Stephanie Vandrick
University of San Francisco

(This is a slightly revised version of a paper presented at the TESOL International Convention, March 2003, Baltimore, MD. Some parts of this paper draw on and build on: Vandrick, S. (2000). The Need for More Research on Female Language Learners in the Classroom. Temple University Japan Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 17, 11-25)

I. Introduction

For the past three decades, there has been much research that demonstrates that girls and women in schools have been slighted, in many cases unconsciously. There have been efforts to counter these slights. Now some educators as well as non-educators claim that there has been over-compensation, and that in fact girls and young women are now treated better in educational settings than boys and young men. These critics list the problems of young males, and claim that a litany of male problems in society is actually worse than female problems. In this paper, I will give a brief overview of the arguments and research regarding females in school, list the arguments of the new critics who claim to speak on behalf of males, respond to those arguments, and then discuss how this controversy may play itself out in ESL settings. I do want to note that when I speak of gender issues, I am not speaking about individual females or males, or generalizing about all females or males, but speaking of societal trends and societal influences. My stance is that we should not focus on a sort of contest about who is most disadvantaged or oppressed, but focus on equal opportunities, better opportunities for all young people. In order to do that, we need to do more research, understand better what the facts are, and move forward from that point.

II. Background regarding females in education

The past three twenty-five to thirty years have presented educators with a wealth of research on what happens to girls and young women in schools, and it shows that there have been and still are serious problems. Here I focus on the United States, but much of what I say applies, with variations, to many other countries in the world. There has been extensive research on the psychological and social development of adolescent girls and young women, and on ways in which such development affects and is affected by the educational environment. For just a few examples, see AAUW, 1992; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1982; Hancock, 1989; Horner, 1972; Miller, 1976; National Coalition of Girls' Schools, 1992; Orenstein, 1994; Pipher, 1994; Sadker and Sadker, 1994; and Sandler, Silverberg, & Hall, 1996. This research has been widely publicized, so here I will just briefly summarize some of the major findings, which are as follows: girls do not receive equal attention from teachers, girls are often sexually harassed in schools, adolescent girls lose confidence in their academic abilities (particularly in math and science), girls benefit from single sex education, girls work better in cooperative rather than competitive classroom settings, and girls need female role models and mentors.

III. The backlash

An issue that has come to the surface in the changing social context of the late 1990s is a sort of "backlash" against the attention being paid to girls' education. Some scholars and educators, as well as some activists, now claim that boys are the ones who suffer in schools. They point out that girls are actually quite successful in schools in many ways, and more so now than when these issues began being discussed twenty-five years ago. Part of this is a result of the women's movement, and part is more specifically a result of the attention educators have paid to girls' education. These critics state that boys are much more likely than girls to have problems with the following: learning to read and write; substance abuse, suicide; being perpetrators and victims of violence both in and out of school; learning disabilities; discipline in school; and mental health (Gurian, 1999).

Barney Brawer, a researcher at Harvard University, states that "An enormous crisis of men and boys is happening before our eyes without our seeing it. There's been an extraordinary shift in the plate tectonics of gender; everything we thought is open for examination" (as quoted in Rosenfeld, 1998, p. A1). William Pollock, of the Harvard Medical School, author of Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood (1998), adds that boys are seen as "toxic" creatures "who will infect girls with some kind of social cooties" and argues that boys are as much victims of gender stereotyping as girls are, and are "feeling the tightening noose of limited expectations, societal scorn, and inadequate role models" (as paraphrased in Rosenfeld, 1998, p. A1). One recent claim has been that the annual "Take Our Daughters to Work" day discriminates against boys. Another has been that Title IX - the law that has made such a difference in increasing schools' commitments to girls' and women's sports - has hurt boys' and men's school and collegiate sports. Let's examine these arguments.

The Ms. Foundation for Women, which sponsors the Take Our Daughters to Work Day, has received many complaints from parents and the press that it provides an unfair advantage to girls. A representative critic was Joe Manthey, who stated that "I object to curriculum that implies that girls are being oppressed and boys are the privileged gender that simply needs to be feminized. That shows the sexism of feminism" (quoted in Fimrite, 2002, p. A10). Manthey goes on to say that the fatherless home is a problem, but "men are absent because they feel lost in a society that minimizes their contributions, ignores their sensitivities and gives mixed messages about their masculinity." Manthey has filed a lawsuit in Sonoma County, California, charging the county with sex discrimination for spending money on Take Our Daughters to Work Day and excluding boys.

Recently, the Ms. Foundation has capitulated and included boys in the day's activities, stating that this is an opportunity to have boys be taught about being more nurturing, taking time for their families, and taking on traditional female roles and jobs, such as nursing. Although there may be something to this reasoning, it is unfortunate that the Ms. Foundation felt pressured to make this change based on the false perception that girls now have equity and there are no longer problems of inequity and discrimination against females. As Anna Quindlen puts it, critics like Manthey "can talk all you want about improved access for women now but it's a recent development, and it still stops several steps from most executive suites. That's not victimhood, it's history" (quoted in Fimrite, 2002, p. A10). Manthey's and others' stances echo the same old argument used regarding racial issues (especially in regard to affirmative action) as well: "It is not acceptable to discriminate in order to rectify discrimination." The answer to this argument is that it is not discrimination to act to address historical inequities.

Similarly, there has been a recent controversy about Title IX, and recent attempts to change it because some schools and colleges have cut some men's sports. It is unfortunate if some men's sports are cut, but equity requires equal access to sports for women and men. Further, the truth is that it is not really men's sports versus women's that is the problem; in fact, the conflict is between all sports versus men's football, which uses up by far the largest share of most schools' and colleges' budgets and is, contrary to popular thought, not usually a moneymaker.

Several recent books and articles on boys and men and their education and situation in society argue, with varying degrees of vehemence, that it is important for society, educators, and parents to be aware of boys' problems and needs. These include Faludi (1999); Gurian (1996; 1999); Kindlon & Thompson (1999); Pollock (1998); and Sanders (2002). There is nothing wrong, of course, with these authors' attention to the situations and needs of boys and men; it is, however, problematic in some cases with authors' asserting or implying that boys have more difficulties than girls do, and that society should therefore shift its resources and attention toward boys now instead of toward girls.

There has also been a complementary spate of articles and books, with titles such as Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls (Simmons, 2002) and The secret lives of girls: What good girls really do - Sex play, aggression, and teen guilt (Lamb, 2001), looking at girls' sometimes "bad" behavior. These publications assert that girls too can be violent, and further state that girls often channel their hostility and anger into less obvious manipulative, backstabbing behaviors - usually verbal - against each other. This kind of behavior is labeled "relational aggression." Although there is not a lot of solid research on this, it may well be true. If so, the question arises of whether such behavior springs from nature or nurture, whether it is inherent or socialized behavior. If it is true that girls are capable of violence and of backstabbing behavior, this should be discussed and further researched. But it also should be noted that much more often - and this is widely documented - girls turn their anger and fears inward and harm themselves through eating disorders, cutting behaviors, depression, suicide attempts, destructive sexual behavior because of fear of standing up to boyfriends, etc. One 15-year-old girl, Maria, states that "There isn't a lot a girl won't do to make a boy like her" (Wiseman, 2002). Note that non-physical aggression is a weapon of the weak and thus girls' "meanness" reflects girls' powerlessness. Note too that non-physical aggression, although regrettable, cannot be equated with physical violence resulting in physical harm.

IV. Refuting the Backlash Argument

Let's assess the backlash arguments outlined so far. It is certainly true that boys experience the problems listed by Gurian and others, and it is also true that girls are more successful in school than boys in certain ways. However, many of the problems for girls that were found by the earlier researchers, such as sexual harassment, lowered self-esteem, and avoidance of advanced math and science classes, still exist.

Granted, and let's celebrate this, there is some good news for girls in the most recent research, that done since the research described earlier. Some of the most recent research shows that the efforts that have been made in response to the research on girls have been at least partially successful. The leader in gathering this research has been the American Association of University Women (AAUW). After the 1992 report mentioned earlier, the AAUW came out with a series of reports (1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b). The most recent and most thorough in assessing the progress made since the original 1992 report (How Schools Shortchange Girls) is entitled Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children (1998a). This work, like its 1992 predecessor, looks at and summarizes dozens of studies.

One striking point about this 1998a report is that the emphasis was purposefully changed from a kind of "deficit model" in which girls were found to be behind boys, needing to catch up, to a look at ways in which education is working or not working for both boys and girls. For example, this recent report looks not only at how girls do or do not succeed in math and science, but also at how boys do or do not succeed, and how boys could learn from girls' strengths. There is also a more nuanced look at intra-gender differences, such as differences in girls from various ethnic groups. For example, Gilligan's research showing that girls lose self-esteem during their teenage years turns out to be applicable to white girls but not to African American girls. There is also more attention to individual differences. Research can only show differences between aggregates of girls and boys, and the 1998a report states that "The deficits and strengths we identify throughout this report, in our view, do not innately belong to girls or boys" and "cannot and should not be attributed to biological differences" (p. 5).

Some of the findings of a 1998a AAUW report regarding recent changes are as follows. The gender gap regarding differences in numbers of math classes taken is diminishing. Still, though, girls do not take as many advanced classes in these areas. In science, more girls than boys now take both biology and chemistry, but physics classes are largely taken by males. One study (Javanovic & King, 1998) found that girls and boys did not participate equally in hands-on activities in science classrooms, and that there was a corresponding decrease in girls' perception of their own abilities in science; "boys tended to hog the resourcesŠleaving girls to be involved in more passive ways" (p. 491). In computer classes, boys still outnumber girls, and girls tend to take lower level classes. This is problematic: The AAUW 1998a report states that "Research shows that girls have developed an appreciably different relationship to technology than boys, and that as a result, technology may exacerbate rather than diminish inequities by gender as it becomes more integral to the K-12 curriculum" (p. 55). Girls still excel in language arts (verbal, language, and writing skills). A finding that clearly has implications for ESL classes is that "girls' acuity with language results in a deeper, more imaginative engagement with the writing process and with reading material" (p. 15). Female high schools students are also more likely than male students to take sociology, psychology, foreign languages, and fine arts classes.

As far as assessment is concerned, girls continue to get higher grades than boys, but to get lower scores on standardized tests, particularly tests used for college admission, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessments, the PSAT, the SAT, and the Advanced Placement tests. Such tests may have high stakes, such as determining college admission and prestigious scholarships. Many of these tests are multiple-choice, and girls tend to do less well than boys in this format. Note that the addition of a writing skills test to the PSAT boosted girls' scores and narrowed the gap in scores between boys and girls (AAUW, 1998a).

Progress has been made in instructional materials: recent studies find that textbooks are much less sexist than those of the 1970s, with greater female representation. There is still concern that the representation has changed only in quantity, not in quality, and that female characters are still shown in stereotypical roles. Some educators recommend that teachers and students evaluate materials on the basis of the following criteria: "invisibility of women and women's accomplishments; "unreality" (i.e. false representations of "the traditional family" that pose women as nurturers and men as workers); stereotyping of women's roles and contributions; and fragmentation by adding women or women's accomplishments as afterthoughts" (Phillips, 1998, p. 60).

Other educational risk factors are distributed differently: for example, boys drop out of school more, but tend to return to school more; girls get pregnant; more girls than boys are sexually harassed; more girls than boys are depressed and do not receive treatment.

I have cited the 1998a AAUW report at length to illustrate the changes that have taken place and the problems that remain. Clearly, the picture for females in educational settings is shifting in a positive direction. However, there are still problems, and educators need to continue to be vigilant and proactive on these issues. In addition, educators need to avoid being drawn into a zero-sum portrayal of "girls vs. boys," as if any educational advances made by females are detrimental to males. No evidence exists for this view, and in fact most educators believe that changes made to create a better educational climate for female students generally benefit male students as well.

Until females attain true equality in society - economically, politically, socially - it is hard to accept the argument that boys and men are actually worse off than girls and women. Women are still vastly underrepresented in governments and the highest ranks of business, and in short among those who have the true decision-making power. The important point is, again, that we not look at education - or life! - as a zero-sum game. Helping girls does not equal hurting boys, or vice versa. We should be clear-eyed about the real issues, consulting the most recent research, and then set up the best educational environment possible for all children and adults. We should also not lose track of other factors in society and government that can and do undermine education for all children, such as the current rounds of budget cuts in schools, exacerbated by massive spending on war and by huge tax cuts for the wealthy. These actions are devastating for schools and all children, regardless of gender.

V. How do these backlash issues relate to ESL settings?

Female ESL/EFL students have benefited somewhat, at least indirectly, from the gender research done over the past twenty-five years, and from the changes in educational policy and practice that have taken place in response to that research. Now we in ESL need to find out which research results apply to ESL/EFL students and classrooms. We also need to find out which cultural variables affect the research results. I would like to suggest that we begin by closely examining the daily lives of our female students in our ESL classrooms.

Some research has already been done on ESL settings (e.g., Belcher, 1997; Ehrlich, 1997; Gass & Varonis, 1986; Gupta & Lee, 1990; Harney, 1997; Hartmann & Judd, 1978; Johnson, 1992; Litosseliti, L. & Sunderland, J., 2002;Markham, 1988; McMahill, 1997; Moore, 1996; Oxford, 1993; Pavlenko, Blackledge, Piller, & Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001; Pica, Holliday, Lewis, Berducci & Bewman, 1991); Porreca, 1984; Sunderland, 1994, 1995, 1998; Tannen, 1996; Yepez, 1994; Young & Oxford, 1997) and some writers in ESL journals have advocated feminist pedagogy in ESL classes (e.g., Cochran, 1996; Schenke, 1991, 1996; Vandrick, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999). Some of the findings include the following: ESL materials have been somewhat sexist, underrepresenting and containing stereotypes about women; female language learners sometimes have different learning styles; and ESL programs and classrooms do not always serve female students' needs. Sunderland (1995) examined the possibilities of bias in language tests, focusing on such possibilities in the topic (content), the task (type of item), and the tester (person who scores/evaluates the test), and found much room for, but no unambiguous evidence of, bias. Yepez's 1994 study found that the four ESL teachers she studied, using a quantitative coding instrument, "showed remarkable equality in their classroom interactions with the genders" (p. 121), but she cautioned that because of the small sample, "it would be irresponsible to be complacent about the gender equity issue in ESL classrooms" (p. 131), and urged more research, as I do here.

Two researchers in ESL/SLA - Sunderland (2000) and Pavlenko (2001) - have recently provided us with thoughtful and nuanced approaches to the question of gender as it affects teacher-student interactions and students' success in the classroom. Sunderland (2000), in a review essay on recent research on gender and second and foreign language education, describes her own and others' research on this point:

In Sunderland (2000a), I report on how two boys in a German classroom received the lion's share of teacher attention. If they are excluded from the figures, the boys as a group and the girls as a group get broadly the same range of attention (see also French and French, 1984. Generalisations about 'boys' taking all the teacher's attention are usually simply inaccurate. It is, however, equally important not to lose sight of gender amid acknowledgement of individuality. In contrast to findings about gendered teacher attention reported above, the findings about the greater amount of talk produced by the girls reported in Sunderland (2000a) were due to the contributions of half the girls - more than just a 'small subset'. In this classroom, gender was thus arguably a more important factor in student talk than in teacher talk. Further studies would shed light on whether this phenomenon extends beyond this one classroom. (p. 210)

Pavlenko (2001), while reiterating that oppression of females often includes disadvantage in educational settings, also cautions that generalizations may be inaccurate, and that local contexts must be considered. She points out

the importance of resisting convenient generalizations of gendered patterns and of considering gender relations in a particular community together with local ideologies of language and gender. Close attention to local contexts has great potential for making the analysis of the interaction between bilingualism and gender more nuanced and more complex. Thus, while in contexts where women are an oppressed group they may be rendered more or less bilingual, depending on the attitudes toward bilingualism, in other contexts where they enjoy more independence, they can initiate langue shift or remain monolingual by choice, as a strategy of resistance to a particular language, for political, social, or economic reasons. (p. 132)

Moving to actual classroom settings, it is interesting that one textbook, Academic Encounters: Life in Society (Brown & Hood, 2002), has a reading and discussion selection titled "It's not so easy being male" (pp. 83-85), which lists problems for males such being forced into the role of breadwinner, not learning how to cook and clean (!), identity equals job, emotional stereotypes (e.g., must be aggressive), and "adapting to the modern woman." To be fair, this selection is part of a chapter on "Gender and sexuality" that includes several other readings on such issues as education, bringing up boys and girls, "Balancing Home and work" (which is, of course, about women!), "Inequality at work" and sexual harassment.

The research listed above is useful, but much more is needed. One area that would be of interest would be this one of how gender issues play out differently for female and male students in ESL settings. Of course in the case of ESL students, especially high school and college students in the United States, there are cultural issues as well, issues which interact with and complicate the effects of gender.

In any case, I would like to make a plea that we in ESL do not get drawn into the argument that everything is now fine for female students, and that it is male students who suffer most. Let us continue to study the effects of gender, along with those of culture, class, sexual identity, and other identities. And let us continue to identify the real problems - not those that are sometimes opportunistically raised in order to discredit and even dismantle the genuine progress being made toward equal education and opportunity for female students.

Surely part of critical teaching and critical pedagogy is critical awareness of the forms taken by resistance to change.

VI. The larger picture

Let us look now at the larger picture, both in ESL and in education in general, and further, in the whole social/political context of today's world. The problem is that those who already have power do not want to give it up. For certain people, there has always been resistance to equal opportunity for girls and women, and this new backlash, this claiming of more disadvantage for boys and men, is a symptom of that resistance. As I have said, society should work to solve problems for both females and males, especially in view of the fact that many who are disadvantaged because of gender are also disadvantaged because of the intersecting factors of class, race, ethnicity, and sexual identity.

The dangers of a "macho" view - not held by all men, by any means, but held by many men in power - are horrifically evident at this juncture in our history, which I cannot NOT mention: a war which devastated so many people, civilians and soldiers, women and men and children, Iraqis and American. I do not essentialize men, but do point out the macho attitude and posturing that is clearly evident in current war and warlike behaviors. I do not claim that, necessarily, if women were in charge the situation would be better, but I do claim that if those who cared about parenting, nurturing, preservation, and peace were in charge, things could be very different. As one of the great literary voices of all time, Virginia Woolf, pointed out, women should be and often are the voices for peace, the voices that remind us all that every life lost is someone's child.

Although I am wary of essentializing "women as mothers," men in the United States are more likely to support defense spending (Rosenfeld, 1998), and there is in fact a gender gap of about 13% of US women's vs. US men's support of the Iraq war. Gender roles and relationship are changing, albeit far too slowly; my hope is that the men who are increasingly involved in their children's lives will also protest wars and violence unless they are absolutely necessary. Males or females, we are all human beings together on this fragile, troubled planet.

References

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, D. C.: AAUW Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1993). Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America's schools. Washington, D. C.: AAUW Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1995a). Growing smart: What's working for girls in schools. Washington, D. C.: AAUW Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1995b). Achieving gender equity in the classroom and on the campus: The next steps: AAUW Pre-convention symposium. Washington, D. C.: AAUW Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1996). Girls in the middle: Working to succeed in school. Washington, D. C.: AAUW Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1997). Gender and race on the and in the school: Beyond Affirmative Action: Symposium proceedings. Washington, DC: AAUW.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1998a). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1998b). Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.

Belcher, D. 1997. An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 1-21.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Brown, K. & Hood, S. (2002). It's not so easy being a man. In K. Brown and S. Hood, Academic Encounters: Life in Society: Reading, Study Skills, Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cochran, E. P. 1996. Gender and the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 159-162.

Ehrlich, S. 1997. Gender as social practice: Implications for second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 421-446.

Faludi, S. (1999). Stiffed: The betrayal of the American man. New York: Morrow. Fimrite, P. (2002, April 24). It's a new day: Let's take sons to work, too. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1, A10.

Gass, S. & Varonis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327-351). Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Gilligan, C. (1992). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gupta, F. A. & Lee, S. Y. A. (1990). Gender representation in English language textbooks used in Singapore primary schools. Language and Education, 4 (1), 29-50.

Gurian, M. (1996). The wonder of boys: What parents, mentors and educators can do to shape boys into exceptional men. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Gurian, M. (1999). A fine young man: What parents, mentors, and educators can do to shape adolescent boys into exceptional men. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Hancock, E. (1989). The girl within. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

Harney, J. (1997). Gender representation in current ESL textbooks. Unpublished master's thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Hartman, P. L., & Judd, E. L. (1978). Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly, 12 , 383-393.

Horner, M. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28 (2), 157-174.

Johnson, D. M. (1992). Interpersonal Involvement in Discourse: Gender Variation in L2 Writers' Complimenting Strategies. Journal of Second Language 1, 195-215.

Jovanovic, J. & King, S. S. (1998). Boys and girls in the performance-based science classroom: Who's doing the performing? American Educational Research Journal, 35, 477-496.

Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M., with T Barker. (1999). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York: Ballantine.

Lamb, S. (2001). The secret lives of girls: What good girls really do - Sex play, aggression, and teen guilt. New York: Free Press.

Litosseliti, L. & Sunderland, J. (Eds.). (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Markham, P. L. (1988). Gender and the perceived expertness of the speaker as factors in ESL listening recall. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 397-406.

McMahill, C. (1997). Communities of resistance: A case study of two feminist English classes in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 612-622.

Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon. Moore, H. 1996. Language policies as Virtual Reality: Two Australian Examples. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 473-497.

National Coalition of Girls' Schools. (1992). Math and Science for Girls: A symposium sponsored by The National Coalition of Girls's Schools: The complete proceedings. Concord, MA: National Coalition of Girls' Schools.

Orenstein, P. (1994). SchoolGirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York: Doubleday.

Oxford, R. (1993). Instructional implications of gender differences in second/foreign language (L2) learning styles and strategies. Applied Language Learning, 4 (1 & 2).

Pavlenko, A. (2001). Bilingualism, gender, and ideology. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5 (2), 117-151.

Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, P., & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Phillips, L. (1998). The girls report: What we know and need to know about growing up female. New York: The National Council for Research on Women.

Pica, T., Holliday, L, Lewis, N., Berducci, D. & Bewman, J. 1991. Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 343-376.

Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York: Putnam's.

Pollock, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Henry Holt.

Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18. 705-724.

Rosenfeld, M. (1998, March 26). Reexamining the plight of young males. The Washington Post, p. A1.

Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Scribner's.

Sanders, J. (2002). Something is missing from teacher education: Attention to two genders. Phi Delta Kappa, 84 (3), 240-244.

Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of women. Washington, DC: National Association for Women in Education.

Schenke, A. (1991). The "will to reciprocity" and the work of memory: Fictioning speaking out of silence in E.S.L. and feminist pedagogy. Resources for Feminist Research, 20, 47-55.

Schenke, A. (1996). Not just a "social issue": Teaching feminist in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 155-159.

Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: the hidden culture of aggression in girls. New York: Harcourt.

Sunderland, J. (Ed.). (1994). Exploring gender: Questions and implications for English language education. New York: Prentice Hall.

Sunderland, J. (1995). Gender and language testing. Language Testing Update, 17, 24- 35.

Sunderland, J. (1998). Girls being quiet: a problem for foreign language classrooms? Language Teaching Research, 2.

Sunderland, J. (2000). Issues of language and gender in second and foreign languge education. Language Teaching, 33, 203-223.

Tannen, D. (1996). Researching gender-related patterns in classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 341-344.

Vandrick, S. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and ESL. College ESL, 4 (2), 69-92. Vandrick, S. (1995). Teaching and practicing feminism in the university ESL classroom. TESOL Journal, 4 (3), 4-6.

Vandrick, S. (1998). Promoting gender equity in the postsecondary ESL class. In T. Smoke (Ed.), Adult ESL: Politics, pedagogy, and participation in classroom and community programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vandrick, S. (1999 April/May). The case for more research on female students in the ESL/EFL classroom." TESOL Matters, 9 (2), p. 16.

Wiseman, R. (2002). Queen bees & wannabes: Helping your daughter survive cliques, gossip, boyfriend & other realities of adolescence. New York: Crown.

Yepez, M. (1994). An observation of gender-specific teacher behavior in the ESL classroom. Sex Roles, 30, 121-133.

Young, D. J. & Oxford, R.. 1997. A Gender-related analysis of strategies used to process written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 8 (1), pp. 43-73.

G.A.L.E. Main Page / Articles / Events / Links / Feedback

http://www.tokyoprogressive.org.uk/gale/articles/vandrick.html