What the resource is:
The resource is a short video produced by Teachers TV. It focuses on an English primary school where evidence suggested that girls were less motivated and enthusiastic than boys about their learning in science. Through interviews with year 6 girls and the school's head teacher, the video examines what the causes of the disparity might have been. It then goes on to use video clips of the children engaging in science activities, as well as further interviews, to illustrate the measures the school took to address the issue and evaluate their effectiveness.
The aims of the resource:
It is important to realise that this is a short video and that its aims are very different from, for example, a conference paper on the same subject. The video does not aim to provide definitive answers, but it does attempt to provide a thought-provoking insight into how gender differences might manifest themselves in science education and what might be done to address them. In addition, the video claims to represent more general good practice in science education.
Key findings or focus:
For the school concerned, the video indicates that there was a marked difference in how girls and boys responded to their science lessons. The school had carried out a survey of pupil attitudes and feelings towards their learning. The boys generally enjoyed science, whilst the girls indicated a strong aversion to their science lessons. There was no similar disparity in any other subject areas.
The school then investigated why there should be such a difference. The major factor identified as putting girls off science was an aversion to taking intellectual risks. In other words, the girls wanted to be ‘right', and disliked being placed in a situation where they had to test their ideas and then perhaps discover that their ideas were scientifically incorrect. The video also suggests that the girls' response to science was being affected by more general shortcomings in the school's practice, such as a lack of pupil-centred work.
The video documents several measures the school initiated in response to the findings. One was a greater emphasis on practical investigative work, with a focus on how important it was to accept that good science involves being confident about putting forward ideas, testing them and accepting that a key part of progress is finding that some ideas need changing. Another major strategy was to set up a buddy learning scheme, where older children helped younger children with their science learning. For example, the video shows year 6 children helping reception children learn about living things. The other strategies were a greater emphasis on learning outside the classroom and on bringing outside visitors to the school to help the children with their science learning.
The quality, authority and credibility of the resource:
The resource undoubtedly raises thought-provoking issues and so, within the limitations of its format, it has achieved some useful ends. However, in some ways, it is a frustrating resource, as many key issues are not clarified.
Although the video quotes figures, such as stating that an annual questionnaire revealed that 70% of boys enjoyed their science whilst only 30% of girls had the same level of enjoyment, exact details of the methodologies used are not given. Even more crucially, no details are given as to how the conclusions regarding the reasons for the girls' dissatisfaction were reached. Similar criticism applies to the conclusions quoted. For example, the head teacher states that after the school instituted remedial measures, the gap in enjoyment of science between girls and boys narrowed to 5%, but, as no details of the methodologies used are given, this figure cannot have great significance. Whilst it is true that the video does not make the claims that a peer-reviewed piece of research might, it would still have been very useful to have had greater insight into these processes, both as a means of establishing how much confidence we might have in the school's conclusions and also as a model for how other schools might carry out similar exercises. Better editing might have helped with this.
Of particular concern is the manner in which the video seems to sometimes contradict itself. For example, it makes the claim that the major factor holding the girls back was their reluctance to engage with the intellectual risk-taking required by science. (This has been noted in other research, but other factors holding back girls have also been identified and suggestions for further reading on these issues are given below.) In fact, the video provides no hard evidence for the claim that it was a reluctance to take intellectual risks that was the main factor in the girls' dissatisfaction. Indeed, it sometimes gives the impression that it was other factors that meant the girls were not engaged. This is certainly the case regarding the opening interviews with the girls. In these, several year 6 girls articulate a variety of criticisms regarding the manner in which their science learning had been previously organised. None of these criticisms touch on any wish of the girls to be given more guidance, or to be set more programmed tasks, as one might have expected if the cause of their dissatisfaction had been an unwillingness to take intellectual risks. Instead, the criticisms emphasise problems such as their teachers just telling them facts, instead of allowing them the freedom of more pupil-centred learning. From this, it would appear that the problem was often not a reluctance to take risks, but a lack of opportunity to do. The head teacher does admit that the project led to general improvements in science teaching in the school, and this is backed up by the examples the video details of the new strategies in science teaching that the school adopted. For example, well-informed primary science practitioners are likely to endorse more pupil-centred practical work, buddy learning, and a greater use of the outdoor classroom. However, it is unclear why these strategies should particularly benefit the girls in the school, as opposed to their male peers; or, conversely, if these strategies were not previously in place, why the boys should have been more tolerant of a more teacher-directed, didactic approach than the girls were. This leads to the conclusion that either we must question the authority of the claims that were made, or that poor editing has obscured important information. Either way, the benefits of the resource have been eroded.
Another problem is that it is unclear as to which age groups of girls were involved. There is some suggestion that the issues occurred across the age ranges but the focus on year 6 girls makes this unclear. Even the simple step of employing interview clips of girls of different ages might have helped this.
Some of the potential benefits of the strategies employed might also have been portrayed more effectively. For instance, buddy learning is a powerful educational tool, but, to be effective, it must be very carefully planned and managed. The clips shown give an engaging but rather unfocused impression of the activity. The enthusiasm of the children is evident, but the full potential benefits of the learning might have been better illustrated with tighter editing.
As it stands, the resource makes a useful stimulus to promote thought about gender issues in science education. It also illustrates some good practice: both generally, for example in auditing pupils' perceptions of their learning; and in science-specific terms, such as the use of the outdoor environment. However, the brief nature of the video and, perhaps, unfortunate editing, reduce its potential impact.
The implications for ITE tutors/mentors:
ITE tutors should be aware of the possible influences of gender on learning in science and of what research shows to be good practice in science education. This means that the main relevance of the resource is likely to be as a teaching aid, especially to stimulate students' thinking on the issues and perhaps as a springboard for further research and study, as, even allowing for the shortcomings noted above, the video does highlight an area where other research has identified clear problems.
The relevance to ITE students:
ITE students will not have the familiarity with key educational issues that their tutors might be expected to have, and so, although students should be encouraged to be critical regarding the video's shortcomings, it could have value as a brief, easily accessible stimulus to examine more rigorous research in this area.
Reviewed by:
Neil Rutledge
Related Resources:
The following might be useful to read in conjunction with this resource:
Bentley, D. and Watts, M. (1994) Chapter 9 in Primary Science and Technology. Open University Press
Ditchfield, C. (1987) Better Science: For Both Girls and Boys. Heinemann
Kelly, A. (1987) Science for Girls. Open University Press
Kirkup, G. and Smith Keller, L. (1992) Inventing Women: Science, Technology and Gender. Open University Press