A review of research studies on gender differences in computer-based education revealed significant discrepancies between equality of access and performance outcomes for female and male users. Beginning during preschool years, males consistently spend more time than females in computing activities. For males, such concentrated involvement translates into higher achievement scores in computer-based technology in both academic and career settings. The outcome for females is an inequitable chance to acquire the same technological skill levels as males. An analysis of research findings reveals that social interactions among children, their families and schools can affect attitudes and motivation of children in very different ways according to gender. Eighteen unique factors which have a significant impact on the formation of this discrepancy are identified. Recommendations for further research studies to examine and bridge the existing technological gender gap are made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH. J. and SterlingC. W., Equity in School Computer Use: National Data and Neglected Considerations, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3: 3, pp. 289–311, 1987.
2.
ChorafasD., Machine Learning: The Next Ten Years, in Machine Learning, ForsythR. (ed.). Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 238–249, 1987.
3.
LepperM. R., Microcomputers in Education: Motivational and Social Issues, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 1–18, 1985.
4.
PapertS., Mindstroms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, New York, 1980.
5.
WilderG.MacKieD., and CooperJ., Gender and Computers: Computer-Related Attitudes, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 215–228, 1985.
6.
ChenM., Gender and Computers: The Beneficial Effects of Experience on Attitudes, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, pp. 265–281, 1986.
7.
HessR. and MiuraI., Gender Differences in Enrollment in Computer Camps and Classes, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 193–203, 1985.
8.
JonesP. K., The Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Remediation with Male and Female Students, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 3, pp. 61–63, 1987.
9.
SchubertJ. G., Gender Equity in Computer Learning, Theory into Practice, 25, pp. 267–275, 1986.
10.
TittleC. K., Gender Research and Education, American Psychologist, 41: 1, pp. 1161–1168, October, 1968.
11.
LepperM. R. and GurtnerJ. L., Children and Computers: Approaching the Twenty First Century, American Psychologist, 4: 1, pp. 170–178, 1989.
12.
WhitingB. B. and EdwardsC. P., Children of Different Worlds: The Formation of Social Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.
13.
WeinerG., Feminism and Equal Opportunities, in Changing Perspectives on Gender, Chapter 7, Burchell and Millman (eds.), 1989.
14.
BergerJ., Women's Mathematics Ability Does Not Equal Men's, Greensboro News and Record, pp. G1, G7, August 20, 1989.
15.
BergerJ., National Task Force on Educational Technology. Transforming American Education: Reducing the Risk to the Nation, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 14: 1, pp. 58–67, 1986.
16.
GoodspeedJ., The NEA Publishes Two Powerful Reports on Educational Technology, Electronic Learning, 9: 1, p. 21, September, 1989.
17.
KinnamanD. E., NEA Committee on Educational Technology Releases Report, Classroom Computer Learning, 10: 1, p. 12, 1989.
18.
HattieJ. and FitzgeraldD., Sex Differences in Attitudes, Achievement and Use of Computers, Australian Journal of Education, 31, pp. 3–26, 1987.
19.
JonesP. K., The Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Remediation with Male and Female Students, Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 3, pp. 61–63, 1987.
20.
FelterM., Sex Differences on the California Statewide Assessment of Computer Literacy, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 181–191, 1985.
21.
FreyK. S. and RubleD. N., What Children Say about Classroom Performance: Sex and Grade Differences in Perceived Competence, Child Development, 58, pp. 1066–1078, 1987.
22.
ChambersS. M. and ClarkeV. A., Is Inequity Cumulative? The Relationship between Disadvantaged Group Membership and Students' Computing Experience, Knowledge, Attitudes and Intentions, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 3: 4, pp. 495–515, 1987.
23.
BeckerH. J., Using Computers for Instruction, BYTE, 12: 2, pp. 149–150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 160, 162, February, 1987.
24.
AmesC. and ArcherJ., Mother's Beliefs about the Role of Ability and Effort in School Learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, pp. 409–414, 1987.
25.
TurkleS., The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984.
26.
TrepanierM. L. and RomatowskiJ. A., Attributes and Roles Assigned to Characters in Children's Writing: Sex Differences and Sex-Role Perceptions, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 263–274, 1985.
27.
BiraimahK., Inequalities in Classroom Computer Software, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Savannah, Ga., February 22–25, 1989.
28.
GagnonD., Videogames and Spatial Skills: An Exploratory Study, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33: 4, pp. 263–275, 1989.
29.
MandinachE. B. and CornoL., Cognitive Engagement Variations among Students of Different Ability Levels and Sex in a Computer Problem Solving Game, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 241–251, 1985.
30.
McClurgP. A. and ChailleC., Computer Games: Environments for Developing Spatial Cognition?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3: 1, pp. 95–101, 1987.
31.
RosenthalN. R. and DemetruliasD. M., Assessing Gender Bias in Computer Software, Computers in the Schools, 5, pp. 153–163, 1987.
32.
WareM. C. and StuckM. F., Sex-Role Messages Vis-a-vis Microcomputer Use: A Look at the Pictures, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 205–215, 1985.
33.
SmithS. D., Computer Attitudes of Teachers and Students in Relationship to Gender and Grade Level, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, pp. 479–494, 1987.
34.
StaszC.ShavelsonR. J., and StaszC., Teachers as Role Models: Are There Gender Differences in Microcomputer-Based Mathematics and Science Instruction?, Sex Roles, 13: 3/4, pp. 149–164, 1985.
