RESULTADOS Y DISCUSIÓN

While education plays a power role in reflecting and reproducing normative gender roles and power inequalities, gender is never alone but always intersecting with other forms of power. Power inequalities in society render disparities in the participation rates between men and women as reflected in the ‘women in science’ debate more complex. These inequalities are located in the economic potential of communities and in their racial and class-based make-up, amongst other aspects. The girls and boys participating in this research are submerged in a community that reflects

a particular level in that power inequality nexus. Stanworth (1981, p.12) refers to the impact of this aspect in his comment that:

“Explanations which purport to draw upon the “essential differences” between the sexes are no substitute for understanding the social construction of inequality and the point at which it can be undermined.”

The above quote confirms that, if initiatives to bring about gender equity in science classrooms are to succeed, account must be taken of the way in which gender is socially constructed in terms of social variables with which it is interconnected (Rennie, 1998). However, as a social construction, gender cannot be singled out as the only reason for suggested differences in academic performance and perceptions of girls and boys. The context of the lives of the girls and boys participating in this research is beset by numerous social constructs and material conditions of difference and inequality. These differences and inequalities, evident in the biographical data of their lives, impact on their perceptions of science and science education. Within the ‘gender in education’ debate, the educational discourses that homogenise all girls and consider them as a single group with seemingly uniform characteristics, are constrictive and disregard the broader social inequalities that exist in societies.

In looking at gender equity one needs to bear in mind that, aside from the influence of gender on science and science education, other sociological and cultural categories like class, race, ethnicity, language, and lifestyle and religion also mediate their role in creating gendered imbalances in science classrooms. These categories also stem from genetics and further complicate investigation into the role of gender in science and science education. Gender thus intersects with race, ethnicity, class (Krockover and Shepardson, 1995) as well as religion, culture, language and access (Rennie, 1998) in the ‘women in science’ debate. In addressing gender equity in science teacher education, Rennie (1998) suggests four theoretical perspectives from which to view girls’, and other minorities’ disadvantage: the recognition that some learners are less well prepared than others to benefit from science education; the manner in which the science curriculum is delivered and assessed; the content of the science curriculum which is stereotyped with respect to gender; and the science curriculum’s implication in producing and reproducing of gender inequality.

When commenting on the concept of an ‘all-inclusive’ science which takes account of race, ethnicity, class, religion and language, Howes (2000, p.396) points to an awareness, that “science has been used, socially, politically, and in education, to maintain racist categories and oppressive practices that support the status quo”. In the context of the history of South African and particularly its education system, the learner cohort in this research typify the kinds of experiences that one would expect in a developing country emerging from colonialism and Apartheid with its race and class

divisions, the effects of which are still evident in the society. The impact of learners’ gender feeds into this race and class culture and ensures that its effects are compounded.

The local socio-cultural circumstances of boys’ and girls’ lives are an important consideration when investigating their perceptions of gender with regard to science, as it interfaces with their schooling. These “cultural entanglements” that Archer and Yamashita (2003, p.129) mention in attempting to understand the “complex racial and diasporic influences” (Archer and Yamashita (2003, p.130) in boys’ construction of their identities confirm the multifaceted nature of the issue. The phenomenon of globalisation and the migration of Third World peoples into First World communities brings this reflection on the matter into sharper focus; girls in these environments face the added challenges of social inequality and adapting to foreign environments, including language, in attempting to better their lives through education. South Africa is an example of this in that people from countries in Africa are migrating to the country, and into its education and economic systems, in search of better education and economic opportunities. They bring with them their own cultural practices and beliefs regarding gender and existing perceptions of science and science education that have to be negotiated in their ‘new’ country.

Teachers and learners are, to a certain extent, accomplices in maintaining gender disparity by conforming to socially accepted behaviour in this regard. The manner in which their race, class and ethnicity intercede in this gender disparity serves to exacerbate the imbalance. As pointed out earlier, this is especially so because of the demographic make-up of the learner cohort that participated in this research: they reside in an area with an homologous racial, economic and classed community where unemployment, the crime rate and substance abuse are high. The socio-economic, cultural context of schooling does have an impact on the perceptions of learners, also of science and science education, and their opportunities. Apple (1989) and Ogbu (1992) are of the opinion that learners who are socialised in a culture that regards schooling as important have a better chance of success at school and in school science. From a social constructivist perspective (Scantlebury, 1998), the socio- cultural context (Parker, Rennie and Fraser, 1996) in which science education is practiced exercises a powerful influence on the participation and performance of girls in science. In discussing the correlation between social variables and learners’ assimilation of science knowledge from a social constructivist perspective, Scantlebury (1998, p.100) refers to Tobin’s (1993) view that:

“Social constructivism accepts that learners construct their own knowledge but that knowledge is developed and influenced by their social experiences and interactions.”

The geographical and cultural contexts of learners’ lives need to be considered when analysing girls’ and boys’ participation in science. Learners living in a rural setting in a Black African village with its specific culture could be expected to have a different geographic and cultural impact

on their science classroom experiences, from a gender point of view, than that of learners residing in the city, since socio-cultural norms and values differ. Even within cities, where neighbourhoods are ‘divided’ by social class ‘boundaries’ because of the economic capacity of parents, the science classroom experience could be expected to differ since learners come from homes that are resourced differently. Also, they have parents who have different educational, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Kahle and Meese (1994), Kreinberg and Lewis (1996), and Clair (1995) refer to this complexity when they point to individual, socio-cultural, family and educational variables that shape female science learners’ images of themselves and others.

Socialisation and the home are regarded as key contexts responsible for the disenfranchisement of girls as science participants (Ndunda and Munby, 1991); the dynamics at play in these two areas result in girls’ being sidelined in science education. The girls in this research grow up in homes with particular cultural values and are raised with the message that science is for boys as is evidenced by the reported opinions of their parents regarding the careers they want their children to aspire to. They thus enter the science classroom ‘on the back foot’. Alton-Lee, Nuthall and Patrick (1993) refer to this when pointing out that, as a consequence of the socialisation process, discrepancies in the participation of girls as compared to boys in science result from girls’ being micro-manipulated in society in three ways: by the socio-cultural process in society, by the classroom and by the science curriculum.

The influence of socio-cultural factors and the need for gender equity is widely discussed in the literature relating to the issue of the involvement of girls in science. Gender issues do not exist in isolation (Kreinberg and Lewis, 1996) and there are startling disparities amongst people in developing countries doing science education (Cobern, 1998). In this aspect of the ‘gender in science’ debate, Davis (1991) considers power an important social construct. In South Africa, the history of gender issues in science gains more importance when seen against the background of racial segregation, social engineering and the power relations stemming from the Apartheid policies of the past, as well as from socio-economic factors.

When examining gender equity in school science one cannot ignore the influence of gendered, stereotypical gender roles and the effect they have on participants in the educational process. Granstam and Frostfeldt (1990) and Rennie, Parker and Hildebrand (1991) point out that where schools had low levels of girls’ involvement in science, two factors were at work: cultural values that don’t promote equity, and limited resources which restricted opportunities. They caution, however, about the liberal use of statistics because of the need to contextualise cultural values.

It is clear that one needs to be circumspect when applying statistics about the reasons for the lack of girls’ involvement in science gathered in Western countries onto Third World and developing

countries because of the difference in the socio-cultural context and its influence on education. In comparing patterns in science achievement on an international level, Keeves and Kotte (1996) note that the patterns observed in the differences between girls’ and boys’ performance were the effects of societal forces and educational practice. In this respect, the quality of science teachers and teaching strategies, the resources available in the education system and the soundness of the structures responsible for the delivery of education become an important context for the participation and performance of girls and boys in science.

2.5 Concluding remarks

The above framework highlights the issues that researchers are raising in the debate about the role of gender in science and science teaching. It forms part of the broader topic of the theories of science education and the contexts within which they are formulated. In this chapter I have shown that, since society constructs gender roles that need to be reflected on when considering their impact on girls’ and boys’ engagement with science, gender has a socio-cultural context. I have also indicated how parents and peers in socio-cultural settings like homes and school playgrounds, using language, continue to subscribe to gender stereotypes in framing the gendering of science. I have concurred with the view that science has a male image and have shown that this has been used as a focal point for feminists who contend that women have been marginalised in science, thereby drawing attention to the ideological and socio-political factors in the debate. The chapter also confirms the role that teachers and learners in science classrooms play in perpetuating the gendering of science and reveals the impact that the curriculum has on the phenomenon.

It is my opinion that social constructionism adequately describes how learners ‘acquire’ a science identity. There isn’t one, all-inclusive theory of science education that fully encapsulates all the ways in which the gendered nature of science is ‘learnt’ at all levels in the education system. The dominant construction of gender and normative gender roles intercedes and mediates the development of learners’ science identities and the manner in which their scientific knowledge grows. My focus in this thesis is on the social processes and influences through which learners develop their gendered notions of science and how science itself, in its current form, perpetuates this male image.

The way in which gender is interpreted in society leads to gender role expectations and creates gender stereotypes which play themselves out in aspects of society’s functioning, like in education, specifically science education. The meaning that society attaches to the term ‘gender’ has differing implications for different communities and plays itself out in cultural settings. Whatever the setting, the different expectations shape the directions of the lives of girls and women and boys and men. It establishes expected behaviour patterns and appears to channel girls’ aspirations into what

society expects. Gender stereotypes are the models that influence and guide learner behaviour and gender norms are regulatory mechanisms that set behaviour patterns. As a vehicle through which expected behaviour patterns are channeled, culture presents a powerful social construct. Through the norms and values of society, as ensconced in differing traditions, culture presents a vehicle for reproducing the gendered nature of science. Ceremonies and religious practices are permeated with and influence the perceptions of the role of women and girls in society and create different contexts within which the gender debate plays itself out.

In the social framework within which gender plays a role, the family is the core unit in society, the site where the child first encounters gender and in which gender role expectations are established. The clothes that the child is dressed in and the toys that are presented to it all conspire to create and develop the gender persona. Parents and siblings treat boys and girls differently and expect different reactions from boys and girls in certain settings.

The rocky relationship of science with gender and women in science in particular is an important focus of the struggle for gender equality. The masculine image that science has developed over the years, because of the significant role that men continue to play in its processes and procedures, whilst under pressure, continues. The progress that has been made in breaking down the masculine image of science is due, in no small part, to the struggle for gender equality that has made the ‘women in science’ debate a key part of the call for the greater and more equitable involvement of women in society generally. It is interesting to note that, in a recent development in the United Kingdom and Australia, there is a concern that boys are falling behind. The general consensus is that, because of the concerted focus on girls, they have progressed to the extent that their academic achievements in classrooms surpass those of boys (Reay, 2001). Boys’ issues are being sidelined and there is a movement to refocus on boys (Skelton, 2002; Gordon, 2006). This has been perceived, especially amongst feminists, as a move by education systems to ‘take their foot off the gas’ with regard to gender equity issues for girls (Keddie, 2010; Reay, 2001). There is the added concern amongst feminists that ‘minority group’ girls, those who are discriminated against because of race and class, will be forgotten and fall further behind in the stakes for gender equity (Keddie, 2010).

The dual function of education presents challenges with regard to the masculine image of science. Whereas the fine balance between continuity and change has to be maintained, it appears that education is losing the battle in this area, since the masculine image of science persists. Whilst progress has been made with regard to the performance of girls in science, the challenge lies in changing perceptions about the masculine image of science; it is here that schooling is under- achieving. One of the challenges in this respect is the role that teachers play in reproducing the gendered image of science through their delivery of the curriculum and the influence of their own

‘gender baggage’ on the way that they teach and interact with learners regarding gender. The contribution of the schooling system in transforming the gender identities of learners with regard to science is inadequate also because learners enter the system with gender perceptions shaped at home, which are then rubber-stamped in the classroom. The masculine image of the science curriculum and the processes and procedures in the delivery of science lessons, compounded by the actions of teachers, don’t help to change learners’ constructions of their science identities. In short, the schooling system appears to be reproducing the status quo with regard to gender and science.

The social context of learners’ lives, where issues like poverty, racism and other socio-cultural differences play themselves out in local environments, impact on their lives and influence their gender perceptions. A girl’s gender, which already puts her at a disadvantage in some circumstances, is then further impacted by the effects of her poverty, other socio-cultural differences and ethnicity. All these conspire to limit her aspirations.

The gender inequalities inherent in the outcomes that the masculine image of science and science education has spawned through social practices and actions in social institutions persist, and society’s response to them continues to be inadequate.