SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Alliance for Childhood (2000). Fool’s gold: A critical look at computers and childhood. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/computers_reports.htm
  • American Association of University Women (2000). Tech savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
  • Ames, P. C. (2003). Gender and learning style interactions in students’ computer attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(3), 231244.
  • Atkeson, L. R., & Rapoport, R. B. (2003). The more things change the more they stay the same: Examining gender differences in political attitude expression, 1952–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 495521.
  • Baker, C. E. (1994). Advertising and a democratic press. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
  • Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 136.
  • Begley, S. (2005, January 28). Harvard chief’s words on innate differences lack basis in science. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
  • Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using email for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 530549.
  • Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002). Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL environment. Paper presented at the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Boulder, CO.
  • Buckingham, D. (1997). News media, political socialization and popular citizenship: Towards a new agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 344366.
  • Bunz, U. (2005, May). Gender differences on computer-email-Web fluency and computer-mediated-communication competence: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association Conference, New York, NY.
  • Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. (1998). Chess for girls? Feminism and computer games. In J.Cassell & H.Jenkins (Eds.), From barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 245). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: What has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155165.
  • Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
  • Cornfield, M. (2004). Politics moves online: Campaigning and the Internet. New York: Century Foundation Press.
  • Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341349.
  • Edwards, L. E. (2005). Victims, villains, and vixens: Teen girls and Internet crime. In S. R.Mazzarella (Ed.), Girl Wide Web: Girls, the Internet, and the negotiation of identity (pp. 1330). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Flanagan, C., & Gallay, L. (2001). Nurturing democratic character in teens: The potential of IT. Retrieved March 21, 2006 from http://www.pop.psu.edu/socresp/benton3.pdf
  • Furger, R. (1998). Does Jane compute? Preserving our daughters’ place in the cyber revolution. New York: Warner Books.
  • Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(2), 253266.
  • Graner Ray, S. (2004). Gender inclusive game design: Expanding the market. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.
  • Harcourt, W. (1999). Women@Internet. London: Zed Books.
  • Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies (2001). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2000. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.
  • Holtzman, L. (2004). Mining the invisible: Teaching and learning media and diversity. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 108118.
  • Horrigan, J. (2000). New Internet users: What they do online, what they don’t and implications for the net’s future. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://207.21.232.103/PPF/r/22/report_display.asp
  • Information Technology Association of America (2005, June 22). Untapped talent: Diversity, competition and America’s high tech future. Retrieved June 27, 2005, from http://www.itaa.org/eweb/upload/execsummdr05.pdf
  • International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
  • Jackson, L., Ervin, K., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001). Gender and the Internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44(5/6), 363379.
  • Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. Phi Delta Kappan, 34–40, 5767.
  • Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the Nation: A generational portrait. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/Civic_Political_Health.pdf
  • Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Eccles, J. S. (1985). Pool halls, chips, and war games: Women in the culture of computing. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9(4), 451462.
  • Knupfer, N. N. (1997). New technologies and gender equity: New bottles with old wine. In O.Abel, N. J.Maushak, & K. E.Wright (Eds.), 19th annual conference proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Albuquerque, NM, 115124.
  • Knupfer, N. N. (1998).Gender divisions across technology advertisements and the WWW: Implications for educational equity. Theory Into Practice, 37(1), 5464.
  • Kurtz, K. T., Rosenthal, A., & Zukin, C. (2003, September). Citizenship: A challenge for all generations. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.ncsl.org/public/trust/citizenship.pdf
  • Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Retrieved July 28, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf
  • Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
  • Littleton, K., & Hoyles, C. (2002). The gendering of information technology. In N.Yelland & A.Rubin (Eds.) Ghosts in the machine: Women’s voices in research with technology (pp. 332). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Marshall, J. C., & Bannon, S. (1988). Race and sex equity in computer advertising. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(1), 1527.
  • Mazzarella, S. R. (2005). Girl Wide Web: Girls, the Internet, and the negotiation of identity. New York: Peter Lang.
  • McIlroy, D., Bunting, B., Tierney, K., & Gordon, M. (2001). The relation of gender and background experience to self-reported computing anxieties and cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(1), 2133.
  • Messineo, M., & DeOllos, I. Y. (2005). Are we assuming too much? Exploring students’ perceptions of their computer competence. College Teaching, 53(2), 5055.
  • Michaelson, G. (1994). Women and men in computer cartoons from Punch: 1946–198. In A.Adam, J.Emms, E.Green, & J.Owen (Eds.), Women, work and computerization (pp. 171184). Amsterdam & New York: Elsevier.
  • Montgomery, K., Gottlieb-Robles, B., & Larson, G. O. (2004). Youth as e-Citizens: Engaging the Digital Generation. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from the Center for Social Media web site: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/ecitizens/youthreport.pdf
  • National Academy of Engineering (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Assessment of Educational Progress (1998). Civics framework for the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/civics.pdf
  • National Research Council, Committee on Information Technology Literacy (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Odell, P. M., Korgen, K. O., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female and male college students. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3(5), 855862.
  • Ogan, C. L., Herring, S. C., Ahuja, M., & Robinson, J. (2005, May). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Gender differences in attitudes and experiences related to computing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, NY. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ica.pdf
  • Plant, S. (1998). Zeros and ones: Digital women and the new technoculture. London: Fourth Estate.
  • Polak, M. (forthcoming). It’s a gURL thing: Community vs. commodity in girl-focused netspace. In D.Buckingham & R.Willett (Eds.), Digital generations: Children, young people and new media. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Preston, P. (2005, May). A key “digital divide:” Women in new ICT versus women and new ICT. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the International Communication Association, New York, NY.
  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  • Raphael, C. (2002). “Citizen Jane:” Rethinking design principles for closing the gender gap in computing. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2002 Conference, Denver, CO, 16091614.
  • Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
  • Scealy, M., Phillips, J. G., & Stevenson, R. (2002). Shyness and anxiety as predictors of patterns of Internet usage. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 5(6), 501515.
  • Shade, L. R. (2002). Gender and community in the social construction of the Internet. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). Users divided? Exploring the gender gap in Internet use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 5(6), 517527.
  • Stern, S. R. (2002). Virtually speaking: Girls’ self-disclosure on the WWW. Women’s Studies in Communication, 25, 223253.
  • Stern, S. R. (2004). Expressions of identity online: Prominent features and gender differences in adolescents’ World Wide Web home pages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 218243.
  • Strategies of Inclusion: Gender in the Information Society (2004). Gender and inclusion policies for the information society. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.rcss./ed.ac.uk/sigis/.
  • Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479494.
  • Torney-Purta, J., & Amadeo, J. (2003). A cross-national analysis of political and civic involvement among adolescents. Political Science and Politics 36(2), 269274.
  • Turkle, S. (1988). Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine. In C.Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women’s voices (pp. 4161). London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Vale, C. M., & Leder, G. C. (2004). Student views of computer-based mathematics in the middle years: Does gender make a difference? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56 (2/3), 287312.
  • Valkenburg, P. (2004). Children’s responses to the screen: A media psychological approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
  • Ware, M. C., & Stuck, M. F. (1985). Sex-role messages vis-a-vis microcomputer use: A look at the pictures. Sex Roles, 13(3/4), 205214.
  • White, C., & Kinnick, K. N. (2000). One click forward and two clicks back: Portrayal of women using computers in television commercials. Women’s Studies in Communication, 23, 392413.
  • Young, B. J. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204216.
  • Youngs, G. (2001). Theoretical reflections on networking in practice: The case of women on the net. In E.Green & A.Adam (Eds.), Virtual gender: Technology, consumption and identity (pp. 8499). London and New York: Routledge.