A quantitative survey directed at all faculty at a California urban community college yielded data from 117 faculty about computer use, competency, and attitudes toward using computers. Correlation analysis, multiple regression, and Ordinary Least Squares regression were used to delineate the relationships between computer use and other variables and to develop a path analysis model depicting the relationship among attitude, courses taken, having a home computer, competency, and computer use. The researchers present their model along with data obtained from an open-ended qualitative survey administered to elucidate further the relationships among these variables. Based on their quantitative and qualitative findings, the authors make suggestions for future research to assist in faculty development efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbey, B. (1997). Developing a technology-friendly faculty in higher education. In D. Willis, B. Robin, J. Willis, J. Price, & S. McNeil (Eds.), Technology and teacher training annual-1997 (pp. 351-353). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
2.
Bessier, S., Kurth, J., Reinhart, P. (1997). The teacher as learner: an undergraduate student and faculty mentorship success. In D. Willis, B. Robin, J. Willis, J. Price, & S. McNeil (Eds.), Technology and teacher training annual-1997 (pp. 322-326). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
3.
Breithaupt, D.L. (1997). Collaborative computer education for preservice and inservice teachers. In D. Willis, B. Robin, J. Willis, J. Price, & S. McNeil (Eds.), Technology and teacher training annual-1997 (pp. 729-731). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
4.
Colon, B., Willis, J., Willis, D. & Ausrin, L. (1995). Faculty perspectives on instructional technology: A national survey. In D. Willis, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher training annual-1995 (pp. 795-800). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
5.
Davis, N. (1999). Why should IT in teacher education have a global dimension? In J. Price, J. Willis, D.A. Willis, M. Jost, S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.) Technology and Teacher Training Annual-1999 (pp. 288-293). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
6.
Ely, D. (1995). Technology is the answer! But what was the question? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 152)
7.
Fary, B. (1984). Computer literacy for staff development. AEDS Journal, 18(4), 1-8.
8.
Goodson, (1991). Curriculum and context. Summative report (vol. 1) from the project: Curriculum and context in the use of computers for classroom learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 264)
9.
Hanushek, E. A. (1998). Outcomes, incentives, and beliefs: reflections on analysis of the economics of schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 301-308.
10.
Loyd, B.H., & Gressard, C.P. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity computer attitude scales, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 501-505.
11.
Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1996). Motivation and teachers' computer use. 18th Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the National Convention of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN (pp. 467-472). Washington, DC: AECT.
12.
McKenzie, B. K., & Clay, M. N. (1995). Are we meeting students' needs in instructional technology: student perspective. In D. Willis, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher training annual-1995 (pp. 764-768). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
13.
Morton, (1996). Factors affecting integration of computers in western Sydney secondary schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396 737)
14.
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
Paprzycki, M., & Vidakovic, D. (1994). Prospective teachers' attitudes toward comuters. In D. Wilis, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher training annual-1994 (pp. 74-76). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
16.
Parker, (1996). Integration of and roadblocks to the use of technology in teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeast Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 956)
17.
Pina, A., & Harris, B. R. (1994). Preservice teachers and computers: strategies for reducing anxiety and increasing confidence. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 344)
18.
Roberts, N., & Ferris, A. (1994). Integrating technology into a teacher education program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2(3), 215-225.
19.
Simonson, M. (1995). Instructional technology and attitude change. In G. J. Aglin, (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 365-373). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.
20.
Topp, N., Mortenson, B., & Grandgenett, N. (1995). Goal: Technology using teachers; Key: Technology using education faculty. In D. Willis, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher training annual-1995 (pp. 840-843). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
21.
Woodrow, J. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 165-187.
22.
Yildirim, S. (1997). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers attitudes toward computers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California. Los Angeles.
23.
Yildirim, S., & Kiraz, E. (1999). Obstacles to integration of on-line communication tools into preservice teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 15(3), 23-28.
24.
Zimbardo, P., & Leippe, M. (1991). The psychology of attitude change and social influence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
