“it’s funny that we don’t see the similarities

8/10/2019 “It’s Funny That We Don’t See the Similarities

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/its-funny-that-we-dont-see-the-similarities 1/22

“It’s Funny that We Don’t See the Similarities

when that’s what We’re Aiming for”— Visualizingand Challenging Teachers’ Stereotypes of Gender

and Science

Kristina Andersson

Published online: 21 October 2010# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract This study illuminates teachers’ conceptions of gender and science and possibilities to challenge these conceptions. Since 2005, a group of teachers (K-6) inSweden have met approximately once a month in two-hour seminars to discuss and developtheir instruction in science and technology based on a gender perspective. The present dataconsist mainly of audio-recordings of the teacher seminars and video-recordings of scienceactivities with students. Analysis of the empirical data has been carried out in several stages

and was inspired by thematic analysis, the theoretical framework of which is based onHirdman’s and Beauvoir ’s theories of gender. The results show that the teachers’ ideasabout gender/equity and science exist on several levels, within which various conceptionsare represented. On the one hand, “reasoning around similarity”, where teachers consider that both girls and boys should have the same prerequisites for working with science. Incontrast, stereotypical conceptions of girls and boys occur when the teachers evaluate their activities with students, and condescending attitudes toward girls are also observed. Thegirls’ ways of working with science are not as highly valued as the boys ’, and this outlook on children can ultimately have consequences for girls’ attitudes towards the subject. Whenteachers are allowed to read their own statements about the girls, they get “a glimpse of

themselves”, and their condescending ideas about girls are made visible. In this way, theteachers can begin their active work towards change, which may lead to new outlooks onand attitudes towards students.

Keywords Awareness . Gender . Professional development . Pre-school . Scienceeducation . Stimulated recall

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9200-7

The quote is from one of the teachers who participated in the study.

K. AnderssonDepartment of Electronics, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and SustainableDevelopment, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden

K. Andersson (*)Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Box 634, 751 21 Uppsala, Swedene-mail: [email protected]



Introduction

Sweden, which is considered one of the most gender-equal countries in the world, has anofficial social goal that is described in the Act Concerning Equality between Men and

Women (1991:433). Both public and private sector enterprises are obliged to adhere to theintentions of the Act. As regards to the Swedish schools, this is expressed clearly in boththe Education Act (SFS 1985:1100) and the curricula for elementary school andkindergarten (National curriculum 1994). For example, the importance of children’sopportunities to develop all their abilities without making choices from expected gender patterns is clearly stressed. Thus, the pursuit of gender equity is something that all teachersare aware of and that is part of their commission as teachers. Since the 1990s, severalresearch and development projects have been initiated within the schools, primarilykindergarten, their purpose being to work actively with gender and equity issues (Berge andVe 2000; Wernersson 2007b). Despite these intentions and efforts, several studies in

Sweden and elsewhere have shown that very little has changed regarding teachers’treatment of pupils in the classroom, as well as regarding pupils’ attitudes, interests, andchoice of study program and profession (Eisenhart and Finkel 2001; Howes 2002; Lindahl2003; Schreiner and Sjøberg 2004; Wernersson 2007a).

Gender permeates and affects human activity and behavior on several levels. Gender isculturally and historically changeable (Beauvoir 1949/1997; Connell 2002; Harding 1986;Hirdman 1990, 2001), meaning that what is “feminine” and “masculine” is not primarilydetermined by biology, but is instead foremost a social construction. According to Harding(1986), gender is constructed on a structural, symbolic and individual level in society,

whereas Connell considers that gender is a relational concept, which is important to be ableto describe in the absence of any inherent inequality or hierarchy (Connell 2002). Harding(1986) and Thurén (1996), on the other hand, point out that there is always asymmetry inthe concept of gender, and Thurén defines asymmetry as a “horizontal” dissimilarity that need not be identical to a hierarchy, which is a “vertical” dissimilarity. Starting from ahistorical perspective, Hirdman (2001) describes patterns and the doing of gender, and sheis struck by how similar ideas about gender have been over the course of history, particularly ideas about “Woman.” The pattern that stands out and that Hirdman describes isa gender system that is hierarchical and built on two principles is: the man as the norm andthe separation of the sexes. The consequence of these principles is that gender entails the

creation of differences. Processes, symbols and structures affect and are internalized byindividuals. Taking her point of departure from psychoanalysis, among other things,Beauvoir (1949/1997) described the woman’s developmental process and the consequencesof society’s gender order for women’s perception of themselves. A girl perceives herself asan autonomous subject who gives shape to her own life; the same applies to boys. When thegirl grows older, the gender order is part of herself, within her, and according to this order,women are subordinate to men. The gender order is there, inside her, regardless of whether or not she is aware of it:

It is a strange experience for an individual who feels himself to be an autonomous andtranscendent subject, an absolute, to discover inferiority in himself as a fixed and preordained essence: it is a strange experience for whoever regards himself as the Oneto be revealed to himself as otherness, alterity. This is what happens to the little girlwhen, doing her apprenticeship for life in the world, she grasps what it means to be awoman therein. The sphere to which she belongs is everywhere enclosed, limited,dominated, by the male universe: high as she may raise herself, far as she may

282 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



venture, there will always be a ceiling over her head, walls that will block her way.The gods of man are in a sky so distant that in truth, for him, there are no gods: thelittle girl lives among gods in human guise. P. 324

The research on gender and equity in science education has followed several different paths, but few studies have looked at teachers’ understandings of and attitudes towardgender (Scantlebury 2010). However, researchers in the field have established that teachers’conceptions and expectations of pupils — or prejudices if you will — are of importance tothese pupils’ achievement in science subjects in the schools (Huang and Fraser 2009; Kahleand Meece 1994; She and Fisher 2002). Interview and questionnaire studies have shownthat teachers report having the same expectations regarding girls’ and boys’ achievement inscience, but also that when actually giving instruction, teachers behave in a way that indicates they have different expectations of girls and boys (Kahle et al. 1991; Kahle andMeece 1994). These authors conclude that teachers are aware of gender equity, but that this

awareness has not changed their teaching practices. The step from being aware of theimportance of equity and gender issues to actively putting equity into practice may be alarge one, and it may be difficult to see one’s own behavior without some kind of help or support. Stadler (2007) and Eidevald (2009) report that even if teachers are allowed to seevideo-recordings of themselves interacting with pupils, they do not observe how they behave towards girls and boys; they even deny treating the children differently. Accordingto Stadler (2007), when working with gender issues, one must question one’s ownconceptions of and attitudes towards gender in order to move forward, and one must begiven the opportunity to reflect on one’s own teaching.

The present study investigates whether increased gender awareness can be achieved

among science teachers and if such awareness can ultimately lead to changes in howteachers teach, with respect to both content and implementation (see also Andersson et al.2009 for information on other studies included in the project). In my work with the present longitudinal project, in which I have followed a group of teachers since 2005, the followingmain questions have guided me:

& How is the gender regime1 staged in kindergarten/elementary school in scienceinstruction?

& What prerequisites are there for problematizing this gender regime and possiblychanging it?

& Is it possible to discern any critical aspects in such a process of change?

Methods

The present study is part of a professional development project that has been inspired byaction research (Berge and Ve 2000; Capobianco 2007; Herr and Andersson 2005;Hollingsworth 1994; Somekh 1995; Weiner 2004). Action research can be described as acollaboration project tied to a specific situation, where researchers together with the

teachers ‘on the floor ’ define a specific problem in the context they are working in and tryto find solutions for that problem. It is characterized by a desire to bring about changes in

1 Connell (1987) and Thurén (1996) use the concept of gender regime to describe gender phenomena in a part of society, e.g. a workplace, while more general gender patterns are referred to as the ‘gender order.’

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 283



school practices and that the researcher is participating in the working process. Another aimof this kind of research is to study the processes of change.

The project has been ongoing since fall 2005 in collaboration with parts of a K-6 workingteam at one school in Sweden. The core group consists of three kindergarten teachers, one

recreational teacher 2

and one math/science teacher for grades 1 –

7, who all participated duringthe entire period. Over the years, other teachers have joined the group, quit or have beenabsent due parental leave or illness. The group has met about once a month for a two-hour seminar. At the beginning of each academic year, the participants have discussed whichscience subjects the themes they want to work with. In the discussion we chose journalarticles, book excerpts and reports to some of the meetings, texts we felt would be relevant tothe projects as well as to the group discussions. These texts have dealt with science education,science, and/or gender, and we have read and discussed them at the following seminar. From2007 to spring 2009, 19 seminars (38 h in total) were audio-recorded and transcribed. I havewritten memoranda after every seminar and sent them to the teachers via email for

verification. The purposes of memoranda were for example at the next meeting to be able tocatch up where the discussion had ended and to see which ideas and thoughts actually went into the pre-school practice. The teachers and I have also video-recorded children andteachers on a total of 16 different occasions involving science activities. Some of these films,or film sequences, have provided material for “stimulated recall” (Brown and Harris 1994;Calderhead 1981; Nilsson 2008): twice at seminars with the whole group and individuallywith three of the teachers. Stimulated recall is a method where teachers together with theresearcher look at a video-recorded teaching sequence in order to increase the awareness of the teacher ’s own behavior and from that, develop or improve their teaching. The method

provides an opportunity for practitioners to “

relive”

a complex situation and therebyremember the thoughts in that situation and reflect on that. Before the individual sessions of stimulated recall, the teachers were requested to look at the film and identify sequences for discussion. They were suggested to focus on some questions, e.g. what was their aim with theactivity and how was it carried out. Similarly I chose some sequence to highlight and problematize. At meetings of approximately one hour we discussed the chosen sequences.

Individual interviews were also conducted with three of the teachers at the end of spring2008. The seminar transcripts have also been used as material for “stimulated recall”. I haveasked the teachers to read parts of their own statements, my aim being to illustrate a certainissue I have felt to be of critical importance to advancing their work towards changing their

pedagogical practices. All of this constitutes the data for the present study, though the focushas been on the teachers’ conversations during the seminars (see Appendix 1).

The Teachers’ Previous Work with Gender Equity and Science

Several teachers in the present group had previously worked with gender equity projects inthe kindergarten/elementary school since the mid-1990s. In the context of these projects,the teachers began video-recording themselves and the children, and they discovered that the adults treated girls and boys differently. They spoke differently with the children, using

different kinds of intonation, etc. This served as a wake-up call for the teachers, causingthem to start their work towards change. Although the starting point of the equity work wasteachers’ different attitudes towards girls and boys, with time, their work towards change

2 In primary school in Sweden there are recreational teachers with a specific education and certification that work with the children in the afternoons after they have finished the school schedule. The recreationalteachers are also participating in classes when more resources are needed.

284 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



came to focus more and more on the children and on strengthening the sides of girls and boys thought to belong to the opposite sex — so-called compensatory pedagogy (SOU2006:75; Eidevald 2009). For example, girls were to practice being independent, while boys were to cooperate and practice their empathic skills. This meant that, in terms of

organization, the children were often divided into same-sex groups. The teachers arguedthat, by using same-sex groups, norms for “ being a girl” or “ being a boy” could be broadened. By being with other boys, boys could discover that there are many ways to be a boy, thereby breaking down stereotypical conceptions.

When I began my collaboration with the present working team and asked whether theywould be interested in participating in a project dealing with gender and science, the teachersfelt competent and secure regarding gender issues, although science was a new, unexploredterritory, particularly for the kindergarten teachers. They had only had limited elements of science in their teaching, and then primarily in biology. One reason the teachers agreed to participate was the opportunity to explore activities in physics, chemistry and technology.

Data Analysis

The entire 38 h of audio-recorded seminar discussions have been transcribed. Thetranscription per se can be viewed as the first step of the analysis, because it helps theresearcher dig deeply into the data and start the interpretation process at an early stage. Thetranscribed data have then been further analyzed in several stages. Because the seminar discussions contained many conversational topics and conversations at several levels, I used

Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis (2006) to work with the data in the following steps:

Stage 1 - the conversations taking place during each seminar were grouped under severaloverall conversational themes, and all the seminar occasions were searched tosee which “groups” reoccurred.

Stage 2 - several thematic maps and tables were made to map out which conversationalthemes occurred in the different “groups” and to follow how conversations inthe respective themes developed over time.

Stage 3 - the thematic tables from Stage 2 were complemented with tables for eachindividual teacher to gain an understanding of the teachers’ different positions in

the group and of how each person’

s conversations developed in terms of what was said as well as how it was said.Stage 4 - To get a picture of where and how possible changes in teachers’ statements occur,

tables were made with 19 columns for all seminars, each row corresponding to ateacher. The conversation themes were coded using one- or two-letter abbrevia-tions, with +/ − to indicate whether the statement was positive or negative, andwith an arrow if it was clear that a theme was discussed in a new way. Thus, eachcell contained a number of letter abbreviations; in order to follow a specifictheme, that theme was highlighted with a single color.

Analysis of the audio-recorded seminars has been complemented with an analysis of parts of the video-recorded data from the science classroom activities with pupils as well aswith an analysis of parts of the teacher interviews. This was done to obtain ascomprehensive a picture as possible of the teachers’ ideas about classroom activities,teaching and learning in relation to science and gender. Hirdman’s (1990, 2001) andBeauvoir ’s (1949/1997) theories of gender and sex have constituted the theoretical

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 285



framework through which I have filtered my empirical material when interpreting themeanings in the teachers’ statements.

Results and Discussion

The Structure of Result and Discussion Parts

In order to elucidate the study questions, the remaining article is divided into two parts. Thefirst part addresses the question of how the gender regime in kindergarten is staged inscience activities and how teachers express gender regime in their conversations. During theseminars, the group discussed the teachers’ understandings of gender in relation to science.Building upon the teachers’ perspectives, I occasionally challenged teachers’ ways of thinking, thereby trying to achieve change. This process of change is described in the

second part using a case study of one teacher ’s development. There, I start from thefollowing questions: “What prerequisites exist for problematizing this gender regime and possibly changing it?” and “Is it possible to discern any critical aspects in a process of change”? The second part of the article illustrates the participant-oriented method, where Ihave tried in various ways to challenge teachers’ conceptions of gender.

Part I

Teachers’ Points of Departure for Science Activities One aim of the “ professional

development ”

project was for kindergarten teachers to start teaching science to their students. During the seminars we discussed which elements of science are appropriate for children and how the concepts should be taught. Because the group has consisted of teachers from different grade levels, they wanted to find common themes. The teachershave expressed their desire to make comparisons between the groups of children and tostudy whether there are any differences in how children act, between different ages andespecially between girls and boys. When we discussed what the goal of choosing a certainscience activity/theme should be, during spring 2008 four of the teachers suggested that onegoal was to study what differences existed between girls’ and boys’ ways of approachingthe various activities. Thus, these teachers based their goals on the assumption that girls and

boys do work differently with science and they wanted to map out these differences. Notions about gender differences are also of importance to how teachers structure and

carry out activities with their students. Because previous work with gender equity hadresulted in the teachers using compensatory education methods in same-sex groups, theychose to structure their science activities in a corresponding manner at the outset, up untilspring 2008. They let the girls work separately, often individually, while the boys weregiven a group assignment to encourage cooperating. The teachers’ notion was that the girlswould not dare to experiment or to talk about what was taking place to the same extent asthe boys would, and therefore one goal of the activities was to encourage the girls to be

more assertive. One example of what such as assumption about girls can bring about in ateacher ’s execution of a science activity with children is provided by Marlene, who was towork with students on density experiments. During Seminar 10, when we discussedteaching questions, e.g. the teachers’ goals regarding the science activities, Marlenereported that her most important goal for the children, especially for the girls, was that theywould independently collect the experimental materials and then test whether they floatedor sank in water. When the children later carried out the activity, neither the girls nor the

286 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



boys had any problems. Because Marlene’s only activity goal for the children was that theywould dare to do it, she had no well-considered teaching aim. This left her at something of a loss concerning how to continue with the task.

Several of the teachers felt that girls asked fewer questions than boys and that they are not

assertive during activities. This conception of the girls’ practice affected the teachers in their

professional role. For instance, Linda described her uncertainty when working with girls:

Linda: ...And I think that ’s the risk with a group of girls, because you want toaccomplish something, because you don’t feel anything’s happening. Instead I fixthings for them, well just to get on with it.......Because that ’s how I feel afterwards, I could have said that. Because with the girls Ifeel, I mean it ’s stressful when they don’t ask questions. Then everything stops in metoo. But what can I say to them? (Excerpt 1, Seminar 8, see Appendix 1)

Teachers’ Interpretation of Children’ s Science Activities The teachers have discussed planning of science activities during the seminars, but also used the time to talk about activities they have already carried out with their pupils. During these discussions, theteachers have described, often enthusiastically and in detail, how the children have attendedto their assignments and what they have said and done. In their interpretations of thechildren’s activities, the teachers called attention to several gender differences regarding pupils’ work and involvement in science:

– girls want to obey the teacher – the product ’s appearance is the most important thing to girls — it must be pretty – girls’ and boys’ products look different; girls build things on a “ plane”, boys build for “height ” – the things girls do are “ pathetic”

Girls’ science activities are less valued than boys’ science activities

On a number of occasions, several teachers explained girls’ behavior by mentioning that girls just want to obey the teacher and supply the right answer. They also considered that girls’ primary goal in their science activities is to produce work that is aesthetically pleasing, beautiful and attractive. An example of this way of talking about girls is found in

Excerpt 2, below. During Seminar 12, Imogen and Marlene described how they havecontinued working with the density experiment (float or sink) with 5-year-olds and talkedabout how things have been working in the various groups of children:

Imogen: ...And then there was a, a couple weeks ago, then they got to present their own ideasabout what they want to test. Then the boys wanted to test if beads float and the girls wantedto test pencils. After that the girls went and got three pencils, two dark red and one pink. Andthey floated. They were exactly the same length. And they floated. Then they were satisfiedwith their assignment. Then they wanted to test something else, because the pencils floated.So I thought you can’t just accept it, maybe you can turn it around a little so then on, was it Tuesday, the boys tested whether the pencils would float and the girls whether Marlene: BeadsImogen: ...whether beads could float. And then the girls took a handful of beads likethis and they dropped them in, Indian beads. And a few floated, well most of themdid. Maybe some of them sank. And then Amy said: “It ’s probably like swimmingrings, Imogen. And swimming rings have air in them.”

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 287



Kristina: Did she say that?Imogen: Yes, that makes them float. Maybe there’s some air in the Indian beads sincethey have a big hole in the middle too. And then they went and got different beads.Some sank and some floated. But they took them by the fist-full, like this. But if you

take one at a time and think about it. Well, then they went and got a whole handful of “ bead bears” different colors (laughs) and put them in one at a time. And they floated.Kristina: Plastic “ bears”?Imogen and Marlene: YesJean: With holes, “ bead bears”Imogen (laughs): And then they start in“Yeah now we’ll test the green ones and now we’ll”Sarah: This is in order to do as the teacher wishesImogen: Maybe you should test different beads and think about... “ No we want our water to be as nice as the other girls’”Several: Uh huh

Imogen (laughs): They didn’t care a bit if the beads floated or not. They just wantedto make the water pretty/.../ Sarah: Then the girl who brought up the swimming ring, she thought....Imogen: Well, that was just to shut me upSarah: Right (laughs)Imogen: Well, I don’t know. I just wonder what they’re thinking, when they take awhole handful of Indian beads and just drop them in. There wasn’t any thought behind it. Well, the thought was to make the water pretty

Kristina: But it ’s also, they

’re having funImogen: Yes, that too

Kristina: When you drop, you know when you put gravel or something in water. That feeling when it clatters and that there’s some activity. I think that ’s what the childrenare aiming for. Getting the opportunity to do a lot of things in the water, this is what they’re aiming for.Imogen: Right (Excerpt 2, Seminar 12)

Above, Imogen recalls that Amy had an explanation for why hollow beads float: they are

like swimming rings, and swimming rings are filled with air. Sarah starts a sentence byhighlighting Amy’s explanation, but Imogen waves it aside. Imogen’s interpretation of Amy’s idea is that Amy just wanted to “shut her up”. Imogen also feels that the girls’ primary goal is to “make the water pretty”. Imogen does not understand the girls’ way of thinking and does not think there is “any thought behind” what they do. This generalizedopinion that girls, as a group, mainly want to obey the teacher and do pretty work has aconsequence: the teachers believe that girls have no real interest in science activities andthis belief affects how they teach. It is obvious that Imogen neither listened nor respondedto Amy’s idea. The child’s thoughts about scientific phenomena were not taken seriously,and this may well influence her continued involvement in the activities.

Another occasion on which opinions like this are expressed was during Seminar 5, fall2007. This fall term, the kindergarten children got to build magnet tracks.3 The teachers

3 The children were given a piece of cardboard (ca. 50 x 50 cm) and access to a great deal of material, suchas beads, straws, marbles, stones, colored pieces of plastic, lollipop sticks, pieces of styrofoam, etc. A metal paperclip can move along the top of the cardboard if one slides a magnet underneath the cardboard. Using thematerial, the children could build a track for the paperclip to slide on.

288 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



divided the children into same-sex groups. The boys, in groups of three or four, were to build a common track, while the girls were each to build their own. I filmed several of thegroups. During Seminar 5, the teacher group watched parts of the films and discussed what they saw. We started by watching when the 4-year-old boys were building their track, and

when the excerpt below begins, the group has already started observing the 4-year-old girls’

work:

Sarah: Typical artwork for girls, if you look at them.(The teachers discuss the fact that girls cannot sit and work as long as boys can)Imogen:.... They’re thinking now we’ve worked long enough to satisfy her (teacher

Fiona). Could that be true do you think? Then the other three are done too.Sarah: If one is done then the rest of them are.Imogen: Right, they read the situation and see that it ’s okay to go now. Nobody daresto say this is boring, I want to go. Before Diana has said that she’s finished when

she’s done glueing and then you think, yeah, now she

’s done. What do you all think,is that right? I don’t know.

Marlene: ExcitingJean: So if she ( Diana) had stayed, then the others would have worked longer, is that what you mean? Or what do you mean?Imogen: Yes/.../ Imogen: And then as a girl you want to obey the teacher. They sit there as long as noone asks if they can go. But then when Fiona lets Diana go, it ’s okay and they’re alldone at the same time.

/.../ Imogen: And I feel that... and I think this is pathetic.4 I’m always working with the boys. I’d have a nervous breakdown (laughs) sitting in there. Quiet and calm.Sarah: They have no drive(Excerpt 3, Seminar 5)

Above, Sarah starts by saying that the magnet tracks made by the girls are like “typicalartwork for girls”. She implies that the girls have created a work of art, not treating it as atechnical project. According to Imogen, the girls stay and work because they wish to pleasetheir teacher, Fiona; Imogen also believes the girls think building the magnet track is

boring. Watching the film, I have not perceived at all that the girls are uninterested in building the track, and I ask what the other teachers think about the situation; several of them do not agree with Imogen. Several sentences later, as a consequence of the discussion,Imogen exclaims that she thinks the girls’ work is pathetic because they sit quietly andcalmly while working. Sarah supports Imogen’s statement by saying that the girls lack drive; this is a remarkable comment, however, given that the girls have been workingindependently and in a concentrated manner for about 35 min, and have finished their magnet tracks. I note that the girls and boys were given different assignments; the girls wereto work independently and the boys were to collaborate, making the preconditions for

conversation different. Both Fiona and Jean agree with me.Contrasting pictures to the assumption that girls and boys are different

During the course of the 19 seminars, several of the teachers’ conversations dealing withgender — girls and boys — have focused primarily on the differences between girls and boys

4 The Swedish word Imogen used was “töntig”. The term “ pathetic” is not the optimal translation. “Töntig”is colloquial language and has several meanings, a word between, silly, drip and pathetic.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 289



regarding their personality traits, choice of activities, etc.; but there were exceptions. Jean isthe person who most clearly presented another viewpoint, throughout the entire period.When she gave examples from the classroom, she often emphasized situations that aregender neutral or situations in which the children’s activities break with stereotypical

gender patterns. In connection with a conversational theme concerning gender differences,Jean most often presented her views by providing contrasting examples from the classroom.For instance, she talked about how girls often played with cars on the car rug and how boysliked to make necklaces or bead art.

Fiona, Kathrine and Alex also related gender-neutral aspects of the children’s activities or examples from the classroom where gender patterns are broken. However, though the teachersdo have different ways of looking at girls and boys, they seldom argued with each other openlywhen trying to make their point or when commenting on a statement they did not agree with.One exception here is Fiona, who only participated during fall 2007 and who often worked withthe girls. During Seminar 6, Fiona argued with Imogen when I tried to tie the conversation back

to the discussion from Seminar 5, when Imogen expressed her opinion that girls are pathetic:

Kristina: But Imogen, you said that you thought the girls, that it was pathetic that theykept on you said and then I thought when I listened to this later, what was it, what is it that makes you think that, that what they do....Fiona (interrupts): You think everything girls do is patheticImogen: (laughs) But can I describe aKristina: I think this is important really, I think it ’s important /.../ Kristina: And the thing with the magnet tracks, what was it you said that you

thought?Imogen: Well I thought they sit there so quietly ( sighs on exhalation). Don’t even talk about what they’re doing and what they’re thinking or say that I need this or. LikeDavid, look what I’m doing and I’m going to make a bridge or something like that.And look it ’s a handle, likeSarah: He’s pretty dominant in the group and dares to show what he’s doing, but thegirlsFiona: But he’s also the kind who tries to get all the attentionImogen: Right, exactly

Fiona: But what did Josh and Brian do?Imogen: Well, Josh and Brian started talking a bit in the end tooFiona: But what if David hadn’t been there at all?Imogen: Well then maybe Brain and Josh would have been just as path... as path...Fiona (interrupts): If we’d had Peter, for instanceImogen: Just as pathetic thenFiona: Exactly. Because David, he’s one who runs up to the first adult and has tomake contact Imogen: Yeah (Excerpt 4, Seminar 6)

Fiona is not satisfied with Imogen’

s attitude toward the girls, and this is clear in her toneof voice. She “tackles” Imogen and, through her questions and arguments, gets Imogen toadmit that being quiet (=pathetic) is perhaps not a sex-bound trait.

Focusing on Gender Differences has Consequences One consequence for teachers, whenstrictly categorizing children’s traits and activities into homogeneous groups containingeither girls or boys, is that they fail to notice when children do not conform with these

290 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



notions and step outside, so to speak, the teachers’ expected frameworks. On severaloccasions, the teachers stated that, during the science activities, what was most important to thegroup of girls was making things pretty. The consequence of having stated this time after timeis twofold: teachers fail to notice when girls have different goals than the preconceived one and

when boys express themselves in the same way girls do. On the video-taped occasion whenthe children are building magnet tracks, three 4-year-old boys are sitting together with Imogen.David is trying to find some colored pieces of plastic he wants to glue to the cardboard. Helays out two red pieces and says: “ You know what, I ’ m gonna glue on some of these, so the

track will be pretty. That ’ ll be good ”. Later on, when the teachers watched the film together,none of them commented on this in the discussion on girls’ interest in aesthetics. Another example of teachers not noticing when children’s behavior does not conform with the teachers’expectations was when Imogen related how the girls threw beads in the water to see whether they would float or sink (see Excerpt 2, Seminar 6). The teachers have expressed several timesthat girls want to obey their teachers, but in this situation it is obvious that the girls do not care

at all about what Imogen is telling them. Imogen was clearly irritated that the girls did not follow her instructions to put the beads in the water one at a time, not by the handful. But instead of concluding that the girls were actually acting in a way that is contrary to her notionsof how girls are, and seeing this as something positive, she interpreted the girls ’ behavior in anegative manner. She felt they behaved irresponsibly and thoughtlessly. In this way, the girlsare subject to double punishment; whatever they do is wrong (Ås 1982). If they follow theteacher ’s instructions and wait their turn, then they are passive and lacking in drive. If they do

not obey the teacher and instead break with the prevailing norms that portray girls asconscientious and obedient, then they are inconsiderate and uninterested in the assignment —

not creative and active, as boys behaving the same way are often depicted.Another consequence associated with girls and boys being viewed as relative, statisticalgroups with different traits and skills is that behaviors produced by both girls and boys areinterpreted differently by the teachers. The idea that there is a “difference between girls and boys” is thereby upheld, and what Hirdman calls the separation of the sexes is reproduced evenin situations where teachers should instead notice “similarities among the sexes” (Hirdman1990). One example of this is a discussion during Seminar 7 in which the teachers related that both girls and boys want to give the “right answer ”. The teachers provided two completelydifferent explanations for why girls and boys want to respond “correctly”: The girls’ goal is toobey the teacher and their strategy for answering correctly is to try to “read” the teacher to

find out what an acceptable answer is. Implicit in this explanatory model is the message that girls have not mastered on their own the knowledge needed to answer the posed questions.On the other hand, the boys want to give the right answer because everything needs to go asquickly as possible, because boys are always in a hurry.

Conclusions

At the outset of gender equity work, it is important to try to identify differences and tonotice girls’ and boys’, women’s and men’s, different prerequisites in order to makeinjustices visible. But there is a risk here of ending up in a dilemma, where the act of highlighting and elucidating sex differences actually serves to normalize these differences,thereby reinforcing dichotomous categorizations of feminine vs. masculine (Hirdman 2001;Lenz Taguchi 2004). The participating teachers have long had gender equity on their dailyagenda, and they explicitly expressed their most commendable goals: Gender equity work should create greater chances for girls and boys to develop their personality, even outside

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 291



their own gender category. However, observed in the conversations on science is that theteachers seem to be reproducing a kind of statistical, dichotomous thinking that is regularlyexpressed during the entire study period. Several of the teachers’ interpretations of thechildren’s activities and involvement in science focused largely on gender differences, such

that girls’ involvement is not considered serious. The girls

’ primary goals do not seem to be

related to the science aspects of the activity per se, but to creating products that areattractive and pleasing to their teacher. The risk is that these notions will affect howteachers relate to the children, and that the girls may feel that their ideas and workingmethods are not taken as seriously as the boys. This, in turn, may have consequences for girls’ interest and involvement in science.

What is clear is the teachers’ downgrading of what girls do as compared to what boys do.The boys’ behavior is normative and the girls’ is deviant. In the examples described above, theseparation of the sexes not only leads to asymmetry, but unavoidably to a hierarchy in whichthe masculine (here young boys) is superordinate and the feminine (young girls) subordinate. In

1949, Simone de Beauvoir wrote that boys, during their entire childhood and adolescence, traintheir superiority over girls or in relation to what can be understood as feminine (Beauvoir 1949/ 1997). If kindergarten teachers have unconsciously assimilated this hierarchical notion of thesexes, then kindergarten will help to train boys in superordination and girls in subordination.

Part II

Is it Possible to Change One’ s Way of Thinking? The Case of Imogen Imogen is anexperienced kindergarten teacher who had a prominent role in the group. She has shown a

great deal of interest and involvement in our project, but also in other forms of competencedevelopment. She has taken continuing education courses, attended lectures and expressedseveral times that her interest is easily piqued when she is exposed to new informationrelevant to her work in the kindergarten. In other words, Imogen is generally open to andinterested in work toward change.

Fall 2007

During Seminar 5, Imogen expressed her opinion that the girls’ way of working withtechnology is pathetic (see Excerpt 3, page 8). I was surprised and rather shocked about Imogen’s condescending opinion of girls; though it was good that she was so outspoken

and open about what she thought. This indicated to me that she was comfortable in thegroup and with me, which was a condition for continuing to work with these questionsmuch more concretely. For the upcoming seminar, number 6, I prepared several discussionquestions based on how the teachers had talked about the children ’s building of magnet tracks in Seminar 5. During Seminar 6, I asked the teachers to analyze whether there weresimilarities and/or differences in how the children performed the task. The teachersmentioned differences as well as similarities, but after a while, Jean and Fiona pointed out that the girls and the boys were working under different conditions: The girls each madetheir own track and the boys collaborated on a common tract. For this reason, it wasimpossible to compare the two groups. Imogen explained that their approach was based onthe notion that girls and boys need to practice different skills (independent work andcooperative work, respectively). Then she concluded:

Imogen: ... but then I think we focus on the differencesSarah: It ’s true, we doImogen: We don’t focus on the similarities

292 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



Fiona: That ’s how you work here (inaudible)Sarah: We’re supposed to go from differences to similaritiesImogen: But it ’s funny that we don’t see the similarities when that ’s what we’reaiming for. We’re supposed to relate to each other on an equal basis

Sarah: (laughs) Yes, that really is strangeImogen: So we focus on the differences (Excerpt 5, Seminar 6)

As we see above, for Imogen the discussion on building the magnet tracks becomes an‘aha’ experience, making her realize that gender differences have been stressed a great dealin relation to the children, despite the fact that the work is supposed to be about equity. It isclear that Fiona has thought about this earlier, when she comments that this is how teachersat the kindergarten work. I continue by asking Imogen what aspect of the science activitywas pathetic (see Excerpt 4, above):

Imogen: I probably wouldn’t think the girls were pathetic if I didn’t work so much

with the boys. I know I have to be alert all the time, talk about what ’s going tohappen, set limits. But with the girls you can just be silent. They take care of themselves (laughs and Sarah laughs with her ) and I guess that ’s what I find pathetic(Excerpt 6, Seminar 6).

Like Linda (see Excerpt 1, page 6), Imogen expresses a certain degree of insecurity inher own role as teacher in relation to the girls. The role is clearer in relation to the boys. Thetalk about and description of the girls are full of contradictions. On the one hand, it isdifficult to work with the girls because they are so quiet; they don’t ask questions and“nothing is happening there”— statements that describe passivity. On the other hand,

Imogen says that the girls “take care of themselves”, which would seem to indicateindependence, drive and thus activity. It is difficult to see anything “ pathetic” in the girls’ behavior, and neither I nor any of the other seminar participants asked follow-up questionsin an attempt to settle this matter.

The discussion continued as the teachers considered possible explanations for their conceptions of girls and boys. They believed that their attitudes towards girls and boys arefounded during childhood and that parental views play a crucial role. Imogen said that shewas the youngest of her siblings and incredibly shy. She grew up in a culture where “girlsshould be seen and not heard” and where children were told “don’t think you’re anybody

special”

:Imogen: But I was so shy the whole time I was growing upSarah: That ’s hard to believeImogen: Yes, but I was. I had such a complex and when I was in a group like this....Well I didn’t know and I felt the pressure. Now they’re waiting for me to saysomething. What should I say? I have to say something or they’ll think I’m stupid.I’m pathetic. And then everything collapsed and everybody thought so in the end because I was so nervous.Kristina: Was this while you were in school?

Imogen: Yes, the whole time. I don’

t know, but during high school I don’

t think Ianswered a single question, I don’t understand how I passed. In history I didn’t answer one question, an oral question, because I’d never felt secure in that group. Somaybe I look up to the boys who dare to speak in a group and think that is number one anyway.Jean: But then I would think you’d have great sympathy for children who feel, whoare like that.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 293



Imogen: Yes, I suffer with themJean: Yes, well but. Because it ’s easy to see, because I’ve also been a bit shy, always blushing, at least in junior high school. I see someone and think God how terrible,and then I try to help.

Kristina: Right, exactly. But how, how, because you know how it feels. How can, canyou push girls and boys who have, who experience this kind of fear? What can youdo?Jean: Yes, lots of encouragement Imogen: Acknowledge that you see (Excerpt 7, Seminar 6).

The thoroughly tragic aspect of this constant “doing” of gender, separation of the sexesand elevation of the masculine over the feminine is the unavoidable contempt it causes for what is seen as “feminine” (Hirdman 2001). This contempt is a necessary condition for thereproduction of women’s subordination and for socializing both women and men into this

gender order. Owing to this order, women may carry with them, consciously or unconsciously, self-contempt that must be dealt with in some way. Within Imogen, therewould seem to be a strong link between her self-image during childhood and adolescenceand her condescending views on the girls in her classroom.

When Imogen told us about her own schooldays, it was clear that she was mirroring her ownself-concept in the little girls. She even used the word “ pathetic” to describe herself, but she didnot seem to realize that her self-image might be influencing how she views and judges the girls.To me, these two seminars contained critical events that allowed me to get a morecomprehensive picture and understanding of Imogen. She explicitly expressed her conceptionsof girls and openly told us about her own self-image during childhood and adolescence. I am

uncertain, however, as to the extent to which these events were critical for Imogen and the other teachers. My intention remained to attempt to encourage the teachers to change their focus fromstudying and judging the children to studying themselves and trying to see their own values andconceptions, as well as their own attitudes toward the children.

During spring 2008, the seminar discussions focused largely on science teaching (whichis considered in an upcoming article) and gender issues were not at all as central.

Fall 2008

During Seminar 12, Imogen and Marlene described the float-or-sink experiments thechildren had carried out that fall (see Excerpt 2, page 7), and I pointed out that Imogen was

once again talking about the girls in a condescending manner. When I later transcribed theaudio-recordings, Imogen’s way of talking became even clearer, and I decided to haveImogen and the other group members read their own statements. If the transcriptions hadclearly elucidated Imogen’s opinions for me, wouldn’t they have the same effect on theteachers? Along with the memoranda I sent them, I attached two pages of transcriptionsfrom the recordings as well as a number of discussion questions5 that I planned to take upon the next occasion (Seminar 13). Thus, my aim was to help Imogen and the other teachers become aware of how they talk about the children, thereby stimulating a discussion of their inherent views and of how such views, in turn, could influence their attitudes toward andwork with the children. To sum up the content of the memoranda, the meeting began with

the teachers reading through the transcripts and considering my questions. After only

5 My questions were: What did the teachers want to achieve with these two experiments? What were thechildren supposed to learn/explore? What did the teachers expect of the children? What do the teachers think about the children’s explanations? Were there any occasions during the experiment that the teachers couldhave latched on to and used to pique the children’s interest? How did the teachers describe the children? Howdid the teachers construct/present gender?

294 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



having read a few lines of the transcripts, Imogen admitted that her statements during that session were not professional in any way — not in relation to the science activity, her teaching or her outlook on the children. When given the opportunity to see her ownstatements on paper, Imogen was quick to see how she had spoken about the children. I

asked, among other things, if they could see, based on the text, what expectations theteachers had of the children and what the teachers were thinking when the children carriedout the experiment. Imogen replied that she thought the girls should have tried different beads, one at a time, not throwing them in the water by the handful. She expected them todo as she said — to do things properly and work out what she was thinking. And when theydid not do this, when they did not obey the teacher but instead made up their own rules, she became irritated. Imogen continued:

Imogen: When Amy said “it ’s like a swimming ring, Imogen”, then I had something Icould have latched on to and developed

Sarah: Could have picked one at a time based on that Imogen: Yeah or whatever I was looking for, but I didn’t even listen to her. “Yeahcould be”, or something like that I said. And then we continued. And then I ’m at some meeting later and say it ’s hard to find things to latch on to. Maybe I shouldlisten to what they say some time (laughs). But I just have this idea that girls are boring. Kathrine laughs

Imogen: Well but I have it. I do. That ’s how it is.Linda: But how many (children) were there (in the group) Imogen? (Excerpt 8,Seminar 13)

In the above excerpt, Imogen discovers that she did not take advantage of Amy’s ideaabout why the hollow beads float. It is also evident that Imogen’s openness is somewhat embarrassing for the others. Kathrine laughed and Linda tries to steer the discussiontowards another explanation, that external factors like number of pupils also play a role.Uncomfortable or problematic opinions that we may not even be aware of can be difficult for others to deal with, which is why they respond by trying to dismiss such viewpoints.Kathrine and Linda’s way of reacting may also be an obstacle to the process of changeImogen has just started. But as we see below, Imogen does not let herself settle for their excuses. Instead, she shows great courage by explicitly expressing these sensitive

viewpoints and showing involvement and interest in her own possibility to change. Shemaintains her line of thought and directs the conversation back to the core question:

Imogen: And me with my expectations of these boring girls. I just search for thingsthat confirm them.Kristina: How can, how can you, do you think you can avoid that somehow?Imogen: Well I don’t knowKristina: Do you have any suggestion?Imogen: Help me

Below, Linda agrees with Imogen, stating that she too would have expected the girlsto follow instructionsLinda: Not to take those handfuls. Instead follow the instructions just like they’regivenKristina: yeahLinda: Then you get off course (laughs) because it wasn’t how you had imagined it Kristina: no, no

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 295



Linda: and I think it ’s easy to fall into that, especially with the girls. That they’re better at, listening and doing what the teacher says somehow. That they just can’t throw themselves into it and test, start Kristina: Exactly

Linda: Instead they wait and watch until the instructions comeKathrine: Then maybe you can look at it positively, that they daredSarah: Right but I feel that was what the...Imogen: But why didn’t I do it Kathrine: yeah, why not Imogen: Instead I get irritated because they don’t put in one at a time like I’d thought Sarah: But now you can think that, next time maybe you can do it. I think you have tosee it first before you can acknowledge it Imogen: Right Sarah: What I think is, I think that we acknowledge what we see. Or we acknowledge

what we feel we see or I don’t know how to say it.Kristina: Or we see what we imagine we’ll seeSarah: Yes or maybe (laughs). My expectations make me see what IKristina: Yes, preciselyImogen: I just see girls are boringSarah: Sure and you have expectations there tooImogen: But then when they keep at it and want to make the water pretty. Then it ’s allover ( several laugh)Kathrine: But why doesn’t Alex have the girls for technology instead?

Imogen: Yes, why?Kathrine: Spend your energy on the boys insteadImogen: Well, that ’s what I have been doing for several years. And I need to turn myview of girlsSarah: Yes, that ’s goodImogen: YesSarah: Maybe you’ve already started doing it, now that you recognize all this (talks

rapidly, Imogen talks simultaneously, inaudible)Imogen: Yeah, Kristina’s helped me by talking about this and now I see that that ’show it is.

Sarah: It ’s the same for me and with my technology lessons tooImogen: But I have to start seeing them in another way (Excerpt 9, Seminar 13)

Above, Kathrine points out that Imogen should have been able to think positively whenthe girls failed to act according to her expectations, but instead violated the norm. Sarahwants to support Imogen, and Kathrine joins in by suggesting that perhaps Imogen shouldwork with the boys instead, given her negative attitude towards the girls. But Imogenclaims that she needs to change her outlook on the girls, and she thinks she can do this nowthat she is aware of the problem.

To call the teachers’ attention to the fact that the children’s explanations were assessed

differently based on their gender, I asked what they thought about the explanations givenfor why objects float or sink. As seen below, we looked through the text together, notingwhat the children said, and the teachers expressed what they thought:

Kristina: But do you see any difference here if we think about gender. How thechildren’s explanations are viewed?Short pause

296 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



Kathrine: I’m thinking more that they explain things based on what they’veexperienced. Amy had just been vacationing abroad, with lots of swimming rings.That it ’s more about what references they have, because they had like....Imogen: She doesn’t interest me either. The boys are more interesting and I follow up

what they do. Imogen and several others laugh

Imogen: Well but I think it ’s so clear Kathrine: Uh huhImogen: To me anywayLinda: Right, when you make an assertion with Amy, about what makes it float Imogen: Right, exactly. All done. Then we don’t need to discuss it any more. But with James I ask a follow-up question anyway...Kristina: Right Imogen: I should at least get credit for that (laughs)

Kristina: Yes, you shouldImogen: YeahSarah: But that ’s the way we’re heading. That must be where we want to be?Imogen: But then why didn’t I do the same with Amy?Marlene: This is exciting reallyImogen: It makes me mad. What did you say?Marlene: I mean it ’s exciting and great that you see this yourself. I’m not sure I knowat all what I’ve learnedImogen: Well, I thought of it right away. There I am, there I’ve been all these years

with the boys. It ’s the boys I

’ve found exciting to work with. But it

’s surely just asinteresting to work with girls, if I can just get the hang of it (Excerpt 10, Seminar 13)

Marlene expresses her admiration for the fact that Imogen can see her own role and behavior so clearly. The excerpt ends with Imogen expressing her positive hope that her future work with girls will be exciting and interesting.

During previous meetings, I had tried to present “contrasting pictures” and call attentionto situations in which the children did not do what the teachers expected them to do, and tohighlight situations in which girls and boys transcended boundaries, but these attempts didnot have any great effect on how the teachers talked about the children. On the other hand,

in Seminar 13, when the teachers read the transcripts and could see how they expressedthemselves, the effect was striking, primarily for Imogen, who was the person in focus inthe transcripts we read. She was able to see clearly what she had done and how she hadtreated the girls and boys differently. She was able to verbalize this. During Seminar 14, Iasked the teachers what they thought about this working method — using transcripts from a previous meeting — and Imogen replied:

Imogen: Yes and you have to think about how you say things. I thought about that,that I didn’t finish my thoughts and that I ridiculed the girls when I talked.Sarah: Still, do you think you still do this. You’re the one who thinks so Imogen.

Jean (who didn’

t participate in Seminar 13): Right, you’

ve said that for a long time.Imogen: When I read the text I thought so.Sarah: Maybe you hear a tone of voice there that we don’t hear.Imogen: No, but I saw it when it was written down too. I’ve thought about it. It wasreally an eye-opener.Sarah: It never, oh really you mean that, you mean now you stop and think?Imogen: Yes. And I don’t have those expectations of the girls. (Excerpt 11, Seminar 14)

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 297



Seminar 13 clearly made an impression on Imogen, whereas Sarah expresses herself asthough she was never at the meeting at all. Imogen continues by saying that now after themeeting she stops and thinks more, and she tries not to have the preconceived notion that girls are boring. I ask Imogen if she can make herself stop thinking that girls are boring, and

she responds that she has to work at it constantly. Kathrine suggests that this does not seemto be something the children sense, given that the girls jump for joy when Imogen arrives. It is difficult to change conceptions that are deeply rooted. The contrasting pictures offered bythe other teachers in the group have not had any great impact. It is first when Imogen hasthe chance to “look at herself and her way of thinking” that she realizes what she has beendoing — valuing girls and boys differently — and can begin to do something about it.

Final Discussion

Given that the teacher group had worked with gender equity for some time prior to the

present project on gender and science and that their awareness of gender issues wasrelatively more advanced than others, many of the findings presented here seem rather remarkable. At first glance, one might come to the conclusion that work with gender equityin the kindergartens and elementary schools is counterproductive, in that it only serves toreinforce and cement stereotypical gender patterns. But the questions surrounding gender and equity are highly complex, and we relate to them in different ways in different situations. Along with others, Harding (1986) and Connell (2002) have described howgender is constructed on several levels or in several dimensions in relation to human practice. This “gender creation” is internalized in human beings — in our perception of

ourselves and of ourselves in relation to the opposite sex (Beauvoir 1949/1997). What Imean is that gender is constructed at different levels within each individual. We move between these different levels of thought on gender depending on the context we findourselves in. In the conversations the participating teachers have had during the seminars, it is clear that each individual has a complex picture of gender and that perhaps the most difficult task is to understand one’s own self-image and how it affects one’s encounters withgirls and boys, women and men, in everyday life. If teachers are to work in a well-considered manner with their students, it is important that they become aware of their different conceptions of gender. In the contemporary Swedish debate on gender equity, theconnection between gender-coded expressions in society and the internalized gender order

people carry with them is seldom discussed. On the contrary, endeavors to achieve gender equity are seen as something happening outside individuals, preferably in the public sphereand not in the private/personal sphere. The Final Report from the Delegation for Gender Equality in Pre-school (SOU 2006:75) states that:

We consider that professional educators should pursue their pedagogical work usingas their lodestar gender equity in relation to and between children. We believe this is best done through a working method characterized by gender awareness. However,what employees in the pre-school think privately, for example regarding the causes of gender differences or how society is structured in relation to gender, is their own

affair (p. 12; my translation).

The wording intimates that gender equity is something one is engaged in during workinghours; how one relates to the question privately is of no significance. To get perspective onwhat is remarkable about this statement, we can replace the words in the second sentencewith, for instance, “human rights” or “democracy”: “However, what employees in the pre-school think privately about human rights is their own affair.” In contrast, the results of the

298 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



present study instead show the necessity of getting at the personal and private level in order to break internalized patterns of thought. In this regard, different strategies may benecessary. In Imogen’s case, she started to change her ideas about girls being pathetic after she had read seminar transcripts in which she talked about the children.

The combination of individuals in the group and the atmosphere created by them was crucialto how the discussions developed. The participants were involved in the project to different degrees, and between seminars they could devote different amounts of time to planning,carrying out activities and reading the literature. This created a certain imbalance between thegroup members. Some conversations were possible, while others were probably not. A certainoutlook or opinion could predominate depending on how the teachers positioned themselves inthe group. Several of the teachers worked in the same team and therefore had to ensure that their everyday teamwork functioned. Thus, within the group, they had to adapt any possiblyuncomfortable or critical viewpoints. Although arguments were made against certain claimsand opinions, this was seldom (or never) done by entering into a controversy. For this reason,

the arguments were more or less passed by, resulting in little confrontation and discussion. Thishighlights the important role of the researcher in promoting a more nuanced and in-depthdiscussion in the group. When the project began, I was careful to ensure that the participantswould get to know and trust me. This meant that I was rather reserved and not particularlychallenging or provocative in my behavior. Regarding the project, I have had a plan and clear goal for what I wanted to achieve. During the course of the work, it became necessary to start from the discussions that emerged during the seminars. For the upcoming seminar, I oftenwanted to reconnect to previous statements and to find paths of entry that would help participants think something through one more time. This was a conscious strategy that was

sometimes successful, but that on other occasions did not elicit a clear response in the group,merely passing by more or less unnoticed.

Conclusions

As has been shown in previous research, teachers’ expectations of their pupils are important to pupils’ achievements in science (Kahle and Meece 1994; Scantlebury 2010). Even if teachers arehighly aware of gender equity issues in their teaching, it may still be difficult to “see” one’sown behavior in relation to children/students and thereby to challenge one’s own inherent

conceptions of gender (Stadler 2007). Despite the fact that the teachers in the present study hadlong experiences of working with gender equity issues, they still had difficulty abandoning their stereotypical ideas about girls and boys. They reproduced the notion that there are gender differences in how children work with science, and portrayed girls’ activities as subordinate to boys’. But if girls’ viewpoints are disregarded and if girls feel that boys’ work and opinions aremore highly valued, this will affect girls’ achievement and their attitudes towards science topics.

The present findings show, first of all, that work with gender equity cannot only be conductedon a general, public level, without any connection to people’s personal values. Secondly, theyshow that when using research strategies such as action research, situations can be arranged that

give teachers an opportunity to learn more about themselves and understand their owninternalized viewpoints. The obvious disadvantages of the working methods of action researchare that they require a long period of time and that only a few individuals can be involved. Oneway to have a greater impact would be to make room within teacher education for process work inwhich students’ inherent conceptions and opinions regarding gender and science are challenged.

Acknowledgements Many thanks to Karen Williams for her valuable help with the translation.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302 299



Appendix 1

Timetable over seminars, participants and activities

Year Sem. no. Excerpt no. Participants Other participants Stimulated Recall + other activities

2007

1 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene,Sarah

2 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene

3 Fiona, Imogen, Jean, Linda,Marlene, Sarah

Teachers invited tohold a workshopon technology

4 Fiona, Imogen, Jean, Sarah

5 3, Fiona, Imogen, Jean, Marlene,

Sarah

Teaching student See section from video-recording

of pupils’

science/technologyactivities (building magnet tracks)

6 4,5,6,7 F iona, Imogen, Jean, Sarah

2008

7 Imogen, Linda, Marlene, Sarah

8 1 Fiona, Imogen, Linda,Marlene, Sarah

One of mysupervisors

9 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene,Sarah

One of mysupervisors

See section from video-recordingof pupils’ science/technologyactivities (experiment with water)

10 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene,

Sarah

Between Sem. 10 and 11,

individually with Sara andImogen

11 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Sarah Between Sem. 11 and 12,individually with Linda

12 2 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Kathrine,Linda, Marlene, Sarah

Between Sem. 12 and 13,individual interviews withImogen, Jean and Sara.

13 8,9,10 Imogen, Kathrine, Linda,Marlene, Sara

Read excerpts from thetranscription of Sem. 12

14 11 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Kathrine,Linda, Sarah

200915 Alex, Imogen, Kathrine, Sarah

16 Alex, Imogen, Kathrine,Linda, Marlene, Sarah

See section from video-recordingof pupils’ science/technologyactivities (fish dissections)

17 Imogen, Jean, Kathrine, Sarah Read excerpts from thetranscription of Sem. 16

18 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Kathrine,Linda, Sarah

Read excerpts from thetranscription of Sem. 17

19 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Linda,Sarah

References

Andersson, K., Hussénius, A., & Gustafsson, C. (2009). Gender theory as a tool for analyzing scienceteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 336 – 343.

300 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302



Stadler, H. (2007). (De-)Constructing gender in science education, 968 – 979. Response to Zapata, M. &Gallard, A.J. Female science teacher beliefs and attitudes: implications in relation to gender and pedagogical practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 923 – 985.

Thurén, B.-M. (1996). Om styrka, räckvidd och hierarki, samt andra genusteoretiska begrepp. [On force,scope and hierarchy and other concepts of gender theory]. Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift, 3 – 4, 69 – 85.

Weiner, G. (2004). Critical action research and third wave feminism: a meeting of paradigms. Educational Action Research, 12(4), 631 – 643.Wernersson, I. (2007a). Har skolan förändrat genusordningen eller genusordningen förändrat skolan? [Has

school changed the gender order or has the gender order changed school?] The Swedish Research

Council 10:2007 .Wernersson, I. (2007b). Från förskola till högskola — Vilka avtryck ger forskning om jämställdhet? [From

preschool to higher education — What marks generate research on gender equity?] The Swedish ResearchCouncil 12:2007.

302 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281 – 302

“it’s funny that we don’t see the similarities

Documents