Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Equity, empowerment and different ways of knowing

  • Article
  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the experiences of two sets of students who attended schools that taught mathematics in completely different ways. One of the schools used a traditional, textbook approach, and the other used an open, project-based approach. The latter approach produced equity between girls and boys whereas the textbook approach prompted many of the girls to under achieve. This paper will consider the experiences of girls and boys who followed the project-based approach, reflect upon the sources of equity within this approach and relate the differences between the two approaches to Gilligan’s notions of “separate” and “connected” knowing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Assessment of Performance Unit [APU] (1980a).Mathematical development primary survey report no 1, January. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Assessment of Performance Unit [APU] (1980b).Mathematical development secondary survey report no 1, September. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Askew, M., & Wiliam, D., (1995).A review of recent research in mathematics education. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M (1994, August 23). Report into school students’ attitudes.The Guardian, p. 2.

  • Belencky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986).Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleach, K. (1996). Boys will be boys-but will they be successful?All-in -Success, 7(2), 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1997a, February).Mathematical equity—underachieving boys or sacrificial girls? Paper presented at the “Are Boys Underachieving?” Seminar Series. London Institute of Education.

  • Boaler, J. (1997b).Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1997c). Reclaiming school mathematics: The girls fight back.Gender and Education, 9(3), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1997d). When even the winners are losers: Evaluating the experiences of “top set” students,Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (in press). Open and closed mathematics approaches: Student experiences and understandings.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

  • Burton, L. (1986). Femmes et Mathematiques: Y a-t-il une intersection? In L. Lafortune (Ed.),Femmes et mathematiques (pp. 19–55). Montreal: Les Iditions du Remu-menage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, L. (1995). Moving towards a feminist epistemology of mathematics. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.),Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture (pp. 209–226). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, J., & Comber, C. (1996).Gender differences in examinations at 18+: Final report. London: Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (1996). Mathematics classrooms, gender and affect.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. (1995). Assisting women to complete graduate degrees. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.),Equity in mathematics education (pp. 49–58). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982).In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MAS: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, A. M., & Crandall, D. P. (1982). Fitting words to numbers.American Behavioural Scientist, 26(1), 62–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keedy, J., & Drmacich, D. (1994). The collaborative curriculum at the school without walls: Empowering students for classroom learning.The Urban Review, 26(2), 121–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. S. (1993). Classrooms, teachers and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.),Mathematics and gender (pp. 128–148). Brisbane: Queensland University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, G. C. (1993). Teacher/student interactions in the mathematics classroom: A different perspective. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.),Mathematics and gender (pp. 149–168). Brisbane: Queensland University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, G. & Forgasz, H. (1992). Gender: A critical variable in mathematics education. In B. Atweh & J. Watson (Eds.),Research in mathematics education in Australasia 1988–1991 (pp. 67–95). Brisbane: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher, C. (1991). Is dealing with mathematics as a thoughtful subject compatible with maintaining satisfactory test scores? A nine-year study.Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 10, 225–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. (1990). Assessment and gender.Cambridge Journal of Education, 21(2), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Population Censuses & Surveys. (1980).Classification of occupations 1980. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for Standards in Education. (1994).Mathematics key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. (1990). From protoquantities to number sense. In G. Booker, P. Cobb & M. T. Mendicuti (Eds.),Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 305–311). Mexico: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi Becker, J. R. (1995). Women’s ways of knowing in mathematics. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.),Equity in mathematics education: Influences of feminism and culture (pp. 163- 174). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurdson, S., & Olson, A. (1992). Teaching mathematics with meaning.Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 11, 37–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, D. (1982).Invisible women: The schooling scandal. London: Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L. (1987).Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, G., Arnot, M., &. David, M. (1996).Is the future female?Female success, male disadvantage and changing gender patterns in education. Paper presented at the “Are boys underachieving?” seminar series. London Institute of Education, 17 May.

  • Waiden, R. & Walkerdine, V. (1985).Girls and mathematics: from primary to secondary schooling. London: University of London Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkerdine, V., & Girls and Mathematics Unit (Eds.). (1989).Counting girls out. London, UK: Virago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College, London

    Jo Boaler

Authors
  1. Jo Boaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boaler, J. Equity, empowerment and different ways of knowing. Math Ed Res J 9, 325–342 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217322

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217322

Keywords

Search

Navigation