Gender Differences in College Classroom Participation and Assertiveness

Andrea S. Lipps

Abstract: Existing literature supports as well as refutes the presence of gender differences in college classroom participation. It is hypothesized that due to behavior modification and maturation, gender will not affect college classroom participation or assertiveness. Background research was collected from pre-college settings to support the differences attributable to behavior maturation and modification. We used structured field observations and the college level data support that there were no gender differences in assertive classroom behavior, yet the data refute that gender did not affect total participation. Potential biases exist limiting our results, stemming from a small sample size to omitted variables. Yet the larger trend is apparent; gender dynamics affect classroom participation and assertiveness.

Introduction

Prescribed gender roles and sex differences exist in our society, leading us to expect that gender dynamics would contribute to differences in classroom participation. Boys are encouraged to be assertive, opinionated, and ambitious, while girls are taught to be passive, soft-spoken, and enabling (Rich 1979). These differences become internalized norms governing social behavior, especially in situations that carry clear gender prescriptions, such as the pre-college classroom. A large body of research has documented the socialization and encouragement of gendered interactions in this environment (cf. Sadker and Sadker 1994), demonstrating the extent to which young girls and boys act in accordance to specified gender roles.

However, in moving from the pre-college classroom to the college classroom, I believe the effects of gender on interaction lessen, as males and females shape their behavior not towards gendered roles, but rather towards the expected roles of the student in the elevated classroom. Women, in order to be successful in the classroom at the college level, have had to modify their behavior through increased participation and assertiveness. Men on the other hand, have become more mature and no longer shout out answers or consume all interactions. I believe, therefore, that through behavior modification and maturation, gender differences in college classroom participation and assertiveness lessen with increased schooling.

Existing sociological literature on the subject support as well as refute this belief. Numerous hypotheses have been formulated and tested regarding gender differences in college classroom behavior, however, the pivotal question guiding much of today’s research was raised in the title of Hall and Sandler’s (1982) provocative article, "The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?" In their work, Hall and Sandler maintain that a "chilly classroom climate" exists for women in higher education, finding that gender influences interactions in the educational environment. Their report is supported by several empirical studies, contributing to a body of research that has documented the participation of women in the classroom as quantitatively and qualitatively different from that of men’s. Other studies have also been conducted, further refuting the belief that college classroom participation is not affected by gender and offering other variables for potential explanations (Auster and MacRone 1994, Fassinger 1995, Hutchinson and Beadle 1992). The gender of the instructor, age of the student, material of the course, and assertiveness as a participatory method are some factors that have been tested for their contribution to gender differences in participation

Yet there is also a body of research that refutes these findings and supports the conjecture that differences in gender roles do not influence participation in the classroom environment. "Gender in the College Classroom: An Assessment of the ‘Chilly Climate’ for Women", by Crawford and MacLeod (1990), is one such study in which student assertiveness, as a participatory method, was found to be unrelated to student gender. Other research could not substantiate Hall and Sandler’s claim of the "chilly classroom climate" for women, such as "The Chilly Climate: Fact or Artifact?" by Constantinople, Cornelius, and Gray (1988). In their research, Constantinople et al. find that other factors, such as the instructor’s gender or the curriculum of the course, which constitute the social context of the particular college classroom, override the role of gender in influencing classroom participation.

This previous research provides us the arguments surrounding gender differences in college classroom dynamics. According to the literature, prescribed gender roles affect pre-college classroom participation, yet it is arguably a student’s adherence to these norms in college that affect gendered classroom participation. The discrepancies in the college-based literature we uncovered motivated our own study of the effects of gender on college classroom participation and assertiveness at the University of Michigan.

Hypothesis

Based on existing literature, it is hypothesized that in pre-college settings, young female students are less likely to participate and assert themselves in the classroom. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that due to the effects of maturation and behavior modification in college, gender does not affect classroom participation or assertiveness.

Research Design

Empirical field observations were the most conducive method to researching gender effects on classroom participation, since subjects were observed in the natural classroom setting and are unaffected by the researcher, reducing reactive effects of the experiment. In order to test the hypotheses, both college and pre-college classrooms needed to be observed uniformly. In addition, to increase the validity of our findings, it was necessary to structure our observations in order to reduce systematic error, focusing on quantitative rather than qualitative data. With quantitative data, simply coding participation and participatory method reduced researcher subjectivity and allowed supporting sample statistics to be calculated more easily. In order to achieve this uniformity and structured observation in our field research, we designed a template to simply measure gender ratios, total participation, participation based on gender, and assertiveness (see Appendix A). Participation was identified as a student speaking aloud in class and assertiveness, as a participatory method, was operationalized as "raised hand" or "did not raise hand."

The five members of our group (two males and three females) observed college class periods according to their schedule during the week of December 1 thru December 8, 1999. Due to our different concentrations, a variety of class periods were observed totaling twenty-four, ranging from humanities and social science classes to engineering classes. This range allowed us to control for class subject, since the type of course might have affected the degree to which a student of a particular gender would participate. In addition, the structure of the observed classes ranged from large lectures, to smaller discussion classes, to discussion sections that supplemented a lecture.

Total Classes Observed Total Female Students Total Male Students

College 24 400 311

High School 4 51 48

Middle School 2 45 49

All of the data for college classroom participation was collected at a large mid-western public university. Undergraduate classrooms were observed and demographically, the students in these classes ranged in age from eighteen to twenty-four. The unit of analysis was an individual classroom and numerous variables were recorded for each, such as the gender of the instructor, the structure of the course, the reaction of the instructor, and whether participation was considered "short answer" or "in-depth." However, these added variables were dropped in our final calculations, specifically due to the small sample size of the total observed classrooms.

In addition to college classrooms, four high school and two middle school classrooms were observed, both located in a mid-size, rather affluent mid-western city. Twelfth-grade classrooms were observed in the high school, with students ranging in age from seventeen to eighteen. The classes were observed by a female twelfth-grader who was given the template (Appendix A), under which the coding scheme was explained. The four classes observed were social science and humanities courses, consisting of around twelve students per classroom, with a relatively equal distribution of male and female students.

The two middle school classrooms were observed by two of our five group members, one male and one female, who used the observation template and were previously familiar with the coding scheme. Due to their enrollment and requirements in the School of Education, they had been observing assigned middle school classrooms throughout the semester. The students in the two seventh-grade classrooms were therefore familiar with to seeing them all semester, so their presence did not affect the students’ participation levels. Two social science classes were observed with about twenty students per class ranging in ages from eleven to thirteen, and represented an approximately equal gender distribution of students.

Results

After compiling the data, we calculated the percentages according to gender of the total number of students who raised their hand (demonstrating non-assertive behavior), those that did not raise their hand (assertive behavior), and the total participation in proportion to the total number of students of each sex in each of the three educational levels. The data is empirically presented in Appendix B and certain trends are observed in the results. In reference to the first hypothesis, the data showed that in the middle school (pre-college) classrooms, there were differences in assertiveness according to gender, yet classroom participation remained the same. Referring to the raw data in Appendix C, the total participation in middle school was approximately the same for each sex, as 64.4% of the total number of female students participated and 61% of all male students participated. However, there was a dramatic difference in the level of assertiveness practiced by the different sexes. Within the gender groups, females overwhelmingly demonstrated non-assertive behavior, as 92.6% of those who participated raised their hands and only 7.4% did not. For males, the differences in the participatory method were not great, yet they were slightly more assertive than not; 48% of males who participated raised their hand and 53% did not. Between the two groups, females again were much more likely not to assert themselves, as only 7.4% demonstrated assertive behavior compared to 53% of male students who were assertive. Thus, our middle school findings supported the first hypothesis in that young female students were less likely to assert themselves, however it refuted the idea that these same students would be less likely to participate.

Moving from middle school to high school, there is an empirical trend towards more equality in gender levels of assertiveness, however total participation was slightly higher for male students. From the raw data provided in Appendix C, only 37% of the total number of female students participated, whereas 45.8% of male students participated, illustrating that male students were slightly more likely to participate than female students. However, within the separate gender groups, there was an overall trend of non-assertive behavior. Of the female students who participated, 95% raised their hand and only 5% did not. For males, 95.5% of those who participated raised their hand, while 4.5% did not. A between group comparison demonstrates the same trend of a lack of assertiveness, as 5% of female students who participated did not raise their hand compared to 4.5% of male students. One possible explanation for non-assertive participatory behavior might lie in the structure of the high school classroom. While in middle school, students may still be more inclined to display "immature" behavior due to their younger ages, such as shouting out answers. However in moving to high school, students may "mature" and learn that this behavior is not accepted in the high school classroom, leading to the dominant participatory method of hand raising. Our findings in high school participation refuted the hypothesis that young female students would be less likely to assert themselves, but it supported the notion that these students would be less likely to participate as opposed to males.

College classroom participation, referring to the second part of the hypothesis, displayed differing trends than those observed in the pre-college classroom setting. Similar to the trend found in total high school participation, there was a difference between the sexes, however this difference was in the opposite direction. Female students were overwhelmingly more likely to participate than male students, as 115.8% of the total number of female students participated, demonstrating that females were all likely to participate numerous times throughout the class period. Of the total number of male students, only 70% participated. Within and between group differences of assertiveness appeared equal, mirroring the external trend from high school. Within group differences for females showed that 45% of those who participated raised their hand, compared to 54% who did not. Of the within group differences for males, 47.2% of those who participated raised their hand and 52.7% did not. Between group differences of assertiveness were also minimal, as 54% of females who participated did not raise their hand, in contrast with 52.7% of males who did not. Therefore, according to the raw data, the hypothesis that gender would not affect assertiveness was supported, however according to classroom participation, females were more likely to participate than males, a finding that actually points in the opposite direction of what was expected and thus refutes that portion of the hypothesis. This large shift of increased total participation for female students in college classroom settings could be due to their larger concentration in humanities and social science classes. Given that a little over two-thirds of the data was collected from these types of classes and that these classes generally incorporate more participatory methods (due to the subject matter and class structure), it is possible female participation appeared to increase in college. In order to control for this, participation based on each of the different class subjects should have been calculated to account for this possible phenomenon.

Discussion

Overall, support for the hypotheses was dependent on the level of classroom studied, with varying support regarding gendered participation and assertiveness. In pre-college settings, differences arose between middle school and high school classrooms. Within middle school classrooms, it was refuted that young female students would be less likely to participate, but it was supported that they were less likely to assert themselves in opposition to young male students. Within high school classrooms, it was supported that female students would be less likely to participate, however it was refuted that they were less likely to assert themselves. In college settings, it was refuted that gender would not have an effect on classroom participation, but it was supported that gender did not affect assertiveness.

Given these conclusions, a larger between group trend can be inferred when moving from middle school classroom settings to those in college settings regarding assertive behavior. Assertiveness became more equitable with advanced education, possibly resulting from the hypothesized notions of maturation and behavior modification. Theoretically, as males matured and females modified their behavior within the educational environment, the two groups reached an equal plane in assertive classroom behavior. In contrast, observed trends in the findings about classroom participation were not evident. However, this conclusion could be the result of biases present in the final calculations of the raw data, as participation due to class subject should have also been considered and calculated.

Other limitations also arise in the gathered research. Data was collected at the end of the semester; due to this, students had learned the expectations of their teachers and professors and had probably modified their behavior accordingly regardless of their gender. The inverse trend also causes potential bias in the results, since the teachers and professors also got to know the students in class and thus potentially differentiated between them. For instance, if a teacher or professor knew a particular student typically gave direct, precise answers, they would probably be more likely to call on them when they raised their hand. In order to control for this (or assess its presence) in the future, it would be necessary for researchers to gather data throughout the semester and then compare participation and assertiveness at specific points, such as in the second, the middle, and the next-to-last weeks of the semester.

Furthermore, since the researchers observed the direct classes within which they were affiliated, there was convenience sampling. This leads to problems of generalizablity, since the analyzed sample was not representative of the entire population; it was instead only taken from the Ann Arbor area and the University of Michigan, conveniently only in accordance with the researchers’ personal schedules. There was also the problem of a small sample size which limits the significance of our findings, as the limited number of classrooms observed did not provide enough data to move our results towards the aggregate.

In order to account for these limitations in future studies, it would be necessary to begin collecting data in the beginning of the semester from a larger sample. Classes should be chosen from all fields to allow for a representative sample, as well as equally incorporating different course structures, such as lectures, discussions, and labs. The instrumentation and structured observation would remain the same to decrease potential observer subjectivity, yet due to the larger sample size, more variables could be coded and calculated. This would decrease any potential omitted variable bias, since more variables would be accounted for and certain trends may be more noticeable according to one particular variable rather than another (such as gender of the instructor or class subject). In addition, the sampling would ideally be taken from schools and universities from around the country, to provide a more representative sample, however this would largely depend on the funding available for such a project.

References

Auster, C., and MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: And empirical study of the effects of faculty members’ behavior on students’ participation. Teaching Sociology, 22, 289-300.

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

Crawford, M., and MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the "chilly climate" for women. Sex Roles, 23 (3/4), 101-122.

Fassinger, P. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66 (1), 82-97.

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

Hutchinson, L., and Beadle, M. (1992). Professors’ communication styles: How they influence male and female seminar participants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8 (4), 405-418.

Rich, A. (1979). On lies, secrets, and silence: Selected prose 1966-1978. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Sadker, D., and Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribener’s Sons.