COMPUTER ANXIETY AND COMPUTER SELF-EFFICACY

Inhaltsverzeichnis:

  1. Title
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. References
  8. Appendix A
  9. Appendix B
  10. Table 1
  11. Table 2
  12. Footnotes
  13. Contributor

Introduction

More and more, professional success depends upon reasonable application of computer technology. However, not all people find easy access. Certainly, two major hindrances are computer anxiety (CAX) and lack of computer self- efficacy (CSE). There are theoretical as well as empirical arguments for this claim. According to learning theory (Skinner, 1961), people will avoid aversive stimuli, as for example a computer which arises anxiety. According to self- efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) people will only try a behavior if they believe themselves capable, that is, if they feel efficacious about this behavior. Empirical results indicate that CAX has negative effects on computer use (Harrington, McElroy, & Morrow, 1990; Mahar, Henderson, & Deane, 1997; Todman & Monaghan, 1994) and computer performance (Bradley & Russell, 1997; Brosnan, 1998; Harrington, 1988; Heinssen, Glass, & Knight, 1987; Mahar, Henderson, & Deane, 1997; Marcoulides, 1988). For CSE, empirical results indicate positive effects on interest in using computers (Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987), need for learning computer skills (Zhang & Espinoza, 1997), and computer performance (Brosnan, 1998; Christoph, Schoenfeld, & Tansky, 1998; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989; Karsten & Roth, 1998).
Because CAX and CSE have such far-reaching effects, computer education - especially for beginners - should not only aim at mediating knowledge, but also at reducing CAX and enlarging CSE. For this purpose, empirically valid knowledge about factors influencing these variables is required. Several relevant empirical studies are at hand. Some of these are designed to isolate the effect of single influence factors, especially certain aspects of the education style (Gist, Schoerer & Rosen, 1989; Keeler & Anson, 1995; Reznich, 1996). Others are typical evaluational no-control-group studies focussing on a specific educational treatment, as for example an introductory course in certain computer skills (e.g. Fitzgerald, Hardin, & Hollingssead, 1997; Häkkinen, 1994-95) or a computer-assisted course with a non-computer theme (Lambert & Lenthall, 1989; Liu & Reed, 1995). Some studies have an intermediate status, insofar as courses of a different kind are compared (Leso & Peck, 1992; Maurer & Simonson, 1993-94; Overbaugh & Reed, 1994-95).
Both kinds of studies contrasted here have specific advantages and disadvantages. Studies focussing on single influence factors provide by far more internally valid information. However, this is information mainly restricted to exactly the investigated influence factor, and - for practical and/or ethical reasons - only a few of the infinitely many possible factors can be investigated in a proper quasi-experimental or even experimental design. Studies focussing on a specific, rather complex educational treatment provide information which is distinctly more ambiguous. However, very often this is the only available information and - especially if interpreted together with the results of other studies - this information can help to determine the set of educational treatments reducing CAX and enlarging CSE. Moreover, this information may suggest hypotheses about the most effective influence factors.
Within this article, a study of the intermediate kind is presented. Two university courses which were concerned with computers are compared with three university courses which were not. All of these courses addressed preservice teachers1 in the first part of their academic studies and were all given during the same term at a German university. The two courses concerned with computers were 1) an introductory computer course with teacher-assisted training of different basic computer skills and 2) a lecture introducing educational sciences with special reference to computer technology. The three other courses were all other lectures given during the same term as alternative introductions into educational sciences. All of these courses address the same clientele. In addition to preservice teachers, students of other disciplines could also attend the courses. Apart from very few constraints, students could freely choose among the courses.

Preview:Abstract
Next:Method