Using Telecommunications to Break Down Gender Stereotypes

Introduction

This descriptive study of elementary school children analyzes naturalistic data from six sources to answer the question, "How does gender interface with computers and telecommunications?" Data included field notes based on six months of participation and observation, over 1300 email messages, daily logs and newsletters by the children, and transcripts of interviews. A feminist perspective informed the analysis. Analysis seemed to warrant three claims: both girls and boys used technology to confirm gender stereotypes; both girls and boys used technology to defy gender stereotypes; and gender biases in classroom interactions are more invisible and more difficult to eliminate than expected. A feminist perspective is essential in this struggle but insufficient for eliminating the culturally-embedded, long-standing gender-biases pervading our schools and lives.

Theoretical Grounding

Despite the apparent gender neutrality of designating an historical period as an age, the main markers of the age of electronic information are commonly considered to be male domains. The last several decades of research in gender and technology can be characterized as clustering around four different theoretical stances: positivist, constructivist, critical theorist, and post-modernist. The over-represented positivists suggest that we re-socialize females to have more favorable attitudes toward computers and technology and focus on efforts to increase female representation in this area. The constructivists believe that we need to reorganize pedagogy to honor women's ways of knowing/viewing computers and technology so that the practices of technology are no longer male dominated. The critical theorists question the assumed dualism of male and female and maintain that social divisions such as gender are produced and reproduced by schools and other institutions; therefore, female teachers and students must work to transform these institutions. Finally, the postmodernists call for exploding the dichotomies, disrupting the practices, reversing the roles and rules, and inverting positions and directions in an effort to "disrupt hegemonic relations between learners and technology" (Bryson & de Castell, 1995, p. 39). I take an essentially constructivist stance in this paper, relying on the scholarship of Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986); Gilligan (1982); Morse and Daiute (1992); and Turkle and Papert (1990). At the same time, I use a number of ideas from such critical theorists as Kramarae and Treichler (1990); Lather (1991); and Walkerdine (1990).

This research report tells a story, and every story has a storyteller. I am the storyteller, and this story reflects my beliefs, biases, and world view. This is not an objective story; no story is. For that reason, I briefly explicate my beliefs and theoretical stance. Theoretically, I view both technology and gender as social and cultural constructions. Technology does not exist in a vacuum; it exists only in social contexts and, as such, exists in a gendered world. Similarly, gender is assumed to be constructed within a culture and not genetically inherent in an individual; gender is not something we are, but something we do. Gender is "a routine, recurring accomplishment embedded in everyday interaction.... Rather than conceive of gender as a property of individuals, [I] conceive of gender as an emergent feature of social situations" (West and Zimmerman ,1987, pp. 125-126).

Feminist pedagogy, which voices and explores previously unexpressed perspectives of women, informs my study. It seeks to offer a collaborative, cooperative, and interactive stance which "involves a conceptualization of knowledge as a comparison of multiple perspectives leading toward a complex and evolving view of reality" (Maher, 1985, p. 33). A classroom based on feminist pedagogy is a community of learners where power is shared and where participatory, democratic processes help learners develop independence. It is an active, collaborative classroom where risk-taking is encouraged, where intellectual excitement abounds, and where power is viewed as energy, capacity, and potential rather than domination.

Review of the Relevant Research which Justifies/Informs this Study

No matter where one looks, one sees evidence that the vast majority of people in this country and internationally believe there is a gender gap in computer use, computer competency, computer attitudes, and the ways men and women view the computer. Both mass media publications and research journals are full of articles which paint women and girls as less competent than their male counterparts, less confident than their male peers, and less likely to use computers and technology than the boys and men with whom they work and play.

Beginning in the mid 1980s, however, there began a movement which questioned these findings and beliefs. Turkle (1984) identified two different programming styles, that of "hard masters" who tended to be male and "soft masters" who tended to be female. In 1990, Turkle and Papert argued that, within the computer culture, we must accept the "validity of multiple ways of knowing and thinking" (p. 113). They discuss two major approaches to computer programming: the dominant, structured approach used by "planners" (hard masters) who function in a top-down, rule-driven way, and the more suspect artistic approach used by "bricoleurs" (soft masters) who rely on intuition. Turkle and Papert labeled this concept "epistemological pluralism"; they called for the development of a new computer culture which "would require a new social construction of the computer" (1990, p. 133), which is more inclusive than the existing male-dominated culture. And finally, these researchers state that "feminist scholarship could make a crucial contribution to the (until now) male computer culture by promoting the recognition of the diverse ways that people think about" technology (1990, p. 136).

At AERA in 1992, Morse and Daiute reiterated and expanded this call when they identified a need for "more research on computing activities which are not related to mathematics or programming activities and which look at what women and girls do like about computers" (p. i). They believe that most research to date is quantitative and has "short-changed girls and women in documenting the computer gender gap" (p. 1). Finally, they state the need for more research using interpretive methods in open-ended computer environments so that we might better study and explain gender diversity in our computer classrooms. And finally, Selfe (1990) views the issue of computer use, not from the perspective of gender, but from the broader perspective of general computer use in elementary classrooms. She maintains that it's time for educators to re-examine the "theoretical and pedagogical premises upon which they base their classes, their research, and their curricula" (Selfe, 1990, p. 190). Selfe asserts that educators must conduct research to help teachers move away from the "atheoretical, untested, [and] unexamined" (p. 190) approaches currently in use. She suggests that teachers must be more theoretically informed as they integrate computers into the elementary school curriculum. In this study, I have tried to answer these resounding calls for a new kind of research.

Description of the Study

In the role of teacher/researcher, I offered three intensive Telecommunications Workshops to elementary school students. Approximately twelve students attended each workshop. The average age of the children was nine years, one month. The 30 children who self-selected the workshops spent between 35 and 105 hours interfacing with technology outside of the regular school setting. 59% of the participants were girls, while 41% were boys. There was racial diversity within the group as well: 69 % White, 17% Hispanic, 7% African-American, and 7% Asian. After I introduced the children to both electronic mail and several tools for browsing the Internet, the children were responsible for deciding how to spend their time each day. My goal was to provide an open-ended environment which would help me understand how the children used and viewed technology and how gender issues intersected with these experiences. Such a format did not impose a specified "curriculum" with its corollary skills and outcomes, but rather it allowed the children to make choices about how they wanted to spend their time, which topics they wished to pursue, and who they chose to write via electronic mail.

The workshops took place in a computer lab which housed 12 high-end Macintosh computers with color monitors and internal CD ROM drives which were able to support multi-use telecommunications via Internet connections; all were networked to an Apple Laser Writer printer. The site also housed a teacher work station containing a high-end Macintosh, an overhead projector, and an LCD projection panel. This setup allowed the image which was on my Macintosh monitor to be projected onto a large screen so the participants could easily view the image and the process I used to achieve this image.

Data Analysis

I used interpretive methods so that I might better study and explain gender diversity in computer classrooms. My goal was to take "snapshots" of a variety of interactions between children and computers, children and their peers, and children and the teacher/researcher. I examined and analyzed each of these individual snapshots in an effort to create a wide-angle picture of children engaging in telecommunications. I used the constant comparative method, not in the sense that Glaser and Strauss (1967) use this method, but simply to sort through and process my data.

How does what the children do confirm or defy gender stereotypes? I examined the three following major areas to answer the question:
· the meanings that the children formed about computers and telecommunications
· the topics they chose to write and read about, and
· the social functions of their electronic mail messaging.
To investigate the meanings that the children attached to computers , I used interview data, daily logs, newsletter articles, and email messages. I coded these data for metaphors or meanings which the children used to describe computers and the telecommunication process. After a close review of these data, I created 22 categories of meanings. Codes were generated without regard to gender, and only after tallying was complete was it evident that some definitions of the construct "computer" were gender dependent. The five most frequently utilized codes were fun technology, tool for research, tool for building relationships, tool for communicating with others, and frustrating or confusing technology. Coding for topic revealed personal information - computers, telecommunications, and the workshop, family, school, and holidays and birthdays were the most prominent topics. I generated 27 codes for social functions which included collaborating, sharing personal information, expressing feelings, asking questions, and answering questions. My goal was to discover how and for what social purposes the children used computers and telecommunications.

How does what the teacher/researcher does perpetuate or reject differential treatment of the children based on gender considerations? I examined two major areas to answer the question:
· the topics I chose to write about to the children, and
· the social nature of the interactions I initiated with the children.
I generated 33 topic codes for my messages to the children. Most highly represented were email, computers, feelings, learning, and families of the children. I generated 25 social function codes for the teacher/researcher including: connecting, serving as midwife, sharing personal information, expressing feelings, and complimenting students. Topic and social function codes which I generated for the children's messaging were used for my messaging as well. In addition, I transcribed representative samples of audio and videotapes of conversations, conferences, and interviews and coded these for types and times of interaction. I carefully examined my behavior as I interacted with the children in an effort to uncover my unconscious gender-bias.

It is important to explain why I chose the terms "topic" and "social functions" and how I define these terms in this study. When reviewing the email messages, I found that the children and I wrote about a wide variety of subjects; we also wrote for a number of different reasons, and we wrote to accomplish many diverse goals. Relying on my own knowledge of interpretive discourse (which I claim as a co-member, with the children, in our discourse community) and my knowledge of elementary school children, I labeled those subjects we wrote about as topics; the reasons and goals for writing I labeled social functions. Let's look for a moment at one of Jing-Mei's messages to me:

Jing-Mei
September 26, 1994
I speld my water and I got all my spelling rong. i had a hard day and a very ruaf day and mean day today did you have a mean day? I like you as a techer.
love Jing-Mei

I coded this message with three topic codes and three social function codes. First, because Jing-Mei was writing of spilling her water and getting her spelling wrong at school, the first topic code was school. Jing-Mei was also expressing feelings of frustration with her rough day, so the second topic code was feelings. Finally, she writes about me in my role as her teacher, so my third topic code was teacher. Next, I looked for Jing-Mei's purposes for writing. She was letting me know about the events of her day, so the first social function code I assigned was sharing personal information. She was certainly sharing her woebegone mood about her mean day, so my second social function code was sharing feelings. And finally, because she said "I like you as a techer," my third social function code was connecting. The line between feelings as a topic and sharing feelings as a social function is fine. When coded as a topic, feelings is simply an instance of a child mentioning feelings. When coded as a social function, sharing feelings is usually associated with a social purpose: To connect or separate, to insult or compliment, to encourage or discourage, and so forth. Topic, then, refers to the content of the message, and social function refers to the social intent of the message.

Once I had decided on and fine-tuned my categories, I then coded each phrase in all email correspondences from all three workshops. This was accomplished by many sweeps through the data. As I coded each phrase, I compared it with previous phrases that I had coded in that category and I compared it with phrases I had placed in similar categories. In this way, I tried to assure consistency in my coding. To increase consistency even more, I asked two colleagues to simultaneously code this data. I then compared all three sets of codes. When there was inexplicable inconsistency in our coding, I re-coded the data in question taking into careful consideration the reasons my colleagues had chosen a different code than I had. Although this was a time consuming process, I believe it helped me be a more critical analyst and understand my data in greater depth.

My next step was to re-read all data within any one code in an effort to define the properties, characteristics, or boundaries of that code and to determine if the data placed within that code exhibited the properties of the code as I had defined it. For example, one of my original codes was "teasing." When I reviewed all the data I had placed in this category, it became clear that there were really at least two types of data: Teasing which was malicious, and teasing which was good spirited. I made the decision to have two categories: teasing and taunting. "Teasing" I defined as good-natured fun without the intent to hurt. "Taunting" I defined as insulting, sarcastic or rude remarks which were intended to intimidate, embarrass or hurt another person. There was also a collection of indefinable data which didn't seem to fall into either of these two divisions. These data I placed in a new category called "playing with language or playing with the keyboard." An example of this sparsely populated category follows: "Mmmmmyyyy naaaaammmmm eeeeeee iiisssss LLLLLLLLLL iii iinnnnnnnnndddaaaaaa." I defined this category as simply playing around for one's own benefit without an intended audience in mind. This was a dynamic process, but doing it provided me with the evidence I needed to be sure my coding was a stable and meaningful way of looking at my data.

Finally, I began the process of integrating my codes into broad, theoretical categories. In this process I transformed my lists of codes into overarching ways of viewing the data, thus moving my data from a mere taxonomy to a more fine-tuned explanation based upon my stated theoretical stance. At this point, I began generating assertions which provided the structure for illuminating my findings.

To exemplify this process, I summarize below how I used the transcribed audio and video data of my interactions with the children: I first noted the duration of my interactions with a variety of students using a stop watch, and then I coded these data using the topic codes and social function codes generated earlier. I also coded for type of help given (telling the student what to do vs. asking the student questions which would lead to self-discovery), type of questions asked (questions which simply required acknowledgment or a brief answer vs. questions which facilitated a discussion), and duration of interaction. Finally, I synthesized and carefully reviewed all these data and concluded that:

· I used non-differential behavior when interacting with the children the vast majority of the time
· My differential behavior was impossible to see until I reviewed the audio and video data
· My differential behavior was infinitely more theoretically interesting then my nondifferential behavior; therefore, I should focus on my differential behavior.

A final review and synthesis allowed me to generate the assertions regarding the teacher/researcher which are listed in the following section.

Interpretation of the Data

Within the framework of my theoretical stance, I generated a number of assertions about the children. These include the following:

When confirming gender stereotypes:

· girls defined computers as tools which foster collaboration, connection and communication

· boys defined computers as fun technologies for finding information and playing games

· girls' topics centered around people

· boys' topics centered around events and things

· girls used computers and telecommunications to share feelings, build friendships, and show care for others

· boys used technology to search for and share factual information and to insult, tease, and test limits.

When defying gender stereotypes:

· girls defined computers as fun technologies for building independence and enhancing personal productivity

· boys saw computers as frustrating and as tools for building relationships

· girls wrote extensively about computers, learning, and research

· boys wrote about social concerns and family issues

· girls used technology to align themselves with computers and telecommunications

· boys used technology to build friendships and form connections.

Overall, both girls and boys defied gender stereotypes more often than they confirmed gender stereotypes. Girls spoke firmly and loudly, wrote honestly and with feeling, offered opinions and did not defer to boys. They showed their willingness to enter the male domain of technology simply by virtue of being active participants in the workshop. They showed assertiveness by exploring the Internet with more zeal than boys, by writing more email messages than boys, and by actively engaging in Internet exploration. They were proud of their intelligence and did not seek to hide it. In short, they were players, not spectators! Boys were active and interested players as well. They showed assertiveness, intelligence, and interest in technology. They openly expressed both feelings and opinions. They asked and answered questions but not significantly more than girls. They interacted with classmates and the teacher/researcher but not significantly more than girls. They received praise for their intellectual efforts but only slightly more than girls. They received help when confused, but no more so than girls as both boys and girls were encouraged to be problem-solvers and to rely on their own resources rather than to rely on outside help.

In addition, I generated assertions about myself, the teacher/researcher. In a large majority of interactions, I exhibited nondifferential treatment of the children based on their gender. I:

· treated girls and boys with similar respect and trust

· challenged all children to reach new heights in their abilities

· encouraged self-reliance with girls as well as boys

· honored diversities among the children, and helped draw out both individual and group understandings of their worlds children (a midwife approach (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986)) rather than impose a single body of knowledge on all (a banking approach (Shor & Freire, 1987)), and

· worked collaboratively with my students in a child-centered classroom.

When participating in a classroom which clearly reflected a feminist stance, I naively thought that my feminist ideology would automatically eliminate gender-bias from my classroom. I soon learned that achieving gender equity is not automatic and is, indeed, an on-going struggle. Even though the vast majority of my interactions with children reflected egalitarian behavior on my part, the more interesting data are those which illuminate the struggle. Two areas where gender-bias was evident were the topics about which I wrote to children and my verbal interactions with children.

Most insidious, because it is embedded in our culture and therefore invisible, was my differential treatment of girls and boys. This unconscious gender-bias was reflected in my:

· choosing a quiet, capable and cooperative girl to be my classroom assistant

· allowing the bright boys to ask more questions, demand more attention, and dominate classroom interaction

· providing differential help based on gender by helping boys achieve a goal versus doing the job for the girls

· spending more time interacting with individual boys than with girls (i.e. two to three minutes versus fifteen to forty seconds)

· praising boys for their brains and cleverness and praising girls for their cooperation, attitude, effort and occasionally for their brains and cleverness.

As I was teaching, I thought I was giving equal treatment to both genders. Only when I coded, counted,and timed my interactions did I become aware of my biases.

Another alarming example of unconscious gender bias concerned the topic of learning. When analyzing email messages, I found that the girls and I wrote about an equal number of messages to each other on the topic of learning. However, I wrote about learning to the boys three times more frequently than they wrote to me. I encouraged them to explore, to travel electronically to new frontiers, and to discover new ideas. Teachers are acculturated to think of boys as more active learners than girls (Sadker & Sadker, 1986 and 1994; and Walkerdine, 1990). Teachers perceive that boys explore more, are more likely to be risk-takers, and are consequently better students. Despite my efforts to think of girls and boys in the same light, my unconscious gender-bias was all too evident. When I further analyzed the data, I also found that I responded to the girls about their learning and I initiated the topic with the boys. Even though my feminist stance was essential in helping me eliminate gender-bias, my stance alone could not entirely eliminate this culturally embedded bias. Achieving gender equity is an ongoing struggle.

Implications for Classroom Practice

Feminist pedagogy, I believe, can give teachers the theoretical framework which will enable them to move into the future Lemke (1993) suggests in his essay entitled "Education, Cyberspace and Change." He affirms that students learning in cyberspace are:

· no longer reading from textbooks, but from authentic sources

· learning not what someone else thinks they should know but what they choose to know

· exposed not to a single controlled version of the truth but to as many versions as they wish to investigate

· not evaluated on whether they have learned the content of a textbook, but they form value judgments about the worth of what they have learned.

In short, the computer and telecommunications have the potential to erode the traditional classroom organization and create a new structure where teachers and students are actively learning together, where gender stereotypes are openly defied, and where power is shared among all participants.

Technology and telecommunications can potentially shift control from a central authoritarian figure or institution to the individual. This shift would encourage a move from a banking view of education to a midwife view of classroom interaction, risk-taking, open-ended exploration, shared responsibility for learning and decision making, and a climate which allows the teacher and children to defy gender stereotypes. In such a climate, boys can honestly admit to being in powerless situations; they no longer need to feel pressure to behave like macho males. In such a climate, girls can be competent, confident computer users without feeling they are putting their femaleness in jeopardy. In such a climate, boys can show their interest in connecting with other people and can use technology to facilitate these connections. In such a climate, girls' voices can be clearly heard as they affirm their feelings, opinions or ways of knowing their worlds. In such a climate, qualitative researchers will find many opportunities to view children interacting with teachers and technology, to explore gender diversity in relation to technology, and to view females interacting with technology in a new light. In such a climate, feminist scholars can help produce and then reflect upon the social reality of these classrooms.

Technology can help students and teachers defy long-standing gender stereotypes. Technological use has long been dictated by a rigid gender ideology: vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and electric typewriters are for women; power saws, tractors and household tools are for men. But computers, although far from neutral, offer a way to interrupt and re-define gender differences. Technological advancements have changed both the computer and the image of the computer. Computers are no longer simply number crunchers; they are now multifaceted technologies which facilitate unlimited opportunities in application, use and vision. Men may have aligned themselves with a number crunching computer in the past, but the newer image of computer as more complexly functional opens the door to differently gendered use.

Computers can help facilitate:

· a shift from a single curriculum to many emergent curriculums as defined by learners' interests, areas of inquiry, and expertise.

· engagement of all members of the learning community.

· a blurring of the distinction between teacher and learner. When computers and telecommunications are used to facilitate exploration, everyone in the classroom becomes a learner. Distinctions between teachers and learners blur and often become invisible.

· multiple ways of knowing our world and ourselves. Computers can become mirrors of our inner selves, and the way we use computers becomes a reflection of ourselves.

It is important to realize that there is a flip side of these possibilities. Computers can just as easily be used to maintain the gendered status quo. In this scenario:

· Students go to computer labs where gender stereotypes are reinforced by software which depicts females as less capable than males and dependent upon males.

· Students complete electronic drill-and-practice worksheets with gaming formats that emphasize competition against peers or the computer rather than collaboration; because girls are less comfortable with the software format, they are often turned-off to both the software and the computer.

· Male students have greater access to computers as rewards for what teachers claim are good work or good behavior, but these boys are often poorly behaved and not working well in class.

· Students compete for access to computers in labs, classrooms, or after-school clubs; this arrangement favors boys; girls become observers rather than participants; many girls eventually give up trying to compete in this situation.

The choice belongs to teachers. They can use computers to maintain the gendered and teacher centered status quo found in many schools today, or they can use computers to defy long-standing gender stereotypes to create a community where teachers and students are co-learners, where students become active and engaged learners who operate in a collaborative and cooperative environment where multiple ways of knowing are honored, or to re-image their classrooms so they reflect egalitarian practices and are based on an epistemological pluralism which honors multiple ways of knowing and viewing the world.

References

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bryson, M., & de Castell, S. (1995). Sexing the texts of educational technology. In J. Gaskell & J. Willinsky (Eds.), Gender in/forms curriculum: From enrichment to transformation (pp. 1 22). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Kramarae, C., & Treichler, P. A. (1990). Power relationships in the classroom. In S. L. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom (pp. 41-59). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.

Lemke, J. L. (1993a, March). Education, cyberspace and change [68 paragraphs]. Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture [On-line serial]. Available ftp/pub/ejvc directory of byrd.mu.wvnet.edu

Maher, F. (1985). Classroom pedagogy and the new scholarship on women. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Morse, F. K., & Daiute, C. (1992, April). I LIKE computers vs. I LIKERT computers: Rethinking methods for assessing the gender gap in computing (Research Rep. No. ED 349 939). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(7), 512-515.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Selfe, C. L. (1990). English teachers and the humanization of computers: Networking communities of readers and writers. In G. E. Hawisher & A. O. Soter (Eds.), On literacy and its teaching (pp. 175-190). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. SIGNS Magazine, 16(1), 128-157.

Walkerdine, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151.