In terms of science teaching pedagogy, we agree with Roychoudhury, Tippins, and Nichols (1995) that (a) students should be allowed time for in-depth study, (b) students ought to be given the freedom to pursue their own interests, and (c) more student direction should be a part of the curriculum. We also agree that differences in social expectations and experiences may give rise to different learning experiences and preferred learning styles for men and women. While we accept the observational data describing different behaviors of males and females, we are concerned with its interpretation. It appears that the authors take female groups' collaborativeness and the celebrated "women's ways of knowing" at face value. Several feminist scholars, including Tavris (1992) and have offered theories quite different from the "women are from Venus and men are from Mars" arguments of popular culture. Both Tavris and Wolf argue that females' lack of power is the underlying reason for observed behavioral gender differences.
We would argue that in trying to remedy the situation, girl collaborative groups help assure that differences between male and female learning styles become increasingly wider. According to Tavris (1992), the need for collaboration is not a female skill but a self-protective one; gender differences diminish when both sexes are equal in power. A major goal of preservice education should be to empower teachers to select instructional strategies based on meeting educational goals, rather than on gender. It may be the case that females will learn science more effectively if female-friendly strategies are used; however, there needs to be more research with this question before we can make that assumption.
It is our contention that using a gender-inclusive teaching strategy, as suggested by Roychoudhury et al., keeps elementary school girls focused on their supposed different personality qualities. Instead of allowing for each student to develop the cognitive abilities necessary to understand and do science, this strategy may end up supporting the flawed belief that there is a girl's way and a boy's way of doing science. We have both worked with young girls in an individualized science and mathematics program where this supposed propensity is not observed.