Article #2 Gender Inclusiveness in Educational Technology

Heemskerk, I., ten Dam, G., Volman, M., & Admiraal, W. (2009). Gender Inclusiveness in Educational Technology and Learning Experiences of Girls and Boys. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 253-276. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Summary:

                This article details a qualitative study on perceptions of technology by male and female students in the context of gender inclusiveness. The study included 81 ninth grade students in the Netherlands and tested their reactions and perceptions to six different technological learning tools using interviews, class observations, and learner reports for assessment. The educational tools were rated according to inclusiveness and imbedded “gender scripts.” Inclusiveness was rated using an index which assessed several factors including presence and contribution of diverse groups within the programs, real-life context, cultural sensitivity, variety of music and sounds, feedback, flexibility, and other similar factors. The results of the study found that girls gave more positive descriptions and thought they learned more from the programs with higher inclusiveness ratings. Girls also found these programs to be easier to navigate than the less inclusive programs, while boys reported no difference. Girls also were observed to participate more with the inclusive programs, while boys showed no difference in participation levels between them. Overall, girls seemed to react more positively to inclusive programs than traditional methods and less inclusive programs; boys reacted more positively to technology in general than to traditional learning methods.

Reaction:

                This study is important in that it shows that the stereotype of girls disliking computers is false. It is not the technology that they reject, but the way in which many programs and applications are designed without their interests in mind that they are objecting to. This ties in nicely with the educational philosophies of Jane Roland Martin and Victor Nolet, who we recently read and discussed in SEC 512. Martin explores the concept of working the “reproductive” processes (here represented as connection to real-life, variety, cultural sensitivity) into the education system in order to engage women and end stereotypes. Martin is suggests a paradigm shift, much like what Nolet suggests in his argument for sustainability and the concept of gender inclusiveness actually fits nicely with the concept of sustainability, as they are both ultimately concerned with the reproductive processes within society, though not in a literal sense. The more inclusive programs may be evidence of the beginning of such a paradigm shift, which is not concerned with productivity and single-minded monolithic academic concerns, but with connection and real-world applicability.

                Because boys learned just as much using inclusive programs as non-inclusive and girls learned and were more engaged with the more inclusive programs, we should, as educators, recognize that we must attempt to be consciously more inclusive in the lessons and ways in which content is presented in order to reach all students. If we ignore this, we are alienating almost half of the student population, especially if other options are known and available. Because boys do just as well (if not better) with inclusive-minded presentations of content, we are not in any way shutting them out;  we may be opening them up to new ideas concerning connection, cultural and gender sensitivity, and destroying the gender-based stereotypes concerning technology, often popularized and spread by both sexes due to a long history of male dominance and subsequent dominant male ideals and concerns within the field of technology education.