Session Information
ERG SES H 03, Gender and Education
Paper Session
Contribution
Nowadays promoting equity is one of the fundamental values of Chinese educational policies.However,the issue of gender equity,especially gender differences in education, is still overlooked by national policies and school education,particularly for the group of floating children[1] in urban primary schools or even migrant children school. What is the status quo of the gender differences of floating children in schools today, especially in migrant children schools? Does the group of floating children vary the same ways in gender difference as in social stratification and by Shanghai local culture? Is this gender difference relevant to the variation of school quality or school locations? Especially relevant to Chinese national and local educational policy, even the different ways of implementation by district policy? Why is there the learning difference between boys and girls, etc? Does it the same representation on gender between Shanghai local students’ performance and migrant children’s performance? Based on the five dimensions of education quality by UNESCO ( Learner,Environments,Content,Processes and Outcomes) ,we try to use learning process to explore and analyze the status quo of gender difference in Shanghai primary schools today,and then attempt to explain why the gender gap is so great in school education for the floating population in Shanghai urban primary schools, especially in migrant children schools.
[1] China requires all citizens to hold a hukou (or residence permit), which is a passport-like document issued by a family’s province of origin. It serves the purpose of rationing social services, including health care and education. Students who do not have a hukou for Shanghai are referred to as ‘migrant’ children or “floating children”. With the dual educational system, public schools should be the major channel for the education of migrant children. However, within the present dual-household system, it is a paradox for the residence province to take the responsibility for the education of migrant children.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Burton,L. 1996. A Socially Just Pedagogy for the Teaching of Mathematics. Patricia F. Murphy and C. V. Gipps. Equity in the Classroom:Towards Effective Pedagogy for Girls and Boys. London:Falmer Press. 136-145; Drudy, S. & Chatáin, M. 2002. Gender Effects in Classroom Interaction: Data Collection, Self-Analysis and Reflection. Evaluation and Research in Education 16(1): 35-50. Georges Felouzis. 1993. Interactions en class et réussite scolaire: Une analyse des différences filles-garçons. Revue française de sociologie 34(2) : 217. Hutchinson, L., & Beadle, M. 1992. Professors’ communication styles: How they influence male and female seminar participants. Teaching & Teacher Education 8: 405–418. Joachim Tiedemann. 2002. Teachers’ gender stereotypes as determinants of teacher perceptions in elementary school Mathematics. Educational studies in mathematics 50:1. 49-52. Jones, S. & Dindia, K. 2004. A Meta-Analytic Perspective on Sex Equity in the Classroom. Review of Education Research 74(4): 443-471. Jones, S. Myhil, D.l. 2004. ‘Troublesome boys’ and ‘Compliant girls’: gender identity and perceptions of achievement and underachievement. British Journal of Sociology of Education 25(5): 547-561. Keith S. Taber. 1992. Girls’ interactions with teachers in mixed physics classes: results of classroom observation, International Journal of Science Education 14:2, 166. Kelly A.. 1988. Gender differences in teacher-pupil interactions: a meta-analytic review. Research in education 39: 1-24. Lahire, B., 2013. Dans les plis singuliers du social-Individus, institutions, socialisations. Paris: La Découverte.116. Myhill, D. 2002. Bad boys and good girls? Patterns of interaction and response in whole class teaching, British Educational Research Journal 28: 345-347. Michael Younger, Molly Warrington, and Jacquetta Williams. 1999. The gender gap and classroom interactions : Reality and Rhetoric?. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(3): 335. Susanne M. Jones and Kathryn Dindia. 2004. A Meta-Analytic Perspective on Sex Equity in the Classroom. Review of Educational Research 74(4): 443–471. Younger, M., Warrington, M. & Williams, J. 1999. The gender gap and classroom interactions: reality and rhetoric?, British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(3): 328-329. Younger, M. and Warrington, M. 1996. Differential achievement of girls and boys at GCSE: some observations from the perspective of one school, British Journal of Sociology of Education 17: 307. Skelton, C., Carrington, B., Francis, M., Hutchings, B. Read, B. & Hall, I., 2009. Gender ‘matters’ in the primary classroom: Pupils' and teachers' perspectives. British Educational Research Journal 35:2, 201. Susanne M. Jones, and Kathryn Dindia. 2004. A meta-analytic perspective on sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research 74: 443-471.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.