Рейтинг: 0 из 5 звезд
0 оценок
Загрузка
MP![]()
author
Michael Papadimitriou
Dr. Mike Papadimitriou lives in Kingwood, Texas with his wife, Donna, and their family pet, Reddog. Mike serves as the science department chair and teaches physics and advanced chemistry at Caney C...показать большеDr. Mike Papadimitriou lives in Kingwood, Texas with his wife, Donna, and their family pet, Reddog. Mike serves as the science department chair and teaches physics and advanced chemistry at Caney Creek High School in the Conroe Independent School District. In addition, he serves as an adjunct professor in the alternative certification program at Kingwood College.
Mike holds doctoral and specialist degrees in curriculum and instruction with a specialization in science education. He also holds a masterÕs degree in instructional supervision and a bachelorÕs degree in psychology and biology. He is licensed by the State of Texas as a mid-management administrator, instructional supervisor and secondary composite science teacher. He is licensed by the State of Louisiana as a principal, supervisor and chemistry, biology and environmental science teacher.
In addition, Mike is a member of the School Science and Mathematics Association, National Association for Research in Science Teaching, National Education Association, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. He serves as a journal reviewer for School Science and Mathematics. You can e-mail him at mikpap@excite.com.
What Girls Say About their Science Education Experiences
Review of Literature
Despite over 30 years of research related to gender and science education, females still are underrepresented in some upper-level high school science courses, particular college science curricula and majors, and many scientific careers. Very simply, overall science achievement of females continues to lag the achievement of males (Adams, 1996). While boys and girls enter school with equal ability, girls are marginalized in science and math to the point that they trail males in achievement by graduation time. However, differences in achievement have decreased. Moreover, males and females now enroll equally in some high school science courses. Also, males and females are represented equally in some college science majors such as biology. Yet, some areas such as physics remain unintegrated (AAUW, 1999). In fact, throughout the span of formal education, "biology is favored by girls and physics is favored by boys, and these patterns appear to persist through college and graduate school" (Farenga & Joyce, 1999, p. 56).
Although more women are enrolling in undergraduate science programs, women are still much underrepresented in graduate science programs (Erwin & Maurutto, 1998). Moreover, the farther students, especially girls, progress in high school science, the more they hate their subjects (Friedman, 1999). According to the National Science Foundation (1994), in science areas, women earn less than 30% of undergraduate degrees and less than 25% of graduate degrees. Also, women in science tend to gravitate to low paying disciplines (i.e., such as biology). Further, less than 18% of engineering degrees are awarded to women. In fact, less than 20% of doctorates in physical science and math are awarded to women (National Science Foundation, 1990). These inequities and the under-representation of women in science programs are generally attributable to three sets of factors: (a) ability and achievement gender differences, (b) psychological and societal issues, and (c) cultural and organizational factors (Erwin & Maurutto, 1998).
Society, science, and science education all marginalize women and foster gender stereotypes (Verna & Campbell, 1999). In essence, through socialization young male and female students assume science to be a male domain (Farenga & Joyce, 1999). This socialization de-emphasizes the possibility of math and science careers for girls (AAUW, 1992). Thus, science tends to filter women from the ranks of working scientists. "The workforce continues to function as though scientists have no significant familial responsibilities and often excludes those who either choose to give families a priority or must do so" (Brickhouse, 2001, p. 282).
Social stereotyping and social expectations become self-fulfilling prophecies through psychological manifestations. Essentially, these stereotypical expectations impact self-image and self-esteem. Negative expectations with respect to science participation belittle females and undermine self-concept (Erwin & Maurutto, 1998). In essence, as social experience shapes personality, females develop traits that hamper or conflict with science participation (Farenga & Joyce, 1999). In essence, "the problem of women in the sciences appears to still be rooted in how we socialize young females in their early education experiences" (Kennedy & Parks, 2000, p. 1). Moreover, only a limited amount of knowledge exists with respect to how women actually conceptualize science and science instruction and how women feel about science and science instruction.
Cultural and structural factors also impact the participation of females in science (Erwin & Maurutto, 1998). Of course, differential treatment by teachers can serve to marginalize females (Shepardson & Pizzini, 1992). Likewise, females place great importance on peer opinion and peer interaction. As a result, peer opinion can greatly impact the attitudes toward science held by females (Simpson & Oliver, 1990). Unfortunately, this impact is generally negative since females tend to hold and develop increasingly negative attitudes toward science (Adams, 1996). An additional cultural influence lies within familial or parental influence (Keeves, 1975). This influence occurs through the communication of parental expectations (Campbell & Mandel, 1990).
According to Myers and Fouts (1992), attitudes are just as important as actual achievement as desirable outcomes of educational processes. Moreover, attitudes cannot be ignored in student-related educational research (Shrigley, Koballa & Simpson, 1988). However, attitude research in science education is controversial (Haladyna & Shaughnessy, 1982; Koballa, 1988). In fact, the actual construct known as attitude is very poorly defined (Koballa, 1988). Also, while girls possess more negative attitudes toward science than boys do (Weinburgh, 1995), the understanding of impact of these attitudes on achievement remains elusive (AAUW, 1992).
Attitudes, perceptions, and achievement are related in a complex manner (Eichinger, 1992). Specifically, perceptions of science are affected by a variety of personal factors (i.e., gender, ethnicity, situational factors) (Ledbetter, 1993). These personal perceptions or constructions of science, from a constructivist point of view, should be considered in relation to educational processes (Ebenezer & Zoller, 1993; Ledbetter, 1993).
IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
While attitudes, achievement levels, and the other components of "the science education experience" have been quantitatively examined, very little qualitative analysis exists to describe the educational experience of females in American high school classrooms from the perspective of the student. A description of this phenomenon as constructed through the experiences of female students represents a worthy pursuit. Science education research can benefit from qualitative approaches that attempt to provide a voice for marginalized individuals and all students (Brickhouse et al., 2000). Researchers in education should consider the social and cultural structures of schools in order to facilitate understanding of how student actually perceive their experiences. Through this process, enlightenment can serve as a means to improvement, success, and understanding (Rop, 1999). According to Brickhouse et al. (2000):
To understand learning in science, we need to know much more than whether students have learned the proper explanation for how plants make their food or why tпоказать меньше
Книги автора Michael Papadimitriou
What Girls Say About Their Science Education Experiences: Is Anybody Really Listening?