Session Information
16 SES 01 A, ICT for Integration
Paper Session
Contribution
The situation of female students registered in undergraduate computer science studies is considered by educational experts to be critical in Europe and North America (AAUW, 2000; CAUT, 2007; Lewis, McKay & Lang, 2006). Research indicates that there is a great gap between male and female students in number and in performances in undergraduate computer science programs. According to many researchers, females feel less confident than males in pursuing computer science courses (Dryburgh 2000; Hancock, Davies & McGrenere, 2002; Harrell 1998; Todman 2000; Wilson, 2002).
Digital divide is an important aspect that reveals profound differences of digital literacy in society and shows how social inequalities are perpetuating through technology (Swain & Pearson, 2001). The levels of digital divide were initially introduced by Attewell (2001) and extended by Kelly (2008) and illustrate social inequities in the use of computers on three different levels. The first digital divide is related to the physical access to the computer sources. The second digital divide is about how the instruction on using technological resources is conducted. This means that the instruction of the existing technology is considered more important than the “official” existence of computer resources. Finally, the third digital divide is about how the culture and students’ background shape their behavior and perspectives towards the use of computers.
In this study, we use digital divide to study gender differences in a mid-size university in Ontario. The reason for studying digital divide is to analyze aspects of inequality in peripheral aspects of the use of technology in educational settings and in computer science education, which represents the core of educational technology. In this study, we identify and explore the differences and challenges males and females experience, as they proceed through an undergraduate computer science program. The goal of this article is to analyze differences, stereotypes, and inequities that take place based on Kelly’s (2008) three-level digital divide paradigm: a) computational resources, b) instruction in computers, and c) sociocultural background in fostering technology. This study explores factors that alienate undergraduate female students and exacerbate gender disparities in confidence, performance, attitudes, and experience in undergraduate computer science education.
This article is a part of a larger research and it presents the findings of the following research question: What difficulties did male and female students in undergraduate computer science program encounter?
The goal of this study was to explore learning practices in undergraduate computer science courses in order to identify factors that contribute to creating and perpetuating digital divide gender gaps and suggest classroom strategies for eliminating or reducing these gaps. The influence of computer science technology is pervasive in all advanced countries. It is impossible to talk about progress without considering aspects of the Information Technology industry. For this reason, it is necessary to have both genders involved not only in using computers, but also in learning computer programming. Although the study has provided useful insights into the issue, it needs to be extended by further research focused in digital divide issues in computer science education.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252-259. American Association of University Women (AAUW). (2000). Tech savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: AAUW. Charles, M. & Bradley, K. (2006). A matter of degrees: Female underrepresentation in computer science programs cross-nationally. In J. McGrath-DeClue, T.H. (1997). Academic computer science and gender: A naturalistic study investigating the causes of attrition. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation; Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (UMI No. 9801057). Kelly, A.E. (2008). TPCK for equity of access to technology. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (eds.), The Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York: NY. Kramer, P. & Lehman, S. (1990). Mismeasuring women: A critique of research on computer ability and avoidance. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 158-172. Light. J. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 710-734. Margolis J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race and computing. MIT Press: Cambridge: MA.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.