Its Funny that We Dont See the Similarities

when thats what Were Aiming forVisualizing

and Challenging Teachers Stereotypes of Gender
and Science
Kristina Andersson
Published online: 21 October 2010
#
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract This study illuminates teachers conceptions of gender and science and
possibilities to challenge these conceptions. Since 2005, a group of teachers (K-6) in
Sweden have met approximately once a month in two-hour seminars to discuss and develop
their instruction in science and technology based on a gender perspective. The present data
consist mainly of audio-recordings of the teacher seminars and video-recordings of science
activities with students. Analysis of the empirical data has been carried out in several stages
and was inspired by thematic analysis, the theoretical framework of which is based on
Hirdmans and Beauvoirs theories of gender. The results show that the teachers ideas
about gender/equity and science exist on several levels, within which various conceptions
are represented. On the one hand, reasoning around similarity, where teachers consider
that both girls and boys should have the same prerequisites for working with science. In
contrast, stereotypical conceptions of girls and boys occur when the teachers evaluate their
activities with students, and condescending attitudes toward girls are also observed. The
girls ways of working with science are not as highly valued as the boys, and this outlook
on children can ultimately have consequences for girls attitudes towards the subject. When
teachers are allowed to read their own statements about the girls, they get a glimpse of
themselves, and their condescending ideas about girls are made visible. In this way, the
teachers can begin their active work towards change, which may lead to new outlooks on
and attitudes towards students.
Keywords Awareness
.
Gender
.
Professional development
.
Pre-school
.
Science
education
.
Stimulated recall
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9200-7
The quote is from one of the teachers who participated in the study.
K. Andersson
Department of Electronics, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable
Development, University of Gvle, 801 76 Gvle, Sweden
K. Andersson (*)
Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Box 634, 751 21 Uppsala, Sweden
e-mail: kns@hig.se
Introduction
Sweden, which is considered one of the most gender-equal countries in the world, has an
official social goal that is described in the Act Concerning Equality between Men and
Women (1991:433). Both public and private sector enterprises are obliged to adhere to the
intentions of the Act. As regards to the Swedish schools, this is expressed clearly in both
the Education Act (SFS 1985:1100) and the curricula for elementary school and
kindergarten (National curriculum 1994). For example, the importance of childrens
opportunities to develop all their abilities without making choices from expected gender
patterns is clearly stressed. Thus, the pursuit of gender equity is something that all teachers
are aware of and that is part of their commission as teachers. Since the 1990s, several
research and development projects have been initiated within the schools, primarily
kindergarten, their purpose being to work actively with gender and equity issues (Berge and
Ve 2000; Wernersson 2007b). Despite these intentions and efforts, several studies in
Sweden and elsewhere have shown that very little has changed regarding teachers
treatment of pupils in the classroom, as well as regarding pupils attitudes, interests, and
choice of study program and profession (Eisenhart and Finkel 2001; Howes 2002; Lindahl
2003; Schreiner and Sjberg 2004; Wernersson 2007a).
Gender permeates and affects human activity and behavior on several levels. Gender is
culturally and historically changeable (Beauvoir 1949/1997; Connell 2002; Harding 1986;
Hirdman 1990, 2001), meaning that what is feminine and masculine is not primarily
determined by biology, but is instead foremost a social construction. According to Harding
(1986), gender is constructed on a structural, symbolic and individual level in society,
whereas Connell considers that gender is a relational concept, which is important to be able
to describe in the absence of any inherent inequality or hierarchy (Connell 2002). Harding
(1986) and Thurn (1996), on the other hand, point out that there is always asymmetry in
the concept of gender, and Thurn defines asymmetry as a horizontal dissimilarity that
need not be identical to a hierarchy, which is a vertical dissimilarity. Starting from a
historical perspective, Hirdman (2001) describes patterns and the doing of gender, and she
is struck by how similar ideas about gender have been over the course of history,
particularly ideas about Woman. The pattern that stands out and that Hirdman describes is
a gender system that is hierarchical and built on two principles is: the man as the norm and
the separation of the sexes. The consequence of these principles is that gender entails the
creation of differences. Processes, symbols and structures affect and are internalized by
individuals. Taking her point of departure from psychoanalysis, among other things,
Beauvoir (1949/1997) described the womans developmental process and the consequences
of societys gender order for womens perception of themselves. A girl perceives herself as
an autonomous subject who gives shape to her own life; the same applies to boys. When the
girl grows older, the gender order is part of herself, within her, and according to this order,
women are subordinate to men. The gender order is there, inside her, regardless of whether
or not she is aware of it:
It is a strange experience for an individual who feels himself to be an autonomous and
transcendent subject, an absolute, to discover inferiority in himself as a fixed and
preordained essence: it is a strange experience for whoever regards himself as the One
to be revealed to himself as otherness, alterity. This is what happens to the little girl
when, doing her apprenticeship for life in the world, she grasps what it means to be a
woman therein. The sphere to which she belongs is everywhere enclosed, limited,
dominated, by the male universe: high as she may raise herself, far as she may
282 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
venture, there will always be a ceiling over her head, walls that will block her way.
The gods of man are in a sky so distant that in truth, for him, there are no gods: the
little girl lives among gods in human guise. P. 324
The research on gender and equity in science education has followed several different
paths, but few studies have looked at teachers understandings of and attitudes toward
gender (Scantlebury 2010). However, researchers in the field have established that teachers
conceptions and expectations of pupilsor prejudices if you willare of importance to
these pupils achievement in science subjects in the schools (Huang and Fraser 2009; Kahle
and Meece 1994; She and Fisher 2002). Interview and questionnaire studies have shown
that teachers report having the same expectations regarding girls and boys achievement in
science, but also that when actually giving instruction, teachers behave in a way that
indicates they have different expectations of girls and boys (Kahle et al. 1991; Kahle and
Meece 1994). These authors conclude that teachers are aware of gender equity, but that this
awareness has not changed their teaching practices. The step from being aware of the
importance of equity and gender issues to actively putting equity into practice may be a
large one, and it may be difficult to see ones own behavior without some kind of help or
support. Stadler (2007) and Eidevald (2009) report that even if teachers are allowed to see
video-recordings of themselves interacting with pupils, they do not observe how they
behave towards girls and boys; they even deny treating the children differently. According
to Stadler (2007), when working with gender issues, one must question ones own
conceptions of and attitudes towards gender in order to move forward, and one must be
given the opportunity to reflect on ones own teaching.
The present study investigates whether increased gender awareness can be achieved
among science teachers and if such awareness can ultimately lead to changes in how
teachers teach, with respect to both content and implementation (see also Andersson et al.
2009 for information on other studies included in the project). In my work with the present
longitudinal project, in which I have followed a group of teachers since 2005, the following
main questions have guided me:
& How is the gender regime
1
staged in kindergarten/elementary school in science
instruction?
& What prerequisites are there for problematizing this gender regime and possibly
changing it?
& Is it possible to discern any critical aspects in such a process of change?
Methods
The present study is part of a professional development project that has been inspired by
action research (Berge and Ve 2000; Capobianco 2007; Herr and Andersson 2005;
Hollingsworth 1994; Somekh 1995; Weiner 2004). Action research can be described as a
collaboration project tied to a specific situation, where researchers together with the
teachers on the floor define a specific problem in the context they are working in and try
to find solutions for that problem. It is characterized by a desire to bring about changes in
1
Connell (1987) and Thurn (1996) use the concept of gender regime to describe gender phenomena in a
part of society, e.g. a workplace, while more general gender patterns are referred to as the gender order.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 283
school practices and that the researcher is participating in the working process. Another aim
of this kind of research is to study the processes of change.
The project has been ongoing since fall 2005 in collaboration with parts of a K-6 working
team at one school in Sweden. The core group consists of three kindergarten teachers, one
recreational teacher
2
and one math/science teacher for grades 17, who all participated during
the entire period. Over the years, other teachers have joined the group, quit or have been
absent due parental leave or illness. The group has met about once a month for a two-hour
seminar. At the beginning of each academic year, the participants have discussed which
science subjects the themes they want to work with. In the discussion we chose journal
articles, book excerpts and reports to some of the meetings, texts we felt would be relevant to
the projects as well as to the group discussions. These texts have dealt with science education,
science, and/or gender, and we have read and discussed them at the following seminar. From
2007 to spring 2009, 19 seminars (38 h in total) were audio-recorded and transcribed. I have
written memoranda after every seminar and sent them to the teachers via email for
verification. The purposes of memoranda were for example at the next meeting to be able to
catch up where the discussion had ended and to see which ideas and thoughts actually went
into the pre-school practice. The teachers and I have also video-recorded children and
teachers on a total of 16 different occasions involving science activities. Some of these films,
or film sequences, have provided material for stimulated recall (Brown and Harris 1994;
Calderhead 1981; Nilsson 2008): twice at seminars with the whole group and individually
with three of the teachers. Stimulated recall is a method where teachers together with the
researcher look at a video-recorded teaching sequence in order to increase the awareness of
the teachers own behavior and from that, develop or improve their teaching. The method
provides an opportunity for practitioners to relive a complex situation and thereby
remember the thoughts in that situation and reflect on that. Before the individual sessions of
stimulated recall, the teachers were requested to look at the film and identify sequences for
discussion. They were suggested to focus on some questions, e.g. what was their aim with the
activity and how was it carried out. Similarly I chose some sequence to highlight and
problematize. At meetings of approximately one hour we discussed the chosen sequences.
Individual interviews were also conducted with three of the teachers at the end of spring
2008. The seminar transcripts have also been used as material for stimulated recall. I have
asked the teachers to read parts of their own statements, my aim being to illustrate a certain
issue I have felt to be of critical importance to advancing their work towards changing their
pedagogical practices. All of this constitutes the data for the present study, though the focus
has been on the teachers conversations during the seminars (see Appendix 1).
The Teachers Previous Work with Gender Equity and Science
Several teachers in the present group had previously worked with gender equity projects in
the kindergarten/elementary school since the mid-1990s. In the context of these projects,
the teachers began video-recording themselves and the children, and they discovered that
the adults treated girls and boys differently. They spoke differently with the children, using
different kinds of intonation, etc. This served as a wake-up call for the teachers, causing
them to start their work towards change. Although the starting point of the equity work was
teachers different attitudes towards girls and boys, with time, their work towards change
2
In primary school in Sweden there are recreational teachers with a specific education and certification that
work with the children in the afternoons after they have finished the school schedule. The recreational
teachers are also participating in classes when more resources are needed.
284 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
came to focus more and more on the children and on strengthening the sides of girls and
boys thought to belong to the opposite sexso-called compensatory pedagogy (SOU
2006:75; Eidevald 2009). For example, girls were to practice being independent, while
boys were to cooperate and practice their empathic skills. This meant that, in terms of
organization, the children were often divided into same-sex groups. The teachers argued
that, by using same-sex groups, norms for being a girl or being a boy could be
broadened. By being with other boys, boys could discover that there are many ways to be a
boy, thereby breaking down stereotypical conceptions.
When I began my collaboration with the present working team and asked whether they
would be interested in participating in a project dealing with gender and science, the teachers
felt competent and secure regarding gender issues, although science was a new, unexplored
territory, particularly for the kindergarten teachers. They had only had limited elements of
science in their teaching, and then primarily in biology. One reason the teachers agreed to
participate was the opportunity to explore activities in physics, chemistry and technology.
Data Analysis
The entire 38 h of audio-recorded seminar discussions have been transcribed. The
transcription per se can be viewed as the first step of the analysis, because it helps the
researcher dig deeply into the data and start the interpretation process at an early stage. The
transcribed data have then been further analyzed in several stages. Because the seminar
discussions contained many conversational topics and conversations at several levels, I used
Braun and Clarkes thematic analysis (2006) to work with the data in the following steps:
Stage 1 - the conversations taking place during each seminar were grouped under several
overall conversational themes, and all the seminar occasions were searched to
see which groups reoccurred.
Stage 2 - several thematic maps and tables were made to map out which conversational
themes occurred in the different groups and to follow how conversations in
the respective themes developed over time.
Stage 3 - the thematic tables from Stage 2 were complemented with tables for each
individual teacher to gain an understanding of the teachers different positions in
the group and of how each persons conversations developed in terms of what
was said as well as how it was said.
Stage 4 - To get a picture of where and how possible changes in teachers statements occur,
tables were made with 19 columns for all seminars, each row corresponding to a
teacher. The conversation themes were coded using one- or two-letter abbrevia-
tions, with +/ to indicate whether the statement was positive or negative, and
with an arrow if it was clear that a theme was discussed in a new way. Thus, each
cell contained a number of letter abbreviations; in order to follow a specific
theme, that theme was highlighted with a single color.
Analysis of the audio-recorded seminars has been complemented with an analysis of
parts of the video-recorded data from the science classroom activities with pupils as well as
with an analysis of parts of the teacher interviews. This was done to obtain as
comprehensive a picture as possible of the teachers ideas about classroom activities,
teaching and learning in relation to science and gender. Hirdmans (1990, 2001) and
Beauvoirs (1949/1997) theories of gender and sex have constituted the theoretical
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 285
framework through which I have filtered my empirical material when interpreting the
meanings in the teachers statements.
Results and Discussion
The Structure of Result and Discussion Parts
In order to elucidate the study questions, the remaining article is divided into two parts. The
first part addresses the question of how the gender regime in kindergarten is staged in
science activities and how teachers express gender regime in their conversations. During the
seminars, the group discussed the teachers understandings of gender in relation to science.
Building upon the teachers perspectives, I occasionally challenged teachers ways of
thinking, thereby trying to achieve change. This process of change is described in the
second part using a case study of one teachers development. There, I start from the
following questions: What prerequisites exist for problematizing this gender regime and
possibly changing it? and Is it possible to discern any critical aspects in a process of
change? The second part of the article illustrates the participant-oriented method, where I
have tried in various ways to challenge teachers conceptions of gender.
Part I
Teachers Points of Departure for Science Activities One aim of the professional
development project was for kindergarten teachers to start teaching science to their
students. During the seminars we discussed which elements of science are appropriate for
children and how the concepts should be taught. Because the group has consisted of
teachers from different grade levels, they wanted to find common themes. The teachers
have expressed their desire to make comparisons between the groups of children and to
study whether there are any differences in how children act, between different ages and
especially between girls and boys. When we discussed what the goal of choosing a certain
science activity/theme should be, during spring 2008 four of the teachers suggested that one
goal was to study what differences existed between girls and boys ways of approaching
the various activities. Thus, these teachers based their goals on the assumption that girls and
boys do work differently with science and they wanted to map out these differences.
Notions about gender differences are also of importance to how teachers structure and
carry out activities with their students. Because previous work with gender equity had
resulted in the teachers using compensatory education methods in same-sex groups, they
chose to structure their science activities in a corresponding manner at the outset, up until
spring 2008. They let the girls work separately, often individually, while the boys were
given a group assignment to encourage cooperating. The teachers notion was that the girls
would not dare to experiment or to talk about what was taking place to the same extent as
the boys would, and therefore one goal of the activities was to encourage the girls to be
more assertive. One example of what such as assumption about girls can bring about in a
teachers execution of a science activity with children is provided by Marlene, who was to
work with students on density experiments. During Seminar 10, when we discussed
teaching questions, e.g. the teachers goals regarding the science activities, Marlene
reported that her most important goal for the children, especially for the girls, was that they
would independently collect the experimental materials and then test whether they floated
or sank in water. When the children later carried out the activity, neither the girls nor the
286 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
boys had any problems. Because Marlenes only activity goal for the children was that they
would dare to do it, she had no well-considered teaching aim. This left her at something of
a loss concerning how to continue with the task.
Several of the teachers felt that girls asked fewer questions than boys and that they are not
assertive during activities. This conception of the girls practice affected the teachers in their
professional role. For instance, Linda described her uncertainty when working with girls:
Linda: ...And I think thats the risk with a group of girls, because you want to
accomplish something, because you dont feel anythings happening. Instead I fix
things for them, well just to get on with it.
......
Because thats how I feel afterwards, I could have said that. Because with the girls I
feel, I mean its stressful when they dont ask questions. Then everything stops in me
too. But what can I say to them? (Excerpt 1, Seminar 8, see Appendix 1)
Teachers Interpretation of Childrens Science Activities The teachers have discussed
planning of science activities during the seminars, but also used the time to talk about
activities they have already carried out with their pupils. During these discussions, the
teachers have described, often enthusiastically and in detail, how the children have attended
to their assignments and what they have said and done. In their interpretations of the
childrens activities, the teachers called attention to several gender differences regarding
pupils work and involvement in science:
girls want to obey the teacher
the products appearance is the most important thing to girlsit must be pretty
girls and boys products look different; girls build things on a plane, boys build for height
the things girls do are pathetic
Girls science activities are less valued than boys science activities
On a number of occasions, several teachers explained girls behavior by mentioning that
girls just want to obey the teacher and supply the right answer. They also considered that
girls primary goal in their science activities is to produce work that is aesthetically
pleasing, beautiful and attractive. An example of this way of talking about girls is found in
Excerpt 2, below. During Seminar 12, Imogen and Marlene described how they have
continued working with the density experiment (float or sink) with 5-year-olds and talked
about how things have been working in the various groups of children:
Imogen: ...And then there was a, a couple weeks ago, then they got to present their own ideas
about what they want to test. Then the boys wanted to test if beads float and the girls wanted
to test pencils. After that the girls went and got three pencils, two dark red and one pink. And
they floated. They were exactly the same length. And they floated. Then they were satisfied
with their assignment. Then they wanted to test something else, because the pencils floated.
So I thought you cant just accept it, maybe you can turn it around a little so then on, was it
Tuesday, the boys tested whether the pencils would float and the girls whether
Marlene: Beads
Imogen: ...whether beads could float. And then the girls took a handful of beads like
this and they dropped them in, Indian beads. And a few floated, well most of them
did. Maybe some of them sank. And then Amy said: Its probably like swimming
rings, Imogen. And swimming rings have air in them.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 287
Kristina: Did she say that?
Imogen: Yes, that makes them float. Maybe theres some air in the Indian beads since
they have a big hole in the middle too. And then they went and got different beads.
Some sank and some floated. But they took them by the fist-full, like this. But if you
take one at a time and think about it. Well, then they went and got a whole handful of
bead bears different colors (laughs) and put them in one at a time. And they floated.
Kristina: Plastic bears?
Imogen and Marlene: Yes
Jean: With holes, bead bears
Imogen (laughs): And then they start in Yeah nowwell test the green ones and nowwell
Sarah: This is in order to do as the teacher wishes
Imogen: Maybe you should test different beads and think about... No we want our
water to be as nice as the other girls
Several: Uh huh
Imogen (laughs): They didnt care a bit if the beads floated or not. They just wanted
to make the water pretty
/.../
Sarah: Then the girl who brought up the swimming ring, she thought....
Imogen: Well, that was just to shut me up
Sarah: Right (laughs)
Imogen: Well, I dont know. I just wonder what theyre thinking, when they take a
whole handful of Indian beads and just drop them in. There wasnt any thought
behind it. Well, the thought was to make the water pretty
Kristina: But its also, theyre having fun
Imogen: Yes, that too
Kristina: When you drop, you know when you put gravel or something in water. That
feeling when it clatters and that theres some activity. I think thats what the children
are aiming for. Getting the opportunity to do a lot of things in the water, this is what
theyre aiming for.
Imogen: Right
(Excerpt 2, Seminar 12)
Above, Imogen recalls that Amy had an explanation for why hollow beads float: they are
like swimming rings, and swimming rings are filled with air. Sarah starts a sentence by
highlighting Amys explanation, but Imogen waves it aside. Imogens interpretation of
Amys idea is that Amy just wanted to shut her up. Imogen also feels that the girls
primary goal is to make the water pretty. Imogen does not understand the girls way of
thinking and does not think there is any thought behind what they do. This generalized
opinion that girls, as a group, mainly want to obey the teacher and do pretty work has a
consequence: the teachers believe that girls have no real interest in science activities and
this belief affects how they teach. It is obvious that Imogen neither listened nor responded
to Amys idea. The childs thoughts about scientific phenomena were not taken seriously,
and this may well influence her continued involvement in the activities.
Another occasion on which opinions like this are expressed was during Seminar 5, fall
2007. This fall term, the kindergarten children got to build magnet tracks.
3
The teachers
3
The children were given a piece of cardboard (ca. 50 x 50 cm) and access to a great deal of material, such
as beads, straws, marbles, stones, colored pieces of plastic, lollipop sticks, pieces of styrofoam, etc. A metal
paperclip can move along the top of the cardboard if one slides a magnet underneath the cardboard. Using the
material, the children could build a track for the paperclip to slide on.
288 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
divided the children into same-sex groups. The boys, in groups of three or four, were to
build a common track, while the girls were each to build their own. I filmed several of the
groups. During Seminar 5, the teacher group watched parts of the films and discussed what
they saw. We started by watching when the 4-year-old boys were building their track, and
when the excerpt below begins, the group has already started observing the 4-year-old girls
work:
Sarah: Typical artwork for girls, if you look at them.
(The teachers discuss the fact that girls cannot sit and work as long as boys can)
Imogen:.... Theyre thinking now weve worked long enough to satisfy her (teacher
Fiona). Could that be true do you think? Then the other three are done too.
Sarah: If one is done then the rest of them are.
Imogen: Right, they read the situation and see that its okay to go now. Nobody dares
to say this is boring, I want to go. Before Diana has said that shes finished when
shes done glueing and then you think, yeah, now shes done. What do you all think,
is that right? I dont know.
Marlene: Exciting
Jean: So if she (Diana) had stayed, then the others would have worked longer, is that
what you mean? Or what do you mean?
Imogen: Yes
/.../
Imogen: And then as a girl you want to obey the teacher. They sit there as long as no
one asks if they can go. But then when Fiona lets Diana go, its okay and theyre all
done at the same time.
/.../
Imogen: And I feel that... and I think this is pathetic.
4
Im always working with the
boys. Id have a nervous breakdown (laughs) sitting in there. Quiet and calm.
Sarah: They have no drive
(Excerpt 3, Seminar 5)
Above, Sarah starts by saying that the magnet tracks made by the girls are like typical
artwork for girls. She implies that the girls have created a work of art, not treating it as a
technical project. According to Imogen, the girls stay and work because they wish to please
their teacher, Fiona; Imogen also believes the girls think building the magnet track is
boring. Watching the film, I have not perceived at all that the girls are uninterested in
building the track, and I ask what the other teachers think about the situation; several of
them do not agree with Imogen. Several sentences later, as a consequence of the discussion,
Imogen exclaims that she thinks the girls work is pathetic because they sit quietly and
calmly while working. Sarah supports Imogens statement by saying that the girls lack
drive; this is a remarkable comment, however, given that the girls have been working
independently and in a concentrated manner for about 35 min, and have finished their
magnet tracks. I note that the girls and boys were given different assignments; the girls were
to work independently and the boys were to collaborate, making the preconditions for
conversation different. Both Fiona and Jean agree with me.
Contrasting pictures to the assumption that girls and boys are different
During the course of the 19 seminars, several of the teachers conversations dealing with
gendergirls and boyshave focused primarily on the differences between girls and boys
4
The Swedish word Imogen used was tntig. The term pathetic is not the optimal translation. Tntig
is colloquial language and has several meanings, a word between, silly, drip and pathetic.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 289
regarding their personality traits, choice of activities, etc.; but there were exceptions. Jean is
the person who most clearly presented another viewpoint, throughout the entire period.
When she gave examples from the classroom, she often emphasized situations that are
gender neutral or situations in which the childrens activities break with stereotypical
gender patterns. In connection with a conversational theme concerning gender differences,
Jean most often presented her views by providing contrasting examples from the classroom.
For instance, she talked about how girls often played with cars on the car rug and how boys
liked to make necklaces or bead art.
Fiona, Kathrine and Alex also related gender-neutral aspects of the childrens activities or
examples from the classroom where gender patterns are broken. However, though the teachers
do have different ways of looking at girls and boys, they seldomargued with each other openly
when trying to make their point or when commenting on a statement they did not agree with.
One exception here is Fiona, who only participated during fall 2007 and who often worked with
the girls. During Seminar 6, Fiona argued with Imogen when I tried to tie the conversation back
to the discussion from Seminar 5, when Imogen expressed her opinion that girls are pathetic:
Kristina: But Imogen, you said that you thought the girls, that it was pathetic that they
kept on you said and then I thought when I listened to this later, what was it, what is it
that makes you think that, that what they do....
Fiona (interrupts): You think everything girls do is pathetic
Imogen: (laughs) But can I describe a
Kristina: I think this is important really, I think its important
/.../
Kristina: And the thing with the magnet tracks, what was it you said that you
thought?
Imogen: Well I thought they sit there so quietly (sighs on exhalation). Dont even talk
about what theyre doing and what theyre thinking or say that I need this or. Like
David, look what Im doing and Im going to make a bridge or something like that.
And look its a handle, like
Sarah: Hes pretty dominant in the group and dares to show what hes doing, but the
girls
Fiona: But hes also the kind who tries to get all the attention
Imogen: Right, exactly
Fiona: But what did Josh and Brian do?
Imogen: Well, Josh and Brian started talking a bit in the end too
Fiona: But what if David hadnt been there at all?
Imogen: Well then maybe Brain and Josh would have been just as path... as path...
Fiona (interrupts): If wed had Peter, for instance
Imogen: Just as pathetic then
Fiona: Exactly. Because David, hes one who runs up to the first adult and has to
make contact
Imogen: Yeah (Excerpt 4, Seminar 6)
Fiona is not satisfied with Imogens attitude toward the girls, and this is clear in her tone
of voice. She tackles Imogen and, through her questions and arguments, gets Imogen to
admit that being quiet (=pathetic) is perhaps not a sex-bound trait.
Focusing on Gender Differences has Consequences One consequence for teachers, when
strictly categorizing childrens traits and activities into homogeneous groups containing
either girls or boys, is that they fail to notice when children do not conform with these
290 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
notions and step outside, so to speak, the teachers expected frameworks. On several
occasions, the teachers stated that, during the science activities, what was most important to the
group of girls was making things pretty. The consequence of having stated this time after time
is twofold: teachers fail to notice when girls have different goals than the preconceived one and
when boys express themselves in the same way girls do. On the video-taped occasion when
the children are building magnet tracks, three 4-year-old boys are sitting together with Imogen.
David is trying to find some colored pieces of plastic he wants to glue to the cardboard. He
lays out two red pieces and says: You know what, Im gonna glue on some of these, so the
track will be pretty. Thatll be good. Later on, when the teachers watched the film together,
none of them commented on this in the discussion on girls interest in aesthetics. Another
example of teachers not noticing when childrens behavior does not conform with the teachers
expectations was when Imogen related how the girls threw beads in the water to see whether
they would float or sink (see Excerpt 2, Seminar 6). The teachers have expressed several times
that girls want to obey their teachers, but in this situation it is obvious that the girls do not care
at all about what Imogen is telling them. Imogen was clearly irritated that the girls did not
follow her instructions to put the beads in the water one at a time, not by the handful. But
instead of concluding that the girls were actually acting in a way that is contrary to her notions
of how girls are, and seeing this as something positive, she interpreted the girls behavior in a
negative manner. She felt they behaved irresponsibly and thoughtlessly. In this way, the girls
are subject to double punishment; whatever they do is wrong (s 1982). If they follow the
teachers instructions and wait their turn, then they are passive and lacking in drive. If they do
not obey the teacher and instead break with the prevailing norms that portray girls as
conscientious and obedient, then they are inconsiderate and uninterested in the assignment
not creative and active, as boys behaving the same way are often depicted.
Another consequence associated with girls and boys being viewed as relative, statistical
groups with different traits and skills is that behaviors produced by both girls and boys are
interpreted differently by the teachers. The idea that there is a difference between girls and
boys is thereby upheld, and what Hirdman calls the separation of the sexes is reproduced even
in situations where teachers should instead notice similarities among the sexes (Hirdman
1990). One example of this is a discussion during Seminar 7 in which the teachers related that
both girls and boys want to give the right answer. The teachers provided two completely
different explanations for why girls and boys want to respond correctly: The girls goal is to
obey the teacher and their strategy for answering correctly is to try to read the teacher to
find out what an acceptable answer is. Implicit in this explanatory model is the message that
girls have not mastered on their own the knowledge needed to answer the posed questions.
On the other hand, the boys want to give the right answer because everything needs to go as
quickly as possible, because boys are always in a hurry.
Conclusions
At the outset of gender equity work, it is important to try to identify differences and to
notice girls and boys, womens and mens, different prerequisites in order to make
injustices visible. But there is a risk here of ending up in a dilemma, where the act of
highlighting and elucidating sex differences actually serves to normalize these differences,
thereby reinforcing dichotomous categorizations of feminine vs. masculine (Hirdman 2001;
Lenz Taguchi 2004). The participating teachers have long had gender equity on their daily
agenda, and they explicitly expressed their most commendable goals: Gender equity work
should create greater chances for girls and boys to develop their personality, even outside
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 291
their own gender category. However, observed in the conversations on science is that the
teachers seem to be reproducing a kind of statistical, dichotomous thinking that is regularly
expressed during the entire study period. Several of the teachers interpretations of the
childrens activities and involvement in science focused largely on gender differences, such
that girls involvement is not considered serious. The girls primary goals do not seem to be
related to the science aspects of the activity per se, but to creating products that are
attractive and pleasing to their teacher. The risk is that these notions will affect how
teachers relate to the children, and that the girls may feel that their ideas and working
methods are not taken as seriously as the boys. This, in turn, may have consequences for
girls interest and involvement in science.
What is clear is the teachers downgrading of what girls do as compared to what boys do.
The boys behavior is normative and the girls is deviant. In the examples described above, the
separation of the sexes not only leads to asymmetry, but unavoidably to a hierarchy in which
the masculine (here young boys) is superordinate and the feminine (young girls) subordinate. In
1949, Simone de Beauvoir wrote that boys, during their entire childhood and adolescence, train
their superiority over girls or in relation to what can be understood as feminine (Beauvoir 1949/
1997). If kindergarten teachers have unconsciously assimilated this hierarchical notion of the
sexes, then kindergarten will help to train boys in superordination and girls in subordination.
Part II
Is it Possible to Change Ones Way of Thinking? The Case of Imogen Imogen is an
experienced kindergarten teacher who had a prominent role in the group. She has shown a
great deal of interest and involvement in our project, but also in other forms of competence
development. She has taken continuing education courses, attended lectures and expressed
several times that her interest is easily piqued when she is exposed to new information
relevant to her work in the kindergarten. In other words, Imogen is generally open to and
interested in work toward change.
Fall 2007
During Seminar 5, Imogen expressed her opinion that the girls way of working with
technology is pathetic (see Excerpt 3, page 8). I was surprised and rather shocked about
Imogens condescending opinion of girls; though it was good that she was so outspoken
and open about what she thought. This indicated to me that she was comfortable in the
group and with me, which was a condition for continuing to work with these questions
much more concretely. For the upcoming seminar, number 6, I prepared several discussion
questions based on how the teachers had talked about the childrens building of magnet
tracks in Seminar 5. During Seminar 6, I asked the teachers to analyze whether there were
similarities and/or differences in how the children performed the task. The teachers
mentioned differences as well as similarities, but after a while, Jean and Fiona pointed out
that the girls and the boys were working under different conditions: The girls each made
their own track and the boys collaborated on a common tract. For this reason, it was
impossible to compare the two groups. Imogen explained that their approach was based on
the notion that girls and boys need to practice different skills (independent work and
cooperative work, respectively). Then she concluded:
Imogen: ... but then I think we focus on the differences
Sarah: Its true, we do
Imogen: We dont focus on the similarities
292 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
Fiona: Thats how you work here (inaudible)
Sarah: Were supposed to go from differences to similarities
Imogen: But its funny that we dont see the similarities when thats what were
aiming for. Were supposed to relate to each other on an equal basis
Sarah: (laughs) Yes, that really is strange
Imogen: So we focus on the differences (Excerpt 5, Seminar 6)
As we see above, for Imogen the discussion on building the magnet tracks becomes an
aha experience, making her realize that gender differences have been stressed a great deal
in relation to the children, despite the fact that the work is supposed to be about equity. It is
clear that Fiona has thought about this earlier, when she comments that this is how teachers
at the kindergarten work. I continue by asking Imogen what aspect of the science activity
was pathetic (see Excerpt 4, above):
Imogen: I probably wouldnt think the girls were pathetic if I didnt work so much
with the boys. I know I have to be alert all the time, talk about whats going to
happen, set limits. But with the girls you can just be silent. They take care of
themselves (laughs and Sarah laughs with her) and I guess thats what I find pathetic
(Excerpt 6, Seminar 6).
Like Linda (see Excerpt 1, page 6), Imogen expresses a certain degree of insecurity in
her own role as teacher in relation to the girls. The role is clearer in relation to the boys. The
talk about and description of the girls are full of contradictions. On the one hand, it is
difficult to work with the girls because they are so quiet; they dont ask questions and
nothing is happening therestatements that describe passivity. On the other hand,
Imogen says that the girls take care of themselves, which would seem to indicate
independence, drive and thus activity. It is difficult to see anything pathetic in the girls
behavior, and neither I nor any of the other seminar participants asked follow-up questions
in an attempt to settle this matter.
The discussion continued as the teachers considered possible explanations for their
conceptions of girls and boys. They believed that their attitudes towards girls and boys are
founded during childhood and that parental views play a crucial role. Imogen said that she
was the youngest of her siblings and incredibly shy. She grew up in a culture where girls
should be seen and not heard and where children were told dont think youre anybody
special:
Imogen: But I was so shy the whole time I was growing up
Sarah: Thats hard to believe
Imogen: Yes, but I was. I had such a complex and when I was in a group like this....
Well I didnt know and I felt the pressure. Now theyre waiting for me to say
something. What should I say? I have to say something or theyll think Im stupid.
Im pathetic. And then everything collapsed and everybody thought so in the end
because I was so nervous.
Kristina: Was this while you were in school?
Imogen: Yes, the whole time. I dont know, but during high school I dont think I
answered a single question, I dont understand how I passed. In history I didnt
answer one question, an oral question, because Id never felt secure in that group. So
maybe I look up to the boys who dare to speak in a group and think that is number
one anyway.
Jean: But then I would think youd have great sympathy for children who feel, who
are like that.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 293
Imogen: Yes, I suffer with them
Jean: Yes, well but. Because its easy to see, because Ive also been a bit shy, always
blushing, at least in junior high school. I see someone and think God how terrible,
and then I try to help.
Kristina: Right, exactly. But how, how, because you know how it feels. How can, can
you push girls and boys who have, who experience this kind of fear? What can you
do?
Jean: Yes, lots of encouragement
Imogen: Acknowledge that you see (Excerpt 7, Seminar 6).
The thoroughly tragic aspect of this constant doing of gender, separation of the sexes
and elevation of the masculine over the feminine is the unavoidable contempt it causes for
what is seen as feminine (Hirdman 2001). This contempt is a necessary condition for the
reproduction of womens subordination and for socializing both women and men into this
gender order. Owing to this order, women may carry with them, consciously or
unconsciously, self-contempt that must be dealt with in some way. Within Imogen, there
would seem to be a strong link between her self-image during childhood and adolescence
and her condescending views on the girls in her classroom.
When Imogen told us about her own schooldays, it was clear that she was mirroring her own
self-concept in the little girls. She even used the word pathetic to describe herself, but she did
not seemto realize that her self-image might be influencing howshe views and judges the girls.
To me, these two seminars contained critical events that allowed me to get a more
comprehensive picture and understanding of Imogen. She explicitly expressed her conceptions
of girls and openly told us about her own self-image during childhood and adolescence. I am
uncertain, however, as to the extent to which these events were critical for Imogen and the other
teachers. My intention remained to attempt to encourage the teachers to change their focus from
studying and judging the children to studying themselves and trying to see their own values and
conceptions, as well as their own attitudes toward the children.
During spring 2008, the seminar discussions focused largely on science teaching (which
is considered in an upcoming article) and gender issues were not at all as central.
Fall 2008
During Seminar 12, Imogen and Marlene described the float-or-sink experiments the
children had carried out that fall (see Excerpt 2, page 7), and I pointed out that Imogen was
once again talking about the girls in a condescending manner. When I later transcribed the
audio-recordings, Imogens way of talking became even clearer, and I decided to have
Imogen and the other group members read their own statements. If the transcriptions had
clearly elucidated Imogens opinions for me, wouldnt they have the same effect on the
teachers? Along with the memoranda I sent them, I attached two pages of transcriptions
from the recordings as well as a number of discussion questions
5
that I planned to take up
on the next occasion (Seminar 13). Thus, my aim was to help Imogen and the other teachers
become aware of how they talk about the children, thereby stimulating a discussion of their
inherent views and of how such views, in turn, could influence their attitudes toward and
work with the children. To sum up the content of the memoranda, the meeting began with
the teachers reading through the transcripts and considering my questions. After only
5
My questions were: What did the teachers want to achieve with these two experiments? What were the
children supposed to learn/explore? What did the teachers expect of the children? What do the teachers think
about the childrens explanations? Were there any occasions during the experiment that the teachers could
have latched on to and used to pique the childrens interest? How did the teachers describe the children? How
did the teachers construct/present gender?
294 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
having read a few lines of the transcripts, Imogen admitted that her statements during that
session were not professional in any waynot in relation to the science activity, her
teaching or her outlook on the children. When given the opportunity to see her own
statements on paper, Imogen was quick to see how she had spoken about the children. I
asked, among other things, if they could see, based on the text, what expectations the
teachers had of the children and what the teachers were thinking when the children carried
out the experiment. Imogen replied that she thought the girls should have tried different
beads, one at a time, not throwing them in the water by the handful. She expected them to
do as she saidto do things properly and work out what she was thinking. And when they
did not do this, when they did not obey the teacher but instead made up their own rules, she
became irritated. Imogen continued:
Imogen: When Amy said its like a swimming ring, Imogen, then I had something I
could have latched on to and developed
Sarah: Could have picked one at a time based on that
Imogen: Yeah or whatever I was looking for, but I didnt even listen to her. Yeah
could be, or something like that I said. And then we continued. And then Im at
some meeting later and say its hard to find things to latch on to. Maybe I should
listen to what they say some time (laughs). But I just have this idea that girls are
boring.
Kathrine laughs
Imogen: Well but I have it. I do. Thats how it is.
Linda: But how many (children) were there (in the group) Imogen? (Excerpt 8,
Seminar 13)
In the above excerpt, Imogen discovers that she did not take advantage of Amys idea
about why the hollow beads float. It is also evident that Imogens openness is somewhat
embarrassing for the others. Kathrine laughed and Linda tries to steer the discussion
towards another explanation, that external factors like number of pupils also play a role.
Uncomfortable or problematic opinions that we may not even be aware of can be difficult
for others to deal with, which is why they respond by trying to dismiss such viewpoints.
Kathrine and Lindas way of reacting may also be an obstacle to the process of change
Imogen has just started. But as we see below, Imogen does not let herself settle for their
excuses. Instead, she shows great courage by explicitly expressing these sensitive
viewpoints and showing involvement and interest in her own possibility to change. She
maintains her line of thought and directs the conversation back to the core question:
Imogen: And me with my expectations of these boring girls. I just search for things
that confirm them.
Kristina: How can, how can you, do you think you can avoid that somehow?
Imogen: Well I dont know
Kristina: Do you have any suggestion?
Imogen: Help me
Below, Linda agrees with Imogen, stating that she too would have expected the girls
to follow instructions
Linda: Not to take those handfuls. Instead follow the instructions just like theyre
given
Kristina: yeah
Linda: Then you get off course (laughs) because it wasnt how you had imagined it
Kristina: no, no
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 295
Linda: and I think its easy to fall into that, especially with the girls. That theyre
better at, listening and doing what the teacher says somehow. That they just cant
throw themselves into it and test, start
Kristina: Exactly
Linda: Instead they wait and watch until the instructions come
Kathrine: Then maybe you can look at it positively, that they dared
Sarah: Right but I feel that was what the...
Imogen: But why didnt I do it
Kathrine: yeah, why not
Imogen: Instead I get irritated because they dont put in one at a time like Id thought
Sarah: But now you can think that, next time maybe you can do it. I think you have to
see it first before you can acknowledge it
Imogen: Right
Sarah: What I think is, I think that we acknowledge what we see. Or we acknowledge
what we feel we see or I dont know how to say it.
Kristina: Or we see what we imagine well see
Sarah: Yes or maybe (laughs). My expectations make me see what I
Kristina: Yes, precisely
Imogen: I just see girls are boring
Sarah: Sure and you have expectations there too
Imogen: But then when they keep at it and want to make the water pretty. Then its all
over (several laugh)
Kathrine: But why doesnt Alex have the girls for technology instead?
Imogen: Yes, why?
Kathrine: Spend your energy on the boys instead
Imogen: Well, thats what I have been doing for several years. And I need to turn my
view of girls
Sarah: Yes, thats good
Imogen: Yes
Sarah: Maybe youve already started doing it, now that you recognize all this (talks
rapidly, Imogen talks simultaneously, inaudible)
Imogen: Yeah, Kristinas helped me by talking about this and now I see that thats
how it is.
Sarah: Its the same for me and with my technology lessons too
Imogen: But I have to start seeing them in another way (Excerpt 9, Seminar 13)
Above, Kathrine points out that Imogen should have been able to think positively when
the girls failed to act according to her expectations, but instead violated the norm. Sarah
wants to support Imogen, and Kathrine joins in by suggesting that perhaps Imogen should
work with the boys instead, given her negative attitude towards the girls. But Imogen
claims that she needs to change her outlook on the girls, and she thinks she can do this now
that she is aware of the problem.
To call the teachers attention to the fact that the childrens explanations were assessed
differently based on their gender, I asked what they thought about the explanations given
for why objects float or sink. As seen below, we looked through the text together, noting
what the children said, and the teachers expressed what they thought:
Kristina: But do you see any difference here if we think about gender. How the
childrens explanations are viewed?
Short pause
296 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
Kathrine: Im thinking more that they explain things based on what theyve
experienced. Amy had just been vacationing abroad, with lots of swimming rings.
That its more about what references they have, because they had like....
Imogen: She doesnt interest me either. The boys are more interesting and I follow up
what they do.
Imogen and several others laugh
Imogen: Well but I think its so clear
Kathrine: Uh huh
Imogen: To me anyway
Linda: Right, when you make an assertion with Amy, about what makes it float
Imogen: Right, exactly. All done. Then we dont need to discuss it any more. But
with James I ask a follow-up question anyway...
Kristina: Right
Imogen: I should at least get credit for that (laughs)
Kristina: Yes, you should
Imogen: Yeah
Sarah: But thats the way were heading. That must be where we want to be?
Imogen: But then why didnt I do the same with Amy?
Marlene: This is exciting really
Imogen: It makes me mad. What did you say?
Marlene: I mean its exciting and great that you see this yourself. Im not sure I know
at all what Ive learned
Imogen: Well, I thought of it right away. There I am, there Ive been all these years
with the boys. Its the boys Ive found exciting to work with. But its surely just as
interesting to work with girls, if I can just get the hang of it (Excerpt 10, Seminar 13)
Marlene expresses her admiration for the fact that Imogen can see her own role and
behavior so clearly. The excerpt ends with Imogen expressing her positive hope that her
future work with girls will be exciting and interesting.
During previous meetings, I had tried to present contrasting pictures and call attention
to situations in which the children did not do what the teachers expected them to do, and to
highlight situations in which girls and boys transcended boundaries, but these attempts did
not have any great effect on how the teachers talked about the children. On the other hand,
in Seminar 13, when the teachers read the transcripts and could see how they expressed
themselves, the effect was striking, primarily for Imogen, who was the person in focus in
the transcripts we read. She was able to see clearly what she had done and how she had
treated the girls and boys differently. She was able to verbalize this. During Seminar 14, I
asked the teachers what they thought about this working methodusing transcripts from a
previous meetingand Imogen replied:
Imogen: Yes and you have to think about how you say things. I thought about that,
that I didnt finish my thoughts and that I ridiculed the girls when I talked.
Sarah: Still, do you think you still do this. Youre the one who thinks so Imogen.
Jean (who didnt participate in Seminar 13): Right, youve said that for a long time.
Imogen: When I read the text I thought so.
Sarah: Maybe you hear a tone of voice there that we dont hear.
Imogen: No, but I saw it when it was written down too. Ive thought about it. It was
really an eye-opener.
Sarah: It never, oh really you mean that, you mean now you stop and think?
Imogen: Yes. And I dont have those expectations of the girls. (Excerpt 11, Seminar 14)
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 297
Seminar 13 clearly made an impression on Imogen, whereas Sarah expresses herself as
though she was never at the meeting at all. Imogen continues by saying that now after the
meeting she stops and thinks more, and she tries not to have the preconceived notion that
girls are boring. I ask Imogen if she can make herself stop thinking that girls are boring, and
she responds that she has to work at it constantly. Kathrine suggests that this does not seem
to be something the children sense, given that the girls jump for joy when Imogen arrives. It
is difficult to change conceptions that are deeply rooted. The contrasting pictures offered by
the other teachers in the group have not had any great impact. It is first when Imogen has
the chance to look at herself and her way of thinking that she realizes what she has been
doingvaluing girls and boys differentlyand can begin to do something about it.
Final Discussion
Given that the teacher group had worked with gender equity for some time prior to the
present project on gender and science and that their awareness of gender issues was
relatively more advanced than others, many of the findings presented here seem rather
remarkable. At first glance, one might come to the conclusion that work with gender equity
in the kindergartens and elementary schools is counterproductive, in that it only serves to
reinforce and cement stereotypical gender patterns. But the questions surrounding gender
and equity are highly complex, and we relate to them in different ways in different
situations. Along with others, Harding (1986) and Connell (2002) have described how
gender is constructed on several levels or in several dimensions in relation to human
practice. This gender creation is internalized in human beingsin our perception of
ourselves and of ourselves in relation to the opposite sex (Beauvoir 1949/1997). What I
mean is that gender is constructed at different levels within each individual. We move
between these different levels of thought on gender depending on the context we find
ourselves in. In the conversations the participating teachers have had during the seminars, it
is clear that each individual has a complex picture of gender and that perhaps the most
difficult task is to understand ones own self-image and how it affects ones encounters with
girls and boys, women and men, in everyday life. If teachers are to work in a well-
considered manner with their students, it is important that they become aware of their
different conceptions of gender. In the contemporary Swedish debate on gender equity, the
connection between gender-coded expressions in society and the internalized gender order
people carry with them is seldom discussed. On the contrary, endeavors to achieve gender
equity are seen as something happening outside individuals, preferably in the public sphere
and not in the private/personal sphere. The Final Report from the Delegation for Gender
Equality in Pre-school (SOU 2006:75) states that:
We consider that professional educators should pursue their pedagogical work using
as their lodestar gender equity in relation to and between children. We believe this is
best done through a working method characterized by gender awareness. However,
what employees in the pre-school think privately, for example regarding the causes of
gender differences or how society is structured in relation to gender, is their own
affair (p. 12; my translation).
The wording intimates that gender equity is something one is engaged in during working
hours; how one relates to the question privately is of no significance. To get perspective on
what is remarkable about this statement, we can replace the words in the second sentence
with, for instance, human rights or democracy: However, what employees in the pre-
school think privately about human rights is their own affair. In contrast, the results of the
298 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
present study instead show the necessity of getting at the personal and private level in order
to break internalized patterns of thought. In this regard, different strategies may be
necessary. In Imogens case, she started to change her ideas about girls being pathetic after
she had read seminar transcripts in which she talked about the children.
The combination of individuals in the group and the atmosphere created by themwas crucial
to how the discussions developed. The participants were involved in the project to different
degrees, and between seminars they could devote different amounts of time to planning,
carrying out activities and reading the literature. This created a certain imbalance between the
group members. Some conversations were possible, while others were probably not. A certain
outlook or opinion could predominate depending on how the teachers positioned themselves in
the group. Several of the teachers worked in the same teamand therefore had to ensure that their
everyday teamwork functioned. Thus, within the group, they had to adapt any possibly
uncomfortable or critical viewpoints. Although arguments were made against certain claims
and opinions, this was seldom (or never) done by entering into a controversy. For this reason,
the arguments were more or less passed by, resulting in little confrontation and discussion. This
highlights the important role of the researcher in promoting a more nuanced and in-depth
discussion in the group. When the project began, I was careful to ensure that the participants
would get to know and trust me. This meant that I was rather reserved and not particularly
challenging or provocative in my behavior. Regarding the project, I have had a plan and clear
goal for what I wanted to achieve. During the course of the work, it became necessary to start
from the discussions that emerged during the seminars. For the upcoming seminar, I often
wanted to reconnect to previous statements and to find paths of entry that would help
participants think something through one more time. This was a conscious strategy that was
sometimes successful, but that on other occasions did not elicit a clear response in the group,
merely passing by more or less unnoticed.
Conclusions
As has been shown in previous research, teachers expectations of their pupils are important to
pupils achievements in science (Kahle and Meece 1994; Scantlebury 2010). Even if teachers are
highly aware of gender equity issues in their teaching, it may still be difficult to see ones
own behavior in relation to children/students and thereby to challenge ones own inherent
conceptions of gender (Stadler 2007). Despite the fact that the teachers in the present study had
long experiences of working with gender equity issues, they still had difficulty abandoning their
stereotypical ideas about girls and boys. They reproduced the notion that there are gender
differences in how children work with science, and portrayed girls activities as subordinate to
boys. But if girls viewpoints are disregarded and if girls feel that boys work and opinions are
more highly valued, this will affect girls achievement and their attitudes towards science topics.
The present findings show, first of all, that work with gender equity cannot only be conducted
on a general, public level, without any connection to peoples personal values. Secondly, they
show that when using research strategies such as action research, situations can be arranged that
give teachers an opportunity to learn more about themselves and understand their own
internalized viewpoints. The obvious disadvantages of the working methods of action research
are that they require a long period of time and that only a few individuals can be involved. One
way to have a greater impact would be to make roomwithin teacher education for process work in
which students inherent conceptions and opinions regarding gender and science are challenged.
Acknowledgements Many thanks to Karen Williams for her valuable help with the translation.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 299
Appendix 1
Timetable over seminars, participants and activities
Year Sem. no. Excerpt
no.
Participants Other participants Stimulated Recall + other
activities
2007
1 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene,
Sarah
2 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene
3 Fiona, Imogen, Jean, Linda,
Marlene, Sarah
Teachers invited to
hold a workshop
on technology
4 Fiona, Imogen, Jean, Sarah
5 3, Fiona, Imogen, Jean, Marlene,
Sarah
Teaching student See section from video-recording
of pupils science/technology
activities (building magnet tracks)
6 4,5,6,7 Fiona, Imogen, Jean, Sarah
2008
7 Imogen, Linda, Marlene, Sarah
8 1 Fiona, Imogen, Linda,
Marlene, Sarah
One of my
supervisors
9 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene,
Sarah
One of my
supervisors
See section from video-recording
of pupils science/technology
activities (experiment with water)
10 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Marlene,
Sarah
Between Sem. 10 and 11,
individually with Sara and
Imogen
11 Imogen, Jean, Linda, Sarah Between Sem. 11 and 12,
individually with Linda
12 2 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Kathrine,
Linda, Marlene, Sarah
Between Sem. 12 and 13,
individual interviews with
Imogen, Jean and Sara.
13 8,9,10 Imogen, Kathrine, Linda,
Marlene, Sara
Read excerpts from the
transcription of Sem. 12
14 11 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Kathrine,
Linda, Sarah
2009
15 Alex, Imogen, Kathrine, Sarah
16 Alex, Imogen, Kathrine,
Linda, Marlene, Sarah
See section from video-recording
of pupils science/technology
activities (fish dissections)
17 Imogen, Jean, Kathrine, Sarah Read excerpts from the
transcription of Sem. 16
18 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Kathrine,
Linda, Sarah
Read excerpts from the
transcription of Sem. 17
19 Alex, Imogen, Jean, Linda,
Sarah
References
Andersson, K., Hussnius, A., & Gustafsson, C. (2009). Gender theory as a tool for analyzing science
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 336343.
300 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302
s, B. (1982). Kvinnor tillsammans. Handbok i frigrelse. [Women Together. Handbook in Emancipation]
Malm: Gidlunds.
Beauvoir, S. (1949/1997). The second sex. London: Vintage.
Berge, B.-M., & Ve, H. (2000). Action research for gender equity. Feminist educational thinking.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3, 77101.
Brown, S., & Harris, J. C. (1994). Becoming a reflective teacher: the role of stimulated recall. Action in
Teacher Education, 16(2), 4551.
Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: a method for research on teaching. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 51, 211217.
Capobianco, B. M. (2007). Science teachers attempts at integrating feminist pedagogy through collaborative
action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 132.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge: Polity.
Education Act. (1985). Swedish code of statues. Svensk frfattningssamling, 1100. Skollagen.
Eidevald, C. (2009). There are no girl decision-makersUnderstanding gender as a position in pre-school
practices. School of Education and Communication, Jnkping University.
Eisenhart, M. A., & Finkel, E. (2001). Women need (still) not apply. In M. Lederman & I. Bartsch (Eds.),
The gender and science reader (pp. 1323). London: Routledge.
Equal Opportunity Act. (1991). Swedish code of statues. Svensk frfattningssamling, 433. Jmstlldhetslagen.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press.
Herr, K., & Andersson, G. L. (2005). The Action Research Dissertation. A Guide for Students and Faculty.
London: Sage Publications Thousand Oaks.
Hirdman, Y. (1990). Genussystemet. In SOU 1990:44, Demokrati och makt i Sverige. Stockholm 1990.
[Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 1990:44, Democracy and Power in Sweden].
Hirdman, Y. (2001). Genusom det stabilas frnderliga fomer [Genderon the changeable forms of the
stable]. Liber AB, Malm.
Hollingsworth, S. (1994). Feminist pedagogy in the research class: an example of teacher research.
Educational Action Research, 2(1), 4970.
Howes, E. V. (2002). Connecting girls and science. Constructivism, feminism, and science education reform.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Huang, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Science teachers perceptions of the school environment: Gender
differences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 404420.
Kahle, J. B., & Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 542557). New York: Macmillan.
Kahle, J. B., Anderson, A., &Damnjanovic, A. (1991). Acomparision of elementary teacher attitudes and skills in
teaching science in Australia and the United States. Research in Science Education, 21, 208216.
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2004). In p bara benet. En introduktion till feministisk poststrukturalism. [An
introduction to feminist poststructuralism]. HLS Frlag, Stockholm.
Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to
upper secondary school. Gteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 196. Acta Universitatis Goth-
oburgensis.
National curriculum (Lpo94, Lpf94). Ministry of Education and Research. (1994).
Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understandingThe complex nature of PCK in pre-service education.
International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 12811299.
SOU (2006):75. Jmstlldhet i frskolanom betydelsen av jmstlldhet och genus i frskolans pedagogiska
arbete [Swedish Government Official Report, SOU 2006:75 Equality in pre-schoolthe importance of
equality and gender issues within the pedagogical work in pre-school]. Fritzes, Stockholm.
Scantlebury, K. (2010). Still part of the conversation: Gender issues in science education. In B. Fraser, C.
McRobbie, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Schreiner, C., & Sjberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, Rationale, Questionnaire
Development and Data Collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education)a comparative
study of students' views of science and science education (pdf) (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo: Dept. of
Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.
She, H. C., & Fisher, D. (2002). Teacher communication behaviour and its association with students cognitive
and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 6378.
Somekh, B. (1995). The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours: a position
paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 339355.
Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302 301
Stadler, H. (2007). (De-)Constructing gender in science education, 968979. Response to Zapata, M. &
Gallard, A.J. Female science teacher beliefs and attitudes: implications in relation to gender and
pedagogical practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 923985.
Thurn, B.-M. (1996). Om styrka, rckvidd och hierarki, samt andra genusteoretiska begrepp. [On force,
scope and hierarchy and other concepts of gender theory]. Kvinnovetenskaplig tidskrift, 34, 6985.
Weiner, G. (2004). Critical action research and third wave feminism: a meeting of paradigms. Educational
Action Research, 12(4), 631643.
Wernersson, I. (2007a). Har skolan frndrat genusordningen eller genusordningen frndrat skolan? [Has
school changed the gender order or has the gender order changed school?] The Swedish Research
Council 10:2007.
Wernersson, I. (2007b). Frn frskola till hgskolaVilka avtryck ger forskning om jmstlldhet? [From
preschool to higher educationWhat marks generate research on gender equity?] The Swedish Research
Council 12:2007.
302 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:281302