Advertisement

Computer Based Self-Pacing Instructional Design Approach in Learning with Respect to Gender as a Variable

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 340)

Abstract

Interactive individualized learning technologies and applications are probably one of the most significant innovations in the age of information revolution. However, Gender-based differences have not been considered as major variable in teaching-learning. Motivated by the gender differences this article reports the findings of the study that analyzed students’ gender differences in learning using interactive computer based instructional technology compared with traditional lecture based method of learning of Secondary students. The sample consisted of 120 students from different schools of West-Bengal (Eastern part of India). Each student completed a GIS (general information schedule), computer proficiency test, a prior knowledge test and post-test on geography. The finding of MANOVA result shows significant gender differences in different learning methods. This study also investigated gender differences in various learning objectives (factual, conceptual, and rules and principles knowledge). The MANOVA result shows significant difference in identification test which measured factual knowledge where female student performed better than male. In comprehension test which measured rules and principal, male student performed better than females. However, no significant difference were found in male and female student and they performed equally well in terminology test which measured the conceptual knowledge.

Keywords

Computer based interactive instructional visualization Gender Method of instruction Learning objective 

References

  1. 1.
    Halpern, D.F.: Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, 4th edn. Psychology Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Putrevu, S.: Exploring the origins and information processing difference between man and women: implications for advertisers. Acad. Market. Sci. Rev. [Online] 10, retrieved June 2014 from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/putrevu10-2001.pdf (2001)
  3. 3.
    Riah, H., Sabli.: Assessment of learning environment in Agricultural science classes. In: Dhindsa, H.S., Kyleve, I.J., Chucwu, O., Perera, J.H.S.Q. (eds.) Future Directions in Science, Mathematics and Technical Education, pp. 91–90. ETC-University Brunei Darussalam, Brunei (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, M.G., Wheatley, J.: Gender differences in teacher-student interaction in science classrooms. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27(9), 861–874 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Catsambis, S.: Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 32(3), 243–257 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sax, L.: Six degrees of separation: what teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. Educ. Horizons 84, 190–212 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dhindsa, S.H., Emran, S.: Using interactive whiteboard technology-rich constructivist learning environment to minimize gender differences in chemistry achievement. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 6(4), 393–414 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jovanovic, J., Dreves, C.: Math, science, and girls: can we close the gender gap? In: Todd, C.M. (ed.) School-Age Connections, vol. 5(2). University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, Urbana (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mark, J., Hanson, K.: Beyond Equal Access: Gender Equity in Learning with Computers. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 879) (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Killgore, W., Oki, M., Yurgelun Todd, D.A.: Sex-specific developmental changes in amygdale response to affective faces. Neuro Report 12, 427–433 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonomo, V.: Gender Matters in Elementary Education Research-based Strategies to Meet the Distinctive Learning Needs of Boys and Girls. Educ. Horiz. 88, 257–264 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kruglanski, A.E.: It’s the neurons, stupid; or is it? Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ml_qa3622/is_200704/ai_n19198512 (2007)
  13. 13.
    Santagata, R., Stigler, J.W.: Teaching mathematics: Italian lessons from cross-cultural perspective. Math. Thinking Learn. 2(3), 191–208 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Myhill, D., Jones, S.: She doesn’t shout at no girls’: pupils’ perceptions of gender equity in the classroom. Camb. J. Educ. 36(1), 99–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barber, N.: Gender differences in information search: implications for retailing. J. Consum. Market. 6(6), 415–426 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyers-Levy, J.: Gender differences in information processing: a selectivity interpretation. In: Cafferata, P., Tybout, A. (eds.) Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, pp. 219–260. Lexington Books, Lexington (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flores, R., Coward, F.L., Crooks. S.: Examining the influence of gender on the modality effect. J Educ. Technol. Syst. 39(1), 87–103 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S.: Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huck, S. W.: Reading statistics and research, Pearson Education, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Balfakih, N.M.A.: The effectiveness of student team-achievement division (STAD) for teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25(5), 605–624 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rogers, P.L.: Girls like colors, boys like action? Imagery preferences and gender. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartley, J.: Designing instructional text, 3rd edn. Kogan Page, London (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cantrell, P., Liu, L., Leverington, M., Taylor, J.: The effects of differentiated technology integration on student achievement in middle school science classrooms. Int. J. Technol. Teach. Learn. 3(3), 36–54 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mohd-Zamri H.I.: The effect of information and communication technology (ICT) on students learning outcome in biology. Unpublished M.Ed. of Science Education Dissertation, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of Calcutta, Alipore CampusKolkataIndia
  2. 2.University of Calcutta, Alipore CampusKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations