teachers’ experience and practices using microcomputers in schools in malaysia

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona]On: 15 October 2014, At: 06:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

New Review of Children'sLiterature and LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcll20

Teachers’ experienceand practices usingmicrocomputers in schools inMalaysiaDr Halimah B. Zaman aa Department of Information Science, Faculty ofInformation Science and Technology , Universityof Kebangsaan , UKM Bangi Selangor, Darul Ehsan,43600, MalaysiaPublished online: 01 Jul 2009.

To cite this article: Dr Halimah B. Zaman (1997) Teachers’ experience and practicesusing microcomputers in schools in Malaysia, New Review of Children's Literature andLibrarianship, 3:1, 53-64, DOI: 10.1080/13614549709510590

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614549709510590

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcll20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13614549709510590

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614549709510590

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teachers' experience and practicesusing microcomputers in schools inMalaysiaDr Halimah B. ZamanDepartment of Information Science, Faculty of InformationScience and Technology, University of Kebangsaan, 43600 UKMBangi Selangor, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

This paper aims to focus on teachers' perceptions pertaining to their experience inusing microcomputers, which includes the types of software used, the frequency ofthe type used by the teachers, content areas in which computers were being used,and the degree of integration of computer use with the rest of the instruction in thecurriculum. Data were collected using questionnaires, interviews and throughclassroom observation. This study thus tries to relate teachers' perceptions inteaching to their computer experience and practice.

Introduction

Teachers play an essential role in the implementation ofinstructional innovations such as microcomputers and theirapplications. Educators and educational researchers consistently

cite one factor as central to the full development of technology's use inthe schools that is, the classroom teacher.1 According to Meister et al.,teaching and learning are essential human behaviours which cannot bereplaced by technology. If planned and used widely to supplementtraditional remediation and other behaviour, learning can be improvedquantitatively and qualitatively.2 They express the same view when theystate the following:

The goal of computers' use in schools are not simply to maintain education but toimprove it. And the key to improving education, indeed the key to great education,is teaching in all its form. Successful learning in school, whether individualized orin groups, depends on the teacher.'

Educational researchers have rather mixed views though, on theeffectiveness of microcomputers in learning and teaching. There arethose who say that the computer is both a high-technology and aproblem-solving tool. Most would agree that the computer can be useful,but disagree on how it is to be used because teachers can use computersin several different ways. Computers can reinforce and amplify positiveaspects of education. However, computers can also amplify negativeaspects of learning and teaching. One view is that 'computers can makemany of the things we already do well infinitely better, just as they canmake the things we already do badly in schools even worse.'4

The New Review of Children's Literature and Librarianship 1997 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Use of microcomputersBetza's findings on the use of microcomputers indicated that computerusage can be categorized into three functions: as a tool, tutor, and tutee.The tool function includes applications such as word processing,databases, and spreadsheets that help perform specific tasks. The tutorfunction includes using the computer to present information to students,to evaluate students' performance, give feedback and keep students'records. The tutee function involves the student instructing the computeron what to do through programming or hardware designs.5

Cory states that although word processor, database management,and spreadsheet software were available, they were rarely used in schoolsin the United States. At the elementary school level, computers wereprimarily used for drill and practice, usually in the teaching and learningof mathematics. At the high school level, the primary use of thecomputers was to teach students BASIC programming, so software wasunimportant.6

Internal factors include teachers' knowledge and understanding ofcomputer software and their personal beliefs about the computer.7 Theuse of computers by teachers is often affected by both internal as well asexternal factors. External influences include grade level and studentcomposition, that is, achievement levels and minority students'representation.89 Computer use in elementary classrooms, as well asclassrooms with low ability and high minority enrolments, most oftenoccurs as a drill and practice activity designed to reinforce basicacademic skills. The problem of inadequate hardware and software iscompounded by not-so-friendly user software. Hanafin et al advocateeasy-to-use authoring systems with 'pull-down' menus and integratedsupport that would enable educators to gain routine, automatic comfortwith computer uses similar to driving a car.10

OTA reported that it has been estimated that less than 15% of theteachers in the United States of America use microcomputers." Erion andMoeller found that about 85% of the teachers used microcomputersprimarily for word processing while 48% reported keeping grades on thecomputer; 82% of the computer users used instructional software.12

Teachers' practicesAccording to Sheingold and Hadley, as teachers gained more experiencethey used more applications. Teachers with less than two years'experience used an average of 10.8 applications, while those with nineyears or more used on average 17.1 of applications. Similarly, as teachersgained more experience, they became more at ease with using computers.Teachers who possess experience in a variety of applications will usecomputers frequently. Generally, it has been found that the percentage of

The New Review of Children's Literature and Librarianship 199754

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

use of microcomputers increased steadily from two to five years ofcomputer experience. Teachers were found to use three approachesnamely, students creating their own products, exploring instructionalcomputer programs on their own, and teachers explaining an idea or skill.In contrast, the percentage of teachers who frequently usedmicrocomputers for enrichment, remediation, and drill purposes declinedslowly with years of experience.13

Conceptual frameworkThe theoretical framework which guided this study was based on studiescarried out by Shavelson et al.14 Fullan et al15 and OTA.16 In this study,only selected factors related to the level of use of microcomputers wereexamined. The factors are teachers' experience using microcomputersand their practices as shown in Figure 1.

Level of Use ofmicrocomputers

ExperienceUsing Oomp.

FIG. 1. Conceptual framework

The purposes of this study were:a) to look for groups of teachers. The purpose of looking for the groups

was to provide a mean for identifying the contribution of thesefactors:i) to look for variations in using microcomputers between groups

of teachers.ii) to find differences between groups of teachers in terms of their

experience in using microcomputers and practices.

MethodologySampleFifteen teachers from five schools who were teaching Computer-In-Education (CIE) participated in this study. These schools were selected


55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

from five rural schools from five districts in the State of Selangor,Malaysia. All teachers participated in the in-depth interviews conducted,and answered the questionnaires distributed to them. The wide range ofsocio-economic classes and ethnic groups as well as the fact that theseschools were the first group of schools selected by the government toplace 20-30 microcomputers into the classroom, were the primaryreasons for selecting these schools as samples for this study.

Data collection:The data were collected and analysed from these sources:

a) Questionnaire administered to the CIE teachers.b) In-depth interviews of the CIE teachers using interview schedules.c) Laboratory Observation.

Questionnaires. The questionnaire consisted of a variety ofdifferent questions that dealt with teachers' background characteristics,teachers' attitudes, and concerns. The questionnaires were given prior tothe interviews. A common scale was used in the questionnaire andteachers were expected to rate each of the questions provided.

Interview Schedule. The interview consisted of both open-endedand closed questions. For the closed questions, boxes were provided forthe teachers to rate the scale. The open-ended questions providedrespondents with an opportunity to express their feelings or ideas.

Laboratory Observation. In addition to gathering informationfrom questionnaires and interviews, data were also obtained fromobservation sessions, which were used to verify what the teachers said inthe interviews.

Data analysisIn this study data were analysed using both simple statistical methods andmore detailed analysis. The simple statistical methods used werecorrelation and percentages to find the relationship among the variables.For more detailed methods, the 3-D plot and MDS (MultidimentionalScale) were used to see the interrelationship of the variables which couldnot be revealed by the simple analysis. Systat was used to create the 3-Dplot, and SPSS was used for the MDS.

ResultsFor the purpose of this paper, the discussion of the data analysis will bebased on the following headings:

1. Teacher clusters.2. Observed and reported level of use between groups.3. Teachers' experience and practices in using microcomputers.4. Variation in the use of computers between groups of teachers.


56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Teacher clustersIt was found that from the simple analysis, the correlation matrix did notproduce a clear structure or cluster of variables. In order to look atclusters of variables, a teachers' distance matrix method was used. Toidentify groups of teachers, a more complex analysis was used. The MDSresult of the variables from SPSS was put into the 3-D graphing selectionof Systat to produce the plot. Figure 2 shows the 3-D plot of relationshipsamong all the teachers. An examination of the plot shows that theteachers can be divided into two groups. A set of teachers was grouped atthe upper left sector of the cube (labelled, D, E, G, K, M, and O followedby 1), and another set of teachers was at the lower right sector of the cube(labelled A, B, M, I, J, L, F and followed by 2). Teacher C, who was notlabelled with number 1 or 2, seemed not to fit into either of the groups.

Observed and reported level of use between groupsThe distribution of observed and reported dependent variables, that is,level of use and other indicators such as confidence in the use ofcomputers, teachers' computer knowledge, teachers' level of interesttowards the use of computers, and integration of computers into subjectmatter were computed. Table 1 shows the distribution of observed andreported dependent variables with other indicators. From the table, thedistribution of dependent variables shows radically different resultsbetween what the researchers observed teachers were doing and whatthey reported. The researchers found that teachers were using thecomputers more than they realized. The plausible reason would be thatthese teachers were more concerned with what they were using thecomputers for. The researchers observed that teachers in group 2, whowere less knowledgeable about computers, generally used the machinesmore than they had reported. This would be because these teachers werenot sure what their level of use really was. The plausible reason would bethat they did not have much basis of comparison for their level of use.

In terms of confidence in the use of computers, the researchersobserved that teachers in group 1 were more confident in using themicrocomputers than they had reported. Teachers in group 2 do not showmuch difference. In terms of computer knowledge, the researchers foundthat teachers in group 1 showed no difference between the researchers'observation and what they had reported. For teachers in group 2,although they reported that they did not know much about computers, theresearchers observed that they were integrating the computers into theirteaching practices.

In terms of integration of computers into the subject matter, theresearchers found that teachers in group 1 did not show any differencebetween what the researchers had observed and what they had reported.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

FIG.2. 3-D plot of teachers

The researchers found that teachers in group 2 did not integratecomputers as much as they had reported. The plausible reason would bebecause teachers in this group thought that integration of computersmeant that what they had learned was being applied in their teaching ofcomputing as a subject, which is totally different from the integration ofcomputers into other subject areas.

In terms of teachers' level of interest toward the use of computers,it was found that the level of interest for both groups was less than theirlevel of use. This is most probably due to the fact that these teachers werenot satisfied with the training, financial, and administrative supportprovided. The result of lack of support and other factors such ascomputer problems and other barriers reduced their interest in the use ofmicrocomputers.


58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Teachers' experience and practices in using microcomputersIn terms of the level of computer usage, it was found that results from thedrop-line graph analysis (see Figure 3) indicated that teachers in group 1used general application typs of software such as wordprocessing,spreadsheets, databases and a programming language such as BASIC.Teachers in group 2 used more instructional software like tutorial, drilland practice, game-like drill and computer instruction programs that aremore content-specific.

The drop-line graph in Figure 3 confirmed that the differentiatingvariables between the groups show a considerably large difference in themean average between the two groups. For variables related to practices,and computer usage, the analyses showed that there were some variablesfound to be closely similar between the two groups. In the graph, thesevariables that were related to the experience of teachers using computersshow very little difference between the two groups. For example, fromthe analysis, both groups were shown to have very high levels of interesttoward the use of microcomputers. Most often both groups seemed tochoose a one-way presentation approach to teach students. Both groupshad almost the same number of classes, number of days, and periods inteaching using computers.

The analysis also showed that there were differences between thetwo groups. For variables related to experience using the computers inrelation to the model, the analysis showed that group 1 teachers usedmore application software such as Dbase, spreadsheet, wordprocessingand programming languages such as BASIC, while group 2 teachers usedmore instructional software such as tutorial, drill-and-practice, andcomputer instruction which were related to specific subject content.These results suggest that there are differences in perception in the use ofmicrocomputers between these two groups of teachers with respect to thevariables as stated above.Variation in the use of computers between groups of teachersFrom data collected through interviews and classroom observations,teachers in group 1 who were more experienced in comparison withteachers in group 2 used more software. This group of teachers wereusing software provided to them at higher levels. For example, in word-processing, teachers in group 1 taught students how to edit twodocuments simultaneously and how to import and edit graphics. InBASIC, students were taught not only the elementary knowledge, such ashow to create flow charts, but they were taught to use complicatedBASIC commands like GOSUB, IF, THEN-ELSE, SOUND, rather thanjust READ, DATA END, and PRINT. This group was making qualityuse of the software. The data also indicated that teachers in group 1 usedsoftware where students could create more of their own products (see


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Figure 3). For example, students were asked to create their own graphics,like graphs or drawing for graphic presentation. Students were alsoexposed to certain software where they could explore on their own andlater were required to produce their own products. This showed thatteachers who were more experienced were making quality use of thecomputers. The analysis from the statistics and graph indicated thatteachers in group 1 were able to integrate computers with other subjectmatter (see Table 1 and Figure 3). However, the degree of the integrationwas still very low. They integrated computer use with subjects likelanguage, agriculture science, and mathematics. Thus, teachers in group 1

VARIABLE

Level of UseL

MH

Confident comput. useLMH

Computer knowledgeLMH

Integrate computerLMH

Level of interestLMH

OBSERVED

GP1(%)

33.3366.67

-

33.3366.67

33.3333.3333.33

33.3350.0016.67

66.6733.33

GP2(%)

25.0075.00

-

12.5062.5025.00

-37.5062.50

100.00--

25.0075.00

REPORTED

GP1(%)

83.3316.67

-

-83.3316.67

33.3333.3333.33

33.3350.0016.67

50.0050.00

GP2(%)

50.0050.00

-

12.5075.0012.50

87.5012.50

-

75.0025.00

-

12.5025.0062.500

TABLE 1: The distribution of observed and reported dependent variables (level of use) andother indicators


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

who were experienced users of computers had shown great desire tomake full use of the computers in their teaching.

Findings, conclusion and implicationsFinding (a):Teachers used many different modees of computers in their teachingactivities. The mode of computer use for teaching activities ranged fromgames to language programming.

This finding is consistent with the findings in the literaturereviewed. Computer use in Pelgrum and Plomp's study ranged fromplaying games to computer-assisted instruction. They also found thatcomputers were used for demonstration in front of class, introductorycourses about the computers, and remedial and enrichment computeraided instructions.17 Dalton confirmed the findings of Pelgrum andPlomp's study.18

In the current study, the mode of computer usage for teachingactivities varied among the teachers. Most of the teachers usedmicrocomputers to teach computers and software application, not tointegrate the computers into the teaching of regular subject matter.Teachers used a wide variety of applications ranging from generalproductivity tools such as word-processors, spreadsheets and databases tomore advanced applications such as language programming.

The results of the score of the dependent variables that wereformed from various variables related to the level of use showed thatteachers used computers in many different ways. The results of thesimple analysis did not give much information, but the data from thedependent variables showed substantial diffeentiation between these twogroups in terms of the degree of using different software.

It is clear from this study that the teachers used a variety of modesin their teaching activities. In order to motivate teachers to continue usingvarious modes in their teaching activities, administrators should providemore facilities which are flexible enough to accommodate a range ofpossible uses. Teachers should also be taught not only to teach the use ofcomputers and software applications, but also how to integrate thecomputers into other subject matters, otherwise the issues of relating tothe integration of computers into subject matter will still remain aproblem. Teachers need some experience that relates to how they canintegrate computers into the curriculum.

Finding (b):Teachers in this study used word-processors and other text-processingtools more than other software programs.

Sheingold and Hadley found that most of the teachers used word-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

—1 £1

f CO CM » - O

Mean value of each variable

FIG. 3: Drop-Line graph of microcomputer-based instruction

processing and other text-processing tools in their teaching in comparisonto other software programs." These tools were playing a central role inthe classroom and appeared to have the broadest current use across thecurriculum. The most obvious is the use of word-processing in languagearts. Not so obvious is the use of word-processing in subjects like socialstudies and science. A similar finding was reported by Erion andMoeller.20 They found that about 85% of the teachers used computers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

primarily for word-processing. This finding confirms that of the currentstudy. Word-processing was used very frequently and widely by theteachers. Some teachers used this program in teaching other subjectmatter, most commonly in the teaching of languages like BahasaMalaysia and English.

The results of the simple analysis did not yield much information,but data from the dependent variables showed a wide range of scoreindicating substantial differentiation between these two groups in termsof the degree of using word-processing in their teaching. It is obviousthat word-processing is among the most popular software programs usedby teachers. Most teachers used this program as a tool to enhance studentperformance. The findings reinforced the notion that word-processing issimple and easy-to-use software, and it can be used broadly across thecurriculum.

Finding (c):Teachers who were experienced users of computer technology usedfewer content-specific programs over the years.

According to Sheingold and Hadley, the percentage of teacherswho frequently use computers for enrichment, remediation, and drilldeclines slowly with years of experience.21 The findings in the currentstudy confirm the above conclusion. Data from the dependant variablesshowed teachers who were experienced users of the computers inteaching used fewer content-specific programs.

Thus, in conclusion, it can be said that what teachers do withcomputers in their classroom reflects how much experience they havehad. As teachers become more expert and comfortable with the use ofcomputers, these practices play a lesser role over time. Teachersgradually mastered many other practices over the years. As theydeveloped a more well-organised, workable set of practices, they couldflexibly make choices about using new applications and about usingfamiliar applications differently.

References1. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT. Power on! New tools for teaching and

learning. Washington, D.C.: OTA Press, 1988, 87.

2. MEISTER, R. et al. Successful integration of microcomputers in elementary school.Washington, D.C.: Institute of Resources in Education, Finance and Government, 1984.

3. MEISTER, R. et al. Successful integration of microcomputers in elementary school.Washington, D.C.: Institute of Resources in Education, Finance and Government, 1984,9.

4. SMITH, D.G., SMITH, R. and TRENT, R.H. Linking microcomputers and largedatabases: an evolutionary approach. Interface: the Computer Education Quarterly, 10(2), 1988,41-44.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

5. BETZA, R.E. Instructional uses of computers at the University of Washington, ERICED 294571, 1986.

6. CORY, S.T. Technology in schools. Who'll provide the leadership? Computers inSchools, 8(1-3), 1991.

7. SHAVELSON, R.J. et al. Successful teachers' patterns of microcomputer-basedmathematics and science instruction. Washington: National Institute of Education,1984.

8. BECKER, B. The role of the microcomputer in rural schools. The Rural Educator, 8,1986, 1-3.


10. HANAFIN, M.J., DAYTON, W. and HOOPER, S.R. Computers in education: what'sreally keeping them out? ERIC ED 294567, 1987.

11. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT. Power on! New tools for teaching andlearning. Washington, D.C.: OTA Press, 1988.

12. ERION, R.L. and MOELLER, L. A computer literacy course: a needs assessment. TheRural Educator, 12 (3), 1991, 4-8.

13. SHEINGOLD, K. and HADLEY, M. Accomplished teachers integrating computersinto classroom practice. Washington: Center of Technology in Education: Bank StreetCollege of Education, 1990.


15. FULLAN, M. et al. A conceptual plan for implementing the new informationtechnology in Ontario schools. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education, 1987.

16. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT. Power on! New tools for teaching andlearning. Washington, D.C.: OTA Press, 1988.

17. PELGRUM, W.J. and PLOMP, T. The use of computers in education worldwide.Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.

18. DALTON, Y.R. Computer technology and its application to teaching programs.CVA/ACFP Journal, 23 (1), May, 1987.

19. SHEINGOLD, K. and HADLEY, M. Accomplished teachers integrating computersinto classroom practice. Washington: Center of Technology in Education: Bank StreetCollege of Education, 1990.

20. ERION, R.I. and MOELLER, L. A computer literacy course: a needs assessment. TheRural Educator, 12 (3), 1991, 4-8.

21. SHEINGOLD, K. and HADLEY, M. Accomplished teachers integrating computersinto classroom practice. Washington: Center of Technology in Education; Bank StreetCollege of Education, 1990.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Aut

onom

a de

Bar

celo

na]

at 0

6:56

15

Oct

ober

201

4

teachers’ experience and practices using microcomputers in schools in malaysia

Documents