Sexism in the Classroom Observation Essay Example
Sexism in the Classroom Observation Essay Example

Sexism in the Classroom Observation Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 10 (2603 words)
  • Published: May 12, 2017
  • Type: Essay
View Entire Sample
Text preview

The purpose of this essay is to inform readers of the observations I made during my short stay in Mr. Sutton’s classroom. It also intend to analyze the differences between girls and boys in the learning environment, and in the following areas: how the two groups interact with teachers, how the instructor may reinforce stereotypical gender behavior, supportive teacher responses to boys and girls; and these relative to standards (learning environments) and (assessment) as delineated by the CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011).

The definition and expressed purpose of this document is printed in the introduction: “The Council of Chief State School Officers is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U. S. extra-st

...

ate jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues.

The Council seeks member consensus on major educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public”(CCSSO, 2011). My goal is to describe and analyze my observations of student/teacher gender specific behaviors in an effort to meet the goals of this highly respected/ adopted document. Toward this end, I observed two classes taught by the same teacher- Computer Literacy and Beginning Typing. The classes were taught from 10:00-10:50 and from 11:00-11:50 respectively.

The location of the first class was a computer lab; the set-up of the second class, Beginning Typing was a more traditional classroom. The computer class numbered 12 students (7 boys, 5 girls). The Typing class numbered 21 students (12 girls, 9 boys). I am not ye

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

teaching which may have worked in my favor. It can be more difficult to be objective from within a situation in which one has a vested interest, than from without. My own, personal biases and preconceived ideas might have more colored my observation had I not been so on-guard against them.

The observation experience did however, reveal to me some specific aspects of my educational views and expectations of which I was unaware. This aspect of my essay will be discussed throughout this essay. Past experience had taught me that entering any social setting with complex dimensions and dynamics can be overwhelming. Therefore, I researched the particulars of my observational goals and from it I formulated a “what behaviors to look for” goal sheet for myself; regarding gender-specific behaviors on the part of both students and teacher, I was to watch for the following:

  • Class composite Assessment(s) - were they biased toward either group?
  • Remarks, both positive and negative
  • Eye contact
  • Facial cues
  • Tone of voice
  • Textbooks
  • Approval expressed through touch or proximity

The way in which students and teachers set learning goals and teaching methodology interested me as well. Before the start of the computer class I felt it appropriate to collect information on class composites and assessment methodology by directly asking the teacher. There wasn’t much time for acquiring in-depth information on assessment from the teacher however, because I also took time before and between the classes to skim the textbooks.

I learned more about assessment while observing within the classes. The expectations I brought with me to the observations were largely due to the reading I had done prior to the observation rather than innately

held prejudices, although I discovered at least two of those as well. I expected to find the following:

  • Boys would be more disruptive and receive more reprimands and less praise that the girls.
  • The students who paid attention would be seated closest to the teacher, towards the front of the classroom. The teacher would pay attention to and spend more time in positive interaction with the girls, despite the research I had read to the contrary.
  • The physical space maintained between the teacher and boys would be greater than that maintained with girls.
  • There would be more non-sexual touches (like pats on the shoulder) between the teacher and the girls (because I believed girls were more affectionate or “touchy-feely” than boys.
  • Boys would react more strongly to criticism than would the girls, despite some research that said otherwise.

The girls would whisper more together during teacher talk. Boys would be more easily distracted and spend less time on-task. What follows is what I actually observed: When the bell rang for class change the students came in (not all boys together and not all girls together). The lab was shaped like a squared off letter “U” so the teacher was not sitting closer to one group than another (in fact, the desk placement would not have mattered, as the teacher only sat at his desk to take roll. ) The girls all sat together and the boys all sat together.

Before the bell rang, most boys interacted with the teacher, joking, laughing, punching each other on the shoulder, which fit my stereotype of boys. The dynamic of the rest of the class session, however, was surprising to me.

The boys took their seats quietly and immediately after the second bell rang and the teacher walked to his desk to take roll. On the white board behind him was written the day, class, and the “task,” with the corresponding textbook pages. The teacher greeted the class in the jocular style of Robin Williams in the movie Good Morning Vietnam, except he said, “Good morning, boys and girls! I noted that he said “boys” before “girls” and thought it might be gender related; in the next class however, he said “ladies and gentlemen. ” At the greeting, all of the students turned away from their computers and looked at the teacher. They paid close attention to what he was saying, which consisted of clear instructions of the task to be completed. His eyes scanned the room, looking I believe, for signs of confusion or puzzlement. Although he evidently perceived none, he still asked at the end if there were any questions.

There weren’t, and all the students turned to their computers and began working- it seemed to me- eagerly and intently. There was very little conversation, only a few quiet comments between seatmates. The ones I could hear were task-related. The teacher circulated around the room looking at the works-in-progress and asking if a student needed help, or “right,” “good,” “keep going. ” He made these comments equally to boys and girls. No one asked for help. I did observe that the teacher stood further behind the girls to look at their screens than he did at the boys.

He leaned over some boys’ shoulders, and touched two on the forearm lightly with a loosely fisted hand.

The gesture was clearly meant to be encouraging. As mentioned previously, Mr. Sutton was just as encouraging to the girls; in fact, no criticism or correction was given to any student. (In my opinion none were warranted either). I did, however, hear a difference in how the teacher made his remarks and questions, and how the students spoke to him. Mr. Sutton spoke more casually to most boys; also his voice was pitched a little higher and louder.

With the girls he spoke somewhat more respectfully or perhaps, more formally, in a lower-tone of voice, and more quietly even though his distance from them was slightly greater. When Mr. Sutton would ask the boys if they needed help, they responded without looking up from the screen and spoke as they would to a friend, saying “nope,” “uh-huh,” or “I can handle it. ” While no boy’s reply was disrespectful the girl’s responses were more respectful: “No, thank you, Mr. Sutton” or “Thanks, but I think I understand it. What jumped out at me, though , was the insecurity I perceived in some girls about their performance as they followed their answers with questions such as, “Am I doing it wrong? ” or “Isn’t this right? ” They looked up at Mr. Sutton anxiously. Not only did their comments communicate a lower sense of self efficacy, but I suspected that they also cared more about what the teacher thought about them and their performance than the boys did. The textbook just gave directions and explanations. There was no gender bias as the task was not set in context.

I was slightly taken aback when the students who finished

first usually went over to a student who was still working and helped him/her. I learned that the helper was not allowed to touch the other student’s keyboard, but were encouraged to assist each other. The helpers spoke over the student’s shoulders or drew up a chair next to them. (Note: the students must have preferred peer tutoring to the teacher’s help. ) I asked Mr. Sutton about this process and he told me it was his best teaching tool for, “TASK completion projects;” that it was harder to help someone else complete the task than it was to do it themselves.

As best as I understood this type of assignment, there was a task to complete, where the students knew the correct outcomes “but had to get there from…. there. ” If a student did, he/she received a checkmark. Ten out of ten possible checkmarks would be a 100% grade on TASKS; seven out of ten would be a 70% and so on. If the student went correctly half-way or more e they got half credit. I could not see how there could exist a gender bias in the assessment of the TASKS. Let me return briefly to the peer-tutoring. It appeared that girls preferred to help other girls and the boys would help anyone.

This rather dashed my notion that girls tended to offer help or assist more readily, being the more “nurturing” sex, but it may speak to my opinion that girls are more insecure about their competence and performance in the subject matter. When everyone was finished, the students did other homework or visited among themselves. It did not get very noisy. A

few boys visited with the teacher. Then class was over. The beginning typing class I observed next provided less information and was markedly different from the computer class. The students, boys and girls, came in noisily.

The girls mostly sat in the front of the class and most of the boys sat toward the back. I found out from Mr. Sutton that in both classes the students sat where they wanted to. Most were choosing to group themselves together my gender. In this class it was mostly girls who visited with the teacher before the bell rang, while in the other class it had been the boys. Right before the tardy bell rang, many of the girls began shifting their weight in their seats, subsequently I found out that they were getting into, “good typing posture. While a few girls did not sit up poised for action, and a few boys did, in general the girls were ready for instruction but the boys slouched or “lounged. ” During the minute it took Mr. Sutton to take roll, he hadn’t even looked up when he said, “Guys, sit up. ” Only one boy was especially slow to comply. He had his fingers laced behind his beck, and his legs were stretched straight out in front of him. His posture communicated to me that he felt vastly superior to the class or the subject. It took his an uncommonly long time to untangle himself, but he had sorted himself out before the teacher began speaking.

In a short lesson, Mr. Sutton described the functions of the three keys on the top and in the middle of the keyboard. The

students did not talk while he taught, and seemed to listen but my impression was that they were “underwhelmed” by the whole process. As before, the date, class, and assignment were written on a white board, although this was a small, portable board that he had carried in. At each place was a flipchart of sorts, and the students turned to the page indicated by the teacher and began typing.

I became very interested in the proceeding student behaviors so I don’t know exactly how the day’s performance was assessed. There was a ten-minute time limit on the first part of the student’s assignment and the students remained intent on their work during that time, so I imagined the typing rate on the assignment was being assessed, but I am not sure. At the completion of the ten minutes, I observed some interesting student behavior. Some boys made comments out-loud ostensibly directed at the teacher, but obviously joking in nature. For example, one boy announced, “Mr.

Sutton, my machine has feelings and I think it hates me! ” Some students chuckled but kept on working. The comments seemed good natured, and were not very disruptive. One girl put her head down and said, “I just can’t do it, I must be retarded! ” Mr. Sutton responded, “Hey would you talk to someone else like that? Be nice to yourself! ” Another girl slapped the palm of her hand on her forehead and exclaimed, “God I am so dumb! ” Mr. Sutton began responding from the front of the room and continued as he walked toward her, “don’t stare beating yourself up.

When you start working there will be

plenty of bosses and coworkers who will do that for you! ” The class had looked up and listened to these exchanges. The girls continued with much sighing and eye rolling at their own performances. Mr. Sutton invariably responded with verbal encouragement. Even some of the boys in close proximity would offer support. I was convinced that the girls were not anxious about their performance, or had need of support for low self-esteem, but instead wanted attention from the teacher, hereas the “boy comments” were fewer buy far and aimed at gaining the class’s attention.

Although the teacher responded to the girls’ self-deprecations, he simply ignored the few jokes made by the boys. I saw one boy pull the caps off some keys and switch them around. “Look, Mr. Sutton, no wonder I can’t make A’s! ” The teacher calmly walked over, changed the keys back and walked away without saying a word. The class was over quickly. On their way out, Mr. Sutton clapped two boys on the back. Once again, he never touched a girl, although he closed his usual space from them when he offered encouragement.

I glanced at the pages in the flip-books as students left and they contained long related passages, non-gender specific, of current medical health plan types. As Mr. Sutton had lunch duty, I only had time to prompt one response from him by commenting on how respectful he was to the girls. He answered, “You know how it is these days. I am a male teacher and I have to be so careful with the girls. I’d better not do anything that could be misconstrued as sexual. ” Upon

reflection, I should have known it was that reason behind many differences in the student/ teacher relationships I had observed, but it simply had never occurred to me.

A review of my other expectations and the outcomes of my observations of gender-specific behavior and interaction were more often wrong that correct. This experience has shown me, that while I thought I was on guard against preconceived notions and prejudices, it is imperative that I keep challenging my assumptions and expectations regarding gender considerations in the classroom. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (in TASC) Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington, DC

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New