The New "3Rs": gender and the science and engineering classroom.

Abstract

At the dawn of the 21st century why do we still have to talk about gender equality in education? Although a ban on gender discrimination in public schools was imposed by Title IX of the Education Amendment over twenty years ago, gender bias in our educational institutions is alive and thriving, not just in K-12 classrooms, but in science and engineering education, too. Not only are women less likely to choose these technical fields in our universities, but they are also less likely to graduate with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering or go on to earn graduate degrees in these fields. This paper addresses what we as professors can do to improve gender equality in science and engineering classrooms by adopting "The New 3Rs of Gender Equity," which stress recognizing the gender problem, reevaluating our teaching methods, and reconstructing our classrooms accordingly.

**********

At the dawn of the new millennium, why do we still have to be concerned about gender discrimination in the classroom? After all, as far back as 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendment outlawed gender discrimination in public school programs and courses. With this federal control in place, wouldn't a graduation awards list like this one be a joke?

Kindergarten A wards

Boys' Awards                   Girls' Awards
Very Best Thinker              All-Around Sweetheart
Most Eager Learner             Sweetest Personality
Most Imaginative               Cutest Personality
Most Scientific                Biggest Heart

Unfortunately, this wasn't a joke, and it wasn't from our grandmother's time. It appeared in the Wall Street Journal in June 1994 (Devan). How sobering to see boys still rewarded for being smart and girls for being likable. Even a brief overview of research confirms the legitimacy of concern about gender bias at all educational levels. For example, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) has published two watershed reports on inequities in public school K-12 education for girls. The first, How Schools Shortchange Girls (1992), confirmed that "girls are systematically, if unintentionally, discouraged from a wide range of academic pursuits" (qtd. in Verhulst 11). The AAUW follow-up report in 1998, Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children, indicates that although progress has been made in areas such as the increased enrollment of girls in math and science courses, gender bias in public schools is still very alive: "For girls an equitable education is in many respects still an elusive goal, in sight yet out of reach" (Executive Summary 7). Such disheartening assessments are echoed in research by such education experts as David and Myra Sadker, who in 1995 published Failing at Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls. The title of an article published in 2000 sums up their decades of educational gender research: "Gender Equity: Still Knocking at the Classroom Door" (D. Sadker).

Of course, the AAUW reports and the Sadker's research don't focus only on the women in science and engineering programs who are of special concern to those of us at technological universities. Is gender a limiting factor here, too? Particularly useful in the area of science and engineering education are the studies published every two years by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering. The good news in the most recent study (2000) is that over a ten-year period the numbers of women in science and engineering higher education increased by 4%. However, women still constituted only 19% of the total undergraduate enrollment in engineering programs (Women, Minorities:2000, Ch. 2). Furthermore, women earned fewer than 40% of all graduate degrees in science and engineering (Women, Minorities:2000, Ch. 4; NSF "Despite Increases"). Sadly, it appears that gender is indeed a discriminating factor for our female science and engineering education students, just as it is in education as a whole. Why are women not completing science and engineering degree programs at comparable rates to men, and what can we as educators do about it?

One way to improve the gender climate in science and engineering classrooms--and in all classrooms--is by adopting "The New 3Rs of Gender Equity," which stress recognizing the problem, reevaluating teaching methods, and reconstructing classrooms accordingly. First, it's important to recognize that gender inequity is still a problem in our classrooms just as it is in our larger society. Our classrooms are not the neutral sites for learning we might desire, but are microcosms of our society and its inequities. Just as there is a gender imbalance in science and engineering education, there is a disparity in the U.S. workforce, where in 1997 women constituted only 23% of the science and engineering labor force while representing 46% of the total labor force (NSF Women, Minorities:2000, Ch. 5). As professors and students we enter the classroom with gender identities assumed or given by the discourses of our society, and we do not simply "shed our identities at the door with our coats" (Rakow 10).

Unfortunately, even the most well-meaning teachers are sometimes unaware of the subtle gender biases at work in their classrooms. Sadker called this "gender blindness" a "syntax of sexism so elusive that most teachers and students [are] completely unaware of its influences" (D. Sadker 80). Before changes in methods or curriculum can occur, both students and teachers must recognize the fallacy of preconceived notions of what our society deems as "natural" or "appropriate" behaviors for men and women. If repeated often enough, statements like "women can't do science" or "women aren't good at math" assume an aura of credibility. Byrne called these unexamined and imprecise assertions "snarks" and warned that their uncritical acceptance can influence classroom practices and career choices (qtd. in Mayer-Smith 52). For example, the old snark that engineering is "men's work," makes choosing it as a profession an act of courage by women students, for it entails daring to be "different" than the social norm for women by choosing a profession offering more status, power, and financial security than traditional "women's work" (Henwood 36-37).

Another side to the gender inequity affecting science and engineering classrooms is recognizing that gender plays a significant role in the numbers of women professors at the front of those classrooms. The 2000 NSF study on women and minorities reflected that "within 4-year colleges and universities, female scientists and engineers hold fewer high-ranked positions than do their male counterparts" (51% of men and 24% of women were full professors), and that "women are also less likely than men to be tenured. Thirty-five percent of female scientists and engineers employed full time in 4-year colleges and universities had tenure compared with 60 percent of men" (Ch. 5). Rather than denying the realities of gender bias or patting ourselves on the back for the doors that have opened for women in science and engineering, it's time to recognize the inequities and, as Sadker notes, "recommit ourselves to finishing the job" (D. Sadker 83).

The second step in "finishing the job" is to reevaluate our classrooms to assess what must change, because studies continue to indicate that change is needed. For example, the 1992 AAUW study noted a huge drop in self esteem experienced by girls between elementary and high school, a trend which does not appear to be reversed at the college level. In fact, research by Hall and Sandier (1982), confirmed by Henes (1995), concludes that many women in science and engineering programs are discouraged by the "chilly climate" they receive in the classroom. At all instructional levels it is time for us to reevaluate our teaching materials and teaching behaviors.

First of all, it is crucial that all teaching materials display a positive attitude toward both genders to avoid identifying all standards and ideas as male. As Freeman and Boutte remind us, this is important because students spend at least 90% of their classroom time using instructional materials like texts or videos (25). Citing the 1993 work of Sadker, Sadker, and Long, they suggest that as educators we reevaluate our texts and supplements for six forms of gender bias: linguistic, stereotyping, invisibility, imbalance, fragmentation, and unreality. Linguistic bias involves using almost exclusively masculine terms, such as consistently referring to all engineers or scientists as "he." Stereotyping portrays females as dependent, passive, emotional, or important only in family roles. Invisibility, balance, and fragmentation refer to the presence or absence of women in our texts or consistently fragmenting their achievements away from the main body of the text as a unique occurrence. And, finally, unrealistic biases depict a world where, for example, women are always blissfully happy homemakers or incredible "Super Women" who somehow do it all. No matter how subtle these gender biases may appear, each can have a deadly affect on our women students (Freeman and Boutte 25-26).

Secondly, we must examine our teaching behaviors. Unfortunately, teachers do not always treat boys and girls the same in the classroom. Study after study shows that males at all levels are given more attention and constructive feedback, asked more questions, validated more openly, and favored with learning approaches that meet their ways of learning (Freeman and Boutte; Lockwood; Hannan; Lundeberg; Blasi). A recent article by Marshall and Reinhartz suggests three ways we can evaluate our teaching behaviors. First, they suggest working with a colleague as a peer reviewer and coach. This colleague comes to your classes, observes your interactions, identifies problems, and brainstorms with you on ways to change. Secondly, self-reflection can become an invaluable tool in identifying inappropriate behaviors. A videotape of your class can be used as a starting place for your personal review, or regular journal entries can be made and then revisited to track problems and progress. A third way involves self-assessment quizzes completed periodically to answer questions like "Do I interact differently [or more often] with boys than with girls? When?" Why?" and so on. A form of self-assessment suggested by Sadker, Sadker and Stulberg blends reflection and quizzing by working with a colleague to "code" your interactions with students in class. You both agree that four kinds of responses can be given to students: explicit praise, explicit criticism, remediation (corrective remarks), and acceptance (kind of a non-response like "okay"). The colleague comes to your class and writes a "b" or "g" to indicate each time a student contributes verbally to class. The colleague also notes which type of response you gave (66-67). Honestly reviewing this data can reveal areas needing improvement.

After recognizing that gender bias is alive and well in our classrooms and re-evaluating our teaching materials and methods, we must implement changes to reconstruct our classrooms. A 1995 study at the University of California, Davis, reminds us how necessary a task this reconstruction is. The study revealed five major reasons why women leave or become discouraged with engineering, three of which are especially relevant to gender bias in the classroom, namely, negative experiences in laboratory classes, a "cold" classroom climate, and lack of role models on engineering faculties (Henes). What strategies will help to "warm up" classrooms which women in science and engineering often perceive as "chilly," patronizing, or exclusionary?

First of all, set classroom ground rules that create an atmosphere of respect and acceptance of others and self. Students must know that remarks about another's weight, complexion, hair, etc., are inappropriate and not allowed. They should also be shown that self-deprecating "put downs" undermine what they have to say and can lead to serious long-term problems like eating disorders and alcohol or drug abuse (Sadker, Sadker, and Stuhlberg 68; Cowher 37-38). Of course, as professors, our behaviors must also be monitored to reconstruct more gender-friendly classrooms that encourage women in science and engineering programs. Two recent articles in a key electrical engineering journal are insightful in their summaries of discussions with women engineers and how they became interested in engineering, experiences they had in school, and how they succeeded in the workplace. Recurring themes emerged: none of them had been encouraged by high school teachers and guidance counselors, most had felt isolated and unwelcome in their college engineering classes and labs, and that even at the graduate school level, "people had the attitude that [by getting the Ph.D.] I was taking a place that a man really needed" (Geppert, "No Rose Garden" 42; also Geppert, "Career "). These comments are echoed in the 1998 NSF study which suggested why women drop out of science and engineering: "To be faced with the prospect of four years of relative isolation and perceived male hostility on the one hand, and the abrupt withdrawal of familiar sources of praise, encouragement, and reassurance by faculty on the other, is the most common reason for the loss of self-confidence that makes able women in the sciences and engineering vulnerable to field switching" (Seymour and Hewitt; qtd. in NSF Women, Minorities: 1998, Ch. 3). As professors it's important for us to warm up our classrooms not just to encourage women to enter science and engineering programs, but to help them graduate in them.

So how do we begin to reconstruct more supportive and fair classrooms? First, we can conduct better class discussions. To insure that we aren't falling into the pattern of directing more questions to men than women and allowing men to dominate all discussions, Marshall and Reinhartz suggest devising a simple check system to keep track of which students we call on. Keep a set of cards with student names on them, and then draw them at random during Q & A sessions. Once a student responds, a mark is made on the card to indicate his or her involvement. Periodically reviewing the cards will help to ensure that all students are being given opportunities to participate. Sadker, Sadker and Stulberg suggest that we simply increase the wait time when we ask questions. They note that teachers usually wait only nine tenths of a second for a student to answer, a behavior which favors males who are more likely to jump into classroom conversation first (67-68). Another improvement in classroom discussions is to give constructive feedback to all of our students, not just the men. Research shows that male students not only receive more praise, but they also get more helpful criticism, more help with the process of how to improve, whereas teachers more often do the task for females, ignore them with non-helpful comments like "okay," or simply tell them their answers are wrong (Hannan 103; Freeman and Boutte 24). As the Sadkers conclude, when girls consistently get less attention and a poorer quality of feedback in discussions, the result is a lowering of their self-esteem and overall level of achievement (Failing).

Another facet of reconstructing our classrooms is to try to address different learning styles of our men and women students. According to Marshall and Reinhartz, females tend to learn better in a cooperative setting and males in a competitive one, so using just one style will shut some students out. Adopting a varied approach--lectures supplemented by discussions, team or group work, and individual competition--has been shown to improve learning. For example, a 1994 study shows that using a variety of learning styles results in "increased comprehension and application of scientific concepts for both female and male students" (Sundberg and Dini; qtd. in Blasi 19). Blasi's 1996 study on gender equity in science classrooms suggests some specific ways to incorporate different learning styles in the traditional lecture-style classroom. Blasi (and earlier, Hannan) points out that incorporating more writing is an excellent way to create a non-threatening space for women to foster their learning; to give them a voice regardless of gender, learning style, or classroom performance; and to provide them time to process and apply their classroom experiences. Peer exchange of writing projects, collaborative papers, and discussion groups can also put more emphasis on collaborative learning to balance the individualistic style of the lecture format (Blasi). Small student discussion groups give more students a chance to speak and be listened to, allow both men and women to assume positions of temporary authority, and permit students to discuss topics in language they are comfortable with (Shalleck 230-31). Care must be taken in forming classroom groups, however. Gender-specific groups can create a "boys against girls" mentality (Freeman and Boutte 27; Sadker, Sadker, and Stulberg 68). On the other hand, mixed-gender groups don't automatically assure that males won't continue to dominate discussion and activity, so it's wise to vary how groups are formed throughout the semester, such as by gender, by major, by certain skills, and so on (Lockwood 27; Hannan 105-6). Furthermore, the group's process of completing the task should be assessed by the teacher as much as the product so that the students have to be accountable for how they are interacting with each other (Tonso 150; Pollina 54).

In addition to setting classroom ground rules, adopting more inclusive methods of classroom interaction, and addressing a variety of learning styles, a final way to reconstruct our classrooms is to provide female role models to challenge the traditional masculine image of science and engineering. One strategy is to supplement our primary texts with other reading material, such as articles written by women scientists, descriptions of new products developed by women, or newspaper or trade journal clippings that spotlight the work of women engineers. Another idea is to include guest speakers, actual women scientists and engineers, or, if possible, take field trips into their very "real world" of planning, experimenting, and creating (Lockwood 27). We can also create instant female role models in our classes by assuring that our women students take on as many leadership roles in the class as men, rather than always acting as the group secretary or runner. And, finally, we can provide positive female role models in our classrooms by renewing efforts to recruit and retain more women science and engineering professors. In addition to networking to recruit more women to open positions and serving on the search committees that fill them, we can hold gender workshops to increase awareness of gender-related issues, create support groups for women faculty to help lessen feelings of isolation, and institute mentorship programs for new or untenured women faculty (Trautner; Henes).

At the beginning of the 21st century, it's past time for us to get serious about gender issues in our society and how they affect our classrooms. It is time for us to adopt "The New 3Rs" and recognize that gender inequity is still a very real problem in our science and engineering classrooms, reevaluate our teaching methods and materials, and reconstruct our classrooms to meet the challenge. Our students deserve equal treatment and opportunity, and the science and engineering professions deserve to have the best people they can get, and that means men and women.

Works Cited

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Gender Gaps: Where Our Schools Fail Our Children. Washington, DC: AAUW, 1998. (Executive Summary Available at: http://www.aauw.org/2000/GGES.pdf

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. How Schools Shortchange Girls. New York: Marlowe, 1992.

Blasi, Laura. "Equity in the Science Classroom: Writing Race and Gender into the Equation." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 16.1-2 (1996): 16-23.

Cowher, Salene J. "Recognizing and Addressing Gender Issues in the Classroom." Journal of Humanistic Education and Development 34 (September 1995): 35-41.

Divan, K. "Chart of Kindergarten Awards." The Wall Street Journal 5 Dec. 1994: B1.

Freeman, Nancy K., and Gloria S. Boutte. "Eliminating Gender Bias in the Classroom." Kappa Delta Pi Record 3.1 (1996): 24-27.

Geppert, Linda. "Career Perspectives of Six Women Engineers." IEEE Spectrum 36.12 (Dec. 1, 1999): 69-77.

---. "The Uphill Struggle. No Rose Garden for Women in Engineering." IEEE Spectrum 32.5 (May 1, 1995): 40-50.

Hall, R.M., and B. R. Sandier. "The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?" Association of American Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women. Washington, DC, 1982: 1-22.

Hannan, Dennis J. "Gender Equity in the American Classroom: Where are the Women?" English Journal 84.6 (Oct. 1, 1995): 103-106.

Henes, Robby, et al., "Improving the Academic Environment for Women Engineering Students Through Faculty Workshops." Journal of Engineering Education 84.1 (Jan. 1995): 59-67.

Henwood, Flis. "Engineering Difference: Discourses on Gender, Sexuality and Work in a College of Technology." Gender and Education 10.1 (1998): 35-49.

Lockwood, Jeffrey F. "Creating Gender-Friendly Astronomy Classrooms." Mercury 23.1 (1994): 25-28.

Lundeberg, Mary Anna. "You Guys are Overreacting: Teaching Prospective Teachers about Subtle Gender Bias." Journal of Teacher Education 48.1 (1997): 55-62.

Mayer-Smith, Jolie, Erminia Pedretti, and Janice Woodrow. "Closing of the Gender Gap in Technology Enriched Science Education: A Case Study." Computers & Education 35 (2000): 51-63.

National Science Foundation. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2000. Arlington, VA, 2000 (NSF 00-327). (Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm)

---. "Despite Increases, Women and Minorities Still Underrepresented in Undergraduate and Graduate S&E Education." Data Brief. By Kristen Olson. Division of Sciences Resources Studies. NSF 99-320. (15 Jan. 1999). (Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/databrf/sdb99320.htm)

---. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1998. Arlington, VA, 1998 (NSF 99-338). (Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99338/access/toc.htm)

Pollina, Ann. "Closing the Gender Gap." Instructor 105.6 (March 1996): 54.

Rakow, Lana F. "Gender and Race in the Classroom: Teaching Way Out of Line." Feminist Teacher 6.1: 10-13.

Rich, Adrienne. On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose 1966-1978. New York: W. W. Norton Company, 1979.

Sadker, David. "Gender Equity: Still Knocking at the Classroom Door." Equity & Excellence in Education 33.1 (2000): 80-83.

Sadker, Myra, and David Sadker. Failing at Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls. New York: Simon & Schuster's Sons, 1995.

Sadker, Myra, David Sadker, and L. Long. "Gender and Educational Equality." Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. Ed. J. A. Banks and C. A. McGree Banks. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1993. 111-28.

Sadker, Myra, David Sadker, and Lisa M. Stulberg. "Fair and Square? Creating a Nonsexist Classroom." Instructor 102.7 (March 1, 1993): 44-46, 67-68.

Seymour, Elaine and Nancy M. Hewitt. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, 1997.

Shalleck, Ann. "Feminist Theory and Feminist Method: Transforming the Experience of the Classroom." The American University Journal of Gender & the Law 7.2: 229-33.

Sundberg, M.D., and M. L. Dini. "Science Majors vs. Nonmajors: Is There a Difference?" Journal of College Science Teaching 22.5 (1993): 299-304.

Tonso, Karen L. "Student Learning and Gender." Journal of Engineering Education 85.2 (April 1, 1996): 143-150.

Trautner, Janice J., et al. "Women Faculty in Engineering: Changing the Academic Climate." Journal of Engineering Education 85.1 (Jan. 1, 1996): 45-51.

Verhulst, Kari Jo. "Why We Can't Ignore Gender Bias in the Classroom." Sojourners 28.4 (1999): 11-12.

Dr. Sneller is an Associate Professor of English in a science and engineering university, and teaches technical communications, freshman writing, and various American literature courses.