The effectiveness of computer course on the computer self-efficacy, computer attitudes and success of young people ABSTRACT The

purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of computer courses on young peoples computer self-efficacy, computer attitudes and computer achievement. The study was carried out on young people in the computer course. The study group of this research included 60 unemployed young volunteers in total; 30 in the experimental group and 30 in the control group. A ten-week computer course was given to the experimental group but not to the control group. An experimental research model with pretest posttest control group was used in the research. As the measurement tool for the assessment of the participants computer self-efficacy levels, The Computer Self Efficacy Scale was used, and the Computer Attitude Scale was used to assess the participants attitudes towards computers. Moreover, the Computer Achievement Test prepared by the researcher was used to measure the changes in the computer achievements of the participants joining the course. The data collection tools were applied as pretest and posttest on both experimental and control groups. During the analysis of the obtained data, paired samples t-test and independent samples t- test were used. After the computer course it has been seen that the course develops computer self-efficacy, computer attitudes and computer achievement levels of participants. 1. INTRODUCTION Human nature is subject to continuous self-development. In this improvement and self-development period, as a result of his everlasting efforts to reach the best, the faster and the easier, people develop various tools and devices. Computer is a device that has been designed to do the works easily and quickly. In todays constantly improving technology, it is inevitable to think of any individual living isolated from computer in the modern world. Undoubtedly, the major development in the 21 st century has occurred in the computer technologies and we know that as long as people live, the developments in this area will continue. All of the countries are aware of the power of technology and make plans to adapt to the technological developments. Because in todays world, the prosperity levels of countries are measured by their information technologies. Considering the international web, the importance of computers in peoples lives can not be ignored. That is, computer has penetrated into every aspect of our daily lives, particularly into educational terms such as teaching, learning, pursuing a career and planning processes. Venkatesh and Davis (1996) stated that, for a better information technology management, we need to understand why individuals readily accept and use computer applications, persist at improving their computer skills, select challenging projects, search for innovative and new ways for using computer systems, and eventually have high rates of success. As for the individuals, if they want to pursue a promising career, they have to be proficient in computer use so as to learn in a constructive manner how they can use the important tools such as learning, information access and using the necessary knowledge for their own sake because computers are able to process complex processes easily in a short time. Being competent in this important subject is one of the most important things for finding a good job. Nowadays, in Turkey and many developed countries, widespread computer use in public and private workplaces causes a great need of well-educated people on computer and computer programming. In order to enable young people to have the qualities mentioned above, there are two major components: their computer self-efficacy and their attitude towards computers. A generation unable to catch up with technology will surely face difficulties in adapting to a fast developing world. Young people will surely use their competence in computer use even after their education period has ended. As Kinzie, Delcourt and Powers (1994) have stated, Computer technologies are important tools for learning, communication, and retrieving information. Individuals have to be selfefficacious to effectively employ these tools. For this reason it is important to examine attitudes and perceptions of competence that are encouraged by undergraduate educational programs. We have to train them in such a way that they can be competent enough to live in a world of technological knowledge and

improvement. For that reason computer usage is one of the most fundamental issues in educational system of our country. That is, that kind of competence will be a significant advantage both for the graduates and for the unemployed throughout their life. In this context, it is important to determine computer selfefficacy perceptions and attitudes which are thought as effective on youths knowledge and competency about technology. 1.1. Self-efficacy Self-efficacy refers to belief in ones capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997). This concept is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1994). The degree of self-ecacy which a person assigns to himself constitutes a valid predictor of the expected behavior that he will be demonstrating in carrying out a task (Koliadis 1997: quoted in Paraskeva, Bouta, & Papagianni, 2008). The concept of self-efficacy is a subcomponent of the Social Cognitive Theory. It is a conviction in which one can successfully execute a given task or behavior. It is also the self-perception of the ability to accomplish an activity (Downey, 2006). Moreover, Khorrami-Arani (2001) suggest that self-efficacy is not the same as the actual knowledge of a task, and it is not self-esteem, which refers more to feelings of self-worth. Accordingly, self-efficacy is situational and influences peoples decisions, goals, their amount of effort in conducting a task greatly, and the length of time persevered against obstacles and difficulties (Brown, 2008). Individuals develop a sense of selfefficacy throughout direct experiences, observing other peoples experiences, and listening to peoples comments about what they think he or she is capable of doing (Lee, 2005). Self-efcacy is a dynamic construct that changes when new information and experiences are acquired. It is generally described as having three components: magnitude - the levels of task difculty that people believe they can reach; strength-their conviction about its magnitude; and generality - the degree to which the expectation is generalized across situations. The purpose in evaluating these components is to discover the type of questions that will be best in explaining and predicting a persons dispositions, intentions, and actions (Torkzadeh, Chang, & Demirhan; 2006). High self-efficacy has a positive attitude in regards to ones capabilities so as to organize and perform actions vital for carrying out a planned process for the specific tasks. Low Self-Efficacy has a negative attitude in terms of ones capabilities to organize and perform actions necessary to achieve a designated performance skill for the specific tasks (Compeau, Higgins, & Huff, 1999). Self-efficacy enhances individuals success and well-being in many ways. People with high selfefficacy overcome difficult tasks with a strong commitment. They sustain their efforts or recover their self-efficacy even when facing failure. They approach threatening situations with assurance that they can exercise control over them. Such an efficacious outlook produces personal accomplishments, reduces stress and lowers vulnerability to depression. In contrast, people with low self-efficacy avoid difficult tasks. They have low aspirations and weak commitment to attain the goals they choose to pursue. It is hard to overcome their personal deficiencies and all kinds of adverse outcomes. They slacken their efforts and give up quickly in the face of difficulties. They are slow to recover their sense of efficacy following failure or setbacks. This kind of outlook produces failure, stress and depression (Bandura, 1994). 1.2. Computer self-efficacy Computer self-efficacy is borrowed from Banduras self-efficacy theory to satisfy specific needs in computer learning experience. This concept reflects an individual's beliefs about his or her capabilities in computer use. It does not deal with what one has done in the past, but rather with his judgment on what can be done in the future. Moreover, it does not refer to simple component sub skills, like formatting diskettes or entering formulas in a spreadsheet. Rather, it incorporates judgments on the ability to apply those skills to broader tasks (Compeau & Higgins, 1995, p. 192). Additionally, computer self-efficacy refers to ones individual confidence in his capability to use a computer and may help determine the ease of skill acquisition; however, self-efficacy on ones ability to complete computer related tasks may increase or decrease his performance (Robinson, 2008).

The strongest determinant of computer self-efficacy is past experience (Bandura, 1986). The most common determinants of computer self-ecacy include training method, prior computer experience, organizational support, encouragement by others, and others use-factors that can be manipulated in a training context. The dependent variables typically used in self-ecacy studies include training performance, computer anxiety, ease of use, outcome expectations or aect. While these dependent variables are appropriate for the training context, they are hardly adequate for assessing the ongoing use and impact of operational applications. For the most part, studies of computer self-ecacy have limited their exploration of independent and dependent variables to factors that make sense in the training context (Deng, Doll, & Truong, 2004). As computer usage is an important factor that influences computer selfefficacy, the most effective way to improve computer self-efficacy perception of individuals is increasing their computer usage (Hsu & Huang, 2006). In general, researchers confirm that computer self-efficacy not only determines the decisions of individuals in accepting and using the computer system, but is also a good predictor of achievements in computer-related tasks (Torkzadeh, Koufteros, & Pflughoeft, 2003). 1.3. Attitude towards computers Another important construct related to computer use is the attitude towards computers. According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) attitudes are learned predispositions to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object (p. 6). Attitude is the state or tendency of an emotional readiness observed in a way of in the visual's accepting or rejecting a certain person, group, institution or an opinion (zgven, 2007, p. 353). Attitude is an important factor to determine behaviors. This theory can be applied to computer use. Attitude provides the basis of explaining our reactions, thoughts and ideas about other people, situations and ideas (Bordens & Horowitz, 2002, p. 177). On the basis of various definitions about attitude, attitudes toward computer had been defined. According to this, attitude towards computer can be defined as a tendency that includes individuals thoughts, feelings and behaviors about computer, computer usage, computer users and social and personal effects of computer (Deniz, 1994). Attitude towards computer is an important variable in the field of researches on education and it has a major impact on students success about learning computer-related items, learning/teaching a variety of courses through computer. The improvement of computer self-efficacy is highly related to computer attitudes (Zhang & Espinoza, 1998). According to Kay (2006), sometimes self-efficacy is regarded as a subscale of computer attitudes. Additionally, self-efficacy and attitude are major factors in affective features effective on success and performance (Kseolu, Ylmaz, Gerek, & Soran, 2007). Furthermore, it turned out that self-efficacy had a small effect on computer attitudes in general (Meelissen, 2008). Recently, computer self-efficacy and attitude towards computer have been a topic in many different disciplines of education from primary school students to university students and teachers. Most of the researches in this field include levels of computer self-efficacy, attitude towards computer and relationship between them. Also the relationship with other variables such as gender, socio-economic status, computer ownership, computer literacy, computer use and experience were examined. Computer self-efficacy and attitude towards computer are known as important concepts related to computer use. Khorrami-Arani (2001) reported that there is a positive relationship between computer self-efficacy and attitude towards computers, while one study found no relation between these two concepts (Sam, Othman & Nordin, 2005). Computer experience is a strong predictor of attitudes and self-efficacy (Kinzie & Delcourt, 1991). In most studies, it is reported that computer experience and training have been identified as the most important factors affecting computer self-efficacy. Several research studies suggest that computer experience (Akar & Davenport, 2009; Fagan, Neill, & Wooldridge, 2003; Hasan, 2003; Igbaria & Livari, 1995; Karsten & Roth, 1998; Ortiz de Guinea, 2004; Potosky, 2002; Topkaya, 2010; Torkzadeh & Koufteros 1994) is positively related to computer self-efcacy. Also, computer training is highly related to computer self-efcacy (Torkzadeh, Chang, & Demirhan; 2006). On the other hand, it was found that there was no significant correlation between computer training and computer self-efficacy (Ylmaz, Gerek, Kseolu, & Soran, 2006). Additionally, computer training does not have a fundamental effect on self-efficacy, but interacts with computer attitude (Beas & Salanova, 2006). In some studies, researchers have examined the relationship between computer experience and computer attitudes (Bove, Voogt, & Meelissen, 2007; Roussos, 2007; Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008).

Social Support Program (SSP) is a program that focuses on human and aims responding to the needs caused by the problems like migration, poverty, unemployment and changing social structure in the fields of employment, social integration, culture, arts and sports. Prepared and implemented at the local level under the coordination of governorships, SSP projects aim improving employability, providing the participation of disadvantaged sections of society in economic and social life, giving contribution to local children, youth and women to better express themselves. "Information and Youth are Integrating", a type of social inclusion project, is one of the 88 projects of SSP 2009 in Siirt run by Siirt University and financed by the Undersecretariat of the State Planning Organization. Within this project, in a computer technologies laboratory founded in Siirt University for 30 people, a basic computer course giving 140 credits as 7 hours a day on weekends to a total of 60 unemployed and young volunteers living in Siirt in two groups 30 people each, for a three-month period between the dates of 6th of February 2010-20th of June 2010 is envisaged. In recent years, because of the demand for having a 140 credits Computer Operating Certificate approved by the Ministry of Education for many assignments in order to open positions in public institutions and organizations, the project includes courses of 140 credits. The related course is given by the computer technology teachers working in schools under the Ministry of National Education. In this respect, the project aims to educate unemployed young people on computers and related technologies and to increase their employability by making them qualified. Considering the achieved goals and objectives of the projects within the practices under SSP without encountering any research on the validity, sustainability and results of the applications by the researchers literature scanning enhance the importance of this study. 1.4. Limitations of the Study

The project was limited with a total of 60 unemployed young people; 30 have taken the course run by Siirt University under the SSP Project of "Information and Youth are Integrating" financed by the Undersecretariat of the State Planning Organization, 30 havent taken any computer course. The course within the scope of the research was limited to a total of 140 credits as 14 hours per week. The implementation period of the study was limited by the dates of first groups course period (6th January 201011th April 2010) which has a computer course and the start date of second group (17th April 2010) which has not had any computer course. So the research was done between 6th February 2010 and 17th April 2010.

2. PURPOSE
Computer technologies is an important for learning, communication, and retrieving information. For individuals to effectively employ this tool, individuals must feel self-efficacious in using them. Therefore, it is important to examine the attitudes and perceptions of competence that are encouraged by educational programs (Kinzie, Delcourt, & Powers, 1994). The main purpose of this study was to find out the effect of computer course on young peoples computer self-efficacy, computer attitude and computer achievement. In view of this main purpose, responses to the following sub-purposes are sought.

1. Is there any significant difference between computer self-efficacy, computer attitude and
computer achievement scores of the experimental and control groups before the experiment?

2. Is there any significant difference between computer self-efficacy, computer attitude and
computer achievement scores of the experimental and control groups after the experiment? 3. Is there any significant difference between computer self-efficacy, computer attitude and computer achievement scores of the control group before and after the experiment? 4. Is there any significant difference between computer self-efficacy, computer attitude and computer achievement scores of the experimental group before and after the experiment? 3. METHODOLOGY

An experimental research model with pretest - posttest control group was used in the research. There are two groups which are created by random assignment through the pretest-posttest control group design. One is used as experimental group, the other is as control group. In both groups, measurements are done before and after the experiment (Karasar, 2007). In this research, there are two groups which are created by random assignment, one is created as experimental group (which has computer course), the other is created as control group (which does not have a computer course). In both groups, measurements were done before and after the experiment. The experimental design of the research is given in Table 1.
<INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE>

3.1.

Participants

The working group of this research includes 60 unemployed high school graduate young volunteers in total; 30 as the experimental group and 30 as the control group. The computer course was given to the experimental group, but not to the control group. 3.2. The course The content of this computer course is determined within the education curriculum of Secondary Education Computer Course Program of the Ministry of Education. The course contains introduction of computer and operating systems in general, the important DOS operating system commands, Windows operating system, Excel software package as a spreadsheet, Word software package as a word processor, the Internet and Power Point. 3.3. Research instruments The research instruments for the data collection in a questionnaire consist of four major components: (a) Demographic Information, (b) Computer Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES), (c) Computer Attitudes Scale (CAS), and (d) Computer Achievement Test (CAT). Related data collection tools were applied to all participants as pretest and posttest. (a) Demographic information: This includes participants gender, age, attendance to a computer course, and computer ownership. (b) CSES: In order to assess the participants computer self-efficacy level, the CSES developed by Akar and Umay (2001) was used. This scale consists of 18 items and is scored in five-point Likert format (ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was =0.71. It was determined in such a way that most of the items in the scale had high discrimination degrees (Akar & Umay, 2001). In this study, reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be =0.88. CSES was conducted to the participants as pretest and posttest. Total scores of this scale ranged from 18 to 90, with high scores indicated a high degree of confidence in ones ability to use computers. (c) CAS: In order to assess the participants attitudes toward computers, the CAS developed by erefhanolu (2007) was used. This scale consists of 21 items and is scored in five-point Likert format (ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Total scores of this scale ranged from 21 to 105, with high scores indicating a positive attitude towards computer. Reliability coefficient of the scale is =0.87. The scale consists of four sub-scales and the variance explained by four subscales is 42.6%. In this study, reliability coefficient of the scale was determined as =0.83. CAS was applied to the participants as pretest and posttest. The positive items in CSES and CAS scales were scored as 5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3= undecided, 2=disagree and 1=strongly disagree; for negative items were reversed as 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=undecided, 4=disagree and 5=strongly disagree. (d) CAT: To measure the changes of computer course over the participants, this test was prepared by the researcher. It is a multiple-choice test consisting of 40 questions. The content validity of this test was provided by the experts review. In the test, each correct answer was scored with 2.5 points. In this case, the highest score of the test was 100 points and the lowest score was 0 point. The data about CAT were

encoded by giving 1 point for each correct answer and 0 point for the each wrong answer of the participants. Reliability coefficient of the test was calculated as =0.78. This test was applied to the participants as pretest and posttest. The reliability of a scale depending on alpha coefficient is interpreted as follows. If 0.00 <0.40, the scale is not reliable; if 0.40 <0.60, reliability of the scale is low; if 0.60 <0.80, the scale is very reliable; if 0.80 <1.00, the scale is highly reliable (Kalayc, 2005, p. 405). According to these results, we can say that the data collection tools used in this study are highly reliable.

3.4.

Application

The predicted computer course in "Information and Youth are Integrating" project of SSP, the application form that was prepared by the researcher to choose 60 young people out of 90 people, the criteria were; (a) being 18-25 years old, (b) being a high school graduate (c) not owning a computer (d) not having taken a computer course before, and (e) familys monthly income being below 700 Turkish Liras. To determine the study group of the research, 60 young who were picked to take the computer course in the scope of the project were divided into two groups of 30 young people. The first group has taken the course between 6th February 2010-11th April 2010, the second group has taken the course between 17th April 2010-20th June 2010. The research was carried out through the period of start dates of groups courses. The groups were in the computer laboratory at the beginning of the research period. During that time, the research instruments for the data collection were applied to these two groups before the course as pretest. Then, by random assignment two groups were created from these groups; one as an experimental group and the other one as the control group. For this purpose, 30 for experimental group and 30 for control group, there were a total of 60 high school graduate unemployed young people in the study group of the research. The experimental group took computer course but no applications were applied to the control group. At the end of the course, the research instruments for the data collection were applied to these two groups after the course as posttest. This way, the determined research period completed and then course of the control group begins. 3.5. Data analyses At the end of the research process, the research data is analyzed by using computer program which is called Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS 15.0). The independent samples t-test is used in the comparison of independent groups and paired samples t-test was used with dependent groups in the analysis of the data. The significant level is taken 0.05.

4. RESULTS
In this section of the research, the collected data from statistical analysis of some socio-demographic information, computer self-efficacy, computer attitude and computer achievement scores of young people in the experimental and control groups are discussed. The socio-demographic information of the experimental and control groups Table 2 provides detailed information about some socio-demographic information such as gender, age, attendance to a computer course, and computer ownership of the experimental and control groups.
<INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE>

Table 2 illustrates that 12 (40.0%) of the participants were female, 18 (60.0%) of the participants were male in experimental group; 8 (26.7%) of the participants were female, 22 (73.3%) of the participants were male in control group. Participants' ages in experimental group ranged from 18 to 25 years old. The mean age of participants was 21.3 (standard deviation=2.033) years. Participants' ages in control group ranged from 18 to 24 years old. The mean age of participants was 20.16 (standard deviation=2.085) years.

29 participants (96.7%) in experimental group and 26 participants (86.7%) in control group did not attend any computer course before. While only 11 (36.7%) participants reported that they had a computer at home, the other remaining 19 (63.3%) did not have a computer in experimental group, on the other hand only 16 (53.3%) participants reported that they had a computer at home, the other remaining 14 (46.7%) did not have a computer in control group. Findings on pretest mean scores of the experimental and control groups To determine any significant difference between pretest scores of the experimental and control groups, independent samples t-test is used. The findings are given in Table 3.
<INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE>

The results presented in Table 3 indicate that, there is not a significant difference between the CSES and CAT pretest mean scores of experimental and control groups, but there is a significant difference between CAS pretest mean scores (p<0.05). Findings on posttest mean scores of the experimental and control groups To determine any significant difference between posttest scores of the experimental and control groups, independent samples t-test is used. The findings are given in Table 4.
<INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE>

The results presented in Table 4 indicate that, there is not a significant difference between the CSES mean scores of the experimental and control groups but there is a significant difference between CAS and CAT posttest mean scores (p<0.05). Findings on pretest-posttest mean scores of the experimental group To determine any significant difference between pretest-posttest scores of the experimental group, paired sample t-test is used. The findings are given in Table 5.
<INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE>

According to Table 5, when the pretest-posttest mean scores of the experimental group are compared, it is determined that CSES, CAS and CAT posttest mean scores are higher than pretest mean scores and the difference between the groups is statistically meaningful (p<0.05). Findings on pretest-posttest mean scores of the control group To determine any significant difference between pretest-posttest scores of the control group, paired sample t-test is used. The findings are given in Table 6.
<INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE>

Table 6 determines that there is not any significant difference between CSES and CAT pretest-posttest mean of scores but there is a significant difference between CAS pretest-posttest mean of scores (p<0.05).
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A generation unable to catch up with technology will surely face difficulties in adapting to a fast developing world. Young people will surely use their competence in computer usage even after their education period has ended. We have to train them in such a way that will enable them to be competent

enough to live in a world of technological knowledge and improvement. For that reason, computer usage is one of the most fundamental issues in educational system of our country. Computer self-efficacy plays a significant role in computer training and is a strong predictor of peoples attitudes towards computers. In this context, it is important to determine computer self-efficacy and computer attitudes which are thought to be effective on youths knowledge and competency about computers. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of the computer course over young participants computer self-efficacy, computer attitudes and computer achievement. The study had been conducted on every person in the groups. This means that all 60 volunteers have contributed to the study. Computer experience is a factor that improves computer self-efficacy and computer attitude. In the literature, Pamuk and Peker (2009), and Fagan, Neill and Wooldridge (2003) have stated that computer experience is positively correlated with computer self-efficacy and computer attitude. In addition, some research stated that computer self-efficacy and attitudes towards computers are strongly correlated (Roussos, 2007; Bush, 1995). Another important construct determined for using computer is attitude towards computers. It is an important variable for researches in the field of education and it has a major impact on students success in learning computer-related items, learning/teaching a variety of courses through computer. It has been claimed that successful completion of a computer course is advantageous for the ongoing computer approach and practice (Colley et al., 1994; Comber et al., 1997: quoted in Mcilroy, Sadler, & Boojawon, 2007). However, involvement in a computer course does not necessarily produce beneficial effects as not all engaged in such a course emerge with increased confidence (Collis, 1985: quotation in Mcilroy, Sadler, & Boojawon, 2007). After a computer course for developing computer self-efficacy and attitudes are expected in parallel increasing computer achievement level. In the computer course that has been organized within the scope of this study, we hoped to teach the youth the basic concepts of computers to have them acquire computer skills and thus improve their level of success. At the end of ten-week computer course which has been given to young people, the significant difference between the pretest-posttest mean scores the experimental group has obtained from the computer achievement test shows that computer course has been productive. In this research, the statistically significant difference between CSES and CAS pretest-posttest mean scores of the young people in the experimental group showed that the computer course affected young peoples computer selfefficacy and computer attitudes positively. Therefore, especially educational and health institutions and non-governmental organizations should use all the means to create, develop and provide continuity on the educational systems for computer use for young people, which is one of the indispensable basic elements of modernization. This is parallel to the findings of the researches in the literature about this subject (Hasan, 2003; Kseolu, Ylmaz, Gerek, & Soran, 2007; Shue, 2003; Torkzadeh & Koufteros, 1994; Torkzadeh, Pflughoeft, & Hall, 1999; Zhang & Espinoza, 1998). In this research, there was not a significant difference between the CSES and CAT pretest mean scores of the experimental and control groups, but there was a significant difference between CAS pretest mean scores. Before the experimental process, the closeness of young peoples computer achievement scores is desirable. Thus, similar groups were created in terms of computer achievement. After the application while comparing the posttest mean scores of the experimental and control groups, it has been seen that there is not a significant difference between CSES posttest mean scores, but there is a significant difference between CAS and CAT posttest mean scores. This result shows that rather than young people who havent taken any computer course, young people who have taken computer courses increase their computer achievement scores and their computer attitudes have positive changes. In this research, while comparing pretest-posttest mean scores of the experimental group, it has been found that CSES, CAS and CAT posttest mean scores are higher than pretest mean scores and the difference between the groups are significant. This data shows that after the computer course, experimental groups computer achievement scores has increased, computer selfefficacy and computer attitudes have changed positively. While comparing the pretest-posttest mean scores of the control group, it has been found that there is not a significant difference between CSES and CAT pretest-posttest, there is a significant difference between CAS pretest-posttest mean scores. REFERENCES Akar, P. & Umay, A. (2001). lkretim Matematik retmenlii rencilerinin Bilgisayarla lgili zYeterlik Algs. Hacettepe niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 21:1-8

Akar, P. & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for java programming among engineering students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 8, Issue 1, Article 3. Bandura, A.(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol.4, pp.71-81). New York: Academic Press. Retrieved April 1, 2011, from [Link] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Beas, M.I. & Salanova, M. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs, computer training and psychological well-being among information and communication technology workers. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 10431058 Bordens, K.S. & Horowitz, I.A. (2002). Social Psychology, Second Edition. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated. Bove, C., Voogt, J., & Meelissen, M. (2007). Computer attitudes of primary and secondary students in South Africa. Journal Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 23 Issue 4. Brown, J. H. (2008). Developing and Using a Computer Self-Efficacy Scale for Adults. 24 The Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, Retrieved May 10, 2011, from [Link] Bush, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 12, 147-158. Compeau, D. R. & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189211. Compeau, D., Higgins, C.A. & Huff, S. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, 145-158. Deng, X., Doll, W.J. & Truong, D. (2004). Computer self-efficacy in an ongoing use context. Behavior & Information Technology, 23: 6, 395 -412. Deniz, L. (1994). Bilgisayar Tutum leinin Geerlik, Gvenirlik ve Norm almas ve rnek Bir Uygulama. Yaynlanmam Doktora Tezi, Marmara niversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Enstits. Downey, J. (2006). Measuring General Computer Self-efficacy: The Surprising Comparison of Three Instruments in Predicting Performance, Attitudes, and Usage. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Fagan, M.H., Neill, S. & Wooldridge, B.R. (2003). An empirical investigation into the relationship between computer self-efficacy, anxiety, experience, support and usage. Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 44 Issue 2, 95-104. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Hasan, B. (2003). The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 19. 443450. Hsu, W.K.K., & Huang, S.H.S. (2006). Determinants of Computer Self-Efficacy-An Examination of Learning Motivations and Learning Environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 35(3) 245-265. Igbaria, M. & Livari, J. (1995). The Effects of Self-efficacy on Computer Usage. Omega, Int. J. Mgmt Sci. Vol. 23, No. 6, 587-605. Kalayc, . (Ed.). (2005). SPSS Uygulamal ok Deikenli statistik Teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayn Datm Ltd. ti. Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel Aratrma Yntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayn Datm. Karsten, R. & Roth, M. R.(1998). The relationship of computer experience and computer self-efficacy to performance n ntroductory computer literacy courses. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31 (1), 14-24. Khorrami-Arani, O. (2001). Researching computer self-efficacy. lnternational Education Journal, 2(4), 17-25. Kinzie, M.B. & Delcourt, M.A.B. (1991) Computer Technologies in Teacher Education: The Measurement of Attitudes and Self-efficacy. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, (Chicago, IL, April 3-7). Retrieved May 11, 2009, from [Link] Kinzie, M.B., Delcourt, M.A.B. & Powers, S.M. (1994). Computer Technologies: Attitudes and SelfEfficacy Across Undergraduate Disciplines. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 6. Kseolu, P., Ylmaz, M., Gerek, C., & Soran, H. (2007). Bilgisayar Kursunun Bilgisayara Ynelik Baar, Tutum ve z-Yeterlik nanlar zerine Etkisi. Hacettepe niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 33. 203-209. Lee, S.W. (2005). Encyclopedia of school psychology. United States of America: Sage Publications. Mcilroy, D., Sadler, C. & Boojawon, N. (2007). Computer phobia and computer self-efficacy: their association with undergraduates use of university computer facilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 12851299. Meelissen, M. (2008). Computer Attitudes and Competencies among Primary and Secondary School Students. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.) International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, New York: Springer International Handbooks of Education,Volume 20, 4, 381395. Ortiz de Guinea, A. (2004). The Impact of Prior Experience on Computer Self-Efficacy: A MetaAnalysis. 703-710. Retrieved July 24, 2011, from [Link] zgven, . E. (2007). Psikolojik Testler. Ankara: Nobel Yayn Datm. Pamuk, S. & Peker, D. (2009). Turkish Pre-Service Science and Mathematics Teachers Computer Related Self-Efficacies, Attitudes and the Relationship between these Variables. Computers & Education, 53, 454-461. Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H. & Papagianni, A. (2008). Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computers & Education, 50, 10841091. Potosky, D. (2002). A field study of computer self-efficacy beliefs as an outcome of training: the role of computer playfulness, computer knowledge, and performance during training. Computers in Human behavior, 18(3), 241255. Robinson, D. L. (2008). Relationship of student self-directedness, computer self-efficacy, and student satisfaction to persistence in online higher education programs. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Louisville. Roussos, P. (2007). The Greek computer attitudes scale: construction and assessment of psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 578590. Sam, H. K., Othman, A. E. A. & Nordin, Z. S. (2005). Computer Self-Efficacy, Computer Anxiety, and Attitudes toward the Internet: A Study among Undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology & Society,8(4), 205-219. erefhanolu, H. (2007). lkretim kinci Kademe rencilerinin Bilgisayara Ynelik Tutumlar ile oklu Zeka Alanlarnn Karlatrlmas. Yaynlanmam Yksek Lisans Tezi. Balkesir niversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstits. Shiue, Y. M. (2003). The Effects of Cognitive Learning Style and Prior Computer Experience on Taiwanese College Students Computer Self-Efficacy In Computer Literacy Courses. Journal Educatonal Technology Systems, Vol. 31(4) 393-409. Topkaya, Z. E. (2010). Pre-Servce Englsh Language Teachers Perceptons of Computer Self-Effcacy and General Self-Effcacy. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 9, Issue 1. Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J.C. & Demirhan, D.(2006). A contingency model of computer and Internet selfefficacy. Information & Management, 43, 541550. Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X. & Pflughoeft, K.(2003). Confirmatory Analysis of Computer Self-Efficacy. Structural Equaton Modelng, 10(2), 263275. Torkzadeh, R., Pflughoeft, K. & Hall, L. (1999). Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: an empirical study. Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 18, No. 4, 299-309. Torkzadeh, G. & Koufteros, X. (1994). Factor validity of a computer self-efficacy scale and the impact of computer training. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (3), 813-821. Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test, Decision Sciences, 27, 1996, 451481.

10

Vekiri, I. & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51, 1392 1404. Ylmaz, M., Gerek, C., Kseolu, P. & Soran, H. (2006). Hacettepe nivesitesi biyoloji retmen adaylarnn bilgisayarla ilgili z-yeterlik inanlarnn incelenmesi. Hacettepe niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 30. 278-287. Zhang, Y. & Espinoza, S. (1998). Relationships among computer self-efficacy, attitudes toward computers, and desirability of learning computing skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 30 (4), 420-436.

11