Increasingly, technology skills are becoming central to academic and economic success. More and more technological tools are becoming a vehicle for teaching and learning and a vehicle for buying and selling goods. However, research continues to show that women lag behind men in PC-ownership regardless of social economic status (SES) or education level (Lenhart, 2003; McConnaughey & Lader, 1998); girls take fewer computer science and computer design courses and consistently rate themselves significantly lower than boys in terms of computer skills (AAUW, 1998); men outnumber women 6 to 1 in computer science Ph.D. programs (AAUW, 2000; Furger, 1998); and girls and boys are more likely to perceive computers as a male domain (Clewell, 2002; Eastman & Krendl, 1987). Due to our society's increasing dependence on technological skills, the continued existence of the technological gender and cultural gap is a problem that must be explored with vigor in order to ensure that the technological tools we use provide equitable1 access to and experiences for women and children of color.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AAUW Educational Foundation (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Researched by The American Institutes for Research. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
2.
AAUW Educational Foundation. (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the New Computer Age. Researched by Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
3.
BeckerH. J., & SterlingC. W. (1987). Equity in school computer use: National data and neglected considerations. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(3), 289–311.
4.
BundersonE. D., & ChristensenM. E. (Fall, 1995). An analysis of retention problems for female students in university computer science programs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 1–18.
5.
ClewellB. (2002). Breaking the barriers: The critical middle school years. In The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
DyerS. K. (Ed.). (2004). Under the microscope: A decade of gender equity projects in the sciences.Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
7.
EastmanS. T. & KrendlK. (1987). Computers and gender: Differential effects of electronic search on students' achievement and attitudes. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20(3), 41–48.
8.
FishmanB., & PinkardN. (2001). Bringing urban schools into the information age: Planning for technology vs. technology planning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 63–80.
9.
FurgerR. (1998). Does Jane compute? Preserving our daughters' place in the cyber revolution.New York: Warner.
10.
HawkinsJ. (1987). Computers and girls: Rethinking the issues. In PeaR. D. & SheingoldK. (Eds.), Mirror of minds: Patterns of experience in educational computing (pp. 242–257). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
11.
HanorJ. H. (1998). Concepts and strategies learned from girls' interactions with computers. Theory into Practice.
12.
HoneyM.MoellerB.BrunnerC.BennettD.ClementsP., & HawkinsJ. (1991). Girls and design: Exploring the question of technological imagination (CTE Technical Report Issue No. 17). New York: Center for Children and Technology, Bank Street College of Education.
13.
KnupferN. N. (1998). Gender divisions across technology advertisements and the WWW: Implications for educational equity. Theory into Practice, 37, 54–63.
14.
LenhartA. (2003). The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide (pp. 1–46). Washington, DC: The PEW Internet American Life Project.
15.
LepperM. R., & MaloneT. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In SnowR. & FarrM. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 255–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
MaloneT., & LepperM. R. (1987). Making learning fun. In SnowR. & FarrM. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Conative and effective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
McConnaugheyJ. W. & LaderW. (1998). Falling through the net: New data on the digital divide.National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
18.
MillerL.ChaikaM., & GroppeL. (1996). Girls' Preferences in software design: Insights from a focus group. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 4(2), 27–36.
19.
MiuraI. (1987). Gender and socioeconomic status differences in middle-school computer interest and use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7(2), 243–253.
20.
PinkardN. (2000). Lyric reader: Architecture for creating intrinsically motivating and culturally relevant reading environments. Interactive Learning Environments.
21.
PinkardN. (2001). Rappin' Reader and Say, Say Oh Playmate: An exploration of a culturally relevant beginning literacy computer-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1).
22.
PinkardN. (1999). Culturally responsive computer-based literacy environments. Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (Technical Report 1.004).
23.
PinkardN. (2001). Leveraging background knowledge: Using popular music to build children's beginning reading skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
SchofieldJ. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture.New York: Cambridge.
26.
ShashaaniL. (1994). Gender differences in computer experience and its influence on computer attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(4), 347–367.
27.
VailK. (1997, June). Girlware: Software companies are targeting girls, but is their marketing on the mark?Electronic School Online, available at http://www.electronic-school.com/0697fl.html_.
