Gender and Perception: Part 2

“History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity” – Cicero

Trying to mould a single article on gender without any historical background or context is like trying to master chess without knowing the rules. So much of the research is chained to social and political mores from the past. In fact, the argument could be made that the subjugation of women has been the norm in western civilization since the Ancient Greeks denied women the right to vote. However, even at the dawn of the 20^th Century, over two thousand years after the fall of the Greek empire, the role of women had seen little change. Women still did not have the right to vote, and were deemed to be less intelligent than men. This was proven by pseudo-scientific studies like the Variability Hypothesis, which stated, “While women were all very much the same, men showed a much greater range of both physical and mental abilities” (Katharine S. Milar, 2012). The greater variability of men showed, according to Johann Meckel, and, to a lesser extent Charles Darwin, that they were more intelligent. The Variability Hypothesis is one of many similar theories that existed around the dawn of the 20^th Century that proved the superiority of men.
It wasn’t until the 1960s and liberation of the feminist movement that western academia started to challenge the idea of the inherent, genetic, mental inferiority of women. Writing in 1966, Eleanor E. MacCoby, is one of the first authors to suggest that female performance in school may have a societal, rather than genetic component, “The evidence is not clear whether boys or girls have a higher correlation between ability (as measured by I.Q. tests) and achievement…. [Girls] wish to conform to their parents’ and teachers’ expectations of good academic performance, but fear that high academic achievement will make them unpopular with boys” (1966). MacCoby is one of the first of a group of scholars to draw a connection between academic performance and something other than genetic differences. Prior to the 1960s the only explanation that was given was that girls, while getting an early intellectual head-start on the boys, would fall behind as boys matured, caught up, and then superseded them. MacCoby also wrote that girls, especially in subject like Math, did not do well because there was no need for it in there societally pre-determined role as housewife:

Perhaps the explanation for the differences we have noted is very simple: members of each sex are encouraged in, and become interested in and proficient at, the kinds of tasks that are most relevant to the roles they fill currently or are expected to fill in the future. According to this view, boys forge ahead in math because they and their parents and teachers know they may become engineers or scientists; on the other hand, girls know that they are unlikely to need math in the occupations they will take up when they leave school” (MacCoby, 1966).

Eleven years later, in 1977, Elizabeth Fennema and Julia Sherman still laboured to disprove the contemporary belief that women were not as intellectually capable as men, “It has been an accepted belief that males achieve better in mathematics than females (Glennon & Callahan, 1968; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Sometimes this difference is attributed to underlying ability and other times it is attributed to a social climate that does not encourage girls to study mathematics” (1977). Fennema and Sherman tried to determine what the gender difference would be if other variables, such as attitude, Socio-economic status (SES), and gender stereotypes were controlled. The authors used their own metric, the Fennema-Sherman Aptitude Scales, which, consequently is used in several other articles I came across for my literature review, to rate gender difference. Their results were conclusive, “The data do not support either the expectations that males are invariably superior in mathematics achievement and spatial visualization or the idea that differences between the sexes increase with age and/or mathematics difficulty” (Fennema & Sherman, 1977). The authors also concluded, like MacCoby, that it is attitudinal, not intellectual, difference that affects female performance.

Furthermore, the attitudinal difference is likely to be derived from social pressure against women, “Since the study of mathematics appears not to be sex-neutral, attitudes toward mathematics may reflect cultural proscriptions and prescriptions. Thus the attitudes measured probably reflect more of this socio-cultural influence on the student than any incorrigible personal characteristics” (Fennema & Sherman, 1977).

Pierre Bourdieu’s Cultural Capital theory could be used to partially explain the attitudinal difficulties women face in the education system. He believed that individuals gained cultural capital by being exposed to cultural edifices like the library, museum, plays and so on. Individuals then used this knowledge to their advantage in school and, by extension, society in general, “Cultural capital refers to symbolic goods existing in the mode of linguistic and cultural competence, and largely institutionalized in the form of educational credentials, that agents use to maintain their prestige” (Kebede, 2012).

Usually, Bourdieu’s theory is used to explain why people of lower SES backgrounds achieve relatively low academic success compared to individuals who exist within higher SES. However, I believe that cultural capital can also work against the female gender. If cultural capital is, “an “accumulated labor,” which can be appropriated in the form of “social energy” that acts both as a force and as a principle permeating the social world” (Encyclopedia of Identity, 2012), then it could act as a force of culture to continue to deny individuals of a lower cultural class, i.e. women. Individuals choosing not to pursue an academic role demonstrate this lack of cultural capital, thereby re-enforcing the idea that academia is not for women. It is a cyclical denigration for the sole purpose of maintaining cultural standards:

In its institutionalized mode, cultural capital exists in the form of mostly educational credentials. In addition to augmenting the added value of cultural capital and guaranteeing its worth, the institutionalization of cultural capital minimizes the problem of cultural capital being constantly questioned. By establishing a qualitative difference between those who are licensed and those who are not, even if they possess the talent, cultural capital is made to acquire an autonomous position, thereby guaranteeing the monetary value of credentials (Kebede, 2012).

Today, in Canada, we have stalled at the level of recognition. We know that, while university entrance rates for women have equalled and even surpassed that of men, women are not choosing mathematics as an occupational field. Perhaps more frustrating is the knowledge that gender, as an area of research, has also stalled. We cannot seem to figure out why, exactly, women don’t like math. Rebecca Coulter believes that too much emphasis is placed on individual teachers, without looking at the system as a whole, “The emphasis on “self-reliance” and rampant individualism threatens any systemic or structural interpretation of gender-equity policies” (1996). Coulter believes that gender-equity, that is, the removal of gender bias from schooling, is being removed from explicit guidelines of conducted. Indeed, BC’s Diversity Framework gives only a cursory definition of gender diversity in reference to the School Act, and does not include any resources, suggestions, or adaptations to help teachers to address issues of gender bias (BC Ministry of Education, 2008). Rebecca Coulter writes that the similarity of educational policy among Canada’s various ministries of Education is due, in large part, to a narrow interpretation of the issue:

Across Canada, the dominant approach to gender-equity policies in education, and even then implemented unevenly and inconsistently, remains the relatively shallow one of sex-role stereotyping first articulated in the 1970s…. Why sex-role socialization theory remains dominant in education can in part be explained by the fact that it is a form of critique easily accommodated within existing state arrangements and liberal notions of equality of opportunity (Coulter, 1996).

Coulter seems to echo Bourdieu’s idea of Cultural Capital, the idea that the feminist movement has remained stagnant is due to the nature of Western cultural ideals. She believes that new research into the systems of education, rather than its curriculum, need to be examined.

Gender and Perception: Part 1

In September 2011, I was teaching a grade 8 Math class, one of the first of many such classes, starting out in a new teaching position, when a curious thing happened. I made a sexist remark. I didn’t mean to, it just slipped out, and at the time I thought little of it. To engage the boys in the class, I read out a word problem that involved playing hockey, and I said, “Here’s a question for the boys in the class”.
Realizing my mistake, I blurted out something about girls also playing hockey and moved on, thinking I had covered myself. However, after class a girl named Jazminne, or Jazzy for short, stuck around to introduce herself. She told me that she had problems in Math and wanted to know what she could do to stay on top of everything, and then she dropped a bomb. Without a pause she said, “Oh, by the way, I didn’t like how you said that the hockey question was just for the guys”.
I was amazed at the composure of this Grade 8 girl telling her new teacher that he is sexist. I felt about ten inches tall at that moment, but I told her that I was sorry, and that I wouldn’t do that again, and I haven’t since. However, that brief moment stuck with me. What do students actually take away from their Math classes? What are we teaching, and, more importantly, what are our students learning?
The issue of gender bias was again brought to my attention through an assigned article critique. Karen Zittleman and David Sadker’s “Gender bias in teacher education texts: New (and Old) lessons reported a staggering gender bias toward males in teacher education texts; “Although most texts include some coverage of gender issues and the role and contribution of women, that coverage is minimal and not always positive” (Zittleman and Sadker, 178). Zittleman and Sadker’s article, was eye opening, but it did not address what goes on in an actual classroom, and it did not deal with any Canadian texts.
I thought that in Canada, known for its progressivism, would have a much more balanced gender approach. This is not, however, what I actually found. Although much has been done in Canada since the issue was first addressed in the 1970s, government lead policy has stalled (Coulter, 1996). In fact, I preformed a journal sweep of the Canadian Journal of Education for the past ten years and found very little on feminist issues, and even less on gender bias. Even more interesting than the absence of research in Canada, is that what little that is done is largely structural, proceeding with a linear, categorical, and regimented approach. The research is still being carried out in the same way it has for the past thirty years, and demonstrating the same results. I wanted to find a new approach; I wanted to know what, if any, were the students’ perceptions of gender bias in Mathematics. Has anyone done a study asking what the students are learning about bias in Canadian classrooms?

Difficult students: Help me Ivory Tower!

I have found that some of the most useful courses I had to take were those focused on Educational Psychology. I have always found Psychology fascinating, it is a science that helps explain why we as individuals, or others, act the way we do. For example, if one person is made to sit in a room and complete a test, and the room starts to fill with smoke, or some other danger, that person will seek help. However, if two or three people are put into the same room, given the same test, and the same smoke is pumped in a curious thing happens. If an individual sees that no one else is reacting, he or she will not react. Individuals will literally wave smoke out of the way of their tests without feeling any danger at all!
In education, this psychological phenomenon is very useful. If a class is quiet, it will generally stay quiet. Individuals will not want to be the first to react to outside stimulus due to a negatively reinforcing peer pressure.

One of the most useful pieces of advice that I happened to pick up was to not engage in students acting out. For the most part, students who act out due so for a reason; they want something. Students will often want to get kicked out of class because they don't enjoy the lesson (I know that the students needs are not being met, and a more student-based education system would be beneficial, but we work with what we are given). The main thing is to not get in a power struggle with that student, because if you do, you've already lost.
I had a student in my class, who I will call Richard, that did not want to be there. He was depressed, and had difficulty getting out of bed most days, let alone making it to school. He had missed a lot of class work, and had fallen behind, making him want to be in class even less. One week he seemed to decide that he had had enough and was going to get kicked out of school solving, in his mind, all his current problems. Richard started mouthing off to his teachers, breaking school rules, disrupting class time, and even going as far as ripping pages out of his textbook.
One day he came so late that he arrived just as the rest of the students were eating lunch. He brought his backpack, cellphone, and headphones into class and sat down to talk with his friends. He didn't have his lunch with him and carrying a cellphone is against school rules so I asked him to put his phone and backpack in his locker, get his lunch, and re-join the class. He went off in a huff.
Richard came back not two minutes later, still carrying the phone, with no lunch. I asked him again in my kindest, quietest teacher voice to please kindly put the cell away as I had asked and get a lunch before returning to class. He said, very quietly, and please pardon the language, "Suck my dick."
I knew that he just wanted to be sent to the office, and I knew that he just wanted to get kicked out of school, but I also knew that he had friends in class that he enjoyed hanging out with, and was desperate for that attention. I asked Richard in my least threatening voice why he would say something like that? I told him that what I asked for was really simple, and that all he needed to do was put his phone away. I didn't engage in the yelling fit that Richard was expecting. He was just trying to get a rise out of me and when he realized that that was not going to happen, he walked to his locker, put his stuff away, and enjoyed the rest of lunchtime.

Now, that was not an easy thing to do, and I don't expect that sort of stuff on the day to day in Middle school. It took a large amount of restraint on my part to recognize what was actually going on, but I did that in part because of my experience in the classroom, but mostly because of the knowledge I have of psychology gained from the Ivory Tower.

Derrida versus 21st Century learning

The 21st century learning plan is the latest education plan formed from BC's Ministry of Education. It is a bit late, have already entered the 21st century a decade ago, but if one was to forgive its lateness, it has some very interesting points to discuss. It is also a more than a little ironic when you consider the Ministry of Education, and, by extension, the government of BC in general, is, on the one hand, trying to strip teachers of certain autonomies through a legislated contract negotiation, and, on the other, increasing it. Although, in the 21st century plan, it will be the students who will benefit from greater autonomy and not teachers, but that may not be too bad either. The Government's plan is still in the broad strokes category, but here is the general idea found on the Ministry's website:
"In 21^st Century Learning, students use educational technologies to apply knowledge to new situations, analyze information, collaborate, solve problems, and make decisions. Utilizing emerging technologies to provide expanded learning opportunities is critical to the success of future generations. Improved options and choice for students will help improve student completion and achievement" (BC Ministry of Education, 2012).

But what does this mean? Jacques Derrida, a deconstructive philosopher, believed that language, especially the written word, diffuses meaning, "Deconstruction contends that in any text, there are inevitably points of equivocation and ‘undecidability’ that betray any stable meaning that an author might seek to impose upon his or her text. The process of writing always reveals that which has been suppressed, covers over that which has been disclosed, and more generally breaches the very oppositions that are thought to sustain it" (Reynolds, 2010).
As an example the word, "technology", is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as, "The application of such knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry, manufacturing, etc.; the sphere of activity concerned with this; the mechanical arts and applied sciences collectively" (2012). The definition simply relates the word to other words, thereby erasing all hope of true understanding. To know what technology means, we would have to already know the definition of application, knowledge, manufacturing and so on. By combining the definition of the plan and the Oxford definition of technology, The 21st Century Learning Plan students would "use educational application of such knowledge to apply knowledge to new situations". This only gets worse when we define knowledge: "the condition of knowing something" and knowing: "The acquisition of, or fact of having acquired, knowledge or understanding" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012).
The 21st Century Learning Plan is, then, the "use of educational acquisitions of understanding, to apply acquisitions of understanding to new situations". I could do this all day, and I haven't even gotten to the definitions of "apply" or "situations" yet. The problem with the definition of BC's new learning plan is that it is defined at all. By casting this stone tablet, the government is already creating confusions in interpretation, ones that will only increase over time.

BC Ministry of Education. (2012). 21st Century Learning. BC Ministry of Education. Victoria, BC.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). Knowing. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). technology. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Reynolds, J. (2010). Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed: James Fieser.