A Computer Literacy Course for Agriculture: A Report of Student Attitudes, Evaluations and Performance

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

A Computer Literacy Course for Agriculture: A Report of Student Attitudes, Evaluations andPerformanceAuthor(s): Marvin T. Batte, John R. Fiske and Reed D. TaylorSource: North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Jul., 1985), pp. 119-128Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Agricultural & Applied Economics AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1349333 .

Accessed: 09/06/2014 21:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.190 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:20:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1349333?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A COMPUTER LITERACY COURSE FOR AGRICULTURE: A REPORT OF STUDENT ATTITUDES, EVALUATIONS AND PERFORMANCE

Marvin T. Batte, John R. Fiske, and Reed D. Taylor

It has been suggested that we are on the verge of a business management revolution that will be as important to the future of agriculture as were the introduction of animal power and the subsequent shift to mechanical power and chemical techniques in their own times [4]. The adoption of information processing technology may speed the current structural change toward fewer and larger farms. With narrowing profit margins, greater reliance on manufactured inputs, and increased use of debt financing, the vulnera- bility of the present day farmer to price and yield variability has heightened. Only those farmers who can control costs and productivity and who can quickly and accurately appraise marketing options will remain profitable. Information processing is likely to be key to this ability and computer literacy may be the prerequisite to effective utiliza- tion of information in the management process.

For some time educators have been asserting that computer literacy is as much a part of functional literacy as are the tradi- tional "three R's" [2,3]. While these asser- tions may be given to hyperbole, they contain too much truth to be dismissed lightly. Indeed, they contain enough truth to warrant serious assessment of the computer literacy needs of students in agriculture. Teachers in college-level curriculums have close contact with the future leaders of agriculture. It is important that they familiarize themselves with the concept of computer literacy and assess the computer literacy needs of their graduates.

This is a report of recent experiences in Agriculture Economics 250 (AE 250), a "computer literacy" course offered in the College

of Agriculture at The Ohio State University. The purpose of the report is to summarize student attitudes and performance relative to this important subject matter. The particular objectives of the study are:

1. To measure student attitude toward application of computer technology in agriculture.

2. To test for changes in these attitudes resulting from completion of AE 250.

3. To determine factors which affect student performance and attitude in AE 250.

4. To suggest implications for college curriculums of implementing computer literacy requirements.

The next section will address the goals and efforts at Ohio State to provide "computer literacy" to students in the College of Agriculture. Subsequently, attitudes regarding the usefulness of the computer in agriculture held by students both prior to, and following completion of, the course are discussed. Changes in attitudes will be related to characteristics of students enrolled. Sta- tistical tests of differences in attitudes and performance among students by groups will be discussed.

Computer Literacy and AE 250

Growth of interest in computer literacy in colleges of agriculture has paralleled the development of microcomputer technology. This highly accessible, relatively low cost technology seems to be particularly appropri- ate to the needs of typical agricultural businesses. Full appreciation of this technology, however, requires a basic understanding of the functions, capabilities and limitations of hardware and software and an ability to conceptualize problems for computer solu-

Marvin T. Batte and John R. Fiske are Assistant Professors, and Reed D. Taylor is Associate Professor, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University.



120 NORTH CENTRAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Vol. 7, No. 2, July 1985

tion. Just as verbal literacy usually connotes the ability to read and write but not neces- sarily with fluency or creativity, computer literacy suggests a mastery of very basic computer skills.

In the summer of 1981, the College of Agriculture modified its baccalaureate degree curriculum to require a minimum of five quarter hours of credit in computer subject matter. The requirement can be met by completion of either a programming course taught in the Department of Computer and Information Science or Agricultural Econom- ics 250. Over 90 percent of all College of Agriculture students meet the requirement by enrollment in AE 250.

The history of AE 250 substantially pre- cedes the College of Agriculture curriculum change. AE 250 was created in 1972. It was conceived as a course to expose department majors to the evolving technology of the computer and the interaction this technology would have with agriculture. In its early days, the course was largely a survey course. Students were not given hands-on experience with computer use and were not required to design and code computer programs. How- ever, from the beginning demonstrations of applications programs relevant to agriculture were incorporated through the use of timesharing on mainframe computers.

Over time, both enrollment in the course and its orientation toward hands-on experience grew. In 1979, a laboratory of twenty programmable calculators with printers was added [5]. The course was modified to include an organized laboratory section. The use of programming exercises was also incorporated to promote student understanding of simple programming techniques. Programm- able calculator technology proved successful as a method of teaching students the ele- ments of programming. Concepts of condi- tional and unconditional branching and loop- ing were easily demonstrated with this tool. Students were provided an elementary understanding of the power and application of the computer through this technology. In 1983, the laboratory technology was again changed, this time to utilize microcomputers. The lab is currently equipped with 20 student work stations and one teaching station.

AE 250 is organized as a five credit hour, quarter system course. The course meets for 48 minute lectures three times a week and for a two hour lab session once a week. Multiple lab sections are offered in order to have a sniall class environment and to increase the use of available microcomputers.

In addition to organized laboratory sections, students are assigned homework exercises. In a course such as this, laboratory ses- sions and homework exercises are crucial to students' success. They offer the opportunity to design, code and execute programs, and to see, first hand, the components of a computer system. Homework exercises typically involve description of a simple problem (e.g., tax calculation, enterprise budgeting) for which students must devise and code a computer solution.

The course consists of five major sections, the largest being an approximately four week treatment of BASIC, a high level programming language. Other topics include a discussion of general purpose computer software featuring electronic spreadsheets, data base managers and word processing, and a discussion of trends, capabilities and limitations surrounding the application of computers to agriculture. A more complete description of the course objectives and syllabus is given in an earlier publication [1].

Who Should Teach Computer Literacy?

At the time the College curriculum was changed to require a computer course, there was considerable discussion concerning the merits of teaching this subject matter within the college versus utilizing new or existing Computer Science Department offerings. In practical terms, the Computer Science Department was faced with instructor and equipment shortages, and was unwilling to teach specialized computer literacy courses for units within the University. Even ignor- ing this limitation, however, there was strong College faculty support for a course to be taught within the College, one that would be more general in content than existing Com- puter Science courses which typically taught only high level languages.



COMPUTER LITERACY COURSE Batte, Fiske, Taylor 121

The College Curriculum Committee recommended AE 250 as a course to meet the literacy requirement, not to train computer scientists. Their intent was to develop a course that would teach students in various agricultural majors how to use the computer as a tool in their professions. While some "theory" would be part of the course, it would not be computer theory per se but theory that derives from logic and mathematics.

The computer literacy course was envisioned to become a predominantly sophomore level course, and a prerequisite for many advanced subject matter courses throughout the College. To date, AE 250 has been imposed as a prerequisite for only a few advanced courses. With maturity of the literacy requirement, more advanced courses will likely adopt AE 250 as a prerequisite.

Another feature of computer literacy that has come to be recognized is that courses such as AE 250 may have a short "half-life." As computer literacy increasingly comes to be provided in secondary schools, the need for such a program in the College of Agriculture will diminish. There may, however, be a remedial role for a course in computer literacy for some years just as remedial courses in mathematics and English are com- monplace today.

Data and Methodology

The objectives of this research were to determine student attitudes, both at the beginning and the end of the course, to measure the extent of change in attitudes during the course, and to determine those factors which influence student attitudes toward the application of computers in agriculture. To accomplish these objectives, two questionnaires were administered; one each on the first and last days of the course. Question- naires were coded so that the individual's beginning and ending responses could be matched and changes in attitude tested with greater statistical rigor. Questionnaires were administered for four quarters with a total of 379 students submitting both beginning and ending questionnaires.

The student population of AE 250 is diverse in many respects. Approximately 66 percent of the respondents were male. Over 48 percent of the students were seniors and 34 percent juniors'. AE 250 serves students from a wide variety of disciplines. Students enrolled were from 9 agricultural majors, with 14 students from outside the College.

The College of Agriculture at Ohio State, like most others across the nation, is now attracting a significant number of students from noncommercial farms and urban areas. Only 28 percent of the respondents said they were from a commercial farm (arbi- trarily defined as one having more than $20,000 gross annual sales). An additional 22 percent were from rural areas other than commercial farms.

There are several student characteristics which are hypothesized to influence attitude toward computer applications in agriculture, student grade performance and evaluation of the course. These include (1) student sex, (2) student class rank, (3) previous exposure to computers, and (4) student major. Beginning student attitude toward AE 250 also is hypothesized to influence student performance in, and evaluation of, the course.

There is no strong reason, a priori, to believe that either sex will perform significantly better in the class than the other, or that the sexes will hold differing attitudes. For this reason, all analyses involving sex are formulated as two-tailed tests.

Student class rank was hypothesized to be positively related to course performance and evaluation of the course. As students

I Although students are encouraged to enroll as so-

phomores, the large proportion of juniors and seniors is indicative of recent emphasis given to this subject matter by advisors and students alike, and the instal- lation of the computer literacy requirement in summer, 1981. However, the persistence of senior registration suggests that stronger incentives for sophomore enrollment may be needed. This could be accomplished by more strongly encouraging student advisors to enroll students as sophomores. A more effective strategy may be to encourage the use of the computer literacy requirement as a prerequisite for junior/senior level subject matter courses in the college.




complete coursework in such areas as business, accounting, and statistics, they likely are exposed to potential applications of the computer. This may influence their expectations of the usefulness of the computer in their future employment, making them more responsive to the subject matter of the course.

A similar argument holds for previous exposure to computers. Previous coursework in computer science or substantial exposure to computers at home or work may influence the students' expectations of the usefulness of this tool. A positive relationship was hypothesized to exist between the degree of previous exposure to computers and course performance and evaluation.

Results

Two questions on the beginning questionnaire were designed to measure prior attitudes of students toward AE 250 (table 1). The first question addressed the primary reason students enrolled. Just over 20 percent suggested the major reason for their enrollment was the college computer literacy requirement. Nearly 9 percent indicated their enrollment was based on the suggestion of a faculty adviser or other individual. An additional 2 percent indicated that they had previous computer coursework and wished to extend their knowledge in this subject area. The remaining individuals, 69 percent, felt

the subject matter was important enough to warrant their enrollment.

The second question summarized in table I was included to measure the students' level of apprehension about the course. Students were asked to respond to the statement "I am concerned that I cannot learn fast enough to keep up in this course." Over 22 percent of the students indicated either a strongly agree or agree response. Thirty-six percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. The former group may also explain the large enrollment of seniors in the course. Perhaps because of their apprehension they had delayed enrollment in the course as long as possible.

A series of questions were included on both beginning and ending questionnaires to elicit student attitudes regarding the usefulness of computer technology in agriculture, their specific fields of interest, and future employment activities (table 2). The first question addressed attitudes toward microcomputer technology. Four options were offered: The computer was either an expensive or inexpensive toy or an expensive or inexpensive tool for use in business. Prior to the course, about 5 percent of the respondents felt the computer was an expensive toy, presumably indicating that it held little potential for use in business. Nearly 62 percent suggested that the computer was an expensive tool for business. The remainder felt that it was a useful tool and that its cost was not excessive.

Table 1. Before-Class Attitudes of AE 250 Students. Remark Relative Frequency

I am in this class: Only because of requirement 20.05 My advisor recommended it 8.76 I feel that it is important for future 68.93 I want to extend knowledge beyond that developed in previous computer courses 2.26

I am concerned that I cannot learn fast enough to keep up in this course Strongly agree 5.11 Agree 17.33 Uncertain or neutral 40.91 Disagree 30.97 Strongly disagree 5.68




Ending response to the question indicated there was a substantial change in attitudes held. Slightly fewer students reported they viewed the computer only as a toy (table 2). A larger difference, however, arose in the view of the relative cost of the computer compared to other tools of agricultural businesses. Nearly 44 percent of the ending responses reported the computer as an inexpensive tool of business. A paired t-test was used to test the hypothesis that students had changed attitudes from the beginning to the end of the course. In the construction of this test, the difference in response is calculated for each individual, and a comparison is

made to determine if the mean of the differences is larger or smaller than zero. Results indicate a change of attitude that is statistically different than zero at the 0.01 level of probability.

Students were asked on both beginning and ending questionnaires to estimate the cost of a computer system which would be useful in a farm or business. The response choices were given in ranges, from under $1,000 to over $20,000. Comparison of beginning and ending responses indicates that, as a result of the course exposure, fewer students chose either the lowest or the highest cost

Table 2. Before- and After-Class Attitudes of AE 250 Students

Remark Relative Frequency Prior Ending

My current opinion concerning microcomputers is: An expensive toy 4.92 2.13 An inexpensive toy 0 0.53 An expensive tool of business 61.75 53.72 An inexpensive tool of business 33.33 43.62

My computer knowledge is: Extensive 0.26 2.90 Moderate 9.52 84.17 Very limited 49.47 12.93 None 40.74 --

My evaluation of the usefulness of the computer in my chosen area is:

Extreme importance 30.93 31.75 Moderate importance 53.87 61.11 Little importance 5.07 5.82 No idea 10.13 1.32

I will be working extensively with computers in my future employment/business.

Strongly agree 12.43 13.79 Agree 41.53 42.44 Uncertain or neutral 42.06 33.95 Disagree 3.70 7.43 Strongly disagree 0.26 2.38

By the end of this course, I will have the necessary knowledge to do the majority of my future computer programming.

Strongly agree 3.7 1.08 Agree 37.57 41.76 Uncertain or neutral 51.85 34.04 Disagree 6.08 19.68 Strongly disagree 0.53 3.46




categories2. In the opinion of the three course instructors, the ending attitudes were more nearly on target than were the beginning estimates.

A second question, summarized in table 2, addressed the students' perception of their knowledge of computers. Ninety percent indicated either little or no knowledge of computers at the beginning of the course. By comparison, 84 percent felt, by the end of the course, they had achieved moderate knowledge of this technology. A paired t-test was applied to test for change in attitudes. The prior and ending attitudes were statistically different at the 0.01 level of probability.

There were 157 students who indicated a very limited knowledge prior to the course, and at course end, a moderate knowledge. Several students indicated a lower knowledge category at the end of the course than at the beginning. Perhaps these students realized the scope of the subject area was larger than they had previously thought.

The next question addressed students' perception of the usefulness of the computer in their chosen discipline. Prior to the course, approximately 31 percent suggested the computer was extremely important in their discipline (table 2). An additional 54 percent felt that this technology was of moderate importance. Five and ten percent of the responses were "of little importance" and "I have no idea," respectively.

Ending responses to this question did not vary greatly from other responses. An additional one percent of the respondents felt the computer was of extreme importance in their discipline. Sixty-one percent felt the computer was moderately useful in their discipline. Just over 1 percent were left without a judgment. Application of the paired t-test indicated a change of attitude statistically different than zero at the 0.01 level of probability.

Of the 115 students who initially indicated "extreme importance," 47 indicated the

computer was only moderately important in their discipline on the ending questionnaire, and one student reported the computer to be of little importance. Of the 57 students who initially felt the computer was of little value or who had no idea of its usefulness, 8 and 33 students indicated on the ending questionnaire an evaluation of extreme and moderate importance, respectively.

A similar question addressed student expectations about future uses of computer technology in their employment or business (table 2). On the initial survey, the statement, "I will be working extensively with computers in my future employment/business," received 12 and 42 percent of all responses in the strongly agree and agree categories, respectively. Addition- ally, 42 percent responded that they were uncertain if they would be working with computers. About 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. In the case of the ending questionnaire, an additional 6 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. It is unclear whether this change in response was due to an altered expectation about the usefulness of the computer in the students' particular career plans, or to a judgement that they, personally, do not wish to work with computers. The paired t-test of change of attitude was not statistically different than zero at the 0.1 level of probability. It is interesting to note that the majority of students indicating either disagree or strongly disagree on the ending questionnaire were from the group who had previously indicated uncertainty on the beginning questionnaire.

The last question of table 2 was included to measure student expectations of AE 250. The question was phrased "I feel that by the end of this course I will have the necessary knowledge to do the majority of my future computer programming." Forty-one percent indicated agree or strongly agree to this statement. Such responses are, in the estima- tion of these instructors, overly optimistic. Computer solutions to realistic business problems often involve major programming efforts, are very time consuming and require substantial programming knowledge. Our goals in the course were to make students

2 Mean (standard deviation) of cost responses, calculated using the midpoints of the cost ranges, were $3,913 ($3,112) and $4,538 ($3,042) for the beginning and ending questionnaires, respectively.




more aware of the potentials this technology holds for use in agriculture, to provide enough programming experience to facilitate the determination of those applications suited to computer solution and facilitate choosing from existing software or communicating with a programmer in program design.

Ending questionnaire results indicate that we were not entirely successful in this regard (table 2). Nearly 43 percent either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. This was only a slightly larger percen- tage than on the first questionnaire. There was, however, a substantially larger group who indicated disagree or strongly disagree to the statement. The difference in beginning and ending attitudes was statistically different than zero at the 0.01 probability level as tested with the paired t-statistic.

Two questions were included on the ending questionnaire which asked students to evaluate changes in their attitudes over the course of the quarter (table 3). The first question asked students to indicate whether they had, at the beginning of the class, overestimated, underestimated, or accurately estimated the usefulness of computers in agriculture. Over 50 percent indicated they had underestimated computer usefulness, while only 3 percent reported that they had overestimated its usefulness.

The second question asked students to indicate whether they had, at the beginning of the quarter, overestimated, underes-

timated, or accurately estimated the ability of an individual to develop business software. Sixty-four percent responded that they had underestimated their ability to develop software, and nearly 13 percent indicated that they had overestimated this ability. These responses would suggest that the course has served to make students more aware of the uses of the computer in agriculture and to better acquaint students with the process of software development.

Student Performance and Course Evaluation

This section deals with student course performance and their evaluation of the course. Statistical analysis of performance and evaluation by subgroups of students are reported.

The ending questionnaire incorporated three course evaluation statements prefaced with the following statement: "It's your chance to grade AE 250. For each of the following goals, rate the performance of this course. Grades should range from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates a failing effort, 100 indicates excellence, and 50 is an average level of performance." The text of the individual goal statements and average evaluation rating are given in table 4. Scores on all three course objectives ranged from 0 to 100. Student rating was highest for objective 3, apparently

Table 3. Student Self-Evaluation of Attitude Changes over the Course of the Quarter. Remark Relative Frequency

At the beginning of this class: I overestimated the usefulness of the computer 3.20 in agriculture.

I underestimated the usefulness of the computer 50.93 in agriculture

I accurately estimated the usefulness of the 45.87 computer in agriculture.

At the beginning of this class: I overestimated the ability of an individual 12.80 to develop business software

I underestimated the ability of an individual 64.00 to develop business software

I accurately estimated the ability of an 23.20 individual to develop business software




Table 4. Student Evaluation of Agricultural Economics 250

Goal Meana Std. Dev.

1. Helping students understand the future role of computer technology in agriculture 73.58 20.65

2. Providing students with the knowledge of computers required for a successful future in agriculture 71.91 21.90

3. Providing students with basic computer "literacy" 84.54 16.98

a. Students were instructed to give a score for each of the above goals. Scores ranged from 0 to 100, with 0 indicating a failing effort and 100 indicating excellence.

Table 5. Comparison of Student Evaluations and Performance by Selected Characteristics

Difference Measurea Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. of Means

(Z-Score)

Sex Male Female Goal 1. 73.67 20.11 73.44 21.79 0.088 Goal 2. 72.05 21.78 71.68 22.26 0.136 Goal 3. 85.08 16.89 83.44 17.19 0.777 Course Grade 82.96 8.72 82.66 8.98 0.271

Computer Access No Access With Access Goal 1. 73.51 20.95 73.43 19.73 0.026 Goal 2. 71.45 21.59 73.39 23.39 -0.595 Goal 3. 84.34 17.37 84.93 15.48 -0.233 Course Grade 82.94 8.72 82.62 9.31 0.242

Coursework Computer Courses No Computer Courses Goal 1. 70.58 20.84 73.87 20.64 -0.769 Goal 2. 72.88 21.96 71.82 21.93 0.235 Goal 3. 84.23 18.25 84.57 16.89 -0.091 Course Grade 86.24 7.38 82.55 8.86 2.347 **

Attitude Negative Attitude Positive Attitude Goal 1. 70.89 23.88 74.40 19.70 -0.987 Goal 2. 63.52 25.93 73.42 20.84 -2.573 ** Goal 3. 77.68 18.87 86.86 15.07 -3.281 *** Course Grade 79.08 8.34 83.63 8.58 -3.488 ***

Apprehension Apprehensive Not Apprehensive Goal 1. 67.62 24.33 74.48 20.17 -1.848 * Goal 2. 65.44 24.85 73.26 22.17 -2.016 ** Goal 3. 80.46 21.40 88.52 14.31 -2.607 *** Course Grade 78.80 8.73 85.63 8.35 -4.861 ***

a. Goals 1, 2 and 3 are those listed in Table 4. * Different from zero at the 0.10 level of probability ** Different from zero at the 0.05 level of probability *** Different from zero at the 0.01 level of probability




showing good support for the broad, survey nature of the course.

Table 5 compares grade performance and course evaluation statements by sex. A statistical test of difference of mean responses for the two groups also is reported. In all cases, neither the means nor the measure of dispersion were largely different. The difference in responses for the two groups were not statistically different than zero at the 90 percent confidence interval.

A similar comparison was made by grouping students into those who did or did not have access to a computer at home or work (table 5). Again, the means and standard deviations for the two groups were quite similar, and the test of the hypothesis of difference of means for the two groups could not be accepted at the 90 percent confidence interval.

There were 29 individuals who reported previous coursework in computer science. Table 5 reports a comparison of course evaluation and student performance in the course for the groups of students who had no previous coursework in computers with those 29 who had. A test of the means for these two groups indicated no significant difference in course evaluations. However, students with previous computer science coursework did perform significantly better (at the 0.05 level of probability) than those who had no such coursework. Perhaps the equality of student evaluations for these two groups suggests that these courses should not be viewed as substitutes, but rather as complementary courses in the students' curriculum. It is unlikely that student evaluations of the course would have been favorable had there been substantial amounts of subject duplica- tion in A\E 250 anrid previous computer science courses. llowcver, the materials presented in the discussion of the high level programming language would have been quite similar3. This likely explains the better performance of those students who had previous computer science course experience.

The attitudes of students toward AE 250 at the beginning of the course were hypothesized to be an important determinant of students' performance and course evaluation. The results of this comparison are reported in table 5. The measure of beginning attitude used was the response to the question of why students had enrolled in AE 250. Those who indicated they were in the course only because of the college requirement were placed in the "negative attitude" group. Those who indicated either the desire to expand their knowledge in the computer science area or who reported that it was valuable subject matter, were placed in the "positive attitude" group. The means for the positive attitude group was significantly larger for 2 of the 3 evaluation goals, and for class grade performance. This suggests that more emphasis should be placed on develop- ing a favorable attitude toward the subject matter of the course. Perhaps this could be done by increasing the emphasis given to the anticipated adoption of this technology by agricultural firms (presented in the first week of lecture), by incorporating a rationale for this course in freshman orientation courses or by underscoring the importance of computer technology in subject matter courses.

A similar comparison was made of students who were and were not apprehensive about AE 250 prior to the beginning of the course (table 5). Those students who responded agree or strongly agree to the statement "I am concerned that I cannot ]earn fast enough to keep up in this class" were placed in the apprehensive group. Those students who responded disagree or strongly disagree were considered not apprehensive. The means for these two groups were significantly different for all evaluation statements and the course grade performance. Apprehensive students did more poorly in the course and gave lower evaluation reports.

It is unclear why some students are apprehensive. In some cases, it may be due to student concern about the adequacy of their mathematical training or an inability to understand the logic of a computer program. In these cases, this apprehension may be well founded and may explain poor performance

3The subject matter of the Computer Science course in which most of the 29 students had previously enrolled was limited exclusively to the FORTRAN high level language.




in the course. On the other hand, apprehension may result from uncertainty about the nature of the material, or be attributable to negative attitudes regarding computer tech- nologies. An adequate orientation to the subject could alleviate apprehension for some in this latter group. The questionnaire did not provide insight into the source of apprehension for this group of students.

Summary

Changes in attitude of students in the College of Agriculture as a result of enrollment in AE 250, a "computer literacy" course, were measured using paired beginning and ending questionnaires. Results indicated significant changes in attitude. At course end, students reported higher respect for the usefulness of the computer in agriculture and their particular discipline. The majority indicated that, at the beginning of the course, they had underestimated both the usefulness of the computer in agriculture and their ability to write software. Beginning attitude toward the course and level of apprehension about the course were found to be significant determinants of student performance and evaluation of the course.

Course evaluation scores of students with previous computer course exposure were not statistically different from evaluation scores of students with no such background. This result may be interpreted as evidence

that AE 250 has important differences from those in the Computer Science Department, and that AE 250 and the courses taught in the Computer Science Department may be viewed as compI)lements rather than substitutes.

References

[1] Fiske, John R., Marvin T. Batte and Reed D. Taylor. "Teaching Computer Literacy to Students in Colleges of Agriculture." In The Computer as a Classroom Tool, Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the North Cen- tral Computer Institute, October 1-3, 1984 at East Lansing, Michigan, pp 151-56.

[2] Kitch, Dale. "Computer Literacy: The Fourth Basic Skill" Business Education Forum 35 (November 1980): 22-3.

[3] Molnar, Andrew R. "The Next Great Crisis in American Education: Com- puter Literacy." Journal of Educational Technology 7 (January 1979): 275-87.

[4] Sonka, Steven T. Computers in Farm- ing, Selection and Use, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983.

[5] Taylor, Reed D., and Michael W. Woolverton. "Teaching Computer Technology for Agriculture Using Pro- grammable Calculators." NACTA Jour- nal, June 1980, Vol. XXIV, No. 2, pp. 36-41.



Documents

A Computer Literacy Course for Agriculture: A Report of Student Attitudes, Evaluations and Performance