The views and attitudes of students participating in a one-to-one laptop initiative in Greece

Dimitris Spanos & Alivisos Sofos
Published online: 12 December 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Students having participated in a one-to-one laptop initiative, indicate they
have higher motivation, greater interest at school (Bebell and Kay 2010) and feel more
organised (McKeeman 2008). This research focuses on the views and attitudes of the
students who participated in the first such initiative in Greece. The differences in the
views of boys and girls are also examined. The students completed a questionnaire with
15 Likert style statements and two open questions twice: at the beginning and at the end
of the school year 2010–2011. From the students’ responses, it can be concluded that
students like having the laptop at school: they go there with greater pleasure, they
consider the classes more enjoyable but they are bothered with the technical problems.
For gender differences, boys are more adaptable, whereas girls appreciate more the
learning possibilities of the laptop.
Keywords Media in education . Gender studies . Student attitudes . Student views .
One-to-one laptop initiative
1 Introduction
One-to-one laptop initiatives exist for more than 20 years, they are being developed and
expanded worldwide (Cuban 2006) and have been researched since the early years they
appeared. This laptop initiative is a learning environment in which all teachers and
students have access to laptops in school and at home (Pitler et al. 2004). Continuous
access to computers, enables students the use of a wide range of knowledge resources
to support their learning, communicate with classmates and teachers and become very
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
DOI 10.1007/s10639-013-9299-z
D. Spanos : A. Sofos
Primary Education Department, University of the Aegean, Dimoraktias 1, 85100 Rhodes, Greece
A. Sofos
e-mail: lsofos@rhodes.aegean.gr
D. Spanos (*)
Lefkosias 15, 85100 Rhodes, Greece
e-mail: dimitris.spanos@gmail.com
good users of the technological tools of the 21st century. It also provides them with
authentic tools, connected with the job market of the digital era, provides access to
more learning sources and teachers with the opportunity to experiment with new
models of teaching practices, the opportunity for students to develop work related to
the real world and overcome inequalities to the access of technology (Metiri Group
2002). The existence of internet connection at school is necessary, it is also desirable in
the homes of students (Abell 2008). Students do not need to access the technology from
the school lab (Gravelle 2003). Essentially there are two innovations. The first is the
availability of laptops and the second is the availability of the internet and hence, the
variety of resources that can be used (Drayton et al. 2010) .
In Greece, at school level, the first step was taken by a private school in Athens: the
implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative began in 2009 and still continues to
date. The current study took place at this school. During the school year 2009–2010,
the program was implemented in the fourth grade of the Elementary school and the first
grade of Junior High school. The following year, which was the year that this study was
conducted (2010–2011), the program was extended to all grades from the fourth
Elementary to the second Junior High.
2 Literature review
Students participating in one-to-one laptop initiatives, state they like the laptop
(Lowther et al. 2008), they consider it important (Lei and Zhao 2008; Mouza 2008)
and they are excited with the opportunities the laptop provides, such as accessing the
internet (Ross et al. 2001). Because of the laptop, students also say they want to learn
more (Mims et al. 2008), they are more motivated in school in general (Rosen and
Beck-Hill 2012) and they acquire skills that will serve them in their personal and
professional lives (Rockman et al. 2000; Lowther et al. 2008; Keengwe et al. 2012).
Their ability to find a job in the future is now improved (Mims et al. 2008). Regarding
learning, they think that it has become more fun and more interesting (Zucker and Hug
2008; Grimes and Warschauer 2008; Mann 2008; Shahaf-Barzilay and Weiss 2013)
and the laptops helped them to perform better on tests (Mims et al. 2008). In conclusion,
students prefer laptops over traditional teaching (Kitchens, 2007). The students
report stronger relationships with their teachers (Light et al. 2002) and are more
interactive (Niles 2006) and communicative with them (Mouza 2008). They cooperate
better with their peers (Mann 2008) and communicate easily with them (Mouza 2008).
Students recognize that their skills in using computers are improving (Jeroski 2003;
Lowther et al. 2003; Trimmel & Bachmann 2004; Mitchell Institute 2004; Lei and
Zhao 2008; Mims et al. 2008). They feel more organized (Davis et al. 2005;
Warschauer and Grimes 2005; McKeeman 2008) and more responsible (Mann 2008).
They believe that conducting a research is easier (Davis et al. 2005), and that because of
the laptop their skills in this field are becoming more advanced (Mims et al. 2008).
Regarding school work, students state it is more pleasant (Lowther et al. 2003) and
easier (Ross et al. 2001; Mims et al. 2008; Keengwe et al. 2012). They are more pleased
with the work they deliver (Fisher and Stolarchuk 1998), which looks more professional
and of better quality (Rockman et al. 2000; Ross et al. 2001; Lowther et al. 2003;
Keengwe et al. 2012).
520 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
As for gender differences, findings from relevant studies generally conclude that
boys have a more positive attitude toward technology than girls, as stated by Volk and
Ming (1999). More recent studies agree with this claim, for example, Vekiri and
Chronaki (2008) found that boys have a more positive self-efficacy and value beliefs
about computers and it appeared that computers were less important in girls’ everyday
activities. According to Penuel et al. (2002), in general, girls’ attitudes toward computers
lag behind those of boys, they are less positive and more resistant to change,
even when given much broader exposure to technology through participation in a
laptop program (Penuel et al. 2002). Other studies however, found that students’
attitudes towards technology do not differ in terms of gender (Sarfo et al. 2011).
3 Material and methods
3.1 Research question
This study has the following research question: What are the students’ views and
attitudes regarding the one-to-one laptop initiative program they participate in? In
addition, it was examined if there are differences between the responses of boys and
girls. As part of the study, students’ views, attitudes and opinions about the program are
examined, as well as the the things they like and dislike about laptops in education. To
answer the research question, a pre/post comparative design was used. The students
completed a questionnaire twice: At the beginning of the school year (pre, October
2010) and at the end of the school year (post, May 2011).
3.2 Data collection instruments
The questionnaire was designed based on the one used by Schaumburg (2003) in her
PhD thesis and consists of three parts. The first part contains 15 statements. Likert-type
scales are used for the student responses for each statement, which are among the most
widely used scales for measuring attitudes (Sarfo et al. 2011). Next to each statement,
there are two opposite expressions. For instance, the first statement “I use the laptop” is
followed by the expressions “not pleasantly” and “pleasantly”. The students select a
number from 1 to 5, with 1 being equivalent to “not pleasantly” and 5 to “pleasantly”.
The second part contains two open-ended questions where students indicate (1) what
they like and (2) what they do not like about the laptop. The questionnaire is completed
with basic information on students. Their gender, their class and the code name
(consisting of the first letter of their first name, the first letter of their surname and
the date they were born). The code name was used to match the questionnaires of the
first and second phase, so statistical tests could be performed. Before using the
questionnaire, it was tested in order to check its quality and structure. Test was
performed in two phases: In May 2010 it was distributed to three different schools.
At the presence of the researcher, the students completed the questionnaire and made
comments on the statements which they wanted clarification. After each visit and
before going to the next school, the questionnaire was altered the on the basis of the
comments of the students. In September 2010, the second trial phase took place at the
same elementary schools for further reform, if needed. In addition, to fully reveal the
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 521
views and attitudes of the students, interviews were conducted. In total, 28 randomly
selected students were interviewed. The interviews were used in conjunction with the
questionnaire for triangulation purposes.
3.3 Pilot study
Before administering the questionnaire to all of the target population in the school, a
pilot study had been done. The pilot study was performed in two phases: In May 2010,
the questionnaire was distributed in three elementary schools, classes 5 and 6 with 20 to
22 students in each class. At the presence of the researcher, the students completed the
questionnaire and made comments on the questions they felt they needed clarification
or different wording. After each visit and before going to the next school, the questionnaire
was altered on the basis of children’s observations. In September 2010, the
second trial phase took place on the same elementary schools for further reform, where
needed.
3.4 Research site
The study was conducted at a private school that started a concerted effort supported
morally and financially by the administration and management. The 2009–2010 school
year, all students in the fourth elementary and and first junior high school participated
in the one-to-one laptop program. The next school year, which was the year this
research was conducted, the program was extended to all students enrolled from fourth
elementary grade through second junior high school grade. The laptop was equipped
with a management software system that was developed by the school, which contained
easy and instant access to books, publications, booklets, digital notebooks, educational
software and various tools such as dictionaries, backup features and painting software.
In the school, all the classes have interactive whiteboards and sound systems with
external speakers. There is also a wireless network that meets the needs of internet
access during instruction. All teachers participated in seminar cycles (e.g. Bebell &
Kay, 2009; Corn 2009) designed and implemented by the school on the use of the
laptop and the interactive whiteboard. Additionally, as suggested by the literature (e.g.
Zucker and Hug 2008), there is a technical department to serve the needs of each type
of problem in student laptops, so that teachers do have to bear that additional burden.
Computers were the property of the students.
3.5 Study sample
The sample consisted of all students that participated in the laptop initiative, where all
students and teachers had their own personal laptop as part of their school daily routine,
during the school year 2010–2011. They were all the students who attended the classes
from the fourth grade Elementary to the second grade Junior High in the school this
study took place. In total, 610 participated. Overall, 448 questionnaires were collected
in the first phase of the research and 441 questionnaires in the second phase. Due to the
fact that the sample of students must be the same for both phases in order to perform
statistical tests, the questionnaires of the two phases were matched. The basis for this
was the code name of the students. After this process, 410 questionnaires remained for
522 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
each phase (a total of 820), which consisted the final sample: 280 for the elementary
school (107 for class 4, 85 for class 5 and 88 for class 6) and 130 for the junior high
school (54 for class 1 and 76 for class 2).
3.6 Data analysis
To code the data from the Likert scale items, for each statement, a number from 1 to 5
was stored, depending on the student’s answer. Thus, the mean and the standard
deviation could be calculated. Also, the nonparametric Wilcoxon statistical test was
performed, to identify statistical differences between the mean of the first phase and the
mean of the second phase (two ordinal variables) and the nonparametric Mann–
Whitney statistical test to identify statistical differences between the mean of the boys
and the mean of the girls (a nominal and an ordinal variable and this test was performed
twice: once for each phase). For the two open-ended questions, students wrote down
what they liked and did not like about the laptop. Only the responses of the children
that responded in the open-ended questions in both phases were analysed. To analyse
the data, students’ responses were grouped, then categories were created based on the
groups and the final variables that resulted from these categories are presented in the
results. To code the data, each category was a separate variable in which the student had
answered with a yes (in which case “1” was stored) or a no (“0” was stored). So, the
results could be expressed as percentages. The nonparametric chi-squared test was
performed to determine if the difference in the percentages of the first and second phase
is statistically significant (comparison of two nominal variables). The chi-squared was
performed again to determine whether the difference between the percentages of boys
and girls for each of the two phases is statistically significant (comparison of two
nominal variables, the test was also applied once for the first phase and once for the
second). All statistical tests were performed separately for the Elementary and for the
Junior High. Statistical test results are not shown, however, there is a reference in the
result Tables 1, 2 and 3 where the differences are statistically significant (p<0.05). To
analyse the interviews, the interview transcripts were reviewed in order to identify
themes that further enlighten the aspects of the research questions.
4 Results
4.1 Likert scale statements
According to the students’ responses, they like to work on projects on the laptop very
much, they cooperate with their classmates much easier and they think that the laptop
is very important for their lives. They seem to go to school and use the laptop
pleasantly and they are happy to work with the laptop. Also, the means for these
statements increase from phase one to phase two. Students also believe that since the
laptop, courses and studying for school are congenial, they seem to prefer to use the
laptop for school projects and agree with the fact that they can decide how they want to
learn. The means for these statements also increase. As expected, in the statement that
asks if girls can use the computer as well as boys, there is a big difference in the means
of boys and girls. The girls’ means are considerably higher and the differences are
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 523
Table 1 Means (Mn) and standard deviations (SD) for the Likert scale statements
Phase one Phase two
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD
I use the laptop (1: not pleasantly … 5: pleasantly)
Elementary 4.29 1.01 4.25 0.88 4.26 0.94 4.34 1.03 4.23 0.92 4.28 0.97
Junior High 3.76 1.06 3.55 1.03 3.65 1.05 3.82 1.28 3.90 1.08 3.86 1.19
Because I work with the laptop, I go to school (1: not pleasantly … 5: pleasantly)
Elementary 4.39 0.91 4.17 0.94 4.27 0.93 4.35 0.90 4.21 0.95 4.28 0.93
Junior High 3.74 1.31 3.50 1.15 3.62 1.24 3.69 1.34 3.78 1.09 3.73 1.23
Reading from the laptop screen (1: does not please me … 5: pleases me)
Elementarya 3.83 1.22 3.35 1.22 3.56 1.25 3.76 1.19 3.55 1.14 3.65 1.17
Junior Highb 2.61 1.40 2.33 1.26 2.47 1.34 2.82 1.53 2.81 1.22 2.82 1.39
Working with the laptop this school year makes me (1: not happy… 5: happy)
Elementary 4.16 1.18 4.05 1.03 4.10 1.10 4.17 0.99 4.07 1.04 4.11 1.02
Junior high 3.79 1.20 3.47 1.10 3.63 1.16 3.72 1.36 3.65 1.03 3.68 1.21
Since I have the laptop, I find that the courses are (1: less pleasant … 5: more pleasant)
Elementary 4.03 1.11 3.84 1.06 3.93 1.08 3.98 1.12 3.92 1.06 3.95 1.09
Junior high 3.83 1.29 3.42 1.17 3.63 1.25 3.67 1.36 3.73 1.09 3.70 1.24
Since I have the laptop, studying for school is (1: less pleasant … 5: more pleasant)
Elementary 3.88 1.26 3.78 1.11 3.83 1.18 3.98 1.00 3.77 1.11 3.87 1.06
Junior high 3.24 1.26 2.98 1.12 3.12 1.20 3.30 1.33 3.24 0.89 3.27 1.14
…working on projects on the laptop (1: I don’t like … 5: I like)
Elementary 4.06 1.18 4.27 0.98 4.18 1.08 4.25 1.07 4.22 0.98 4.23 1.02
Junior High 4.03 1.07 3.95 1.12 3.99 1.10 4.00 1.25 4.10 0.87 4.05 1.08
For my life, knowing how to use the computer is (1: unimportant … 5: important)
Elementary 4.09 1.08 4.14 1.07 4.12 1.07 4.21 1.04 4.19 1.10 4.22 1.07
Junior higha,b 3.77 1.38 4.22 1.07 3.99 1.26 4.10 1.21 4.35 0.88 4.22 1.07
Girls can use the computer as well as boys (1: disagree … 5: agree)
Elementaryb,c 2.71 1.58 4.48 1.11 3.69 1.60 3.14 1.68 4.65 0.93 3.94 1.54
Junior highb,c 2.97 1.55 4.42 1.01 3.68 1.50 3.10 1.57 4.25 0.99 3.66 1.44
With the laptop, I can decide how I want to learn (1: disagree … 5: agree)
Elementaryc 3.81 1.26 3.68 1.06 3.74 1.16 3.92 1.19 3.64 1.17 3.77 1.19
Junior high 3.09 1.23 3.28 1.10 3.18 1.17 3.27 1.30 3.46 1.07 3.36 1.20
For school projects, I prefer to use my laptop (1: disagree … 5: agree)
Elementary 3.99 1.27 3.77 1.24 3.87 1.26 4.07 1.16 3.82 1.27 3.94 1.23
Junior High 3.58 1.48 3.61 1.40 3.59 1.44 3.63 1.41 3.78 1.31 3.70 1.37
The use of the laptop has made me want to get higher grades (1: disagree … 5: agree)
Elementarya, b, c 3.76 1.23 3.51 1.19 3.62 1.21 3.62 1.28 3.26 1.32 3.43 1.31
Junior highc 3.05 1.24 2.50 1.36 2.78 1.33 2.88 1.37 2.57 1.33 2.73 1.36
Since I have the laptop, I study for school (1: less … 5: more)
Elementarya 4.00 1.15 3.92 1.05 3.95 1.10 3.85 1.08 3.71 1.08 3.78 1.08
524 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
statistically significant in all cases. Students seem to have a problem reading from the
laptop screen and they feel that the laptop helps them be more organised. For the
statements that asks if since the laptop students study more or if the laptop has made
them want to get higher grades, the means are under 4 and they decrease from phase
one to phase two. All results of the two phases may be seen in Table 1.
4.2 Open-ended questions
4.2.1 What students like about the laptop
This question was left blank by 18.21 % of students of the Primary and by 29.23 % of
students of Junior High. The percentages in Table 2 were calculated from the sample
size and not from the number of students that did answer this question. One out of four
Primary students say they like that with the laptop they can play games. Less Junior
High students report they like games but their percentage increases at the second pahse.
Nearly one out of ten Primary students believe that the courses become more
interesting and enjoyable. The percentages are higher in Junior High (one out of
four students) but decrease. Elementary students appreciate the fact that because
of the laptop, they do not carry books to and from school, a smaller percentage
of Junior High students also mention this. Approximately one out of ten students
report they like the educational games and the software of the laptop, the digital
books and the digital presentations they create. The ability to access the internet
in the school class is indicated by less than one out of ten students in the first
phase but this percentage almost doubles in the second phase. Under 10 % of the
students say they like writing using the stylus and the keyboard. Fewer students
report they like that because the laptop, they experience new things, the small
size and weight of the laptop, the touch screen, the fact that they are more
organised and they read easily from the laptop.
Table 1 (continued)
Phase one Phase two
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD Mn SD
Junior High 3.32 1.17 3.34 1.09 3.33 1.13 3.36 1.22 3.21 1.09 3.28 1.16
The laptop helps me be more organised (1: disagree … 5: agree)
Elementary 4.03 1.15 3.95 1.04 3.99 1.09 3.98 1.06 3.93 1.00 3.95 1.03
Junior high 3.55 1.38 3.34 1.21 3.45 1.31 3.55 1.41 3.35 1.13 3.45 1.28
Now that I have the laptop, working with my classmates is (1: more difficult … 5: easier)
Elementary 3.91 1.23 3.96 0.98 3.94 1.10 4.12 1.15 4.05 1.08 4.08 1.11
Junior high 3.83 1.35 4.09 0.98 3.96 1.19 3.87 1.31 4.03 0.89 3.95 1.13
a Indicates a statistical difference between the total mean of phase one and the total mean of phase two
b Indicates a statistical difference between boys’ mean and girls’ mean (phase one)
c Indicates a statistical difference between boys’ mean and girls’ mean (phase two)
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 525
Table 2 Percentages of students that reported what they like about the laptop
Phase one Phase two
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
I can play games
Elementary 23.02 % 25.32 % 24.29 % 25.00 % 24.32 % 24.64 %
Junior high 12.12 % 14.06 % 13.08 % 13.43 % 22.22 % 17.69 %
Courses are more interesting and/or more pleasing
Elementary 10.32 % 9.74 % 10.00 % 8.33 % 9.46 % 8.93 %
Junior higha 27.27 % 25.00 % 26.15 % 10.45 % 20.63 % 15.38 %
I carry less books and my bag is lighter
Elementary 15.08 % 14.94 % 15.00 % 10.61 % 12.84 % 11.79 %
Junior high 6.06 % 7.81 % 6.92 % 2.99 % 6.35 % 4.62 %
The use of educational games/software during the classes
Elementaryb 5.56 % 12.99 % 9.64 % 6.82 % 12.84 % 10.00 %
Junior high 7.58 % 14.06 % 10.77 % 2.99 % 17.46 % 10.00 %
Internet
Elementarya 5.56 % 7.79 % 6.79 % 15.15 % 12.84 % 13.93 %
Junior higha 6.06 % 7.81 % 6.92 % 14.93 % 14.29 % 14.62 %
Making digital presentations
Elementary 7.14 % 12.99 % 10.36 % 10.61 % 11.49 % 11.07 %
Junior high 3.03 % 7.81 % 5.38 % 2.99 % 9.52 % 6.15 %
Digital books
Elementarya 7.94 % 14.94 % 11.79 % 5.30 % 8.11 % 6.79 %
Junior highc 4.55 % 12.50 % 8.46 % 4.48 % 15.87 % 10.00 %
I write easier using the stylus or the keyboard
Elementary 10.32 % 7.14 % 8.57 % 5.30 % 8.11 % 6.79 %
Junior high 1.52 % 1.56 % 1.54 % 1.49 % 1.59 % 1.54 %
The laptop projects, either working alone or with my classmates
Elementaryc 5.56 % 5.84 % 5.71 % 2.27 % 8.78 % 5.71 %
Junior highc 9.09 % 12.50 % 10.77 % 4.48 % 15.87 % 10.00 %
I experience new things
Elementaryb 3.17 % 9.74 % 6.79 % 2.27 % 6.08 % 4.29 %
Junior high 3.03 % 7.81 % 5.38 % 0.00 % 4.76 % 2.31 %
The laptop is light/small
elementarya 5.56 % 6.49 % 6.07 % 1.52 % 2.70 % 2.14 %
Junior high 4.55 % 3.13 % 3.85 % 5.97 % 1.59 % 3.85 %
I am more organised
Elementaryc 2.38 % 5.19 % 3.93 % 0.00 % 3.38 % 1.79 %
Junior high 7.58 % 7.81 % 7.69 % 2.99 % 4.76 % 3.85 %
I read easier
Elementary 6.35 % 4.55 % 5.36 % 3.79 % 1.35 % 2.50 %
Junior high 1.52 % 0.00 % 0.77 % 2.99 % 1.59 % 2.31 %
Touch screen
526 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
Table 2 (continued)
Phase one Phase two
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Elementary 3.97 % 3.90 % 3.93 % 2.27 % 2.03 % 2.14 %
Junior highc 3.03 % 1.56 % 2.31 % 5.97 % 0.00 % 3.08 %
a Indicates a statistical difference between the total mean of phase one and the total mean of phase two
b Indicates a statistical difference between boys’ mean and girls’ mean (phase one)
c Indicates a statistical difference between boys’ mean and girls’ mean (phase two)
Table 3 Percentages of students that reported what they do not like about the laptop
Phase one Phase two
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Technical problems
Elementarya 13.49 % 22.08 % 18.21 % 7.58 % 9.46 % 8.57 %
Junior high 9.09 % 18.75 % 13.85 % 11.94 % 15.87 % 13.85 %
Laptop is slow
Elementarya 7.14 % 11.04 % 9.29 % 19.70 % 16.22 % 17.86 %
Junior high 16.67 % 20.31 % 18.46 % 20.90 % 20.63 % 20.77 %
My eyes hurt
Elementaryb 3.97 % 5.19 % 4.64 % 3.79 % 12.16 % 8.21 %
Junior highb 9.09 % 12.50 % 10.77 % 4.48 % 17.46 % 10.77 %
I can not have access to all websites because of the parental control software
Elementary 7.14 % 3.90 % 5.36 % 9.85 % 8.11 % 8.93 %
Junior high 6.06 % 3.13 % 4.62 % 4.48 % 3.17 % 3.85 %
Difficult to write
Elementary 7.94 % 5.19 % 6.43 % 6.06 % 12.16 % 9.29 %
Junior high 0.00 % 3.13 % 1.54 % 0.00 % 3.17 % 1.54 %
Laptop is small
Elementary 2.38 % 1.95 % 2.14 % 0.00 % 0.68 % 0.36 %
Junior high 13.64 % 15.63 % 14.62 % 7.46 % 9.52 % 8.46 %
Difficult to read from
Elementary 3.17 % 3.90 % 3.57 % 1.52 % 4.73 % 3.21 %
Junior highb 3.03 % 6.25 % 4.62 % 2.99 % 14.29 % 8.46 %
I am easily distracted
Elementary 0.00 % 1.95 % 1.07 % 1.52 % 2.03 % 1.79 %
Junior high 4.55 % 6.25 % 5.38 % 1.49 % 3.17 % 2.31 %
a Indicates a statistical difference between the total mean of phase one and the total mean of phase two
b Indicates a statistical difference between boys’ mean and girls’ mean (phase two)
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 527
4.2.2 What students dislike about the laptop
In this question there were also cases where students gave no answer. So, 37.32 % of
the Elementary students and 37.30 % of Junior High students did not answer this
question. Results can be seen in Table 3. At the Elementary, technical problems trouble
about two out of ten of the students at the first phase (the percentage drops considerably
at the second phase) and more than 10 % of the Junior High students. At the first phase,
the slow speed of the laptop is mentioned by one out of ten Elementary students (the
percentage almost doubles at the second phase) and by two out of ten Junior High
students. About 10 % of Junior High students and a smaller percentage of Elementary
students complain that the use of the laptop hurt their eyes. Although the small size of
the laptop is mentioned by a small portion of Elementary students, the percentage is
comparatively much higher at the Junior High. Finally, under 10 % of the students
dislike the parental control software, they report that it is difficult to read from the
screen, it is difficult to write on the laptop and they think that the laptop distracts them.
5 Discussion
5.1 Students’ views and attitudes
5.1.1 Likert scale statements
Although from the responses of the Primary school students it seems that they do not
find it very difficult to read from the screen of the laptop, the Junior High school
students have lower means. But the fact that the mean of the Junior High students
increases significantly, signifies that as the school year progresses, students become
more familiar with reading from a screen. However, this difficulty is a parameter that
must be taken into account when designing a 1:1 program. Students underlined in the
interviews that they need to have physical copies of the books at home, because they
cannot spend their entire day in front of a computer screen. Additionally, the mean of
Junior High students for the statement ‘for my life, knowing how to use the computer is
(“unimportant” … “important”)’ increases significantly. As students familiarise themselves
with the various capabilities of the laptop, their opinion is changing—more and
more students recognize the importance of using the computer for their lives in general.
Furthernore, they stated that “their participation in the laptop program will make a
wonderful addition in their CV in the future”. For Primary students, the mean of the
statement that asks if the girls can handle the computer as well as the boys increases
significantly, although the means of the boys and the girls still have major differences.
The significant increase of the means, indicates that the perception that girls can not
handle the computer equally well with the boys, decreases. Regarding the statement
that asks if the use of the laptop has made students want to get higher grades, the means
of the Junior High students are below 3 while the ones of the Elementary students are
higher and there was a significant decrease from the first to the second phase. The
laptop does not largely affect students regarding their school grades, which can be
counted as a positive outcome of 1:1 programs. Also, in the Elementary school the time
spent by students studying for school significantly declines. Therefore, one of the goals
528 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
set by the school administration before this implementation is achieved: less homework.
Students say they prefer and like to do work on the laptop, something that
teachers should take into account when they assign homework to the students.
Moreover, teachers should take advantage of the fact that children report that because
of the laptop they go to school happier and that the courses are more enjoyable. Most of
the students interviewed added this, too. Teachers should be able to maintain the
growing interest of students for school, courses and projects. This can be achieved
by using the internet more, by using educational software and games and by organizing
more group work (students also believe that because of the laptop, they work more
easily with their peers).
5.1.2 What students like about the laptop
Students reporting they like to play games is expected and unavoidable. The laptop the
children use in school is also their personal computer, so it makes sense that they install
and play games on it. “The school tells us that the laptop is a tool, but we have them
anyway. We like the fact that we can have both our books and our games in it”, they
commented. The laptop also seems to solve the problem of the large weight of the
students’ school bag, as they report, especially in the Elementary school. “The weight
of our bag is an important factor”, they said. It is noted that now with the laptop,
students do not have the excuse that they have forgotten to bring a book or a notebook
at school. “We now have less problems”, a student mentioned. A large proportion of the
students feel that the the courses are more interesting or more pleasing and they like
digital books. For students who are accustomed since kindergarten to being taught
through lecture in traditional blackboards using notebooks, books and pencils, it is only
reasonable that they find the use of new media at school interesting. However, this
change must necessarily be accompanied by a change in teaching in order to maintain
student interest. Already, according to what students report in this research, there is a
statistically significant reduction in the Elementary students who say they like digital
books and the fact that the laptop is light/small and in the Junior High students who say
that the classes are more pleasant with the laptop. This result differs with the first part
of the questionnaire, in which students say they like to read from the screen of the
laptop, they go to school happier because of the laptop and lessons have become more
pleasant. This can be explained because of the question being open. Students report
anything that comes to their mind when completing the questionnaire, as there isn’t a
written statement in which they must agree or disagree. All this assuming that teachers
have already tried to differentiate their teaching. Furthermore, the students say they like
the use of educational games and software. So, teachers should try to incorporate them
into their classes. However, the percentage of the students who say they like the use of
the internet in class increases statistically significantly, which is one of the reasons that
the internet is a necessary addition of a 1:1 program.
5.1.3 What students dislike about the laptop
At the Elementary school, there is a statistically significant reduction of students who
report technical problems as something they do not like. It is possible that as the year
progresses, students become more familiar with their laptop, they face fewer technical
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 529
problems and thus become less annoyed. However, this reference by the students,
which was stated in the interviews as well, reinforces the claim that schools
implementing 1:1 programs must have a technical department. There is a technical
department at the school this research took place, and yet students felt that technical
problems are a difficulty. On the other hand, Junior High school students report in a
much larger percentage that they do not like the speed of the laptop and they think it is
slow. These two issues seem to have no solution. Selecting as fast and as large as
possible laptops is something that needs to be taken into account by schools, even if it
means that they will cost more. Regarding parental control software, the fact that
students dislike that they do not have access to all websites can only be positive.
Therefore, it is advisable for schools to invest in such software, so that they can better
monitor their students. Also, in the interviews some students expressed concerns about
their handwriting. “We have to know how to use the pencil or the pen”, they said. For
this reason, the laptop program should not start too early, for instance no sooner than
the fourth grade. Additionally, from time to time teachers could ask the students to use
their pens and notebooks.
5.2 Differences between the responses of boys and girls
5.2.1 Likert scale statements
In a statement that asks about how pleasantly students go to school because of
the laptop, there is a statistically significant difference in the first phase for the
Elementary students: boys seem to go to school more pleasantly than girls.
These differences are smoothed out in the second phase. Regarding reading
from the laptop screen, the means of the girls are lower. Junior High school
girls also have a significantly higher mean in the statement that asks whether is
important to use the computer. In the second phase the difference is also
smoothed out. The statement where students answer if the use of the laptop
has made them want to get higher grades, although the means are low and
decreasing, boys have significantly higher means than girls. Consequently, boys
are more affected by using the laptop to impove their school performance. Not
surprisingly, in the statement that asks whether girls can handle the computer as
well as boys can, there is a significant difference in the means of boys and
girls, which is noted in both phases.
5.2.2 What students like about the laptop
Significantly more girls than boys report that they like: the educational games and
software of the laptop, the fact that with the laptop they experience new things
(Elementary, first phase) and the digital books (Junior High, second phase).
Whereas, in the second phase of this study, significantly more boys than girls
report that they like: school work with the laptop (Elementary and Junior High),
that they are more organised (Elementary) and the touch screen (Junior High).
These results agree with the first part of the questionnaire, where more boys said
they prefer the use of the laptop for school work (Elementary) and that the laptop
helps them be more organised (Junior High).
530 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
5.2.3 What students dislike about the laptop
In the second phase of the study, statistically significantly more girls report that their
eyes hurt (Elementary and Junior High) and that they find it difficult to read from the
laptop screen (Junior High). Conclusively, for girls making the transition from analogue
to digital book is harder.
5.3 Comparison with other studies
5.3.1 Likert scale statements
Elementary school students of this study are happy to work with the laptop and the
mean of this statement increases from phase one to phase two. The same was reported
by 96.50 % of the students of McNairy County Laptop Program (Mims et al. 2008),
86 % of the students of Wireless Writing Project (Jeroski 2003) and 79.6 % of the
students of Anytime, Anywhere Learning (Ross et al. 2001). At the evaluation of
Freedom to Learn (Lowther et al. 2008), the percentage of students who are happy
with the laptop was 85.9 % for the first year, for the second year the percentage
increased (87.8 %) and the third year it slightly declined (83.7 %). In this study,
students report that they like to work on school projects involving the laptop. 88.5 %
of the students of the Maine Learning Technology Initiative also claimed that school
work is more fun (Gravelle 2003) and in another 2-year study, 74 % of the students said
that school work is more interesting (Grimes and Warschauer 2008). 61.1 % of the
students of the McNairy County Laptop Program, felt that their projects are better when
they use the laptop, 70 % of them said that school work is easier when using it and
62.50 % of them are more motivated to work on it (Mims et al. 2008). 83 % of the
Maine Learning Technology Initiative students agreed that school work is easier
because of the laptop, 79 % said that school work is more interesting and 60 % are
more motivated to work on projects with the laptop (Mitchell Institute 2004). School
work was reported as more interesting because of the laptop by 74 % of the students of
Fullerton School District (Warschauer and Grimes 2005), while Anytime, Anywhere
Learning students thought school work is easier (mean: 4.9) and more fun/interesting
(mean: 4.8) (Rockman et al. 2000). In addition, students in this study prefer to use the
laptop for school work. 81 % of the students of the Maine Learning Technology
Initiative agreed with this statement (Gravelle 2003) while the mean of the same
statement of the students of Anytime, Anywhere Learning was 4.6 (Rockman et al.
2000). In this study, students report using the laptop pleasantly. The students of
Wireless Writing Project agree and the mean of the same statement was 3.60 with 4
being the most positive response (Jeroski 2003). Also, students in this research report
that the laptop makes them more organised. In other studies, the percentage of students
who also reported this is 75 % (Grimes andWarschauer 2008), 91 % (Mabry and Snow
2006) and 75 % (Warschauer and Grimes 2005). Because of the laptop, cooperating
with the classmates on team projects has become easier. In agreement with this finding
of this study are 67 % of the students of McNairy County Laptop Program (Mims et al.
2008). Differentiation was observed in Anytime, Anywhere Learning, where for the
same statement, 54.2 % of the students answered “somewhat” and just 30.4 % replied
“yes” (Ross et al. 2001), in Freedom to Learn, where the positive responses were given
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 531
by just 48.2 %, 49.3 % and 47.4 % of students for the 3 years of the evaluation
respectively (Lowther et al. 2008) and in Henrico County Public School’s Laptop
Computing Initiative where the mean was 2.67 with 4 being the most positive response
(Mann 2008). For the statement ‘the use of the laptop has made me want to get higher
grades’ of this study, the mean of Elementary students is 3.62 and 3.43 (phase one and
two) and the mean of Junior High is 2.78 and 2.73. In agreement with the statement are
61.7 % of the students of McNairy County Laptop Program (Mims et al. 2008), 54 %
of the students of Maine Learning Technology Initiative (Mitchell Institute 2004),
24.2 % of the students of Anytime, Anywhere Learning (Ross et al. 2001) and
41.7 %, 34.7 % and 37.1 % of the students of Freedom to Learn for the 3-year research
respectively (Lowther et al. 2008).
5.3.2 What students like about the laptop
At the program of Crossriver School District, the majority of students (56 %) in the
same open-ended question said that the laptop made school work easier and faster due
to the use of the internet. The next most common response was the games and web
browsing (16 %) (Lowther et al. 2003). The percentage of students that report games in
this study is similar. 34.6 % of the students of Singapore Tablet PC program, think that
having the laptop is convenient and they like the fact that they carry it wherever they
want, 26.1 % of the students like that they work quickly, efficiently and easily, 12 %
report that they learn better and 8.4%like laptop projects and presentations (Bienkowski
et al. 2005). Comparatively, the small size and weight of the laptop which facilitates its
transfer as well as the better learning are referred by the students of this study but at
lower percentages (less than 5 %). There is agreement in the percentages of students that
say they like school work and presentations. The most frequent answer given by the
students of Anytime, Anywhere Learning was that the laptop helped them learn useful
computers related skills. Other responses, common with this study, are that the laptop
helps with school work, it gives students access to information from the internet and
helps students becomemore organised (Ross et al. 2000). In a girls’ school in New York,
the students believed that with the computers they can make better quality projects,
search for information more easily and that laptops helped them stay organised (Abrams
1999). In comparison, students in this study also mention they become organised.
5.3.3 What students dislike about the laptop
Students of the laptop program North Carolina 1–1 Learning Technology in the
corresponding open question, mentioned as major problems the short battery life and
the fact that they had to carry an extra bag for the laptop, because when placed in the
same bag with books, some screens break due to the pressure of books in laptop screen
(Corn 2009). In this research, students do not mention these matters. Regarding the
battery life, all the classes in the school where this study was conducted have several
outlets around the class. In addition, the laptop model used by the students is highly
resistant to pressure and can withstand falls from a certain height without damage, so,
students can carry the laptop in their school bag. In the program of Crossriver School
District, almost half (42 %) of the students responded that the laptop was heavy and
difficult to carry. Less common responses referred to the risk of breaking the laptop,
532 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
that the laptop is slow, its maintenance and learning how to use it (Lowther et al. 2003).
About these statements, there is agreement with the students of this study in the fact that
they do not like that the laptop is slow, which is reported by more than 10 % of Primary
students and about 20 % of Junior High students. When students of Anytime, Anywhere
Learning were asked about their difficulties with the laptop, there was a general
agreement that it was heavy; other less frequently reported answers included the
recurring technical problems and students who do not have sufficient computer skills
(Ross et al. 2000). In this study, the technical problems are reported by approximately
15 % of the students, but they do not seem to have problems on how to use the laptop.
In the evaluation of Singapore Tablet PC program, students mentioned the battery life
(43.7 %), the weight of the laptop (18.1 %), the technical problems (14.7 %), the slow
speed (12.0 %) and distraction (8.3 %) (Bienkowski et al. 2005). Students of this study
agree about the technical problems and the slow speed (percentages are also similar)
and distraction (percentages in this study are below 4 %).
6 Conclusion
The Elementary school students use their laptop agreeably, they go to school with
greater pleasure because of the laptop and they are happy to work with it. They think
that because of the laptop, the courses are more pleasant, they like the laptop projects,
they become more organised and it is easier for them to cooperate with their classmates.
What they like best on the laptop are the games and the fact that they no longer carry
books. They also like the use of the internet in class, the digital presentations, the
educational games/software and they believe that the classes have become more
pleasant with the laptop. They would like their laptop to be faster and dislike the
technical problems that occur. The Junior High students are more moderate in their
responses. They like to work on the laptop, they consider that because of it they can
easier collaborate with their classmates and they use the laptop congenially. They like
the fact that the classes have become more pleasant, they like playing games as well as
the educational games and software, the internet, the digital books and the laptop
projects. What seems to bother them is the speed of the laptop, the technical issues and
the small size of the laptop. Some of them reported that its use hurt their eyes.
Regarding the differences between boys and girls, while both genders enjoy participating
in a one-to-one laptop initiative, boys seem to like the laptop more than girls;
they can read from the laptop screen easier and the laptop improves more effectively
their school performance. Girls, on the other hand, appreciate more the educational
software, the digital books and the new learning opportunities.
References
Abell Foundation (2008). One-to-one computing in public schools: lessons from “laptops for all” programs.
Accessed at 22/05/2010 http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED505074.pdf
Abrams, R. (1999). Laptop computers in an all-girls school: hearing the student voice in an evaluation of
technology use', in AERA. Paper presented at the 2000 meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Accessed at 27/08/2010 http://www.notesys.com/Copies/Hewitt_AERA2000v5.pdf
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 533
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. E. (2010). One to One Computing: A Summary of the Quantitative Results from the
BerkshireWireless Learning Initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 1–60.
Bienkowski,M. A., Haertel, G., Yamaguchi, R.,Molina, A., Adamson, F., & Peck-Theis, L. (2005). Singapore
tablet PC program study: Executive summary and final report. Arlington: SRI International, Inc.
Corn, J. O. (2009). Evaluation report on the progress of the North Carolina 1:1 learning technology initiative
(Year 2). Raleigh: Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University.
Cuban, L. (2006). The laptop revolution has no clothes. Education Week. Accessed at: 25/09/2012 http://www.
edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/10/18/08cuban.h26.html
Davis, D., Garas, N., Hopstock, P., Kellum, A., & Stephenson, T. (2005). Henrico county public schools iBook
survey report. Arlington: Development Associates, Inc.
Drayton, B., Falk, J. K., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, J. (2010). After installation: ubiquitous
computing and high school science in three experienced, high-technology schools. The Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(3), 1–57.
Fisher, D. & Stolarchuk, E. (1998). The effect of using laptop computers on achievement, attitude to science
and classroom environment in science. Proceedings Western of the “Australian Institute for Educational
Research” Forum 1998. Western Australian Institute for Educational Research.
Gravelle, P. B. (2003). Early evidence from the field—The Maine learning technology initiative: impact on the
digital divide. Portland: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation, University of
Southern Maine.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: a multi-method case study. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.
Jeroski, S. (2003). Wireless writing project. school district No. 60 (Peace River North) research report: phase
II. Vancouver: Horizon Research & Evaluation, Inc.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: impact on instructional technology
integration and student learning. Education and Information Technologies, 17(2), 137–146.
Kitchens, A. (2007). Using laptops to teach data analysis in seventh-grade mathematics. Ph. D. Thesis,
Valdosta State University.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: what does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.
Light, D., McDermott, M., & Honey, M. (2002). Project Hiller: the impact of ubiquitous portable technology
on an urban school. New York: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J. D., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key
barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 189–206.
Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2003). When each one has one: the influences on teaching
strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 51(3), 23–44.
Mabry, L., & Snow, J. Z. (2006). Laptops for high-risk students: empowerment and personalizationing a
standards-based learning environment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 289–316.
Mann, D. (2008). Documenting outcomes from Henrico county public school’s laptop computing initiative:
2005-06 through 2007-08. Final technical report. Ashland: Interactive, Inc.
McKeeman, L. A. (2008). Τhe role of a high school one-to-one laptop initiative in supporting content area
literacy, new literacies and critical literacy. Ph. D. Thesis, Kansas State University.
Metiri Group. (2002).Οne-to-one computing research framework. Los Angeles: Apple Computer/Henrico County.
Mims, C., Lowther, D. L., Strahl, J. D., Franceschini, L. A., & Zoblotsky, T. A. (2008). ΜcNairy county laptop
program 2007–2008 evaluation report. Michigan: Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Mitchell Institute. (2004). Οne-to-one laptops in a high school environment. Portland: Senator George J.
Mitchell Scholarship Research Institute.
Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472.
Niles, R. (2006). A study of the application of emerging technology: teacher and student perceptions of the
impact of one-to-one laptop computer access. Ph. D. Thesis, Wichita State University.
Penuel, W. R., Kim, D. Y., Michalchik, V., Lewis, S., Means, B., Murphy, R., Korbak, C., Whaley, A., Allen,
J. E. (2002). Using technology to enhance connection between home and school. A Research synthesis.
Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education
Pitler, H., Flynn, K., & Gaddy, B. (2004). Is a laptop initiative in your future? Aurora:Mid-continent Research
for Education and Learning.
Rockman, et al. (2000). More complex picture: laptop use and impact in the context of changing home and
school access. San Francisco: Microsoft Corporation, Toshiba America Information Systems.
534 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535
Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment in
teaching and learning: lessons from the time to know program. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 44(3), 225–241.
Ross, S. M., Lowther, D. L., & Morrison, G. R. (2001). Anytime anywhere learning: final evaluation of the
laptop program: year 2.Memphis: Center of Research in Educational Policy, The University ofMemphis.
Ross, S. M.,Morrison, G. R., Lowther, D. L.,&Plants, R. T. (2000). Anytime anywhere learning: final evaluation
of the laptop program. Memphis: Center of Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.
Sarfo, K. F., Amartei, A. M., Adentwi, K. I., & Brefo, C. (2011). Technology and gender equity: rural and
urban students’ attitudes towards information and communication technology. Journal of Media and
Communication Studies, 3(6), 221–230.
Schaumburg, H. (2003). Konstruktivistischer Unterricht mit Laptops? Eine Fallstudie zum Einfluss mobiler
Computer auf die Methodik des Unterrichts. Ph. D. Thesis, Freie Universitat Berlin.
Shahaf-Barzilay, R., & Weiss, D. (2013). Student motivation and engagement in 1:1 digital learning with
“time to know” (T2K) – highlight results from cross country studies. Oslo: Paper presented at the EDEN
Annual Conference.
Trimmel, M., & Bachmann, J. (2004). Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students in laptop
classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 151–158.
Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: perceived social support, computer selfefficacy
and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51, 1392–1404.
Volk, K. S., & Ming, Y. W. (1999). Gender and technology in Hong Kong: a study of pupils’ attitudes toward
technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9, 57–71.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2005). First year evaluation report: Fullerton school district laptop program.
Orange: Fullerton School District.
Zucker, A. A., & Hug, S. T. (2008). Teaching and learning physics in a 1:1 laptop school. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 17(6), 586–594.
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:519–535 535

Development of capstone project attitude scales

Development of capstone project attitude scales
Rex P. Bringula
Published online: 13 December 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract This study attempted to develop valid and reliable Capstone Project Attitude
Scales (CPAS). Among the scales reviewed, the Modified Fennema-Shermann Mathematics
Attitude Scales was adapted in the construction of the CPAS. Usefulness,
Confidence, and Gender View were the three subscales of the CPAS. Four hundred
sixty-three students answered the questionnaire. The validity of the scales was ensured
through pilot testing and factor analysis with a threshold value of at least 0.50.
Meanwhile, the reliability of the items was determined through Cronbach’s alpha
analysis. All items with Cronbach’s alpha value of less than 0.70 were discarded. It
was shown that Usefulness, Confidence, and Gender View had Cronbach’s alpha
values of 0.837, 0.748, and 0.818, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was utilized to confirm the model and discriminant validity was used to find out if each
of the constructs was unique in itself. It was also revealed that the measurement model
of the revised scales provided a good fit (CFI=0.97; AGFI=0.94; RMSEA=0.038) and
the constructs were distinct from one another. From the initial draft of the questionnaire
with 47 items, only 15 items were retained. Nonetheless, CPAS was able to capture
more than 50 % (%cumulative variance=57 %) of the attitudes exhibited by the
students in Capstone Project. Implications and directions for future research that could
be derived from this study were also presented.
Keywords Attitudes . Attitude scale . Capstone project . ITeducation
1 Introduction
Attitude is “a covert, unexpressed psychological predisposition or tendency” (Shelley
2006, p. 61) towards a person, an object, or a concept (Haddock and Maio 2007;
Matwin and Fabrigar 2007; Abbas et al. 2011). It can also be an evaluation of places,
events, ideas (Abbas et al. 2011), facts, or states (Ponticell 2006). A person could use
his/her mental positions (cognitive), feelings (affective), or behaviors (behavioral
domain) while evaluating these predispositions or tendencies (Ponticell 2006). A
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
DOI 10.1007/s10639-013-9297-1
R. P. Bringula (*)
College of Computer Studies and Systems, University of the East, Manila, Philippines
e-mail: rex_bringula@yahoo.com
person’s evaluation could either be positive or negative (Matwin and Fabrigar 2007;
Abbas et al. 2011). The attitudes of a person could vary in strength (weak or strong)
(Shelley 2006) and direction (i.e., democratic view or dictatorship view). Nevertheless,
attitudes can simply be defined as the expressions of fundamental likes or dislikes
(Shelley 2006).
It is important to study attitudes because they affect both the way we perceive the
world and how we behave (Haddock and Maio 2007). Thus, since the conception of
attitudes in the 1920s (Salinas 2006), they have been the subject of various researches
in the academic fields. For example, Mohd and Mahmood (2011) found out that
attitudes had a significant contribution to mathematical problem solving and mathematics
achievement. More specifically, the study of Coetzee and Van derMerwe (2010)
revealed that even though students perceived statistics to be technical, complicated, and
difficult, they were interested in studying it and they believed that statistics was an
important subject. They also showed that there was a relationship between the students’
perceived competence in mathematics and the degree to which they felt confident to
master statistics. Furthermore, attitudes, such as liking (or disliking) mathematics,
showing difficulty in doing mathematics, as well as placing importance on luck and
talent in doing mathematics, were found to have a negative influence on mathematics
achievement while educational expectations positively influenced mathematics
achievement (Ramirez 2005).
In science, expected achievement and attitudes toward science were shown to be
strongly related (Craker 2006). This was also confirmed in the studies of Mettas et al.
(2006), and Nasr and Soltani (2011). Students who enjoyed learning science had higher
achievement in science (Mettas et al. 2006; Nasr and Soltani 2011). On the other hand,
students who associated luck and lots of natural talent in order to do well in science tended
to show lower achievement test scores in science (Mettas et al. 2006). Interestingly,
students who were good in science and mathematics weremore positive about their ability
to use technology as compared to their social science counterparts (Kahveci 2010).
In a sample of elementary and middle school students, it was disclosed that attitudes
towards reading were positively related to achievement in reading (Petscher 2010).
Behavioral attitudes, such as authoritative parenting styles, were also found to be
associated with higher levels of children’s school achievement (Kordi and Baharudin
2010). Recently, Bringula et al. (2012) revealed that the attitude of not being confident
towards programming was more likely to predict all types of programming errors.
Gender view on mathematics and science was also investigated in different studies.
Meece et al. (2006) reviewed different theories on motivation (e.g., attribution,
expectancy-value, self-efficacy, and achievement goal perspectives) and found out that
boys reported stronger ability, interest, and beliefs in mathematics and science, whereas
girls had more confidence and interest in language arts and writing. LaLonde et al.
(2003), and Brandell and Staberg (2008) supported this finding as they revealed that
boys had the strongest beliefs in mathematics as a male domain. Cracker (2006) also
reported that females tended to view science as a male domain. These findings indicate
that stereotyping exists in the mathematics and science courses.
Despite the rich and still growing body of literature on attitudes, there are still no
studies conducted to determine the attitudes of computing students towards Capstone
Project. This gap is partially attributed to the absence of valid and reliable scales to
measure the students’ attitudes towards Capstone Project. Thus, this study has been
486 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
conceived. The main objective of this study was to develop valid and reliable scales to
measure the attitudes of students towards Capstone Project. In effect, the outputs could
further be utilized in future studies. Specifically, it aims 1) to construct valid and
reliable attitudinal scales on Capstone Project through factor analysis, and 2) to develop
a good fit model of the developed scales using confirmatory factor analysis.
2 Literature review
2.1 Capstone project
Lunt et al. (2008, p. 58) suggested that one of the principles of curriculum design for
undergraduate degree programs in Information Technology is that “the curriculum must
provide students with a capstone experience that gives them a chance to apply their
skills and knowledge to solve a challenging problem.” This principle could be in
response to the demand of the industry to hire graduates who were technically
competent, with strong communication skills, good leadership and team player qualities,
and strong work ethic (Russell et al. 2005). In order to meet this demand, various
degree programs offered a course called Capstone Project.
In a business degree program, Capstone Project was viewed as a method of evaluating
the overall student-learning outcomes (Payne et al. 2008). Students were given an
opportunity to demonstrate their higher-order cognitive dimensions of learning as well
as the affective and skills-based dimensions of learning (Payne et al. 2008; Moshkovich
2012). Similarly, capstone courses in Psychology and Information Technology Management
(ITM) were designed to prepare students for jobs after graduation (Beer et al.
2011; Brandon et al. 2002). The courses also provided students a learning environment
and opportunity to exercise the skills acquired in schools (Beer et al. 2011).
Meanwhile, the focus of engineering Capstone Projects was on teamwork, demonstration
of communication skills, development of an awareness of professional responsibility,
and design, construction, debugging, etc. of a device or system (Meyer 2005).
This was in line with the engineering students’ outcome proposed by the Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET 2012).
Capstone Project is also part of the curriculum of computing degree programs
(Computer Science (CS), Information Technology (IT), and Information Systems
(IS)). The CS Capstone Project requires the students to apply their technical skills as
well as the knowledge and skills of the liberal arts such as Ethics, Communication,
Psychology, Sociology, and Mathematics (Miles and Kelm 2007). Likewise, the IS
Capstone Project helps students “understand the big picture, i.e. how knowledge
acquired from all the courses in their curriculum converges together and how students
can apply this knowledge to develop an information system” (Kumar et al. 2004, p.
174). In this manner, students would realize the role and relevance of each course
(Hartzel et al. 2003).
Lunt et al. (2008) further stressed that IT Capstone Project has three common
characteristics. These are as follows: 1) students are divided into teams of typically 4
to 8 members each; 2) each team is given a real world project or problem to solve; and
3) this project takes many weeks to complete (typically 14 or more). It is further
explained that IT Capstone Project may be a one-semester or a two-semester course
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 487
which may be taken during the student’s last year of stay in school. Students work in
teams in designing and implementing projects. Cost, safety, efficiency, and suitability
for the intended user are some of the considerations in doing the projects. The projects
may be developed exclusively for class or for on- or off-campus clients. While the
emphasis of the course is on project work and student presentations, intellectual property
rights, copyrights, patents, law, and ethics can also be included in the discussions.
Though different degree programs have different forms of capstone course
(Moshkovich 2012), they follow the same requirements. Different studies have shown
the following requirements for the Capstone Project.
& combination of business and IT issues (Brandon et al. 2002; Hartzel et al. 2003);
& experiential component in the form of a “real-life” project (Brandon et al. 2002);
& advanced conceptual segment in the form of business systems analysis, case
studies, documentation, verbal reporting, and discussion participation (Brandon
et al. 2002; Hartzel et al. 2003); and
& soft skills, including effective interpersonal relationships, self-management strategies,
teamwork, problem solving, etc., and social skills (Brandon et al. 2002;
McGann and Cahill 2005).
2.2 Attitudes scales
Tapia and Marsh (2000) developed the Attitudes Towards Mathematics Inventory
(ATMI). Responses of 545 students under the mathematics secondary curriculum were
examined to determine their attitudes towards mathematics and to find out the underlying
dimensions of the instrument. It was revealed that after dropping nine items from
the original 49 items, the alpha value of the instrument yielded to 0.95. A Likert scale
format (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neutral, 4-agree, and 5-strongly agree) was
used to measure the attitudes of the students. Factor analysis showed that there were
three subscales. The subscales and their alpha values were self-confidence (0.94),
enjoyment of mathematics (0.92), and value of mathematics (0.84). In 2004, Tapia
and Marsh (2004) revised the scale. The revised ATMI had four factors when subjected
to a maximum likelihood factor analysis with a varimax rotation. The factors (alpha
values in parentheses) were self-confidence (0.95), value of mathematics (0.89),
enjoyment of mathematics (0.89), and motivation (0.88).
Asante (2012) utilized the ATMI. A higher score on the ATMI (which had 200 points
maximum) indicated more positive attitudes towards mathematics. Before ATMI was
administered to 109 boys and 72 girls from conveniently sampled three high schools, Asante
(2012) pretested the questionnaire within the Ghanaian culture and yielded a highly reliable
coefficient of 0.94. Thus, the ATMI could be utilized in the Ghanaian culture.
Abbas et al. (2011) adapted the Modified Fennema-Shermann Mathematics Attitude
Scales (MFSMAS). Doepken et al. (2003) developed this questionnaire. In the study of
Abbas et al. (2011), a twenty-eight (28)-item questionnaire was administered to 600
students in seven secondary schools in Model Town and Kahna area of Lahore. The
questionnaire determined the attitudes of the students towards science. However, it was
not reported whether reliability and validity tests were conducted in the adapted questionnaires.
Meanwhile, Yara (2009) utilized the Student Attitude Scale (SAT) which was also
patterned after the MFSMAS. It consisted of 22 items which were made up of 11
488 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
positively worded and 11 negatively worded items to which the 1,542 students responded.
Students’ responses could be from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). Fifty (50)
students in three (3) different schools answered the pretest of the questionnaire in order to
determine the reliability of the instrument. A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.82 was obtained
that showed that the instrument was reliable and it could be used for the study. However,
no reports were made to show if the instrument was tested for its validity.
Abdullah and Zakaria (2011) developed the Attitudes Towards Geometry Survey
(ATGS). The study involved 161 students in one of the states in Malaysia. Students
could choose from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (not sure), 4 (agree), and 5
(strongly agree) in answering the ATGS. Item analysis revealed that the three subscales
of ATGS were reliable. Enjoyment (i.e., enjoyment of learning geometry topics),
Valuation (i.e., valuation of geometry), and Motivation (i.e., motivation towards geometry)
were the three subscales of ATGS. Enjoyment, Valuation, and Movation had
Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.85, 0.77, and 0.69, respectively. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.825 warranted further use of factor analysis.
Factor analysis revealed that only 17 of the 24 items were valid. Reliability analysis
was not repeated on the 17 retained items.
Mohd and Mahmood (2011) used the Student Attitude Questionnaire. The reliability
of the questionnaire was pretested to 30 students and was found to be highly reliable
(Cronbach’s alpha value=0.720). The questionnaire was subdivided to three factors—
confidence, patience, and willingness towards mathematics problem solving. It was
then administered to 153 students who were composed of 93 diploma and 60 bachelor
students. Respondents could choose from 1 (totally disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (agree), or
4 (totally agree) as a response to the items. There was no report in the study if validity
tests were conducted in the questionnaire.
Tekerek et al. (2011) utilized a thirty-eight (38) Mathematics Attitude Questionnaire
(MAQ) in order to determine the attitudes of 122 Computer Education and Instructional
Technology undergraduates of four different universities in Turkey. Factor analysis
revealed that likes and interest (factor loading ranging from 0.55 to 0.71), anxiety and
confidence (0.65–0.80), occupational and daily importance (0.48–0.76), and enjoyment
(0.51–0.79) were the four factors of MAQ. The study stated that MAQ was developed
by Duatepe and Cilesiz (1999) but it did not report any modification in the said
questionnaire. Furthermore, Tekerek et al. (2011) did not conduct further test such as
reliability analysis on the items.
In the study of Coetzee and Van der Merwe (2010), a cross-sectional survey design
was used and the SATS-36 (Survey of Attitudes Towards Statistics-36) was administered
to a sample of convenience consisting of 235 students enrolled in Industrial and
Organizational Psychology at a large tertiary institution in South Africa. The SATS-36
used a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 4=neither disagree nor agree, 7=
strongly agree). The six subscales of SATS-36 were the following:
& Affect—students’ feelings concerning statistics; five items, factor loadings (f.l.)=
0.52–0.767; Cronbach’s alpha (α)=0.801;
& Cognitive Competence—students’ attitudes about their intellectual knowledge and
skills when applied to statistics; six items, (f.l.)=0.523–0.728; α = 0.798;
& Value—students’ attitudes about the usefulness, relevance, and worth of statistics in
personal and professional life; eight items, (f.l.)=0.517–0.754; α = 0.828;
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 489
& Difficulty—students’ attitudes about the difficulty of statistics as a subject; five
items, (f.l.)=0.35–0.778; α = 0.662;
& Interest—students’ level of individual interest in statistics; four items; f.l. = 0.663–
0.768; α = 0.827; and
& Effort—amount of work the student spends to learn statistics; three items, f.l. =
0.77–0.927; α = 0.853.
In the study of Orhun (2007), 5th semester students (42 females, 31 males) from the
Mathematics Department of Anadolu University answered the Attitude Towards Mathematics
(ATM) questionnaire. The questionnaire was intended to find out the respondents’
positive and negative feelings towards mathematics. There were 20 items, most
of which were related to classroom settings (e.g., “I am afraid of mathematics exams,”
“I enjoy mathematics classes,” etc.), that could be answered by a five-point scale
(Completely Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, Completely Disagree). No reports
were made on the validity and the reliability of the items.
Lastly, Doepken et al. (2003) developed the Modified Fennema-Sherman Mathematics
Attitude Scales (MFSMAS). Confidence towards mathematics (6 items positive,
6 items negative), Usefulness of the subject (6 items positive, 6 items negative), Subject
perceived as a male domain (6 items positive, 5 items negative), and Perception of the
students on their teacher’s attitudes (6 items positive, 6 items negative) were the four
subscales of the MFSMS. There was a total of 47 items. The responses were similar to
those used in the ATM and ATGS.
3 Development of the instrument
3.1 Research locale
The study was conducted at the College of Computer Studies and Systems (CCSS) of
the University of the East in Manila. CCSS offers 4-year degree programs in Computer
Science and Information Technology. Both degree programs have Capstone Projects.
The distinction between the Capstone Projects for the degrees is depicted in Fig. 1.
As shown in Fig. 1, all students would enroll in Methods of Research for IT
(MERIT). For Bachelor of Science in Computer Science (BSCS) students enrolled in
MERIT, they were expected to come up with a research topic. On the other hand, the
introduction, review of literature and related systems, and methodology sections of the
Fig. 1 Capstone project classifications at the college of computer studies and systems
490 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
manuscript, and proof of systems development agreement between the team and a
target client were the deliverables for students taking up Bachelor of Science in
Information Technology (BSIT). If the students passed MERIT, they would enroll
either in Capstone Planning (CPROP) or ThesisWriting A (ThesA) depending on their
degree programs. In Capstone Planning (CPROP), the whole manuscript and the
software would be the final requirements of the course. Eventually, in Capstone
Development (CPROD), the software would be implemented in the client’s company.
Meanwhile, CS students in ThesA should present the three chapters of the manuscript.
In ThesB (Thesis Writing B), CS students would present the software and the
findings of the study. Also, the final documentation would also be submitted. All of
these courses were on consultation basis, i.e., no teachers were assigned on the subject
and students would ask the help of their thesis advisers.
The final grades of the students were computed based on two components—oral
defense and advisers’ grades.A three-man committeewould evaluate the Capstone Project
of the students. This evaluation constituted 60 % of the students’ final grades. The
advisers’ grades could only be given to the students if they could pass the oral defense.
3.2 Population, sample size, and data-gathering procedure
There were 880 students enrolled in Capstone Project courses during the First Semester
of SY 2011–2012. Thirty-one (31) students who participated in the pilot-testing of the
questionnaire were subtracted from 880. Thus, the actual population considered was
849. Using Sloven’s formula with e=0.05, a sample size of 272 was computed.
The distribution of the questionnaire was made during the First Semester of SY
2011–2012. The first distribution of the survey forms was done during the thesis
orientation which was held at the start of the semester and was convened in a hall with
a 416 seating capacity. Three hundred eighty-six (386) forms, which exceeded the
required computed sample size, were retrieved. To achieve higher confidence in
performing factor and reliability analyses, more data were gathered by distributing
additional 100 survey forms throughout the first semester and retrieving 77 forms. The
total number of usable forms was 463.
3.3 Data analysis
Factor analysis with a threshold value of at least 0.50 was used to determine the validity
of the items on each construct. This factor loading was a very significant factor loading
(Abdullah and Zakaria 2011; Liman et al. 2011; Maleki et al. 2012). This was selected
to achieve more valid constructs. It can also be noted that the factor loading utilized in
this study was higher than the factor loadings utilized by Kahveci (2010), Ozturk
(2011), and Ramaswami and Babo (2012). They used a factor loading of 0.40. Principal
Component Analysis and Varimax Rotation were utilized in extraction and rotation
methods, respectively.
Cronbach’s alpha (α) analysis was utilized to determine the reliability of the items.
Items with Cronbach’s α of less than 0.70 were discarded. This Cronbach’s α was the
most commonly used acceptability threshold of .70 for reliability analysis (Ozturk
2011) and above the 0.60 minimum value (Nunally, 1967 cited in Asante 2012
and in Ozturk 2011).
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 491
Confirmatory factor analysis, with Comparative-Fit Index (CFI), Adjusted
Goodness-of-Index (AGFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) fit indices, were employed to assess the good fit of the developed scales.
The model was of good fit if all were satisfied: CFI>= 0.90, AGFI>= 0.90, and
RMSEA<0.07 (Hair et al. 2010; Feldt 2013). Discriminant validity was also
established through comparison of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
construct with the squared interconstruct correlations associated with the factor.
3.4 Steps in the development of the scale
The following steps served as guides in the development of the scales.
1. Develop the initial draft of the scales.
2. Check the validity of content. If content is vague or not applicable, revise the scale.
3. Check factorial validity of the items. If items are not valid, delete the invalid items
and repeat this step until all items are valid.
4. Check reliability of the items.
a. If items are not reliable, delete the unreliable item and repeat this step until all
items are reliable.
b. Repeat Step 3.
5. If all items are valid and reliable, perform confirmatory factor analysis and check
the discriminant validity of the factors.
6. Develop the final scales.
4 Results
4.1 The respondents
The respondents of the study were composed of 420 IT and 43 CS students. There were
more male (f=296, 64 %) than female (f=167, 36 %) respondents. The composition of
the respondents in terms of course enrolled in is as follows: MERIT (f=302, 65 %),
CPROD (f=115, 25 %), CPROP (f=29), THESA (f=12, 3 %), and THESB (f=5, 1 %).
4.2 Development of the scales
4.2.1 Step 1. Development of the scales
Modified Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scale (MFSMAS) served as basis
in the development of the initial draft of the questionnaire. It was chosen among the
attitude scales reviewed because of its unique component—gender view. A genderrelated
issue, such as fewer women being attracted to computing degrees, was raised in
computing literature. With the construction of this attitude scales, attitudes between
men and women in computing could further be investigated.
MFSMAS was revised to fit the context of the study. The original 47-item questionnaire
was reduced into a 36-item questionnaire. The first draft of the 36-item
492 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
attitude scales towards Capstone Project is shown in Table 1. The responses of the
students were also based on the said scales but they had slight modifications. In the
scales, respondents of the study could answer the statements as Strongly disagree (1),
Disagree (2), Undecided/Can’t Tell Right Now (3), Agree (4), or Strongly agree (5).
This study retained all responses except “Undecided/Can’t Tell Right Now.” It was
replaced with Moderately agree. In this manner, the responses would be in a
continuum and they could exhibit an interval scale. Furthermore, an “undecided”
response is quite difficult to interpret. For example, an undecided response in “I am
sure of myself when I enrolled Capstone Project” (See Item 10, Table 1.) was hard to
interpret. Thus, assigning the value 3 to Moderately agree was deemed to be more
appropriate.
4.2.2 Step 2. Content validation
The first draft of the scales was content-validated. There were two parts of content
validation. First, it was pilot-tested to thirty-one (31) students who were enrolled in a
Capstone Project course. They were interviewed to gather their clarifications, suggestions,
and recommendations to improve the questionnaire. The second phase solicited
the opinions, suggestions, and recommendations of two faculty-advisers on how to
improve the questionnaire. These served as inputs in the modification of the first draft.
The reasons for the deletions and revisions of the items are presented.
The question could not be answered by some students Item 1 was deleted because it
was found out to be inapplicable. It can be noted that the Capstone Project at the
College of Computer Studies and Systems involves five courses. The phases of the
students on the capstone project were diverse. The question “I learned a lot in
Capstone Project” would not be appropriate since there were students who were still
in the learning phase on the said courses. Moreover, changing the tense of “learned” to
“will learn” could still not make the question fit since there were students (i.e., CPROD
students) that almost completed the course. Thus, it was decided to delete this question.
Ethical considerations The two faculty-advisers recommended deleting adviser-related
items (Items 2, 12, 23, 34, and 36) due to ethical considerations and irrelevance of the
question. Advisers were expected to execute the highest professional and ethical standards
in dealing with their advisees. As professional advisers, their main task was to oversee the
overall progress of the project. The answer to the question such as, “My adviser has been
interested in our progress in Capstone Project.” (Item 34), would be obvious since this
was what exactly the advisers were doing. Thus, in the context of this study, Items 2, 12,
34, and 36 would be irrelevant and there was no need to ask such question.
Redundancy Items 28 and 32 were deleted because they were redundant with Item 16.
The positive statement, i.e. Item 16, was retained.
Difference in the rating performance of the two subject matters Items 19, 25, and 26
were also found not fit to be retained. This was attributed to the nature of the subject
matter. The MFSMAS asked the perception of the students on the student’s individual
performance. On the other hand, in the Capstone Project, team members were rated as a
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 493
group. In the context of the study, majority of the grades (60 %) of the students were
dependent on the group’s performance. One student also commented on the question “I
can get good grades in Capstone Project.” It was not clear if the grades would refer to
group grades or individual grades. It was decided to delete these items.
Table 1 First draft of the scales
No. Items
1 I learned a lot in Capstone Project.
2 My adviser has been interested in our progress in Capstone Project.
3 Capstone Project will eventually help me earn a living.
4 Capstone Project is important to me in my life’s work.
5 Males are naturally better than females in Capstone Project.
6 Capstone Project is a hard subject for me.
7 Females could be good in Capstone Project.
8 I will need Capstone Project for my future work.
9 When a female has a Capstone Project, she should have a male group mate.
10 I am sure of myself when I enrolled in Capstone Project.
11 I don’t expect to use my subject Capstone Project when I get out of school.
12 I would talk to my adviser about a career where I could apply what I learned in Capstone Project.
13 Women can do just as well as men in Capstone Project.
14 Capstone Project is a worthwhile, necessary subject.
15 I would have more faith in a man than in a woman in solving issues in Capstone Project.
16 I’m not the type to do well in Capstone Project.
17 Taking the Capstone Project subject is a waste of time.
18 Capstone Project is the worst subject.
19 I think I could handle the difficulties in Capstone Project.
20 I will use the subject Capstone Project in many ways as a professional.
21 Females are as good as males in Capstone Project.
22 I see Capstone Project as something I won’t use very often when I get out of college.
23 I feel that my adviser ignores me when I try to settle issues.
24 Women certainly are smart enough to do well in Capstone Project.
25 Most subjects I can handle are okay but I just can’t do a good job with Capstone Project.
26 I can get good grades in Capstone Project.
27 The skills I will learn in Capstone Project are needed for my future work.
28 I know I can do well in Capstone Project.
29 Studying Capstone Project is just as good for women as for men.
30 Doing well in Capstone Project is not important for my future.
31 Capstone Project is not important for my life.
32 I’m not good in Capstone Project.
33 I study Capstone Project because I know how useful it is.
34 My adviser makes me feel I have the ability to go on in Capstone Project.
35 I would trust a female just as much as I would trust a male to solve important issues in Capstone Project.
36 My adviser thinks I’m the kind of person who could do well in Capstone Project.
494 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
Considering these modifications, 25 items were retained. The scales had three
subscales—Usefulness, Confidence, and Gender View. There were 12 items under
Usefulness (U); 4 items under Confidence (C); and 9 items under Gender View (G).
It was decided to add five additional items (Items 26 to 30) for Confidence to balance
the number of items. The second draft of the attitude scales is shown in Table 2.
4.2.3 Step 3. Factorial validity of the items
The second draft of the attitude scales was distributed to the actual respondents. Data
gathered from the respondents were subjected to factor analysis using the Principal
component analysis with Varimax rotation to determine the factorial validity of the
items. The results are shown in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, the first run of factor analysis revealed that all items on
Usefulness and Gender view were valid (i.e., factor loadings (f.l.) of at least 0.50). On
the other hand, one item (“Capstone Project is a difficult subject”) under Confidence
was not found to be valid since its f.l. < 0.50. Thus, this item was deleted. After it was
deleted, factor analysis was again deployed and the remaining items under the construct
Confidence were all found valid.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) on Usefulness
(KMO=0.898), Confidence (KMO=0.817), and Gender View (KMO=0.849) were all
greater than 0.80 that revealed that these were all meritorious (George and Mallery
2009) or great (Field 2009) values. Furthermore, the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity on
Usefulness (χ2=2,112.598, df=66, p<0.05), Confidence (χ2=748.389, df=28,
p<0.05), and Gender View (χ2=1,158.892, df=36, p<0.05) were all found significant.
4.2.4 Step 4. Reliability of the items
Since the validity of the constructs was established, the test of reliability of the items
followed. As shown in Table 4, Usefulness and Confidence had Cronbach’s α of 0.869
and 0.763, respectively. These values were higher than the acceptable value of 0.70.
Meanwhile, Gender View was not found reliable since its Cronbach’s α = 0.542.
Though this value is considered acceptable for some researchers, the study aimed a
higher Cronbach’s α. Thus, series of item deletions were performed. Items 3 and 12
were deleted and Gender yield to a higher Cronbach’s α = 0.759.
Step 3 (Second iteration). Factorial validity of the items
Factor validity was repeated since two items in Gender View were deleted. The second
iteration of factor analysis on Gender View revealed that all items were still valid (f.l>=
0.50). Thus, the study achieved the high factorial validity and reliability of the constructs.
4.2.5 Step 5 and 6. Confirmatory factor analysis and development of the final attitude
scales
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to determine if the variables fit in to
the questionnaire. The questionnaire was revised to achieve a good fit. Discriminant
validity was also determined. The final Capstone Project Attitude Scales (CPAS) is
shown in Table 5.
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 495
The final scales were reduced to 15 items. The cumulative variance shows that 57 %
in the attitudes of the students towards Capstone Project could be explained by the
questionnaire. The constructs were found to be of good fit as indicated by the CFI=
0.97, AGFI=0.94, and RMSEA=0.038. Moreover, Table 6 disclosed that all AVEs of
the constructs were greater than the squared correlations of the constructs. Hence,
discriminant validity was achieved.
Table 2 Second draft of the attitude scales
No. Items Subscale
category
1 Capstone Project will help me earn a living. U
2 Capstone Project is important to me in my life’s work. U
3 Males are naturally better than females in Capstone Project. G
4 Capstone Project is a difficult subject. C
5 Females could be good in Capstone Project. G
6 I will need Capstone Project for my future work. U
7 When a female has a Capstone Project, she should have a male group mate. G
8 I am sure of myself when I enrolled Capstone Project. C
9 I don’t expect to use my subject Capstone Project when I get out of school. U
10 Women can do just as well as men in Capstone Project. G
11 Capstone is a worthwhile, necessary subject. U
12 I would have more faith in solving issues by a man than a woman. G
13 I’m not the type to do well in Capstone Project. C
14 Taking the Capstone Project subject is a waste of time. U
15 Capstone Project is the worst subject. C
16 I will use the subject Capstone Project in many ways as a professional. U
17 Females are as good as males in Capstone Project. G
18 I see Capstone Project as something I won’t use very often when I get out of college. U
19 Women certainly are smart enough to do well in Capstone Project. G
20 The skills I will learn in Capstone Project are needed for my future work. U
21 Studying Capstone Project is just as good for women as for men. G
22 Doing well in Capstone Project is not important for my future. U
23 Capstone Project is not important for my life. U
24 I study Capstone Project because I know how useful it is. U
25 I would trust a female just as much as I would trust a male to solve important issues in
Capstone Project.
G
26 I believe that Capstone Project is only for intelligent students. C
27 I like Capstone Project. C
28 Capstone Project is a challenging subject. C
29 I feel lazy whenever I hear the subject Capstone Project. C
30 I am forcing myself to take Capstone Project. C
496 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
Table 3 Factorial validity
Constructs Results
Usefulness f.l.
Capstone Project will help me earn a living. 0.785
Capstone Project is important to me in my life’s work. 0.764
I will need Capstone Project for my future work. 0.747
I don’t expect to use my subject Capstone Project when I get out of school. 0.655
Capstone Project is a worthwhile, necessary subject. 0.587
Taking the Capstone Project subject is a waste of time. 0.687
I will use the subject Capstone Project in many ways as a professional. 0.676
I see Capstone Project as something I won’t use very often when I get out of college. 0.736
The skills I will learn in Capstone Project are needed for my future work. 0.697
Doing well in Capstone Project is not important for my future. 0.791
Capstone Project is not important for my life. 0.751
I study Capstone Project because I know how useful it is. 0.658
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.898
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity χ2 2,112.598
df 66
Sig 0.00
Confidence f.l.
Capstone Project is a difficult subject. (deleted) (deleted)
I am sure of myself when I enrolled Capstone Project. 0.717
I’m not the type to do well in Capstone Project. 0.702
Capstone Project is the worst subject. 0.670
I believe that Capstone Project is only for intelligent students. 0.639
I like Capstone Project. 0.672
Capstone Project is a challenging subject. 0.770
I feel lazy whenever I heard the subject Capstone Project. 0.756
I am forcing myself to take Capstone Project. 0.685
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.817
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity χ2 748.389
df 28
Sig 0.000
Gender view f.l.
Males are naturally better than females in Capstone Project. 0.720
Females could be good in Capstone Project. 0.759
When a female has a Capstone Project, she should have a male group mate. 0.693
Women can do just as well as men in Capstone Project. 0.754
I would have more faith in a man than in a woman in solving issues in Capstone Project. 0.785
Females are as good as males in Capstone Project. 0.735
Women certainly are smart enough to do well in Capstone Project. 0.705
Studying Capstone Project is just as good for women as for men. 0.717
I would trust a female just as much as I would trust a male to solve important issues in
Capstone Project.
0.707
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 497
Since the number of items was reduced, factorial validity and reliability of the
constructs were repeated. The analysis revealed that all items were still valid and all
constructs were still reliable.
5 Discussion
Capstone Project is one of the core courses in the computing curriculum. It is also a
culminating course that requires soft and technical skills. This requirement, in turn,
makes the course difficult and demanding. Inevitably, students would develop particular
attitudes towards the course. Previous studies showed that attitudes of students
were related to their academic performance (e.g., Craker 2006; Mettas et al. 2006;
Petscher 2010; Nasr and Soltani 2011; Bringula 2012). Despite these pressing concerns,
attitudes of students towards Capstone Project have not yet been investigated. This is
partly attributed to the absence of valid and reliable attitude scales for Capstone Project.
This study attempted to fill in this gap by developing the CPAS. CPAS was based on
MFSMAS. However, throughout the course of study, items of MFSMAS could not
wholly fit on the context of the study due to the nature of the course. Statements that
could not be answered by some students, ethical considerations, redundancy of statements,
and unfit item scale were issues encountered during the development of CPAS.
Hence, the original 47-item scales of MFSMAS were revised and were reduced to 30-
item scales.
The high factor loadings on all constructs showed that the items on each construct
measured what was really intended to be measured on that construct. In other words,
the survey form was simply asking the right questions. The items “Capstone Project is
important to me in my life’s work”, “I feel lazy whenever I heard the subject Capstone
Project”, and “Females are as good as males in Capstone Project” had the highest
factor loadings in the constructs Usefulness, Confidence, and Gender View,
Table 3 (continued)
Constructs Results
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.849
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity χ2 1,158.892
df 36
Sig 0.00
Table 4 Reliability of the items
Constructs No. of items Cronbach’s α (First Run) Cronbach’s α (Second Run)
Usefulness 12 0.869 0.869
Confidence 8 0.763 0.763
Gender View 9 0.542 0.759
498 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
Table 5 Final capstone project attitude scales
Capstone project attitude scales f.l.
Usefulness (α = 0.837)
1. Capstone Project will help me earn a living. 0.795
2. Capstone Project is important to me in my life’s work. 0.804
3. I will need Capstone Project for my future work. 0.786
4. I will use the subject Capstone Project in many ways as a professional. 0.654
5. The skills I will learn in Capstone project are needed for my future work. 0.657
Confidence (α = 0.748)
1. I’m not the type to do well in Capstone Project. 0.706
2. Capstone Project is the worst subject. 0.655
3. I believe that Capstone Project is only for intelligent students. 0.656
4. I feel lazy whenever I heard the subject Capstone Project. 0.735
5. I am forcing myself to take Capstone Project. 0.696
Gender view (α = 0.818)
1. Females could be good in Capstone Project. 0.740
2. Women can do just as well as men in Capstone Project. 0.759
3. Females are as good as males in Capstone Project. 0.792
4. Women certainly are smart enough to do well in Capstone Project. 0.775
5. I would trust a female just as much as I would trust a male to solve important issues in Capstone Project. 0.659
%cumulative variance=57 %
Comparative-fit index (CFI)=0.97
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI)=0.94
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.038
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 499
respectively. These items had the highest contributions in explaining the constructs and
in vividly describing the attitudes of the students towards the course.
CPAS could capture more than half of the attitudes exhibited of the students
in the course as shown by the percentage of cumulative variance. It also shows
that there are other items or subscales that could be included in the present
attitude scales.
Also, the high values of KMO revealed that the sampling size of the study
was adequate, thus warranting the use of factor analysis. The Barlett’s Test of
Sphericity on all constructs was found significant at 0.05 level of significance.
This means that the items under each construct did not produce an identity
matrix. Hence, all items were suitable to that construct. In other words, all
items on each construct were related to one another. The Cronbach’s α of
Usefulness (Cronbach’s α = 0.869), Confidence (Cronbach’s α = 0.763), and
Gender View (Cronbach’s α = 0.759) were all greater than the threshold value
of 0.70. The result suggested that all items on the constructs were all reliable.
Therefore, the scores that could be obtained from these constructs would be
consistent from the administration of one survey to another.
Confirmatory test also showed that CPAS had a good fit after some modifications
have been made on the items. Items that were not suitable in the
model were dropped until a good fit model was achieved. Results showed that
the cut-offs of good fit model (CFI=0.97, AGFI=0.94, and RMSEA=0.038)
were all met. As shown in Table 6, all squared correlations were lower than the
AVEs of all constructs. Such result indicated that discriminant validity existed.
This finding revealed that the constructs were unrelated and they uniquely
contributed to understanding the attitudes of students towards the course. Thus,
it was concluded that CPAS was composed of three good-fit constructs with
fifteen (15) valid and reliable items. Overall, the findings of the present study
provided evidence for the factorial validity, reliability, and good-fit model of
the CPAS. Therefore, the developed scales could now be utilized in determining
of the attitudes of the students towards Capstone Project.
The developed CPAS had three facets of attitudes towards Capstone Project. The
first construct (i.e., Usefulness) intended to determine how students perceived the
importance of Capstone Project in their future career and profession. Also, it aimed
Table 6 Capstone Project attitude constructs correlation matrix
Variables Usefulness Gender Confidence
Usefulness 1.00 0.16 0.19
Gender 0.40 1.00 0.02
Confidence −0.44 −0.14 1.00
Values below the diagonal are correlation estimates among construct, diagonal elements are construct
correlations, and values above the diagonal are squared correlations
AVE (Usefulness)=0.49
AVE (Gender)=0.48
AVE (Confidence)=0.37
500 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
to measure students’ perception on the impact of the course in terms of earning a living.
This is similar to the construct in the developed scales of Tapia and Marsh (2000),
Doepken et al. (2003), Yara (2009), and Tekerek et al. (2011). The possible impact of
this construct is that it could describe the attitudes of the students towards the course and
it could determine the students’ perception on the practicality of the course. For
example, the studies of Ramirez (2005), and Coetzee and Van derMerwe (2010) showed
that even if the students had difficulty with mathematics subject, they still perceived that
the subject was important. These studies could be replicated using CPAS.
Similar to the scales developed by Tapia and Marsh (2000), Doepken et al. (2003),
Asante (2012), Yara (2009), Coetzee and Van der Merwe (2010), and Mohd and
Mahmood (2011), the Confidence construct served as a form of students’ self-esteem
and competence assessment. It was shown that confidence towards a subject was
related to the students’ academic performance (e.g., Coetzee and Van der Merwe
2010; Bringula et al. 2012). However, researchers in the field of computing could not
verify if this was also true in Capstone Project. Thus, CPAS is a promising datagathering
tool for this research gap.
Lastly, the purpose of the construct Gender— a unique component of the questionnaire
developed by Doepken et al. (2003)—was to determine if the students were
gender-biased in the context of the course. Unlike in the fields of science and mathematics
where stereotyping has been shown to exist (see LaLonde et al. 2003; Cracker
2006; Meece et al. 2006; Brandell and Staberg 2008), studies that showed whether
stereotyping existed in computing degree programs were very scarce. Thus, the
practical value of CPAS is that if students were found gender-biased towards the role
of women in Capstone Project, then administrators and teachers/advisers could correct
these perceptions. A program that highlights the importance of cooperation of both
genders could be initiated. Hence, stereotyping could be avoided.
6 Conclusions, limitations, and future research
It was shown that the Modified Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scale could
serve as basis in the formulation of Capstone Project Attitude Scales. Out of the original
47 items, 15 items were retained. The developed attitude scales could capture 57 % of
the students’ attitudes towards Capstone Project. It was revealed that the constructs had
a good fit model and the retained items were all valid and reliable. The study calls for
further modifications of the developed scales to determine the other dimensions of
attitudes towards Capstone Project. It is recommended that cognitive, affective, and
behavioral dimensions be included in the developed scales. It is also encouraged that
the study be replicated by other foreign and local universities in order to come up with
more generalized attitude scales.
With the use of the developed scales, students’ attitudes towards Capstone Project
can now be determined. The outcomes of this study could serve as basis in the
development of educational programs or policies in sustaining the students’ positive
attitudes towards Capstone Project and reversing the negative attitudes. Attitudinal
differences on Capstone Project between males and females could also be investigated.
Lastly, the relationship between students’ attitudes towards Capstone Project and their
performance on the course could also be explored.
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 501
Acknowledgements The author is greatly indebted to Dr. Ester A. Garcia, Dr. Linda P. Santiago, Dr. Olivia
C. Caoili, Dean Rodany A. Merida, Dr. Socorro R. Villamejor, and to the Research and Development Unit
members of the College of Computer Studies and Systems.
References
Abbas, R. Z., Ashraf, M., Ahmad,M., Khalil, U., & Ahmad, Z. (2011).Measuring the attitude towards science
in Pakistan: A study of secondary school students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 2(10), 98–117.
Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2011). An exploratory factor analysis of an attitude towards geometry survey
in a Malaysian context. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(6), 190–193.
Asante, K. O. (2012). Secondary students’ attitudes towards mathematics. Ife PsychologIA, 20(1), 121–133.
ABET. (2012). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved January 28, 2013, from http://www.
abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Step_by_Step/Accreditation_Documents/Current/
2013_-_2014/eac-criteria-2013-2014.pdf.
Beer, J. M., McBride, S. E., Adams, A. E., & Rogers, W. A. (2011). Applied experimental psychology: A
capstone course for undergraduate psychology degree programs. Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55, 535–539. doi:10.1177/1071181311551109.
Brandell, G., & Staberg, E.-M. (2008). Mathematics: A female, male or gender-neutral domain?: A study of
attitudes among students at secondary level. Gender and Education, 20(5), 495–509. doi:10.1080/
09540250701805771.
Brandon, D., Pruett, J., & Wade, J. (2002). Experiences in developing and implementing a capstone course in
Information Technology Management. Journal of Information Technology Education, 1(2), 91–102.
Bringula, R. P., Tolentino, M. A. A., Manabat, G.M. A., & Torres, E. L. (2012). Effects of attitudes towards Java
programming on novice programmers’ errors. Philippine Information Technology Journal, 5(1), 29–34.
Coetzee, S., & Van der Merwe, P. (2010). Industrial psychology students’ attitudes towards statistics. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 36(1), Art. 843, 8 pages. doi: 10.4102/
sajip.v36i1.843.
Craker, D. E. (2006). Attitudes toward science of students enrolled in introductory level science courses at
UW-La Crosse. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research, 29, 1–6.
Doepken, D. Lawsky, E., & Padwa, L. (2003). Modified Fennema-Sherman attitude scales. Paper presented at
Gender Equity for Mathematics and Science: A Conference of the Woodrow Wilson Leadership Program for
Teachers. Retrieved February 5, 2013 from http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/math/gender/08scale.html.
Duatepe, A., & Çilesiz, Ş. (1999). Matematik tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 45–52.
Feldt, R. C. (2013). Factorial invariance of the indecision scale of the career scale: A multigroup confirmatory
factor analysis. The Career Development Quarterly, 61(3), 249–255. doi:10.1002/J.2161 -0045.2013.
00053.x.
Field, A. (2009). Discovery statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2009). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 16.0 update
(9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Haddock, G., & Maio, G. R. (2007). Attitudes. In Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 67–69).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.
Hartzel, K. S., Spangler, W. E., Gal-Or, M., & Jones, T. H. (2003). A case-based approach to integrating an
Information Technology curriculum. Information Systems Education Journal, 1(47), 1–9. Retrieved
November 13, 2012, from http://isedj.org/1/47/.
Kahveci,M. (2010). Students’ perceptions to use technology for learning: Measuring integrity of the modified
Fennema-Sherman attitude scales. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1),
185–201.
Kordi, A., & Baharudin, R. (2010). Parenting attitude and style and its effect on children’s school achievements.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 2(2), 217–222.
Kumar, A., Baker, K., & Ahmed, I. (2004). Designing a capstone course for Information Systems: Challenges
faced and lessons learned. Issues in Information Systems, 5(1), 173–179.
502 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504
LaLonde, D., Leedy, M. G., & Runk, K. (2003). Gender equity in mathematics: Beliefs of students, parents
and teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 103(6), 285–292.
Liman, M. A., Ibrahim, M. B., & Shittu, A. T. (2011). Exploraory factor analysis: Validation of mathematical
values inculcation model among secondary schools’ mathematics teachers in North-Eastern Region,
Nigeria. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(1), 63–72.
Lunt, B. M, Ekstrom, J. J., Gorka, S., Hislop, G., Kamali, R., Lawson, E., LeBlanc, R., Miller, J, & Reichgelt,
H. (2008). Information Technology 2008: Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in
Information Technology. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://www.acm.org/education/curricula/
IT2008%20Curriculum.pdf.
Maleki, M. R., Delgoshaie, B., Nasiripour, A. A., & Yaghoubi, M. (2012). Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis of health promotion in Iranian hospitals. HealthMED, 6(7), 2261–2267.
Matwin, S., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2007). Attitudes test. In Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (Vol. 1, pp.
53–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
McGann, S. T., & Cahill, M. A. (2005). Pulling it all together: An IS capstone course for the 21st century
emphasizing experiential & conceptual aspects, soft skills and career readiness. Issues in Information
Systems, 6(1), 391–397.
Meece, J., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5),
351–373. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004.
Mettas, A., Karmiotis, I., & Christoforou, P. (2006). Relationship between students’ self-beliefs and attitudes
on science achievements in Cyprus: Findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(1), 41–52.
Meyer, D. G. (2005). Capstone design outcome Assessment: Instruments for quantitative evaluation. Paper
presented at the Frontiers in Education’05: 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp.
F4D-7-F4D-11). Retrieved November 15, 2012, from IEEE Xplore. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2005.1612136.
Miles, G., & Kelm, K.M. (2007). Capstone project experiences: Integrating Computer Science and the Liberal Arts.
Information Systems Education Journal, 5(30), 1–10. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://isedj.org/5/30/.
Mohd, N., & Mahmood, T. F. P. T. (2011). The effects of attitudes towards problem solving in mathematics
achievements. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 1857–1862.
Moshkovich, H. M. (2012). Development project vs. Research project in an MIS capstone course: Student
perceptions. Review of Business Research, 12(2), 140–144.
Nasr, A. R., & Soltani, K. A. (2011). Attitude towards biology and its effects on student’s achievement.
International Journal of Biology, 3(4), 100–104. doi:10.5539/ijb.v3n4pl00.
Orhun, N. (2007). An investigation into the mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics with
respect to learning style according to gender. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology, 38(3), 321–333.
Ozturk, M. A. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis of the educators’ attitudes toward educational research
scale. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 737–747.
Payne, S. L., Flynn, J., & Whitfield, J. M. (2008). Capstone business course assessment: Exploring student
readiness perspectives. Journal of Education for Business, 83(3), 141–146.
Petscher, Y. (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and
achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(4), 335–355.
Ponticell, J. A. (2006). Attitudes towards work. In Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration
(Vol. 1, pp. 62−63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
Ramaswami, S., & Babo, G. (2012). Investigating the construct validity of the ISLLC 2008 standards through
exploratory factor analysis. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(2), 1–15.
Ramirez, M. J. (2005). Attitudes toward mathematics and academic performance among Chilean 8th graders.
Estudios Pedagógicos, 31(1), 97–112.
Russell, J., Russell, B., & Tastle, W. J. (2005). Teaching soft skills in a systems development capstone class.
Information Systems Education Journal, 3(19), 1–23. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://isedj.org/3/19/.
Salinas, M. F. (2006). Attitudes. In Encyclopedia of human development (Vol. 1, pp. 140–142). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
Shelley, M. C. (2006). Attitudes. In Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (Vol. 1, pp.
61–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
Tapia, M., Marsh, & G. E. II (2000). Attitudes toward mathematics instrument: An investigation with middle
school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association (pp. 1–15). Retrieved November 15, 2012, from Eric database.
Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E., II. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 8(2). Retrieved January 3, 2013, from http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/cho25344l.htm.
Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504 503
Tekerek, M., Yeniterzi, B., & Ercan, O. (2011). Math attitudes of computer education and instructional
technology students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
10(3), 168–174.
Yara, P. O. (2009). Students attitude towards mathematics and academic achievement in some
selected secondary schools in Southwestern Nigeria. European Journal of Scientific Research,
36(3), 336–341.
504 Educ Inf Technol (2015) 20:485–504