The attitudes of Slovak and Turkish high school students to the ICT used in biology according to gender and age differences

Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 433-446

  Kubiatko, Milan ^a   Yilmaz, Harun ^b   Haláková, Zuzana ^c  

^a MASARYK UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^b SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF TURKEY   (Turkey)

^c Faculty of Natural Sciences   (Slovakia)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Biology; Information and communication technologies; Questionnaire; Students

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861145060     PISSN: 13087711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Peat M, Fernandez A. The role of information technology in biology education: an Australian perspective. J Biologic Educ 2000;34:69-73, 2000.
2. Spicer JI, Stratford J. Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. J Comput Assist Learn 17, 345-354.
3. Ploetzner R, Lowe RK. Special issue dynamic visualisations and learning. Learn Instruc 2004;14:235-240.
4. Ainsworth S. The functions of multiple representations. Comput Educ 1999;33:131-152.
5. Ainsworth S. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn Instruc 2006;16:183-198.
6. Downie R, Meadows J. Experiences with a dissection opt-out scheme in university level biology. J Biological Educ 1995;29:187-194.
7. Samsel R, Schmidt G, Hall J, Wood L, Schrotf S, Schumacker P. Cardiovascular physiology teaching computer simulations versus animal demonstrations. Adv Physiol Educ 1994;11: 36-46.
8. Ebner M, Holzinger A. Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Comput Educ 2007;49:873-890.
9. Kubiatko M, Haláková Z. The studentś points of view regarding how the biology lecture was taught with the assistance of ICT: Preliminary results. Prob Educ Century 2008;5:75-79, 2008.
10. Smith B, Caputi P, Rawstorne P. Differentiating computer experience and attitudes towards computers: an empirical investigation. Comp Hum Behav 2000;16:59-81.
11. Al-Khaldi M, Al-Jabri M. The relationship between different attitudes towards computer utilisation: new evidence from a developing nation. Comput Human Behav 1998;14:23-42, 1998.
12. Loyd BH, Gressard C. Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educ Psycholog Measur 198444:501-505.
13. Woodrow J. A comparison of four computer attitude scales. J Educ Comput Res 1991;7:165-187.
14. Levine T, Donitsa-Schmidt S. Computer use, confidence, attitudes, and knowledge: A causal analysis. Comput Hum Behav 1998;14:125-146.
15. Yu S, Yang K. Attitudes towards web-based distance learning among public health nurses in Taiwan: A questionnaire survey. Int J Nursing Stud 2006;43:767-774.
16. Sagin Simsek SC. Students attitudes towards integration of ICT in a reading course: A case in Turkey. Comput Educ 2008;51:200-211.
17. Garland KJ, Noyes JM. Computer experience: a poor predictor of computer attitudes. Comput Hum Behav 2004;20:823-840.
18. Pan CC, Sivo S, Brophy J. Students' attitude in a web-enhanced hybrid course: a structural equation modelling enquiry. J Educ Media Library Sci 2003;41:181-194.
19. Al-Gahtani S, King M. Attitudes, satisfaction, and usage: factors contributing to each in the acceptance of information technology. Behav Info Technol 1999;8:277-297.
20. Dorup, J. Experience and attitudes towards information technology among first year medical students in Denmark: Longitudinal questionnaire survey. J Medic Internet Res 2004;6:10.
21. Kaplan R. The gender gap at the PC keyboard. Am Demograp 1994;16:18.
22. Campbell P, McGabe G. Predicting the success of freshman in a computer science major. Communic ACM 1984;27:1108-1113.
23. Palaigeorgiou GE, Siozos PD, Konstantakis NI, Tsoukalas, IAA. Computer attitude scale for computer science freshmen and its educational implications. J Comp Ass Learn 2005;21:330-342.
24. Haunsel PB, Hill RS. The microcomputer and achievement and attitudes in high school biology. J Res Sci Teaching 19898;26:543-549.
25. Rozell EJ, Gardner WL. Cognitive motivation and affective processes associated with a computer related performance: A path analysis. Comput Hum Behav 2000;16;199-222
26. Shashaani L. Socio-economic status, parents' sex role types, and the gender gap in computing. J Res Computing Educ 1994;26:433-452.
27. Meelissen MRM, Drent M. Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Comput Hum Behav 2008;24:969-985.
28. Bovee C, Voogt J, Meelissen M. Computer attitudes of primary and secondary students in South Africa. Comput Hum Behav 2007;23:1762-1776.
29. Moore C. Attitudes towards computers: the influence of sex stereotypes, experience, ownership and mathematics. Unisa Psychol 1994;21:20-27.
30. Schumacher P, Morahan-Martin J. Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Comput Hum Behav 2001;17:95-110.
31. Mumtaz S. Children's enjoyment and perception of computer use at home and at school. Comput Educ 2001;36:347-362.
32. Van Eck E, Volman M. Gender equity and information technology in education: the second decade. Rev Educ Res 2001;71:613-634.
33. Janssen Reinen I, Plomp T. Information technology and gender equality: a contradiction in terminis. Comput Educ 1997;28:65-78.
34. Durndell A, Cameron C, Knox A, Stocks R. Gender and Computing: West and East Europe. Comput Hum Behav 1997;13:269-280.
35. Comber C, Colley A, Hargreaves DJ, Dorn L. The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educ Res 1997;39:123-134.
36. Teo T. Assessing the computer attitudes of students: An Asia perspective. Comput Hum Behav 2008;24:1634-1642.
37. Martin S. Internet use in the classroom: the impact of gender. Soc Sci Comput Rev 1998;16:411-418.
38. Fančovičová J, Prokop P. Students' attitudes towards the use of the computer in Slovakia. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 2006;4:255-262.
39. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;27:44-55
40. Whitley BE. Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviour: A meta-analysis. Comput Hum Behav 1997;13:1-22.
41. th ed.). New York, Macmillan, 1996.
42. Bodomo A. Student Attitudes towards the Use of ICT during SARS-induced Class Suspension-A Preliminary Report. Sars Bulletin,2003. On-line http://www.hku.hk/cgibin/sars/message_bulletin.pl (2008-06-12).
43. Durndell A, Thomson, K. Gender and computing: A decade of change? Comput Educ 1997;28:1-9.
44. Kirkup G. Gender issuesand learning technologies. British J Educ Technol 1995;26218-219.
45. Durndell A, Haag Z. Comuter self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample Comput Hum Behav 2002;18:521-535.
46. Volman M, Van Eck E, Heemskerk I, Kuiper E. New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils' use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Comput Educ 2005;45:35-55.
47. Yesilyurt M Meta-analysis of the computer assisted studies in physics: A sample of Turkey. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2011;3:173-182.
48. Yigit N. Developing presentation skills of student teachers through micro-teaching method. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:55-74.
49. Cooper J. The digital divide: the special case of gender. J Comp Assist Learning 2006;22:320-334.
50. North AS, Noyes JM. Gender influences on children computer attitudes and cognitions. Comput Hum Behav 2002;18:135-150.
51. Cooper J, Weaver KD. Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
52. Koch SC, Müller SM, Sieverding M. Woman and computers. Effects of stereotype threat on attribution of failure. Comput Educ 2008;51:1795-1803.
53. Taylor N, Corrigan G. New South Wales primary school teachers' perceptions of the role of ICT in the primary science curriculum-a rural and regional perspective. International J Sci Math Educ 2007;5:85-109.
54. Rogers L, Finlayson H. Does ICT in science really work in the classroom? Part 1: The individual teacher experience. School Sci Rev 2003;84:105-112.
55. Koray O. The effectiveness of problem-based learning supported with computer simulations on academic performance about buoyancy. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2011;3:293-304.
56. Fancovicova J, Prokop P, Usak M. Web-Site as an educational tool in biology education: A case of nutrition issue. Kur Uyg Egit Bil 2010: 10, 907-921.
57. Azar A. A comparison of the effects of two physics laboratory applications with different approaches on student physics achievement. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:161-185.
58. Cepni S. Effects of computer supported instructional material (CSIM) in removing students misconceptions about concepts: "Light, light source and seeing" Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:51-83.
59. Tatli ZH Computer based education: Online learning and teaching facilities Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:171-181.
60. Turhan K, Kurt B Computer based medicine education: Improved skin segmentation using YCbCr color space Energy Education Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:1-20.
61. Sorgo A, Usak M, Aydogdu M, Keles, OAmbrozic-Dolinsek J (Biology teaching in upper secondary schools: comparative study between Slovenia and Turkey. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2011;3:305-314.
62. Sahin C, Calik M, Cepni S. Using different conceptual change methods embedded within 5E model: Asample teaching of liquid pressure. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:115-125.
63. Ceyhun I, Karagolge Z. Using algebraic and matrix method for balancing chemical equations. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:127-137.
64. Taleghani M, Ansari HR, Jennings P. Renewable energy education in sustainable architecture: lessons from developed and developing countries. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:111-131.
65. Oztas F. The effects of educational gains of vocational school of health students on their environmental attitudes. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:147-159.
66. Dikmenli M, Cardak O, Oztas F, Yakisan M. High school students' images of an environmental scientist. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:187-210.