Consider the following scenario:
The social studies teacher calls the class in the computer lab to order. He
is integrating technology into his curriculum. Last week, all students, 15
girls and 15 boys, learned how to use an internet browser even though
there are only 18 computers in the room. They paired up, took turns and now
they all know how to navigate, how to find the major search engines, enter
a query and how to bookmark a site. This week, he wants them to learn to
use the internet for research. He divides the students up into ten groups
of three and gives them a common assignment: Find out why the tower of Pisa
leans. The first group to come up with the answer wins.
A pan around the room a few minutes later would show that, in one corner,
a group of boys are still arguing about which is the best search engine to
use. Each has a favorite and a theory of why it finds more stuff or does
so faster. Other groups have started entering search terms into various
search engines. One boy shouts out triumphantly that he has over a thousand
hits.
On the other side of the room, a group of girls have asked permission to go
to the library because they know about a book on Italian architecture.
Another group of girls spends most of the period looking at a street map of
Naples and talking about Italy and Italians, while one girl keeps reminding
them that theyıre supposed to be trying to find where the tower of Pisa is.
As the class ends, not a single group has found the answer to the question.
The teacher urges them to keep digging and to refine their search terms in
the way he taught them. He also uses the opportunity to remind them that
this is the time to sign up for the elective mini courses, including the
one he is offering on the internet. When he looks at the sign-up sheet
after the students have left, there are 16 names, 14 boys and 2 girls.
The teacher is pleased, having only expected about a third of the class to
sign up. He notices that there are few girls, but he expected that, too.
What happened?
The AAUW recently published a report on the gender gap in technology
education. I was a member of that commission because some years ago, we at
the center for Children and Technology did a series of studies about gender
differences around attitudes and approaches to technology. We found, to
nobodyıs surprise, that girls are more ambivalent about technology than
boys, who are more positive; that boys are more excited about their
experiences with technology, particularly video games, while girls like
video (i.e., stories) and tend to get bored by bad technology experiences.
Girls are also less likely than boys to attempt to fix a broken piece of
technology, and all the kids in this study talked about a male when asked
about a "technology nut" they know.
As part of our research, we asked architects, engineers, scientists, video
editors, film makers, software designers, hardware developers and students,
ages 11-18 to describe their feelings and fantasies about technology. We
found that the expert women and men in our sample had very different
expectations of and feelings about technology. We came to think of this
difference as a feminine and a masculine voice in the technological
universe. All the women we studied did not speak in a feminine voice, nor
did all the men speak in a masculine voice, but the differences we found
were clear and dramatic and in keeping with gender differences found over
the years in other studies. These differences can best be summarized as
follows:
Feminine fantasies are about small, flexible objects that can be worn or
carried around easily and that allow women to communicate and connect and
to share ideas and stories.
Masculine fantasies are about magic wands (or brain implants) that allow
men to transcend the limitations of time and space.
We found the following themes recurring in the fantasies spun by adults and
children about the future of technology:
Masculine Fantasies:
? Technology is seen as a source of power.
? Technology is appealing because it increases human command and control.
? Technology conquers nature.
? Bionic technology allows us to vastly increase our physical and mental
prowess.
? The emphasis is on one-way communication, like a brain link that provides
access to all the genius minds in history.
? Tools do the work for us.
Feminine Fantasies:
? The focus is on technology as a medium.
? Electronic media are used for their expressive qualities.
? There are questions about the effects of technology on nature.
? Technology's promise is its power to heal and nurture.
? Communications technology is used to have conversations with others like
ourselves.
? Tools facilitate work.
Gender differences in technology fantasies among students also mirror the
differences among the experts:
Boysı Fantasies:
? fast vehicles, powerful weapons and all-encompassing entertainment
machines
? tools that make other technological objects and overcome natural
constraints
? often expect violence from a fantasy machine
Girls' Fantasies:
? compact, flexible household helpers and communication machines
? machines that offer companionship and help with social and personal
problems
? afraid they will harm the machine by misusing it
What are some implications of these differences for the use of technology
in the classroom?
We've come up with some ideas over the years, which I'd be glad to share.
Meanwhile, however, here is my personal answer: I think we often place
excessive emphasis on wiring and on using the Internet as a library (as an
information resource, from encyclopedias to primary source materials) and
not enough emphasis on professional development and on the communicative
and creative potential of computers because much of our discourse about
technology integration takes place in a masculine voice.
What do you think?
Cornelia Brunner
Associate Director
EDC/Center for Children & Technology
<cbrunner@edc.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:16:50 EDT