School for Scandal: different educational experiences for females and males

Abstract

Some would argue that sex discrimination in educational settings is on the wane. This paper, drawing especially from research undertaken in North American settings will contend however that the announcement of its demise is premature. Research shows that gender inequality in the classroom continues and is manifest in and maintained by a variety of overlearned, non‐conscious, verbal and non‐verbal messages initiated in interactions between teachers and students. This paper reviews four such ‘messages’. They include: (1) how teachers respond to verbal participation by female students; (2) how teachers’ discourse reveals subtle sex bias; (3) how teachers assist female and male students in unequal ways and; (4) how teacher non‐verbal messages feed sex‐based differences in present interests and future goals. The paper concludes with some suggestions for changing these messages and thereby reducing gender inequality in educational settings..

Full text

Title:
Database:
School for Scandal: Different educational experiences for females and males. By: Lafrance, Marianne, Gender &
Education, 09540253, 1991, Vol. 3, Issue 1
Professional Development Collection
SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL: DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES FOR FEMALES
AND MALES
ABSTRACT
Some would argue that sex discrimination in educational settings is on the wane. This paper, drawing especially from research
undertaken in North American settings will contend however that the announcement of its demise is premature. Research shows
that gender inequality in the classroom continues and is manifest in and maintained by a variety of overlearned, non-conscious,
verbal and non-verbal messages initiated in interactions between teachers and students. This paper reviews four such `messages'.
They include: (1) how teachers respond to verbal participation by female students; (2) how teachers' discourse reveals subtle sex
bias; (3) how teachers assist female and male students in unequal ways and; (4) how teacher non-verbal messages feed sex-based
differences in present interests and future goals. The paper concludes with some suggestions for changing these messages and
thereby reducing gender inequality in educational settings..
For many, an early exposure to reading may have included a book that began something like this: "See Dick. See Jane. See Spot
Run". Several decades later, there has been an update on these literary characters. From a new primer (Gallant, 1986), we learn
that Dick and Jane have grown up. Dick, now almost 40, is a systems engineer and is married to Susan, a minor character from the
original series. Jane is a 38 year-old divorcee. She lives with her two daughters Robin and Jessica, in an impeccably clean house
near her brother Dick and works as a loan officer in a downtown bank.
Not only have Dick and lane grown up but ways of educating females and males have ostensibly grown up as well. The rigid
stereotypes of what constitutes appropriate behaviour for girls and boys have apparently given way to conceptions of each person
as an individual with particular talents and needs. Both girls and boys are expected to live up to their fullest potential. But are they?
Are girls and boys treated equally in the classroom? Are they given the same messages about their value and their potential? This
paper will show that schoolgirls and college women continue to be treated differently than schoolboys and college men by their
teachers and that these differences continue the tradition of keeping females in a separate and unequal place. The different
messages to girls and boys have grown perhaps more subtle and implicit in recent years but are no less pervasive and pernicious. I
will draw on the empirical literature on classroom interaction and specifically those studies which focus on non-verbal communication
to show that latent discrimination continues even while blatant sexism may be no longer tolerated.
Different Responses to Males and Females in the Classroom
The prevailing wisdom has it that boys have a tougher time in school than do girls. One need only to look at the amount of verbal
commands, censure and criticism directed at boys relative to girls to conclude that boys are more often the recipients of teacher
disfavour. For example, while Martin (1972) and Brophy & Good (1970) both found that teachers direct more interactions toward
boys than toward girls, it was mostly accounted for by the fact that boys are involved in more procedural interactions than girls.
Similarly, Sikes' study (1971) of 16 classrooms (ages 12 and 13) revealed that males have more verbal contacts with teachers than
do girls around issues of criticism and misbehaviour. Other studies confirm that boys are more often scolded than girls and that both
male and female teachers show a tendency to be more critical of boys (Lippitt & Gold, 1959; Etaugh & Harlow, 1971; Huston, 1983).
Should one conclude from this evidence that teachers are less favourably disposed toward boys and more inclined to favour girls,
that perhaps unequal treatment does exist but in the direction opposite to prevailing ideas about sexism? More recent evidence
iCONN OneSearch Video
Tutorial (4:37)
Listen
American Accent

suggests otherwise. A large number of studies exploring the quantity and quality of teacher interactions with students in North
American elementary school classrooms shows rather consistently that teachers give more attention of all kinds, including
instructional emphasis to boys than to girls (Berk & Lewis, 1977; Blumenthal et al., 1179; Etaugh & Hughes, 1975; Fennema et al.,
1980; Leinhardt et al., 1979; Minuchin & Shapior, 1983). Although there is the occasional finding of no difference (Dart & Clark,
1988; Field, 1980) or studies reporting tile opposite (Biber et al., 1972; Fagot, 1973), the majority of studies suggest that boys
interact much with teachers than girls (Fine, 198]) and girls have many mote days in which they do not interact at all with the teacher
(Reyes & Fennema, 1982).
In a recent study of classroom interaction in the USA, Sadker & Sadker (1985) observed students in more than one hundred primary
school classes (ages 9, 11, and 13) in four states and the District of Columbia. The teachers and students were male and female,
black and white, from urban, suburban and rural communities. The classes covered equally language, arts and English (typically
thought to be ones at which girls excell) and maths and science (traditionally male domains). They found that at all grade levels and
in all subject areas that boys dominated classroom communications. They participated in more interactions than girls. Even more
interesting were the reports of how teachers responded to the same behaviours coming from a boy or a girl. When boys called out
answers without raising their hands, teachers tended to acknowledge the responses; when girls did likewise, teachers were more
likely to reprimand the behaviour. The sex differences thus seems to suggest that boys are both more visible than girls and given
more academic leeway (Morgan & Dunn, 1988). Hall & Sandler (1982) support that conclusion in their review of the differential
treatment afforded females and males across the educational spectrum.
This article addresses this issue further through a review of empirical research conducted by a number of investigators over several
years. In particular, I want to identify four educational practices that have the effect of providing females with a different academic
experience than males. These practices include: (1) how teachers respond to verbal participation by female students; (2) how
teachers' talk reveals subtle sex bias in favour of males; (3) how teachers differentially provide assistance to female and male
students and; (4) how teacher non-verbal messages elicit and/or sustain sex-biased differences in present interests and future goals.
Reactions to Female Verbal Participation
Although societal stereotypes characterise women as more talkative, research both inside and outside the classroom shows
something quite different. In most encounters between women and men, the men do the talking and the women do the listening
(LaFrance & Mayo, 1978). Tn mixed-sex college classrooms, even the brightest women students often remain silent. Indeed, it has
come to be taken for granted by many faculty and students alike that men will usually dominate in college classrooms and many
researchers have confirmed that women students are less likely to be verbally assertive in co-educational settings (Sternglanz &
Lyberger-Ficek, 1977).
The reasons for this are complex. One is the cultural proclivity for seeing any talk by women as too much talk. For example, Sadker
& Sadker (1985) showed teachers and administrators a film of a classroom discussion and asked them to say who was talking more.
The teachers overwhelmingly said the girls were. But in reality, the boys in the film were out-talking the girls at a ratio of 3:1. Even
educators who were positively disposed to feminist issues were unable to spot the bias until they actually counted and coded who
was talking and who was watching.
A second factor contributing to girls' greater verbal estraint originates in the social role requirement that females should be good
listeners. Verbal participation by females is regarded as less important than their capacity to be attentive to the talk of others. For
example, Duncan & Fiske (1977) have shown that in conversational exchanges, women give more indications of attentiveness than
do men, whether that be expressed by greater smiling, laughing and nodding. These are the cues by which women are taught to
provide what Bernard (1968) has called "silent applause".
Thirdly, women are discouraged from talking by a number of non-verbal and verbal means. As to the non-verbal cues, gaze aversion
(Knapp et al., 1973), withholding of active listening responses like nods or requests for elaboration (Duncan & Fiske, 1977), and
delayed verbal feedback (Argyle et al., 1968) have all been shown to foreshorten talk time. Interruptions also constitute a frequent
way of curtailing female verbal participation. Research in a number of settings has shown rather consistently that. females are
interrupted more than males and especially interrupted by males (Zimmerman & West, 1975). A rather interesting study has also
revealed that females do not have to be school aged to be the frequent recipients of others' interruptions. Beattie (1982) found that
when the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was interviewed, she was interrupted more frequently than other senior
politicians and that she was interrupted more often by interviewers that she herself interrupts.
Finally, female students may get the message that their verbal contribution is just not heard. Although Robinson & McArthur (1982)
found that voices louder by a mere five decibels are listened to more and ascribed greater purpose than those having less vocal
intensity, the effect was only true in response to male voices. All subjects listened to the speakers more when their voices were male
than when they were female and furthermore, males listened the least to female voices. The affect of all this may be to mute
women's voices or to render them silent altogether.

In an analogous domain, Russ (1983) enumerated the various ways that verbal contributions by women are sometimes received.
Literary works, and especially those that make a discernible statement, are often met with deprecating assessments such as: "She
didn't write it" or "She wrote it, but she shouldn't have" or "She wrote it, but look what she wrote about" or "She wrote it but she isn't
really an artist and it isn't really serious" or "She wrote it but she only wrote one of it" or "She wrote it but it's only interesting for one
limited reason" or "She wrote it but there are very few of her". Russ (1983) argued that active bigotry toward women writers is
probably fairly rare. In classrooms as well, it is unusual to find blatant examples of sexism. It is not necessary to be actively sexist. It
is ". . . only necessary to act in the customary, ordinary, usual and even polite manner." (Russ, 1983). In sum, research shows that
girls have the floor in classrooms significantly less than do boys. To the extent that teachers respond to verbal contributions by girls
by attending less or dismissing more (Hall & Sandler, 1982), the educational experience is unequal and girls are being deprived of
something more serious than airtime.
Sex Bias in Teachers' Speech
A second major practice contributing to a different educational experience for females and males is how teachers themselves talk. A
number of studies show a strong tendency toward the use of sexist language by elementary and secondary school teachers
(Richmond & Dyba, 1982). More specifically, teacher talk is frequently sex biased in its reliance on the generic `he' to refer to both
men and women, such as, "The role of the psychologist is to understand human behaviour. His task is to...". Theoretically, the
generic `he' includes females as well as males but recent studies show that students know who is really being talked about.
For example Stericker (1981) had male and female undergraduates read six job descriptions referring to the job holder either as he,
he or she, or they. Following each description, subjects indicated their interest both in the job and estimated how difficult the job
would be to get for categories of people varying by race, ethnicity, sex, age and handicap. Results showed that the generic use of
the masculine pronoun significantly reduced the undergraduates' estimates of a women getting the job.
But more directly applicable to classroom settings are two studies that showed the effect of the generic `he' on students' thinking.
Eberhart (1976) constructed a test of pictures and statements either using masculine generic nouns or neutral generic nouns.
Students of ages 6, 8 and 11 years old included pictures of females significantly more often when neutral generic nouns were used.
Similarly, Harrison & Passero (1975) examined the responses of 8 years old to human activities described in either neutral or
masculine generic terms. When asked to choose a picture to represent a given activity, it was found that the masculine generic
elicited exclusively male pictures.
Different Kinds of Assistance to Female and Male Students
So far we have shown two practices in which the micro-educational experience is different for females than for males. First, their
verbal participation is kept low in many classrooms and second, they can come to feel peripheral as a result of language which
makes males the central players in many human activities. A third mechanism through which females and males get a different
education consists of the kinds of assistance members of each group receive from the teachers.
Consider the assistance conveyed through touch. Good teachers are said to touch us because that which is quite literal and
momentary can convey something that is more symbolic and sustaining. But touch can convey a range of meanings (Henley, 1973,
1977; Major, 1981). In their study, Perdue & Connor (1978) coded not only the frequency of touch directed by male and female
preschool teachers to their male and female pupils, they also categorised the type of touch conveyed. Four categories of touch were
coded: friendly, helpful, attentional, and incidental. The results showed that, particularly in the case of male teachers, girls were the
recipient of more helpful touches than any other kind; boys received more friendly contact. The authors interpreted the results as
indicating that what is ostensibly a behaviour with a benevolent intent may lead to a more entrapping result.
Thus touch in the context of teaching can express not only affection and inclusion, but also control. Preschool girls may get the
message early on that contact is more likely than not to occur within the context of a dependency relationship. Moroever, age doesn't
seem to moderate these different messages. Safilios-Rothschild (1985) studied quality of instruction at the United States Coast
Guard Academy and found that male students received detailed verbal instructions on how to accomplish tasks while female
students had the tasks done for them.
Teacher Expectations and Student Aspirations
Teacher expectations for their students constitute a fourth educational message leading to dissimilar educational experiences for
females and males. Teachers can inadvertently convey to students some ideas about their respective propensities and prospects. In
a now classic study, Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) demonstrated that experimentally manipulated teacher expectancies for pupil
progress can affect pupils' intellectual growth. Specifically, the study found that children who were expected by their teachers to
improve showed more actual improvement in reasoning and total IQ scores than did a control group of `non-blooming' children.
These differences between `late bloomer' children and control children were especially pronounced in the younger grades.
Furthermore, students designated as `late bloomers' were rated as happier, better adjusted, and more curious. Although the results

of the original study were criticised on methodological grounds (Claiborne, 1969; Snow, 1969), the findings have now been
replicated many times over (Crano & Mellon, 1978; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982).
Fortunately, the empirical investigation of teacher expectancy has recently turned from a primary concern with documenting the
impact of expectancy to exploring how teachers actually communicate their expectancies to their students. For example, Rubovits &
Maehr (1973) found that tutors were more likely to call on and praise students of whom they had high expectations than on those
they thought to be average. But expectations may even be more powerfully communicated non-verbally. Specifically, Chaikin et al.
(1974) found that tutors expecting a superior performance leaned forward more, leaned back less, looked their pupils in the eye
more, as well as nodding and smiling more than did tutors who expected a poor performance or who had no expectancy.
The importance of the non-verbal cues to this process lies in their out-of-awareness, overlearned, and non-deliberate aspects
(LaFrance & Mayo, 1978). Teachers may consciously monitor their verbal behaviour to be in line with explicit attempts to accord fair
treatment to every student but still communicate non-verbally their beliefs regarding students' differential prospects.
That teachers possess differential expectations for individual students is seldom in dispute or cause for dismay. After all individuals
do differ in ability, motivation and cognitive style. That these expectations with their concomitant verbal and non-verbal behaviours
may be group-based is now being documented. In one study of this idea, Taylor (1979) observed the verbal and non-verbal
behaviour of female undergraduates in teacher training presenting lessons to `phantom' students. The students were described as
varying in sex, race, and ability. Regarding gender effects, teachers of white students were found to give less positive feedback to
females than to males upon receipt of correct answers and to emit more `helpful slips' to white males than to white females. Helpful
slips represented the number of times a teacher-subject made an apparent slip of the tongue and gave away the answer while trying
to ask a question. Morse & Hanley (1985) also reported that 12-15 year old boys in science classrooms received more teacher
feedback that appeared to provide boys with intermediate support for their responses, thus giving them more chance to correctly
answer the questions put to them. Finally, Taylor's (1979) results showed that the counter-expectancy groups received the least
tutoring. More specifically, high ability females and low ability males received significantly less praise and feedback following correct
answers than did low-ability females and high ability males.
In the context of the present review, three features of the teacher-expectancy paradigm deserve particular attention. The first has to
do with expectancy per se, the second has to do with the sphere of activity about which the expectations are held and the third is
concerned with differential sensitivity to non-verbal expectancy cues by females and males.
Expectancy. With regard to the first of these, it should be noted that the strongest expectancy effects are demonstrated when
teachers encounter students who do not now perform at capacity but are expected to come into their own. A recurrent concern for
primary school teachers is the `immaturity' of young male students (Grant, 1982). The choice of the term, `immaturity' is not
unimportant. Embeded within the imputation of immaturity is the assumption of eventful maturity. Males are expected to fully develop
their abilities and to eventually achieve their maximum potential; females, even in primary school, may be assumed to have already
reached theirs.
Sphere of activity. The second feature of expectancy effects that deserves attention is the sphere of activity to which they are
applied. Here again there is evidence that males and females are expected to excel at different things. For one, Wilson & Handley
(1986) found that boys and girls are differentially treated in 7th and 8th grade science classrooms, particularly with regard to
participation. Worrall & Tsarna (1987) also found that when questioned about their classroom practices with respect to an average
14 year-old boy or girl, science teachers reported expecting lower achievement from girls even while indicating that this would not
adversely affect their teaching.
With the exception of teacher solicited responses, male adolescents in science classrooms have been found to dominate every type
of classroom interaction (Morse & Handley, 1985). In another ethnographic study of "Black females' place a desegregated
classrooms", Grant (1982) took particular not of the fact that Black girls received less feedback for work than other race-gender
groups and, when there was encouragement, it was less for academic achievement than for social contacts.
The distinction among types of behaviours receiving support by teachers is vitally important. Overall counts of positive or negative
verbal and non-verbal behaviours are important to look at but even more important may be which sex gets what kind of feedback for
which kinds of activities. The developmental trends in a number of academic spheres clearly shows increasing sex differences. For
example, by the end of high school boys have higher scores in reading and basic computation, are more likely to take maths and
sciences courses, and to participate in gifted programmes. More to the point perhaps, girls come to believe that they are incapable
of pursuing these subjects in college, are more likely to attribute failure to lack of ability and to develop less commitment to careers
even with comparable achievement (Sadker & Sadker 1985).
Nonverbal sensitivity. According to Rosenthal & Rubin (1982) teacher expectations are mediated via four factors: climate (e.g.

teacher warmth), input (e.g. greater teacher investment with special students), output (e.g. encouragement of greater student
participation) and feedback (e.g. verbal and non-verbal reactions). Nonverbal behaviours are implicated in all four factors. The
paradox for female students is that they may be particularly tuned into, the very cues that discourage their participation.
When the question turns to gender differences in receptivity to another's expressive behaviour, most studies find women to be better
readers of non-verbal cues than men. In fact Hall (1978) having reviewed 75 studies on gender differences in assessing another's
feelings via access to facial or vocal cues found that in 84% of the studies, females were more accurate than males. Whatever the
explanation (and a number care currently being tested), the fact remains that females, even young ones, may be particularly adept
at picking up those cues which indicate which behaviours are desirable for them and which are not. Next, the absence of expected
supportive cues may be as noted as the presence of negative feedback. Finally, females may be more affected by `mixed
messages',wherein verbal encouragement is accompanied by a non-verbal damper.
Conclusion
The attempt in the foregoing has been to alert educators to some of the subtle ways in which female students as a group are treated
differently to male students and to suggest that such treatment is likely to have a pernicious effect on women's educational
achievement. Teachers nudge their students sometimes literally, sometimes symbolically in particular directions. which female
students are nudged into passivity, dependency, and silence rather than activity, autonomy, and talk, then the touch is anything but
helpful.
The preceding review describes a profess that is in someways paradoxical. Female students are less frequently the recipients of
verbal reprimands. But therein lies the rub, for neither are they on the receiving end of high expectations regarding their intellectual
potential. Research in non-verbal communication has clearly demonstrated that one cannot not communicate. Through the subtle
application of touch, facial expression, eye contact, vocal inflection and speech style, space, and gesture, teachers convey an array
of messages about students' place in the classroom and in life whether they intend to or not.
Having established the presence of differential reactions to male and female students, it is important to point out that girls are not
treated differently to boys across all educational contexts. Rather differential patterns appear to differ depending on the grade level
of the student and subject matter being taught. Also, many variables may moderate gender effects in classroom experiences e.g. a
school's educational philosophy, physical environment, and classroom organization, as well as such various teal her attributes,
experience and attitudes. Nor is it the case that student gender is the only student attribute that affects classroom interaction
processes. Other student attributes such as ability, race, social class, and background also have significant bearing on how they are
treated.
Nevertheless, student gender by itself and in combination with other factors affects how students are schooled. That the gender-
based messages in the classroom are subtle and complex is certain. What is more debatable is the role they play in reinforcing
sexual stereotypes both inside and outside the classroom. Although research has documented clear gender differences in the
classroom experience for males and females and although attainment differences between males and females has been
documented there have been very few attempts to expressly link these two outcomes. The absence is noteworthy even if partially
understandable. Educational outcomes are the result of multiple, interacting factors whose effects accrue over time. The classroom
experience is but one factorin a elaborate network of educational influences. Nonetheless the fact that females and males are
treated differently in the classroom is itself cause for concern and reason enough to investigate the nature of the connection to
attainment.
Additionally the role of the student in effecting teacher behaviour needs to be considered. It may well be the case that the disparities
in student experience are not so much caused by teacher conduct but are tire result of prior differences in the students themselves.
In other words, teacher s may respond differently to girls because girls behave differently to boys. Girls may nave more things done
for them because they come to the classroom showing greater dependency. It falls to more detailed and longitudinal research to
reveal the extent to which gender discrepancies are created and/or sustained by interaction in the classroom.
But even if it were the case that: girls arrive showing less autonomy and ambition than boys, teachers need to consider whether their
role is to cultivate the differences they find or to extricate both girls and boys from the limits set by other sex-role agents. On this
point, Eccles & Blumfield (1985) argued that even though teachers do not appear to be a significant source of sex-differentiated
beliefs regarding maths and science abilities, they do very little to alter them or to furnish boys and girls with information that might
lead them to rethink their sex-stereotyped beliefs.
The goal of sex equity in education is to provide unrestricted opportunities for all students. Gender messages disrupt these
opportunities by denying the diversity, complexity, and variation that exists among any group of individuals. The subtle messages
described in this report are particularly disruptive to these opportunities because they are generally overlooked, or if recognised,
played down as being unintended and inadvertent. As has been noted with respect to other forms of sexism, it is not necessary to,

be actively discriminatory. It is ". . . only necessary to act in the customary, ordinary, usual and even polite manner." (Russ, 1983, p.
18). Educators ought to be among the first not to act in this way.
It has been said that education is what you remember when you have forgotten what you have learned. To make changes along
some of the messages described here may result in the Dicks and Janes of tomorrow not being able to remember that boys and girls
were supposed to do different things in the classroom.
Correspondence: Marianne LaFrance, Department of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167, USA.
NOTE
Parts of this paper were presented at the Meeting of the Association for Moral Education, Harvard University, November, 1987.
REFERENCES
BEATTIE, G., CUTLER, A. & PEARSON, M. (1982) Why is Mrs. Thatcher interrupted so often? Nature, 300, pp. 744-747.
BERK, L.E. & LEWIS, N.G. (1977) Sex role and social behavior in for school environments, Elementary School Journal, 77, pp. 205-
217.
BERNARD, J. (1968) The Sex Game (New York, Atheneum).
BIBER, H., MILLER, L. & DYER, J. (1972) Feminization in preschool, Developmental Psychology, 7, p. 86.
BLUMENFIELD, P., HAMILTON, V. & BOSSERT, S. (1972, October) Teacher talk and student thought: socialization into the student
role. Paper presented at the leaning Research and Development Centre Conference on Student Motivation, Pitssburgh, PA.
BROPHY, J. & GOOD, T.L. (1970) Teachers communication of differential expectations for children's performance: some behavioral
data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, pp. 365-374
CHAIKIN, A., SIGLER, E. & DERLEGA, V. (1974) Nonverbal mediators of teacher expectancy effects, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30, pp. 144-149.
CLAIBORNE, W. (1969) Expectancy effects in the classroom: a failure to replicate, Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, pp. 377-
383.
CRANO, W.D. & MELLON, P.M. (1978) Causal influence of teachers' expectations on children's academic performance: a cross-
lagged panel analysis, Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, pp. 39-49.
DART, B.C. & CLARKE, J.A. (1988) Sexism in schools: a new look, Educational Review, 40, pp. 41-49.
DUNCAN, S. & FISKE, D.W. (1977) Face-to-face Interaction: research, method and theory (New York, Willey).
EBERHART, O.M.Y. (1976) Elementary students' understanding of certain masculine and neutral generic nouns, Dissertation
Abstracts International, 37, 4113A.
ECCLES, J.S. & BLUMENFIELD, P. (1985) Classroom experiences and student gender: are there differences and do they matter?
in: L. C. WILKINSON & C. B. MARRETT (Eds) Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction (New York, Academic Press).
EKMAN, P. & FRIESEN, W.V. (1969) Nonverbal leakage and cues to deception, Psychiatry, 32, pp. 88-106.
ETAUGH, C. & HARLOW, H. (1971) School attitudes and performance of elementary school children as related to teacher's sex and
behavior in: E. BROPHY & T. L. GOODS (Eds) Teacher-student Relationships: causes and consequences (New York, Holt, Rinehart
& Winston).
ETAUGH, C. & HUGHES, V. (1975) Teacher evaluations of sex-type behaviors in children: the role of teacher, sex, and school
setting, Developmental Psychology, 11, pp. 394-395.
FAGOT, B.I. (1973) Influence of teacher behavior in the preschool, Developmental Psychology, 9, pp. 198-206.
FENNEMA, E. et al. (1980, April) Cognitive and affective on the development of sex-related differences in mathematics. Symposium

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
FIELD, T.M. (1980) Preschool play: effects of teacher--child ratios and organization of classroom space, Child Study Journal, 10, pp.
191-205.
FINE, J. (1981) Sex similarities in behavior in a seventh grade classroom, Journal of Early Adolescence, 1, pp. 233-243.
GALLANT, M.G. (1986) More fun with Dick and Jane (New York, Viking Penguin).
GRANT, L. (1982) Black females' `place' in desegregated classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association, San Francisco, September.
HALL, J.A. (1978) Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues, Psychological Bulletin, 85, pp. 845-857.
HALL, R.M. & SANDIER, B.R. (1982) The Classroom climate: a chilly one for women? Project on the Status and Education of
Women, Association of America Colleges.
HARRISON, L. & PASSERO, R.N. (1975) Sexism in the language of elementary school textbooks, Science and Children, 12, pp. 22-
25.
HECHINGER, F.M. (1987) Gift of a great teacher, New York Times, Tuesday, November 10, C8.
HENLEY, N.M. (1973) Status and sex: some touching observations, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, pp. 91-93.
HUSTON, A.C. (1983) Sex typing, in P. H. MUSSEN & E. M. HETHERINGTON (Eds), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 4, 4th
edn) (New York, Willey).
HENLEY, N.M. (1977) Body politics: sex, power and nonverbal communication (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall).
KNAPP, M.L. (1978) Nonverbal communication in human interaction (New, York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
LAFRANCE, M. & CARMEN, B. (1980) the nonverbal display of psychological androgyny, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, pp. 36-49.
LAFRANCE, M. & MAYO, C. (1978) Moving bodies: nonverbal communication in social relationships (Monterey, CA, Brooks/Cole).
LEINHARDT, G., Seewald, A. & ENGEL, M. (1979) Learning what's taught: sex differences in instruction, Journal of Educational
Psychology 71, pp. 432-439.
LIPPIT, R. & GOLD, M. (1959) Classroom social structure as a metal health problem, Journal of Social Issues, 15, PP. 40-49.
MAJOR, B. (1981) Gender patterns in touching behavior, in C. MAYO & N. HENLEY (Eds), Gender and Nonverbal Behavior (New
York, Springer-Verlag).
MARTIN, R. (1972) Student sex and behavior as determinants of the type and frequency of teacher-student contacts, Journal of
School Psychology, 10, pp. 339-347.
MAYO, C. & LAFRANCE, M. (1978) On the acquisition of nonverbal communication: a review, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 24, pp. 213-
228.
MINUCHIN, P.P. & SHAPIRO, E.K. (1983) The school as a context for social development, in: P. MUSSEN & E. M.
HETHERINGTON (Eds), Handbook of Child Psychology Vol. 4, 4th edn) (New York, Wiley).
MORGAN, V. & DUNN, S. (1988) Chameleons in the classroom: visible and invisible children in nursery and infant classrooms,
Educational Review, 40, pp. 3-12.
MORSE, L.W. & HANDLEY, H.M. (1985) Listening to adolescents: gender differences in science classroom interaction, in: L. C.
WILKlNSON & C. B. MARRET (Eds) Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction (New York, Academic Press).
PERDUE, V.P. & CONNOR, J.M. (1978) Patterns of touching between preschool children and male and female teachers, Child
Development, 19, pp. 1258- 1262.

REYES, L.H. & FENNEMA, E. (1982) Sex and confidence lever differences in participation in mathematics classroom processes.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
ROBINSON, J. & MCARTHUR, L. (1982) Impact of salient vocal qualities or causal attribution for a speaker's behavior, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, pp. 236-247.
ROSENTHAL, R. & JACOBSON, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom: teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development
(New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
ROSENTHAL, R. & RUBIN, D.B. (1982) Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
3, pp. 377-415.
RUBOVITS, P.C. & MAEHR, M.L. (1973) Pygmalion black and white, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, pp. 210-219.
RUSS, J. (1983) How to Suppress Women's Writing. (Austin, Texas, University of Texas).
SADKER, M.P. & SADKER, D.M. (1982) Sex Equity Handbook for Schools (New York, Longman).
SADKER, M.P. & SADKER, D.M. (1985) Sexism in the schoolroom of the 80's Psychology Today, March, pp. 54-57.
SIKES, J. (1971) Differential behavior of male and female teachers With male and female students, Unpublished dissertation,
University of Texas.
SNOW, R. (1969) Unfinished pygmalion, Contemporary Psychology, 14, pp. 197-199.
STERNGLANZ, S.H. & LYBERGER-FICEK, S. (1977), Sex differences in student-teacher interactions in the college classroom, Sex
Roles, 3, pp 345-352.
STERICKER, A. (1981) Does this "he or she" business really make a difference? The effect of masculine pronouns as generics on
job attitudes, Sex Roles, 7, pp. 637-641.
TAYLOR, M.C. (1979) Race, sex and the expression of self-fulfilling prophecies in a laboratory teaching situation, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, pp. 897-912.
WILKINSON, L.C. & MARRET, C.B. (Ed) (1986) Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction (New York, Academic Press).
WILSON, L.W. & HANDLEY, H.M. (1986) Listening to adolescents: gender differences in science classroom interaction, in: L. C.
WILKINSON & C. B. MARRET (Eds) Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction (New York, Academic Press).
WORRALL, N. & TSARNA, H. (1987) Teacher's reported practices towards girls and boys in science and languages, British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 57, pp 300-312.
~~~~~~~~
By MARIANNE LAFRANCE, Boston College, Massachusetts, USA
Copyright of Gender & Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles
for individual use.
Mobile Site EBSCO Support Site Privacy Policy Terms of Use Copyright Contact Us
powered by EBSCOhost
© 2015 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.