You are here:

An Analysis of the Influence of Gender, Grade Level, and Teacher on the Selection of Mathematics Software by Intermediate Students
Article

, , , , University of Northern Colorado, United States

ITCE Volume 2003, Number 1, ISSN 1522-8185 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between gender, grade level, teachers, and the selection of mathematics software as measured by the type of mathematics software chosen, and time-on-task. Research data were collected from 202 third, fourth, and fifth grade students in a single elementary school located in northeastern Colorado.

Intermediate students were introduced to four different pieces of mathematics software during instructional time and then asked to choose one as their favorite. Results from this study indicate no gender or grade level differences in software selection. Outcomes from the study did however show significant differences in time-on-task by gender and grade level. These data resulted in some commonalties and several deviations from the prior research in the area. Results of this study are discussed in comparison to previous research and recommendations for future research in gender selection of software are included.

Citation

Ferguson-Pabst, D., Persichitte, K., Lohr, L. & Pearman, B. (2003). An Analysis of the Influence of Gender, Grade Level, and Teacher on the Selection of Mathematics Software by Intermediate Students. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2003(1), 5-27. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

© 2003 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Anderson, L.W. (1976). Learning time and educational effectiveness. NASSP Curriculum Report, 10 (2), 42-56.
  2. Baker, E.L., & O’Neil, H.F. (1994). Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. Barbieri, M.S., & Light, P. (1992). Interaction, gender, and performance on a computer-based problem-solving task. Learning and Instruction, 2(3), 199213.
  4. Bitter, G.G., & Camuse, R.A. (1988). Using a microcomputer in the classroom (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  5. Bitter, G.G., & Pierson, M.S. (1999). Usingtechnology in the classroom (4 th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  6. Bradshaw, J., Clegg, S., & Trayburn, D. (1995). An investigation into gender bias in educational software used in English primary schools. Gender and Education, 7(2), 167-174.
  7. Briggs, L.J. (1967). Instructional media: A procedure for the design of multi-media instruction, a critical review of research, and suggestions for future research. Pittsburgh: American Institute for Research.
  8. Brunner, C., & Bennett, D. (1997). Technology and gender: Differences in masculine and feminine views. NASSP Bulletin, 81(592), 46-51.
  9. Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445-458.
  10. Dwyer, D.C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J.H. (1990). Teacher beliefs and practices part I: Patterns of change. [Online]. Available: http://www.apple.com/education/k-12
  11. Eisenberg, R.L. (1997, May 4). The Barbie syndrome. The San Francisco Examiner, P. D5-D12.
  12. Fisher, G. (1984). Access to computers. The Computing Teacher, 11(8), 2426.
  13. French, J. (1984). Gender imbalances in the primary classroom: An interactional account. Educational Research, 26(2), 127-136.
  14. Hakansson, J. (1990). Lessons learned from kids: One developer’s point of view. In B. Laurel (Ed.) , The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 123-130). Reading, PA : Addison-Wesley.
  15. Harniischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. (1976). The teaching-learning process in An Analysis of the Influence of Gender, Grade Level and Teacher 25
  16. Harrell, W. (1998). Gender and equity issues affecting educational computer use. Equity and Excellence in Education, 31(13), 46-48.
  17. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (1999). Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction (4 th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
  18. Henwood, F. (1993). Establishing gender perspectives on information technology: Problems, issues, and opportunities. In E. Green, J. Owen, &
  19. Hopkins, K.B., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A.V., & DeLisi, R. (1997). Student gender and teaching methods as sources of variability in children’s computational arithmetic performance. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158(3), 333-413.
  20. Huff, C.W., & Cooper, J. (1987). Sex bias in educational software: The effect of designers’ stereotypes on the software they design. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(6), 519-532.
  21. Kaput, J.J., & Thompson, P.W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25 (6), 667-684.
  22. Karweit, N. (1988). Time-on-task: The second time around. NASSP Bulle-t in, 72(505), 31-39.
  23. Kulik, J.A., Bangert, R.L., & Williams, G.W. (1994). Effects of computerbased teaching on secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 19-26.
  24. Laurel, B. (1998). How gender differences affect play behavior of girls and boys, Ages 7-12. Study on the play behavior of girls. [Online]. Available: http://www.Purple-moon.com/cb/laslink/pm?stat+corp+play_behavior Lindquist, M.M. (1980). Selected issues in mathematics education. Berkeley, CA : McCu tchen Publishing.
  25. Lockheed, M.E. (1985). Women, girls& Computers: A first look at the evidence. Sex Roles, 13(3/4), 115-122.
  26. Lohr, L., Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R. (1995). Using a hypertext environment for teaching process writing: An evaluation study of three student groups. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 33-50.
  27. Malone, T.W., & Lepper, M.R. (1980). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. In R. Snow& M. Farr (Eds.) , Aptitude, learning, and instruction (Vol. 3) , (pp. 127-146). Hillsdale , NJ:
  28. Martin, R. (1991). School children’s attitudes towards computers as a function of gender: Course subjects and availability of home computers. 26 Ferguson-Pabst, Persichitte, Lohr, and Pearman
  29. Martin, B., & Hearne, J.D. (1989). Computer equity in education. Educational Technology, 29 (9), 47-51.
  30. McInerney, D.M., & McInerney, V. (1998). Educational psychology: Constructed learning (2nd ed.). Australia: Prentice Hall.
  31. Merrill, P.F., Hammons, K., Vincent, B.R., Reynolds, P.L., Christensen, L., & Tolman, M.N. (1996). Computers in education(3rd ed.). Boston: A l lyn and Bacon.
  32. 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.
  33. Moore, B.G. (1986). Equity in education: Gender issues in the use of computers. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 281 511)
  34. Murphy, P.F., & Gipps, C.V. (1996). Equity in the classroom: Towards effective pedagogy for girls and boys. London: Falmer Press.
  35. Nelson, C.S., & Watson, J.A. (1991). The computer gender gap: Children’s attitudes, performance and socialization. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 19 (4) , 345-353.
  36. Ormrod, J.E. (1995). Human learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  37. Piaget, J. (1972). To understand is to invent. New York: The Viking Press.
  38. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
  39. Ringstaff, C., Yocam, K., & Marsh, J. (1996). Integrating technology into classroom instruction: An assessment of the impact of the ACOT teacher development center project. Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. Retrieved November 10, 2000, from: http://a1936.G.akamai.net/7/1936/51/4d01271ea58645/Www.apple.com/education/k-12/leadership/acot/pdf/rpt22.pdf
  40. Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M.A. (1997). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
  41. Salisbury, D.F. (1988). Effective drill and practice strategies. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 103-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  42. Sanders, J. (1995). Girls and technology: Villain wanted. In S.V. Rosser (Ed.) , Teaching the majority (pp. 146-154). New York: Teachers College
  43. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C. & Dwyer, D. (1990). Teaching in high-tech environments: Classroom management revisited: First-fourth year findings. Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Inc.
  44. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching withtechnology. New York: Teachers College Press.
  45. Shrock, S.A., Matthias, M., Vensel, G., & Anastasoff, V. (1985). Microcomputers and peer interaction: A naturalistic study of an elementary classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  46. Schwartz, R.H. (1992). Revitalizing liberal arts mathematics. Mathematics and Computer Education, 26(3), 272-277.
  47. Spender, D. (1989). Invisible women: The schooling scanda L. London: The Women’s Press.
  48. Spender, D. (1997). Gender issues and computer supported collaborative learning. [Online]. Available: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/resta97/instructional_tech/students/gmaxwell/index.html
  49. Spender, D. (1999). Nattering on the net: Women, power, and cyberspace. Australia: Spinifex Press.
  50. Steen, L.A. (1989). Mathematics for a new century. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 45(2), 19-23.
  51. Stein, A.H., & Smithells, J. (1969). Age and sex differences in children’s sex-roles tandards about achievement. Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 252-259.
  52. Thomsen, C. (1998). New CTTL projects announced for 1998. [Online]. Available: http://rits.standford.edu/acpubs/SOC/Back_Issues/SOC48/cttl.html
  53. Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  54. Urban, C.M. (1986). Inequities in computer education due to gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 279 594)
  55. Walberg, H. (1988). Synthesis of research on time and learning. Educational Leadership, 45 (6), 76-85.
  56. Weisgerber, R.A. (1968). Instructional process and media innovation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  57. Whyte, J. (1986). Girls into science and technology: The story of a project. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections