Towards Reconsidering Strategies for Ensuring Gender Equality
In Education in the Light of Neuroscience:
Either Equality through Difference or Equality through Sameness or
Neither ‘Through Difference’ nor ‘Through Sameness’?
Introduction
Schooling is often challenged by a question of whether boys and girls are provided with equal opportunities for being advantaged and advanced by educational services such as teaching, learning and assessing. It is because the inevitableness of this challenge is driven by necessities to pursue the fundamental principles and ideas of social justice, namely, a fair distribution of good and service; equal access for opportunity, opportunity for participation and cost effectiveness (Skovsmose,O 1994) and equity principle (Rescher1966, cited in Poonwasie&Ray (ed.), p.27), equality, gender equality in society (Byrne 1985,p.99; Eagleton 1998, p.50). In response to this challenging question, educators have proposed different strategies to deal with gender equality-associated educational issues in practice. Nevertheless, it still remains controversially and reluctantly because of its complexity.
While exploring the complex nature of gender equality, we can encounter at the least three different strategies (or approaches) that might have been or be used to deliver educational services whereby guaranteeing gender equality to some extent: gender equality through difference; gender equality through sameness (Evan 1995, cited in Daniels,H et al 2001); and neither ‘through difference’ nor ‘through sameness’ (my italics). In essence, by ‘gender equality through difference’ approach is meant that that equality will be guaranteed or ensured by delivering educational services fairly that regard gender difference equally whereas ‘gender equality through sameness’ is stated that it will be guaranteed by such educational services that disregard gender differences, but favors the sameness within the nature of both femininity and masculinity. The third approach is described that it (gender equality in education) might be ensured by such educational services that simultaneously disregard the differences and the sameness between sex categories as well as doing gender (West, C& Zimmerman.D 1987) regardless of femininity and masculinity, but favor more significantly individual differences.
This paper aims to judge the degree of compatibility of the afore-mentioned three strategies (or approaches) to deal with ensuring gender equality in education in the light of the current findings in neuroscience. In doing so, it is needed to review literature addressing human brain and its sexedness and genderedness. After that, it will examine the compatibility and applicableness of the three strategies for dealing with gender equality associated educational issues. And it will finally provide my arguments towards the consistency of ‘neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy with the nature of alternative learning.
As a result of synthesizing current research findings in neuroscience addressing brain, gender and sex and translating structuralism theory into human brain and its structuring and functioning, it can be summed up that human brains bear constantly changeable lasting attributes (literally expressed as brain’s plasticity (Naftolin, F et al., 1996). Moreover, gendering a brain is universal; however, the degree of human brain’s genderedness is likely to be considerably fluctuated by individual differences rather than sex category differences. Therefore, gender equality in education is likely to be ensured by educational services whereby favoring individual differences rather than the sameness and differences in masculinity and femininity. In this sense, it is argued that a strategy labelled as ‘Neither ‘Through Difference’ nor ‘Through Sameness’ tends to be more consistent and compatible rather than rest of the strategies for ensuring gender equality through alternative learning that can highly regard and respect individual cognitive differences rather than grouped or gendered ones.
Questioning Whether Human Brain Is Gendered and Sexed:
Are human brains masculine or/and femininity or neutral?
Human cognitive processes such as sensing, perceiving, knowing, remembering, reasoning, thinking, communicating, discovering might be regarded as essential parts of human brains and its functionalities. Consequently, our senses, perceptions, conceptions, knowledge, memories, proofs, thoughts, languages and discovers are recognized as both products and parts of human brains. Hence, it can be reasonable to question whether our (human) cognitive processes and products are affected by sex and gender. In turn, it enables us to raise the following questions:
Do human brains function neutrally or sensitively against any effects driven by gender and sex?
Do human brains in male (or female) organisms bear masculine (or feminine) characteristics?
Seeking the premises to answer these questions, this part of writing aims to synthesize some research findings literature addressing human brain and its genderedness.
Structuralistic Overview on Human Brain’s Structuring and Functioning
Human brain is a vital organ made up of, on average, 100 billion cells, specially named as neurons, connected each other by special connectors called as synapses. Mathematically, a number of all possible connections among neurons in an average brain are approximately estimated by the half of the multiplication of 100 billion by (100 billion-1). It simply indicates how capable it is in terms of storing and processing information. Most importantly, its structure and function are not fixed or static, instead, are changeable due to neurons’ connecting, re-connecting and de-connecting (DeFelipe, J 1997). That is to say, human brains’ structure is constantly restructuring, and thus it is constantly functioned differently. Such constantly-changing attributes of human brain is, in fact, often referred as brain’s synaptic plasticity (Naftolin, F et al., 1996). Interestingly, the plastic nature of human brain prompts us to link a structuralism with neuroscience.
In terms of structuralism, it can be argued that as a complex part of human biological system, it (brain) might operate as a system operates. Thus, it might function by following underlying principles whereby any system operates (Piaget 1968).
(a) the idea of wholeness
(b) the idea of transformation
(c) the idea of self-regulation
As the author explained by ‘wholeness is meant sense of internal coherence. By idea of the transformation is meant that ‘it (system or structure) makes no appeals beyond itself in order to validate its transformational procedures’ whereas by the idea of self-regulation is meant that ‘the structure must be capable of transformational procedures whereby new material is constantly processed by and through it’. Looking through human brain’s structure and function by a structuralistic view, it can be interpretively sensitized out that human brain is cohesively, transformatively and self-regulatively structuring and thus it functions differently from task to task; from situation to situation; from context to context because of neurons’ connection, de-connection and re-connection that are in turn depended upon the degree of rehearsal or repetition of particular activities. Moreover, this structuralistic point of view enables us to raise a question that the degree of the genderedness in human brain remains invariant during its constant structuring and functioning.
To What Extent is the Gender Differences of Human Brains evidenced?
According to Rogers (1999, p.21), the following three factors and their interactions lead to sex the human brain: genes, hormones and experience. As the author explains,
‘… Individual organism, be it human, an animal or even a plant, as beginning life with some sort of basic program encoded in its genes, and that learning (or experiences) modifies this program as the organism matures. This program is seen as being within the organism and the experience that modifies it comes from outside of the organism. … We conceive of some sort of action and reaction between factors inside and outside the organism’
In addition, he highlighted that that there are sensitive periods during development when certain things are learnt easily and rapidly. Timing of these special stages of development is also programmed in the genes. As he explained, human brain that is regarded as a vital sex organ contains structures which control functions and behaviors that are advantageous in one sex, but not the other. Moreover, he also remarked that:
‘Genes that are found on the sex chromosomes influence sexually dimorphic brain development both by causing sex differences in gonadal secretions and acting in brain cells themselves to differentiate XX and XY brains…’
With regard to Witelson (1991, cited in Boghi’ et al.,), it is evidenced that the brain is highly dimorphic between genders both size and structures, with differences between of specific regions. Wada et al.,(1975, cited in Boghi 2006) revealed that anatomical differences between genders were found in temporo-pariental regions.. Michael Gurian, in Boys and Girls Learn differently! (2001, cited in cited in Weaver-Hightower 2003) pointed out that boys and girls learn differently because of differences in brain construction whereas Steve Biddulph (1998, cited in Weaver-Hightower 2003) contented that testosterone, a male hormone, causes boys to act differently from girls.
Human brains’ functionality might be gendered to some extent. It is considerable evidenced by various statistical and behavioral studies focusing on student’ performance differences against gender. Referring to Haier (cited in Roger 1999), it is known that there is sex differences appeared in solving mathematics problems. Studies that used brain-scanning technology showed that men had more activity than the women in the temporal lobes (at the sides of hemispheres of the brain) while they were asked to solve mathematics problems. Besides, another study also reported sex differences in human brains’ functionality. In fact, it reported that:
‘Women suffering from aphasia were likely than men to have damage in frontal part of the brain. As for aphasic men, the damage was more likely to be in the back part of the hemispheres’ (Cited in Roger 1999, p.9)
According to Rogers (1999), it can be also noted that there is a sex difference in the use of the left and right sides of the brain for language processing. As he pointed out, women use regions of both right and left hemispheres when processing language while men use the left hemispheres more than right one. Referring to Boghi et al., it can be known that there is sex difference to planning and determining a strategy. This study showed that males rely on a visual imagery strategy whereas females do on executive functions (pp.1008). Wayne (1997, cited in Alloway, N; Gilbert, P 1997) reported that twice as many boys fail English than girls in Tertiary Entrance English Examination in Western Australia.. Moreover, the PISA study suggested that girls aged 15 years old in Australia tend to perform academically better than boys (Luvsandorj 2009 Which group academically perform better in Australia: boys or girls?, Assignment of Quantitative Methods, School of Education).
To sum up, it can be evidently contented that human brains are structuring and functioning differently in some areas and activities that are mostly associated with biologically-anatomically-genetically distinguished attributes between masculine and feminine body. However, it might be acknowledged that a set of those evidences eliciting some gender differences, are seemingly not sufficient to reason that human brains are sexed and gendered because of its incompleteness and unsystematicness. At the same time, it can be argued that as being human species, female and male brains bear huge overlaps in terms of anatomy, biology and physiology. Alternatively, it can be also contended that no two species are identical thus there are much more individual differences rather than gender ones. Thus, taking into account those arguments together, it can be acceptable to note that human brains and its attributes are more individualized than grouped and/or gendered; and thus, if the gender differences between human brains are observed, those will be individual differences between a particular male and a particular female rather than sex category differences. Thus, a question of whether or not human brains function sensitively or neutrally against any effects by femininity and masculinity remains still controversially.
Discussion
Individualized Brains and Alternative learning:
Towards considering the compatibleness and applicableness of
‘Neither ‘Through Difference’ nor ‘Through Sameness’ strategy
Policy makers have been questioned whether educational services are delivered so that gender equality and equity are ensured. In fact, this challenge still remains problematically and thus controversially albeit many strategies towards it have been exercised in practice. Ideally,the following strategies (or trajectories) have been plausibly recognized and practically exercised yet: gender equality through difference and gender equality through sameness (Evan 1995; Eagleton 1998)) and neither ‘through difference’ nor ‘through sameness’ (my italics). However, whether the first two trajectories can lead us to right directions in order to deal with gender equality-associated issues in education remains reluctant because those have been often subjected by criticisms emanated from civil right movement (), feminist movement () and ‘boy turn” movement (Weaver-Hightower, M 2003). The reluctance in existing strategies for reaching gender equality prompts us as educators to wonder whether any other alternative strategy that is compatible with sciences, namely, neuroscience, exists. Accordingly, based on my reflections on human brain, gender, equality and educational policy, I have brought up here an alternative strategy for dealing with gender equality in education, labeled as ‘neither through difference’ nor through sameness’ strategy. The rest of writing will present my arguments advocating this alternative strategy for ensuring gender equality in education that mainly focus on its compatibleness and applicableness. .
Is ‘neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy on ensuring
gender equality in education compatible with neuroscience?
The underlying idea of ‘neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy is that gender equality in education should be not guaranteed by educational services driven by either of the following strategies: equality through sameness and equality through difference. The reasons behind it are that individuals’ brain is quite unique because it is cultured and culturing in different contexts. Therefore, differences between two individuals are not identified as differences between two sex categories; likewise, the sameness between sex categories again are not the sameness of two particular individuals respectively representing two sex categories. Thus, it is argued that gender equality is never touched by educational services whereby individual’s attributes are mostly neglected (or dismissed) under the differences and the sameness between sex two categories. Instead, it (gender equality) is ensured by educational services whereby individual’s attributes are highly regarded (or respected) beyond the differences and the sameness between sex two categories. By highlighting individual’s uniqueness, it is more compatible with neuroscience whereby advocating that differences emerged in brains belonging to two sex categories is more likely to be individualized than grouped and/or gendered as summarized in the previous part. Hence, it can be sensitized out that ‘neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy is more compatible with neuroscience.
‘Neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy
Verse Alternative learning
‘Neither “through difference’ nor ‘through sameness’ strategy is more applicable to delivering educational services, namely, learning, teaching and assessing through alternative ways whereby highly respecting individuals’ differences. As discussed in the previous paragraph, under the rationale of ‘Neither “through difference’ nor ‘through sameness’ strategy, education systems are expected to provide educational services, namely, learning, teaching and assessing so that they highly respect and regard individual’s cognitive differences, individual’s special needs, different learning styles and differences of opportunities and capabilities in order to realize fundamental ideas and principles in education such human right, the principle of equal opportunity and the principle of equal distribution. However, traditional or existing formal schooling mostly driven by “equality through difference’ and ‘equality through the sameness” and strategies does not meet the new requirement rationalized under ‘neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy because of its limitations and constraints that is in turn, easily recognized in its ‘campus-tied’ service, stated differently, services available only in school campus. Thus, it can be sensed out that the demands to respect and regard learners’ individualities might lead to generate alternative learning its systems such as distance learning, open learning, non-formal learning, in-formal learning, and ubiquitous learning.
Referring to Young (2002, cited in Langel & Sletten), it is emphasized that civil right movement should be identified as one of modern underpinnings of alternative learning. Moreover, it can be added that:
‘Traditional schools were ‘cold’, dehumanizing, irrelevant institutions, largely indifferent to the humanity and the ‘personhood’ of those within them (Raywid 1981, cited in Langel & Sletten).
With regards to school conservative behaviour, Carnoy (2000, cited in Mifsud) contented that the schools were often too conservative to take on technological challenges while information and technology have been part in daily life, work, leisure and family. What is more, Rochelle, J.M et al (200O cited in Mifsud) remarked that schools were isolated units, and however, computer technology could provide students with tools whereby breaking the school artificial isolations. In addition, the study of secondary schools and upper secondary in Norway that was intended to reveal students experiences in what goes on within classroom, indicated that school classrooms were boredom and regarded as meaningless (Grepperud, (ed) 2000, cited in Mifsud). Hence, it might be sensitized out that the traditional schools were slow to reflect scientific and technological changes. In turn, it leads to bring up alternative learning such as e-learning, u-learning.
Putting the aforementioned ideas together, it can be notable that alternative learning is emanated from the twofold dissatisfaction in traditional school behaviours. One is that traditional learning dismisses learners’ individuality whilst emphasizing the uniformity of public education whereas other is caused by school conservative traits to reflect the progressive ideas of science and technology into its practice.
As far as the characteristics of alternative learning is concerned, a term, alternative learning has been used within and beyond school context. Within school context, it is bounded up with terms such as alternative school, alternative programme (Langel & Sletten 2002), alternative education (Nagata 2004) and alternative education program (Tobin & Spraque1999) whereas beyond school, it is combined with other terms including distance learning, open learning, e-learning (Waterhouse 2005), e-education (Ghaoui 2004), online learning (Shank 2007) and u-learning (Ogata & Yano 2003)), non-formal and in-formal learning (Colardyn & Bjornavold 2004). Thus, the feature of a term, alternative learning might not simply differed from that of the rest of the associated terms.
Referring to Young (1990, cited in Langel & Sletten), it was known that schools without walls emphasized community-based learning wherein individuals within the community were prioritized to teach students while schools within a school aims to establish large high schools in smaller communities whereby individual groups were empowered to meet educational needs and interests of students. Besides, multicultural schools was set up to integrate culture and ethnicity into the curriculum whereas continuation schools was designated as an option for the learners who were failed in regular education system because of incidents such as dropout, pregnancy and failing grades. What is more, learning centres was designed to meet particular student needs by special resources such vocational education while fundamental schools favoured back to basic approaches. Moreover, the magnet schools were responded to the needs for racial integration whereby curriculum with special themes to attract the diverse students of students were offered. Taking into account the attributes diverse alternatives with school context, Langel & Sletten (2002, p.6) presented that the characteristics of alternative schools are generally described as follows: maintaining a small size; emphasizing one-one-one interaction between teachers and students; creating a supportive environment; allowing opportunities for student success relevant to the students’ future; allowing flexibilities in structure and emphasis on student- decision making. Thus, it is sensitized out that alternative learning within school context are likely to be more characterized by taking into account learners’ individuality such as individual differences, particular needs, interests, learners’ freedom and rights in a broad sense.
Moreover, anytime, anywhere learning often labeled as ubiquitous learning (u-learning) or mobile learning that might embrace various alternative learning, namely distance learning, open-learning and e-learning present some features that differentiate the alternatives from traditional learning As a matter of fact, the nature of ubiquitous learning might bear the attributes including the following:
Permanency: Learners never lose their work unless it is purposefully deleted. In addition, all the learning processes are recorded continuously everyday.
Accessibility: Learners have access to their documents, data, or videos from anywhere. That information is provided based on their requests. Therefore, the learning involved is self-directed.
Immediacy: Wherever learners are, they can get any information immediately. Thus, learners can solve problems quickly. Otherwise, the learner can record the questions and look for the answer later.
Interactivity: Learners can interact with experts, teachers, or peers in the form of synchronies or asynchronous communication. Hence, the experts are more reachable and the knowledge becomes more available.
Situating instructional activities: The learning could be embedded in our daily life. The problems encountered as well as the knowledge required are all presented in their natural and authentic forms. This helps learners notice the features of problem situations that make particular actions relevant.
Taken the aforementioned ideas together, alternative learning might be characterized by attributes that are valuing flexibility, accessibility, adaptability, permanency, immediacy, interactivity, situational, non-competitive evaluation; and child-centered approach and students’ differences and their particular interests, learners’ autonomy. However, a question of why schools are not reformed yet so that they can offer or provide alternative learning remains problematic. In strengthening school reforms so that they can maintain alternative learning with regards to individual cognitive differences and their practical special needs, a ‘neither through difference’ or through sameness’ strategy might be regarded as an working strategy to ensure gender equality in education because of its compatibility with neuroscience.
References
Alloway, N; Gilbert, P 1997 Boys and Literacy: Lessons from Australia, Journals Oxford Ltd, p49
Arnold, P. A 2004, Sex Chromosomes and Brain Gender, Neuroscience, vol.5, September 2004, p.1.
Boghi, A et al., 2006, the effect of gender on planning: An fMRI study using the Tower of London Task, @ELSEVIER Inc.
Byrne, E,M 1985, Equality or Equity? A European overview, in Arnot, M (ed.), Race&Gender: Equal opportunities policies in education, Pergamon Press, Oxford, p.99.
Daniels,H, Creese, A, Hey, V, Leonard,D, Smith, M 2001, Gender and Learning:equity, equality, and pedagogy, Support for Learning, vol.16.no.3, NASEN.
DeFelipe, J 1997 Types of neurons, synaptic connections and chemical characteristics of cells immunoreactive for calbindin-D28K, parvalbumin and calretinin in the neocortex (review article), Instituto Cajal (CSIC), Avenida Dr. Arce, 37, 28002 Madrid, Spain,
Eagleton,T 1998, Five types of identity and difference, in Bennett, D (ed.), Multicultural States: Rethinking difference and identity, Claysl Ltd, Great Britain, p.50.
Langel, C,M & Sletten, S, J 2002, ‘Alternative Education: A brief History and research synthesis, prepared for Project Forum’, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, US.
Mifsud, L 2002, ‘Alternative learning arenas-pedagogical challenges to mobile learning technology in education’, Proceedings of the IEEE international workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, IEEE.
Naftolin, F; Leranth, C, Horvath, T,L and Garcia-Segura, L, M 1996, Potential neuronal mechanisms of estrogen actions in synaptogenesis and synaptic plasticity, Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, vol.16 1996, pp.213-223.
Piaget,Jean 1968, Structuralism( Le Structuralisme, P.U.F, Paris.
(It was translated and edited by Chaninah Maschler ( London: Routledge & Kedal Paul, 1971 for its discussion of structuralism in the fields of mathematics ,logic ,biology, psychology ,linguistics, philosophy and the social sciences)
Poonwassie, D,H 1992, Perspectives on equality of opportunities in education, in Pooswassie, \
D.H& Ray, D (ed.), Education & Cultural Differences, Garland Publishing, Inc, New York,
Roger, L 1999,Sexing the Brain,Weidenfeld&Nicholson, London.
Skovsmose, O 1994, Towards philosophy of critical mathematics education, Klumer Academic Publisher, p.28.
Warrior, B 2002, ‘Reflection of an Education professional’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &Tourism Education, vol.1,no.2, available in website: www.hist.itsn.ac.uk/johlste. Weaver-Hightower, M 2003,The “Boys Turn” in Research on Gender and Education, Review of Educational Research 2003. Vol.73, pp.471-498.
West, C& Zimmerman.D 1987, Doing gender, Gender&Society, vol.1,no.2 1987, pp.125-151.
