Advertisement

Computer Attitudes, Interface Preference And Simple Task Performance

  • Konrad Morgan
  • Shirley Gibbs
  • Hamish Macleod
  • Robert Morris
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

This paper was prompted out of concern at the gender imbalance that is often found in computing today, the consequences of which are feared likely to become more significant as the shortfall in skilled computing staff increases. This absence of females from computing subjects can be traced from the earliest sectors of our national education system through further and higher education into industry. If this trend is left to continue the authors fear it may pose a threat to the economic success of information technology in the United Kingdom; and be a sad reflection of the continuing gender inequality in our country. To try and increase awareness of the problems in such gender research, this paper aims to review past research which attempted to investigate the possible psychological, social and environmental differences for such gender imbalances in technical subjects, and to report on the gender differences found in the results of a study conducted by the authors at Napier Polytechnic in the years 1987 to 1989.

Keywords

Post Session Cognitive Engagement Computer Attitude Math Anxiety Kruskal Wallis Anova 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abler 87] Abler R M and Sedlacek W E, “Computer Orientation By Holland Type And Sex”, Career Development Quarterly,,Vol 36(2), 163 169, Dec 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [Braun 86]
    Braun C M, Goupil G, Giroux J and Chagnon Y, “Adolescents And Microcomputers: Sex Differences, Proxemics, Task And Stimulus Variables”, Journal Of Psychology, Vol 120(6), 529 542, Nov 1986.Google Scholar
  3. Chen 86] Chen M, “Gender Differences In Adolescents’ Uses Of And Attitudes Towards Computers”, International Dissertation Abstracts,Number: 210aac8612723, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. Culley 88] Culley L, “Option Choice And Careers Guidance: Gender And Computing In Secondary Schools”, British Journal Of Guidance And Counselling,Vol 16(1), 73 82, Jan 1988.Google Scholar
  5. Deboer 86] Deboer G E,“Perceived Science Ability As A Factor In The Course Selections Of Men And Women In College”, Journal Of Research In Science Teaching,Vol 23(4), 343 352, April 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [Eastman 87]
    Eastman S T and Krendl K, “Computers And Gender: Differential Effects Of Electronic Search On Students’ Achievement And Attitudes”, Journal Of Research And Development In Education, Vol 20(3), 41 48, Sept 1987.Google Scholar
  7. Eaton 86] Eaton W O and Enns L R, “Sex Differences In Human Motor Activity Level”, Psychological Bulletin,Vol 100(1), 19 28, Jul 1986.Google Scholar
  8. Gaines 84] Gaines B and Shaw M, The Art of Computer Conversation,Prentice/Hall International, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. Gerver 85] Gerver E, “Women, Computers And Adult Education”, 1 Vol, University Of Strathclyde, Pilley C, Women And Computing In Scotland,Report Of Conference Held By The Joint Working Group On Women And Computers, 14th June 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [Gressard 84]
    Gressard C and Loyd B H, “An Investigation Of The Effects Of Math Anxiety And Sex On Computer Attitudes”, paper presented at The American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. [Hess 85]
    Hess R D, Miura I T, “Gender Differences In Enrollment In Computer Camps And Classes”, Special Issue: “Women, Girls, And Computers”, Sex Roles, Vol 13(3 4 ), 193 203, Aug 1985.Google Scholar
  12. [Hughes 85a]
    Hughes M, Macleod H and Potts C, “Using LOGO with infant school children”, Educational Psychology, 5, 287 301, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [Hughes 85b]
    Hughes M, Macleod H, Potts C and Rodgers J, “Are Computers only for boys?”, New Society, 11 Oct 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [Hughes 87]
    Hughes M, Brackenridge A and Macleod H, in Rutkowska J and Crook C, Computers, Cognition & Development, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1987.Google Scholar
  15. Lafontaine 86] Lafontaine E and Tredeau L, “The Frequency, Sources, And Correlates Of Sexual Harassment Among Women In Traditional Male Occupations”, Sex Roles,Vol 15(7 8), 433 442, Oct 1986.Google Scholar
  16. [Linn 85a]
    Linn M C, “Fostering Equitable Consequences From Computer Learning Environments”, Sex Roles, Vol 13, Nos 3/4, 229 240, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. Linn 85b] Linn M C, “Gender Equity In Computer Learning Environments”, Computers And The Social Sciences,Vol 1(1), 19 27, Jan-Mar 1985.Google Scholar
  18. [Lockheed 84]
    Lockheed M E and Frakt S B, “Sex Equity: Increasing Girls’ Use Of Computers”, Computing Teacher, 11, 16 18, 1984.Google Scholar
  19. [Loyd 87]
    Loyd B H, Loyd D E and Gressard C P, “Gender And Computer Experience As Factors In The Computer Attitudes Of Middle School Students”, Special Issue: “Sex Differences In Early Adolescents” of Journal Of Early Adolescence, Vol 7(1), 13 19, Sept 1987.Google Scholar
  20. [Mandinach 85]
    Mandinach E B and Corno L, “Cognitive Engagement Variations Among Students Of Different Ability Level And Sex In A Computer Problem Solving Game”, Special Issue: Women, Girls, And Computers, Sex Roles, Vol 13(3 4 ), 241 251, Aug 1985.Google Scholar
  21. Miura 86] Miura I T, “Understanding Gender Differences In Middle School Computer Interest And Use”, Paper Presented At Symposium: Gender Differences In Computing: Policy Implications,American Educational Research Assc, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. [Newton 81]
    Newton P, “Who Say’s Girls Can’t Be Engineers?”, in Kelly A, The Missing Half, Vol. 1, Manchester University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  23. [Omerod 81]
    Omerod M B, “Factors Differentially Affecting The Science Subject Preferences, Chances And Attitudes Of Girls And Boys”, in Kelly A, The Missing Half, Vol. 1, Manchester University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  24. [Sheingold 83]
    Sheingold K, Kane J H and Endreweit M E, “Microcomputer Use In Schools: Developing A Research Agenda”, Harvard Educational Review, 53, 412 432, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. Shneiderman 87] Shneiderman B, Designing The Computer Interface,Addison-Wesley, pp448, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. [Siann 86]
    Siann G and Macleod H, “Computers & children of primary school age: Issues and questions”, British Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 133–144, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [Spear 85]
    Spear M, Whyte J, Deem R, Kant L, and Cruickshank M, “Girl Friendly Schooling, Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. [Wilder 85]
    Wilder G, Mackie D and Cooper J, “Gender And Computers: Two Surveys Of Computer Related Attitudes”, Special Issue: Women, Girls, And Computers, Sex Roles, Vol 13(3 4 ), 215 228, Aug 1985.Google Scholar
  29. [Wise 87]
    Wise G, Robinson-Staveley K and Nelson L, “Report From The Cognitive Motivation Laboratory”, Newsletter Of The Human Information Processing Group At Princeton University, USA: Princeton University, 3, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. [Whyte 85]
    Whyte J, Deem R, Kant L and Cruickshank M, “Girl Friendly Schooling, Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konrad Morgan
    • 1
  • Shirley Gibbs
    • 2
  • Hamish Macleod
    • 3
  • Robert Morris
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Information SciencePortsmouth PolytechnicPortsmouthUK
  2. 2.Computer Studies DepartmentNapier PolytechnicEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations