Gender in common usage refers to the sexual distribution between male and female. Social scientists however refer to the term as a social construction rather than a biological phenomenon. The choice of subject of study, science, is guided by the literature. Rene Descartes (1569 – 1650), a philosopher, argued “that science as biology ensured our understanding of the world” (Nokoe, 2008). Science to Descartes, relies on the power biology, Nokoe (2008) rejected the tempting arguments of George Berbeley (1685 – 1753) and David Hume (1711 – 1776) that science is rooted in bundles of assumptions about infinite desirability in want of any basis in experience. In reaction, Nokoe (2008) had argued that, biology carries an optimal degree of consistency, certainty and credibility to guide the sciences.
It is clear that major academic hurdles have been successfully cleaned by and for women. However, evidence suggests science and science related careers continue to be dominated by men. Moreover, evidence is beginning to mount in support of the fact that the difference in science success between men and women lies not within abilities but within attitudes and expectations of success. Obviously, this maladaptive societal attitude render numerous problems, but perhaps most detrimental of all is the fact that girls are not realizing their full potential, thus limiting them not only in the classroom but also in future career choices.
Many years ago, people believed it was not “healthy” for women to receive an education. Specifically, “doctors warned that education redirected blood, initially destined for the ovaries to the brain. The result: educated women would be less likely to reproduce and more likely to go insane” (Sadler, 1999, P.24). Although seemingly ridiculous statement today, that particular belief kept many women far from education years ago. Until around the middle of the twentieth century, gender differences in intellectual abilities were considered “natural” or inherently dependent on biological sex differences [Sadker and Sadker, Klein 1991].
It seems appropriate to discuss sex-related differences in biology in connection with reproduction. Girls and boys often begin to study reproduction in higher schools. Myra and Sadker (1991) found that females lose self – esteem when they enter middle school.
According to Fennema’s (1974) classic research differences between females’ and males’ learning of sciences increased as they moved adolescence. Thus, females have problems with self-esteem and learning science just when they are beginning to study biology, the foundation of most high school and college science courses.
Further studies by Fennema and Sherman (1977, 1978) documented differences of females and males in both achievement and participation in science courses. As example of the attitudes studied, males were found to be more confident in their ability to learn science to be more useful to them than females. While exploring the gender differences in biology performance, Campbell and Storo [1996] found out that, certain myths have become widely accepted as truth. One such myth is that “women are qualitative, men are quantitative” (P.5). Another myth is the linkage of a biology gene in male. Parents and teachers alike hold lower expectations for girls in biology and science than they do for boys. In addition to these myths, most models of orientation to science emphasize on social factors such as gender stereotypes. It is these gender stereotypical attitudes over the years, held by teachers and absorbed by students that play a major role in the future biology performance of females (Benaji, Greenwald and Nosek, 2002).
It has also be noticed that there are some problems that affects gender differences in biology. The first major issue is teachers’ beliefs about gender differences, specifically in biology. Teachers sometimes attribute student’s success and failure in biology to ability or effort, depending on the gender of the student. The second one is the difference in the amount of attention and types of attention teachers give to female students in the lecture room. Streitmatter (1997) found that “females receive less attention, both positive and negative from teachers than do males” (p.16) found that teachers’ questioning methods and praise differed substantially for girls and boys. Specifically, “females tend to withhold praise for male until they produce a correct answer”, (Streitmatter, 1997, P.16). both of these foster an atmosphere favourable to male learning while overlooking the needs of females students as these can have negative effect on the female students thereby causing them to perform low in biology and related sciences.
The third one which needs additional study, is that in the lecture room, girls are less likely to engage in risk taking activities such as asking questions, performing experiments and providing answers than are boys. In support of this, Sadler and Sadler (cited in Streitmatter, 1997, p.18) found that “many girls are reluctant to risks in co-educational classrooms in part due to boys domination”. As streitmatter (1997) pointed out, “students who are active participants in their own education tend to be higher achievers” (p. 18). Thus, without engaging in risk-taking activities in the classroom, it is not possible for girls to achieve their full academic potentials in biology.
This leads us to the forth that girls lack self-confidence in their ability to perform in biology. Charles Shield stated in his 1991 article that: confidence is one part of self-concept and has to do with how sure a student is of his/her ability to learn science and do well on biology tasks.
It is clear that major academic hurdles have been successfully cleaned by and for women. However, evidence suggests science and science related careers continue to be dominated by men. Moreover, evidence is beginning to mount in support of the fact that the difference in science success between men and women lies not within abilities but within attitudes and expectations of success. Obviously, this maladaptive societal attitude render numerous problems, but perhaps most detrimental of all is the fact that girls are not realizing their full potential, thus limiting them not only in the classroom but also in future career choices.
Many years ago, people believed it was not “healthy” for women to receive an education. Specifically, “doctors warned that education redirected blood, initially destined for the ovaries to the brain. The result: educated women would be less likely to reproduce and more likely to go insane” (Sadler, 1999, P.24). Although seemingly ridiculous statement today, that particular belief kept many women far from education years ago. Until around the middle of the twentieth century, gender differences in intellectual abilities were considered “natural” or inherently dependent on biological sex differences [Sadker and Sadker, Klein 1991].
It seems appropriate to discuss sex-related differences in biology in connection with reproduction. Girls and boys often begin to study reproduction in higher schools. Myra and Sadker (1991) found that females lose self – esteem when they enter middle school.
According to Fennema’s (1974) classic research differences between females’ and males’ learning of sciences increased as they moved adolescence. Thus, females have problems with self-esteem and learning science just when they are beginning to study biology, the foundation of most high school and college science courses.
Further studies by Fennema and Sherman (1977, 1978) documented differences of females and males in both achievement and participation in science courses. As example of the attitudes studied, males were found to be more confident in their ability to learn science to be more useful to them than females. While exploring the gender differences in biology performance, Campbell and Storo [1996] found out that, certain myths have become widely accepted as truth. One such myth is that “women are qualitative, men are quantitative” (P.5). Another myth is the linkage of a biology gene in male. Parents and teachers alike hold lower expectations for girls in biology and science than they do for boys. In addition to these myths, most models of orientation to science emphasize on social factors such as gender stereotypes. It is these gender stereotypical attitudes over the years, held by teachers and absorbed by students that play a major role in the future biology performance of females (Benaji, Greenwald and Nosek, 2002).
It has also be noticed that there are some problems that affects gender differences in biology. The first major issue is teachers’ beliefs about gender differences, specifically in biology. Teachers sometimes attribute student’s success and failure in biology to ability or effort, depending on the gender of the student. The second one is the difference in the amount of attention and types of attention teachers give to female students in the lecture room. Streitmatter (1997) found that “females receive less attention, both positive and negative from teachers than do males” (p.16) found that teachers’ questioning methods and praise differed substantially for girls and boys. Specifically, “females tend to withhold praise for male until they produce a correct answer”, (Streitmatter, 1997, P.16). both of these foster an atmosphere favourable to male learning while overlooking the needs of females students as these can have negative effect on the female students thereby causing them to perform low in biology and related sciences.
The third one which needs additional study, is that in the lecture room, girls are less likely to engage in risk taking activities such as asking questions, performing experiments and providing answers than are boys. In support of this, Sadler and Sadler (cited in Streitmatter, 1997, p.18) found that “many girls are reluctant to risks in co-educational classrooms in part due to boys domination”. As streitmatter (1997) pointed out, “students who are active participants in their own education tend to be higher achievers” (p. 18). Thus, without engaging in risk-taking activities in the classroom, it is not possible for girls to achieve their full academic potentials in biology.
This leads us to the forth that girls lack self-confidence in their ability to perform in biology. Charles Shield stated in his 1991 article that: confidence is one part of self-concept and has to do with how sure a student is of his/her ability to learn science and do well on biology tasks.
No comments:
Post a Comment