secondary science and mathematics teachers and gender equity: attitudes and attempted interventions

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 33, NO. 7, PP. 737-751 (19%)

Secondary Science and Mathematics Teachers and Gender Equity: Attitudes and Attempted Interventions

Jonathan A. Plucker

College of Education, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-5766

Abstract

Although the literature documents the potential impact of teachers on the achievement of young women in science and math, few studies investigate teacher attitudes and the use of teacher interventions. A survey containing both fixed-response and open-ended questions was administered to 56 teachers from eight high schools. Open-ended questions were content analyzed, and log-linear modeling and chi-square tests of independence werc used to analyze relationships between categorical variables representing demographic characteristics, teacher attitudes, and teacher use of interventions. Results provide evidence that teachers, regardless of demographic characteristics, are concerned about gender inequity in their classrooms, although they are generally not familiar with the wide range of possible causes (including their own actions). Reported interventions are consistent with those recommended in the literature, although teachers are not familiar with the effectiveness of their interventions, and numerous teachers feel that attempting interventions is a form of reverse discrimination.

Concern over the societal status of women has existed for millenia (Boorstin, 1992), although concern over low participation and poor performance of women in math and science has peaked in recent years, both in the United States (Fennema & Leder, 1990; Kahle, 1985) and in other countries (Adiseshiah, 1985; Krishnaraj, 199 I ; Sjoberg, 1990; Stolte-Heiskanen, 1991). While the recent interest in this topic is generally attributed to the work of Benbow and Stanley ( 1980, 1983), who documented considerable gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test math scores among high-potential students, their work popularized an area that was already receiving considerable attention in industry, higher education, and the federal government (Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1980; National Research Council, 1979, 1980).

Several aspects of gender issues in secondary science and mathematics classrooms have yet to be investigated. The study reported here investigated secondary science and mathematics teacher familiarity with research on gender equity in science and the variety of interventions consciously used by teachers to promote gender equity. The research also explored whether the attitudes held and interventions used by teachers are consistent with the science and mathematics education literature. The following review of literature summarizes documentation of the low participation and poor performance of women in mathematics and science, reviews research on possible causes for the underrepresentation and underachievement (including the role of teacher attitudes toward gender equity), and analyzes research on teacher interventions. For the purposes of this article, the term quantitative disciplines refers to those areas in which perceived

0 1996 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/96/070737-15

738 PLUCKER

need for mathematical proficiency exists. These areas include the mathematics, engineering, and the physical, life, computer, and theoretical sciences, allowing for a more inclusive termi- nology than science and mathematics.

Review of Relevant Literature

Since low rates of participation for women in quantitative disciplines are well documented, they are only discussed briefly here (for more detailed discussion and statistics, see American Association of University Women [AAUW], 1992; Matyas, 1992; National Science Board, 1987; National Science Foundation [NSF], 1991). On the surface, the performance of women would seem to exceed that of men: Female students achieve higher grades than their male peers from the elementary grades through college (American College Testing Program [ACT], 1989; Kimball, 1989). Yet researchers suggest that young women are perceived to follow academic rules and behave themselves more than young men, creating a situation in which girls receive better grades than boys but do not necessarily have better achievement (Reis, 1991).

In addition, women tend to underachieve professionally in comparison to their male peers (Callahan, 1980), and women are underrepresented in quantitative disciplines at all levels of higher education (bachelor, master, doctorate, and professor). In 1989, women accounted for less than 35% of the graduate students in engineering, science, and mathematics, ranging from a high of 45.4% in biological sciences to only 13.7% in physics and 13.1 % in engineering (NSF, 1991). However, the roots of the problem exist much earlier: Young women enroll in fewer advanced math, science, and computer courses than their male peers (Callahan, 1991; Goertz, 1989); gender differences in self-confidence in mathematical ability exist as early as the elementary grades (Levine, 1990); and gender role stereotypes of scientists are well established by the middle-level grades (Plucker, 1991).

With respect to recent investigations of test scores, researchers (Feingold, 1988; Hyde, 1990; Linn & Hyde, 1989) reported that differences between males and females are declining or nonexistent with respect to most verbal, spatial, and quantitative abilities. However, other researchers find evidence that significant gender differences exist when course enrollment is controlled:

Analyses of the results of both the 1986 and 1990 science surveys from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate that gender differences in achievement persist in subjects with similar enrollment patterns for boys and girls. (Kahle, Parker, Rennie, & Riley, 1993, p. 382)

However, differences in test scores may be misleading, since even young women who score well on standardized tests such as the ACT and Standard Achievement Test rarely plan to study quantitative disciplines in college (ACT, 1989; Grady, 1987).

Possible Causes

Possible causes for female underachievement and underrepresentation in quantitative disciplines are numerous, ranging from the biological/genetic (Benbow, 1988a, 1988b; Eysenck, 1988; Jensen, 1988; Witelson, 1976; Zohar & Guttman, 1988) to the environmentaUcultura1 (Broadhurst, 1988; Crawford & MacLeod, 1990; Entwisle & Baker, 1983; Erlick & LeBold, 1975; Garcia, Harrison, & Torres, I990), including gender role stereotyping, differential expec-

TEACHER ATTITUDES AND INTERVENTIONS 739

tations, and differential treatment within the classroom. A comprehensive review of suggested causes is beyond the scope of this article; the reader is referred to other sources (e.g., AAUW, 1992; Benbow, 1988a; Fox et al., 1980; Kahle et al., 1993). A specific cause which is worthy of further examination, however, is the link between teacher attitudes toward gender equity and corresponding teacher actions in the classroom.

Attitude and Behavior. Regardless of other causes of gender inequity, classroom teachers have an impact on student participation in activities, classes, and possible careers through their behaviors and interactions with students (Casserly, 1980; Fox, 1977; Koballa, 1988b; Nava & Loyd, 1992; Sadker & Sadker, 1986). However, several researchers suggested that the relationship between teachers and student attitude and achievement in science is more complex than educators usually assume, with variables such as the subject matter being taught and student ability and age factoring into the teacher-student interaction (Brophy, 1985; Eccles & Blumen- feld, 1985). In addition, Eccles and Blumenfeld (1985) posited that teachers generally may maintain rather than cause gender differences in science, although the authors acknowledged the impact of individual teachers on specific students.

Psychologists and educators assume that attitude and behavior are involved in a cause-and- effect relationship, owing to “the belief that people make evaluative judgments about a wide variety of targets and rely on these judgments, or attitudes, in deciding among several possible courses of action in the future” (Crawley & Koballa, 1994). Recently, science educators elabo- rated on and confirmed the attitude-behavior link (e.g., Koballa, 1988a), and numerous studies investigated the relationship between student attitude and science and math participation and achievement (Fox, 1977; Taber, 1992). If, as noted above, teacher behavior is linked to differential outcomes in the classroom based on gender, and teacher attitude is related to teacher behavior, then the investigation of teacher attitude toward gender equity in science and mathematics is justified. Knowledge of the relationship between teacher attitudes toward gender equity and their behaviors that encourage or discourage young women in science and mathematics will help educators design educational experiences and interventions that effectively reduce the gender gap in participation and performance in quantitative disciplines. Not surprisingly, then, the few models in the literature for investigating gender differences in mathematics and science include components of teacher attitude and behavior (Fennema & Leder, 1990; Kahle et al., 1993).

Considering the potential influence of teachers on female participation and performance in quantitative areas, the paucity of research dealing with teacher attitudes (Fennema, 1990; Kahle et al., 1993) and attempted interventions is surprising. In two recent studies of teacher attitudes, Kahle et al. concluded that

Although both Australian and U.S. teachers responded that confidence, interest, and performance levels in sciences were higher for boys than they were for girls, both groups perceived science as equally relevant, useful, and easy for both girls and boys. (p. 392)

The conclusions drawn from these studies are similar to those reported elsewhere (see Fennema,, 1990; Kahle, 1985). Although many of these studies use a small sample which includes a disproportionate number of women and/or biology teachers, the studies provide evidence that science and math teacher attitudes and behaviors influence the participation and performance of students differentially based on gender. However, the nature and extent of these attitudes are not documented comprehensively, especially among secondary teachers.

740 PLUCKER

Interventions

Literature containing suggestions for interventions that may increase the participation and performance of women in science, mathematics, and related areas is quite common. Plucker (1993), in a content analysis of the literature in women’s studies, counseling psychology, science and mathematics education, gifted education, and general education, categorized suggested interventions into four areas: curriculum modifcations and classroom techniques which can be used within the classroom: programming strategies that involve multiple classrooms and major logistical planning: counseling and awareness education for parents, students, and all other individuals who work with children; and research and evaluation, including in-depth, longitudinal research on both causes for underachievement and successful interventions and extensive evaluation of intervention programs’ effectiveness. Few of the suggested interventions are research-supported, and researchers have not investigated which interventions are most frequently used by science and mathematics teachers.

Summary

Although a link between teacher attitudes toward gender equity and teacher classroom behavior is suggested in the literature, research on secondary science teacher attitudes, variety, and quality of gender equity interventions is almost nonexistent. The few studies that are reported in the literature have limitations which inhibit their generalizability to teachers in the various quantitative disciplines and at the secondary level.

Method

Sample

Fifty-six mathematics and science teachers were involved in this study. They taught at 8 high schools in six different geographic locations: 1 urban school and 2 suburban school districts in the northwestern United States (n = 26); a school in a large northeastern city ( n = 6); 1 rural and 1 suburban high school in southern New England ( n = 21); and a rural school in a state in the Mid-Atlantic region (n = 3). Collectively, 66.1 % of the teachers (n = 37) were male, and 57.1% ( n = 32) taught science and 33.9% ( n = 19) taught mathematics or computer science with the remainder teaching both mathematics and science. The average amount of teaching experience was 14.55 years (SD = 8.17).

Data Collection

A survey containing 3 close-ended and 2 open-ended questions was constructed for this study (Appendix). The survey was analyzed for format and face validity by researchers familiar with both survey methodology and gender issues. The administration of the surveys was piloted with science and mathematics educators either attending a summer institute on gifted and talented education or teaching in three middle and high schools, and interviews were conducted with selected pilot participants to determine the trustworthiness of the instrument. Based on the pilot administration and interviews, the format was modified slightly. The researcher mailed surveys to contact people in nine school districts. Contact people were volunteers with adminis- trative or supervisory responsibilities and were recruited during the summer institute. An emphasis was placed on obtaining participants from a variety of community types (e .g . , rural,

TEACHER ATTITUDES AND INTERVENTIONS 74 1

suburban, urban) and geographic areas to increase the generalizability of the results. Owing to the lack of urban districts in the initial sample, an urban assistant principal with whom the researcher was familiar was asked to distribute the survey to his science and mathematics faculty. Contact people returned surveys from faculty in eight of the school districts (an educator in a suburban area did not respond).

Data Analysis

Data from the open-ended questions on teacher perceptions of causes of female underrepresentation and the use of interventions were content analyzed based on guidelines suggested by Patton (1 990) and Miles and Huberman (1994). Descriptive statistics were calculated for level of familiarity with gender equity research, attitude toward female representation in quantitative fields, and extent of intervention use.

Hierarchical log-linear analysis and chi-square tests of independence were used to analyze the data for interactions between demographic variables, level of familiarity, opinion of representation, and use of interventions. Log-linear analysis procedures are comparable to the chi- square test of independence for ordinal and nominal variables (Green, 1988; Lee, Forthofer, & Lorimer, 1989; Tabachnik & Fidell, 1989). The most significant computational difference between the two procedures is that in log-linear modeling the natural logarithms of each cell frequency are calculated to determine expected and observed values, whereas the unmanipu- lated cell frequency is used in the chi-square test. The major advantages of log-linear analysis over the chi-square test include a reduction in the number of statistical tests needed to analyze the data and the ability to determine the presence of interactions-higher-order interactions can be analyzed, whereas the chi-square test of independence is limited to two-way interactions (Green, 1988).

To facilitate the nonparametric analyses and lessen the impact of low cell counts, levels of certain variables were collapsed. Experience was coded “1” if the teacher had taught for 10 or fewer years, “2” if more than 10 years. Since gender equity concerns became widespread in the early 1980s, any differential effect in teacher training should be manifest in teachers who received preservice training during the last 10 years. Teacher belief of the representation level of women in quantitative disciplines was also collapsed. Since the data represented by this variable were collected to investigate respondents’ knowledge of current research, teachers who feel women are underrepresented were coded “1” for the variable, and teachers who believe women are appropriately represented or overrepresented, or do not know (i.e., they are unfamiliar with the research) were coded “2.”

Issues of Reliability and Validity

As with social science research in general, the quality of survey research is dependent upon the reliability and validity of the collected data and conclusions drawn from those data. With short instruments containing a mix of open- and close-ended questions such as those used in the present study, traditional estimates of psychometric quality (e.g., internal consistency, factorial validity) are not applicable. For that reason, the researcher used alternative procedures for determining the replicability and validity of results. First, the previously mentioned examination by experts in survey methodology and/or gender equity research assured an acceptable level of content and face validity. The pilot study included interviews with randomly selected participants to determine whether teacher responses were indicative of their attitudes and behaviors (i.e., triangulation of sources as recommended by Patton [I9901 and Lincoln and Guba

764 STRAGE AND BOL

Table 3 Percentage of Teachers SpeciSying Each of Three Categories of Outcome Goals for Their Students, for Total Sample and Teachers Who Described Their Environments as Distinctive

Citizenship skills Knowledge Respondents and general education Learning skills of biology

Total sample (n = 38) 65.8 65.8 50.0 Heterogeneous students ( n = 9) 77.7 44.4 44.4 Highly motivated students (n = 7) 85.7 71.4 42.8 Poorly motivated students (n = 6) 66.7 33.3 66.7 Positive program features (n = 8) 66.7 50.0 66.7 Negative program features ( n = 6) 62.5 50.0 62.5

Nore. Since only three teachers reported unusually positive or negative structural features about their school, these two categories were not included in the analyses reported here. Most teachers indicated that they held more than one type of outcome goal for their students, and so some rows add up to > 100%.

First, teachers who said their students were highly motivated tended to want their students to be able to apply what they learn in biology broadly (in terms of citizenship skills and general education) more frequently than any other group of teachers (85.7%). As one teacher put it, “Once my students become voters, I want them to be aware and informed about the issues they need to decide about-things like the environment, genetics, ethics, you know, the big societal concerns that spring from advances in science.” One possible interpretation of this finding is that by placing classwork in broader contexts, these teachers were in fact contributing to establishing and maintaining such high levels of interest and motivation.

Second, while teachers with highly motivated students also want their charges to acquire better learning skills (71.4%), teachers with poorly motivated students do not tend to mention this as a goal (33.3%). This most likely relates to expectations about whether highly motivated and poorly motivated students will pursue college careers. As one teacher who characterized his students as highly motivated noted, “1 want to prepare my students for college. They need to know how to write lab reports. They need to know how to study, and think critically, and integrate information.” This difference may be cause for some concern, as it could well lead an even wider gap between the highly and poorly motivated students.

Finally, complementing this last contrast, teachers with highly motivated students place relatively little importance on knowledge of biology per se (42.8% list this as an outcome goal), while teachers of more poorly motivated students find this goal important (66.7%). As one teacher who described his students as poorly motivated said, “They need a foundation of basic facts and knowledge to build on. I want them to be able to look back and remember 3 or 4 basic facts and main ideas about biology.”

Taken together, these three sets of findings about differences in the sorts of outcome goals teachers identified may reflect the greater analytic and application skills required to put course material into broader social contexts, skills which teachers of more highly motivated students may well expect their students to possess (or to be building). These findings may also reflect a belief on the part of the teachers of more poorly motivated students that these students have a more limited vision of the importance and relevance of academic content.


Table 1 Summary of Hierarchical Model of Teacher Belief about Female Science and Math Representation

Partial association Log-linear parameter Effect Chi square Estimate (lambda) LambdalSE

Teacher gender Subject taught

Representation

8.553* 28.054* *

19.34 1 * *

0.144 0.575 0.165 .0.489

0.708 2.185 0.603

-2.401

A P < ,005 “ p < ,001.

this discrepancy. Many of the teachers provided 1 or more causes (46.4%, n = 26), 32.1% ( n =

18) reported 1 cause, and 21.4% ( n = 12) did not list a cause. The results of a content analysis of the responses appear in Table 2. Collectively, teacher responses are representative of those found in the literature. Few of the teachers (28.6%, n = 16) dealt with educational causes (e.g., textbook bias, teacher bias), and only 21.4% (n = 12) mentioned possible causes that could be directly linked to the actions of teachers or counselors (e.g., poor guidance, calling on boys more often than girls).

Interventions

Teachers responded to a question which asked if they had attempted any interventions to increase the participation or performance of women in math and science, and, if so, they were

Table 2 Teacher Beliefi qf Causes for Underrepresentation of Women in Quantitative Fields

Cause n %

Gender role stereotyping/perception of science as a male domain Too few role models in education and professional fields Lack of encouragement by family, teacher, and/or counselors Differential treatment in the classroom Conformity/peer pressure to “act female” Lack of encouragement at a young age Poor guidance/poor career counseling Abilities of women (e.g., lack of skills, lack of strength to handle pressure,

satisfied with lower positions in male-dominated field, linear nature of math and science appeals more to males)

Poor modeling by parents Raising a family interrupts education and career Attitude that poor performance in math is acceptable Methodologies in science education do not appeal to women Media presents women as “not math and science types” Women taught that success is externally related Past inequities in funding, jobs, and research projects make quantitative fields

Women have self-selected out of science track by the time they become eligible unappealing

for higher-level physics and chemistry courses

17 22.4 10 13.2 8 10.5 8 10.5 5 6.6 4 5 . 3 4 5.3 4 5.3

3 3.9 3 3.9 3 3.9 2 2.6 2 2.6 I I .3 1 1.3

1 1.3

744 PLUCKER

asked to describe how well the intervention(s) worked. The use of interventions was reported by 57.1% (n = 32) of the teachers.

A four-way frequency analysis was used to develop a hierarchical log-linear model of teacher use of gender equity interventions. Variables included teacher gender, subject taught by the teacher, and teaching experience. Backward selection by simple deletion of effects produced a model that included only main effects for subject and gender with partial association chi squares and parameter estimates identical to those reported in Table 1. The model had a likelihood ratio x2 (20) = 30.2, p z.067, indicating an adequate fit between observed and expected frequencies.

Chi-square tests of independence were used to determine whether a relationship existed between attempted intervention and self-rated familiarity with gender equity research and familiarity with gender inequity in science and math. Neither test was significant at the reduced alpha level (self-rated familiarity: x2 [2, n = 561 = 0.31, p < .90; familiarity with underrepresentation: (x2 [ 1 , n = 561 = 0.002, p < 1 .O).

Type of Intervention. Thirty-two teachers described a total of 55 interventions, which are summarized in Table 3 according to the categories mentioned earlier (Plucker, 1993), although none of the reported interventions could be classified in the category of research and evaluation efforts. During classification of the reported interventions, distinctions were made in two areas:

Table 3 Attempted Interventions

Intervention n %

Curriculum modifications/classroom techniques Encouragement to attend special events on women in math and science

Personal encouragement of young women in math & science Cooperative learning or lab assignments with rotating roles Female speakers on science and math topics Stress applicability of content/use “real-life” examples Activities which encourage women in math and science Involve women in traditionally male projects and roles (e.g.. bridge building,

traditionally male roles in simulations) Assign articles/reports on women scientists Introduce women in science and math curriculum Field tripsiindividual visitations to women working in science, math,

Girls versus boys projects and games Use of gender-neutral pronouns

Take women to and/or help organize workshops/conferences on women in math

Luncheons/dinners on women in math and science Participate in and/or help organize career workshopslcareer days

Attendance at workshops on encouraging women in math & science Women speakers on gender issues in science and math classes Individual counseling of women students Personally encourage women to go into science and math career”

(e, g., workshops, career fairs, summer programs)

and technology positions

Programming strategies

and science

Counseling and awareness education

72.3 11

2 2 2

1 I

5 20.0

3 3

1 1 1 1

1.3


First, encouraging young women to attend special events such as workshops and seminars on women in math and science was classified as a curriculum modification or classroom technique; taking young women to a special event or helping to organize the event was classified as a programming strategy. The second distinction involved encouragement to participate in math and science and to take classes (curriculum or classroom techniques) and encouragement to pursue science and math-related careers (counseling or awareness education).

Not surprisingly, the majority of teacher interventions (72.3%) occurred at the classroom level. However, many of the interventions that fall into this category are short-term in nature. For example, encouraging a young women to attend a gender equity conference or assigning reports on women scientists in observance of Women’s History month does not necessitate modification of the curriculum or personal teaching style, which are both frequently mentioned as potential causes of differential performance between young men and women.

Teachers who did not report interventions were not asked to provide a justification, but 75% ( n = 18) provided a total of 21 explanations for why they had not attempted interventions, including: all students are treated equally and are not discriminated against (n = 12); gender inequity is not a problem in my classroom and/or school ( n = 6) ; interventions should be started in elementary school (n = 1); personal presence as a female science and math teacher was adequate ( n = 1); and gender inequity was not a problem in math and science (n = 1).

Only 6 teachers reported on the effectiveness of the interventions they had attempted. Two respondents felt the intervention had a positive impact, 2 teachers thought the interventions did not work well. and 2 were unsure of the interventions’ effectiveness.

Discussion

The results of this study reveal an interesting pattern in the familiarity and actions of secondary science and mathematics teachers with respect to gender equity. The teachers who responded to this survey believe that women are underrepresented in quantitative disciplines regardless of self-reported familiarity with research on gender equity in science and math. However, teachers who reported little or no familiarity were slightly less likely to believe this. No differences were found on teacher opinions on level of representation based on teacher gender, subject taught (i.e., science, math, or both), or level of experience. As a group, teachers provided a relatively comprehensive summary of the possible causes of female quantitative underachievement suggested in the literature. Few participants listed multiple causes, suggest- ing a lack of comprehensive individual knowledge of the topic. However, this finding is limited by the sole reliance on survey methodology and should be the subject of future research efforts.

When these results are viewed in concert with other studies of teacher attitudes toward gender equity (Fennema, 1990; Kahle, 1985; Kahle et al., 19931, a reasonable conclusion (and hypothesis for future research efforts) is that teachers believe women to be underrepresented in quantitative disciplines even though science is believed to be important for students regardless of gender. However, teachers believe boys to be more interested, to be more confident, and to have higher achievement in science and mathematics than girls, and teachers do not see themselves as having causal responsibility for these gender differences.

Teachers reported numerous interventions which they used in their classrooms and schools. Having reported an attempted intervention was not dependent on teacher gender, level of experience, subject taught (e.g., science, math, both), self-rated familiarity with gender equity research, or familiarity with the underrepresentation of women in quantitative disciplines. While these interventions are similar to those reported in the literature, teachers more frequently reported short-term, one-shot techniques (e.g., conferences, workshops) rather than more long-

746 PLUCKER

tern (and more difficult) modifications to the curriculum and their teaching. Of the four intervention categories, most reported interventions fell into the curriculum modification and classroom strategies category rather than the programming strategies, research and evaluation, and counseling and awareness education categories. The emphasis on classroom interventions is not surprising, but the lack of counseling and awareness education was unexpected.

With respect to research methodology, the contrasting responses of teachers to close- and open-ended intervention questions raises concerns about the validity of fixed-response questions on the use of intervention strategies. The range of responses for the open-ended question were much more revealing about teacher attitudes toward intervention than the fixed-response item.

A preponderance of teachers believe that interventions are a form of reverse discrimination, or that they do not need to use interventions. Typical responses from teachers who did not attempt interventions include: “In our school, 1 don’t believe the problem is as bad as it is in some schools”; “Wouldn’t [interventions] be reverse sexism’?’’; and “All my students are treated the same.” While the work of Eccles and Blumenfeld (1985) suggested that teachers do not cause gender inequities (which could be interpreted as validating the responses of these teachers), they also found evidence that individual teachers positively affect students. Many of the teachers participating in this study dismissed both their potentially positive and negative im- pacts. Exposure to interventions that foster gender equity, especially those that benefit both young men and women, may address the anti-intervention attitude found among some teachers in this study.

Because of a low response rate on the question of intervention effectiveness, no conclusions can be drawn from the data regarding how well various intervention strategies are perceived to work within the classroom. The low response rate does, however, indicate that teachers may not be evaluating interventions. Not only do interventions need to be more rigorously researched before they are introduced into the schools, but extensive evaluation of interventions after introduction into the schools must be carried out. The history of education contains numerous references to educational techniques and programs which worked well in clinical settings but ran into problems in the classroom (see Ellis & Fouts, 1993). To effect maximum change with respect to gender equity, educators and researchers need to monitor the implementation of intervention programs and techniques to increase their effectiveness.

Implications for Teacher Education

The results of this study suggest several implications for both preservice and in-service teacher education. First, the complexities of possible causes of gender differences within science and mathematics classrooms, especially those which involve teacher-student interactions, should be covered comprehensively. For example, the work of Brophy ( 1 985) and Eccles and Blumenfeld (1985) provided evidence that the subject being taught and student ability and age interact with student gender to produce the differences in attitude and achievement that are often observed. Since the work of Sadker and Sadker (1994) focused teacher training on the effect of student and teacher gender, teacher training should be refocused to illustrate the impact of other student characteristics. Teacher educators should also emphasize the broad range of recommended interventions, especially those interventions which benefit students of both genders.

In addition, the lack of intervention evaluation among participants mirrors the lack of evaluation of focused gender equity efforts in the literature. Evaluation results are valuable for two reasons. First, interventions that have little or no long-term effect can be avoided, preserv- ing valuable resources for those strategies that are proven to be effective. Second, successful interventions may provide further insight into the causes of gender inequity in attitudes toward and achievement in science and mathematics.

TEACHER A’ITITUDES AND INTERVENTIONS 141

Future Directions

This study needs to be replicated with a larger sample to allow for more complex log-linear data analyses of the relationship between teacher attitudes, attempted interventions, and demographic variables. Researchers should explore the interventions attempted by guidance counselors, science and math department heads, and other administrators to determine whether they place an emphasis on different categories of interventions than classroom teachers. Examination of preservice teacher attitudes may also reveal more about the teacher attitude change process than is currently known.

Conclusion

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the attention paid to gender equity in science and math has had a subtle impact on teacher attitudes and interventions. Teachers who participated in the current study show a low level of awareness with respect to how their actions may influence the participation and performance of young women in math and science. Respondents attempted a narrow range of interventions, if any at all, and many either equate interventions with discrimination or feel that a lack of conscious discrimination means that all students are encouraged equally. These beliefs are not consistent with the literature (Plucker, 1993; Sadker & Sadker, 1986, 1994). Individuals responsible for in-service and preservice training need to understand the importance of gender equity and may want to concentrate on the various possible causes for gender inequity, the numerous types of interventions that have been suggested, and the way in which various interventions can be used without singling out students of a particular gender.

This research was initiated while the author was a student at the University of Connecticut, and was concluded at the University of Virginia. The author acknowledges the assistance and helpful comments provided by Stuart Omdal, Karen Westberg, Carolyn Callahan, and Sally Reis.

Appendix A

Practices and Attitudes in Math and Science Survey

Gender: Male Female Subject(s) taught: Grade( s)/ level(s) taught: Current district (town and state): Feel free to use the back of this sheet, if necessaiy.

Years teaching experience:

I . How would you rate your level of familiarity with the research on the representation of females in math and science? (check one):

-not familiar at all -little familiarity -somewhat familiar -familiar to a great extent

2. In the mathematical and scientific fields, females are (check one):

-overrepresented -appropriately represented -underrepresented -not suretdon’t know

748 PLUCKER

3. If you indicated above that females are underrepresented in math and science, what do you think are the reasons for this?

4. Have you ever conducted any activities to promote female participation/performance in math or the sciences [either for the individuals student or for the entire class]? (circle one):

Yes No 5. If YES, what was done? How did it work? If NO, comment if you wish: 6. Do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding participation

and performance of females in math and science? (Please feel free to use the back of this sheet):

References

Adiseshiah, M.S. (Ed.). (1985). Science and technology for women. Madras: Tamil Nadu State Council for Science and Technology.

American Association of University Women. ( 1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: Author.

American College Testing Program. (1989). State and national trend data for students who take the ACT assessment. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Benbow, C.P. ( 1988a). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sci- ences, 11, 169-182.

Benbow, C.P. (1988b). Sex-related differences in precocious mathematical reasoning ability: Not illusory, not easily explained. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 217-225.

Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262-1264.

Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029-1031.

Boorstin, D.J. (1992). The creators. New York: Random House. Broadhurst, K. (1988). Solving the exclusion problem: The key to sex equitable education

in math, science, and technology. In A.O. Carelli (Ed.), Sex equity in education (pp. 145-156). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Brophy, J. (1985). Interactions of male and female students with male and female teachers. In L.C. Wilkinson & C.B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 115- 142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Callahan, C.M. (1980). The gifted girl: An anomaly? Roeper Review, 2, 16-20. Callahan, C.M. (1991). An update on gifted females. Journal for the Education of the

Gifted, 14, 284-3 1 1 . Casserly, P.L. ( 1980). Factors affecting female participation in advanced placement pro-

grams in mathematics, chemistry, and physics. In L.H. Fox, L.Brody, & D. Tobin (Eds.), Women and the mathematical mystique (pp. 138- 163). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Crawford, M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the “chilly climate” for women. Sex Roles, 23, 101-122.

Crawley, F.E., & Koballa, T.J. (1994). Attitude research in science education: Contempo- rary models and methods. Science Education, 78, 35-55.

Eccles, J.S., & Blumenfeld, P. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are there differences and do they matter? In L.C. Wilkinson & C.B. Marrett (Eds.), Gender injuences in classroom interaction (pp. 79- 114). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.


Ellis, A., & Fouts, J. (1993). Research on educational innovations. Princeton Junction, NJ: Eye On Education.

Entwisle, D.R., & Baker, D.P. (1983). Gender and young children’s expectations for performance in arithmetic. Developmental Psychology, 19, 200-209.

Erlick, A., & LeBold, W. (1975). Factors influencing the science career plans of high school students. West Lafayette, IN: Measurement and Research Center, Purdue University.

Eysenck, R. (1988). 0 tempora, o mores! Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 189- 190.

Feingold, A. ( 1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psycholo- gist, 43, 95-103.

Fennema, E. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fen- nema & G.C. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169-187). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fennema, E., & Leder, G.C. (Ed.). (1990). Mathematics and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.

Fox, L.H. (1977). Women and mathematics: Research perspectives for change. Washing- ton, DC: National Institute of Education.

Fox, L.H., Brody, L., & Tobin, D. (Eds.). (1980). Women and the mathematical mystique. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Garcia, J . , Harrison, N.R., & Torres, J.L. (1990). The portrayal of females and minorities in selected elementary mathematics series. School Science and Math, 90, 2- 12.

Goertz, M . (1989). Course taking patterns in the 1980’s. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Program.

Grady, J. (1987). Trends in the selection of science, mathematics, or engineering as major jields of study among top scoring SAT takers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Green, J.A. ( 1988). Loglinear analysis of cross-classified ordinal data: Applications in developmental research. Child Development, 59, 1-25.

Hyde, J.S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs: Journul of Women in Culture and Society, 16, 55-73.

Jensen, A.R. (1988). Sex differences in arithmetic computation and reasoning in prepuber- tal boys and girls. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 198-199.

Kahle, J.B. (1985). Retention of girls in science: Case studies of secondary teachers. In J.B. Kahle (Ed.), Women and science: A report from thefield (pp. 49-76). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Kahle, J.B., Parker, L.H., Rennie, L.J., & Riley, D. (1993). Gender differences in science education: Building a model. Educational Psychologist, 28, 379-404.

Kimball, M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198-214.

Koballa, T.R. (1988a). The determinants of female junior high school students’ intentions to enroll in elective physical science courses in high school: Testing the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 479-492.

Koballa, T.R. (1988b). Persuading girls to take elective physical science courses in high school: Who are the credible communicators? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25,

Krishnaraj, M . (1991). Women and science: Selected essays. Bombay: Himalaya Publish-

Lee, E.S., Forthofer, R.N., & Lorimer, R.J. (1989). Analyzing complex survey data.

465-478.

ing House.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

750 PLUCKER

Levine, G. (1990, April). Arithmetic development: Where are the gender differences? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Linn, M.C., & Hyde, J.S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Re-

searcher, 18, 17-19, 22-27. Matyas, M.L. (1992). Overview: The status of women in science and engineering. In M.L.

Matyas & L.S. Dix (Eds.), Science and engineering programs: On target for women? (pp. 27- 39). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source- book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Research Council. ( 1979). Climbing the academic ladder: Doctoral women scientists in academe. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

National Research Council. (1980). Women scientists in industry and government: How much progress in the 197O’s? Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

National Science Board. ( 1987). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation. ( 199 1). Academic science and engineering: Graduate enrollment and support (NSF Report No. 90-324). Washington, DC: Author.

Nava, F.-J.G., & Loyd, B.H. (1992, April). An investigation of achievement and non- achievement criteria in elementary and secondary school grading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. ED 346 145)

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Plucker, J. (1991). Determination of sex-role stereotypes in the sciences. Unpublished honors thesis, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Plucker, J . (1993). What the literature and research say about possible interventions for increasing the participation and pelformance of women in math and science. Unpublished manuscript.

Reis, S.M. (1991, July). The underachievement of gifted females: Fact or fantasy? Paper presented at the Confratute Institute on the Gifted and Talented, Storrs, CT.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 512-515.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Sjaberg, S . (1990). Gender equality in science classrooms (What Research Says to the Science and Mathematics Teacher No. 6). Perth, Australia: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.

Stolte-Heiskanen, V. (Ed.). (199 1 j. Women in science: Token women and gender equality. New York: Berg.

Tabachnik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Taber, K . S . ( 1992). Science-related and gender-appropriateness of careers: Some pupil perceptions. Research in Science and Technology Education, 10, 105-1 15.

Witelson, S.F. (1976). Sex and the single hemisphere: Specialization of the right hemisphere for spatial processing. Science, 193, 425-427.

TEACHER ATTITUDES AND INTERVENTIONS 75 1

Zohar, A. & Guttman, R. (1988). The forgotten realm of genetic differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 217.

Received September 15, 1994 Revised January 23, 1996 Accepted March 22, 1996

secondary science and mathematics teachers and gender equity: attitudes and attempted interventions

Documents