Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 28 Number 5

Edited by Diane McGrath

Volume 28 Number 5 Summer 1996

Using Email Within a Classroom Based on Feminist Pedagogy

Arizona State University, West

Abstract

This article highlights parts of a descriptive study of elementary school children using technology and an array of telecommunications tools. The study analyzed naturalistic data to answer the question, "How does gender interface with computers and telecommunications?" Data for the overall study included field notes based on six months of participation and observation, 750 pages of email messages, daily logs, newsletters, text and graphic documents generated by the children, and transcripts of interviews. This article depends on three data sources: email messages, daily logs, and interviews. A feminist perspective informed the analysis. Analysis seemed to warrant three claims: both girls and boys used technology to confirm gender stereotypes, both girls and boys used technology to defy gender stereotypes, and gender biases in classroom interactions are more invisible and more difficult to eliminate than expected. A feminist perspective is essential in this struggle, but insufficient for eliminating the culturally-embedded, long-standing gender biases pervading our schools and lives.

Introduction

The last several decades of research into gender and technology can be characterized as clustering around four different theoretical stances: positivist, constructivist, critical theorist, and post-modernist. Because each of these terms is open to interpretation, the following discussion serves to explicate the meanings of these terms as used in this paper.

The ancient Greeks and Romans, and all generations since, have faced the same questions: How is it that we know things? How can we get at the truth? How is the world made up? What counts as knowledge? Each of the following groups of theorists- positivists, constructivists, critical theorists and postmodernists- addresses these questions differently.

Positivists endorse an epistemological position which sees a single unseamed reality existing 'out there' which the special expertise of science can investigate and explain as it 'really' is, independent of observer effects. Further, they assume that this new 'knowledge' can then be applied to any situation which seems similar, regardless of the social context of either the study or the situation where the findings are being applied. Finally, positivists view the researcher as "detached, omnipotent . . . experts [existing] on a different critical plane from those they study" (Stanley & Wise, 1993, p. 7).

Constructivists believe that knowledge is constructed by the user, so there is no one reality 'out there,' but there are many realities. Thought is grounded in perception, it grows out of physical and social experiences, and is determined by the individual. The learner is viewed as actively constructing knowledge rather than passively absorbing a single version of 'the truth.' Constructivists see themselves as existing on the same plane as those they study and so honor multiple ways of knowing.

Critical theorists believe that social artifacts and relations are produced and reproduced by institutions (such as schools) over time through (usually) unequal negotiations between those with power and those without. It is the goal of critical theorist to reverse these injustices by giving learners the tools to understand and critique these inequalities and work to undermine these long-standing social relationships. Unlike positivists, critical theorists do not assume that "appearance and essence are identical" and do assume that "fact can be separated from value" (Shannon, 1990, p. 149).

Postmodernists tend to reject the idealized view of truth and replace it with a dynamic, changing truth bounded by time, space, and perspective. Rather than seeking for the unchanging ideal, postmodernists tend to celebrate the dynamic diversity of life. Hlynka and Yeaman (1992) outline some key features of postmodernist thinking:

• A commitment to plurality of perspectives, meanings, methods, and values.
• A search for and appreciation of double meanings and alternative interpretations, many of them ironic and unintended.
  
• A critique or distrust of theories meant to explain everything. This includes grand theories of science; myths in our religions, nations, or cultures; and professions that serve to explain why things are the way they are.
  
• Granting a plurality of perspectives and ways of knowing, a recognition that there must also be multiple truths.
  

Regarding gender and technology, positivists suggest that we re-socialize females to have more favorable attitudes toward computers and technology and focus on efforts to increase female representation in this area. Constructivists believe that we need to reorganize pedagogy to honor women's ways of knowing/viewing computers and technology so that the practices of technology are no longer male dominated. Critical theorists question the assumed dualism of male and female and maintain that social divisions such as gender are produced and reproduced by schools and other institutions; therefore, female teachers and students must work to transform these institutions. The postmodernists call for exploding the dichotomies, disrupting the practices, reversing the roles and rules, and inverting positions and directions in an effort to "disrupt hegemonic relations between learners and technology" (Bryson & de Castell, 1995, p. 39). I take an essentially constructivist stance in this paper, relying on the scholarship of Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986); Gilligan (1982); Morse and Daiute (1992); and Turkle and Papert (1990). At the same time, I use a number of ideas from such critical theorists as Kramarae and Treichler (1990); Lather (1991); and Walkerdine (1990).

This study tells a story and every story has a storyteller. I am the storyteller and this story reflects my beliefs, biases, and world view. This is not an objective story; no story is. For that reason, I briefly explicate my beliefs and theoretical stance. Theoretically, I view both technology and gender as social and cultural constructions. Technology does not exist in a vacuum; it exists only in social contexts, and as such, exists in a gendered world. Similarly, gender is assumed to be constructed within a culture and not genetically inherent in an individual; gender is not something we are, but something we do. Gender is "a routine, recurring accomplishment embedded in everyday interaction.... Rather than conceive of gender as a property of individuals, ... gender [is seen] as an emergent feature of social situations" (West and Zimmerman, 1987, pp. 125-126).

Further, I believe that schooling is not neutral; to acknowledge this nonneutrality, I characterize my classroom context as firmly rooted in feminist pedagogy. Gore (1993) identifies feminist pedagogy as one of the strands of radical pedagogy. It is important, then, that I distinguish feminist pedagogy from other strands of radical pedagogy, such as progressive or critical pedagogy, which are often confused with, or used interchangeably with the term feminist pedagogy. Progressive pedagogy often is concerned with self-efficacy and doesn't try to get beyond the "isms"; critical pedagogy focuses on power relations and is often teacher-centered. Feminist pedagogy, on the other hand, works to articulate a feminine perspective rather than perpetuate the patriarchal system embedded in our school system (Clarricoates, 1981). It also demands engagement, reflection, and a struggle to critique sexism within the school setting.

Feminist pedagogy, which voices and explores previously unexpressed perspectives of women, informs my study. It seeks to offer a collaborative, cooperative, and interactive stance which "involves a conceptualization of knowledge as a comparison of multiple perspectives leading toward a complex and evolving view of reality" (Maher, 1985, p. 33). A classroom based on feminist pedagogy is a community of learners where power is shared and where participatory, democratic processes help learners develop independence. It is an active, collaborative classroom where risk-taking is encouraged, where intellectual excitement abounds and where power is viewed as energy, capacity, and potential rather than domination.

A classroom based on feminist pedagogy, however, goes beyond the collaborative, learner-centered classroom which encourages risk-taking and intellectual excitement. Unique features of feminist pedagogy include:

• Honoring multiple ways of knowing and viewing the world.
• Valuing independence and critical thinking.
• Empowering all members of the community.
• Engaging its members in reflection.
• Demanding that its members work together to get beyond sexism and other biases.
• And, perhaps most importantly, producing and then reflecting upon the social reality of these classrooms.

In short, I helped create the interactions I wished to study in my classroom. Liz Stanley and Sue Wise (1993) characterize this idea in strong, succinct terms: "the key role of the feminist researcher [is] producing, not just reflecting, the social reality such research is apparently designed to 'uncover.' [The] researcher is an active presence, an agent, in research" (p. 6).

Related Literature

No matter where one looks, one sees evidence that the vast majority of people in this country and internationally believe there is a gender gap in computer use, computer competency, computer attitudes, and the ways men and women view the computer. Both mass media publications and research journals are full of articles which paint women and girls as less competent than their male counterparts, less confident than their male peers, and less likely to use computers and technology than the boys and men with whom they work and play.

In the mid-1980s, however, a movement began which questioned these findings and beliefs. Turkle (1984) identified two different programming styles, that of "hard masters" who tended to be male and "soft masters" who tended to be female. In 1990, Turkle and Papert argued that, within the computer culture, we must accept the "validity of multiple ways of knowing and thinking" (p. 113). They discussed two major approaches to computer programming: the dominant, structured approach used by "planners" (hard masters) who function in a top-down, rule-driven way, and the more suspect artistic approach used by "bricoleurs" (soft masters) who rely on intuition. Turkle and Papert labeled this concept "epistemological pluralism"; they called for the development of a new computer culture which "would require a new social construction of the computer" (1990, p. 133) which is more inclusive than the existing male-dominated culture. And finally, these researchers stated that "feminist scholarship could make a crucial contribution to the (until now) male computer culture by promoting the recognition of the diverse ways that people think about" technology (p. 136).

Morse and Daiute (1992) reiterated and expanded this call when they identified a need for "more research on computing activities which are not related to mathematics or programming activities and which look at what women and girls do like about computers" (p. i). They believe that most research to date is quantitative and has "short-changed girls and women in documenting the computer gender gap" (p. 1). Finally, they state the need for more research using interpretive methods in open-ended computer environments so that we might better study and explain gender diversity in our computer classrooms. Selfe (1990) views the issue of computer use, not from the perspective of gender, but from the broader perspective of general computer use in elementary classrooms. She maintains that it's time for educators to re-examine the "theoretical and pedagogical premises upon which they base their classes, their research, and their curricula" (Selfe, 1990, p. 190). Selfe asserts that educators must conduct research to help teachers move away from the "atheoretical, untested, [and] unexamined" (p. 190) approaches currently in use. She suggests that teachers must be more theoretically informed as they integrate computers into the elementary school curriculum. In this study, I have tried to answer this resounding call for a new kind of research.

Method

Members of the workshop. Children put dots on map to indicate where they have traveled electronically. One student studies the mapto determine where to place his dot. Workshop room. Children relaxing in hot tub after workshop. Sample newsletter. Another sample newsletter. Two boys collaborating during an Internet search.	Description of the Study In the role of teacher/researcher, I offered three intensive Telecommunications Workshops to elementary school students. Approximately 12 students attended each workshop. The average age of the children was nine years, one month. The 30 children who self-selected the workshops spent between 35 and 105 hours interfacing with technology outside the regular school setting. Both gender and racial diversity existed within the group. A profile of the participants is given in Table 1. Group 1 met for three hours per day for four weeks during June for a total of 60 hours in the computer lab. Group 2, which included seven students from Group 1, met for three hours per day for three weeks in October during their three-week intercession from year-round school. Those students who were Group 2 members spent only 45 hours in the computer lab, but those seven students who were members of both Group 1 and Group 2 spent a total of 105 (60 + 45) hours in the computer lab. Group 3 met for 1.5 hours twice a week for three months for a total of 30 hours in the computer lab. After I introduced the children to both e-mail and several tools for browsing the Internet, the children were responsible for deciding how to spend their time each day. My goal was to provide an open-ended environment that would help me understand how the children used and viewed technology, and how gender issues intersected with these experiences. Such a format did not impose a specified "curriculum" with its corollary skills and outcomes, but rather it allowed the children to make choices about how they wanted to spend their time, which topics they wished to pursue, and to whom they chose to write via electronic mail. The workshops took place in a computer lab which housed 12 high-end Macintosh computers with color monitors and internal CD-ROM drives that were able to support multi-use telecommunications via Ethernet connections; all were networked to an Apple LaserWriter printer. The site also housed a teacher work station containing a high-end Macintosh, an overhead projector, and an LCD projection panel. This setup allowed the image which was on my Macintosh monitor to be projected onto a large screen so the participants could easily view the image and the process I used to achieve this image. Methods of Data Analysis I used interpretive methods so that I might better study and explain gender diversity in computer classrooms. My goal was to take "snapshots" of a variety of interactions between children and computers, children and their peers, and children and the teacher/researcher. In addition to asking students to participate in email interactions, I had students keep daily logs (self evaluations), navigation logs (records of what they discovered and how they navigated to it), and write newsletters (Table 4). I examined and analyzed each of these individual snapshots in an effort to create a wide-angle picture of children engaging in telecommunications. I used the constant comparative method, not in the sense that Glaser and Strauss (1967) use this method, but simply to sort through and process my data.
One child's daily log.	One child's navigation log.
I examined three major areas to answer the question of how what the children do confirms or defies gender stereotypes: the meanings that the children formed about computers and telecommunications, the topics they chose to write and read about (See Tables 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and Table 4, and Table 8), and the social functions of their electronic mail messaging (Table 3). To investigate the meanings the children attached to computers, I coded for metaphors or meanings which the children used to describe computers and the telecommunication process. After a close review of these data, I created 22 categories of meanings (Table 5). The five most frequently utilized codes were: Fun technology. Tool for research. Tool for building relationships. Tool for communicating with others. Frustrating or confusing technology. Coding for topic revealed that the most prominent topics (see Table 6) were: Personal information. Computers. Telecommunications. The workshop, family, school. Holidays and birthdays. I generated 20 codes for social functions (see Table 7), which included: Collaborating. Sharing personal information. Expressing feelings. Asking questions. Answering questions. My goal was to discover how and for what social purposes the children used computers and telecommunications. I examined two major areas to answer the question of how what the teacher/ researcher does perpetuates or rejects differential treatment of the children based on gender considerations: the topics I chose to write about to the children and the social nature of the interactions I initiated with the children. I generated 33 topic codes for my messages to the children. Most highly represented were: Email. Computers. Feeling. Learning. Families of the children. I generated 25 social function codes for the teacher/researcher including: Connecting. Serving as midwife. Sharing personal information. Expressing feelings. Complimenting students. The topic and social function codes which I generated for the children's messaging were used for my messaging as well. In addition, I transcribed representative samples of audio and videotapes of conversations, conferences, and interviews and coded these for types and times of interaction. I carefully examined my behavior as I interacted with the children in an effort to uncover my unconscious gender bias. Once I had decided on and fine-tuned my categories, I then coded each phrase in all email correspondence, logs, and interviews from all three workshops. This was accomplished by many sweeps through the data. As I coded each phrase, I compared it with previous phrases that I had coded in that category and I compared it with phrases I had placed in similar categories. In this way, I tried to assure consistency in my coding. To increase consistency even more, I asked two colleagues to simultaneously code this data. I then compared all three sets of codes. When there was inexplicable inconsistency in our coding, I re-coded the data in question, taking into careful consideration the reasons my colleagues had chosen a different code than I had. Although this was a time-consuming process, I believe it helped me be a more critical analyst and understand my data in greater depth. My next step was to re-read all data within any one code in an effort to define the properties, characteristics, or boundaries of that code, and to determine if the data placed within that code exhibited the properties of the code as I had defined it. Finally, I began the process of integrating my codes into broad, theoretical categories. In this process I transformed my lists of codes into overarching ways of viewing the data. In this process, I moved my data from a mere taxonomy to a more fine-tuned explanation based upon my stated theoretical stance. At this point, I began generating assertions that provided a structure which illuminated my findings. Read more... Copyright © 1996, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.