There are always issues of equity in any classroom or learning community. Having been first a learner, and then a teacher, in a mixed gender classroom, I experienced the stereotypical boys are math students and girls are language students. I feel I never truly questioned this stereotype until I began teaching at an all girls’ school. I do know that there were always girls in my class who were strong math students, just as there were always boys who were strong language students, but for the most part gender stereotypes did exist within subjects. Longstanding questions still exist that ask teachers to consider subjects, and aspects of teaching and learning, based upon issues of gender. How do you engage girls in math is just as relevant as how do you engage boys in language today as it was when I was a student in primary school.
As a learner, I found math classes typically competitive. Whoever knew the answer first was good at math. Typically it was a boy! I also found that typically math questions were set up as personal challenges. Boys seemed to like the competitive dynamic in the challenge and possessed the confidence to both answer and ask questioned. They appeared to me to not be afraid to be wrong while I couldn’t bring myself to shared my thoughts publicly. I didn’t have the confidence nor did I have the mathematical processing speed the boys to have.
As a teacher of the early years, I found my math classes competitive because of my students. Boys seemed to want to take control of manipulatives and want to verbally share their answers. They were quick to respond and took academic risks. They wanted to work independently. This seemed to validate my experiences as a learner. Girls were the opposite. They were more comfortable working in collaborative groups and did not exhibit that competitive confidence the boys did. What I know now is that boys and girls benefit form different instructional approaches to math explorations.
I am now teaching at an independent single gender school, a girls’ school. The stereotype of gender and predisposed ability cannot exist in this environment. At my independent girls school, girls excel in all subjects not because of their gender but regardless of the gender: gender in not a variable to be considered here. We program with girls in mind and professional development is always gender and brain focused. Dr. Deak’s work on what makes girls tick has been explored. Deak’s understanding of brain research along with Dr. Cox’s work on executive control has helped my teaching and learning community continue to consider gender and brain research as important to student success.
Most recently, an investigative report from UCLA’s Graduate School of Education & Information Studies found that “48 percent of female graduates of independent single-sex schools rate their math ability as either “above average” or within the “highest 10 percent” compared to 37 percent of independent coeducational graduates” (Sax, 2009, pg. 7). The report also found that girls, coming from a single gender classroom, are three times more likely to consider a career in Engineering. What I find most fascinating and important in Dr. Sax’s report was that girls in an independent single-sex school environment feel they have higher academic self-confidence.
I am committed to my students. I program appropriately for them considering their learning styles and I insist on group explorations to build confidence. We “talk the math” in my class. Everyone contributes, right or wrong, because they feel safe to take academic risks. A wrong answer is always a learning opportunity and in safe and collaborative environment girls will take mathematical risks.
Work Cited:
Sax, L. J., Arms, E., Woodruff, M., Riggers, T., & Eagan, K. (2009). Women Graduates of Singe-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in the characteristics and the Transition to College. Los Angeles: The Sudikoff Family Institute for Educational & New Media UCLA Graduate School Studies & Information Studies.
www.gseis.ucla.edu/sudikoff
