lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Gender theory as a tool for analyzing science teaching

Kristina Andersson a,b, Anita Hussenius a,b,*, Christina Gustafsson c

a Department of Mathematics, Natural and Computer Sciences, University of Gavle, SE-801 76 Gavle, Swedenb Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Box 634, SE-751 21 Uppsala, Swedenc Department of Education and Psychology, University of Gavle, SE-801 76 Gavle, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 March 2008Received in revised form28 August 2008Accepted 22 September 2008

Keywords:AwarenessCase methodGender issuesIn-service teacher educationScience educationTeaching methods

* Corresponding author. Department of MathemaSciences, University of Gavle, SE-801 76 Gavle, Swfax: þ46 26 648758.

E-mail addresses: kns@hig.se (K. Andersson), ahhhig.se (C. Gustafsson).

0742-051X/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.011

a b s t r a c t

This study examines to what extent experienced teachers are aware of gender issues in the scienceclassroom. It also explores how an introduction to gender theory might alter this awareness. Teacherswrote their reflections about a real classroom situation. They were then asked to analyse the samesituation after having read texts that discussed gender theory concepts. The fourteen teachers’ under-standing about gender and society were challenged. Some teachers were able to analyse the casedifferently by applying gender theory, others discussed the case on a more general level, while oneteacher showed signs of resistance regarding gender theory.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Research about gender issues within science education has haddifferent focal points. One focus has been to recruit more women tothe field of natural sciences and technology, an endeavour whichhas required large investments. The presumption has been that ifwomen only understood how exciting and interesting science is,they would freely choose these subjects. Another emphasis withinscience education research has been to clarify the differences inachievement, participation and interests between girls and boys(Johnstone & Dunne, 1996; Sjoberg, 2000). This type of researchviews girls and boys as relatively static groups and the conclusionshave been that girls, for example, prefer a particular learningenvironment or are more interested in special topics within naturalsciences. One way to take these preferences into consideration hasbeen to change teaching in such a way that it also appeals to the‘‘learning styles’’ of girls (Barton, 1998; Roychoudhury, Tippins, &Nichols, 1995). Johnston and Dunne argue that this kind of researchoffsets its own purposes. Since the girl group is considered to ‘‘be’’basically different from the boy group, female and male stereotypesare reconstructed and differences between the sexes are conse-quently what are observed. Instead, research should try to explain

tics, Natural and Computereden. Tel.: þ46 26 648266;

@hig.se (A. Hussenius), cgn@

All rights reserved.

how gender is produced and reproduced in the science classroom. Ifthis view holds true, the focus of research ought to be on thescience teacher’s teaching practice and her/his gender awareness.Consequently, our research considers if and how increased genderawareness can be achieved by science teachers and, by extension, ifthis can lead to changes in the way science is taught regarding bothcontent and performance.

In Sweden, equality is a social aim which is formulated in theEqual Opportunity Act (1991: 433). Public as well as private workplaces are obliged to comply with the intentions stated in the act.Within the field of education this is clearly expressed in both theEducation Act (SFS 1985: 1100) and in the National curriculum(Lpo94, Lpf94). The aspiration of equality is therefore somethingthat every teacher in the Swedish school system should be aware of.In spite of these intentions and aspirations several studies showthat little has changed regarding the teachers’ encounters with andmanagement of the pupils in the classroom. A similar conclusioncan be drawn regarding minimal changes in the pupils’ attitudes,interests, choices of educations and professions (Lindahl, 2003;Schreiner & Sjoberg, 2004). We are interested in teachers’ under-standings about gender and how they think about gender issues inthe classroom, especially in relation to science education. In thestudy presented in this article, we want to explore how teachersexpress themselves when discussing these issues. Without priorconsideration, the teachers in our study spontaneously wroteresponses to a real classroom event. We then studied if and howthese expressed thoughts changed after they were introduced toreadings in gender theory.

K. Andersson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343 337

2. Background

2.1. Gender conscious science education

Attempts to reform science education have only to a minorextent taken into account that gender issues may have an influenceon pupils’ learning and interests. Examples of using feminist orgender theories for analyzing or planning science education arethus difficult to find in the literature (Nystrom, 2007). Those whohave placed attention on the relevance of gender issues in theteaching of science, often through a critical assessment of thesubjects as such, have used different feminist theories as a startingpoint. However, these theories have only in a minority of cases beenapplied in empirical investigations of science educational contexts(Sinnes, 2006). In an overview of the literature, Sinnes considersthree different feminist directions and suggests how they mightinfluence the ways in which science is taught. Liberal feminismassumes that women and men have the same pre-requisites. Theexisting inequality is not the result of the field of science butemanates from political and social factors. Therefore it is importantto increase women’s participation in science and to strive for samepossibilities and challenges for both girls and boys in scienceeducation. Sinnes calls this developmental path a ‘‘gender neutral’’science education. Radical feminism has another starting point,namely that Western society generates differences between thesexes and what is seen as female qualities must be valued higher.According to this direction in reasoning, which Sinnes calls ‘‘femalefriendly’’ science education, science education ought to take intoconsideration girls’ interests and their ways of learning to a largerextent. Within this female friendly science education it is alsoimportant to work in smaller groups and avoid instances ofcompetition. Furthermore, scientific phenomenon ought to beconnected to girls’ experiences outside of school and it is importantto emphasize female role models as well as comment upon malebias in scientific research (Barton, 1998; Capobianco, 2007; Har-ding, 1986; Howes, 2002; Roychoudhury et al., 1995). Finally,postmodern feminism builds on the assumption that the differ-ences in engagement in science within one sex are as important asthe differences in engagement between the sexes. Postmodernfeminists criticize liberal and radical feminists that presumewomen to form a homogenous group; such a view does not takeinto sufficient account the existence of individual differences thatare related to ethnicity, class or age (Brickhouse, 2001; Gilbert,2001; Howes, 2002). Sinnes connects a postmodern feministdirection in science education to ‘‘gender sensitive’’ pedagogywhere teaching starts from individuals’ experiences and interestsand acknowledges differences in interests within the sexes. The‘‘gender sensitive’’ teacher draws the pupils’ attention to the factthat science is a human, social activity where the participatingindividuals influence the direction of the research.

2.2. The use of cases in education

In different disciplines, for example business administration,medicine, psychology and law, cases have been used as a teachingmethod for a long time. The oldest published examples come fromthe Harvard Business School (Andrews, 1953; Fraser, 1931). A casecan be defined as a description of an event or a course of events thattake place in a teaching or learning context and which can be usedto visualize a problem, a dilemma or a complex situation (Levin,1995). In teacher education the case method has been used toexplain the complexity of teaching and cases have been used asa pedagogical element since the beginning of the 1990s. By themiddle of the 1990s, interest for using cases in education wassufficiently widespread and the topic area was presented ina separate chapter in Handbook of research on teacher education

(Merseth, 1996). Studies have shown that teacher trainees whohave the opportunity to discuss authentic classroom events reflectwith greater engagement how teaching theories can be used inpractice and it is easier for them to analyse their own practice whenthey start to work (Lundberg, Levin, & Harrington, 1999; Malkani &Allen, 2005; Schulman, 1992; Sykes & Bird, 1992; Whitcomb, 2003).Another reason for using cases can be to promote personal andprofessional development by allowing students to begin reflectingon their own values and experiences when they consider the case.Cases that contain more social aspects have been used whenteacher trainees instead aim at critically analyzing the role of theteacher in the classroom, in school and in society (McAninich,1994).

In the study conducted by Moje and Wade (1997) differencesand similarities that appear between in-service teachers and pre-service teachers in their discussions of different cases are exam-ined. The in-service teachers connect the cases exclusively to theirown teaching experiences and become emotionally involved. Incontrast, pre-service teachers include their own experiences asstudents in the discussions; they also relate to course texts andtheories that they have come across during their teacher education.Both groups point out that it is important for the teacher tounderstand the diversity of pupils’ needs and abilities. At the sametime, they describe knowledge and the intellectual abilities ofpupils as something fixed and insusceptible. Moje and Wade statethat it is also interesting what the participants in the study don’ttalk about and assert that neither the in-service teachers, nor thepre-service teachers mention gender, ethnicity or class in theirdiscussions about the cases.

In the study presented here we have used teaching situationstransformed to cases in order to emphasize the participatingteachers’ pre-conceived ideas about gender and sexual difference.We are interested in the teachers’ personal, spontaneous thoughtsabout each case. Therefore we have chosen to solely let the teacherswrite about their reflections regarding different cases.

The aim of this study is to investigate to what extent teachersare aware of gender issues within the science classroom and tostudy if a change in their assumptions can be achieved. Thus, thequestions that guided the planning of the study are: (1) how doexperienced science teachers analyse a case which describes a realclassroom situation and (2) in what way are teachers able to applygender theory when reconsidering this case?

3. Procedure

The study was carried out during an in-service developmentgender and science course (see Appendix A) held at a university inSweden. Fifteen teachers active from pre-school to the later years incompulsory school attended the course. The participants werebetween 28 and 60 years old and their professional experiencevaried from just a few years to more than 30 years as teachers. Thegroup was comprised of fourteen women and one man. Only someof them had formal teacher training in the natural sciences, but allof them taught within this area. The course extended over a five-month period and the participants met at the university for a totalof five full days in seminars. Each seminar started with a writtentask, a case. These cases were comprised of real classroom events,an article in a newspaper, a picture in a science textbook, etc. Theteachers had about 30 min to write about their reflections andinterpretations regarding the case. They were given generalguidelines in the form of a series of questions. Every task hada gender issue element and half of the tasks were also about scienceeducation. During the last seminar occasion, the written tasks werereturned to the teachers. They read them, wrote down theirreflections and then discussed their reflections in groups. In usingthese tasks we wanted to examine the teachers’ understandings

K. Andersson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343338

about sex and gender and to see if any changes in their opinionswere possible to identify during the five months of the course.

This study focuses on one specific task that is based on a realclassroom event that took place in a school in Sweden in thebeginning of 2007. The task is called ‘‘The seminar task: homeworkin science’’ (see Appendix B). The teachers worked individuallywith the task, directly at the beginning of the fourth seminar. Theywrote down their thoughts and reflections about the event andthereafter handed in their written responses. Since the teachershad no time for preparation, the task in a sense resembles a realsituation: something happens in a classroom and the teacher needsto respond and handle the situation immediately. Afterwards,a major part of the seminar dealt with science and science educa-tion, and the discussion evolved from questions posed by theparticipants themselves. A small portion of the time was reservedfor a discussion about and questioning of the bio-deterministicarguments made by the Swedish physician and neuroscientistAnnica Dahlstrom, based on an article the teachers had read inadvance (Dahlstrom, 2007).

At the end of the seminar, the teachers were given two gendertheory texts to take home. Informed by the theory in these texts, theteachers were requested to analyse again the ‘‘Homework inscience’’ case and to send their written reflections to the coursecoordinator. Henceforth, this second analysis task is called ‘‘Appli-cation of the gender theory’’ (see Appendix C). There was no teachingconnected to the gender theory text at the time it was distributed,but a brief theory overview had been given during an introductorylecture at the beginning of the course. One teacher did not accom-plish the ‘‘The seminar task: homework in science’’ because (s)hewas delayed to the fourth course occasion. Therefore fourteen of thefifteen participating teachers completed these two exercises.

When teachers are quoted or discussed in this article, sexneutral plant names are used in order to call the reader’s attentionto the importance of how knowledge of sex influences the inter-pretation of the utterances. An ethical aspect of using plant namesis also to conceal the identity of the one male teacher.

3.1. Two gender theory texts

Over the past four decades, several theories about sex andgender have been developed (see for example de Beauvoir, 1953;Butler, 1993; Harding, 1986; Hirdman, 1990; West & Zimmerman,1987). We chose to use Yvonne Hirdman’s theory of the gendersystem in our study for several reasons. This theory is linguisticallyquite easy to comprehend, it is available in Swedish, it has had animpact on the field of science in Sweden and it has influenced thepolitical debate in this country (Thuren, 2003).

The first text the teachers were requested to read and apply tothe case is an interview with Yvonne Hirdman, where she ina simplified way explains her gender theory. The second text is anextract from a Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 1990: 44,‘‘Democracy and power in Sweden’’, where Hirdman presents hertheory about the gender system. Hirdman begins by criticallyanalyzing the theories about sex roles that, especially during the1970s, foundationally shaped our common understanding of genderand the relationship between the sexes. According to Hirdman,these theories had several weaknesses. First, there was an apparentavoidance to analyse the power relationship between the sexes.Second, the concept of ‘role’ could be interpreted to mean thatindividuals had the option to simply drape gender over their bio-logical bodies. In contrast to such assumptions, Hirdman’s owntheory is based on the formation of a social pattern structured bythe gender order and that this pattern can be seen in every society. Itis characterized by two principles: the separation of the sexes andthe superior status of the male standard. Formation of genderconsolidates differences between the sexes and the female gender is

always subordinate the male one, independent of class, time andspace. Furthermore, femininity can be understood in contradictionto masculinity. One expression of this gender order is how wagesand professional status decreases when women enter work areasthat were previously dominated by males. Such changes result inmen leaving that particular work sector. ‘‘The male as the norm’’also contributes to the possibility for men to restrict and controlwomen’s space as well as their liberty of action. According toHirdman, the formation of the male gender results in men taking uproom and space, and this power behaviour is non-intentional. Thegender system compels people, on an individual level, to operatewithin this order and it is difficult, or almost impossible, to takeaction outside of it. Instead, all peoples’ actions contribute repeat-edly to the maintenance and reconstruction of the gender order.

3.2. Analysis of the written material

The method used for analyzing the data material was inspiredby the phenomenographic approach (Booth, 1992). The teachers’texts were analysed in several steps. In step 1, the texts in ‘‘Theseminar task: homework in science’’ were structured from what theteachers had written about David’s and the other pupils’ actions,the actions of the teacher and also how they thought the situationshould have been dealt with. Thereafter the analysis focused on theteachers’ interpretations of what David said as well as on hisbehaviour and the behaviour of the rest of the class. The texts weresystematically and iteratively read searching for core interpreta-tions. These core interpretations were coded with colours and thenall statements with the same colour were grouped together. Eachgroup of statements formed a category which was given a headline.

In step 2, the texts in the task ‘‘Application of the gender theory’’were structured in a similar way, emphasizing sections that pointedout if the teachers had used references to gender theory and in whatway they had used it in their interpretations of the case. The textswere transferred into the first column of a two-column table.Relevant text parts were colour marked. In the second column theresearchers made comments, wrote down themes found etc. besideeach teacher’s text. The themes or comments in the second columnwere then processed and interpreted and categories were formed.

In step 3, a comparison was made on an individual level of theteachers’ explanations in the two different tasks. The teachers’ twotexts were put in the same worksheet after each other. The texts fromeach teacher were read back and forth and a summary were writtendown in connection to each teacher’s texts describing if and how theteacher’s assumptions had changed, developed etc. These fourteendifferent summaries were then sorted in groups of similar character.

This work was carried out by one of the researchers and theworksheets were then read, discussed and adjusted together witha second researcher.

4. Result

4.1. Step 1. The seminar task: homework in science

In the first step, the course participants’ interpretation of thepupils’ and above all David’s statements in the classroom weretreated. When David is asked why he thinks Sandra is wrong, heanswers: ‘‘because she is a girl’’. In nine of the fourteen teachers’statements, four different explanations were found, of which threecan be regarded as variants on the same theme. The answers wererelatively evenly distributed among the different explanations. Fourteachers do not comment on David’s opinion at all and one, Birch,writes that (s)he actually doesn’t know why David answers the wayhe does. Birch is of the opinion that something like this could nothappen in her/his school. There the girls are responsible and cleverpupils and (s)he thinks that the boys respect the girls.

K. Andersson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343 339

The two main explanations given to why David states that thereason for Sandra being wrong is that she is a girl are: ‘‘Theassumption that boys are better than girls’’ and ‘‘The assumption thatthe boys in the class exert a silent group pressure on each other’’:

1. The assumption that boys are better than girls.This assumption is expressed by the teachers in different ways.

Two of them do it from a general point of view by just asserting‘‘boys are better than girls’’, while others specify certain areaswhere this opinion is valid. Below the explanations therefore havebeen divided into three sub-headings.

(a) General assumption that boys are better than girls.Here the teachers express that David is of the opinion that

boys are better than girls and that is why he answers the way hedoes:

David probably answered the way he did because he wanted tobe a little bit high and mighty and because he really thinks thatboys are better and cleverer than girls. (Willow)

(b) The assumption that boys are better than girls in sciencesubjects.

Three of the teachers are of the opinion that it is within thescience subjects specifically that boys’ think they are better thangirls and that is what is shown in the answer given by David:

He must have got this idea from somewhere, that girls are worsethan boys in science subjects. Is it from home, from school, fromthe society in a whole or is it maybe parts from all of it? What isit that we are doing that makes him believe this? (Hawthorn)

(c) The assumption that the classroom is a competitive arena wherea boy cannot lose against a girl.

A third explanation given by the teachers is that boys in fifthgrade, in their leisure-time activities, have a focus on competitionand that this focus also influences classroom activities by makingthem attracted to competition:

I think David is focused on competition and felt that his answerwas contrary to Sandra’s. She has to be wrong because he can’tlose against a girl. (Pine)

2. The assumption that the boys in the class exert a silent grouppressure on each other.

Some teachers write that David’s answer is an expression for theboys supporting each other. David gives an answer he thinks therest of the boys will back up:

David didn’t know what to answer but yielded to the grouppressure and answered with a phrase that he thought all boyswould support. (Elm)

The seminar task also included several other framing questionsfor the teachers to reflect upon. In the major part of the written textthe participants reason about the case teacher’s way of conductingthe lesson, which many of them criticize. These texts show a strongemotional involvement. Some of them can’t understand the caseteacher’s actions in this specific situation: putting one pupil in frontof the class, asking the rest of the class if she is right or not andthereby exposing her in an unacceptable manner. Certain teachersstate that the case teacher is humiliating the pupils, either Sandra,David or both.

4.2. Step 2. Application of the gender theory

The aim with step 2 was to examine if and how the teacherswere able to apply gender theory to a real classroom event. Everyteacher wrote about gender theory but connects it to a differentdegree to the case. Some of the teachers refer to Hirdman’sthoughts, but write only about the theory in a general way, either

on a social level or on a school-political level. They formulate theirresponses, for example, in terms of how in Western society we havea sex segregated labor market within the field of science andtechnology. On the school-political level, they state opinions suchas how important it is to address equality issues in school and thatthere has to be discussions about this topic in the classroom so thatsituations like the case are avoided. These teachers do not apply thetheory directly to the real classroom event and therefore a gap ismaintained between theory and teaching practice. On the otherhand, the teachers who apply theory to the case do so in variousdegrees. The content in their texts shows a variation from a simpletransfer of concepts to a more dynamic application of the theorythat leads to interpretations not found in Hirdman’s texts or in theteachers’ first seminar task. One example of the latter is Hawthornwho finds a connection between the gender system and pressurefrom the group:

Why do all the boys answer that Sandra has got the wronganswer? Has this to do with the separation of the sexes asYvonne Hirdman talks about? Are the boys not able to or arethey unwilling to take a stand against the gender system? Is itright to say that in this case pressure from the group and thegender system go hand in hand? The boys can’t cope with orcan’t take a stand against all the others (boys) by saying thatSandra has got the right answers. Hirdman argues that it isincredibly difficult and hard to break away from these ingrainedbehaviors which is obvious in this case. Perhaps the teacherwould have gotten a different result if the voting had occurred inan anonymous way. (Hawthorn)

The next set of teachers’ answers have been categorizedaccording to Hirdman’s two principles and is recorded under theheadings The male as norm and The separation of the two sexes –power, rights and obligations. An individual teacher may havewritten about one or both of the principles. One teacher’s text didnot fit under either of the two headings so it received its ownheading: Biology creates gender differences.

1. The male as normSeveral teachers describe that the reason why David

expresses himself the way he does is because of the male norm.The teachers wrote about this in different ways and afteranalyzing the texts three distinctions appear.

a. The teacher’s method of conducting the lesson affects the genderorder

Spruce and Willow write that it is the teacher’s teachingmethods which significantly influence attitudes regarding the boys’superiority and the girls’ subordination. The teacher is thusresponsible for the maintenance of the gender order and for howthe pupils see each other in terms of a set gender hierarchy. As inthe seminar task, there are teachers who think the case teacherhumiliates the pupils. Spruce and Willow state that the reason whyDavid is sitting with his head down is because he feels ashamed andthis can lead to feelings of anger against Sandra or girls in generallybecause he has failed ‘‘against the subordinated gender’’. Sprucewrites:

Unfortunately I think David will not look upon Sandra withgentle eyes after this failure, rather the reverse. He is alsomocked by the teacher and feels ashamed over what he hadsaid, so probably he will turn this into some sort of aggressionagainst Sandra in particular or girls in general. I suspect theteacher himself did not realize that he continued rearing theboys to believe that they are superior as men, while hesubordinates the girls to believe that they are inferior to men.(Spruce)

K. Andersson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343340

In contrast to this assumption, some of the teachers state thatduring the questioning the case teacher actively tries to break theprevailing gender pattern. These teachers also assume that the caseteacher makes the most of the situation in the classroom by dis-cussing gender and sex with the pupils:

.the case teacher has certainly thought about in what ways hecan demonstrate to the class that girls are also competent. Thatis why he is moving around and looking at the pupils while theyare writing their exercise. When he then sees that Sandra hasgot the right answers he gets an opportunity to emphasize oneof the girls’ achievements. (Aspen)

After reading these teachers’ texts it appears that they performinterpretations that go beyond the descriptive formulation in thecase. They try to understand the case teacher’s actions and theygive completely different explanations as mentioned above. In thefirst interpretation, the case teacher is judged to be unaware of thegender order, is acting without reflection and thus confirms theprevailing gender norm. In the second interpretation, the caseteacher instead is perceived to be deliberately staging the situationin order to make the class aware of their own prejudices of thegender norm and tries in this manner to break the current genderpatterns.

b. The norm is within the society and victimizes also the boysThe majority of the participating teachers think that children are

born within the gender system, thus into different ‘‘templates’’. Theboys have grasped the idea of male superiority and understood theyare valued more highly than the girls. However, they are not to beheld responsible for the constitution of the norm according to someof these teachers. Oak claims that it is not David’s fault that he sayswhat he says because he is raised in this pattern.

c. The boys are active agents who are involved in creating the normAnother way of describing how the male norm is expressed in

the classroom is asserting that boys are involved in constituting thenorm:

Then I also believe the boys unconsciously or consciously areused to being seen and heard. The teacher and the classmatesassume the boys are heard and have knowledge. They are theones setting the norm in the group. (Pine)

2. The separation of the two sexes – power, rights and obligations.In the Swedish Government Official Report ‘‘Democracy and

power’’ Yvonne Hirdman writes about men’s ‘‘being’’, or inother terms their obvious method of taking up space and howthis can be understood as the formation of power.

Several teachers try to apply Hirdman’s theory about theseparation of the two sexes to the classroom’s situation. One ofthe ways they describe the separation of the sexes is there aredifferent expectations regarding the knowledge girls and boyshave acquired. Some of the teachers point out that the sciencesubjects represent one of the fields where these differentexpectations exist. According to this assumption, it is particu-larly relevant that the case is located in a science teachingcontext. Certain teachers argue that the boys cannot cope withor do not want to oppose other boys by saying Sandra has theright answer. The power configuration in the classroom is alsoexplained by the teachers in other ways by using concepts likethe sexes’ different rights and obligations. This is expressed, forexample, when some teachers state that Sandra doesn’t feelshe is entitled to question the case teacher, when he asks thepupils whether they believe Sandra has written the rightanswer or not on the whiteboard. Willow holds that the caseteacher is responsible for the separation of the two sexes in theclassroom and writes that an increased distance between thegirls and the boys is created by the case teachers’ action.

Others describe the imbalance of power in the classroom interms of how the case teacher and pupils take for granted thatthe boys’ arena is larger. The excerpt below is from Whitebeamwho uses the concept of power to describe the classroom event,but also addresses the separation aspect of the sciencesubjects:

Yvonne Hirdman says in the interview that power first of all isabout who is occupying space and position. It is more commonin the classroom with boys taking up space than girls taking upspace. In the narrative about Sandra and the questioning theboys are probably more used to being the ones who occupyspace. The girls’ knowledge is probably equal to that of the boys’,but it is not that common for the girls to show what they knowand in that way position themselves in the classroom. Thereforethe boys don’t expect Sandra will manage to give all the rightanswers during the questioning. If you use Hirdman’s theoriesthe reason why several girls also don’t expect Sandra to give theright answers depends on the ‘‘girl template’’ which doesn’tinclude being clever in science subjects. Hirdman argues that weare born into these templates, that every human being is bornand grows up in a gender system where femininity and mas-culinity already are defined. And in this template for girls, thisdoesn’t allow them to be especially interested or especiallyclever in science subjects. From this standpoint you can imaginethe girls in Sandra’s class neither have expectations of them-selves nor of their female classmates to be clever in science.Therefore most of the girls don’t believe Sandra will manage toget the questions right. (Whitebeam)

3. Biology creates gender differencesOne teacher opposes Yvonne Hirdman’s gender theory and

gives an independent explanation to how the gender conceptcan be defined:

I am convinced Yvonne Hirdman has to rethink the biologicaldifference between the sexes. The biological difference is andwill remain what determines how the sexes will be shaped. Aswe human beings try to erase this border, it will prove, with allprobability, totally impossible. On the other hand we can learnto understand the differences between the sexes and thus utilizethe best aspects of our sexes. Possibly you could say the conceptof gender is one way of learning to understand the differencesbetween the sexes. To give everyone the same pre-requisites isimpossible. On the other hand, it is possible to try to giveeveryone the same pre-requisites. Raise the woman instead ofoppressing the man. (Elm)

Elm, in this excerpt, is questioning the task and its relevancefor teacher practice. An obvious resistance against the concept ofgender in general and Hirdman’s theory in particular appears inthe text and no analysis using the theory is accomplished. Thecritical standpoint is in itself laudable, but lacks arguments forwhy Hirdman is wrong. Neither does Elm refer to other theoriescovered by the course literature and discussed during thecourse. Therefore Elm doesn’t struggle with the task but insteadpoints to other things, for example the (biological) differencesbetween the sexes and the necessity of understanding thesedifferences. One could assert that Elm is staging the principle ofseparation by focusing on and ‘‘cultivating’’ the biologicaldifferences between the sexes instead of pointing to thesimilarities.

4.3. Step 3. Comparison between the first task and the second task

To determine whether access to Hirdman’s theory changed theteachers’ interpretation of the pupils’ action in the classroom

K. Andersson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343 341

situation in the case, the text material was processed in a third step.The first (seminar) task and the second task (the application of thetheory) by each teacher were compared. The five teachers whocould not give any explanation to the pupils’ actions in the seminartask all found interpretations of the classroom situation afterreading Hirdman. Birch for example explicitly expresses in theseminar task that (s)he doesn’t know why David answers the wayhe does. After reading Hirdman, Birch can give different interpre-tations, for example that some knowledge is gender dependent or itis a part of the male norm to win and to have all the right answersand this is the reason why not so many classmates believe in San-dra. Another example is Aspen who totally switched perspectivesand sees the classroom situation in a new light. In the seminar task(s)he is critical to the accomplishment of the questioning andthinks the case teacher’s behaviour is the reason why David feelshumiliated. In the second task, on the other hand, (s)he has takenanother starting point for her/his reasoning and wonders if the caseteacher actually wants to move the girls’ positions forward.

All the teachers (except from Elm) who gave an explanation tothe pupils’ actions in the seminar task, after reading Hirdman, wereable to develop distinct, reasoned accounts of the case. Access tothe theory provides the teachers with models of explanation andterminology that expanded their way of expressing themselves.Some of the teachers also give new interpretations. Beech repeatsthat David and his classmates consider boys are better than girls inscience subjects, but then speculates if the pupils were convincedthat girls in general, or just Sandra, do not possess much knowledgein these subjects. Beech also wonders if there amongst the boyscould have been a strong leader who shows how the other boysshould think just by avoiding raising his hand. Furthermore (s)hesuggests that David has assumed the notion of male superiority andthe case teacher will confirm this order if the teacher does notinitiate a discussion about gender issues. Beech pays attention tothe girls in both exercises and in the analysis task (s)he highlightsthe group of girls that actually believed in Sandra and states thatthey have the courage to think differently and in fact challenge thegender order.

For Larch, the reading of Hirdman implies that (s)he startsquestioning one of her/his earlier ideas, namely that in Sweden wehave come far in attaining equality. Larch earlier thought thetolerance in society for people who differ from the norm was quitelarge, but after analyzing the case (s)he becomes troubled:

In the interview, Yvonne Hirdman points out that we grow up ina gender system which pre-defines what is male and what isfemale. The man is the model for what a human being issupposed to be and as children we are shaped to be the girls orthe boys we are expected to be. To a certain degree, I agree withYvonne. We are shaped to be the persons that we are but we allhave different personalities and I think acceptance is fairly largeif you ‘‘break the norm’’ of what you are expected to be.When I read about Sandra and her questioning, I think, unfor-tunately, everything Yvonne Hirdman comments on is inaccordance with Sandra’s situation. All the boys think Sandrahas got the wrong answer. That bears witness to their opinionsabout girls, ‘‘girls can’t know anything, it is we the boys who arethe norm’’, which is exactly what Yvonne also points out in theinterview. (Larch)

At the end of Larch’s text (s)he returns to this question and her/his original opinion. (S)he thought the case took place ten to fifteenyears ago and writes that it feels strange that this happened hereand now. ‘‘I have the feeling that we had come further than that inthe gender thinking’’, (s)he writes. Our interpretation is that Larch’sview of society is challenged by reading Hirdman and (s)he isforced to deal with her own conceptions and understandings when(s)he applies the theory to the case.

5. Discussion

Data from a larger body of material obtained in connection witha university course about gender and science was used for thisstudy. We chose to analyse one part of one task, a case, that theteachers worked with first during a seminar and then after readingthe Yvonne Hirdman’s theoretical perspectives about the gendersystem. The study shows that it is possible, during a restrictedperiod, to introduce theoretical tools and thereby influence and payattention to interpretation of gender issues.

In the seminar task, a majority of the teachers explains thatDavid, as well as most of the pupils, holds the idea that boys arebetter than girls, either in a general way or more specifically inscience subjects. In some way, all boys and most of the girls havecome to this opinion. Why and how this has occurred is not touchedupon by the teachers. In the second task when all teachers haveread Hirdman’s theory, they can use her principles to explain thepupils’ actions. In the case they can see the male norm exemplified.Accordingly, the notion that the male is the norm in society is theirexplanation to why most of the pupils hold the opinion that boysare better than girls. The teachers use Hirdman’s theory but differ intheir views to what extent individuals are involved in the consti-tution of the norm. This difference ranges from the opinion that thepupils and their teacher produce the norm themselves to theopinion that the norm is something static that just exists and turnsthe pupils into its victims.

Another explanation given by the teachers to why Davidanswers the way he does, that Sandra is wrong because she is a girl,is that David believes his answer is something all boys are willing tosupport. None of the teachers who expressed this opinion try toexplain why, i.e. why it is so important for boys to be of the sameopinion. After reading Hirdman’s theory, two of the teachersproblematize the question about how the gender system is main-tained by the way the boys see themselves as a group, unitingaround one common opinion as well as uniting around an indi-vidual, for example by following a strong leader among the boys inthe class. Furthermore, these teachers think that the boys havefirmly grasped the notion of male superiority. However, they drawattention to the girls who resist the majority class opinion and whobelieve in Sandra. These girls have the courage to challenge thegender order. One of the teachers wonders how it is possible, asa teacher, to work toward reordering the norm and to give supportin such a way that pupils dare to swim against the tide and trans-gress different norms.

Gender theories describe the society and its structures froma gender and power perspective and are consequently valueladen. Gender theories also affect our deepest emotions sincethey question the sexual division of labour; they challenge ourconceptions of what is ‘‘natural’’ in social interaction, but perhapsthe most disturbing fact is that the theories challenge ourpersonal identity (Harding, 1986). Several of the participatingteachers’ understandings of gender and society have been calledinto question and this is expressed in various ways in their texts.Larch’s initial opinion was that the question of equality inSwedish society had come so far and (s)he believed that the casewas at least ten years old. (S)he felt disposed to agree withHirdman’s analysis of society and it forced her/him to, in a newway, look at the society (s)he lives in. (S)he allowed this‘‘struggle’’ within her/him explicitly to be expressed in her/histext in the analysis task. Some other teachers wrote their analysistask on quite a general level and do not make a clear connectionbetween the theory and the case. This can depend on severalreasons. The teachers may have had difficulties managing thetask when asked to formulate their analysis in a written text. Itcan also depend on the fact that these teachers distance them-selves from theory and do not allow it to enter their sphere of

K. Andersson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343342

personal experience nor are they accustom to integrating theoryat the concrete level of a classroom situation. Finally, becausegender theory is value laden it can therefore produce an adverseresponse. Elm shows clearly her/his resistance by criticisinggender theory and argues that Hirdman is wrong. (S)he doesn’tgive any alternative theoretical explanation why things in theclassroom happen, nor does (s)he implement a new criticaldiscourse for expressing her/himself. Her/his analysis becomestherefore a bit vague and Elm does not make any effort to explainhow (s)he thinks. Instead (s)he assumes that

The twelve-year old David who believes that Sandra has got thewrong answer because she is a girl has probably got into some‘girl-boy relation thing’ and answers with hormones and grouppressure. (Elm)

In several of the teachers’ texts it appears that the case isemotionally engaging and it is above all the case teacher’s way ofconducting the lesson that triggers in-service teachers’ emotions.This kind of response was deemed favorable because the ability toengage in a situation which is described in a text is an importantstarting point for keeping interest alive long enough to be able tooutdistance and adopt a critical or analytical perspective (Moje &Wade, 1997). Moje and Wade argue that the case method givesteachers the opportunity to involve emotionally, learn through theexperiences of others and thus reflect over their own, sometimespainful practice. Additionally, the case method has an advantage:one doesn’t have to feel guilty because pupils are not ‘‘affected’’ byone’s response to the situation.

The outcomes of this study are clear and suggest that ifteachers have the opportunity to analyse a real classroom eventafter being introduced to a theoretical view of gender issues, theydeepen their reasoning powers and evolve new interpretations.For example, five teachers couldn’t give any explanation to thepupils’ actions in the seminar task, but after reading Hirdman’stheory these five teachers all gave specific explanations to thesituation. Since the outcome is connected in time to the carryingout of the task, the study does not give any answer whether theincreased analytical performance and deepened reasoning isretained over time. It can also be questioned whether the teacherscould fulfill the analysis task if they were not introduced toHirdman’s theory. They had approximately four weeks at theirdisposal for the task and used this time for thinking about thecase. This time period also allowed for various other influenceswhich could have resulted in new interpretations from theteachers. But their written texts show an extended vocabulary andnew perspectives that are clearly connected to Hirdman’s theory.The example with a real classroom situation and the application oftheory to the event, results in mutual benefits. The theory givesthe teachers an explanatory tool through which they can ‘‘filterthe classroom situation’’, thus contributing to an anchoring oftheoretical conceptions in real events. On the other hand, the casefacilitates the understanding of the theory. Theory is brought intocloser proximity with reality and becomes more relevant.Nystrom (2007) writes in her dissertation about the difficulties ofimplementing feminist and gender theories in classroom practice.The present study gives an example of how the use of gendertheories for analyzing a case could be a feasible pedagogicalmethod for this implementation. Whether the gender and sciencecourse has a long term impact on the participating teachers’ viewsand if it has any effect on their teaching will be explored in a futurestudy that employs interviews. In those cases where the teachershave tried to change their approaches to teaching we want toinvestigate if these methods of teaching can be placed in any ofSinnes (2006) three teaching categories: gender neutral scienceeducation, female friendly science education or gender sensitivescience education.

6. Conclusions

Several research studies point to the difficulties regardingattempts to change students’ as well as in-service teachers’assumptions about social structures, family, classroom, societyand the pre-understandings of conceptions within an academicsubject (Kagan, 1992; Whitcomb, 2003). For instance, Whitcombasserts that students’ initial understandings about teaching,which they have when they start their teacher education, areremarkably resistant and remain intact after they have gradu-ated. Internal conceptions guide the teachers’ interpretations ofand their response to what happens in the classroom. In educa-tion and in-service training the students’ personal understand-ings must be challenged if a real change of the teachers’ way ofteaching is to be achieved, Kagan (1992) argues. The fact that theteachers in this study deepen and broaden their interpretationsof a real classroom event when they are introduced to theoryindicates that this method can be applied in teacher education.The use of cases can be a method to link theories to practicalwork. More specifically, gender theories are of particular rele-vance for the prospective teacher who has the responsibility ofworking toward the objectives of equality as stated in theSwedish curriculum. This case-method link is also of relevance toother subject areas where students are introduced to a number ofcritical theories during their education. A beneficial effect ofbringing theory into closer proximity with practice helpsstudents acquire new knowledge and it better prepares them fortheir future profession. In addition, they also might experiencetheir education to be more stimulating and more meaningful. Inthe classroom, different situations constantly arise which theteacher has to deal with. Often a teacher’s response must bequick and in an immediately effective manner because it isimportant for pupils to receive an instantaneous response. In thelonger perspective, this kind of task can affect the teachers’ ownteaching by preparing them for similar classroom events andthereby increase their ability to act and react more thoughtfully.

Acknowledgements

The project is supported financially by the Board of TeachingEducation at the University of Gavle. The authors also wish toextend their thanks to Associate Professors Annica Gullberg forvaluable comments and Alan Shima for linguistic corrections of themanuscript.

Appendix A

Short description of the course gender and science (7.5 ECTS credits)

The aim of the course was to look at teaching in science froma gender perspective and thereby awaken thoughts and ideas onhow to pursue and change such teaching to bring about anincreased engagement among girls as well as boys. The courseextended over a five-month period and the participants met at theuniversity for a total of five full days. The teaching consisted oflectures, seminars, group exercises, laboratory experiments and in-field studies. Within the course the participants should keep a log-book where they wrote down observations and reflections fromtheir every-day life with relevance for gender and/or science. Theparticipants should also accomplish a smaller project connected totheir own teaching practices. The following topics were covered inthe course:

� Science in a historical perspective;� The concepts sex, gender, equality, feminism;� Science and gender;

K. Andersson et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 336–343 343

� Science education and gender;� Laboratory experiments and gender.

The course literature consisted of research reports, articles anddissertations. Materials from newspapers and other non-academicsources were used to bring about discussions and for criticalexaminations. Each participant should also choose one fictionalbook and one popular scientific book and critical examine themfrom a gender perspective. They should also read an optional bookon a gender scientific topic. Given guidelines in the form of a seriesof questions, written reports from the reading of these books wererequested as well as oral presentations.

Every course occasion started in the same way with a writtentask, a case in the form of a dilemma, a real classroom situation, anarticle in a newspaper or a picture in a science textbook. The rest ofthe course days had slightly different arrangements but all of themincluded a briefing of theoretical parts and time for discussions.Laboratory experiments were performed at three occasions. Duringthe last course day the projects were orally presented.

Appendix B

The seminar task: homework in science

Sandra is an eleven-year-old pupil in the fifth grade. Her schoolis located in the middle of Sweden. The following event happensduring a question and answer session about a science homeworkassignment. The homework consists of several new concepts.Sandra thinks that the concepts are a bit difficult so she had to workhard with the homework assignment the night before. During thescience lesson, the pupils are given a written quiz. While they areworking, the teacher walks around in the classroom observing thechildren.

‘‘Sandra, you may step forward and write your answers on thewhiteboard’’, the teacher says after the pupils have completed thequiz. After Sandra has written down her answers, the teacher asksthe pupils to raise their hands if they think Sandra has written theright answers. Some girls raise their hands, none of boys do.

‘‘David, why do you think that Sandra has written wronganswers?’’ the teacher wonders.

‘‘Because she is a girl’’ David replies.However, it turns out that Sandra has answered correctly and

during the rest of the lesson, David sits with his head down.What do you think of the teacher’s way of following up the quiz?

Why does David answer the way he does? Write down yourthoughts about what takes place in the classroom in connectionwith the questioning. Try to analyse what is happening and why.You may also write down your ideas about how you as a teacher cantake advantage of this particular situation, how would you dealwith it and what might you do?

Appendix C

Application of the gender theory

Read the interview with Yvonne Hirdman (professor in history atStockholm University). Her research has had a great impact on theanalysis of gender identities and gender constructions as well as theanalysis of the power relation between women and men. She callsattention to two constructions within the so called gender system:the male as norm belief and the separation of the two sexes. Try toapply her theory to the case ‘‘Questioning on homework in science’’and analyse what is happening in the classroom. Write down youranalysis. Length of response ½–1 A4 page. If you require moretheory you may also read the beginning of Hirdman’s chapter ‘‘Thegender system’’ in Democracy and power in Sweden (SOU 1990: 44).

References

Andrews, K. R. (1953). The case method of teaching human relations and adminis-tration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.de Beauvoir, S. (1953). The second sex. London: Cape.Booth, S. (1992). Learning to program. A phenomenographic perspective. Goteborg

Studies in Educational Sciences 89. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: a feminist perspective on learning.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘‘sex’’. New York:

Routledge.Capobianco, B. M. (2007). Science teachers’ attempts at integrating feminist peda-

gogy through collaborative action research. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 44(1), 1–32.

Dahlstrom, A. (2007). Forskning och framsteg nr 1, Mot Annica Dahlstrom. Hon tarstrid om konet i hjarnan. [Research and progression, a popular science magazine,meet Annica Dahlstrom. She claims the sex is in the brain]. (pp. 38–41).

Education Act. (1985). Swedish Code of Statues, Svensk forfattningssamling, 1100.Skollagen.

Equal Opportunity Act. (1991). Swedish Code of Statues, Svensk forfattningssamling,433. Jamstalldhetslagen.

Fraser, C. E. (1931). The case method of instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill.Gilbert, J. (2001). Science and its ‘other’: looking underneath ‘woman’ and ‘science’

for new directions in research on gender and science education. Gender andEducation, 13(3), 291–305.

Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.Hirdman, Y. (1990). Genussystemet. I SOU 1990: 44, Demokrati och makt i Sverige.

Stockholm 1990. (Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 1990: 44, Democ-racy and Power in Sweden).

Howes, E. V. (2002). Connecting girls and science. Constructivism, feminism, andscience education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Johnstone, J., & Dunne, M. (1996). Revealing assumptions: problematising researchon gender and mathematics and science education. In L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, &B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Gender, science and mathematics. Shortening the shadow.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. EducationalPsychologist, 27(1), 65–90.

Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: the role ofdiscussion and experience in teachers’ thinking about cases. Teaching andTeacher Education, 11(1), 63–79.

Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinalstudy of pathways to upper secondary school. Goteborg Studies in EducationalSciences 196. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Lundberg, M. A., Levin, B. B., & Harrington, H. L. (Eds.). (1999). Who learns what fromcases and how? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McAninich, A. R. (1994). Case methods in teacher education. International encyclo-pedia of education. (pp. 5943–5948).

Malkani, J. M., & Allen, J. D. (2005). Cases in teacher education: beyond reflectioninto practice. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Montreal, April 2005.

Merseth, K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula,T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nded.). (pp. 722–746) New York: Macmillan.

Moje, E. B., & Wade, S. E. (1997). What case discussions reveal about teacherthinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 691–712.

National curriculum (Lpo94, Lpf94). Ministry of Education and Research. (1994). Lar-oplaner for det obligatoriska skolvasendet och de frivilliga skolformerna. Lpo94–Lpf 94.

Nystrom, E. (2007). Talking and taking positions. An encounter between actionresearch and the gendered and racialised discourses of school science. Disserta-tions in Educational Work, Umeå universitet.

Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, P. J., & Nichols, S. E. (1995). Gender-inclusive scienceteaching: a feminist–constructivist approach. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 32(9), 897–924.

Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale,questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (the relevance of scienceeducation) – A comparative study of students’ views of science and scienceeducation (pdf). (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo: Department of Teacher Educationand School Development, University of Oslo.

Schulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Schulman (Ed.), Casemethods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sinnes, A. (2006). Three approaches to gender equity in science education. NorDiNa,Nordic Studies in Science Education, 3, 72–83.

Sjoberg,S. (2000). Naturvetenskap som allmanbildning – en kritisk amnesdidaktik. [Naturalscience as general knowledge – A critical science education]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. In I. G. Grant (Ed.),Review of research in education, Vol. 18 (pp. 457–521). Washington, DC: Amer-ican Educational Research Association.

Thuren, B.-M. (2003). Genusforskning – Frågor, villkor och utmaningar, Veten-skapsrådet. [Gender research – Questions, conditions and challenges, The SwedishResearch Council]. Uppsala: Ord & Form.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.Whitcomb, J. A. (2003). Learning and pedagogy in initial teacher preparation. In

W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Educational psychology. Handbook ofpsychology, Vol. 7 (pp. 533–556). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,Hoboken.