Chapt 12 : gender issues

In all academic disciplines, research has shown that girls and boys as well as young men
and women sitting in the same classroom and experiencing the same curriculum often receive
differential treatment—usually unwittingly—based on their gender. Most teachers, both men and
women, elementary and secondary, interact more with boys than with girls. In addition, both
male and female teachers view girls as more independent, creative, and academically persistent,
whereas boys are seen as more aggressive. Teachers who are successful in addressing classroom
interaction strategies that further the growth and development of both females and males are ones
who are aware of the research findings about gender and equity and who employ conscious
strategies on behalf of creating equitable environments.
These strategies include using nonsexist, inclusive language and avoiding sexist humor.
Gender-equitable teachers encourage all students to participate in class discussions by employing
specific strategies for calling on students. They tend to value creativity and multiple ways of
solving problems, honoring differences. In teacher sanctions, equitable teachers praise and affirm
both girls and boys for performance and do not overpraise girls for their appearance. In their
interactions, they coach all students to search for deeper meanings and provide role models for
both males and females from all socioeconomic strata. Teachers can employ wait time to
encourage risk taking when students are answering questions. By consciously addressing gender
issues, teachers adapt instructional strategies to account for gender (i.e., girls-only science talks;
mixed-gender writing groups).
Gender-equitable teaching involves monitoring the classroom discourse, understanding the
context-specific complexities of dominance in classroom environments, and integrating
cooperative learning into regular teacher-directed environments. It is necessary for teachers to
hold out the expectation that both females and males can accomplish a task or solve a problem. It
is important not to perform a task for a female student while expecting a male student to do it on
his own. This practice leads to learned helplessness (Eccles Parsons, Meece, Adler, & Kaczala,
1982). Gender-equitable teaching uncovers the hidden curriculum and enables teachers to
identify bias and confront sexism in the classroom. Teachers must avoid comparisons of boys
and girls regarding behavior, achievement, and attitudes.
 They need to ask students whether teachers are treating persons differently because of
gender. Additionally, teachers should ask students to tell them when teachers are treating either
group differently. Finally, teachers need to accept and encourage emotional expression from both
girls and boys (adapted from Greenberg, 1985; Pratchler, 1996; Sadker & Sadker, 1994; Sanders
et al., 1997). The formal curriculum must be explored through the lens of race, class, and gender:
Who is included and who is significant to learn about? Formal curriculum must reflect the lived
experience of all students so that knowledge construction is a shared endeavor. Schools limit
possibilities for gender equity when they fail to confront or discuss risk factors for students. Risk
factors for students must be addressed through the formal curriculum. Deconstructing gender
teachings means asking what programs, pedagogies, and curricula will best serve the needs of
female and male students. In teacher education schools, colleges, and departments, equity must
be viewed as essential to professional education programs; gender-equity issues must be
integrated into preservice training.
Colleges and universities must confront the risks for girls and boys in school and develop
programs to stem high dropout rates and address the underrepresentation References 279 of girls
in computer science and physics. Understanding the importance of extracurricular activities for
girls, schools should strive to recruit and retain more females in those activities. Researchers
need to explore the overrepresentation of males in remedial reading programs and seek to learn
the causes. “Research should analyze educational data by sex, race, ethnicity, and social class to
provide a more detailed picture of all students” (AAUW, 1998, p. 10). Examining school
violence gives clues to the gender socialization of boys that alienates them from the dominant
school culture. Examining risk factors for boys and exploring interventions on behalf of their
healthy development must become a priority. Studies of girls and schooling need to explore
single-sex public schools for minority females, such as the Young Women’s Leadership School
in New York City.
What are the attributes of these environments that can be institutionalized in coeducational
schools? In coeducational classrooms, researchers needs to explore girls’ silences and how
entitlement to voice differs across ethnicity and socioeconomic class. Studies need to examine
how the computer science gender gap is affecting the educational gap, and they should identify
useful interventions on behalf of girls and computer science. Female participation in physics and
engineering requires further study because it lags seriously behind their participation in the life
sciences. Nancy Hopkins, a noted biologist who led the MIT study on women scientists
mentioned previously, stated, “It’s a different world now for women scientists, but the question
is, ‘How do you institutionalize it so it will last for the next generation?’” That, indeed, is the
question that underlies gender issues in the classroom—what would institutionalizing this agenda
look like? It is hoped this chapter gives some glimpses.