Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Computers in the home curriculum project : an atttitude and gender study Van Alstyne, Audrey May 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 V36.pdf [ 6.74MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055223.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055223-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055223-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055223-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055223-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055223-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055223-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055223-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055223.ris

Full Text

COMPUTERS IN THE HOME CURRICULUM PROJECT: AN ATTITUDE AND GENDER STUDY by AUDREY MAY VAN ALSTYNE B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Curriculum and Instruction) We accept t h i s t hesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1991 Audrey May Van Alstyne, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Computers are a v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r e d u c a t i o n . S t u d i e s have proven t h a t the computer can a s s i s t i n the development of a p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t and a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward s c h o o l . Computers can i n c r e a s e s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n and achievement by i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g the l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s . The r e s e a r c h c l e a r l y documents the dominance o f males i n the computer f i e l d . Home economics e d u c a t o r s have the a b i l i t y t o a s s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s i n u s i n g t h i s t o o l t o t h e i r b e s t advantage. T h i s r e s e a r c h study i n c l u d e d 224 st u d e n t s a t S i r C h a r l e s Tupper S c h o o l i n Vancouver, B.C. The s t u d e n t s were t h i r t e e n or f o u r t e e n y e a r s o f age and i n grade n i n e o r t e n . The study was conducted between September 1989 and Fe b r u a r y 1990. The purpose o f t h i s study was t o determine i f the i n t e g r a t i o n o f computers i n t o home economics can encourage a t t i t u d e changes and promote e q u i t a b l e computer use between male and female s t u d e n t s . T h i s study w i l l t e s t t he a s s e r t i o n o f p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h t h a t i n d i c a t e s females a re l e s s i n t e r e s t e d i n computers and l e s s l i k e l y t o use computers than males. Can females do as w e l l as males and males as w e l l as females when g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o study p e r s o n a l l y r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l under the s u p e r v i s i o n o f a female r o l e model? Of the 224 s t u d e n t s i n the study, 185 were i n the c o n t r o l group and 39 were i n the treatment group. The treatment i n v o l v e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the new cour s e , Computers i n the Home. T h i s course s t u d i e s the impact of computers on f a m i l y l i f e , and e x p l o r e s p e r s o n a l and home computer a p p l i c a t i o n s . The survey was designed to assess student a t t i t u d e s toward the computer and how they may have changed as a r e s u l t of the course. Student responses to the survey were analyzed using SPSS-X and Chi-Square analyses were performed to determine any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . During the period of study, the enrollment patterns i n both Computer Science and Computers i n the Home refute the majority of research i n that more females than males were en r o l l e d i n these computer cl a s s e s . I t was expected and postulated that students en r o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home would have been exposed to a d i f f e r e n t experience than those not e n r o l l e d . Unfortunately, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the a t t i t u d e s of the students en r o l l e d i n the course and students not enrolled i n Computers i n the Home. Although empirical observation throughout the study period lead the researcher to believe there were dif f e r e n c e s , s t a t i s t i c a l a nalysis of the survey responses did not support t h i s observation. Males o v e r t l y displayed t h e i r enjoyment—they were more adventurous, aggressive and curious. Female students were quieter and tended to be more covert toward t h i s machine. Since no diff e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e was found, t h i s research study has shown that females are as intere s t e d and use computers as often as male students at S i r Charles Tupper School. Although females react d i f f e r e n t l y toward computers, the general trend appears to be moving toward more equitable computer experiences for a l l . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT ± ± -LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .> : v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 R a t i o n a l e 1 1.2 Problem Statement 4 1.3 Assumptions 5 1.4 L i m i t a t i o n s 5 1.5 D e l i m i t a t i o n s 5 1.6 O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n s 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 8 2.1 B e n e f i t s o f Computer E d u c a t i o n 8 2.1.1 Achievement L e v e l 9 2.1.2 The Need f o r A p p l i c a t i o n Rather than Programming 10 2.1.3 Computers i n Home Economics 12 2.2 A t t i t u d e Changes M o t i v a t e d by Computers 16 2.3 Computers and Gender 19 2.4 Summary 23 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 26 3.1 Development o f C u r r i c u l u m 26 3.2 Sample S e l e c t i o n 29 3.3 I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n 31 3.4 Research Design 32 3.5 V a r i a b l e s 33 3.6 Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s 35 3.7 N u l l Hypotheses 36 CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF DATA 38 4.1 D e s c r i p t i o n o f Sample 38 4.2 Background f o r Hypotheses 5 9 4.3 T e s t i n g o f Hypotheses 75 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83 5.1 D i s c u s s i o n 83 5.1.1 H y p o t h e s i s One 84 5.1.2 H y p o t h e s i s Two 86 5.1.3 Hypotheses Three, Four and F i v e 87 5.2 L i m i t a t i o n s 89 5.3 Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research 90 5.4 C o n c l u s i o n s 92 REFERENCES 94 APPENDIX A: VSB Survey 1987-1988 100 APPENDIX B: VSB R e v i s e d Survey 1988-1989 107 APPENDIX C: P r e t e s t 113 APPENDIX D: P o s t - t e s t 120 APPENDIX E: Gene r a l Purpose Answer Sheet 126 LIST OF TABLES v i 1A S u b j e c t Response i n Terms o f E x p e r i e n c e With Computers (Tupper) 41 IB Student Computer E x p e r i e n c e i n Percentages ( P r o v i n c i a l ) 41 2A Percentage o f S u b j e c t s who have Access t o a Home Computer (Tupper) 44 2B Percentage o f Students w i t h Access t o a Home Computer ( P r o v i n c i a l ) 44 3 Percentage o f Responses i n Terms of Computer Use O u t s i d e S c h o o l (Tupper) 46 4 Response o f Student Computer Use a t Schoo l i n Percentages (Tupper) 47 5 Percentage o f Students E n r o l l e d i n Computer S c i e n c e (Tupper) 50 6 Percentage o f Students P l a n n i n g t o E n r o l l i n Computer S c i e n c e i n the F u t u r e (Tupper) 50 7 Percentage o f S u b j e c t s F e e l i n g B e t t e r P r e p a r e d t o Take a Computer S c i e n c e Course (Tupper) 52 8 Percentage o f Students Response t o Sc h o o l Computer Use (Tupper) 54 9 Percentage o f Student Response t o P r e f e r r e d Method Working on a Computer (Tupper) 56 10 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Students Who P a r t i c i p a t e d i n Computers i n the Home by Grade (Tupper) 58 11A Percentages o f Student Response i n Terms o f A t t i t u d e s Toward L e a r n i n g More About Computers (Tupper) 60 11B Percentage o f Student Responses i n Terms of A t t i t u d e s Toward L e a r n i n g More About Computers ( P r o v i n c i a l ) 60 12A Percentage o f Responses t o A t t i t u d e s Toward F e e l i n g H e l p l e s s Around Computers (Tupper) 62 v i i 12B Percentage i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward F e e l i n g H e l p l e s s Toward Computers (Tupper) 62 13 Percentage o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward F e e l i n g That A l l Students Should be Taught Computers (Tupper). . 63 14 Percentage o f Student Responses Toward Computers Being U s e f u l i n Math and S c i e n c e (Tupper) 63 15A Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward Computers Being U s e f u l i n Home Economics (Tupper) . 65 15B Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward the U s e f u l n e s s o f Computers i n Home Economics (Tupper) 65 16 Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward Whether Computers are More U s e f u l f o r Boys than G i r l s (Tupper) 67 17 Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward F e e l i n g C o n f i d e n t About U s i n g Computers (Tupper). . 67 18 Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward E n j o y i n g U s i n g a Computer (Tupper) 69 19 Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward T h i n k i n g About a Computer Makes Them Nervous (Tupper) 69 20A Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e That Computers Are G a i n i n g Too Much C o n t r o l (Tupper) . . 7 0 20B Percentages o f Student A t t i t u d e That Computers Are G a i n i n g Too Much C o n t r o l ( P r o v i n c i a l ) 7 0 21 Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward Working With Computers as W e l l as Others T h e i r Age (Tupper) 72 22 Percentages i n Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e Toward F e e l i n g That a Computer i s U s e f u l f o r P e r s o n a l and Home Management (Tupper) 7 2 23 Student A t t i t u d e s Toward Computer U s e — C h i Square ( T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n ) S t a t i s t i c and S i g n i f i c a n c e L e v e l (4df) 74 24 S i g n i f i c a n c e L e v e l f o r Student A t t i t u d e s f o r Male and Female Students on the Pre and Post T e s t — C h i -Square T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n (4df) 76 Female Students i n the Experimental and Control Group Attitudes Toward Computer Use—Chi-Square (Test of Association) S t a t i s t i c and S i g n i f i c a n c e Level (4df) Experimental and Control Group Male Student Attitudes Toward Computer U s e — C h i Square (Test of Association) S t a t i s t i c and S i g n i f i c a n c e Level (4df) LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 Pretest Post-test Nonequivalent Control Group Design Diagram 3 3 2 Proportion of Male and Female Students at S i r Charles Tupper School - . 3 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x! I would l i k e to thank the members of my thes i s committee: Dr. Charles Ungerleider, Dr. Harold R a t z l a f f , and Dr. Linda Peterat. Their support and guidance over the past three years has been very much appreciated. A s p e c i a l Thank You to my chairperson, Dr. Ungerleider for his understanding nature of my family commitments throughout t h i s process. To Dr. Jane Promnitz for being the c a t a l y s t behind my graduate studies and for her warmth and encouragement. To Eda Favaro at the Vancouver School Board for providing an i n t e r e s t i n g experience to a s s i s t i n balancing the p r a c t i c a l side of my research with the t h e o r e t i c a l . To the s t a f f at Tupper; Marie Madderom and the Home Economics Department for t h e i r support; Ed Matsumoto for his assistance throughout the Computers i n the Home project and to the Mathematics Department for t h e i r cooperation during the administration of the pretest and post-test. To my extended family, e s p e c i a l l y Grandma and "Gramps" for t h e i r grandparenting and encouragement throughout t h i s process. F i n a l l y to my husband, Craig, for his proofreading s k i l l s and his understanding of the time I spent i n the computer room. I t i s him and my two sons, Clark and Jordan, that I dedicate t h i s t h e s i s . 1 CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION The computer i s having a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on e d u c a t i o n and on the f a m i l y — t h e focus o f home economics. Microwave ovens, i n s t a n t bank t e l l e r machines, and s e l f - d i a g n o s t i c a p p l i a n c e s c o n t a i n i n g a computer c h i p have become p a r t o f our l i v e s . In e d u c a t i o n , the emphasis i s changing from computer programming t o computer a p p l i c a t i o n . A t the same time, a t t i t u d e s toward the computer a r e changing from i n t i m i d a t i o n t o comfort. Canadian s o c i e t y i s moving from an economic base i n p r o d u c t i o n and consumption t o an i n f o r m a t i o n and h i g h t e c h n o l o g y economy. I t i s p r e d i c t e d t h a t f u t u r e s o c i a l c l a s s d i s t i n c t i o n s may be made, not on income, but on computer l i t e r a c y . 1.1 R a t i o n a l e P a s t r e s e a r c h has c l e a r l y documented the dominance of males i n t he computer f i e l d ( B l a c k s t o n e & Hamilton, 1989; Lennon & M u l l e r , 1989; Atack, 1988; Bracey, 1988; C h i a r e l i , 1988; L a P o i n t e & M a r t i n e z , 1988; Reagan & C l a r k , 1988; and Sian n , e t a l . , 1988 e t c . ) . T h i s study w i l l determine i f computer i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o home economics can encourage a t t i t u d e changes and promote e q u i t a b l e computer use between male and female s t u d e n t s . Gender e q u i t y goes beyond having e q u a l a c c e s s t o knowledge by exposing and e l i m i n a t i n g those f a c t o r s p r e s e n t i n the 'hidden' c u r r i c u l u m which i n v o l v e b i a s . These f a c t o r s i n c l u d e : s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r i n t e r a c t i o n ; sex-s t e r e o t y p i n g i n l e a r n i n g r e s o u r c e s ; and the e x p e c t a t i o n s o f 2 teachers, parents, counsellors, and of the students themselves. The course, Computers i n the Home, was created for use i n the Vancouver School Board curriculum. I t was designed to address the unequal use of computers by males and females by promoting t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a "gender-balanced" curriculum. Eyre (1988) defines a "gender-balanced" curriculum as one that includes experiences of the private, domestic and reproductive world as r e c e i v i n g as much attention as the public, p o l i t i c a l and productive world. The microcomputer may be viewed as a t o o l of the p u b l i c , p o l i t i c a l and productive world as well as a useful t o o l i n the home -- the private, domestic and reproductive world. As Wakefield states, The family and the home computer form a p o t e n t i a l l y unique and i d e a l marriage. Their r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a powerful one i n our emerging information society, where information has become America's p r i n c i p a l product and access to i t o f f e r s power" (1986, p.18). Computers i n the Home includes the study of household computers and t h e i r uses. The course provides opportunities for both male and female students to develop s k i l l s , knowledge and a b i l i t i e s to take a more reasoned and pragmatic approach to family and technology. The course focuses on cooperative a c t i v i t i e s that a s s i s t students to increase t h e i r awareness, knowledge and use of microcomputer technology i n d a i l y l i v i n g . I t provides a very d i f f e r e n t perspective about the use of computers than that offered by Business Education and Computer Science courses. Open-ended inq u i r y i s encouraged as students work toward developing a c r i t i c a l understanding of the impact of computers on t h e i r personal and 3 family l i f e . Student experiences include the use of a computer as a means to an end and not an end i n i t s e l f . Technology i s a powerful s o c i e t a l force that has aff e c t e d the family i n a multitude of ways. Home economics educators are challenged to accept t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for helping students as family members to become aware of the s i g n i f i c a n t influence of technology and to act on t h e i r own behalf to d i r e c t i t (Hittman, 1987, p. 5). I f the computer i s to become widely-used as a household t o o l , then both male and female students need opportunities to apply computer technology i n a home-related environment to enhance d a i l y l i v i n g . Aware of the power of technology and the key r o l e i t w i l l play i n our future, educators should be asking themselves: What are we doing to prepare students for t h i s high tech world? W i l l our students have the dec i s i o n making and c r i t i c a l thinking s k i l l s to use a r a p i d l y changing technology to enhance the q u a l i t y of family l i f e ? Are g i r l s as well as boys encouraged and enabled to p a r t i c i p a t e and gain from a computerized world? (Favaro and Van Alstyne, 1989, p. 26). As computers become commonplace, we must remember that, "no other educational technology has been thought to have so much p o t e n t i a l " (Olson, 1988, p. 1). The p o t e n t i a l of the computer and s o c i e t a l concern about adapting to the technology were the c a t a l y s t s for computer i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o home economics. The complexities of the issues surrounding technology and the contradictions i t p r e c i p i t a t e s need to be studied. Home economics classes can a s s i s t students i n understanding the benefits and problems of technological change. Further, home economics can influence a t t i t u d e s toward technology and u l t i m a t e l y encourage gender balance with respect to computer use. 4 1.2 Problem Statement and Purpose of the Study As a p r a c t i t i o n e r , the researcher i s concerned with the question: CAN THE INTEGRATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS INTO HOME ECONOMICS ENCOURAGE ATTITUDE CHANGES AND PROMOTE EQUITABLE COMPUTER USE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS? This question was studied during the period of September 1989 to the beginning of February 1990 at S i r Charles Tupper School i n Vancouver, B.C. The purpose of t h i s study i s to consider the e f f e c t that the in t e g r a t i o n of computers into home economics had on student a t t i t u d e s and gender equity at t h i s school. The study w i l l t e s t the assertion of previous research that indicates females are l e s s i n t e r e s t e d i n computers, le s s l i k e l y to use computers, and less able to use computers than males (Blackstorie & Hamilton, 1989; Sanders & Stone, 1986; C o l l i s , 1985). I t asks whether females can do as well as males and males as well as females, when they are given the opportunity to study personally relevant material under the supervision of a female r o l e model. The research question w i l l be explored through the following sub-questions: 1. What are the atti t u d e s of grade 9 and 10 students at S i r Charles Tupper School toward the use of computers? 2. W i l l student a t t i t u d e s toward computers be more p o s i t i v e for students who have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the new course, Computers i n the Home, than for students who have not? 3. Can the implementation of the course promote gender equity with respect to computer use? 5 4. W i l l a greater number of females e n r o l l i n the course, thereby balancing the greater number of males enrolle d i n computer science courses? 1.3 Assumptions The following assumptions were made: 1. More male than female students are enrolled i n computer science at S i r Charles Tupper School. 2. More female than male students are enr o l l e d i n home economics at S i r Charles Tupper School. 3. Students w i l l understand the statements and questions presented i n the a t t i t u d e inventory survey. 4. Students w i l l complete the survey c a r e f u l l y and honestly. 5. The a t t i t u d e inventory pretest and post-test w i l l r e f l e c t the a t t i t u d e changes, i f any, undergone by students as a r e s u l t of t h e i r enrollment i n the course. 1.4 Limitations The study i s l i m i t e d by the following: 1. The v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the a t t i t u d e measure used. 2. The willingness of students to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. 3. The researcher's l i m i t e d experience i n w r i t i n g surveys and obtaining the required data. 1.5 Delimitations The study i s l i m i t e d to the following: 1. Grade nine and ten students at S i r Charles Tupper Secondary School i n Vancouver, B.C. being present for both the pretest and post-test. 2. Grade nine and ten students at Tupper who are not i n the Learning Assistance c l a s s or an English as a Second Language c l a s s . 3. The course, Computers i n the Home, being taught from September 1989 to the beginning of February 1990. 4. Software a v a i l a b i l i t y . 1.6 Operational D e f i n i t i o n s Throughout the study, the following terms w i l l be used according to the d e f i n i t i o n s below: At t i t u d e - a person's mental set or p r e d i s p o s i t i o n to any other person, thing or state. I t i s i n f e r r e d from behavior and inner states, and may be evaluative or p r e f e r e n t i a l (Scriven, 1980). A Likert-type measure c o n s i s t i n g of f i v e points ranging from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' w i l l be used to determine student a t t i t u d e s toward a s e r i e s of twelve items which were included on both the pretest and post-test. Gender - "the s o c i o c u l t u r a l l y constructed differences between the sexes" (Hayibor, 1990, p.5). In contrast, sex i s b i o l o g i c a l and determined at conception by chromosomal arrangement. Home Economics computer programs - various software packages which r e l a t e to or may be adapted to studies within home economics. S p e c i f i c a l l y designed for the Apple IIGS computer, the hardware used for Computers i n the Home at S i r Charles Tupper School (1989-1990), these a p p l i c a t i o n programs include: -Your Tour of the IIGS - P r i n t Shop GS -Dazzle Draw -Appleworks GS (an integrated package: word processing, databases, spreadsheets, graphics, desktop publishing, and telecommunications) -Money Management -Improving Your Self-Concept -Fitness — A State of Body and Mind -Learning to Cope With Pressure -Biofeedback Microlab -Health Maintenance -Teen Health Adviser -Drug and Alcohol Simulations -Smoking — I t ' s up to You -Food Facts - N u t r i t i o n vol.11 Equity - eq u a l i t y of educational opportunity, where the same or comparable opportunities for study and educational improvement are a v a i l a b l e to a l l i n d i v i d u a l s without regard to race, r e l i g i o n , ethnic background, gender or economic status (Hawes & Hawes, 1982, p.79). Equity goes beyond eq u a l i t y of access to include e q u a l i t y of outcome. Ide a l l y , i t eliminates the bias that may be present i n student/teacher i n t e r a c t i o n s and sex-stereotyping i n learning resources and expectations (both self-imposed as well as those stereotypes created by others). 8 CHAPTER 2  LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to review the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the research. The published research about the e f f e c t of computer i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o home economics i s minimal. Therefore the question, "Can the in t e g r a t i o n of computer programs into home economics encourage a t t i t u d e changes and promote equitable computer use between male and female students?" i s somewhat unique and appropriate at t h i s time. Due to the paucity of home economics r e l a t e d research, the review of l i t e r a t u r e w i l l focus on the benefits of computer education, the e f f e c t of computer i n t e g r a t i o n on student a t t i t u d e s and gender equity i n r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s . This chapter i s divided into three sections designed to address these t o p i c s : 2.1 Benefits of Computer Education 2.2 A t t i t u d e Changes Motivated by Computers 2.3 Computers and Gender A b r i e f summary of the research i n r e l a t i o n to the problem statement and to the l o c a l sample w i l l conclude the l i t e r a t u r e review. 2.1 Benefits of Computer Education Computer education includes a broad spectrum of computer app l i c a t i o n s in c l u d i n g t u t o r i a l s , i n t e r a c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n , i n s t r u c t i o n a l simulations and inquiry. This section of the l i t e r a t u r e review discusses three areas of computer education: 9 2.1.1 Achievement L e v e l 2.1.2 The Need f o r A p p l i c a t i o n Rather than Programming 2.1.3 Computers i n Home Economics 2.1.1 Achievement L e v e l Research i n t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f CAL [computer a s s i s t e d l e a r n i n g ] has c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated t h a t computers can p r o v i d e e x c e l l e n t l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , and u s u a l l y i n c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s time than by more t r a d i t i o n a l methods. S t u d i e s conducted i n v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s c o n c l u d e t h a t computer e d u c a t i o n i n c r e a s e s l e a r n e r r e t e n t i o n and achievement (Braun, e t a l . , 1990; L a P o i n t e & M a r t i n e z , 1988; R i t c h i e , 1988; N e i l l , 1987; Moursund, 1986; Gray, 1984; McMurray and Hoover, 1984; L e s g o l d , 1983; and H a l l , 1982). Students l e a r n f a s t e r and more e f f e c t i v e l y because the computer can r a p i d l y diagnose e r r o r s and p r o v i d e i n s t a n t feedback. Computers have the a b i l i t y t o i n d i v i d u a l i z e the l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s ; s i m u l a t e e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t may not o t h e r w i s e be p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n ; i n f o r m s t u d e n t s o f t h e i r p r o g r e s s through c o n t i n u o u s feedback and generate t e s t s . These f a c t o r s encourage s t u d e n t s t o "change from p a s s i v e o b s e r v e r s t o a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s " (Gray, 1984, p. 80). The computer i s an e f f e c t i v e t o o l t o complement the r o l e o f the t e a c h e r , a l l o w i n g the t e a c h e r t o become a f a c i l i t a t o r r a t h e r than a l e c t u r e r . As " [ t h e s t u d e n t s ] h e l p d e c i d e what programs work and don't work, and they o f t e n m o t i v a t e t h e i r t e a c h e r s " ( B u t l e r , 1990, p. 19). In many cas e s , the r e s e a r c h e r e x p e r i e n c e d t h i s h i g h degree of s t u d e n t involvement which a l l o w s the t e a c h e r t o focus on those s t u d e n t s who need e x t r a a s s i s t a n c e . ( D a n e l i u k , 1987, p.5) 10 A further advantage of computer education includes the capacity of software to store the same information at more than one reading l e v e l . For example, " i f a user c o n s i s t e n t l y answers a c e r t a i n question i n c o r r e c t l y , the program moves to an easier l i n e of questioning" (McMurray & Hoover, 1984, p. 41). This reduces embarassment for learners and allows them to experience the success of mastery. Computers were used extensively for a mathematics course i n York County, V i r g i n i a that addressed topics such as inference, p r e d i c t i o n , analogies, and numerical problem-solving. "Everyone i n the course has shown some increased l e v e l of achievement" (Ritchi e , 1988, p.3). Technical knowledge empowers those students and adults who 'know-how' by allowing them to influence and, i n some cases, c o n t r o l those who 'know-not'. This problem of inequity has created a new type of educational e l i t i s m where some i n d i v i d u a l s have greater access to computers both at home and at school (Braun et a l . , 1990; C h i a r e l i , 1988; LaPointe & Martinez, 1986; and C o l l i s , 1985). 2.1.2 The Need for A p p l i c a t i o n Rather than Programming Research does not provide a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n whether programming should be taught i n school. Depending on t h e i r purpose, some studies show s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n the development of l o g i c a l thinking s k i l l s , while others show no gains at a l l (Fisher, 1986). One concern with the current B.C. secondary curriculum i s that computer science i s 'owned' by secondary math departments and i s often l o s t at the jun i o r l e v e l , due to a computer curriculum being a v a i l a b l e only at the senior l e v e l . Computer science i s b a s i c a l l y concerned with t h e o r e t i c a l programming rather than with p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . One must question whether t h i s i s r e a l l y the best use of computer time i n the secondary curriculum. Substantiating t h i s i s Meghan and Reid who state, "The teaching of programming [computers] has been described as equivalent to teaching people how to play a piano by showing them how to b u i l d one" (1982, p. 356). Young (1987) i s also concerned with programming being taught i n the school system. He c r i t i c i z e s the focus of computer education as being on the computer i t s e l f and how i t functions. He likens computer technology to " p e n c i l technology". The p e n c i l i s the focus point i n "courses on the p e n c i l " . We study the structure of the p e n c i l , how to sharpen p e n c i l points, and the h i s t o r y and s o c i a l impacts of the p e n c i l . A l l of t h i s might be i n t e r e s t i n g , but what c h i l d r e n r e a l l y need to know i s how to use p e n c i l s to achieve something e l s e . Courses i n p e n c i l use are questionable, i f students do not have a p e n c i l i n t h e i r hands. Analogous to t h i s i s the s i t u a t i o n that has faced most students with the computer (Young, 1987, p.3). Home economics departments can provide a non-threatening environment i n which to place a computer. Integration of computers into home economics classes could focus on how to use software programs rather than concentrating on how to create programs. A p p l i c a t i o n of software i s a useful s k i l l for a l l students, e s p e c i a l l y when taught and nurtured i n l e s s s t r e s s f u l environments (Bracey, 1988 and Squires, 1985). Lockheed and Mandanich provided further support for a curriculum based on computer ap p l i c a t i o n s rather than programming: 12 A well-structured computer curriculum based on ap p l i c a t i o n software i s preferable to one based on programming for two reasons: i t i s l i k e l y to foste r higher cognitive s k i l l s s i m i l a r to those engendered i n programming; and i t i s l i k e l y to stimulate p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e responses (eg. i n t e r e s t i n and l i k i n g of computers) for students who heretofore have been d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n programming (1986, p. 23). Dukes, Discenza and Cougar determined that computer "...experience was s i g n i f i c a n t l y and negatively co r r e l a t e d with computer anxiety" (1989, p. 198). Therefore, i f students, both male and female, can gain experience through a p p l i c a t i o n courses or a p p l i c a t i o n across a l l subject areas i n a comfortable way, then students inte r e s t e d i n programming could then make an informed decision based on t h e i r experience. I t follows that programming s k i l l s using languages such as Basic, Fortran and Pascal should be reserved for those who are intere s t e d i n furthering t h e i r computer knowledge from a p p l i c a t i o n to programming. The research supports the notion that computers are a valuable t o o l for education. I t c r e d i t s computer i n t e g r a t i o n with increased achievement, and teacher/learner i n t e r a c t i o n . I t also favours the use of software a p p l i c a t i o n s i n the classroom rather than programming. 2.1.3 Computers i n Home Economics O r i g i n a l l y t i t l e d "domestic science", home economics education has struggled for l e g i t i m i z a t i o n as a subject since the l a t e nineteenth century (Thomas, 1986). During the 1960s, the Royal Commission on Education l a b e l l e d home economics as an "outer subject" and f e l t that i t was a "parental r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " (Chant, 13 I960, p. 20). This unfortunate conception of home economics i s s t i l l held by many policy-makers. In December 1986, a BCTF p u b l i c a t i o n , In Wake of Restraint, described home economics as the "disappearing subject" (Jacobsen and Kuehn, 1986, p.48), and i n 1988, the Royal Commission on Education grouped home economics with the P r a c t i c a l A r t s . Home economics was founded for the purpose of helping i n d i v i d u a l s and fam i l i e s r e l a t e to change. Home economics education must be perceived as being relevant i f i t i s going to play an i n t e g r a l r o l e i n a s s i s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s and fam i l i e s with the decision-making and c r i t i c a l thinking s k i l l s necessary to use the r a p i d l y changing technologies to enhance family l i v e s . Computers create an up-to-date image (Butler, 1990; Muller, 1986 and Thomas, 1984). A recent study conducted by Longstreth, K e l l y and Par i s (1989) indicates that most home economics teachers believe the computer to be use f u l , but u n d e r u t i l i z e i t i n i n s t r u c t i o n . The reason c i t e d was the lack of 'ownership' — home economics departments are often omitted during the process i n which school computers are purchased and implemented. This r e l a t e s to the lack of status with which home economics education has been burdened throughout i t s h i s t o r y . Home economists must not only be aware of technology and i t s e f f e c t on the family, but also be aware of i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . S u l l i v a n r e i n f o r c e s t h i s perspective and asks that we use technology thoughtfully, "we need to learn how to become a wise consumer of technology, rather than be consumed by i t " (1989, p. 14 96). Attention must be given to the obvious d i r e c t costs and benefits of technology. A d d i t i o n a l concern must be dir e c t e d to the delayed and i n d i r e c t consequences, such as reduced time spent with family members and, i n many cases, the a n t i - s o c i a l behaviour that may accompany an increased use of technology. LaPointe and Martinez (1988) note that there has been l i t t l e progress i n the use of computers i n other subject areas — they are mainly used for games. Home economics has progressed beyond games and ' d r i l l and p r a c t i s e ' . The subject area includes a p p l i c a t i o n s such as d i e t / n u t r i t i o n analysis and s e l f - d i r e c t e d studies i n c o n t r o v e r s i a l topics such as AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases in which the student appreciates the f a c t u a l nature and privacy provided by the computer. One of the best uses of computers i n home economics i s n u t r i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . In t h i s a n a l y s i s , the computer performs the mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n s freeing the student to concentrate on the concept... the machine i s non-judgmental and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s assured (Muller, 1986, p. 18). The Payne, Duford and Timmons study (1984) found students to be very p o s i t i v e about the e f f i c i e n c y and accuracy of the n u t r i t i o n a l analysis assignment as the amount of time to complete the assignment was gr e a t l y reduced (from approximately f i v e hours to one to two hours). Also, students had a greater awareness of t h e i r n u t r i t i o n a l status and were motivated to improve t h e i r d i e t s . Informal studies conducted by the researcher i n classroom s i t u a t i o n s (1986, 1988, and 1989) support these findings. Home economics education promotes a p o s i t i v e self-concept among students i n an attempt to b u i l d self-esteem. Two versions 15 of a high school home economics course were compared by Robertson et a l . (1987). One v a r i a t i o n of the course had students using the computer for supplementary work and the other did not. The students who completed the course which included the use of the computer scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on a measure of self-esteem than those who did not use a computer. Home economics educators have the a b i l i t y to a s s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s and fam i l i e s i n using t h i s powerful t o o l to t h e i r best advantage. Technology has affected the way we think about and perceive the world around us—producing s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n family l i f e . Home economics i s unique i n that i t i s the only d i s c i p l i n e that focuses on the family and the environment (Smathers, 1989). Technology i s becoming an i n t e g r a l part of our d a i l y environment. Time has proven Wakefield correct, and the home computer re v o l u t i o n i s exploding, Family empowerment means not only putting the family i n forefro n t of the information society but also using home computers to bring back into the home many functions that were there before the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n . . . t h i s means reversing the long-term trend that has l e f t many homes l i t t l e more than places to eat, sleep and watch t e l e v i s i o n (1986, p. 19). Home economics educators could ease and enhance the t r a n s i t i o n toward technology and family empowerment for both i n d i v i d u a l s and fa m i l i e s . By accepting the changes i n i t i a t e d by technology, we can a s s i s t f a m i l i e s i n c a p i t a l i z i n g on these changes. Of major concern to home economics education i s the re l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t s i n the secondary school curriculum between the basic d i s c i p l i n e s of mathematics, reading, and home economics. Home economics does not have the same status as mathematics and 16 e n g l i s h c l a s s e s . As P e t e r a t a r t i c u l a t e s , The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as one o f unease and tension...home economics e d u c a t o r s must s t a y a t t u n e d t o t h i s c h a r a c t e r o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p i f we a r e t o c h a r t a path o f e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e which i s p r o g r e s s i v e and l i b e r a t i n g f o r home economics (1989, p. 71). Could the power o f the computer a s s i s t i n changing the r o l e o f home economics? The i n t e g r a t i o n o f computers i n t o home economics c o u l d be the c a t a l y s t t o b u i l d a new r e l a t i o n s h i p between home economics and the b a s i c s k i l l s . The q u e s t i o n b e i n g asked o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between home economics and the b a s i c d i s c i p l i n e s then becomes "how can home economics be b e t t e r l e a r n e d and understood through u t i l i z i n g mathematical (or r e a d i n g ) s k i l l s , c o n cepts and p r o c e s s e s ? " r a t h e r than, "how does home economics c o n t r i b u t e t o the l e a r n i n g o f the b a s i c s k i l l s ? " ( P e t e r a t , 1989, p. 71). The b e n e f i t s o f computer e d u c a t i o n a re v a s t . Most important t o e d u c a t i o n and home economics i s t h a t the i n t e g r a t i o n o f computers encourages home economics t e a c h e r s t o r e c o n s i d e r what they a r e do i n g and how they a r e doing i t . The p o t e n t i a l o f e d u c a t i o n a l computing a s s i s t s e d u c a t o r s i n r e e v a l u a t i n g the importance o f e x i s t i n g t o p i c s and methods. Could the computer be the t o o l t h a t e n a b l e s home economics and the b a s i c d i s c i p l i n e s t o a c h i e v e t h e d e s i r e d s y n e r g i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p ? 2.2 A t t i t u d e Changes M o t i v a t e d by the Computer P o s s i b l y the g r e a t e s t change brought about by t h i s machine [the microcomputer] t h a t can appear — almost — t o t h i n k , i s t h a t i t has provoked those o f us who have l i v e d w i t h i t t o r e c o n s i d e r what i t means t o t h i n k , f e e l , and t o be human ( T u r k l e , 1984, p. 1). Alth o u g h s o c i e t a l a t t i t u d e s toward computers remain both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , the c u r r e n t speed w i t h which s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s a re 17 acquiring computer hardware could be evidence of an in c r e a s i n g l y p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e i n the education community. "There i s evidence that computers do, indeed, s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t student a t t i t u d e s and behavior i n p o s i t i v e ways" (Fisher, 1986, p. 234). In one study, students f e l t that they could learn more, and f e l t more i n contr o l (Bracey, 1988). In another, students reported an improved a t t i t u d e toward school and learning (Roblyer et a l . , 1988). Most students l i k e computers and would l i k e to use them as often as possible . They are n a t u r a l l y drawn to computers and enjoy the speed, accuracy, r e l i a b i l i t y , action, patience and immediate feedback offered by the computer. However, teachers often f i n d that computers are not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e f or classes, and frequently c i t e a lack of time to learn programs s u f f i c i e n t l y . Many teachers f i n d that they must get involved with computers even though they are not comfortable with them. The discomfort i s often the r e s u l t of not having access to a computer to learn how to use i t . When used i n the classroom, the computer increases student motivation, as students are stimulated by the i n t e r a c t i v e nature of the computer — addressing them by name and providing immediate feedback. Computers can i n d i v i d u a l i z e some aspects of the learning process and enhance the learning environment for both teacher and student. Teachers are able to provide more attention to students who need i n d i v i d u a l assistance which complements the patient, u n t i r i n g , systematic approach a v a i l a b l e i n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d software packages (Watson, 1990; Mevarech et a l . , 1987; Skinner, 1986; and Weyant, 1985). The "research c o n s i s t e n t l y finds students more 18 p o s i t i v e about themselves and school a f t e r exposure to a computer" (Fisher, 1986, p. 234). Turkle i d e n t i f i e s some of the changes brought about by computers, Technology catalyzes changes not only i n what we do but i n how we think. I t changes people's awareness of themselves, of one another, and of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the world (1984, p. 13). Some i n d i v i d u a l s prefer the computer to human companionship. They tend to be s o c i a l i s o l a t e s and claim that the computer meets t h e i r need for any form of i n t e r a c t i o n and power. This can become a serious problem, e s p e c i a l l y for adolescents. As Turkle says, For adults as well as ch i l d r e n , computers r e a c t i v e and i n t e r a c t i v e , o f f e r companionship without the mutuality and complexity of a human r e l a t i o n s h i p . They seduce because they provide a chance to be i n complete c o n t r o l , but they can trap people in t o an in f a t u a t i o n without c o n t r o l , with b u i l d i n g one's own privat e world (1984, p.19). Home economists can play an important r o l e here, by recognizing the problem and a s s i s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s i n developing t h e i r s o c i a l s k i l l s . Several researchers have found that through group computer use, the s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n of students can be avoided, and p o s i t i v e s k i l l s such as summarizing and explaining for each other can be promoted (Newman, 1990; Watson, 1990; Capper, 1988; Krendl & Lieberman, 1988; and Johnson & Johnson, 1985). The course, Computers i n the Home, i s organized for students to work i n pairs on a si n g l e computer. The research provides three major reasons for supporting t h i s arrangement: 1. Students working i n pair s seem to do better work. 2. Students working i n pairs appeared to be more able to solve t h e i r own problems and les s i n need of teacher assistance. 3. Students working i n pairs seemed to be on-task more of the time and to have greater on-task endurance. (Watson, 1990, p. 9) 19 In summary, many vari a b l e s determine student a t t i t u d e , i n c l u d i n g : l e v e l of computer experience, general anxiety about computers, amount of computer use and whether the student i s working at a computer on t h e i r own or i n a group. 2.3 Computers and Gender Women and g i r l s use computers; men and boys love them, and that d i f f e r e n c e appears to be a c r i t i c a l reason why computing i n North America remains predominantly male province (The Vancouver Sun, 1989, p. B4). Males not only teach the computer courses i n school, but most computer students are male. Male dominance i n the computer f i e l d i s supported by many studies (Blackstone, 1989; Lennon & Muller, 1989; Atack, 1988; Bracey, 1988; C h i a r e l i , 1988; LaPointe & Martinez, 1988; Reagan & Clark, 1988; Siann, et a l . , 1988; Eyre, 1988; Horton, 1987; Swadener & Hannefin, 1987; Sanders & Stone, 1986; Fisher, 1986; C o l l i s , 1985; G i l l i l a n d , 1984; Lockheed & Frakt, 1984; Wilce, 1984; and K e i s l e r et a l . , 1983). This dominance often surfaces as a form of bias, as "men design the video games, write the software, s e l l the machines and teach the courses" ( K e i s l e r et a l . , 1983, p.41). To supplement the e a r l i e r discussion about whether to teach programming or a p p l i c a t i o n s to students, various studies (Siann et a l . , 1988; Lockheed & Mandanich, 1986) have concluded that when students could v o l u n t a r i l y e n r o l l i n non-programming computer classes, those classes exhibited a more equally balanced ro s t e r i n terms of sex. C o l l i s (1985) studied more than 3,000 secondary school students i n B r i t i s h Columbia and found that females were 20 s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s l i k e l y than males to use or have access to a computer e i t h e r i n or out of school. This f i n d i n g was substantiated by other researchers who discovered that females had less access to a computer (Blackstone & Hamilton, 1989; Sanders & Stone, 1986; and Jensen, 1983). C o l l i s f e e l s that educators must ...attack two underlying problems — f i r s t , of females contributing to t h e i r own i n e q u i t i e s i n opportunities by c o n s i s t e n t l y devaluing themselves; and second, of females f a i l i n g to r e a l i z e the importance of technology i n t h e i r futures (1985, p. 181). Blackstone (1989), Horton (1987), Smith (1986), and C o l l i s (1985) i d e n t i f i e d the existence of a "We can, but I can't" paradox — a po t e n t i a l source of c o n f l i c t for some women. Within t h i s paradox, women f e e l that they are as capable as men i n computer p r o f i c i e n c y , but are le s s confident i n t h e i r own a b i l i t y to work with computers. Men are more confident and p o s i t i v e toward computer use than women, and men tend to doubt women's computer competency. Horton (1987) discovered that the "We can, but I can't" paradox diminishes with i n t e r e s t and experience with computers. A study by Reagan and Clark (1988) i l l u s t r a t e s that g i r l s perform as well as boys i n the computing environment. The K e i s l e r study lends support by explaining that, "...there i s nothing i n t r i n s i c to computing that should discourage g i r l s " (1983, p. 42). The Smith (1986) and C o l l i s (1984) studies reveal other i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . For example, females are more l i k e l y than males to endorse stereotypes about computer users and they therefore perpetuate the male hegemony. This may be explained by the fact that computer equity problems also occur at home. Roblyer (1988), Stone (1988), Fisher (1986), and G i l l i l a n d (1984) focus on 21 the actions of both parents and s o c i e t y i n demonstrating to g i r l s that computers are not for them. These studies i n d i c a t e that the father or brother tends to be responsible for the home computer and that women are v a s t l y under-represented i n high-technology jobs. As a r e s u l t of both home and school experiences, males have developed a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the computer. Reagan and Clark (1988) provide four reasons for t h i s : 1. g i r l s are not encouraged to use computers as much as boys; 2. g i r l s are not p a r t i c i p a t i n g on an equal basis with boys i n computer classes; 3. g i r l s are l e s s aggressive about gaining computer time; and 4. g i r l s often express negative f e e l i n g s about computers. Further, as mentioned e a r l i e r , males tend to teach the courses, therefore l i m i t i n g the number of female r o l e models at the high school l e v e l . Lockheed and Frakt e f f e c t i v e l y summarize the male/female r e l a t i o n s h i p , "By male s e l f - s e l e c t i o n and female default the computer center becomes defined as 'male t u r f — as s o c i a l l y inappropriate to g i r l s as the male locker room" (1984, p. 16) . An i n t e r e s t i n g study by Swadener and Hannefin (1987) found an " i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t " occurring at the grade s i x l e v e l . Males with higher achievement l e v e l s i n math also have greater i n t e r e s t i n computers than lower achieving males. However, the opposite tendency occurs for females — lower achieving females were more p o s i t i v e about computers than females who were high math achievers. I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to see i f t h i s f i n d i n g for grade six students remains true for older students. The r e s u l t s for males who were low achievers i n math may be explained by the strong math 22 o r i e n t a t i o n of computer science c l a s s e s . However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to explain why lower achieving females were more p o s i t i v e than higher achieving females about computers. Perhaps they f e l t more comfortable about the computer due to s e c r e t a r i a l s k i l l s they had developed that the higher achieving females had not acquired. A study of over f i v e hundred Vancouver Island school females aged eight to twelve conducted i n the Spring of 1988 discovered that, ...two-thirds of g i r l s i n grades three to f i v e said they used the computer because they l i k e d to (rather than they had t o ) . By grade seven, g i r l s were much more l i k e l y to use the computer because they had to (Blackstone & Hamilton, 1989, p.6). This study also found no c o r r e l a t i o n between a female's l i k i n g for computers and the presence of a female teacher. Bracey's study (1988) conducted i n the southern United States went beyond gender to determine c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Asian Americans had the highest average computer competence across a l l grade l e v e l s — then White, Black, Hispanic, or Native Americans. O v e r a l l , the l i t e r a t u r e supports the hypothesis that there i s an inequity between the genders i n computer education. The l i t e r a t u r e provides three major reasons for t h i s : 1. bias i n software; 2. s o c i a l bias, stereotypes, peer pressure, and male behavior; and 3. content and structure of programming as an introductory course to computers. As Erickson, et a l . (1980) conclude, i t w i l l be the cumulative r e s u l t s of a number of minor e f f e c t s that w i l l change the e x i s t i n g 23 s i t u a t i o n of gender inequity. 2.4 Summary Computer l i t e r a c y i s an e s s e n t i a l outcome of contemporary education. Each student should acquire an understanding of the v e r s a t i l i t y and the l i m i t a t i o n s of the computer through f i r s t - h a n d experience i n a v a r i e t y of f i e l d s (Naisbett, 1982, p. 37). The l i t e r a t u r e supports computer use i n education, but very l i t t l e research has been done i n computer use i n home economics. To the researcher's knowledge, no comprehensive research has been conducted on the e f f e c t of in t e g r a t i o n of computer programs into home economics on student a t t i t u d e changes and gender equity. Can the a p p l i c a t i o n of home economics computer programs encourage a t t i t u d e changes and promote equitable computer use between male and female students? But, before r e a d i l y adopting computers for int e g r a t i o n i n t o home economics, i t . i s important that we, r a t i o n a l i z e our programs morally and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y so that we are able to act i n terms of some v i s i o n or i d e a l rather than merely react to s o c i e t a l trends and pressures (Peterat and McLean, 1982, p. 186). Computer usage i n the schools i s p o l i t i c a l l y a "hot" t o p i c . Parents, administrators, teachers, and students a l l want to cont r o l access to computers. However, instead of t r y i n g to do everything on the computer, we must heed the warning of Gohala, " I f a learning a c t i v i t y can be done e a s i l y and e f f e c t i v e l y with a paper and pe n c i l , i t should not be done on the computer" (1983, p. 41). The l i t e r a t u r e also i n d i c a t e s that computer education has many benefits for the student. These include: the development of decision making s k i l l s , i n d i v i d u a l i z e d learning, simulated experiences, continuous report of progress, increased retention, 24 and the creation of a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e . The research also acknowledges the need for meaningful and productive a p p l i c a t i o n s rather than programming. The researcher observes the computer f i e l d as being male-dominated and espouses that home economics educators must s t r i v e for gender equity whenever possible. This study w i l l r e i n f o r c e or r e j e c t the research that claims females run second to males i n computer i n t e r e s t and use. We must be sure not only to ask, "Can females do as well as males with computers?", but also, "Can males do as well as females with computers?". Integration of computers int o home economics could address the four reasons given by Reagan and Clark (1988) as to why males have developed a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the computer. This course, Computers i n the Home, could encourage females to: 1. use computers as often as males; 2. p a r t i c i p a t e on an equal basis with male students i n computer classes; 3. have equal access to computer time; and 4. to value p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s about computers. "The computer i s an emerging s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l force and ought to be studied i n order to understand modern society" (Olson, 1988, p. 2). Home economics educators can play an important r o l e to a s s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s i n using the r a p i d l y changing technology to enhance d a i l y l i f e . By in t e g r a t i n g computers into home economics, females could be further encouraged to enter a technological f i e l d . This study may f i n d evidence to supplement the claim by Blackstone & Hamilton (1989) that found no c o r r e l a t i o n between a female student's l i k i n g for computers and the presence of a female teacher. As home economists struggle between the 25 academic and the p r a c t i c a l perspectives of t h e i r programs, can the computer be the t o o l used to bridge the gap? 26 CHAPTER 3  METHODOLOGY 3.1 Development of Curriculum The Computers i n the Home course was i n i t i a t e d i n the Spring of 1985 when a Vancouver School D i s t r i c t home economics teacher heard a radio advertisement announcing an Apple Canada program that would grant hardware to schools which proposed innovative uses of computers i n education. A f t e r discussing the matter with the D i s t r i c t P r i n c i p a l for Home Economics, a b r i e f proposal was submitted by the teacher to Apple Canada. Although that proposal was rejected, a group of home economics and computer science teachers again submitted a proposal the following year. Again, the proposal was rejected without explanation by Apple Canada. The proposal was then a l t e r e d to meet the requirements of the Fund for Excellence Program. In January 1987 the department received the necessary funding to h i r e a consultant to chair the curriculum project; to locate, preview, and evaluate software; and create resource u n i t s . The funding also included the a c q u i s i t i o n of the hardware and software necessary to i n i t i a t e the project. This i s an example of a 'bottom-up' curriculum — one which i s i n i t i a t e d by teachers who recognized the need for t h i s type of course. The researcher chaired t h i s curriculum project -- Computers i n the Home. The project involved a curriculum committee composed of four computer science teachers, s i x home economics teachers and two administrators (one was a high school v i c e - p r i n c i p a l and the 27 other was the d i s t r i c t p r i n c i p a l of home economics). I n i t i a l l y there was a d e f i n i t e separation of the sexes and areas of expertise — p h y s i c a l l y , the men (computer science teachers) sat on one side of the table and the women (home economics teachers) sat on the other. Symbolically, perhaps, the administrators located themselves near the middle. The f i r s t task was to gain an understanding of the project from an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y perspective, then to develop a philosophy and a course r a t i o n a l e . This was an educational process for the three groups involved, as each gained an appreciation for the other d i s c i p l i n e s . Next, the units of i n s t r u c t i o n (modules) were created based on the philosophy and r a t i o n a l e . The r a t i o n a l e was everchanging as the topic areas were explored. This confirms the l i t e r a t u r e that states, developing a r a t i o n a l e i s an exploratory and communicative action, one i n which o r i g i n a l questions may a l t e r and further questions w i l l emerge. I t i s a r e f l e c t i v e a c t i v i t y which l i n k s p r a c t i s e with thought (Peterat & McLean, 1982, p. 186). Predictably, the computer science teachers worked together on an introductory module -- Computer L i t e r a c y . The home economics teachers chose topics that they were most comfortable with — Foods and N u t r i t i o n , Clothing and T e x t i l e s , and Family Management. The chairperson encouraged c r o s s - d i s c i p l i n a r y i n t e r a c t i o n , which began to occur as groups exchanged modules and feedback. When working on the second unit, i n d i v i d u a l s were regrouped so that computer science teachers began working c l o s e l y with home economics teachers. This i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y approach provided the committee with the valuable experience of a new l e v e l of understanding of t h e i r 28 colleagues. The curriculum was designed to be f l e x i b l e . I t was published a year l a t e r than a n t i c i p a t e d because the software l i s t i n g s were never s u f f i c i e n t l y s t a t i c . The a c q u i s i t i o n of hardware for t h i s course and i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the home economics department proved to be very d i f f i c u l t and complex. A f t e r much d e l i b e r a t i o n , the committee selected the Apple IIGS system based on software a v a i l a b i l i t y and the graphics and sound c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r machine. During the f i r s t year of implementation, f i f t e e n computers were located i n the computer science lab, and s i x were placed i n an area c e n t r a l to a l l home economics classrooms. This a l l o c a t i o n of hardware was due to interdepartmental c o l l a b o r a t i o n with the computer science teacher who, at the time, had only s i x terminals connected to a mainframe computer. The expertise and--support provided by the computer science teacher was invaluable to the project. While curriculum development i s an i n t e r e s t i n g process, the teaching of the course using the curriculum i s i n f i n i t e l y more i n t e r e s t i n g . There i s r e a l meaning and a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between the terms, 'curriculum-as-planned' and 'curriculum-as-taught'. Although f a m i l i a r with the planned curriculum, the researcher adapted i t to meet student needs and to e x p l o i t the unique c a p a b i l i t i e s of the chosen computer system. The r o l e of teacher gradually changed to one of f a c i l i t a t o r , as many students were already quite knowledgeable about computers. The process of acquiring knowledge became more important than the knowledge i t s e l f . The course was a success — i f success i s equated with 29 h i g h s t u d e n t m o t i v a t i o n , i n c r e a s e d achievement l e v e l s , and e n r o l l m e n t f o r the cou r s e d o u b l i n g the f o l l o w i n g y e a r . D u r i n g the second y e a r o f implementation (September 1989), computer s c i e n c e r e c e i v e d i t s own equipment and the f i f t e e n Apple IIGS computers were r e l o c a t e d t o an are a c e n t r a l t o home economics c l a s s r o o m s . As Browning and Dur b i n (1985) e x p l a i n , many home economics t e a c h e r s a r e overwhelmed w i t h computers and f r u s t r a t e d because t e r m i n a l s a r e o f t e n found o n l y i n mathematics or b u s i n e s s e d u c a t i o n departments. They acknowledge the p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s f o r and i n c r e a s e d use by home economics i f computers were housed w i t h i n the department. O b s e r v a t i o n s o f the equipment use a t Tupper c o n f i r m t h i s — the c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o a l l home economics rooms has encouraged g r e a t e r use a c r o s s a l l areas i n the home economics c u r r i c u l u m , and p l a n n i n g f o r the f o l l o w i n g year i n c r e a s e d the use of t he l a b some t h r e e hundred per c e n t . The t e a c h e r s have noted the f a m i l i a r s u r r o u n d i n g s and c l o s e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e i r s t u d e n t s has a l s o encouraged e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r use o f the computers. Due t o p o s i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h computer i n t e g r a t i o n i n home economics classrooms, the r e s e a r c h e r advocates t h e i r use and the c o n t i n u e d implementation o f t h i s c u r r i c u l u m . While t h e r e i s a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n i t s implementation, one must be c a r e f u l t o examine t h i s c u r r i c u l u m and t e c h n o l o g y c r i t i c a l l y , r a t h e r than be d i s t r a c t e d by the excitement o f t h i s i n n o v a t i v e program. 3.2 Sample S e l e c t i o n S i r C h a r l e s Tupper Secondary S c h o o l i n Vancouver i s the f i r s t t o o f f e r the l o c a l l y developed c o u r s e , Computers i n the Home. T h i s 30 c o u r s e was o f f e r e d a t the grade n i n e and t e n l e v e l as an e l e c t i v e , t h e r e f o r e the i n i t i a l sample chosen f o r the study i n c l u d e d a l l grade n i n e and t e n s t u d e n t s a t Tupper s c h o o l . L o c a t e d on the e a s t s i d e o f the c i t y , t h i s s c h o o l r e p r e s e n t s s t u d e n t s from s i x t y - t w o n a t i o n a l i t i e s . There were f o u r hundred and t h i r t y - s e v e n s t u d e n t s i n grade n i n e and t e n d u r i n g the 1989-1990 s c h o o l y e a r . The treatment group was the s e v e n t y - s i x s t u d e n t s who v o l u n t a r i l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Computers i n the Home d u r i n g the f i r s t semester ( b e g i n n i n g September 1989). The c o n t r o l group i n c l u d e d a l l r e m a i n i n g grade n i n e and t e n s t u d e n t s i n the s c h o o l who were not e n r o l l e d i n E n g l i s h as a Second Language (ESL) or L e a r n i n g A s s i s t a n c e (LAC). The r e s e a r c h e r d e c i d e d t h a t E n g l i s h as a Second Language and L e a r n i n g A s s i s t a n c e s t u d e n t s may have d i f f i c u l t y u n d e r s t a n d i n g the q u e s t i o n s i n the survey. A p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 per c e n t o f grade n i n e and t e n s t u d e n t s are ESL or LAC s t u d e n t s . A l s o , s t u d e n t s a t Tupper were and a r e v e r y t r a n s i e n t . Of the f o u r hundred and t h i r t y - s e v e n grade n i n e and t e n s t u d e n t s a t Tupper who were p r e s e n t f o r the survey i n September, s i x t y - f o u r had moved and another f o r t y - s e v e n had e n r o l l e d a t the s c h o o l between September and January. The l i m i t e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the E n g l i s h language and the t r a n s i e n t n ature o f t h i s s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n reduced t h e number o f s u b j e c t s to two hundred and t w e n t y - f o u r . Thus, the treatment group c o n s i s t e d of t h i r t y - n i n e s t u d e n t s and the c o n t r o l group c o n s i s t e d of one hundred and e i g h t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e s e groups a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t o t a l grade n i n e and t e n s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n at Tupper s c h o o l . 31 I n i t i a l l y , i t was thought that a random sample equivalent i n number to the treatment group would be selected. But to ensure true representation, the e n t i r e group of students that was present for both the pretest and the post-test were included i n the study. Chapter Four w i l l discuss the representativeness of the sample i n terms of the survey responses and s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. 3.3 Instrumentation A survey was designed to assess general student a t t i t u d e s toward computers and the extent to which t h e i r a t t i t u d e s have changed as a r e s u l t of having p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Computers i n the Home. The survey was developed by the Student Assessment and Research Department at the Vancouver School Board i n conjunction with the researcher and the home economics department at Tupper. This instrument incorporated twelve items from the Third' (1985) Province-wide Mathematics Assessment Survey, "Computers and Calcu l a t o r s " subtest, which addressed "Computer Use" and "Attitudes toward Computers". The items that d i r e c t l y focussed on a t t i t u d e were scored on a f i v e point continuum with one being "strongly disagree" and f i v e being "strongly agree". The survey also addressed such issues as frequency of computer use and purpose at home and i n school. This instrument was f i e l d - t e s t e d twice by school board researchers. I t was administered once i n 1987-1988 to most of the grade eight to twelve students at Tupper who were enrolled i n Home Economics courses (Appendix A). During the current study, i t was determined that some of the grade eight students surveyed were now i n grade ten. However, the survey has 32 been revised, and previous t e s t i n g only af f e c t e d a small group of students. The second p i l o t study of the instrument occurred i n 1988-1989 when i t was s l i g h t l y modified and given to f i v e grade ten mathematics classes (Appendix B). The survey was adjusted to meet the requirements of t h i s study. A cover page was added, and the pretest included t h i r t y - s i x items (Appendix C). The post-test included the l a s t twenty-five items on the pretest that may have changed due to treatment (Appendix D). The survey includes the following categories: Part I: Background Information Student Demographics Time spent with a computer - at home and at school Part I I : Feelings Toward Computers Personal Use of a Computer Part I I I : Computer Use Students answered the survey on a general purpose answer sheet (Appendix E). 3.4 Research Design The research design used was of the survey type and data were c o l l e c t e d using a questionnaire. In the high school s e t t i n g , the Pretest, Post-test Nonequivalent Control Group Design was used. The purpose of the pretest was to i l l u s t r a t e the equivalence between the two groups. I t may be diagrammed as follows: 33 G, 0, X, 0. 0, X,, 0, where G, = TREATMENT GROUP (Students enroll e d i n Computers i n the Home) G^= CONTROL GROUP (Students NOT enr o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home) 0, = Pretest Xj = Computers i n the Home course X^  = Students not enr o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home 0,.= Post-test Figure 1 The researcher also played the r o l e of participant-observer during the study period. Therefore, observations of the Computers i n the Home classes throughout the period of study are included. As the researcher taught the classes, these observations helped to explain the research s t a t i s t i c s and h i g h l i g h t the implementation process. 3.5 Variables The research instrument consisted of three parts: I- Background Information I I - Feelings Toward Computers I I I - Computer Use The background information provides the independent variables that r e l a t e to student a t t i t u d e s toward the computer. A number of varia b l e s are involved, i n c l u d i n g : 34 Independent Va r i a b l e s: 1. Method of teaching (manipulated): a) E n r o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home b) Not enr o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home 2. Gender: a) Female b) Male Dependent Variable: Possible Control Variables: Student A t t i t u d e Inventory (Scores of 1 - 5 w i l l be al l o c a t e d to each question) Length of time students are enro l l e d i n Computers i n the Home Possible Extraneous V a r i a b l e s : Teaching Factors -competence -personality -motivation -culture Student Factors -health -age/maturation -motivation -culture -computer knowledge Home Factors -family harmony -socioeconomic status -support Other Factors: learning p o t e n t i a l , achievement, v a r i a t i o n i n IQ, and general school a t t i t u d e toward the program. The researcher r e a l i z e s that i t w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to cont r o l the extraneous v a r i a b l e : personal computer knowledge. I t i s a long range goal of the home economics department at Tupper School to experiment with the computer at l e a s t once with each c l a s s . However, t h i s goal has not yet been achieved. For the purpose of t h i s study, the e n t i r e sample i s assumed to be at a s i m i l a r l e v e l of competency and any major v a r i a t i o n s i n t h i s l e v e l w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d by the survey pretest. Another concern i s with the v a l i d i t y of the survey. How well does i t represent student attitudes? Can the survey r e s u l t s be generalized to a l l of the grade nine and ten students at Tupper school? In the case that Tupper i s unique, the r e s u l t s may only be applicable to the student population at Tupper, but predictions to larger populations can be cautiously made. 3.6 Data C o l l e c t i o n and Analysis The a t t i t u d e inventory survey was administered to students i n the form of a pretest i n e a r l y September 1989. The researcher administered the questionnaire during the f i r s t week of cla s s to a l l grade nine and ten students to ensure that consistent conditions existed. I t was administered i n Mathematics classes, as a l l grade nine and ten students must be enr o l l e d i n a Mathematics course. Based on the p i l o t studies, i t was antic i p a t e d that the students could adequately complete the survey i n f i f t e e n minutes. Most students completed i t i n les s than ten minutes. The post-test was given to a l l Mathematics nine and ten classes during the f i r s t week of February, the end of the f i r s t semester of Computers i n the Home. The post-test omitted eleven of the basic background questions that had already been answered i n the pretest. The researcher recognizes that i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y may be contaminated by the 'testing f a c t o r ' or by 'experimental d i f f u s i o n ' . The pretest survey administered i n September i s , by design, a s i m i l a r survey to the post-test which included the l a s t twenty-five items on the pretest. To discourage the 'testing f a c t o r ' from t a i n t i n g the r e s u l t s , the cover page for the post-test was printed on paper stock of a d i f f e r e n t colour. During the administration of the post-test i n February, some students recognized the questions from the e a r l i e r t e s t . Hopefully, they answered the questions honestly and were not s e n s i t i z e d to the 36 survey. The second phenomenon associated with t h i s type of t e s t — experimental treatment d i f f u s i o n — m a y have also occurred, as students i n the course t e l l t h e i r peers i n grade nine or ten what i s happening i n the course. Again, i t i s hoped that t h i s type of contamination was a l l e v i a t e d as the students were not i n i t i a l l y aware of the 'on-going' nature of the research. A high response rate was expected, as students wrote both the pretest and the post-test during c l a s s time. A study of the student absentee rate on the days that the instrument was administered v e r i f i e d that few students were away. However, due to the t r a n s i e n t nature of the student population at Tupper, many students who were present i n September had moved by January, and many new students had a r r i v e d since the f i r s t week i n September. The t e s t s were matched by student number, and of a l l subjects who wrote both, only four pretests and two post-tests were unusable. 3.7 Hypotheses The main purpose of t h i s study was to determine i f the i n t e g r a t i o n of computer programs into home economics could encourage a t t i t u d e changes and promote equitable computer use between male and female students? The following n u l l hypotheses were developed to be tested and evaluated to provide a d d i t i o n a l r e l a t e d information to the problem. 1. There w i l l be a proportionate number of male and female students completing Computers i n the Home based on the t o t a l grade nine and ten population at Tupper. 2 . There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n student att i t u d e s toward computer use between students who have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Computers i n the Home and students not e n r o l l e d i n the course. 3. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n student att i t u d e s toward computer use between male and female students. 4. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e toward computers between female students enrolle d i n the course and female students not enrolled i n Computers i n the Home. 5. There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e toward computers between male students e n r o l l e d i n the course and male students not enrolled i n Computers i n the Home. A d e s c r i p t i v e Pretest, Post-test Nonequivalent Control Group Design was implemented for t h i s research. Chi-Square Analysis w i l l " be performed r e l a t i n g to each of the above hypotheses to determine i f a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n response occurs. 38 CHAPTER 4  PRESENTATION OF DATA The purpose of t h i s study was to inv e s t i g a t e the in t e g r a t i o n of computers into home economics by examining differences between male and female students with regard to computer use and at t i t u d e s toward the computer. The main focus was a comparison between students enroll e d i n Computers i n the Home and students not enrolled, as well as gender differences i n at t i t u d e s toward computers and computer usage. The data obtained from the pretest/post-test questionnaire were analyzed using the S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the S o c i a l Sciences (SPSS-X, Version 3.0). D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s were used to c l a r i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample. As w e l l , i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c s r e l a t e d to the hypotheses and to the subquestions r a i s e d i n chapter one were used to analyze the data. While not a l l of the r e s u l t s are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , a l l that are of i n t e r e s t w i l l be included. 4.1 Description of Sample This section describes student background with the purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g the sample. The students' background was examined along several l i n e s . F i r s t , grade and sex were tabulated. Gender, as discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e review, was one focus of t h i s study — as male reaction to the use of computers may d i f f e r from female reacti o n . Second, student computer experience and a c t i v i t i e s , computer science enrollment and preferred method of working with a computer were included i n the an a l y s i s . Trends are discussed based on two e a r l i e r Vancouver School Board studies as well as the 39 Third (1985) Province-wide Mathematics Assessment Survey. There were four hundred and thirty-seven students i n grades nine and ten at Tupper i n 1989-90. Of these, 48% was male (n = 210) and 52% were female (n = 227). From t h i s sample, two hundred and t h i r t y students were included i n the study — 102 males (46%) and 122 females (54%). This major reduction i n sample s i z e was mainly due to the presence of a high percentage of English as a Second Language (ESL) students who were not included i n the study, and the t r a n s i e n t nature of Tupper's student population. ESL and Learning Assistance students i n these two grades accounted for 30% (n = 129) of the student body. Another 18% (n = 78) of students were not enroll e d during the administration of e i t h e r the pretest or post-test. Figure 2 summarizes the proportion of male and female students at Tupper. Figure 2: Proportion of Male and Female Students at S i r Charles Tupper Secondary School 40 Computers i n the Home was f i r s t offered during the 1988-89 school year to a t o t a l of sixty-one students. Most of these were grade ten students, however, eight were i n grade nine. These grade nine students (now i n grade ten) were excluded from the current study due to the lapse of time and the changes made to the course i n the interim. Students who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the course during the previous year may not have an accurate account of the current course. Further, s i x survey answer sheets were unuseable because more than one student used the same student number. While i t was assumed that students knew t h e i r student numbers, some had to ask t h e i r Mathematics teacher. In the case of those s i x , they e i t h e r made an error i n completing the answer sheet or they guessed. The sample i s now l i m i t e d to two hundred and twenty-four students who are thought to be representative of the grade nine and ten students whose command of the written English language was adequate enough to complete the survey with a high degree of accuracy. The t y p i c a l student who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study was t h i r t e e n to fourteen years of age and came from one of a v a r i e t y of ethnic backgrounds. Ethnic d i s t r i b u t i o n for t h i s sample was 37% Chinese-Canadian, 16% English-Canadian, 6% Indo-Canadian and 40% of other ethnic backgrounds. One student was enrolled i n grade eight and two were i n grade eleven — accounting for 1.5% of the sample. I t was decided to include these three students i n the study, as they would have had the option of e n r o l l i n g i n a grade nine or ten e l e c t i v e as they were i n Mathematics nine or ten. The remaining 98.5% were enrolle d i n grades nine and ten. 41 Table 1A: Subject Response In Terms of Experience With Computers i n Percentages (Tupper) Experience Male* Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 11 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Home 27.3 22.2 3.7 15.8 School 27.3 32.6 63.0 62.1 Elsewhere 45.5 28.9 14.8 12.6 No Experience 0 16.7 18.5 9.5 Post-test: Home 25.0 24.7 3.7 13.7 School 66.7 32.6 96.3 71.6 Elsewhere 8.3 22.5 0 10.5 No Experience 0 19.1 0 4.2 Chi-Square - Test of Association (3 dearees of freedom) Male* Pretest: X*= 2.90; p = .41 Post-test: X v= 6.80; p = .15 Female** Pretest: X v= 3.92; p = .27 Post-test: X~= 7.47; p = .06 Table IB: Student Computer Experience i n Percentages (Provincial) P r o v i n c i a l Phase I (Tupper) Phase II (Tupper) Math Survey 1987-1988 1988-1989 1985 Pre Post Pre Post n = 29661 n = 296 n = 295 n = 217 n = 192 Home 24 13 15 18 16 School 50 52 54 57 58 Elsewhere - . 15 15 12 14 No Exp 26 20 16 13 12 (Rothen, 1989, p. 7) 42 Further d e s c r i p t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the study sample are found i n Tables One through Nine. In order to c l e a r l y define the sample, each table r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y to a question on the survey. Chi-Square Test of Association was used to determine the si g n i f i c a n c e of any differences within the pattern of responses. For the- f i r s t nine tables, a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of .05 was chosen. As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 1A, male students i n the F a l l of 1989 were almost evenly divided among obtaining t h e i r computer experience at home, school, and elsewhere, and only 16.7% had had no computer experience. Female students, on the other hand, obtained t h e i r computer experience p r i m a r i l y at school. Upon teaching the course, the researcher learned that 'Elsewhere' usually meant using a computer at a friend's home. However, post-t e s t r e s u l t s i l l u s t r a t e a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n the male students enrolle d i n Computers i n the Home, as they s h i f t e d from 'Elsewhere' to 'Courses taken at school'. Yet, there was l i t t l e change i n the male c o n t r o l group — i n t e r e s t i n g l y , two more students answered 'No Experience' on the post-test than on the pretest. The r e s u l t s for female students i n both groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t . The cont r o l group changed only s l i g h t l y during the f i v e month study period. The treatment group, however, a l t e r e d from 4% getting t h e i r computer experience 'At Home' and 63% obtaining i t 'At School' to 4% and 96%, re s p e c t i v e l y . These r e s u l t s were expected as t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n course offered approximately two hours of hands-on experience each week. For t h i s sample during the study period, most of the students' experience 43 was o b t a i n e d a t s c h o o l . A l t h o u g h not c o n t r o l l e d f o r gender, T a b l e IB i l l u s t r a t e s t he p r o v i n c i a l r e s u l t s from 1985 and the t r e n d a t Tupper from 1987 t o 1989. The c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h study found t h a t most of the s t u d e n t s ' e x p e r i e n c e was o b t a i n e d a t s c h o o l . T h i s f i n d i n g i s supported by a r e p o r t by the Vancouver Sch o o l Board, Student Assessment and Research Department. In the s p r i n g o f 1989, the r e p o r t concluded t h a t , "from 1985 t o 1989, an i n c r e a s i n g percentage o f s t u d e n t s ' computer e x p e r i e n c e was d e r i v e d from c o u r s e s a t s c h o o l " (Rothen, 1989, p. 3 ) . C o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the da t a must be made w i t h c a u t i o n f o r two reasons. F i r s t , t he da t a were c o l l e c t e d from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s , i n t r o d u c i n g a l a c k o f c o n s i s t e n c y i n r e s e a r c h p r o c e d u r e s . Second, the p r o v i n c i a l study "...encompassed a s t r a t i f i e d random sample o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 75% o f a l l grade t e n s t u d e n t s " (Rothen, 1989, p. 3 ) . The two s t u d i e s conducted a t Tupper i n c l u d e d groups o f s t u d e n t s i n v a r i o u s grades, not j u s t grade t e n s t u d e n t s . In 1987-88, the m a j o r i t y o f s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n home economics c l a s s e s completed the survey ( V a v r i c k , 1988) and i n 1988-89 the survey was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o f i v e grade t e n Math c l a s s e s (Rothen, 1989). When a d m i n i s t e r i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the r e s e a r c h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t a "computer" r e f e r s t o a microcomputer, and not a v i d e o game or a computerized a p p l i a n c e . The l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a g r e a t e r number o f males than females have a c c e s s t o a computer, t h e r e b y making the use o f one e a s i e r f o r males. 44 Table 2A: Percentage of Subjects who have Access to a Home Computer (Tupper) Computer Access Male * Female** Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 11 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Yes 45.5 41.1 22.2 41.1 No 54.5 58.9 77.8 58.9 Post-test: Yes 33.3 50.0 25.9 42.6 No 66.7 50.0 74.1 57.4 Chi-Square - Test of Association (1 df) Male* Pretest: X"= .076; p = .78 Post-test:X v= 1.12; p = .28 Female** Pretest: X"= 3.20; p = .07 Post-test:X v= 2.44; p = .12 Table 2B: Percentage of Students with Access to a Home Computer (Pr o v i n c i a l ) P r o v i n c i a l Phase I (Tupper) Phase II (Tupper) Mathematics 1987-1988 1988-1989 Survey 1985 Pre Post Pre Post n = 29275 n = 293 n = 290 n = 216 n = 189 Yes 29 29 27 38 38 No 69 70 70 . 62 62 (Rothen, 1989, p.8) In September 1989, 38% of a l l grade nine and ten students at Tupper had access to a computer at home and 62% did not (Table 2A) -However, the gender di f f e r e n c e of the computer access at home question i s not as s i g n i f i c a n t at Tupper as the l i t e r a t u r e suggests. Forty-two percent of male students at Tupper have a computer at home, whereas 37% of female students have a computer at home. By February 1990, the post-test reported a s l i g h t increase i n access to a home computer with the exception of the male students i n the experimental group. At that time, 43% of students had access to a home computer as compared to 39% i n September. In terms of gender, 48% of males (compared to 42% i n September) and 39% of females (compared to 37%) had access to a computer at home. The greater increase was made by the male students. However, no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was discovered when Chi-Square was applied. Table 2B i l l u s t r a t e s that over the past four years, home computer access was l i m i t e d throughout the province. At Tupper, non s i g n i f i c a n t gains were made from 1987 to Spring 1989. However, the proportion of students having access to a computer at home has shown some increase from Spring 1987 to Winter 1990. 46 T a b l e 3: Percentage o f Responses i n Terms o f Computer Use O u t s i d e o f Schoo l (Tupper) Computer Use Male* Female** E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 P r e t e s t : Never 16.7 27.8 77.8 52.6 1/Month 41.7 36.7 14.8 24.2 1-3/Week 25.0 21.1 7.4 15.8 4-6/Week 8.3 11.1 - 3.2 7/Week 8.3 3.3 — 4.2 P o s t - t e s t : Never 16.7 63.3 44.4 53.7 1/Month 8.3 16.7 7.4 17.9 1-3/Week 75.0 18.9 44.4 27.4 4-6/Week - - 3.7 -7/Week — 1.1 — 1.1 Chi-Square -• T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n (4 df) Male* P r e t e s t : X*= 1.39; p = .85 P o s t - t e s t : X " = 5.90; p = .21 Female** P r e t e s t : X* = 6.17; p = . 19 P o s t - t e s t : X V = 1.96; p = .74 47 Table 4: Response of Student Computer Use , at School i n Percentages (Tupper) Computer Use Male * Female** Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Never 16.7 63.3 44.4 53.7 1/Month 8.3 16.7 7.4 17.9 1-3/Week 75.0 18.9 44.4 27.4 4-6/Week - - 3.7 -7/Week — 1.1 — 1.1 Post-test: Never 8.3 43.3 18.5 41.1 1/Month 25.0 20.0 11.1 15.8 1-3/Week 50.0 31.1 59.3 38.9 4-6/Week 16.7 4.4 7.4 4.2 7/Week — 1.1 3.7 — Chi-Square - Test of Association (4 df) Male* Pretest: Xu= 17.67; p < .01 Post-test:X v= 7-39; p = . 12 Female** Pretest: X"= 7.60; p --.11 Post-test:X V= 9.23; p = .06 48 Table 3 i l l u s t r a t e s the r e s u l t s of the survey question regarding access to a computer outside of school.' P r i o r to the treatment period, more than double the number of females than males had 'Never' used a computer outside of school. One t h i r d of the males used a computer '1-3 times a week' or more. Following the study period, the number of male students i n the experimental group remained the same for 'Never' and increased s l i g h t l y for '1-3 times a week'. O v e r a l l , the experimental group had gained greater access to a computer outside of school, whereas the co n t r o l group a c t u a l l y reduced t h e i r outside of school computer use. This may be explained i n that the pretest was administered i n September a f t e r the summer vacation where students may have had greater access to computers. Table 4 i l l u s t r a t e s that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between school computer use and males i n the experimental and c o n t r o l groups i s s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .05 l e v e l (X v= 17.67; p = .0005) on the pretest. This great d i f f e r e n c e could be due to a n t i c i p a t i o n on the part of the students i n terms of the amount of time spent using the computer at school. The survey was administered during the f i r s t week of school and few students had had the opportunity to use computers at the grade eight and nine l e v e l s . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two groups of female students during the pretest. These r e s u l t s c a l l into question the v a l i d i t y of student responses i n the experimental group as they would be using the computer ' 1 - 3 times a week', and 33% of the boys and 30% of the g i r l s i n the experimental group answered that they used a computer 49 le s s than t h i s . I t i s also i n t e r e s t i n g to note that over 40% of the t o t a l grade nine and ten students involved i n the c o n t r o l group was not using a computer at school. Tables 3 and 4 are based on questions designed to determine the amount of computer use a v a i l a b l e both outside and i n school. Unfortunately, due to the researcher's inexperience, the responses did not s p e c i f y the duration of time a c t u a l l y spent using a computer. A d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between '1/month' and '1-3/week'. Further, as time spent was not included, a student answering '1-3/week' who used the computer for one to two hours each time, could a c t u a l l y have been using i t more than a person who answered '4-6/week' but only used i t t h i r t y minutes each time. A regular c l a s s period i s f i f t y - f i v e minutes i n duration, lunch i s f o r t y - f i v e minutes and most of the computer labs are open for one hour a f t e r school. In view of these time constraints, i t was the researcher's regular observation i n the home economics computer lab that approximately f o r t y to f i f t y minutes was the average time that students spent on e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r computer a c t i v i t i e s . 50 Table 5: Percentage of Students E n r o l l e d i n Computer Science (Tupper) Enrollment Male* Female** Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Not E n r o l l e d 83.3 89.9 96.3 80.0 En r o l l e d i n CSc 9/10 16.7 7.9 3.7 20.0 E n r o l l e d i n CSc 11 - 2.2 Chi-Square - Test of Association (2 df) Male* X"= 1.24; p = .54 Female** X^= 4.07; p = .04 Table 6: Percentage of Students Planning to E n r o l l i n Computer Science i n the Future (Tupper) Plans Male :* Female** Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Yes 75.0 41.1 40.7 54.7 No 8.3 15.6 18.5 16.8 Undecided 16.7 43.3 40.7 28.4 Post-test: Yes 41.7 36.7 51.9 51.6 No 8.3 27.8 22.2 17.9 Undecided 50.0 35.6 25.9 30.5 Chi-Square - Test of Association (2 df) Male* Pretest: X^= 4.95; p = .08 Post- test:X v= 2.23; p = .33 Female** Pretest: Xv = 1.86; p = .39 Post- test:X v= .36; p = .83 51 The l i t e r a t u r e states that male students dominate computer classes and that computer science teachers are usually male. However, at Tupper, a female teacher (with a background i n Mathematics and Art) has been teaching Computer Science 9/10 for the past two years. When discussing t h i s phenomenon of greater female enrollment, t h i s teacher stated that while more females than males en r o l l e d i n Computer Science 9/10 during the period of study, there are usually a greater number of males en r o l l e d (Personal conversation, M. Schmidt, October 1990). The dif f e r e n c e i n female/male enrollment i s not as great as i t appears i n Table 5, as some ESL male students were en r o l l e d i n the course. As well, two male students were en r o l l e d i n Computer Science 11 and none of the females were. For the reasons stated above i t i s d i f f i c u l t to respond to the subquestion, " W i l l a greater number of females e n r o l l i n the course, Computers i n the Home, thereby balancing the greater number of males en r o l l e d i n Computer Science courses?" For the study period, t h i s question must be changed to: "What proportion of male and female students e n r o l l e d i n Computer Science courses?" Sixteen percent of the females and 11% of the males enrolle d i n e i t h e r Computer Science 9/10 or 11. This percentage i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when Chi-Square Test of Association i s performed (p<.05). Table 6 i l l u s t r a t e s an i n t e r e s t i n g change i n student intentions. Before p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the course, Computers i n the Home, the majority of males (75%) was planning to e n r o l l i n a Computer Science course. In contrast, only 40% of the females who 52 T a b l e 7: Percentages o f S u b j e c t s F e e l i n g B e t t e r Prepared t o Take a Computer S c i e n c e Course (Tupper) E n r o l l m e n t P l a n s Male* Female** E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 P r e t e s t : Yes 41.7 26.7 33.3 31.2 No 25.0 30.0 22.2 18.3 Undecided 33.3 43.3 44.4 50.5 P o s t - t e s t : Yes 50.0 33.7 70.4 38.9 No 33.3 28.1 7.4 17.9 Undecided 16.7 38.2 22.2 43.2 Chi-Square -• T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n (2 df) Male* P r e t e s t : X"= 1.18; p = .55 P o s t - t e s t : X V = 2.26; p = .32 --Female** P r e t e s t : X v = .69; p = .87 P o s t - t e s t : X V = 8.40; p = .01 53 p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the cour s e was p l a n n i n g t o e n r o l l i n Computer S c i e n c e . P o s t - t e s t r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d an i n t e r e s t i n g t r e n d , as f o u r male s t u d e n t s had changed from "yes" t o "undecided". Thus, o n l y 42% o f males (a decrease o f 33%) planned t o e n r o l l i n computer s c i e n c e compared t o 52% of female s t u d e n t s (an i n c r e a s e o f 12%). A 1989 Vancouver S c h o o l Board study i n d i c a t e d t h a t , "a h i g h percentage o f s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home ( c u r r e n t l y and p r e v i o u s l y ) were a l s o e n r o l l e d i n Computer S c i e n c e c o u r s e s " (Rothen, 1989, p.6). A l t h o u g h t h i s o v e r l a p i n e n r o l l m e n t o c c u r r e d , i t was i n c o n c l u s i v e as t o whether s t u d e n t s e n t e r e d Computer S c i e n c e because o f Computers i n the Home e n r o l l m e n t o r v i c e v e r s a . However, d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d o f study, t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between e n r o l l m e n t i n the two c o u r s e s . - T a b l e 7 i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t t he responses g i v e n by both groups of male s t u d e n t s arid the female c o n t r o l group d i d not change s i g n i f i c a n t l y . However, female s t u d e n t s i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l group i n c r e a s e d d u r i n g the study p e r i o d from 33% t o 70% i n f e e l i n g b e t t e r p r epared t o take a Computer S c i e n c e c o u r s e . S t a t i s t i c a l l y , s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .01 l e v e l was o b t a i n e d when Chi-Square T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n was performed. D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h s t u d e n t s who completed the Computers i n the Home co u r s e c o n f i r m e d t h a t many were determined t o take another computer c o u r s e . Some s t u d e n t s s t r o n g l y f e l t t h a t they d i d not want t o l e a r n how t o program (the main focus o f Computer S c i e n c e c o u r s e s a t Tupper). Others f e l t t h a t the cou r s e , Computers i n the Home, c o u l d be of l o n g e r d u r a t i o n and t h a t they would l i k e t o c o n t i n u e w i t h a s i m i l a r c o u r s e a t the next grade l e v e l , Computers i n the Home 11. 54 T a b l e 8: Percentage o f Students Response t o Scho o l Computer Use (Tupper) Computer Use Male* Female** E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 P r e t e s t : Games 33.3 26.1 29.6 4.2 S t o r i e s / L e t t e r s 16.7 11.4 11.1 10.5 W r i t e Programs 16.7 13.6 7.4 20.0 Scho o l S u b j e c t s 16.7 6.8 3.7 14.7 Not much 16.7 42.0 48.1 50.5 P o s t - t e s t : Games S t o r i e s / L e t t e r s W r i t e Programs S c h o o l S u b j e c t s Not much 16.7 6.7 50.0 11.2 25.0 24.7 13.5 8.3 43.8 11.1 10.8 40.7 18.3 22.2 32.3 22.2 11.8 3.7 26.9 Chi-Square - T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n (4 df) Male* Female** P r e t e s t : X v = P o s t - t e s t : X v = P r e t e s t : X v = P o s t - t e s t ^ = 3.54; p = .47 16.32; p < .01 17.86; p < .01 12.01; p = .02 55 T a b l e 8 i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t t h e r e was no a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o s c h o o l computer use p r e s e n t between the p a t t e r n o f response f o r males on the p r e t e s t comparing the e x p e r i m e n t a l and c o n t r o l groups. However, c a l c u l a t i o n o f Chi-Square f o r the female s t u d e n t s r e s u l t e d i n s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s ( X > = 17.86; p = .0013). One t h i r d o f the females i n the E x p e r i m e n t a l group p r i m a r i l y used computers f o r p l a y i n g games and h a l f o f them r a r e l y use a computer. The females i n the C o n t r o l group were s i m i l a r i n t h a t h a l f a l s o r a r e l y use a computer. One must q u e s t i o n the b e h a v i o r o f those female s t u d e n t s who r a r e l y use a computer. Is t h i s i n f r e q u e n t usage caused by l a c k o f a c c e s s t o a computer or i s i t t h a t females a t t h i s age a r e s i m p l y not i n t e r e s t e d i n u s i n g a computer? T h i s appears t o be more than s i m p l y a response t o a q u e s t i o n — i t i s an e l i c i t e d b e h a v i o r . T h i s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n Chapter F i v e . The p o s t - t e s t y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r both male and female s t u d e n t s f o r t h i s q u e s t i o n . I t appears t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n an a p p l i c a t i o n c o u r s e may encourage computer use f o r both male and female s t u d e n t s ( f o r male s t u d e n t s , X l= 16.33; p = .0026, and f o r female s t u d e n t s , X v= 12.01; p = .02). The d a t a i l l u s t r a t e t h a t 50% o f s t u d e n t s used the computer f o r word p r o c e s s i n g . In the C o n t r o l group, almost h a l f o f the s t u d e n t s r a r e l y use a s c h o o l computer, and one q u a r t e r would p r e f e r t o w r i t e programs. The 56 T a b l e 9: Percentages o f Student Reponse t o P r e f e r r e d Method o f Working On a Computer (Tupper) Method Male* Female** E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 P r e t e s t : Group 8.3 9.0 11.1 12.6 F r i e n d s 41.7 57.3 55.6 51.6 By S e l f 41.7 29.2 29.6 35.8 Don't E n j o y 8.3 3.4 3.7 — P o s t - t e s t : Group 8.3 5.6 11.1 4.3 F r i e n d s 50.0 50.0 48.1 53.2 By S e l f 41.7 32.2 37.0 36.2 Don't Enjoy — 12.2 3.7 6.4 Chi-Sauare - T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n (4 d f ) Male* P r e t e s t : X v= 1.80; p = .77 P o s t - t e s t :XV = 1.88; p = .75. Female** P r e t e s t : X1" = 3.85; p = .28 P o s t - t e s t : X " = 2.07; p = .56 57 Control group used the computer mainly to write programs, or r a r e l y used a computer (X = 12.001; p = .02). Female students i n the Experimental group favoured w r i t i n g s t o r i e s and l e t t e r s . Few students 'don't enjoy' working on a computer (Table 9). They generally prefer to work at a computer with t h e i r friends or by themselves. There was very l i t t l e change during the study period and no s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e was obtained. The r e s u l t s obtained are very s i m i l a r to those of the 1988-1989 Vancouver School Board study. In summary, of 224 students involved i n t h i s study, 46% was male and 54% was female. Although i n t e r e s t i n g observations were made, s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between the experimental and c o n t r o l group i n t h e i r use of computers. Before the study, many students used the computer to play games or didn't use one at a l l . A f t e r treatment, the experimental group used the computer to write s t o r i e s and l e t t e r s through word processing, whereas the c o n t r o l group s t i l l r a r e l y used a computer. During t h i s study period, a larger number of females enrolled i n Computers i n the Home than males, and more females were p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n Computer Science 9/10. I n i t i a l l y , more males than females were planning to e n r o l l i n Computer Science but, a f t e r the treatment period, more females were planning to e n r o l l . Approximately the same number of females as males had access to a computer at home which contradicts the l i t e r a t u r e which indicates greater male home computer access. Generally, most students gain the majority of t h e i r computer experience at school, an increasing number of students are gaining computer access at home and they 58 Table 10: Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Students Who P a r t i c i p a t e d i n Computers i n the Home by Grade (Tupper) Grade/Program Male* Female** Tot a l ESL 9 7 16 LAC 3 2 4 9 9 18 27 10 3 8 11 11 1 1 2 To t a l 25 36 61 Chi-Square - Goodness-of-Fit (%) Enrollment Male* Female** Tot a l Observed 41 59 100 Expected 48 52 100 X" = 1.19; p > .05 59 p r e f e r t o work w i t h t h e i r f r i e n d s or by themselves a t the computer. 4.2 Background f o r Hypotheses One through F i v e H y p o t h e s i s One s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e would be a p r o p o r t i o n a t e number o f male and female s t u d e n t s c o m p l e t i n g Computers i n the Home based on the t o t a l grade n i n e and t e n p o p u l a t i o n a t Tupper. To a c c u r a t e l y t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , a count o f the male and female s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the cour s e was compared t o a l l grade n i n e and t e n s t u d e n t s . T h i s method o f t e s t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s w i l l be the most a c c u r a t e as some of the st u d e n t s i n the cour s e were L e a r n i n g A s s i s t a n c e (LAC) or E n g l i s h as a Second Language (ESL) st u d e n t s and were not i n c l u d e d i n the survey. U s i n g the Chi-Square G o o d n e s s - o f - F i t s t a t i s t i c , the d i f f e r e n c e i n e n r o l l m e n t f o r Computers i n the Home i s not s i g n i f i c a n t based on the o v e r a l l grade n i n e and t e n e n r o l l m e n t ( T a b l e 10). Thus, N u l l H y p o t h e s i s One i s ac c e p t e d . P a r t I I of the survey f o c u s s e d on stu d e n t a t t i t u d e s toward the computer. The a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n p r i m a r i l y i n v o l v e s comparing responses t o d i f f e r e n t survey q u e s t i o n s . The survey responses a r e nominal i n nat u r e and, thus, the a n a l y s i s r e l i e s on non-parametric c r o s s - t a b u l a r t e c h n i q u e s . I n i t i a l l y , a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f .05 was chosen and was s u i t a b l e f o r the f i r s t t e n t a b l e s . However, due t o the re p e a t e d i n f e r e n t i a l n a t u r e o f the twelve a t t i t u d e survey items, the B o n f e r r o n i Technique s h o u l d have been a p p l i e d ( G l a s s & Hopkins, p. 381). However, i f t h i s t e c h n i q u e was implemented, twelve a t t i t u d e items would be d i v i d e d i n t o .05 and the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l would become v e r y c o n s e r v a t i v e , .004. 60 Table 11A: Percentages of Student Response i n Terms of Attitudes Toward Learning More About Computers (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree 16.7 1.1 - 1.1 Disagree - 3.3 3.7 4.3 Undecided - 22.2 7.4 16.0 Agree 25.0 47.8 37.0 48.9 Strongly Agree 58.3 25.6 51.9 29.8 Post-test: Strongly Disagree - 5.6 3.7 1.1 Disagree - 2.2 3.7 2.1 Undecided 8.3 16.7 7.4 16.8 Agree 50.0 51.1 33.3 53.7 Strongly Agree 41.7 24.4 51.9 26.3 Table 11B: Percentage of Student Responses i n Terms of Attitudes Toward Learning More About Computers (Provincial) P r o v i n c i a l Phase I (Tupper) Phase II Math Survey 1987-1988 1988-1989 1985 Pre Post Pre Post n = 7619 n = 299 n = 296 n = 216 n = 194 Strongly Disagree 3 4 2 4 4 Disagree 4 3 7 4 4 Undecided 17 20 20 18 19 Agree 47 51 47 45 43 Strongly Agree 29 21 25 27 30 ( Rothen , 1989, p . Al) For the purposes of t h i s exploratory research and discussion, the Bonferroni Technique was not used r i g i d l y and a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of .01 was used. Gender i s the co n t r o l v a r i a b l e and each table i l l u s t r a t e s responses to a s p e c i f i c question, divided into experimental and co n t r o l groups. The Chi-Square Test of Association analysis i s reserved for the t e s t i n g of hypotheses two through f i v e beginning on page 75. Table 11 i l l u s t r a t e s the very l i t t l e change between the pretest and post-test r e s u l t s for the statement, "I would l i k e to learn more about computers". The majority of grade nine and ten students at Tupper (79%) want to learn more about computers. The Experimental group agreed more strongly than the Control group. As indicated i n Table 11B, the o v e r a l l trend from 1985 to 1989 has been to keep pace with technology, as most students would l i k e to learn more about the changing computer environment. 62 T a b l e 12A: Percentage o f Responses t o A t t i t u d e s Toward F e e l i n g H e l p l e s s Around Computers (Tupper) Response Male Female E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 P r e t e s t : S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 16.7 15.6 29.6 8.6 D i s a g r e e 58.3 36.7 25.9 36.6 Undecided 16.7 26.7 25.9 28.0 Agree 8.3 17.8 18.5 21.5 S t r o n g l y Agree - 3.3 - 5.4 P o s t - t e s t : S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 16.7 21.1 14.8 11.6 D i s a g r e e 50.0 40.0 55.6 42.1 Undecided 16.7 21.1 25.9 25.3 Agree 16.7 11.1 3.7 14.7 S t r o n g l y Agree - 6.7 - 6.3 T a b l e 12B: Percentage i n Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward F e e l i n g H e l p l e s s Toward Computers ( P r o v i n c i a l ) P r o v i n c i a l Phase I (Tupper) Phase I I (Tupper) Math Survey 1987-1988 1988-1989 1985 Pre P o s t Pre P o s t n = 7633 n = 296 n = 295 n = 216 n = 194 S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 14 13 20 17 22 D i s a g r e e 39 36 38 41 40 Undecided 24 26 20 21 20 Agree 19 18 18 13 14 S t r o n g l y Agree 4 6 4 7 5 (Rothen, 1989, p. A2 ) 63 Table 13: Percentages of Student A t t i t u d e Toward Feeling That A l l Students Should be Taught Computers (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree 16.7 3.3 - 2.1 Disagree •16.7 12.2 7.4 6.3 Undecided 8.3 18.9 14.8 12.6 Agree 33.3 41.1 40.7 44.2 Strongly Agree 25.0 24.4 37.0 34.7 Post-test: Strongly Disagree 8.3 5.6 - 1.1 Disagree 8.3 5.6 7.4 3.2 Undecided 16.7 24.4 7.4 13.7 Agree 58.3 40.0 22.2 51.6 Strongly Agree 8.3 24.2 63.0 30.5 Table 14: Percentages of Student Responses Toward Computers Being Useful i n Math and Science (Tupper) Response Male Experimental n = 12 Control n = 90 Female Experimental n = 27 Control n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree Disagree 16.7 Undecided 8.3 Agree 33.3 Strongly Agree 41.7 1.1 5.6 10.9 46.7 36.7 3.7 14.8 48.1 25.9 7.4 5.3 13.7 56.8 24.2 Post-test: Strongly Disagree Disagree 16.7 Undecided Agree 33.3 Strongly Agree 50.0 3.3 3.3 20.0 47.8 25.6 14.8 66.7 18.5 2.1 3.2 16.8 49.5 28.4 64 Table 12A summarizes student responses to the statement, " I f e e l helpless around computers". Although only minor changes occurred a f t e r the treatment, the r e s u l t s generally show that over h a l f of the students (60%) do not f e e l helpless around computers. Three students who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the course f e l t helpless and nine were undecided — these figures are lower than for those of students i n the co n t r o l group. In comparison to the remaining Vancouver students and to the province as a whole over the 1985 to 1990 period, students generally do not f e e l helpless around computers (Table 12B). More than f i f t y percent of students i n both groups f e l t that a l l students should be taught how to use a computer (Table 13). Females f e l t more strongly about t h i s response than did males. A f t e r the treatment period, the experimental male group f e l t less strongly that a l l students should be taught how to use a computer. In contrast, females f e l t more strongly about the need for further computer education. In Table 14, very l i t t l e change was found between the pretest and post-test samples when asked to respond to the statement, "Computers are useful i n mathematics or science". The male treatment group f e l t more strongly on the p o s i t i v e use of computers i n math and science. 65 Table 15A: Percentages i n Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward Computers Being Useful i n Home Economics (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree 8.3 3.4 - 3.2 Disagree 41.7 9.0 - 4.2 Undecided 8.3 42.7 29.6 26.3 Agree 25.0 36.0 48.1 57.9 Strongly Agree 16.7 9.0 22.2 8.4 Post-test: Strongly Disagree - 2.2 - 2.1 Disagree - 6.7 - 1.1 Undecided 41.7 33.3 11.1 28.4 Agree 50.0 47.8 70.4 57.9 Strongly Agree 8.3 10.0 18.5 10.5 Table 15B: Percentages i n Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward the Usefulness of Computers i n Home Economics (Tupper) Phase I (Tupper) Phase II (Tupper) 1987 -1988 1988-1989 Pre Post Pre Post n = 296 n = 295 n = 217 n = 194 Strongly Disagree 11 11 6 3 Disagree 18 24 10 8 Undecided 41 31 26 35 Agree 26 27 47 46 Strongly Agree 4 7 11 9 ( Rothen, 1989, p. 8 ) S u r p r i s i n g l y , h a l f of the male experimental group e i t h e r 'Disagreed' or 'Strongly Disagreed' about the usefulness of computers i n home economics before the study period (Table 15A). One might question why students would e n r o l l i n a home economics course that concerned the use of computers i f they thought that computers were not useful i n home economics. Although many students were undecided about the usefulness of computers i n home economics, opinions s t e a d i l y became more favourable. The new computer science lab was established during the study period, thereby allowing the home economics computers to be placed i n a room c e n t r a l to a l l home economics classes. The increased v i s i b i l i t y of t h i s 'home economics lab' may have increased the 'Agree/Strongly Agree' response even though many students i n the co n t r o l group would not be aware of the multitude of computer a p p l i c a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e i n home economics. Over the three year period p r i o r to t h i s study, students were generally undecided about the usefulness of computers i n home economics (Table 15B). Various reasons which may account for t h i s uncertainty w i l l be discussed i n Chapter Five. 67 Table 16: Percentages i n Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward Whether Computers are More Useful For Boys Than G i r l s (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree 41.7 32.2 66.7 77.9 Disagree 41.7 24.4 14.8 12.6 Undecided 16.7 31.1 - 4.2 Agree - 7.8 14.8 2.1 Strongly Agree — 4.4 3.7 3.2 Post-test: Strongly Disagree 50.0 36.7 66.7 87.4 Disagree 25.0 31.1 22.2 7.4 Undecided 16.7 17.8 3.7 2.1 Agree 8.3 6.7 - 3.2 Strongly Agree - 7.8 7.4 -Table 17: Percentages i n Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward Feeling Confident About Using Computers Response Male Experimental n = 12 Female Control Experimental Control n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree Disagree 16.7 Undecided 16.7 Agree 41.5 Strongly Agree 25.0 3.3 8.9 32.2 42.2 13.3 3.7 3.7 25.9 51.9 14.8 2.1 10.6 20.2 55.3 11.7 Post-test: Strongly Disagree Disagree 8.3 Undecided 8.3 Agree 83.3 Strongly Agree 4.5 9.0 28.1 39.3 19.1 3.7 22.2 51.9 22.2 3.2 7.4 32.6 49.5 7.4 68 Table 16 i l l u s t r a t e s that the male treatment group 'Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed' (75%) with the statement that "Using computers i s more s u i t a b l e for boys than g i r l s " . More than h a l f of the male students i n the co n t r o l group also disagreed. However, 31% was undecided and 14% agreed. Both female groups were strongly opposed (over 80%) to t h i s statement. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , more females than males i n the experimental group agreed with t h i s statement. Two s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t s were found. F i r s t , one male student who disagreed during the pretest now agreed that computers were indeed more useful for boys than g i r l s . Second, two females from the treatment group strongly agreed with t h i s statement. The r e s u l t s from t h i s study, as well as those of previous school board studies and the P r o v i n c i a l Math Survey, conclude that the majority of students 'Strongly Disagreed' with the statement. Table 17 i s very i n d i c a t i v e of the student a t t i t u d e s toward f e e l i n g confident about using computers. O v e r a l l p r o v i n c i a l and Tupper r e s u l t s from 1985, and from the 1987 to 1989 period (Vavrick, 1988 and Rothen, 1989) i n d i c a t e that the majority of students f e e l confident about being able to use a computer. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were found between the treatment and co n t r o l groups, or between male and female students. 69 Table 18: Percentages In Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward Enjoying Using a Computer (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree 16.7 1.1 3.7 1.1 Disagree 16.7 3.3 3.7 5.3 Undecided - 18.9 3.7 15.8 Agree 25.0 55.6 51.9 57.9 Strongly Agree 41.7 21.1 37.0 20.0 Post-test: Strongly Disagree - 6.7 - 2.1 Disagree - 1.1 3.7 2.1 Undecided 8.3 14.4 - 20.0 Agree 50.0 45.6 59.3 57.9 Strongly Agree 41.7 32.2 37.0 17.9 Table 19: Percentages i n Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward Thinking About Working on a Computer Makes Them Nervous (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree 16.7 20.0 18.5 8.4 Disagree 33.3 41.1 48.1 51.6 Undecided 50.0 21.1 14.8 17.9 Agree - 14.4 18.5 17.9 Strongly Agree - 3.3 - 4.2 Post-test: Strongly Disagree 33.3 24.7 29.6 14.7 Disagree 50.0 38.2 48.1 48.4 Undecided 8.3 20.2 11.1 22.1 Agree 8.3 12.4 11.1 11.6 Strongly Agree - 4.5 - 3.2 70 T a b l e 20A: Percentages In Terms o f Student A t t i t u d e That Computers Are G a i n i n g Too Much C o n t r o l (Tupper) Response Male Female E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l n : =12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 P r e t e s t : S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 16 .7 11.1 3.7 3.2 D i s a g r e e 25 .0 18.9 25.9 24.2 Undecided 41 .7 34.4 37.0 46.3 Agree 16 .7 23.3 25.9 22.1 S t r o n g l y Agree — 12.2 7.4 4.2 P o s t - t e s t : S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e - 8.9 7.4 4.2 D i s a g r e e 41 .7 18.9 11.1 26.3 Undecided 41 .7 36.7 29.6 36.8 Agree 8 .3 21.1 48.1 25.3 S t r o n g l y Agree 8 .3 14.4 3.7 7.4 T a b l e 20B: Percentages o f Student A t t i t u d e That Computers are G a i n i n g Too Much C o n t r o l ( P r o v i n c i a l ) P r o v i n c i a l Phase I (Tupper) Phase I I (Tupper) Math Survey 1987-1988 1988-1989 1985 Pre P o s t Pre P o s t n = 7612 n = 296 n = 295 n = 217 n = 193 S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 9 6 6 5 9 D i s a g r e e 25 20 26 27 16 Undecided 29 31 29 29 38 Agree 25 28 26 28 28 S t r o n g l y Agree 12 14 13 11 8 ( Rothen, 1989, p.7) Student responses to the statement, "I enjoy using a computer" were i n t e r e s t i n g . The survey r e s u l t s do not i d e n t i f y the differences i n male and female behaviour that the researcher e m p i r i c a l l y observed during t h i s c l a s s . Male students were louder, more demonstrative and more w i l l i n g to immerse themselves i n an assignment. Males generally seemed to enjoy working with the technology. In contrast, the female students often sat beside t h e i r terminals and organized t h e i r work area. Generally, female students did not appear confident i n using the computer and, thus, did not appear to enjoy the a c t i v i t i e s as much as t h e i r male classmates. Table 19 i l l u s t r a t e s that a f t e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the course, both females and males i n the treatment group changed s l i g h t l y more students disagreed and strongly disagreed that working on a computer made them f e e l nervous. Very l i t t l e change occurred i n the co n t r o l group. The majority of students appears to be undecided as to whether computers are gaining too much cont r o l over people's l i v e s (Table 20A) . On an aggregate basis, almost as many tend to agree as disagree. The r e s u l t s obtained at Tupper i n t h i s study regarding student att i t u d e s that computers are gaining too much control are s i m i l a r to previous studies (Table 20B). The o v e r a l l trend i s unclear, as respondents seem evenly divided between agreeing and disagreeing with t h i s statement or they are undecided. The researcher acknowledges that t h i s statement may be perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by 72 Table 21: Percentages i n Terms of Student Attitudes Toward Working With Computers as Well as Others Their Age (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental Control Experimental Control n = 12 n = 90 n = 27 n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree Disagree 41.7 Undecided 16.7 Agree 33.3 Strongly Agree 8.3 4.5 22.5 27.0 38.2 7.9 7.4 22.2 33.3 37.0 8.4 23.2 34.7 32.6 1.1 Post-test: Strongly Disagree Disagree 25.0 Undecided 8.3 Agree 25.0 Strongly Agree 41.7 6.7 20.0 28.9 34.4 10.0 3.7 7.4 29.6 48.1 11.1 7.4 15.8 34.7 36.8 5.3 Table 22: Percentages i n Terms of Student A t t i t u d e Toward Feeling That a Computer i s Useful for Personal and Home Management (Tupper) Response Male Female Experimental n = 12 Control n = 90 Experimental n = 27 Control n = 95 Pretest: Strongly Disagree Disagree 8.3 Undecided Agree 66.7 Strongly Agree 2 5.0 1.1 4.4 14.4 43.3 36.7 7.4 14.8 51.9 25.9 3. 9. 55. 31. 2 5 8 6 Post-test: Strongly Disagree Disagree 8.3 Undecided Agree 58.3 Strongly Agree 33.3 1.1 4.4 13.3 52.2 28.9 3.7 51.9 44.4 1, 1. 6, 66. 25. 73 i n d i v i d u a l students. One student may be thinking of the convenience of bank machines, microwave ovens, and the fun of computer games. Another may have been digesting science f i c t i o n as i t r e l a t e s to technological advances and, thus, envisions an in t r u s i o n of computers i n people's l i v e s . Table 2 1 indicates that, o v e r a l l , an increasing percentage of students f e l t that they were able to work with computers as well as t h e i r peers do. However, more students (both male and female) i n the treatment group f e l t they had gained s k i l l s — many were s t i l l undecided or disagreed. Is t h i s evidence of a l i n g e r i n g , "We can, but I can't" paradox discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e ? The l i t e r a t u r e i d e n t i f i e s t h i s paradox only for females, yet i t may also be present i n male students. This phenomenon i s discussed further i n Chapter Fi v e . Most students before the treatment agreed with the statement that, "A computer i s useful for personal and home management" (Table 2 2 ) . This r e s u l t was supported by both groups during the period of study. In analyzing student a t t i t u d e s toward computers, the majority f e e l s confident rather than nervous about using a computer. In fac t , most enjoy using a computer and f e e l that they can use a computer as well as t h e i r peers. They want to learn more about computer technology and f e e l that everyone should be taught how to use a computer. Students also f e e l that computers are generally useful i n home economics. Most students disagreed with the statement that computers are 74 Table 23: Student Attitudes Toward Computer Use--Chi-Square (Test of- Association) S t a t i s t i c and S i g n i f i c a n c e Level (4 df) Question Pretest Post-test x* P X v P "I would l i k e to learn more about computers" 14.73 <.01* 9.52 .05 "I f e e l helpless around computers" 6.31 . 18 2.71 .61 "Every student should be taught how to use a computer" 1.09 .89 6.15 .19 "Computers are useful i n math and science" 6.54 .16 1.82 .77 "Computers are useful i n home economics" 7.26 .12 4.43 .35 "Using computers i s more useful for boys than g i r l s " 5.02 .28 1.87 .76 "I f e e l confident about being able to use computers" .61 .96 4.71 .32 "I enjoy using computers" 17.17 <.01* 7.19 . 13 "Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous" 2.58 .63 6.55 . 16 "Computers are gaining too much c o n t r o l " .97 .91 2.70 .61 "Able to work with computers as well as peers" 1.09 .89 7.27 . 12 "Useful for personal and home management" 6.12 . 18 4.90 .30 * p <.01 75 more useful for boys than g i r l s . They were somewhat evenly undecided or could not agree or disagree with the statement that, "computers are gaining too much cont r o l over our l i v e s " . 4.3 Testing of Hypotheses Two through Fiv e : For the t e s t i n g of Hypotheses Two through Five, the Chi-Square Test of Association was used. As mentioned e a r l i e r , awareness of the Bonferroni Technique suggests that a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of .01 be established. Hypothesis Two: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n at t i t u d e s toward computer use between students who have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Computers i n the Home and students who have not enrolle d i n the course. In t e s t i n g Hypothesis Two, i t was found that, o v e r a l l , the response patterns between the two groups were s i m i l a r . When Chi-Square Test of Association was performed, only two items on the pretest and no items on the post-test were found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t to the .01 l e v e l (Table 23). "Learning more about computers" and "Enjoying using computers" were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Therefore, with ten of twelve items on the pretest and a l l twelve items on the post-test being non-s i g n i f i c a n t , Hypothesis Two must be accepted. 76 Table 24: S i g n i f i c a n c e Level for Student Attitudes for Male and Female Students on the Pre and Post Test—Chi-Square Test of Association (4 df) Question PRETEST POST-TEST Female Male Female Male P P P P "I would l i k e to learn more about computers" .29 <.01* .07 .63 "I f e e l helpless around computers" .06 .62 .31 .82 "Every student should be taught how to use a computer" .94 .30 .02 .62 "Computers are useful i n math and science" .11 .63 .49 .05 "Computers are useful i n home economics" .20 <.01* .86 .86 "Using computers i s more useful for boys than g i r l s " .07 .45 <.01* .80 "I f e e l confident about being able to use computers" .76 .58 .17 .06 "I enjoy using computers" .19 <.01* .05 .82 "Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous" .51 .20 .32 .70 "Computers are gaining too much c o n t r o l " .90 .68 .13 .30 "Able to work with computers as well as peers" .97 .62 .49 .03 "Computers are useful for personal and home management".07 .43 .18 .69 "DB, WP, and SS f i t well into home .50 .54 .13 .57 * p <.01 77 Hypothesis Three: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n computer use between male and female students. With the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l set at . 0 1 , three items for the male students on the pretest were s i g n i f i c a n t , and one item for the female students on the post-test was s i g n i f i c a n t . The researcher observed a d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e between male and female students i n the computer lab. Males were more eloquent with 'computer jargon', and appeared to be more aggressive toward the 'machine'. When they entered the lab, they immediately went to t h e i r work s t a t i o n and began working — not always on the current assignment. Occasionally, male students attempted to sneak i n a game and play i t u n t i l they were caught. Female behaviour was markedly d i f f e r e n t . They often entered the room l e i s u r e l y and v i s i t e d with friends or read q u i e t l y u n t i l the i n s t r u c t i o n s for the day were given. They kept a t i d y work area and were much more c a r e f u l with t h e i r computer and i t s peripherals (mouse, keyboard, p r i n t e r ) . They were slower or le s s w i l l i n g to incorporate the 'jargon' in t o t h e i r vocabulary and seemed to avoid i t s use when possible. Resources such as p r i n t e r s , were observed to be the domain of the males during c l a s s and because classes were large, females were often forced to use these resources a f t e r school. Although differences i n behaviour were observed by the researcher, few s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found. Hypothesis Three must be accepted as very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e was found between male and female a t t i t u d e toward the use of computers. 78 Table 25: Female Students i n the Experimental and Control Group Attitudes toward Computer Use — Chi-Square (Test of Association) S t a t i s t i c and S i g n i f i c a n c e Level (4 df) Question PRETEST POST-TEST X" p X* p "I would l i k e to learn more about computers" 4.98 .29 8.45 .07 "I f e e l helpless around computers" 9.20 .06 4.81 .31 "Every student should be taught how to use a computer" .77 .94 11.77 .02 "Computers are useful i n math and science" 7.47 .11 3.40 .49 "Computers are useful i n home economics" 5.92 .20 5.05 .28 "Using computers i s more useful for boys than g i r l s " 8.49 .07 13.60 <.01* "I f e e l confident about being able to use computers" 1.85 .76 6.41 .17 "I enjoy using computers" 6.05 .19 9.67 .05 "Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous" 3.30 .51 4.73 .32 "Computers are gaining too much co n t r o l " 1.02 .90 6.93 .13 "Able to work with computers as well as peers" .45 .97 3.43 .49 "Useful for personal and home management" 8.73 .07 6.21 .18 "DB, WP and SS f i t well into home economics" 3.32 .50 7.18 .13 * p <.01 79 Table 26: Experimental and Control Group Male Student Attitudes Toward Computer Use—Chi-Square (Test of Association) S t a t i s t i c and S i g n i f i c a n c e Level (4 df) Question PRETEST POST-TEST X v p X v p "I would l i k e to learn more about computers" 16.86 <.01* 2.59 .63 "I f e e l helpless around computers" 2.65 .62 1.54 .82 "Every student should be taught how to use a computer" 4.83 .30 2.61 .62 "Computers are useful i n math and science" 2.56 .63 9.34 .05 "Computers are useful i n home economics" 13.66 <.01* 1.32 .86 "Using computers i s more useful for boys than g i r l s " 3.68 .45 1.60 .80 "I f e e l confident about being able to use computers" 2.88 .58 9.04 .06 "I enjoy using computers" 18.62 <-01* 1.55 .82 "Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous" 5.96 .20 2.15 .70 "Computers are gaining too much co n t r o l " 2.31 .68 4.85 .30 "Able to work with computers as well as peers" 2.62 .62 10.64 .03 "Useful for personal and home management" 3.85 .43 2.21 .69 "DB,WP and SS f i t well into home economics" 3.09 .54 2.90 .57 * p <.01 80 Hypothesis Four: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n att i t u d e toward computers between female students e n r o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home and females not enrolled i n the course. Again, a l e v e l of .01 was used for determining s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The only statement that was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t was "Using computers i s more useful for boys than g i r l s " . This d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .008 l e v e l . In the case of the other eleven items, the small differences that occurred could be due to sampling error. Therefore, Hypothesis Four i s accepted as there was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n att i t u d e s toward the computer between female students who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the course and those who did not. Hypothesis Five: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n att i t u d e toward computers between male students e n r o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home and male students not enrolled i n Computers S t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e was found for the male students during the pretest. Three items were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t (Table 26). "I would l i k e to learn more about computers" e l i c i t e d a very s i g n i f i c a n t response at the .002 l e v e l . "Computers are useful i n home economics" also received a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n response (p =.008). Third, "Enjoy using computers" also received a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n response (p =.0009). However, no s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were found on the post-test. Therefore, Hypothesis Five must also be accepted as for most items, the l e v e l 81 the l e v e l of d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e between male students who had completed the course and those who had not completed the course was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The purpose of t h i s chapter was to investigate the i n t e g r a t i o n of computers into home economics by examining equitable computer use between male and female students as well as changes i n student a t t i t u d e s regarding the computer. The data were analyzed using the SPSS-X s t a t i s t i c a l program. Demographic data were analyzed i n order to describe the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g grade nine and ten students at Tupper Secondary School i n Vancouver, B.C. O v e r a l l , the Chi-Square Test of Association s t a t i s t i c a l technique revealed very few s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences between the experimental and control groups. In summary, students enjoyed using computers, would l i k e to learn more about computers, f e l t confident using computers and f e l t that everyone should be taught how to use one. Three items received negative d i s t r i b u t i o n s , as students did not f e e l helpless, did not f e e l a computer made them f e e l nervous and strongly disagreed that computers were more su i t a b l e for boys than g i r l s . The question, "Are computers gaining too much con t r o l over our l i v e s ? " e l i c i t e d an i n t e r e s t i n g response — an equal number of students agreed as disagreed. A d i v e r s i t y of student opinions accompanied the statement, "I am able to work with computers as well as others my age". The following chapter w i l l discuss the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these findings and t h e i r implications for program planning regarding 82 computer i n t e g r a t i o n into home economics. I t w i l l also r a i s e some further questions and attempt to draw some conclusions about t h i s study. 83 CHAPTER 5  Findings and Recommendations The reason for conducting t h i s study may be summarized i n the o r i g i n a l research question: "Can the in t e g r a t i o n of computer programs int o home economics encourage a t t i t u d e changes and promote equitable computer use between male and female students?" S p e c i f i c a l l y , the research survey and s t a t i s t i c a l a nalysis focussed on the implementation of the course, Computers i n the Home, during the period from September 1989 to February 1990. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the findings i n comparison with the l i t e r a t u r e are discussed, as are the implications t h i s study has for further research. 5.1 Discussion The sample for t h i s study was chosen from the t o t a l population of grade nine and ten students at S i r Charles Tupper School i n Vancouver, B.C. The study involved two hundred and twenty-four students, t h i r t y - n i n e i n the treatment group and one hundred and ei g h t y - f i v e i n the c o n t r o l group. At the time of t h i s study (1989-1990), t h i s was the only school i n B r i t i s h Columbia o f f e r i n g t h i s course. A questionnaire was used to c o l l e c t the data for t h i s Pretest, Post-test Nonequivalent Control Group Design research. The researcher was also involved as a participant-observer during the study period, therefore, observations of student i n t e r a c t i o n are included to a s s i s t i n the explanation of the s t a t i s t i c s reported. I t was expected and postulated that students e n r o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home would have been exposed to a d i f f e r e n t 84 experience than those not enrolled i n the course. The focus of t h i s study was student responses to the pretest and post-test surveys. The pretest, administered by the researcher, determined the a t t i t u d e of grade nine and ten students at Tupper toward computers i n September 1989. The post-test provided data on student a t t i t u d e s toward the same questions i n February 1990. The researcher analyzed the extent to which student at t i t u d e s toward computers had changed as a r e s u l t of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the course, Computers i n the Home. The r e s u l t s of the survey are discussed i n r e l a t i o n to each hypotheses and include references to s p e c i f i c data from the study. 5.1.1 Discussion of Hypothesis One One of the goals for the creation of t h i s course was to improve student perception of computers and home economics. The premise held was that students may not have a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward computers and may not have been a c t i v e l y involved with computers. The data support the assumption that students were not a c t i v e l y involved with computers as indicated i n the frequency tables of responses to the questions r e l a t i n g to computer experience and access to computers (Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4). This study refutes the majority of past research i n that more females than males were en r o l l e d i n Computer Science and Computers i n the Home classes (Tables 5 and 10), and the Computer Science teacher was female. However, two studies i n the l i t e r a t u r e suggested that non-programming computer classes tend to be more equally balanced with respect to gender (Siann et a l . , 1988 and 85 Lockheed & Mandanich, 1986). These studies can help to explain the enrollment i n Computers i n the Home, but Computer Science i s focussed completely on programming s k i l l s . Therefore, why i s the Computer Science female enrollment so high t h i s term? Is Tupper an anomaly, or are more females becoming interested i n computers and programming? I f Tupper i s an anomaly, what makes i t s students d i f f e r e n t ? Another i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g , a l b e i t not s i g n i f i c a n t , was the change i n student intentions toward e n r o l l i n g i n Computer Science. Before p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the new course, Computers i n the Home, most of the males were planning to e n r o l l i n Computer Science. However, a f t e r completing Computers i n the Home, less than h a l f s t i l l planned to take Computer Science (Table 6). Conversely, less than h a l f of the females were o r i g i n a l l y planning to take Computer Science. Yet, a f t e r completing Computers i n the Home, over half planned to take Computer Science. I t appears that Computers i n the Home may have served as a c a t a l y s t to encourage female students and discourage males from e n r o l l i n g i n Computer Science. This i s confirmed i n Table 7 where female students i n the treatment group f e l t better prepared to take a Computer Science course. This r e s u l t was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p = .01). I t appears that Computers i n the Home as s i s t e d i n preparing female students for future computer courses. School computer use yielded s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s for a l l female students. Both groups were s i m i l a r i n that h a l f of the females i n each group responded that they r a r e l y used a computer. P r i o r to t h i s study, those i n the treatment group p r i m a r i l y used the 86 computer to play games. On the other hand, i n the cont r o l group, females were divided between w r i t i n g t h e i r own programs and learning more about school subjects. A f t e r the study period, students i n the treatment group increased t h e i r computer use. Word processing was used by over 50% of respondents—a d e f i n i t e s h i f t away from the game-playing p r i o r to treatment. The r e s u l t s of the study pertaining to home computer access refute the majority of research. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between males and females for home computer access. In summary, Hypothesis One stated that there would be a proportionate number of male and female students completing Computers i n the Home based on the t o t a l grade nine and ten student population at Tupper school. Although the l i t e r a t u r e favours male enrollment, t h i s was not the case at Tupper. The subquestion ra i s e d i n Chapter One, 'Will a greater number of females e n r o l l i n the course, thereby balancing the greater number of males enrolle d i n Computer Science?' i s inappropriate for t h i s study, as both Computers i n the Home and Computer Science did not s t a t i s t i c a l l y i l l u s t r a t e any dif f e r e n c e i n r e l a t i o n to enrollment. Both courses appeared to be f a i r l y evenly divided between male and female students. 5.1.2 Discussion of Hypothesis Two Student a t t i t u d e s toward computer use were expected to be d i f f e r e n t between those students who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the course, Computers i n the Home, and those who did not. However, the differences were not s i g n i f i c a n t and were a c t u a l l y more s i m i l a r 87 than a n t i c i p a t e d . Before the study period, students i n the treatment group wanted to learn more about computers and enjoyed using computers. However, a f t e r the study period, no s i g n i f i c a n t differences occurred (Tables 11A and 18). Possibly, the instrument used to d i s t i n g u i s h any d i f f e r e n c e was i n s e n s i t i v e to the changes that occurred, or problems encountered throughout the implementation of the course reduced student enjoyment more than the researcher r e a l i z e d . The main problems included hardware not working properly, as well as software upgrades not doing what they were supposed to do. Based on t h e i r v i s i o n of the a b i l i t i e s of the computer, students had high expectations for the course. As they became aware of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the computer students may have become d i s i l l u s i o n e d . O v e r a l l , there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e s toward computers between students who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the course and those who did not. 5.1.3 Discussion of Hypothesis Three, Four and Five Student a t t i t u d e s were expected to be d i f f e r e n t between male and female students. Although female students f e l t more strongly than male students that a l l students should be taught computers, there was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the sexes and between the experimental and co n t r o l group. Table 16 i l l u s t r a t e s the r e s u l t s of the question, "Using computers i s more useful for boys than g i r l s " . This gender biased question was taken d i r e c t l y from the 1985 P r o v i n c i a l Math Assessment Survey and implies that computers are more useful for 88 boys than g i r l s . The question may have been better presented i n a more neutral way by asking, "Who would f i n d computers more useful? a. females; b. males; or c. everyone". During the administration of the survey i n the F a l l of 1989, a female student commented that she did not l i k e the question because of i t s inherent bias. Survey responses appear to support t h i s student's observation. As one might expect, more than h a l f of the co n t r o l group disagreed and the male treatment group strongly disagreed with t h i s statement. One may conclude that male students who e n r o l l i n a computer course i n a predominantly female f i e l d might be le s s gender-biased than males of the general population. Most female students were strongly opposed to t h i s statement. However, in the treatment group, more females than males agreed with t h i s statement. I t may be concluded that, for these females, t h i s course was not successful i n demonstrating that computers are useful for g i r l s . Empirical observation throughout the study period lead the researcher to believe that there were differences between male and female students toward the computer. Although the research i l l u s t r a t e d that both male and female students enjoy using the computer, the researcher observed that boys o v e r t l y d i s p l a y t h e i r enjoyment. They were more adventurous, aggressive, and curious about what the computer could do. They explored an assignment and would work at the computer for long p e r i o d s — o f t e n learning things about the program that the teacher was unaware of. On the other hand i f the survey r e s u l t s are accurate i n that female students enjoyed using the computer as much as the male students, then they 89 displayed t h e i r enjoyment more co v e r t l y . They appeared to be much more goal-oriented, wanting to complete the task assigned rather than exploring other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . They preferred to work with t h e i r friends and s o c i a l i z e rather than work by themselves. Again, survey r e s u l t s do not confirm t h i s observation s p e c i f i c a l l y for female students. Hypotheses three, four and f i v e r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the differences i n male and female a t t i t u d e s and between males and females e n r o l l e d i n Computers i n the Home and those not enrolled i n the course. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ferences were discovered, and a l l three n u l l hypotheses must be accepted. 5.2 Limitations The sample studied- includes the grade nine and ten students at S i r Charles Tupper Secondary School i n Vancouver, B.C. Selection was not random and was l i m i t e d to students who attend t h i s school, therefore r e s t r i c t i n g the a b i l i t y to generalize the r e s u l t s . The survey used as the focus for t h i s study was a non-standardized instrument. I t only c o l l e c t e d data for the course taught during the period of study. This format was chosen as opposed to interview format for the following advantages: providing no bias and allowing for student anonymity. A disadvantage i s that i t was close-ended and the type of response obtained was l i m i t e d . Also, the survey could only be administered to those students who had s u f f i c i e n t command of the written language. Thus, i t excluded ESL and LAC students, which might have changed the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s . This was an exploratory study and one 90 must view the r e s u l t s of t h i s research with caution. 5.3 Recommendations for Further Research This paper attempted to i l l u s t r a t e the benefit of a computer a p p l i c a t i o n course taught at the grade 9/10 l e v e l . I t was hoped that the research would benefit students as follows: I f gender inequity e x i s t s at Tupper, the research would describe procedures to improve the s i t u a t i o n . I t appears that gender equity e x i s t s at Tupper, at l e a s t for t h i s period of study—September 1989 to February 1990. An i n t e r e s t i n g question for further research may be, "Why are some females reluctant and others i n t r i g u e d by the computer?". Further research e i t h e r at Tupper or other schools implementing t h i s course would be valuable i n determining the benefit of a home economics a p p l i c a t i o n computer course. Second, i t was hoped that t h i s study would determine i f a computer course focussing on a p p l i c a t i o n can change student a t t i t u d e s . S u r p r i s i n g l y , only minor changes were found i n a t t i t u d e differences between the treatment and cont r o l group based on the survey r e s u l t s . As we work toward implementation of the Year 2000 Document, i s i t reasonable to dedicate c a p t i t a l funding for separate home economics labs? Should we not be creating a l l -purpose labs and encouraging a l l subject area teachers and t h e i r students to use them? Another important question to ask, For what s p e c i f i c grade l e v e l s , content areas, are computer ap p l i c a t i o n s most e f f e c t i v e ? Also, can computer ap p l i c a t i o n s improve student performance i n s p e c i f i c home eocnomics areas? This study or portions thereof could be r e p l i c a t e d i n the f i v e schools planning to implement the course i n the F a l l of 1991. However, the survey should be revised to include questions of more relevance, such as: Do you think your a t t i t u d e toward computers has changed t h i s term? Why? How important do you think computers w i l l be for you i n your future? As well, i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to determine what r o l e models e x i s t at home and what type of family support students have. Questions such as the following may be h e l p f u l : Do your parents want you to learn how to use a computer? Does your mother or father use a computer? As well as teaching, the researcher was involved with teacher i n - s e r v i c e r e l a t e d to the implementation of t h i s course, Computers i n the Home. Teaching the same word processing lesson to the Computers i n the Home cl a s s and to a group of Vancouver home economics teachers was an i l l u m i n a t i n g experience. The l e s s o n — designed as an i n - s e r v i c e exercise—was f i r s t taught to the students to address any unforeseen problems. The lesson was a success and the students progressed further than a n t i c i p a t e d . The same a c t i v i t y for teachers took three times as long to complete because of problems that did not occur with the students. This d i f f e r e n c e was mainly due to a high l e v e l of anxiety on the part of the teachers. They were a f r a i d to make a mistake. Further, many of them typed and made errors r e l a t e d to the "carriage return". As a r e s u l t , many s k i l l s had to be 'unlearned' f i r s t , then relearned. The teachers needed constant r e p e t i t i o n and reinforcement. They also required non-threatening support and the reassurance that i t was a l l r i g h t to request assistance from a 92 student. Further research i n the area of teacher a t t i t u d e s may include questions such as: Does a teacher's use of a computer at home a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward computers at school? Do teachers spend more time working at the computer than do other professions? 5.4 Conclusions The course, Computers i n the Home, has become popular with home economics educators. However, i t must be subject to continual r e v i s i o n to r e f l e c t changes of hardware and software i n order to remain current. As wel l , business education i s adding a compulsory course at the grade ten l e v e l which w i l l reduce the number of e l e c t i v e courses from which students may choose. This w i l l r e s t r i c t student choices regarding home economics courses. Home economists 'may perceive Computers i n the Home as a course which w i l l update the image of home economics and maintain current enrollment as other e l e c t i v e courses compete for status at the secondary l e v e l . Home economics educators must question whether or not a separate course on computer ap p l i c a t i o n s i s required. I t appears that a separate course has served a worthwhile purpose at t h i s time, promoting home economics and maintaining enrollment fi g u r e s . Nevertheless, considering the future and the philosophy and goals of the Year 2000, the in t e g r a t i o n of the computer as a t o o l throughout a l l courses may be b e n e f i c i a l . This course may act as a c a t a l y s t for the successful i n t e g r a t i o n of computers into home economics — preparing students, at l e a s t i n part, for the impact of computers on t h e i r l i v e s . 93 The process of in t e g r a t i n g computers in t o home economics has been challenging. F i r s t , from a personal point of view, the researcher was involved i n the " p o l i t i c a l process of education" including the competition for funding and the decisions involved i n purchasing computer hardware. Second, from a general perspective, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to observe the reaction of people to the marriage of computer technology and the "cooking and sewing" home economics environment. In addition, the process has rai s e d the awareness of educators, administrators, parents and students about what home economics r e a l l y does involve — which i s much more than sewing and cooking. "The p o t e n t i a l of technology to stimulate important changes inthe school learning environment i s r e a l — a n d should be exploited" (Bialo & S i v i n , 1990, p. 16). In conclusion, t h i s study has attempted to add to the body of knowledge regarding home economics, computers and gender equity. Generally t h i s study supports the findings i n the l i t e r a t u r e , with the exception of gender equity. This research study has shown that females are as interested and use computers as often as males at Tupper School i n Vancouver, B.C. Even though males and females react d i f f e r e n t l y toward computers, the general trend appears to be moving toward more equitable computer experiences for a l l , thus narrowing the gender gap. 94 REFERENCES Atack, C. (1988). P u l l i n g down the gender w a l l . Educational  Computing, 9(4), 40-41. Baldwin, E. (1986). The r i s e of technology: Implications for home economics education. Canadian Journal of Home Economics 36(4), 164-167. B i a l o , E. & S i v i n , J . (1990). Report on the Effectiveness of  Microcomputers i n Schools. Washington, D.C.: Software Publisher's Asso c i a t i o n . Blackstone, P. & Hamilton, G. (1989). Gender equity i n mathematics, science, and technology. A survey of Vancouver Island elementary schools. V i c t o r i a , B.C. Bracey, G. (1988). Computers and learning: The research jury i s s t i l l out. E l e c t r o n i c Learning, 8(2), 28-30. Braun, L., Moursund, D. & Zinn, K. (1990). VISION TEST:  Technologically Enriched Schools of Tomorrow. International Society for Technology i n Education. Eugene, Oregon: ISTE. Butler, C. (1990). S h i f t i n g the burden. Computers i n Education, 8 ( 1 ) , 28-29. Chant, S. (1960). Royal commission on education. V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia: Department of Education. C h i a r e l i , D. (1988). Sex and computers: Equity vs inequity. Comment on Education, 18(3), 12-19. C o l l i s , B. (1989). Research r e t r o s p e c t i v e : 1985-1989. The  Computing Teacher, 16.(9), 5-7. C o l l i s , B. (1985). Reflections on i n e q u i t i e s i n computer education: Do the r i c h get ric h e r ? Education and Computing, 1, 179-186. Daneliuk, C. (1987). P r o v i n c i a l advisory committee on computers: Interim report. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia: M i n i s t r y of Education. Dukes, R., Discenza, R., & Cougar, J . (1989). Convergent v a l i d i t y of four computer anxiety scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 195-203. 95 Eastman, S. & Krendl, K. (1987). .Computers and gender: D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of e l e c t r o n i c search on students' achievement and a t t i t u d e s . Journal of Research and  Development i n Education, 20.(3), 41-47. Epperson, S. (1988). Studies l i n k subtle sex bias i n schools with women's behavior i n the workplace. The Wall Street Journal, September, 16, 1988, p. 27. Erickson, G., Erickson, L. & Haggerty, S. (1980). Gender and  mathematics/science education i n elementary and secondary  schools. A discussion paper. V i c t o r i a : M i n i s t r y of Education. Eyre, L. (1988). Curriculum and gender equity. Submission to the  Royal Commission on Education. Vancouver, B.C.: Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Favaro, E. & Van Alstyne, A. (1989). Computers i n the home: A curriculum project. I l l i n o i s Teacher, 33 (1), 26-28. Fisher, G. (1986). The s o c i a l e f f e c t s of computers i n education. In RUN: Computer Education. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Inc., 234-235. Fisher, G. (1984). Access to computers. The Computing Teacher, 1 1(8), 24-26. G i l l i l a n d , K. (1984). Equals i n computer technology. The  Computing Teacher, 11(8), 42-44. Giroux, H. (1981). Toward a new sociology of curriculum. In Giroux, Penna & Pennar (Eds.), Curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n , (pp. 98-108). Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Glass, G. & Hopkins, K. (1984). S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n educat- ion and psychology. New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. Gohala, E. (1983). Introducing microcomputers i n the schools: The Lyons Township High School experience. Spectrum, 1(2), 38-41. Gorelle, A. (1987). Gender discrepancies i n the s e l e c t i o n of computer courses i n secondary school. Canadian School  Executive, 6(9), 23-24. Gray, E. (1984). The newest high tech challenge for home economics. I l l i n o i s Teacher, 2.8(2), 79-80. H a l l , K. (Ed.). (1982). Computer-based education. Encyclopedia  of Educational Research I, (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press, 353-367. 96 Hawes, G. & Hawes, L. (1982). The c o n c i s e d i c t i o n a r y of  e d u c a t i o n . New York: Van Nostrand R e i n h o l d , Co. Hayibor, B. (1990). Gender E q u i t y A c r o s s the C u r r i c u l u m . Vancouver, B.C. Hittman, L. (1987). F a m i l y and t e c h n o l o g y : E d u c a t i n g f o r the 1990's and beyond. Home Economics Forum, 1 ( 2 ) , 3-5. Home Economics C u r r i c u l u m Center. (1984). Computer a p p l i c a t i o n s i n the home economics c u r r i c u l u m . In Microcomputers i n Home  Economics. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech U n i v e r s i t y , 7-19. Horton, N.J. (1987). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s towards computers. U n p u b l i s h e d manuscript, Department o f Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard - R a d c l i f f e C o l l e g e s . Jacobson, E. & Kuehn, L. (1986). In wake o f r e s t r a i n t : The  impact o f r e s t r a i n t on e d u c a t i o n i n B.C. Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: B.C. Teacher's F e d e r a t i o n . Jensen, J . (1983). F a m i l y p e r c e p t i o n s o f and a d a p t a t i o n s t o the  home computer. Un p u b l i s h e d master's t h e s i s . Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Johnson, R., Johnson, D. & Stanne, M. (1985). E f f e c t s o f c o o p e r a t i v e , c o m p e t i t i v e , and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c g o a l s t r u c t u r e s on c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l  Psychology. 77 ( 6 ) , 668-677. K e i s l e r , S., S p r o u l l , L. & E c c l e s , J . (1983). Second c l a s s c i t i z e n s ? From v i d e o arcades t o keyboard camps, g i r l s f i n d t he w o r l d o f computers a mostly male domain. Psychology Today, 17 ( 3 ) , 40-48. K r e n d l , K. & Lieberman, D. (1988). Computers and l e a r n i n g : A review o f r e c e n t r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Computing  Research, 4 ( 4 ) , 367-389. L a P o i n t e , A. & M a r t i n e z , M. (1988). Aims, e q u i t y , and a c c e s s i n computer e d u c a t i o n . P h i D e l t a Kappan, 70.(1), 59-61. Lennon, S. & M u l l e r , E. (1989). Gender e q u i t y and the e l e c t r o n i c age. AHEA ACTION, March, 1989, p. 9. L e s g o l d , A. (1986). P r e p a r i n g c h i l d r e n f o r a c o m p u t e r - r i c h w o r l d . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 43.(6), 7-11. L e s g o l d , A. (1983). When can computers make a d i f f e r e n c e ? Theory I n t o P r a c t i s e , 22 ( 4 ) , 247-252. Lockheed, M. & F r a k t , S. (1984). Sex e q u i t y : i n c r e a s i n g g i r l s use o f computers. The Computing Teacher, ! i ( 8 ) , 16-18. 97 Lockheed, M. & Mandinach, E. (1986). Trends i n e d u c a t i o n a l computing: D e c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t and the changing focus o f i n s t r u c t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l Researcher, 1 8 ( 5 ) , 21-26. L o n g s t r e t h , M., K e l l y , M. & P a r i s , K. (1989). Microcomputer a d a p t a t i o n and use among home economics t e a c h e r s . J o u r n a l  o f V o c a t i o n a l Home Economics E d u c a t i o n , 2 ( 1 ) , 80-91. Lowe, G. (1990). Computer l i t e r a c y . Canadian S o c i a l Trends, Winter 1990, 13-15. McMullen, J . & McMullen, B. (1990). What i s a home computer anyhow? The Computer Paper, 3. (11), 46-48. McMurray, P. & Hoover, L. (1984). The e d u c a t i o n a l uses o f computers: Hardware, s o f t w a r e and s t r a t e g i e s . J o u r n a l o f  N u t r i t i o n E d u c a t i o n , 1 6 ( 2 ) , 39-43. Meghan , R. & R e i d , W. (1982). How w i l l the new "technology" change the c u r r i c u l u m ? J o u r n a l o f C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , 14(4), 353-358. Mevarech, Z., S t e r n , D., & L e v i t a , I. (1987). To co o p e r a t e o r not t o co o p e r a t e i n CAI: That i s the q u e s t i o n . The J o u r n a l  o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 80(3), 164-167. Moursund, D. (1986). New views o f computer l i t e r a c y : " " The computer as a t o o l . The P r a c t i t i o n e r , 1 3 ( 2 ) , 12 pages. M u l l e r , E. (1986). U s i n g computers i n home economics: Three approaches. F o r e c a s t f o r Home Economics, 31(5), 17-23. M u l l e r , E. (1988). Computer watch: Software r e v i e w s . F o r e c a s t  f o r Home Economics, 34(2), 12-14, and 62. N a i s b e t t , J . (1982). Megatrends. New York: Warner Books, Inc. N e i l l , G. ( E d . ) . (1987). Study i d e n t i f i e s t e n c r i t i c a l s u c c e s s f a c t o r s . S c h o o l Tech News, 4 ( 3 ) , 1. Newman, D. (1990). O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e s e a r c h on the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l impact o f s c h o o l computers. E d u c a t i o n a l  Researcher, 19 ( 3 ) , 8-13. Olson, J . (1988). S c h o o l w o r l d s / M i c r o w o r l d s : Computers and the C u l t u r e o f the Classroom. T o r o n t o : Paragon P r e s s . Payne, J . Duford, S. & Timmons, K. (1984). A computer approach t o a t r a d i t i o n a l n u t r i t i o n assignment. I l l i n o i s Teacher, 28(1), 20-21. P e t e r a t , L. (1989). S e r v i c e o r t r a n s f o r m a t i v e knowledge? The p o t e n t i a l o f home economics. J o u r n a l o f V o c a t i o n a l Home  Economics E d u c a t i o n , 2 ( 1 ) / 71-79. 98 Peterat, L. & McLean, C. (1982). Revisioning curriculum: The argument for a r a t i o n a l e . Canadian Home Economics Journal, 32(4), 185-187. Raub, A. (1981). Correlates of computer anxiety i n college  students. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Pennysylvania. Reagan, S. & Clark, V. (1988). Males/Females: Computer  Education. Pamphlet. R i t c h i e , D. (Ed.) (1988). C r i t i c a l thinking courses: How software f i t s i n . School Tech News, 5.(8), 3. Robertson, E., Ladewig, B., Stricklaand, M. & Boschung, M.D. (1987). Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n . Journal of Educational  Research, 80 (5), 314-316. Roblyer, M., Castine, W. & King, F. (1988). Computer appl i c a t i o n s have "undeniable value", research shows. E l e c t r o n i c Learning, 8.(1), 38-40. Rothen, W. (1989). Evaluation of the Microcomputers i n Home Economics Project. Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver School Board. Sanders, J . (1986). The computer: Male, female or androgenous? In RUN: Computer Education. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Inc., 235-237. Sanders, J . & Stone, A. (1986). The Neuter Computer: Computers  for g i r l s and Boys. New York: Neal Schuman Publishers Inc. Scriven, M. (1980). Evaluation Thesaurus. Pt. Reyes, C a l i f o r n i a : Edgepress. Siann, G., Durndell, A., McLeod, H. & Glissov, F. (1988). Stereotyping i n r e l a t i o n to the gender gap i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n computing. Educational Research, 30 (2), 98-103. Skinner, B. (1986). Programmed i n s t r u c t i o n r e v i s i t e d . Phi Delta  Kappan, 68 (2), 103-110. Smathers, D. (1989). Toward the 21st century: W i l l home economics survive? I l l i n o i s Teacher, 32.(4), 161. Smith, R. (1988). Claims of improved academic performance -the questions you should ask. The Computing Teacher, 15(8), 42-44. Squires, D. (1985). A new d i r e c t i o n for computers i n education. Journal of CUEBC, 5.(2), 41-44. 99 Stone, A. (1988). The one computer home. The Computing  Teacher, 16(1), 28-29. S u l l i v a n , K. (1989). Technology and the family: Friend or foe. I l l i n o i s Teacher, 32.(3,) 94-97. Summers, B. (1989). Research i n elementary c u r r i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s  of computers. Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver School Board. Swadener, M. & Hannefin, M. (1987). Gender s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n s i x t h graders' a t t i t u d e s toward computers: An exploratory study. Educational Technology, 27.( 1), 37-42. The Vancouver Sun. (Mon., Feb. 20, 1989). Why boys lead g i r l s  i n the computer race. Sun News Service, B6. Thomas, D. (1984). Using computers to change home economics. Journal of Home Economics, 76.(3), 38-40. Thomas, J . (1986). Forces i n f l u e n c i n g home economics curriculum change i n B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary Schools, 1912  -1985. Unpublished master's t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. T o f f l e r , A. (1982). Previews and premises. New York: Morrow. Turkle, S. (1984). The second s e l f : Computers and' the human  s p i r i t . New York: Simon & Shuster. Vancouver School Board Report. (1986). At home with an apple*:  An a p p l i c a t i o n for the centre for innovation. S i r Charles Tupper Secondary School. Vavrick, J . (1988). Microcomputers i n Home Economics - Interim  Evaluation Report. Vancouver, B.C.: Vancouver School Board. Wakefield, R. (1986). Home computers and f a m i l i e s . The  F u t u r i s t , 20(5), 118-22. Watson, J . (1990). Cooperative learning and computers: One way to address student d i f f e r e n c e s . The Computing Teacher, 18(4) , 9-12. Weyant, S. (1985). Computer use and software needs of  vocational consumer and homemaking educators of Ohio. Unpublished master's t h e s i s . Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y . Wilce, H. (1984). Maths image puts g i r l s o f f micros. Times  Educational Supplement, (No. 3527). Young, D. (1987). Computer technology and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to teacher t r a i n i n g programs. Canadian Vocational Journal, 23(1), 2-5. APPENDIX A VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD SURVEY 1987-1988 101 Vancouver School Board 1987 October 13 Student Assessment and Research Cl a s s Survey INSTRUCTIONS; F i r s t of a l l , thanks f o r h e l p i n g us w i t h t h i s survey. PLEASB ANSWER ALL QUB8TIONS ON THE COMPUTER FORM PROVIDBD. DO NOT WRITE ON THB QUESTION SHBETS. Use a s o f t lead p e n c i l t o f i l l i n the bubbles. Avoid any s t r a y marks on the computer form. I f you want to change your answer, erase the o l d one completely. Please remember t h a t t h i s i s NOT a t e s t and that a l l your answers are c o n f i d e n t i a l . Step 1: Please w r i t e your student number i n the box th a t says "SPBCIAL CODB8". Because your number has o n l y FOUR d i g i t s , use o n l y the FIRST FOUR COLUMNS. For example, i f your number i s 5621, you would f i l l i n the f o l l o w i n g bubbles: • 1 • 1 SPECIAL CODES; 5 ® ® © ® ® S ® ® © @ ® 7 ® ® © @ ® 8 ® ® © ® ® 9 ® ® © @ ® 1 0 ® ® © ® ® 1 1 ® ® © ® © 1 2 ® ® © ® ® 1 3 ® © © ® © 1 4 ® ® © @ ® 1 5 ® ® © @ © 1 6 ® ® © ® © 1 7 ® ® © ® ® 1 8 ® ® © ® © A B C D E F G H 1 J ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® 0 © © « © © © © © © © © • © 0 0 ® © ® ® ® © ® © ® ® ® ® ® ® ® 0 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® • 0 ® ® © ® © ® ® ® ® # ® ® © © © ® @ ® © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® 0 © @ ® ® ® ® ® ® 1 1 i i i i i i i i i i 1 1 I 1 I For the remaining questions (1-25) i n d i c a t e your answer u s i n g the middle p a r t of the computer form. There i s space f o r 36 answers but yon w i l l need to use o n l y the f i r s t 25. FILL IN ONLY ONB RESPON8B FOR BACH QUESTION. 102 - 2 -1. What is your sex? a. sale b. female 2. What grade are you In this year? a. 8 b. 9 c. 10 d. 11 e. 12 3. What program are you In? a. B8L Class b. Learning Assistance Class (Mrs. Husdon) c. regular class 4. What hope economics courses are you taking? a. IL8 8 only b. extra hose economics 8 c. one grade 9 course or higher d. two or more grade 9 or higher e. I don't know 5. Do you have a computer at home? (one that will do more than play games) a. yes b. no c. I don't know 6. How often do you use a computer at hone? a. never b. about once a month c. about once a week d. every day 7. When computers are available in the school, how often do you use one? a. never b. about once a month c. about once a week d. every day 103 - 3 -8. What have you mainly used a computer to do? a. Nothing, I've never used a computer b. To play games c. To write stories or letters d. To write my own programs e. To learn about school subjects 9. Where did you get most of your experience with computers? a. I haven't had any experience with computers b. At home c. In courses taken at school d. Elsewhere 10. I would like to learn more about computers a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 11. I feel helpless around computers a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 12. Every student should be taught how to use a computer a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 13. Computers should be used to teach mathematics or science a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 104 - 4 -14. Computers should be used to teach home economics a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 15. Using computers is more suitable for boys than for girls a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 16. I feel confident about being able to use computers a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 17. I enjoy using computers a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 18. Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 19. Computers are gaining too much control over people's lives a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 105 - 5 -20. I am able to work with computers as well as others my age a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 21. I decided to take home ec mainly because a. i t will help me to manage personal and household activities b. ve v i l l get to use a computer c. I just need another course d. I want to pursue a career related to home economics e. I have to take it because I'm in grade 8. 22. A computer is useful for home and personal management a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree 23. If you had a choice of using a computer to help you with one of the activities listed below, which one would you most likely choose? a. Writing b. Performing calculations c. Learning about school subjects d. Managing home or personal activities e. None of the above. I wouldn't use a computer for any of them. 24. As far as personal and home management goes, a computer is most useful for a. storing recipes or planing menus b. creating designs for home and personal use c. doing electronic shopping d. doing a budget, household finance or electronic banking e. none of the above (A computer is not useful for household management) 106 - 6 -25. Activities such as word processing, data base management and calculations on a spreadsheet are not restricted to just computer and business courses. They also f i t well into home economics courses. a. strongly disagree b. disagree c. undecided d. agree e. strongly agree This is i t . Please hand in the computer form, the questionnaire and your pencil. t t t t t t t t THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION ******** APPENDIX B VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD SURVEY 1988-1989 108 V a n c o u v e r S c h o o l B o a r d S t u d e n t A s s e s s m e n t a n d R e s e a r c h Claaa Survey INSTRUCTIONS: F i r s t of a l l , t h a n k s for h e l p i n g us with t h i s s u r v e y . PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ON THE FORM PROVIDED. DO NOT WRITE ON THE QUESTION SHEETS. Use a s o f t l e a d p e n c i l to f i l l i n t h e b u b b l e s . F i l l i n the bubbles completely. Avoid any s t r a y marks on the computer form. If you want to change an answer, erase the old one completely. R e m e m b e r , t h i s i s NOT a t e s t . A l l y o u r a n s w e r s a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l . S t e p 1: P l e a s e w r i t e y o u r s t u d e n t n u m b e r i n t h e b o x t h a t s a y s " S P E C I A L CODES". B e c a u s e , y o u r n u m b e r h a s o n l y FOUR d i g i t s , u s e o n l y t h e F I R S T FOUR COLUMNS. F o r e x a m p l e , i f y o u r n u m b e r i s 5 6 2 1 , y o u w o u l d f i l l i n t h e b u b b l e s 5, 6, 2, a n d i i n c o l u m n s A, B, C, a n d D. Step 2: F o r t h e q u e s t i o n s ( 1 - 3 1 ) p u t y o u r a n s w e r i n t h e m i d d l e s e c t i o n o f t h e c o m p u t e r f o r m . T h e r e i s s p a c t f o r 3b a n s w e r s b u t y o u w i l l o n l y u s e t h e f i r s t 31 a r e a s . F I L L IN ONLY ONE B U B B L E FOR EA C H Q U E S T I O N . 1. W h a t i s y o u r g e n d e r ? ( F i l l . i n o n l y oire b u b b l e . ) a . M a l e b . F e m a l e 2. W h a t g r a d e a r e y o u i n t h i i . y e a r ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e , j a . 8 b . 3 c . 10 d . I i e . 12 3. W h a t p r o g r a m a r e y o u i n ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . E S L C l a s s , b . L e a r n i n g A s s i s t a n c e C l a s s c . R e g u l a r P r o g r a m 4. D i d y o u e n r o l l i n the c o u r s e C o m p u t e r s i n the Home l a s t t e r m ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . Y e s b . No c . I'm n o t s u r e ' J. A r e y o u c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d i n t h e c o u r s e C o m p u t e r s i n t h e Home? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . } a . Y e s b . No c . I'm n o t s u r e 109 - 2 -5. Other than the course Computers in the Home, what home economics courses, If any, are you taking? ( F i l l in a l l c i rc les that apply.) a. Clothing and Textiles (CT) 9 or 1 1 ; or, Introductory CT 11 b. Foods and Nutrit ion (FN) 9 or 1 1 ; or, Introductory FN 11 c. Family Studies 10 or Family Management 11 d. None of the above e. I don't know 7. In which Math course, if any, are you currently enrolled? ( F i l l in only one bubble.) a. M a t h I O A b . M a t h 1 0 B c . M a t h I O C d. M a t h Honors e. N o n e of t h e a b o v e . 8. H a v e y o u c o m p l e t e d a c o m p u t e r s c i e n c e course, o r a r e y o u c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d in a c o m p u t e r s c i e n c e c o u r s e ? ( F i l l " i n o n l y o n e b u b b i e . j a. No b. Y e s , C o m p u t e r S c i e n c e 9/10 c . Y e s , C o m p u t e r S c i e n c e 11 9. Do y o u p l a n t o e n r o l l i n a c o m p u t e r s c i e n c e c o u r s e ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . } a . Y e s b . No c . M a y b e d . I'm n o t s u r e , I h a v e n ' t d e c i d e d y e t 1 0 . Do y o u f e e l b e t t e r p r e p a r e d to t a k e a c o m p u t e r s c i e n c e c o u r s e now t h a n y o u d i d at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s s c h o o l y e a r ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . Y e s b. No c. I'm n o t sure 1 1 . Do y o u h a v e a c o m p u t e r a t home? ( o n e t h a t w i l l d o m o r e t h a n p l a y g a m e s ) ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . Y e s b. No c . I d o n ' t k n o w 1 2 . How o f t e n d o y o u u s e a c o m p u t e r at. home, i f at. a i . i ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . E v e r y d a y b . A b o u t o n c e a week c . A b o u t o n c e a m o n t h d . N e v c r 110 - 3 -1 3 . When c o m p u t e r s a r e a v a i l a b l e a t s c h o o l , how o f t e n d o y o u u s e o n e ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . E v e r y d a y b . A b o u t o n c e a week c . A b o u t o n c e a m o n t h d . N e v e r 1 4 . A t s c h o o l , w h a t h a v e y o u m a i n 1 y u s e d a c o m p u t e r t o d o ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . T o p l a y g a m e s b . T o w r i t e s t o r i e s o r l e t t e r s c . T o w r i t e my own p r o g r a m s d . T o l e a r n a b o u t s c h o o l s u b j e c t s e . N o t m u c h , I r a r e l y u s e a c o m p u t e r 1 5 . W h e r e d i d y o u g e t m o s t o r y o u r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h c o m p u t e r s ? ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . A t home b . I n c o u r s e s t a k e n a t . s c h o o l c . E l s e w h e r e d . I h a v e n ' t h a d a n y e x p e r i e n c ' s t h c o m p u t e r s 1 6 . I w o u l d l i k e t o l e a r n m o r e a b o u t c o m p u t e r s . ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . S t r o n g l y d i s a q r e e b . D i s a g r e e c . U n d e c i d e d d . A g r e e e . S t r o n g l y a g r e e 1 7 . I f e e l h e l p l e s s a r o u n d c o m p u t e r s . ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a. S t r o n g l y d i s a q r e e b . D i s a g r e e c . U n d e c i d e d d . A g r e e e . S t r o n g l y a g r e e 1 8 . E v e r y s t u d e n t s h o u l d be t a u g h t how r.6 u s e a c o m p u t e r . ( F i l l i n o n e b u b b l e . ) a . S t r o n g l y d i s a q r e e b . D i s a g r e e c . U n d e c i d e d d . Ag r e e e . S t r o n g l y a g r e e 1 9 . C o m p u t e r s a r e u s e f u l i n m a t h e m a t i c s o r s c i e n c e . ( F i l l i n a b u b b l e . ) a . S t r o n g l y d i s a gee'.-b . D i s a g r e e c . U n d e c i d e d d . A g r e e e . S t r o n g l y ajjjc_o;i I l l - 4 -2 0 . Computers a^e useful In home economics. ( F i l l in only one bubble.) a. S t r o n g l y disagree b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. S t r o n g l y agree 2 1 . Using computers i s more s u i t a b l e for boys than for g i r l s . ( F i l l in one bubble.) a. S t r o n g l y disagree b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. S t r o n g l y agree 2 2 . I f e e l c o nfident about being able to use computers. ( F i l l in a bubble.) a. S t r o n g l y disagree b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. S t r o n g l y agree 2 3 . 1 enjoy using computers. ( F i l l ir: only one bubble.) a. S t r o n g l y disagree b. Disagree e-. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly agree 2 4 . Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous. ( F i l l in only one bubble . ) a. Strongly d isagree b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly agree 25. Computers are gaining too much c o n t r o l over people's l i v e s . ( F i l l in only one bubble.) a. Strongly disagree b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly agree 26. I am able to work with computers a s well as others my age. ( F i l l in only one bubble . ) a. Strongly disagree b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly agree 112 - 5 -2 7 . A c o m p u t e r .^s u s e f u l f o r home a n d p e r s o n a l m a n a g e m e n t . ( F i l l I n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e b. D i s a g r e e c . U n d e c i d e d d . A g r e e e . S t r o n g l y a g r e e 2 8 . I f y o u h a d a c h o i c e o f u s i n g a c o m p u t e r t o h e l p y o u w i t h o n e o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s • l i s t e d b e l o w , w h i c h o n e w o u l d y o u m o s t l i k e l y c h o o s e ? ( F i l l I n o n e b u b b l e . ) a . W r i t i n g b . P e r f o r m i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s c . L e a r n i n g a b o u t s c h o o l s u b j e c t s d . M a n a g i n g home o r p e r s o n a l a c t i v i t i e s e . N o n e o f t h e a b o v e . I w o u l d n ' t u s e a c o m p u t e r f o r a n y o f t h e m . 2 3 . A s f a r a s p e r s o n a l a n d home m a n a g e m e n t g o e s , a c o m p u t e r i s m o s t u s e f u l f o r : ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . S t o r i n g r e c i p e s o r p l a n n i n g ;;;>:; n u s b . C r e a t i n g d e s i g n s f o r home and p e r s o n a l u s e c . D o i n g e l e c t r o n i c s h o p p i n g d . D o i n g a b u d g e t , h o u s e h o l d f i n a n c e o r e l e c t r o n i c b a n k i n g e . N o n e o f t h e a b o v e 3 0 . A c t i v i t i e s s u c h a s w o r d p r o c e s s i n g , d a t a b a s e m a n a g e m e n t , a n d c a l c u l a t i o n s o n a s p r e a d s h e e t f i t a s w e l l i n t o home e c o n o m i c s c o u r s e s a s i n c o m p u t e r a n d b u s i n e s s c o u r s e s . ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e b . D i s a g r e e c . U n d e c i d e d d . A g r e e e . S t r o n g l y a g r e e 3 1 . I e n j o y m o s t w o r k i n g o n a c o m p u t e r . ( F i l l i n o n l y o n e b u b b l e . ) a . W i t h a g r o u p o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s b . W i t h my f r i e n d s c . B y my s e l f o n my own T h a t ' s i t . P l e a s e h a n d i n t h e c o m p u t e r f o r m , q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n d p e n c i l . T h a n k s a g a i n ! ! ' . ! ! APPENDIX C PRETEST September 198 114 C O M P U T E R A T T I T U D E S U R V E Y * INSTRUCTIONS: P L E A S E ANSWER A L L QUESTIONS O N T H E F O R M PROVIDED. DO NOT WRITE O N T H E S E QUESTION  S H E E T S . STEP 1 - You will be answering the questions using a computer form. Use a soft lead pencil to fill in the bubbles completely. If you want to change an answer, erase the old one completely. STEP 2 - Please write your student number in the box that says "IDENTIFICATION NUMBER". Use only the FIRST FOUR C O L U M N S . For example, if your number is 8032, you would fill in the bubbles, 8, 0, 3, and 2 in columns A, B, C, and D. STEP 3 - For the questions (1 - 36) put your answers in the middle section of the computer form. There is space for 160 answers but you will use only the first 36 areas. F I L L LN O N L Y O N E B U B B L E FOR E A C H QUESTION. P A R T I: B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N 1. What grade are you in this year? a. 8 b. 9 c. 10 d. 11 e. 12 2. Every person comes from a different kind of background in terms of family origin, culture, nationality and beliefs. In addition, each person may have their own sense of who they are. In which cultural group do you belong? a. Chinese - Canadian b. English - Canadian c. Indo - Canadian d. Japanese - Canadian e. Other * Adapted from a Survey created by the Vancouver School Board -Student Assessment and Research Department. 115 -2-3. What program are you in? a. E S L b. Learning Assistance c. Other 4. Did you complete the course Computers in the Home last year (1988-89)? a. Yes b. No 5. Are you currently enrolled in the course, Computers in the  Home? a. Yes b. No 6. Other than the course Computers in the Home, what home economics courses, if any, are you taking? (Fill in all circles that apply). a. Clothing and Textiles b. Foods and Nutrition c. Family Studies d. None of the above 7. In which Math course are you currently enrolled? a. Math 9 b. Math 10 8. Which of the following math sections are you in? a. A b. Honours c. Other 9. What was your final letter grade in English last year? a. A b. B c. C d. Pass e. Fail 10. Have you completed a computer science course? a. No b. Yes, Computer Science 9/10 c. Yes, Computer Science 11 11. Are you currently enrolled in a computer science course? a. No b. Yes, Computer Science 9/10 c. Yes, Computer Science 11 12. Do you plan to enroll in a computer science course? a. Yes b. No c. I'm not sure, I haven't decided yet. 13. Do you feel better prepared to take a computer science course now than you did last year? a. Yes b. No c. I'm not sure 14. Do you have a computer at home? a. Yes b. No 15. Outside of Tupper School, how often do you use a computer? a. Never b. About once a month c. 1 - 3 times a week d. 4 - 6 times a week e. 7 times a week / every day 16. When computers are available at school, how often do you use one? a. Never b. About once a month c. 1 - 3 times a week d. 4 - 6 times a week e. 7 times a week 17. At school, what have you mainly used a computer for? a. To play games b. To write stories or letters c. To write your own programs d. To learn about school subjects e. Not much, I rarely use the computer 18. Where did you get most of your experience -with -computers? a. At home b. In courses taken at school c. Elsewhere d. I haven't had any experience with computers P A R T II: F E E L I N G S T O W A R D C O M P U T E R S 19. I would like to learn more about computers. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 20. I feel helpless around computers. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 21. Every student should be taught how to use a computer. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 22. Computers are useful in mathematics or science. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Srongly A G R E E 23. Computers are useful in home economics. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 24. Using computers is more useful for boys than girls. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 25. I feel confident about being able to use computers. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 26. I enjoy using computers. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 27. Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 28. Computers are gaining too much control over people's lives. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 29. I am able to work with computers as well as others my age. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 30. A computer is useful for personal and home management. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 31. I enjoy working on a computer... a. with a group of other students b. with my friends c. by myself 119 .-6-P A R T III: C O M P U T E R U S E 32. If you had a choice of using a computer to help you with one of the activities listed below, which one would you most likely choose? a. Writing b. Performing calculations c. Learning about school subjects d. Managing home and personal activities e. None of the above. I wouldn't use a computer for any of them. 33. As far as personal and home management goes, a computer is most useful for: a. Storing recipes or planning menus b. Creating designs for home and personal use c. Doing electronic shopping d. Doing a budget, household finance or electronic banking e. None of the above 34. Activities such as word processing, data base management, and calculations on a spreadsheet fit as well into home economics courses as in computer and business courses. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 35. Do you think of a microwave oven as being controlled by a computer? a. Yes b. No c. Undecided 36. Do you associate an elevator with a computer? a. Yes b. No c. Undecided T H A N K Y O U FOR C O M P L E T I N G THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. Please hand in the computer form, survey and pencil. APPENDIX D POST-TEST February 1990 121 C O M P U T E R A T T I T U D E S U R V E Y * INSTRUCTIONS: P L E A S E A N S W E R A L L QUESTIONS O N T H E F O R M P R O V I D E D . DO NOT WRITE O N T H E S E Q U E S T I O N SHEETS-STEP 1: You wi l l be answering the questions using a computer form. Use a soft lead pencil to fill in the bubbles completely. STEP 2: Please write your student identification number in the box that says "IDENTIFICATION N U M B E R " . Use only the FIRST F O U R C O L U M N S . For example, i f your number is 8032, you would fi l l in the bubbles, 8, 0, 3, and 2 in columns A , B , C, and D. STEP 3: For the questions (1 - 25) put your answers in the middle section of the computer form. There is a space for 160 answers but you wil l use only the first 25 areas. FELL IN O N L Y O N E B U B B L E F O R E A C H QUESTION. P A R T I: B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N 1. Do you have a computer at home? a. Yes b. No 2. Do you plan to enroll in a computer science course? a. Yes b. No c. I'm not sure, I haven't decided yet. 3. Do you feel better prepared to take a computer science course now than you did last year? a. Yes b. No c. I'm not sure 4. Outside of Tupper School, how often do you use a computer? a. Never b. About once a month c. 1 - 3 times a week d. 4 - 6 times a week e. 7 times a week / every day *Adapted from a Survey created by the Vancouver School Board -- Student Assessment and Research Department. 122 -2-When computers are available at school, how often do you use one? a. Never b. About once a month c. 1 - 3 times a week d. 4 - 6 times a week e. 7 times a week At school, what have you mainly used a computer for? a. To play games b. To write stories or letters c. To write your own programs d. To learn about school subjects e. Not much, I rarely use the computer Where did you get. most of your experience with computers? a. At home b. In courses taken at school c. Elsewhere d. I haven't had any experience with computers P A R T II: F E E L I N G S T O W A R D C O M P U T E R S 8. I would like to learn more about computers. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 9. I feel helpless around computers. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 10. Every student should be taught how to use a computer. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 123 -3-11. Computers are useful in mathematics or science. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 12. Computers are useful in home economics. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 13. Using computers is more useful for boys than girls. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 14. I feel confident about being able to use computers. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 15. I enjoy using computers. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 16. Thinking about working on a computer makes me nervous. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree . c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 124 -4-17. Computers are gaining too much control over people's lives. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E I am able to work with computers as well as others my age. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 19. A computer is useful for personal and home management. a. Strongly D I S A G R E E b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly A G R E E 20. I enjoy working on a computer... a. with a group of other students b. with my friends c. by myself d. I don't enjoy working on a computer P A R T III: C O M P U T E R U S E 21. If you had a choice of using a computer to help you with one of the activities listed below, which one would you most likely choose? a. Writing b. Performing calculations c. Learning about school subjects d. Managing home and personal activities e. None of the above. I wouldn't usea computer for any of them. 22. As far as personal and home management goes, a computer is most useful for: a. Storing recipes or planning menus b. Creating designs for home and personal use. c. Doing electronic shopping d. Doing a budget, household finance or electronic ban king e. None of the above 125 -5-23. Activities such as word processing, data base management, and calculations fit as well into home economics courses as in computer and business courses. a. Strongly DISAGREE b. Disagree c. Undecided d. Agree e. Strongly AGREE 24. Do you think of a microwave oven as being controlled by a computer? a. Yes b. No c. Undecided 25. Do you associate an elevator with a computer? a. Yes b. No c. Undecided THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. Please hand in the computer form, survey and pencil. APPENDIX E GENERAL PURPOSE ANSWER SHEET PRETEST AND POST-TEST COURSE NUMBER o 0 o o ® ® ® ® ® ® ® © © © © © ® ® ® ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © o © © © © © © © © ® © © © © © © ® ® ® ® © ® ® © © ® ® © ® ® © © ® ® ® © ® ® ® © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® ® ® ® ® ® © © © © © © ® © © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® © ® © SECTION © © © ® © © © © © © YEAR OR LEVEL © © © © © © © © © ® © ® EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT RESEARCH GROUP THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2125 MAIN MALL ROOM 1312. NEVILLE SCARFE BUILDING VANCOUVER. B.C.. CANADA V6T 1Z5 (604) 228-4145 GENERAL PURPOSE ANSWER SHEET IDENTIFICATION NUMBER © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ©• .© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © DIRECTIONS • Use soft lead pencil only. • Indicate answer by filling in the circle completely. • Erase (do not cross out) any answer you wish to change. • DO NOT make stray marks on the answer sheet. PENCIL ONLY RIGHT WRONG • LAST NAME o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o © © © © © ® ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® © © © © ® ® ® ® © © © © © ® ® ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 0 © © 0 © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ' © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® © ® ® © © © ® ® ® © ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® © © ® © © © © © © ® ® ® © ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® © © © © © © ® ® © © © © ® © © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® © © © © © © © © © © .© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © FIRST NAME GENDER OMALE OFEMALE DATE OF BIRTH JAN O 19 FEBO MAR O APR O MAY O JUN O JUL O AUG O SEP O OCT O NOV O DEC Q © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © | © © I © © | ® © SPECIAL CODE A B C • E © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 128 EMHG FORMS DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN 87:14 Printed in U.S.A. NCS Trans-Optic* MP04-74980-321 A2803 I Q © Q © O © Q © O © O © Q © Q © O © Q © J U 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 U 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 | » © <° © a © " 0 => © » © <= © » © » © " > © ! < © < © « © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © I © u i © u i © u , © u i © u , © u l © u , © u l © u i © Q © Q © Q © Q © O © O © Q © O © Q © Q © O 0 O 0 O 0 U 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 c o © co © m © c o © c o © c o © C D © c o © c o © co © < © < © < © « © < © < © < © < © < © < © U I © U , © U I © U I © U I © U I © U , © U , © U I © U , © Q © O © Q © O © O © O © Q © Q © O © O © O 0 U © O © O © < J © O © O 0 < J 0 O @ O 0 C O © C D © C O © C O © C O © C D © C O © C D © C D © C O © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © U I © U , © U , © u i © u , © u i © U , © u i © u , © u i © O © O © Q © Q © Q © O © Q © D © Q © O © O 0 O © < J © O © O © U © O © U © O © O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © H i © u i © Ui © UI © U i © u i © U i © UI © U J © U J © Q © Q © Q © Q © Q © O © Q © Q © Q © Q © O 0 O 0 O 0 U © O © O © O © O © U © O © C O © C O © C D © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C D © C O © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © < © U , © U , © U , © U , © U , © U , © U I © u l © U I © U I © O © Q © Q © Q © O © O © O © Q © O © Q © U © O © U © U 0 O © O © U © O © O 0 O @ C D © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C O © C D © C O © C O © < © < 0 < © < © < © < 0 < © 4 © < 0 < © u , ® U i © u i © a , © U I © U l © U I © LU ( ^ ) U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © U , ® o © Q © Q © a © Q © o © Q © Q © a © a © o © Q © a © Q © Q © o © Q © a © Q © O ® u © o © u © u © u © "© o © u © O © o © u ® o © o © O © U © o © U © o © o © o ® C D © C O © c o © c o © «© C D © c o © »© m © a © «© •© C O © CD © C D © co © C D © c o © co © c o © < © GO < © 00 < © CO < © < © CO < 0 in < © < © CO < © ai < © o at < © < © < © < © < © < © lb »M < © (SI < © CO < © <Q d CO u i ® UI © U i ® u l © u , ® U I © u , ® U I ® U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © UJ (^) UJ 10 U I © U I © U I © U I © o © Q © a © a © Q © Q © a © Q © o © o © o © a ® o © Q © Q © a © a ® a © Q © a © o © o © "© o © o ® o © o © u © u ® o © o © o © o © a ® o © o © o © a ® u © o © c o © CO © C D © c o © C D © C D © »© C D © C D © C O © c o © c o © C D © c o © C O © c o © a® c o © a © »© < 0 < 0 « © n < © < © < © to < © < © eo < © cn < © O < © < © rsi < © < © «r < © < © l£> < © < © co < © cn < © O u i © -© LU u i © u , ® U I © U i © U I © U I © U I © U I © UJ @ U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © u , ® U I © U I © Q © a © Q © Q © a © O © O © O © a © a © a © Q © Q © Q © a © o © a © a © c . 0 Q © O © u © u ® "© u © u © o © «© o © o © u © u © o © o © a © u © o © U © u © o © C O © C O © c o © C D © • 0 C D © •© C D © C D © C D © »© C O © »© C D © a . © C D © C D © c o © C D © C D © < 0 <Q < © M < © < © < © to < © < © co < © a i < 0 O f-1 < 0 < © < © r*i < © < © in < © LD < 0 < © ab < © cn < © O u i © u i © u i © U i © u i © U I © u , ® U I © U i ® U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © u i © U i © U I © U I © U I © u i © o © o © Q ® Q © a ® a ® Q © O © a © O ® a © Q © a © Q © Q © a © a © Q © o © a © o © o © u © u © u © o ® u ® o ® o © U © o © u © o © o © o @ o © o ® o © u ® u © c o © C O © c o © C O © «© C O © C D © »© C D © C O © co © < = © c o © C D © C O © C O ® »© c o © C O © c o © < 0 < © < © < Q < © < © < © < © oo < © < 0 <Q < © In < 0 LA < © < © < © < © < © < © en < © d u i © u i © U I ® u l © U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © UJ 0 U I © U I © U I © U I © U I © UJ 0 ) U I © U I © U I © U I © Q © Q © Q © Q © a © Q © a © Q © o © o © o © o © O © Q ® Q © o © Q © o © Q © o ® O © o © o © O © u ® o © o © U © O © o 0 u ® o © "© O © O © "© o © o © o © o © »© c o © " > © C D © c o © c o © o © C O © C O © c o © c o © c o © C D © m® C O © C O © C D © c o © C D © C D © < © < © <Q d < © < © < © < 0 < Q < © cn < © a < © < © CN < © < © < © in < © < Q < © < 0 < © a V 1 ! p I m I I l-p E o a. < i -O z o a 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055223/manifest

Comment

Related Items