Project Description
This paper describes a university-middle
school partnership involving 250 middle school students from twelve
schools. Students were bussed to a nearby urban university where they
had ready access to computers and the Internet so they could complete
a web-based unit on cloning. The unit was team-taught by a middle school
teacher and a university professor. The students benefited from access
to technology, and the university professor was able to conduct a qualitative
research study on gender and technology with these middle school students.
The focus of this study was
not to investigate further the perceived gender gap surrounding technology,
but rather to address the meanings that adolescents assign to computers
as they interact with them. Since our culture is experiencing evolving
and changing gender roles, and, since the computer culture within educational
settings is evolving and changing, it is appropriate that this study
addresses how today’s adolescents view and use computers within
an educational setting.
In my role as teacher/university
researcher, I team-taught a technology-rich social science unit to 250
middle school students. My teammate was a seventh- and eighth-grade
language arts/social studies teacher from a local K-12 district. Together
we worked with each group of 25-30 students for approximately eight
to ten hours in four separate sessions. Our classes took place in a
university computer lab, so each student had access to a computer. Despite
this one-to-one ratio of computers to students, students frequently
collaborated both on and off the computer.
All students in multi-age
seventh and eighth grade language arts/social studies classrooms in
the K-12 district participated in this study. Students’ mean age
was 12.5 years. The project participants were approximately 50% males,
50% females. Students were:
• 75% Caucasian
• 18% Hispanic
• 5% Asian American
• 1% African American
• 1% Native American
The classroom was structured
around seventh and eighth grade language arts and social studies standards
that focused on problem solving, critical thinking, reading, writing,
viewing, and presenting. Technology was the tool that helped us integrate
student learning. In our classroom, we used a student-centered approach
that viewed learning as a social process and learners as active participants
in their learning and therefore responsible for their own learning paths.
Students constructed individual knowledge in an environment that featured
collaboration as well as feedback from peers and teachers. Our classroom
was grounded in the following principles:
• Learning
is an active process facilitated by an environment that encourages
risk-taking, creative
thinking, and critical thinking;
• Teachers create such environments to facilitate learning and
to provide opportunities for self-reflection and self-evaluation;
• Learning is social and is fostered by collaboration;
• Learners learn by doing within specific contexts;
• Learning is reflective and incorporates feedback from teachers
and peers;
• Students and teachers learn through their mistakes; and
• Technology is a tool to facilitate learning and is NOT the focus
of learning.
Methodology
In her qualitative dissertation
on computers, gender, and education, Borgo (1993) concluded:
The research community
exhibits considerable homogeneity [that] has produced a literature
that emphasizes broad-brush, survey-based data gathering techniques,
quantitative analysis, and statistically based interpretations. Future
research will benefit from the inclusion of ethnographic . . . perspectives,
the development of an integrated theoretical model, and more in-depth
research within the schools. The voices of children are conspicuously
absent from this body of research and warrant attention (p. iii).
This study was designed to
respond to this observation. It focused on children in a classroom setting,
advocated an ethnographic perspective, explicated the theoretical stance
I took, and most importantly, provided a forum in which children’s
voices were clearly heard.
This qualitative research
can be characterized as collage research as I looked at a wide variety
of data that addressed the meanings that adolescents assign to computers
and the ways they use computers. My data sources included open-ended
student surveys about students’ uses of and attitudes toward technology,
observational data and field notes, documents created by students, reflection
logs, and student responses in structured focus groups (See Appendix
A). Students completed surveys (See Appendix B) prior to the start of
the project. Observations, associated field notes, and digital photographs
were recorded throughout the project. Student products and reflective
logs were collected at every step of the project. At the completion
of the project, a number of structured focus groups were conducted with
the students. Focus group responses were recorded and transcribed.
All data were analyzed using
a constant comparison method, not in the sense that Glaser and Strauss
(1967) used this method to derive theory, but simply to sort through
and process the data. I recursively used the first two steps that Glaser
and Strauss suggest that researchers follow:
1. compare incidents applicable to each category
2. integrate categories and their properties
Data analysis started with
reviewing all the data to determine if and where there was evidence
of gender differences. Then HyperQual2 was used to tag and sort data.
Finally coding, counting, and tallying of relevant categories was done
in order to paint a picture which reflected the participants’
understandings of computers and the meanings they assigned to the construct,
computer.
In terms of my general approach
to data analysis, I first looked through the raw data for divisions
along gender lines. But my examination did not stop there, as I considered
no gender difference as interesting as gender differences. I noted same-gender
and cross-gender interactions in an effort to understand how these adolescents
viewed and used computers. I followed the model of Gilligan (1982) who
presents female and male voices to highlight the differences between
two ways of viewing experiences rather than suggesting generalizations
about either gender.
A descriptive study like
this one is not concerned with generalizability, internal and external
validity, reliability and objectivity in the same way that experimental
studies are. The goal of descriptive studies like this is not universal,
context-free generalization; rather, the goal is trustworthiness. I
make no claim that my research interpretations will hold true for all
children in all settings. I do claim, however, that my study is trustworthy
and generalizable in the sense that I have provided sufficient detail
about both the study and my theoretical stance that readers are able
to draw inferences about the applicability of my study to their particular
situations.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that trustworthiness can be judged by
four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
I establish credibility by prolonged engagement in the field; transferability
by providing information from multiple sources, including observations,
surveys, student reflections, and student focus groups; and dependability
and confirmability by maintaining an audit trail of my synthesis of
the raw data.
Findings
Based on observation
and a computer literacy evaluation administered to participants, all
of the adolescent girls and boys in this study were competent, confident,
and frequent users of computers, computer software, and the Internet.
Despite their equivalent competence, confidence and frequency of use,
girls and boys viewed and used computers differently. Each gender seemed
to accept this as a natural part of its culture, and, in general, was
accepting of each other’s visions and uses.
In terms of definitions,
girls saw the computer as much more multi-dimensional then did boys.
The phrase “it's whatever you want it to be” best captures
this understanding. Girls defined computers as multi-use tools that
facilitate connecting with friends, doing homework and research, gathering
information, solving math problems, organizing ideas and information,
producing more professional products, and accomplishing a multitude
of tasks in quicker, easier ways. Boys, on the other hand, had a more
narrow view of computers. Boys identified computers as machines, toys,
or high tech calculators that let you do things quicker and easier.
It is interesting that no girls used the terms machine or toy in defining
the computer. Rather, they focused on what the computer allowed them
to accomplish. The major foci for girls, in order of importance, were
computer as communication tool, computer as productivity tool, and computer
as multi-purpose tool. The major foci for boys, in order of importance,
were a machine for entertainment and gaming, a thinking machine, and
an information machine.
In terms of general use,
girls utilized computers to connect with others, and boys used computers
to compete with others. Girls' most predominant uses centered on communication:
emailing friends and family, chatting with friends, making new friends,
using instant messaging to communicate daily with classmates, and connecting
to and flirting with guys. Boys' most predominant uses centered on competitive,
often violent, gaming activities such as war games, killing simulations,
and sporting games. In terms of school-related use, girls focused on
the numerous ways they used computers, including word processing, creating
multimedia presentations, writing multiple drafts of papers, and producing
neat, professional looking work. Boys, however, mentioned that they
used computers for homework and schoolwork only now and then, and the
only tool they mentioned was the Internet.
In terms of Internet use, each gender identified several uses not mentioned
by the other gender. Girls said they used the Internet to shop or browse
for fashion ideas. They also focused on using the Internet to flirt
with guys or see pictures of "handsome hunks." Most girls
played computer games not at all or only when they were very, very bored.
They then elaborated that they thought computer games were a bad influence
on their male classmates because gaming made the boys into anti-social
couch potatoes who did not know how to communicate with their female
classmates. Boys mentioned using the Internet to look up codes for various
games that would allow them to move to the next level of the game. And
several boys mentioned their sophisticated use of computers to create
FTP sites for other gamers to find codes and secrets for popular software
and Internet games.
An interesting and unexpected
trend that I discovered when analyzing data was that girls used more
exact language to describe computer use than did boys. For example,
boys said they used computers for homework; girls specified that that
used word processing, PowerPoint, and the Internet to do homework. Boys
called the computer a machine that allows you to look up stuff, while
girls said it was a resource tool for learning. Boys were less specific
about their uses than girls. For example, boys never mentioned how they
did homework, while girls mentioned how they used word processors to
do multiple drafts and how using the computer made their work look neater
and more professional. And even though both boys and girls mentioned
the convenience of computers, they chose different language to express
this idea. Boys used the generic “it” when they said “it
let's you do things quicker and easier;” girls identified the
computer as a tool when they said “it's a tool that helps you
work quicker.”
Figure 4 delineates the exact
phrases adolescent girls and boys used to define the term computer.
Girls’
Definitions
Something to keep
you connected to your friends
It helps you communicate with others
A tool that does things that you tell it to do
A lot of stuff combined into one thing to make life easier
A gateway to information
It can substitute for a book because it contains so much information
It organizes and stores your thoughts
It's a resource tool for learning things
It can communicate, it can do problems in math, and it can write
It improves your everyday life
A tool that makes your work look neater and more professional
A tool that helps you work quicker
It’s whatever you want it to be
Boys’
Definitions
A machine with a
CPU and a motherboard and circuits
A high tech calculator, a giant calculator
A machine that does what you program it to do
A machine that thinks for you
A machine that processes information and stores it
A toy for people to have for entertainment
A machine that does things faster than a human can
A machine that allows you to look up stuff
It lets you do things quicker and easier.
|
Figure 4:
Adolescent Girls’ and Boys’ Definition of “Computer”
Figure 5 delineates the exact
phrases adolescent girls and boys used to describe how they used the
computer.
Girls’
Uses of Computers
Word processing for
homework and research
Word processing for writing process to easily do lots of drafts
PowerPoint presentations for classes
Email to talk to friends both locally and at a distance
Chat rooms to keep in touch with friends and make new friends
Instant messaging to talk to classmates
Email to talk to guys and flirt with guys
Games to play if I'm really, really bored, like PacMan or Solitaire
Definitely NOT for games
The Internet to shop or "window shop"
Boys’
Uses of Computers
Mainly for fun, maybe some homework now and then
To play games (Solitaire, casino games, sporting games, logic
games, simulations where you kill people, war games)
Entertainment 24 hours a day
The Internet for information to do homework
The Internet for Nintendo codes
Run an FTP from my computer that's up 24 hours a day
|
Figure 5:
Adolescent Girls’ and Boys’ Uses of the Computer
Kantrowitz (1999) found that
the gender stereotypes we perpetuate within our culture (boys play Nintendo,
girls play with Barbie) lead to an association of males with computers,
thereby creating a male-dominated computer culture. She suggests that
to eliminate gender stereotypes within the computer culture, we must
eliminate them from our culture at large. This charge, I believe, is
being lead by young women themselves who are refusing to be left behind
as a new virtual world emerges.
Within this study, I found
a number of stereotypes that seem less strong than they once were. For
example, as illustrated in Figure 6, males are more likely to take control
of the mouse than are females, but many young females are comfortable
taking control of the mouse.
Figure 6: Breaking Gender
Stereotypes Regarding Mouse Control
As shown in Figure 7, females
enjoy and use collaboration for computer-based assignments, but males
also enjoy and use collaboration as a learning tool.
Figure 7: Breaking Gender
Stereotypes Regarding Collaboration
And there was evidence of
the evolving, often confusing gender roles of girls and women in the
world of computers, as shown in Figure 8.
“I’m
fourteen years old and alls I’m interested in is boys.
I’m not SUPPOSED to be interested in computers and the
Internet and stuff like that.”
“I can’t
believe it! I’m really enjoying using the computer!”
Figure 8: Evolving
Gender Roles Regarding Computers
|
The gender differences
surrounding technology are not differences in competence, confidence,
or frequency of use. Instead, the differences lie in how adolescent
girls and boys view computers and the way they choose to use them. It
is imperative, then, that K-12 teachers understand that the culture
of computer use in schools is changing. Females are embracing technology
in numerous new ways as computers evolve into more versatile and complex
tools that can be used in a wide variety of ways depending on the user.
Because there is a pervasive
perception that the computer domain is male, parents and teachers need
to work to disrupt the stereotypically gendered nature of technology.
In general, technological use is often dictated by a rigid gender ideology:
vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and electric typewriters are for
females; power saws, tractors, and household tools are for males. But
computers, although far from neutral, offer a way to interrupt and re-define
gender differences. Technological advancements have changed both the
computer and the image of the computer. Computers are no longer simply
number crunchers; they are now multifaceted technologies that facilitate
unlimited opportunities in application, use, and vision. Males may have
aligned themselves with a number crunching computer in the past; but
the newer image of computer as more complexly functional opens the door
to differently gendered use. In fact, this study stands as firm evidence
that girls are aligning themselves with computers and are using computers
to defy long-standing gender stereotypes.
