GENDER INTERACTION IN THE CLASSROOM

Barbara L. Baker, Ph.D.

Professor of Communication
Teaching Development Program/Excellence in Teaching
August 2000
OBJECTIVES:
1. To inform participants about different male-female communication styles which may be
operating in their classrooms;
2. To increase participant awareness of sexist communication practices that hinder personal and
professional effectiveness;
3. To assist participants in creating an inclusive, non-discriminatory classroom.
I. INTRODUCTION (approx. 3-5 minutes)
Anything related to gender is a "hot" topic which arouses strong emotions in people. I want to make
it clear that while I am a feminist--indeed, its my favorite "f" word--I am not trying to "convert"
anyone, or be "politically correct." Nor am I attacking individual men, or even men in general,
since men also suffer from sex-role stereotypes. Instead, I want to explore with you today
something about the research into different male-female communication styles that might impact
you in the classroom, as well as certain problematic practices that could be construed as
discriminatory (to either sex). Part of my task today is to explicate some of the issues surrounding
gender, communication, and education. I believe it only makes sense to learn what one can about
different groups, so as to avoid hidden biases. As Allen, Cantor, Grady & Hill (1997) argue,
"awareness of gender as it plays out in the learning process must inform our teaching," if we are to
support gender equity (p. 46). Still, you may resist hearing about this subject, according to your
own degrees of discomfort.
The fact is that we face a changing world, a much more diverse world, than in the past. Currently,
50% to 55% of college students across the nation are women (as Dr. Peterson noted, 55% of CMSU
students are women, and 13% persons of color). This trend is expected to increase for a variety of
reasons. More and more women are moving into the workplace, along with more minorities. This
is due primarily to economic conditions which require two-income families, along with changing
demographics in the U.S., as observed by Megatrends 2000. Many gains have been made to adapt
to these changing demongraphics. No longer are women made to feel alien for seeking a college
education.
Despite gains made in appreciating diversity on today's campuses, there is still much
miscommunication between the sexes, along with subtle biases (which are often unconscious). This
subtlety makes miscommunication and biases difficult to perceive and correct. I believe it makes
sense to learn what one can about how different groups communicate, so as to avoid confusion and
misunderstandings as well as combat hidden biases. At the end of the session, I will be handing out
a selected bibliography, so you can read more about this subject.

II. GENDER ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM

A. ACTIVITY (approximately 20 minutes)
Beliefs about Gender Communication Quiz (attached)--ask for responses, and then provide
"generally true" answer. Facilitate a brief discussion about myths of gender (with handout)
B. TERMINOLOGY
1. Gender/Sex--psychological masculinity/femininity vs. biological sex as male/female
(chromonsonal, hormonal, genital, and physical characteristics)
2. Gender identity (sex-role)
3. Gender-ideals (expectations for sex-role behavior in a particular culture; often heavily
stereotyped)
4. Sex role strain (J. Pleck)--stress experienced by the difficulties of living up to a prescribed
gender ideal
5. Gender filter--perceptual screen made up of genetic tendencies, personality, attitudes, values,
beliefs, stereotypes, experiences, etc. related to gender-identity and gender ideals; assumptions and
expectations about the sexes.
C. MALE-FEMALE COMMUNICATION PATTERNS (approximately 20-25 minutes)
handout on Gender Differences)

(see

Research indicates that there are some male-female differences in communication; however, such
data should be interpreted with caution (it doesn't fit everyone, and some of the findings are
contradictory; further any differences may not be the result of genetic factors, but differing
socialization processes):
1. Communication axioms related to gender
a. Content vs. relationship--Content is what we say, and relationship is how we say it; men focus
on more on content, women on relationship.
b. Punctuation; male/female communication can be seen as "cross cultural"--the sexes perceive
communication events different because live in different social-cultural worlds, partly due to
socialization (males and females are treated differently by parents, play different kinds of games-boys competitive, girls cooperative, etc.); also may be influenced by genetic factors (such as brain
differences which may exist--generally speaking, males are more spatial, females more verbal, etc.).
In education, this means that girls probably will do better at language use (reading, writing,
speaking, etc.). This may also explain why boys generally do better at math (although socialization
also plays a part)
c. Symmetrical/Complementary relationships--this concept refers to the balance of power--are
relationships equal or unequal. Either can be positive or negative. In the classroom, teachers must
have complementary relationships with students, but it is sometimes difficult for women to assert

authority (or for boys and men to recognize it). Peer relationships between men and women
traditionally have been complementary (male as leader, female as follower). The power hierarchy
in education reproduces this, with far more administrators being male than female. Because of this,
and also because of the different ways men and women approach friendship and collegiality, it is
sometimes difficult for men and women to be in a positive symmetrical relationship.
2. Communication differences between women and men (approximately 20 minutes).
Communication involves both a verbal code (language) and non-verbal codes. Language and nonverbal communication inevitably color how we see reality; indeed--we might claim that, for all
intents and purposes, it is our reality. It is very difficult, for example, to think of things without
having a language or other symbol for it (example--the term "sexual harassment").
a. Women's relationships are typically centered in conversation (females often prefer talking to
action even at an early age, according to research). Women together discuss more personal
matters, focusing on family, relationship problems, and men; there is a cultivation of
interpersonal intimacy through dialogue, sharing personal stories, etc.
b. Men's relationships are characterized by doing as a prerequisite (or substitute) for talking; men's
friendships often focus on activities, "having fun together," sometimes with instrumental goals
(e.g. building something together), other times just "hanging out." Men together seek comfortable
companionship (intimate in a different way than through continual dialogue; "side by side" rather
than women's "face to face"); men gain connection from an intermingling of lives through shared
activities, such as basketball, fishing, etc.
c. Women generally tend to be more interpersonally competent in their communication styles--to be
able to "take on the role of the other" (a measure of empathy), to be polite, to smooth the interaction
process, to be nice to others, to provide more "back channel cues" (attentiveness). In conversation,
especially with other women, women exhibit lower levels of dominance (more cooperative &
synergistic).
d. Women who don't fit the stereotype, who speak a lot (but still less than 50% of the time), and
who are serious (e.g. not smiling all the time) are viewed as rude and domineering by both men and
other women.
e. Men generally tend to be more communicative competent in the public sphere--to be more
assertive, to be more competitive, to argue, etc.
3. Patterns of male-female interaction--Rapport-talk vs. Report-talk
(from Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand)
a. intimacy/independence (status)--Men seek independence and want to maintain status over others;
women seek intimacy (or connectedness). He may see her attempts to get close as suffocating or
constraining him. If she empathizes with his problems, he may see her as undermining his status.
b. advice/support--Men want to fix problems while women just want supportive empathy. Example

from Gray)--she says "I'm so tired--I just want to forget everything about"; he responds "If you
don't like your job, then quit."
c. information/feelings (lecture/listening) --Men respond more with content, versus focusing on
relational aspects of messages. Men also may respond to a woman's self-disclosure by providing
more information on a topic, rather than a reciprocal self-disclosure or empathy. Example (from
Gray)-- she says "We never go out", he answers "That's not true, we went out last week."
d. ritual/literal --e.g. apologies used by women as both condolence and ritual (in her book, Talking
From 9 to 5, about gender communication differences in the workplace, Tannen noted that some
women apologize when they run into furniture); men see apologies as admitting weaknesses, etc.
e. Cooperation/competition (Community/contest)--Women use cooperative problem-solving
techniques (share information and negotiate decisions); men tend to be in competition with each
other, and seek to "win" in conflicts.
These patterns have implications for any female-male communication interaction. Often the styles
that women use are seen as wishy-washy, overly tentative, and non-assertive by men, especially in
the workplace. And yet, if women adopt male styles of communication (e.g. more direct speech)
will be perceived by both men and women as overly aggressive, perhaps even "cold."
See also C. Clark (1994) "Masculine" and "Feminine" learning styles.
D. DISCRIMINATION IN THE CLASSROOM
Research indicates the following may be true for regarding the sexes (and also for minority groups)
in U.S. colleges and universities:
1. As documented by Belenky et al., Tannen, Clark and others, males & females in this culture
often have different learning and communicating styles (females tend to be more cooperative; males
more competitive; females tend more connected, males more independent, etc.). Yet, even today,
the conventional model of the classroom is rooted in what Cooper (1993) calls "objectivity,
separateness, competitiveness, and hierarchical structure," which are more indicative of male
characteristics than female (p. 122).
2. We often assume that people fit their stereotypes, especially if we grew up with those stereotypes
reinforced. For example, because of social norms, female faculty, staff, and students are assumed to
be more nurturing, or to fit other feminine stereotypes, by students, while male faculty, staff, and
students are assumed to be more insensitive and assertive (or fit other masculine stereotypes). This
may or may not be the case.
3. Both young women and men suffer a loss of self-esteem at the onset of adolescence, although
often for different reasons (boys may suffer from lack of appropriate male role models, and from
pressures to succeed; females may suffer from pressures to live up to perfectionist ideals for
appearance and behavior, and more social fears). Despite this, high-school females are more likely
than males to see themselves as college-bound, to have higher aspirations and see themselves as

eventually successful; males are more likely to be disillusioned and drop out.
4. Despite high aspirations, many females have more difficulty than males in asserting authority
(and believing themselves to be authority), and in gaining respect for their ideas (even today, many
women and girls aren't listened to when they present ideas, especially if in a non-traditional area
such as science or math).
5. Often, female faculty, staff, and students are seen to be less competent, especially in more
technical areas (e.g. science, math, computer science, although this can also happen in politically
charged classes, such as women's studies); such women must work harder to establish their
credibility. Conversely, male faculty, staff, and students often are seen as less competent in more
relational or female-dominant areas (such as nursing, elementary school teaching, social work, and
language arts).
6. Female faculty and staff can get less favorable evaluations if do NOT conform to stereotyped
expectations for feminine behavior (if, for example, they are not especially nurturing or
understanding of students); male faculty and staff may be praised for not conforming to their male
sex-role (e.g. being more sensitive) OR they may be seen as wimps.
7. Research by the Sadkers, Cooper, and others documents how both male & female teachers call
on male students more frequently, ask more complex questions of male students, provide more
explanation of assignments to male students, and generally give male students more concrete praise
and criticism (both verbally and nonverbally), at all levels of education.
8. Male students are likely to respond quicker to questions, to interrupt or call out a response, to
assume leadership roles in class, and to work independently (males are less likely to seek outside
help, for example); female students are more likely to use "feminine" linguistic patterns such as use
of disclaimers, hesitations, and tag questions.
9. Research also suggests that both male and female teachers continue to use sexist language, or
language that denigrates, demeans, or excludes a particular sex (e.g. the "generic he," using only
male examples, using stereotyped evaluative terms such as "chick" or "stud," making sexist jokes,
using sex-stereotyped imagery in overheads, etc.); women with Ph.D's often "lose" their doctorates,
being called "Mrs."
10. Although slowly changing, contributions of women and minority groups still are marginalized
or ignored in many of the textbooks used in the U.S. (at all educational levels); this is especially true
in scientific or technical textbooks, but also in history and literature.
11. Females are closing the gap in math and science achievement, but still face gendered
expectations in traditionally male-dominated fields (it can be the reverse for males in femaledominated fields); more depressing, even females who are highly competent in math and science are
less likely to pursue scientific or technological careers than are their male classmates.
12. If female faculty, staff, or students have to take care of a family, they often will be seen as less
dedicated, while males taking care of families may be praised, or seen as wimps (even more if he
stays home while his partner earns a wage).

13. Female faculty, staff, and students are more likely to experience harassment and or subtle
discrimination by faculty or administration, e.g. hearing sexist "jokes," inappropriate touching,
being spotlighted as a "token," etc.; in addition, female faculty, staff, and students may be subjected
more to sexual harassment by male students, e.g. sexualized name-calling, sexist "jokes,"
inappropriate touching, harassing phone calls, being asked out for dates, etc. It sometimes happens
in reverse, but far less likely.
14. Male faculty, staff, and students are more likely to be perceived as acting inappropriately (of
being sexist, of harassing students, etc.), by students, regardless of sex/gender; however, a female
teacher may be accused of man-bashing if she brings up any topic related to gender, or claims to be
a feminist.
15. Female faculty and staff may be paid less than male faculty and staff; although there has been
improvement in establishing pay equity across the nation, females still earn only about 79 cents to
$1.00 for males (if paid equal, females may be asked to do more for their buck--e.g. course
overloads, extra service requirements, etc.)
IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE
1. COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE
Competence (or being effective) in communicating is important--it can help enhance your personal
and professional relationships. Learning behavioral flexibility/rhetorical sensitivity (Hart, et. al.) is
one way to be competent in your communication. Rhetorical sensitivity to others includes the
following:
a. Acceptance of personal complexity.
b. Avoidance of rigid communicating styles (being able to use a multiplicity of styles,
depending on the situation).
c. Interaction consciousness (balancing self-interest with other orientation).
d. Appropriate communication for situation (knowing "the rules").
e. Understanding that an idea can be communicated a number of different ways.
f. Being present with others, indicating an orientation toward others.
1) indicating empathy and support through paraphrasing and back-channel cues.
2) respecting others
2. OTHER STRATEGIES FOR EQUITY
a. Work to draw all students into discussions, perhaps by waiting a minute for responses (to
ensure reactions from shy or introverted students as well as female students), or by using
free-writing techniques prior to discussions.
b. Design and enforce class policies statements that make it clear that biased comments and
behavior are inappropriate in the classroom.

c. Employ non-sexist or inclusive language.

If our thoughts are influenced by language, then why not aim for an inclusive,
non-discriminatory world? If you doubt this, try to go one day using woman and her/she as
generic terms, and see the reactions you get. In addition, using inclusive language indicates
a receiver orientation (being concerned about your listener), which will empower others by
making them feel included.
d. Avoid stereotyping men and women, whether in discussions or in consultation with
students. Remember we are all unique.
e. Select examples, readings, etc. that are more inclusive of different groups, to provide
students with a broader perspective on American culture.
f. Employ a wide range of teaching strategies that play to the strengths of all learning styles,
to maximize chances for success in your classroom.

GENDER COMMUNICATION MYTHS

1. Women are more empathetic than men.
(Men can be as empathetic as women, in the sense that they care and have feelings; they express it
in a different way)
2. Women talk more than men.
(Studies indicate that men talk more in most settings. However, because women are expressive, it
may seem that women talk more, esp. when talking to another woman. Women are more likely to
use indirect language, face-saving talk, empathetic stories, and other feelings oriented
communication instead of the more direct, to the point style of men)
3. Generic words such as "mankind" and "he" are heard by people as inclusive of both sexes.
(Study after study over the past twenty years clearly has documented that these so-called
"generics" are not inclusive; people automatically picture men first when they hear these terms; if
they add women, it is as an afterthought).
4. Women generally value friendships more than men.
(Both men and women values friendships, but tend to get different "relational goodies" from such
friendships--men are instrumental; women expressive)
5. Women are more "naturally" nurturing than men.
(both men and women are equally nurturing, depending on how that is defined; nurturing is as
much a learned behavior as a genetic one. Men are often given short shrift in custody cases
because of the belief that women are the more "natural" parent)
6. Women are more likely to touch others than men.
(Contrary to "common sense" notions, several studies show that men touch others more, esp. men
touching women and subordinates. The type of touch is important to consider--men do more
ritualistic touching, such as handshakes; more protective touching; more task-oriented touching;
more dominance touching. There is some evidence that women do more nurturing/emotional
touching, esp. of children)
7. Women are "moodier" than men.
(Although PMS gets lots of coverage, the truth is that both men and women have hormonal mood
swings on regular basis; although more women are treated for depression, men are more likely to
commit suicide)
8. More men than women are dyslexic.
(Shaywitz et al, 1990 found that more boys than girls are reported as having dyslexia, but actual
prevalence is the same)
9. Men are more aggressive because of testosterone.
(Recent research indicates that testosterone does not make men more violent; increased
testosterone in both sexes is associated with increased productivity and creativity)

GENDER, COMMUNICATION, AND EDUCATION

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aisenberg, Nadya & Mona Harrington. Women of Academe: Outsiders in the Sacred Grove
(Univ. of Mass. Press, 1988).
Allen, S., A. Cantor, H. Grady, & P. Hill. "Classrooom Talk: Coed Classes That Work For Girls,"
Women & Language, 20 (1997): 41-46.
American Association of University Women. Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America.
(Washington, D.C., AAUW Educational Foundation, 1991).
American Association of University Women. Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our
Children. (Washington, D.C. AAUW Educational Foundation, 1998).
American Association of University Women. "Technology Gender Gap Develps While Gaps in
Math and Science Narrow, AAUW Foundation Report Shows." On-line; availlable at
http://www.aauw.org.
Anderson, M. & Collins, P. H., Eds. Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology (Wadsworth, 1992).
Arliss, Laurie P. & Deborah J. Borisoff, eds. Women & Men Communicating: Challenges and
Changes (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1993).
Arnot, M. Race and Gender: Equal Opportunities Policies in Education (Pergamon Press with the
Open Univ., 1985).
Basow, Susan A. Gender: Stereotypes and Roles. 3rd Ed. (Brooks/Cole, 1992).
Basow, Susan A. & Nancy T. Silberg. "Student Evaluations of College Professors: Are Female
and Male Professors Rated Differently?" Journal of Educational Psychology 79:3 (1987): 308314.
Bate. Barbara and J. Bowker. Communication and the Sexes. 2nd Ed. (Waveland, 1997).
Belenky, M.F. et al. Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind
(Basic Books, 1986).
Bem, Sandra. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality (Yale Univ.
Press, 1993).
Benokraitis, N.V. & J. R. Feagin. Modern Sexism: Blatant, Subtle, and Covert Discrimination
(Prentice-Hall, 1986).
Borisoff, Deborah & Lisa Merrill. The Power to Communicate: Gender Differences As Barriers.
3rd Ed. (Waveland, 1998).

Briere, J. & Lanktree, C. "Sex-role Related Effects of Sex Bias in Language." Sex Roles, 9
(1983): 625-632.
Butler, Dore & Florence L. Geis. "Nonverbal Affect Responses to Male and Female Leaders:
Implications for Leadership Evaluations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:1
(1990): 48-59.
Caplan, Paula J. Lifting A Ton of Feathers: A Woman's Guide to Surviving in the Academic World
(Univ. of Toronto Press, 1992).
Carelli, Anne O'Brien, Ed. Sex Equity in Education: Readings and Strategies (C. C. Thomas
Publisher, 1988).
Chapman, Anne. The Difference It Makes: A Resource Book on Gender for Educators (National
Assoc. of Independent Schools, 1988).
Clatterbaugh, Kenneth. Contemporary Persepctives on Masculinity: Men, Women, and Politics in
Modern Society (Westview Press, 1990).
Clark, Charles S. "Education and Gender," CQ Researcher, 4:21 (1994): 483-503.
Coates, Jennifer. Women, Men and Language, 2nd Ed. (Longman, 1993).
Condravy, J. E. Skirboll, & R. Taylor. "Faculty Perceptions of Classroom Gender Dynamics,"
Women and Language, 21 (1998): 18-27.
Cooper, P. J. "Communication and Gender in the Classroom." In L. P. Arliss & D. J. Borlsoff,
eds., Women and Men Communicating: Challenges and Changes. (harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1993), pp. 122-141.
Crawford, M. & MacLeod, M. "Gender in the College Classroom: An Assessment of the 'Chilly
Climate' for Women." Sex Roles, 23 (1990): 101-122.
Crumpacker, L. & E. M. Vander Haegen. "Pedagogy and Prejudice: Strategies for Confronting
Homophobia in the Classroom." Women's Studies Quarterly 15:3-4 (1987): 65-73.
Dart, B. C. & J. A. Clarke. "Sexism in the Schools: A New Look." Educational Review 40:1
(1988): 41-49.
Elgin, Suzette Haden. Genderspeak: Men, Women, and the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense
(Wiley & Sons, 1993).
Ellyson, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F., Eds. Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior (Springer
-Verlag, 1985).

Epperson, S. E. "Studies Link Subtle Sex Bias in Schools With Women's Behavior in the
Workplace." Wall Street Journal, Sept. 16, 1988, p. 27.
Folsom, J. "Teaching About Sexism and Language in a Traditional Setting: Surmounting the
Obstacles." Women's Studies Quarterly, 11 (1983): 12-15.
Gabriel, Susan L. and Isaiah Smithson, Eds. Gender in the Classroom: Power and Pedagogy
(Univ. of Illinois Press, 1990).
Gastil, J. "Generic Pronouns and Sexist Language: The Oxymoronic Character of Masculine
Generics." Sex Roles, 23 (1990): 629-643.
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Harvard
University Press, 1982).
Grauerholz, Elizabeth. "Sexual Harassment of Women Professors by Students: Exploring the
Dynamics of Power, Authority, and Gender in a University Setting," Sex Roles 21:11-12 (1989):
790-801.
Hall, Roberta M. "Classroom Climate for Women: The Tip of the Iceberg," Association for
Communication Administration Bulletin 51 (1985): 64-67.
Hall, Roberta M. & Bernice R. Sandler. The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?
(Project on the Status & Education of Women, Assoc. of American Colleges, 1984).
Hamilton, M. C. "Using Masculine Generics: Does Generic He Increase Male Bias in the User's
Imagery?" Sex Roles, 19 (1988): 785-799.
Hamilton, M. C. "Masculine Bias in the Attribution of Personhood: People = Male, Male =
People." Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15 (1991): 393-402.
Henley, Nancy. "Molehill or Mountain? What We Know and Don't Know About Sex Bias in
Language." M. Crawford and M. Gentry, Eds., Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives
(Springer-Verlag, 1989): 59-75.
Howe, Florence. Myths of Coeducation: Selected Essays 1964-1983 (Indiana Univ. Press, 1984).
Hughes, Jean O'Gorman & Bernice R. Sandler. Peer Harassment: Hassles for Women on Campus.
(Project on the Status & Education of Women, Assoc. of American Colleges, 1988).
Ivy, Diana K. & Phil Backlund. Exploring GenderSpeak: Personal Effectiveness in Gender
Communication. 2nd Ed. (McGraw-Hill, 2000).
Jaasma, M. "Classroom Communication Apprehension: Does Being Male or Female Make a
Difference?"

Communication Reports, 10 (1997): 219-228.

Johnson, C. S. & I.K. Kelly. "'He' and 'She': Changing Language to Fit a Changing World."
Educational Leadership, 32 (1975): 527-530.
Karach, Angela. "The Politics of Dislocation: Some Mature Undergraduate Women's Experiences
of Higher Education." Women's Studies International Forum 15:2 (1992): 309-317.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science (Yale Univ. Press, 1985).
Klein, Susan S., Ed. Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education (Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press, 1985).
Koblinsky, S. A. & Sugawara, A. I. "Nonsexist Curricula, Sex of Teacher, and Children's Sex Role
Learning. Sex Roles, 10 (1984): 357-367.
Kramarae, C., Schultz, M. & O'Barr, W. M. Eds. Language and Power (Sage, 1984).
Kramarae, Cheris, Ed. Women and Men Speaking (Newbury House, 1981).
Kreps, Gary L., Ed. Communication and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (Hampton Press,
1992).
Krolokke, C. "Women Professor's Assertive-Empathic and Non-ASsertive Communication in
Sexual Harassment Situations," Women's Studies in Communication, 21 (1998): 91-103.
Lakoff, Robin. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in our Lives (Basic Books, 1990).
Lewis, Magda & Roger I. Simon. "A Discourse Not Intended for Her: Learning and Teaching
Within Patriarchy." Harvard Educational Review 56.4 (1986): 457-472.
Maggio, Rosalie. The Dictionary of Bias-Free Usage: A Guide to Nondiscriminatory Language
(Oryx Press, 1991).
Maitland, Christine. "The Inequitable Treatment of Women Faculty in Higher Education."
Women in Higher Education; Changes and Challenges, L. B. Welch, Ed. (Praeger, 1990).
Malovich, N.J. & J.E. Stake. "Sexual Harassment on Campus: Individual Differences in Attitudes
and Beliefs." Psychology of Women's Quarterly, 14 (1990): 63-81.
Martyna, Wendy. "What Does 'He' Mean?
Communication, 28 (1978): 131-38.

Use of the Generic Masculine."

Journal of

Martyna, Wendy. "Beyond the 'He/Man' Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language. Signs, 5
(1980): 482-93.

Mayo, Clara & Nancy Henley, Eds. Gender and Nonverbal Behavior (Springer-Verlag, 1981).
McConnell-Ginet, S., R. Borker, & N. Furman, Eds. Women and Language in Literature and
Society (Praeger, 1980).
McGee-Banks, James. Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives (Allyn & Bacon, 1989).
Miller, Casey & Kate Swift.
(HarperCollins, 1991).

Words and Women: New Language in New Times, 2nd Ed.

Miller, C. & K. Swift. The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing: For Writers, Editors and Speakers,
2nd Ed. (Harper & Row, 1988).
Mongeau, P.A. & J. Blalock. "Student Evaluations of Instructor Immediacy and Sexually
Harassing Behaviors: An Experimental Investigation." Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 22 (1994): 256-272.
Nadler, L. B. & M. K. Nadler, "Perceptions of Sex Differences in Classroom Communication,"
Women's Studies in Communication, 13 (1990): 46-65.
Nilsen, A. P. et al. Sexism and Language (National Council of Teachers of English, 1977).
O'Barr, Jean F., Ed. Women and a New Academy: Gender and Cultural Contexts (Univ. of
Wisconsin Press, 1989).
Orasanu, J., M. K. Slater, & L. L. Adler, Eds. Language, Sex, and Gender (New York Academy of
Sciences, 1979).
Paludi, M.A., Ed. Ivory Power: Sexual Harassment on Campus. (SUNY, 1990).
Pearson, Judy C., Richard L. West, & Lynn H. Turner. Gender & Communication, 3rd Ed. (Wm.
C. Brown, 1995).
Pearson, Judy & R. L. West, "An Initial Investigation of the Effects of Gender on Student
Qusetions in the Classroom: Developing a Descriptive Base," Communication Education, 40
(1991): 22-32.
Petersen, T. M., P. Kearney, T. Plax & J.H. Waldeck. "Students' Affective Evaluations of the
Professor and Course: To What Extent is Teacher Sexism Relevant?" Women's Studies in
Communication, 20 (1997): 151-165.
Phillips, Susan U., Susan Steele & Christine Tanz, Eds.
Comparative Perspective (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).
Pickens, J.

Without Bias:

Language, Gender, and Sex in

A Guidebook for Nondiscriminatory Communication, 2nd Ed.

(Wiley/International Association of Business Communication, 1982).

Pingree, Susan, et al. "A Scale for Sexism." Journal of Communication, 26 (1976): 193-201.
Poynton, Cate. Language and Gender: Making the Difference (Oxford Univ. Pres, 1989).
Public Education Network. The American Teacher 1997: Examining Gender Issues in Public
Schools (PEN, 1997).
Roland Martin, Jane. "Excluding Women from the Educational Realm." Harvard Educational
Review 52:2 (1982): 133-148.
Rothenberg, Paula, Ed. Race, Class and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study, 3rd Ed.
(St. Martin's Press, 1995).
Richmond, V. P. & P. Dyba. "The Roots of Sexual Stereotyping:
Communication Education, 31 (1982), 265-273.

The Teacher as Model."

Ryan, M. "Classroom and Contexts: The Challenge of Feminist Pedagogy," Feminist Teacher, 4
(1989): 39-42.
Sadker, Myra & David Sadker, Eds. Sex Equity Handbook for Schools (Longman, 1982).
Sadker, Myra & David Sadker. "Sexism in the Classroom: From Grade School to Graduate
School." Phi Delta Kappan. 67:7 (1986): 512-515.
Sadker, Myra & David Sadker. "Sexism in the Schoolroom of the 80's." Psychology Today 19:3
(March 1985): 54-57.
Sandler, Bernice R. The Campus Climate Revisited: Chilly for Women Faculty, Administrators,
and Graduate Students (Project on the Status & Education of Women, Assoc. of Amer. Colleges,
1986).
Sandler, Bernice R. "Women Faculty at Work in the Classroom, or, Why It Still Hurts to be a
Woman in Labor." Communication Education 40 (1991): 6-15.
Schuster, Marilyn R. & Susan r. Van Dyne, Eds. Women's Place in the Academy: Transforming the
Liberal Arts Curriculum (Rowman & Allenheld/Littlefield Press, 1985).
Smith, Phillip M. Language, the Sexes and Society (Basil Blackwell, 1985).
Sorrels, B. D. The Nonsexist Communicator: Solving the Problems of Gender and Awkwardness
in Modern English (Prentice-Hall, 1986).
Spender, Dale. Man Made Language (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980).

Spender, Dale, Ed. Men's Studies Modified:

Disciplines (Pergamon Press, 1981).

The Impact of Feminism on the Academic

Spender, D. & Elizabeth Sarah, Eds. Learning to Lose: Sexism and Education (The Woman's
Press, 1980).
Stericker, A. "Does This 'He or She' Business Really Make a Difference? The Effect of Masculine
Pronouns as Generics on Job Attitudes." Sex Roles, 7 (1981): 637-641.
Stewart, Lea P., Alan D. Stewart, Sheryl A. Friedley, & Pamela J. Cooper. Communication
Between the Sexes: Sex Differences and Sex-Role Stereotypes, 2nd Ed. (Gorsuch Scarisbrick,
1990).
Stewart, L. P. & Stella Ting-Toomey, Eds. Communication, Gender, and Sex Roles in Diverse
Interaction Contexts (Ablex, 1987).
Stier, D. S. & J.A. Hall. "Gender Differences in Touch: An Empirical and Theoretical Review."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (1984): 440-459.
Stitt, Beverly A. Building Gender Fairness in Schools (So. Illinois Univ. Press, 1988).
Strine, M. S. "Understanding How Things Work: Sexual Harassment and Academic Culture."
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 4 (1992): 391-400.
Tannen, Deborah, Ed. Gender and Conversational Interaction (Oxford Univ. Press, 1993).
Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (Ballantine,
1990).
Tannen, Deborah. "Teachers' Classroom Strategies Should Recognize That Men and Women Use
Language Differently." Chronicle of Higher Education, June 19, 1991, pp. B1, B3.
Thorne, Barrie & Nancy Henley, Eds. Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance (Newbury
House, 1975).
Thorne, Barrie, Cheris Kramerae & Nancy Henley, Eds. Language, Gender and Society (Newbury
House, 1983).
Todd, Alexandra Dundas & Sue Fisher, Eds. Gender and Discourse: The Power of Talk (Ablex,
1988).
Todd-Mancillas, William R. "Masculine Generics = Sexist Language: A Review of Literature and
Implications for Speech Communication Professionals. Communication Quarterly, 29 (1981):
107-15.
Treichler, Paula A., & Cheris Kramarae. "Women's Talk in the Ivory Tower." Communication

Quarterly, 31 (1983): 118-132.

Vetterling-Braggin, M., Ed. Sexist Language: A Modern Philosophical Analysis (Littlefield,
Adams, 1981).
Vrugt, A. & A. Kerkstra, A. "Sex Differences in Nonverbal Communication." Semiotica, 50
(1984): 1-41.
Weitz, S. Sex Differences in Nonverbal Communication. Sex Roles, 2 (1976): 175-184.
Weiler, Kathleen. Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power (Bergin & Harvey
Publishers, 1988).
Welch, Lynne B., Ed. Women in Higher Education: Changes and Challenges (Praeger, 1990).
Wilkinson, L. C. & C. B. Marrett, C. B. Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction (Academic
Press, 1985).
Wood, Julia T. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture, 4th edition (Wadsworth,
2000).
Wood, Julia T. "Issues Facing Non-traditional Members of Academe. G. M. Philips, et al., Eds.
Survival in the Academy: A Guide for Beginning Academics (Hampton Press, 1994).
Wood, J.T. & L. F. Lenze, L. F. "Strategies to Enhance Gender Sensitivity in Communication
Education." Communication Education, 40 (1991): 16-21.