The gender gap observed in
science-related fields today is still a hot topic for deeper analysis. Moreover,
there is much more data that confirms that women today are quantitatively much
more uncommon in these fields. Some believe that women growing up are less
confident in classrooms because men are naturally more competitive. However, given the fact that men and women are offered the
same education from grade school through high school, it is still unclear as to
what mechanisms are contributing to this education-related gender gap.
Lise Eliot, author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small
Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps- and What We Can Do About It, provides
eye-opening observations and statistical data that help identify the causes of
these gender discrepancies. Eliot points out that girls begin performing well
in math and science but begin to slip as they progress through adolescence.
From a statistical standpoint, recent studies suggest that less than 35% of computer
science and engineering degrees have been awarded to women. On the contrary,
boys start slower than girls but tend to bridge the gaps between using technology
and actually understanding the basis for technology development later in
adolescence. This discrepancy can be primarily attributed to the complex
interaction of nature and nurture; spatial skills including visualization,
trajectories, and object manipulation tend to be stronger in developing males
as opposed to females. It is important to note that these spatial skills are
used in almost every scientific discipline and are essential to understanding
how complex scientific mechanisms work.
Nowadays, it is uncommon for boys
to grow up without some exposure to video games. In regards to the nurturing
aspect of spatial skills, an idea I can relate to connects the increased exposure
to video games to stronger spatial skills. For instance, mentally rotating
chiral molecules in organic chemistry appeared to be less of an issue with the
boys in my class (who I knew played video games), as opposed to many of the
girls who didn’t play many games growing up. Additionally, I can observe the
same in my physics class, especially since most of the questions seem to be
asked by the boys. Moreover, this agrees with Eliot’s observation that spatial
skills, like any other mental task, improve with the countless hours of
practice. Additionally, those exposed to spatial practice tend to portray deeper interest in that environment. Thus, it isn’t surprising that students who spend more time
interacting with three-dimensional simulations are trained to be more capable
of visualizing and manipulating complex scientific models.
Eileen
Pollack, author of the New York Times article Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science?, further suggests that
women tend to be less confident in these fields because of an initial
disadvantage in regards to working with various types of machinery. However,
this discrepancy may be resolved by integrating genders with these hands-on classes.
For instance, Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts ensures that 50% of
the incoming class is composed of females. Additionally, the institution
requires that all incoming students take part in a co-educational machinery
class to design tools. The staff intervenes as needed to ensure the gender
dynamics are fluid, which has been seen to have an enormous effect on the
educational experience.
That being said, is it possible
that early exposure to spatial systems focusing on a co-ed experience will help
resolve many of the gender discrepancies found today? I believe it would be
rather interesting to see some data on studies involving a co-ed system with a
more emphasized focus on the development of spatial skills. However, more
institutions need to begin making actions towards narrowing the gender gap
found throughout various scientific disciplines. For instance, I think it would
be valuable for grade schools to squeeze in a 30-minute class incorporating
basic projectile motion in physics. High schools can build upon these skills by
making some of the homework assignments more interactive. Visual learning tools
including Pearson’s MasteringPhysics and MasteringChemistry have been extremely
valuable in strengthening my spatial skills. Textbooks and reading documents do
not offer any room for student interaction. Incorporating such a more
interactive system into curriculums nationwide will provide girls with more
confidence early on and thus contribute to a much higher yield of women in the
fields of science and mathematics.
References:
Eliot, Lise. Pink
Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome Gaps--and What
We Can Do about It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009. Print.
Pollack, Eileen. "Why Are
There Still So Few Women in Science?" The New York Times. The
New York Times, 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment