Abstract
This qualitative study examines the way three American young adolescent girls who come from different class and racial backgrounds construct their social and academic identities in the context of their traditional mathematics classroom. The overall analysis shows an interesting dynamic among each participant’s class and racial background, their social/academic identity and its collective foundation, the types of ideologies they repudiate and subscribe to, the implicit and explicit strategies they adopt in order to support the legitimacy of their own position, and the ways they manifest their position and identity in their use of language referring to their mathematics classroom. Detailed analysis of their use of particular terms, such as “I,” “we,” “they,” and “should/shouldn’t” elucidates that each participant has a unique view of her mathematics classroom, developing a different type of collective identity associated with a particular group of students. Most importantly, this study reveals that the girls actively construct a social and ideological web that helps them articulate their ethical and moral standpoint to support their positions. Throughout the complicated appropriation process of their own identity and ideological standpoint, the three girls made different choices of actions in mathematics learning, which in turn led them to a different math track the following year largely constraining their possibility of access to higher level mathematical knowledge in the subsequent schooling process.
This chapter is a reprint of an article published in ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education (2008) 40(4), 617–631. DOI 10.1007/s11858-008-0119-7.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I interviewed the total of eight girls, four from the advanced and regular class. This paper presents only three girls enrolled in the advanced class. April, my fourth participant in the class, showed results somewhat similar to Amanda’s case. Yet, April did not develop as strong a voice as Amanda.
- 2.
I believe that reporting findings derived from my larger ethnographic research is beyond the scope of this paper. However, I presented a few major findings that are essential to understand the results from my discourse analysis presented in this paper. Those findings are explained in Sect. 3 (pp. 7–8).
- 3.
The six areas of “reality” are: (1) the meaning/value of aspects of the material world; (2) activities; (3) identities and relationships; (4) politics; (5) connections, and (6) semiotics (Gee 1999, p. 12).
- 4.
Based on the nature and common usage of these three words (I, we, and they) as generic first person or third person pronouns often used as a proxy for a larger group, I limited my analysis of these three terms to a smaller number of interview excerpts that meet the three criteria. Therefore, the participants’ use of “we” or “they” that did not meet the criteria were not included in my analysis. For example, the participants, of course, used a lot of “they” as they describe their parents, school teachers, and others. Those “they”s were not the target of my analysis.
References
Ansell, E., & Doerr, H. M. (2000). NAEP finding regarding gender: Achievement, affect, and instructional experiences. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenny (Eds.), Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress (pp. 73–106). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Archer, L., Halsall, A., & Hollingworth, S. (2007). Class, gender, (hetero)sexuality and schooling: Working class girls’ engagement with schooling and post-16 aspirations. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2), 165–180.
Atweh, B., Bleicher, R. E., & Cooper, T. J. (1998). The construction of the social context of mathematics classrooms: A sociolinguistic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 63–82.
Atweh, B. H., Forgasz, H., & Nebres, B. (Eds.). (2001). Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Balfanz, R., Legters, N., & Jordan, W. (2004). Catching up: Effect of the talent development ninth-grade instructional interventions in reading and mathematics in high-poverty high schools. NASSP Bulletin, 88(641), 3–30.
Ball, D. (1990). The mathematical understanding that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449–466.
Bauer, D. M., & McKinstry, S. J. (1991). Introduction. In D. N. Bauer & S. J. McKinstry (Eds.), Feminism, Bakhtin, and the dialogic (pp. 1–16). New York: SUNY Press.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s way of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bhana, D. (2005). “I’m the best in maths. Boys rule, girls drool”. Masculinities, mathematics and primary schooling. Perspectives in Education, 23(3), 1–10.
Boaler, J. (1997). Reclaiming school mathematics: The girls fight back. Gender and Education, 9(3), 285–305.
Boaler, J. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171–200). Westport: Ablex.
Boaler, J. (2006). Promoting respectful learning. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 74–78.
Bond, G. C. (1981). Social economic status and educational achievement: A review article. Anthropology and Education, 12(4), 227–257.
Boykin, A. W., Tyler, K. M., & Miller, O. (2005). In search of cultural themes and their expressions in the dynamics of classroom life. Urban Education, 40(2), 521–549.
Brown, T., McNamara, O., Hanley, U., & Jones, L. (1999). Primary student teachers’ understanding of mathematics and its teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 299–322.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: Sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.
Buxton, C., Caroline, H. B., & Caroline, D. (2005). Boundary spanners as bridges of student and school discourses in an urban science and mathematics high school. School Science & Mathematics, 105(6), 302–333.
Campbell, P. (1989). So what do we know with the poor, non-white females?: Issues of gender, race, and social class in mathematics and equity. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 95–112.
Chipman, S. F. (2005). Research on the women and mathematics issues: A personal case history. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 1–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005). National statistics first release, GCE/VCE A/AS examination results for young people in England, 2003–4 (final). Department of Education and Skills. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000586/SFR262005.pdf.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Foley, G. (2005). Educational institutions: Supporting working-class learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 106, 37–44.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1991). Modernism, postmodernism, and feminism: Rethinking the boundaries of educational discourse. In H. A. Giroux (Ed.), Postmodernism, feminism, and cultural politics: Redrawing educational boundaries (pp. 1–59). Albany: SUNY Press.
Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and politics of hope: Theory, culture and schooling. Boulder: Westview Press.
Gutstein, E., Lipman, P., Hernandez, P., & Reyes, R. (1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teaching in a Mexican American Context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 709–737.
Hargreaves, M., Homer, M., & Swinnerton, B. (2008). A comparison of performance and attitudes in mathematics amongst the ‘gifted’. Are boys better at mathematics or do they just think they are? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 19–38.
Herzig, A. (2004). Slaughtering this beautiful math’: Graduate women choosing and leaving mathematics. Gender and Education, 16(3), 379–395.
Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal, 56(4), 351–358.
Jenson, J., De Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (2003). “Girl talk”: Gender, equity, and identity discourses in a school-based computer culture. Women’s Studies International, 26(6), 561–573.
Jones, J., Porter, A., & Young, D. (1996). Perceptions of the relevance of mathematics and science: Further analysis of an Australian longitudinal study. Research in Science Education, 26(4), 481–494.
Jungwirth, H. (1993). Reflections on the foundations of research on women and mathematics. In S. Restivo, J. P. V. Bendegem & R. Fischer (Eds.), Math worlds: Philosophical and social studies of mathematics and mathematics education (pp. 134–149). Albany: SUNY Press.
Lacasa, P., del Castillo, V., & García-Varela, A. (2005). A Bakhtinian approach to identity in the context of institutional practices. Culture Psychology, 11, 287–307.
Leder, G. C. (1992). Mathematics and gender: Changing perspectives. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 597–622). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Lubienski, S. T. (2002). Research, reform and equity in U.S. mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2, 3), 103–125.
Mcgraw, R., Lubienski, S. T., & Strutchens, M. E. (2006). A closer look at gender in NAEP mathematics achievement and affect data: Intersections with achievement, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 129–150.
Mendick, H. (2005). A beautiful myth?: The gendering of being/doing ‘good at maths’. Gender and Education, 17(2), 203–219.
Morris, P. (1994). The Bakhtin reader. London: Edward Arnold.
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls and women: 2004. NCES 2005-016. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/sub-mathgender.asp.
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Gender differences in participation and completion of undergraduate education and how they have changed over time: Postsecondary education descriptive analysis report. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office.
NCTM: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
NCTM: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). New principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Noddings, N. (1993). Politicizing the mathematics classroom. In S. Restivo, J. P. V. Bendegem & R. Fischer (Eds.), Math worlds: Philosophical and social studies of mathematics and mathematics education (pp. 151–161). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153–222.
Parsons, E. C. (2005). From caring as a relation to culturally relevant caring: A White teacher’s bridge to black students. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 25–34.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159.
Reyes, L. H., & Stanic, G. M. A. (1988). Race, sex, socioeconomic status, and mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 26–43.
Rodd, M., & Bartholomew, H. (2006). Invisible and special: Young women’s experiences as undergraduate mathematics students. Gender and Education, 18(1), 35–50.
Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D., & Nicols, S. (1993). An exploratory attempt toward a feminist pedagogy for science education. Action in Teacher Education, 15(4), 36–46.
Ryan, K. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and standardized math test performance. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 53–63.
Rymes, B. (2001). Conversational boarderlands. New York: Teachers College Press.
Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 623–660). New York: Macmillan.
Skovsmose, O. (2007). Doubtful rationality. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(3), 215–224.
Stiff, L. V. (1990). African American students and the promise of the curriculum and evaluation standards. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s (pp. 152–158). Reston: NCTM.
Stiff, L. V., & Harvey, W. B. (1988). On the education of black children in mathematics. Journal of Black Studies, 19, 190–203.
Strike, K. A. (1997). Justice, caring and universality: In defense of moral pluralism. In M. S. Katz, N. Noddings & K. A. Strike (Eds.), Justice and caring: In search for common ground in education (pp. 21–36). New York: Teachers College Press.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 23–39.
Tate, W. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 652–679.
Timm, J. T. (1999). The relationship between culture and cognitive style: A review of the evidence and some reflections for the classroom. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 12(2), 36–44.
Trusty, J., Robinson, C., Plata, M., & Ng, K. (2000). Effects of gender, SES, and early academic performance on postsecondary educational choice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 463–472.
van Langen, A., & Dekkers, H. (2005). Cross-national differences in participating in tertiary science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Comparative Education, 41(3), 329–350.
van Langen, A., Rekers-Mombarg, L., & Dekkers, H. (2006). Group-related differences in the choice of mathematics and science subjects. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 27–51.
Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik (Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Mathematics, social class, and linguistic capital: An analysis of mathematics classroom interactions. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education (pp. 201–216). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Zevenbergen, R. (2005). The construction of a mathematical “Habitus”: Implications of ability grouping in the middle years. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 607–619.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lim, J.H. (2012). Adolescent Girls’ Construction of Moral Discourses and Appropriation of Primary Identity in a Mathematics Classroom. In: Forgasz, H., Rivera, F. (eds) Towards Equity in Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27702-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27702-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27701-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27702-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)