Discussion

So, what does all this mean? Can our findings be generalized to the parameter population, are they practically significant, and can teachers use this information to improve their practice? On one hand, we would like to envision teachers adapting and using our survey at the beginning and end of every semester to determine students’ perceived technology skill levels, the gender and age proportions, and how they might best design the course curriculum. On the other hand, we realize that this involves more time, training, and probably lacks incentive for teachers. The main focus of our study was to examine student perceptions of technology skills at the outset of a course, using this information to improve instruction, following a more student-centered approach.

Student-centered approaches to teaching and learning stress the importance of students’ past experiences, exploring individual needs (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Also, educational technologists tend to favor constructivism, which acknowledges the interrelatedness of students’ prior experiences and knowledge (Jonassen, 1994). Of course, a huge challenge in aligning with these goals is dealing with an educational system that insists on pre-designed syllabi and administrative objectives. Our suggestions might be construed as a re-engineering of the classroom, something that many educators might find overwhelming and even frightening.    

Ralph Tyler (1969), a seminal name in curricular design, tells us that the needs of students are important sources for educational objectives. Knowing your students, which is what our survey helps us do, assists in helping instructors design and amend coursework to match student needs. He (Tyler, 1969) also tells us there are conflicting philosophies of formulating objectives, one which focuses on what schools think students should learn (essentialism), and the other based on what the child needs to learn (progressivism). In other words, the progressive designs objectives based around the learner’s needs, while the essentialist design the objectives based upon society’s needs. Tyler goes on to say that “no single source of information is adequate to provide a basis for wise and comprehensive decisions about the objectives of the school” (1969). In other words, each source has value and should be considered when writing and implementing curriculum. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the learners themselves should be a source of curriculum design and sequencing in the EDTECH202 courses in conjunction with the prescribed course curriculum. Under these circumstances, the course would always be evaluated and adjusted according to current learner needs and required content. The addition of course surveys and analysrs would benefit students and teachers, providing rich insights into instructional-, age-, and gender-related issues.

As we saw from analysis of the data, gender was a significant factor in comparing word processing skills to course type. Also, gender was statistically significant when compared to database skills cross-tabulated by course type in the online course. When comparing gender to technology skills, we found that there was a significant difference in the rating of perceived database skills. Although we believe that these findings are significant, we are not implying that these relationships and differences would be the same from semester to semester. However, knowing that gender might make a difference in student technology skills perception is helpful in evaluating and improving course design. If a course has a higher than normal percentage of females, for instance, then the instructor might consider other teaching strategies and mechanisms to support learning for women.

We are encouraging educators to look more closely at how gender affects learning and perceptions of learning in educational technology, since research has indicated a definite bias in how women perceive and use technology (Gefen & Straub, 1997; Yuen & Ma, 2002). However, a 10-year longitudinal study of new undergraduates (Maclead, Haywood, & Haywood, 2002) suggests that gender differences have significantly diminished over time. For instance, the disparity between males and females in the use of email has essentially evaporated. Their latest data collection efforts found that women were just as likely to own an email address (67.9%) as males (70.1%).

Despite this good news some differences still remain. Although most male and female students described themselves as confident or very confident about computer technologies, 25% of females as compared to 11% of males still felt apprehensive or very apprehensive at the beginning of their university courses, with 14.4% of females reporting never using the web as compared to 11.7% of males (Maclead et al., 2002). The author’s warn though that the data is self-reported and point out that research has shown that males are more likely to self-report higher levels of confidence with technology and women to report lower levels of confidence. We found this to be true in our study as well, and would encourage objective assessments of actual competence to provide a deeper understanding of the phenomenon.

Also, research in the field of computer science as it relates to gender shows that women feel they are less skilled and less likely to succeed than men (Blum, 2001). Carnegie Mellon University found that their female enrollment increased in computer sciences when they addressed common areas, such as experience gaps, confidence doubts, curriculum and pedagogy, and peer culture Blum, 2001). They instituted programs such as holding summer institutes for women to help them bridge any experience gaps, creating a Women’s Advisory Council as a support mechanism, asking for feedback on existing curriculum, and forming organizations to address issues related to culture.

In analyzing our data, we realized that gender should be an important issue in educational technology. Do we as teachers really address gender issues and become empathetic to the specific needs and concerns of women? How can we make it easier and more palatable for women to function in an educational arena and culture that might be foreign to them? Our department at BSU has discussed the possibility of holding courses that better prepare some students to enter the EDTECH202 course. We ask for feedback after the course is over, but do we really implement any changes? What support mechanisms are there available specifically for women in the field of educational technology? And probably most disturbing is the fact that women’s ultimate practice with technology involves lower paying, clerical type positions. It certainly doesn’t help that only 15-20% of undergraduate computer science majors at leading U.S. departments are female (Margolis & Fisher, 2004). While women may be using the Internet for communication and the web for information-retrieval, it is predominantly men who hold the positions of power.

Age was also a factor in our study that showed significant correlations, which made us think about how age affects one’s perceptions of technology skills and the extent to which one uses technology. Knowing the age spread of one’s class in advance might give the instructor some indication of how adept the class might be in using the Internet, for instance, or the likelihood of how many technology tools those students have used.

One of the main questions we have asked ourselves is, “What did our study accomplish?” We believe that it made us more aware of gender issues in the field of educational technology, of approaching teaching with a critical eye to data that is easily available to any instructor via online surveys and data analysis using SPSS, of constantly searching for ways to improve instructional practice, and the importance of knowing your students.

As educators, we are taught the importance of matching curriculum to student interests and needs, to constantly self-reflect, and to be amenable to change. Through analyses of student self-perceptions, gender, age, and a multitude of other variables, instructors can open the door to new strategies and options for learning. Also, the fact that women tend to underrate their skills and have other gender-related issues should be acknowledged when designing and implementing curriculum for populations that traditionally have a higher proportion of females. We believe our work can offer insights into survey design, differences in perceived technology skills, curricular philosophies, and gender inequities.

The questions that have been raised from this study provide an abundance of future research opportunities.  A post survey might reveal whether online students improve perceived technology skills at a greater rate than those in face-to-face classrooms. If this were the case, might the online environment be more suitable for those who exhibit less confidence in their skills? The work in this area for us has just begun.