Paper submitted to Linking Learners : Australian Computers in Education Conference (ACEC 2002) July, 2002, Hobart, Tasmania

Transcription

1 Paper submitted to Linking Learners : Australian Computers in Education Conference (ACEC 2002) July, 2002, Hobart, Tasmania A METACOGNITIVE APPROACH TO COMPUTER EDUCATION FOR TEACHERS: COMBINING THEORY AND PRACTICE FOR COMPUTER CAPABILITY R. Phelps and A. Ellis Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia rphelps@scu.edu.au -- aellis@scu.edu.au Training in the use of computers has become a major priority for pre-service and practicing teachers both nationally and internationally. However computer technology is evolving at such a rapid rate that, if an individual undertakes traditional directive-style training in how to use a particular piece of software, that knowledge is likely to be inadequate or out-of-date in a short period of time. This rate of change places immense strain on everyone involved with technology, no matter what their skill levels. Rather than focusing on developing competencies or specific skill sets, this paper proposes that the attention of computer professional development might be profitably be given to computer capability. Drawing on the findings of an action research undertaking with preservice teachers this paper describes a metacognitive approach to computer education which attempts to foster capable life-long computer learners. A range of theories which inform the approach are outlined including social cognitive theory, attribution theory, and learning style theory. The paper illustrates how a metacognitive approach can impact upon computer learners attitudes, values and beliefs. Conference Stream: Professional Development Key Words: computer learning, pre-service teacher education, metacognition, capability INTRODUCTION Within many vocations, technology is changing at such a rate that one s occupational preparation can become obsolete in a matter of years. One of the specific implications of such rapid technological developments is the heightening of the need for learning throughout life (Candy, Crebert & O'Leary, 1994). This statement is particularly relevant to the context of computer education, and no more so than to the teaching profession. The need to widen our perceptions about computer education is highlighted by Loveless (1995, p.xii) who states that: It is not possible to consider the use of IT in classrooms without reflecting upon one's beliefs about learning and teaching. Computer capability can be seen as much more to do with an approach to ways of learning and working than as the development of a set of skills. Such comments present challenges to teacher preparation and professional development programs. They speak of a need to move away from skills focused computer education to an approach which emphasises beliefs, attitudes and metacognitive understandings. Such an approach entails helping teachers come to terms with the nature of technological change and their own abilities to confront this change. Of implicit importance here is a focus on learning strategies. This paper discusses these issues and the potential role of metacognitive theory in re-conceptualising and re-designing teachers pre-service computer education and professional development. COMPUTER SKILLS AND THE TEACHING PROFESSION The release of the Review of Teacher Education in NSW (Ramsey, 2000) has re-emphasised the critical importance of computer education for all pre-service and practicing teachers, with information technology seen as one of the most significant challenges now confronting teacher education, teachers and schools (p.68). The majority of practicing teachers did not received pre-service training in computer use, yet they have experienced increasing expectations to incorporate computer technology into their teaching (Russell & Bradley, 1997). They are expected to have a broad range of skills, and use a wide range of software and adapt these skills to a diverse set of classroom situations. Additional pressure stems from expectations that teachers model positive, self-efficacious attitudes to their students (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Russell & Bradley, 1997). Numerous studies continue to point to limitations in pre-service teacher education in terms of computing (for instance, Blake, 1998; Handler & Pigott, 1995; Higdon, 1995; Strudler, McKinney & Jones, 1999; Wild & Oliver, 1995). Similar critiques have been made of professional development programs offered to practicing teachers (Niederhauser, 2001;

2 Russell & Bradley, 1997; Williams, 1998) and various alternative models are beginning to be proposed and trialed (Holtzberg, 1997; Strudler, McKinney & Jones, 1999; Williams, 1998). Despite this, for many teachers the gap between perceived technological competence and learning to use computers in their teaching is often threatening and overwhelming (Ropp, 1998). Many have high computer anxiety and low computer self-efficacy, which is further exacerbated by the often excellent computer skills of some of their students. Furthermore, given the isolated and independent nature of their work, if teachers encounter difficulties there is often very little assistance or support available to them (Becker, 1994). Technology is developing at such a rapid rate that, if a teacher undertakes training in how to use a particular piece of software, that knowledge is likely to be inadequate or out-of-date in a short period of time; months not years. This rate of change places immense strain on both teachers and school systems: For many workers the pressures created by rapidly changing computer technologies have produced adverse cognitive, affective and motivational consequences Ultimately, computing problems can contribute to employee alienation and apathy (Rozell & Gardner, 1995, p.126). COMPETENCY-BASED VERSUS CAPABILITY-BASED COMPUTER EDUCATION Many computer training initiatives which are offered to pre-service and practicing teachers are skills-based and directive in nature, guiding participants through a series of step-by-step instructions and focusing on one particular program or computer function. Such approaches are reflective of the Competency-Based Training (CBT) approaches that have been broadly implemented throughout the Australia, particularly in areas such as Information Technology (IT). CBT emphasises pre-specified objectives and the achievement of clearly specified and measurable skill levels. The notion of competency, however, can be contrasted with that of capability. Cairns (2000) defines capability as an allround human quality, an integration of knowledge, skills and personal qualities used effectively and appropriately in response to varied, familiar and unfamiliar circumstances. Cairns continues that capability implies having justified confidence in your ability to take appropriate and effective action to formulate and solve problems in both familiar and unfamiliar and changing settings. Capability approaches gain greatest value in contexts of rapid change (Australian Capability Network, 1996). If, for instance, one looks at experienced and confident computer users, these individuals frequently adopt quite different learning approaches to novices. Many individuals who become adept at using computer technology learn experientially and, predominantly, through self-directed exploration, rather then turning to short courses or training sessions (Davis, 1999). If they do attend structured training then they are less concerned with step-by-step instructions but rather with deriving broad conceptual understandings of the capacity and features of the software or hardware. Such capability -based learning approaches contrasts sharply with competence -based approaches. The issues are highlighted by Ferdig (1998) who points to instances in undergraduate pre-service programs where students learn technology skills but can't integrate the skills, or remember the steps, on graduation and placement: There are cases where teaching specific skills inspires some teacher education students to adopt a technology mindset to approaching curriculum planning. However, for the most part, this transmission model of technology adoption fails (Ferdig, 1998, p.1). Teaching effectively with computers requires creativity, intuition, confidence in managing learning and in your ability to perform and it is these qualities which are seen as contributing to capability. Adaptability to change and an emphasis on life-long learning are aspects seen as deficient in competency-based initiatives. Competencies tend to be prescriptive and are designed for a more stable environment with familiar problems (Wildman, 1996). Stephenson (1993) emphasised the importance of capability (as opposed to competencies) to technological contexts, stating that: Any society in which progress and change are common features requires its people to be independently capable. The speed of technological, economic and social change means our jobs and circumstances change more frequently and less predictably than before. The explosion in the expansion of specialist knowledge (doubling every 8 years by one estimate), puts a premium on giving people confidence in their own ability to learn and shows how futile it is to try to sustain the formal transmission of knowledge model (p ) These ideas all have relevance to the computer learning context, and support Loveless s (1995, p.xii) statement that computer capability is much more to do with an approach to learning and working than simply a set of technological skills. Thus, technology is too diverse and evolves too rapidly for teachers to be reliant on workshops and seminars (Melczarek, 2000). Rather, emphasis needs to be placed on teachers becoming more self-directed and adaptive in their computer learning strategies. A relevant professional development program for teachers requires more than skills training. It involves changes in attitude, values and beliefs that develop confidence for ongoing learning. Learning to use computers involves learning to adapt to change, to be flexible, intuitive and above all persistent. Learning through independent hands-on experience and regular practice is vital and learners who know how to be self-directed and independent will be more successful than those dependent on structured routines or guidelines (Ropp, 1997; 1998).

3 It is from a perception of these issues, and a desire to foster capable rather than competent computer using teachers, that the first author was drawn to conduct an action research project from which this paper is drawn. Aspects of this research have been reported elsewhere (Phelps, 2001; Phelps, Ellis & Hase, 2001). It will be argued that a metacognitive approach to computer learning can influence learners attitudes, values and beliefs about computers and computer learning, and can empower them to go on learning effectively throughout their teaching career. METACOGNITION AND THE EXPERT LEARNER The term metacognition refers to knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes, and the active monitoring and consequent regulation of these processes in the pursuit of goals or objectives (Flavell, 1976; Flavell, Miller & Miller, 1993). John Biggs is one of the most well known educational theorist to discuss metacognition in learning, adopting the term metalearning to define the application of metacognition to student learning. Biggs defines metalearning as students awareness of their learning and control over their strategy selection and deployment (Biggs, 1985). Paris and Winograd (1990) discuss two dimensions of metacognition: self-appraisal and self-management. Cognitive selfappraisal refers to reflections about one s knowledge state and abilities, including what you know, how you think and when and why to apply knowledge and strategies. Cognitive self-management refers to the ability of the individual to plan and implement appropriate strategies and to monitor, adjust and trouble shoot their performance. Metacognition has also been explored by Zimmerman (1996) in his discussion of self-regulated learners. Self regulation is the process whereby students actively apply and sustain cognitions, behaviours and affects, which are oriented toward attainment of their goals. Self-regulated learners are people who plan, organise, self-instruct, self-monitor and self-evaluate at various stages of the learning process. They perceive themselves as competent, self-efficacious, and autonomous and they select, structure and create environments that optimise learning. Ertmer and Newby (1996) extended Zimmerman s notion of self-regulated learning in their discussion of expert learners, a concept which adds the ingredient of reflection. Expert learners are aware of the knowledge and skills they do or do not possess, and use appropriate strategies to actively implement or acquire them: Expert learners notice when they are not learning and thus are likely to seek a strategic remedy when faced with learning difficulties Novice learners, on the other hand, rarely reflect on their own performance and seldom evaluate or adjust their cognitive functioning to meet changing task demands or to correct unsuccessful performances (Ertmer & Newby, 1996, p.6). Reflection on the process of learning is seen as the critical link between knowledge and control of the learning process. In contexts of rapid change, expert learners metacognitive strategies provide distinct advantages: When asked to deal with novel situations, the specific cognitive skills and learning strategies we have available become more critical than the limited content knowledge we may possess (Ertmer & Newby, 1996, p.7). As has been pointed out by Ropp (1997; 1998) in novel situations, an understanding of how to learn distinguishes expert learners from novices who may have an equal unfamiliarity with the content of the domain. The notion of expert learning is thus central to the concept of capability and particularly computer capability. Teaching approaches which assist students to become 'expert learners' are more likely to empower them for life-long learning in turbulent and rapidly changing contexts, such as those influenced by technology. Again, these notions of capability and the development of expert computer learners underpinned our research. THE RESEARCH CONTEXT The research in question has focussed upon the development and delivery of a computer unit offered as a core to preservice teacher education students in both the Bachelor of Education (Primary) and Diploma of Education (Secondary) degrees at Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia. The Unit is multi-mode delivered, taking the form of a Webbased resource (also available on CD-ROM) supplemented with optional face-to-face tutorials. The content deals with a range of topics including the World Wide Web, , mailing lists, synchronous communications, spreadsheets and Web publishing, together with the application of IT in learning and teaching including pedagogical, social, ethical and legal issues. Given the research focus, that of developing teaching strategies to foster capable computer users, action research was an appropriate methodology. In the second and third action research cycles a metacognitive approach was introduced to the design and delivery of the Unit. A metacognitive approach is defined as that which assists students to become more aware of their attitudes towards computers (metacognitive knowledge) and their past and current learning approaches with regard computer skills (metacognitive experience and strategies). A Thinking module was added to the Unit in which theory surrounding aspects of metacognition, and its relevance to computer use was shared with students. Students were then involved in reflecting on their own cognitive approaches to computers and on their past and present learning processes. The Unit provided a range of prompts for learners to relate prior experiences to new learning tasks through active processes of inquiry and reflection. Student were required to keep a journal which documented their

4 reflections, although the journal task remained quite open and flexible, allowing students the opportunity to demonstrate their experiences and understandings in multiple and varied ways. Integral to the Thinking module were two selfassessment surveys that assisted students to diagnose and reflect upon their cognitive approaches to computers. While these survey instruments are not considered in detail in this paper they are reported in greater detail elsewhere (Phelps, 2001, 2002; Phelps & Ellis, submitted; Phelps, Ellis & Hase, 2001). In this paper a brief overview is provided of three of the theories which were used to underpin the metacognitive approach, social cognitive theory, attribution theory and Kolb s learning style theory. Then, through data derived from students reflective journals, how the inclusion of these theories in the metacognitive approach impacted on learners attitudes, values and beliefs about their computer learning. In this way it is demonstrated how combining theory and practice within a metacognitive computer learning context can facilitate the development of capable computer learners. SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Based on the work of Bandura (1977; 1997), social cognitive theory posits a triadic model in which behaviour, cognition and the environment all influence each other in a dynamic manner. According to this theory, individuals choose the environments in which they exist in addition to being influenced by those environments. Social cognitive theory incorporates two dimensions; outcome expectations and self-efficacy. Individuals are more likely to undertake behaviour they believe will result in valued outcomes (i.e. outcome expectations), however outcomes in themselves may be insufficient in influencing behaviour if individuals doubt their capabilities to succeed (self-efficacy) (Compeau & Higgins, 1995a). Self-efficacy is a comprehensive summary of an individual's belief in their capacity to perform on a particular task. Computer self-efficacy thus refers to an individual s judgement of their ability to use a computer. Selfefficacy is not concerned with the skills an individual has but with judgements made by individuals about what they can do with the skills they possesses. Self-efficacy is an important motivational construct influencing individual choices, goals, emotional reactions, effort, coping, persistence and resilience, and ultimately the level of learning and human accomplishment (Gist, 1992; Igbaria & Iivari, 1995). Individuals who distrust their capabilities are easily discouraged by failure, whereas those with high self-efficacy will intensify their efforts and persevere until they succeed. Various researchers have applied social cognitive theory to computer contexts and a significant body of empirical research indicates a strong association between self-efficacy, computer anxiety, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (for instance Compeau & Higgins, 1995a, 1995b; Compeau, Higgins & Huff, 1999; Ellen, Bearden & Sharma, 1991; Gist, 1992; Igbaria & Iivari, 1995; Martocchio & Webster, 1992). Reflections on Social Cognitive Theory The application of social cognitive theory prompted rich metacognitive reflection by students, particularly those experiencing difficulties or lack of confidence with computers. The self-assessment survey assisted students to consider a range of influences on their self-efficacy and outcome expectations and students were then prompted to reflect on these in their journal. The type of factors considered included frequency and duration of use, encouragement by others, use by others, support, perceived usefulness, attitude, feelings/anxiety and learning confidence. For Student 28, for instance, the survey revealed a distinct disparity between how I viewed myself in general terms regarding self-efficacy, and how I had answered the survey. These sentiments are again expressed by Student 4: This survey encouraged me to believe that I have more confidence in myself than I previously perceived myself to have. Many students came to realise that they could translate their self-appraisal of their self-efficacy and outcome expectations into cognitive selfmanagement. Student 79 was initially sceptical about their ability to act upon their growing awareness of social cognitive theory, yet on further reflection reconsidered her initial assumptions. I believe that many of the factors that contribute to our self-efficacy are unchangeable I think that even if I had an enhanced understanding of the role of self-efficacy that my approach to learning computers will remain the same Actually, this may sound weird but I think I have had a change of heart as I have been trying to write my answer to this question. Thinking about it now I can see the value... I could identify factors that were having a negative impact and attempt to deal with these. Rather than just feeling unconfident about my computer ability I could target specific areas of need (Student 79). A similar realisation that awareness of influences on computer self-efficacy could be utilised to decrease computer anxiety is expressed by Student 144: By enhancing my understanding of self-efficacy and its effects on ones computer abilities I can stop the chain reaction before it begins and influence the success of my own learning. ATTRIBUTION THEORY Attribution is, at its simplest, an individual s explanation for their success or lack of success. The basic premise of attribution theory is that individuals function as naïve psychologists developing causal explanations for significant

5 events (Martinko, 1995). These beliefs influence expectations, which in turn influence behaviour. Attribution theory asserts that people differ in their attributional style and that these differences contribute to motivation, performance and affective reactions to various life experiences. To better explain attribution theory it is important to differentiate between causal dimensions and causal explanations. Causal explanations are the specific explanations people make concerning the causes of prior outcomes. Examples of commonly expressed explanations include luck, ability or effort. Underlying such explanations are causal dimensions that represent the individual's cognitive structure, locus of causality (internal/external), stability, controlability, globality and intentionality (Henry, Martinko & Pierce, 1993; Kent & Martinko, 1995; Martinko, 1995). External explanations might include group interdependence or distractions such as noise, whereas internal explanations might include health or mood. Some explanations are more or less under the control of the person (e.g. effort), some are largely controlled by the context (e.g. task variables), while others may be uncontrollable (e.g. weather or temporary illness). Theory and research draws a close connection between attribution and self-efficacy determination. Some of the determinants of self-efficacy are well-recognised attributions (i.e. effort, ability, luck, task difficulty). However, attributions are distinct from efficacy beliefs in that attribution relates to causes of past behaviour while self-efficacy pertains to future performance capability (Gist, 1992). Under conditions of failure, people with high self-efficacy tend to attribute their failure to insufficient effort or bad luck, whereas people with low self-efficacy tend to attribute their failure to lack of ability. Various researchers have examined attributional style within computer contexts (for instance Hall & Cooper, 1991; Henry, Martinko & Pierce, 1993; Rozell & Gardner, 1995; Wishart, 1997). Reflections on Attribution Theory Attribution was one of the more challenging concepts for students and while some misunderstood the theory, its inclusion was valuable and transformational for many participants in the Unit. Student 112, for instance, noted that I am very hard on myself, and as a consequence this is damaging to my self-efficacy and confidence. As she continued: Upon reflection if something has not worked out then I will learn from the situation so that it should not happen again (Student 112). Student 8, who attributed both successes and failures to stable internal attributions, initially noted that she did not believe she had the capacity to change her internal causality (stability). Through reflection she acknowledged that I need to be aware to view myself and my ability and even my learning style as something I can change with effort (Student 8). For some students, reflection on attribution theory evoked cognitive self-appraisal but this did not translate into self-management strategies: I come to expect failures to occur in situations I am unsure about. I believe that I have little control over these failures and therefore tend to try and avoid them. I don't really see that the situations will change so I prefer to stick to what I know (Student 176). However for other students the theory challenged their metacognitive judgements, beliefs and choices providing an avenue for potential change in learning approach. Student 5, for instance, documented her realisation that effort was required to produce change (instability) and that her attitude to the situation, in particular whether it was worth investing time, was most influential on achievement of an outcome. Student 164 realised that she had trouble remembering her computing successes: I find that I just take them for granted and don't see it as success, rather the computer has finally done its job and the right thing (Student 164). Student 105 s journal revealed the capacity of reflection in assisting students to challenge their own pre-conceptions: As part of my belief system and the law of averages I thought it was realistic to believe that in any situation there is a 50% chance that things will go in any particular way. However in relation to the survey I realise that this is a fairly self-defeating attitude. I can see that my tendency to over generalise gives me a feeling of loss of control in relation to using the computer. I now affirm that I have at least 75-90% chance of causing changes in relation to my computing skills and solving problems because practice gives me more experience to draw on (Student 105). Analysis of the student data led to the realisation of the importance of assisting students to adopt strategies to better determine appropriate attribution. Student 179 provides an example of the value of reflecting on appropriate attribution: I began this course believing that I held the key to all things happening. However... I have now accepted that there are times when I do not have control over situations; that I am not personally responsible for network down time or someone else adjusting settings (Student 179). LEARNING STYLES THEORY Kolb s (1984) experiential learning theory views learning as a continuous process, grounded in experience. The process of learning is viewed as an holistic process of adaptation to the world involving transactions between the person (the subjective internal state) and the environment (the objective external state). Experiential learning theory conceives of learning as an integrated, four stage process involving the use of four different cognitive modes: Concrete Experience the ability to involve oneself fully and without reservation; Reflective Observation the ability to reflect on and observe experiences from different points of view;

6 Abstract conceptualisation the ability to generate concepts that integrate ones observations into logical sound theories; and Active experimentation the ability to apply those theories to solve problems and make decisions. Although effective learning requires the use of all four modes, Kolb claims that most people develop a preference for one member of each contrasting pair, which constitutes their learning style. The learning styles which thus are identified by four quadrants are accommodative, divergent, assimilative and convergent, as indicated in figure 1. Figure 1: Kolb s Model of Learning Styles To be an effective learner, individuals must continuously choose which set of abilities he or she will bring to bear in a specific situation. When applied in a metacognitive context, assisting learners to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each learning style, and assisting them to identify which styles are valuable in particular contexts (such as computing) can help them to adapt their learning approaches in response to the contextual demands. A small number of researchers have linked experiential learning and Kolb s learning style theory to the computer learning context (Birkey & Rodman, 1995; Bostrom, Olfman & Sein, 1990). Birkley and Rodman s (1995) research indicated that students enrolled in computer courses frequently reported as accommodators and convergers. Reflections on Learning Style Theory The vast majority of students reflectively supported research which suggested that abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation were important in computer learning contexts. A number of students emphasised how and/or why they felt all learning styles had their place in computer learning. For instance Student 110 pointed to specific computer applications which would be of interest to each learning style disposition and Student 113 analysed the type of learning approach that might be employed by computer users from each style. While many students found the process of surveying their own learning style to be both interesting and beneficial quite a number of other students were critical. Many students took umbrage to the notion of type-casting individuals into one category despite the comments in the Thinking section that although most people develop a preference for one particular learning style, effective learning requires the ability to draw on all four modes. For many students who viewed learning styles as non-prescriptive, reflecting on Kolb s model did provide an opportunity for cognitive self-appraisal and reflection on strategies for selfmanagement: On closer examination I can see that there are aspects of all of the learning styles that might be appropriate in learning computer skills When faced with these facts it becomes easier to know the areas of one s own weaknesses in which we may improve (Student 109). Student 74 also demonstrated the potential for students to reflectively challenge their preferred learning approach: I need to make a conscious effort in bringing up the accommodator and assimilator in myself. Similarly, Student 15 rose to the challenge stating that I will have to endeavour to expand my horizons and accommodate this type of learning. Of the theories incorporated in the metacognitive approach I felt that learning style theory was the least beneficial for students. On reflection this was perhaps more due to my presentation of the theory which led to misinterpretation. Furthermore, some information I had provided about Kolb s theory and its application had been counter-productive, drawing students attention away from the potential of the model to invoke cognitive self-appraisal. In later research cycles a greater emphasis was placed on learning strategies rather than learning styles.

7 CONCLUSIONS While the scope of this paper has limited the extent to which this research undertaking can be depicted, the students reflections presented in this paper do support the value of metacognitive approaches to end-user computer education, and pre-service teacher education in particular. In reflecting on their past and current learning experiences, together with their attitudes, values and beliefs in relation to computer learning, students are more likely to challenge themselves to adopt approaches that are appropriate for life-long learning. Of most significance was the willingness of many students to move outside their zone of comfort and to try learning in ways they might not normally employ. The factor which limits the success of this approach most is the individual s capacity and motivation for deep engagement and reflection and these influences became a focus of subsequent action research cycles which will be reported elsewhere. In comparison to the first action research cycle, which had not included metacognitive reflection on theory and practice, students were far more likely to confront and challenge their approaches to learning, seeing personal benefits in striving for self-directed and life-long learning patterns. Having engaged with the learning theory in personally meaningful ways, students were able to identify and better understand the factors impacting on their beliefs about their capacity to use computers. For some, the process of reflection led them to an enhanced understanding of obstacles to their effective learning, thus empowering them to work to overcome their self-identified barriers to learning. As teacher education students the majority also noted that their enhanced understandings of self efficacy, attribution and learning style theory would impact significantly on their future teaching. Through an enhanced understanding of the factors impacting on their own students' learning they could pinpoint ways of fostering capable computer users in their own classrooms. REFERENCES Australian Capability Network. (1996). The Australian Capability Network Statement of Belief. Capability, 1(4), 81. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Becker, H. J. (1994). How exemplary computer-using teachers differ from other teachers: Implications for realizing the potential of computers in schools. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), Now available at Biggs, J. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, Birkey, R., & Rodman, J. (1995). Adult learning styles and preference for technology programs. Paper presented at the Lifelong Learning: Innovations in Higher Education, Technology and Workplace Literacy, California. Blake, S. (1998). Technology and teachers: An investigation of attitudes and beliefs of introductory use by preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1). Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L., & Sein, M. (1990). The importance of learning type in end-user training. MIS Quarterly, 14(1), Cairns, L. (2000, April). The Process/Outcome Approach to Becoming a Capable Organisation. Paper presented at the Australian Capability Network Conference, Sydney. Candy, P., Crebert, G., & O'Leary, J. (1994). Developing Lifelong Learners through Undergraduate Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995a). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995b). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(3), Davis, P. (1999). How undergraduates learn computer skills: Results of a survey and focus group. THE Journal. Delcourt, M. A., & Kinzie, M. B. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and selfefficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), Ellen, P. S., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of the role of selfefficacy and performance satisfaction. Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 19, Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, Ferdig, R. (1998). Teaching a teacher about technology: A narrative approach. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

8 Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive Development ( 3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gist, M. E. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academic Management Review, 17, Hall, J., & Cooper, J. (1991). Gender, experience, and attributions to the computer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(1), Handler, M., & Pigott, T. (1995). Technology preparation for preservice teachers: Do they feel prepared for 21st century classrooms? Paper presented at the World Conference on Computers in Education VI: WCCE '95: Liberating the Learner, London. Henry, J. W., Martinko, M. J., & Pierce, M. A. (1993). Attributional style as a predictor of success in a first computer science course. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, Higdon, J. (1995). The Evolution of Computer Literacy for Pre-service Teachers. Available: [2000, 21st February]. Holtzberg, C. (1997). Teach your teachers well: Successful strategies for staff development. Technology and Learning, 17(6), Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omeaga International Journal of Management Science, 23(6), Kent, R. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1995). The measurement of attributions in organizational research. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective (pp ). Delray Beach, Florida: St Lucie Press. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Course of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Loveless, A. (1995). The Role of I.T.: Practical Issues for the Primary Teacher. London: Cassell. Martinko, M. J. (1995). The nature and function of attribution theory within the organizational sciences. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective (pp. 7-14). Delray Beach, Florida: St Lucie Press. Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). The effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), Melczarek, R. J. (2000, 6-9 July). Technology education for teachers: A more self-directed approach. Paper presented at the ACEC2000: Learning Technologies, Teaching and the Future of Schools, Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne. Niederhauser, D. (2001). Technology and teacher education: Beyond preparing presevice teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 17(2), 3. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Phelps, R. (2001, 4-8 July). Capability versus competency in information technology education: Challenging the learning context for lifelong technological literacy. Paper presented at the Eighth International Literacy & Education Research Network Conference on Learning, Spetses, Greece. Phelps, R. (2002). Mapping the Complexity of Computer Learning: Journeying Beyond Teaching for Computer Competence to Facilitating Computer Capability. Unpublished PhD, Southern Cross University, Lismore. Phelps, R., & Ellis, A. (submitted). Attribution: An important component of the computer learning experience. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. Phelps, R., Ellis, A., & Hase, S. (2001). The role of metacognitive and reflective learning processes in developing capable computer users. Paper presented at the Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Melbourne. Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality Matters: Revitalising Teaching: Critical Times, Critical Choices. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training. Ropp, M. M. (1997). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers and their use as pedagogical tools in preservice teacher preparation. Unpublished PhD, Michigan State University. Ropp, M. M. (1998, 1st June). A new approach to supporting reflective, self-regulated computer learning. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Rozell, E. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1995). Computer friend or foe? The influence of optimistic versus pessimistic attributional styles and gender on user reactions and performance. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective (pp ). Delray Beach, Florida: St Lucie Press. Russell, G., & Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers' computer anxiety: Implications for professional development. Education and Information Technology, 2, Stephenson, J. (1993). The student experience of independent study: Reaching the parts other programmes appear to miss. In N. Graves (Ed.), Learner Managed Learning: Practice, Theory and Policy (pp. 5-22). Leeds: Higher Education for Capability. Strudler, N. B., McKinney, M. O., & Jones, W. P. (1999). First-year Teachers Use of Technology: Preparation, Expectations and Realities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2).

9 Wild, M., & Oliver, R. (1995). Preservice teacher education in information technology: A critical perspective. Paper presented at the World Conference on Computers in Education VI: WCCE '95: Liberating the Learner, London. Wildman, P. (1996). From student competencies to regional capability. Capability, 2(1), Williams, M. (1998). What works, what doesn't: Some professional development ideas. Available: [2002, 1st April]. Wishart, J. (1997). Initial teacher training students' attitudes to use of information technology and individual locus of control. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6(3), Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing Self-regulated Learners: Beyond Achievement to Self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.