The Lake Tahoe Watershed Project: A summer program for female middle school students in math and science.

Over the past two decades, the under-representation of girls in math and science coursework and careers has been the focus of interest and research by a number of sources (American Association of University Women, 1991, 1992; Callahan, 1986, 1991; NAEP, 1988; Reis and Callahan, 1989; Strauss and Subotnik, 1994). The varying groups conducting research have revealed a portrait of inequitable achievement and interest between boys and girls in math and science which, though improving, still has resulted in the under-representation of women in scientific and mathematical careers. According to the U. S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (Wilson, 1996), although almost half the American labor force are women (ages 25 - 64), they comprise only 8% of all United States' engineers, 27% of the natural scientists, 32% of the mathematical and computer scientists and only 9% of the physicists.

How does one account for such dramatic disparity in career choices between genders? Several related factors appear to reach a critical stage during the middle school years of young women. According to a study by Fennema and Sherman (1977), girls' math confidence and their achievement in math drop in the middle school years, the drop in confidence preceding the decline in achievement. More recently, Strauss and Subotnik (1994) determined in their study of male and female teenagers that on a scale of 1 to 4 (4=usually comfortable), males averaged 3.1 and females 2.8 in their comfort level for sharing a solution in math class and the degree of confidence before a math exam averaged 2.6 for males and 2.1 for females. These studies demonstrate that math confidence is more highly correlated with math performance than any other affective variable.

A study conducted by the NAEP (1988) reported that gender differences in perceptions of being good at math increases with age: third-grade girls and boys think they are good in math at about the same percentages. However, by seventh grade, 57% of the girls said they were good in math compared to 64% of the boys. By eleventh grade the gap widens to 48% of girls versus 60% of boys. Moreover, certain gender differences tend to appear during adolescence that were not evident at earlier ages, such as boys scoring consistently higher than girls on math and science aptitude tests. These differences are especially marked among gifted students (Reis & Callahan, 1989).

In addition to young women feeling less confident in their ability, another barrier to their going into math and science is self-image. Many young women consider math and science primarily male activities. Studies by the National Science Board indicate that gender stereotypes remain strong in science classrooms. They report that in mixed gender classes, boys continue to assume leadership roles, particularly in hands-on science activities. Teachers also call on boys to answer questions more frequently than girls (Brophy, 1985). The studies report that girls in the same science classroom had fewer experiences "actually doing science, and less exposure to a variety of scientific equipment. Girls tend to feel uncomfortable using equipment and working on projects which boys seem to already know how to use" (Reis & Callahan, 1989). Researcher Jane Kahle found that boys in science classes were already more familiar and experienced with science topics and equipment. The advantages based on out-of-school experiences were furthered in the classroom.

Brophy (1985) found that the classroom environment has a greater impact on females than males. Studies by Myra and David Sadker (1994) found that "at all grade levels, in all communities, and in all subject areas, boys dominated classroom communication" (p. 54). High achieving girls received the least attention. "For older girls at the high school level, teachers were reported to play a greater role than boys in deciding whether to major in science" (p. 56). According to a study done through Radcliffe and the Educational Testing Service (ETS), more women would major in science if they received more encouragement from schools and could be assured a career in science would not interfere with raising a family (Reis & Callahan, 1989). It is also recommended that young women see other women at work in math and science careers and look to them for direction, counseling and advice on the very real problems which gifted women face.

Purpose

To address some of the issues which confront self-concept and influence the choices of middle school age females, educators at Sierra Nevada College, Incline Village, NV wrote a proposal to the Department of Energy in March, 1993, to fund a two-year project designed to maintain the interest of two cohorts of high-achieving middle-school aged girls in math and science. This project was called the Lake Tahoe Watershed Project since it focused on exploration and experimentation related to the watershed and drainage area of Lake Tahoe, Nevada. This article describes the organization, curriculum, instruction, and outcomes of the project, describing both elements which students evaluated very favorably and those which needed to be changed during the second summer.

Project description

The project was designed to provide a non-threatening, all-female environment in which the participants could see and learn from female scientists and science teachers who were models of women successful in a math or science career. Since the classes were all female, competition with males for instructors or discussion time was not an issue. The planned outcomes of the project were for the students to demonstrate enthusiasm and evidence of experiencing success in daily math and science activities; exhibit evidence of positive interactions with peers while engaging in activities relating to science and mathematics; participate in the presentation of reports and supportive materials demonstrating their successful completion of the tasks described above; and demonstrate a continued interest in science and mathematics by continuing to enroll in courses prerequisite to college study and subsequent careers in those disciplines.

Organization of the project

Students learned about the project from their counselors, gifted program, or science teachers, all of whom were sent information by the college project directors. To qualify, participants submitted two letters of recommendations from teachers and wrote an essay describing their experience with mathematics or science, and explained why they wanted to participate in the summer program. A screening team of the project's instructors and directors evaluated the applications and made the selections. Criteria used to select the girls were: evidence of interest, initiative, and motivation in completing prior science and/or math projects; letters of recommendation; personal knowledge of the girls' work and work habits as shared through conversation with recommending teachers; evidence of parental support in relation to driving the girls to the project sessions, a distance of approximately one-hundred miles a day round trip for the majority; a balanced grade-level distribution. An effort was also made to include at least two students from the same location, so they could provide support for one another both personally and in terms of transportation in this wide geographic area.

Curriculum and Instruction

The summer's curriculum was designed to be authentic, relevant to the environment, and varied in content and process. Experiments and concepts to which participants were introduced, such as testing water for nitrates and ph, or building a solar cooker, gave students experience in doing science and math, as well as learning about those fields. Learning activities during both summers took place not only in Sierra Nevada College classrooms, but also in the natural laboratory of the Lake Tahoe Watershed. Students hiked to various creeks to collect samples of water, air, rocks, and soil, later testing and analyzing the samples using authentic scientific equipment within the college labs. Participants traveled together in a small van to more distant sites, where they swam in Lake Tahoe, did maintenance work at a snow station with a female biologist, and practiced orienteering. In addition, students developed a problem-based research project, sharing their findings with parents and friends.

Instructional strategies included self-pacing, student choice, small group discussions, and non-graded, hands-on activities.

A positive, cooperative environment was intentionally established at the outset with team-building activities and opportunities for social interaction during recreational events. Teachers were not only facilitators, but informed co-learners, as students and teachers used math and scientific methods and equipment to analyze samples of various natural elements. Teachers explained in detail how to use scientific apparatus to conduct lab and field work, alleviating student fears that they would break something or mess it up. The learning style preference of some of the high-achieving young women for independent work was fostered through journal writing and independent research.

What Worked

Students expressed their opinions about the project in post-summer evaluation forms and interviews. All planned outcomes appeared to be met. Specific features of the workshop which students identified as fun and exciting were: spending most of the time outside; being with girls who enjoyed science and math as much as they did; enjoying the teachers' styles; and doing so many hands-on activities.

Unexpected outcomes of the project included new insights articulated by the girls about themselves, the environment and the fields of science and mathematics. Several of the interviewees expressed more confidence in their ability to succeed at mathematics and science. One seventh-grader commented, "I was an alternate on the Math Counts team. I probably wouldn't have done that before..." Another exulted, "I'll be ahead of everybody else when I go to advanced classes." A third indicated, "I'm more comfortable when I do my normal science or math. It's easier." Students also gained insights into math and science. A ninth-grader commented. "I found out I could do a lot more with mathematics out of class and apply it to things. I always thought before it was `When am I going to use this?" One seventh grader said, "I didn't know the two (mathematics and science) were linked before."

Practical details supporting the positive aspects of the first summer in the view of the staff were: having two project codirectors, so that one could always be on-site for the summer activities; using vans to transport large groups of students, a time which fostered bonding among the young women; combining indoor and outdoor settings for activities; maintaining an all-female faculty; holding a final day series of presentations for parents and the college community; and having a one week break in the middle of the four week instructional block.

What Needed to be Changed

Changes were made as a result of the first summer's evaluations in the criteria for selection, instructional groupings, faculty time allocations, and expectations of individual work. The cross-grade span of five years characterizing the first summer cohort, including a preponderance of sixth-graders, made it difficult for the older teens to proceed at a challenging pace and level of complexity, particularly during whole-group instruction. During the second summer, a conscious effort was made to select more eighth and ninth-graders, since one of the goals of the project was to interest girls in science-based careers and older applicants for the project were closer to making critical coursework decisions which would influence their readiness for mathematics or science careers. Groups were based on the experience, interest, and skill levels of the participants. One group had a majority of the older students and moved at a faster pace. Each instructor was responsible for half the group during instruction on a daily basis. Independent projects were also developed in a different way the second summer. Projects were discussed from the first day of the the first week rather than late in the second week. Instructors acted as mentors as each participant developed a hypothesis and tested it in preparation for the final day's presentations to the parents and college community. Time was provided both in the college library and computer lab as well as during field work for individuals to pursue their questions. As a result, the final projects were generally superior in both breadth and depth to projects developed during the first summer.

Implications for Schools

Many of the ideas and activities implemented in the Tahoe Watershed Project could easily be transplanted to middle schools. For instance, schools could allow bright female students to work together on science projects and could identify female mentors and role models. Schools could help this group of young women gain confidence by providing guided practice with equipment prior to using it in class; by maintaining a psychologically safe environment in which to reflect upon, discuss and explore questions and solve problems; and by allowing young women more preparation time before making presentations or responding to questions. Teachers could examine their classroom interaction patterns to make sure female students received as many discussion opportunities as male students. Teachers could underscore the connections between math and science, as well as their relevance of these disciplines to daily life. These connections could easily inspire young women to pursue independent research in areas of interest (with the choice of doing the project with a partner), a natural springboard to finding out more about potential careers in math and science. Parents could help by understanding the needs of their daughters and helping them to identify summer opportunities such as the Lake Tahoe Watershed Project. Being a part of a peer group which valued science was an important linchpin to the learning environment of the Watershed Project; a math and/or science club with a sizable contingent of young women members could help to create the same sense of belongingness for these students during the school year. It is methods such as these which made the Lake Tahoe Watershed Project successful and can make math and science appealing to more young women during middle school and in the future as career options.

REFERENCES

AAUW Educational Foundation (1991, June) Equitable Treatment of Girls and Boys in the Classroom. American Association of University Women Equity Brief.

AAUW Educational Foundation & National Education Association (1992). The AAUW Report: How schools shortchange girls. American Association of University Women, Washington, D.C.

AWM, Association for Women in Mathematics Newsletter (1996 - 1997). Volume 26, 1-4.

Brophy, J. (1985) Interaction of male and female students with male and female teachers. In L.C. Wilkinson & C.B. Marret (Eds) Gender influences in classroom interaction (115-142). Orlando, FL.: Academic Press.

Callahan, C.M. (1991). An Update on gifted females. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14 (3), 284-311.

Callahan, C.M. (1986) The Special Needs of Gifted Girls. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18, 105-117.

Cramer, J. & Oshima T.C. (1992) Do gifted females attribute their math performance differently than other students? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16 (1), 15-35.

Curtis Gowan, J. (1978) President's Message. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 22 (4). Ellis, J.L. & Willensky, J.M. (1990) Girls, women and giftedness. New York: Trillium Press.

Fennema, E. & Sherman, J. (1977) Sex related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14 (1), 51-71.

Fields, S. (1994) Gender Equity Act is just pure feminist pork. Reno Gazette Journal.

Finkel, D. (1993) The Wiz. The Washington Post Magazine.

Hoff Summer, S. (1994) The myth of schoolgirls' low self-esteem. The Wall Street Journal.

Junge, M.E. & Dretzke B.J. (1995) Mathematical self-efficacy and gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 22-28.

Kerr, B.A. (1985) Smart girls, gifted women: Special guidance concerns. Roeper Review, 8, 30-33.

Kerr, B.A. (1985) Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Psychology Publishing Company.

Lawson Smith, D. & Carpenter J.N. (1991) Indicator of science and mathematics education in Nevada. Nevada Department of Education.

Levy, D.S. (1991) Why Johnny Might Grow up Violent and Sexist. Time Magazine.

Miller, N.B. & Silverman Kreger, L. & Falk, F. (1994) Emotional development, intellectual ability, and gender. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 18 (1), 20-38.

Morrow, C. (1994, Oct.) Hearing female voices in the mathematics classroom. Conference presentation. Association of Teachers of Mathematics in New England.

National Assessment of Education Progress (1988) The science report card: Elements of risk recovery, trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

National Science Board (1991) Science & engineering indicators. Washington, D.C.: National Science Board.

Ravaglia, R., Suppes, P., Stillinger, C. & Alper, T. (1995) Computer-Based Mathematics and Physics for Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 7-13.

Reis, S.M. & Callahan, C.M.(1989) Gifted females: They've come a long way-or have they? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12 (2), 99-117.

Reis, S.M. & Dobyns, S. (April, 1991) An annotated bibliography of non-fictional books and curricular materials to encourage gifted females. Roeper Review, 13 (3), 129-134.

Reis, S.M. (April 1991) We Can't Change What We Don't Recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Roeper Review, 13(3), 83-89.

Ruskai, M.B.(1994) Myths about the role of marital status in career advancement. AWM, 24(3), 9-11.

Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994) Failing at fairness.' How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Silverman, L.K. (1993) Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver: Love Publishing Co

Silverman, L.K. (1986) What happens to the gifted girl? Critical issues in gifted education. C. June Maker (ed.) Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Strauss S.M. & Subotnik R.F.(1994) Gender differences in behavior and achievement. AWM Newsletter, 24(3), 12-25.

Terwilliger, J.S. & Titus, J.C. (1995) Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematical talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39 (1), 29-35.

White, P.E. (1992) Women and minorities in science and engineering: an update. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

(1991) Update: Undeserved gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 284-295

Jane Rohrer is Director of the Teacher Education Program at Sierra Nevada College. Her research interests are underachieving gifted students and environmental factors which lead to underachievement. Sue Welsch is the Chair of the Science Department at Sierra Nevada College. She has been interested in mentoring young women, particularly in math and science.

Manuscript submitted January, 1997. Revision accepted November, 1997.