You are here:

Gender Differences in Technology Integration

, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Within social studies, researchers note limited attention has been given to examining gender differences as associated with technology integration. They call for increasing the dialogue regarding gender-related technology. In response, this study explores the gender divide in secondary teachers' perceptions of effective technology integration. Using a qualitative research design, this study provides insights into secondary social studies teachers' perceptions of their pedagogical practices and technology integration. The purpose of this study is to develop an in-depth understanding of high school teachers use of technology to teach and support student learning of social studies. Teacher interviews with twelve tech-savvy practioners provide a deep and rich view of content-specific technology usage as associated with teacher attributes and characteristics. Consideration of how technology is associated with gender-sensitive pedagogical thinking and practice may help unravel the aforementioned gap in technology usage in social studies. Patterns uncovered in data analysis suggest that gender plays a critical role in social studies technology integration.


Heafner, T. (2014). Gender Differences in Technology Integration. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2841-2851). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Anderson, R., & Williams, R. (2012). Texas agricultural science teachers’ attitudes toward information technology. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 27(2), 57-68.
  2. Apple, M.W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  3. Apple, M.W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum, 3rd Edition. New York: Routledge.
  4. Bammert, M., & Arbinger, P.R. (1996). Gender-related differences in exposure to and use of computers: Results of a survey of secondary school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(3), 269-282.
  5. Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546. Norfolk, VA: SITE. Retrieved August 1, 2013 from Barton, K. (2005). Teaching history: Primary sources in history– Breaking through the myths. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10).
  6. Barton, K.C., & Levstik, L.S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahway, NY: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  7. Berson, M., & Baylta, P. (2004). Technological thinking and practice in the social studies: Transcending the tumultuous adolescence of reform. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(4), 141–150.
  8. Berson, M. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in social studies: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(a4), 486-499.
  9. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1:Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
  10. Borg, A. (1999). What draws women to and keeps women in computing? In C.C. Selby (Ed.), Women in Science and Engineering: Choices for Success, New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 102-105.
  11. Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to integrate technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 46-59.
  12. Cellsigns. (2010). Text Message Statistics. Retrieved from Cellsigns: CTIA. (2011). Reposrts, Policy Position Papers& Presentations. Retrieved from CTIA: The Wireless Association:
  13. Cohen D.J., & Rosenzweig, R. (2006). Digital history: A guide to gathering, preserving, and presenting the past on the web. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  14. Crocco, M.S.(2004),Dealingwithdifferenceinthesocialstudies:ahistoricalperspective.” International Journal of Social Education, 18(2),106-126.
  15. Crocco, M.S. (2006). Gender and social education: What’s the problem?”,in Ross, E.W.(Ed.), Social Studies: Purposes, problems and possibilities, 3rd Ed.. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, 171-97.
  16. Crocco, M.S., Cramer, J., & Meier, E.B. (2008). (Never) mind the gap!: Gender equity in social studies research on technology in the twenty-first century. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 2(10), 19-36.
  17. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
  18. Culp, K.M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved August 13, 2013, from Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook on Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. California: Sage.
  19. DeWitt, S.W. (2007). Dividing the digital divide: Instructional use of computers in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 248-279.
  20. DeWitt, P. (2011, November 17). Using social networking to build 21st century skills. Ed Weekly.
  21. Doolittle, P.E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72-104.
  22. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final fountier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
  23. Fitchett, P.G. & Heafner, T.L. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114-130.
  24. Fitchett, P.G., Heafner, T.L. & Lambert, R. (2012). Examining social studies marginalization: A multilevel analysis. Educational Policy, XX(X), 1-29. Published Onlinefirst July 19, 2012. DOI: 0.1177/0895904812453998.
  25. Friedman, A.M. (2006). World history teachers’ use of digital primary sources: The effect of training. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(1), 124-141.
  26. Friedman, A.M., & Hicks, D. (2006). The state of the field: Technology, social studies, and teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2). Available at:
  27. Frieze, C., Quesenberry, J.L., Kemp, E., & Velazquez, A. (2012). Diversity or difference? New research supports the case for a cultural perspective on women in computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 423-439.
  28. Glaser, B.G., & Straus, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
  29. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416
  30. Heafner, T. (2002). Powerful methods: A framework for effective integration of technology in secondary social studies. PhD dissertation, ProQuest Digital Dissertations Document ID No. 764702651, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
  31. Heafner, T.L. (2013). Secondary social studies teachers' perceptions of effective technology practice. International Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 2(2), 1-9.
  32. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  33. Heafner, T.L. & Fitchett, P.G. (2012). Tipping the scales: National trends of declining social studies instructional time in elementary schools. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 36(2), 190-215.
  34. Hicks, D., Doolittle, P., & Lee, J.K. (2004). Social studies teachers’ use of classroombased and web-based historical primary sources. Theory and Research in Social Education, 32(2), 213-247.
  35. Hicks, D., & Ewing, E. (2003). Bringing the world into the classroom with online global newspapers. Social Education, 67(3), 134-139.
  36. Huang, W.D., Hood, D.W., & Yoo, S.J. (2013). Gender divide and acceptance of collaborative Web 2.0 applications for learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 16, 57-65.
  37. Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.B. (1995). Constructivism and computermediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
  38. Kvale, S. (2012). Doing Interviews. Edited by Uwe Flick. London: Sage.
  39. Lau, W.W.F., & Yuen, A.H.K. (2010). Gender differences in learning styles: Nurturing a gender and style sensitive computer science classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 1090-1103.
  40. Marri, A.R. (2005). Educational technology as a tool for multicultural democratic education: The case of one US history teacher in an underresourced high school. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(4), 395-409.
  41. Martin, D., & Wineburg, S. (2008). Seeing thinking on the web. The History Teacher, 41 (3), 305-319.
  42. Marri, A.R. (2007). Working with blinders on: A critical race theory content analysis of research on technology and social studies education. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 1(3), 144-161.
  43. Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial}, 1 (1). Available:
  44. Mason, C., McGlinn, M.M., & Siko, K.L. (2005). Twenty years of technology: A retrospective view of social education’s technology themed issues. Social Education, 69(44), 155-161.
  45. Mitts, C.R. (2008). Gender preferences in technology student association competitions. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 80-93. National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations for excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved on October 1, 2012, from Pew Research Center. (2011, December 20). Global digital communication: Texting, social networking popular worldwide. Retrieved from Global Attitudes Project:
  46. Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 3rd ed. California: Sage.
  47. Saglam, H.I. (2011). An investigation on teaching material used in social studies lesson. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 36-44.
  48. Sanders, J. (2006). Gender and technology in education: What the research tells us. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol.126,ACM,NewYork,NY,available at:,L.(1993).Gender-baseddifferences in attitudes toward computers. Computers in Education, 20(2), 169-181.
  49. Sherman, T.M., Sanders, M., Kwon, H., & Pembridge, J. (2009). Middle school children’s thinking in technology education: A review of literature. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 60-71.
  50. Solomon, G., Allen, N., & Resta, P. (2003). Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education. Boston: Pearson Education.
  51. Swan, K., & Hicks, D. (2007) Through the democratic lens: The role of purpose in leveraging technology to support historical thinking in the social studies classroom. The International Journal of Social Studies Education, 21(2), 142-168.
  52. Swan, K., & Hofer, M. (2008). Information ecologies: Technology in the social studies. In L. Levstik, & C. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 307-326). Erlbaum Publishing.
  53. Swan, K., & Locascio, D. (2008). Alignment of technology and primary source use within a history classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2).
  54. Tracy, S.J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell VanFossen, P. (1999-2000). An analysis of the use of the Internet and WorldWide Web by secondary social studies teachers in Indiana. The International Journal of Social Education, 14(2), 87-109.
  55. Vanfossen, P.J. (2001). Degree of Internet/WWW use and barriers to use among secondary social studies teachers. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 57-75.
  56. VanSledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
  57. Washburn, M.H., & Miller, S.G. (2005). Still a chilly climate for women students in technology: A case study, in S.V Rosser (Ed.), Women, Gender, and Technology. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 169-181.
  58. Weber, K. & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based preferences toward technology education content, activities, and instructional methods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55-71.
  59. Whitworth, S.A., & Berson, M.J. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 2(4). Available: Wilson, E., & Wright, V. (2010). Images over time: The intersection of social studies through technology, content, and pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2)., 220-233.
  60. Wineburg, S. (2001) Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  61. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 482-515.
  62. Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspectives of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311-333.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact