Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 1979–2007

The Single Sex Debate for Girls in Science: a Comparison Between Two Informal Science Programs on Middle School Students’ STEM Identity Formation

  • Roxanne M. Hughes
  • Brandon Nzekwe
  • Kristen J. Molyneaux
Article

Abstract

Currently, there are policy debates regarding the efficacy and legality of single sex formal and informal education programs. This issue is particularly poignant in science education due to the historical marginalization of women in these fields. This marginalization has resulted in women being positioned as a stigmatized group within many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related fields. Research points to adolescence as the age where this sense of marginalization begins to develop. As a result, policy responses have utilized various frameworks such as: increased access for women, changing pedagogy to address women’s learning styles, changing the language and culture of science to prevent marginalization of stigmatized groups, and finally exploring the role that individual identity plays in the marginalization of women. This study adds to the policy debate as it applies to single sex education by comparing middle school participants’ STEM identity formation during two informal science learning environments (an all girls’ STEM camp and a co-educational STEM camp). Additionally, this study focuses on the influence of camp activities within two informal science education programs: particularly the provision of role models and authentic STEM research activities, as means to improve STEM identity and make these fields relevant to the lives of middle school students. The results indicate that both camps improved girls’ STEM identities. These findings suggest that the single sex environment is not as important to STEM identity as the pedagogy used within the program.

Keywords

Single sex programs Informal education STEM education Perception of scientists 

References

  1. American Association of University Women (2009). Separated by sex: Title IX and single-sex education (Position paper). Washington, DC: AAUW Public Policy and Government Relations Department. http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/actionpages/upload/single-sex_ed111.pdf. Accessed 25 Jul 2010.
  2. American Association of University Women (2010). Why so few? Women in science,technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, T. H. (1995). The movement and the sixties. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564–582.Google Scholar
  5. AWE, 2008. Assessing Women and Men in Engineering website. (http://www.engr.psu.edu/awe/secured/director/precollege/pre_college.aspx. Accessed 3 Mar 2008.
  6. Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bianchini, J. A., Cavazos, L. M., & Helms, J. V. (2000). From professional lives to inclusive practice: science teachers and scientist views of gender and ethnicity in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 511–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bracey, G. W. (2006). Separate but superior? A review of issues and data bearing on single-sex education. Tempe: Educational Policy Research Unity (EPRU). EPSL-0611-221-EPRU.Google Scholar
  10. Brickhouse, N. W., & Potter, J. T. (2001). Young women’s scientific identity formation in an urban context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 965–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brickhouse, N. W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: a review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buck, G. A., Plano Clark, V. L., Leslie-Pelecky, D., Lu, Y., & Cerda-Lizarrage, P. (2007). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: a feminist approach. Science Education, 92, 688–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calabrese Barton, A. (1997). Liberatory science education: weaving connections between Feminist theory and science education. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(2), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: girls’ access, participation and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Darke, K., Clewell, B., & Sevo, R. (2002). Meeting the challenge: the impact of the National Science Foundation’s program for women and girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 285–303.Google Scholar
  20. Demetry, C., Hubelbank, J., Blaisdell, S., Sontgerath, S., Nicholson, M. E., Rosenthal, E., et al. (2009). Supporting young women to enter engineering: long-term effects of a middle school engineering outreach program for girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eccles, J. S. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 199–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fadigan, K. A., & Hammrich, P. L. (2004). A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 835–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gandy, K. (2006). Separation threatens girls. USA Today. http://www.now.org/issues/education/060328op-ed.html. Accessed 10 Mar 2009.
  24. Gilmartin, S., Denson, N., Li, E., Bryant, A., & Aschbacher, P. (2007). Gender ratios in high school science departments: the effect of percent female faculty on multiple dimensions of students’ science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 980–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., et al. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333(6050), 1706–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harding, S. (1997). Women’s standpoints on nature: what makes them possible? Osiris, 12, 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school Physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: a gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003.Google Scholar
  28. Jayaratne, T. E., Thomas, N. G., & Trautmann, M. (2003). Intervention program to keep girls in the science pipeline: outcome differences by ethnic status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, M. G., Brader-Araje, L., Carboni, L. W., Carter, G., Rua, M. J., Banilower, E., et al. (2000). Tool time: gender and students’ use of tools, control and authority. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 760–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science: lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88(2), 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80(6), 613–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/reports.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2007.
  34. McGrayne, S. B. (2005). Nobel Prize women in science: their lives, struggles, and momentous discoveries (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Science Foundation (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. NSF 11–309. Table 9–37: Demographic characteristics of employed scientists and engineers by race/ethnicity and sex. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  36. Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: a synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 172–208.Google Scholar
  37. Painter, J., Jones, M. G., Tretter, T. R., & Kubasko, D. (2006). Pulling back the curtain: uncovering and changing students’ perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Polman, J. L., & Miller, D. (2010). Changing stories: trajectories of identification among African American youth in a science outreach apprenticeship. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 878–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rittmayer, M.A. & Beier, M.E. (2009). Self-Efficacy in STEM. In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.). Applying Research to Practice (ARP) Resources. http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/ARPresources.aspx. Accessed 1 Sept 2010.
  40. Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 235–256.Google Scholar
  41. Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Spielhagen, F. R. (2008). Having it our way: students speak out on single-sex classes. In F. R. Spielhagen (Ed.), Debating single-sex education: separate and equal (pp. 32–46). Baltimore: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  43. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2007). Introduction: Striving for perspective in the debate on women in science. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  45. Zinn, M. B., & Dill, B. T. (1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zohar, A., & Bronshtein, B. (2005). Physics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding girls’ low participation rates in advanced physics classes. International Journal of Science, 27, 61–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roxanne M. Hughes
    • 1
  • Brandon Nzekwe
    • 1
  • Kristen J. Molyneaux
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Integrating Research & LearningNational High Magnetic Field LaboratoryTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Firelight FoundationSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations