1

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

THE EFFECT OF COMPUTER WEBSITE IN COMPUTER LITERACY

A Research Proposal
Presented to the Faculty of the
LUCRECIA R. KASILAG SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Quezon City, Metro Manila

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Inquiries, Investigation and Immersion (III)

By

DELOS REYES, CHRISTIAN JAMES

BRITANIA, NELSON R.
PADON, RYU
VERGARA, PHERRIE MAE

12-GAS

CHAPTER 2
 2

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Review of Related Literature

I. The Demand for Flexible Learning:

The literature supports the growing field of technology and the need for

knowledge and use of technology in education. Learners will continue to demand flexible

ways of learning, and collaborative tasks between technology and education, which

combine teaching and learning skills. According to Powell & Lord (1998), students

continually need positive exposure of technology for positive growth. According to

McDonald (2002), computer-mediated communication encourages collaborative learning

by not providing cues regarding appearance, race, gender, education, or social status

bestowing a sort of anonymity to participants. Students and instructors can converse

through a variety of forums, including e-mail, online discussion forums, bulletin boards,

and web pages (Richter, 2001). This kind of communication is helpful in promoting

diverse viewpoints; alternative ways of looking at problems; and teaching higher-level

skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Driscoll, 1998).

In addition to communication, computers support the use and delivery of

multimedia elements, such as sound video, and interactive hypermedia (McNeil et

al.,2000). A study completed by Devlin and James (2003) concluded that the impact of

multimedia and educational technology could provide some indication of improved

 3

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

student learning. Several studies (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Hill Smith, & Mann, 1987;

Taylor

& Todd, 1995; Torkzadeh & Koufteros, 1994; Torkzadeh & Koufteros, 1993; Yi &

Venkatesh, 1996) have tested a variety of social and cognitive constructs to improve the

effective and efficient use of computer information technology. According to Doll and

Torkzadeh (1989), one of the most important constructs used to examine the ability of

the learner to successfully perform computer-related tasks is self-efficacy.

II. Behavioral Changes:

Established to explain behavioral changes, the self-efficacy theory and its

theoretical framework were initially espoused by Bandura (1986). Self-efficacy, as

defined by Bandura, is “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute

courses of action required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned not

with the skills one has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one

possesses.” (p. 391) The self-efficacy construct described by Bandura was composed of

two cognitive dimensions, personal self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Bandura

(1977) defined personal self-efficacy as “the conviction that one can successfully execute

the behavior required to produce the outcomes” and outcome expectancy as “a person’s

estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes” (p.193). Therefore, unlike
 4

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

attitudes, the interpretation of self-efficacy is identified with a set of clearly defined skills

or behaviors

(Bandura, 1986; Murphy, Cover, & Owen, 1989).

According to Bandura (1986), there are four potential sources that may impact

selfefficacy: Actual experiences, emotional arousal, vicarious experiences, and verbal

persuasions. Although all sources may contribute significantly to perceptions of

selfefficacy, actual experiences are considered the most powerful source of self-efficacy

information (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). As seen by Bandura (1986), the perception

that performance (as an actual experience) has been successful raises efficacy beliefs

while the perception that performance has been unsuccessful lowers efficacy beliefs.

Selfefficacy toward computers (or computer self-efficacy) is necessary to make effective

use of computer technologies to gain momentum in the different aspects of education.

According to Zhang & Espinoza (1997), self-efficacy and attitudes towards computers

are significant predictors of a student’s perceived need to learn computer skills. In fact,

studies show that self-efficacy toward computers is a critical predictor for the use of

computer technology (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Ertmer , Evenbeck, Cennamo, &

Lehman, 1994; Jorde-Bloom, 1988; Kinzie, Delcourt, & Powers, 1994; Olivier &

Shapior, 1993; Zhang & Espinoza, 1997). Therefore, Compeau and Higgins (1995,

p.192) define computer selfefficacy as “a judgment of one’s ability to use a computer”.

 5

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

III.Computer Literacy:

Liu, Reed, & Phillips,. (1992), Sheffield (1996), and Summers (1988) indicated

that pre-service teacher education students had little prior experience and knowledge of

computer technologies when entering education programs. Therefore, introductory

computer literacy courses are needed to provide students with actual experience about

basic computer concepts and skills (Kim & Peterson, 1992). In comparison to the more

traditional courses, pre-service teachers’ computer self-efficacy and achievement rise

when these teachers are involved in technology rich content lessons (Hacker & Sova,

1998). In fact, the longer a pre-service teacher participates in a course integrating

technology, the more confident he/she feels toward technology (Bohlin & Hunt, 1995;

Milbrath & Kinzie, 2000). Moore (1994) indicated that computer based learning highly

motivates learners. Therefore, the use of computer technologies and time using these

technologies in computer literacy courses are believed to be determining factors of

increasing computer self-efficacy.

In other words, the more exposure to technology integration through teaching

methods courses and as course requirements the more confident a pre-service teacher

may feel toward using computers as a teaching tool. Therefore, increasing computer

technology experiences for the pre-service teacher could impact the eventual use of such

technology in the classroom by contributing to the formation of positive attitudes and

 6

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

self-efficacy (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Drost & Abbott, 2000). Although compute

literacy courses are usually based on the assumption that students have little or no prior

computer experience (Brock, Thomsen, & Kohl, 1992), prior experience of using

computers usually influences expectations of students participating

IV. The Present Situation:

Previous research has provided complicated findings regarding the relationship

between prior computer experience and computer self-efficacy. For example, many

studies showed that actual experience with computers has been found to enhance an

individual’s personal sense of computer self-efficacy (Durndell & Haag, 2002; Ertmer ,

Evenback,

Cennamo, & Lehman, 1994; Hill, Reed, & Behr, 1987; Laguna & Babcock, 2000;

Laurillard, 1996; Medvin, Reed & Behr, 2002; Miura, 1987). In addition to quality,

quantity of past computer experience also seems to influence self-efficacy (Bradley &

Russell, 1997; Medvin et al., 2002; Moroz & Nash, 1997). According to Kellenberger

(1996), any prior experience using technology can affect students’ current self-efficacy

toward computer use.

Other studies (Hasan, 2003; Karsten & Roth, 1998), however, showed that only

those experiences that develop or enhance the specific computer skills defined to

compromise computer literacy in a particular context are likely to have an impact on

computer self efficacy. In other words, these studies indicated that the relevance of prior

computer experience seems to matter more than its quantity. Hasan’s study (2003)
 7

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

examined the influence of eight types of computer experiences on computer self-efficacy.

The results of his study indicated that experience with computer programming and

graphics applications have strong and significant effects on computer self-efficacy

beliefs, whereas experience with spreadsheet and database applications demonstrated

weak effects. In addition, the quick development of computer technologies and

applications in education seems to further complicate the situation (Milbarth & Kinzie,

2000). Therefore, studies on the relationship between computer self-efficacy and

computer literacy in light of prior computer experience are eventually needed.

Specifically, the problem of the study is to determine the effect of an Internet-based

computer literacy course on pre-service teacher education students’ computer self-

efficacy in light of their prior computer experience.

Review of Related Studies

Student Engagement

Interest in student engagement began over 70 years ago with Ralph Tyler’s

research on the relationship between time spent on coursework and learning, discovered

by Axelson

& Flick, (2011). Perhaps the most well-known resource on student engagement is the

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), an instrument designed to assess

student participation in various educational activities, indicated by Kuh, (2009). The

 8

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

NSSE and other engagement instruments like it have been used in many studies that link

student engagement to positive student outcomes such as higher grades, retention,

persistence, and completion (Leach, 2016; McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2012; Trowler

& Trowler, 2010), further convincing universities that student engagement is an

important factor in the teaching and learning process. However, despite the increased

interest in student engagement, its meaning is generally not well understood or agreed

upon.

Student engagement is defined by Fredricks et al., (1994); Wimpenny &

SavinBaden, (2013); Zepke & Leach, (2010), it is a broad qnd complex phenomenon for

which there are many definitions grounded in psychological, social, and/or cultural

perspectives. Review of definitions revealed that student engagement is defined in two

ways. One set of definitions refer to student engagement as a desired outcome reflective

of a student’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about learning. For example, Kahu (2013)

defines student engagement as an “individual psychological state” that includes a

student’s affect, cognition, and behavior (p. 764). Other definitions focus primarily on

student behavior, suggesting that engagement is the “extent to which students are

engaging in activities that higher education research has shown to be linked with high-

quality learning outcomes” (Krause & Coates, 2008, p. 493) or the “quality of effort and

involvement in productive learning activities” (Kuh, 2009, p. 6). Another set of

 9

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

definitions refer to student engagement as a process involving both the student and the

university. For example,

Trowler (2010) defined student engagement as “the interaction between the time, effort

and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions intended to

optimize the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of

students and the performance, and reputation of the institution” (p. 2). Similarly, the

NSSE website indicates that student engagement is “the amount of time and effort

students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities” as well as

“how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other

learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research

studies show are linked to student learning” (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2017,

para. 1).

Moreover, Kahu, (2013); Lam et al., (2012); Nora et al., (2005) emphasized that

many existing models of student engagement reflect the latter set of definitions, depicting

engagement as a complex, psychosocial process involving both student and university

characteristics. Such models organize the engagement process into three areas: factors

that influence student engagement (e.g., institutional culture, curriculum, and teaching

practices), indicators of student engagement (e.g., interest in learning, interaction with

instructors and peers, and meaningful processing of information), and outcomes of

student engagement (e.g., academic achievement, retention, and personal growth). In this
 10

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

review, we examine the literature to determine whether technology influences student

engagement. In addition, we will use Fredricks et al. (2004) typology of student

engagement to organize and present research findings, which suggests that there are three

types of engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive). The typology is useful

because it is broad in scope, encompassing different types of engagement that capture a

range of student experiences, rather than narrower typologies that offer specific or

prescriptive conceptualizations of student engagement. In addition, this typology is

student-centered, focusing exclusively on student-focused indicators rather than

combining student indicators with confounding variables, such as faculty behavior,

curriculum design, and campus environment (Coates,

2008; Kuh, 2009).

Influence of technology on Student Engagement

We identified technology post-literature search to include in our review, based on

frequency in which they appeared in the literature over the past 5 years. Indicated by

Boghossian, (2006); Clements, (2015), one commonality among these technologies is

their potential value in supporting a constructivist approach to learning, characterized by

the active discovery of knowledge through reflection of experiences with one’s

environment, the connection of new knowledge to prior knowledge, and interaction with

others. Another commonality is that most of the technologies, except perhaps for digital

games, are designed primarily to promote interaction and collaboration with others. Our

search yielded very few studies on how informational technologies, such as video
 11

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

lectures and podcasts, influence student engagement. Therefore, according to

Boghossian, (2006) technologies are notably absent from our review. Unlike the

technologies we identified earlier, informational technologies reflect a behaviorist

approach to learning in which students are passive recipients of knowledge that is

transmitted from an expert. The lack of recent research on how informational

technologies affect student engagement may be due to the increasing shift from

instructor-centered, behaviorist approaches to student-centered, constructivist approaches

within higher education (Haggis, 2009; Wright, 2011) along with the ubiquity of web 2.0

technologies.

I. Social Networking Sites

Social networking sites are avenues for sharing interests, activities, entertainment,

and educational opportunities. Boyd and Ellison (2007) disclosed that Facebook,

MySpace, Twitter, and other sites strengthen relationships and connect people based on

shared interest and political views. Their nding validates Wheeldon’s (2010) conclusion

that social networking sites are used to interact, provide an update, keep in touch with

existing friends and relatives, or start new relationships using personal pro les. Tynes

(2007b) furthered that adolescents who construct pro les, create videos and post them on

YouTube, or chat are in the process of continually creating, recreating, and honing their

identities. These processes are similar to learning experiences that transpire in the

classroom when the students encounter different personalities. They learn how to deal
 12

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

with different people. In a 2007a study, Tynes also discussed that perspective-taking

skills could improve as a result of computer-mediated interaction with people from

different backgrounds.

On the other hand, despite the definite advantages of social networking sites,

bullying is a great disadvantage. In the words of Whitney and Smith (1993) and Olwens

(1999), as cited in the article of Beran and Li (2005), bullying is an aggressive,

intentional act or behavior that is repeatedly carried out usually inside the school

premises by a group or an individual against a helpless victim. Aricak et al. (2008)

defined school bullying as the victimization of a student by being repeatedly exposed to

physical or verbal manipulation and humiliation. Bullying has expanded to the

cyberspace; hence the term cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is intentional virtual aggression

by peers using modern-day technology. For instance, Katz (2001) emphasized that

adolescents exposed to the internet have experienced sexual harassment. Victims of

virtual aggression tend to be emotional and experience feelings of discomfort. Beran and

Li (2005) further cited that several victims of bullying in cyberspace indicated feelings of

sadness, anger, anxiety, and fear that may have impaired their ability to concentrate and

succeed academically. Some concerned groups and individuals are working hard to curb

cyberbullying. In the Philippines, Republic Act 10175, also known as the “Cybercrime

Prevention Act of 2012'', looks at how individuals using the internet can be protected.

Koo wrote in the Philippine

Daily Inquirer (August 21, 2011) that schools should teach “cyber ethics” in values
 13

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

education classes.

Abdulahi, Samadi, and Sharleghi (2014) in their article titled “A Study on the

Negative Effects of Social Networking Sites Such as Facebook among Asia Pacific

University Scholars in Malaysia” disclosed that with frequent visits to a social

networking site is the decrease in the academic performance of the students. They said

that excessive exposure to the internet would affect the performance of the students; thus,

the advantages of social networking sites, bullying is a great disadvantage. In the words

of Whitney and Smith (1993) and Olwens (1999), as cited in the article of Beran and Li

(2005), bullying is an aggressive, intentional act or behavior that is repeatedly carried out

usually inside the school premises by a group or an individual against a helpless victim.

Aricak et al. (2008) defined school bullying as the victimization of a student by being

repeatedly exposed to physical or verbal manipulation and humiliation. Bullying has

expanded to the cyberspace; hence the term cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is intentional

virtual aggression by peers using modern-day technology.

For Instance, Katz (2001) emphasized that adolescents Exposed to the internet

have experienced sexual harassment. Victims of virtual aggression tend to be emotional

and experience feelings of discomfort. Beran and Li (2005) further cited that Several

victims of bullying in cyberspace indicated feelings of sadness, anger, anxiety, and fear

that May have impaired their ability to concentrate and succeed academically. Some

concerned

Groups and individuals are working hard to curb Cyberbullying. In the Philippines,
 14

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

Republic Act 10175, also known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012’’, looks at

how individuals using The internet can be protected. Koo wrote in the Philippine Daily

Inquirer (August 21, 2011) that Schools should teach “cyber ethics” in values Education

classes.

In a related study, Indian researchers Sidiqui and Singh (2016) discussed both the

positive and negative effects of social media on education and concluded that in order to

avoid addiction, its use must be limited. However, in their study which focuses on the use

of social networks for academic purposes, Nández and Borrego (2013) revealed that

users about the lack of institutional support for the use of these tools. Similarly,

academics value social media since this where they share materials and follow other

researchers’ activities.

Four theories underpin this study. First is the Uses and Gratification Theory

(Bhronler & Katz, 1974) which deals with the free will of the individual to choose from

the vast array of social media. Second, the Media-Dependency Theory (Ball-Rokeach,

1976-1989 & Baran Davis, 2009) which highlights that the more a media consumer

adheres to a kind of media source for his/her needs to be fulfilled by it, the more he/she

will spend time on it, and the probability of his/her being influenced by whatever it

brings will be higher (understanding the social world (current events), conforming to

social norms (trends, pop culture), and fantasy-escape from social reality (entertainment)

are some examples of needs that could be met). The third theory is Connectivism

(Siemens, 2004); it deals with the link that one makes with the present state of knowledge
 15

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

that he/she possesses. This theory recognizes the fact that not everything associated with

the changing system and changing world can be within one’s control.

Learning can take place continuously, and maintaining a method of assessing new

knowledge is an important skill that every learner needs to have. Connectivism, in

essence, provides learners with insight into the learning skills and tasks required to

flourish in a digital era. Finally, the Theory of Constructivism (Driscoll, 2000) that deals

with the idea that learners constantly create meaning with the experience that they go

through in life.

II. Digital Gaming

This study is anchored in the concept of Donmus (as cited in Khatir, 2015) who

indicates that games can develop individuals’ physical and mental capacities, and also

can hold the attention of participants all the time and puts them in a race with themselves

and also with others in order to obtain certain objectives. He believed that “The value of

educational games has been increasing in language education since they help to make

language education entertaining “Alternatively, Gassand Selinker( as cited in Demirbiek

et al., 2010, p.763) indicated that repetition that occurs through games allows a learner to

be exposed to the learning target language and creates more opportunities for acquisition

to occur.
 16

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

An online game has swiftly become a popular source of entertainment for all

ages, particularly among young people. It is becoming a regular source of entertainment

globally, spreading in conjunction with the constant improvement of internet access.

According to Linda Jackson (2011), both boys and girls who play video games tend to be

more creative, regardless of whether the games are violent or nonviolent. A professor of

brain and cognitive sciences, Daphne Bavelier (2010) video gamers show improved skills

in vision, attention and certain aspects of cognition. And these skills are not just gaming

skills, but real-world skills. They perform better than on-gamers on certain tests of

attention, speed, accuracy, vision and multitasking.

Besides being a source of entertainment, the online games also have potential

problems such as aggression, physical injury, and addiction. But among all problems

related to online game use, addiction is arguably the most worrying. Online game

addiction has been recognized internationally and steps have been taken.

Lepper, M. R. & Gurtner, J (2000), stated that prolonged and excessive use of

these games can cause, mainly upon children, a number of physical and psychological

problems which may include obsessive, addictive behavior, dehumanization of the

player, desensitizing of feelings, personality changes, hyperactivity, learning disorders,

premature maturing of children, psychomotor disorders, health problems (due to lack of

exercise & tendonitis), Development of anti-social behavior and loss of free thinking and

will.
 17

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

On the other hand, Koo, et al. (2007) discussed the different factors to

engagement with an online game: (i) concentration; (ii)enjoyment; (iii) escape; (iv)

epistemic curiosity; and (v) social affiliation. Young (1996) posited that high-volume

users of online chat rooms tend to suffer from increasing weak real-world interactions

with their friends, families, and social activities (e.g., Clubs and social organizations).

Griffiths, et al. (2004) found online game is essentially played for leisure and pleasure.

Babin, et al. (1994) indicated that hedonic values reflect the potential entertainment value

and enjoyment that shoppers perceive in the experience of shopping. Hsu and Lu (2004)

have implied that the extrinsic dimensions might not reflect the salient motives of

players. In addition, the psychology of players is more inclined to be addicted to online

games, such as low agreeableness, high loneliness and shyness and low self-esteem

(Bianchi & Phillips, 2005). Hsu and Lu (2004; 2007) also concerned the cognitive and

perceptual factors affecting attitude and behavior with online game users. Kraut, et al.

(1998) used statistical methods to show a negative correlation between Internet usage and

communication with relatives and friends. Morahan-Martin and Schumacher (2000)

found that in the USA, pathological Internet undergraduate users were more likely to play

online games.

According to Asdaque (2010) the use of the Internet is one of the major factors

affecting the academic performance and social life of university students. The number of

hours spent on the internet will affect the CGPA, of students unless the Internet is used
 18

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

for study purpose. The students achieve good CGPA, who used the Internet for academic

purposes. The graphical representations about the use of the Internet and its impact on the

social life of university students indicate that the maximum use of the Internet, minimize

the social activities of university students. The study showed that use of Internet for study

purpose and academic achievements are directly proportional to each other while

inversely proportional to the social life of university students.

Moreover, Thomas and Martin (2010) added that the basis of any addiction is the

negative consequences that come with using a substance or doing an activity. With

pathological gaming, criteria for it includes resorting to crimes to fund one’s own

activity or pay off debts one has accumulated. However, articles in the media indicate a

trend that many crimes may occur either due to frustration surrounding the game, or to

copycat violent acts from the game.

Arntz (2006) and Griffiths (2010) said that emotional stability is dependent on a

secure attachment to a person or thing. Computer players may use computer games as a

way to solve emotional problems, and to get away from reality. This may create a

selfrepeating cycle, as the problem is not solved and only delayed, which creates more

conflict for the individual and cause them to play more.

As revealed in the foregoing studies, it could be discern that no study was ever

made on the level of computer literacy. An intensive literature review did not yield much

research that investigated and compared subjects’ both performances, attitudes and
 19

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

impacts of websites for being computer literate. Moreover, no study has been found that

investigated the same issue in Philippines. Thus, the present study is focused on

appraising impacts to computer literacy and utilization. Therefore, the current research

work is worthy of pursuing a noble cause of having a deep literacy about computers.

Furthermore, the findings herein can be added to a rich source of information for related

studies and literature and eventually for another investigation using other variables or

predictions.

References

Alston, A., Miller. W.W., & Williams, D.L. (2003). Use of instructional technology in

agricultural education in North Carolina and Virginia [Electronic Version]. Journal of

Career and Technical Education, 20(1), 23-35.

Bradley, G. & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support, and computer

anxiety [Electronic Version]. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of

Experimental Educational Psychology, 17(3), 267-284.

Budin, H. (1999). The computer in the classroom [Electronic Version]. Teachers College

Record, 100(3), 656-669.

Cohen, N.L., Beffa-Negrini, P., Cluff, C., Laus, M.J., Volpe, S.L., Dun, A.T., &
 20

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

Sternheim, M.M. (1999). Nutrition science online: Professional development of

secondary school teachers using the internet. Journal of Family and Consumer Sceinces

Education, 17(1), 25-33.

Croxall, K. & Cummings, M.N. (2000). Computer usage in family and consumer

sciences classrooms [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

Education,

18(1), 9-18.

Daulton, M. (1997). Microcomputer adoption by family and consumer sciences teachers:

An historical perspective [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

Education, 15(2), 55-60.

Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dooley, L.M., Metcalf, T., & Martinez, A. (1999). A study of the adoption of computer

technology by teachers [Electronic Version]. Educational Technology & Society, 2(4).

Eisenberg, M.B. & Johnson, D. (1996). Computer skills for information problem-solving:
 21

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

Learning and teaching technology in context. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and

Technology, Syracuse, NY. Retrieved April 2, 2007 from ERIC Document Reproduction

Service ERIC No. ED392463.

Evans, R. (1999). Serving modern students in a modern society at the community

college:incorporating basic technological literacy. T.H.E. Journal, 27(3), 102-104.

Geoghegan, W.H. (1994). What ever happened to instructional technology? 22nd Annual

Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association. Hasselbring,

T.S. (1991). Improving education through technology: Barriers and

Recommendations [Electronic Version]. Preventing School Failure, 35(3), 33-37. Keane,

K. (2002). Computer applications in the field of family and consumer science [Electronic

Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 20(2), 37-44.

Kentucky Department of Education. (2006). Kentucky family and consumer sciences

education teachers list.

Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board. (1999). New and returning teacher

standards for preparation & certification. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from Krejcie, R.V.

& Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational
 22

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Lokken, S.L., Cheek, W.K., & Hastings, S.W. (2003). The impact of technology training

on family and consumer sciences teacher attitudes toward using computers as an

Instructional medium [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

Education, 21(1), 18-32.

Lu, C. & Miller, L.E. (2002). Instructional technology competencies perceived as needed

by vocational teachers in Ohio and Taiwan [Electronic Version]. Journal of Vocational

Education Research, 27(3), 319-329.

Manley, K.S., Sweaney, A.L., & Valente, J.S. (2000). Internet usage among family and

Consumer sciences professionals [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and Consumer

Sciences Education, 18(2), 24-31.

Martin, R.E. & Lundstrom, K. (1988). Attitudes of vocational home economics teachers

toward computers. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 13(1), 83-93.

Mason, J. & McMorrow, R. (2006). YACLD (yet another computer literacy definition)

[Electronic Version]. Journal of Computing Sciences in College, 21(5), 94-100.

 23

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

McFadden, J.R., Croxall, K.C., & Wright, C.B. (2001). The place of computers in family

and consumer sciences classrooms [Electronic Version]. Journal of Family and

Consumer

Sciences Education, 19(2), 11-18.

Peake, J.B., Briers, G., & Murphy, T. (2005). Relationships between student achievement

and levels of technology integration by Texas agriscience teachers [Electronic Version].

Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 55(1), 19-32.

Roblyer, M.D., Castine, W.H., & King, F.J. (1993). Article #3, computer applications

have “undeniable value,” research shows. In T.R. Cannings &L. Finkel (Eds.), The

technology age classroom, 66-69. Wilsonville, OR: Franklin, Beedle & Associates.

Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Russell, A.L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: Naïve adult email users.

Computers & Technology, 25(4), 173-178.

Schofield, J.W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Melbourne, Australia:

Cambridge University Press.

 24

Lucrecia R. Kasilag Senior High School

Taylor, D., Torrie, M., Hausafus, C., & Strasser, M.J. (1999). Interactive

technologybased television delivery. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 17(2),

31- Tornatsky, L.G. & Klein, K.J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation

Adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, 29(1), 28-45.

Trotter, A. (1998). A question of effectiveness. Education Week, 18(5). Retrieved April

03, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Toward a new golden age in American education:

How the internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations.

National Education Technology Plan. Way, W.L. & Montgomery, B. (1995).

Hypermedia technology: Tools for implementing Critical science-based curricula in

family and consumer education. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education,

13(1), 1-15.