|
|
|
Brandy Mains |
|
& Alicia Strickland |
|
Hanover College |
|
|
|
|
Gender Schema Theory- Bem 1981, 1983. |
|
Promotion of males social dominance- Hendrick
& Stange, 1994. |
|
Differences in praise and punishment- Good &
Brophy 1994. |
|
|
|
|
Hispanic Masculinity: Myth or Psychological
Schema Meriting Clinical Consideration (Casas, J.M., 1994). |
|
The Terminology of Machismo (Gaitan, M., 1975). |
|
|
|
|
|
Americas,
In Women’s Hands (Winn, P., 1992). |
|
Marianismo- an ideal of female conduct based on
the Virgin Mary, affirming women’s moral superiority but prescribing a life
of humility and self sacrifice. |
|
Machismo- aggressive assertion of male
domination and chauvinism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Males will interact more and will be treated
better in the classroom than will females. |
|
|
|
|
It is further hypothesized that the responses in
hypothesis one will be seen in the classrooms in Mexico, to greater extent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Participants |
|
U.S. males = 99, females = 90 |
|
Mexico males = 186, females =99 |
|
Materials |
|
The raters will mark their observations using a
modification from Spielberger’s Looking in Classrooms observational
checklist (inter-rater reliability = .96). |
|
|
|
|
|
Category C. Type of Behavior |
|
1. Brief, non-disruptive- Sneeze, drop books,
not an intentional action |
|
2. Minor, but extended or repeatedly disruptive-
Whispering, talking, intentional actions |
|
3. Very disruptive- Spit wads, screaming etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Inattentive- Daydreaming, not listening |
|
5. Offers minimal contribution- I don’t know,
does not participate |
|
6. Correct contribution- Answers correctly-
participation that adds to class discussion |
|
7. Incorrect Contribution- Answers incorrectly |
|
|
|
|
|
Category D: Teacher Responses |
|
Ignores student behavior |
|
Nonverbal response |
|
Calls Student Out |
|
Open ended feedback |
|
Closed feedback |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pilot study |
|
Informed Consent |
|
Two female raters |
|
Observed each class for 55 minutes |
|
Used checklist to record interactions as they
occurred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Females |
|
X2(4) = 9.03, p>.05 n.s. |
|
Males |
|
X2(4) = 32.09, p<.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
US Male and Female Students |
|
X2 (4) = 10.20, p < .05 |
|
Mexico Male and Female Students |
|
X2(4) = 16.12, p < .05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hypotheses was partially supported |
|
|
|
|
2 female observers- gender bias |
|
Private school in Mexico |
|
Teacher Strategies |
|
Correlate to Gender Roles |
|
|
|
|
Distinct difference between U.S. and Mexico and
the way problems were handled. |
|
Longitudinal or cross-sectional study. (ages) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Females |
|
X2(4)= 13.64, p<.05 |
|
|
|
Males |
|
X2(4)= 67.38, p<.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Male vs. Female |
|
X2=2.01, p<.05 |
|
|
|
Mexico Male vs. Female |
|
X2= 2.01, p<.05 |
|
|
|