Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are gender differences in perceived and demonstrated technology literacy significant? It depends on the model

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines gender differences related to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) literacy using two valid and internally consistent measures with eighth grade students (N = 1,513) from Florida public schools. The results of t test statistical analyses, which examined only gender differences in demonstrated and perceived ICT skills, indicate significant differences in all areas in favor of females. Females had higher factor scores in perception measures for Frequency of Computer Use, Perceived ICT Skills, and Attitudes toward Computers. In addition, female students had significantly higher scores on all six sections from the Student Tool for Technology Literacy, a performance-based assessment. These results counter many empirical research studies that show males generally perform better with ICT skills and have overall better attitudes toward computers than their female counterparts. However, when adding predictors to the model and using multilevel modeling statistical methods, findings indicate that gender was no longer significant. These findings question the importance of the gender differences related to ICT skills that were found with previous statistical examinations. Using more advanced statistical methods to answer research questions pertaining to ICT skills is important in order to determine which factors have the greatest potential for intervention programs that focus on developing equitable ICT skills and career choices for all students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbiss, J. (2009). Gendering the ICT curriculum: The paradox of choice. Computers & Education, 53(2), 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, J. (2011). Digital divides and social network sites: Which students participate in social media? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(2), 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. (2003). The Development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., Lankshear, C., Timms, C., & Courtney, L. (2008). ‘Because it’s boring, irrelevant and I don’t like computers’: Why high school girls avoid professionally-oriented ICT subjects. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1304–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74, 252–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Barron, A. E., Hohlfeld, T. N., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2008). Final Evaluation Report: Student Tool for Technology Literacy (ST2L) Development and Pilot Test. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from http://www.flinnovates.org/docs/ST2LFinalEval.pdf.

  • Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April, 2001. Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/html/findings.html.

  • Becker, J. D. (2006). Digital equity in education: A Multilevel examination of differences in and relationships between computer access, computer use and state-level technology policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(3). Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/51.

  • Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2008). How do boys and girls differ in their use of ICT? Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8318/1/gender_ict_briefing.pdf.

  • Bunz, U., Curry, C., & Voon, C. (2007). Perceived versus actual computer-email-web fluency. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2321–2344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertl, B., & Helling, K. (2011). Promoting gender equality in digital literacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(4), 477–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), Office of Educational Technology. (2005). Florida STaR Survey Results: Fall 2004 Overview. Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://www.flinnovates.org/docs/FLStarSurveyReport200405.pdf.

  • Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), Research and Measurement, Division of Accountability. (2009). Florida School Indicators Report (FSIR) 2007–2008 [Data files]. Retrieved June 5, 2013 from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/fsir.asp.

  • Hakkarainen, K., Ilomäki, L., Lipponen, L., Muukkonen, H., Rahikainen, M., & Tuominen, T. (2000). Students skills and practices of using ICT: Results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers & Education, 34(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, V. (2003). The digital divide (DD): A reconceptualization for educators. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 11(1), 96–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Development and validation of the Student Tool for Technology Literacy (ST2L). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 361–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imhof, M., Vollmeyer, R., & Beierlein, C. (2007). Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2823–2837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2007). Educational technology Standards for students. Retrieved June 15, 2012 from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007.aspx.

  • International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE). (1998). NETS for students. Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets_for_students_1998_standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

  • Ito, M., Horst, H. A., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stevenson, B., & Lange, P. (2008). White paper—Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Project. Chicago: The John P. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/report.

  • Kay, R. (2008). Exploring gender differences in computer-related behaviour: Past, present, and future. In T. T. Kidd & I. Chen (Eds.), Social information technology: Connecting society and cultural issues (pp. 12–30). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Gender differences in the use of laptops in higher education: A formative analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelan, E. J. (2007). ‘I don’t know why’—Accounting for the scarcity of women in ICT work. Women’s Studies International Forum, 30(6), 499–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Kim, J. K. (2001). Digital divide: Conceptual discussions and prospect. Human Society and the Internet Proceedings (LNCS), 2105, 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M. B., & Joseph, D. R. D. (2008). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: Implications for educational game design. Educational Technology and Research Development, 56(5–6), 643–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, S. C., Müller, S. M., & Sieverding, M. (2008). Women and computers. Effects of stereotype threat on attribution of failure. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1795–1803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Examining instruction, achievement, and equity with NAEP mathematics data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(14) 1–30. Retrieved June 15, 2012 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/85.

  • Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meelissen, M. R. M., & Drent, M. (2008). Gender differences in computer attitudes: Does the school matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 969–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “Digital Turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation (2010). ADVANCE: Increasing the participation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers (ADVANCE) (NSF 10-593). Arlington, VA: The National Science Foundation. Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10593/nsf10593.pdf.

  • National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2011. Special Report NSF 11-309. Arlington, VA. Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.

  • Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: OECD Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiou, M. (2008). Are computer science and information technology still masculine fields? High school students’ perceptions and career choices. Computers & Education, 51(2), 594–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papastergiou, M., & Solomonidou, C. (2005). Gender issues in Internet access and favorite Internet activities among Greek high school pupils inside and outside school. Computers & Education, 44(4), 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sáinz, M., & Eccles, J. (2012). Self-concept of computer and math ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 486–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien, F. F., & Fu, T. T. (2008). The correlates of the digital divide and their impact on college student learning. Computers & Education, 50(1), 421–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements, and shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vehovar, V., Sicherl, P., Hüsing, T., & Dolnicar, V. (2006). Methodological challenges of digital divide measurements. The Information Society: An International Journal, 22(5), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vekiri, I. (2010). Boys’ and girls’ ICT beliefs: Do teachers matter? Computers & Education, 55(1), 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1392–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volman, M., van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers & Education, 45(1), 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 43, 179–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Closing the racial achievement gap: The role of reforming instructional practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64) 1–22. Retrieved November 23, 2012 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/219.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Secondary Education, College of Education, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, EDU 105, Tampa, FL, 33620-5650, USA

    Tina N. Hohlfeld & Ann E. Barron

  2. School of Teaching & Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, 2423 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Albert D. Ritzhaupt

Authors
  1. Tina N. Hohlfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert D. Ritzhaupt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ann E. Barron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tina N. Hohlfeld.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hohlfeld, T.N., Ritzhaupt, A.D. & Barron, A.E. Are gender differences in perceived and demonstrated technology literacy significant? It depends on the model. Education Tech Research Dev 61, 639–663 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9304-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9304-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation