MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2247675537

ICT, learning and the potential of androgynity

2007· article· en· W2247675537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Agneta Gulz, Magnus Haake

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications (Lund University) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDominance (genetics)Class (philosophy)Social psychologyEthnic groupPedagogySociologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baylor and collaborators have demonstrated (Baylor & Plant, 2005; Baylor et. al., 2006) that the use of virtual pedagogical coaches portrayed as young and attractive women can increase the willingness of female students to apply for technical education and to help increase their selfefficacy. Pedagogical processes such as role modelling and identification seem to be involved (cf. Bandura, 1977; Bandura et al., 1981). However, when analysing Baylor et al.’s results in detail, it appears that the increase in selfefficacy partly stems from a general conception of female engineers as less competent than male: “If she can do it, then I can do it”. This implies a potential conflict between a short-term pedagogical goal as to recruitment and boosted self-efficacy in students, and a long-term pedagogical goal regarding a desired change of gender prejudices and stereotypes. In an ongoing project (“Challenging Gender Stereotypes – using Virtual Pedagogical Agents”) we explore the possibilities to use androgynous virtual coaches for recruitment purposes, with a focus on students applying for educations with clear male or female dominance (and thus associated with gendered stereotypes). By June this year we expect to have results from an empirical study with about 100 participants, with qualitative as well as quantitative data. It is this study that we would like to present and discuss at the conference. Furthermore we wish to address and problematize broader issues on gender stereotypes and gender representation in the pedagogical use of digital media (and related issues regarding class, ethnicity, etc.). In our view, potentials, pitfalls as well as responsibilities accompany the increased degrees of freedom of representations in digital media, and we want to discuss how decisions regarding whose voice and whose appearance shall be exposed (in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, class, regional subgroup, etc.) can be made. References ”Challenging Gender Stereotypes – using Virtual Pedagogical Agents”; http://wwwold.eat.lth.se/Personal/Magnus/project_GLIT/HomePage_Eng.htm Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory, Prentice Hall. Bandura, A., & Schunk D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest throught proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598. Baylor, A. & Plant, E. (2005) Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of appearance on female choice. Proceedings of AI-ED (Artificial Intelligence in Education), Amsterdam. Baylor, A., Rosenberg-Kima, R.., & Plant, E. (2006). Interface Agents as Social Models: The Impact of Appearance on Females’ Attitude Toward Engineering. CHI 2006 (Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems). Montreal, Canada. Gulz, A. & Haake, M. (2006) Pedagogical agents – design guide lines regarding visual appearance and pedagogical roles. IV International Conference on Multimedia and ICT in Education (M-ICTE2006), Sevilla, 2006. Gulz, A., Ahlnèr, F., & Haake, M. (submitted) Visual femininity and masculinity in synthetic characters & patterns of affect (submitted). Haake, M. & Gulz, A. (2007) Virtual Pedagogical Agents: Stylisation for Engagement. Interfaces Magazine 70, Spring 2007 (in press). Haake, M. & Gulz, A. (submitted): Aesthetic stereotypes and virtual pedagogical agents.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications (Lund University)Same topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207