In chapter nine Boaler discusses Boys, Girls, and Learning Styles. Boaler states that the ‘greatest disadvantages were experienced by the girls mainly because of their preferred learning styles and ways of working” (p.137). She contends that girls from the highest sets at Amber Hill underachieved because of the learning approach the school took. She stated that these girls “seemed to value aspects of mathematics teaching and learning that were not present in their school’s approach” (p. 149). These girls at Amber Hill wanted to ‘understand their mathematics’ (p. 153). Boaler stipulates that mathematics is being widely taught in a way that is not equally accessible to boys and girls, and this appears to relate to the preferences of pedagogy (p. 152).
According to Anthea Lipsett a writer of education issues, formerly for the Education Guardian, “Boys are not innately better at maths than girls, and any differences in test scores is due to nurture rather than nature”, according to researchers (Lipsett, 2008). She quotes research by Prof Paola Sapienza of Northwestern University in the US as saying “The so-called gender gap in math skills seems to be at least partially correlated to environmental factors, the gap doesn’t exist in countries where men and women have access to similar resources and opportunities.” According to data analysed by researchers in 40 countries, boys did tend to outperform girls in math, but in more ‘gender equal societies’ such as Iceland, Sweden and Norway, girls scored as well as boys or better. The research found a striking gender gap in reading skills. In every country girls performed better than boys in reading but in countries that treat both sexes equally, girls do even better.
Paul Blundin (2009) states that just about every scientific instrument in the world have come to a fairly inescapable conclusion that boys and girls learn differently because their brains develop differently. His article says that boys and girls use different learning intelligences to gather information but although it may take effort and stimulation for a brain that has a strong spatial bias to develop its more logical-mathematical abilities, but it can be done. Blundin claims that although boys generally are more capable in the logical-mathematical category this is changing and girls have been gaining ground in this area. He attributes this to how society is desiring to encourage girls in math. Blundin writes, “Cooperative learning experiences that involve more active tasks than just writing, show girls attending to the task more readily and socializing more productively. Boys want to get to the project and get moving and doing”. This comment compares to Boaler’s findings that Phoenix Park girls performed better than Amber Hill girls because at Phoenix Park the girls were free to develop their own styles of working, encouraged to think for themselves, discuss ideas with each other , and work at their own pace. (p. 148)
Blundin ends his article with “Those dedicated to teaching… must see every child as a potentially multi-intelligent child and provide as much stimulation in all the areas as possible.”
I don’t know if I grew up in a home, community, and school who treated boys and girls equally when it came to learning mathematics or not but I don’t remember ever thinking that I couldn’t or shouldn’t be better at mathematics than boys.
http:www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/30/schools.uk1
http://old.eduguide.org/Parents-Library/Learning-Intelligences-Gender-Behavior-150.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment