in face of an obstacle. Research suggests that strategies to enhance teachers’ experience with computer technology could contribute to a positive attitude vis-a-vis such technology and enhance self-efficacy (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Dupagne & Krendi, 1992; Francis-Pelton & Pelton, 1996; Ropp; 1999; Delcout & Kinzie, 1999; Yaghi, 1997; Zammit, 1992); this, in turn, would influence teachers in adopting and using computer technology (Delcout & Kinzie, 1999). Schunk (2004) argues that self- efficacy is developed for teachers in the same way it is for students. He points out those teachers with a higher self-efficacy are more likely to create a positive classroom environment, to support the students’ ideas, and to address their needs. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 The author further notes that through their preparation and continued professional development, teachers will be able to learn strategies to be used in such challenging situations as teaching to students with varying abilities or involving their parents. Self-efficacy has been shown to have a substantial impact upon self-regulated learning (SRL) (Garcia & Pintrich, 1991, 1994). Further, self-regulated learners exhibit a high sense of efficacy in their capabilities (Zimmerman, 1989, 1990a). Self regulation refers to students' ability to understand and control their learning- including analyzing the demands contained in school assignments, to plan and mobilize their resources to meet these demands, and to monitor their own progress toward the completion of the assignments (Pintrich, 1999; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Winne, 1995). The classic social cognitive perspective views self-regulation as made of a number of processes: self-observation (or self-mentoring), self-judgment, and self- reaction (Schunk, 2004). Self-regulated learning won acclamation in the 1980’s because of its emphasis on the autonomy and responsibility of students as they were allowed to take charge of their own learning. In general terms, it subsumes research on cognitive strategies, meta-cognition, and motivation in one coherent construct that emphasizes the interplay among these forces (Paris & Winograd, 2001). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 Self-regulated learners are generally characterized as active learners who efficiently manage their own learning in many different ways (Winne, 1995; Winne & Perry, 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Zimmerman (1986, 1989) defines self-regulated students as being meta-cognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process. Yang (1993) finds them: (a) to learn better under learner control than under program control, (b) to be able to monitor, evaluate, or manage their own learning and time effectively during learner-controlled instruction with embedded questions, and (c) to require less time in completing lessons. Pintirich, Schunk, Garcia, and McKeachie (1993) have found college students' beliefs about their own performance in a college course to be strongly related to the use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies, as well as their actual performance as measured by course grades. Self-regulated learners direct their learning processes and attainments by setting challenging goals for themselves (Bandura, 1988; Schunk, 1990). They can use a number of important self-regulated strategies to develop and maintain their important motivational beliefs and behaviors by applying appropriate strategies in order to achieve these goals (Zimmerman, 1989; Dembo & Eaton, 2000). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Goal Setting and Motivation Self-regulated learning capabilities have been applied to motivation and achievement in a school setting (Bandura, 1997). Educators have reflected on how they might enhance perceived self-regulation in the classroom. Research on this issue has traditionally sought to identify the personal attributes and strategies used by effective self-regulated learners (Zimmerman, 1994; Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Perry, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Schunk (2004) considers goal setting and self-evolution towards the attainment of these goals to constitute important motivational mechanisms. Thus, in order for a student to show effective self-regulation, he/she must have a goal as well as the motivation to attain it (Zimmerman, 1989). As such, the student analyzes the learning task, sets goals, and develops a plan or a strategy to attain his/her goal (Dembo & Eaton, 2000). According to a number of authors, goal setting increases the student's cognitive and effective reaction on performance outcome, and prompts self-monitoring and self-judgment of performance achievements (Bandura & Crovene, 1993). For their part, Dweck and Leggett (1988) argue that learning and performance goals lead to different affective reactions and behaviors. As such, students who demonstrate performance goals are assumed to be more likely to experience anxiety about their success and failure, and possibly to suffer a loss of self-esteem in case of failure. Conversely, students with learning goals tend to strive more in improving their performance, which helps increase their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 mastery and their intrinsic motivation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Covington, 2000). Learning goals are believed to influence the student’s behavior in terms of choice of a task, persistence in the task, and involvement in its accomplishment. Learning goals also lead to the student choosing more difficult and challenging tasks, along with a higher level of involvement and resistance (Pintrich, 2000). As for teachers, it is important that they demonstrate an understanding of the notion of self-regulation, as well as abilities related to problem-solving and invention (Paris & Winograd, 2001). They face problems and challenges that are complex and rarely straightforward. Schon (1987) argues that teaching teachers facts and rigid decision-making models is less effective than nurturing within them the capacity and skills to deal with the difficult problems encountered in the real world. Effective methods for teaching them self-regulation often include social, corrective feedbacks, strategy and practice, goal setting, and self-evaluation of their progress in learning (Schunk, 2004). The above suggests that self-regulated learners can perfectly adapt to computer-based learning, and that teachers in this category are more likely to encourage students to persist in the completion of their goals. Summary A review of the literature indicates that the overall attitudes of the general population toward computer technology are determined by age, gender, access to, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 use of, and experience with computers. At the higher education level, the effectiveness associated with integrating computer technology into the teaching and learning processes needs to be paid due attention, along with the challenges posed by these changes. In this regard, computer-related experience, skills/knowledge, access and training are important variables that determine the levels of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, which in turn measure students’ and professors’ attitudes toward computer technology. Specific studies conducted on undergraduate students have shown a positive relationship between experience level with computers and attitude toward them. Similarly, computer access and training have been proven to play a major role. Moreover, gender-wise, male students tend to show a more favorable attitude toward computers than do their female counterparts. Of these factors, experience has been found to be the most determinant. With regard to theory, researchers agree that self-efficacy enhances students’ skills and the efficiency of technology use in the classroom. Self-regulated students make greater use of innovative learning strategies and achieve better results than do others. These students are distinguished by their systematic use of meta-cognitive, motivational, and behavioral strategies. Teachers’ attitudes in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety toward computers constitute the primordial factor in their decision on whether to use computer technology in the classroom. In turn, these factors are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 determined by professors’ computer-related experience, knowledge/skills, and training levels. At the theoretical level, self-efficacy has been shown to be a more powerful predictor of behavior than either outcome expectancies or past performance. Personal accomplishments not only require skills, but also self-beliefs of efficacy if those skills are to be used efficiently. Self-efficacy works for teachers in the same way that it does for students. Teachers with a higher self-efficacy level are more likely to create a positive classroom environment, to encourage the students’ participation and to address their needs. Self-efficacy-derived self regulated learning plays a critical role in the computer-technology-based learning environment and allows students to persist through the completion of their goals. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN This chapter discusses the components of this quantitative research design. First, it deals with the aims and purposes of the study. This is followed by a presentation on the selection of the subjects. Later, the design and administration of the research instruments and methods of analysis are outlined. Methodology and Procedures Introduction The choice of an appropriate methodology constitutes a significant challenge for research because of its fundamental role in yielding accurate findings. This study uses quantitative methods to seek answers to the research questions and to generate an explanation of the students’ and professors’ attitudes with regard to the use of computer technology in the classroom. In order to answer the key research questions outlined in Chapter 1, the investigation is based on a questionnaire administered in 2005 to two sets of subjects from the University of Jordan, of which one was made of selected students and the other of professors. The purpose of this chapter is to relate the research design and procedure used to describe the sample instrumentation, the research questions, the hypotheses, and the procedures for the data collection and analysis. The statistical analysis focuses on the frequencies of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 responses, the means, and the standard deviations using the t-test and the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In order to ensure the reliability of the tests, an I.S.P. Post Hoc test was conducted to account for differences both within and between groups. Factors that determine students' and professors' attitudes toward the use of computer technology are based on gender, prior computer experience, knowledge/skills, access/ownership of a computer, and formal computer training. The present study used the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) (Loyd & Gressard, 1984) to investigate the relationship between students' and professors' attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan based on the two groups’ perceptions of their experience with computers. Attitudes of both the students and the professors were examined through levels of perception measured in terms of liking, confidence, usefulness, and anxiety toward computers. The present study was designed to answer the following questions: 1. What are students’ attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? 2. What are professors' attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 3. Are there statistically significant differences between students' attitudes toward computers based on gender and age? 4. Is there a statistically significant difference between professors' attitudes toward computers based on their access to/ownership of a computer? 5. Is there a correlation between students’ attitudes toward computer technology as measured by confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and computer-related experience, skills/knowledge, and weekly use, on the other? 6. Is there a correlation between professors' attitudes toward computer technology in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and levels of computer experience, skills, knowledge and training, on the other? The study examined the following null hypotheses: 1. There is no statistically significant difference between students' attitudes toward computers based on gender and age. 2. There is no statistically significant difference between professors' attitudes toward computers based on ownership of/access to a computer. 3. There is no statistically significant correlation between students' attitudes toward computer technology as measured by confidence, liking, perceived Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and computer-related experience, knowledge/skills, and weekly use, on the other. 4. There is no statistically significant correlation between professors’ attitudes toward computer technology in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the one hand, and experience, skills/knowledge, and training, on the other. Setting of the Study and Population The study was conducted at the University of Jordan in the spring of the year 2005. The participants consisted of undergraduate students and professors from the university. Two surveys on computer-related attitudes were the cornerstone of the quantitative data gathering process. On the one hand, a survey was administered to 700 randomly selected undergraduate students out of an approximate total of 3,000 currently enrolled in the university’s mandatory introductory computer course. The students were asked about their attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom while they are taking the class. On the other hand, a similar survey was given to a selected group of 150 professors to assess their attitudes and behaviors regarding the use of computer technology in the classroom. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 Data Collection and Procedure The researcher’s designate distributed the questionnaire to individual faculty members for completion. The questionnaire package was handed to individual professors for them to distribute during class. Participants were allowed sufficient time to respond to all questions. The data collected through the surveys were standardized using the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) and the Likert scale. In compliance with the rules governing the use of human subjects in research at the University of Southern California, permission to conduct the study was sought from the President and the Director of Technology at the University of Jordan, as well as from the students surveyed. The latter were informed that their participation in the survey was voluntary and that their answers would remain anonymous. The Survey Instruments: 1. Demographic information: Details on students’ and professors’ age and courses; year of study for the students; and computer use outside the university. Those students and professors who responded that they had access to a computer outside the university were asked to indicate how often and for which purposes they used it. 2. Frequency of use: Students and professors were requested to rate how frequently they used a computer outside the university on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 5 (where 0 = never, 1 = occasionally, 2 = monthly, 3 = Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 weekly, 4 = every 2-3 days, and 5 = daily) across a range of eight (8) applications (games/ entertainment, wordprocessing, art/ drawing, database/ spread sheet, programming, Internet surfing, E-mail, and others - where the respondent could specify any other application). 3. Use of computer technology at the university: Here, students and professors indicated how often and for which purposes they used a computer in the courses that they were enrolled in. Again, a five-point Likert-type frequency scale was used, this time across a range of six (6) applications (word- Processing database/spreadsheet, computer simulations, Internet surfing, E- mail, and other). 4. Attitudes toward using computer technology: This final section was divided into four subscales: Confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety. The Computer Attitude Scale (CAS), developed by Loyd and Gressard (1984), was used. Regarding the (CAS), Woodrow (1991) found this instrument reliable for evaluating the attitudes and impressions of teachers with regard to the educational applications of computers. Similarly, Orr, Allen, and Poindexter (2001) rated the CAS as highly reliable with a .95 coefficient indicating that each subscale is stable enough to be used separately, and the total score providing a reliable measure of attitudes toward computers and their use. For the purpose of this study, a subset of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 the CAS items was selected that deal specifically with computer-related attitudes. These items were rated based on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The instrument was adjusted to be applied to a sample of 700 students and another composed of 150 faculty members; it was revised as necessary. Data Analysis Procedure The data analysis was preformed through computer input and calculations using SPSS 11.0 software package 2001. The data collected were analyzed using a 0.05 significance level to summarize participants' responses to the CAS, to describe participants' attitudes toward computers. In addition to descriptive statistics, inferential statistics were also used to analyze the data. More specifically, ANOYA was used to test the research hypotheses. Finally, a L.S.D. post hoc test for the student attitude means according to experience level was used to determine if groups differ from one another. Translation Both questionnaires were initially written in the English language. They were then translated into Arabic, the native language of the subjects. This translation was reviewed by language experts at the University of Jordan prior to the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 administration of the survey. The goal was to ensure the preservation of both the purpose and substance of the questions. Summary This study was designed to examine students’ and professors attitudes’ toward computers used in the classroom at the University of Jordan. The methodology for this study included the components of research design, population, sample, data collection, instrumentation, hypotheses and research questions, data analysis, and translation. A correlation design was used to determine the differences among the groups. The samples used in this study were made of 700 students and 150 professors, respectively, both from the University of Jordan. The Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) developed by Loyd and Gressard (1984) was used in self administered questionnaires to gather information on participants’ confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety vis-a-vis computers. Hypotheses were tested using inferential statistics. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY The results of the statistical analyses based upon this study are presented in this chapter. The chapter begins with frequency investigations for each sample's demographic characteristics, including gender, age, computer experience, access to a computer, and computer skills, knowledge, and training, followed by descriptive statistical analyses of the various measures. The variables tested were the students’ and professors’ attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom at the University of Jordan. The Computer Attitude Scale consisted of four subscales-- anxiety, confidence, liking, and usefulness (Loyd & Grassed, 1984). The final section presents the results related to the null hypotheses, which were tested via ANOVA. The Sample's Demographic Characteristics The 700 student participants used in the study were grouped by gender and age, resulting in a sample made 55% of males (n = 384) and 45.14% of females (n = 316). The sample of 150 faculty members was used as a whole. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 Analysis and Research Questions Research Question 1: What are students’ attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? As shown in Table 1, the majority of the sample had positive attitudes toward computers, 60.1%; and 39.9% of the sample had a negative attitude toward computers. Table 1: Students’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom Attitudes Toward Computer Use in the Classroom Frequency Percentage Positive 421 60.1 Negative 279 39.9 Research Question 2: What are professors’ attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? To answer this question, the means were calculated for the professors' attitudes toward computer use in the classroom. The results are shown in Table 2. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 Table 2: Professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom Attitudes toward Computer Use Frequency Percentage Posilh e 112 65.9 Negative 58 34.1 According to the results in Table 2, the majority of the sample had a positive attitude toward computer use in the classroom, 65.9%; and 34.1% of the sample expressed a negative attitude toward computers. Research Question 3: Is there a statistically significant difference between students' attitudes toward computers based on gender and age? Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in the attitudes of students toward computer technology use in the classroom at the University of Jordan based on their gender and age. First, in order to determine if there were differences between students’ attitudes toward the use of computers in the classroom based on gender, a t-test was conducted. The results are shown in Table 3. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 Table 3: T-test results fo r students’ attitudes based on gender Gender N Means Std. Deviation t Significance Level Female 316 1 12.8543 19.8486 2.32 .02 Male 384 116.1909 17.3815 As shown in Table 3, there are significant differences in the students’ attitudes toward the use of computers in the classroom based on their gender, with the t value at 2.32 and significant at the level 0.05 or less. As can be seen in Table 3, the mean is higher for males than it is for females. The null hypothesis was rejected, as the evidence suggested that male students had more positive attitude toward computers than did their female counterparts. This result indicates that there was a statistical difference in respondents' attitudes toward computers based on gender. The determination of whether there were differences in the students’ attitude toward the use of computer technology in the classroom based on age was based on an ANOVA analysis. The results are presented in Table 4. Table 4: ANOVA analysis for students’ attitudes toward computer use based on age Source of \ ariance Sum of Squares DF Mean of Squares Significance Level Between groups 2312.404 5 462.481 Within group 245651.145 694 353.964 1.307 0.25 Total 247963.549 699 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 According to the results in Table 4, the f value at 1.307 is not significant at the level 0.05 or less, which suggests that there is no significant difference in students’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on age. Research Question 4: Is there a statistically significant difference between professors' attitudes toward the use of computers in the classroom based on computer ownership or access to a computer? Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between professors' attitudes toward computer use based on ownership or their access to a computer. Table 5: T-test results fo r professors’ attitudes toward computer use based on computer ownership/access N Means Sid. Deviation lliisi Significance Level Yes 102 144.8 15.6059 7.89 0.000 No 68 116.01 14.8117 As shown in Table 5, there is a statistically significant difference in professors' attitudes toward computers based on their ownership/access to a computer. The t value at 7.89 is significant at the level 0.05 or less. Respondents who had no computers or access to a computer had the lesser positive attitude toward computers. The mean of the ‘yes’ responses, 144.8, indicates that those respondents with a computer at home scored the highest on most of the CAS subscales. These results yielded the lowest overall computer attitude scores for those who neither had Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 access to a computer nor owned one. Due to these findings, the null hypothesis was rejected. Research Question 5: Is there a correlation between students’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom on the one hand, and skills, knowledge, amount of computer use per week, experience with computers, and levels of computer liking, confidence in computers, perceived usefulness of computer technology, self-efficacy of self regulated, and anxiety toward computers, on the other hand? Ho: There is no statistically significant correlation between students' attitudes toward the use of computers, on the one hand, and skills, knowledge, amount of computer use per week, experience with computers, levels of computer liking, confidence in computers, perceived usefulness of computer technology, self- efficacy of self regulated, and anxiety toward computers, on the other hand. Table 6: ANOVA analysis fo r students’ attitudes toward computer use based on experience/training level Source of Variance Sum of Squares DF Mean of Squares mMm Significance Level Between Groups 5544.605 5 1108.939 3.175 .008 Within the Group 242418.854 694 349.307 Total 247963.549 699 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 As shown in Table 6, there is a significant difference in students’ attitudes toward the use of computers in the classroom based on experience/training level with the f value at 3.175 and significant at the level 0.05 or less. To determine the direction of the means differences, a L.S.D Post hoc test was conducted. The results are shown in Table 7. Table 7: L.S.D post hoc test results fo r means of students’ attitudes toward computer use based on based experience/training level Experience level 1 week or less 1 week to 1 month 1 month to 6 month 6 month to 1 year 1 years or more 1 week or less - - - - - 1 week to 1 month 1.2081 - - - - 1 month to 6 month 5.0539 3.8454 - - - 6 month to 1 year -2.7500 -3.9581 -7.8039* - - 1 years or more -2.4979 -3.7060* -7.5518* .252 - Table 7 shows a significant difference in students’ attitudes toward the use of computers in the classroom based on experience/training level with computers, with students with more experience displaying a more positive attitude. Furthermore, as evidenced in Table 8, the more experience the respondents had, the lower their anxiety toward computer use. Conversely, those without any prior computer use showed the highest levels of anxiety. By using the Computer Attitude Scale and analyzing the Pearson correlation coefficients, similar patterns Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were observed for the levels of the four psychological variables: Computer confidence, liking, usefulness, and anxiety. Table 8: Pearson correlation coefficients fo r students’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on psychological variables Psychological \ ariablcs Pearson Correlation Coefficients Significance Level Confidence 0.77 0.01 Liking 0.59 0.01 Usefulness 0.62 0.01 anxiety level -0.72 0.01 As indicated in Table 8, there is a significant correlation between the psychological variables and students’ attitudes toward computer use. The correlation coefficients are high and positive for all psychological variables, except anxiety, which correlated negatively with students’ attitude toward computer use. The low score (-072) for computer anxiety should be interpreted as a high degree of anxiety toward computers, while higher scores for confidence, liking and usefulness (0.77, 0.59, and 0.62, respectively) indicate a more positive attitude vis-a-vis the use of computers in the classroom. The null hypothesis was rejected since these findings suggest a correlation between students' attitudes toward computer use on the one hand, and their skills, knowledge, amount of computer use per week, and levels of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 experience, liking, confidence, perceived usefulness, and anxiety toward computers, on the other hand. Research Question 6: Is there a correlation between professors' attitudes toward computer use in the classroom, on the one hand, and their levels of computer skills, knowledge, use per week, experience, liking, confidence, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the other hand? Ho: There is no statistically significant correlation between professors’ attitudes toward computer use on the one hand, and their levels of computer skills, knowledge, use per week, experience, liking, confidence, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the other hand. This question was answered using ANOVA and performing an f test on the mean of squares. The results are contained in Table 9. Table 9: ANOVA analysis o f Professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on experience level Source of Variance Sum of Squares DF Mean of Squares Ml Significance Level Between group 10807.160 4 2701.790 15.645 .000 Within group 38494.893 165 172.696 Total 39302.053 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 The results from Table 9 show a significant difference in professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on experience level, with the f value at 15.645 and significant at the level 0.05 or less. To determine the direction of the means differences, an L.S.D Post hoc test was conducted. The results are shown in Table 10. Table 10: Results o fL S .D post hoc test fo r the means of professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on experience level lAperieiice 1.01*1 1 Week or Less 1 Week to 1 Month 1 to A Months 6 Months to 1 Year 1 Year or More 1 Week or Less - 1 Week to 1 Month 0.02 1 to 6 Months 2.25 2.78 6 Months to 1 Year -3.00 -3.22 5.00 1 Year or More *15.34- -15.56* 17.84* -11.3* As indicated in Table 10, there is a statistically significant difference between professor's attitudes toward the use of computers in the classroom based on experience level. The respondents with the least computer experience had the most negative attitude toward computer use, and vice versa. The examination of professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom was conducted using ANOVA and an f test. Table 11 contains the results. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 Table 11: Results of ANOVA analysis o f professors’ attitudes vis-a-vis the use of computers in the classroom based on computer skills level Source of Variance Sum of Squares DF Mean of Squares Significance Level Between groups 10077.878 2 5038.939 28.795 .000* Within group 29224.175 167 174.995 Total 39302.053 169 As shown in table 11, there is a statistically significant difference in professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on computer skills level. This is illustrated by an f value of 28.795 at a significance level of 0.05 or less. To determine the direction of the means differences, an L.S.D Post hoc test was conducted within the professors’ group, which yielded the results in Table 12. Table 12: Results o f post hoc test fo r professors’ attitudes toward computer use based on computer skills level Skills Level Low Medium High Low - - - Medium -1.26 - - High -16.06* -14.798* - As shown in Table 12, there is a statistically significant difference among professors based on their computer skills level. Professor with a high skills level have a more positive attitude toward computer use in the classroom than their counterparts with medium and low levels do. These findings suggest that computer Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 training plays a major role in helping professors develop a positive attitude toward the use of computers in their curriculum. As for the assessment of the role of computer-related knowledge vis-a-vis professors’ attitudes toward the use of computers in the classroom, an ANOVA analysis was conducted to yield the results contained in Table 13. Table 13: Results o f ANOVA analysis for professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on computer knowledge Source of Variance Sum of Squares DF Mean of squares Significance Level Between groups 2800.454 2 1400.227 6.406 .002 Within group 36501.599 167 218.572 Total 39302.053 169 The results from Table 13 show a significant difference in professors' attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on their level of knowledge about computers, with the f value at 6.406 at a level of significance of 0.05 or less. To determine the direction of the means differences, an L.S.D Post hoc test was conducted, with the results shown in Table 14. Table 14: Results o fL S .D post hoc test fo r the means of professors’ level of computer-related knowledge Knowledge Level Low Medium High Low - - - Medium *-3.6894 - - High *-9.2057 -5.516* - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 Table 14 clearly shows differences within the professors’ group based on the level of knowledge about computers. Those with a high level of computer knowledge tend to display a more positive attitude toward the incorporation of computers in their curriculum than do their counterparts with a medium or low level. Research Question 5: Is there a correlation between professors’ attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom on the one hand, and the levels of computer-related skills, knowledge, use per week, experience, confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the other hand? Ho: There is no statistically significant correlation between professors' attitudes toward the incorporation of computer technology in their curriculum on the one hand, and the levels of computer-related skills, knowledge, use per week, experience, confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the other hand. The impact of the four psychological variables (confidence, liking, usefulness, and anxiety) on shaping professors’ attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom was examined using Pearson Correlation Coefficients. The results are displayed in Table 15. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 Table 15: Pearson correlation coefficients fo r professors' attitudes toward computer use based on the four psychological variables Psychological Variables Pearson Correlation Coefficient Significance Level Confidence .88 0.01 Liking .81 0.01 Usefulness .76 0.01 Anxiety -.78 0.01 The results in Table 15 show a significant correlation between all four psychological variables and professors’ attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom. At the significance level 0.01, the correlation coefficients are high and positive, ranging from .76 to .88, for three of the psychological variables (perceived usefulness of computers, liking of computer technology, and confidence in the use of computers, respectively). On the other hand, the level of anxiety correlates negatively with professors’ attitudes toward computer use in the classroom (with coefficient of correlation -.78 at significance level 0.01). These findings suggest that the higher the level of the professor’s confidence, liking or perceived usefulness vis-a-vis computer technology, the more positive his/her attitude toward the incorporation of computers into his/her curriculum. Conversely, and to reinforce this conclusion, the higher the anxiety level of a professor with regard to the use of computers, the more negative his/her attitude toward making them part of his/her teaching. These findings suggest a significant Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 correlation between the four psychological variables and professors’ attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom. Thus, the null hypothesis ought to be rejected. Summary The findings presented in this study were analyzed using descriptive statistics in a multi-level analysis. Participants’ demographics were presented to describe the samples used. Both for students and professors, Computer Attitude Scale scores based on levels of computer-related knowledge, experience, skills and use were examined through an analysis of the means and correlation coefficients. Furthermore, L.S. D post hoc tests were conducted to determine the direction of the means. The results lead to the rejection of all five null hypotheses presented for testing. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter discusses the study’s results and findings, provides a discussion, offers conclusions, and makes recommendations for future research. The purpose of the study was to investigate professors' and students' attitudes vis-a-vis the use of computer technology in the classroom based on their own perceptions of their experience with computers and their exposure to them. For both students and professors, these levels of perceptions were measured using four psychological variables: confidence in the use of computers, liking of computer technology, perceived usefulness of computers, and anxiety in their use. Using these variables, the study evaluated the students' and professors' attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan in the year 2005. The literature reviewed for this study indicates that the overall attitudes of the general population toward computer technology are determined by the levels of computer skills and knowledge, along with gender, ownership, access to, use of, and experience with computers. At the higher education level, the effectiveness associated with integrating computer technology into the teaching and learning processes needs to be paid due attention, along with the challenges posed by these Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 changes. In this regard, the levels of anxiety, liking, and confidence, as well as access and experience, along with the linkage between training and prior use of computers, are important variables in shaping student’s and professors’ attitudes toward computer technology. The literature also revealed conflicting results concerning professors' attitudes toward computers. Teachers’ attitudes and anxiety toward the use of computers constitute the primordial factor in their actually using computer technology in the classroom. However, confidence, experience, knowledge, skills, and training levels are also important. At the theoretical level, self-efficacy has been shown to be a more powerful predictor of behavior than either outcome expectancies or past performance. This study was designed to investigate students' and professors' attitudes toward the use of computer technology in the classroom at the University of Jordan. It analyzed the means and the correlation coefficients derived from the Computer Attitude Scale scores of the participants’ characteristics, in order to identify the attitudes of both students and professors toward the incorporation of computer technology into curricula, with the ultimate goal of making recommendations aimed at enhancing positive attitudes in each group. The Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) developed by Loyd and Gressard (1984) was used to collect data on students’ and professors’ attitudes toward Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 computer use in the classroom. The survey consisted of four sections, with sections 1 through 3 developed by the researcher, and section 4 being a standardized instrument. Items were rated based on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Three null hypotheses were tested using inferential statistics at a .05 level of significance. Summary and Discussion The findings of this study include the results the descriptive statistics, inferential analysis from testing the null hypotheses, an L.S.D Post hoc test to compare the difference within the groups, a test of significant difference, and a comparison of the means test. In this study, the total numbers of participants were 700 students and 150 professors from the University of Jordan for the year 2005.The demographics of the student participants were summarized as 55% male and 45% female. The following summary of the findings was arranged in the order of the research questions presented with the null hypotheses and supporting literature research. Research Question 1: What are students’ attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? A review of the data analysis for Research Question 1 reveals that the majority of students, approximately 60%, had a positive attitude toward computers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 The response means for both female and male students in this study indicate a positive attitude toward computers. These findings parallel those in the literature regarding students' attitudes toward computers. Kulik (1994) indicates that students learn more in less time when they receive computer-based instruction, and that they enjoy their classes more and develop a positive attitude when computers are used in the instruction process. A possible explanation for the majority of the students having a positive attitude toward computers at the University of Jordan is, basic computer literacy has become a requirement in higher education, with students’ access to computer technology becoming a major concern for the University. Even though more and more students have computers and internet accounts at home or elsewhere, the University of Jordan acknowledges its responsibility to provide them sufficient access on campus. The University provides students with E-mail accounts and generous computer time so that faculty can legitimately use on-line resources. Research Question 2: What are the professors’ attitudes at the University of Jordan toward the use of computer technology in the classroom? A review of the data analysis for Research Question 2 shows that the majority of the sample had a positive attitude toward computer use in the classroom, nearly 66%, but about 34% had a negative attitude. These findings parallel those in the literature regarding professors' attitudes toward computers. Ronenking et al. (1998) suggest that electronic communications Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. will make faculty more outward looking and increase national and international exchanges among them. Another study by Bai-Chuvessiripom and Lehman (2001), confirms that many faculty members are making an offer to improve their knowledge in computer technology and planning ahead to enhance their teaching using it. Bates et al. (2001) conclude that college professors must leam to use and feel comfortable with computer technology as a tool to enhance teaching and learning. A possible explanation for these findings with regard to professors' positive attitudes toward the use of computers at the University of Jordan is, Jordan, like many other developing nations, faces several problems in its efforts toward economic, social, cultural, and political development (Al-Tall, 1987). The higher education system is one area that needs critical analysis in order to determine its contributions to the country’s growth and future (Shaw, 1997). Thus far, the country of Jordan has embarked in an effort to develop competitive and productive manpower in science and technology in order to achieve its vision and to participate more actively in a future global economy. The University of Jordan in particular is now realizes the potential benefits of incorporating computers into their education systems as a way to equip students and professors with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in the 21st century. Research Question 3: Are there a statistically significant difference between students' attitudes toward computers based on gender and age? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 After reviewing the data analysis for Research Question 3, the null hypothesis Ho was rejected because a significant difference was found between male and female students’ attitudes toward computers. The male student participants at the University of Jordan had a more positive attitude toward computers than their female counterparts. This study supports previous research that revealed significant gender - based differences in attitudes toward computers (Poovich, Hide & Zakrejsek 1987; Massoud 1991; Shashaani, 1997; Kadijevich, 2000). These findings are consisting with others that have demonstrated that males, in general, show a more favorable attitude toward computers than do females (Williams, Gletree, Woodbur, & Raffels, 1993; Levin & Gordon, 1989; Shashaani, 1997; Kadijevich, 2000). Conversely, they are inconsistent with other studies that have suggested that there were no significant difference between male and female students (Levin & Gordan, 1989; Harries, 1999). In this study, the response means for both female and male students were significant at the level 0.05, indicating that male students had a more positive attitude toward computers than female students. A possible explanation of the consistency between this study’s findings and those contained in the literature is the fact that most of society views computer technology as a male domain (Campbell & McGabe, 1984; Arenz & Miheon, 1990; Chen, 1985; Charles & Bradley, 2005). The findings Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 of this study also indicate that there is no significant difference in students' attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan based on age. Research Question 4: Is there a statistically significant difference in professors' attitudes toward computer use in the classroom based on the ownership or access to a computer? In light of the review of the data analysis for Research Question 4, the null hypothesis Ho was rejected because there was a statistically significant difference between professors' attitudes toward computers based on ownership and/or access to a computer. The findings of this study indicate that the respondents who had no access to a computer at all had the most negative attitude toward computers. The means of the responses show respondents with a computer at home scoring the highest on most of the CAS subscales. These findings are consistent with previous studies that focused on the importance of access to, and ownership of a computer. According to these studies, ownership or greater access to a computer translates into a more positive attitude toward working with, or learning with computers (Selwyn, 1998; Kirkman, 1993; Martin, 1991). According to Rosen and Weil, (1995), exposure/access to computers constitutes one of three factors that affect attitudes toward computers. Donnell’s findings (2004) show that exposure or access to computers tend to determine the users' attitudes. Orr, Allen, and Poindexter (2001) conclude that users Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 who own a computer have a higher level of confidence, liking, and perceived usefulness with regard to the use of computers, and showed less anxiety than those who did not own any. A possible explanation of the consistency of this study’s findings with the relevant literature is that the University of Jordan provides most of its full-time faculty members with a computer in the office. Furthermore, assistant instructors have access to computers through terminals located in divisional office areas. Moreover, faculty members are assisted by a support staff from the University’s computer help center that includes professionals who can respond immediately to both software and hardware issues. Access to a computer is further enhanced for those professors who have one at home. Research Question 5: Is there a correlation between students’ attitudes toward computer technology on the one hand, and computer-related skills, knowledge, levels of weekly use, experience, liking, confidence, perceived usefulness, and anxiety? The testing of the null hypothesis Ho focused on the levels of liking, confidence, perceived usefulness, and anxiety as measured on the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS). In light of the review of the data analysis for Research Question 5, the null hypothesis Ho was rejected because there was a statistically significant correlation at level 0.05 between students' attitudes toward computer technology on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 the one hand, and computer-related skills, knowledge, levels of weekly use, experience, liking, confidence, perceived usefulness, and anxiety. Further analysis was conducted to examine the variables that were associated with perceived levels of computer knowledge, skills, and expertise. The findings demonstrate a significant positive correlation between students’ overall attitudes toward computers and the levels of knowledge, skills, expertise, as well as the weekly number of hours spent using computer. The more computer experience respondents had, the lower their level of anxiety, and the higher their levels of computer-related confidence, liking, and perceived usefulness. The results of this study are consistent with the findings by Champbell, 1989; Champbell & Perry, 1989; Chen, 1986; Loyd & Loyd, 1988; Loyd & Gressard, 1984, 1986, 1988; Brown, 2002; Garry, 2003; Tapscott, 1998; Poindexter, 2003. Exposure, knowledge, skills, and prior computer experience had already been shown in previous studies to affect students' levels of liking, confidence, and anxiety in the use of computers (Necessary & Parish, 1996). Similarly, a number of studies have indicated that students with prior positive experience from education programs that use computer technology will develop a more positive attitude toward computers and possibly pursue careers in technology-related areas (Willis, 1995; Brosna, 1998; Boser, Palmer, & Dougherty, 1998; Selwyn, 1997; Bush, 1995). In this respect, a user who displays anxiety Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. toward computers is expected to reduce his anxiety level through continued computer use (West, 1999; Clement, 1981). Furthermore, Clarke (1987) points out that individuals with direct experience with computers have more knowledge, better defined evaluations, more effective responses, and a greater willingness to engage in related behaviors, than those persons whose familiarity with computers is only achieved indirectly, through observation or reading. Bosch (1995) also finds prior experience with computers was the best predictor of students’ attitudes toward them. And Chen (1994) concludes that higher levels of prior experience, skills, and knowledge about computers influence students' attitudes toward them, as these results in higher levels of interest and confidence, and less anxiety. Research Question 6: Is there a correlation between professors’ attitudes toward computer technology on the one hand, and levels of computer-related skills, knowledge, weekly use, experience, liking, confidence, perceived usefulness, and anxiety, on the other hand? The testing of the null hypotheses Ho was based on the levels of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety on the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS). After reviewing the data analysis for Research Question 6, the null hypothesis Ho was rejected because there was a statistically significant correlation between these four psychological variables and professors’ attitudes toward computer use. The results of this study are consistent with the findings by Bradley and Russell (1997); Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 Chu and Spires (1991); Fletcher and Deeds (1995); Liu and Reed, (1992); Mclnemey et al. (1994); Reed and Overbaugh, (1993); Ropp (1999), and Woodrow (1992). These researchers conclude that college professors with prior experience with computers have a low level of computer anxiety and tend to show greater interest in integrating computer technology into their curriculum. A further in-depth examination of professors’ level of liking computers in this study reveals a consistency in the variables that contributed to the findings. Professors’ levels of computer expertise, knowledge, and skills were significantly related to their liking of computers. Moreover, this study finds professors’ liking of computers to be positively related to their confidence, usefulness, and overall attitude toward computers, while showing a significantly negative relationship with anxiety toward computers. These findings are consistent with previous studies that suggest that prior computer experience enhances professors’ attitudes toward computers by increasing their levels of confidence, liking, and perceived usefulness while reducing their anxiety level (Ropp, 1999; Woodrow, 1992). In that respect, Dusick and Yildirim (2000) report from a study of 117 faculty members at California community colleges that the more computer training faculty members receive, the more confident they are with computers, and the less anxiety they experience while using them. This parallels Gilmore’s findings (1998) in his examination of 125 full-time faculty members from Texas Wesley University, as he concluded that computer- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 related training, knowledge, and skills constitute a major determinant of professors’ attitudes toward computer technology. Specifically, the research found professors who had received computer training to be less anxious, less apprehensive, and more confident and productive with computer technology. Furthermore, Oppenheimer (1999) suggests that those professors without prior knowledge and experience with computers show a lower level of confidence in integrating computer technology into their teaching process. This corroborates the main findings in the present study, which shows a significant, positive relationship between professors’ attitudes toward computers on the one hand, and their levels of confidence, liking, and perceived usefulness vis-a-vis computers on the other; this study also finds professors’ attitudes to be negatively related to their level of anxiety toward computers. By examining the means of the responses, this study concludes that professors at the University of Jordan had have high levels of confidence, liking, and perceived usefulness of computers, and low anxiety; thus, their generally positive attitude toward computers. Conclusions This study focused on students’ and professors’ attitudes toward computer technology at the University of Jordan. The following conclusions are drawn from its findings: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • The attitudes held by students and professors toward computers at the University of Jordan are generally positive and high. The data suggest that the majority of students and professors know the importance of computers in and outside of the University. • Professors without any access to computers have the most negative attitudes toward computers. Conversely, those with the greatest access to computers - both at home and in the office - have the most positive attitudes vis-a-vis computers, and score the highest on most of the CAS subscales. • There is a significant difference between the attitudes of male and female students toward computers. Male student participants show a more positive attitude toward computers than do their female counterparts. • There is no significant difference in student participants’ attitudes toward computers based on age. • Students' attitudes toward computers expressed in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety correlate significantly with levels of skills, knowledge, training, weekly use, and experience with computers. Students who use computers more frequently and have accumulated more than a year of experience with them show the most positive attitudes toward computers on all CAS subscales. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • Professors' attitudes toward computers as measured in terms of confidence, liking, perceived usefulness, and anxiety have a strong correlation with skills, knowledge, training, and computer experience levels. The more skills, knowledge, and experience professors have with computers, the lower their anxiety level when dealing with computers. In turn, professors’ computer- related levels of confidence, liking, and perceived usefulness have a significant and negative correlation with anxiety toward computers. Professors who use computers more frequently and have over a year of experience with them show the most positive attitudes toward computers on all CAS subscales. Recommendations fo r Future Study Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, and taking into account earlier studies, the following are recommended for future research studies at the University of Jordan: 1. It is recommended that further study be conducted to understand the impact of computers use on higher education. The present study offers a model and could be replicated. In future research, the concept of attitude toward the use of computer technology in the classroom should be broadened to ensure that it is accurately captured. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 2. Due to the limited number of subjects in the present study, it is suggested that further study be done that would include a larger sample both for students and professors - possibly drawn from several universities throughout the country - for a better assessment of their attitudes toward computers. Although not part of the present study, but based on professional knowledge and now an understanding of the technology use at the University of Jordan, the following recommendations are also made: 1. The university should develop a plan for an extensive and continued integration of computer technology in all its curricular programs. Such a plan would involve all levels of the administration, as well as faculty members. To ensure its success, the plan should be based on a vision shared by educators, parents, business and community leaders. This would enable students to apply new technologies in real life and provide them with the tools to succeed in the 21st century. Continued training for faculty members in the use of information technology tools, and centralized Web and multimedia hosting sites for the University, should be added. 2. Skills, knowledge, and experience with computer technology should be added to the criteria for hiring and promoting professors. 3. It is recommended that the University of Jordan maintain adequate Websites that would provide access to a catalogue and a class schedule. In addition, it should be demanded that instructors create Web pages for their courses, to provide Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 students with information on course materials, assignments, and grades. Moreover, full-time faculty should be easily reached by E-mail. 4. Finally, while the university has invested heavily to make a variety of online services available to students on campus, the ability to access such services from home, late at night, on weekends, or during holidays varies among students based on gender and socio-economic conditions. Further research is needed to assess the extent of this inequality and to recommend ways of closing gender and socio economic gaps in order to ensure equal off-campus access to online services to all students, and thereby enhance their attitude toward computer technology. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 REFERENCES Abbott, J. A., & Faris, S. E., (2000). Integrating technology into pre-service literacy instruction: A survey of elementary education student’s attitude toward computer. Journal o f Research on Computer in Education, 33, 149-161. Abd-Elfattah, S. M. (2005). The effect of prior experience with computers statistical self-efficacy and computer anxiety on students' achievement: An introductory statistics course: International Educational Journal, 5(5), 71-79. Academy for Educational Development (AED). (2004). Women & Information Technology (IT) in Jordan. Academic for Information Development Retrieve, January 14, 2004, from http://projects.aed.org/techequity/jordan2.htm. Ajzen, I., & Fishben, M. (1997). Attitude behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 845, 888-918. Al-Farra, F. (1988). The role of education technology in development of some elements of the school curriculum in the Arabian Gulf. Arbian Culf 23, 119- 147. Al-Ghamdi, A. A. (1982). Action research and the dynamics o f organizational endearment in the Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation of the graduate school. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Al-Jabri, I. M., & Al-Khaldi, M. A. (1997). Effects of user characteristics on computer attitudes among undergraduate business students. Journal o f End User Computing, 9(2), 16-22. Alkaldi, M. A, & Aljabri, T. M. (1998). The relationship of students to computer utilization: New evidence from developing nation. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(1), 23-42. Alsebail, A. (2004). The college o f education students' attitudes toward computer at King Saud University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, Athens, OH. AL-Tall, A. Y. (1979). Education in Jordan (1st ed.). Karachi-Pakistan: Pakistan PIDC Printing Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2001). Report o f the task force on technology. Washington, DC. American Library Association (ALA). (2005). Public library and the Internet. Office for Information Technology Policy. Retrieve March 2005, from http://www.librarysupportstaff.com/libjoum.html. Anderson, A. (1996). Predictors of computer anxiety and performance in information systems. Computer in Human Behavior, 12(1), 67-77. Anderson, L. E., & Casta-Falsa, J. (2002). Factors that make faculty and student relationships effective. College Teaching, 50(4), 134-139. Anderson, R. E., Hansen, T. P., Johnson, D. C., & Klassen, D. L (Eds.). (1979). Minnesota Computer Literacy Awareness Assessment. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Education Computing Consortium. Anderson, S., Harris, J. (1997). Factors associated with amount of use and benefits obtained by users of statewide educational computing network. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 19-50. Anderson. & Garrison, D. R. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Routlege/Falmer, New York. Andrews, W. E., &Andrewa, M. L. (2004). The scholarship o f teaching and learning in higher education. Bloomington, IN: University Press. Ajzen, I., & Fishben, M. (1997). Attitude behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 845, 888-918. Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT). (Project, 2002). The Impact o f computer technology on students' achievement's summary of Research findings on Technology's Impact in Classroom: Retrieved April 2002, from http://images.apple.com/education/research/pdf/EduResearchFSv2.pdf Arenz, B. W., & Milheon, J. L. (1990). Gender difference in the attitude, interest and participation o f secondary students in computer use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Arsham, H. (2002). Interactive education: The impact of the Internet on teaching and learning. Retrieved March 1, 2002 from http://ubmail.ubalt.edu/harsham/interactive.htm. Atkins, D. E., Duderstadt, J. J., & Houweling, D. V. (2002). Higher education in the digital age: Technology issues and strategies fo r American colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Praeger Publications. Ayersman, D, J. (1996). Effects of computer instruction, learning style, gender, and experience on computer anxiety. Computers in the schools, 24(15), 15-30. Bai, H., Chuvessiripom, S., & Lehman, J. (2001). Impact of P3T3 on faculty use of Web course tool. From http://p3t3.soe.purdue.edu/WebTool.pdf. Baker, B. O., Frisbie, A. G., & Patrick, K. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of distance education in light of the new telecommunications technologies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), 20-29. Bandura, A. (1977a). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social of foundations of thought and action. American Psychologists, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation (pp. 37-61). Dordercht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise o f control, New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review o f Psychology, 52, 1-26. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1993). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanism governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028. Baraba, S. A., Thomas, M. K., & Merrill, H. (2001). Online learning: Information dissemination to fostering collaboration. Journal o f Interactive Learning Research, 72(1),105. Bates, A.W., & Epper, A. (2000). Managing technological change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Bates, T., & Epper, R. M. (2001). Teaching faculty how to use technology: Best practice from leading institutions. The American Council on Education and The Oryx Press. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 94104. Bath, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundation fo r success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ben-Chaimn, D., & Zoller, U. (1996). Computer inclination of students and their teachers in the context of computer Literacy education. Journal o f Computers in Mathematics and Science, 75(4), 14-21. Bennett, C. K., & Bennerr, J. A. (1994). United we stand: A portrait of Technology and Technology un Rural America. In J. Willis, B. Robine & D.A. Wills (Eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual, pp. 725-729. Berkowitz, R. J., (2000). The effective o f in-service training on the technology: Practices and attitudes o f physical education teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertatioa The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Bernard, W. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 73(1), 1-22. Boling, N. C. (1996). Which method-individual learning, cooperative learning, or interactive multimedia-based enhances lecture-based distance education. Unpublished dissertation presented to Graduate School at Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Boser, R. A, Palmer, J. D, & Daugherty, M. K. (1998). Students attitudes toward technology in selected technology education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 4-18. Bradley, G. & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support and computer anxiety. Educational Psychology, 17, 267-284. Brosnan, M. J. (1998a). The impact of computer anxiety and self-efficacy upon performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(3), 223. Brosnan, M. J. (1998b). Technophobia: The psychological impact o f information technology. London: Routledge. Brosnan, M. J., & Lee, W. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in computer attitudes and anxiety: The UK and Hong Kong. Computer in Human Behavior, 14(4), 559-577. Brown, J. S. (2002). Learning in the digital age. In The Internet and the University: 2001 Forum. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Brown, S. W., Holcomb, L. B., Kulikowich, J. M., & Zheng, D. (2003). Raising educational technology self-efficacy through assessment. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Atlanta, GA, May 30th June 1st, 2003. Retrieved January 13th, 2005, from http://teachtech.education.uconn.edu/holcomb asp.pdf. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Occupational employment statistics survey. Retrieved April 11, 2003, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release.htm. Busch, T. H. (1995). Gender differences in self efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 12, 147-158. Campbell, N. J. (1989). Computer anxiety of rural, middle ,and secondary school students. Journal of Education Computing Research, 5, 213-222. Campbell, N. J., & Perry, L. (1989).Sax; and ethnic group differences in high school students, computer attitudes and computer attribution. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 Campbell, P., & McGab, G. (1984). Predicting the success of freshman in a computer science major Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 27(11) 1108-1113. Carlson, R .E., & Wright, D. G. (1993). Computer anxiety and communication apprehension: Relationship and introductory college course effects. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 9(3), 239-338. Champagne, P. J., & Mcafee, R. B. (1987). Organizational behavior: A manager's view. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Change Magazine. (1996). Teaching, learning, and technology round table progress: Important education use technology selective, control cost. Retrieved Spring, 1998, form www.changemazine.net/issuel996. Charles, M. & Bradley, K. (2005). A matter of degrees: Female under presentation in computer since program cross-nationally women and information technology: Research on reasons for under presentation. In J. M. Cohoon & W. C. Aspray (Eds.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. No page references since this is a pre publication copy. Chen, L. (1994). Digital multimedia instruction: Past, present, and future. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 23(2), 169-175. Chen, M. (1985). Gender differences in adolescents' uses of and attitudes toward computers. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 200-216). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Chen, M. (1986). Gender and computers: The beneficial effects of experience on attitudes. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 2, 265-282. Chen, K. (2001). Attitudes of Taiwanese nontraditional commercial institute students toward computers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, Vermillion. Christensen L., & Johnson, B. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allen & Bacon. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 Christensen, R. (1997). Effect o f technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and their students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Education. University of North Texas, Denton, TX. Chu, P.C., & Spiers, E. E. (1991). Validating the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale: Effects of cognitive style and computer courses on computer anxiety. Computer in Human Behavior, 7 7-21. Clark, K. D. (2000). Urban middle school teachers’ use of instructional technology evaluation comparison of online and classroom instruction fo r H E PE 129— Fitness and lifestyle management course Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 178-193. Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: EP Press. Clark, S. M. (1987). Is inequity cumulative? The relationship between disadvantaged group membership and students' computing experience, knowledge, attitudes and intentions. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 3( 4),16-45. Clement, F. J. (1981). Affective considerations in computer-based education. Educational Technology, 21, 28-32. Cole, R. A (2000). Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer.Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press. Colly, A, M. (2003). Gender differences in adolescents' receptions of the best and worst aspects of computing at school. Computers In Human Behavior, 19, 637-63-82. Colley, A. M., Gale, M. T., & Harris, T. A. (1994). Effects of gender role identity and experience on computer attitude components. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 10(2), 129-137. Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Zphi Delta Kappan, 73, 28-36. Collins, B. E., Kiesler, C. A., & Miller, N. (1969) Attitude change: A critical analysis o f theatrical approaches. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Collis, B. (1985). Sex-related differences in attitudes toward computers: Implications for counselors. The School Counsel, 33, 120-130. Collis, B. (1985). Sex-related differences in attitudes toward computers: Implications for counselors. The School Counsel, 33, 120-130. Compeau, D. R. & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory training for computer skill. Information Systems Research 6(2), 118-143. Cooper, J. L, & Nelson, L. J. (1997). Gender differences in children's reactions to success and failure with computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 73(12), 247-267. Cooper, L. W. (2001). A comparison of online and traditional computer applications classes. The Journal (Technology Horizons in Education), 23(8), 52. Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designing instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12-19. Comford, J., & Pollock, N. (2003). Putting the university online: Information, technology, and organizational change. Buckingham, SRHE/ Open University Press, Celtic Court, 22 Ballmoor, Buckingham, MK18. Craig, J. S. (1994). Managing computer-related anxiety and stress within organizations. Journal o f Educational Technology Systems, 22, 309-325. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience o f learning. London: Routledge. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused Computer in the classroom Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Darci J. H. (2001). Barriers to technology Integration in college o f education programs. Retrieved, September, 16, 2004, from http ://www. iloveteaching .com/kam 1 /barriers .htm. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Dede, C. (1989). The evolution o f distance learning technology-mediated interactive learning. Technologies for learning at a distance. (Science, Education and Transportation Program for the Office of Technology Assessment) Washington, DC: Congress of the United States. Delcourt, M. A. B., & Kinzie, M. B. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 35-41. Delcourt, M. A. B, & Kinzie, M. B. (1999). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 35-41. Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level school. Journal o f the Elementary School, 100(5), 475-488. Derlin, R. L., & Erazo, E. (1997). Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Di Benedetto, & April, O. (2005, June 29). Does technology influence teaching? practice in the classroom. Paper presented at the National Computing Conference Philadelphia. Retrieved, June 25, 2005, from http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/uploads/NECC2005/KEY 6820721/DiBened etto NECC Paper RP.pdf Donnel, V. (2004). The relationship between faculty and student attitudes toward computer technology in advanced arts classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University, Mufreesboro, TN. Dorman, S. M. (1998). Technology and the gender gap. Journal o f School Health, 68(A), 165-167. Downes, T. (1995). Children and electronic media: The home-school connection. In D. Tinsey & T. Van Weert (Eds.), liberating the learner (pp. 543-535). Proceeding of the World Conference on Computer in Education Birmingham UK. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 Dupagne, M., & Krendi, K. A. (1992). Teachers’ attitudes towards computers: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 42CM-29. Dumdell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 521-535. Dusick, D. M. (1998). What social factors influence faculty members' use of computers for teaching? A literature review. Journal o f Research on Computing Education, 3(20), 123-137. Dusick, D. M., & Yildirim, S. (2000). Faculty computer use and training: Identifying distinct needs for different populations. Community College Review, 27(4), 33-47. Dutton, W. H., & Loader, B. D. (2002). D igital academe: The new media and institutions o f higher education and learning. NY: Rutledge. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. I. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. Dyrli, O. E., & Kinnaman, D. E. (1995). Moving ahead educationally with multimedia. Technology and Learning, 15(1), 46-51. Eggins, H. (2003). Globalization and reform in higher education. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Ellington, P., & Race. (1995). Handbook o f Educational Technology. London: Kegan Page, Ltd. Enghagen, L. K. (1997). Technology and higher education. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Farawati, O. A. (1999, November 4). University of Jordan expand computer facilities aim to improve students it skills. Jordan Times. Retrieved August, 2004, from http://www.C:/Documentsandsetting/allusers/Documents/Universityofiordne xpandfacilities.aimtoimprovestudentsltskills.htm. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l Fey, M. H. (2001). Overcoming learning difficulties. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 77(40), 357-261. Fletcher, W. E., & Deed, J. P. (1995). Computer anxiety and other factors preventing use among United States secondary agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(20), 16-21. Francis-Pelton, L., & Pelton, T. W. (1996). Building attitudes: How a technology course affects preservice teachers’ attitudes about technology online available, www.math.bvu.edu/lfrancis/tim’s-page/attitudesite.html. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1991, April). Student motivation and self-regulated learning: A LISREL model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom. The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In J. Meece & D. Schunk (Eds.) Students’ perceptions in the classroom (pp. 127- 154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gamer, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1996). Internet communication in six classrooms: Conversation across time, space, and culture (pp. 127-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gillespie, K. H. (Ed.). (1998). New directions fo r teaching and learning: the impact of technology on faculty development, life and work. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers. Gilmore, E. L. (1998). Impact of training on the information technology attitudes of university faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton. Gilmore, E. L. (1999). Impact of training on the information technology attitudes of university faculty. [CD-ROM]. Abstract from: ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 9841421. Ginsburg, L. (1999). Educational technology: Searching for the value added. Adult Learning, 12, 122-133. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 Goodman, P. S. (2001). Technology enhanced learning: Opportunities for change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gordon, D. T. (2003). Better teaching and learning in the digital classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Gorry, G. A. (2003). Still this MP3 file. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(31), 20. Green, K. C. (1997). The 1997 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education. Retrieved November 1997, from.http://www.campuscomputing.net/ Green, K. C. (1998). Campus computing project. 1998. The ninth annual survey of desktop computing and information technology in higher education. The 1998 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education Campus Computing Project. Retrieved November 1998, from http://www.campuscomputing.net. Green, K. C. (1999). The 1999 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education. Retrieved October, 1999, from www.campuscomputing.net.Campus. Green, K. C. (2000). The 11th National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education. Retrieved October, 2000, from www.campuscomputing.net.Campus. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS fo r Windows and Macintosh- Analyzing and understanding data (3rd ed.). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Groves, M. & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57. Guihot, P. (2001). A difficult challenge, the integration of the Internet into the educational system. Educational Media International, 35(213), 133-139. Gulek, C. (2003). Preparing for high-stakes testing. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 42- 50. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.K. Kamil, P. T., Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 111 (pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 19-25. Haffman, D. L., & Novak, P. (2000). The evolution of the Digital divided: How gaps In internet access may impact electronic commerce. Journal o f Computer- Mediated-Communication, 5. Retrieved October 2, 2000, from the World Wide Web http://www.ascusc.org/icmc/vol5/issue3/hafman. html Halloran, J. D. (1967). Attitude formation and change. Great Britain: Leicester University Press. Hamdan, M. (2004). Minster o f higher education and scientific research. Amman Jordan: Investing in science. Retrieved July, 19, 2004, from http://www.lmu.edu/globaled/wwcu/background/io.rtf. Harmon, C. (2000). Using the Internet, online services, and CD-ROMs for writing research and term papers (2nd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman Publisher, Inc. Harris, S. (1999). Secondary school students' use of computers at home. British Journal o f Educational technology, 50(4), 331-339. Hazemi R., Hailes, S., & Wilbur, S.(Eds.). (1998). The digital university: Reinventing the academy. London: Spring-Verlage London Limited. Holt, D. T., & Crocker, M. (2000). Prior negative experiences: Their impact on computer training outcomes. Computers & Education, 35, 295-308. Hong, K. S. (2002a). Computer anxiety and attitudes toward computers among rural secondary school teachers: A Malaysian perspective. Journal o f Research on Technology in Education, 55(1), 27-48. Hong, K. S. (2002b). Relationships between students' and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a Web-based course. The Internet & Higher Education, 5(3) 267-281. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 Huang, H. M. (2002). Student perceptions in an online mediated environment. International Journal o f Instructional Media, 29(4), 405-423. Hunt, L., Eagle, L., & Kitchen, P. (2004). Balancing marketing education and information technology: Matching needs or needing a better match? Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 75-88. Hunt, N. P., & Bohlin, R. M. (1995). Events and practices that promote positive attitudes and emotions in computing courses. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education, 11(3), 21-23. Hyatt, S. K. (2003). The impact of information technology on pedagogy in higher education. Unpublished dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Prequest. ISBN#0-49632669-4. Igbaria, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1990) Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behavior and Information Technology, 9, 229-241. Innes, R. B. (2004).Reconstructing undergraduate education: Using learning science to design effective courses. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Irma, Y., & Schmida, M. (1998). The educational system of Israel. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Iwata, E. (2000, May 10) Despite the hype, B2B marketplaces struggle's Today, pp. 27-28. Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001). Gender and the Internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44, 363-379. Jochems, W., Merrienboer, J. V., & Koper, R. (2004). Integrated E-leaming: Implications for pedagogy, technology and organization. New York: Rutledge Flamer. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Leaning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook o f research fo r educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 Jones, S. (2002). The Internet and American life project. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from http://www.pewinternet.org. Jorie, M. (2002). Computer assisted writing instruction. ERIC Digest. Eric Identifier: ED376474. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.eric.edu.gov. Kadijevich, D. (2000). Gender differences in computer attitudes among ninth-grade students. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 22(2), 145-154. Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996).Constructivism in Practice: Designing thinking, and learning in digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kay, R. (1999). Understanding gender differences in computer attitudes, aptitude and use: An innovation to computers. The Computer Attitude Measure (CAM), Computer in Human Behavior, 9, 31-386. Kaye, P. (1999). A comparison of attitudes toward computer use of preservice and service teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association 24, 17-19. Kazlauskas, E. J. (1995, March 22-23). Innovation, information, and teacher education. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1995. Sixth International Conference o f the Society fo r Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), San Antonio, TX. Kearsley, G., Hunter, B., & Furlong, M. (1992). We teach with technology: New visions fo r education. Wilsonville, OR: Franklin, Beedle, & Associates. Kepner, H. S. (1982, 1986) Computers in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York: National Education Association of the United States. Kessell, S. (1999). Innovation and best practice project: Evaluation o f the Personal Laptop Program at Penrhos College. Perth, Western Australia: Penrhos College. King, R. (2004). The university in the global age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Kirkman, C. (1993). Computer experience and attitudes of 12-year old students: Implications for the UK national curriculum. Journal o f Computing Assisted Learning, 9, 51-62. Kluever, R., Lam, T., Haffman, E., Green, K., & Swearing, D. (1994). The computer attitude scale: Assessing changes in teachers' attitudes toward computers. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 11(3), 215-261. Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online. A Practical Guide. Boston, MA: Mifflin Company. Kommers, P. A. M., Jonassen, D. H., & Mayes, J. T. (1992). Cognitive tools for learning. New York: Springer-Verlag. Koszalka, T. A. (2001). Effect of computer-mediated communications on teachers' attitudes toward using web resources in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(9), 95-103. Krueger, K., Hansen, L., & Smaldino, S. E. (2000). Preservice teacher technology competencies: Tec trends. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 47-50. Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer based instruction. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O’Neil, (Eds). Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9-33).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kurt, P. (2001). Electronic perspective teacher discussion forum. Teacher Education Department, Red River College. Retrieved July, 30, 2001, from http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/proctor/Online%20Forurn%20Proiect.PDF. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D.P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M. E. et al. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers College Press. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M. E. et al. (2002). The Constructivist Leader. (2nd Ed.). New York .Teachers College press, Columbia University. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Leite, P. (2000). Gender and anxiety levels in introductory computer courses. Journal o f Educational Computing, Design & Online Learning, 1, 1-5. Lenhart, A. (2001). The Internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet and American life project. Retrieved May 15, 2003, from http ://ww w. pewinternet. or g. Lenhart, A. (2003). The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Washington, DC: PEW Internet and American. Levin, T. & Gordon, C. (1989). Effect of gender and computer experience on attitude toward computers. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 69-88. Liao, Y. C. (1999). Gender Differences on Attitude toward Computer: A Meta-Analysis. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. San Antonio TX: ERIC ED 432 287, 1999. Liu, M. & Reed, W.M. (1992). Teacher education students and computer: gender major, prior computer experience, occurrence, and anxiety: Journal o f Research on Computers in Education, 24, 457-468. Lonergan, D. (1997). Network science: Bats, birds, and trees. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 34-36. Los Angeles County Board of Education. (2005), from: http://www.lacoe.edu Loyd, B. H. & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 501- 505. Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C.P. (1984a). Reliability and validity of an instrument for the assessment of computer attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement 45, 501-505. Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984b). The effects of sex, age, and computer experience on computer attitudes. AEDS Journal, 18(4), 61-11 scales. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1986). Gender and amount of computer experience teachers in staff development programs: The effects of computer attitudes and perceptions of computer usefulness of computers. .Associations of Educational Data Systems Journal, 18(A), 302-311. Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1996). Computer attitude scale. Journal of Computing Research, 15(3), 241-259. Loyd, B. H. &. Loyd, D. E. (1985). The reliability and validity of an instrument for the assessment of computer attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 903-908. Loyd, B. H, & Loyd, D. E. (1988). Computer attitudes: Differences by gender and amount of computer experience. Paper presented to the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Loyd, B. H., Loyd, D. E., & Gressard, C. P. (1986). Computer attitudes: Differing perspectives by gender and amount of computer experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco. Lumumba, N. T. (2004). Cyberspace, distance learning, and higher education in developing countries: Old and emergent issues of access, pedagogy, and knowledge production Koninklijke.Brill,Nv,Leiden.The Netherlands, Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Marcoulides, G. A. (1988). The relationship between computers anxiety & computer achievement. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 4, 151-158. Marra, R. M. (1999). Undergraduate education students’ perspectives on classroom technologies: A qualitative analysis. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 21, 283-303. Martin, R. (1991). Children's attitude towards computers as a function of gender, course subjects, and availability of home computers. Journal o f Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 187-194. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Martinez, M. E., & Mead, N. A. (1988). Computer competence: The first national assessment (Report No. ETS-17-CC-01). Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. (ED 341 375). Massoud, S. L. (1991). Computer attitude and computer knowledge of adult students. Journal o f Education Computing Research, 7, 269-291. Maurer, M. M. (1994). Computer anxiety correlates and what they tell us: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 369-376. McFarlan, T. A, Hoffman, & Green, K. E. (1997, March 24-28). Teachers’ attitudes toward technology: Psychometric evolution o f technology attitude survey. Paper presented to the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 411279. Retrieved March 28, 1997, from http: //searchERIC. or g/ericdb/ed411279.htm. Mclnemey, V., Mclnemey, D. M., & Sinclair, K E. (1994). Students teachers, computer anxiety and computer experience. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 77(1) 27-50. McKnnon, D. H., Nolan, C. J., & Sinclair, K. E. (2000). A longitudinal study of students' attitudes toward computers: Resolving an attitude decay paradox. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 325-335. McPhee, S. A. (2003, July 9). The challenges o f integrating technology in the core academic mission. Paper presented at the Oxford Round Table, Oxford, England. Mehlinger, H. D. (1995). School reform in the informationage: Center fo r excellence in education (CEE) Indiana University. Bloomington, IN: Wendell W. Wright Education Bikinding. Mehlinger, H. D., & Powers, S. M. (2002). Technology & teacher education: A guide fo r educators and policymakers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Milbrath, Y., L., & Kinzie, M. B. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 373. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Miller, P. F. (1992). Computers in education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Mitra, A., & Steffensmeier, T. (2000). Changes in student attitudes and student computer use in a computer-enriched environment. Journal o f Research on Technology in Education, 32(30), 417-433. Miura, I. T. (1987). The relationship of computer self-efficacy expectations to computer interest and course enrollment in college. Sex Roles, 16, 303-311. Morris, D. C. (1989). A survey of age and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Technology System, 17, 73-78. Moursund, D., & Bielefedldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Santa Monica: A Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Mueller, R.O., Husband, O.H., Christou, C., Sun. A., 1991. Preservice Teacher Attitudes Towards Computer Technology: A Log-Linear Analysis. Mid-West Educational Researcher 4(2), 23-27 NACAC, National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2001, August) American Demographics. “Indicators: Impending Retirement,” American Demographics, p. 24. Nash, J. B., & Moroz., P. (1997, January 23-25). Computer attitudes among professional educators: The role of gender and experience. Paper presented at the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX. Nasser, H. E. (2000, January 13). Census predicts ethnic face of the nation in 100 years. USA Today, p. 3A. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999).Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, D.C: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved September, 2003, from, http://nces.edu.gov/pubs2000/200102A National Center for Education Statistic (WCES). (2000). Teachers, tools fo r the 21st Century. Retrieved September, 2003, from http://nces.edu.gov/pubs2000/2Q0102A.pdf. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1999). Status o f education reform in public and secondary schools: teachers' perspectives. Publication number 1999045. Retrieved February 8, 2003, from htpp://nees.edu.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? National Center for Educational Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development. Washington, DC: Author. National educational technology standards fo r students: Connecting curriculum and technology. (2000). Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education. Necessary, J. R., & Parish, T. S. (1996). The relationships between computer usage and computer-related behaviors. Education, 116(3), 384-387. Nelson, C. S., & Watson, J. A. (1990). The computer gender gap: Children's attitudes, performance, and socialization. Journal o f Educational Technology Systems, 19(4), 345-353. Nelson, L., J., & Cooper, J. (1997). Gender differences in children's reactions to success and failure with computers. Computer in Human Behavior, 13(2), 247-267. Newburger, E. C. (2000). Home computers and Internet use in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ogozalek, V.Z. (1989). A comparison of male and female computer science students' attitudes toward computers. SIGCSE Bulletin, 21, 8-14. Oliver, K. & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of Web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem-solving. Journal o f Educational Research, 94(2), 75. Oppenheimer, T. (1999). The computer delusion. In D. Fallon (Ed.), Technology and society: Perspectives (pp. 69-81). Madison, WI: Course wise. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Orr, C., Allen, D., & Poindexter, S. (2001). The effect of individual differences on computer attitudes. Journal o f End User Computing, 13(2), 26. Oula, A.F . ( 2001). Report cites minimal penetration of IT in higher education system. Jordan Times. Retrieved December 24, 2001, from http://www.iordanembassvus.org/12242001004.htm. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology 20(4), 426-443. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203. Paris, S. G, & Winograd, P. (2001). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. A commissioned paper for the U.S. Department of Education Project. Preparing teachers to use contextual teaching and learning strategies to improve student success in and beyond school. Retrieved 01-03, from http://www.ciera.org/librarv/archive/2001 -04/0104parwin.htm. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of goal orientation in self-regulation learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook o f self-regulation: Theory research and application (pp. 452-502). San-Diego: Academic. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predicative validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813. Pintrich, P. R., (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 92, 544-555. Pittinsky, M. S. (2003). The wired tower: Perspectives on the impact of the Internet on higher education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pondixter, S. (2003a). Assessing active alternative for teaching programming. Journal o f Information Technology, 2, 257-266. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Poindexter, S. (2003b). The case for holistic learning. Change, 35(1), 24-31. Pope-Davis, D. B., & Twing, J. S. (1991). The effects of age, gender, and experience on measuring of attitude regarding computers. Computer in Human Behavior, 7, 333-339. Popovich, P. M., Hyde, K. R., & Zakrajsek, T. (1987). The development of the attitudes toward computer usage scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(1), 261-269. Raizen, S. A., Sellwood, P., Todd, R. D., & Vickers, M. (1995).Technology education in classroom: Understanding the designed world. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Reddy, G. R. (1994). Open universities: The new temples of learning. In K. M. John & D. Keegan, (Eds.), Distance education: New perspectives (p. 239). London: Routledge. Reed, W. M., & Overbaugh, R. C. (1993). The effects of prior experience and instructional format on teacher education students' computer anxiety and performance. Computers in Schools, 9(2/3), 75-89. Reinking, D., Mckenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transforming a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reynolds, D., Trechme, D., & Tripp, H. (2003). ICT-the hopes and the reality. British Journal o f Educational Technology, 34(2), 151-167. Rheingold, H. (1990). An interview with Don Norman. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 5-10). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Ropp, M. M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in preservice teacher preparation. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402-423. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 Rosen, L. D., & Weil, M. M. (1995). Computer experience and technophobia among public school teachers. Computer in Human Behavior, 77(1), 9-31. Rosen, L. D., & Weil, M. M. (1996). Psychologists and technology: A look at the future. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 27, 635-638. Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Sanders, D. W., & Shetlar, M.A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 251-262. Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Schacter, J. (2001). The impact o f education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Schaumburg, H. (2001). The impact of mobile computers in the classroom—results from an ongoing video study. Germany, pp. 1-2,7. Schofield, J. W. &, Davidson, A. L. (2002). Bringing the Internet to school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schumacher, J., & Morahan-Martin, j. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computer in Human Behavior, 17(1), 95-110. Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 25, 71-86. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 207-231. Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning Theories (4th Ed.): An Educational Perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 Schunk, D. H & Zimmerman. J. (Eds.), (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Selwyn, N. (1997). Students' attitudes toward computers: Validation of computer attitude scale for 16-19 education. Computer and Education, 28, 35-41. Selwyn, N. (1998). The effect of using home computer on students' educational use of IT. Computer and Education, 31, 211-227. Selwyn, N. (1999). Students' attitudes towards computers in sixteen to nineteen education. Education and Information Technologies, 4(2), 129-141. Shank, P. & Sitze, A. (2004). Making sense o f Online learning: A guide fo r beginners and the truly skeptical. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Sharma, C. B. (2001). Globalizing education in an unequal world. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 10(3), 309-317. Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal o f Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37-51. Shaw, K. E. (1997). Higher education in the Gulf: Problems and prospects. University of Exeter Press Reed Hall, Streatham Drive, Exeter EX4 4QR, UK. Sherman, L. (1998, Spring). The promise of technology. Northwest Education Magazine. Retrieved spring, 1998, from http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/spring 98/article2.html. Smith, B. N., & Necessary, J. R. (1996). Assessing the computer literacy of undergraduate college students. Education, 117(2), 188-193. Solomon, M. B. (1994). What's wrong with multimedia in higher education? Journal of the Technological Horizons in Education, 21(J), 81-84. SPSS. (Version 11.0). (2001). (Computer software). Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. Star, S. L. (1995). The cultures o f computing. Cambridge, MA. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 Stefanou, C. R., & Salisbury-Glennon, J. D. (2002). Developing motivation and cognitive learning strategies through undergraduate learning community. Learning Environments Research, 5 ,11-91. Stone, C. N. (1998). Introduction: Urban education in political context in changing urban education. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, pp. 1-22. Strassma, P. A. (1997). The squandered computer: Evaluation the business alignment o f information technologies. New Canaan, CT: Information Economic Press. Sudzina, M. R. (1997). Case Study as a constructivist pedagogy for teaching educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 9(2), 199-203. Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review o f Educational Research, 57(4), 475-503. Taghavi, S. E. (2001). Evaluation of college students' attitudes towards computers before and after taking a computer literacy course Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02), 541. UMI No. 3005604. Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The rise o f the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise o f the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Thomas, L., & Knezek, D. (1999). National educational technology standards, Educational Leadership, 56(5), 27. Thorsen, C. D., & Barr, R. D. (1997). Computer competencies for teacher educators. In J. D. Price, K. Rosa, S. McNeil, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual (CD-ROM). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advance of Computer Technology. Tileston, D. W. (2004). What every teacher should know about instructional planning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crowing Press. Tsai, C. C. (2004). Adolescents' perceptions toward the Internet: A framework Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7, 465-470. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence. Why women fear the intimate machine. In C. Kramarae (Ed.) Technology and women's voices: keeping in touch (pp. 41-61). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. (2003). Internet report: Surveying the digital future year three. Los Angeles: Author. Underwood, J. D. M., & Underwood, G. (1990). Computers and learning: Helping children acquire thinking skills. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc. University of Jordan: Amman Jordan Online Available: This site is fo r the University o f Jordan. It is the first state-run educational institution o f higher education in Jordan, serving the cause o f education, research and community service. http://www.iust.edu.jo/). U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. (2000). Home computers and Internet use in the United States: Washington, DC 20233. U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. (2003). Computer access at home and school and among children 6-17 years old by family, income, race, and Hispanic origins. Washington, DC 20233. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Internet access in public schools and classrooms: 1994-1998. Issue Brief (NCES 1999-017). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor. (2003). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://www.bls.gov/epm/empfastestind.htm. U.S. Department of Labor. (2004). Bureau of Labor Statistics: Hours and Earnings. Retrieved, October, 2004, from http://ftp.bls.gov/pup/support/empsit.ceseebls.txt. University of Jordan: Amman Jordan. University o f Science and Technology. Retrieved. September, 2005, from http://www.iust.edu.io/ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 Vakalis, M. P. (1991). Attitudes of faculty towards computing: an investigation and analysis of related variables. In Proceedings o f the 19th Annual Conference on Computer Science (San Antonio, Texas, United States). CSC '91. ACM Press, New York, NY, 694. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/327164.328861 Vlosky, R. P., & Wilson, D. T. (2004). Technology in the classroom: Teaching business marketing in the Twenty-First Century. In J. D. Lichtenthal (Ed.). Fundamentals o f Business Marketing Education, pp. 159-177. New York: Best Business Books. Vagle, R., & College, D. (1995). Technology instruction for preservice teachers: An examination of exemplary programs. In D. Willis & J. W. Verity (Eds.), (1994, May 18). The Information Revolution, Business Week, pp. 10-18. Verity, J.W. (1994, May 18). The Information Revolution, Business Week, pp. 10-18. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3-7). NY: Teacher College Press. Watson, D., & Tinsley, D. (1995). Integrating information technology into education. London Chapman & Hall. Weir, S. (1992). Electronic communities of learners: Fact or fiction. In R.Tinker & P.Kapisovsky (Eds), Prospects for Education Telecommuting. Selected Reading (pp. 87-110). Cambridge, MA, Technology Education Research Center. Weil, M. M. & Rosen, L. D. (1995) The psychological impact of technology from a global perspective: a study of technological sophistication and technophobia in university students from twenty-three countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 7/(1), 95-133. West, G. R. (1994).Teaching and learning adaptations in the use of interactive compressed video. Journal of American o f Distance Education, 77(1), 55-69. West, G. B. (1999). Teaching and technology in higher education: Changes and challenges. Adult Learning, 72(21), 27-29. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 Whitley, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: Meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1-22. Wilder, G., Mackie, D., & Cooper, J. (1985). Gender and computers: Two surveys of computer-related attitudes. Sex Roles, 13(3/4), 215-228. Williams, S., Ogletree, S., Woodbum, W. & Raffled, P. (1993). Gender roles, computer attitude interaction performance in college students: Sex Roles, 29(7/8), 515-525 Williams, V. (1998). Conceptual and practical issues in school leadership. Insights and innovations from the U.S. and abroad. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Willis, E. M. (1995). What if we teach integration, not computer? from http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec pub/htmll995/098.htm. Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 63-80). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Wilson, C. (1995). Issues in instructional design related to computer technology implementation in the classroom. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 61(3), 5-9. Wilson, J., & Mosher, D. (1994, Summer). The prototype of the virtual studio classroom. Journal o f Instruction Delivery Systems, S(3), 28-33. Winnas, C., & Brown, D. S. (1992). Some factors affecting elementary teachers use of the computer. Computers Education, 18, 301-309. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-188. Winne, P., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook o f self-regulation (pp. 532- 566). San Diego, CA: Academic press. Wolfe, C. R. (2000). Learning and teaching on the World Wide Web. San Diego: Academic Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 Woodrow, J. E. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude scales, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 165-187. Woodrow, J. E. (1992). A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 165-187. World Bank. (2000). World Bank approved loan to Jordan higher education development. Press Release No: 2000/233/MN. Retrieved, February, 29, 2000. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/. World Development Statistical Report. (2000). Jordan case study, development and data statistical. Retrieved February, 2004, from http://proiects.aed.org/techequitv/Jordan2.htm. World Economic Forum. (2005). Global digital divide initiative, National educational strategies for ICT pilot initiative: Jordan prepared by the members of the steering committee on education world links (nog).Retrieved August, 2005, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/DigitalDivide/Jordan Country Report 10902.P df. Yaghi, H. M. (1997). Pre-university students' attitudes toward computers: An international perspective. Educational Computing Research, 16, 237-249. Yang, Y. C. (1993). The effects of self-regulatory skills and type of instructional control on learning from computer-based instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 20(3), 225-241. Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and in- service teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 479-495. Yildirim, S., & Kiraz, E. (1999). Obstacles to integrating online communication tools into preservice teacher education: A case study. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education, 15(3), 23-28. Young, B. (2000). Gender differences in students attitudes toward computers. Journal o f Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204-217. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 Young, J. R. (1997). Invasion of the laptops: More college adopt mandatory computer in programs. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(15), A33-A-35. Zammit, S. A. (1992). Factors facilitating or hindering the use of computer in schools. Educational Research, 34, 57-66. Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Development of self regulated Learning: Which are the key sub-processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 307-313. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989a). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 329-339. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989b).Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1- 25). New York: Springer-Verlag. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990a). Self-regulated academic learning and achievement: The emergency of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173-201. Zimmerman. B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education.In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, Lawrence, NJ: Erlbaum. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook o f self regulation (pp. 13-390). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A Sample of Questionnaire permission letter to use The Computer Attitude Scale University of Southern California Rossier School of Education Los Angels, CA 90089-00311 (213)740-2311 Subject: Computer Attitude Scale. Dear Dr. Loyd: I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am writing to request your permission to use the computer attitude scale (CAS) at the instrument to measure students and professors attitudes toward computer technology at the classroom at the University of Jordan located at the capital city of Amman. I would be more than happy to forward the results of this study to you if they can be any of assistance to your research offers. If wish, you may add this information to your database. I look forward to getting your permission as soon as possible. Sincerely, Waleed Eyadat 20917 Amie Avenue Torrance, CA 90503 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Appendix B Permission letter to use The Computer Attitude Scale ► Doug Loyd <del6n<S'cms.mail,vtrgint».edu:s«: : Thursday, August 11,2005 11:13 am waleed eyadat «weyadat@ use, edu> Loyd/Gressard Computer Attitude Scale Suryey.doc Waleed, Thank you for your inquiry about the Computer Attitude Scale. As you may know, Brenda Loyd, author of the CAS, was President of the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) at the time of her death in 1995. Dr. Loyd's co-author, Clarice Gressard, has asked me to handle all requests for permission to use their survey, and to provide the CAS survey and scoring protocol to researchers who wish to use their scale. Therefore, in response to your inquiry, I am attaching a copy of the Loyd/Gressard survey of attitudes towards computers, in an MSWord document (survey.doc). If you have any problem reading it please let me know. Unfortunately I have no further information about the use of the CAS beyond that provided in this message and the attached document. The survey is scored according to the following: For questions 1,3,4, 6, 9, II, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19,22, 25,27,28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38 (Strongly Agree=4, Slightly Agree=3, Slightly Disagree=2, Strongly Disagree=l). For questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21,23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40 (Strongly Agree=l, Slightly Agree=2, Slightly Disagree=3, Strongly Disagree=4). The questions are coded so that the higher the score, the more positive the attitude. Four subscores can also be obtained from the questions. Anxiety: 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37 Confidence: 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38 Liking: 3,7, 11, 15, 19,23,27,31,35,39 Usefulness: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24,28, 32, 36,40 15K Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Again, higher scores correspond to more positive attitude, e.g., a higher confidence score means more confidence and a higher anxiety score means less anxiety. Permission is granted for use of this scale. In any publications arising from its use, please be sure to credit the authors, Brenda H. Loyd and Clarice P. Gressard. Thanks for your interest. Best wishes. -Doug Loyd Attachment: Survey.doc (MSWord)- Doug Loyd LSP Survey Project (434-924-0629) fTC Departmental Computing Support Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 Appendix C Letter to the President of the University of Jordan Permission to conduct a research study at the University of Jordan. September 1st, 2005 Dr. Al-Henatty President o f the University of Jordan Amman, Jordan Subject: Permission to conduct a research study at the University of Jordan. Dear Dr. Al-Henatty I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, United States. I am writing to request your permission and support for a study that I intend to conduct in your highly respected institution. The results of this research project will be the centerpiece o f my dissertation, which I will submit in fulfillment o f the requirements for the completion of my doctoral degree in Educational Technology. The aim o f my dissertation is to explore and investigate students' and professors’ attitudes toward the use o f computer technology in the classroom at the University o f Jordan. More specifically, both the survey and the interview parts o f my project were designed to investigate how the use o f computer technology in the classroom impacts on students’ and professors’ attitudes, and whether or not the use of computer-based technology improves the educational process. This study is expected to provide instructors and administrators at the University o f Jordan with a valuable insight with regard to their efforts to integrate technology into their teaching and learning processes. It will attempt to identify ways and methods for improving the educational process and thereby enhancing the educational system at the University o f Jordan. For the above purposes, I hereby request your permission and support. I thank you beforehand, and I am looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Waleed Eyadat, Doctoral candidate Rossier School o f Education University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-00311 U.S.A. (213) 740-2311 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D Permission letter to conduct the study at the University of Jordan R eference is m ad# to the letter regarding M r. Wnlid tym&at w ish u» conduct the study Bahth” at the University o f Jordan, W c w o u ld like to inform you that the University' o f Jordan agrees on conducting this study at the University o f Jordan. B est Regards. 06 / 88/3 8 0 0 1 8 :0 / 862 - 2-6352548 ____ ___ JW Re.SM OTHRHEHEHNSXV RASE 02 I flM f IBM roaVBKSITY OF jOHDAf Vkx-Fw»*l4*n» for Academic A thin T o whom it m ay concern Greetings. VltflfFfgBtiSghf’W irf Aeodlwnic Affairs Professor Nobs! Shawagfeh Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 Appendix E Sample of Letter to Professor Participants University of Southern California Rossier School of Education Los Angels, CA 90089-00311 (213)740-2311 July 20, 2005 Dear Faculty Member: I am conducting my dissertation research on computer technology in the University of Jordan. In higher education. The results o f this study will be submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the completion o f a doctorate degree. The purpose of this study is to explore and investigate students' and professors’ attitudes toward the use o f computer technology in the classroom at the University o f Jordan, in the capital city of Amman. More specifically, the study was designed to investigate how the use o f computer technology in the classroom impact students’ and professors’ attitudes, and whether the use of computer based technology is positively improving the educational process or not. This study is expected to provide insight to instructions and administrators at the University of Jordan in their efforts to integrate technology into their teaching and learning processes. It hopes to identify ways and methods to improve the educational process and enhance the educational system in the University o f Jordan. Therefore, your input represents a crucial step in this process. The survey is composed of tow main sections. The first section represents your general information while the second section represents your attitude toward computers. Your participation in this survey is voluntary you may withdraw at any time without consequences o f any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential. .When you complete your survey returned it to Dr. Zaid Eyadat. Thank you for taking the time to consider my study. Sincerely, Waleed Eyadat Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 Appendix F Sample of Letter to Student Participants University o f Southern California Rossier School o f Education Los Angels, CA 90089-00311 (213) 740-2311 July 20, 2005 Dear Students: This survey is a dissertation research study on computer technology in the University of Jordan in higher education. Technology is an increasingly important aspect o f the educational process. The better we understand how students interact with technology in the classroom, the better we can design curricula to ensure that students will become competitive at school and in the marketplace. Your input represents a crucial step in this process. The survey is composed of tow main sections. The first section represents your general information while the second section represents your attitude toward computers. Your participation in this survey is voluntary you may withdraw at any time without consequences o f any kind. You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential .When you complete your survey returned it to the instructor Thank you for taking the time to consider my study. Sincerely, Waleed Eyadat Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 Appendix G Student's Survey of Attitudes toward Learning about and Working with Computers STUDENT'S SURVEY OF ATTITUDES TOWARD LEARNING ABOUT AND WORKING W ITH COMPUTERS The purpose o f this survey is to gather information concerning people’s attitudes toward learning about and working with computers. It should take about five minutes to complete this survey. All responses are kept confidential. Please return the survey to your instructor when you are finished. Please check the blank which applies to you. 1. Age: □ 22 or less □ 23-25 □ 26-30 □ 31-35 □ 36-40 □ 41-45 □ 46-50 □ 51-55 □ 55+ 2. College level completed: □ 1st year □ 2nd year □ 3rd year □ 4th year □ Bachelors □ Masters □ Doctorate 3. Major area o f study:_____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Sex: □ Male □ Female 5. What is your GPA?_____________ 6. Experience with learning about or working with computers: □ 1 week or less □ 1 week to 1 month □ 1 month to 6 months □ 6 months to 1 year □ 1 year or more Briefly state the type of computer experience: 7. Do you have computer at home? Yes No Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 8. How many years have you been using a computer at home? Less than 1 year 1 year More than 1 year 9. Currently I used the computer at home or a computer outside of school for the following tasks, (please mark an X in the correct boxes). Never 0 time Occasionally 1 time Monthly 2 time Weekly 3 times Every 2-3 days Daily World Processing E-mail Internet Spreadsheet Games/ Entertainment Art/drawing Programming Others 10. Do you have access to a computer at your school? Yes No 11. Currently I used the computer at school for the following tasks (Please mark an X in the correct answer). Word processing ( ) Database/spreadsheet ( ) Computer simulation ( ) Internet surfing ( ) E-mail ( ) Others ( ) 12. Currently I used the computers approximately: Hours per week in the classroom 13. At the beginning of this school year, I used computer approximately. Hours per week in the classroom. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 14. If you do use computers, what type of training have you received? (Rank order all that apply). No training. Basic computer literacy (how to run programs). _______ Computer applications (Word-processing, Spreadsheets, etc.). _______ Computer integration (how to use in the classroom curriculum). CO M PUTER A TTITUD E SCALE Below are a series o f statements. There are no correct answers to these statements. They are designed to perm it you to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the ideas expressed. Place a checkmark in the space under the label which is closest to your agreement or disagreem ent with the statements. 1. Computers do not scare me at all. 2. I’m no good with computers. 3. I would like working with computers. 4. I will use computers many ways in my life 5. Working with a computer would make me very nervous. 6. Generally, I would feel OK about trying a new problem on the computer. 7. The challenge o f solving problems with computers does not appeal to me. 8. Learning about computers is a waste o f time. 9. I do not feel threatened when others talk about computers. 10. I don’t think I would do advanced computer work. 11. I think working with computers would be enjoyable and stimulating. 12. Learning about computers is worthwhile. 13. I feel aggressive and hostile toward computers. 14. I am sure I could do work with computers. 15. Figuring out computer problems does not appeal to me. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 16. I’ll need a firm mastery o f computers for my future work. 17. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take computer courses. 18. I’m not the type to do well with computers. 19. When there is a problem with a computer run. that I can’t immediately solve, I would stick, with it until I have the answer. 20. I expect to have little use for computers . in my daily life. 21. Computers make me feel uncomfortable. 22. I am sure I could learn a computer language. 23. I don’t understand how some people can . spend so much time working with computers, and seem to enjoy it. 24. I can’t think o f any way that I will use computers, in my career. 25. I would feel at ease in a computer class. 26. I think using a computer would be very hard for me. 27. Once I start to work with the computer, I would find it hard to stop. 28. Knowing how to work with computers will increase my job possibilities. 29. I get a sinking feeling when I think of trying to use a computer. 30. I could get good grades in computer courses. 31. I will do as little work with computers as possible. 32. Anything that a computer can be used for, I can do just as well some other way. 33. I would feel comfortable working with a computer. 34. I do not think I could handle a computer course. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35. If a problem is left unsolved in a computer class, I would continue to think about it afterward. 36. It is important to me to do well in computer classes. 37. Computers make me feel uneasy and confused. 38. I have a lot o f self-confidence when it comes to working with computers. 39. I do not enjoy talking with others about computers. 40. Working with computers will not be important to me in my life’s work. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix H Survey on Professors' Attitudes toward Computers Please check the blank which applies to you. Age:_____ 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ S ex:_____ Male Female Please mark an X next to the answer that is most accurate, for the following questions: 1. How long have you been teaching? 0-1 year 1-5 years 5-10 Years 10-15 years 15+ years 2. How would you rate your experience with computers? (Check all that apply). 1 week or less 1 week to 1 month 1 month to 6 months 6 months to 1 year more than 1 year 3. Do you have a computer at home? Yes No 4. If yes, how long have you been using a computer at home? (If no, skip to question 5) Less than 1 year 1 year More than 1 year Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 5. Currently, for which tasks do you use a computer at home or any other place outside o f the school? (Please, mark an X in all the boxes that apply). Never Occasionally Monthly Weekly Every 2-4 days Daily Word processing E-mail Internet Spreadsheets Games/ Entertainment Arts/Drawing Programming Others 6. Do you have access to a computer at your school? Yes No 7. Currently, for which tasks do you use a computer at school? (Please mark an X in all the boxes that apply). Word processing ( ) Database/Spreadsheets ( ) Computer simulations ( ) Internet surfing ( ) E-mail ( ) Instructions in the classroom ( ) Others ( ) 8. Currently, you use the computer in the classroom approximately Hours per week. 9. At the beginning o f this school year, you were using the computer in the classroom approximately Hours per week. 10. If you do use computers, what type o f computer training have you received? (Check all that apply) ________ No training. ________ Basic computer literacy (how to run programs). ________Computer applications (Word-processing, Spreadsheets, etc.). ________Computer integration (the use o f computers in the classroom/curriculum). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 11. Where did you receive your training? (Check all that apply) Self-taught. At the University. Others. COMPUTER ATTITUDE SCALE Below are a series o f statements. There are no correct answers to these statements. They are designed to perm it you to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the ideas expressed. Place a checkmark in the space under the label which is closest to your agreement or disagreem ent with the statements. 1. Computers do not scare me at all. 2. I’m no good with computers. 3. I would like working with computers. 4. I will use computers many ways in my life 5. Working with a computer would make me very nervous. 6. Generally, I would feel OK about trying a new problem on the computer. 7. The challenge o f solving problems with computers does not appeal to me. 8. Learning about computers is a waste o f time. 9. I do not feel threatened when others talk about computers. 10. I don’t think I would do advanced computer work. 11. I think working with computers would be enjoyable and stimulating. 12. Learning about computers is worthwhile. 13. I feel aggressive and hostile toward computers. 14. I am sure I could do work with computers. 15. Figuring out computer problems does not appeal to me. 16. I’ll need a firm mastery of computers for my future work. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17. It wouldn’t bother me at all to take computer courses. 18. I’m not the type to do well with computers. 19. When there is a problem with a computer run. that I can’t immediately solve, I would stick, with it until I have the answer. 20. I expect to have little use for computers . in my daily life. 21. Computers make me feel uncomfortable. 22. I am sure I could learn a computer language. 23. I don’t understand how some people can . spend so much time working with computers, and seem to enjoy it. 24. I can’t think o f any way that I will use computers, in my career. 25. I would feel at ease in a computer class. 26. I think using a computer would be very hard for me. 27. Once I start to work with the computer, I would find it hard to stop. 28. Knowing how to work with computers will increase my job possibilities. 29. I get a sinking feeling when I think o f trying to use a computer. 30. I could get good grades in computer courses. 31. I will do as little work with computers as possible. 32. Anything that a computer can be used for, I can do just as well some other way. 33. I would feel comfortable working with a computer. 34. I do not think I could handle a computer course. 35. If a problem is left unsolved in a computer class, I would continue to think about it afterward. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36. It is important to me to do well in computer classes. 37. Computers make me feel uneasy and confused. 38. I have a lot of self-confidence when it comes to working with computers. 39. I do not enjoy talking with others about computers. 40. Working with computers will not be important to me in my life’s work. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 Appendix I IRB Approval From * istar@chla.use.edu Sent Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:44 am To weyadat@usc.edu Subject Your study is approved J j t fo 'n a r fio n o J i*ad*r in ftp fc r ln 'e J UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FWA 00007099 Review o f Research Involving Human Subjects A P P R O V A L N O TI CE Date: W ed Nov 16 11:40:56 2005 Principal Investigator: W aleed Eyadat Faculty Advisor: W illiam Rideout Co-Investigators: Project Title: ASSESSING STU D E N TS’ AND PR O FESSO R S’ ATTITUDES TO W ARD THE USE OF C O M PUTER -BASED TECH N O LO G Y IN THE CLASSROOM : A CASE STUDY AT TH E U N IVERSITY OF JO R D A N (Students' and Professors' attitudes' toward com puters) USC UPIRB #U P-05-00239 The University Park Institutional Review Board has reviewed the information you submitted pertaining to the above proposal at its meeting o f N/A and has: Approved Study Educ Psych SocW k Socio Bus Annen Approved the Designated Review X ___ ___ ___ _______ __ X Approved the Claim o f Exemption Approved continuation Approved amendment X Approved under the review by the chair; exemption: - 45 CFR 46.101 (b) (2) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 (Approved by Chair with conditions on 11/14/2005) Conditions of Approval: The Investigators must provide the following requested information prior to proceeding research (which includes contacting, recruiting, and enrolling potential subjects) or adhere to the follow ing conditions: All contingencies have been met. You may access your stamped approved documents (consent/recruitment documents) under the "Documents" tab in your study workspace in iStar. The stamped approved versions are under separate headings - to access the recruitment documents, you need to scroll down the page further. You must use the stamped approved/accepted documents only. The University Park IRB acknowledges receipt of the attached translated cop(ies) of the approved English versions of the informed consent form(s)/recruitment document(s). The UPIRB accepts the translated cop(ies) of the currently approved English consent form(s)/recruitment document(s) based upon the Principal Investigator’s assurance of the accuracy of the content. The attached cop(ies) have been accepted with the validated and expiration dates (for non-exempt studies only) and can be used to consent/recruit Arabic-speaking subjects when needed. Attached are the modified versions of some of your recruitment letters and information sheets because they were missing some critical information regarding "confidentiality of subjects." Please inform your subjects in Arabic about keeping their data confidential. If you must amend your study and modify the Arabic versions of these documents, please use these revised ones for your amendment submission in iStar. Please re-load a copy of the permission letter from the University of Jordan as a PDF version using the "Send Message to IRB" feature. The previous version was a bitmap or TIFF file version which iStar does not permit the IRB to print. Thank you for your understanding, and the IRB wishes you well in your journey overseas to conduct the research. Safe travel. Please note: This Claim of Exemption Approval Notice is valid for the life of the study unless otherwise noted. An application for Continuing Review of a Claim of Exemption is not necessary unless there are changes to the study. In which case, an amendment to the original Claim of Exemption must be submitted to the UPIRB for review and approval. NOTE: The IRB must review all advertisements and/or recruiting materials. Serious adverse events, amendments and/or changes in the protocol must be submitted to the UPIRB for approval. Changes may not be implemented until you have received the Board’s approval. Exception: changes involving subjects’ safety may be implemented prior to notification to the UPIRB. Please be advised that, per federal regulations, the IRB will be monitoring adherence to approved research protocols. The oversight process does not end with approval o f a proposal. We appreciate your understanding of our collaborative efforts to maintain the integrity o f our human subjects’ research approval processes and procedures to ensure continuous quality improvement and academic excellence at USC. Principles To Be Followed By Principal Investigators: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 As the Principal Investigator, you have ultimate responsibility for the conduct o f the study, the ethical performance o f the project, the protection o f the rights and welfare o f human subjects, and strict adherence to any stipulations imposed by the USC UPIRB. You must abide by the following principles when conducting your research: 1. Perform the project by qualified personnel according to the approved protocol. 2. Do not implement changes in the approved protocol or consent form without prior USC UPIRB approval (except in a life-threatening emergency, if necessary to safeguard the well-being o f human subjects. 3. If written consent is required, obtain the legally effective written informed consent from human subjects or their legally responsible representative using only the currently approved USC-UPIRB stamped consent form. 4. Promptly report all undesirable and unintended, although not necessarily unexpected adverse reactions or events, that are the result o f therapy or other intervention, within five working days o f occurrence. All fatal or life-threatening events or events requiring hospitalization must be reported to the USC UPIRB in writing within 48 hours after discovery. 5. No subjects may be identified, contacted, recruited, or enrolled until the University finalizes the contract with the sponsor. Stephen A. Madigan, Ph.D., Interim Chair Attachments: Student Info Sheet-ArabicJVersion-M odified Faculty Info Shect-English__Version-Modified Recruitment Ltr to Professors-English_Version-M odified Recruitment Ltr to Students-English_Version-IVIodified Faculty Info Sheet-Arabic_Version-M odified Student Info Sheet-English_Version-M odified This is an auto-generated email. Please do not respond directly to this message using the "reply" address. A response sent in this manner cannot be answered. If you have further questions, please contact your IRB Administrator or IRB/CCI office. T h e c o n te n ts o f this e m a il are c o n fid e n tia l a n d in te n d e d for the sp e c ifie d re c ip ie n ts only. If yo u have re c e iv e d this em ail in e rro r, p lease notify a n d d e le te this m e s sa g e . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 Appendix J Sample of Letter to the president of the University of Jordan Permission to conduct a research study at the University of Jordan (Arabic Version) AjuiLaJl J a I j L l u ) j J ulla ‘ w _ u £ l 6-^IaII /u-jLjI < - J A * ^ ^ < ) \\ In U l AojjI J-lll & J 1 A < - * - A j’ i- v A\\ X n n m y ^ J ji > J) ^ j i ) t — ilia (j*G 4_uj1 j J t**d itU’iA ,_]! aCi t J l^ojjsS C -fl ^juj 4,5"^ J JJ*S <i'l ujjoil^ll ^ tju x ld u ij t* -a f iju L - u V ^ J <jljall 4-i^jJ o jlA 1 a A ^ ll ^ jj A _ iil£ (J^l ^0 » . a . ^ a ^-3^. jli Aj^li A ik-aJj A jw L ^ II A x -lS ^ a L u lJ i-J ju iL ^ il /j\£ L q Ijlj Iaa oijLui^lj A jllall Ol^AjJ ( a 5 Ic’ 0jji ^Xqj t — X u iL ^ ll .V A a L a x S l t_ L u jl^ S l 0 -6 ^ 5 (^ A Ia II A ii^ )Ja ll A a i^ j^I\ ^ ^ -la x J ^ jS A j u j ! j-ill o^J £ 3 j2 aS I qa A j) A jjJ jjI I C - iJL j jV ^J (j^ )Ja S l ^ JjJa a l ^jJajJ < jl A joiljjll o J l^ J A jl # A - iL w l I I 4 > 5 i .A — A — jual^jU A j^jjjI I A-lLaxll(jjjotau ^ ^ A L m J ( jS - a - a S l ? A jjA ^ J I _ j£ulJl ^ ^ A c - ^ A la i ^ A jL s tillA < j ,A -liij b jjjijK A jt-u la k / Aajjall Aj1 £ /ol u-ilUa Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 Appendix K The Computer Attitude Scale (Arabic Version) Alii jS-U lJ ■uu=£ ja j jL»c 4 -iaJS j'ii A jt-o laJi U & 4j*-al»Ji 4la.^all CjliLajJ Jc. i_ijsull J ) (jLului^l l A A t ilgj AA' ' j uj ‘ “ ^ C lla ^ l! 'A A j _ ^ L - L u jL a J l * ' w'' " j A : iU \ - V j A A jL ^ j A ^.jJ V 4 -il L a lc -? C i.l j^alj A iiA ( J f L j A ilui^i A jL ^ V L j ^jSiill 18 (J^ ! V A ja^^lLa ^a, CIl^JI jt-\ jJxl ^ 4jL^)Hj diU L ull (J /ila C L u i .(JjjS jjll yAaJl ^iL iL aj £a_ ^ £ a jlaj jS jA I C jbliC . AllJ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 Appendix L A Sample of Letter to Professors’ Participants (Arabic Version) C -L iaC -i s' S a Lm ^] jlXeL ^3^ 6 J^L all C A J^^Jl /q h j^S\ q x l_jjja. A j u A l ^ . o l l^ U L ul A_ujIj.lll oXA aU .^ » -v /S^)3^aII 7- lual^ll ^I-IsUjjjI ^jc- A iliL lj Awl JadaX jll Sl jjj£ ^ S l A w l^p illila (jLo£luij ^_ya l ^ x i ! ^ 5-^V' t-L w l^ ll ^IjtXlLuiJ c J j ^ Lt-o (jj-u j^ x d l j A jilall A ^ jJ j& Awl j J l ojlA i V ^ 'l (j) L-Lujt^Sl ^I^X j-u jI Jji i a^.j^)LVI l "\aa^ a a aa^i ^ A ju tiL ^ jlj L -jI jjJ I A c.la l 1 ^A'vll c 3 -> ^ ' J C 5 ^ ^aLujj (jl AwljJl o ^ J ^ a j l d l tXUxi i AjaiLuII Aj1a*1I ^Lljj e ^ jL 5 b A J A _ L a A l jxl e^L aJ-ui^l A _ U * J ^_ 3 ^ a £ j£ jLwi ijL a IX gJj A • ^l^ll A < \li\ ; jjjj ‘ "S'^) jj^ u ia ^ l S^LtUxwVI *Jk u ^ X& Ailc- cjjjLill L ^ X ti A liw l ^w iJl (jl (j^ ^ A o lc. C L i L a ^l* -a (jc. S jL ic. JjVI ^wdl Aj I^ ] j j V Aj L Laic- tAj^J^iill a A oxII ^_3 A aIn I^ L u jI A_iii£ j CJLwl^ll j-=kj (JJjjjjX o S I C lA g^ jj CjLa^jLt-all (J^isu-uij IxA tAjLol j A3J J £ j AiiwVI ^Ja ? ~ AAa VI tA lL lX AjLxJ j A a-ii .c lia jll (jJal^c-V V] fXaawJ q J j A q I j Aj^>uiJ C ibU c. x il j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 A h_ lit A. ,t < < JU iL aJU 4-yitjAll A^-tS <J| ^JVI at.^ lu u j ts-4 J AjUalt ;t*i %j It ^ )tj 1 & J L s a jV i • ^ f ^ ‘ > * r-l S iaL u o V I AjIj c -A ^ jjIa II (Jj3 ijAj L ^ 1 L > tC ji^U c- Jblj (Jj3 < ja A ju jI^ ja II a A A ^3 A ^ jL u L aII ^^IjlAj A il & a a 4 Ij, . ^"v 4 ju » L x ll ^gk -jjLilc. o jjL aii j£J tl_ijj^iill£ <_ja*a\a / A _ u jlill A j]£ j^o djl ^^3 al^jjS»Ait A^jA i“il \\L% jLttSLjil l!^' Cy* t^oA Sl C -S ^ x u ^^jllj ^ Q jfilu i A uil jaII (jjjLtitxji q a j _ j - k i^ ) A x j A L a Ac-^a^a L a t^jl^uC- J^j ^ A -ilc> C-LiJj 4(_£^Jjjil Ll^^l^j£j £JA* ^ oc-'jB j + J d llil t^ jU ia .] jia ^ A J jA („£^JJa11 cLiajIHa^j ^ J ^ jL L a ^jU Laic- .AuitjaII & A gj AjlaLsJj ^jULdlLj ^A ill (Ji3 jJC - ^A L o C - jL-*iiL-uV'j A ^3 (JfL a J L w j^ ) 1I A 33^olt C jL a^L uo]) :< L uitj.i]t oaa ^ 4 u i ^ l l A _ C « l 3 ^3 U J ju iL ^ jl ^Ia^JjaJ ( J {jua j A iilall A^jJ ^ 5^ l — J& A jo jI^ ja II o A A (j- 0 i— f lA g J t (j) A _ iL m J i ^ _ 3 L -L u il^ ll ^ Ia ^ A jjjJ ^jl cJl^A ii] Aa*AA t" ^ ^ Aj^Ia A i* -a J ( A jlaIaJL A jjjI^ a II t^Vt t— IxuL^ll j ^_nlLjui^l (J-iJaSl aLaa] ^ 3 ^aLoU jjl AjjjI^aII oA^J ^ j I a I I q a c^Ua! 4 AjajUM I < jl Lo£_/jI£-aj A _ ia A 1 jjJ SjLolui^ii A lixJ ^gk * A K j\ ^ /jli I^Jj iA ju 6 L a Jl A iU al jjIaII ^ 1 ^ _ 1 a 1 1 .AjjjIa£jl > m a \ I ls^*^ ^ ? jl tijL alui^fl aS s^aS I A ilu iV ^ ^ja-s ^ A -u jjjA ll dA^j IaaII A ju U I tilljla^JI ;Clil ^A La j^i-ac- Lljj^ AauI^aII d A A ^3 A^^LuIaIIj aIaI^II Ajc-^)1I 1 ^ a 1 d u l^ t^j tA ,h .-U a I' A ja « V t jl-ua».lj? (j* A U A ilu jV t * 5 ^ ) 3 ; A a u I jAil d A A A ^jLuudt ft j * £yi S jlaL a-A lt A alL al^) A j\i A aI j A j^ u j (Ja L l L u j C lL a ^L t-all ( j V j di^Jt I A A ^3 A£jLu1a S 1 ^jl l^J A£^L j 1 a 1 | jJ jA ^jL'v ^ | V ; ^ d -v ^tt j t ^ jSj LuiaI] A jjtlll AjiilaJt A-JLu a I ^ tA ^ J u a lj tx -a (jjja l^ )A A 2 t J A jilalt A^jJ ( b £ A c ' jA J 4 — S A ^ J l (3^-^ U ^ A - U jI^a I I d A ^ J 3 -4 L -< ill a A jA ^ Cj^ A jo jI jaII o A A aLa^x^ (jli dllilj 4 A jjA jV t A ju a L = k lL A ^l ja3I A c -Ia t — iu iL s k ll ^L^Ia I I ^ ja jJs L -L u il^ jl (Jl^A V (3^!aS t J t — n lL u i^ il (J x ^ a flj a L ^ jL j ^aL j jJ ^jij A j^J^Iiil A a Ia x S I .A ja I jaI I d A ^ j A ^ j L L a I I aII^. ^3 a^diliA A jjI a A * 3 1 a A ^ jj V A ili I a ^J - A ju a L a Jl AilU j j A a I' ;diAAlt lA A ^ ^ j L i u A aILJI d i l u a ^ L J t Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 ( j Ai l L a a ^\ V A jjj A jIc - C -ljjj .<^jllLaJ _ jA A -u jIj.} ]1 d ^ A ^a A S ^ jL u la II ^jj ^ A j u j I^ j a S I & 1 a < ^ a A £ ^ L u L a ll :3 ---- jj*J( V j Cijl£ A ^ -a . ti5 Jauu ^ A a I j A j^j j j (J- g I jU x u tA joJ^pll o ^ A ^ A £ ^ j L w o a 1 I ^^Jax J A - a ^ 1 x a ^1 ^ ^ a l g ^ c iiJ L ^ lill ji A ^j^jJaV ^ 2Jl^ liilju jjjliil ^oi lit jl A x u a j u ^ S ^ L u I a I I lP^ .1^3 ^IjUIa ^ j \ ^Ic. c_i^)*illj ^ .A t.iij i A jU II A j^uj ^ ^ jL j C jL g ^ Ix -g II jjli ^ -a 1 & jujI^u u V I J 4£jL u m 1 I ij’ ui t a£j£jUil* jlni.] a JU * ^ j iaS 1 ^ ) L u ia 1 I ^ -ic - jl A - u jl jaS I & 1 a ^a I j£jUjj (jl jL iiik.^1 ( a £ jl£ -u L j tfi ^ 5 -lc - A _ jL ^H C-H^J ^ 1 A il L g £ . C jU jS C - J UJ^ U JJ^ * “4j L$C \ 4 -llau al3 y i & ^ jA S ^ )L jj1 a 1 3 u j ^a3jj Jjl iN -v t < U (3^3 A S j UIa I I j A jla c ^ U j (j^ J'J-1 ^ C _ fij^ )Ia ii C lu ^ k j I o j J Ijj A _uiljJl ^ ciiah L llj < L x L k C jL g ^L l a -650-2929: * — iS -A C jtaL ic. xAj t_ j J > A\y 1 j+ j* * a_ jjjIjo 1 I ^jx- jLuiiikJ < jl£ lil 310 weyadat@usc.edu e-mail < J ' f'AiiJ J ;4_uiljilt a A A ijjSjLuudl A £ jL u L all ^J_A a3j ^ i£ j j£ > . J^AJ C llljjA C . j_ic. j^o Ciij 4 _ u iIja ]1 a A g J a£jU 1a1I ^ t-jL a u o A ^ I -<iK J ij-« ,< <ij a^ ' 4 _ a L u « o CaIjLuiluij ^1 ^SjaJ C A il£ I a ] j ^j.^. ^1 ^IaSjjI ^£jl ^_i*j V A _ jji A _ u ilja II & a ^ j :JUll jl> il U & \ a A&^A\ Ia«j jjSjUili University Park IRB, office of the vice Provost for Research. Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 36, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695 (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 Appendix M Questioners Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) for Students (Arabic Version) ;4j]U ali /ulUali (jL aC <L uJjV i 4jw L aJi A j* * L aJl 4la._^all CiLblajJ ^ylc i_ij>ul! ^ g l] (jb/i.,nV i ) A & uaJfei . ■ C Sj^aV i LujjiJlS t— ijja, A jw L su S i jjjSoli CjUILja] jL afL L u ] cL taa lf 1 -lA j t (^iV i t-uuLsJi ^l^aJL uj .A -Ja lik . ( _ f ja Jj A * > j> i n Ajl^t ia.jj V 4j! L aic.aA aJ jj«ol j «db (J^j 'tllau 'iH (_ y lc “ 5jla.VL ^ ^jS o li (J x il lo l 1 A £ ys. lil^ a c J L V (jl 4Jaa.ilLi ^ a , £l*xvI1 ( j iiljc! jjxJ ^ALJual ( j l J S j 4jLa.)H j CjLLuli (Jdjiiui .A ju i .(jjSjjl! ^.arull (jjLiaj £ a(^S L > jL u ^£l jSuii d i l j L c Jo l j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 L aic- 4 3 A (Jfu ojljC- (JSi i — luiL L all jLu^V' ( ) SjUjjJ £jJa ^L iJaS . C lll jUatll jA 4^. ja ^ a L ajS A l L U * . ^^ ^ A _iL ^.j a ^ .jj v 4 j i V C5^i L-Luiiaj! ,1 . J V I e _ a A a 3 l U -U tiL a Jl ^ I a ^ J jujI L - i c - j l . 3 . A j L a x il ^ j L u ^ i ^ 3 &AA*-1a L_U 1UL ^ V ! M ^ U l t .T a a . 3 , ' ‘ s ? 7 ~J ^ V l L - L u jia J l < ^ 3 ^ ( J -a * J l . 5 L-luiLaJl *' ‘ '■ ^"uub aA lA ^. (JSL u L o 3^. <U jLa-ai t^alc- ^ JS x U J .6 . ^ g j f u A j j V « — u o i l a J b 3 j Lu l*1I < j-a u tJ 3 ^ 3 (_ £ A a b ll . 7 . d i a ^ l i Ax i J m U A ajA a JI ^ l * j . 3 U -ltiiL a J l j c . L ) J J ^ \ ( j l A a J J LoA iC . ^ * 9 _4-tiJA L all ‘ —U jjU lJI C j Ij l ^ - a ^ lA ik lm l L - 1 C - ji ^ i ASUC.I V . 1 0 . ^ a j a i A j ^ I a a ^ V l U -lu iL aJll ^ l A ^ L u i b 3 ,6* 3 i j ! A U C -I a \ \ .^ L a A f c V b ^ J J A ^ i—l u i l ^ i l ^3 x j . 1 2 . ^ i V ' L - i u i l ^ i l a l ^ j A j j I j A x j . 1 3 < — L u iL aJl ^ l A ^ k u b ^ A a x J j l y j a d x u l .A iS lj 3 ^ . 1 4 ( J j j d ^ t_ A iJ jU J l J ^ U L a J a . . 1 5 i.-A h n i'x ii a c . 1 ^ 3 ^ L i ^ i . 1 6 . J V ' u - L u ila J l A l ^ a <_>uj 3 j i j j V . 1 7 t ^ 1. A ^ \ t ^ I a ^ L u i I j j o i A j j A d i u i l . 1 3 . 3 ^ 3 ^ ^ 4 3 a . ^ J a J j o i i V j L _lxtiL a3l ^ 3 m K u ia j ! 3 i ^ 3 j j A a . AJC. . 1 9 , 3 ^ 3 i * J 4 i j l a - a i l c U ' j l . 2 0 .4 uaj3I ^jba. ^3 33s t— lulla31 ^^lAaJjulj jj^ J j i ^3jji .2 1 . ^ ■ L j j j V i f A u ^ j j c u b ^ V i u - i u i l a j l . 2 2 .4_a-aj3l <ii ^ 3 xj A iS L j 3 ^j .23 A ^k I — ixtiLa3l ^lAajoiV u ' V .24 ,(_yiV l t — ujjLaJl S a L b m ^I^ILj ^)*j-ji .25 . ^ i - U o u i b tA a . n L -L u iL a3 l ^lA sk X m l j i AJUC-l . 2 6 .LjijHil ^^ic- L . '• ‘ i — ijjhiL aJl ^ W cU ILIajI LaAic- .2 7 .3>oxit (^ g -ic . diVLol^i j) A A i j j c _ b « u L a J lj 3^*3' A i j X A 2 8 . ^ V i L -LuiLa3l ^lAajail 3jLa-o ^ a ^^ai LoAic- 4_luLeJail ^AC j i Jab ^V b ^jx-ujl .2 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 UAuA^ii A jlSU^a { j ^ d j — a^Jl yJaJxiil ,3 0 ,^lV I • — Luitahjl UtiV AaJU ^ a js l L_S^jji .3 1 .^>1 A iljia 4j (jl yjaluil U-liiiLaJl 4j ^3aaxjy (jl (jlS-aJ ,3 2 ■ U J n t i L a j U .iifr ^ ■ L u jV '- J J*-^ .33 L-lultaJl e.lLa 4jj:I yjaJxtii < ^ 3 1 JJj&l V ,3 4 ,I^J3 ^ j * J ‘(^Vi C -U iiL aJl ftjLa aISjjIa ^ \k \ ,35 ,^ g J V ^ C - .U i i L a J l f tjL a (jl ^ 4 a u u 1 U ^ a ^ - o ,36 <3^W diLiuiLa-ll .3 7 .JVl U - l u ) L a J l ( J a U u I I J l i c . ijjiiillj < £ ill £ y a ^ j a t L u l .38 k - i u j j L a J l ^Lajjjji V .39 Ua. ^ 3 Le^A U J ^ L^ L . ,L > ^ ^ ^ ^ai^Jxulj (3***-^ ,4 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix N 160 Questioners Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) for Professors (Arabic Version) Alii ^JOlJ 4jjA « L ja ci SjjLui*iM A.' J C l ^ i j 1 -^ ' . f ' j j t l 4 j u a t ^ 't U > j j £ l u - 4_ujl j^ ll o U k 4 b /»j3 j_ d l .< " '■ » ■ » ' -v ^_3 ^' \ mlll »l.^*i (jc. AjLlaJ AjjjI j J jl.lc.lj 1-j li4.*ill ^_3 Si j j j S j J l 4_uil j l r ’< 1 iU -.~i^ (jLo£3-uij (J-^.1 J J J tiV ^ < . 1 m l -sll ^IaV i m i l cJj-^ ^ J t-C ( jj- * - u ^ ) A A ll j 4 _ iliall ^ j*-^i j-G j] UJ-uiL^ll jj'l oA A 4 _ 1 *^xj < A jw Ia ILj 4 -u iljJl 4j&l3 ^ 3 t — ijuiLsJl j j J a l l j t™ uSL ui^i1 ^JjJaal aI^ jJ ^a Luu j i o ^ J ^3jiLoll j>o t^Uil t ^uuLull A jIaxJI fr ljjj , jL£-aJ 4_LaAl j j J ajLoJ-ujVi 4 * I J » * ^ ^£&jLkLa j l i l-lg-Sj e 4-*-4iLaJl 4jSJal jjjL d l jA*-b ; jA i u a j j jJAwiS J ] ajLolujV^ *J-"'^ ^ -^3 4_Jc. \ g \a <iliajl <C-^4^-a c£j"^ 3 f-Aukll j i j J ^ ^ 3 4-gIc- ClA-a^lx* j c - S^Ufr (J jV i ^-ujaII 4_jIa.I A_i.jj V 4_jU LaIc- A ml 4 J ^ J L .* CjL^-^jj ^lc> CjL^jLla]! (J^alau-uij \Xk> tAjLol j 43A j c - tillll t< lla l^ <jL^.J j ^ ^ Vj ^a-l^jjuii j l j A-ulj Aj^judJ (3^^ i j ^ i j j ^ * 3_j^j j i l l sA^LaII d jU V ^ li /^jii^laul j j j i A9jAy ^ i\l U Ui Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 7 <L=J^j-alJ AiJ JfL ojUc. L-U^UaII jL u iV i ( ) fljUjjl I^*-3 ^-^a3 . d iljU J l Ac.j<a~> a t^Jj LaJfl f ja J ] A llali (_£^aJ^ A ^ ‘ " • » ^jl^i V Ail Laic .(^gjiiikJ V J V I <--iuiLaJl .41 .^ V l L-ljuilaJl ^Ij^Luil ju i^ l V .4 2 .^^IVI l-lluIaII u i c j i .43 .A jL astll (jjUa. S -X ia u L a L-uILuiLj (^Vl V -lujL aJl * -> A -* w n i L-i^ua .44 J-ia. ^.tl-^c‘ w L-luiLaJl (Ja*JI .45 U -iujLaJl ^l-XiduAj (JSL uLa ija. AijLa-al ^ U jl ylc. j s i .46 .(jifuiLb V (^V l L-iiiiUajlj tJjLoLall (j,^a»j (Jai .4 7 ,di2jll A jUx Joa (^V l 4-iujLaJl ^1*j ,4 8 .J V I L-Iuilajl j c j j j i V ' jj.l=kJJ La^JC. £tC. jjf ^ -49 .A aJAl o II <^^1 L-LuilaJl dll jlg-a u & j l ^ jl j S jc.1 V ' .5 0 .£a»U4AJ ( dlAA (^V l L-lUlLaJl ^ l^ lu llj (Ja*J| (ji JjJC.i .5 1 .^LojaVIj c _l u jIaJI .5 2 .(^JVI L_ixiilaJl slaJj AjjljJ*J J ^ i ,53 ,(^iVI i — luiLaJl ^I.^Vnulj j i ^ jln u J -X jS L ) (J£j .5 4 . J (JJJJ V L_Luila3l jS luw (Ja- .5 5 .(J.h^haII ^ k t^V I t_iuilail A c l^ J ^ U J L-fljiA ,5 6 ,(jJVI I — ixutaJl jl^A j i .5 7 .(j-lVI < — UjilaJl ^t^Jjoit jx u aJ (_£^ll ^ ^ i i j - 6 dim! .5 8 .(Jl^ll (^i A k Wi\J V j (^V i 4-haiLa3l ^ aK uia j i ( J li d c .5 9 (JaJl Aljla-all (Ji-alji .6 0 .AjajjII ^jUa. (ji (Jjla t^ V IL .u " I ^ ^ y^al^iluij j j £ j j i £3y\ .61 • C ^ j V * t^V i cjjjiUJI ,6 2 .A^-ajJl Ail ( ai*J y ^ iu li Jj^lj j £ j ,63 .^jj^-a ^ L-LjilaJl Aaj^la (^L J^fli j l ^jJaluil V .6 4 .(^lVI UJjailaJl SaLa ^ A^l^iU ^J*jiii ,6 5 A.iinilU t^L a. i*j-a (^ g -lV I < ■ . unl -fcll j i .VurJ .6 6 .cjajlill ^^ic. i.. l» > ^>j i^V I L-luUaJl (Jic. t i * l U i J La^jc. .6 7 . J aaII ( j A c. diN/1 di«vI j^ j «ljjj < — Iu iIa IU (Ja xII Ai^atA ,6 8 .(j-lVI ‘ --UoilaJl ^l^ilull Aljla-a j i a i La^jc- AluLjall ^ a ^ C . j i ^>*-^1 .6 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 <vlV! L , ^ 4jl9 j^4 ,7 0 ,^5-lV l U -luiL aJl ^jJ^\ .laJU i — i^ui ,71 ^ u ' Win'! ^ V l ( — Iu iIaJI 4j ^'1‘ SJtiU j i jS-*J ^1^-“* (^'l .7 2 .^5-1^ L-ijuilaJU (Ja s JI J u c - ^Lujyij J* -* ja i .73 .^ 5 -lV ^ L-LuilaJl S .lL a A jjjI j J yJa!i*tii ^jl Jsjc-I V .74 ,lgj3 jj5Uj!I ^k ^ ^ -a ii-u l <^j\i ( — luilail S jiL o ^ <&uba (Jaj ^ lij ,75 1 — ljjjtaJl o^L a (ji T ^ jia . (_ g jJ* ji-a ja^.1 j l 4iuiillj ^ k g * a ,76 , j_&ill (JJJjjo lL ij jlSlb J*^ii ^jjiatS fcJ 4 j1 CjUuilaJl ,77 > L S JVl U -L u iU k jl £ < a i_Ul*j]t ,ij& j* j*-w ji ,78 ,^V l I — lU J iL ^ ll J ja . £-a CLu^lU ^AJnil V ,79 ,4jLa*Jl ^jU a. ^gk ^ La^-6 j j ^ J j l uouilsfcjl ^I^OuiU (J-ojlII ,8 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Distance learning as an alternative method for training in the private sector of Saudi Arabia

PDF

Beginning teachers use of the Internet for classroom learning activities: A study of affect

PDF

A formative evaluation of the training effectiveness of a computer game

PDF

Effects of interactive multimedia for the prevention of obesity on self-efficacy, beliefs about physical activity, and social influence

PDF

Implementing computer assisted instruction in a multilevel -multigraded classroom evaluation /action plan

PDF

Cost of university -based online, distributed, and traditional learning

PDF

Assessment of Taiwanese business students' learning styles using the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator

PDF

A pilot study to investigate the relationship between student self -regulatory resource management strategies and academic achievement in a Web-based hybrid graduate nursing course

PDF

A case study: The application of learning theory to teaching logic

PDF

Education for change in a changing Nigerian Igbo society: Impacts of traditional African and western education on the upbringing of Igbo children

PDF

Higher education's responses to economic development: Vietnam

PDF

Cognitive efficiency of animated pedagogical agents for learning English as a second language

PDF

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

PDF

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Catholic schools and civic engagement: A case study of community service -learning and its impact on critical consciousness and social capital

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the media unified school district

PDF

A quantitative/qualitative analysis of student achievement among Latino immigrant students with a general educational development diploma and United States-born Hispanic students with a high scho...

PDF

Educational development aid and the role of language: A case study of AIT -Danida and the Royal University of Agriculture in Cambodia

PDF

A study of the relationship between student achievement and mathematics program congruence in select secondary schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

Asset Metadata

Creator Eyadat, Waleed (author)

Core Title Assessing students' and professors' attitudes toward the use of computer -based technology in the classroom: A case study at the University of Jordan

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, curriculum and instruction,Education, higher,education, technology of,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Rideout, William M. (committee chair), Dekmejian, Richard (committee member), Kazlauskas, Edward (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-579708

Unique identifier UC11341450

Identifier 3236499.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-579708 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3236499.pdf

Dmrecord 579708

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Eyadat, Waleed

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA