GENDER EQUITY IN THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

Handbook for Achieving Gender Equity through Education, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 191-214

  Abbott, Gypsy ^a   Bievenue, Lisa ^b   Damarin, Suzanne ^c   Kramarae, Cheris ^d   Jepkemboi, Grace ^a   Strawn, Constance A ^e  

^a University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^e GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85144950316     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315759586-20     Document Type: Chapter

References (230)

1. Abbott, G. A. (1997). Evaluation of the Alabama Supercomputing Program to Inspire Research in Education. Alabama K-12 Supercomputing Program, administered by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education.
2. Abbott, G. A. (1998). Evaluation of the Alabama Supercomputing Program to Inspire Research in Education. Alabama K-12 Supercomputing Program, administered by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education.
3. Abbott, G. A. (2000). Evaluation of the Alabama Supercomputing Program to Inspire Research in Education. Alabama K-12 Supercomputing Program, administered by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education.
4. Abbott, G., Morrell, C., Bracey, B., Bievenue, L., and Scripa, R. (2006). Building intellectual capital in young women. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology in Education, Orlando, FL.
5. AccessIT (2002). What is electronic and information technology? AccessIT, National Center on Accessible Information in Technology in Education, University of Washington. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http://www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?106
6. Access IT. (2006). What is electronic and information technology? Fact sheet #106, National Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education, University of Washington. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?106
7. Adams, N. (2002). Educational computing concerns of postsecondary faculty, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 285-303.
8. Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education. http://www. sloanc.org/publications/books/survey04.asp
9. Alley, L. R., and Jansak, K. E. (2001). The ten keys to quality assurance and assessment in online learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 14(3), 3-18.
10. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (AAUWEF) Commission on Technology and Teacher Education. (2000). Tech-Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age.Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
11. Arun, S., and Arun, T. G. (2001). Gender at work within the software industry: An Indian perspective. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(3), 30-45.
12. Associated Press. (2005). Programmers: Video games need a woman’s touch. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/07/25/game.girls.ap/index.html
13. Atan, H., Azli, N. A., Rahman, Z. A., and Idrus, R. M. (2002). Computers in distance education: Gender differences in self-perceived computer competencies. Journal of Educational Media, 27(3), 123-135.
14. Atan, H., Sulaiman, F., Rahman, Z. A., and Idrus, R. M. (2002). Gender differences in availability, Internet access and rate of usage of computers among distance education learners. Educational Media International, 39(3-4), 205-210.
15. Barnett, R. C., and Rivers, C. (2004). Same difference: How gender myths are hurting our relationships, our children, and our jobs. New York: Basic Books.
16. Bauer, J. (2000). A technology gender divide: Perceived skill and frustration levels among female pre-service teachers. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Education Research Association.
17. Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use (No. 1). Irvine, CA:Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
18. Becker, H. J. (2000). Pedagogical motivations for student computer use that lead to student engagement, Educational Technology, 40(5), 5-17.
19. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., and Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: BasicBooks.
20. Belsey, B. (2005). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the “always on” generation. Retrieved February 10, 2007, at http://www.cyber bullying.ca.
21. Bennett, D., Brunner, C., and Honey, M. (1999). Gender and technology:Designing for diversity. New York, NY: Education Development Center.
22. Bobis, J., and Cusorth, R. (1994). Changing preservice primary teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics and science/technology. Forum of Education, 49(2), 9-20.
23. Bonk, C., and Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for constructivist, learner-centered, and socio cultural components for collaborative educational learning tools. In C. Bonk and K. King, (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
24. Bracey, B. (2005). Online Teacher and Educator Resources for K-12 Teachers Administrators and Parents. Retrieved on July 10, 2005, from http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/Home_Teachers.html
25. British Educational Communications and Technologies Agencies (BECTA). (2002). Research: Reports and publications. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.becta.org.uk
26. British Educational Communications and Technologies Agencies (BECTA). (2006). Research: Reports and publications. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.becta.org.uk
27. Brosnan, M. J. (1998a). The impact of psychological gender, genderrelated perceptions, significant others, and the introducer of technology upon computer anxiety in students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(1), 63-78.
28. Brosnan, M. J. (1998b). The role of psychological gender in the computer-related attainments of primary school children (aged 6-11). Computers and Education, 30(3-4), 203-208.
29. Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education and the ways people learn. Change, 32(2), 10-20. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/topic30/tpc30_4.htm
30. Brown, M. R., Higgins, K., and Hartley, K. (2001). Teacher and technology equity, TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(4), 32-39.
31. Bruce, B. C., and Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79-102.
32. Brunner, C., Bennett, D., and Honey, M. (1998). Girls games and technological desire. In J. Cassell and H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie To Mortal Kombat:Gender and Computer Games, (pp. 72-88). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
33. Brunner, C. (2003, April). Approaching Technology. WEEA Equity Resource Center Digest.
34. Bryson, M., Petrina, S., and Braundy, M. (2003). Conditions for success? Gender in technology-intensive courses in British Columbia Secondary Schools. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3(2), 185-194.
35. Brzycki, D., and Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641.
36. Buck, H. J., and Horton, P. B. (1996). Who’s using what and how often:An assessment of the use of instructional technology in the classroom. Florida Journal of Educational Research, 36(1).
37. Bunch, W., and Broughton, P. (2002). New instructional technology and faculty development: Negotiating the titanic through the North Atlantic. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 748-751). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
38. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1999). Gender equity in teacher preparation: Findings of the survey of California teacher preparation programs. Sacramento, CA.
39. Campbell, P. B., and Sanders, J. (1997). Uninformed but interested: Findings of a national survey on gender equity in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1), 69-75.
40. Campbell, P. B., Hoey, L., and Perlman, L. (1999). Washington State Gender Equity Project: Some preliminary findings from the survey of math and science methods instructors. Groton, MA: Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc.
41. Canada, K., and 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.
42. Carlson, G., and Reidy, S. (2003). Effective access: Teachers’ use of digital resources. Presented at the Merlot International Conference, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://www2.edc. org/GDI/publications_SR/MERLOTpaper.doc. Gender, Diversities and Technology Institute, Education Development Center.
43. Carroll, T. G. (2000). If we didn’t have the schools we have today, would we create the schools we have today? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(1). Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/general/article1.htm
44. Cassell, J., and Jenkins, H. (1998). From Barbie to mortal combat: Gender and computer games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (1999). School technology and readiness report. Professional development: A Link to better learning. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www. ceoforum.org/downloads/99report.pdf
46. CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001). The CEO Forum school technology and readiness report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century. Retrieved June 1, 2006, http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf
47. Charlton, J. P. (1999). Biological sex, sex-role identity, and the spectrum of computing orientations: A re-appraisal at the end of the 90s. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(4), 393-412.
48. Charp, S. (2001). Professional development, T.H.E. Journal, 28(11), 10, 12.
49. Chen, M. (1985). Gender and computers: The beneficial effects of experience on attitudes. Paper presented at the Conference on Computers and Children. Ann Arbor, MI.
50. Children Now (2001). Fair play: Violence, gender and race in video games. Los Angeles, CA: Children Now.
51. Christie, A. A. (1997). Using e-mail within a classroom based on feminist pedagogy. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 146-176.
52. Cohoon, J. M., and Aspray, W. (2006). Women in information technology:Research on underrepresentation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
53. College Board (2005). AP Exam Summary Reports: National Report 2005. Retrieved February 10, 2007 from http://www.colloegeboard. com/student/testing/ap/exgrd_sum/2005.html
54. Colley, A. M., Gale, M. T., and Harris, T. A. (1994). Effects of gender role identity and experience on computer attitude components. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(2), 129-137.
55. Collis, B. A., and Williams, R. L. (1987). Cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in adolescents’ attitudes toward computers and selected school subjects. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 17-27.
56. Cook, J., Leathwood, C., and Oriogun, P. (2001). Online conferencing with multimedia students: Monitoring gender participation and promoting critical debate. Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy, Center for Information and Computer Sciences, London.
57. Cooper, J., and Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58. Corston, R., and Colman, A. M. (1996). Gender and social facilitation effects on computer competence and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 171-183.
59. Coy, L., Velazquez, N., and Bussman, S. (2001). A learning community of educational leaders, Learning Technology Newsletter, 3(4). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/october2001/#14
60. Creamer, E. G., Lee, S., Meszaros, P. S., Laughlin, A., and Burger, C. J. (2005). Predicting women’s interest and choice in a career in information technology. Paper presented at the 2005 International Conference:Crossing Cultures, Changing Lives: Integrating Research on Girls’ Choices of IT Careers. Manchester College, Oxford, England.
61. Cummings, J. A., Bonk, C. J., and Jacobs, F. R. (2002). Twenty-first century college syllabi: Options for online communication and interactivity. Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 1-19.
62. Damarin, S. K. (2000). The “digital divide” versus digital differences:Principles for equitable use of technology in education. Educational Technology, 40(4), 17-22.
63. Davidson-Shivers, G., Morris, S., and Sriwongkol, T. (2003). Gender differences:Are they diminished in online discussions? International Journal on E-Learning, 2(1), 29-36.
64. DeBell, M., and Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and Internet Use by Children and Adolscents in 2001, NCES 2004-014, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
65. DeJean, J., Upitis, R., Koch, C., and Young, J. (1999). The story of Phoenix Quest: How girls respond to a prototype language and mathematics computer game. Gender and Education 11, 207-233.
66. Denner, J., Werner, L., Bean, and Campe, S. (2005). The girls creating games program: Strategies for engaging middle-school girls in information technology. Journal of women studies, 26(1), 90-98.
67. DiMaggio, P., and Hargattai, E. (2001). From the “Digital Divide” to “Digital Inequality”: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases, Working Paper #19, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
68. Dryburgh, H. (2000). Underrepresentation of girls and women in computer science: Classification of 1990s research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 181-202.
69. Durndell, A. (1990). Why do female students tend to avoid computer studies? Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(2), 163-170.
70. Education Week (1999). Technology Counts '99: Building the Digital Curriculum, Education Week, September 23, 1999.
71. Fatemi, E. (1999, September 23). Building the digital curriculum: Summary. Education Week, 19(4). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http:// counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/summary.htm
72. Fellows, D. (2004). The Internet and daily life. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Internet_and_Daily_Life.pdf
73. Fellows, D. (2005). How women and men use the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Women_and_Men_online.pdf
74. Feminist Periodicals. A Current Listing of Contents. 1981-Present.
75. Fontaine, M. (2000). A high-tech twist: IT access and the gender divide. TechKnowLogia (March/April). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http:// www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_active_pages2/CurrentArticles/main.asp ?FileType_PDFandArticleID_94
76. Forcier, R. C., and Descy, D. E. (2002). The computer as an educational tool: Productivity and problem solving. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
77. Foreman, J. (2003). Next generation: educational technology versus the lecture. Educause Review, 38, 12-20.
78. Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women:2004 (No. NCES 2005-016). Washington DC: National Center of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
79. Gee, J. P. (1999). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Goulding, A., and Spacey, R. (2002). Women and the information society:Barriers and participation. Proceedings of the 68th IFLA Council and General Conference (Glasgow, Scotland), The Hague, Netherlands:International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.
81. Gunn, C. (2003). Dominant or different? Gender issues in computer supported learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 14-30.
82. Gurer, D., and Camp, T. (1998). Investigating the incredible shrinking pipeline for women in computer science (Final report of NSF Project).
83. Gurer, D., and Camp, T. (2002). An ACM-W literature review on women in computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 121-127.
84. Guri-Rosenbilt, S. (1999). Distance and campus universities: Tensions and interactions: A comparative study of five countries. Oxford and New York: Elsevier Science, Inc.
85. Hackbarth, S. (2004). Changes in 4th-graders’ computer literacy as a function of access, gender, and race. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004, 187-212.
86. Hafkin, N., and Taggart, N. (2001). Gender, information technology, and developing countries: An analytic study. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.
87. Hamid, A. A. (2002). E-Learning: Is it the “e” or the learning that matters? Internet and Higher Education, 4, 311-316.
88. Handal, B. (2004). Teachers’ instructional beliefs about integrating educational technology. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(1). Retrieved May 15, 2006, http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol7_No1/content.htm
89. Handal, B., Bobis, J., and Grimison, L. (2001). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs and practices in teaching and learning thematically. In J. Bobis, B. Perry, and M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and Beyond. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia Inc. (pp. 265-272), Sydney: MERGA.
90. Harcourt, W. (1999). Women@Internet: Creating new cultures in cyberspace. London and New York: Zed Books.
91. Hargittai, E., and Shafer, S. (2006). Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432-448.
92. Hayes, E., Flannery, D. D., with Brooks, A. K., Tisdell, J. J., and Hugo, J. M. (2000). Women as learners: The significance of gender in adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
93. Herring, S. C. (2000). Gender differences in CMC: Findings and implications. The CPSR Newsletter (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), 18(1). http://trout.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/index.html
94. Herring, S. C. (in press). Who’s got the floor in computer-mediated conversation? Edelsky’s gender patterns revisited. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Conversation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
95. Herring, S. C., Johnson, D. A., and DiBenedetto, T. (1998). Participation in electronic discourse in a ‘feminist’ field. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
96. Hert, P. (1997). Social dynamics of an on-line scholarly debate. The Information Society, 13, 329-360.
97. Higher Education Research Institute. (2000). The American freshman:National norms for Fall 2000. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/norms_pr_00.html.
98. Honey, M., McMillan, K., Tsikalas, K., and Grimaldi, C. (1995). Adventures in supercomputing: 1993-1994 evaluation: Final Report, CCT Reports, Issue No. 1, Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://www2.edc.org/CCT/admin/publications/report/ASC-94.pdf
99. Honey, M., Moeller, B., Brunner, C., Bennett, D., Clements, B., and Hawkins, J. (1991). Girls and design: Exploring the question of technological imagination. New York: Center for Children and Technology, Technical Report 17. Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://www2.edc.org/CCT/publications_report_summary.asp?numPubId_48
100. Hsi, S., and Hoadley, C. M. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36.
101. Hunt, N. P., and Bohlin, R. M. (1993). Teacher education students’ attitudes towards using computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(4), 487-497.
102. Huyer, S. (1997). Supporting women’s use of information technologies for sustainable development. WIGSAT submitted to the Gender and Sustainable Development Unit, IDRC.
103. Jenkins, E. W. (1997). Gender and science and technology education. UNESCO international science, technology, and environmental newsletter, 1, 1-2.
104. Jenson, J., deCastell, S., and Bryson, M. (2003). “Girl Talk”: Gender, equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer culture. Women’s Studies International Forum, 26(6), 561-573.
105. Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., and Stanne, M. B. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer- assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 668-677.
106. Jolly, E., Campbell, P. B., and Perlman, L. K. (2004). Engagement, capacity and continuity: A trilogy for student success. Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://www.smm.org/ecc/
107. Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Constructivism: Implication for designs and delivery of instruction. New York: Scholastics.
108. Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
109. Jones, B. F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., and Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in:Choosing and using education technology. Oak Brook, IL:North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/edtalk/toc.htm
110. Kantrowitz, B. (1996). Men, women, computers. In V. Vitanza (Ed.), CyberReader (pp. 134-140). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
111. Kekelis, L. S., Ancheta, R. W., Heber, E., and Countryman, J. (2004). Bridging differences: How social relationships and racial diversity matter in a girls’ technology program. Unpublished manuscript.
112. Kekelis, L. S., Ancheta, R. W., and Heber, E. (2005). Hurdles in the pipeline:Girls and technology careers. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), 99-109.
113. Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., and Eccles, J. S. (1983, March). Second class citizens? Psychology Today, 41-48.
114. Kimbrough, D. R. (1999). On-line “chat room” tutorials: An unusual gender bias in computer use. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(3), 227-234.
115. King, L. J. (2000). Gender issues in online communities. CPSR Newsletter, 18(1), http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/king.html
116. Kirkpatrick, H., and Cuban, L. (1998). Should be we worried? What the research says about gender differences in access, use, attitudes, and achievement with computers. Education and Computing, 38(4), 56-61.
117. Klawe, M., and Leveson, N. (2001). Refreshing the nerds. Communications of the ACM, 44(7), 67 ff.
118. Kramarae, C. (2001). The third shift: Women learning online. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
119. Kramarae, C. (2003). Gender equity online, when there is no door to knock on. In M.G Moore and B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp 261-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
120. Kramarae, C., and Spender, D., (Eds.). (2000). Routledge international encyclopedia of women: Global women’s issues and knowledge (4 volumes). New York: Routledge.
121. Kramer, P. E., and Lehman, S. (1990). Mismeasuring women: A critique of research on computer ability and avoidance. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society, 16(1), 158-172.
122. Kvavik, R. B., and Caruso, J. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (www.educause.edu/ecar).
123. Lage, E. (1991). Boys, girls, and microcomputing. European Journal of Psychology of Women, 6(1), 29-44.
124. Laurel, B. (2000). Utopian entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
125. Lederman, M. (2005). Science as a social enterprise. The Chronicle of Higher Education, (May 14). Accessed June 1, 2006, from http:// chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i36/36b01601.htm
126. Lee, A. C. K. (2003). Undergraduate students’ gender differences in IT skills and attitudes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 488 ff.
127. Leggett, W. P., and Persichitte, K. A. (2000). Blood, sweat, and TEARS: 50 years of technology implementation obstacles. Tech Trends, 43(3), 33-36.
128. Lenhart, A. (2003). The ever-shifting Internet population. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/vf_pew_internet_shifting_pop.pdf
129. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., and Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/162/report_ display.asp
130. Lenhart, A. Rainie, L., and Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage Life Online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships, Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www. pewinternet.org/PPF/r/36/report_display.asp
131. Leong, S. C., and Hawamdeh, S. (1999). Gender and learning attitudes in using web-based science lessons. Information Research, 5(1).
132. Levin, T., and Gordon, C. (1989). Effect of gender and computer experience on attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 69-88.
133. Li, Q. (2002). Gender and computer-mediated communication: An exploration of elementary students’ mathematics and science learning, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(4), 341-359.
134. Li, Q. (2004). Mathematics, science, and technology: Do gender and race matter? Paper presented at the E-Learn conference, Washington, DC. Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 2004(1), 2379-2384.
135. Linn, M. C. (2005). Technology and gender equity: What works? In N. F. Russo, C. Chan, M. B. Kenkel, C. B. Travis, and M. Vasquez (Eds.), Women in Science and Technology. New York: American Psychological Association.
136. Livingstone, S., and Bober, M. (2005). UK children go online: Final report of key project findings. UK Children Go Online. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/children-go-online/UKCGO_Final_report.pdf
137. Lovat, T. J., and Smith, D. (1995). Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited. Australia: Social Science Press.
138. Lucas, S. (2003). Relationship of gender to faculty use of online educational tools. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU 03159.pdf
139. MacDonald, J. (2004). Gurl tech: Net basics. [Nortel Network Kidz Online Streaming video] Retrieved January 3, 2005, from http:// www.kidzonline.com/nclb2004
140. Maddin, E. A. (1997). The real learning begins back in the classroom:On-the-job training and support for teachers using technology. Tech Trends, 37(5), 56-59.
141. Margolis, J., and Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
142. Martin, S. (1998). Internet use in the classroom: The impact of gender. Social Science Computer Review, 16(4), 411-418.
143. Matusov, E., and Rogoff, B. (1995). Evidence of development from people’s participation in communities of learners. In J. Folk (Ed.), Public institutions for personal learning: Understanding the long-term impact of museums. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
144. McCormick, N., and McCormick, J. (1991). Not for men only: Why so few women major in computer science. College Student Journal, 25, 345-350.
145. McCoy, L. P., and Heafner, T. L. (2004). Effect of gender on computer use and attitudes of college seniors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 10(1), 55-66.
146. Means, B. (1998, April 13-17). Models and prospects for bringing technology-supported education reform to scale. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association meeting, San Diego, CA.
147. Miller, S. G., and Wasburn, M. H. (2002). Women in technology at Purdue University: Attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about their majors and intended careers. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Educators 2002 Annual Conference. Montreal, Canada.
148. MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. (1995). Women undergraduate enrollment in electrical engineering and computer science at MIT. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
149. Mitra, A. (2000). Gender and instructional use of computers. In P. Kommers and G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2000 (pp. 758-763). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
150. Morrell, C., Cotten, S., Sparks, A., and Spurgas, A., (2004). Computer Mania Day: An effective intervention for increasing youth’s interest in technology. Center for Women and Information Technology, University of Maryland/Baltimore County.
151. Moskal, B., Lurie, D., and Cooper, S. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of a new instructional approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 75-79.
152. Myers, W., Bennett, S., and Lysaght, P. (2004). Asynchronous communication:Strategies for equitable e-learning. Paper presented at the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth, Australia.
153. National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. NCES 2000-102. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
154. National Council for Research on Women (2001). Balancing the equation:Where are women and girls in science, engineering, and technology? New York: National Council for Research on Women.
155. National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997). Review of instructional materials for middle school science. Arlington, VA: Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education.
156. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2003). New formulas for America’s workforce: Girls in science and engineering. Arlington, VA:Division of Education and Human Resources.
157. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, 2004. Arlington, VA: Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF.
158. National Telecommunications Information Agency, (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html/anationonline2.htm
159. Netday Speak Up Day (2004). Insights and ideas of teachers on technology national report on Netday Speak Up Day For Teachers 2004. Retrieved on May 1, 2006, from http://www.netday.org/downloads/NetDaySUD4T2004Report.pdf
160. New Books on Women and Feminism. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1979-present (Semi-annual).
161. Nielsen//Netratings (2001). Number of female Web surfers grow faster than overall Internet population, according to Nielsen//Netratings. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_020118_monthly.pdf.
162. No Child Left Behind Act (2001, P.L. 107-110). Washington, DC: U.S. Congress. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
163. Norby, R. F. (2003, March 23-26). It is a gender issue! Changes in attitude towards science in a technology based K-8 pre-service preparation science classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
164. O’Hanlon, N. (2002). Net knowledge: Performance of new college students on an Internet skills proficiency test, Internet and Higher Education, 5, 55-66.
165. Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153-222.
166. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen Xers, Millenials: Understanding the new students. Educause Review, 38, 37-47.
167. Ogletree, S. M., and Williams, S. W. (1990). Sex and sex-typing effects on computer attitudes and aptitude. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 23(11/12), 703-712.
168. Palloff, R. M., and Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
169. Panoff, R. (2003). Personal communication.
170. Parkins, K. (2004). Gurl tech: Online collaboration. [Nortel Network Kidz Online Streaming video] Retrieved January 3, 2005, from http://www.kidzonline.com/nclb2004/
171. Paul, E. (2000). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in sex and gender. Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
172. Pearl, A., Pollack, M. E., Riskin, E., Thomas, B., Wolf, E., and Wu, A. (1990). Becoming a computer scientist: A report by the ACM Committee on the Status of Women in Computer Science. Communications of the ACM, 33(11), 47-57.
173. PENNlincs Institute for Research in Cognitive Science (2001). Agents for change: Robotics for girls, A robotics curriculum for the middle school years. Retrieved on August 21, 2006, from http://www.ircs. upenn.edu/pennlincs/
174. Peterson, P. L., and Fennema, E. (1985). Effective teaching, student engagement in classroom activities, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 309-335.
175. Pflaum, W. D. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools. Arlington, VA: ASCD.
176. Pinkard, N. D. (2001). Lyric reader: Creating intrinsically motivating and culturally responsive reading environments. Report #1-013. Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Ability, University of Michigan.
177. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants, On the Horizon (NCB University Press), 9(5).
178. Pryor, J. (1995). Gender issues in groupwork-a case study involving computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 277-284.
179. Rajagopal, I., and Bojin, N. (2003a). A gendered world: Students and instructional technologies, First Monday, 8, Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_1/rajagopal/index.html
180. Rajagopal, I., and Bojin, N. (2003b). I don’t do Windows: Gender, pedagogy, and instructional technologies, Education and Society, 21(1), 75-97.
181. Rakes, G., and Casey, H. (2002). Institutionalizing technology in schools:Resolving teacher concerns. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 2082-2085). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
182. Reece, C. C. (1986). Gender and microcomputers: Implications for the school curriculum. Paper presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN.
183. Resnick, R. (Ed.). (1995). IPA’s Survey of Women Online. Retrieved July 29, 2006, from http://www.netcreations.com/ipa/women
184. Robinson, J. P., DiMaggio, P., and Hargittai, E., (2003). New social survey perspectives on the digital divide. IT and Society, 1(5), 1-22.
185. Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
186. Rocap, K., Cassidy, S., and Connor, C. (1998). Fulfilling the promise of technologies for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
187. Rosen, L. D., Sears, D. C., and Weil, M. M. (1987). Computerphobia. Behavior research methods, instrumentation, and computers, 19(2), 167-179.
188. Ross-Gordon, J., and Brown-Haywood, D. (2000). Keys to college success as seen through the eyes of African American adult students. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 48(3), 14-23.
189. Royal, C. (2002, August). Mind the gender gap: Gender differences in motivation to contribute online content. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Conference, Miami, FL.
190. Sanders, Jo., and Tescione, S. T. (2004). Equity in the IT classroom. Retrieved June 25, 2005, from http://www.josanders.com/portal/index.htm
191. Sanders, Jo. (2005). Teaching teachers about gender equity in computing. Paper presented at Crossing Cultures, Changing Lives: Integrating Research on Girls’ Choices of IT Careers, Oxford, England.
192. Sanders, J. (2005). Gender and technology: A research review. Retrieved October 1, 2005 from www.josanders.com/resources.
193. Savard, M., Mitchell, S. N., Abrami, P. C., and Corso, M. (1995). Learning together at a distance. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24(2), 117-131.
194. Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Mahoney, K. M. (2000). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2000. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
195. Schrock, K. B. (2005, Summer). Closing the gender gap-schools strive to develop technologically fluent girls. EDTECH. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://edtech.texterity.com/article/200505/14
196. Selby, L. (1997). Increasing the participation of women in tertiary level computing courses: What works and why. Paper presented at the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth, Australia.
197. Selby, L., and Ryba, K. (1994). Creating gender equitable computer learning environments, Journal of Computing in Teaching Education, 10(2), 7-10.
198. Sellers, S. L., Roberts, J., Giovanetto, L., and Friedrich, K. (2005). Reaching all students: A resource for teaching in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Diversity Institute of the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL). Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://cirtl.wceruw.org/diversityinstitute.
199. Seymour, E. (1999). The role of socialization in shaping the careerrelated choices of undergraduate women in science, mathematics, and engineering majors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869(1), 118-126.
200. Shashaani, L. (1993). Gender-based differences in attitudes toward computers. Computers and Education, 20(2), 169-181.
201. Shashaani, L. (1994). Socioeconomic status, parents’ sex-role stereotypes, and the gender gap in computing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 433-451.
202. Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37-51.
203. Sherry, L., Billig, S., Tavalin, F., and Gibson, D. (2000). New insights on technology adoption in schools, T.H.E. Journal, 27(7), 43-46.
204. Shiver, J. Jr. (2000). Internet gender gap closes in U.S., study says. Los Angeles Times, May 11.
205. Snyder, T. D., Tan, A. G., and Hoffman, C. M. (2004). Digest of education statistics 2003. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
206. Sohn, E. (2006). Programming with Alice. Science News for Kids, February 22, 2006.
207. Spotts, T. H., Bowman, M. A., and Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and use of instructional technologies: A study of university faculty. Higher Education, 34(4), 421.
208. Strassman, P. A. (1999, February). Women take over. Computerworld.
209. Strauss, H. (2005, June 24). Why many faculty members aren’t excited about technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
210. Strawn, C. A. (1999). Moving in a man’s world: Three qualitative case studies illustrate how women can survive in male-dominated work environments. Unpublished Dissertation, Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
211. Sullivan, P. (2001). Gender differences and the online classroom: Male and female college students evaluate their experiences. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(10), 805-818.
212. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine.
213. Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse: Featuring a new essay on talk at work. New York: Oxford University Press.
214. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
215. Taylor, R. P. (Ed) (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
216. Tharp, R., and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
217. Trotter, A. (1999). Preparing teachers for the digital age. Technology Counts '99: Building the Digital Curriculum, Education Week (September 23).
218. Turbak, F., and Berg, R. (2002). Robotic Design Studio: Exploring the big ideas of engineering in a liberal arts environment. Retrieved August 21, 2006, from http://www.wellesley.edu/Physics/Rberg/papers/RDSJSET- final.pdf#search_%22robotic%20design%20studio%22
219. The UCLA Internet Report-Surveying the Digital Future (2003). The UCLA Internet Report-Year Three, UCLA Center for Communica- tion Policy. Accessed June 1, 2006, from http://www.digitalcenter.org/pdf/InternetReportYearThree.pdf
220. Valdez, G. (2005). Critical issue: Technology: A catalyst for teaching and learning in the classroom. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http:// www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te600.htm
221. Valenza, J., (1997). Girls _ technology _ turnoff? Technology Connection, 3(10), 20-21, 29.
222. Voyles, M., and Williams, A. (2004). Gender differences in attributions and behavior in a technology classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(3), 233-256.
223. Waren-Sams, B. (1997). Closing the equity gap in technology access and use: A practical guide for K-12 educators. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved July 1, 2006 at http:// www.nwrel.org/cnorse/booklets/equitygap/Equity_gap.pdf.
224. Weiner, G. (1974). Motivational psychology and educational research, Educational Psychologist, 11, 96-101.
225. Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving, Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 557-573.
226. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between education technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Accessed June 1, 2006, http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTECHNOLOG.pdf
227. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1-22.
228. Wolfe, J. (1999). Why do women feel ignored? Gender differences in computer-mediated classroom interactions. Computers and Composition, 16(1), 153-166.
229. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., and Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173-207.
230. Young, B. J. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204-216.