You are required to post: on 2 different days from Thursday to Sunday as many times as you want.
1st Post: is a detailed response to the question based on your knowledge and the reading material
Required: To read what everyone is saying and reflecting... if they are quoting to defend their views you can do the same but be sure to read where it came from.
Others: Make detailed comment, to express an idea, sharing a thought, responding to someone's answers or thoughts. Having a dialogue and a discussion on line...
If: The discussion is getting off topic and taking a different direction I might post and get everyone back on track and post other issues or articles for you to read. In this case you do not have to respond to me in particular but you can respond to what someone has said or you can respond...!
Blog Discussion Starts Here:
Principles and standards articulates the Council's belief that "mathematics can and must be learned by all students." (p.13) "Every child" means "no exception."
Thomas Jefferson quote (p.66) "There is nothing so unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people."
Article: Teaching Mathematics Fairly and Equitably to Girls.
http://www.parentsassociation.com/education/girls_math_students.html
Question: Why is the goal of equitable instruction for all not the same as offering the same instruction for all students?
Is a standards-based instructional strategy sufficient for meeting the needs of all students in a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom? What about meeting the needs of the girls? Political agenda and the ever changing expectations and environment in education?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Principles and standards articulates the Council's belief that "mathematics can and must be learned by all students." (p.13) "Every child" means "no exception."
ReplyDeleteWhile I think it's possible that all students can learn math and should, I feel as though this statement (and the standards) leaves a lot of room of defining "math". That one student's "math" is not another student's "math".
Many of us, dealing with special education students, realize it's our job to differentiate to many different levels, based on needs and where students are at.
The concept behind differentiation is that no two students learn alike. A student's best may not be at the defined standard.
Would the Equity Principle find a student not reaching a particular math standard a victim of an inequitable math education?
According to the article, girls and boys learn math differently based on the way they were taught to socialize. Given this information, as well as our experience in the classroom with special needs students, not every child learns in the same way. Therefore offering same instruction/ standards based instruction to every student would go against the idea that "mathematics can be learned by all children." Equal is not necessarily the same and so in order to have every student improve in math, there way of learning and their experiences need to be considered. As Nicole said the idea is to differenteiate instruction in order to reach all learners especially in a culturally and ligusitically diverse classroom and with gender differences.
ReplyDeleteThe article also mentioned that girls prefer to write. In class the other day we had discussed the importance of adding writing to math and this is one way to differentiate for girls. Also The article also mentioned giving girls more power and speaking roles when it comes to group project. This makes them more motivated. This stresses the importance of handing out roles to each group member and considering who may benefit from what role. The last thing that I thought was interesting was that girls became more involved when there was an added "discussion of responsibilty and care." This is something that can be considered when choosing math problems for students to discover.
I agree with both Eva and Nicole. While it is important that all students be given the same opportunity to learn math and that it is equally important that we believe all students are capable of learning math; it does not mean that students should be taught the same way. Though it is important to view our classrooms as mathematical communities it is also important to remeber that it is made up of a collection of individuals and no two people are exactly the same. Everyone has different learning styles and capabilities. More importantly the standards and curriculums are not created with our kids, special ed students, in mind. Therefore as teachers it is our responsibility to differentiate how and what we teach to each student, so that their individual needs may be met. Anything including gender (according to the article) can affect they way people learn and we must take that into account when teaching.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this article draws an excellent distinction between teaching students the same through standardized instruction and true educational equity and shows the results of what might happen(one thing at least) when standardized instruction crushes the creativity in the classroom. I am not minimizing the importance of standards but unfortunately in many instances teachers who are forced to meet vast amounts of standards in a short period of time so their students can adequately take the state tests do so at the expense of creativity and conceptual completeness in the math classroom. Here is where the article comes in. The researchers wrote that they found that girls, even though they are socialized at an early age, perhaps through their home and school environments both, that high level math is not what they should be exploring in the classroom, were very open to roles that involved logical and conceptual reasoning when presented with math projects that let them explore these talents. Unfortunately because of the compressed testing environment these sorts of explorations are uncommon in the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shelanthia and the rest of the ladies. As special educators, we are trained to make accommodations for students with all types of needs including gender. We are to provide a environment where everyone is accepted and can be taught to give their very best. We are to encourage and support girls and boys who struggle with math so that they can become successful learners. The article says that math is for males but this is totally false. Math is for all learners and should be expressed in this way to students in our classroom.
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson’s quote states that “there is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequal people.” Although context in which this was said leads me to believe that by unequal he meant one person being better than another, and while I do not agree that one person is ever better than the next one, I do however agree with the principle behind what Jefferson was saying. So to tweak it a little bit….There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of individuals who are different.
ReplyDeleteThe article talks about the differences in math skills and abilities of girls and boys based on how they are socialized as young children. I believe that boys and girls are different and because of this there is a difference in their skills and abilities. One is not better and one is not worse, it’s just different. I also believe that “all children can learn mathematics”; just not in the same way and differentiation has to happen in instruction in order for all students to have full access to the curriculum.
I know firsthand how different students in my classroom are. They come from different cultures, backgrounds and have different personalities, genders and learning styles; all of which influence how they acquire knowledge and should be taken into consideration when teachers give instruction.
Equitable means treating people FAIRLY not equally because equal is not always fair. Therefore the goal of equitable instruction for all is not the same as offering the same instruction for all students because offering the same instruction to all students would suggest that all students are the same and learn in the same way and this is just not the case. Teachers must speak the “learning language” of individual students.
I agree with Dacia that students must be seen as individuals who are capable of learning and have different learning styles. A part of viewing students has individuals must come into account when a teacher is planning a lesson and during the execution of the lesson. In the article "The Culturally Responsive Teacher" by Villegas and Lucas the main idea is that teachers must seek to engage students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and must be able to view each of them as capable learners. Teachers need to know something about their students' family makeup, immigration history, strengths and weaknesses in order to effectively teach students. I have also witnessed the differences in not only culturally but gender in terms of how students learn and work to solve problems in groups. I have often made groups within my class based on gender just to see for myself how the groups would work together. I have found that the groups worked more efficiently because they shared the same approach to problems whether it was in math or science. The girls had a tendency to be more thoughtful and write before they took any action. On the other hand boys used a trial and error approach and acted before they wrote anything down. Thomas Jefferson's quote "there is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequal people." was I believe meant to show that some people are better than others but I have a quote that highlights difference in a different manner. "What is fair for one is not fair for all."
ReplyDeleteI was not sure how to include the article I referred to in my post Prof. Persuad please let me know if this is necessary. Thanks Denise Bond
ReplyDeleteI feel Dacia put it very eloquently in reference to the Thomas Jefferson quote. Just because some students require additional support to compensate for differences in learning styles and academic abilities does not mean that anyone is "better" than anyone else--it is encouraging to see that we as Special Education teachers have embraced this notion. I also think that Denise's open-minded approach to grouping and her response to how she sees students interacting and performing is generally accurate.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the article and how boys and girls might learn math differently, here's something to consider: the hormone testosterone, more present in males than females, has a great deal to do with not only hand-eye coordination (helpful in hitting your moving dinner with a sharp stone when that's how you had to catch dinner) but with spatial relations. Might this perhaps have anything to do with why boys seem to have more of a "natural inclination" to do Math?
I agree with many of the comments above. Equitable instruction should be defined as offering equal opportunity to each individual student to succeed to the best of his/her abilities. Teachers must understand that a variety of methods and materials of instruction will need to be used in the classroom in order to accomplish this goal.
ReplyDeleteWe, as teachers, must also be very careful to be self-reflective. Culture, societal pressures, and family life will have an impact on learning, but it is truly detrimental to students when teachers (consciously or unconsciously) reinforce negative societal messages, for example that math is for boys, not girls (as mentioned in the article). Bryan mentioned that socialization happens in school as well as home, and as teachers we cannot afford to forget that we are in part responsible for our student's views on learning.
A study by the U.S. National Science Foundation that came out last year (I will post the link as soon as I figure out how!), discovered that girls had closed the gap with boys as far as performance on standardized math tests and enrollment in advanced math courses. This gap closed because of a widespread effort to encourage girls in math. This level of effort is what teachers should be investing in all of their students, to try to get past their internal barriers and convince them that they are scholars in their own right.
Sorry, this is Kylah Torre. I forgot I had my gmail account set up this way.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to consider that the boys/girls article was written 17 years ago.
ReplyDeleteYou have to admit that there has been progress since the early 90s when it comes to women and success. Unless of course, you're Lawrence Summers.
Anyway, the excerpt, "For too many, the question of girls and mathematics achievement continues to focus on the question of why girls don't achieve rather than what is it in the classrooms or the culture that creates barriers to math success for girls. Or, as Borasi (1991) asks, "How could school mathematics be changed in order to become more appealing to women and better accommodate their thinking and learning styles?" got me thinking...
Within these 17 years, there has been a shift in teaching math-- that toward more exploration and group based activities. These activities are centered on group cooperation, logic, reasoning, self-expression, etc. To continue the article's trend of generalizing, these are all traits and learning styles that females naturally excel with. I think if a study of using this approach with females would find that the sex math achievement gap would have shrunken. Unless, of course, it had an adverse effect on male performance.
This also builds on what Bryan mentioned-- about math projects that encouraged exploration (and cooperation within a group) but that didn't transfer to the classroom due to resource (time) constraints caused by testing.
The article clearly indicates that all children are able to learn mathematics. However it is important to keep in mind that all children do not learn the same way- and that instruction must vary between classes, and students.
ReplyDeleteTeaching mathematics is not effective when it follows a standardized or general form. A broad national curriculum is helpful when planning for a year, but can detract from the overal value of individual lesson plans and instructions. It is up to the teacher's discretion to modify lessons based on class and student needs.
Specifically, I believe that the article is arguing for differentiation within lesson plans and classroom curriculum. Often times children require different forms of instruction in order to truly grasp a concept. Each child has a different learning style and those learning style should fuel the teacher's lessons.
In order to ensure "equitable instruction" we must keep in mind the disabilities, culture, and backgrounds of of students to best suit their needs.
The goal of equitable instruction is to ensure that all students succeed. It is not the point to make sure all students receive the same instructions, because it is widely known that there are various types of learners and what works for one student, may not work for another. If the goal of equitable instruction is to make sure that all students excel, then offering the same instruction for all students would work in the opposite direction of the goal.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that standards-based instructional strategy is sufficient to meet the needs of all students. Culturally and linguistically diverse students require special instruction and support in order for them to succeed. Some students will find discovering math is extremely difficult and lose interest and give up quickly. This article spoke specifically about the disparities in girls in the mathematics area. Girls are told, as well as shown, that mathematics is for boys. We, as educators, need to reverse this process as early as possible and send messages of equality and individuality. For some young ladies, messages have been driven into their heads and they needed to be given extra care in order for them to meet the math expectations in the work force. Politically, I feel that ‘no child’ should be left behind. However, with the current policies, more children are falling behind. It needs to be considered by policy makers that not all students learn the same and not all students intelligence can be fully measured through a standardized test. The education expectations are increasing every year, but policy makers are not increasing the support and resources for those expectations to be met. In addition to this deficit, the students are losing out on gaining real world applications in math, which will do more damage in their adult lives than failing a standardized test during their school years.
In this article Katerine Hanson argues that the way we socialize boys vs. girls has an impact on the development of each gender group’s mathematic ability. This argument does have some validity for certain mathematical concepts; however, it is faulty in relation to other concepts. For example, the fact that we encourage boys to play with action figures may give them an advantage over girls in geometry, but it does not give them an advantage in statistics or number sense.
ReplyDeleteHanson also pointed out that girls are encouraged to express themselves verbally more than boys. In my opinion this is true, however, I feel that this factor gives girls an advantage in math. Being able to verbally express the procedures, concepts and processes that one takes to solve math problems is the standard in math classrooms today. Students that are not able to verbally express the math that they are doing are seen as in need of intervention plans. Therefore, our girls that are being encouraged to express themselves verbally have an advantage in math class over our boys that are not.
In the article Hanson states the following: “Although how participants in a class talk actually shapes the discourse and discovery process, traditional nonpersonal hierarchical classroom interaction tends to support the male discourse model.” Based on the way girls and boys are socialized, Hanson, is correct in her judgment that the traditional classroom set up is more conducive to a male’s style of learning. However, most classrooms in New York City are not set up this way. In all of the classrooms that I have been in the students are working in groups and constantly interacting with each other. Also, teachers are not just up in front of the classroom teaching for hours in like it was a decade ago. Therefore, the way we are setting up classrooms in New York City is more advantageous for girls. Nevertheless, in colleges education is still being conducted this way.
I think the simple fact that we are stating that "girls learn" math differently from boys gets right to the heart of perhaps a more profound difference between learners than we are easily willing to accept. Why should the environment of a math class have that much impact? Are we tacitly admitting that there is a biological, fundamental difference between the sexes that must be compensated for? Isn't it a bit of an unfair assertion to make in the first place that (all or most) girls learn math (or any subject for that matter) so differently that they they (as a gender) require additional or specially-tailored support? I'm sure there are plenty of girls who are equally capable of learning and excelling at math.
ReplyDeleteGranted, the article tries to make the case that the traditional math-class set-up favors boys over girls, but that assertion relies on the even flimsier assertion that girls cannot somehow compete in the traditional atmosphere because of some "flaw" in how they think when it comes to math-related concepts and procedures. I'm not trying to say it hasn't been a "man's world" in many pivotal and unjust ways, but putting forth (as the article seems to) that all girls learn and view math differently than boys as a result of socialization seems to disparage or mitigate the female capacity for learning. I'm not saying that certain socio-cultural disparities between the sexes don't need to be amended, but let's not generalize too much and put forth that girls just can't compete in the traditional math-learning environment. Maybe girls' parents and their teachers need to simply tell them that they can do it as well as boys, providing of course that girls value math skills in the same way, and that they try just as hard as others to compete and achieve within the math classroom.
I also have a problem with the assertion that, as Sham points out above, "traditional non-personal hierarchical classroom interaction tends to support the male discourse model." Leaving the fancy language in that statement aside, I have doubts that there truly exists a "male discourse model." This seems to say that there is a single, distinctly male way of discussing and tackling problems. I disagree with that premise on its face. As a matter of fact, I think the article makes numerous sweeping and unfounded generalizations about the way the sexes learn. I don't think there is a gender-specific one-size-fits-all way of learning for boys and one for girls. This is soft bigotry at its most insidious. Assuming, as the article's discussion does, that girls don't do as well simply based on atmosphere and teaching styles seems to ingrain a prejudice towards females that seems not only unfair but also inaccurate.
The thesis of this article concludes that educators need to make a conscious effort to get females taking risks in all subjects. It is my belief that women are not socialized to be risk takers. Unfortunately, Math and Science are the traditional risk taking subjects.
ReplyDeleteSham made a valid point; Girls should be encouraged to take advantage of their verbal expression. However, if a girl cannot visualize the mental picture she is trying to express, she will not be able to accurately describe a problem or solution. I am a living example of that.
We are making classrooms in NYC advantageous to girls, but in a way that has them hitting a glass ceiling. They are catching on to the foundations and never taught how to problem solve.
Boys and girls are different. I think we can all agree on that. But whatever biological or socialized differences may exist between the sexes (or any other peoples), our instruction must be equitable. The point of equitable instruction is not to deny that differences exist, but to be conscious of diversity in the classroom and try not to exalt one learning style over another.
ReplyDeleteTraditional classrooms may very well fail to serve the needs of learners belonging to traditionally marginalized groups. However, it is also dangerous to lump children into categories based on their biology or culture. Maybe little Jane learns better through discourse and maybe she doesn't. The point of equitable instruction is to find out what serves Jane as an individual and to provide that type of learning experience as much as possible.
The real question is, how do we as teachers provide this?
Kylah Torre
I respectfully disagree with the notion that boys and girls are different if we are speaking about learning styles and intellectual capacity for any subject. Any differences between boys and girls were engendered into them by a culture that places different role expectations upon them. Was it just me, or was the math article incredibly out dated in its thinking and presumptions? It was written 17 years ago. From personal experience, my daughter is in fourth grade and loves math and excels in it. She has excellent teachers and curriculum/math coaches who expect ALL of their students to see themselves as mathematicians and to succeed. I, on the other hand was taught by teachers who believed that girls couldn't do math, so I never got the support that I needed to be mathematically fluent. Fortunately, the feminist movement made a HUGE difference in the assumptions of intellectual inequality of educational expectations based on gender. As a result, gender has nothing to do with the internal perceptions of the students in my classroom. I feel that their perceptual stumbling blocks have more to do with the stigma/assumptions of their lack of intelligence/inability to succeed and go to college because of their label as special education students. The differentiation which I provide my students is not based on (or predicted by) their gender, but rather their learning styles-i.e. visual, kinesthetic, and by the quality of educational support which they receive at home.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, I wasn't saying that boys and girls are different in their intellectual capacity. I was trying to say that though individuals may have certain differences (based on biology or culture or socialization or whatever), they should all be treated as learners with equal potential and that we as teachers should aim to understand our students and their learning differences, no matter what the cause, in order to offer them all the same opportunities.
ReplyDeleteKylah Torre
Personally, I don’t think that the article is outdated. The article states that, “While the gap between male and female achievement is finally slowly lessening, females still take fewer and less advanced math courses than males, and women are still poorly represented in careers requiring sophisticated mathematical knowledge.” In 1992, I was in fourth grade and was doing very well in math. In fact as I prepared for college, I scored significantly higher in math than I did in language on my SATs. However, when I got to college I decided to major in Art History, a liberal arts degree versus pursuing a degree in mathematics. The article is still justified by today’s standards in that there are still more men that have degrees in math and finance and even in the corporate world there are still much more men that work in wall street than women.
ReplyDeleteI think that that article is right in drawing attention to that fact that there are few studies that try to incorporate anthropology, sociology, or linguistics in trying to solve the problem the female underachievement in math. I do think that girls and boys learn math the same way, but as girls get older there less emphasis of math in their life. There is less of a push for women to get degrees in the realm of mathematics than there is for men. Because it is not a questions of girls achieving the classroom, because girls can achieve mathematically in the classroom. The question is why do they not pursue mathematics for careers?
I think that the question then becomes what happens to females during their undergraduate and post undergraduate work that discourages a career in mathematics. I think that statistical we can see that there has been an increase in the number of females that are choosing careers in the sciences but that same increase is not taking place in the field of mathematics. There is not the same level of initiatives or incentives given to females to try and increase the level interest in careers that involve mathematics. Usually students male or female who are interested in the sciences usually have some interest in mathematics as well. A contributing factor to this discrepancy could be the culturally or social preferences that are placed on having a doctor in the family as oppose to financier or accountant.
ReplyDeleteI think that some of the information in the article is a bit outdated when it refers to girls being less inclined to use technology and their enthusiasm for mathematics.
While I feel that the article is accurate on the progression of expectations of our young women, I do feel that it speaks a truth that still exists and is proven: there is a much higher number of men with degrees in science and math than women. I feel that overall, the article is a outdated and that if to see the real effects of pushing our young women to be more assertive, we will have to wait to see if the ratio of men to women with math degrees changes in the next twenty years. As an educator, I feel that I equally push my students in all subjects and I do not accept gender as an excuse to do well. As a young woman growing up, I was given the notion that it was ok not to succeed in math. I remember my mother telling me my brothers were stronger in math and I in ELA. I do not believe she intended to discourage me from doing well but as many young children, in a way, you live up to others expectations. By middle school, I despised math and did not do well. I think these stereotypes have changed dramatically in the last several years, as they should, and maybe we will see this turn around in females excelling in math. I agree with Kylah, whether we have made more progress in this area or not, how do we ensure (as educators) that our students will be given the tools to excel, no matter what they’ve been told?
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with the statement that this article may be outdated. It is important that we continue to take into consideration the different learning styles of all of our students, no matter what gender they are, no matter what part of the population they categorically fall into. This to me is the most difficult part of teaching successfully, especially in a special education classroom-trying to differentiate to a point where all student's needs are met.
ReplyDeleteI feel as in the past few years, gender stereotypes have started to break away in the classroom as more girls go into fields involving math and science. It is our job as teachers to continue these trends by fostering a classroom environment that allows everyone to explore their potential. We have been learning in another class that, according to Piaget, children construct their own reality based upon what is around them. It is important to give children, whatever their situation is, the tools they need to encourage them to be what they want to be, and we play a very important role in this as classroom teachers.
Kristen asked the question "How do we ensure (as educators) that our students will be given the tools to excel, no matter what they've been told?
ReplyDeleteI believe that we can ensure that our students will be given the tools to excel, no matter what they've been told by providing them with research based instruction and encouraging them to love math.
Providing our students with researched based instruction is the easy part. There are thousands of books on the best practices for math instruction. If we teach our students to love math more of them might be likely to pursue careers in math. I feel that math needs to be a subject that we get excited about in the classroom. When I was in grade school most of my teachers didn't get excited about math they just taught it. Next year I plan to try to get my students excited about math and show them the role it plays in their lives. If this is done in the classroom, I can confident that our students will excel.
I agree with those who have stated that the article is dated, however it did have a valid point:gender can affect the way one learns and thinks. While I don't believe that one gender is gauranteed to excel in any particular area simply because of one's biological make-up, I do believe that way the genders are socialized can and does affect peoples attitudes and thus their performance in certain areas. Although I don' believe that anyone should be differently simply because of one's gender, I think that as teachers we must consider te idea some of our students may be less inclined exhibit any interest in subjects like math because of the way the have been socialized. Therefore, it is our job to find ways to reach them; differentiation is the only way to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should reach every student regardless of gender. Even if we are taught to behave or think a certain way, it does not determine what we learn. It's up to that person to decide if they will excel or not. The article mentioned how girls improved their approach to problem solving on a team project mixed with boys when the classroom was structured.It gave girls power and importance within the setting which tells me that it is up to the individual to decide on what they want to learn and not gender.
ReplyDelete(For some reason, my name isn't coming up on my google account, but this is from JessChako) Thanks!!
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was incredibly interesting, especially the bit about the socialization of girls as related to math. I do believe that there has been a trend over the past decade within schools and our communities where we've discouraged females from pursuing the 'hard' subjects like math and science. The discrepancies become apparent in high school.
Sitting in the same classroom, reading the same textbook, listening to the same teacher, boys and girls receive very different educations. In fact, upon entering school, girls perform equal to or better than boys on nearly every measure of achievement, but by the time they graduate high school or college, they have fallen behind.
The socialization of gender within our schools assures that girls are made aware that they are unequal to boys. Every time students are seated or lined up by gender, teachers are affirming that girls and boys should be treated differently. When an administrator ignores an act of sexual harassment, he or she is allowing the degradation of girls. When different behaviors are tolerated for boys than for girls because 'boys will be boys', schools are perpetuating the oppression of females. There is some evidence that girls are becoming more academically successful than boys, however examination of the classroom shows that girls and boys continue to be socialized in ways that work against gender equity.
Clearly the socialization of gender roles and the use of a gender-biased hidden curriculum lead to an inequitable education for boys and girls. What changes can be made to create a more equitable learning environment for all children? First, teachers need to be made aware of their gender-biased tendencies. Next, they need to be provided with strategies for altering the behavior. Finally, efforts need to be made to combat gender bias in educational materials.
- Jess Chako
I also agree with what a lot of my peers are saying about how, as instructors, we have lot of influence over this issue. We can continue to encourage more equality with girls and boys, especially when it comes to math. I also feel that departments of education should be providing mandatory gender-equity resource modules to in-service teachers, and gender bias needs to be addressed with all pre-service teachers. Educators need to be made aware of the bias they are reinforcing in their students through socialization messages, inequitable division of special education services, sexist texts and materials, and unbalanced time and types of attention spent on boys and girls in the classroom. "Until educational sexism is eradicated, more than half our children will be shortchanged and their gifts lost to society. - JChako
ReplyDelete"Educators need to be made aware of the bias they are reinforcing in their students through socialization messages, inequitable division of special education services, sexist texts and materials, and unbalanced time and types of attention spent on boys and girls in the classroom." I completely agree with this statement. For example, in my class I had 9 boys and one girl in my class, and it did not come to my attention that I had been giving the boys more of my time than the girl until the girl cried and told me that I had been given more attention to the boys in the class than her. Granted the boys that I had given more time to were coming to school everyday and she wasn't and that was part of the reason it was easier to give attention to the boys in the class because their problems were easier to solve. However, I do acknowledge that I am part of the system that has a bias towards men. Instructors have to be constantly made aware of these biases that we have. These biases are ingrained in most of us through society and we as educators have to be constantly made aware of them and given tools to overcome them in order to provide more equitable classrooms for our students.
ReplyDelete(hi it's Jesse Ann - didn't realize my account was set up this way)
ReplyDeleteWe need to reach all students in all subjects through differentiation. Every student potentially has a different learning style from the next that has formed through their own experiences. If educators keep this in mind than we create an environment focused equitable instruction. There are many different students sitting in one classroom. Gender isn't the only "roadblock" students have; although, it seems to be the one many educators do not take into consideration.
There has been a major push to take a literacy approach to math. The article stated that females tend to be better at educational writing as oppose to discourse. If this statement is true, then females, in general, will find math more approachable.
Well I agree with what most everybody says. Every student has their own individual needs that teachers should take into consideration when differentiating lessons. This is the case no matter what gender the student is. I also agree that teachers need to be aware of basis with in the classroom and work towards reinforcing the idea that all children can learn math. The article may be outdated but it once had some truth to it and even today to some extent still does. Although we may be making some improvement there. In my classroom, I do not really see any clear division about which gender likes which subject more. I have girls who love math and girls who hate it and the same goes with the boys.
ReplyDeleteThe author made such statements as "For instance, young boys can create a 3D object in their heads (because they played with GI Joe dolls?!!). Young girls often need to try to construct this knowledge without a base in reality."??? As if young girls do not also inhabit the same 3 dimensional world as boys. Ridiculous...It is obvious that this is a result of NURTURE, rather than nature. That the inequity is a result of growing up in a patriarchal culture that fostered math and science for boys. And as also with unreasonable ideas about intelligence relating to race and class (The Bell Curve, etc) outdated notions of gender will also subside=slowly. To piggyback off of the quote given by elletomacruz, I feel that the mathematical inequity we see is a result of the way that educators and parents perceive their kid's abilities based on our cultures views on gender. And also as stated, on the amount of support and attention given to students. I had to wonder reading it, if the girl's feelings of being undervalued by her teacher had anything to do with her lack of attendance. But I also found myself helping the students who put forth more effort more of my time and attention until I realized that it is MY responsibility to get ALL of my students to engage by providing top notch, fun, relevant lessons which will bring even my most reluctant student out from inside their "who cares" shell. I know that as a new teacher, I am constantly reflective about what is missing or lacking in the educational support which I bring to my peeps. That stated, I feel that I do my best to connect with them and their families to provide the connection between home and school which is vital in all subjects, but particularly in math and literacy. My student's moms all have my phone number and email address and often call me when they are confused about how to help their kids with their homework. They have said that it has helped them to learn some new math skill. And that is the win/win beautiful cycle of being an educator. When you can connect and support the whole family. Because the little brothers and sisters will be our students down the road..........Jac
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with Eva who said that offering same instruction/standards based instruction to every student would go against the notion that “mathematics can be learned by all children.” While I believe this is true, if the same instruction/standards based instruction is given in the same way to all students we would be excluding a huge number of students, and not just students in special education. All students are different and this has to be taken into consideration. Shelanthia makes an excellent point that the standards and curriculums are not created with students in special education in mind. To add to this point, standards-based teaching can be very tricky because the real questions come into play: “whose standards are we really referring to? And who decides which standards EVERYONE must follow?” Whether intentional or not, standards based teaching can be very biased and isolating especially in a culturally and linguistically diverse classroom. To go along with what most everyone has already stated, it is important to differentiate instruction to each individual students learning style. In my opinion, this is truly the only way that the curriculum can be accessed by all students and the idea that “mathematics can be learned by all children” can be achieved. I believe that when it comes to meeting the needs of girls, this is also a very broad category because even within the labeled “female gender” there is so much diversity. No two girls are the same and while gender is important to take into consideration while planning a differentiated lesson, I believe what is even more important is that no matter the student’s culture or gender teachers must learn to view all of our students as individuals who have individual learning styles.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dacia's entire entry. However, one of the points that she made was very interesting. Dacia said,” whose standards are we really referring to? And who decides which standards EVERYONE must follow? Whether intentional or not, standards based teaching can be very biased and isolating...." I agree with this point and I feel that we need to be more active in challenging standards. Most of the standards that I have seen are very vague and I don't believe that anyone ever develops standards with special needs students in mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Sham stated in his entry. I can't help but view this as a Special Educator, and although I agree that we need to challenge our students, but we need to be aware that for years the bar was set so low. There needs to be a gradual push towards raising the bar, it can't just be done with annual standards which are adjusted and raised EVERY YEAR.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jose. Of course, as educators we should expect high expectations and set high standards. However, Special Educators need to account for student disabilities and academic weaknesses. In order to ensure the success of Special Education students it is important to gradually increase state standards. In addition, it is important to simply bring students to grade level. If teachers, principals, and the state focused on having ALL students perform on grade level (and accurately assess them - NOT through state exams because state exams are not an accurate representation of student achievement, students may have a chance to actually succeed in life. Setting high standards will not solve the issue of 20 year old seniors in high school being illiterate.
ReplyDelete"For too many, the question of girls and mathematics achievement continues to focus on the question of why girls don't achieve rather than what is it in the classrooms or the culture that creates barriers to math success for girls."
ReplyDeleteThis was my favorite line from the article because it recognizes that if there is a 26% or more gap in the achievement in women in the areas of math and science, it is the classroom that started this vicious cycle.
While socialization and sex may be a factor, I do not view it as primary evidence. I think as a whole we really work on breaking down the barriers in student problem solving skills.However, this doesn't mean teaching over their head or forgoing the basics. I just want us all to make a deliberate attempt every day to have our kids asking questions and wondering what would happen if they chose a different solution.
This article takes a step in a very shallow pool in being in means of exemplifying innovation in a classroom. It very well may be outdated because it doesn't fully take into consideration that girls utilize technology just as much as boys;If we could get our students twittering in math class and posting math problems they need help with on facebook, I am willing to bet girls would take more interest and in turn more risks in math. Get kids where they are: communication via electronic devices and show them how math can help them make more money and communicate effectively to get what they want out of life.
I think you make a great point Danielle. The article does shed light, if only briefly, on the need for teachers to meet girls(and any learner) where they will learn the best. If this means adjusting the methods of instruction to make math more interesting and more applicable to their daily lives through the use of new technology, this may not only help them conceptualize the concepts, but may also help them be able to communicate the concepts more clearly.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to effectively communicate mathematics concepts, either in verbal or written form, or through technology is someitmes overlooked by teachers as a very important part of mathematics instruction. I feel as if coupling technology with other innovative ways of instruction can do wonders to help students, girls in particular(since they thrive on social communication at the adolescent age) to better internalize the concepts.
While I think that society has kept the cycle going in terms of socialization and the gender roles that girls are expected to follow from the time that they are babies, I agree with Danielle in that the classroom has started this vicious cycle that has created a huge gap in the achievement of women in math and science. Boys and girls are treated differently in everything from the color of clothing they are dressed in to the toys with which they are given to play. This may seem harmless to most parents but it carries over into their school environment in terms of what administrators think girls should and could learn. The middle school I work at has even gone as far as having an all boys and all girls class based on how each learn in subjects, especially math and science. Not only is this set up not natural in terms of how they will interact with members of the opposite sex in the real world, but it perpetuates the stereotype that girls and boys cannot and will not learn in the same way or the same material. I think more and more teachers are being to realize the sort of "monster" that has been created and are going to great lengths to reverse the cycle. However, I think many of us, myself included, also realize how deeply rooted this issue is and feel discouraged. I think the best solution right now is to focus on our own students and do the best we can in providing them with a equitable goals and instruction and hope that others catch on.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Taylor, particularly with this achievement gap that continues to becoming wider due to the lack of consistency by the DOE. A majority of it does stem from the ignorance that Taylor addressed on the part of parents. My school also has an all girls and all boys class, and I think it is ridiculous because the boys are held to a "higher standard". This sad truth needs to be addressed on a higher level then just the classroom though. Administration needs to be in one accord and realize the "monster" that is preventing our students from bridging that gap.
ReplyDelete…."There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of individuals who are different."--Dacia
ReplyDeleteI took a second look at all the blogs and this was what stuck out to me the most. Dacia,You are right on. That is why I love this constructivist philosophy of teaching. We are encouraging indiviual successes by shifting instructional strategies and welcoming a multiple of different ways to achieve the same result.
It will take us longer to get there with the students but these are skills that they can use in everyday life. I wish that my teachers had spent more time helping me realize I can be different and achieve success rather than telling me my answers were wrong because I didn't arrive to the conclusions they had already decided for me was in my best educational interest.
I too could not stop looking at the Jefferson quote. "There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of individuals who are different." While I do believe in this statement and try to keep this sort of mantra in my own classroom, it is a difficult and daunting task a teacher must undertake for 30 students in a gen ed classroom. I can only wonder if it is realistic in all classrooms and schools. Special Education classrooms are supposed to be led by this idea but I have seen more than one tired teacher forget.
ReplyDeleteDanielle - I totally wish that my teachers took this approach with me as well.
Jose - I find it interesting that your school has an all girls class and an all boys class. How are they held to a higher standard? Is it the same curriculum? I thought that they did that to limit distraction.
I taught a self-contained SPED class this past year with students with levels/abilities that ranged in everything from mental retardation to simply not being able to focus on a task. The Jefferson quote is interesting to me because one of the major goals of special education classes is to make sure this "equal treatment of individuals who are different" is alleviated as much as possible. Most of us in this class are SPED educators and know first hand how difficult it can be to differentiate for each student for up to 12 students, which got me thinking how this same goal is often overlooked in a general education class even though it should still be expected for the students' sake. I agree with the above post that this is arguably an unrealistic request when gen ed teachers are often alone in a class with 30+ students. This in turn got me thinking about the term "least restrictive" environment and the idea that maybe general education classes are not always such. I say this because of the fact that these classes are so overcrowded that teachers cannot cater to the individual student and their respective abilities. I think its safe to say that students without learning disabilities still have unique learning styles that may need certain adaptations depending on the topic/subject. Perhaps this is why so many girls struggle with math and science, yet excel in ELA.
ReplyDelete