Equity, empowerment and different ways of knowing

Abstract

This paper considers the experiences of two sets of students who attended schools that taught mathematics in completely different ways. One of the schools used a traditional, textbook approach, and the other used an open, project-based approach. The latter approach produced equity between girls and boys whereas the textbook approach prompted many of the girls to under achieve. This paper will consider the experiences of girls and boys who followed the project-based approach, reflect upon the sources of equity within this approach and relate the differences between the two approaches to Gilligan’s notions of “separate” and “connected” knowing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Assessment of Performance Unit [APU] (1980a).Mathematical development primary survey report no 1, January. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Assessment of Performance Unit [APU] (1980b).Mathematical development secondary survey report no 1, September. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Askew, M., & Wiliam, D., (1995).A review of recent research in mathematics education. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barber, M (1994, August 23). Report into school students’ attitudes.The Guardian, p. 2.

  5. Belencky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986).Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bleach, K. (1996). Boys will be boys-but will they be successful?All-in -Success, 7(2), 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boaler, J. (1997a, February).Mathematical equity—underachieving boys or sacrificial girls? Paper presented at the “Are Boys Underachieving?” Seminar Series. London Institute of Education.

  8. Boaler, J. (1997b).Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boaler, J. (1997c). Reclaiming school mathematics: The girls fight back.Gender and Education, 9(3), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boaler, J. (1997d). When even the winners are losers: Evaluating the experiences of “top set” students,Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boaler, J. (in press). Open and closed mathematics approaches: Student experiences and understandings.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

  12. Burton, L. (1986). Femmes et Mathematiques: Y a-t-il une intersection? In L. Lafortune (Ed.),Femmes et mathematiques (pp. 19–55). Montreal: Les Iditions du Remu-menage.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burton, L. (1995). Moving towards a feminist epistemology of mathematics. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.),Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture (pp. 209–226). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Elwood, J., & Comber, C. (1996).Gender differences in examinations at 18+: Final report. London: Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (1996). Mathematics classrooms, gender and affect.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Friedman, L. (1995). Assisting women to complete graduate degrees. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.),Equity in mathematics education (pp. 49–58). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gilligan, C. (1982).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MAS: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Huberman, A. M., & Crandall, D. P. (1982). Fitting words to numbers.American Behavioural Scientist, 26(1), 62–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Keedy, J., & Drmacich, D. (1994). The collaborative curriculum at the school without walls: Empowering students for classroom learning.The Urban Review, 26(2), 121–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koehler, M. S. (1993). Classrooms, teachers and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.),Mathematics and gender (pp. 128–148). Brisbane: Queensland University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Leder, G. C. (1993). Teacher/student interactions in the mathematics classroom: A different perspective. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.),Mathematics and gender (pp. 149–168). Brisbane: Queensland University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Leder, G. & Forgasz, H. (1992). Gender: A critical variable in mathematics education. In B. Atweh & J. Watson (Eds.),Research in mathematics education in Australasia 1988–1991 (pp. 67–95). Brisbane: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Maher, C. (1991). Is dealing with mathematics as a thoughtful subject compatible with maintaining satisfactory test scores? A nine-year study.Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 10, 225–248.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy, P. (1990). Assessment and gender.Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(2), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Office of Population Censuses & Surveys. (1980).Classification of occupations 1980. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Office for Standards in Education. (1994).Mathematics key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Resnick, L. (1990). From protoquantities to number sense. In G. Booker, P. Cobb & M. T. Mendicuti (Eds.),Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 305–311). Mexico: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rossi Becker, J. R. (1995). Women’s ways of knowing in mathematics. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.),Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture (pp. 163- 174). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sigurdson, S., & Olson, A. (1992). Teaching mathematics with meaning.Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 11, 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Spender, D. (1982).Invisible women: The schooling scandal. London: Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Strauss, A. L. (1987).Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Weiner, G., Arnot, M., &. David, M. (1996).Is the future female?Female success, male disadvantage and changing gender patterns in education. Paper presented at the “Are boys underachieving?” seminar series. London Institute of Education, 17 May.

  34. Waiden, R. & Walkerdine, V. (1985).Girls and mathematics: from primary to secondary schooling. London: University of London Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Walkerdine, V., & Girls and Mathematics Unit (Eds.). (1989).Counting girls out. London, UK: Virago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boaler, J. Equity, empowerment and different ways of knowing. Math Ed Res J 9, 325–342 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217322

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mathematics Classroom
  • Mathematics Lesson
  • Mathematic Education Research Journal
  • Mathematical Equity
  • Mathematic Unit