• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54.
• Butler, D. (2000). Gender, girls, and computer technology: What’s the status now? The Clearing House, 73(4), 225- 229.
• Carrell, L. J., & Menzel, K.E. (2001). Variations in learning, motivation, and perceived immediacy between live and distance education classrooms. Communication Education, 50(3), 230-240.
• CEO Forum. (2000, June). The Power of Digital Learning: Integrating Digital Content (Year Three Report). Washington, D.C.
• Chanlin, L. (1999). Gender differences and the need for visual control. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(3), 329-334.
• Chanlin, L., & Chuang, A. (2001). The effects of gender and presentation format in computer-based learning. Education Media International, 38(1), 61-65.
• Chapman, B. (2003). Product shootout: PowerPoint to elearning. Training, 40(3).
• Dabbs, J. M., Chang, E.-L., Strong, R. A., & Milun, R. (1997). Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geogrphic knowledge among men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 89-98.
• Freedman, K. (1989). Microcomputers and the dynamics of image making and social life in three art classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(3), 290- 298.
• Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (No. research monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
• Koballa, T. R., Jr. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in science education. Science Education, 72(2), 115-126.
• Long, J. S. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
• Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• McArthur, J. M., & Wellner, K. L. (1996). Reexamining spatial ability within a Piagetian Framework. Journal of research in science teaching, 33(10), 1065-1082.
• Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L.J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy of willingness to talk and perceived learning. Communication Education, 48, 31-40.
• Murray, C. (2003). Study reveals shift in digital divide for students, 36-37.
• Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
• Petersen, R. (2003). "real world" connections through videoconferencing-We're closer than you think! TechTrends, 44(6), 5-11.
• Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237.
• Shaw, G., Brown, R., & Bromiley, P. (1998, May-June, 1998). Strategic stories: How 3M is rewriting business planning. Harvard business Review, 76, 42-44.
• Siegele, L. (2001, April 14). The Beast of Complexity. The Economist.
• Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T.R., Oliver, J.S., and Crawley, F.E. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of science learning. In D. L. Grabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research On Science Teaching and Learning. New York, NY: Macmillan.
• Smith, W. S., & Schroeder, C. K. (1979). Instruction of Fourth Grade Girls and Boys on Spatial Visualization. Science Education, 63(1), 61-66.
• Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22, 306- 331.
• Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press LLC.
• Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250-265.
• Wheeler, S. (2002). Student perceptions of learning support in distance education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 419-429.

APA

Annetta, L. A., Slykhuis, D., & Wiebe, E. (2007). Evaluating Gender Differences of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward PowerPoint for Preservice Science Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75410

Vancouver

Annetta LA, Slykhuis D, Wiebe E. Evaluating Gender Differences of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward PowerPoint for Preservice Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2007;3(4):297-304. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75410

AMA

Annetta LA, Slykhuis D, Wiebe E. Evaluating Gender Differences of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward PowerPoint for Preservice Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2007;3(4), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75410

Chicago

Annetta, Leonard A., David Slykhuis, and Eric Wiebe. "Evaluating Gender Differences of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward PowerPoint for Preservice Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2007 3 no. 4 (2007): 297-304. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75410

Harvard

Annetta, L. A., Slykhuis, D., and Wiebe, E. (2007). Evaluating Gender Differences of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward PowerPoint for Preservice Science Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), pp. 297-304. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75410

MLA

Annetta, Leonard A. et al. "Evaluating Gender Differences of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward PowerPoint for Preservice Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 3, no. 4, 2007, pp. 297-304. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75410