This document summarizes a presentation on rethinking strategies for ensuring gender equality in education in light of neuroscience. It discusses three main strategies for achieving gender equality: through difference, through sameness, and "neither through difference nor through sameness." The presentation explores whether human brains are inherently masculine, feminine, or neutral, and implications for teaching, learning and assessment. Key points addressed include the strategy of "neither through difference nor sameness" being compatible with neuroscience, and its compatibility with alternative learning approaches beyond traditional schooling.

1. Presenter: Ts. Luvsandorj, prof
ULAANBAATAR
2018
Towards Reconsidering Strategies for Ensuring Gender Equality
In Education in the Light of Neuroscience
(literature reviews and thesis position)
Presented at the joint national conference on
sociological issues and solutions in education organized
by MSUE, NUM, EI, IFTD and EC on January 18-19,
2018

2. RESEARCH PROBLEM
 a question is whether boys and girls are provided with equal opportunities for being
advantaged and advanced by educational services such as:
 teaching,
 learning
 Assessing
according to the fundamental principles and ideas of social justice, namely,
 a fair distribution of good and service;
 equal access for opportunity, opportunity for participation and cost effectiveness (Skovsmose,O
1994)
 equity principle (Rescher1966, cited in Poonwasie&Ray (ed.), p.27),
 equality, gender equality in society (Byrne 1985,p.99; Eagleton 1998, p.50).

3. THREE STRATEGIES OR APPROACHES
 guaranteeing gender equality to some extent:
 gender equality through difference;
 gender equality through sameness (Evan 1995, cited in
Daniels,H et al 2001);
 neither ‘through difference’ nor ‘through sameness’ (my italics).

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Are human brains masculine or/and femininity or
neutral?
 Do human brains function neutrally or sensitively
against any effects driven by gender and sex?
 Do human brains in male (or female) organisms
bear masculine (or feminine) characteristics?
 Are human brains masculine or/and femininity or
neutral?

5. RESPONSES TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Human brains are structuring and functioning differently in
some areas and activities that are mostly associated with
biologically-anatomically-genetically distinguished attributes
between masculine and feminine body.
 No sufficient to reason that human brains are sexed and
gendered because of its incompleteness and
unsystematicness.
 as being human species, female and male brains bear huge
overlaps in terms of anatomy, biology and physiology.
 no two species are identical thus there are much more
individual differences rather than gender ones.

6. SOLUTION TO RESEARCH PROBLEM
 Human brains and its attributes are more individualized than
grouped and/or gendered;
 if the gender differences between human brains are observed,
those will be individual differences between a particular male and a
particular female rather than sex category differences.
 Thus, a question of whether or not human brains function
sensitively or neutrally against any effects by femininity and
masculinity remains still controversially according to literatures.

7. IMPLICATIONS INTO TO LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSING
 Two strategies such as gender equality through difference and
gender equality through sameness (Evan 1995; Eagleton 1998) well
recognized by criticisms emanated from
 civil right movement,
 feminist movement
 and ‘boy turn” movement

8. IMPLICATIONS INTO TO LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSING
 “Neither ‘through difference’ nor ‘through sameness’ (my italics) remains as an
alternative strategy
 “neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy on ensuring gender equality
in education compatible with neuroscience
 ‘Neither through difference nor through sameness’ strategy and alternative learning

9. IMPLICATIONS INTO TO LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSING
 a term, alternative learning has been used within and beyond
school context.
 Within school context, it is bounded up with terms such as:
 alternative school,
 alternative programme (Langel & Sletten 2002),
 alternative education (Nagata 2004) and alternative education program (Tobin &
Spraque1999)

10. IMPLICATIONS INTO TO LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSING
Beyond school, it is combined with other terms including:
 distance learning,
 open learning, e-learning (Waterhouse 2005),
 e-education (Ghaoui 2004),
 online learning (Shank 2007) and
 u-learning or mobile learning (Ogata & Yano 2003),
 non-formal
 in-formal learning (Colardyn & Bjornavold 2004).

11. References
Alloway, N; Gilbert, P 1997 Boys and Literacy: Lessons from Australia, Journals Oxford Ltd, p49
Arnold, P. A 2004, Sex Chromosomes and Brain Gender, Neuroscience, vol.5, September 2004, p.1.
Boghi, A et al., 2006, the effect of gender on planning: An fMRI study using the Tower of London Task, @ELSEVIER Inc.
Byrne, E,M 1985, Equality or Equity? A European overview, in Arnot, M (ed.), Race&Gender: Equal opportunities policies in education, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, p.99.
Daniels,H, Creese, A, Hey, V, Leonard,D, Smith, M 2001, Gender and Learning:equity, equality, and pedagogy, Support for Learning, vol.16.no.3, NASEN.
DeFelipe, J 1997 Types of neurons, synaptic connections and chemical characteristics of cells immunoreactive for calbindin-D28K, parvalbumin and calretinin in
the neocortex (review article), Instituto Cajal (CSIC), Avenida Dr. Arce, 37, 28002 Madrid, Spain,
Eagleton,T 1998, Five types of identity and difference, in Bennett, D (ed.), Multicultural States: Rethinking difference and identity, Claysl Ltd, Great Britain, p.50.
Langel, C,M & Sletten, S, J 2002, ‘Alternative Education: A brief History and research synthesis, prepared for Project Forum’, National Association of State
Directors of Special Education, US.
Mifsud, L 2002, ‘Alternative learning arenas-pedagogical challenges to mobile learning technology in education’, Proceedings of the IEEE international
workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, IEEE.
NAFTOLIN, F; LERANTH, C, HORVATH, T,L AND GARCIA-SEGURA, L, M 1996, POTENTIAL NEURONAL MECHANISMS OF ESTROGEN ACTIONS IN
SYNAPTOGENESIS AND SYNAPTIC PLASTICITY, CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY, VOL.16 1996, PP.213-223.
Ogata & Yano 2003 available in http://www-yano.is.tokushima-u.ac.jp/ogata/clue/).
Piaget,Jean 1968, Structuralism( Le Structuralisme, P.U.F, Paris.
(It was translated and edited by Chaninah Maschler ( London: Routledge & Kedal Paul, 1971 for its discussion of structuralism in the fields of mathematics ,logic
,biology, psychology ,linguistics, philosophy and the social sciences)
Poonwassie, D,H 1992, Perspectives on equality of opportunities in education, in Pooswassie,
D.H& Ray, D (ed.), Education & Cultural Differences, Garland Publishing, Inc, New York,
Roger, L 1999,Sexing the Brain,Weidenfeld&Nicholson, London.
Skovsmose, O 1994, Towards philosophy of critical mathematics education, Klumer Academic Publisher, p.28.
Warrior, B 2002, ‘Reflection of an Education professional’, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport &Tourism Education, vol.1,no.2, available in website:
www.hist.itsn.ac.uk/johlste.
Weaver-Hightower, M 2003,The “Boys Turn” in Research on Gender and Education, Review of Educational Research 2003. Vol.73, pp.471-498.