Gender Equity In the Classroom and the

Effect of Conscious Inhibition of Gender Bias

Lisa Stiles

Lyon College

Abstract

This study investigated whether or not teachers would consciously inhibit gender stereotypes if they knew they were being observed for gender bias in the classroom. Six student teachers were observed twice during a two-week time period. Half of these teachers were told the purpose of the study before their second observation. Data were gathered and analyzed to see if there was evidence of a difference in interactions between teachers and students when the teachers had been told the intent of the study as compared to when the teachers had not been told the purpose of the study. Teachers who were aware that observers were focusing on gender were able to produce more equitable classrooms in terms of interaction type, interaction content, and the number of interactions initiated to females as compared to males.

Gender Equity In the Classroom and the

Effect of Conscious Inhibition of Gender Bias

Great interest in gender equity within U.S. public schools has arisen since the American Association of University Women (AAUW) published an extensive research article titled How Schools Shortchange Our Girls in 1992. This article argued that girls are subject to an inequitable education compared to boys. Although this watershed report catalyzed many public schools to promote gender equity in the classroom, gender bias is still an ever-present problem (AAUW, 1998).

Girls are often faced with contradictory expectations as they oscillate between ideas about gender and the social settings they function in each day. They may be forced to be aggressive to push away aggressive males, yet they must be non-aggressive to meet the expectations of their teachers. Girls also receive conflicting messages about putting domestic life first and preparing themselves for careers. While the literature discusses the detrimental effects of gender inequity, it is not clear how educators might reform in this area (AAUW, 1996).

Gender gaps are glaringly apparent in reports of enrollment in male-dominated classes such as physics and chemistry. And it is only fair to note that males are outnumbered in subjects such as sociology, foreign languages, and fine arts. Gender gaps, in favor of males, also persist on standardized tests used in college admissions, such as the American College Testing Program (ACT). However, a writing section added to the Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (PSAT) in 1997 raised girls’ scores and narrowed the gender gap (AAUW, 1998).

Gender equity is necessary if all students are to achieve the highest standards possible. However, teachers are unprepared to create gender-equitable classrooms. The AAUW reports that teachers receive very little training regarding gender equity from schools of education. The most time spent on gender equity was two hours per semester. And one-third of teacher education courses spent one hour or less focusing on gender equity in the classroom (AAUW, 1998).

The American Association of University Women’s 1992 report documented that females receive less attention from teachers, and the interactions females have with their teachers are often negative or contradictory. The response by females to these interactions is less participation in class and lack of self-confidence. The differential treatment given to males and females within the classroom sends a subtle but salient message to females that high academic achievement is a male-dominated arena (Jones, Evans, Byrd, & Campbell, 2000).

Sadker and Sadker (1994) suggested that the expected good behavior of girls allows the teacher to spend more time with the more "difficult-to-manage boys" (p. 44). Time devoted to the males results in minimal time and help for the females, who are less likely to demand interaction or offer fewer challenges. Teachers’ interactions have been categorized into four types: praise, remediation, criticism, and acceptance. Although boys often receive remediation, which encourages expansion and enhancement of thinking, girls more often receive accepting interactions, which only offer a brief acknowledgement of accuracy, more than all other interaction types combined (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).

Research done for a prime time news show, Dateline, with the assistance of the Sadker & Sadker, studied sexism within the classroom. The reporters told the teacher being featured that they would be studying her class for sexism, and they assumed that this would reduce the amount of sexism displayed by the teacher. Instead, the teacher continued to evidence sexism within her class, seemingly because she could not inhibit the gender bias (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).

Other research suggests that when presented with the lack of gender equity in the classroom teachers may be able to inhibit their automatic gender biases and replace them with responses that promote the achievement of all students (Devine, 1989). Classic and contemporary theorists have proposed that prejudice is an unavoidable response to stereotyping. Thus, as long as stereotypes exist, prejudice will follow. Prejudices, such as gender biases, are usually considered to be automatic processes that occur despite attempts to avoid them. Research suggests that if automatic processing conflicts with conscious expectations, subjects can inhibit the automatic response and replace it with one consistent with their expectations (Devine, 1989). Further research has demonstrated that subjects’ descriptions of self and others reflect generally accepted views of gender-linked attributes when gender is not presented as a relevant issue. But, when gender is evidently salient, subjects inhibited their stereotypical automatic responses with modern views of gender-linked attributes (Devine, 1989). This study examined whether or not teachers could inhibit gender biases when informed that their classrooms were being observed for gender biases.

Method

Six European-American student teachers (three men and three women) from Lyon College who taught secondary-level classes in two local school districts were observed. They taught a variety of classes: English, Spanish, Algebra II, chemistry, and history.

Each teacher’s class was observed twice within a two-week time period, and each observation lasted 45 minutes. Immediately before the second observation, three of the teachers, who were selected randomly, were told that their classes were being observed for gender equity. These teachers were asked not to discuss the focus of the observation with other student teachers. The purpose of this was to ensure that the student teachers who had not been told would remain uninformed. Two of the three teachers randomly selected to be told the focus of the observation were female.

The Interactions for Sex Equity in Classroom Teaching (INTERSECT) observation form for research on classroom interactions was used to record data (M. Sadker, Bauchner, D. Sadker, & L. Hergert, 1982, see Appendix). Following the guidelines designated in the INTERSECT Observer Manual, each 45-minute classroom observation was divided into three parts. The first five minutes were spent noting the students’ and teachers’ race and gender, and sketching a seating chart. Each student was assigned an identification number on the seating chart so that which student initiated an interaction or which student was initiated to could be noted on the INTERSECT observation form. The next 30 minutes involved recording interaction information based on the categories designated on the INTERSECT observation form. The final ten minutes of the observation were used to record tone setting incidents, which were defined as incidents that "create a classroom climate that is detrimental or that is conducive to the attainment of sex equity in classroom interactions" (Sadker et al., 1982, p.34).

The chart used during the 30-minute segment of the observations divides interactions into the following categories: teacher initiates to, how initiation is made (i.e., raising hand, moving, or calling out), student initiates to, public or private interaction, interaction type (i.e., praise, acceptance, remediation, or criticism), comments, and ancillary teacher behavior. Ancillary teacher behavior could be an attribution, which refers to statements made by the teacher that imply why a student succeeded or failed, or a short circuit, which refers to a teacher taking over a student’s task rather than giving the student instruction on how to complete the task. Each of the four interaction types is divided into four content areas: intelligence, conduct, appearance, and other. Appearance is further delineated by the addition of a "W" to the upper right. This "W" is in reference to work. Hence, if the "W" is circled, the content of the interaction addressed the appearance of the student’s work. These content areas designate what each interaction addresses (Sadker et al., 1982).

The interaction types represent a range of highly positive to highly negative interactions. When categorizing interactions it was often important to consider the content and intonation of the teacher’s voice. For example, there is a difference in, "Right!," which would be coded as praise, and "Right," which would be coded as acceptance. Praise was considered to be a highly positive teacher reaction. An accepting interaction demonstrates acceptance or approval of the accuracy of a student behavior or characteristic. Remediation is a type of interaction that encourages the student to correct an inappropriate or inaccurate characteristic or behavior in the most positive way possible. The criticism category is used to record highly negative teacher reactions that denote strong disapproval (Sadker et al., 1982).

Ancillary teacher behaviors were also recorded, but this information was not used in the analyses of the data. The attributions segment of the ancillary teacher behavior is divided into "A," or ability attributions, "Eff," or effort attributions, and "X," or external attributions. Ability attributions refer to comments made by a teacher that suggest that a student’s success or failure in academic work is due to his or her level of ability. Effort attributions refer to teacher comments indicating that a student succeeded or failed due to the amount of effort he or she put forth. Teacher comments suggesting success or failure based on factors external to ability or effort (e.g., illness or guessing) were considered to be external attributions (Sadker et al., 1982).

Results

Discussion

As prior research suggested, interactions differed significantly when teachers were told that gender equity was the focus of classroom observations as compared to the interactions of teachers who were not told the observer’s purpose. The coded interactions evidenced significant differences between the two groups of teachers (told versus not told) for interaction type, interaction content, and number of initiations in regard to gender. Thus, teachers who were aware that observers were focusing on gender were able to produce more equitable classroom interactions. These data support the theory that biases can be consciously inhibited.

The data also supported prior research in other areas as well. As the Sadkers suggested, a significant difference was evidenced between student gender and interaction type. Males consistently receive more praise and remediation than females. And females consistently received more acceptance and criticism. These data are a cause for concern because accepting interactions, unlike remediation, do not encourage expansion and enhancement of thinking. Thus, when females consistently receive accepting interactions they are not receiving an equitable education in comparison with the males. These results are similar to the results that the Sadkers have found in their research, which emphasizes how much more remediation males receive in comparison to females (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).

Teachers initiated significantly more to females when they were told the observer’s purpose. This difference is noteworthy because even though one cannot say with absolute certainty that this difference is due to conscious inhibition, it is likely that the teachers were trying to interact more with the females while still continuing their interactions with the males in order to create a more gender equitable classroom. These data are also concerning because when the teachers were told of the observer’s purpose not only did the teachers initiate more than expected to females, but they also initiated less than expected to males. This situation reflects the teachers’ prior knowledge in regard to gender bias because they automatically assume that more emphasis should be placed upon interacting with females in their classrooms when they are told that gender equity is the focus of the observation. Thus, teacher educators should be cautious to emphasize the necessity for teachers to interact equally in amount of interactions with male and female students, as well as in regard to type and content of interactions.

The teachers may also have consciously inhibited other types of behavior when they were aware of the observer’s objective. Evidence for this possibility was shown in the differences among teachers in public versus private interactions and the amount of initiations by students as compared to initiations by the teacher in each class. However, not every teacher who was told the observer’s purpose produced significant differences in these types of interaction. Thus, individual differences amongst teachers must be considered in an observational study, because these differences can greatly impact the results. It is also important to note that in some areas, such as interaction type, there was no significant difference among interactions displayed by every teacher, which shows continuity in this aspect of their teaching styles.

There were several possible problems involving the collection of the data that must be acknowledged. When conducting observational studies, the researcher must always consider the possibility of observer bias. In regard to gender research, the data collector may present alpha bias, which assumes that females and males are opposites and thus have mutually exclusive traits (Yoder, 1999). Or, the data collector may present beta bias, which is the belief that differences are minimal and that similarities should be the emphasis (Yoder, 1999). In this study, the observer may have been more prone to present alpha bias due to the evidence presented in much of the literature regarding gender equity. However, the observer did make an effort to consciously inhibit any possible biases. Future studies using an observer who is blind to the study’s purpose would be beneficial.

Another possible problem with the data is that the data collector did not receive observer training. The data collector did thoroughly read the observer’s manual but had no opportunity for training. It is also possible that the data collector may have missed some interactions. Trying to record information on every interaction occurring between an entire class of students and a teacher for thirty minutes can be difficult at times, especially if the students are engaging in a large group activity with the teacher. Videotaping the classes would be an alternative that would allow the observer more time to code each interaction.

Another possibility for future research would be to analyze the data in regard to individual students. Because each student was assigned an identification number to designate who initiated or who was initiated to, it would be possible to analyze differences among the males’ interaction styles and differences among the females’ interaction styles. This perspective would also present evidence for or against the notion that there are more differences within a group than there are between groups.

Further research could also look at the difference between gender bias displayed by teachers who have undergone a training course in preventing gender bias and the gender bias displayed by teachers who received no gender equity training in addition to their regular teacher education courses. A teacher who has thorough training is probably more able to effectively promote gender equity in the classroom than a teacher who has simply been told several minutes before class begins that he or she will be being observed for gender equity in the classroom. Because the teachers observed in this study are student teachers, their recent experience with classroom instruction regarding gender equity may have some influence on the results of the study. Each of these student teachers is involved in an education program that does spend a significant amount of time discussing gender issues in the classroom. Thus, these student teachers may display a much more gender-equitable teaching style than teachers who have not been exposed to gender equity instruction via workshops or other forms of teacher education in many years. Some teachers, especially those who completed their teacher certification many years ago, may never have been exposed to gender equity instruction.

To promote gender equity, not only would teachers need to be educated about gender equitable teaching during a workshop or through an informational handout, but they should also be consistently reminded of the need for gender-equitable classrooms. These reminders could be instituted in any number of ways. Administrators could incorporate observations of gender equity into their regular classroom observations and include their thoughts on what they observed in their teacher feedback reports. It would also be beneficial to provide teachers with current articles regarding gender equity as they are published. Hopefully, with consistent reminders, teachers would be able to consciously inhibit gender biases in their interactions with their students.

Optimally, future research would involve observations of more teachers. It would also be helpful to have the activities of the class standardized, some classes working in cooperative working groups, for example, while other classes work on worksheets individually. These activities encourage very different types of interactions. And, of course, it would be beneficial to have multiple data collectors who are well trained because this could aid in eliminating the incidence of observer bias.

Appendix

Table 1

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 2

__________________________________________________________________

Table 3

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 4

________________________________________________________________

Table 5

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 6

______________________________________________________________________________

References

    American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1996). Girls in the middle: Working to succeed in school. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.