Gender Difference in Language Learning with Technology

  • Yen-ju HouEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11590)


Nowadays, mobile-assisted technology has been widely adopted to promote learning outcomes in various realms. This study sought to determine how gender affects students in evaluation of the use of mobile-assisted tools, such as Kahoot!, Socrative and Classdojo on English learning. It involved in 143 learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) at a junior college in southern Taiwan. Regarding to feedback about the use of Kahoot!, female students strongly agreed its benefits than male students, especially in helping organize important information from reading texts. Compared to Kahoot!, female students felt less stressful than males because they can respond to questions via Socrative by their own speed. In addition, females showed higher agreement than males that everyone is required to answer questions helps them check their comprehension. In terms of overall perception of using mobile-assisted tools, students showed positive attitudes of using them in reading courses. The finding is interesting that females reported higher agreement and expectation in various situations than males on learning with mobile-assisted tools. For instance, females showed more positive perceptions than that of male students on helping them pay more attention in lectures, perform better learning outcomes, build confidences to study well in class and receive better scores on exams, understand the lectures well, and monitor their learning performance instantly. Despite of benefits of mobile-assisted tools in education, another important element for such tools on creating effective and efficient teaching is the ease of use, which reduces both teachers and students’ loads and time on familiarizing the applications. Mobile-assisted tools mentioned in the study, including Kahoot!, Socrative, and Classdojo, provide easy functions that increase users’ acceptance level. In addition, those applications were free of charge that increases accessibility and application for teachers to integrate into their teaching practice.


Gender difference Mobile-assisted learning Kahoot! Socrative EFL 


  1. 1.
    Celce-Murcia, M.: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 3rd edn. Heinle & Heinle, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Choi, I., Land, S.M., Turgeon, A.J.: Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate meta-cognition during online small group discussion. Instr. Sci. 33(5–6), 483–511 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zillmann, D., Cantor, J.R.: Induction of curiosity via rhetorical questions and its effects on the learning of factual materials. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 43, 172–180 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hou, Y.: Integration of Kahoot into EFL classroom. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2018. CCIS, vol. 852, pp. 31–37. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, C.C.: Correlations of teaching through interactive response system with teaching interaction, engagement, self-efficacy and degree of learning satisfaction. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuo, C.L., Chuang, Y.H.: Kahoot: applications and effects in education. J. Nurs. 65(6), 13–19 (2018). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jian, Y.F.: The impact of teachers’ adoption and integration of information and communication technology into english teaching on seventh graders’ motivation, learning strategies, and academic achievement. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Chung Hua University, HsinChu, Taiwan (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu, Y.A.: English language teaching in China: trends and challenges. TESOL Q. 35(1), 191–194 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook, V.: Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, 3rd edn. Arnold, London (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maria, K.: Reading Comprehension Instruction: Issues and Strategies. York Press, Parkton (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delić, H., Bećirović, S., Brdarević-Čeljo, A.: Effects of grade level and gender on foreign language learning process in Bosnian high schools. Int. J. Educ. Policy Res. Rev. 5, 83–89 (2018). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collom, K.: Does Gender Impact Language Learning? (2015). Accessed 7 Dec 2018
  13. 13.
    Voyer, D., Voyer, S.D.: Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140(4), 1174–1204 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bećirović, S., Brdarević-Čeljo, A., Sinanović, J.: The use of metacognitive reading strategies among students at international Burch University: a case study. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 6(4), 645–655 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, M.L.: A study of the selection of reading strategies among genders by EFL college students. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 64, 310–319 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shin, I.S., Go, E., Harbke, C.R., Ravikumar, P., McDonald, B., Zbeeb, K.: Evaluations of interactive learning tools among engineering students: effects of grit and gender (2018). Accessed 7 Dec 2018
  17. 17.
    Brussevich, M., Dabla-Norris, E., Kamunge, C., Karnane, P., Khalid, S., Kochhar, K.: Gender, technology, and the future of work. Staff Discussion Notes No. 18/07 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G.: Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Q. 24(1), 115–139 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ananya, G., Sraboni, D.: Gender differences in technology usage - a literature review. J. Bus. Manag. 4, 51–59 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flad, K.: The influence of social networking participation on student academic performance across gender line. Counselor Education Master’s theses: 31 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wu, T.H.: Exploring pre-service elementary teachers’ intention toward using interactive response system in teaching: a technology acceptance model approach. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang, C.P.: A study of IRS integrated instruction design-implemented with Minnan dialect course in elementary school. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Hsing Wu University, New Taipei City, Taiwan (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Butler-Pascoe, M.E., Wiburg, K.: Technology and Teaching English Language Learners. Allyn and Bacon, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sousa, D.A.: How the Brain Learns. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chiang, Y.F.: Effects of the flipped classroom model of elementary students with interactive response system on math learning. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Chung Hua University, HsinChu, Taiwan (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee, C.C.: The research on the learning effect by integrating an online instant response system into earth science teaching-a case study for the middle school students from the rural area. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang, T.H.: An elementary educational study on chinese stroke real-time response system. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dörnyei, Z., Ushioda, E.: Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: future research directions. In: Dörnyei, Z., Ushioda, E. (eds.) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, pp. 350–356 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teng, S.J.: Study on effects of mathematical learning with interactive response system on first graders in elementary school. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ke, T.H.: Integrating Kahoot! to improve student engagement: an action research study on an EFL junior high class. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kay, R.H.: Examining gender differences in attitudes toward interactive classroom communications systems (ICCS). Comput. Educ. 52(4), 730–740 (2009). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dixit, S., Shukla, H., Bhagwat, A., Bindal, A., Goyal, A., Zaidi, A.K., Shrivastava, A.: A study to evaluate mobile phone dependence among students of a medical college and associated hospital of central India. Indian J. Community Med.: Official Publ. Indian Assoc. Prev. Soc. Med. 35(2), 339–341 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bryant, S.G., Correll, J.M., Clarke, B.M.: Fun with pharmacology: winning students over with Kahoot! game-based learning. J. Nurs. Educ. 57(5), 320 (2018). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pearson, G., Young, A.T.: Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology. National Academy of Engineering. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shu-Zen Junior College of Medicine and ManagementKaohsiung CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations