Note: This article was taken from American Association of University Women (1992), How schools shortchange Girls. Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. pp. 68-74.

Please read and make a list of comments that need to be highlighted or further developed.

Students can learn as much from what they experience in school as they can from the formal content of classroom assignments. Classroom interactions, both with the teacher and other students, are critical components of education. These interactions shape a school. They determine in large measure whether or not a school becomes a community: a place where girls and boys can learn to value themselves and others, where both the rights and the responsibilities of citizens are fostered.

Teacher-Student Interactions

Whether one looks at preschool classrooms or University lecture halls, at female teachers or male teachers, research spanning the past twenty years consistently reveals that males receive more teacher attention than do females.(1) In preschool classrooms boys receive more instructional time, more hugs, and more teacher attention.(2) The pattern persists through elementary school and high school. One reason is that boys demand more attention. Researchers David and Myra Sadker have studied these patterns for many years. They report that boys in one study of elementary and middle school students called out answers eight times more often than girls did. When boys called out, the typical teacher reaction was to listen to the comment. When girls called out, they were usually corrected with comments such as, "Please raise your hand if you want to speak."(3)

It is not only the attention demanded by male students that explains their greater involvement in teacher-student exchanges. Studies have found that even when boys do not volunteer, the teacher is more likely to solicit their responses.(4)

The issue is broader than the inequitable distribution of teacher contacts with male and female students; it also includes the inequitable content of teacher comments. Teacher remarks can be vague and superficial or precise and penetrating. Helpful teacher comments provide students with insights into the strengths and weaknesses of their answers. Careful and comprehensive teacher reactions not only affect student learning, they can also influence student self-esteem.(5)

The Sadkers conducted a three-year study, of more than 100 fourth, sixth

and eighth-grade classrooms. They identified four types of teacher comments: praise, acceptance, remediation, and criticism.

They found that while males received more of all four types of teacher comments, the difference favoring boys was greatest in the more useful teacher reactions of praise, criticism, and remediation. When teachers took the time and made the effort to specifically evaluate a student's performance, the student receiving the comment was more likely to be male.(6) These findings are echoed in other investigations, indicating that boys receive more precise teacher comments than females in terms of both scholarship and conduct.(7)

The differences in teacher evaluations of male and female students have been cited by some researchers as a cause of "learned helplessness," or lack of academic perseverance, in females. Initially investigated in animal experiments, "learned helplessness" refers to a lack of perseverance, a debilitating loss of self-confidence.(8) This concept has been used to explain why girls sometimes abandon while boys persistently pursue academic challenges for which both groups are equally qualified.(9)

One school of thought links learned helplessness with attribution theory.

AN APPROACH TO CHANGE

In Kentucky, the Office of Technical Education in the Cabinet for Workforce Development has undertaken an intensive research and training project. Trained observers watched and coded 245 randomly selected vocational-education class sessions at the secondary and postsecondary levels. The results showed that males consistently received a disproportionate number of teacher comments and that the male/female disparity was even greater in high school classrooms than it was at the post-secondary level. Neither the sex of the teacher nor the number of years of teaching experience affected this pattern. However, training in classroom-interaction strategies did affect teacher behavior: teachers with training provided a more equitable classroom environment. (1)

Based on these results, the Office of Technical Education is continuing to support training sessions for teachers, and teachers themselves are telling others about what they have learned. "I hope that over a five-year period every school district and every vocational school in the state will be aware of the difference teachers make in their classes. I believe a good portion of the teachers will change their teaching techniques.

-Betty Tipton, Director, Equal Vocational Education Programs, Kentucky.

(1)State of Kentucky, Department of Education, Office of Vocational Education, Teacher/Student Classroom Interaction in Vocational Education: A Sex Biased/Sex Stereotyping Project.

While girls are more likely to attribute their success to luck, boys are more likely to attribute their success to ability. As a result of these different causal attributions, boys are more likely to feel mastery and control over academic challenges, while girls are more likely to feel powerless in academic situations.(10)

Studies also reveal that competent females have higher expectations of failure and lower self-confidence when encountering new academic situations than do males with similar abilities.(11) The result is that female students are more likely to abandon academic tasks.(12)

However, research also indicates that the concepts of learned helplessness and other motivation constructs are complex. Psychologist Jacquelynne Eccles and her colleagues have found that there is a high degree of variation within each individual in terms of motivational constructs as one goes across subject areas. New evidence indicates that it is too soon to state a definitive conection between a specific teacher behavior and a particular student outcome. (13) Further research on the effects of teacher behavior and student performance and motivation is needed.

The majority of studies on teacher-student interaction do not differentiate among subject areas. However, there is some indication that the teaching of certain subjects may encourage gender biased teacher behavior while others may foster more equitable interactions. Sex differences in attributing success to luck versus effort are more likely in subject areas where teacher responses are less frequent and where single precise student responses are less common. (14)

Two recent studies find teacher-student interactions in science classes particularly biased in favor of boys. (15) Some mathematics classes have less biased patterns of interaction overall when compared to science classes, but there is evidence that despite the more equitable overall pattern, a few male students in each mathematics class receive particular attention to the exclusion of all other students, male and female.(16)

Research on teacher-student interaction patterns has rarely looked at the interaction of gender with race, ethnicity, and/or social class. The limited data available indicate that while males receive more teacher attention than females, white boys receive more attention than boys from various racial and ethnic minority groups. (17)

Evidence also suggests that the attention minority students receive from teachers may, be different in nature from that given to white children. In elementary school, black boys tend to have fewer interactions overall with teachers than other students and yet they are the recipients of four to ten times the amount of qualified praise ("That's good, but...") as other students.(18) Black boys tend to be perceived less favorably by their teachers and seen as less able than other students.(19) The data are more complex for girls. Black girls have less interaction with teachers than white girls, but they attempt to initiate interaction much more often than white girls or than boys of either race. Research indicates that teachers may unconsciously rebuff these black girls, who eventually turn to peers for interaction, often becoming the class enforcer or go-between for other students.(20) Black females also receive less reinforcement from teachers than do other students, although their academic performance is often better than boys'.(21)

In fact, when black girls do as well as white boys in school, teachers attribute their success to hard work but assume that the white boys are not working up to their full potential.(22) This, coupled with the evidence that blacks arc more often reinforced for their social behavior while whites are likely to be reinforced for their academic accomplishments, may contribute to low academic self-esteem in black girls.(23) Researchers have found that black females value their academic achievements less than black males in spite of their better performance.(24) Another study found that black boys have a higher science self--concept than black girls although there were no differences in achievement.(25)

The Desigon of Classroom Activities

Research studies reveal a tendency beginning at the preschool level for schools to choose classroom activities that will appeal to boys' interests and to select presentation formats in which boys excel or are encouraged more than are girls.(26) For example, when researchers looked at lecture versus laboratory classes, they found that in lecture classes teachers asked males academically related questions about 80 percent more often than they questioned females; the patterns were mixed in laboratory classes.(27) However, in science courses, lecture classes remain more common than laboratory classes.

Research indicates that if pupils begin working on an activity with little introduction from the teacher, everyone has access to the same experience. Discussion that follows after all students have completed an activity encourages more participation by girls.(28) In an extensive multi-state study, researchers found that in geometry classes where the structure was changed so that students read the book and did problems first and then had classroom discussion of the topic, girls outperformed boys in two of five tests and scored equally in the other three. Girls in the experimental class reversed the general trend of boys' dominance on applications, coordinates, and proof taking, while they remained on par with boys on visualizations in three dimensions and transformations. In traditional classes where topics were introduced by lecture first and then students read the book and did the problems, small gender differences favoring boys remained.(29)

Successful Teaching Strategies

There are a number of teaching strategies that can promote more gender-equitable learning environments. Research indicates that science teachers who are successful in encouraging girls share several strategies.(30) These included using more than one textbook, eliminating sexist language, and showing fairness in their treatment and expectations of both girls and boys.

Other research indicates that classrooms where there are no gender differences in math are "girl friendly" with less social comparison and competition and an atmosphere students find warmer and fairer.(31)

In their 1986 study, Women's Ways of Knowing, Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule point out that for many girls and women, successful learning takes place in an atmosphere that enables students to empathetically enter into the subject they are studying, an approach tile authors term "connected knowing." The authors suggest that an acceptance of each individual's personal experiences and perspectives facilitates students' learning. They argue for classrooms that emphasize collaboration and provide space for exploring diversity of opinion.(32)

Few classrooms foster "connected learning," nor are the majority of classrooms designed to encourage cooperative behaviors and collaborative efforts. The need to evaluate, rank, and judge students can undermine collaborative approaches. One recent study that sampled third-, fifth-, and seventh-grade students found that successful students reported fewer cooperative attitudes than did unsuccessful students. In this study the effects of gender varied as a function of grade level. Third grade girls were more cooperative than their male peers, but by fifth grade the gender difference had disappeared.(33) Other studies do not report this grade level-gender interaction, but rather indicate that girls tend to be more cooperative than boys but that cooperative attitudes decline for all students as they mature.(34)

Some educators view the arrival of new classroom organizational structures as a harbinger of more effective and more equitable learning environments. "Cooperative learning" has been viewed as one of these potentially more successful educational strategies. Cooperative learning is designed to eliminate the negative effects of classroom competition while promoting a cooperative spirit and increasing heterogeneous and cross-race relationships. Smaller cooperative work groups are designed to promote group cohesion and interdependence, and mobilize these positive feelings to achieve academic objectives.(35) Progress and academic performance are evaluated on a group as well as an individual basis; the group must work together efficiently or all its members will pay a price.(36) A number of positive results have been attributed to cooperative learning groups, including increasing cross-race friendships, boostinc, academic achievement, mainstreaming students with disabilities, and developing, mutual student concerns.(37)

However, positive cross-sex relationships may be more difficult to achieve than cross-race friendships or positive relationships among students with and without disabilities. First, as reported earlier in this report, there is a high degree of sex-segregation and same-sex friendships in elementary and middle school years.(38) Researchers have found that the majority of elementary students preferred single-sex work groups.(39) Second, different communication patterns of males and females can be an obstacle to effective cross-gender relationships. Females are more indirect in speech, relying often on questioning, while more direct males are more likely to make declarative statements or even to interrupt.(40) Research indicates that boys in small groups are more likely to receive requested help from girls; girls' requests, on the other hand, are more likely to be ignored by the boys.(41) In fact, the male sex may be seen as a status position within the group. As a result, male students may choose to show their social dominance by not readily talking with females.(42)

Not only are the challenges to cross-gender cooperation significant, but cooperative learning as currently implemented may not be powerful enough to overcome these obstacles. Some research indicates that the infrequent use of small, unstructured work groups is not effective in reducing gender stereotypes, and, in fact, increases stereotyping. Groups often provide boys with leadership opportunities that increase their self-esteem. Females are often seen as followers and are less likely to want to work in mixed-sex groups in the future.(43) Another study indicates a decrease in female achievement when females are placed in mixed-sex groups.(44) Other research on cooperative education programs have reported more positive results.(45) However, it is clear that merely providing an occasional group learning experience is not the answer to sex and gender differences in classrooms.

Problems in Student Interactions

The ways students treat each other during school hours is an aspect of the informal learning process, with significant negative implications for girls. There is mounting evidence that boys do not treat girls well. Reports of student sexual harassment - the unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature imposed by one individual on another - among junior high school and high school peers are increasing. In the majority of cases a boy is harassing a girl.(46)

Incidents of sexual harassment reveal as much about power and authority as they do about sexuality; the person being harassed usually is less powerful than the person doing the harassing. Sexual harassment is prohibited under Title IX, yet sex-biased peer interactions appear to be permitted in schools, if not always approved. Rather than viewing sexual harassment as serious misconduct, school authorities too often treat it as a joke.

When boys line up to "rate" girls as they enter a room, when boys treat girls so badly that they are reluctant to enroll in courses where they may be the only female, when boys feel it is good fun to embarrass girls to the point of tears, it is no-joke. Yet these types of behaviors are often viewed by school personnel as harmless instances of "boys being boys."

The clear message to both girls and boys is that girls are not worthy of respect and that appropriate behavior for boys includes exerting power over girls - or over other, weaker boys. Being accused of being in any way like a woman is one of the worst insults a boy can receive. As one researcher recently observed:

"It is just before dismissal time and a group of very active fourth-graders are having trouble standing calmly in line as they wait to go to their bus. Suddenly, one of the boys grabs another's hat, runs to the end of the line, and involves a number of his buddies in a game of keep-away. The boy whose hat was taken leaps from his place in line, trying to intercept it from the others, who, as they toss it back and forth out of his reach, taunt him by yelling, 'You woman! You're a woman!' When the teacher on bus duty notices, she tells the boys that they all have warnings for not waiting in line properly. The boys resume an orderly stance but continue to mutter names - 'Woman!' 'Am not.' 'Yes, you are.' - under their breath."

-Margaret Stubbs, October 1990

Harassment related to sexual orientation or sexual preference has received even less attention as an equity issue than heterosexual sexual harassment.(47) Yet, examples of name calling that imply homophobia, such as "sissy," "queer," "gay," "lesbo," are common among students at all levels of schooling. The fourth-grade boys who teased a peer by calling him a "woman" were not only giving voice to the sex-role stereotype that women are weaker than and therefore inferior to men; they were also challenging their peer's "masculinity" by ascribing feminine characteristics to him in a derogatory manner. Such attacks often prevent girls, and sometimes boys, from participating in activities and courses that are traditionally viewed as appropriate for the opposite sex. When schools ignore sexist, racist, homophobic, and violent interactions between students, they are giving tacit approval to such behaviors. Environments where students do not feel accepted are not environments where effective learning can take place.

Implications

Teachers are not always aware of the ways in which they interact with students. Videotaping actual classrooms so that teachers can see themselves in action can help them to develop their own strategies for fostering gender equitable education. The use of equitable teaching strategies should be one of the criteria by which teaching performance is evaluated.

Research studies indicate that girls often learn and perform better in same-sex work groups than they do in mixed-sex groupings. Additional research is needed, however, to better understand the specific dynamics of these interactions, particularly the circumstances under which single-sex groupings are most beneficial. Single-sex classes are illegal under Title IX, but usually Single-sex work groups within coed classes are not. Teachers should be encouraged to "try out" many different classroom groupings, not only in mathematics and science classes but across a wide range of subject matter. It is critical that they carefully observe the impact of various groupings and write up and report their findings.

"Learning is enhanced when students understand what is expected of them, get recognition for their work, learning about their errors and receiving guidance in improving their performance."

- J. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York, 1984), p. 111.

Boys and girls view academic failure very differently. Boys often attribute their failures to lack of trying and feel that more effort is needed to be successful. Girls are more likely to attribute their failures to a simple lack of ability.

A study, of science classes found that when teachers needed assistance in carrying out a demonstration, 79 percent of the demonstrations were carried out by boys. Science classrooms are often dominated by boys in part because boys have more extensive out-of-school familiarity and experience with the subject matter.

- K. Tobin and P. Garnett, "Gender Related Differences in Science Activities," Science Education 71(1987): 91-103; J. Kahle, "Why Girls Don't Know," in What Research says to the Science Teacher - the Process of Knowing, ed. M. Rowe (Washington, DC National Science Testing Association, 1990).

"Sexual harassment occurs in the mundane, daily matters of school life: in the chemistry lab as well as in the carpentry shop, in the driver's ed car, and on the practice field, of extra-curricular sports. Yet, despite its frequency, sexual harassment is rarely reported, tallied, investigated, or systematically documented."

-Dr. Nan Stein, Massachusetts, Department of Education.

Chapter 2

(1) See for example, J. Brophy and T. Good, Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1974); M. Jones, "Gender Bias in Classroom Interactions," Contemporary Education 60 (Summer 1989): 216-22; M. Lockheed, Final Report: A Study of Sex Equity in Classroom Interaction (Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1984); M. Lockheed and A. Harris, Classroom Interaction and Opportunities for Cross-Sex Peer Learning in Science, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 1989; M. Sadker and D. Sidker, "Sexism in the Classroom From Grade School to Graduate School," Phi Delta Kappan 68 (1986): 512; R. Spaulding, Achievement, Creativity and Self-Concept Correlates of Teacher-Pupil Transactions in Elementary School (Cooperative Research Project No. 1352), (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health Education arid Welfare, 1963).

(2) L. Serbin et al., "A Comparison of Teacher Responses to the Pre-Academic and Problem Behavior of Boys and Girls," Child Development 44 (1973): 796-804; M. Ebbeck, "Equity for Boys and Girls: Some Important Issues," Early Child Development and Care 18 (1984): 119-31.

(3) D. Sadker, M. Sadker, and D. Thomas, "Sex Equity and Special Education," The Pointer 26 (1981): 33-38.

(4) D. Sadker and M. Sadker, "Is the OK Classroom OK?," Phi Delta Kappan 55 (1985): 35867.

(5) J. Brophy, "Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis," Review of Educational Research 51 (1981): 5-32; A. Gardner, C. Mason, and M. Matyas, "Equity, Excellence and 'Just Plain Good Teaching!'" The American Biology Teacher 51 (1989): 72-77.

(6) M. Sadker and D. Sadker, Year 3: Final Report, Prornoting Effectiveness in Classroom

Instruction (Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1984).

(7) D. Baker, "Sex Ditfercnces in Classroom Interactions in Secondary Science," Journal of Classroom Interaction 22 (1986): 212-18; J. Becker, "Differential Treatment of Females and Males in Mathcrnatics Classes," Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 12 (1981): 4053; L. Berk and N. Lewis, "Sex Role and Social Behavior in Four School Envronments," Elementary School Journal 3(1977): 205-21; L. Morse and H. Handley, "Listening to Adolescents: Gender Diftcrenccs in Science Classroom Interaction," in Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction, L. Wilkerson and C. Marrett, eds., (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985), pp. 37-56.

(8) M. Seligman and S. Nlaier, "Failure to Escape Traumatic Shock," Journal of Experimental Psychology 74 (1967): 1-9.

(9) C. Dweck and N. Repucci, "Learned Helplessness and Reinforcement Responsibility in Children," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25 (1973): 109-16; C. Dweck and T. Goetz, "Attributions and Learned Helplessness," in New Directions in Attribution Research, J. Harvey, W. Ickes, and R. Kidd, eds., (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1978).

(10) See for example, K. Deaux, "Sex: A Perspective on the Attribution Process," in New Directions in Attribution Research; C. Dweck and E. Bush, "Sex Differences in Learned Helplessness: I. Differential Debilitation with Peer and Adult Evaluators," Developmental Psychology 12 (1976): 147-56; C. Dweck, T. Goetz, and N. Strauss, "Sex Differences in Learned Helplessness: IV An Experimental and Naturalistic Study of Failure Generalization and Its

Mediators," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (1980): 441-52; L. Reyes, Mathematics Classroom Processes, paper presented at the Fifth International Congress on Mathematical Education, Adelaide, Australia, August 1984; P. Wolleat, et at., "Sex Differencesin High School Students' Causal Attributions of Performance in Mathematics," Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 11 (1980): 356-66; D. Phillips, "The Illusion of Incompetence among Academically Competent Children," Child Development 55 (1984): 2000-16;

E. Fennema et al., "Teachers' Attributions and Belief about Girls, Boys, and Mathematics," Educational Studies in Mathematics 21(1990): 55-69.

(11) E. Maccoby and C. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974); E. Lenney, "Women's Self-Confidence in Achievement Settings," Psychological Bulletin 84 (1977): 1-13; J. Parsons and D. Ruble, "The Development of Achievement-Related Expectancies," Child Development 48 (1977): 1075-79; Dweck, Goetz, and Strauss, "Sex Differences in Learned Helplessness: IV"; J. Goetz, "Children's Sex Role Knowledge and Behavior: An Ethnographic Study of First Graders in the Rural South," Theory and Research in Social Education 8 (1981): 31-54.

(12) W. Shepard and D. Hess, 'Attitudes in Four Age Groups Toward Sex Role Division in Adult Occupations and Activities," Journal of Vocational Behavior 6 (1975): 27-39; C. Dweck and E. Elliot, 'Achievement Motivation," in Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4, P. Mussen and E. Hetherington, eds., (New York: Wilcv, 1983), R. Felson, "The Effect of Self-Appraisals of Ability on Academic Performance," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 (1984):

944-52; M. Stewart and C. Corbin, "Feedback Dependence among Low Confidence Preadolescent Boys and Girls," Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 59 (1988): 160-64.

(13) J. Eccles-Parsons et at., "Sex Differences in Attributions and Learned Helplessness," Sex Roles 8 (1982): 421-32; J. Eccles-Parsons, C. Kaczala, and J. Meece, "Socialization of Achievement Attitudes and Beliefs: Classroom Influences," Child Development 53 (1982): 32239; J. Eccles, "Expectancies, Values and Acadernic Behaviors," in Achievement and Achievement Motives, J. Spence, ed., (San Francisco, CA: WH. Freeman and Co., 1983), J. Eccles, Understanding Motivation: Achievement Beliefs, Gender-Roles and Changing Educational Environments, address before American Psychological Association, New York, 1987.

(14) B. Licht, S. Stader, and C. Swenson, "Children's Achievement Related Beliefs: Effects of Academic Area, Sex, and Achievement Level," Journal of Educational Research 82 (1989): 25360.

(15) J. Kahle, "Why Girls Don't Know," in What Research Says to the Science Teacher - the Process of Knowing, M. Rowe, ed., (Washington, DC: National Science Testina Association, 1990), pp. 55-67; V. Lee, "Sexism in Single-Sex and Coeducational Secondary School Classrooms," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Cincinnati, OH, August 8, 1991.

(16) J. Eccles, "Bringing Young Women to Math and Science," in Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives, M. Crawford and M. Gentry, eds., (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989), pp. 36-58; Licht et at., "Children's Achievement Related Beliefs."

(17) Sadker and Sadker, Year 3; L. Grant, "Race-Gender Status, Classroom Interaction and Children's Socialization in Elementary School," in Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction, L. Wilkinson and C. Marrett, eds., (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985), pp. 57-75.

(18) Grant, "Race-Gender Status," p.66.

(19) C. Corribleth and W. Korth, "Teacher Perceptions and Teacher-Student Interaction in Integrated Classrooms," Journal of Experimental Education 48 (Summer 1980): 259-63; B. Hare, Black Girls - A Comparative Analysis of Self-Perception and Achievernent by Race, Sex and Socioecomonic Background, Report No. 271, (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools, [1979]).

(20) S. Damico and E. Scott, "Behavior Differences Between Black and White Females in Desegregated Schools," Equity and Excellence 23 (1987): 63-66; Grant, "Race-Gender Status." See also J. Irvine, "Teacher-Student Interactions: Effects of Student Race, Sex, and Grade Level," Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (1986): 14-21.

(21) Damico arid Scott, "Behavior Differences"; Hare, "Black Girls: A Comparative Analysis."

(22) Darnico and Scott, "Behavior Differences;" L. Grant, "Black Females 'Place' in Integrated Classrooms," Sociology of Education 57 (1984): 98-111.

(23) Damico and Scott, "Behavior Differences."

(24) D. Scott-Jones and M. Clark, "The School Experience of Black Girls: The Interaction of Gender, Race and Socioeconomic Status," Phi Delta Kappan 67 (March 1986): 20-526.

(25) V. Washington and J. Newman, "Setting Our Own Agenda: Exploring the Meaning of Gender Disparities Among Blacks in Higher Education," Journal of Negro Education 60 (1991): 19-35.

(26) E. Fennema and P. Peterson, "Effective Teaching for Girls and Boys: The Same or Different?" in Talks to Teachers, D. Berliner and B. Rosenshine, eds., (New York: Random House, 1987), pp. 111-25; J. Stallings, "School Classroom and Home Influences on Women's Decisions to Enroll in Advanced Mathematics Courses," in Women and Mathematics: Balancing the Equation; S. Chipman, L. Brush, and D. Wilson, eds., (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985), pp. 199-224; S. Greenberg, "Educational Equity in Early Education Environments," in Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity, Through Education, S. Klein, ed., (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1985), pp.457-69.

(27) D. Baker, "Sex Differences in Classroom Interactions in Secondary Science," Journal of Classroom Interaction 22 (1986): 212-18.

(28) D. Jorde and A. Lea, "The Primary Science Project in Norway," in Proceedings of Growth GSAT Conference, J. Kahle, J. Daniels, and J. Harding, eds., (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1987), pp. 66-72.

(29) P. Flores, "How Dick and Jane Perform Differently in Geometry: Test Results on Reasoning, Visualization and Affective Factors," paper presented at American Educational Research Association Meeting, Boston, MA, April 1990.

(30) J. Kahle, Factors Affecting the Retention of Girls in Science Courses,and Careers: Case Studies of Selected Secondary Schools (Reston, VA: The National Association of Biology Teachers, October 1983).

(31) Eccles, "Bringing Young Women to Math and Science."

(32) M. Belenky et al., Women's Ways of Knowing - The Development of Self, Body, and Mind (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1986).

(33) G. Engelhard and J. Monsaas, "Academic Performance, Gender and the Cooperative Attitudes of Third, Fifth and Seventh Graders," Journal of Research and Development in Education 22 (1989): 13-17.

(34) A. Ahlgren and D. Johnson, "Sex Differences in Cooperative and Competitive Attitudes from 2nd Through the 12th Grades," Developmental Psychology 15 (1979): 45-49; B. Herndon and M. Carpenter, "Sex Differences in Cooperative and Competitive Attitudes in a Northeastern School," Psychological Reports 50 (1982): 768-70; L. Owens and R. Straton, "The Development of Cooperative Competitive and Individualized Learning Preference Scale for Students," Journal of Educational Psychology 50 (1980): 147-61.

(35) S. Sharon et al., eds., Cooperation in Education (Provo, UT Brigham Young University Press, 1980); S. Bossert, Task Structure and Social Relationships (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979); W. Shrum, N. Check, and S. Hunter, "Friendship in the School: Gender and Racial Homophily," Sociology of Education 61 (1988): 227-39.

(36) E. Aronson, The Jigsaw Classroom (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1978); D. DeVries and K. Edwards, "Student Teams and Learning Games: Their Effects on Cross-Race and Cross-Sex Interaction," Journal of Educational Psychology 66 (1974): 741-49; R. Okebukola, "Cooperative Learning and Students' Attitude to Laboratory Work," Social Science and Mathematics 86 (1986): 582-90; R. Stavin, "How Student Learning Teams Can Integrate the Desegregated Classroom," Integrated Education 15 (1977): 56-58.

(37) N. Blaney et al., "Interdependence in the Classroom: A Field Study," Journal of Educational Psychology 69 (1977): 121-28; D. Devries and K. Edwards, "Student Teams and Learning Gaines: Their Effects on Cross-Race and Cross-Sex Interaction," Journal of Educational Psychology 66 (1974): 741-49; Sharon et al., Cooperation in Education; R. Stavin, "Cooperative Learning,," Review of Educational Research 50 (1980): 315-42; R. Stavin, "Cooperative Learning and Desegregation," in W. Hawley, ed., Effective School Desegregation (Berkeley, CA: Sage, 1981); R. Weigle, P. Wiser, and S. Cook, "The Impact of Cooperative Learning Experiences on Cross-Ethnic Relations and Attitude," Journal of Social Issues 3 (1975): 219-44.

(38) M. Hallinan, The Evolution of Children's Friendship Cliques (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 161556, 1977); R. Best, We'veAll Got Scars: What Boys and Girls Learn in Elementary School (Bloomington, IN: University Press, 1983); J. Eccles-Parsons, "Sex Differences in Mathematics Participation," in M. Steinkamp and M. Maehr, eds., Women in Science (Greenwich, CT JAI Press, 1984); M. Hallinan and N. Tumma, "Classroom Effects on Change in Children," Sociology of Education 51 (1978): 170-282.

(39) M. Lockheed, K. Finklestein, and A. Harris, Curriculum and Research for Equity: Model Data Package (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1979).

(40) B. Eakins and R. Eakins, "Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation," in B. Thorne and N. Henley, eds., Sex Differences in Human Communication (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1978); N. Henley and B. Thorne, "Women Speak and Men Speak: Sex Differences and Sexism in Communications, Verbal and Nonverbal," in A. Sargent, ed., Beyond Sex Roles (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1977); R. Lakoff, Languages and Women's Place (New York: Harper Colophone Books, 1976); D. Tarmen, You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New Nbrk: William Morrow, 1990).

(41) L. Wilkinson, J. Linclow, and C. Chiang, "Sex Differences and Sex Segregation in Students' Small-Group Communication," in L. Wilkinson and C. Marret, eds., Gender Influences in Classroom Interaction (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985), pp. 185-207.

(42) J. Berger, T. Conner, and M. Fisek, eds., Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1974); M. Lockheed and A. Harris, "Cross-Sex Collaborative Learning in Elementary Classrooms," American Educational Research Journal, 21 (1984): 275-94.

(43) Lockheed and Harris, "Cross-Sex Collaborative Learning."

(44) C. Weisfeld et al., "The Spelling Bee: A Naturalistic Study

of Female Inhibitions in Mixed-Sex Competitions," Adolescence 18 (1983): 695-708.

(45) For example, M. Lockheed and A. Harris, "Classroom Interaction and opportunity for CrossSex Peer Learning in Science," Journal of Early Adolescence (1982):135-43.

(46) S. Strauss, "Sexual Harassment in the School: Legal Implications for Principals," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (1988):93-97; N. Stein, "Survey on Sexual Harassment," Vocational Options in Creating Equity, VI (Boston, MA: Department of Education, 1990), p. 1.

(47) D. Grayson, "Emerging Equity Issues Related to Homosexuality," Peabody Journal of Education 64 (1989): 132-45.