![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/AdobeStock_121475859_Credit.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTo answer this question, we might first answer a related question: what discourages<\/em> girls in the first place.<\/p>\n If we can undo the discouragement, we are \u2013 indirectly but effectively \u2013 encouraging.<\/p>\n So, what discourages girls?<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a disturbing possibility.<\/p>\n When students learn about genetics, and specifically about the genetics of sex differences<\/em>, they might infer that genders have a fixed, absolute quality. All boys (and no girls) are this way<\/em>; all girls (and no boys) are that way<\/em>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s in the genes, see?<\/p>\n This set of beliefs, in turn, might reinforce a fixed mindset about gender and ability.<\/p>\n Through this causal chain, a particular science curriculum might itself discourage girls from pursuing science.<\/p>\n Yikes!<\/p>\n Researcher Brian Donovan and his team explored this question in a recent study<\/a>. To do so, they asked students to read different lessons about genes and sexual dimorphism.<\/p>\n Some 8th<\/sup> \u2013 10th<\/sup> graders learned about the genetics of human sexual difference.<\/p>\n Others learned about the genetics of plant<\/em> sexual differences.<\/p>\n Others read a curriculum that explicitly contradicted the notion that genetic sex differences directly cause differences in intelligence and academic ability.<\/p>\n Did these curricular differences have an effect?<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, students who learned that we can\u2019t<\/em> draw a straight line from genes to gender roles and abilities believed that lesson.<\/p>\n To make the same point in reverse: students who studied a seemingly \u201cneutral\u201d scientific curriculum \u2013 \u201cwe\u2019re just talking about genes here\u201d \u2013 drew unsupported conclusions about absolute differences between men and women.<\/p>\n Amazingly, this finding held true both for the students who studied the genetics of human sexual differences AND those who studied plant sexual differences.<\/p>\n WOW.<\/p>\n Perhaps surprisingly, students who learned that genetic sex differences don\u2019t cause<\/em> gendered ability differences also expressed a greater interest in science.<\/p>\n In particular, the girls<\/strong> who studied the \u201cgenetics only\u201d lesson expressed meaningfully less interest in a science major than those who got the alternative lesson. (The two lessons neither encouraged nor discouraged the boys.)<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the likely causal chain:<\/p>\n A science curriculum that focused \u201cpurely\u201d on genetics seemed to suggest that men and women are utterly different beings.<\/p>\n Students who read this \u201cpure\u201d lesson inferred that some human abilities \u2013 like, say, scientific competence \u2013 might differ between genders.<\/p>\n This inference, in turn, made gender stereotypes (e.g., \u201cmen do better at science than women\u201d) more plausible.<\/p>\n And so, the women who got that seemingly neutral science lesson, discouraged by the stereotype it reinforced, felt less inclined to pursue science.<\/p>\n By this roundabout route, a traditional science lesson might itself discourage students from learning science.<\/p>\n Of course, the topic of gender differences \u2013 especially in the realms of math and science \u2013 can generate lots of energetic debate.<\/p>\n When I asked Donovan for alternative explanations for his findings, he was quick to emphasize that we need lots more research in this field. His is the first study done on this specific question. As always, teachers shouldn\u2019t assume that any one study has found THE answer.<\/p>\n Some people do in fact argue that math and science ability (or interest) differ by gender because of genes. (Dr. Donovan explicitly rejects an explanation that moves directly from genes to gender differences.)<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a recent book review<\/a>\u00a0by Lise Eliot, emphasizing that gender differences in brain<\/em> regions<\/p>\n a) are often exaggerated and mis-reported, and<\/p>\n b) result from societies that emphasize gender differences.<\/p>\n For others \u2013 like Simon Baron-Cohen \u2013 that argument goes too far<\/a>. Another recent study suggests that brains differ by gender in utero<\/a> — that is, before socialization can have strong effects upon them.<\/p>\n Donovan\u2019s research suggests that teachers can and should do more to be sure we\u2019re not discouraging some students from particular academic interests and career paths.<\/p>\nIs Science Education Itself the Problem?<\/h2>\n
The Results Envelope Please<\/h2>\n
But, Why?<\/h2>\n
Alternative Explanations<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Teaching Implications<\/h2>\n