The impact of gender on computer related attitudes, ability, and use has been actively documented, but little research has been done examining how to modify and reduce imbalances. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of ubiquitous computing (24-hour access to a laptop and the Internet) on gender differences in pre-service teachers with respect to computer attitudes, ability, and use. Regarding computer attitudes, gender differences before the laptop program were observed in only one of the four constructs assessed: future intentions to use computers (behavioral attitude). There were no significant differences in attitude between males and females after the laptop program. With respect to computer ability, males reported having stronger skills in five of the ten ability constructs assessed before the laptop program (operating systems, database software, creating a web page, and programming). There were no significant gender differences in ability after the laptop program, with the exception of programming which continued to favor males. It is speculated that the gender equalization effect observed in this study could have a significant impact on the extent to which technology is used by future students, especially given recent trends in promoting the use of technology in the classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdriansonL. (2001). Gender and computer-mediated communication: Group processes in problem solving. Computers in Human Behaviour, 17, 71–94.
2.
AjzenI., & FishbeinM. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
3.
AlbaneseM. A., & MitchellS. A. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81.
4.
AlbeeJ. J. (2003). A study of pre-service elementary teachers' technology skill preparedness and examples of how it can be increased. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 53–71.
5.
AtanH.SulaimanF.RahmanZ. A., & IdrusR. M. (2002). Gender differences in availability, internet access and rate of usage of computers among distance education learners. Education Media International, 39(3/4), 205–210.
6.
AustR.NewberryB.O'BrienJ., & ThomasJ. (2005). Learning generation: Fostering innovation with tomorrow's teachers and technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 167–195.
7.
BartlettA. (2002). Preparing pre-service teachers to implement performance assessment and technology through electronic portfolios. Action in Teacher Education, 24(1), 90–97.
8.
BaylorA. L., & RitchieD. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?Computers & Education, 39, 395–414.
9.
BennettL. (2001/2001). Technology standards for the preparation of teachers. International Journal of Social Education, 15(2), 1–11.
10.
BrosnanM., & LeeW. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in computer attitudes and anxieties: The United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Computers in Human Behaviour, 14(4), 559–577.
11.
BrownA. L., & PalinscarA. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
12.
BrunerJ. (1983). Child's talk. Learning to use language. Toronto, Canada: George J. McLeod Ltd.
13.
BrunerJ. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
BucciT. T. (2003). The technology teaching lab: Meeting the ISTE challenge. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 1–9.
15.
BuschT. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 147–158.
16.
CarrollJ. B. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
CarrollJ. M., & MackR. L. (1984). Learning to use a word processor: By doing, by thinking, and by knowing. In ThomasJ. C. and SchneiderM. (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
18.
CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2000). Teacher preparation StaR chart: A self-assessment tool for colleges of education—preparing a new generation of teachers. Retrieved August 30, 2004 from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/tpreport.pdf
19.
ChiM. T. H., & BassokM. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
20.
ChingC. C.KafaiY. B., & MarshallS. (2000). Spaces for change: Gender and technology access in collaborative software design projects. Journal for Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 67–78.
21.
ColleyA. (2003). Gender differences in adolescents' perceptions of the best and worst aspects of computing at school. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 673–682.
22.
ColleyA., & ComberC. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: What has changed?Educational Research, 45(2), 155–165.
23.
CollierS.WeinburghM. H., & RiveraM. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students' knowledge about the use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447–468.
24.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S., & NewmanS. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
25.
ComberC.ColleyA.HargreavesD. J., & DornL. (1997). The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research Volume, 39(2), 123–133.
26.
ComptonV., & HarwoodC. (2003). Enhancing technological practice: An assessment framework for technology education in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 1–26.
27.
ChristensenR.KnezekG., & OverallT. (2005). Transition points for the gender gap in computer enjoyment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 23–37.
28.
DurndellA., & HaagZ. (2002). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitude toward the internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 521–535.
29.
DurndellA.HaagZ., & LaithwaitH. (2000). Computer self efficacy and gender: A cross cultural study of Scotland and Romania. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1037–1044.
30.
FultonK. (1997). The skills students need for technological fluency. Learning in a digital age: Insights into the issues. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
31.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
32.
GarlandK. J., & NoyesJ. M. (2004). Computer experience: A poor predictor of computer attitudes. Computers in Human Behaviour, 20, 823–840.
33.
GarlandV. E. (1999). Improving computer skills in colleges of education. Educational Technology Systems28(1), 59–66.
34.
GressardC. P., & LoydB. H. (1987). An investigation of the effects of math anxiety and sex on computer attitude. School Science and Mathematics, 87(2), 125–135.
35.
GunterG. A. (2001). Making a difference: Using emerging technologies and teaching strategies to restructure an undergraduate technology course for pre-service teachers. Education Media International, 38(1), 13–20.
36.
HalpinR. (1999). A model for constructivist learning in practice: Computer literacy integrated into elementary mathematics and science teacher education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 128–138.
37.
ISTE/NCATE (2003). ISTE/NCATE Standards for educational technology programs. Retrieved August 30, 2004 from http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/
38.
JacksonL. A.ErvinK. S.GardnerP. D., & SchmittN. (2001). Gender and the internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44(5/6), 363–379.
39.
JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In ThousandJ. S.VillaR. A., & NevinA. I. (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 31–44). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
40.
JohnsonD. W., & JohnsonR. T. (1998). Learning together and alone. Cooperation, competition, and individualization (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
41.
KaganS. (1997). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). San Jose Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
42.
KaravidasM.LimN. K., & KatsikasS. L. (2005). The effects of computers on older adult users. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 697–711.
43.
KayR. H. (1992). An analysis of methods used to examine gender differences in computer-related behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 323–336.
44.
KayR. H. (1993). An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes toward computers: The computer attitude measure (CAM). Computers in Human Behaviour, 9, 371–386.
45.
KayR. H. (1994). Understanding and evaluating measures of computer ability: Making a case for an alternative metric. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 270–284.
46.
KingJ.BondT., & BlandfordS. (2002). An investigation of computer anxiety by gender and grade. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 69–84.
LampertM. (1986). Teaching multiplication. Journal of Mathematical Behavior5, 241–280.
49.
LanthierR. P., & WindhamR. C. (2004). Internet use and college adjustment: The moderating role of gender. Computers in Human Behaviour20, 591–606.
50.
LarkinJ. H. (1989). What kind of knowledge transfers? In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 283–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
51.
LightP.LittletonK.BaleS.JoinerR., & MesserD. (2000). Gender and social comparison effects in computer-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 10, 483–496.
52.
LoweG. S.KrahnH., & SostericM. (2003). Influence of socioeconomic status and gender on high school seniors' use of computers at home and at school. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Edmonton, 49(2), 138–155.
53.
LupartJ., & CannonE. (2002). Computers and career choices: Gender differences in grades 7 and 10 students. Gender, Technology and Development, 6(2), 233–248.
54.
MaeersM.BrowneN., & CooperE. (2000). Pedagogically appropriate integration of information technology in an elementary pre-service teacher education program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 219–229.
55.
McIlroyD.BuntingB.TierneyK., & GordonM. (2001). The relation of gender and background experience to self-reported computing anxieties and cognitions. Computers in Human Behaviour, 17, 21–33.
56.
MilbrathY. L., & KinzieM. B. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 373–396.
57.
MillerL. M.SchweingruberH., & BrandenburgC. L. (2001). Middle school students' technology practices and preferences: Re-examining gender differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125–140.
58.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2003). International Technology Education Association/Council on Technology Teacher Education (ITEA/CTTE). Retrieved July 27, 2004 from http://www.ncate.org/standard/programstds.htm
59.
NorthA. S., & NoyesJ. M. (2002). Gender influences on children's computer attitudes and cognitions. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 135–150.
60.
OnoH., & ZavodnyM. (2003). Gender and the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 111–121.
61.
OosterwegelA.LittletonK., & LightP. (2004). Understanding computer-related attitudes through an idiographic analysis of gender- and self-representations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 215–233.
PapastergiouM., & SolomonidouC. (2005). Gender issues in internet access and favourite internet activities among Greek high school pupils inside and outside school. Computers & Education, 44, 377–393.
64.
PassigD., & LevinH. (1999). Gender interest difficulties with multimedia learning interfaces. Computers and Human Behaviour, 15173–183.
65.
PopeM.HareP., & HowardE. (2002). Technology Integration: Closing the gap between what pre-service teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191–203.
66.
RayC. M.SormunenC., & HarrisT. M. (1999). Men's and women's attitudes toward computer technology: A comparison. Office Systems Research Journal, 17(1), 1–8.
67.
ResnickL. B. (1989). Introduction. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
68.
RussellM.BebellD.O'DwyerL., & O'ConnorK. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310.
69.
SandersJ. (1997). Teacher education and gender equity. ERIC Digest, 95(3).
70.
Sanders, J. (in press). Gender and technology: A research review. In SkeltonC.FrancisB., & SmulyanL. (Eds.), Handbook of gender and education. London: Sage.
71.
SandersJ., & CampbellP. B. (2001). Making it happen: The role of teacher education in ensuring gender equity. AACTE Policy Perspectives, 2(4), 1–5.
72.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In KoschmannT. (Ed.). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
73.
SchumacherP., & Morahan-MartinJ. (2001). Gender, internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behaviour, 17, 95–110.
74.
SeelsB.CampbellS., & TalsmaV. (2003). Supporting excellence in technology through communities of learning. ETR&D, 51(1), 91–104.
75.
ShapkaJ. D., & FerrariM. (2003). Computer-related attitudes and actions of teacher candidates. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 319–334.
ShashaaniL., & KhaliliA. (2001). Gender and computers: Similarities and differences in Iranian college students' attitudes toward computers. Computers & Education, 37, 363–375.
78.
ShawG., & MarlowN. (1999). The role of student learning styles, gender, attitudes and perceptions on information and communication technology assisted learning. Computers & Education, 33, 223–234.
79.
SIIA (2002). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.
80.
SolvbergA. (2002). Gender differences in computer-related control beliefs and home computer use. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(4), 410–426.
81.
SternbergR. J. (1989). Domain-generality versus domain-specificity: The life and impending death of a false dichotomy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(1), 115–130.
82.
SussmanN. M., & TysonD. H. (2000). Sex and power: Gender differences in computer-medicated interactions. Computers in Human Behaviour, 16, 381–394.
83.
ThalheimerW., & CookS. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. Retrieved November 10, 2004 from http://worklearning.com/effect_sizes.htm
84.
ThompsonA. D.SchmidtD. A., & DavisN. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. ETR&D, 51(1), 73–89.
85.
TodmanJ. (2000). Gender differences in computer anxiety among university entrants since 1992. Computers & Education, 34, 27–35.
86.
TsaiC.LinS. S. J., & TsaiM. (2001). Developing an internet attitude scale for high school students. Computers & Education, 37, 41–51.
87.
VannattaR. A., & BeyerbachB. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology integration among education faculty and pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(21), 132–148.
88.
VolkK., & HolseyL. (1997). TAP: A gender equity program in high technology. The Technology Teacher, December/January, 10–13.
89.
VolmanM.EckE.HeemskerkI., & KuiperE. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils' use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers & Education, 45, 35–55.
90.
VoylesM., & WilliamsA. (2004). Gender differences in attributions and behaviour in a technology classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(3), 233–256.
91.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
92.
WangY., & HolthausP. (1998–1999). Facing the world: Student teachers' computer use during practicum. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27(3), 207–223.
93.
WepnerS. B.ZiomekN., & TaoL. (2003). Three teacher educators' perspectives about the shifting responsibilities of infusing technology into the curriculum. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 53–63.
94.
WhitleyB. E.Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behaviour, 13, 1–22.
95.
WilkersonT. L. (2003). A trial model for preparing pre-service teachers for the integration of technology in teaching and learning. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 27–32.
96.
YoungB. J. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204–216.
97.
YuenA. H. K., & MaW. W. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.
98.
ZhangY. (2005). Age, gender, and internet attitudes among employees in the business world. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21, 1–10.
