Gender Inequity in Science and Mathematics Education in Africa: The Causes, Consequences, and Solutions

Abstract

Introduction Science and technology have long been recognized as the cornerstone of development and prosperity of Africa. Economic prosperity of African countries is interlinked with its skillful utilization and management of science and technology. This underscores the importance of skilled human resources in the science, mathematics and technology fields in Africa. However, while the benefits of science and mathematics education for women in sustainable social and economic development are numerous in some major parts of the world, Africa still lags behind other continents in terms of provision of science and mathematics education for girls. Female education and training in Africa is generally characterized by lower performance and achievement levels than those of boys, especially in mathematics, science and other technical subjects (Gachukia & Kabira, 1991). A closer look at the factors reveals that the problem continues as it has not yet occupied a prominent place in Africa's educational circles. Several contributing factors are addressed in this paper and they include the early childhood environment, family expectations, societal image, gender stereotypes, and the school environment and gender issues in Africa. The paper further addresses the consequences of this disparity for Africa and finally offers some recommended solutions including accommodating various learning styles and perspectives, connecting science concepts to life experiences, promoting an environment of self-confidence and success, providing students with female role models, effective networking, advocating gender-fair materials, gender-based affirmative action, conducting workshops and in-service training for science teachers and finally advocating for effective official government polices and involvement. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER ISSUES Of late one of the most active debates in academia has been on nature versus nurture controversy and this dispute is so controversial the opposing sides almost never discuss them. It is in view of these different schools of thought that one finds Harvard's President Lawrence Summers' recent statement that women might be intrinsically disadvantaged in studying science and mathematics (Reid, 2003; Fogg, 2005a; Fogg, 2005b), which has generated strong public debate very fascinating. One school of thought about the differences between men's and women's brains believes Summers' remarks have merit because due to physical development of their brains, males have better developed visual spatial ability than girls (see Child & Smithers, 1971); thus, women suffer from a genetic deficit, and that biological differences between men and women really can account for some of the under-representation of women in some fields of science (See Gray, 1981). According to this philosophical framework, 'women lack the basic intellectual equipment' to profit from science education. Thus, they attribute gender inequity in academic performance in science and mathematics to genetics (Benbow & Stanley, 1980; Gray, 1981), and not surprisingly, individuals who subscribe to this position are reluctant to commit resources to serve the needs of women. However, another school of thought advocates that there is substantial research that provides clear and compelling evidence that women, like men, flourish in science when they are given the opportunity and a supportive environment. This scholarship had polished off the genetic deficit predisposition with a view that the sexes are equal enough in their intellectual abilities that any biological differences between them is vastly outweighed by social pressures and discrimination that discourage girls and women from pursuing science and mathematics (see Jahoda, 1979). Thus, to this paradigm, scientists are made not born as scientific knowledge requires years of education and training and that women lack behind because they do not have 'cognitively stimulating environment' for science education (; Linn & Hyde, 1989; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990; Kahle & Meece, 1994; Solomon, 1997; Xie et al. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.