community college student attraction to an english course: the associations among student gender,...

This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 29 October 2014, At: 11:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Community College Journal ofResearch and PracticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTATTRACTION TO AN ENGLISHCOURSE: THE ASSOCIATIONSAMONG STUDENT GENDER, THEGENDER OF THE AUTHOR OFASSIGNED READING, AND THESTYLE OF READINGBeth Bownes Johnson a & Rose Mary Newton ba Wallace State Community College , Hanceville,Alabama, USAb University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USAPublished online: 17 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Beth Bownes Johnson & Rose Mary Newton (2004) COMMUNITYCOLLEGE STUDENT ATTRACTION TO AN ENGLISH COURSE: THE ASSOCIATIONS AMONGSTUDENT GENDER, THE GENDER OF THE AUTHOR OF ASSIGNED READING, AND THESTYLE OF READING, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28:8,647-662, DOI: 10.1080/10668920490487295

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920490487295

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10668920490487295

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920490487295

expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT ATTRACTION TOAN ENGLISH COURSE: THE ASSOCIATIONS AMONGSTUDENT GENDER, THE GENDER OF THE AUTHOROF ASSIGNED READING, AND THE STYLE OF READING

Beth Bownes JohnsonWallace State Community College, Hanceville, Alabama, USA

Rose Mary NewtonUniversity of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

This article reports the results of a factorial experiment that investigated thereactions of male and female students to a hypothetical English course offered atthe community college level. The participants (N¼ 136) consisted of studentsenrolled in English 101 courses at four community colleges in a southeastern state.The independent variables were gender of the student, gender of the authorassigned, and the type of reading assigned (narrative, expository). The dependentvariable was a composite rating of student attraction to the English course.Females rated the course more favorably than males, and testing detected aninteraction effect between gender of the student and the gender of the writer.Females preferred female authors, and males were attracted to male authors.There also was an interaction effect between gender of the author and style ofwriting. Participants preferred female authors and expository style. The findingshave practical implications for educational programs, English instructors, andfuture research.

Over the course of the past three decades, educators have grappledwith ways to reduce gender bias in the learning environment.Although tremendous strides have been made in the areas of math,science, and computer science, the inequities faced by both males andfemales in English classes have been largely ignored. This area shouldbe of particular concern because this bias has the potential to affectstudent attitudes, their success in other areas of study, and ultimately,their career choices (McCracken, 1992; McCracken & Appleby, 1992;

Address correspondence to Beth Bownes Johnson, Wallace State Community College,P.O. Box 2000, Hanceville, AL 35077. E-mail: [email protected]

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28: 647–662, 2004

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc.

ISSN: 1066-8926 print/1521-0413 online

DOI:10.1080/10668920490487295

647

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Warrington, Younger, & Williams, 2000). In addition, communicationis a requisite for success in all areas of life, and when students’ scoresimprove in the area of English studies, their scores improve in otherareas of academia as well (Bowman, 1992).

Gender bias in English studies detracts from the educationalexperience of both males and females. As a result of such bias, malestudents have been shown to associate reading and writing withfemales and, consequently, develop negative attitudes toward Englishstudies. Additionally, these biases affect female students by developingnegative attitudes regarding their potential for learning. Therefore,researchers must attempt to understand how these gendered iden-tities form and which variables in educational settings contribute toand perpetuate these biases for both males and females. The presentresearch addresses this issue by investigating whether there are sig-nificant differences in male and female ratings of a hypotheticalEnglish course associated with the gender of the author of an assignedreading and the type of reading assigned.

GENDER BIAS IN ENGLISH STUDIES

Differences in the reading preferences of females and males have beenwell documented (Bowman, 1992; Fetterly, 1978; McCracken, 1992;McCracken & Appleby, 1992; Rice, 2000). In the sections that follow, weprovide a brief overview of literature accounting for such differences.

Female Bias in Reading

According to McCracken (1992), ‘‘Boys read as boys, and girls read asboys’’ (p. 55). The reason that girls read as boys is because men pri-marily write the stories that instructors assign to students. Applebee(1989) found that among the 27 titles of novels assigned as requiredreadings in 30% of the nation’s public schools, only two were writtenby women. White heterosexual male privilege is maintained in literarystudies, and to challenge this hegemony, one must view literature asboth a social and political construct (Kelly, 1996). Heilbrun (1990)stated:

All women who have ever read a classic or undertaken an intellectualpursuit have imagined themselves as men. What alternative was there?Women in universities and outside of them have always read with adouble consciousness—both as women and as the masculine reader theyhave been taught to be (p. 31).

648 B.B. Johnson and R.M. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Fetterley (1978) suggests that the traditional canon is ‘‘emasculat-ing’’ women and throughout the education of women, females havebeen taught not only to read as men but also ‘‘to think as men, toidentify with a male point of view, and to accept as normal and legi-timate a male system of values, one of whose central principles ismisogyny’’(xx).

Moreover, McCracken (1992) states there are few models for womenwriters and little opportunity for young women to gain insight into theminds of other women. Most English courses offer few female writersas examples, and fail to examine stereotypical treatment of females inthe text, study activities that focus on gender differences, and focusdiscussions and writing topics on areas in which females are autho-rities. Books often portray girls as acted upon rather than activeparticipants. They are caretakers, mothers, and princesses. Theseroles signify the importance of being a male. For example, the detailsof Hemingway’s hunting expedition are noteworthy and important tostudy, but Virginia Woolf ’s dinner party is considered trivial(McCracken & Appleby, 1992).

Fetterly (1978) provides further evidence that the readingsassigned in college classrooms typically glorify and emphasize theimportance of the male cultural experience (autonomy, breaking away,independence, adventure) while de-emphasizing and negating thefemale experience (relationships, nurturing, cooperation). Huck’sjourney down the river (Twain, 1990), Captain Ahab’s confrontation atsea (Melville, N.d.), and Tom Wingfield’s separation from his family(Williams, 1993) are three examples from classics that deal withmasculine themes, so females with a feminine schema realize noempowerment from these assigned readings. In order for them torespond, they must, again, relate to the male frame of reference.Furthermore,

Power is the issue in the politics of literature, as it is in the politics ofanything else. To be excluded from a literature that claims to define one’sidentity is to experience a peculiar form of powerlessness—not simplythe powerlessness which derives from not seeing one’s experiencearticulated, clarified, and legitimized in art, but more significantly thepowerlessness which results from endless division of self against self, theconsequence of the invocation to identify as male while being remindedthat to be male—to be universal, to be American—is to be not female(xiii).

Females must learn to identify with both male and female characterswhile males are seldom required to read about female experiences.

Student Attraction to an English Course 649

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Male Bias in Reading

Boys experience biases in reading as well, although they experiencethese biases differently (Brozo & Schmelzer, 1997; Young, 2000).Millard (1998) maintains that, as opposed to females, many males arenot encouraged to read at an early age. In addition, the 1993 pub-lication of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) reportedthat few teachers monitored boys’ and girls’ reading differences, andboys had narrower experiences with fiction than females. Boys also areless inclined to understand character, theme, or motivation. In fact,boys in general do not read as often as girls and lack interest in tra-ditional literature. This lack of interest increases with each year ofschooling, as Davies and Brember (1994) discovered, and the ‘‘onecurriculum difference between the sexes was the more negative viewof the oldest boys toward reading’’ (p. 247).

Often the role models boys view reading is their mothers and theirteachers, so reading may be seen as ‘‘a feminine pursuit’’ (Bleach,1998, p. 41). ‘‘It is nearly axiomatic that boys will be taught to read inschool by females because 85% to 95% of boys’ teachers in elementaryand middle schools are female’’ (Brozo & Schmelzer, 1997, p. 7). Asmost females perceive femininity through reading, males perceivetheir ideas concerning maleness and manhood by reading. ‘‘Literacyplays a major role in the construction of gender’’ (p. 7). Especially earlyon in school, many boys may associate some of the readings assignedin coursework as an activity that is inconsistent with the image ofboyhood and maleness because of stereotypical portrayal in popularculture. Boys fail to see the relevance of typically assigned literature totheir everyday lives:

They approach a text with a narrower spectrum of possible points ofcontact and decide quickly whether to accept or reject the text, in wholeor in part, because they have assimilated a belief system, which saysthey have the authority and the poser to insist on seeing themselves in atext. (Schlender, 2001, p. 67)

Millard (1998) reported in Developing Readers in the Middle Yearsthat there are seven primary reasons males often lacked interest inreading. First, beginning readings often included a concentration onnarratives as the primarily means of early instruction, which malesfound unappealing. Second, teachers discouraged certain types ofreading materials considered unsuitable for the classroom. Boysstated that they enjoyed sharing and discussing the content ofcomputer and other hobby-related magazines, but these readingswere not permitted. Third, students were given options for reading,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

but instructors did not encourage other readings, and readings hadbeen used as fillers for students, so students, often male, who did notcare to participate in the activity, could avoid the task. DuringMillard’s study, a limited choice of genre was used for reading. Thisprevented many males from selecting and reading texts they foundappealing; they preferred more action, horror, and adventure. Thesefactors discriminate against males because males have found to beless willing to read independently and to have less interest in print-based narratives.

Millard (1998) also found an apparent difference in attitudestoward reading between genders, which affected males’ success inEnglish coursework. Survey and interview results confirmed that girlswere generally more committed and better read than males. Girlsshared books more often outside of school, both with peers and withother female family members. Boys asserted their interests were onother options. Millard concluded that this study highlighted sig-nificant variations in access to literacy experiences and that everydaypractices of schools, communities, and society created contexts wherereading contributed and reinforced the establishment of a genderedidentity for the reader.

Whitehead, Capey, Maddren, and Wellings (1977) reported that theprovision of books offered by the schools played an extremely importantrole in determining how well and how often students read, and librariesmade contributions to enthusiasm. In order to assist males, two thingswere required: a wide provision of well-chosen texts, and librarianswho knew them well enough to match the student with the text. Boysread less than girls because often fathers are not involved in pur-chasing and recommending books, books fail to enlist males’ interests,and fiction is not mixed with fact in order to allow a focus beyondrelationships and feelings. It also is important to focus on the identi-fication of facts and change the balance of texts selected for class toinclude more of boys’ other preferences. These reading interests affectstudents’ capabilities and styles of writing as well (Millard, 1998).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A theoretical framework formulated by Byrne (1971) informed thedesign of this study. Byrne hypothesized that individuals with similarattitudes are attracted to one another and that such attraction maybias the job selection process in a variety of ways. For example,interviewers may evaluate prospective job applicants based onattitude-compatibility rather than job-related criteria. A subsequentstudy (Graves & Powell, 1995) supported Byrne’s contention by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

demonstrating that interpersonal attraction biased college recruiters’evaluations of subjective qualifications (e.g. ability to communicate) ofjob applicants and influenced the interview outcomes. Surprisingly,sex similarity had a negative effect on the interviewer ratings andinterview outcomes. Female recruiters viewed male, rather thanfemale, applicants as more similar to themselves and more qualifiedthan female applicants. Sex similarity had no significant effect onmale interviewer ratings of the applicant or interview outcomes.

In this research, we draw on the literature reviewed above and thesimilarity-attraction hypothesis articulated by Byrne (1971) to sup-port the notion that the similarity between the gender of the studentand the gender of the author of an assigned reading may influence,and perhaps bias, student evaluations of a hypothetical Englishcourse. Furthermore, we anticipate that such bias will extend to thewriting style of the assigned readings because males are usually moreprone to use an expository style of writing, and females are more proneto use a narrative style of writing (Millard, 1998). To investigatewhether the gender of the assigned author and the style of writinginfluence student ratings of a hypothetical English course, we testedthe following hypotheses:

H-1: There will be no significant difference in student attraction to anEnglish course at the community college level associated withthe gender (female=male) of the student.

H-2: There will be no significant difference in student attraction to anEnglish course at the community college level associated withthe gender (female=male) of the author of the readings assigned.

H-3: There will be no significant attraction to an English course at thecommunity college level associated with the type (narrative=expository) of readings assigned.

H-4: There will be no significant two-way interaction between gender(female=male) of the student and the gender (female=male) of theauthor of the readings assigned.

H-5: There will be no significant two-way interaction between thegender (female=male) of the student and the type (narrative=expository) of readings assigned.

H-6: There will be no significant two-way interaction between thegender (female=male) of the author assigned and the type(narrative=expository) of readings assigned.

H-7: There will be no significant three-way interaction between andamong the gender (female=male) of the student, gender (female=male) of the author of the readings assigned, and the type(narrative=expository) of readings assigned.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

METHOD

This study reports the results of student evaluations of a hypotheticalEnglish course. Procedurally, male and female students at four com-munity colleges read and reacted to descriptions of an English course.The active independent variables manipulated in the simulated coursedescriptions were (a) gender of the author of the assigned readings and(b) the type of assigned readings. The gender of the student was aninactive independent variable. The dependent variable was studentattraction to and willingness to enroll in a hypothetical Englishcourse. These parameters resulted in a 2� 2� 2 completely crossed,fixed-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) design (Keppel, 1991).Manipulation of the two levels of the gender of the author of theassigned readings and the type of reading assigned yielded fourunique course descriptions.

The Study Participants

The study population consisted of all students enrolled in English 101courses at the community college level in a Southeastern state. Thesampling procedure included dividing the state into four regions,based on geographical location, and randomly selecting one commu-nity college from each region. After the community colleges weredrawn, students enrolled in English 101 courses at each of the fourcolleges were selected as a convenience sample.

The sample size for this study was determined by performing apower analysis according to procedures recommended by Cohen (1977)to determine whether the design was sufficiently powerful to allowdetection of an interaction effect. The parameters for the power ana-lysis were (a) a specified level for power (power¼ .80), (b) a definedlevel of significance (alpha¼ .05), and (c) a desired small-to-mediumeffect size (d¼ .25). The formula suggested by Cohen (1977) was usedto compute the cell size for the 2� 2� 2 factorial design. The results ofthe power analysis indicated that a minimum sample size of 136 wasneeded to detect significant differences if they exist. Descriptive datafor the study participants appear in Table 1.

Instrument Development

Procedures recommended by Anastasi and Urbina (1997) were used toestablish validity for the course descriptions. This process began witha review of the literature that addressed course attraction for femalesand males (Flynn & Schweickart, 1986; Gabriel, 1990; Grossman &Grossman, 1994; McCracken & Appleby, 1992; Pace, 1992; Sadker &


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Sadker 1992, 1984; Smithson, 1990). This review indicated thatstudents might be attracted to English courses based on the gender ofthe author assigned (female=male) and the type of reading assigned(narrative=expository).

Based upon the works of Gabriel (1990), McCracken and Appleby(1992), Pace (1992), and Sadker and Sadker (1992, 1984), the opera-tional definition for gender of the assigned readings was quite simply,‘‘readings written by either females or males.’’ The operational defi-nitions of the type of readings was: ‘‘Narrative readings tell a story byfocusing on characters’ feelings, emotions, and ideologies. Expositoryreadings provide information in a factual and practical manner inorder to provide an explanation’’ (Wyrick, 2002, p. 189).

In terms of content, one version of the course description containedassignments with all female authors and narrative readings. A secondversion contained assignments with all male authors and narrativereadings. A third version included assignments with all femaleauthors and expository readings. The fourth version included assign-ments with all male authors and expository assignments.

In terms of format, each course description contained three para-graphs. The first paragraph contained general information held constantfor most English 101 courses in two-year schools (e.g., course require-ments, hours earned, evaluative procedures). The second paragraphdescribed the simulated course with either female or male authors.The third paragraph described the readings assigned for the course.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was necessary to assess the reliability of the dependentvariable (attraction to the course description). Students (N¼ 76),similar to the participants in the actual study, were provided a packetincluding (a) a biographical data form (b) one of the four versions of thecourse descriptions; (c) a course evaluation form; and (d) a two-itemquestionnaire designed to determine whether the participants accu-rately perceived the manipulation of the independent variables. Forthe manipulation to be successful, participants had to recall whetherthe gender of the author of the readings was male or female andwhether the type of reading assigned was narrative or expository.The manipulation was successful with 97.4% of students recalling thegender of the author and type of reading for the course. Therefore, theinitial instrument was used in the actual study without modification.

The dependent variable in this study was interval scaled andconsisted of a five-item additive composite score for student attractionto an English course. Student attraction was measured by adding


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

5-point Likert-type scales to seven items. The items were (a) ‘‘Howwould you rate the attractiveness of the course described?’’ (b) ‘‘Howlikely are you to enjoy the readings?"(c) ‘‘How likely would you be torecommend this course to your friends?’’ (d) ‘‘How likely would you beto enroll in the course?’’ (e) ‘‘How well are you likely to perform in thiscourse?’’ (f) ‘‘How likely are you to enjoy the course?’’ (g) ‘‘How likely isit that this course will assist you in other courses?’’

This approach to measurement of the dependent variable draws onthe theory and research relating to the decision-making processes thatindividuals use in evaluating job opportunities (Schwab, Rynes, &Aldag, 1987). This study applies the theory relating to the evaluationof jobs to the evaluation of community college courses. The items,the scale, and the wording have been used extensively in previouseducational research (e.g., Rynes & Lawler, 1983, Newton & Zeitoun,2003; Winter, 1998; Winter & Kjorlien, 2000) assessing applicantreactions to job opportunities.

Coefficient alpha was used to assess the reliability of the sevenevaluation items. The deletion of the fifth item (‘‘How likely are you toperform well in this course?’’) increased the overall reliability of theresulting composite score from .86 to .89. Accordingly, a six-item com-posite score served as the dependent variable measure in the actualstudy. Additionally, to prevent order effects, all items on the instru-ment were counterbalanced according to procedures recommended byKeppel (1991). At the data collection stage, the study participantscompleted a biographical sheet, read one of the four courseannouncements, and then completed the evaluation instrument.

RESULTS

Based on an alpha level of .05, there was a main effect for gender[F(1, 128) ¼ 5.12, p< .05]. Overall, females rated the course offeringsmore favorably than males. Statistical testing also detected an inter-action effect between gender of the student and the gender of thewriter [F(1,128)¼ 5.27, p< .05]. Females rated readings written byother females higher (M¼ 18.79) than those readings written by males(M¼ 16.58). Males, on the other hand, rated courses with assignedreadings written by males higher (M¼ 16.61) as opposed to readingswritten by female authors (M¼ 14.88).

A second interaction effect was found between the gender of theauthor assigned and the style of reading assigned, [F(1, 128)¼ 5.12,p< .05]. Expository readings written by female authors were ratedhigher than were expository readings written by male authors.In contrast, narrative readings written by male authors were rated


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

higher than narrative readings written by female authors. Theseresults are revealed in Table 2.

Calculations for omega-squared (Keppel, 1991) indicated that theinteraction effect accounted for 7% of the variance in student reactionto the hypothetical English course. Cohen (1977) developed an fstatistic (.25), which converted to omega-squared, and is characterizedby Cohen as a small-to-medium effect size for an analysis of variancecomputation.

There was no significant interaction found between the gender ofthe student and style of reading assigned [F(1, 128)¼ .07, p> .05].Furthermore, no significance was found with a three-way interactionbetween gender of the student, gender of the author assigned, and thestyle of readings assigned [F(1, 128)¼ .058, p> .05].

DISCUSSION

Our society is in the process of redefining relationships and rolesbetween males and females in all aspects of public and private life. Thechallenge for educational systems is to accommodate these changeswhile determining the factors that perpetuate differences in educa-tional outcomes for both genders (Grossman & Grossman, 1994).

This study is based upon a social learning perspective, which sup-ports that sex role belief systems are learned and instilled. The family,schools, teachers, and language are among the most important socia-lizing agents, determining youths’ attitudes, self-esteems, beliefsystems, and careers (Lottes & Kuriloff, 1992). Schools, especially, areviewed as instrumental in the reproduction of gender roles andexpectations by transmitting consistent treatment and attitudestoward females and males based entirely upon societal expectations.Consequently, both males and females are sorted and shaped to fit‘‘their positions’’ (Holland & Eisenhart, 1988, p. 115). One area ofacademia, where both genders experience inequity is English studies.However, few studies have addressed the importance of meeting theneeds of both males and females in this area.

Analysis of the descriptive data for this study indicated that forboth genders, regardless of how the data are disaggregated, studentattraction to the English course fell slightly below or slightly above themiddle (3) range. One explanation for overall moderate scores may bethat the course descriptions did not specify the actual reading topics.Although the readings specified the author gender and the type ofreading required, the subject matter was not revealed. Additionally,the moderate range may have resulted from the age of the student(M¼ 18). Some students, who had positive literary experiences,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

previously, may have rated the course attraction as high, while thosestudents who experienced negative reading assignments in Englishcourses, may have rated the course much lower. It may be beyond thescope of this study to account for these modest ratings; therefore, inthe future, research would warrant the examination of course contentand student attraction.

The study results did, however, reveal that females reported astronger preference for the English course than did males. This find-ing supports the results of previous studies indicating that femalesenjoy and excel in English courses, whereas males prefer other sub-jects such as math, computer science, and science (Brozo & Schmelxer,1997; Connell, 1996; Davies & Brember, 1994; Flynn & Schweickart,1986; Gabriel, 1990; McCracken & Appleby, 1992). Females prefer andexcel in English studies more than males for numerous reasons.English is considered more of a feminine course of study because itdeals with communication. Additionally, many females are moreinclined to prefer reading and writing because often assignments inthe English classroom deal with discussions of character, emotion, andtheme. Females also have role models that read. Furthermore,according to Schlender (2001), unlike males who quickly decide toaccept or reject a text, females are more patient and open-mindedreaders. As a result, females are exposed to a variety of characters,themes, and experiences through reading materials.

Consistent with the literature review and Byrne’s theory of attrac-tion, the findings revealed that student reactions to English courses areinfluenced by the gender of the author. Females rated readings writtenby other females higher (M¼ 18.79) than those readings written bymales (M¼ 16.58). Additionally, males rated courses with male writershigher (M¼ 16.61) than those readings written by female authors(M¼ 14.88). The results lend credence to other findings indicating thatboth females and males prefer readings by their own gender.

Millard (1998) concluded that males are more congruent withstereotypical behavior than females; therefore, they are attracted toreadings about males, especially stories dealing with stereotypicalroles, depicting women as less important characters. This inequitablebehavior stems from a myriad of activities, opportunities, encourage-ments, discouragements, overt behaviors, covert suggestions, andvarious forms of guidance that they have experienced at homeand throughout their educational careers (Witt, Wattenbarger,Gollattscheck, & Suppinger, 1994). Males prefer male authors becausethey have been exposed to male authors primarily throughout theiryears studying English and because males may assume male authorswill relay a male experience, not a female one.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

However, contrary to previous research, females preferred exposi-tory readings written by female authors, and males preferred maleauthors depicting a narrative style. In fact, females rated the femaleexpository readings higher (M¼ 20.00) than both female and maleauthors utilizing narrative readings (M¼ 17.58, 17.52, respectively).Females rated male authors with the expository style the lowest(M¼ 15.64). Therefore, females found male authors expressing factualor process information the least enjoyable. These female participantsrevealed that they enjoyed expository or factual information asopposed to narratives when relayed by a female author.

In the English classroom, seldom are females exposed to expositoryreadings written by females. This finding may be indicative of emer-ging gender roles for females. Now, with changing gender roles,females require independence, thus factual and process information,as opposed to merely narrative information. This study yields theimportance of cognitive competence for females and may reveal therapid change of the organization of family life that includes theincrease in single-mother and dual-parent working families. In otherwords, females may realize that a career is a necessity in this society,and in order to be self-sufficient and career-bound, they must becapable of performing certain processes.

Males, on the other hand, rated female and male authors the samewhen using the expository style (M¼ 16.11), while rating femaleauthors and narratives as the lowest (M¼ 13.64). The preferred stylefor males was a male reading depicting a male experience (narrative,M¼ 17.11). This suggests that males enjoy other male experiences toldfrom a first or second person point of view over factual or processinformation, and the readings least likely to be enjoyed are those toldby a female about her personal experience. Although previousresearch supports that males prefer expository readings and writings,this study reveals that males are attracted to narratives only whentold from a male point of view. The findings suggest that malescontinue to value readings based upon the male experience, with malecharacters, situations, and solutions.

Future Research

The results of this study and an understanding of gender by studentsand teachers have practical and important implications for the ways inwhich English teachers work with elementary, secondary, and collegestudents. This study reveals distinct differences or preferences formales and females. As explained previously, study participants reacteddifferently to course descriptions based upon the gender of the author


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

of the readings and the style of reading required. If future researchreveals more information concerning the attraction of particularreading assignments and student likelihood of enrolling in Englishstudies, educators may be capable of using this information to attractgreater numbers of both male and female students into areas ofEnglish, thereby improving their overall educational capabilities andsuccess.

Educators should prepare males and females equally, and schoolsmust foster androgynous gender roles. However, this research sug-gests that both genders have particular preferences when it pertainsto reading materials. These are not mutually exclusive positions, buteducators must consider student preference, especially in the Englishclassroom, if educators want to enlist an enjoyment for reading andcommunicating. Educators need to familiarize themselves with thevariety of techniques and styles preferred by both genders and utilizethem accordingly to encourage and prepare all students equally. Thesedata confirm Norvell’s (1973) study showing that sex is so dominant aforce in each individual that it needs to be carefully considered whenreading programs are planned. Each gender requires separate butequal consideration.

Finally, by becoming more sensitive to these issues, educators canconduct further research and publish materials to assist in modifyingbehaviors that encourage stereotypical behaviors, thereby establish-ing a nonsexist role. Instructors can omit instructional materials thatomit women or are stereotypical and present females in stereotypicalroles with stereotypical personalities and characteristics, select abalance of literary contributions that both males and females findappealing, and assist students in concluding that English is a subjectmatter that can interest both males and females equally. With thisknowledge educators can increase power within the classroom for bothfemale and male students, increase student understanding of them-selves and their gender, and improve the likelihood that students willbe prepared for interaction in a community that has been defined bygender (Slavin, 2001).

Study Limitations

This research is subject to a number of limitations. First, the studyaddresses the need to provide an equitable educational experiencefor males and females at the community college level. Consequently,the findings may not generalize to learning organizations beyond thecommunity college level. Furthermore, the regional nature of thestudy sample (Southeastern United States) should be considered when


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

interpreting the findings. Students in other geographical regions mayrespond to the attributes of the courses differently. Finally, there maybe other ways that gender discrimination manifests itself at thecommunity college level. For example, hiring a disproportionatenumber of males or females to teach English classes may perpetuate aform of gender discrimination. Future research should examine othermanifestations of gender bias.

CONCLUSION

There has been little research exploring the factors inhibiting orencouraging gender bias for males and females in English studies.Both genders are discriminated against in different but effectual waysthroughout English courses. This study begins to examine factors thatinfluence student perceptions of these courses and can contribute tothe acquisition of additional knowledge concerning disparate educa-tions for males and females. By determining what factors influencestudent attraction in the field of English, educators can foster equityby ‘‘investing students with confidence in their own authority’’(Gerlach & Hart, 1992, p. 49).

REFERENCES

Applebee, A. (1989). A study of book-length works taught in high school English courses.Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.

Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Bleach, K. (1998). Why the likely lads lag behind: An examination of reasons for someboys’ poor academic performance and behaviour in school. In K. Bleach (Ed.), Raisingboys’ achievement in schools (pp. 1�20). Staffordshire, England: Trentham.

Bowman, C. A. (1992). Gender differences in response to literature. In N. M. McCracken& B. C. Appleby (Eds.), Gender issues in the teaching of English (pp. 80�114).Portsmouth, NH: Boynton=Cook.

Brozo, W. & Schmelxer, R. (1997). Wildmen, warriors, and lovers: Reaching boys througharchetypal literature [Electronic version]. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 97,4�12.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.).

New York: Academic.Connell, R. W. (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity, and gender

strategies for schools [Electronic version]. Teachers College Record, 98, 206�238.Davies, J. & Brember, I. (1994). Attitudes to school and the curriculum year 2 and year 4:

Changes over 2 years [Electronic version]. Educational Review, 46, 247�259.Fetterly, J. (1978). The resisting reader: A feminist approach to American fiction.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Flynn, E. A. & Schweickart, P. P. (Eds.). (1986). Gender and reading. Baltimore:

John Hopkins University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Gabriel, S. L. (1990). Gender, reading, and writing: Assignments, expectations, andresponses. In S. L. Gabriel & E. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom(pp. 127�139). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Gerlach, J., & Hart, B. L. (1992). Gender equity in the classroom: An inventory. TeachingEnglish in the two-year college, 19, 49�54.

Graves, L. M. & Powell, G. N. (1996). Sex similarity, quality of the employment interviewand recruiters’ evaluation of actual applicant. Journal of Occupational and Orga-nizational Psychology, 69, 243�261.

Grossman, H. & Grossman, S. H. (1994). Gender issues in education. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Heilbrun, C. G. (1990). The politics of mind: Women, tradition, and the university.In S. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom (pp. 28�41). Chicago:University of Illinois Press.

Holland, D. C. & Eisenhart, M. A. (1988). Moments of discontent: University women andthe gender status quo. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19, 115�138.

Kelly, U. A. (1996) The feminist trespass: Gender, literature, and curriculum. In J.Gaskell & J. Willinsky (Eds.), Gender in=forms curriculum (pp. 96�108). New York:Teachers College.

Keppell, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (3rd ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lottes, I. L., Kuriloff, P. J. (1992). The effects of gender, race, religion, and politicalorientation on the sex role attitudes of college freshmen. Adolescence, 27, 675�688.

McCracken, N. M. (1992). Re-gendering the reading of literature. In N. M. McCracken &B. C. Appleby (Eds.), Gender issues in the teaching of English (pp. 55�68).Portsmouth, NH: Boynton=Cook.

McCracken, N. M. & Appleby, B. C. (Eds.). (1992). Gender issues in the teaching ofEnglish. Portsmouth: Boynton=Cook.

Melville, H. (n.d.). Moby Dick. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.Millard, E. (1998). Balancing the books. In A. Clark & E. Millard (Eds.), Gender in the

secondary curriculum (pp. 43�59). London: Routledge.Newton, R. M. & Zeitoun, P. (2003). Is androcentric bias in educational administration

on the wane? Perplexing findings. Journal of School Leadership, 13(4), 385�404.Norvell, G. (1973). The reading interests of young people. Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University Press.Pace, B. G. (1992). The textbook canon: Genre, gender, and race in U.S. literature

anthologies. English Journal, 81, 33�38.Rice, P. S. (2000). Gendered readings of a traditional ‘feminist’ folktale by sixth-grade

boys and girls. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 211�236.Rynes, S. & Lawler, J. (1983). A policy-capturing investigation of the role of expectancies

in decisions to pursue job alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 620�631.Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1982). Sex equity handbook for schools. New York: Longman.Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls.

New York: Simon & Schuster.Schlender, E. A. (2001). Beyond reader-response theories of reading: Psychoanalytic

theories and sex=gender in the high school English classroom. (Doctoral Dissertation,University of Alberta, Canada, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 5.

Schwab, D. P., Rynes, S. L., Aldag, R. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search andchoice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5, 129�166.

Slavin, M. (2001). How can awareness of gender identity improve the performance ofstudents? Journal of College Reading & Learning, 32, 32�40.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

Smithson, I. (1990). Introduction: Investigating gender, power, and pedagogy.In S. L. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom (pp. 1�28). Chicago:University of Illinois Press.

Twain, M. (1990). The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Baronet.Warrington, M., Younger, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Student attitudes, image and The

gender gap [Electronic version]. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 393�408.Whitehead, F., Capey, A., Maddren, W., & Wellings, A. (1977). Children and their books.

Final report of the Schools Council Project on children’s reading habits 10�16.Basingstoke, England: Evans=Metheren Educational.

Williams, T. (1993). The Glass Menagerie. In Laurence Perrine and Thomas Arp (Eds.),Literature structure, sound, and sense (pp. 955�1001). Fort Worth: Harcourt.

Winter, P. (1998). Community college faculty recruitment practices: The effects ofapplicant gender, instructional programs, and job attributes [Electronic version].Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 22, n.p.

Winter, P., & Kjorlien, C. L. (2000). Community college faculty recruitment: Effects of jobmobility, recruiter similarity-dissimilarity, and applicant gender [Electronic version].Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 24, 547�566.

Witt, A. A., Wattenbarger, J. L., Gollattscheck, J. F., & Suppinger, J. E. (1994). America’scommunity colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Wyrick, J. (2002). Steps to writing well with additional readings (5th ed.). Fort Worth,TX: Harcourt.

Young, C. (2001). Where the boys are. [Electronic version]. Reason, 32, 24�32.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:38

29

Oct

ober

201

4

community college student attraction to an english course: the associations among student gender,...

Documents