Gender in the Classroom

Despite the fact that research has found no differences in intelligence between males and females, gender differences in the classroom remain even in the twenty-first century. The reasons for this phenomenon are unclear and may be attributable in part both to nature (heredity and constitutional factors) and to nurture (sociocultural and environmental factors). Scientists have proffered at least three potential reasons for the observed differences between genders in the classroom: the hidden curriculum, different expectations for performance and achievement for females and males, and the teacher expectancy effect. In truth, more than one factor may be operating at the same time. No matter the underlying causes for gender inequity in the classroom, however, it is important to give both males and females the education that they need, not only as a class but also as individuals within that class, in order to reach their full potential.

Keywords Conflict Perspective; Culture; Feminism; Gender Stereotype; Gender Stratification; Hidden Curriculum; Normal Distribution; Reinforcement; Self-Fulfilling Prophecy; Social Stratification; Society; Socioeconomic Status; Stereotype; Teacher Expectancy Effect

Sex, Gender & Sexuality > Gender in the Classroom

Overview

Well in to the twentieth century, little girls were still expected to excel in home arts, have high verbal skills, and grow up to be wives and mothers or, if they ventured outside the expectations of their culture, to work in low-level support positions to help their male bosses succeed. Little boys, on the other hand, were told that the world was their oyster and were expected to do well in math and science and go on to become doctors, lawyers, and business leaders. The truth was, of course, that girls could be powerful and assertive, boys could be sensitive and artistic, and nothing was wrong with either of these positions, the old gender stereotypes, or anything in between. Further, new definitions of gender have evolved, and the social construct has come to be understood as existing on a spectrum. In theory, at least, twenty-first century society embraces the notion that we should support every child to become the best that they can be, based not on cultural expectations but on the interests, aptitudes, and abilities of each child as an individual.

For a long time, however, this attitude, was often better expressed in theory than in application. For example, as little girls started to do better in mathematics, newspapers wrote articles about how little boys were falling behind in school achievement, an argument very similar to that advanced by feminists over half a century ago regarding little girls. Unfortunately, despite the many advancements in equality and women's rights, practical feminism still has great strides to make in the real world before there is true equity between men and women, in education, employment, and society. Further, attention needs to be paid to those who identify as neither male or female in terms of gender. Achieving this goal will take action on many levels and in many venues. To be successful, however, it will be necessary to first achieve equity in the classroom. This is not only because the classroom is where students of all genders learn and acquire skills necessary for later success but also because it is in the classroom that students of all gender-identities learn to either conform to gender roles and stereotypes or to break free of them and allow others to do the same.

Nature vs. Nurture

Scientists have long been divided over the relative influences of nature (heredity and constitutional factors) and nurture (sociocultural and environmental factors) on the development of an individual and the degree to which these factors affect his or her eventual personality, abilities, and other characteristics. Understanding the basics of this controversy is important to understanding how education may affect how the genders are taught and the expectations that teachers have in the classroom. For example, if the assumption is made that boys are inherently better in math and science than girls—the "nature" side of the argument—it might make sense to emphasize such subjects when teaching boys, set higher expectations for boys in these subjects, and encourage boys to go into careers that require this type of knowledge while doing the opposite for girls. However, if, in general, girls, boys, and non-binary students are equally likely to excel in subjects related to math and science, yet girls and non-binary individuals are found to do more poorly in these subjects at school, the conclusion might be drawn that there is something within the educational system that is causing the score differential—the "nurture" side of the argument. Therefore, to understand gender differences in the classroom, it is first important to understand to what degree intelligence and other mental capacities are inherently equal—or not—for all gender classifications.

General Intelligence & Gender

For ease of comparison, this article will refer to differences in boys and girls with the understanding gender is a nuanced social construct. In general, scientists have found no gender-based differences in general intelligence. However, just as not every girl is as smart as every other girl and not every boy is as smart as every other boy, all boys and all girls do not start out with the same intellectual capacities. Rather, general intelligence and other mental traits tend to be normally distributed within the group. For example, as a group, girls tend to be better at spelling than boys; by the end of high school, only 30 percent of boys spell better than the average girl. In fact, girls, in general, tend to be gifted in verbal abilities, whereas boys tend to be overrepresented in the bottom part of the normal distribution for verbal skills. Girls also tend to be more sensitive to touch, taste, and odor than boys, typically learn to talk earlier than boys, and are less likely than boys to stutter. Boys tend to outnumber girls in remedial reading classes by a ratio of three to one and are twice as likely as girls to be underachievers by the time they reach high school. Girls are slightly more likely to graduate high school than boys, and more women than men graduate from college and receive advanced degrees (Reeves & Kalkat, 2022).

Social Status & Gender

Despite the fact that more women than men complete undergraduate and graduate programs, in the United States, from 2007 to 2011, the median income for women who worked full time ($37,160) was more than $10,000 less than the median income for full-time working men ($47,549) (US Census Bureau, 2011). This problem still existed in 2022, when full-time women workers earned only 83 percent of their male counterparts’ salaries (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). There are many potential reasons for this phenomenon, including the fact that some women still choose to focus on family over career during their children's formative years. However, many sociologists also interpret this phenomenon as evidence of gender stratification—the hierarchical organization of a society in such a way that members of one gender have more access to wealth, prestige, and power than do the members of the other gender. It is important to note that social stratification by gender is not exactly the same phenomenon as social stratification by race or ethnicity.

This would all be a moot point if education did not play such an important role in one's ability to make one's way in the world. Although there are notable exceptions to the rule, in industrial societies, education is frequently an important predictor of one's eventual socioeconomic status, with individuals who have earned a college degree being more likely to obtain higher-paying jobs than individuals with less education. However, another factor in the pay gap between men and women is what subject they choose to study and, consequently, what field they choose to work in:

"Overall, the most powerful explanation for pay gaps is not so much a failure to pay men and women equally for the same job. Rather, women are more likely to get degrees that lead to positions which are paid less than the positions men are more likely to get following their collegiate specializations. More women end up in education and nursing; more men end up in engineering and computer science. Education and nursing are not as likely to be lucrative as jobs that require engineering and computer science degrees" (Norén, 2012, par. 3).

Although this has begun to change and many men seek out careers in education and nursing and women pursue careers in STEM, the question then remains whether women innately prefer fields such as education and nursing over engineering and computer science or whether women are subtly discouraged from pursuing mathematical and scientific fields throughout their educational careers. Similarly, the question arises as to whether males are still discouraged from choosing careers that were traditionally seen as feminine. If one gender receives substantially different treatment in school than another gender and this differential treatment results in people of that gender being steered in a direction that makes it difficult for them to obtain higher-status and -income jobs, then the educational system has failed to provide equal opportunities for all.

Gender Differences in the Classroom

Hidden Curriculum

There are at least three potential reasons for the observed differences between genders in the classroom. First, conflict theorists hypothesize that girls and boys are subtly taught from an early age that they are different, not only physically but emotionally and intellectually as well, and that they should expect different things out of life. One of the ways this is done is through what conflict theorists refer to as the "hidden curriculum," which comprises the standards of proper behavior for a society or culture that are taught within the school system. The hidden curriculum subtly reinforces behavior and attitudes that are deemed appropriate by the society or culture so that girls are reinforced for taking an interest in "feminine" subjects, such as literature and counseling, and boys are reinforced for pursuing more "masculine" subjects, such engineering and science. The hidden curriculum is an example of a nurture theory of individual differences. Whether there truly is a hidden curriculum being taught within the school system, many girls have, in the past, emerged from it academically ill-prepared to pursue careers in science, mathematics, and technical fields. This phenomenon has been combated with extensive programs for girls emphasizing careers in STEM fields, but a gender imbalance continued to exist (Bonette, 2022).

Differing Expectations & Teacher Expectancy Effect

Another reason that the different genders may receive different educations within the same classroom is that teachers often have different expectations for performance and achievement for females and males. It has been posited, for example, that based on gender stereotypes, teachers may tend to expect girls to do better in reading and writing and boys to do better in mathematics and science, setting up what is known as the teacher expectancy effect. This is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy in which the student may pick up on subtle (or not-so-subtle) cues from the teacher about how well he or she should be performing or what areas he or she should be interested in. For example, if a teacher thinks that girls do better in reading and writing than in math and science, the teacher may praise and encourage girls when they do well in courses requiring verbal skills but not when they do well in courses requiring mathematical or scientific skills. Since most children tend to want to please their teachers and receive positive feedback, they tend to work harder in the areas that they know will result in positive reinforcement from the teacher. With the knowledge that this may occur, it is important programs training future teachers address these issues and prepare educators to combat stereotyping.

Applications

Mixed-Gender vs. Single-Gender Educational Settings

Canada and Pringle (1995) performed a study that examined the social construction of gender differences in classroom interactions in the five years immediately following the transition of a former women's college to a mixed-gender institution. Their review of the research literature showed a trend for modern mixed-gender education to place girls and women at a notable disadvantage, while women who attend women-only colleges tend to have greater self-esteem at graduation and less gender-stereotyped career aspirations, are more engaged in college activities, and are more likely to enter certain traditionally male professions, earn higher salaries, and reach high levels of achievement in their careers after college. Research findings also suggest that these advantages may accrue the more time one spends in an all-female institution. However, not only Canada and Pringle but other researchers note that much of the research on the success of women's colleges in helping women break away from gender expectations and stereotypes fails to adequately separate the effects of attending an all-women's college from other factors that impact these results. Further, it is noted that researchers still do not understand which factors or processes confer these advantages to women. It is also important to note the age of this study and understand the implications and restrictions of the data within a set time period. Any secondary learning environment looked drastically different in 1990 than it did in the 2020s.

Canada and Pringle collected data through observation of interactions between students and professors in the classroom. This was done during the middle of the semester; at the beginning of the semester, fewer students would comfortable enough with a subject area and professor to ask questions, while at the end of the semester, there potentially could be a disproportionate amount of interaction between students and professors due to questions about end-of-course requirements. The observers prearranged their visits with the professors and arrived early to each class in order to choose a seat that was peripheral to the main body of seats in the classroom but with a clear view of both the students and the professor. During the first ten minutes of each class, the observer created a diagram of the classroom and marked the positions of the professor and each student as well as the gender of each student. Following this activity, observations were conducted for the next 30 minutes of the scheduled class time.

The researchers found that the behavior of female students, as well as both male and female professors, changes depending on whether or not male students are in the classroom. The behavior of both female and male students in coeducational classes was found to be related to the proportion of male students present, and the gender of the professor was found to be related to classroom dynamics in a complex manner. It appeared that gender was important in coeducational classrooms in ways that it was not in female-only classrooms. The verbal behavior of female students was found to be strongly influenced by the presence of males in the classroom, and gender differences were more obvious in mixed-gender settings.

Conclusion

In industrialized societies, education has been shown to be positively linked with various outcomes later in life, including career success, salary level, and socioeconomic status. This linkage is even more likely to hold true in postindustrial societies that are primarily based on the processing and control of information and the provision of services. Further, it is in the classroom that one not only acquires the technical and professional knowledge necessary for success but often also learns the social norms for interactions and gender roles and expectations. This has historically put women at a frequent disadvantage. On the other hand, when efforts are made to improve the education received by girls and women, male students sometimes suffer as a result. It should be remembered that it is not so much that we as a society need to make sure that women (or men) are given a superior education to make up for past inequities but that any obstacles to educational parity should be removed. When a student identifies with an alternative gender identity, the implications and outcomes of education become even more nuanced.

Unfortunately, in many cases, this is easier said than done. Although no gender differs significantly in intelligence, in some circumstances it has been found that the genders benefit from teaching styles differently in order to understand the same concepts. In addition, research has shown that there have been gender-based differences in academic achievement in different subject areas. Much research is still necessary to understand what factors cause these differences and how to create an environment that will foster educational equity between all the genders. Whether these observed differences are due to nature or nurture is far from clear.

In addition, it must be remembered that just because men, women, and non-binary individuals do not differ in intelligence does not mean that there are not individual differences both within and between genders. The point is not to make sure that one gender is given a better education than another; it is to ensure that all genders are offered an education that is free from gender-role expectations and gender stereotyping and helps each person realize their potential.

Terms & Concepts

Conflict Perspective: An approach to analyzing social behavior that explains and understands it in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups.

Culture: A complex, socially transmitted system of meaning and behavior that defines a common way of life for a group or society. Culture includes the totality of behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought of the society or group.

Feminism: An ideology that is opposed to gender stratification and male dominance. Feminist beliefs and concomitant actions are intended to help bring justice, fairness, and equity to all women and aid in the development of a society in which women and men are equal in all areas of life.

Gender Stereotype: A culturally defined pattern of expected attitudes and behaviors that are considered appropriate for one gender but not the other. Gender stereotypes tend to be simplistic and based not on the characteristics or aptitudes of the individual but on overgeneralized perceptions of one gender or the other.

Gender Stratification: The hierarchical organization of a society in such a way that members of one gender have more access to wealth, prestige, and power than do the members of the other gender.

Hidden Curriculum: The standards of proper behavior for a society or culture that are taught within the school system. The hidden curriculum is not part of the articulated curricula for schools; rather, it is taught subtly through the reinforcement of behaviors and attitudes that are deemed appropriate by the society or culture.

Normal Distribution: A continuous distribution that is symmetrical about its mean and asymptotic to the horizontal axis. The area under the normal distribution is 1.

Reinforcement: An act, process, circumstance, or condition in response to a particular action that increases the probability of a person repeating that action.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: A situation in which one's belief or expectation sets up a situation in which the belief or expectation is met. For example, a student who thinks that he or she will not do well on an examination even if he or she studies will not study and, therefore, will not do well on the examination.

Social Stratification: A relatively fixed hierarchical organization of a society in which entire subgroups are ranked according to social class. Divisions are marked by differences in economic rewards, power within the society, and access to resources, power, and perceived social worth. Social stratification is a system of structured social inequality.

Society: A distinct group of people who live within the same territory, share a common culture and way of life, and are relatively independent from people outside the group. Society includes systems of social interactions that govern both cultural and social organization.

Socioeconomic Status (SES): The position of an individual or group on the two vectors of social and economic status and their combination. Factors contributing to socioeconomic status include (but are not limited to) income, type and prestige of occupation, place of residence, and educational attainment.

Stereotype: A set of generalized expectations and beliefs about the qualities, abilities, and other characteristics of people who belong to an identifiable social group or category, such as a certain race, gender, or ethnicity. Although stereotypes can be useful in making simplified and expedited short-term judgments, they tend to be exaggerated and negative, do not take into account individual differences, and are difficult to change. As a result, the application of stereotypes in the long term may be counterproductive. Stereotypes tend to be shared and widely held by the members of a group.

Teacher Expectancy Effect: The impact of a teacher's expectations of a student's performance or achievement on the actual performance or achievement of that student. The teacher expectancy effect is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bibliography

Bonette, J. (2022, June 6). Study finds gender imbalance in engineering class participation. Princeton Alumni Weekly. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://paw.princeton.edu/article/study-finds-gender-imbalance-engineering-class-participation

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Median earnings for women in 2022 were 83.0 percent of the median for men. (2023, Jan. 25). Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/median-earnings-for-women-in-2022-were-83-0-percent-of-the-median-for-men.ht

Canada, K., & Pringle, R. (1995). The role of gender in college classroom interactions: A social context approach. Sociology of Education, 68, 161-186. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9508161708&site=ehost-live

Cervoni, C., & Ivinson, G. (2011). Girls in primary school science classrooms: Theorising beyond dominant discourses of gender. Gender & Education, 23, 461–475. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=63295060&site=ehost-live

Eliot, L. (2013). Single-sex education and the brain. Sex Roles, 69(7/8), 363–381. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90470591&site=ehost-live

Kannen, V. (2014). These are not ‘regular places’: women and gender studies classrooms as heterotopias. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 21, 52–67. Retrieved December 4, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=94465998

Myers, D. G. (2001). Psychology (6th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Norén, Laura. (2012, September 4). Race and gender in higher education: Who gets degrees? The Society Pages. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2012/09/04/race-and-gender-in-higher-education/

Reeves, R. V., & Kalkat, S. (2022, Oct. 12). Boys left behind: Education gender gaps across the US. Brookings Institution. Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2022/10/12/boys-left-behind-education-gender-gaps-across-the-us

Stockard, J. (2000). Sociology: Discovering society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Taylor, C. A. (2013). Objects, bodies and space: gender and embodied practices of mattering in the classroom. Gender & Education, 25, 688–703. Retrieved December 4, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90478608

Tindall, T. & Hamil, B. (2004). Gender disparity in science education: The causes, consequences, and solutions. Education, 125, 282-295. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15546349&site=ehost-live

United States Census Bureau. (2011). Selected economic characteristics: 2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS%5F11%5F5YR%5FDP03

Suggested Reading

Condravy, J., Skirboll, E., & Taylor, R. (1998). Faculty perceptions of classroom gender dynamics. Women and Language, 21, 18-27. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=673203&site=ehost-live

Drudy, S. & Chatháin, M. Ú. (2002). Gender effects in classroom interaction: Data collection, self-analysis and reflection. Evaluation and Research in Education, 16, 34-50. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13534499&site=ehost-live

Drury, K., Bukowski, W., Velásquez, A., & Stella-Lopez, L. (2013). Victimization and gender identity in single-sex and mixed-sex schools: examining contextual variations in pressure to conform to gender norms. Sex Roles, 69(7/8), 442–454. Retrieved December 4, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90470594

Friend, J. (2007). Single-gender public education and federal policy. American Educational History Journal, 34, 55-67. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26069466&site=ehost-live

Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2012). School context and the gender gap in educational achievement. American Sociological Review, 77, 463–485. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=76332116&site=ehost-live

Spencer, R., Porche, M. V., & Tolman, D. L. (2003). We've come a long way — maybe: New challenges for gender equity in education. Teachers College Record, 105, 1774-1807. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11463072&site=ehost-live

Whitmore, D. (2005). Resource and peer impacts on girls' academic achievement: Evidence from a randomized experiment. American Economic Review, 95, 199-203. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=18617413&site=ehost-live

Younger, M., Warrington, M., & Williams, J. (1999). The gender gap and classroom interactions: Reality and rhetoric? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 325-341. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=2976968&site=ehost-live