ac educator
Controlling the climate in your classroom Professors balance making chemistry a “hot” subject while controlling the chilly climate felt by women and minority students. Thomas J. Wenzel, Bates College
W
omen and minorities have historically been underrepresented in science, and there has been considerable discussion over the past two decades about improving the diversity of the scientific community. The Committee on Professional Training of the American Chemical Society recently changed its guidelines for undergraduate chemistry programs, specifically expressing concerns about the composition of the faculty. The committee stated in its newsletter, “The chemistry profession benefits from the broader inclusion of underrepresented groups, including women and minorities” (1). Chemical & Engineering News reported how disproportionately few women at British universities are staying in academic chemistry and that changes in the culture of some departments are needed (2). It is still the case that anyone with an interest or aptitude in science ought to feel welcome; however, if we create the impression that science is the domain of white males, women and minorities who have the potential to make important contributions will continue to endure a chilly climate.
The chilly climate In 1982, the first comprehensive study comparing the experiences of men and women in college courses was published, and it was updated in 1997 (3, 4). The findings showed that the experi-
ences of female and male college students were often markedly different, and that a number of small inequities led to what the authors of the study
called a “chilly climate”. This study was not specific to science courses, but considering the historically low participation rates of women in science, the findJ U LY 1 , 2 0 0 3 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
311 A
ac educator
ings are especially relevant. Although there have been less thorough studies of the experiences of minority students in college courses, those that have been done suggest that these students often experience a chilly climate in college courses as well (5, 6). Research shows that the traits we associate with a person’s gender create expectations that can profoundly influence classroom behavior and the experience of both students and teachers (7–9). We tend to expect certain behavior from females and males and consciously or subconsciously tailor many of our own responses accordingly. Females and males who do not exhibit their expected masculine and feminine traits may be singled out for unfair treatment. The quiet, unassertive man may not be picked for some activities, whereas the assertive woman is often viewed negatively (4). Rather than overt discrimination, which does occur occasionally, the chilly climate identified in these studies most often arose from a lack of attention to gender distinctions by the instructor. For example, instructors tend to recognize or call on more male students to answer questions. Research also has shown that participation in many classes is often dom-
majority of students are either silent or contribute once orally during a class (10). Another distinction involved the remarks that were made after a student answered a question. Males were often asked more follow-up questions or had more responses than females (13, 14). Responses from males were praised for their intellectual content more often than those from women. The instructor’s body language while a student is answering a question sends messages as well. Turning away, failing to make eye contact, or other signs of inattentiveness, such as looking at a watch, sent subtle signals that the student’s input was not valued. These types of behavior occurred more often with women (3, 4). Students also contribute to the unfavorable climate by their actions, such as making disparaging remarks, interrupting when a female student is speaking, or showing condescending facial expressions in response to questions from female students (3, 4). Data from several studies found that 70–90% of women reported at least one incident in which a male student created a negative situation for them in class (4). While many of these disrespectful responses are from
In one study, 76% of the women reported feelings of fear, humiliation, or intimidation in courses taught by males. inated by a small group of male students who raise their hands quickly when questions are posed (5, 9, 10). Women were often less encouraged, or openly discouraged, from participating. This is significant, because a substantial body of research has shown that students who participate to a greater extent in class generally learn more (11). Some instructors had a pattern of posing easier questions to women and more difficult or thoughtful ones to men (3, 4). In one study, 76% of the women, but less than half of the men, reported feelings of fear, humiliation, or intimidation in courses taught by males (12). The overwhelming 312 A
male students, studies have also shown that women students are more likely to interrupt other women (5). No studies found that men were interrupted more than women in mixed groups (15). Studies have also noted that women do not talk as much as men in class even if they are interested in participating (5), and that the participation by women tends to decline throughout the semester at coeducational institutions (16). Many women said that they did not want to dominate the class time, and if they were vocal one week, they tended to be quiet the next (17 ). In classes with equal numbers of women and men,
A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y / J U LY 1 , 2 0 0 3
women usually talk about a third of the class time and are often perceived as rude and aggressive if they speak more often (4, 18). (It is interesting to note that both male and female students share this perception.) Women are more likely to defer to men if both respond at the same time and to defer to men’s choices (4). Other studies found that women of color rarely asked questions because of a fear of feeling ill-prepared and a sense that they have to succeed on their own (19). Research shows that male and female language and speech patterns often differ (20 –25). For example, many women are socialized to be silent, and their speech tends to be more tentative, hesitant, and apologetic. Women tend to initiate conversations (21, 22) and use speech to develop and maintain relationships (23). Men, on the other hand, are more likely to control the conversation, speak in mixed-gender groups, enjoy controversy, and respond better to a competitive classroom environment (22–25). Most classroom styles are closely aligned with men’s pattern of speech and dialogue (22). Classroom environments can be characterized as competitive, individualistic, or cooperative, with the first two far more common than the last (26). Competitive classroom environments do not generally reward students who are gentle, altruistic, and able to put the welfare of others over themselves (27–29). Because women are, on average, less inclined to participate in class, it is important for the instructor to draw out responses and involve them in the class. Women rated the openness and supportiveness of the instructor as an important factor in whether they were comfortable participating in class (30). Women and minorities notice the chilly climate that exists in many of their classes. When they were asked to list the three personal characteristics that most influence their lives, women often cited gender, and students of color their race or ethnicity. In contrast, white students rarely mentioned skin color or race, and males seldom mentioned their gender as important or influential (4, 31). Other studies indicate that gender bias is not just a perception (7, 8). When asked
ac educator
to rate the quality of work (e.g., articles, works of art, résumés) ascribed to men and women, the men’s work was generally rated higher (32). When the genders of the authors were switched and the articles were given to a second set of evaluators, the work attributed to men was still rated higher. Both female and male evaluators rated the men’s work more favorably, and such a disparity was more common when the evaluators were considered to have more expertise than the contributors. Instructors evaluating students are presumed to have greater expertise. An analysis of the evaluation of postdoctoral fellowship applications administered through the Swedish Medical Research Council found that peer reviewers overestimated male achievements and/or underestimated female performance (33). Another study examined perceptions that high school valedictorians had of their own intellectual skills (34). Before college, 23% of the males and 21% of females felt “far above average” when compared intellectually with their peers. After two years of college, 22% of the males but only 4% of the females still felt this way. By the end of their senior year of college, 25% of the men felt that their intellectual skills were “far above average”, whereas none of the women in the survey expressed this view. The chilly climate studies focused on classroom rather than laboratory experiences. However, it’s reasonable to expect that similar disparities in perceptions of female and male students might also exist in the laboratory. Many analytical labs involve some component of group activities, providing opportunities for disparities in leadership and other roles (e.g., who operates the instrument vs who prepares the solutions and cleans up afterwards). No matter how much instructors think that their classrooms provide a similar climate for all students, it behooves them to examine their courses to ensure that all groups are treated the same.
Evaluating the class for inequities Instructors can take specific steps to evaluate whether they are creating or enabling a gender bias in the class or
the lab. One is to administer a survey to see whether the perceptions of the climate in the class differ among women and men. Keeping track of participation data for female and male students is a way of determining proportionality. If keeping track of who speaks is disruptive, classes can be videotaped or observed by a colleague. An observer can monitor the
when responding. The first hand raised to answer a question should not automatically be chosen; instead, instructors should give students time to think before recognizing someone. Alternatively, students can quickly write their responses, and the instructor can then select someone to share what he or she wrote. Women and minority students should be
It behooves instructors to examine their courses to ensure that all groups are treated the same. instructors’ behavior, their response to male and female students, and the students’ interactions and responses to each other. Instructors should assess whether there are situations in which they do not take women students as seriously as men. It is worth examining the group dynamics of the students working in the lab. Are the women in the class in leadership or more subservient roles? And, are the men conducting the more sophisticated aspects of the experiment?
Actions that help The most recent report on the chilly classroom climate provides a wide variety of specific suggestions for what instructors, departments, and institutions can do to address this issue (4). Individual faculty members need to develop strategies that enhance the participation of women and minorities in their classes. The instructor should establish clear rules of behavior on the first day of class and lab, describe what is expected of students in the form of class participation, and explain what types of behavior will not be tolerated. As the term progresses, it may be desirable to ask students who are having trouble participating to meet with you privately. Talking to students individually about their lack of participation often changes behavior (5). Instructors should also encourage students to ask and respond to questions in class. It is important for instructors to show equal concern and attention to all students and use the same tone of voice
called on proportional to their numbers and be asked questions with similar degrees of difficulty. The instructor must deal swiftly and firmly with students who interrupt or show disrespect to others through negative comments or body language. Failing to do so sends a signal that such behavior is acceptable and will be tolerated. For example, if a student frowns during someone else’s response, the instructor can ask the student why and turn it into an intellectual exchange. Asking for an explanation of a condescending or sexist remark often embarrasses the offending speaker. Whenever possible, the accomplishments of women scientists should be included in the curriculum, although it is better to do so as an integrated part of the subject matter rather than as a separate unit. Encounters with female and minority students outside of class can be used as an opportunity to make them feel noticed in the course. An unplanned, outof-class meeting allows an instructor to praise the student’s work, encourage him or her to pursue a career in chemistry, and express a willingness to write letters of recommendation for someone who is doing well. It may be worthwhile to put women and minority students in introductory courses in contact with other women and minority students further along in the major. Finally, encouraging women and minorities to participate in study groups outside of class can be valuable. A study
J U LY 1 , 2 0 0 3 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
313 A
ac educator
of students enrolled in an introductory calculus course at the University of California–Berkeley found that African-American students typically worked alone (35). Another study found that men were more likely to study in groups than women, but it also found that when women in science classes were set up in study groups, they did better in the class (36). Creating an environment that fostered peer study groups through a workshop format led to dramatic improvements in student performance and eased minority students’ transition into the academic life of college. Lastly, instructors should solicit regular feedback from students about their experience in the course to see if different groups of students have different perceptions of the climate in the class.
Departments Many activities are available that provide support for women and minorities. Development of a support group that meets periodically is one. Students could be allowed to develop a bulletin board on important women and minorities in chemistry. Information about the chilly climate ought to be provided to graduate and laboratory assistants and incorporated into any teaching development programs for teaching assistants. A concerted effort by a department and individual instructors to address issues related to the chilly climate that many women and minority students experience would send a powerful message that these individuals are welcome participants in the discipline.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
(9) (10)
(11)
(12) (13)
(14) (15)
(16) (17)
Thomas J. Wenzel is a professor at Bates College. Address correspondence to him at the Dept. of Chemistry, Bates College, Lewiston, ME 04240 (
[email protected]).
(18) (19)
References (1)
(2) (3)
314 A
Committee on Professional Training Newsletter 2002, 3, 1–2; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC. Freemantle, M. Chem. Eng. News ; Jan 27, 2003, B1, 12. Hall, R. M.; Sandler, B. R. The Classroom Cli-
(20)
A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y / J U LY 1 , 2 0 0 3
mate: A Chilly One for Women? ; Project on the Status and Education of Women; Association of American Colleges: Washington, DC, 1982. Sandler, B. R.; Silverberg, L. A.; Hall, R. M. The Chilly Classroom Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women; National Association for Women in Education: Washington, DC, 1996. Krupnick, C. G. Journal of the Harvard Danforth Center 1985, 1, 18–25; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA. Sadker, D.; Sadker, M. Promoting Effectiveness in Classroom Instruction ; Final Report, No. 40080-0033; National Institute of Education: Washington, DC, 1984. Paludi, M. A.; Strayer, L. A. Sex Roles 1985, 12, 353–361. Geis, F.; Carter, M.; Butler, D. Seeing and Evaluating People ; Office of Women’s Affairs, University of Delaware: Newark, 1986. Adams, K. A. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 1980, 38, 1–8. Sadker, D.; Sadker, M. The Intellectual Exchange: Excellence and Equity in College Teaching ; Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory: Kansas City, MO, 1987; pp 31–33. Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T.; Smith, K. A. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity ; ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4; George Washington University, School of Education and Development: Washington, DC, 1991. Crawford, M. Women’s Center Review 1986, 8, 1–3. Sadker, M. Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls; Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1994; p 55. Irvine, J. J. J. Educ. Psych. 1986, 78, 14–21. West, C.; Zimmerman, D. H. In Language, Gender, and Society ; Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., Henley, N., Eds.; Newbury House: Rowley, MA, 1983; pp 103–117. Gose, B. Chronicle of Higher Education ; Feb 10, 1995; Vol. 41, pp A22–A25. Tannen, D. In Resourceful Woman; Brennan, S., Winklepleck, J., Eds.; Visible Ink Press: Detroit, 1994; pp 199–203. Spender, D. Connections 1985, 9, 1–3; University of California at Berkeley. Saufley, R. W.; Cowan, K. O.; Blake, J. H. In Teaching Minority Students; Cones, J. H., Noonan, J. F., Janha, D., Eds.; New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 16; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 1983; pp 3–16. Thorne, B.; Kramarae, C.; Henley, N. Language, Gender, and Society ; Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., Henley, N., Eds.; Newbury House:
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25) (26) (27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33) (34)
(35) (36)
Rowley, MA, 1983; pp 151–331. Henley, N. M.; Kramarae, C. In Miscommunication and Problematic Talk ; Coupland, N., Giels, H., Wiemann, J. M., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, 1991; pp 18–43. Tannen, D. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation ; William Morrow: New York, 1990; p 237. Van Nostrand, C. H. Gender Responsible Leadership: Detecting Bias, Implementing Interventions ; Sage: Newbury Park, CA., 1993; pp 44–45. Maltz, D. N.; Borker, R. A. In Language and Social Identity ; Gumperz, J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, 1982; pp 196–216. Newcomb, N.; Arnoff, D. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 1979, 37, 1293–1303. Wenzel, T. J. Anal. Chem. 2000, 72, 293 A–296 A. Belenky, M. F.; Clinchy, B. M.; Goldberger, N. R.; Tarule, J. M. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind ; Basic Books: New York, 1997. Keith, S. In Gender and the Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Selected Papers; Nelson, H. L., Rengel, M., Eds.; College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University: Collegeville, MN, 1987; pp 87–95. Rossi, A. S. In Educating Men and Women Together: Coeducation in a Changing World ; Lasser, C., Ed.; University of Illinois Press and Oberlin College: Urbana, IL, 1987; p 30. Kramarae, C.; Treichler, P. A. In Gender in the Classroom ; Gabriel, S. L., Smithson, I., Eds.; University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago, 1990; pp 41–59. McIntosh, P. White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies; Working Paper No. 189; Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College: Wellesley, MA, 1988. Haslett, B.; Geis, F. L.; Carter. M. R. The Organizational Woman: Power and Paradox ; Ablex Publishing: Norwood, NJ, 1992; p 35. Wenneras, C.; Wold, A. Nature 1997, 387, 341–343. Arnold, K. D. Academic Achievement—A View from the Top: The Illinois Valedictorian Project ; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: Oak Brook, IL, 1993. Treisman, U. College Mathematics J. 1992, 23, 362–372. Light, R. L. The Harvard Assessment Seminars, Second Report: Explorations with Students and Faculty about Teaching, Learning, and Student Life ; Harvard University of Graduate School of Education: Cambridge, MA, 1992.
