Dayton 1337199263

GENDER ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS
Dissertation
Submitted to
The School of Education and Allied Professions
THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership
Diane Schwendenman B.S., M.S., M.S.
THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
Dayton, Ohio
May 2012
APPROVED BY:
____________________________________________________________
Carolyn S. Ridenour, Ed.D. Committee Chair Date
____________________________________________________________
A. William Place, Ph.D. Committee Member Date
____________________________________________________________
Kathryn Kinnucan-Welsch, Ed.D. Committee Member Date
____________________________________________________________
Thomas D. Skill, Ph.D. Committee Member Date
____________________________________________________________
Kevin R. Kelly, Ph.D Dean Date
ii
Copyright by
Diane Schwendenman
All rights reserved
2012
ABSTRACT
By Diane Schwendenman
The University of Dayton, 2012
Carolyn S. Ridenour, Ed.D.
This study was a replication of a study conducted by Benz in 1980. Using the
same methods that Benz used, the focus was to determine whether or not the pattern of
teacher gender role expectations Benz confirmed have held up over 30 years. Prior to the
actual study, two pilot studies were conducted to test the validity of the Teacher Sex Role
Perception Inventory (TSRP) for use in 2011. Slight modifications to the original 1980
TSRP were made.
Since the seminal work on teachers expectations by Rosenthal and Jacobson in
1967 suggested the power of those expectations to influence student learning, education
researchers have continued to study and debate the dynamics of expectations, including
those based on students gender. In 2006 two events reinvigorated the debate about
teacher expectations and about gender. First, the advent of the growth model suggested
that students with negative experiences in the classroom for 3 consecutive years may
suffer incalculable harm to their learning that lasts throughout their schooling. Second,
the federal rewriting of Title IX regulations to allow single sex schools gave new life to
iii
research on gender-based teaching and learning.
In this study 175 teachers from 84 Ohio public school districts completed multiple
sets of the TSRP Inventory. A total of 479 TSRPs were ultimately analyzed. Multiple
linear regression (model comparison) was used to test the relationships between the four
gender role expectations: androgyny, masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated and how
they might be related to students gender, students achievement, grade level, and teacher
gender. Results were generally consistent with Benzs 1980 findings that student high
achievement rather than student gender is related to teacher expectation of androgyny. In
general, teachers masculine gender role expectations were related to student gender, not
student achievement. Teachers feminine gender role expectations varied across grade
level, teacher gender, student achievement, and student gender. Generally, teachers
undifferentiated gender role expectations were related to student achievement, not student
gender, or teacher gender.
Gender may not predetermine whether or not students succeed in school but the
results suggest that teachers gender-based perceptions may continue to influence their
interactions with students. High achievement seems to be related to androgyny, a socially
and psychologically healthy basis for human interactions, but a feminine role is perceived
as counter to academic achievement, a finding parallel to the results of 1980, and a
concern worthy of further research.
iv
To my Mom and Dad who believed that education would open any door.
To my brothers and sisters who showed me that education wasnt only found in
a book and to my family and friends whose unfaltering faith and belief in me,
has made this all possible.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express sincere appreciation to the members of my committee who worked
patiently with me to complete this study and to Carolyn S. Ridenour, my chair, who leads
by example and exemplifies the true meaning of the word teacher.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION..... 1
Purpose of the Study. 1

Significance of the Study . 3
II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE 6
Introduction.. 6
Teacher Expectations ... 7
Androgyny ... 16
Socialization by Gender.... 20
Gender Inequity - A Persistent Problem.... 21
Single-Sex Schools ........................................... 26
Feminism: Social History and Schools...... 31
Conclusion..... 41
III. STUDY PROCEDURES. 44
Methodology.. 44
Pilot Study on Adjective Examination.. 45
Participants for the Pilot Study on Adjective Examination .. 46
Results of Adjective Examination Pilot Study.. 49
Discussion ..... 51
Pilot Study on Rating Students.. 54
Data Collection in the Pilot Study on Rating the Student.. 55
Results of Pilot Study on Rating Students. 56
Discussion . 58
Research Design for the Dissertation .... ... 60
IV. RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND RESULTS.... 63
The Sample of Teacher Participants. 63

Demographic Profile of Teacher Participants .. 66
vii
Gender Role Expectations 74
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectations of Students
Identified Only by Gender in1980 and 2011. 77
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectations of
High Achieving Students in 1980 and 2011.. 78
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectations of Low
Achieving Students in 1980 and 2011... 80
Gender Role Expectations by Teachers Grade Level .. 81
Gender Role Expectations by Teachers Gender .. 84
Gender Role Expectations by Contrived Student . 86
Testing Hypotheses with Multiple Linear Regression . 92
Androgynous Gender Role Expectations . 96
Masculine Gender Role Expectations .. 100
Feminine Gender Role Expectations .... 104
Undifferentiated Gender Role Expectations . 107
V. CONCLUSION .. 111
Review of Research Procedures.. 112
Androgynous Gender Role Expectation... 113
Masculine Gender Role Expectation 113
Feminine Gender Role Expectation. 114
Undifferentiated Gender Role Expectation. 114
Conclusions.. 114
Discussion.... 118
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectation Between 1980 and
2011. 119
Implications for Education.. 126
REFERENCES . 131
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Adjective Survey ................................. 140
Appendix B: Bems Masculine Adjective Categorization ........ 141
Appendix C: Rating Students Pilot Study Inventory A......... 143
Appendix D: Rating Students Pilot Study Inventory B................. 146
Appendix E: Results for Nondescript Students 149
Appendix F: Results for Low Achieving Students ... 151
Appendix G: Results for High Achieving Students . 153
Appendix H: Sex Role Expectation Results . 155
viii
Appendix I: Revised Teacher Sex Role Inventory... 156
Appendix J: Person Vector Calculation ... 157
Appendix K: Institutional Review Board Approval . 158
Appendix L: Letter to Participants .. 159
Appendix M: Student Surveys ....... 160
Appendix N: Student Survey Results 167
Appendix O: Comparison Results by Gender (Feminine) 173
Appendix P: Comparison Results by Gender (Masculine) 175
Appendix Q: Hypothesis Calculation 177
Appendix R: Formula Explanation ... 178
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES.. xiii
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Bems Adjectives Characterized as Masculine (M),

Feminine (F), and Neutral (N).. 47
Table 2: Typology Distribution: Comparison of Sample School Districts to State of Ohio 65
Table 3: Number of Teacher Participants by Grade Band.. 67
Table 4: Teacher Participants by Gender 67
Table 5: Teacher Participants by Gender by Grade Band 68
Table 6: Return of TSRPs by Identity of Contrived Student... 69
Table 7: Usable TSRPs by Identity of Contrived Student.. 70
Table 8: Participating Teachers by Typology... 71
Table 9: Participating Teachers by Grade Bands and Typology....... 72
Table 10: Returned TSRPs by Grade Band by Contrived Student 73
Table 11: Distribution Gender Role Expectations by Participating Teachers 76
Table 12: Gender Role Expectations of Male Students (No Achievement Indicated):
Comparison of Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results
(N=479) in % of Teachers Classifications 77
Table 13: Gender Role Expectations of Female Students (No Achievement Indicated):
Comparison of Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results
(N=479) in % of Teachers Classifications.. 78
Table 14: Gender Role Expectations of Male Students (High Achieving): Comparison
of Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results (N=479) in %
of Teachers Classifications 79
Table 15: Gender Role Expectations of Female Students (High Achieving): Comparison
of Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results (N=479) in % of
Teachers Classifications 80
Table 16: Gender Role Expectations of Male Students (Low Achieving):

Comparison of Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study
Results (N=479) in % of Teachers Classifications 80
x
Table 17: Gender Role Expectations of Female Students (Low Achieving): Comparison
of Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results (N=479) in %
of Teachers Classifications.. . 81
Table 18: Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades K-4. 82
Table 19: Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades 5-8 83
Table 20: Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades 9-12.. 84
Table 21: Gender Role Expectations by Teacher Gender (Female) 85
Table 22: Gender Role Expectations by Teacher Gender (Male) 86
Table 23: Gender Role Expectations of Male Student (No Achievement Indicated):
Frequency by Grade Band and Teacher Gender 87
Table 24: Gender Role Expectations of Male Student (Low Achievement Indicated):
Table 25: Gender Role Expectations of Male Student (High Achievement Indicated):
Table 26: Gender Role Expectations of Female Student (No Achievement Indicated):
Table 27: Gender Role Expectations of Female Student (Low Achievement Indicated):
Table 28: Gender Role Expectations of Female Student (High Achievement Indicated):
Table 29: Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Androgynous Gender Role
Expectation Classification Related to (1) Differences Among All Six Contrived
Students, (2) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by Gender (Male and
Female Students) and (3) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by
Achievement (High and Low) 97
Table 30: Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Masculine Gender Role
Students, (2) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by Gender (Male
and Female Students) and (3) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by
Achievement (High and Low).. 101
xi
Table 31: Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Feminine Gender Role
Students, (2) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by Gender (Male
and Female Students) and (3) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by
Achievement (High and Low) 105
Table 32: Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Undifferentiated Gender
Role Expectation Classification Related to (1) Differences Among All Six
Contrived Students, (2) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by
Gender (Male and Female Students) and (3) Differences Between Students
Grouped Only by Achievement (High and Low).. 108
Table 33: Pattern of Gender Role Expectation Results Across Independent Variables.. 115
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sex Role Expectation Calculation... 57
Figure 2: Gender Expectations of Male Student (No Achievement

Indicated) 1980 and 2011 Studies...... 120
Figure 3: Gender Expectations of Female Student (No Achievement

Indicated) 1980 and 2011 Studies.. 121
Figure 4: Gender Expectations of Male Student (High Achievement

Indicated) 1980 and 2011 Studies ..... 122
Figure 5: Gender Expectations of Female Student (High Achievement

Indicated) 1980 and 2011 Studies . 123
Figure 6: Gender Expectations of Male Student (Low Achievement

Indicated) 1980 and 2011 Studies. 124
Figure 7: Gender Expectations of Female Student (Low Achievement

Indicated) 1980 and 2011 Studies. 125
xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
The research question that guided this study was whether or not teachers
expectations of students gender roles vary by students gender, achievement level,
teacher gender and grade level. The conceptual framework for the studys purpose is
contemporary gender roles, more specifically, the issue of gender inequity. How do
educators address persistent gender inequity? Replication, an important benchmark of
scientific research, was the conceptual framework underlying the studys methodology.
Whether or not gender role stereotyping in the classroom for boys and girls is a myth or
the reality in public education is a question that might seem superfluous to ask
considering that in 2008 we nearly saw a woman nominated by a major political party for
the presidency of the United States. Two examples suggest why a study with implications
for gender role stereotyping is important in 2011.
The first example involves Title IX Act (20 U.S.C.A. 1681) that prohibited sex
discrimination in federally funded schools. In 2006 federal regulations governing the
enforcement of Title IX were rewritten by the U.S. Department of Education to allow
single sex schools (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2008). School
districts were obligated to follow new regulations if they implemented a single sex
1
school. These regulations included monitoring these schools to prevent gender biased
discrimination. However, there was no oversight to see that these regulations were
actually followed. The potential concern, according to some opponents of this change,
was that school districts may return to a form of practiced discrimination and sexist
stereotypes rampant in schools prior to Title IX.
The second example was the 2002 renewal of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind Act, (No Child Left Behind, 2002) which
included dramatic reforms in mandated student assessments. This legislative act enacted
by Congress under President George W. Bush was initiated in 2001 and has brought
sweeping changes to public education. Schools must show adequate yearly progress
(AYP) for a variety of demographic subgroups. Single sex schools were established in
part as an alternative model intended to raise student achievement for boys and girls. The
measure AYP or the level the various subgroup populations of the schools must achieve
on state mandated tests has been determined by the federal regulations. The groups
supporting single sex schools and the change of Title IX believe that some struggling
students, particularly male, may learn better in single sex schools. Gender is not
considered a subgroup in which yearly academic progress is measured.
This study replicated a study by Benz (1980; see also Benz, Newman & Pfeiffer,
1981) that examined the issue of sex role expectations of teachers. In that study Benz
determined that to fit into the feminine role, students were not expected to achieve and
this belief came from the teachers. Like Benz, this study examined whether teachers
gender role expectations of students differed as a result of the gender of the student,
achievement level of the student or grade level. If educators are to ensure that students
2
are being treated fairly then educators need to understand what traits strong students
possess, their possible gender biases and how they potentially influence their instruction
and interaction with students.
Significance of the Study
The rationale behind the study was based on the magnitude of the role gender
equity and gender inequity play in the classrooms of Americas public schools. Unlike
allowing 18 year-olds the right to vote, gender equity has been an ongoing issue
throughout American history. History suggests that despite centuries of struggle, it has
been in the last 95 years that women in the United States have begun to be recognized
and allowed similar opportunities as men. Highlights of that history are discussed in
Chapter 2.
The significance of the study was heavily linked to the value of replication in
building a scientific knowledge base (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009; Hani, 2009;
Krathwohl, 2009; Newman, McNeil, & Fraas, 2004; Ridenour & Newman, 2008).
According to Krathwohl (2009), replication can validate the meaning of past research
If the same results are obtained by a different and improved study, they are considered
confirmed or validated. Replication, especially using enhanced methods in new
situations, is the ultimate validation (p. 49). Accumulating a similar pattern of results
across multiple studies defines scientific progress. When hypotheses can withstand
repeated testing, consumers of research can have more confidence in the conclusions.
Desirable decisions about public education policy are based on findings that have been
replicated. For example, policymakers at the federal level are directed to the What
Works Clearinghouse (What Works Clearing House, 2011) available at the Institute of
3
Education Sciences, a Website that elevates those propositions that have been validated
in repeated studies as suitable for implementation in public schools.
Some suggest replications are stronger when the participants, the methods, and
the instruments used are different than in the original study (see Krathwohl, 2009, for
example), but not all agree. Others (see Gay, et al., 2009) require only slight alterations.
Hani (2009) provides six criteria to identify situations when a replication study is
possible. These six criteria were met in this current study when it was framed as a
replication of Benzs 1980 original study: (1) situations where the research might add
substance to an area of study, (2) situations support the topics relevance, (3) the new
study can be designed to empirically compare to the first study, (4) the current researcher
has both appropriate skills and data access, (5) any changes in the first study can be made
based on current understandings; and (6) the second study can be carried out with rigor
equal to the first study.
Replicating Benzs 1980 study may show changes in patterns of teachers gender
role perspectives in the classroom. Some teachers in the classrooms in the initial study
could have been born in the 1920s. The significant events in which these individuals were
raised included the Depression, World War II, the GI Bill and Brown vs. Board of
Education. They brought to the classroom experiences laced with the notions that women
belonged in the home. Data collected in the late 1970s by Benz (1980) were data
collected only a few years after Title IX (20 U.S.C.A. 1681) began to expand
opportunities for girls and women in schools. Today, the majority of teachers in public
education are those born after 1960 (U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics,
2010). These teachers have rarely dealt with lawful desegregation in their schools, have
4
always worked under PL: 92-142 and were some of the first individuals to live with the
effects of Title IX. How then do these teachers perceive the gender roles of boys and girls
in the classroom?
The original study conducted by Benz in 1980 used the Teacher Sex Role
Perception Inventory (TSRP) to examine teachers expectations regarding their students
when examining the gender and academic ability of their students. The TSRP was an
instrument developed using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) as its model (Bem,
1974). In this study, as with Benz (1980), there were six student descriptions that were
designated by gender and academic ability. Teachers were then asked, using the TSRP, to
rate the students. The TSRP consisted of 60 adjectives that were designated as either
masculine, feminine or neutral (Bem, 1974). Benzs procedures were replicated in this
study.
Teachers have always been seen as having tremendous influence over students
(Brophy, 1983; Gazin, 2004; Kuklinski &Weinstein, 2000; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).
In recent research conducted with the Growth Model or Value Added, it was reported that
students who experience a negative teacher three years in a row, can be academically
damaged so that they never recover (Hershberg, 2008). In an additional study by Watson,
Quatman and Elder (2002) career aspirations of girls were studied. The researchers found
that career aspirations changed as girls progressed through school. In the beginning of
their school careers girls had a very wide spectrum of career aspirations. As these same
girls progressed through school, their career aspirations narrowed to what would be
considered more traditional feminine careers. These two examples provide a preview to
background literature, discussed next, in Chapter 2.
5
Chapter 2
Review of Related Research and Literature
Introduction
Throughout the literature review are themes of gender equity and inequity. In the
first section of the review of prior research numerous studies are discussed in teacher
expectancy, a classroom phenomenon that has been related to gender as well as to other
attributes of students. Teachers expectations have been hypothesized by many scholars
as one predictor of how teachers interact, and thus influence, the achievement of students.
Secondly, another body of knowledge relevant to this study is what scholars have found
in examining androgyny, the social and psychological construct that blurs traditional
stereotypical gender roles. Androgyny is a major focus of the data collection instrument
(Bem, 1974) in this study and supporting evidence is presented in this section. A third
section of the literature review focuses on the ways in which gender socializes students
and teachers into roles that might be related to student success. Among human attributes
that are manifest in interpersonal relationships - such as ethnicity, physical appearance,
and age - gender is one of the most influential. Gender is a primary characteristic and
triggers responses (including expectations) in those responding to individuals in social
situations. The issues of gender inequities in single sex schools are discussed as well.
Following these sections is a discussion of feminism; social history and schools and the
shifts in gender roles over time. Concluding these topics are summary remarks and a
transition to the methods used in the study.
6
Teacher Expectations
Jones and Myhill (2004) investigated the dynamics of classroom interactions
through a lens of gender. In this section the crucial role of what teachers expect of their
students is discussed and selected studies of this phenomenon are reviewed. The focus of
this review is to position this study within the context of what others have found about
the influence of the expectations of teachers as they play out in classrooms.
What influences childrens academic performance in schools? The answer has
been elusive and a question that educators have struggled for years to answer. It has been
common to believe that the home situation and parents views on education that
translated into the types of experiences provided for their children were what influenced a
childs academic performance. Whereas that is not being disputed, what has surfaced in
the research conducted by Hershberg (2008) and others doing similar studies on the
growth model of student performance is the role the teacher plays in this process.
Hershberg reported that students who have an inadequate teacher for three consecutive
years could suffer irrevocable damage to their ability to learn. Hershbergs work on
inadequate teachers and the impact on student performance continues to build, in part,
upon the seminal research on teacher expectation conducted by Rosenthal and Jacobson
in 1968.
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) reported the results of a study regarding teacher
expectations and their influence on students. Pygmalion in the Classroom was
conducted in San Francisco with the teachers and students of Oak School, grades 1-6.
The students were divided into two groups, one control and one experimental. The
teachers were then informed that, according to an ability test, certain students could be
7
considered academic spurters and capable of greater intellectual growth (Rosenthal &
Jacobson, 1968). The students were arbitrarily selected for their groups and any
information on the students abilities was all conjecture. The authors felt that the major
variables to consider were age, ability, sex, and minority group status when examining
the results. In the early years, ages 1-9, children are more compliant with the adults in
charge. Rosenthal believed that this fact supported the influence that teachers have over
students, especially at the early grade levels. Students do what the adults want, and if they
believe the teacher thinks they are smart or capable of work, children will work to not
disappoint the teacher. With regards to ability and sex at the first and second grade level,
more males populated the slow track (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).
The academic growth results were dramatic for the students in the experimental
group. On the average one out of every fifth student gained at least twenty IQ points as
compared to the control group who improved only at a one to five ratio. The authors
concluded from this study that one persons expectation of anothers behavior may come
to serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968, p. 20).
The Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) study created a maelstrom among educators.
For many educators the Rosenthal and Jacobson work was taken as fact. Educators had a
solution to addressing underachieving students and teachers could simply be taught how
to expect more from the students and improved academic results across all grade levels
would occur (Brophy, 1983). Others such as Elashoff and Snow (1971) were not nearly
as impressed. They felt that Rosenthal and Jacobsons research had some serious flaws.
What has happened in the subsequent years is that researchers have tried to replicate
Rosenthal and Jacobsons work and others looked to refute them.
8
Building upon this original study, Good and Brophy (1974) examined teachers
and their interaction with students. In the Good and Brophy study researchers observed
how teachers interacted with students. Specifically the researchers were looking at how
the teachers interacted with the low and high achieving students. After a semester of
observations, Good and Brophy (1974) found similar results to Rosenthal and Jacobson
(1968). Teachers paid less attention to lower ability students, asked them lower level
questions and, when the students answered incorrectly, moved on to other students (Good
& Brophy, 1974). The researchers then met with the various teachers on an individual
basis and shared with them the observational data. What Good and Brophy discovered,
after additional observations in the second semester, was that the teachers behavior
changed dramatically when dealing with lower level students. Instead of asking simple
questions, all students were asked similar level questions. When students answered
incorrectly the teachers were much more likely to stay with that student and push for
information. The teachers on the whole tended to use less criticism when responding to
struggling students.
Brophy (1983) conducted a review of self-fulfilling prophecy effects of teachers
on their students. He included reviews that have been written by other researchers either
in support or opposition to Rosenthal and Jacobsons results from their 1968 research.
Based on this work Brophy identified six key points of contention surrounding the
Rosenthal and Jacobson work that others have reported and investigated:
- The expectations of teachers concerning students in their own classroom
are generally accurate and based on valid information.
- The potential for teacher expectation effects on student achievement is
9
limited in most classrooms, because such effects must be mediated
by consistently inaccurate information.
- Actual expectation effects are probably minimal in most classrooms.
- Teacher expectation effects on student achievement that do occur tend
to be undesirable, limiting the effects of lowered expectations.
- It is difficult to predict in advance the expectations of teachers since the
expectations will interact with the teachers personal characteristics and
beliefs about teaching and learning to determine the teachers actual
behavior.
- A clear understanding between teachers differential expectations for
different students and their differential treatment of those students will
not be known until more research is conducted. (pp. 631-632)
Brophy supports the findings of the Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) study despite the fact
that there was no significant difference in gains in the upper grade levels of Rosenthal
and Jacobsons study (p. 632).
Some researches limited their studies to teacher expectations from the teachers
perspective. Brattesani, Weinstein and Marshall (1984) studied how student perceptions
and teacher expectations influence student achievement. Brattesani et al. based their
study on the previous work of Brophy (1983) and Good and Brophy (1974) and Good,
Cooper and Blakey (1980) in which teacher expectations were found to influence student
achievement. In the Brattesani et al., (1984) study the researchers concluded that teacher
expectation does influence student achievement but student perception also plays a role.
In classrooms the students perceive these expectations from their teachers behavior, and
10
that these expectations influence students own expectations and achievement (p. 246).
Brattesani et al. (1984) concluded that when the teacher employs strategies that demand
high performance, despite the academic abilities of their students, the students can have
between a 9% to 18% greater level of achievement than in classrooms where teacher
expectations of academic achievement were unclear (Brattesani et al., 1984).
Lee Jussim (1989) further examined the work of Brattesani et al., and Brophy and
Goods studies (as cited in Jussim, 1989) in his 1989 study of teacher expectation.
Jussims research centered on what he believed to be the three outcomes of teacher
expectancy:
- Teachers expectations sometimes produce self-fulfilling prophecies.
- Teacher expectations may lead to perceptual biases: the tendency to interpret,
perceive, remember, or explain students, actions in ways consistent with their
expectations.
- Teacher expectations may accurately predict achievement without influencing
it. (p. 469)
According to Jussim (1989), some of the results of previous studies on teacher
expectation such as Rosenthal, 1968 and Brophy and Goods studies (as cited in Jussim,
1989) were flawed and not wholly accurate because they were not based on naturally
occurring self-fulfilling prophecies. Jussim believed that a more detailed explanation of
teacher expectancy would produce more valid results. He identified three conditions that
had to be in place:
- Teacher expectations must be positively associated with student achievement.
11
- The relationship between the student and teacher must be developed without
association to the students academic ability.
- Teachers must not be responsible for judging student behavior so that
students believe that they have an opportunity to achieve. (p. 470)
What Jussim (1989) discovered was that with regard to self-fulfilling prophecies,
high achieving students performed well and low achieving students did not perform well
on the end of the year standardized tests. Students who were perceived to be high
performing students in the beginning of the year, continued in that direction and that
teachers did demonstrate a bias when grading for the perceived effort a student made on
an assignment (Jussim, 1989). With regards to accuracy Jussim believed that teacher
expectation may be based on the previous achievement and motivation of their students
and their own perceptions of students performance. Ultimately Jussim and Harber (2005)
supported the earlier studies conducted by Brattesani et al; (1984), Brophy & Good
(1974); and Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968). Although a correlation design, Jussim and
Harber claimed the study exhibited more controls than the previous research. Jussim and
Harber concluded that naturally occurring teacher expectations lead to self-fulfilling
prophecies by their students (p. 476).
In an additional study on teacher expectation by Kuklinski and Weinstein (2000),
student views of teacher treatment were examined. In this study the students discussed
how the classroom environments differed for students who were considered to be either
high or low achievers. Students reported that the classroom environment favored the
high-achieving students (p. 1). In this study the researchers refer to the previous work of
Brophy and Good (1974), Harris and Rosenthal (1986), Krechevsky and Gardner, (1990)
12
(as cited in Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000), they describe differential treatment of students
by the teacher. The study does not include reference to learning styles, diverse interests
and needs but rather the regular differences in educational opportunities and teacher-
student interactions. The process used by Kuklinski and Weinstein was to talk with the
students about their perceptions of what occurs in the classroom. The researchers were
not interested in the various learning styles of the students but rather the students beliefs
on how a teacher interacts with them based on their academic ability. This subtle
difference is important in understanding teacher expectations and their impact on student
performance. According to students, differential treatment varies between grade level
classes and increases as a student progresses through school. Older students were found
to be more accurate in reporting the differential treatment of teachers (Samson,
Sirykowski, Weinstein &Walberg, 1987). Kuklinski and Weinstein examined a variety of
points in their study. The first focus was the differential treatment of students by teachers
and was reported by students during a school year. Another focus in the study was the
influence of teacher expectations on the reading levels of their students.
In the beginning of the year the teachers were asked to rank order their students,
using cards that were imprinted with their students names and their expected year-end
reading achievement score. After completing this task teachers were asked to assign a
rating of 1-5 on what they expected the reading achievement to be at years end. The
students were administered a Teacher Treatment Inventory (TTI Long Form) that asked
the students 30 questions concerning a hypothetical student and how they expected the
teachers to respond to the student (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000). The results of the study
indicated the long term stability of differences in perceived treatment of the students by
13
the teachers, once children reach the middle grades. Teachers in these settings were found
to establish performance expectations early in the year and maintain them throughout the
year. The researchers felt the results were not as significant with first graders because of
the lack of school experience by the children. According to the reports of Kuklinski and
Weinstein students reported that high achieving students consistently received more
positive feedback, have greater autonomy and have higher expectations by the teacher
then low achieving students. The study also showed that gender played no role in how
students were treated (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000).
In an additional study on gender differences in mathematics and how teacher
expectation can influence students was conducted by Xiaoxia Ai in 2002. This study was
based on the data from the study by Brown, Hoffer, Miller, Nelson and Suchner (1992) as
cited by Ai, 2002) that examined students in grades 7-10. Ais study was a 3-level
longitudinal and multilevel modeling that examined attitudes regarding mathematics.
Ais results were significant when examining low performing boys and girls. Girls, on the
average are stronger students than boys. Ai reported that even with this fact the low
achieving girls did not grow as much as the low achieving boys (p. 1). Students rated
strong in math ability, regardless of gender, grew in their math skills over time. When Ai
examined the issue of teacher encouragement Ai discovered that no math
encouragement effect was found for girls and it varied for boys. Males had exhibited a
stronger positive attitude towards mathematics whereas girls showed no appreciable
attitude.
Frequently girls do not act out in school and so low-achieving girls were seen as
compliant and that type of behavior was expected of low-achieving girls (Ai, 2002, p.
14
560). However as was seen in the work of Kuklinski and Weinstein (2000), low
achievement can be influenced by teacher expectation. In the study by Jones and Myhill
(2004) the under-achieving boys acted out. This was also demonstrated in the work of
Younger and Warrington (2006), who studied single-gender schools, underachieving
males garner attention because of the acting out behaviors that Jones and Myhill
described as active engagement (p. 556).
Teacher expectations and their influence on students are seen in the study
conducted by Wood, Kaplan and McLoyd (2007). In their study teacher expectations of
African American males were examined. The results demonstrated that teachers, parents
and the students themselves all reported lower expectations for African American males
than from other groups of students. The researchers also were able to tie academic
achievement with these expectations. If the students believed no one expected anything
from them, then students performed in this manner. An interesting aspect of this study
was that the researchers found that in a school that exhibited a strong sense of expectation
for all students, African American males did achieve, despite having a negative attitude
from home (p. 423). This finding supports the belief that teachers and their expectations
of students can have important impact on the educational experiences of children.
Focusing a study on teachers expectations acknowledges the influence teachers
have on the learning process. Whether or not teachers maintain different expectations for
boys and girls can be a form of gender inequity. In this section the power of teacher
expectations has been confirmed through analysis of several studies within classrooms
and schools. Klein (2007) speculates that the expectation effect may even link to
students self esteem, and, it follows logically, that raised esteem might propel them to
15
aim higher in their learning. She also suggests that expectations are a strong part of the
pedagogical process. In her words, Teaching people skills and conveying positive
expectations is [sic] more likely to have a positive impact on self-esteem than trying to
teach people to feel good about themselves (p. 658).
Androgyny
Androgyny is a term that has been described as an intermediate between
masculine and female (Warren, 1980). In this study androgyny is being examined from
the standpoint of: physical androgyny, the combination in a single person, of either sex,
of so-called feminine and masculine character traits. (p.170)
Male and female are labels traditionally placed on individuals of two biological
sexes males and females. Over the past several decades the demarcation of individuals
as men or women, males or females, has evolved as not a simple and unproblematic
demarcation. Not all newborns are obviously male or female. At birth the biological sex
of some infants is assigned rather than naturally and unquestionably obvious. An entire
field of medical science is devoted to the study of these infants. The terms male and
female are traditionally used as biological labels.
On the other hand the terms masculine and feminine are terms describing traits or
characteristics; adjectives that connote behaviors, dispositions, and attributes more likely
to be demonstrated by one sex or the other. Traditionally masculine denoted those traits
more desirable in males and feminine those traits more desirable in females. Through a
feminist theory lens, those masculine and feminine categories can be limitations,
confining individuals to stereotypes, not full human possibility (Warren, 1980).
16
An enlightened view accepts masculine and feminine traits as attributes of either
sex. Societal expectations may ascribe certain traits such as gentleness and compassion as
stereotypically feminine and independent and analytical as stereotypically masculine.
Some view these stereotypes as narrow. Such a narrow view of human characteristics is
flawed because humans are constantly faced with situations that require characteristics
attributed to the other gender. Androgyny can be seen as sex neutral. Sandra Bem
provided empirical evidence that androgynous individuals succeed in a wider range of
situations than do exclusively male or female individuals (Warren, 1980).
Sandra Bem developed the Bem Sex Role Inventory which was a paper-pencil
instrument that asked individuals to rate a list of adjectives as self descriptors. From the
ratings Bem (1974) classified the respondent into one of four sex roles: masculine,
feminine, androgynous or undifferentiated. According to Bem (1974) androgynous
individuals were those that saw themselves as having high levels of both masculine and
feminine characteristics. The creation of this category created quite a stir by challenging
the gender polarization in psychology (p. 120) that up to this time was regarded as the
only way men and women were classified (Bem, 1993). According to Bem (1974), an
androgynous individual can be both masculine and feminine and expressive and
instrumental according to the situation (p. 155). An adaptation of Bems instrument was
used in this study of gender related teacher expectations.
A philosophical examination of androgyny was carried out by Vetterling-Braggin
(1982). She examined androgyny from the perspectives of sex and characteristics of
males and females. Vetterling-Braggin cited the work of Trebilcot (1977), who further
identifies androgyny as either monoandrogynism or polyandrogynist which envisions
17
a perfect society in which all people share both masculine and feminine traits (p. 151).
Bem (1974) would agree with Trebicots view of society as being polyandrogynist, where
men and women can move along a continuum of behaviors that support a variety of
human roles in a variety of life styles. Trebicot believes that monoandrogynism has been
the more traditional way in which men and women are viewed. In this situation
behavioral traits are either appropriately related to being male or female and there is little
cross-over. Trebicot would support Bems view that androgyny is the cross-over that
blends the continuum of behaviors and alternatives. It is this recognition that individuals
operate from a broad spectrum of possible traits and behaviors.
Bem (1993) argues that if we are to end gender inequities then we need to begin
examining ones potential gender identity not located at one of either traditional polar
extremes but rather as a place on a continuum. Sexual orientation has been interpreted in
a similar way acknowledging the natural lack of an unambiguous dichotomy of
heterosexuality and homosexuality. According to Diamond (2008), for example, sexuality
is described as a place on a continuum that ranges from totally heterosexual to totally
homosexual. The place itself can be fluid over time and individuals will naturally fall
anywhere on that continuum. By viewing masculine and feminine traits in a similar vein,
educators can begin to look at how we are treating the person, not merely reacting to
whether a student appears as male or female. By acknowledging androgyny educators are
creating an educational fluidity much like Diamond describes for sexuality. Diamonds
views of sexual fluidity would support those of Trebicot (1977) as she related them to
androgyny. Both individuals see their topics as fitting on a flexible spectrum due to the
natural state human biology and psychology.
18
Gender role identification is potentially an important issue in single sex schools.
Cohen (2008) presents a strong legal argument against all boys schools primarily on the
basis of what he calls a hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity, according to
Cohen, grounds the socialization of boys in single sex schools. The masculinity milieu is
one of aggression, dominance, competition, and compulsive heterosexuality. Cohen
believes this narrow view of masculinity harms both boys and girls. Cohen argues that
the ways in which single sex schools are being formed might violate Title IX regulations,
i.e., that schools cannot reinstitute gender based stereotypes in meeting the needs of one
gender. He further argues for a masculine model for all boys schools that is one that is
fluid and multiple, accepting of difference and experimentation, not reliant on the
domination of those who do not exhibit particular traits (p. 55). Cohens view, like those
of Diamond (2008), Trebicot (1977) and Bem (1993) recognizes that human dispositions
exist on a much broader continuum and that individuals potential cannot be limited to
the extreme ends of bipolar traits: masculine or feminine, and, heterosexual or
homosexual.
Teacher expectations have been conceptualized as gender based - categorized as
reactions dependent on whether students are male or female (Brophy & Good, 1974;
Harris & Rosenthal, 1986; and Krechevsky & Gardner, 1990). If we were to look at
classroom performance on a continuum, like Bem (1993), Trebicot (1977), Diamond
(2008) and Cohen (2008) view human traits on a gender continuum, then teacher
expectations based on gender need to be reexamined to allow flexible models for
students. Bem (1974) uses the work of Kohlberg (1966) and Kagan (1964) (as cited in
Bem, 1974) to explain how students will suppress behaviors that could be considered
19
socially unacceptable because of a narrow interpretation of sex roles. This attitude then
translates into teacher expectation and into what educators consider girls and boys
capable of achieving. (Ai, 2002; Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000)
Socialization by Gender
In any study of gender equity it is important to examine how socialization of
gender roles takes place. Children are socialized by gender from birth onward, including
in schools. In a recent report Cohen used Michael Kimmel, a leading sociologist on
masculinity to help support his rationale on single sex schools. Kimmel (as cited in
Cohen, 2008) according to Cohen has likened schools to factories and what they
produce is gendered individuals (p. 6). Cohen further cites Kimmel with
Educational research has indicated that boys and girls come to school
with a sense of their own sexual identity (whether they are a boy or a girl)
but they do not have the same sense of gendered identity (what characteristics
are associated with being a boy or a girl. (p. 6)
By the time students are finished with school, students have learned what characteristics
are associated with being a boy or a girl. Schools are sites of strong socialization of
gender roles. The lessons students learn about gender in school can affect how they think
and what they believe about sex equality, Cohen beliefs carried throughout their lives
(p. 7). As recently as 2006, according to Cohen (2008), a Louisiana school district was
sued because in their single sex classrooms girls were taught good behavior while boys
were taught heroic behavior (p. 18).
20
Gender Inequity - A Persistent Problem
The question do gender inequities still exist in todays classrooms? still needs to
be explored. Despite progress, examples of gender inequities persist. Baber and Tucker
(2006) attempted to examine attitudes towards gender using a Social Roles
Questionnaire (SRQ). The SRQ consisted of 52 questions derived from a variety of
sources. The questions were grouped into three categories in an attempt to determine an
accurate picture of ones beliefs about gender. The three categories were the general
subscale which focused on roles, the child subscale which identified thoughts from
childhood, and the gender transcendent subscale which focused on items that focused on
neither gender specifically. For example, one item might state both girls and boys
should be raised to be bread winners (p. 462). The SRQ survey was administered to
older adolescents and adults. The researchers determined that the SRQ could contribute
to evaluating gender and social change. Of note, the researchers determined that male
participants appeared to be more firmly entrenched in their beliefs regarding gender and
gender roles while women were less traditional in their views on gender and were more
likely to endorse gender transcendent roles (p. 464). Additional findings included the
fact that children whose parents were divorced identified less traditional roles for men
and women.
Another example of how society influences the development of girls was seen in a
study by Watson et al., (2002). They examined the career aspirations of girls in both
single sex schools and coeducational schools. They determined that in the early school
years, girls have career aspirations similar to boys. By the time girls are in high school,
those aspirations have been changed into more typical female roles. Schools and the
21
socialization over time have perhaps reinforced different aspirations for girls and boys. If
wider gender role options were reinforced, perhaps girls (and boys) would not see their
futures in only narrow career categories.
Classroom management strategies are powerful socialization agents as well. What
teachers do in response to what are evaluated as maladaptive behaviors can reinforce
appropriate roles that differ for boys and girls. Erden and Wolfgang (2003), for instance,
studied pre-kindergarten and first grade teachers beliefs about appropriate disciplinary
practices. The authors assert that teachers play a significant role in the socialization of
children, especially with regard to discipline. The authors developed an instrument, the
Beliefs About Discipline Inventory (BADI) and used it in their study. It was based on
several discipline philosophies.
The results of this study showed that for the same infractions teachers used the
rules and consequences philosophy when disciplining boys while using the confronting
contracting philosophy when dealing with girls. The rules and consequences philosophy
is a controlling process where the teacher uses the class rules to control the class. The
rules are taught by the teacher and expected to be followed by the student with positive
rewards for those students who obey. The confronting contracting philosophy has the
teacher confronting the misbehaving student to identify the bad behavior and then
developing a plan on how the student will correct his/her misdeeds. The outcome of the
study demonstrated yet another example on how schools socialize students according to
gender by disciplining girls through reason while disciplining boys through a cause and
effect method.
22
Harold Kelman (1967) edited a series of papers written on feminine psychology
by Karen Horney in 1967. Horney, according to Kelman had studied young adolescent
girls during the 20s and 30s and Kelman believed that Horneys work was pertinent to
the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Horney believed that girls suffered low self-esteem
as compared to their male counterparts and that the educational system promoted the
differentiated treatment of girls and boys. Howe (1977) linked these feelings of low self-
esteem as the impetus for societal expectations for appropriate roles for women.
Currently as teacher expectations are examined, various studies still point to the fact that
low achieving girls are often ignored in classrooms (Ai, 2002; Good & Brophy, 1974;
Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2000).
Patchen (2006) examined the views students had about participating in a high
school science class including the impact of gender. Class participation is one of the
important components in student learning. In her study, Patchen found that class
participation mirrored how men and women interact in society. In other words, she
argued that boys garner more attention than girls in the classroom regardless of academic
ability.
Fox (2000) studied the field of science because she felt that the science
hierarchical system resembled the hierarchical structure in society. The field of science
has played a strong role in transforming colleges of the 19th century, to the modern
institutions they are today (p. 655). She continued:
Science is an institutional medium of power with consequences for
the present and future human conditions. The field is grounded in
abstract and systematic theory and is a prototype for professional
23
claim to authoritative knowledge. The field of science is marked
with immense inequity in status and the valued attributes of science
are ascribed more often to men than women. (p. 655)
The author reported that 53% of the women enrolled in doctoral programs in science
were employed in educational institutions as compared to 45% of the males. With the
exception of psychology, Fox claimed that women fill only 6% of the rank of full
professor in science fields.
Fox (2000) examined the lack of women in science and math fields in higher
education. When women are not taken seriously as students, they may be less likely to
aspire to enter the fields of math and science upon graduation. As Sax (2005) stated,
women are as capable as men are in science and math. According to Fox, women tend to
take longer than men to conduct research, perhaps not a sufficient reason to withhold
reinforcement for their aspirations.
After higher education and the professoriate opened for women one might expect
that over time opportunities for men and women would be less differentiated. This has
not been the case. Fox (2000) reports that women with doctorates are not translating into
women with full professorships in the area of mathematics, chemistry and across other
fields of higher education. After conducting a national survey of faculty and students,
Fox reported that:
- Women felt they were taken less seriously than their male counterparts.
- Women felt less comfortable speaking in group meetings.
- Men reported receiving more help from their advisor.
24
- Women felt their relationships with their advisors were more similar to
student-and-faculty as compared to a mentor-mentee or colleagues. (p. 659)
Several institutions have increased the number of women in their science
departments but that has not translated into a change of patterns of gender, status and
hierarchy in science. Women are not found in valued, highly rewarded, or visible roles
according to Fox (2000). When women conduct research they tend to exercise more care
and caution and detail to their work. This attention often slows their research process and
a result is that women take longer investigating a topic. Men publish sooner and are more
frequent recipients of funding because their research does not take as long to complete as
womens research projects do. The research the women conduct has been found to be
complete and accurate; women simply process information differently (Fox 2000).
Hyde and Kling (2001) studied the fields that women typically enter at the college
level. They discovered three explanations as to why women enter certain fields in higher
education. Women may be competent in math and science but because they do not
value these areas, women tended to enter non-math/science related fields. Additional
research showed that even though women were competent in math and science they felt
more comfortable in English and tended to gravitate towards those fields. Women felt
that math was less useful, enjoyable and important. Ultimately the researchers
determined that women placed more value on having a job that allows one to help others,
whereas men place more value on making money and being famous (Hyde & Kling,
2001).
25
Single-Sex Schools
The notion of single-sex schools has resurfaced in the educational community
beginning in 2001. Previously single-sex schools were banned in the public sector.
President Bush permitted their resurgence in 2006 with the changes he approved to Title
IX (U.S.C.A. 1681). Because of the threats of school closure or restructuring from No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) (20 U.S.C.A. 1681) schools have been left scrambling to
lessen the gap of achievement between categories of students. To permit schools to
separate students based on sex was an attempt to allow districts another pathway to
potentially improve student learning. This change has been met with both support and
skepticism from educators.
An argument for revising the regulations of Title IX (20 U.S.C.A. 1681) was that
it originally banned different treatment by sex, was the crisis in boys education. (see, for
example, Gurian & Stevens, 2005; James, 2007; Neu & Weinfield, 2007; Sommers,
2000). Much attention has been made about the fact that boys are struggling in schools.
This attention to single-sex schools as a remedy for failed student achievement was
instituted despite the fact that gender is not a mandated NCLB category for reporting test
scores.
Cohens (2008) legal argument was mentioned earlier. He analyzed the literature
on single sex-schools, particularly the proliferation of all boys schools based on what he
calls the essential myth of masculinity (p. 5). The essential myth of masculinity
considers that there is one type of masculinity and that the reason boys are failing in
schools is because schools are not designed to address that essential male. Cohen
maintains that this masculinity is one defined by dominance over girls as well as over
26
non-hegemonic boys. According to Cohen boys are failing in schools, dropping out,
fewer are attending college, more are identified as special needs students and tend to use
more drugs and develop anti-social behaviors. He contends that those who advocate
single-sex schools view them as the way to combat these ills so that boys can be dealt
with differently and dealt with in the framework of this essentialist view. One flaw in
this thinking, according to Cohen, is that nowhere in the diatribe about why boys fail is
boys life outside of school discussed. In the essential myth of masculinity boys are
different than girls by nature. It is this nature that is being ignored by educators,
according to Cohen. Proponents of single-sex schools assert that boys need to be
educated in an environment that allows for competition, aggression, and firm men
teaching them. This view of masculinity is seen as incompatible with sex equality
according to Cohen, and, as such, might be a violation of the new Title IX regulations.
Cohen warns that single-sex schools, as constituted now, might be a reversal of thirty
years of progress towards equity. Despite the concerns raised by Cohen, others would
claim there are positive examples of single-sex programs.
Gray and Wilson (2006) created a single-sex classroom within a coeducational
school. Students placed in these programs were struggling academically and educators
found that the test scores in those classrooms improved dramatically. In another study,
Hubbard and Datnow (2005) targeted minority students of low economic status for
single-sex programs. In these cases each school district was given a $500,000 start-up
seed grant in which to develop the alternative schools. As in the Gray and Wilson study,
scores improved for students in these classrooms. Teachers also found that they were
better able to address the external issues that so many of these children bring to the
27
classroom which teachers believed impeded their educational progress. Many of the
schools in this study used their seed money to bring sociologists, counselors, and health
agencies into the schools. With the addition of these programs, school attendance also
improved because students needs were being addressed.
The study by Watson, et al., (2002), mentioned earlier in this chapter, examined
how career aspirations were impacted in single-sex schools. Researchers found that girls
in single-sex schools, regardless of academic ability, maintained higher career aspirations
than their co-educational counterparts. The researchers then concluded that in single-sex
schools, girls developed more confidence selecting a career that was not seen as a
primarily female occupation. It is ironic that some 120 years after women were granted
the right to attend school, we find that their potential career choices are still more likely
to be the more stereotyped female oriented jobs.
Younger and Warrington (2006) extended the study of single-sex programs in the
United Kingdom. In this study students in single-sex programs at the middle or Junior
High level in 3 different schools were studied. Two of the districts were affluent and one
was a poor school. As in the previously reported studies, students scores improved in
single-sex programs, especially in math and reading. The researchers also found that for
this program to be successful there needed to be total buy-in and support from the
parents, students, staff, administration and the community. When the positive support
was present, the single-sex programs made substantial improvements in students
academic abilities. In the study by Daly and Defty (2004) conducted in Northern Ireland
researchers discovered an interesting outcome in their single-sex program. The
researchers found that girls of any ability did better in single-sex schools but boys with
28
average or above average ability did not improve their scores in all boys schools. Boys
of lower academic abilities did demonstrate improved academic progress in such schools.
The least expensive school program is generally considered to be that type of
instruction traditionally seen in most schools. Any time a district institutes a new
program, the cost of education rises. In the Hubbard and Datnow (2005) study in
California the single-sex schools required additional support services not seen in typical
public schools. The students in the California program were minority students from low-
economic backgrounds. Their lack of academic progress related to obstacles to success
that they dealt with on a regular basis. The students were frequently either truant or
absent. Some came from dysfunctional homes. Many young women had unplanned
pregnancies, and coupled with the constant mobility of these students, their education
was negatively impacted. The single-sex schools were able to bring health services, social
workers and additional tutors into the schools. The concentration of these services as well
as the single-sex programs improved the academic environment which resulted in
improved achievement levels.
In the California program (Hubbard & Datnow 2005) and the school in England
(Younger & Warrington, 2006) researchers found that start-up funds were not continued
after the initial start of the program. This lack of continued funding impacts the programs
and the support services the schools can offer. As a fledgling program encounters bumps,
there are no available funds to address the causes. Students in both the California and
England programs experienced academic improvement. The teachers and administrators
were also pleased with the progress their students were making. Despite the significance
of the improvements, both programs were discontinued after several years. According to
29
the authors the schools ceased to be centered on funding and the inability to address
problems that surfaced in the schools.
In an article written by Anushka Asthana and published in the Guardian/
Observer, found in the United Kingdom in 2006, single-sex schools were viewed in a
different light. In this article academic achievement could not be attributed to single-sex
schools. The critics felt that there was too much attention given to the inherent
differences between girls and boys. Some progress made in the all girls schools was
attributed to the fact that the schools are either independent or elementary schools.
Interestingly, the writer notes that there is no clear advantage to co-educational schools
either. The author, Anushka Asthana goes on to describe a third option of single sex
schools, that schools are co-educational from elementary to middle and high school. At
the junior high level only classes are operated in a single sex format (Asthana, 2006).
On an initial glance the notion of single-sex schools may appear to be a
reasonable alternative for students struggling in school. If educators have learned nothing
in the last 30 years it has been that children learn differently. Using this notion it makes
sense that that idea would be carried into efforts to change the ways traditional schools
serve low achieving students. Cohen (2008) reported concerns about the changes to Title
IX in 2005. Cohen examines single-sex schools by examining the beliefs behind the
schools and his concern of where this education could lead.
Cohen (2008) believes that this change to Title IX in 2005 and one of its
fundamental principles could lead to a gradual eroding of the gains that the initial
implementation of Title IX of 1972 brought to many children. Cohens main concern is
the attitude or the essential myth of masculinity that has been used as a rationale for
30
single-sex schools and the sex role stereotypes the myth reinforces. Cohens concern
emphasizes masculinity but his advocacy is fundamentally for gender equity.
Feminism: Social History and Schools
Being able to challenge the structure of schools that may be retaining sexist
gender-based treatment of students is a possible implication of this study. Confirming
whether or not that structure is likely in a sample Midwest schools lays the groundwork
for that challenge. Therefore, the implications of this study can be drawn from a feminist
backdrop.
This study examined how teacher expectations influence the development of
children in schools with particular focus on gender. The study of feminism is critical in
understanding how girls and boys in schools may still experience differential treatment
despite increasing political and economic gender equality over time resulting in
decreasing power differences based on gender in the wider society.
Working from a foundation in Freires (2000) thinking, bell hooks situates
challenge as central to her ways of viewing the world (2000b). She is a teacher and
scholar who tirelessly works to move women from the margins to the center, particularly
within educational institutions. In its origins, she writes, the core goal of feminist theory
was explaining to women and men how sexist thinking worked and how we could
challenge and change it (hooks, 2000b, p. 19). Women (and some men) committed to
gender equality challenged the systems of male domination. Their first forays into the
movement were theorized informally. Groups of political and social activists attempted to
understand sexism; they analyzed its dynamics; they created new paradigms of gender
interactions absent hierarchies based on male domination (hooks, 2000b). According to
31
hooks, the growth of womens studies and the institutionalization of feminist theory in
departments of womens studies threatened to create just another set of domineering
relationships that of elite educated white women over those women of color outside the
academy. hooks (1994) posed the inherent conflict. Intellectualizing what have been the
lived experiences of women in lives subordinated to men puts such challenge at risk of
only reinforcing new systems of power. Critical consciousness is necessary, she argued,
to resist creating new systems of domination just as morally driven educators challenge
the old ones.
Bell Hooks is an educator and feminist, a prolific writer in the fields of both.
hooks (1994) wrote, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and
oppression (p. 1). She restated this definition in a (2000a) book to re-energize her
advocacy for a feminist perspective relevant to all. Her feminist approach to schooling is
one based on restructuring the reality of the relationship between learner and educator, a
relationship imbued with power differences. To hooks (2000a), the teacher and the
student both learn best in a classroom that resists being a site of domination. Community
and equality are the dispositions hooks argues are liberating qualities of the classroom.
While, in her view, the teacher should not be in a dominating role, neither should one
demographic group be dominant over another. For example, neither males dominate
females nor whites dominate blacks. Hooks (2000a) believes that teachers play a role in
building a learning community. The notion is community as a way of conceptualizing
feminism because community is the antithesis of a hierarchical arrangement. In a
community, equality of members is valued.
32
It is true that the roles of the teacher and the students differ in a classroom. Each
has a unique responsibility; teachers responsibilities are different from those of students.
Hooks, however, wants those roles and responsibilities not to play out in a scenario of
domination. She writes that in the classroom:
The teacher who can ask of students, What do you need in order
to learn? or how can I serve? brings to the work of educating a spirit of
service that honors the students will to learn. Committed acts of caring let
all students know that purpose of education is not to dominate, or
prepare them to be dominators, but rather to create the conditions for freedom.
Caring educators open the mind, allowing students to embrace a world of
knowing that is always subject to change and challenge (hooks, 2003, p. 92).
Hooks feminism and her argument for a feminist pedagogy grew from her
experiences and were legacies of social change from many decades past. In an attempt to
place hooks feminist theory into an historical context and to situate those early feminist
activists who challenged male domination into a chronology, it is helpful to do a quick
review of the struggle women have faced throughout the last two centuries in this country
(hooks, 2000b). A review of history is necessary because so many of the concerns that
women face in education are rooted in the experiences that women had prior to their
being permitted to attend school, vote, and gain parity with men after the passage of Title
IX. (1972)
A two-part retrospective into that history begins with Freedmans (2002)
chronicle on the history of women. First she identifies two contributing factors that
33
triggered the response of feminism. Secondly, significant historical events that were
precursors to todays feminist movement are discussed.
The first root of feminist politics according to Freedman (2002) was the
establishment of capitalism. Prior to the grand experiment, known as the colonies
independence from Great Britain, the worlds economic system was such that it allowed
women to be controlled and have no control over their lives. The introduction of
capitalism would open markets and allow women to earn wages and gain control over
their life, according to Freedman. The factor that supported the birth of feminist
politics centered on the foundational beliefs underlying democracy. Over time
individual rights were granted and recognized. Fighting against legal barriers to the rights
of some in favor of the rights of others, over time, led to laws against discrimination
based on group identity. These rights were slow in being enacted, but the system of laws
was established as a representative government. The power rests within the citizens to
force those laws to protect the minority (Freedman, 2002).
Some key historical points helped promote the feminist movement.
Wollstonecraft, a pioneer British feminist in a 1792 series of essays (printed in 1996)
asserted women need to have political and civil sense so that they may use their
intelligence in a productive manner. She further encouraged England to become an
enlightened nation. She advocated for improved schools which were primarily for boys
and argued that boys and girls should be schooled together. She wanted women to gain
the same opportunity as men so that women could channel their energies as they became
educated (Wollstonecraft, 1996).
34
Other early activists were instrumental in the early feminist movement in the
United States. Some used the abolitionist movement as a vehicle to pursue womens
rights. Lucretia Mott has been regarded as the mother of the feminist movement in the
United States (Hymowitz & Weissman, 1978). In 1840 she met fellow womens rights
advocate Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The two women crafted the design of the Seneca Falls
Convention where women drafted the proclamation of Declaration of Sentiments.
This document spelled out womens rights much in the same manner as the Declaration
of Independence forcefully challenged the domination of Britain over the new colonies.
The publicity of the convention brought Susan B. Anthony to the fight for womens
rights. In 1869, Wyoming became the first state to pass suffrage for women and by 1893,
15 additional states had ratified the amendment granting women suffrage. In a Supreme
Court decision in 1908, the court limited the womens workday to 10 hours. Previously
employers could require women to work any length of time, and penalize or fire any
individual failing to comply with the work conditions. The court further promoted equal
treatment for women when it struck down an earlier ruling that permitted a minimum
wage for women (DuBois & Dumenil, 2005).
Although neither Elizabeth Cady Stanton nor Susan B. Anthony lived to see the
ratification of the 19th Amendment, the United States ratified the amendment in 1920 and
women were finally granted the right to vote (Waisman & Tietjen, 2008). No additional
legislation that defined womens rights were passed and yet by 1940, 27% of the
workforce was comprised of women.
The Second World War became pivotal in helping women move in a more
positive direction in employment. By 1944, 37% of adult women were in the workplace.
35
The National Labor Board issued General Order 16, (National Labor Board, 1942), which
called for women to earn the same salary as their male counterparts for the same job. The
GI Bill was passed in 1944 and many soldiers, including men and women, returning from
the war, now had an opportunity to attend college (Hymowitz & Weissman, 1978).
Another critical turning point in the struggle for Womens Rights occurred in
1964. In 1964 Congress was set to pass the historic Civil Rights Act. In this legislation,
also known as Title VII, the banning of employment discrimination based on race, color,
religion or national origin was proposed. (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, 78
Stat. 241) A congressman from Virginia proposed that the word sex be included in this
piece of legislation. The rationale for this move was that if rights for women were
included with rights for blacks the legislation would be ignored. The legislation passed
and the rationale for including women in this act backfired and during the following ten
years, more women, then any other group represented in Title VII, filled discrimination
suits. This Act also saw the beginning of the modern feminist movement with the
establishment of National Organization for Women (NOW) 1966. What is curious with
the above sequence of events is that as in the early abolitionist movement, and the 1866
passage of the 14th Amendment, the issue of equality for blacks was seen as a
springboard to equality for women (Hymowitz & Weissman, 1978).
Fifty-two years after women gained the right to vote Title IX (20 U.S.C.A. 1681)
was passed. Title IX read that:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded
from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
36
discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance. (20 U.S.C.A. 1681)
Title IX guaranteed that women and men have the same opportunities in all aspects of
education from preschool to graduate school. The passage of this act was seen as pivotal
by the NOW, founded by Betty Friedan.
It may seem that gender equality has been achieved by the first decade of the 21st
century. Yet, doubts remain. In 1929 approximately 5% of the professorates in the United
States were filled by women. In 2010 according to the American Association of
University Professors found at (http://www.aau.com), only 7.8% of the professor ranks in
the United States are filled by women. This pattern is not limited to the United States. In
2001 it was reported in Australia that 6% of the professorates were filled by women
(Probert, 2005). The difference between now and 1929 is that the discrimination has
taken on much more subtle tones.
Feminism can be linked to teacher expectations. Such links are manifest in the
fact that schools, on the surface, purport to treat all students equally. The reality may not
be played out in classrooms, especially where gender is concerned. Such gender-based
influence, if it exists, has tremendous impact on the lives of children. For example,
Stormquist (1993) provided a detailed update on the efforts toward sex equity legislation
after Title IX and suggested what consequences there were for schools as a result of
legislation after Title IX.
According to Stormquist (1993) of the six categories influenced by mandated
policies on gender equity, the one entitled provision of pre- and in-service training of
teachers, (p. 381) is directly related to this study of the sex role expectations of teachers.
37
At the time she wrote her findings, she claimed that conditions in classrooms were still
not favorable to girls, basing her claim on the studies by the American Association of
University Women (AAUW, 1992), the most prominent and wide scale studies of girls
and women in schools. This study adds to what is known about teachers attitudes toward
girls and boys by measuring sex role expectations among one group of Midwestern
teachers.
A feminist conceptualization of schools is of value when reflecting on the
teaching and learning over the 30 years post the passage of Title IX. (20 U.S.C. A.
1681). Some theorists focus on issues of identity (Gilligan, 1982; Hall, 1990) a
perspective often utilized in cultural perspectives on education brought to bear on issues
of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and special needs. In the classic book that stoked the
feminist movement, The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan (1997) reinforced this belief
that women are pigeon holed into narrow roles and that education is the key to unlock the
cage. Education may be the source that has saved many women and the foundation for
womens futures, according to Friedan. It is for this reason that the effect of teacher
expectations must be scrutinized. If teachers do not believe students to be capable and,
thus, maintain high expectations for their students, many, and in particular girls, will be
left with promises unfulfilled.
A rift that developed in the feminist movement was created by Betty Friedan,
according to bell hooks (1994), when she targeted white, middle class women as the base
for the womens movement. Hooks felt that Friedan excluded men and other minorities in
her cause. Women gained opportunities but those gains were not for all women. hooks
38
felt that Friedan, although successful in gaining opportunities, in reality created another
layer of barriers to opportunity that poor minorities and some men had to overcome.
There is truth in hookss criticism. The original womens movement, emboldened
by Friedan among others, first addressed middle class women. The passage of Title IX,
(20 U.S.C.A. 1681) was critical in opening the door for woman in the latter half of the
21st century and unintentionally worked to meld hooks and Friedans position by
outlawing gender based discrimination against all people (hooks, 2000b).
Education was seen as key to the feminist movement by both Friedan and hooks.
The path of focus was different but not deliberately set that way. Friedans book The
Feminine Mystique was seen as revolutionary for its time. In 1963, the civil rights
movement still in its infancy. With the advent of the feminist movement during that same
decade it appeared that the majority of American citizens were in some stage of upheaval.
One important focus of the early womens movement was education. If women were
afforded similar educational opportunities, then they would have a say in their lives and
become equal partners to men in American society.
Hooks (2003) believes that Friedan fell short when she focused solely on
education and did not address feminist literacy. Simply being educated by the existing
system was not going to foster individuals knowledgeable in the feminist movement and
therefore working to eliminate sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression of all
individuals, rather than perpetuating the current system.
Hooks belief about education was influenced by the work of Florence Howe
(1977). Howe wrote about Feminism and the Education of Women in 1977. Howe
discussed her search for curriculum that was not male biased. Howe describes three
39
phases in the education of women. The first phase occurred when women were permitted
to attend school but could only take curriculum that was seen as less rigorous than males
and were limited to certain classes. Even though Howe was describing the period of time
around the nineteen hundreds, until the passage of Title IX (20 U.S.C.A. 1681), many
women still faced these same restrictions regarding the type of education they could
obtain. The second phase allowed women to study what men did but through a male
curriculum. The final phase was characterized by institution of Womens Studies in a
stable place in the curriculum. A fourth phase might be considered the ideal phase in
which women studies are incorporated into the curriculum, and not located outside it.
Much of what Howe discusses in relationship to the educational offerings women had can
be chronicled through The American Curriculum (Willis, G., Schubert, W.H., Bullough,
R.V., Kridel, C., & Holton, J.T., 1994).
Howe and hooks would both be concerned that the topic of Womens Studies
has not been introduced in the K-12 curriculum. The topic of womens issues is usually
limited to a portion of a chapter on equal rights located in social studies textbooks. The
curriculum, and therefore the initial impression given to students, might be that women
had no role in the United States until the late 1960s. That this is established in the
curriculum renders it unsurprising, then, that teachers instruct with gender-based
expectations. According to Howe (1977) what we are instructing may be biased
information and we are doing a disservice to our students by not expecting them to
perform in schools or giving them the information to help students appreciate the
accomplishments of their gender and their race in the educational process.
40
Gender-based expectations influence the education of boys as well as girls. In
recent years examining boys achievement in schools has received much attention (see,
for example, Gurian & Stevens, 2005; James, 2007; Neu & Weinfield, 2007; Sommers,
2000). Research has addressed the phenomenon. One example is a study conducted by
Jones and Myhill (2004). These researchers examined high achieving and low achieving
students and the teacher expectations of both groups. The authors contend that the
concerns raised about gender and underachievement in girls in the early 1980s, is similar
to the argument now being waged concerning under-achieving boys. Jones and Myhill
believe that the contributing factor in both scenarios is teacher expectation and found
discord between what teachers expect students to achieve and teachers perceptions about
those same students. Teachers equate acting out in underachieving males as active
engagement while under-achieving girls who simply sit in the class are merely being
compliant (Jones & Myhill, 2004).
Conclusion
The educational landscape of the United States is on the verge of extraordinary
changes. The implementation of several federal educational initiatives such as NCLB,
21st Century Learning Skills and the Race to the Top has shaken the education
foundations that have existed in this country for the last 80 years. It is has become
apparent that if the United States wishes to remain competitive in the global community
educators need to be able to assure that all children are learning. One strategy to advance
that goal is to prepare teachers better. Involved in that effort is examining how teacher
expectations are influenced by students gender. Also worthy of study is how teacher
expectations are influenced by changing gender roles in this society.
41
In Ohio, the site of this study, gender inequity among those in decision making
roles is pervasive. Positions with the most policy power in public education are the
district superintendent, high school principal, and junior high principal. According to the
Ohio Department of Education (2011) only 10% of the 612 districts in Ohio have a
female superintendent and 10% of the high schools have female principals.
Despite 45 years after the second wave of feminism there are still gender equity
concerns. Many of them have been enumerated in this chapter: gender differences in
socialization, in teacher expectations, and in opportunities within and outside school. Fast
forward from Title IX in 1972 to 2008; and, as science and education come together some
now speculate that boys and girls learn differently. They have different neurological
networks and brain development (Sax, 2008). These claims are not universally accepted.
An opposing view is that the science of gender based brain differences is still too new to
draw conclusions (Mead, 2008). Much more needs to be learned from scientists in this
field before these differences are a solid foundation for teaching and learning.
It was the purpose of this study to investigate whether or not teacher gender role
expectations differ by the sex of the students, the achievement levels of the students, and
the grade levels of the students. The study addressed the question: Do teachers ascribe
different gender role expectations to hypothetical student profiles? This chapter has set
the stage for the study by building an explanation of sex and gender as a defining set of
assumptions about power and agency in contemporary western culture. Research on
teacher expectations were discussed, the classroom dynamic that the author of this study
speculates is linked to the gender of the students. Also discussed in this chapter was the
construct of androgyny, a psychosocial trait that, according to Bem (1974), signals a
42
healthy and fluid gender identity that provides a broad repertoire of dispositions with
which one can interact with ones surroundings. A final section was devoted to
socialization by gender in which the author argued that children are socialized in this
culture, in part, through a gender framework that influences how they grow to identify
themselves and their potential. Within this section the author presented evidence for
persistent gender inequities that disadvantage both boys and girls in schools and society
and also discussed a contemporary movement to reinstitute single sex schools as a
remedy for those schools in which students are not showing high levels of academic
performance.
43
Chapter 3
Study Procedures
Methodology
Replicating a past study allows a researcher to determine whether the results
reported in previous research are still valid and useful in todays educational climate.
Benz (1980) investigated the sex role expectations of classroom teachers for
simulated students who were presented to those teachers as hypothetically about to
enter their classrooms. Students differed by gender and by academic achievement. Benz
examined whether or not the teachers sex role expectations were related to these two
variables as well as grade level and teacher gender. The research questions guiding this
study were: What are teachers gender role expectations of students? Are teachers gender
role expectations related to the gender of the student? Are teachers gender role
expectations related to the achievement level of the students? Are teachers gender role
expectations related to the grade level teachers instructed? Are teachers gender role
expectations related to teacher gender? Have all these patterns of teachers gender role
expectations changed between 1980 and 2011?
The proposed study reported on the gender role expectations of a contemporary
sample of Ohio teachers; the term gender role expectations being the contemporary
parallel to the term sex role expectations of the 1970s. The results of the 2011 teachers
gender role expectations were compared to the results of the original 1980 study. The
44
hypothesis used in the study was the same as in the Benz (1980) study: Teachers
expectations of students gender roles vary by students gender, achievement level, and
grade level. Prior to the dissertation study, a pilot study was conducted that examined
some of the assumptions of the 1980 study.
Pilot Study on Adjective Examination
The first pilot study, examined the adjectives used in the original instrument to
help determine their relevance today. Sandra Bem developed the Bem Sex-Role
Inventory (BSRI) in 1974. Benz adapted this instrument for her 1980 study.
Bems (1974) inventory was one of the first that not only examined masculine and
feminine traits but also explored the area of androgyny and was completed by individuals
rating themselves. On the BSRI (Table 1) were listed 60 adjectives, twenty were
validated by Bem as feminine, 20 were masculine, and 20 were neutral, neither masculine
nor feminine. Persons rated themselves on a seven point scale from 1= never to 7 =
always.
Using a mathematical formula Bem (1974) then categorized respondents based on
their profiles of responses as masculine, feminine, androgynous or undifferentiated. Bem
classified a person masculine if that person scored above the median on masculine
adjectives and below the median on the feminine items. A person was categorized as
feminine if he/she fell above the median for feminine adjectives and below the median
on masculine items. Undifferentiated was the classification for persons whose scores
fell below the medians for both masculine and feminine adjectives, and androgynous
was the classification for those persons whose scores fell above the medians on
masculine and feminine words. It was Bems belief that personality traits expanded
45
beyond the simple descriptors of masculine and feminine. Any accurate measurement of
personality should allow for the notion that some personality traits are both masculine
and feminine (Bem, 1974).
Participants for the Pilot Study on Adjective Examination
The pilot study was conducted in a public school district that employed
approximately 750 teachers and had a student population of 10,440. In replication of the
Benz study the researcher decided that the surveys in the pilot study would be given to
teachers at the 1-12 grade level. Input from 156 teachers across grades 1-12 were sought
for this study. Seventy-two teachers were asked to participate in Part 1 Adjective Survey
(Appendix A).
46
Table 1
Bems Adjectives Characterized as Masculine (M), Feminine (F), and Neutral (N)
Adjective Type Adjective Type Adjective Type

______________________________________________________________________
Acts as a Leader M Affectionate F Adaptable N
Aggressive M Cheerful F Conceited N
Ambitious M Childlike F Conscientious N
Analytical M Compassionate F Conventional N
Assertive M Doesnt use Harsh F Friendly N

Language
Athletic M Eager to Soothe Hurt F Happy N

Feelings
Competitive M Feminine F Helpful N
Defends Own Beliefs M Flatterable F Inefficient N
Dominant M Gentle F Jealous N
Forceful M Gullible F Likable N
Has Leadership Abilities M Loves Children F Moody N
Independent M Loyal F Reliable N
Individualistic M Soft Spoken F Secretive N
Make Decisions Easily M Sensitive to Others F Sincere N
Masculine M Shy F Solemn N
Self Reliant M Sympathetic F Tactful N
Self Sufficient M Tender F Theatrical N
Strong Personality M Understanding F Truthful N
Willing to Take a Risk M Warm F Unpredictable N
Will to Take a Stand M Yielding F Unsystematic N
47
Seventy-two teachers were asked to complete the form Adjective Survey
(Appendix A). The survey consisted of the 60 adjectives on the Bem instrument.
Teachers were given only two categories to use marking whether they considered the
adjective to be feminine or masculine. This artificially dichotomous rating of the words
was done so that the study could examine which words the teachers considered masculine
or feminine and to compare these results with Bems categories of masculine and
feminine. A weakness of this pilot study was including terms that Bem designed to be
neutral (neither masculine nor feminine). In hindsight it is easy to see that this may have
been confusing to teachers, and, served no real purpose because the researcher was not
interested in determining changes in the original neutral adjectives. The teachers were
given one week to complete the survey for the pilot study. Return envelopes were
provided so that upon completion it would be convenient to return the results.
Of the total 72 surveys distributed, a total of 65 (90.3% return rate) were
ultimately used in the analysis. Initially 68 were returned, but 3 were judged unusable
because directions were not followed. The breakdown for responses from the various
grade bands were 20 returned from the 1-4 grade band (4 male and 16 female), 23 from
the 5-8 grade band (5 male and 18 female) and 25 from the 9-12 grade band (9 male and
16 female). Of the 65 that were usable, several of those were returned with some words
not judged as either masculine or feminine. These surveys remained in the study because
the teachers did record usable data, although incomplete.
Frequencies and percentages were determined for each of the sixty adjectives
used in the survey. The results of the data analysis were reported in two formats. The
first, as seen in Appendix B, reports how the teachers rated the masculine, feminine
48
words as classified by Bem (1974). One of the critical factors of duplicating an
experiment that is over thirty years old is the relevance and validity of the terms being
used. Examining whether teachers in the study still viewed Bems original adjectives in
their respective categories was crucial in determining if this latest study on gender
expectations could be carried out using the same instrument that Benz used in 1980. In
other words, are masculinity and femininity defined differently in 2011 than they were in
1980?
Results of Adjective Examination Pilot Study
Appendix B shows how the teachers rated Bems masculine adjectives. For a
word to be considered still relevant as a masculine descriptor 50% of the participating
teachers would have had to mark it as a masculine word. The researcher established
this criterion as a minimally acceptable threshold. Having read contemporary studies that
employed the BSRI in recent years means the published scholars assume the Bem
instrument to be still valid; therefore, a highly stringent criterion such as 70% or 80%
agreement seemed unwarranted in the pilot study. On the other hand, a criterion score of
20%, e.g., seemed not worthy of the effort to conduct the pilot study. Furthermore, the
results of data analysis would reveal the actual proportion of contemporary teachers who
validate Bems categories.
When both male and female respondents scores were combined (N = 65)
seventeen of the original twenty of Bems masculine adjectives were marked by 50% or
over 50% of the teachers as masculine. The adjectives rejected as being masculine
(failing to receive at least a 50% validation) were Defends Own Beliefs (43.0),
Independent (34.8), and Self Sufficient (36.9).
49
Appendix B shows the percent of teachers who agreed with the original
classification for each of Bems masculine and feminine adjectives. For example, 61.5%
of all the teachers in the study maintain with Bems 1974 classification, that Act as A
Leader is a Masculine descriptor; 93.8% agree that aggressive is masculine. These
results are also reported for male and female teachers separately. Overall, a lower
percentage of female participants than male participants reported the masculine adjectives
to be masculine (Appendix B). The females had an overall percentage of 67.8% for the
twenty masculine adjectives while the male participants averaged 78.9%. This difference
in strength could be because of the difference in N size of the two groups but it also could
be because the female participants did not determine that these masculine words had
the same overall masculine quality as first seen in Bems work. Using the fifty percent
agreement the findings suggest that all but three of the masculine adjectives used in the
Bem and Benz study are still considered to be descriptors of masculine traits.
Appendix B shows how the teachers rated Bems feminine adjectives. For a
word to be considered still relevant fifty percent or more of the teachers would have to
mark it as a feminine word.
When both male and female respondents scores were combined (N = 65)
eighteen of the original twenty of Bems feminine adjectives were still considered
feminine. The adjectives rejected as being feminine were Childlike, (30.7) and Soft
Spoken, (41.5).
Overall, the female participants reported the feminine adjectives to be slightly
more feminine than their male counterparts (Appendix B). The females had an overall
percentage of 81.1% for the twenty feminine adjectives while the male participants
50
averaged 78.9%. This difference in strength could be the result of several factors. The
difference in N size of the two groups could account for the difference but it also could
be that within the two groups, males are more familiar with masculine traits and females
are more familiar with feminine traits. A third explanation could be because the male
participants did not determine these feminine words to have the same overall feminine
quality as first seen in Bems work.
Discussion
The question then is, Are Bems adjectives still valid descriptors of perceived
gender traits? The results obtained in the Adjective Survey pilot study (Appendix B)
are supported by three additional studies conducted to verify whether Bems Sex Role
Inventory was still a valid research tool 37 years after it was introduced. The first was
conducted in 2002 and compared African and European Americans (men and women)
using the BSRI (Konrad & Harris, 2002). In general, the research has shown that women
are more liberal in their views on gender expectations then males (p. 259). Despite the
social changes and political progress that have taken place in the last 30 years that would
lead one to believe that women have the same opportunities as men, recent studies
indicate that the perceptions and views of many young people is of the same stereotypical
gender views that existed when the BSRI was developed (Konrad & Harris, 2002).
Konrad and Harris (2002) found differences between the European and African
American results that were attributed to the differences in how African American men
view gender roles as compared to the views of African American females. In this pilot
study, the participants were not asked to disclose their ethnic background.
51
The construct validity of the BSRI inventory was also studied internationally in
Turkey and Taiwan (Ozkan & Lajunen, 2005; Peng, 2006). In the study conducted in
Turkey, the researcher used the shortened version of the BRSI that contains 10
adjectives in each category. The researchers reported that the results of their study
paralleled the results Bem reported in 1974. There were differences between several
words that have previously been designated as strictly masculine. It is in this arena that
the authors felt that there had been more of a blending of some of the adjectives and
that some adjectives (independent, assertive, strong personality, has leadership abilities,
willing to take risks, defends own beliefs) were no longer predominately male (Ozkan &
Lajunen, 2005). The subjects used in the study in Turkey were all university students.
According to the authors; Turkish men are expected to be self-sacrificing and able to
control their feelings (p. 108). On the other hand in a culture where women are more
subservient to men, the study found that adjectives like independent, assertive, strong
personality, has leadership abilities, willing to take a risk, dominant, self-sufficient and
defends own beliefs are now desirable for both sexes (p. 109). No longer is the home
considered the sole source of a womans identity in Turkey (Ozkan & Lajunen, 2005). It
would be interesting to determine whether the results seen with this group of college
students would hold true if the research were conducted with average citizens in Turkey.
According to the authors, Turkey is seen as a country that is a moderate step between
western culture and the traditional eastern values where ones household defines a
females identity.
In the Bem study conducted in Taiwan the researchers used a different way to
select their participants. In the previous two studies the sample populations have been
52
undergraduates at various universities. Peng (2006) decided to use a sample population
from four distinct subgroups: police, nurses, managers and college students to complete
the survey. Pengs decision to use this research group was to evaluate whether the results
obtained by Bem were valid when the instrument was used with regular citizens, not
simply college age students. Ozkan and Lajunen (2005) reported in the Turkey study, that
based on previous research, countries that have an educated population tend to be more
open to the roles women play in their society (p. 104). This belief helped support Peng
to use a different research group. As in Turkey, women in Taiwan are not seen as having
the same opportunities as their male counterparts and in a society that remains a
Confucian society. Like the results obtained in the pilot study on rating students, Peng
found that a higher percentage of male subjects rated the masculine adjectives.
Consequently a higher percentage of female participants rated the feminine adjectives.
As with the Turkish study, Peng (2006) chose to use the abbreviated version of
the BRSI. The results showed that the males related more strongly to all 10 of the
masculine adjectives whereas the females were split in their ratings of the 10 adjectives
finding only five that they felt were strictly feminine. Like the Turkish study, the
adjectives aggressive, defends own beliefs, independent were considered
appropriate descriptors for either gender. Peng concludes her study by stating that the
BSRI appears reasonably useful in revealing specific gender attributes but has not
demonstrated its usefulness in revealing gender role patterns (p. 847). As a result of the
studies by Konrad and Harris, Ozkan and Lajunen, and Peng, along with the results of the
pilot study the BRSI and the Teacher Sex-Role Expectation Inventory (TSRI) appear to
remain valid instruments to use in research. Additional studies using these instruments
53
are warranted. Based on the results from the pilot the researcher eliminated all adjectives
that less than 50% of the teachers agreed with Bems gender classification as either being
masculine or feminine. The masculine adjectives eliminated were Defends own Beliefs,
Independent, and Self-Sufficient. The feminine adjectives eliminated were Soft-
Spoken, and Childlike based on the results in Appendix B. A new version of the
TSRP was developed was used in this study.
Pilot Study on Rating Students
The second pilot study consisted of asking teachers from grades 1-12 to rate
hypothetical students based on brief descriptions. This format was based on the research
of Benz (1980). The design of this pilot study was a test of the procedures used in the
final study. In the 1980 study Benz modified the BSRI developed by Bem (1974) and
created the TSRI (Appendix C). Benz used the same sixty adjectives that had been
identified by Bem. Instead of a self-report instrument as originally designed, Benz
presented classroom teachers with six hypothetical students described as either:
- Male
- Male high achieving
- Male low achieving
- Female
- Female high achieving
- Female low achieving
Benz (1980) asked the classroom teachers on a written survey, Please try to
imagine that these are actually students who will be entering your class. Mark the
characteristics on each page that would indicate what you expect that student to be
54
like (p. 224). Benzs purpose was to characterize teachers expectations of their students
as masculine, feminine, androgynous or undifferentiated. In Benzs study, student gender,
teacher gender, grade level, and academic ability were independent variables. The
dependent variable was the sex role category in which students were placed by teacher
ratings. She argued that teachers would reveal stereotypical perceptions of students due to
their gender and/or achievement levels. The teachers used a seven point Likert scale to
rate each adjective (Appendix C-D).
Data Collection in the Pilot Study on Rating the Student
Eighty-four teachers were asked to participate in the Rating the Students pilot
study. The teachers were given one week to complete the survey. Because of the lengthy
time required to rate all six hypothetical students, each on 60 descriptors, the
participating teachers were divided into two groups. Each group of 42 teachers rated only
3 of the six students, thus reducing the time commitment asked of them by the researcher.
Contrived descriptions of students included gender and academic ability and were
distributed to each group of 42 teachers. The first group was given the following
contrived descriptions of students (See Appendix C):
- Jamal Williams (No description given)
- Sarah Michaels (Low achieving female)
- James Baker (High achieving male)
The second group also consisted of 42 participants and was given a set of surveys
that included the following contrived descriptions of students (See Appendix D):
- Hannah Peters (No description given)
- John Baker (Low achieving male)
55
- Janet Edwards (High achieving female)
Return envelopes were provided so that upon completion it would be convenient
to return the results. Of the total possible surveys (N = 84) distributed 69 were returned
(an 82% return rate). From group one there were 35 responses (9 males and 26 females).
From group two there were 34 responses (9 males and 25 females). The breakdown for
responses from the various grade bands were 27 returned from the 1-4 grade band
(5 male, 22 female), 24 from the 5-8 grade band (5 male and 19 female) and 18 from the
9-12 level (7 male and 11 female).
Results of the Pilot Study on Rating Students
The results from the teachers were entered into SPSS data file. Analyses consisted
of frequencies, means and medians for each of the 60 adjectives for each contrived
subject. The results for each of the students are seen in Appendix E-G. Appendix E
reports the results for the students who had no academic description. Appendix F
reported the results for students considered low achievers and Appendix G reported the
results for the high achieving students. Once the mean and group median were
calculated the results were used to categorize the students into one of four sex-role types
as defined by comparative masculinity and femininity scores as seen in Figure 1 (Bem &
Watson, 1976).
56
Figure 1 Sex Role Expectation Calculation
Masculine
Below the Median Above the Median
Feminine Feminine Androgynous Median
Undifferentiated Masculine
Median
Figure 1 shows the basis of sex role categorization and therefore the Sex Role
Expectations as determined from the teachers ratings. Using the masculinity mean, as
determined from the data of the pilot study, the researcher used the chart on its horizontal
axis. The researcher determined whether the mean score for the masculine adjectives is
above or below the median score for all participants in the study. The second part of this
calculation occurs when the researcher considered the femininity mean score, again
derived from all of the data in the pilot study using the vertical axis of Figure 1 and
whether it is above or below the median. Where these two points intersect is the Sex
Role Expectation determination as developed by Bem in 1974, an application of the
median split technique (Bem, 1974).
The masculinity scores and the femininity scores were calculated for each
teachers rating and are reported in Appendix H. The masculinity median for all
students (N = 6) was 4.2. The femininity median score for all students (N = 6) was 4.0.
According to the Sex Role Expectation Calculation (see Appendix H), combining all
teachers ratings together.
- Hannah: female student, no academic achievement: Undifferentiated
- Jamal: male student, no academic achievement: Feminine
57
- Sarah: female student, low academic achievement: Feminine
- John: male student, low academic achievement: Androgynous
- Janet: female student, high academic achievement: Undifferentiated
- James: male student, high academic achievement: Androgynous
Discussion
In her study Benz (1980) reported that teachers did not stereotype students by
sex they did stereotype students by achievement (p. 189). The results reported in the
pilot study were similar to Benzs results. The high achieving male, James, was
categorized as Androgynous like those in Benzs study in 1980 and Janet, the high
achieving female, was rated as Undifferentiated. This difference demonstrated that
even though the male and female students were ascribed with the same academic skills,
they brought forth different expectations from teachers. The results for Janet Edwards
were somewhat surprising given that the description was so clearly labeled as high-
achieving. The sex role expectation results for the non-descriptive achieving students in
Benzs work were reported as undifferentiated for the female student and feminine
for the male student. The pilot study findings mirrored Benzs results.
For the low achieving students, both the male and female were classified as
feminine. The results obtained in the pilot study are different from the results Benz
obtained for her low-achieving students. A typing error in the survey might have
contributed to this finding. The student descriptor had a male name but was referred to
with female pronouns. This error was not discovered until all of the surveys had been
returned. Several of the teachers wrote on the survey that they rated the male student as
being a low achieving female. The final factor to consider is that the low group is
58
considered low achieving and yet the descriptor identifies these two students as C
students. Teachers may consider a C student an average performing student, not one with
low academic abilities. This difference may have influenced how the teachers rated these
students. Additional research on what factors teachers consider a student of average
ability to possess may be considered but for the purpose of this study the academic
descriptors used by Benz remained as they did in her study. Based on the outcomes of
the second pilot study, the TSRP is still a valid instrument to be used to measure Sex
Role Expectations and a larger study was considered to be potentially beneficial.
An additional issue that developed as a result of the pilot study concerned the
names used for the various students. In the original survey Benz used these names: Mary
Williams, James White, Janet Smith, Susan Fuller, John Baker and Joseph Miller. Benz
did not give a rationale for how the names were selected. When reconstructing this
survey, the researcher decided to use names that were more in line with the current year
and were selected after examining several class lists from the district used in the pilot
study. These names did not reflect actual students in the district. In retrospect, selecting
these names could have had an unintended consequence. Jamal Williams may have
presented an image of a student of color to the teachers while the other names may have
presented images of white students.
In the final study, new names were selected. The six most common surnames and
the six most common first names in the United States as reported in the 2005 Census
Bureau (United States Census Bureau, 2010) were used. The rationale for using six
different names was to give reality to the simulated descriptions and diminish confusion
about the student being rated. The researcher acknowledges that using these names was
59
delimitating to the study design. The six most common names in the USA in 2005, by
definition, represent only the dominant culture which is white and middle class. A new
TSRP (Appendix I) was designed with these six student names and descriptions:
Robert Johnson: male student, no academic information
John Williams: male student, low achievement
James Jones: male student, high achievement
Linda Davis: female student, no academic information
Patricia Smith: female student, low achievement
Mary Brown: female student, high achievement
These two pilot studies were beneficial for several reasons. First, Bems
instrument and Benzs research are more than three decades old. Examining how
teachers might respond to adjectives that 30 years ago warranted a masculine or
feminine meaning helped this author modify the instrument for contemporary use.
Additionally a pilot study testing the study procedures helped reinforce the importance of
careful editing of data collection documents, the serious implications of inadvertent
typos, and the less than 100% return rate of surveys. The second pilot study confirmed
that teachers can respond to hypothetical student descriptions and they are likely to
differentiate their expectations of differently described students.
Research Design for the Dissertation
A quasi-experimental design was selected because the independent variables
(student gender, student achievement level, grade level and teacher gender) were under
researcher control. According to Campbell and Stanley (1963) the research person can
introduce something like an experimental design into his scheduling of data collection
60
procedures (e.g., the when and to whom of measurement, even though he lacks full
control over the scheduling of experimental stimuli) (p 34).
The dependent variable (gender role expectation, i.e. feminine, masculine,
androgynous, undifferentiated) was measured. The statistical analysis included both
descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analysis to show the relationship
between the gender of the students, achievement level of students, grade level, teacher
gender and their relationship to teachers gender role expectations. Chapter 4 contains the
details of the sampling process of Ohio teachers, the nature of the data collection and the
statistical tests of these four hypotheses listed below. These hypotheses will be tested
separately by 3 grade bands and teacher gender.
1. There is a significant difference among the six contrived students (female student,
male student, low achieving male, and high achieving male, low achieving female
and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role classification of
androgynous over and above person vectors.
and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role classification of masculine
over and above person vectors.
and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role classification of feminine
over and above person vectors.
61
and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role classification of
undifferentiated over and above person vectors.
Appendix J illustrates how the person vector will be calculated. Prior to conducting any
research using people, the researcher must obtain permission from the Institutional
Review Board to ensure strict protocol will be followed. Permission to conduct this study
can be found in Appendix K.
The results of all the analysis are also included in Chapter 4.
62
Chapter 4
Research Procedures and Results
The first part of this chapter focuses on an explanation of all aspects of the study.
The Ohio school district typologies are explained and then the data are disaggregated to
show how the Teacher Sex Role Perception Inventories (TSRPs) were distributed to the
participants. Each TSRP presents the teacher participant with a contrived student
description, and there were six contrived students across all TSRPs. The next section
provides the profile of the returned TSRPs. These results are presented by the individual
contrived student, by the typology of districts, by the grade bands and by the gender of
the teachers. The final section of this chapter shows results obtained in this 2011 study
compared to the Benz study of 1980.
The Sample of Teacher Participants
The 84 school districts in the sample were selected using an interval sampling
technique in which every seventh district was selected from a list of 609 public school
districts in Ohio. One school was selected in each of the 84 districts. The districts were
randomly placed into either the K-4, 5-8, or 9-12 grade bands. This combination of grade
bands was rotated as the districts were selected. If a selected district had multiple schools
at the grade band to be used, the online program Mrs. Glossers Math Goodies: Custom
Random Number Generator, found at (http://www.mathgoodies.com) was used to select
the school. To determine whether or not the selected sample represented the state of
Ohio, the sample was compared to the Ohio school district typology.
63
An Ohio school district typology divides school districts into eight types:
1 Rural/agricultural high poverty, low median income
2 Rural/agricultural small student population, low poverty, low
to moderate median income
3 Rural/Small Town moderate to high median income
4 Urban low median income, high poverty
5 Major Urban very high poverty
6 Urban/Suburban high median income
7 Urban/Suburban very high median income, very low poverty
8 Joint Vocational Schools
The state used a districts financial make up, level of poverty (based on median
income of an area), and physical classification (urban, suburban, city or rural) in
developing the typology. School districts then were each classified into eight types. This
typology helped the state compare school districts that have a similar demographic
profile. For the purpose of this study only the first seven types were used. The
distribution of selected school districts by category of typology is shown in Table 2. To
determine whether or not the distribution in the sample differed significantly from the
distribution of school districts in Ohio, a goodness of fit chi square test was conducted.
Results showed the typology profile of the sample was significantly different from the
population, (6, N = 84) = 24.04, p < .05, w = .53.
64
Table 2
Typology Distribution: Comparison of Sample School Districts to State of Ohio
Typology Population Sample Differences

N % N % N %
1. Rural/Agri (High Poverty) 97 (16.0%) 13 (15.0%) 1%
2. Rural/Agri (Low Poverty) 161 (26.0%) 14 (17.0%) 9%
3. Rural/ Small Town 81 (13.0%) 10 (12.0%) 1%
4. Urban (High Poverty) 102 (17.0%) 11 (13.0%) 4%
5. Major Urban (Very High Poverty) 15 (2.0%) 5 (6.0%) 4%
6. Urban/ Suburban (High Income) 107 (17.0%) 16 (19.0%) 2%

7. Urban/ Suburban (Very High
Income) 46 (7.0%) 15 (18.0%) 11%
Total 609 (98.0%) 84(100%)

Note: Chi Square results: (6, N = 84) = 24.04, p < .05
Therefore, the distribution of schools in the study by income was not completely
representative of public school districts in Ohio. Three types (Rural/Agricultural High
Poverty; Rural/ Small Town; and Urban/ Suburban High Income) were within 2% of
Ohio distribution. The other 4 types contained more than a 2% difference from the
population distribution.
The researcher assured the participants they would not be able to be identified.
However, since the typology of schools was used, there needed to be a way to identify the
type of schools from which the results were received. The researcher used a cover sheet
color coded by district type. The sheet gave the general instructions for completing the
surveys. The following colors were used to identify the districts type. The colors were:
Ivory 1 Rural/agricultural high poverty, low median income
Yellow 2 Rural/agricultural small student population, low poverty, low

to moderate median income
65
Gold 3 Rural/Small Town moderate to high median income
Salmon 4 Urban low median income, high poverty
Pink 5 Major Urban very high poverty
Orchard 6 Urban/Suburban high median income
Blue 7 Urban/Suburban very high median income, very low poverty
The data collection process was as follows. The principal of each of the 84
selected schools was sent four packets of TRSP materials (one packet for each of the four
teachers) i.e., for 336 teachers. In the cover letter (see Appendix L) the principal was
asked to select four teachers to complete the packets (Appendix M). There were
suggestions given to the principal on how the teachers could be selected but ultimately
the researcher realizes that there was no control on how each principal distributed the
packets, a limitation of the design. It was predetermined that a return rate of 50% would
be minimum return criteria rate to proceed with the study. Of the possible N = 336, N =
175 teachers ultimately returned materials, a return rate of 52%.
Demographic Profile of Teacher Participants
Responding teachers were classified in five grade bands, 9-12, 5-8, K-4, 5-12 and
K-8. Originally the researcher had identified three grade bands, K-4, 5-8 and 9-12. The
additional classifications were added after the participating teachers indicated a wider
span of grade levels. The directions on the Teacher Sex Role Perception Inventories
(TSRPs) were not specific to teachers in core academic areas so it was possible for the
TSRPs to go to teachers who taught multiple grade levels outside the conventional grade
bands in the original design. It was also possible that in smaller districts, a core academic
teacher could instruct grade levels that were in multiple grade bands. There was one
66
TSRP, (> .5% of total), that spanned multiple grade bands. The participating teachers by
grade bands are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Number of Teacher Participants by Grade Band
Grade Band Participating Teachers (N) Percent
K-4 44 25.1%
5-8 64 36.7%
9 - 12 63 36.0%
5 - 12 1 .5%
Unknown 3 1.7%
Total 175 100.0%

Note: Includes all teachers who returned TSRPs
The gender of teacher participants was predominately female with 24% of the
returned TSRPs from males and 68.5% from females. This response is not surprising as
there are more female teachers than male teachers in Ohio schools. Thirteen teacher
participants did not mark their gender. See Table 4.
Table 4
Teacher Participants by Gender
Gender Participants (N) Percent
Male 42 24.0%
Female 120 68.5%
Unknown 13 7.4%
Total 175 99.9%
The participating teachers were further disaggregated into gender by grade band.
These results appear in Table 5.
67
Table 5
Teacher Participants by Gender by Grade Band
(N) (N) (N) (N) (N)

Grade Band Male Female No Gender Total Percent
Reported
K-4 2 38 4 44 25.1%
5-8 14 47 3 64 36.5%
9 12 26 34 3 63 36.0%
5 - 12 1 - - 1 .5%
Total 43 119 10 172
Unknown* 3 1.7%
Total 175 99.8%

Note: (N) represents the returns that contained no information about the grade band of the respondent
There were 336 teachers originally contracted, and each was asked to rate three
students (for a potential total of 1008 TSRPs). The distribution was randomly achieved
and a total of 175 teachers responded as participants. Each participating teacher had
received three TSRPs (three contrived students to rate) for a potential total TSRPs of 525.
A total of 168 TSRPs for each student was distributed. In other words, 168 TSRPs with
Robert Johnson were distributed and 168 of each of the other five contrived students
were also sent out. The breakdown of returns for each of the contrived students is
reported in Table 6. The distribution of the 525 TSRPs for the contrived students returned
was not statistically significantly different from the profile of those 1008 distributed (2
(5, N=1008) = 8.63, p>.05.
68
Table 6
Return of TSRPs by Identity of Contrived Student
Contrived Student Distributed Returned
Robert Johnson (no academic information) 168 (16.6%) 75 (7.4%)
John Williams (low achievement) 168 (16.6%) 97 (9.6%)
James Jones (high achievement) 168 (16.6%) 89 (8.8%)
Linda Davis (no academic information) 168 (16.6%) 104 (10.3%)
Patricia Smith (low achievement) 168 (16.6%) 73 (7.24%)
Mary Brown (high achievement) 168 (16.6%) 87 (8.63%)
Total 1008 525 (52.0%)

Note: Chi Square results: (2 (5, N=1008) = 8.63, p>.05
Of the total returned (N = 175), nine teachers responded but did not complete the
TSRPs. This meant that the N size was then 166 participating teachers and potentially
498 TSRPs. Upon further examination of the 498 TSRPs, 39 were questionable (and not
usable), leaving the total of TSRPs at 459. The researcher then compared the profile of
distributed TSRPs, the returned TSRPs, and the usable TSRPs. Additional examination of
the 39 individual TSRPs with missing data revealed that 21 with missing data had three
or fewer missing scores. The researcher decided that if a TSRP contained a minimum of
80% usable data (44 of the 55 adjectives rated), it would be included in the analysis. The
resulting N size of usable TSRPs was finalized at N = 479 while the N size of the
unusable TSRPs is N = 46 (27 of those individual TSRPs were completely blank). A
description of the final dataset is in Table 7.
69
Table 7
Usable TSRPs by Identity of Contrived Student
Contrived Student Distributed Returned Unusable Usable

TSRPs TSRPs TSRPs TSRPs
Robert Johnson (no academic information) 168 75 7 68
John Williams (low achievement) 168 97 8 89
James Jones (high achievement) 168 89 7 82
Linda Davis (no academic information) 168 104 15 89
Patricia Smith (low achievement) 168 73 4 69
Mary Brown (high achievement) 168 87 5 82
Total 1008 525 46 479
The typology of the school districts included seven classifications by the state of
Ohio. Participating teachers came from all seven types. The typology of participating
teacher sample was not significantly different from the distribution of TSRPs (2 (6,
N=336) = 4.76, p>.05). The return rate from the classifications is presented in Table 8.
70
Table 8
Participating Teachers by Typology

Typology Teachers Teachers
Sent ** Participating
(1) Rural/ Agriculture (high poverty) 52 (15.47%) 23 (13.14%)
(2) Rural/ Agriculture (low poverty) 56 (16.66%) 26 (14.85%)
(3) Rural/ Small town (moderate income) 40 (11.90%) 28 (16.00%)
(4) Urban (high poverty) 44 (13.09%) 23 (13.14%)
(5) Major Urban (very high poverty) 20 (5.95%) 7 (4.00%)
(6) Urban/ Suburban (high median income) 64 (19.04%) 33 (18.85%)
(7) Urban/ Suburban (very high median income) 60 (17.85%) 35 (20.00%)
Total 336 (99.96%) 175 (99.98%)

Note: Chi Square results: (2 (6, N=336) = 4.76, p>.05)
Teachers sent = expected frequency: Teachers participating = observed frequency.
The return rate did not mirror the distribution of selected schools, by typology.
When one compares Table 8 to Table 2, the Rural/Agricultural (low poverty) districts
make up only 16.66% of the teacher sample while those districts make up over one-fourth
(26%) of the districts in Ohio. The sample over represents the Urban Suburban (very
high income) group which in Ohio is only 7% of the districts but is 20% of the teacher
sample. More closely aligned are the major urban districts. They make up 2% of Ohio
districts and 4% of the sample of teachers, a fairly proportional representation.
The number of participating teachers by each grade band in each district typology
was analyzed. The results are presented in Table 9. The majority of teachers were from
the 5-8 and 9-12 bands. It was expected that the K-4 band would have a greater number
of teachers since in the pilot study (2009) the K-4 grade band saw a 96% return rate of
71
teacher TSRPs. The other return rates for the pilot were 85% (grades 5-8) and 64 %
(grades 9-12).
Table 9
Participating Teachers by Grade Bands and Typology

Typology No Participating
K -4 5-8 9 - 12 Other Information Teachers
(1) Rural/ Agriculture (high
poverty) 2 13 6 1 1 23(13.14%)
(2) Rural/ Agriculture (low

poverty) 9 6 9 1 1 26(14.85%)
(3) Rural/ Small town

(moderate income) 1 11 13 2 1 28(16.00%)
(4) Urban (high poverty) 8 9 6 - - 23(13.14%)
(5) Major Urban (very high

poverty) 3 2 2 - - 7(4.00%)
(6) Urban/ Suburban (high

median income) 9 8 12 3 1 33(18.85%)
(6) Urban/ Suburban (very

high median income) 8 13 12 2 - 35(20.00%)
Total 40 62 60 9 4 175
Note: The column Other represents surveys that were complete but were missing the grade band information.
The next area of focus was how the six contrived students were represented in the
returned TRSPs. The six students represented in the study were: Robert Johnson (Male
with No Academic Information), John Williams (Male with Low Academic
Achievement), James Jones (Male with High Academic Achievement), Linda Davis
(Female with No Academic Information), Patricia Smith (Female with Low Academic
Achievement) and Mary Brown (Female with High Academic Achievement). Table 10
below shows the number of TSRPs returned (by grade band) for the six students. The
72
interesting factor was that while all of the students have different percentages of returned
TSRPs, when one calculates all the students, regardless of gender, with the same
information, the return total is approximately 33% for the three levels of achievement:
high achieving, no information and low achieving.
Table 10
Returned TSRPs by Grade Band by Contrived Student

No
Grade
Student K -4 5-8 9 -12 5 - 12 Band Total Percent
Robert Johnson (no academic
information) 19 27 27 1 1 75 14.28c%
John Williams (low

achievement) 25 41 31 - - 97 18.47%
James Jones (high

achievement) 23 35 30 1 - 89 16.95%
Linda Davis (no academic

information) 26 43 35 - - 104 19.80%
Patricia Smith (low

achievement) 19 24 28 1 1 73 13.90%
Mary Brown (high

achievement) 23 35 28 - 1 87 16.57%
Total 135 205 179 3 3 525 99.97%

Note: Includes all participants
Some responding teachers wrote comments on their TSRPs. The majority of the
comments centered on the ethics of asking a teacher to evaluate a student before any
relationship had been developed. Some comments included:
- Leadership qualities may not be viewed as positive and the students may be
liked for negative behaviors
- Low students are generally not a behavior problem
- Difficult to judge students before meeting them
73
- I cant surmise the make-up of a student I dont know
- The high student could be evaluated but the other two received fours because
they could have any characteristics
- Preconceived notions based on a students previous grades makes no sense
- I dont see the correlation
- This survey makes no sense
- I am anxious to see the results
Gender Role Expectations
According to Benzs (1980) initial measurement of teachers gender role
expectations, teachers were asked to rate each contrived student on a 7- point scale on
how well they expected each adjective would describe that student. From each TSRP,
two scores were calculated: a masculinity score (the mean rating of 17 masculine items)
and a femininity score (the mean rating of 18 feminine items) (Appendix N). As shown
on the scoring matrix in Figure 1, scores were then divided at the medians for the group
of teacher participants. The median masculinity score was 4 and the median femininity
score was 4. The results for the Benz (1980) study were a masculinity median of 4.25
while the femininity median was 4.19. Further breakdown of the results by the various
subgroups of the study can be found in Appendixes O and P.
Teachers gender role expectations were categorized into four gender role
expectations. A series of logic statements were used in SPSS to determine which of the
four Gender Role Expectations described the teachers. The logic statements were:
Masculinity > 4.0 and Femininity > 4.0 = Androgynous
Masculinity > 4.0 and Femininity 4.0 = Masculine
74
Masculinity 4.0 and Femininity > 4.0 = Feminine
Masculinity 4.0 and Femininity 4.0 = Undifferentiated
Table 11 displays the frequency of individual gender role expectations by teachers on the
total of 479 TSRPs (Green & Salkind, 2008). This configuration of results differs from
the one used in the pilot study on rating the students. The rationale for this change was
that in the pilot study procedures and instruments used in the study were being evaluated.
All pilot study teachers results were aggregated to calculate one overall teacher sex role
expectation for each student. In the actual study each individual teachers sex role
expectation of the contrived students was calculated. This shift was consistent with the
research purpose and with the assumptions of the research design. The unit of analysis of
this study was the classroom teacher therefore each teachers sex role expectation was
measured.
75
Table 11
Distribution Gender Role Expectations by Participating Teachers (N of TSRPs = 479)
Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated Total

Student N % N % N % N %
Robert Johnson (no
academic
information) 5 7.35 17 25.00 7 10.29 39 57.35 68
John Williams (low
achievement) 7 7.86 13 14.60 13 14.60 56 62.92 89
James Jones (high
achievement) 57 69.51 20 24.39 0 - 5 6.09 82
Linda Davis (no
academic
information) 13 14.60 1 1.12 32 35.95 43 48.31 89
Patricia Smith (low
achievement) 3 4.34 0 - 30 43.47 36 52.17 69
Mary Brown (high
achievement) 64 78.04 6 7.31 5 6.09 7 8.53 82
Total 149 31.10 57 11.89 87 18.16 186 38.83 479
The most frequent gender role expectation for both male and female students with
no achievement description was undifferentiated. Over half the TSRPs (57.3%) showed
expectations of the male whose academic achievement was not described (Robert
Johnson) to be undifferentiated. Somewhat fewer (48.31%) expected the female without
an achievement description (Linda Davis) also to be undifferentiated. Undifferentiated
was also the most frequent gender role expectation for male and female students
described as low achievers. Over three-fifths (62.92%) of TSRPs showed expectations for
the low achieving male student (John Williams) to be undifferentiated; and somewhat
over half (52.11%) the teachers expected the low achieving female student (Patricia
Smith) to show an undifferentiated sex role. On the other hand, both high achieving male
76
and female students were most frequently expected to be androgynous. Almost 70%
(69.51%) of the ratings of the high achieving male (James Jones) showed teachers
expected an androgynous sex role; and, over three-fourths (78.04%) expected the high
achieving female (Mary Brown) to be androgynous.
A comparison between the original 1980 study and the current 2011 study can be
made by analyzing the gender role expectations for each contrived student separately.
These comparisons are reported in Tables 12 through 17.
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectations of Students Identified Only by

Gender in 1980 and 2011
Comparing students who were identified only by gender (Robert Johnson and
Linda Davis) are shown on tables 12 and 13. Robert Johnson, a male student with no
indicated achievement level (see Table 12) was overwhelmingly expected to be
undifferentiated in sex role (56.5%) in the current study. In the original study, the greatest
proportion of TSRPs (44.4%) also reported the male student to be undifferentiated, but in
not as great a proportion.
Table 12
Gender Role Expectations of Male Students (No Achievement Indicated): Comparison of

Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results (N=479) in % of Teachers
Classifications
Study Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated Total
Benz (1980) 7(25.9%) 5(18.5% ) 3(11.1%) 12(44.4%) 27(100%)
Schwendenman 5(7.3% ) 17(25.0%) 7(10.2% ) 39(57.3%) 68(100%)

(2011)
Linda Davis, a female student with no achievement level indicated, had a wide
diversity of gender role expectations in the original study (See Table 13). No one
77
category overshadowed the others. In the 1980 study few TSRPs (6.1%) showed her to
have masculine expectations, but equal proportions (27.3%) expected her to be
androgynous and undifferentiated. Almost two-fifths (39.4%) expected her to be
feminine. In contrast, over 48.3% of the TSRPs responding in the current study showed
expectations as undifferentiated the most frequent classification. Only 14.6% and 1% of
TSRPs resulted in expectations in the two categories, androgynous and masculine,
respectively, and 36.0% expected her to be feminine.
Table 13
Gender Role Expectations of Female Students (No Achievement Indicated): Comparison

of Original 1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results (N=479) in % of Teachers
Classifications
Benz (1980) 9(27.3%) 2(6.1%) 13(39.4%) 9(27.3% ) 33(100%)
Schwendenman 13(14.6%) 1(1.1%) 32(36.0%) 43(48.3%) 89(100%)

(2011)
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectations of High Achieving Students in

1980 and 2011
James Jones, a male student with a high achievement level indicated, was
expected to be both masculine and androgynous in both studies. In 1980 approximately
54% (53.8%) of the TSRPs resulted in his being classified as masculine and another 47%
placed him as androgynous. In the 2011 study 69.5% of the TSRPs rated James Jones as
decidedly androgynous and the remaining 30.5% was divided among the masculine and
undifferentiated sex role classifications (See Table 14). In the 1980 study, the most
frequent expectation was masculine (almost 54%) but followed closely by androgynous
78
(47%). Clearly, neither a feminine gender role expectation or an undifferentiated gender
role expectation were related to the high achieving male.
Table 14
Gender Role Expectations of Male Students (High Achieving): Comparison of Original

1980 Results (N=200) and Current Study Results (N=479) in % of Teachers
Classifications
Benz (1980) 20(47.6%) 21(53.8%) (0.0%) 1(2.4%) 42(100%)
Schwendenman 57(69.5%) 20(24.3%) (0.0%) 5(6.0%) 82(100%)

(2011)
Mary Brown, a female student with a high achievement level indicated, had
similar gender role expectations in the original and current study (See Table 15). There
was a greater percentage placing expectations in the masculine category in the Benz
study (23.1%) than in the current study (7.3%). The majority of TSRPs placed her as
androgynous. More specifically, 78.0% of the TSRPs in the 2011 study expected her to
be androgynous and in the Benz 1980 study 64.1% expected her to be androgynous. Both
the feminine and undifferentiated scores saw little change between the two studies. There
was a 1.0% increase in the feminine expectation in the 2011 study over the Benz (1980)
results and 1.2% increase in the undifferentiated expectation between the 2011 and 1980
results.
While the feminine and undifferentiated expectations remained fairly consistent
between the two studies, the masculine expectation dropped 15.8% and the androgynous
expectation increased 13.9%.
79
Table 15
Gender Role Expectations of Female Students (High Achieving): Comparison of Original

Classifications
Benz (1980) 25 (64.1%) 9(23.1%) 2(5.1%) 3(7.7%) 39(100%)
Schwendenman 64(78.0%) 6(7.3%) 5(6.1%) 7(8.5%) 82(100%)

(2011)
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectations of Low Achieving Students in

1980 and 2011
The TSRPs resulted in John Williams, a male student with a low achievement
level, to have a decidedly undifferentiated sex role in both studies (74.2% in 1980 and
62.9% in 2011). In 1980 the second most frequent gender role expectation
(approximately 23%) was feminine while that number was decreased by almost 10% in
2011 (14.2%). The TSRPs in the 2011 study indicated a more broad view of the gender
role expectations by expecting John to be masculine (14.6% as compared to 3.2% in
1980). Only about 8% of the teachers expected an androgynous sex role in 2011 but none
had that expectation in 1980.
Table 16
Gender Role Expectations of Male Students (Low Achieving): Comparison of Original

Classifications
Benz (1980) (0%) 1(3.2%) 7(22.6%) 23(74.2%) 31(100%)
Schwendenman 7(7.8%) 13(14.6%) 13(14.6%) 56(62.9%) 89(100%)

(2011)
80
Patricia Smith, a female student with a low achievement level has a diagonal
reversal of values between the feminine and undifferentiated categories in the 1980 and
2011 results (See Table 17). In 1980 a large number of TSRPs placed Patricia as feminine
(57.1 %) and undifferentiated (39.3%). In 2011 the largest number of TSRPs showed her
to be undifferentiated (52.1%) and the second largest number expected her to be feminine
(43.4%). Like the low achieving male student very few TSRPs placed expected Patricia
in the androgynous category.
Table 17
Gender Role Expectations of Female Students (Low Achieving): Comparison of Original

Classifications
Benz (1980) (0%) 1(3.6%) 16(57.1%) 11(39.3%) 14(100%)
Schwendenman 3(4.3%) (0%) 30(43.4%) 36(52.1%) 69(100%)

(2011)
Gender Role Expectations by Teachers Grade Level
Further descriptive analyses were conducted on teachers sorted first by grade
level the teachers taught and then sorted by teacher gender. In the next tables, (18-22) the
results of these analyses are reported.
In Table 18 the gender role expectations for the grade band of K-4 teachers are
shown. Of the 479 total TSRPs, 132 (27.55%) came from K-4 teachers. The most
frequent gender role expectation category for each contrived student mirrored the results
when all TSRPs were evaluated.
81
Table18
Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades K-4 (N = 132 TSRPs)
Student Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated Total

N N N N
Robert
Johnson 1(5.6%) 2(11.1%) 4(22.4%) 11(61.3%) 18(100.4%)
(no academic
information)
John Williams - 2(8.0%) 6(24.0%) 17(68.0%) 25(100%)
(low
achievement)
James Jones 13(56.5%) 7(30.4%) - 3(13.0%) 23(99.9%)
(high
achievement)
Linda Davis 1(4.2%) - 10(41.7%) 13(54.2%) 24(100%)
(no academic
information)
Patricia Smith - - 8(42.1%) 11(57.9%) 19(100.1%)
(low
achievement)
Mary Brown 16(69.6%) 3(13.0%) 2(8.7%) 2(8.7%) 23(100%)
(high
achievement)
Total 31(23.485) 14(10.60%) 30(22.72%) 57(43.18%) 132
82
Table 19 below reports how the teachers of Grade Band 5-8 perceived the
students. From these teachers 180 TSRPs were received (37.57%). In this grade band,
teachers gender role expectations of the contrived students were similar to those
expectations found in Grade Band K-4.
Table 19
Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades 5-8 (N = 180 TSRPs)

N N N N
Robert
Johnson 1(4.2%) 10(41.7%) 2(8.3%) 11(45.8%) 24(100%)
(no academic
information)
John
Williams 2(5.6%) 4(11.1%) 6(16.7%) 24(66.7%) 36(100.1%)
(low
achievement)
James Jones 23(74.2%) 7(22.6%) - 1(3.2%) 31(100%)
(high
achievement)
Linda Davis 8(22.9%) 1(2.9%) 13(37.1%) 13(37.1%) 35(100%)
(no academic
information)
Patricia
Smith - - 13(59.1%) 9(40.9%) 22(100%)
(low
achievement)
Mary Brown 26(81.3%) 1(3.1%) 1(3.1%) 4(12.5%) 32(100%)
(high
achievement)
Total 60(33.33%) 23(12.77%) 35(19.44%) 62(34.44%) 180
83
The grade 9-12 teachers returned 161 TSRPs (33.6% of the total 479). The 9-12
grade band (Table 20) shows the gender role expectations to mirror the overall results
completely for all students.
Table 20
Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades 9-12 (N = 161 TSRPs)

N N N N
Robert Johnson 3(12.5%) 5(20.8%) 1(4.2%) 15(62.5%) 24(100%)
(no academic
information)
John Williams 5(17.9%) 7(25.0%) 1(3.6%) 15(53.6%) 28(100%)
(low achievement)
James Jones 21(77.8%) 5(18.5%) - 1(3.7%) 27(100%)
(high achievement)
Linda Davis 4(13.3%) - 9(30.0%) 17(56.7%) 30(100%)
(no academic
information)
Patricia Smith 3(11.5%) - 8(30.8%) 15(57.7%) 26(100%)
(low achievement)
Mary Brown 22(84.6%) 1(3.8%) 2(7.7%) 1(3.8%) 26(99.9%)
(high achievement)
Total 58(36.02%) 18(11.18%) 21(13.04%) 64(39.75%) 161
Gender Role Expectations by Teachers Gender
In the next analysis, teachers were sorted by gender and the frequency of gender
role expectations for six students within each gender was calculated. In Table 21 the
gender role expectations by female teachers is shown. The results mirror the results when
all participants were considered. It is interesting that Mary Brown (high achievement) is
expected to be androgynous (79.0%), the most frequent category, while James Jones, the
high achieving male is also expected to be androgynous (66.7%), the most frequent
84
category, but his next most frequent category was masculine (27.5%). Mary Brown had a
fairly equal distribution of remaining results in the other three gender role expectation
categories, the total percent of the three equaling 21%, less than the total that expected
James to be masculine. In other words, the female participants expected Mary, the high
achieving student, to be predominately androgynous (79.0%), whereas the results for
James show that approximately two thirds of the participants (66.7%) expected him to be
androgynous and the other third (27.5%) expected a masculine sex role. In the Benz
(1980) study Mary Brown (high achievement) results were almost duplicates of the
results for James Jones (high achievement) when the female teachers expectations were
examined.
Table 21
Gender Role Expectations by Teacher Gender (Female) (N = 328 TSRPs)

N N N N
Robert Johnson 3(6.5%) 12(26.1%) 4(8.7%) 27(58.7%) 46(100%)
(no academic
information)
John Williams 4(6.7%) 6(10.0%) 10(16.7%) 40(66.7%) 60(100%)
(low achievement)
James Jones 34(66.7%) 14(27.5%) - 3(5.9%) 51(100%)
(high achievement)
Linda Davis 9(14.5%) 1(1.6%) 21(33.9%) 31(50.0%) 62(100%)
(no academic
information)
Patricia Smith 3(6.4%) - 20(42.6%) 24(51.1%) 47(100%)
(low achievement)
Mary Brown 49(79.0%) 5(8.1%) 3(4.8%) 5(8.1%) 62(100%)
(high achievement)
Total 102(31.09%) 38(11.58%) 58(17.68%) 130(39.63%) 328
85
The gender role expectations of male teachers were similar to those seen in the
grade bands K-4 and 5-8. The results mirrored those found when all scores were
examined. Because the number of male teachers was much smaller than the number of
female teachers (male N = 125, female N = 328), the similarity between female teachers
and all teachers is not surprising. Male teachers completed 125 TSRPs while female
teachers completed 328 TSRPs. The dominant pattern in the gender role expectation
profiles across the six students is a pattern of female teachers.
Table 22
Gender Role Expectations by Teacher Gender (Male) (N = 125 TSRPs)

N N N N
Robert Johnson 2(10.5%) 5(26.3%) 2(10.5%) 10(52.6%) 19(99.9%)
(no academic
information)
John Williams 3(13.0%) 7(30.4%) 1(4.3%) 12(52.2%) 23(99.9%)
(low achievement)
James Jones 20(74.1%) 6(22.2%) - 1(3.7%) 27(100%)
(high achievement)
Linda Davis 4(18.2%) - 8(36.4%) 10(45.5%) 22(100%)
(no academic
information)
Patricia Smith - - 10(52.6%) 9(47.4%) 19(100%)
(low achievement)
Mary Brown 13(86.7%) - 1(6.7%) 1(6.7%) 15(100%)
(high achievement)
Total 42(33.60%) 18(14.40%) 22(17.60%) 43(34.40%) 125
Gender Role Expectations by Contrived Student
In the next analysis, the contrived students were sorted by all variables so that an
overall snapshot of each student can be examined.
86
The results for Robert, the no information male, are reported in Table 23. Table
23 shows the Gender Expectations of Male Student (No Achievement Indicated). When
examining all subgroups the majority of respondents expected the male student (No
Achievement Indicated) to be undifferentiated.
Table 23
Gender Role Expectations of Male Student (No Achievement Indicated): Frequency by

Grade Band and Teacher Gender

N(%) N N N
Grade Band K - 4 1(5.6%) 2(11.1%) 4(22.4%) 11(61.3%) 18(100.4%)
Grade Band 5 - 8 1(4.2%) 10(41.7%) 2(8.3%) 11(45.8%) 24(100%)
Grade Band 9 - 12 3(12.5%) 5(20.8%) 1(4.2%) 15(62.5%) 24(100%)
Female Teachers 3(6.5%) 12(26.1%) 4(8.7%) 27(58.7%) 46(100%)
Male Teachers 2(10.5%) 5(26.3%) 2(10.5%) 10(52.6%) 19(99.9%)

Totals 10(7.63%) 34(25.95) 13(9.92%) 74(56.48%) 131
87
Results shown in Table 24 saw the largest proportion of teachers expecting the
low achieving male (John) to be undifferentiated.
Table 24
Gender Role Expectations of Male Student (Low Achievement Indicated): Frequency by


N N N N
Grade Band K - 4 - 2(8.0%) 6(24.0%) 17(68.0%) 25(100%)
Grade Band 5 - 8 2(5.6%) 4(11.1%) 6(16.7%) 24(66.7%) 36(100.1%)
Grade Band 9 - 12 5(17.9%) 7(25.0%) 1(3.6%) 15(53.6%) 28(100%)
Female Teachers 4(6.7%) 6(10.0%) 10(16.7%) 40(66.7%) 60(100%)
Male Teachers 3(13.0%) 7(30.4%) 1(4.3%) 12(52.2%) 23(99.9%)

Totals 14(8.13%) 26(15.11%) 24(13.95%) 108(62.79%) 172
88
According to Table 25 the high achieving male (James) was reported as
androgynous in the 2011 study with the respondents seeing the next highest category as
masculine. These results were a reversal of the Benz (1980) study.
Table 25
Gender Role Expectations of Male Student (High Achievement Indicated): Frequency by


N N N N
Grade Band K - 4 13(56.5%) 7(30.4%) - 3(13.0%) 23(99.9%)
Grade Band 5 - 8 23(74.2%) 7(22.6%) - 1(3.2%) 31(100%)
Grade Band 9 - 12 21(77.8%) 5(18.5%) - 1(3.7%) 27(100%)
Female Teachers 34(66.7%) 14(27.5%) - 3(5.9%) 51(100%)
Male Teachers 20(74.1%) 6(22.2%) - 1(3.7%) 27(100%)

Totals 111(69.81%) 39(24.52%) - 9(5.66%) 159
89
According to Table 26 the majority of respondents rated the female student
(Linda) no achievement indicated, either as undifferentiated or feminine.
Table 26
Gender Role Expectations of Female Student (No Achievement Indicated): Frequency by


N N N N
Grade Band K - 4 1(4.2%) - 10(41.7%) 13(54.2%) 24(100%)
Grade Band 5 - 8 8(22.9%) 1(2.9%) 13(37.1%) 13(37.1%) 35(100%)
Grade Band 9 -
12 4(13.3%) - 9(30.0%) 17(56.7%) 30(100%)
Female Teacher s 9(14.5%) 1(1.6%) 21(33.9%) 31(50.0%) 62(100%)
Male Teachers 4(18.2%) - 8(36.4%) 10(45.5%) 22(100%)

Totals 26(15.02%) 2(1.15%) 61(35.26%) 84(48.55%) 173
90
According to Table 27, Patricia (the low achieving female), was reported by the
majority of the teachers as being undifferentiated. The next highest category was
feminine.
Table 27
Gender Role Expectations of Female Student (Low Achievement Indicated): Frequency

by Grade Band and Teacher Gender

N N N N
Grade Band K - 4 - - 8(42.1%) 11(57.9%) 19(100.1%)
Grade Band 5 - 8 - - 13(59.1%) 9(40.9%) 22(100%)
Grade Band 9 -
12 3(11.5%) - 8(30.8%) 15(57.7%) 26(100%)
Female Teachers 3(6.4%) - 20(42.6%) 24(51.1%) 47(100%)
Male Teachers - - 10(52.6%) 9(47.4%) 19(100%)

Totals 6(4.512%) - 59(44.36%) 68(51.12%) 133
91
The largest proportion of teachers in the 2011 study expected Mary (high
achieving female) to be androgynous (Table 28). These results mirrored the results from
the Benz 1980 study.
Table 28
Gender Role Expectations of Male Student (High Achievement Indicated): Frequency by


N N N N
Grade Band K - 4 16(69.6%) 3(13.0%) 2(8.7%) 2(8.7%) 23(100%)
Grade Band 5 - 8 26(81.3%) 1(3.1%) 1(3.1%) 4(12.5%) 32(100%)
Grade Band 9 - 12 22(84.6%) 1(3.8%) 2(7.7%) 1(3.8%) 26(99.9%)
Female Teachers 49(79.0%) 5(8.1%) 3(4.8%) 5(8.1%) 62(100%)
Male Teachers 13(86.7%) - 1(6.7%) 1(6.7%) 15(100%)

Totals 126(79.74%) 10(6.32%) 9(5.69%) 13(8.22%) 158
Testing Hypotheses with Multiple Linear Regression
Benz (1980) analyzed the data differently and did not report gender role
expectations of teachers at different grade levels. Neither did she report the gender role
expectations of male and female teachers separately. She used teacher grade level and
teacher gender as covariates. She reported that teacher sex, and grade level were
consistently unrelated to gender role expectation (p. 170). The Benz hypothesis-testing
strategy was modified in this study. Teacher grade level and teacher gender were highly
correlated and the covariate strategy was unworkable in SPSS. Instead, hypothesized
relationships between gender role expectations and student gender and student
92
achievement were tested separately with groups of teachers who differed by grade level
and gender.
Additional analysis was performed on the data in the form of model comparison
multiple regression (McNeil, Newman, & Kelly, 1996), the same statistical analysis used
by Benz in 1980. The F test was used to test the hypotheses. The F test, an analysis of
variance, is a test of significance calculated on a least squares solution; and, multiple
linear regression is the general case of the least squares solution (McNeil et al., 1996).
Regression permits the criterion variable (dependent variable) variance to be maximized
and the error variance to be minimized. Regression is more flexible than traditional
analysis of variance in that models can be written to reflect research hypotheses; and,
model comparison regression uses two models which are generated to represent the
research hypothesis (Benz, 1980). These models are referred to as the full model and
the restricted model. The full model consists of the criterion variable as predicted by or
correlated with a set of predictor variables. The restricted model consists of the same
criterion variable as predicted by or correlated with a set of restrictions on the full model.
(Examples appear in Appendix Q). Each model results in a calculated R2 the variance
accounted for in the criterion variable by the set of predictor variables. The F statistic is
calculated according to a formula below.
F = (Rf - Rr)/ (m- m)

(1- Rf)/N - m
In this study the variables in the restricted model are person vectors, a set of
variables that produce the variance accounted for by the teachers. In this repeated
measures design, each teacher potentially rated three contrived students. Including person
93
vectors allows the variance accounted for by the teachers to be accounted for and used as
restriction (covariate). Controlling for this variance allows the analysis to meet the F-test
assumption of independence of data. A complete description of the above formula and the
models used for each hypothesis are located in Appendix Q and Appendix R. The
following 4 hypotheses were tested:
1. There is a significant difference among the six contrived students (female
student, male student, low achieving male, and high achieving male, low
achieving female and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role
classification of androgynous over and above person vectors.
student, male student, low achieving male, and high achieving male, low achieving
female and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role classification of
masculine over and above person vectors.
student, male student, low achieving male, and high achieving male, low achieving
female and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role classification of
feminine over and above person vectors.
student, male student, low achieving male, and high achieving male, low
achieving female and high achieving female) in predicting their sex role
classification of undifferentiated over and above person vectors.
In this study each teacher had the potential to evaluate 3 different students.
94
Replicating Benzs rationale and procedures, person vectors were used.
According to Benz (1980) Repeated measures design is one in which each subject
participates in multiple, i.e. repeated, treatments. In this study each teacher rated three
student stimuli. Some of the variance in the criterion then could be accounted for by the
subjects effect. To account for the variance due to subject, a person vector was used as a
covariate (p. 110). In other words, the data were organized according to person vectors so
that each TSRP could be evaluated without the influence of the other two TSRPs. For
testing these hypotheses an N size of N = 164 teachers was used because 164 teachers
represented those TSRPs that had gender and grade band coded.
One of the original research questions asked whether or not teacher gender role
expectations were related to grade level. To address this question, each of the four
hypotheses was tested in each of the three grade bands separately. For example, whether
there was a difference among the six students in being classified with an androgynous
gender role expectation was tested among teachers of K-4 separately. The same testing
procedure was then followed for each of the additional gender role expectation
(masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated). This same procedure was then conducted
with teachers in grades 5-8 and in grades 9-12 (this total is two fewer than the total listed
above).
One of the research questions addressed whether the gender of the teacher is
related to their gender role expectations. To test this, the four hypotheses were tested with
only male teachers (N = 42) and then with only female teachers (N = 120). These were
teachers who reported their gender on the TSRP survey.
95
The alpha level for this study was set a priori at .05; however, to control for
multiple tests using the same data a more stringent level of probability (p =.001) was
used to interpret statistical significance for each hypothesis (Pallant, 2010). The rationale
for lowering the alpha level is based on the problem of alpha-error build-up. As described
by McDonald (2009) when you do multiple statistical tests [violating the assumptions of
independent data], some fraction will be false positivesThe classic approach to the
multiple comparison problem is to control the family-wise error rate. In other words, if
the null hypotheses are true, the probability that the family of tests includes one or more
false positives due to chance is 0.05 (p. 256). McDonald (2009), Pallant (2010), and
Field (2005) all suggest the Bonferroni correction although Field calls it a conservative
approach (p. 341) dividing alpha by the number of hypotheses tested. For each of the four
gender role expectations (androgyny, masculine, feminine, and undifferentiated) there
were three hypotheses tested (differences among all six students, difference between male
and female students, and differences between high and low achieving students). These 12
hypotheses were ultimately tested five times: among grade K-4 teachers, among grade 5-
8 teachers, and among 9-12 teachers, among male teachers and among female teachers
for a total of 60 hypotheses. The alpha of .05 divided by 60 and rounded up resulted in a
probability of .001 as the level of probability needed for the hypotheses to be statistically
significant at a family-wise Type I error rate of .05. The results are reported in the section
below in Tables 2326. The results are grouped by gender role expectation category.
Androgynous Gender Role Expectations
The six contrived students differed significantly (p < .05) in being classified as
androgynous by the teachers in all three grade bands (Table 29). The high achieving
96
students were seen as overwhelmingly androgynous with 69.7% and 78% of the teachers
rating James and Mary as androgynous. Robert and Linda (no achievement information)
were rated as androgynous by 7.3% and 14.6% of the teachers. The students
described as low achieving were also seen with an androgynous gender role expectation
by 7.86% (John) and 4.34 % (Patricia) of the teachers. The F-test was statistically
significant for all three groups of teachers, suggesting that the grade level the teachers
taught was not related to their sex role classification of androgynous. Because there were
these differences, post hoc testing was conducted to test whether or not the difference
might be related to gender of the student or achievement level of the student.
Table 29
Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Androgynous Gender Role Expectation
Classification Related to (1) Differences Among All Six Contrived Students,
(2) Differences Between Students Grouped Only by Gender (Male and Female Students) and (3)
Differences Between Students Grouped Only by Achievement (High and Low)
Grade K-4 Teachers (N =44)

Significance
Hypothesis R* df F p 0.001
(1) Testing Differences 0.465 5, 82 23.83 < .001 S
Among Six Students
(2) Testing Student 0.001 1, 86 0.109 > .001 NS
Gender Differences
(3) Testing Student 0.459 1, 85 119.68 < .001 S
Achievement Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 132 TSRPs
97
Table 29 Results..
Grade 5-8 Teachers (N = 64)
Significance
Hypothesis R df F p 0.001
(1) Testing Differences 0.458 5,111 34.82 < .001 S

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 180 TSRPs
Significance

Among Six Students
(2) Testing Student 0 1, 103 0 > .001 NS
Gender Differences

Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 161 TSRPs
Male Teachers (N = 42)
Significance
(1) Testing Differences 0.443 5,78 23 < .001 S

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 125 TSRPs
98
Table 29 Results..
Female Teachers (N = 120)

Significance

Among Six Students

Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 328 TSRPs
Testing whether or not there was a statistically significant (p <.05) gender
difference in being classified as androgynous was conducted at each of the three grade
levels. As shown in Table 29, none of the hypotheses was significant, suggesting that
gender is not related to being classified as androgynous. The pattern of statistical results
was similar across the grade levels, indicating that teachers classification of male and
female students as androgynous did not differ by the grade level the teachers taught.
On the other hand, testing whether or not there was a statistically significant
achievement difference (p <.05) was similarly tested according to the achievement level
of the student. Two groups of students (the high achievers and the low achievers) were
tested to determine whether or not there was a significant difference in teachers
classification of androgynous. The groups consisted of those students identified as being
high achievers on the TSRPs, (N = 164) and the low achieving students as identified on
99
the TSRPs, (N = 157). The results (shown on Table 29) show that there were significant
(p <.05) differences among the high achievers and low achievers in their classification of
androgynous. High achievers were expected to have androgynous expectations by
teachers. This pattern held up across all three grade bands.
Masculine Gender Role Expectations
The six contrived students differed significantly (p < .05) in being classified as
masculine by the teachers who taught in grades 5-8 and teachers who taught in grades
9-12.The high achieving students were seen as having masculine gender role expectations
by 24.39% (James) and 7.31% (Mary) of the teachers. Robert and Linda (no achievement
information students) were rated as masculine by 25% and 1.12% of the teachers. When
examining the students described as low achieving, 14.6% of the teachers rated John with
a masculine gender role and Patricia was not rated as masculine by any the teachers. The
teachers in grades K-4 did not classify the six students differently in their masculine
gender role expectation (Table 30). Because there were differences, post hoc testing was
conducted to test whether or not the difference might be related to gender of the student
or achievement level of the student (Grade K-4 teachers were included in the post hoc
testing even though that testing was not required).
100
Table 30
Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Masculine Gender Role Expectation
Grade K-4 Teachers (N = 44)

Significance
(1) Testing Differences 0.12 5,82 4.14 > .001 NS

Among Six Students

Gender Differences

Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 132 TSRPs
Significance

Among Six Students

Gender Differences

Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 180 TSRPs
101
Table 30 Results
Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Masculine Gender Role Expectation

Significance

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 125 TSRPs
Significance

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 125 TSRPs
Female Teachers (N = 120 TSRPs)
Significance

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 328 TSRPs
102
Testing whether or not there was a statistically significant (p <.05) gender
difference in being classified as masculine was conducted at each of the three grade
levels. As shown in Table 30, the results varied across grade levels, suggesting that grade
level may be somehow related to students being classified as masculine. Testing whether
the gender of the student was related to the masculine gender role expectation resulted in
a statistically significant gender difference in grades 5-8 and 9-12 (males more likely to
be masculine) but not in K-4. Among the male teachers, there was a significant difference
between the male and female students in being classified as masculine (males more likely
to be masculine) but there was no significant difference among the female teachers
(Table 30).
achievement difference (p < .05) was similarly tested according to the achievement level
of the student. Two groups of students (the high achievers and the low achievers) were
tested to determine whether or not there was a significant difference in teachers
classification of masculine. The groups consisted of those students identified as being
high achievers on the TSRPs, (N = 164) and the low achieving students as identified on
the TSRPs, (N = 157). The results (shown on Table 30) show that there were no
significant (p < .05) differences among the high achievers and low achievers in their
classification of masculine. This pattern held up across all three grade bands and across
teacher gender tests. In other words, the results strongly suggest that student achievement
level was not related to teachers gender role expectation of masculinity.
103
Feminine Gender Role Expectations
The F-test was statistically significant for teachers in grades 5-8 and 9-12, but not
for teachers in grades K-4, suggesting that grade level was related to a feminine gender
role expectation. Female teachers also showed a statistically significant difference in the
six contrived students being classified as feminine; and, the pattern held up with male
teachers as well (Table 31). The high achieving students were rated with a feminine
gender role expectation by 6.09% (Mary) of the teachers and no teachers saw James as
feminine. Robert and Linda (no achievement information students) were rated as
feminine, by 10.29% and 35.95% of the teachers. The students described as low
achieving were seen with a feminine gender role expectation by 14.6% (John) and
43.47% (Patricia) the teachers. Because there were these differences, post hoc testing was
conducted to test whether or not the difference might be related to gender of the student
or achievement level of the student. Post hoc tests were conducted for teachers at all three
grade levels and for both teacher genders, although, technically not necessary for K-4
grade level teachers.
104
Table 31
Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Feminine Gender Role Expectation
Grade K-4 Teachers (N =44)

Significance
(1) Testing Differences 0.111 5,82 3.7 > .001 NS

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 132 TSRPs
Significance
Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 180 TSRPs
105
Table 31 Results
Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Feminine Gender Role Expectation

Significance

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Achievement
Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 161 TSRPs
Significance

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 125 TSRPs
Significance
Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Achievement
Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 328 TSRPs
106
As shown in Table 31, the hypotheses testing whether gender differences were
related to a feminine gender role expectation were found to be significant for teachers in
grades 5-8 and 9-12, but not in teachers of grades K-4. Student gender differences related
to a feminine gender role expectation was confirmed for female teachers and male
teachers separately (Table 31).
achievement difference (p < .05) related to a feminine gender role expectation was tested.
Two groups of students (the high achievers and the low achievers) were tested to
determine whether or not there was a significant difference in teachers classification of
feminine. The groups consisted of those students identified as being high achievers on
the TSRPs, (N = 164) and the low achieving students as identified on the TSRPs, (N =
157). The results (shown on Table 31) show that there were significant (p <.05)
differences among the high achievers and low achievers in their classification of
feminine. Low achieving expected to be feminine. This pattern held up for only teachers
of grades 5-8 (Table 31).
Undifferentiated Gender Role Expectations
The six contrived students differed significantly (p <.05) in being classified as
undifferentiated by the teachers in all three grade bands. Table 32 presents the results
of testing the undifferentiated sex role among the six students at all three grade bands.
The high achieving students were rated with an undifferentiated gender role expectation
by 8.53% (Mary) and 6.09% (James) of the teachers. Robert and Linda (no achievement
information students) were rated as undifferentiated by 57.35% and 48.31% of the
teachers. The students described as low achieving were seen as having an
107
undifferentiated sex role expectation by 62.92% (John) and 52.17% (Patricia) the
teachers. The F-test was statistically significant for all three groups of teachers. Both
male teachers and female teachers also produced a statistically significant difference in
classifying the six students as undifferentiated (Table 32). Because there were these
differences, post hoc testing was conducted to test whether or not the difference might be
related to gender of the student or achievement level of the student.
Table 32
Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Undifferentiated Gender Role Expectation
Grade K-4 Teachers (N = 44)

Significance

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 132 TSRPs
Significance
Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Achievement
Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 180 TSRPs
108
Table 32 Results
Results from Testing Various Groups of Teachers Undifferentiated Gender Role Expectation

Significance
Among Six Students
Gender Differences
(3) Testing Student 0.18 1, 104 45 < .001 S
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 161 TSRPs
Significance
Among Six Students
Gender Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 125 TSRPs

Significance

Among Six Students
Gender Differences
(3) Testing Student 0.214 1, 206 107 < .001 S
Achievement
Differences
Note: * R = Rf - Rr
N = 328 TSRPs
109
Testing whether or not there was a statistically significant gender difference in
being classified as undifferentiated was conducted at each of the three grade levels. As
shown in Table 32, none of the hypotheses was significant, suggesting that gender is not
related to being classified as undifferentiated. The results of testing the same hypothesis
among male and female teachers also were non-significant, further confirming that
gender is not related to being classified as undifferentiated.
achievement difference (p <.05) in being classified as undifferentiated was similarly
tested. Two groups of students (the high achievers and the low achievers) were tested to
determine whether or not there was a significant difference in teachers classification of
masculine. The groups consisted of those students identified as being high achievers on
the TSRPs, (N = 164) and the low achieving students as identified on the TSRPs, (N =
157). The results (shown on Table 32) show that there were significant (p <.05)
differences among the high achievers and low achievers in their classification of
undifferentiated. The low achievers were seen as undifferentiated. This pattern held up
across all three grade bands as well as for both male and female teachers separately.
When examining the gender of the teacher and the student classified as
undifferentiated it was found that there was significance (shown on Table 32) for both
male (N = 42) and female teachers (N = 120) when examining the individual students and
the achievement level of the students (p <.05). However it was not significant when the
gender of the teacher and the gender of the student were examined for the
undifferentiated student.
Conclusions and discussions of the results are presented in Chapter 5.
110
Chapter 5
Conclusion
This chapter is divided into four sections. The first part is a review of study
procedures. The next portion summarizes and draws conclusions from the results. The
third section is a comparison of this studys results to those of Benz (1980) and finally a
section concerning the implications for teachers.
A scientific knowledge base cannot be built without replication. Replication of a
1980 study was the purpose of this research. The patterns of teacher expectations cannot
be known based on one study alone. When those patterns are repeated in a second study,
the knowledge gained is less uncertain. In other words those patterns are more credible
and more valid.
Krathwohl (2009) explains the value of replicating research. Several difficult
aspects of replicating a study are whether the researcher can duplicate procedures and the
possible changing forms of analysis over time. Krathwohl explains that while exact
duplication of research is rare it is more important that replication of a study will involve
improved techniques. The necessity of exact duplication is not an important consideration
when the same or similar results are obtained. Replication, especially using enhanced
methods in new situations, is the ultimate validation (p. 51). For example, the population
of this study included teachers across the state of Ohio whereas the Benz study
encompassed only one Ohio county. The electronic availability of school and teacher data
111
compared to 30 years ago and the ease with which it can be accessed allowed this study
to have an N size that was 80% greater than Benzs study.
In Chapter 2 various research studies were examined that dealt with teacher
expectations and how students may be influenced by teachers. A pioneering study of this
topic was conducted in 1968 by Rosenthal and Jacobson. Their study and its findings
have been scrutinized and examined by many researchers for the last 40 years. These
rigorous analyses served as the background for this study and explain why the replication
of Benzs work was important to the knowledge base regarding the gender expectations
of teachers.
Review of Research Procedures
In the current study 336 teachers were sent a total of 1008 TSRPs in 84 different
public school districts. The TSRPs were divided by grade bands and there was an equal
distribution of the six contrived students (N = 168). A total of 175 teachers responded
and participated, resulting in N = 525 TSRPs (479 of which were ultimately analyzed). In
Benzs original work, 154 teachers were targeted to participate in the study (total of 462
TSRPs). Seventy teachers responded and participated, resulting in a total of 200 TSRPs.
The researcher measured teachers gender role expectations with the TSRP, the
same instrument used in the 1980 study. The original sample of 336 teachers was selected
by building principals in 84 school districts in the state. Returned TSRPs from
participating teachers showed that the school districts in the study overrepresented high
income urban and suburban districts and underrepresented rural low poverty schools.
Approximately 70% of the participating teachers were female and 24% were male and
7% did not mark their gender on the TSRP forms. A total of 479 usable TSRPs were
112
analyzed to address the questions: What are teachers gender role expectations of
students? Are teachers gender role expectations related to the gender of the student? Are
teachers gender role expectations related to the achievement level of the students? Are
teachers gender role expectations related to the grade level teachers instructed? Are
teachers gender role expectations related to teacher gender? Have all these patterns of
teachers gender role expectations changed between 1980 and 2011? The conclusions
from the study are presented in this chapter, along with a discussion of the implications of
these conclusions and suggestions for future research.
Androgynous Gender Role Expectation
Teachers varied in their androgynous gender role expectations across all six
students. This difference was significant within the K-4, 5-8 and 9-12 grade bands and for
both male and female teachers. In other words, the difference in androgynous
expectations across six students appears to be related to student achievement and not
student gender, teacher gender or grade level. High achieving students (not low achieving
students) were expected to be androgynous.
Masculine Gender Role Expectation
Teachers masculine gender role expectations were not significantly different for
any of the hypotheses at the grade band K-4. For the grade bands 5-8 and 9-12 and for
male teachers, the results were identical: significant differences among the six students
and significant differences related to student gender. Male students were expected to be
masculine. However, there were no significant differences in these groups related to
achievement. Among female teachers there were only significant differences in
113
masculine gender role expectations among all six students. Both gender of the students
and achievement level were found to be unrelated to the masculine sex role.
Feminine Gender Role Expectation
The feminine gender role expectation resulted in differences across all variables.
The K-4 teachers showed no significant difference in feminine gender role expectations
among all students and no differences according to student gender or the achievement
level of the students. The 5-8 teachers and the female teachers showed significant
differences among all the students, between genders and achievement levels. The 9-12
teachers and the male teachers also showed the same pattern: significant differences
among the six students and significant differences according to the gender of the students.
Female students and low achieving students were expected to be feminine. There were no
significant differences in these two groups of teachers in relating feminine gender role
expectations to achievement level of the students.
Undifferentiated Gender Role Expectation
The results for teachers undifferentiated gender role expectations were identical
for all grade levels and for male and female teachers. Teachers undifferentiated gender
role expectations were related to the achievement levels of the students. It was also found
that there was no significant relationship to the gender of the student.
Conclusions
Based on the above results it appears that teachers gender role expectations were
not significantly influenced by the grade level of the teacher, the gender of the teacher or
the gender of the student. What did influence teacher gender role expectation was the
114
achievement level of the student. The high achieving students were expected to be
androgynous and the low achieving students were expected to be undifferentiated.
The results from the above categories are summarized in Table 33. The
independent variables are represented in the rows of Table 27. The 4 dependent variables
are in the columns. In Table 33 a yes indicates that there was a significant relationship
found between the independent variable and teachers gender role expectation, the
dependent variables. An inconclusive on the table signifies that there were both
significant and non-significant relationships across the subgroups. For example, the K-4
teachers reported that student gender and achievement were not significantly related to
the masculine role while 5-8 and 9-12 teachers reported gender significantly related to the
masculine gender role expectation. This difference between the grade bands and the
masculine gender role was then recorded as inconclusive on the table.
Table 33
Pattern of Gender Role Expectation Results Across Independent Variables
Androgynous Masculine Feminine Undifferentiated

Independent Gender Role Gender Role Gender Role Gender Role
Variables Expectations Expectations Expectations Expectations
Student Gender No Inconclusive Inconclusive No
Student Achievement Yes No Inconclusive Yes
Teacher Gender No Inconclusive No No
Grade Bands No Inconclusive Inconclusive No
Patterns of teacher gender role expectation seem more similar than different
across grade levels. In other words, teacher gender role expectations seem independent of
the grade level of the teachers. The dominant sex role expectation of the K-4 teachers
115
(N = 44) for each of the six contrived students was a good representation for teachers at
all grade levels. The most frequent gender role expectation of these teachers mirrored the
entire teacher sample, (N = 175).
A common pattern across grades resulted for high achieving students, both male
and female. The most frequent gender role expectation for high achieving males and
females was androgynous, an expectation of nearly three-fourths of teachers in grades
5-8 and 9-12 and over 50% of grade K-4 teachers. The same pattern resulted for high
achieving females, but was even stronger. Over 80% of teachers in grades 5-8 and 9-12
expected an androgynous gender role of high achieving females and almost 70% at
grades K-4 had that same expectation.
There was not a similar common pattern of expectations for low achieving
students. The largest proportion of teachers at all three grade bands expected the low
achieving male to be undifferentiated; teachers differed by grade level in their most
frequent expectation for the low achieving female. At grades K-4 teachers split their
expectations between undifferentiated (most frequent with 57.9%) and feminine (42.1%).
Grade 5- 8 teachers were somewhat similarly split with the most frequent gender role
expectation to be feminine (59.1%) and a substantial portion (40.99%) expecting the low
achieving female to be undifferentiated. Grade 9-12 teachers pattern showed the same
trend (substantial proportions expecting both feminine and undifferentiated gender roles)
but the undifferentiated sex role was nearly twice as frequent than was the feminine sex
role (57.7% to 30.8%).
Teachers differed by grade level in their gender role expectations of students who
were identified only by gender but not by achievement. Male students with no academic
116
achievement information resulted in a stronger pattern of gender role expectations by
their teachers than did female students with no academic information. The largest
proportion of male students was expected to be undifferentiated by both grade K-4
teachers (61.3%) and grade 9-12 teachers (62.5%). The middle grade teachers split their
dominant gender role expectations between masculine (41.7%) and undifferentiated
(45.8%). Female students with no academic information elicited a pattern that split
teachers gender role expectations between feminine and undifferentiated at both the
grade K-4 and 5-8 levels. That pattern was similar but not as strong from grade 9-12
teachers where, again, the frequency of undifferentiated expectations came from almost
twice the proportion (56.7%) of teachers as the feminine expectation (30%).
The research question that guided this study was whether Teachers expectations
of students gender roles vary by students gender, achievement level, and grade level.
The results obtained from the study answer this question. The contrived high achieving
students, regardless of gender and regardless of how the data were configured were
expected to be androgynous. Participating teachers saw the contrived students with no
achievement information as being undifferentiated. Without information on the TSRPs
regarding the students achievement level the participating teachers expectations showed
no discernable pattern.
One of the concerns that some of the participating teachers expressed on the
TSRPs were evaluating students without adequate information. This concern was
supported by Jussim (1989) who believed that teacher expectations may accurately
predict students achievement (p. 469). Another aspect reported by Brophy and Good
(1974) was that low achievement students .usually receive considerably less
117
opportunity to respond (p. 390). In examining the individual TSRPs, frequently the
participating teacher, when completing the TSRPs for the high achieving students, used
a variety of numbers while the low achieving and no information students frequently
received the same score regardless of adjective.
Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that after 30 years, teachers are still
struggling with how to deal with students. Girls that are bright are seen not as feminine
but androgynous and it does not matter how the data is configured, the results are still
consistent with Benzs work from 1980. However girls still pick predominately
feminine careers for their postsecondary classes. It is equally concerning that males can
be criticized when they select a more traditionally female career such as nursing. This
was supported by Watson et al., (2002) who studied the career aspirations of girls and
saw the same results that the study bears out. High-achieving girls are seen differently
than other girls and so it may seem to that adolescent mind that runs from individuality,
to select a much more traditional career path.
Cohen in 2008 challenged the essential myth of masculinity, that boys are
different than girls by nature. Cohen suggests that teachers should focus on the
achievement levels of their students not the students gender. In education, there have
been many studies about learning styles, single gender programs and instructional
techniques geared at addressing learners. The one consistent component in all research
remains the teacher. The studies by Hershberg (2008) support the fact that it is the teacher
that has the greatest impact on the success or failure of students. The focus then in
education should perhaps be to provide a variety of avenues for the learning process and
118
then equip each classroom with an appropriate individual who understands how to
address the educational needs of the students.
From a feminist theory standpoint the results of the study support their beliefs that
some teachers may still be stereotyping children into categories based on gender, for
example, perceiving high achieving girls as not being feminine. Teachers may be
perpetuating the myth that smart girls are not feminine thus helping girls who want to
be feminine to aspire only to traditional roles that will result in narrowed opportunities
for girls. The education profession (a predominantly female profession) is a good
example. It was acknowledged in chapter two that the positions of power and authority
still remain with predominantly men.
When determining whether it would be educationally valuable to duplicate or re-
examine past research findings, the question needs to be answered as to whether the new
data will contribute to the knowledge base in education. Will the findings of this study
contribute to our knowledge of the teachers role in instruction and therefore influence
teacher preparation? In Chapter 2 the case was made for how the role of the teacher is
critical to the learning process. The work of Brophy & Good, 1970; Brophy, 1983; Gazin,
2004; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Kuklinski &Weinstein, 2000; Rosenthal 1995; and
Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968 demonstrates the strong influences of teachers on students.
Comparison of Teachers Gender Role Expectations between 1980 and 2011
The first aspect of the study examined was the comparison of the six contrived
students from the Benz study to the six students from the current study. The comparison
of these six students is seen in Tables 12-17 in Chapter 4. These tables report what the
119
gender role expectation of the teachers were related to the achievement levels of the
students.
The results for both the 1980 and the 2011 studies indicated that the male student
with no achievement information was most frequently expected to be undifferentiated. In
the Benz study 44.4% of the respondents saw the male (with no achievement description)
as undifferentiated compared to 57.3% in the current study (See Figure 2).
Figure 2 Gender Expectations of Male Student (No Achievement Indicated)

1980 and 2011 Studies
120
The results of the two studies were different for the female student with no
achievement information. In the Benz 1980 study the results were diffused over the four
gender role expectations. There was no strong endorsement of one gender role
expectation from the respondents. Almost 40% (39.4%) of the teachers expected her to be
feminine while 27% expected her to be undifferentiated and 27.3% expected her to be
androgynous. The current 2011 results showed 48.3% of teachers expected this student to
be undifferentiated (48.3%) (See Figure 3).
Figure 3 Gender Expectations of Female Student (No Achievement Indicated)

121
The pattern of results for the high achieving male student between the two studies
was reversed. In the Benz 1980 study the high achieving male student was most
frequently expected to be masculine (53.8%) with 47.6% of the teachers identifying him
as androgynous. In the current 2011 study 69.5% of the teachers expected him to be
androgynous while 24.3% expected him to be masculine. In both studies, feminine and
undifferentiated gender role expectations were weakly represented (See Figure 4).
Figure 4 Gender Expectations of Male Student (High Achievement Indicated)

122
The most frequent gender role expectation for the high achieving female in both
studies was androgynous; 64.1% of the respondents in the Benz 1980 study categorized
their expectations as androgynous while 78.0% of the respondents in the current 2011
study did the same (See Figure 5).
Figure 5 Gender Expectations of Female Student (High Achievement Indicated)

123
The gender role expectations for the low achieving male were reported and the
most frequent pattern was the same for both the 1980 and the 2011 studies. In the Benz
study 74.2% of the respondents expected the student to be undifferentiated and in the
current 2011 study 62.9% expected him to be undifferentiated (See Figure 6).
Figure 6 Gender Expectations of Male Student (Low Achievement Indicated)

124
The low achieving females had different patterns of most frequent gender role
expectation. In the Benz 1980 study, the female was expected to be feminine (57.1%)
while in the current 2011 study the student was expected to be undifferentiated by 52.1%
(See Figure 7).
Figure 7 Gender Expectations of Female Student (Low Achievement Indicated)

In summary, the overall results between the two studies and the gender role
expectations based on achievement level were similar despite the difference of N size and
30 years between studies. The no information male, high achieving females and low
achieving males both showed identical patterns between the two studies while the high
achieving male and low achieving female saw mirror results between the two studies. The
only student that had no similarities with the Benz study was the no information male.
125
Implications for Education
Although there was some variation the overall patterns across 30 years of work
were quite similar. This similarity between the two studies confirms the need for
educators to continue the battle against gender inequity in the classrooms. Students
characterized as high achieving were regarded by the teachers as being androgynous
while teachers saw those students who were low achieving or with no academic
information as being undifferentiated. When this is examined the implications for the
classroom begin to become clear with what teachers expect of students. Teachers related
high achievement to androgyny. According to Vetterling-Braggin (1982) who cited the
work of Trebilcot (1977), who envisions a perfect society in which all people share
both masculine and feminine traits (Trebilot, p. 151). Bem would agree with Trebicots
view of the ideal society as being polyandrogynist, or androgynous where men and
women can move along a continuum of behaviors that support a variety of human roles in
a variety of life styles. That teachers related this ideal to high achievement in students is
good news: both realities rest on common aspirations for optimal growth and
development. Both high achievement and androgynous gender roles are positive goals for
schools.
If the teachers gender role expectation of their students is related to their
achievement level then the work of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and Jussim (1989)
will be tangentially supported by this study in positive ways. Harber and Jussim (2005)
state that teacher expectations clearly do influence students at least sometimes (p.
131). Jussim (1989) further discusses selffulfilling prophecies and how students live up
or down to the expectations of the teachers. In the study if a student was identified as
126
high achieving that student was most frequently characterized as androgynous sex role.
Teachers can use this information as they work with students in the classroom. Teachers
have a strong impact on students; when teachers do not limit high achieving students to a
specific gender role, teachers can push students toward their natural areas of interests.
In contemporary public schools how we educate students by gender has emerged
as a growing concern. Among the examples discussed in Chapter 2 were the following:
Increasing research on neurological differences underlying the ability to learn between
boys and girls, schools preparing women for equal opportunities to compete in todays
job market at all levels, single gender classes and or schools, and how best to serve the
needs of boys in school environments. These issues seem embedded in the accountability
movement, i.e., a response to a search for alternative ways to raise student test scores, the
major driver in contemporary schools. What this study contributes to this larger context is
a confirmation of a pattern of teacher gender role expectations first revealed thirty years
ago and still seen today: That neither the gender of the student nor the gender of the
teacher was a significant factor in the teachers gender role expectations. What influenced
the gender expectations of the teachers most was the achievement level of the student.
Given the frequent subordination of student gender in this study opens the dialogue to
what other variables might be at play in influencing teachers expectations. Students
level of achievement had a relationship to teachers androgynous and undifferentiated
expectations, and identifying other variables that influence teachers expectations of boys
and girls might contribute important information to this growing contemporary concern
for gender-based teaching. Perhaps gender is not the salient variable with which to sort
students.
127
With this information teachers need to realize how their gender expectations may
impact their students. Students may behave in the manner in which they believe the
teacher expects them to behave. Students might decide that if a teacher is subscribing a
specific gender role which then correlates to academic ability, the student may choose to
see themselves as limited to certain paths in life.
The challenge will lie with the low achieving students. According to the study our
low achieving male students were expected to have undifferentiated gender role
expectations and low achieving females were expected to be feminine. This stereotype is
one that teachers need to address and search for ways to eradicate it from their classes.
How then do we train teachers to push all students toward success? One solution
may be to spend more time developing the interests of students. Educators need to expose
and advocate for students opportunities that explore students potential regardless of
gender. Achievement is typically identified via achievement tests or through state
mandated tests. For students that have an interrupted education these achievement levels
may not be accurately measured. Developing ones interest students may explore careers
more aligned to them and may help students realize their true abilities.
The traditional role of femininity as described by Bem (1974) may no longer be
legitimate. The pilot study prior to this study examined the adjetives and several related
to femininity were removed based on the findings. It was seen in both Bems (1974) and
Benz (1980) work that low achieving females were seen as feminine and if the research
of Watson et al. (2002) holds, those girls then see only typically feminine roles for their
future. The feminine stereotype that Bem provides is grounded in adjectives such as
128
compassionate. Whether or not this can still apply to women in the 21st century would
be an additional area for further research.
Not surprising the teachers at the K-4 grade band did not classify the students by
gender but in the upper grade bands (5-8 and 9-12), the teachers ascribed masculine and
feminine gender expectations to the students. More flexibility and less rigidity of gender
role expectations appear at the lower grade levels. This is likely unsurprising along with
the finding of more gender role structures at the higher grade levels. Teachers naturally
deal with gender roles more at the middle and upper grades than they do at the lower
grades. The implication is that teacher preparation needs to include gender equity
education for all grade levels across all disciplines.
Grade level impact of the low achieving female and how the various grade level
was seen possibility more flexibility among teachers for girls. Gender differences become
more of a filter as to how teachers view students as we become socialized into society.
Girls develop more quickly than boys in their sexual identity which also is seen more
frequently at the 5-8 grade band.
One of the important aspects of research is to determine where further studies
may be done that will build on these findings. Several additional studies might include:
- A replication of this study
- Exploring the meaning of Bems term undifferentiated. This gender role
was clearly related by teachers to low achieving students. No other research
was found that deals in depth with the dynamic of undifferentiated.
129
- Conduct this study in single sex schools. Such a study may reveal the strength
of the gender variable in how teachers characterize their students, both high
and low achieving.
- Identifying supportive services needed to improve the success our
marginalized students; particularly as those services may be related to gender
expectations of teachers.
- Determining other variables specific to each gender that influence student
success; for example, examining instructional strategies that may align with
gender.
- Socialization counseling and health services that may offer support for low
achieving students and enhance their academic success.
- A qualitative study of gender-based stereotypes within school culture. A study
of this type may reveal the extent to which gendered stereotypes are
embedded in teachers language, instructional materials, customs, and
practices.
130
References
Ai, X. (2002). Gender differences in growth in mathematics achievement: Three-level
longitudinal and multilevel analysis of individual, home, and school influences.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(1), 1-22.
American Association of University Professors. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.aau
American Association of University Women. (1992). How Schools Shortchange Girls:
The AAUW Report. New York, NY: Marlowe and Company.
Asthana, A. (2006). Singlesex schools no benefit for girls. The Guardian/ The
Observer. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jun/25/schools.gender
Baber, K. M., & Tucker, C. J. (2006). The social roles questionnaire: A new approach to
measuring attitudes toward gender. Sex Roles, 54, 459-467.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Counseling
and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate of sexual inequality.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bem, S., & Watson, C. (1976). Bem sex role inventory. Unpublished manuscript,
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Benz, C. R. (1980). Sex role expectations of classroom teachers: Grades 1 through 12
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Akron, Akron, Ohio.
Benz, C. R., Newman, I., & Pfeiffer, I. (1981). Sex role expectations of classroom
teachers, Grades 1-12. American Education Research Journal, 18(3), 289-300.
131
Brattesani, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student perceptions of
differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectation effects.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 236-347.
Brophy, J, E. (1983). Research on self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(5), 631-661.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers communication of differential
expectations for childrens classroom performance: Some behavioral data.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 365-374.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and
consequences. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88352, 78 Stat. 241(1964). Retrieved from
http://www.archives.gov.education/lesson/civilrightsact/
Cohen, D. S. (2008). No boy left behind? Single-sex education and the essentialist
myth of masculinity. Indiana Law Journal, 1-73.
Daly, P., & Defty, N. (2004). Extension of single-sex public school provision: Evidential
concerns. Evaluation and Research in Education, 18, 129-136.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding womens love and desire.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
DuBois, E. C., & Dumenil, L. (2005). Through womens eyes: An American history with
documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
132
Elashoff, J. D., & Snow, R. E. (1971). Pygmalion reconsidered. Worthington, OH:
Charles A. Jones Publishing Company.
Erden, F., & Wolfgang, C. H. (2003). An exploration of the differences in
pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade teachers beliefs related to
discipline when dealing with male and female students. Early Child Development
and Care, 174(1), 3-11.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Fox, M. F. (2000). Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers.
Gender & Society, 15(5), 654-666.
Freedman, E. B. (2002). No turning back: The history of feminism and the future of
women. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Friedan, B. (1997). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Company Ltd.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York, NY:
Continuum.
Gay, L. R., & Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educatonal research: Competencies
for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gazin, A. (2004). What do you expect? Instructor, 114(1), 1-4.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1974). Changing teacher and student behavior: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(3), 390-406.
133
Good, T. L., & Cooper, H. M., & Blakey, S. L. (1980). Classroom interaction as a
function of teacher expectations, student sex, and time of the year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72(3), 378-385.
Gray, C., & Wilson, J. (2006). Teachers experiences of a single-sex initiative in a co-
education school. Educational Studies, 3, 285-298.
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2008). Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh analyzing
and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Gurian, M., & Stevens, K. (2005). The minds of boys: Saving our sons from falling
behind in school and life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, E. G. (1990). The effect of performer gender, performer skill level, and opponent
gender on self confidence in a competitive situation. Sex Roles, 1-2 (Vol. 23),
419-429.
Hani, Dr. (2009). Replication study. Retrieved from Experiment
Resources: http://www.experiment-resources.com/replication-study.html
Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal R. (1986). The effects of teacher expectations, gender, and
behavior on pupil academic performance and self-concept. Journal of
Educational Research, 79 (Vol. 79), 173-179.
Hershberg, T. (2008). Value-added assessment. Retrieved from the Center for Greater
Philadelphia website: http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/ope_value.html
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom.
New York, NY: Routledge
hooks, b. (2000a). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge, MA:
South End Press.
134
hooks, b. (2000b). Feminist theory: From margin to center (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA:
South End Press.

.
hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Routledge.
Howe, F. (1977). Feminism and the education of women. In J. Stiehmn (Ed.), The
Frontiers of Knowledge (pp 1-24). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California Press.
Hubbard, L. & Datnow, A. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-
income and minority students? An investigation of Californias public single-
gender academics. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 2, 115-131.
Hyde, J. S. & Kling, K. C. (2001). Women, motivation, and achievement. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 25, 364-378.
Hymowitz, C., & Weissman, M. (1978). A history of women in America. New York, NY:
Bantom Books.
James, A. N. (2007). Teaching the male brain: How boys think, feel, and learn in school.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jones, S. & Myhill, D. (2004). Troublesome boys and compliant girls: Gender identity
and perceptions of achievement and underachievement. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 25(5), 547-561.
Jussim, L. (1989). Teacher expectations: Self-fulfilling prophecies, perceptual biases, and
accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 469-480.
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies:
Known and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9( 2), 131-155.
135
Kelman, Harold. ed. 1967. Feminine psychology, New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Klein, S. S. (2007). Handbook for achieving gender equality through education (2nd ed).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Konrad, A. M., & Harris, C. (2002). Desirability of the Bem sex-role inventory items for
women and men: A comparison between African Americans and European
Americans. Sex Roles, 47, 259-271.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Methods of educational and social science research: The logic
of methods (3rd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Krechevsky, M. & Gardner, H. (1990). Approaching school intelligently: An infusion
approach. Contributions to Human Development, 21, 79-94.
Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2000). Classroom and grade level differences in
the stability of teacher expectations and perceived differential teacher treatment.
Learning Environments Research, 3, 1-34.
McDonald, J. H. (2009). Handbook of biological statistics (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Sparky House Publishing.
McNeil, K., Newman, I., Kelly, F. (1996). Testing research hypotheses with the general
linear model. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Mead, S. (2008). The problem with gender-based education. Retrieved from
http://www.newamerica.net/blog/early-ed-watch/2008/problem-gender-based-
education
Mrs. Glossers Math Goodies. (2010). Custom random number generator. Retrieved
from website: http://www.mathgoodies.com
136
National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. (2008). Title IX at 35: Executive
Summary. Retrieved from http://www. Ncwge.org/pdf/titleIXat35-summary.pdf
National Labor Board, General Order 16, 1942. Retrieved from http://history
matters.gmu.edu/d/5144/
Neu, G. W., & Weinfield, R. (2007). Helping boys succeed in school. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press, Inc.
Newman, I., McNeil, K., & Fraas, J. (2004). Two methods of estimating a studys
replicability. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 17(2), 36-40.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Ohio Department of Education. (2011). Ohio Education Directory System. Retrieved
from http://www.ode.state.oh.us
Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005). Masculinity, femininity, and the Bem sex role
inventory. Sex Roles, 52, 103-110.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Patchen, T. (2006). Engendering participation, deliberating dependence: Innercity
adolescents perceptions of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 108,
2053-2079.
Peng, T. K. (2006). Construct Validation of the Bem sex role inventory in Taiwan. Sex
Roles, 55, 843-851.
Probert, B. (2005). I just couldnt fit it in: Gender and unequal outcomes in academic
careers, Gender, Work and Organization, 12(1), 50-72.
Ridenour, C. S., & Newman, I. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the
interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
137
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Critiquing Pygmalion: A 25-year perspective. American
Psychological Society, 171-172.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation
and pupils intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters (1st ed.). New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Sax, L. (2008). Just the facts, please!!! or, how the New York times got this story wrong.
Retrieved from: http://www.singlesexschools.org/NYT.htr
Samson, G. E., Sirykowski, B., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The effects of
teacher questioning levels on student achievement: A quantitative synthesis.
Journal of Educational Research, 80(5), 290- 295.
Sommers, C. H. (2000). The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our
young men. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Stromquist, N. P. (1993). Sex-equality legislation in education: The state as promoter of
womens rights. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 379-407.
Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.A. 1681.
Trebilcot, J. (1977). Two forms of androgynism. In Vetterling-Braggin, M. (1982).
Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny: A modern philosophical discussion.
Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
United States National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010)
Retrieved from the United States Census Bureau website
http://census.gov/compedia/statab/cats/education.html
Vetterling-Braggin, M. (1982). Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny: A modern
philosophical discussion. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
138
Waisman, C., & Tietjen, J. (2008). Her story: A timeline of the women who changed
America. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Warren, M. (1980). Is androgyny the answer to sexual stereotyping? In Vetterling-
Braggin, M. (1982). Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny: A modern
philosophical discussion. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
Watson, C. M., Quatman, T., & Elder, E. (2002). Career Aspirations of adolescent girls:
Effects of achievement level, grade, and single-sex school environment. Sex
Roles , 46, 323-335.
What Works Clearing House (2011). Institute of education sciences. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_review.aspx
Willis, G., Schubert, W. H., Bullough, R.V., Kridel, C., & Holton, J. T. (1994). The
American Curriculum: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Wollstonecraft, M., (1996). A vindication of the rights of woman. Mineola, NY: Dover
Publications.
Wood, D., Kaplan, R., & McLoyd, V. C. (2007). Gender differences in the educational
expectations of urban, low-income African American youth: The role of parents
and the school. J Youth Adolescence, 36, 417-427.
Younger, M. R., & Warrington, M. (2006). Would Harry and Hermione have done
better in single-sex classes? A review of single-sex teaching in coeducational
secondary schools in the United Kingdom. American Educational Research
Journal , 43, 579-620.
139
APPENDIX A
Adjective Survey
On the page below is a list of words or phrases. I would like you to simply indicate with an X
whether you consider the word to be a masculine or feminine word. There are not right or wrong
answers, just your perceptions. It will probably take about 15 minutes to complete the form.
Masculine Feminine Masculine Feminine
Acts as a leader Individualistic
Adaptable Inefficient
Affectionate Jealous
Aggressive Likable
Ambitious Loves children
Analytical Loyal
Assertive Makes decisions easily
Athletic Masculine
Cheerful Moody
Childlike Reliable
Compassionate Secretive
Competitive Self-reliant
Conceited Self-spoken
Conscientious Self-sufficient
Sensitive to the needs of
Conventional others
Defends own belief Shy
Does not use harsh
language Sincere
Dominant Solemn
Eager to soothe hurt
feelings Strong personality
Feminine Sympathetic
Flatterable Tactful
Forceful Tender
Friendly Theatrical
Gentle Truthful
Gullible Understanding
Happy Unpredictable
Has leadership abilities Unsystematic
Helpful Warm
Independent Willing to take a stand
Individualistic Willing to take risks
Inefficient Yielding
140
APPENDIX B
Bems Masculine Adjective Categorization
Table B1
Percentage of Pilot Study Teachers (N = 65) who categorized Bems

Masculine Adjectives as Masculine by gender of the teacher.
Adjective Male Teachers (N=19) Female Teachers (N = 46) Total (N = 65
Acts as a Leader 89.5 (N = 17) 50.0 (N = 23) 61.5

Aggressive 100.0 (N = 19) 95.5 (N = 42) 93.8
Ambitious 89.5 (N = 17) 43.5 (N = 20) 61.5
Analytical 57.9 (N = 11) 63.0 (N = 29) 61.5
Assertive 89.5 (N = 17) 58.7 (N = 27) 67.6
Athletic 89.5 (N = 17) 78.3 (N = 36) 81.5
Competitive 89.5 (N = 17) 71.7 (N = 33) 76.9
Defends Own Beliefs 57.9 (N = 11) 37.0 (N = 17) 43.0
Dominant 94.7 (N = 18) 89.1 (N = 41) 90.7
Forceful 94.7 (N = 18) 91.3 (N = 42) 92.3
Has Lead Abilities 73.7 (N = 14) 43.5 (N = 20) 52.3
Independent 78.9 (N = 15) 34.8 (N = 16) 47.6
Individualistic 73.7 (N = 15) 39.1 (N = 18) 50.7
Make Decisions Easily 84.2 (N = 16) 80.4 (N = 37) 81.5
Masculine 89.5 (N = 17) 97.8 (N = 45) 95.3
Self- Reliant 63.1 (N = 12) 47.8 (N = 22) 52.3
Self Sufficient 52.6 (N = 10) 32.6 (N = 14) 36.9
Strong Personality 73.7 (N = 14) 52.2 (N = 24) 58.4
Willing to take a Risk 89.5 (N = 17) 73.9 (N = 34) 78.4
Will to take a Stand 84.2 (N = 16) 67.4 (N = 31) 72.3
141
APPENDIX B
Bems Feminine Adjective Categorization
Table B2
Percentage of Pilot Study Teachers (N = 65) who categorized Bems
Feminine Adjectives as Feminine by gender of the teacher.
Adjective Male Teachers (N=19) Female Teachers (N = 46) Total (N = 65)
Affectionate 100.0 (N = 19) 97.8 (N = 45) 98.4

Cheerful 78.9 (N = 15) 89.1 (N = 41) 86.1
Childlike 36.8 (N = 7) 28.3 (N = 13) 30.7
Compassionate 94.7 (N = 18) 95.7 (N = 44) 95.3
Doesnt use Harsh Language 84.2 (N = 16) 82.6 (N = 38) 83.0
Eager to Soothe Hurt Feelings 94.7 (N = 18) 95.7 (N = 44) 95.3
Feminine 100.0 (N = 19) 97.8 (N = 45) 98.4
Flatterable 89.5 (N = 17) 76.1 (N = 35) 80.0
Gentle 89.5 (N = 17) 95.5 (N = 42) 90.7
Gullible 63.2 (N = 12) 76.1 (N = 35) 72.3
Loves Children 94.7 (N = 18) 84.8 (N = 39) 87.6
Loyal 36.8 (N = 7) 60.9 (N = 28) 53.8
Soft Spoken 42.1 (N = 8) 41.3 (N = 19) 41.5
Sensitive to Others 89.5 (N = 17) 93.5 (N = 43) 92.3
Shy 78.9 (N = 15) 65.2 (N = 30) 69.2
Sympathetic 78.9 (N = 15) 93.5 (N = 43) 89.2
Tender 89.5 (N = 17) 93.5 (N = 43) 92.3
Understanding 73.7 (N = 14) 89.1 (N = 41) 84.6
Warm 84.2 (N = 16) 89.1 (N = 41) 86.1
Yielding 78.9 (N = 15) 78.3 (N = 36) 78.4
142
APPENDIX C
Rating Students Pilot Inventory A
Jamal Williams will enroll in your class next week.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never or Usually Sometimes Occasionally Often Usually Always
Almost Not But True True True Or
Never True Infrequently Almost
True True Always
Self-reliant Reliable Warm

Yielding Analytical Solemn
Helpful Sympathetic Willing to take a stand
Defends own
belief Jealous Tender
Cheerful Has leadership abilities Friendly
Moody Sensitive to the needs of others Aggressive
Independent Truthful Gullible
Shy Willing to take risks Inefficient
Conscientious Understanding Acts as a leader
Athletic Secretive Childlike
Affectionate Makes decisions easily Adaptable
Theatrical Compassionate Individualistic
Assertive Sincere Does not use harsh language
Flatterable Self-sufficient Unsystematic
Happy Eager to soothe hurt feelings Competitive
Strong personality Conceited Loves children
Loyal Dominant Tactful
Unpredictable Self-spoken Ambitious
Forceful Likable Gentle
Feminine Masculine Conventional
143
APPENDIX C
Sarah Michaels will enroll in your class next week. Her records indicate that
she has generally received Cs in academic subjects. Her standardized achievement
scores fall above the 50th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
True True Always

Willing to take a
Helpful Sympathetic stand
Defends own belief Jealous Tender
Moody others Aggressive
Does not use harsh
Assertive Sincere language
Happy feelings Competitive
144
APPENDIX C
James Baker will enroll in your class next week. His records indicate
that he has generally received As in academic subjects. His standardized
achievement scores fall above the 90th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
True True Always

Willing to take a
Defends own
Does not use harsh
145
APPENDIX D
Rating Students Pilot Study Inventory B
Hannah Peters will enroll in your class next week.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
True True Always

Willing to take a
Defends own
Does not use harsh
Strong
personality Conceited Loves children
Unpredictable Soft-spoken Ambitious
146
APPENDIX D
Rating Students Pilot Inventory B
John Baker will enroll in your class next week. His records indicate that he has generally
received Cs in academic subjects. His standardized achievement scores fall above the
50th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
True True Always

Helpful Sympathetic Willing to take a stand
Defends own
Moody Sensitive to the needs of others Aggressive
Assertive Sincere Does not use harsh language
Happy Eager to soothe hurt feelings Competitive
147
APPENDIX D
Rating Students Pilot Inventory B
Janet Edwards will enroll in your class next week. Her records indicate that she has
generally received As in academic subjects. Her standardized achievement scores fall
above the 90th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
True True Always

Willing to take a
Defends own
Does not use harsh
148
APPENDIX E
Results for Nondescript Students
Table E1
Pilot Study Mean Results for Jamal Williams (no academic achievement information
(N= 32) based on the Masculine and Feminine adjectives according to Bem (1974)
Adjective Mean (M) Adjective Mean (F)
Acts as a Leader 3.8 Affectionate 3.4
Aggressive 3.8 Cheerful 4.2
Ambitious 4.0 Childlike 3.3
Analytical 3.5 Compassionate 3.5
Assertive 4.3 Doesnt use Harsh Language 3.5
Athletic 4.5 Eager to Soothe Hurt Feelings 3.1
Competitive 4.4 Feminine 1.9
Defends Own Beliefs 4.5 Flatterable 3.8
Dominant 3.8 Gentle 3.3
Forceful 3.3 Gullible 2.9
Has Leadership Abilities 4.2 Loves Children 3.8
Independent 4.2 Loyal 4.3
Individualistic 4.2 Soft Spoken 3.8
Make Decisions Easily 4.1 Sensitive to Others 3.6
Masculine 5.0 Shy 3.0
Self Reliant 4.1 Sympathetic 3.4
Self Sufficient 4.0 Tender 3.2
Strong Personality 4.3 Understanding 3.9
Willing to take a Risk 4.3 Warm 3.6
Will to take a Stand 4.3 Yielding 3.5
149
APPENDIX E
Results for Nondescript Students
Table E2
Pilot Study Mean Results for Hannah Peters (no academic achievement information)
(N=35) based on the Masculine and Feminine adjectives according to Bem (1974)
Athletic 3.7 Eager to Soothe Hurt Feeling 4.2
150
APPENDIX F
Results for Low Achieving Students
Table F1
Pilot Study Mean Results for Sarah Michaels (low academic achievement)
(N= 35) based on the Masculine and Feminine adjectives according to
Bem (1974)
151
APPENDIX F
Results for Low Achieving Students
Table F2
Pilot Study Mean Results for John Baker (low academic achievement)
(N= 32) based on the Masculine and Feminine adjectives according to
Bem (1974)
152
APPENDIX G
Results for High Achieving Students
Table G1
Pilot Study Mean Results for Janet Edwards (high academic achievement)
(N =33) based on the Masculine and Feminine adjectives according to Bem (1974)
Athletic 3.8 Eager to Soothe Hurt Feelings3.7
153
APPENDIX G
Results for High Achieving Students
Table G2
Pilot Study Mean Results for James Baker (high academic achievement)
(N = 34) based on the Masculine and Feminine adjectives according to Bem (1974)
Athletic 4.5 Eager to Soothe Hurt Feelings3.9
154
APPENDIX H
Sex Role Expectation Results
Table H
Pilot Study Sex Role Expectation Results from Classroom Teachers based on the TSRP
according to Benz (1980)
Subject N Size Description Teachers Teachers SD (M) SD (F) Sex Role

Masculinity Femininity Expectation
Score Score
(Mean) (Mean)
Hannah (33) No Ach Level 3.98 3.34 1.61 1.35 Undifferentiated
Jamal (35) No Ach Level 3.71 4.23 .92 .83 Feminine
Sarah (35) Low Achievement 3.17 4.02 .87 .79 Feminine
John (33) Low Achievement 4.12 4.14 1.29 1.14 Feminine
Janet* (34)(33) High Achievement 3.4 3.6 1.3 1.2 Undifferentiated
James (34) High Achievement 4.9 4.0 .90 .90 Androgynous
* The N size is different because one teacher failed to evaluate this student.
The Median value that was used to calculate the Sex Role Expectation was;
Masculinity Median Value = 4.2
Femininity Median Value = 4.0
155
APPENDIX I
Revised Teacher Sex Role Inventory
2010 Revised Teacher Sex Role Inventory Form (TSRI)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never or Usually Sometimes Occasionally Often Usually Always/

Almost Not But True True True Almost
Never True Infrequently Always
True True True
Solemn Jealous Athletic

Sensitivetotheneedof
others Feminine Conscientious
Hasleadershipabilities Ambitious Shy
Inefficient Adaptable Selfreliant
Affectionate Flatterable Conventional
Willingtotakeastand Competitive Sympathetic
Moody Unsystematic Masculine
Cheerful Gentle Friendly
Willingtotakerisks Analytical Tender
Likable Tactful Actsasaleader
Compassionate Gullible Theatrical
Strongpersonality Makesdecisionseasily Understanding
Reliable Conceited Aggressive

Doesnotuseharsh
language Loveschildren Truthful
Individualistic Assertive Warm
Helpful Sincere Secretive

Eagertosoothehurt
feelings Loyal Yielding
Forceful Dominant Unpredictable
Happy
156
APPENDIX J
Person Vector Calculation
The following chart is an example of how person vectors will be calculated. The
student stimulus represents one of the student stimulus descriptions. Each teacher will
rate three student stimulus persons. The ratings of each teacher are summed. These totals
serve as a new vector in the regression model. The variance accounted for by the repeated
ratings of the teachers can be accounted for in the model.
Table J
Person Vector Calculation*
Person
Subject Treatment Scores Vectors
Teacher A Student m = 3.95 m = 12.60

Stimulus 1 f = 4.25 f = 11.20

Stimulus 2 f = 4.25 f = 11.20

Stimulus 3 f = 3.10 f = 11.20
* Benz (1980)
157
APPENDIX K
Institutional Review Board Approval
158
APPENDIX L
Letter to Participants
159
APPENDIX M
Student Surveys
Date___________________________
Please circle the grade band you teach: Please circle your gender:
K4 58 9 - 12 Female Male
On the following pages you will be shown the descriptions of three students.
Please try to imagine that they are actually students who will enter your class. Then mark
the characteristics on each page that would indicate what you expect that student will be
like. This may be a difficult task, because your information is very limited. There are
neither right or wrong answers, just your perceptions from the information given are what
are important. Even though you may feel the information is inadequate, please go ahead
and complete the ratings.
It will probably take about 10 minutes to complete the form. Remember, the
higher your rating (from 1 to 7) the more you are endorsing the quality in the student.
For example: If the adjective was shy
1 = Mark 1 if you would expect the student NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER to be shy.
2 = Mark 2 if you would expect the student USUALLY NOT to be shy.
3 = Mark 3 if you would expect the student SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY to

be shy.
4 = Mark 4 if you would expect the student OCCASIONALLY to be shy.
5 = Mark 5 if you would expect the student OFTEN to be shy.
6 = Mark 6 if you would expect the student USUALLY to be shy.
7 = Mark 7 if you would expect the student ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS to be

shy.
160
APPENDIX M
Student Surveys
Table M 1
Robert Johnson will enroll in your class next week.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

True True True


Doesnotuseharsh

Eagertosoothehurt
Happy
161
APPENDIX M
Student Surveys
Table M 2
Linda Davis will enroll in your class next week.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

True True True


Doesnotuseharsh

Eagertosoothehurt
Happy
162
APPENDIX M
Student Surveys
Table M 3
Patricia Smith will enroll in your class next week. Her records indicate that she has
generally received Cs and Ds in academic subjects. Her standardized achievement
scores fall below the 50th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

True True True


Doesnotuseharsh

Eagertosoothehurt
Happy
163
APPENDIX M
Student Surveys
Table M 4
John Williams will enroll in your class next week. His records indicate that he has
generally received Cs and Ds in academic subjects. His standardized achievement
scores fall below the 50th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

True True True


Doesnotuseharsh

Eagertosoothehurt
Happy
164
APPENDIX M
Student Surveys
Table M 5
Mary Brown will enroll in your class next week. Her records indicate that she has
generally received As in academic subjects. Her standardized achievement scores fall
above the 90th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

True True True


Doesnotuseharsh

Eagertosoothehurt
Happy
165
APPENDIX M
Student Surveys
Table M 6
James Jones will enroll in your class next week. His records indicate that he has generally
received As in academic subjects. His standardized achievement scores fall above the
90th percentile.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

True True True


Doesnotuseharsh

Eagertosoothehurt
Happy
166
APPENDIX N
Student Survey Results
Table N 1
Study Mean Results for Robert Johnson (no academic information) (N= 68) based on the
Masculine and Feminine adjectives according to Bem (1974)
Ambitious 3.88 Compassionate 4.00
Analytical 3.87 Does not use Harsh Language 3.87
Assertive 3.97 Eager to Soothe Hurt Feelings 3.81
Athletic 4.07 Feminine 3.06
Competitive 4.06 Flatterable 4.00
Individualistic 3.96 Loyal 4.04
Make Decisions Easily 3.90 Sensitive to the need of others 3.97
Strong Personality 4.01 Tender 3.74
Willing to take Risks 4.00 Understanding 4.06
Willing to take a Stand 3.82 Warm 4.00
Yielding 3.87
167
APPENDIX N
Table N 2
Study Mean Results for John Williams (low academic achievement) (N= 89) based on the
Yielding 3.61
168
APPENDIX N
Table N 3
Study Mean Results for James Jones (high academic achievement) (N= 82) based on the
Yielding 3.62
169
APPENDIX N
Table N 4
Study Mean Results for Linda Davis (no academic information) (N= 89) based on the
Yielding 3.76
170
APPENDIX N
Table N 5
Study Mean Results for Patricia Smith (low academic achievement) (N= 69) based on the
Yielding 3.96
171
APPENDIX N
Table N 6
Study Mean Results for Mary Brown (high academic achievement) (N= 82) based on the
Yielding 3.74
172
APPENDIX O
Comparison Results by Gender (Feminine)
Table O1
Mean Masculinity scores by Grade Band. (median)
Student K - 4 (4.0) 5 - 8 (4.0) 9 12 (4.0)
Robert (No Information) 3.97 4.02 3.89
William (Low Achievement) 3.50 3.41 4.05
James (High Achievement) 4.68 5.31 5.16
Linda (No Information) 3.68 3.85 4.07
Patricia (Low Achievement) 3.29 3.05 3.41
Mary (High Achievement) 4.56 4.58 4.49
Table O2
Mean Femininity scores by Grade Band. (median)
Student K - 4 (4.0) 5 - 8 (4.05) 9 12 (4.0)
James (High Achievement) 4.00 5.31 ` 4.18
173
APPENDIX O
Comparison Results by Gender (Feminine)
Table O3
Mean Masculinity scores by Gender (median)
Student Female (4.00) Male (4.0)
Robert (No Information) 3.99 4.10
William (Low Achievement) 3.51 3.97
James (High Achievement) 4.80 5.31
Linda (No Information) 3.80 3.93
Patricia (Low Achievement) 3.32 2.89
Mary (High Achievement) 4.58 4.56
Table O4
Mean Femininity scores by Gender (median) .
James (High Achievement) 4.06 4.35 `
174
APPENDIX P
Comparison Results by Gender (Masculine)
Table P1
Mean Masculinity scores by Grade Band. (median)
Student K - 4 (4.0) 5 - 8 (4.0) 9 12 (4.0)
James (High Achievement) 4.68 5.31 5.16
Table P2
Mean Femininity scores by Grade Band. (median)
Student K - 4 (4.0) 5 - 8 (4.05) 9 12 (4.0)
James (High Achievement) 4.00 5.31 ` 4.18
175
Table P3
Mean Masculinity scores by Gender (median)
James (High Achievement) 4.80 5.31
Table P4
Mean Femininity scores by Gender (median) .
James (High Achievement) 4.06 4.35 `
176
APPENDIX Q
Hypothesis Calculation
The following will detail how the hypotheses used in the study were statistically
calculated using person vectors. The example below will refer to androgynous sex role
expectation but was used for each of the other sex role expectations, masculine, feminine
and undifferentiated.
Hypothesis 1
Y = a0 u + a1 X1 + a X2+ a3 X3+ a4 X4 + a5 X5 + a6 X6 + [a7 X7 ..an Xn] + E
where:
Y = represents the androgynous sex role expectation = 1; 0 otherwise
U = the unit vector
X1 = female student = 1; 0 otherwise
X2 = male student = 1; 0 otherwise
X3 = low achieving male student = 1; 0 otherwise
X4 = high achieving male student = 1; 0 otherwise
X5 = low achieving female student = 1; 0 otherwise
X6 = high achieving female student = 1; 0 otherwise
X7 Xn = person vectors (1 if criterion from teacher 1; 0 otherwise etc. until all

teachers are accounted for.)
a1 . an are least squares weighting coefficients calculated so as to minimize the sum of

the squared differences between observed criterion scores and predicted criterion scores.
E = error vector
177
APPENDIX R
Formula Explanation
The following information can be used to further explain the formula used to determine
the F value.
F = (Rf - Rr)/ (m- m)

(1- Rf)/N - m
Rf = Represents the variance accounted for by the full model.
Rr = Represents the variance accounted for by the restricted model.
m = Represents the number of linearly independent vectors in the full model.
m = Represents the number of linearly independent vectors in the restricted model.
N = Represents the number of participants (TSRPs)
K = Represents the number of groups or methods
178

Dayton 1337199263

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dayton 1337199263

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GENDER ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS

The School of Education and Allied Professions

THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership

Diane Schwendenman B.S., M.S., M.S.

THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON

All rights reserved

GENDER ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS

The University of Dayton, 2012

Carolyn S. Ridenour, Ed.D.

TSRP were made.

Since the seminal work on teachers expectations by Rosenthal and Jacobson in

achievement rather than student gender is related to teacher expectation of androgyny. In

gender, or teacher gender.

interactions with students. High achievement seems to be related to androgyny, a socially

as counter to academic achievement, a finding parallel to the results of 1980, and a

concern worthy of further research.

I express sincere appreciation to the members of my committee who worked

by example and exemplifies the true meaning of the word teacher.

Purpose of the Study. 1

II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE 6

III. STUDY PROCEDURES. 44

IV. RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND RESULTS.... 63

The Sample of Teacher Participants. 63

LIST OF FIGURES.. xiii

Table 1: Bems Adjectives Characterized as Masculine (M),

Table 2: Typology Distribution: Comparison of Sample School Districts to State of Ohio 65

Table 3: Number of Teacher Participants by Grade Band.. 67

Table 4: Teacher Participants by Gender 67

Table 5: Teacher Participants by Gender by Grade Band 68

Table 6: Return of TSRPs by Identity of Contrived Student... 69

Table 7: Usable TSRPs by Identity of Contrived Student.. 70

Table 8: Participating Teachers by Typology... 71

Table 9: Participating Teachers by Grade Bands and Typology....... 72

Table 10: Returned TSRPs by Grade Band by Contrived Student 73

Table 11: Distribution Gender Role Expectations by Participating Teachers 76

Table 16: Gender Role Expectations of Male Students (Low Achieving):

Table 18: Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades K-4. 82

Table 19: Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades 5-8 83

Table 20: Gender Role Expectations by Teachers of Grades 9-12.. 84

Table 21: Gender Role Expectations by Teacher Gender (Female) 85

Table 22: Gender Role Expectations by Teacher Gender (Male) 86

Figure 1: Sex Role Expectation Calculation... 57

Figure 2: Gender Expectations of Male Student (No Achievement

Figure 3: Gender Expectations of Female Student (No Achievement

Figure 4: Gender Expectations of Male Student (High Achievement

Figure 5: Gender Expectations of Female Student (High Achievement

Figure 6: Gender Expectations of Male Student (Low Achievement

Figure 7: Gender Expectations of Female Student (Low Achievement

Purpose of the Study

expectations of students gender roles vary by students gender, achievement level,

educators address persistent gender inequity? Replication, an important benchmark of

for gender role stereotyping is important in 2011.

discrimination in federally funded schools. In 2006 federal regulations governing the

enforcement of Title IX were rewritten by the U.S. Department of Education to allow

stereotypes rampant in schools prior to Title IX.

considered a subgroup in which yearly academic progress is measured.

and interaction with students.

Significance of the Study

confirmed or validated. Replication, especially using enhanced methods in new

in repeated studies as suitable for implementation in public schools.

equal to the first study.

Perception Inventory (TSRP) to examine teachers expectations regarding their students