Disciplinary differences: Engendered approaches to the delivery of STEM Deconstructing educational discourse from a feminist viewpoint, Paechter (2002)

explores the school curriculum through an engendered perspective. Explaining hegemony as ‘thinking as usual’, from Paechter’s perspective this explains the unquestioned approaches to the delivery of subjects within education. Hegemonic views may be defined as how a dominant class or group maintains control through the use of language and actions which perpetuate the status quo. Because hegemonic views are so heavily embedded within education, they appear to be ‘common sense’, hence anything that challenges the hegemonic perspective seems to be quite ‘odd’. Engrained with deep-rooted hegemonic attitudes that sustain unquestioned approaches to the delivery of subject disciplines, particularly mathematics and science, control is maintained through approaches to teaching which serve to marginalise girls.

Within this context, exploring the use of Prosser and Trigwell’s (1999) Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), Nevgi et al. (2004) found that there were significant engendered differences between men’s and women’s approaches to teaching. In their

study men scored significantly higher than women on the teacher-focused approaches and in a similar study undertaken utilising the VanTilburg / Heimlich Teaching Style Preference Inventory (cited in Heimlich, 1990), Lacey et al. (1998) reached similar findings when questioning university lecturers about their preferred teaching styles. Studies identified differences and found that male teachers preferred to utilise teacher- focused approaches (involving teacher control), while female teachers preferred to adopt flexible, open student-focused pedagogical approaches (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Nevgi et al. 2004). Stes et al. (2014:25) conclude “earlier studies from various countries show an influence of gender on teaching approach, with women being more inclined than men to adopt an approach focusing on the student”.

Within the context of this study, considering the subjects under investigation are disciplines which are perceived to be ‘masculine’, it would be foolish to overlook an investigation into the influence potential engendered differences may have upon the formation of the pre-service STEM teachers’ professional identity, and in particular the differences in pedagogical approach between male and female teachers. While generic pedagogies are utilised across a breadth of subject disciplines, it is acknowledged that teaching style varies depending upon the subject taught (Norton et al. 2005) and that there are distinct pedagogical practices adopted to support the effective delivery in order to enhance student learning, specific to an individual discipline (Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006). However, research shows that within the long-established subjects of Mathematics and Science, which are located in the ‘hard-pure’ territories of knowledge (Biglan 1973a, b), pedagogical approaches tend to be more teacher-focused (Trigwell & Prosser, 1996; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Lindblom-Ylänne et al. 2006; Stes et al.

2014). This has potential significance for female teachers training to deliver STEM subjects.

Sutton and Wheatley (2003) explore the difficulties experienced in introducing new teaching strategies and for the novice pre-service teacher, where their pedagogical approaches are in conflict with the expectations of their academic colleagues’, this may generate unforeseen obstacles; particularly, in light of the research (Nevgi et al. 2004; Stes et al. 2014) that highlights engendered differences with respect to pedagogical approaches. For example, in developing pedagogical skills, those training to teach the high-status subjects of Mathematics and Science may be encouraged to draw more heavily upon traditional teacher-focused pedagogies, associated with intellectual and academic rigour, because of preconceived expectations of how best to teach those disciplines. However, for female pre-service teachers of Mathematics or Science, in particular who may be ‘encouraged’ to utilise traditional teacher-focused pedagogies within their emergent practice, this may lead to conflict if their natural tendency is toward a student-focused approach; internally within themselves, as they negotiate their own values and beliefs, but also externally as they manage the expectations of mentors and departmental colleagues. For those pre-service teachers with strong approaches to their professional development, these circumstances would likely prove testing and perhaps provide a platform from which to grow, however for those who adopt ‘surface’ approaches to their own learning, have low self-regulation, and low confidence, opportunity for development will likely be limited.

2.10 Chapter summary

The purpose of this review was to synthesize different materials, summarizing key aspects of existing literature (within the context of my research) in order to explore areas to be addressed with the specific purpose being to illustrate how through further study the literature could be extended, leading to an informed judgement of what needs to be investigated and why (Cohen et al. 2018).

Having identified three key areas a review of each revealed several additional areas worthy of investigation. For example, ‘identity’ expanded to include additional literature appertaining to emotion, and how pre-service teachers manage their expectations which then subsequently linked to the literature around efficacy and self- regulated learning. Learning and teaching included reference to work-based learning that occurs within professional practice, and the potential impact of teacher anxiety on learners. Subject knowledge moved to explore pedagogy and the disciplinary differences between the STEM subject areas.

Having explored each theme, selecting literature I believed would help shape my thinking, I was able to identify gaps which I recognised with further study would expand upon the existing body of knowledge within the field and through my research would enable me to make new and original contributions to knowledge.