|
|
|
|
GOR 2001 Homepage
Indices
Management - Staff only
|
GOR 2001 - contentThis is the http://kiwi.uni-psych.gwdg.de/congress/gor-2001/contrib/contrib/silberer-guenter/contrib/bunz-ulla-oral/bunz-ulla-oral Document. Main Author: Bunz, Ulla K. Co-Authors: ; Institution: Communication Studies, University of Kansas Contribution Title: The Computer-Email-Web Fluency Scale - Development and Results Authors Email: ulla@ukans.edu Abstract German (version: 25/06/2002 - 07:47, size: 0) English: Information fluency is generally defined as an ability to express oneself creatively, reformulate knowledge, and synthesize information regarding new information technology. The term has recently gained popularity over experience, expertise, competence, knowledge, and literacy. As with other related concepts, there is a great need to accurately assess "information fluency" for research and pragmatic purposes. This study seeks to remedy this need by developing a self report/ability instrument to tap this theoretical concept. In the paper the researcher(s) explore existing computer competence scales (very few of which even include email or Internet components), review the emerging literature on information fluency, and report about the development of a new Internet Fluency Instrument. Evidence of the reliability and validity of the instrument is presented. Article (version: 25/06/2002 - 07:47, size: 29685) Please note that this is a very abbreviated version of the paper presented. A full copy of the paper (approx. 48 pages double spaced incl. references and statistical tables) can be obtained from Ulla Bunz ulla@ukans.edu. RATIONALE It's clear that the conceptualization and measurement of any set of skills is extremely difficult. It should not be surprising therefore that scholars, researchers and practitioners interested in assessing computing/technological understanding and skills have been challenged to develop measurement tools that adequately capture and assess components of these skill sets. Recently a national level board of scientists and practitioners in the United States was formed to make some sense of this developing area. In their response to this challenge, the Committee on Information Technology Literacy (CITL) of the National Research Board issued a report, Being fluent with information technology. In this monograph, the Committee focused on "fluency" and distinguished it from other commonly used terms including literacy and competency. According to the report, fluency is "a term connoting a higher level of competency" (Committee on Information Technology 1999, p. 2). Some of the differences between fluency and competency are first, that fluency entails a lifelong learning process; second, that fluency implies personalization of skills on levels of sophistication; and third, that fluency is composed of three kinds of knowledge, contemporary skills, foundational concepts, and intellectual capabilities. Previous research developed measuring instruments for computer literacy, computer experience, computer expertise, computer knowledge etc. However, our social and technological environment is constantly changing as information technology (IT) becomes ubiquitous, and apart from specific computer skills required by some experts (programming, operating system knowledge, hardware expertise, etc.), most people's daily environment (in developed countries) now demands a rather broad, far ranging IT skill set that has not been necessary in the past. Foremost among these fluencies are "information seeking" and "information dissemination" skills including email use and the ability to effectively utilize the World Wide Web. It is critical that we develop measures that adequately tap this increasingly important set of competencies. Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to assess people’s ability to use these information seeking and dissemination skills, including skills that involve computer use, email and effective use of the web. This instrument was not designed to be another "computer literacy," experience, expertise or knowledge scale. Instead we took our cues from the recent CITL monograph, and attempted to assess more general "fluency" skills. In addition, though computer fluency, email fluency and web fluency can be expected to be related, this study presumed that email and web fluency were not necessarily subsumed by "computer fluency." Specifically then, the purpose of this study was to develop what we hope is a more general and useful measure, the Computer-Email-Web Fluency (CEW Fluency) scale. LITERATURE Over the last few years a considerable body of literature has developed to describe computer usage and attitudes toward computers, computer anxiety, computer stress, perceptions of computers (i.e., Bear, Richards & Lancaster 1987; Coovert & Goldstein 1980; Crable , Brodzinski & Scherer 1991; Durndell, Macleod & Siann 1987; Edwards 1957; Gardner, Discenza & Dukes 1993; Harrison & Rainer 1992; Heinssen, Glass & Knight 1987; Hudiburg, Brown & Jones 1993; Igbaria & Chakrabarti 1990; Kay 1993b; Loyd & Gressard 1984; Maurer 1994; Nickell & Pinto 1986; Pope-Davis & Twing 1991; Woodrow 1991; etc.). This broad array of research is multi-disciplinary and incorporates a wide variety of perspectives and topics. However, at its foundation this research is directed at influencing a person’s ability to use a computer efficiently. This study was less interested in people’s reservations towards technology, and more in their own perceptions of their ability of fluency in using the computer for email communication, and information access. Hence, this review focuses more on scales that measure computer expertise, experience, or literacy. Educators have been aware of the need to develop a concept of computer literacy for a long time (Molnar 1978; Watt 1980). In the computer and technology context, literacy has been defined and described repeatedly. According to Rhodes (1986), an individual is computer literate when he or she is able to use the computer to satisfy personal needs. After reviewing the literature (i.e. ISACS 1985; Johnson et al. 1980; Levin 1983; Longstreet & Sorant 1985), LaLomia and Sidowski (1990) conclude that the definition of computer literacy varies depending on the study, but usually includes one or more of the following factors: programming and operating skills, knowledge and awareness of computers, and positive attitude toward computers. Watt (1980, p. 3), as quoted in Levine and Donitsa-Schmidt (1997) defines computer literacy as the "collection of skills, knowledge, understanding, values, and relationships that allow a person to function comfortably as a productive citizen in a computer-oriented society." With this definition, Watt comes close to the definition of information fluency (Committee on Information Technology Literacy 1999) discussed earlier. Along with numerous definitions, conceptual and theoretical discussions (i.e., Baxter 1984; Cheng, Plake & Stevens 1985; Ganske & Hamamoto 1984; Kay 1990; Levinson 1986), there is a growing body of literature to assess computer experience, expertise or literacy statistically (i.e., Anderson et al 1979; Bitter & Davis 1985; Born & Cummings 1994; Gabriel 1985a & b; Montag 1984). Good overview-reviews can be found in LaLomia and Sidowski (1990), Miller, Stanney, and Wooten (1997), Moroz and Nash (1997), and most of the articles reviewed in detail in the long version of this paper, especially Panero, Lane and Napier (1997), Potosky and Bobko (1998), or Smith et al. (1999). SCALE DEVELOPMENT & CONCLUSIONS The Computer-Email-Web Fluency scale was developed in several steps that are summarized here. First, a focus group/Q-methodology (McKeown & Thomas 1988) pilot study was conducted. A total of thirty-two subjects in seven groups of three to six people were asked to sort possible questions for the measure. Confusing questions were reworded and several new questions were added to create a 52-item instrument. In the following two pilot studies, the instrument was administered to a total of 284 subjects. The 52 items were divided into three subscales: 19 items for computer skills; 18 items for email skills; 15 items for Internet skills. All items began with the words "I can …" followed by the task, followed by the answer options, a 4-point Likert scale (Very well, well, not so well, not at all). Basic frequencies, including means, standard errors, modes, and standard deviations were assessed for all items. Coefficient alphas were determined for the items of each subscale and for the overall scale, consisting of 52 items. A principal-component factor analysis followed by a varimax rotation was used to determine the factor validity. Finally, a correlation matrix was used for all remaining 21 items, and between the four resulting factors to demonstrate internal validity of the CEW Fluency scale. Internal reliability for the subscales ranged from .92 to .93, with the total scale showing a total reliability of .96. Through factor analysis, the 52-item instrument was reduced to a 21-item instrument. After this factor analysis, the internal reliabilities of the subscales still ranged from .82 to .89. Overall, the purpose of Pilot Two & Three was to identify statistically clean subscales of the CEW Fluency Scale. Originally, items were divided into three subscales, computer skills, email skills, and web skills. The principal-components factor analysis rotated into four factors, separating Internet skills into two subscales, web navigation skills and web editing skills. While not predicted, these results are reasonable. In accordance with results from Pilot One it can be assumed that a person may have (basic) web navigation skills without (intermediate) web editing skills. Alpha coefficients of all four subscales showed high internal subscale reliability. In addition, results from the principal-components factor analysis and correlations showed strong internal validity for the total scale. Results showed that the subscales were related to each other at a medium level, yet warrant differentiation from each other and the skills they measure. This also implies that using email and World Wide Web use are viewed separately from "computer skills." These skills are related but separate and thus, this new scale is not simply a new computer experience, expertise, or literacy scale. Finally, a fourth pilot study was conducted. The CEW Fluency scale, the Computer Use Scale (Panero, Lane & Napier 1997), and items from the Georgia Tech WWW User Survey (Georgia Tech 1998) were included for a total of 77 items. Basic frequencies, including means, standard errors, modes, and standard deviations were assessed for all items. Coefficient alphas were determined for the items of each subscale and total scale of the CEW Fluency and the CUS scales. A correlation matrix was used to assess how each item or each subscale related to the subscales of the CEW Fluency scale, and to the total scale. Correlations between individual items of the CEW Fluency scale and other items will be discussed were appropriate. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey Post Hoc tests were used to detect differences between the subscales and the total CEW Fluency scale, and several other questions. Finally, regression analysis was employed to investigate the interrelationship of the highly correlated variables. The purpose of this study was to continue the validation process of a new measure of computer, email, and web fluency (CEW Fluency). The sample consisted of 143 student volunteers enrolled at a large U. S. midwestern university. Based on the Georgia Tech (1998) survey instructions, subjects in this study were ranked into experience categories depending on the number of Internet and World Wide Web related tasks they had performed. According to this ranking most subjects were classified as novices or as having intermediate World Wide Web skills. Subjects report using the Internet for no longer than six years and have taken two or fewer classes on either computer or Internet related topics. A large majority of subjects in this sample access the Internet from home on a daily basis, and from school at least on a weekly basis, but mostly the time spent online is comparatively short. As can be expected in a sample drawn from a student population, most subjects use the web for educational or information gathering purposes. Specifically, subjects indicated they use the web mostly for online chat or discussion, or for ordering products. Subjects reported their self-assessed computer-email-web fluency to be very high, especially regarding computer, email, and web navigation fluency. Web editing fluency was reported at a slightly lower level, mostly due to a wide variation regarding subjects’ ability to create a website. Reliabilities of the subscales and the total scales were lower than during the previous study, but still within acceptable range (between .64 and .79). Correlations between the subscales were higher than in the previous studies. The scale needs more testing before its stability can be ascertained. The computer use scale (Panero, Lane & Napier 1997) used in this study also resulted in slightly lower reliabilities than reported by the authors. This could possibly be due to the homogeneity of the student sample. CEW Fluency scores were correlated to a number of demographic variables, including gender, major, or ability to access the Internet from home. However, a variety of interesting findings did emerge. Overall, results indicated that the longer subjects had been using the Internet, the greater their overall CEW Fluency. Results indicated that subjects had to be classified at least at an "intermediate" level of web expertise to have higher CEW Fluency. Results also indicated that there was no statistical difference between "experience" and "expertise" with regard to web editing fluency. Overall, the more comfortable subjects felt with computers or the Internet, the higher their reported CEW Fluency. One exception to this overall trend was that only subjects who felt very comfortable with the computer reported high web editing fluency. Also, only subjects who felt very comfortable with the Internet reported high computer fluency. No systematic trend was found for the relationship between Internet comfort level and subjects’ web navigation fluency. Subjects reported that they must feel at least somewhat satisfied with their current Internet skills in order to report high CEW Fluency. Equally, subjects who used computers frequently on the Computer Use Scale (Panero, Lane & Napier 1997) reported higher CEW Fluency. Regression analysis revealed that, despite being highly correlated, subjects’ perceived level of comfort using a computer, the length of time they have been using the Internet, and subjects’ computer use according to the Computer Use Scale all made independent contributions to the variance explained in CEW Fluency. Since the measures utilized in the investigation used self-report, results might not be surprising. Subjects who feel like they have more experience and a higher comfort level tend to self-report higher CEW Fluency. Clearly further investigations are needed to compare self-reported CEW Fluency to actual ability to perform CEW tasks in a laboratory situation. In addition, further studies may be needed to expand the CEW Fluency scale to include more sophisticated items. It might also be necessary to develop and test this expanded version of the scale with subjects other than university students. At this point this study provides preliminary support for the CEW Fluency. In summary then, the purpose of this project was to develop a new scale based on existing literature and computer literacy and expertise scales. The Computer-Email-Web Fluency scale differs from the existing scales because it incorporates email and web items. Support was found that email and web skills are to be differentiated from computer skills. Thus, the CEW Fluency scale can be differentiated from existing scales. More research is clearly needed both to establish and to test the utility of this instrument. REFERENCES Anderson, R. E., Hansen, T. P., Johnson, D. C., & Klassen, D. L. (1979). Minnesota Computer Literacy Awareness Assessment (Technical Report). St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium. Badagliacco, J. M. (1990). Gender and race differences in computing attitudes and experience. Social Science Computer Review, 8, 42-64. Ballance, C. T., & Balance, V. V. (1993). Relating self-rated computer experience to computer stress. Psychological Reports, 72 (2), 680-682. Baxter, H. J. (1984, February). Computer literacy: Is it worth the effort? Personal Software, 37-41. Bear, G. G., Richards, H. C., & Lancaster, P. (1987). Attitudes towards computers: Validation of a computer attitudes scale. Journal of Computing Research, 32 (2), 207-219. Bitter, G. G., & Davis, S. J. (1985). Measuring development of computer literacy among teachers. AEDS Journal, 18 (4), 243-253. Born, R. G., & Cummings, C. W. (1994). An assessment model for computer experience, skills, and attitudes of undergraduate business students. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 35 (1), 41-53. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81-105. Cassel, R. N., & Cassel, S. L. (1984). Cassel computer literacy test (CMLRTC). Journal of Instructional Psychology, 11, 3-9. Cheng, T. T., Plake, B., & Stevens, D. J. (1985). A validation study of the computer literacy examination: Cognitive aspect. AEDS Journal, 18, 139-152. Cockrell, K., Cockrell, D., & Harris, E. L. (1998). Generational variability in the understanding and use of technology. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44 (1), 111-114. Committee on Information Technology Literacy (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology – A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 145-158. Coovert, M. D., & Goldstein, M. (1980). Locus of control as a predictor of users’ attitudes toward computers. Psychological Reports, 47, 1167-1173. Crable, E. A., Brodzinski, J. D., & Scherer, R. F. (1991). Psychology of computer use: XXII. Preliminary development of a measure of concerns about computers. Psychological Reports, 69, 235-236. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003. Durndell, A., Macleod, H., & Siann, G. (1987). A survey of attitudes to knowledge about and experience of computers. Computer Education, 11 (3), 167-175. Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Egan, D. E. (1988). Individual differences in human-computer interaction. In M. Helanander (Ed.), Handbook of human-computer interaction, pp. 543-568. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Ellsworth, R., & Bowman, B. E. (1982). A "beliefs about computers" scale based on Ahl’s questionnaire items. The Computing Teacher, 10 (4), 32-34. Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Gabriel, R. M. (1985a). Assessing computer literacy: A validated instrument and empirical results. AEDS Journal, 18 (3), 153-171. Gabriel, R. M. (1985b). Computer literacy assessment and validation: Empirical relationships at both student and school levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1 (4), 415-425. Ganske, L., & Hamamoto, P. (1984). Response to crisis: A developer’s look at the importance of needs assessment to teacher educators in the design of computer literacy training programs. Educational Computer Technology Journal, 32 (2), 101-113. Gardner, D. G., Discenza, R., & Dukes, R. L. (1993). The measurement of computer attitudes: An empirical comparison of available scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 487-507. Geissler, J. E., & Horridge, P. (1993). University students’ computer knowledge and commitment to learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 347-365. Georgia Tech (1998). WWW user survey. Available online at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/ Harrison, A. W., & Rainer, R. K. (1992). An examination of the factor structures and concurrent validities for the Computer Attitude Scale, the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale, and the Computer Self-Efficacy Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 735-745. Heinssen, R. K., Glass, C. R., & Knight, L. A. (1987). Assessing computer anxiety: development and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 49-59. Hudiburg, R. A., Brown, S., & Jones, T. M. (1993). Psychology of computer use: XXXIX. Measuring computer users’ stress: the computer hassles scale. Psychological Reports, 73, 923-929. Igbaria, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behaviour and Information Technology, 9 (3), 229-241. ISACS (1985, November). Mission: define computer literacy. The Computing Teacher, 10-15. Jay, G. M. & Willis, S. L. (1992). Influence of direct computer experience on older adults’ attitudes toward computers. Journal of Gerontology, 47 (4), 250-257. Jiang, J. J., Motwani, J., Cheung, W. M., & Cheng, C. H. (1999). Attitudes toward the Internet/WWW – A comparison of students in US, France, and Hong-Kong. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 39 (3), 1-5. Johnson, D. C., Anderson, R. E., Hansen, T. P., & Klassen, L. (1980, February). Computer literacy – What is it? Mathematics Teacher, 91-96. Kay, D. S., & Black, J. B. (1990). Knowledge transformations during the acquisition of computer expertise. In S. P. Robertson, W. Zachary, & J. B. Black (Eds.), Cognition, computing, and cooperation, pp. 268-303. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kay, R. (1990). The relation between computer literacy and locus of control. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22 (4), 464-474. Kay, R. (1992). An analysis of methods used to examine gender differences in computer-related behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8 (3) 277-290. Kay, R. (1993a). A practical research tool for assessing ability to use computers: The Computer ability survey (CAS). Journal of Research in Computing in Education, 26, 16-27. Kay, R. (1993b). An explanation of and practical foundations for assessing attitudes toward computers: The Computer Attitude Measure (CAM). Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 371-386. Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis. Statistical methods and practical issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Klassen, D. L., Anderson, R. E., Hansen, T. P., & Johnson, D. E. (1980). A study of computer literacy in science education: Final report. 1978-1980. St. Paul: Minnesota Educational computing consortium. Krissoff, A., & Konrad, L. (1998). Computer training for staff and patrons: a comprehensive academic model. Computers in Libraries, 18 (1), 28-31. LaLomia, M. J., & Sidowski, J. B. (1990). Measurements of computer satisfaction, literacy, and aptitudes: A review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 231-253. Lee, J. A. (1986). The effects of past computer experience on computerized aptitude test performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 727-733. Levin, D. (1983, March). Everyone wants "computer literacy" so maybe we should know what it means. The American School Board Journal, 25-28. Levine, T., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1998). Computer use, confidence, attitudes, and knowledge – A causal-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (1), 125-146. Levinson, E. M. (1986). A review of the computer aptitude, literacy, and interest profile (CALIP). Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 658-659. Longstreet, W. S., & Sorant, P. E. (1985). Computer literacy – Definition? Educational Horizons, 63 (3), 117-120. Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological measurement, 44, 501-505. Maurer, M. M. (1983). Development and validation of a measure of computer anxiety. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Iowa State University. Maurer, M. M. (1994). Computer anxiety correlated and what they tell us: A literature review. Compuers in Human Behavior, 10, 369-376. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Miller, L. A., Stanney, K. M., & Wooten, W. (1997). Development and evaluation of the Windows-computer-experience-questionnaire (WCEQ). International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 9 (3), 201-212. Molnar, A. R. (1978). The next great crisis in American education: computer literacy. AEDS Journal, 11 (1), 11-20. Montag, M. (1984). Development and validation of a criterion-referenced computer literacy assessment instrument. Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Montag, M., Simonson, M. R., & Maurer, M. M. (1984). Standardized Test of Computer Literacy (STCL). Amers: Iowa State University Research Foundation. Moroz, P. A., & Nash, J. B. (1997). Assessing and improving the factorial structures of the computer self-efficacy scale. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, March 24-28. Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). Development and validation of the Computer self-efficacy Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 893-899. National Assessment of Educational Progress (1986). A framework for assessing computer competence: defining objectives. Available at ED 273683. Nickell, G. S., & Pinto, J. N. (1986). The computer attitude scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 301-306. Panero, J.C., Lane, D. M., & Napier, H. Al. (1997). The computer use scale: four dimensions of how people use computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16 (4), 297-315. Pope-Davis, D. B., & Twing, J. S. (1991). The effects of age, gender, and experience on measures of attitude regarding computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 333-339. Poplin, M. S., Drew, D. E., & Bable, R. S. (1984). Manual for the computer aptitude, literacy, and interest profile. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (1998). The computer understanding and experience scale – A self-report measure of computer experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (2), 337-348. Prumper, J., Zapf, D., Brodbeck, R. C., & Frese, M. (1992). Some surprising differences between novice and expert errors in computerized office work. Behaviour and Information Technology, 11, 319-328. Rawstorne, P., Caputi, P., & Smith, B. L. (1998). A study of the psychometric properties of the subjective computer experience scale: Working Paper 1. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. Rhodes, L. A. (1986). On computers, personal styles, and being human: A conversation with Sherry Turkle. Educational Leadership, 43 (6), 12-16. Shashaani, L. (1994). Gender-differences in computer experience and its influence on computer attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11 (4), 347-367. Simonson, M. R., Maurer, M., Montag-Toradrdi, M., & Whitaker, M. (1987). Development of a standardized test of computer literacy and a computer anxiety index. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3 (2), 231-247. Sit, R. A., & Fisk, A. D. (1999). Age-related performance in a multiple-task environment. Human Factors, 41 (1), 26-34. Smith, B. L., Caputi, P., & Rawstorne, P. (2000). Differentiating computer experience and attitudes toward computers: an empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 16 (1), 59-81. Smith, B. L., Caputi, P., Crittenden, M., Jayasuriya, R., & Rawstorne, P. (1999). A review of the construct of computer experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 227-424. Todman, J., & Monaghan, E. (1994). Qualitative differences in computer experience, computer anxiety, and students use of computers: a path model. Computers in Human Behavior, 10 (4), 529-539. Torardi, M. M. (1985). The development of a computer literacy assessment instrument. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA, January 17-23. Available at ED 256342. Torkzadeh, G., & Koufteros, X. (1994). Factorial validity of a computer self-efficacy scale and the impact of computer training. Educational and psychological measurement, 54 (3), 813. Watt, D. H. (1980). Computer literacy: what should schools be doing about this? Classroom Computer News, 1 (2), 1-26. Woodrow, J. E. J. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7 (2), 165-187. |