500

Summary

In “Middle School Students Technology Practices and Preferences: Re-Examining Gender Differences,” published in 2001 in the Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Miller, Schweingruber, and Brandenburg from Rice University, Texas, surveyed 568 middle school students about their perceived level and acquisition of computer skills as well as the frequency and preferred use of computers at home and school in order to determine gender differences.

Over the period of seven months, students aged 11-15 were given 68-item questionnaires with both open and closed questions to complete during a science or computer class, which assured high participation. The authors purposely selected eight different schools from a range of socio-economic backgrounds as well as urban and suburban schools to produce reliable data. The authors used the number of students who received free/reduced lunch in each school to categorize the schools as high, middle, or low disadvantage. Their sample was balanced as each socio-economic group and both genders were almost equally represented. However, 56 students were excluded from the study for not reporting essential demographic information. Thus, these percentages might have been more unequal.

Miller, Schweingruber, and Brandenburg (2001) confirmed their hypothesis by finding that due to the increasing prevalence of computers, gender differences are not as stark as they used to be due to increased computer use and availability. However, girls were more likely to use the computer for school related tasks and email while boys preferred simulation experiences. The authors used their results to suggest how attractive educational games and web content could inspire adolescents to learn from the tools they spend an increasing amount of time using.

Critique

The literature review outlined the history of gender differences in computing with a logical flow. However, some of the research should have been more current. Although the literature was summarized well, no critique was presented as Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2009) advise.

The study showed differences on computer use and socioeconomic status. The authors did not state if the number of high, middle, and low disadvantaged students included in their study was representative of the general population. Also, some of the participants were taking a computer class which would have affected their responses. Random sampling would have produced more reliable data that could be applied to the general population.

In the design and procedure section, the authors mentioned they used a focus group to refine their questionnaire. I would have liked to read more about the methods and specific results obtained from working with this group. Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2009) state that a common weakness of research studies is a failure to adequately describe the methods used. Miller, Schweingruber, and Brandenburg (2001) referred to specific questions from the questionnaire in the results section but should have included a copy of it. The results section was divided into three main areas:

• Self perception of computer skills and their acquisition;
• exposure to technology at home and at school and;
• media style and content preferences.

In the first section, the authors noted they did not define the term “use” when asking if students knew how to use a computer. The authors did not mention if they defined “expert” when asking students to rate their expertise. Some students may have interpreted these terms differently. Thus, the data collected for these questions would have been inaccurate. Since these types of questions were dependent on students’ perceptions, the study could have been strengthened by including other methods of assessment of student computer skills.

In the second section, I thought that one of the variables influencing computer use at school

would be teacher instruction since students mainly use computers at school for work. Therefore, gender differences would be minimal because students wouldn’t have had much choice in how they used the computer. However, this wasn’t discussed.

In the third section, Miller, Schweingruber, and Brandenburg (2001) attempted to collect and analyse “data that might influence the construction of multimedia material with high appeal to adolescents” (p. 135). These results show the importance of the study which would be relevant to both designers and educators of educational technology.

The discussion follows the format suggested by Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2009) who suggest authors discuss how their results support their original hypothesis, compare their results to other research, refer to practical implications, and suggest future areas of study.

In conclusion, I think this study presented significant results and conclusions for those working in the field educational technology.

References

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Miller, L. M., Schweingruber, H., & Bradenburg, C. L. (2001). Middle school students’ technology practices and preferences: Re-examining gender differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125-140