Nebraska high school students5 computer skills and attitudes

Journal of Research on Computing in Education

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 316-327

  Houtz, Lynne E ^a   Gupta, Uma G ^b  

^a CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Computer usage; Technology careers

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010601161     PISSN: 08886504     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08886504.2001.10782317     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Blair, H., & Sanford, K. (1999, April). Single-sex classrooms: A place for transformation of policy and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada.
2. Boser, R., Daugherty, M., & Palmer, J. (1996). The effect of selected instructional approaches in technology education on students’ attitude toward technology. Reston, VA: Council on Technology Teacher Education.
3. Bradburn, N. M. (1983). Response effects. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 289-328). New York: Academic Press.
4. Brunner, C, & Bennett, D. (1997). Technology and gender: Differences in masculine and feminine views. NASSP Bulletin, 81(592), 46-51.
5. Campbell, D. T (1950). The indirect assessment of attitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 163-167.
6. Canada, K., & Brusca, F. (1991). The technological gender gap: Evidence and recommendations for educators and computer-based instruction designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 43-51.
7. Computer use in schools, 1984-1985 and 1997-1998. (1998) In Information Please Almanac [Online]. San Francisco: Learning Network, Inc. Available: Www.infoplease.com/ipa/AO 193911.html.
8. Craig, D. V. (1999, June). A league of their own: Gender, technology, and instructional practices. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Atlantic City, NJ.
9. Dohrenwend, B. S. (1965). Some effects of open and closed questions on respondents’ answers. Human Organization, 24, 175-184.
10. Gunn, C. (1994). Development of gender roles: Technology as an equity strategy. In D. Ingham (Ed.), Recreating the revolution: Proceedings of the National Educational Computing Conference (pp. 261-266). Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
11. Miller, L., Chaika, M., & Groppe, L. (1996). Girls’ preferences in software design: Insights from a focus group. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 4(2), 27-36.
12. Morse, E, & Daiute, C. (1992, April). I LIKE computers versus I LIKERT computers: Rethinking methods for assessing the gender gap in computing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
13. Nebraska Department of Education. (1999). Statistics and facts about Nebraska schools, 1998-1999. Lincoln, NE: Author.
14. Okinaka, R. T (1992). Sex differences in computer backgrounds and attitudes: A study of teachers and teacher candidates. (ERIC No. ED 353 952)
15. Smithey, M. W, & Hough, B. W. (1999). Creating technology advocates: Connecting preservice teachers with technology. T.H.E. Journal, 26(8), 78-79.
16. Staton, P., & Lartdn, J. (1993). Sexual harassment: We can do something about it. Toronto, ON, Canada: Green Dragon Press.
17. Thompson, A., Simonson, M., & Hargrave, C. (1992). Educational technology: A review of the research. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
18. U. S. Census Bureau. (2000). Statistical abstracts of the United States (120th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Available: Www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html.
19. Whiteside, C. (1992). Developing sex equity awareness in computer literacy courses. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Options for girls: A door to the future (pp. 251-257). Austin, TX: Pro Ed and Foundation for Women’s Resources.