Day: September 27, 2005

I have commented previously on the curious, but contradictory perspectives of me and my “next farm” childhood friend (Lowell Monke). Lowell and I differ in our opinions of the potential of technology to help young children process their life experiences. Lowell, it seems, is a persuasive writer and I keep running across his work (Orion Magazine). Reading his material is a weird experience for me – the farm and elementary school experiences he describes as “authentic” in this article were identical to my own and often I was physically there at the same moment (his description of a common acquaintance Lee Anfinson).

I knew our farm—where the snowdrifts would be the morning after a blizzard, where and when the spring runoff would create a temporary stream through the east pasture. I could tell you where I was by the smells alone. Watching a massive thunderstorm build in the west, or discovering a new litter of kittens in the barn, I would be awestruck, mesmerized by mysterious wonders I could not control. One of the few moments I remember from elementary school is watching a huge black-and-yellow garden spider climb out of Lee Anfinson’s pant cuff after we came back from a field trip picking wildflowers. It set the whole class in motion with lively conversation and completely flummoxed our crusty old teacher. Somehow that spider spoke to all of us wide-eyed third graders, and we couldn’t help but speak back.

Ironically, my farm home no longer exists except in digital images and the school descrbed in Lowell’s article is no longer in service. This following picture of my home shortly before it was demolished was sent to me in an email from Lee Anfinson (the person described in the excerpt).

Near Pierson, Iowa – my farmstead is now only a grove of trees. The childhood homes of Lowell and Lee are still standing. (Thanks to Google Map)

Must be a constructivist thing – we each process our experiences to create our own truths – similar experiences or not. Probably a very important lesson here – it is not the experience (virtual or physical), but the mental interpretation we apply.

Those of us promoting the integration of technology become concerned when individuals are unable or unwilling to make use of technology because we believe technology supports student learning. Any concern I had that gender differences were responsible for such inequities have diminished over the years I have followed such issues. I am aware of large gender differences in the number of students pursuing computer science as a vocation, but I am willing to treat vocational preferences as a separate issue. The question of whether there are gender differences in the willingness to make use of technology in a more general way is similar to the issue of whether there are gender differences in the willingness to read – both have implications for learning on a more general level.

Christensen, Knezek & Overall (Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2005, 38, 23-37) offer a recent study claiming there is a percipitous drop in female “enjoyment” of technology in middle school. This drop appears to occur between the 5th and 6th grades and the authors speculate the drastic change is the result of emerging gender differences in sensitivity to relationships vs. achievement/competition orientation. Among the recommended solutions offered, greater use of technology in group projects, online interaction, and technology supported communication. These suggestions are very similar to our own suggestions for addressing several sources of inequity (Responsible Use of Technology).

I think the results of the reported study should be regarded with caution. A general issue in any research is how key variables are operationalized. “Enjoyment of Computers” is assessed using a five item scale. To me, the items are a curious assortment – I am tired of using the computer. I enjoy lessons on the computer. I enjoy computer games very much.

Consider this, the one specific activity mentioned in the list is game play. This fits very well with the concern for gender differences in competition and would be associated with less enjoyment among females who are reported to not enjoy competitive game play. There is no item on the list that might tap use of the computer for communication/socialization. Consider that the recommendations offered by the authors would engage learners in activities the scale they use to evaluate enjoyment would only indirectly assess at best. Makes no sense to me.

Why do a study of this magnitude with such a weak and potentially misleading indicator of the key dependent variable? This is my take – read the article and draw your own conclusions.