Gender and Student Participation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Active class participation has been associated with student engagement and can be an important aspect of a successful learning experience in college classrooms. Several factors influence student participation including classroom dynamics (such as classroom connectedness, instructor-student rapport) and individual characteristics (such as biological sex and psychological gender). With respect to individual characteristics, previous research has evaluated sex differences in participation and has yielded inconsistent findings. The present study investigated the relationship between psychological gender and student participation both in- and out-of-class. Classroom connectedness and professor-student rapport were assessed as possible moderating factors. Results indicated that masculinity and androgyny were associated with more in-class participation while femininity and androgyny were associated with student professor interaction outside of class. While both classroom connectedness and instructor-student rapport were correlated with student participation, there was no evidence of them moderating the relationship between gender and participation. Professor gender type was not associated with student participation. Implications for college classrooms and higher education are discussed.
Downloads
Article Details
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2006). Chilly classrooms for female undergraduate students: a question of method? The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 684-711. doi 10.1353/jhe.2006.0028
Basow, S. A. (2000). Best and worst professors: Gender patterns in students’ choices. Sex Roles, 43(5-6), 407-417. doi:10.1023/A:1026655528055
Basow, S. A., Phelan, J. E., & Capotosto, L. (2006). Gender patterns in college students' choices of their best and worst professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 25-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00259.x
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
Bench, S. W., Lench, H. C., Liew, J., Miner, K., & Flores, S. A. (2015). Gender gaps in overestimation of math performance. Sex Roles, 72(11-12), 536- 546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0486-9
Bennett, S. K. (1982). Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female instructors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 170-179. doi 10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.170
Canada, K., & Pringle, R. (1995). The roles of gender in college classroom interactions: A social context approach. Sociology of Education, 68(3), 161-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112683
Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 129–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003
Crawford, M., & MacLeod, M. (1990). Gender in the college classroom: An assessment of the for women. Sex Roles, 23(3-4), 101-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00289859
Crombie, G., Pyke, S. W., Silverthorn, N., Jones, A, & Piccinin, S. (2003). Students’ perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and context. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 51-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2003.0001
Dancer, D. & Kamvounias, P. (2005). Student involvement in assessment: a project designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30(4), 445-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099235
Dobransky, N. D. & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher-student relationships through out of class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52(3), 211-223. doi: 10.1080/01463370409370193
Dwyer. K. K., Bingham, S. G., Calrson, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004) Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the connected classroom climate inventory. Communication Research Reports, 21(3), 264-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090409359988
EAB Daily Briefing. (2016, February). Study correlates liberal arts education with lifelong success. Retrieved from https://www.eab.com/daily-briefing/2016/02/01/study-liberalarts-education-correlated-to-lifelong-success
Eddy S., L., Brownell, S. E., Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Gender gaps in achievement and participation in multiple introductory biology classrooms. CBE-Life Science Education, 13(3), 478-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-10-0204
Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 5-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e633872013-215
Fassinger, P.A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students' and professors' contributions to students' silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943952
Fassinger, P. A. (2000). How classes influence students’ participation in college classrooms. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(2), 38-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23870446
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Education, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Frisby, B. N., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The relationships among perceived instructor rapport, student participation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33, 27-34.
Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 146-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520903564362
Frymier, A. & Houser, M. L. (2016). The role of oral participation in student engagement. Communication Education, 65(1), 83-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1066019
Furnham, A. & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: A study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 197-208. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(95)00026-3
Garside, C. (1996). Look who’s talking: a comparison of lecture and group discussion teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education, 45(3), 212-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379050
Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport in service relationships. Journal of Service Research, 3(1) 82-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109467050031006
Grunspan, D. Z., Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Wiggins, A., Crowe, J., & Goodreau, S. M. (2016). Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. Plos ONE, 11(2), 1-16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148405
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.98.3.184-192
Hall, R.M. & Sandler, B.R. (1982). The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? Washington, DC.: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington DC: American Association of University Women.
Huang, X., Zhu, X., Zheng, J., Zhang, L., & Shiomi, K. (2012). Relationships among androgyny, self-esteem, and trait coping style of Chinese university students. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(6), 1005-1014. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.6.1005
Johnson, D. I. (2009). Connected classroom climate: A validity study. Communication Research Reports, 26(2), 146-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090902861622
Jones, R. (2008). The “why” of class participation: A question worth asking. College Teaching, 56(1), 59-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ctch.56.1.59-64
Junn, E. (1994). Pearls of wisdom: Enhancing student class participation with an innovative exercise. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21, 385-387.
Kuh (2008), High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC.
Lemaster, P., & Strough, J. (2014). Beyond Mars and Venus: Understanding gender differences in financial risk tolerance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 42, 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.11.001
Linvill, D. (2014) Student interest and engagement in the classroom: relationships with student personality and developmental variables. Southern Communication Journal, 79(3), 201214. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2014.884156
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474-16479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
Myers, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Mottet, T. P. (2002). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors: Considering instructor socio-communicative style, student sociocommunicative orientations and student gender. Communication Education, 51(2), 121–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520216511
Nelson, A. L. & Brown, C. D. (2012). The Gender and Communication Handbook. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
O’Heron, C. A., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1990). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 58(1), 134-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.134
Pearson, J. C., & West, R. (1991). An initial investigation of the effects of gender on student questions in the classroom: Developing a descriptive base. Communication Education, 40(1), 22-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529109378823
Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: an extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936
Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: an examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 165-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520903390867
Sidelinger, R.J., Frsiby, B.N., & Heisler, J. (2016). Students’ out of the classroom communication with instructors and campus services: Exploring social integration and academic involvement. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 167-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520302463
Strough, J., Leszczynski, J. P., Neely, T. L., Flinn, J. A., & Margrett, J. (2007). From adolescence to later adulthood: Femininity, masculinity, and androgyny in six age groups. Sex Roles, 57(5), 385-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9282-5
Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S. M. (2009). Academic course engagement during one semester forecasts college success: engaged students are more likely to earn a degree, do it faster, and do it better. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 120-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0055
Waterman, A. S. & Whitbourne, S. K. (1982). Androgyny and psychosocial development among college students and adults. Journal of Personality, 50(2), 121-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb01018.x
Weaver, R. R. & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0038
Webb, N. G., & Barrett, L. O. (2014). Student views of instructor-student rapport in the college classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 15-28. doi: 10.14434/josotl.v14i2.4259