学生如何批判性地评价生物学中与性别有关的过时语言?

IF 4.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Ryan D P Dunk, Sarah J Malmquist, Kristina K Prescott, Sharday N Ewell, Jeremiah A Henning, Cissy J Ballen
{"title":"学生如何批判性地评价生物学中与性别有关的过时语言?","authors":"Ryan D P Dunk, Sarah J Malmquist, Kristina K Prescott, Sharday N Ewell, Jeremiah A Henning, Cissy J Ballen","doi":"10.1187/cbe.23-07-0125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cisheteronormative ideologies are infused into every aspect of society, including undergraduate science. We set out to identify the extent to which students can identify cisheteronormative language in biology textbooks by posing several hypothetical textbook questions and asking students to modify them to make the language more accurate (defined as \"correct; precise; using language that applies to all people\"). First, we confirmed that textbooks commonly use language that conflates or confuses sex and gender. We used this information to design two sample questions that used similar language. We examined what parts of the questions students modified, and the changes they recommended. When asked to modify sample textbook questions, we found the most common terms or words that students identified as inaccurate were related to infant gender identity. The most common modifications that students made were changing gender terms to sex terms. Students' decisions in this exercise differed little across three large biology courses or by exam performance. As the science community strives to promote inclusive classrooms and embrace the complexity of human gender identities, we provide foundational information about students' ability to notice and correct inaccurate language related to sex and gender in biology.</p>","PeriodicalId":56321,"journal":{"name":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","volume":"23 2","pages":"ar24"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11235110/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?\",\"authors\":\"Ryan D P Dunk, Sarah J Malmquist, Kristina K Prescott, Sharday N Ewell, Jeremiah A Henning, Cissy J Ballen\",\"doi\":\"10.1187/cbe.23-07-0125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cisheteronormative ideologies are infused into every aspect of society, including undergraduate science. We set out to identify the extent to which students can identify cisheteronormative language in biology textbooks by posing several hypothetical textbook questions and asking students to modify them to make the language more accurate (defined as \\\"correct; precise; using language that applies to all people\\\"). First, we confirmed that textbooks commonly use language that conflates or confuses sex and gender. We used this information to design two sample questions that used similar language. We examined what parts of the questions students modified, and the changes they recommended. When asked to modify sample textbook questions, we found the most common terms or words that students identified as inaccurate were related to infant gender identity. The most common modifications that students made were changing gender terms to sex terms. Students' decisions in this exercise differed little across three large biology courses or by exam performance. As the science community strives to promote inclusive classrooms and embrace the complexity of human gender identities, we provide foundational information about students' ability to notice and correct inaccurate language related to sex and gender in biology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cbe-Life Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"23 2\",\"pages\":\"ar24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11235110/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cbe-Life Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-07-0125\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-07-0125","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

顺异性恋意识形态渗透到社会的方方面面,包括本科科学。我们提出了几个假定的教科书问题,并要求学生对这些问题进行修改,使语言更加准确(定义为 "正确;精确;使用适用于所有人的语言"),从而确定学生在多大程度上能够识别生物教科书中的顺反规范语言。首先,我们确认教科书中使用的语言通常混淆了性和性别。我们利用这些信息设计了两道使用类似语言的样题。我们研究了学生对问题的哪些部分进行了修改,以及他们建议的修改内容。当被要求修改教科书样题时,我们发现学生们认为最常见的不准确的术语或词语与婴儿的性别认同有关。学生们最常见的修改是将性别术语改为性别术语。学生们在这一练习中的决定在三门大型生物课程或考试成绩中差别不大。随着科学界努力促进包容性课堂并接受人类性别认同的复杂性,我们提供了有关学生注意和纠正生物学中与性和性别有关的不准确语言能力的基础信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Do Students Critically Evaluate Outdated Language That Relates to Gender in Biology?

Cisheteronormative ideologies are infused into every aspect of society, including undergraduate science. We set out to identify the extent to which students can identify cisheteronormative language in biology textbooks by posing several hypothetical textbook questions and asking students to modify them to make the language more accurate (defined as "correct; precise; using language that applies to all people"). First, we confirmed that textbooks commonly use language that conflates or confuses sex and gender. We used this information to design two sample questions that used similar language. We examined what parts of the questions students modified, and the changes they recommended. When asked to modify sample textbook questions, we found the most common terms or words that students identified as inaccurate were related to infant gender identity. The most common modifications that students made were changing gender terms to sex terms. Students' decisions in this exercise differed little across three large biology courses or by exam performance. As the science community strives to promote inclusive classrooms and embrace the complexity of human gender identities, we provide foundational information about students' ability to notice and correct inaccurate language related to sex and gender in biology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cbe-Life Sciences Education
Cbe-Life Sciences Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
13.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). The journal was launched in spring 2002 as Cell Biology Education—A Journal of Life Science Education. The ASCB changed the name of the journal in spring 2006 to better reflect the breadth of its readership and the scope of its submissions. LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The ASCB believes that learning in biology encompasses diverse fields, including math, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, and the interdisciplinary intersections of biology with these fields. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信