Differences In Language Processing by Boys/Girls Appear Biological

[character]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303120346.htm

Boys And Girls Brains Are Different: Gender Differences In Language Appear Biological

[...]

For the first time -- and in unambiguous findings -- researchers from Northwestern University and the University of Haifa show both that areas of the brain associated with language work harder in girls than in boys during language tasks, and that boys and girls rely on different parts of the brain when performing these tasks.

"Our findings -- which suggest that language processing is more sensory in boys and more abstract in girls -- could have major implications for teaching children and even provide support for advocates of single sex classrooms," said Douglas D. Burman, research associate in Northwestern's Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders.

[...]

Or, an alternative explanation is that boys create visual and auditory associations such that meanings associated with a word are brought to mind simply from seeing or hearing the word. [emphasis added]

[...]

-----------

I wonder if this might explain why some males find the 'make up a story/image for a character' approach the best.

[tooironic]

Gender differences?

Don't they mean 'differences in sex'?

Here I was thinking that 'gender' was a societal construction...

[muyongshi]

Gender differences?

Don't they mean 'differences in sex'?

Forgive me if this is politically incorrect but: Is there a difference?????

I thought they meant the same thing....

[Lu]

From what I learned, sex is what you are physically and gender what you are mentally. You can have a penis and yet feel you're a woman, then your sex is male but your gender female.

But I suppose the writers of that article didn't know the difference either. It's pretty subtle, anyway.

[tooironic]

Yeah, I guess it's a subtle difference to people who are not learned about gender studies (not that I am, just saying it's not something a layperson might be aware of). At any rate, I'm always wary of so-called 'biological' differences in gender, especially ones which don't appear to take into account external factors such as environment, age, class, race, sexuality, etc.

[character]

From the article: "Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the researchers measured brain activity in 31 boys and in 31 girls aged 9 to 15 as they performed spelling and writing language tasks." So the study is based on observed differences in the brain, not social constructs, etc.

Perhaps the moderators can move or delete replies not relevant to the topic? Thanks!

This study is interesting because it would actually somewhat support the 'make up a story/image for a character' approach some people (not me) find valuable. It would be nice if this topic not get pulled off topic.

[gougou]

It would be nice if this topic not get pulled off topic.

I think the discussion of gender vs. sex is about done by now, so there's probably no need to split them to another thread. If you want to start a discussion about the article, it usually doesn't work to give an article and say "Discuss!"; you might need to give a bit more of a start (giving people a way to attack you is always a good way to start discussions online )

Given boys' sensory approach, boys might be more effectively evaluated on knowledge gained from lectures via oral tests and on knowledge gained by reading via written tests.

Shouldn't the goal of education be to have knowledge available via all channels? I would imagine testing knowledge obtained aurally in writing and knowledge obtained visually orally would be much better to control whether that goal was achieved.

[character]

I would imagine testing knowledge obtained aurally in writing and knowledge obtained visually orally would be much better to control whether that goal was achieved.

I think the article is saying that would disadvantage boys more than it would girls.

[trevelyan]

Really interesting article -- thanks for sharing. Common knowledge that women learn faster than men, but I hadn't read of any research like this before - nice to know people are looking into it!

As far as the gender vs. sex thing, the words were both in common use far before there was ever such a thing as gender studies, and will remain in currency long after there isn't. They mean the same thing.

[ipsi()]

I think the article is saying that would disadvantage boys more than it would girls.

Agreed. On the other hand, it does depend on why you're testing people. If you're testing people to check their level of ability, then Gougou's suggestion is probably the best. If boys do worse (I'm male myself), then that's just kind of unfortunate. Why is it necessary to account for innate imbalances due to gender or the like? It's like something I read about a while back - People felt that women were naturally disadvantaged in terms of their physical strength as compared to men, which meant that most couldn't become firefighters? So what did they do? They made it easier for women. And that's a really bad idea. I hope it's fairly obvious why: If you need to be strong enough to chop down a door to save someone's life, then why in the name of god would you accept someone who couldn't do that, and could thus get someone killed because they can't get through the door, or, worse yet, get themselves, plus the person they're carrying, killed because they're not strong enough to easily carry them? Yeah... The minimums are set not because they don't want women, but because they don't want people to die.

Probably the best use of this research won't be in testing boys though, but in teaching them.

If boys are currently being disadvantaged because of how they're taught, then that's probably something that should be remedied.

I'm also not sure I understand exactly what's going on:

The researchers found that girls still showed significantly greater activation in language areas of the brain than boys. The information in the tasks got through to girls' language areas of the brain -- areas associated with abstract thinking through language. And their performance accuracy correlated with the degree of activation in some of these language areas.

To their astonishment' date=' however, this was not at all the case for boys. In boys, accurate performance depended -- when reading words -- on how hard visual areas of the brain worked. In hearing words, boys' performance depended on how hard auditory areas of the brain worked.[/quote']

So the girls used the abstract part of the brain? What does this mean, really? Does this mean that they think about words in a different method? That they don't distinguish too much between written and spoken words?

Sounds like the boys may have trouble converting from spoken language to written language, but then, that doesn't sound right to me.

I guess I'm not sure exactly why it matters that they use different areas of the brain. As long as it's successfully processed, why does it matter which area did it?

[Lu]

People felt that women were naturally disadvantaged in terms of their physical strength as compared to men, which meant that most couldn't become firefighters? So what did they do? They made it easier for women. And that's a really bad idea. (...) The minimums are set not because they don't want women, but because they don't want people to die.

I can see where you're coming from, not sure if I completely agree though. Don't have time to go into this more now, so for now I just want to ask: are there any actual accounts of this happening? Did anyone ever die because a woman firefighter wasn't strong enough? Honest question.

I agree that good tests, that aren't biased of themselves, shouldn't be corrected for gender (or age, race, whatever). But then, how can you be sure a test isn't biased.

On the other hand, if a certain way of teaching disadvantages boys over girls with the same abilities, that way of teaching should be changed so that both have the same opportunities.

[character]

Probably the best use of this research won't be in testing boys though, but in teaching them.

I think it may also point to some things males could try when studying. Perhaps instead of separating study into reading, listening, etc., it should be combined to engage both vision and hearing. For example, reading a textbook dialog while listening to the audio for the dialog might be more beneficial than doing those activities separately. This could be esp. important with Chinese, where there isn't a reliable link from a character to its sound and vice versa.

So the girls used the abstract part of the brain? What does this mean, really?

My guess is that they are quicker to internalize the concept of the word, and can more often recognize a written word (in English) that they've only heard before, and vice versa.

My Chinese skills are still minimal, but my reading skills are far better than my listening/speaking skills. The article makes me wonder if this problem is not just the kind of study I've been able to do most, but is also amplified by how male brains may process information.

[gougou]

On the other hand, if a certain way of teaching disadvantages boys over girls with the same abilities, that way of teaching should be changed so that both have the same opportunities.

I agree, the way of teaching obviously should not disadvantage anybody.

The way of testing, however, should always measure the same. If guys are slower in languages, so be it, they'll have to work harder. In the end, the best marks should go to those with the best skills, not to those that worked hardest for them. (And in the end, I guess it evens out when boys are better in maths or something).

[here2learn]

from Character:

I wonder if this might explain why some males find the 'make up a story/image for a character' approach the best.

But females do too. Is there a study that shows males prefer to make up stories & images for characters more than females do? And what's the alternative anyway, just memorizing where all the little lines go? How do people who don't imagine stories or images remember them?

If anyone is great at hanzi and doesn't associate any images with them, could you please explain how you remember them?

Also, when talking about sexual matters, it's almost always said that men are more visual than women; they get pleasure from seeing a woman or seeing sex. Surely this must be related?

from ipsi():

So the girls used the abstract part of the brain? What does this mean, really? Does this mean that they think about words in a different method? That they don't distinguish too much between written and spoken words?

I thought about that... I think maybe learning words in an abstract way might mean we don't associate the words with a graphical written word or the sound necessarily... a word is simply the thing it represents. There's a feeling and a knowledge associated with every word, it's invisible. Maybe that's what they're talking about?

When I think the word LOVE in my mind, I don't see the word. I don't pay attention to the sound of it... I briefly get the feeling of the meaning of love. Women are supposedly more emotional too, right?

So maybe this is what we're on to....

?

When I just thought the word PHONE (I wanted to try an unemotional word) the first thing that came to mind was the image of my cellphone, the shape and color, and the feeling of my fingers pushing the buttons. No letters p-h-o-n-e, no sound really, though there was some because I somehow have to say the word in my mind.

Also, I think there's a thread about what kind of learner you are (kinesthetic [me], auditory, visual, etc)... could be an interesting thread to relate to this one. If I find it I'll link to it here.

Interesting, because in that little test/survey I was NOT a reader or listener, I was mostly kinesthetic (touch) and quite visual too. And look what happened when I thought those words above.

Anyone else want to try? Think a few words and tell us what happens in your mind. (and if you're male or female, to go along with the article)

[character]

And what's the alternative anyway, just memorizing where all the little lines go? How do people who don't imagine stories or images remember them?

I do it by memorization, using flashcards (Pleco). I imagine it would help to write them out, but it's certainly possible for some to learn to recognize characters without stories/images.

Also, when talking about sexual matters, it's almost always said that men are more visual than women; they get pleasure from seeing a woman or seeing sex. Surely this must be related?

Perhaps, but it's something for another topic. Let's try to keep this topic on how studying Chinese may be affected by differences in language processing by boys/girls.

[muyongshi]

And what's the alternative anyway, just memorizing where all the little lines go? How do people who don't imagine stories or images remember them?

I have never associated a character with a story for the sake of remembering. However after I have already learned it, every now and then my friend and I will make up stories about it but even more frequently we create characters based on radical meanings and have the other guess what the meaning of the character is. For example a 四点水 under a 城 meant Armageddon or Sodom and Gomorrah.

I just simply memorize the character based on radicals or just by looking at it. I usually only have to look at it careful for a minute or so and then am able to reproduce it and after reproducing it I won't forget it (notice that I am a kinistetic learner and a horrible speller)

[Lu]

For me (F) words are mostly just words. When I read a book, the people in the book usually never get a face for me, they remain their name and their name only. (Not sure if this is related to the fact that I am good at names but terrible at faces. I often manage to not recognize someone I had a long conversation with days earlier.) Now that I try thinking of a few random words (mother, lamp, house) I do get an image, but when I read a story or article I 'read' it happening more than I 'see' it happening. I think.

In remembering characters, I have made up stories sometimes, but usually I just remember how the lines go, and after some time, which radicals are in it and where they go.

[character]

Just an aside:

For me (F) words are mostly just words. When I read a book, the people in the book usually never get a face for me, they remain their name and their name only. (Not sure if this is related to the fact that I am good at names but terrible at faces. I often manage to not recognize someone I had a long conversation with days earlier.)

Lu - you may have some degree of face blindness, a fascinating condition I only heard about recently.

[sui.generis]

Really interesting article -- thanks for sharing. Common knowledge that women learn faster than men, but I hadn't read of any research like this before - nice to know people are looking into it!

It's actually been very controversial to say that any (non-physical) differences between the sexes are biological for some time. There was a worldview (the 100% nurture worldview) in most of the soft sciences that refuses to entertain the notion. It's not that they simply disagreed with the idea, it's that there was an attempt to silence anyone who might suggest it, thus repressing scientific progress. It wasn't politically correct (and no one wanted to be branded a sexist and a hate monger), so it wasn't researched.

It's only in the past 10 years or so that any progress has been made on this front. Even now, especially in academic environments, you have to be careful what you say and when you say it.