This article reports on a longitudinal study of the effectiveness of computerizing a liberal arts university in the United States. The article uses data from the study to develop a reliable scale to measure attitudes related to four parameters of the learning process. Specifically, the scale reported here can be used to measure the climate of interaction developed by computerization, the specific communication patterns offered by computer mediated communication and the different perceived expectations about the promise of technology provided by the computerization process. It is expected that the statistically reliable scale can be used for measurements across different institutions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownD. (2000). Teaching with technology. New York: Anker Publishing.
2.
GuernseyL. (2000, January 9). O.K., Schools are wired. Now what?New York Times Education Life Supplement, 4A, 32.
3.
KaratJ.KaratC., & UkelsonJ. (2000). Affordances, motivation and design of user interfaces. Communications of the ACM, 43(8), 49–51.
4.
KramerJ.NoronhaS., & VergoJ. (2000). A user-centered design approach to personalization. Communications of the ACM, 43(8), 45–48.
5.
LawsonK. G. & PelzerN. L. (1999). Assessing technology-based projects for promotion and/or tenure in ARL academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 60(5), 464–476.
6.
McMillanJ. J., & HydeJ. (2000). Technological innovation and change: A case study in the formation of organizational conscience. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86(1), 19–47.
7.
McQueenT. F. & FleckR. A. (1999). An evaluation of alternative technology-based instructional formats. T.H.E. Journal., 26(11), 108–115.
8.
MerisotisJ. P. & PhippsR. A. (1999). What's the difference? Outcomes of distance vs. traditional classroom-based learning. Change, 3(3), 12–17.
9.
MinskyM. (2000). Commonsense-based interfaces. Communications of the ACM, 43(8), 67–73.
10.
MitraA. (1994, Summer). “Instructor Effect” in determining effectiveness and attitude towards technology-assisted multi-media teaching: Report of a case study. Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems, 15–21.
11.
MitraA. (1995). Evaluation of computer assisted teaching of History of Architecture. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Annual.
12.
MitraA. (1996). Relationships between computer aided experiments in psychology and general attitudes towards computers in education: Results from a 1995 case study. Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Annual.
13.
MitraA. (1998). Categories of computer use and their relationships with attitudes towards computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(3), 281–295.
14.
MitraA. (2000). Introduction to special issue. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 1–4.
15.
MitraA.LaFranceB., & McCulloughS. (2001). Difference in the attitude between women and men toward computerization. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(3), 227–244.
16.
MitraA.LenzmeierS.SteffensmeierT.AvonR.QuN., & HazenM. (2000). Gender and computer use in academic institutions: Report from a longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 41–66.
17.
MitraA. & HazenM. (1999). Longitudinal assessment of computerization at Wake Forest University. In BrownD. (Ed.), Electronically enhanced education, Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University Press.
18.
MitraA., & HullettC. (1997). Toward evaluating computer aided instruction: Attitudes, demographics, context. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(4), 379–391.
19.
MitraA., & StefensmeierT. (2000). Changes in student attitudes and student computer use in a computer enriched environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), 417–433.
20.
MitraA.StefensmeierT.LenzmeierS., & MassoniA. (1999). Institutional implications of changes in attitudes towards computers and use of computers by faculty. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 189–202.
21.
NegroponteN. (1995). Being digital. New York: Random House.
22.
OblingerD. G., & RushS. C., (Eds.) (1997). The learning revolution: The challenge of information technology in the academy. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
23.
PaceyA. (1983). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
PhippsR. A., & MerisotisJ. P. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC.
25.
ReevesT. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101–111.
26.
ReevesT. C. (1998). Answering critics of media and technology in education. ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications. Proceedings.AACE.
27.
SproullL., & KieslerS. (1992). Connections: New ways of working in the networked environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
WoodrowJ. E. J. (1991). A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 165–187.
29.
WoodrowJ. E. J. (1994). The development of computer-related attitudes of secondary students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(4), 307–338.
30.
WoodrowJ. E. J. (1996). The impact of technology enhanced science instruction on pedagogical beliefs and practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(3), 241–252.
31.
WoodrowJ. E. J.Mayer-SmithJ. A., & PedrettiE. G. (2000). Assessing technology enhanced instruction: A case study in secondary science. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 15–40.
