The influence of Computer-based model's race and gender on female students' attitudes and beliefs towards engineering

Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 35-44

  Rosenberg Kima, Rlnat B ^a   Plant, E Ashby ^a   Doerr, Celeste E ^a   Baylor, Amy L ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Animated pedagogical agents; Interface agents; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION; SOCIAL SCIENCES; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

COMPUTER-BASED AGENTS; COMPUTER-BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS; COMPUTER-BASED MODELING; COMPUTER-BASED MODELS; ENGINEERING CAREERS; INTERFACE AGENT; PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS; PERSUASION;

PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS;

EID: 73849094451     PISSN: 10694730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01040.x     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adams, J. 2001. Are traditional female stereotypes extinct at Georgia Tech? The Technique October 26: F1-F3.
2. Atkinson, R.K. 2002. Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2): 416-427
3. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (2): 191-215.
4. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5. Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
6. Bandura, A. and D.H. Schunk. 1981. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (3): 586-598
7. Baylor, A.L. 2002. Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology, Research & Development 50 (2): 5-22.
8. Baylor, A.L. 2005. The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. San Diego, CA.
9. Baylor, A.L. and S. Kim. 2009. Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2): 450-457
10. Baylor, A.L. and Y. Kim. 2005. Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 15 (1): 95-115.
11. Baylor, A.L. and E.A. Plant. 2005. Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of appearance on female choice. In Artificial intelligence in education: Supporting Learning through intelligent and socially informed technology, eds. C.K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg and J. Breuker, 65-72. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
12. Besterfield-Sacre, M.B., M. Moreno, L.J. Shuman and C.J. Atman. 2001. Gender and ethnicity differences in freshman engineering student attitudes: A cross-institutional study. Journal of Engineering Education 90 (4): 477-490
13. Bickmore, T.W. and R.W. Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12 (2): 293-327.
14. Byrne, E.M. 1993. Women and science: The snark syndrome. London: Falmer Press.
15. Chaiken, S. 1979. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1387-1397
16. Chaiken, S. and D. Maheswaran. 1994. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (3): 460-473
17. Debono, K.G. and R.J. Harnish. 1988. Source expertise, source attractiveness and the processing of persuasive information-a functional-approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 (4): 541-546
18. Eccles, J.S. 1987. Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly 11 (2): 135-172
19. Eccles, J.S. 1994. Understanding women's educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly 18 (4): 585-609.
20. Elaine, L.C. and L.R. Philip. 2007. Women in the labor force: A databook. (No.1002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
21. Etzkowitz, H., C. Kemelgor and B. Uzzi. 2000. Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Goethals, G.R. and R.E. Nelson. 1973. Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25 (1) : 117-122
23. Goodman, I.F., C.M. Cunningham, C. Lachapelle, M. Thompson, K. Bittinger, R.T. Brennan, M. Delci. 2002. Final report of the women's experiences in college engineering project. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group, Inc.
24. Hersh, M. 2000. The changing position of women in engineering worldwide. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47 (3): 345-359 (Pubitemid 30936079)
25. Heyman, G.D., B. Martyna and S. Bhatia. 2002. Gender and achievement related beliefs among engineering students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8 (1): 41-52.
26. Hovland, C.I. and W. Weiss. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15: 635-650
27. Hughes, W.J. 2002. Gender attributions of science and academic attributes: An examination of undergraduate science, mathematics and technology majors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8 (1): 53-65.
28. Hutchison, M.A., D.K. Follman and M. Sumpter. 2006. Factors influencing the self-efficacy beliefs of first-year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education 95 (1): 39-47.
29. Ingram, S., S. Bruning and I. Mikawoz. 2009. Career and mentor satisfaction among Canadian engineers: Are there differences based on gender and company-specific undergraduate work experiences? Journal of Engineering Education 98 (2): 131-144
30. Johnson, W.L., J.W. Rickel and J.C. Lester. 2000. Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11: 47-78.
31. Kram, K. 1985. Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
32. Lippa, R. 1998. Gender-related differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (4): 996-1009. (Pubitemid 128656666)
33. Marra, R.M., K.A. Rodgers, D. Shen and B. Bogue. 2009. Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institution study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education 98 (1): 27-38.
34. Marx, D.M. and P.A. Goff. 2005. Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target's test performance and subjective experience. British Journal of Social Psychology 44 (4): 645-657
35. Mclntyer, B., R.M. Paulson and C.G. Lord. 2003. Alleviating women's mathematics stereotype threat through salience of group achievements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (1): 83-90.
36. Mcllwee, J.S. and J.G. Robinson. 1992. Women in engineering: Gender, power and workplace culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
37. MentorNet. 2004. E-mentoring for women of color in engineering and science final report to the engineering information foundation. http://www.mentornet.net/files/WomenofColorFinalReportMay2004.pdf (last accessed, October 2009).
38. Moreno, R. and T. Flowerday. 2006. Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31 (2): 186-207.
39. Moreno, R., R.E. Mayer, H.A. Spires and J.C. Lester. 2001. The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction 19 (2): 177-213.
40. Mussweiler, T. 2003. Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review 110 (3): 472-489 (Pubitemid 37189434)
41. Nass, C., and K.N. Lee. 2001. Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied 7 (3): 171-181.
42. Nass, C., and Y. Moon. 2000. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 56 (1): 81-103. (Pubitemid 30442265)
43. Nass, C., Y. Moon, B.J. Fogg, B. Reeves and D.C. Dryer. 1995. Can computer personalities be human personalities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 (2): 223-239
44. Nass, C., Y. Moon and N. Green. 1997. Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 (10): 864-76.
45. National Science Foundation. 2000. Women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. NSF 00-327. http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/nsf00327 (last accessed, October 2009).
46. National Science Foundation. 2003. Women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2002. 03-312. http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/nsf03312 (last accessed, October 2009).
47. National Science Foundation. 2008. Science and engineering indicators: 2008. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08 (last accessed, October 2009).
48. Reeves, B., and C. Nass. 1996. The media equation. New York Cambridge University Press.
49. Rosenberg-Kima, R.B., A.L. Baylor, E.A. Plant and C.E. Doerr. 2008. Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students' attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (6): 2741-2756
50. Schunk, D.H. 1987. Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research 57 (2) 149-174
51. Schunk, D.H., A.R. Hanson and P.D. Cox. 1987. Peer-model attributes and children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology 79(1): 54-61.
52. Seymour, E. and N.M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
53. Shashaani, L. 1997. Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research 16 (1): 37-51. (Pubitemid 127176564)
54. Trenor, J.M., S.L. Yu, C.L. Waight. K.S. Zerda and T. Sha. 2008. The relations of ethnicity to female engineering students' educational experiences and college and career plans in an ethnically diverse learning environment. Journal of Engineering Education 97 (4): 449-465
55. Wilder, D.A. 1990. Some determinants of the persuasive power of ingroups and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (6): 1202-1213
56. Wood, R. and A. Bandura. 1989. Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (3): 407-415