Gender-Inclusive Science Teaching: A Feminist-Constructivist Approach:A Reply to Roychoudhury, Tippins, and Nichols

Julia McArthur,1 Karen L. Wellner2

1Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Bowling Green State University,Bowling Green, Ohio 43403

2Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Accepted 2 August 1996

In terms of science teaching pedagogy, we agree with Roychoudhury, Tippins, and Nichols(1995) that (a) students should be allowed time for in-depth study, (b) students ought to be giv-en the freedom to pursue their own interests, and (c) more student direction should be a part ofthe curriculum. We also agree that differences in social expectations and experiences may giverise to different learning experiences and preferred learning styles for men and women. Whilewe accept the observational data describing different behaviors of males and females, we areconcerned with its interpretation. It appears that the authors take female groups’ collaborative-ness and the celebrated “women’s ways of knowing” at face value. Several feminist scholars,including Tavris (1992) and Wolf (1994) have offered theories quite different from the “womenare from Venus and men are from Mars” arguments of popular culture. Both Tavris and Wolfargue that females’ lack of power is the underlying reason for observed behavioral gender dif-ferences.

We would argue that in trying to remedy the situation, girl collaborative groups help assurethat differences between male and female learning styles become increasingly wider. Accordingto Tavris (1992), the need for collaboration is not a female skill but a self-protective one; gen-der differences diminish when both sexes are equal in power. A major goal of preservice edu-cation should be to empower teachers to select instructional strategies based on meeting educa-tional goals, rather than on gender. It may be the case that females will learn science moreeffectively if female-friendly strategies are used; however, there needs to be more research withthis question before we can make that assumption.

It is our contention that using a gender-inclusive teaching strategy, as suggested by Roy-choudhury et al., keeps elementary school girls focused on their supposed different personalityqualities. Instead of allowing for each student to develop the cognitive abilities necessary to un-derstand and do science, this strategy may end up supporting the flawed belief that there is agirl’s way and a boy’s way of doing science. We have both worked with young girls in an in-dividualized science and mathematics program where this supposed propensity is not observed.

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 34, NO. 1, PP. 95–96 (1997)

© 1997 by the National Association for Research in Science TeachingPublished by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/97/010095-02

Correspondence to: K. Wellner

One must ask what happens to girls who are not comfortable with the nurturing, comfort-in-numbers role that we impose upon them? Wolf (1994) stated that the “egalitarian connection-centered, collaborative girl group pulls into its system, against their will, girls who are wrestlingwith the compulsion to relinquish their strong attachments to ego, power, and separateness(p. 264).

Certainly, we would not argue against science teaching being more holistic in scope foradults with a profound dislike for the subject. If the only thing that happens in a methods classis that students discover they do not hate science, then much has been accomplished. To under-stand the nature of science, one’s development of logical thinking is of the utmost importance.Roychoudhury et al. cite Glasersfeld’s notion that all cognitive activity is guided by the goalsof an individual, a goal of creating cognitive structures that fit the experiential world of the in-dividual. If the development of logical thinking (i.e., spatial structures, classification, propor-tionality, probability, controlling variables) is a highly individualized experience, how can thesedemands be met in a group of children, none of whom are at the same developmental level?Moving from preoperational to concrete to formal-operational thinking is a highly individual-ized process—not one that can be talked through in a group format.

Our fear is that elementary teachers, teaching in the manner prescribed, will make instruc-tional decisions based on gender stereotypes rather than on the individual needs of the child andthe nature of science—decisions in which children may learn very quickly what the expectedand appropriate role is for them.

References

Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D.J., & Nichols, S.E. (1995). Gender-inclusive science teach-ing: A feminist-constructivist approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 897–924.

Tavris, C. (1992). Mismeasure of woman. New York: Touchstone.von Glasersfels, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese,

80, 121–140.Wolf, N. (1994). Fire with fire. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

96 McARTHUR AND WELLNER