Home PublicationsJRTEPast IssuesVolume 28 Number 5

Diane McGrath, Guest Editor

Volume 28 Number 5 Summer 1996

Using Email Within a Classroom Based on Feminist Pedagogy, Part II

Alice Atkinson Christie

Arizona State University West

Table 5
Children's Codable Meanings of Computers

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.

Observations and Interpretations

Assertions: Children Confirming Stereotypes

Within the framework of my theoretical stance, I generated a number of assertions about the children. When confirming gender stereotypes:

• Girls defined computers as tools that foster collaboration, connection and communication (See Profile One).
• Boys defined computers as fun technologies for finding information and playing games (See Profile Three).
• Girls' topics centered around people (See Profile One).
• Boys' topics centered around events and things.
• Girls used computers and telecommunications to share feelings, build friendships, and show care for others (See Profile One).
• Boys used technology to search for and share factual information and to insult, tease, and test limits (See Profile Three).

Profile One

Two weeks into our second workshop, Janet is intent on drawing a map of Georgia. She is using Kid Pix (1991), one of her favorite programs. As she concentrates on drawing her map, she begins to think of her forthcoming trip to Georgia to visit her older brothers and sisters. She suddenly comes to me and asks if it's okay for her to write another letter on email. I respect her request and she returns immediately to her computer, closing Kid Pix and opening her email account. Later I discover she has written to me: Dear Alice, the reason I am going to see my big brotheer Jason and my big brother Lee and my big sister NIKI is because last august my Dad died and so we are al going to get togheras a fami9ly even though I can't wait in a way I feel I don't want to go?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Love, Janet P.S. Don't tell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Note: Children's spelling is used in all Profiles)

Having sent her message and having verbalized some of her confusion about the death of her father, she returns to Kid Pix (1971) and happily completes her map of Georgia. I respond to her message: Dear Janet, Thanks for sending me that special email message about your visit with your older siblings. I can understand that you may be feeling a little hesitant about the visit because it will seem strange to have your family together and not have your Dad there. I have the same feelings sometimes. My mother died about six years ago and I always miss her the most when the whole family is together. It seems she should be there too and that makes me sad. It was really brave of you to share these feelings with me. I won't tell anyone. I promise!
Love, Alice

The correspondence continues briefly:
Dear Alice,
Have a great day and thanks for the suppoort!
Love, Janet

Dear Janet, I hope my letter helped you to feel that you were not alone with your feelings. I felt honored that you wrote me.
Love, Alice

Discussion of Profile One

Technology facilitated communication and relationship building. Both Janet and I used an electronic medium to confirm our gender; we connected, empathized and shared feelings with one another. I speculated that Janet couldn't discuss the death of her father with me in person, perhaps because it was too sensitive a subject to talk about, or perhaps because she didn't want other children overhearing our conversation. So she used email to communicate with me, to build a relationship with me, to share her confusion about seeing her brothers and sister for the first time since her father's death. Understandably, Janet didn't feel comfortable discussing these feelings with me in the midst of our workshop, and perhaps she intuitively knew she didn't quite have the words to explain her confusion. She lets her "?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" wordlessly express both her excitement (!) at seeing her brothers and sister and her uncertainty (?) about facing the reality of her father's death. I would venture to say that this same interchange would not have occurred had we not both been female. This example also serves to illustrate the concept of sociomedia coined by Barrett (1992). Barrett affirms that "computer media are social constructs themselves [and as such] serve as mechanisms for the social construction of knowledge" (p. 1). The computer and the telecommunications process allowed Janet and me to collaboratively build new understandings. I gained insight into how a young girl responded to the death of a parent, and I hope Janet learned that it is painful for adults to lose a parent as well. The computer became for us a new tool to share intimate, often unspoken or unspeakable feelings; it also became a new tool for us to enact our gender.

Assertions: Children Defying Stereotypes

When defying gender stereotypes:

• Girls defined computers as fun technologies for building independence and enhancing personal productivity (See Profile Two).
• Boys saw computers as frustrating and as tools for building relationships.
• Girls wrote extensively about computers, learning, and research (See Profile Two).
• Boys wrote about social concerns and family issues.
• Girls used technology to align themselves with computers and telecommunications.
• Boys used technology to build friendships and form connections.

Overall, both girls and boys defied gender stereotypes more often than they confirmed gender stereotypes. Girls spoke firmly and loudly, wrote honestly and with feeling, offered opinions and did not defer to boys. They showed their willingness to enter the male domain of technology simply by virtue of being active participants in the workshop. They showed assertiveness by exploring the Internet with more zeal than boys, by writing more email messages than boys, and by actively engaging in Internet exploration. They were proud of their intelligence and did not seek to hide it. In short, they were players, not spectators!

Boys were active and interested players, as well. They showed assertiveness, intelligence, and interest in technology. They openly expressed both feelings and opinions. They asked and answered questions, but not significantly more than girls. They interacted with classmates and the teacher/researcher, but not significantly more than girls. They received praise for their intellectual efforts, but only slightly more than girls. They received help when confused, but no more so than girls as both boys and girls were encouraged to be problem-solvers and to rely on their own resources rather than to rely on outside help.

Assertions About Self

In addition, I generated assertions about myself, the teacher/researcher. In a large majority of interactions, I exhibited nondifferential treatment of the children based on their gender.

• I treated girls and boys with similar respect and trust.
• I challenged all children to reach new heights in their abilities.
• I encouraged self-reliance with girls as well as boys.
• I honored diversities among the children, and I helped draw out both individual and group understandings of their worlds (a midwife approach, Belenky et al., 1986) rather than impose a single body of knowledge on all (a banking approach, Shor & Freire, 1987).
• And I worked collaboratively with my students in a child-centered classroom.

When participating in a classroom which clearly reflected a feminist stance, I naively thought that my feminist ideology would automatically eliminate gender bias from my classroom. I soon learned that achieving gender equity is not automatic, and is, indeed, an ongoing struggle. Even though the vast majority of my interactions with children reflected egalitarian behavior on my part, the more interesting data are those which illuminated the struggle. Two areas where gender bias was evident were the topics about which I wrote to children and my verbal interactions with children.

Most insidious, because it is embedded in our culture and is therefore invisible, was my differential treatment of girls and boys. This unconscious gender bias was reflected in my:

• Choosing a quiet, capable and cooperative girl to be my classroom assistant. (See Profile Two).
• Allowing the bright boys to ask more questions, demand more attention, and dominate classroom interaction. (See Profile Three).
• Providing differential help based on gender by helping boys achieve a goal versus doing the job for the girls.
• Spending more time interacting with individual boys than with girls (i.e. two to three minutes versus 15 to 40 seconds).
• Praising boys for their brains and cleverness and praising girls for their cooperation, attitude, effort- and occasionally for their brains and cleverness.

As I was teaching, I thought I was giving equal treatment to both genders. Only when I coded, counted and timed my interactions did I become aware of my biases.

Profile Two

Christi is shy and beautiful. She peers out at the computer lab through dark eyes and long lashes, but doesn't speak. I stand to the side of the lab and watch Christi and the other children as they inspect the computers, the printer, and the room. In the noisy excitement of the classroom, Christi's quiet stance is noticeable.

We begin our first day of class. I notice that Christi is quite knowledgeable about the Macintosh and she quietly helps her classmates throughout the day. When class is over, she speaks to me in a barely audible voice. "I have a Mac and a modem at home. But my modem isn't hooked up. Do you think you could fix it?"
"Of course," I reply with a smile, "You just name the day!"

The dance begins.

Christi and I have each been in classrooms a long time--Christi as a student and I, first as a student, and now as a teacher. We have learned the unwritten rules of school; we have learned well how a female is "supposed" to behave. We are two female dancers who know the dance so well that we don't need the (often male) choreographer to help us with the steps. We are so practiced, we do them without thinking. We move to the beat of an invisible tune. All girls know the words to this tune.

The refrain goes like this: Good girls are nice
Good girls are kind
Good girls help out
Good girls don't pout.

I set the stage for the dance to begin:

We build trust in one another. Christi enters the dance and together we negotiate the steps--smoothly--because we know this dance deep within our souls:

Discussion of Profile Two

It all sounds so poetic when I use a dance metaphor to explain the "good-girls-are-helpful-kind-and-nice" syndrome. However, I think a "trapped-in-a-pit" metaphor would have been more apt. Christi, like so many young women, defines her identity by how she operates in the classroom. She likes her role as teacher's helper, she is comfortable and confident in the role, and she does a great job. So why am I concerned? I'm concerned because this role limits Christi's self-identity. If she sees herself as teacher's helper, it is impossible for her to see herself as academic risk-taker and rule breaker. The two roles are mutually exclusive.

Christi and I both benefited from our teacher-teacher's helper relationship: I relied on Christi for help in the classroom, and she gained self-confidence through our friendship. However, if my ultimate goal is to treat all children without gender-bias, I must acknowledge that encouraging Christi to assume the gendered role of teacher helper trapped her and endangered her potential for growth.

Sadker and Sadker (1986) characterize the American classroom as consisting of "two worlds: one of boys in action, the other of girls' inaction. Male students control classroom conversation . . . ask more questions ... and receive more praise for the intellectual quality of their ideas. They get help when confused. They are the heart and the center of interaction" (p. 42). Andy is the epitome of the bright boy who demands and gets attention, help, and praise at the expense of the girls in the classroom. Profile 3 exemplifies this trend.

Profile Three

Red-headed, bright-eyed Andy strolls into the computer lab with a smugness which the other children do not possess. He can afford the luxury of walking slowly while the other children rush because he knows he can take any computer he wants; Andy is a leader in the group--and what he wants, he gets. Class begins. All the children are reading and answering their mail. The room is quiet; the children and I are intent on our mail. "Alice, I need help!" Andy's loud voice startles us.
"I'm reading my mail, Andy, I'm sure you can solve your problems on your own."
"No I can't. I'm stuck in some weird place; I don't know how to get out."
"I probably don't know how to get out either. I'd just have to keep trying different things 'till I got out. Why don't you try that strategy?"

Andy eventually figures out his difficulty and begins answering his mail. I receive the following note:

About 30 minutes later, I am giving a demonstration of how to use Veronica to search the Internet. I ask for ideas on topics the class might like to search for. Andy jumps out of his seat, wildly waving his hand. When I call on Janet, he loudly calls out, "Chess, lets look up chess." The other boys immediately echo his request and the girls silently nod their assent.

Andy continues his domination of the classroom. He calls out, demands help, and acts irresponsibly. He has learned over the years that he can engage in this kind of behavior: Bright boys can act in ways which would never be considered appropriate if the actors were slower boys or any girl. I determine that I should discuss this issue with him and send him a lengthy email message about three days later:
You have a real knack with the computer. You could be a real leader in our class, but right now you're choosing NOT TO BE.

Wouldn't it feel really good to settle down, learn alot, and then help your classmates if they need it. You catch on really quickly and I could benefit from having a good assistant. It doesn't help you or the class when you act silly, talk out and need me to help you.

Write back and let me know what you think.

Alice

I receive no response, but I do notice some changes in his willingness to try things on his own. He also voluntarily helps others when they ask for help. The following week I compliment him in several messages:

Andy and I learn to coexist. We both admire the other for our curiosity and love of learning. I learn how to channel some of his energy in productive ways and how to let the rest go with a boys-will-be-boys shrug of my shoulders. Andy learns that I will not enable his "I need help" behavior and that he can do well without help. As teachers and students, we have miles to go in our pursuit of an ungendered classroom, but Andy and I accomplished the first inch- and we both felt like that was quite an achievement.

Discussion of Profile Three

This was the saga of a bright boy who received more than his share of attention. He learned quickly and thought deeply. His questions were important contributions to the classroom community. But he demanded and got too much attention, and consequently was cheating himself out of reaching his potential. This was also the saga of a bright boy who has learned to play the bright-boy game- a game designed to allow bright boys to do little but appear as if they are accomplishing a great deal. Walkerdine (1990) reported that many teachers overestimate bright boys' successes and competencies because they break the rules, ask questions, and challenge the classroom code. This counts as evidence of their competence and, in turn, generates more attention by teachers. This well-established system not only advantaged boys, it silenced girls; moreover, it did so subliminally, and most people are unaware that this insidious system is working all too well in American education today.

Another alarming example of unconscious gender bias concerned the topic of learning. When analyzing email messages, I found that the girls and I wrote about an equal number of messages to each other on the topic of learning. However, I wrote about learning to the boys three times more frequently than they wrote to me. I encouraged them to explore, to travel electronically to new frontiers, and to discover new ideas. Teachers are acculturated to think of boys as more active learners than girls (Sadker & Sadker, 1986,1994; Walkerdine, 1990). Teachers perceive that boys explore more, are more likely to be risk-takers and are consequently better students. Despite my efforts to think of girls and boys in the same light, my unconscious gender bias was all too evident. When I further analyzed the data, I also found that I responded to the girls about their learning and I initiated the topic with the boys. Even though my feminist stance was essential in helping me eliminate gender bias, my stance alone could not entirely eliminate this culturally-embedded bias. Achieving gender equity is an ongoing struggle.

Implications for Classroom Practice

Using computers for telecommunications is a practice that is both social and technical. Although many of the technical aspects will be similar from classroom to classroom, the same does not hold true for the social aspects. Neither this study nor any other study can determine how computers and telecommunications can most effectively be used to defy gender stereotypes apart from the ways particular teachers and particular students use computers in particular classroom contexts. How gender stereotypes are defied using computers for telecommunications cannot be understood apart from the ways they are embedded within and mediated by the social systems of particular classrooms.

My interpretations are embedded in and mediated by the particulars of my study. In the following section, I reiterate those particulars that made this study unique. They can be characterized as technological factors, pedagogical factors and experiential factors.

Factors that Make this Study Unique

Technological factors. Four unique technological features of this study need to be discussed in relation to the more typical classroom in elementary schools today. These are unlimited time, the one-to-one ratio of students to computers, high-end technology, and high-level connectivity. First, in this study the students enjoyed virtually unlimited time on the computers; they could use the computer as much or as little as they wished during the entire workshop. All students had their own computers and could make individual decisions as to how they would use the computer, as well as if and when they would team with a partner or a small group of peers. The third unique technological feature of this study was the high-end technology available to these elementary school students. And finally, each computer had an Ethernet connection and full Internet connectivity. Suffice it to say, this is not the typical situation in most elementary schools today. Had I studied the more typical elementary classroom with a single dust-covered computer and children going to the computer lab for an hour a week to do math or spelling drills, I would, of course, have had different findings. But, had I studied an elementary classroom where the single computer was used extensively by the children for writing or research in a collaborative classroom that honored and respected differences and strived to eliminate gender bias from classroom interactions, I might well have found a picture similar to that in my study. I do feel my study provides justification for housing computers in classrooms rather than labs, using open-ended, user-controlled software rather than unidimensional drill and practice software, and using telecommunications to enhance and re-vision the curriculum.

Pedagogical factors. The unique pedagogical feature of this study is my feminist stance. Although my interest in using computers to implement feminist values was not part of my formal research agenda, this stance is part of who I am and colors not only the way I view the world, but also how I designed my study and how I interpreted my data. Much of my data would not even exist had my stance been different. In short, I helped create the interactions I wished to study.

Experiential factors. The final unique characteristic of this study deals with the professional qualifications of the researcher. With almost 30 years of teaching experience from elementary school through college and close to 20 years of computer experience in educational settings, I do not fit the profile of the typical elementary school teacher. This knowledge and experience in education and computing helped me avoid the pitfalls which many teachers experience when they begin integrating computers into their classrooms. Gallo (1993) completed an interesting naturalistic dissertation on teachers using the Internet. He found that the teachers he studied had three types of problems: understanding both computers and the Internet, technical problems, and time-related problems. He also found that usage of the Internet was a function of teachers' schedules, workloads, success (or lack thereof) with using the Internet, and perceived relevance of the resources they discovered. Finally, he suggested that only those teachers who found the Internet exciting, full of good resources, or helpful in reducing isolation continued to use the Internet after their initial trial.

How This Study is Not Unique

Now that I have delineated how my study is unique, I wish to explain how it is not unique. Computers are increasingly found in elementary and secondary schools throughout the country. I am just one of millions of educators who is seeking to use technology in education. I, then, am just one of many who is reaching out to children to help them understand and use computers so that they can "make decisions about the place of computers in their own lives and in the society in which they live" (Perry, 1990, p. 98).

Potential Impact of Technology in Education

It is imperative that teachers recognize the potential impact that this technology can have on education. When used in the ways I have described in this study, computers do facilitate change. Several of these possibilities are summarized below.

Stereotypes. Computers facilitate the blurring of existing gender stereotypes. For example, girls defied gender stereotypes when they closely aligned themselves with computers and telecommunications and viewed themselves as competent, confident and frequent computer users. This characteristic is more often associated with boys than girls. Boys, as well, defied gender stereotypes when they used technology to build relationships and form connections with others. This characteristic is more often associated with girls than boys.

Cooperative learning. Computers facilitate a cooperative learning environment rather than a competitive learning structure. Girls, as expected, defined computers as tools which fostered collaboration and connection. Groups of two or three girls frequently worked together to accomplish their goals, and many girls found this to be the preferred way of working. Boys, as well, made choices that indicated they preferred a collaborative classroom climate as some worked together on Internet Treasure Hunts. In addition, the boys generally opted to use email to write to me or friends rather than play games. And when one boy discovered something "neat" on the Internet, all boys shared in the excitement of the discovery; then the discoverer became the guide to the other boys. This role of guide moved so easily from child to child as to become almost invisible.

Midwife view of education. Computers facilitate a midwife view of education rather than a banking view of education. A review of all my email messages to the children reveal no instance of a banking stance and multiple instances of a midwife stance. By using the Internet as my "textbook," I encouraged children to seek out information which was of interest to them. As I observed the children's interests developing, I suggested to students that they team up and share information with one another. For example, when one girl found information on the blue dolphin, I encouraged her to collaborate with another student so that together they could get a deeper insight into both dolphins and how to explore the Internet for dolphins. When a male student showed great interest in sports pictures, I gave him a list of about ten Internet sites which could facilitate his search. Never did I take a banking stance and dictate to the class as a whole or to children individually what topic they should explore or what route they should take. Rather, I tried to honor my students' multiple ways of knowing and exploring.

Emergent curricula. Computers facilitate a shift from a single curriculum to many emergent curricula as defined by learners' interests, areas of inquiry, and expertise. This tendency was well illustrated in Table 8 which lists the diverse topics children chose to investigate while using the Internet. As such, it is evidence that this shift can be facilitated by computers and telecommunications. When visitors came to our room, as they often did, they could find children exploring the Louvre; searching for pictures of aliens; collecting cartoons; investigating skiing and vacationing in Colorado; writing political opinions to President Clinton; comparing weather in Anchorage, New York, Moscow and Paris; researching the Amazon Rain Forest; scrutinizing social service organizations and universities in Vermont; or trying to solve the dilemma of accessing information on baseball bats when the child really wanted information on vampire bats. Our classroom was a fertile ground for exploration and diverse curricula; without computers and telecommunications, the pursuit of multiple curricula would have been much more difficult.

Engagement of all. Computers facilitate engagement of all members of the learning community. The greatest evidence of this tendency was found in the beginnings and endings of each day. The children began arriving earlier and leaving later each day. Engagement to them meant doing as much as possible within the daily time limits on the computer. In addition, the girls viewed computers as tools for increasing personal productivity. By using the computer to efficiently do research, they had more time to use email to maintain and build relationships with friends old and new. Boys were actively engaged in finding as many facts, pictures, sounds or movie clips as possible on their topics of choice. Disengaging them to leave class or to move on to another task was often difficult.

Community of learners. Computers facilitate a blurring of the distinction between teacher and learner. When computers and telecommunications are used to facilitate exploration, everyone in the classroom becomes a learner. One of the ways I showed respect and trust for the children was by expressing my joy and wonder at the learning I was engaged in because I was engaged with them. When one boy shared his discoveries about South Dakota with me, I was thrilled to be learning something I didn't know and I was careful to let this student know I was learning from him. When an inquisitive girl taught me much about the traditions surrounding the Olympic Games, I let her know how much I enjoyed having her as my teacher. Distinctions between teachers and learners blur and often become invisible when computers are used in the ways I have described in this study.

Multiple ways of knowing. Computers facilitate multiple ways of knowing our world and ourselves. Table 7 is just one example of the children's multiple ways of knowing. Each child used an identical computer, but the computer took on multiple meanings and multiple functions depending upon the user. The children characterized or defined the computer in ways which reflected their views of the world. Computers, then, become mirrors of our inner selves, and the way we use computers is a reflection of ourselves. From the point of view of a teacher or researcher, then, the ways a child uses computers give insights into that child.

Status quo? It is important to realize that there is a flip side of these possibilities. Computers can just as easily be used to maintain the gendered status quo. In this scenario:

• Students go to computer labs where gender stereotypes are reinforced by software which depicts females as less capable than males and dependent upon males.
  
• Students complete electronic drill-and-practice worksheets with gaming formats that emphasize competition against peers or the computer rather than collaboration; because girls are less comfortable with the software format, they are often turned off to both the software and the computer.
  
• Male students have greater access to computers as rewards for what teachers claim are good work or good behavior; but these boys are actually poorly behaved and not working well in class.
  
• Students compete for access to computers in labs, the classroom or after-school clubs: This arrangement favors boys, and girls often find themselves as observers rather than participants; many girls eventually give up trying to compete in this situation.

The choice belongs to teachers. They can use computers to defy longstanding gender stereotypes, to create a community where teachers and students are colearners, where students become active and engaged learners who operate in a collaborative and cooperative environment where multiple ways of knowing are honored. Or, they can use computers to maintain the gendered and teacher-centered status quo found in many schools today.

In her case study on teacher's beliefs, Leslie Conery (1992) found that teachers were content to integrate technology into their existing practice and curriculum rather than "explore new opportunities for classroom interaction that the computer might ... invite." (p. iii) This finding is disappointing from several perspectives. First, it suggests that these teachers were content with the status quo and were not interested in re-imaging their classrooms. Second, it suggests that the teachers did not see the potential of the computer as a change agent to (a) equalize power among all classroom participants, (b) place the responsibility for learning more clearly on the learners' shoulders, (c) open doors to new (and generally inexpensive) resources available on the Internet, and (d) redefine their roles as suggested in so much of the feminist research. Finally, it suggests that those teachers were happy with the existing curriculum and did not see a need to provide a broader view of what counts as knowledge. The real challenge then, as I see it, is to broadly disseminate to practicing teachers the findings of this study and others like it. In that way, teachers can begin to see the possibilities which computers offer and can begin to re-image their classrooms so they reflect practices which are no longer based on sexism, racism, or classism and instead are based on an epistemological pluralism which honors multiple ways of knowing and viewing the world.

References

Contributor

Alice Atkinson Christie grew up in rural Pennsylvania on the outskirts of Philadelphia. She attended a girls' Quaker School between the ages of four and eighteen. Her research perspective and her world view are rooted in this educational experience. She is the oldest of three children and the mother of one son. She received her B.A. in English from Denison University, her M.Ed. in Reading Education from Boston University, and her Ph.D. in Elementary Education with an emphasis in language arts and technology from Arizona State University. She has devoted the last 28 years of her life to education. In terms of her public school service, she has taught at the elementary and secondary levels and has served as the reading consultant for a large K-12 school district. At the university level, she has taught numerous courses in technology and language arts for both undergraduate and graduate students. She is a member of Phi Delta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi. Upon the completion of her Ph.D. in 1995, she began an appointment as Assistant Professor of Technology and Education at Arizona State University West. (Address: Arizona State University West, College of Education, PO Box 37100, Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100. Email: alice.christie@asu.edu)

Copyright © 1996, ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). All rights reserved.