Engendering gendered mathematics education in the Philippines: Is equality to access enough?

Abstract

In this metasyntheses paper, I explore gender as a social factor that interacts with both the cognitive and affective domains of education by explaining what it means for mathematics to be gendered and how we can use mathematics education to promote gender fairness as a form of social justice. I start by discussing gender as a dichotomy and how educational research transitioned from a physiological to a socio-cultural perspective. Guided by Ferguson’s and Bjerrun-Nielsen’s Four-Perspective Gender model, and Cohen and Martin’s Four-Dimensional Model of Gender. I argue that mathematics education can be designed to promote gender equity only by considering these dimensions, and when there is a deliberate effort to examine how our exercise of education widens or narrows gender gap in terms of the four dimensions of gender equality: equality to access, learning experience, educational outcomes, and most importantly, external results. I discuss mathematics as an area perceived to embody a symbolic gender and what can be done through mathematics education to break that stereotype and contribute to the furthering equality to external results. I focus this discussion into the context of the Philippines and why it may be essential for educational reforms to zoom out to include other equally important dimensions of gender other than equality to access.

The gender dichotomy: physiological or socio-cultural?

As it is in most fields of study, it is rather difficult to trace when exactly academic discourses relevant to gender became collectively accepted as a recognized theme for educational research. In comparison to other disciplines, gender studies is a well-established school of thought that has been the center of many scholarly works across a vast spectrum of disciplines. Such a characteristic makes gender studies an interdisciplinary field because it draws on knowledge from and lends itself to humanities, social sciences, medicine, and natural science (Samuelsson, 2017; Lundberg and Werner, 2013).

Over the years, sex and gender have been used to imply beliefs about what causes differences between males and females (Fennema, 2000). In fact, scholarly works published before 1970 made use of the term sex differences in research denoting that the basis of comparison is physiological in nature and that these differences were “immutable.” This means that researchers were more interested in linking mathematics education to the biological aspect of gender—explaining if being physiologically male (or female) significantly affects spatial perception and mathematical reasoning ability (Hall, 2012). Furthermore, one of the troubling implications that these researches seemed to have led to was for schools to accept that nothing can be done to counteract these differences as no person has the capability to change a biological aspect.

It was in the 1970s that academics began to slowly shift to a social view in the comparison of sexes marking the transition of studying causations relative to the academic performance from being biological to being socio-cultural. Studies that probed this perspective have made an impact on changing the way we think of sex. For instance, Fennema and Sherman (1977) presented this social perspective to comparing male and female and eventually found out that students’ attitude toward mathematics is socially constructed instead of biologically determined. Accepting this ideology presented the need to revisit our questions about gaps between males and females as it somehow nullified the information from many pieces of research that defined sex as a biological attribute.

In effect, several scales which have been constructed and are widely used in educational research to study gender differences in mathematics needed to be revised to employ the social dimension of gender. For instance, the Mathematics Attitudes Scales by Fennema and Sherman (1977) was revisited by Forgasz, Leder and Kaur (1999) leading to the conclusion that some of the items under “Mathematics as a Male Domain” scale were no longer valid.

This shift in ideology was succeeded by studies which aimed to explain gender as behaviors or patterns of activities that a society or culture deems appropriate for men and women. Other studies also exposed how learning success was determined by privilege. For example, Llewellyn (2010) explained that “understanding” is hierarchically produced not only based on ability and social class but also due to perceptions of gender; that boys are more naturally able to attain understanding than girls and that these gendered assumptions also encourage heteronormativity in classrooms. In this socio-cultural take on gender, we have taken cognizance that it is our social norms that determine the standards we have for men and women and it is only by changing these norms that we can narrow the gap between genders.

To clarify the distinction between the two terms presented, we define " sex" as a biological attribute to classify a person’s physiological function in procreation. In contrast, gender makes explicit the difference between masculinity and femininity relative to social and cultural beliefs (Brugeilles and Cromer, 2009). Moreover, West and Zimmerman (1987) explain that contrary to what some people might believe, a person’s gender is not limited to what one is, but is essentially a reflection of what one does recurrently with respect to their environment. It pertains to qualities, tastes, attitudes, roles, and responsibilities associated with being male or female. These ideas imply that there is no cross-cultural construct that would clearly draw the line between genders.

Dissecting gender into dimensions and perspectives

The “complexity of gender,” as Fennema (2000) describes it, renders it difficult to study in relation to other variables. Thus, several studies have focused solely on understanding gender as a construct by explaining it according to specific dimensions or perspectives. This paper shall discuss and link two models that serve that purpose. The first model is that of Ferguson (1996) that distinguishes three perspectives to gender as a social construct: structural, symbolic, and personal, which was later modified by Bjerrum-Nielsen (2003) to include a fourth perspective which they call interactional gender. The second model is the Four-Dimension Model of Gender by Cohen and Martin (2012) which was conceptualized following the Integral Theory developed by Wilber. The Integral Theory states that all human phenomena can be explained by defining it according to four distinct, interrelated dimensions called the interior individual (subjective), interior collective (intersubjective), exterior individual (objective), and exterior collective (inter-objective) (Esbjorn-Hargens, 2009).

Cohen’s and Martin’s Four-Dimension model suggests that gender can be viewed through four distinct, yet interrelated, lenses: gender identity, gender ideologies, sex, and gender roles. Gender identity takes the interior individual dimension; gender ideologies form the interior collective dimension; the dichotomous, biological description of sex is the exterior individual dimension; and the term “gender roles” is analogous to the exterior collective dimension. Interestingly, three of these dimensions (to exclude sex) are analogous to the gender perspectives suggested by Ferguson and Bjerrum-Nielsen. By linking these two models, we deepen our understanding of gender as a social construct.

In Ferguson’s perspective, structural or material perspective pertains to the social structure that determines how men and women are evenly distributed in terms of education and occupations (Wedege, 2007). Under this perspective, we can examine whether males and females are fairly provided with access to education, have equal opportunities to enter various professions, and are able to hold positions of power and importance such as those in the government, private institutions, and the corporate industries among others. When examined, this perspective is similar to how Cohen and Martin (2012) describes gender roles to be behaviors or activities performed by gendered beings in a given society which have become institutionalized within social systems. For instance, a society that has a strong structural gender dualism may stereotype jobs such as those in beauty-care to women and any man who decides to enter the profession is taken with interest, and is still, arguably, frowned upon in some cultures and societies even at this age.

Although comparable to structural perspective, symbolic perspective is more representational rather than presentational as it seeks to explain how the society views men and women and what gender roles they are expected to perform (Ferguson, 1996). This dimension that is equivalent to gender ideologies in the four-dimensional gender model basically considers the expectations of the society on men and women—the culturally shared beliefs about gendered beings within a given society. This includes assessing how the cultural stigma is deeply rooted in each gender type and what gender stereotypes people continue to believe. In a traditional Filipino family, for example, the mother is symbolically called “ilaw ng tahanan” (light of the home) connoting the social expectation for a woman to take care of the home, as well as be the source of warmth for all members of the family. The father holds the consequent title of being “haligi ng tahanan” (pillar of the home) that defines his role to support the family by providing for its material needs, strength, and protection. We note, however, that these traditional roles do not anymore reflect the current social beliefs on gender of Filipinos as we see more women choosing to lead lifestyles that balance both family and career. In fact, in the third quarter of 2017, 95 percent of Filipino women are employed based on the Gender Quickstat Report released by the Philippines Statistics Authority (2017). The employment of Filipino men during the same period was also 95 percent.

Personal perspective to gender describes how an individual relates themself with available cultural models of gender (Bjerrum Nielsen, 2003). It is the dimension that views gender as a personal matter formed by every individual within structures, discourses, and norms (Wedege, 2007). Parallel to gender identity in the other model, these are aspects of gender which are experiences within an individual’s own psyche.

Finally, the interactional perspective to gender covers how gender is developed or reproduced through social interaction (Bjerrum Nielsen, 2003). This perspective puts a stronger emphasis on human behavior as an effect of gender being that gender is more than just who we “are” but something that we “do.” It is through interaction that people are able to develop their sense of gender and ultimately affects the development of the other perspectives.

By comparing these perspectives, we can envision a nonlinear, nonhierarchical relationship among them. This means that presenting a simple linear model that forces these perspectives into tiers—one a pre-order of another—would not give justice to their individual constructs. For example, we cannot assume that the society’s structural perspective of gender feeds off (but not give back) on how each person, in isolation from others, defines themself gender-wise (personal perspective) nor can we say with utmost certainty that it works the other way and not back—that it is how the society “structures” women and men that would dictate how each individual must establish his/her sexual identity. These four perspectives, when analyzed with the four dimensions, tell us that gender is formed by a complex web of interrelationships where one perspective contributes and structures itself from the other three. To which we raise the question, which perspective should we, therefore, focus on in order to create an effect, large enough, to change the gender status quo?

It is the main argument of this paper that mathematics education has the potential to diminish gender gap if there is a conscious effort among educators to think about how the four perspectives and dimensions of gender discussed are developed within, among, and beyond the learner. Ironically, several practices in mathematics education remain to be threats to gender equity. This argument and the hurdles that mathematics education has to overcome are further elaborated in the rest of the paper.

Should we be satisfied with equality to access?

Fennema (2000) raised an interesting question relevant to the discussion of gender equity: Does equity mean providing equal opportunities for males and females to learn whether they avail of those opportunities themselves or not? If so, the implication is for mathematics courses, or education programs, in general, must be to not impose restrictions based on gender. Also, we must be able to rid the society of stereotypes that are biased toward one gender, textbooks, and other learning resources should portray males and females in identical roles, and girls and boys should have equal access to educational equipment and technology. It can be argued that most of these are relatively apparent in the exercise of education and yet this concept of gender equity as the ability to provide equal opportunities has yet to be achieved.

Take for example the case of the Philippines and how it faired in the Global Gender Gap Report (2017) of the World Economic Forum. The report presents information and data that were compiled and collected to capture the magnitude of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress over time. In the report, which focused on presenting the comparative analysis of the gender gap indices of 144 countries, the Philippines ranked tenth overall when countries are arranged from those which have the least gap in gender down to those whose social and political conditions are deemed to be less fair between the sexes. What is more interesting about the data is that while the country was assessed to have a perfect score in the educational attainment sub-index, it did not do as fairly well on two other sub-indices- economic participation and opportunity, and political empowerment both were not as strong. This implies that although some communities have evolved in thinking and have now cultivated an educational system that allows access to all learners, regardless of gender, women are still disadvantaged in terms of post-education opportunities and political participation.

When we examine the issue of gender equity in education, our discussions must not be limited to the kind of educational experiences learners gain within or as a result of their interaction in the classroom. This does not mean that we undermine the importance of these experiences to cultivate a culture of gender equity as these would ultimately lead to a greater impact on changing social perspectives in gender differences. However, discourse must go beyond to include the greater picture of what purpose (to what great end) we seek to achieve. Part of that process is evaluating how education contributes to equity of outcomes and equity of external results.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) published a report that presented gender equality in education to be a composition of four dimensions (Education From a Gender Equality Perspective, 2008): access, learning opportunities, educational outcomes, and external results. These dimensions possess another complex, nonlinear relationship. The report describes equality to educational outcomes as the state in which everyone, regardless of gender, is able to enjoy equal opportunities to achieve and outcomes are based on their individual talents and efforts. This implies that mechanisms for evaluating individual achievement should be free from gender bias to ensure fair chances that include academic qualifications.

Equality to external results is a social state where men and women, their access to resources, and their ability to contribute to, participate in, and benefit from economic, social, cultural, and political activities are equal. This implies that career opportunities, the time needed to secure employment after leaving full-time education, and the earnings of men and women with similar qualifications and experience are equal (United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 2008).

Going back to the statistics, the rest of the world is not much different from the case of the Philippines. Data showed that when all 144 countries are taken as a whole, 95 percent of the gender gap in terms of educational attainment is “closed” as compared to only 58 percent for economic participation and opportunity, and 23 percent for political empowerment (World Economic Forum, 2017). Moreover, a meta-analysis of literature would show that while females enroll in advanced mathematics courses at the same rate as their male counterparts, it remains uncertain whether females have had the same opportunity to apply math skills needed for success in related areas in areas such as science, engineering, and technology given the underrepresentation of females in these fields (Amelink, 2009).

This information gives a rather interesting picture of a society whose educational system does not discriminate learners based on gender but has yet to break the barrier that keeps in place discriminatory symbolic and structural perspectives that exist beyond that system – lines that set the limits of what a man or a woman must be, what they can do after acquiring education. Imagine a school that has one gate for entry but multiple gates for an exit, one of which is male-dominated than the other. These gates may not entirely be exclusive (meaning one can take any) but different gates nonetheless. People involved in education, practitioners, and philosophers alike, must realize that a true gender fair education goes beyond allowing equal entry (equality in access to education) and must, therefore, work towards eliminating the culture of segregation among genders. By unifying these “exit points” of education, we are able to free the society of gender stereotypes that hinder equality in terms of external results.

Gendered mathematics: how do we move beyond?

Developing education as a catalyst for gender equity requires that we revisit all aspects of learner thinking and interaction. The kind of interactions that contribute to gendered thinking vary across subjects and while areas under humanities directly concern themselves with this issue, we cannot undermine how learners’ exposure to other learning domains such as mathematics can make significant development in furthering gender equity. There are however challenges relative to the perception of mathematics that mathematics education must overcome first.

Several studies such as those conducted by Cvencek et al. (2011), Frenzel et al. (2007) and others that are cited in the succeeding paragraphs would explain that mathematics has, in fact, earned the symbolic gender of being more masculine than it is feminine. In general, older students stereotype mathematics more as a male domain (Brandell et al., 2003). Although a multitude of studies would confirm that there are no gender differences in math test performance between boys and girls in elementary school, differences favoring males were more evident in high school and in college (Hyde et al., 1990). This belief among female college students has made it difficult for them to associate mathematics with their being female (Nosek et al., 2002).

Studies such as that of Hansen (1991) as cited by Wedege (2007) found out that mathematics, with its emphasis on logic and precision, is symbolically considered by students to be masculine. Gaulin and Hoffman (1988) presented the argument that boys have and develop superior spatial skills giving them an advantage in math and that this advantage may be traced to an evolutionary foundation, as male tasks such as hunting may have required greater spatial orientation than typical female tasks. In addition, Berenbaum, et al. (2008) explain that it could be because boys tend to engage in play that is more movement-oriented and therefore grow up in more spatially complex environments.

These studies support the perception that mathematics, at least at the time when these studies were conducted, favors one sex over the other supports the idea that mathematics affects more than just the cognitive development of learners but also contributes to the biased expectations and views in society. It affects how a society shapes its definition of gender with respect to its four dimensions, making it necessary for mathematics education research to consider gender as a valid dimension. Indeed, Fischer (1993) views mathematics education research to be “the collective effort to study and to shape the relationship between humans, on the one hand, and mathematics, on the other.” Gender is a key dimension of that relationship as it encompasses societal, cognitive, and affective dimensions of human relations (Wedege, 2007).

In the recent years, the gender gap in mathematics has changed. The number of math and science courses taken by female high school students has increased and now the mean and standard deviation in performance on math test scores are only slightly larger for males than for females (Nierderle and Vesterlund, 2010). Whatever gap that remains to be abridged, substantial evidence would show that gender differences in mathematics performance are associated with gender differences in participation (Nosek et al., 2002)—participation that is associated primarily with the milieu that learners are exposed to, including gendered representations in textbooks and contexts of problems that favor the currently stereotyped masculine interests (Brugeilles and Cromer, 2009). Teacher interaction has also been considered a factor, in which case studies have documented that some math teachers who unconsciously choose to provide more opportunities for male learners to participate rendered their female counterparts less secure about their performance in mathematics (Fennema, 2000).

David et al. (2018) analyzed data relative to out-of-school children in the Philippines. They found that there is a disproportionate number of boys (in comparison to girls) who drop out of school due to peer influence and vices—alarming enough to suggest that the gender disparity among Filipino learners show males at a disadvantage. Similarly, the historical data gathered by Paqueo and Orbeta (2019) on the proportion of the Filipino population (25 years and older) who acquired a college degree shows that males outnumbered females until sometime in the early 1970s when the proportion became equal. Consistently after, the proportion of females have become greater, and in 2015, 19.76 percent of the female Filipino population graduated with a college degree in comparison to only 15.86 percent among males achieving the same. This, and several other contextual factors (e.g., social pressure on boys to earn an income in a patriarchal society such as that of the Philippines, possible bias of teachers who are dominantly female in the country) were used by the authors to argue that a reversal in gender bias has occurred and should be acknowledged in shaping the aims of equitable education moving forward—one that does not reduce bias in one gender at the expense of the other. It must be noted, however, that in both studies, gender was defined as the physiological state of being male or female.

In the case of a developing country such as the Philippines, poverty has a significant role in widening the gender disparity, When such factors are considered, attribution of the disparity to the greater susceptibility of male learners to be negatively influenced by peers and to succumb to vices, as well greater societal pressure for them to earn a living reflects the structural and symbolic. When males are symbolic providers of necessities but are not structurally supported by equitable education, they are likely to prioritize their other basic needs other than acquiring an education.

The studies previously cited show that gendered thinking is strengthened (or weakened) by the kind of interaction learners experience within the classroom, may it be with the teacher, the milieu, and others covered in the hidden curriculum. Albeit not all can be controlled, teachers must be conscious of the type of interactions learners are exposed to in class. Examining examples and their context in terms of whether these do not support stereotypes or enforce problematic gender roles can help learners associate themselves with the subject regardless of their gender identity. Ensuring that textbooks reflect a gender-fair society, one whose structural perspective to gender is unbiased can lead learners to develop a symbolic perspective of gender equity. Allowing learners to interact with one another without the thought that one gender dominates the other promotes an even playing field where all are given the equitable opportunities based on skills and competence.

These (un)gendered interactions shall greatly contribute to the development of a healthy interactional perspective to gender and does not impose on the personal gender perspectives of learners. By presenting mathematics as an area that knows no gender, we dissociate careers that rely heavily on mathematical expertise to being masculine, leading a new generation of professionals who are able to appreciate gender differences but not see them as an essential factor to how they perform in the society and what expectations are expected of them.

In the socio-cultural context of the Philippines, majority of studies in mathematics education that involve gender continue to focus on the physiological view. For example, Jolejole-Caube et al. (2019) inquired into the anxiety level and mathematics performance of Grade 7 Filipino learners and did not find enough evidence that point a statistically significant difference between male and female learners in terms of either anxiety or performance. Lacia et al. (2020) conducted similar research involving Filipino sixth- and tenth graders and found a different result. Capinding’s (2022) work during the COVID-19 pandemic determined that under modular distance learning, there was also significant difference between male and female high school students’ motivation for learning and mathematics anxiety.

Similarly, after introducing an intervention in a form of a game, Conte (2019) tested if there are significant differences in the levels of acceptability of the game and the mathematics performance of fifth- and sixth-grade learners and also found none.

In studying Filipino teachers’ and students’ perceptions of gender differences in various fields of education, Reyes et al. (2021) found that while there was a difference in perception between males and females on Technology, Agriculture, and Fisheries, there was none for Science and Mathematics. The study assessed and compared perceptions on education-related factors (i.e., objectives and outcomes of the program, faculty, curricula, instructional materials, procedures, and techniques, assessment and evaluation, and administrative support and policies) among the different fields. The differences in perception are attributed to the nature of tasks required in the field. For example, the researchers cite agriculture as male-dominated because of strenuous physical activities involved. Nonetheless, they also pointed the underrepresentation of women in these fields that are collectively referred to as STEAM. Thus, they recommended better policies that address gender disparity.

These studies are just some of the more recent in the Philippine academic literature that attempted to compare differences between males and females in relation to learning mathematics. While studies like these provide meaningful insights into what it means to be a male (or female) learner of math, they all defined gender as a biological construct instead of a socio-cultural variable that every learner has the ability to shape with their identity. This supports the argument that a considerable proportion of studies about Filipinos, their gender and their learning of mathematics, continue to conform to the conventional view of sex as point of comparison.

In an education system that is accessible to males and females, we need to look for explanations for the gender disparity elsewhere. Limiting comparisons between sexes does not allow us to probe these explanations. Interestingly, while most of the studies conducted draw on sex-based comparisons, recommendations point to the need to study the personal and interactional dimensions of gender while addressing issues with the structural and symbolic dimensions. For example, David et al. (2018) suggested that teachers must be allowed more flexibility to design interventions that address specific barriers for boys such as the use of manipulatives, tools, and experiments. These interventions may not just benefit males, but these may also have a similar effect on masculine learners. Although one can argue that such activities do not even have to be stereotyped to being masculine or feminine, we must recognize that gender roles will likely have an effect.

By refocusing the discourse on gender in mathematics, and education as a whole, from the simplistic view of sex differences to include all four dimensions of gender, we should be able to move forward with an education system that recognizes equity in terms of learning experiences (does my gender limit what I am allowed to experience), learning outcomes (does my gender limit what is meaningful to learn), and external results (does my gender limit who I can be as result of my education).

Concluding remarks

Gender, truly, is complex as a social construct. It is difficult to describe and almost impossible to measure, primarily because we base our definitions on how we understand current social norms. It is partly a result of the fact that these social norms continue to change that our discourse relevant to the issue of gender equity in education is transitioning, slowly going past seeking to understand differences, stereotyping gender expectations, and describing what it means to be male (or female) in the context of education – a research phenomenon described by Gutierrez (2008) as a gap gazing. This practice of seeking to document disparities in achievement based on social differences such as race and gender is rather unhelpful as it perpetuates deficit thinking: that our problem with gender equity is “technical” rather than a lack of social understanding.

The statistics mentioned in this paper may have shown that efforts to provide access to education, regardless of gender, has been successful, but the role of education in promoting gender equity must go beyond that. For researchers, it is important that studies contribute to decentralizing discourses on gender equity from a practice of cross-examining groups to discussions that focus on how education must be designed to change the current social perspectives. Discussions must consider the four dimensions of gender to define the state of gendered thinking and to describe what exactly do we mean by a gender-fair society.

Educators must take responsibility in becoming more perceptive of the interactions their learners are exposed to, whether planned or not, within and beyond the classroom. There must be a deliberate effort of assessing how these interactions contribute to the development of gendered thinking of learners as they continue to become functional citizens—people whose collective perception of gender sets the structural and symbolic perspectives to gender.

The paper also examined the case of the Philippines and how its socio-cultural perspectives of gender equity are more progressive as compared to other societies. This, however, must not deter the propagation of education research for gender equity as there are gaps in knowledge under this theme that need to be addressed. The next logical step is to change our view of gender to accommodate all four dimensions of structure, symbol, person, and interaction so we can address multileveled issues of equality to education. Only then can we truly move forward to a form of education that does not hide under equitable access to education while issues regarding other dimensions of gender are left unchallenged.