The two studies reported here investigated gender differences in planning and debugging behavior, group processes, and achievement among junior high school students learning computer programming in small group or individual settings. In the first study, thirty-five students (15 females, 20 males) learned LOGO in three-person groups. In the second study, thirty students (9 females, 16 males) learned BASIC in two-person groups, and twenty-five students (9 females, 16 males) learned BASIC individually. In neither study and in neither setting, group or individual, did females and males differ in behavior or learning outcomes. Furthermore, the composition of the group, the ratio of females to males, had little effect on behavior or achievement. Reasons for the discrepancies between the present results and previous studies of gender differences in non-computer settings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SchubertJ. G., IDEAS for Equity in Computer Learning, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Special Interest Group on Women in Education, American Educational Research Association, Long Beach, California, 1984.
2.
Project on Equal Education Rights, Sex Bias at the Computer Terminal—How Schools Program Girls, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (PEER, 1413 K Street NW, 9th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005), 1984.
3.
HessR.MuiraI., Sex and Class Affect Summer Camp Enrollment, Infoworld, 5, p. 17, 1983.
4.
KrienbergN.StageE., Equals in Computer Technology, in The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow, ZimmermanJ. (ed.), Praeger, New York, 1983.
5.
ColeD. D.HannafinM. J., An Analysis of Why Students Select Introductory High School Computer Coursework, Education Technology, 23, p. 28, 1983.
6.
FennemaE., The Sex Factor, in Mathematics Education Research: Implications for the 80's, FennemaE. (ed.), Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1981.
7.
Crist-WhitzelJ. L.DashoS. J.BeckumL. C., Achieving Equity: Student-Led Computer Training, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1984.
8.
LinnM. C., The Cognitive Consequences of Instruction in Computer Programming: Gender Differences, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Special Interest Group on Women in Education, American Educational Research Association, Long Beach, California, 1984.
9.
BurbulesN. C.ReeseP., Teaching Logic to Children: An Exploratory Study of “Rocky's Boots,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1984.
10.
LockheedM. E.NielsenA.StoneM. K., Determinants of Microcomputer Literacy in High School Students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, p. 33–44, 1985.
11.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers: Reports from a National Survey, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, Issue No. 1, 1983.
12.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers: Reports from a National Survey, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, Issue No. 6, 1984.
13.
CollinsA.BruceB. C.RubinA., Microcomputer-Based Writing Activities for the Upper Elementary Grades, Proceedings of the Fourth International Learning Technology Congress and Exposition, Society for Applied Learning Technology, Warrenton, Virginia, 1982.
14.
HawkinsJ., Learning LOGO Together: The Social Context, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, 1983.
15.
HawkinsJ.HamolskyM.HeideP., Paired Problem Solving in a Computer Context, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1984.
16.
RubinA., Making Stories, Making Sense, Language Arts, 57, pp. 285–298, 1980.
17.
RubinA., The Computer Confronts Language Arts: Cans and Shoulds for Education, in Classroom Computers and Cognitive Science, WilkinsonA. C. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1982.
18.
ZaccheiD., The Adventures and Exploits of the Dynamic Storymaker and Textman, Classroom Computer News, 2, pp. 28–30, 1982.
19.
PetersonP. L.JanickiT. C.SwingS. R., Ability X Treatment Interaction Effects on Children's Learning in Large-Group and Small-Group Approaches, American Educational Research Journal, 18, pp. 453–473, 1981.
20.
PetersonP. L.JanickiT. C., Individual Characteristics and Children's Learning in Large-Group and Small-Group Approaches, Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, pp. 677–687, 1979.
21.
SwingS. R.PetersonP. L., The Relationship of Student Ability and Small-Group Interaction to Student Achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 19, pp. 259–274, 1982.
22.
WebbN. M., Group Process: The Key to Learning in Groups, New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science; Issues in Aggregation, 6, pp. 77–87, 1980.
23.
WebbN. M., A Process-Outcome Analysis of Learning in Group and Individual Settings, Educational Psychologist, 15, pp. 69–83, 1980.
24.
WebbN. M., Group Composition, Group Interaction, and Achievement in Cooperative Small Groups, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, pp. 475–484, 1982.
25.
WebbN. M., Peer Interaction and Learning in Small Groups, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, pp. 642–655, 1982.
26.
WebbN. M., Student Interaction and Learning in Small Groups, Review of Educational Research, 52, pp. 421–445, 1982.
27.
WebbN. M., Microcomputer Learning in Small Groups: Cognitive Requirements and Group Processes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 1076–1088, 1984.
28.
WebbN. M.EnderP.LewisS., “Problem-Solving Strategies and Group Processes in Small Groups Learning Computer Programming,”American Educational Research Journal, in press.
29.
WebbN. M.KenderskiC. M., Student Interaction and Learning in Small Group and Whole Class Settings, in The Social Context of Instruction: Group Organization and Group Processes, PetersonP. L. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, 1984.
30.
WebbN. M.KenderskiC. M., Gender Differences in Small Group Interaction and Achievement in High-Achieving and Low-Achieving Classrooms, in Gender Related Differences in Classroom Interaction, WilkinsonL. C.MarrettC. B. (eds.), Academic Press, 1985.
31.
WilkinsonL. C.CalculatorS., Effective Speakers: Students' Use of Language to Request and Obtain Information and Action in the Classroom, in Communicating in the Classroom, WilkinsonL. C. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1982.
32.
WilkinsonL. C.CalculatorS., Requests and Responses in Peer-Directed Reading Groups, American Educational Research Journal, 19, pp. 107–120, 1982.
33.
WebbN. M., Sex Differences in Interaction and Achievement in Cooperative Small Groups, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 33–44, 1984.
34.
LockheedM. E.HallK. P., Conceptualizing Sex as a Status Characteristic: Applications to Leadership Training Strategies, Journal of Social Issues, 32, pp. 111–124, 1976.
35.
FrankH. H.KatcherA. H., The Qualities of Leadership: How Male Medical Students Evaluate their Female Peers, Human Relations, 30, pp. 403–416, 1977.
36.
WolmanC.FrankH., The Solo Woman in a Professional Peer Group, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, pp. 164–171, 1975.
37.
RavenJ. C., Standard Progressive Matrices, H. K. Lewis and Company, Ltd., 1958.
38.
FrenchJ. W.EkstromR.PriceL., Kits of Reference Tests for Cognitive Factors, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963.
39.
LockheedM. E., Cognitive Style Effects on Sex Status in Student Work Groups, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, pp. 158–165, 1977.
