From: Linda Shore <lindas>
Message-Id: <199711121634.IAA23019@isaac.exploratorium.edu>
Subject: Re: Pinhole Daily Digest
To: pinhole@exploratorium.edu (Pinhole Listserv)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:34:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <n1332829478.7141a@Tesla.exploratorium.edu> from "Pinhole Listserv" at Nov 11, 97 11:03:32 pm
I'm thrilled to see all this interest in the issue of encourgaing
girls to get more involved in the physical sciences! After reading
all those great comments, I thought I'd add just a little more fuel
to the fire--
The uncomfortable issue of genetic differences came up. It's true
that many people (including myself) don't like to focus attention on
this factor. For me, it's because I've seen too many people dismiss
gender inequities as just something "in our genes." This thinking
can give us permission to avoid the deep thinking and hard work that
needs to be done when we focus too much on genetics.
Having said that, it is of course true that men and women appear to
be wired differently. You've heard the research -- men are better at
visual, 3D thinking, women are better verbally, etc. So does this
mean that men are better suited to do science?
Many feminists who study the history of science make an interesting
point -- that the very nature of scientific method may have evolved
the way it did because women were intentionally excluded for
thousands of years. Had women been allowed to fully participate from
the very start, the very nature of scientific discovery may have been
different. (It's hard to imagine how things would be different --
but it's an interesting hypothesis.) Since the nature of science is
more consistent with male ways of thinking, women are turned off by
it today.
Sheila Tobias (a sociologist specializing in gender) looked at the
issue of why girls avoid science in a somewhat different way. Her
thesis ( in her book, "They're Not Dumb, They're Different") is that
gender inequities in science stem directly from the way that science
is traditionally taught. In her studies, she sent university people
with strong science backgrounds into college humanities classes and
people with strong humanities backgrounds into college science
classes. Her subjects were asked to take the classes and keep a
journal describing their reactions to the subject matter.
She found that humanities people were turned off by what they
perceived as the rigidity of the ideas -- e.g the "laws of nature,"
the memorization. There was no room in the science classes for
discussion, debate, or personal reflection. One women said she felt
her "IQ was high enough for science, but not her OQ" ("obedience
quotent"). Scientists were turned off by what they described as the
"mushiness" of the classes. In the humanities classes, everyone's
opinion was of equal value. There was never a "right answer." The
discussions seemed pointless and endless.
Tobias' conclusion? That whether by nature or nurture (she didn't
care), boys seek out answers by intellectualizing, arguing, and
analyzing. They seek single solutions to problems. Girls seek out
answers through the expression of feelings and through concensus
building and cooperation. Girls are more comfortable with multiple
solutions that satisfy many points of view. These are very very
gross generalizations, of course. But Tobias argues that this leads
to a situation where girls feel more at ease in humanities classes
and boys feel more at ease in science classes.
That's why its SO important to create learning environments where
science is not portrayed as a body of knowledge waiting to be
memorized. That's why cooperative learning is so important. Why all
students need to be encouraged to put their own ideas and theories on
the table for discussion. And that's why students need to see that
there can be many solutions to a science or mathematics problem. Not
only are these things a part of doing real science in the real world,
but they can really be helpful to girls.
Hope this helps
Linda Shore
Exploratorium