Ways of Knowing and Implications for Gender Equity in Science Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u775798Keywords:
gender, womans’s ways of knowing, science educationAbstract
In recent years, the debate on gender issues has become a focus of interest in science education research in Brazil. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of articles in the national literature that present a theoretical basis for gender studies in science education. Thus, this paper presents the women’s ways of knowing, according to the approach of Mary F. Belenky and her collaborators, as a possible theoretical framework for gender studies in this area. Five perspectives through which women draw conclusions about truth, knowledge and reality are outlined: Silence; Received knowledge; Subjective knowledge; Procedural knowledge; and the Constructed knowledge. After describing the five epistemological positions, we show how the study of these authors has been used in science education research and how their ideas can contribute to the planning of classroom interventions that seek to promote science teaching that is more equitable in relation to gender.
Downloads
References
Banks-Wallace, J. (2000). Womanist ways of knowing: Theoretical considerations for research with African American women. Advances in Nursing Science, 22(3), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200003000-00004
Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. Teachers College Press.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Book.
Belenky, M. F. (1996). Public homeplaces: Nurturing the development of people, families, and communities. In N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule, B. Clinchy McVicker, & M. F. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and power: Essays inspired by “Women’s Ways of Knowing.” (pp. 393–430). Basic Books.
Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: a feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<282::AID-TEA1006>3.0.CO;2-0
Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20241
Buck, G.A., Clark, V.L., Leslie-Pelecky, D.L., Lu, Y., & Cerda-Lizarraga, P.R. (2008). Examining the Cognitive Processes Used by Adolescent Girls and Women Scientists in Identifying Science Role Models: A Feminist Approach. Science Education, 92(4), 688–707. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20257
Clinchy, B. M. (1989). The Development of Thoughtfulness in College Women: Integrating Reason and Care. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(6), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032006005
Clinchy, B. M. (1990). Issues of Gender in Teaching and Learning. Journal of excellence in college teaching, 1, 52–67.
Clinchy, B. M. (2002). Revisiting Women’s Way of Knowing. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 63–87). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Comitê Nacional de Educação em Direitos Humanos (2007). Plano Nacional de Educação em Direitos Humanos. Secretaria Especial dos Direitos Humanos. Ministério da Educação, Ministério da Justiça, Unesco, 2007.
Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Senado Federal.
Costa, C. D. L. (2002). O sujeito no feminismo: Revisitando os debates. Cadernos Pagu, (19), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-83332002000200004
Crawford, M. (1989). Agreeing to differ: Feminist epistemologies and women’s ways of knowing. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 128–145). Springer.
Cruz, M. H. S. (2014). A Crítica Feminista à Ciência e Contribuição à Pesquisa nas Ciências Humanas. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, 7(12), 15–27, 2014. https://doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v0i0.2949
Eick, C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2001). What Makes an Inquiry-Oriented Science Teacher? The Influence of Learning Histories on Student Teacher Role Identity and Practice. Science Education, 86(3), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10020
Freire, P. (1987). Pedagogia do Oprimido. 17a ed. Paz e Terra.
Galotti, K. M., Lavin, B., Mansfield, A., Ainsworth, K., & Clinchy B. (1999). A new way of assessing ways of knowing: The attitudes toward thinking and learning survey (ATTLS). Sex Roles, 40, 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018860702422
Gilligan, C. (1983). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is “strong objectivity?” The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–470.
Heerdt, B., Santos, A., Bruel, A., Ferreira, F., Anjos, M., Swiech, M., & Banckes, T. (2018). Gênero no ensino de Ciências publicações em periódicos no Brasil: O estado do conhecimento. Revista Brasileira de Educação em Ciências e Educação Matemática, 2(2), 217–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.33238/ReBECEM.2018.v.2.n.2.20020
Howes, E. V. (2002). Connecting girls and science. Constructivism, feminism, and education reform. Teachers College Press.
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2000). ABC of Women Worker’s Rights and Gender Equality. ILO.
Ireland, D. T., Freeman, K. E., Winston-Proctor, C. E., DeLaine, K. D., McDonald Lowe, S., & Woodson, K. M. (2018). (Un)hidden figures: A synthesis of research examining the intersectional experiences of black women and girls in STEM education. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 226–254. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759072
Jones, M. G., Howe, A. N. N., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender Differences in Students’ Experiences, Interests, and Attitudes toward Science and Scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<180::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-X
Kang, N., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). Secondary Science Teachers’ Use of Laboratory Activities: Linking Epistemological Beliefs, Goals, and Practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20013
Keller, E. F. (1982). Feminism and Science. Sings: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7(3), 589–602.
Khine, M. S., & Hayes, B. (2010). Investigating women’s ways of knowing: An exploratory study in the UAE. Issues in Educational Research, 20(2),105–117.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. Harper & Row.
Lei n. 11.340, de 7 de agosto de 2006 (2006). Coíbe a violência doméstica e familiar contra a mulher. Presidência da República. Brasília, DF.
Lei n. 13.005, de 25 de junho de 2014 (2014). Aprova o Plano Nacional de Educação – PNE e dá outras providências. Presidência da República. Brasília, DF.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
MEC (2001). Diretrizes Nacionais para a Educação Especial na Educação Básica. Parecer CNE/CEB nº 17 200, de 17 de agosto de 2001. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União.
MEC (2004). Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação das Relações Étnico-Raciais e para o Ensino de História e Cultura Afro-Brasileira e Africana. Parecer CNE/CP nº 3 de 2004. Brasília: Diário oficial da União.
MEC(2010). Diretrizes Operacionais para a Educação de Jovens e Adultos. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Parecer CNE/CEB nº 3, de 15 de junho de 2010. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União.
MEC (2012a). Diretrizes Nacionais para a Educação em Direitos Humanos. Conselho Nacional de Educação. Parecer CNE/CP n.º 8, de 6 de março de 2012. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União.
MEC (2012b). Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Ambiental. Resolução CNE/CP n° 2, de 15 de junho de 2012. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União.
MEC (2012c). Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Escolar Indígena na Educação Básica. Resolução CNE/CEB nº 5, de 22 de junho de 2012. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União.
MEC (2012d). Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Educação Escolar Quilombola. Resolução CNE/CEB nº 8, de 20 de novembro de 2012. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Proença, A. O., Baldaquim, M. J., Batista, I. L., & Broietti, F. C. (2019). Tendências das Pesquisas de Gênero na Formação Docente em Ciências no Brasil. Química Nova na Escola, 41(1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.21577/0104-8899.20160145
Sardenberg, C. M. B.(2002) Da crítica feminista à Ciência a uma Ciência Feminista?. In A. A. Costa, & C. M. B. Sardenberg (Org.) Feminismo, Ciência e Tecnologia (pp. 89–120). REDOR/NEIM-FFCH/UFBA, vol.8 Coleção Bahianas, 2002.
Scantlebury, K., Martin, S., & Butler Kahle, J. (2010). Women in science Education: Introduction and historical overview. In K. Scantlebury, J. Butler Kahle & S. N. Martin (Eds.), Re-visioning Science Education from Feminist Perspectives: Challenges, Choices, and Careers (pp. 3–7). Sense Publishers.
Sinnes, A. T., & Løken, M. (2014). Gendered education in a gendered world: Looking beyond cosmetic solutions to the gender gap in science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(2), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9433-z
Zohar, A., & Sela, D. (2003). Her physics, his physics: Gender issues in Israeli advanced placement physics classes. International Journal of Science and Education, 25(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126766
Zohar, A. (2006). Connected Knowledge in Science and Mathematics Education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1579–1599. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439199
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors are responsible for the veracity of the information provided and for the content of the papers.
The authors who publish in this journal fully agree with the following terms:
- The authors attest that the work is unpublished, that is, it has not been published in another journal, event notices or equivalent.
- The authors attest that they did not submit the paper to another journal simultaneously.
- The authors retain the copyright and grant to RPBEC the right of first publication, with the work licensed simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The authors attest that they own the copyright or the written permission from copyright owners of figures, tables, large texts, etc. that are included in the paper.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, to publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after the publication in order to increase the impact and citation of published work.
In case of identification of plagiarism, inappropriate republishing and simultaneous submissions, the authors authorize the Editorial Board to make public what happened, informing the editors of the journals involved, any plagiarized authors and their institutions of origin.
