1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

Interview

Interview: Mom’s Special Recipe for Gender Equitable Science Education

Share on Tumblr

I’ve been worried about science. I don’t mean in the usual zombie plague or Skynet sort of way. I’ve been worried about science in the real world, which is honestly much scarier. The current US political climate doesn’t do much to make me feel confident about the future of research and exploration. I also read the same articles that you probably do, about how girls still need encouragement that they can do math and science at all, or how women scientists are ever-struggling for the recognition they deserve. It makes me nervous. I may not work in a lab, but I’m a huge science junkie, and I hope to raise a few little geeks of my own one day. I found myself in need of some reassurance that the next generation might yet turn out to be as science-loving as the rest of us.

I could have been a good writer and done some “research,” but instead I took the easy way out and defaulted to nepotism. I called my mom.

To be fair, my mom’s got some cred. Her name is Nicoline Chambers, and she’s the head of the science department at West High School in Torrance, California. Five years ago, she developed an astrobiology course for high school juniors and seniors. In her words, astrobiology “seeks to answer four questions: where did we come from, how did we get here, where are we going, and are we alone?” She’s given talks at a hefty selection of science and education conferences, including the Astrobiology Institute for Instructors at the University of Hawaii, and the Lunar and Planetary Institute’s Astrobiology Science Conference in Houston. She’s an Education and Public Outreach Consultant at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and she has been invited to speak at the National Association of Biology Teachers Convention on behalf of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. Last week, along with fifteen others, she was named Los Angeles County Teacher of the Year.

She also makes amazing pies, but that really only benefits me.

I chatted with my mom about science education and her views on gender equity within the sciences. In the interest of journalistic integrity, I should inform you that this is not the entire interview. Aside from editing for length, I have redacted the sections relating to the family dog.

When you were a student, did you ever run into the “girls can’t do math or science” thing?

Well, I have to tell you that the only person who I ever got the sense from that math and science were not something that girls in general should be good at was my own mother.

Wait, really?

Absolutely. It definitely colored my perspective on science, which, I’ll be honest, was not enhanced by the shoddy science education I got in middle school. I really did come into high school convinced that I hated science. Part of it, I know, was that my mother sent the message that science was something boys did.

Do you see belief in that stereotype present in your own students? How open would you say your girls are to a career in the STEM fields?

I don’t get the sense that they think they are limited because they’re girls. I think it’s more of a matter of personal interest. There are definitely girls who are very interested in the sciences, and boys who are as well, but I don’t think anybody looks at it as a gender difference. It’s just what you like to do.

Do you think that’s just the climate at your school, or do you think the stereotype is weakening?

I have a really hard time judging that because I don’t get much of an opportunity to go into other schools’ classrooms. I know it is a topic that gets talked about a lot, and I know that educators still perceive it as an issue elsewhere.

Women in science have never been well represented. I remember a textbook that just had a couple pages about “women in science,” and then four hundred pages of dudes. How do you go about educating your students about the women scientists out there?

It has to happen in bits and pieces. About a week ago, I asked my students to describe their mental image of a scientist. To nobody’s surprise, the picture that they described was old, white, male, lab coat, frizzy white hair, anti-social, no interpersonal skills. I try to do a lot of things to dispel that image. One of the first things I do is show them this wonderful film that I have called “Understanding Science.” It’s really just scientists of every color, age, gender, field workers, lab workers, whatever, geeking out about why they love science. Even though we don’t specifically focus on [the demographics], I do point out in passing all the different kinds of people that are professional scientists.

I also have a film on Einstein that talks about some of the women that are never mentioned in the books, particularly the very poignant story of how the physics behind nuclear fission was discovered. Otto Hahn won the Nobel Prize for it, but it was really his lab assistant Lise Meitner who figured it out. There are several other female characters in that film who the kids have never heard of, so I do have them write on that specifically.

What do your kids say about it?

They want to know why they haven’t heard about these people. They find it ridiculously unfair. I think some of them recognize that their exclusion was a reflection of the times. In the book Big Bang [written by Simon Singh] this is repeatedly brought up, these women who were relegated to assistant positions or not paid at all. The kids are really bothered by it. It’s a good history lesson for them, I think.

Other than that, I mainly tend to talk about my colleagues. I know a lot of scientists and educators of all different sizes and shapes, if you will, so I try to talk about all those people.

If the exclusion of women scientists was mainly a sign of the times, why do you think they’re still so under-represented?

That’s a very good question. I don’t know.

But things have changed a bit. I think the classic example is the story of how DNA was discovered. The two people who got the Nobel Prize were James Watson and Francis Crick, but they couldn’t have done it without the crystallography work of Rosalind Franklin, who was working in a neighboring lab. She wasn’t acknowledged for it until after she died. She is definitely in the textbooks now.

In some sense, the textbooks keep away from a lot of male figures, too. It really tends to be just the big, big icons. Einstein, Newton, Galileo. I also have to wonder, too, if part of the [gender disparity] is because the only people we see represented were the heads of their labs, so to speak.

Why do you think it’s important for kids to learn about science even if they don’t end up entering a scientific field?

We live in a world that is entirely depedent on science and technology. Who do you know in our first-world society that could function without it? Look at how science and technology leapfrog off of one another. It’s changing so fast that you can almost not keep up with it.

I know that for a fair contingent of my regular biology students, mine is the last formal science class they will ever take in their lives. A huge part of science education is not training anybody to be future scientists, but teaching people how to be science literate. If you are science literate, you then – as a consumer, voter and taxpayer – can make intelligent decisions about the way that science and technology are going to impact your life. How far do you want to go in keeping an elderly parent alive? How do you feel about public funding for stem cell research? Do you buy the genetically modified tomato in the grocery store? These are not issues that are going to come down the road, these are issues that are here now. If you don’t have some sense of science literacy, you’re either going to make bad decisions, or somebody who has a vested interest in one side or the other is going to manipulate you into making decisions that benefit them.

On the surface, an interdisciplinary subject like astrobiology sounds more like a college course. Why do you think it’s important to teach a class like that at the high school level?

Well, first and foremost, because they’re interested in it! Kids love looking up at the sky. Let’s face it, galaxies are beautiful, and black holes are scary and cool, and it’s all amazing out there! Kids like learning about amazing stuff. [laughter]

But the other factor was a realization that we teach biology, chemistry and physics extremely well, but none of it is any different than when I went to high school thirty years ago. The world has changed, and we weren’t doing as good a job as we could with keeping up with it. And we teach these foundational courses independently. You go to biology, and you learn your quota of biology stuff, and then you’re done. You close the little biology box in your brain, you go on to chemistry, and you close that box, too. You never allow the contents to mix. You never use it to create any kind of understanding. It’s no wonder kids aren’t inspired to go into science careers, because nobody ever made any real sense out of it for them. Astrobiology is so interdisciplinary that you have to put the pieces together. It’s really fun to hear the kids say, “Oh, that’s why I learned that!”

The other wonderful thing is that cutting edge science is changing practically daily. The neutrino thing the other day had me practically suicidal. People always make discoveries right in the middle of my teaching when I don’t have any time to change my lesson plans. [laughter] But it’s a great way of showing kids that not only do we not know everything there is to know, but we hardly know anything of what there is to know! There’s so much left for them to discover.

(Image credit: Hark! A Vagrant Editor’s Note: Psst. Kate Beaton’s Hark! A Vagrant book came out this week!)

Becky Chambers is a freelance writer and a full-time geek. She blogs over at Other Scribbles.

TAGS: | | | | | | | | |


  • http://revolvingdoorcommune.wordpress.com Teresa Jusino

    This is a really cool piece! It also taught me some female names in Science that I didn’t know! Thanks for this! :)

  • Anonymous

    Nicely written! 

    As a biologist, I’ve been somewhat pleased with the progress we’ve made during the decade I’ve been in the field.  In biotech, there’s now a rough sort of parity at the scientist level and below.  I still notice, however, that certain executives just don’t take female scientists as seriously as male scientists.  At my last job, models that a male colleague deduced without evidence were almost invariably treated as objective reality — no matter how fanciful — while contrary models that I’d proven with real data to a high statistical certainty would be argued about for months before being accepted.  It was… frustrating.  But that’s the worst bias I’ve personally encountered, and in the grand scheme of things it wasn’t all that bad.

    There still appears to be a huge barrier at the executive level, though.  I don’t have numbers (and I’m happy to be proven wrong, if someone else does) but it feels that, as women have found parity in the field of biology, the upper ranks at biotech companies are filled with fewer biologists and more engineers, chemists, and MD/PhDs — where women are more poorly represented.  I don’t think that there’s any conscious bias at work there, but I suspect that people’s impression of the field of biology (and what place a biologist has in management) is subtly colored by the relatively high ratio of women.  See also, the peculiar timing of the meme that biology is a “soft science”.

    That said, I’m still very pleased with the progress we’re making.  Women’s ideas are not automatically dismissed anymore.  Women’s resumes aren’t tossed just because they’re women.  Men in the field don’t express discomfort with the idea of working with women.  Biotech companies are rarely male-dominated at all levels.

    It’s getting better.  And it’ll continue to get better, for as long as we fight to make it better.

    And as for the current anti-science sentiment: it’ll pass.  Human beings are by nature inquisitive.  We can’t not be scientists.  We’ll always be searching for the truth of things, and marveling at the complex beauty of nature.  And right now, we’re living through what may prove to be the greatest technological and scientific renaissance in human history.  Hell, we’re communicating in a medium that represents a revolution in the way knowledge itself is propagated.  That scares some people, especially those who’ve benefited from the status quo, and there’s been a backlash.  It’ll pass.

    So, ummm, wow… that was a long and serious comment.  Sure didn’t mean to do that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Fitzgerald/100000045257462 Michelle Fitzgerald

    I think the anti-science backlash is a reaction of people of are afraid of change. Very often those who pursue higher education grow less religious the higher up they go. My own best friend went from a born again evangelical Christian to an agnostic-atheist indifferent with religion. All because he decided to become a psychologist. Imagine if he’d never taken that path where he had to consistently think about himself and others, their beliefs and why people have them.

    So for those who don’t get very far in their education they see the very educated as godless then blame science on it, which is partially true but beside the point. I think it will pass, but not before doing a whole lot of damage.

  • Kayla Martyn

    Your mom works at the academic rival of the high school I graduated from! And reading her interview was inspiring, especially because I’m now a woman studying science in college. Thank you!

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/2df4ccp

  • Anonymous

    I teach at a technological university where the women on campus still face a lot of skepticism from their male counterparts (and, sometimes, teachers and family).  These strong women reinforce for me every day the importance of sticking to your guns and doing what you love.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7G4SWUX2MCWWXLMYNN347JMIZY Frodo Baggins

    Great article, and a lot of excellent points. I question the usefulness of evaluating people’s view of the world based on this, though:
    “I asked my students to describe their mental image of a scientist. To nobody’s surprise, the picture that they described was old, white, male, lab coat, frizzy white hair, anti-social, no interpersonal skills.”
    Of course they’re going to imagine that. The default mental image of any idea is going to be a narrow stereotype. But most people recognize that it’s a stereotype. I doubt any of those students thought MOST scientists fit that description.

    If I ask you to picture a dog, you’re going to picture one specific breed. That doesn’t mean you assume all dogs are like that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Gorillazfan Emily Hill

    so sad I was an ace at math and Science when I was a kid the only class I failed at was sewing XD

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AOFTU2AM7WRZZFDC6SPN4XF6KQ Null

    Question for you:

    I’ve read one of the reasons keeping women away from STEM is the ‘geek factor’: i.e., not wanting to be around socially inept dudes.

    Now the odd thing is that some of the women I talked to (I knew them from nerd camp) actually mentioned these fields as a *refuge* from the popular girls, and were unhappy when their engineering-focused school had (likely in an attempt to even gender ratios) ‘let the cheerleaders in’. (Yeah, this was at MIT.)

    It’s possible, of course, these aren’t the same groups of women. Which story rings truer to you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/cordeliashoes Kay Rivera

    I’m Asian. And in case it’s of any interest to you and if it brings you any comfort, things can only be looking up in Asia at least. Many of the foremost names in the fields of pathology and molecular medicine are women, to name a few fields. Only recently, the department of health secretary in the Philippines–who has the power to hand down health-related protocols in a country full of infectious disease and natural disasters (and I say this affectionately, because I am Filipina)–was female. It’s something I honestly want to learn about–whether scientists in other parts of the world find it difficult to gain recognition in their fields–because honestly I have never encountered this problem in my country, where women are seen as more hardworking and girls generally have higher grades, even in science-related subjects. (And where, for example, the local MENSA chair is a female.) I hope it makes you feel better to know that the stereotype is not everywhere. 

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/3ct3pn6
    tinyurl.com/3tnmjr8

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6CPN2GB66MKR3DDA6SINFTQL2M nanette

    Finally – somebody (maybe I have missed other comments on this subject over the years) has explained that not only boys BUT ALSO girls are fascinated by science
     
    A  question posed to me (at age 7) that I remember all these years later, from a Careers Adviser, was “What would you like to do ‘Work in an office, or look at pond water through a microscope?’”……………….Pond water under a microscope won hands down !!

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/3ct3pn6

    tinyurl.com/3tnmjr8

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.com/3ct3pn6
    tinyurl.com/3tnmjr8

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_H77264ANIMBKYRLGXMAO7CJPNE Nuraini

    it varies. women are well represented in academia in my country. women do make up more of the graduate pool, after all. really the main issue is childrearing tends to happen in the same years as you would normally build your research networks and get phds. this is mainly what prevents more research being conducted by women, and so their male colleagues have a head start. but husbands of such women are increasingly becoming supportive and grandparents frequently help with children, such that we can perhaps keep our conventional social structures and still improve opportunities for women. and at the end of the day, some of this is still choice. also then much later, more high-ranking women opt for early retirement, again usually to enjoy more family time, but high-ranking men tend to opt to extend service, thus biasing the pool of experienced talent towards men. 

    in professions with more conventional work weeks like medicine, banking (the governor of our central bank is female), legal drafting and the judiciary, women are well represented up to the highest levels – plus they are all also conventionally ‘family women’, quite culturally typical mothers and grandmothers. and it does require the community to buy in, men and women. the familial culture helps, as women entrants to new fields often are taken in as ‘nieces’ or ‘daughters’ rather than rejected as threats.