The Differences Between Male and Female Learners

 

Gender differences have long plagued most facets of societies on a global level.  This has been the case in face-to-face and online education. Such differences have a significant impact on both men and women learners as well as educators. Hence, to accurately review the practices of learning and teaching, analysis of the differences in gender must first be conducted. The role of technology in distance education can be better appreciated once such differences are better understood.  Analyses of the role of gender in education strive for the common goal of discerning how to better the learning experiences of both men and women in distance education.

 

Qualitative examinations of online classroom environments have provided a means for identification of how gender differences have affected the experiences of male and female learners in education.  Gougeon (1999) details a study in which a computer conferencing course was evaluated in exploration of how male and female distance education learners meet their needs.  The framework for this study’s analysis, Tannen’s framework of female and male communication, dictates that females meet their need for connection by creating intimacy with others, while men meet their need for status by creating distance (Gougeon, 1999). Interestingly, Gougeon’s (1999) study reveals that women were more successful than men in meeting their needs throughout the course.  At the beginning of the course, men utilized four different strategies to meet their needs; this reduced to two different strategies by the end of the course.  In contrast, women maintained seven main strategies to meet their needs increasing this number to nine by the end of the course.  Clearly, then, women were far more adaptable to the computer conferencing environment than men were. The reason why women were more adaptable rests on the significant differences between the needs of women and men and how they typically meet these needs.  Face-to-face communication allows men to achieve status through elements such as competition and authoritative speech.  Tonal elements play a huge role in this, and an online environment does not easily lend to these tactics.  On the other hand, women’s needs are not as tangible and thus are more readily met in both a face-to-face environment and online environment.

 

This distinction lends itself well to discussion of the gender differences in educators in relation to the use of instructional technologies.  Campbell and Varnhagen (2002), utilizing Clarke’s delivery model to understand gender differences, discern that gender differences lie in the teaching methodologies of men and women.  Campbell and Varnhagen hypothesize women faculty are more inclined to focus on instructional methodology as opposed to delivery technology.  In other words, the discussion itself takes precedence over the technology used to facilitate the discussion.  The opposite, however, is true for men.  It is suggested that this may be because men have traditionally had better access to technology, women’s self-efficacy regarding technology has been lower than men’s, and technology has been gendered in a male-oriented fashion (Campbell & Varnhagen, 2002).  There are several reasons as to why these differences persist.  Women are still underrepresented in academia with fewer authoritative and research roles.  Furthermore, women tend to be more learner-focused which inadvertently suggests a lack of objectivity in a position of higher status.

 

This trend is reflected in the use of technology in the classroom.  Technology is readily viewed by many as gendered – that is, technology has essentially been created by men.  Consequently, women’s relationships to technology are seemingly socially-constructed.  This ideology must be broken in order for technology to be best used by both genders.  Barriers for women faculty exist – we must pay attention to the elements that build these barriers and cause apprehension for female faculty.  Personal factors including motivation and anxiety must be considered; political factors such as inequitable access must be addressed; and sociological factors such as bias towards male culture must be reviewed. 

 

In terms of technologies used, Campbell and Varnhagen (2002) cite survey results that dictate that chalkboards, handouts, and transparencies remained the most frequently used “display” technologies.  Following this, email, personal web pages, web-based resources, and computer presentation software were highlighted as frequently used modern technologies.   Moreover, females were willing to revamp a course if they felt technology would expand a course effectively.  In fact, as a method for bettering student communications and support, women faculty embraced technology more so than men faculty did.  Again, for women, the use of technology is rooted in its value for promoting interconnectivity; therefore, despite initial apprehensions of technology, it still may be more beneficial for women than men.

 

On the surface level, gender differences pose a more serious implication for women over men as women have endured more struggles in the world of academics.  However, the results of the studies and surveys discussed above suggest that both the learning and teaching styles of men hinder success in an online educational environment more than those of women’s.

 

 

Campbell, K., & Varnhagen, S. (2002). When faculty use instructional technologies: Using Clark’s delivery model to understand gender differences. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,32(1), 31-56.
 

Gougeon, T. D. (1999). Do female and male online students meet their needs differently? Introducing new data. Annual Meeting of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education.   San Antonio, TX.