Middle School Girls
and Science
Kim Barbaro
Master of Science in Education Program
Northwestern University
June 2011
2
Abstract
This masters project examines how 7th and 8th grade girls in a single sex school
with a high minority enrollment are encouraged in learning science. The project
examines the perspectives of researcher, teacher and students to ascertain what aspects of
learning in an all girls school encourages middle school girls in learning science.
Additionally, this project examines the role of the teacher and the way in which science is
taught in an effort to unearth successful (and unsuccessful) practices for encouraging
middle school girls in science.
3
Table of Contents:
Research Question
Page 4
Rationale for Project
Page 5
Literature Review
Page 7
Data Collection
Page 42
Data Results Summary
Page 45
Data Interpretation
Page 53
Conclusions
Page 74
References
Page 81
Appendices
Page 83
4
Research Question
How are 7th and 8th grade girls in schools with high minority enrollment encouraged in
learning science?
1. Do girls like science better when they are in single sex classes? If yes, what
aspects of the single sex class do they like better?
2. What role does the teacher play in empowering middle school girls in science?
What qualities do girls admire in middle school science teachers and does liking
a teacher affect their views about science?
3. Is the subject matter or way in which science is taught in an all girls’ school more
engaging for female students? What are these differences and do they contribute
to girls’ long-term engagement in science beyond middle school?
5
Rationale:
Historically, women have not entered careers in science and engineering in nearly
the same numbers as men. Researchers have focused on different aspects of this
phenomenon from girls’ attitudes about science, gender-separated classes, the role of
puberty and girls’ academic performance among other topics. Much of the research has
focused on high school girls and middle school girls in general. I would like to focus on
8th grade girls; specifically girls of African American and Hispanic descent. Past research
has shown that minority girls are at particularly high risk for losing interest in science and
mathematics and thus are a prime candidate for study.
The issue of girls and science encouragement means a lot to me personally
because I plan to teach middle school science, and I want to treat my students fairly in the
classroom. I feel that girls have been at a disadvantage in traditional co-educational
science classrooms. I was fortunate enough to have been able to attend an all-girls’
school for my entire early education (K-12), and I wonder if my passion for and
confidence in science is a direct result of that specific educational experience.
I started out the quarter interested in the domain of girls and science because I am
perplexed by the dearth of women studying science in higher education and who choose
careers in science fields other than medicine. Over the course of the quarter, I honed in
on middle school science because that is the area I want to teach and that is the last area
where students all take the same subjects in science regardless of academic ability. I
wanted to look at these few grades and find out what happens during the middle school
6
years that causes girls to lose interest in science. Then, after I interviewed the 6th and 8th
grade teachers at a school in Skokie, both teachers noted that there is a distinct break in
girls’ attitudes and achievement between 6th and 8th grades. Thus, I developed my MPQ
and the surrounding cluster from the results of these interviews and my own
extrapolations.
I believe that by examining female students and teachers in middle school science
in a single sex school, I will gain a better understanding of the dynamics of these
classrooms. Specifically looking at single sex schools, the role of the teacher and the
science curriculum, I hope to unearth some of the facets that contribute to or detract from
girls’ encouragement in science. In examining these issues, I hope to improve my own
practice by being more aware of how middle school girls feel about their role in learning
science and how it is taught in the science classroom. Ultimately I believe this
investigation will benefit all my students and help them achieve in the co-educational
environment.
7
Literature Review
Introduction:
According to Bojesen (2000) in 1995, women were greater than 50% of the U.S.
population but only 22% of scientists and engineers. The American Association of
University Women (AAUW) (1992) found that even girls who are academically talented
in math and science are far less likely than their male peers to explore a career in science
or engineering. What is happening to girls in science in this country?
This researcher will focus on 7th and 8th grade girls to highlight the critical period
before girls enter high school and where they are all taking the same science courses
regardless of ability. The middle school years (defined as grades 6, 7 and 8 for the
purposes of this paper) are a critical time in girls’ academic and social lives. They are
undergoing a myriad of physical and emotional changes in addition to taking on classes
with increased academic rigor. It is crucial for girls to engage in academic subjects during
this time in order to prepare for the higher-level courses in high school and college.
Despite the need for increased focus on academics, Cavanagh, Riegle-Crumb and
Crosnoe (2007) found that middle school is the quintessential time for adolescents to
rebel against conforming and authority and thus rebel against an interest in academic
pursuits. Science is an area where girls have traditionally had more difficulty in
achievement and engagement compared to their male peers. Research has also shown that
IQ scores and science test scores for girls drop during early adolescence (Pipher, 1994).
Eccles (2007) found that interest in science decreases for both boys and girls in middle
8
school, though more boys continue on to take higher level science classes in high school
than girls.
What is happening to girls during middle school to make them confident as
entering 6th graders and seriously lacking in academic self -esteem after 8th grade? While
there are many factors that influence girls’ successes in science, this researcher will focus
specifically on single-sex environments, the role of the teacher and the way in which
science is taught within single-sex schools in an effort to unearth the nuances of this
disheartening phenomenon.
Single-sex Versus Coeducational Environments:
Boys and girls learn very differently in the classroom. Countless researchers have
looked at this phenomenon and tried to determine whether single-sex schools are the
answer to helping both boys and girls excel in school. The results have been largely
inconclusive. Girls in particular, change dramatically with regard to their presence in the
classroom after 6th grade. Pipher (1994) cites an example of a horticulturalist who was
leading a tour of girls in middle school—noting the differences between the younger girls
who were asking questions avidly, excited by everything and not afraid to show it. In
sharp contrast were the 9th grade girls who “stood primly to the side, looking bored and
even a little disgusted by the enthusiasm of their younger classmates” (Pipher, p. 19).
Why are these older girls so disengaged with school and the process of education?
Would placing them in a single-sex school help them excel in science?
9
Many researchers advocate for single-sex education because it can help girls feel
more comfortable socially and emotionally and therefore increase their chances for
academic success. Sax (2005) argues that single-sex schools help break down gender
stereotypes by allowing students to be who they really are without worrying about what
the opposite sex will think. Sax (2005) cites research that has shown girls in a single-sex
school are more likely to take physics and computer science. Pipher (1994) notes that
single-sex schools tend to be smaller and therefore more appealing to girls at this age.
Many coeducational schools are larger and more impersonal further alienating girls.
Cavanagh et al. (2007) studied the effect of early pubertal timing on adolescent
academics during middle school and then the effects for later educational opportunities.
They used data from Add Health, a nationally representative sample of adolescents in
grades 7-12 who were surveyed in 1995 and the Adolescent Health and Academic
Achievement (AHAA) transcript study to obtain their results. The Add Health data was
collected from approximately 90,000 students who were surveyed in school and then a
nationally representative sample from this group was surveyed at home a year later.
20,745 students were interviewed for the first set of interviews in 1995 and then second
interviews were conducted with the same group in 1996 followed by a third set from
2001-2002. Approximately 74% of the initially interviewed participants were still
present by the third interviews. Cavanagh et al. (2007) used only female subjects who
were present for all the interviews and had high school transcripts available resulting in a
sample size of 4653 girls. They acknowledge that the smaller sample size may lead to
inherent bias by limiting for both interviews and transcript availability. Cavanagh et al
10
(2007) found that the girls they studied had higher grade point averages and Picture
Vocabulary Test Scores. In addition, they were more likely to have two biological
parents families who had achieved higher levels of education. They measured early
pubertal timing by self-reported age of first menses. Early maturing girls were
designated as those having their first period before age 12 (26% of the sample).
Based on their findings about early puberty and its detrimental effect on academic
achievement in both the short and long-term, Cavanagh et al. (2007) advocate for singlesex schools or separated middle and high schools so girls entering early puberty have less
exposure to older students or males who might influence them in a negative way both
academically and socially.
Mael, Alonso, Gibson, Rogers & Smith (2005) conducted a review of the
quantitative and qualitative literature concerning single-sex and coeducational schools to
date. Specifically, they used three types of studies in their analysis; articles and books
concerning the theoretical discussion of single-sex schooling, qualitative studies based on
interviews and observations of students and resulting in recommendations for or against
single-sex schooling, and quantitative studies in which a hypothesis was tested
concerning an observed relationship between certain aspects of academics or social
constructs involving single-sex schools. They did not put a limit on the dates of the
publications and acknowledge that some of the observations and conclusions found may
be out of date. Mael et al. (2005) found that in 75% of studies examining the effect of
single-sex school on girls’ self-concept there was a positive correlation. In contrast, Mael
11
et al. (2005), found in looking at self-esteem that all three of the studies in their review
did not find a correlation between self-esteem and girls in single-sex schools.
Greenfield (1996) examined science attitudes and achievement for students in
grades three through twelve representing the four major ethnic groups in Hawaii. He
concluded that ethnicity was the major reason for differences in achievement—more than
grades and even gender. In examining the correlation between science attitudes and
achievement, Greenfield (1996) used scores from the science section of the Stanford
Achievement Test (SAT) to assess science achievement. Greenfield (1996) noted that
while only five of the seven districts in Hawaii participated heavily on the science
subtest, the overall gender and ethnic groups represented in those taking the tests
reflected the district as a whole. Greenfield (1996) collected science attitude data from a
sample of schools and classes that took the SAT subtest. They surveyed two to three
classes from each grade from clusters of schools (elementary, secondary and high school)
from three school districts. They surveyed over 1000 students, but found that because
some of the schools had disproportionately large ethnic groups represented, the usable
sample size was smaller. Because of over-representation of certain ethnic groups in the
sample, Greenfield (1996) noted that the results of science attitudes must be observed
with caution. Greenfield (1996) assessed attitudes about science using the Science
Attitude Questionnaire developed by Simpson and Troost (1982). He assessed attitudes
toward girls and women in science using two surveys, Perceptions of Science and
Scientists and Science Experiences Survey developed by Mason and Kahle (1988).
12
Like Mael et al. (2005), Greenfield (1996) also found little difference in a
coeducational school in science achievement or attitudes about science by gender.
Instead, he found that ethnicity and grade level have much more bearing on the
correlation between science attitudes and achievement.
In a slightly different approach to studying the effects of single-sex classes for
science, Baker & Jacobs (1999), Baker (2002) and Rodrick, & Tracy (2001) studied the
effect of separating girls and boys just for math and science classes within a
coeducational school. Baker et al. (1999) researched students by separated by gender for
a year in science and math in a middle school with high minority enrollment. The
majority of the students were Hispanic and a smaller proportion were African American
with only one to two White students in each class. The school was located in a poor,
urban environment with a highly transient population and a large rate of absenteeism.
The teachers at the school initiated this experiment hoping to encourage more girls to
become excited about math and science. Baker et al. (1999) studied two single-sex, 7th
grade math and science classrooms both taught by female teachers. They collected three
kinds of data including classroom observations made by a university researcher and a
journal kept by an intern in the class for the entire year. In addition, they collected
teacher awarded grades and curriculum materials and student work. Finally, they
collected interviews with 30 students, three university interns and two teachers. The
students who were interviewed were disproportionately female because more female
students returned their permission forms. Students were asked about their attitudes
toward science and their self-concept both now and when they were in the mixed-sex
13
classes. Teachers were asked about their experiences teaching the single-sex classes and
how their feelings about teaching students of different genders influenced their teaching
practices.
After looking at the three sources of data and synthesizing the results, Baker et al.
(1999) found that girls did better academically in the single-sex classes than the boys.
Baker et al. (1999) note that the academic success of the girls may not necessarily be
attributable to the single-sex setting since the girls in the coeducational settings were also
performing better than the boys academically. In addition, they had no data from the
previous year on the girls’ academic performance so it is possible the girls were already
performing better than the boys before the experiment began. On a positive note, the girls
reported feeling more empowered and comfortable to act as a leader and follower in the
single-sex setting. Ultimately, Baker et al. (1999) felt that both boys and girls were
getting shortchanged in the single-sex classes since the teachers simply taught the same
curriculum in the same way to both sets of students. This approach did not take into
account the different interests of the two groups and the pace at which each was willing
and able to go. Baker et al. (1999) concluded, “equity is often better promoted by doing
things differently to meet different student needs” (Baker et al., 1999, p. 7).
In a nearly identical research study several years later, Baker (2002) examined a
7th and 8th grade middle school that was also largely Hispanic with a smaller number of
African American students. The teachers were again both female and he collected data as
he had before from the perspective of a university researcher, male and female middle
14
school students, two classroom teachers and three university interns. The data collection
in this study differed from Baker et al. (1999) in that Baker (2002) looked extensively at
the kind of work being done in class and whether it required high or low cognitive
demand. Similar to his study in 1999, Baker (2002) collected data from interviewing
students and teachers, journals and classroom observations, student work, lesson plans
and grades and interviews with approximately 25% of the student population (n=30). As
with Baker et al. (1999), Baker (2002) interviewed more female students than male
because the female students were more likely to return their permission slips.
The teachers at the school had initiated the single-sex classrooms two years before
this study was conducted. The teachers hoped that by separating girls and boys for math
and science, the girls would have higher academic achievement, better self-confidence
about math and science and feel more empowered and more positive about these subjects.
After completing his study, Baker (2002) found that girls reported feeling more
comfortable and thus more willing to speak in class in the single-sex environment. They
felt more empowered with more opportunities to lead and follow just as he had found in
the study by Baker et al. (1999). Baker (2002) stressed the limitations of these findings
because no comparisons were made with girls in co-ed classes or to the same students the
previous year when they were in co-ed classes.
Rodrick et al. (2001) also separated students by gender for one year for science
within a coeducational school. A classroom teacher (Rodrick) and university professor
(Tracy) wanted to examine whether separating students by gender for science would
15
promote better interest and achievement in science for girls. The researchers collected
data when Tracy visited Rodrick’s class on several occasions and took notes on student
and teacher behaviors. In addition, Rodrick videotaped and analyzed one full day of
teaching. Concurrently with the teaching and observations, Rodrick audited Tracy’s class
on socializing different genders in the classroom to obtain additional theoretical
perspective on her experiment on gender equity in the classroom.
Like Baker et al. (1999) and Baker (2002), Rodrick et al, (2001) also found that
the girls in the single-sex class reported feeling more comfortable and thus empowered.
Despite these feelings of empowerment, Rodrick et al, (2001) noted that the single-sex
classes heightened negative gender-specific behaviors to a detrimental effect. The girls
became overly supportive of one another resulting in a lack of competition and leadership
within the class. They constantly sought the teacher’s help for answers to questions
instead of engaging in problem-solving with one another. In contrast to Baker et al,
(1999) and Baker (2002), Rodrick et al. (2001) felt that having a coeducational
environment helped balance specific gendered behaviors.
In addition to the social and emotional reasons single-sex schools may be better
for girls, there are many researchers who advocate for the academic advantages. Sax
(2005) is one of the primary advocates for single-sex schooling both in the public and
private sector. Both a medical doctor and PhD psychologist, Sax has studied sex
differences both medically and psychologically for the past twenty years. He believes
that while early education favors girls academically, they are at a serious disadvantage in
16
the coeducational system by middle and high school. He believes that “gender blind
education leads paradoxically to the strengthening of gender stereotypes, with the result
that fewer girls take courses in physics, computer science, trigonometry, and calculus
(Sax, 2005, p. 99). Sax (2005) believes that inherent genetic differences in the way boys’
and girls’ brains develop lead to differences in how they learn in school. Concurrently,
he believes that the current gender-blind education system fails all children in denying
that these differences exist.
Baker (2002) found less conclusive evidence of single-sex academic advantage in
his study. After studying classes where girls and boys were separated for the year for
math and science, Baker (2002) did find that the girls out-performed the boys in science.
Despite this finding, Baker (2002) stressed the limitations of the results because there was
no data on grades from the previous year so the fact that the girls performed better than
the boys could have been a pre-existing condition. Baker (2002) did find that certain
tasks in science were more conducive to girls’ learning like the processes involved in
science whereas the boys were more responsive to activities involving the animals—
especially turtles, snakes and iguanas. These differences could support the need for
separate learning environments to maximize the strengths of male and female students.
Finally, some research cites single-sex schools as having an influence on whether
girls choose careers in advanced level science and engineering fields. Mael et al. (2005)
reported that 100% of the two studies they reviewed had a positive correlation between
single-sex schooling for girls and positive educational and career aspirations. In contrast,
17
Greenfield (1996) found that in a study of grades three through twelve in a coeducational
school in Hawaii, though girls believed they could achieve in science as well as boys, few
girls indicated an interest in pursuing a career in science beyond college.
Baker & Leary (2003) conducted a study to try and determine what influences
girls to choose careers in science. They interviewed a volunteer sample of 40 girls in
grades two, five, eight and eleven. The girls were asked questions about how they felt
about science careers, science in general, friends’ and parents’ support, how science is
taught and how they would teach science to girls and boys. The students were also asked
to answer these questions as if they were boys. The interviews were then analyzed and
examined for recurring themes. The most prevalent themes were equity, school and
social aspects of their lives. After analyzing the results, Baker et al. (2003) found that
“the relationship between careers and science in general, and school science in particular,
was unclear to most of these girls” (Baker et al., 2003, p. S186). While the girls they
interviewed were interested and engaged in school science, this interest had no bearing on
their decision to choose a career in science. The study did not document where it took
place or with what demographic of students or in what type of school and thus limits
others’ ability to generalize the results.
There are also many researchers who note the positive aspects of coeducational
schooling for girls, and still others who note the limits to ascribing academic successes to
single-sex schools. Mael et al. (2005) found inconclusive results when examining
science achievement for girls in single-sex versus coeducational schools. They found
18
five studies of which 60% reported no difference, and 40% reported positive correlation
in single-sex schools. Baker (2002) and Rodrick et al, (2001) had mixed results as noted
above. Baker (2002) found that the 7th and 8th grade girls in his study had more selfconfidence about their abilities in science because they were in a class with and felt
superior to the boys. In contrast, while they liked having boys in their classes because it
made them feel smarter, they also felt the boys hindered their learning because they were
disruptive. Baker (2002) concluded that none of the positive results found in his study
could be directly attributable to single-sex schooling, and that the feelings of
empowerment and support were not enough to make a case for single-sex schooling.
Baker (2002) felt that academic advantage had to be proven to justify a single-sex
agenda. Rodrick et al. (2001) found that having both genders in the same class actually
enhanced the classroom dynamic by reducing negative gendered behaviors by both sexes.
Given the contrary nature of the findings to many of these studies, one can understand
why the debate about single-sex versus coeducational schools continues to rage onward.
Baker (2002) summarizes the situation in his study stating that with all the conflicting
information surrounding single-sex and coeducational schools, teachers need to look
beyond just separating by sexes and get to the heart of what really contributes to student
achievement.
Role of the Teacher:
Teachers are clearly an integral part to girls’ success in science class.
Unfortunately much of the research in the past twenty years has focused on how girls
have been overlooked in the classroom. In 1992, the AAUW published a report titled,
19
How Schools Shortchange Girls, citing research showing that girls have been
shortchanged in the classroom. The report was a comprehensive review of the current
literature concerning education in the United States. It was commissioned by the
American Association of University Women and researched by the Wellesley College
Center for Research on Women. They set out to shed light on discrepancies between
academic performance for boys and girls in school despite having seemingly the same
opportunities. The report is “based on research on the accomplishments, behaviors, and
needs of girls from preschool through high school” (AAUW Report, 1992, p. 3).
According to findings in the report, girls receive less attention from teachers and less
encouragement. Pipher (1994) also notes, “boys are more likely to be praised for
academics and intellectual work, while girls are more likely to be praised for their
clothing, behaving properly and obeying rules” (Pipher, 1994, p. 62). Pipher (1994)
blames teachers for girls’ eroding confidence in the classroom. She believes teachers are
sending subtle messages that girls only succeed through good luck or hard work and not
through ability which discourage girls from becoming successful in male dominated
fields like science and engineering. Bojesen (2000) states in her report that sexism in
science classes on the part of teachers and their gender bias leads to female students
losing confidence and failing to take higher-level science classes after middle school.
She cites past studies of classrooms where boys were called on more often and asked
more challenging questions whereas girls answered only low-level questions and allowed
others to do their lab work.
20
In contrast to the bleak picture illustrated by the previous researchers, Baker
(2002) found that the teachers in the high minority schools he researched openly favored
the female students which could explain their success in the classroom. In light of his
findings, he stressed the need for students to be treated equally in the classroom.
Several researchers suggest strategies to improve equity and performance in the
classroom. Pipher (1994) insists that teachers need “equity training” because they may
think they are fair to both genders but most of the time they are not. Additionally, she
believes teachers need to recognize and foster strengths in their female students.
According to Pipher (1994), girls do better in more cooperative environments and in
single-sex math and science classes.” Bojesen (2000) recommends several strategies for
teachers to avoid gender bias including calling on the same number of boys as girls,
directing difficult questions to all students and highlighting the accomplishments of
female scientists. Eccles (2007) suggests that teachers can improve their students’
attitudes and thus achievement in science by becoming aware of classroom
environmental factors that influence these attitudes.
Rodrick et al. (2001) recommend that teachers talk openly with their students
about gender bias and stereotypical behaviors. When they see certain negative gendered
behaviors, they should point them out to the students and remind them of a more
desirable result. Additionally, Rodrick et al. (2001) believe that in order to achieve
equity in the classroom, teachers need to provide their students with opportunity to go
beyond their traditionally prescribed gender roles and become who they want to be in the
21
class regardless of whether they are male or female. They advocate that having both
genders in the class creates this balance. As stated above, Baker (2002) found that
teachers openly favored female students which contrasts most of the research stated
previously. Whether favoring girls or boys, he stressed the need for students to be treated
equally in the classroom. Baker et al. (1999) and Baker (2002) both studied schools with
high minority populations which differ from some of the other students in previously
stated studies. Strategies that work for those students may not be applicable to the
predominately white suburban students who make up the majority of the other studies
this researcher examined.
In addition to strategies for achieving equity in the classroom, several researchers
had more general teaching tips. Pipher (1994) recommends that girls be pushed to strive
even harder when they face challenges in school. Additionally, she advocates that
teachers should encourage female students to believe in themselves, even when school
gets challenging. Sax (2005) recommends that when helping a female student, teachers,
should “smile and look her in the eye when you’re helping her with a subject”—because
female students are looking for this contact to reassure them that teachers like them and
see them as a friend (Sax, 2005, p. 86).
Working with schools with a high minority population, Barton, Tan & Rivet
(2008) found success in engaging girls in science by creating “hybrid spaces” in which
students could merge their social selves with their academic selves in creating a new
identity. In their study, Barton et al. (2008) worked with three New York City public
22
schools; two middle schools with grades six through eight and one Kindergarten through
sixth grade school where the fifth and sixth grades were treated like a middle school. All
three schools had approximately equal percentages of African American and Latino
students and small percentages of White and Asian students. The three schools were
selected because they were on the state’s list of failing schools, but were very interested
in trying new programs to reform their curriculum and encourage student success. The
teachers at all three schools were committed to making changes in the way they were
teaching science. The researchers already had a collaborative relationship with all three
teachers through previous work done with the schools.
The researchers conducted year-long ethnographies in the six classrooms across
the span of two years. The first year, the researchers focused in-depth studies on seven
girls at one of the schools. The second year, they expanded the study to include an
additional thirteen new case studies at the additional two schools. The girls selected
reflected a range of interests and achievements in science and well as different ethnic
groups. Barton et al. (2008) collected various forms of qualitative data including
observations, reflection notes, student work and outside of class observations and
informal conversations. The researchers met weekly to discuss their findings and decide
how to code their findings. They closely examined events where girls were engaged in
science and what lead to this engagement. In addition, they looked at the resources the
girls used to activate this engagement. Finally, they examined how students’ peers and
teachers responded to their participation in class and what connections they made to
outside resources and identities.
23
Based on their findings, Barton et al. (2008) urge teachers to consider broadening
the roles that students play in their classes to allow students to display talents from their
social world that merge with the academics being taught in class. In doing so, teachers
can learn about their students’ strengths from outside the classroom and use those
strengths to make connections to the science they are trying to teach them. By allowing
interconnection between social and academic worlds, the teacher shows they are not the
only expert in the room and the students also have something to contribute—they become
experts along with the teacher. Barton et al. (2008) also found that by allowing students
to draw on their “funds of knowledge” from outside the class, the students then became
the experts. Thus the teacher and students established a mutually beneficial relationship
where both teacher and students were learning from one another. As noted, these results
were unique to high minority student populations and may not be applicable to others.
Looking deeper into the environment of the classroom and the perspective of the
students, research has also shown that female students look for certain qualities in their
teachers, and that the teacher-student relationship is predictive of the success or failure of
female students in science classes. Eccles (2007) found that the classroom environment
is very important for student learning and engagement. As a teacher of middle school
science, Eccles (2007) researched whether her interactions with students and their
perceptions of her lead to differences in their academic achievement. She cited research
that showed students were more motivated if the teacher made science interesting.
Additionally, she cited research that found that interactions with teachers are the main
24
influence for why female students remain in science.
Eccles studied her middle school class in South Florida. Her school was designated
as an “A School” for the previous five years meaning that it had met or surpassed
standards set for student academic achievement. The ethnic population at the school was
largely representative of the rest of the schools in South Florida with the following
breakdown: White (36%), Hispanic (36%), Black (21%) and Asian/Indian/Multiracial
(7%). Students in grades six, seven and eight were surveyed about their feelings about
their teacher interaction and science engagement in general. The final sample contained
1228 students with 540 boys and 668 girls from 47 science classes. Student achievement
was measured using grades given to students during the nine-week grading period during
which the surveys were administered. The grade is the average of all types of work in the
science class achieved over the course of the quarter. Data from the surveys and grades
for each student were then analyzed and the results reported below.
After analyzing her findings, Eccles (2007) discovered that students of both
genders did better in science if they believed their teacher had confidence in teaching
science. She also found that girls who had more positive perceptions of their science
teacher had higher academic achievement. Her findings replicated previous research by
showing a positive correlation between student attitudes and achievement and a
correlation between student attitudes and their perceptions of their relationship with their
science teacher. In particular, if the students felt the teacher was a leader and was helpful
and understanding, the students had improved attitudes toward and achievement in
25
science. Unfortunately Eccles (2007) only surveyed one school so results may not be able
to be generalized. Also, she did only surveys and did not supplement with interviews that
could have shed more light on why these results were significant. Baker (2002) had
similar findings noting that student attitudes about science were directly related to their
feelings about their teacher and the specific aspects of science they were learning.
Dee (2005) also looked at the effect of the teacher/student relationship and
examined whether having the same sex teacher affects student engagement, academic
performance, and teacher perception of student performance. Dee (2005) used data from
the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88), which was a nationally
representative long-term study which began in 1988 with 24,599 8th grade students from
1,052 public and private schools. Approximately 26 students were randomly chosen
from each school. Schools were chosen based on probabilities associated with their
enrollment. Teachers who taught the selected students were given questionnaires asking
them about their background and how they saw performance and behavior of the selected
students. The NELS: 88 also collected data on student grades in the classes taught by the
selected teachers and the student’s perspective on the subject taught by these teachers.
Thus, the study collected information on test scores, student perspective and teacher
perspective. The final data set had 42,648 observations as each reflects a teacher/student
coupling. Dee (2005) found that when students are assigned to a teacher of the same
gender, there is a positive correlation with student engagement, academic performance,
and teacher perception of student performance. Additionally, Dee (2005) found that
“when assigned to a female science teacher, girls are significantly less likely to claim that
26
science is not useful for their future” (Dee, 2005, p. 24). Dee (2005) found that female
science teachers were very effective in promoting the intellectual engagement of their
female students in science but not necessarily directly raising their academic scores. He
notes that the main policy implications of his findings are that gender interactions
between students and teachers do matter and they have a great deal of influence on
student engagement and academic performance. Unfortunately, he does not explain how
teachers of different genders could work with students of the opposite sex.
Not only is teacher interaction important for girls’ current academic achievement
and engagement, according to the AAUW Report (1992), studies found that girls regard
teacher support as very important in seeking careers in science or technology. Clearly the
teacher’s role is integral to the academic success and engagement of female students in
the science class.
Science Curricula/Methods of Teaching:
Currently, there is a national initiative to understand how to engage female
students in science. While many current and former studies have focused on academic
achievement, they have been unable to explain why, despite the fact that most girls now
do equally well academically in science, the majority still choose not to pursue higher
education or careers in science. More recent research has focused instead on what is
happening within the science classroom in an attempt to figure out how to engage girls in
science in the critical middle school years. One must look to the way science is being
taught to help understand how to best engage female students in the study of science.
27
Several researchers have looked at qualities of classrooms that work for girls. Sax (2005)
and the AAUW Report (1992) both advocate for collaborative and not competitive
learning environments for girls. They believe girls prefer group work and more hands-on
activities and do not like stressful, competitive environments. Sax (2005) notes that
unlike girls, boys thrive in competitive environments and he advocates this as yet another
reason to separate the sexes for education. The AAUW Report (1992) also advocates that
girls not be told they can’t do certain subjects—like math or engineering and that they
receive the same encouragement and attention in the classroom as their male peers.
Pipher (1994), the AAUW Report (1992) and Bojesen (2000) all state that textbooks still
fail to note the contributions of women to various fields. Female students simply don’t
have a lot of female role models in textbooks or incorporated into the science curricula.
In addition, Hammrich, Richardson & Livingston (2001) found that “intervention
programs that are specifically designed to include role models have a strong and positive
impact on females’ achievement in science and mathematics and assist females to
identify with science and mathematics as possible areas for study or employment”
(Hammrich et al., 2001, p. 41).
Harwell (2000) uncovered interesting facts about girls and the way they view
science after interviewing middle school girls directly about what they liked and disliked
about science and the way it was being taught to them. Harwell (2000) wanted to
uncover girls’ perceptions of themselves as learners, about the nature of science and how
they felt about the way science was being taught to them. The study was a collaboration
28
between a southern regional university and four middle schools with fourteen teachers.
The schools represented four different districts and all students in the three grades were
interviewed (n=655). The interviews were conducted by students with other students.
The questions were all open-ended to elicit the most informative responses from the
female students. The interviews were conducted during a regular classroom period and
took about 15 to 20 minutes. Grade level and gender were the only demographics noted
and students were assured that their confidential answers would not affect their grades in
any way. Only girls’ responses from grade seven were used, resulting in a sample of 215
students. They chose to look at only girls’ responses as opposed to comparing with boys’
responses at the recommendation of past feminist literature. Comparing seventh grade
students from each of the schools allowed for more direct comparison of responses.
In addition, Harwell (2000) notes that past research has identified seventh grade
as the critical point of divergence in science attitudes and performance for male and
female students. The author notes that a major limitation of her findings are that the peer
interview pairs were not controlled for gender perhaps introducing a bias in responses
where boys were paired with girls as compared to girls with girls. Despite this, the peer
interview style with minimal influence from the researcher resulted in seemingly candid
responses from female students.
After analyzing her results, Harwell (2000) found that 71% of girls perceived
themselves as successful learners indicating they were successful if they were a student
who “pays attention, listens, takes good notes, studies hard, remembers, and makes good
29
grades” (Harwell, 2000, p. 227). Harwell (2000) notes that these are all qualities in a
“passive” learner where education is being “done to them” instead of them actively
seeking their education. As with previous findings noted above, the girls in Harwell’s
(2000) study also expressed a strong desire for more peer interaction and more active
involvement with science in their classes. 64% of the girls expressed interest in more
active learning strategies in contrast to those noted above who thought a good student
was one who was more passive in her learning. These girls wanted to do more
experiments, more hands-on projects and activities and more observation or a
combination of these activities.
Additionally, 47% of the girls responded that they wanted their teachers to
experiment with new strategies in their classes. 26% of the students expressed a negative
opinion on the way science is currently being taught to them. Harwood (2000) believes
“these girls’ responses reflected indifference, disillusionment, and possibly alienation”
(Harwood, 2000, p. 233). When asked about their ideal science class, girls responded
that they wanted enthusiastic, fun and innovative science teachers who take them on field
trips, do hand-on experiments in class and let students work in groups on projects. Only
7% of these students are satisfied with the way science is currently being taught.
Harwood (2000) notes that her findings are consistent with previous research and that
girls have a mismatch between what they think is good learning and how they ideally
want to be learning in class. Evidence of this disconnect is the passive “successful
student” the girls described compared to the more active and hands-on strategies the girls
described wanting in their science class. Harwood (2000) notes that further research is
30
needed to understand the different perceptions of science between teachers and students
and how this translates into classroom practice.
Lee, V.E., & Burkam, D.T., (1996) also investigated the need for middle school
science reform. Lee et al. (1996) were interested in gender differences in science
achievement and ability level in difference courses in middle school science. Specifically
they wanted to know whether students of differing academic abilities would have the
same gender gap in achievement and if difference science courses would have different
achievement gaps for male and female students. They studied eighth grade students from
the data from the NELS: 88 (As cited above in Dee, (2005)). They restricted the sample
to those students who had achievement scores, survey information from both parents,
students and teachers. The resulting sample was 18,719 eighth grade students with an
almost equal number of boys and girls (9190 boys, 9529 girls).
Lee et al. (1996) had several significant findings related to girls and their
performance in science. Specifically, Lee et al. (1996) found that girls had a slight
academic advantage in studying life science but that there was a considerable
disadvantage for Black eighth graders. In contrast, boys had a much larger advantage
studying physical science, and this advantage increased as the students increased in
academic ability. They found that laboratory experience had a positive effect in elevating
achievement for girls in physical science but no effect for boys. The authors speculate
that perhaps this is because boys have more opportunities outside of school for hands-on
experiences with physical science whereas girls perhaps do not. Lee et al.(1996) note
31
that “we consider this finding very important, especially since the main effect for
laboratory experiences (i.e. the effect for boys only) is not associated with achievement in
physical science” (Lee et al., 1996, p. 638).
Lee et al. (1996) also found interesting gender differences related to science
attitudes. Overall, they found that boys had more favorable views toward science and an
advantage in enrollment in science-related activities like science fairs, after school
science programs, clubs etc.. They argue “that attitudes about the usefulness of science in
the future and fear of asking questions in and looking forward to science class are
socially constructed” (Lee et al., 1996, p. 642). In other words, Lee et al. (1996) believe
that girls have learned these attitudes about science from parents, teachers and peers and
that this is the reason for the significant gap between boys and girls in their attitudes
about science.
Similar to the recommendations from Harwell (2000), Lee et al. (1996)
recommend based on their findings that girls have access to more hands-on activities and
science labs. They do note the limitations to their findings in that the study data they
used did not contain prior information on student achievement as eighth grade was the
base year for the data collection. They tried to remedy this by asking students for a selfreport of prior achievement, but this is not as accurate as actual test scores. Thus, the
findings must be regarded with some caution in the absence of this comparison data. In
addition, the NELS:88 data relies on their achievement tests which may not reflect the
nuances of the curricula at certain schools. In addition, the science test was only 25
32
questions and thus was not completely comprehensive. In addition, while it was useful to
have teacher interview data, Lee et al, (1996) found that the teachers were not very
descriptive in analyzing the nuances of their own classes and that the resulting variables
explaining the science classes were not very strong. These limitations are noteworthy but
the large and representative sample still provided results that corroborated findings from
other studies.
In addition to teaching tactics involving collaborative classroom environments,
more hands-on activities, inclusion of female role models in classroom teaching and
positive reinforcement from teachers, several studies have noted improvements in female
engagement in science by using innovative instructional approaches—as desired by the
students questioned in Harwood’s (2000) study mentioned above. Research by Ferreira
(2002) cites the importance of incorporating previously mentioned strategies for minority
girls in after-school programs. Barton, et al. (2008) and Brickhouse, Lowery & Schultz
(2000) note the importance of merging socially constructed identities with those created
in science class in order to fully engage female students in science. All of the
aforementioned researchers studied girls who were predominately African American and
Latina.
Ferreira (2002) studied the effects of initiating an after-school program for
enrichment in mathematics, science and engineering on a small group of minority
females. The program was initiated by a member of the local chapter of the Society of
Women Engineers (SWE) and funded by a small grant from the ExxonMobil Education
33
Foundation in partnership with SWE. The program took place in a small, urban middle
school from September 1999 to April 2000. The program consisted of twice-weekly
sessions after school in the classroom of the mathematics teacher who also recruited
students and coordinated communication between the SWE implementers of the program
and the school administration and students’ families. The participants were 18 African
American seventh and eighth-grade girls and a group of seven volunteer engineers (five
of whom were African American) who ran the program and served as mentors and role
models to the students. The engineers used teaching techniques that were cited in
previous research as successful strategies for teaching female students. These strategies
included inquiry-based curriculum and hands-on, collaborative projects for learning. The
group also took field trips to local automotive engineering plants and museums connected
to the auto industry.
In order to assess the progress of the program, Ferreira (2002) administered a pre
and post-program survey to the students to assess their changes in attitudes toward
mathematics, science and engineering and any changes in plans to become a scientist or
engineer in the future. In addition, Ferreira (2002) conducted open-ended interviews with
students and engineers to assess their feelings about the program and its impact. Because
of the small sample size, no statistical analysis was used to quantify the results.
Ferreira (2002) found that responses were more positive in all cases after the
program. For example, while 58.8% of students admitted that science was easy for them
before the program, 78.5% responded positively after the program was completed.
34
Students reported liking science more, finding it easier for them in addition to an
increased proportion considering a future career in math, science or engineering. All
students reported liking the program, especially the field trips and hands-on activities.
Limitations to the study include the small sample size and the lack of data on the impact
of the program on student achievement. The author notes that further examination of the
impact of after-school programs like these on the academic achievement of the involved
students is necessary.
As mentioned above, Barton et al., (2008) studied girls in an urban middle school
and looked at engaging girls in science by merging their social and academic worlds and
examining the identities girls took on to accomplish this merger. Barton et al., (2008)
noted that students need a “science-related identity” (p. 76) in order to engage in science.
According to the researchers, this identity must be coupled with the academic resources
to be able to advance in science. They found that “girls make links between what they
know and what they can do..” (Barton et al. , 2008, p. 76) and they do this within the
science class. If they are given the opportunity to link what they already know, with what
is being taught in the class, they can really advance. For example, one girl made a song
about the bones in the human body to help her study for the test on the skeletal system.
The teacher praised her for making this effort and then made copies of the song for the
rest of the class. In being honored for linking a skill she had in her social world with the
academics in the science class, this student became more engaged in the science she was
learning. The researchers found that “when girls played with identities, they drew upon
in-school and out-of-school resources and experiences to construct novel identities that
35
protected them in taking risks in the science classroom and in bolstering peer support.”
(p. 90)
Thus, in merging these two worlds, girls were able to gain more confidence in the
science classroom without sacrificing any of their social standing. As a result of making
these connections, by the end of the year, many of the students in the study who had
created either songs, or artifacts they used to help learn a particular aspect of science had
improved both in their attitudes about science and their academic progress.
Brickhouse et al. (2000) also conducted research looking at science engagement of
minority girls in middle school. They chronicled four African American students over
the course of their 8th grade year in middle school in an effort to ascertain how students
engage in science and how this is connected with their individual identities. These girls
were selected because they expressed an interest in science or had science-related hobbies
outside of school. Data was collected from interviews with students, parents and teachers
in addition to science classroom observations, journals and focus groups. Compiling data
from multiple sources, the authors constructed detailed portraits of each student as they
navigated middle school science.
Brickhouse et al. (2000) found that there are very different methods of how
different girls engage in science and that not all of them were recognized for their
potential as science students, especially if their identity did not match that of the teacher
or school’s idea of a traditionally achieving student. While interested in science, two of
the girls’ social identities were in conflict with the traditional view of the talented science
36
student, and they did not perform as well academically in their science classes. The
researchers stressed the importance of flexible curriculums to allow for different kinds of
students to showcase their knowledge and potential contributions in science class. As
traditional success was judged on participation and academic success, several of the girls
chronicled here fell short of the standards for doing well in science. The authors
highlighted the misfortune in losing these non-traditional learners in the school system
because they were the ones who might have actually succeeded in the field because of
their interest in science that fell outside the classroom. Based on the results in their
findings, the authors recommend that teachers need to be aware of different kinds of
students and that girls do not fall into one category. As a result, teachers need to make
room in their curricula to engage all kinds of learners in the exciting world of science.
Finally, the study by Hammrich, Richardson & Livingston (2001) also looked at
minority students’ engagement in science but focused on earlier elementary grades.
Hammrich, et al. (2001) devised the Sisters in Science Program (SIS) designed to
increase “the attitudes, perceptions, and achievement of fourth and fifth grade girls in
science and mathematics” (Hammrich et al., 2001, p. 3). In addition they hoped to
increase girls’ “self-esteem, generating positive attitudes about science, interest in science
careers, and sense of social responsibilities with regard to the environment” (Hammrich
et al., 2001, p. 8). One of the main goals of the program was to engage learners through
hands-on activities and to connect the experiences in science and mathematics to realworld experiences in the students’ every day lives. Researchers involved teachers actively
in the program because they believe that teachers are central to education reform and the
37
achievement of equity in education. The SIS program focused initially on fourth-grade
female students because research showed that fourth-grade is where female students start
to lag behind their male classmates in science. Before initiating the experimental phase,
the researchers trained pre-service teachers from 1995 to 1997 in effective delivery of
science and mathematics education to inner-city girls in an after-school program.
The experimental program ran from August 1, 1997 to August 1, 2000. The
program was conducted in six elementary schools each year. In the first year, fourth
grade girls and their families were involved in the program. The second year, the now
fifth grade students were again involved as well as new fourth grade students. The
program had in-school, after school, Saturday and summer camp components. The inschool program ran for two hours each week for each classroom in the six involved
schools. The classroom activities focused on the inner-city environment of the students
and gender sensitive approaches to science and mathematics. Concurrent with the
classroom changes, the teachers were also being trained in classroom equity,
constructivist methods of teaching and community service elements incorporated into the
program. The after-school program was conducted for one and a half hours one day each
week in each of the six schools. The after-school program extended the learning being
taught in class and focused on critical thinking skills and reflection. The summer
program ran for two weeks in July to reinforce the concepts that had been taught
throughout the year. The families spent the two weeks exploring the city’s rivers.
Finally, the Saturday program commenced on Saturdays for four hours. These sessions
were used to introduce technology and athletic components to the program.
38
In evaluating the program, Hammrich et al. (2001) collected multiple data sources
including student demographics, attitude, perceptions and achievement. Students took pre
and post-tests and the beginning and end of each year that measured attitudes and
achievement in mathematics and science. Achievement was measured using a math and
science integrated hands-on skills test. Science attitudes were measured by the Science
Attitude Scale (Meyer & Koehler, 1988). Student perceptions were measured using the
Draw A Scientist (DAST) instrument (Mason, Kahle, & Gardner, 1989). Teachers were
evaluated using “a demographic instrument, subsequent focus groups and a pedagogy
checklist” (Hammrich et al., 2001, p. 17). Teachers were also surveyed about their
knowledge of gender equity in the classroom and constructivism. Families and program
participants were asked to evaluate various events in terms of their experience, and what
they would change, if anything.
Hammrich et al. (2001) found that after being in the program for two years, the
schools involved in the study increased achievement scores by 50% compared with
schools in the area that were not participating. The authors note that the study may not be
responsible for the entire result, but that it had a large effect according to principals at the
participating schools. In addition, teachers participating in the study admitted to
embracing new ways of teaching science and practices they can use in their classrooms to
promote equity. They stressed the need to involve all students in the process of learning.
They did admit to falling back on old ways of teaching when confronted with unfamiliar
situations. Hammrich et al. (2001) noted that there were limitations to their findings in
39
that there was no control group and the students were somewhat transient so there were
different students in the groups from year to year. In addition, they stressed that this was
the first hands-on teaching that had been done in the school and thus the significant
findings might have been caused by a new activity in its first few years and these results
might become normalized if viewed over time. Despite these limitations the results from
this study show that incorporating innovative ways of teaching science can have a
significant impact on girls and their engagement in science.
Conclusions and Implications for Future Research:
In attempting to uncover the mystery behind girls’ engagement in science, one is
left with an unclear message about single-sex schooling after reading the current
research. Despite the obvious socio-emotional advantages, the academic advantages
remain unclear. Is it enough to separate girls and boys for education without concrete
academic evidence to its efficacy? Does the single-sex environment go beyond creating
self-confident science students and successfully encourage girls to seek careers in
science? While it is clear that girls and boys learn differently, are there ways to reconcile
these differences within a coeducational setting? These questions still remain.
Within the single-sex or coeducational environment, it is also clear one must
examine the role of the teacher and the curriculum these teachers conduct within their
classes. Countless studies highlight the importance of the role of the teacher in engaging
students in science. Teachers are blamed for girls’ failing confidence, for overlooking
their female students and for contributing to the gender gap in science achievement
40
(AAUW (1992), Pipher (1994), & Bojesen (2000)). Clearly teachers need equity training
as recommended by Pipher (1994), Bojesen (2000), Eccles (2007), Baker (2002) and
Rodrick et al. (2001). What would this training entail and when would it take place?
Teachers also need to look beyond the traditional achieving students and make room for a
more diverse science achievement community (Barton et al. (2008) & Brickhouse et al.
(2000)). Additionally, the way these teachers are teaching science needs to be revamped
as well to include more female role models (Pipher (1994), AAUW Report (1992),
Bojesen (2000) & Hammrich et al. (2001)).
In seeking the answer to girls’ future engagement in science, one must go beyond
simply separating by gender and beyond teachers calling on boys and girls equally. One
needs to actually examine how science is being taught to girls. Studies to date have not
looked at the combination of the role of the teacher, the way science is being taught and
the role of single-sex environments to decipher the reasons behind limited female
engagement in science. This researcher hopes that after interviewing a science teacher
and surveying and interviewing seventh and eighth grade students at an all girls school in
a large Midwestern city which has high minority enrollment, she will find some answers
to what happens in middle school science classes to encourage girls in science. This
researcher then wants to incorporate best practices from the literature and the school in an
effort to improve her own practice in a coeducational middle school science class.
Without examining the curriculum, the teacher and the students’ views of science to
obtain a complete picture, one cannot really begin to examine the issues of girls in
science.
41
In closing, Pipher (1994) describes adolescence as being like a temporary
hurricane—all turbulent and blustery and seemingly never-ending while it is going on.
Most of the stories in her book are the recollections of girls in high school who are
reflecting back on adolescent experiences. While in the throes of adolescence, it is often
too painful to recount those stories. By the time the girls have gotten to high school, the
hurricane has subsided and they can proceed with normal lives. In light of Pipher’s
(1994) perspective about the adolescent hurricane, it seems even more important to
examine the educational experiences of girls in these turbulent middle school years to
ensure that they enjoy the calm after the storm and are not forever lost in the hurricane.
42
Data Collection
Data Sources:
This researcher made contact with the school and specifically, a science teacher of
7th and 8th grade science who agreed to let this researcher interview her, observe her class
and survey and interview her students if they and their parents consent and following IRB
approval from Northwestern.
This researcher collected data from this school using the triangulation method.
She studied the methods for how girls learn science at this school from three different
perspectives. This researcher observed the girls in their science class on four occasions,
interviewed the teacher about how she encourages her female students in learning
science, and surveyed fifteen students to gain their perspective on the environment for
learning science in their school. This researcher also interviewed four students to gain
additional perspective on their survey responses. She then compared these results with
findings from the literature and made conclusions based on this comparison.
The survey assessed how the girls felt about the all girls environment, their
feelings about science specifically and education in general, their teacher as an educator
and role model and their feelings about the way science was being taught at their school.
After surveying the students, this researcher asked if any of them was willing to submit to
a personal interview where she could gather more qualitative data based on their answers
to the survey questions. This researcher then selected four students from among the
volunteers for an interview. After collecting information from all three sources, this
43
researcher believes she has a clearer picture of the ways in which the school is working to
engage its students in the study of science.
Ethical Issues:
In collecting data using human subjects there is always the issue of interviewing
minors. This researcher will need to make participants aware of the nature of the study
and any legal guardians as well. The school was informed of this researcher’s research
plan and the principal signed a consent form to allow her to have access to the school.
This researcher did not document sensitive information other than asking students how
they felt about the way in which their teacher educated them about science. The surveys
were anonymous and the interviews with students were coded to protect the names of the
subjects. This researcher will destroy any personal information or voice recordings after
the project is completed.
Ethics Statement:
Consents Secured
All participants read a consent form in which they were informed that there are no
physical or psychological risks involved in this study beyond a normal exploration of
personal attitudes and teaching styles and that all information would be coded to preserve
confidentiality. The consent form detailed the project’s purpose, their role in the project,
any ethical concerns and informed participants that they could withdraw at any time.
Survey participants were informed that by completing and submitting the online or paper
survey, they were consenting. They were also informed that they could choose not to
44
participate by not submitting the online or paper survey. Interviewees signed an assent
form.
Ethics Considered
During this project, all participants were informed that they could choose not to
participate and that they could also withdraw from participation at any time. The Internal
Review Board at Northwestern University approved the project, along with the survey
questions, interview questions and consent forms. Participant data was coded to preserve
confidentiality and no participant’s data was linked directly to name or any other
identifying information. All research material was kept under the control of the
researcher. Participation in this project involved no physical or psychological risks
involved in this study other than a normal exploration of personal attitudes.
45
Data Results Summary
Data Sources:
This researcher collected data from three different sources to satisfy the
triangulation of data method. In order to gain perspective from the researcher, the teacher
and the students, this researcher performed observations (researcher perspective),
interviewed the teacher (teacher perspective) and interviewed and surveyed students
(student perspective). The resulting data and methodology are presented below.
Before conducting any research with the students, this researcher submitted her
proposal to the Internal Review Board (IRB) at her university to obtain approval. After
her proposal had been approved, this researcher emailed the forms to the science teacher
who then printed and sent home consent forms for the students’ parents (See Appendix E)
to sign and assent forms (See Appendix F) for the students themselves with a detailed
description of the research project and what participation would involve. This researcher
obtained consent for 20 of the 22 students (91%). The remaining two students’ parents
expressly asked that their children not participate in the research rather than just not
filling out the consent forms.
Observations:
Description of the Data Site:
The school at which this data was collected is a small, all girls, college
preparatory, Catholic school on the northwest side of a major city in the Midwest. The
school contains grades seven through twelve, but the middle school is being phased out.
46
Currently, the seventh grade students are the youngest in the school. Next year, there will
only be grades eight through twelve and the following year, the school will contain only
grades nine through twelve.
In the science class this researcher observed there are 22 7th and 8th grade students
and one teacher. Of the 22 students, 11 are Hispanic (50%), eight are African American
(36%) and three are multi-racial (14%). The teacher is Caucasian. The teacher is part of
an alternative certification program which recruits recent college graduates and certifies
them during the summer to teach in underserved Catholic schools in the city while
simultaneously working on their Master of Education degree at a local university in the
evening. She is in her second year of the program and has been at the school for almost
two years. She has taught these same 22 students science both last year and this year. In
addition to science, this teacher teaches health to some of the students and religion to
others. She also serves as an advisor to several of the students in the class. The
surrounding neighborhood has primarily multi-unit dwellings and tree-lined streets with
evidence of young families and parks nearby. A major thoroughfare with traffic and a
train station with shops and restaurants is a few blocks away.
The science class is a standard classroom with small individual desks facing
toward the front of the room. A large blackboard fills the entire front of the class and
there are windows all along the left wall of the class. While the classroom is large and
sun-filled, the windows are partially broken and dirty. There are no lab tables in the
room and the only visible equipment is an overhead projector with a pull-down screen.
47
The walls of the classroom have various science vocabulary words and an enlarged
periodic table fills most of one of the walls of the classroom. The teacher’s desk is by the
windows and is piled high with papers such that when she sits behind it, she is not visible
from the entrance to the classroom.
The students wear several versions of a uniform which are comprised of brown or
grey pants or plaid skirts with blue button-down shirts. The students are wearing a
variety of different shoes. The atmosphere is one of relaxed camaraderie. The students
are chatting animatedly before each class and smiling and laughing in the hallways.
This researcher arranged to come and observe the science class on four occasions
and designed a rubric (see Appendix A) aligned with the research for what encourages
middle school girls in science. During the observations, this researcher was specifically
looking for class participation, the interactions between teacher and student, the time
spent during class on various tasks and then general observations. From her field notes
for the four observations, this researcher made the following comments:








Mostly lecture-style teaching.
Students learning chemistry for all four periods this researcher observed.
Working on science fair projects in addition to regular lessons.
Small amount of time for hands-on activities.
No formal labs observed.
Teacher asks mostly simple questions but occasionally asks students “how they
know” their answers to get more depth.
Teacher makes occasional links to real world examples or other subjects like
math.
Students do a small amount of group work in three of the four classes observed
(13 min (41%), 10 min (20%) and 3 minutes (7%)).
48









One game observed where students compete with white boards—seemed most
engaged and excited during this game than all the other times this researcher
observed.
Student atmosphere supportive.
Each class majority of students ask questions or participate in some way.
Teacher gives clear instructions for science fair in writing on the chalk board
during one of the classes.
Teacher approaches students who have questions and circulates around class
during group activities.
Teacher always has calm demeanor even when students are not cooperating.
Largely the class atmosphere is one of calm and cooperation.
Allocation for class times varies, but two classes have majority lecture with 22
minutes spent on lecture by the teacher that comprised 69% and 54% of the class
time during these classes.
Several incidences of real world examples and links to other subjects observed—
candy and Styrofoam models of elements, teacher talks of Mendeleyev inventing
the Periodic Table, teacher links experiences to trip to museum of science and
industry and makes links to math class.
Overall, the four observations helped cross-reference comments made by the teacher and
students in their interviews. They also gave this researcher a better sense of the dynamic
between the teacher and her students and the students with one another.
Teacher Interview
This researcher conducted an interview (interview protocol, see Appendix B) with
the teacher during her lunch period for approximately 30 minutes in her classroom with
no other students or teachers present. This researcher recorded the interview and
transcribed the interview for analysis and coding. The transcript for the interview can be
found in Appendix G.
The following coding themes emerged from the teacher interview:





Teacher responsibility-what the job of the teacher is-how teacher views this.
Teacher expectations—how she views students
Method of instruction-group work, hands-on, special techniques
Markers for engagement
Qualities of female students
49






Learning methods—how teacher thinks students learn
Student strengths
Student weaknesses
Student encouragement-how teacher encourages students
Real life connections—does she make them?
Teacher qualities—how the teacher sees herself
These themes were then condensed into larger categories that could be compared across
the observations and student interviews. The larger categories are: qualities of the ideal
and actual science teacher and qualities of the ideal and actual classroom as seen from the
teacher’s perspective, the researcher’s perspective and the students’ perspective. These
different perspectives will then be cross referenced with best practices as outlined in the
literature review and used to answer the question of what encourages girls in science in
the analysis section of this paper.
Overall the teacher feels that while she is inexperienced in teaching, she tries to
encourage her female students in science by engaging them with creative in-class
projects, group work, hands-on activities and games. Additionally, she holds high
expectations for her students and treats them with respect.
Student Interviews
This researcher conducted interviews with four students who were selected
because they volunteered. Two of the interviews were conducted during school hours in
a private classroom with no other students or teachers present. The other two interviews
were conducted in the gym and several other students were in another section of the gym
while the interview was being conducted. Each interview was recorded and transcribed
for accuracy and coding purposes. The interviews ranged in length from eight minutes to
50
16 minutes. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix D. Subsequently, the
transcripts for the four student interviews can be found in Appendices I, J, K and L. A
table summarizing the major themes from the four interviews can be found in Appendix
H.
The coding themes that emerged from the student interviews are as follows:







Teacher responsibility-what the job of the teacher is-how students view this.
Teacher qualities-what they like and dislike about the teacher
Student expectations—how they want to see science taught.
Learning methods—how they ideally learn, what works
Student encouragement—do they see this from teacher?
Real life connections—do they notice them?
Careers in science—do they consider them?
To coordinate with the teacher interview and observation categories, these themes were
collapsed into the major categories of ideal and actual science teacher and ideal and
actual science classroom mentioned above with the teacher interview.
Student Survey
This researcher designed the survey using the online tool, “Survey Monkey”
before distributing it to the students. The majority of the questions for the survey came
from two separate sources: the New Zealand National Education Monitoring Project
Survey (nemp.ontago.ac.nz/science/1995/surveys/index.htm) and the Questionnaire on
Teacher Interaction (QTI), designed by Wubbels and Levy, 1993. A copy of the survey
can be found in Appendix C.
This researcher surveyed 15 of the 20 students (75%) who agreed to participate in
the study on the same day during school hours. The other five students were unavailable
51
or did not want to participate in the survey. The students were given permission by their
advisors (one of whom was the science teacher) to fill out the survey during their
advisory period which lasted approximately 30 minutes. Most of the students were in the
computer lab for their advisory period and filled out the surveys while sitting at
computers. The remaining students were in the room with their science teacher while
filling out the surveys.
The online survey was not functioning properly, so this researcher distributed a
paper copy of the survey for the students to fill out by hand. Many of the students were
sitting and talking in pairs while completing the survey, but this researcher checked their
answers for duplication and found there to be little to none of this. This researcher
circulated around both the computer room and the science classroom to be available if
students had any questions. Students did not ask this researcher for help in completing
any of the answers on the survey. Students all completed the survey within the 30 minute
class period.
The major findings from the survey are as follows:







An equal number of students are African American and Hispanic
All students attended a co-ed school before 6th grade.
66.7% of students reported getting an A or B in science and the majority (66.7%)
stated this is the same as other subjects.
When asked about qualities specific to their school, most students were neutral
about whether they preferred the all girls atmosphere or felt supported and able to
be a leader there.
40% of the girls liked doing lab reports
40% felt neutral about liking the way their science class was taught.
The majority of students wanted to learn science using field trips (80%), hands-on
activities (66.7%) and group work (60%).
52







Students disagree or strongly disagree with statements about whether they do any
science outside of school (80%), whether science is their favorite subject (73.4%),
whether they have learned about female scientists this year (64.3%), and whether
they want to continue studying science in the future (46.6%).
75% of students said they liked studying chemistry.
71.4% of students said they do well in science b/c they are naturally smart, 50%
said because they work hard.
61.5% of students said science is not interesting to them, 71.4% said they don’t
like science, 86.7% said science is “boring”. 46.7% said it is “interesting” and
46.7% said “stressful”.
Students were neutral when asked about teacher and how she teaches science
80% of students said the teacher was “demanding” and 66.7% said she was
“impatient”.
60% of students strongly disagreed with the statement asking if they got to choose
their own assignments. 42.9% disagreed with the statement that the teacher holds
their attention.
The data from the survey show that the students are dissatisfied with both their
teacher and the way science is being taught at their school. The analysis will discuss
further the significance of all of these findings when compared with the literature.
53
Data Analysis
Introduction
After summarizing, coding and analyzing the student and teacher interviews,
observations and the student survey, the data falls logically into the following categories:
qualities of the ideal science teacher and classroom, and qualities of the actual science
teacher and classroom. In both the interviews and surveys, the teacher and students
continually speak of what is wrong with their current situation and teacher/teaching style
and what they would like to see in their ideal class/teacher. Thus the aforementioned
categories emerged as the framework in which to discuss what encourages middle school
girls in science. When one compares this data with the literature on the subject, one can
begin to uncover answers to the question of what encourages middle school girls in
science.
Qualities of the Ideal Science Teacher:
Teacher Perspective:
The teacher notes that in an ideal teaching world, she would be consistent with
students at all times. She says, “As far as teaching girls in general, I think consistency is
so important. Girls take it personally any time you are not consistent or not fair—and
you’re not being personal most of the time I hope, but girls, more than boys, are not
willing to let things go.” She admits that while she has become more consistent since she
started teaching the previous year, she still has to work on this.
54
Student Perspective:
Students, on the other hand, do not mention the teacher being consistent or
inconsistent, but instead want their ideal teacher to be enthusiastic, patient, creative and
fun. Additionally, one student mentions she wishes her teacher had more experience per
the transcript below:
MH: It would help if they had teachers who had more experience. Not saying my
teacher is dumb or anything, but I mean, she is really young, she is only like 23 or
something so…
Q; What do you think a teacher with more experience would do differently?
MH: Maybe explain things better and teach us different methods and just teach us a lot
of different things b/c they would probably like learn much different, more things in
their lifetime. Not saying we need old teachers…
Q: Do you feel like a lot of your teachers are younger?
MH: Some. Yeah, most of them.
Another student expresses the need for her teacher to be more connected with the
students per the transcript below:
Q: If you could try and change science for girls who came after you, what would you
say about how things could be better and what you would do about it?
A: Well, I would tell them try to be more upbeat with them. Try to make connections
with them…
Q: Personal connections?
A: Real world connections and stuff. Just make sure you interact a lot with us, not just
standing up there like, you know (mock serious voice), “Oh organizing the periodic
table, and Lithium is the 3rd one and it has 3 atomic numbers or whatever…
Q: So how would you teach that to make it more fun?
A: I don’t know.
Q: But you feel like a teacher should know how to make things fun.
A: Yeah.
Additionally, two of the four students interviewed mentioned they want their teacher to
be more fun.
55
In summary, the students want their teacher to have more experience, to make more
connections with students, and to be more fun. During the bulk of all four of the student
interviews, they complain about their current science teacher, so there is an obvious
disconnect between what the teacher feels she is conveying to the students and how they
are receiving her message.
Researcher Perspective:
Not applicable. Observations only showed what was actually happening in the classroom
as the researcher observed it.
Literature Perspective on Ideal Teaching Techniques:
To shed further light on the comments made by both teachers and students and the
observations made in each class, the research is an essential component of answering the
question of what engages middle school girls in science. Research has been concerned
with this issue of how science teachers can engage female students in science for the last
two decades. Researchers have tested a variety of techniques that have shown positive
results when used on female students in science and in classes in general. Sax (2005)
recommends teachers look female students in the eye and reassure them as students look
to female teachers as friends. This researcher did observe the teacher reassuring students
and having a friendly rapport during all four class observations. Additionally, Barton,
Tan & Rivet (2008) recommend merging social and academic identities in the classroom
when working with schools with high minority populations. The teacher mentions
attempting to allow students to bring in other skills (like music and dance) into certain
56
projects to help accomplish a similar goal. Students, in contrast, do not feel like science
relates to their real lives as stated in several of the student interviews.
Eccles (2007) notes that interactions between female students and their teachers
are the main reason for why female students remain in science. The female students in
this researcher’s study found their teacher “boring” and “demanding” according to the
survey results. The majority of students surveyed indicated they did not like science and
did not plan on a career in science. The correlation this researcher found corroborates
Eccles’ (2007) research. Eccles (2007) also finds that students look for confidence in
their teachers. Only 33% of the students this researcher surveyed describe their teacher
as “confident”. Dee (2005) finds that female science teachers help promote the
intellectual engagement of female students. As the students surveyed found their science
class “boring” (86.7%), and their teacher, “demanding” (80%) and impatient (66.7%), it
is not surprising to find that the students do not want to study science further.
Qualities of the Ideal Science Classroom
In addition to looking at the qualities of the ideal and actual science teacher, one
must examine the way science is taught in actual science classrooms and the views of
teachers and students of what they would like to see in their ideal science classroom. In
doing so, one can construct a more complete picture of both what is happening at the
school this researcher observed and the best way to encourage middle school girls in
science.
57
Teacher Perspective:
The teacher has a lot to say about how she would like her ideal science classroom
to be. She mentions her own limitations mostly linked to her inexperience in teaching.
Despite her inexperience, she is very clear about what she would like to do in the future
and what she is trying to accomplish in her classroom currently. She stresses the
importance of teaching students critical thinking skills both to engage them in science
and to master the study of science and apply these skills in other academic areas.
“Also critical thinking since a lot of schools require memorization—and a lot of girls
haven’t had an education where they have had to think critically and come up with
new ideas. I think science is great for that. If someone told me, ‘I don’t need
science’—I would tell them, ‘yes you do, because science teaches you how to think
critically’. That’s another thing I would tell students who are disengaged. It’s a
problem-solving class so that’s what I try to get them to do. I think I am not really
good at teaching problem solving yet but I hope to get better because I think it is some
of the best things that science can teach you even if you are not going to go into
science.”
Additionally, she states about her students that, “Getting them engaged was part
of getting them to see that they can take themselves outside the classroom and also put
themselves inside the classroom.” She understands the importance of the fractured
student identity between their social and academic worlds.
As a Northwestern graduate student and practicing teacher, she understands the
importance of inquiry in her classroom. Unfortunately, she notes that the realities of her
own time constraints and the time in which she is allowed to teach science in her school
make it difficult to do inquiry as much as she would like. She states that she is getting
better at incorporating forms on inquiry into her classroom per the statement below:
58
“Last year I would do inquiry by saying, “let’s come up with a way to count atoms and
grams” which was not really engaging them, but it’s still an open-ended inquiry-based
question. So most of my labs I try to take a lab and make it as inquiry-based as
possible. But those require a lot of time so I can’t say that I do it all the time.”
The teacher comments many times in her interview about things she would like to do
more of her in her class and ideas she has for improving her practice in the future. She
mentions the success she has had with contests, group work and hands-on activities, but
notes that these do not happen in every class she teaches unfortunately.
She also mentions wanting to do a more formal assessment of students prior
knowledge before each unit to make her lessons more effective:
“I wish I did a more formal assessment like a pretest. Unfortunately I haven’t been
teaching that long so I don’t have that. It would take a lot of time to make it. I try. I
don’t know. I think it is important to do.”
Finally, the teacher mentions wanting to allow students to incorporate more forms
of expression during assignments in her class but admits, ““I try to do it. It’s valuable but
it’s a lot of work. I try to do it as much as I can but it is more work”. She also admits
her struggles to relate chemistry to the real world acknowledging the importance of
creating this link for her students, “Yeah, it is easier for me depending on what topic I am
teaching. Sometimes I really have to stretch to come up with ideas—like for chemistry.
Chemistry is really hard.”
In summary, the teacher’s ideal science class has aspects of engaging students in
science through inquiry, critical thinking, incorporating skills from outside of class into
59
assignments, assessing students before and after each learning unit, having more labs and
time for hands-on activities and finally, relating her teaching to examples of science from
the real world.
Student Perspective:
The students also have a lot of opinions about what they would like to see in their
ideal science class to help them learn and enjoy science more. All four of the students
interviewed and 66.7% of the students surveyed mention that the ideal way they would
learn science is with more labs and hands-on activities. The excerpt from one interview
is below:
Q: What do you like about learning in labs?
TW: They are like active. You don’t just sit in one spot.
Q; So you like to move around?
TW: Yeah, plus you are in a group.
Q: You like working with other girls?
TW: Yeah
In addition to more labs, two of the four students mentioned more and better
visuals. When this researcher asked for more details about the visuals one student
commented, ““Well sometimes I read from the book but that doesn’t really help. I like to
see visuals. When I see visuals it helps me understand things better. She doesn’t really
do visuals or sometimes she tried to draw pictures that don’t really make sense or gross
everybody out.” Three of the four students and 80% of the students surveyed mention
having more field trips would help them be more engaged in science. They had not taken
any field trips during the two years they has been studying science with this teacher.
60
Group work is another priority with three of the four students and 60% of the
students surveyed mentioning this as an ideal way to learn science. Two of the four
students mention they would also like to see more games during class. One student
mentions there is too much teacher lecture stating, “…whenever she says yeah, we’re
gonna have a fun activity, we never get to it because of all the notes”. Additionally, one
student states that the lessons are often confusing and she would like to see them
condensed into smaller parts per the transcript below:
Q: How do you think it could be easier for you to learn things like the Periodic Table?
MC: Like if she makes it into little pieces. If she breaks it down to little pieces.
Q: You feel like the lessons are too complicated as they are.
MC: Yeah
In summary, these students would like to see science taught with more labs and
hands-on activities, more field trips, more visuals, less lecture and more clear, smaller
lessons.
Researcher Perspective:
Not applicable. Observations only showed what was actually happening in the
classroom as the researcher observed it.
Literature Perspective on Ideal Teaching Techniques:
The research is full of articles containing best practices and suggestions for ways
to engage middle school girls in science. Comparing the results from the literature to
findings from this current research will shed light on what is happening to discourage
these middle school girls from enjoying and being engaged in science.
61
Sax (2005) and AAUW report (1992) argue for collaborative and not competitive
learning environments for girls. All the students this researcher interviewed did mention
liking to work in groups and many mention games and “fun” as something they desire in
their science class but is currently missing. 46.7% of the students surveyed described
their science class as “stressful”.
Hammrich, Richardson & Livingston (2001) found that programs with strong
female role models had a positive effect on female student performance in science and
math. 50% of students surveyed strongly disagreed with the statement, “I have learned
about interesting female scientists”. During the four class observations, this researcher
did not note any reference to female scientists during these classes though there was one
reference to a male scientist.
Harwell (2000) noted that students wanted more active learning styles and they
wanted peer interaction as mentioned above. The interview and survey data from this
researcher corroborates this assertion with students citing the desire for more labs, more
hands-on activities and more field trips in almost every interview and also survey
responses asking how they best learn in science class: 80% “going on field trips”, 60%
“participating in hands-on activities and labs”, and 53.3% “watching demonstrations by
our teacher”.
62
Harwell (2000) ‘s data also reflects the findings by this researcher that girls are
disillusioned with the way science is being taught to them and full of ideas of how it
could be done better. As mentioned in the many quotes above, the students are not shy
about stating their opinions about what could make science better and more interesting—
and also what kind of teacher.
Lee et al (1996) found that girls who did labs in science felt more positively about
and performed better in physical science. The lack of availability of labs for the
chemistry students this researcher studied may partially explain the discontent with the
status of their science teaching and engagement.
The research cited above largely helps explain the similarities between what was
found in previous research and again during this researcher’s study.
Qualities of the Actual Science Teacher:
Teacher Perspective:
The teacher has a lot to say about how she sees herself in the classroom. She sees
herself as a mentor to her students, encouraging them to be excited about science and to
be positive about their own attributes in science. She mentions the importance of
confidence and encouraging girls’ interest in science stating, “You need to find what
interests them and show them that they can be successful, even if it is in just on unit.”
63
In her role as mentor, the teacher mentions reaching out to the parents of one of
her students when she can’t engage the student in any of the learning units stating,
“I have a senior in my chemistry class where I had to ask her mom, ‘what does
interest her?’. She said, ‘The media’. So I thought, what can I do with the media in
chemistry? I brought in a lot of stuff with dating drama when we did chemical
reactions. I try to give them an independent project where they can pick their topic and
she ended up picking “little devices do big jobs”—so things like cell phones and tiny
batteries in musical devices. I hope I gave her something she can hold onto.”
Additionally, the teacher mentions she makes sure to make eye contact with
students and tries to establish a culture of academic success in her class. She states, “In
the beginning of the year it takes a lot of work to set up the culture in the classroom that it
is okay to be smart. I don’t think I have perfected that yet, it is only my second year
teaching.”
When asked directly how she would describe herself as a teacher, she says she
respects her students, sets high standards and expectations for them and works hard to try
and be consistent with behaviors and expectations.
In summary, the teacher sees herself as a mentor to her students encouraging them
and building up their confidence. She reaches out to parents when her students fail to
engage in her class. She makes eye contact with students and tried to establish a culture
of academic success. Additionally, she sets high standards and respects her students and
tries to be consistent with them.
64
Student Perspective:
The students see their science teacher in a very different way than she describes
herself. The survey data is not revealing about the students’ feelings about their teacher
and how she teaches science as the vast majority of questions to that effect elicited a
neutral response. However, the survey does reveal that 42.9% of students disagree with
the statement that the teacher holds their attention and 80% said the teacher was
“demanding” and 66.7%, “impatient”.
The interview data also reveal a largely negative portrait of the science teacher.
Two of the four students describe the teacher as boring. One student indicates the teacher
is rude and often irritated with students stating,
“Yeah, our teacher hands us a lot of handouts and then is like, ‘understand this and
understand that’ and if she were to just explain it a little better without getting like
irritated or upset about our questions. Sometimes we don’t understand things so we
ask questions multiple times. If she were to get less irritated or to explain it better
and make it sound more fun.”
Another student reiterates this sense that the teacher is not approachable and easily
irritated by the students per the transcript below:
Q: Do you feel like she is someone you can go to with a question?
A: Not really, because then I feel like she is going to get mad at me.
Yet another student feels the teacher rushes students during class and often interrupts the
flow of class with unnecessary classroom management. All the students interviewed
state they want science to be more fun and less confusing.
Q: So you feel it’s the teacher’s responsibility to make it fun and interesting?
65
MH: Well, not totally. I mean, she is a good teacher and she teaches us stuff better
than my old school.
Q: So you feel like you are learning a lot here?
MH: oh yeah, most definitely. Just if she were to explain it better and if she were to
seem like she was having fun with it—like enthusiastic about it. She seems like of
like, “you know what to do, so could you just do it already?”. She seems kind of upset
when she is talking to us. So if she were to sound more excited.
When asked about their ideal teacher and how science class would be different, one
student responds with the following:
Q: What would you change, how would you change [science class and how it is
taught] then? You said different teacher , but how would your ideal teacher teach you
science?
A: She would make it more fun, like “today we’re going to do this, today we’re going
to do that” (upbeat tone) and it wouldn’t be boring. She’s like “okay class, now we’re
going to do this…” (deadened tone). You know, “I’m taking notes yay!”—like,
nobody likes taking notes—especially her notes because they are really long.
Q: Okay, so you feel like you spend too much time in class taking notes
A: Uh huh, and whenever she says yeah, we’re gonna have a fun activity, we never
get to it because of all the notes.
In summary, the students see their current teacher in an overwhelmingly negative
light describing her as demanding, impatient, boring, rude, not approachable, easily
irritated and as someone who rushes them during class.
Researcher Perspective:
With the teacher stating one thing and the students another, the researcher’s
perspective becomes helps to corroborate one source or another. From the four in-class
observations, this researcher found evidence to support aspects of both what the teacher
says she is doing and that with which the students are disappointed.
66
To corroborate the teacher’s perspective, this researcher notes that the teacher
encourages students to think for themselves in three of the four observed classes. This
researcher also notes that the teacher’s demeanor is very calm in each class and that she
never raises her voice—even when reprimanding students. In each class this researcher
observed, the teacher reassures students and looks them in the eye noting “good wrong
answers” on several occasions in addition to praising correct ones. Additionally, she
requires students to answer questions with “how” they know and not just the answer.
In two of the four classes observed, the teacher makes connections to real-world
scientists and references a trip to the Museum of Science and Industry in an effort to
engage the students. The teacher allows the students to be their own experts when she
misspells a word in the periodic table during one class. The students correct her and she
laughs at her own mistake. In all four classes this researcher observed, the teacher is
constantly strolling about the room answering questions for students and making sure
they are on task. The teacher has a very matter-of-fact tone when dealing with students
which could explain their comments about her being unenthusiastic. Despite her tone, the
teacher appears ready to answer students’ questions without any obvious irritation. She
stays after class on one occasion to answer an additional question one of the students has
about something they discussed in class. Additionally, different students in each class
seek out the teacher for help with individual questions which she calmly answers. This
researcher did not see any evidence of the irritation with questions many of the
interviewed students mention during the four observations.
67
To shed light on some of the student reactions to their teacher, this researcher
does observe that in each class, the teacher reacts negatively toward students more times
than positively—but the observation fail to note the nature of these interactions. The
bulk of each class observed is spent taking notes and in a standard call and response style.
Over 50% of each class observed is spent on lecture with only two occasions of group
work during the four classes. The students each complain about the desire for group
work and two students complain about the extensive notes that prevent them from doing
things in science that interest them like more active, hands-on activities. The teacher
does promise the students less lecture time if they stay quiet and thus can get to the
hands-on activity faster during one of the classes observed.
Qualities of the Actual Science Classroom
Teacher Perspective:
The teacher is very forthright about how she sees her current classroom in
comparison to how she would like her classroom to be. She emphasizes the importance of
science literacy that she explains as being able to state what you know and then write
your ideas in your own words. Specifically she talks about the importance of science
literacy below:
“The ability to comprehend information by reading it and being able to comprehend it
and orally say it or comprehend it and write it down in your own words. We did
notes a few different ways. I will say, ‘find the main idea of the paragraph and put it
68
in your own words’. Sometimes reading skills are really low and that doesn’t help. It
could be really easy to teach science without reading, but not as far as comprehension
goes. You are just doing a disservice to your students. If they are going to get a
really solid foundation in their heads of some concepts they need to read. We have
our word wall, vocabulary section in their binder. They have a class notes section—
taken in their own words. Emphasizing literacy is very important for urban girls.”
When assessing students’ prior knowledge before teaching, the teacher describes
the limits of her process per the transcript below:
Q: What about finding out at the beginning of the year where you students are in their
knowledge about a subject and incorporating that into the way that you teach and
what you teach? Do you do that and how do you do that?
KS: I find that’s pretty important with both my chemistry and my middle school
classes because middle school is 7th and 8th grade and so finding out where everyone
is at is important. I don’t think I do it at the beginning of the year but I try to do it
before every unit.
Q: How do you do it, how do you find out?
KS: Usually with something like a bell ringer. I will have four different questions
like, “what do you think an atom is?”, “can we see atoms?”, “what unit do you think
you would use to measure an atom?”. If they say amu and atom is the smallest unit of
matter then I know they have heard this before. But if they say, “I think an atom is in
my body and I think maybe it weighs a gram”-at least then I know that they know
what a gram is and we can start there. Usually it is a simple bell ringer. I wish I did a
more formal assessment like a pretest. Unfortunately I haven’t been teaching that
long so I don’t have that. It would take a lot of time to make it. I try. I don’t know. I
think it is important to do.
When specifically asked about her methods for engaging students, she says she
has a lot of contests in her classes because, “Once they start competing and they realize
that so and so’s looks prettier and works better than mine—it gets them engaged and then
brings a little bit more of themselves into the classroom”. She also mentions starting off
69
each class with the aforementioned “bell ringer” which is usually a set of questions
designed to trigger information they have learned previously. Additionally, the teacher
says she tries to do something hands on during each class, but that it does not always
happen. She also states that “You need to find what interests them and show them that
they can be successful, even if it is in just on unit.” It is clear from her interview that the
teacher has thought about what methods she can employ in her classes to engage her
students.
She also says she gives students choice in assignments including “creative”
assignments involving song, dance or a short play to demonstrate mastery of a concept.
When this researcher asked the teacher about incorporating other forms of expression into
assignments and if this helps reach other students who might not otherwise appear to like
science very much she responds, “Yes, especially at this age, making songs, making raps.
It sticks in their head and they say it. They sound nerdy but they think it’s hilarious.”
She also states that incorporating other forms of expression allows them to incorporate,
“their ‘inner actresses’ because especially at the middle school level, they are all
actresses”.
Finally, the teacher says while she tries to provide links between the units she is
teaching and the real world, that, ““Yeah, it is easier for me depending on what topic I am
teaching. Sometimes I really have to stretch to come up with ideas—like for chemistry.
Chemistry is really hard.”
70
In summary, the teacher says she is emphasizing science literacy, doing some
assessment of prior knowledge to try and make lessons relevant to students, trying to do
one hands-on activity per class, asking students bell-ringer problems to trigger prior
knowledge, trying to make real-world connections and allowing students to have choice
in assignments and incorporate creative expression in some in-class assignments. She is
honest in acknowledging that classes do not always go as she has planned and that she
does not always have the resources or time to teach science the way it should ideally be
taught.
Student Perspective:
Unfortunately, the students seem to feel very differently about their actual
experience in the science class despite their teacher’s efforts. The survey data reveal that
86.7% of students say science is “boring”, 71.4% say they don’t like science and 61.5%
say science is not interesting to them. Additionally, despite the teacher’s statements that
she gives students choice in certain assignments, 60% of students strongly disagree with
the statement asking if they get to choose their own assignments. The interview data
sheds further light on the survey results about why science is not interesting to these
students.
The students all mention that labs are a priority when learning science and they
don’t feel there are enough labs in their current class. There are also other issues with the
labs per the interview transcript below:
Q: What about labs, do you feel like labs help you learn science?
71
MH: Yeah, the labs are fun. Our teacher, when she gets the instructions off of online
or something, she gets these really hard instructions and she’s like, ‘measure 7/15th
of a cup and mix it with like sodium hydroxide’—it sounds like chemistry and we’re
only in 7th and 8th grade and she makes it really complicated and I really have a big
problem with that.
Thus, even when students are doing labs in school, they don’t always feel they are done
in the right way.
Additionally, the students fail to see how science is relevant to them in their lives
with only one of the three students interviewed acknowledging this link. The other
students say they don’t remember the teacher mentioning any connections between
chemistry and the real world or that the examples she gives don’t mean anything to them.
The survey results are also largely negative with students stating they disagree or strongly
disagree with statements about whether they do any science outside of school (80%),
whether science is their favorite subject (73.4%), whether they have learned about female
scientists this year (64.3%), and whether they want to continue studying science in the
future (46.6%). Thus the connections the teacher says she is trying to make between
chemistry and the real world are not translating to the students.
Further proof of this disconnect between science and the real world, is that only
one of the four students interviewed is considering a career in science. 71.4% of the
students surveyed said they will not consider a career in science because they don’t like
science.
72
When asked about their problems with their science class, students reiterate the
results of the survey saying science is boring, with too much lecture and lessons that are
too confusing. Only one student is fairly positive stating that while interesting, she still
does not really like science:
Q: Do you feel like your teacher makes science fun and interesting?
TW: No. She makes it interesting but not fun. She thinks it’s fun b/c she do it, but it’s
not fun. She’s like, “this is going to be fun!” and I’m like, “that’s not fun”.
Q: What do you think would make science fun for you?
TW: If we could have class outside.
Q: What else?
TW: That’s it.
In summary, the students feel very negatively about their current science class.
They feel there are not enough labs and the labs they do have do not have clear
instructions. They do not think science is relevant to them and are not considering
careers or further study in science on the whole. They feel their teacher lectures too
much and does not give them enough choice in their assignments.
Researcher’s Perspective:
Again, the researcher’s perspective becomes valuable to help shed light on some
of the discrepancies between what the teacher says she is trying to do and what the
students are experiencing.
With regard to the time spent in science class on various tasks, the four classes
were each very different. In two of the classes, the teacher lectured for 69% and 54% of
the time. This researcher saw hands-on activities in two of the classes. In one class the
students worked on models for elements in the periodic table and in the other they
73
worked on word processing in computer labs for their science fair projects. This
researcher observed a contest in only one of the four classes when the teacher and
students spent ten minutes of time on a review game for their upcoming quiz which the
students seemed very excited about, calling out answers in an animated fashion. In two
of the four classes, the students worked independently for the first five minutes of class
on the teacher’s aforementioned “bell ringer” problems. During all four classes observed
there were no formal labs.
In all four classes, this researcher saw the teacher make examples trying to link
the chemistry they were studying to real world examples, other subjects (math links) and
past scientists (though not female ones). Additionally, there was a problem on the board
for one of the weeks this researcher observed relating the study of chemistry to a problem
involving cancer.
This researcher did not see examples of choice in assignments because it was not
relevant during the classes observed. This researcher did see examples of the science
literacy the teacher mentioned when she asked students to explain “how” they knew
something in addition to knowing the answer and writing their notes in their own words.
Overall, there were elements of things both the teacher mentioned (science
literacy, real-world examples, hands-on activities, contests) and the students complained
about (too much lecture, no labs) during the classes observed.
74
Conclusion
Study Limitations:
The study has several notable limitations including a small sample size and
abbreviated time frame (all data was collected over the course of six weeks). This study
reflects the data from only four observations from one month of a science course that has
been taught over the course of an entire school year. Additionally, it reflects the opinions
of only one teacher and twenty students, four of whom were interviewed. The study is
limited in its ability to be generalized also because the school is private and Catholic and
thus the students may not be representative of the larger population.
The data collection process was also limiting for this researcher for several
reasons. The initial data site selected was not available when this researcher was ready to
collect data, so she had to quickly find a second suitable site that fit the criterion of high
minority enrollment and all girls. The actual data site was not ideal as the teacher had
less than two years teaching experience and the school was private and religiously
affiliated which has implications for science teaching.
Additionally, the data collection was exceedingly difficult at this school because
the schedule changed on a daily basis. On several occasions this researcher drove the 45
minutes down to the school only to find the class had been changed or canceled. The
teacher remarked to this researcher her frustration with the schedule changes both for her
own planning and because then her students never knew when they had science class or
for how long.
75
Finally, this researcher initially intended to do a comparison with girls in
coeducational environments and those in single sex ones to ascertain if there was some
advantage for girls to study science in a single sex environment. After consulting with a
research advisor, this researcher realized that this design would not allow a direct
comparison because there would be too many confounding factors with different students
attending different schools. Ideally, future research would find some way to compare
students in both environments to discern whether the single sex environment is ideal for
encouraging middle school girls in science. The way this research was designed, it was
impossible to ascertain the effect of the all girls environment for encouraging middle
school girls in science.
Lessons Learned:
There are several things this researcher would have done different in designing
the data collection in a future study. While the design of the data collection was well
thought out and included checks and balances with the various perspectives, there were
several unanticipated outcomes. The order in which this researcher conducted the
interviews and data collection was not ideal because after interviewing the teacher, this
researcher did not transcribe the interview and reflect on the teacher’s comments before
interviewing and surveying students. After all the transcriptions were completed, this
researcher realized she should have asked students specific questions about some
comments from the teacher to ensure that their incongruence was not simply based on the
fact that the questions were poorly worded or simply omitted.
76
In addition, this researcher should have asked the teacher about comments from
the students to ascertain who was telling the truth. For example, the teacher made
comments about how she gave the students choice in assignments and allowed them to do
plays and songs in certain assignments, and this researcher did not ask students about
these examples to ascertain whether they remembered these examples or whether they
believed them to be true. Additionally, the students put a lot of emphasis on the role of
the teacher in motivating them in science and this researcher did not ask the teacher how
she thought the students felt about her teaching and personal style.
Surprises:
This researcher was surprised that one student mentioned the youth and
inexperience of her teacher as one of her limitations. The school where this research was
conducted seemed to have a lot of younger teachers when this researcher observed at the
school. With a few exceptions, the majority of the teachers appeared to be in their 20’s
and Caucasian. The teacher whom this researcher was observing was part of an
alternative certification program that requires teachers to commit to a particular school
for only two years. There is additional monetary incentive to stay longer, but many
teachers opt to leave after their two-year commitment is completed. Perhaps the students
sense that many of the teachers at their school are not invested in their education since
they cycle in and out with such frequency. This is merely speculation on this researcher’s
part and would warrant further investigation in another study.
77
Recommendations for Future Research:
This researcher hopes future researchers will delve more into what is happening
with the female science students at this school to cause their disengagement. This
researcher did not look into the role of the parents in influencing their daughter’s
opinions on or valuations of their science class. Additionally, a more comprehensive
study over the course of the school year and during other subjects besides chemistry
might shed more light on what was really happening. It would also be helpful to
interview more students to gain further perspective on what is happening in the science
class and to follow-up with another interview with the teacher after presenting her with
some of the findings and see what she has to say.
Implications for the Field:
The most significant findings from this study are the close parallels between what
the students here said about science and the recent literature on what encourages middle
school girls in science and the incongruence between what the students said about their
teacher and what the teacher said herself about what was happening in her science
classroom. The failures in the class based on comments and survey results from students
reflect the absence of successful practices from the literature. For example, the teacher
would mention the incorporation of successful practices like giving the students choice in
assignments or allowing them to bring in talents from outside of class, but the students
did not mention these in either surveys or interviews (see limitation of this result per the
section above). Clearly these practices were not happening often enough to have made an
impression on the students. Additionally, the students said they wanted less lecture and
78
more hands-on activities and more visuals, but in the four classes this researcher
observed, there was a majority of teacher lecture and minimal instance of both other
practices.
As a result of the lack of successful teaching practices proven to engage female
students in science, the students this researcher observed were completely disengaged
from both the study of science and their teacher. They felt their teacher did not listen to
them or encourage them. They wanted their teacher to be fun and engaging and did not
feel their current teacher embodied those qualities. Instead, they said she was easily
irritated and constantly rushing them in their assignments, often leaving them with
unasked or unanswered questions.
The students were very definitive about how negatively they felt about their
current teacher and alternatively, how much they felt they could like science if things
were different. Some of their desires were beyond their teacher’s control. The need for
more labs was clearly a problem of school resources, but does warrant some advocacy
considering the importance placed on labs for engaging students in science by both the
students and the current literature. In contrast, their feelings about their teacher and how
they felt she was constantly irritated with them and not approachable are clearly things
she needs to be made aware of and improve upon.
The teacher, in sharp contrast to the students’ view of her, seemed to have a firm
grasp on what it takes to have a successful classroom, but was free in admitting she was
79
still learning how to implement various strategies and that her time was limited. She
noted the importance of teaching critical thinking, understanding that students sometimes
need to bridge the gap between their social and academic identities. She understood the
need for creative assignments and more hands-on activities and labs. Unfortunately, the
teacher also noted her limited experience, time and the resources at her disposal for
accomplishing just those things. It was unclear from her interview at times whether the
practices she mentioned were things she was actually implementing in her class, or
merely things she believed were important for science teachers in an ideal world. Despite
her extensive knowledge of successful science teaching practices, the teacher used few of
these techniques during the four classes this researcher observed, and the students failed
to mention them in either the interviews or surveys.
This researcher was disappointed that what seemed like the ideal learning
opportunity for girls in science—being in a private, supportive academic environment
with a young and excited teacher—ended up being such a dismal failure for engaging the
female students in science. When one looks to the reasons for these failures, one could
highlight the emphasis the students placed on the teacher’s responsibility and not theirs as
students of science. In addition, the lack of resources at the school to provide for handson activities and chemicals for chemistry labs was clearly a problem. Further, the
inexperience and lack of commitment of the teacher was clearly apparent to the students
who then did not engage in either the science class or with their teacher.
80
This researcher hopes that teachers will look at this research as a missed
opportunity for engaging girls in science. While physical science, like chemistry, is
clearly a difficult subject in which to engage female students, this teacher was constantly
complaining of time constraints instead of actually implementing creative ways to reach
her students. Further, she seemed completely unaware that her students were so
uninspired by her class. This researcher never asked her directly about how she thought
her students felt about her, but her interview was full of inspiration and ideas for how to
reach and encourage her students, none of which seemed to be actually implemented in
her class—or at least not from what this researcher observed or the students noted in their
interviews or surveys.
Despite the negative outcomes presented by the data, this researcher learned quite
a lot about middle school girls and what encourages (and discourages!) them in science.
After examining lessons learned from this masters project, she will be doing things quite
differently in her own class. This researcher had a unique opportunity to observe and
study a classroom as an outsider and learn from the mistakes of others and from
successful techniques from the literature. The combined knowledge from both endeavors
will assist this researcher in becoming the best middle school science teacher she knows
how to be.
81
References
American Association of University Women. (1992) How Schools Shortchange
Girls; Executive Summary. Commissioned by the American Association
of University Women Educational Foundation and researched by The
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. 1-8.
Baker, D. (2002). Good Intentions: An Experiment in Middle School Single-Sex
Science and Mathematics Classrooms with High Minority Enrollment.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 8, 1-23.
Baker, D. & Jacobs, K. (1999, March). Winners and Losers in Single-Sex Science
and Mathematics Classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Baker, D., & Leary, R. (2003). Letting Girls Speak Out about Science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40 (Supplement), S176-S200. (originally
published in same journal Volume 32 Number 1, pp. 3-28 (1995)).
Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating Hybrid Spaces for Engaging
School Science Among Urban Middle School Girls. American
Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 68-103.
Brickhouse, N., Lowery, P. & Schultz, K. (2000). What Kind of Girl Does
Science? He Construction of School Science Identities. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37 (5), 441-458.
Bojesen, H. (2000). Sexism in Science Class. New Moon Network, 8 (1), 10.
Cavanagh, S., Riegle-Crumb, C., & Crosnoe, R. (2007). Puberty and the Education
of Girls. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70 (2), 186-198.
Dee, T. (2005). Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement. National
Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 11660. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11660
Dubas, J., Graber, J., & Petersen, A. (1991). The Effects of Pubertal Development
on Achievement during Adolescence. American Journal of Education, 99
(4), 444-460.
Eccles, L. (2007). Gender Differences in Teacher-Student Interactions, Attitudes
and Achievement in Middle School Science. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Curtain University of Technology (Australia).
82
Ferreira, M. (2002). Ameliorating Equity in Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering: A Case Study of an After-School Science Program. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 35(1), 43-49.
Greenfield, T. (1996). Gender, Ethnicity. Science Achievement, and Attitudes.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (8). 901-933.
Hammrich, P., Richardson, G., & Livingston, B. (2001). The Sisters in Science
Program: A Three Year Analysis. (Eric Document Reproduction Service
No. ED452093).
Harwell, S.H.. (2000). In Their Own Voices: Middle Level Girls’ Perceptions of
Teaching and Learning Science. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
11(3), 221-242.
Lee, V.E., & Burkam, D.T. (1996). Gender Differences in Middle Grade Science
Achievement: Subject Domain, Ability Level, and Course Emphasis.
Science Education 80(6), 613-650.
Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-Sex
Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review. Doc #2005-01. US
Dept. of Education. U.S.. 148pp.
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls. New
York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Rodrick, L.M., & Tracy, D.M. (2001). Gender Cultures in a Science Classroom:
Teaching that Frees Girls and Boys to Learn. Equity and Excellence in
Education 34 (2), 29-34.
Sax, L. (2005). Why Gender Matters. U.S.A.: Doubleday.
83
Appendix A
Observation Protocol
Date of Observation__________________
Time for Observation_________________
# Students in class____________________
Subjects taught___________________________________________________
Behavior
QUESTIONING
Students seek teacher’s help in
answering questions
Teacher asks students to answer
complex questions
Teacher encourages students to think
for themselves.
Teacher asks simple questions
TEACHER/STUDENT INTERACTION
Teacher reassures students—looks
them in the eye
Teacher reacts positively toward
students
Teacher reacts negatively toward
students
Teacher makes connections between
science and real world examples.
Students make connections between
science and real world examples.
Teacher makes reference to female
scientist
Student demonstrates expertise from
outside class valued in class.
Observed (y/n)(# times)
84
CLASS TIME ALLOCATION
Teacher lectures students (time for
this)
Students work independently (time for
this)
Students work in groups (time for this)
Students work on specific lab (time for
this)
Teacher demonstrates hands-on
activity (time for this)
Students work on hands-on activity
(time for this)
Teacher works one-on-one with
students
Question Grid (each letter corresponds to student—mark each time students answer
questions/make comments)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y
85
Appendix B
Teacher Interview Protocol
1. How do you know your students are engaged in science? What do you look for
from participation, grades, seeking help after class—to let you know they are
enjoying science and learning in your class?
2. What is different about the way science is taught in your class that is specific to
working with girls—if anything? Do you do more group work, hands on
activities, collaboration?
3. Do your students seek your help in solving problems? What is your approach
when this happens?
4. How do you draw on the strengths unique to your female students in the
classroom?
5. Do you allow students to incorporate more non-traditional forms of expression
like music and dance into science assignments and classroom presence? If so
how? Please provide examples.
6. How do you encourage your students? Are you a strict teacher? How would you
describe your teaching style? Do the students seem to respond to this style?
7. Have you received training in how to deal with boys and girls in the classroom? If
so, where did you receive this training and what specific techniques did they tell
you that you use in your classroom?
8. How do you help students engage in science knowing that their roles outside the
class sometimes conflict with their science identity?
9. Do you link classroom science to what is happening in students’ daily lives? If
so, how?
86
Appendix C
Student Survey Questions
Demographic Ques:
1. Age
2. Ethnicity/race
3. Grades attended at single sex school: K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
4. Grades attended at coed school: K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
General Academics:
1. What grades do you get in science? A, B, C, D, F
2. I do well academically in school (scale question).
These questions will ask how you feel about your school (strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree, strongly disagree):
1. I have a lot of opportunities to be a leader.
2. I feel confident in class.
3. I act differently at home than at school.
4. I don’t feel competitive with other girls here
These questions are specific to your science class at your school
Science class participation
1. I feel comfortable asking questions in science class.
2. I like working in groups to solve problems
3. I feel supported by my classmates
4. I can use my other talents to complete assignments in this class (singing, writing,
dancing etc.)
5. I like the way science is taught at my school.
General feelings about science:
(adapted from New Zealand’s National Education Monitoring Project Survey:
nemp.ontago.ac.nz/science/1995/surveys/index.htm):
1. My favorite subject in school is science.
2. I like science better in a class with only girls
3. In my own time, I do science-related activities, talk about science and think about
science.
4. I would make a good scientist.
5. I want to keep studying science as I get older.
6. I learn a lot about science in school.
7. I like doing lab reports
8. My favorite subjects to study in science are (check all that apply) : a) chemistry,
b) life science c) physics.
87
9. I do well in science because I (check all that apply) a) work hard, b) am naturally
smart, c) am lucky
10. Science is interesting to me because (check all that apply): a) my teacher makes it
fun b) I have always been interested in science, c) I feel good about my abilities in
science d) we do fun things in science class e) science is useful for me in my life.
11. Science class is competitive
12. Science class is stressful
13. I have learned about female scientists in class
14. I won’t become a scientist because (check all that apply): a) mostly boys are
scientists b) I wont have access to the kind of education it will take to become a
scientist c) I don’t like science d) none of the above—I plan to become a scientist.
15. I like the way my textbook teaches me science.
Questions about your science teacher:
(from the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction, Wubbels and Levy, 1993)
1. This teacher talks enthusiastically about science.
2. This teacher is concerned when we have not understood her.
3. This teacher makes connections between the science in class and science outside
of class.
4. This teacher is (check all that apply) a) demanding b) uncertain c) hesitant d)
friendly e) impatient f) a good leader g) timid h) patient i) confident j) too easy
5. This teacher thinks we do not know anything.
6. This teacher helps us with our work.
7. If we have something to say, this teacher will listen.
8. We have the opportunity to choose assignments which are most interesting to us.
9. This teacher takes a personal interest in us.
10. This teacher explains things clearly.
11. We learn a lot from this teacher.
12. This teacher holds our attention
13. This teacher is too quick to correct us when we break a rule.
14. This teacher knows everything that goes on in the classroom.
88
Appendix D
Student Interview Protocol
1. What do you like about studying science at your school? Is your experience here
different that previous schools you have attended? If so, how?
2. What would you change about the way you are learning science in school? What
would you like to see more of, less of?
3. How do you feel you learn best in your science class? Teacher-lead instruction,
labs, hands-on experiments, field trips etc? Why?
4. What qualities do you like or dislike about your science teacher? Is she someone
you can go to when you have a question? Does she make science fun and
interesting? Why or why not?
5. Does the science you learn in school relate to your life outside of school? Why or
why not?
6. Do you think you use science in your every day life? Why or why not?
7. Do you consider going into a career in science? Why or why not?
89
Appendix E
Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy
CONSENT FORM
Project Title: A Study of Minority Middle School Girls and Science
Encouragement
Student Investigator: Kim Barbaro
Faculty Advisor: Lois Trautvetter
Introduction/Purpose:
You are being asked to participate in a research study to learn about how
girls are encouraged to learn science in middle school.
You are being asked to participate in this study because you are currently
enrolled in middle school and are a student of science.
The purpose of this research study is to better understand what helps girls
learn science in middle school.
I will be interviewing six students for this study. I will be surveying as
many 7th and 8th grade science students as possible. I will be interviewing
one teacher.
Procedures
Survey
As a participant in this study, you will be asked to fill out an online survey
that should take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. This survey
can either be completed in class or at home if internet access and an email
account are available.
Interview
If you desire, you may consent to an additional interview that will last
approximately twenty minutes. I will conduct the interview at school or over
the telephone. I will audiotape the interview so I can remember what you
said. I will only do so with your permission. If you do not wish to be audio
taped it will not be possible for you to be in the study. After the interview,
the tape will be transcribed and a written copy will be sent to you for
review. You may edit or delete anything you do not want included in the
interview.
Observation
90
In addition, this researcher will be coming to observe in your science class
for four visits which will last for one hour each.
The entire study period will be no longer than two months. All interviews
and surveys will be scheduled at a time that is convenient for you and your
teachers during school hours.
Withdraw Protocols:
At any time in the study, you may decide to withdraw from the study. If you
withdraw no more information will be collected from you. When you
indicate you wish to withdraw, the investigator will ask if the materials
already collected in the study can be used.
Risks
Your participation in this study does not involve any physical risk or
emotional risk to you. You will simply be asked to give your opinion about
your experience at your school and in your science class. If you do not
wish to answer a question on the survey or in the interview, you may skip it
and go to the next question. You may withdraw at any time.
Benefits:
There may be no direct benefit to you by your participation in this research
study.
The potential benefits to you from participation in this study may include
knowing that you have provided insight into how girls like you are
encouraged to study science at your school.
Your participation in this study may aid in our understanding of how girls
are encouraged to study science in single sex and coeducational schools
and may help improve science teaching for girls studying science at your
school or other middle schools in future years.
Alternatives:
You have the alternative to choose not to participate in this research study.
Confidentiality:
Participation in this research study may result in a loss of privacy, since
persons other than the investigator might view your study records. Unless
required by law, only the study investigator, members of the investigator’s
staff, the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board, and
91
representatives from the Office for Human Research Protections (DHHS)
will have authority to review your study records. They are required to
maintain confidentiality regarding your identity.
Results of this study may be used for teaching, research, publications, or
presentations at scientific meetings. If your individual results are
discussed, your identity will be protected by using a study code number
rather than your name or other identifying information.
Centralized data collection or registries:
The results of your examinations will be collected in a centralized computer
or data registry on the personal computer of the student investigator.
Names will be coded with numbers to protect confidentiality and only the
student investigator will have the key to the code.
All videotaped and recorded records will be destroyed at the end of the
study.
The only exception to this promise of confidentiality is that we are legally
obligated to report evidence of child abuse or neglect.
Financial Information:
Your participation in this study will involve no cost to you. You will not be
paid for your participation in this study.
Subjects’ Rights:
Your participation in this study is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at
any time.
Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from this study will not affect
your class standing.
You are free to choose not to answer particular questions if you do not
want to.
You may ask that the tape recorder (video recorder) be turned off at any
point during the (interview, observation) if there is something that you do
not want to have recorded.
Information that any new findings developed during the course of the
research will be provided to the subject.
92
Any new findings developed during the course of this research that may
affect your willingness to continue will be provided to you.
An explanation of conditions for involuntary withdrawal: If the study closes
for some reason, you will be notified and all evidence of your participation
will be destroyed.
Your participation in this study may be discontinued by the investigator
without your consent if you provide false information that may alter the
results of the study.
Contact Persons:
Any questions you may have about this study may be directed to Kim Barbaro at
telephone XXX-XXX-XXXX. Questions about your rights as a research subject
may be directed to Lois Trautvetter at telephone number XXX-XXX-XXXX. If
problems arise evenings or weekends, you may call XXX-XXX-XXXX.
Consent:
I agree to participate in the research study described above. I will receive a copy
of this consent form after I sign it.
Subject’s Name (printed) and Signature
Date
Name (printed) and Signature of Person Obtaining Consent
Date
93
Appendix F
Northwestern University School of Education and Social Policy
ASSENT FORM FOR MINORS AGES 13-15
Project Title: A Study of Minority Middle School Girls and Science Encouragement
Student Investigator: Kim Barbaro
Faculty Advisor: Lois Trautvetter
WHY AM I HERE?
We want to tell you about a research study we are doing. Research studies are done to
find better ways of treating people with a disease or to get information about how things
work. In this study, we want to find out more about how middle school girls are
encouraged in learning science. You are being asked to be in the study because you are
currently enrolled in a middle school and taking science. In a research study, only people
who want to take part are allowed to do so.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY?
If it is okay with you and you agree to join this study, you will be asked to agree to the
following:
Survey
As a participant in this study, you will be asked to fill out an online survey that should
take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. This survey can either be completed in
class or at home if internet access and an email account are available.
Interview
If you desire, you may consent to an additional interview that will last approximately
twenty minutes. This researcher will conduct the interview at school or over the
telephone. This researcher will audiotape the interview so she can remember what you
said. This researcher will only do so with your permission. If you do not wish to be audio
taped it will not be possible for you to be in the study. After the interview, the tape will
be transcribed and a written copy will be sent to you for review. You may edit or delete
anything you do not want included in the interview.
Observation
In addition, this researcher will be coming to observe in your science class for four visits
which will last for one hour each.
All interviews and surveys will be scheduled at a time that is convenient for you and your
teachers during school hours.
94
HOW LONG WILL I BE IN THE RESEARCH STUDY?
You will be in this study for no longer than two months.
CAN ANYTHING BAD HAPPEN TO ME?
Nothing bad can happen to you from participating in this study. You are only being
asked your opinion on your experience studying science at your school. Your answers
will be completely private and have no affect on your grade in your science class.
CAN ANYTHING GOOD HAPPEN TO ME IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY?
We do not know if you will be helped by being in this project. However, we may learn
something that will help other middle school students studying science in the future.
DO I HAVE OTHER CHOICES?
You do not have to be in this study. Whether or not you choose to participate is
completely your choice.
WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY?
You do not have to be part of this project. It is up to you. You can even say okay now,
but change your mind later. All you have to do is tell us. No one will be mad at you if
you change your mind.
WHAT ABOUT MY CONFIDENTIALITY?
We will do everything possible to make sure that your records are kept confidential.
Unless required by law, only the following people can review your study records.
-The Northwestern University Institutional Review Board
-The study researcher and her faculty adviser
They are required to keep your personal information confidential.
WILL I BE PAID FOR BEING IN THIS RESEARCH STUDY?
No, you will not be paid for your participation.
DO MY PARENTS KNOW ABOUT THIS RESEARCH STUDY?
This study has been explained to your parent/parents/guardian and they have given
permission for you to be in it.
WHAT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS?
95
You can ask Kim Barbaro anything about the study. If you are not happy with this study
and want to talk to someone other than Kim Barbaro or the people helping Kim Barbaro
please call the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects. You can call them at XXXXXX-XXXX.
ASSENT
This study has been explained to me and I am willing to be in it.
Child’s Name (printed) and Signature
Date
Check which applies below [to be completed by the person obtaining the assent]
The child is capable of reading and understanding the assent form and has signed
above as documentation of assent to take part in this study.
The child is not capable of reading the assent form, but the information was
verbally explained to him/her. The child signed above as documentation of assent
to take part in this study.
Signature of Person Obtaining Assent
Date
96
Appendix G
Transcript of Teacher Interview
Q: Just some nuts and bolts, how long have you been teaching?
KS: Um a year and ¾.
Q: Both here at the (name of school)
KS: Yes, but then I guess I should also count my student teaching which was done at
(name of school) on the north side of (name of city).
Q: and you are doing an alternative certification program
KS: yes
Q: through…
KS: through (name of program) which is partnered with (name of University).
Q: OK. So you’re doing your masters at night and doing full-time teaching.
KS: Yes.
Q: you got certified in the summertime?
KS: Yes, that was our alternative certification in the summer but then we were required to
have a full certificate to go into a class once every other week during our first year so that
was last year.
Q: OK. Got it. And my focus as I told you is on girls being engaged in science so I
wanted to look at the all girls classroom to kind of look at, without having the boys in the
mix, what happens with girls and science and are there things that you do differently here
to engage girls in science. So how do you, do you feel like you…how do you assess
whether your students are engaged in what you are doing in science?
KS: Um. I just see basic things…um..eye contact, not being off task..um..but then there
are other things like asking insightful questions…um…asking questions in general makes
me really excited..um..asking..and I guess the types of questions are questions that we
haven’t actually talked about, or that are a little bit unrelated but still connected to the
topic..um..in the lab I can tell if they are engaged if they really want to know what the
result is and then ask to do a further task or experiment…or what would happen if we….
Q: Yeah
KS: for me it’s really a lot about them asking their own questions.
Q: OK. What about like… using grades as an indicator of engagement. Would you say
that …for example of you have students who are doing really well does that indicate they
are engaged or not necessarily?
KS: Um…not necessarily and I think I might be able to indicate engagement for grades if
I was working in a different climate. I think a lot of our girls, and they are all city kids,
they all have different factors in their lives. So I have some girls who are so engaged for
the 45 minutes that they are in my class and they are my top students as far as
participation so they’re classwork grades are great. I always write great things on their
report cards like “works well with others”, “really a leader in our classroom” but then
they’re getting a C. So, because they don’t turn in their homework or they can’t complete
the project all the way because they just you know, didn’t necessarily have time at home
or just couldn’t get it done. Um..so..that happens a lot. A lot of my most engaged, most
enthusiastic girls um…have a lot of great classwork but won’t do well on quizzes, won’t
do well on tests because they don’t study and they don’t do their homework. Chicago
97
public schools, a lot of them actually require teachers not to give homework which I used
to think was kind of curious, but now I can kind of see, well, if so many kids aren’t doing
it..I mean I don’t agree with it, but I can see why they made that policy.
Q: So if doing it is not going to be helpful for anyone, then why penalize some I suppose.
KS: I don’t really like it, but I can see where they first came up with that.
3:47
Q: OK. Alright, interesting. Um…what do you think is different about the way science is
taught in your class working just with the girls, if anything?
KS: Versus having boys?
Q: Yes, have you taught boys?
KS: yes, but I have only really taught all boys and all girls. I have never taught them
really together.
Q: OK
KS: So, I guess I could say from the little that I know about co-ed classrooms, from my
co-ed experience as a student, um…I guess I would say everyone…gender isn’t a reason
to be not participating, or to be not outspoken. There are other issues that still go on.
Bullying is still an issue. Sometimes there is some drama that went down earlier in the
day and girls sometimes hold grudges more than boys and that can affect their
schoolwork. It’s a good thing and I think there’s also other things that people don’t
always think about when they hear I teach girls the say, “ah that must be nice”.
Q: Research talks about how girls really enjoy group work and hands on and
collaboration. Do you incorporate those things into your classroom?
KS: Yeah, I would say it’s—almost from the very start I have done group work. I have
had to model how to work in a group with assigning different roles. I think for the most
part they enjoy it. Every once in a while I will have one or two girls who prefer to work
by themselves. I think it is an important option because to say that all girls like working
in groups isn’t necessarily true. Hands on—yes I have noticed works really well. In my
particular situation I have a hard time doing group work since I am doing 7th and 8th grade
combined. The group work is a bit more difficult to organize since I really have to think
about who is in what group and differentiation. Yes, I would say group work,
collaboration works pretty well. I have noticed that group projects don’t always work
that well.
6:33
Q: Because it requires time outside of class?
KS: Yes, but that might change if I was working in a different environment—in a
suburban school where most of the kids live close to each other.
Q: What about drawing on strengths unique to your female students in the classroom?
Science is not, even today, women are still only like 23% of the science work force if you
exclude medicine. How do you look at the strengths of your female students and inspire
them to be interested in science?
7:03
KS: Diligence at a young age is I think a skill that girls have and boys don’t necessarily
have. Boys have a lot harder time sitting still than girls. So I tell my girls all the time,
“take your time, do multiple trials”. That is something that girls have.
Q: Why do you think that skill is well suited for science?
98
KS: Because it is important for collecting accurate data. Besides diligence, in
understanding the content a lot of times girls are more willing to read and comprehend. I
don’t want to say that because I have a lot of girls who are really poor readers who
probably shouldn’t be at the grade level that they have been passed up to, but girls are a
little bit more willing to read which is important when you are throwing a lot of new
content at them, like when you have never heard what a cell is before. It kind of
supplements what you are learning in class. Girls are very into making visuals—we do
that a lot. Especially with chemistry which is what I am teaching right now, it is so hard
to visualize. We did our Styrofoam plates and then we put our AMU (atomic mass units)
as paperclips. They get into that. They make it look visually pleasing. Making a model
is a good skill—and it’s actually a standard for science so that’s something that girls can
be strong in too.
8:44
Q: And you find that helps them conceptualize what you are teaching, if they can hold it
and see it and make it?
KS: Yes, definitely. Especially for chemistry and some of the smaller biology concepts.
Q: What about incorporating—There are some studies that I read that talk about helping
girls merge--that their academic identity sometimes comes into conflict with their social
identity and that these innovative teachers have been incorporating other forms of
expression into their classrooms that are relevant to what they are teaching but perhaps
not what you and I would think of as typically academic behaviors, but incorporating
music or dance into the content of what you are learning. Do you see or use any of that?
KS: I think it’s helpful especially since some girls are not told they are going to be good
at science so anything you can incorporate that they are good at and show them that, “oh
wait, see you are good at science”. A lot of times I’ll ask girls to produce an infomercial
about this drug and they get really into it. They make raps, they make little skits. So they
like that a lot and that’s incorporating their “inner actresses” because especially at the
middle school level they are all inner actresses. A lot of times I give them an option of a
differentiated project assignment where they can choose three options, one might be
making a quiz—pretty boring but you get it done. Another might be making a song. They
have to do three out of five of these things. One might be writing a newspaper article,
one might be putting on a play.
10:34
Q: Have you noticed that technique reaching students who might otherwise not be super
psyched about science?
KS: Yes, especially at this age making songs, making raps. It sticks in their head and
they say it. They sound nerdy but they think it’s hilarious. So yes, I have noticed but
there are still those kids who aren’t going to turn their projects in. I try to do it. It’s
valuable but it’s a lot of work. I try to do it as much as I can but it is more work.
11:08
Q: How do you encourage your students? How would you describe your teaching style?
KS: I feel like I encourage my students by telling them that I have high standards. By
trying to set a tone in our classroom that not being productive is not acceptable. If
someone is sitting there doing nothing, even if they have had a bad day, they know that I
am going to come over and ask them about it. I encourage students in the way that I try
99
to show them that I respect them and I expect a lot out of them. I think I am a strict
teacher sometimes. I try to be consistent—this year that has been one of my goals.
Q: Consistent how?
KS: With my expectations as far as classroom behavior and work. I do a three warning
system. When the class is getting too noisy with chit chat, I will say, “OK that is 1.
Please cut out the chit chat, that has been one warning”. Last year I tried to have that
system, but I wasn’t very consistent. I try to do it every day now and other middle school
teachers have also taken on that system.
12:40
Q: What are the consequences of that system?
KS: If you get to 3, which has happened only once in my classroom, there is a silent
period the next day. If someone talks during that period, it is another silent period the
next day. Silent periods are just work. You just do worksheets and take notes and be
silent and they really don’t like that. I think it might have something to do with being
girls as well. They want to chat, they want to work in groups. They want to talk about
their ideas, they think they are important and they are important. Everyone wants to talk
about the ideas they have in their head and when they can’t do that they get frustrated.
13:19
Q: So you feel like this tactic is working?
KS: Oh the silent period is awful. I hate it and they hate it too, so I feel like it is working.
Q: So how many silent periods have you had this year?
KS: Just one
Q: And it is the entire class period?
KS; It was something I started last year with another group and I had to give three total
out of the whole year. They were a hard group and three out of the whole year isn’t that
bad. That is one of my classroom management strategies.
Q: When you were in training for going into your teaching, did you get any specific
training on how to deal with specific genders in the classroom?
KS: No
Q: How do you help students engage in science knowing that their engagement in science
sometimes conflicts with their outside identity? Do you address that at all? For girls who
are not able to bridge the gap between the academic and the social?
KS: Usually I try to show them that they are good at it, whether they want me to or not.
SO I will say, “So and so started off this problem exactly how you are supposed to so do
you mind if I show everyone exactly what you did?” And make them the modeling point.
Sometimes kids will like that and sometimes they won’t. Sometimes they are like, “yeah,
I did do a good job with that and maybe it is OK to be smart”. In the beginning of the
year it takes a lot of work to set up the culture in the classroom that it is OK to be smart.
I don’t think I have perfected that yet, it is only my second year teaching.
15:35
Q: But you always feel like you have to start out that way, the girls don’t necessarily
come in thinking it is OK to be smart?
KS: A lot of them think it is OK and they are very strong about it. But it depends on the
group. This year our 8th graders are all about thinking it is OK to be smart and that is
about 1/3 of our class—so it was a very strong thing from the beginning of the year. But
last year it was not OK to be smart and not OK to like science and I was a new teacher so
100
they didn’t have to like me. Getting them engaged was part of getting them to see that
they can take themselves outside the classroom and also put themselves inside the
classroom.
Q: What specifically would you do to engage them?
KS: A lot of contests. A lot of competing. I taught chemistry and physics last year to the
8th graders. Have them build a model of a car with the most momentum. Whoever’s car
had the most momentum because they figured out the link between mass and momentum
would win. You had that pride for winning. We did that every week with different
subjects—boats and buoyancy.
16:57
Q: Did you have them build as individuals or in partners?
KS: Usually in partners. Sometimes as individuals. We did parachutes as individuals.
So a lot of contests to let them know that they didn’t have to like it, but they did have to
compete because it was still their grade. Once they start competing and they realize that
so and so’s looks prettier and works better than mine—it gets them engaged and then
brings a little bit more of themselves into the classroom.
Q: Interesting since some of the stuff I read said that boys really thrive with the
competition and girls really don’t.
17:32
KS: That’s why I think maybe it is just a middle school thing. Even with high schoolers I
have noticed that competing—maybe that doesn’t work in co-ed. Maybe it just works in
all girls classrooms.
Q: We certainly did it in my all girls school—around the world, all these kinds of games.
Yesterday I saw the girls and they were totally into the boards and you were giving
questions that most of them knew the answers to so that they could feel confident before
it got super challenging. Can you incorporate inquiry into your science teaching?
KS: Yes. Most of the time I start off class with a “bell ringer”. Most of the time I have it
be standard knowledge based just to trigger even just the topic we talked about yesterday.
A lot of times it will be an open ended question like the one I have up there (on the
board) for my chemistry class.
Q: You always have a problem up there each week?
18:37
KS: This is the problem we are working on this week. No, not always but it’s something
I’d like to start. That was their bell ringer for today and we will work on it tomorrow and
Friday. It’s just applying the concept of the mole to an outside society—to cancer—
something they all know about and can relate to. This is the problem, they need to solve
it. I tried to do this more than last year—to apply it to the real world. Last year I would
do inquiry by saying, “let’s come up with a way to count atoms and grams” which was
not really engaging them, but it’s still an open-ended inquiry-based question. So most of
my labs I try to take a lab and make it as inquiry-based as possible . But those require a
lot of time so I can’t say that I do it all the time.
Q: How often do the girls have lab?
19:37
KS: It totally depends on the unit. This unit that I am currently teaching is chemistry and
unfortunately we don’t have a lot of chemicals. We’re doing very basic chemistry. We
did a physical and chemical changes lab and that was three weeks ago.
101
Q: The most labs in a unit you would have would be…?
KS: The most labs in a 4-week unit ideally it would be nice to have 3. I try to do one lab
per week in my chemistry class in highschool. Last semester I was able to do almost one
lab/week with the middle schoolers—we did life science. I try to do one per week. In
my perfect science class I would like to do some kind of hands-on activity in almost
every science class just to get them up and moving but the ideal doesn’t always happen
either. Ideally I would like to have bell ringer, activity, let’s write it down in some notes,
summarizer. But it doesn’t always work out that way.
20:41
Q: You mention trying to think things that are relevant to the girls to the work….
KS: Yeah, it is easier for me depending on what topic I am teaching. Sometimes I really
have to stretch to come up with ideas—like for chemistry. Chemistry is really hard. Life
science is so awesome to teach so that’s not hard. Sometimes it’s hard but—I know I am
always talking about being in the inner city—but they don’t really wonder about
ecosystems so that’s harder to relate. Still on some level it is relatable. I can say, “you’re
a snail, you’re a cheetah, you are a algae and we’re going to have an evolution race and I
am going to give you different factors and we are going to see who comes out on top”.
That is inquiry and getting them to predict who is going to come out on top and why.
21:46
Q: I liked when I saw you yesterday when I saw you asking students, “Ok so this is what
you know, how do you know it?”
KS: It is very important because it is all part of science literary—knowing how you did
something and being able to write out how you did something. My study guide says ,
“find the number of neutrons, write and sentence showing how you did that”. Other kids
need to hear that and remember so they know how to do it next time. I did that last year,
but didn’t realize I was doing it so I didn’t do it as much.
Q: For the problem of the week, does everyone work on that and then discuss at the end
of the week their findings?
22:26
KS: I am trying to incorporate it into 10 minutes of class. People with similar strategies
are going to work together tomorrow. A lot of times I like to group people together by
saying, “who thinks this could work” and then when students respond “I do!” I say, OK
well you can work with this person because she agrees with you. You guys are going to
come up with a plan and present it to us. This is something I will hopefully work into my
class so no one gets too far behind and is just like, “I don’t understand that, I’m not going
to do it”, so by Friday they are totally checked out. I’ll supplement some information in
there for some girls that just don’t understand what a conversion factor is-saying “Let me
give you the next step” and they can take it from there.
Q: What do you do with a student who says to you, “My parents told me that science just
isn’t important, that only math and English is important and so I am not going to do
anything in your class because my parents don’t value it and I don’t value it and that’s
just that”
23:25
KS: I had a student last year who said that and I said, “well it’s a graduation
requirement”. That was step 1. Then I tried my different strategies that I told you about
previously—and I don’t have that many because I haven’t been teaching that long—to
102
get students engaged. By first telling them, colleges like you to have three years of
science—what are you going to do about that? Especially with a lot of these kids, there is
a lot of college focus. Everyone wants to get to college because that is your golden
ticket.
Q: Of the graduating class, what percentage end up going to colleges?
KS: Last year we had an exceptional class and it was 99%. I think our usual statistic is
like 92% and that might be a 2-year or a 4-year. We don’t have statistics that say how
many of our students stay in college due to economic factors or they just weren’t
prepared. But they do get in. I haven’t really found someone who has said those words
exactly but usually I will pull the graduation card. I have a senior in my chemistry class
where I had to ask her mom, “what does interest her?”. She said, “The media”. So I
thought, what can I do with “the media” in chemistry. I brought in a lot of stuff with
dating drama when we did chemical reactions. I try to give them an independent project
where they can pick their topic and she ended up picking “will devices do big jobs”—so
things like cell phones and tiny batteries in musical devices. I hope I gave her something
she can hold onto.
25:25
Q: What about finding out at the beginning of the year where you students are in their
knowledge about a subject and incorporating that into the way that you teach and what
you teach? Do you do that and how do you do that?
KS: I find that’s pretty important with both my chemistry and my middle school classes
because middle school is 7th and 8th grade and so finding out where everyone is at is
important. I don’t think I do it at the beginning of the year but I try to do it before every
unit.
Q: How do you do it, how do you find out?
KS: Usually with something like a bell ringer. I will have four different questions like,
“what do you think an atom is?”, “can we see atoms?”, “what unit do you think you
would use to measure an atom?”. If they say amu and atom is the smallest unit of matter
then I know they have heard this before. But if they say, “I think an atom is in my body
and I think maybe it weighs a gram”-at least then I know that they know what a gram is
and we can start there. Usually it is a simple bell ringer. I wish I did a more formal
assessment like a pretest. Unfortunately I haven’t been teaching that long so I don’t have
that. It would take a lot of time to make it. I try. I don’t know. I think it is important to
do.
26:51
Q: What would you say is the most important thing you have learned about teaching girls
science over the last two years?
KS: You need to find what interests them and show them that they can be successful,
even if it is in just on unit.
Q: So building confidence
KS: Yes, confidence and interest is important. As far as teaching girls in general, I think
consistency is so important. Girls take it personally anytime you are not consistent or not
fair. Girls take it personally every time you are not consistent or not fair—and you’re not
being personal most of the time I hope, but girls, more than boys, are not willing to let
things go. Being consistent, letting them have a voice in making the rules, letting them
have a voice in general in science—letting them choose their own question, showing
103
them that they are heard. You might hear me say, “oh, that’s a good thought, not exactly
correct, but a good thought” or “That’s a good wrong answer”. I think it’s important to
show them they are heard. Girls like to talk.
Q: Validating that what they have to say is important.
KS: I don’t know if I have a lot to say about girls and science yet because I haven’t
studied it.
28:33
Q: What about situations that are unique to teaching urban girls science—having not
taught suburban girls I guess you don’t have a basis for comparison.
KS: Yes, science literacy is kind of my big thing.
Q: What do you mean by science literacy?
KS: The ability to comprehend information by reading it and being able to comprehend it
and orally say it or comprehend it and write it down in your own words. We did notes a
few different ways. I will say, “find the main idea of the paragraph and put it in your
own words”. Sometimes reading skills are really low and that doesn’t help. It could be
really easy to teach science without reading, but not as far as comprehension goes. You
are just doing a disservice to your students. If they are going to get a really solid
foundation in their heads of some concepts they need to read. We have our word wall,
vocabulary section in their binder. They have a classnotes section—taken in their own
words. Emphasizing literacy is very important for urban girls. Also critical thinking
since a lot of schools require memorization—and a lot of girls haven’t had an education
where they have had to think critically and come up with new ideas. I think science is
great for that. If someone told me, “I don’t need science”—I would tell them, “yes you
do, b/c science teaches you how to think critically”. That’s another thing I would tell
students who are disengaged. It’s a problem-solving class so that’s what I try to get them
to do. I think I am not really good at teaching problem solving yet but I hope to get better
b/c I think it is some of the best things that science can teach you even if you are not
going to go into science.
Teacher
QualitiesPositive
Teacher
QualitiesNegative
deal Teacher
Qualities
deal
Learning
Methods
104
Appendix H
MH
1) is pretty
2) has good
resources
A
none
TW
1) explains well
2) good personalityfriendly
3) Approachable
1) doesn’t explain
well
2) not patient with
questions.
3) Boring
4) Teacher seems
irritated with
students
5) rude
6) makes class
stressful
7) Not
approachable
1) Teacher
enthusiastic
and fun
2) Teacher is
patient
3) More
experience
4) Fun
5) Creative
1) teacher is boring
2) class is not
interesting
3) teacher lectures
too much
4) teacher
disorganized
5) not approachable
6) confusing
none
1) make
science fun
2) Teacher
upbeat
3) Fun
4) Funny
5) Like a
teenager
6) Sarcastic
7) Make
connections
with
students
8) Make realworld
connections
in class
1) labs
2) more fun and
exciting activities
3) games
4) less lecture
5) Field trips
6) group work
n/a
1) labs-instructions
sometimes
confusing.
2) visuals with
drawings and
videos
1) labs-doing
measurements
2) group work
3) field trips
4) when teacher teaches
5) active learning
MC
none
1) rushed
students
during
activities
2) interrupts
class
instruction
with
management
3) Not
interesting
1) labs-fun
2) field trips
3) group workreading
4) games
5) visuals with
books and pictures
6) break down
lessons into smaller
105
pieces
Current
Problems
with Science
Class
1) Not as fun as it
sounds
2) Too many
handouts
3) Confusing
4) Boring and too
much work.
Real World
Connections
Yes—relates
chemistry to
making food and
using chemicals at
home.
Careers in
cience?
Says no, but then
considers career in
pre-med.
1) study
tudent
Responsibility
1) boring
2) too much lecture
3) teacher doesn’t
make it fun
4) not enough
activities
5) sometimes
confusing
No—not relevant
Teacher makes
some connections
but she never
remembers them.
Yes, forensic
scientist
1) listen
2) participate in
class
1) science is interesting
but not fun.
No—doesn’t think about
science outside of
school.
Sometimes makes
connections if teacher
mentions them in class.
No
1) listen
No-doesn’t think
about or do science
at home.
No
106
Appendix I
Student Interview transcript with MH
3/24/10
Q: How old are you?
MH: I am 12
Q: And you are in what grade?
MH: 7th
Q: What do you like about studying science here at (name of school)?
MH: I like how they teach the science classes here but sometimes its not as fun as it
sounds.
Q: Is your experience with science here similar to experiences you have had at other
schools before this?
MH: Usually at my other two schools that I attended…
Q: How many years have you been at (name of school)?
MH: This is my second year. At my first school for kindergarten and first grade we didn’t
really have any science and at my last school for science we really just read out of a book
and answered questions. We didn’t do procedures or anything like that. We just had
science fair.
Q: How is that different from what you are getting to do here.
MH: We are actually getting to do lab. So we get to test our procedures.
Q: Do you like that?
MH: Yeah, it’s fun sometimes. Our teacher just doesn’t make it easy. Or easy enough.
Q: What would you change about the way you are learning science in school? What
would you like to see more of, see less of?
MH: I would like to make it more fun?
Q: How do you think it could be more fun?
MH: Well, she hands us a lot of..
Q: She being your teacher?
MH: Yeah, our teacher hands us a lot of handouts and then is like, “understand this and
understand that” and if she were to just explain it a little better without getting like
irritated or upset about our questions. Sometimes we don’t understand things so we ask
questions multiple times. If she were to get less irritated or to explain it better and make
it sound more fun.
2:05
Q: So you feel like the science is confusing?
MH: Yeah.
Q: Is it always confusing or are there times when it is less confusing?
MH: Most times it is usually confusing for me but I still have a B.
Q: What do you think would make it less confusing?
MH: Well, maybe if she explained it better.
Q: What other ways do you learn except when your teacher teaches you something?
MH: Well, usually in my other classes?
Q: In your science class-there are other ways to learn besides directly from your teacher
right?
107
2:38:
Q: Do you ever teach yourself, learn from the book, learn from fellow students?
MH: Well sometimes I read from the book but that doesn’t really help. I like to see
visuals. When I see visuals it helps me understand things better. She doesn’t really do
visuals or sometimes she tried to draw pictures that don’t really make sense or gross
everybody out.
Q: So what about the book? Does the book have visuals that help you?
MH: Not usually, not always?
Q: What about labs, do you feel like labs help you learn science?
3:06
MH: Yeah, the labs are fun. Our teacher, when she gets the instructions off of online or
something, she gets these really hard instructions and she’s like, “measure 7/15th of a cup
and mix it with like sodium hydroxide”—it sounds like chemistry and we’re only in 7th
and 8th grade and she makes it really complicated and I really have a big problem with
that.
Q: What do you feel is the best way for you to learn science? The way your teacher
teaches you, the labs, the hands-on experiments, field trips, combination of these? What
do you think is the best way?
MH: All of the above, but I would probably learn best and have so much fun in science if
she didn’t make it sound boring or it she didn’t sound so irritated when she taught us.
Q: So you feel it’s the teacher’s responsibility to make it fun and interesting?
MH: Well, not totally. I mean, she is a good teacher and she teaches us stuff better than
my old school.
Q: So you feel like you are learning a lot here?
MH: oh yeah, most definitely. Just if she were to explain it better and if she were to seem
like she was having fun with it—like enthusiastic about it. She seems like of like, “you
know what to do, so could you just do it already?”. She seems kind of upset when she is
talking to us. So if she were to sound more excited.
4:45
Q: So let’s talk about your teacher, what qualities do you like about her?
MH: I guess you could say she is pretty. She gets good information.
Q: What do you mean?
MH: She has good resources. That’s two things, but I think that is pretty much it.
Q: What about things that you don’t like about her?
MH: Well, she sometimes acts kind of mood swingy if you ask her certain questions that
you don’t understand. She can be kind of rude. She doesn’t make the class fun—like for
science fair. She said at the beginning that science fair was supposed to be fun for us, and
she is not making it fun at all because she is telling us everything we have to do and
adding on more stuff for us to do during science fair, so it’s making it really stressful.
5:43
Q: How do you think the science fair gets done without you guys doing a lot of stuff?
MH: Well, at my old school, I would just do science fair—if I did the project I am doing
now which is which over the counter pain medication works the fastest—if I were to do
that at my old school I would test it out, I would ask questions and get up on the
computer. I would ask a chemistry teacher or a higher grade teacher who does teach
chemistry or science. I’m not going to say she does it all for us b/c then I wouldn’t have
108
to do anything, but she doesn’t explain it thoroughly and then just gives us handouts with
directions that don’t really make sense.
Q: So you feel like you need her to explain things better to you?
MH: Uh huh.
6:36
Q: Is she someone you feel like you can go to with a question? Do you feel like she is
approachable?
MH: Like any questions I want?
Q: Questions about school stuff, non-related school stuff…Would you seek her out if you
had a problem?
MH: Probably not. I’d probably just keep to myself.
Q: Do you feel like she makes science fun and interesting?
MH: No, interesting sometimes but fun no.
Q: Is science something that you were interested in before this class?
MH; Not really.
Q: SO you weren’t really interested when you got here and what about when you leave
this class? Will you be more interested in science, the same or less?
MH: Maybe even more interested. She has a good class and she teaches well. It’s just
kind of hard to get through to her sometimes.
Q: Do you feel like the science you are taught in school—that the reason you don’t
understand is because it doesn’t relate to your life at home?
MH: I never really put it that way, but I don’t blame her either because sometimes I don’t
study so that’s another reason I don’t always understand.
7:57
Q: How come you don’t study?
MH: She makes it boring and then she gives us a lot of work.
Q: You are putting everything on her—what about what’s on you?
MH: I am not going to say it is all her fault. It’s my fault if I don’t study but the only part
I don’t like is when we don’t study she is like, “read this and read this and answer this”
and you will ask a question and she’ll be like, “well you’re just going to have to
understand it because I cant explain it any better”.
Q: Is it because she explains things a lot of times and it still takes you guys a while to get
it?
8:34
MH: Yeah
Q: If she has presented the material several times and you guys still don’t get it, what do
you think she should do?
MH: I would just be patient. I mean, we still are children. I would just ask if there were
any more questions and then say “you could come to me with any questions about
science, science fair”—just anything we were working on.
Q: Do you feel like you use chemistry in your real life?
MH: Kind of.
Q: How so?
MH: Making food
Q: What about food?
109
MH: If I were to mix stuff together. I mean, we don’t have chemistry but we do use
chemicals sometimes.
Q: Yes, you use a lot of chemicals in your life probably. Right?
MH: Yes
Q: And does being in this class ever make you think about things that you do at home—
and chemicals that you are using?
MH: Not usually chemicals that I am using, but measuring because we did do a unit on
that.
9:43
Q: Do you ever think about going into a career in science?
MH: No.
Q: Why not?
MH: Personally I probably just wouldn’t be a good science teacher.
Q: There are other careers in science besides just being a science teacher right?
MH: yeah, I probably just wouldn’t be good in science at all.
Q: Why not?
MH: I just haven’t really thought about that at all. I have thought of different things
besides being in science. Maybe being a nurse or a doctor, a surgeon. Like going into
premed. But a chemist probably not.
10:26
Q: Why a doctor and not a chemist?
MH: I don’t know, it just seems kind of complicated. Not that being a doctor isn’t. I
definitely understand it is going to be extremely hard but-I don’t know I just haven’t
really thought about it.
Q: It sounds like you have thought about it—been thinking about science or at least being
a doctor—certain parts of science.
MH: Yeah.
Q: Is there anything else you want to say that I haven’t covered about how you could
improve the way science is taught at this school?
11:18
MH: It would help if they had teachers who had more experience. Not saying my teacher
is dumb or anything, but I mean, she is really young, she is only like 23 or something
so…
Q; What do you think a teacher with more experience would do differently?
MH: Maybe explain things better and teach us different methods and just teach us a lot of
different things b/c they would probably like learn much different, more things in their
lifetime. Not saying we need old teachers…
Q: Do you feel like a lot of your teachers are younger?
MH: Some. Yeah, most of them.
Q: do you notice the difference between teachers who are young and have less experience
and those who are older and have more experience?
MH: Yes, I do.
Q: Different how?
MH: Well the older ones kind of are like, not as nice and the younger ones are usually
sportier.
Q: What about the way they teach?
110
MH: There are some young teachers that teach really good—I mean not counting gym b/c
in gym we don’t really learn. Social studies, my teacher is only 24-25 and she teaches
really good, I really like that class.
Q; What do you like about that class?
MH: She explains things better. I like learning about history. She makes the class fun.
She does a lot of visuals. We were talking about World War II (WWII) a couple of
weeks ago and instead of having us watch some boring old movie that she got off the
history channel, we watched a Walt Disney cartoon about WWII and it was really fun.
Q: SO she is being creative and you appreciate that?
MH: Um hmm, One time we were talking about the early 1900s and flappers and
everything and instead of saying well this person did this etc., we got to go around…she
wouldn’t pick which character you were, she would just hand out a card to anybody and
whatever card you got you would read it and whatever card you got, you would read it
and people would come up to you and you would tell people about what was on your
card. Like a life story but not very long, like a paragraph or two. Then she would give
you a little booklet and you got to write your character name in the book, kind of like an
autograph book from the past.
Q: It seems like you like the creativity in your classes. How do you think some creativity
could be included in your science class?
14:17
MH: Well, maybe…
Q: do you think it is harder to do that in science class?
MH: A little bit, but maybe if she gave more visuals and …
Q: visuals how, what do you mean by visuals?
MH: Maybe like, if she got a video on it and showed us instead of just drawing it on the
board.
Q: With chemistry that is pretty tricky right?
MH: Yeah, but if she was going to teach us about which was heavier, soda or water or
coffee. If she was to measure all of them to see which one—what was the mass of them
and she put them all in little test tubes. If she made them different colors or if she tested
which soda pop was heavier and at the end, she would let us drink it then I think it would
be fun. Or for our projects, how we were making cells and she didn’t get really good
candy, she got like dollar store candy and then after the candy ran out, she just had us
draw it and it didn’t taste good.
Q: Sounds like she is trying to be creative with the candy right?
MH: Kind of, but she is kind of cheap with it too.
111
Appendix J
Student Interview transcript with TW
4/7/10
Q: How old are you?
TW: 14
Q: and in 8th grade?
TW: Yes
Q: What do you like about studying science here at (name of school)?
TW: Science, it’s not really my subject, but it’s fun to learn when we go in the lab and do
all the measurements and stuff like that.
Q: So you like the labs, what else do you like about science?
TW: Uh, how she puts us in groups and how we get to do group work on our own instead
of just listening to her talking up there all the time.
Q; So you prefer to have individual groups than to have lecture from the teacher?
TW: Yes
Q; Anything else?
TW: No
Q: Is your experience studying science here at (name of school) different than other
schools you have attended? How?
TW: Yes, because the last school I went to and the teacher she just put notes on the board
and told us to copy them down.
Q: That was it?
TW: Yes
Q; No labs, no group work?
TW: No
Q: SO do you like it better here or better there?
TW: Better here
Q: What would you change about the way you are learning science in class?
TW: Nothing really.
Q: There is nothing you would like to see more of, see less of…
TW: No
Q: You like it the way it is?
TW: Yes
1:35
Q: How do you like to learn science? Do you like when the teacher teaches you, when
you do hand’s on etc.?
TW: I like field trips and stuff like that.
Q: What else?
TW: Sometimes when the teacher is teaching me. It depends if I understand it or not.
Q: What else do you do when you are trying to learn new material. Do you do the
reading and homework at home on your own? Do you make sure you are listening in
class? Combination?
TW: I make sure I am listening in class because I don’t like to do homework. When I get
home, I don’t have time to do homework. I eat and then end up going to lay down.
112
Q: So you prefer to learn in school.
TW: yeah
Q: What do you like about learning in labs?
TW: They are like active. You don’t just sit in one spot.
Q; SO you like to move around?
TW: Yeah, plus you are in a group.
Q: You like working with other girls?
TW: Yeah
2:25
Q: What qualities do you like or dislike about your teacher?
TW: I like that she explains it over and over until we get it. Sometimes when teachers
explain something and you don’t get it, they get real angry and are like, “Look, well you
should have gotten it the first time…”. But her, she explains it over and over until you
get it.
Q: What else do you like?
TW: Her personality is good.
Q: good how?
TW: She’s not snotty but she’s not quiet. She’ll speak to you if she sees you in the
hallway and stuff like that.
Q: So you like that she’s friendly?
TW: Yeah.
Q: What else , anything else?
TW: No
Q: What do you dislike about your teacher—what would you change?
TW: nothing really.
Q: you think she teaches well?
TW: Yeah.
Q: Is she someone you feel like you can go to if you have a question?
TW: Yeah
Q: Do you go see her after class sometimes?
3:26
TW: No
Q: How come?
TW: Because I really don’t need help after class. If she gives homework it’s just going to
be a worksheet or vocabulary or something like that. I don’t need help with vocabulary or
worksheets.
Q: do you ever need help with science?
TW: No
Q: But you said science isn’t your subject?
TW: It ain’t
Q: So…What do you mean by that?
TW: I don’t like science. It’s not like I cant do this work, I just don’t like it.
Q: SO you’re good at it, but you just don’t like it.
TW: Exactly.
Q: Do you do well in science—grade-wise?
TW: Yeah, it’s like a B to C average.
113
Q: What about your other classes, is science sort of the same or better or worse than those
other classes?
TW: It’s kind of the same, but then only problem I have is in Spanish.
Q: Do you feel like your teacher makes science fun and interesting?
4:13
TW: No. She makes it interesting but not fun. She thinks it’s fun b/c she do it but it’s not
fun. She’s like, “this is going to be fun!” and I’m like, “that’s not fun”.
Q: what do you think would make science fun for you?
TW: If we could have class outside.
Q: What else?
TW: That’s it.
Q: Are there certain subjects in science that interest you more than others?
TW: Chemicals and stuff like that.
Q: SO you like chemistry? What about life science?
TW: Chemistry, yes. Life science, no.
Q: DO you feel like the science that is taught to you in school relates to your life outside
of school?
TW: No, I don’t think about science outside of school. I don’t think about nothing outside
of school.
Q: Does your teacher make connections to you pull in things from outside class like the
problem that was on the board last week about cancer?
TW: I wasn’t here for that.
Q: Your teacher sometimes puts questions on the board and do they ever make you think,
“oh yeah, that’s something I do all the time”?
TW: It’s sometimes like that.
5:18
Q: DO you feel like you use science all the time?
TW: No
Q: Do you feel like you use science at all?
TW: No
Q: What do you think science is?
TW: It’s like math but it’s not. It’s like algebra but it’s different. Way different, well it’s
not way different but it kind of related to algebra sometimes.
Q: How so?
TW: My teacher in algebra sometimes says something that my science teacher says and
the science teacher says something the algebra teacher says.
Q: So there’s overlap between math and science.
TW: yes
Q: So you feel like they are kind of the same? And do you like math?
TW: No.
Q: No math, no science, okay. Do you ever think about going into a career in science.
TW: Nope.
Q: What do you want to do after school?
TW: I want to become a pastry chef.
Q: Wow—that’s a pretty different career. Do you think you might need any science for
that?
114
TW: No, except probably about measurements and stuff like that.
Q: Absolutely. Anything else?
TW: No.
Q; What about when you are cooking, what happens to the ingredients?
TW: It’s measurement right?
Q: It’s measurement but also if you are making a croissant, the butter has to go into layers
which means that you have to have layered it right in the dough and some of that is
technique, but some of it is actually how it bakes so the butter spreads evenly into layers.
That’s all science .
TW: Yeah it is.
Q: But sometimes you don’t think of it that way.
Q: If there was anything you could say about what you would change to make science
better for classes that come after you, what would it be?
TW: More field trips. We ain’t never had no field trips in science. We had a health trip
to the museum of science and industry.
Q: Did you like it there?
TW: Yeah, it was real nice there.
Q; What did you like about the museum?
7:18
TW: The “U” exhibit.
Q; What else besides field trips?
TW: Outside more.
Q; Spring fever huh.
115
Appendix K
Student Interview transcript with MC
4/7/10
Q: How old are you?
MC: 13
Q: are you in 8th grade?
MC: 7th grade
Q: What do you like about studying science here at JA?
MC: Sometimes we get to do experiments in the lab and they’re fun to do.
Q; Anything else?
MC: No
Q: How many years have you been at JA?
MC: Since 2008
Q: 2 years? Is science here different than schools you attended before? How?
MC: Yes, My other schools, it was like—there would be times where they won’t teach it
but this class they teach it every day. At my old school they won’t teach it every day.
They will teach it when they have time.
Q: So you feel like there’s more of a focus on science here?
MC: And , well, Because at my old school they didn’t really teach it.
Q: They didn’t teach science at all?
MC: No they didn’t teach science at all, but my other old schools they did.
Q: What would you change about the way you are learning science at school?
MC: Maybe more experiments and more class trips because there’s places like science
and industry or something—and we can go there it’s like something with our learning just
to learn different things about science
2:37
Q: Do you think it is helpful to go to the museum?
MC: It would be yeah.
Q: You guys haven’t been?
MC: No They took the health class and they went.
Q: What about the way it is taught in your class.
MC: Well its like…she’ll teach but some kids will be writing and then it’s like she stops
them and then they get mad. I want, if she says 5 minutes, I want it to keep going as 5
minutes. I don’t want it to stop after like 3 minutes or 4 minutes and then she stops us
when she says it’s supposed to be 5 minutes.
Q: So you feel like you’re rushed?
MC: She’s rushing us in order to get the stuff done.
Q: How do you feel you best learn in science class? Is it learning on your own, having
your teacher teach you etc..?
3:45
MC: Reading with a group I think. Every time I read alone it doesn’t help me because
when I read, I read in my mind but it’s really hard for me to read in my mind. Because
then she’ll tell us we have to be quiet so then I can’t read in my mind. It’s really hard for
me.
116
Q: So with a group, what happens when you read?
MC: It’s like we’re actually reading it. We’re getting through the book instead of if it’s
just one person we’re going to stay there for a while. Because you have to really read.
But with a group it’s like, you read and then you get the answers and you keep going. SO
it’s faster to have a group because your partner might have the answers and you’re
probably still behind reading. They might help you there because you’re still behind so
it’s easier to read with someone helping you learn.
4:48
Q: What qualities do you like or dislike about your teacher—let’s start with what you like
about her?
MC: She’s….(long pause).
Q: Anything
MC: Well, she…it’s hard.
Q: Do you want to start with what you dislike?
MC: Yes, She is always like, when she’s writing on the board, she will stop because she
thinks something is going on behind her because she can’t hear or whatever. Then when
she looks behind she will stay there for like 1 minute and then she’ll go back to the board.
But then it’s also wasting time but she just does that.
Q: Why do you think she does that?
5:52
MC: Because she thinks something is happening behind her
Q: and is something happening behind her?
MC: NO.
Q: Never?
MC Never.
Q: But if you were her, what would you do? I mean, why do you think she turns around?
Is it because people are talking?
MC: Sometimes they do, but she never looks. She just usually finishes her writing and
then looks behind and just says whatever’s next on her agenda for saying something.
Q: How do you think she could be a better teacher?
MC: Um, maybe if she’s like….actually focusing on the work and not the kids. She
should just focus on her work and teaching the kids instead of stopping and looking at the
kids and then..that’s all I guess.
6:42
Q: Do you feel like everyone in the class is behaving well enough that she can just teach
what she has to teach and not have to deal with students behavior?
MC: Well, it’s sort of like that. There will be times where the kids in the class are a little
loud, but after a while they will stop talking but it’s like…its not really, it’s not, yeah…
Q: Does she make science fun and interesting to you? Why or why not?
MC: No,
Q: How come not?
MC: Because it’s just not interesting the way she teaches.
Q: What would be more interesting?
7:27
MC: If she makes it, with games. She does some games but it’s not like all the time. She
needs to make it with games because that helps our memory—to remember what it was.
117
Q: OK so you like the games, what else do you like?
MC: Um, more books about the thing.
Q: What kind of books? Not your text book?
MC: Yeah, like something about the human body—just give us a book about the human
body and she’ll read it to us and show us pictures and stuff like that. So it’s a little like
first grade and things like that, but
Q: But it’s helpful?
MC: Yeah, it teaches kids and how it looks…
Q: So you like to see it?
MC: Yeah.
Q: You don’t feel like there is enough stuff for you to see?
MC: No.
Q: Do you feel like the science at school relates to things that are happening in your life?
Can you make connections between what is happening in class and stuff at home?
8:13
MC: No
Q: What about—do you think you use science in your every day life?
MC: No, I don’t think so?
Q: How come?
MC: Because I really don’t do science at home
Q: Do you ever consider going into a career in science—like being a doctor or being a
scientist? Ever thought about it?
MC: No
Q: Coming into this year, do you feel like science better or worse than when you started
the year?
MC: It’s OK.
8:55
Q: Coming in did you like science?
MC: (shakes head)
Q: And what about now?
MC: It’s OK.
Q; Why do you think you feel a little bit more positively about science? Is it the teacher,
or the subjects you have been learning? Why do you think that is?
MC: (long pause)
Q: It’s OK to say you don’t know…
MC: (long pause) What was the question again?
Q: Why do you think you –it sounds like you feel a little bit more positively about –that
you like science a little bit better now than you did at the beginning of the year. Why do
you think that is?
9:47
MC: Because like over the time, I never know science because I never really did it a lot.
I mean, at this school, they give more science than they should. They just give it
advanced a little because I think you’re not supposed to learn the Periodic Table until
you’re in high school or something like that. And there’s…
Q: SO do you like that you’re learning this stuff early?
MC: Well, no not really..
118
Q: You feel like it’s hard?
MC: Yeah.
Q: How do you think it could be easier for you to learn things like the Periodic Table?
10:22
MC: Like if she makes it into little pieces. If she breaks it down to little pieces.
Q: You feel like the lessons are too complicated as they are.
MC: Yeah
Q: If there was anything you could say to me that could help change the way science is
taught to future students at your school and make it better, what would it be?
MC: More field trips and games. Breaking down a few of the lessons.
Q: Anything else?
MC: More visual stuff.
119
Appendix L
Student Interview transcript with A
4/14/10
Q: How many years have you been at (name of school)?
A: This is my second year.
Q: And what grade are you in?
A: 7th
Q: And you are 13?
A: Yeah
Q: What do you like about studying science here at (name of school) that might be
different from other schools you have attended?
A: At my old school we didn’t really have science…
Q: SO this is your first experience with science?
A: Yes, last year was my first experience with science. It was OK, it was different to me.
Now I can compare it to last year and it …
Q: Same teacher?
A: Yes, same teacher and last year I wasn’t a big fan of it and this year same thing.
Q: What don’t you like about it?
A: I mean, I think I would like the subject if she made it more interesting. I am sorry to
say it but she is really boring.
Q: So you feel like she makes the science boring, not that the science itself is boring.
A: Yeah.
Q: OK—What do you see as the teacher’s responsibility when they are teaching you.
What is your responsibility for learning and your teacher’s responsibility for teaching?
1:14
A: Well, I have to make sure I listen and stuff. I think for her, she needs to make it more
fun, more upbeat to actually get us and make us want to go to science. Because usually,
between 7th and 8th period or 3rd period, usually any type of day, any time of the day,
usually we regret the end of the day when we have to go to science.
Q: What do you think would make science better for you—more interesting?
A: A different teacher.
Q:Not the way it is taught, or having more labs or whatever?
A: Probably, having more labs because those are fun and it’s hands-on so we know what
we are doing and like, we can compare the labs to the classroom. And then make it more
upbeat.
Q: When you say, “upbeat”, what do you mean?
A; More fun, more exciting, more activities. More fun activities, not more boring
activities.
Q: What do you think is boring about your science activities?
A: The fact that she, something about it just makes it different and not fun.
Q: If I were to ask, is it the lecture that is not fun?
2:27
A: Uh huh.
Q: What about, do you guys do games in your class?
120
A: Not really, no. and if we do, do games, it’s educational purposes. It teaches us but not
in a fun way. Its just like here’s this and do this and this and that.
Q: What would you change, how would you change it then? You said different teacher ,
but how would your ideal teacher teach you science?
A: She would make it more fun, like “today we’re going to do this, today we’re going to
do that” (upbeat tone) and it wouldn’t be boring. She’s like “okay class, now we’re going
to do this…” (deadened tone). You know, “I’m taking notes yay!”—like nobody likes
taking notes—especially her notes b/c they are really long.
3:13
Q: OK so you feel like you spend too much time in class taking notes
A: UH huh, and whenever she says yeah, we’re gonna have a fun activity, we never get to
it because of all the notes.
Q: Was there a time, did you like science better last year or this year?
A: Neither
Q: You didn’t see an improvement? So it’s not based on what you are learning in
science?
A: I like learning about the human body because I like learning about how we work and
stuff. She doesn’t make it fun.
Q: How would the ideal science teacher make it fun? With games?
A: Games, more activities and they would be fun and usually our teacher jus stands up
there and talks and talks and talks.
4:00
Q: SO you would like to see more of what?
A: I don’t know. Just different, like Ms G. is just more of a fun upbeat person. Ms. G.,
she teaches religion. The 6th grade last year went into the Junior’s classroom to see how
it would be for a day. And she was just fun, she was funny, she was like kind of a
teenager too. She plays around with the kids and she is sarcastic with them. She’s fun.
Q: SO she had fun with the class and you don’t feel like your teacher is having fun with
you guys?
A: No
Q: Do you feel like she likes the subject she is teaching?
A: Yeah.
Q: but you just don’t like it?
A: Yeah.
Q: How do you feel you learn best? Is it when your teacher teaches you, is it when you
learn on your own, in a group or go on field trips?
5:02
A: When I learn in groups and when I go on field trips.
Q: What about labs?
A: Oh that too (laughs).
Q: What about when your teacher teaches you and you write notes?
A: NO, not really
Q: SO what qualities do you like about your teacher? Like the way she is organized, the
way she commands control of the classroom—it could be anything. Is there anything you
like about her?
A: No
121
Q: What about things you don’t like about her?
A: I don’t like that she’s boring. Usually you have to wait for her to find something.
Like if you say, “yeah I turned that in” and she’ll say “well I didn’t find it” and you will
go back and look and you find it.
Q: So she’s disorganized?
A: A little bit, yeah
5:57
Q: What else?
A: That’s pretty much it.
Q: Do you feel like she is someone you can go to with a question?
A: Not really, because then I feel like she is going to get mad at me.
Q: Does she make science fun and interesting?
A: NO
Q: Does the science taught to you in school, do you feel like that relates to things in your
own life?
A: No.
Q: Does your teacher ever make connections between things that happen in class and how
they relate to things in your life?
A: Sometimes, but I don’t remember them.
Q: They don’t make sense to you?
A: Sometimes they do like at that moment, but then I don’t remember them after class.
Q: Do you ever think about things that then end up being science related from your life
that come up in class?
A: No
Q What about a career in science?
A: I mean it’s kind of funny because I like science, I just don’t like the teacher and how
she teaches it because she is just boring.
Q: SO in your ideal science class you would like science?
A: Yeah
Q: Do you do well in science class, academically?
A: I’m OK.
Q: DO you feel like science is something in which you can do well?
A: A little bit yeah.
7:29
Q: Would you ever consider a career in science?
A: Have you ever seen the TV show, “Bones”?
Q; Yes
A: I want to do what Dr. Brennan does
Q: So like forensic scientist?
A: Yeah
Q: What about that interests you?
A: I just like looking at bones-because I like the human body. I just like seeing like
“House” (TV Show)
Q: SO when did you study the human body?
A: We studied it last year but I don’t remember it.
Q:Did you like it?
122
A: A little bit
Q: Because that was something you were interested in before class and so why just a
little bit?
8:03
A: Because the way she taught it. I think if she would have done more activities with us
then I would like it.
Q: Did you guys have any labs or anything?
A: Not that I can remember.
Q: If you could try and change science for girls who came after you, what would you say
about how things could be better and what you would do about it?
A: Well, I would tell them try to be more upbeat with them. Try to make connections
with them…
Q: Personal connections?
A: Real world connections and stuff. Just make sure you interact a lot with us, not just
standing up there like, you know (mock serious voice), “Oh organizing the periodic table,
and Lithium is the 3rd one and it has 3 atomic numbers or whatever…
Q: SO how would you teach that to make it more fun?
A: I don’t know.
Q: But you feel like a teacher should know how to make things fun.
A: Yeah.
Q: Do you feel like you are a good student in the class?
A: I feel like I don’t participate enough
Q: What does it mean to you to be a good student?
9:13
A: TO listen to the teacher make sure you follow directions, make sure you pay attention.
Do your homework, your classwork…
Q: And do you do those things in this class?
A: I do my science homework. I don’t participate enough though.
Q: How come?
A: It’s boring and most of the time I sometimes don’t get what she is saying.
Q: What about being in the all girls school, do you like studying science with all girls..did
you go to a co-ed school before?
A: Yes, K-5th grade. Yeah.
Q: DO you like studying with all girls?
A: NO
Q: How come?
A: B/c usually whenever I am in science, there is a lot of drama and …
Q: More drama with just girls?
A: Yeah.
Q: Or more drama b/c it’s middle school?
A: Both. Also like you don’t focus on the subject. You focus on (mock high voice), “she
did this to me and she did that to me and…”
Q: You don’t think if the boys were around there would be that kind of behavior?
A: Not as much.
Q: What about academically? Do you feel just as confident in the classroom as you did
when you were in elementary school?
123
A: Yes.
Q: SO you feel like if you want to say something, you can totally raise your hand and say
it?
A: Um hmm.
124