The study used a pretest/posttest design to investigate the relationship between disadvantaged group membership and students' participation in computing activities. Disadvantage was defined by gender, school ability, SES level, and ethnic background. The sample of 951 students was drawn from four elementary and three secondary schools which were substantially increasing their computing resources. Following class computing experience there was a cumulative effect of membership of disadvantaged groups with the more disadvantaged students reporting significantly less participation in class computing activities and non-class computing activities, gaining lower computing knowledge scores and having less positive attitudes to computing. Thus, inequities were created rather than reduced. Class computing participation was positively related to prior participation in non-class computing activities, with those students with no prior non-class computing experience participating less in class computing activities. The results were interpreted as demonstrating a general cumulative effect of “disadvantage” which is based on differences in voluntary non-class computing experiences. Strategies for reducing these inequities are implicated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CaretR.LidtkeD.EdwardsC.LockheedM.WeingartenF.LowdB., Equity Issues in the Information Age, presentation at the Fourth World Conference on Computers in Education, Norfolk, Virginia, July-August, 1985.
2.
StoneA.CarverV.LeathL.RappaportS.SandersJ. Shuchat, Equity Issues 2, presentation at the Fourth World Conference on Computers in Education, Norfolk, Virginia, July-August, 1985.
3.
KomoskiK., Guest Editorial, The Computing Teacher, 11:8, pp. 5–6, 1984.
4.
AndersonR. E.WelchW.HarrisL. T., Inequities in Opportunities for Computer Literacy, The Computing Teacher, 11:8, pp. 10–12, 1984.
5.
BeckerH. J., School Uses of Microcomputers: Reports from a National Survey, Issues 1–3, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1983.
6.
HakaanssonJ., The Computer as a Social Phenomenon, in Computers and Education: Dreams and Reality, HughesJ. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Australian Computer Education Conference, Sydney, September, 1984.
7.
LautenbergF. R., Equity in Computer Education, The Computing Teacher, 11:8, pp. 13–14, 1984.
8.
GameA.PringleR., Gender at Work, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1983.
9.
PapertS., Computer-based Microworlds as Incubators for Powerful Ideas, in The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee, TaylorR. (ed.), Teachers College Press, Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp. 203–210, 1980.
10.
PapertS., Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, Harvester Press, New York, 1980.
11.
ClementsD., Effects of Logo Programming on Cognitive, Metacognitive Skills and Achievement, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, April, 1985.
12.
ChambersS. M., So Papert was Right?: Evidence of General Skill Enhancement Due to Logo Experience, in Computers in Education: On the Crest of a Wave?, SalvasA. D.DowlingC. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Computer Education Conference, Melbourne, 1986.
13.
ClarkeV. A., The Impact of Computers on Abilities and Attitudes: A Pilot Study Using Logo, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Winter 1985–1986, pp. 32–33, 1985.
14.
ClementsD. H., Research on Logo in Education: Is the Turtle Slow But Steady, or Not Even in the Race? Text of a paper presented at the Logo 85 Conference, M.I.T., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
15.
ClarkeV. A., “Computing in a Social Context: Gender Differences in Participation,” Ph.D. thesis, Deakin University, 1986.
16.
ChenM., Gender and Computers: The Beneficial Effects of Experience on Attitudes, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 1986.
17.
MiuraI., Understanding Gender Differences in Middle School Computer Interest and Use, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 1986.
18.
MiuraI., A Multivariate Study of School-aged Children's Computer Interest and Usage, in Humans as Self-Constructing Living Systems: Putting the Framework to Work, FordM. E.FordD. H. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1986.
19.
LockheedM. L.NeilsonA.StoneM. K., Determinants of Microcomputer Literacy in High School Students, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:1, pp. 81–96, 1985.
20.
CampbellJ., Correlates of Computer Anxiety of Male and Female Upper Elementary and Secondary School Students, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 1986.
21.
BeckerH. J., The Second National Survey of Instructional Uses of School Computers, text of an address delivered at the Fourth World Conference on Computers in Education, Norfolk, Virginia, July-August, 1985.
22.
BeckerH. J., Instructional Uses of School Computers: Reports from the 1985 National Survey, Center for the Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1986.
23.
BeckerH. J., Equity in School Computer Use: National Data Neglected Considerations, text of an address delivered at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 1986.
24.
LinnM. C., Fostering Equitable Consequences from Computer Learning Environments, Sex Roles, 13, pp. 229–240, 1985.
25.
Equal Opportunity Commission, Information Technology in Schools: Guidelines for Good Practice for Teachers, report prepared by the Equal Opportunity Unit, London, Borough of Croydon, 1983.
26.
FirkinJ., Computers in Schools, Victorian Institute of Secondary Education, Melbourne, October, 1984.
27.
MiuraI. T.HessR. D., Enrollment Differences in Computer Camps and Summer Classes, The Computing Teacher, 11:8, p. 22, 1984.
28.
BowyerK. R., DUCK: A Summer Camp in Computer Literacy, Perspectives in Computing, 3:3, pp. 20–27, October, 1983.
29.
RevelleG.HoneyM.AmselE.SchaubleL.LeimeG., Sex Differences in the Use of Computers, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April, 1984.
30.
KieslerS.SproullL.EcclesJ., Poolhalls, Chips and War Games: Women in the Culture of Computing, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1984.
31.
ParkerJ.WidmerC., Some Disturbing Data: Sex Differences in Computer Use, in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual National Educational Computing Conference, BonnetteD. T. (ed.), Dayton, Ohio, June, 1984.
32.
HarveyB., Logo and the World of Education, presentation at the Fourth World Conference on Computers in Education, Norfolk, Virginia, July-August, 1985.
33.
LockheedM. E.FraktS. E., Sex-equity: Increasing Girls' Use of Computers, The Computing Teacher, 11:8, pp. 16–18, 1984.
34.
GillilandK., Equals in Computer Technology, The Computing Teacher, 11:8, pp. 42–44, 1984.
35.
MacraeK., No Boys to Bug Us … The Gender Issue: First Hesitant Steps, in The Information Edge: The Future of Educational Computing, RusmussenB. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Australian Computer Education Conference, Brisbane, pp. 67–79, 1985.
36.
Acorn, Mimeographed research notes supplied by Acorn, 1983.
37.
FestingerL., A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Row Petersen, Evanston, Illinois, 1957.
38.
FestingerL.CarlsmithL. M., Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, pp. 203–210, 1959.
39.
BemD. J., Self-perception: An Alternative Interpretation of Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena, Psychological Review, 74, pp. 183–200, 1976.
40.
DalbeyJ.LinnM., The Demands and Requirements of Computer Programming: A Literature Review, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1:3, pp. 253–263, 1985.
41.
California Assessment Program, Computer Literacy of Californian Sixth and Twelfth Grade Students, California State Department of Education, Sacramento, California, 1984.
42.
CampbellP., Computers and Children: Eliminating Discrimination before it Takes Hold, Equal Play, 4:1, pp. 4–7, 1983.
43.
FennemaE. H.ShermanJ. J., Sex-related Differences in Mathematics Achievement and Related Factors: A Further Study, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, pp. 189–203, 1978.
44.
FennemaE. H.CarpenterT. P., Sex-related Differences in Mathematics: Results from a National Assessment, Mathematics Teacher, pp. 554–559, October, 1981.
45.
EnochsL. G., The Effect of Instruction on General Attitudes Towards Computers of Fifth Graders, The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 3:3, pp. 24, 25, 58, 1984.
46.
Commonwealth Schools Commission, Participation and Equity in Australian Schools: The Goal of Full Secondary Education, The Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, 1984.
47.
Commonwealth Schools Commission, Teaching, Learning and Computers: 1984 Information Kit, Commonwealth Schools Commission, Canberra, 1985.
48.
OtisA. S.LennonR. T., Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, Psychological Corporation, New York, 1979.
49.
DanielA., Power, Privilege and Prestige: Occupations in Australia, Longman and Cheshire, Sydney, 1983.
50.
Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, Minnesota Computer Literacy and Awareness Assessment, Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.
51.
GoodwinL. D.GoodwinW. L.ManselA.HelmC. P., Cognitive and Affective Effects of Various Types of Microcomputer Use by Preschoolers, American Educational Research Journal, 23:3, pp. 348–356, 1986.
52.
JohnsonR. T.JohnsonD. W.StanneM. B., Comparison of Computer-assisted Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning, American Educational Research Journal, 23:3, pp. 382–392, 1986.
53.
ColletL. S.ShifflerN. L., A Computer Simulation Approach to Teaching Research and Evaluation Skills, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, pp. 339–354, 1985.
