|
Lydia Lui
Last time, I introduced a booklet called"Addressing Gender and Achievement: myths and realities", published by the UK government. It identifies and dispels some unhelpful myths about gender and education and to counter them with evidence. Though it talks about boys' and girls' achievement in English where English is a first language, I find it equally beneficial to us in H.K.
The previous article reports the first two parts, namely, "Talent, Style and Performance"and"Boys' Preferences". This one reports the third, "Policy, Pedagogical(adj.教學的)Practices and Effects on Achievement".
Part 3: Policy, Pedagogical Practices and Effects on Achievement
Myth 8: Boys' educational performance suffers because the existing school curriculum(n.課程)doesn't meet boys' interests.
Reality 8: No evidence suggests that the content of the secondary curriculum reflects particularly gendered interests, or that such interests have any connections with attainment(n.成績).
The improved performance of girls(as a group)in Science and Maths subjects since the 1980s is explained by 1)equal access to the curriculum, 2)end of subject specialisation(選科)at 14 and 3)changes in the employment market(leading most girls to expect a"career"once they leave school).
Myth 9: Coursework favours girls and"sudden death"examinations favour boys.
Reality 9: Reducing the value of the coursework in assessment(n.考核)practice have had little impact on gender achievement patterns.
Girls' results were improving before the GCSE(General Certificate of Secondary Education)assessment model was introduced. Reducing the GCSE coursework component in the 1990s had little impact on gender achievement patterns. As a group, girls appear to do well at both"sudden death"examinations and coursework assessment.
Myth 10: Boys benefit from a competitive learning environment.
Reality 10: Competitive learning practice may actively disengage(v.脫離)those boys who do not immediately succeed.
Social constructions of gender(性別的社會建構)encourage boys to be competitive. However, such constructions also involve a dislike and/or fear of losing. Given that there can only be a few winners, the failing boys may disengage, or find alternative ways of winning, for example by becoming disruptive(adj.擾亂秩序的).
Myth 11: Single-sex classes are best to improve boys' and girls' achievement.
Reality 11: Single-sex classes have very mixed results, and have not been shown to be the decisive ingredient in lifting boys' achievement, but have, in some cases, improved girls' achievement.
To raise boys' achievement, sometimes single-sex classes have been implemented. But it has often been girls' achievement, rather than boys', which has benefited. Boys have been found unlikely to favour single-sex teaching. Research has found that teaching practice often does not generally differ according to the gender of the class. But where differences are found, these tend to reflect stereotypical assumptions(刻板印象)on the part of teacher and may worsen(v.使惡化)existing gender expectations and achievement patterns. There is no evidence that boys' exam performance is enhanced in single-sex schools, although there is some evidence that they may be more prepared to study arts and humanities subjects.
Myth 12: Changing or designing the curriculum to be boy-friendly(adj.便於男生的)will increase boys' motivation and help their achievement.
Reality 12: Designing a boy-friendly curriculum has not been shown to improve boys' achievement.
No evidence shows that schools have designed their curriculum to be more appealing to boys and that improves any boys' achievement. Such changes may involve gender-stereotyping which can lead teachers to ignore pupils' actual preferences and limit the choices that either boys or girls can make.
Download the original publication at www.teachernet.gov.uk/publications(search "DCSF-00599-2009"). ■lydialuieng@gmail.com
|
