66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 221
Professional Development for Teachers
on Gender Equity in the Sciences:
Initiating the Conversation
DANIEL BATTEY
Arizona State University
YASMIN KAFAI, ALTHEA SCOTT NIXON AND LINDA KAO
University of California, Los Angeles
We face more subtle and complex issues in gender equity in the sciences than ever before.
Although researchers have proposed various interventions and solutions, one area that has
received little attention is professional development for teachers. We synthesized 170 projects,
sponsored by NSF and AAUW, which included professional development on gender equity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We examined the projects on three
effects: 1) student engagement in inquiry; 2) sustainability over the long-term; and 3) integration of professional development and the classroom. Our results indicate that most gender equity
professional development in STEM lacks essential elements to effectively promote and implement
gender equity in the classroom. Half of the projects did not address science and mathematics content and 84 percent did not include inquiry, an integral component of quality professional development. We discuss implications given the current state of gender equity in the sciences.
OVERVIEW
Issues we now face in gender equity in the sciences are subtle and complex. Small to no differences remain between girls and boys on standardized tests, college entrance exams, and high school course-taking patterns (Clewell & Campbell, 2002). These results tell a promising story of
opening opportunities for girls to careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). It is important that girls have the
ability, confidence, and access to scientific fields, so they can pursue
STEM careers if they choose. However, with the exception of fields like
biology and medicine, girls choose college majors in science and mathe-
Teachers College Record Volume 109, Number 1, January 2007, pp. 221–243
Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
0161-4681
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 222
222 Teachers College Record
matics at less than half the rate of boys (ACT Inc., 2001; College Board,
2001; National Science Foundation, 2002). With changes in gender
equity issues, educators need to think differently about how to help students learn STEM. Although researchers have proposed various interventions and solutions, one area that has received little attention is professional development for teachers.
Teachers are often part of girls’ first experiences with formal science
and mathematics; therefore, they are integral to the relationships girls
develop with STEM. Quality professional development is imperative
because mathematics and science teachers are often not aware of issues
such as calling on boys more often than girls, praising boys more frequently, and not waiting long enough for girls to share their thinking
(Campbell, 1995; Karp, 1988). Professional development is the space
where many teachers have the opportunity to rethink and change their
classroom practices (Brown, Greeno, Lampert, Mehan, & Resnick, 1999).
If classrooms are to develop into gender equitable learning environments, teachers and professional developers must share the responsibility for changing the ways we introduce girls into these traditionally “maledominated” fields. Although a number of projects have conducted professional development for teachers on gender equity, little has been written that documents and analyzes these efforts. Therefore, we really do
not have a good sense of how this professional development plays out in
practice, nor what works or does not work when trying to support teachers’ development of equitable classrooms.
We synthesized the professional development in 170 projects funded by
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the American Association of
University Women (AAUW).1 This was a unique opportunity to examine
the last 10 years of professional development on gender equity in the sciences. We looked at the content of the professional development provided and whether it was sustained. The literature on professional development has not substantially linked professional development practices
to classroom learning (Brown et al., 1999). Therefore, we were also interested in how the teachers implemented professional development with
students. The project reports of the professional development served to
inform three questions: What does professional development on gender
equity look like? How is it successfully implemented? How is it successfully sustained?
RESEARCH REVIEW OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
GENDER EQUITY
We wanted to use professional development and gender equity literatures
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 223
Gender Equity in the Sciences 223
to frame our synthesis. As we reviewed this work, we found that they did
not inform each other. When researchers discuss professional development, they rarely address gender equity issues; when researchers discuss
gender equity issues, they rarely address professional development. We
start by reviewing the literature on effective professional development
and consider how this applies to girls’ experiences in STEM. We see this
as an opportunity to begin the conversation between these fields.
Principles of Effective Professional Development
Reviews of professional development agree on some overarching principles that guide the formation of quality professional development. Little
(1993) focuses on the following principles for effective professional
development: using inquiry, engaging collegially with intellectual, social,
and emotional issues, working over an extended period of time, using
teacher’s work as a context for learning, contextualizing classroom practice within school community and children’s lives, balancing the interests
of individuals and institutions. Other reviews have come up with similar
principles (Abdal-Haqq, 1995; Putnam & Borko, 1997; Wilson & Berne,
1999). In essence, these reviews agree that quality professional development should include inquiry, collaboration, be sustained over the longterm, make classroom practice central, and take into account the larger
social and political context. Inquiry, in particular, is important in professional development because it can be considered with respect to the subject matter (STEM), teaching practices, beliefs, and institutions.
We define inquiry in professional development as engagement and
action within the problems of practice, in this case, the teaching of science and mathematics. Therefore, professional development of this kind
fosters a stance towards teaching focused on questioning and transforming existing classroom practices, subject matter, personal beliefs, and
institutional histories. When inquiry is a guiding principle of professional development, teachers’ concerns drive the content and questions
to help classroom practice. Instead of telling teachers what to do, professional development using inquiry engages teachers in a subject-specific
way, to learn in and from their own classroom practice.
Professional development that engages teachers in inquiry is important
because research has found that differences in student learning are
based on the culture of practice encouraging teacher learning and collective responsibility (Lee & Smith, 1996). It is not simply engagement
around teaching but also a focus on the tasks of teaching that improves
student learning. These tasks might include investigating written cases of
classroom episodes, classroom video, or student work. The important
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 224
224 Teachers College Record
part of investigating these teaching artifacts is integrating what teachers
are learning with what is going on in the classroom and inquiring into
the consequences of action to make adjustments in a specific direction
(Brown et al., 1999). However, it is not only important for professional
development to use inquiry. Teachers must engage students in inquiry
as well.
Inquiry as a way to embed gender equity in content
Inquiry has the potential for addressing current gender equity issues in
STEM because it can challenge the relationships girls develop with science and mathematics by privileging the interests and concerns of learners and by allowing girls to ask different kinds of questions and pursue
different goals in their scientific development. We define inquiry in the
classroom as engagement with authentic problems of subject matter, raising questions and developing explanations grounded in experience, reasoning with evidence, justifying claims, and using representations central
to the domain of study. While much of the research focuses in the classroom, out-of-school experiences are also important in girls’ scientific
development (Falk, Donovan, & Woods, 2001). Nevertheless, in or out of
the classroom, inquiry focuses on the author, methods, and subject matter. Teachers can use inquiry to engage students in constructing their
own questions, understanding the author’s perspective, placing the subject matter within a historical context, and examining the implications of
the knowledge developed (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Solloway, 1999).
The ways in which teachers introduce and engage girls with science
and mathematics heavily influences girls’ relationships with these disciplines. The perception of STEM as “male-dominated” is not separate
from how we induct students into these disciplines. Teaching in these
disciplines is a historical practice, enculturing students into certain ways
of engaging in STEM.
We view girls’ introduction to science and mathematics along the lines
of feminist empiricism and standpoint epistemology (Harding, 1986,
1991, 1993). Feminist empiricism positions itself by saying that science
and its methodologies are fundamentally sound, but that some practices,
methods, assumptions, and findings of scientists are biased against
women. Traditional classroom practices developed over an inequitable
history of participation in both education and STEM and these teaching
practices tend to reproduce inequitable access. We know that most teachers replicate how they were taught in the classroom; therefore, they replicate how they were introduced into scientific fields. If the practices of science have been historically biased against women, then the classroom
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 225
Gender Equity in the Sciences 225
practices for inducting others into these fields are biased as well. In other
words, the assumptions, methods, and findings girls learn in school structure their later relationships with the sciences.
Focusing on the relationships girls develop with STEM disciplines is
important because we know that girls lack confidence and hold more
negative attitudes towards STEM than boys do (Campbell, 1995;
Greenberg-Lakes Analysis Group, 1990; Hyde, Fennema, Ryan, Frost, &
Hopp, 1990). These issues indicate a different problem with respect to
gender equity in STEM, not one of girls achieving to the same levels as
boys do, but one where girls disidentify with these fields despite their successes. If girls’ relationships with STEM disciplines cause them to disconnect with these fields, then we would expect girls to eventually opt out of
them. Although girls can achieve in classrooms using traditional teaching practices, their negative attitudes and uncertainty in their abilities,
their relationships, keep them from engaging further in science and
mathematics. Engaging girls in inquiry has been shown to increase girls’
enjoyment in fields that they typically disidentify with (Kahle &
Damnjanovic, 1994). Therefore inquiry has the potential to challenge
“the male-dominated” culture that often permeates STEM fields; however, most of the professional development available to teachers does not
support the integration of inquiry into the classroom.
Gender equity in professional development
Most in-service teacher education on gender equity comes in the form of
a sexual harassment talk or a one-day workshop similar to multicultural
education (Sleeter, 1992). This professional development is too shortterm, does not require personal engagement in the activity, and is disconnected from classroom practice (Wilson & Berne, 1999). How can a oneday workshop challenge teachers’ notions about long-standing inequities
in science?
Some professional development centers on gender equity awareness.
This professional development can range from information about the
gender gap to reading about famous female scientists (e.g., Jane
Goodall). Other professional development focuses on some general
“best practices” teachers can be aware of in their own classrooms to support gender equity, such as focusing on the proportion of time spent calling on boys and girls, different types of questions and praise, and increasing wait time after asking questions (Campbell, 1995). All of this professional development promotes general (not content-specific) practices
that allow girls some space to enter the fields of science, mathematics,
and technology. They do not, however, fundamentally change the ways
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 226
226 Teachers College Record
we ask questions, study, and draw conclusions about the world around us.
Therefore, they do not challenge the relationships that girls develop with
STEM.
These types of professional development also do not contain the components that generate teacher learning (Franke, Carpenter, Fennema,
Ansell, & Behrend, 1998). They are not integrated into the classroom
and they tell teachers what to do more than help them inquire into making their practice more effective. This limits the learning opportunities
that teachers have to improve classroom practice. Without professional
development to guide teachers in inquiring within their classrooms,
there is little chance that they will even be able to notice embedded
inequities, let alone apply general classroom practices. Even if quality
support were available to teachers, these practices are general ways to
promote gender equity in the classroom. They are not teaching strategies specific to STEM.
Inquiry, on other hand is content-specific. One would not ask the same
kinds of questions in science, mathematics, or even English literature.
Content drives the engagement when inquiry-based practices are
employed, and therefore this practice has potential for challenging the
disidentification of girls in STEM. The point we are making here is that
we must start to find ways to help girls build relationships that can extend
past their K-12 educational experience, into college, and their future
careers. Although “best practices” or “gender equity awareness” can help
give equitable attention to the learning of girls, they minimally change
the relationships that girls develop with the STEM content they are learning. The same can be said for professional development on subject matter alone.
Professional development on subject matter does not challenge how we
introduce girls into “male-dominated” disciplines. In fact, it is likely that
this type of professional development reproduces many of the teaching
practices that cause girls to disidentify with STEM because it reproduces
the traditional ways we introduce girls into mathematics and science.
Professional development using inquiry engages teachers in a subjectspecific way, helping them develop a stance of learning in and from classroom practice. But it is not only subject-matter specific. It also challenges the personal beliefs, learning, and institutions in which teaching
is situated. Inquiry has the potential for changing teachers’ and students’ relationships because it is content-specific and because it questions
embedded inequitable practices.
Our synthesis examined 170 projects that included professional development on gender equity in the sciences. We focused on the different
professional development content available to teachers: awareness of
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 227
Gender Equity in the Sciences 227
gender equity issues, general best practices, learning of subject matter,
and inquiry. Three questions guided our synthesis of the professional
development in the reports: 1) was it integrated into the classroom; 2)
was it sustained over the long-term; and 3) were students engaged in
inquiry? We also wanted to bring together the literatures on gender
equity and professional development to inform this synthesis. Our goal
was to understand professional development on gender equity and its
effects.
METHODS
This section begins with a brief context for the projects as well as the
method used to synthesize them. We then provide information on the
coding scheme developed.
Dataset
The 170 projects of professional development in gender equity were part
of a larger dataset of 416 projects, funded between 1993 and 2001 by the
NSF and the AAUW to examine and promote gender equity.2 All 416
reports were classified using a set of categories that covered aspects
including participants, school levels, locations, and settings. For this
paper, we selected only those projects that dealt explicitly with professional development. We excluded projects that addressed pre-service
teacher education in this synthesis, which resulted in 170 reports, 36
sponsored by NSF and 134 by AAUW. A general examination of the 416
projects is available elsewhere (AAUW, 2004).3
To deal with the diversity in reporting detail, we adopted a case survey
method (Yin & Heald, 1975) that allowed the inclusion of all reports,
whether research studies or teacher projects. The final reports of these
projects, supplemented with publications and other materials, provided
the data for this study. Project reports came in many formats, the most
traditional being the research report. Research reports ranged from
empirical studies with quantitative analyses of girls’ achievement and program evaluations to more qualitative work that provided ethnographic
descriptions of school and community settings. In some cases, reports
came from outside organizations that conducted formal evaluations of
project activities and outcomes. Especially from the practitioner side,
reports offered concrete examples of interventions, activities, and outcomes, with the occasional evaluation. Some projects also created videos,
guidebooks, or websites.
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 228
228 Teachers College Record
Coding scheme
The authors examined 20 percent of the 170 reports to determine common themes among the professional development components contained in the projects. From these, a coding scheme was developed
which included categories such as professional development content,
project implementation, student activities, and sustainability of implementation. After coding a number of projects, researchers met and if
codes were inconsistent, discussed the differences until an agreement was
reached. Based on this preliminary coding, the criteria were refined and
used for all projects. In each category, multiple codes were allowed to
reflect the diversity and depth of the professional development provided.
Projects that contained insufficient information in any category were
coded as “unspecified.”
We examined all projects for the content of the professional development teachers received. We used four categories from both the professional development and gender equity literatures: awareness of gender
equity, best practices, subject-matter training, and inquiry (see Appendix,
Table 1). Awareness of gender equity included general introductions to
the inequities existing between boys and girls in the sciences. Best practices referred to general teaching strategies to engage girls in the curriculum and class activities (e.g., equal proportion of calling on girls and
boys). Professional development that focused on science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics was coded as subject-matter training. If
teachers participated in subject-matter—specific projects that engaged
them in the inquiry process, then the project was coded as inquiry.
Again, projects could receive multiple codes across any of the criteria.
We also examined how projects engaged students in activities. Projects
that engaged students within the classroom curriculum were coded as
integrated into the curriculum. All others were coded as out of the classroom enrichment activities and fell into the following categories: club
(either at lunch or after school), internship, field trip, or career panels.
We coded how teachers engaged their schools in the projects and
whether they continued activities past the conclusion of their grant.
Teachers could include colleagues in “formal” (e.g., staff development)
or “informal” (e.g., personal conversations) discussions about what they
had learned. Even after the grant had expired, some teachers or
researchers chose to continue their projects (continuation). In some
cases, the faculty or administration deemed the project valuable, built the
project into the structure of the school or district, and continued it year
after year (structural).
To investigate whether the professional development teachers received
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 229
Gender Equity in the Sciences 229
was similar to what happened afterwards in the classrooms, we coded
implementation in a similar manner to professional development content using the same four categories. For example, if teachers reported
using general teaching strategies to engage girls in their classroom or
club, the project was coded as “best practices.”
After coding all of the reports, we examined interactions between various components to see how they influenced each other. For example, we
compared the professional development content received to the sustainability of the teacher’s intervention to see if different types of training
were more likely to remain embedded in the school structure.
RESULTS
We provide an overall description of the gender equity projects, including a summary of the different STEM fields, the grade level, gender and
ethnicity of students, and the locations of the K-12 schools. We then
report on the professional development content, student activities, sustainability, and implementation. The main section of results compares
different combinations of professional development content to what happens with students. Certain combinations of professional development
content were more prevalent than others. We compare each predominant combination of professional development to how teachers later
engaged students during the implementation. We report differences
between NSF and AAUW projects when they apply.
Project descriptors
NSF projects included professional development on science (47%), technology (44%), and mathematics (39%), and AAUW projects included science (73%), technology (57%) or mathematics (51%). Only 10 percent
of projects dealt with engineering, which is not surprising considering
these were K-12 schools. The projects included middle school students
(44%), elementary school students (44%), and less frequently high
school students (28%) with 18 percent of the projects unspecified.
Although we expected most gender equity projects to include only girls,
boys and girls participated in 48 percent of projects and 50 percent had
a girls-only focus. Most of the adult participants were teachers (83%),
but projects also included parents (50%), members of community organizations (43%), STEM professionals (25%), school administrators
(22%), and school counselors (4%).
We intended to examine issues of race, geographic location, and ethnicity in conjunction with gender, but the infrequent report of this infor-
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 230
230 Teachers College Record
mation hindered this effort. Most projects (53% NSF and 72% AAUW)
did not report any information about the ethnicity or race of student
populations. Thirty percent of the gender equity projects took place in
urban schools, 28 percent in suburban schools, and 21 percent in rural
schools. However, 24 percent of the projects did not specify the location
of schools.
Description of professional development content
When we examined the content of professional development (see
Appendix, Table 2), NSF projects included activities to raise gender
equity awareness (86%), learn more STEM subject matter (86%), and
teach best practices (83%). Over half of the NSF projects (58%) engaged
teachers in STEM through inquiry as well. In contrast, very few of the
AAUW projects (4%) had teachers engage in inquiry projects during
their professional development. All AAUW professional development
included activities to raise awareness of gender equity issues, while 45 percent included subject-matter training, and 29 percent included best practices.
Student activities
Over half of the NSF projects (55%) were integrated into the classroom
curriculum, while only 23 percent of AAUW projects were (see
Appendix, Figure 1). Most AAUW projects included activities that took
place outside the classroom, such as after-school or summer clubs (72%)
and field trips (69%). Many NSF projects (53%) also included clubs, and
36 percent of NSF projects had field trips. Approximately equal percentages of NSF (28%) and AAUW (31%) projects held career panels for students to get information about career choices in STEM fields, but few
NSF (3%) or AAUW (1%) projects included internships for students to
work with these STEM professionals.
Sustainability
About one-third of the NSF projects (31%) and 10 percent of the AAUW
projects did not provide any information on the efforts towards sustainability (see Appendix, Figure 2). Some of the researchers and teachers
in the NSF and AAUW projects gave informal (28% and 57%, respectively) or formal (44%, each) presentations to teachers within the school
community. Only 22 percent of the NSF projects and 29 percent of the
AAUW projects continued in schools. A low percentage of projects were
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 231
Gender Equity in the Sciences 231
built into the school structure, 19 percent of NSF projects and only 6 percent of the AAUW projects, showing that there was little institutionalized
sustainability of these projects.
Implementation
Approximately half of both NSF (55%) and AAUW (47%) projects
focused on awareness of gender equity in their curriculum for the students (see Appendix, Figure 3). Half of the NSF projects (55%) implemented curriculum on best practices, but fewer teachers (28%) in the
AAUW projects did. Most NSF and AAUW projects (69% each) focused
on awareness of STEM disciplines. About one-third of NSF projects
(31%) and 9 percent of AAUW projects implemented inquiry projects in
the classroom; however, greater percentages of both NSF (39%) and
AAUW (23%) implemented inquiry projects outside of the classroom, in
after-school or summer clubs.
Combinations of professional development
While the previous synthesis showed us the professional development
available to teachers, this synthesis brings a more complex understanding
of professional development and its effects on students, classrooms, and
students.
Many projects included multiple forms of professional development
content and we grouped projects into various combinations. We found
five major combinations (see Table 2) accounting for 94 percent of the
data (160 of the 170 projects). All other possible combinations occurred
too infrequently to warrant further analysis. All five combinations
included activities to raise awareness of gender equity issues. Only three
combinations were content-based, linking gender equity issues with a
focus on STEM subject matter. The only combination that prepared
teachers to use inquiry practices in the classroom included all four content (awareness of gender equity, best practices, subject-matter training,
and inquiry). This combination comprised only 12 percent of all of the
gender equity professional development available to teachers, was the
least frequent, and came more from NSF- than AAUW-funded projects.
The most frequent combination of professional development content
was awareness of gender equity (31%) alone, though AAUW sponsored
all of these projects. AAUW also only sponsored the combination of professional development that included subject-matter training and awareness of gender equity, the next most common combination.
We report the effects of different combinations of professional devel-
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 232
232 Teachers College Record
opment content across NSF and AAUW to compare combinations of professional development content.
Professional development combinations and student activities
The professional development combination that included all four content areas—awareness of gender equity, subject-matter training, best
practices, and inquiry—was the most likely combination to be integrated
into students’ classroom curriculums (see Figure 1): 62 percent of gender equity projects with all four content integrated their work into the
curriculum as compared to between 24 percent and 45 percent of other
combinations. Very few projects (2%) that only included awareness of
gender equity issues addressed the classroom curriculum.
Approximately equal numbers of projects with each combination of
professional development content had club activities, internships, and
career panels for students, but projects with just one form of professional
development content—activities to raise awareness of gender equity—
were more likely than projects with other combinations of professional
development to have field trips for students. Eighty-three percent of projects with only professional development activities to raise awareness of
gender equity issues had K-12 students take field trips. Between 50 percent and 60 percent of projects with other combinations of professional
development content had field trips as part of the activities for students.
The next section compares content of professional development with
implementation focus in K-12 schools.
Professional development combinations and sustainability
Forty percent of professional development aimed solely at awareness of
gender equity issues and 33 percent including all four content were continued, compared to between 14 and 24 percent of other combinations
(see Figure 2). Twenty-four percent of the combination including all
four professional content was built into the school or district structure,
versus 3 percent to 12 percent of other projects. Approximately equal
percentages of projects with each combination of professional development had informal or formal discussions.
Professional development combinations and implementation
Professional development that included all four content consistently
affected classroom implementation more than any other combination.
This combination was the only one that included inquiry, and as
expected, was more likely to have students engage in inquiry, in the class-
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 233
Gender Equity in the Sciences 233
room or in after-school clubs (see Figure 3). Professional development
with all four content engaged 85 percent of students in some form of
inquiry (inside the classroom 48%, outside the classroom 57%), compared to between 18 percent and 30 percent of other combinations.
Only 8 percent of professional development including activities to raise
awareness of gender equity issues and subject-matter training had best
practices implemented in the classroom. Professional development
solely on gender equity awareness was also unlikely to implement best
practices (13%). Surprisingly, professional development only on gender
equity awareness was the least likely (30%) to have activities to raise
awareness of gender equity issues implemented in the classroom.
Between 54 percent and 71 percent of all other projects with multiple
professional development content raised awareness of gender equity
issues in classrooms.
Gender equity projects that did not include subject-matter training in
the professional development were the least likely to engage students in
subject matter (40–60%). This compared to between 80 percent and 86
percent of other combinations of professional development.
DISCUSSION
To impact student learning on a larger scale, we need to think systematically about professional development in STEM. When professional development combines inquiry in gender equity and subject matter, important
classroom effects result. The surprising part is that professional development including all four content was twice as likely as that containing only
awareness of gender equity issues at bringing gender equity issues into
the classroom. It was also almost three times as likely to engage students
in inquiry than any other professional development combination.
Despite the success of this form of professional development, it was not
available to many teachers. Over half of the professional development
provided had no content focus despite being STEM projects. And 84 percent of the projects did not include inquiry, an integral component of
quality professional development. Professional development without
inquiry usually only changes surface features in classrooms. Our goal
here is not to berate professional development on gender equity; after
all, if we were to look at professional development as a whole, we would
find less attention to equity and much of it dealing with surface issues
itself. We are arguing that given the trends in gender equity, we need to
rethink how professional development can meet the current needs of
girls.
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 234
234 Teachers College Record
Among the possible explanations for the lack of success in promoting
and implementing gender equity in STEM might be in the professional
development literature. Equity is not a central theme in professional
development reviews (Little, 1993; Abdal-Haqq, 1995; Putnam & Borko,
1997; Wilson & Berne, 1999), though all of these authors deal with equity
in their work. Similarly, in mathematics and science education research,
there is almost no mention of professional development on gender
equity. We think this makes professional development on gender equity
an extra piece for the professional development literature. For this reason, the add-on nature of gender equity in professional development
should not come as a surprise.
The issue of integrating gender equity into professional development
is not a new problem and parallels issues in multicultural education.
Separate threads of work have developed in professional development,
one based on equity (multicultural education), and one based on subject
matter (professional development). All of these efforts, however, identify
inquiry as an essential component. Whether that means inquiring into
subject matter, personal histories and beliefs, classroom practices, or
larger social inequities, it is a stance towards rethinking teaching, beliefs,
institutions, and society. We suggest that gender equity, akin to multicultural education, should be infused into the ways of being in the classroom
(Banks, Cookson, Gay, Hawley, Irvine, Nieto, Schofield, Stephan, 2001).
Efforts such as “Black History” month and “Take you daughter to work
day” are not enough. Equitable teaching is about understanding the
complexity of the social and cultural contexts and using this to enrich the
curriculum (Banks et al., 2001).
In looking at professional development efforts in multicultural education, Sleeter (1992) found that much of it is too short-term, focuses on
the content to be taught rather than the staff development process, and
most studies produced negligible effects. It seems that professional
development in multicultural education and on gender equity have
something in common: both are too short-term and do not infuse the
principles of quality professional development into their efforts.
Lessons, however, can be found for professional development on gender
equity in this literature.
Multicultural education suggests some ways to help teachers think
through deeper equity issues. Recommendations in the multicultural
education form a consensus that says professional development programs need to help teachers understand the complexity of how race, ethnicity, language, and social class interact to influence students and how
this plays out in society (Banks et al., 2001; Sleeter, 1992; Gay, 1977;
Baker, 1977; Mock, 1983; Nickolai-Mays & Davis, 1986). We would add
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 235
Gender Equity in the Sciences 235
that subject matter should not remain separate in professional development from understanding the complexity of how race, ethnicity, language, gender, and class play out in society. General practices only do so
much and the separation of equity and content hinders teachers in
reforming their classroom practice to better address inequities in education. If we do not begin to unite equity concerns and subject matter, we
will only have general practices to help teachers think about inequities in
their classrooms and quality professional development for teachers will
be exclusive to subject matter.
Multicultural education, however, gives a nice starting point to think
about how to restructure engagement in traditionally male-dominated
fields:
“The curriculum should help students understand that knowledge is socially constructed and reflects researchers’ personal
experiences as well as the social, political, and economic contexts in which they live and work. In curriculum and teaching
units and in textbooks, students often study historical events,
concepts, and issues only or primarily from the points of view of
the victors. The perspectives of the vanquished are frequently
silenced, ignored, or marginalized. This kind of teaching privileges mainstream students—those who most often identify with
the victors or dominant groups—and causes many students of
color to feel left out of the American story.” (Banks et al., 2001)
The same could be said with respect to girls in scientific fields. Those
with privilege construct science and mathematics, leaving the voices of
women silenced, ignored, or marginalized. Girls who study science in
classrooms with mainstream teaching practices probably cannot hear
women’s voices in the curriculum and might find it difficult to identify
with these fields, though they certainly can achieve in them. Inquiry as a
classroom practice helps students question the issues, social construction,
and methods of fields in a way that can give voice to those previously
silenced and marginalized.
Professional development must begin to bear some of the burden for
instantiating inquiry and equity into the classroom. Research on gender
equity has helped to find more equitable teaching practices, but research
on professional development needs to begin to reconceptualize its own
work. We believe that equity will remain an add-on or a separate area for
professional development rather than integrating these ideas into the
core of mathematics and science professional development as long as
these two literatures develop separately (Sleeter, 1997). We tried to keep
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 236
236 Teachers College Record
both subject matter and issues of equity central in analyzing the data and
in writing this paper to provide a starting point for the field.
While our results are promising, we caution against drawing causal
inferences since we were not able to consider issues like student achievement. However, we see gender equity issues shifting towards identification with STEM and away from achievement. To address this, we shifted
our lens towards inquiry, not as an ideal to address all gender equity
issues, but as a next step to address present concerns. Other projects certainly exist that include professional development in gender equity, but
our synthesis examines a substantial portion of this work and we hope
our results can inform current and future efforts in the field. Although
we combined science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in this
paper, we realize that quality professional development in each field does
not look the same. Combining of subject matter was partly a result of the
projects integrating subject matter, but also the fact that these scientific
fields have something in common re:girls disidentification across STEM.
Therefore, although the details of professional development in scientific
fields might look different, we can learn from looking at overarching
principles that bridge these disciplines.
CONCLUSION
An opportunity to look back on a decade of the latest work to see where
we have gone and where we still need to go is rare. Professional development provided by AAUW, NSF, and others has helped tremendously in
addressing gender equity, but with new issues, we need to think differently about how to achieve gender equity. Current equity concerns also
challenge the work done in professional development, which has to shift
its own perspective on how to engage teachers and situate its work within
school, community, and social issues.
The synthesis presented here did not use original data, which in some
ways limited the analysis. A study that is able to analyze the kinds of professional development as well as the change in classroom practices that
ensue would be powerful for understanding how professional development can effect the classroom towards more equitable ends. Again,
achievement is an important factor, but in order to begin understanding
how to support girls in pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics we need to study a different grain-size. We need to
understand teaching practices, specific to science and mathematics
rather than general best practices, which support the development of different relationships for girls with these fields. Then we must begin to
think of how professional development can do more than pass on subject
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 237
Gender Equity in the Sciences 237
matter. A study that investigated both the practice of doing professional
development on gender equity and the practice of teaching science for
gender equity would be central to moving the field forward. Inquiry,
when promoted in professional development, has the potential for helping teachers change girls’ relationships with STEM by encouraging questions of their stance on gender, race, class, language, personal beliefs,
and institutional settings. Unfortunately, our synthesis also shows that
most of the professional development available to teachers did not
include inquiry. If classrooms are to develop into gender-equitable environments, teachers, professional developers, researchers, and policymakers must share the responsibility for changing the ways we introduce
girls into these traditionally “male-dominated” fields.
Under the current pressures of accountability and testing, supporting
inquiry in the classroom is no small task. These issues especially come
down hard on girls, urban schools, and those children underserved by
the educational system. Given these political and economic demands,
many teachers feel the need to “teach to the test” or cover content rather
than examine authentic problems of mathematics and science. These
traditional ways of engaging students reproduce the existing inequities in
science and mathematics. Therefore, it is even more important given
these trends to support teachers in engaging students differently with
these domains as a way of providing opportunities for students who are
traditionally denied access to high-level science and mathematics.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article has been supported by a National
Science Foundation grant (NSF 0220556) awarded to Yasmin Kafai The
ideas expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position of the funding agency.
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 238
238 Teachers College Record
APPENDIX
Table 1:
Coding Scheme
Criterion
Professional Development Content
Categories
1) Awareness of Gender Equity
2) Best Practices
3) Subject-Matter Training
4) Inquiry
Student Activities
1) Integrated into Curriculum
2) Club
3) Field Trip
4) Internship
5) Career Panels
Sustainability
1) Informal
2) Formal
3) Continuation
4) Structural
Implementation
1) Awareness of Gender Equity
2) Best Practices
3) Subject-Matter Training
4) Inquiry
Table 2:
Combinations of Professional Development Content
Professional Development Combination
Gender Equity Project
NSFa AAUWb Totalc
Awareness of Gender Equity, Best Practices,
Subject-Matter Training,
Inquiry
50%
2%
12%
Awareness of Gender Equity, Best Practices,
Subject-Matter Training
19%
11%
13%
Awareness of Gender Equity, Best Practices
11%
16%
15%
Awareness of Gender Equity, Subject-Matter Training
0%
29%
23%
Awareness of Gender Equity
0%
40%
31%
a n=29 b n=131 c n=160
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 239
Gender Equity in the Sciences 239
Stude t ct t es s Co b at o o
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Gender
Gender
Gender
Gender
Gender
o ess o a
Equity,
Equity,
Equity,
Equity,
Equity
e e op e t
Best Practices, Subject Matter Training, Inquiry
Best Practices, Subject Matter Training
Best Practices
Subject Matter Training
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Integrated
into
Curriculum
Club
Field Trip
Internship
Career
Panels
Student Activities
Figure 1:
Student Activities vs. Combination of Professional Development
y
p
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Gender
Gender
Gender
Gender
Gender
Equity,
Equity,
Equity,
Equity,
Equity
Best Practices, Subject Matter Training, Inquiry
Best Practices, Subject Matter Training
Best Practices
Subject Matter Training
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Informal
Formal
Continuation
Sustainability
Figure 2:
Sustainability vs. Combination of Professional Development
Structural
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 240
240 Teachers College Record
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Awareness
Gender
Gender
Gender
Gender
Gender
Equity,
Equity,
Equity,
Equity,
Equity
Best Practices, Subject Matter Training, Inquiry
Best Practices, Subject Matter Training
Best Practices
Subject Matter Training
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Awareness
of Gender
Equity
Best
Practices
Subject
Matter
Training
Classroom
Inquiry
Club
Inquiry
Implementation
Figure 3:
Implementation vs. Combination of Professional Development
Notes
1 Three programs at both foundations initiated these projects. At NSF, the Gender
Diversity in STEM Education program (previously Gender Equity in STEM and before that,
Program for Women and Girls) funds research, innovation, and evaluation of gender equity
projects. AAUW supports two programmatic efforts: Eleanor Roosevelt Teaching
Fellowships for K–12 classroom teachers and Community Action Grants for individuals,
AAUW branches and community organizations. During each year studied, these foundations sponsored between 30 and 40 research and demonstration projects.
2 The difference in funding for the projects meant different participants as well. AAUW
provided grants to individuals, either teachers or a member of a community group. NSF
projects were often research-based and engaged groups of teachers or schools, with teachers as participants in the projects. Therefore, AAUW provided professional development
for individuals as well as funded coursework for them. NSF projects usually incorporated
professional development for groups of teachers.
3 The numbers in the AAUW (2004) report are different because the original synthesis
included projects on pre-service teachers. Based on the overview of the projects in the
AAUW report, we found that a deeper and more refined synthesis was necessary to better
understand professional development on gender equity. For that reason, we also refined
our coding and definitions for this paper.
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 241
Gender Equity in the Sciences 241
References
Abdal-Haqq (1995). Making time for teacher professional development (Digest 95-4, 1995).
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
ACT Inc., (2001). Academic abilities and nonacademic characteristics of ACT-test graduates. Iowa
City, IA: ACT Inc.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (2004). Under the microscope: A decade of gender equity projects in the sciences. Washington, DC: AAUW.
Baker, G. C. (1977). Multicultural imperatives for curriculum development in teacher education. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 11, 70–83.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J. W.,
Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and
learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196–203.
Brown, A. L., Greeno, J. G., Lampert, M., Mehan, H., & Resnick, L. B. (1999, March).
Recommendations regarding research priorities: An advisory report to the National Education
Research Policy and Priorities Board. New York: National Academy of Education.
Campbell, P. B. (1995). Redefining the “girl problem in mathematics.” In W. G. Secada, E.
Fennema, & L. Byrd (Eds.) New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 225–241).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clewell, B., & Campbell, P. (2002). Taking stock: Where we’ve been, where we are, where
we’re going. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(3), 265–284.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.) Review of research in education (pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
College Board (2001). The College Board national high school survey report. New York: College
Board.
Falk, J., Donovan, E., & Woods, R. (2001). Free-choice science education: How we learn science outside of school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding
teachers’ self-sustaining change in the context of professional development. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 14, 67–80.
Gay, G. (1977). Curriculum for multicultural teacher education. In F. J. Klassen & D. M.
Gollinick (Eds.), Pluralism and the American teacher: Issues and case studies (pp. 31–62).
Washington, DC: American Association of College for Teacher Education.
Greenberg-Lakes Analysis Group. (1990). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America.
Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” In L.
Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 40–82). New York: Routledge.
Hyde, J., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L., & Hopp, C. (1990) Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(3),
299–324.
Kahle, J. B., & Damnjanovic, A. (1994). The effect of inquiry activities on elementary students’ enjoyment, ease, and confidence in doing science: An analysis by sex and race.
Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 17–28.
Karp, K. (1988). The teaching of elementary school mathematics: The relationship between how mathematics is taught and teacher attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra
University.
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 242
242 Teachers College Record
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Solloway, E. (1999). Instructional, curricular, and technical supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstrell & E. V. Zee
(Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry science learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancements of Science Press.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in
achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. American Journal of
Education, 104(2), 103–147.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
Mock, K. R. (1983). The successful multicultural teacher. History and Social Science Teacher,
19, 87–97.
National Science Foundation. (2002). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science
and engineering: 2002. Arlington, VA: NSF.
Nickolai-Mays, S., & Davis, J. L. (1986). In-service training of teachers in multicultural
urban schools: A systematic model. Urban education, 21(2), 169–79.
Putnam, R. & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of the new view of cognition. In B. Biddle, T. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.) The international handbook of teachers and
teaching. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Keepers of the American Dream: A Study of staff development and multicultural education. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Sleeter, C. E. (1997). Mathematics, multicultural education, and professional development.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 680–696.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional
knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development.
Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
Yin, R. K., & Heald, K. A. (1975). Using the case survey method to analyze policy studies.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 371–381.
DANIEL BATTEY is an Assistant Professor in Mathematics Education at
Arizona State University. He specializes in professional development and
equity issues in mathematics education. His work centers on engaging
teachers in opportunities to learn within and from their practice in a way
that sustains and generates change. Dr. Battey has just finished working
on two chapters for the Handbook of Research on Teaching and
Learning Mathematics, one on equity issues and one on classroom practices. In addition to his publications, he has designed and run professional development across California, Arizona, and Illinois in Cognitively
Guided Instruction and helping teachers move students from arithmetic
to algebraic thinking.
YASMIN KAFAI is an Associate Professor of Learning and Instruction at
the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. Her
research focuses on the development and implementation of technologyrich learning environments in mathematics and science in both schools
and informal settings.
66485b_TCR_Jan07
10/26/06
9:37 AM
Page 243
Gender Equity in the Sciences 243
ALTHEA SCOTT NIXON is a Ph.D. candidate at the UCLA Graduate
School of Education & Information Studies. She researches the ways
children and adolescents use computer technologies in academic enrichment programs as a means for developing a critical understanding of
their social worlds and identities as students.
LINDA L. KAO is a doctoral student in Psychological Studies in
Education at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research
interests include professional development, the uses of technology in the
classroom, and educational policy.