Gender-based preferences toward technology education content, activities, and instructional methods

Journal of Technology Education

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 55-71

  Weber, Katherine ^a   Custer, Rodney ^b  

^a Technology Education

^b ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27944436656     PISSN: 10451064     EISSN: 10451064     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21061/jte.v16i2.a.4     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books Inc.
2. Brunner, C. (1997). Opening technology to girls. Electronic Learning, 16(4), 55.
3. Brunner, C., & Bennett, D. (1997). Technology and gender: Differences in masculine and feminine views. NASSP Bulletin, 81(592), 46-51.
4. Brunner, C., & Bennett, D. (1998). Technology perceptions by gender. The Education Digest, 63, 56-8.
5. Bybee, R. (2003). Fulfilling a promise: Standards for technological literacy. The Technology Teacher, 62(6), 23-26.
6. Caleb, L. (2000). Design Technology: Learning how girls learn best. Equity & Excellence, 33(1), 22-25.
7. Chapman, A. (2000). The difference it has made: The impact of the women's movement on education. Independent School, 60(1), 20-30.
8. Colaianne, D. (2000). Technology education for the third millennium. The Technology Teacher, 60(1), 30-32.
9. Custer, R. L. (2003). Technology education in the U.S.: A status report. In G. Martin & H. Middleton (Eds). Initiatives in Technology Education: Comparative Perspectives. Griffith University: Technical Foundation of America.
10. Fiore, C. (1999). Awakening the tech bug in girls. Learning and leading with technology, 26(5), 10-17.
11. Greenspan, A. (1997). Education, technology and economic growth. Retrieved May 2, 2003, from http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/ 2000/20001208.htm
12. International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA.
13. Jacobs, J. & Becker, J. (1997). Creating a gender-equitable multicultural classroom using feminist pedagogy. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Yearbook, 1997(1997), 107-114.
14. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 608.
15. Markert, L. R. (2003). And the beat goes on: Diversity reconsidered. In G. Martin & H. Middleton (Eds). Initiatives in Technology Education: Comparative Perspectives. Griffith University: Technical Foundation of America.
16. Martin, C., Eisenbud, L, & Rose, H. (1995). Children's gender-based reasoning about toys. Child Development, 66(5), 1453-1471.
17. McIntosh, P. (1983). Interactive phases of curricular re-vision: A feminist perspective. Working Paper No. 124, Wellesley: Center for Research on Women.
18. Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19. Rice, J.K. (1997). The disruptive transition from middle school to high school: Opportunities for linking policy and practice. Journal of Educational Policy, 12(5), 403-418.
20. Roderick, M. (1993). The path of dropping out. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
21. Rosser, S. (1985). The feminist perspective on science: Is re-conceptualization possible? Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 49(1), 29-35.
22. Sanders, J. (1997). Women in technology: Attribution, learned helplessness, self-esteem, and achievement. Paper presented at the Conference on Women, Girls and Technology, Tarrytown, New York.
23. Sanders, J., Koch, J, & Urso, J. (1997). Gender equity right from the start: Instructional activities for teacher educators in mathematics, science and technology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Shroyer, M., Backe, K., & Powell, J. (1995). Developing a science curriculum that addresses the learning preferences of male and female middle level students. In D. Baker, & K. Scantlebury, (Eds). Science "Coeducation": Viewpoints for Gender, Race and Ethnic Perspectives. (NARAST Monograph 7): National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
25. Tarule, J. (1996). Voices in dialogue: Collaborative ways of knowing. In N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy, & M. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by women's ways of knowing (pp. 478). New York: Basic Books.
26. Weber, K. (2004). Gender inclusive technology education: Interest preferences of male and female students toward activities, content topics, and instructional methods at the middle school and high school levels. Thesis, Illinois State University, Normal, IL.
27. Welty, K. (1996). Identifying women's perspectives on technology. Paper presented at the International Technology Education Association Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
28. Welty, K., & Puck, B. (2001). Modeling Athena: Preparing young women for work and citizenship in a technological society. Madison; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
29. Wills, L. (2001). When science is strangely alluring: Interrogating the masculinist and heteronormative nature of primary school science. Gender and Education, 13(3), 261-274.
30. Wiggins, G, & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.
31. Witts, S. (1997). Parental influence on children's socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32(126), 253-259.
32. Zuga, K. (1999). Addressing women's way of knowing to improve the technology education environment for all students. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), 57-71.