Z{ .\ .` @@@ @@@@**"BNpW` .L K .p EN DB  .x< IZ)"College Entrance Examination Board2003M Hirt2000 Nicholson1998*p_;_@v` Sanders2003v Sanders2004X Sanders2004x Sanders2005 Sanders2005 Sawada1996O Sax2001Scaglion1995y Schaumburg2001z Scheckler2002z Schoenberg2001X Schofield1995 Schofield1998W Schofield2002{ Schott2000Schubert1986 Schumacher1992| Schumacher2001 Schweingruber2001Scollary1998r Scragg1998 SedighianN.D.Sedlacek1989} Selby1997 Selwyn1999{ Selwyn2000 Sensales1995 Seymour1997 Shade1994 Shapka2003 Shashaani1993 Shashaani1994 Shashaani1994  Shashaani1995 Shashaani1997 Shashaani2001 Shaw1999pY Shemla20010 Sherman2000R Shih1999I Siann1988 Siann1990 Siann1990Y Siann1995 Siann1997| Sieber2003s Silling1985Sinclair1995 Singh1993 Singh1998 Sissons1995+ Skinner1996 Skyllingstadn.d.PSlesnick1985 Slesnick1985 Smith1986 Smith1987 Smith1989r Smith1998 Smith2000 Smither1994L Snyder1986M Snyder2004 Soler1992 Solomou1996Solvberg2002Sorenson2003 Sparks2004 Spear1985T Spencer1999 Spertus1991 Spertus2000, Spertus2002/ Spertus2002 Spotts1997( Sproull1983 Sproull1985 Sproull1986 Spurgas20044Stafford2000 Stanley1997 Stanne19855 Starr2000 Steele1997c Steele1997(T Steele1999X Steffensmeier2000V Stein1993% Stepulevage2000 Stocks19977 Stone1983 Stone1986 Stone1992 Stone1996 Stuck1985 Stumpf1997( Sturm1994 Sturm1995 Sturm1995 Suddendorf1996-Sulaiman2002Sullivan2000Sullivan2001 Sumner2005 Sutton1989 Sutton1991(Swadener1986Swadener1987 Swain2002 Swoope1987M Tan2004c Tarlin1997 Taylor1991( Taylor1994( Taylor1994^ Taylor2003s Teague1992v Teague1993: Teague1996< Teague2002h Teh1995 Temple1989( Temple1990wTescione2002Tescione2003XTescione2004?Therrien1988 Thomas19900 Thomborson1995 Thomson1997Thurston1989Thurston1992 Tierney2001Tillberg2005 Tischhauser1992 Todman2000( Torkzadeh19990Townsend2002 Trauth1985,Trayhurn1995:Trayhurn2000+ Treu1996w Tsai2002Y Tucker1985 Turkle1984( Turner2002(> Turner20033 Twing1991 Underwood1990 Underwood1990 Underwood1994 UpitisN.D.W Uzzi1992) Vale2003w( Vale2004wY Valian1998 van Braak2004 Varnhagen2002 Vasil1987 Vegso2005> Venter20033 Vispoel1993 Vohs200505.VOICE: Vocational Options in Creating Equality1986 Volk1997Y Volman1990( Volman1997( Volman1997 Volman2001( Walker1996( Wallace1995 Wang1991 Ware1985Y Warren1987 Warren-Sams1997  Wasburn2005 Watkins-Malek1985 Watson1989 Watson1991 Weaver2003; Weil1995! Weinman1999 Weise1991 Welch1983 Welch1994 Welty1996 Werner2004 Werner2004N Werner2005aJ Werner2005 West20026! Whitley1996" Whitley1996  Whitley1997# Widmer1984> Wilder1984h$ Wilder1985Williams1985Williams1987Williams1987-88Williams1990?Williams1992@Williams1993 Wilson1985 Wilson1999 Wolf19909 Wolfe1985A Wolfe2005B;4Women and Minorities in Information Technology Forum1999(P'!Women in Technology International1997? Wood19881@Woodburn1993C Woodrow1994 Woodrow2000 Wright1997D Wu1989 Wu19909 Wyatt1996E Yang2001!F Yeloushan1989 Young1998G Young1999H Yuen2002!I Zimitat2004 Zubrow1986J Zuga1996!2002( Underwood1990 Underwood1994) Vale2003w( Vale2004wY Valian1998 van Braak2004 Vasil1987t Vasil1987 Vegso20055.VOICE: Vocational Options in Creating Equality1986 Volk1997Y Volman1990( Volman1997( Volman1997 Volman2001( Walker1996( Wallace1995 Ware1985Y Warren-Sams1997  Wasburn2005; Weil1995! Weinman1999 Welty1996 Werner2004 Werner2004N Werner2005a West20026! Whitley1996" Whitley1996  Whitley1997> Wilder1984h$ Wilder1985Williams1987-88?Williams1992@Williams1993 Wilson1999A Wolfe2005B;4Women and Minorities in Information Technology Forum1999(P'!Women in Technology International1997C Woodrow1994 Wright1997D Wu1989E Yang2001!F Yeloushan1989G Young1999H Yuen2002!I Zimitat2004J Zuga1996!U7Z>[Oa/8h;_Nb?S QH=1w"$]L%V!&'()*A4+,E02.5#6B39D<GCKJT\F`cdefgkjr^o RR hiobPacce z=sxvpxvlw`Œ¹yyq{0yq瀿 ˋyDyq Authors tJournals XKeywords=                                . P= Access AdultsleaAdvanced Placementng Age Aggression Applications Attitudes and expectationsect BarriersCareer factorsClassroom interactions Context Counselors Critical massCross-cultural Culturemu Curriculum"#Departmental changeDistance education Early workElementary/primaryg & Enrollments Experienced hExtracurricular programsGames Graphics InterventionsLanguage and terminologyLearning stylesxpMales MathematicsMedia Methodology Middle schoolMiddle school lea Outreachu Outside U.S.Parents and home PedagogyPeers and friendsPhysical safetyea Pipelinen PolicyPostsecondary/tertiary & Preschool ProgrammingRace, ethnicity, or SES S RecruitmentResearch review RetentionRole models and mentors& School programsSecondary/high schoolSingle-sex environments SoftwareStereotype threatStereotypes and biasSupport groupsd mTeacher educationTeachers and facultyTelecommunications Use patterns  Use patterns irlste for girlsWebsite for girlsirlste for girlsWebsite for girlsWebsite for girls  n x Aaa, Aaa Abbate, J. Abbate, Janet Abler, R.M. Abler, R.M. & Sedlacek, W.E. Acker, Sandra Acker, Sandra & Oatley, Keith Adam, A. Adam, AlisonAdam, R. Lander & A. Adler, M.Agosto, Denise E. Agruso, SusanAlexander, Kara Poe0Alfrey, MargaretpAman, James R.pAmbady, NalinipAmbrose, S. et al.Z04.America, Information Technology Association of|vAmerican Associatin of University Women Educational Foundation Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education"=883American Association for the Advancement of Science ,(American Association of University WomenD?American Association of University Women Educational FoundationN|wAmerican Association of University Women Educational Foundation Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education=8|xAmerican Association of University Women Educational Foundation Commission on Technology, Gender, and Teacher Education,8Ancheta, Rebecca Wepsic Anderson, AnnAnderson, Ronald E.0<8Anderson, Ronald E.; Welch, Wayne W.; & Harris, Linda J.$ Apple, Hank Bromley & Michael W. Apple, M.Apple, Michael W.Arbinger, Paul RolandArch, Elizabeth C.Z0,&Arch, Elizabeth C. & Cummins, David E.Arenz, Bernard W.($Arenz, Bernard W. & Lee, Millheon J.Armstrong, Patrick Ian Armstrong-Stassen, MarjorieHBArmstrong-Stassen, Marjorie; Landstrom, Margaret & Lumpkin, Ramona Arnez, B.W.Arnez, B.W. & Lee, M.J.Aronson, JoshuapAshley, Juaniap($Aspray, Joanne McGrath Cohoon & Bill0*Aspray, Joanne McGrath Cohoon & William C.^ Aspray, Williamp($Aspray, William & Cohoon, J. McGrathAspray, William C.Z0Astin, Alexander W.0 Atan, H.83Atan, H.; Sulaiman, F.; Rahman, Z.A.; & Idrus, R.M. Atan, HanafiLFAtan, Hanafi; Azli, Nazirah A.; Rahman, Zuraidah A. & Idrus, Rozman M."$Attewell, Paulp Attewell, Paul & Battle, Juan Avon, RachelAyersman, David J.Z0,&Ayersman, David J. & Reed, W. MichaelAzli, Nazirah A.pBadagliacco, Joanne M.Bakon, Cynthiap<6Bakon, Cynthia; Nielsen, Antonia; & McKenzie, JamiesonӠ Bana, SoheilaBannert, Mariap,&Bannert, Maria & Arbinger, Paul Roland,'Barbieri, Maria Silvia & Light, Paul H.Barker, Lecia J.p<6Barker, Lecia J.; Garvin-Doxas, Kathy; & Sieber, Diane| Barnes, PeterBaron, Lois J. Barrett, E.Barrett, E. & Lally, V.Barry, Sean M.p Battle, JuanBaumeister, Roy F.Z0XRBaumeister, Roy F.; Campbell, Jennifer D.; Kreuger, Joachim I. & Vohs, Kathleen D. Bean, StevenBeeson, Betty Spillers,)Beeson, Betty Spillers & Williams, R. AnnBellisimo, YolandaZ0Ben-Zeev, Taliap Bennett, D.Bennett, DorothypBennett, Peggy Clements Bennett, SueBenoit, Sallye S. et al.Berhnard, Judith K.0Bernhard, Judith K.0Bernstein, Danielle R.Bernt, Phyllis W. Berstein, D. Beynon, J.Beynon, J. & Mackay, H. Beynon, J. M. Beynon, J.M.Bhargava, Ambikap@:Bhargava, Ambika; Kirova-Petrovna, Anna; & McNair, Shannan"# Bibby, AlanBiernat, Monicap83Biernat, Monica; Manis, Melvin; & Nelson, Thomas E.E(#Biklen, Sari Knopp & Pollard, DianeBlacksheep, BaBapBlandford, Sonyap Bliss, Joan Blum, L. Blum, Lenore Blum, Lenore & Frieze, Carol Bluym, LenoreBoard, Collegep(#Board, College Entrance ExaminationBohonak, Noni McCullough Bolan, Sandra Bond, TrevorBordeaux, Barbara Borg, AnitaBorgo, Suzanne LavonBoudria, Theodore J.Bourque, Susan C.("Bourque, Susan C. & Warren, Kay B.Y  X iAACTE Policy PerspectivesACM SIGCSE Bulletin $Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica*,'Alberta Journal of Educational ResearchAmerican Psychologist American School Board Journal0*Annals of the New York Academy of SciencesZ0Arithmetic Teacher 0+Association for Learning Technology Journal0$Australian Journal of Education)(#Behavior and Information Technology($British Educational Research Journal,)British Journal of Educational Technology0*British Journal of Guidance and CounselingZ0,)British Journal of Sociology of Education Brown Online$Canadian Journal of Education*(%Canadian Journal of Higher Education@)c,D9j0ZZ>>[[[[ [>a/OOOO/;_NNNNN??NShZN[?C ;;;QQQH==H8>7www$$$""7Zh_b[?S_? w"7K7 !$$$]]L%%c&%%VVV!!&&== L&&&'''&'''((((()))))***AA+4444=+,+,aEE0002_2222=..F.([Q% 'V.5/.55#*555#5#66BBBBBB3Z//hh;;Nb118?ww]%&&)))A++,000.53w393339H99DDDDD<DDDDD9DGGGGGCKK0KJTJJJT? 6$aOO/8_]ZN??SQH"$LL%V!SH!!!''Z[aOS wLLNZ%_'()**AAA4444E5B3KTAL]\\\\\F\```cccddddeeeee8fffffffgcgggg"l2Fc'XForgasz, Helen 200382Girls, boys and computers for mathematics learning*$Mathematical Association of Victoria Victoria, Australia:3Mathematics Attitudes and expectations Outside U.S. |Questionnaires were given to about 2,600 students and about 100 teachers in grades 7-11 in Victoria (Australia) co-ed schools, and classroom observations and interviews were held with some students and teachers. Teachers believed that computer-competent students stood to gain most from computer use in mathematics learning, and they saw boys as more competent with the computer.,&Forsyth, Alfred S. Jr. Lancy, David F. 1989F?Girls and microcomputers: A hopeful finding regarding softwareComputers in the Schools6{ 3/4 51-59BAttitudes and expectations Outside U.S. Postsecondary/tertiary378 undergraduate students in Wales completed questionnaires about computer attitude and gender stereotypes about computers. No sex differences were found on computer attitudes, and only a small minority of students held gender-stereotyped views of computer use. The suspicion that the opposite sex was better at computer use and a less positive attitude towards computers was associated with greater computer anxiety for both females and males.>7Francis, Leslie J. Katz, Jaacov Julian Evans, Thomas E. 1996The relationship between personality and attitudes towards computers: An investigation among female undergraduate students in Israel*$British Educational Research Journal273164-170@9Attitudes and expectations Outside U.S. Teacher education298 female teacher education students were given computer attitude and personality tests. Introverts have a more positive attitude than extroverts (= sociable, likes to take chances). High psychoticism scorers (= cold, impersonal, hostile, lacking in sympathy, etc.) have a more positive attitude than low scorers. There was no relationship between neuroticism (= worrier) and attitude towards computers. "One of the major problems in interpreting the discrepant findings from previous research [about computer attitudes] concerns the variety of instruments employed to assess computer-related attitudes. .. [T]here is considerable variation within the constructs being measured."Freedman, Kerryp 1989^WMicrocomputers and the dynamics of image making and social life in three art classrooms4-Journal of Research on Computing in Education21290-298PJUse patterns Experience Graphics Elementary/primary Classroom interactionsRK5th grade (and high school) art classes were observed and interviewed about doing computer graphics. 0.5% of the 5th grade girls and 24.5% of the boys said they had taught themselves how to use a computer. In interviews, two reasons for the discrepancy emerged: boys initiated their own computer experiences and girls rarely did, and boys got more attention from adults in learning how to use computers. The girls focused more on interactions with each other than with the computer; for the boys it was the reverse. Girls seemed to be more interested in color and the relational elements of an image than boys, and less interested in movement. In mixed-sex groups, at first boys ignored girls and girls did not participate in activity or decisions. With time, girls began to participate by focusing on what boys first chose to focus on.o Freeman, Catherine E. 2004:4Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004  Washington DC LENational Center of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education NCES 2005-016>8Pipeline Use patterns Experience Race, ethnicity, or SESElementary and secondary girls and boys were equally likely to use the computer at school and home in 2001, and racial/ethnic group did not make the results different. Computer use for both sexes rose since 1993, when they were also mostly equal by sex. (p. 38) &F@:Creamer, Elizabeth G. Burger, Carol J. Meszaros, Peggy S. 2004\UCharacteristics of high school and college women interested in information technology@:Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering101 67-78rkCareer factors Secondary/high school Postsecondary/tertiary Use patterns Adults Attitudes and expectationsXQContrary to prior research, findings from a questionnaire completed by 436 high school, college and community college students did not reveal significant differences by gender in amount of computer use of most types of computer applications. However, men were more interested in IT careers than women but were more likely than women to have negative stereotypes about IT workers. Women who were interested in computers had more positive attitudes toward IT workers than women less interested. A challenge is how to encourage young women who enjoy computers to think of them in career terms.*$Crombie, Gail Armstrong, Patrick Ian 1999nhEffects of classroom gender composition on adolescents' computer-related attitudes and future intentions0)Journal of Educational Computing Research204317-3272,Single-sex environment Secondary/high schoolAn 11th grade computer science class was taught in three sections (one all-female and two mixed-sex) by the same male teacher. Girls could choose their section. Girls in the all-female class reported greater perceived teacher support than either males or girls in the mixed-sex classes, and were similar to males in confidence, motivation, and future academic intentions. The two mixed-sex classes were 19:5 and 19:3 M/F.Crowley, Kevin 2000hbParent differences during museum visits: Gender differences in how children hear informal scienceVisitor Studies Today33 21-28LFParents and home Preschool Stereotypes and bias Classroom interactionsWhile not directly concerned with computing, intriguing nevertheless. In a study of family groups visiting science museums, it was found that both parents but especially fathers explained the science content of interactive science exhibits to sons three times more than to daughters, and this was true for children as young as 1 year old. In contrast, parents at interactive music exhibits were twice as likely to explain the exhibits to daughters than to sons. "A casual observer in the museum on a day we collected data would probably have noticed no differences in the ways that parents spoke to boys or girls. Parents brought their daughters to a museum, engaged interactive science exhibits with them, talked about what to do with exhibits, and talked about what to perceive from exhibits. It was only when we analyzed the videotaped records of these interactions that we detected that the crucial educational step of providing an explanatory context for the experience was primarly reserved for boys." (p. 23)`  Culley, L. 1986<5Gender differences and computing in secondary schools Longborough, UK PILongborough Department of Education, Longborough University of Technology& Could not obtain: not reviewed.Culley, Lorraine 1988 Girls, boys and computers Educational Studies141 3-8<5Teachers and faculty Stereotypes and bias ProgrammingF@Teachers regarded 11- and 12-year-old boys as more interested in computing and rewarding to teach than girls. Even when it was observed that girls did everything that was asked of them and presented good work, they were still seen by some teachers as having less of a flair for programming. (As cited in Sutton [1991]) :Ptb "Margolis, Jane Fisher, Allan 2000LFWomen in computer science: Closing the gender gap in higher education0*Draft Final Report to the Sloan Foundation|vPostsecondary learning & achievement Retention Enrollments Experience Attitudes and expectations Interventions CulturerlExperience pp. 6-7. Suggestions for interventions pp 7-8. Erosion of confidence preceeds loss of interest.0)Margolis, Jane Fisher, Allan Miller, Faye 2000HAThe anatomy of interest: Women in undergraduate computer science Women's Studies Quarterly"28 1/2104-127[piAttitudes and expectations Retention Stereotypes and bias Experience Role models and mentors Outside U.S.They "focus on the process by which students who enter with high enthusiasm and interest in computing quickly lose their faith in the ability and their interest in the subject." (p. 1) Women feel they know so much less than the men. The "nexus of confidence and interest." (p. 7) The pattern for international women is different, who enter with less experience and interest than American women but persist anyway. Faculty mentors are important to women.^Whttp://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~gendergap/papers/anatomyWSQ99.html, retrieved November 8, 20042"Margolis, Jane Fisher, Allan 20022,Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing  Cambridge, MA  MIT PressCulture Teacher education Attitudes and expectations Experience Middle school Secondary/high school Role models and mentors Departmental change Outside U.S.PLEBook explores dimensions of the computer gender gap in terms of families' computer-related behaviors; primary, secondary, and postsecondary classrooms; the male culture of computer science; influences on persisting vs. dropping out; the different responses of American vs. international women; and recommendations for change.e0)Margolis, Jane Fisher, Allan Miller, Faye n.d.HBFailure is not an option: International women in computer scienceD>Retention Experience Attitudes and expectations Cross-culturalInternational women have less prior computing experience and interest in computing than American women, but they persist more because of economic and pragmatic realities.60http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~gendergap/intwomen.html0)Margolis, Jane Fisher, Allan Miller, Faye n.d.JCComputing for a purpose: Gender and attachment to computer science6/Culture Programming Parents and home CurriculumB;Women "are more likely to place a high value on the context of computing, the links between computers and other fields, and the contribution to society that computers can make." (p. 1) Male students mentioned their fathers, not mothers, in early computing experiences, and enjoy programming to control the machine.RKhttp://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~gendergap/purpose.html, retrieved November 8, 200420)Margolis, Jane Fisher, Allan Miller, Faye n.d.|vLiving among the "programming gods": The nexus of confidence and interest for undergraduate women in computer science|vAttitudes and expectations Programming Retention Stereotypes and bias Stereotype threat Interventions Pedagogy Culture\UThe link between loss of confidence in one's computing ability and loss of interest in it as a field of study or career. Interventions included creating multiple entry-level courses and an overview course to help students see a more complete picture of the field, pedagogical changes, faculty mentors, and explicit attention to the culture.uJDhttp://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/confidence.html, retrieved December 10, 20040)Margolis, Jane Fisher, Allan Miller, Faye{ n.d.Geek mythologyF@Culture Attitudes and expectations Curriculum Pedagogy RetentionPIDiscusses the geeky culture of computing and how it doesn't suit females.TMhttp://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~gendergap/geekmyth.html, retrieved December 10, 20042 Mark, June 1992D>Beyond equal access: Gender equity in learning with computers>7Women's Educational Equity Act Publishing Center Digest JuneResearch reviewD>Brief review of research on factors of importance to teachers. Markoff, John 19892+Computing in America: A masculine mystiqueNew York Times New York1A February 13|CultureTMArticle and responding letters to the editor about the male computer culture. Martin, R. 1991zSchool children's attitudes towards computers as a function of gender, course subjects, and availability of home computers,%Journal of Computer Assisted Learning7187-1942+Attitudes and expectations Parents and home15-year-old students in England were surveyed. Males had more positive computer attitudes. Home ownership of a computer was correlated with boys' taking a computer-related class in school more strongly than it was for girls.WV[<5McNair, Shannan Korova-Petrova, Anna Bhargava, Ambika 2001\UComputers and young children in the classroom: Strategies for minimizing gender bias(!Early Childhood Education Journal291 51-55LEInterventions Role models and mentors Software Classroom interactionsAmong strategies recommended for minimizing gender bias in classroom computer use are role models, anti-bias teaching strategies, and bias-free software. McNees, Pat 2003NGNew Formulas for America's Workforce: Girls in Science and Engineering  Arlington, VA 4.National Science Foundation, pub. # NSF 03-207Interventions Middle school Secondary/high school Postsecondary/tertiary Teacher education Extracurricular programs School programsleDescribes over 250 projects on girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) funded by the National Science Foundation. Excellent index for identifying interventions. Pp. 101-113 list 16 projects on girls and IT carried out with funding from the Program for Gender Equity, for girls from middle school through college and for teachers.Melymuka, Kathleen 20010)If girls don't get IT, IT won't get girls ComputerWorld January 8*#Barriers Attitudes and expectationsGirls aren't interested in IT because corporate America and the technology community have been doing a lousy public relations job.pihttp://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/story/0,10801,55910,00.html, retrieved October 11, 2004 MentorNet n.d. MentorNetWebsiteRole models and mentorsleElectronic mentoring program for young women in technology and the sciences, in operation since 1998.k<6http://www.mentornet.net, retrieved December 28, 2004Millard, Elaine 1997New technologies, old inequalities: Variations found in the use of computers by pupils at home with implications for the school curriculum.(British Educational Research Association University of York, UK>8Parents and home Attitudes and expectations Outside U.S.They surveyed Year 7 and Year 9 students in Northern England at schools with varying SES levels. 56% of boys but only 22% of girls said they had computers in their rooms at home; the imbalance was even greater in inner-city homes. Boys used computers much more than girls, mostly for games. Boys estimated their computer competence more highly than girls. Schools must recognize and counteract these imbalances.:3http://brs.leeds.ac.uk, retrieved December 27, 20042,Miller, Leslie Chaika, Melissa Groppe, Laura 1996JCGirls' preferences in software design: Insights from a focus group,&Interpersonal Computing and Technology42+ 27-36 AprilSoftware Career factorsCites a dissertation by Yasmin Kafi in which 4th grade students were asked to design a game to teach fractions by programming in LOGO; boys and girls chose different themes, rewards, and feedback for wrong answers. In the study in this paper, 30 girls from grades 6-12 discussed and explored software for 6 hours. Half had little to no experience with computers. Girls preferred to ask each other for help with software rather than using a manual. They placed a high value on the quality of the visual and audio design, preferred that software be collaborative rather than competitive and were interested in role-playing associated with careers.ZThttp://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1996/n2/miller.txt, retrieved December 10, 2004 p{ \y4.Durndell, Alan; Glissov, Peter; & Siann, Gerda0-Durndell, Alan; Siann, Gerda & Glissov, Peter,)Dyck, Jennifer L & Smither, Janan Al-AwarDyck, Jennifer L.Dyer, Susan K.p e-skills UK Eachus, PeterEastman, Caroline M.Eastman, Susan Tyler($Eastman, Susan Tyler & Krendl, KathyEccles, Jacquelynne0Eccles, Jacquelynne S.Eck, Edith vanp,)Education, California State Department ofEdwards, Carolp Edwards, P.N.Eisenberg, Rebecca L. Elen, JanElkjaer, Bentep ENWISEO$Equity, Center for EducationalTEstrella, RachelpEtzkowitz, HenrypHDEtzkowitz, Henry; Kemelgor, Carol; Neuschatz, Michael; & Uzzi, BrianEvans, Thomas E.pFeldman, AlegrapFerguson-Pabst, DonnaHEFerguson-Pabst, Donna, Persichitte, Kay; Lohr, Linda & Pearman, BetsyLFFerguson-Pabst, Donna, Persichitte, Kay; Lohr, Linda; & Pearman, Betsy"$Fernald, JulianpFerrari, Michelp Fetler, MarkFiore, Catherinep Fish, Marian40Fish, Marian; Gross, Alan; & Sanders, Jo Shuchat Fisher, Allan$Fisher, Allan & Margolis, JaneӣP0-Fisher, Allan; Margolis, Jane; & Miller, Faye Fisher, JulieFitzgerald, DonaldZ0Fitzpatrick, HelenZ0,&Fitzpatrick, Helen & Hardman, MargaretFleetwood, CynthiaZ0Fleming, John H.pFletcher-Flinn, Claire M.4.Fletcher-Flinn, Claire M. & Suddendorf, ThomasForgasz, HelenpForsyth, Alfred S. Jr.,(Forsyth, Alfred S. Jr. & Lancy, David F. Foster, T. Foundation, AAUW EducationalD@Foundation, American Association of University Women EducationalN Foundation, National ScienceFox, Mary Frankp$Fox, Sue V. Rosser & Mary FrankFrancioni, JoanpFrancioni, Joan M.Z0Francis, Leslie J.Z0@:Francis, Leslie J.; Katz, Jaacov Julian & Evans, Thomas E."#Fraser, Barry J.pFreedman, KerrypFreeman, Catherine E. Frieze, Carol Frieze, Carol & Blum, LenoreFurger, RobertapGabbert, Paulap$!Gabbert, Paula & Meeker, Paige H.Gale, Matthew T.pGalpin, VashtipD@Galpin, Vashti; Sanders, Ian; Turner, Heather& Venter, BernadineN Gardner, J.R.,'Gardner, J.R.; McEwen, A. & Curry, C.A.Garver, Jo AnnpGarvin-Doxas, Kathy0@;Gary Brinkley, Mary Ellen O'Shaugnessey, and Richard Wilson# Gaskell, J. Gaskell, J. & McLaren., A.$Gaskell, Jane & Willinsky, John3Gaston, Barbarap Gatta, MaryGelpi, Adriennep Gerver, E.Gifford, JamespGilbert, Lucia Albino@;Gilbert, Lucia Albino; Bravo, Melinda J. & Kearney, Lisa K.# Girl Scouts$!Girl Scouts Hornets' Nest Council Girlstart Glass, C.R. Glass, C.R. & Knight, L.A. Glissov, P.Glissov, P. et al.Z0Glissov, Peterp Goode, Joanna40Goode, Joanna; Estrella, Rachel & Margolis, JaneGoodfellow, KrispGordon, Clairep Gordon, M.Grant, W. Vancep(#Grant, W. Vance & Snyder, Thomas D. Graves, D.Graves, D. & Klawe, M. Greber, Lisa Green, NancyGreenfield, Patricia M.Greenhough, PampGressard, Clarice P.,&Gressard, Clarice P. & Loyd, Brenda H.Griffiths, Morwenna0,&Griffiths, Morwenna & Alfrey, Margaret Groppe, Laura Gross, AlanGroundwater-Smith, S.($Groundwater-Smith, S. & Crawford, K.Grundy, FrancespGulardo, SoniapGunn, C. et al.p@=Gunn, C.; French, S.; McLeod, H.; McSporran, Ml. & Conole, G. Gunn, Cathy Gupta, Uma G.$Gupta, Uma G. & Houtz, Lynne E.DM$ Smith, L. 198960Have we closed the gaps in student computer use?The Computing Teacher17 37-39 & Could not obtain: not reviewed.Smith, Lola B. 2000jdThe socialization of females with regard to a technology-related career: recommendations for change>8Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal3S2ERIC ED 450 213^XCareer factors Curriculum Role models and mentors Peers and friends Interventions Adults12 women who took technological career paths were asked via interviews, observations and document analysis about influences on their career choice. They mentioned role models, encouragement ("scaffolding"), collaborative assignments, reality-based assignments, and encouragement from father, male peers and male siblings. Recommended interventions include encouraging girls to ask questions and take risks and increasing play activities in technology environments. >8Snyder, Thomas D. Tan, Alexandra G. Hoffman, Charlene M. 2004*#Digest of Education Statistics 2003  Washington DC D=U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences&Use patterns TelecommunicationsStudent computer use in the U.S. is now mostly equal. Internet: equal until college, when females use it more. (Table 426) Home computer use: essentially equal. (Table 429) School computer use: Essentially equal until college, when males use it more: financial reasons? (Table 429) Home computer use for schoolwork: slightly more females. (Table 429). However, high school computer courses taken: essentially equal until 1994, now (= 2001) the most unequal it has been since data were collected on this in 1982, with boys taking an average of 0.93 Carnegie Units and girls, 0.74. (Table 137) Degrees in CS earned by women 2001: Associates, 40.5%, Table 263 Bachelors, 27.6%, Table 264 Masters, 33.9%, Table 269 Ph.D., 22.8%, Table 271 Solomou, K. 1996HBNursery school children and computers: Gender-related differences Sheffield, U.K. University of Sheffield-Unpublished dissertation@:Parents and home Elementary/primary Preschool Outside U.S.Parents in England were studied who visited their children's nursery schools. Both mothers and fathers were more likely to ask questions about their sons' use of computers than their daughters'. This source was cited in Opie, Clive (1998). "Whose turn next? Gender issues in information technology" in Gender in the Secondary Curriculum: Balancing the Books (Ann Clark & Elaine Millard, eds.). London: Routledge, p. 83.0*Werner, Linda L. Denner, Jill Bean, Steven 2004:3Pair programming strategies for middle school girlsx4.Computers and Advanced Technology in Education  Kauai, HawaiitmInterventions Extracurricular programs Programming Single-sex environment Programming Role models and mentorsMiddle-school girls learned Flash programming working in pairs in an after-school and a summer program. To train girls in working in pairs, they used role modeling of effective and ineffective pair programming by having the teachers perform good and bad scripts, having girls identify pair programming rules, and publicly recognizing effective pair programmers of the week. Scripts and rules are included. No outcome measures.rter interest and course enrollment in college(!Sex Roles: A Journal of Research16 5/6303-311>7Attitudes and expectations Programming Parents and home`LEUndergraduates completed a questionnaire about their computer self-efficacy (= "the belief that one can successfully execute a certain course of behavior" p. 304). Men rated themselves higher. The main predictor of computer self-efficacy for women was having taken programming in high school, as well as computer ownership. g-f~lZXj <6Bhargava, Ambika Kirova-Petrovna, Anna McNair, Shannan 19990*Computers, gender bias, and young children4-Information Technology in Childhood Education263-274s6/Pedagogy Parents and home Software Use patternsDifference in computer use can be attributed to gender-biased classroom practices, lack of female role models, computer gender gap in homes, and the scarcity of bias-free software.<6Bhargava, Ambika Kirova-Petrovna, Anna McNair, Shannan 2002JDGender bias in computer software programs: A checklist for teachers:4Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual 20021205-218$Software Teachers and facultyGender bias exists in software in terms of characters (most are male and both sexes are presented in stereotypic roles), content (reflects male interests with a focus on adventure and sports, aggression and violence; complicated software frustrates inexperienced users, primarily girls), and reward systems (correct answers get male-oriented responses). A checklist is presented for teachers to use for evaluating educational software for gender bias.6/Biernat, Monica Manis, Melvin Nelson, Thomas E. 1991,%Stereotypes and standards of judgment2,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology604485-4992+Stereotypes and bias Postsecondary/tertiary"College students were shown pictures of males and females and asked to rate them for height, weight, financial success, and age, either objectively (with numbers) or subjectively (as compared to an "average adult"). Objective judgments turned out to be much more gender stereotyped.p Blum, Lenore 2001@9Women in computer science: The Carnegie Mellon experienceB;The Future of the University: The University of the FutureHAPostsecondary/tertiary Curriculum Culture Outreach Support groupspjSuccess story at Carnegie Mellon University: Women@SCS Advisory Council, culture changes, experience gap. Blum, Lenore 2001>8Transforming the culture of computing at Carnegie MellonComputing Research News135 2-9PJPostsecondary/tertiary Interventions Critical mass Barriers Support groupsvpDescription of what they did at Carnegie Mellon University to raise female enrollment from 7% to 37%, 1995-2001. Blum, Lenore 2002ngBuilding an effective computer science student organization: The Carnegie Mellon women@SCS action planSIGCSE Bulletin342 74-78& Could not obtain: not reviewed. Blum, Lenore 2004@:Women in computer science: The Carnegie Mellon experience "Daniel P. Resnick Dana Scott The Innovative University  Pittsburgh Carnegie Mellon Press& Could not obtain: not reviewed. Blum, Lenore Frieze, Carol 2005F@The evolving culture of computing: Similarity is the difference,&Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies261F@Curriculum Culture Programming Postsecondary/tertiary Experience"Recommendations for curricular changes based on presumed gender differences can be misguided and may help reinforce, even perpetuate, stereotypes." As the environment becomes more equalized by sex, breadth of interests, and professional experiences, the culture changes in ways that are positive for women and men. They claim very different conclusions from those of Jane and Allan in interviews with the last class of CS women to enter CMU as a distinct minority (class of 2002), who were affected by the larger number of women in succeeding years: "a class in transition." Unlike what Jane and Allan found, there was less geekiness, students were more well-rounded, and there were more similarities between males and females.Bohonak, Noni McCullough 1995NGAttracting and retaining women in graduate programs in computer science Rosser, Sue V.b\Teaching the Majority: Breaking the Gender Barrier in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering New York Teachers College Press169-180ngPostsecondary/tertiary Outreach Retention Pipeline Culture Stereotypes and bias Race, ethnicity, or SES{jcFew graduate programs have support mechanisms for female students for outreach or retention. Foreign students and faculty often come from cultures that discount women. CS departments use freshman courses for filtering out students. Minority women have cultural and financial problems. There is a need for well-funded programs for women and minorities.e Bolan, Sandra 2002$Girls learn IT bits and bytes[Computing Canada18March 28Role models and mentorsD=Event for girls in IT featured a woman in IT as a role model. Borg, Anita 199982What draws women to and keeps women in computing?0*Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences New York "New York Academy of Sciences& Could not obtain: not reviewed.68785 .'Campbell, Patricia B. Russell, Susan Jo 19844-Microcomputers and women's educational equityh Hands On!n7x1 16-21TLEBarriers Software Use patterns Access Culture Race, ethnicity, or SES~$Keywords say it all: overview*$Campbell, Patricia B. Gulardo, Sonia 19844-Computers in education: A question of accessComputers in the Schools11 57-65.'Access Barriers Race, ethnicity, or SESzf_Access issues for girls and children of color. Includes recommended introductory lesson plans.Campbell, Patricia B. 19846/The computer revolution: Guess who's left out?H.'Interracial Books for Children Bulletin153 3-6Bhvan Braak, Johan P. 2004ZSDomains and determinants of university students' self-perceived computer competence Computers and Education433299-312D=Methodology Attitudes and expectations Postsecondary/tertiarysAn instrument on self-perceived computer competence was developed. Univariate gender differences in computer competence seem to disappear when controlled for computer confidence: girls felt less confidence than boys.0*Vasil, Latika; Hesketh, Beryl & Podd, John 1987JDSex differences in computing behaviour among secondary school pupils0*New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies222201-214{`YAttitudes and expectations Experience Parents and home Outside U.S. Secondary/high school4.Secondary students in New Zealand were surveyed. There were no sex differences in intention to enroll in a computer course, but there were strong sex differences favoring boys in access to computers, access to home computers, frequency of use, past computer experience, and self-efficacy expectations. Vegso, Jay 2005>7Interest in CS as a major drops among incoming freshmenComputing Research News173Pipeline<5With data from the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles, article shows alarming drop in freshmen's interest in computer majors, especially among women, whose interest "has fallen to levels unseen since the early 1970s." Great charts from 1960s and 1970s to 2004.LEhttp://www.cra.org/CRN/articles/may05/vegso, retrieved April 25, 2005 6/VOICE: Vocational Options in Creating Equality, 19862+Computer equity: Access is not the problem Albany BUse patterns Parents and home Elementary/primary Middle school259 4th through 8th graders were surveyed. Use: for 80% of the sample use levels were similar by sex, but about 20% of the boys reported heavy computer use. More boys (50%) than girls (35%) owned home computers; again boys were the heaviest users. Both boys and girls preferred games and content software. Most of the gender difference is due to a small percentage of boys who use the computer much more than girls and most boys.& Swadener, Marc Hannafin, Michael 1987nhGender similarities and differences in sixth graders' attitudes towards computers: An exploratory studyEducational Technology 37-42January@9Attitudes and expectations Mathematics Elementary/primaryStudy was to see if there were differences in 6th graders with high and low math achievement and their attitude toward computers. All groups felt that there was no sex difference in the likelihood of success with computers.*#Swain, Sandra L. Harvey, Douglas M. 2002<6Single-sex computer classes: An effective alternative Tech Trends466  17-20tmSingle-sex environment Research review Access Interventions Attitudes and expectations Classroom interactionsShort review of the research on how single-sex technology classrooms might help with gender problems: accessibility, attitudinal differences, achievement, and classroom learning environment. Although single-sex classrooms "do not mirror the real world females must contend with once outside the classroom, they are, however, effective interim interventions to enable females to lessen the current technology gap." (p. 19) Tarlin, Ellen 1997<6Computers in the classrooms: Where are all the girls? Harvard Educational Review Focus series3$Could not obtain: no review.,%Taylor, Harriet G. Mounfield, Luegina 1991leAn analysis of success factors in college computer science: High school methodology is a key element4-Journal of Research on Computing in Education242240-245PISecondary/high school Postsecondary/tertiary Programming Parents and homeqHigh school experience with programming was the major component of high school computer experience that contributed the most to success in IT in college. Programming courses were especially helpful, as opposed to learning programming on one's own in an undisciplined fashion. Higher grades in programming class were predictive of college success. Knowing applications only without programming was not an indicator of college computer science success. Home computer ownership had a very small positive effect on college CS success.,%Taylor, Harriet G. Mounfield, Luegina( 1994ztExploration of the relationship between prior computing experience and gender on success in college computer science0)Journal of Educational Computing Research114291-306+PIProgramming Parents and home Secondary/high school Postsecondary/tertiaryIn a study of 656 college students, males' college CS success was correlated with owning a computer and having taken high school programming courses. For females, however, having taken high school programming course, having their own computer, and having had any prior computing experience correlated with college CS success. High school CS courses were almost four times more predictive of female success in college than male success.s Teague, Joy 1992`ZRaising the self-confidence and self-esteem of final-year students prior to job interviewsSIGSCE Bulletin241 67-71& Could not obtain: not reviewed. Teague, Joy 2002JCWomen in computing: What brings them to it, what keeps them in it?SIGCSE Bulletin342147-158$Career factors Research reviewIn a study of 15 women working in computing, it was found that they enjoy the work they are doing, and that dislikes were more likely to be associated with people and politics. The paper reviews the literature on female career choice in computing.s felt that computers were more appropriate for boys, and boys reported more parental encouragement. Students' perception of their parents' beliefs and encouragement affected their own interest, confidence, and stereotyped views of computers. Fathers' and mothers' male/computer belief encouraged boys and discouraged girls, and also promoted their childrens' stereotypes about computer users. 67% of the boys reported parental encouragement to take computing, while only 22% of the girls reported it. Students whose parents encouraged them "to take computer courses were more interested in computing, had less stereotypical views about computer users, and had more confidence in working with computers." (p. 441) SES had more influence on females than males. Higher SES mothers had daughters with less gender-stereotyped views about computing and more positive computer attitudes. However, "parental attitudes and encouragement substantially overshadowed the effect of SES on children's computer attitudes." (p. 447) U@Yd(#Nelson, Carol S. & Watson, J. AllenNelson, Lori J.p0-Nelson, Lori J; Weise, Gina M. & Cooper, JoelNelson, Lori, J.p$Nelson, Lori, J. & Cooper, JoelNelson, Sarah CottonNelson, Thomas E. Neuman, DeliaNeuschatz, MichaelZ0 Ng, M.ONicholson, Juliep83Nicholson, Julie; Gelpi, Adrienne; & Young, ShannonhNickell, G.S. et al.Nielsen, Antoniap85Nolan, Patric C.J.; McKinnon, David H. & Soler, JanetNolan, Patrick C.J.0<6Nolan, Patrick C.J.; McKinnon, David H. & Soler, Janet North, A.S.North, A.S. & Noyes, J.M. Noyes, J.M. Nyhus, C. O'Neil, KimO'Shaugnessey, Mary Ellen Oatley, KeithOberman, Paul S.p,'Officers, Council of Chief State SchoolOgletree, Shirley M.,'Ogletree, Shirley M. & Williams, Sue W.Ogletree, Shirley MatileOkebukola, Peter A.0 Olinsky, A. Ollila, Lloyd Olzak, SusanOnwuegbuzie, Anthony J. Opie, CliveOriogun, Peterp Ormrod, S. Ory, John C.83Ory, John C.; Bullock, Cheryl; & Burnaska, KristineXT OsajimaOOsajima, Aprilp Owen, S.V.Palmer, CarolynpPalonen, Tuirep Parisi, Lynn Parker, Janet$!Parker, Janet & Widmer, Constance Passig, David Passig, David & Levin, Haya Pearl, Amy\YPearl, Amy; Pollack, Martha E.; Riskin, Eve; Thomas, Beckly; Wolf, Elizabeth; & Wu, AlicePearman, Betsyp Pecora, NormaPedretti, Erminia Pelgrum, W.J. Perl, Teri Perry, Ruth Perry, Ruth & Greber, LisaPersichitte, KaypPflughoeft, KurtpPhillips, Perry D.Z0 Phye, Gary D.Pittinsky, Todd L.Z0Plamondin, Kathy KiddPlamondon, Kathy Kidd Plomp, TjeerdPlumeridge, SarahPollack, Martha E.Z0Pope-Davis, Donald B.(%Pope-Davis, Donald B. & Twing, Jon S.0*Pope-Davis, Donald B. & Vispoel, Walter P.^ Pozzi, Stefano et al.$!Project on Equal Education Rights Proost, Karin,)Proost, Karin; Elen, Jan; & Joost, Lowyck Pryor, Debra Pryor, J. Pryor, John Qu, NancyQuinn, Diane M.p R., Wright. Raffeld, Paul Rahman, Z.A.Rahman, Zuraidah A.0Reece, Carol Carter0Reed, W. MichaelpReinen, Ingeborg Janssen,(Reinen, Ingeborg Janssen & Plomp, TjeerdRennie, Leonie J.Renninger, K. Ann("Renninger, K. Ann & Shumar, WesleyYResnick, Daniel P.Z0 Rhem, James Rice, MarionRichards, P. ScottZ0<9Richards, P. Scott; Johnson, David W. & Johnson, Roger T. Rifkin, Adam Ring, Geoff Riskin, EveRoberts, Eric S.p85Roberts, Eric S.; Kassianidou, Marina; & Irani, LillyRobinson-Staveley, Kris,&Robinson-Staveley, Kris & Cooper, Joel Robst, John(%Robst, John; Russo, Dean & Keil, Jack$Roger, Angela & Duffield, JillU Roger, Susan Rosen, L.D.Rosenthal, Nina Ribak40Rosenthal, Nina Ribak & Demetrulias, Diana MayerRosenwasser, S.p Ross, SusanRosser, Sue V.pRothstein, EdwardRoy, Margueritep84Roy, Marguerite; Taylor, Roger & Chi, Michelene T.H. Rubin, Andee<9Rubin, Andee; Murray, Megan; O'Neil, Kim & Ashley, Juania Rubin, Nicola Yelland & AndeeRussell, Susan Jo Russo, DeanRusso, Nancy Felipe0\YRusso, Nancy Felipe; Chan, Connie; Kenkel, Mary Beth; Travis, Cheryl B.; & Vasquez, MelbaRust, William J.p Ryan, C.Sackrowitz, MarianZ0Sacks, Colin H.p<8Sacks, Colin H.; Bellisimo, Yolanda & Mergendoller, JohnSales, Gregory C.Salgado, Raquel Scherr Saljo, Roger84Sally Wyatt, Flis Henwood, Nod Miller & Peter Senker@Salvendy, Gavriel Sanders, Ian Sanders, Jl Sanders, Jo(#Sanders, Jo & Campbell, Patricia B.$Sanders, Jo & Lubetkin, Rebecca Sanders, Jo & McGinnis, Mary("Sanders, Jo & Nelson, Sarah CottonY Sanders, Jo & Tescione, Susan$ Sanders, Jo & Tescione, Susan T.LSanders, Jo Shuchat0($Sanders, Jo Shuchat & Stone, AntoniaSawada, Toshiop Sax, Linda J.PKSax, Linda J.; Astin, Alexander W.; Korn, William S.; & Mahoney, Kathryn M. Solvberg, Astrid M. 2002RLGender differences in computer-related control beliefs and home computer use2,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research464409-4260<5Attitudes and expectations Middle school Outside U.S. In a study of Norwegian 8th graders, a group of students who did not use computers in school was found to show higher male confidence and perceived control of the computer. Another group that did use computers in school showed no gender differences. (Abstract only) Sorenson, Knut et al.  2003<6Case studies of public efforts to include women in ICT & Information Society Technologies38<6IST-2000-26329 SIGIS, Deliverable Number D03, Volume 1f`Cross-cultural Interventions Single-sex environment Adults Role models and mentors Outside U.S. The report deals with 15 initiatives on gender and technology in Norway, the Netherlands, Scotland, Italy, and Ireland. "One major provisional finding is, on the basis of cases in training and education, that successful inclusion is based on projects that combine a measure of different strategies. That is, recruitment, teaching methods, role models, social support, practical assistance and financing are important factors that should be combined." (p. 15-16) In some projects, single-sex courses were successful, but in others the women "do not want 'self-consciousness training.'" (p. 16) In one Norway project, interviews with teachers found that many teachers resented the government's emphasis on gender equity and felt that such an emphasis was old-fashioned and no longer necessary; in schools that did not emphasize gender equity girls were included anyway. In a second Norway project at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, female enrollment in ICT dropped from 20% in the mid-80s to 6% in the mid-90s; the Women in Computing Initiative gave women info about the major, convinced able women to apply, set quotas for women, reformed the curriculum, improved the quality of teaching, and improved the social environment. They felt there was no single intervention that produced the successful result, but rather the combination. In a Dutch project that targeted training for adult women returning to the job market, they emphasized flexibility in educational routes and entry points, attention to women's personal situations, and emphasis on labor market realities. In a single-sex project in Scotland for disadvantaged unemployed women, the women attended school 3 days a week with 1/2 day on personal development and communication with the rest on IT; tuition, travel, and childcare were free. The majority of the graduates found employment or continued in higher education. In another Scots project that worked with teachers, teachers showed little awareness that there may be gender differences in ICT use and confidence among children they teach. In Ireland, one project focused on providing role models for girls. In Italy all projects were focused on adult women.  b h [ ` _ g 0 7 u z Spear, Margaret Goddard 19856/Teachers' attitdes towards girls and technology @:Judith Whyte Rosemary Deem Lesley Kant Maureen CruickshankGirl-Friendly Schooling London Methuen 36-44XQTeachers and faculty Attitudes and expectations Outside U.S. Stereotypes and bias215 teachers in southern England. including a large group of science teachers, indicated they believed that technology education was more important for boys than girls.tention to these issues in pre-service teacher education. Sanders, Jo 1998$The molehill and the mountain^<6TIES: The Magazine of Design and Technology Education1 September MediaAnalyzes several previous issues of this magazine for how it portrayed men and women, and found that men were about 75% of those pictured and mentioned. Sanders, Jo 2000D>Women in science and technology, and the role of public policy<5Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management SeattleTeacher educationThe essence of various projects is that educators, particularly policy makers, must decide if they believe gender equity in computing and other areas has a legitimate place in the pre-service teacher education curriculum. If so, then it follows that gender equity must be systemic, that education professors be helped in being brought up to speed, and that gender equity in computing must be on the agenda of the teacher education profession. -{@ June 5, 1988 Jussim, Lee($Jussim, Lee & Eccles, Jacquelynne S.Kadijevich, Djordje0Kafai, Yasmin B.p Kant, LesleyKanter, Rosabeth Moss,'Kanter, Rosabeth Moss & Stein, Barry A. Kass, HeidiKassianidou, Marina0Katz, Jaacov Julian0 Kay, Robin Kay, Robin H.Kearney, Lisa K.p Keil, JackKekelis, LindapKekelis, Linda S.<9Kekelis, Linda S.; Ancheta, Rebecca Wepsic; & Heber, EttaPKKekelis, Linda S.; Ancheta, Rebecca Wepsic; Heber, Etta; & Countryman, Jeri Keller, Gill Kirkup & L.S.Keller, Johannesp Keller, L.S.Kemelgor, CarolpKenkel, Mary BethKeough, TeresapDAKeough, Teresa; Barnes, Peter; Joiner, Richard & Littleton, KarenKersteen, Zoe A.pHEKersteen, Zoe A.; Linn, Marcia C.; Clancy, Michael; & Hardyck, CurtisKhalili, AshmadpKieren, ThomaspKiesler, S. et al.Z0 Kiesler, Sara85Kiesler, Sara; Sproull, Lee; & Eccles, Jacquelynne S.Kimbrough, Doris R.0 King, John0,King, John; Bond, Trevor; & Blandford, Sonya  King, Lisa K. Kirk, David Kirkman, C.Kirkpatrick, Heather(#Kirkpatrick, Heather & Cuban, Larry Kirkup, G. Kirkup, Gill Kirkup, Gill & Keller, L.S.Kirova-Petrovna, Anna Klawe, M. Klawe, Maria Klawe, Maria & Leveson, Nancy Klein, Renate$Klein, Susan Hawthorne & RenateT Knight, L.A. Knox, A.Knupfer, Nancy Nelson<7Knupfer, Nancy Nelson; Kramer, Kevin M.; & Pryor, Debrap@;Knupfer, Nancy Nelson; Rust, William J.; & Mahoney, Judy E.# Koch, MelissaKolehmainedn, P.pKoohang, Alex A.p$!Koohang, Alex A. & Byrd, David M.Korenman, Joanp Korenman, Joan & Wyatt, NancyKorn, William S.pKorova-Petrova, AnnaKramer, Kevin M.pKramer, Pamela E.("Kramer, Pamela E. & Lehman, SheilaYKraut, Robert et al. Krendl, KathyKrendl, Kathy A.p<7Krendl, Kathy A; Broihier, Mary C. & Fleetwood, CynthiaKreuger, Joachim I.0Krey, Cynthia L.pKwan, Steven K.p@:Kwan, Steven K.; Trauth, Eileen M. & Driehaus, Kathleen C."#4/L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. MousleyLage, ElisabethpLaithwaite, Heather0Lakoff, Robin Tolmach4.Lakoff, Robin Tolmach & Salgado, Raquel Scherr Lally, V.Lancy, David F.p Land, M.J. Lander, R.Landstrom, Margaret0Lanius, Cynthiap Larson, M.Latvika, V. et al.Z0 Lawry, JoanLeathwood, CaroleLeBold, William K.Z0Leder, Gilah C.p Lee, A.C.K. Lee, Kar-Tin Lee, M.J.Lee, Millheon J.p Lee, Miwha Lee, WanbilLehman, SheilapLenzmeier, StefneLeong, Siew Cheep($Leong, Siew Chee & Hawamdeh, SulimanLepper, Mark R.p Leroux, SteveLeung, Lydia Kam-ha0Leveson, NancypLeveson, Nancy G.Levin, Barbara B.("Levin, Barbara B. & Barry, Sean M.Y Levin, Haya Levin, Tamar Levin, Tamar & Gordon, Claire Levine, Tamar,'Levine, Tamar & Donitsa-Schmidt, Smadar Lewis, LindaLiao, Yuen-kuang CliffLiau, Yuen-kuang Cliff Light, Paul Lightbody, P. Lim, G.OLim, G. & Wang, M.Z0 Lindia, S.Lindia, S. & Owen, S.V. Linn, EleanorLinn, Marcia C.p Lintern, SueLips, Hilary M.p$Lips, Hilary M. & Temple, LindaLittleton, K. et al.Littleton, Karenp$!Littleton, Karen & Bannert, Maria$ Littleton, Karen & Hoyles, Celia(Littleton, Karen et al.TNLittleton, Karen; Light, Paul; Joiner, Richard; Messer, David; & Barnes, Peter Liu, Min40Liu, Min; Reed, W. Michael; & Phillips, Perry D.Lockheed, Marlaine E.@:Lockheed, Marlaine E.; Nielsen, Antonia; & Stone, Meredith"# Lohr, Linda Lovegrove, G.Lovegrove, GillianZ0$ Lovegrove, Gillian & Hall, WendyH Loyd, B.H.Loyd, B.H. & Loyd, D.E.Loyd, Brenda H.p<8Loyd, Brenda H.; Loyd, Douglas E. & Gressard, Clarice P. Loyd, D.E.A ? Gunn, C. et al. 20022,Gender issues in computer-supported learning2+Association for Learning Technology Journal101 32-44& Could not obtain: not reviewed. Gunn, Cathy 2003JDDominant or different? Gender issues in computer supported learning0)Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks71 14-30;Parents and home Attitudes and expectations Telecommunications Use patterns Access Context Distance education Outside U.S. Postsecondary/tertiaryvpA questionnaire was given to entering students at the University of Edinburgh over 10 years. Women were less likely to own their own computers. Women's confidence in their ability to use email and the Web increased more rapidly than men's but was still lower. Over the decade, sex differences in expectations of computer use have completely disappeared. In a study at an English university of an online course with some in-person lectures, it was found that women had much more of a problem with access than males: they were far less likely to have ready access to a home computer because of lower priority in sharing it with others. Females were more likely to express apprehension about the online aspect. They were likelier to work later in the evening than males, fitting study time around family obligations. Final grades were about equal. In a New Zealand university, students taking a web design course could choose a classroom or an online mode. Women performed better than men in the online mode, perhaps because of stronger motivation to succeed and greater ability to work independently and manage multi-tasking lives.^Xhttp://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/pdf/v7n1_gunn.pdf, retrieved December 26, 2004$Gupta, Uma G. Houtz, Lynne E. 2000XRHigh school students' perceptions of information and technology skills and careers(!Journal of Industrial Technology164 2-860Attitudes and expectations Secondary/high schoolIn a survey of public, parochial, and private high school students in Nebraska, it was found that girls' interest in IT courses and careers was significantly lower than that of boys.PIhttp://nait.org/jit/Articles/gupta090100.pdf, retrieved December 26, 20040 Gurer, Denise 1995*$Pioneering women in computer science Communications of the ACMx381 45-54& Could not obtain: not reviewed.n 06/Nicholson, Julie Gelpi, Adrienne Young, Shannon  1998tnInfluences of gender and open-ended software on first graders' collaborative composing activities on computers2+Journal of Computing in Childhood Education91 3-42F@Single-sex environment Classroom interactions Elementary/primaryFirst graders were observed composing stories on the computer. Girls working in mixed-sex groups were more likely to have their competence or work laughed at or criticized than in single-sex groups. Males more often interrupted females' concentration and composing efforts than the reverse. When girls worked in single-sex groups they found ways to incorporate all collaborators' ideas into stories, while boys tended to be competitive by comparing stories.Nickell, G.S. et al. 1987JDGender and sex role preferences in computer attitudes and experience,&Southwestern Psychological Association  New Orleans& Could not obtain: not reviewed.:3Nolan, Patrick C.J. McKinnon, David H. Soler, Janet 1992B;Computers in education: Achieving equitable access and use4-Journal of Research on Computing in Education243199-314LFAccess Use patterns Experience Attitudes and expectations Outside U.S. In a survey of New Zealand secondary school students, it was found that boys used home computers more than girls but school computers equally. There was no gender difference in attitudes toward computers or in the use of games and most applications, as compared to a similar survey several years earlier. The research indicates "a further reduction of inequalities related to computer access at school to the point where there are no real differences across ability, gender, and socioeconomic divisions." (p. 310)North, A.S. Noyes, J.M. 2002HAGender influences on children's computer attitudes and cognitions"Computers in Human Behavior+182135-150LEAttitudes and expectations Experience Outside U.S. Elementary/primaryThe article considers "technophobia." Researchers gave a questionnaire and the Bem Sex-Role Inventory to about 100 11- and 12-year-old children in England. The extent of technophobia was found to be unrelated to either a student's sex or their sex-role profile (e.g. highly feminine girls). Less than a quarter of the children showed any level of technophobia. Males did have more computer experience than girls.Oberman, Paul S. 2000b\Academic help seeking and peer interactions of high school girls in computer science classes0)American Educational Research Associationa  New OrleansERIC ED 443 405GJCSingle-sex environment Classroom interactions Secondary/high schoolvHBFive girls at a Catholic high school and 20 girls at a public high school (in both schools a minority), were observed for help-seeking behavior in computer class. Both computer teachers were male, 31, and married. Girls often asked the person nearest them for help, and often asked peers even when they preferred help from the teacher and considered him more knowledgeable because they perceived him as somewhat unavailable. Most girls preferred to work individually, not with others in either single-sex or mixed-sex groups, even when there was substantial peer interaction. *RZR60Shih, Margaret Pittinsky, Todd L. Ambady, Nalini 1999ZTStereotype susceptibility: Identity saleince and shifts in quantitative performance$Psychology of Women Quarterly101 80-83Stereotype threat In an experiment with Asian-American women taking a math exam, when their Asian identity was salient they performed best; when their female identity was salient they performed worst; and when neither identity was salient (= control group) they performed in the middle.@9Siann, Gerda Durndell, Alan Mcleod, Hamish Glissov, Peter 1988NHStereotyping in relation to the gender gap in participation in computingEducational Research302 98-103ZSStereotypes and bias Attitudes and expectations Postsecondary/tertiary Outside U.S.rl928 university students in Edinburgh were randomly assigned questionnaires describing a female computer scientist, with the other half getting an otherwise identical male computer scientist. On eight of the attributes (more self-reliant, fun to be with, independent, approachable, likeable, sympathetic, well-adjusted, popular, and less introverted), Karen was rated more positively than Kevin (higher in introverted and serious), an effect held respective of the sex of the rater or the subject studied by the rater. "Negative stereotyping of female computer scientists is becoming increasingly less likely." (p. 98)4.Siann, G. Macleod, H. Glissov, P. Durndell, A. 1990PJThe effect of computer use on gender differences in attitudes to computersComputers and Education142183-191d]Single-sex environment Attitudes and expectations Programming Elementary/primary Outside U.S.0Primary school children in Scotland were studied at Logo programming in pairs. Half used list processing and half used graphic processing. Some pairs were single sex and others were mixed. In the pretest, boys were more confident of their computer skills, had more interest in computers, and were likelier to believe that computing required high ability. After the intervention, gender differences in attitudes diminished, except that girls' anxiety levels relative to boys increased. Neither the programming approach nor the sex composition of the dyad made a difference. Observations indicated that in mixed-sex dyads the boys dominated.o Siann, Gerda 1997XQWe can, we don't want to: Factors influencing women's participation in computingn R. Lander A. AdamWomen in Computing  Exeter, UK Intellect Books& Could not obtain: not reviewed. Singh, Parlo 1993Institutional discourse and practice: A case study of the social construction of technological competence in the primary classroom0)British Journal of Sociology of Education141 39-58{.'Culture Elementary/primary Outside U.S.A primary classroom in Australia was studied. The boys' control over power/relations in the computer setting is strengthened by the support of the classroom teacher, who acknowledges the boys' claim to computer experience. The behavior of boys in this social construction is interpreted as risk-taking, experimental, and technologically competent. Girls are positioned as inactive, passive, and rule followers.Skyllingstad, Devon n.d.VOAn exploration into the lack of female high school students in computer science HBAttitudes and expectations Interventions Age Secondary/high school>7Surveys of high school students in the Cincinnati (Ohio) area found that males and females had about the same skill level. Howevr, students felt that males are more encouraged in CS than females, that girls lose interest in CS as they get older, and that girls perceived CS as a predominantly male field. While fewer females were interested in majoring in CS, a larger percentage of those who were said they had been explicitly encouraged, so encouragement is important. Females with higher computer self-confidence were more likely to be interested in a CS major.XQhttp://cerebro.cs.xu.edu/~devon/crew/formattedghc.pdf, retrieved November 8, 2004Slesnick, Twila 1985.'Software for girls: A sexist solution? K. Duncan and D. Harris 0*World Conference on Computers in Education  Norfolk, VA839-841SoftwareSoftware developed just for girls would be sexist software. What is needed is software that appeals equally to boys and girls. Smith, S.D. 1986TNRelationships of computer attitudes to sex, grade level, and teacher influenceEducational Studies  1063338-344& Could not obtain: not reviewed.Smith, Sara Dawn 1987\UComputer attitudes of teachers and students in relationship to gender and grade level0)Journal of Educational Computing Research3@4479-4946/Attitudes and expectations Teachers and faculty(!In a district-wide study of teachers and students, females showed stronger feelings for equity in computer use and careers than males. Teachers showed significantly higher attitudes favoring equality of the sexes in computer abilities and potential for computer careers than students did.? K. Duncan and D. Harris 0*World Conference on Computers in Education  Norfolk, VA839-841SoftwareSoftware developed just for girls would be sexist software. What is needed is software that appeals equally to boys and girls. Smith, S.D. 1986TNRelationships of computer attitudes to sex, grade level, and teacher influenceEducational Studies  1063338-344& Could not obtain: not reviewed.Smith, Sara Dawn 1987\UComputer attitudes of teachers and students in relationship to gender and grade level0)Journal of Educational Computing Research3@4479-4946/Attitudes and expectations Teachers and faculty(!In a district-wide study of teachers and students, females showed stronger feelings for equity in computer use and careers than males. Teachers showed significantly higher attitudes favoring equality of the sexes in computer abilities and potential for computer careers than students did.ahgt<BeTSanders, Jo Shuchat 1985<5Reflections from the Computer Equity Training Project0)American Educational Research Association Chicago2+Early work Programming Teachers and faculty{Programming gender gap remained constant between 1978 and 1982. Paper presents evidence for the computer gender gap at school, home, in summer camps, in computer magazines, and in occupations. It identifies six of the 29 "speculations" (Sanders, 1984) which are "nearly certain" as causes of the computer gender gap and five that are "probable." It specifies teachers as key.("Sanders, Jo Shuchat Stone, Antonia 198682The Neuter Computer: Computers for Girls and Boys New York Neal-Schuman PublisherstmBarriers Use patterns Parents and home Teacher education Interventions Access Peers and friends Interventions60Strategies for educators, parents, and students. Sanders, Jo 1986<5The computer gender gap: Close it while there's time The Monitor24 7/8t 18 ff.January/February Use patterns Interventions|vReports on the Computer Equity Expert Project, where girls' computer use increased 144%. Interventions are suggested. Sanders, Jo McGinnis, Mary 19870)Closing the computer gender gap in school@RLWomen's Worlds: The Third International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women DublinnhEarly work Classroom interactions Software Aggression Peers and friends Mathematics Teachers and facultyEvidence, consequences, and causes of the computer gender gap are presented. Causes: Math, machines, software, stereotypes, first-come/first-served, competing interests, unorganized computer time, computers without instruction, home responsibilities. The experiment in Fish et al. (1986) is summarized. Major lessons: target girls clearly and in friendship groups, make computing useful, use software girls find attractive, and make the teache