Science and Gender

Ten years ago an article in "Education Week" announced that of the nation's 2.7 million scientists, only 5% are female. Although this percentage has improved somewhat it is still far from representing the 50/50 ratio of the population (Rosser, p.3).

While some people may think this small representation on the part of women in the sciences is "natural" or acceptable, others insist that our society can no longer afford to use only half the potential of its population. The National Science Foundation, The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the National Science Teachers Association express concerns about the diminishing pool from which the scientists of tomorrow will be drawn (3). Pointing to the fact that we are now relying more and more on other countries, particularly Asia, to fill positions in our science industry, the National Science Foundation has said, "The time is past when white male graduates might fill our needs. We must take advantage of all our resources." (4). While many of these people are simply viewing women as a potential source of labor, others see this as an important issue in connection with democratic ideas concerning the right to participate in the endeavors that shape our society. These people are concerned that voices are not being heard when important decisions are being taken -- decisions that effect not only individuals but societies and nations as well. Access to science can be equated with access to power, but women in general do not experience this access. In addition, it is felt that women could bring with them a greater concern than men generally have for issues of social responsibility and the ethical aspects of science and technology -- issues that many feel have been given limited attention under the present status quo (7).

Finally, it has been argued that science has been dominated by the homogeneous white middle- and upper-class male perspective complete with gender dichotomies (culture/nature, rational/feeling, objective/subjective/ active/passive, quantitative/qualitative, etc.), that have biased the perception of reality by the observer. It has been suggested a more heterogeneous group of scientists would result in different questions asked, approaches used, and conclusions drawn from research (8).

Of course, it has been suggested that the underlying reason for the lack of representation of women in these fields is simply that females have a genetically-based lack of ability in math and science. Although no specific research has supported the notion that girls have inferior abilities in the sciences (2), a research paper published in 1980 suggested that girls have less mathematical ability than boys, although the authors admitted they could not entirely rule out influences on their observations by "environmental factors" (6). This study is notable in that it raised serious questions over interpretations of tests and the types of tests used (in this case, SAT's), and inspired a lot of subsequent research into the causes of unequal performance among the sexes (9). Many studies have found correlations with the backgrounds and upbringing of these students, asking such things as what toys the children played with, whether the mother or father helped them with their homework, what aspirations the parents had for their children, whether girls differ from boys in test-taking strategies, and what assumptions their teachers may have had about their students' abilities (8).

Many differences do exist between boys and girls in their school years as far as experiences with science is concerned. At the age of 9 girls express more interest in science-related activities than boys, but by the age of 17 boys become the predominant gender in elective physical science courses, and the attrition rates of the girls that do enroll in these courses is higher (1). It is apparent that attitudes toward science are strongly differentiated by the time a student reaches 11 years of age (2). In the elementary years similarities between the sexes in math and science achievement are found more frequently than differences; when differences are found, they tend to favor girls (3). By age 14 (eighth grade) differences in classroom achievement become significant, so that by high school, both girls and boys have begun to see science as the domain of males. By this age, boys score higher on science achievement tests and show more interest in the sciences than girls (2). In addition, girls take fewer math courses than boys and are more often found in introductory and lower-level courses than in advanced courses. They choose to avoid the science track in high school and shun science classes (13). Research has found that female students tend to be less confident in their science and math abilities, and believe that science and math will not be useful to them in the future (4).

Most research now suggests that differences between males and females in the area of logical thinking, visual-spatial tasks, mathematics and mechanical tasks are due to differences in developed interests and past experiences rather than inherent ability differences (4). This leads us to ask, just how have interests been influenced and what are the experiences from the female perspective?

While researchers have tried to discover biological (genetic, hormonal, or physiological) or intellectual causes, none have been found. What has been found, however, is that cultural biases have a great impact on a woman's performance in science -- and many of these biases begin right from birth. Sex-stereotyping in our culture influence parents to have different expectations of girls than boys. Girls and boys are treated differently: they get different toys, are subject to different (self-fulfilling) expectations, they get different experiences, and are encouraged to develop different abilities, interests, self-images, etc. (7). Boys are given more opportunities to be involved in "tinkering activities" than girls, both at home and in school, and accumulate more positive experiences in areas that include mechanics and electricity, while girls are given the clear message that they aren't expected to do the same. By the time they are considering future careers in school, girls receive less encouragement from parents and peers to excel in math and science (4). The parents may also reflect certain political ideologies, as well as religious and pseudo-scientific beliefs that help shape a girl's self-image and her expected role in society. (7)

Our culture views science and math as a masculine domain. By age 11 boys already consider science as a masculine subject (2). Those in authority embrace the Baconian view of science as an authoritative, objective, and impersonal discipline. These qualities are more likely to be associated with masculinity than femininity. Bacon's philosophy creates a dichotomy between the stereotypes of the scientific and the feminine: science is viewed as impersonal, objective, logical, rational, "hard" and tough minded and requiring analytical investigation, while women are seen as personal, subjective, intuitive, irrational, "soft" and sentimental, and holistic (5).

It has been shown that girls who see math as a male activity do less well in math than other girls, while girls in schools in which math is not seen as solely a male province have been found to be better problem solvers (3). Researchers have also found that labeling traditionally masculine tasks as "feminine" or "neutral" results in sixth grade girls placing a higher value and expectations of success on that task. Six to eight year old girls excel at a game labeled "for girls," but when the same game is labeled "for boys" the boys do better (5).

Unfortunately these subtle (and not so subtle) messages about gender values are perceived at an age when girls are developing their own beliefs about femininity and about career options (5). Young women are placed in a tough position. For boys, success in science courses can build self-esteem during puberty, but girls must consider their feminine self-image and social support. They are working against culturally perceived social roles (2). This may explain why differences that appear in co-educational schools are not seen in as great a degree in all-girls schools (2). Women majoring in science who had difficulty reconciling the strong masculine image of science with society's and their own expectations of their feminine role were more likely to change their science major (5).

In addition, while 95% of high school boys questioned cited success in school activities and sports as the most important major accomplishment in school, 65% of the girls choose personal friendship (Frazer, p.235). Thus, the young woman finds herself needing to compete in class against boys with whom she highly values social acceptance. It is the competitiveness common to science classes that is one reason girls are more apprehensive about the environment of the science classroom than boys. According to the Committee on Women in Independent Schools Task Force, students must be risk-takers if they are to succeed in math and science. Girls tend to be more cautious. Even when there are no sex differences in their performance, girls tend to feel less adequate in math and science and to have less confidence in their abilities than do boys. They are not as willing to ask questions, and do not feel as comfortable when making mistakes. If confronted with an error message on a computer, for instance, girls will immediately ask for help from the instructor while boys will first spend time trying to tackle the problem (2). Confidence and self-expectations are positively correlated with both subject achievement and course selection. For instance decreased expectations of female success in math were found to precede the decline in math achievement by girls (3).

Teachers contribute to these differences as well. Teachers often see to it that boys get more access to equipment and expect boys to do most of the experiments while girls end up playing the role of secretary, taking down notes on what the boys are doing (7). Teachers often give subtle cues that they don't expect as much from the girls as they do from boys, and will allow a few students -- usually boys -- to monopolize class interactions. In one study conducted in 1987 it was discovered that in the average secondary classroom there are between three and seven "target" students who are the recipients/initiators of the vast majority of teacher-student interactions. These students are risk takers who play an active part in discussion either by volunteering or by preferentially being called upon by the teacher. They are nearly always males (10).

Textbooks, which are a primary source of information and relied on extensively in most science classes, have been found to be significantly biased towards males. In 1973, 18 textbooks were examined and, based on portrayals of men and women and frequency of female versus male figures appearing in them, were found to be gender-biased, favoring men. A newer study reexamined the issue in textbooks and found that in only one out of the textbooks studied had there been any significant changes. In fact, in two cases the texts had increased the proportion of illustrations favoring men (1). When girls and women are depicted, text and pictures support the stereotyped image of the female sex; that is, the females are passive and/or posing, and are usually engaged in traditional roles or activities. The examples and illustrations used by authors are often taken from daily experiences and interests of boys. Beyond these visual cues, science is presented without relationship to societal issues and daily life situations, qualities that are valued by young women. Textbooks' presentation of science as an a-historical body of facts is uninteresting to young women.

If we accept the fact that girls are at a disadvantage from birth to become scientists, not from an inherent genetic or intellectual standpoint, but rather from a cultural bias that is initiated by parents, schools, peers and teachers, we may now ask what can be done to alleviate the problem.

First, parents must show that they do not have higher expectations for their sons' achievements in math and science than for their daughters. Parents in the past have been more apt to see math as both more difficult and less important for their daughters (3). Proper modeling is also important. Parents often send signals to their daughters that they simply want them to "enjoy" science, or mothers may say "I could never do science," implying that nothing more is expected from them. In addition, parents can give girls more toys that they can "tinker" with, and reverse the trend that they tend to buy their sons more math and science related toys and more computers than they buy their daughters. Schools should define math and science as being for everyone and should incorporate these changes at the elementary level. Schools often send signals that girls are not expected to excel in science. For instance, schools often schedule female stereotyped courses such as honors English, sociology, or languages opposite physics and chemistry (2). Schools should check to see whether their techniques for remedy are working by examining enrollments in math, science and computer courses to determine whether the numbers of girls are increasing. Schools should also make sure their counselors are encouraging girls to continue taking math and science courses and to consider careers in science.

Finally, there are many things teachers can do. Textbooks are part of the "hidden curriculum" that carries messages about science and science careers. Teachers should attempt to choose, when they can, textbooks and materials that do not relegate women to stereotypical roles and do not use biased labeling and socialization processes. Illustrations should reflect the 50:50 population.

Teachers should be aware of environments that are threatening to young women. For instance, girls tend to dislike being tested orally on an individual basis and lose self-confidence if a teacher gives rapid "right" answer-type questions. Teachers should be conscious of their wait time and encourage some digressions as well as guessing. They should emphasize that there might not have to be a right answer. Teachers should avoid telling male students to try harder while praising female students simply for trying.

Since relationships are more important to girls, cooperative learning strategies are important. Group work minimizes competition. Students are often less threatened by group answers than their own individual ones. Cooperative small group work is a more effective strategy both for achievement and motivation for female students (4). Teachers should not allow boys to dominate lessons. Each student should be allowed to take a leadership position and all students in a group must be encouraged to manipulate the equipment.

Girls tend to experience a greater enjoyment of science when it is related to people or living things. When students, aged 12, were asked what they would want to work on if they were scientists, girls listed body and health issues and anti-atomic bombs while boys gave technology and astronomy as top priorities (Frazer, p.237). Girls are more interested than boys in aspects of science of relevance to daily-lie situations, health and aspects related to the human body, aesthetical aspects of science, use and misuse of science, and ethical aspects of science. Teachers can arrange for their students to demonstrate an experiment to a younger brother or sister or an elementary school class.

Teachers can make science more relevant to young women by stressing the relationship of facts and data to society, by showing that science has a human dimension, holding discussions that focus on problem solving, and relating examples to socially relevant experiences (12). Teachers can add socially relevant factors to discussions and activities and make sure that examples used relate to everyday experiences. In addition, these discussions should focus on problem solving rather than copying or memorizing facts. Teachers must show students that there is not always one " right " answer to a problem. Above all, teachers should attempt to prevent "passive non-participation" by insisting that young women get involved in classroom activities so they practice science process skills. This may require occasionally pairing female students for lab activities. Activities should be included in which students practice spatial skills such as building three-dimensional models of cells and hypothesizing what different cross sections would look like (4).

In addition, teachers can:
€Use non-sexist language.
€Refer to scientists as he and she.
€Invite female scientists to visit classes.
€Push the link between science and careers.
€Provide information on women scientists and technologists.
€Encourage girls to take further coursework in the sciences and stress the use of math.
€Ask female students as well as male students to set up equipment such as experimental equipment or the VCR or slide projector.
€Sensitize students to biased materials and enlist them to help you evaluate your materials.
€Ask students who they think can be scientists or mathematicians and discuss any stereotypes they may hold. (13)
€Insist on parents' night or PTA meetings to discuss the importance of proper modeling.
€Encourage female students to participate in classroom discussions and, when they volunteer, give them adequate time to respond.(13)
€Avoid allowing the male students to do most of the demonstrations simply because they're more likely to volunteer.
€Avoid complex activities that can backfire, creating negative feelings and insecurities.
€Encourage young women to participate in extracurricular science activities such as science projects, science clubs. etc.

As many of these ideas as possible should be practiced. Research suggests that just allowing equal experience within the science classroom may not be enough to compensate for all the prejudices young women experience in their daily lives. However, a greater number of positive experiences with science seems to correlate with greater numbers of women with positive attitudes about science, and this is a significant factor of recruitment into a science career (13).

S. Brown

References
1. Bazler,Judith A., and Simonis, Doris A.: Are Women Out of the Picture? The Science Teacher, Dec. 1990, 24-26.
2. Pelz, William H.: Can Girls + Science - Stereotypes = Success? The Science Teacher, Dec. 1990, 44-49.
3. Campbell, Patricia B.: What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing In a Math Class? Women in Education, March 1986, 516-519
4. Gardner, April L., Mason, Cheryl L., and Matyas, Marsha Lakes: Equity, Excellence & 'Just Plain Good Teaching.' The American Biology Teacher, February 1989, 72-77.
5. Brickhouse, Nancy W., Carter, Carolyn S., Scantlebury, Kathryn C.: Women and Chemistry: Shifting the Equilibrium Toward Success. Journal of Chemical Education, Feb. 1990, 116-119.
6. Benbow, Camilla Persson, and Stanley, Julian C.: Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability: Fact or Artifact? Science, Dec. 1980, 1262-1264.
7 .Kolata, Gina Bari: Math and Sex: Are Girls Born with Less Ability? Science, Dec. 1980, 1234-1235.
8. Peterson, Penelope L., and Fennema, Elizabeth: Effective Teaching, Student Engagement in Classroom Activities, and Sex-Related Differences in Learning Mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, Fall 1985, 309-334.
9. Alexander, Karl L., and Pallas, Aaron M.: Reply to Benbow and Stanley. American Educational Research Journal, Winter 1983, 475-477. 10. Tobin, Kenneth, and Gallagher, James J.: The Role of Target Students in the Science Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1987, 61-75.
11. Frazer, M. J., and Kornhauser, A.: Ethics and Social Responsibility in Science Education. Pergamon Press, 1986.
12. Rosser, Sue V.: Female-Friendly Science. Pergamon Press, 1990.
13. Kahle, Jane Butler, Matyas, Marsha Lakes, and Cho, Hee-Hyung: An Assessment of the Impact of Science Experiences on the Career Choices of Male and Female Biology Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1985, 385-394.