Towards Gender Equity in Mathematics Education: An ICMI Study

307 Pages·2002·1.95 MB·English

by  Gila Hanna (auth.), Gila Hanna (eds.)

owards ender quity in
T G E
Mathematics Education
New ICMI Studies Series
VOLUME3
Published under the auspices of The International Commission on Mathematical
Instruction under the general editorship of
MigueldeGuzmánPresident MogensNiss,Secretary
The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.
Towards Gender Equity in
Mathematics Education
An ICMI Study
Edited by
GILA HANNA
OISE,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
NEW YORK • BOSTON • DORDRECHT • LONDON • MOSCOW
eBookISBN: 0-306-47205-8
Print ISBN: 0-792-33921-5
©2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers
New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow
All rights reserved
No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without written consent from the Publisher
Created in the United States of America
Visit Kluwer Online at: http://www.kluweronline.com
and Kluwer's eBookstore at: http://www.ebooks.kluweronline.com
CONTENTS
URSULAM. FRANKLIN
Preface: Towards Gender Equity in Mathematics Education vii
GILAHANNA
Introduction: Towards Geneder Equity in Mathematics Education 1
Part One: General Issues
ELIZABETHFENNEMA
Mathematics, Gender, and Research 9
MARYGRAY
Gender and Mathematics: Mythology and Misogyny 27
GILAHC. LEDER
Gender Equity: A Reappraisal 39
HELGAJUNGWIRTH
Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology
as a Theoretical Framework for the Research on
Gender and Mathematics 49
SHARLEEND. FORBES
Curriculum and Assessment: Hitting Girls Twice? 71
ANNHIBNERKOBLITZ
Mathematics and Gender:
Some Cross-Cultural Observations 93
PartTwo: Cross-CulturalPerspectives
BARBROGREVHOLM
Women’s Participation in Mathematics Education in Sweden 111
KARIHAG
Gender and Mathematics Education in Norway 125
v
vi CONTENTS
BODILBRANNER, LISBETHFAJSTRUP,ANDHANNEKOCK
Gender and Mathematics Education in Denmark I39
LENAM. FINNE
Gender and Mathematics Education in Finland 155
CORNELIANIEDERDRENK-FELGNER
Gender and Mathematics Education:
A German View 179
JOSETTEADDA
Is Gender a Relevant Variable for Mathematics Education?
The French Case 197
ROSAMARIASPITALERI
Women’s Know-How and Authority:
Italian Women and Mathematics 205
TERESASMART
Gender and Mathematics in England and Wales 215
JANICEM. GAFFNEYANDJUDITHGILL
Gender and Mathematics in the Context of Australian Education 237
MEGANCLARK
Mathematics, Women, and Education in New Zealand 257
RUIFENTANG,QIMINGZHENG,ANDSHENQUANWU
Gender and Mathematics Education:
A Snapshot of China 271
CARLOSBOSCHANDMARIATRIGUEROS
Gender and Mathematics in Mexico 277
SUSANF. CHIPMAN
Female Participation in the Study of Mathematics:
The US Situation 285
Index 297
Authors’ Addresses 301
URSULA M. FRANKLIN CC, FRSC
PREFACE
THE REAL WORLD OF MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE,
AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
In this Preface, I would like to focus on what I mean by “education” and
speak about the models and metaphors that are used when people talk,
write, and act in the domain of education. We need to look at the assump-
tions and processes that the models and metaphors implicitly and explicitly
contain. I feel we should explore whether there is a specific thrust to mathe-
matics education in the here and now, and be very practical about it.
For me education is the enhancement of knowledge and understanding,
and there is a strong and unbreakable link between the two. There seems lit-
tle point in acquiring knowledge without understanding its meaning. Nor is
it enough to gain a deep understanding of problems without gaining the
appropriate knowledge to work for their solution. Thus knowledge and
understanding are each necessary conditions for the process of education,
but only when they are linked will the process bear fruit. Only in the bal-
anced interplay of knowledge and understanding can we expect to achieve
genuine education.
Fritz Schumacher, the author of Small is Beautiful, once spoke about a
pun embedded in his name. In German, “schumacher” literally means the
maker of shoes. But in order to do their work well — Schumacher reminded
us — the makers of shoes needed to know about feet, about the activities
and the lives of their customers, where the feet have to go, and what loads
the people carry. The knowledge of how to make good shoes is truly useful
only when linked to the lives of those who are to wear the shoes. This little
meditation by Schumacher has always impressed me as a profound illustra-
tion of the link between knowledge and understanding — a link easily bro-
ken and difficult to restore.
Once we recognize the link between knowledge and understanding, we
also recognize that knowledge is not neutral, objective, or value free. It is
impossible to assume that science, technology, mathematics, or any other
knowledge-seeking activity is neutral, because search, selection, and con-
struction of new knowledge begins with questions — and questions arise in
a given setting. Questions make sense only in a particular social and politi-
cal context.
In her recent book The Politics of Women’s Biology, Ruth Hubbard, a
just-retired Harvard biologist, points out that scientists are the socially sanc-
vii
viii URSULA M. FRANKLIN
tioned fact-makers. However, scientists constitute a very small and homo-
geneous social group which in the past was almost entirely male, almost
entirely white, and schooled in similar settings using similar or identical
texts. Yet, as their insights and the results of their research become “facts,”
they shape the whole society. On the other hand, when those who work out-
side the in-group of scientists — say, women who nurse, cook, or garden —
bring forward observations and insights, however well-tested and verified,
these contributions rarely achieve the status of facts.
I raise these issues to point out that the knowledge we try to convey and
the understanding we try to build is often very fragmented. The ways and
means by which knowledge is accumulated and understanding is developed
always structures the process of inquiry itself. Therefore it should not come
as a surprise that dominant views on gender, race, and ideology have pro-
foundly influenced scientific questions and scientific facts. In other words,
the teaching of mathematics, science, and technology will be truncated and
incomplete if it does not contain discussions about why certain problems
are of interest and fundable at particular points in time while other ques-
tions don’t seem to matter.
We also need to make it clear that experimental science in its reduction-
ist and abstracting mode is but one source of understanding of the world
around us. For instance, ecological problems show very clearly the limita-
tion of traditional science as a basis for understanding and acting on some
of the world’s most urgent tasks.
Let me turn now to the process of education itself and to the metaphors
we use to describe and discuss it. We often think about education as a natur-
al process with underlying patterns. The oldest and most commonly recog-
nized pattern is that of growth. Historically it was the natural cycle of grow-
ing, bearing fruit, maturity, decline, and decay that furnished metaphors for
the interpretation of human and social activities.
Anyone who has planted a garden or brought up children has come to
understand that growth can be nurtured and encouraged as well as hindered
and stunted — but growth can not be commandeered. You cannot force car-
rots to grow — though you can plant them in the appropriate soil, water
them, and care for them. Considerations of growth make it easier to accept
the limitations of human intervention. However, I must make it quite clear
at this point that bringing natural growth metaphors into our discussions of
education does not mean accepting determinism. While carrots will be car-
rots, boys will not be boys in any but the most basic anatomical sense.
What growth considerations do imply is recognition of and respect for the
inner dynamics of development and maturation.
With the Industrial Revolution came a significantly different pattern of
life — that of production. The new division of labour that took hold in 17th-
century industrial Britain constituted a social invention of major conse-
quence. In 1662, Sir William Petty, in his treatise on “The Wealth of Eng-
land,” pointed to the economic advantage of dividing the making of watches
PREFACE ix
into a number of distinct steps, each the responsibility of a separate worker.
One person would fashion the watch dials, one the handles, another the
springs or the cases. Not only was the making of a watch less time consum-
ing and costly, but workers in this new prescriptive production system need-
ed to be familiar only with the sub-task assigned to them. They could be
more easily trained and more readily replaced. Successful production
depended not only on clear prescription and specification of the sub-tasks
but also on effective management and planning. Much of the control of the
work moved from workers to managers and planners. As the production
mode of organizing work and people spread throughout industry as well as
public and private administration, it furnished a powerful model for work
and a new metaphor for social processes.
In today’s society, our image of life and education is shaped far more
strongly by a production model than by a growth model. Educators should
be aware of the impact of the production model on their responsibilities.
They should note that the demands for more and more frequent testing and
evaluation, for detailed marking schemes and curriculum specifications are
quality-control considerations, transferred from production experience to
education. Such demands may set up serious conflicts with the insights
flowing from a growth model of education. We cannot evade such conflicts
but need to debate and mediate them.
Maybe we should now step back from models and metaphors and ask:
“In terms of social purpose, what is the goal of education?” What would you
answer? How does society benefit from having “educated” citizens? After
all, in some discernible way, those who were “educated” by spending time
in appropriate institutions ought to be different from those who did not.
Educators hope and often claim that educated persons will function more
creatively, more productively, and more usefully within their society. Edu-
cation is expected to show how acceptable contributions to the community
at large can be made and what being a responsible member of the larger
collectivity means. Assuming that such are the social goals of education,
how does science and technology education fit into the picture? The core of
our consideration of science and technology is not the question who is
being educated, but why and how.
Though I am frequently very critical of applications of science, in particu-
lar technologies, it would not occur to me to say to anyone, “Forget about
mathematics or electronics — this is stuff for manipulative uses.” On the con-
trary, I advise especially those who are uneasy about a technology- dominated
society to become competent enough to not only “read technology” but read
between the lines, so that as citizens they can help to write a different tech-
nological text. But, as I see it, mathematics, science, and technology educa-
tion has not yet found the vocabulary or the critical methodology that could
be used for a textual analysis of science in a manner in which the use of
language is analysed today. If technological literacy is one of our aims then
such methods and discourses are urgently needed.
x URSULA M. FRANKLIN
Another aspect of technological literacy requires attention. What text-
books are being used? What are our primers? I recall a conversation a num-
ber of years ago with a colleague, who had just negotiated with one of the
big computer manufacturers a large gift of computers for his institution.
Since we respected each other, I could say to him, “Please, just stop for a
moment and take a deep breath and reflect. Think about the analogy of your
computer gift and the gift of free Bibles.” For the honourable purposes of
literacy and education, many good people in the not-so-distant past donated
Bibles to teach “heathens” to read. Of course, using the Bible as primer
means more than just teaching how to read.
Thus the newly developed literacy brought with it acculturation that often
resulted in the loss of indigenous culture. How different is the cultural pro-
gramming of the computer from that of the cultural programming of the
Bible? Should we not ask, How can we bring technological literacy to our stu-
dents, using our text and primers without imposing undisclosed techno-values
to the detriment or destruction of the students’ own cultures and values?
Rather than notteach for fear of indoctrination, we need to use many primers
and explicitly transparent programming, and elucidate the purpose, strengths,
and limitations of all devices or programs, and — most importantly — clarify
the social assumptions that are embedded in every design.
It will take many pieces to complete the puzzle of how to educate in and
for a world that is so decisively shaped by mathematics, science, and tech-
nology. We do have some of those pieces but many others still need to be
invented or developed, which reminds me of the joke about the school prin-
cipal who solemnly addressed an assembly by noting, “I see many who are
missing.” I too see much that is still missing and can only encourage all co-
operative efforts to bring more pieces into the puzzle.
An analogy can help here. Imagine a society which is striving for univer-
sal literacy. Young children go to school to learn to read at an early age. Yet
as they grow up, their teachers are not satisfied that they can read and com-
prehend a text or follow a set of written instructions. The responsible edu-
cator sees to it that the ability to read between the lines becomes part of the
quest for literacy — because literacy encompasses not only the ability to
read and understand the written text, but also to be mindful of what has not
been expressed, though possibly implied.
Will those who advocate greater technological literacy today teach their
students to understand technical instructions or will they teach them to read
between the lines of what they experience of mathematics, science, and
technology? Much benefit has come from the recent stress on “media litera-
cy” — the ability to read and interpret mass-media offerings in terms of
their institutional and political context. I think that we have not yet arrived
at a similar level of “techno-literacy.” There is not yet a public knowledge
of mathematics, science, and technology that goes beyond the “gee-whiz”
state. Yet such knowledge is needed to allow a critical understanding of
some of the most powerful forces of our time.