A Chilly Classroom Climate?
A Mixed-Methods Assessment of Warren Wilson College
Victoria Dempsey
Department of Sociology/Anthropology
Warren Wilson College
May 9, 2011
While some previous research suggests that female college students experience
behaviors in the classroom that may significantly impact their self esteem,
academic ambitions, class participation, and overall academic learning
experience, other research indicates there is little to no evidence of systematic
discrimination that disadvantages women in academic environments.
Inconsistencies in findings suggest that methods of data collection may have a
considerable impact on the results obtained from studies assessing gendered
interactions in the college classroom. In order to obtain a more reliable
assessment of women’s classroom experiences at Warren Wilson College, this
investigation employs a student survey, classroom observations, and multiple
focus group interviews to measure the presence of both subtle and overt behaviors
in the college classroom that serve to systematically disadvantage female
students. Data suggest that professors are more likely to participate in higher
levels of ancillary engagement, remediation, and praise with male students in the
classroom. Data also suggest that in classrooms where male students comprise
only a small percentage of total students, female professors are more likely to
engage in high initiation behaviors with male students than with female students.
1
A CHILLY CLASSROOM CLIMATE? A MIXED-METHODS ASSESSMENT OF
WARREN WILSON COLLEGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ...................................................................................... 3
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................................................... 5
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................................................... 6
HYPOTHESES AND QUESTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 17
METHODS .............................................................................................................................................................. 18
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................... 26
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 28
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION DATA: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 29
SURVEY DATA: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 38
QUALITATIVE DATA: DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 43
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 53
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 54
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY.................................................................................................................................. 56
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 58
FIGURES AND CAPTIONS .................................................................................................................................. 62
2
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Recent university admission trends indicate that female college enrollment in both
undergraduate and graduate school programs has surpassed that of males. While such statistics
may suggest a shift toward a more gender-equal education, in reality female students remain
under-enrolled in programs beyond the graduate level, and continue to occupy traditionally
female professions upon completion of their undergraduate studies (National Center for
Education Statistics 2002). With more women than ever receiving a college diploma, why do we
see only a crack in the proverbial glass ceiling? For those women who choose to pursue postsecondary education, the collegiate experience becomes vital in influencing goals and ambitions
for the future. In order to explain the academic and professional behavioral patterns of this
growing number of educated women, researchers have looked to interactions within the college
classroom.
With the introduction of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) in 1974, the
U.S. government for the first time legally prohibited states which receive federal funding from
denying equal education to an individual on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.
While the EEOA effectively condemned the deliberate segregation of students and
discrimination in the employment of school faculty and staff, it failed to recognize the more
subtle forms of discrimination present within the educational system. Now, nearly thirty-five
years after the implementation of the EEOA, micro-inequities in education persist. The continued
presence of micro-inequities may seem minor in the face of more overt forms of prejudice;
however, the cumulative effect of such subtle forms of discrimination is powerful. Alone, these
3
small behaviors appear inconsequential, yet as they continually occur they have a significant
impact on the self-esteem, ambitions, class participation, and learning experiences of female
students (Sandler et al. 1996).
In order to understand the role of education in the creation of larger social trends and
patterns, sociologists often utilize two opposing theoretical approaches—education as
enlightenment and education as reproducing social inequalities (Kane 1995). Research that
investigates the chilly classroom climate most frequently uses the second approach when
examining education as an institution. The phenomenon known as the “chilly classroom
climate,” first coined by Roberta Hall and Bernice Sandler, explores the role of education in
perpetuating a system of gender inequalities within the classroom that create a discouraging and
uninviting learning environment for female students. With the release of Hall and Sandler's
report, “ The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?” in 1982, the college classroom
became the site of extensive and controversial research on the potential differential treatment of
female students in coeducational settings, and how such treatment may aid in maintaining the
gender status quo. In addition, Mary Rowe's concept of micro-inequities helped researchers
understand that the cumulative impact of both subtle and overt micro-inequities in the classroom
can serve to significantly disadvantage women in academic environments (Sandler et al. 1996).
Examples of these micro-inequities include the use of sexist language in classrooms, gendered
patterns of interaction between instructors and students, and the modes of participation and
communication used in the classroom that systematically disadvantage and silence female
students (Hall and Sandler 1982). The debate over the significance of micro-inequities in the
4
college classroom has become as an area of contention among sociologists of education.
Whereas a large portion of the research finds evidence of the “chilly climate” construct in
college classrooms (Canada and Pringle 1995; Fassinger 1995; Rosenfeld and Jarrard 1985),
other reports insist there is little to no evidence of systematic discrimination that disadvantages
women in academic environments, and that the chilly classroom climate is no longer a relevant
issue (Boersma et al. 1981; Constantinople, Cornelius and Gray 1988; Crawford and MacLeod
1990; Drew and Work 1998).
As a result of the considerable inconsistencies in the literature, researchers have begun
questioning the methods used by investigators in assessing the chilly classroom climate (Allan
and Madden 2006; Brady and Eisler 1995). A majority of recent studies primarily rely on selfreport questionnaires to determine the extent of the chilly climate in classrooms. However, many
of the micro-inequities observed by researchers in the classroom are consistent with cultural
expectations, and therefore not easily recognized by survey respondents. On the other hand,
studies that solely rely on classroom observations are potentially more vulnerable to observer
bias. In order to achieve a more accurate and reliable measure of the chilly climate in college
classrooms, it is important for researchers to utilize a mixed-methods approach that involves
collecting both qualitative and quantitative data.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In order to obtain a more reliable assessment of the chilly climate at Warren Wilson
College, I use a mixed-methods approach to examine classroom climates. This approach includes
5
in-class observations, a self-report student survey, and focus groups. These methods of analysis
are used to determine the presence of micro-inequities at Warren Wilson College, and how such
inequities relate to broader gender relations and patterns. This assessment of the chilly classroom
climate at Warren Wilson College explores the extent to which the chilly classroom climate
exists at this small liberal arts college. In addition, in order to explain inconsistencies in the
current chilly classroom climate literature, this study examines the degree to which different
methods of data collection yield different results.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Historically, researchers have employed a variety of conceptual approaches when
exploring the intersection of gender and education. While earlier research was primarily
dominated by literature that focused on the ways in which sex differences helped shape the
educational experiences of both male and female students, a majority of recent scholarship
adopts structural and symbolic approaches to the study of how and why gender stratification is
represented within the educational system (Goetz and Grant 1988). A structural conceptual
framework views gender as not only central in organizing individuals in society, but also
essential in influencing one's social status and role within social institutions, including
educational organizations. While a structuralist approach to gender and education examines
relationships of inequality within a broad context, a symbolic approach allows researchers to
identify the ways in which status-quo gender relationships are both overtly and subtly recreated
and maintained through an examination of micro-level social interactions and gender symbolism
6
in the classroom. Social and cultural reproduction theories that view education as an institution
in which inequality is preserved and legitimated, rather than challenged, stem from the classroom
observations made by researchers using the symbolic-interactionist approach (Goetz and Grant
1988).
In light of the development of these conceptual approaches during the feminist movement
in the 1970s—as well as in response to new legislation, such as the Equal Educational
Opportunities Act and Title IX—a number of universities began to assess “their policies and
practices toward women primarily in terms of legal issues and requirements,” and then later
began to also “recognize the importance of the institutional atmosphere, environment or
climate—both within and outside the classroom—in fostering or impeding women students' full
personal, academic and professional development” (Hall and Sandler 1982:2). Post-secondary
institutions across the country conducted studies to “determine how adequately the institution as
a whole meets the need of its women students” (Hall and Sandler 1982:2). Researchers asked
female students questions relating to their experiences in the classroom, their relationships with
faculty and advisers, and the nature of their exchanges with students and faculty. Results from
these studies revealed that women's educational experiences significantly differed from those of
men, and that faculty attitudes and behavior were largely responsible for these differences. As a
result of these findings, a new social awareness began developing in academia concerning both
the subtle and overt ways female students experience biased behaviors in the classroom.
Within the context of these new studies, along with an understanding of social and
cultural reproduction theories in relation to classroom interactions, Hall and Sandler's
7
revolutionary 1982 chilly classroom climate report emerged. In “The Classroom Climate: A
Chilly One for Women?” Hall and Sandler use the phrase “chilly classroom climate” to describe
the multiple small inequities present in coeducational settings that collectively create a chilling
environment that puts women students at a significant educational disadvantage (1982). Through
an extensive review of “reports and surveys by individual researchers, campus groups, and
postsecondary institutions researchers,” and students' responses to a “Call for Information”
survey, Hall and Sandler conclude that gender greatly influences classroom behaviors and
interactions to an extent that is significantly detrimental to the education of women (Hall and
Sandler 1982:4). While the report acknowledges how students' expectations and behaviors can
influence classroom environments, Hall and Sandler largely examine the overt and subtle faculty
behaviors that contribute to differences in the educational experiences of male and female
students. In the report, Hall and Sandler cite a variety of systemic behaviors that disadvantage
female students in these environments, including professors calling on male students more often
than female students; the sexist use of language; professors asking male students more “higher
order” questions than female students; gender-based participation patterns; professors assuming a
posture of attentiveness when men speak, but the opposite when women make comments;
students and professors disproportionately interrupting women students; professors allowing
other students to interrupt female students more often than male students; and faculty counseling
women to lower their aspirations (1982).
Hall and Sandler's critical examination of professors' classroom behavior and its
relationship to the chilly climate stimulated a series of follow-up studies that sought to further
8
examine the extent to which instructor behaviors may aid in creating a classroom environment
that privileges male students by establishing patterns of interaction in the classroom that alienate
or dismiss female students (Constantinople, Cornelius and Gray 1988; Crawford and MacLeod
1990; Fassinger 1991; Krupnick 1985; Sadker and Sadker 1984). While some research data
support the existence of a chilly classroom climate (Canada and Pringle 1995; Fassinger 1991;
Krupnick 1985; Rosenfeld and Jarrard 1985; Sadker and Sadker 1984; Whitt et al.1999;
Williams1990), other studies fail to find evidence of a chilly climate in classrooms (Boersma et
al. 1981; Constantinople, Cornelius, and Gray 1988; Cranston 1989; Crawford and MacLeod
1990; Drew and Work 1998; Heller, Puff and Mills 1985). For example, Drew and Work's study,
involving over 15,000 student responses to the College Student Experiences Questionnaire, finds
no evidence that women currently experience a chilly classroom climate. In fact, Drew and Work
write that “women report enjoying experiences and gains from college equivalent to, or in many
cases exceeding, those of men” (1998:552), thereby leading the researchers to conclude that the
chilly classroom climate “does not exist extensively in higher education” (1998:552). However,
data from a longitudinal study conducted only a year later by Whitt et al. find moderate evidence
of a chilly climate. Furthermore, Whitt et al. also conclude that this climate "has a negative
impact by the end of the first year of college which continues and broadens" for undergraduate
female students (1999:175).
Inconsistencies in the chilly climate literature go beyond simply disagreement over the
extent to which female students experience bias in the classroom. Disagreement over the nature
and source of bias in classroom settings, as well as researchers' explanations for patterns of
9
behavior in the classroom vary considerably from study to study. For instance, while studies
assessing the chilly classroom climate overwhelmingly indicate that, overall, male students
participate significantly more often in classes than female students, a variety of different
explanations are given for this behavior (Constantinople et al. 1988; Crawford and MacLeod
1990; Crombie, Pyke and Silverthorn 2003; Fassigner 1995; Krupnick 1985).
One way many researchers have sought to explain differences in participation rates
among male and female students is by examining the relationship between teacher and student
sex. Fassigner's 1991 study provides evidence that a professor's sex does indeed have a
considerable impact on not only the participation rates of female students, but also on their selfperception and confidence level. Data from her study reveal that while female students' self
perception and confidence are significantly affected by a professor's gender—with female
students participating more often in classes led by female instructors—professor gender has only
a moderate impact on the self-perception and confidence of male students. According to her
study, “students with female professors perceived their professor to make fewer offensive
comments, be more approachable, provide more clear and positive feedback, and be more
supportive than did students in male professors' classes” (1995:89). Fassigner concludes that
higher participation rates among female students in classes led by same-sex professors is a result
of female students' greater sensitivity to the emotional climate of the classroom which leads them
to perceive an overall “warmer” emotional climate in classes led by female instructors. The
results from Fassinger's study are consistent with claims made in Hall and Sandler's report that
female students with same-sex professors may view the classroom environment as more inviting
10
and benign than classes led by male professors, and therefore feel more comfortable participating
in classroom discussion.
Krupnick's 1985 investigation concerning differences in men's and women's
communication patterns in the college classroom yields similar results. Like Fassinger,
Krupnick's study finds an association between professor's sex and level of students' participation
in the classroom. After reviewing videotapes from over twenty-four instructors at Harvard
College, Krupnick and her team report that female students “spoke almost three times longer
under instructors of their own sex than when they were in classes led by male instructors”
(1985:1). Furthermore, Krupnick finds that “in none of the demographic circumstances studied
did women students talk as much as men” (1985:2). Observed patterns in classroom behavior led
Krupnick to conclude that a professor's gender can have a considerable impact on the extent to
which male students monopolize classroom discussion. However, unlike Fassinger, Krupnick
attributes gendered patterns in participation rates mainly to patterns of interruptions, differences
in the conversational styles used by men and women, and classroom teaching techniques used by
instructors that allow the “creation of dominant and subordinate conversation groups” (p.3).
Contrary to the results of these investigations, other studies examining chilly climates in
post-secondary classrooms do not provide evidence of an association between sex of professor
and sex of student in classroom interactions (Boersma et al. 1981; Heller, Puff and Mills 1985;
Constantinople, Cornelius, and Gray 1988; Drew and Work 1998; Crawford and MacLeod
1990). In a study conducted by Crawford and MacLeod, results from a Student Perception
Questionnaire indicate that male students report significantly higher rates of participation,
11
significantly higher levels of interrupting, and significantly more and longer interactions with
their instructor than do female students (1990). Like Fassinger, Crawford and MacLeod conclude
that lower confidence among female students leads them to participate less than male students.
However, contrary to Fassinger, Crawford and MacLeod argue that the confidence levels of
female students bear no relationship to the sex of their instructor (1990). Rather, differences in
participation rates are a result of the different ways men and women are taught to attribute
meaning. According to the report, female students “fear the negative evaluations of teachers and
other students” and therefore “seem to feel that they need to know a great deal and be very
prepared before expressing ideas in class” (p.116). Male students, on the other hand, are “less
likely to refer to the judgments of others and less likely to reflect negatively on their own
abilities” (p.116).
In direct contrast to the results obtained in Fassinger's 1991 study, Boersma et al.'s
research finds a “cross-effect” in the classroom. Boersma et al.'s data—involving observations
from 50 undergraduate classes, as well as responses from both a student and teacher
questionnaire—reveal that female students participate in significantly more interactions in maletaught classes than male students, and that male students participate in more interactions in
female-taught classes than female students (1981). In addition, contrary to the chilly climate
hypothesis, results from their study indicate no significant difference by sex in a number of
classroom interactions. Not only this, but data from the questionnaire suggest that female
students are asked considerably more higher order, critical thinking questions than male students.
This study concludes that “data clearly do not support the conclusion of earlier studies that
12
differences in student questions and participation rates are related to the students' or teacher's
sex” (1981:783).
Crombie et al. (2003) and Constantinople et al.'s (1988) studies also yielded results
contrary to what would be predicted by the chilly classroom climate hypothesis. After analyzing
over 500 student responses to a 24-Item Classroom Experience Questionnaire, Crombie et al.
find that students' self-perceptions of their own participation are not influenced by the sex of
their professors. Similarly, drawing on observational data from nearly 50 undergraduate classes,
Constantinople and colleagues conclude that “in none of our analyses do we find evidence of sex
of instructor by sex of student interaction affects of the sort one would expect if Hall's argument
concerning the role of faculty members, particularly male ones, in discriminating against women
students were true” (Constantinople et al.1988:547-548).
In addition to examining professor sex and student sex as potential contextual factors
influencing gendered participation patterns in the classroom, numerous studies have investigated
a number other contextual factors to determine their influence on classroom climates. Crawford
and MacLeod's research at both a large university and small college finds that class size is the
greatest factor in determining student-teacher interactions, not student and teacher gender (1990).
The researchers conclude that “class size is significantly related to students' experience of
whether a particular course allows participation, whether . . . they can participate or assert their
opinions, and whether the teacher uses humor and language positively or offensively” (p.120).
Yet in their study, Crombie et al. insist there is no relationship between class size and
participation rates among students (2003). However, students’ responses to the 24-Item
13
Classroom Experience Questionnaire do indicate an association between class size and students'
perception of their professors. According to this research, students in smaller classes perceive
their professors more positively than those students in larger classes (Crombie et al. 2003).
Furthermore, in Constantinople et.al's 1988 study, the researchers conclude that
additional factors—other than class size and professor and student sex—help to explain
variations in student participation, including both the academic discipline of a course and time of
semester. In their report Constantinople et al. conclude that the “most robust and consistent
factor in influencing both student and instructor behaviors, one that tends to override the sex of
either, is the division of the curriculum in which a particular course exists” (1988:548).
However, other data in the study do indicate elements of a chilly climate. According to
Constantinople et al., male students receive more acknowledgment of their contributions in class
discussion and more elaboration of their remarks by professors than do females. This effect is
independent of instructor gender, discipline, course, or class size. Similarly, results from a threeyear longitudinal study involving observations from over 100 elementary school classrooms in
the Washington, D.C. area indicate that boys participate in more classroom interactions than
girls; boys receive more praise, acceptance, remediation and criticism from teachers; and boys
receive more intellectual interactions, conduct interactions, and “other” interactions than their
female counterparts (Sadker and Sadker 1984). In addition, like Krupnick, who notes that
gendered conversation styles often dictate classroom dynamics, the report also reveals that male
students tend to be more aggressive in initiating interactions or calling out responses, which
results in more teacher interactions (1985).
14
While limited research concerning classroom composition in terms of gender has been
conducted, some research indicates that the gender composition of a classroom can also
significantly impact rates of interaction among students and professors (Canada and Pringle
1995; Krupnick 1985). Data from a five-year longitudinal study of 109 college classrooms at a
recently coeducational institution indicate that the behaviors of female students, male students,
and female professors are strongly affected by the increasing presence of male students in mixedsex classrooms (Canada and Pringle 1995). Canada and Pringle conclude that the increasing
proportion of male students in mixed-sex classrooms is associated with an overall decrease in
professor-initiated interactions, student-initiated interactions, and female student-initiated
follow-up interactions, and with an overall increase in male student-initiated follow-up
interactions. Additionally, Krupnick also notes in her study that men are more likely to dominate
classroom discussions in courses led by male instructors and where the majority of students are
male (1985). However, inconsistencies still remain. In a study conducted by Crombie et al., the
researchers conclude that class composition in terms of gender has no significant impact on
students' perceptions of their behavior in the classroom (2003).
In addition to reported differences in participation patterns among students, a few
research investigations have also identified differences in language use among students as
contributing to a chilly climate (Sandler et al. 1996). In the article, “Sex Roles, Interruptions and
Silences in Conversations,” Zimmerman and West find that men disproportionally interrupt
others, especially women, in conversation, and that this pattern reflects a relationship of control
and dominance between men and women (1973). This pattern of men interrupting more often in
15
discussions is also documented in the chilly climate literature. Crombie, Pyke and Silverthorn
find that male students have significantly higher rates of interruption in the classroom in
comparison with female students (2003). Along with this, Krupnick also finds that women are
interrupted more often in the classroom than men. Interestingly, however, women in her study
were more often interrupted by other women, not men. This, as Krupnick notes, is due to the
tendency among female students to “speak less frequently, more briefly, and to overlap on one
another's comments” (1985:2). Regardless, Krupnick writes that “women prove to be extremely
vulnerable to interruption . . . and once interrupted, women sometimes stayed out of the
conversation for the remainder of the class hour” (p.2).
It is clear that disagreement among researchers assessing the chilly climate in college
classrooms remains. These inconsistencies in the literature are potentially largely due to the
methods of data collection used in chilly climate studies. In their study using both quantitative
and qualitative methods of data collection, Allan and Madden write that “methodological
differences in data collection could in part explain discrepancies among research findings related
to gender and classroom climates” (2003:687). Most investigations of classroom climates
employ only one method of data collection. Frequently, chilly climate studies use either student
surveys or classroom observations to determine the extent of chilly climates in college
classrooms. Allan and Madden propose that students may be unable to accurately identify more
subtle forms of classroom behavior that contribute to chilly climates, thereby possibly
influencing the results of studies that rely on student surveys (2003). On the other hand, those
studies that rely on classroom observations make themselves particularly vulnerable to observer
16
bias. In fact, an overview of the literature reveals that authors of studies using self-report
questionnaires find less evidence of gender bias in the classroom than authors of studies who use
behavioral observations in order to determine the extent of classroom climates (Brady and Eisler
1995). In addition, Allan and Madden's study of the classroom climate using both qualitative and
quantitative data via a self-report survey and focus groups, finds that data collection strategies do
indeed lead to different conclusions (2003). Allan and Madden write that “if conclusions were
drawn from frequency data alone, some researchers could assert that at least 25 percent of female
undergraduates . . . experience chilly classroom climates” (2003:702). However, drawing upon
qualitative data alone leads one to “conclude not only that chilly classroom climates persist but
also that the magnitude of the problem is quite disturbing” (p.702). Because different methods of
data collection potentially result in different conclusions concerning the extent of chilly climate
in college classrooms, it is important for investigators in future research to employ a mixedmethods approach in collecting data in order to achieve a more comprehensive and reliable
picture of the chilly classroom climate.
HYPOTHESES AND QUESTIONS
As a result of an extensive review of the chilly climate literature that suggests female
students are less likely to participate and use assertive methods of initiation in the classroom, as
well as that female students are more likely to experience less engagement from professors than
male students, I hypothesize that female students at Warren Wilson College experience
behaviors indicative of a chilly classroom climate in classrooms. In addition, in keeping with
17
Brady and Eisler’s (1995) and Allan and Madden’s (2003) assertions that different methods of
data collection yield different results, I expect to find that quantitative data collected from
classroom observations and qualitative data collected from focus groups provide the most
consistent evidence of a chilly classroom climate at Warren Wilson College. This study also
examines the extent to which female students at Warren Wilson College experience gendered
patterns of behavior in classroom interactions, the extent to which female students report
experiencing dimensions of the chilly classroom climate, and whether students perceive faculty
to treat students differently on the basis of gender.
METHODS
This research employs the use of focus group interviews, classroom observations, and a
student survey in order to examine the existence of a chilly classroom climate at Warren Wilson
College. Extant research identifies potential weaknesses in data collected using a single
approach; to address these, this study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods of data
collection to more accurately identify the presence of both subtle and overt behaviors that
contribute to a chilly classroom climate.
My research participants included students enrolled at Warren Wilson College in the
spring semester of 2011. The sampling frame used to select classes for observation and
distribution of the student survey was the spring 2011 course schedule. Simple random sampling
without replacement was employed to select my sample (n=12). Due to issues that precluded me
from effectively making classroom observations, the following were excluded from the pool of
18
eligible courses: (1) foreign language courses; (2) practical and applied courses, such as physical
education and art classes; (3) courses taught by more than one professor; (4) courses that met
only once a week; (5) courses that did not meet for 80 minutes; (6) courses with five or fewer
students; (7) fourth-term courses; (8) courses consisting of entirely female or male students; and
(9) courses that conflicted with my class schedule. As a result of these provisions, 113 classes
were eliminated from my sampling frame (n=171). In addition, courses taught by professors who
served on the 2010 Institutional Review Board were excluded from my sample due to the
introduction of potential demand characteristics.
Prior to beginning classroom observations, professors were notified via email that their
class had been randomly selected to participate in my study. This email (see Appendix A) asked
for their voluntary consent; outlined the nature of my study; and explained what their
participation would require, how confidentiality would be maintained, how data would be stored,
and how both myself and Laura Vance could be contacted regarding any questions, comments, or
concerns. A total of 24 professors were contacted during the first four weeks of the spring 2011
semester. Professors who failed to respond to the first email were sent up to two follow-up
emails. Due issues of time, if a professor failed to respond to a second follow-up email within
two days of the sent date, this was considered a nonverbal declination of participation. These
classes were omitted from my sampling frame and new classes were randomly selected in its
place. Of the 24 professors contacted during the first four weeks of the semester, four declined
participation, two failed to respond to a second follow-up email, and two had served on the 2010
IRB. In addition, one class exclusively consisted of female students and three classes conflicted
19
with my course schedule. For these reasons, all 12 of these classes were omitted from my
sample.
Prior to all data collection I obtained either written or verbal voluntary consent from all
research participants (see Appendixes A, C, and E). I informed all participants of who I am, the
nature of my study, that their participation is completely voluntary, what their participation
would require, how confidentiality would be maintained, how data would be stored, and how
both myself and Laura Vance could be contacted with questions or concerns. In order to ensure
confidentiality of all participants, I presented data in aggregate or such that no identifiable
information may be connected to any individual. In addition, all data were securely locked in my
room or entered into my password-locked computer.
After requesting and obtaining permission from faculty members, classroom observations
occurred during the first five weeks of the spring 2011 semester. Each class was observed for
one 80-minute class period. I arrived ten minutes early to each class and chose a seat where both
the professor and students could be observed. I spent these first ten minutes mapping the
classroom, specifying the location of the instructor and students, identifying each student on a
seating chart by number and gender, and recording both the total number of students present as
well as the gender composition of the class. Once this was completed, I began my systematic
observations. I observed each class for 60 minutes. In the remaining 20 minutes of class time, I
distributed my survey to all willing student participants.
My methods are designed to elicit the degree to which students experience particular
behaviors that contribute to a chilly classroom climate. All behaviors were analyzed based on
20
student gender. These behaviors include the level of teacher initiation, level of teacher ancillary
behavior, the type of instructor response, and student behavior and initiations. I used a modified
version of INTERSECT to record classroom interactions (Sadker, Sadker, Bauchner, and
Hardekopf 1984; see Appendix B). In addition, my instrument consists of coding categories for
both student and faculty behaviors. The coding categories used for student behaviors are as
follows: type of student initiation, to whom or what a student initiates a response, and length of
student's response.
Student initiations in the classroom were recorded as either raises hand, calls out,
interrupts, or other. The student initiation behavior “call out” occurs when a student speaks aloud
in class without instructor permission. “Interrupt” refers to any attempt a student makes to either
interject or stop another individual while he or she is speaking, thereby causing a discontinuance
or a break in the flow of conversation. “Other” occurs when a student initiates or expresses
desire to participate via nonverbal signifiers such as eye contact, a head nod, or a slight hand
gesture that indicates to a professor that he or she wishes to speak. In addition, the coding
category “to whom or what a student initiates a response” consists of four possible choices—
general, student, discussion, or question: “general” refers to initiatory comments that are directed
to the professor or the class as a whole, “student” refers to initiatory comments that are in direct
response to the comment of a fellow classmate, “discussion” refers to those initiatory comments
that are directly involved in an ongoing classroom discussion, and “question” refers to initiatory
comments that specifically respond to a question posed by the professor. Lastly, students’
21
responses were divided into five separate time intervals. These intervals range from 0-15
seconds, 16-30 seconds, 31-45 seconds, 46 seconds-1 minute, and 1 minute or longer.
In addition to student behaviors, instructor behaviors were also coded on my classroom
observation instrument. The coding categories used for instructor behaviors include: initiates a
response from a particular student (whereupon the gender of the student is recorded), group, or
class; and initiates response from student by a nod, hand, call, call out, or other. The instructor
behavior “call out” occurs when a professor verbally calls on a non-volunteering student, while
the instructor behavior “call” occurs when a professor verbally indicates to a volunteering
student that he or she has permission to speak. These faculty initiation behaviors were further
classified into low, moderate, and high initiation. Low-initiation behavior is when a professor
nods, signals with per hand, or calls on a student without saying the student’s name. Moderateinitiation behavior is when a teacher performs any combination of low-initiation behaviors, or
directly calls on a student by name. Lastly, high-initiation behavior is when a teacher calls on a
non-volunteering student.
In addition to faculty and student behaviors, seven evaluative teacher moves were coded
as well. They include praise, acceptance, remediation, criticism, expanding student comment,
rephrase/clarify student comment for class, and follow-up question. Both to whom the follow-up
question is directed (class or student), as well as whether or not the follow-up question is
considered a content or critical question are included on the observation instrument. For the
purpose of this research, the definition of praise refers to “explicit comments which positively
reinforce student performance (e.g. 'Excellent!' 'Great!')” (Sadker and Sadker 1984:11);
22
acceptance is “any brief, relatively contentless response by a instructor to a student behavior”
(e.g. “OK” “Uh-huh”)(Constantinople, Cornelius and Gray 1988:533); remediation refers to a
“constructive teacher comment, usually encouraging or cueing a more acceptable response” that
implies a “deficiency in student performance” (Sadker and Sadker 1984:12); and expanding
student comment refers to those “comments by an instructor, in response to a student comment,
that in some way rephrased or followed-up on what the student had said” (Constantinople et al.
1988:533). Ancillary teacher behavior is also coded for on my instrument. Ancillary teacher
behaviors include nodding, taking a step toward the student, eye contact, short circuit, and other.
Short circuit occurs when a teacher takes over a student’s task instead of allowing the student to
complete the task on per own. Short circuit behavior can either be physical or verbal. Similar to
professor initiation behavior, ancillary teacher behaviors were also broken down into low-,
moderate-, and high-ancillary engagement. Low-ancillary engagement refers to when a professor
only makes eye contact with a student while he or she is speaking. Moderate-ancillary
engagement refers to when a professor both nods and maintains eye contact with a student while
he or she is speaking, while high-ancillary engagement refers to when a professor either leans
forward or steps toward the student speaking. Lastly, class size and gender composition were
recorded on my instrument as well. Class sizes were divided among four categories: 5 students,
6-15 students, 16-25 students, and 26-35 students. In addition, the gender composition of classes
included largely male (80-100% of the class is male), moderately male (79-60% of the class is
male), even (59-40% of the class is male and female), moderately female (60-79% of the class is
female), and highly female (80-100% of the class is female).
23
Surveys were distributed to students in the last 20 minutes of those classes chosen for
observation. Faculty members were free to stay or leave the classroom. A voluntary consent
statement was read to all students describing the nature of my study, what their participation
would require, that their participation is completely voluntary, how confidentiality would be
maintained, that data would be presented in aggregate or such that no identifiable information
may be connected to any respondent, how data would be stored, and how both myself and Laura
Vance could be contacted with comments or concerns (see Appendix C). In addition, students
were directed to place their survey in the manila envelop located at the front of the room once
their survey was complete.
My survey instrument (see Appendix D) quantitatively measured students' perception of
the degree to which teachers and students engage in behaviors indicative of a chilly classroom
climate. More specifically, the student survey measured the extent to which students experienced
silencing behaviors, dismissing and demeaning comments about women, as well as other
discriminative classroom behaviors. The survey combined modified items from three separate
survey instruments. Items taken from the instrument used in Heller, Puff, and Mills (1985) were
originally presented in question form. In order to maintain uniformity in my survey, questions
were altered into statements. Items used in the “Student Perception Questionnaire” found in
Appendix B of the Hall and Sandler report, “Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?” ,
were also used in my instrument (1982). Items from this questionnaire were slightly altered to
include likert-scale responses. Lastly, items from the instrument used in Allan and Madden's
study were initially only created for female students (2006). These items were modified to
24
include male students as well. Questions concerning classroom behavior were designed using a
four-point likert scale that ranges from never to often. Different areas of classroom behavior
addressed in Hall and Sandler's report were assessed (1984). Some of these areas included
silencing behaviors, use of sexist language, stereotyping women, encouraging students, and
teacher responses to students. An example of an item that addressed silencing behaviors was, “I
feel pressure to avoid appearing intellectual.” Since one of the major concerns regarding subtle
sexism in the classroom involves the cumulative impact of micro-inequities on the confidence of
female students, three questions were included in the survey to measure possible differences in
the confidence of male and female students; the responses to these items ranged from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. Also, items concerning students' self-perception of their education
were included in the survey. These items were designed using a five-point likert scale that ranged
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. An example of one of these items was “I am confident
that Warren Wilson adequately prepares me for beginning a work career.”
Surveys were distributed to all students who had not taken the survey in a previous class.
Students who identified as female were asked at the end of each survey to indicate whether or
not are they were interested in participating in a focus group. A total of 12 female students
provided their name and email address and were contacted via email with available focus group
times. Those students who failed to respond to the first email within two days of the sent date
were sent a follow-up email. If students still failed to respond to a follow-up email, a message
was then sent to their campus mailbox. Seven of the twelve female students never responded to
either follow-up messages, while four female students were unable to attend a focus group due to
25
a conflict with their schedules. Consequently, a total of three female students were interviewed
(n=3).
In addition, purposive sampling was employed to select male focus group participants.
Male students were approached in Gladfelter cafeteria and asked if they would be interested in
participating in a focus group aimed at discussing issues relating to gender and the classroom. A
total of six focus groups with male students were conducted (n=10). At the beginning of all
focus groups, focus group participants were asked to sign a voluntary consent statement that
outlined the nature of my study, what their participation would required, how confidentiality
would be maintained, how data would be stored, as well as how both myself and Laura Vance
could be contacted with comments or concerns (see Appendix E). Focus groups lasted anywhere
from 15 to 35 minutes. Focus group participants were asked a variety of open-ended questions
regarding student and faculty behaviors, similar to those asked in the student self-perception
questionnaire (see Appendix F). Areas of the chilly classroom climate that were assessed in
focus groups included silencing behaviors, professors encouraging students, professors
dismissing and demeaning students, and other gendered patterns of student behavior such as
participation, interruptions, and length of student responses that create a discouraging and
uninviting learning environment for students. Student responses were tape recorded and
transcribed.
DATA ANALYSIS
Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS on all data collected from classroom
observations and the student survey. Data frequencies regarding student gender and classroom
26
behaviors were calculated to determine if there was an association between student gender and
certain chilly classroom behaviors. Data frequencies regarding the rate at which professors
engage in certain behaviors with male and female students were also calculated and analyzed to
determine if there was a relationship between the rate at which professors engage in certain
behaviors and student gender. In addition, frequencies demonstrating the rate at which male and
female professors engage in certain behaviors with male and female students were also
calculated to determine the possible presence of a chilly classroom climate. Frequencies
regarding professor gender, student gender, and the gender composition of the classroom were
also calculated to determine whether or not gender composition had any influence on classroom
dynamics. Lastly, Pearson’s Chi Square was calculated to determine the statistical significance
between multiple dimensions of the chilly classroom climate and student gender.
I began my analysis of qualitative data by identifying and describing patterns or themes
found in participants' responses. These patterns and themes were then used to help explain
quantitative results from both classroom observations and the student survey. In addition, these
patterns and themes were also used to determine whether or not they support or refute my
hypotheses. In order to identify the extent and dimensions of the chilly classroom climate at
Warren Wilson College, data were continually reviewed and analyzed for new themes and
connections. In addition, data were coded into four different categories to indicate the degree to
which the chilly classroom climate exists at Warren Wilson College. These categories included
students' perception of the classroom climate, professors' encouragement of students, professors'
27
dismissing and discouraging behaviors, and gendered patterns of behavior in the classroom. All
focus group discussions were tape recorded and transcribed prior to data analysis.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
For classroom observations, systematic random sampling resulted in a sample of eight
classes led by female instructors and four classes led by male instructors. Thirty-three percent of
students observed were male (n=61), and 67 percent were female (n=117). In classes led by male
instructors, 40 percent of those in attendance were male (n=29) and 60 percent were female
(n=44), while in classes led by female instructors, 30 percent were male (n=32) and 70 percent
were female (n=73). The number of students in attendance ranged from 5 to 28 students (two
classes had 5 students, five classes had 6-15, three classes had 16-25, and one class had 28
students). In addition, the gender composition among sample classes varied (two classes were
largely female, five were moderately female, three were even, and one was largely male). Due to
my inability to correctly determine the gender identity of individual students during classroom
observations, I recorded the gender of each student as either only male or female. However, the
survey portion of this research allowed students the opportunity to identify with a gender outside
the male/female binary.
The resulting survey sample consisted of 178 undergraduate students (survey response
rate= 93%, n=153). Incomplete surveys are included in my analysis due to the study’s already
relatively small sample size (and missing data are recorded). As a result, the total number of
responses to each survey item range from 157 to 166 responses. Thirty-five percent of survey
28
respondents identify as male (n=58), 60 percent identify as female (n=100), 2 percent identify as
Trans (n=4), and 2 percent do not identify as male, female or Trans (n=3). Thirty-one percent of
all survey participants (n=51) responded to the open-ended questions located at the end of the
survey. In addition, qualitative data were collected from seven focus groups. A total of 10 male
and 3 female students were interviewed as part of this study.
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION DATA: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This study explores data from classroom observations, student surveys, and focus groups
in order to determine whether different methods of data collection influence results of chilly
classroom climate studies. Data from classroom observations provide the most consistent
evidence of a chilly classroom climate at Warren Wilson College. While classroom observation
data suggest female students experience dimensions of the chilly classroom climate, none of
these findings is statistically significant. Despite this, observation data indicate male and female
students experience considerable differences not only in their level of engagement with
professors, but also in their rates of participation relative to classroom gender composition.
Teacher behavior in the classroom is fundamental in creating an encouraging and
inclusive environment for both male and female students (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall 1996).
Whether and how a professor chooses to initiate a response from a student and the level of
engagement can influence students’ confidence in the classroom, how they perceive their
intellectual abilities, and their overall willingness to participate in class. Overall, classroom data
indicate professors are more likely to participate in higher levels of engagement in both their
initiations and responses with male students than with female students. For instance, while
29
results from classroom observation data indicate no statistically significant relationship between
the level of teacher initiation and student gender, data frequencies suggest professors are more
likely to engage in low-initiation behaviors with females than males when calling upon students
in class (see Figure 1). Forty-three percent of all teacher initiations with female students are lowinitiation (n=43), compared with 31 percent of all teacher initiations with male students (n=16).
In addition, data suggest professors are more likely to call on male students by name and use
multiple forms of initiative behaviors when requesting responses from volunteering male
students. According to the data, while professors are more likely to engage in low- (43%, n=43)
than in moderate-initiation behaviors (23%, n=24) with female students, professors are equally
likely to engage in low- (31%, n=16) and moderate-initiation behaviors (32%, n=16) with male
students. However, contrary to the chilly classroom climate theory, data indicate professors
engage in the same proportion (37%) of high-initiation behaviors with male (n=19) and female
students (n=39). Taken in total, these data are generally consistent with Hall and Sandler's
assertion that faculty are more likely to call on male students by name and that male students
generally receive greater attention and encouragement in the classroom than female students
(1982). Though these data do not indicate a strong relationship between level of professor
initiation and student gender, slight differences in the level of professor initiation with male and
female students can be interpreted as encouraging greater participation among male students in
the classroom.
Interestingly, data indicate a cross-sex relationship among professor gender, student
gender, and level of teacher initiation (see Figures 2 and 3). In other words, male professors
30
more actively encourage responses from female students, while female professors more actively
encourage responses from male students in the classroom. According to the data, female
professors are more likely to engage in both moderate- (27%, n=9) and high-initiation behaviors
(58%, n=18) with male students than with female students (22%, n=18 and 43%, n=36,
respectively). Moreover, female professors are more likely to engage in low-initiation behaviors
with female (35%, n=29) than male students (18%, n=6). In addition, male professors are more
likely to participate in high-initiation behaviors with female students (13%, n=3) than with male
students in their classroom (5%, n=1). Whereas a cross-sex relationship between professor
gender and student gender with regard to participation rates among students has been
documented in classroom observations conducted by Boersma et al., chilly classroom studies
have yet to observe a cross-sex relationship among professor gender, student gender, and level of
teacher initiation (1981). In addition, other chilly classroom climate studies suggest female
students generally perceive classrooms led by female instructors as more encouraging and
benign, yet these data suggest that, contrary to female students' perceptions, female professors
create classroom environments that are generally more supportive of male students (Hall and
Sandler 1982; Fassigner 1991; see below).
One intriguing finding of this research involves the influence of gender composition on
the level of female professors' initiations with male and female students. While chilly classroom
studies assessing the influence of gender composition on classroom behaviors primarily examine
differences in professor-initiated interactions, student-initiated interactions, and student-followup interactions, the influence of gender composition on the level of professor initiations has not
31
been investigated (Canada and Pringle 1995; Crombie et al. 2003; Krupnick 1985). According to
the data, in both moderately- and highly-female classes taught by female professors, professors
engage in a significantly larger portion of high-initiation behaviors with male students (see
Figures 4 and 5). For instance, in moderately-female classes, 100 percent of all female
professors’ initiations with male students (n=9) are high, compared with only 68 percent of
initiations with female students (n=3). Furthermore, while the majority of female professors’
initiations with male students in highly-female classes were high (67%, n=3), female professors
do not engage in any high-initiation behaviors with female students (n=0) in these classes.
Overall, female professors do not engage in any low-initiation behaviors with male students in
moderately- and highly-female classes.
Data that suggest female professors engage in more high-initiation behaviors with male
students in moderately- and highly-female classes could be explained by Crawford and
MacLeod's assertion that female instructors generally “seem more attuned to the interpersonal
aspects of teaching and more sensitive to group dynamics” than male instructors (1990:121).
Along with this, female professors may be more aware of the potential influence gender
composition of a classroom has on students. As such, female professors may engage in higher
levels of initiation with male students in order to ensure male students do not feel dismissed or
neglected in classroom environments where male students can easily feel outnumbered.
While female professors appear to overcompensate for the lack of male students in
moderately- and highly-female classes by more actively encouraging responses from male
students, it does not appear that male professors participate in this same behavior (see Figure 6).
32
Contrary to data collected on female professors in moderately-female classrooms, male
instructors in moderately-female classes are more likely to engage in high-initiation behaviors
with female students (33%, n=22). Moreover, while the majority of female professors’ initiations
with male students in moderately-female classrooms are high, male professors do not engage in
any high-initiation behaviors with male students (n=0) in moderately-female classes. In addition,
female professors in even classes are more likely to participate in high-initiation behavior with
female students (68%, n=16) than with male students (41%, n=7) (see Figure 7). Other than
these two instances, both male and female professors are more likely to engage in high-initiation
behaviors with male students than with female students regardless of the gender composition of a
class. While differences in the level of professor initiations and student sex are by no means
overwhelming, faculty members’ tendency to engage in lower levels of initiation with female
students lends some support to a chilly classroom climate.
In addition to differences in level of professor initiation, data also indicate differences in
professors' responses to student comments. According to the data, faculty are slightly more likely
to praise and correct male students than female students (see Figure 8). Five percent of
professors’ responses to male students are praise (n=10), compared to 2 percent of responses to
female students (n=4), and 6 percent of professors' responses to male students are remediation
(n=12), compared to 3 percent of responses to female students (n=8). Moreover, data indicate
professors are more likely to not respond to female students’ comments (6%, n=12) than male
students’ (3%, n=6), and are slightly more likely to accept female students’ responses (90%,
n=236) than male students’ (85%, n=157). Compared to Sadker and Sadker's conclusion that
33
male elementary students receive more praise, remediation, and criticism from instructors, data
from this study indicate a similar, yet less pervasive trend in college classrooms (1984). Overall,
data suggest professors are somewhat more likely to engage with male students in the classroom,
thereby providing some evidence of a chilly classroom climate.
Data indicate that other professor behaviors identified as potential contributors to chilly
classroom climate provide no evidence of a chilly classroom climate. Contrary to Hall and
Sandler's assertion that male students generally receive more attentive behavior from faculty,
data indicate male and female students receive comparable levels of ancillary engagement from
professors, with professors participating in only slightly higher levels of ancillary engagement
with male students (see Figure 9). For instance, nine percent of professors' interactions with
males (n=23) and five percent of professors' interactions with female are high-ancillary
engagement (n=17); and two percent of professors' interactions with males (n=5) and less than
one percent of professors' interactions with female students are short circuit (n=3). However, the
data do indicate a statistically significant relationship (p=.000) between professor gender and
level of ancillary engagement. According to the data, female professors are more likely to engage
in moderate-ancillary engagement (37%, n=144) than male professors (11%, n=23), while male
professors are more likely to engage in all other levels of ancillary engagement than female
professors (see Figure 10). Evidence from survey research conducted by Crawford and MacLeod
reveals female professors are perceived by students as more likely to engage with their students
and create a classroom environment that encourages participation, yet results from this study
34
regarding professor ancillary behavior indicate this is not overwhelmingly true in this sample of
classes (1990).
Once again, classroom observation data indicate a cross-sex relationship between female
professors and male students. While female professors are equally likely to participate in no
ancillary engagement (1%, n=2) and moderate-ancillary engagement with male (56%, n=95 )
and female students (56%, n=125), data indicate female professors are slightly more likely to
engage in high-ancillary (9%, n=15) and short circuit (2%, n=4) behaviors with male students
than with female students (2%, n=2 and less than 1%, n=1 respectively) (see Figure 11). These
data, as well as data pertaining to level of teacher initiation and student gender, indicate female
professors are generally more likely to engage with male students than female students in the
classroom. Interestingly, however, it does not appear that this same cross-sex effect exists as
strongly between male professors and female students (see Figure 12). As noted above, the
unique gender composition of the college, in conjunction with female professors' greater
sensitivity to classroom dynamics, may potentially create an environment where female
professors' more actively encourage participation from male students in the classroom. As
indicated by Hall and Sandler, faculty behaviors such as intonation, nodding, gesturing, eye
contact, and positioning in the classroom can generate environments where male students are
consistently recognized and encouraged to participate in class (1982).
Overall, data regarding student interactions in the classroom indicate no consistent
gendered patterns of student behaviors that contribute to a chilly classroom climate. For instance,
though female students generally initiate participation in the classroom more often than male
35
students, male students initiate participation more often relative to the number of men in the
sample (see Figure 13). More specifically, whereas male students comprise only 33 percent of
my sample (n=61), they constitute 43 percent of the total student-initiated interactions (n=236).
Female students, on the other hand, make up 67 percent of my sample (n=217); but constitute
only 57 percent of all student-initiated interactions (n=338).
Consistent with data from this research that suggest a cross-sex relationship between
female professors and male students, male students are more likely to initiate participation in
female-taught classes at a rate that exceeds their representation in these classes (see Figure 14).
For instance, in female-taught classes, male students are responsible for 45 percent of total
student initiations (n=153), but represent only 30 percent of the students in female-led classes. In
addition, while female students participate in 55 percent of the total student initiations in femaleinstructed classes (n=185), they comprise 70 percent of the students in these classes. On the
other hand, in classrooms led by male professors the percentage of male (39%, n=83) and female
student initiations (61%, n=129) are reflective of the proportion of male (40%, n=29) to female
(60%, n=44) students in these classrooms (see Figure 15). Results from this research are similar
to those obtained in Boersma et al's study that found male students interacted more with
professors in female-taught classes (1982). Just as Hall and Sandler suggest that professor
behaviors can largely shape participation dynamics in the classroom, the tendency for female
professors to participate in higher levels of engagement with male students could partially
explain male students' greater participation rates in these classes (1982).
36
In addition to student gender and initiation behaviors, classroom data suggest there is no
significant relationship between length of student response and student gender. However,
contrary to what the chilly classroom climate suggests, female students’ responses are generally
longer than male students' (see Figure 16). For instance, while 21 percent of female responses
range between 16 and 30 seconds (n=64), only 12 percent of male students' responses range
between 16 and 30 seconds (n=28). Similar to Krupnick's 1985 study at Harvard College—that
found female students spoke nearly three times longer in classes taught by female professors—
female students in this study are slightly more likely to speak at greater length under instructors
of their own sex in all classes except for the single highly-female class (see Figure 17). For
example, in female-instructed classes less than one percent of male responses (n=1) and three
percent of female responses (n=6) range between 46 seconds to 1 minute, and three percent of
male (n=5) and six percent of female responses (n=11) last for more than 1 minute (see Figure
18). In accordance with what the chilly classroom climate literature suggests, these data indicate
female students may feel more comfortable speaking in classrooms led by same-sex faculty.
Lastly, classroom observation data concerning student gender and students’ initiation
behaviors do not lend support to the chilly classroom climate hypothesis. While Krupnick
concludes that male students are significantly more likely to interrupt in the classroom than
female students, data do not indicate a strong relationship between student gender and rate of
interruption (see Figure 19). According to the data, male students initiate 13 percent of their
interactions in the classroom by raising their hand (n=31), 78 percent by calling out (n=184), 7
percent by interrupting (n=17), and 2 percent by using other nonverbal forms of initiative
37
behavior. Similarly, female students initiate 12 percent by raising their hand (n=38), 76 percent
by calling out (n=34), 2 percent by interrupting (n=6), and 10 percent by using other nonverbal
forms of initiative behavior. Though these data suggest male students are more likely to interrupt
and female students are more likely to use nonverbal forms of initiation, these differences are
slight; therefore no definitive conclusions regarding student gender and initiation behavior can be
made.
SURVEY DATA: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Consistent with Brady and Eisler's observation that authors who utilize self-report
measures report less evidence of gender bias in the classroom than authors who employ
behavioral methods of assessment, survey data from this study generally provide less evidence,
with minor exceptions, in support of a chilly classroom climate than do classroom observation
data (1995). Furthermore, similar to other self-report studies, survey data suggest the chilly
classroom climate is not an issue of primary concern for respondents (Crawford and MacLeod
1990; Drew and Work 1998; Heller et al. 1985). Survey data regarding professor behaviors that
were not measured in classroom observations lend little support to the chilly classroom climate
hypothesis. Contrary to Hall and Sandler's research, the majority of students do not experience
disparaging remarks about women’s role and interests by professors, nor do students feel they
are treated more harshly or unfairly than others (see Figure 20 and Figure 21). In addition, 50
percent of students (n=80) report they never experience instructors using humor or making
humorous references that are offensive, embarrassing, or belittling to any individuals or students
(see Figure 22). These data suggest that while few students experience discriminative professor
38
behaviors in the classroom, students overwhelming report they do not experience behaviors that
are indicative of a chilly classroom climate.
While classroom observation data indicate professors participate in higher levels of
engagement with male students, student responses indicate no significant differences in
professors' level of interaction with male and female students. In fact, much of the survey data
indicate female students perceive equal or slightly more encouragement from professors than
male students, and where some of the larger discrepancies in male and female responses exist, it
appears male students perceive themselves to receive less encouragement from professors. For
example, while classroom observation data regarding professor behavior suggest professors are
more likely to encourage male students and call on male students by name in the classroom,
student responses indicate the contrary. According to survey data, female students are equally
likely to report they are called upon by name in the classroom (90%, n=90) as male students
(87%, n=49), and the majority of both male (80%, n=45) and female students (74%, n=72)
report professors never encourage men more than women in the classroom (see Figure 23 and
Figure 24). In addition, while classroom observation data also indicate professors are slightly
more likely to engage in higher levels of ancillary behavior with men in the classroom, students'
responses regarding professor encouragement indicate no significant variation between male and
female students' responses (see Figure 25). These responses suggest professors generally provide
equally encouraging environments for both male and female students. Given the discrepancies
between classroom observation and survey data with regard to professor interactions, it appears
data collection and methods of analysis do result in different evidence of the chilly classroom
39
climate, with survey data indicating less support for a chilly classroom climate than classroom
observation data.
Additional survey data regarding professor behaviors that contribute to a chilly climate
provide no evidence of gender discrimination against women in the classroom, rather survey data
suggest male respondents experience or perceive more gender bias in the classroom than female
respondents. For instance, female students are more likely to report that professors never
interrupt them in class (25%, n=26) than male students (19%, n=11), and are more likely to
report that they are often called upon when they volunteer in class (73%, n=72) than male
respondents (65%, n=37) (see Figures 26 and 27). In addition—contrary to what one would
expect from classroom observation data that indicate professors more often interact with male
students in a manner that suggests they have higher academic expectations of male students than
female students—male students report receiving less overall academic encouragement from
professors (see Figures 28, 29, 30). For example, female respondents are more likely to report
that professors never question their seriousness or commitment to their academic goals, as well
as are more likely to strongly disagree that professors treat them as if they have limited
intellectual ability.
The inconsistency in observation data vis-á-vis survey data may result from female
students' difficulty in recognizing gender bias in the classroom. Just as Allan and Madden (2006)
write that to “[acknowledge] the reality of sexism can be deeply troubling, as it requires
reframing one's worldview,” this process may be particularly troubling for Warren Wilson
students. Given Warren Wilson's stated dedication to gender equity on campus—as exemplified
40
through community meetings, the school's non-discrimination policy, and campus organizations
such as Empower and RISE—female students' recognition of sexism in the classroom may force
them to reconceptualize their view of Warren Wilson College. In addition, the gender
composition of classrooms may influence male and female students' perception of gender bias.
Whereas in many of the classes at Warren Wilson College women outnumber men, female
students may generally perceive a more encouraging environment because they feel more
comfortable in classes that primarily consist of female students, while male students may
perceive more gender bias simply because they are outnumbered.
While Hall and Sandler argue that the amount of encouragement students receive in the
classroom significantly impacts the way students view their academic capabilities, survey data
indicate no such relationship. Despite classroom observation data that suggest male students
generally receive more encouragement and higher levels of engagement from professors,
students' responses to the statement “I am confident in my academic abilities,” reveal no
significant variation in the academic confidence of male and female students (see Figure 31)..
However, data do suggest that female students are slightly more likely to feel that Warren
Wilson College does not adequately prepare them for life outside of the institution than male
students (see Figures 32 and 33).
In keeping with classroom observation data, survey data do not indicate a strong presence
of gendered patterns of student behavior in the classroom. According to the data, 43 percent of
students (n=69) report men rarely take over leadership in small groups (see Figure 34).
Interestingly, however, when taking student gender into account, survey data indicate a
41
statistically significant relationship (p=.000) between student gender and how often males take
over leadership in small groups. Male students are considerably more likely to report that men
often (7%, n=4) and sometimes (52%, n=29) take over leadership in small groups than female
students (2%, n=2, 22%, n=22 respectively) (see Figure 35). A campus environment that
encourages discussion of sexism and greater sensitivity to issues pertaining to gender may in part
explain why men more often report that they take over leadership in small groups.
Once again, similar to classroom observation data, male and female responses to items
measuring “chilly” student behaviors indicate no significant relationship between student gender
and the rate of one’s experience with student behaviors that contribute to a chilly climate. Male
and female students are relatively similar in their responses to the items “students ignore my
input and ideas” and “I am squeezed out of hands-on activities” (see Figures 37 and 37).
However, male students are more likely to report they are never squeezed out of hands-on
activities (62%, n=34) than female students (57%, n=54). These data lend some support to Hall
and Sandler's argument that male students tend to assert more control in small group settings
which may potentially discourage female students from participating. In addition, while the
majority of male (57%, n=33) and 48 percent female respondents (n=47) report they are rarely
interrupted by other students in classes, female respondents are more likely to report they are
sometimes (38%, n=38) interrupted by other students in the class than male students (30%,
n=17) (see Figure 38). These data are consistent with chilly classroom climate studies that
indicate female students experience higher rates of interruption in the classroom than male
students (Hall and Sandler 1985; Krupnick 1985).
42
In accordance with classroom observation data that suggest female students speak at
greater length and generally initiate participation more often than male students, survey data
indicate women are more likely to take up time in class than men (see Figures 39 and 40).
According to the data, 45 percent of male (n=24) and 47 percent of female respondents (n=24)
report men never take up more time in the classroom, while 37 percent of males (n=20) and 30
percent of females (n=29) report women never take up more time in class. Moreover, male and
female respondents are more likely to report women often take up more time in class than men
(see Figure 40). Qualitative data suggest that these responses do not necessarily indicate female
students are more assertive and demanding in the classroom, but rather that the disproportionate
number of female students in classrooms creates a space where female students are perceived as
speaking more often simply because there are more female than male students in many classes
(see below).
QUALITATIVE DATA: DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Focus group data and responses to open-ended questions variously support and refute
dimensions the chilly classroom hypothesis. Regardless of inconsistencies in qualitative findings,
data from focus groups and open-ended questions expand on quantitative findings and provide
more depth and detail in understanding students' experiences with dimensions of the chilly
classroom climate. Qualitative data regarding professor behavior for the most part support the
data obtained from classroom observations. For instance, similar to observation data that suggest
female professors are more likely to encourage participation from male students in the
43
classroom, male focus group participants report they generally feel more encouraged to
participate in female-led classes.
During one focus group, a male student said, “I feel like I get less discouraging behavior
from female professors on campus than I do from the male professors on campus.” Other males
in the focus groups expressed agreement with this statement. As with instances where female
professors work to ensure that male students feel encouraged and included in classrooms in
which the majority of students are female, female professors may engage in similar behaviors
with quiet students as well. One male participant describes how a female professor similarly
interacts with timid students and male students in a classroom where men are outnumbered by
women:
She doesn’t necessarily jump on top of a guy who might be talking or finishing
up what they’re saying for them. Often I think it’s because she doesn’t hear often
from them. And it’s also for quiet students, some girls don’t speak that much so,
if they’re all of a sudden speaking up, she won’t try to cut off their statement or
something like that. But those who talk quite often, she’ll just finish it for them
and move on.
Both this student comment and classroom observation data suggest that female professors
are more sensitive to the ways in which the gender composition of a classroom can potentially
create an environment where certain students feel excluded. However, female professors'
tendency to engage and encourage men more often than women may have implications for
female students who may consequently feel ignored and discouraged in the classroom. To
44
illustrate this point, one female focus group participant describes how a female professor
consistently encourages participation from male students in the classroom:
I've noticed in my [omitted] class that the professor, like she'll gravitate, like
when she's moving around up front, she'll like gravitate towards the side of the
room where these people [male students] sit the most. And it's like, that just
doesn't do anything except for the people who don't talk, not want to talk more.
Though survey data suggest professors generally do not engage in behaviors that create a hostile
environment for students, an examination of qualitative data reveals conflicting results.
According to female responses to open-ended questions, some female students report
experiencing offensive and uncomfortable comments by professors. For example, female
respondents write:
I had a [omitted] teacher who would print pictures, such as people in 'mom jeans,'
for us to talk about and practice our [omitted], but it just felt derogatory.
I've had professors make jokes involving matters of sex that I felt were extremely
inappropriate and offensive.
I've experienced instances where a professor will make a comment that could be
perceived as sexist and then follow with a disclaimer: ‘that's not sexist’ (or
something like that).
In addition, one male respondent insists that though professors may engage in hostile
humor, this is not a serious issue. According to his response, “any offensive remarks are usually
45
only jokes and it is made clear that they are just humorous remarks.” Still, other individuals
maintain professors create classroom environments that are overwhelmingly inviting and
inclusive for all students. For instance, respondents write:
So far, every professor I've had here has been fair and politically
correct.
Teachers are generally open to whatever students have to say and may say they
are not correct but not in a belittling manner.
Warren Wilson professors are extremely sensitive to race and gender issues—
they would never purposefully offend.
So far, every professor I've had here has been fair and politically correct.
In addition, students indicate that academic discipline may influence the degree to which
students experience hostile or sexist behaviors from professors. To illustrate this, one female
respondent writes, “my educational experience at WWC has been largely based in the social
sciences. I think social science professors are more aware of dynamics about male and female
students in the classroom,” while another individual responds, “yes—most GDS and SOC
professors know about sexism and power dynamics. The [omitted] department is particularly
clueless in its male-bodied preference.”
46
Student responses to open-ended questions suggest professors do participate in other
behaviors characteristic of a chilly classroom climate. One such behavior involves attributing
those comment made by female students to someone else. For example, one female student
writes, “it's a huge pet peeve of mine when I contribute something to discussion that goes
unnoticed until another student repeats it and take credit for it.” Furthermore, two female
respondents report they experience professor interruption in class. According to these responses:
I have definitely had professors interrupt me and other students.
I've had teachers cut me off because they disagree or I am disagreeing with them.
While classroom data indicate professors are responsible for more “chilly” behaviors than
students, qualitative data suggest student behaviors are equally important in controlling the
climate of classrooms and their interactions with professors. The following female student
comment indicates that when professors engage more with male students, this is primarily due to
the behavior on behalf of male students and not professors. According to this student's response,
“I feel like when teachers give space to male over female students in class it's because the male
student demands it.” In accordance with observation data that find male students are slightly
more like to interrupt in the classroom, when asked if he noticed any gendered patterns of
behavior in the classroom, one male focus group participant offered this response:
47
I haven’t seen the pattern myself. I have noticed that there have been both men
and women who dominate discussion. One thing I will say, though, is that I have
noticed that men are more prone to interrupt, or to not raise their hand and just
speak up, whereas, I noticed women are more civil.
In keeping with quantitative data that indicate female students generally initiate
participation in the classroom more often than male students, but that male students initiate
participation more often relative to the number of men in a classroom, qualitative data suggest a
similar trend. However, according to students' responses in focus groups and to open-ended
questions, greater participation among female students is not a result of more assertive behaviors
on behalf of female students. Rather an examination of the qualitative data suggests that the
larger proportion of female students in classes at Warren Wilson College may be responsible for
the greater number of female student-initiated interactions. To illustrate this point, in response to
open-ended questions located in the survey, students wrote:
My classes are pretty female heavy, so women do take up more time.
I have noticed the female and male ratio of several classes was unbalanced thus
creating a space where females interact/lead discussions more.
My classes have often been female majority and so have most discussions—I
don't mind it, it is probably a result of the demographic backgrounds and history
of men and women who chose to come to a school like this.
48
In addition, one focus group participant observed a similar situation with regard to male and
female participation rates in the classroom. When asked if certain students tend to dominate class
discussion, this male focus group respondent reports:
I would say it’s slightly slanted towards females, but again, I would say that’s
because there’s more females. But yeah, no real distinctions/characteristics, not
gender certainly.
Conversely, when asked if she noticed any gendered patterns of behavior in the
classroom, one female focus group participant responded that female students tend to speak more
often in the classroom; however, she implies this is due to the overall personality of female
students at the college, rather than the number of women. According to this participant:
I would say that it’s mostly women that speak up in all my classes. And in the one
class where there are two guys, actually, strangely enough, one of the guys is one
of the ones that tends to speak up as well. So, you know, maybe just feeling like
[you are] the only one carrying the torch. But for the most part, I find it’s mostly
dominated by opinionated women, in most cases.
On the other hand, while qualitative data suggest that the disparate number of female
students on campus and in the classroom are partly responsible for higher participation rates
among women, one female focus group participant reports that male students more often
dominant class discussion. According to this student:
49
I have noticed in my classes that the people who talk the most—like in all my
classes, there are like two or three people that usually speak the most—and most
of them are men.
While classroom data indicate that gender composition does not influence initiation rates for
either male or female students, one student suggests that the gender composition of a classroom
is the most influential factor in determining a classroom climate. Despite his familiarity with the
class material, this male participant discusses how his willingness to participate in class is
sometimes inhibited by class composition. According to this male participant:
It’s a numbers game. I’ve been in classes where I think I was the only male and
that’s, whether subconscious or not, that was a [omitted] class so there’s nothing
that would have prevented me otherwise, but it’s still somewhat, I guess I
wouldn’t say uncomfortable because it wasn’t, but it was just a different dynamic.
I don’t know, I may feel subconsciously intimidated.
However, other male participants indicate the gender composition of a classroom bears no
influence on their participation in classes. According to one male participant:
We’re all students here and I don’t really care about what gender they are. It’s still
about the dynamic of a classroom.
Another male participant was more adamant in his response:
50
I don’t think the disproportionate numbers affect my participation. No, I always
feel comfortable participating in class, as long as I have something actually
meaningful to say.
Lastly, qualitative data regarding how male students interpret the climate of the school and how
this influences their behavior in the classroom can provide some insight into quantitative data
that indicate men are more likely to report that they take over leadership in small groups. One
male focus group respondent referred to the Warren Wilson campus as “really focused on
equality and things” in order to explain how men negotiate their participation in the classroom. In
addition, some male focus group participants reported they often make a conscious effort to
avoid dominating classroom discussions and appearing overly assertive to female students.
According to one male participant:
There are moments when I do hold back a little, and specifically it has been
happening this semester. I’ve been taking [omitted] and I’m also the only guy
there. So I definitely don’t want to dominate the conversation for two reasons,
because [I’m already familiar with the material] and I guess I want to give the
other girls an opportunity to practice [omitted], and also I don’t want it to seem
I’m dominating the discussion.
Another male participant expressed similar concerns:
I’d say there have definitely been times in class where I think, “Am I talking too
much?” There’s a sense of judgment going on, that if you’re a guy and you talk a
lot and you’re the only guy in class there’s a sense of “I spoke a lot” and it stood
out a lot that I spoke often, especially because I was one of the only two males in
the class.
51
These responses suggest that Warren Wilson College's commitment to gender equity may
in part influence how male students participate in the classroom. However, while these
qualitative data suggest male students are generally sensitive toward issues pertaining to
gender and are aware of their role in creating an inviting classroom environment, these
sentiments are not shared by all male students. Rather, qualitative data indicate that some
stereotypical views of females persist. According to one male focus group participant:
I think that Warren Wilson draws a certain female-bodied individual. The
stereotypical Warren Wilson female is going to be assertive, lesbian, pushy, kind
of “that woman,” very feminist, very strong. And so I think that may be
intimidating for men, just a bit, if not the fact that more so that population is
willing to stand up for itself and assert itself.
Overall, qualitative data provide conflicting results regarding the extent to which the
chilly classroom climate exists at Warren Wilson College. While a portion of the qualitative data
are in keeping with quantitative findings, survey data generally provide a more nuanced picture
of the chilly classroom climate at Warren Wilson College. While quantitative data at times
provide little evidence in support of the classroom climate, qualitative responses indicate that
some female students do indeed experience instances of discriminative or hostile behavior,
particularly with regard to faculty behaviors. Perhaps the most consistent theme in the qualitative
data is students' reference to how both the gender composition of the student body and the
52
school's dedication to issues pertaining to gender equity are central in defining and shaping their
classroom experience at Warren Wilson College.
CONCLUSIONS
The question of method is an important one when assessing the extent of chilly climates
in classrooms. Consistent with Brady and Eisler's assertion that behavioral methods of data
collection result in more evidence in support of a chilly classroom climate, classroom
observation data from this study indicate a greater presence of chilly classroom behaviors than
self-report student surveys (1995). Just as Sandler and Hall argue that these gendered patterns of
behavior are often difficult to recognize because of the subtle nature of these biases, students
responses to open-ended questions indicate this same concern (1982). For example, students
wrote:
I've never experienced anything that was mentioned in the above questions but
maybe I just didn't notice it.
I don't usually think about these things so it's possible that it happens and I don't
notice.
Allan and Madden also assert that gender schemas may in part explain the difficulty students
have in identifying chilly behaviors in their classroom (2006). Gender schemas, or the
“normalization of differential treatment on the basis of gender,” can make the process of
53
recognizing and reporting gender bias in the classroom through the use of self-report student
surveys inaccurate (Allan and Madden 2006:703).
In addition, qualitative data from focus groups and open-ended questions provide a more
complex picture of the chilly classroom climate at Warren Wilson College. While some
qualitative data indicate a strong presence of certain chilly behaviors, other student responses
suggest the contrary. Despite inconsistencies in qualitative data, student responses indicate that
while they may experience certain forms of gendered patterns of behavior both on the part of
faculty and students, none of these extensively exist at Warren Wilson College. Above all, the
use of qualitative data not only provides insight into the study's quantitative findings, but also
provides an in-depth view of students' classroom experiences at Warren Wilson College.
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS
Eighty-eight percent of the Warren Wilson College student body is comprised of white
students, and 62 percent of the study body is composed of female students, consequently, the
results from this study may not be representative of the entire U.S. college population. In
addition, Warren Wilson College's reputation as a unique, progressive college with work crews,
such as RISE and Empower, that seek to raise awareness on campus concerning issues relating to
equality, may potentially have an affect on the gender dynamics within the Warren Wilson
classroom to an extent that my observations may not reflect the gender dynamics within
classrooms at other U.S. colleges.
54
The method and sampling techniques employed to collect both classroom observation
and survey data required professor and student approval. As such, the resulting classroom
observation, survey, and female focus group sample only consisted of those classes and students
who agreed to participate in the study, and therefore was not entirely random and may not
accurately reflect the demographical make-up of Warren Wilson students enrolled in the spring
2011 semester. In addition, purposive sampling was also used to select male focus group
participants. As a result, the views and experiences of male focus group participants may not
represent the views and experiences of male students at Warren Wilson College as a whole.
Also, a degree of social desirability bias on behalf of observed faculty could have
potentially changed the dynamics of classroom behavior and influenced the results of this study.
Not only this, but data collected from classroom observations were also limited to the first five
weeks of the Spring 2011 semester, and each classroom was only observed once. As a result, I
was unable to obtain an overall picture of the chilly classroom climate in these classrooms. In
addition, the resulting sample size of focus groups were relatively small and therefore may not be
entirely reflective students’ overall classroom experiences at Warren Wilson College. Also,
given that the majority of focus group respondents were men, the results of my assessment of the
chilly classroom climate via qualitative data may be slightly skewed towards men's experiences
at Warren Wilson College.
While my assessment of the chilly classroom climate at Warren Wilson College is limited
by a series factors, the use of three data-collection techniques allowed me to obtain a more
accurate, comprehensive view of the extent to which the chilly climate exists at this college. In
55
addition, the use of previously used and tested instruments ensures I obtain more valid and
reliable results.
SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
Research concerning the significance of the chilly classroom climate in college settings is
crucial to understanding not only women's achievements after college, but also much larger
social patterns and trends. Examining the extent of the chilly classroom climate at Warren
Wilson College provides not only insight into gendered dynamics of classroom behavior, but
also provides future researchers with insight into how different methods of data collection
influence the results of chilly classroom climate studies.
Results from this study determine that methods of data collection can indeed lead to
different conclusions on the extent to which a chilly climate exists in college classrooms. As
such, the current inconsistencies in the chilly climate literature are most likely due to differences
in data collection techniques. Future research should employ a mixed-methods approach in order
to obtain a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of classroom climates. In addition, this
is the only chilly classroom climate study to interview and conduct focus groups with male
students as well as female students. Since the dynamics of classroom behavior are significantly
shaped by male and female students, these interviews not only provide insight into both women
and men’s experiences in the classroom, but also help to explain trends in quantitative data.
Lastly, this research finds that while female professors are more likely to engage men in
classroom where the majority of the students are female, male professors do not participate in
56
these same behaviors. Future research should examine how male and female professors negotiate
classrooms where the gender composition is unevenly distributed. In addition, the extent of more
subtle, non-verbal forms of discriminatory behaviors in the classroom is one area of chilly
climate research that has yet to be thoroughly assessed. Lastly, the experiences of transindentified students have yet to be examined in the literature and should be developed by future
researchers.
57
REFERENCES
Allan, Elizabeth J. and Mary Madden. 2003. “Chilly Classrooms for Female Undergraduate
Students: A Question of Method?” The Journal of Higher Education 77(4):684-711.
Retrieved September 20, 2010 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838712).
Boersma, P.Dee. Deborah Gay, Ruth A. Jones, Lynn Morrison and Helen Remick. 1981. “Sex
Differences in College Student-Teacher Interactions: Fact or Fantasy?” Sex Roles
7(8)775-784.
Brady, Kristine L. and Richard M. Eisler. 1995. “Gender Bias in the College Classroom: A
Critical Review of the Literature and Implications for Future Research.” Journal of
Research and Development in Education. 29(1):9-19.
Canada, Katherine and Richard Pringle. 1995. “The Role of Gender in College Classroom
Interactions: A Social Context Approach.” Sociology of Education 68(3):161-186.
Retrieved August 31, 2010 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112683).
Constantinople, Anne, Cornelius Randolph, and Janet Gray.1998. “The Chilly Climate: Fact or
Artifact?” The Journal of Higher Education 59(5):527-550. Retrieved September 16,
2010 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981702).
Cranston, Pamela. 1989. “Sex Differences in Undergraduates' Experiences of Campus
Micro-Inequities.” Journal of College Student Development 30(4):313-318.
Crawford, Mary and Margo MacLeod.1990. “Gender in the College Classroom: An Assessment
of the “Chilly Climate” for Women.” Sex Roles 23(3-4):101-122.
58
Crombie, Gail, Sandra W. Pyke, Nadia Silverthorn, Alison Jones, and Sergio Piccinin. 2003.
“Students’ Perceptions of their Classroom Participation and Instructor as a Function of
Gender and Context.” The Journal of Higher Education 74(1):51-76. Retrieved
September 1, 2010 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648264 ).
Drew, Todd L. and Gerald G. Work. 1998. “Gender-Based Differences in Perception of
Experiences in Higher Education: Gaining a Broader Perspective.” The Journal of Higher
Education. 69(5):542-555. Retrieved September 20, 2010
(http://www.jstor.org/stable/249109).
Fassigner, Polly A. 1995. “Understanding Classroom Interaction: Students' and Professors'
Contributions to Students' Silence.” The Journal of Higher Education 66(1):82-96.
Retrieved August 31, 2010 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2943952 ).
Goetz, Judith P. and Lind Grant. (1988). “Conceptual Approaches to Studying Gender and
Education.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 19(2):182-196. Retrieved September7,
2010 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3211085).
Hall, Roberta M. and Bernice R. Richard. 1982. “The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for
Women?” Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Association of Women. Retrieved
September 7, 2010 (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED215628.pdf).
59
Heller, Jack F., C. Richard Puff and Carol J. Mills. 1985. “Assessment of the Chilly College
Climate for Women.” The Journal of Higher Education 56(4):446-461. Retrieved
September 15, 2010 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981305).
Kane, Emily W. 1995. “Education and Beliefs about Gender Inequality.” Social Problems
42(1):74-90. Retrieved October 11, 2010 (http://jstor.org/stable/3097006).
Krupnick, Catherine G. 1985. “Women and Men in the Classroom: Inequality and Its Remedies.”
Cambridge, MA: Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved November 1,
2010 (http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/html/icb.topic58474/krupnick.html).
National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. “Degrees conferred by degree granting
institutions, by level of degree and sex of student: Selected years, 1869-70 through 20162017.” Retrieved May 6, 2011 (http://lib.trinity.edu/research/citing/asa%20style%20citati
ns.pdf).
Rosenfeld, Lawrence B. and Mary W. Jarrard. 1985. “The Effects of Perceived Sexism in
Female and Male College Professors on Students' Descriptions of Classroom Climate.”
Communication Education 34(3)205-213.
Sadker, David and Myra Sadker. 1984. Teacher Reactions to Classroom Responses of Male and
Female Students. Washington, DC: The American Educational Research Association.
Retrieved September 20, 2010 (http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED245839.pdf).
60
Sandler, Bernice Resnick, Lisa A. Silverberg, Roberta M. Hall. 1996. The Chilly Classrooms
Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women. Washington, DC: The National
Association for Women in Education.
Thorne, Barrie and Nancy Henley. 1975.” “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in
Conversation.” Pp.105-129 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by
Thorne, Barrie and Nancy Henley, Rowley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Whitt, Elizabeth J., Marcia I. Edison, Ernest T. Pacarella, Amaury Nora and Patrick T.
Terenzini.1999. “Women's Perceptions of a “Chilly Climate” and Cognitive Outcomes in
College: Additional Evidence.” Journal of College Student Development 40(2):163-177.
Williams, Dana. 1990. “Is the Post-Secondary Classroom a Chilly One for Women? A Review of
the Literature.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 20(3):29-42.
61
FIGURES AND CAPTIONS
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
40
37
31
37
Male Students, n=51
Female Students, n=106
31
30
23
20
10
0
Low- Initiation
Moderate-Initiation
High-Initiation
Figure 1. Level of professor initiation by student gender
100
90
80
70
58
60
50
43
40
35
27
30
20
Male Students, n=33
Female Students, n=83
18
22
10
0
Low-Initiation
Moderate-Initiation
High Initiation
Figure 2. Level of female professor initiation by student gender
62
100
90
80
70
60
61
56
Male Students, n=18
Female Students, n=23
50
39
40
26
30
20
13
10
5
0
Low-Initiation
Moderate-Initiation
High-Initiation
Figure 3. Level of male professor initiation by student gender
100
100
90
80
68
70
60
Male Students, n=9
Female Students, n=31
50
40
26
30
20
6
10
0
0
Low-Initiation
0
Moderate-Initiation
High-Initiation
Figure 4. Level of female professor initiation by student gender in moderately female classes
63
100
90
80
67
70
60
50
50
40
50
Male Students, n=3
Female Students, n=30
33
30
20
10
0
0
0
Low-Initiation
Moderate-Initiation
High-Initiation
Figure 5. Level of female professor initiation by student gender in highly-female classes
100
90
80
80
70
60
50
50
Male Students, n=5
Female Students, n=6
40
33
30
20
20
17
10
0
0
Low-Initiation
Moderate-Initiation
High-Initiation
Figure 6. Level of male professor initiation by student gender in moderately-female classes
64
100
90
80
68
70
60
50
41
Male Students, n=17
Female Students, n=22
41
40
27
30
20
18
10
5
0
Low-Initiation
Moderate-Initiation
High-Initiation
Figure 7. Level of female professor initiation by student gender in even classes
100
90
90
85
80
70
60
Male Students, n=185
Female Students, n=261
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
6
3
3
6
0
Praise
Remediation
Accept
No Response
Figure 8. Professor response to student comment by student gender
65
100
90
80
70
60
60
63
50
Male Students, n=253
Female Students, n=353
40
30
25
29
20
10
4
9
2
5
2
1
0
Low Engagement
High Engagement
No Engagement
Moderate Engagement
Short Circuit
Figure 9. Level of professor ancillary engagement by student gender
100
90
80
71
70
56
60
50
Male Professors
Female Professors
37
40
30
20
10
11
7
1
10
5
1
1
0
Low Engagement
High Engagement
No Engagement
Moderate Engagement
Short Circuit
Figure 10. Level of ancillary engagement by professor gender
66
100
90
80
70
56 56
60
50
Male Students, n=170
Female Students, n=222
40
40
32
30
20
10
9
1
2
1
2
1
0
Low Engagement
High Engagement
No Engagement
Moderate Engagement
Short Circuit
Figure 11. Level of female professor ancillary engagement by student gender
100
90
80
73
67
70
60
50
Male Students, n=83
Female Students, n=131
40
30
20
10
10
5
12 10
10 10
1
2
0
Low Engagement
High Engagement
No Engagement
Moderate Engagement
Short Circuit
Figure 12. Level of male professor ancillary engagement by student gender
67
100
90
80
70
50
Male Students, n=236
Female Students, n=314
57
60
43
40
30
20
10
0
Student Initiations
Figure 13. Student initiations by student gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
55
Male Students, n=237
Female Students, n=314
45
Student Initiations
Figure 14. Student initiations in female-taught classes
68
100
90
80
70
Male Students, n=83
Female Students, n=129
61
60
50
39
40
30
20
10
0
Student Initiations
Figure 15. Student initiations in male-taught classes
100
90
80
70
79
63
60
50
Male Students, n=237
Female Students, n=305
40
30
21
20
12
6
10
9
1
2
2
5
0
16-30 sec.
0-15 sec.
46 sec.-1 min.
31-45 sec.
1 min.+
Figure 16. Length of response by student gender
69
100
90
80
71
70
60
50
46
Male Students, n=13
Female Students, n=75
40
30
20
15
20
23
15
8
10
0
0
16-30 sec.
0-15 sec.
1
0
46 sec.-1 min.
31-45 sec.
1 min.+
Figure 17. Length of student response by gender in female-instructed, highly-female classes
100
90
81
80
70
60
56
50
Male Students, n=160
Female Studetns, n=355
40
30
23
20
9
10
7
12
1
3
1
6
0
16-30 sec.
0-15 sec.
46 sec.-1min
31-45 sec.
1 min.+
Figure 18. Length of student response by student gender in female-taught classes
70
100
90
78
80
76
70
60
Male Students, n=237
Female Students, n=307
50
40
30
20
13
12
10
7
10
2
2
0
Raise hand
Call-out
Interrupt
Other
Figure 19. Student gender by initiative behavior
100
90
80
70
69
60
50
Student Responses, n=162
40
27
30
20
10
4
0
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 20. Experience disparaging remarks about women's role and interests
71
100
90
80
70
67
60
50
Student Responses, n=164
40
31
30
20
10
1
1
Sometimes
Often
0
Never
Rarely
Figure 21. I feel I am treated more harshly or unfairly than other students
100
90
80
70
60
50
50
Student Responses, n=164
39
40
30
20
11
10
0
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 22. Professor use of hostile humor
72
100
87
90
90
80
70
60
Male Responses, n=56
Female Responses, n=100
50
40
30
20
13
10
0
0
0
10
1
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 23. Student gender and professor calls me by name
100
90
80
80
74
70
60
Male Responses, n=56
Female Responses, n=97
50
40
30
24
20
14
10
4
2
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
2
0
Often
Figure 24. Student gender and professors encourage men more than women
73
100
90
80
67
70
67
60
Male Responses, n=58
Female Responses, n=97
50
40
30
22
22
20
10
9
2
9
2
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 25. Student gender and professors indicate interest and approval in what I have to say
100
90
80
70
60
54
50
Male Responses, n=57
Female Responses, n=99
42
40
31
26
30
20
25
19
10
1
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
0
Often
Figure 26. Student gender and professor interruption
74
100
90
80
73
70
65
60
Male Responses, n=57
Female Responses, n=99
50
40
26
30
21
20
10
7
2
1
5
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 27. Student gender and when I volunteer in class I am called upon
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
62
55
Male Responses, n=58
Female Responses, n=100
43
33
30
20
10
2
5
0
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Indifferent
0
0
0
0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Figure 28. Student gender and professors treat me as if I have limited intellectual ability
75
100
90
80
70
61
60
50
50
Male Responses, n=56
Female Responses, n=99
40
40
30
30
20
11
10
7
2
0
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 29. Student gender and professors expect me to have trouble thinking critically
100
90
80
67
70
60
59
Male Responses, n=58
Female Responses, n=98
50
40
26
30
19
20
12
11
10
3
2
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 30. Student gender and professors question my seriousness or commitment to my
academic studies/career goals
76
100
90
80
68
70
65
60
50
Male Responses, n=57
Female Responses, n=100
40
30
25
23
20
10
4
8
5
1
0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Indifferent
0
1
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Figure 31. Student gender and I am confident in my academic capabilities
100
90
80
70
60
50
50
42
40
45
Male Responses, n=55
Female Responses, n=98
31
30
20
10
8
11 11
2
0
0
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Indifferent
0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Figure 32. Student gender and I am confident WWC prepares me for graduate school
77
100
90
80
70
58
60
49
50
Male Responses, n=55
Female Responses, n=98
40
30
20
25
16 18
20
9
10
3
0
0
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Indifferent
0
Agree
Strongly Agree
Figure 33. Student gender and I am confident WWC prepares me for beginning a work career
100
90
80
70
60
50
Student Responses, n=154
43
40
33
30
20
20
10
4
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 34. Men take over leadership in small groups
78
100
90
80
70
60
48
50
40
52
Male Responses, n=56
Female Responses, n=98
34
28
30
22
20
10
7
7
2
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 35. Student gender and men take over leadership in small groups
100
90
80
70
63
58
60
Male Responses, n=57
Female Responses, n=97
50
40
30
20
16
19
19
22
10
2
1
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 36. Student gender and students ignore my input or ideas
79
100
90
80
70
62
57
60
Male Responses, n=55
Female Responses, n=95
50
40
29
30
32
20
7
10
11
1
0
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 37. Student gender and I am squeezed out of hands-on activities
100
90
80
70
57
60
48
50
38
40
29
30
20
Male Responses, n=58
Female Responses, n=99
14
13
10
0
1
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 38. Student gender and I am interrupted by other students in class
80
100
90
80
70
60
50
45
Male Responses, n=53
Female Responses, n=97
47
40
28
30
32
26
20
20
10
0
1
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 39. Student gender and men take up more time in class
100
90
80
70
60
Male Responses, n=53
Female Responses, n=96
50
40
30
37
30
34
33
26
24
20
6
10
9
0
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Figure 40. Student gender and women take up more time in class
81
Appendix A
Dear
Hello, my name is Victoria Dempsey and I am a Sociology/ Anthropology student in my senior
year at Warren Wilson College. I am currently conducting my senior research thesis, with IRB
approval, on the nature of classroom interactions and behaviors here at Warren Wilson College. I
will be collecting data via classroom observations, focus groups, and a student self-perception
questionnaire. Your class, _________________________, has been randomly selected as part of
my sample. If you choose to participate in my study, your voluntary participation would require
allowing me to (1) quietly observe one class period for 60 minutes and (2) distribute a survey to
all willing students in the remaining 20 minutes of that class. The survey will ask students to
respond to a series of statements about their overall classroom experience at Warren Wilson
College, and will not ask specific questions about your class. In class observations will occur on
a mutually agreed upon date. In addition, all classroom observations will be collected in an
unobtrusive manner, and you are asked to conduct class as usual. In order to maintain
confidentiality, all data collected will be locked in a secure place and destroyed once my research
is complete. Results from my research will also be presented in aggregate to ensure absolutely no
identifiable information can be connected to any of my research participants. If you have any
questions, comments, or concerns please feel free to contact either myself of my supervisor,
Laura Vance, at vdempsey@warren-wilson.edu or lvance@warren-wilson.edu. Once you have
82
read this email, please respond at your earliest convenience and let me know if you would be
willing to participate in my study. Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Victoria Dempsey
83
Appendix B
Date__________
Start__________
Attendance__________
Class__________
Stop__________
Gender Ratio__________
Teacher Initiates Student
initiates respon. initiates
to:
from/by
M G
F C
M G
F C
To
By
Professor__________
Lgth. of Praise Accept. Remediat. Crit. Follow. Exp. stu. Rephrase Ancillary
stu.
quest. comment for class
teacher
Respon.
behav.
M F
M
Name
Nod
F
Call
Call out
O_____
Prof. Hand
Group
Stu.
M
F
Call
All
Inter.
M F
Prof.
O___
Student
M F
M
Name
Nod
F
Call
Call out
O_____
Prof. Hand
Group
Stu.
M
F
Call
All
Inter.
M F
Prof.
O___
Student
Nod
Step for.
Eye con.
Short cir.
P V
Nod
Step for.
Eye con.
Short cir.
P V
84
Appendix C
Hello, my name is Victoria Dempsey and I am a Sociology/ Anthropology student at Warren
Wilson College. I am currently conducting my senior research thesis, with IRB approval, on the
nature of classroom interactions and behaviors here at Warren Wilson College. In a moment I
will distribute a Self-Perception Questionnaire that will be used to indicate the presence or
absence of a variety of classroom behaviors. Your participation is completely voluntary. You are
free to not participate, and if at any point you wish to not respond to any of survey questions, you
are free to do so. In addition, you many stop at any time, though I will not be able to use an
incomplete survey. In completing and handing in the survey, you will give me permission to use
your answers in my research. All results will be presented in aggregate to ensure the
confidentiality of all survey participants. In addition, results from the survey will be locked and
securely stored in a place where only I and my supervisor have access, and will be destroyed as
soon as my research is complete. The survey should take 20-minutes to complete. Also, please
do not forget to complete the final sheet of the survey. Once you are finished, please place the
survey portion of the questionnaire the manilla envelop. If you have any questions, comments, or
concerns please feel free to contact either myself, or my supervisor, Laura Vance, at
vdempsey@warren-wilson.edu, or at lvance@warren-wilson.edu.
85
Appendix D
The purpose of this study is to assess classroom behavior here at Warren Wilson College. Please
answer the following questions as honestly as you can. Remember, your participation is
completely voluntary. You may stop at any time or skip any question you choose to. Your
answers should be based on an overall evaluation of what happens to you (personally) across all
of your courses at Warren Wilson College. We realize that there may be differences between
courses or professors—you will have an opportunity to respond to these differences at the end of
the questionnaire. Once you have completed the questionnaire, please place it in the manilla
envelop.
Please circle the best response:
1. My age:
a) 17-18
b) 19-20
c) 21-22
d) 23 +
2. My current class standing is:
a) Freshman
b) Sophomore
c) Junior
d) Senior
e) Other (please specify)_______________
86
3. The following best indicates my sex:
a) Male
b) Female
c) Trans
d) Other (please specify)________________
4. I have been interrupted by a professor while answering a question in class.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
5. I am confident that my training at Warren Wilson adequately prepares me for graduate school.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
6. My professors call me by name (first or last).
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
7. When I volunteer to participate in class I am called upon . . .
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
8. There are times when I want to ask a question or make a comment in class but I choose not to
do so.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
87
9. I am confident that Warren Wilson adequately prepares me for beginning a work career.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
10. I have been directly asked by a professor to lead discussion, organize a panel or lab group,
etc.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
11. I feel I am treated more harshly or unfairly than other students.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
12. I am confident in my academic capabilities.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
13. I feel pressure to avoid participating in discussion.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
14. Professors pay attention to the most talkative students in class.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
15. I feel pressure to avoid appearing intellectual.
Never
Rarely
88
16. I censor myself in classes because I feel uncomfortable.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
17. I am “squeezed out” of lab demonstrations and experiments or other hands-on related
activities by other students.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
18. Professors have questioned my seriousness or commitment to my academic studies or career
goals.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
19. My professors nod, smile, and generally communicate interest and approval in what I have to
say.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
20. My professors probe for elaboration or further extensions when I answer a question (e.g., by
saying, “Would you like to elaborate?” or What are the implications of what you are saying?”).
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
21. Other students ignore my input and ideas in class.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
89
22. I am interrupted by other students in class.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
23. Professors treat me as though I have limited intellectual ability and am likely to fail.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
24. Professors recognize my abilities, contributions, and accomplishments.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
25. Professors have done work for me, or have shown me in detail how to do work that other
students are required to do on their own.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
26. Professors expect me to have trouble thinking critically.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
27. I have professors that use the generic terms “man,” “mankind,” “he,” or “him,” to refer to all
sexes.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
28. Professors have made belittling comments about me.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
90
29. Professors give me a reasonable amount of time to answer a question before going on to
another student.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
30. Professors provoke feelings of helplessness in me.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
31. Men take over leadership in small group activities in class.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
32. Professors put down students who support “women's issues.”
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
33. Professors encourage men more than women during class discussions.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
34. I have made a good comment in class that was ignored and then later attributed to someone
else.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
35. I have experienced instructors at Warren Wilson who use humor or make humorous
references that I feel are offensive, embarrassing, or belittling to any individuals or groups.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
91
36. A woman student has to outperform male students in order to be taken seriously by faculty.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
37. Professors associate particular occupations or achievements with one of the sexes (e.g., by
saying, “Suppose you went to the doctor and he. . .”).
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
38. Professors expect more from male students than female students.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
39. Professors expect more from female students than male students.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Indifferent
Agree
Strongly Agree
40. Professors expect students to behave in stereotypical ways (i.e. women should be passive,
men should be assertive).
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
41. Men take up more time in the classroom.
Never
Rarely
42. Women take up more time in the classroom.
Never
Rarely
92
43. I have experienced disparaging remarks about women's roles or career interests in my
classes.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
44. If there are any personal instances where you experienced behaviors in the classroom that
relate to any of the questions above, please feel free to write about them in the space provided
below.
45. If there are any differences between courses or professors that you would like to make
mention of, please use the space provided below to do so.
93
If you identify as female, please fill out the following section:
If you are interested in participating in a focus group aimed at discussing issues of classroom
behavior here at Warren Wilson College in greater depth please provide your name and email in
the space provided below.
Please check one:
 Yes
 No
If yes, please provide the following information:
Name___________________________________
Email___________________________________
94
Appendix E
As many of you are aware, my name is Tori Dempsey and I am a Sociology/ Anthropology
student at Warren Wilson College. The purpose of this focus group is to discuss the presence of a
variety of classroom behaviors here at Warren Wilson College. This focus group will last for
approximately 45 minutes. I will be asking a variety of open-ended questions regarding student
and faculty behaviors, similar to those asked in the student self-perception questionnaire you all
completed. Please feel free to respond to any of the questions, and if possible, please provide any
personal experiences to help clarify your comments. This focus group will be tape recorded and
later transcribed. In order to ensure confidentiality, all transcriptions will be securely stored in a
place where only myself, and my supervisor, Laura Vance, have access, and will be destroyed
once my research is complete. Also, if your responses are used in my thesis or thesis
presentation, please know that I will discard any identifiable information that could allow my
audience to connect any statements to an individual. Your participation is completely voluntary,
and if at any point you do not wish finish the focus group, you are free to leave. If you have any
questions, comments, or concerns please feel free to contact either myself, or my supervisor,
Laura Vance, at vdempsey@warren-wilson.edu, or at lvance@warren-wilson.edu.
Please check one of the following:
I agree to participate
Print Name________________________________
I do not agree to participate
Signature__________________________________
95
Appendix F
1. Are there any noticeable patterns of gendered classroom behavior that you have observed
in your classes here at Warren Wilson? If so, what are they? Can you give me an
example?
2. How comfortable would you say you are participating in class? Are there factors in the
classroom that make you feel particularly comfortable or uncomfortable in the
classroom? Can you name any instances where you felt particularly uncomfortable
participating in class?
3. Have you ever experienced any discouraging behavior on behalf of faculty that made you
question your academic capabilities or other competencies? Did you feel that this was
because of your gender? Tell me about that.
4. Do you feel there are any particular students in the classroom that tend to dominate
discussion? Are these students more often women or men or equally likely to be women
and men? Does this effect your participation or overall involvement in class?
5. What factors do you feel contribute to a positive classroom experience? What do you feel
contributes to an overall negative experience?
96
97