On the basis of a survey of 264 participants and 8 follow-up focus groups with 44 total participants, this analysis considers why male and female students may censor themselves in classroom discussions and what solutions there are to this diminished participation. The survey revealed few statistically significant differences based on gender. However, when significant differences occurred, they reinforced stereotypical gender behavior among women. Gender differences were more pronounced in the focus groups with respect to both the interpretation of the survey data and communication styles. The female participants exhibited more caretaking and relational behaviors and tended to defer to authority, whereas the male participants were more assertive and concerned with how “oppressed” they were as men. Implications of these findings for social work education are offered.
References
1.
Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press .
2.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books .
3.
Bergvall, V. L., & Remlinger, K. A. (1996). Reproduction, resistance and gender in educational discourse: The role of critical discourse analysis . Discourse & Society, 7, 453-479 .
4.
Black, B., Oles, T., & Moore, L. (1998). The relationship between attitudes: Homophobia and sexism among social work students . Affilia, 13, 166-189 .
5.
Brady, K. L., & Eisler, R. M. (1999). Sex and gender in the college classroom: A quantitative analysis of faculty-student interactions and perceptions . Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 127-145 .
6.
Cannon, L. W. (1990). Fostering positive race, class, and gender dynamics in the classroom . Women's Studies Quarterly, 18, 126-134 .
7.
Carter, C. (1994). Integrating women's issues in the social work curriculum: A proposal . Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 200-217 .
8.
Chan, C., & Treacy, M. J. (1996). Resistance in multicultural courses . American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 212-221 .
9.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little, Brown .
10.
Condravy, J. C. (1993). Women's talk: A cooperative discourse. In C. Berryman-Fink, D. Ballard-Reisch, & L. Newton (Eds.), Communication and sex role socialization (pp. 399-427). New York: Garland .
11.
Cramer, E. (1995). Feminist pedagogy and teaching social work practice with groups: A case study . Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 11, 193-215 .
12.
Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: On gender and language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
13.
DeLange, J. (1995). Gender and communication in social work education: A cross-cultural perspective . Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 75-81 .
14.
Denzin, N. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
15.
Dore, M. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and the teaching of social work practice . Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 97-106 .
16.
Fassinger, P. A. (1996). Professors' and students' perceptions of why students participate in class . Teaching Sociology, 24, 25-33 .
17.
Figueira-McDonough, J., Netting, F. E., & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (Eds.). (1998). The role of gender in practice knowledge: Claiming half the human experience. New York: Garland .
18.
Gabriel, S., & Smithson, I. (Eds.). (1990). Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press .
19.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theories and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
20.
Goldshmidt, O. T., & Weller, L. (2000). “Talking emotions”: Gender differences in a variety of conversational contexts . Symbolic Interaction, 23, 117-134 .
21.
Graham, E., & Papa, M. (1993). Gender and function-oriented discourse in small groups: An examination of problem-solving processes and outcomes. In C. Berryman-Fink, D. Ballard-Reisch, & L. Newton (Eds.), Communication and sex role socialization (pp. 311-332). New York: Garland .
22.
Gross, E. (1998). Reevaluating feminist thought for social work practice . Affilia, 13, 5-8 .
23.
Gutierrez, L., Reed, B., Ortega, R., & Lewis, E. (1998). Teaching about groups in a gendered world. In J. Figueira-McDonough, F. E. Netting, & A. Nichols-Casebolt (Eds.), The role of gender in practice knowledge: Claiming half the human experience (pp. 169-204). New York: Garland .
24.
Hawkins, K., & Power, C. B. (1999). Gender differences in questions asked during small decision-making group discussions . Small Group Research, 30, 235-256 .
25.
Higginbotham, E. (1996). Getting all students to listen: Analyzing and coping with student resistance . American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 203-211 .
26.
Huston-Comeaux, S. L., & Kelly, J. R. (1996). Sex differences in interaction style and group task performance: The process-performance relationship . Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 255-275 .
27.
Hutchinson, L. M., & Beadle, M. E. (1992). Professors' communication styles: How they influence male and female seminar participants . Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 405-418 .
28.
Hyde, C. A., & Ruth, B. (2002). Multicultural content and class participation: Do students self censor? Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 241-256 .
29.
Kirst-Ashman, K. (1992). Feminist values and social work: A model of education for non-feminists . Arete, 17, 13-25 .
30.
Knight. C. (1991). Gender-sensitive curricula in social work education . Journal of Social Work Education, 27, 145-155 .
31.
Kramarae, C., & Treichler, P. (1990). Power relationships in the classroom. In S. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy (pp. 41-59). Urbana: University of Illinois Press .
32.
Krane, J. (1991). Feminist thinking as an aid to teaching social work research . Affilia, 6, 53-71 .
33.
Krill, D. F. (1992). Male and female dialogue in social work education . Smith College Studies in Social Work, 62, 139-154 .
34.
Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 195-217). New York: Cambridge University Press .
35.
Mabray, E., & Sargel, C. (1994). Effects of sex composition and task structure on perceptions of gender-linked role differentiation in small groups. In L. Turner & H. Sterk (Eds.), Differences that make a difference (pp. 61-71). Westport, CT: Bergen & Garvey .
36.
MacDonald, M. R. (1977). How do men and women students rate in empathy? American Journal of Nursing, 998-1011.
37.
Menzell, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1999). The impact of gender and immediacy on willingness to talk and perceived learning . Communications Education, 48, 31-40 .
38.
Morgan, D., & Spanish, M. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research . Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253-270 .
39.
Murray, S. (1996). “We all love Charles”: Men in child care and the social construction of gender . Gender & Society, 10, 368-385 .
40.
Norman, J., & Wheeler, B. (1996). Gender-sensitive social work practice: A model for education . Journal of Social Work Education, 32, 203-213 .
41.
Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results . Journal of Higher Education, 67, 243-268 .
42.
Pearson, J. (1985). Gender and communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown .
43.
Pearson, J., & West, R. (1991). An initial investigation of the effects of gender in student questions in the classroom: Developing a descriptive base . Communication Education, 40, 22-32 .
44.
Pennell, J., & Ristock, J. (1999). Feminist links, postmodern interruptions: Critical pedagogy and social work . Affilia, 14, 460-481 .
45.
Sands, R. G., & Nuccio, K. (1992). Postmodern feminist theory and social work . Social Work, 37, 489-494 .
46.
Schroeder, D. S., & Mynatt, C. R. (1999). Graduate students' relationships with their male and female major professors . Sex Roles, 40, 393-420 .
47.
Smythe, M., & Huddleston, B. (1992). Competition and collaboration: Male and female communication patterns during dyadic interactions. In L. Perry, L. Turner, & H. Sterk (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing gender (pp. 251-260). Albany: State University of New York Press .
48.
Stiles, W. B., Lyall, L., Knight, D., Ickes, W., Waung, M., Hall, C., & Primeau, B. (1997). Gender differences in verbal presumptuousness and attentiveness . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 759-772 .
49.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
50.
Thom, L. (1993). The handbook for focus group research. New York: Macmillan .
51.
Tice, K. (1990). Gender and social work education: Directions for the 1990's . Journal of Social Work Education, 26, 134-144 .
52.
Vinton, L. (1992). Women's content in social work curricula: Separate but equal? Affilia, 7, 74-89 .
53.
Wheelan, S., & Verdi, A. (1992). Differences in male and female patterns of communication in groups: A methodological artifact? Sex Roles, 27, 1-15 .
54.
Williams, C. (Ed.). (1993). Men in nontraditional occupations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
