Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Camille Maydonik
36428084
July 4, 2010
TECHNOLOGY AND GENDER DIFFERENCES 2
Synopsis
review, Miller et al. discuss male and female stereotypes in regards to technology and the
gender gap. In light of these stereotypes, the researchers also present the idea that with
greater access to the Internet, technology acculturation is at work and is narrowing the
gender gap.
Methodology
This research study took the form of a 68-item survey, whereby 568 middle
school students participated from eight different Houston-area public and private middle
schools that encompassed four school districts between October 1998 and April 1999.
The questionnaire, completed with paper and pencil, consisted of closed and open
questions and was completed during regular class time for 30 minutes. The final sample
of students was 512 as a result of 56 students who did not report essential demographic
information. Of the 512 students surveyed, the researchers used socio-economic status
(SES) to ensure that their sample was representative of a diverse student population.
Therefore, the final sample of students included 158 high disadvantaged students, 170
middle disadvantaged students and 184 low disadvantaged students, with gender
and their acquisition; (b) exposure to technology at home and at school; and (c) media
style and content preferences” (Miller et al., 2001, p. 125). Through the analysis of their
data in these three areas, Miller et al. (2001) found that the gender gap is in fact
becoming narrower and that “students of both genders and schools of all socio-economic
levels are well on their way to becoming part of the digital culture” (p. 135).
Analysis
the field of education and technology. Their research was conducted according to
educational research standards and their findings support their beliefs regarding gender
differences and technology preferences and practices. However, I believe that this
My first critique is that the authors do not describe how the sample was chosen
beyond telling us the number of schools and the milieu in which they are located. We do
not know how the schools were selected or how the students in those schools were
selected to participate in the questionnaire. When analyzing table 1, it is clear that the
percentage of students surveyed ranges from 6.6% of the total population of one school to
65.5% of another school. Even though SES further grouped the students, I would argue
we can assume that it has to do with SES, it is not specifically stated. As 56 students,
approximately 10% of the whole sample, were left out of the final results, the audience is
left wondering exactly why. Furthermore, the authors do not define the word use, in
relation to computers. In their study, 97% of students indicated that they know how to
TECHNOLOGY AND GENDER DIFFERENCES 4
use a computer. Although not impossible, perhaps this result is so high because the
students would not want to be perceived as not being able to use a computer either by the
researchers or their peer group. I believe that the lack of defining this term affects the
article, the authors used the term gender gap. Then, as part of their discussion, they used
the term digital divide to imply the same concept. I have always thought of digital divide
as a generational divide, not a gender divide. I believe that the authors either need to
refine what they mean by digital divide or commit to using one term throughout their
article.
Overall, the article written by Miller et al. is well written and executed. It
addresses the issue of gender in technology and addresses the shift from teaching to
References
Miller, L.M., Schweingruber, H., & Brandenburg, C.L. (2001). Middle school students’