SOCI  2120-­‐001  White  Paper  Submitted  to  Dr.  Max  Liboiron  Submitted  by:  Moira  Curran,  John  Follett,  Kristen  Lyver,  &  Josh  Merner  

D e c e m b e r   1 1 t h ,   2 0 1 4  

 

Gender & Student Response Systems (Top Hat)  

  2  

 

Table  of  Contents  

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2  Research  Question............................................................................................................................4  

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 4  Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 4  Response  from  Top  Hat...................................................................................................................4  Participation.......................................................................................................................................4  Why  the  Change? ...............................................................................................................................5  

I-­Methodology  and  The  User ............................................................................................... 6  Anonymity  and  classroom  participation......................................................................... 7  Recommendations  and  Conclusions ................................................................................. 9  Appendix ................................................................................ Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.  Works  cited ........................................................................... Error!  Bookmark  not  defined.    

                                           

  3  

Introduction       The  learning  landscape  at  Memorial  University  needs  to  be  agile,  and  adapt  to  changing  technologies,  and  the  ways  that  they  align  with  the  student  experience.  This  may  also  impact  how  Professors  choose  to  deliver  course  material.  This  white  paper  investigates  the  intersection  between  the  classroom  technology  software,  Top  Hat,  and  explores  if  gender  scripts  were  inscribed  into  it  during  development.  What  will  also  be  taken  into  consideration  is  how  the  implementation  of  this  technology  in  this  class  has  affected  participation.  Previous  methods  of  classroom  participation  include  speaking  during  class,  hand  raising,  and  filling  out  surveys.  These  same  methods  are  provided  via  Top  Hat,  but  this  white  paper  will  investigate  if  participation  increases,  and  attempt  to  find  any  correlation  between  a  found  increase  or  decrease  and  gender.  Throughout  this  white  paper  we  will  be  answering  these  queries,  but  referring  specifically  and  only  to  the  Fall  2014  section  001  of  Sociology  2120,  taught  by  Dr.  Max  Liboiron  at  the  Prince  Philip  Drive  campus  (will  be  referred  as  “Sociology  2120”  hence  forward).  This  group  of  students  was  used  as  subjects  during  the  primary  research  performed  during  data  collection  for  this  white  paper.  This  white  paper  will  investigate  gender  differences  in  use  of  technology  and  participation  and  using  technologies.  

 

 From  http://www.mun.ca/ciap/Planning/MUN_Annual_Report_2008-­‐09.pdf    

 

  4  

Research  Question    How  has  the  implementation  of  Top  Hat,  a  student  response  system,  effected  classroom  participation  based  on  gender?  

Methodology    

For  this  study,  our  group  administered  a  survey  (See  in  Appendix  A)  to  the  Sociology  class  SOCI  2120-­‐001  during  the  2014  fall  semester.  While  the  class  itself  consisted  of  fifty-­‐two  students,  only  thirty-­‐nine  of  the  fifty-­‐two  completed  the  survey.  Two  of  these  students  provided  us  with  inconclusive  data  by  not  disclosing  the  amount  of  times  they  felt  that  they  participated  a  class.  For  this  reason  we  excluded  those  two  students  which  left  us  with  a  sample  group  of  thirty-­‐seven  students.  

Men   Women  

22   15  

 

Findings  

Response  from  Top  Hat       In  response  to  an  email  sent  to  Top  Hat  support  that  questioned  if  Top  Hat  had  considered  gender  during  it’s  developmental  stages,  we  received  this  information.    “We  do  follow  public  standards  as  for  our  user  interface  and  general  aspects  of  Top  Hat,  to  make  it  user  friendly,  but  the  overall  goal  has  always  been  to  make  it  gender  neutral.“                                                                                                                                                            

 -­‐  Varnit  Grewal,Top  Hat  Support    

Participation    

• Due  to  an  uneven  ratio  of  men  to  women,  we  have  decided  to  express  our  findings  through  percentages  to  better  compare  and  present  the  data.  

 

  5  

   

The  first  aspect  we  looked  at  when  analyzing  our  data  was  how  students’  participation  changed  when  comparing  in  class  participation  to  that  of  Top  Hat.  We  did  this  so  that  we  could  either  confirm  or  dispute  our  hypothesis.  For  the  most  part,  regarding  participation  our  hypothesis  was  accurate.  Both  men  and  women  showed  significant  increases  in  their  level  of  participation  as  a  whole.  While  the  level  of  men  who  participated  by  1-­‐2  times/class  didn’t  change  drastically,  the  nonparticipants  changed  quite  a  bit  from  36.36%  during  In  Class  to  4.55%  while  using  Top  Hat,  taking  up  space  in  more  active  participation  levels.  Shockingly,  66.67%  of  women  self-­‐identified  as  nonparticipants  during  In  Class  discussions,  but  also  showed  the  largest  increase  in  other  levels  of  participation  when  using  Top  Hat.    

Why  the  Change?  

 

  6  

    The  data  provided  from  the  question  on  level  of  participation  In  Class  showed  us  that  men  were  more  involved  within  class  discussion  than  women.  From  this  initial  observation  we  assumed  that  if  Top  Hat  did  incourage  more  participation  within  class,  men,  who  were  already  showing  a  more  active  role  in  class  discussions,  would  increase  more  than  women.  However,  we  found  quite  the  opposite.    In  our  graph  on  Level  of  Interval  Change  (See  Apendix  A)  women  showed  the  largest  degreeof  interval  changes  (1  interval  change=  0  times/class  to  1-­‐2  times/class,  2  interval  change  =  0  times/class  to  3-­‐4  times/class,  etc.).  It  was  then  that  we  started  looking  at  validations  for  changes  in  participation  to  explain  this  phanomanon.  As  shown  in  the  graph  above,  the  validations  made  by  men  were  more  equally  spread  across  the  board,  where  over  50%  of  women  validated  that  anonymity    was  the  reasoning  behind  their  Increased  Participation.  Due  to  this  specific  finding  we  decided  to  conduct  some  research  pertaining  to  anonymity  in  a  scolastic  setting.  

I-­‐Methodology  and  The  User    Historically,  technology  has  been  the  domain  of  men.  Men  are  viewed  as  “having  a  natural  affinity  for  technology  while  women  supposedly  fear  or  dislike  it.”  (Bray,  38)  This  outdated,  sexist  rhetoric  still  lingers  in  the  public  consciousness,  coloring  how  we  view  gender  roles  in  the  use  of  technology.  Our  findings,  however,  show  that  the  opposite  is  true.  They  show  that  when  introduced  to  a  technical  means  of  participation  in  class,  Top  Hat  in  our  study,  women  in  the  class  report  they  participate  much  more  than  they  had  before  using  this  new  platform.  In  contrast,  the  men  respondents  showed  a  much  smaller  increase  in  their  self-­‐reported  use  of  the  Top  Hat  platform.  Given  this  information,  how  can  one  reconcile  the  historical  narrative  of  the  male  dominance  of  the  technological  field  with  the  evidence  that  women  are  just  as,  if  not  participatory  in  the  use  of  technology?  To  consider  this,  one  must  be  aware  of  the  I-­‐methodology  present  in  the  early  construction  of  technological  systems.    In  the  past,  men  have  primarily  been  the  ones  to  develop  technology  and  as  such,  men  were  the  ones  to  configure  their  output  to  what  they  perceived  the  user  to  be.  Because  of  the  difficulties  inherent  in  being  able  to  step  outside  of  one's  role  and  

  7  

consider  how  a  naive  user  would  approach  their  creations,  many  developers  have  fallen  victim  to  configuring  their  tech  as  if  they  themselves  are  the  user.  This  has  led  to  too  much  of  the  technology  we  have  today  being  inherently  scripted  male  with  little  consideration  to  female  users.  Steve  Woolgar  references  this  process  in  “Configuring  the  User”,  when  he  describes  the  development  of  the  DNS  (Domain  Name  Services)  protocol.  "In  configuring  the  user,  the  architects  of  DNS,  its  hardware  engineers,  product  engineers,  project  managers,  salespersons,  technical  support,  purchasing,  finance  and  control,  legal  personnel  and  the  rest  are  both  contributing  to  a  definition  of  the  reader  of  their  text  and  establishing  parameters  for  readers'  actions.  Indeed,  the  whole  history  of  the  DNS  project  can  be  construed  as  a  struggle  to  configure  (that  is,  to  define,  enable  and  constrain)  the  user.  These  different  groups  and  individuals  at  different  times  offered  varying  accounts  of  “what  the  user  is  like”.  Knowledge  and  expertise  about  the  user  was  distributed  within  the  company  in  a  loosely  structured  manner,  with  certain  groups  claiming  more  expertise  than  others  in  knowing  what  users  are  like."  (Woolgar  69)    Currently,  developers  are  beginning  to  realize  the  gender  scripted  nature  of  their  works  and  are  accounting  for  this  in  the  construction  and  development  of  their  systems  as  evidenced  by  Top  Hat's  effort  to  remain  gender  neutral.  Women  have  long  had  a  pivotal  role  in  computing  history.  One  of  the  first  programmers  to  work  with  Charles  Babbage's  analytical  engine  was  a  woman  named  Ada  Lovelace.  Today,  women  like  Sarah  Allen  are  still  pushing  the  boundaries  of  the  tech  industry  with  advances  like  her  development  of  Flash  video,  the  basis  for  video  streaming  sites  like  YouTube.  (NPR  4/29/13)      

Anonymity  and  classroom  participation    Just  as  notable  as  the  gender  differences  baked  into  designs  of  technologies,  our  findings  suggest  that  women  participate  more  in  classroom  discussions  when  they  are  solicited  from  the  students  by  the  professor  via  an  online  platform  such  as  Top  Hat.  These  discussions  can  be  such  classroom  activities  as  live  online  interactive  questions  or  comments,  and  survey-­‐based  responses.  This  level  of  participation  increases  yet  again  when  the  forum  allows  for  the  student  participant’s  name,  regardless  of  gender,  to  be  anonymous  to  both  peers  and  the  professor  though  more  so  with  women  who  gender  self  identify  as  women.      These  findings  were  echoed  across  some  of  our  research  on  the  intersection  of  gender  and  classroom  participation,  making  particular  reference  to  reasons  behind  anxieties  women  have  about  participation.    One  study  found  “students  can  find  it  difficult  to  debate  with  one  another  if  they  worry  about  expressing  their  views  or  the  impact  of  disagreeing  with  others”  (Ainsworth,  Gelmini-­‐Hornsby,  Threapleton,  Crook,  O’Malley,  and  Buda,  365–378)  the  study  also  concluded  the  following:    

  8  

“Voting  can  therefore  be  particularly  useful  to  teachers  facilitating  debates  as  they  can  swiftly  direct  students  to  issues  where  they  see  the  greatest  potential  benefit  (e.g.,  topics  that  have  provoked  the  greatest  divergence  or  those  where  students  all  agree  but  the  teacher  would  like  to  stimulate  alternative  perspectives).  In  contrast,  anonymous  debate  did  not  come  without  some  negative  consequences.  It  could  be  that  for  educational  situations,  anonymous  voting  and  public  debate  is  an  ideal  compromise  with  participants  free  to  express  their  positions  but  then  accountable  for  their  contributions  to  the  debate…”  (Ainsworth  et  al.,  365-­‐378).      While  the  previous  sample  did  not  differentiate  based  on  gender,  and  only  on  feelings  regarding  anonymity,  another  study  investigated  the  classroom  experiences  of  college  women.  This  study  found  that  “The  majority  (of  female  college  students),  however,  had  positive  things  to  say  about  their  online  classroom  experiences;  and  of  these,  a  large  number  identified  “anonymity”  as  the  most  important  positive  aspect  of  the  online  learning  environment.”  (Sullivan,  129-­‐144).      Regarding  anonymity,  one  study  compared  and  contrasted  the  effects  of  privacy  on  psychological  health,  demonstrating  that  privacy  is  generally  positive,  and  that  a  lack  of  privacy  can  lead  to  anti-­‐social  behavior  and  aggressiveness.  Though  this  was  beyond  the  scope  of  our  whitepaper,  the  most  important  takeaway  we  can  incorporate  into  our  findings  is  that  “The  most  notable  means  by  which  anonymity  can  be  positive  is  the  importance  for  privacy  on  psychological  wellbeing”  (Christopherson,  3038–3056).  This  indicates  to  us  that  a  certain  degree  of  privacy  is  positive  for  a  student  within  the  learning  environment.      When  seeking  any  correlations  between  privacy  and  gender,  “women  tend  to  use  privacy  regulation  mechanisms  within  social  situations  whereas  men  tend  to  use  privacy  regulation  mechanisms  to  escape  from  social  situations.”  (Christopherson,  3038–3056)    Christopherson  (3038-­‐3056)  expands  on  some  early  research  by  Pendersen  of  this  topic,  and  found  that  “men  and  women  did  not  differ  on  the  dimensions  of  reserve,  solitude,  or  anonymity.  However,  men  were  more  likely  than  women  to  use  isolation  as  a  form  of  privacy  and  women  were  more  likely  than  men  to  use  intimacy  with  family  or  friends”(Christopherson,  3038–3056).  As  such,  this  demonstrates  that  differences  do  exist  in  how  men  and  women  identify  with  privacy.      Beyond  the  scope  of  this  paper,  the  effects  of  group  behavior  and  anonymity  also  have  interesting  interplay  that  may  have  affected  the  outcome  of  our  survey  questions.  Our  group  speculates  that  group  behavior  may  have  had  a  correlation  with  the  bullying  and  inappropriate  comments  Dr.  Max  Liboiron  experienced  during  a  lecture  with  Top  Hat  live  updates,  but  further  investigation  into  this  is  again,  outside  the  scope  of  this  paper.      Finally,  when  investigating  CMCs  (computer  mediated  communications)  many  social  and  behavioral  factors  need  to  be  considered,  and  such  “models  and  theories  should  not  rely  exclusively  on  an  analysis  of  processes  and  principles  of  interpersonal  

  9  

interaction  in  order  to  predict  social  effects  across  the  spectrum  of  social  outcomes.”  (Tanis  and  Postmes,  955-­‐970).  Tanis  and  Postmes  (955-­‐970)  go  on  to  note  that,”  rich  interactions  ,    for  example,  interactions  that  allow  the  transmission  of  cues  to  identity  such  as  face-­‐to-­‐face,  are  superior  in  that  they  make  the  interaction  more  personal,  but  that  these  outcomes  are  not  mirrored  by  the  evaluation  of  the  interaction.  It  is  suggested  that  the  presence  of  cues  to  identity  positively  affects  interpersonal  perceptions,  but  at  the  same  time  decreases  perceptions  of  solidarity  or  entitativity”  (Tanis  and  Postmes,  955-­‐970).    

Recommendations  and  Conclusions    At  most  universities  including  Memorial,  women  make  up  about  60%  of  the  undergraduate  population  (Memorial  University  of  Newfoundland,  2009).  Yet  the  data  we  received  from  our  survey  and  the  information  obtained  via  research  has  shown  us  that  women  tend  to  have  a  much  lower  participation  rate  in  the  classroom  than  their  counterparts.  The  data  told  us  that  there  was  an  increase  in  female  participation  while  Top  Hat  use  was  anonymous.  While  some  could  conclude  that  technologies  that  offer  an  anonymous  feature  should  be  incorporated  in  the  classroom  to  encourage  female  participation,  we  disagree.  Whatever  the  reasons  are  for  this  trend  in  lack  of  participation,  something  needs  to  change  so  that  we  may  better  incorporate  and  accept  the  ideas  and  opinions  of  both  genders  in  class.  Top  Hat  had  told  us  in  an  email  that  gender  scripts  are  not  considered  in  its  development.  Anonymity  while  effective  should  not  be  viewed  as  a  solution  for  this  problem.  Top  Hat  should  consider  how  as  well  as  why  opposing  genders  participate  and  develop  their  online  forum  to  encourage  an  equal  level  of  participation  between  all  genders.                                    

  10  

Works  Cited    Bray, Francesca. "Gender and Technology." Annual Review of Anthropology 36 (2007): 37-53.  Inskeep, Steve; Montagne, Renee. "Blazing The Trail For Female Programmers" National Public Radio. Posted: 4/29/13 Accessed: 12/8/14 http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php…  Woolgar, Steve. "Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials." The Sociological review 38.S1 (1990): 58-99. Kimberly M. Christopherson. “The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog”” Computers in Human Behavior Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2007, Pages 3038–3056 Lafrance, Adrienne. "Tallying Female Workers Isn't Enough To Make Tech More Diverse" The Atlantic. Posted: 8/11/14 Accessed: 12/8/14 http://www.theatlantic.com/…/what-good-is-all-this-…/375829/ Martin Tanis, Tom Postmes “Two faces of anonymity: Paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC” Computers in Human Behavior Volume 23, Issue 2, March 2007, Pages 955–970 Memorial Unviersity of Newfoundland, “Memorial University of Newfoundland Annual Report 2008-2009”. Retrieved from: http://www.mun.ca/ciap/Planning/MUN_Annual_Report_2008-09.pdf on December 7, 2014. Patrick Sullivan. ““It’s Easier to Be Yourself When You Are Invisible”: Female College Students Discuss Their Online Classroom Experiences.” Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 2, Winter 2002: Pages129-144 Sharon Ainsworth,Giulia Gelmini-Hornsby, Kate Threapleton, Charles Crook, Claire O’Malley, Marie Buda . “Anonymity in classroom voting and debating” Learning and Instruction Volume 21, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 365–378