Admission to the Program - The Impact of Cognitive Theory on Human and Computer Development - page 57

noted their daily computer usage frequency with regard to each area (daily, most days, once
a week, seasonally, and rarely).
The questionnaire is useful for a number of participants over a specified time period;
however, Brug et al. (2007) reported that a twenty-four-hour recall is a better indicator of
portion size (means the time the student spent in usage). Subar et al. (2006) noted that
the computer frequency questionnaire can only serve to augment the information acquired
from recalls, not replace it. The pilot program involved the use of both the computer fre-
quency questionnaire and the twenty-four-hour recall to take advantage of the strong attrib-
utes of each.
After the detailed computer science study review, staff questioned students regarding
whether they were interested in inventing a computer chip, a large number indicated will-
ingness. Students who showed no interest in the process are encouraged by the coordinat-
ors to engage them in practical exercises to see if they can develop interest in the process.
Additional questions included whether those students would be interested in taking special
lessons by taking other classes as supplements to regulate the students' interest in the study
with the hope to gain from the consultation they made with the scholar practitioners.
Setting Goals
Following the questionnaire, the coordinators gave the students a pocket-size blank in-
dex card on which to write goals they feel are attainable within a two-week time frame. The
coordinators emphasized that the goals must be achievable. Bandura (1977) determined a
cognitively based foundation for motivation works through the interdependent influences
of self-regulation and goal setting. Bandura (1986) called the practice forethought capab-
ility and contended most purposeful behavior is regulated in this way. Through their own
actions, people are able to control their behavior by using their cognitive abilities to pro-
duce the desired consequences (Bandura 1977).
Fabricatore (2007) indicated goals should be realistic yet moderately challenging; they
should be both specific and time limited—a goal of “I will try harder” is not acceptable
(p. 95). For example, students might indicate they will routinely add one hour or more of
study per day. The coordinators educated students with regard to the regular activity re-
commendations for computer science research studies and then inquired as to what items in
the curriculum category appeal to the students. The coordinators then asked which three of
the preferred curricula the students could agree to take once in the next two weeks. A more
ambitious goal for students who take one subject per day would be to inquire whether they
can increase the group of subjects by one more during a semester or a quarter, totaling two
courses of electives for the semester or quarter. My goal, students wrote, “I will increase
my courses to two in the semester or a quarter.” The coordinators then copied the students'
goal into the meeting notes.