Abstract
Our world continually presents us with anomalies: Things we don’t expect. Thingsthat don’t fit our norms. These anomalies can be rejected out of hand, or they can be examined more closely to challenge our expectations for how the world works. Certainly during her lifetime, Marie Curie was seen as an anomaly. She was one the first women to be awarded a Ph.D. in Science in Europe, the first woman to win the Nobel Prize and as well as the first scientist of either gender to receive the Nobel Prize for science twice in her lifetime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
AAUW (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children, Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/GGES.pdf
AAUW. (2008). Where the girls are: The facts about gender equity in education, by C. Corbett, C. Hill, & A. St. Rose. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whereGirlsAre_execSummary.pdf
AAUW (2010). Why so few: Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, by C. Corbett, C. Hill, & A. St. Rose. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf
Baker, D. (2002). Where is gender and equity in science education? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 39(8), 659–663.
Barton, A. C. (1998a). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barton, A. C. (1998b). Teaching science with homeless children: Pedagogy, representation, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 379– 394.
Brickhouse, N. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.
Brickhouse, N., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? A construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 444–458.
Buxton, C. (2006). Creating contextually authentic science in a low performing urban elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 695–721.
Buxton, C. & Lee, O. (2010). Fostering scientific reasoning as a strategy to support science learning for ELLs. In D. Senal, C. Senal, & E. Wright (Eds.), Teaching science with Hispanic ELLs in K–16 classrooms (pp. 11–36). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218–261.
Cuban, L. (1988). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 341–344.
Curie, M. (1923). Pierre Curie (translated by C. Kellogg & V. Kellogg). New York: The Macmillan Company.
De Welde K, Laursen S, Thiry H. (2011). SWS Fact Sheet: Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Sociologists for Women in Society.http://www.socwomen.org/index.php?ss=25
DeWandre, N. (2002). Women in science: European strategies for promoting women in science. Science 295(5553), 278–279.
Kahle, J. B. (2004). Will girls be left behind? Gender differences and accountability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 961–969.
Kantor, H. & Lowe, R. (2006). From New Deal to no deal: No Child Left Behind and the devolution of responsibility for equal opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 474–502.
Hallman, L. D. (2009). Women and girls in STEM: A comprehensive approach to achieving equity. A report presented to the National Science Foundation’s Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, Oct. 26, 2009.
Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A.B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495.
Jones, M. G. & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 861–874.
Lynch, S. (2001). “Science for all” is not equal to “one size fits all”: Linguistic and cultural diversity and science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 499–627.
Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467–477.
McDonnell, L., McLaughlin, M., & Morison, P. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Foundation. Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2008). Science and engineering degrees: 1966–2006. Detailed Statistical Tables) (NSF 08–321). Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08321/pdf/nsf08321.pdf
National Science Foundation (2009). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: (NSF 09–305). Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved fromhttp://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/
Paige, R., Hickok, E., & Neuman, S. B. (2002, September). No child left behind: A desktop reference. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference
Penfield, R. D., & Lee, O. (2010). Test-based accountability: Potential benefits and pitfalls of student assessment with student diversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 6–14.
Pringle, R. M & Carrier Martin, S. (2005). The potential of upcoming high-stakes testing on the teaching of science in elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 35(2–3), 347–361.
Rosser, S. V. (1995). Teaching the majority: Breaking the gender barrier in science, mathematics & engineering. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., & Brooks, J. (2009). Becoming a member of a school community while working toward science education reform: teacher induction through a CHAT perspective. Science Education, 93(6), 996–1025.
Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: implications for science education within America's urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 114–127.
Shaver, A., Cuevas, P., Lee, O., & Avalos, M. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of policy influences on science instruction with culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 725–746.
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grades six through ten. Science Education, 69(4), 511–526.
Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74(1), 1–18.
Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. J. (2000). The development and assessment of a course for enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 301–307.
Southerland, S. A., Golden, B., & Enderle, P. (2011). The bounded nature of science: An effective tool in an equitable approach to the teaching of science. In M. Y. Khine (Ed.), Advances in the nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Southerland, S. A., Smith, L. K., Sowell, S. P., & Kittleson, J. M. (2007). Resisting unlearning: Understanding science education’s response to the United States’ national accountability movement. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 45–77.
Sowell, S. (2004). Doing gender/Teaching science: A feminist poststructural analysis of middle school science teachers’ identity negotiations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of teaching and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 211–227.
Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.) (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer Press.
Upadhyay, B. (2009). Negotiating identity and science teaching in a high-stakes testing environment: an elementary teacher’s perceptions. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(3), 569–586.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.
Wennerås,C.,& Wold,A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature,387(22),341–343.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Southerland, S.A., Bahbah, S.U. (2011). Educational Policy of Accountability and Women’s Representation in Science. In: Chiu, MH., Gilmer, P.J., Treagust, D.F. (eds) Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of Madame Marie Sklodowska Curie’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-719-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-719-6_12
Publisher Name: SensePublishers
Online ISBN: 978-94-6091-719-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)
