Teachers’ unconscious sexism makes girls to turn away from scientific subjects.

Part 1: the invisible mechanisms.

From elementary school, girls perform better in school. They repeat less and their success rate in the certificate of general education and A-level exam (84.8 for males and 87.4 for females in 2009 in France for all series (1)) is better (2, 3).

At the end of the middle school, girls go more in for general and technological fields than professional ones. However in general technological fields, they are turning away from science and engineering. In preparatory classes, women represent 75% of students in the humanities and only 30% of science students. In the end, only 26% of engineering degrees are awarded to women.

But science represents prestigious and well paid professional opportunities. Why do girls turn away from it? Why this censorship? I will evoke the subtle and unconscious mechanisms which are at work.

Teachers in science and mathematics have different expectations for girls and boys

During class, teachers spend a little less time with girls, particularly in mathematics (4, 5, 6) – about 44% of their time, against 56% for boys. This difference, which can seem insignificant, is nevertheless important given the time a student spends in class (4). In addition, teachers spend more time responding to the interventions of boys. Thus they receive more personalized instruction (4) (7). However, although teachers interact more often in a negative or neutral ways with boys than girls, positive interactions are equitably distributed between genders. (8) The fact that teachers have more negative interactions with boys may explain their dropping out of school.

Many behaviors – in addition to teacher-student interactions – suggest teachers expect more from boys than girls. In mathematics, from grade 3, in the United States, teachers ask female students questions that require little intellectual efforts; on the contrary, boys have to answer more difficult questions (5, 9).

Several docimology experiments have shown notation in science differs depending on the student’s gender (10, 11, 12), although teachers claim that capacities and the interest of the student does not depend on sex (12). Good papers of boys are overmarked whereas good papers of girls are undermarked. This suggests that teachers unconsciously attribute a higher level to male students. In contrast, they are more lenient with bad papers of girls and more severe with poor copies of boys, as if they were certain of their capabilities and wanted to punish them for their lack of seriousness. For girls, it’s “as if they were “excused “not to succeed because of their gender”(11). Teachers believe boys can do better, i.e., they attribute them capacities which exceed their effective performances. When boys get good results, teachers imagine it’s because of their intelligence. In contrast, they don’t suppose girls have “hidden” abilities; in addition, their good results are attributed to their seriousness – even to their conformism – and not to their intellectual capacities (13).

Finally, teachers at primary school – when girls and boys do as well in math – predict a better future success in this area for boys than for girls (11).

And parents? …

At equal level in math, parents believe that their child is better if it is a boy. They also think that their daughters succeed because of their seriousness and their efforts, and their boys because of their ability … (14)

Conclusion: girls incorporate stereotypes

All these details about the differential treatment of girls and boys at school may seem insignificant. However they act sneakily about self-confidence, risk-taking and ambition of girls. I will detail in a forthcoming article the consequences of these mechanisms.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

To go further

Secada, Walter G., Fennema, Elizabeth et Byrd, Lisa. New directions for equity in mathematics education. s.l. : Cambridge University Press, 1995. Extraits

—————————————————————————————————————————-

References

1. Insee – Enseignement-Éducation – Réussite au baccalauréat par série. Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques. [En ligne] [Citation : 20 Mars 2011.] http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=NATFPS07237.

2. Filles et garçons sur le chemin de l’égalité de l’école à l’enseignement supérieur : les résultats. Ministère de l’Education Nationale. [En ligne] Mars 2011. [Citation : 25 Mars 2011.] http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/2011/37/6/Les_resultats_170376.pdf.

3. Filles et garçons sur le chemin de l’égalité de l’école à l’enseignement supérieur : le premier degré. Ministère de l’Education National. [En ligne] Mars 2011. [Citation : 2011 Mars 25.] http://media.education.gouv.fr/file/2011/37/4/Le_premier_degre_170374.pdf.

4. Duru-Bellat, M. L’école des filles: Quelle formation pour quels rôles sociaux. s.l. : L’Harmattan, 2004. p. 85. 2747573095. Extraits

5. Leder, Gilah C. Teacher student interaction: A case study. Educational study in mathematics. 1987, Vol. 18, 3, pp. 255-271. Abstract

6. Duffy, Jim, Warren, Kelly et Walsh, Margaret. Classroom Interactions: Gender of Teacher, Gender of Student, and Classroom Subject. Sex roles. 2001, Vol. 45, 9-10, pp. 579-593. Abstract

7. Secada, Walter G., Fennema, Elizabeth et Byrd, Lisa. New directions for equity in mathematics education. 1995. 9780521477208. Extraits

8. Jones, S. M. et Dindia, K. A Meta-Analytic Perspective on Sex Equity in the Classroom. Review of Educational Research. 2004, pp. 443-471. Full text

9. Leder, C. G. Teacher-student interactions in the mathematics classroom: A different perspective. [éd.] E. Fennema et G. C. Leder. Mathemathics and gender. 1990, pp. 149-168.

10. Mosconi, N. Limites de la mixité laïque et républicaine. Les Cahiers pédagogiques. 1999, Vol. 372, pp. 8-11. Abstract

11. Duru-Bellat, M. Filles et garçons à l’école, approches sociologiques et psycho-sociales. 2ème partie : La construction scolaire des différences entre les sexes. Revue française de pédagogie. 1995, Vol. 110, pp. 75-109. Full text

12. Lafontaine, D. Les évaluations des performances en mathématiques sont-elles influencées par le sexe de l’élève ? Mesure et évaluation en éducation. 2009, Vol. 32, 2, pp. 71-98. Full text

13. Mosconi, N. L’égalité des filles et des garçons : comment éduquer à l’égalité ? Eduscol. [En ligne] 2 Septembre 2009. [Citation : 26 Mars 2011.] http://eduscol.education.fr/cid47785/genre-et-pratiques-scolaires%A0-comment-eduquer-a-l-egalite%A0.html.

14. Yee, Doris K. et Eccles, Jacquelynne S. Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achievement. Sex Roles. Vol. 19, 5-6, pp. 317-333. Full text