Transparent and opaque boxes: Do women and men have different computer programming psychologies and styles?

Computers and Education

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 37-49

  McKenna, Peter ^a  

^a LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Gender studies; Programming and programming languages; Teaching learning strategies

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007258409     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00017-8     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Cox R., Brna P. Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: the need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 6:(1):1995.
2. Edwards P. The Army and the microworld: computers and the politics of gender identity. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 16:(1):1990;102-127.
3. Frenkel K. Women and computing. Communications of the ACM,1990. 33:(11):1990;34-47.
4. Gilligan C. In a different voice. 1982;Harvard University Press, London.
5. Gorlen K.E., Plexico P.S., Orlow S.M. Data abstraction and object-oriented programming in C++. 1990;Wiley, Chichester.
6. Graham I. Object oriented methods. 1994;Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
7. Grundy F. Women and computers. 1996;Intellect Books, Exeter.
8. Hoadley C. When, why and how do novice programmers reuse code? Gray W.D., Boehm-Davis D.A. Empirical Studies of Programmers: Sixth Workshop. 1996;Ablex, Norwood.
9. Kvande E., Rasmussen B. Men, women and data systems. European Journal of Engineering Education. 14:(1):1989.
10. Laurillard D. Rethinking University teaching. 1993;Routledge, London.
11. Mahony, K., & Van Toen, B. (1990). Mathematical formalism as a means of occupational closure in computing - why 'hard' computing tends to exclude women. Gender and Education, 2 (3).
12. McConnell, S. (1998). Dealing with problem programmers. IEEE Software, 15 (2).
13. Peltu, M. (1993). Females in tuition. Computing, 12, 2 December.
14. Satzinger J., Ørvik T. The object-oriented approach. 1996;ITP, Cambridge.
15. Sebesta R. Concepts of programming languages. 1993;Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City.
16. Stepulevage L., Plumeridge S. Women taking positions within computer science. Gender and Education. 10:(3):1998;313-326.
17. Sutherland R., Hoyles C. Gender perspectives on logo programming in the mathematics curriculum. Hoyles C. Girls and computers. 1988;Institute of Education, London.
18. Turkle S. Computer as Rorschach. Society. 17:1980;15-24.
19. Turkle S. The second self: computers and the human spirit. 1984;Granada, London.
20. Turkle, S. (1984). Women and computer programming: a different approach. Technology Review, 49-50.
21. Turkle S. Computational reticence: why women fear the intimate machine. Kramarae C. Technology and women's voices: keeping in touch. 1988;Pergamon, New York.
22. Turkle S., Papert S. Epistemological pluralism: styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 16:(1):1992;128-157.
23. Turkle S., Papert S. Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 11:1992;3-33.
24. Turkle S. Life on the screen. 1996;Phoenix, London.
25. Weinberg G. The psychology of computer programming. 1971;Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.