Language & Gender Essay

Language and gender in the classroom Many of the issues reviewed in this chapter have far-reaching implications in classrooms. Classrooms and schools are among society’s primary socializing institutions. In them, children come to understand their social identity relative to each other and relative to the institution. Although schools are certainly not responsible for teaching students their gender-differentiated social roles, they often reinforce the subordinate role of girls and women through curricular choices and classroom organizations that exclude, denigrate, and/or stereotype them. However, as discussed earlier in this chapter, recent theoretical insights suggest that identity is not fixed, that language use is not static, and that it is possible to negotiate social identities through alternative language use. It follows, then, that schools are sites in which inequities (based on gender, race, ethnicity, language background, age, sexuality, etc. can be challenged and potentially transformed by selecting materials that represent identity groups more equally, by reorganizing classroom interaction so that all students have the opportunity to talk and demonstrate achievement, and by encouraging students to critically analyze the ways they use language in their everyday lives. Based on a review of 2 decades of research on gender and classroom interaction, Clarricoates concludes that interaction between teachers and students and among students themselves is â€Å"suffused with gender† (1983, p. 6; cited by Swann, 1993). Studies reviewed by Swann (1993) describ e a range of ways in which gender differentiation is maintained in mainstream English-speaking classrooms, including the following: †¢ ‘ While there are quiet pupils of both sexes, the more outspoken pupils tend to be boys. †¢ Boys also tend to ‘stand out’ more than girls. Michelle Stanworth (1983) notes that in her study teachers initially found some girls ‘hard to place’. Boys also referred to a ‘faceless’ bunch of girls. Boys tend to be generally more assertive than girls. For instance, a US study of whole-class talk (Sadker and Sadker, 1985) found boys were eight times more likely than girls to call out. †¢ Girls and boys tend to sit separately; in group work, pupils usually elect to work in single-sex rather than mixed-sex groups. †¢ When they have the choice, girls and boys often discuss or write about gender-typed topics. †¢ Boys are often openly disparaging towards girls. †¢ In practical subjects, such as science, boys hog the resources. In practical subjects, girls ‘fetch and carry’ for boys, doing much of the cleaning up, and collec ting books and so on. †¢ Boys occupy, and are allowed to occupy, more space, both in class and outside—for example, in play areas. †¢ Teachers often make distinctions between girls and boys – for disciplinary or administrative reasons or to motivate pupils to do things. †¢ Teachers give more attention to boys than to girls. †¢ Topics and materials for discussion are often chosen to maintain boys’ interests. Teachers tend not to perceive disparities between the numbers of contributions from girls and boys. Sadker and Sadker (1985) showed US teachers a video of classroom talk in which boys made three times as many contributions as girls — but teachers believed the girls had talked more. †¢ Teachers accept certain behaviour (such as calling out) from boys but not from girls. †¢ Female teachers may themselves be subject to harrassment from male pupils. †¢ ‘Disaffected’ girls tend to opt out quietly at the back of the class, whereas disaffected boys make trouble. (Swann, 1993, pp. 1-52) A 10-year research project by Sadker and Sadker (1993; including participant observation, audio and video recordings, interviews with students and teachers, and large-scale surveys) in elementary, junior high, and high school, and in university classes in the United States, and the review of research on language and gender in the classroom by Sommers and Lawrence (1992), both support these general findings. It is interesting to note the parallel between research on girls and boys in schools on the one hand, and on minority and majority students in schools on the other. Just as boys and men (generally with no attention to factors like race and ethnicity) seem to be advantaged at the expense of girls and women in mainstream schools in Britain, Australia, and the United States, white middle-class standard English speakers (generally with no attention to gender) seem to be advantaged at the expense of nonwhite middle-class standard English speakers (see Nieto, 1992, for further discussion). However, as Swann (1993) points out, these findings need to be interpreted with some caution. The differences between sexes are always average ones, and boys and girls behave differently in different contexts. In other words, these are tendencies, not absolutes, that have been documented in mainstream English-speaking classes. It should be emphasized that there is considerable variation that can be exploited by teachers in their own classes. As discussed earlier, for the variation in how girls and boys use language to be understood, research needs to begin not with boys and girls as fixed categories that behave or are treated the same in all contexts, but with a particular community of practice, in this case a class or a school. The analysis, then, needs to focus on the activity and on how boys’ and girls’ rights and obligations are constructed within that activity within that community of practice. Once the class and the activities to be analyzed have been identified, the teacher or researcher can begin by asking how girls and boys, women and men, are represented, for example, in the texts selected for use in the class as well as in the work that the students produce. Researchers have found that women, like other minority groups, tend to be excluded, marginalized, or stereotyped within the mainstream curriculum content (see Nieto, 1992; Sadker ;amp; Sadker, 1993; Swann, 1993, for further discussion). Although we are not aware of any studies that have documented short-term and longer-term effects of mainstream curriculum content versus curriculum content that is gender balanced, Swann summarizes the concerns of teachers and researchers about gender imbalances in the curriculum as follows: Teachers and researchers have been concerned about imbalances in children’s reading materials because of their potential immediate and local effects: they may affect the way pupils respond to a particular book and the subject with which it is associated; they may also affect the pupils’ performance on assessment tasks. There is further concern that, in the longer term, such imbalances may help to reinforce gender differences and inequalities: they may influence children’s perceptions of what are appropriate attributes, activities, occupations, and so forth for males and females. Introducing alternative images may redress the balance, and also have a disruptive effect, causing pupils to question accepted views of girls and boys and women and men. (p. 113) Swann (pp. 190-197) provides a variety of checklists that teachers and researchers can use to investigate how girls and boys, women and men, are represented and evaluated in the texts they choose and the activities they organize within their classrooms. When teachers find that their curricular choices are not balanced with respect to gender, for example, that the science text includes few contributions by women, that the literature anthology includes stories primarily by white males about white males, or that the women included in the texts are portrayed only in traditional roles, they can adopt texts that offer images of women and men in less traditional roles. If the goal is to encourage students to question traditional notions, simply providing alternative images in the curriculum content may not be sufficient. Teachers may want to encourage students to talk about traditional and alternative images, perhaps by critically reading and responding to sexist materials, by emphasizing choice in women’s and men’s roles, and by challenging representations of women and men (and other groups) in the students’ own work. We will return to these points later in this chapter. As has been discussed throughout this chapter, it is not only what is talked about, in this case through the curriculum content, that helps shape gender roles; equally or more important is an understanding of how girls and boys, women and men, position themselves and each other through their interactions. With respect to the organization of classroom interaction, research suggests that participation frameworks, or groupings of students and teachers for classroom activities (e. . , as individuals, in pairs, in small groups, or as a teacher-fronted classes), can strongly influence the students’ opportunities to talk and demonstrate achievement (see Erickson, this volume; Saville-Troike, this volume). For example, mainstream U. S. classrooms are generally characterized by the transmission model of teaching and learning (Cummins, 1989) and the initiation-response-evaluation (IRE) participation structure (Holmes, 1978). In these teacher-centered classes, the teacher talks for most of the time as he or she transmits the curriculum content to the student population in a relatively competitive atmosphere, and initiates the students5 participation. The students are encouraged to bid for the opportunity to respond to what Cazden (1988) describes as the â€Å"known-answer55 question, and the teacher then evaluates the students’ responses as right or wrong. It is in this traditional competitive classroom that boys seem to be advantaged (Sadker ;amp;c Sadker, 1993; Tannen, 1992). However, just as women participated more in more collaboratively organized meetings than in traditional hierarchically organized meetings (see earlier discussions of Edelsky, 1981; Goodwin, 1990), some research suggests that girls, as well as students from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds, participate more in cooperative learning organizations than in traditional teacher-centered classes (Kramarae ;amp; Treichler, 1990; Tannen, 1992; see also Kessler, 1990, for a general review of benefits of cooperative learning). However, the picture is much more complicated; simply organizing students into smaller groups is not the answer. In fact, some research suggests that mixed-sex groupings can reproduce boys’ dominant role and girls’ supportive role. For example, in a study by Sommers and Lawrence (1992) of mixed-sex peer response groups of college students in writing classes, it was found that males took far more turns than females, produced greater quantities of talk, at times appropriated females’ ideas as their own, and tended to interrupt and/or silence their female counterparts. Females tended to wait, listen, acknowledge, and confirm other students’ contributions. When Sommers and Lawrence compared male and female participation in the peer response groups with their participation in the teacher-fronted participation framework, they found that boys and girls tended to participate more or less equally in the teacher-fronted organization because the teachers could exert more control over how the participation opportunities were distributed. It is important to mention that the teachers in these teacher-fronted classes were Lawrence and Sommers themselves, and that they were aware of and concerned about equal participation opportunities for males and females in their classes. In a study by Rennie and Parker (1987, cited by Swann, 1993) of primary school students in science classes in Australia, it was also found that boys tended to talk more in mixed-sex groupings, and girls tended to watch and listen. However, in single-sex groups, and in classes in which the teachers had participated in a â€Å"gender awareness† course, girls tended to participate more actively. Both these examples suggest that when teachers are aware of gender-differentiated language use, they can change the dynamics in their classes so that girls and women are not subordinated, at least in the short run. Swann (1993) provides some useful suggestions for teachers and researchers who are interested in systematically observing and analyzing the dynamics within their own classes to understand how girls and boys are positioned relative to each other (Chap. 8), as well as suggestions for changing discriminatory practices (Chap. 9). The research discussed thus far has been concerned with genderdifferentiated language use in mainstream, white, standard Englishspeaking contexts in the United States, Britain, and Australia. Even in these relatively homogeneous contexts, it is evident that factors other than gender (e. g. participation framework and activity type) may affect the way people behave. Although there has been relatively little detailed research to date on the ways in which boys and girls from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds interact in the classroom, an area of particular concern to ESL and bilingual teachers, it is likely that factors such as culture, race, ethnic ity, and socioeconomic status interact with gender to shape students’ participation opportunities. For example, Swann (1993) discusses a series of analyses of gender and ethnic imbalances in classroom discussions in four nursery and primary schools in Ealing, England. Swann points out that in the original analysis, Claire and Redpath (1989) found that boys averaged three times as many turns as girls, and that some boys were more talkative than others; this finding is consistent with much of the research on girls’ and boys’ participation in classes. Their follow-up analysis of the same data, however, suggests an interaction between gender and ethnic group. They found that the boys who dominated the discussion group were white and black Afro-Caribbean; the Asian boys participated much less frequently. White and black Afro-Caribbean girls participated about equally; Asian girls participated the least of any group. They speculate that the topics of discussion and teachers’ attitudes and behaviors in the lesson might contribute to these classroom dynamics (see Swann, 1993, p. 65, for further discussion). Consistent with Claire and Redpath’s first analysis, research by Sadker and Sadker (1993) found no systematic differences between black and white students, students from different age groups, or students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.