Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the “chilly climate” for women

Sex Roles, Vol. 23, Nos. 3/4, 1990

Gender in the College Classroom: An Assessment

of the "Chilly Climate" for Women'

Mary Crawford 2

West Chester University

Margo M a c L e o d 2

Yale University

Previous research suggests that female students participate less often and less assertively than male students in college classrooms, and that teachers" discriminatory behaviors are partly responsible, Two in-class surveys of college students (N = 1375)-one at a university and one at a small college-assessed perceptions o f student-teacher interaction. Factor analysis revealed a number o f analytically distinct dimensions of classroom climate: what the class is like in general, what the class is like for the individual student, and what specific positive and negative teacher behaviors affect interaction. Class size affected each of these dimensions. Gender o f student was significant only in the college survey, with males participating more, but this gender difference was not due to teachers" discrimination. Female teachers were more likely to create a participatory climate for all students. Creating a better classroom climate for female students creates a better learning environment for all students.

T h e e d u c a t i o n a l exper iences o f w o m e n m a y d i f f e r g rea t ly f r o m those o f m e n

even w h e n t h e y a t t e n d t h e s a m e in s t i t u t i ons a n d sha re t he s a m e c l a s s r o o m s

1We wish to thank Lawrence G. Rosenberg, Jean Dowdall, and Penelope J. Davis for their help and support during this research project. Mary Crawford was responsible for designing and carrying out the university survey, and Margo MacLeod for designing and carrying out the college survey.

2Correspondence may be addressed to either author. Mary Crawford is at the Department of Psychology, West Chester University, West Chester, PA 19383, and Margo MacLeod is at the Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520.

101

0360-0025/90/0800-0101506.00/0 @ 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation

102 Crawford and MaeLeod

(Hall & Sandler, 1982; Jenkins, Gappa, & Pearce, 1983; Lockheed & Klein, 1985; Sadker & Sadker, 1979; Wilkinson & Marrett , 1985). Hall and San- dler maintain that a "chilly classroom climate" exists for women in higher education:

Most faculty want to treat all students fairly and as individuals with particular ta- lents and abilities. However, some faculty may overtly-or, more often, inadvertently-treat men and women students differently in the classroom and in related learning situations. Subtle biases in the way teachers behave toward students may seem so "normal" that the particular behaviors which express them often go unno- ticed. Nevertheless, these patterns, by which women students are either singled out or ignored because of their sex, may leave women students feeling less confident than their male classmates about their abilities and their place in the college community. (Hall & Sandier, 1982, p. 2, emphasis in original)

This analysis suggests two empirically testable hypotheses. The first is that women and men behave differently in the classroom, with women participating less often and less assertively. The second is that gender differences in classroom interaction are at least partly attributable to teacher behaviors that discriminate against women.

Evidence bearing on these hypotheses comes f rom several kinds of research. Hall and Sandler (1982) cite anecdotal evidence and the results of informal surveys at various campuses. A handful of observational studies also exist. However, the currently available evidence has been characterized as "thin and somewhat inconsistent" (Constantinople, Cornelius, & Gray, 1988). I f women and men are participating unequally in the college classroom as a result of discriminatory behaviors by their instructors, there is a need for programs to educate faculty and implement change. But before endorsing the need for change, it is important to test systematically whether gender differences in participation exist and whether they are due to faculty behaviors that discriminate against women.

Observational studies provide direct measures of classroom interaction. However, they are costly in terms of the time required to train observers and to observe a sufficient number of classes. The process of observation also may change the classroom dynamic. Moreover, instructors may be reluctant to give permission for observers to attend their classes, partly because of concerns about the effects on teaching and learning, and partly due to concerns for academic freedom. Observing instructors without their permission is an ethical violation. With these drawbacks, it is not surprising that there are relatively few observational studies of interaction in college classrooms. Of these, some have found an interaction of student and teacher gender such that male students were more active participants in male-headed classes (Karp & Yoels, 1976; Sternglanz & Lyberger-Ficek, 1977). Others have found con- trasting interactions: Male students were more active in female-headed classes (Brooks, 1982; Boersma, Gay, Jones, Morrison, & Remick, 1981), and fe-

Classroom Climate 103

male students were more active in male-headed classes (Boersma et al., 1981) or were unaffected by teacher gender (Brooks, 1982).

Most recently, Constantinople et al. (1988) and Cornelius, Gray, & Con- stantinople (in press) trained college students at several institutions to observe interaction in classes in which they were enrolled. Instructors were aware that the study was being conducted and had given permission for their class to be included, but did not know if or when it would actually be observed. Like Brooks (1982) and Boersma et al. (1981), they found that male students were more active participants than female students in female-headed classes. However, they concluded that "the effects of student sex on classroom participation are by no means pervasive or robust" (p. 21). They also found no evidence that male and female teachers differed in their behavior in the classroom, or that teachers of either gender discriminated against women students.

Questionnaires have been used to assess students' perceptions of classroom climate. Heller, Puff , and Mills (1985) surveyed students at Franklin and Marshall College, and concluded that there was no evidence of differential treatment by sex. However, they used a nonrandom sample of students and classes. Further, participants were asked global questions about their overall experiences at the college (e.g., "Do your professors give you a reasona- ble amount of time to answer a question before going on to another student?"). This type of question, in which students are asked to respond by aggregating several years' experience in a wide variety of courses and teachers, may lead to overgeneralizations. "Chilly climate" problems peculiar to teachers of one gender or certain types of classes would be obscured in responses to such questions. Finally, Heller et al.'s questionnaire asked students to assess faculty behaviors, but not their own.

Hall and Sandler's (1982) report has generated a great deal of interest in assessing classroom climate. Because so little is known about gender influences in the college classroom, it is important to gather evidence systematically rather than rely on anecdotes. Well-designed survey research is suited to this task. Observational studies can uncover similar results, but are time-consuming and require specially trained observers. It may be more prac- tical for most institutions to begin with systematic survey research. If problem areas are uncovered, observational research along the lines of Constantino- ple et al.'s (1988) study can be used to further understand discriminatory interaction patterns.

Our goal was to assess students' perceptions of classroom climate via a systematic survey. The Student Perception Questionnaire (Jenkins et al., 1983), a widely used self-report measure of classroom interaction that as- sesses perceptions of both instructor and student behaviors, was adapted for the study. The scope of the study was limited to ordinary classroom interac-

104 Crawford and MacLeod

tion, excluding related issues such as sexual harassment or quality of cam- pus life in general. Our study relied on the established psychological principle that memory for events is most accurate when tested in the context in which those events take place. Rather than being asked general questions about the overall college experience as in earlier research, students were asked about one class and teacher while they were in the classroom attending a regular class session.

Two surveys were c o n d u c t e d - t h e first in a university and the second in a small liberal arts college. The first survey focused primarily on student gender, teacher gender, and class size as the most likely determinants of classroom climate. In the second survey, methods were refined and several variables such as academic area added to give a more complete picture of classroom climate.

S U R V E Y 1

Method

Materials. The instrument used was an adaptation of the Student Per- ception Questionnaire (SPQ). The SPQ, developed as part of the Curricu- lum Analysis Project in the Social Sciences, has been extensively field tested (Jenkins et al., 1983, p. 49). For the present study, a preliminary version was circulated to 20 faculty members and administrators, and their suggested revisions were incorporated into the final version, which consisted of 7 demographic questions and 20 classroom climate questions. 3 The demographic questions recorded whether the course was a requirement or an elective and student background: age, native language, ethnic classification, gender, class standing (first year-senior), and cumulative grade point average (GPA). In addition, a blank page was provided for students' written comments.

Sample and Procedure. This study was carried out at a state university with a student population of approximately 8000, 56% of whom were female, 8% people of color, and 10%0 of nontraditional age. A random sample of undergraduate classes in session at the university during the spring semester of 1985 was drawn from computerized records. Laboratory and studio classes were excluded before sampling since the questionnaire was not designed to assess interaction in these types of classes.

Teachers were contacted by a letter that explained the study, asked their participation, and assured them of complete confidentiality of individual data. Each teacher was then contacted by telephone to allow her/him to ask questions about the study and to schedule a date for administration of the ques-

3Copies of the questionnaire are available from the authors.


tionnaire. Two teachers declined to participate; the final sample consisted of 31 classes.

Data were collected during the 10th- 13th weeks of a 15-week semester. The questionnaire was administered during class time with the teacher ab- sent. The principal researcher collected 85% of the data and the remaining 15°-/0 was collected by two research assistants. Students were told that the purpose of the study was to assess their perceptions of ordinary classroom interaction in a specific, randomly chosen class. They were instructed to answer the questions "about this class and only this class, not classes in general," and assured that their responses would be used for research purposes only. Students were not identified by name. Responses were collected and sealed before the teacher returned to the class. If the number of students present was less than 80°70 of official class enrollment, follow-up visits were scheduled.

Results and Discussion

Characteristics of the Sample. The random sampling resulted in 15, 7, 7, and 2 classes at the 100, 200, 300, and 400 level respectively. Twenty-five instructors were male and 6 were female.

The official enrollment in the sample classes ranged from 8 to 65 students. The number of students sampled per class ranged from 6 to 44. The median percentage of students in each class who completed the questionnaire was 79070.

The obtained sample consisted of 627 undergraduate students. Thir- teen cases were excluded from analysis because the information provided by the respondents was incomplete. Of 267 males in the final sample, 11°70 were over age 25 and 9% were people of color. Of 347 females, 13% were over age 25 and 13% were people of color. Only 13 male students were in classes headed by female professors. Two female-headed classes had no male students enrolled; two had one each. The remaining 11 male students were distributed in two 100-level classes. One hundred fifty-one students responded to the request for their open-ended comments on classroom climate issues.

Factor Structure of the SPQ. A principal components factor analysis followed by varimax rotation was performed on the 14 classroom climate items that could be scored ordinally. Prior to rotation, there were five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. After rotation, these factors accounted for 41070, 29070, 14%, 9%, and 7% of common variance, respectively.

An examination of high-loading items indicates that one factor measures students' perceptions of the typical or modal level of interaction in the classroom- how often students actively participate. This factor, labeled "Par- ticipatory Climate," thus represents overall "classroom climate." Two other


Table I. SPQ Factors and Item Loadings for Surveys 1 and 2

Factor Examples of high-loading items

Factor loading

Study 1 Study 2

Participatory climate

Personalized interaction

Student assertiveness

Positive teacher

Negative teacher

How often do students participate in this .55 .73 class by asking questions or making comments?

How often does the instructor ask for .63 .69 comments or questions from the class?

When you raise your hand, how does the .85 .83 instructor most frequently call on you?

Does your instructor know your name? .63 .63

Are there times when you want to .33 .75 participate in class by asking a question or making a comment but choose not to do so?

If you have disagreed strongly with .41 .60 something that the instructor said in this class, your response would most likely be to:

Does your instructor use humor or wit in .31 .79 ways that foster a positive classroom atmosphere?

In your opinion, how does the instructor .89 .72 react to opinions and comments given by other students in class?

Does your instructor explain course " .82 material using examples or language that you find offensive, embarrassing, or belittling to any individuals or groups?

Does your instructor use humor or make .45 .80 humorous references that you feel are offensive, embarrassing, or belittling to any individuals or groups?

aThis item was added in Study 2.

fac tors , labeled "Pe r sona l i zed In te rac t ion" and "S tuden t Asser t iveness , " meas-

u re c l a s s r o o m c l ima te fo r the ind iv idua l s t u d e n t - whe the r he o r she is k n o w n

a n d v a l u e d as an i n d i v i d u a l , a n d feels f ree to express ideas a n d o p i n i o n s .

F ina l ly , "Pos i t i ve T e a c h e r " and "Nega t ive T e a c h e r " de f ine speci f ic and sal ient

ins t ruc to r b e h a v i o r s a f f ec t i ng c l a s s r o o m c l imate . F r o m the s tuden ts ' perspec-

t ive, these f ac to r s a p p e a r to be m e a s u r i n g th ree bas ic aspec ts o f c l a s s r o o m

c l imate : " w h a t the class is l ike fo r e v e r y b o d y , " " w h a t the class is l ike fo r m e , "

and " w h a t t he i n s t r u c t o r does in t h e c lass . " S a m p l e i t ems f r o m e a c h f a c t o r

a re s h o w n wi th t he i r f a c t o r l o a d i n g s in T a b l e I.

T o r e d u c e the p r o b a b i l i t y o f T y p e I e r ro r , a n d to a id in s u m m a r i z i n g

and in te rpre t ing results , subsequen t analyses were p e r f o r m e d on fac to r scores.

Classroom Climate

Table II. MANOVA Overall F Values for Main Effects and Interac- tions with Factor Scores as Dependent Variables: Survey 1

F p

Student gender 0.66 a ns Student age 1.05 a ns Student GPA 1.85 b .02 Teacher gender 0.82 a ns Course level 3.09 b .0001 Class size 31.73 a .0001 Teacher gender x student gender × class size 4.02 a .001 Teacher gender × student gender 1.30 a ns Student gender × class size 4.18 ~ .001

adf = 5,596. bdf = 15,1645.

107

Factor scores were computed by multiplying each student's rating for each item by the factor loading for that item, then summing to compute a weight- ed score for each student on each factor.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANO VA). A MANOVA with the five factor scores as dependent variables was performed. Independent variables entered into the MANOVA were student gender, age, and cumulative GPA; teacher gender; course level; class size; and interactions relevant to the hypotheses being tested.

The MANOVA procedure revealed significant main effects for student GPA, course level, and class size, as well as a three-way interaction (Student Gender × Teacher Gender × Class Size) and a two-way interaction (Stu- dent Gender × Class Size). MANOVA results are summarized in Table II.

Univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs). With the overall experi- mentwise error protection afforded by the multivariate significance tests, univariate ANOVAs were performed on terms that had reached significance in the multivariate analysis. Dependent variables were the five factor scores.

The univariate tests on each factor, summarized in Table III, revealed several significant main effects and interactions involving student and teacher gender, class size, and other variables. Post hoc Tukey's tests (alpha = .05) were computed for significant univariate effects. Means and post hoc comparisons for these effects are shown in Table IV. In the following discussion, these results will be considered in terms of the three aspects of classroom climate described earlier: overall climate, or students' perception of "what the class is like for everybody"; individual climate, "what the class is like for me"; and teaching climate, "what the teacher does in class."

As Table IV indicates, the overall climate was significantly better in small classes. It was also better in advanced (400-level) courses. The absence of other significant main effects and interactions for this factor indicates that it was not influenced by student or teacher gender. Rather, the sheer number of students in the classroom determines whether students and teacher


Table III. Univariate F Values for Significant Multivariate Effects: Survey 1

Factor

Participatory Personalized S tuden t Positive Negative climate interaction assertiveness teacher teacher

Student GPA 1.19 0.63 4.31 b 1.39 1.57 Course level 3.21 ~ 1.73 0.16 4.35 b 5.23 b Class size 41.33 c 28.06 c 11.43 b 10.90 b 66.74 ~ Teacher gender × 0.92 13.18 ~ 0.88 0.11 5.15"

student gender × class size

Student gender × 0.40 15.02 ~ 0.01 1.60 3.39 class size

ap < .05. bp < .01. ~p < .001.

will participate in a dialogue of mutual questioning and comments. Female and male students are both more satisfied with the interaction climate of small and upper-level classes than large and introductory ones.

Our respondents ' perception of the individual climate was more positive in small classes, as measured by the personalized interaction factor, and was gender related. For both male and female students, the most personalized interaction occurred in small woman-headed classes-classes involving only 10% of the students sampled. Interaction was significantly less individu- ated in classes (whether large or small) headed by males, involving 860/0 of all students. Finally, the least personalized interaction occurred in large classes headed by women, only 4% of the sample. In other words, the interaction in small classes, where students might expect to be known and addressed by name, is more individualized than in large classes only in the unlikely event that the instructor is a woman.

Student assertiveness, in contrast, was unrelated to student or teacher gender. Variables influencing the assertiveness factor were class size and student GPA. Students were more likely to act on their desire to participate in class and to assertively express opinions in small than in large classes. Fur- ther, the most academically accomplished (as measured by GPA) were most likely to engage in assertive participation.

Positive and negative interaction behaviors of the teacher were related to class size and course level. Students perceived teachers as being more overtly positive (using constructive humor, praise, and encouragement) in large and lower-level classes. This effect may be attributable to teachers' attempts to stimulate interaction and discussion in large introductory sections by using humor and praising students who do participate. The negative teacher factor showed a significant interaction of student gender, teacher gender, and class size. The pattern of means in Table IV shows that male teachers in small classes and the sole female teacher of a small class were perceived as signifi-


Table IV. Means and Post Hoc Comparisons for Significant Univariate Effects: Survey 1 ~

Factor

Participatory Personalized Student Positive Negative N climate interaction assertiveness teacher teacher

Student GPA 3.67-4.33 54 2.67-3.66 312 1.67-2.66 229 Under 1.66 19

Course level 100 318 200 146 300 119 400 31

Class size Small 217 Large 397

Teacher (T) gender × student (S) gender × class size

S-T

Small: F-F 58 M-F 6 F-M 75 M-M 78

Large: F-F 17 M-F 7 F-M 197

M-M 176

Student gender × class size Small

Female 214 Male 84

Large Female 133 Male 183

- 0.02b 0.01b

- 0.04~ 0.27°

0.28~ -0.15b

0.4L 0.01b

- 0 . 0 9 b

- 0 . 2 2 ~

-0.01o -0.01o 0.13o -0.10b

-O.05,,t -0.09° -0.27b -0.01o

0.33, 0.19o -0.20, -0.25° -0.18b -0.11b 0.11b 0.12b

0.79° 0.11o 0.76° - 0.37b 0.09b -0.43b 0.18~ - 0.32 b

-0.83° 0.12, - 0.77, 0.06~ -0.20~ 0.14o - 0.07~ 0.09a

.39, 0.22°

- . 2 5 ~

- . 1 0 b

aFactor scores are expressed as standard (Z) scores. Subscripts denote the results of planned post hoc comparisons. Means with the same subscript did not differ significantly from each other. High scores indicate the positive pole for all factors.

c an t ly m o r e n e g a t i v e by b o t h f e m a l e a n d m a l e s tuden t s . T h e o t h e r c o m b i n a -

t i ons o f s t u d e n t a n d t e a c h e r g e n d e r d id n o t d i f f e r f r o m e a c h o the r .

I n s u m m a r y , t he u n i v e r s i t y s u r v e y s h o w e d t h a t c l a s s r o o m c l i m a t e c o n -

s is ted o f t h r ee aspec ts . O v e r a l l c l ima te , m e a s u r e d by the p a r t i c i p a t o r y cli-

m a t e f a c t o r , r e f l ec t ed s t u d e n t s ' j u d g e m e n t s o f " w h a t t he class is l ike fo r


everybody." Individual climate, measured by the personalized interaction and student assertiveness factors, reflected "what the class is like for me." Posi- tive and negative teacher behaviors, measured by the remaining two factors, reflected perceptions of "what the teacher does in the class."

All three aspects of classroom climate were strongly affected by class size. But contrary to claims that classroom climate is less positive for women, they did not show strong or uniform effects of student gender. Women and men perceived the overall participatory climate of their classes similarly. Students' perceptions of the amount of personalized interaction were related to student and instructor gender interacting with class size: students were most likely to be known as individuals in small women-headed classes. However, women and men were equally likely to report themselves as active, assertive participants in their classes.

In general, the results indicate that all three aspects of classroom climate in this university setting are highly related to class size. The overall climate ("what the class is like") is clearly unrelated to student or teacher gender. Students' perceptions of the individual climate ("what the class is like for me") and the teacher's contribution ("what the teacher does in the class") are related to teacher gender but not to student gender. Male and female instructors may behave differently, with women somewhat more likely to engage their students in active participation and men somewhat more likely to engage in negative and offensive behavior, but these teacher behaviors are not directed more at women than men students, and they have similar effects for women and men.

S U R V E Y 2

Method

Materials. For the second study, the SPQ was supplemented by several questions designed to probe the reasons for students' nonparticipation and the extent to which the students feel that faculty use offensive language, and was pretested with a class of 33 students. The final version had 22 classroom climate questions and 6 demographic questions. The latter recorded student gender, age, 4 class standing, native language, ethnic classification, and expected grade for the course?

In addition, a Teacher Perception Questionnaire was devised to assess teachers' thinking about student participation in their classrooms. This in-

4There was an almost perfect correlation between age and class standing, but neither yielded results of theoretical interest, so they are not reported here.

sStudents at this institution tended not to know their GPA, so rather than use GPA as in the first survey, their expected grade for the course was used as a rough measure of academic ability.


strument was pretested with seven faculty members from various departments and revised. The revised version covered most of the same questions as the student questionnaire and encouraged teachers to expand their answers with written comments. Teachers of the 37 classes included in the survey were asked to answer each item thinking about their experience in the sampled class only, rather than giving their more general ideas about teaching. All teachers involved in the survey completed this form, usually at the same time that the students completed theirs.

Sample and Procedure. The study was carried out at a small liberal arts college of approximately 1600 students, 46% of whom are female and 8% people of color. A modified random sampling technique was used to select classes and teachers. Thirty-eight classes were selected to provide a wide range across different class sizes, course levels, academic areas, and instructor ranks. To ensure that enough women teachers were included in the sample, female teachers were matched with male teachers of comparable rank, course level, academic area, and class size. Selection of these matched pairs was done randomly up to 14 pairs (they were drawn out of a hat) and the remaining ten courses were randomly selected without previous pairing. Classes with fewer than five students were excluded before sampling.

A letter followed by a phone call ensured the participation of all but one of the selected classes, yielding a final total of 37. Thirty-four of the teacher and the student questionnaires were administered during class time by the principal investigator, three by an assistant. The instructions and follow-up were the same as for the previous survey. All classes were surveyed during the last month of the academic semester.

Results and Discussion

Characteristics of the Sample. The response rate averaged 86% yielding a total of 761 usable questionnaires with the following characteristics: 52% female students and 48% male students; 33% first-year students, 27% sophomores, 18% juniors, and 21 °7o seniors; all but 7% were Caucasian, and all but 5% had English as their native language. In the sample, 38% of the classes were led by a female teacher, 62% by a male teacher; 41070 of these classes were taught by assistant professors, 27°7o by associate professors, 32°7o by full professors. Forty-nine percent of the classes were at the 100 (introductory) level, 35% at the 200 (intermediate) level, and 16% at the 300-400 (upper) level; 30% of courses were in the sciences, 40% in the humanities and arts, and 30% in the social sciences.

Factor Structure of the SPQ. The SPQ was factor analyzed as in Sur- vey 1. Prior to rotation there were five factors with eigenvalues greater than one. Reflecting the fact that several items were added to the questionnaire


Table V. Multivariate Values for Survey 2 Variable Multivariate F p

Student gender 2.81" .01 Teacher gender 6.33" .00 Class size 17.46 b .00 Course level 2.21 b .01 Academic area 8.42 b .00 Course grade 3.03 c .00 Native language 2.15" .05 Race 0.81" ns Teacher gender x class size 5.02" .00

"dr = 5,737. bdf = 10,1472. Cdf = 15,2029.

in Survey 2, the factors differed f rom Survey 1 in terms of percentage of variance explained, but the factor structure was substantially similar (see Table I).

Analysis o f Factor Scores. Statistical analysis of factor scores followed the same steps as in Survey 1, and is summarized in Tables V-VII. The participatory climate factor, measuring students' opinions of the overall classroom climate, had significant effects for class size, academic area, and course grade. There was also an interaction between teacher gender and class size. Small classes (less than 20 students) are more participatory than medium-sized classes (20-30) and much better than large classes (30 + ). Female faculty in small classes score higher than in medium and large classes and higher than male faculty in all class sizes. Courses in the humanities and arts have the best interaction climate, followed by those in the social sciences, with the sciences scoring the lowest. Students expecting Cs are more likely than those expecting other grades to think that their classes are not conducive to participation.

Individual climate, as measured in the personalized interaction factor, had main effects for student gender, instructor gender, class size, course

level, academic area, and whether English is the student's native language. There was an interaction between teacher gender and class size. Women students perceived themselves to be less involved in the classroom than their male peers. The interaction between teacher gender and class size indicated that both female and male teachers did best with small classes. Male teachers did exceptionally badly at involving individual students in large classes. Again, courses in the sciences were lower than courses in the humanities and the social sciences. This was the only factor to have a significant effect for having English as one's native language: as might be expected, those who did not speak English as a first language were less likely to feel personally involved in classroom interactions.


Table VI. Summary Table of F Values for Significant Effects Obtained from Analyses of Variance for Survey 2

Participatory Personalized Student Positive Negative Variable climate interaction assertiveness teacher teacher

Student gender - 6.25 b 4.56 a - - Teacher gender - 12.77 c - 9.36 b 7.77 ~ Class size 6.38 b 66.56 c 3.47 a - 9.09 c Course level - 6.69 b - - - Academic area 13.98 c 9.65 ~ - 13.88 c - Course grade 4.69 ~ - 6.47 b - - Native language - 8.71 b - - - Teacher gender ×

class size 8.62 c 8.52 c -- 6.74 ~ --

ap < .05. bp < .01. ~p < .001.

Individual climate, as measured by the student assertiveness factor, had ma in effects for s tudent gender, class size, and course grade. Female stu-

dents were less likely than male s tudents to be verbal ly engaged. Better students, those who expected to get As for the course, were more likely to be

assertive than those who expected lower grades, and those who expected Bs and Cs were more assertive than those who expected Ds. Small classes tend-

ed to provide the best venue for students to be assertive, and were significantly

bet ter than m e d i u m and large classes.

Teachers were perceived by students to use positive h u m o r and praise

in the classroom. There were signif icant ma in effects for teacher gender, course level, and academic area on the positive teacher factor, and a signifi-

cant in terac t ion between teacher gender and class size. The ma in effects on

this factor were accounted for by a teacher 's use of humor , ra ther than his or her use of praise: when the humor and praise items were examined separately

for the m a i n effects f ound through the M A N O V A , there were signif icant

differences between male and female teachers on ly for the h u m o r item, no t for the praise i tem. Tukey tests revealed that male teachers used h u m o r sig-

n i f icant ly more of ten than female teachers, with w ome n in small classes be-

ing especially unl ikely to use humor . Upper-level courses had more humor t han 200-level courses, and teachers in the social sciences were more likely

to use h u m o r in positive ways t han teachers in the humani t ies .

The negative teacher factor had m a i n effects for teacher gender and class size. Male teachers were more likely than females to be perceived as negative. Negative interactions were more likely to be perceived in small classes t han in m e d i u m or large classes.

While s tudent gender is not the strongest variable inf luencing classroom climate, significant effects on the factors of personalized in teract ion and student assertiveness indicate that s tudent par t ic ipa t ion is affected by the stu-

1 1 4 C r a w f o r d a n d M a c L e o d

Table VII. Means and post Hoc Comparisons for Significant Univariate Effects: Survey 2"

Participatory Personalized Student Positive Negative Variable climate interaction assertiveness teacher teacher

Student gender Male .10, .08° Female - .09~ - .08~

Teacher gender Male - . 10, Female .17 b

Class size < 20 .23o .67~ .11o 20-30 .00b .07b - . 15b > 30 - . l l b - - .33° .03,,b

Course level 1 0 0 - . 0 7 o

200 .20~ 300-400 .17b

Academic area Science - .28, - .22° Humanities/arts .15 b .16~ Social science .09~ .02b

Course grade A - .09, .29, B .04, - .07b C - 1.00b - .06b D .05, - .99~

Native language English .47° Other - .02~

Teacher gender × class size Male: Small .05, .65°

Medium .16, .10b Large - . 14o - .51

Female: Small .66, .72° Medium - . 13, .05~ Large - .05a .06b

.23°

.08°

.04~

- .56b - . 0 8 ~

- . 0 2 .

.10. - . 08 . - . 1 3 b .13b

.09° - . 2 1 ~

.24"

- . 2 8 .

.03b

.11~

~Factor scores are expressed as standard (Z) scores. For each variable and measure, scores in the same column that have a different letter subscript are significantly different at the .05 level or better. High scores indicate the positive pole for all factors.

d e n t ' s g e n d e r . M a l e s t e n d t o feel t h e y a re m o r e p a r t o f a n d m o r e ac t ive in

t he c l a s s r o o m t h a n females . A t t he s a m e t i m e , t h e r e is n o d i f f e r e n c e b y g e n d e r

o f s t u d e n t o n p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e o v e r a l l c l a s s r o o m c l i m a t e , n o r f o r t h e d e g r e e

t o w h i c h s t u d e n t s f i n d t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s t o b e p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e . I n o t h e r

w o r d s , m a l e a n d f e m a l e s t u d e n t s a g r e e a b o u t t h e k i n d o f c o u r s e t h a t a l l o w s

o r e n c o u r a g e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , b u t d o n o t fee l e q u a l l y f r ee a n d e n c o u r a g e d to

d o so. T h e q u e s t i o n is w h y ? A p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n c a n b e f o u n d b y l o o k -

Classroom Climate

Table Vll l . Students ' Views of Why They Choose Not to Talk in Class a

115

Students

Male Female Item (N = 365) (N = 396)

Ideas are not well enough formulated 51 64 d Don ' t know enough about subject matter 32 46 d Have not done the assigned reading 44 b 35 Might appear unintelligent to other students 22 29 b Large class size 17 21 Might appear unintelligent to the teacher 12 18 c Other students might not respect my views 4 9 c Course isn't meaningful to me 5 5 Teacher might not respect my views 2 4 My comments might negatively affect my grade 4 b 1 Small class size 2 1

aNumbers in each cell are percentages. Chi-square tests of significance conducted on the frequency scores.

bp < .05. ~p < .01. dp < .001.

were

ing at the individual items that make up the personalized interaction factor. Additional items in the survey also shed light on this question.

The personalized interaction factor is made up of six items. Male and female students differ significantly on three of these items: how often they volunteer to speak in class, how frequently they are called on even when their hand is not raised, and how positively the teacher responds to their questions. Male students perceive that they volunteer more often, that they are called on more often when their hand is not raised, and that the teacher responds more positively to their questions. Male and female students do not differ in the extent to which they think they are known by name and called on when they want to be called on. Female students indicate that in spite of the fact that they are as likely to be known by the teacher, they do not volunteer to participate as often as the male students, nor are they as frequently drawn into discussion. They are also saying that the contributions that they do make to class discussions are not as well received by the teacher.

In another questionnaire item, students were asked, "If you have wanted to participate in class by asking a question or making a comment but did not do so, what was your reason for not doing so?" The answer most com- monly selected by both males and females was that they felt "insecure, in- adequate, or uncertain." Despite this overall agreement, there are differences in how women and men see their nonparticipation. Some of these differences were picked up by another survey item: "Which of the following do you think is most important in explaining why you might choose not to talk in class?" As can be seen in Table VIII, when given the option of choosing


as many responses as they liked, the rank ordering of various reasons for not participating is essentially similar for male and female students.~ However, women students invoked m o r e reasons than their male peers to explain their nonparticipation. In voluntary written comments at the end of their questionnaires, female students, more than males, tended to elaborate comments about individual classroom participation:

There is a very widespread problem of women not participating in class d iscuss ions- or if they do, do so very seldom and with little force. A problem which is not easily solved. It has been my experience that the problem does not lie in the prof's sexism, intimidation, etc., but rather in the woman's own insecurities.

I feel I have a lot of problems talking with professors. I have not yet adjusted to the fact that they are willing to help. I am too afraid that ! will look stupid. I think my fear o f professors developed in high school and I simply cannot go to a teacher for help.

(It is) mainly males who are trying to assert their opinions and dominate class discussions. That doesn't mean that I think they are more knowledgeable.

On the whole, then, women's understanding of their classroom interaction seems more complex and multifaceted than men's.

There are also significant differences between male and female students in their choice of rationales for nonparticipation. Women are significantly more likely to think they do not participate because their "ideas are not well enough formulated," because they "don't know enough about the subject matter," because they "might appear unintelligent in the eyes of other students," and because "other students might not respect [their] point of view." Male students, on the other hand, are significantly more likely to indicate that they do not participate because they "have not done the assigned reading," and because their comments might "negatively affect [their] grade."

The overall picture is that female students feel less confident of their intellectual abilities. They seem to feel that they need to know a great deal and be very prepared before expressing their ideas in class, probably because they fear the negative evaluations of teachers and other students. Men, looking to more external rationales, are less likely to refer to the judgments of others and less likely to reflect negatively on their own abilities. These findings are in line with much research suggesting that girls and boys, women and men, are taught to attribute meaning differently. For example, Dweck's early work (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna, 1978; Dweck & Bush, 1976) found that teachers criticize boys more often than girls, but the form of criti-

6This item was adapted from Karp and Yoels (1976). Despite having been done at a very different time (mid-1970s), the top three choices selected by their respondents are, interestingly, among those chosen by students in this survey: Ideas not well formulated, haven't done the reading, and don't know enough. This argues for a real consistency of students' feelings about their participation over time and across environments.


cism differs. Girls are criticized when they make an academic error ("You got that one w r o n g - I guess you don't know how to do it."). Their intellectual competence and abilities are brought into question. Boys are criticized when they misbehave or are sloppy ("You got that wrong B i l ly -you ' r e being lazy again."). Their effort is brought into question. Men's greater self- confidence probably makes them more willing to be assertive in discussions and more confident about making themselves known to their instructors as individuals. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that, at the college surveyed, men actually have higher abilities than the women. In fact, they do less well. Women had average GPAs nearly one and a half points higher than men's.

Compared to their male colleagues, women faculty seem better at making all their students feel known and their participation valued. Again, evidence for why this is so comes from looking at individual items in the personalized interaction factor. Male and female students both think that female teachers are significantly more likely to know and call on them by name when they want to be called, even when they have not raised their hands. Female teachers are also more likely to have classes in which students frequently volunteer to participate.

Additional suggestive evidence for why female teachers are creating a more participatory climate comes from the Teacher Perception Question- naires filled out by those faculty whose classes were included in this survey. Although determining in detail why participation was greater in classes with female teachers was not the specific aim of this inquiry, several aspects of teachers' responses are worth noting.

Teachers were asked why students would choose not to talk in class. This was the same question as that addressed to the students, and it had the same list of possible reasons for not participating, but teachers were asked to answer it twice, once for their female students and once for their male students. Table IX shows the results of this analysis. When we compare students' responses to this question (Table VIII) with teachers', we see that neither male nor female teachers' responses exactly parallel those of students. However, there are some significant effects and some trends indicating that to a greater extent than male teachers, female teachers are able to map the differences between female and male students' perceptions of their own behavior. Women teachers know for instance, that female students are more likely than male students not to participate because they believe their ideas are not well enough formulated, they do not know enough about the subject matter, they may appear unintelligent in the eyes of the teacher, and other students might not respect their point of view. The female teachers also see that the male students are more likely to say that they would not speak because they had not done the reading. In contrast, male teachers see few differ-


Table IX. Teachers' Views of Why Students Choose Not to Talk in Class"

Item

Teachers

Male Female

Male Female Male Female students students students students

Ideas are not well enough formulated 44 44 25 83 ¢ Don't know enough about subject matter 40 48 50 92 b Have not done the assigned reading 56 48 83 67 Might appear unintelligent to other students 48 60 50 58 Large class size 20 20 8 17 Might appear unintelligent to the teacher 48 48 42 67 Other students might not respect my views 32 40 25 50 Course isn't meaningful to me 20 8 50 33 Teacher might not respect my views 12 12 17 17 My comments might negatively affect my grade 8 8 0 8 Small class size 0 4 8 8 "Numbers in each cell are percents. Total number of male teachers is 23. Total number of female teachers is 14.

~Chi-square analysis: p < .05. cChi-square analysis: p < .01.

ences in the reasons for male and female students choosing not to participate. Perhaps being able to unders tand the kinds o f reasons that students find salient to their nonpar t ic ipat ion is helpful in creating a comfor table environment for part icipation. It m a y also help women teachers to subtly convey the feeling to individual students tha t they are unders tood and respected.

The higher ratings for female teachers m a y be due to the fact that they try m o r e of the kinds o f things that encourage student part icipat ion with all students, but especially with the female nonpart ic ipators . Facul ty were asked "Do you make special efforts to get female [male] students who participate least to join in?" and asked to check all the answers that applied to actions they had taken with male and with female students in the class being surveyed. W o m e n teachers indicate that they make encouraging remarks to, call directly on, and direct humor at the nonpart ic ipators , bo th male and female, more often than their male colleagues do. Moreover, women teachers tend to report doing more o f these things in relation to their female nonparticipators than to their male nonparticipators (except for humor, which is directed more to male students). Male instructors take fewer actions to encourage participation. Actions they do take tend to be directed more toward male nonpar t ic ipators than toward female nonpar t ic ipators (with the excep- t ion o f giving encouraging remarks o u t s i d e of class, which they report doing more with women students than with men).

There is some evidence f rom teachers ' written comments that male teachers do not regard student part icipat ion as a part icular value. One male professor wrote,


I think my main focus is on ideas more than students. Those who find the ideas important ask questions; those who don't, don't.

Class size has a clear and strong impact on four of the five factors, and it interacts with gender of the instructor on three of the five. Generally, small classes offer the kind of environment in which students feel they are known and can participate freely, and women teachers leading these classes do the best job of creating that environment. On the other hand, small classes occasion more offensive remarks than larger classes. This may be because in this setting, teachers feel more relaxed and assume a commonality that is actually lacking. Alternatively, it may be that in more intimate surround- ings students pay more attention and are more sensitive to teachers' remarks.

The felicitous use of humor promotes an atmosphere of relaxed attention that can enhance learning. Humor acts as a buffer, attenuating the adverse effects of stress and improving attention, learning, and problem solv- ing (Ornstein & Sobel, 1987; Taylor, 1986). Given the high reported levels of insecurity among the students in this survey about their classroom participation, it seems that humor, properly used, may be a helpful antidote. However, when humor is offensive or belittling, it has the opposite effect. At this liberal arts college, students find that male teachers are more likely to use positive humor and humor that offends.

The great majority of students think their teachers never use humor or language that is offensive, embarrassing, or belittling to individuals or groups. It is, however, sometimes used and there are patterns to its use. Stu- dents with a male teacher are more likely than those with a female teacher to think that he, at least occasionally, uses humor or language that they find offensive, embarrassing, or belittling to themselves or others. Their written comments reveal that students find a variety of teacher behaviors offensive: calling students stupid, using profane language, being unapproachable or ar- rogant, and so on. There was also a definable cluster of comments pinpoint- ing sexist and racist remarks by teachers as the source of the student's sense of being belittled or offended:

The instructor makes sexual and racial "jokes" and comments that I find offensive. There has [sic] been repeated allusions to the "stupidity" of native Americans and the inferiority of cultures other than his own. (Female student, male teacher)

The instructor sometimes uses language (especially in the course of an anecdote or humorous example) that is sexist. Also, on occasion he treats female students in a manner that shows he feels females are less able to learn the material than males. (Male student, male teacher)

That male teachers use both more positive and more negative humor than women may well reflect the fact that joke telling and impersonal public humor are both normative male behavior in this culture. This is consistent with previous research (Bryant, Comisky, & Zillman, 1979). Female humor tends to be more contextualized and thus perhaps less memorable either when


it is negative or when it is positive (Crawford, 1989; Crawford, Gressley, & Hauze, in press).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The university and college surveys together questioned 1375 students in 68 classes of various sizes, disciplines, and levels. In terms of methods, these two surveys indicate the advantage of asking students to answer questionnaire items with reference to their specific experiences in a particular class. This method allows students to focus on the pattern of interaction in one class rather than forcing them to make generalizations about "typical" classes or encouraging them to recall isolated instances from any unspecified point in the past. The second survey improved on the first with the addition of several qualitative questions that made it possible to begin an exploration of the rationale behind student responses. It also partially circumvented the problem posed by grossly unequal numbers of female and male faculty by using matched pairs rather than truly random sampling. This technique en- sures that, for statistical purposes, an adequate number of female faculty will be inc luded /We also used a number of var iables-such as student ability (grade or GPA), course level, ethnicity, age, native language, and academic discipline- that added to our understanding of the classroom dynamic. In the light of our central concern here with gender difference, it is important that there were no significant interactions between any of these variables and gender of student.

Whether in a large university or a small college, class size is clearly the variable of most importance to student participation. Alone and in interaction with other variables, class size is significantly related to students' experience of whether a particular course allows participation, whether they as individuals can participate or assert their opinions, and whether the teacher uses humor and language positively or offensively.

Small classes enhance participation for all students regardless of gender. Female teachers do an especially good job with small classes in creating the kind of atmosphere where students feel comfortable interacting. Our evidence suggests, however, that when we look at both positive and negative teacher behavior, particularly as reflected in the use of humor, the pattern of smaller as better does not hold. Teachers, especially female teachers, use less positive humor in small classes than in larger ones. Teachers, especially male

7However, even with this technique, there were too few females at the rank of full professor to allow statistical analyses of teacher rank.


teachers, also tend to use more offensive humor in small classes. Our findings on classroom humor are intriguing, and the topic deserves further study. There may be a threshold of humor that is sufficient to create a positive classroom climate. Adding more humor may only increase the risk of offending students. Future research should also examine differences in students' evaluation of contextualized humor - i . e . , humor stemming from immediate educa- tional context and p rocess -vs , superimposed humor, e.g., an instructor opening a class by telling a joke he/she has heard recently.

The original study of classroom climate (Hall & Sandler, 1982) suggested that women students participated less and were less assertive. It also suggested that a major cause of this phenomenon was teacher discrimination. Our two surveys lend support to the first of these hypotheses, but not to the second.

The evidence that male students find a "friendlier" classroom than their female peers is clearer in the college study than in the university study. It may be that the college surveyed is more prone to this kind of gender bias because of its history of having been an all male institution. Yet there is noth- ing in our data to suggest that greater male student participation is the result of teacher discrimination: neither survey found a significant interaction between student gender and teacher gender. In fact, for the personalized interaction factor, students perceive that teachers treat their male and female students similarly when class size is held constant.

The gender difference we did find is that female teachers are more ef- fective than male teachers at creating the kind of classroom where student questions and discussions are valued regardless of the gender of the student. Female faculty seem more attuned to the interpersonal aspects of teaching and more sensitive to group dynamics. They were more aware of the different reasons for nonparticipation held by female and male students. They value students' active participation more, and they are more likely to use a variety of strategies to encourage it.

Creating a better classroom climate for female students, then, is not radically diferent from creating a better classroom climate for male students. This conclusion is consistent with a great deal of research in elementary and secondary school classrooms. "Girl-friendly" classrooms, in which girls maintain high self-esteem and high achievement in mathematics and science, are also more "friendly" for boys (for a recent review and evaluation, see Eccles, 1989). Our results indicate that students believe neither female nor male faculty actively discriminate against female students. The lower participation and involvement of female students is best addressed by teachers who are aware of the gender difference, and use a variety of sensitive strategies to create a "student-friendly" classroom.


R E F E R E N C E S

Boersma, P. D., Gay, D., Jones, R. A., Morrison, L., & Remick, H. (1981). Sex differences in college student-teacher interaction: Fact or fantasy? Sex Roles, 7, 775-784.

Brooks, V. R. (1982). Sex differences in student dominance behavior in female and male professors' classrooms. Sex Roles, 8, 683-690.

Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1979). Teachers' humor in the college classroom. Communication Education, 28, 110-118.

Constantinople, A., Cornelius, R., & Gray, J. (1988). The chilly climate: Fact or artifact? Journal of Higher Education, 59, 527-550.

Cornelius, R., Gray, J., & Constantinople, A. (in press). Student-faculty interaction in the college classroom. Journal o f Research and Development in Education.

Crawford, M. (1989). Humor in conversational context: Beyond biases in the study of gender and humor. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social constructions of gender. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Crawford, M., Gressley, D., & Hauze, K. (in press). Creativity, caring, and context: Women's and men's accounts of humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly.

Dweck, C. S., & Bush, E. S. (1976). Sex differences in learned helplessness: I. Differential de- bilitation with peer and adult evaluators. Developmental Psychology, 12, 147-156.

Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and III. an ex- perimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268-276.

Eccles, J. S. (1989). Bringing young women to math and science. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer Verlag.

Hall, R. M., & Sandier, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Project on the Status and Education of Women. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Heller, J. F., Puff, C. R., & Mills, C. J. (1985). Assessment of the chilly college climate for women. Journal o f Higher Education, 56, 446-461.

Jenkins, M. M., Gappa, J. M., & Pearce, J. (1983). Removing bias: Guidelines for student- faculty communication. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Karp, D., & Yoels, W. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421-439.

Lockheed, M. E., & Klein, S. S. (1985). Sex equity in classroom organization and climate. In S. S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.

Ornstein, R., & Sobel, D. (1987). The healing brain: Breakthrough discoveries about how the brain keeps us healthy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1979). Between teacher and student; Overcoming sex bias in the classroom. Report of the Nonsexist Teacher Education Project of the Women's Educa- tional Equity Act Program, U.S. Office of Education.

Sternglanz, S. H., & Lyberger-Ficek, S. (1977). Sex differences in student teacher interaction in the college classroom. Sex Roles, 3, 345-351.

Taylor, S. (1986). Health psychology. New York: Random House. Wilkinson, L. C., & Marrett, C. (eds.), (1985). Gender influences in classroom interaction. New

York: Academic Press.

Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the “chilly climate” for women

Documents

Transcript of Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the “chilly climate” for women