The wireless network environment

Wireless network has many different types. The first is the personal wireless network, in which a person can interconnect his or her own electronic devices. The network covers an area about 10 meters. The second is Wireless LAN, suitable for offices, buildings, and even campuses. This network covers several tens of meters and provides users with a wireless internet access system. The third is Wide Area Network, which covers a broad area, with high mobile capacity.

The wireless LAN network refers to IEEE 802.11 LAN, which is a Wireless LAN group of communications standards made by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

As its fundamental techniques are very similar to those of Wireless Ethernet, IEEE 802 is also called Wireless Ethernet. With only 2Mbps, the transmission speed of 802.11 is not high, and is also very expensive, so the wireless LAN does not receive attention on the market at that time. With the release of IEEE 802.11b, it is gradually withdrawn from the market. IEEE 802.11b operates in 2.4GHz band range and transmits data at a speed of 11Mbps, with range of 100-200 meters, and despite the fact that it is unable to transfer large amounts of data such as voice and video, it has become the mainstream specification of wireless LAN market.

Peripheral application products have been maturely developed and used by companies.

Immediately developed is IEEE 802.11a, which operates in 5.2GHz band range, and its internet speed is 54Mbps, five times faster than IEEE 802.11b.This extended standard makes the speed of 802.11faster than Bluetooth, greatly enhancing the availability of wireless network. As a result, IEEE802.11a is thought of as replacing 802.11b wireless local area network transmission standard. What followed is IEEE802.11g, a modulation standard ratified in March, 2000, and it works in the same band as IEEE802.11b. The existing IEEE 802.11b users can upgrade speed through IEEE802.11g protocol. IEEE802.11g used 2.4GHz band, but can transmit data at a speed of 54Mbps, quite enough to provide the speed for data, voice, as well as multimedia transmission.

IEEE802.11 wireless LAN has many advantages. For example, wireless network can work without having the need to attach network cable, and has high mobility when used.

Besides, there is no need for wiring construction and so saves a lot of construction time and cost for long-term use. So, wireless LAN has gradually replaced the cable network. In addition, Wireless LAN can be constructed at a reasonable cost without applying for licenses, and it requirs no particular techniques. At present, many countries of Asia have offered costumers wireless broadband connection through WLAN in many public places (Tsuo, 2004).

Table 2-1 Comparison of wireless network technology

IEEE 802.11g 2.4GHz 30~300M 22~54 school, office

or public place

LAN

Table 2-2 Comparison between cable network and wireless network

item cable network wireles network

the ease of installation difficult easy

construction cost high low

mobility difficult easy

installation and remove difficult easy

maintenance cost high low

transmission rate high low

transmission distance far near

security management easy difficult

signal stability high low

aesthetic appeal low high

Data sources：Lo(2005)

According to the “Double networks Integration Project” developed by NICI, “Double networks” refers to the combination of “wireless broadband internet connection” and “mobile internet”. This project integrates two different systems: wireless local area network (WLAN) standards (e.g. 802.11x) and mobile phone communications (cellular) standard (2.5G, 3G, PHS, etc.). As a result, each can fully optimize its system performance. The advantage of WLAN is that the prices are low, with high frequency bandwidth and continuous connection.

Another advantage is that it can offer multimedia services, without license fees and easy deployment. These advantages are not found in mobile phones. However, the advantages of mobile phones are high mobility, wide coverage, perfect billing system, mature roaming mechanism, popularity, all of which make up for the disadvantages of WLAN (Yu, 2004;

Yen, 2005).

The Double Networks Integration combines mobile phone with wireless broadband internet connection, with mobile phone base stations functioning as voice communications.

The other function is to access wireless internet to get data using WLAN. Mobile phone is not only a voice tool of making a call but also a tool of getting data by means of internet connection. If users need mobile internet access, they can do so with low prices but high speed access at places where WLAN is available. But at places where WLAN is unavailable, they have to get on the Internet with 3G/GPRS/GSM to achieve the purpose of wireless

internet access. Using 3G/GPRS/GSM is, however, more expensive (Lo, 2005）

Table 2-3 Double networks integration project

item Cellular WLAN

specifications 2G、2.5G、3G、PHS IEEE 802.11 a

IEEE 802.11 b Data sources：Yu (2004); Yen (2005)

2.1.3 Mobile computer, mobile learning and their application to teaching

The wireless network has created a brand new learning environment; learners can obtain the information they want anytime and anywhere. They are able to communicate with people and to learn through the wireless network equipment. This new type of learning is called mobile learning (Mah, 2006). Harries (2001) defines mobile learning as a form of learning created by combining mobile computers with E-learning. Through the mobile equipment learners can feel and enjoy the experience of being taught anytime and anywhere, making teaching extend from traditional classrooms to real world in the great outdoors (Pan, 2007).

Leung and Chan (2003) share the view that mobile learning need to make use of PDA or

mobile phones and to access wireless networks in order to get learning resources and do learning activity.

A brand new mobile learning environment is created based on wireless network application and has the following characteristics: Mobile learning is necessary whenever the learning requirement is urgent and present problems need to be resolved immediately, access to specific knowledge is needed in real time, learner mobility is required and wireless applications are necessary, teachers need to contextualize their activities, and the teacher needs to add credibility to the instruction. (Kao, 2001；Mah, 2006).

Chu (2003) also elucidates the features of mobile learning from the perspectives of both students and teachers. Students can gain a number of benefits from mobile learning. Mobile learning can make students take responsibility for their learning. They can access information on the Internet at anytime through mobile tools. In addition, learning can occur in a real learning environment. Students can also create a personalized learning model, as learning patterns can be diversified and flexible. Finally, the learning process and results can be recorded at anytime.

Teachers also gain benefits from mobile learning. Teachers can understand how and what students learn by means of mobile equipment. They can intervene to give reminders or instruct students, transform the teaching environment to enhance teaching effectiveness, can

evaluate students on the way they solve problems rather than on the solution itself, and can individualize instruction.

Studies show that using mobile computers in teaching can bring positive results.

Integrating PDAs into the instruction of science and technology in junior high school upgraded both the teaching and student learning outcomes (Hsu, 2006). Hung (2004) took 24 fifth grade students and their science teacher as research objects. All the students interviewed express that the use of PDA made them more interested in science course. So it is clear that applying mobile learning devices in teaching activity can upgrade students’ learning interest and outcome. In the age of m-Learning, multiple ways are available for learning through combination of mobile device and many practical new information products. Jung (2002) divided fifth grade students into groups and had them observe the characteristics of plants in the school. They used PDAs to browse the campus botanical website looking for the names of unknown plants. The PDA provided instantaneous feedback to the students.

Furthermore, Chen (2003) took eight grade students as research object. He applied PDAs into physics and chemistry teaching. The purposes of research were to upgrade learning motivation and increasing information digital processing ability and learning outcome. Chen, et al. (2003) used mobile learning devices to set up a Bird-Watching Learning (BWL) system.

The students had PDA devices and the teacher had a notebook and a digital video camera to

set up a database. The pictures and video files of birds were transferred to the students’ PDA devices through a wireless network. The students were then able to look up information on birds. This formed an outdoor ecological learning program. Lai (2007) utilized a smart cell phone with GPS function in helping students to be familiar with campus environment and danger areas in campus. The purposes were to effectively help the students to be familiar with campus environment and to prevent any danger from happening through further understanding of dangerous areas in campus.

2.2 Information Literacy

“Information literacy” was a term first introduced in 1974 by Paul Zurkouski, chairman

of the American Library Association and the American Society for Information Science.

Zurkouski's definition for someone who, as information literate, was “anyone who had learned to use a wide range of information sources in order to solve problems at work and in his or her daily life” ( Pai, 2004). McClure (1994) thinks that information literacy is not only a concept, but also a skill used to resolve an information problem. It combines traditional literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and network literacy.

Figure 2-1 Information Literacy Analysis Diagram Data sources: McClure (1994)

Recently, with the rapid development in computer information and communications, many scholars have successively brought forth their views on information literacy as well as the definition of information literature. Liu (1998) thinks that information literacy is the ability with which an individual deals effectively with information. Equipped with knowledge about and skills in information and communications, one is able to examine, evaluate, and make use of information and communications from a variety of information sources. Fang (2005) believes that information literacy is a concept and an ability with which one solves

ability to resolve problems

tradition literacy

computer literacy network

literacy

information literacy

media literacy

problems. It also refers to the ability to collect, obtain, determine, evaluate, and use information and communications. Moreover, it is the key ability necessary for self-directed training and lifelong learning. Pai (2004) points out that a teacher’s information literacy enables them to apply IT to their teaching, with innovation, diagnosis, and remedial teaching, to raise their teaching effectiveness. In turn, they can equip their students with the ability to develop information literacy. To promote information education and to enrich teacher information literacy, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (1998) wants elementary school and junior high school teachers to attain three information literacy benchmarks: professional knowledge of the information and communications curriculum, knowledge of packaged software and the operation of such software, and a general knowledge of how to use the internet with various school subjects.

Research results reveals that Jiang (2004), Huang (2005), and Chen (2006) all share the view that teachers’ information literacy is above average. The research conducted by Chien (2003) and Lin (2005) point out that information literacy won’t be affected by “school size”

and “school location”. Jean (2003), Huang (2005) and Wu (2005) indicate in their studies that gender, age, education level, years of teaching, as well as profession education background, etc. have showed striking difference in information literacy.

Table 2-4 Definitions of information literacy by scholars and their perspectives Researchers Definitions of information literacy

American Library Association (ALA) (1989)

Anyone who had learned to use a wide range of information sources in order to solve problems at work and in his or her daily life.

McClure（1994）

Information literacy is not only a concept, but also a skill to resolve information problem. It is combined with traditional literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, and network literacy.

Liu（1998）

Information literacy is the ability with which an individual deals effectively with information. Equipped with the knowledge about and skills in information and communications, one is able to look for them when one needs. In addition, one can examine, evaluate, and make use of the information and communications from a variety of information sources.

Pai（2004）

Teachers’ information literacy is to build their acquaintance with the information technology and operation, so that they can apply IT to their teaching, and with innovation, diagnosis, and remedial teaching, to raise teaching effectiveness. In the meantime, they can equip students with the ability to develop information literacy.

Fang（2005）

Information literacy is a concept and ability with which one solves problems. It also refers to the ability to collect, obtain, determine, evaluate, and use information and communications. Moreover, it is the key ability necessary for self-directed training and lifelong learning.

2.3 Computer self-efficacy

2.3.1 Self-efficacy

According to Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy refers to individual’s personal assessment of his or her capacity to perform specific tasks. It is also one of main

self-regulatory mechanisms which influence behavior (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1986) defines self-efficacy as an assessment of the organization and capabilities which individuals need to perform designated tasks. He divides self-efficacy into outcome expectations and efficacy expectations. Outcome expectations refer to a fact that an individual’s assessment will lead to certain outcomes; efficacy expectations refer to whether or not an individual’s assessment can successfully perform a behavior to achieve certain outcomes. Both Delcourt and Kinzie (1993) think the self-efficacy observed by an individual will reflect the behavior of self-confidence.

2.3.2 Computer self-efficacy

Ever since Bandura (1977) brought up the concept of self-efficacy, together with the development of information technology, researchers continued to understand the relationship between computer self-efficacy and users' behaviors. Murphy (1989) defines computer self-efficacy as individual’s cognition about his or her knowledge about and skills at computers. Compeau and Higgins (1995) define computer self-efficacy as one’s judgment about his or her capacity to use computers. They emphasize that computer self-efficacy reflects an individual’s consciousness about his or her ability to use computers to complete tasks. Instead of the operational skills like hard disk format or the use of software, it is one’s judgment about whether he or she is able to use the skills to carry out different tasks.

Compeau and Higgins (1995) take the view that the main sources that affect computer self-efficacy are (1) guided mastery, the most influential source of self-efficacy, (2) imitation behavior, learning through observing what others do can enhance computer self-efficacy, (3) social persuasion, helping learners build self-confidence by assuring them that they are capable of learning computer technology and using computers successfully, (4) physiological state, when people use computers feeling anxious, their self-efficacy is likely to lessen.

Delcourt and Kinzie（1993）hold the view that the self-efficacy observed by an individual will reflect the behavior of using computers and behavioral confidence. Levine(1997) points out that faith affects decisively to behavior. The learning mental and physical efforts that learner invests are greatly affected by computer confidence. The feeling of efficacy from practical operation will affect the future interest of usage or in depth understanding and usage.

If personal computer self-efficacy is low, resistance of using computer and computer anxiety might occur. In the learning environment of campus, teacher with positive attitude and efficacy to computer is a good demonstration to student. Student will have positive attitude towards computer technology (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993).

At present, there are many measurement scales available. For example, Vasil, Hesketh, and Podd (1987) invented a computer self-efficacy measurement scale with nine items.

Cassidy and Eachus (1998) developed a computer self-efficacy scale, which measures adults’

computer self-efficacy. By referring to the viewpoints of Compeau and Higgins (1995), Wong (2000), a scholar in Taiwan, developed thirteen items to measure test takers regarding their confidence in the ability to learn computers or the confidence in using computers. College students were aimed, with Cronbach α coefficient.91; Hsieh (2001) aimed at high school and elementary school teachers, obtaining Cronbach α coefficient.95. Shen (2002) designed a computer self-efficacy scale for assessing elementary school teachers, and its content included three aspects: self-efficacy in basic operation, self-efficacy in software use, and self-efficacy in teaching application, respectively (Fan, 2005).

2.3.3 Related studies on research variables and computer self-efficacy

In their research, Murphy, Coover, and Owen (1989) indicate that some part of advanced computer skills do show gender differences. Male’s computer self-efficacy is higher that female’s. Young (2000) aimed at high and elementary school students finds that boy students are more confident about the computer technology than girl students are. Also, some other self-efficacy-related researches show that computer self-efficacy or confidence will vary according to gender. Males are always higher than females (Shih, 2000; Wei, 2000; Hsieh, 2001). Shen (2002) confirms in her study aimed at elementary school teachers that male teachers’ computer self-efficacy is, on average, obviously higher than female teachers’.

However, some research points out there is no striking difference in computer self-efficacy in

terms of gender (Peng, 2006; Wu, 2007) .

Martocchio (1994) conducted an experiment on college campus where 76 college personal and administrative staff was involved as subjects. According to the research results, computer self-efficacy was negatively connected with age. Kuo (2000) finds out that the computer confidence of police officers aged between 20-29 and 30-39 are strikingly higher than those of aged between 40-49 and 50-59. However, some research takes different views.

Liou (2002) finds out that gender and age show no striking difference in terms of computer self-efficacy. In their research, Thatcher and Perrewe (2002) point out trait anxiety and computer anxiety have a direct positive correlation.

Wu (2007) discovers that the information literacy of junior high school teachers on outlying island is positively linked to the computer self-efficacy, meaning that their ability to complete jobs with computers is stronger. Scholars who do research on the relationship between information literacy and computer self-efficacy are few. Most researches are centered on the correlation between computer attitude, computer experience or time spent on the computer as well as computer self-efficacy. Igbaria and livari (1995) did a research and the subjects were 450 microcomputer users. The result indicated that an individual’s past computer experience had a positively significant impact on self-efficacy, namely, the more past computer experience, the higher the computer self-efficacy.

Harrison (1997) did a research aimed at 776 college staff as subjects, and the result showed that there was a positive relation existing between computer self-efficacy and frequency of computer use. Higgins (1995) also obtained the same result. According to the Faseyitan and Hirschbuhl’s research (1992), whether college instructors are willing to make use of computers to the work of teaching will be affected by their own computer self-efficacy, the technology training received, views on computer usefulness, as well as computer attitude.

Vijayasarathy (2004) discovers more and more experience reveals that computer self-efficacy has a very positive and significant influence on the intention of users of information system.

Hasan (2006) finds out computer self-efficacy will significantly affect the intention of those who use information system. However, some scholars take the opposite views. Igbaria and Iivari (1995) shows that through the cognition of computer perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, computer self-efficacy will have an influence on individual’s use of a computer. Self-efficacy has no direct and noticeable influence on the use of computers.

Table 2-5 Computer self-efficacy related research

Researchers Research topics Research conclusion.

Murphy, willing to make use of computers to the work of teaching will be affected by their own computer self-efficacy,

Table 2-5 Computer self-efficacy related research (cont.)

Researchers Research topics Research conclusion.

Harrison et al.

776 college staff as subjects, and the result showed that there is a positive relation existing between those of aged between 40-49 and 50-59.

Young (2000) Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers.

High and elementary school

students finds that boy students are more confident about the computer technology than girl students are.

Shih (2000) A study on relevant factors of computer learning achievement

Shen (2002) The Investigation of computer self-efficacy and computer influence on the intention of users of information system.

Table 2-5 Computer self-efficacy related research (cont.)

Researchers Research topics Research conclusion.

Hasan (2006) The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs

Computer self-efficacy will

significantly affect the intention of those who use information system Peng (2006) The influence of personal traits,

mobile computer self-efficacy and mobile computer anxiety to use mobile computers.

Here is no striking difference in computer self-efficacy in terms of gender

Wu (2007) The innovativeness, information literacy, computer anxiety, and computer self-efficacy of remote islands’ junior high school teachers.

The information literacy of junior school teachers on outlying island is positively linked to the computer anxiety. Trait anxiety is the anxiety tendency generated when one notices threatening scenario.

The information literacy of junior school teachers on outlying island is positively linked to the computer anxiety. Trait anxiety is the anxiety tendency generated when one notices threatening scenario.