Literature Review: Influence of adolescent attitude, behavior, gender, and use of educational technology

By Courtney L. Teague EDD 8008 Principles of Instructional Technology

November 10, 2012

Introduction The purpose of the literature review is to explore female adolescent attitudes, perceptions, teacher usage, and self-efficacy towards the use of educational technology. Although women have progressed in the U.S. women are underrepresented in fields related to science, technology, engineering, and math (Leaper, Farkas, Brown, 2012; AAUW, 2000; National Science Foundation, 2008). The first section of the literature review contains an overview of the impact of gender. The second section reviews the impediments to technology use. This literature review will attempt to explore the reasons of why females refrain from engaging with technology. Methodology The literature review includes sources retrieved from peer-reviewed and scholarly journals as well as research based studies in the area of gender influence in technology. I searched databases such as Academic Search Premier, EdITlib, ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest Psychology Journals, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. A Boolean search using terms such as but not limited to gender gap and technology, stereotypes and technology, self-efficacy and technology, teacher resistance and technology, gender preferences and technology, at risk students and educational technology was used. Researchers used quantitative, qualitative analysis, and mixed method analysis to conduct research studies (Creswell, 2003). The purpose of quantitative methods is to establish relationships between variables; qualitative research tends to gather detailed phenomenon information through an exploration in which little is known about the problem; and

3 mixed method analysis is to incorporate qualitative elements into a quantitative study (Edmonds& Kennedy, 2010; Creswell, 2008; Creswell, 2003). The report is divided into subtopics. The subtopics are (1) gender gap and stereotypes (2) The style and format for this literature review follow the Publication Manual of American Association (2010), sixth edition. Analysis and Description Gender Gap and Stereotypes Gender stereotypes are defined as a set of beliefs about the characteristic, and psychological traits, and/or activities related to men and women. Gender stereotypes influence social categories for gender (Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity, n.d.). Studies investigated the impact of gender on middle school adolescents preferences and options in technology education using quantitative and qualitative tools such as observation, interview, and survey methods. Current data indicates more males than females are more interested in engineering and the gender gap exists during middle school years (Holmes, Redmond, Thomas & High, 2012; Li & Kirkup, 2007). According to Why so few? Women in science, technology and engineering and mathematics (2010), indicated that women are outnumbered by men in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The report indicated that girls and boys are equally prepared and girls excel in mathematics; however, by the time the boys who thinks they know more about computers and by the time the girls enter college, they lose interest in technology (Holmes, Redmond, Thomas, High, 2012; Meelissen, & Drent, 2008; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Girls lack of participation is an area of growing concern, for education,

4 economy, and culture (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation Commission on Technology, Gender and Teacher Education, 2000). Girls are instructed to believe that they are not equal of boys specifically in the field of science and math and (Smith & Hung 2008 ). Parents and peers pressure girls to conform to traditional stereotyped roles and behaviors. When girls are pressured to adapt to the stereotype that boys are more competent then girls they engage in an extra emotional and cognitive burden (Hill, Corbet, & Rose, 2010, p.39). Self-efficacy Self -efficacy is a persons beliefs in their capabilities to achieve and succeed in completing given tasks (Bandura, 1977). Self efficacy is not concerned with ones skills, however the ability transfer and use the skills one possesses ( Mayall, 2008;Bandura, 1986). Self efficacy is indicative of an individuals confidence to perform the required behavior. Researchers are aware that personalogical variables like gender can have an major impact on engagement and achievement in academic setting, however little research exists to investigate the role of self-efficacy in computing behavior (Mayall, 2008). Self-efficacy is not a passive, static trait but rather is seen as a dynamic set of self-beliefs that are specific to person, behavior, and contextual factors (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994, p.83) Females and males possess different perspectives about technology and their technological ability, which may impact the way they interact with technology. Studies indicated that female students reported lower confidence ratings with technology and mathematics positively related to male students confidence (Vekiri & Chronaki, 2008; Pierce, Stacey, & Barkatasas, 2007). Female students underrate their ability to use the

5 Internet and computers (Li & Kirkup, 2007). Even in adulthood men express higher selfefficacy than women. Ong & Lai (2006), conducted a study based on Technology Acceptance Model which results indicated mens rating of computer self-efficacy, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and behavior intention to use e-learning are higher than womens. Inequalities between the genders in computer self-efficacy beliefs have been shown to influence shown to influence decisions to engage in activities. If females are choosing not to be involved in technology based situations (i.e. educational or work-related) because they have low confidence in their abilities to be successful, then it is necessary to use the knowledge we have about changing selfefficacy to increase computer self-efficacy and subsequently technology use by women (Mayall, 2008, p.148) Technological Interests. Studies revealed that males prefer utilizing and taking risks and females prefer designing and seek encouragement. (Holmes, Redmond, Thomas & High, 2012; Admiraal, Heemskerk, ten Dam & Volman (2009); Schecklhoff, 2007;Weber & Custer, 2005; Forgasz, 2006). Lim & Meier (2011) study indicated that Korean males and females use computers for four purposes: formal learning, entertainment, social networking, and personal knowledge. Males like playing multi-player online games while girls used social -networking websites. Exposure to technology education at school leads to a high level of technological interest of boys and girls. (Zhou, 2007; Mammes, 2004). Compared to girls, boys have an advantage in their ability to use advanced computer skills (Thomas & Allen, 2006).

Adolescent attitudes towards computers Research suggests that gender differences exist in computer affective attitude. Girls learning performances have improved when the technological tools address their interest; however the girls and boys do not consider computers to be the equal domain between both sexes (Cantrell & Sudweeks, 2009) Teacher attitudes towards technology Teachers are instrumental in introducing technology to students. In order for teachers to be effective, they must possess the knowledge necessary to make an impact. A mixed methods study collected data from a 41-item questionnaire which established that, Teacher attitude toward educational technology is the most significant proximal determinant of the decision to implement such technology (Kessler, 2010). The lack of teacher training influences their resistance to implementing technology (Schecklhoff, 2007). Teachers also require more preparation time to effectively use the tools. Some teachers view instructional technology as a competitive or disruptive distractions. Hernandez-Ramos (2005) suggested, Teachers personality factors such as preference for order and neatness, resistance to change, and flexibility could influence their decision on whether to integrate technology into their curriculum using messy, noisy, innovative project-based, collaborative learning opportunities (p.13).

Teachers gender and technological use Teachers nearly always control when students access and use technology during the day (Bebell & Kay, 2010, p.47). Bebell and Kay (2010) found that individual school setting factors impacted the role in technology integration and use in contrast to than the

7 teachers grade level or subject. Shapley, et. al (2010) conducted a study that teacher approval is essential for technology integration. Respondents at higher implementing schools reported that committed leaders, thorough planning, teacher buy-in, preliminary professional development for teachers, and a commitment to the transformation of student learning were keys to their successful implementation of Technology Immersion (Shapley et al., p. 46, 2010). Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills (2012), examined how 1:1 laptop initiative impacted student learned at a Midwestern high school. The study indicated that the 1:1 laptop computing increased student interest, motivation, and ability to work alone. The study also indicated that the staff believed that the integration of 1:1 computing improved traditional, at-risk, and high achieving students learning experience. Teachers use of computer technology included requiring the students to create presentations, develop products, facilitation of learning, browse the Internet, managing media, preparing lesson plans, personal use, maintaining a personal calendar, completing assessments (Keengwe, Schnellect, & Mills, 2012; Bebell et al., 2004). Eighty-five percent of educators however 50% of the educators used technology within their classroom or any instructional setting. Although some teachers use technology they are not implementing higher order thinking tasks they are implementing drill and practice activities (Palozzi & Spradlin, 2005). Female teachers use educational technologies as instructional tool to improve their teaching, differentiate lessons to support various learning styles, to offer alternative assignments, and increase collaboration (Campbell & Varnhagen, 2002). The females use of technology supports Clarks model of instructional and delivery technologies. Media

8 are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition (Clark, 2001, p.2). According to Clarks model women favor the instructional methods that are implemented. In contrast, the study results indicated men prefer distributing the instruction to the student, which is considered delivery technology. Gender and learning experiences Admiraal, Heemskerk, ten Dam & Volman (2009) conducted a study that investigated three levels of curriculum: the formal, the operational, and the experimental curriculum.. The results indicated that there are gender differences in learning experiences between girls and boys. Although both boys and girls benefited from more inclusive tools girls benefited more from more inclusive tools than from less inclusive tools, but for girls the difference between the tools was more eminent. (Admiraal, Heemskerk, ten Dam & Volman, 2009; Schecklhoff, 2007). Female students perform

information searching tasks better than males but have difficulty completing the task (Li & Kirkup, 2007). Roy, Taylor, & Chi, (2003), conducted a study to examine how students search for browse, and learn information while conducting research. It indicated that boys and girls demonstrated distinctive approaches to finding information and selecting information on the Internet. Boys had a tendency to scan many more document excerpts than girls, while girls had a tendency to actually open and browse the entire linked documents without going through a preliminary scanning step (Roy, Taylor, & Chi, 2003, p.249). As a result, boys were able to gain more information that was related to the search goal.

9 Home use The technology gender gap begins with home usage where girls at a younger age are more likely to play with spatial reasoning skill building toys and boys will play video games and get their first computer at a younger age (Goldstein, 2012). Students who use computers at home are positively related to student achievement and are able to adapt to technology-rich environments (Bebell, 2010; Shapeley, 2010). For example, Tillberg and Cohoon (2005) explained that people who expressed interest in technology were introduced by their families and by recreational computer based media. The family provides a model for students to follow informally. The study also revealed that girls are less likely to be introduced to technology within the home by a family member. The teacher is usually the first to introduce girls to technology, which places the teacher in a unique role. The study also revealed that girls do not have as many same sex role models to answer their questions related to technology related fields. At-risk students technology usage disparities The review of studies indicated a negative relationship, variable relationship, and positive relationship between student achievement and technology use in instruction (Tienken & Mahar, 2008). Tienken and Mahar (2008), conducted a study with a New Jersey middle school eighth grade students which suggested that Computer Assisted Instruction was negatively correlated to low achieving students. Hess and Leal (2001),

study indicated that at-risk urban districts had a lower student-to-computer ratio than affluent urban districts with high higher pupil spending and family income. Edmonds & Li (2005) conducted a study that explored high school teachers perspectives when teaching at risk students with technology. The results indicated that technology rich

10 environments helped students overcome barriers and the use of technology contributed to increased student achievement for at risk learners. The researchers noted that the approach integrating technology may not be beneficial for every student and may create another learning barrier. Career and Identity Gender differences and stereotypes are evident and demonstrated in students interest in and formation of a career identity is an area of immense concern of adolescence; (Turner & Lapan, 2005). Gender identity can be traced back to Erik Eriksons theory. Erik Eriksons theory primarily focused on how people focused on how peoples' sense of identity develops; how people develop or fail to develop abilities and beliefs about themselves which allow them to become productive, satisfied members of society. Adolescents examine their preferences, values, attitudes, and interests through examining different gender roles in the areas of religion, work, philosophy, politics, and relationships (Oswalt, n.d.; Klimstra, Hale, Raaijmakers, Branje, & Meeus, 2010; Crocetti, Rubini, Luychz & Meeus, 2008; Marcia, 1966). A study conducted by Farmer (2005), indicated that girls lack career guidance and support from family. The girls involved in the study when asked the questions about what their family thought about their career plans and future most girls responded They just want me to do what I like to do. They go along with what I like. Adolescents develop their own beliefs and values regarding their career through interaction with parents, peers, instructors, and other people who impact their lives; adolescents learn through their prior knowledge (Lent, Brown, Sheu, Schmidt, Gloster, Wilkins, et.al, 2005; Piaget, 1965).

11 References American Association of University Women Education Commission on Technology, Gender and Teacher Education. (2000). Tech-Savvy: educating girls Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change

Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Bebell, D., & ODwyer, L Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One on One Computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org Campbell, K. & Varnhagen, S. (2002). When faculty use instructional technologies: Using Clarks delivery model to understand gender differences. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 32(1), pp.31-56 Cantrell, P & Sudweeks, R. (2009). Technology task autonomy and gender effects on student performance in rural middle school science classrooms Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), pp.21-29 Crocetti E, Rubini M, Luyckx K, & Meeus W. Identity formation in early and middle adolescents from various ethnic groups: From three dimensions to five statuses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2008;37:983996. doi: 10.1007/s10964-0079222-2. Edmonds, K, & Li, Q (2005). Teaching at-risk students with technology: teachers' beliefs, experiences, and strategies for success. AERA. 1-7. Erikson EH. Identity: Youth and crisis. Repr. ed. London: Faber and Faber; 1974. Farmer (2005) Forgasz, H.J. (2006). Teachers, equity, and computers, for secondary mathematics learning. Journal for Mathematics

Geary DC, Byrd-Craven J, Hoard MK, Vigil J, Numtee C. Evolution and development of boys social behavior. Developmental Review. 2003;23:444470. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2003.08.001.

12 Hernando-Ramos, P. (2005). If Not Here, where? understanding teachers' use of technology in Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2807933/ Klimstra, T. Hale, W., Raaijmakers, Q, Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2010). Identity formation in adolescence: change or stability? Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807933/ Leaper, C. Farkas, T., & Brown, C. (2012). Adolescent girls' experiences and genderrelated beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English Journal Youth Adolescence 41 pp 268-282 Lent, R., Brown, S., & Hackett,G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory or career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 45. pp. 79-122 Marcia (1966) Mayall, H Differences in gender based technology self-efficacy across academic levels

Oswalt, (n.d.). Erik Erikson and self-identity. Retrieved from http://www.sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=41163&cn=1310 Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers & Education, 48 (2), 285300 National Science Foundation. (2010). Bachelors degrees by sex and field: 1998-2010. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tab5-2.pdf Mayall, H. (2008). Differences in gender based technology self-efficacy across academic levels. International Journal of Instructional Media 35(2) Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the Implementation Fidelity of Technology Immersion and its Relationship with Student Achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4). Tienken, C. H., & Maher, J. A. (2008). The influence of computer-assisted instruction on eighth grade mathematics achievement. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 32(3), 1-13. Tillberg, & Cohoon (2005). Attracting women to the computer science major. Frontiers. 26(1). pp 126-142

13

Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1392-1404 Weber & Custer (2005). Gender based performance toward technology education content, acitivites, and instructional methods Gender stereotypes: masculinity and femininity www.ablongman.com/partners_in_psych/PDFs/.../Brannon_ch07.pdf