Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has brought about a “learning revolution” that provides conditions of changes for a “creative society.” However, due to issues such as, the digital divide and gender gap, in developing countries, women face barriers to learning using ICT. As ICT spans diverse technologies, this article focuses mainly on the Internet. It aims to provide an analysis of barriers to Internet usage that have implications for the future improvement of women’s education in developing contexts. Theoretically, the barriers can be attributed to two levels of factors: the first-order factors that arise due to technical and economic issues, and the second-order factors that are the result of socio-cultural–psychological issues. This further has implications for practical efforts to improve the education of women by ICT tools on the Internet in developing contexts. It is important for educational strategies to explore both social and gender approaches to ensure that women become a part of the “creative society.”
ArmentaA.SerranoA.CabreraM.ConteR. (2012). The new digital divide: The confluence of broadband penetration, sustainable development, technology adoption and community participation. Information Technology for Development, 18(4), 345–353. doi:10.1080/02681102.2011.625925
2.
BestM.L.MaierS.G. (2007). Gender, culture and ICT use in rural south India. Gender, Technology and Development, 11(2), 137–155. doi:10.1177/097185240701100201
3.
BimberB. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), 868–876.
4.
BroosA. (2005). Gender and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) anxiety: Male self-assurance and female hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 21–31.
5.
BrosnanM.LeeW. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in computer attitudes and anxieties: The United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Computers in Human Behavior, 14(4), 559–577. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00024-7
6.
CheongP.H. (2007). Gender and perceived internet efficacy: Examining secondary digital divide issues in Singapore. Women’s Studies in Communication, 30(2), 205–228. doi:10.1080/07491409.2007.10162513
7.
ChouC. (2003). Incidences and correlates of Internet anxiety among high school teachers in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 731–749. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00010-4
8.
CompeauD.R.HigginsC.A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
9.
CookD.A.LevinsonA.J.GarsideS.DuprasD.M.ErwinP.J.MontoriV.M. (2008). Internet-based learning in the health professions, a meta-analysis. Journal of American Medical Association, 300(10),1181–1196.
10.
CradlerJ.McNabbM.FreemanM.BurchettR. (2002). How does technology influence student learning?Learning & Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46–49.
11.
CraftA. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. New York: Routledge.
12.
DewanS.RigginsF.J. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(12), 298–337.
13.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE. (2001). From the “Digital Divide” to “Digital Inequality”: Studying Internet use as penetration increases. In Working Paper Series, 15. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap15.html
14.
DimaggioP.HargittaiE.CelesteC.ShaferS. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In NeckermanK. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell SAGE Foundation.
15.
Fernandez-VillavicencioN.G. (2010). Helping students become literate in a digital, networking-based society: A literature review and discussion. The International Information & Library Review, 42(2), 124–136. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.04.01
16.
GarrisonD.R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge.
17.
GauntlettD. (2011). Making is connecting, the social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to Youtube and Web 2.0. UK: Polity Press.
HafkinN (2002). Gender issues in ICT policy indeveloping countries: An overview (Expert Group Meeting on “Information and communication technologiesand their impact on and use as an instrument for the advancement and empowerment of women”). Seoul, Republic of Korea: Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW)—United Nations. Retrieved May 18, 2012, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/ict2002/…/Paper-NHafkin.PDF
HargittaiE. (2006). Hurdles to information seeking: Spelling and typographical mistakes duringusers’ online behavior. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(1), 52–67.
22.
HargittaiE.ShaferS. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.x
23.
HargittaiHinnantA. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782
24.
HaseloffA.M. (2005). Cybercafés and their potential as community development tools in India. Journal of Community Informatics, 1(3), 53–65.
25.
HatakkaM.LagstenJ. (2012). The capability approach as a tool for development evaluation—analyzing students’ use of internet resources. Information Technology for Development, 18(1), 23–41. doi:10.1080/02681102.2011.617722
26.
HawisherG.E.SelfeC.L.MoraskiB.PearsonM. (2004). Becoming literate in the information age: Cultural ecologies and the literacies of technology. College Composition and Communication, 55(4), 642–692. doi:10.2307/4140666
27.
HillJ.R.WileyD.NelsonL.M.HanS. (2004). Exploring research on Internet-based learning: From infrastructure to interactions. In JonassenD.H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 433–460). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28.
HuffakerH.A.CalvertS.L. (2003). The new science of learning: Active learning, metacognition and transfer of knowledge in e-learning applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 325–334.
JacksonL.A.ErvinK.S.GardnerP.D.SchmittN. (2001). Gender and the Internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44(5), 363–379. doi:10.1023/A:1010937901821
31.
JamesJ. (2004). Reconstruing the digital divide from the perspective of a large, poor, developing country. Journal of Information Technology, 19(3), 172–177. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000019
32.
JohnsonV. (2010). Women and the internet. A micro study in Chennai, India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 17(1), 151–163. doi:10.1177/097152150901700107
33.
KabilanM.RajabB. (2010). The utilization of the Internet by Palestinian English language teachers focusing on uses, practices and barriers and overall contribution to professional development. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 6(3), 56–72.
34.
KennedyT.WellmanB.KlementK.KlementK.W. (2003). Gendering the digital divide. IT & Society, 1(5), 149–172.
35.
KimB.ReevesT.C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256.
36.
KrishnatrayP.SinghP.P.RaghavanS.VarmaV. (2010). Gratifications from new media: Gender differences in Internet use in cybercafes. Journal of Creative Communications, 4(1), 19–31. doi:10.1177/097325861000400102
37.
LeiJ.ZhaoY. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284–296.
38.
LiawS.-S. (2002). An Internet survey for perceptions of computers and the World Wide Web: Relationship, prediction, and difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(1), 17–35.
39.
LuoL.ZhouC.ZhangS. (2014). Gender and regional differences in creativity: A comparative study on playfulness and humor in postgraduate students between Mainland China and Taiwan. Journal About Women in Higher Education (In press, to be published in 2015, Volume 9, Issue 1).
MoghaddamG.G. (2010). Information technology and gender gap: Toward a global view. The Electronic Library, 28(5), 722–733. doi:10.1108/02640471011081997
42.
NwagwuE.W.AdekannbiJ.BelloO. (2009). Factors influencing use of the internet: A questionnaire survey of the students of University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Electronic Library, 27(4), 718–734. doi:10.1108/02640470910979651
43.
OlowaO.W. (2012). An assessment of Internet uses, practices, and barriers for professional development by agricultural science teachers in Lagos State. Education Research International, 2012, 7. doi:10.1155/2012/503264
44.
OnoH.ZavodnyM. (2003). Gender and the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 111–121. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.t01-1-8401007
45.
PanZ.YanW.JingG.ZhengJ. (2011). Exploring structured inequality in Internet use behavior. Asian Journal of Communication, 21(2), 116–132. doi:10.1080/01292986.2010.543555
46.
PengH.TsaiC.WuY. (2006). University students’ self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the Internet: The role of students’ perceptions of the Internet. Educational Studies, 32(1), 73–86. doi:10.1080/03055690500416025
PurushothamanA. (2013). Empowering women through learning to use the Internet—An ethnographic action research project to address the second order digital divide. PhD thesis. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University, Denmark.
49.
QureshiS. (2012). As the global digital divide narrows, who is being left behind?Information Technology for Development, 18(4), 277–280. doi:10.1080/02681102.2012.730656
50.
RamayahT.JantanM.IsmailN. (2003). Impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on Internet usage in Malaysia. Presented at the 12th International Conference on Management of Technology, Nancy, France. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from http://www.ramayah.com/journalarticlespdf/impactofintrinsic.pdf
51.
RangaswamyN. (2009). The non-formal business of cyber cafés: A case-study from India. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 7(2/3), 136–145. doi:10.1108/14779960910955855
52.
ResnickM. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In KirkmanG. (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the network word (pp. 32–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
RosenL.D.WeilM.M. (1990). Computers, classroom instruction, and the computerphobic university student. Collegiate Microcomputer, 8(4), 275–283.
54.
RosenL.D.WeilM.M. (1995). Computer availability, computer experience and technophobia among public school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(1), 9–31.
55.
SamH.K.OthmanA.E.A.NordinZ.S. (2005). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the Internet: A study among undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 205–219.
56.
SchumacherP.Morahan-MartinJ. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(1), 95–110. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00032-7
57.
ShashaaniL.KhaliliA. (2001). Gender and computers: Similarities and differences in Iranian college students’ attitudes toward computers. Computers & Education, 37(3–4), 363–375. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00059-8.
58.
StraubE.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 16–18.
59.
TellaA. (2011). An assessment of mathematics teachers’ Internet self-efficacy: Implications on teachers’ delivery of mathematics instruction. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(2), 155–174. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2010.519798
TongiaR.SubrahmanianE.ArunachalamV. (2005). Information and communications technology for sustainable development: Defining a global research agenda. Bangalore, India: Allied Publishers.
62.
TsaiM.-J.TsaiC.-C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web-based science learning: The role of internet self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 43–50. doi:10.1080/1355800032000038822
63.
UmraniF.GhadiallyR. (2003). Empowering women through ICT education: Facilitating computer adoption. Gender, Technology and Development, 7(3), 359–377. doi:10.1177/097185240300700303
64.
UN. (2005). Women 2000 and beyond: Gender equality and empowerment of women through ICT. UN Division for the Advancement of Women, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/w2000-09.05-ict-e.pdf
Van DeursenA.van DijkJ. (2009). Using the Internet: Skill-related problems in users’ online behavior. Interacting with Computers, 21(5–6), 393–402. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005
67.
Van DeursenA.van DijkJ. (2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893–911. doi: 10.1177/1461444810386774
68.
VijayalakshmiP.BhavaniD. (2006). Internet use, Indian culture and gender variations. Media Asia-Singapore, 33(3/4), 202–211.
69.
WaltonR.YaaqoubiJ.KolkoB. (2012). What’s it for? Expectations of Internet value and usefulness in Central Asia. Information Technologies & International Development, 8(3), 69–84.
70.
WangF.ZhouC. (2013). A theoretical study on development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-supported education system. 2013 10th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), 23–25 July 2013, Shenyang, China. IEEE Press.
ZhouC.KolmosA.NielsenJ.D. (2012). A problem and project-based learning (PBL) approach to motivate group creativity in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(1), 3–16.
75.
ZhouC.PurushothamanA.RongbutsriN. (2013). Facilitating sustainability of education by problem-based learning (PBL) and Information and Communication Technology (ICT). International Journal on Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(6), 50–54.
