Educational gender gap research tries to explain the differential achievement of boys and girls in school. Research indicates that this academic achievement gap exists in all countries, all around the world adversely affecting both boys and girls (PISA, 2015). When working to unpack and uncover the realities behind these findings, it is important to account for the variety in scholastic performance amongst girls and boys in different areas of study. According to the Program for International Student Assessment, research indicates that in recent decades a great deal of evidence has accumulated showing that girls have better reading comprehension than boys. In 2015, PISA reported higher scoring for female test-takers on tests measuring reading skills given in a majority of countries. Concurrently, there also appears to exist a male-female difference in the favor of male students in average science and mathematics literacy scores (PISA, 2015). With this being said, it is apparent that these subject-specific differences are affecting a great majority of the young learner population around the globe and revealing devastating effects for male and female learners. However, the major focus of this paper centers the education gap for female learners, and the negative effects of the contributing societal factors that undermine students in math and science. The aim of this paper is to highlight the varying theoretical approaches to best understanding these academic variances for female students, the current status of girls and women in education both in the United States and around the globe and to further investigate the ways in which the societal construction of gender, gender roles, and gender norms further perpetuate inequitable results for female learners.
First, a thorough examination of the education gap must reflect on the ways researchers have invoked socially constructed bias regarding gender into the study of this issue. Theoretical explanations for these academic performance trends, and gaps in academic performance between genders has been approached from several competing and complementary vantage points. The most common reasonings for best explaining these results in the research swivels between nature versus nurture. For example, a nature-based theoretical alliance states that these skills and content-specific strengths are designated and innately attached to a specific gender, and are bred by biologically predetermined proclivities to perform well in one subject area over another. A nurture-based theoretical alliance states that academic strengths and weaknesses are malleable and influenced by society in addition to a student’s home environment, asserting that a student’s intellectual prowess is best determined by the academic advancement opportunities rooted in the sociological, psychological, and economic circumstance of the student. The academic performance outcomes as indicated by research and data collection may follow a particular pattern as related to the aforementioned circumstances therefore expression of a relationship between a student’s gender identity and their circumstance. The collision and intersection of these variables in social factors may work to inform gender and gendered experiences of a student’s provided academic performance.
A historical overview of the last several decades beginning in the 1970s reveals that initial inquiry by researchers into the education gap was fueled by what can be understood as a “deficit framework” (Hodgetts 2008). This research approach garnered research pitfalls marred by bias, in which myopic examination of the gender education gap linked academic performance to shortcomings in students’ academic ability as a fixed attribute of their gender. Girls had lower scores and participation in science and mathematics when compared to boys (Byrne 1978; Foster et al. 2001), and these academic outcomes in math and science were understood to be a byproduct of innate inadequacies in female students’ cognitive abilities, as well as lower self-esteem. These results were interpreted as “fixed” and associated with a student’s gender. However, research tells us that intelligence or the ability to achieve high academic success does not vary between the sexes (Duckworth and Seligman 2006). These beginning inquiries, and subsequent results failed to account for the varied ways wherein which both sexes were at the mercy of their culture and society. In this way, further investigation necessitated a new approach to the question at hand, and urged researchers to dive more deeply into the psychological and cultural perspectives and experiences of students.
As previously mentioned, there exists a myriad of approaches as a way for understanding and conducting research that aims to target, isolate, and eventually uproot the gender gap in education. What must be further considered is the disparity in simple access to education. Women around the globe are still vastly undereducated when compared to their male counterparts. Around two-thirds of the world’s 796 million illiterate population are girls and women (UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Rural Women). Global statistics reveal that 39 percent of rural girls go on to secondary school, with 45 percent of rural boys attending secondary school. These disparities differ in urban settings (UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Rural Women). With this being stated, it is also important to note that much progress has been made in this regard over the second half of the last century where education expansion has taken place worldwide on all levels of schooling (Meyer et al. 1977). In fact, there are more women college graduates than men in the U.S.. Research indicates that in 2010 women aged twenty-six to twenty-eight lead their male counterparts by eight percent in college completion (The rise of women, the growing gender gap). Additionally, Black women are quickly becoming the most well-educated demographic in the United States, having had more women of color go to and complete degree requirements from higher education institutions. Between 2009 and 2010, Black women earned 68 percent of all associate degrees awarded to Black students, as well as 66 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 71 percent of master’s degrees and 65 percent of all doctorates awarded to Black students (National Center for Education Statistics 2016). Therefore, the gap in access to education for women is steadily closing.
And yet, there still appears to be an achievement gap that undercuts both male and female students in different ways. It should be noted however, that the primary focus of this paper rests on the study of female students, and the noteworthy difference in academic success in STEM. Other several explanatory frameworks for these results are birthed from a nature-oriented approach where the study of neurological development and the monitoring of brain activity is at the center of uncovering these apparent variances in academic performance, however the focus of this paper will attenuate to the research oriented around social factors as it relates to the explicated gender differences in education. These societal factors account for the sociological perspectives of how and why the education gap continues to persist in the 21st century. Oftentimes, the sociological perspective includes acknowledgement of how social constructions of gender, gender roles, and gender stereotypes influence and affect our society. Regarding individuals’ attributes, gender stereotypes are recognized as a primary source of information about females and males’ skills and personality traits. Numerous studies have suggested that the gender stereotype favoring men for their math abilities and women for their verbal abilities could influence their academic choices in fields of study related to these two domains (Bleeker & Jacobs, 2004, Verniers, C., & Martinot, D. 2015). For this purpose, there is a posited masculinities theory which has been used to explain education gap differences between male and female learners. DEFINITION OF MASCULINITIES THEORY.
Another theory used to explain differences in male and female academic performance is the maintenance of and academic effects of gender identity theory. There is scarce research combining educational gender gap research with gender identity theory however, research argues that gender identity theory could prove valuable both in furthering educational gender gap research and mitigating the negative outcomes for students associated with masculinities theory. First, an overview of the history and recent developments in gender identity theory reveals that Educational scientists have tried to explain the gender gap in education through several theories and frameworks, such as innate traits (Duckworth and Seligman 2006), and an overall masculinity culture (Connell 1989; Francis 2000; Jackson 2003).
Gender identity refers to the degree to which a person perceives the self to be masculine or feminine, given what it means to be masculine or feminine in a given society (Perry & Pauletti 2011). This concept clearly links to the ‘doing gender’ theory of sociology. ‘Doing gender’ refers to the ways people infuse their everyday behaviour and social interactions with gendered symbolic behaviour and signifiers (West and Zimmerman 1987). According to this theory, gender is a master identity. This means that gender cuts across situations and is ‘omnirelevant’, since any action can be interpreted as exemplifying it (Wendelien Vantieghem, Hans Vermeersch, Mieke Van Houtte, 2013). 364 W. Vantieghem et al.people can always be held accountable for the gender appropriateness of their behaviour, whether at work, at home or in the street (West and Fenstermaker 1995). The differences between the fields of sociology and social psychology clearly come to play here. The sociological theory of doing gender focuses on interpersonal interaction and symbolic behaviour in the social sphere, whereas the gender identity concept from social psychology starts off at the intrapersonal level as a self-evaluation of masculinity or femininity.
Another approach to better understanding the education gap examines the impact of societal norms and expectations of gendered behavior. These expectations are undoubtable conflated with materials found in the classroom, in addition to classroom rules of engagement between teacher and student, as well as student and student. For instance, research pointed out that textbooks lacked positive role models for girls, and that boys dominated the classroom and teacher attention. It has been shown that representation is beneficial for young learners in order for them to feel that they can also succeed [CITATION!!].
Investigation concerning the pedagogy in the classroom but also taken into account when working to understand how best to support young learners. Forms of praise and the effects that they have on a child’s academic performance has been proven to yield some significant results. For example, students that receive praise for their intelligence, versus their work ethic do not perform as well, while students that are praised for how diligent and hardworking they are not only outperform their peers, but improve and are more willing to take on harder academic tasks. [citation]. It becomes obvious that praise can have devastating effects on the academic performance of students if praise is not highly monitored and teachers are not well informed on how praise interferes, disrupts, or supports students scholastic success. With this being stated, there must be thorough investigation into how praise in the classroom varies and thus mitigates or supports academic performance for young learners as it relates to gender. Further interrogation into how praise differs for girls and boys reveals that young girls are more often, in and outside of the classroom, praised for confirmation of their gender through gendered dress (you look so pretty today!), and less for their work ethic [Citation!!].
Best practices for closing this education gap in gender takes a comprehensive, holistic approach where there is a retention in accountability for societal norms and standards in place that create stereotypes and are thus carried out in the classroom. Teachers and educators need to be mindful of their own inherent biases and critically engage with students surrounding gender stereotypes, how they deliver praise to students and empower students to assess their academic skills and weaknesses.