HELPING TEACHERS MAXIMIZE THE
LEARNING OF FEMALE STUDENTS
by
Patsy Ann Giese, Ph. D.
Slippery Rock University of
Pennsylvania, Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
Teachers
can influence female students during the critical adolescent years in which girls
are making decisions that may affect their futures irrevocably. This paper
describes a graduate course developed to help elementary and secondary teachers
understand the causes and consequences of underrepresentation of women in
scientific and mathematical endeavors and then to increase the teachers'
willingness and ability to change the status quo.
INTRODUCTION
Although
it is widely believed that peer pressure is the dominant factor that influences
teenagers, an American Association of University Women survey showed that
adults have greater impact than peers. In a factor analysis, feelings of
acceptance by peers ranked below academic confidence as a dimension of
adolescent self-image. Academic pride was a more important aspect of
self-esteem for girls than for boys. This survey also found that liking math
and science had a stronger impact on girls' desire for a professional career
than boys'. Young women's feelings about academic performance were found to be
strongly correlated with their relationships to teachers. "Thus, teachers
have a special opportunity to affect the self-esteem of their female students,
and, by instilling confidence, to shape their interests and aspirations"
(AAUW, 1991).
In
order to help science and mathematics teachers maximize the learning of female
students, I have taught a three-credit (40 in-class hours) graduate course four
times at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania from 1988 to 1990. A total of
122 teachers of fifth grade through twelfth grade completed this course. The
ratio of male teachers to female teachers was 42/80. They drove up to 190 miles
per round trip to attend. A survey of the last class of participating teachers
showed that the largest group (35%) became aware of this opportunity through a
recommendation by a teacher who had already taken this course.
As
this course was taught repeatedly, the most effective portions were refined
while substitutions were made for the less effective portions. Tuition was paid
by funds granted under the federal Education for Economic Security Act and the
Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act. Jim Hirstein, a
mathematics professor at the University of Montana, was co-director with me for
the initial session. The next three times the course was taught, I was the sole
director. Another grant proposal has been written requesting funding for this
course from 1993 through 1996. Co-director for this coming cycle will be Dale
Hunter, a biology professor at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.
The
following concerns about conditions in the United States led me to develop the
course described in this paper:
1.
smaller numbers of females than males enrolled in elective high school science
and mathematics courses,
2.
disparities in achievement between males and females in science and mathematics
as measured by standardized tests,
3.
lower expectations of females for themselves as compared to their male peers,
4.
a decline in career commitment of females who felt men disapproved of women
using their intelligence,
5.
the underestimation by girls and their teachers concerning the length of time
females, on the average, have paid employment,
6.
the concentration of women in very few occupations out of tens of thousands of
possibilities,
7.
the decreasing numbers of women entering technical professions (occurring after
more than a decade of fairly rapid increases),
8.
the high rate of poverty for female heads of households.
Believing
that major change only happens incrementally as individuals change their values
and actions, I was not discouraged by the magnitude of these problems. Instead,
I decided that my efforts to affect teachers in Western Pennsylvania would be a
positive, albeit small, influence on American society. Presumably, each teacher
who took the course could then affect hundreds of students.
COURSE
DESCRIPTION
Several
principles undergirded the development of this course. ÞFirst was the
assumption that genetic differences in the brains of males and females are
insignificant (and possibly nonexistent) causes of the differences in numbers
of males and females engaged in scientific and mathematical endeavors as a part
of their education, recreation, and employment. However, messages given though
family interactions, exposure to advertising, and other common situations convey
the impression that characteristics needed for learning science and
mathematics--such as curiosity, persistence, and intelligence--are not
characteristic of females. Schools need to be exceedingly careful that these
messages do not creep into their hidden curriculum.
Another
principle of this course was idea that being able to picture oneself
accomplishing tasks is essential for enthusiastic and confident learning.
Dynamic role models should be provided for young females though the use of
print and audio-visual materials supplemented by contact with adult women,
particularly those who use science and mathematics.
Third
was the principle that, for meaningful learning, abstract ideas need to be
related to tangible objects and observable phenomena. Because girls often have
been more restricted than boys in playing with a wide variety of objects, girls
need to be given numerous opportunities to use manipulative/hands-on materials
in schools.
During
this course, substantive discussions were facilitated by the requirement to
read as many as five textbooks and several articles. (In Þthe proposal
currently being considered, eleven textbooks were requested for each
participating teacher.) Emphasis was on research-based strategies such as
cooperative learning that have been shown to increase motivation and
achievement of girls. Ways to lessen mathematics and science anxiety were also
explored. Research findings about classroom interaction patterns were related
to incidences in the participants' own classrooms.
Some
of the textbooks provided activities that teachers could use with adolescent
students. For this graduate course, class time was allotted to
manipulative/hands-on activities that develop abilities generally weaker in
females than in males (for example, logical reasoning and spatial
visualization). Computer work was included, too, using public domain and
commercial software.
The
history of women who have excelled in science and mathematics was part of this
course. In one lecture, I gave the teachers an overview of 5000 years of
women's obstacles and achievements in these disciplines. I compiled a
bibliography on this subject to facilitate the participating teachers and their
students writing reports and making oral presentations on this topic.
Also,
current statistics were provided about aspects of women's lives, including
their education, employment, poverty, and self-esteem. A role playing game was
used to illustrate that the probabilities of reaching particular levels of
education and earnings are very different Þfor males and females. Segments of
several videotapes were shown during the course to illustrate females using
science and mathematics.
Guest
speakers were (in most cases) valuable role models and sources of information. They
provided a variety of perspectives, such as coordinating a university
mathematics program for entering students, chairing a science department at a
private research university, administering a large college of engineering at a
public university, teaching innovative engineering and public policy courses,
and directing a university women's studies program. This variety will be
increased for the proposed cycle because women employed in industry have agreed
to speak. The teachers enrolled in my course appreciated the fact that guest
speakers were willing to discuss their own education and other personal
experiences. My scheduling of female guest speakers was intended to motivate
the participants to do likewise in their own classrooms. (That expectation has been
fulfilled.) Male guest speakers spoke to my graduate classes, but--with one
exception--their presentations were not worthwhile.
The
participating teachers gave oral presentations and/or completed written
assignments each time I taught this course. They did this individually or in
cooperative groups. They had the following options:
1.
a unit plan that meets the Criteria for Equitable Activities published by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
2.
a research report based on interviews or questionnaires either with adolescents
or adults learning/using science and/or mathematics,
3.
a research report based on analysis of sex role stereotyping in textbooks or
mass communication media,
4.
a book report on an autobiography or a biography of a scientist or
mathematician,
5.
a book report on a history of science and/or mathematics,
6.
a book report on a summary of recommendations based on results of education
research.
Each
of the above categories was chosen by at least one participant. Particularly
outstanding were a female-friendly unit on bridges taught to middle school
students, videotaped interviews of math-anxious women attending a
vocational/technical school, and a report on Rachael Carson using published
political cartoons as well as a biography.
EVALUATION
Through
taking this course, teachers became more sensitive to equity issues. A
Likert-type attitude questionnaire was developed by Jim Hirstein and myself,
and it was administered during the first and last class periods of each session.
For each of the four times the course was taught, there were significant
differences (p < .01) from pre- to post-testing on each of the five scales
for this questionnaire with the exception of the "teaching science"
scale for the fall 1989 group (p = .016). Female teachers had more favorable
attitudes than male teachers as measured by the "interacting with
females" scale. On the average, men's scores at the end of this course
were slightly higher than women's initial scores. Besides that, the increase for
women was greater than the increase for men.
Favorable
responses were obtained from participants on a 15-question form about the
quality of the program. This Likert-type instrument was based on a form devised
for another in-service program conducted at several universitites in
Pennsylvania. All statements were positive, and the ratings were coded from one
for strongly disagree to five for strongly agree. Given chronologically for the
four times I taught the gender equity course at Slippery Rock University, the
means for the entire instrument were 4.43, 4.16, 4.53, and 4.64. Jim Hirstein
taught with me the summer of 1988, so the first mean reflects his efforts as
well as mine.
Participants
praised the course on a student evaluation form required by Slippery Rock
University and on another form written by me. Also, fourteen male and female
participants wrote complimentary letters to me (with two letters being sent
also to Pennsylvania Congressmen and Department of Education officials).
CONCLUSION
During
this gender equity course, participants were exposed to ideas and given
tangible resources in order that these teachers could be agents of change in
their own environments. Responses to a questionnaire (pre- and post-course) as
well as discussion at a follow-up meeting showed that participants were using
strategies and activities from the program in their classrooms. Before the
course, 8.5% of the teachers were implementing strategies for maximizing the
learning of female students using print and audio-visual resources and
manipulative/hands-on materials. Months after the course, that number had
increased more than nine-fold to 80.0%.
In
addition, participants were influencing other teachers and administrators to be
concerned about female participation in science and mathematics activities.
Many participants shared articles, books, and software with other teachers in
their school districts. A few female participants gave presentations about
gender equity for faculty in-service sessions, parent meetings, community organization
meetings, and regional professional conferences. One male participant submitted
his gender equity unit plan for a state-wide competition.
The
real measure of success for this course is not the teachers' activities, but
their female students' life-long learning. That effect cannot be documented. I
do believe my efforts have brought some adolescents closer to gaining the best
possible future for themselves.
REFERENCE
AAUW
(1991). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America. Washington DC:
American Association of University Women, p. 11.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AAUW
(1992a). A call to action: Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America.
Washington DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
*AAUW
(1992b). The AAUW report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington DC:
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation and National
Education Association.
Blackwell,
P. (1982). Spatial encounters: excercises in spatial awareness. Newton,
MA: WEEA Publishing Center.
*Campbell,
P. B. (1992. Nothing can stop us now: Designing effective programs for girls
in math, science, and engineering. Newton, MA: WEEA Publishing Center.
*Campbell,
P. B. (1992). Working together, Making Changes: Working in and out of school
to encourgage girls in math and science. Newton, MA: WEEA Publishing
Center.
Chapline,
E., & Newman, C. M. (1984). Teacher education and mathematics: A course
to reduce math anxiety and sex-role stereotyping in elementary education.
Newton, MA: WEEA Publishing Center.
Cole,
J. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
Conwell,
C. (1990). Science EQUALS success. Newton, MA: WEEA Publishing Center.
*Downey,
D., Slesnick, T., & Stenmark, J. (1981). Math for girls and other
problem solvers. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Lawrence Hall of
Science.
Erickson,
T. (1986). Off and running: The computer offline activities book.
Berkeley, CA: EQUALS Project, Lawrence Hall of Science.
*Erickson,
T. (1989). Get it together: Math problems for groups. Berkeley, CA:
EQUALS Project, Lawrence Hall of Science.
*Fennema,
E., & Leder, G. C. (Eds.). (1990). Mathematics and gender. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
*Franklin,
M. (1990). Add-ventures for girls: Building math confidence (Middle
School Edition). Newton, MA: WEEA Publishing Center.
*Fraser,
S. (1982). SPACES: Solving problems of access to careers in engineering and
science. Palo Alto, CA: EQUALS Project, Dale Seymour Publications.
Gornick,
V. (1983). Women in science: Portraits from a world in transition. New
York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Johnson,
D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (Eds.). (1987). Structuring
cooperative learning: Lesson plans for teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnson,
D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1984). Cirles of learning:
Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Jones,
G. M., & Wheatley, J. (1989). Gender influences in classroom displays and student-teacher
behaviors. Science Education, 73(5), 535-545.
Kahle,
J. B., & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 131-140.
Kahle,
J. B. (Ed.). (1985). Women in science: A report from the field.
Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Kammer,
A. E. (1979). Science, sex, and society. Newton, MA: WEEA Publishing
Center.
Kaseberg,
A., Kreinberg, N., & Downie, D. (1980). Use EQUALS to promote the
participation of women in mathematics. Berkeley, CA: EQUALS Project,
Lawrence Hall of Science.
Keller,
E. F. (1983). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Kogelman,
S., & Warren, J. (1979). Mind over math: Put yourself on the road to success
by freeing yourself from math anxiety. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Publishing.
Linn,
M., & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational
Researcher, 18(8), 17-19, 22-27.
*Marchand,
S. (Ed.). (1980). Strategies for equality: Vol. IV Math/science.
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Osen,
L. (1974). Women in mathematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
*Perl,
T. (1978). Math equals: Biographies of women mathematicians and related
activities. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
*Rosser,
S. V. (1990). Female-friendly science: Applying women's studies methods and
theories to attract students. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rossiter,
M. V. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Sadker,
D., & Sadker, M. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to
graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(7), 512-515.
Saunders,
J. S., & Stone, A. (1986). The neuter computer: Computers for girls and
boys. New York, NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
*Skolnick,
J., Langbort, C. & Day, L. (1982). How to encourage girls in math &
science: Strategies for parents and educators. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour
Publications.
*Smith,
W. S. (1984). COMETS science. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers
Association.
*Smith,
W. S. (1984). COMETS profiles. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers
Association.
Smith,
W. S., & Stroup, K. M. (1978). Science career exploration for women.
Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Stenmark,
J., Thompson, V. & Cossey, R. (1986). Family math. Berkeley, CA:
EQUALS Project, Lawrence Hall of Science.
Tobias,
S. (1980). Overcoming Math Anxiety. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Treagust,
D. F. (1980). Gender-related differences of adolescents in spatial representational
thought. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(2), 91-97.
Vocknell,
E. L., & Lobonc, S. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping by high school females in
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 209-219.
Winter,
M. J., Lappan, G., Phillips, E., & Fitzgerald, W. (1986). Middle grades
mathematics project: Spatial visualization. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
*Wilson,
M. (Ed.). (1992). Options for girls: A door to the future. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
*
used or proposed as textbooks purchased with grant funds for participants