Fostering girls' computer literacy through laptop learning – can mobile computers help to level out the gender difference?

One of the goals of introducing computers to the classroom is to support students who are more reluctant to the use of technology or who do not have a computer at home in acquiring computer literacy. Studies have shown that these students are often girls. The goal of the present study is to find out if the difference between boys and girls in computer literacy can be leveled out in a laptop program where each student has his/her own mobile computer to work with at home and at school. 113 students from laptop and non-laptop classes were tested for their computer knowledge and computer confidence. Students from laptop classes outperformed students from non-laptop classes in computer knowledge while there was no difference in computer confidence. In comparison to the non-laptop classes, the gender gap in computer knowledge was much smaller in the laptop classes. In computer confidence, no harmonizing effect of the laptops was found. Theoretical framework Traditionally, girls tend to be less interested in computers, use them less often in their spare time and have a more negative attitude toward computers (Bannert & Arbinger, 1996; Brosnan, 1998; Metz-Goeckel et al., 1991; Okebukola, 1993; Shashaani, 1994). Consequently, they are often less computer literate then boys. The introduction of computers to the classroom is meant to help especially these disadvantaged students to become more computer literate. However, it has been observed that computer projects, particularly those where students share a computer, can easily be counterproductive: Students, who already know more about computers tend to dominate teams (at least technology-wise) when computers are used for collaborative work, while the non computer literate, i. e. mostly the girls, become mere observers (Kauermann-Walter & Metz-Goeckel, 1991). Thus, computer projects may benefit students with a high degree of computer literacy more than those they are actually meant for (Sinhart-Pallin, 1990). If every student gets his/her own computer, which can be used flexibly in and outside of the classroom, this problem might be overcome because every student gets the chance to learn about computers individually. However, so far no data exists to support this claim. Data sources The development of boys' and girls' computer literacy is one of the core questions that are investigated in a laptop program, which started in March 1999. In this program, approximately 300 students and their teachers from a German high school are gradually furnished with networked laptop computers. Over the course of four years, four cohorts of seventh graders will enter the program. Currently, 220 students and their teachers have entered the program, two 9 grade classes being in their third year, three 8 grade classes in their second and three 7 grade classes in their first year. Method In a review of different definitions of “computer literacy” (e. g. Higdon, 1995, Richter, Naumann & Groeben, 1999; Tully, 1996) and “Internet literacy” (Doyle, 1996, Levine & Donitsa-Schmidt, 1998; Richter et al., 1999) the following dimensions were identified as central to the construct: 1. theoretical and practical knowledge about computers (hardware, software) and the Internet (communication, information retrieval), 2. self efficacy/confidence regarding computers and the Internet 3. responsible use and critical reflection regarding computers and the Internet. Accordingly, a computer literacy test was developed for this study. Existing questionnaires and tests for computer literacy were considered and adapted/updated for the purpose of this study (e. g. Pelgrum, Janssen Reinen & Plomp, 1993; Richter et al., 1999). The resulting test includes the following seven scales: 1. CONF_COM: Confidence in using computers: Rating scale for self-assessment of the students’ subjective level of confidence in using computers (confidence) 2. CONF_INT: Confidence in using the Internet: Rating scale for self-assessment of the students’ subjective level of confidence in using the WWW to find information and in using email (confidence) 3. COM_TOOL: Computers as tool or toy: Rating scale to measure students attitude towards computers and the Internet (tool or toy/critical reflection) 4. HW_OS: Knowledge in hardware (PC) and operating system (Windows95/98): Test items with one right answer and three distracter alternatives (theoretical and practical knowledge) 5. OFFICE: Knowledge in common office applications and presentation software (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Powerpoint): Test items (see above, theoretical and practical knowledge) 6. INTERNET: Knowledge in using the WWW for search tasks and in using email: Test items (see above, theoretical and practical knowledge) 7. SECURITY: Knowledge in basic security issues (virus protection, passwords): Test items (see above, responsible use/critical reflection) In addition, the test included items measuring descriptive data, e. g. the students’ age and gender, access and use of computers at home and at school, access and use of the Internet. In November 2000, the test was distributed to 45 students from two laptop classes (9 grade, age 14-15), who are in their third year of laptop use and to 68 9 graders from the same school who do not use laptop computers but have regular access to the school's computer labs. Results Descriptive analyses of the sample showed that home access to computers was almost equal in both groups: all of the students in the experimental as well as in the control group reported having a computer at home. However, in the control group only 54,4% have their own computer while in the experimental group every student has his/her own laptop computer. On average the computer is used every day in the experimental group (Median = 6 (... daily)), while in the control group it is slightly lower (Median = 5 (... several times per week). Considerable differences exist in the use of computers at school. While the laptop students reported having used the computer almost daily (Median = 5), the control group students reported having used a computer only one to six times throughout the school year (Median = 1). Before results of the computer test were analyzed, some basic test statistics and item analyses were carried out. To increase internal consistency, one item was excluded from scale COM_TOOL and OFFICE respectively. Table 1 shows the test and item statistics for the remaining items. MScale SDScale N R rit P β CONF_COM 26.55 4.76 7 7-35 .50 .76 .78 CONF_INT 25.59 4.94 7 7-35 .48 .73 .76 COM_TOOL 22,39 4,35 6 6-30 .51 .75 .75 HW_OS 3.88 1.82 6 0-6 .47 .65 .72 OFFICE 4.03 3.39 8 0-11 .62 .38 .84 INTERNET 3.02 2.33 9 0-9 .40 .39 .72 SECURITY 1.68 1.22 5 0-5 .25 .34 .46 Table 1: Test and item statistics (MScale: scale mean, SDScale: standard deviation, N: number of items, R: range, rit: mean item discrimination coefficient, P: mean discrimination power, β: standardized Cronbach’s alpha) The effect of the use of laptops on boys and girls was determined using a 2-factorial, multivariate analysis of variance (GLM) with laptop/non laptop as one factor and gender as the other factor and the seven scales of the computer test as dependent variables. To test if the homogeneity assumption for this procedure was violated, a Levene test for homogeneity of variances was carried out. For four of the seven scales, a violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption was detected (see table 2). Generally, it is assumed that the F statistic is robust against such violations (Bortz, 1995). However, in these cases, non-parametric tests were calculated to verify the main effects found. F df1 df2 β CONF_COM .821 3 99 .485 CONF_INT .564 3 99 .640 COM_TOOL 3.817 3 99 .012 HW_OS 8.990 3 99 .000 OFFICE 10.739 3 99 .000 INTERNET 2.918 3 99 .038 SECURITY 1.913 3 99 .132 Table 2: Levene test for homogeneity of variances (design: Intercept+GENDER+LAPTOP+GENDER * LAPTOP) Overall, the multivariate test (Wilks-Lambda) showed significant main effects for LAPTOP and GENDER. The interaction of LAPTOP and GENDER was not significant on the multivariate level (see table 3). Effect Value F (exact) Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Intercept ,015 869,349 7 93 ,000 SEX ,745 4,541 7 93 ,000 LAPTOP ,276 34,800 7 93 ,000 SEX * LAPTOP ,911 1,291 7 93 ,263 Table 3: Multivariate tests (design: Intercept+GENDER+LAPTOP+GENDER * LAPTOP) Gender effects To help interpretation of the differences found, interaction plots were created (see Fig. 1 and 2). The pattern is similar for most of the scales. Girls in the control group scored consistently lower than boys on almost all of the subtests. In the laptop group, lower scores were only found for the general confidence in using computers, for the knowledge on hardware and the operating system and for the knowledge on security issues. On the COM_TOOL and the OFFICE scale girls of the experimental group scored slightly higher than boys. To investigate the statistical significance of the descriptive differences found, betweensubjects effects were calculated for each variable based on the GLM. The factor GENDER was significant for the variables CONF_COM (F(1, 99) = 14.58, p = .000) and HW_OS (F(1, 99) = 8,75, p = .000). Furthermore, the factor approached significance for the variables CONF_INT (F(1, 99) = 3.09, p = .082) and SECURITY (F(1, 99) = 3.48, p = .065). Thus, gender differences seem to occur particularly in the subjective confidence of boys and girls regarding the use of computers and the Internet, and regarding the rather technical areas of computer use. CONF_COM Confidence in using computers Laptop No laptop M ea n 35