Горошко Е.И.
Gendered e-learning 2.0: Computer-mediated communication in the context of an East European nation, Ukraine
Paper published in DIGITALMEDIA. EMERGINGISSUES. - PublishedbyParthaPratimDatta, printedbyRoyalHalftonCo.Kolkata. – P. 106-127.
|
Olena Goroshko is Professor of Linguistics and Sociology of Communication, Chairperson of Cross-Cultural Communication and Modern Languages Department at National Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute” (Ukraine). Goroshko’s interests cover Gender and Internet studies, Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), e-learning 2.0. She is the author of many articles and five books in these areas.
Contact details: tel: (+380) 057-7076170; fax: (+380) 057-7063623, e-mail: elegorosh@yandex.ru; http://www.textology.ru/razdel.aspx?ID=17
|
Gendered E-learning 2.0: Ukrainian Context
Abstracts
The paper enlightens the study of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) perception by male and female students Ukrainian e-Learning 2.0 context. The main research objectives are to trace the difference of CMC perception by male and female learners, clarify links between the content of study (gender related issues in CMC) and students’ effectiveness in e-Learning 2.0 in Ukraine.
The research results reveal the great peculiarities in male and female students’ perception of CMC. They show that gender-sensitive courses and mode of learning (e-learning 2.0) are connected directly with the perception of CMC by male and female learners. The intensive e-Learning 2.0 implementation into the local tertiary can be viewed as an effective step to narrow the existing gender gap in Ukrainian education.
Introduction
A growing volume of research indicates that females and males display different online verbal behavior. Females tend to participate less and receive fewer responses than do males in mixed-sex asynchronous discussion forums (Herring, 1993, 1996), whereas in chat rooms, females sometimes participate more actively and get more responses than do males, for example, because they are more frequent objects of attention (Bruckman, 1993; Rodino, 1997). At the same time, gender roles vary across cultures and, along with them, norms associated with how appropriate it is for women and men to speak and be heard in public, as well as perception of it. However, most research on online participation patterns has focused exclusively on English-speaking contexts. We might reasonably ask whether gender verbal behavior differ across cultures with respect to CMC and are there any gender differences in the perception of such behavior?
Therefore one can hypothesize that the implementation of e-Learning 2.0 into local educational context will facilitate its transformation with the following integration into the common European educational space, and put into practice step by step a gender-friendly model of education since strong patriarchy stereotypes dominate currently in local pedagogy (Bystydzienski, 2003; Goroshko, 2008). It remains rather unfriendly towards women, and gender-biased (Goroshko, 2008). In general, according to Gender Gap Index 2012 Ukraine occupies the 64 place out of 135 countries (Global Gender Gap Report, 2012, p.8). Jill Bystydzienski argues that “Ukrainian women are subject to many formal and informal barriers to their political and economic participation, yet there is very little awareness in the country, including in higher education, regarding the conditions and processes that create and maintain gender inequality. Women and men are differently located in the emerging economy (women are found usually in the small-scale, service sector) and are differently imagined as citizens, while politics is being redefined as a masculine endeavor. An important result of continuing disadvantaged position of, and discrimination against, women is the loss of potential talent and human capital to the political institutions and economies in transition to meet the challenges that lie ahead” (Bystydzienski, 2003, p.3). The situation practically remains the same after a decade.
Theoretic Background
Gendered CMC
Summarizing a great number of papers on gender peculiarities in CMC it is possible to delineate several research areas:
· Causes of variation in access, level, motivations, and scope of use between the sexes (Helsper & Eynon, 2010; Goroshko, 2012);
· An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors (Sheehan, 1999);
· Gender-linked differences in the style and content of different digital genres, genderized language in CMC (Herring, 2011);
· Gendered discourse of social-based CMC contexts (Goroshko, 2006; 2011);
· The construction of gender identity on different CMC platforms (Wolejszo, 2003; Turkle, 2005);
· Gender and power dynamics in CMC (Herring, 2003).
Herring (2003) shows that in academic discussion groups women apologize, appreciate, and thank more as well as to perceive and be upset by violations of politeness. On the contrary, men are less likely to be concerned with politeness and more readily violate online etiquette (Kapidzic, Herring, 2011, p.1).
In Internet Relay Chat rooms females type representations of laughter and smiling more, while males use more profanity, more sexual language, and sound generally more aggressive as Herring (2003) indicates. Cherny (1994) reveals similar patterns in social online games discourse: Females perform more affectionate textual acts such as ‘hugs,’ while males manifest more violent acts such as ‘kills.’ In asynchronous discussion groups, Guiller and Durndell (2006) find that although male and female students are similar in their use of individual linguistic variables (with the exception of intensifiers, which more females prefer than males), big gender differences are found in their use of many stylistic variables: Males use authoritative language and respond negatively in interactions, while females express agreement explicitly, support others, and make more personal and emotional contributions (Kapidzic, Herring, 2011, p.2).
Generalizing all English-speaking research in this area one can stress that there are three dominating approaches surrounding gender issues on the Net: The demographic agora, the male mystique, and the female frontier. Thus, Kirsteen Monteith argues that research data concerning the impact of gender on the Internet currently can be divided into three major theories:
· The first theory maintains that the Internet is gender neutral area, and that women and men can use or participate online on equal bases;
· The second theory considers the virtual realm as a reflection of the offline world where men and women operate on unequal terms, and men often dominate (Monteith, 2002);
· The third theory suggests that the Internet may be seen as a female domain less as a superhighway and more as a cozy village square, where people meet, talk, and learn, a meeting point, a place “where women are making and moving into a digital lifestyle that was previously perceived as a men’s club” (Ibid., p. 16).
Gendered e-Learning
A review of the literature concerning gender and CMC testifies that men’s and women’s communication differs but it is not the mirror of FtF differences (Herring, 2003; Goroshko, 2006).
Simultaneously one of the most widespread approaches towards viewing gender in education is based on considering gender as social and cultural construction of sex (Kuhlen, 2006). Gender mainstreaming in e-Learning considers the gender perspective for all aspects and processes of e-Learning (Ibid.). It aims as Rainer Kuhlen emphasizes “at establishing equal opportunities for men and women not by ignoring differences between the sexes but by taking into account the distinctive features which have been developed over time and under social and culture-related circumstances” (Ibid., p. 1). Within this theoretic framework the concept of potential provides a basic prerequisite for gender-friendly model of education (Metz-Göckel & Roloff, 1995). It argues that both genders (females and males) have the same potential for a great number of aspects in development at their disposal. However the realization of these potentials is stipulated socially and culturally as gender in itself depends on social circumstances and culture-dependent value systems. Therefore gender-specific behaviour in e-learning (such as taking initiatives in group processes, multitasking, delegating authorities or having preferences for domain-specific knowledge and programs) is mainly not sex-related, but is permanently constructed in social interaction (Kuhlen, 2006, p.1).
Kuhlen delineates a number of principal research questions addressed in the emerging problem-area of gendered e-Learning:
· “What are any differences in communication styles between men and women in online environments?
· Men and women have different ways of "knowing" and learning. How can these differences be applied to the online environment?
· Does an online environment facilitate or hinder women's way of learning?
· Is gender important in online learning?
· How do we manage our identity online?
· What motivates women to learn online? Are these the same things that motivate men?
· What must the characteristics of women be who are successful as online learners? Do success factors differ between men and women?” (Ibid., p.7).
The literature analysis shows there are a lot of gender differences with respect to ICT and e-learning generally (Blum, 1999; Monteith, 2002; Hongbo, 2006; Goroshko, 2008). Some findings from research testify the following: there are a lot of discrepancies between male and female perspectives and visions of e-learning (Blum, 1999; Hongbo, 2006). Primarily female perception of e-Learning was more positive than the male attitude (Blum, 1999). There were differences in self-assessment of ICT competence, self-confidence, commitments to computer science, general attitudes towards computers and professional ICT training, and expectations from the use of ICT (Derichs-Kunstmann, Auszra 1999; Dickhäuser, 2001; Henderson, 2006; 2007). Definitely males were more positive in all mentioned positions concerning attitudes towards ICT.
Some scholars say about gender biases in the culture of learning (Derichs-Kunstmann, Auszra, 1999, Blum, 1999; Bender, 2003). Thus, male learning culture is characterized as: Tendency to dominant behavior in educational situations, more frequent take-over of monitoring discourse, longer and more frequent contributions in discourse. Men are more often involved into development of enforcement strategies and elaboration and maintenance of competitive relations. They incline to competitive behavior and desire to impress others.
Female learning culture is depicted by such features as a tendency to cooperative behavior and orientation, preference for group work, willingness to be responsible for ongoing discourse and to discuss topics, supportive to others. Their contributions in discourse are shorter. Women are more open for proposals of other people and for cooperative work in general (Herring, 2011). They care also for a just distribution of learning tasks.
Additionally Susan C. Herring highlights two studies that found that men contribute significantly more to online discussion: “It isn't that women don't have ideas and/or a fact to share with others, but rather that the environment’s tone tends to drive women away” (Ibid.). Thus, men tended to assert their opinions as “facts,” whereas women tended to phrase their informative messages as suggestions, offers, and other non-assertive acts. Herring specifies towards the Facebook service that women share information, but they also socialize and support one another. In other words, the gender difference was in their communication styles, not in the actual informativeness of their contributions. The scholar viewing a social media based learning experience recommends considering the next when establishing the norms for the collaborative space: “Ensure that no one uses rude, intimidating language or challenges others, provide the ability to control the communication, and encourage social consultancy” (Ibid.). Herring argues that “the Wikipedia model of neutral facts concentrated in a single site may someday be superseded by knowledge-sharing environments with women as the primary contributors” (Ibid.).
Certain peculiarities are fixed between individual vs. group learning activities (Henderson, 2006; 2007). Additional a lot of differences are found in male and female e-learning and ICT experiences, students’ motivation and learning cultures (Blum, 1999; Kirkup, 2004; Kuhlen, 2006; Goroshko, 2008, Herring, 2011).
As speaking about gender peculiarities in CMC, usually the linguistic features that signal gender here are the same as those in FtF and include verbosity, assertiveness, use of profanity and vulgar words, politeness, rudeness, typed representations of smiling and laughter, and degree of interactive engagement (Herring, 2003, p.207). Herring stresses that “there is overall tendency for some of these behaviours to correlate more with female CMC users, and for others to correlate more with males. This is does not mean that each and every female and male manifests the behaviours; exceptions to the tendencies can readily be found. It does mean, however, that gender predict certain online behaviour with greater than chance frequency when considered over aggregate populations of users, controlling for variables such as age, topic, and the synchronicity of the medium” (Herring, 2003, p.207).
Thus male style in asynchronous modes is more aggressive, men sometimes adopt an adversarial style in cooperative exchanges, and women often appear to be aligned even when they disagree with one another.
Gendered CMC Perception
However the question is not only in what aspects female style of speech differs from the male one in CMC but how men and women perceive their communication on the Internet, to investigate how their perception of Internet differ and what background variables (i.e. age, gender, profession, status, etc.) underlie these differences. Jochen Peter and Patti Valkenburg focus on how adolescents (boys and girls) perceive the controllability, reciprocity, breadth and depth of CMC in comparison with FtF communication. They fix that socially anxious and lonely adolescents more value the controllability of CMC and perceive it as border, deeper, and more reciprocal than older, non-socially anxious and non-lonely adolescents. Also boys perceive CMC more reciprocal than girls do. Scholars also trace that the greater the adolescents’ need for affiliation, the more often they regard CMC as deeper than FtF communication. They conclude that a stronger focus on perception of CMC may enhance understanding of the Internet as a social medium (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006).
Additionally mode of CMC – synchronous or asynchronous – impacts greatly its realization and perception. In asynchronous CMC people have more time to reflect than in the synchronous one. Hence they can easily control its flow or manage if, when, how, how much and what they communicate to others on the Net, It provides more controllability to asynchronous digital discourse (Ibid., p.214).
Also as compare CMC and FtF communication the Net transmits fewer social status cues. It results that contact between internet partners may not only easily appear but it may be of bigger reciprocity “… in the sense that communication patterns feel that they and others are more responsive in internet communication than in FtF communication” (Ibid.).
One can stress that due to relative anonymity and reduced visual and auditory cues on the Net, people may more easily overcome shyness, uncertainty, fear to communicate than in FtF communicative surrounding (Wallace, 2003). Peter and Valkenburg emphasize that namely these factors make it easier to speak about a greater number of topics to feel less inhibited in disclosure of personal information on the Net (2006, p.214). While there are much e-Learning research of student satisfaction or perceptions of CMC, studies on residential student perceptions of CMC are rare. A paper survey was administered to 105 residential graduate and undergraduate students at one of American universities. Results indicate that the majority of students preferred FtF discussion over CMC for most tasks. However, CMC is selected by the students overall for simple learning tasks. Content analysis of student responses to open-ended questions reveals that some students perceive FtF-discussion to be faster, easier, and more convenient, while others perceived that namely CMC mode saves time and is more convenient. Students specify that they would learn better from CMC if their instructors are more involved with and enthusiastic about CMC. In addition speed and convenience appear to be more important to students than whether discussion is either FtF or CMC modes (Yun-Jo, Frick, 2006).
Convergent Media Computer-Mediated Communication as a Foundation for e-Learning 2.0
Sanja Kapidzic and Susan Herring consider that the development of web 2.0 technologies, including the convergence of multimodal, communicative, and collaborative trends, initiates new tendencies such as the decline of anonymity on the Net, increase of interactivity and connectedness, collaborative mode of learning, etc. They change principally not only the mode of CMC given the birth to the new term Convergent Media Computer-Mediated Communication (CM CMC), but provided principally new characteristics of communication and perception of gendered communication on the Net (Kapidzic, Herring, 2011) and new methods and tools’ development within the framework of CM CMC investigation.
Related to Web 2.0 it makes possible to the study of discourse in convergent media platforms, or what is called Computer-Mediated Discourse (CMD) (Zelenkauskaite & Herring, 2008). Herring declares that “this is of utmost importance, because CMC increasingly co-exists on a single platform with other activities and applications, including other communication modes (Herring, 2011; 2013).
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube present these CM CMC examples, offering private Inbox messages, private chat, semipublic ‘notes’, tweets, comments that resemble blog entries, and several types of semi-public ‘wall’ communication: status updates, posting of links, videos, and images, posts on others’ walls, and comments on all of the above” (Herring, 2011, p.3). This social media communicative environment is also especially rich in communicative media of different types (voice+text+emotes+avatar actions), all of which may be used simultaneously. Moreover, the combination of media sharing and text comments—on Flickr, as analyzed in the case of “Pisa pose” photographs by Thurlow and Jaworski; on YouTube, as analyzed for reactions to a multilingual comic video by Chun and Walters; and on the MySpace page of a young German musician as analyzed by Androutsopoulos—is by now a widespread multimedia phenomenon, yet it has been little studied; these are welcome empirical contributions as Herring argues (Ibid.).
As for gender aspects of CM CMC an analysis of positive and negative message tone on MySpace profiles, shows that female messages possess positive tone significantly more often than men’s messages (Thelwall, Wilkinson, and Uppal, 2010). Thelwall et al.’s study is one of a relatively small number of studies to examine gender differences in social network sites. One can mention that sites such as Facebook, Twitter, vKontakte are rapidly gaining in popularity, especially among teens, and many have incorporated synchronous chat to enhance interaction. A common characteristic of such sites is that users can create profiles and upload pictures of themselves (Boyd, Ellison 2007). A few studies analyze users’ visual self-representations in multimodal CMC environments. Siibak (2009) examines Estonian teenagers’ motivation for profile picture choice in social network sites and finds that female users tend to base their choice on looking good, whereas the motivations of males are lower (Kapidzic, Herring, 2011, p.210).
Summing up gendered CMC research Herring also claims that “new communication technologies are often invested with users hopes for change in the social order” (Herring, 2003, p.202).
The widespread of web 2.0 communicative services and CM CMC give the birth to a new type of computer-supported collaborated learning format known as e-Leaning 2.0.
This new format of e-learning increases emphasis on social learning and use of social software such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, Skype, etc. (Goroshko, 2012).In addition to virtual classroom environments, social networks become also an important part of E-learning 2.0.
E-learning 2.0 assumes that knowledge (as meaning and understanding) is socially constructed and takes place through conversations about content and grounded mutual interactions. The idea of virtual communities of practice (VCoP) constitutes the core of the e-Learning 2.0 concept (Ibid.).
Virtual Communities of Practice (VCoP)
It is considered that collaborative principles provide the foundation not only for e-Learning 2.0 but also for Virtual Communities of Practice (VCoP) model functioning. This term coined in this century describes communities of practice functioning through the Net (Brown, 2005). Usually this term VCoP describes a certain community initiated and based on collaborative human co-shared online and offline activities of any kind. Etienne Wenger argues that “communities of practice are formed by people who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor” (Wenger, 1998, p.87). Richard Brown applies this term towards virtual reality keeping all basic principle of CoP notion structure. A share, concern, or passion for something that people intend to do or learn how to do provides the base for the CoP model functioning. And “learning can be the reason for the community”, as Brown declares (Brown, 2005, p.1). Not all groups but just only the special groups can be identified as a community of practice. There are three key notions which define this type of union (group): domain, community and practice. Thus the functioning of VCoP is based on co-sharing activity, and commitment to the same principles, interests, and ideas. VCoP produces a shared set (repertoire) of knowledge, experiences, stories, tools, ways of thinking, etc. or - in short a shared practice as Brown defines it. Hence a collaborative online class or Class 2.0 can be viewed as a VCoP, since it meets all requirements specified above: its members are engaged into common shared activity and practice off- and online, committed to common (shared) goals, ideas and interests through a substantial period of time, and reproduce regularly the same activity.
VCoP and Gender
The notions of gender and gender-friendly learning environment can be viewed also through VCoP model. Thus, Victoria Bergvall declares that CoP approach in gender and communication research concentrates on the constructive practices of a group – especially mutual engagement of learning as a jointly negotiated practice of gender (Bergvall, 1999, p.273; Holmes, Meyerhoff, 1999). Rather than taking gender differences for granted (gender determinism), this approach specifies the learning and mutability gendered displays across groups or communities. This approach naturalizes intrinsic group variations not marking them as deviant (Ibid.). It is viewed as a rather effective tool for study gender peculiarities on and offline research.
Research Design
The group of students enrolled to the course: "Gender in CMC" as one of learning activities is proposed to go through online survey about their own perception of gender differences in CM CMC. The survey consists of 12 open and closed questions. It is conducted twice - before and after the course. The study was carried out with three learning groups of respondents in 2010, 2011, and 2012. All in all the survey was conducted six times or twice a year before and after completion of the course. On the whole 325 upper BA Ukrainian-students majoring in International Management (175 females and 150 males from 20 to 22 years old) have been engaged into it. The total number of surveys obtained counts 650.
There are two research objectives in the proposed study. The first is to trace the difference of CM CMC perception by male and female learners and try to establish a link between the content of study (gender related issues in CMC) and students’ perception.
The second is to try to evaluate the output results relating to the effectiveness of e-Learning 2.0 and to develop more gender-friendly model of learning within local context.
We render each group of students as VoCP or Class 2.0 taking a mind a blended learning mode of instruction for the course “Gender in CMC”.
All survey results (answers) are classified according to each separate question and time of filling (before or after the course) and hence, they are marked as input and output ones.
Results and Discussion
Analysis of the filled survey forms indicates the following.
The first survey question: "To your own experience does CMC differ from FtF communication? If "yes" in what way? If "no" in what way?” The obtained answers are summarized into the next Tables N1-2:
Table N1: Question #1 (Input Results)
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
110
|
15
|
25
|
|
Females
|
155
|
5
|
15
|
Table N2: Question #1 (Output Results)
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
137
|
9
|
4
|
|
Females
|
163
|
10
|
2
|
It possible to observe that the majority of respondents believe that CMC differs from FtF. However, women more accurately than men indicate the characteristics of these peculiarities: Lack of emotional component; eye contact; visual cues (facial expressions, gestures) in CMC.
Respondents emphasize the loose style of communication, high level of anonymity and freedom of communication namely as characteristics of CMC. Many respondents stress that it is easier to cheat in CMC, manipulate with their interlocutors. In addition there is no embarrassment, awkwardness, confusion in communication on the Net. Certain respondents consider that communicants reshape their own image in CMC according to their own wishes.
Many respondents underline gender differences both in FtF and CMC. To the respondents’ opinion men behave more confident, unceremonious, women behave more freely and men – more audacious.
Comparing male and female answers about differences between FtF and CMC one can stress that women describe these differences more accurately and give more diverse characteristics namely to CMC context.
Respondents are asked to provide own examples when the communication on the Net between males and females differs from FtF. The results obtained show that both men and women think that females and males communicate differently. There are a lot of examples of dissatisfaction when people meet in real life after the first meeting online. A few female respondents accentuate that it was very interesting to communicate online but when they met online there were practically no topics for discussion.
The results also testify gender peculiarities in perception of differences between CMC and FtF: Women possess bigger and more varied communicative experience of CMC and this way of communication drastically differs from FtF according to their opinion. The data also shows that namely women try to use on the Net much more communicative services: Skype, chats, forums, and social networks.
CMC is more significant for women making their socialization on the Net simpler according to output survey results.
The survey keeps the question about the important of non-verbal cues in communication and their practical lack in CMC. The obtained results are presented in the next Tables N3-4.
Table N3: Question #4 (Input Results)
|
|
Affect
|
None
|
More Affect than None
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
71
|
13
|
25
|
41
|
|
Females
|
113
|
34
|
5
|
23
|
Table N4: Question #4 (Output Results)
|
|
Affect
|
None
|
More Affect than None
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
76
|
10
|
58
|
6
|
|
Females
|
115
|
20
|
36
|
4
|
Both males and females consider that absence of non-verbal cues in CMC influences this communication greatly, but females explain in more detail how this lack affects the conversation: “due to the own dress the person accentuates his or her individuality”, “It is more pleasant to communicate with a person when you can hear and see her or him”, “Voice, tone, timber help to understand certain undercurrents in talk”, “It is better understand a person when you can see her/him”. Simultaneously females specify that namely the lack of non-verbal cues makes communicants reshape the conversation: We start thinking how the person looks like, construe his or her image.
Males’ answers indicate that for men the lack of non-verbal cues is not so principal as for women. According to males the possibility to use emoticons and smiles compensates greatly the lack of non-verbal cues in CMC.
One can trace the influence of gender learning context on respondents’ answers: After studying the course “Gender in CMC” the number of non-answers to this question decreased greatly both for male and female students.
In addition some questions in the survey are dealt with gender aspects of communication.
To the question “Do the women communicate otherwise than men on the Net?” majority of female students answer positively. Among peculiarities of such communication they underline the following: “Women speak more intensively, women like to speak fast and long but they can’t type speedy”, “They are more open and sincerely”, “They can relax and don’t think about their appearance”, “Women communicate on the Net more open, deeper and without fear”. However, one can observe a high level of inconsistency in the answers obtained both input and output about the intensity of communication: “Not only women but men communicate differently on the CMC”, “everything depends not only on the gender but on the concrete personality also”, etc.
Men think that women online are more relaxed and communicate more freely and without ethical restrictions”. They are more confident, and secure as well. Women are flirting more often online than in real life as men suppose.
As for the male communication on the Net women consider that they could be rather aggressive. Also they are very often pushing and outspoken. They are also not so polite in CMC than in real life. Women argue that they can’t share with men many thoughts that they can do with women.
Simultaneously men answering this question point out that with men it is possible to speak “less restricted” and “to the point”. It is possible “to speak more seriously” and “use nonstandard words”. The conversation with men on the Net resembles more as a business talk for males.
There are practically no differences between output and input results. One can observe only slight diversity in the opinions about the nature of gender differences in CMC and this trend are more pronounced among the female students.
The respondents are questioned about the importance of information concerning the gender of interlocutors.
All answers obtained are sorted into Tables N5-6.
Table N5: Question #5 (Input Results)
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Sometimes
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
101
|
13
|
25
|
11
|
|
Females
|
132
|
33
|
5
|
5
|
Table N6: Question #5 (Output Results)
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Sometimes
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
79
|
5
|
63
|
3
|
|
Females
|
135
|
0
|
36
|
4
|
As one can delineate usually communicative partners know about the sex of each other or guess at least. There are practically no differences between male and female answers. However, males are not as certain about the importance of this question as women are. After studying the course men specify only that it is not so important for them to know this fact.
The survey contains the question about the interlocutor’s sex perception differences during the talk in CMC and FtF. All answers obtained are presented in the Tables N7-8.
Table N6: Question #6 (Input Results)
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Sometimes
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
56
|
40
|
27
|
27
|
|
Females
|
102
|
38
|
30
|
5
|
Table N7: Question #6 (Output Results)
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Sometimes
|
No Answers
|
|
Males
|
69
|
15
|
53
|
13
|
|
Females
|
135
|
15
|
25
|
0
|
According to the data both men and women consider that there are more differences than similarities between CMC and FtF. However, women know more about this difference.
If one compares input and output results one can argue that after learning the course respondents (both men and women) perceive these differences more intensely and accurately. Nevertheless there are more female respondents who specify these differences in detail: “At FtF the person appearance influences greatly”, “Communicating on the Net I can’t observe the facial expression however it is sometimes positive”, “At FtF you understand which topics can’t be touched”, “FtF is more true, natural, fruitful”, “In CMC I can’t see my conversation partner usually and present myself to anybody whom I want to be”, “In CMC you can only concentrate on the topic of conversation”, “In CMC you can relax and not worrying about your own image”, when you communicate on the Net you imagine an ideal person”, “CMC differs from FtF since you estimate a person not so adequately”.
Simultaneously men also points out these differences but their specifications are not so diverse as female are: “More lie in CMC”, “the communication flows more relaxed and open”, “absence of non-verbal cues (gestures, voice, intonation) makes CMC more difficult”. Many male respondents don’t answer this question at all.
One can trace also that after the course the number of “no answers” is decreased among both genders.
Conclusions
The research results reveal the great number of peculiarities in perception of CMC by male and female students in Ukraine. They also show that gender-sensitive courses and mode of e-learning 2.0 are connected directly with the perception of CMC by both male and female students.
The perception and awareness about gender-sensitive CMC issues exist not only in academic discourse, but in everyday people’s consciousness. These differences are realized by the communicants through their everyday practices in CMC. It will be exploited later in e-leaning 2.0 models and special ICT-training.
At the elaboration and advancement of e-learning 2.0 methodology, it is useful to provide a special system to compensate the lack of emotional and visual cues in this format of learning (for example, to use more video-conferences in e-learning 2.0 or introduce special trainings to compensate theses drawbacks). It is required to work out special trainings in expanding knowledge about the CMC language peculiarities, nature of CMC. The special program is needed to sustain a high level of interaction for the whole e-Learning 2.0 process.
On regular basis it would be useful to organized virtual learning office – a certain hub to sustain and develop namely this format of learning – learning 2.0. Additionally the use of community of practice approach permits or facilitates in any way through micro situation to reach macro level (with the help of rather limited research set of tools) and understand better the general principle of learning 2.0 organization and function and gender-sensitive approach in learning.
It is necessary to develop gender-sensitive methodology of learning taking in mind all diversity of new social media and the social values generated by a society under the Internet impact.
The intensive e-Learning 2.0 implementation into the local tertiary could be rendered as an effective step to narrow the existing GDD in Ukraine.
REFERENCES
1. Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based Online Teaching to Enhance Student Learning: Theory, Practice and Assessment. - Library of Congress, Stylus, Sterling, Virginia.
2. Bergvall, V. (1999). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Language and Gender. Language in Society, 28(2), 273-293.
1. Blum, K. D. (1999). Gender Differences in Asynchronous Learning in Higher Education: Learning Styles, Participation Barriers and Communication Patterns. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network. 3(1), 46-66.
2. Boyd, D. M., Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
3. Brown, N. J. (1998). Women Gender Switching on the Internet: A Comparison of Gendered Communication Style. PhD Thesis. - Bowling Green State University. –207 p.
4. Brown, R. (2005). Pragmatic Suggestions for Growing On-line Communities of Practice. Retrieved from: http://www.associatedcolleges-tc.org/cotf/COTFXI/materials/Pragmatic-handout.pdf.
5. Bruckman, A. S. (1993). Gender Swapping on the Internet. Proceedings of INET 93. – San Francisco: CA. Retrieved from:ftp://ftp.media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/.
6. Bystydzienski, J. (2003). Developing a Women's/Gender Studies Programs University Partnership to Promote Curricular Transformation Feedom Proposal. – USAID, (Manuscript).
7. Cherny, L. (1994). Gender differences in text-based virtual reality. Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference. – Berkley, USA, 134-138.
8. Derichs-Kunstmann, K. (2004). Gender sensitive didactics for adult education. Public Workshop “Inspirations from Europe on Gender Mainstreaming”. Tallinn, Estonia, March 26-29, 2004.- Retrieved from: http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/1/5
9. Derichs-Kunstmann, K., Auszra, S. (1999). Von der Inszenierung des Geschlechterverhältnisses zur geschlechtsgerechten Didaktik: Konstitution und Reproduktion des Geschlechterverhältnisses in der Erwachsenenbildung. Retrieved from: http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/fiab/pdf/onlinetexte/Gender.pdf.
10. Dickhäuser, O. (2001). Computernutzung und Geschlecht. Münster-Berlin: Waxmann. - 166s.
11. Global Gender Gap Report, (2012). World Economic Forum. Retrieved from: http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm.
12. Goroshko, O. (2012). Class 2.0 in Ukraine: Gender Analysis. Femmes et Nouveau Médias (ed. Fatima Sadiqi), Rutledge. 131-154.
13. Goroshko, O. (2008). Gender equity through gender teaching online. Proceedings of the 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education. - 2008. – Barcelona GUNI. - Vol. 3. Higher education and gender equity. – 300-342.
Goroshko, O. (2006). Netting Gender. Henrike Schmidt, Katy Teubener, Natalja Konradova (Eds.): Control + Shift. Public and Private Usages of the Russian Internet. Norderstedt, 106-119.
14. Guiller, J., & Durndell, A. (2007). Students’ linguistic behavior in online discussion groups: Does gender matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2240-2255.
15. Helsper, E.J. & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence?. British Educational Research Journal, 36 (3), 503-520. London: Routledge.
16. Henderson, M. (2007). Online Communication and Collaboration: a new kind of teaching? The Education Technology Guide, 18. 52-54.
17. Henderson, M. (2006). Sustaining the professional development of teachers through a model of community of practice. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 2006. November 2006, Adelaide.
18. Herring, S. C. (In press, 2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured , and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. M. Tester (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2011: Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp. 1-25). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Prepublication version: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/GURT.2011.prepub.pdf
19. Herring, S. (2011). A Difference of Communication Styles // The New-York Times Opinion Pages. - Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/communication-styles-make-a-difference.
20. Herring, S. C. (2003). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender (pp. 202-228). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Retrieved from:http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/gender.power.pdf.
21. Herring, S. C. (1996). Bringing familiar baggage to the new frontier: Gender differences in computer-mediated communication. In J. Selzer (Ed.), Conversations (1069-1082). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Retrieved from: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/conversations.1996.pdf
22. Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3 (2). Retrieved from:http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ejc.doc
23. Holmes, J. & Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The Community of Practice: Theories and Methodologies in Language and Gender Research // Language in Society. – Vol. 28. – P. 186-189.
24. Hongbo, S. (2006). Effects of Gender and Perceived Interaction on Learner motivation, Sense of Community and Learner Role in Internet-Based Distance Education. PhD Thesis. The College of Education of Ohio University. – 279p. - Retrieved from: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi/Song%20Hongbo.pdf?acc.
25. Kapidzic, S., & Herring, S. C. (2011). Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: Have patterns changed? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 39-59. Retrieved from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01561.x/full
26. Kirkup, G., (1995). The Importance of Gender as a Category in Open and Distance Learning. Paper presented at the conference Putting the Leaner First: Learner-centered Approaches in open and distance learning. Cambridge, UK.
27. Kuhlen, R. (2006). Collaborative e-learning - an opportunity to identify and to overcome gender barriers. - Retrieved from:http://www.inf-wiss.uni-konstanz.de/People/RK/MATERIALIEN/Vortraege06-Web/RK-elearning-gender060106-WordV.pdf.
28. Metz-Göckel S., Roloff Ch. (1995). Ungeschadet des Geschlechts... Das Potentiale-Konzept und Debatten der Frauenforschung. Wetterer, Angelika [Hrsg.]: Die soziale Konstruktion von Geschlecht in Professionalisierungsprozessen. Frankfurt/M. - New York. - 263-286.
29. Monteith, K. (2002). Gendered Learning and Learning About Gender Online, A Content Analysis of Online Discussion. - Retrieved from: http://www.odeluce.stir.ac.uk/docs/GenderedLearning.pdf.
30. Peter J. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Research Note: Individual Differences in Perceptions of Internet Communication. European Journal of Communication, 21(2), 213–226.
31. Rodino, M. (1997). Breaking out of Binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. JournalofComputer-MediatedCommunication, 3(3), 12-56. Retrieved from:http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/rodino.html.
32. Siibak, A. (2009). Constructing the self through the photo selection - Visual impression management on social networking websites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3, article 1.
33. Sheehan, K. B. (1999). An Investigation of Gender Differences in Online Privacy Concerns and Resultant Behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(4), 24-28.
34. Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D. & Uppal, S. (2010). Data mining emotion in social network communication: Gender differences in MySpace, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 190-199.
35. Turkle Sh. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. – London: Simon & Schuster.
36. Wallace, P. (2003). The Psychology of the Internet. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Wolejszo, S. (2003). Gender trouble and the construction of gender identity on Internet chat sites. MA Thesis, University of Manitoba (Canada). – 195 p.
39. Yun-jo An, Y.-J., & Frick, T. (2006). Student perceptions of asynchronous computer-mediated communication in face-to-face courses. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 5. Retrieved from:http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/an.html
40. Zelenkauskaite, A., & Herring, S. C. (2008a). Television-mediated conversation: Coherence in Italian iTV SMS chat. Proceedings of the Forty-First Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-41). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. Preprint: Retrieved from:http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/hicss08.pdf