CHAPTER 10
Gender Issues in Science Education Research: Remembering Where the Difference Lies
Take the fact of education. Your class has been educated at public schools and universities for five or six hundred years, ours for sixty … . though we see the same world we see it through different senses. Any help we can give you must be different from that you can give yourselves, and perhaps the value of that help may lie in the fact of the difference. Therefore before we agree to sign your manifesto or join your society, it might be well to discover where the difference lies, because then we may discover where the help lies also. (Woolf, 1938, p. 17)
If there is any misleading concept, it is that of coeducation: that because women and men are sitting in the same classrooms, hearing the same lecture, reading the same books, performing the same laboratory experiments, they are receiving an equal education. They are not, first because the content of education itself validates men even as it invalidates women. Its very message is that men have been the shapers and thinkers of the world, and that this is only natural. (Rich, 1979, p. 241)
In the early twentieth century, Virginia Woolf (1938) noted that men had centuries of experience with and in public education. Access to public education had only recently become available to women, and she suggested that women saw the world “through different senses.” Woolf suggested that exploring those differences has provided an opportunity to improve education. For the past 40 years, gender research in science education has explored those differences. Often, curriculum choices, assessment techniques, and pedagogical practices that improve women and girls’ knowledge, understanding, attitudes, and participation in science are also beneficial to the majority of their male peers. Since gaining access to science education, women and girls have overcome many obstacles, and although females perform well on various measures of science achievement, comprise at least 50% of the graduates from many undergraduate and graduate science programs, and have used their senses to conduct scientific research differently from their male colleagues, inequities in science education between females and male still exist at all levels and across different societies.
Twenty years ago, Rich (1979) challenged the equitable nature of coeducation, and educators continue to assume the stance that females and males receive equal and thus equitable education. However, in the United States, 20 years after the landmark Title IX of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act legislation that banned sex discrimination in education programs and activities, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) published a series of studies that focused on gender differences in K–12, noting that girls were “shortchanged” in the education they received and describing the environment in public schools as hostile toward females (AAUW, 1993, 1998a, 1998b; Wellesley Center for Research on Women, 1992). Other researchers observed that the U.S. educational system “failed at fairness” (Sadker & Sadker, 1994), and 30 years of gender research found similar patterns in other Western countries (Arnot, David, & Weiner, 1999; Kelly, 1998; Kenway, Willis, Blackmore, & Rennie, 1998).
Science education researchers often fail to acknowledge “where the difference lies” and to take steps to redress those gender differences. This chapter foregrounds gender issues in science education by defining the term, reviewing the influence of gender on the historical and sociocultural aspects of science education, discussing access and participation rates for females in science from an international perspective, considering the impact of educational policies that introduced standards-based teaching and high-stakes testing, and finally proposing directions for future research in the field. Our chapter focuses on research studies, and because of page limitations many examples are Eurocentric. When possible, we have used other literature reviews to support our arguments.
DEFINING GENDER
Gender and sex differences are terms that are used interchangeably and incorrectly (Rennie, 1998). For many, gender is “a polite way to talk about the sexes” (Haslanger, 2000, p. 31). However, the current trend is to use the term sex differences to refer to the biological dichotomy of male and female bodies, whereas gender is a social construction, usually based upon the biology of one's body. Studies in gender research and science education have tended to ignore the interplay of sex, the body, and biology in the social construction of gender (Gilbert, 2001). This limited focus has influenced science education researchers by establishing an oppositional stance between feminine and masculine, causing a nonexistent dichotomy1 that limits theoretical, empirical, and qualitative studies to exploration of gender as a “closed box” (Gilbert; Henwood & Miller, 2001). In this chapter we consider gender a social construction and have expanded the discussion to include aspects of sex differences in science education.
Recently, gender research in education has been broadened to include issues related to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people and masculinity. To date, there are few published studies in these areas focusing on aspects of science education. Research in this area has implications for science teacher education, teacher and student identity, the nature of the curriculum, and the safety of students as it affects their ability to learn science (Snyder & Broadway, 2004; Fifield & Swain, 2002; Kosciw, 2004; Letts, 2001).
Sex, the body, biology, and the social construction of gender have all influenced students’ access to general education and, more specifically, science education, as well as the kinds of research questions scholars have asked. This chapter synthesizes the gender research, especially with regard to science education, and identifies several major issues. The first section of this chapter focuses on the historical aspects of gender research in science education. The next section discusses the current international situation for girls in science education. In the third section, we discuss sociocultural aspects, which include student attitudes; interplay of gender with race, ethnicity, sexuality, socioeconomic status, language, and religion; and science teacher education. We conclude with a discussion of the impact of policy on gender research and future research directions.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
In this section we focus on the history of science education for girls, a history that until very recently was confined to the West, and a synopsis of research into factors influencing the rates of females’ participation in science. Because of space limitations, we illustrate our points with a selection of representative studies, position papers, and examples.
The History of Science Education for Girls
Many scholars have taken a historical perspective that places equity in science education in the context of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ socially approved gender roles for middle- and upper-class women (Baker, 2001; Blair, 1998; Fry, 1988; Gaskell, 1998; Theobald, 1996; Tolley, 2003; Yates, 1998). Thus, at the beginning of the nineteenth century middle-class girls’ education in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia was limited to private instruction at home or in academies where the curriculum included drawing, painting, and needlework. Society perceived studying science as a threat to a girl's health and her virtue. However, by the mid-nineteenth century, girls were attending public primary and secondary schools, but there was continued debate about whether they should be studying science and curricula focused on music, painting, modern languages, and mathematics. Charles Perry, an Australian bishop, stated that women should know only enough science for drawing-room conversation but should not study professional science. His views were reflective of the Western world, especially Cambridge intellectuals. In New Zealand, primary education for girls often took second place to their contribution to the family's economic well-being (Mathews, 1988).
By the end of the nineteenth century, more girls than boys were studying science in high school in the United States and Canada, and girls were receiving better grades than boys. However, only urban, white girls living in the northeastern United States had access to science education. All students in rural areas of the United States and Australia were less likely to attend school, as were First Peoples in Canada (Baker, 2001; Gaskell, 1998; Theobald, 1996). In the United Kingdom, lower-class girls trained to be domestics instead of attending secondary school. Middle-class girls could enroll in endowed private schools located primarily in London, Cambridge, and Oxford. These schools stressed educational achievement in subjects that included science (Blair, 1998). In New Zealand, secondary education for girls was still considered a luxury, and the curriculum reinforced traditional gender roles (Fry, 1988). European girls also had limited access to science education. For example, girls in Germany could not attend the Gymnasium, where the rigorous curriculum (including science) prepared students for university (Sime, 1997). In Poland, Marie Sklowdowska (Curie) was educated at home so that she could study mathematics and science (Quinn, 1995).
Sadly, the positive trend for girls’ education in science declined in the early decades of the twentieth century in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (Baker, 1998, 2001; Gaskell, 1998). The vocational education movement and the post–World War I “back-to-the-home” movement created a mechanical or university track for boys and a business or home economics track for girls. This resulted in a decrease in the number of girls taking science. There was an 80% drop in enrollment in physics in the United States between 1900 and 1928, and girls’ chemistry classes focused on the home, cooking, and food adulteration (Rury, 1991, as cited in Baker, 2001). In the United Kingdom in 1902, the National Board of Education made training in housewifery mandatory and allowed girls to substitute domestic science for natural and physical science.
The Great Depression further exacerbated girls’ limited access to science in the United States and the United Kingdom and reinforced traditional gender roles (Baker, 2001; Blair, 1998). Girls in the United States, but not boys, were actively discouraged from taking science to reduce the amount of materials consumed and thus the cost of education. In the United Kingdom, the National Board of Education justified a female curriculum by stating that girls’ futures would be as homemakers. In the early part of the twentieth century, state governments in Australia also tried to promote a curriculum for girls that emphasized domestic skills, but there was active resistance from women teachers, parents, and girls (Yates, 1998).
The decline in girls’ participation in science caused little or no concern in the United States until the mid-twentieth century, when Truman's science advisors argued for a foundation to fund science research and improve science teaching in schools (DeBoer, 1991). The result was the National Science Foundation, which funded the development of new science curricula. These curricular reform projects came under sharp criticism for a variety of reasons. They were directed by men, were based on the theories of male psychologists, and did not result in large numbers of girls choosing science or doing well in science (DeBoer). Scholars interested in gender concluded that the new curricula in the United States ignored the needs of girls. They continued their efforts to bring girls into science.
Until the 1970s, Australia offered a sex-differentiated vocational curriculum in addition to the academic secondary curriculum, and girls took fewer science courses than humanities, commercial, or domestic courses. Reports, generated in the 1970s, prompted in part by the women's movement, recommended curricula to help girls. Changes in Australia included campaigns to encourage girls to choose nontraditional careers, school-based projects, and inclusive curriculum (Yates, 1998). Canada and the United Kingdom were also involved in curriculum reform in the 1970s and 1980s that was sensitive to girls’ needs. This led to guidelines for nonsexist curriculum materials, the elimination of sexist guidance materials, and an effort to increase girls’ interest in science (Blair, 1998; Gaskell, 1998). Feminists in New Zealand also challenged the sexist nature of the curriculum at this time (Watson, 1988). In addition, the international organization known as GASAT (Gender and Science and Technology) was founded in 1981 to engage in research and grassroots activities to promote gender equity in science and technology worldwide. GASAT has created a global network of women and provided a forum (international conferences held every 2– 3 years) for sharing ideas for promoting gender equity in science and technology.
Efforts to increase the participation of women in scientific careers have had an impact, although participation in engineering is still lagging. According to New Zealand's 1996 census, statistics engineering was the field with the largest number of male university graduates (New Zealand Bureau of Statistics, 2004). Males numbered 133,950, in contrast to females, who numbered 3,633. The gap between men and women choosing science as a field of study was much smaller. Approximately 15,742 men graduated from university in all fields of science, as compared with approximately 13,000 women. Other western countries have similar enrollment and graduation patterns in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET), and although engineering remains a highly gendered occupation, there has been a steady increase of women interested in the field (Clair, 1995).
A gender gap between the enrollment of women and men in SMET also exists in Australia. In 2003, 11% of female students were studying engineering, but 42% were studying all areas of science. Furthermore, only 55.5% of women in the natural and physical sciences and 43.1% of women in engineering were employed full-time, as compared with 73.3% of males in the natural and physical sciences and 81.4 % of males in engineering. The number of doctorates awarded to men and women in the natural and physical sciences in 2003 revealed a smaller gender gap (male = 863, female = 752) than in engineering, where men received 752 doctorates and compared with 97 females (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004).
Canadian statistics indicate that 15% of engineering students, 36% of mathematics and physical science students, and 58% of agriculture and bioscience students were female (Statistics Canada, 2004). In the United States, the number of women in engineering is low, but women now earn more bachelor's degrees in science than men (Mervis, 2003). In the next section, we discuss the research on factors influencing females’ participation rates in science, the question of a gender gap, and how research has changed over time.
Research into Factors Influencing Rates of Participation in Science
One of the earliest studies of gender differences was conducted by Field and Copley (1969) and focused on cognitive style and achievement differences between males and females in Australia and the United Kingdom. They concluded that there were “basic and important psychological differences between the sexes in the processing of information” (p. 10) and that the “slower development of formal operations by these girls” (p. 8) was responsible for boys’ higher science achievement scores. Kelly (1978), reviewing the research of the 1960s and 1970s, also acknowledged that males performed better than females on science assessments worldwide; but she concluded that researchers did not know the causes of girls’ underachievement in science and that most explanations have not been empirically tested. She then proceeded to test three hypotheses (cultural, school, attitude) to explain sex differences in International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) data. She concluded that societal/cultural expectations contributed to the magnitude of sex differences, that school experiences could limit achievement differences, provided girls studied as much science as boys, and that the relationship between liking science and achievement was stronger for boys than girls.
Kahle and Meece (1994) synthesized the gender-related research from the 1970s to early 1990s, noting the “recent concern” about the low participation of women and girls in science, and placed this research in the context of “factors underlying the differential participation of boys and girls in school science” (p. 542). While Kahle and Meece acknowledged the impact of family, cultural, and social factors on gender issues in science, they focused on school-related factors, because teachers and administrators could influence those factors. They also reviewed the research on interventions designed to increase girls’ participation in science and identified areas for further research. Kahle and Meece noted that the gender gap in mathematics achievement was closing in 1988, but not in science. The most recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) data (IEA, 2000) continue to support this conclusion, indicating that from 1988 to 2000 the U.S. gender gap did not decrease, except at the middle-school level. Here, the performance of girls and boys is the same, as it was found to be for six other countries (Beaton et al., 1996). In the United Kingdom, the gender gap has reversed and now favors girls (Arnot et al., 1999).
Kahle and Meece (1994) also reviewed the now controversial work of Benbow, Stanley, and colleagues; of Maccoby and Jacklin; and of other researchers looking for what were then called sex differences in cognitive abilities. They concluded that there was more evidence for attributing performance differences in mathematics and spatial ability to differential experiences (e.g., course taking, out-of-school activities) than to innate differences attributable to biological sex. Furthermore, they concluded that the differences that did exist in mathematics and spatial ability were not large enough to explain the differences in science achievement. Kahle and Meece noted that part of the gender gap could be attributed to test bias in standardized test format, and that girls had better grades awarded by high school science and mathematics teachers. These two factors often have been ignored in the discussion of differences in male and female achievement.
The cumulative effect of teacher expectations, classroom interactions, and the type of instruction, all of which favored boys, was identified as the main educational factor that influenced girls’ participation in science. Intervention programs designed to increase girls’ participation in science had limited impact, because they focused on single rather than multiple causes and were not grounded in theoretical models that integrated psychological and sociocultural variables (Kahle, Parker, Rennie, & Riley, 1993).
Baker (2002a), in an editorial, asked, “Where is the gender and equity in science education?” (p. 659). To answer that question, she examined articles and editorials in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching by decade, beginning with the 1970s. She included “articles that addressed planning for the future, setting priorities, establishing a research agenda, and describing our theoretical orientation as well as articles that took gender and equity as their main theme” (p. 659). During the 1970s and early 1980s, there was little research that addressed gender or equity. The few studies that were identified (n = 12) addressed sex differences in cognitive ability and implicitly or explicitly used a deficit model with male performance as the norm. In the late 1980s, Baker found approximately 20 articles that were primarily concerned with gender. These articles were less focused on sex differences and more on gender equity. This change in perspective brought about a questioning of the meaning of differences and attempts to get more girls interested in science. However, this research did not as yet question the locus of the problem. Girls, not science, had to be changed.
Race, Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status
Kahle and Meece (1994) criticized a large portion of gender research because it was based on a deficit model that implied that girls lack the cognitive, personal, and experiential characteristics that promoted achievement in science. They called for research that focused on school and workplace barriers, paid more attention to individual differences, and examined the role of ethnicity and socioeconomic status as moderators of success. Several years later, Kenway and Gough (1998) identified the key areas of the gender and science education discourse as documenting differences in participation, attitudes, achievement, and learning strategies. They critiqued the dominant focus on differences and suggested that the research should move away from the male-female dichotomy and encompass race, ethnicity, and class. In a 2000 editorial in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Gallagher and Anderson (2000) also criticized the research in science education for excluding gender, race, class, or ethnicity.
One of the exceptions to the dominant focus critiqued by Kenway and Gough (1998) was the book Gender, Science and Mathematics (Parker, Rennie, & Fraser, 1996). Parker et al. included the work of many scholars, albeit from Western countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States), working within a gender-inclusive perspective. Baker (1998) also synthesized the research that addressed the role of ethnicity and socioeconomic status in participation in science worldwide. She noted that until recently science was the province of white upper-class European and North American males and found that continuing inequities in the educational systems of countries serving large minority and indigenous populations (e.g., the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) made it particularly difficult for girls of color to be successful in science.
Research that has focused on socioeconomic status and ethnicity has provided a more nuanced picture of girls’ participation in science. The second IEA study found that the higher the educational level of parents, the more books in the home, and the smaller the family size, the higher the science achievement for all students (Baker, 1998). Also, studies have found that for some minority students, participation in science requires a large cultural shift. In the United States, this shift has been easier for African American females, who are less constrained by traditional gender roles and community than some other minority groups, such as Latinas, who are more constrained by traditional gender roles and community (AAUW, 1998a).
Concurrently with gender, race, ethnicity, and social class, culture and language were making a breakthrough in the science education literature (Baker, 2002a). These two lines of research had, for the most part, moved along on parallel tracks with few links that would bring them together. For example, Baker criticized the work of Michael Apple (1992), who wrote about economic oppression and curricular reform, but failed to mention the special effect of economic oppression on women. She also criticized the work of Michael O'Loughlin (1992), who focused on issues of culture, power, and discourse in the classroom only in relation to students of color without acknowledging the research on gender in these areas or considering the double impact of color and gender. Other authors were more sensitive to the complexities of gender in race, class, ethnic, and sociocultural contexts and struggled to avoid oversimplification. Krockover and Shepardson (1995) made a strong argument for including these “missing links” in gender research. On the other hand, many of the writers in the 1990s were concerned that issues of gender would be subsumed by issues of culture or race.
Nevertheless, the 1990s also brought official recognition that gender was an important issue in science education, and journal editors supported special issues that focused on recommendations for gender reform. The 1990s saw approximately 30 articles published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching on the topic of gender. These articles went beyond describing well-known phenomena and moved toward explaining what the phenomena meant. The deficit model was discarded, and new feminist and emancipatory theories and methodologies were employed. Gender research in science education had turned a corner (Baker, 2002a).
Masculine Nature of Science
Kelly (1985) identified the masculine stereotyping of science in Western culture as a major barrier to participation not found in non-Western countries. In addition, Kahle and Meece (1994) identified gender role expectations (reinforced by parents and culture) and conflicts about balancing family, children, and a scientific career. These stereotypes and gender role conflicts continue to exist to varying degrees, depending upon context and remain a concern for women worldwide. Kenway and Gough (1998), in their critique of science education research, found that most explanations for differences blamed girls, the curriculum, or the learning environment; the explanation did not take into consideration educational politics and showed a reluctance to attribute differences to science as a masculine discourse. For example, women were largely missing from the academy until the middle of the twentieth century, and currently, issues of child care, especially release time for bearing and raising children, impede women's progress in academe. The structure of the academy within science still favors men, who often have no or minimal child-care, home, or other family responsibilities (Baker, 1998).
Despite barriers that the masculine nature of science erects for girls and women, there are some encouraging data. Baker (1998) found that girls often rejected the masculine aspects of science (de-contextualized activities, competition, mechanistic views of nature) and the tedium of school science, but not science itself. Moreover, the outcome of girls’ attitudes toward science seems to depend on which attitude measures are used (Kahle & Rennie, 1993).
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
Women and girls’ participation in science in many countries is restricted by their limited access to education. In 2002, the World Bank estimated that of the 150 million children in primary school, 100 million were girls who were expected to leave before completing their education. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2003) estimated that 104 million children, aged 6–11, worldwide are not in school each year and that 60 million of these children are girls. Nearly 40% of out-of-school children live in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, 90% of girls aged 15–19 in Chad have not finished primary school, and 80% in Burkino Faso have not completed primary school (Hertz & Sperling, 2004). Another 35% of the out-of-school children live in South Asia. In Laos, fewer than one in four girls attend school beyond primary years, and only 12% of girls in Cambodia are enrolled in secondary school (UNESCO).
Urban-rural disparities are striking, especially for girls. In Niger, 83% of the girls living in the capital attend primary school, compared with only 12% of rural girls. In Pakistan, three times as many boys as girls living in rural areas complete primary school, and in urban areas of Pakistan, twice as many boys as girls complete primary school (Hertz & Sperling, 2004). One-third of girls in Africa and South Asia who have completed primary school are still functionally illiterate and cannot read, write, or do simple arithmetic (Hertz & Sperling).
Data for secondary and tertiary enrollment comparisons are limited because of changes in international statistics (United Nations Development Fund for Women [UNIFEM], 2004). However, when comparing the number of females with males enrolled in secondary education, there are 82 females per 200 males attending school; the exception is Latin American/Caribbean countries, where there is one female per 100 males. For tertiary education, there are 63 females per 100 males in sub-Saharan Africa and 58 females per 100 males in South Central Asia. Overall, there are 75 females per 100 males in university in developing countries. The exceptions, where females outnumber males, are Latin American/Caribbean, Southeast Asian, and Western Asian countries. These numbers are ratios and do not represent the actual number of students enrolled, which are very small for both males and females.
Girls in developing countries who attend school face instruction that fosters gender stereotypes and discourages girls from achieving. Curriculum materials portray women as passive (i.e., in Togo, Ethiopia, Kenya). For example, curricula in Kenya describe men as leaders, fighters, or soldiers, and women are described as breast feeders, fertile, or pregnant (Hertz & Sperling, 2004). In Nigeria, classroom interactions favor boys, who are given more time to ask and answer questions, use materials, and take leadership roles. They are also provided more time and opportunities to engage in science tasks compared with girls (United Nations Children's Fund, 2003).
Science and technology courses at all levels of education are limited in developing countries, and where they exist, enrollment is dominated by men. Among the major barriers to female participation in science are the lack of the basic prerequisite education, and the perceptions of teachers, counselors, family, and peers that science and technology are for males. Thus, half of the world's workers are in sex-stereotyped occupations (UNIFEM, 2004). In addition, cultural norms prevent even scientifically educated women in developing countries from entering the upper echelons of science (UNIFEM, 1995). Almost all of the 479 members listed as members of the Third World Academy of Science (2002) are male.
Latin America
Women in Latin America have not experienced the educational disadvantages of their sisters from other developing countries. This is attributed in part to the egalitarian attitudes of indigenous populations and a push toward industrialization. However, women at university still tend to choose professions that reflect traditional gender roles (Bustillo, 1993). Latinas’ access to education steadily increased during the twentieth century until the 1980s. Primary-school enrollment for boys and girls was equal, female illiteracy rates dropped, and the number of women entering university increased. However, the economic downturn of the 1980s and the slow recovery of many countries in Latin American has placed the education of women, especially of rural women, at risk and increased the dropout rates for girls who feel that an education no longer ensures economic and social mobility (Conway & Borque, 1993).
Middle East
Throughout the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and Yemen) illiteracy rates are at least twice as high for women than men, ranging from 5% to 45% for males and 16% to 77% for females. Jordan has the lowest rates (5% male, 15.7% female) and Iraq the highest rates (45% male, 77% female). Only in Israel are the illiteracy rates less than 10% for the population (3% male, 7.2 % female) (United Nations [UN], 2004a). Science is taught in Muslim countries as an integrated compulsory subject from the beginning school grades. It is also part of the curriculum in the last two or three years in secondary school. However, fewer girls than boys enroll in these courses because girls are encouraged to enroll in arts and humanities classes; there is stereotyping of science and technology as suitable only for boys, and the curriculum does not relate science to the everyday life of women (Hassan, 2000).
Change is taking place in Iran, among those women who graduate from secondary school and go on to tertiary education (Koenig, 2000). In Koenig's report, almost 60% of incoming university students were female and, unlike in the past patterns, they were choosing science. Two-thirds of the students in chemistry at the University of Isfahan were female and 56% of all students in the sciences were female. This included one in five Ph.D. students. Some observers attribute women's dedication to the gains in their science participation. However, others believe that women in Iran have fewer career options than men and so devote more time to their studies. Despite increasing female enrollments, the number of women in faculty positions in universities is still low. In 1999, women were 6% of full professors, 8% of associate professors, and 12% of assistant professors in all academic fields.
Iran was the only Muslim country to participate in TIMSS. In Iran, gender differences that occurred in science at fourth grade favored boys in earth science, but there were no gender differences in life or physical sciences, or environmental issues and the nature of science. At the eighth grade, gender differences favoring boys appeared in earth science and physics, but not in life science, chemistry, or environmental issues and the nature of science. Data for the final year of secondary education were not reported (IEA, 2000).
To avoid getting a false picture of female participation in science, it is important to look at the actual numbers rather than percentage of enrollment. Of the 18,000 students enrolled at the University of Kuwait in 1996–1997, 623 graduated with a science or science-related degree. One hundred and eighty-one of the students in the sciences were female, 142 females were in engineering and petroleum, 52 women were in medicine, and 38 women were in allied medicine fields (e.g., nursing) (Kuwait Information Office, 2002). In 1997, Jordan had 39% of female university students studying natural and applied science nationwide for a total of 12,227 women, and 19% of graduate students in these areas were women (n = 1,719) (Jordan Higher Council for Science and Technology, 1997). Other Middle East countries have similarly high percentages of women in science (17–75%), but absolute numbers are low (e.g., 28% represents 7,344 women in Egypt) (Hassan, 2000).
The number of female faculty in universities varies from country to country, with countries such as Syria with 7% of women in science and engineering-related fields (n = 410 nationwide) and Lebanon with 24% female science and engineering faculty (n = 111 nationwide). Overall, statistics for female faculty in Muslim countries are similar to those found in the United States, where representation in the health sciences is highest, followed by biological science; the fewest women are found on the faculties of engineering. However, the more prestigious the academic institution, the less likely it is that women will be on the faculty in senior positions, even at the level of department head, and even fewer women scientists are in policy-making positions (Hassan, 2000). This participation pattern also exists in Western academic institutions.
Turkey, although not in the Middle East, is an Islamic country, but because of its secular government, there are more women in science and there is less gender discrimination than elsewhere (Cohen, 2000). The number of years of schooling completed is 10.4 for males and 8.5 for females (UN, 2004b). Consequently, far more students are enrolled in university and more in science compared with other Muslim countries. However, a disturbing trend was noted in 1994, in the form of a shift in secondary enrollment for girls from technical and general education schools, where the curriculum focused on preparation for further education or the workplace, to schools focused on religious education that emphasized traditional women's roles (Turkish Republic State Ministry for Women's Affairs and Social Services Directorate General on the Status and Problem of Women, 1994).
The secular nature of Turkey's government means that women have attended university and studied science and engineering since 1927. In 2002, more females (n = 6,327) than males (6,054) graduated from Turkish universities with degrees in mathematics and natural sciences, more females (6,263) than males (4,801) graduated with degrees in health sciences, and more than three times as many males (14,614) than females (4,850) graduated with degrees in the technical sciences such as engineering (Women Information Network in Turkey, 2004).
Seven percent of the female Turkish workforce in 2000 was employed in scientific or technical fields, as compared with 7.5% of the male workforce. However, in absolute numbers, the levels of participation of men and women were far apart. There were 653,035 women or slightly more than half the number of men (n = 1,248,704) employed in scientific or technical fields in 2000 (Women Information Network in Turkey, 2004).
Europe
TIMSS data for European countries indicate that gender differences in favor of males appear at the fourth grade and continue through to the final year of secondary school, with the gender gap widening at each level (IEA, 2000). Differences appear in the earth and physical sciences at fourth grade, and the Netherlands has the largest gender gap overall at this grade. Gender differences in earth science continue, and physics and chemistry are added at eighth grade. At the final year of secondary school, gender differences favoring males in science literacy emerge. Males also had significantly higher scores in physics in all countries except Latvia.
By the eighth grade, students’ attitudes toward science and mathematics begin to show gender differences. More males than females believe it is important to do well in science and mathematics to get their desired job. These differences may account, in part, for the low participation rates of women in higher levels of science in Europe.
The European Union (EU) has been concerned about the low participation of women in science but does not collect gender-related data and cannot describe the extent of the problem. According to Rees (2001), what is known is that “irrespective of discipline, the proportion of female undergraduates in the discipline, and country, women leave scientific careers in disproportionate numbers at every stage, but particularly after the post-doctoral level” (p. 260). We also know that less than 10% of full professors in science in European countries are women (e.g., 6% of Germany's full professors are women) as compared with 15% in the United States. Furthermore, statistics for women scientists in industry are completely lacking (Williams, 1998). Underrepresentation is less severe in Southern European countries and Finland than in the rest of the EU (Dewandre, 2002). For example, in Portugal, women make up 48% of the researchers at all professorial ranks in the natural sciences and 29% in engineering and technology in institutions of higher education. In contrast, the Netherlands has only 8% women researchers at all professorial ranks in the natural sciences and 6% in engineering and technology in institutions of higher education (Holden, 2002).
However, the higher rates of participation in some parts of the EU do not mean that women in these countries are immune to gender discrimination. In Italy, only 13% of women as compared with 26% of men reach the most senior positions. Nor is the number of female science majors in university reflected in the number of female professors. For example, in the United Kingdom women have comprised 50% of biology majors for the past 30 years, yet women are only 9% of the full professors in biology (Dewandre, 2002). This problem will likely continue, because the rate of increase in the number of women full professors in science in EU countries is approximately .05% to 1.0% per year (Bulmahn, 1999).
Some of the barriers that EU women in science face are reflected by the consistently smaller grant awards they receive compared with men (e.g., in Denmark), demands for 2.6 times higher publication rates than for men, fewer postdoctoral fellowships (e.g., in Sweden), and the use of gender as a criterion for grant awards (e.g., in Netherlands) (Dewandre, 2002; Williams, 1998).
Asia
According to the Korean National Statistics Office (2004), 41% (n = 250,917) of females 15 and older were studying natural sciences compared with 13% studying engineering (n = 247,064). These numbers mirror the participation of women in science versus engineering in most countries. Employment numbers indicate that scientifically and technically trained women are participating in the workforce at similar rates in Korea compared with Western countries. TIMSS data for Korea indicated gender differences at the fourth grade in earth and physical science favoring males, and differences favoring males in earth science, physics, and environmental issues and the nature of science at the eighth grade. Data for the final year of secondary education were not reported (IEA, 2000).
TIMMS data for Hong Kong indicated that gender differences favoring males appeared in the physical sciences at the fourth grade (earth science, physical science) and eighth grade (earth science, physics, chemistry). Japanese data followed the same pattern. Singapore had no gender differences in any area of science at either the fourth or eighth grade. No data were available for the last year of secondary school for Hong Kong, Japan, or Singapore (IEA, 2000).
The number of women in science in Japan is quite low, reflecting traditional values and a secondary education system that reinforces women's participation in home economics while boys study technology (Kuwahara, 2001). At the tertiary level, women typically enroll in humanities or education and study topics that interest them (Ogawa, 2001). Attitudes toward science are generally positive for both males and females at the primary level, but decline in junior high school and throughout high school. Physical science, physics, and chemistry are disliked even by Japanese women studying science at university, and even more strongly disliked by men studying non-science subjects. Biology is viewed as a female subject and is only liked and taken in high school by women planning a science major at university or by males planning a non-science major at university (Scantlebury, Baker, Sugi, Yoshida, & Uysal, 2003).
Gender issues are something that Japanese culture is just beginning to address. A survey conducted in 2002 by the Japan Society of Applied Physics found that women scientists reported a glass ceiling, slower advancement than their male counterparts, and difficulties reentering the scientific workforce after having children (Normile, 2001). Another survey of university science and non-science majors (Scantlebury et al., 2003) found that women in both science and non-science majors were well aware of gender issues, but that males, especially in non-science majors, avoided answering questions concerning gender issues by responding that they did not understand the question. Initiating such surveys was a big step forward in Japan, which has little baseline data about gender issues.
In China, participation rates in physics during the 1970s were among the world's highest, with one in three women students in top Chinese universities studying physics. The number of women has dropped below participation rates in the West to less than one in ten. The high levels of the 1970s are explained by women asserting their equality and inflated numbers. The downturn in the number of women in physics has been attributed to the same gender barriers as found elsewhere, stereotypes encountered by women in physics, and current media messages that emphasize marrying a good husband and raising children (Jianxiang, 2002).
Nearly 30 years ago, the United Nations officially called for women's equal rights and access to education as a “fundamental right” (UNESCO, 2004). UNESCO's policies state that female education is a key strategy to eliminating poverty and improving development. Although females’ access to science education has improved, regardless of culture or country, masculine hegemony promoting stereotypical gender roles remains a strong barrier to female's participation in science. Females in many countries are expected to place family and child-rearing responsibilities (private sphere) ahead of education or working outside the home (public sphere). Although government policies have removed the structures that promoted different science education for females and males, few countries have implemented policies to address the imbalance in domestic and family responsibilities between females and males. In the following section, we use a U.S. example of women in academic science to illustrate the dilemma women face in moving between private and public spheres.
MOVING BEYOND SCHOOL: WOMEN IN COLLEGE SCIENCE MAJORS AND CAREERS
The number of women moving into science majors and careers has increased steadily during the past few decades. In the United States, women account for 27% of doctoral degrees in the physical sciences, 31% in the geosciences, and nearly 50% in the life sciences (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2002), and they are reaching parity in several undergraduate and master's degree programs. However, women of color are especially underrepresented in academe. For example, the largest group, African American women, represent only 2% of full-time science faculty (Gregory, 2002).
There is a dearth of women faculty in the sciences at colleges and universities, and women are underrepresented at the senior ranks (NSF, 2003). Promotion and tenure rates for women science faculty are lower, compared with their male peers (Rosser & Lane, 2002). Researchers have begun to explore the reasons for the failure of universities to attract, promote, and retain women scientists and have identified a number of barriers (NSF, 2003; Rosser, 2004; Scantlebury, Fassinger, & Richmond, 2004). Although major barriers, such as access to science education, have been removed, micro-inequities between women and men scientists build to a cumulative disadvantage throughout an academic career (Valian, 1998). For example, after interviewing 50 female tenured professors in the chemical sciences, Scantlebury et al. found a pattern of “sabbatical babies.” Women planned their pregnancies to coincide with a post-tenure sabbatical leave. This strategy meant that women could avoid requesting maternity leave and dealing with unsupportive administrators. The micro-inequity occurs because male scientists are more likely to use their post-tenure sabbatical to focus on their research (duties in the public sphere), rather than child-rearing responsibilities (private sphere). Although not unique to scientists, the balance of career and family is difficult for women in academe (Rosser, 2004; Scantlebury et al., 2004; Valian, 1998). For example, the structure of academe is counter to women's biological clocks, and although many institutions stop the tenure clock during maternity leave, there is an expectation that faculty will maintain their research programs at a productivity level similar to that of their peers.
Overwhelmingly, the climate for women in research science remains hostile, isolating, and un-collegial. Recent studies suggest that female graduate students and post-doctoral research associates are choosing not to enter academics because of the treatment they received and observed during their graduate school experiences (Rosser, 2004). However, several structural mechanisms are in place to counteract the negative academic environment for women. Recently, the NSF established ADVANCE (NSF, 2004) awards for institutional transformation to change the climate for faculty. Institutions receiving grants through the program have identified and are beginning to remove the institutional barriers that exist for the recruitment, retention, and promotion of women in STEM fields. For example, the Georgia Institute of Technology (2004) established a mentoring program, developed tenure and promotion training workshops that address issues of bias, and instituted more family-friendly policies that recognize that the tenure clock often is in competition with a woman's biological clock. In the United States, funding agencies are recognizing that structures exist that limit women's advancement and participation in science. ADVANCE (NSF, 2004) encourages academic institutions to identify where the difference lies and supports their efforts to change those structures that support research science and recognize the demands that the private sphere places on public lives for women and men.
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS
A decade ago, Kahle and Meece's (1994) handbook chapter on gender issues in science education focused on the impact of sociocultural aspects such as home, family and teachers and teaching, the implementation of intervention programs to promote girls’ participation and retention in science, and learners’ individual characteristics, such as attitudes and cognitive abilities. They also proposed a need for a theoretical model that would address multiple variables and not use a deficit view of gender.
Several major changes in the sociocultural context for science education have occurred since the previous handbook chapter. First, in Western cultures, there has been a shift from allowing teachers independence with respect to how and what they teach, to a climate where teachers and students are held accountable for what is taught and learned. Second, in response to policymakers’ stance on student and teacher accountability, content standards in science have been written in many countries, and countries such as the United States have introduced high-stakes tests at the state level.2 In this section, we discuss gender issues related to student attitudes, sociocultural classroom environment, assessment and testing practices, and teacher education, with reference to research studies. Because of page limitations, we draw mainly on studies conducted in the United States.
Attitudes Toward Science
Since Kahle and Meece's (1994) chapter, two studies reviewed students’ science attitudes. Weinburgh (1995) conducted a meta-analysis, and Osborne, Simon, and Collins (2003) published a literature review. Both studies reported that gender is still the major factor differentiating students’ attitudes toward science and that females’ participation in science has similar patterns in most Western countries. For example, girls in Britain chose not to enter undergraduate programs in the physical and computer sciences and engineering (Osborne et al.).
Recent research found that gifted girls attribute their academic success and/or failure in science to effort and strategy (Li & Adamson, 1995). These research results are consistent with an ongoing pattern identified by gender researchers in the 1980s (Kahle, 1985). Recently Jones, Howe, and Rua (2000) reported that the U.S. intervention programs of the 1980s and 1990s had little impact on the recruitment and retention of girls and women into science. This may be due to the deficit model approach that many of these programs used—that is, a “fix the girls” approach—rather than projects challenging science structures. However, we cannot ignore the social structures that affect students’ science identity.
Barton (1997, 1998, 2001) has challenged science educators to rethink the concept of gender so that the field is more inclusive of all students. Brickhouse (1994) challenged the field to rethink the curriculum in order to “bring in the outsiders” and their perspectives. Gilbert (2001) called for a redefinition of the terms science and gender so that students who typically have not viewed science as part of their identity would choose to do so. Two U.S. studies that addressed science identity were contradictory. In their study of four African American middle-school girls, Brickhouse, Lowery, and Schultz (2000) found that the girls, whose teachers encouraged them to develop their science identities, also aligned themselves with the feminine stereotype of quiet, studious schoolgirl. However, Scantlebury (2005) found that teachers who had encouraged girls who challenged the feminine stereotype and engaged those girls in science, alienated quiet girls.
Sociocultural Classroom Environment
Several studies suggest that changing teachers’ practice will improve students’ attitudes, especially the attitudes of girls, toward science (Parker & Rennie, 2002; Weinburgh, 1995). Kahle, Meece, and Scantlebury (2000) found that middle science teachers using standards-based teaching practices positively influenced urban, African American students’ science achievement and attitudes, especially those of boys. Current reforms in science education place an emphasis on standards-based teaching that provides students with opportunities to learn, which in turn should improve students’ achievement. The concept of opportunity to learn (OTL) incorporates instructional strategies, curriculum materials, and the psychosocial environment to promote student achievement and attitudes (Stevens, 1993). Yet, ongoing studies of the classroom suggest that girls still have limited opportunities to learn science compared with boys.
Harwell's (2000) study of middle-school girls researched five areas: (a) girls as learners, (b) perception of the nature of science, (c) perceptions of classroom environments conducive to learning science, (d) perceptions of teachers’ actions to enhance science learning, and (e) girls’ suggestions for improving science learning. Sixty-four percent of the girls in the study reported that they would prefer to learn science in an active way, that is, doing science, experimentation, hands-on experiences, observations, or a combination of these approaches. However, the girls’ reported preferences were in stark contrast to their classroom experiences. The results of this study reflect strong and enduring cultural patterns—nearly 80% of the girls reported that they were passive learners. Only 47% of the girls reported that their teachers used some “new” teaching approaches such as demonstrations, hands-on activities, or fieldwork.
Other studies found similar patterns. Jovanovic and King (1998) examined gender differences in performance-based assessment science classrooms; they found that boys appropriated equipment and dominated the use of resources. Girls often had passive roles, such as reading instructions and writing down results. Freed-man's (2002) study showed the positive impact that laboratory experiences had on ninth-grade students’ attitudes and achievement in physical science. Jones et al. (2000) focused on elementary student dyads using tools to develop their science understanding. Girls’ and boys’ engagement with the equipment reflected patterns first identified by Kelly (1985). Girls carefully followed teachers’ directions and the “rules,” whereas boys dominated resources, tinkered with the equipment, and were competitive. Girls developed social relationships while working in their dyads. Jones et al. offered the same suggestion that Kahle (1985), Kelly (1981), and others made 20 years ago—that teachers create an environment where girls have permission to tinker, take apart the equipment, and “color outside the lines” (p. 781).
During the past decade, gender research in science education has sought to tell the stories of people from groups underrepresented in science (e.g., people of color, rural, urban, economically disadvantaged). Using feminist methodologies and theoretical frames, researchers have diversified the knowledge base. For example, in K–12 settings, Parrott, Spatig, Kusimo Carter, and Keyes (2000) reported on an intervention project that targeted the intersection of poverty, race, and place of non-privileged, middle-school Appalachian girls. They selected eight girls for in-depth study and found that the science teaching they received was often not standards-based. Teachers felt driven to a didactic approach because of the changes in educational policy that held them and their students accountable to a defined set of learning goals, which were usually established through high-stakes tests.
In urban school settings, African American girls tend to outperform their male peers on measures of science achievement (Coley, 2001; Pollard, 1993). The differences in science achievement of these students may be attributed to a number of school contextual factors that limit learning opportunities for all African American students, but especially for male students (Davis & Jordon, 1994; Selier, 2001). African American males, when compared with their female peers, have a disproportionate number of school suspensions, expulsions, and absences. In one study, home environment and peer support had a positive effect on African American girls, suggesting that high-achieving African American girls are more likely to seek support from their peers, but high-achieving African American males do not (Kahle et al., 2000). Scantlebury (2005) noted girls’ roles as othermothers (surrogate mothers) prevented urban, African American girls from regularly attending school. In Brick-house and Potter's (2001) study of two African American girls enrolled in a computer science program at a vocational high school, the picture was more complicated because of the interplay of gender with race and socioeconomic status.
Although some reforms have had positive outcomes, such as pushing teachers in urban schools to expect more from their students, the move toward accountability potentially has negative outcomes, because teachers teach to high-stakes tests (Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleaux, 1999; Olsen, 2001). When “teaching to the test” means drilling students on repetitive examples, we run the risk of further alienating students from learning science, and the gains seen in girls’ involvement with school science may be lost.
High-Stakes Test-Taking Patterns
Penner (2003) examined the gender by item difficulty for high-school students on TIMMS results from 10 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Sweden, Austria, South Africa, and Cyprus.) The effect size difference for science literacy ranged from .30 to .51 in favor of boys. A pattern emerged indicating that girls had more difficulty with harder items than boys. Although this difference is clear, the source of the difference is not. Understanding the source of differences on high-stakes testing is a major challenge in gender research and has implications for determining the success of reforms.
In the past decade, standards-based reform efforts in science education in the United States have produced national standards, a plethora of state-wide high-stakes tests, and demands by politicians, parents, and other community members for student and teacher accountability, especially related to student outcomes (National Research Council, 1996). As educational systems begin to adopt standards-based reforms and request the funds needed to implement changes, policymakers and politicians call upon educators to provide evidence and reform efforts are directly attributable for improvements in students’ achievement.
Student outcome data, such as achievement scores on a state test, have become high-stakes. That is, many states require students to attain minimally passing levels on state tests for high-school graduation. Boone's (1998) research highlights a gender issue researchers should take into account when considering the impact of high-stakes testing. Boone conducted an analysis of test-taking patterns as a function of race and gender with the use of a 28-item multiple-choice science test for middle-school students. A significantly larger number of females, compared with males, and African Americans compared with white Americans, did not answer a number of items at the end of the test. As a consequence, the researchers shortened the test, removing overlapping items that tested similar content because the purpose was to document students’ science achievement, not their test-taking skills.
In contrast, Lawrenz, Huffman, and Welch's (2001) study of 3,550 U.S. ninth-graders reported no gender-differentiated patterns across question types of multiple choice, open-ended format, hands-on, and full investigation. The study did not report gender by race results. And at the college level, Weaver and Raptis's (2001) study of the responses of female and male undergraduate students on multiple-choice and open-ended questions on exams associated with introductory atmospheric and oceanic sciences found no gender differences.
Often data from the high-stakes tests are disaggregated by gender or by race, but never by both gender and race/ethnicity. For example, the Council of Chief State School Officers (2004) report, State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education 2003, provided data on gender or race/ethnicity distribution for students taking science and math courses, but did not disaggregate the data by gender and race. This omission makes it difficult to measure our success in supporting science achievement for all groups of students.
Single-Sex versus Mixed-Sex Science Classes
Since the late 1970s, researchers have identified the masculine hegemony of the sociocultural environment experienced in science classrooms as one reason for the lack of women and girls in science courses and careers (Ginorio, 1995; Kelly, 1985; Seymour & Hewitt, 1997). Coeducation assumes that all students receive an equal education, but Rich (1979) noted that this assumption was clearly erroneous. Based upon historical studies of the characteristics of women scientists, Rossiter (1982) found that many of these women had a single-sex schooling experience. Parents, teachers, and researchers have viewed single-sex science classes as one strategy that would provide girls the experiences they needed to succeed in science.
Several reviews of the research have challenged the idea that single-sex environments are good for girls (AAUW, 1998b; Mael, 1998; United States Department of Education, 1993). All of these reviews concluded that single-sex classrooms in the United States do not necessarily translate into higher achievement or reduced stereotyping of women's roles. Much depends upon what goes on inside the classroom. For example, Baker (2002b) found that the curriculum topics and the pedagogy employed by teachers were more important than the fact that Latino/a middle-school boys and girls were in single-sex mathematics and science classrooms. There was no clear evidence that the single-sex classroom resulted in higher achievement, but it did provide girls with a strong sense of empowerment. This finding replicated the work of Wood and Brown (1997), who found that single-sex mathematics classes had no effect on achievement. Nor did Wood and Brown or Forgasz and Leder (1996) find an effect on future course-taking. A reanalysis of data from single-sex Catholic schools (LePore & Warren, 1997; Lewin, 1999) indicated that the higher academic achievement attributed to secondary Catholic schools was the result of pre-enrollment academic differences between students in single-sex and coeducational schools rather than the single-sex environment, curriculum, or instruction.
On the other hand, the evidence is strong that single-sex environments do provide girls with a sense of empowerment, confidence to ask questions in class, an intimidation-free classroom climate, and a positive attitude toward science (Baker, 2002b; Forgasz & Leder, 1996; Parker & Rennie, 1995; Rennie & Parker, 1997; Streit-matter, 1999; Wollman, 1990; Wood & Brown, 1997). Conversely, Shapka and Keating (2003) found greater positive effects on mathematics and science achievement for girls in single-sex Canadian classrooms than on boys or girls in coeducational classrooms. Furthermore, they did not find positive effects for affect. The single-sex environments did not have an effect on students’ attitudes toward mathematics, math anxiety, or perceived math competence. Parker and Rennie found positive science achievement effects for girls in single-sex classrooms in Australia.
Lee, Marks, and Byrd (1994) found that gender stereotyping was as likely to occur in single-sex boys’ or girls’ schools as in coeducational schools. Girls’ schools reinforced academic dependence and had the least academically rigorous instruction (Lee et al.). The data for single-sex schools or classrooms in developing countries are contradictory. Mael (1998) concluded that in the United States, single-sex education had more benefits for males than females, primarily because single-sex male schools received more resources than female schools. Lee and Lockheed (1998) came to the opposite conclusion, based on studies in Africa (Beoku-Betts, 1998; Kiluvandunda, 2001), where cultural values, patriarchal religion, and male hegemony have led to a curriculum that reinforces gender stereotypes (Baker, 1998).
The instructional strategies employed may determine the success or failure of single-sex education. Parker and Rennie (2002) found that it was easier for teachers to implement gender-inclusive strategies in single-sex science classrooms than in coeducational classrooms. The single-sex classroom reduced management problems (a finding noted by Kenway et al., 1998) and allowed more time for girls to develop their hands-on inquiry skills. Teachers in all-male classrooms found that they spent more time on management problems than teaching.
Heteronormative Science Education
In the broader educational context, Kosciw (2004) found that institutions of education promote heterosexuality as the norm, which produces a caustic climate for GLBT youth and adults. GLBT youth reported high levels of verbal and physical harassment, which occurred 84% of the time within hearing of school faculty and staff. Students reported that 42% of the time adults failed to intervene. Gay boys were more likely to experience physical violence than lesbian or transgendered youth. However, all students reported missing school because of isolation and ostracism (Kosciw). Opportunities to learn for GLBT students are thus diminished because of hostile school environment and absenteeism.
The issues of GLBT in science are closely related to the preparation of teachers, the curriculum, and scientific knowledge. Letts (2001) discussed science's hetero-normative masculinity and proposed introducing a critical science literacy into elementary science teacher education to counteract these dominant discourses. Fifield and Swain (2002) used queer theory to problematize science teacher education and, in particular, biology education's heteronormative stance on issues of identity and knowledge. Using personal stories, they illustrated the need for science teacher educators to reconstruct the concepts of gender and diversity for ourselves and for our students. Snyder and Broadway (2004) queered text of eight high-school biology textbooks to focus on the silence with regard to sexuality that is not heterosexuality. In reviewing high-school biology textbooks, Snyder and Broadway noted that the texts portrayed homosexuals as a high-risk group for contracting acquired immunodeficiency disease (AIDS). There was no discussion of scientists’ sexual orientation, and they found that the dominant heteronormative perspective did not allow students to develop knowledge in topics such as genetics, behavior, nature of science, sexuality, or AIDS.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Consciousness raising is not any guarantee that a person will not succumb to a hidden curriculum. But still, one is in a better position to resist if one knows what is going on. Resistance to what one does not know is difficult, if not impossible. (Martin, 1994, p. 167)
Gender research in science education initially focused on “where the differences lie,” and from that data, educators developed intervention programs to increase girls’ skills and influence their attitudes toward science. The field has moved from this deficit model, but fewer researchers are focused on gender issues in science education. There is a possibility that girls and women will become invisible in science education research.
A literature search using the ERIC database to identify journal articles published from 1990 to 2004 with the terms gender and science generated 817 articles. Adding race into the keyword search decreased the number of articles to 61. An examination of these articles indicted that 15 articles were not research in science education but in areas such as library science, economics, or political science. Thus during that 14-year period, less than 6% of the research articles on gender and science included a focus on race.
The failure to consider gender and race or ethnicity is not unique to researchers. In the United States, the No Child Left Behind Act has tied state funding to student performance. Yet, Kahle (2004) reported that this critical piece of legislative policy does not require data disaggregated by gender. Requiring such data will help researchers as well as U.S. state and national legislators to critically examine the impact of this legislation and potentially prevent girls from becoming invisible once more. It will allow us to determine the interactions of gender with race and socioeconomic status to identify what works and for whom. As Baker (2002b) found in her study of single-sex classrooms, what works for Latina girls may not work for Latino boys, and the issues affecting African American girls differ from those affecting their male peers (Kahle et al., 2000; Scantlebury, 2005; Seiler, 2001).
In 1994, Kahle and Meece recommended that research on gender issues in science education also explore the impact and interaction of socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity. Krockover and Shepardson (1995) repeated that recommendation, characterizing research on gender and sociocultural aspects, ethnicity/race, and identity as “missing links.” Baker (2002a) also noted the limited research on gender, race, and socioeconomic status in an increasingly complicated field. Why have calls to examine gender and race gone largely unheeded? Perhaps the answer lies in the challenges to conducting gender research. Research that focuses on the intersection of gender with other variables must avoid oversimplification of complex settings. Ignoring the nuances and dilemmas within the field limits the development of theoretical models and frameworks that can assist researchers (Kenway & Gough, 1998; Rennie, 1998).
In an effort to keep gender in the forefront of science education, the Henry Booth Foundation in New York conducted a seminar, Nurturing the Next Generation—Research on Women in the Sciences and Engineering (Daniels, 2004). Disaggregating data (by race, SES, rural/urban) from gender research in science education remains a critical issue, especially in the determination of how gender, social class, race, and sexuality affect students’ science trajectories, career decisions, and participation. Gender researchers also need to develop sophisticated survey instruments and analysis to identify micro-inequities in schooling, students’ science trajectories, and career paths. Furthermore, research is needed on fostering institutional transformations to change the climate of academic science departments and understanding the transitions from community college to bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees.
Science teacher educators also face challenges in preparing teachers who understand the subtleties and nuances of gender affects on students’ science learning and their teaching. Many schools promote cultural reproduction of stereotypical gender roles that are more inflexible and more polarized than those held by the wider society (Ruble & Martin, 1998). Those stereotypical gender roles and behaviors noted by Kahle (1985) and Kelly (1981) are still observed by researchers today. Although the percentage of girls participating in K–12 science and achievement increased in the past three decades, recent studies suggest that their involvement, engagement, and attitudes toward the subject have not (Altermatt, Jovanovic, & Perry, 1998).
Science teacher educators need to engage current and future teachers in an exploration of gender roles and their attitudes toward those roles. The subtle inequities in classrooms are barely noticed by the participants in classroom life (Kahle, 1990; McLaren & Gaskell, 1995; Spender, 1982). The acceptance and consistency of traditional gender roles in schools are often invisible to students and teachers (McLaren & Gaskell, 1995; Spender, 1982). Gender inequity is the “norm” and anything else is “not normal.” Most people only consider gender inequities a problem when the inequity challenges the norm (e.g., homosexuality) or is blatant (e.g., sexual harassment).
However, we science teacher educators need to practice what we preach and examine from a gender perspective the issues that exist in our planned and enacted curriculum, pedagogical practices, enrollment patterns of students in teacher education programs, hiring policy, tenure and promotion of faculty, and policy documents that influence our field (Scantlebury, 1994).
For nearly three decades, researchers in science education have examined the hidden curriculum influencing women and girls’ participation in science. More recently, we have also begun to address the exclusive impact of science's heteronormative view. Although there has been some progress in increasing the participation of girls and women in science, much remains to be done. Gender differences in participation, achievement, and attitude still exist. The social construction of gender in terms of the legitimacy of women's access to education and the heteronormative view of science in the classroom has not been challenged.
Many people remain at the margins of science, in both the developed and developing world. Science continues to promote a Western, masculine worldview that many girls and women reject. And research still faces the challenge of considering gender, race, and socioeconomic status within accountability systems that want simpler answers than we can provide.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Sharon Haggerty and Ann Howe, who reviewed this chapter.
REFERENCES
Altermatt, E., Jovanovic, J., & Perry, M. (1998). Bias or responsivity? Sex and achievement-level effects on teachers’ classroom questioning practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 516–527.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America's schools. Washington, DC: Author
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998a). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998b). Separated by sex. A critical look at single-sex education for girls. Washington, DC: Author.
Apple, M. (1992). Educational reform and educational crisis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 779–790.
Arnot, M., David, M., & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing the gender gap. Post-war education and social change. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Education and training indicators. Retrieved September 5, 2004, from http://.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]
Baker, D. (1998). Equity issues in science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 869–895). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Baker, D. (2001). Mathematics and science. In M. Forman-Brunell (Ed.), Girlhood in America: An encyclopedia (pp. 453–444). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio.
Baker, D. (2002a). Editorial: Where is gender and equity in science education? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 659–663.
Baker, D. (2002b). Good intentions: An experiment in middle school single-sex science and mathematics classrooms with high minority enrollment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 1–23.
Barton, A. C. (1997). Liberatory science education: Weaving connections between feminist theory and science education. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 141–163.
Barton, A. C. (1998). Reframing “science for all” through the politics of poverty. Educational Policy, 12, 525–541.
Barton, A. C. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 899–917.
Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1996). The science achievement in the middle school years: IEA'S third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Beoku-Betts, J. (1998). Gender and formal education in Africa: An exploration of the opportunity structure at the secondary and tertiary levels. In M. Bloch, J. Beku-Betts, & R. Tabachnick (Eds.), Women and education in sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 157–184). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
Blair, G. (1998). Australia. In G. Kelly (Ed.), International handbook of women's education (pp. 285– 322). New York: Greenwood Press.
Boone, W. (1998). Assumptions, cautions, and solutions in the use of omitted test data to evaluate the achievement of under-represented groups in science-implications for long-term evaluation. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 183–194.
Brickhouse, N. (1994). Bringing in the outsiders: Reshaping the sciences of the future. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 401–416.
Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 441–458.
Brickhouse, N., & Potter, J. T. (2001). Young women's scientific identity formation in an urban context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 965–980.
Bulmahn, E. (1999). Women in science in Germany. Science, 286, 2081.
Bustillo, I. (1993). Latin America and the Caribbean. In E. King & M. Hill (Eds.), Women's education in developing countries (pp. 175–210). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Clair, R. (1995). Scientific education of girls. Paris: UNESCO.
Cohen, P. (2000). Muslim women in science. Science, 290, 55–56.
Coley, R. (2001). Differences in the gender gap: Comparison across the racial/ethnic groups in education and work. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Conway, J., & Bourque, S. (1993). The politics of women's education: Perspectives from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004). State indicators of science and mathematics education, 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
Daniels, J. D. (2004). Proceedings of nurturing the next generation—Research on women in the sciences and engineering. New York: Henry Luce Booth Foundation.
Davis, J., & Jordan, W. (1994). The effects of school context, structure, and experiences on African American males in middle and high school. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 570–587.
DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewandre, N. (2002). European strategy for promoting women in science. Science, 295, 278–279.
Field, T., & Copley, A. (1969). Cognitive style and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 2–10.
Fifield, S., & Swain H. (2002). Heteronormativity and common-sense in science (teacher) education. In R. Kissen (Ed.), Getting ready for Benjamin: Preparing teachers for sexual diversity in the classroom (pp. 177–189). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Forgasz, H., & Leder, G. (1996). Mathematics classrooms, gender and affect. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 153–173.
Freedman, M. (2002). The influence of laboratory instruction on science achievement and attitude toward science across gender differences. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 191–200.
Fry, R. (1988). The curriculum and girls’ secondary schooling. In S. Middleton (Ed.), Women and education in Aotearoa (pp. 31–45). Wellington, New Zealand: Allen & Unwin.
Gallagher, J., & Anderson, C. (1999). Glimpses at our history as the century closes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10, 1063–1064.
Gaskell, J. (1998). Australia. In G. Kelly (Ed.), International handbook of women's education (pp. 493– 514). New York: Greenwood Press.
Georgia Institute of Technology. (2004). NSF ADVANCE program for institutional transformation. Retrieved October 7, 2004, from http://www.advance.gatech.edu
Gilbert, J. (2001). Science and its ‘other’: Looking underneath ‘woman’ and ‘science’ for new directions in research on gender and science education. Gender and Education, 13, 291–305.
Ginorio, A. (1995). Warming the climate for women in academic science. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Gregory, S. (2002). Black faculty women in the academy: History, status, and future. Journal of Negro Education, 70, 124–138.
Harwell, S. (2000). In their own voices: Middle level girls’ perceptions of teaching and learning science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11, 221–242.
Haslanger, S. (2000). Gender and race: (What) are they? (What) do we want them to be? Nous, 34, 31–55.
Hassan, F. (2000). Islamic women in science. Science, 290, 55–56.
Henig, J. Hula, R., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Henwood, F., & Miller, K. (2001). Editorial: Boxed in or coming out? On the treatment of science, technology, and gender in educational research. Gender and Education, 13, 237–242.
Hertz, B., & Sperling, G. (2004). What works in girls’ education: Evidence and policies from the developing world. Retrieved September 6, 2004 from http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Girls_Education_full.pdf
Higher Council for Science and Technology. (1997). Study of national scientific and technological requirements and potential (phase II): Scientific and technological capabilities, 1997. Aman, Jordan: Author.
Holden, C. (2002). Euro-women in science. Science, 295, 41.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2000). Gender differences in achievement. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Jianxiang, Y. (2002). China debates big drop in women physics majors. Science, 295, 263.
Jones, M. G., Brader-Araje, L., Carboni, L., Carter, G., Rua, M., Banilower, E., et al. (2000). Tool time: Gender and students’ use of tools, control, and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 760–783.
Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180–192.
Jovanovic, J., & King, S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who's doing the performing? American Educational Research Journal, 35, 477–496.
Kahle, J, B. (Ed.). (1985). Women in science: A report from the field. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Kahle, J. B. (1990). Real students take chemistry and physics: Gender issues. In K. Tobin, J. B. Kahle, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning (pp. 92–134). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Kahle, J, B. (2004). Will girls be left behind? Gender differences and accountability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 961–969.
Kahle, J. B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 542–576). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Kahle, J. B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1019–1041.
Kahle, J. B., Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 28, 379–404.
Kahle, J. B., & Rennie, L. J. (1993). Ameliorating gender differences in attitudes about science: A cross-national study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 321–334.
Kelly, A. (1978). Girls and science: An international study of sex differences in school science achievement. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International.
Kelly, A. (1981). The missing half: Girls and science education. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Kelly, A. (1985). The construction of masculine science. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 6, 133–153.
Kelly, G. (Ed.). (1998). International handbook of women's education. New York: Greenwood Press.
Kenway, J., & Gough, A. (1998). Gender and science education in schools: A review with “attitude.” Studies in Science Education, 31, 1–30.
Kenway, J., Willis, S., Blackmore, J., & Rennie, L. (1998). Answering back: Girls, boys and feminism in schools. New York: Routledge.
Kiluva-ndunda, M. (2001). Women's agency and educational policy: The experiences of the women of Kilome, Kenya. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Koening, R. (2000). Iranian women hear the call of science. Science, 290, 1485.
Korean National Statistics Office. (2004). Employment, labor, wages. Retrieved September 6, 2004, from http://www.nso.go.kr
Kosciw, J. G. (2004). The 2003 national climate survey: The school-related experiences of our nation's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth. New York: GLSEN.
Krockover, G., & Shepardson, D. (1995). The missing links in gender equity research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 223–224.
Kuwahara, M. (2001). Japanese women in science and technology. Minerva, 39, 203–216.
Kuwait Information Office. (2002). Education. Retrieved September 6, 2004 from http://www.kuwait-info.org/statistics/education.html
Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., & Welch, W. (2000). Policy considerations based on a cost analysis of alternative test formats in large scale science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 615–626.
Lee, V., & Lockheed, M. (1998). Single-sex schooling and its effects on Nigerian adolescents. In M. Bloch, J. Beoku-Betts, & R. Tabachnick (Eds.), Women and education in sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 201–226). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
Lee, V., Marks, H., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67, 92–120.
LePore, P., & Warren, J. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and coeducational Catholic schooling: Evidence from the national longitudinal study of 1988. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 485–511.
Letts, W. J. (2001). When science is strangely alluring: Interrogating the masculinist and hetero-normative nature of primary school science. Gender and Education, 13, 261–274.
Lewin, T. (1999, April 11). Amid equity concerns, girls’ schools thrive. New York Times, pp. A1, A23.
Li, A., & Adamson, G. (1995). Motivational patterns related to gifted students’ learning of mathematics, science and English: An examination of gender differences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284–297.
Mael, F. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 2, 101–129.
Martin, J. R. (1994). Changing the educational landscape: Philosophy, women and the curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Mathews, K. (1988). White pinafores, slates, mud and manuka. In S. Middleton (Ed.), Women and education in Aotearoa (pp. 20–30). Wellington, New Zealand: Allen & Unwin.
McLaren, A., & Gaskell, J. (1995). Now you see it, now you don't: Gender as an issue in school science. In J. Gaskell & J. Willinsky (Eds.), Gender in/forms curriculum: From enrichment to transformation (pp. 136–156). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mervis, J. (2003). Scientific workforce: Down for the count? Science, 300, 1070–1074.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Foundation. (2002). Science and engineering indicators: 2002. Washington, DC: Author.
National Science Foundation. (2003). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers: A literature review. Washington, DC: Author.
National Science Foundation. (2004). ADVANCE. Retrieved October 8, 2004, from http://www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/advance/start.htm
New Zealand Bureau of Statistics. (2004). 1996 census. Retrieved September 6, 2004, from http://www.stats.govt.nz
Normile D. (2001). Academic harassment. Women faculty battle Japan's koza system. Science, 297, 817–818.
Ogawa, M. (2001). Reform Japanese style: Voyage into an unknown chaotic future. Science Education, 85, 586–606.
O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791–820.
Olsen, L. (2001). Holding schools accountable for equity. Leadership, 30(4), 28–31.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.
Parker, L., & Rennie, L. (1995). For the sake of the girls? Final report of the Western Australian single-sex education project: 1993–1994. Perth, Australia: Curtin University.
Parker, L., & Rennie, L. (2002). Teachers’ implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 881–897.
Parker, L., Rennie, L., & Fraser, B. (1996). Gender, science and mathematics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Parrott, L., Spatig, L., Kusimo, P., Carter, C., & Keyes, M. (2000). Troubled waters: where multiple streams of inequality converge in the math and science experiences of nonprivileged girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 6, 45–71.
Penner, A. (2003). International gender X item difficulty interactions in mathematics and science achievement tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 650–655.
Pollard, D. S. (1993). Gender, achievement, and African-American students’ perception of their school experience. Educational Psychologist, 28, 341–356.
Quinn, S. (1995). Marie Curie: A life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rees, T. (2001). Mainstreaming gender equality in science in the European Union: The ETAN report. Gender and Education, 13, 243–260.
Rennie, L. (1998). Gender equity: Toward clarification and a research direction for science teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 951–961.
Rennie, L., & Parker, L. (1997). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of single-sex and mixed sex mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Educational Research Journal, 9, 731–751.
Rich, A. C. (1979). On lies, secrets, and silence: Selected prose, 1966–1978. London: Norton.
Rosser, S. (2004). The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the struggle to succeed. New York: Routledge.
Rosser, S., & Lane, E. (2002). A history of funding for women's programs at the national science foundation: From individual POWRE approaches to the advance of institutional approaches. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 327–346.
Rossiter, M. W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ruble, D., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Editor-in-Chief) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality (Vol. 3, pp. 933–1016). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rury, J. (1991). Education and women's work. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.
Scantlebury, K. (1994). Emphasizing gender issues in the undergraduate preparation of science teachers: Practicing what we preach. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 153–164.
Scantlebury, K. (2005). Meeting the needs and adapting to the capital of a Queen Mother and an Ol’ Head: Gender equity in urban high school science. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, and researchers (pp. 201– 212). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Scantlebury, K., Baker, D., Sugi, A., Yoshida, A., & Uysal, S. (2003, March). The cultural context of gender research in Japanese science education: Why university students “don't understand the question.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
Scantlebury, K., Fassinger, R., & Richmond, G. (2004, April). There is no crying in chemistry: The lives of female academic chemists. Paper presented at National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the standard direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1000–1014.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shapka, J., & Keating, D. (2003). Effects of girls-only curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 929–960.
Sime, R. L. (1997). Lise Meitner: A life in physics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Snyder, V. L., & Broadway, F. S. (2004). Queering high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 617–636.
Spender, D. (1982). Invisible women: The schooling scandal. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative Society.
Statistics Canada. (2004). University qualifications granted by field of study, by sex. Retrieved September 16, 2004, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/educ21.htm
Stevens, F. I. (1993). Opportunity to learn: Issues of equity for poor and minority students. Report no. NCES 93-232. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Streitmatter, J. (1999). For girls only: Making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany, NY: Albany State Press.
Theobald, M. (1996). Knowing women: Origins of women's education in nineteenth century Australia. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Third World Academy of Science. (2002). Programme statistics 2002. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~twas/pdf/statdig–2002.pdf
Tolley, K. (2003). The science education of American girls: A historical perspective. New York: Rout-ledge Falmer.
Turkish Republic State Ministry for Women's Affairs and Social Services Directorate General on the Status and Problem of Women. (1994). The status of women in Turkey. Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://www.die.giv.tr/CIN/women/status-women.htm
United Nations. (2004a). Indicators on illiteracy. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/illiteracy.htm
United Nations. (2004b). Indicators on education. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/social/education.htm
United Nations Children's Fund. (2003). State of the world's children 2004. New York: Author.
United Nations Development Fund for Women. (1995). Missing links: Gender equity in science and technology development. New York: Author.
United Nations Development Fund for Women. (2004). Millennium declaration and millennium development goal. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from http://www.unifem.org/index.php?_page_pid=10
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). Education for all global monitoring report 2003/2004. Paris. Author.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2004). UNESCO selected projects on women and gender, 1990–2002. Retrieved May 20, 2004, from http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4211&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#edu
United States Department of Education. (1993). Single-sex schooling: Perspectives from practice to research. Washington, DC: Author.
Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watson, H. (1988). The impact of the second wave of the women's movement on policies and practices in schools. In S. Middleton (Ed.), Women and education in Aotearoa (pp. 97–113). Wellington, New Zealand: Allen & Unwin.
Weaver, A., & Raptis, H. (2001). Gender differences in introductory atmospheric and oceanic science exams: Multiple choice versus constructed response questions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 115–26.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387–398.
Wellesley Center for Research on Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: A study of major findings on girls and education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
Williams, N. (1998). EU moves to decrease the gender gap. Science, 280, 822.
Wollman, J. (1990). The advantage of same sex programs. Gifted Child Today, 13, 220–24.
Women Information Network in Turkey. (2004). Literacy and education. Retrieved March 26, 2004, from http://www.die.gov.tr/istatistikler.html
Wood, B., & Brown, B. (1997). Participating in an all female algebra class: Effects on high school mathematics and science course selection. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3, 265–278.
Woolf, V. (1938). Three guineas. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
World Bank. (2002). Education and HIV/Aids: A window of Hope. Washington, DC: Author.
Yates, L. (1998). Australia. In G. Kelly (Ed.), International handbook of women's education (pp. 213–242). New York: Greenwood Press.
1. Where relevant, throughout the chapter we highlight studies that have focused on males, however there are few studies in science. Much masculinity literature focuses on reading or males in high-risk groups, e.g., in the US. African American or low socio-economic Eurocentric males, in Australia, Aboriginals, in New Zealand, boys from Maori or Samoan groups.
2. Prior to this time the only state that with a state-wide high stakes testing program was New York, with the Regents’ exam.