E-Activity 5

Q-1: Reflect on your readings and experiences of usingtechnology. Did you notice any instances of gender divide in the use of technology? Share at least one example and reflect on the reasons.

The digital divide between genders has been increasingly recognized as a very real problem affecting social interactions at many levels. There exist disparities between the sexes in technology use in childhood, resulting in reluctance in women to study and pursue careers in technology. In the male-dominated technology industry, the gap will only widen if concrete solutions are not implemented to encourage girls to use computing technology from a young age. The root of the recent decline in females graduating from college with computer science degrees and the even fewer women who pursue engineering related careers stems largely from a difference in the psychology of the genders and a male-industry catering to a software market dominated by males. Studies have demonstrated that the play patterns of boys and girls diverge at a relatively early age. Girls typically prefer creating a sense of creating community through social interactions with other girls, which, in psychological terms, translates to technology careers involving product conceptualization. On the other hand, boys enjoy competitive and repetitive shooting games and games that keep some sort of scoring record. This has been suggested to be indicative of the methodology required for software development and programming.

Q-2: Can you suggest some ways to reduce the gender divide in accessing technology?

The application of the technology and who uses it make ICT extremely gendered. However, in reality, gender issues are not holistically addressed in the application of ICT. The way ICT is applied today has largely been an extension of our socialization – an extension of the provision of basic services and an extension of our efforts to promote efficiency, productivity and cost-effectiveness. Generally, the way ICT is applied today has little to do with the appreciation of the individual and the richness in diversity s/he brings to a society and the multiple identities and roles that the individual plays within that society.
In the context of ICT, it is necessary to consider how ICT impact women’s multiple roles and examine changes brought about by the new information and communication society on women’s and men’s gendered roles. Gender role analysis is useful to understanding to what ends women and men utilize ICT (i.e. reproductive tasks associated with educating children, productive tasks associated with work, and community tasks associated with volunteerism), whether use of ICT is time-saving, and whether women’s and men’s use of time is different (i.e. does one sex have greater leisure or does increased time flexibility create the potential for more ‘double shift’ as telecommuting blurs distinctions between private (home) and public (work) domains).

In terms of ICT use and impacts, examining gender roles may lead to greater understanding of the differences between women and men in ICT use and impacts. For example:



• In a given community, do women and men, girls and boys, participate equally in the use of Internet facilities at a library or telecentre? At the telecentres, are men visiting pornographic sites and making the environment uneasy for women to remain within?
• In a development organization, is there a gender difference among those who use/appropriate email and those who do not? Is a general public email account assigned to lower category staff who are usually women compared to private email accounts of top management who are usually men?
• Does the availability of a home computer facilitate work management through telecommuting, or does it create unrealistic time demands because the worker – female or male – is always connected? Are both women and men who telecommute paid equal wages for equal work or do wage differentials still exist?
• Are women, when telecommuting, often disrupted just because they are working at home, while men are generally left to do their work without disruption just as they would be at an office? Do female workers’ time demands increase or decrease?
• Are national policies being designed in such a manner to encourage telecommuting only for women, with the presumption that all women would prefer to work from home as they would want to take care of the children and household? Do such policies work against encouraging men to share household responsibilities? Do such national policies prioritize incentives to the private sector as they will not have to pay for various insurance and health benefits?[2]
Will such policies effectively remove women’s opportunities to go outside of the home? Will such policies unknowingly exacerbate existing situations of domestic violence?

The questions above as one can see are not just limited to the issue of an equal number of women and men using ICTs. They must include issues that ‘interfere’ with not only family matters, but cultural matters as well. Projects that say they address gender inequalities therefore, need to look beyond the surface of the immediate problem (see Figure 1). Projects cannot run away from ‘interfering with family and cultural matters’ because when gender inequalities are addressed, the whole issue of socialization of values, of what is feminine and masculine, and the power dynamics between the two socialized concepts need to be examined and analysed.

Women are also constantly reminded about what they should or should not be interested in, and where their capabilities and strengths lie. For example, the Newsweek magazine, regularly trumpets studies finding gender-related mental differences while ignoring the (far more common) studies which finds no differences at all (Henson, 2002). Dismissive explanations such as ‘women just aren’t interested in computers’ or ‘women aren’t as smart as men’, implicitly reinforce the stereotypical mentality that women are genetically pre-determined from conception to not be interested in computers.[3]This ‘just aren’t’ theory has been used in many other fields when women first began entering them, from education to medical science to even joining the armed forces. Even if women are able to acquire better education and training and begin to enter ICT fields in greater numbers, women’s leverage within the ICT job market may be undercut by the feminization of certain ICT occupations whereby “large numbers of women enter a profession and as a result, there is a drop in salaries, status and working conditions” (Hersh, 2000). As Reardon warns, “as computer-based skills become more commonplace, and as the need for more workers to use them in a greater variety of ways grows, more women will again be recruited. But this will be at a lower wage because these will no longer be considered specialist skills, merely something that women can do” (Reardon, 1998).[4] Feminization has plagued other sectors, perhaps with the exception of law and medicine, and Hersh raises the question of how engineering and ICT professions can be opened up to women and “become a genuinely gender neutral profession without a resulting drop in salaries and status” (Hersh, 2000).

A cornerstone of gender equality is women’s equal participation in decision-making. Collective participation is also one of the essential aspects of women’s empowerment. Participation in decision making is integrated with ‘conscientization’, process of awareness raising among women about gender discrimination and the resulting oppression it creates for women as a social group. Through this process, women collectively analyse various aspects of gender inequality that they face. This process constitutes women’s development and becomes the basis for action to overcome and dismantle gender inequality in control of resources. Achieving control is an essential element of women’s empowerment that includes the ability to direct and/or influence events to protect one’s own interests. Control makes it possible for women to ensure that resources as well as the benefits that the use of these resources can bring are distributed so that women and men get equal shares. This framework is particularly useful in understanding and evaluating the impact of women’s access to ICTs. Gender gaps in access to ICT resources and services remain an obstacle to women’s empowerment

Q-3: What is digital divide and how does it affect us? This is the question we will reflect on in this e-activity. Share your experiences vis-a-vis the issues associated with lack of or limited access to technology and the seven goals identified by the Human Development Report 1999.

Digital Divide

Quoting from the Stanford report: "By far the most important factors facilitating or inhibiting Internet access are education and age, and not income - nor race/ethnicity or gender, each of which account for less than 5 percent change in rates of access and are statistically insignificant."
The study's analysis of the digital divide is credible because issues like race, education, and age are precisely defined and can be reported very accurately in a survey as long as the respondent feels comfortable that the survey is being administered by a credible institution (Stanford would certainly count here) and that the answers will be treated anonymously.
When splitting out the effect of the various variables, the study finds the following three main effects on Internet access:



1. Education (having a college degree): +49%
2. Age (older people compared with 18-25 years' olds): -43%
3. Income (having high income): +21%

My interpretation of this finding is that the digital divide is a usability problem. The politicians are targeting the wrong part of the problem when they treat the digital divide as an economic issue. True, there is a (smaller) problem due to the expense of computers, but this third-level problem is rapidly vanishing and will be completely gone in a few years when computers will cost the same as donuts.
Old people will not go away. In fact, people who are currently in their 40s and 50s will be around for a long time to come. We can't simply write them off just because kids have fewer problems using computers. The same is true for people without a college education. We can't force them all to go back to school for four years simply in order to participate in society.
There is only one answer: computers and the Internet have to be made substantially easier to use than they are now.

Seven goals identified by the Human Development Report 1999

Seven goals on the road to the information society are

1. Connectivity: setting up telecommunications and computer networks

2. Community: focusing on group access and not individual ownership

3. Capacity: building human skills for the knowledge society

4. Content: putting local views, news, culture and commerce on the web

5. Creativity: adapting technology to local needs and constraints

6. Collaboration: devising internet governance for diverse needs around the world

7. Cash: finding innovative ways to fund the knowledge society

What can you do to reduce the divide?

Surely, the digital divide is a product of the social gaps produced by economic, political, social, gender, generational, geographic, etc. inequalities.

However, new digital divides are appearing as ICTs become incorporated in social life. It no longer only has to deal with the problem of having access or not, but rather with the differences that appear among those who are already connected.

Not all those who have connection available have the possibilities to develop their capacities and skills for telework, for example. And once again, not because of the technology itself, but because of conditions that are required to be a part of this new labor force, such as a bilingual education, high technological skills, multicultural interaction capacities, unstable conditions, plus the ability to work alone and take on greater responsibilities associated with telework, among others, which are costly and difficult to acquire, and therefore can not be assumed by the majority of the “connected population”.

Added to this reflection, one should also mention the large discussion on intellectual property, where knowledge in the future is staked as a private or collective right that has the potential of opening new gaps related to access, usage, and production of knowledge and information traveling over the network.

With the insertion of technologies in daily living, new digital divides will appear that refer to real usage possibilities, mainly in the middle-class, who although have better access conditions than the popular classes, do not always have the resources to develop capacities and skills that allow them to use them to transform their current conditions.

Q-4:In this activity we will reflect on the issues of safety associated with technology and identify ways in which we can protect our learners and colleagues from the issues.

Sure you can forbid your children to use the Internet but in the end, it is your children who will suffer for that. The Internet is extremely useful for the school student and these days. Many teachers (assuming that everyone has a computer) will give assignments to students that involve the use of the Internet. Sadly, children aren't going to the library much at all these days for BOOKS. They go there for the Internet use.

This article will provide the parent with 10 essential tips for Internet safety for your children. In the process, it may make you a bit wiser but most of all will enable you to protect and educate your children about how to keep safe on the Internet.


1. Do NOT forbid Internet use. Most likely, your children will just defy your ban on the sly. Between the public library and their friend's houses, they will have PLENTY of opportunity to do so.

2. Filtering software such as "Net Nanny" and "Cyber Patrol" will not block all of the dangers that your kids will encounter online but it can't hurt. Be involved and visit websites with your kids whenever you can

3. Grasp an understanding of computer technology. These days, it's not difficult to find a child or teen who knows FAR MORE about computers than their parents do. In another decade or so, that may not be the case but for now, parents need to understand the technologies. Take a class, read a book, subscribe to some computer magazines. The more parents know about computers and the Internet, the better they can talk to their kids about Internet safety.

4. DO NOT place an Internet capable computer in the privacy of your child's room. You're asking for BIG trouble. Place the computer in a common area of your home like the living room. Your children won't expect privacy in an area like that.

5. Explain to your child that they need to be careful about just what they post about other people on their blog or anywhere on the Internet. Internet predator friendly information is commonly posted by friends in the comment sections of various blogs.



6. Pay attention and look for warning signs that your child may be in danger such as minimizing a browser window when you enter the room and / or getting phone calls from people that you don't know.

7. Communicate with the parents of the friends of your child. Most children use computers at their friend's home and not all parents pay much attention to Internet safety.

8. Teach your children "The Embarrassment Rule". They should NEVER post anything on the Internet or in their blog that they wouldn't want everyone to read.

9. Talk to your children often and explain to them that it is very important to inform you if he or she is every approached online or receives and inappropriate content. Explain the points of Internet safety found in this article to your children.

10. Lastly, If you think that there may be a problem. Do NOT hesitate to report it to not only the authorities but your Internet service provider. There are severe penalties for people who jeopardise your child's Internet safety.

Computers and the Internet are becoming more popular by the year. Parents need to be aware of Internet safety practices so that their children can enjoy the benifets of the Internet as a useful and entertaining entity. By practicing the tips on Internet safety discussed in this article, the parent can make better choices and offer protection to their children.



Q-5:During the implementation of your mini-project, did you come across any "safe use issues" related to technology use? Share at least one example and explain how the issue came up and what you did you resolve it.

The mini-project was based on Integration of Science in computer technology whereby we used various braches of science and how it can be associated with computer technology, for example the teaching of biology was made using a digital microscope we did demonstrate this using both life as well as dead cells and all the animation involved, also we did show a video recording of the germination process taking place, besides biology we did demonstrate teaching chemistry and physics by visiting sites like www.fearofphysics.com, www.physicsclassroom.com, www.sciencegizmo.com etc and all the activities involved ranger danger Dan (a fun activity) which students did enjoy and so did the parents and guests who had come for the project day held in November 1st 2007. The presentation can be witnessed on my blog (www.romanrodrigues.blogspot.com) also there were some power point presentation prepared by some students on various projects that they had displayed.



Yes during the mini-project we did come across a common problem that the server went down during one of the sessions and we were prepared for it, so we kept our guests busy with some ready-made soft ware programme (multiple choice quiz on science)

I.C.T-Presentation

This presentation on Integrating ICT with Science was given by Abdullah Nasim a Grade IX student of Karachi Grammar School (Middle Section) as a part of Science/Computer Studies Project Day on 1st November 2007.

Unit 5: Safe Use of the Internet

Introduction.
Whatever it’s called, the majority of people in developed nations is now going online to exchange electronic mail (E-mail) and instant messages; participate in chat groups; post and read messages in social networking sites and blogs, “surf” the World Wide Web; and many other online activities. Children are no exception in fact they are more likely to be online than adults.
Personal computers are no longer the only method used for accessing the Internet. Children can go online from personal computers at home, a friend’s house, in school, a library, club, or cafe. Many game consoles can be connected to the Internet and used for chatting and other online interaction. It is also possible to access the Internet on mobile devices such as cellular telephones and other handheld devices. In other words children don’t have to be in the company of responsible adults to use the Internet.
Even though companies that provide Internet access strive to provide their subscribers with an enjoyable, safe, and rewarding online experience, it’s not possible for these companies to monitor everyone who uses their service anymore than a local government can control the behavior of the people within its borders. Once you’re connected to the Internet you’re able to exchange information with people who use other providers unless you’re using a service that offers restricted access such as blocking mail from outside the service or from people who aren’t pre-approved by a child’s parent.

There are no censors on the Internet. Anyone in the world — companies, governments, organizations, and individuals — can publish material on the Internet. A service provider links you to these sites, but it can’t control what is on them. It’s up to individuals to make sure that they behave in a way that’s safe and appropriate.
Benefits of the Information Technology.
There is a vast array of services available online. Reference information such as airline fares, encyclopedias, movie reviews, news, sports, stock quotes, and weather are readily available. Users can conduct transactions such as banking, making travel reservations, shopping, and trading stocks online. You can find information about your local schools, government, vital health matters, or read an out-of-town newspaper or watch TV and listen to radio from thousands of online “stations” around the globe. Hundreds of millions of people communicate through E-mail with family, friends, and colleagues around the world. Others use chat areas to make new friends who share common interests. You can even use the Internet to watch videos and listen to audio programs produced by major media companies, businesses, organizations, and individuals. In fact, there is a growing trend towards “user supplied” video that can vary in quality, content and suitability for a general audience. As educational and entertainment tool users can learn about virtually any topic, visit a museum, take a college course, or play an endless number of computer games with other users or against the computer itself.
Most people who go online have mainly positive experiences. But, like any endeavor — attending school, cooking, riding a bicycle, or traveling, — there are some risks and annoyances. The online world, like the rest of society, is made up of a wide array of people. Most are decent and respectful, but some may be rude, obnoxious, insulting, or even mean and exploitative. Children get a lot of benefit from being online, but they can also be targets of crime, exploitation, and harassment in this as in any other environment. Trusting, curious, and anxious to explore this new world and the relationships it brings, children need parental supervision and common-sense advice on how to be sure that their experiences in “cyberspace” are happy, healthy, and productive.

Putting the Issue in Perspective

There have been some highly publicized cases of exploitation involving the Internet, but that doesn’t mean that every child will experience major problems. The vast majority of people who use the Internet do not get into serious trouble.

Many people, including children, have been confronted with material that is disturbing or inappropriate. There are steps parents can take to try to shield their children from such material, but it’s almost impossible to completely avoid all inappropriate material. Sadly there are some cases where children have been victimized by serious crime as a result of going online. Parents can greatly minimize the chances that their children will be victimized by teaching their children to follow our basic safety rules. The fact that crimes are being committed online, however, is not a reason to avoid using the Internet. To tell children to stop using the Internet would be like telling them to forgo attending school because students are sometimes victimized or bullied there. A better strategy would be to instruct children about both the benefits and dangers of “cyberspace” and for them to learn how to be “street smart” in order to better safeguard them in any potentially dangerous situation.

What Are the Risks?

There are a few risks for children who use the Internet or other online services. Teenagers are particularly at risk because they often go online unsupervised and are more likely than younger children to participate in online discussions regarding companionship, relationships, or sexual activity. If you have a teen in your family or you are a teenager, check out Teen Safety on the Information Highway or order a free copy by calling 1-800-843-5678.

Some risks are

Exposure to Inappropriate Material
A child may be exposed to inappropriate material that is sexual, hateful, or violent in nature, or encourages activities that are dangerous or illegal. Children could seek out such material but may also come across it on the web via chat areas, social networking sites, E-mail, or even instant messaging if they’re not looking for it.

Physical Molestation

A child might provide information or arrange an encounter that could risk his or her safety or the safety of other family members. In some cases child molesters have used chat areas, E-mail, and instant messages to gain a child’s confidence and then arrange a face-to-face meeting.

Harassment and Bullying

A child might encounter messages via chat, E-mail, on their social networking site or their cellular telephones that are belligerent, demeaning, or harassing. “Bullies,” typically other young people, often use the Internet to bother their victims.

Viruses and Hackers

A child could download a file containing a virus that could damage the computer or increase the risk of a “hacker” gaining remote access to the computer; jeopardizing the family’s privacy; and, perhaps, jeopardizing the family’s safety.

Legal and Financial

A child could do something that has negative legal or financial consequences such as giving out a parent’s credit-card number or doing something that could get them in trouble with the law or school officials. Legal issues aside, children should be taught good “netiquette” which means to avoid being inconsiderate, mean, or rude.

How Parents Can Reduce the Risks

While children need a certain amount of privacy, they also need parental involvement and supervision in their daily lives. The same general parenting skills that apply to the “real world” also apply while online. If you have cause for concern about your children’s online activities, talk to them. Also seek out the advice and counsel of teachers, librarians, and other parents. Having open communication with your children, using computer resources, and getting online yourself will help you obtain the full benefits of these systems and alert you to any potential problem that may occur with their use. If your child tells you about an upsetting message, person, or web site encountered while online, don’t blame your child but help him or her avoid problems in the future. Remember — how you respond will determine whether they confide in you the next time they encounter a problem and how they learn to deal with problems on their own.
Beyond these basics, there are some specific things that you should know about the Internet. For instance did you know that there are chat areas, newsgroups, and web sites that have material that is hateful, is violent, or contains other types of material that parents might consider to be inappropriate for their children? It’s possible for children to stumble across this type of material when doing a search using one of the web sites that is specifically designed to help people find information on the Internet. Most of these sites, called “search engines,” do not, by default, filter out material that might be inappropriate for children, but some offer a child safe option and some are designed specifically for use by children.
Also the Internet contains newsgroups, web sites, and other areas designed specifically for adults who wish to post, read, or view sexually explicit material including pictures, stories, and videos. Some of this material is posted on web sites where there is an attempt to verify the user’s age and/or a requirement for users to enter a credit-card number on the presumption that children do not have access to credit-card numbers. Other areas on the Internet make no such effort to control access. Nevertheless, consider monitoring your credit-card bills for such charges. In addition to “adult” pornography, there are also areas on the Internet that contain illegal child pornography. If you or your children come across this type of material, immediately report it to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s (NCMEC) CyberTipline® at www.cybertipline.com.
Some internet service providers allow parents to limit their children’s access to certain services and features such as adult-oriented “chat rooms,” bulletin boards, and web sites. There may be an area just for children where it is less likely for them to stumble onto inappropriate material or get into an unsupervised “chat room.” At the very least, keep track of any files your children download to the computer, consider sharing an E-mail account with your children to oversee their mail, and consider joining them when they are in private chat areas.
In addition there are ways to filter or control what your children can see and do online. One type of filter, called a “spam” filter limits unsolicited E-mail including mail promoting sexually explicit material. Some service providers include filters as part of their service but, if not, there is software you can purchase that will attempt to limit the type of mail that gets through.
There are also ways to filter what a child can see on the World Wide Web. Check with your service provider to see if they offer age-appropriate parental controls. If not consider using a software program that blocks chat areas, newsgroups, and web sites that are known to be inappropriate for children. Most of these programs can be configured by the parent to filter out sites that contain nudity, sexual content, hateful or violent material or that advocate the use of alcohol, drugs, or tobacco. Some can also be configured to prevent children from revealing information about themselves such as their name, address, or telephone number. You can find a directory of these filtering programs at kids.getnetwise.org/tools/. Also, the latest versions of both Microsoft Windows (Vista) and Apple’s OS X have parental control tools that can limit what you child can do online.
Another option is to use a rating system that relies on web-site operators to indicate the nature of their material. Internet browsers can be configured to only allow children to visit sites that are rated at the level that the parents specify. The advantage to this method is that only appropriately rated sites can be viewed. The disadvantage is that many appropriate web sites have not submitted themselves for a rating and will therefore be blocked.
While technological-child-protection tools are worth exploring, they’re not a panacea. To begin with, no program is perfect. There is always the possibility that something inappropriate could “slip through” or something that is appropriate will be blocked. Finally, filtering programs do not necessarily protect children from all dangerous activities. And even though they might block children can see online, they might not block what they can say. For example, even with a filter it might be possible for a child to post inappropriate material or personal information on a social networking site or blog or disclose it in a chat room or instant message. Also some filters do not work with peer-to-peer networks that allow people to exchange files such as music, pictures, text, and videos. These peer to- peer networks are sometimes used to distribute pornography, including child pornography. Filters are not a substitute for parental involvement. Regardless of whether you choose to use a filtering program or an Internet rating system, the best way to assure that your children are having positive online experiences is to stay in touch with what they are doing. One way to do this is to spend time with your children while they’re online. Have them show you what they
If a meeting is arranged, make the first one in a public place. And be sure to accompany your child. do, and ask them to teach you how to use the Internet or online service. You might be surprised by how much you can learn from your children.

Guidelines for Parents

By taking responsibility for your children’s online computer use, parents can greatly minimize any potential risks of being online. Make it a family rule to

• Never give out identifying information — home address, school name, or telephone number — in a public message such as chat or newsgroups, and be sure you’re dealing with someone both you and your children know and trust before giving out this information via E-mail. Think carefully before revealing any personal information such as age, financial information, or marital status. Do not post photographs of your children in newsgroups or on web sites that are available to the public. Consider using a pseudonym, avoid listing your child’s name and E-mail address in any public directories and profiles, and find out about your ISP’s privacy policies and exercise your options for how your personal information may be used.
• Get to know the Internet and any services your child uses. If you don’t know how to log on, get your child to show you. Have your child show you what he or she does online, and become familiar with all the activities that are available online. Find out if your child has a free web-based E-mail account, such as those offered by Hotmail and Yahoo!® , and learn their user names and passwords.
• Never allow a child to arrange a face-to-face meeting with someone they “meet” on the Internet without parental permission. If a meeting is arranged, make the first one in a public place, and be sure to accompany your child.
• Never respond to messages that are suggestive, obscene, belligerent, threatening, or make you feel uncomfortable. Encourage your children to tell you if they encounter such messages. If you or your child receives a message that is harassing, of a sexual nature, or threatening, forward a copy of the message to your ISP, and ask for their assistance. Instruct your child not to click on any links that are contained in E-mail from persons they don’t know. Such links could lead to sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate web sites or could be a computer virus. If someone sends you or your children messages or images that are filthy, indecent, lewd, or obscene with the intent to abuse, annoy, harass, or threaten you, or if you become aware of the transmission, use, or viewing of child pornography while online immediately report this to the NCMEC’s CyberTipline at 1-800-843-5678 or www.cybertipline.com. Set reasonable rules and guidelines for computer use by your children.
• Remember that people online may not be who they seem. Because you can’t see or even hear the person it would be easy for someone to misrepresent him- or herself. Thus someone indicating that “she” is a “12-year-old girl” could in reality be a 40-year-old man.
• Remember that everything you read online may not be true. Any offer that’s “too good to be true” probably is. Be careful about any offers that involve you going to a meeting, having someone visit your house, or sending money or credit-card information.
• Set reasonable rules and guidelines for computer use by your children. (See “My Rules for Online Safety” on the back cover.) Discuss these rules and post them near the computer as a reminder. Remember to monitor your children’s compliance with these rules, especially when it comes to the amount of time your children spend on the computer. A child’s excessive use of online services or the Internet, especially late at night, may be a clue that there is a potential problem. Remember that personal computers and online services should not be used as electronic babysitters.
• Check out blocking, filtering, and ratings applications. Be sure to make this a family activity. Consider keeping the computer in a family room rather than the child’s bedroom. Get to know their “online friends” just as you get to know all of their other friends. If your child has a cellular telephone, talk with him or her about using it safely. The same rules that apply to computer use, also apply to cellular telephones.

http://safekids.com/child-safety-on-the-information-highway/

Unit 4: Gender and Technology.

Abstract
This study examined gender differences in computer technology achievement. The setting was a central Georgia middle school. The participants were an intact group of 8th grade students in an Exploration of Technology class. A total of 64 children (32 boys and 32 girls), aged 13 and 14 years old, participated in this study. Scores from a pretest and posttest of male and female students were compared using Analysis of Covariance with repeated measures and gender as the factor. Analysis of data showed that there were gender differences in computer technology achievement. The findings were statistically significant. The results confirmed earlier findings and added to our knowledge about achievement in computer technology.

Introduction
Computers are commonly identified with the areas of mathematics and science, areas in which for many years there has been a widespread concern about sex-related differences. It is not surprising, therefore, to find similar differences emerging in the area of computers. Much research and discussion have gone into investigating gender differences in students at all grade levels in learning and achievement in the areas of mathematics, science, and technology. The research literature on computer education has examined gender differences since the early 1980s (Young, 2000). In the educational research literature, various factors associated with gender differences have been explored in connection to computer technology achievement.

Many factors in and outside the classroom result in girls being turned away from computer technology (Koch, 1994). These factors include the media depicting men as experts in technology, societal expectations of different goals for boys and girls, the structure of learning tasks, the nature of feedback in performance situations, and the organization of classroom seating. Because these factors are often subtle, they go unnoticed. It is little wonder why girls are not interested in computer technology.

Research on gender differences in behavior toward computers has increased in the past 20 years. Numerous articles have been written focusing on differences regarding computer aptitude and actual computer use. Kay (1992) defined aptitude in respect to general application software, awareness, experience, terminology, general programming, word processing, and games.

In a pilot study by Pryor in 1995, boys achieved much better results than girls. For boys, the application of the finished task was less likely to be questioned and a sense of purpose came from the achievement of the goal. The process was important because it allowed boys to work with hardware and make things happen. For girls, the goal was important if it had some application and seemed to be leading somewhere. The process was significant to girls because it gave them a sense of camaraderie with a partner. Statistics in this case study showed that more boys than girls use computers.

Gender differences in response to computers have been widely reported by various experts in the educational field. Computers are not inherently biased. However, the way computers are used can often reinforce gender bias. Parents and teachers should be sensitive to cultural biases and strive to expose both sexes to the advantages of computer technology. New ideas should be devised in order to promote greater gender equity in computer use and help close the technological gap between boys and girls (Dorman, 1998).

Educators need to link the curriculum and technology with student interests. Both male and female students use computer applications that can be linked to the educational setting, such as word processing, accessing information, and completing homework, reports, and projects. But students also use computers for communication, self-expression, and personal interest (Houtz, 2001). How females relate to technology and the value they bring to technology are often ignored or devalued in education. Once educators begin to understand how girls lose interest in technology and recognize the different learning styles of each gender, strides can be made in supporting girls and women in choosing computer-related careers and using computers as a medium of expression.
Previous research has consistently documented gender differences in computer achievement. From these findings, one would expect to see males with higher achievement levels than females. The purpose of this study was to determine if there were gender differences in computer achievement based on the results from repeated testing measures. This study investigated gender differences in computer technology achievement.
Experiment 1

Method

Participants.
The participants were an intact group of 8th grade students in an Explorations of Technology class from a central Georgia middle school winter semester. The ethnicity information for the 1,072 students attending this central Georgia middle school was as follows: 61% were African-American, 2% were Asian, 36% were Caucasian and 1% was Hispanic. There were 549 students (51%) that received free or reduced lunch. A total of 64 children (32 boys and 32 girls), aged 13 and 14 years old, participated in this study. Students were matched based on reading scores from the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test and placed into same sex pairs.

Measurement Instrument.
A pretest was given to investigate possible differences between males and females in terms of computer technology achievement. The pretest consisted of 10 multiple-choice questions published by Learning Labs; Inc. Students were given the same 10-question multiple-choice pretest as a posttest measure.

Learning Labs, Inc. (P.O. Box 1419 Calhoun, GA, 30703) is an educational resource business with hundreds of technology products on the market. Their products have been adopted and implemented in well over a thousand schools nationwide. Learning Labs, Inc. produces exceptional technology-based educational packages for both middle and high school levels.

Procedures.
The researcher has taught Explorations in Technology to 8th graders at Weaver Middle School since January 1997. According to the curriculum guide for technology education developed by the Georgia Department of Education in 1988, the purpose of the middle school industrial arts/technology program is to provide students an orientation and exploration into the technologies of communication, manufacturing and construction, and energy and power control. A further purpose is to augment the students' base of concrete experiences providing better foundation for the development and understanding of more abstract academic concepts.

In the Exploration in Technology class, students worked independently through 3 technology units per semester. Pairs of students completed 9 self-directed activities from a lab manual developed by Learning Labs, Inc. without teacher instruction. All the units began with a brief history of the subject followed by 8 days of step by step instruction and were concluded with a problem solving activity. Each area included a pretest and posttest. Students completed a set of study questions and vocabulary words while progressing through the unit. In addition, all units included multiple worksheets, experiments, demonstrations, and problem solving activities.

At the beginning of winter semester, same sex students were randomly paired in 4 Explorations of Technology classes. Students were given a pretest on animation and assigned to work in the animation lab area (module). Over a period of 9 school days, students spent 40 minutes a day working on the student directed activities found in the animation lab manual compiled by Learning Labs, Inc.

In the animation module students learned about the history of animation and gained a working knowledge of how to operate a computer animation system. Students generated numerous animation sequences by utilizing an existing library of computerized actors as well as actors they created from scratch. Students also used these animated sequences to produce a videotape with animation and sound.

Students worked in pairs to complete the activities and were instructed to solve problems within their group. All classes had the same assignments. Academic objectives were the same for each class. All tests measuring achievement were identical.

Study Design and Data Analysis.
This was a casual-comparative research study. This design involved selecting 2 groups differing on an independent variable (gender) and comparing the groups on a dependent variable (achievement). The scores from the pretest and posttest of male and female students were compared using Analysis of Covariance with repeated measures and gender as the factor. The repeated measure was the pretest and posttest. The probability level was set at alpha = .05 for a two-tailed test.
Results

The results of experiment 1 (using the animation module) indicated that there were gender differences in the animation pretest scores and posttest scores. Although the female pairs had lower pretest scores (M = 44, SD = 18) than the males (M = 51, SD = 19), after completing the unit of instruction, the females had a much higher posttest score (M = 81, SD = 16) than the males (M = 67, SD = 18). Thus the gain in the mean for the girls was 37 points, while the gain in animation knowledge & skills for the boys was only 16 points. In addition the variance was reduced on the posttest for the girls; this reduction in the spread of the scores shows more homogeneity of knowledge in the group of females.
Male and female mean scores and standard deviations on these tests are represented in Table 1. When pretest scores (existing differences among the individuals) were partially led out from posttest scores, the girls scored significantly higher (made significantly more improvement) than the boys did, F (2, 61) = 13.07, p < .0001.

Table 1
Results of Animation Pretest and Posttest
________________________________________
Gender n M SD
________________________________________
Pretest Females 32 43.75 18.27
Males 32 50.94 18.90
Posttest Females 32 80.94 15.94
Males 32 66.56 18.42

When pretest scores were partially led out from posttest scores, girls scored significantly higher, F (2, 61) = 13.07, p < .0001. See Table 2.

Table 2
Analysis of Covariance
________________________________________
df F p<
________________________________________
Animation 2 13.072 .0001
Television 2 9.902 .0001

Experiment 2

Methods and Procedures

The participants were the same as in Experiment 1. The measurement instrument was provided by the same source sited in the Experiment 1. The researcher followed the same procedures outlined in Experiment 1. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 with a different content module.

At the beginning of winter semester, same sex students were paired in 4 Explorations of Technology classes. Students were given a pretest on television broadcasting and assigned to work in the television production module area. Over a period of 9 school days, students spent 40 minutes a day working on the student directed activities found in the television broadcasting lab manual assembled by Learning Labs, Inc.

Students in television broadcasting learned the basic principles of television broadcast production. Students learned how to write, produce, and record a news broadcast. Hands-on activities provided students with the opportunity to learn how to operate a camcorder, research news stories and develop a script. Students worked in pairs to complete the activities and were instructed to solve problems within their group. All classes had the same assignments. Academic objectives were the same for each class. All tests measuring achievement were identical.

Data analyses used the same procedures as outlined in experiment 1. At the completion of this study, results of the pretest and posttest were compared using Analysis of Covariance with repeated measures and gender as the factor. The repeated measure was the pretest and posttest. The probability level was set at = .05 for a two-tailed test.
Results.

The results in this study indicated again that there were gender differences in the television broadcasting pretest scores (female group mean was 45 and male group mean was 40) and posttest scores (female group mean was 75 and male group mean was 78). However, using the broadcasting module of study, the boys improved more than the girls.
Male and female mean scores and standard deviations on these tests are represented in Table 3. When pretest scores were partially led out from posttest scores, boys scored significantly higher, F (2,61) = 9.902, p < .0001. See Table 3.
Table 3
Results of Television Broadcasting Pretest and Posttest
________________________________________
Gender n M SD
________________________________________
Pretest Females 32 45.31 19.51
Males 32 40.31 23.48
Posttest Females 32 74.69 18.49
Males 32 78.44 17.80
Discussion.

The results of the current study support earlier findings that show gender differences in computer technology achievement. However, these differences may depend on the unit of study. In the current study, girls improved more in the animation module while the boys improved more in the broadcasting module. Thus only the broadcasting module of study replicated the earlier findings that males have higher achievement levels than females in computer technology. It would be interesting to know if the animation topic was more appealing to middle school girls than to boys of the same age and if the reverse were true for the broadcasting module. Perhaps motivation made a difference. Or perhaps the animation module had a more traditional academic format, for example, in the study of the history of animation.
The results confirm the earlier findings that there are gender differences in technology achievement. But middle grade students of today may be different from those used in earlier studies, in this experiment the girls did better on animation and the boys did better on broadcasting. This study adds to our knowledge about the achievement of both boys and girls.
References

Dorman, S. (1998). Technology and the gender gap. Journal of School Health, 68, 165-166. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Georgia Department of Education. (2002). Research, evaluation, and testing: Criterion-referenced competency tests (CRCT). Retrieved May 24, 2002 from the Georgia Department of Education Web site: http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/sla/ret/crct.asp

Houtz, L. (2001). Nebraska high school students' computer skills and attitudes. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 316-328. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Kay, R. (1992). Understanding gender differences in computer attitudes, aptitude, and use: An invitation to build theory. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 159-172. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from MasterFILE Premier database.

Koch, M. (1994, November). Opening up technology to both genders. Education Digest, 60, 18-23. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from MasterFILE Premier database.
Learning Labs (1993). Computer Animation Module. Technology Orientation Series, 3, 3-72.
Learning Labs (1996) Television Broadcasting Module. Technology Orientation Series, 5, 3-34.

Pryor, J. (1995). Gender issues in groupwork--A case study involving computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21, 277-284. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from the Academic Search Premier database.

Young, B. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research in Computing in Education, 33, 204-217. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from the Academic Search Premier database.

http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/sum2002/gender/4.html

Unit 3: Introduction to Games, Virtual Reality and Simulations

Introduction
Many people associate virtual reality and computer simulations with science fiction, high-tech industries, and computer games; few associate these technologies with education. But virtual reality and computer simulations have been in use as educational tools for some time. Although they have mainly been used in applied fields such as aviation and medical imaging, these technologies have begun to edge their way into the primary classroom. There is now a sizeable research base addressing the effectiveness of virtual reality and computer simulations within school curriculum. The following five sections present a definition of these technologies, a sampling of different types and their curriculum applications, a discussion of the research evidence for their effectiveness, useful Web resources, and a list of referenced research articles.
Definition and Types
Computer simulations are computer-generated versions of real-world objects (for example, a sky scraper or chemical molecules) or processes (for example, population growth or biological decay). They may be presented in 2-dimensional, text-driven formats, or, increasingly, 3-dimensional, multimedia formats. Computer simulations can take many different forms, ranging from computer renderings of 3-dimensional geometric shapes to highly interactive, computerized laboratory experiments.
Virtual reality is a technology that allows students to explore and manipulate computer-generated, 3-dimensional, multimedia environments in real time. There are two main types of virtual reality environments. Desktop virtual reality environments are presented on an ordinary computer screen and are usually explored by keyboard, mouse, wand, joystick, or touch screen. Web-based "virtual tours" are an example of a commonly available desktop virtual reality format. Total immersion virtual reality environments are presented on multiple, room-size screens or through a stereoscopic, head-mounted display unit. Additional specialized equipment such as a Data Glove (worn as one would a regular glove) enables the participant to interact with the virtual environment through normal body movements. Sensors on the head unit and Data Glove track the viewer's movements during exploration and provide feedback that is used to revise the display enabling real-time, fluid interactivity. Examples of virtual reality environments are a virtual solar system that enables users to fly through space and observe objects from any angle, a virtual science experiment that simulates the growth of microorganisms under different conditions, a virtual tour of an archeological site, and a recreation of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Applications across Curriculum Areas
Computer simulations and virtual reality offer students the unique opportunity of experiencing and exploring a broad range of environments, objects, and phenomena within the walls of the classroom. Students can observe and manipulate normally inaccessible objects, variables, and processes in real-time. The ability of these technologies to make what is abstract and intangible concrete and manipulability suits them to the study of natural phenomena and abstract concepts, "(VR) bridges the gap between the concrete world of nature and the abstract world of concepts and models (Yair, Mintz, & Litvak, 2001, p.294)." This makes them a welcome alternative to the conventional study of science and mathematics, which require students to develop understandings based on textual descriptions and 2-D representations.
The concretizing of objects atoms, molecules, and bacteria, for example, makes learning more straightforward and intuitive for many students and supports a constructivist approach to learning. Students can learn by doing rather than, for example, reading. They can also test theories by developing alternative realities. This greatly facilitates the mastery of difficult concepts, for example the relation between distance, motion, and time (Yair et al.).
It is not therefore surprising that math and science applications are the most frequent to be found in the research literature. Twenty-two of the thirty-one studies surveyed in this review of the literature investigated applications in science; 6 studies investigated math applications. In contrast, only one study investigated applications in the humanities curriculum (specifically, history and reading). The two remaining addressed generalized skills independent of a curriculum area.
It is important to keep in mind, however, when reading this review that virtual reality and computer simulations offer benefits that could potentially extend across the entire curriculum. For example, the ability to situate students in environments and contexts unavailable within the classroom could be beneficial in social studies, foreign language and culture, and English curricula, enabling students to immerse themselves in historical or fictional events and foreign cultures and explore them first hand. With regard to language learning, Schwienhorst (2002) notes numerous benefits of virtual reality, including the allowance of greater self-awareness, support for interaction, and the enabling of real-time collaboration (systems can be constructed to allow individuals in remote locations to interact in a virtual environment at the same time) (Schwienhorst, 2002).
The ability of virtual reality and computer simulations to scaffold student learning (Jiang & Potter, 1994; Kelly, 1997-98), potentially in an individualized way, is another characteristic that well suits them to a range of curriculum areas. An illustrative example of the scaffolding possibilities is a simulation program that records data and translates between notation systems for the student, so that he or she can concentrate on the targeted skills of learning probability (Jiang & Potter, 1994). The ability for students to revisit aspects of the environment repeatedly also helps put students in control of their learning.
The multi sensory nature can be especially helpful to students who are less visual learners and those who are better at comprehending symbols than text. With virtual environments, students can encounter abstract concepts directly, without the barrier of language or symbols and computer simulations and virtual environments are highly engaging, "There is simply no other way to engage students as virtual reality can (Sykes & Reid, 1999, p.61)." Thus, although math and science are the most frequently researched applications of these two technologies, humanities applications clearly merit the same consideration.
Evidence for Effectiveness
In the following sections, we discuss the evidence for the effectiveness of virtual reality and computer simulations based on an extensive survey of the literature published between 1980 and 2002. This survey included 31 research studies conducted in K-12 education settings and published in peer-reviewed journals (N=27) or presented at conferences (N=3) (it was necessary to include conference papers due to the low number of virtual reality articles in peer-reviewed journals). Every attempt was made to be fully inclusive but some studies could not be accessed in a timely fashion. Although the research base is somewhat small, particularly in the case of virtual reality, it provides some useful insights.
Virtual Reality
Numerous commentaries and/or descriptions of virtual reality projects in education have been published. Research studies are still relatively rare. We identified only 3 research investigations of virtual reality in the K-12 classroom: one journal article (Ainge, 1996) and two conference papers (Song, Han, & Yul Lee, 2000; Taylor, 1997).
Taylor's (1997) research was directed at identifying variables that influence students' enjoyment of virtual reality environments. After visiting a virtual reality environment, the 2,872 student participants (elementary, middle, and high school) rated the experience by questionnaire. Their responses were indicative of high levels of enjoyment throughout most of the sample. However, responses also indicated the need for further development of the interface both to improve students' ability to see in the environment and to reduce disorientation. Both factors were correlated with ratings of the environment's presence or authenticity, which itself was tightly associated with enjoyment. It's uncertain whether these technical issues remain a concern with today's virtual reality environments, which have certainly evolved since the time this study was published.
Whether or not virtual reality technology has yet been optimized to promote student enjoyment, it appears to have the potential to favorably impact the course of student learning. Ainge (1996) and Song et al. both provide evidence that virtual reality experiences can offer an advantage over more traditional instructional experiences at least within certain contexts. Ainge showed that students who built and explored 3D solids with a desktop virtual reality program developed the ability to recognize 3D shapes in everyday contexts, whereas peers who constructed 3D solids out of paper did not. Moreover, students working with the virtual reality program were more enthusiastic during the course of the study (which was, however, brief - 4 sessions). Song et al. reported that middle school students who spent part of their geometry class time exploring 3-D solids were significantly more successful at solving geometry problems that required visualization than were peers taught geometry by verbal explanation. Both studies, however, seem to indicate that the benefits of virtual reality experiences are often limited to very specific skills. For example, students taught by a VR approach were not any more effective at solving geometry problems that did not require visualization (Song et al.).
Clearly, the benefits of virtual reality experiences need to be defined in a more comprehensive way. For example, although numerous authors have documented student enjoyment of virtual reality (Ainge, 1996; Bricken & Byrne, 1992; Johnson, Moher, Choo, Lin, & Kim, 2002; Song et al.), it is still unclear whether virtual reality can offer more than transient appeal for students. Also, the contexts in which it can be an effective curriculum enhancement are still undefined. In spite of the positive findings reported here, at this point it would be premature to make any broad or emphatic recommendations regarding the use of virtual reality as a curriculum enhancement.
Computer Simulations
There is substantial research reporting computer simulations to be an effective approach for improving students' learning. Three main learning outcomes have been addressed: conceptual change, skill development, and content area knowledge.
Conceptual change.
One of the most interesting curriculum applications of computer simulations is the generation of conceptual change. Students often hold strong misconceptions be they historical, mathematical, grammatical, or scientific. Computer simulations have been investigated as a means to help students confront and correct these misconceptions, which often involve essential learning concepts. For example, Zietsman & Hewson (1986) investigated the impact of a microcomputer simulation on students' misconceptions about the relationship between velocity and distance, fundamental concepts in physics. Conceptual change in the science domain has been the primary target for these investigations, although we identified one study situated within the mathematics curriculum (Jiang & Potter, 1994). All 3 studies that we directly reviewed (Jiang & Potter, 1994; Kangassalo, 1994; Zietsman & Hewson, 1986) supported the potential of computer simulations to help accomplish needed conceptual change. Stratford (1997) discusses additional evidence of this kind (Brna, 1987; Gorsky & Finegold, 1992) in his review of computer-based model research in precollege science classrooms (Stratford, 1997).
The quality of this research is, however, somewhat uneven. Lack of quantitative data (Brna, 1987; Jiang & Potter, 1994; Kangassalo, 1994) and control group(s) (Brna, 1987; Gorsky & Finegold, 1992; Jiang & Potter, 1994; Kangassalo, 1994) are recurrent problems. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of corroboration in this literature that computer simulations have considerable potential in helping students develop richer and more accurate conceptual models in science and mathematics.
Skill development.
A more widely investigated outcome measure in the computer simulation literature is skill development. Of 12 studies, 11 reported that the use of computer simulations promoted skill development of one kind or another. The majority of these simulations involved mathematical or scientific scenarios (for example, a simulation of chemical molecules and a simulation of dice and spinner probability experiments), but a few incorporated other topic areas such as history (a digital text that simulated historical events and permitted students to make decisions that influenced outcomes) and creativity (a simulation of Lego block building). Skills reported to be improved include reading (Willing, 1988), problem solving (Jiang & Potter, 1994; Rivers & Vockell, 1987), science process skills (e.g. measurement, data interpretation, etc.; (Geban, Askar, & Ozkan, 1992; Huppert, Lomask, & Lazarowitz, 2002), 3D visualization (Barnea & Dori, 1999), mineral identification (Kelly, 1997-98), abstract thinking (Berlin & White, 1986), creativity (Michael, 2001), and algebra skills involving the ability to relate equations and real-life situations (Verzoni, 1995).
Seven (Barnea & Dori, 1999; Berlin & White, 1986; Huppert et al.; Kelly, 1997-98; Michael, 2001; Rivers & Vockell, 1987) of these twelve studies incorporated control groups enabling comparison of the effectiveness of computer simulations to other instructional approaches. Generally, they compared simulated explorations, manipulations, and/or experiments to hands-on versions involving concrete materials. The results of all 7 studies suggest that computer simulations can be implemented to as good or better effect than existing approaches.
There are interpretive questions, however, that undercut some of these studies' findings. One of the more problematic issues is that some computer simulation interventions have incorporated instructional elements or supports (Barnea & Dori, 1999; Geban et al.; Kelly, 1997-98; Rivers & Vockell, 1987; Vasu & Tyler, 1997) that are not present in the control treatment intervention. This makes it more difficult to attribute any advantage of the experimental treatment to the computer simulation per say. Other design issues such as failure to randomize group assignment (Barnea & Dori, 1999; Kelly, 1997-98; Rivers & Vockell, 1987; Vasu & Tyler, 1997; Verzoni, 1995) none of these studies specified that they used random assignment) and the use of ill-documented, qualitative observations (Jiang & Potter, 1994; Mintz, 1993; Willing, 1988) weaken some of the studies. When several of these flaws are present in the same study (Barnea & Dori, 1999; Kelly, 1997-98; Rivers & Vockell, 1987; Vasu & Tyler, 1997), the findings should be weighted more lightly. Even excluding such studies, however, the evidence in support of computer simulations still outweighs that against them.
Two studies reported no effect of computer simulation use on skill development (Mintz, 1993, hypothesis testing; Vasu & Tyler, 1997, problem solving). However, neither of these studies is particularly strong. Mintz (1993) presented results from a small sample of subjects and based conclusions on only qualitative, observational data. Vasu & Tyler (1997) provide no detailed information about the nature of the simulation program investigated in their study or how students interacted with it, making it difficult to evaluate their findings.
Thus, as a whole, there is good support for the ability of computer simulations to improve various skills, particularly science and mathematics skills. Important questions do remain. One of the more important questions future studies should address is the degree to which two factors, computer simulations' novelty and training for involved teachers and staff, are fundamental to realizing the benefits of this technology.
Content area knowledge.
Another potential curriculum application for computer simulations is the development of content area knowledge. According to the research literature, computer programs simulating topics as far ranging as frog dissection, a lake's food chain, microorganismal growth, and chemical molecules, can be effectively used to develop knowledge in relevant areas of the curriculum. Eleven studies in our survey investigated the impact of working with a computer simulation on content area knowledge. All 11 researched applications for the science curriculum, targeting, for example, knowledge of frog anatomy and morphology, thermodynamics, chemical structure and bonding, volume displacement, and health and disease. Students who worked with computer simulations significantly improved their performance on content-area tests (Akpan & Andre, 2000; Barnea & Dori, 1999; Geban et al.; Yildiz & Atkins, 1996). Working with computer simulations was in nearly every case as effective (Choi & Gennaro, 1987; Sherwood & Hasselbring, 1985/86) or more effective (Akpan & Andre, 2000; Barnea & Dori, 1999; Geban et al.; Huppert et al.; Lewis, Stern, & Linn, 1993; Woodward, Carnine, & Gersten, 1988) than traditional, hands-on materials for developing content knowledge.
Only two studies (Bourque & Carlson, 1987; Kinzer, Sherwood, & Loofbourrow, 1989) report an inferior outcome relative to traditional learning methods. Both studies failed to include a pretest, without which it is difficult to interpret posttest scores. Students in the simulation groups may have had lower posttest scores and still have made greater gains over the course of the experiment because they started out with less knowledge. Or they may have had more knowledge than their peers, resulting in a ceiling effect. Moreover, Bourque & Carlson (1997) designed their experiment in a way that may have confounded the computer simulation itself with other experimental variables. Students who worked off the computer took part in activities that were not parallel to those experienced by students working with computer simulations. Only students in the hands-on group were engaged in a follow-up tutorial and post-lab problem solving exercise.
Experimental flaws such as these are also problematic for many of the 11 studies that support the benefits of using computer simulations. Neither Choi & Gennaro (1987), Sherwood and Hasselbring (1985/86), nor Woodward et al. included a pretest. Like Bourque & Carlson (1997, above) both Akpan & Andre (2000) and Barnea & Dori (1999) introduced confounding experimental variables by involving the computer simulation group in additional learning activities (filling out a keyword and definition worksheet and completing a self study, review and quiz booklet, respectively). In addition, four studies (Barnea & Dori, 1999; Huppert et al.; Woodward et al.; Yildiz & Atkins, 1996) did not clearly indicate that they randomized assignment, and two did not include a control group (Lewis et al.; Yildiz & Atkins, 1996).
Little of the evidence to support computer simulations' promotion of content knowledge is iron clad. Although further study is important to repeat these findings, the quality of evidence is nevertheless on par with that supporting the use of traditional approaches. Taking this perspective, there is reasonably good support for the practice of using computer simulations as a supplement to or in place of traditional approaches for teaching content knowledge. However, the same questions mentioned above in talking about the skill development literature, linger here and need to be addressed in future research.
Factors Influencing Effectiveness
Factors influencing the effectiveness of computer simulations have not been extensively or systematically examined. Below we identify a number of likely candidates, and describe whatever preliminary evidence exists for their influence on successful learning outcomes.
Grade Level
At this point, it appears that computer simulations can be effectively implemented across a broad range of grade levels. Successful learning outcomes have been demonstrated for elementary (Berlin & White, 1986; Jiang & Potter, 1994; Kangassalo, 1994; Kinzer et al.; Park, 1993; Sherwood & Hasselbring, 1985/86; Vasu & Tyler, 1997; Willing, 1988), junior high (Akpan & Andre, 2000; Choi & Gennaro, 1987; Jackson, 1997; Jiang & Potter, 1994; Lewis et al.; Michael, 2001; Roberts & Blakeslee, 1996; Verzoni, 1995; Willing, 1988) and high school students (Barnea & Dori, 1999; Bourque & Carlson, 1987; Geban et al.; Huppert et al.; Jiang & Potter, 1994; Kelly, 1997-98; Mintz, 1993; Rivers & Vockell, 1987; Ronen & Eliahu, 1999; Willing, 1988; Woodward et al.; Yildiz & Atkins, 1996; Zietsman & Hewson, 1986). Because the majority of studies (14/27) have targeted junior high and high school populations, there is weightier support for these grade levels. But although fewer in numbers studies targeting students in grades 4 through 6 are also generally supportive of the benefits of using computer simulations. At this point, the early grades, 1-3 (Kangassalo, 1994) are too poorly represented in the research base to draw any conclusions about success of implementation.
Only one study has directly examined the impact of grade level on the effectiveness of using computer simulations. Berlin & White (1986) found no significant difference in the effectiveness of this approach for 2nd and 4th grade students. In the absence of other direct comparisons, a metaanalysis of existing research to determine the average effect size for different grade levels would help to determine whether this is a strong determinant of the effectiveness of computer simulations.
Student Characteristics
Looking across students, even just those considered to represent the "middle" of the distribution, there are considerable differences in their strengths, weaknesses, and preferences (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Characteristics at both the group and individual level have the potential to influence the impact of any learning approach. Educational group, prior experience, gender, and a whole variety of highly specific traits such as intrinsic motivation and cognitive operational stage are just a few examples. Although attention to such factors has been patchy at best, there is preliminary evidence to suggest that some of these characteristics may influence the success of using computer simulations.
With respect to educational group, the overwhelming majority of research studies have sampled subjects in the general population, making it difficult to determine whether educational group in any way influences the effectiveness of computer simulations. Only two studies (Willing, 1988; Woodward et al.) specifically mention the presence of students with special needs in their sample. Neither study gets directly at the question of whether educational group influences the effectiveness of computer simulations. However, they do make some interesting and important observations. Willing (1988) describes her sample of 222 students as being comprised mostly of students whom were considered average but in addition special education students, students with learning disabilities, and students who were gifted. Although Willing does not thoroughly address educational group in her presentation and analysis of the results, she does share a comment by one of the teachers that even less able readers seemed at ease reading when using the interactive historical text. Findings from Woodward et al. suggest not only that computer simulations can be effective for students with learning disabilities but that they may help to normalize these students' performance to that of more average-performing peers. Students with learning disabilities who worked with a computer simulation outperformed students without learning disabilities who did not receive any treatment. In contrast, untreated students without learning disabilities outperformed students without learning disabilities who took part in a control intervention consisting of conventional, teacher-driven activities.
Like educational group, gender is a factor sometimes associated with disparate achievement, particularly in math and science subject areas. In relation to the impact of computer simulations, however, it does not appear to be an important factor. Four studies in our review (Barnea & Dori, 1999; Berlin & White, 1986; Choi & Gennaro, 1987; Huppert et al.) directly examined the influence of gender on the outcome of working with computer simulations, and none demonstrated any robust relationship. In fact, a study by Choi & Gennaro (1987) suggests that when gender gaps in achievement exist, they persist during the use of computer simulations.
In contrast, there is evidence, although at this point isolated, that prior achievement can strongly influence the effectiveness of computer simulations. Yildiz & Atkins (1996) examined how prior achievement in science influences the outcome of working with different types of multimedia computer simulations. Students' prior achievement clearly affected the calculated effect size but how so depended on the type of computer simulation. These findings raise the possibility of very complex interactions between prior achievement and the type of computer simulation being used. They suggest that both factors may be essential for teachers to consider when weighing the potential benefits of implementing computer simulations.
Huppert et al. investigated whether students' cognitive stage might influence how much they profit from working with a computer simulation. Working with a computer simulation of microorganism growth differentially affected students' development of content understanding and science process skill depending on their cognitive stage. Interestingly, those with the highest cognitive stage (formative) experienced little improvement from working with the simulation, whereas students at the concrete or transitional operational stages notably improved. Thus, reasoning ability may be another factor influencing the usefulness of a computer simulation to a particular student.
There are many more potentially important variables that have rarely been considered or even described in research studies. For example, only a small number of studies have specified whether subjects are experienced (Choi & Gennaro, 1987; Yildiz & Atkins, 1996) or not (Bourque & Carlson, 1987) with using computers in the classroom. None have directly examined this variable's impact. More thoroughly describing the characteristics of sample populations would be an important first step toward sorting out such potentially important factors.
Teacher Training and Support
Given the unevenness of teachers' technology preparedness, training and support in using computer simulations seems like a potentially key factor in the effectiveness of using computer simulations in the classroom. As it the case with many of the other variables we've mentioned, few studies have described with much clarity or detail the nature of teacher training and support. Exceptions are Rivers & Vockell (1987) and Vasu & Tyler (1997), both of whom give quite thorough descriptions of staff development and available resources. This is another area that merits further investigation.
Instructional Context
It has been suggested that combining computer simulation work with hands-on work may produce a better learning outcome than either method alone. Findings from Bourque & Carlson (1997) support this idea. They found that students performed best when they engaged in hands-on experimentation followed by computer simulation activities. However, Akpan & Andre (2000) report that students learned as much doing the simulated dissection as they did doing both the simulated and real dissection. This is an interesting question but one that will require additional research to squarely address.
Links to Learn More about Virtual Reality & Computer Simulations
Virtual Reality Society
http://www.vrs.org.uk/VR/reference/history.html
The Virtual Reality Society (VRS), founded in 1994 is an international group dedicated to the discussion and advancement of virtual reality and synthetic environments. Its activities include the publication of an international journal, the organization of special interest groups, conferences, seminars and tutorials. This web site contains a rich history of article listings and publications on Virtual Reality.
Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory
www.soe.ecu.edu/
This is the homepage of Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina. The Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory (VREL) was created in 1992 to research virtual reality (VR) and its applications to the K-12 curriculum. Many projects are being conducted through VREL by researchers Veronica Pantelidis and Dr. Lawrence Auld. This web site provides links to VR in the Schools, an internationally referred journal distributed via the Internet. There are additional links to some VR sites recommended by these authors as exemplars and interesting sites.
Virtual Reality Resources for K-12 Education
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/people/bievenue/VR/
The NCSA Education & Outreach Group has compiled this web site containing links to multiple sites containing information and educational materials on Virtual Reality for Kindergarten through 12 grade classrooms.
Virtual Reality in Education: Learning in Virtual Reality
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Edu/RSE/VR/
In collaboration with the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has created a five-year program to examine virtual reality (VR) in the classroom. One of the goals behind this program is to discover how well students can generalize their VR learning experiences outside of the classroom. This web site provides an explanation of the project with links to additional resources and Projects.

Human Interface Technology Laboratory, Washington Technology Center in Seattle
www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/knowledge_base/edvr/
This web site is the home of the Human Interface Technology Laboratory of the Washington Technology Center in Seattle, Washington. Various Virtual Reality (VR) articles and books are referenced. In addition to the list of articles and books, the technology center provides a list of internet resources including organizations that are doing research on VR, VR simulation environments and projects about various aspects of virtual reality.
Applied Computer Simulation Lab, Oregon Research Institute
www.ori.org/educationvr.html
This web site is from the Oregon Research Institute. The researchers at the Applied Computer Simulation Lab have created virtual reality (VR) programs that help physically disabled children operate motorized wheelchairs successfully. This website connects the reader to articles and information about these VR projects. Another project that this team is working on involves creating virtual reality programs for deaf blind students to help them "learn orientation and mobility skills in three dimensional acoustical spaces."
Strangman, N., & Hall, T. (2003). Virtual reality/simulations. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved12th October, 2007 from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_vr.html

Unit 2: Assessment for Learning.

Assessment tools for ICT in education
Many tools now exist for measuring the impact of ICT in education, either in the form of online questionnaires, printable forms, charts or frameworks. Respondents are similarly diverse: teachers, administrative staff, educational leaders or can even be the students themselves. Often self-assessment based, tools assess staff skills in technology, levels of ICT integration into lessons, student improvement due to ICT use and attitudes, amongst other issues.
In summary and to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each tool, the following chart has been taken from the article Take a Varied Approach to Assessment by Barbara Bray
Planning Assessment.
Assessment is an essential part of normal teaching and learning in all subjects. It can take many forms and be used for a range of purposes. To be effective assessment must be ‘fit for purpose’; being clear what you want the assessment to achieve will determine the nature of the assessment and what the outcome will be.
When planning assessment consider the following.
Purpose – What is the assessment for and how will it be used?
Does it form part of ongoing assessment for learning to provide individual feedback or targets so that the pupil knows what to do next? Is it to provide an overall judgment about how the pupil is progressing against national curriculum levels? Related to this is the need to consider how the purpose of assessment affects the frequency of assessment. For example, there should be sufficient time between level-related judgments to allow a pupil to show progress, whereas to be effective the assessment of ongoing work should be embedded in day-to-day teaching and learning.
Evidence – What are the best ways to gather the evidence needed to support the purpose of the assessment?
Assessment shouldn’t be limited to written outcomes and any meaningful judgment of progress or attainment should be based on a range of evidence. This could include assessing the learning as it’s happening through observation, discussion or focused questioning; involving pupils in the process through peer or self-assessment; or sampling a range of work over a period of time. If there are areas where you don’t have sufficient evidence you could either adjust you’re planning or use a more focused short task or test to fill the gap. The gathering of evidence also needs to be manageable. With care, the same evidence may be used for a variety of purposes.
Outcome – What form will the assessment outcome take and how will it be used?
Depending on the purpose of the assessment the outcome could be a level judgment of progress over time or a specific and measurable improvement target for the pupil. Effective use of the assessment outcome results in actions such as providing an instant response or planning for the longer term. The best means of communicating assessment outcomes should be considered. For example, it might be through written feedback or discussion. The outcome may also provide you with valuable information for your future planning, by identifying areas that need to be revisited by a class or individuals to secure understanding or by revealing gaps in curriculum coverage where there is no evidence of achievement in a particular area to assess.
Further guidance on gathering evidence, integrating assessment, periodic assessment and the role of tasks and tests can be found under Principles for national curriculum assessment.
Further guidance on day-to-day assessment and peer and self-assessment can be found under Principles for ongoing assessment.
Exemplification of standards and approaches
QCA is working with schools to develop examples of effective ways of collecting evidence and providing feedback through assessment for learning and periodic assessments in subjects. The materials produced will show how assessment practices within and between subjects can support learning, embed standards and be part of effective teaching of the revised programmes of study. They will:
• demonstrate ways to collect evidence of pupils’ knowledge, skills and understanding as seen in their talk, actions and outcomes
• provide examples of manageable ways of collecting evidence
• Include evidence of subject standards.
These materials will be available from the assessment section of the website in 2008.
Tasks to support assessment in ICT
Building on the existing assessing pupils’ progress (APP) approach in English, mathematics and science, assessment tasks for foundation subjects are being developed to provide evidence related to level descriptions. These can be used to support periodic assessment by offering confirmation of teachers’ evaluation of the level their pupils are working at or to provide supplementary information on aspects of learners' performance when there isn’t sufficient evidence to make a judgment. These tasks will be available from the assessment section of the website in 2008.
http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/subjects/ict/keystage3/Supporting_guidance_on_assessment_for_ICT.aspx

Unit 1: Introduction to ICT Integration.

What are ICTs and what types of ICTs are commonly used in education?
ICTs stand for information and communication technologies and are defined, for the purposes of this primer, as a “diverse set of technological tools and resources used to communicate, and to create, disseminate, store, and manage information.” These technologies include computers, the Internet, broadcasting technologies (radio and television), and telephony.
In recent years there has been a groundswell of interest in how computers and the Internet can best be harnessed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of education at all levels and in both formal and non-formal settings. But ICTs are more than just these technologies; older technologies such as the telephone, radio and television, although now given less attention, have a longer and richer history as instructional tools. For instance, radio and television have for over forty years been used for open and distance learning, although print remains the cheapest, most accessible and therefore most dominant delivery mechanism in both developed and developing countries. The use of computers and the Internet is still in its infancy in developing countries, if these are used at all, due to limited infrastructure and the attendant high costs of access.
Moreover, different technologies are typically used in combination rather than as the sole delivery mechanism. For instance, the Kothmale Community Radio Internet uses both radio broadcasts and computer and Internet technologies to facilitate the sharing of information and provide educational opportunities in a rural community in Sri Lanka. The Open University of the United Kingdom (UKOU), established in 1969 as the first educational institution in the world wholly dedicated to open and distance learning, still relies heavily on print-based materials supplemented by radio, television and, in recent years, online programming. Similarly, the Indira Gandhi National Open University in India combines the use of print, recorded audio and video, broadcast radio and television, and audio conferencing technologies.
What is e-learning?
Although most commonly associated with higher education and corporate training, e-learning encompasses learning at all levels, both formal and non-formal, that uses an information network—the Internet, an intranet (LAN) or extranet (WAN)—whether wholly or in part, for course delivery, interaction, evaluation and/or facilitation. Others prefer the term online learning. Web-based learning is a subset of e-learning and refers to learning using an Internet browser (such as Netscape or Internet Explorer).

What is blended learning?
Another term that is gaining currency is blended learning. This refers to learning models that combine traditional classroom practice with e-learning solutions. For example, students in a traditional class can be assigned both print-based and online materials, have online mentoring sessions with their teacher through chat, and are subscribed to a class email list. Or a Web-based training course can be enhanced by periodic face-to-face instruction. “Blending” was prompted by the recognition that not all learning is best achieved in an electronically-mediated environment, particularly one that dispenses with a live instructor altogether. Instead, consideration must be given to the subject matter, the learning objectives and outcomes, the characteristics of the learners, and the learning context in order to arrive at the optimum mix of instructional and delivery methods.
What is open and distance learning?
Open and distance learning is defined by the Commonwealth of Learning as “a way of providing learning opportunities that is characterized by the separation of teacher and learner in time or place, or both time and place; learning that is certified in some way by an institution or agency; the use of a variety of media, including print and electronic; two-way communications that allow learners and tutors to interact; the possibility of occasional face-to-face meetings; and a specialized division of labor in the production and delivery of courses.”
What is meant by a learner-centered environment?
The National Research Council of the U.S. defines learner-centered environments as those that “pay careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring with them to the classroom.” The impetus for learner-centeredness derives from a theory of learning called constructivism, which views learning as a process in which individuals “construct” meaning based on prior knowledge and experience. Experience enables individuals to build mental models or schemas, which in turn provide meaning and organization to subsequent experience. Thus knowledge is not “out there”, independent of the learner and which the learner passively receives; rather, knowledge is created through an active process in which the learner transforms information, constructs hypothesis, and makes decisions using his/her mental models. A form of constructivism called social constructivism also emphasizes the role of the teacher, parents, peers and other community members in helping learners to master concepts that they would not be able to understand on their own. For social constructivists, learning must be active, contextual and social. It is best done in a group setting with the teacher as facilitator or guide.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ICT_in_Education/Definition_of_Terms"

Work shop for the teachers would be conducted, to show the importance of ICT in education, it will be a power point presentation through the multimedia, here the definition of ICT, its integration with education, a comparative study of discrete vs. integrated approach and the role of teachers will be discussed it will then be followed by an activity.

A word document of the presentation is as follows.

Definition of ICT:

• ICT is a combination of Information Technology (IT) and Communication Technology (CT):
• Information Technology (IT) is the term used to describe items of equipment (hardware) and computer programmes (software) that allow us to access, retrieve, store, organize, manipulate, and present information by electronic means.
• Communication Technologies (CT) is the term used to describe telecommunications equipment through which information can be sought and accessed, for example, phones, computer modems and faxes.
• The use of ICT in education is also referred to as E-learning, Online Learning, Computer based teaching/training, Networked Learning, Web-based learning, or Virtual Learning.

Why? ICT in Education:

• ICT in education offered a promise to revolutionize education. However, research indicates that ICT has not had a revolutionary impact on the classrooms. The impact of ICT on education is yet to be seen.
• In a typical Pakistani classroom you will find children sitting in rows of desks, either listening attentively to the teacher’s lecture or copying diligently from the blackboard. Or you will find students patiently waiting for their turn to speak in class. Knowledge is transferred from the experts and the books to the students. The content to be taught is determined by curriculum design experts and often comprises delivery of factual information, which is either already outdated or will be outdated soon.
• Memory recall remains the focus of ‘testing’ in schools. Computers are usually not available in classrooms and are used in offices for increased productivity of the administrative staff. Occasionally students are given access to computers during lab periods, where they find information from the web and copy it into their presentations or reports.
• However, the environment outside the schools, show a different picture altogether; for instance, we notice computers every where. A large majority of the children either own a mobile phone or have at least one family member who owns one. They use mobile phone use to ‘text’ or ‘sms’ their friends or chat online. When they switch on TV they watch the latest discoveries in bio-and multimedia technologies.
• They use i-pods or MP3 players for listening to songs, and use play-station or X-box for playing games. Using google search they find the reviews of all the up coming movies of their favorite stars and download songs and videos from websites or through peer-to peer network or sign an online petition against human rights violations. These children are connected and information rich.
• Clearly there seems to be a conflict between their life out side and inside the schools. The needs of today’s children have changed. But these changed needs are perhaps not reflected in our teaching and learning programmes.

Activity:

• Reflect on your teaching: Do you think your teaching and learning provides students the necessary experiences to equip them with knowledge, skills and attitudes essential to their survival in the information age?
• Is ICT the change you want in your school? Or is ICT a catalyst for change that you wish to see? What is the change you wish to see in your school and children and why?

Discrete Subject V Integrated Approach:

• The subject teachers and ICT teachers plan lessons and assessment together, which helps teachers of other subjects to enhance ICT skills and ICT teachers learn about subject areas.
• In a hybrid approach, ICT is taught as a subject as well as integrated into a few curriculum areas. You can start with a few subjects. For instance, you can form teams of ICT and subject teachers to develop ICT integrated projects for a term or an academic year.
• The teams can work together throughout the year or semester to implement the project. By working in a team, the ICT teacher will gain an understanding of the subject area and the subject area teachers will develop ICT skills and attitude.
• Together both teachers can learn how ICT can support learning in a more meaningful way. The ICT teachers will need professional development in general education. Like wise the subject teachers will need training of ICT skills. Accordingly an on-going professional development plan for all the teachers will be necessary

Role of Teachers:

• In short, in an ICT integrated class, teachers are viewed as instructors, demonstrators, project manager, and consultant, provider of resources, a questioner, an explainer, an observer and a co-learner. There is research evidence that suggests that while working with ICT many teachers shift the locus of control to the students and computers and intervene carefully to scaffold students learning. All these findings call for rethinking the roles and responsibilities of the teacher in the ICT integrated classrooms.

Conclusion:

• ICT are tools and technologies that we commonly use. These technologies have brought about several changes in our work and living environment. Due to the rapid changes, the future work and living environment is unpredictable. So the knowledge, skills and attitude currently taught in schools is not sufficient.
• We need to teach new skills, knowledge and attitude. Therefore, it becomes important to use and teach ICTs as part of the curriculum. Integration of ICT with education allows an opportunity to transfer skills and learning from one context to the other.
• While a hybrid approach may be useful now, the aim should be integration of ICT with curriculum. It is clear that having access to computers does not mean that computers will automatically be integrated with subject areas. Computer subject integration requires time, effort and commitment both from the schools and teachers.