Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, Vol. 94, No.

1, 164 170

Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-0663/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.164

Developing a Computer Workshop to Facilitate Computer Skills and Minimize Anxiety for Early Childhood Educators
Eileen Wood
Wilfrid Laurier University

Teena Willoughby
Brock University

Jacqueline Specht
Huron College

Wilma Stern-Cavalcante
University of Waterloo

Carol Child
Wilfrid Laurier University
Early childhood educators (n 133) were assigned to 1 of 3 instructional conditions (direct, guided discovery, or no-exposure control) to assess the impact of computer workshops on their level of computer anxiety, computer knowledge, and comfort with computer technology. Groups were matched for computer experience and anxiety, early childhood education (ECE) experience, and ECE center. The direct and guided discovery groups attended a 3-hr hands-on workshop covering hardware, software, and Internet material. Immediately after the workshops, computer anxiety was lower and comfort with computer technology increased. Six months later, the control group had reduced computer anxiety, but the other groups maintained greater knowledge and comfort. Direct instruction reduced computer anxiety slightly but did not promote the acquisition of information of the guided condition. Overall, workshops provided gains that could translate into more effective and efficient computer use in the classroom.

Computer technology is a recent but prevalent feature in most educational institutions (see T. Scott, Cole, & Engel, 1992; Sutton, 1991). The presence of computer technology in the classroom continues to grow with the most recent extension to early childhood education environments. The introduction of computer technology for very young learners has been met with both approval (e.g., Shade & Watson, 1990) and concern (e.g., Barnes & Hill, 1983). For example, it was anticipated that the introduction of the technology would lead to poorer social skills, less active learning opportunities, and less age-appropriate play activities than is found in classrooms that lack this technology critical features of the early childhood education (ECE) curriculum (see Barnes & Hill, 1983; Kaden, 1990; Zajonc, 1984). Researchers now suggest, however, that the introduction of computers can facilitate social, cognitive, and play development among very young learners when

Eileen Wood, Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Teena Willoughby, Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada; Jacqueline Specht, Department of Psychology, Huron College, London, Ontario, Canada; Wilma Stern-Cavalcante, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Carol Child, Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Funding for this research was provided by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Grant 410 97 0146 and by a Grace Anderson Research Fellowship to Eileen Wood. We would like to acknowledge the support and participation of the early childhood educators in this study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eileen Wood, Department of Psychology, 75 University Avenue, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario N21 3C5, Canada. E-mail: ewood@wlu.ca 164

handled appropriately (see Escobedo, 1992; Muller & Perlmutter, 1985; Narrol, 1997; Podmore, 1991; Schofield, 1997). Even though there are still some cautions about introducing computer technology in the ECE environment, computer technology is increasing in ECE settings. The introduction of computer technology brings with it new challenges for early childhood educators. Given that few elementary or secondary school educators have received significant training in this technology or in how to integrate the technology into the curriculum (Schofield, 1994), it is not surprising that ECE educators also lack this experience. In recent studies, ECE educators voiced concern regarding their abilities to use computers in their center (Specht, Wood, & Willoughby, in press; Wood, Willoughby, & Specht, 1998). For example, in two surveys, at least 83% of ECE educators indicated that they were uncomfortable with computer technology (Wood et al., 1998). The challenge for ECE educators is that they must quickly learn how to use the technology, how to evaluate curriculum materials (software and the Internet), and how to manage the technology within their existing programs. It is important to overcome these challenges because computer technology offers another tool for promoting learning both for the educator and the student. In ECE environments, educators need opportunities to be interactive, sensitive to the individual needs of young learners, and child centered (Specht et al., in press). In elementary and secondary schools, the introduction of computers allowed greater opportunities for fostering individualized and student-centered instruction (e.g., see Schofield, 1994). Technology then, could support the learning environment advocated by ECE educators. However, technology is only as effective as the instructor who uses it.

ECE COMPUTER WORKSHOPS

165

Educators serve the pivotal role in determining just how much advantage can be drawn from technology (Brosnan, 1998). Educators who are fluent in the technology, integrate it within the curriculum, and are positive toward it are best able to use technology to its full potential (Clements, 1995). Proponents of technology use in education also suggest that, if given adequate exposure and supportive hands-on experience with computers, children find working with the technology enjoyable and experience significant cognitive and social gains (e.g., Bergin, Ford, & Hess, 1993; Leso & Peck, 1992; Podmore, 1991). Clearly, some intervention or support is required for ECE educators in order to ensure that they deliver the best instructional environment for very young learners. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of computer workshops as a mechanism for heightening knowledge and comfort with computer technology while reducing anxiety about computers among ECE educators. The workshops created for the present study covered the unique skill areas that ECE educators require in order for them to use computers with very young learners. In particular, the workshops combined the need for information and experience in order to allow ECE educators to become more comfortable with the technology and minimize computer anxiety. The hands-on, interactive workshops provided an overview of basic computer software and hardware, criteria for evaluating the developmental appropriateness of software, and exposure to the Internet. For all of these topics, participants had an opportunity to practice. For example, they learned how to connect computer components, identify system capabilities, install and operate developmentally appropriate software, and use the Internet. These key elements were derived from existing research with ECE educators (Specht et al., in press; Wood et al., 1998). Providing information and practice with the skills needed to operate computers enhances knowledge and experience, two variables typically associated with lower computer anxiety (Anderson, 1996). Gender is a salient issue in understanding computer anxiety. Female individuals often report less confidence and more anxiety about using computer technology than male individuals (e.g. Brosnan, 1998; Comber, Colley, Hargreaves, & Dorn, 1997; Siann, MacLeod, Glissov, & Durndell, 1990; Temple & Lips, 1989). Given that the majority of ECE workers are women, there was reason to expect high levels of anxiety and discomfort with respect to computer technology in this population. It was important, therefore, to develop a program that could minimize anxiety and make the ECE educators more comfortable with technology. In the present study, we also studied ways of providing ECE educators with training in computer technology. Two instructional styles were evaluated: direct and guided discovery. With direct instruction, the instructor demonstrated each behavior and provided explicit information on a step-by-step basis. Content was highly structured and sequential, consistent with direct models of teaching (see Pressley & McCormick 1995). We thought that direct instruction might minimize anxiety in individuals who hesitate to approach a computer. With direct instruction, there was little opportunity for error. Given the concern among some people that errors may result in computer malfunction, or more dramatically, permanent damage (Gos, 1996; Kelley & Charness, 1995), it was important to determine whether a completely controlled, safe introduction would minimize anxiety. Because anxiety is often associated with minimal prior experience (Comber et al.,

1997), it was important to provide an instructional technique that completely supported the inexperienced learner. The second instructional style was guided discovery. The role of the instructor was to guide and encourage participants to problem solve, use trial and error techniques, and draw on existing prior knowledge as they worked with computers. Instructional units included opportunities for exploration. The instructor posed questions to the participants guiding them to discover similarities between their existing knowledge and information they were learning about the computers (see Pressley & McCormick, 1995; Willoughby, Wood, & Khan, 1994; Wood et al., 1999). The opening exercise for exploring the components of the computer provides an example of the unique features of each of these instructional techniques. When direct instruction participants were introduced to the computer console, they were provided with a handout with 2 pictures, one view of the back of the console and one of the front. Each view identified all important features of the console (e.g., on off button, CD drive). An arrow was directed at each feature. The name, function, and special considerations associated with each feature were presented systematically by the instructor. Participants then turned the machine on and were walked through the function of each component. In the guided discovery condition, participants were given the handouts, but the views were empty. Participants were encouraged to draw all the features that they felt were critical, using the information that they knew about other electronic devices (e.g., videos, TVs). They were then asked to define the function of each of the parts, using their prior knowledge. This was followed by a review of the parts and function and practice. To assess changes over time, we took measurements at three time intervals: prior to workshop exposure, immediately after workshops, and after a 6-month delay. We also included a control group that did not participate in the workshops to determine the impact of the two instructional techniques relative to changes that might naturally occur over time.

Method Participants
The 133 ECE educators (128 women, 5 men) who participated in the study ranged in age from 21 to 58 years (M 34.41, SD 11.9) and had between 6 months and 31 years of ECE experience (M 8.91, SD 7.11). Average exposure to computers was 3 years (SD 4.6), although most participants indicated minimal hands-on computer experience. Participants were recruited from 27 centers across four mid-sized Canadian cities, which represented a full spectrum of childcare environments (i.e., preschool, daycare) and types of facilities (i.e., public, private, co-op). Participants within each center were assigned to one of three instructional conditions (guided discovery, direct instruction, or no-instruction control). Within each condition, we matched participants level of computer anxiety, number of years in ECE, amount of computer experience, and the center from which they were drawn.

Design and Materials

Participants in the direct and guided discovery conditions were tested on 3 occasions (pretest, workshop, and 6-month follow-up), and participants in the control condition were tested twice (pretest and 6-month follow-up). Measures for each of the testing phases were identical across conditions except for one word change on one question of the follow-up

166

WOOD, WILLOUGHBY, SPECHT, STERN-CAVALCANTE, AND CHILD Knowing your personal computer. The personal computer component introduced basic hardware (e.g., monitor, computer processing unit, CPU, random access memory), some of the features of the Windows98 operating system (e.g., opening and closing a file or program, setting the cursor speed), and the Microsoft Word program (e.g., editing and saving a document). Participants also learned how to connect the various components of the computer and adjust the monitor settings. This section took approximately 1 1/4 hr and involved extensive hands-on experience with the computer. Childrens software. Participants were introduced to a variety of software available for preschool-age children (games, educational packages) and were provided with Haughland and Shades (1988) 10 suggested criteria to assess the appropriateness of educational computer programs for children. Good and poor examples of software were demonstrated. Participants were alerted to the lack of uniformity and control over the labeling and packaging of software and were introduced to skills strengthened by some software (e.g., matching-to-sample promotes memory skills). Information was presented in 35 min, followed by 15 min of hands-on exploration with high-quality childrens software (games, stories, and educational software). Introduction to the Internet. This section included describing the Internet, procedures and resources necessary to connect to it, and identification of issues related to the reliability of the information found in the Internet. This section took approximately 30 min and was followed by 15-min hands-on experience.

test where reference to the workshop was deleted for control participants. (See Table 1 for a summary of the design.)

Pretest
Each participant independently completed the 3-page pretest survey at his or her center in approximately 20 min. The survey contained 4 demographic questions (i.e., name, age, center, and ECE experience), 7 computer experience questions (e.g., How many monthsyears [in total] have you worked with computers?), and a computer anxiety measure. Scores on the computer anxiety could range from 11 to 55; higher scores indicating higher anxiety. The Cronbach alpha for the computer anxiety measure was .90.

Workshop
Workshops were provided on a university campus in each of the four cities with similar room set-up in all four locations. The workshop set-up had three participant stations, each station containing a desktop Pentium II computer and three chairs facing the computer. Three feet behind each participant station was a chair for a facilitator. Facilitators were responsible for ensuring that all group members had a turn, followed the presenters instructions, and facilitators acted as troubleshooters for the possibility of a computer malfunction. Facilitators received extensive training in the content of the workshop and the instructional styles, and they had computer experience. Training included attending a full workshop for each instructional condition in a participant role, three or four discussion and information sessions, and supervised practice in mock sessions. Training sessions occurred over a couple of weeks and lasted about 3 hr each. Facilitators were provided with a copy of the workshop scripts for each instructional condition and accompanying scripts designating their particular roles. Facilitators had an opportunity to practice and discuss their roles and use their scripts informally in the discussion sessions and formally in mock runs with volunteer participants. Facilitators were supervised by the researchers to ensure that procedures were followed. In total, four Pentium II computers with sound cards and Internet access were used, one for the presenter, and three for the groups. The presenter also used an overhead projector to present the content of the workshop. Participants followed the content through prepared workbooks. The workshop comprised three content areas: information about personal computers (Knowing Your Personal Computer), childrens software, and the Internet. The entire workshop was completed in 3 hr with each segment timed to ensure that participants in both conditions spent equal time at each task. There was one 10-min break after the first content area.

Presentation Content
The primary difference between conditions was how information was presented. In the direct instruction condition, instruction was explicit with participants following step-by-step the exact example given by the presenter. In the guided discovery condition, instruction incorporated more opportunities for participants to build on their existing prior knowledge and on knowledge that the participants had constructed in previous parts of the workshop. For example, when participants were introduced to the section outlining Haughland and Shades (1988) guidelines for assessing developmentally appropriate software, those in the direct instruction condition were provided a handout with the list of the 10 guidelines and their definitions. Members of the group were given an opportunity to read the information. The instructor went through each guideline and elaborated on the definitions, providing good and poor software exemplars, and then encouraging participants to play with a selection of software. Participants were encouraged to work together to evaluate the developmental appropriateness of the provided software using the 10 guidelines. In contrast, participants in the guided discovery condition first received the list of labels for the 10 guidelines without the accompanying definitions. They were then asked to generate appropriate definitions. Participants were cued to use prior knowledge to assist them in this task. For example, they were told to think about the criteria that they used to classify age appropriate toys, books, and videos and TV shows. Formal definitions were then presented, and participants were encouraged to reflect on how the definitions matched their existing knowledge about age-appropriate teaching aids. Participants then had the opportunity to play and evaluate the provided software.

Table 1 Summary of Measures Assessed at Each Time Period as a Function of Condition

Measure Pretest Workshop 6-month follow-up

Demographics Direct Guideddiscovery Control Anxiety Direct Direct Guideddiscovery Guideddiscovery Control Knowledge Direct Guideddiscovery Comfort

Workshop Posttest
At the end of the workshop, all participants independently completed a 6-page posttest. The test assessed knowledge of material presented in the workshop, perceived level of comfort in operating a computer before and after the workshop, and computer anxiety (as per the pretest). Knowledge was assessed through 9 multiple component questions. The following are examples of typical questions: During the workshop we discussed 10 criteria that we should look for when buying childrens software. Briefly describe 3 of these criteria.

Direct Guideddiscovery Control Direct Guideddiscovery Control Direct Direct Guideddiscovery Guideddiscovery Control

ECE COMPUTER WORKSHOPS What might you do if, when working on the computer, all of a sudden the desktop freezes and you cannot move anything in it? Perceived comfort level for the various tasks involved in operating a computer also was assessed both for participants perceptions of their abilities Before the Workshop and Now (immediately after the workshop). Participants used a 5-point scale (ranging from Not Comfortable At All to Quite Comfortable) for each of the 16 items on the comfort measure (e.g., installing software; changing the speed of the mouse; selecting appropriate software for your students; being able to problem solve to try to fix problems when your computer is not working). Approximately 15 min was required to complete the posttest. The comfort measure, although similar to the anxiety measure, assessed anxiety about specific computer competencies rather than global computer technology anxiety. The Cronbach alpha for the comfort scale was .89. A delayed posttest measure was given approximately 6 months after completion of the workshop. The follow-up tests were mailed to the ECE center with postage-paid addressed envelopes. The test included the knowledge, comfort, and computer anxiety measures found on the workshop posttest. There was one wording difference on this test. On the comfort measure, participants in the direct and guided discovery conditions were asked to compare their present performance to their performance before the workshops. Participants in the control condition were asked to compare their present performance to their performance the previous Fall.

167

and to provide correct information if necessary. Participants were encouraged to interact with each other and to actively participate in each of the computer tasks. Participants in the no-exposure control group were offered an opportunity to participate in a workshop after they completed the follow-up test.

Results Matching
Analyses indicated that matching across conditions was successful. Conditions did not differ on any of the measures at pretest, largest F(1, 132) .26, p .77, for computer anxiety.

Workshop Outcomes Anxiety

Computer anxiety was assessed at pretest and immediately after the workshop for the direct and guided discovery conditions. See Table 3 for the means and standard deviations. A 2 (condition) 2 (time intervals) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded a significant main effect for anxiety, F(1, 102) 40.54, p .001, such that anxiety decreased following participation in the workshop, (M 33.56, SD 8.53, for pretest and M 30.07, SD 7.82, immediately following the workshop). There was no significant main effect for condition, F(1, 102) .15, p .05. There was a trend, however, toward a significant interaction between condition and anxiety, F(1, 102) 3.29, p .07, such that the direct instruction group experienced less anxiety than the guided discovery instruction group after the workshop.

Procedure
Individual participants were recruited through the assistance of managers and supervisors. ECE educators were approached through a visit to the center. During the visit, participants completed the pretest measures. All pretest measures were completed independently while supervised by one of the researchers. Participants selected preferred workshop times. Pretest measures were used to assign participants to one of the 3 conditions. Educators from each center were equally represented in each condition. Each condition was equivalent for participants ages, ECE and computer experience, and computer anxiety. Within each workshop, participants were placed in a group of peers from other centers. Matching on these variables was critical given the high level of correlation among these variables (see Table 2). Workshops were arranged with a minimum of 6 and maximum of 9 participants at each session. Participants were na ve to the instructional manipulation. Each workshop used one instructional technique. One instructor presented all workshops. Within cities, facilitators remained constant. When participants arrived at the workshop, they were assigned to a station and introduced to their facilitator and other participants at the station. Participants recorded responses at various intervals throughout the workshop in prepared work booklets. Participants had the opportunity to compare and augment their notes with their peers or with the information given by the presenter. Facilitators were instructed to note the responses

Knowledge
Knowledge about computers was assessed immediately following the workshop for the direct and guided conditions. The oneway ANOVA was marginally significant, F(1, 106) 3.78, p .054, suggesting that participants in the guided discovery instruction group remembered more of the workshop information about computers than participants in the direct instruction group (see Table 3 for means).

Comfort
Immediately after the workshop, direct and guided discovery participants rated their level of comfort. They provided a retrospective rating of their level of comfort for the period preceding the workshop and present level of comfort immediately following the workshop. A 2 (condition) 2 (time intervals) repeated measures ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for comfort level, F(1, 105) 380.34, p .001, such that comfort increased following participation in the workshop, (M 41.21, SD 17.19, prior to the workshop and M 64.84, SD 10.56, immediately following the workshop). There main effect for condition and the interaction were not significant, largest F(1, 105) .03, p .05, for the interaction.

Table 2 Correlations Among Matching Variables Used for Group Assignment

Variable Age Years of ECE experience Years of computer experience Years of ECE experience .687** Years of computer experience .136 .239* Pretest anxiety .301** .294** .426**

Follow-Up Outcomes
At follow-up participants who had participated in the workshops were compared to the no-exposure control group. There was a

Note. ECE early computer education. * p .05. ** p .01.

168

WOOD, WILLOUGHBY, SPECHT, STERN-CAVALCANTE, AND CHILD

Table 3 Summary of Scores for Anxiety, Knowledge, and Comfort as a Function of Time and Condition
Condition Anxiety Pretest Direct M SD Guided M SD Control M SD 33.76 8.68 33.36 8.47 35.79 8.66 Workshop Direct M SD Guided M SD 29.30 7.60 30.91 7.84 Follow-up Direct M SD Guided M SD Control M SD
a

Knowledge

Comfort

40.04a 18.21 43.92a 15.17 42.19a 18.11

in anxiety that occurred immediately after the workshop was affected over time, we conducted a 2 (condition) 3 (time interval) repeated measures ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc comparisons. Between these two instructional conditions, there was a significant main effect for anxiety, F(2, 46) 15.29, p .001, which was qualified by a significant Anxiety Condition interaction, F(2, 46) 4.61, p .05. Anxiety dropped immediately following the workshop in these two conditions and remained at that lower level over time; however, the decrease in anxiety was greater for the direct group than the guided group (see Table 3 for means).

Knowledge
A one-way ANOVA was used to assess differences in computer knowledge among the three conditions, followed by Tukey pot hoc comparisons. There was a significant main effect for condition, F(2, 64) 3.47, p .001. Participants in the guided discovery condition knew more than participants in the no-exposure control condition. There was a trend for the direct condition participants to know more than the control condition ( p .085). The direct and guided discovery conditions did not differ in knowledge ( p .93). It was also possible to assess possible changes in knowledge from immediately after the workshop to the follow-up period for participants in the direct and guided discovery conditions. A 2 (condition) 2 (time interval) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. There was a significant main effect for amount of knowledge retained, F(1, 48) 21.99, p .001. More information was retained immediately after the workshops (M 14.89, SD 2.56) than after the delay (M 12.86, SD 2.27). There were no other significant differences.

14.12 2.84 15.05 2.09

64.85 11.59 64.69 9.52

28.38 7.89 31.36 8.04 30.53 11.70

12.72 1.72 13.00 2.74 10.88 3.67

60.54 11.76 58.16 11.37 47.25 20.08

Scores are based on retrospective assessment of comfort provided after workshop or follow-up.

Comfort
At follow-up participants in all three conditions were asked to rate their perceived comfort prior to the workshop time period and at present. A 3 (condition) 2 (time) repeated measure ANOVA assessed perceived levels of comfort before the workshop and at follow-up for all three conditions followed by Tukey post hoc comparisons. There was a significant main effect for comfort, F(1, 61) 95.79, p .001, with all groups reporting higher comfort scores at the follow-up period than the period of time before the workshop. The main effect for condition was not significant, F(2, 61) 1.10, p .05. The main effect for comfort was qualified by a significant Comfort Condition interaction, F(2, 61) 9.06, p .001. There were no significant differences among the conditions for reported levels of comfort before the workshop. At follow-up, both the direct and guided discovery conditions had substantially higher comfort scores than the control group. The direct and guided discovery conditions did not differ significantly.

large decline in the number of participants at follow-up relative to the pretest and workshop testing. Approximately half of the participants dropped out of the study. The variables used to assign participants to groups were reexamined in order to assess whether the reduced sample varied dramatically from the original sample. Overall, mean scores were similar suggesting that the smaller sample was representative of the initial sample. For example, mean ECE experience went from 8.91 to 9.09, computer experience from 3.05 to 2.96, and pretest anxiety from 34.0 to 33.31, from pretest to follow-up, respectively.

Anxiety
Anxiety was measured at pretest and at follow-up for all 3 conditions. A 3 (condition) 2 (time interval) repeated measures ANOVA assessed differences in anxiety among the conditions from pretest to follow-up. There was a significant main effect for anxiety indicating a decrease in anxiety from pretest (M 33.31, SD 8.64, to follow-up, M 29.81, SD 8.88), F(1, 59) 15.81, p .001. The main effect for condition and the interaction were not significant, largest F(2, 59) 1.85, p .05, for the interaction. Anxiety was assessed at all three time intervals for the direct and guided discovery conditions. To determine how the initial decrease

Anxiety and Comfort Measures

Several researchers have highlighted the need to distinguish between specific and global technological anxiety, arguing that attitudes toward technology in general and specific use of technology are related but distinct constructs (e.g., Bozionelos, 1997; Dyck, Gee, & Smither, 1998; Worthington & Zhao, 1999). As expected, in the present study global computer anxiety and comfort

ECE COMPUTER WORKSHOPS

169

shared a moderate negative correlation, r(107) .60, p .001, and r(64) .66, p .001, for after the workshop and after the delay, respectively. Higher anxiety, therefore, was associated with lower levels of comfort.

Discussion
The immediate effect of the workshop was positive for the participants in the two instructional conditions. Even after a 6-month delay, participation in a workshop was critical for enhancing comfort with basic computer skills. In addition, participation enhanced knowledge. In particular, computer literacy skills, both global and those specific to issues related to the ECE environment, were facilitated. The dramatic increase in comfort following the workshop and remaining even after 6 months is an important change. The literature clearly identifies positive attitudes toward computer technology as a precursor to adoption of the technology and sustained use (e.g., G. Scott & Rockwell, 1997). Instructors who are more comfortable using computer equipment are more likely to view the technology positively when it appears in their teaching environment (Brosnan, 1998). Comfortable instructors are also more likely to implement the technology as part of their curriculum and to offer this medium as an alternative for their students. In studies of older children, Brosman estimated that 50% of students receive their first exposure to computers through their teachers at school and that the attitudes of the teachers providing first exposure to the technology have a direct bearing on students attitudes. To maximize the chances that first exposure is positive for students, it is necessary to ensure that the teacher is also comfortable with the technology and able to use it effectively. Those teachers who are not comfortable with basic operations are less likely to use the technology and most probably experience frustrations and delays (Anderson, 1996) that may negatively affect students perceptions of computer technology. In the present study, exposure to a single workshop was sufficient to change participants perceptions toward computer technology by increasing comfort. Given that children in ECE environments may receive their first exposure to computer technology through their ECE teachers, providing workshop interventions could have dramatic implications both for the individual instructor and these very young students potential use of this technology. It was expected that specific knowledge would increase after exposure to the workshop. This was evident here. Participants who attended the workshop knew more than those who did not. There also was a strong trend favoring guided discovery over direct instruction immediately following the workshop. From a memory perspective, this outcome is not unexpected. The demands in the guided discovery condition required participants to draw on their existing prior knowledge, to make and test hypotheses on the basis of their own knowledge, and to elaborate the information provided (e.g., Pressley et al., 1992; Willoughby et al., 1994). These cognitive behaviors would be expected to enhance knowledge acquisition and retention relative to the techniques used in the direct instructional approach. It is important to note, however, that there was a trend favoring those exposed to direct instructional techniques over those who did not attend a workshop, suggesting that even the more basic direct approach did provide knowledge gains.

Given traditional declines in memory over time, it was expected that there would be some attrition in knowledge over the 6 months. There was some decline in knowledge in the present study but, interestingly, the amount of decline was marginal. The impact of this single workshop appears sufficient to sustain considerable knowledge gains over time. Although one workshop can make substantial gains, it is important to keep in mind the rate at which computer technology advances. It would be prudent to advise educators to attend additional workshops or at least to receive materials that would allow them to update their skills. Overall, global computer technology anxiety was lowered immediately after the workshop and after the 6-month delay. The two instructional conditions also differed in computer anxiety. Specifically, participants in the direct group showed the most marked decrease in anxiety following the workshop. Given that many individuals, and especially female individuals, tend to express fear about computer technology and their lack of expertise, the direct instructional style that assures positive outcomes was expected to reduce anxiety. Participants in the guided discovery instruction, although supported and provided with direction, were allowed to experiment with their own hypotheses regarding some functions of the computer. This could be perceived as a daunting and more anxiety-provoking situation. The differential effects in knowledge and anxiety brought about as a function of instructional condition pose an interesting challenge for designing future workshops. Clearly the reduction in task demands in the direct instruction condition led to a reduction in anxiety about computer technology, but direct instruction also yielded lower knowledge gains. The guided discovery format, on the other hand, yielded higher knowledge but perhaps at the cost of slightly higher levels of anxiety. The solution perhaps is to present a tiered workshop presentation where skills are first presented using a direct style, followed by problem-solving approaches. One unexpected finding was that anxiety in the no-exposure control group dropped to a similar level as those in the workshop instruction conditions after the 6-month delay. This reduction may be a function of control group participants being in contact with individuals who attended the workshop. There may have been enough interaction and discussion with workshop participants to reduce some outstanding fears. The large standard deviation among the no-exposure participants, however, suggests that there was greater variability in this group, perhaps consistent with some members having greater access, exposure, or experience with computers during the 6-month delay period. It is important to note that although at follow-up there were no statistical differences in anxiety between the experimental and control groups, there was significantly greater comfort with computers among the experimental groups compared to the control. Early childhood educators are faced with the onset of computer technology, and they need an immediate intervention to help them cope with the inevitable presence of computers in the ECE environment. Workshops, like the one offered here, provide one means of facilitating skills and knowledge that make them more comfortable with the technology.

References
Anderson, A. (1996). Predictors of computer anxiety and performance in information systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 6177.

170

WOOD, WILLOUGHBY, SPECHT, STERN-CAVALCANTE, AND CHILD (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91109. Schofield, J. W. (1994). Barriers to computer usage in secondary school. In C. Huff & T. Finholdt (Eds.), Social issues in computing: Putting computing in its place (pp. 547580). New York: McGraw-Hill. Schofield, J. W. (1997). Computers and classroom social processesA review of the literature. Social Science Computer Review, 15, 2739. Scott, G., & Rockwell, S. (1997). The effect of communication, writing and technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies. Communication and Education, 46(1), 44 62. Scott, T., Cole, M., & Engel, M. (1992). Computers and education: A cultural constructivist perspective. Review of Research in Education, 18, 191251. Shade, D., & Watson, J. (1990). Computers in early education: Issues put to rest, theoretical links to sound practice, and the potential contribution of microworlds. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 375 392. Siann, G., MacLeod, H., Glissov, P., & Durndell, A. (1990). The effect of computer use on gender differences in attitudes to computers. Computers in Education, 14, 183191. Specht, J., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (in press). What early childhood educators want to know about computer technology. Canadian Journal of Education and Communication. Sutton, R. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61, 475503. Temple, L., & Lips, H. (1989). Gender differences and similarities in attitudes towards computers. Computers and Human Behavior, 5, 215 226. Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Khan, M. (1994). Isolating variables that impact on or detract from the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 279 289. Wood, E., Willoughby, T., McDermott, C., Motz, M., Kaspar, V., & Ducharme, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in study behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 527536. Wood, E., Willoughby, T., & Specht, J. (1998). Whats happening with computer technology in early childhood education settings? Journal of Educational Computer Research, 18, 237243. Worthington, V., & Zhao, Y. (1999). Existential computer anxiety and changes in computer technology: What past research on computer anxiety has missed. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 299 315. Zajonc, A. B. (1984). Computer pedagogy? Questions concerning the new educational technology. Teachers College Record, 85, 570 577.

Barnes, B., & Hill, S. (1983, May). Should young children work with microcomputersLogo before Lego? The Computing Teacher, pp. 11 14. Bergin, D., Ford, M., & Hess, R. (1993). Patterns of motivation and social behavior associated with microcomputer use of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 437 445. Bozionelos, N. (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLV. Cognitive spontaneity as a correlate of computer anxiety and attitudes toward computer use. Psychological Reports, 80, 395 402. Brosnan, M. (1998). The impact of psychological gender, gender-related perceptions, significant others, and the introducer of technology upon computer anxiety in students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 6378. Clements, D. (1995). Teaching creativity with computers. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 141161. Comber, C., Colley, A., Hargreaves, D., & Dorn, L. (1997). The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research, 39, 123133. Dyck, J., Gee, N., & Smither, J. (1998). The changing construct of computer anxiety for younger and older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 6177. Escobedo, T. (1992). Play in a new medium: Childrens talk and graphics at computers. Play and Culture, 5, 120 140. Gos, M. (1996, May/June). Computer anxiety and computer experience: A new look at an old relationship. The Clearing House, pp. 271276. Haughland, S., & Shade, D. (1988). Developmentally appropriate software for young children. Young Children, 43, 37 43. Kaden, M. (1990). Issues on computers and early childhood education. In C. Seefeldt (Ed.), Continuing issues in early childhood education (pp. 261275). New York: Teachers College Press. Kelley, C., & Charness, N. (1995). Issues in training older adults to use computers. Behavior and Information Technology, 14, 107120. Leso, T., & Peck, K. (1992). Computer anxiety and different types of computer courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 469 478. Muller, A., & Perlmutter, M. (1985). Preschool childrens problem-solving interactions at computers and jigsaw puzzles. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 173186. Narrol, H. (1997). Computers, thinking, and education. In M. Luther & E. Cole (Eds.), Dynamic assessment for instruction: From theory to application (pp. 221224). North York, Ontario: Captus Press. Podmore, V. (1991). 4-year-olds, 6-year-olds, and microcomputers: A study of perceptions and social behaviors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 87101. Pressley, M., & McCormick, C. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: Harper Collins College. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D.

Received December 31, 2000 Revision received June 15, 2001 Accepted June 15, 2001