A picture emerges from this analysis of a class that separated along gen- der lines rather than according to educational background. Female stu-
750 James Mackay and Jean Parkinson
dents in both groups chose to use more AFFECT and JUDGMENT than djd their male students, while for male students the balance shifted toward
APPRECIATION as a resource. Only half of the APPRAISAL items used by female students in both groups were positive, compared to three-quarters of the items for male students. The significance of trns becomes greater considering that students used AFFECT and JUDGMENT to appraise their own emotions and behavior, and APPRECIATION to appraise the assign- ment or course. To generalize, female students appraised their own emo- tions and actions negatively, wrule male students appraised the task and the course positively. This difference is particularly marked for dis- advantaged females who avoided APPRECIATION (i.e., appraisal of the task) and focused almost entirely on their own emotions and behavior, construing them relatively negatively. It is interesting to note that the female students did not achieve worse in the doll house task than did their male counterparts (Figure 2). Yet, as trns analysis shows, they expe- rienced the task far more negatively than did male students, passing harsher judgments on their own performance and experiencing more neg- ative emotions.
Our analysis bas confirmed, at a grammatical level of APPRAISAL,
Weedon's (1987) contention that our thoughts and emotions (such as fear, pride, concern about competence) may be reconstituted in our utter- ances, and that beliefs about whether a task is more or less appropriate to our gender does influence us emotionally, and has real consequences for how easy or difficult we will experience the task as being.
Notions of gender appropriacy pervade society and are learned firstly in the family and later encountered on a daily basis in public texts, behav- iors, and activities, making them difficult to change. The South African Department of Education, in line with education authorities in other countries, has changed the way that technology is taught in schools: there is now a single subject for male and female learners, rather than Domestic Science for girls and Woodwork for boys. Although unlikely rapidly to do away with gendered beliefs altogether, this is likely to impact on be- liefs about gender appropriacy. Expressions of pride in accomplishment by f emaJe students in our study are an indication that accomplishment of "male" tasks in technology classrooms makes gradual inroads into such attitudes, in the same way that the opening up of science and maths to females bas done in classrooms in many countries.
The existence of different femininities and masculinities and the related production of different gendered performances could have been interest- ing to look at in the context of the wide diversity of the class. This is a limitation of the study and would indeed be a fruitful avenue for further investigation.
APPRAISAL analysis of reflections 751 Notes
* We are grateful for assistance with an earlier version of this article from Alison Crouch, Caroline Goodier, and three anonymous reviewers of the article.
I. Consent was gained from the students to analyze reflections and other written course output. The option of refusing consent without negative consequences was stressed.
2. /-statistic for exam and aspects of doll house:
House mark
Exam mark
Circuit diagram Disadvantaged O - 2.766 -2.552 -0.846
compared to ~
Advantaged
o
0.734 - 2.093 - 0.902 compared to~Wiring diagram -2.406 -0.718
House construction - 1.494 - 0.884
House wmng - 1.784 0.159
Italicized means reject the hypothesis that means are equal (reject if t ~ ± 2.021 at 5%
probability level)
3. Names have been changed.
4. "to make a plan" is a South African expression implying creativity despite inadequate resources.
5. t = 0.617; at the 5% significance level we reject the hypothesis that means are equal if t ~ ±2.021; thus means are equal, so no difference in length.
6. t = - 3.121; t ~ ±2.021, so number of words is significantly different.
7. t = 2.19 when this group is compared to advantaged female students.
8. Mean use was significantly lower (t = -2.94 when group is compared to advantaged females).
References
Adendorff, Ra1ph & Vivian de Klerk. 2005. The role of APPRAISAL resources in constructing a community response. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1 (3). 489-513.
Aronson, Elliot, Timothy Wilson & Robin Akert. 2005. Social psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational International.
Atkinson, Stephanie. 2006. Factors influencing successful achievement in contrasting design and technology activities in higher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 16(2). 193-213.
Bandura, Albert. 1994. Self-efficacy. In Vilayanur S. Ramachaudran (ed.), Encyclopaedia of human behaviour 4, 71-81. New York: Academic Press.
Blackburn, Mollie. 2002. Disrupting the (hetero)normative: Exploring literacy performances and identity work with queer youth. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 48(4). 312- 324.
Boud, David, Rosemary Keogh & David Walker. 1985. Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Croom Helm.
752 James Mackay and Jean Parkinson
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000. Pascalian meditations. Reproduction in education, society and culture.
Beverley Hills: Sage.
Butler, Judith. 1988. Perfonnative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal 40(4). 519-531.
Coffin, Caroline. 2000. History as discourse: Construction of time cause and appraisal.
Sydney: University of New South Wales Ph.D. thesis.
Coffin, Caroline. 2003. Reconstruals of the past- settlement or invasion? The role of JUDG- MENT analysis. In James R. Martin & Ruth Wodak (eds.), Re/reading the past: Critical and .functional perspectives on time and value, 219-244. Amsterdam: John Benjarnins.
Davies, Bronwyn. 1989. The discursive production of the male/female dualism in school set- tings. Oxford Review of Education 15(3). 229-241.
Education Management Information systems (EMIS). 2006. School disadvantage indicators.
Pretoria.
Gumperz, John & Jenny Cook-Gumperz. 1982. Introduction: Language and the communi- cation of social identity. In John J Gumperz (ed.) Language and social identity, 1- 21.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackay, James & Jean Parkinson. forthcoming. Gender, self-efficacy and achievement in technology teacher trainees. Gender and Education.
Mackeo-Horarik, Mary. 2003. Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text 23(2). 285-312.
Martin, James R. 2000. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In Susan Hunston
& Geoff Thompson, Evaluation in text, 142-175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, James R. 2003. Introduction. Text 23(2). 171-181.
Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation. New York: Pal- grave Macmillan.
Newell, Sigrin T. 1996. Practical inquiry: Collaboration and reflection in teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education 12. 567-576.
Nicholson, John. 1984. Men and women: How different are they? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ochs, Eleanor. 1992. Indexing gender. lo Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language and interac1ive phenomena, 335-358. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.
Salih, Sara. 2002. Judith Butler. London: Routledge.
Silverman, Suzanne & Alice M. Pritchard. I 996. Building their future: Girls and technology education in Connecticut. Journal of Technology Education 7(2). 41-54.
Smith, Caroline & Barbara B. Lloyd. 1978. Maternal behaviour and perceived sex of infant.
Child Development 49. 1263-1265.
Weedon, Chris. 1987. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
White, Peter R. R. 2005. APPRAISAL website homepage. http://www.grammatics.com/
Appraisal/ (accessed 9 July 2008).
James Mackay lectures Science and Technology Education in the Education Faculty of the University of KwaZulu-Natal. His research interests are misconceptions in physics, and technology and gender. Address for correspondence: University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X03, Ashwood 3605, South Africa ([email protected]).
Jean Parkinson is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics/TESOL at the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She has published in the area of discourse features of science genres, and literacy acquisition, in par- ticular literacy acquisition in the areas of science and applied science writing. Address for correspondence: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand ([email protected]).
Concluding remarks
This paper on the analysis of student reflections provides us with a different perspective of differences in the way male and female students approached and electro-technology based design and technology course. While there is perhaps not sufficient data to connect the three papers, a pattern of poor conceptual development, low levels of self-efficacy as well as evidence of high anxiety levels in connection with the doll's house project. This may be coupled with a gendered perspective of what are naturally assumed to be tasks that are male, compared with tasks that are naturally assumed to be female, however, not data was collected that provided evidence of perspectives of femininity and masculinity in relation to this task. This may be a weakness in the research design. The next chapter will return to the issue of conceptual development and look again at patterns of thinking about electric circuits and evidence of the persistence unipolar beliefs.
Addressing the use of the theoretical frameworks
In this article, the overriding framework for analysis is that of gender theory. It is through this lens that we interpret theoretically, the effect of this project on the lives of female students participating in the project. As a tool for analysis, we have used APPRAISAL theory in order to unravel the discourse that forms the data.
Constructivism as a theory of learning presents itself only in terms of its use in the design of the learning task.
Addressing the research questions
This article addresses research questions 2 and 3 (RQ 2 & 3)
"How was performance on the Doll's House task affected by the perceived self- efficacy of female students?" and "What were the students' emotional responses to
the Doll's House Project?"
The APPRAISAL analysis of the student reflections provides us with evidence that, at a grammatical level our thoughts and emotions influence our beliefs about whether or not a task is more or less appropriate to our gender, and that these have real
consequences for how easy or difficult we experience that task as being.