educating girls annotated bibliography

Running head: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY: EDUCATING GIRLS 1

Annotated Bibliography:

Educating Girls: an Overview

J. Anne Hagstrom

Prescott College

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY: EDUCATING GIRLS

Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2010). Identity economics: How our identities shape our

work, wages, and well-being. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

‘Identity economics’ adapts standard economic theories to include the identities of

individuals in 1) social categories, 2) norms and ideals, and 3) gains and losses in

identity utility. Identities typically include ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders,’ where ‘insiders’

buy into and ‘outsiders’ oppose the system. In order to improve academics and

behavior, a school must promote belonging for all students, effectively removing the

option of being an ‘outsider.’ This requires broadening the definition of ‘insider,’ to

include diversity of genders, ethnicities, ages, and socioeconomic statuses. Changing

labels (fireman to fire fighter, policeman to police officer) along with providing legal

support of ‘insider’ status to nontraditional workers (class action law suits against sexual

harassment/discrimination) can increase the number of men and women crossing into

nontraditional fields. Traditional responses to gender equality in schools have worked

with changing labels and some measure of ‘belonging,’ but the insider/outsider structure

associated with patriarchal social norms maintains strong influence.

Bonomo, V. (2010, Summer). Gender matters in elementary education: Research-based

strategies to meet the distinctive learning needs of boys and girls. Educational Horizons,

88(4), 257-264. Retrieved from ERIC. (EJ895692)

Recent research into physical differences between the sexes is mentioned, including

multiple references to an earlier article published in the journal. The results echo

traditional stereotypes: boys’ brains are better at math and science, while girls’ brains

excel at reading, writing, and listening. Moreover, boys’ and girls’ brains develop at

different orders, times, and rates. Autonomic nervous system differences between the

2


sexes predict that boys should thrive in competitive environments while girls should not.

Strikingly, studies indicate that the ideal temperature for young men is 69 degrees

Fahrenheit; girls do best at 75 degrees. Table 3 identifies typical genetic differences

between girls and boys, including boys hearing 35% less than girls due to ear

construction, girls developing language and fine motor skills six years earlier than boys,

who develop targeting and spatial memory four years earlier than girls, differences in

ability to transition, relate to a teacher, and remember details, and in the structure of

interpersonal relationships. The article includes two lists of suggestions for adapting

lessons to provide for boys’ and girls’ learning needs, however, being aware of the

differences and then getting to know individual students seems a more practical way of

implementing any changes to the classroom and lessons.

Denith, A. (2008). Smart girls, hard-working girls, but not yet self-assured girls: The limits of

gender equity politics. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(1), 145-166. Retrieved from

ERIC. (EJ797189)

As recently as the 1990s, How Schools Shortchange Girls exposed “biased teaching

practices, curricular omissions, sexual harassment, unfair testing procedures, and limited

access to or lower participation of girls in certain school subjects and programs.” The

author interviewed students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM) programs. The schools studied were in affluent communities, and girls’ success

was on par with boys’ in school and college placement. Over 50% of the girls described

their relationships with teachers and those teachers’ skills as influential. Many

comments reflect a desire to like or enjoy the teacher because the subject can be difficult

or uninteresting; other students were willing to take the advanced class because of an

3


initial interest in the subject. The interviews indicated a link between performance and

self-worth, where girls judged lower grades as evidence of inability or lack of

intelligence. They felt that boys did not care about their GPAs and did not take lower

grades personally. More troubling, when comparing themselves to boys, the girls

commented that they do more work for the same achievements, and they expressed

concern that any difficulties they experienced would be attributed to gender – as an

innate quality, “a dumb girl who doesn’t get computers” (p. 158) “I think girls have to

work harder to get acknowledged and to achieve. Guys are viewed as well rounded if

they take an AP course and do one sport. Girls take three AP classes and a sport and it is

viewed as normal” (p. 159) “Boys will be boys, right? If I lagged behind, people would

think I’m not okay. It’s the same with boys and teachers. Teachers seem willing to push

the boys more than they push the girls. Girls are just expected to be good” (p. 160). The

girls experienced their competition as other girls, believing there were limited spaces for

females in the schools and professions of their choice. Moreover, they wanted the

competition based on skills and not gender. While girls expressed spending more time

on their schoolwork than brothers or male classmates, I think rather than showing that

boys are more confident, it shows that girls lack an awareness of their achievements or

appropriate measures of success. If, in fact, schools are disproportionately

acknowledging boys, girls could absorb the unspoken message that they are not

measuring up even while being aware of the hypocrisy. At the same time, this points to

another facet of boys’ underperformance, the realization that smaller efforts are

adequate; clearly assumptions about innate ability are damaging to both sexes. The

author concludes that individualism, competition, and personal entitlement are strongly

4


patriarchal and girls’ attempts to fit into the system are ultimately detrimental.

Hembrow-Beach, R. (2011, September). Developing the girl as a leader. Retrieved from ERIC.

(ED524366)

This paper examines how all-girl schools support girls. Self-confidence has been

identified as a primary concern for girls; though girls in co-educational schools report

higher levels of engagement, they report lower levels of self-esteem. Low-

socioeconomic backgrounds further limit extracurricular activities known to boost

confidence. Girls’ develop social-emotional skills at schools, but this area is neglected

in co-education; all-girls schools provide “exploration and community” (p. 31). While

boys see difficult material as a challenge and put in more effort, girls are more likely to

blame themselves and their abilities if a task is difficult, reducing their confidence and

efficiency. Girls School alumnae say that these schools encouraged self-confidence,

encouragement, leadership, and community, and believe their all-girls education was

superior, providing more opportunities for public-speaking, technology, science, math,

and writing as compared to co-ed schools. In Wales, primary school girls were viewed

as good students if they had typical girl behaviors, whether or not they were

academically successful. A study in Britain suggests that boys’ disruptive behavior

gains them greater teacher access and encouragement, while diligent girls receive less

support. Girls in co-ed classrooms find boys’ behavior more disruptive than do other

boys; additionally, girls are seen as individuals without reference to gender, and are able

to assume all of the roles in the classroom. A study in Belgium underscores that single-

sex classrooms do not provide the same advantage as all-girl schools. Anecdotal

evidence suggests that all-girls K-8 educations develop the necessary skills for girls to

5


then be active leaders in co-educational high schools. It seems apparent to me that no

adjustment of public school education will match the positive effects of all-girls

education, but recognizing the separate needs of students is an important move.

Luik, P. (2009). Would boys and girls benefit from gender-specific educational software?

British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 128-144.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01005.x

While some studies indicate that boys have a greater affinity for and skill with

computers, other studies find no significant differences between the genders. This study

examined differences in posttest scores of girls and boys in terms of several variables.

The data indicates that catering to girls’ preferences may in fact lead to decreases in their

achievement. Instead, girls’ scores correlated strongly with learner controls, while boys’

scores showed no difference. Boys’ scores indicate a preference for graphics, while

girls’ scores indicate these graphics should be as simple as possible. In conclusion the

author believes there are several things to keep in mind when designing software so that

it is optimally arranged for both genders.

Madigan, J. C. (2009). The education of girls and women in the United States: A historical

perspective. Advances in Gender and Education, 1, 11-13. Retrieved from the

Montgomery Center for Research in Child and Adolescent Development,

http://www.mcrcad.org/

Madigan begins her summary of the history of education for women in the 1700s, noting

key years for legal changes. She states that coeducation began in the 1800s, at the same

time as single-sex schools were being established. However the movement West played

a role in making schools coeducational, as smaller populations made single-sex schools

6


impractical. Despite coeducational schools, vocational 'tracks' were pushed for girls,

and girls' occupational choices were essentially secretarial, nursing, teaching, or

motherhood. It was 1972 when Title IX made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of

sex, and 1974 introduced the Women's Educational Equality Act. More recently, in

2006, the US Department of Education amended Title IX to allow gender-separate

educational opportunities, viewed as a positive move for girls.

McMahon, L. (2009, Fall). Of the utmost importance to our country: Women, education, and

society, 1780-1820. Journal of the Early Republic, 29(3), 475-506. Retrieved from

Academic Search Premier.

This article discusses the historic motivations for allowing women equal access to

education, namely, to ensure educated citizens for the good of society. During this time

period (late 18th and early 19th century), women were primarily homemakers, mothers,

and wives; yet their education was promoted in order to control “the manners of a

nation” (p. 478). This push led to the establishment of many schools for women,

providing educations to “mostly white, middle- and upper-class women” (p. 483).

These schools advertised a more rigorous curriculum than ‘finishing schools’ and were

similar to male academies of the period. At this time it was acknowledged that women

were equally capable of intellectual pursuits and, many argued, better at rhetoric than

men. The concern turned to appropriate subjects for women, so as not to damage their

ability to care for family and home: they should be “useful and ornamental” (p. 494),

with complementary roles to those of men, in order to ‘balance’ each other. This

emphasis was important, because many educated women became more vocal and public

figures interested in promoting equality in all aspects of life. This article reveals that

7


women’s education has been a concern for nearly as long as America has existed.

Skelton, C. (2010, May). Gender and achievement: Are girls the "success stories" of restructured

education systems? Educational Review, 62(2), 131-142.

doi:10.1080/00131910903469536

This article focuses on the British education system, but similar cultures and historical

symmetry make many of the points applicable to America. Skelton notes current

government and media accounts of girls out-performing boys on tests, and greater

numbers of girls graduating from high school and then attending college. According to

studies done in classrooms during the 1970s and 1980s, girls showed a lack of self-

confidence, and boys were assessed as 'more able' due to their relatively greater

assertiveness. Yet current studies find that girls are still anxious and less confident than

boys, despite the social belief in their "success." One perspective goes so far as to

describe the underachievement of boys as 'victimization' by girls. That is, because girls

are now winning, it must mean that boys are losing. Interestingly, teachers have

consistently rated boys as needing more time and attention. Even more striking are

indications that girls are "hard working," whereas boys have "innate if untapped

potential." The author concludes that girls will not have 'success' without increased

confidence and control, and that adjusting education to 'make up' for the perceived

decrease in boys' performance still fails to address fundamental gender stereotypes.

Wells, R. S., Seifert, T. A., Padgett, R. D., Park, S., & Umbach, P. D. (2011, January/February).

Why do more women than men want to earn a four-year degree? Exploring the effects of

gender, social origin, and social capital on educational expectations. The Journal of

Higher Education, 82(1), 1-32. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

8


This study looked for concrete reasons that a greater percentage of women than men are

now attending college, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities. The data set was

sizeable, with 14,713 students. Previous research indicated that “educational attainment

is predicated on one’s expectations of educational success” (p. 2). The study therefore

considered parents’ early and peers’ later influence (social capital) on students’ beliefs

(valuing/expectation of higher education). In this study, women indicated higher levels

of social capital overall. Although historically a luxury, educating girls has become

sensible and necessary in the parents’ view due to increased availability of work and

decreased stability of marriage. Studies suggest that parents now hold higher

expectations for daughters than for sons, and this study saw a stronger positive effect for

women relative to men. Parents are also less involved in sons’ academic lives and have

lower expectations for academic achievement. As previous studies suggested, mothers’

education had more influence on daughters, while fathers’ education had more influence

on sons, certainly a concern given the rates of absent fathers among minorities. The

increasing gap between men and women is not a result, then, of girls’ increasing

opportunities, but a breakdown in the support network for boys.

9