In response to Joseph's point
I suspect nothing, and at the same time, I suspect everybody. *G*
Okay, in response to your "girl" strategies (and if somebody has a better
name for the technique, please tell me) maybe working for some boys, I
don't doubt it. At the same time, I have seen several strategies that many
claimed worked for girls, but didn't work for me and hindered me.
Give you an example: In several classes, we have team projects. The idea
is to work in a team on a programming project. Sounds easy, and in theory
it is. One person designs the Graphical interface, one designs the part of
the program that accesses the database, and so on. We all use standard
functions so that others in our group can easily use our part of the code.
Or at least, that is how it is supposed to work. In reality, what I have
experienced with, say, a group of five is this: one becomes the leader,
two become the followers, and one is the slacker. It's happened with boys,
it's happened with girls, with a male and a female in each and every one of
the roles. Nobody gets along, I learn little, and the teacher gets less
stuff to grade at the end of the class.
Moral of the story: just because something is touted as the next step on
the path to equality doesn't necessarily mean it will work for everybody.
John Meyer <john_meyer@geocities.com>
>>>
In reply to:
>That is a very interesting question and has come up regarding Women's
>Ways of Knowing and the educational strategy it suggests. I suspect that
>most would benefit from such "girl" strategies.
>Joseph Bellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 24 2000 - 11:53:41 EST