What research has to say about gender-linked differences in CMC and does elementary school children's e-mail use fit this picture?

Sex Roles

Volumn 57, Issue 5-6, 2007, Pages 341-354

  Van Der Meij, Hans ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

CMC; Communication styles; Gender; Markers

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548226092     PISSN: 03600025     EISSN: 15732762     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-007-9270-9     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Adrianson, L. (2001). Gender and computer-mediated communication: Group processes in problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 71-94.
2. Allen, B. J. (1995). Gender and computer-mediated-communication. Sex Roles, 32, 557-563.
3. Arnot, M. (2006). Freedom's children: A gender perspective on the education of the learner-citizen. International Review of Education, 52, 67-87.
4. Baron, N. S. (2002). Who sets e-mail style? Prescriptivism, coping strategies, and democratizing communication access. The Information Society, 18, 403-413.
5. Baron, N. S. (2004). See you online. Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 397-423.
6. Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e-mail for personal relationships. The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 530-549.
7. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893-910.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Colley, A. (2003). Gender differences in adolescents' perceptions of the best and worst aspect of computing at school. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 673-682.
10. Colley, A., & Todd, Z. (2002). Gender-linked differences in the style and content of e-mails to friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 380-392.
11. Colley, A., Todd, Z., Bland, M., Holmes, M., Khanom, N., & Pike, H. (2004). Style and content in e-mails and letters to male and female friends. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 369-378.
12. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender and identity on the Internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0 (pp. 129-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. De Vries, B. (2004). Opportunities for reflection: Email and the web in the primary classroom. PhD Thesis. University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands. Retrieved March 25, 2006 from http://purl.org/utwente/48235.
15. Dolle-Willemsen, T. E. (1997). Gezien onderscheid naar sekse in het basisonderwijs. Interactie als invalshoek. [Considering gender differences in elementary school. The perspective of interaction.] Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
16. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Epley, N., & Kruger, J. (2005). When what you type isn't what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over email. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 414-422.
18. Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K. (1995). Gender-preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18-39.
19. Frank, B., Kehler, M., Lovell, T., & Davison, K. (2003). A tangle of trouble: Boys, masculinity and schooling-future directions. Educational Review, 55, 119-133.
20. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Guiller, J., & Durndell, A. (2007). Students' linguistic behaviour in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2240-2255.
22. Hanna, A., & Murachver, T. (1999). Gender and conversational style as predictors of conversational behavior. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 153-174.
23. Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message system. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication. Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 81-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
24. Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). Retrieved October, 3, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/ huffaker.html.
25. Itakura, H. (2004). Changing cultural stereotypes through e-mail assisted foreign language learning. System, 32, 37-51.
26. Jackson, C. (2002). 'Laddishness' as a self-worth protection strategy. Gender and Education, 14, 37-51.
27. Jaffe, J. M., Lee, Y.-E., Huang, L.-N., & Oshagan, H. (1999). Gender identification, interdependence, and pseudonyms in CMC: Language patterns in an electronic conference. The Information Society, 15, 221-234.
28. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. D. (1990). Toward a theory of automated group work: The deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research, 21, 333-348.
29. Koch, S. C., Mueller, B., Kruse, L., & Zumbach, J. (2005). Constructing gender in chat groups. Sex Roles, 52, 29-41.
30. Lee, E. J. (2003). Effects of gendered-character representation on person perception and informational social influence in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 779-799.
31. Li, Q. (2002). Gender and computer-mediated communication: An exploration of elementary student's mathematics and science learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21, 341-359.
32. Liaw, M.-L., & Johnson, R. J. (2001). Email writing as a cross-cultural experience. System, 29, 235-251.
33. Lindsey, A. E., & Zakahi, W. R. (1998). Perceptions of men and women departing from conversational sex role stereotypes during initial interaction. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 393-412). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Madell, D., & Muncer, S. (2004). Gender differences in the use of Internet by English secondary school children. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 229-251.
35. Meelissen, M., & Drent, M. (2007). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior. Retrieved May 12, 2007 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632.
36. Mulac, A. (1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 127-155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001a). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis. Human Communication Research, 27, 121-152.
38. Mulac, A., Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., & Palomares, N. A. (2001b). Gender-linked language differences in virtual group deliberations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association, November.
39. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Kennedy, A. M. (2001). PIRLS 2001 international report. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Study Center.
40. O'Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the other side: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144.
41. O'Neill, R., & Colley, A. (2006). Gender and status effects in student e-mails to staff. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 360-367.
42. Odell, P. M., Korgen, K. O., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female and male college students. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 855-862.
43. Oosterwegel, A., Littleton, K., & Light, P. (2004). Understanding computer-related attitudes through an ideographic analysis of gender- and self-representations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 215-233.
44. Palomares, N. A. (2004). Gender schematicity, gender identity salience, and gender-linked language use. Human Communication Research, 30, 556-588.
45. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.
46. Price, L. (2006). Gender differences and similarities in online courses: Challenging stereotypical views of women. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 349-359.
47. Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007a). Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (in press). Retrieved May 12, 2007 from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00224.x.
48. Prinsen, F. R., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007b). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology (in press). Retrieved May 12, 2007 from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8535. 2006.00692.x.
49. Reay, R. (2001). 'Spice girls', 'Nice girls', 'Girlies', and 'Tomboys': Gender discourse, girls' cultures and femininities in the primary classroom. Gender and Education, 13, 153-166.
50. Robertson, K., & Murachver, T. (2003). Children's speech accommodation to gendered language styles. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 321-333.
51. Sanders, J. (2005). Gender and technology in education: A research review. Seattle: Center for Gender Equity. Bibliography retrieved March 20, 2006 from http://www.umbc.edu/ cwit/pdf/gendertechbib_rev1.pdf.
52. Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Ammon, B. (2002). Effects of training on computer -mediated communication in single or mixed gender small task groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 257-269.
53. Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Lingenfelter, D. (1996). Gender, group composition, and task type in small task groups using computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 549-565.
54. Sussman, N. M., & Tyson, D. H. (2000). Sex and power: Gender differences in computer-mediated interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 381-394.
55. Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
56. Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
57. Thomson, R., Murachver, T., & Green, J. (2001). Where is the gender in gendered language? Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
58. Van der Meij, H., De Vries, B., Pieters, J. M., Boersma, K. Th., & Wegerif, R. (2005). An examination of interactional coherence in email use in elementary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 417-439.
59. Van Langen, A., & Driessen, G. (2006). Sekseverschillen in onderwijsloopbaan. Een internationaal comparatieve studie. [Gender differences in educational carriers. An international comparative study]. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: ITS.
60. Vinagre, M. (2005). Fostering language learning via email: An English-Spanish exchange. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 369-388.
61. Walther, J. B., Gay, G., & Hancock, J. T. (2005a). How do communication and technology researchers study the Internet? Journal of Communication, 55, 632-657.
62. Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005b). Let me count the ways. The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36-65.
63. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in. Computer Mediated Communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Witmer, D. F., & Katzman, S. L. (1997). On-line smiles: Does gender make a difference in the use of graphic accents? Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2. Retrieved April 27, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/ issue4/witmer1.html.
65. Wolf, A. (2000). Emotional expression online: Gender differences in emoticon use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 827-833.
66. Yang, S. C., & Liu, S. F. (2005). The study of interactions and attitudes of third-grade students' learning information technology via a cooperative approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 45-72.
67. Yates, S. J. (2001). Gender, language and CMC for education. Learning and Instruction, 11, 21-34.
68. Younger, M., Warrington, M., Gray, J., Rudduck, J., McLellan, R., Bearne, E., et al. (2005). Raising boys' achievement. Research Report No 636. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK.