What generalizations can be made about how well girls can learn science? What are some of the issues that may hinder girls from leaning how to do science? Provide an argument in support for inclusionary classrooms? Describe strategies that would be most appropriate for teaching science to students with special needs. What would be the best methodology for teaching gifted students science? Which method would be the most challenging? When teachers use the term “multicultural” what are they referring to?
Gender bias is a serious consideration in teaching both Math and Science. Although the education of girls in these subjects has improved significantly in the past few decades, as teachers we still have a long way to go. In order to effectively teach from a constructivist perspective, we need to examine and change our own beliefs and the way we act toward girls in the science classroom. Some successful initiatives that have promoted inclusion are “Girls In Science” where women are role models to middle school girls; and “Sally Ride Science”, a company founded and named for our first American woman astronaut, dedicated to empowering girls in science. The bias of a teacher’s beliefs has hindered girls from learning science. When teachers feel that science is more appropriate for boys, they convey that belief in their behavior and interactions. Strategies to avoid bias include (Martin 2009; p309): a) Call on girls as often as boys b) Give an equal amount of wait time (at least 3-4 seconds) c) Call on ALL students, not just volunteers, to ensure equal opportunities to contribute. d) Watch group dynamics to avoid stereotypical roles e) Consider same-gender groups to foster active roles for girls. f) Give attention to the subject of women in science and provide lists of famous women scientists. g) Arrange a “career day” and include women who have careers in the field of science. h) Refer to scientists as “he or she”
Science is a perfect subject for an inclusionary classroom. The methodology of process-oriented inquiry contains the factors necessary to teach science to children with or without disabilities. According to Caseau and Norman, 1997, this type of learning allows for concrete, hands on learning. There is a greater involvement in group activities and the need for reading and writing skills is reduced. Inquisitiveness, personal connections and interests are encouraged. Lynch (2007) observed students in inclusionary 8th grade classrooms….. “and found that both students with and without disabilities exhibited significantly better achievement”.
Additional accommodations for children with disabilities may include: a) Ensure children have previously achieved skills and understandings needed. b) Demonstrate procedures while giving directions. c) Provide written and pictorial directions d) Use large print and graphic organizers. e) Allow students to improve and resubmit assignments f) Modify assessments to demonstrate understanding & achievement. g) Modify equipment and materials if needed h) Provide assistance and adaptive technology resources.
Students who have been identified with outstanding talent or perform at high levels of accomplishment fall into the “gifted” category. Many schools offer special programs either at a special time/day or within a regular inclusionary classroom. Figure 7.4 on page 315 offers some strategies for teaching gifted children elementary science such as: a) Allow students to demonstrate mastery of concepts. b) Provide a faster pace of new material. c) Incorporate students’ passionate interests into independent studies. d) Facilitate sophisticated research investigations. e) Encourage and focus on real world issues. f) Help children determine how to continue their inquiries outside of the classroom. g) Allow children to work independently or in groups focusing on similar areas of inquiry. The most challenging strategies are those that increase the pace or intensity of the research investigations. Even with process-oriented inquiry, classrooms designated as “honors” or “AP” would have an easier time maintaining a faster pace, deeper inquiry and consistency than multicultural classrooms with greater diversity.
Our multicultural classrooms encompass a larger umbrella than in the past. Students are uniquely different from each other. Race, ethnicity, culture, gender, learning styles, interests, and abilities all create a wonderful diversity that while make a classroom interesting and exciting can be challenging to a teacher. Ethnic and cultural influences drive the way children learn. Students need to see a connection to their own future and the activities should connect to what they envision the purpose of science. Meyer and Rhoades (2006) offer ways to foster multicultural education by exchanging values and beliefs with people from other cultures; reading biographies of people from other cultures; or corresponding with a pen pal.
Effective multicultural teaching embraces the same characteristics of constructivist inquiry teaching, which provides relevant hands-on activities that have meaning in the children’s lives and encourages students to share their experiences. Students are guided to ask questions, reason and connect new and previously learned information.
It is ultimately the attitude of the teacher that encourages all children to succeed in science, whether they are boys, girls, gifted, have special needs, or are English language learners. As teachers, we have a responsibility to motivate and inspire our “young scientists” to explore, ask, investigate and come up with their own conclusions.
Based on the National Research Council’s (NRC) premise that all students can and should learn science, girls can and should be able to learn science as well as their male counterparts. However, negative generalizations can be made when looking at statistics. For example—seeing fewer girls than boys being enrolled in advanced science courses, observing gender differences on science achievement tests, or noticing more men that women graduating college with science degrees can cause negative generalizations. Ideally, no generalizations should ever be made. All children are unique and individual. ***Some food for thought… Computer Engineer Barbie http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/barbies-next-career-computer-engineer/
Girls may not be given the opportunity to learn science due to the gender stereotypes held by teachers and parents. Playing with frogs or reading about dinosaurs do not mix with pink dresses and tea parties. These gender stereotypes may mean adults are not giving girls the same access to science materials, are ignoring girls’ interests in areas of science, or even discouraging them from enrolling in advanced science courses. Teacher and other adults hold biases about females in science, further preventing girls from learning. Girls’ comfort level within a classroom my hinder their learning. Some girls may be intimidated by boys, self-conscious about giving wrong answers, or afraid of appearing “nerdy”. Additionally, girls may not have knowledge of women’s contributions to science, assuming it’s only something men succeed in. In Chapter 7 (p. 309), Martin provides a list of strategies to help avoid gender bias in elementary science education.
An inclusionary classroom helps to ensure all students have an equal opportunity for learning, regardless of being gifted, average, disabled, or struggling in any way. In some cases, a child’s particular disability may not even affect their performance in science. Ideally, in a successful inclusionary classroom an observer unfamiliar with the students would not be able to easily pick out the disabled ones. If research has shown that the process-oriented inquiry methodology of teaching science is successful in teaching students with disabilities and “average” or “gifted” children, then it stands to reason that students with disabilities should be part of a classroom with all other students.
Martin describes two strategies most appropriate for teaching science to students with special needs. The process-oriented inquiry methodology (p. 311) uses factors necessary to teaching all students, not just those with a disability or ELLs. The inquiry method requires teachers (1) use concrete, hands-on learning experiences; (2) lessen the need for reading and writing skills; (3) provided for group interactions and group activities; (4) allow for individual differences; and (5) encourage areas of interest and curiosity. Another strategy, the Science-Technology-Society (STS) curriculum model (p. 312), has teachers develop lessons around specific interests of the children. This gives students a high level of input towards the lesson and lets them take ownership of the material they are learning. In addition, Martin lists other accommodations (p. 312) that can be made during planning and instruction to aide all children.
All children—gifted or not—can learn and they well learn as much science as they are able to in a constructivist, process-oriented inquiry approach. This method is also the most challenging. Martin also lists strategies for teaching science to gifted and talented elementary children (p. 315).
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “multicultural” as “of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures”. Culture is just one difference among children in a classroom. The U.S. Census predicts that by this year, 2010, as many as 1 in every 10 children in the U.S. will be foreign-born. Teachers must examine ways of teaching science to make it meaningful for students and making multicultural classrooms open to the needs of all children. It is important to remember that children of different cultures bring different perceptions and understandings to the classroom. Instructors must take into account their own attitudes, their teaching methodology, and the curriculum they are working with. Teachers need a positive attitude towards diversity and cultural sensitivity. Different, dominant learning styles may exist among the different racial, ethnic, and cultural groups within a classroom. Teachers must be aware of these and provide for them. Martin suggests incorporating a multicultural perspective by utilizing an ethnocentric curriculum (p. 330).
Male preeminence in the science and engineering fields is not attributable to cognitive differences between the sexes. Nor do I believe that teacher’s pervasive gender bias prevents girls from learning elementary science. I have two daughters and, in questioning both, neither one felt that preferential treatment is evident regarding their male counterparts in science class. I have read reports that indicate that both sexes perform better in single sex academic environments. Girls and boys at various stages of development are quite self-conscious around each other. Students can branch out of their comfort zone without the other gender to impress. Some opponents argue that separating boys from girls in the classroom would inhibit social development. Many coed schools have begun to offer a single-sex classroom experience in all core subjects. The remainder of the school day the sexes would be intermingled for lunch, specials, field trips, etc.
I believe that institutional barriers are a greater hurdle to overcome. Some industries have been too slow in correcting inequalities. Like it or not, the scientific establishments still adhere to the 'good old boy' mentality. Traditionally, women have needed to be more productive than men to be equally successful in retaining research grants and jobs. Accordingly, the greater emphasis should be on remaking the scientific establishments into a more woman friendly image.
Despite the growing numbers of women in the workplace, the woman still typically maintains the household and cares for children and family. The man is the primary bread-winner. The bias that success in science requires single-minded devotion needs to be addressed. Maybe, we need measures to help combine scientific careers with family responsibilities. Parents unintentionally ingrain gender-role specific behaviors. Girls help their mothers with housework and younger siblings, while boys help their fathers with yard work. Parents’ behaviors play a key role in the nurture of sex-differentiated values and perceptions.
In addressing some of the gender issues revolving around girls in science, both Catherine and Denise have made important points. Being a chemist myself, I do not believe that there are cognitve gender differences, but I do agree that subconscious stereotypes are still present in teachers, parents and even in student thinking. The process of viewing women as equals to their male counterparts is very slow, as revealed in almost every career path. I believe that introducing and exposing young girls to science topics at a young age is critical in facilitating a love for science. I used to get nature kits and similar types of science tools for my own preschool-age children, as well as take them on nature walks. There's a kit called Mudpies and Magnets, that integrates science into playtime. Parents who encourage their young kids to apply their love of exploration and discovery with a tilt towards the sciences, can jump start and promote a science interest that continues to grow as the kids get older. I've tried to do this as equally with my daughter as well as with my sons. As a sophomore in high school, I can't say that my daughter is impassioned with science, but she certainly is interested in it, and argues that the teachers do not make it interesting enough. They still teach mostly by direct instruction, with their biweekly labs interspersed in between. I have an amusing story to share that speaks to the gender bias point. My youngest son wants to go into the engineering field. He recently participated in the solar sprint car competition with other members of his grade. Kids were split into cooperative teams, who each built their own team cars, that run by solar panel and entered their cars into a regional competition against other schools. There was one girl team from our school, as contrasted to the four boy teams that entered. The girls definitely went for more aesthetics than boys. They attended the race wearing fire hats and matching shirts. Their car was a red, rebuilt Tonka fire truck. The boy groups went for basic functionality of the car. None of them thought of dressing up in matching outfits. The girls did research and discovered that if the car is sprayed with freon right before they race it, it runs faster. They inquired with the company that sponsors the race, and found out that using freon is in compliance with the competition rules. None of the boys did any such research, and in fact, when it was suggested to them by parent coaches, they insisted that they did not need it. So, I guess my point is that, even though I don't believe there are any cognitive ability differences between the sexes, there is a male vs. female type of thinking that reflects different approaches and attitudes towards their own abilities in science. To make a long story short, the girls made it to the finals and none of the boys did. Instead of being happy that their school will be represented in the state finals, the boys took it as a personal affront, and argued that the girls "cheated". Gender bias, unfortunately, is still alive and well in our schools, as well as in society. We still have a long journey ahead!
Bias, any bias, be it cultural, gender, age, race, etc., begins and ends with a teacher. This chapter definitely gives us a good outline of how to teach to children with learning disabilities and gives us some good "how-to's" to avoid showing gender bias in the classroom. What the chapter did not touch upon, however, is why math and science fields of study remain so male dominated. It did not identify, for example, the acceptance rate of men vs. women into medical school, veterinary school or dental school. (Up until five years ago, medical school applications pointedly asked women applicants if they had children and if they would be able to be committed as a medical student). It is extremely important that young girls grow up believing that careers in math and science are available to them and that they can be just as successful as the boys in their classes. The New York Times Magazine published a groundbreaking article two years ago regarding the separation of boys and girls in public school because of the scientific research done showing that males and females learn the same information differently. It profiled three different public schools in the United States that separates boys and girls and the information that came out of that article was fascinating. The rooms were kept at different temperatures, cooler for boys, warmer for girls, the class pets were different to reflect their different interests, the lighting in the classrooms were different. It was not conclusive in any way - there is plenty of evidence that boys and girls learn just as well together, but it gave me as a future teacher a great deal to consider.
I have to agree with Denise and mldecaprio in their responses to our questions. I do not believe there are any cognitive differences. I do think that the strong stereotypes previous generation held are slowly dying out. And I think the stereotype is subconscious in most cases.
I never felt there was preferential treatment in my science classes in school, from K to college. I don't think I was treated differently as I perused my environmental science career. The only time I felt is was as a field technician. My boss kept me out of the shadier job sites in places like Newark and Camden. And only one man made comments about me lifting heavy equipment. But no one every questioned my ability to get the job done.
I’ve also had the chance to work as a research assistant on a study of gender differences in children. Some of the questions elementary aged girls were asked had to do with tomboys… what did they think a tomboy was and if they felt they were tomboys. None of the girls gave responses relating to preferences for subject matter in school. Most responses dealt with appearance. Do not quote me on the actual data, but I remember parents responding to the subjects there children like best, and in my observation there didn’t appear to be a trend in only boys being liking science.
Initially I approached the answers to this chapter intending to comment on the gender issues in science education. Interestingly, Denise and Mary Lou had the same idea, and expressed many of my thoughts thoroughly and beautifully. Obviously this is an issue of interest and concern, but to avoid redundancy I changed my focus to teaching science to students with different learning abilities.
I was particularly interested in how the book addressed this since my last professor stressed never changing the actual learning based on ability, only changing the aspects of teaching used to achieve the learning. Basically, we should expect that all students can learn, but as teachers we will have to alter our delivery accordingly.
While this sounds ideal, I’ve struggled to wrap my head around the actuality of it. Would it really serve all students to expect the same outcome? And if so, how would special case students best be served during science learning, especially in the lower grades with more obviously mixed-ability classes?
While some schools offer programs on certain days in isolated classrooms, the regular inclusionary model is the one I’ve most often seen at elementary level. As Cat pointed out, the book reinforces the idea that all children can learn, and suggests that with a process-oriented inquiry approach children will learn as much as they are able. It promotes the idea that different children do not require different methodologies, but some should be considered special cases within the inquiry method of teaching used for all students. The strategies listed are insightful and will be helpful when I’m in the classroom.
I’m a proponent of the constructivist approach, but it is a challenging and time-consuming method and I’m cautious to think that I’ll be able to do my best teaching while limiting myself to a single methodology. Just like all students are different, I’m inclined to think that I will be best armed with the principles of several different methodologies. Constructivism will likely be my preferred method of teaching, but I see how elements of behaviorism, for example, might be needed to best teach certain special needs students. The benefits of being familiar with a variety of ways to present information to my students is sure to benefit me when trying to adapt learning to ability-varied students. My most effective strategies will probably incorporate ideas from different theoretical perspectives.
As a woman scientist, I am particularly interested in your post! I agree that some have inner feelings that science is for boys and this may come through in our teaching! We all must mindful of the messages we send to all our students. This includes all genders in all subject areas. I also agree with science being one of the subjects that lends itself to inclusion as well as enrichment. There are so many activities that can be used to promote learning for all students in science however; it is often dependent on the educator’s knowledge of differentiation and recognition of special needs.
Catherine makes a good point about gender stereotypes and reminds all of us to watch the clip art we are using as well the scientists we showcase. I also agree that the constructivist process approach is ideal for all students because they build on prior information and use their own knowledge and skills to uncover and develop new learning. I am delighted to hear that Denise’s daughters have experienced a positive, gender-free science education. The college of Saint Elizabeth will also benefit from the single sex achievement report. The example you provide for single sex cores and mixed sex non-cores is an interesting concept. I would be interested in studies of this nature. Mary Lou brings another interesting scientist perspective to this discussion while providing great suggestions for change. I am sure the mudpies and magnets would be very fun for all! The sentiment from your daughter that teacher’s do not make science fun and interesting is all too common! If you don’t how you can take the fun out of mudpies and magnets but unfortunately, some do! Hopefully your son’s experience with the sprint car will encourage him and the other boys to think outside the “car” …that is the real learning!
Jennifer makes a good point about why other factors that may influence women in science and math such as acceptance rate into medical school. The article you mention is so interesting… including the different temperature rooms. I was discouraged to learn that it did not impact learning however; it may be that the study was just too short to account. I also like how Catherine responded again (giving this post) a more discussion-like feel. Again, I am happy to learn that she did not feel her science education. Is this one of the reasons you were drawn to the field of environmental science?
It was also refreshing to read that Amanda agrees with Denise and Mary Lou’s ideas. (Nice confirmation). You are correct, the constructivist classroom is time consuming and challenging but worth very moment of time and energy! Master teachers rarely classify themselves and their methodologies and/or strategies. Teaching is very organic both a science and art. You need to monitor, adjust and feel for the best practice that fits the moment. Fortunately, the rewards are far greater than the output of work!
What generalizations can be made about how well girls can learn science? What are some of the issues that may hinder girls from leaning how to do science? Provide an argument in support for inclusionary classrooms? Describe strategies that would be most appropriate for teaching science to students with special needs. What would be the best methodology for teaching gifted students science? Which method would be the most challenging? When teachers use the term “multicultural” what are they referring to?
ReplyDeleteGender bias is a serious consideration in teaching both Math and Science. Although the education of girls in these subjects has improved significantly in the past few decades, as teachers we still have a long way to go. In order to effectively teach from a constructivist perspective, we need to examine and change our own beliefs and the way we act toward girls in the science classroom. Some successful initiatives that have promoted inclusion are “Girls In Science” where women are role models to middle school girls; and “Sally Ride Science”, a company founded and named for our first American woman astronaut, dedicated to empowering girls in science. The bias of a teacher’s beliefs has hindered girls from learning science. When teachers feel that science is more appropriate for boys, they convey that belief in their behavior and interactions. Strategies to avoid bias include (Martin 2009; p309):
ReplyDeletea) Call on girls as often as boys
b) Give an equal amount of wait time (at least 3-4 seconds)
c) Call on ALL students, not just volunteers, to ensure equal opportunities to contribute.
d) Watch group dynamics to avoid stereotypical roles
e) Consider same-gender groups to foster active roles for girls.
f) Give attention to the subject of women in science and provide lists of famous women scientists.
g) Arrange a “career day” and include women who have careers in the field of science.
h) Refer to scientists as “he or she”
Science is a perfect subject for an inclusionary classroom. The methodology of process-oriented inquiry contains the factors necessary to teach science to children with or without disabilities. According to Caseau and Norman, 1997, this type of learning allows for concrete, hands on learning. There is a greater involvement in group activities and the need for reading and writing skills is reduced. Inquisitiveness, personal connections and interests are encouraged. Lynch (2007) observed students in inclusionary 8th grade classrooms….. “and found that both students with and without disabilities exhibited significantly better achievement”.
Additional accommodations for children with disabilities may include:
a) Ensure children have previously achieved skills and understandings needed.
b) Demonstrate procedures while giving directions.
c) Provide written and pictorial directions
d) Use large print and graphic organizers.
e) Allow students to improve and resubmit assignments
f) Modify assessments to demonstrate understanding & achievement.
g) Modify equipment and materials if needed
h) Provide assistance and adaptive technology resources.
Part II
ReplyDeleteStudents who have been identified with outstanding talent or perform at high levels of accomplishment fall into the “gifted” category. Many schools offer special programs either at a special time/day or within a regular inclusionary classroom. Figure 7.4 on page 315 offers some strategies for teaching gifted children elementary science such as:
a) Allow students to demonstrate mastery of concepts.
b) Provide a faster pace of new material.
c) Incorporate students’ passionate interests into independent studies.
d) Facilitate sophisticated research investigations.
e) Encourage and focus on real world issues.
f) Help children determine how to continue their inquiries outside of the classroom.
g) Allow children to work independently or in groups focusing on similar areas of inquiry.
The most challenging strategies are those that increase the pace or intensity of the research investigations. Even with process-oriented inquiry, classrooms designated as “honors” or “AP” would have an easier time maintaining a faster pace, deeper inquiry and consistency than multicultural classrooms with greater diversity.
Our multicultural classrooms encompass a larger umbrella than in the past. Students are uniquely different from each other. Race, ethnicity, culture, gender, learning styles, interests, and abilities all create a wonderful diversity that while make a classroom interesting and exciting can be challenging to a teacher. Ethnic and cultural influences drive the way children learn. Students need to see a connection to their own future and the activities should connect to what they envision the purpose of science. Meyer and Rhoades (2006) offer ways to foster multicultural education by exchanging values and beliefs with people from other cultures; reading biographies of people from other cultures; or corresponding with a pen pal.
Effective multicultural teaching embraces the same characteristics of constructivist inquiry teaching, which provides relevant hands-on activities that have meaning in the children’s lives and encourages students to share their experiences. Students are guided to ask questions, reason and connect new and previously learned information.
It is ultimately the attitude of the teacher that encourages all children to succeed in science, whether they are boys, girls, gifted, have special needs, or are English language learners. As teachers, we have a responsibility to motivate and inspire our “young scientists” to explore, ask, investigate and come up with their own conclusions.
Based on the National Research Council’s (NRC) premise that all students can and should learn science, girls can and should be able to learn science as well as their male counterparts. However, negative generalizations can be made when looking at statistics. For example—seeing fewer girls than boys being enrolled in advanced science courses, observing gender differences on science achievement tests, or noticing more men that women graduating college with science degrees can cause negative generalizations.
ReplyDeleteIdeally, no generalizations should ever be made. All children are unique and individual.
***Some food for thought… Computer Engineer Barbie
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/barbies-next-career-computer-engineer/
Girls may not be given the opportunity to learn science due to the gender stereotypes held by teachers and parents. Playing with frogs or reading about dinosaurs do not mix with pink dresses and tea parties. These gender stereotypes may mean adults are not giving girls the same access to science materials, are ignoring girls’ interests in areas of science, or even discouraging them from enrolling in advanced science courses. Teacher and other adults hold biases about females in science, further preventing girls from learning. Girls’ comfort level within a classroom my hinder their learning. Some girls may be intimidated by boys, self-conscious about giving wrong answers, or afraid of appearing “nerdy”. Additionally, girls may not have knowledge of women’s contributions to science, assuming it’s only something men succeed in.
In Chapter 7 (p. 309), Martin provides a list of strategies to help avoid gender bias in elementary science education.
An inclusionary classroom helps to ensure all students have an equal opportunity for learning, regardless of being gifted, average, disabled, or struggling in any way. In some cases, a child’s particular disability may not even affect their performance in science. Ideally, in a successful inclusionary classroom an observer unfamiliar with the students would not be able to easily pick out the disabled ones. If research has shown that the process-oriented inquiry methodology of teaching science is successful in teaching students with disabilities and “average” or “gifted” children, then it stands to reason that students with disabilities should be part of a classroom with all other students.
Martin describes two strategies most appropriate for teaching science to students with special needs. The process-oriented inquiry methodology (p. 311) uses factors necessary to teaching all students, not just those with a disability or ELLs. The inquiry method requires teachers (1) use concrete, hands-on learning experiences; (2) lessen the need for reading and writing skills; (3) provided for group interactions and group activities; (4) allow for individual differences; and (5) encourage areas of interest and curiosity. Another strategy, the Science-Technology-Society (STS) curriculum model (p. 312), has teachers develop lessons around specific interests of the children. This gives students a high level of input towards the lesson and lets them take ownership of the material they are learning.
In addition, Martin lists other accommodations (p. 312) that can be made during planning and instruction to aide all children.
All children—gifted or not—can learn and they well learn as much science as they are able to in a constructivist, process-oriented inquiry approach. This method is also the most challenging. Martin also lists strategies for teaching science to gifted and talented elementary children (p. 315).
Part II
ReplyDeleteThe Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “multicultural” as “of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures”.
Culture is just one difference among children in a classroom. The U.S. Census predicts that by this year, 2010, as many as 1 in every 10 children in the U.S. will be foreign-born. Teachers must examine ways of teaching science to make it meaningful for students and making multicultural classrooms open to the needs of all children. It is important to remember that children of different cultures bring different perceptions and understandings to the classroom. Instructors must take into account their own attitudes, their teaching methodology, and the curriculum they are working with. Teachers need a positive attitude towards diversity and cultural sensitivity. Different, dominant learning styles may exist among the different racial, ethnic, and cultural groups within a classroom. Teachers must be aware of these and provide for them. Martin suggests incorporating a multicultural perspective by utilizing an ethnocentric curriculum (p. 330).
Male preeminence in the science and engineering fields is not attributable to cognitive differences between the sexes. Nor do I believe that teacher’s pervasive gender bias prevents girls from learning elementary science. I have two daughters and, in questioning both, neither one felt that preferential treatment is evident regarding their male counterparts in science class. I have read reports that indicate that both sexes perform better in single sex academic environments. Girls and boys at various stages of development are quite self-conscious around each other. Students can branch out of their comfort zone without the other gender to impress. Some opponents argue that separating boys from girls in the classroom would inhibit social development. Many coed schools have begun to offer a single-sex classroom experience in all core subjects. The remainder of the school day the sexes would be intermingled for lunch, specials, field trips, etc.
ReplyDeleteI believe that institutional barriers are a greater hurdle to overcome. Some industries have been too slow in correcting inequalities. Like it or not, the scientific establishments still adhere to the 'good old boy' mentality. Traditionally, women have needed to be more productive than men to be equally successful in retaining research grants and jobs. Accordingly, the greater emphasis should be on remaking the scientific establishments into a more woman friendly image.
Despite the growing numbers of women in the workplace, the woman still typically maintains the household and cares for children and family. The man is the primary bread-winner. The bias that success in science requires single-minded devotion needs to be addressed. Maybe, we need measures to help combine scientific careers with family responsibilities. Parents unintentionally ingrain gender-role specific behaviors. Girls help their mothers with housework and younger siblings, while boys help their fathers with yard work. Parents’ behaviors play a key role in the nurture of sex-differentiated values and perceptions.
In addressing some of the gender issues revolving around girls in science, both Catherine and Denise have made important points. Being a chemist myself, I do not believe that there are cognitve gender differences, but I do agree that subconscious stereotypes are still present in teachers, parents and even in student thinking. The process of viewing women as equals to their male counterparts is very slow, as revealed in almost every career path. I believe that introducing and exposing young girls to science topics at a young age is critical in facilitating a love for science. I used to get nature kits and similar types of science tools for my own preschool-age children, as well as take them on nature walks. There's a kit called Mudpies and Magnets, that integrates science into playtime. Parents who encourage their young kids to apply their love of exploration and discovery with a tilt towards the sciences, can jump start and promote a science interest that continues to grow as the kids get older. I've tried to do this as equally with my daughter as well as with my sons. As a sophomore in high school, I can't say that my daughter is impassioned with science, but she certainly is interested in it, and argues that the teachers do not make it interesting enough. They still teach mostly by direct instruction, with their biweekly labs interspersed in between.
ReplyDeleteI have an amusing story to share that speaks to the gender bias point. My youngest son wants to go into the engineering field. He recently participated in the solar sprint car competition with other members of his grade. Kids were split into cooperative teams, who each built their own team cars, that run by solar panel and entered their cars into a regional competition against other schools. There was one girl team from our school, as contrasted to the four boy teams that entered. The girls definitely went for more aesthetics than boys. They attended the race wearing fire hats and matching shirts. Their car was a red, rebuilt Tonka fire truck. The boy groups went for basic functionality of the car. None of them thought of dressing up in matching outfits. The girls did research and discovered that if the car is sprayed with freon right before they race it, it runs faster. They inquired with the company that sponsors the race, and found out that using freon is in compliance with the competition rules. None of the boys did any such research, and in fact, when it was suggested to them by parent coaches, they insisted that they did not need it. So, I guess my point is that, even though I don't believe there are any cognitive ability differences between the sexes, there is a male vs. female type of thinking that reflects different approaches and attitudes towards their own abilities in science. To make a long story short, the girls made it to the finals and none of the boys did. Instead of being happy that their school will be represented in the state finals, the boys took it as a personal affront, and argued that the girls "cheated". Gender bias, unfortunately, is still alive and well in our schools, as well as in society. We still have a long journey ahead!
Bias, any bias, be it cultural, gender, age, race, etc., begins and ends with a teacher. This chapter definitely gives us a good outline of how to teach to children with learning disabilities and gives us some good "how-to's" to avoid showing gender bias in the classroom. What the chapter did not touch upon, however, is why math and science fields of study remain so male dominated. It did not identify, for example, the acceptance rate of men vs. women into medical school, veterinary school or dental school. (Up until five years ago, medical school applications pointedly asked women applicants if they had children and if they would be able to be committed as a medical student). It is extremely important that young girls grow up believing that careers in math and science are available to them and that they can be just as successful as the boys in their classes. The New York Times Magazine published a groundbreaking article two years ago regarding the separation of boys and girls in public school because of the scientific research done showing that males and females learn the same information differently. It profiled three different public schools in the United States that separates boys and girls and the information that came out of that article was fascinating. The rooms were kept at different temperatures, cooler for boys, warmer for girls, the class pets were different to reflect their different interests, the lighting in the classrooms were different. It was not conclusive in any way - there is plenty of evidence that boys and girls learn just as well together, but it gave me as a future teacher a great deal to consider.
ReplyDeleteResponding...
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Denise and mldecaprio in their responses to our questions. I do not believe there are any cognitive differences. I do think that the strong stereotypes previous generation held are slowly dying out. And I think the stereotype is subconscious in most cases.
I never felt there was preferential treatment in my science classes in school, from K to college. I don't think I was treated differently as I perused my environmental science career. The only time I felt is was as a field technician. My boss kept me out of the shadier job sites in places like Newark and Camden. And only one man made comments about me lifting heavy equipment. But no one every questioned my ability to get the job done.
I’ve also had the chance to work as a research assistant on a study of gender differences in children. Some of the questions elementary aged girls were asked had to do with tomboys… what did they think a tomboy was and if they felt they were tomboys. None of the girls gave responses relating to preferences for subject matter in school. Most responses dealt with appearance. Do not quote me on the actual data, but I remember parents responding to the subjects there children like best, and in my observation there didn’t appear to be a trend in only boys being liking science.
Catherine Orosz
Initially I approached the answers to this chapter intending to comment on the gender issues in science education. Interestingly, Denise and Mary Lou had the same idea, and expressed many of my thoughts thoroughly and beautifully. Obviously this is an issue of interest and concern, but to avoid redundancy I changed my focus to teaching science to students with different learning abilities.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in how the book addressed this since my last professor stressed never changing the actual learning based on ability, only changing the aspects of teaching used to achieve the learning. Basically, we should expect that all students can learn, but as teachers we will have to alter our delivery accordingly.
While this sounds ideal, I’ve struggled to wrap my head around the actuality of it. Would it really serve all students to expect the same outcome? And if so, how would special case students best be served during science learning, especially in the lower grades with more obviously mixed-ability classes?
While some schools offer programs on certain days in isolated classrooms, the regular inclusionary model is the one I’ve most often seen at elementary level. As Cat pointed out, the book reinforces the idea that all children can learn, and suggests that with a process-oriented inquiry approach children will learn as much as they are able. It promotes the idea that different children do not require different methodologies, but some should be considered special cases within the inquiry method of teaching used for all students. The strategies listed are insightful and will be helpful when I’m in the classroom.
I’m a proponent of the constructivist approach, but it is a challenging and time-consuming method and I’m cautious to think that I’ll be able to do my best teaching while limiting myself to a single methodology. Just like all students are different, I’m inclined to think that I will be best armed with the principles of several different methodologies. Constructivism will likely be my preferred method of teaching, but I see how elements of behaviorism, for example, might be needed to best teach certain special needs students. The benefits of being familiar with a variety of ways to present information to my students is sure to benefit me when trying to adapt learning to ability-varied students. My most effective strategies will probably incorporate ideas from different theoretical perspectives.
Chapter 7 comments
ReplyDeleteAs a woman scientist, I am particularly interested in your post! I agree that some have inner feelings that science is for boys and this may come through in our teaching! We all must mindful of the messages we send to all our students. This includes all genders in all subject areas. I also agree with science being one of the subjects that lends itself to inclusion as well as enrichment. There are so many activities that can be used to promote learning for all students in science however; it is often dependent on the educator’s knowledge of differentiation and recognition of special needs.
Catherine makes a good point about gender stereotypes and reminds all of us to watch the clip art we are using as well the scientists we showcase. I also agree that the constructivist process approach is ideal for all students because they build on prior information and use their own knowledge and skills to uncover and develop new learning. I am delighted to hear that Denise’s daughters have experienced a positive, gender-free science education. The college of Saint Elizabeth will also benefit from the single sex achievement report. The example you provide for single sex cores and mixed sex non-cores is an interesting concept. I would be interested in studies of this nature. Mary Lou brings another interesting scientist perspective to this discussion while providing great suggestions for change. I am sure the mudpies and magnets would be very fun for all! The sentiment from your daughter that teacher’s do not make science fun and interesting is all too common! If you don’t how you can take the fun out of mudpies and magnets but unfortunately, some do! Hopefully your son’s experience with the sprint car will encourage him and the other boys to think outside the “car” …that is the real learning!
Jennifer makes a good point about why other factors that may influence women in science and math such as acceptance rate into medical school. The article you mention is so interesting… including the different temperature rooms. I was discouraged to learn that it did not impact learning however; it may be that the study was just too short to account. I also like how Catherine responded again (giving this post) a more discussion-like feel. Again, I am happy to learn that she did not feel her science education. Is this one of the reasons you were drawn to the field of environmental science?
It was also refreshing to read that Amanda agrees with Denise and Mary Lou’s ideas. (Nice confirmation). You are correct, the constructivist classroom is time consuming and challenging but worth very moment of time and energy! Master teachers rarely classify themselves and their methodologies and/or strategies. Teaching is very organic both a science and art. You need to monitor, adjust and feel for the best practice that fits the moment. Fortunately, the rewards are far greater than the output of work!
Great job learning team 7!
~Rosalie