Equitable Science Education: A Discrepancy Model

Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (volume 2)


A 15-year-old girl in rural America described the current crossroads in science when she said: ‘There are some women scientists; but men have been in it longer. Women can do the same job as men. They may have a different way of thinking and might improve science’ (Kahle, 1985, p. 68). Her words were fortuitous because they were spoken a few days before Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize for looking at maize in a different way and for thinking about genetics in a different manner. McClintock’s work, unrecognised and even scorned for decades, epitomises the disadvantages that not only individual women but also the scientific community and society as a whole suffer because of a lack of equity in science education. Perhaps Maria Mitchell, one of the first American women to be recognised as a scientist, said it best:

In my younger days, when I was pained by the half-educated, loose, and inaccurate ways which are (women) all had, I used to say ‘how much women need exact science’, but, since I have known some workers in science who were not always true to the teachings of nature, who have loved self more than science, I have now said ‘how much science needs women’. (Maria Mitchell’s presidential address to the Third Congress of Women in 1875; quoted in Rossiter, 1982, p. 15)


Preservice Teacher Science Teacher Science Curriculum Woman Scientist Subject Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, Inc. (AAMT) (1990). A national statement on girls and mathematics, Adelaide, Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Chiam, D., Lappan, G. & Hourang, R.T. (1988). ‘The effect of instruction on spatial visualization skills of middle school girls and boys’, American Educational Research Journal (25), 51–71.Google Scholar
  3. Calabrese, M.E. (1988). ‘What is sex fair education?’ in A.O. Carelli (ed.), Sex equity in education, Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas, 75–81.Google Scholar
  4. Czujko, R. & Bernstein, D. (1989). Who takes science?, A report on student coursework in high school science and mathematics, American Institute of Physics, New York.Google Scholar
  5. de Laeter, J., Malone, J.A. & Dekkers, J. (1989). ‘Female science enrolments in Australian senior secondary schools’, Australian Science Teachers’ Journal 35(3), 23–33.Google Scholar
  6. Eccles, J.S. (1989). ‘Bringing young women to math and science’, in M. Crawford and M. Gentry (eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives, New York, Springer-Verlag, 37–57.Google Scholar
  7. Garratt, L.L. (1986). ‘Gender differences in relation to science choice at A-level’, Educational Review 38(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahle, J.B. (1985). ‘Retention of girls in science: Case studies of secondary teachers’, in J.B. Kahle (ed.), Women in science: A report from the field, London, Falmer Press, 49–76.Google Scholar
  9. Kahle, J.B. (1987). ‘SCORES: Aproject for change?’, Internationaljournal of Science Education (9), 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahle, J.B. & Danzl-Tauer, L. (1991). ‘The underutilized majority: The participation of women in science’, in S.K. Majumdar, L.M. Rosenfeld, P.A. Rubba, E.W. Miller and R.F. Schmalz (eds.), Science education in the United States: Issues, crisis, and priorities, Philadelphia, PA, Pennsylvania Academy of Science Press, 483–503.Google Scholar
  11. Kahle, J.B. & Lakes, M.K. (1983). ‘The myth of equality in science classrooms’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching (20), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahle, J.B. & Rennie, L.J. (1993). ‘Ameliorating gender differences in attitudes about science: A cross-national study’, Journal of Science Education & Technology 2(3), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelly, A.(1985). ‘The construction of masculine science’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 6(2), 133–153.Google Scholar
  14. McDevift, T.M., Heikkinen, H.W. Alcorn, J.K. Ambriosio, A.L. & Gardner, A.L. (1993). ‘Evaluation of the preparation of teachers in science and mathematics: Assessment of preservice teachers attitudes and beliefs’, Science Education (77), 593–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Science Foundation (NSF) (1992). Women and minorities in science and engineering, NSF no. 92-303, Washington, DC, National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Parker, L.H. & Rennie, L.J. (1986). ‘Sex-stereotyped attitudes about science: Can they be changed?’, European Journal of Science Education (8), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rennie, L.J. & Mortier, I. (1989). ‘Gender-inclusive resources in science and technology’, Australian Science Teachers Journal 35(3), 17–22.Google Scholar
  18. Rossiter, M.W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Scantlebury, K. & Kahle, J.B. (1993). ‘Implementation of equitable teaching strategies by preservice teachers’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching (30), 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smail, B. (1984). Girl-friendly science: Avoiding sex bias in the curriculum, London, Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Smail, B. (1985). ‘An attempt to move mountains: The “Girls in Science and Technology” (GIST) Project’, Journal of Curriculum Studies (17), 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shymansky, J., Kyle, W. & Alport, J. (1983). ‘The effect of new science curriculum on student performance’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching (20), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spear, M.G. (1984). ‘Sex bias in science teachers’ ratings of work and pupil characteristics’, European Journal of Science Education (6), 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tobin, K., Kahle, J.B. & Fraser, B.J. (eds.) (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher level cognitive learning in science, London. Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  25. Vetter, B.M. (1987). ‘Women’s progress’, MOSAIC 18(1), 2–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Miami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations