girls' education in mathematics and science
DESCRIPTION
A literature review on the differences between female and male learning styles, and how these differences help contribute to the apparent gender gap in academic achievement in math and the sciences. The integration of female learning styles into math and science classes is suggested as a solution to the social and ethical limitations of masculine-style thinking, which has determined the research goals and applications for science and technology on society and the environment up to this point in time.TRANSCRIPT
Girl’s Education
Girls’ Education in Mathematics and Science
Christina Park
1
Girl’s Education
Girls’ Education in Mathematics and Science
The subjects of math and science seem to have equal appeal to girls and boys until the middle
school years, when girls begin to lose interest in these classes. By the end of high school, few
girls pursue advanced math and science courses, sealing off future opportunities in science and
technology, which provide some of the highest-paying jobs. This creates a gender gap in math
and science achievement, resulting in a noticeable lack of female representation in these fields.
(AAUW, 1992), (NYS Occupational Education Equity Center, 1995), (Zohar, 2005).
In the effort to eliminate this gap and increase high-paying job opportunities for girls,
researchers have studied the female students’ experience in high school physics and math classes
to determine the cause of their lack of interest and confidence in these subjects, (NYS OEEC,
1995), (Zohar, 2005). In a recent, comprehensive meta-analysis using 81 international studies,
researchers found an unusually high degree of gender bias present in these classes against female
students’ participation coming from their teachers, their teenage male peers, and sometimes even
their parents, (NCGS, 1993), (NYS OEEC, 1995), (Zohar, 2005). Girls are given a sense of
alienation from these fields by attitudes that females do not belong practicing math and science
and have no future in it. These attitudes are communicated by classroom dynamics, which give
boys more attention in class than girls, and ignore innate abilities in females, (Sadker &
Zittleman, 2005), (NYS OEEC, 1995), (NCGS, 1993), (Zohar, 2005). Also, their teachers were
found to frequently counsel females against advanced study in these subjects, while encouraging
males with average grades to continue in the field, (NYS OEEC, 1995), (Zohar, 2005).
Contributing to this bias is current science and math curriculum and textbook materials
which, despite years of Title IX reforms, almost unanimously ignore female scientists and
mathematicians in history, only citing the work of males in the field; many even reinforce
2
Girl’s Education
stereotypes, (NYS OEEC, 1995), (Sadker & Zittleman, 2002/2003). This applies to three of
today’s leading teachers’ science texts and three of the leading teachers’ math texts, (Sadker &
Zittleman, 2002/2003).
The traditional ways of teaching these subjects also causes most girls to tune out, since they
involve methods that are oriented to male learning styles. Lessons favor the use of lectures,
competitive activities, working in isolation, criticism of thinking, and theoretical abstract
exercises with no real world context, all of which appeal to boys but not to girls, (Pierce, 1998),
(Zohar, 2005).
Nationwide goals for ridding the school system of gender-biased attitudes will require
educational reforms on state education department levels, altering policies to change textbook
standards and setting clearer guidelines for providing a more gender-equitable learning
environment, (NYS OEEC, 1995). However administrators and educators can significantly
change the female educational experience in science and math classes with reforms in their
approach to teaching. Preventing teaching methods from being dominated by male-type thinking
can eliminate the sense of alienation from the field that girls feel, (Pierce, 1998). Eliminating
pervasive gender bias requires that these teaching reforms must address males as well as females,
(NCGS, 1993). According to the National Association for Women in Education, creating a
female-inclusive learning environment in the school system is a matter of adjusting what is
taught, and how it is taught, (Pierce, 1998).
Curriculum and content that includes the work, achievements, and perspectives of women,
acknowledging their heroism when appropriate, is essential for students to recognize women as
contributors to human civilization, (Pierce, 1998). One leader in the field of science who should
be included in curriculum is Rachel Carson, a scientist and the author of “Silent Spring”, written
3
Girl’s Education
in 1962. Her book gave birth to the environmental movement by revealing the ecological threat
of chemical toxicity. She finished the book while battling terminal cancer and enduring pressure
from corporations who opposed her work, (Pierce, 1998). Another famous scientist is the
molecular biologist Barbara McClintock, (Pierce, 1998). The work of these pioneers needs to be
included in basic science curriculum to relay a message to female and male students that women
are a part of math and science and belong in the class, (Sadker & Zittleman, 2002/2003).
A number of studies conducted on how women learn confirm that there is significant
difference in the way that males and females perceive and assimilate concepts, (Zohar, 2005).
When science and math teachers teach abstract principles using a masculine style of reasoning,
females generally lose interest, (Zohar, 2005). The book “Women’s Ways of Knowing” refers to
this as the difference between “separate knowing” and “connective knowing”, (NCGS, 1993).
Furthermore, the masculine style of learning or coming to conclusions is “exclusionary”, while
the feminine style of learning is “inclusionary”, (Pierce, 1998).
Essentially, this means that male thinking, or “separate knowing”, approaches abstract
concepts without context to its origin or its consequences on society. No connection to meaning
or purpose is used to work with abstract equations, and so concepts and laws seem unrelated to
each other or to the real world. Male “exclusionary” information processing approaches learning
by doubting the information being presented to clarify it or test it through argument. One person
is right, the other is wrong, and competition is the technique for arriving at truth, (NCGS, 1993),
(Pierce, 1998), (Zohar, 2005).
Female thinking, on the other hand, is “connected” in that they look for the abstract concepts
that connect science and math exercises to real life, revealing what causes things to happen and
what consequences are created by things that happen. Their learning process is “inclusive”, so
4
Girl’s Education
that instead of doubting and criticizing the presented information they believe it and test it by
trying it on, mentally, seeing it as potentially complimentary to their own view. They clarify or
test information by adding other perspectives to their own experience to complete a picture and
make it collective information, (Pierce, 1998), (Zohar, 2005). Many consider this to be a form of
critical thinking just as valid as the traditional competitive form, making scientific thought more
holistic, (Pierce, 1998). This type of thinking broadens the science education experience to
include the consideration of social and ethical issues, as well as innovative social uses of its
principles, (NCGS, 1993), (Pierce, 1998).
For this reason, traditional teaching techniques like competitive races, dichotomous critical
arguments, lecturing, rote learning, and mechanical problem-solving drills don’t engage girls in
class, (Zohar, 2005). Teaching science from a “connected” reasoning style would involve
introducing abstract principles by relating their use to the student’s own life experiences and
instinctual knowledge, giving meaning to the material and demonstrating that these new ideas are
compatible with their existing knowledge, (NCGS, 1993), (Pierce, 1998), (Zohar, 2005). Other
techniques that have proven successful with girls include relating technical knowledge as
instruments for solving real-life problems by discussing them in the context of social and
environmental topics familiar to everyone such as petroleum, industry, and everyday household
appliances, (NYS OEEC, 1995), (Zohar, 2005). Critical thinking can be taught by an educator
modeling critical self-reflection and appreciation of different perspectives by testing their own
beliefs to rid them of individual bias, (Pierce, 1998).
Teaching techniques preferred by girls involve cooperative work in a relaxed environment
such as small group discussions, investigative group work, sharing information, and equal
sharing of time between students for answering questions and being responded to, (NCGS,
5
Girl’s Education
1993), (Pierce, 1998), (AAUW, 1992), (Zohar, 2005). Hands on learning, such as lab work,
invention projects, and on the field observation, engages girls and holds their interest, (AAUW,
1992), (Chu & Danke, 2000), (NYS OEEC, 1995), (Pierce, 1998).
Exposure to role models in the fields of math, physics, technology, engineering, and other
sciences is particularly effective in motivating girls because meeting these women gives girls a
way of identifying themselves with the field, (NYS OEEC, 1995). Sally Ride, a scientist and the
first American woman in space, started the “Sally Ride Science Festival” for girls to hear her
stories about being an astronaut. Additional workshops included interacting with other female
scientists in building their own volcano using kitchen chemicals, playing Jeopardy with
knowledge on energy conservation, creating three-dimensional animations, and viewing a giant
Lego rocket, (Steindorf, 2002). Some institutions launch other role-model projects such as
inviting female professionals to speak to students in order to give them insight into the nature of
the work entailed and academic requirements for career planning. Other projects have developed
online mentoring programs, or telementoring, where female professionals engage in dialog with
female students, (Chu & Danke, 2000).
Projects have also been created to evoke parental support for girls by using after school clubs
or workshops to engage parents in science and math activities with their daughters. This can help
parents overcome anxiety regarding these subjects and the effects of these male-associated
subjects on their daughters’ reputation, (NYS OEEC, 1995).
School Libraries can facilitate and even inspire teacher’s efforts to create gender-equitable
learning. Providing gender-equity training materials that heighten teachers’ awareness of the
inequities girls must overcome can motivate teachers to change their habits and can offer them
new teaching approaches that work for girls, (Chu & Danke, 2000). Libraries can provide more
6
Girl’s Education
biographies and books on female figures in scientific professions, helping to fill in the current
gaps in the curriculum. Libraries can get involved in exposing girls to role models by having
female professional speaker events or starting a telementoring project. Providing a welcoming
atmosphere for parent-student science and math activity clubs can inspire new perceptions in the
family and learning community, (AAUW, 1992).
Reintegrating female thinking styles into the learning process is necessary for closing the
gender gap in math and science achievement. Furthermore, both female and male students stand
to gain from holistic critical thinking, which enables them to look at the consequences of
scientific work and research options before making a decision, (NCGS, 1993), (Pierce, 1998).
The professions of science and technology need to be influenced by this type of thinking for the
development of a more responsible scientific community.
7
Girl’s Education
References
Chu, Beatriz, & Darke, Katherine C. (2000, January). Innovations in Intervention Settings.
WEEA Digest, WEEA Equity Resource Center: 12+. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from
The Contemporary Women's Issues database.
Math & Science for Girls. (1993). Math & Science for Girls. Washington, DC: National
Coalition of Girls' Schools. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from The Contemporary
Women's Issues database.
New York State, Alliance for Girls and Women in Technology. (1995). Girls and Women in
Technology-A Call to Action-Preparing Girls and Women for A Technological Workforce.
Albany, New York: NYS Occupational Education Equity Center. Retrieved February 11,
2007, from The Contemporary Women's Issues database.
Pierce, Gloria. (1998, Winter). An Inclusive Paradigm for Education-Valuing the Different
Voice. Initiatives, 58(3): 57-66. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from The Contemporary
Women's Issues database.
Sadker, David, & Zittleman, Karen. (2005, April/March). Closing the Gender Gap-Again!
Principal, 86(4): 19–22. Retrieved January 23, 2007, from the Wilson Web database.
Sadker, David, & Zittleman, Karen. (2002, December/ 2003, January). Teacher Education
Textbooks: The Unfinished Gender Revolution. Educational Leadership. Retrieved
January 23, 2007, from http://www.sadker.org/textbooks.htm.
Steindorf, Sara. (2002, March 19). Sally Ride Enters New Frontier: Convincing Girls That
Science Is Cool. Christian Science Monitor, 94 (79): 12. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from
The Contemporary Women's Issues database.
8
Girl’s Education
The AAUW Report. (1992). How Schools Shortchange Girls. Washington, DC: American
Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved February 11, 2007,
from The Contemporary Women's Issues database.
Zohar, Anat. (2005, January). Physics Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Girls’ Low
Participation Rates in Advanced Physics Classes. International Journal of Science
Education 27(1): 61-77. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from The Academic Search Premier
database.
9