1. By Khaled M. Al-Abbadi
English Language Fellow
Ibn Zohr University
Regional English Language Office

2. Outline

1. Why Gender Issues?
Paper‟s Objectives
2. What are the issues with Gender learning?
Overview of Gender in the classroom
3. How does this affect female participation in the L2
classroom?
Nature of male-female production
4. What are the possible causes to the lack of female
production?
Underlying causes of this phenomenon
5. What are some possible solutions for an educator?
Practical classroom solutions

3. Why Gender Issues…

 Increased CLT methodologies
 More attention to student output
 Gender is a key variable to consider
 Imbalance in gendered production in the L2 class
 How much…
 How long, how often, how other factors relate…
 How it affects L2 learning

4. Why Gender Issues…

 Pressing issue for Educators
 Success of our female students
 Production and classroom practice is important
 The aim of this paper therefore…
 Overview of issues in L2 language production
 Practical classroom and pedagogical strategies to
neutralize this imbalance

5. What are the issues with
Gender and Learning?

 How Schools Shortchange Girls (AAUW 1992)
 In the classroom, in topics taught, in achievement levels
 “teachers chose topics to maintain boys' interests; teachers gave
boys greater attention; boys were more disruptive; and in terms
of time speaking, turns taken, and engagement with the
teacher, boys tended to dominate classroom talk.” (Wolfe 1998)
 Also see Sadker and Sadker (1985), Spender (1982), Deem
(1978), Byrne (1978), Delamont (1980)
 L2 learning is mediated “by the way that individuals respond to
the gendered expectations that are placed on them by their
families and communities” (Menard-Warwick, 2004, 304)
 Also see Frye (1999), Beiser and Hou (2000), Gordon (2004)

6. How does this affect female
participation in the L2
classroom?

 A popular misnomer is that females are better L2 learners (see Awan et al. 2010)
 “Stereotypically feminine attributes, which are usually claimed to legitimize
women’s subordinate positions in many societies, are reevaluated in the
language learning context. Arguments in favor of female superiority assume
that feminine characteristics facilitate language learning and stereotypically
masculine attributes inhibit language learning” (Schmenk, 2004,521) Also see
Kobayashi (2002), Green and Oxford (1995)
 “the classroom discussion is essentially a conversation between the ESL teacher and
the boys in her class” (Jule, 2002, 46).
 “there are differences between men and women in the amount each participates in
the conversation, and in the control each has over the direction of the interaction”
(Shehadeh, 1999, 258)
 “researchers must focus not only on the amount of talk of girls and boys, but also on
the kinds of talk to which they are granted access in the classroom”(Wolfe 1998)

7. What are the possible causes to
the lack of female production?

 Personality types and preferences
 Women use more words related to psychological and
social processes (Newman et al. 2008)
 Women more likely to use certain language strategies
(Green and Oxford 1995)
 Gendered preferences in learning software that
affected outcome (Heemskerk et al 2005)
 Teaching methods that foster competition favor boys
and research shows girls learn better with
cooperative/collaborative learning (AAUW 1992)

8. What are the possible causes to
the lack of female production?

 The Teacher and the Classroom
 Teachers give more attention to male students and use
methodologies that cater to them (AAUW 1992, Wolfe
1998, Frye 1999, Gordon 2004, Jule 2002)
 Clarricoates (1978) and Spender (1980) conclude that
some teachers just like to teach boys (as cited in Jule
2002)
 Gender of the rater affected the student‟s final score
(Brown and Mcnamara 2004)
 Pre-service teachers had a “simplistic” understanding
of gender issues (Cammack, 1998, 137)

9. What are the possible causes to
the lack of female production?

 The Curriculum?
 Wolfe (1998) found that different types of ESL programs
didn‟t make a difference with gender dynamics.
 “The research reported in this paper seems to show,
however, that the type of program has little effect on
increasing access for either girls or boys, but that girls suffer
from more restrictions in the amount of access to classroom
discourse than boys.”
 L2 materials did not “reflect traditional male and female
speaking styles” (Gascoigne, 87)
 “indeed, it appears that many textbook authors have made
an effort to avoid a stereotyped language in their
pedagogical dialogues” (Gascoigne, 88)

10. What are the possible causes to
the lack of female production?

 Harassment
 Harassment on girls and boys is a pervasive norm (AAUW,
2001, Hostile Hallways)
 6 in 10 students experience some form of sexual harassment
often or occasionally. Girls are more likely to experience
harassment (physical or non) and more likely to experience
it frequently
 Those who experience harassment, one quarter say they do
not talk as much in class and don‟t want to go to school and
2 in 10 found it hard to pay attention.
 Polanyi (1995) documents how sexual harassment
experienced by female students in a study-abroad program
in Russia affected their foreign language input and output
(as cited by Davis and Skilton 2004)

11. What are the possible causes to
the lack of female production?

 Culture and SES
 it is important to understand issues of race, ethnicity, and
family income when addressing girls and boys achievement in
education; these factors overwhelm the gender variable
(AAUW 2008)
 SES “more than any other variable, affects access to school
resources and educational outcomes” (AAUW 1992)
 “some female students agreed that their culture played a role
in their timidity and lack of class participation, and if they did
participate, they knew they were not living up to cultural
norms of female behavior” (Markley, 1998, 88)
 “perceptions about social status, expertise, and control over
valued information appear to play a more important role than
gender” (Pica et al, 56)
 Immigrant studies, see Beiser and Hou (2000), Frye (1999),
English and Irving (2007), Gordon (2004), Kobayashi (2002),
Markley (1998), Menard-Warwick (2004), Pappamihiel (2001)

12. What are some possible
solutions for an educator?

 Teacher Awareness is the key!
 Increasing evidence shows that when teachers are well
trained in these issues, gender inequity is neutralized
(AAUC 1992).
 “Educators who are aware of how discourses such as
gender shape classroom interaction are better able to
help language learners participate in class”(Hruska,
2004, 482).
(Some causes cannot be simply addressed by pedagogy
like culture, SES, harassment outside the classroom)

13. Classroom Strategies for
Increased Female Production

 1. Integrate more ICT in Language Activities
 Technologies and distance learning have some benefits for
female learners (see Gouthro 2004, Home 1998, and Liptrot
2003, as cited in English and Irving 2007)
 Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion (CACD) let to
significant increase in female production (Markley 1998)
 Hsi and Hoadley (1997) girls liked the discussion more than
boys because they appreciated having time to think before
responding, the ability to respond anonymously, and the
absence of immediate negative comments from males in the
class (as cited by Heeskerk et al 2005).
 Online discussion forums via closed groups on facebook or
google+

14. Classroom Strategies for
Increased Female Production

 2. Addressing Gender Issues Head on
 make reference to the gender imbalance and bring attention
to the issue
 Markley (1998) experimented with this and advises to
include readings that invite comparison, even among
gender.
 “This shift to an explicit management of gender
participation by the teacher/facilitator may have
contributed to the rise of 65% in female participation
between the two sessions analyzed” (Markley, 1998, 90).
 Address gender concerns in general like equal pay,
historical struggles, and cross-cultural analysis.
 Students address the topic, discover solutions, and increase
in gender sensitivity.

15. Classroom Strategies for
Increased Female Production

 3. Creating a Place for the Female Voice
 This can be accomplished by invoking the “female
perspective”
 Markley (1998) found that this technique increased
female participation by the average lines written per
female student
 “To overcome this possible disparity in class
participation on the basis of gender, the teacher may
have to create question(s) specifically for women,
„requiring‟ their participation” (Markley, 1998, 89).
 Simply asking a question, like “what do the girls
think?”, could go a long way.

16. Group Tasks Promote
Female Production

 4. Collaborative and Task-based learning approaches do
promote female production
 Wolfe‟s (1998) study, she found that the only ESL classroom
that produced equitable opportunities was the one with
heavy use of group tasks
 “the teacher who operated on a non-traditional ideological
ground offered not only gender equitable access to
academic language, but significantly expanded access for
both girls and boys”
 “this was the one classroom context in which the amount
and type of language production levels off between
genders”
 “the monologic teacher-scripted classrooms were not more
suited to males and less suited to females; moreover this
structure restricted access for all students “

17. Conclusion


18. References

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (1992).
How schools shortchange girls.
_______(1998). Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for
girls.
_______ (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in
school.
_______(2008). Separated by sex: Where the girls are: The facts about gender
equity in education.
Awan, R., Azher, M., Anwar, M., & Naz, A. (2010) An investigation of foreign
language classroom anxiety and its relationship with students‟
achievement. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(11), 33-40.
Beiser, M. & Hou, F. (2000) Gender differences in language acquisition and
employment consequences among southeast asian refugees in
canada. Canadian Public Policy, 26(3)
Brown, A. & Mcnamara, T. (2004) The devil is in the detail: Researching gender
issues in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 524-538.

19. References

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (1992).
How schools shortchange girls.
_______(1998). Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for
girls.
_______ (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in
school.
_______(2008). Separated by sex: Where the girls are: The facts about gender
equity in education.
Awan, R., Azher, M., Anwar, M., & Naz, A. (2010) An investigation of foreign
language classroom anxiety and its relationship with students‟
achievement. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(11), 33-40.
Beiser, M. & Hou, F. (2000) Gender differences in language acquisition and
employment consequences among southeast asian refugees in
canada. Canadian Public Policy, 26(3)
Brown, A. & Mcnamara, T. (2004) The devil is in the detail: Researching gender
issues in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 524-538.

20. References

Cammack, J.C. (1998) Preservice teachers explore gender issues in education through talk.
Thesis submitted to OSU, May 11.
Davis, K.A. & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2004) Looking back, taking stock, moving forward:
Investigating gender in TESOL. TESOL Qurterly, 38(3),
English, L.M. & Irving, C.J. (2007) A review of the canadian literature on gender and
learning. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 20(1), 16-31
Frye, D. (1999) Participatory education as a critical framework for an immigrant women‟s
ESL class. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3)
Gascoigne, C. The role of gender in L2 interaction: Socialization via L2 materials. 81-89.
Green, J.M. & Oxford, R. (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
Gordon, D. (2004) „I‟m tired. You clean and cook.‟ Shifting gender identities and second l
anguage socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 437-457.
Heemskerk, I., Brink, A., Volman, M., & Dam, G. (2005) Inclusiveness and ICT in
education: Gender, ethnicity, and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning 21, 1-16.
Hruska, B.L. (2004) Constructing gender in an english dominant kindergarten:
Implications for second language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 459-485.

21. References

Jule, A. (2002) Speaking their sex: A study of gender and linguistic space in an ESL
classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2)
Kobayashi, Y. (2002) The role of gender in foreign language learning attitudes: Japanese
female students‟ attitudes towards english learning. Gender and Education,
14(2), 181-197.
Li, Q. (2006) Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences. School Psychology
International, 27.
Mackie, A. (1999) Possibilities for feminism in ESL education and research. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(3).
Markham, P. L. (1998) Gender and the perceived expertness of the speaker as factors in
ESL listening recall. TESOL Quarterly, 22(3)
Markley, P. (1998) Empowering students: The diverse roles of asians and women in the
ESL computer classroom. Language Learning Online.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2004) ‟I always had the desire to progress a little‟: Gendered
narratives of immigrant language learners. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education, 3 (4), 295-311
Moradi, M., Shahsavari, A. & Yousefi, M.H. (2012) Gender-induced variation in L2
production: The case of reference terms. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 2(8), 1733-1740

22. References

Newman, M.L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008) Gender
differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse
Processes, 45(3), 211-236.
Pappamihiel, N. E. (2001) Moving from the ESL classroom into the mainstream: An
investigation of english language anxiety in mexican girls. Bilingual
Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual
Education, 25 (1-2),31-38.
Pica, T., Berducci, D., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. & Newman, J. Language learning
through interaction: What role does gender play? Penn WPEL, 6 (1)
Schmenk, B. (2004) Language learning: A feminine domain? The role of stereotyping in
constructing gendered learner identities. TESOL Quarterly, 38( 3)514-524
Shehadeh, A. (1999) Gender differences and equal opportunities in the ESL classroom.
ELT Journal, 53(4), 256-261.
Wolfe, P. (1998, November 18). Best supporting actress: Gender and language across
four secondary ESL/Bilingual classrooms. Current Issues in
Education [Online], 1 (3). Available:
http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume1/number3/.