nach oben

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Erschienen in:

01.11.2012

Gender differences in social cognitive learning at a technological project design

verfasst von: Jon-Chao Hong, Ming-Yueh Hwang, Wan-Tzu Wong, Hung-Chang Lin, Che-Ming Yau

Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Ausgabe 4/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the differences between male and female students in technology project design. The major gender differences discussed in this study include the problem discovering and solving abilities, maneuverability, and inquiry attitude among middle grade students. In the project design, students were required to design and complete a wooden robot with limited materials in a restricted timeframe. Data was collected through field study during the project making. The results of this study indicated that some differences existed between male and female students. For example, power tool manupulation was more appealing to boys than girls. On the other hand, girls were better at resource management than boys. Through social learning, female students have an overtime improvement. Pedagogical considerations are suggested to strengthen gender-specific problem solving skills, so that all students can realize their design potential.

Vorheriger Artikel A model of creative design process for fostering creativity of students in design education

Nächster Artikel Developing physics concepts through hands-on problem solving: a perspective on a technological project design

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Akkerman, S., Van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R. J., et al. (2007). Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives? Educational Research Review, 2(1), 39–63.CrossRef

Altshuller, G. (1999). The innovation algorithm. USA: Technical Innovation Centre Inc.

American Association of University Women. (2003). Women at work. Retrieved June 5, 2010 from http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/womenAtWork.pdf.

Atkinson, E. S. (1999). Key factors influencing pupil motivation in design and technology. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), 4–26.

Author, I. I. (PY, Month). The title of paper. Paper presented at the meeting Title, Location.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2000). Portrait of sociocognitive development from an agentic perspective. In G. V. Caprara, & A. Fonzi (Eds.), Adolescenza: L’Eta Sosposa [Adolescence: The suspended age] (pp. 27–58). Firenze: Giunti.

Bedard, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (1993). Expertise in auditing. In J. Bedard & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), Auditing: A journal of practice and theory (pp. 21–56). London: Supplement.

Belensky, M., Clinchy, G., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1989). Womens’ ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560.CrossRef

Blosser, P. E. (1987). Secondary school students’ comprehension of science concepts: Some finding from misconceptions research. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED282776).

Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Design engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Burt, K. G. (2005). Analysis of the factors involved in technological problem solving in a college technology education classroom. Dissertation of North Carolina State University.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713.CrossRef

Carroll, W. R., & Bandura, A. (1990). Representational guidance of action production in observational learning: A causal analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 22, 85–97.

Chow, P. K. O., & Yeung, D. S. (1995). A multidimensional knowledge structure. Expert Systems with Application, 9(2), 177–187.CrossRef

Cockburn, C., & Ormrod, S. (1993). Gender and technology in the making. London: Sage.

Cote, B. S. (1984). A Paradigm for Problem Solving Instruction. Journal of Technology Teacher Education, 21(4), 17–30.

Davis, F., & Yi, M. Y. (2004). Improving computer skill training: Behavior modeling, symbolic mental rehearsal, and the role of knowledge structures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 509–523.CrossRef

Day, E., Arthur, W., & Gettman, D. (2001). Knowledge structures and the acquisition of a complex skill. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 1022–1033.CrossRef

Deluca, W. V. (1992). Survey of technology education problem-solving activities. The Technology Teacher, 51(5), 26–30.

Dewey, J. D. (1933). How we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. D. Heath.

Doppelt, Y. (2005). Assessment of project-based learning in a MECHATRONICS context. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 7–24.

Dougherty, M. R., & Sprenger, A. (2006). The influence of improper sets of information on judgment: How irrelevant information can bias judged probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 262–281.CrossRef

Easlea, B. (1983). Fathering the unthinkable: Masculinity, scientists and the nuclear arms race. London: Pluto.

Fasick, F. A. (2001). Some uses of untranscribed tape recordings in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 549–552.CrossRef

Faulkner, W. (2000). The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology & Human Valves, 25(1), 87–119.CrossRef

Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A review from feminist technologist studies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(1), 79–95.CrossRef

Felson, R. B., & Trudeau, L. (1991). Gender differences in mathematics performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(2), 113–126.CrossRef

Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. Journal of School Science and Mathematics, 102, 335–367.CrossRef

Foster, W.T. (2001). Developing a research agenda for technology education. Paper presented at the Second AAAS Technology Education Research Conference in Washington, D.C. Retrieved on June 15 from http://www.project2061.org/meetings/technology/Foster/Foster.htm.

Gilson, L. L. (2001). Diversity, dissimilarity and creativity: Does group composition or being different enhance creative performance. Washington, DC: Academy of Management Meeting.

Goldstein, I. (1978). Developing a computational representation for problem solving skills. Retrieved on 24 Jan 2011 from http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6307.

Growney, C. (1995). Gender inequality in design and technology…pupils’ perspective. In J. S. Smith (Ed.), IDATER 95, Loughborough: Design and Technology (pp. 52–57). Leicestershire, UK: Loughborough University.

Guthrie, B. J., & Low, L. K. (2000). A substance use prevention framework: considering the social context for African American girls. Public Health Nursing, 17, 363–373.CrossRef

Hacker, S. (1989). Pleasure, power and technology: Some tales of gender, engineering, and the cooperative workplace. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Hancock, T. E., Stocls, W. A., Kulhavy, R. W., & Swindell, L. K. (1996). Gender and developmental difference in the academic study behaviors of elementary school children. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 18–39.CrossRef

Head, J. (1986). Research into “alternative framework”: Promise and problems. Science & Technological Education, 4(2), 203–211.CrossRef

Hollingsworth, R. & McLoughlin, C. (2000). Developing first year students. Problem solving skills: Can we do it online? Paper presented at ASCILITE 2000: Learning to Choose, Choosing to Learn Conference. Retrieved Jan. 2010 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/rowan_hollingworth.pdf.

Jonassen, D. H., & Henning, P. (1996, July). Mental models: Knowledge in the head and knowledge in the world. International Conference on Learning Sciences, Evanston, Illinois.

Kanfer, F. H. (1971). The maintenance of behavior by self-generated stimuli and reinforcement. In A. Jacobs & L. G. Sachs (Eds.), The psychology of private events. New York: Academic Press.

Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Keller, E. F. (1987). Learning about women, gender, politics and power delegation. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Science, 116(4), 77–91.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers to learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497.CrossRef

Kuenzi, J. J., Matthew, C. M., & Mangan, B. F. (2006). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education issue and legislative options’. In R. V. Nata (Ed.), Progress in education (pp. 161–189). Washington: The library of Congress. Online version retrieved on 24 Jan from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA462148&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.

Leach, F. (2000). Gender implications of development agency police in education and training. International Journal of Education Development, 20, 333–347.CrossRef

Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37–54.

Lie, M. (1995). Technology and masculinity: The case of the computer. The European Journal of Women’s Study, 2(3), 379–394.CrossRef

Lynch, I., & Nowosenetz, T. (2009). An exploratory study of students’ constructions of gender in science, engineering and technology. Gender and Education, 21(5), 567–581.CrossRef

Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. California: Stanford University Press.

Mau, W. C., & Lynn, R. (2001). Gender difference on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the American College Test and college grades. Educational Psychology, 21(2), 133–136.CrossRef

Ministry of Education, Republic of China (Taiwan). (2001). Outline on the National Nine Year Integrated Curriculum. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.

Murphy, S. M., & Faulkner, D. (2006). Gender differences in verbal communication between popular and unpopular children during an interactive task. Social Development, 15, 82–108.CrossRef

National Science Foundation. (2006). Research on gender in science and engineering FY 2006 (GSE): Program solicitation. Arlington, VA: Author.

Neuschmidt, O., Barth, J., & Hastedt, D. (2008). Trends in gender differences in mathematics and science (TIMSS 1995–2003). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(2), 56–72.CrossRef

Oliver, K. (1999). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship. Retrieved on Jan. 19, 2010 from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Sate University, Educational Technologies website: http://www.edtech.vt.edu/edtech/id/models/powerpoint/cog.pdf.

Osborne, R. J., Bell, B. F., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Science teaching and children’s view of the world. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 1–14.CrossRef

Sally, M. R. (2002). Toward a theory of creativity in diverse creative women. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3), 305–316.CrossRef

Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Solomon, J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupils’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 14, 63–82.CrossRef

Spertus, E. (1991). Why are there so few female computer scientists?. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

Stanworth, M. (1987). Reproductive technologies and the deconstruction of motherhood. In M. Stanworth (Ed.), Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine. Oxford: Blackwell.

Stepulevage, L. (2001). Gender/technology relations: Complicating the gender binary. Gender and Education, 13(3), 325–338.CrossRef

Todd, R. D. (1990). The teaching and learning environment: Designing instruction via the technological method. The Technology Teacher, 50(3), 3–7.

Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women’s voices. London: Routledge.

VanDemark, N. (1991). Breaking the barriers to everyday creativity. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Education Foundation.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Reflections on number and counting. In S. T. Boysen & E. J. Capaldi (Ed.), The development of numerical ability: Animal and human models (pp. 225–243). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wager, W. (1997). Information overload: Man over board!. Retrieved Jan. 7, 2010, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper23/paper23.html.

Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Weber, K., & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based preferences toward technology education content, activities, and instructional methods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55–71.

Wilberg, S., & Lynn, R. (1999). Sex differences in historical knowledge and school grades: A 26 nation study. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1221–1230.CrossRef

Wong, Y. L. (2007). A study of students’ motivation, gender bias and their relationship in Design and Technology education in Singapore. Unpublished master’s thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Yau, C. M., & Ong, C. C. (2005). Pupils’ views towards design and technology in Singapore. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10(3), 37–49.

Zubrowski, B. (2002). Integrating science into design technology projects: Using a standard model in the design process. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 47–70.

Zuga, K. F. (1998). A historical view of women’s roles in technology education. In B. L. Rider (Ed.), Diversity in technology education (pp. 13–35). New York: Glencoe.

Titel: Gender differences in social cognitive learning at a technological project design
verfasst von: Jon-Chao Hong
Ming-Yueh Hwang
Wan-Tzu Wong
Hung-Chang Lin
Che-Ming Yau
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2012
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Ausgabe 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9152-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2012

Developing physics concepts through hands-on problem solving: a perspective on a technological project design

The paradigm of utilizing robots in the teaching process: a comparative study

Internet navigation and information search strategies: how do children are influenced by their participation in an intensive ICT project

Learning to think spatially in an undergraduate interdisciplinary computational design context: a case study

A model of junior high school students’ attitudes toward technology

A model of creative design process for fostering creativity of students in design education

Premium Partner