When I began this post, I thought that I wouldn’t have much to say about the readings, but as I started to outline my thoughts, I had to eliminate some points so that it didn’t get out of control.
The first thing that I want to address is from the article by Boaler. She mentions the idea that gender is a social construct rather than a biological fact (25). I have been reflecting all week about why I find this so difficult to accept. When culture is introduced in the other articles as a response to social setting, I can totally see how children change their behaviour to fit the cultural norms. I can also see that there are cultural groups that are not bounded by racial background, so maybe that is why I see biology as a less dominant factor. It may just be that gender as a response to conditions is just a newer idea to me, so I’m still working to understand it. Any thoughts that could help me through this process?
I also found it very interesting in this article that so few females go in math in university and at the graduate level. I’ve brought this up with colleagues several times this week and they were all shocked by the changes in numbers.
In the article by Cobb and Hodge, the quote “students’ development of new personal identities in particular settings can involve changes in their core identity” (167) speaks to the power of teachers. How many times have you heard people say they can’t do math? I bet many of them can remember a certain teacher or classmate or test that told them they weren’t good at math. As a teacher, I don’t want to limit my students’ expectations about what they can become.
My final thought is about Nasir’s comment that “learning is about becoming as well as knowing” (135). I love this quote because it acknowledges that learning is a process and is deeply linked to identity. I have seen my students grappling with their identities as they find their place in the social network at the school. I have also seen the different cultures that have developed within the different social groups and at different grade levels.
Gender as Social Construct
ReplyDeleteFor a long time I wondered - why does this form say sex and this other form say gender. Last year it was explained to me:
-when we are talking about physical features we use the term sex;
-when we are talking about a how someone views themselves then we are talking about gender- hence the posibility of transgender. In education and social sciences, gender is almost always used, which by definition seems to get at the coproduction of the sense of male or female.
An example of how immediate culture influences how one percieves gender roles: in high school, my eldest daughter used to spend hours on clothing and hair, and often said that I was not a normal [for a female]. Once she started in university and was exposed to a multitude of different roles, she didn't feel that she always had to be looking so polished ( and she felt comfortable describing herself as a sciency geek...).
What I am trying to say is that I think in high school she was working within a much narrower definition of what it meant to be female. Her biology hasn't changed, but she now sees a much wider range of behaviours as female.
The idea of co-production of identity is new to me, but is helping my understanding of my classes and family.
I guess my struggle is separating gender from sex. I understand that gender can be construed in different ways based on social expectations and that many people don’t identify with the social norms for their gender. The problem for me is whether experiences and understanding in math are related to sex or to gender, which I don’t think I made clear in my previous post. I see the difference in the definitions, but I have trouble separating what one is responsible for shaping responses.
ReplyDeleteThe article I liked the most out of the three readings was the article by Boaler. I feel that the article captures the true essence of intersectionality and problems in current research. Several researchers pick their niche and end up confining themselves to that without questioning their findings. I really liked the emphasis on either “changing the girls” or “changing the teaching/environment”. Personally, I feel that it would be easier to change the environment to suit their needs rather changing the individuals. It is very difficult to keep an open mind yet identify the learning needs of our students. The stereotypes are so ingrained in our minds that we assume characteristics as facts without questioning how they have come into existence. The thought that resonated within me form this article is that by identifying different learning needs due to gender, race and class are we feeding to the stereotyping or are we actually assisting in improving our teaching styles by catering to such differentiated learning needs.
ReplyDeleteThe question that came to my mind after reading the article by Nasir is that the interlinking of identity, goals and learning could exist on their own without having race or culture as their source. The identity however I feel is a combination of various factors that go beyond race and culture. I believe that goals/interests are a product of identity but can we base our understanding of goals and interests solely on factors that contribute to identity? Can we ignore that popular beliefs, media and peer pressure also affect selection of goals and also modify identity.
I also liked what Boaler said about changing the environment rather than the people. I think that, in general, that attitude can make a huge difference in a teacher's ability to reach students who are struggling in any class.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I think there is more to it than just changing the environment to suit girls' needs. As we change that environment, we are also changing the experiences that students have in school, in terms of both their own learning and the stereotypes or understandings that they form about other students. So if we teach math in a way that provides students with a deeper understanding of the content, as the students at Amber Hill wanted, the understanding of math and of who can learn math will be different from if they were taught with a traditional, procedural approach.
Once that happens, the next generation of students will have different needs, so we'll have to keep changing the environment. Basically, that's what progress looks like. I don't think Boaler, or any of the authors this week, were advocating a static kind of reform. I just think that sometimes when we talk about changing the way we teach, people take that to mean finding the one right way to do it and then to keep doing that forever. I would argue that the only right way to teach is to be constantly adapting to the needs of the student and the community.
Beth, I agree that there is so much talk out there these days about biological differences between males and females that leads to gender differences between boys and girls.
ReplyDeleteI recently read a book you might find interesting, called 'Delusions of Gender' by Cordelia Fine. It was basically debunking a lot of the neuroscientific research on sex differences by pointing out huge methodological flaws. I'll try to remember to bring it to class.