You are here:

Gender in Online Education
PROCEEDINGS

, , Marquette University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Antonio, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-61-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Linguistics research demonstrates that men and women use language very differently. The differences between men and women's use of language can lead to difficulties in cross-gender communication. As in face-to-face communication, distinctive gender-related characteristics can be found in computer-mediated communication. While the gender gap in technology use is closing, differences in communicative style may account for persistent gender differences in participation rates in computer-mediated communication. If discussions in online education evidence gender differences, the consequences may be diminished learning and achievement for women learning online. This study seeks to answer two questions: Are there gender differences in the discourse of students in online education? Does it matter?

Citation

Hayslett, C. & Schweizer, H. (2007). Gender in Online Education. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2007--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 725-730). San Antonio, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Begley, C.M. (1996). Using triangulation in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 24 (1), 122–128.
  2. Blum, K.D. (1999). Gender differences in asynchronous learning in higher education: learning styles, participation barriers and communication patterns. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3, 1.
  3. Chenail, R.J. (1997). Keeping things plumb in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 3, 3.
  4. Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  5. Ferris, S.P. (1996). Women on-line: cultural and relational aspects of women’s communication in on-line discussion groups. Interpersonal Computing Technology, 4, 3-4.
  6. Gion, L.A. (2002). Triangulation: establishing the validity of qualitative studies. Retrieved January 31, 2007, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FY394.
  7. Graneheim, U.H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105-112.
  8. Herring, S.C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: an approach to researching online behavior, in Barab, S.A., Kling, R., & Gray, J.H. (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Herring, S.C. (2001). Gender and power in online communication. Retrieved, May 16, 2003, from http://slis.indiana.edu/CSI/WP/WP01-05B.html.Herring,S.C.(2000).GenderdifferencesinCMC:findingsandimplications.CPSRNewsletter,18,1.Retrievedfromhttp://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/herring.html On May 16 , 2003.
  10. Hoepfl, M.C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: a primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9, 1.
  11. Jaffe, J.M. (1999). Gender identification, interdependence, and pseudonyms in CMC: language patterns in an electronic conference. Information Society, 15, 4.
  12. Jaffe, J.M., Lee, Y.E., Huang, L., & Oshagan, H. (1995). Gender, pseudonyms, and CMC: masking identities and baring souls. Paper submitted for presentation to the 45th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, 1995, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Retrieved July 30, 2003, from http://members.iworld.net/yesunny/genderps.html.
  13. Johnson, R.B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118, 3, 282-292.
  14. Lakoff, R.T. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper& Row.
  15. Massey, A. (1999). Methodological triangulation, or how to get lost without being found out in Massey, A and Walford, G. (Eds.) Studies in Educational Ethnography, Volume 2. Stamford: JAI Press.
  16. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Social Research, 1, 2.
  17. Neuman, W. (1997). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  18. Neuendorf, K. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousnd Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  20. Rakow, L.F. (1988). Gendered technology, gendered practice. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5: 57-70.
  21. Shoemaker, P., & Resse, S. (1996). Mediating the message: theories of influences on mass media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  22. Stewart, C.M., Shields, S.F., Monolescu, D., & Taylor, J.C. (1999). Interpersonal Computing and Technology: an Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 7, 1-2.
  23. Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  24. Wolfe, J.(1999). Why do women feel ignored? Gender differences in computer-mediated classroom interactions. Computers and Composition, 16, 153-166.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.