Equity in the Classroom

Towards Effective Pedagogy for Girls and Boys

Caroline V. Gipps, Patricia F. Murphy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135716813
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Concerned with pedagogy and the learning achievement of both girls and boys, this book examines international trends in subject performance throughout schooling and looks critically at a range of interventions in difference contexts and countries, all aimed at enhancing equity in schools and higher education institutions.; The book argues that pedagogy can not be isolated from the overarching gender-education system. What can be done, it claims, is that teachers can be provided with a range of pedagogic strategies which can be used to make education, as it is experienced by students and reflected in their achievements, more just.

III
Interventions

12
Redefining Achievement

Gaell M. Hildebrand

Assessment is frequently the engine that drives pedagogy and the curriculum. Hence, assessment has the power to endorse or to challenge the ways in which fields of knowledge, school subjects and understandings about learning and about gender are constructed through the delivered curriculum. This chapter shows how gender, science and assessment are all built on a fundamental set of dualistic concepts associated with power and privilege.

I argue that the gendered achievement profiles which exist in many subject areas of the school curriculum have been partly built up by assessment techniques which have privileged some masculine constructions of knowledge and ways of knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule, 1986). By this, I mean that those bodies of knowledge, skills and experiences that have been more highly regarded within many subject areas, indeed more richly rewarded within our culture, have been traditionally defined as those associated with hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987).

To invoke the importance of pedagogy is to raise questions not simply about how students learn but also how educators…construct the ideological and political positions from which they speak. (Henry Giroux, 1992, p. 81)

To uncritically perpetuate practices implicitly underpinned by an ideology that privileges the masculine is to jeopardize work towards effective pedagogies for all students. This chapter goes on to tell the story of a challenge, and a consequent redefinition of achievement in physics, undertaken in the state of Victoria, Australia. By transforming assessment practices it became possible to change both what was taught and how it was taught and this has altered the historical achievement profile so that girls have suddenly become very good at physics.

As this chapter draws on changes to physics it seems appropriate to use two visual metaphors to illuminate interactions between constructions of gender, science and assessment. The metaphor used for the process of looking, is that of sets of spectacles or ‘frames of reference’, whilst the scene being observed, pedagogy, is like a ‘multi-faceted diamond’.

Three Feminist Frames of Reference

If we look at the lens itself—through which we view the world—we can see that the very specifications of that lens (the paradigm) shapes how we are able to interpretwhat we see. If we are a conservative male physicist from a high status university then the lens through which we view changes which impact on gendered achievement profiles will be quite different from the lens used by a liberal feminist physics teacher and different again from that of a Turkish-Australian girl from a workingclass area who chooses to study physics. The lens of the frame of reference, or standpoint, from which we construct our perspective will colour, focus and shape the version of reality we interpret.

Three useful frames of reference, which can be looked through to revision issues and possibilities, and which are loosely parallel to the three tiers of feminism described by Julia Kristeva (1981), are linked with the differing perspectives of liberal, radical and poststructural feminisms. There are times when operating from an ‘access and equity’, or liberal feminist, frame of reference will generate an appropriate response to a particular issue. At other times, or for other people, the radical feminist approach of valuing women’s experiences and approaches to learning can be more appropriate. A post-structural feminist perspective, where dualisms and discourses are used as sources of critique and challenge (Weedon, 1987) and multiple subjectivities are acknowledged, is a third frame of reference to employ. In deliberately using a different frame of reference we can observe dimensions to which we were previously blind.

A Multi-faceted Diamond—The Scene Under Observation

Like a brilliant-cut diamond, there are many facets to pedagogy. A schema of facets which indicates the multiple factors that interact to construct gender in schools includes: the life experiences that students and teachers bring to school; the organizational structure of the curriculum; the constructions of knowledge inferred by the way the curriculum is devised and taught; the degree of social context and theorypractice links in the content of the curriculum and the integration or separateness of its components; resource availability and utilization; the power differential associated with communication and decision-making patterns; the degree of integration of work education into the curriculum; the physical environment; the frames of reference used by teachers and their ideologies about pedagogy; the ways sex-based harassment is dealt with; and assessment practices (see Allard, Cooper, Hildebrand and Wealands, 1995, pp. 81–2).

Also, the setting (or school context) within which the diamond (pedagogy) sits enhances or dulls it; the light (outcomes of intervention ideas) reflected out of the facets will depend on the circumstances (students and curriculum); particular facets will produce a rainbow of coloured light (be a focus of energy and attention) at different times; and the more brilliant light (better outcomes of intervention) will come from a multi-faceted diamond (multiple sites of action). This chapter only highlights the facet of pedagogy related to assessment-linked profiles of achievement and recognizes that no single dimension, alone, can transform the outcomes of schooling for all girls.

Linking Constructions of Gender, Science and Assessment

It is now widely acknowledged that gender is a social construction and that understandings about ‘appropriate’ versions of femininity and masculinity ‘vary across different cultures; are informed by social class; and change over time both individually and collectively. They can be endorsed, negotiated, challenged, reconstructed and resisted on an individual and collective basis’ (Allard et al., 1995, p. 21). Whilst we have some agency to choose or resist gendered practices and codes, particular constructions of masculinity and femininity are accorded higher status.

Hegemonic masculinity is the ‘culturally exalted’ version (Connell, 1995, p. 77) that is publicly admired, rewarded and aligned with hierarchical power, objectivity and competition. ‘Emphasized femininity’, an unequal opposite (Connell, 1987, p. 183) is the traditional form where there is a compliance with the subordination of women to men, a focus on physical appearance and a narrow range of life options centred on the private realm. Emphasized femininity is aligned with emotions, subjectivity and cooperation and its asymmetry with hegemonic masculinity is played out in both institutional and interpersonal spheres.

There have been many critiques of science that have revealed its social construction (e.g., Sandra Harding, 1986; 1991; Bleier, 1986; Tuana, 1989; Rosser, 1990; Lemke, 1990; Thomas, 1990; Code, 1991; Kirkup and Keller, 1992; Shepherd, 1993). These analyses have revealed the masculine bias in the practice of science, in the image of science and in the way dimensions have been selected for inclusion in school studies. Many factors in the dominant paradigm of ‘good’ or ‘real’ science, aligned with those defining hegemonic masculinity, are so deeply embedded in our understanding of what science is that they have become invisible. The branch of science called physics, has been socially constructed this century to link directly with power and control through militarism, and thus more closely to hegemonic masculinity than most other fields.

The status accorded science has influenced knowledge production and authentication in many other fields and the positivist paradigm, which science has created and cultivated, has, in turn, strongly influenced research methodologies across many fields, including educational evaluation (e.g., Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Lather, 1991; Reinharz, 1992; Cambourne and Turbill, 1994). Through its grounding in psychometrics, with its heavy reliance on positivism, assessment of achievement in education is also a construction linked directly to hegemonic masculinity.

All three of those constructions—gender, science and assessment—are based on a common set of asymmetrical dualisms where the concepts in the left column are valorized, taken as the norm and used as the measuring stick of worth.

abstract

quantitative

outcomes

competition

objective

knower/mind

holistic

qualitative

process

cooperation

subjective

knowable/nature

hierarchical

value-free

multiplicity

value-laden

The concepts in the right column are associated with the 'other' (not the norm), are of lower status and represent a supposed inherent inferiority. These asymmetrical dualisms thus create implicit assumptions about (hegemonic) masculinity and (emphasized) femininity; about science and non-science; and about so-called ‘good’ and ‘bad’ assessment practices. Looking through the first frame of reference, that of liberal feminism, the task would be seen as fixing the girls, science and assessment practices so that they fit the conceptual model built by the left column, taking the malestream as the standard. Looking through the second frame of reference there would be a focus on the strengths of the feminine (right) column and an attempt to bring that into a symmetrical balance with the left column—equally valuing both concepts in each dualism. Using the third frame of reference, that of post-structural feminism, a contestation of these dualisms would ask provocative questions such as: Are they dualisms or continua? Whose purpose is being served by the valuing of one set over the other? Would the multiple truths generated by using ‘both/and’, rather than ‘either/or’, produce a more acceptable reality?

I will now explore how these dualistic concepts distort science and assessment. The dysfunctional processes and outcomes arising from the dualisms that produce hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity permeate this chapter and this book and will not be further discussed here.

Gendered Dualisms and Science

The image of science is strongly gendered and aligned with hegemonic masculinity (e.g., S. Harding, 1986; Tuana, 1989; Thomas, 1990; Kirkup and Keller, 1992) but this mystique is a distortion of the concealed reality which frequently accommodates concepts from the right column of dualisms. Linda Shepherd (1993) reveals the existing, but heavily veiled, feminine face of science that includes:

• knower/known interactivity: Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in physics (you cannot measure both the momentum and the position of an electron because in measuring one you interfere with the other) along with Chaos theory reveal the interdependence of the observer and the observed;
• subjectivity: feelings are significant when research is motivated by love and desire and where hunches come before hypotheses;
• multiplicity: a web of interactivity exists between and among phenomena;
• cooperation: the importance of care and empathy in sustaining an harmoniously working research team;
• intuition: another way of knowing which is valued in highly esteemed, speculative scientists; and
• holistic: seeing the relatedness of ideas through interdisciplinary studies which show larger patterns, challenges underlying values like simplicity, abstraction and reductionism in science.

She argues that only when science integrates the feminine with the masculine, and replaces either/or conceptualizations with both/and thinking, will there be an acceptance of the complexities of reality.

Yet, as Jay Lemke (1990) shows, school science further distorts the field of science by:

• generating a catalogue of ‘facts’ for students to recall, and presenting science as if it is possible to produce absolutely objective truths;
• pretending that a scientific method exists—even when we know that real scientists, funded through politically driven sources, seek evidence through using the research techniques that will most likely provide what they desire;
• teaching with the expectation that only a ‘super-intelligent elite’ can ever understand science’s concepts, and thus teaching most students to trust powerful technocrats and politicians who make decisions based on scientific, and hence unchallengeable, evidence.

Gendered Dualisms and Assessment

For each pair of gendered dualisms, looking through the third, post-structural feminist, frame of reference, and challenging the implicit assumptions underpinning the dominant paradigm, can lead to a more equitable definition of assessment.

Reward Holistic Learning (both abstract and holistic)

Assessment has largely valued abstraction and analysis over holism, relatedness and synthesis, particularly in science where the real world is often seen as too ‘messy’ and complex to illustrate with neat mathematical models. If our assessment procedures only examine students’ ability to suspend what they know about their world, while they blindly manipulate formulae or regurgitate information, then we ought not be disappointed when students fail to apply concepts to the real world.

Ensuring science and technology are considered in their social context with assessment of their benefits for the environment and human beings may be the most important change that can be made in science teaching for all people, both male and female. (Rosser, 1990, p. 72)

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many girls do prefer to learn concepts situated in their social context rather than abstract, fragment and compartmentalize theirunderstandings. To value holistic learning, assessment tasks ought to be set within a social context and reward synthesis of ideas where theory and practice are clearly interconnected.

Encourage Qualitative Understanding (both quantitative and qualitative)

Testing the authenticity of a proposed assessment task by checking whether it seeks evidence of qualitative understanding, rather than simplistic manipulation of quantitative data, is one way to recognize that many girls strive for this. For example:

My curiosity simply did not extend to the quantitative solution. I justdidn’t care to figure out how much. I was more concerned with the ‘why’and the ‘how’. I wanted verbal explanations with formulae and computations only as a secondary aid. Becoming capable at problem solving wasnot a major goal of mine. But it was a major goal of the course. (Michellein Tobias, 1990, p. 40)

There is considerable anecdotal evidence from teachers which suggests that girls are more troubled by a feeling that they ‘don’t really understand’, an important factor in their withdrawal from subjects/courses. Boys appear to be less concerned by this and will continue a subject when their grades indicate that they ‘know enough’. If we value deep understanding then we should build it into our assessment processes. Also, many students, frequently girls, want feedback on their work that goes beyond a quantitative grade. As assessors of student achievement we need to provide extended oral and written feedback that helpfully indicates areas of success whilst specifying ways in which the quality of work can be improved.

The Means Effects the Ends (both outcomes and process)

A narrow focus on outcomes, products and endpoints leads to a tendency to rely on summative assessment modes that are too late for student action. Judgments should be based on a rich record of student progress that is built up over time and which gives due recognition to an ongoing commitment to attend to their work, as many girls do. Paul Black concluded from his comprehensive review of formative and summative assessment that ‘good formative assessment can be a powerful tool for raising standards of learning’ (Black, 1993, p. 84) and that it ought to be ‘embedded’ into, and support, learning programs.

Integrated formative assessment has the potential to monitor a range of competencies meeting all the course goals. Many courses aim to cover multiple aspects of learning, such as: knowledge; skills (including communication, thinking, problem solving and social); values (including attitudes, ethics and morality); and metacognition (learning how to learn). Those things that are easiest to summatively assess should not take precedence over those tasks which encourage the full spectrum of intended learning outcomes. Unless all curriculum goals are built into the assessment processes they will be read as unimportant; for example, many girls do well in research and cooperation which are not valued as they are not assessed.

Intrinsic Motivation Through Explicit Guidelines (both competition and cooperation)

The extent to which we have indoctrinated our students into competitive assessment can be gauged by the number of times we hear the question: ‘What did you get?’ Assuming that all students are extrinsically motivated by competition pitches the students in a battle against the assessor and against each other. Norm-referencing builds in competition through its winners and losers system, but assessment ‘should be essentially criterion-based rather than norm-based’ (Australian Curriculum Studies Association, 1992, p. 37) to create the possibility of all students being winners.

Many teachers argue that girls are more focused than boys in trying to ‘guess what’s in the teacher’s head’ and in their desire to meet expectations. Also, those students whose learning is undermined by blatant competition, with its frequently shifting or unclear benchmarks, can be highly motivated by the intrinsic pleasure in understanding and in completing assigned tasks. To remove some of the guesswork and competition, teachers and assessors could cooperate with students by providing clear guidelines and criteria for evaluating student work. Also, many girls like to work jointly on projects and assessment processes should provide ways to reward such cooperation which, after all, is highly valued in the workplace.

Explicit guidelines specifying achievable, yet challenging, work requirements and assessment tasks should include:

• topic or theme of the learning area;
• process tasks or work requirements;
• product types and formats to be completed;
• product extent or length;
• time-lines (including interim and final dates);
• the criteria which will be used to judge the quality of work; and
• the weighting of each task in the overall assessment package.

Recognizing the Pervasiveness of Subjectivity (both objective and subjective)

Traditional asses...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Introduction
• I Pedagogy and Gender
• II Dijferential Learning and Performance
• III Interventions
• UNESCO/Institute of Education Colloquium 10–12 January 1995 ‘Is There a Pedagogy for Girls?’
• Notes on Contributors