dc.contributor.author	Southerlin, Tanya Dierdra
dc.coverage.spatial	Central and North America -- United States -- Georgia	en_US
dc.coverage.temporal	c.2014-2016	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2016-08-05T13:20:37Z
dc.date.available	2016-08-05T13:20:37Z
dc.date.issued	2016-07
dc.identifier.other	12E17588-2B4E-4F43-9F97-CDB361D28A5D	UUID
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/2238
dc.description.abstract	The purpose of this study was to investigate whether relationships existed between the degree of computer self-efficacy of examinees and their performance on the computer-based 2014 General Equivalency Diploma (GED) exam. Recommendations for both research and practice were made that addressed potential challenges. The study was developed based on the concerns from the GED community regarding computer-based testing and how it may effect student performance. The study was conducted at two technical colleges in Georgia and used a convenience sampling process to gather 100 surveys and 15 interviews from first time computer-based GED examinees. Data were collected using the Computer Self-Efficacy Survey for Adults, created by James H. Brown, and interviews conducted by the researcher. Descriptive statistics, an analysis of variance (ANOVA), factorial analysis of variance tests, and interviews were used for data analysis. Social Learning Theory, created by Albert Bandura (1971), was used for the research study’s conceptual framework to explain an individual’s perception of his or her ability to use a computer. Overall findings from the statistical analysis of this study indicated that examinees who had a higher sense of computer self-efficacy scored higher on the Reasoning Through Language Arts and Science sections of the GED exam. Significant relationships were also found to have existed when comparing the examinees’ age and socio-economic status. Younger examinees had higher GED exam scores and reported a higher sense of computer self-efficacy than did the older population on the Reasoning Through Language Arts and Science sections of the exam. For the same sections, individuals who reported a higher annual household income also scored higher on the exams and had a higher sense of computer self-efficacy. Overall males scored higher on Reasoning Through Language Arts and Science, but there was not a significant difference in the scores. Interviewees felt comfortable taking the exam on computer, did not experience anxiety or uneasiness, felt confident in their abilities to use a computer, and did not feel they needed to become familiar with the computer prior to taking the exam.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	I. INTRODUCTION \| Introduction 1 \| Conceptual Framework 6 \| Statement of Problem .7 \| Purpose of the Study 7 \| Research Questions 7 \| Significance of Study .8 \| Limitations of the Study.9 \| Definition of Key Terms 10 \| Summary 12 \| II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE \| Introduction 13 \| History of Computer-Based Testing14 \| Historical Background of the GED..15 \| Theoretical Foundation of Self Efficacy18 \| Triadic Reciprocal Determinism..19 \| Self-Efficacy Judgments 21 \| Development of Computer Self-Efficacy.. 22 \| The Digital Divide .28 \| Measurements of Computer Self-Efficacy.30 \| Murphy Computer Self-Efficacy Scale... .31 \| Compeau and Higgins Computer Self-Efficacy Scale.. .32 \| Computer Self-Efficacy Scale for Adults ..34 \| Summary ..35 \| III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY \| GED Examination Process .36 \| Research Questions 37 \| Description of the Population . 37 \| Sample..41 \| Research Method and Design 42 \| Independent Variables. 43 \| Dependent Variable. 44 Data Collection Procedures. .44 \| Instrumentation. .45 \| Analysis of Data .48 \| Guided Interview Protocol .50 \| Summary. .51 \| IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS \| Introduction 52 \| Representativeness of Sample53 \| Computer Self-Efficacy Survey for Adults and GED Exam Results . .57 \| Inferential Findings 59 \| Detection of Outliers 59 \| Assumptions .60 \| Relationship Between CSESA and GED Exam Results . .61 \| Findings From Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) .71 \| Assumptions. .71 \| Relationship Between Demographics, CSESA, and GED Scores. .72 \| Perceived Challenges of Test Participants .98 \| Summary of Findings 103 \| V. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS \| Introduction 107 \| Overview of the Study .108 \| Description of Sample..108 \| Procedures 109 \| Conclusions 110 \| Discussion .112 \| Limitations. .117 \| Recommendations .117 \| REFERENCES ..122 \| APPENDICES \| APPENDIX A. Computer Self-Efficacy Scale for Adults (CSESA) .130 \| APPENDIX B. Author’s permission to use CSESA 137 \| APPENDIX C. Administrative Guidelines for Using CSESA .139 \| APPENDIX D. Interview Form 141 \| APPENDIX E. GED Test Candidate Rules Agreement .144 \| APPENDIX F: Permission to use material from MIS Quarterly in \| Dissertation Research.147 \|	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	Dissertations	en_US
dc.subject	Education	en_US
dc.title	Computer Self-Efficacy of GED Examinees and GED Test Results	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Department of Adult and Career Education	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Martinez, Reynaldo L. Jr
dc.description.committee	Ellis, Iris
dc.description.committee	Downey, Steven E.
dc.description.degree	Ed.D.	en_US
dc.description.major	Education	en_US