Gender Issues
The term ‘gender issues’ refers to the social and educational aspects of the pupil’s being male or female. That is to say, to the real and perceived biological, genetic, cultural, educational, and indeed lifelong implications of their gender. Recent evidence shows that, aside from the obvious biological differences between boys and girls, there are common neurological and metabolic differences between them. These affect the rates of their intellectual development in different areas of learning (for example, language) during the early and primary school years, largely to the disadvantage of boys. An account of this is to be found in Portwood, 2000. Arnold (1997) reviewed evidence that there may be differences in the development of the function of brain hemispheres, and that language development follows a biological maturation ‘timetable’, where girls have a faster rate of progress than boys. He also remarked that there is said to be a greater proportion of boys among hyperactive children. Biddulph, too, (1998) argues that boys’ motor skills, and their greater percentage of muscle than that in the case of girls, make them less able to sit still and concentrate on tasks for sustained periods, at least in the early years. Unless one knows of such factors, and acts upon them early, the result may be disaffection and underachievement, which is likely to continue into secondary school.
It must be remembered, though, that there also concerns for girls, and that knowledge of differences such as these should not be allowed to determine predictions.
Primary schools should be mindful of:
Schools need to address how they can recognize, minimize, and, where useful, even exploit, any male-female differences that do exist; they should debate the extent to which they are striving for equal opportunities for both genders.
Why are gender issues an important focus in the education of gifted and talented pupils?
Gender Bias in the Classroom
Girls under participation in and attitude towards education may be a problem older and more deeply rooted that we care to acknowledge. Harris (1997) argues that the problem is at least two thousand years old and probably older. Certainly within the history of Christian education, education was always gendered because of its gendered subject and that the Church authorities, whose schools offered what education was available, were “blatantly misogynist.” She suggests that women have been socially conditioned over the centuries and that the result of this has been to create the belief that girls and women do not study because they cannot and that such a view remains strong in the perception of the public. Her case is substantiated with evidence from numerous sources. A Saturday review of the 1880s went further and denounced educated women as “defeminated, hermaphrodite, mongrel, specimen of vermin, one of the most intolerable monsters in creation”, while elsewhere it was pronounced that, “Educating girls led to a moral decline of the family, indeed the race and empire.” Against such a background it is not difficult to see why women have had a poor deal in terms of their schooling and over the years have had to press for what is theirs by right.
Running parallel with past attitudes towards the place of women in society and their rights to education, has been a view of the curriculum itself, which has held sway since the time of Euclid and before, and has only in the twentieth century been brought into question. Ernest (1991) debates the existence of two opposing philosophies of classroom education. On the one hand is the traditional or absolutist view of classroom education which maintains that knowledge is made up of absolute truths and represents a sphere of certain knowledge. These truths, once established by cold reason alone, stand for ever within the domain of human consciousness. Indeed, the claim is that they were true before humans came to be and will remain so after our departure. The absolutist school goes on to argue that mathematical truths are thus timeless, value free and culture free. Such a view has, over the years, given grounds for classroom education to be viewed as cold, abstract, ultra rational and difficult, and more importantly, by association with other ideas and values, ‘unfeminine.’ Link this widely held view of classroom education with a perceived role of women as subordinate to men, which in some groups of society, is still embedded within the culture here, and certainly elsewhere, and the enormity of the problem begins to become apparent.
The Fallibilist view of classroom education does not reject the idea of structure within the classroom. Rather it suggests a realm of multiple overlapping and evolving structures that can grow and develop, be modified, refined and redefined over time. Here is a new view of classroom education, a view encompassing warmth and humanistic traits, a view that admits to a process of investigation, blind alleys, restarts, mistakes, frustrations, confusions, failures and successes. Finally, all being well, a neatly packaged product is presented for consideration, a package that itself is open to scrutiny, refinement and correction, a package that is imbued with the values and cultures which contributed to its creation.
Not only is the nature of classroom education questioned. Walkerdine (1989) launches an attack on the research methods and conclusions drawn regarding girls’ performance in class, (e.g. Shuard, 1981, 1982) calling into question the reliance on statistical significance used by those researchers who concluded that girls performed better at tasks requiring only ‘low level’ or rote learning skills, thus negating the small measure of success found in girls’ achievements. Also cited are examples of teacher attitude favoring boys’ success over that of girls’. Linked with this or as a consequence of it, there appears to be a tendency for boys to see their success in class as attributable to ability, while girls regard it more as good luck. (Weiner 1971)
School materials too, have been the subject of scrutiny. Walkerdine (1989) draws on the research findings of Jean Northam (1983) who carried out an analysis of primary and secondary texts and concluded that, at the time of her writing, stereotypical styles of male/female roles in society were still apparent in the then currently used texts and could still be teased out from the more up to date versions of the late 1980s. These usually took the form of the girl being subordinate to the boy, either visually, or by implication within the text, or in one example cited, where girls only were featured, of having to ask the reader’s advice on a course of action through solving a problem. (Walkerdine 1989, p193)
Walkerdine (1982) suggests that factors affecting girls’ learning performance were also to do with the subject itself and the way it was taught. For example, her researchers from the Girls and Mathematics Unit noted that in early years, girls did enjoy playing with construction toys, an activity traditionally associated with boys, but that teachers assumed that girls would not want to continue with these pursuits, leading to a lack of encouragement and even a disregard of the activity when it did happen. She argues that gender differences have much to do with a myth regarding male superiority in mathematics. The myth is so embedded within, and colors the view of society, it came to be perceived as true. Walkerdine attributes no blame to groups or sectors of society but is more interested in identifying and rectifying the causes of the myth.
Biological differences have been examined in attempt to establish explanations for differences in learning performances between girls and boys. The effect of biological factors is not fully understood (Ernest 1996) and would not account for the differences in educational attainment being more dominant in some countries than in others. Burton (1986) and Walden and Walkerdine (1985) examined the issue of differences in spatial ability concluding respectively that only the top ten percent of the population showed a significant difference and that no firm judgment could be made. In an attempt to refocus on the under-participation of girls in class post sixteen, Leone Burton (1986), drawing on a then recent publication by Chipman et al, (1985) identified the following factor relating to female participation in class at secondary and tertiary level.
Teachers whose awareness of and sensitivity to the effects their behavior on pupils appears to be crucial. Related to this is the kind of classroom environment which is fostered, the image conveyed of the nature of learning and the enquiry and the relationships which are developed between the teachers and the taught. (Burton 1986, p2)
Current styles of primary teaching lay stress on this aspect of primary classroom practice. The teachers are required that they ensure that all pupils take part, that they promote learning by listening carefully to pupils’ responses (to questions) and responding constructively and make sure that all pupils of all abilities are involved and contribute to discussions (NNS 1999, Section 1, p12). There is, within our culture, a social acceptability of being poor mathematically (Haylock 1995) and a readier acceptance of innumeracy than illiteracy. (OfSTED 1997). This document also argues that if children (of both sexes) become anxious about learning because of confused or confusing teaching, attitudes to learning can become and remain negative, with destructive consequences for future achievement and enjoyment. No mention here is made of gender differences because in terms of achievement at primary level there are none, but if the deeper issue of differential participation rates later on is to be addressed then the notion of classroom education as warm, value laden, fallible and feminine friendly needs to run as a golden thread through the developing tapestry of mathematical skills and concepts that is being woven.
According to Carey et al (1994), although gender differences in achievement have been recognized for almost 50 years, in most cases no special efforts have been made to alleviate them until recently, for example, during the reform movements of the 1960’s in which there were major attempts to improve students’ learning by changing the curriculum, very little attention was given to increasing the achievement of females. Learning has improved as evidenced by the National Educational Goals Report (1997) which notes that student achievement increased on all learning indicators from 1990 to 1996. Despite this improvement, new and better programs, in some instances, have allowed existing inequities to be perpetuated, although in a reduced form. According to Carey et al (1994) even the development of a curriculum designed to serve all students has perpetuated inequities. One reason for this is that the developers have not considered what is known about how children learn with understanding. In some instances there has been little communication between resources in mainstream education, which have not been directly concerned with equity issues, and equity researchers, who have not been concerned with critical mainstream research. Before truly equitable classrooms can be developed, concerns about equity and knowledge about children’s learning must be integrated. Carey et al (1994) suggest a need for blending research on equity and children’s learning, stating that the knowledge gained using a cognitive science research paradigm contributes to our understanding of learning in schools. Research on children’s thinking and learning concept formation can help inform instruction that addresses gender inequalities. In this way, education researchers are becoming increasingly well informed about feminist research with education.
There have been many suggestions offered as to why girls perform less well than boys in learning. One of these proposed factors is biological differences between the sexes. Various studies have offered explanations for this, but as the achievement gap is closing as women are given more opportunity, many researchers are dismissive of this explanation. A second proposed factor contributing to gender differences is that a spatial ability. Eddowes (in Burton, 1986:23) and many others claimed that girl’s performance in spatial tasks is significantly worse than that of boys. This theory too has been refuted by researchers such as Walden and Walkerdine (1985:23), who examined this assumption and were unable to justify it. Likewise, Walden and Walkerdine concluded that they could not confirm assumptions by Wood (1976), for example, which argue that girls perform better at lower cognitive level tasks than at higher cognitive level, and dismiss similar assumptions relating to differing cognitive styles between the sexes.
Classrooms, Teachers and Gender Difference in Classroom Education
There has been much research examining the influence of the educational environment on learning by males and females. Data gathered from classroom observations suggests that the field is not as fair as formal documents and policies suggest. These observations have revealed marked similarities in the delivery of the lesson, most frequently teacher exposition followed by students’ attempts at the work but particular attention has been focused on the ways teachers interact with their male and female students. Brophy and Good (1974) reported that males received more criticism, were praised more frequently for correct answers and had more contact-time with their teachers. More recent work by Gore and Roumagoux (1983) found that teachers gave males longer to respond to questions and Leder’s work (1987) showed that males were asked the more cognitively challenging questions.
The leaning environment is made up of many complex factors and is difficult to analyze as many of these factors interact with each other. Apart from the complexity of the impact of the teacher, other variables include texts, materials, physical surroundings and forms of organizations. Early research into gender differences in learning examined such factors as stereotypic remarks by teachers, use of sex-biased texts and the sex of the teacher. More recently, because of the many types of equity intervention programs, most teachers are aware of the damage cause by stereotypic comments and avoid using them.
Sex Differences in Mathematical Performance and Achievement
There is contradictory evidence from research in this area. According to the APU primary surveys, there was very little difference in the level of mathematical performance with 11 year olds, by contrast, there were significant differences within performance. Walden and Walkerdine (1985) pointed out that boys fared better where spatial ability was required and that the only area where girls experienced a higher rate of success was algebra. During the period 1978-82 the APU, nevertheless, found there to be very little difference in achievement according to gender. Leder (1992) states that initial gender stereotypes and their expectations become self-fulfilling, shaped by teacher’s as well as students’ behaviors, suggesting that much research emphasizes gender differences instead of similarities. Current research methodology needs to be sufficiently flexible to keep abreast of a changing ethos in the classroom and to conference on factors which remain inequitable and provide some constructive ways of redressing them.
Marland’s work, summarized in Martini (1982), claims that, in certain respects, single-sex schools showed less marked sex stereotyping. In the US, 16+ and 18+ national examination results showed a proportionately higher take-up and success by girls in the stereotypical subjects of mathematics, and physical sciences, and boys in English literature and foreign languages in single-sex schools than in mixed. Similarly subject choice was less stereotypical in single sex girls’ schools than in mixed. (Martini, 1982, p4-6) These differences are consistent with two of the most likely ways in which socialization causes sex stereotyping:
1. Adolescents may develop attitudes which are a reflection of what they guess their peers feel, and accommodate their behavior in ways calculated to win approval from peers. What the opposite sex may seem to think is a great amplifying device; thus, in an all-girls school, there is no reflection from boys that participation in maths has a masculine image. Many researchers have argued persuasively that “the social structures of mixed schools may drive children to make even more sex-stereotyped subject choices, precisely because of the other
sex and the pressure to maintain boundaries, distinctiveness and identity” (Marland, 1983).
2. Although teachers of both sexes work in single-sex schools, the chances of women teachers of mathematics and the physical sciences is 50 to 70% higher in girls-only schools than in mixed schools and it is therefore likely that the leadership of strong and successful role models will encourage the pupils towards what would otherwise be non-typical sex efforts and choice (National Coalition of Girls’ Schools’, Task Force Reports, 1995).
In the U.S, the question has to be viewed with respect to the great achievement of schools such as the Girls Public Day School Trust schools which offer remarkably effective academic education to girls. The popular British view is that parents want single-sex education for their daughters, though more will accept a mixed education for their sons. There is probably some relationship here to the historical fact that the most prestigious old foundations in the big cities and among the public schools are inevitably single-sex, thus falsely associating prestige and perceived quality with single-sex education. Likewise, the only single-sex girls’ school is regarded by many as the most prestigious on the island.
Reference
Adams, C. (1986) Some Approaches to Equal Opportunities in Primary Schools. London: ILEA Primary Matters.
Arnold, R. (1996) Raising Levels of Achievement in Boys. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research, Educational Management Information Exchange.
Arnot, M., Gray, J., James, M., Rudduck, J. & Duveen, G. (1998) Recent Research on Gender and Educational Performance. London: OFSTED/HMSO
Biddulph, S. (1998) Manhood. London: Hawthorn Press.
Bleach, K. (1998) Raising Boys’ Achievement in Schools. Oakhill: Trentham Books.
Bell, J. (1995) Doing Your Research Project. Buckingham Philadelphia: Open University Press
Burton, L. (1986) Girls into Maths Can Go. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chipman, S.F. Brush, L.R. and Wilson, D.M. (1985) Women and mathematics: Balancing the Equation. Hillsdale, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Cohen, L and Manion, L. (1994) Research methods in Education. London: Routledge
Department for Education and Employment (1999) The National Numeracy Strategy. Cambridge university Press
Ernest, P. (1991) The Philosophy of Education. Basingstoke: The Falmer Press
Ernest, P. (1994) The Nature of Education and Equal Opportunities. University of Exeter
Eyre, D. (1997) Able Children in Ordinary Schools. London: David Fulton.
Freeman, J. (1996) Highly Able Girls and Boys. Northampton: NACE.
Freeman, J. (1998) Educating the Very Able: Current international research. London: OFSTED/Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Fraser, H. and Honeyford, G. (2000) Children, Parents and Teachers Enjoying Numeracy. London: David Fulton
Harris, M. (1997) Common Threads. Trentham Books Ltd; England
Haylock, D. (1995) Mathematics Explained for Primary Teachers. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Hughes, M, Wikeley, F and Nash, T. (1994) Parents and their Children’s Schools. Blackwell: Oxford.
Gaine, C. and George, R. (1999) Gender, Race and Class in Schooling. London: Falmer Press.
OFSTED (1997) The Teaching of Number in Three Inner-urban LEAs, reference:115/97/DS. London: OFSTED.
Pickering, J. (1997) Raising Boys’ Achievement. Stafford: Network Educational Press.
Teare, J.B., (1997) Effective Provision for Able and Talented Children. Stafford: Network Educational Press.
Walkerdine, V. (1989) Counting Girls Out. Virago: London
Weiner, B. (1971) Perceiving the Causes of Success and Failure. New York: General Learning Press
Whyte, J. (1983) Beyond the Wendy House: Sex Role Stereotyping in Primary Schools. York: Longman for Schools Council.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment