gender inclusivity in secondary chemistry: a study of male and female participation in secondary...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 14 November 2014, At: 10:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Gender Inclusivity in SecondaryChemistry: A study of male and femaleparticipation in secondary schoolchemistryAndrew Cousins aa The University of Queensland , AustraliaPublished online: 01 May 2007.

To cite this article: Andrew Cousins (2007) Gender Inclusivity in Secondary Chemistry: A studyof male and female participation in secondary school chemistry, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 29:6, 711-730, DOI: 10.1080/09500690600823508

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600823508

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500690600823508

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600823508

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 29, No. 6, 1 May 2007, pp. 711–730

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/07/060711–20© 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690600823508

RESEARCH REPORT

Gender Inclusivity in Secondary Chemistry: A study of male and female participation in secondary school chemistry

Andrew Cousins*The University of Queensland, AustraliaTaylor and Francis LtdTSED_A_182288.sgm10.1080/09500690600823508International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & [email protected]

This paper gives a nuanced analysis of participation rates in secondary chemistry by developing the“story” behind national trends and subject selection patterns within an independent school locatedin a large Australian city. It supplements the documented quantitative data by presenting a case–study where 30 Year 12 chemistry students were interviewed about what motivated them to enrolin secondary chemistry. The students’ comments indicate that, despite the quantitative transfor-mations that demonstrate increasing female success over the past few decades, chemistry is nottotally gender inclusive. Secondary chemistry has not yet reached total gender inclusion due to thecommon gender differences that still occur in the students’ motivation to select chemistry and theinfluence that gender stereotypes still have on students’ subject selection.

Keywords: Australia; Gender Inclusivity; Secondary School Chemistry

Introduction

In recent years there has been a great deal of research in Australia and elsewherecarefully examining the factors that affect students’ success at secondary school (see,e.g., Allen & Bell, 1996; Collins, Kenway, & McLeod, 2000; Cortis & Newmarch,2002; Davison, Trudy, Blye, & Ann, 2004; Houtte, 2004; Lamb, 1998; Rop, 1999;Tesse, 2000; Tesse, Davies, Charlton, & Polesel, 1995; Tesse, McLean, & Polesel,1993). Through research and longitudinal studies such as these it has been demon-strated that socio-economic background is the factor most closely correlated with

*The School of Education, The University of Queensland, 4072, Queensland Brisbane, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

712 A. Cousins

students’ success in the physical sciences (chemistry and physics). The indicatorsused to validate or measure this success are the quantitative analyses of participationand performance data (Collins et al., 2000; Kamperos, 2000; Tesse, 2000).

The ability to quantify and measure educational success is essential in analysingparticipation and performance patterns effectively (Kenway, Willis, Blackmore, &Rennie, 1997). It is the need to define and quantifiably measure educational successby using the indicators such as participation rates that has provided the necessaryframework to analyse the advances made by some females in subjects such assecondary chemistry but also to analyse the current debate concerning boys’ under-achievement levels (e.g. Collins et al., 2000; Connell, 2000; Epstein, Elwood, Hey,& Maw, 1998; Foster, 2000; Francis, 2000; Hey, Leonard, Daniels, & Smith, 1998;Houtte, 2004; Lingard & Douglas, 1999; Martino, Lingard, & Mills, 2004; Tesse,2000; Tesse et al., 1995). Success, Kenway et al. (1997) conclude, is a complexissue, a minefield, that is not easy to negotiate. Much of the treachery in formulatinga single definition of success is intrinsically linked to the subjective and objectivemeanings it can take on (see, e.g., The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals forSchooling in the Twenty-First Century, 1999). It can be argued that these aresituated at the opposing ends of a spectrum: at one extreme, success can be definedusing numerical values or criteria-based assessment; while, at the other extreme,success can be measured using less tangible emotional indicators. For somestudents, the objective, numerical definition implies gaining a result of at least 50%or satisfactorily completing the required goals in set tasks; for educators, success issometimes objectively defined by the number of students enrolled in their subjectarea. Subjectively, success can be defined by assessing whether a student is strivingto reach predetermined goals and starting to develop a sense of self-worth as onenegotiates the curriculum, culture, and life (Kenway et al., 1997). Clearly, carefulconsideration must be given to the meaning of success, to ensure the outcomes forstudents that are measurable and meaningful. Definitions of success are incorpo-rated into every facet of school life, whether this is in the way staff implement genderequity programmes or students outline their own academic goals. For the purpose ofthis paper, the notion of educational success focuses on participation rates. Thispaper reports on a study that is investigating which males and females participate insenior chemistry and what their motives for selecting this subject are.

Participation patterns are tested as a measure of “educational success” by combin-ing the objective and subjective meaning of educational success through the analysisof numerical participation data and investigating what motivates students in theirsubject selection. Participation patterns are not concerned with the quality of thecandidature, merely the quantity. In many parts of the literature, the discussion ofparticipation patterns is focused on retention rates, in particular, by comparing femaleand male enrolments (Epstein et al., 1998; Lingard & Douglas, 1999). Such a preoc-cupation with publicly measuring success with the aid of league tables and enrolmentdata has promoted a neo-liberalist version of education that is committed to individ-ual choice. This has inadvertently created an academic hierarchy based on prestige,reputation, and competition that has effectively forced many students to unknowingly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gender Inclusivity in Secondary Chemistry 713

enter a marketplace where male and female successes are measured against each other(Apple, 2001; Lingard & Douglas, 1999). This, Cox (1996) warns, is a temptationthat should be resisted as it constructs a competing victim approach to analysis thatis often based on the premise of locating “blame” and “credit” (Rowe, 2000).

Nationally Documented Participation Statistics in Science

The mix of students staying at school until matriculation in Australia has altereddrastically over the past 20 years (Collins et al., 2000; Fullarton & Ainley, 2000; Tesseet al., 1995). In 2000, of the 2 million people aged 15–24 years who left school, two-thirds did so after completing Year 12, the final year of school in Australia. In 2000,young men were more likely than young women to have been early school leavers(39% compared with 27%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001). The Collins et al.(2000) report revealed that in 1999 the apparent retention rate to Year 12 for femalesstood at 78.5%, and for males was 66.4%. (The retention rate is calculated as thenumber of fulltime students currently in Year 12 divided by the number of studentsin their first year of secondary schooling.) According to Collins et al., staying at schooluntil matriculation has effectively become the norm. This trend is illustrated by Figure1, which shows the apparent retention rates to matriculation over the period 1971–2004 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004; Collins et al., 2000, p. 36).

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 1. Apparent retention rates, Australia 1971–2004. Source: ABS, Schools Australia: National Report(s) on Schooling in Australia, Australian Department of Education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

714 A. Cousins

Figure 1. Apparent retention rates, Australia 1971–2004. Source: ABS, Schools Australia: National Report(s) on Schooling in Australia , Australian Department of Education.Figure 1 demonstrates that during the 1980s an acceleration of the retention ratesfor all males and females at matriculation did occur. Collins et al. (2000), however,add that while retention rates for females have steadily increased, retention rates formales seem to be more prone to fluctuations in accordance with economic highs andlows. The overall increase in retention rates can be attributed to a variety of factors,such as the growing importance placed on tertiary qualifications and vocationaleducation, recession and economic downturn combined with the abolition of unem-ployment benefits for 16 to 17 year olds, and increased financial assistance for youngpeople staying at school in the low-income brackets (Lamb, 1998).

McGaw’s (1996) data support the increasing apparent retention rates for all malesand females at matriculation through a comparative analysis of each State in Australia.During the 1960s, McGaw reports that in most Australian States approximately 20%of the student population stayed at school until matriculation. However, by 1990 insome States, such as South Australia, retention rates were as high as 90%. Since then,retention rates have plateaued. Fullarton, Walker, Ainley, and Hillman (2003) notedthat, in the period 1994–2001, the gap between males and females staying on at schoolhas steadied at approximately 8% and that approximately 78% of each cohort staysat school until matriculation. Such stagnation has not occurred in the scienceenrolment patterns; rather, it has been suggested that in some science subjects,especially the physical sciences, enrolment numbers as a percentage of the cohort aredeclining rapidly, returning to enrolment levels equivalent to those of the mid-1980s(Dekkers & de Laeter, 2001).

Dekkers and de Laeter (2001) have reported that science enrolments in Australiaincreased as the school population increased, peaking in 1992. They concur withFullarton et al. (2003), McGaw (1996) and Tesse et al. (1995) that, as a percentageof the Year 12 cohort, the enrolment numbers in the sciences actually represent anoverall decline in participation rates. Dekkers and de Laeter conclude with theimportant point that the gap between the Year 12 cohort numbers and the total Year12 science enrolment continues to widen. Tesse et al. (1993) suggest such adownturn in physical science enrolments can in part be linked to a growing numberof Vocational Education and Training courses now being offered in schools. AsFullarton and Ainley (2000) have demonstrated, students who enrol in a VocationalEducation and Training course are less likely to enrol in mathematics, humanities,and social sciences, languages other than English, and biological sciences, and one-quarter as likely to enrol in a physical science.

Fullarton and Ainley (2000) reported that there had been a decline in the indexvalue (the sum of the equivalent full-year enrolments in a given subject area dividedby the total number of equivalent full-year enrolments in all areas) for both malesand females enrolling in the physical sciences (males, 10.2 in 1993 to 8.5 in 1998;and females, 5.6 in 1993 to 5.3 in 1998). They demonstrate that in science there isonly a small difference in the proportion of enrolments between male and femalestudents but confirm a difference in enrolment between the different sciencesubjects. The difference can be displayed by dividing senior secondary science intotwo categories—the biological and other sciences, and the physical sciences. In the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


physical sciences 62% were male, whereas 60% of students enrolling in the biologi-cal and other sciences category were female.

The changing student retention rates illustrated in Figure 1 have alteredenrolment patterns in all subjects. Students now have a greater range of subjectsfrom which to select, which has resulted in subjects such as chemistry seeing anoverall decline in enrolments (McGaw, 1996). At a school level, an importantstudent consideration is subject selection. Kenway et al. (1997) point out that therelationship between subject status and success further reduces the potency ofachievement level as a tool for discrimination of “successful” educational outcomes.To be of any use, performance or achievement level as a solitary measure of successmust acknowledge that each subject is located in an ordered hierarchy. That is,throughout schooling not all subjects are perceived to be of equal importance orconsist of subject matter that is of comparable academic rigor. Kenway et al. (1997)have argued:

When success is associated with academic performance high marks are often notenough. “Real” academic success depends on the status of the subjects that are taken.The high status subjects are the “hard” sciences, physics and chemistry, and the higherlevels of mathematics, including calculus—subjects which are regarded as pre-requitesfor entry into tertiary education for training related to high status careers, like medicine,engineering and some sciences. (p. 34)

The hierarchical arrangement of subjects at matriculation is an issue at the core ofthe comparative gender debate. It has been demonstrated by Collins et al. (2000)and Lamb and Ball (1999) that males and females have very distinctive patterns inthe selection of subjects; that is, subject selection is gendered. In an Australia-widestudy, Lamb and Ball classified matriculating Year 12 students’ subject selectioninto eight different subject groups—Arts and Humanities, Business Studies,Business Studies and Humanities, Business Studies and Sciences, Sciences andMathematics, Sciences and Humanities, Health Sciences and Physical Education,and Vocational Education and Technology—which were subsequently divided into20 different subject clusters and analysed for gendered patterns in subject selection.They found that, in 1999, 23.9% of males were enrolled in the Science and Mathe-matics subject grouping compared with 9.2% enrolled in the Arts and Humanitiesgrouping. When the same comparison was undertaken for the female enrolment, itwas found that 15.1% enrol in the Science/Mathematics grouping compared with14.0% enrolling in the Arts/Humanities subject combinations.

These enrolment differences suggest that subject selection for males and femalescontinues to be gendered, with males demonstrating a preference for enrolling inScience/Mathematics over Arts/Humanities subject combinations, while females areequally likely to enrol in either subject combination. Therefore, based on theseparticipation rates, it is possible to conclude that males have an affinity for theScience/Mathematics combination. In general terms it has been argued that femalestend to be far more adventurous in the selection of their subjects than their malecounterparts (Collins et al., 2000; Lingard & Douglas, 1999). The two most popularclusters for females, from the Sciences and Humanities grouping, contain five out of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

716 A. Cousins

the eight core curriculum areas. Alternatively, males tend to focus on the mathemat-ico-logical formulaic subjects, tending to make more traditional subject selectionsirrespective of their competency at the subject (Collins et al., 2000). Throughsubject selection this suggests that many males and females are simply living out andreinforcing gender stereotyping (Lingard & Douglas, 1999). In other words, thenotion of symbolic subject gendering, where certain subjects are classified as “malesubjects” or “female subjects” based on traditional gender, stereotypes continues tooccur. But what are the major factors that influence a student to enrol in physicalscience subjects in the first place?

Reasoning for Selecting Science

Dalgety and Coll (2004) have reported that peers, parents, teachers, and relatives allhave an influence over students’ enrolment choices. It has also been established thatthese factors exert a greater influence over female students. Many students in tertiaryscience still subscribe to the stereotypical images of chemistry and chemists; that is,they link chemistry with laboratory work, experiments, and white coats (Dalgety &Coll, 2004). In a study investigating gender and physics, Reid and Skryabina (2003)discovered that females were drawn to themes that had high social relevance, whilemales were more attracted to those themes that were perceived to have a highmechanical or practical relevance. Their finding was verified by Jones, Howe, andRua (2000) who argue that there remains a gender difference in science experience,attitudes, and perceptions of science courses. Conversely, in work undertaken bySalta and Tzougraki (2004) no observable difference was noted between males andfemales regarding interest, usefulness, and the importance of Year 11 chemistry.Nevertheless, Salta and Tzougraki did reveal that females have a tendency to expressnegative attitudes regarding the course difficulty by perpetuating a social stereotypethat males are born to be scientists or chemists. Despite the prevalence of thesenegative images, Dalgety and Coll claimed that normative beliefs (a belief formed byan individual determining the relative importance of direct and inferred behaviourexhibited by salient associatives) have less relative importance in determiningenrolment behaviour when they are compared with a student’s previous experience.Dalgety and Coll conclude that if chemistry at a tertiary level is to continue to be anattractive alternative for students, the negative attitudes towards chemistry will haveto be conquered. They suggested the science community needs to have a greater rolein school-based initiatives to develop relationships that are salient. Thus any investi-gation of enrolment choices should include an analysis of the factors affecting thestudents’ selections if it is to uncover the “story” behind the numerical data.

Purpose

As previously discussed, in the literature there are numerous instances where large-scale quantitative statistical analysis of Australia-wide State trends have been welldocumented (for example Allen & Bell, 1996; Collins et al., 2000; Fullarton & Ainley,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


2000; Fullarton et al., 2003; McCann, 1995; McGaw, 1996). This paper reports ona study that aims to supplement documented large-scale quantitative analysis with asmaller-scale, nuanced qualitative analysis of case-study data from students enrolledin secondary chemistry at an independent school in a large Australian city in theAustralian state of Queensland where the researcher is one of six secondary chemistryteachers.

The School

The school has an enrolment of approximately 1160 students ranging from Pre-school to Year 12. Currently 145 students are enrolled in Year 12, and of these 48have selected chemistry (selecting chemistry for the purpose of this study means thatstudents have been credited with at least one semester). As with all senior students atthis school, the students selecting secondary chemistry have several ways in whichthey can approach matriculation. In the past 4 years all students enrolled at theschool have had the opportunity to select and combine the locally accreditedQueensland Studies Authority and the International Baccalaureate (IB) courses as amethod of matriculating and gaining their senior (school leaving) certificate.

The interview and student participation data that have been collected in thisresearch comes from students who originate from a similar socio-economic status.The school is a co-educational independent, Christian, interdominational schoolthat was founded in the early 1980s. It is a school that advertises excellence in allaspects of education by nurturing its students’ academic, social, and emotionaldevelopment. The school promotes itself as having a commitment to being aneducational leader in touch with an international curriculum and the needs oftertiary institutions. Many of the students enrolled at the school are from profes-sional families who place a great deal of importance on a high quality education fortheir children (The School Handbook 2004).

This study of participation patterns can be broadly divided into two dependentsections, baseline quantitative data and semi-structured student interviews. Thelongitudinal data from the school’s extensive enrolment records for 1996–2003 werecollated and analysed for any significant patterns or trends. This was done to helpcontextualise the school in relation to the national and state data. To help unpackand develop a more nuanced analysis of this baseline data, a sample of 30 students(15 male and 15 female) selecting chemistry from the 2003/04 cohort wereinterviewed; 23 of these participants were members of the researcher’s chemistryclass, with the remaining seven selected from the other class based on their enrol-ment in IB chemistry and their sex. This resulted in a sample containing an equalnumber of males and females and all of the students who had enrolled in the IBprogramme for that cohort. The 30 students participated in a semi-structuredinterview where discussion focused on the question of why they selected secondarychemistry. Prior to these interviews the purpose of this study was explained to thepupils and written permission was gained from both the students and their parent/guardian. An integral part of obtaining this permission was providing the students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

718 A. Cousins

with a verbal and written explanation about the purpose of this study. At this time itwas explained to the students that participation was optional and that pseudonymswould be used throughout the paper. It was also explained to the students, both as agroup and individually, that any information discussed during the interviews wasstrictly confidential.

Researchers such as Boaler (1997) have claimed that the generalisability ofresearch focusing on small groupings, in this case a single school with specificreference to one cohort, could be questionable. It is acknowledged that it would befutile to solely use the findings from this study to make recommendations about theinclusivity of secondary chemistry in relation to regional or national policy. The trueacademic value of this study is derived from the way that as a case study it providesthe “story” behind the quantitative data. It probes the reasons why a group of “real”students from similar socio-economic backgrounds have selected secondary chemis-try and what motivates males and females to select chemistry, thereby evaluatingwhether the quantitative female success demonstrated by the enrolment patterns inchemistry equates to gender inclusivity.

Who Selects Secondary Chemistry and Why? Baseline quantitative information

To help provide some background data for the students participating in this study itis useful to analyse how they performed in the Junior Secondary core subjects. Animportant part of developing a picture of why students select chemistry is to evaluatewhich males and females select chemistry. Students’ results for mathematics,science, study of society, and the environment—a subject where students study acombination of history, geography, and civics—and for English in Junior Secondaryschool were tabulated and studied for achievement trends within and between eachsubject each semester for Years 8–10. In all four subject areas, when comparingthose males and females enrolled in chemistry with the remainder of their cohort,the bulk of these students scored above the median scores in their core juniorsubjects; that is, they are located in the upper quartiles. This analysis shows that thesample cohort is, on average, more academically successful than the other studentsin their cohort based on their achievements in all four of the core Junior Secondarysubjects. However, within the group selecting chemistry at the completion of Year10, females tend to be more successful in mathematics, science, study of society, andthe environment and in English, whereas males tend to be more successful atscience—while mathematics achievements appear to be gender neutral. These datademonstrate that students selecting chemistry at this school, regardless of gender,are academically achieving above average and are capable mathematicians.

Subject Selection

Enrolment trends in chemistry at the school over the period 1996–2004 are atypicalwhen compared with the literature, but this is not unexpected as these types of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


literature report on large-scale state and national trends (e.g. Dekkers & de Laeter,2001; McGaw, 1996). Throughout this period the numbers of students enrolling insecondary chemistry (see Figure 2) have remained reasonably constant, therebyrequiring two or three classes of chemistry to cater for the number of studentsenrolled. The exact number of Year 11 students enrolling in chemistry and beingcredited with at least one semester of chemistry between 1996 and 2003, as Figure2 indicates, ranges between 38 and 59 students. While on the surface thisrepresents a significant difference of up to 21 students, or a possible variation of36% between any two cohorts, there are no definitive trends or patterns that resultfrom this fluctuation. Clearly, chemistry enrolments have remained strong and fairlyconsistent at the school.Figure 2. Longitudinal enrolment patterns in chemistry at the sample schoolThere are also no definite trends regarding the longitudinal enrolment patterns ofmales or females in chemistry. Again this is not unexpected; as Lingard and Douglas(1999, p. 110) have argued, the numbers of males and females enrolled in subjectssuch as chemistry and mathematics tends to level out when one compares femalesand males from higher socio-economic backgrounds. As has been discussed, manyof the students attending this school come from professional families who haveselected this school for its advertised academic rigor.

In six out of the eight years in the period 1996–2003, the percentage of males andfemales with reference to the female and male population for that cohort are within10 percentage points of each other. Nevertheless, despite this small gap in enrolment

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 2. Longitudinal enrolment patterns in chemistry at the sample school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

720 A. Cousins

numbers in five out of the eight years in the period 1996–2003, a slightly greaternumber of females have selected chemistry (see Figure 2). This demonstrates that inrelation to enrolments the number of males and the number of females selectingchemistry are comparable. However, it is reasonable to suggest that some groups offemales are experiencing equal or slightly greater success than some groups of malesin relation to participation patterns.

The data collected for the 1996 and 2003 Year 11 cohorts represent the mostextreme differences between male and female enrolment in chemistry, where thedifference reaches approximately 20% in both instances. These two extremes arelocated at either end of the investigated time period, and the absence of any discern-ible trends in the years in between further reinforces the general comparabilitybetween the success that male and female students experience in relation to partici-pation rates.

When the enrolment of students is compared with the number of males and thenumber of females enrolled in the cohort it demonstrates that in four of the eightyears collated (1998, 1999, 2002, and 2003) the larger enrolment in chemistry bygender can be attributed to more male or female students in that particular cohort(see Figure 2). If there are more females in Year 11, for example in 1998 and 2002,there are a greater number of females enrolled in chemistry and therefore they makeup a greater percentage of the chemistry cohort. Therefore, the number of males andfemales actually enrolling in chemistry in these instances is directly related to thenumber of males and females in the Year 11 cohort. However, what is interesting isthat in 1996, 2000, and 2001, despite fewer females actually enrolling in the Year 11cohort, there are significantly more females from this cohort who have enrolled inchemistry (see Figure 2). It could therefore be hypothesised that female students atthis school are actually experiencing greater success than males in these years inrelation to the participation patterns. To develop a more nuanced understanding ofthese quantitative trends, the student interviews were carefully scrutinised.

Who Selects Secondary Chemistry and Why? Semi-structured student interviews

When the semi-structured interviews were analysed for patterns and trends toexplain the continuing strong enrolment in chemistry, four major areas of discussionabout participation rates emerged: motivation for selecting chemistry, the IBcontext, perception of difficulty, and subject clusters. These interviews wereinstigated by questions such as “Why did you select secondary chemistry?”, “Whatother subjects have you selected with chemistry?”, and “What were the main thingsthat influenced you in selecting chemistry?”.

Motivation for Selecting Chemistry

Three explanations motivating students to select chemistry at the school emergedfrom the data:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


1. The socio-economic background or occupation of the parents/guardian whoenrol their child at the school.

2. The post schooling aspirations of the students.3. The experience that students have during Junior Secondary science.

Many of the students interviewed indicated that the last two of these explanationswere the main reason for enrolling chemistry. Thus typical responses from thestudents, when asked about why they selected chemistry and what factors influencedtheir decisions to select chemistry, were:

Um, I actually always liked a bit of chemistry like in Grade 10 when I got a bit of aglimpse of it when we were doing it and I just chose it I really liked it so … (Matt)

Jenny: Mostly because it’s a prerequisite and it will get you into any course and it’s areally broad science and you can do any job with it really.

Mr C: So when you say it’s a prerequisite, have you any thing in mind?Jenny: Um well I don’t really know but any science degree, you know they all say

chemistry and physics, and I have vet science which I’m considering ….

I suppose my Dad’s an engineer. I want to be an engineer to follow him, but not in thesame path and I just figured Engineering courses, all them require either physics orchemistry, or both. So I figure, [yeah] that will leave my option open for when I getolder. (Fredrico)

It became clear from the interviews that despite an apparent comparable enrol-ment of males and females in chemistry, their intrinsic motivation was extremelydifferent. Both males and females highlighted the importance of post-schoolingopportunities, with a particular reference to gaining entry into some form oftertiary study. However, while males highlighted the importance of their tertiarygoals it was always within a context of enjoying the subject or being motivated byan extra-curricular or social experience that they had enjoyed. It is important tonote that during the interview process the students were not asked directlywhether they liked or enjoyed chemistry as a subject. Of the 15 males inter-viewed, 13 indicated that the most important reason for selecting chemistry waslinked to the combination of their affinity for the subject, their positive experi-ences in Year 10 science, and their natural curiosity about the content covered inscience. Typical responses to the questions “Why did you select chemistry?” and“What do you hope to get out of doing chemistry?” for the interviewed malesincluded:

Um, I suppose it was pretty interesting, you know you’d always see on TV all the peoplemixing stuff and it’d explode or change colour and I thought that was pretty cool. And Ithought that I might be doing science when I go to Uni, or something science related soI thought it would help. (Derrick)

Malcolm: Well I thought we’d do fun experiments like blowing stuff up and that’s kindof dangerous and stuff so …

Mr C.: So like what made you sort of think that we’d do that?Malcolm: Coz that’s the kind of stuff that Mrs Z showed us when we did that thing

with her in Head start [a programme run in the last 2 weeks of the year for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

722 A. Cousins

students’ to trial their elective subjects for the following year], so it’s prettycool.

It’s interesting coz I attended the National Science [Youth Forum where] I met a fewChemical Engineers down there and that started, I’ve gone from a mechanical [and]base in engineering towards a more [direct] chemical, industrial chemistry side. I don’tknow a lot of what they do but it looks kind of interesting coz it’s kind of a new field soI want to head towards chemical engineering. (Fredrico)

I enjoy chemistry, science, mixing chemicals and stuff, and I want to go into the sciencesort of area after school and it’s always been one of the subjects I was definitely going todo for senior school. (Bart)

This differs from the females interviewed, who appear far more pragmatic andsystematic with their responses. Of the 15 females interviewed, 11 saw enrolment inchemistry as “a means to an end”, failing to mention any real enjoyment or passionfor the subject. Their central focus was the requirement or benefits of selectingchemistry for entry or perceived success at tertiary study. Many of them felt the needto select two sciences in their preparation for tertiary study and most had a prefer-ence for a biology–chemistry combination over a physics–biology combination. Thefinal reason that several females offered for selecting chemistry in Year 11 was thatthey had found science easier in Year 10 and therefore it was a good choice in termsof the work load. Thus, typical responses to the question “Why did you selectchemistry?” for the interviewed females included:

I definitely wanted to do a science and I think I’d struggle with physics so I chose not todo that and I would have done biology but chemistry seemed to be the prerequisite formost science courses and I could change my mind of what I want to do. I mean if Idon’t want to be a marine biologist anymore so. (Lily)

Um, probably because in Grade 10 Science was just easier for me, so I just thought I’dchoose two sciences coz um for Uni you mostly have to have two, to get into certainscience courses, so I chose chemistry and biology because I don’t like physics. (Sarah)

Um because I wanted to keep my options open for when I go to university and I waslooking at maybe the science area or something. (Katie)

The different responses offered for selecting chemistry by males and femalesclearly demonstrates that at this school, despite similar numbers of males andfemales enrolling in chemistry, their motivation for selecting chemistry differ. Thesestudent responses indicate that despite the quantitative data from this school indicat-ing gender inclusivity, the “story” behind the data suggests otherwise. The trueextent of gender inclusivity in chemistry at this school can be further analysed bystudying the IB chemistry enrolments.

The IB Context

Over the last 4 years at the school, students can also enrol in IB chemistry as analternative way of matriculating. This is offered at two differing levels, Higher Leveland Standard Level. As the names suggest the Higher Level course offers a more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


advanced and rigorous curriculum than the Standard Level course, and is looselyequivalent to many first-year university chemistry courses. This IB chemistry courseis delivered by supplementing the work covered during school time with “HonoursTutorials” that are held before or after school. Students are assessed for this coursethrough a combination of “Internal Assessment” (in the case of chemistry, a practi-cal work portfolio) and an external examination held at the culmination of Year 12.All students enrolled in chemistry are able to attend the tutorial and they are notexpected to formally decide whether they will sit the final examination until the startof Year 12. The longitudinal data for IB chemistry are relatively meaningless as thecurrent cohort represents the first sizable cohort to reach matriculation, with previ-ous enrolments ranging from three to eight students. In addition it is more meaning-ful to evaluate the Year 12 participation pattern, with students only having toindicate an interest rather than a commitment at the start of Year 11 and as a resultpossibly attending very few tutorials and eventually falling by the wayside. Even bytaking these factors into consideration, the number of students enrolled in IBchemistry is a very small sample size—16 students in total. The discussion of the IBcontext provided was a common experience and some tangible quantitative data todiscuss with all 30 students. While there are equal males and females currentlyenrolled in IB chemistry there are more males who have selected the Higher Levelcourse and provided a useful mechanism to probe the gender inclusivity in second-ary chemistry. There are several possible reasons that the students interviewedoffered for this phenomenon: the selection of subjects due to friendship groups,being scared or afraid of failure, and enrolling in a subject because it is difficult.

Many of the males and females interviewed indicated that females in part selecttheir subjects with their friends’ opinions in mind. This was particularly the casewhen making the decision about choosing between the Higher and Standard LevelIB chemistry. Even the able female students who are achieving outstanding results inthe more difficult section of the locally accredited course were reluctant to enrol inHigher Level IB chemistry. This reluctance to enrol in the more difficult course andthe importance of friends can be summarised by the following interview responses:

Sarah: I think it’s just um, I’ve no idea, it might be a friend thing, like maybe peopledo Standard Level, I think people …

Mr C: Well you have chosen Standard Level and not Higher Level [and] you’reobviously an able student with a Complex Reasoning mark of 80%

Sarah: I don’t know, I just don’t feel that confident with IB chem[istry], I don’tknow if I can like, I don’t think that I’ll be able to sit myself down and go“OK I’m going to learn IB chemistry now”, so I just thought I’d do StandardLevel coz then it wouldn’t be as much but I’d still be like getting the gist of it

Penelope and Jenny had similar responses:

Yeah I know a lot if like um, all my friends do Standard Level and I suppose it’s not, itis incredibly different? Like … (Penelope)

Um, maybe coz girls feel more daunted by the whole thing. Maybe they, maybe guyswant to step beyond their comfort zone, and maybe if their friends are doing it thenmaybe they’ll want to. (Jenny)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

724 A. Cousins

Also evident in the responses of the females who were interviewed is a fear offailure; many of the females, while able academically, did not wish to move out oftheir “comfort zone”. They expressed a desire to undertake tasks where they wereable to gauge their success prior to embarking on the course. Such a need is exempli-fied by the reasons many of the females offered for either not undertaking the IBchemistry course or opting for the Standard Level course in preference to the HigherLevel course. These responses indicated a lack of self-confidence in their ownacademic ability and the willingness of males to explore through experimentation.For instance, female student responses included:

Well I know most of the girls in our Standard Level class and I know that they’re justlike “yeah, we’ll keep chemistry but I don’t want to do hard chemistry” … (Jane)

And I suppose it’s the whole Higher Level that kind of scares us into not wanting to dothat. And yet it’s weird coz we’re learning pretty much the same stuff … (Penelope)

Perception of Difficulty

Several other key findings can help explain why students select chemistry in thisschool. A recurring theme throughout all of the interviews was the difficult orintellectually demanding nature of chemistry as a subject. This labelling of chemistryas “hard” is something that, as the interviews with Sarah or Penelope demonstrate,appears to have peer group origins. For many of the interviewed students the even-tual pay-off for enrolling in an “intellectual” subject such as chemistry would be animprovement in their Overall Position (OP) ranking—a ranking used for universityadmission in Queensland—at the completion of Year 12. It is interesting that whilemany of the students appeared to be somewhat informed about how differentsubjects will be used to calculate their OP ranking, they were a little ill-informedabout the specific details of how this procedure works. For example:

Probably coz I swear it’s coz like one of the more intellectual subjects and so I washoping that it would kind of bring up like if I got fairly decent marks in that as opposedto decent marks in Art that it would like make my OP better, like positioned better.(Penelope)

Sarah and Derrick more explicitly discussed this notion of chemistry being an“intellectual” subject and assisting their OP by labelling chemistry as a “hard”subject with the following comments:

Sarah: Oh well, I suppose most people see chemistry as a really hard subject so …Mr C: Why do you think they do that?Sarah: Coz they just say that, I’m like, I know I’ve told people that I do chemistry

and they’re like “you’re crazy”, coz I don’t know for them they think it wouldjust be a stupid choice coz they think Arts easier or something …

Derrick: Um, hopefully it helps my OP, that’s one thing and um I don’t know …Mr C.: Why do you say you hope it help your OP?Derrick: Well, I mean, I hope I do well in it coz I can, I mean coz chemistry’s a bit

harder and it scales well or whatever, but I don’t know as long as I do wellin it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


In part, the labelling of chemistry as “hard” by many of the students interviewed iseither due to the perceived link with mathematics or in comparison with the workrequired to achieve at comparable levels in humanities subjects. For example:

I don’t know I just think the subject of Chemistry is more a boy subject. I think it’s thenumber crunching I suppose, so in a way I find that bit difficult. (Anna)

Bob: It’s I would think more boys take it because it’s full of um society stereotypewhere scientists are usually men and all that……

MrC. What do you mean society stereotype?Bob: As in like, generally, you would think of scientists as men and more that those

that do science, that’s what, that’s why I would think that more boys would doscience than girls.

More interesting than the mere feature that the students perceive chemistry as ahard subject that could improve your OP ranking is the perception that chemistry isstill a “male” subject and the impression that more males select Higher Levelchemistry because it provides a challenge. For example:

I think um there’ll be guys (will) always looking for a challenge, um and they just forthat Higher Level just that subject for that extra bit of challenge. (Matt)

With the jobs they want to do later on um boys might, I think boys like doing practicalwork more than girls and I think they like the challenge. (Paul)

Um, maybe the boys like to challenge themselves a bit more. They strive for a highergoal then than the girls who are probably striving just for a pass or, while the boys mightbe striving for good results and would learn more probably. (Bob)

Sentiments such as these would indicate that chemistry continues to have durablemasculine overtones and associations despite the advances or success that has beenexperienced by some females over the past two decades (Boaler, 1998; Collins et al.,2000; Tesse et al., 1995). Through their comments the interviewed cohort demon-strates a very traditional gender perception where males seek out a challenge byenrolling in subjects such as chemistry that are allegedly “harder”. This reinforcesthe sentiments expressed by Kenway et al. (1997) that educational success placesmore importance on, or more highly regards, the higher level mathematics subjectsand science subjects such as physics and chemistry than the artistic, historical, andliterary subjects such as English, modern history, and French.

Subject Clusters

At any school level an important student consideration is subject selection. As it hasbeen previously discussed, all subjects are located in an ordered hierarchy that issusceptible to external forces such as timetabling (Kenway et al., 1997; Lingard &Douglas, 1999). It has demonstrated by Collins et al. (2000) and Lamb and Ball(1999) that males and females have very distinctive patterns when selecting subjects;that is, subject selection is gendered. The framework used by Lamb and Ball to anal-yse the participation in the Year 12 curriculum by gender provides a starting point to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

726 A. Cousins

study the cohort at the school and place the subject selection of students into anational context. It is important to evaluate what subjects the students select withchemistry in order to fully understand why students select secondary chemistry,whether it is a gender inclusive subject in terms of participation patterns and whichstudents succeed at chemistry in relation to participation patterns. In order toanalyse the sample cohort for any participation patterns, the subject groupings thatLamb and Ball developed have been adopted and altered to suit the subjectselections offered at the school.

Since all students interviewed are enrolled in chemistry, the subject groupings are:Business Studies and Sciences, Sciences and Mathematics, and Science andHumanities. It was found that all the subjects selected by the 2003/04 chemistrycohort could be placed into these three categories except for Physical Education andEngineering Technology. These two subjects using the Lamb and Ball classificationbelong to the Health Science and Physical Education and the Vocational Educationand Technology groupings, and as a consequence were initially omitted. In the sameway that Lamb and Ball (1999) developed subject clusters based on participationpatterns, each of the subject combinations that were selected by students were anal-ysed and the appropriate subject clusters were developed (see Table 1).

It is demonstrated in Table 1 that 18 of the male cohort selecting chemistry chosesubjects from the Sciences and Mathematics subject grouping, compared with onefemale. Eight of these 18 males selected a mathematics, biology, physics, and chem-istry subject cluster compared with none of the female students. In addition, of these18 males, six selected Engineering Technology as their sixth subject. Conversely, 16of the female cohort selecting chemistry chose subjects from the Sciences andHumanities subject grouping. This is approximately four times greater than the fiveof the male chemistry cohort making the same subject selection.

Clearly, this shows that subject clusters selected by the students from the inter-viewed cohort not only mirror the national trend, as demonstrated by Lamb and Ball(1999) and Collins et al. (2000), but indicate that subject selection continues to begendered in 2004 at the case-study school. While the actual numbers as a percentageof the cohort of males and females enrolled in chemistry are quite comparable, theother subjects these students choose with chemistry are quite divergent. This differ-ence is reinforced when the different subjects selected by the students are comparedwith the number of males and females enrolled in the total chemistry cohort. Severalinteresting observations that can be made about the subjects that students selectwith chemistry:

● Nineteen males enrolled in chemistry also enrolled in physics, compared withonly three of females.

● Seven males enrolled in chemistry also enrolled in Mathematics C (the highestlevel mathematics subject), compared with only one girl.

● The enrolments of males and females in biology are reasonably comparable.● In the Sciences and Humanities subject grouping, in every subject, except French,

more females have selected the humanities subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


● In a general sense, these types of statistics verify that at this school the subjectsthat males and females select concur with the national trends as reported byCollins et al. (2000).

Conclusions

Why students select secondary chemistry and whether gender inclusion hasoccurred in relation to enrolment patterns is a complex and involved issue. Itrequires the juxtaposition of statistical participation patterns and the reflections ofstudents who select secondary chemistry. It has been the purpose of this paper tobring together both the collected qualitative and quantitative data from one schooland compare it with Australian national statistical data on participation rates. It is

Table 1. Participation of students selecting chemistry in Year 11 by gender

Subject group Males Females Total (%) N

Business Studies and SciencesMathematics, chemistry, another science, legal studies, accounting, BOM

5 (17.2%) 2 (10.5%) 14.6 7

Mathematics, chemistry, BOM, legal studies

1 (3.4%) 0 2.1 1

Total 6 (20.7%) 2 (10.5%) 16.7 8

Sciences and MathematicsMathematics, biology, physics, chemistry 8 (27.6%) 0 (0.0%) 16.7 8Mathematics, chemistry, physics, advanced mathematics

5 (17.2%) 1 (5.3%) 12.5 6

Mathematics, physics, chemistry, IPT 2 (6.9%) 0 (0.0%) 4.2 2Mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, advanced mathematics

3 (10.3%) 0 (0.0%) 6.3 3

Total 18 (62.1%) 1 (5.3%) 39.6 19

Sciences and HumantiesMathematics, chemistry, another science, history, geography, LOTE

3 (10.3%) 10 (52.6%) 27.1 13

Mathematics, chemistry, another science, LOTE, art, drama, music, (history/geography)

1 (3.4%) 4 (21.1%) 10.4 5

Mathematics, chemistry, history, LOTE, engineering technology

1 (3.4%) 0 (0.0%) 2.1 1

Mathematics, chemistry, history, LOTE, drama

0 (0.0%) 2 (10.5%) 4.2 2

Total 5 (17.2%) 16 (84.2%) 43.8 21Total (%) 100 100 100 –Total (N) 29 19 – 48

Note: BOM, Business Organisation and Management, IPT, Information Processing and Technology; LOTE, Languages other than English.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

728 A. Cousins

important to note that these Australian national trends mirror those occurring inter-nationally (see, e.g., Arnot, Gray, James, & Rudduck, 1998; Francis, Hutchings,Archer, & Melling, 2003; Younger, Warrington, & McLellan, 2005). In isolationthese trends indicate that many females over time are experiencing increasingsuccess in secondary chemistry in relation to participation patterns. However, at theschool participating in this study, over time the participation rates of males andfemales have remained reasonably comparable. This would superficially suggestthat gender inclusion in relation to participation rates has been achieved at theschool. This indicated success is, however, diminished when these statistics aresupplemented with the qualitative data. As this research reveals such success, evalu-ating gender inclusivity in schools must become an integral part of analysing partici-pation patterns. Gender inclusivity must be continuously evaluated in everydayeducational practices by talking to students to uncover the “story” behind the quan-titative data. By interviewing the students behind these statistics it becomes appar-ent that the numerical data obscure many of the nuances. It becomes clear that,despite comparable numbers of females and males, with comparable academicachievement, enrolling in chemistry, many females still indicate that they feeldetached from the subject, seeing it as a necessary evil for further career success.Not only do they feel unsure about their ability to excel, but they are also caught upin the stereotypical mind set of chemistry being a “hard” subject in part due to itsmathematical basis. This gender exclusion or imbalance has been demonstrated bythe preference of females to select Standard Level Chemistry in preference toHigher Level Chemistry at the IB despite their capabilities. In addition, this conceptof a gender imbalance can also be demonstrated in relation to the subjects thatstudents select with chemistry. In this school, comparable with the national trends,these subject selections continue to perpetuate traditional gender stereotypes—withmales preferring to enrol in the mathematics/science subject clusters while thefemales continue to opt for a more humanities-based combination. This demon-strates that there is still something managing to entice and excite the males whilesimultaneously alienating the females.

The hypothesis that chemistry continues to be a masculine subject therefore ulti-mately stems from what motivates or drives a student to select the subject. Compa-rable numbers of males and females enrol in chemistry and both males and femalesoffered the same core reasons for selecting chemistry, that of post schooling oppor-tunities, parent or family influence or previous experience. However, the intrinsicmotivation for this selection is gendered. From the student interviews it emergedthat males were motivated to select chemistry because they have a genuine interestor affinity with the subject content, whereas females articulated that their primarymotivation for selecting chemistry was more long term or calculated. So what is itabout chemistry that awakens a passion within males and career ambition infemales? It is this question that must be resolved if chemistry in relation to participa-tory success is truly to become a gender-inclusive subject, thereby acknowledgingthat males and females exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium where each side of theequation has the ability to induce an effect on the other.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank his thesis supervisors Assoc. Prof. Martin Mills andAssoc. Prof. Merrilyn Goos of the School of Education The University ofQueensland, and his colleague Dr Barry Arnison for all their advice, assistance, andguidance in the compilation and writing of this article.

References

Allen, J. R., & Bell, E. J. (1996). Changing population and changing results: Gender differences in seniorstudies 1987–95. Brisbane, Australia: Board of Senior Secondary School Studies.

Apple, M. (2001). Educating the “right” way. New York: Routledge Falmer.Arnot, M., Gray, J., James, M., & Rudduck, J. (1998). Recent research on gender and educational

performance. London: Office for Standards in Education.Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Trends in completing school: participation in education:

Australian social trends. Report 4102.0 (pp. 99–102). Canberra: Australian GovernmentPrinting Service.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Schools. Report 4221.0 (pp. 18–22). Canberra: AustralianGovernment Printing Service.

Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham,England: Open University Press.

Boaler, J. (1998). Mathematical equity—underachieving boys or sacrificial girls? InternationalJournal of Inclusive Education, 2(2), 119–134.

Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational performance ofmales and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school (project funded by theCommonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs). Canberra, Australia:Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Connell, R. W. (2000). The men and the boys. St Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Cortis, N., & Newmarch, E. (2002). Boys in schools: What’s happening? In S. Peace & V. Muller

(Eds.), Manning the next millennium studies in masculinities (pp. 151–184). Bentley, WesternAustralia: Black Swan Press.

Cox, E. (1996). Leading women. Sydney: Random House Australia.Dalgety, J., & Coll, R. K. (2004). The influence of normative belief on students’ enrolment

choices. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(1), 59–80.Davison, K., Trudy, L., Blye, F., & Ann, V. (2004). Boys and underachievement in the Canadian

context: no proof for panic. In A. Suki, S. Benjamin, & M. Melanie (Eds.), The politics ofgender and education critical perspectives (pp. 50–63). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dekkers, J., & de Laeter, J. (2001). Enrolment trends in school science education in Australia.International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 487–500.

Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., & Maw, J. (Eds.). (1998). Failing boys? Issues in gender andachievement. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Foster, V. (2000). Gender, schooling achievement and post-school pathways: Beyond statisticsand populist discourse. In S. Dinham & C. Scott (Eds.), Teaching in context (pp. 82–96).Camberwell, Australia: The Australian Council for Education Research Ltd.

Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls and achievement: Addressing the classroom issues. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Francis, B., Hutchings, M., Archer, L., & Melling, L. (2003). Subject choice and occupationalaspirations among pupils at girls’ schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(3), 425–442.

Fullarton, S., & Ainley, J. (2000). Research report number 15: Subject choice by students in year 12 inAustralian secondary schools. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for EducationalResearch.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

730 A. Cousins

Fullarton, S., Walker, M., Ainley, J., & Hillman, K. (2003). Research report 33: Patterns of participationin year 12. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Hey, V., Leonard, D., Daniels, H., & Smith, M. (1998). Boys’ underachievement, special needspractices and questions of equity. In D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey, & J. Maw (Eds.), FailingBoys? Issues in gender and achievement (pp. 128–144). Buckingham, England: Open UniversityPress.

Houtte, M. V. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys’and girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies, 30(2), 159–173.

Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences,interests and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180–192.

Kamperos, G. (2000). Gender equity: Academic performances of girls and boys in matriculationexamination in New South Wales, 1884–1995. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Kenway, J., Willis, S., Blackmore, J., & Rennie, L. (1997). Answering back: Girls, boys and feminismin schools. St Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Lamb, S. (1998). Completing school in Australia: Trends in the 1990s. Australian Journal ofEducation, 42(1), 5–31.

Lamb, S., & Ball, K. (1999). Curriculum and careers: The education and labour market consequences ofyear 12 subject choice. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Lingard, B., & Douglas, P. (1999). Men engaging feminism: Profeminism, backlashes and schooling.Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Martino, W., Lingard, B., & Mills, M. (2004). Issues in boys’ education: A question of teacherthreshold knowledge? Gender and Education, 16(4), 435–454.

McCann, R. (1995). Sex differences at the NSW Higher School Certificate after adjustment forthe effects of differential selection. Australian Journal of Education, 39(2), 163–188.

McGaw, B. (1996). Their future options for reform of the Higher School Certificate. Sydney:Department of Training and Education Coordination, New South Wales.

Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2003). Gender and physics. International Journal of Science Educa-tion, 25(4), 509–536.

Rop, C. J. (1999). Student perspectives on success in high school chemistry. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 36(2), 221–237.

Rowe, K. (2000). Assessment, league tables and school effectiveness: Consider the issues and“let’s get real!” Journal of Educational Enquiry, 1(1), 73–98.

Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2004). Attitudes towards chemistry among 11th grade students in highschools in Greece. Science Education, 88, 535–547.

Tesse, R. (2000). Academic success and social power examination and inequality. Melbourne, Australia:Melbourne University Press.

Tesse, R., Davies, M., Charlton, M., & Polesel, J. (1995). Who wins at school? Boys and girls inAustralian secondary education. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne Departmentsof Education Policy and Management.

Tesse, R., McLean, G., & Polesel, J. (1993). Equity outcomes: A report to the schools council’s taskforce on a broadbanded equity program for schools. Melbourne, Australia: The University ofMelbourne.

The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century. (1999).Younger, M., Warrington, M., & McLellan, R. (2005). Raising boys’ achievement in secondary

schools: Issues, dilemmas and opportunities. England: Open University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

0:47

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

gender inclusivity in secondary chemistry: a study of male and female participation in secondary...

Documents