5.2.1. Teachers understanding of ‘gender’ and ‘gender equity’ in education
There was no consensus from the participants (Physical Science teachers) in this study on the meaning of the concept of ‘gender’. On the one hand, some participants understood ‘gender’
according to biological explanations. For example, they used genitalia as one of the criteria to categorise people as male or female. On the other hand, others understood ‘gender’ according to the social meanings attached to the gender and sex roles differences. These teachers argued that the physical criteria do not work in sorting or categorizing people as males or females. This lack of a shared understanding of what gender means is concerning considering the important role teachers can play in either challenging or entrenching gender stereotypes in their classrooms. This
139
highlights the need for greater knowledge and sensitization to raise awareness for Physical Science teachers about gender equity issues in science education. However, all the participants agreed that that if there is gender equity, this will mean that all human beings are free to develop their personal abilities and make choices without limitations set by the strict and unlawful policies and gender roles; and that the different behaviours, aspirations and needs for both males and females are taken into consideration, valued and favoured equally. They maintained that gender equity and fairness of treatment on the basis of gender, would mean fair and equal treatment of males and females regarding human rights, benefits, obligations and opportunities. These findings are in keeping with the liberal feminists who argue that the inequity between men and women is rooted in how social structures treat them.
5.2.2. Socialisation and gender equity
The findings of this study revealed that the participant believed that the way in which people are socialised has contributed to the current state of gender equity. They maintained that socialisation explained the ways in which gender is assimilated and understood within a person. The participants felt that parents, teachers, peers and the community were responsible for the gender socialisation prevailing in society. These findings are in keeping with Social Constructionist theory that learning occurs through social interaction i.e. what is understood as knowledge and reality is a product of socialisation. The Social Constructionist theory indicates that learning occurs through all the stages of life (Gergen, 1985; Belanger, 2011).
5.2.3 Gender inequity in science education and science-related careers still exists Teachers in this study believed that gender inequity still exists, especially in STEM subjects and careers. Participants agreed that science is a highly gendered subject, and that females continue to be underrepresented in these fields. They maintained that girls and women are portrayed in gendered roles and their socialisation is quite different from boys’ socialisation. This highlights the need for gender awareness teaching which aimed at challenging patriarchal structures and socio-cultural practices which hinder the achievement of gender equity within societies. The
140
findings revealed that females are still underrepresented in science-related careers and fields. This study also found that there are fewer female teachers working in shortage subject areas, especially Mathematics and Physical Sciences. This indicates that females are less likely to get top management positions in schools. This study found that by adolescence girls perform poorly academically especially in sciences; as a result, by adulthood, females are grossly underrepresented in science-related fields and careers. These findings resonate with that of Mody and Brinard (as cited in Dlodlo & Beyers, 2009); Chikunda (2010); Clegg (as cited in Chikunda, 2010) who maintain that in African, Middle East and Asian countries women are grossly under- represented in Science, Engineering and Technology careers.
Teachers also indicated that boys participated more than girls in science classrooms. This finding is in line with Moletsane and Reddy (2011) who assert that boys mostly outperform girls in science subjects. The findings highlighted that girls are disadvantaged by the boys’ domination in the classroom. One of the participants (Muzi) indicated that this performance drop for girls is a result of hormones which corresponds with Sikes and Measor (1992) who maintain that when learners reach adolescence, they have great deal to think about, such as career choices and the world of work. This maturity stage eventually affects their school work. On the other hand, some of the study participants held stereotypical views and beliefs that boys were naturally expected to do well in science. These views and beliefs are similar to the claim by Kurtz-Costes, Rowley, Harris-Britt and Woods (2008) that gender differences in learner performance and participation are linked with traditional academic gender stereotypes.
5. 2.4. Schools perpetuating gender inequality
The school functionality and curriculum is the reflection of the way the society in which the school is located is structured. As with living in patriarchal societies, teachers have to work within an education system which is hierarchical. The findings revealed that schools and teachers, societal and parental attitudes continue to transmit gender ideology through their classroom gendered practices and expectations. As a consequence, learners develop different attitudes toward and different levels of performance and participation in science. Girls do not pursue science studies at
141
the same rate as boys. Brotman and Moore (2008) argue that that these patterns contribute to the females’ persistent underrepresentation in science.
The formal gendering experiences of learners begins the moment they enter school and continue throughout the workplace. The findings highlighted that in schools, learners play different sports and different playground activities. These findings resonate with Malherbe, Kleijwegt and Koen (2000, p.122) who argue that “schools, reinforce what children learn about gender roles in the family situation. They emphasise gender stereotyping by transmitting social values that put girls and women primarily in the role of mothers and wives. They also shape children and adolescent’s gender identities by making girls and boys experiences of schooling distinct.” The findings revealed that teachers being product of their societies, they are also most effective and influential as the transmitters of patriarchal practices.
This study provides evidence that in the science classrooms, Physical Science teachers reinforce gender stereotypes in many ways of which they are often unaware of. For example, allowing boys to be hands-on and letting the girls do domestic work limits each learner to learn the skill of the other. This is in keeping with Maher and Ward (2002, p.2) who argue that school practices and cultures reinforce “gender-biased educational experiences”. These practices are against the radical feminists’ propositions, which focus on abolishing and eradicating the patriarchal structures and male dominance.
The findings revealed that teachers thought the Physical Science curriculum was gender biased.
They reported that they found it very unfriendly and not accommodating to girls. This is in line with Brickhouse, Lowery, and Schultz (2000) who argue that females are marginalised by science because of its masculinity characteristic of the curriculum. For example, the findings of this study indicated that teachers thought science textbooks contained gender stereotyped materials.This has impact and influence on the interest and self-confidence of learners in their ability to successfully to perform and participate in sciences. The more the masculinity in the science, the less the girls liking it or performing well. These findings indicate that the education system, especially in schools, does not operate fairly and equally for all learners. It showed that learners’ chances of studying and doing well also depended on their gender. This study highlighted that little was happening in the schools of the participants as a way of transformation regarding social gender
142
relations. Instead, socialisation maintained gender and learners were expected to learn and perform according to their appropriate sex roles. It was also found that even the workshop seminars organised by DoE, gender equity issues were never a centre of focus. The understandings, experiences, views and belies of physical sciences teachers in the study about gender equity highlighted how the science curriculum, cultural factors, power and socialisation impact in girl’s access to science and related careers. In spite of all the attention that gender science education has received the understanding, experiences, views and belies of the participants little has changed for girls and women in science education.