Examination of Computer Software in Relation to Gender Differentiation Netiva Caftori, D.A. Department of Computer Science Northeastern Illinois University 5500 N. St Louis Chicago, Il. 60625 Gender Differentiation in Software! Abstract Prior research indicates that much software is designed to appeal to boys without consideration of the effect it has on girls. The main concern here is to discover the characteristics in a particular software that attract boys, and those features that appeal more to girls. The usage of computers in school is therefore examined with a focus on gender differentiation in the software. A questionnaire was administered to 60 students in grades 1-3 in order to determine characteristics in educational software to which the responses of girls and boys differ, and also to find out other gender-related differences in their comportment surrounding computers. An analysis of the questionnaire responses revealed a few of these characteristics, but demonstrated that gender differences are only minor. Recommendations are made to software designers and to educators on how to program or choose software to be used in more equal environments. Suggestions are given for future investigations.(Keywords: Educational software, software characteristics, gender-biased software, gender differences). Introduction There is a great concern about the lack of gender equity in many domains involving computers. If, in fact, women can do as well as men in the domain of computers (Gerver, 1989; Sanders, 1990), they represent a valuable resource and should be involved in equal numbers in research and in careers involving computing. There has been a great deal of research to determine the reasons for the under-representation of women in this field. While the research does not focus on the elementary level, it does suggest that many of the causes of the gender inequity start in the early years (Schulz-Zander, 1990; Gilligan, 1982; Jacklin, 1983). Our focus on the elementary school is prompted by the lack of research at this level. There is some evidence that software is gender-biased (Huff & Cooper, 1987). Consequently, the thrust of this investigation is to determine the characteristics in educational software programs, if any, that appeal differently to girls versus boys. Gender-biased software Huff and Cooper (1987) asked forty-three educators with programming experience to design software targeted to specific groups: some were asked to design for boys, some were asked to design for girls, and some were asked to design for students in general. The program designs produced were game-like software for boys, learning tools for girls and, again, game-like software for students in general. It would seem that there is a similarity between programs written for boys and students in general (both sexes) while programs designed for girls are different. It may be that designers write mainly for boys. However, it is uncertain that they are successful in actually reaching boys. Other gender-related research Numerous other studies have been conducted to chronicle software preferences. Findings validate the assumption that girls are more likely to get involved with software they find emotionally or intellectually meaningful (Lewis, 1987) and generally select programs that involve writing (e.g., story programs), art and music (Elliott, 1990). Barbara Signer (1992) raises the question about the extent to which subject matter, especially in conjunction with the cognitive level of the task, influences gender behavior in computer-based cooperative learning. The computer studies that report more gender differences, she explains, involve subject matters that are associated with sex-related differences in learning (mathematics and science). It appears that the combination of content and cognitive level has not been approached before. Girls also tend to view the computer more as a tool, a means to an end rather than an end in itself (McClain, 1983). LOGO as a programming language, is more interesting to girls due to its pictorial and graphic nature (Lewis, 1987; Fredman, 1990). Boys are more attracted to action-oriented, competitive games and software requiring hand-eye coordination (Miura, 1982, unpublished manuscript). There seem to be more computer games of the latter kind than the earlier one (Huff & Cooper, 1987) though there is no way of actually counting. The "macho perspective" is to use strategies and classroom techniques predicated on competition rather than cooperation (Lewis, 1987). In order to overcome gender inequity in education, significant efforts were made in the 1970s to produce conventional teaching materials that were sexually and racially non-biased (Jay, 1977; Trecker, 1971) by providing examples of women and girls in non-traditional occupations and situations. These efforts could be extended to the new medium of software and computers. For example, children were asked by the author (Caftori, 1994) if a certain software program was for boys or for girls and why. A few reported that a program was for one sex or the other because the pictures depicted in the software represented one sex or the other. Designers should be circumspect about the messages they may be conveying to children through graphical representations. In order to determine characteristics of software that are more attractive to girls, and those that appeal to boys, and in order to uncover other gender differences surrounding computers the following research was undertaken during 1992 at the American School of Paris (ASP). The situation at the American School of Paris (ASP) The American School of Paris is a private school located at the outskirts of Paris, France. It is certified by one of the States and follows rather closely the curriculum set by public schools in America. It encompasses three schools: lower, middle and upper schools, each headed by a director and all by a headmaster. Most children are Americans or from an English-speaking country. The predominant language spoken in the school is therefore English with one or two hours per day of French instruction according to one's level. Children at ASP come from rather well-to-do families who, for the most part, travelled a great deal in the world. The school population is hence ethnically and culturally (although not economically) diversified, just as many melting pots are in the US. Observations at ASP In 1992 two computer labs existed at ASP: one for the upper school, and one for both lower and middle schools. The 10 computers of the lower and middle schools' lab were old PC's with floppy disks and no hard drive. ASP had a very poor software library which got depleted as time passed. ASP's teachers at the time had a limited knowledge of computing but a strong will to learn. Kindergartners, first, second and third graders at ASP used the computer laboratory according to the interest and knowledge of the instructor and depending on the availability of the laboratory and its fitting into the class schedule. Usually that happened about once a week for forty-five minutes. It was because of scheduling difficulties that the fourth graders did not use the computer at all during 1991-92. The fifth graders used the upper-school lab which was located closer to their classroom. Methods Two third grade classes, one second grade class and one first grade class participated in this study. The total number of children was 60: thirty-one girls and 29 boys. A questionnaire was administered verbally to each child away from its peers, but usually in the classroom itself. Each interview took approximately 15 minutes. The children were typically happy to be interviewed and no opposition was ever encountered. We trusted the children answered the questions sincerely and not what they thought was expected of them, though the danger of this occurring may still exist. Only those attributes in the questionnaire that showed most varied responses are portrayed here. We concentrated on the cumulative results obtained from three or four classes added together in order to discover a trend or a pattern. Future research could concentrate on longitudinal approaches by age. Statistical analysis such as ANOVA could be performed in order to ascertain some relationships and differences between particular classes. In this study the focus was on the sampled population taken as a whole. To ensure that the questionnaire was psychometrically valid a leading researcher on attitudinal surveys was consulted. The first few questions were for the purpose of identification and categorization. The next few questions pertained to partners on the computer. A partner may often decide the success or failure of one's adventure on the computer. A few questions related to home computer and the software used there since more and more children owned their own computer at home or shared it with parents and siblings. After several questions on school software characteristics, some questions investigated the children views and attitudes toward computers and their role in each child's future. We are comparing two populations, boys and girls, in which the proportions of persons possessing a certain characteristic are Pb and Pg. The hypothesis to be tested is that Pb = Pg against the alternative hypothesis that Pb Pg. The hypothesis that Pb = Pg will be rejected at the 0.05 level of significance when the Z-score is 1.65 (for an area = 0.9505) in cases of normality (np > 5 and n(1-p) > 5) and where our sample exceeds 30. In addition, differences are considered significant whenever the Chi-square analysis produced p < 0.05 as a level of significance. Investigated characteristics and attitudes and some interpretations The first few characteristics examined relate to the condition of work on the computer in the lab, e.g., partners, and in the home, e.g., frequency of usage, software used. Working alone. Most children in the first through third grade classes preferred working in pairs on the computers in the lab even though there were additional computers available. When they were asked if they would like sometimes to work without a partner on the computer, the responses portrayed in Table 1 were received. We can see that the majority of both girls and boys would work alone, if necessary, on the computer. The difference is not significant. This result may be important as it demonstrates that young girls (grades 1-3) do not fear the machine. Working on it alone, means taking charge, being in control, and being self assured that one can do work without assistance. _____________________________________ Insert Table 1 about here _____________________________________ Different partner. Switching partners on the computer is yet a different issue. One is not alone, but one is asked to change one's habit and possibly separate from a good friend or partner. Students were questioned whether they would switch sometimes to a different partner. Out of 29 boys and 31 girls, the two numbers that strike the eye in Table 2 are the 15 boys (a clear majority, versus only 7 of the girls) who want same-sex partner and the 11 girls (35%) who don't want another partner, compared with only 4 boys (14%). These results are significant (X2=7.84 with 0.0493 significance, i.e., the hypothesis that sex and changing partners are independent is rejected at an observed significance level of 0.0493). An interpretation of these results, based on our observations, may include the nature of girls who get attached to their best girl-friends and who are unwilling or afraid to try someone else. As to the boys, this is the age where boys and girls do not mingle, and the separation is sometimes initiated by the boys. The issue of switching partners was not considered by other researchers to my knowledge, even though some teachers are aware of this pattern of behavior. Staying with the same partner may be limiting, or may be comforting. Both are conditions that could impair or possibly enhance learning. The difference between the genders seems to be consistent from grade to grade. We may wish to pursue and survey the implications of these conditions further. _____________________________________ Insert Table 2 about here _____________________________________ Home computer. Table 3 demonstrates that almost as many girls had a computer at home as boys. An important difference was among those who did not own a computer, but had access to one elsewhere than the home or the school: Eight girls versus only 2 boys (X2=3.93 with significance level of 0.1398.) Even though more girls did not own a computer, many more girls than boys were able to access computers elsewhere. If they actually used that opportunity will be seen in their usage next. _____________________________________ Insert Table 3 about here _____________________________________ Frequency of home computer's usage. Even though almost as many girls had a computer at home as boys, how often they used it and with which games is another matter as can be seen in table 4. As prior research has demonstrated (Sanders, 1985), computer usage by boys is more frequent than girls' usage, even when girls have a computer at home or have access to one elsewhere. The difference between the sexes for the subtotal "Not very often" is significant (z-score=1.96). The Chi-square test only reveals a significance of 0.1264 for this contingency table. _____________________________________ Insert Table 4 about here _____________________________________ Software used at home. The difference found between the sexes of their home software usage is shown in Table 5. For the sake of simplicity, mathematics or mathematics drill, Hangman, other spelling games and word-processing were considered educational software. Most other games were described by the children as non-educational and included: shoot up thi Packman, golf. More girls were engaged with educational software at home. All boys engaged in educational software, but still a majority of them used non-educational software as well. These results were not significant (X2=4.27 with p=0.118). They were foreseen in view of the outcomes of many researchers on boys using more arcade-like software. One has to recognize that children at this age do not buy their own software, but are choosing from whatever is available to them in the house or follow their parents or sibling's recommendations. _____________________________________ Insert Table 5 about here _____________________________________ The next few characteristics pertain to two programs used at school: Funnels and Barrels. This software program was played only by the two third grade classes, therefore the total number of children is limited. It is a drill and practice program in arithmetic. Speed. Some anxiety was noticed among the children which we attributed to the high speed of the game. Table 6 shows that there is no difference between boys and girls when it comes to speed. Speed is an attribute associated with challenge and is usually attributed to boys (Zimmerman, 1984). It is a component of competitiveness in many computer games. This result may be an indication that girls in these classes do not fall into the norms found by prior research declaring that girls avoid competitiveness. _____________________________________ Insert Table 6 about here _____________________________________ Speed chosen. The children were given the option of choosing the speed of the game. Table 7 depicts that eleven (60%) of the 18 girls versus 6 (40%) of the 15 boys chose the fast or medium speed (not counting the girl who chose fast and slow.) This is not a significant difference (X2=2.88 and p=0.4092). It seems as if another myth is shown false. _____________________________________ Insert Table 7 about here _____________________________________ Achieving highest score in Funnels. Thirteen out of 16 girls (81%) and 14 out of 15 boys (93%) wanted to achieve the highest score. The difference being so small between the sexes is another important result since achieving the highest score is an aspect of competition, just as speed is. Girls, according to prior research, are supposedly not as motivated by competition as are boys. Answering correctly in Funnels. Table 8 shows that overall boys were more annoyed than girls when they did not know if their answers to the arithmetic questions were correct. Even though our numbers are small, and one class' results did not agree with the other's, there is still a great, though not significant difference between boys and girls in the area of feedback (Chi-square significance is 0.3733) that to my knowledge was not explored before. A possible interpretation is that boys receive more feedback from teachers (Kerman, 1979; Block, 1984; Nye, 1991), and therefore they are more bothered when they do not receive it. _____________________________________ Insert Table 8 about here _____________________________________ Mathematics Concepts: The software program Mathematics Concepts was used by all elementary grades at ASP at different levels except one of the third grade classes. The program included sections such as scale balances to compare weights, Follow the Dots for sequencing numbers, Make Tens for place value, and Magic garden for estimation on the number line. Leaving a section in the middle. This rather good educational software program had a few disadvantages that bothered some children. They had to follow a sequence of steps before getting to a desired section. We assume that the purpose behind this strategy was to force children to finish each section before attempting the next one that builds on prior knowledge. However, many children who already knew the material examined, did not find the shortcuts that existed sometimes. Once they entered a section that did not interest them, or was repetitious, they could not leave it in the middle. In Table 9 we notice that more girls (73% of all girls) than boys were bothered by the fact that they could not leave a section of Mathematics Concepts in the middle. Only half the boys were bothered by that fact. The difference between the genders is not significant (X2=1.9, p=0.1677). _____________________________________ Insert Table 9 about here _____________________________________ Hard sections. In informal conversations prior to administrating the questionnaire with children in general, not necessarily at ASP, girls usually told us that they liked a particular program because it was easy. They did not like another because it was hard. Similarly boys would answer that girls liked a program because it was easy, and did not like one if it were hard. About themselves, boys would use different adjectives, such as fun or fast. The adjectives easy or hard would not describe what attracted them to the game. These differences prompted our question of the children whether they were bothered by hard problems. We received the results portrayed in Table 10. It seems that boys are more bothered by, what they consider, hard sections in Mathematics Concepts, than girls are. This is not a significant result (p=0.2681). _____________________________________ Insert Table 10 about here _____________________________________ How to get there. Table 11 shows that sixty-four percent of the girls versus 58% of the boys were bothered if they did not know how to get to a certain section in Mathematics Concepts. The result is consistent throughout the grades, which may indicate a possible trend. However because of the small numbers this is not a significant gender difference. _____________________________________ Insert Table 11 about here _____________________________________ Not allowed. When the children of all 3 grades were working on Mathematics Concepts, some were advancing at faster rates than others, and wanted to proceed to other sections. However, the teacher was not of the same opinion. The frustration noticed, in some, lead us to question them whether they were bothered by the fact that they were not allowed to go on to another section of the program. Their responses are demonstrated in Table 12. Slightly more boys than girls are bothered when they are not allowed to go to another section of Mathematics Concepts. The difference between the sexes is again not significant. _____________________________________ Insert Table 12 about here _____________________________________ Giving and receiving help. When it comes to giving or getting help, the difference between the genders is negligible. If we disregard the incomplete data received from the second grade class, Table 13 portrays that both girls (80%) and boys (75%) enjoy giving help. Girls however are more reluctant to receive help. Only 33% like to receive help as opposed to the majority (58%) of the boys. Even with the little information provided, it is an interesting result about the reluctance of girls to receive help that should be explored further, in order to attest the impact on learning. This finding seems to contradict Tannen's (1990) conjecture that girls feel honor-bound to ask for help. _____________________________________ Insert Table 13 about here _____________________________________ Science or mathematics in career. When the children in all four classes were asked about their careers (translated to jobs), whether it would include science and/or mathematics, it was found, as can be seen in Table 14, that as many boys as girls (exactly 48%) planned to have science or mathematics in their careers. More boys gave a categoric no than did girls. The difference here is not significant (X2=3.89522 with significance level 0.1426). _____________________________________ Insert Table 14 about here _____________________________________ Computers in careers. The children were then asked whether they foresee using computers in their careers (or future jobs). Although the boys were notably more assertive on this issue than the girls, it can be seen in Table 15 that a majority of the girls still see the possibility of computers in their careers. The difference between the genders is not significant (X2=4.04662 with p=0.1322). _____________________________________ Insert Table 15 about here _____________________________________ Tool versus game. One objection that many feminists had against the current trend of computer software was that it was not tool, or goal-oriented, but mostly emphasized the game, or the fun in it (Huff & Cooper, 1987; Gerver, 1989; Kiesler et al., 1985). The conjecture was that girls seek the goal-oriented software, the tool, and thus are not attracted to much of the current software. To verify this conjecture, children were asked how they perceived the computer to be: more as a tool or more for games. The term tool was explained to them as an example from their own experience of a program to do mathematics and word-processing. Table 16 demonstrates that many girls do see the entertainment quality of the computer (81%). This finding does not fit prior research results. Boys are evenly divided in their opinion and see both functions of the computer. More girls value the computer for the games they can play on it. As many boys as girls view the usage of computers with tools. The difference between boys and girls is not significant. _____________________________________ Insert Table 16 about here _____________________________________ Boys' versus girls' preferred games. The children were asked what do boys, versus girls, like to do, with regards to computer work, and how different they are, and vice versa, how are girls different from boys when it comes to computers. Table 17A gathers responses from one third grade class. Note that not all games mentioned are computer games yet, but could be. _____________________________________ Insert Table 17A about here _____________________________________ Table 17B portrays responses from the other 3 classes in relation to the educational games used in school. Other responses obtained from these 3 classes that were not directly related to school software follow: Games Boys like: Flying fighter planes, boys don't like spelling, Haunted House, golf, solitaire, Reversee -hard, Ninja - kicking, Violence - street fighting, machine guns, fighting games (2 responses), killing (2 responses), skate boards, space ships (2 responses), war games, turn on the computer first, get the furthest ahead of every one, play around, boys don't like to follow directions. Games girls like: Bumble, Clock game, dancing game, golf, jump rope, Mine Sweeper, in a stable feeding and grooming animals, work, school, spell better, dressing a woman, Barbies (2 responses), tools, everything, girls stay away from shooting. _____________________________________ Insert Table 17B about here _____________________________________ Note that only school software activities appear in both sex categories. All others reflect some consensus, some accepted stereotypes, that even youngsters are already aware of. Less significant characteristics Some results were significant in only one or two classes and did not provide the magnitude necessary to contemplate any trend. Yet these results could initiate some thoughts and future research. They are portrayed in the following sections: Partners. The first grade class was the only one where partners, on the computer, were sometimes of opposite sex, and where pupils often changed partners or even preferred working alone (see Table 18). In the older grades children were more set in their habits, worked usually with the same partner, and preferred not working alone. _____________________________________ Insert Table 18 about here _____________________________________ Mastering the game. Some satisfaction, or ease, was noticed with some children after they have mastered the program Mathematics Concepts, and did not need as much coaching and assistance any longer from their teacher. When asked if they liked to know they mastered the game, the second graders responded as in Table 19. The verb "master" had to be explained to most of them. The difference between boys and girls in the second grade on this issue is extensive. Eighty-three percent of the girls enjoyed the fact that they mastered the game, and that they feel at ease playing it. One should remember that it is not the children's choice to play this particular game, but the teacher's. Only 22% of the boys voiced their agreement with the statement that they enjoyed the comfort level that comes with the mastery of the program. This finding is in agreement with other research conducted (Huff & Cooper, 1987). This finding, although limited to a very small sample, may help to explain why girls are not found in big numbers in computer rooms when they are not required to do so. It seems as though girls in general, do not feel comfortable with new software, whereas it is not such a deterrent for boys. Maybe boys are more used to being in strange new places, because more of them are allowed to explore new situations (Gilligan, 1982), so that a new software program is not an obstacle as it may be for girls. _____________________________________ Insert Table 19 about here _____________________________________ Favorite game. The disk Kids Games included several games that the first and second graders enjoyed playing with, once they finished working on Mathematics Concepts. Children were asked which of the games they favored. Hangman, Mosaic and Animals were the only ones mentioned by them and portrayed in Table 20. Girls definitely preferred Hangman. The difference in the choices between boys and girls with regards to Hangman is significant as can be seen from the Chi-score (8.04543 with p=0.0451). _____________________________________ Insert Table 20 about here _____________________________________ Need assistance. Although the games on the Kids Games' diskette were easy to learn, children needed some coaching at first until some mastery was achieved. In order to verify how frustrating the waiting for assistance was for them, the question was posed and the responses received are portrayed in Table 21. More first grade boys were bothered when they needed assistance and did not get it when working with Kids Games. The numbers are again too small for a conclusion. _____________________________________ Insert Table 21 about here _____________________________________ Summary of Results As a consequence of comparing statistically several attributes associated with computers and characteristics of some commonly used educational software of the American School of Paris, the results obtained demonstrate that our early hypothesis was only partially correct: Boys and girls do respond differently to several common characteristics used in software. Some results manifest that girls and boys respond somewhat the same to other attributes, at least in the first through third grades. Examples follow. Earlier research done by others, about behavior differences in comportment vis-a-vis the computer was strengthened by our findings: 1. Girls, outside of school, do tend to use the computer significantly less often than boys do, even when it is equally available to both (Elliott, 1990); 2. It was also found that girls, in first and second grades, prefer word games, such as Hangman, to construction with geometrical figures, such as Mosaic. Children were suggesting that boys like fast, shooting, fighting or killing games involving battle or space ships. Girls were believed to prefer slower games involving writing or school work. These findings agree with Gerver's (1989). 3. More boys than girls foresee using computers in their careers (Fredman, 1990; Gerver, 1989). 4. In a second grade class observed, significantly more girls than boys enjoyed working with a particular software program once they have mastered it. This finding is in agreement with other documented observations (Huff & Cooper, 1987) that claimed that girls are anxious working on a new software program. On the other hand, some of our findings are in contradiction to earlier ones found only a few years ago. For example: 1. Young girls (first to third grade) are no longer unwilling to work alone on the computer, as was suggested by several papers (Clarke, 1990; Sanders, 1985); 2. Girls view the computer's function more as a game than as a tool which is in opposition to a wide spread opinion (Bernstein, 1990, unpublished data; McClain, 1983). At home, however, according to our findings, more girls than boys use educational software, including word-processing, and more boys than girls use non-educational software, which may explain that widespread opinion (considering tools as educational software.) 3. The speed required for responding to an arithmetic operation in a fast going game, is enjoyed equally by girls and boys. When they can choose their own speed, more girls than boys choose the fast one. This is in opposition to a considerable body of evidence to suggest that females tend to view speed-filled competitiveness as dangerous (Whiting and Pope, 1973; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Pollak and Gilligan, 1982; Gilligan, 1982). 4. Another characteristic related to competitiveness is the desire to attain the highest score in a software program. In this case too, as many girls as boys strive to achieve the highest score. 5. As many girls as boys (and a majority of them) were bothered when they could not reach a certain section of a software program. From Tannen (1990), one may learn to expect boys to be more bothered as they are raised to be more independent and free to explore. 6. By the same token, one would expect boys to be more bothered than girls when not allowed by their teacher, or the software, to move on to another section of a program. However, our results show no significant difference between the genders. Other results, not documented elsewhere, include the following: 1. Boys are more willing to work with a new partner than girls, but the majority of them prefer the new partner to be a boy. The girls, on the other hand, are less willing to work with a new partner, but are far less concerned about the sex of that new partner; 2. More boys (though not significantly more), and a majority of them, are annoyed if they do not receive appropriate feedback from the software; 3. Similarly more boys than girls are bothered when they need assistance and do not get it, either from the teacher or from the software; 4. By the same token, boys are more disturbed than girls by hard sections in the software, especially first grade boys (though not significantly); 5. On the other hand, girls are more bothered than boys when there is no mechanism in the software for quitting in the middle of a section; 6. About their views of the future: our finding shows that half the boys and half the girls are conceiving using mathematics and/or science in their careers, although significantly more boys answered by a categoric no to this possibility; 7. As to computers in their careers, although a greater majority of boys anticipates using them, as was mentioned above, a majority of girls also foresees using computers; 8. With regards to giving and receiving help when working with a partner on the computer, both girls and boys equally enjoy giving help. However, only a minority of girls, versus a majority of boys, enjoy receiving help (this may be in contradiction to Tannen's conjecture (1990) that girls in general feel honor-bound to request help.) Discussion Although the generalizability of the study is limited based on the population surveyed, and a few of the above results are inconclusive, some do strengthen current beliefs whereas others are in contradiction with earlier findings. In order to attempt an explanation of these discrepancies, we may consider the fact that times have changed along with the general atmosphere surrounding computers in education. In addition, most gender differences show up at puberty which is not the case in the young group surveyed. Several other results raise new issues unexplored previously. It is the desire of the author that software designers and educators take into consideration some of the results in order to create or choose software freer from bias that will appeal more equally to both genders. For example, writing and spelling could be incorporated into otherwise scientific programs to render them more appealing to girls. Teachers could assist girls at the initial stage of a program learning until mastery is achieved, and then move on and let them work more independently. Finally, a mechanism should be implemented for exiting a section of a program before its completion. Most other results obtained do not translate readily into recommendations, but could suggest a path for future investigations when the emphasis is gender. Such investigations could concentrate on such issues as matching partners at the computer, giving and receiving help by a peer, a teacher or the software, mastery of a program and its effects, emphasizing the applicability of a certain program to usage in a career or in mathematics/science, controlling speeds of moving objects in a program, controlling the sequencing of different sections by the user, controlling over the feedback received, controlling over the level of difficulty, etc. We still do not know enough what each child learns from a piece of software and how. Much more needs to be researched in order to obtain better educational software that will appeal to all children and that will be effective. ! References Block, J.H. (1984). Sex role identity and ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Caftori, N. (1994). Examination and evaluation of computer software in relation to gender differentiation and educational effectiveness. Doctoral thesis: University of Illinois at Chicago. Clarke, V. A. (1990). Girls and computing: Dispelling myths and finding directions. In A. McDougall & C. Dowling (Eds.), Computers in Education (pp. 53-58). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publ. B.V. Elliott, J. (1990). Sex equity in computer education. In A. Fredman (Ed.), Yes, I can: Action projects to resolve issues in educational computing, (pp.25-28). Eugene, Oregon: ISTE. Fredman, A. (1990). Equity for girls. In A. Fredman (Ed.), Yes, I can: Action projects to Resolve Equity Issues in educational computing, (pp. 1-2). Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, The Educational Computer Consortium of Ohio, ISTE. Gerver, E. (1989). Computers and gender. In T. Forester (Ed.), Computers in the human context: Information technology, productivity and people. (pp. 481-501). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Huff, C. & Cooper, J. (1987). Sex bias in educational software: The effect on designers' stereotypes on the software they design. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(6),519-532. Jacklin, C.N. (1983). Boys and girls entering school. In M. Marland (Ed.), Sex differentiation and schooling, (pp. 8-17). London: Heimann Educational Books. Jay, W. T. (1977). Sex stereotyping in elementary-school mathematics textbooks. In J. Pottker & A. Fishel (Eds.), Sex bias in the schools: The research evidence, (pp. 126-145). Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Lewis, L. H. (1987). Females and computers: Fostering involvement. In B.D. Wright, M.M. Ferree, L.H. Lewis, M-L D. Samper, R. Asher, & K. Claspell, (Eds.), Women, work, and technology, (pp. 268-280). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Kerman, S. (1979). Teachers expectations and student achievement, Kaplan magazine, A-1, A-2. Kiesler, S., Sproul, L. & Eccles, J.S. (1985). Pool halls, chips, and war games: Women in the culture of computing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9(4),451-462. Maccoby, E. & Jacklin, C. (1974). The psychology of sex differences, Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. McClain, E. (1983). Do women resist computers? Popular Computing, 2(3),66. Nye, E. F. (1991). Computers and gender: Noticing what perpetuates inequality. English Journal, 80(3), 94-95. Pollak, S. and Gilligan, C. (1982). Images of violence in thematic apperception test stories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,1. Sanders, J. S. (1985). Making the computer neutral. Computing Teacher, 23-27. Sanders, J. (1990). Developing software for gender equity: A review of Breaking the Barriers by P. Blackstone, & V. Status. The Computing Teacher, 54-55. Schulz-Zander, R. (1990). Concepts and strategies concerning information technology education for girls and young women. In A.McDougall & C. Dowling, (Eds.), Computers in education, (pp.195-200). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publ. B.V. Signer, B. R. (1992). A model of cooperative learning with intergroup competition and findings when applied to an interactive video reading program, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(2), 141-158. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand; Women and men in conversation, New York: Ballantine Books. Trecker, J. L. (1977). Women in US history high-school textbooks, In J. Pottker & A. Fishel, (Eds.), Sex bias in the schools: The research evidence, (pp. 146-162). Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Whiting, B. & Pope, C. (1973). A cross cultural analysis of sex differences in the behavior of children age three to eleven, Journal of Social Psychology, 91:171-188. Zimmerman, J. cited in Beyers, C. (1983). Growing sex gap shows up in computer tastes. The Times Educational Supplement, p. 15. ! Table 1 Working Alone on the Computer Would you like sometimes to work alone on the computer? Boys Girls No 6 21% 6 20% Yes 19 66% 24 78% Not always 4 1 Total 29 31 ! Table 2 Choice of a Different Partner Switch partner? Boys % Girls % Don't want another partner 4 14% 11 35% Doesn't matter partner's sex 9 31% 13 42% Want same-sex partner 15 52% 7 22% Work alone 1 3% 0 Total 29 31 ! Table 3 Home Computer Boys Girls Computer at home 19 66% 17 55% No computer at home or elsewhere 8 6 Computer elsewhere 2 7% 8 26% Total of no home computer 10 33% 14 45% Total 29 31 ! Table 4 Frequency of Usage of a Home Computer Frequency Boys Girls Every day 7 3 2-3 times per week 5 5 Once a week 3 2 Subtotal: Often 15 60% 10 34% Every other week 4 6 Rarely 2 8 Never 8 7 Subtotal: Not very often 14 40% 21 65% Total 29 31 ! Table 5 Software Used at Home Software used at home Boys Girls Only educational software: 3 11% 10 33% Educational and non-educational software: 18 62% 14 46% None 8 28% 7 23% Total 29 31 ! Table 6 Funnels - Too Fast Funnels Boys Girls Too fast 6 40% 6 33% Too slow 0 1 OK 9 60% 11 61% Total 15 18 ! Table 7 Funnels - Speed Chosen Speed chosen for Funnels and Barrels Boys Girls Fast 3 20% 3 16% Fast and medium 0 2 11% Medium 3 20% 6 33% Total fast to medium 6 40% 11 60% Slow 7 47% 5 28% Fast and slow 0 1 Don't remember 2 1 Total 15 18 ! Table 8 Not Knowing if Answer is Correct Lack of feedback Boys Girls bother 9 60% 8 44% Doesn't bother 6 40% 10 55% Total 15 18 ! Table 9 Leaving in the Middle of a Section Bothered by the fact that can't leave in the middle of a section? Boys Girls Yes 11 53% 16 73% No 10 48% 6 28% Total 21 22 ! Table 10 Bothered by Hard Problems Bothered by hard problems? Boys % Girls % Yes 14 66% 11 50% No 7 33% 11 50% Total 21 22 ! Table 11 How to Reach a Desired Section Bothered if did not know how to get there? Boys Girls Yes 12 58% 14 64% No 9 8 Total 21 22 ! Table 12 Not Allowed Not allowed to go on to another section Boys Girls Bothered 14 66% 11 50% ok 7 10 Not used 0 1 Total 21 22 ! Table 13 Help Help? Boys Girls Give only 5 7 Receive only 3 0 Both 4 5 No information 0 3 Total 12 15 Give 9 9/12=75% 12 12/15=80% Receive 7 7/12=58% 5 5/15=33% ! Table 14 Mathematics or Science in One's Career Mathematics or science in career? Boys Girls No 9 31% 4 13% Yes 14 48% 15 48% Maybe 6 21% 12 39% Total 29 31 ! Table 15 Computers in One's Career Computers in career? Boys Girls No 2 7% 5 17% Yes 23 80% 17 55% Maybe 4 14% 9 29% Total 29 31 ! Table 16 Tool versus Game Boys Girls Game only 11 39% 13 42% Tool only 9 32% 6 19% Both 8 29% 12 39% No information 1 Total 29 31 Game 19 68% 25 81% Tool 17 61% 18 58% ! Table 17A What games do boys versus girls like? - third grade Girls said about boys: Boys like waiting a long time (Dad has patience), shooting games, spend longer time on the computer, talk a lot, go fast in math, air-planes. Girls said about girls: Drawings, Origami, mathematics, write letters, girls like the computers more, go slow in math, golf. Boys said about boys: Blasting ships, working very hard, play soccer, make stories a little more scientific or fictional, faster on the keyboard, boys like more mathematics, games, mathematics. Boys said about girls: Making the puppy on Origami, pony game, more truthful in their stories (Even in making up stories, they write things that can happen), do mathematics when nothing else to do, no games, games more than mathematics. ! Table 17B Games preferred by Boys versus Girls Games one likes Girls Boys Funnels 4 -Funnels - fast 1 Games 1 4 -colorful 1 -slow 1 -fast 1 -harder 1 Mathematics (multiplication) 4 6 -division 1 -problem-solving 1 -mathematics teacher said to do 1 -harder mathematics 1 In Mathematics Concepts: -Follow the dot 3 2 -Magic Garden 7 2 -Make Tens 1 -Scale Balances 2 2 word-processing 1 1 Hangman 3 1 typing 2 spell better 1 Origami 2 Battle ships 3 ! Table 18 Partners - first grade Boys Girls No partner 1 2 Same sex partner 4 66% 3 50% Opposite sex partner 1 1 Total 6 6 ! Table 19 Mastered the Game - second grade Boys Girls Liked to know mastered the game 2 22% 5 83% No 7 78% 1 16% No information 0 1 Total 9 7 ! Table 20 First Choice Among Kids Games -- first - second grades Boys Girls Hangman 4 29% 10 77% Mosaic 5 36% 3 23% Animals 2 0 Didn't use Kids Games 3 0 Total 14 13 ! Table 21 Need Assistance & Don't Get It - first grade Need assistance Boys Girls Bothered if don't get it 4 80% 3 50% ok 1 3 Total 5 6