Girls back off mathematics again: The views and experiences of girls in computer-based mathematics

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 202-218

  Vale, Colleen ^a  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38949184701     PISSN: 10332170     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03217363     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ainley, M., Bourke, V., Chatfield, R., Hillman, K., & Watkins, I. (2000). Computers, laptops and tools. ACER Research Monograph No. 56. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
2. Australian Education Council (1990). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
3. Barnes, M. (1995). Development and evaluation of a gender inclusive calculus. In B. Grevholm & G. Hanna (Eds.), Gender and mathematics education, an ICMI study in Stiftsgarden, Akersberg, Hoor, Sweden, 1993, (pp. 1-13). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
4. Barnes, M. (2000). Effects of dominant and subordinate masculinities on interactions in a collaborative learning classroom. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 145-169). London: Ablex.
5. Boaler, J. (1997). Reclaiming school mathematics: The girls fight back. Gender and Education, 9(3), 285-306.
6. Boers, M., & Jones, P. (1993). Exam performance and the graphics calculator in calculus. In B. Atweh, C. Kanes, M. Carss, & G. Booker (Eds.), Contexts in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 16 th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 123-128). Brisbane: MERGA.
7. Burton, L., & Jaworski, B. (1995). Introduction. In L. Burton & B. Jaworski (Eds.), Technology in mathematics teaching: A bridge between teaching and learning (pp. 1-10). Lund, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt.
8. Clariana, R., & Schultz, C. (1993). Gender by content achievement differences in computerbased instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 12(3/4), 277-288.
9. Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. Canberra: Department of Education, Training, and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.
10. Day, M. (1996). The experiences of eight women mathematicians. In M. Cresswell (Ed.), Science-women and our future (Proceedings of the 29-31 May conference of the New Zealand Association for Women in the Sciences, pp. 48-50). Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Association for Women in the Sciences.
11. Dunham, P. (1991). Mathematical confidence and performance in technology enhanced precalculus: Gender related differences, (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 3353A.
12. Elkajaer, B. (1992). Girls and information technology in Denmark-an account of a socially constructed problem. Gender and Education, 4(1/2), 25-40.
13. Forgasz, H., & Leder, G. C. (1996). Mathematics classroom, gender and affect. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 153-173.
14. Forgasz, H., Leder, G. C., & Vale, C. (2000). Gender and mathematics: Changing perspectives. In K. Owens & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics education research in Australasia: 1996-1999 (pp. 305-340). Sydney: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
15. Geiger, V., & Goos, M. (1996). Number plugging or problem solving? Using technology to support collaborative learning. In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 229-236). Melbourne: MERGA.
16. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (1996). When does student talk become collaborative mathematical discussion? In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 237-244). Melbourne: MERGA.
17. Jungwirth, H. (1991). Interaction and gender-Findings of a microethnographical approach to classroom discourse. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 263-284.
18. Kenway, J., & Willis, S. with Blackmore, J., & Rennie, L. (1997). Answering back: Girls, boys and feminism in schools. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
19. Lee, M. (1993). Gender, group composition, and peer interaction in computer-based cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(4), 549-577.
20. Meredyth, D., Russell, N., Blackwood, L., Thomas, J., & Wise, P. (1999). Real time computers, change and schooling: National sample study of the information technology skills of Australian school students. Canberra: Department of Education, Training, and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.
21. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
23. Office for the Minister of Education. (1998). $51 million vision for the future. Melbourne: Victorian State Government.
24. Rasmussen, D., Rasmussen, S., & Bennett, D. (Eds.), (1995). Teaching geometry with the Geometer's Sketchpad: Teaching notes and sample activities. Berkely, CA: The Key Curriculum Press.
25. Ruthven, K. (1995). Pressing on. In L. Burton & B. Jaworski, (Eds.), Technology in Mathematics teaching-a bridge between teaching and learning (pp. 231-256). Lund, Sweden: Chartwell-Bratt.
26. Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27. Stepulevage, L., & Plumeridge, S. (1998). Women taking positions within computer science. Gender and Education, 10(3), 313-326.
28. Strauss, W., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29. Sutherland, R., & Hoyles, C. (1988). Gender perspectives on Logo programming in the mathematics classroom. In C. Hoyles (Ed.), Girls and computers: General issues and case studies of Logo in the mathematics classroom, Bedford Way Papers 34 (pp. 40-63). London: University of London.
30. Teese, R. (2000). Academic success and social power: Examinations and inequality. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
31. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1993). Styles and voices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(1), 49-52.
32. Vale, C. (1998). Computers are taking mathematics into the next century: Gender differences in attitudes of secondary mathematics students to the use of computers. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.), Teaching mathematics in new times (Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 629-636). Gold Coast: MERGA.
33. Vale, C. (2001). Gender and computer based mathematics in selected secondary classrooms. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Ph D., La Trobe University, Melbourne.
34. Walden, R., & Walkerdine, V. (1985). Girls and mathematics: From primary to secondary schooling, Bedford Way Papers 24. London: Heinemann.