Parents and educators often wonder if boys and girls approach learning differently, and what effects those differences may have on classroom structure or individual students and their achievement. This is particularly true as students approach adolescence. With a growing number of school districts considering single-sex options for certain courses, or some cases single-sex schools, understanding the research on gender differences and their relationship to the educational environment is important. (Districts in California open single-sex academies, 1997).

Parent News (PN) staff talked with Jasna Jovanovic (JJ) about her research on gender differences in classroom settings. Dr. Jovanovic is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human & Community Development and the Women's Studies Program of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

PN:
In your research you look at gender differences in how boys and girls learn in elementary and middle school classrooms. The focus of much of your research is science. Why science?

JJ:
We know from national data sets that girls continue to lag behind boys on science achievement scores. More importantly than the test scores themselves are levels of interest. Girls are taking fewer AP courses in science at the high school level, are less likely to select science majors in college, and are less likely to pursue occupations in science-related fields after college. A prime example of this trend can be seen in our own institution. Currently only 16% of first-year students at the University of Illinois in engineering (which includes the related fields of physics and computer science) are women-this is in spite of efforts to recruit female as well as male students.

PN:
Are there gender differences in how boys and girls learn science?

JJ:
There are no genetically based differences between boys and girls in their ability to learn science. Some data show that girls benefit from teaching methods that include hands-on, active approaches, cooperative learning techniques, and performance-based assessments. Even when teachers incorporate these methods, however, girls still show less confidence in their science ability than boys.

PN:
Can these differences be attributed to the way teachers treat their boy and girl students?

JJ:
Contrary to the popular belief that teachers are biased in whom they pay attention to in the classroom, my research indicated that while boys do in fact get called on more in science classrooms, it is because the volunteering pool is dominated by boys. Boys simply volunteer more in response to teachers' questions.

It's important that we continue to look at how children learn best. Current reforms in science education focus on the value of a hands-on approach to teaching and testing. However, even in those classrooms where teachers are incorporating the best techniques, girls are still more reluctant to participate in science.

PN:
What should we think about these differences?

JJ:
I believe the differences are a result of influences beyond our educational system. Societal expectations and stereotypes tell children at a very early age what they should be interested in and what they are good at.

PN:
You were a participant in the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation's roundtable discussion in November 1997 on the research on single-sex education in grades K-12. What were some of the key findings generated from that roundtable discussion?

JJ:
There was no consensus among the sixteen researchers who took part in the roundtable that single-sex education "works" or is "better" than coeducation. Single-sex education programs produce positive results for some students in some settings, but no learning environment, single-sex or co-ed, provides a sure escape from sexism.

Much of the research on single-sex education in the United States has been done in Catholic schools or private girls' schools. Researchers have had a narrow set of data to draw from in trying to determine whether single-sex education "works" and for whom.

There was consensus among the roundtable participants, however, about the structural and organizational features associated with good schools for girls and boys. These include:

* smaller school size

* a constrained curriculum where almost all students take the same, mostly academic courses (a core curriculum approach)

* more personal social relations among school members (students, teachers, administrators) where schools function more as communities than bureaucracies

* authentic instruction that involves students in higher-order thinking, and teaching that is more often constructivist than didactic, where students are encouraged and expected to become actively engaged in their own learning

* a pattern of authentic instruction that is pervasive in the school rather than isolated in the classes of teachers who happen to teach this way

* a common willingness on the part of teachers to accept personal responsibility for all their students' learning, including a belief that all students can learn what they are taught

PN:
You recently became a parent for the first time of a little boy. What implications does your work on gender differences have for parents? What can parents do to help their sons and daughters succeed in school?

JJ:
Parents can be doing lots of things with their children. As I mentioned earlier, there are many messages from the larger society that tell girls they aren't as good as boys at science. These messages about gender roles are learned very early. My advice to parents is to think about what they are exposing their children to-Are parents taking their children to science museums? Are they talking about science in everyday life when cooking in the kitchen? Do parents talk about what it means to be a scientist? When they are repairing the car, do parents invite their daughters as well as their sons along? Or, is there an assumption that only boys would be interested?

Parents don't have to pretend that they love science or were good at science when they were in school, if that was not the case. And parents shouldn't assume that their son or daughter won't be good or interested in science simply because they weren't. Science clubs, tutors, or other family members can help develop science interests in children when parents don't have an interest or ability in science.

And of course, there are many other individuals children come into contact with besides parents and their teachers. Relatives, neighbors, peers, and even clerks in stores, convey messages about gender roles. It is not realistic to think parents can protect their children from biased messages. It is important, however, to explain to children why Uncle Joe says that girls can't be engineers and why he might have that bias.

Our efforts to help girls feel confident about their abilities in domains that are traditionally dominated by boys will help them succeed in school and ultimately in the workplace.

PN:
What are some of your future projects in this area?

JJ:
A current project of mine that I'm excited about on an applied level involves the development of a video database for the Internet that will include interviews with various women scientists. The discussions will address personal and academic issues which we expect will be of interest to girls at the elementary and secondary school levels as they think about their academic interests. We hope this will be up and functioning sometime after the spring of 1999.

PN:
We look forward to hearing more about this project!

Source

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998). Separated by SEX: A critical look at single-sex education for girls. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation. ED 417 125.

For more information

Supporting Girls in Early Adolescence, by Dianne Rothenberg
http://ericeece.org/pubs/digests/1995/drgirl95.html

Women in Mathematics and Science: The Condition of Education 1996
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/ce/c97005.html

Cohen, Judy, et al. (1996). Girls in the middle: Working to succeed in school.
Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation; Philadelphia: Research in Action. ED 402 006. Summary also available at: http://www.aauw.org/2000/gimbod.html [NPIN Editor's note (5-7-03): this url has changed: http://www.aauw.org/research/girls_education/gim.cfm]

Sadker, Myra, & Sadker, David. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Macmillan. ED 386 268.

Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW Report. A study of major findings on girls in education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, National Education Association. ED 339 674.

Ransom, Whitney, Ed., et al. (1995). Raising confident, competent daughters: Strategies for parents. Concord, MA: National Coalition of Girls' Schools. ED 381 252.

National Coalition of Girls' Schools
228 Main St.
Concord, MA 01742
Telephone: 508-287-4485
Fax: 508-287-6014
Internet: http://www.ncgs.org/

Girls and Women in Science Project
Office of Science Education
Beloit College
700 College St.
Beloit, WI 53511
Telephone: 608-363-2247
Email: gwsci@stu.beloit.edu

Math, Science, and Girls: Can We Close the Gender Gap?, by Jasna Jovanoic
and Candice Dreves
http://www.nncc.org/Curriculum/sac52_math.science.girls.html

Science Stuff for Girls and Boys: A Selected Bibliography for Grades K-6
Equity Assistance Center
New York University School of Education
32 Washington Place, Suite 72
New York, NY 10003-6644
Telephone: 212-998-5100
Internet: http://www.enc.org/equity/eqtyres/erg/111399/1399.htm

Robertson, Anne S. (1996). Fostering school success in adolescents: Girls' issues/boys' issues. Parent News, 2(11) [Online]. Available: http://npin.org/pnews/pnewn96/pnewn96h.html [1999, January 15].

Districts in California open single-sex academies. (1997). Parent News, 3(10) [Online]. Available: http://npin.org/pnews/pnewo97/pnewo97f.html [1999, January 15].