The concern with a “digital divide” has been transformed from one defined by technological access to technological prowess—employing technologies for more empowered and generative uses such as learning and innovation. Participation in technological fluency-building activities among high school students in a community heavily involved in the technology industry was investigated in a study of 98 high school seniors enrolled in AP-level calculus. Findings indicated substantial variability in history of fluency-building experiences despite similar levels of access. More and less experienced groups were defined based on their breadth of prior experience. Males and females who were classified as more experienced utilized a broader range of learning resources and were more likely to learn from out-of-school classes and distributed resources such as online tutorials and reading material. Gender differences emerged with respect to participation in certain activities such as computer programming, even when controlling for overall breadth of experience and an analysis of course-taking history helped explain why. Four times as many males as females had taken a programming class. Analysis of reasons for taking courses indicated that the majority of females who chose to take programming did so with the encouragement of family members. Both confidence and interest were related to experience, though the relationship differed for males and females. These results are discussed with respect to a multi-context framework for the development of technological fluency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AAUW (2000). Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
2.
AttewellP. (2001). Children of the digital divide. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
3.
AttewellP.BattleJ. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15, 1–10.
4.
BadagliaccoJ. (1990). Gender and race differences in computing attitudes and experience. Social Science Computer Review, 8, 42–63.
5.
BarronB. (2000). Problem solving in video-based microworlds: Collaborative and individual outcomes of high achieving sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2): 391–398.
6.
BarronB. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
7.
BarronB.MartinC. K.RobertsE. (2002, October). A design experiment to build technological fluency and bridge divides. In BellP.StevensR. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Keeping learning complex—Fostering multidisciplinary research efforts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
BarronB.MartinC. K.RobertsE.MercierE.McPheeS. (in press). Imaging possible futures: Course taking and knowledge use within trajectories of technological fluency. Social and equity issues with technology. San Diego, CA: American Educational Research Association.
9.
BarronB.SchwartzD. L.VyeN. J.MooreA.PetrosinoT.ZechL.BransfordJ. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based-learning. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311.
10.
BatesonG. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
11.
BoalerJ. (2002). Paying the price for ‘sugar and spice’—Shifting the analytical lens in equity research. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 4(2&3), 127–144.
12.
BransfordJ. D.SchwartzD. L. (2001). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.
13.
BrofenbrennerU.EvansG. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs, and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115–125.
14.
BrownA. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
15.
BrownJ. S. (2002, March/April). Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and the way people learn. Change, pp. 10–20.
16.
BuschT. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes towards computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 147–158.
17.
CampT. (1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM, 40(10), 103–110.
18.
CasselJ.JenkinsH. (1998). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
CastellsM. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackell.
20.
CCST (2002). Critical path analysis of California's science and technology education system. Sacramento, CA: Author.
21.
ChenM. (1986). Gender and computers: The beneficial effects of experience on attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 265–282.
22.
CollinsA.HalversonR. (2002). The second educational revolution: From apprenticeship to schooling to lifelong learning. Manuscript in preparation.
23.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
24.
GreenoJ.CollinsA.ResnickL. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In BerlinerD. C.CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.
25.
HartupW. W.LaursenB. (1999). Relationships as developmental contexts: Retrospective themes and contemporary issues. In CollinsW. A.LaursenB. (Eds.), Relationships as developmental contexts (pp. 13–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
John-SteinerV. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
KafaiY. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children's learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28.
KafaiY. (1996). Learning design by making games: Children's development of design strategies in the creation of a complex computational artifact. In KafaiY.ResnickM. (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 71–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
KellyA.LeshR. A. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
KersteenZ.LinnM.ClancyM.HardyckC. (1998). Previous experience and the learning of computer programming: The computer helps those who help themselves. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 321–333.
LevinT.GordonC. (1989). Effect of gender and computer experience on attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 69–88.
33.
LevittB.MarchJ. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
34.
Looi-Chi. (1999). A learning ecology perspective for the Internet. Educational Technology, 40, 56–60.
35.
MargolisJ.FisherA. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
NardiB.O'DayV. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
National Research Council (NRC). (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
39.
Pew reports. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools. [On-line] Available: www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=67.
40.
ReichR. (2002). The future of success. New York: Vintage Books.
41.
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
SchofieldJ. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SuperC. M.HarknessS. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 545–569.
44.
SuttonR. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Education Research, 61, 475–503.
45.
TaylorH. G.MounfieldL. C. (1994). Exploration of the relationship between prior computing experience and gender on success in college computer science. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 291–306.
46.
United States Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation on line. How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. [On-line] Available: http://www.digitaldivide.gov/reports.html
47.
VolmanM.van EckE. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71, 613–634.
48.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. ColeM.John-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE. (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
WarschauerM. (2000). Technology and school reform: A view from both sides of the track. Educational Policy Archives, 8, 4.
