Cross-National Perspectives on Inequity in Computer Education

  • Ronald E. Anderson
  • Vicki Lundmark
Part of the Technology-Based Education Series book series (TBES, volume 1)


Our concern focusses upon these questions: To what extent do different groups of students, as defined by socioeconomic status, gender, and other social bases, face different learning opportunities related to information technology? How are these differences distributed across the countries represented in this anthology? When are these differences seen as unjust or discriminatory? What educational policies and practices exist in different countries to address these differences? What else can be done to reduce inequity in technology-based education? Although computer inequity is sometimes equated with gender inequity alone, in this review we address additional dimensions of inequity, especially socioeconomic status (SES). The first general question to ask is whether or not technology-related disadvantages have been found across (as well as within) countries among groups defined by gender or SES.


Gross National Product Home Computer National Wealth Computer Education Gender Inequity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R.E., & Collis, B. (1993). International Assessment of Functional Computer Abilities. Studies in Educational Evaluation 19: 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R.E., & Lundmark, V. (1995). What Accounts for Variation in Practical Computing Skills: School, Home, or Opportunities from Social Background? IEA Computers in Education Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R.E., Klassen, D.L., Krohn, K.R., & Smith-Cunnien, P. (1982). Assessing Computer Literacy. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, R.E., Lundmark, V., Harris, L, & Magnan, S. (1994). “Equity in Computing.” Pp. 352–385 in Social Issues in Computing: Putting Computing in its Place, edited by C. Huff and T. Fineholt. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Arch, E.C., & Cummins, D.E. (1989). “Structured and unstructured exposure to computers: Sex differences in attitude and use among college students.” Sex Roles, 20(56):245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Branscum, D. (1992). “Conspicuous consumer.” Macworld, 9(9):83–88.Google Scholar
  7. Bryson, M., & Castell, S. (1995). “So we’ve got a chip on our shoulder!: Sexing the texts of ‘educational technologies.’” Pp. 21–42 in Gender In/forms the Curriculum: From Enrichment to Transformation, edited by J. Willingskey & J. Gaskell. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, N.J. (1989). “Computer anxiety of rural middle and secondary school students.” Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(2):213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Central Intelligence Agency. (1994). The World Factbook. Washington, D.C.: CIA.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, S.M., & Clarke, V.A. (1987). “Is inequity cumulative? The relationship between disadvantaged group membership and students’ computing experience, knowledge, attitudes and intentions.” Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(4):495–518.Google Scholar
  11. Collis, B. (1985). “Psychosocial implications of sex differences in attitudes toward computers: Results of a survey.” International Journal of Women’s Studies, 8(3):207–213.Google Scholar
  12. Collis, B., Kieren, T.E., & Kass, H. (1988). A multidimensional study of adolescent gender differences in computer use and impact. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), April, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  13. Collis, B.A., & Williams, R.L. (1987). “Cross cultural comparison of gender differences in adolescents’ attitudes toward computers and selected school subjects.” Journal of Educational Research, 81(1):17–27.Google Scholar
  14. Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1990). “Education 2001: Learning networks and educational reform.” Computers in Schools, 7(1/2):1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeVillar, R.A., & Faltis, C.J. (1991). Computers and cultural diversity: Restructuring for school success. New York: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  16. Diem, R.A. (1986). “Computers in a school environment: Preliminary report of the social consequences.” Theory and Research in Social Education, 14(2):163–170.Google Scholar
  17. Fish, M.C., Gross, A.L., & Sanders, J.S. (1986). “The effect of equity strategies on girls’ computer usage in school.” Computers in Human Behavior, 2(2):127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths, M. (1988). “Strong feelings about computers.” Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(2):145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hawkridge, D., Jaworski, J., & McMahon, H. (1990). Computers in thirdworld schools. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  20. Huff, C., & Cooper, J. (1987). “Sex bias in educational software: The effect of designers’ stereotypes on the software they design.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(6):519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huff, C., Fleming, J.H., & Cooper, J. (1992). “Gender differences in human-computer interaction.” Pp. 19–32 in In Search of Gender-Free Paradigms for Computer Science Education, edited by C.D. Martin & E. Murchie-Beyma. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).Google Scholar
  22. Johanson, R.P. (1985). School computing: Some factors affecting student performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), March, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  23. Juliussen, K.P., & Juliussen, E. (1993). The 6th Annual Computer Industry Almanac, 1993. Incline Village, NV: Computer Industry Almanac, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Krendl, K.A., & Broihier, M. (1991). Student responses to computers: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  25. Krueger, A.B. (1991). How computers have changed the wage structure: Evidence from microdata 1984–89 (Working Paper #291). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section.Google Scholar
  26. Kurian, G.T. (1991.) The New Book of World Rankings (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Facts on File.Google Scholar
  27. Levin, T., & Gordon, C. (1989). “Effect of gender and computer experience on attitudes toward computers.” Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1):69–88.Google Scholar
  28. Magnan, S., Beebe, T., & Anderson, R.E. (1995). Measurement Properties of the Functional Information Technology Test. IEA Computers in Education Study, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  29. Martinez, M.E., & Mead, N.A. (1988). Computer competence: The first national assessment (Tech. Rep. No. 17CC01). Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress & Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  30. McKinnon, D.H., & Nolan, P.C.J. (1990). “Curriculum innovation with computers: Redressing inequities of access and use in the Freyberg Integrated Studies Project.” Pp. 145–153 in Computers in education: Proceedings from the fifth world conference on computers in education, edited by A. McDougal & C. Dowling. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  31. Pelgrum, W.J., & Plomp, T. (1991). The use of computers in education worldwide. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pelgrum, W.J., Janssen Reinen, I.A.M., & Plomp. T. (1993). Schools, Teachers, Students and Computers: A Cross-National Perspective. International Association for the Educational Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), the Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  33. Piller, C. (1992). “Separate realities.” Macworld, 9(9):218–230.Google Scholar
  34. Sanders, J.S., & Stone, A. (1986). The neuter computer: Computers for girls and boys. New York, NY: Neal Schuman.Google Scholar
  35. Scott, T., Cole, M., & Engel, M. (1992). “Computers and education: A cultural constructivist perspective.” Review of Research in Education, 18: 191–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J. (1990). “Systemic school reform.” Pp. 133–267 in Politics of education yearbook 1990, edited by Jay Scribner. Chicago: Society for the Study of Education, University of of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sutton, R.E. (1991). “Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research.” Review of Educational Research, 61(4):475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. Department of State. (1993). Background Notes on Nations. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents.Google Scholar
  39. Weiser, M. (1991). “The computer for the 21st century.” Scientific American, (September):94–104.Google Scholar
  40. Wilder, G., Mackie, D., & Cooper, J. (1985). “Gender and computers: Two surveys of computer related attitudes.” Sex Roles, 13(34):215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. World Almanac. (1993). Microsoft Bookshelf CD-ROM Reference Library. Bellevue, WA: Microsoft Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald E. Anderson
  • Vicki Lundmark

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations