Gendered Learning and Learning About Gender Online

A Content Analysis of Online Discussion

Kirsteen Monteith University of Stirling 2002

Abstract

This paper is a report on the findings of a study conducted on a higher education online course run by the University of Stirling. This project aimed to consider whether learning styles were gendered online and whether the Internet as a medium of higher education was suited to men, women or both? Content analysis techniques were used to examine the resulting transcript of texts for evidence of gendered learning styles within a community of learners. Findings indicate that gender is not masked in the text driven discussions on the Internet. Distinctive learning styles are often gender linked. It is the contention of this study that the distinction between traditionally male and female learning styles has become blurred. While male students are retaining elements of a separate learning style they are shifting towards a more connected learning approach, traditionally associated with female learners. This project gives close consideration to three major theories surrounding gender issues on the Internet; the demographic agora, the male mystique, and the female frontier. The material presented in this paper indicates that the virtual classroom is becoming a female domain. Educators need to take a serious and wary approach to accepting claims of ensured democratic participation in CMC-based learning environments.

CONTENTS Introduction Were there are people, researchers [will] follow (Thomas 1996:2) Enter Gender Online Higher Education Research Problem 1. Gender and the Internet Introduction Why Bring Gender Online? A Demographic Agora Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier: A Digital Divide The Male Mystique the superhighway to the village square Gender, Language and Communicating Online Conversational Purpose Group Composition Postings Communication Ethics Concluding Remarks on Gender and the Internet 2. Online Learning @ the Virtual University Introduction Gender and the Virtual Classroom Gendered Learning Styles Separate and Connected Learning Styles Learning Styles in Traditional Higher Education Concluding Remarks 3. Into the Cyber Field: Research Design and Methods Introduction Research in the Virtual World Disadvantages of Research in the Virtual Realm Ethical Issues in Cyber-research The public/private dichotomy in Cyberspace Informed consent The Importance of Student Postings in the Virtual Classroom The Research Population Content Analysis The Content Analysis Process Participation Interactivity The Social Element Concluding Remarks 9 9 9 12 14 14 16 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 24 25 25 27 29 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 39 40

4. Does Learning Come in Pink and Blue? Gender and Online Learning 41 Introduction 41 Participation 41 Interaction 44 The Social Element 48 Conversation Purpose 51 Communication Ethics 53 Group Composition 54 Concluding Remarks 55

5. The Online Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women or Men? 57 Introduction 57 A Demographic Agora? 57 Male Culture: Still Dominating? 58 Unique Cultural and Relational Aspects of Womens Communication Online 59 Concluding Remarks 60 6. Conclusion: Gendered Learning and Learning about Gender Online 62 Do men and women have different learning styles in online higher education environments? 62 Is the online higher education environment indicative of the so called male mystique or is the online learning environment a female domain or is it gender neutral? 63 Limitations of this Project and Suggestions for Further Research 64 Bibliography Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix 1 2 3 4 5 Record Sheet Seminar Activity Seminar Activity Seminar Activity Seminar Activity Graphs Graphs Graphs Graphs for for for for group1 group2 group3 group4 66 70 71 73 74 75 76

Introduction Where there are people, researchers [will] follow (Thomas 1996:2)

A technological revolution has occurred, firstly in the wide-scale adoption of computers and secondly in the ongoing adoption of the Internet, heralding the Information Age (Schumacher and Morahan-Martin 2001). As the Internet becomes increasingly important in our lives, the study of this technology has become one of the fastest growing areas in the social sciences (Ferris 1996; Jones 1994). Few technologies have generated as much paranoia, hype, and interest, as the Internet (Chadwick 1998) and it is no secret that social researchers have found cyberspace to be a rich source of data. Scholars are examining the same topics, such as gender and education, online that have been the staple of offline social inquiry for years.

Enter Gender

The claims for what the Internet has done or will do to change our lives (for the better) are widely available in the media, in news stories, advertisements, and editorials (Kramarae 1998: 100). The Internet has been described as a democratic agora; an electronic meeting place where individuals, regardless of gender, can communicate equally (Finke 2001; King 2000; Morahan-Martin 1998). It may well be the technological innovation of the twentieth century and has penetrated almost every aspect of everyday life, from how we communicate, to how we shop, play and learn (Jackson et al 2001: 363). But amidst the enthusiasm there are real concerns about the Internets potential to segment society rather than democratise it (Hoffman and Novak cited in Jackson et al 2001: 364). In light of the above, the present study will give consideration to gender issues in an online environment.

The information available on gender issues and the Internet, to date, can be divided into three major theories. The first theory maintains that the Internet is gender neutral, and that women and men can participate online on equal terms. The second theory presents the virtual realm as a reflection of the offline world where men and women operate on unequal terms, and men dominate (King 2000: 2). The third theory suggests that the Internet may be seen as a female domain less as a superhighway and more as a village square, where people meet, talk, and learn, a place where women are making it and moving into a digital lifestyle that was previously perceived as a mens club (Spenders 2000).

Online Higher Education

To date, much of the educational interest and investment in information and communication technology (ICT) has been for development, rather than research. Yet ICT is now mission critical for educational provision in schools, universities, colleges, industry and corporate agencies, providing and resourcing learning across the community at large. The need to underpin educational development and the need for a wider forum to inform and support good practice is clear.

Implementing distance education based on computer-mediated communication (CMC) is one of the main ways higher education institutions can begin to address the rising student population, that is characteristic of todays society (Blum 1999: 1). As higher education bodies invest more heavily in information technology and as ICT becomes more integral to teaching, educators need to think about those that may be left behind, such as ethnic minority groups, older people, and women.

When mismatches occur between the learning styles of the majority of students in a class and the dominant teaching style, students may become bored and inattentive, do poorly in exams and assessments, get discouraged about the course, and themselves, and in some cases change to other courses or drop out all together. Thus, the question of learning style is of prime importance.

Research Problem

The present study will consider male and female experiences of online learning, via a quantitative and qualitative analysis of student postings from, Information Technology and Society; a higher education online course run by the University of Stirling. Asynchronous CMC-based distance education will be examined to determine if the environment is equitable for both male and female students. By examining learning styles and communication patterns of online student messages, this studys purpose is to consider whether learning styles are gendered online and whether the Internet as a medium of higher education is suited to men, women or both? The findings can then be used to create a working model for CMC-based distance education institutions that is equitable for both male and female students. The study will tackle the following research questions:

Do men and women have different learning styles in online higher education environments?

Is the online higher education environment indicative of the so-called male mystique, a female domain or is it gender neutral?

The following two chapters, Gender and the Internet and Online Learning @ the Virtual University, review the relevant literature on gender, the Internet and

online learning, which provides the full contextualisation for this study. The third chapter documents the research methods installed to meet the aims of the project. Finally, the subsequent chapters will outline and analyse the research findings. The concluding chapter will discuss the themes of the previous chapters of analysis in relation to the wider aims of the project.

CHAPTER 1 GENDER AND THE INTERNET

Introduction

The following two chapters draw together a range of issues from past literature on the topics of gender, the Internet, and online learning. There is extensive literature on gender issues and the Internet, with particular attention being given to the phenomena of online discussion groups, Bulletin Board Systems (BBS), and chatrooms (Ferris 1996; Herring 1994; Savicki et al. 1996). Much has been written about online learning as well (Carswell et al. 2000; Hammon 1997; Hara et al. 2000), however, while there is some common ground, there is very little literature concerning gender and online learning issues simultaneously. As a result, the following chapter will review the literature that covers gender issues and, the Internet, in general, rather than looking at online learning specifically. It will then turn to examine the literature on online learning separately and will look to the limited literature on gender issues in this field. The aim of the following two chapters is to pull together the key issues raised by these broad areas of literature. It will also provide a framework of reference for understanding the chapters that follow.

Why Bring Gender Online?

Gender is an elusive paradigm. We may be born with a particular set of reproductive equipment, but biology does not make things clear-cut. For years people have debated how much of a gender identity is biologically derived, and how much it is socially constructed through external cues and influences (Ferris

1996; Schmesier, 1996). Then came text-based CMC, where visual and audio cues were seemingly irrelevant.

Offline we create our identities. We can appear bookish and quiet, or loud and funny. Everyone is capable of such self-reinvention, but few attempt it. Reinventing ourselves online, is said to be, simple by comparison. We can adopt any name or handle (online nickname) we like and one person can have several different identities. Women pose as men, men pose as women (McAdams 1996). Turkle (1995: 212) suggests that for a man to present himself as female online requires only writing a description. Whereas, for a man to play a woman offline he might have to shave various parts of his body, wear makeup, perhaps a wig, a dress, and high heels, perhaps change his voice, walk and mannerisms. (Turkle 1995: 212). Shade (cited in Schmesier, 1996: 1) notes One of the characteristics of computer mediated-communication (CMC) is its lack of easy social contextualization. Therefore, in a medium where it is possible to construct and/or discard identities at a whim, it is feasible to ask why are we bringing gender online?

Many women have found that gender follows them into the virtual realm, and sets a tone for their interactions there, to such an extent that some women purposefully choose gender-neutral identities (Truong 1993). McAdams (1996) asks, Is it possible to be neither woman nor man online, but rather a person without gender? Bruckman (1993) suggests that gender is so fundamental to human interactions, that the idea of a person without gender is absurd.

It has been suggested that, in text-based virtual environments, it is possible to pretend to be the opposite gender (Bruckman 1993). Suler (1999) argues that gender swapping is probably much more commonplace than we realise. By

10

enabling people to experience what it feels like to be the opposite gender or to have no gender at all, the practice encourages reflection on the way ideas about gender shape our expectations (Turkle 1995: 210). In online environments, people often reflect the values that our society attaches to gender (Bruckman 1993). To pass as a woman for any length of time requires understanding of how gender inflects on speech, manner, interaction, participation and the

interpretation of experience. Women attempting to pass as men face the same challenge. In Turkles (1995: 212) study, a female participant stated that she had worked hard to pass as a man online. In these virtual worlds, the way gender structures basic human interaction is often noticed and reflected upon (Bruckman 1993). McAdams (1996) proposes that it would require much conscious effort to maintain a gendered identity other than our bodys, and it may be that our minds, so bound up with our bodies in most aspects of our lives, would give the game away, as such gender is paramount to our online experiences.

Although research on CMC dates back to the early days of technology in the 1970s, researchers have only recently begun to take the gender of users into account. This is not surprising considering that men have traditionally dominated the technology and have comprised the majority of users of computers networks since their inception, but the result is that most of what has been written on CMC incorporates a very one-sided perspective (Herring 1994: 1). However, recent research has been uncovering some eye-opening differences in the ways men and women interact online. Thus, as a result, the growing awareness of the impact of gender online validates the study of gender in the virtual world as an important research topic.

The information available on gender issues and the Internet, to date, can be divided into three major theories; the democratic agora, the male mystique and

11

the female domain. These theoretical perspectives will now be discussed in more detail.

A Democratic Agora

The Internet has been described as a democratic agora; an electronic meeting place where individuals, regardless of nationality, social status, gender, ethnicity, age, or physical abilities can communicate equally (Finke 2001; King 2000; Morahan-Martin 1998). A commercial for a large telecom company in America advertises; On the Internet, there is no race (pause) there is no gender (pause) there is no age (pause). (Mason 2002). The rest of the commercial rolls along this genre, portraying the wonderful absence of social qualifiers on the Internet, ending on how the company is taking us to this new social utopia. This advert and many others are portraying the Internet as an exemplary social space. The idea is that the world out there on the Internet can erase the social reality of isms (racism, sexism, and ageism), that we experience on a daily basis, to produce an ism free zone. The absence of physical cues as to a senders identity has been thought to remove all trace of information as regards to gender, ethnicity, social class, and age - making the medium inherently democratic and egalitarian (Herring 2000: 1). Perhaps this was the finding that led many researchers, coming into the field, to predict that the unique characteristics of CMC would democratise communication and mitigate gender differences (Ferris 1996: 29; Herring 2000: 1). However, Sherman et al (2000: 885) suggests that assumptions that the Internet is gender neutral are possibly premature.

Until recently, no real opportunity to investigate the equalising effects of CMC on gendered communication existed due to the low levels of female participation online (Schumacher and Morahan 2001: 96). As more women began to venture

12

online in the 1990s, infiltrating what had previously been an almost exclusively male dominated arena, studies of gender and CMC started appearing with greater frequency. Early findings in CMC research claimed that gender was invisible online (Herring 2000: 1), and it was also claimed that CMC promoted social equality (Connelly, Jessup & Valaciah; Kiesler; Sproull cited in Ferris 1996: 29). Interestingly, claims of widespread gender anonymity have not been supported by recent research on the Internet (Morahan-Martin 1998).

A number of more recent studies have reported that the gap between the number of men and women online has narrowed in recent years (Jackson et al 2001: 364; Sherman et al 2000: 885). Use of the Internet by females has increased dramatically in the last few years; women are taking advantage of this mode of communication in ever-growing numbers (Savicki et al. 1996: 2). Although it has been suggested that women, world wide, still use the Internet less and in different ways, from their male counter-parts (Morahan-Martin 1998: 1). It should be noted here that claims of parity in the percentage of males and females online does not necessarily translate into, men and women sharing equal online experiences (Sherman et al 2000: 885). Males, are said to, use more Internet applications and for more reasons than females, are more adept at the cutting edge technologies, and are more likely to play Internet games, such as MUDs (Multi-user Domains), MUSHes (Multi-user Shared Hallucination), and MOOs (MUD, Object Oriented), than females. Other studies have reported that women are far more favourable to email than men (Morahan-Martin 1998: 4). In light of the recent increase in the number of women online, this project will go beyond purely statistical measures and will provide a quantitative and qualitative investigation of male and female experiences in online higher education.

13

Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier: a Digital Divide

Amidst the enthusiasm surrounding the Internet are real concerns about the Internets potential to segment society rather than democratise it (Hoffman and Novak cited in Jackson et al 2001: 364). Sherman et als (2000: 893) study concluded that the difference between men and womens experience of the Internet are linked to broader questions of gender in society, and predicts that gender issues in cyberspace are likely to persist as long as they also exist offline. As Arnold (2001) proposes, oppressions do not go away just because there are apparent safeguards in its virtuality and distance from face-to-face encounters. Real world biases and power relations do not simply dissolve inside the virtual realm (Brayton 1997: 4). Given the long history of gender differences in computer attitudes and use (Morahan-Martin 1998), it would be surprising if these differences disappeared on the Internet, whose most common mode of delivery is the computer (Jackson et al 2001: 364). Most participants in CMC interact in their offline identities, without attempting to disguise their gender (Herring 2000: 2). Our desire to be gendered online stems from our near inability to be ungendered offline (McAdams 1996). Moreover, Henry (1999: 2) states, that the Internet can actually create and reinforce the inequalities in society. The present project will draw on the above findings and will examine male and female experiences of online higher education.

The Male Mystique

From this standpoint, Internet culture is seen as an inherently male culture. Males are said to have dominated the Internet since its inception (Austin-Smith 1995; Gerrard 1996; Herring 1994; Morahan-Martin 1998; Schumacher & MorahanMartin 2001). Even the metaphors used to describe the Internet are masculine;

14

The Electronic Frontier, Cyberspace and The Information Superhighway (Morahan-Martin 1998: 2). Primarily male scientists, mathematicians, and technologically sophisticated computer hackers (Gerrard 1996; Morahan-Martin 1998) developed the Internet. As Kantrozvitz suggests (cited in Brayton: 1997: 4) computer culture is created, defined and controlled by men. Women often feel about as welcome as a system crash. Sexist jokes, pornography, stories of sexual harassment, and stalking, tell women that virtual reality is a male reality (Gerrard 1996: 1).

As men and women, we are raised in a social climate that has gendered technology as part of masculine identity. To be male is to be technological; to be female is to be technophobic (Morahan-Martin 1998: 3), regardless of the reality that women and men experience (Brayton 1997: 4). Researchers have argued that men design the new technologies, and women push buttons (Gerrard 1996: 1). By almost any measure we might choose, men dominate the computer world through sheer numbers (Finke 2001: 2). These large numbers suggest that those who are designing hardware, software, and networks, supporting and servicing them, and teaching about them are most likely to be men (Finke 2001: 2).

What matters here is that this is the social context in which online courses take place. Does this pervasive conception of computers affect students participation? Does the image of the computer as a male technology make men more comfortable and women less so in a virtual classroom? The present study will give consideration to whether the student postings from the online course Information Technology and Society is indicative of this male mystique.

15

 The superhighway to the village square

In contrast, Spenders (2000) paper The Digital Lifestyle for Women suggests that the Internet may be seen as a social communication medium less as a superhighway and more as a village square, where people meet, talk, learn and trade, a place where women are making it and moving into a digital lifestyle that was previously perceived as a mens club. It has been proposed that women have all the relevant characteristics for the digital age. Behar-Molad (2000) suggests that the Internet is most suited to womens psychological profiles and make-up. The impetus is on change, and some researchers believe that it is because women have fewer vested interests in the status quo that they are much more open to change than their male counterparts. Others look to womens biological and social lives, and suggest that, until recently womens lives were altered drastically by marriage and motherhood, whilst mens could remain largely unchanged. Spender (2000) advocates that, in the knowledge society of the future, self-management will be a valued characteristic, along with flexibility, multitasking, and the capacity to constantly re-evaluate and collaborate (all stereotypically female traits). Tunnel vision, fixation on a future goal, and a desire to do it on your own and to dominate (all stereotypically male traits), will not be helpful attributes in online environments. Thus, this literature implies that the Internet, is in fact, a female domain. This project will draw on the ideas of Spender (2000) and Behar-Molad (2000) and the notions of a male mystique, and the democratic agora, that dominated early research on CIT.

Gender, Language and Communicating Online

Kramarae (cited in Ferris 1996: 30) suggests that language plays a crucial role in the social construction of gender and thus, a consideration of gender in online

16

communication must begin with a consideration of gender differences in the use of language (Ferris 1996).

Conversational Purpose

It has been suggested that conversational purpose, between genders, differ online as it does in face-to-face communication; men want to establish control, and status, while women want to maintain supportive and tentative interaction (Morahan-Martin 1998: 1). When online, it has been argued that women are more inclined than men to engage in socio-emotional and relational patterns of communication which might exhibit, what Jaffe et al. (cited in Ferris 1996: 34) calls social interdependence. Moreover, women are said to be more focused on positive interaction and co-operation, thus being more socially supportive of their colleagues (Morahan-Martin 1998: 1). Other research in this area supports this finding socio-linguistic, Tannen, (cited in Gerrard 1996: 3) argues that womens talk is more co-operative and intimate than mens, whereas men are more likely to report information and debate opinions. Tannen has also observed that in conversation, women try to minimise or avoid conflict, while men are more likely to be confrontational. Parks and Floyd (cited in Ferris 1996: 35) found that women are significantly more likely than men to form personal relationships online.

Group Composition

Savicki et al.s (1996) study focuses on group gender composition. They presume that groups composed of all men or all women will represent extreme positions on several gender-related variables, while mixed groups will fall between the extremes. Similarly, Herrings (1994) work suggests that individual members

17

found their communication style to become mixed with the composition of the group. These observations are consistent with those of Kanter (cited in Savicki et al. 1996: 2) who predicts that gendered styles will be proportional to the gender composition of the group. Herring (1994: 4) proposes that participants must adopt the dominant style to keep with the norms of the group.

Savicki et al. (1996) found that, women in female only groups were more satisfied with the group process and had more advanced levels of group development than did either male only or evenly mixed groups. Female only groups used the greatest proportion of I (I, me, my, myself) pronouns, the most self-disclosure and sent more messages explicitly referring to other members of the group, while the male only groups used more factual and third party assertions. Moreover, consistent with Herrings (1994) hypothesis, male only groups used more coarse language (swearing and slang) and changed their opinions less.

In the present study, there are more female members than male members taking part in the course. In light of this, and the above findings, it can be proposed that the members of the group will adopt a female style of communication. It is the intention of this project to examine this proposition.

Postings

Herring (1994: 1), in her ethnographical work with academic discussion lists/forums during 1991-1994, observed that women seemed to be sitting on the sidelines while men were airing their opinions and getting all the attention by posting lengthy and more frequent messages. The most prominent reason given for not contributing to discussions was intimidation. Interestingly, Herring

18

(1994) found that men and women reacted differently to feeling intimidated. Men seemed to accept such behaviour as a normal feature of online discussion while women responded with profound aversion. Ferriss (1996) study showed that womens contributions are often ignored, downplayed, or criticised. Interestingly, the nature of CMC plays a crucial role, here, as it is easy to ignore unwanted communication by simply deleting or not responding to messages.

Communication Ethics

Herring (1994: 5) focuses on the notion of flaming, defined as the expression of strong negative emotion, use of derogatory, obscene, or inappropriate language and personal insults. A popular explanation advanced by CMC researchers is that flaming is a by-product of the medium itself the decentralised and anonymous nature of CMC leads to disinhabitation in users and a tendency to forget that there is a human being at the receiving end of ones emotional outbursts (Herring 1994: 5). Herring (1994: 5) proposes that men are more likely to flame because men and women have different communication ethics, and male ethical codes can be evoked to justify flaming.

A review of the literature leads to the conclusion that men's and womens communication in cyberspace differs, and as such, can be said to mirror that of face-to-face communication offline (Ferris 1996: 29). The present study will give consideration to the conversational purpose, group composition, the number and frequency of postings, and the communication ethics, of male and female postings from the online course Information Technology and Society.

19

Concluding Remarks on Gender and the Internet

The growing awareness of the impact of gender online validates the study of gender and the Internet as an important research topic. The existence of gender in the virtual world has important implications for the claim that CMC is anonymous, gender-blind and hence inherently democratic. If our online communication style reveals our gender, then gender differences, along with their social consequences, are likely to persist in the virtual realm. This being the case; the study of gender online is an intriguing topic for review.

This chapter has highlighted three theoretical standpoints in relation to gender and the Internet. Each standpoint views the online world differently. These viewpoints are as follows; a democratic agora, a place where individuals, regardless of gender, can communicate equally (Finke 2001; King 2000; Morahan-Martin 1998), a male frontier, in which, the Internet is seen inherently as a mens club (Spencer 2001), and a female domain, where women are more suited to the virtual realm than their male counterparts. The present study will consider whether online education is indicative of the so called democratic agora and male mystique that has surrounded much of the early research on the Internet or whether the online learning environment is a female domain.

20

CHAPTER 2

ONLINE LEARNING @ THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY

Introduction

In todays higher education environment many students find it difficult to schedule their learning due to family and work commitments (Young et al 1999). Many educators are therefore experimenting with flexible learning so students have a choice in how, where and when they learn. The Internet is an ideal medium for this because courses can be delivered on demand anywhere in the wired world. (Hammon 1997: 12). Internet-based instruction is gaining acceptance as an alternative to the traditional classroom setting (Arbaugh 2000: 503) and, as such, is set to be become a core activity rather than occupying the fringes of higher education (Dearing 1997). The relevance of CIT for universities can be viewed within the context of an increased emphasis on lifelong learning and the impact CIT is having on all aspects of education. From this perspective, education is not something that only happens during childhood and early adulthood. It is now a continuing process throughout an individuals life (Ryan et al. 2000: 9) and is an important subject for investigation. Since it is a relatively new means of communicating knowledge, research on this topic is still in its infancy.

This means that questions that have been thoroughly studied for traditional classrooms may need to be revisited for online courses. Much of the research to date on online learning has been concerned with comparing online to more traditional learning environments (Carswell et al. 2000). Moreover, little work has been done to identify which democratic groups of students benefit from this

21

approach to learning (Young et al 1999). The present study will give consideration to male and female students.

Knowledge of the nature of the learning process that goes on in higher education is sketchy. Laurillard (cited in Timms 1998) has pointed out that British higher education spends less on research into what it does than the glue industry. It is less extraordinary when you think that HE, given its concern with research spends less than 1% on understanding what it is that we spend so much of our time doing. This study aims to help fill this gap.

Online learning communities are groups of individuals who use computer networks to share ideas, information, and insights about a given theme or topic to support the ongoing learning experiences of all the members. Learning communities are populated by experts, novices, teachers and students of all ages (Fontana cited in Timms 1998: 6).

Gender and the Virtual Classroom

In spite of the increase in the number of women partaking in online education, there are few studies that are based upon a gender conscious perspective (Blum 1999: 47). The following section will draw upon a somewhat sketchy and limited literature concerning gender and online learning.

Researchers have argued that men see cyberspace, in general and internet-based education in particular, as a way to provide education to the masses more quickly and at less cost. (Arbaugh 2000: 504). On the other hand, it has been suggested that women see cyberspace as a means to develop increased collaboration and support networks for increasing learning and communication of the entire group

22

(Herring 1994: 4). If these observations are accurate, they may have significant implications for how online courses should be developed and delivered and, as such, this topic needs to be investigated.

Some researchers claim that women are disadvantaged in online courses (McSporran and Young 2001:2). Cole et al (cited in McSporran and Young 2001: 3) suggest that males have dominated traditional computing classrooms and, as such, have shaped the subjects image. Researchers have reported that this locker room atmosphere has extended to online courses (McSporran and Young 2001: 3). Males are said to behave aggressively and monopolise conversational space and tales of online violence and harassment has predominated. Blum (1999) describes how males dominate an online educational discussion forum, abusing women with negative comments about their computing and technical knowledge, causing the women to stop using the discussion forum and leave the cyber-classroom. Some researchers claim that this situation continues and males dominate the virtual classroom. Claims of male dominance may be linked to the Internet population which was predominantly male in the early 1990s (McSporran and Young 2001: 3). Others propose that the situation is changing rapidly. Savicki et al. (1996: 2) have proposed the use of the Internet by females has increased dramatically in the last few years, and women are taking advantage of this mode of communication in ever-growing numbers. With more women online, resulting in more women using online learning, male voices should no longer dominate (McSporran and Young 2001: 3).

Arbaughs (2000: 503) work on learning and class based participation in an MBA online course proposed that there were no significant differences in learning, and only moderately significant differences in class participation, between men and women. However, within Arbaughs (2000: 504) study the men did report more

23

difficulty interacting in the course, and interaction difficulty was a significant predictor of class participation.

Gendered Learning Styles

A primary area in which we might see gender-based differences is student learning (Arbaugh 2000: 506). Learning is a complex skill. It is not just a matter of acquiring information, but also entails remembering and recollection and the application of acquired information to master and develop new skills (Garland et al. 1998: 1). A learning style is a pattern of behaviour that you use for learning. Different learners have different learning styles (Lewis and Orton 2000: 47). There is marked disagreement whether the Internet is suitable to the learning styles of both male and female students. Anderson (cited in McSporran and Young 2001: 3) suggests that female learners have a marked preference for face-to-face communication. In contrast, however, Belanger (cited in McSporran and Young 2001: 3) emphasises that online learning may prove to be more suitable to the learning style of women. Even more interestingly, a Canadian study of the use of the Internet for learning reported that 81% of the women reported a positive learning experience compared to 77% of men (McSporran and Young 2001: 3).

McSporran and Young (2001: 10) found that the attributes for successful online learning include self regulated learning and being able to multi-task dealing with interruptions and events then rescheduling as necessary. The student must then be able to re-focus quickly and continue working. They also suggest that it is the loner males that are disadvantaged by distance learning (McSporran and Young 2001: 4). Thus, it is questionable which group - men or women adopt best to online education as a method of learning. Honey and Mumford (cited in Carswell 2000: 32) have highlighted 4 categories of learning styles: the activist,

24

the reflector, the theorist and the pragmatist. Although this is not an exhaustive presentation of the various categories that underpin types of student learning, nevertheless, taken either singularly or in conjunction, they do offer a possible frame of reference to interpret the differing learning styles of men and women.

Separate and Connected Learning Styles

Belenky et al (1997) and MacKeracher (cited in Blum 1999) have identified two preferred learning styles: separate and connected. According to both Belenky et al (1997) and MacKeracher (cited in Blum 1999), adult students typically prefer to learn either in a separate or connected manner. Students who prefer to learn in a separate manner are associated with autonomy, separation, certainty, control, competition, and abstraction; the gender of separate learners is often male (Blum 1999: 48).

Thanks to the work by Belenky et al. (1997) and MacKeracher (cited in Blum 1999), there is considerable evidence to suggest that many women tend to approach learning in more connected ways. A Connected learning style is one which places emphasis on relationships, empathy, careful listening and one where cooperation and collaboration is stressed rather than competition.

Learning Styles in Traditional Higher Education

In 1968 Perry undertook a study of male undergraduate students at New England College. From this study he determined that young men pass through a developmental sequence in their thinking modes. There are six stages to Perrys developmental process, these are as follows: (1) male students see the world as black/white, right/wrong - they are convinced there is one right answer, (2) male

25

students see there is diversity of opinion, but feel that authorities that describe diversity are poorly qualified, or just exercising students so students will be forced to find the right answer themselves, (3) male students begin to feel that diversity is temporary - they feel that maybe the right answer just hasn't been found yet, (4) male students understand that diversity is a legitimate state, but they would still prefer to know what is right, (5) male students see that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, and finally (6) the male student develops a personal commitment to the relativistic world (Blackmore 1996). Nearly twenty years later Belenky et al. (1997) wondered how women fit into this male scale (if at all). In their study they discovered that women do indeed have different ways of knowing. Belenky et al. (1997) chose not to describe the way women think in a sequence, although women do move from one style of thinking to others as they mature and gain life experience. In outline, Belenky et al. (1997) found that women have the following possible ways of knowing: female students can feel mindless and voiceless, subject to whims of external authority, and that female students may feel they can receive knowledge, but not create it, as a result, truth and knowledge are private and subjectively known or intuited, in contrast female students are said to be invested in learning and applying objective procedures for obtaining and communicating knowledge, and female students view knowledge as contextual and can create knowledge found objectively or subjectively (Blackmore 1996).

Thus,

evidence

suggests

that

males

and

females,

in

more

traditional

environments, tend to approach learning from a different perspective (Schwartz and Hanson 1992). Schwartz and Hansons (1992) research on mathematical education for female students in traditional classroom settings suggests that females prefer to use a conversational style that fosters group consensus and a connected learning style. Males, conversely, learn through argument and

26

individual activity and, are said to, operate within a separate learning style (Blum 1999: 46). It cannot be assumed that online education provides an equitable learning environment when traditional higher education has been well documented to have inequitable characteristics for female students.

It should be noted here, however, that describing anything as masculine or feminine is difficult and more often than not, constructed, in this case we can maintain the labels while recognising that they are not entirely accurate, for there are males who have a feminine style of learning and communicating and vice versa. We must also recognise that these labels do not mean that these are at essence feminine or masculine characteristics, but only a result of socialisation into our gendered roles.

Concluding Remarks

The growing awareness of the impact of gender online and the rapid increase of online education validates the study of gender and online learning as an important research subject. The previous two chapters have proposed that while much has been written about gender and the Internet, and online learning, separately, little has been written on the two topics conjunctively. Furthermore, the neglect of a simultaneous discussion of gender, the Internet, and online learning means that this study can attempt to fill this gap, and build on the sparse literature to date. The present study will consider male and female

experiences of online learning, via a quantitative and qualitative analysis of student postings from a higher education online course run by the University of Stirling. The aim of this study is to tackle the following research question(s):

27

Do men and women have different learning styles in online higher education environments?

Is the online higher education environment indicative of the so-called male mystique, a female domain or is it gender neutral?

28

CHAPTER 3 INTO THE CYBER FIELD RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Introduction The following body of work sets out the methodology adopted to meet the aims of this study. It will draw upon previous literature on the uses of the chosen method content analysis. A review of the importance of content analysis of online student postings, along with descriptions of the actual process of the data generation and analysis stage, will be discussed. The chapter also confronts

some of the advantages and challenges that using the Internet as a research tool creates.

Research in the Virtual World

Homes (cited in Illingworth 2001: 4) suggests that the perceived advantage of virtual reality and CMC lies in its ability to simulate the real world without any of its limitations, thus, potentially, leaving the individual free to create. As such the Internet provides the research community with the chance to interface with respondents in ways which may overcome some of the barriers imposed by conventional research approaches. The researcher can engage in research on a world-wide, low cost, almost instantaneous scale and, according to more favourable reports, reduce the impact of instrumental biases such as the race or gender of the researcher (Illingworth 2001: 5). The Internet provides a medium whereby the researcher has access to a world of behaviour and ideas in the form of electronic mail, bulletin boards, discussion forums and chat rooms.

29

Disadvantages of Research in the Virtual Realm Social scientists conducting research online are presented with a number of methodological problems, some of them unique to the medium itself, and are subsequently different from those they are likely to encounter in research offline (Hamman 1998). One significant disadvantage of CMC is that non-verbal cues, such as, gestures, facial expression, tone of voice are non-existent. This lack of physicality and a reliance on written rather than verbal communication potentially leads to the loss of important observational elements (Illingworth 2001: 5). As a result,

researchers are forced to make certain assumptions about the participants (Hara et al 2000). Also active listeners or lurkers, who might read and not respond to messages, are lost (Hara et al 2000).

Online researchers should be cautious about where the study is taking place, like a telephone call, the place where the participants inhabit is defined only by acts of interaction and communication as there is no place in the virtual world beyond the metaphor (Rutter and Smith 1999:5). When the researcher selects an online community as the focus of his [or her] studywhere does he [or she] actually go? (Thomsen 1998:3). There is no place to go to carry out fieldwork. As a result, data gathering seems a matter of deskwork rather than fieldwork.

Given the very nature of many online communities, data gathering is usually done online, via text (Thomsen 1998:11). This necessary emphasis on text presents both opportunities and limits. In one sense, there is less to miss in a text-based environment. All speech, behaviour, community rules, and history are, in principle, available online. This may make the task seem deceptively easy, however, researchers must realise the limits of text based analysis. Stone (cited

30

in Hammon 1998:4) makes an important distinction between face-to-face communication and CMC, explaining that people who communicate offline, use multiple communication modes simultaneously speech, gestures, and facial expression, whereas CMC is, what she calls, narrow-bandwidth because communication is restricted to lines of text, and a handful of emoticons (visual arrangement of text characters to symbolise emotions). The ease, with which misinterpretations of language can occur in text based CMC is of grave concern.

The differences in participation may occur for a variety of reasons. The limits on face-to-face interaction reduce participants social presence, thereby diminishing traditional social cues for participation (Rice; Sproull and Kiesler cited in Arbaugh 2000: 507). In contrast, online communication has been said to help make participation more equal across participants (Arbaugh 2000: 507).

CMC generated messages may belong to the class of print, but they have little in common with texts as we know them. The chronological sequence of the messages does not partake of the logic of spoken or written discourse. CMC messages follow upon each other without immediate continuity of meaning, issuing from several authors who do not usually consult one another before transmitting (Henri 1992: 118). Thus, the very nature of CMC can lead to problems when attempting to analyse such data.

Ethical Issues in Cyber-research Most of us know how to behave at cocktail partiesfew of us know the rules of cyberspace becausethose rules do not exist. (Jones 1994:35).

The expansion of cyberstudies brings with it questions of ethics - guiding how we gather data, treat subjects and publicise the results (Jones 1994:30). Cyberspace

31

provides no dispensation to ignore ethical precepts. Researchers are as obligated to protect human subjects and do right in electronic environments as in more conventional ones (Thomas 1996:107). It is not easy to determine what constitutes right conduct or how to do it, in the virtual realm, however, Jones (1994:34) proposes that we use our experiences in the real world of social science, and apply them to social research in cyberspace.

The public/private dichotomy in Cyberspace

Cyber-researchers frequently pose the following question; is cyberspace a public space? Many have debated whether conversations held in cyberspace are public or private, and thus whether researchers have the right to observe and analyse online discussions without the permission of the participants. Our conventional sense of public and private spaces could be transferred metaphorically into cyberspace, to provide a framework for deciding expectations about research online (Jones 1994:34). There are numerous distinctions made online which increasingly offer Internet access, on public and private levels, rooms, places and so forth (Jones 1994: 32). Therefore, it is apparent that distinctions between public and private areas in cyberspace are made, and made repeatedly, in a variety of different contexts. As Thomas (cited in Paccagnella 1997:8) suggests, eavesdropping on a private conversation, even in a public place, is surreptitious, and therefore, unethical. Some authors argue, however, that online interaction is public. Rafaeli (cited in Paccagnella 1997:8) suggests that public discourse or CMC is just that: public. However, just because discussion takes place in public does not mean that it is public and, as such, ethically available to the researcher (Rutter and Smith 1999:8). The present study views all levels of cyberspace as private; as a result, informed consent was sought from all the participants.

32

Informed consent

Most social research necessitates obtaining the consent and co-operation of subjects who are to assist in investigations and of significant others in the institutions or organisations providing the research facilities (Cohen et al. 2000: 50). The principle of informed consent arises from the subjects right to freedom and self-determination and right to refuse to take part (Cohen et al. 2000: 50). Once the course director of Information Technology and Society had granted permission the following message was posted on the students main bulletin board:

'Hi, I am a postgraduate working on my masters dissertation. My project is concerned with online learning and gender. I would like to analyse the data from your discussion groups, comparing and contrasting male and female postings. The aim of my project is to examine male and female learning styles in an online environment. All information collected will be non-identifiable and confidential. If you do not wish to be involved in this project please reply to me at Kirsteen.Monteith@stir.ac.uk and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your time and good luck with the course.

The individual postings could be traced, by myself and by the members of the teaching team, therefore, anonymity could not be granted, rather, confidentiality was given. This means that although the researcher and a limited number of staff members at the University of Stirling could trace who provided the information, the connection would not be made publicly. All names and names of places have been changed for the purpose of this study.

33

The Importance of Student Postings in the Virtual Classroom It has been suggested that CMC is proving to be a gold mine of information concerning the psycho-social dynamics at work among students, the learning strategies adopted, and the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Henri (1992: 119) has proposed that an attentive educator, reading between the lines in texts transmitting by CMC, will find information unavailable in any other learning situation. The time limits of on-campus classroom work can make it impossible for all learners to have their say. On the other hand, online discussion groups, freed of the constraints imposed by the time and space, (Henri 1992: 118) offer a convenient medium for observation as they are easily accessible and offer the opportunity for equal participation for all members (Ferris 1996: 30). For McCreary (cited in Henri 1992: 119), the value of CMC lies in its use of the written word the form of communication which, more than any other, can demand exactness, coherent organisation of thought, and clear, restrained and authentic expression. Henri (1992: 119) suggests that, at present, educators are not making use of CMC exchanges to further the learning process. This is due to the fact that they have no means of dealing with the abundance of information contained in the messages, nor of interpreting the elements of meaning which have significance for the learning process (Henri 1992: 118). The present study aims to create an analytical model for investigating such data.

The Research Population

Data was generated from the online messages of students on an Applied Social Science course that is offered to both undergraduate and postgraduate students by the University of Stirling. The course is entitled Information Technology and Society. The aims and objectives of the course were to consider the relationships

34

between developments in communications and information technologies and society. The prerequisites were confidence in the use of computers, access to the Internet, and four semesters of study in Sociology and Social Policy, Education or Psychology (the relevant requirements in line with the official University guidelines). On successful completion of the course, students were to be able to demonstrate advanced skills in the use of the Internet, be able to collaborate in groups, as well as work independently. Most of the course material was available on the Internet and computer conferencing was an integral component of the course activities. 29 students participated in the course, of which, 7 were male and 22 were female. The students were split into 4 groups for discussions. The first, middle and last seminar sessions will be analysed.

Content Analysis

Content analysis was used to tackle the research questions. Content analysis is a generic name for a variety of textual analyses that typically involves comparing, contrasting and categorising a set of data (Hara et al. 2000: 121), in this case, online discussions. Although content analysis in CMC is arguably one of the most promising areas for research (Kuehn cited in Hara et al. 2000: 119), minimal research exists in this area. One reason for this is that researchers lack a reliable instrument for content analysis of online discussions (Hara et al. 2000: 119). This study, therefore aims to establish criteria to analyse the content of several online seminars that will perhaps provide an entry point for other work in this arena. The study analysed the entire transcripts of twelve online seminars.

At present, our knowledge of online discussions is rather superficial. Our descriptions so far have been largely quantitative, e.g. number of participants, messages, words etc (Henri 1992: 120). While many research studies use

35

quantitative methodology for online content analyses, there is a growing emphasis on qualitative approaches (Hara et al. 2000: 119). To utilise the benefits of both methods the present study will apply both quantitative and qualitative criteria to analyse the content of computer conferencing as a form of electronic interaction. By using both quantitative and qualitative measures, the study hoped to provide a more comprehensive picture of online discussions. As Henri (1992: 124) suggests, quantitative data can be useful in content analysis if it is not the only factor considered, and if it is analysed in conjunction with data from more qualitative analyses.

The Content Analysis Process

A pilot content analysis was carried out. The pilot study was used to establish some preliminary themes, such as interaction patterns and social cues. From the pilot study and, the recommendations of Henri (1992), Hara et al. (2000) and Jaffe et al. (1995) for content analysis in online discussions, a content analysis plan was devised. After a general reading, each subsequent reading specifically focused on the participation and social processes exhibited in the electronic transcripts as well as the interactivity patterns among the students. Thus, the content analysis framework consists of 3 dimensions: participation, interaction, and social. First the participation element was considered, second the interaction patterns in the sessions were mapped out and finally, the apparent social cues were coded.

Participation

The analytical model dealing with participation draws on Henris (1992) ideas. The usual approach in studies such as this kind a straight count of messages was

36

deemed too superficial, since the message is a highly variable one. Some messages contain very little information, others contain several paragraphs dealing with numerous ideas, and set out complex arguments which may be broken up into several messages. Messages of such unequal length cannot serve as precise measures of active participation (Henri 1992: 126). The method used in the present study provided data on both the overall participation and active participation in the learning process (participation in seminars that is directly related to the subject of study). Thus, data was complied on the number of messages and the number of active messages and the figures for male and female students was compared.

In compiling this data it was possible to distinguish between students messages and educators messages. The comparative number of student and educator messages may indicate how much the learning processes, or the students themselves, are centred on the educator, and what levels of collaboration and authority are at work in the learning process. Male and female responses and non-responses to educator messages were compared.

Interactivity

In terms of the concept of interactivity, the study drew on Bretzs (cited in Henri 1992: 128) model. This model consists of 3 steps. They include (1)

communication of information; (2) a first response to this information; and (3) a second answer related to the first. This process can be represented schematically in the following manner:

A =======> B =======> A =======> B (Henri 1992: 128).

37

The interaction in Information Technology and Society appeared to be much more complex, however. Since more than two participants were involved in each discussion, the interaction or message intent was not always as linear as Henris (1992) model might suggest. Certainly, student B could respond to student C, D and E as well as to student A (Hara et al. 2000: 123).

Messages were identified by one of 3 categories: explicit interaction, implicit interaction and independent statement (Henri 1992: 127). Explicit interaction was a direct response or commentary to a specific message or person, in which the student either branched their posting to anothers or explicitly named the person whose posting they were replying to. This data was noted on a seminar activity graph (please see Appendix for example), as used by Hara et al in their 2000 study of an applied educational psychology course.

A line with an arrow was drawn, for example, (2)

(4) which means that the

fourth message is a response to the second message by using a direct reference to another participant or branching their posting to anothers. A more implicit interaction involved indirect responses or commentary, wherein the content of another persons posting was mentioned, but not the name of the contributor. Implicit interaction was linked by a dotted line with an arrow. Lastly, an independent statement was shown as an isolated number since it lacks referential cues to previous messages and does not lead to further statements. Male and female postings were differentiated, as well as student and educator postings. Such postings were later compared, and emerging themes were noted and subsequently considered. It should be noted here that posts that were explicitly or implicitly related to the focus of the discussion (usually mentioned in an opening statement, generally, made by the educator) were not recorded on the

38

seminar activity graphs, because it was deemed somewhat obvious that the students would direct their postings towards the session topic.

The Social Element

This study also explores the frequency of the social cues or acknowledgements. Henri (1992: 126) defines social messages as a statement or part of a statement not related to [the] formal content of [the] subject matter. As such, social cues might include a self-introduction, expression of feeling (e.g. Im feeling great), a greeting (e.g. Hi, everyone), closure (e.g. Thats it for now), jokes, the use of symbolic icons (e.g. ) and compliments to others (Hara et al. 2000: 124).

The study also coded for the presence of the following instances, taken from research carried out by Jaffe et al. (1995), and compared male and female findings. The themes are as follows:

1. References to self, defined and coded as the subjects use of first-person pronouns such as I, me, my, etc. 2. Use of supporting statements, defined as the electronic display of emotion by the subject. Three items were coded to represent emotional

statements: Use of exclamations Use of emoticons or emotional icons that utilise textual symbols to draw facial expressions, such as : - ) and : - ( The use of textual symbols to express certain emotions, such as, capitals to emphasise or to shout, or the use of %$@*# to display dissatisfaction.

39

Although this is not an exhaustive list of possible themes, it is inclusive of many of the central aspects of CMC.

Finally the postings from each session were re-read as a whole and key themes and issues were recorded on a record sheet (see appendix 1). Each posting was then read individually and any comments were again recorded on the appropriate record sheets. At this stage, the data was analysed with the following topics in mind: conversation purpose, communication ethics and group composition. All findings were then analysed for differences and/or similarities between male and female postings.

Concluding Remarks

This chapter has considered the issues of research in the virtual realm including the advantages, and disadvantages of this type of research and the ethical issues involved. It has highlighted the importance of content analysis of CMC and has documented the content analysis process. The rationale behind the pilot study and the subsequent construction of the content analysis plan was to maximise the potential of the content analysis process as a research tool. As Krippendorff (1980) suggests, a coherent content analysis is required to be reliable, in as much that, different researchers at different times must be able to apply the same technique to the same data and produce similar findings. Therefore, much time was spent in constructing an easy-to-follow process to enhance the reliability of the study.

40

CHAPTER 4

DOES LEARNING COME IN PINK AND BLUE? GENDER AND ONLINE LEARNING

Introduction

Within the succeeding chapters, the findings of the content analysis will be discussed. This chapter aims to explore the research question: Do men and women have different learning styles in online higher education environments? It will give consideration to the following factors: the participation and interaction patterns of the group members, the existence (or non-existence) of any social cues in the discussions, the conversational purpose and communication ethics of the students, and finally, group composition and the affect this has on the above factors.

Participation

The present study provided data on the number of posts per session, the number of active posts (participation in seminars directly related to the subject matter), and the number of educator, and student postings.

Strikingly, only one session contained inactive postings. Of the twenty messages posted by group D in session 1, four were recorded as active posts. Interestingly, in group Ds first session the educator requested that they share some personal information about themselves. The reason being that members of this group were scattered geographically and professionally. Therefore, it was deemed helpful for everyone to produce a few lines about themselves. This request was not made in

41

any of the other sessions. The majority of students in the other groups were undergraduates living near or on campus, and were likely to already know each other offline. Posts solely containing biographical information were regarded as inactive because they did not fit within the pre-conceived notion of an active post - participation in seminars that is directly related to the subject under study, in this session The history and nature of the Internet. Previous research in this area would suggest that only female members are likely to participate in discussions of a more personal nature. In contrast, both genders responded to the educators request equally. The content of the biographical accounts, however, differed between men and women. This will be discussed further in the section entitled The Social Element.

None of the remaining sessions contained purely inactive posts, suggesting that both male and female students were concentrating on the topic at hand. It may be possible to link this finding with the fact that the students were provided with a bulletin board specifically set up as somewhere for them to post informal messages. They were free, within the normal bounds of decency and behaviour, to discuss anything they wanted within this forum from the latest episode of Eastenders to the performance of their favourite football team. The idea was to provide a virtual forum for the kind of interaction that takes place in the coffee bar, corridors and the students union on campus. Therefore, it is not surprising, in light of this, that the students did not embark on many wholly inactive postings within the boards specifically designed for discussion on pre-determined course topics. It should be noted here that within the posts deemed active, several of these contained a sentence and/or paragraph that could be deemed inactive. It was only female students who engaged in this type of communication: I hope it makes a little sense to someone, otherwise blame it on the coffee - don't recommend the Rocket-Fuel brand if you plan on sleeping anytime in the near future (Group 2, female)

42

time for a few beers, cheers Julie (Group 2, female). All of the active messages posted by men clearly focused on the topic at hand and very rarely strayed from the learning process.

In only one case, the numbers of male posts exceed the number of female posts. Largely female posts outnumbered male posts. This can, to a large extent, be attributed to the greater number of female students enrolled in the course, totalling 22 of the 29 students. However, even when the number of male students participating in a single session was greater than the number of female students, the number of female posts was still higher. This finding is contradictory to those of Herring (1994). Herrings (1994) work proposed that women seemed to be sitting on the sidelines while men were dominating the discussion by posting more messages. Evidence, from previous research, suggests that women participate more actively and enjoy greater influence in environments where an individual controls interaction or individuals entrusted with maintaining order and focusing the group (Herring 2000: 4). It is possible that the educators presence affected the group in this way. Overall, in contrast to previous research, it appears from this study that text-based CMC seminars provide women with the freedom to make their voices heard.

In compiling the data on participation, it was possible to distinguish between students posts and educators posts. As it has been previously suggested, the comparative number of student and educator messages may indicate how much the learning processes, or the students themselves, are centred on the educator, and what levels of collaboration and authority are at work in the learning process. In all cases, but one, the number of student messages outnumbered the number of educator messages. It can be inferred from this finding that the students were not greatly educator driven and as such, the learning process was largely student

43

oriented. The interaction patterns of the group members can illuminate whether it was men or women, or both who were the most responsive and unresponsive to the educators posts. The following section on interaction will discuss this further.

Interaction

From the seminar activity graphs (see appendix 2-13), which offer a pictorial history of the interactivity between the seminar postings, it can be seen that educator posts very rarely stimulated specifically male or female reactions. (3) (4) (5) (9) (7) (11) (13) (14) (8) (18) (19) [20] (17) Key Blue Male student Red Female student Green Educator Hard line Explicit/branched post Dotted Line- Implicit post No line Independent post () Post number [] Opening or concluding t Figure 1. Seminar Activity Graph for group 1, session 1. More than often, and this is clearly illustrated in group 1s first session (see figure 1), the role of the educator seemed to be to reply to any posts that had not been responded to. Such posts were sent largely by female students in this instance, in a form of conclusion and/or agreement post. For instance, in the quote below a female student likens her opinion of the emergence of the Internet with flying: On a personal note, to me its a bit like flying, I find it amazing to find myself flying above clouds, a mysterious achievement, I have the same thoughts about the PC and the internet, almost too much to comprehend. (Group 1, female). (2) [1] (6) (10) (12) (15) (16)

44

None of the subsequent posts, from either male or female students, relate back to this idea of flying and it is the educator who later posts: as we move on from using the PC as the window to the Internet, through iTV to mobile computing, the wearable computer etc the impression of flying may get even more intense! (Group 1, educator). There is no distinct pattern between the number of posts linked (directly or indirectly) to the educators posts and male/female posts. More females than males branched posts directly from the educators posts, suggesting that female students are slightly more educator driven that their male counterparts (see figure 2).

(19) Key Blue Male student Red Female student Green Educator Hard line Explicit/branched post Dotted Line- Implicit post No line Independent post () Post number [] Opening or concluding t [2] (7) (5)

[1] (4) (3) (6) (8)

(17)

(15) (20)

(11) (18)

(9) (13) (16)

Figure 2. Seminar Activity Graph for group 4, session 1. However, on the whole the students did not link to the educators posts very often. It seems, from the data collected on interactivity patterns, that both genders were not reliant on educator instruction, and the discussion was student driven.

Another analysis was performed to determine how often students referred to the posts of others in their sessions; an indicator of interactivity and personalisation

45

within the seminar, and can also lead to an understanding of the levels of collaboration at work among the students. (3) (4) (5) (9) (7) (11) (13) (14) (8) (18) (19) [20] (17) Key Blue Male student Red Female student Green Educator Hard line Explicit/branched post Dotted Line- Implicit post No line Independent post () Post number [] Opening or concluding t (2) [1] (6) (10) (12) (15) (16)

Figure 3. Seminar Activity Graph for group 1, session 1

From the seminar activity graphs for group 1 it can be seen that, while both men and women in the first session were reluctant to refer to others posts, the female students did indeed attempt to do so, while their male counterparts did not (see figure 3).

(12) (3) (13) [1] (2) (4) (5) (7) (6) (9) (8) (10)

(11)

46

Figure 4. Seminar Activity Graph group 1, session 3.

In the middle session, both male and female students were referring to previous posts, which indicates an increase in collaboration between the students, perhaps as they become more acquainted with the medium (see figure 4).

[1] (2) (5) (6) (9) (7) (10) [11] (8)

(4) Key Blue Male student Red Female student Green Educator Hard line Explicit/branched post Dotted Line- Implicit post No line Independent post () Post number [] Opening or concluding t

(3)

Figure 5. Seminar Activity Graph for group 1, session 5.

It was noted, in the last session, that males tended to refer back to other male posts and educator posts (see figure 5). This can be likened to instances of male dominance in online discourse, discussed previously by Herring (1994), who suggested that males often ignore female messages. From this finding it can be inferred that female students are more inclined to embark on a collaborative learning process than their male counterparts. However, this study has shown that male students are more likely than their earlier cohorts to engage in a more co-operational learning style.

47

The Social Element

The frequency of social messages (a statement or part of a statement not related to the formal content of the discussion) might indicate the level of learner focus on the task, or the level of social cohesiveness established in the group, or that affective support plays a greater or lesser role in the learning process. High levels of socially oriented messages may sometimes be a disruptive element, distracting learners from the purpose of the communication. This is visible in group Ds first session, in which, the educator requests that they share some personal information about themselves. Only 4 of the 20 posts are active, which means that the intended topic for discussion is largely neglected. It is, however, detrimental to simply assume that the students biographical contributions did not, relate to and enhance the discussions to follow. As in other cases, these types of messages can be supportive of the learning process (Henri 1992: 126127).

As it has been previously stated, the students in group D were requested to share some personal information with the group. In response to this request, the male postings included a short synopsis of their occupations and in only one case a brief summery of where they lived. Similarly the female students also included information on where they lived and worked: I'd just like to say hello. My name is Lynne and I'm a staff nurse, living in Dunfermline, about half way between Edinburgh and Stirling. I work in the operating department of a small hospital in Kirkcaldy, about 12 miles from where I live. (Group 4, female). Female students also included information regarding their families: I am married and have a 15 month old boy (Group 4, female). None of the male students offered information regarding their family lives. It can be suggested, that the male students were partaking, in a more formal and

48

impersonal manner. Blums (1999: 55) study suggests that messages of a more personal nature, in which, the content has references to family, are indicative of a more connected learning style. Posts with very little personal information are symbolic of a more separate, independent learning style.

Several students also offered statements in regard to their feelings about the course ahead. While the male comments tended to be of a more positive nature: I am looking forward to this course. (Group 4, male) the female members tended to be more negative: I am looking forward to doing this course although am somewhat computer illiterate, although I hope to rectify this over the next few weeks.!!! (Group 4, female) I have very recently joined the computer age so hope I can keep up. (Group 4, female) I remain a technophobe at heart! (Group 4, female). Previous research indicates that women have reported greater levels of computer anxiety than their male counterparts, and the present study supports this finding (Jackson et al 2001: 372). This suggests that gender differences exist in the attitudes of the technical aspects of online learning.

Katz and Aspden (cited in Blum 1999: 49) found that females frequently employed tag words, which they suggest implied a connected learning style. Tag words are those at the end of a sentence, paragraph or message used to confirm a statement, invite response and inclusion, or solidarity within a group (Tanner cited in Markel 2002: 2). For instance, the words isnt it? are tag words when used in the context of its really cold in here, isnt it? A female student posted the following message: The school point is a good one - but surely like universities and colleges they should receive free of charge internet access (don't they?) (A3: 77-79).

49

Similar to Katz and Aspdens (cited in Blum 1999: 49) findings, none of the male members used tag words in their messages. This can be likened to the notions of the male separate learning style.

As it has been previously suggested social cues might include a self-introduction, expression of feeling (e.g. Im feeling great), jokes, and the use of symbolic icons (e.g. ) (Hara et al. 2000: 124). None of the students (except those in group 4) employed Hara et als notion of self-introduction. Similarly, expressions of feeling were infrequent and distributed equally between men and women. No jokes were posted by either male nor female students. The use of symbolic icons occurred once and it was a male student who posted a smiley face. It is feasible to propose that much of the social cues discussed above were evident within the boards specifically set up as somewhere for the students to post informal messages rather than on the boards designed for discussion on pre-determined course topics.

Social cues may also include a greeting (e.g. Hi, everyone), and closure (e.g. Thats it for now). Significantly more women than men posted greetings and closure messages. This is indicative of the traditional view of a male separate learning style and a female connected learning style. It should be highlighted, however, that this finding is swayed by the greater number of female members participating in the course.

Savicki et al. (1996) found that females used the greatest proportion of I (I, me, my, myself) pronouns, while the male only groups used more factual and third party assertions. Contrary to Savickis (1996) claim, all male and female students tended to use first-person pronouns. This finding can be likened to the

50

more feminine connected learning style and is illustrative of the shift towards a more collaborative learning process online.

Conversational Purpose

It has been suggested that conversational purpose, between genders, differs online; men want to establish control, and status, while women want to maintain supportive and tentative interaction (Morahan-Martin 1998: 1). In the absence of male students in group B, traditional male traits, such as, establishing control of the discussion, were taken on by the female members of the group. The first message posted by a female student in session 1 clearly sets out the topics for discussion, reiterating the key issues for consideration offered in the course plan (which is available online for all the students to access as and when they wish to do so) numbering them from 1 to 3. Interestingly, however, what separates this post from the more controlling, traditionally male posts, is the closing paragraph: I have attempted to address the tasks but I am in no way stating facts I appeciate other peoples thoughts on what I have written. Thanks Melanie (Group 2, female). In the above statement, although this student has exercised a typically male characteristic of taking control of the discussion she then makes a plea for others to comment on her post. As a result, the discussion is opened up to the other students. Other students follow on with the tasks at hand, and subsequent posts are structured in a similar way. This student also states that her viewpoint as not the only one and, as such, again offers an invite for others to join in the discussion. In inviting others responses and setting up a structure for discussion, this student has taken control of the group but in a collaborative way.

51

As in Blum (1999) and Herrings (1994) studies, in which male participants attempted to establish control of the discussions. A male student, in the present study, posted the following message: I assume that the discussions are coming to a close now. (Group 1, male). Subsequently, the group members posted no further messages. It can be inferred from this that the student did indeed gain control of the discussion by bringing it to a close, whether he intentionally meant to do so, and whether this is the reason that no further messages were posted, is debatable.

More so than their male counterparts, the female students seemed to be attempting to establish a sharing environment, similar to the notion of a connected learning style. One aspect of this sharing environment was the use of questions. Many of the posts contained questions: What do you think? (Group 2, female) Could you identify the Rozner source? (Group 2, female) Furthermore, women identified and shared relevant information and resources, such as authors, texts, quotations and web references more frequently than the men. The following quotations from two female students are indicative of this: From reading Castells I came across something which I dont think was made especially clear in the other reading (Group 1, female) I found the article "Falling through the net" http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html very useful in relation to this weeks topic. (Group 2, female) The evidence here implies that women are drawn towards a collaborative and sharing learning style. Again this can be likened to the findings of Blum (1999) and Herring (1994). Moreover the female students tended to agree with each other a lot which is representation of the connected learning style. However, in contrast to Blum (1999) and Herrings (1994) findings, the present study found

52

that the male students were also agreeing with each other and with female students as well: I like the idea that Andrew came up with (Group 1, male). This can be likened to the more feminine connected learning style and is illustrative of the shift towards a more collaborative learning process online.

Communication Ethics

Herring (1994: 5) proposes that men and women online have different communication ethics. Men are said to be more abrupt and aggressive, while women are polite and courteous. Interestingly, many female students structured their responses when they disagreed with a previous message by slightly agreeing at the start of the response. This was then followed by a but, after which a disagreeing statement continued. For example one female student posted the following message: I agree with what you have said for task one. However, I think that courses will become even more reliant on information and sources from the internet. (Group 2, female). By agreeing from the outset with the previous statement, the student creates a situation, in which, she can then go on to disagree with her fellow class member without causing any animosity. Blum (1999: 51) reported a similar finding in her research. According to socio-linguistic, Tannen (cited in Gerrard 1996: 3), this is typical behaviour of women, who often try to minimise or avoid conflict in conversation. As Tannen suggests the male students, in the present study, did not employ such tactics.

Blums (1999: 52) research suggests that such niceties are only found in female messages. Supportiveness is characterised by expressions of appreciation: I'm sorry Sophie - I have burbled on, but you have helped me gather my thoughts, thanks. Alison (Group 4, female),

53

and expressions of thanks. Several posts contained offerings of Thanks: Hi Alison Thank you for the very interesting info in reply to my question. (Group 4, female), Hi Alison female), Thanks for suggesting bbc news site. (Group 4,

Sophie-Thanks for the link, they are great wee reads (Group 4, female). According to Herring (1994:3) niceties can contribute to making other participants feel accepted and welcome. Such behaviour is typically associated with the connected learning style. Not surprisingly all of the above quotations are from female posts. This style takes into consideration what Goffman calls the face wants of the addressee specifically the desire of the addressee to feel ratified and liked (Herring 1994: 3). Several posts explicitly asked for acceptance and reassurance from the other members: Diane Em, hope i come across ok!.... (Group 3, female) Hope that wasn't too far off the richter scale! (Group 3, female) I hope everyone is able to understand what I have written!!!! Lisa :) (Group 3, female). The male members of the group did not entertain such behaviour. This can be likened to the separate learner style.

Group Composition

It is tactically expected that members of the non-dominant gender will adopt their posting style in the direction of the style of the dominant gender. As Herrings (1994) work proposes the students communication style become mixed with the composition of the group. As women dominated all the groups, with group two containing only female members, a more traditionally female collaborative learning style was adopted. For instance, some male students utilised their own

54

personal examples to disseminate and share ideas with the group. The following quotation is part of a male post: I teach in a large comprehensive of 1200 pupils on the southcoast. The last school survey showed about 36% of pupils having access to the Internet at home. It's possible to draw links between this data and where pupils live/family occupation/etc. I think this example might show that (Group 4, male) The same student then goes on to offer the group a web address for further reference. This type of communication is indicative of a connected, collaborative learning style, that was previously believed to be a female approach to learning.

These observations are consistent with those of Kanter (cited in Savicki et al. 1996: 2) and Herring (1994) who predict that gendered learning styles will be proportional to the gender composition of the group as participants must adopt the dominant style to keep with the norms of the group.

Concluding Remarks

Data from this study indicated that the learning style of text-based CMC education students is not as strongly associated with gender, as previous research has shown, while it is still a very important factor. This project proposes a blurring of gendered learning styles. While male students retain elements of a separate learning style, by establishing control, adopting a formal style, and avoiding social interaction, they are shifting towards a more collaborative approach sharing information and responding to female posts. At all times the male members kept to a polite and courteous manner (traditionally a female characteristic) in their posts, unlike their counterparts in Herrings (1994) earlier work. Moreover, women were taking control of the sessions; not sitting on the

55

sidelines (Herring 1994: 1). They were participating equally, and at large, were dominating the discussions while retaining a collaborative environment.

56

CHAPTER 5

THE ONLINE CLASSROOM CLIMATE: A CHILLY ONE FOR WOMEN OR MEN?

Introduction

The following chapter outlines the findings from the content analysis of the online seminars. The second research question: Is the online higher education environment indicative of the so called male mystique, a female domain or is it gender neutral? will be explored. This section will give close consideration to three major theories surrounding gender issues on the Internet; the democratic agora, the male mystique, and the female frontier.

A Democratic Agora?

The first theory, neatly termed the democratic agora by Morahan-Martin (1998) suggests that the virtual world is equal, that women (and other traditionally marginalised groups) are able to participate equally online. The absence of physical cues as to a senders identity is thought to remove all trace of information as regards to gender, ethnicity, social class, and age making the medium inherently egalitarian and democratic (Herring 2000: 1). Until recently, no real opportunity to investigate the equalising effects of the virtual realm on gendered learning existed due to the low levels of female participation online. The high level of female enrolment in the present study offered an opening to review this theoretical standpoint.

57

Data from the content analysis shows that differences between men and women do in fact exist in an online environment. On several accounts men and womens communication and learning styles differed. Group 4s biographical accounts are clearly indicative of this. The responses were separated according to gender men posted information regarding their professional lives while women included information about their families. This finding clearly illustrates a variance between male and female students. Furthermore, gendered differences were present in the participation rates, interaction patterns, and conversational purpose of the students. Thus, similar to recent research in this area this project does not support widespread claims of gender anonymity.

Male Culture: Still Dominating? The second theory views the Internet as a predominantly male domain. According to this theory the virtual realm is merely a reflection of the offline world where men dominate and women are discriminated against (Gerrard 1996; King 2000). Under the proviso of this theory are real concerns about the Internets potential to further segment society rather than democratise it (Hoffman and Novak cited in Jackson et al 2001: 364). Since the early 1980s, studies of computers and gender have established that computer culture is a male culture. Computers were initially developed for warfare and were associated in peoples minds with adolescent male hackers. More recently, however, more and more researchers and IT enthusiasts are observing that males are not suited to the online world. There is no denying that men dominated the inception and the early years of the Internet, however, times are changing, and the virtual realm is emerging as a largely female frontier. Take the enrolment figures for Information Technology and Society for example; a previously male dominated course, that is now well over populated by female students. Furthermore, the analysis of participation rates and interaction patterns clearly shows that the male students were not as

58

dominant as early research, such as Herrings (1994) work, would have us believe.

Unique Cultural and Relational Aspects of Womens Communication Online The third theory, pioneered by Behar-Molad (2000) and Spender (2000), suggests that the Internet may be seen as a female domain. The online world is viewed less as a superhighway and more as a village square, where people meet, talk, learn and trade, a place where women are making it and moving into a digital lifestyle that was previously perceived as a mens club. From this standpoint the Internet is thought to be most suited to womens psychological profiles and make-up (Behar-Molad 2000).

In spite of early findings that womens communication online suffers from the same problems and constraints as face-to-face communication (Herring 1994), it is becoming even more apparent that CMC is not without its benefits to women. The unique characteristics of CMC work to provide women with a medium with greater potential for the relational aspects that are particularly theirs. Cyberspace allows women to create and maintain extended electronic communities, to network, and to provide support. This is visible in the online discourse between the female members of the class under investigation. With the growing numbers of women online (Herring 2000: 1) comes a slow but steady establishment of womens spaces and womens voices. While Herring (1994: 35) suggests that this is restricted to female only groups on the Internet, this study opposes this proposition. Even in groups 1, 3 and 4 (mixed gender groups) womens voices could be heard and were not being shunted to the sidelines.

59

Most Internet based classes demand a considerable interdependence among class members that Behar-Molad (2000) and Spender (2000) see as suited to women. This is visible in the present study. The female participants were more inclined to share relevant information, authors, quotations and web sites, than their male counterparts. Does such a collaborative pedagogy conflict with mens learning

styles? Does it change the learning style of such students? From the present study it is clear that the separate learning styles of men have shifted, not entirely, but to an extent towards a more connected style of learning. This finding may suggest that, if men want to make it in online education they need to adopt a more feminine approach to learning.

The way a person teaches and the way a person learns best is dependent on how they communicate. Many socio-linguistics, including Tannen (Online Chimes, 2002) have told us that women and men display different communication characteristics. Men use speech as more of an instrumental tool to get something done whereas women use language to maintain relationships. Men use speech in more of a competitive manner, using it to assert. On the other hand, women often shy away from competitiveness. Because of the different communication styles, men are, thought to be, more apt to benefit from lectures, while women learn better in groups, through discussion. Online courses are taught, largely, via group discussion, thereby putting many males at a disadvantage. Perhaps men have adapted or are adapting. The present study would certainly suggest that they are.

Concluding Remarks

This section has asked whether the online higher education environment is indicative of the so called male mystique, a female domain, or is it gender

60

neutral. It has been argued here, that while gender differences continue to exist offline, gender differences will be transferred into the virtual realm. The findings from the content analysis of the online discussion seminars shows that variances do exist between male and female students online. Thus, similar to previous research in this area this project does not support the notion that the Internet, and subsequently the virtual classroom is gender blind. Moreover, this chapter has questioned the existence of a strictly male culture online. It has been concluded that while men dominated the inception and the early years of the Internet, this is no longer the case as more and more women venture into cyberspace. Consequently, this chapter supports the theoretical argument that the Internet can no longer be viewed as a superhighway but should be seen as a village square, where women are dominating and moving into a virtual lifestyle that was previously perceived as a mens club. The notion of the village square is symbolic of womens collaborative and co-operative learning styles. From this standpoint the virtual classroom and the Internet is thought to be most suited to women.

61

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION GENDERED LEARNING AND LEARNING ABOUT GENDER ONLINE The concluding chapter of this study will discuss the themes of the previous chapters in relation to the wider aims of the project. This study aimed to consider whether learning styles were gendered online and whether the Internet as a medium of higher education was suited to men, women or both?

To meet these aims the project incorporated a content analysis of twelve online seminars from a course run by the University of Stirling, entitled Information Technology and Society.

Do men and women have different learning styles in online higher education environments?

This chapter will now focus on the first research question Do men and women have different learning styles in online higher education environments? This research project suggests that gender is constructed via CMC. The online learners, tended, to some extent, to follow the traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity found in early research in this arena. Although, it is the contention of the present study that the distinction between traditionally male and female learning styles has become somewhat blurred.

While the male students retained elements of a separate learning style, by establishing control, adopting a formal style, and avoiding social interaction, they were shifting towards a more collaborative approach by sharing information and responding to female posts. At all times the male members kept to a polite and

62

courteous manner (traditionally a female characteristic) in their messages, unlike their counterparts in Herrings (1994) earlier work. Moreover, women were taking control of the sessions; not sitting on the sidelines (Herring 1994: 1). They were participating equally, and at large, were dominating the discussions, while retaining a collaborative environment. Thus, in contrast, to previous research, the CMC contexts of this research project were dominated by a feminine presence. The data analysed discovered a number of traditionally feminine forms of learning including co-operation, collaboration and sharing information. These forms of learning were also present in the male postings. Even in cases where male students dominated in numbers, the norms of the seminar were heavily influenced by the presence of a female learning style. Masculine forms of learning were also present including control, separation, and formality, while they did not dominate as they have done in earlier studies.

Is the online higher education environment indicative of the so-called male mystique or is the online learning environment a female domain or is it gender neutral? This chapter will now turn to the second research question Is the online higher education environment indicative of the so-called male mystique or is the online learning environment a female domain or is it gender neutral? The material presented in this paper indicates that the virtual classroom is not the equal, level playing field that early researchers and eager champions of the technology proposed. This research project argues that the idea that all online

communications and virtual participants are treated equally should not be perpetuated. They are not. Nor are their genders masked. This project establishes quite clearly that predictions made by early researchers in this field must be modified. As educators using the new technologies to extend and promote learning opportunities for more and more students, some kind of scaffolding and

63

protection for discriminated students must be provided. Perhaps some explicit expectations and rules should be set up for participation in online discussions. For example, each participant might be required to respond to all members of the group within a given time scale. Future research might ask Are there linguistically competent strategies that students enrolled in virtual conferencing, web based courses, should be taught? The research supports the contention that the virtual realm is a female domain and rejects the theoretical argument that the Internet is a mens club. The findings from the content analysis of the online discussion sessions are representative of the notion of the cyber world as a feminine arena. This project aimed to give consideration to the existence of gender online by looking at learning styles and whether male and female students show signs of learning in a more connected or separate manner. It also questioned whether the Internet as a medium of higher education was suited to men, women or both? It is the overall contention of this study that men and women do learn differently, while this gap is thought to be decreasing and that the virtual world is more suited to women rather than men. Limitations of this Project and Suggestions for Further Research The select population of female students in the class limits this study, but it raises some very important issues. Future research, however, would benefit from a more diverse population, perhaps with a more equal percentage of males and females in one course, or a variety of online courses that have high concentrations of both men and women. Unfortunately, due to the short nature of the project the students were not approached for interview. Future studies of this kind may benefit from the inclusion of the student perspective in which email interviews, virtual focus groups and/or online questionnaires could be employed.

64

In this case, further research might ask Who lurks online and why?. Men and womens voices are not just gender related, but also rooted in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and family status. Grouping students along purely gender lines is a somewhat simplistic solution when attempting to maximise the effectiveness of the educational environment. Future research should certainly consider the above factors and online learning.

65

Bibliography Arbaugh JB. 2000. An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Gender on Student Learning and Class Participation in an Internet-based MBA Course, Management Learning, 31 (4): 503-519. Arnold J. 2001. Academic Women and Web Pages. [available online] http://www.ntu.ac.uk/soc/psych/miller/..%5Carnold%5Cawwp.htm Austin-Smith B. 1995. Internet and Gender Canadian Dimension Magazine. [available online] http://carbon.cudenver.edu/stc~link/iac/women2.htm Behar-Molad C. 2000. Women.weaving.webs: Will Women Rule the Internet? CMB Press. Belenky MF, Clinchy BM, Goldberger NR, and Tarule JM. 1997. Womens Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Body and Mind. New York: Basic Books. Blackmore J. 1996. Pedagogy: Learning Styles. Telecommunications for Remote Work and Learning. [available online] http://granite.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-a.htm Blum KD. 1999. Gender Differences in Asynchronous Learning in Higher Education: Learning Styles, Participation Barriers and Communication Patterns, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3 (1): 46-66. Brayton J. 1997. Womens Love/Hate Relationship with the Internet, from Essays on the Internet for Women. [available online] http://www.unb.ca/web/PARL/win/essay.htm Bruckman AS. 1993. Gender Swapping on the Internet. INET93. [available online] http://www.cc.gatech.edu/elc/papers/bruckman/gender-swappingbruckman.pdf Carswell L, Thomas P, Petre M, Price B and Richards M. 2000. Distance Education via the Internet: the Student Experience, British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, (1): 29-46. Chadwick D. 1998. Using the Internet for Teaching Law paper given at the Iriss National Conference March 1998, Bristol [available online] http://www.sosig.ac.uk/iriss.papers/paper01.htm Cohen L, Manian L, and Morrison K. 2000. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Dearing R. 1997. Higher Education in the Learning Society. The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. [available online] http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ Ferris SP. 1996. Women Online: Cultural and Relational Aspects of Womens Communication in Online Discussion Groups, Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, Vol.4, (3-4): 29-40. Finke L. 2001. Women: Lost in Cyberspace?. [available online] http://www.enhanced-learning.org/prox/paper5.htm

66

Garland KJ, Anderson SJ, and Noyes JM. 1998. The Internet as a Learning Tool: A Preliminary Study paper given at the Iriss National Conference March 1998, Bristol [available online] http://www.sosig.ac.uk/iriss/paper/paper60.htm Gerrard L. 1996. Feminist Research in Computers and Composition. Delivered at the Computers and Writing 1996 Conference Utah State University: Logan Utah. [available online] http://www.hu.mtu.edu/cwc96usu/cwc96/papers/papers/G1LisaGerrard.html Hammon R. 1997. Online Education: a paper about the need for and applications of Internet based education in distance education and classroom based learning. [available online] http://wwwsocio.demon.co.uk/online-ed.html Hammon R. 1998. The Application of Ethnographic Methodology in the Study of Cybersex. University of Liverpool. [available online] http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/plummer.html Hara N, Bonk CJ, and Angeli C. 2000. Content Analysis of Online Discussion in an Applied Educational Psychology Course, Instructional Science, 28: 115-152. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In Kaye A. (Ed.) Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers. Springer-Verlag, New York, 117-136. Henry M. 1999. Studying and Using Technology: an Introduction to Communications and Information Technologies, in Henry M. (ed) I.T in the Social Sciences: A Students Guide to the Information and Communication Technologies. UK: Blackwell. Herring S. 1994. Gender Differences in Computer Mediated Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier, Paper presented at panel entitled Making the Net*Work*, American Library Association Annual Convention, Miami. [available online] http://wwwcpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt Herring S. 2000. Gender Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 18, (1) [available online] http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/index.htm l Illingworth N. 2001. The Internet Matters: Exploring the Use of the Internet as a Research Tool. Sociological Research Online. 6, (2) [available online] http://www.socresonline.org.uk/6/2/illingworth.html Jackson LA, Ervin KS, Gardner PD, and Schmitt N. 2001. Gender and the Internet: Women Communicating and Men Searching. Sex Roles. 44, (5/6): 363379. Jaffe MJ, Young-Eum L, Huang L, and Oshagan H. 1995. Gender, Pseudonyms, and CMC: Masking Identities and Baring Souls. Paper presented to the 45th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, May 1995, Albuqurqeu, New Mexico, USA. [available online] http://research.haita.ac.il/~jmjaffe/genderpseudocmc/abstract.html Jones RA. 1994. The ethics of research in cyberspace. Internet Research 4(3):3335.

67

Kramarae C. 1998. Feminist Fictions of Future Technology, in Jones, SG. (ed) Cybersociety 2.0 Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. USA: Sage. King LJ. 2000. Gender Issues in Online Communities, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 18 (1) [available online] http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/king.html Krippendorf K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. USA: Sage. Lewis NJ, and Orton P. The Five Attributes of Innovative E-Learning, Training and Development, 54 (6): 47. MacSporran M, and Young S. 2001. 'Does Gender Matter in online Learning?' [available online] http://hyperdisc.unitec.ac.nz/research/ALTJpaper_9.pdf McAdams M. 1996. Gender Without Bodies. CMC Magazine. [available online] http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/mar/mcadams.html Markel S. Gendered Voices: Provocateur in an On-Line Virtual Conference Course for In-Service Teachers. Centre for Excellence in Education. Northern Arizona University: USA. [available online] http://www.aace.org/conf/site/sample.rtf Mason ER. 2002. Resisting on the Net: Erase-ism. Billo. [available online] http://www.brillomag.net/No3/erasism.htm Morahan-Martin J. 1998. Women and Girls Last: Females and the Internet, paper given at the Iriss National Conference March 1998, Bristol [available online] http://www.sosig.ac.uk/iriss/papers55.htm Online Chimes. 2002. Living in a mans world. The Student Newspaper of Calvin College. [available online] http://www-stu.calvin.edu/chimes/000407/editorial_01.html

Paccagnella L. 1997. Getting the Seats of Your Pants Dirty: Strategies for Ethnographic Research on Virtual Communities. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3, (1) [available online] http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/paccagnella.html Rutter J and Smith G. 1999. Presence and absence in virtual ethnography. Paper for presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, August 1999. Savicki V, Lingenfelter D and Kelley M. 1996. Gender Language Style and Group Composition in Internet Discussion Groups, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2, (3) [available online] http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue3/savicki.html Schmeiser L. 1996. Why Bring Gender Online?. CMC Magazine. [available online] http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/mar/ed.html

68

Schumacher P, and Morahan-Martin J. 2001. Gender, Internet and Computer Attitudes and Experiences Computers in Human Behaviour, 17, (1): 95-110. Schwartz W and Hanson K. 1992. Equal Mathematics Education for Female Students. Digest. USA: Center for Equity and Cultural Diversity at Education Development Center. [available online] http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/digests/dig78.html Sherman RC, End C, Kraan E, Cole A, Campbell J, Birchmeir Z, and Klausner J. 2000. The Internet Gender Gap Among College Students: Forgotten but Not Gone? Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 3, (5): 885-894. Spender D. 2000. The Digital Life Style for Women, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 18, (1) [available online] http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Winter2000/spender.h tml Thomas J. 1996. Introduction: A debate about the ethics of fair practices for collecting social science data in cyberspace. The Information Society 12(2):107117. Thomsen S R. 1998. Ethnomethodology and the study of online communities: Exploring the cyber streets. Information Research 4(1). [available online] http://informationir.net/ir/4-1/paper50.html Timms D. 1998. Imprisoned on the Net? Some Promises and Dangers of WebBased Learning [available online] http://www.stir.ac.uk/schema/conf/Imprisoned.doc Truong H. 1993. Gender Issues in Online Communications. Bay Area Women in Telecommunications. [available online] http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/bawit.cfp93 Young S, Dewstow R, and McSporran M. 1999. Who wants to learn online? What types of student benefit from the New Learning Environment [available online] http://hyperdisc.unitec.ac.nz/research/naccq99_paper.pdf

69

APPENDIX

70

Appendix 1 RECORD SHEET Seminar number: Stage 1 - Participation: Number of posts: Group number: Number of active posts:

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Stage2 Interaction Seminar Activity Graph

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Stage 3 Social

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Stage 4 - Conversation purpose:

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

71

Stage 5 Communication ethics

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
Stage 6 Group composition

_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
Other comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

72

Appendix 2 Group 1 Session 1 (3) (4) (5) (9) (7) (11) (13) (14) (8) (18) (19) (17) [20] (2) [1] (6) (10) (12) (15) (16)

Session 3 (12) (3) (13) [1] (2) (4) (5) (7) (6) (9) (8) (10) (11)

Session 5

[1] (2) (5) (6) (9) (7) (10) (8)

(4) Key Blue Male student Red Female student Green Educator Hard line Explicit/branched post Dotted Line- Implicit post No line Independent post () Post number [] Opening or concluding t 73

(3)

[11]

Appendix 3 Group 2 Session 1 [1] (4) (6) (3) [9] (2) (8) (5) Session 3 (7)

[1] (3) (12) (4) (11)

(2)

(7) (8)

(5) (10)

(9) (14) (15) (13) (6)

Session 5 (2) (3) (6)

[1]

(5)

Key Blue Male student Red Female student Green Educator Hard line Explicit/branched post Dotted Line- Implicit post No line Independent post () Post number [] Opening or concluding t

(4)

(7)

74

Appendix 4 Group 3 Session 1 [1] (2) (6) (4) (3) (11) (9) (8) (10) (7) (5)

Session 3 [1] (2) (4) (5) (3) (6) (9) (7) (12) (14) (11) (8) (13) (10)

Session 5 Key Blue Male student Red Female student Green Educator (3) Hard line Explicit/branched post Dotted Line- Implicit post No line Independent post () Post number [] Opening or concluding t

(1) (2)

75