“He Said, She Said:
A National Study of Gender Differences in the Teaching of Writing”
by
Mark H. Massé, associate professor
765-285-8222
mhmasse@bsu.edu
and
Mark N. Popovich, professor
765-285-8207
mnpopovich@bsu.edu
Department of Journalism
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
ABSTRACT
Does gender make a difference in the teaching of writing? How do men and women compare in their pedagogical attitudes and practices? Research findings from a comprehensive national study of journalism educators reveal modest differences between men and women regarding their teaching attitudes and techniques. But results also indicate elements of feminist pedagogy exist in dealing with student writing problems as women writing instructors employ a higher percentage of coaching techniques in the classroom.
INTRODUCTION
How does gender affect teaching styles in the media writing classroom? That question, which has been the subject of educational and feminist studies, was the focus of research by Massé and Popovich in comparing the teaching of writing at 240 institutions across the U.S. One objective of this national study was to compile a contemporary profile of men and women media writing educators. This profile would include demographic data and information on pedagogical attitudes, practices, and resources. The researchers were searching for answers to several gender-based questions: Did men and women instructors consider themselves more traditional or progressive in their teaching styles? Did men and women writing instructors differ in their attitudes and approaches? Did the survey results present evidence of feminist pedagogy in the journalism classroom?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teaching Styles by Gender
Lacey et al. 1 in a study of faculty members in a southern college of education used two dimensions, sensitivity and inclusion, to characterize teaching styles as being: Expert, Provider, Facilitator, or Enabler. Teaching style may be defined as an identifiable set of classroom behaviors, ranging from how information is presented, subject matter planned, and learning activities conducted. Sixty-five percent of men preferred a Provider style, defined by low inclusion and high sensitivity. Fifty-three percent of women preferred an Enabler style, defined by high inclusion and high sensitivity. Sensitivity is related to a teacher’s beliefs about learners in order to interact with them. Inclusion refers to how those beliefs are represented in involving learners in the classroom. The Provider style is marked by low inclusion and high sensitivity, exemplified by group work and structured activities. By contrast, the Enabler style features high inclusion and high sensitivity, illustrated by flexible teaching methods and an emphasis on empowering student learners.
Based on characteristics of media writing instructors, Massé and Popovich 2 found that teaching styles varied on a continuum from “editor” to “coach.” An editor was characterized by an emphasis on “writing as product.” A coach was marked by use of “writing-as-process” instruction. The Expert style is similar to the editor classification, and the coach bears similarities to the Enabler style.
Lacey et al. 3 found little variation between men and women educators in relation to sensitivity. However a significant difference was noted on the inclusion variable, where women professors identified a concern for the role of students in the teaching-learning process. Men professors preferred a more controlled, structured teaching-learning approach in the classroom.
Researchers have used varied terms to refer to teaching styles, ranging from an emphasis on content, on the instructor, or on the student. Oi May and Stimpson 4 classified teachers’ behaviors and practices as guided learning, exposition, and inquiry.
This study of teaching styles of Hong Kong environmental educators in secondary schools used exposition, represented by lectures, contrasted with inquiry, characterized by role plays and simulations—a more progressive, coaching style of teaching.
Cohen and Amidon 5 discussed teaching styles as being characterized by polarities along a continuum to identify categories of interaction that teachers use to communicate classroom control and motivation. Their research indicated that student participation in classroom activities helps generate positive attitudes toward learning and toward the teacher. Isaacs 6 focused on the experience and identity of the writing teacher and the impact on pedagogy as well as classroom dynamics. Gender differentiation in teaching styles was explored by Starbuck 7. In his research, women were more likely to use
class discussion and other student-focused (interactive) approaches (consistent with feminist pedagogy), while men were more likely to use less-personal approaches such as lecture and computer-assisted methods.
Ford and Chen 8 discussed the role of matching cognitive and learning styles with instructional presentation strategies in enhancing student learning. Cognitive style refers to the preferred mode of information processing. When that information processing occurs in a classroom setting, it becomes a learning style. The researchers noted how gender influences might affect instructional presentation styles and impact students’ conceptual knowledge acquisition. McDowell 9 supported this notion by finding that men have been found to be more dominant and exacting in their teaching style while women tend to be more informal and open toward students. Maher’s 10 study of feminist pedagogy noted that women educators utilize a more expressive, subjective teaching style that encourages a participatory mode of learning.
Jenkins 11 applied feminist pedagogical principles, such as valuing inclusion and a greater tolerance for diversity, to the teaching of writing. She advocated for a blend of process- and product-orientation in the writing classroom, noting, “… giving in exclusively to either is not effective in teaching writing.” The challenge is to teach writing that is authentic to students, achieves standards, and offers students alternative strategies. Sandler et al. 12 discussed gender, race, and ethnicity as critical factors in teacher-student relations. This research revealed that although there are differences in teaching styles between men and women, there are many similarities. Further, general research on pedagogy has demonstrated that a variety of teaching models can be effective, and that some styles are more effective for certain types of material and for particular kinds of learners.
Massé and Popovich’s 13 national study of journalism educators featured a comprehensive examination of pedagogical attitudes and approaches in searching for evidence of an evolving and integrated paradigm in the teaching of media writing.
Teaching of Writing
For almost twenty years, journalism educators and communications professionals have been suggesting a balance between craft and creativity, a flexible strategy that nurtures the cognitive process while ensuring the quality of the final written product. This integrated approach to the teaching of writing is intended to provide students with opportunities to see the connections between mechanical, expressive, and journalistic writing abilities as they work to enhance their skills in those areas. 14
In the search for a new, integrated paradigm for the teaching of writing, a basic question remains: Which teaching style (product or process; editor or coach) will contribute to improving undergraduate writing skills across communication disciplines? Massé and Popovich 15 indicated that today’s media writing instructors across the United States still largely adhered to the traditional media writing techniques and models (e.g., teacher as editor) that have long served academia and the industry.
Use of writing-as-process-type instruction (e.g., teacher as coach) has been recommended to address writing apprehension in the classroom. Faery16 wrote that instructors needed to understand the theoretical and pedagogical implications of the writing process in building successful cross-curricular writing programs. The writing process is defined as a series of steps—pre-writing, drafting, and revising/editing—used in a recursive (non-linear) fashion. When employing the writing process in the classroom, the instructor utilizes pedagogical strategies for creating a supportive, participatory environment (e.g., positive feedback, revision opportunities, selective marking of errors). 17
Specific research findings from the national media writing faculty survey suggested that a new, more integrated paradigm in the teaching of writing would be adopted by those educators who reevaluated their teaching styles and used complementary teaching practices to enhance both the writing process and the finished product.18
However, this study indicated that media writing instructors’ behavior (teaching practices) lagged behind their inclinations. These journalism educators tended to label themselves almost evenly along philosophical lines into groups called editors and coaches. But the behavioral differences were minimal, as the reluctance to abandon traditional writing approaches remained significant. For example, when media writing instructors were asked to express their feelings about various teaching activities, editors and coaches provided the following information:
• Both editors and coaches were most comfortable teaching news writing skills, but rated their comfort below average in teaching public relations, advertising, broadcast, and on-line writing skills.
• Both editors and coaches felt most comfortable teaching grammar/language skills and having conferences with writing students. They were less comfortable with peer editing exercises.
• Coaches were significantly more comfortable than editors teaching broadcast writing skills and organizing peer editing exercises.
These and related findings about teaching styles and the ability to embrace change have immediate implications in today’s educational environment. The pressure of adding media convergence courses to curricula, for example, has already become a reality in journalism and communications units across the country. Massé and Popovich 19 suggested that journalism programs were making an effort to provide such education, although curricula reform could be deemed incremental at best. For example, 48% of media writing teachers, from both accredited and nonaccredited programs, reported that their journalism/communication units had already created a convergence news writing course for their curricula, and an additional 44% of surveyed faculty, from both accredited and nonaccredited programs, said their units were planning to add such courses in the near future. These figures suggested that the growth of convergence curricula would require adaptation and innovation by today’s media writing faculty. Yet, the research did not indicate that such instructional flexibility currently existed among a majority of journalism educators. This could well prove problematic as media writing teachers strive to provide their journalism and communication students with the range of writing skills and experiences required by a rapidly changing media environment.
Based on findings of existing literature, notably research on feminist pedagogy, a goal of this current media writing faculty study was to determine if men media writing instructors conducted their teaching activities any differently than did women media writing instructors. Previous studies had examined differences in teaching styles, but few of those studies looked exclusively at media writing instructors in arriving at their conclusions.
Research Questions
1) Do men and women media writing instructors differ in their teaching philosophies?
2) Do men and women media writing instructors differ in their teaching techniques?
3) Do men and women media writing instructors differ in how they respond to student writing problems?
METHODOLOGY
To answer the research questions posed by the study investigators, a telephone and Web site survey was conducted of all the media writing instructors who could be identified at the 425 journalism and mass communications programs listed in the 2002 membership directory of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. An independent research (polling) firm in Indianapolis, Indiana, was employed to conduct the study, and it called all of the programs in the AEJMC directory during the March and April 2002 test period. The firm identified 1,287 faculty who were teaching media writing courses. Media writing faculty were given the option of participating in a ten-page telephone survey or responding to the survey by email. The survey firm made a maximum of twelve calls to each individual to solicit responses to the survey.
A total of 512 individuals (40%) responded to at least some of the questions, but 376 individuals (29%) representing 240 institutions (56%) provided complete and usable survey data. Because of the partial responses to certain survey questions, N values differ in the findings, and some questions have more than a total of 376 responses. Two-thirds of those responding did so by Web site, and the other third responded to a twenty-minute telephone survey. Of the responding individuals, 209 (56%) taught at ACEJMC accredited institutions, and 167 (44%) taught at nonaccredited institutions. The 209 instructors from accredited programs represented 60 (58%) of the 104 accredited institutions in the country. Sixty-three percent of the respondents were men, and 37% were women.
Using the SPSS statistical package for the PC, investigators cross-tabbed the data and used Chi-square goodness of fit tests when appropriate and independent sample t-tests to test means.
Researchers compared all of the survey questions by men v. women media writing instructors. They asked respondents to rate their primary role as a writing instructor on a 10-point continuum with editor (1) and coach (10) as extremes on the continuum. Definitions for editors and coaches were as follows:
Editors were defined as those whose teaching style is more concerned with the final product generated by his/her students.
Coaches were defined as those whose teaching style is more concerned with the process of (student) writing.
They also asked media writing instructors to rate on a 10-point continuum what philosophical values they were passing on to their media writing students with traditional journalist (1) and civic journalist (10) as extremes on the continuum. Definitions for traditional journalist and civic journalist were as follows:
Traditional journalists: Training reporters to be independent, inner-directed, competitive, individualistic, and autonomous from community concerns.
Civic journalists: Training reporters to be community-minded, team-oriented, cooperative, involved with the reading public, altruistic, and outer-directed.
The editor-coach and traditional-civic continuums were 10-point bi-polar scales. Respondents who rated themselves from 1-5 were considered to be editors/traditional journalists and those respondents who rated themselves from 6-10 were considered to be coaches/civic journalists for analysis purposes.
FINDINGS
A previous study of media writing instructors had presented a demographic profile of the typical media writing instructor and then divided the group into editors and coaches based on a self-administered rating scale. This study categorized the responding 372 media writing instructors by gender to determine if any gender differences existed. Males comprised 63% (n = 235) of the respondents, and females comprised 37% (n = 137) of the respondents.
Media Writing Instructor Demographics
The average age of men respondents was 51.7, and the average age of women respondents was 46.5. Of the men teaching, 55.3% (n = 130) were doing so in an accredited program. The percentage (55.1%) of women (n = 76) teaching in accredited programs was similar.
Men had spent an average of 12 years as a college-level instructor, while women had spent 8 years. Men had accumulated 14.8 years of full-time professional media writing experience, compared with women who had an average of 12.2 years of professional media writing experience, and the difference in experience was significant
(t (370) = 2.502, p = .013) (See Table 1).
________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 1: Faculty mean years of professional media writing experience by gender
in accredited v. nonaccredited programs
Men Women Total mean
Accredited Programs 17.09 (130) 12.88 (75) 15.55 (205)
Non Accredited Programs 12.00 (105) 11.27 (62) 11.73 (167)
Totals Mean (N) 14.82 (235) 12.15 (137) 13.84 (372)
______________________________________________________________________________________
F (1, 370) = 6.257, p < .013, η2 = .017
Men teaching in both accredited and nonaccredited programs held more doctorates (41% and 62%) than women (36% and 50%), but women teaching in both accredited and nonaccredited programs had earned more master’s degrees (55% and 44%) than men (42% and 32%). Men with only bachelor’s degrees teaching in accredited programs totaled 17%, compared with 9% of women, while 7% of women in nonaccredited programs had bachelor’s degrees, compared with 6% of men
(See Table 2)
______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 2: Percentages of faculty members (N = 372) by gender and highest degree
in accredited v. nonaccredited programs.
Degree Men Women Totals
Accredited Bachelor’s 22 (16.9%) 7 (9.3%) 29 (14.1%)
Master’s 55 (42.3) 41 (54.7) 96 (46.8)
Doctorate 53 (40.8) 27 (36.0) 80 (39.0)
Totals 130 (100) 75 (100) 205 (100)
Non Accred. Bachelor’s 6 (5.7) 4 (6.5) 10 (6.0)
Master’s 34 (32.4) 27 (43.5) 61 (36.5)
Doctorate 65 (61.9) 31 (50.0) 96 (57.5)
Totals 105 (100) 62 (100) 167 (100)
________________________________________________________________________
X2 = 3.756, df = 2, n.s.
More men respondents in accredited and nonaccredited programs combined (23.4%) had attained the rank of professor than women (10.9%). More men (26%) had also attained the rank of associate professor, while the women accounted for 23.3%. More women held the rank of assistant professor (28.3%) than did men (21.7%). More women (20.3%) comprised the rank of instructor than did men (13.2%). Thirteen percent of men and women considered themselves to be adjunct professors, and 4.3% of women were lecturers, while 3% of men filled the same rank.
In accredited and nonaccredited programs combined, more men were tenured (41%) than females (34%), and another 21% of men were on the tenure-track, while 22% of women were in the same position. More women (39.4%) held renewable contracts than did men respondents (34.9%).
Male and Female Teaching Practices
Both men and women taught an average of five media classes each year; two of them were introductory classes, and three were advanced. Both groups taught an average of four media writing classes each year. More men (83.4% to 75.9%) taught news-editorial classes, broadcast classes (27.7% to 26.3%), and on-line classes (13.6% to 9.5%) than did women. More women taught magazine classes (23.4% to 20.0%) and public relations classes (31.4% to 20.9%). In introductory writing classes, men required more
writing assignments (17) than women (14.8). In upper-level writing classes, however, women required 14 assignments, and men required 13.
In terms of teaching activities, media writing teachers were asked to rank 8 topics (1=low attention to 5=high attention) in their introductory media writing classes. Men paid more attention to the following topics: story structure (M = 3.80), grammar and AP style (M=3.77), sentence structure (M=3.63), new judgments (M=3.55), newsgathering (M=3.45), new values (M=3.31), knowing readers (M=3.01), and prewriting activities (M=2.83).
Women ranked the same topics in the following order: grammar & AP style (M=3.94), story structure (M=3.72), sentence structure (M=3.55), newsgathering (M=3.48), news judgments (3.46), news values (M=3.36), knowing readers (M=3.26), and prewriting activities (M=2.68). None of the differences between men and women were significant.
Both men and women were asked to use the same ranking scale concerning 10 popular teaching tools and strategies. Men rated the list: lead writing (M=4.05), revising (M=3.65), story models (M=3.40), news factsheets (M=3.16), quizzes/exams (M=3.06), student conferences (M=3.00), out-of-class workshops (M=2.92), peer editing (M=2.75), and headline writing (M=2.71).
Women’s rank orders: lead writing (M=3.98), revising (M=3.71), story models (M=3.51), headline writing (M=3.05), news factsheets (M=3.04), peer editing (M=2.95), quizzes/exams (M=2.92), student conferences (M=2.91), and out-of-class workshops (M=2.42). Although there were some differences in the order of the rankings, none of the mean scores between men and women were significantly different.
In earlier cited studies of feminist pedagogy, women instructors tended to utilize more coaching and participatory techniques in the classroom. However, the national media writing faculty survey did not reveal significant differences between men and women respondents when asked to rate how much time was devoted to coaching (process) and editing (product) activities. For example, men instructors ranked two coaching (process) activities—student conferences (3.0 v. 2.91) and out-of-class workshops (2.92 v. 2.42)—slightly higher on a 5-point scale than did responding women instructors.
When describing pedagogical techniques to address student writing problems, women media instructors were more engaged in utilizing a writing-as-process (coach) teaching style. Sixty-six percent of women used more writing coach techniques in and out of the classroom, compared with 50% of men instructors. Fifty-nine percent of women used prewriting activities, compared with 47% of men instructors. Fifty-six percent of women assigned or referred students to a writing center, Web site, or other source for remedial attention, compared with 45% of men instructors. Yet, women instructors also scored higher on two writing-as-product (editor) teaching techniques. Sixty-nine percent of women introduced more lectures on writing-related topics to address student problems, compared with 58% of men instructors. Also, 77% of women instructors provided more editing/proofreading remedial assignments, compared with 60% of men instructors (See Table 3).
In introductory writing classes, men favored accident/crime stories (58.3%) and speech stories (58.3%) as hard news assignments, while women favored speech stories (54.7%) and accident/crime stories (50.4%). In feature writing, both men and women typically assigned personality profiles and issue-oriented stories.
In advanced writing classes, men (69.8%) and women (65.0%) typically assigned an issue-oriented story. Speech and meeting coverage stories generally followed from both as hard news assignments. Personality profiles were preferred by men (68.1%) and women (70.8%) as feature story assignments in advanced classes.
Male and Female Media Writing Philosophical Self-Ratings
Media writing instructors were asked to self-rate themselves as either editors or coaches. Generally, if the instructors rated themselves between 1-5, they were considered to be editors. If they rated themselves from 6-10, they were considered to be coaches. When men self-rated themselves, they averaged 5.85 on the scale, and women averaged 6.21. A t-test analysis revealed no significant difference. Because pedagogical techniques can sometimes be an indication of the teaching style that instructors use, the investigators asked media writing teachers to indicate the kinds of instructional practices they used. Table 3 displays some indication of how men and women addressed student writing problems.
_______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 3: Which of the following pedagogical techniques do you use to address student writing problems?
(PERCENTAGES)
Techniques All Schools Men Women
(n=372) (n=235) (n=137)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Assign remedial writing exercises or tutorials (n = 139) 37.0% 31.9% 46.7%
Promote journal writing (n = 54) 14.4 12.3 18.2
Use dept.-wide rating scale to penalize writing errors (n=73) 19.4 17.9 22.6
Provide detailed critiques/edits on assignments (n = 343) 91.2 90.6 94.2
Provide prewriting exercises (n = 192)* 51.1 47.2 59.1
Introduce more lectures on writing-related topics (n = 234) 62.2 58.3 69.3
Provide more editing/proofreading assignments (n = 247) 5.7 60.7 76.6
Assign more ungraded writing assignments (n = 170)* 45.2 44.3 48.2
Encourage peer reviewing/editing exercises (n = 196)* 52.1 47.2 61.3
Allow students more rewrite options on their work (n = 245) 65.3 62.6 70.8
Hold regularly scheduled conferences w/students (n = 180)* 47.9 44.3 54.7
Intro. more writing coach techniques in/out classrm. (n=208)* 55.3 50.2 65.7
Reinforce role of instructor as final editor (n = 186) 49.5 52.8 45.3
Assign students to a writing center, Web site, other (n = 182) 48.4 45.1 55.5
_____________________________________________________________________________________
* denotes activities that comprise writing-as-process approach
The Table 3 result shows that a larger percentage of women than men indicated that they used 13 of the 14 pedagogical techniques listed in the table. Included in the list are the five asterisked activities that are considered to be devices used by instructors who use the writing-as-process approach: prewriting exercises, more ungraded assignments, peer review, student conferences, and more writing coach techniques. The only activity in which men displayed a higher percentage than women was in reinforcing their role as final editor in the writing classroom.
Considering that both men (M = 5.85) and women (M = 6.21) self-rated themselves only marginally as coaches, the ranking of the activities displayed in the table should come as no surprise. A high percentage of both groups employed detailed critiques on assignments as their number one pedagogical device (writing-as-product approach). The second option for men was more rewrite options (62.6%), and the third activity was providing more editing/proofreading assignments (60.7%). For women, the second-most favored activity was more editing and proofreading assignments (76.6%), and the third activity was more rewrite options (70.8%). The most-used writing-as-process activity on the list for men appeared as their fifth choice (50.2%): introduce more writing coach techniques. The same technique appeared for the first time for women (65.7%) as the number six activity on their list of pedagogical practices. The pedagogical technique list mirrors the rather lukewarm coach self-ratings of media writing instructors, who seem to depend more on a teacher-as-editor style in their writing classrooms. However, when percentages for men and women media writing instructors were averaged for the five writing-as-process activities in Table 3, there was an indication of the influence of feminist pedagogy, as women averaged 57.8% compared with the men instructors’ 46.6% for these coaching techniques.
Investigators were interested in media writing instructor comfort levels with various kinds of writing skills and their feelings about being either editors or coaches in the classroom. Both men (M = 4.67) and women (M = 4.62) were equally comfortable with teaching news writing skills. Men, however, were not comfortable teaching advertising writing skills (M = 2.42), broadcast writing skills (M = 3.10), or online writing skills (M = 2.98). Their comfort level with being an editor (M = 2.89) in classes was lower than their comfort level with being a coach (M = 3.49) in their classes.
Women, on the other hand, differed significantly from men because of their higher comfort levels teaching grammar and language skills (t(371) = -2.158, p = .032) and public relations (t(371) = -2.353, p = .019). They were also more comfortable with two writing-as-process teaching techniques: individual student conferences (t(305.43) =
-2.019, p = .044) and peer editing exercises (t(371) = -3.835, p = .000) (See Table 4).
___________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 4: Indicate your feelings about the following statements.
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree)
Statements All Schools Men Women
(n=372) (n=235) (n=137)
___________________________________________________________________________________
I feel comfortable teaching news writing skills. 4.65 4.67 4.62
I feel comfortable teaching grammar/language skills. 4.27 4.19 4.41*
I feel comfortable teaching public relations writing skills. 3.22 3.09 3.44*
I feel comfortable teaching advertising writing skills. 2.53 2.42 2.70
I feel comfortable teaching broadcast writing skills. 3.10 3.10 3.07
I feel comfortable teaching online writing skills. 3.03 2.98 3.10
I feel comfortable having indiv. confs. w/writing students. 4.62 4.56 4.75*
I feel comfortable with peer editing exercises. 3.40 3.20 3.75*
I feel more comfortable being an editor than a coach in class. 2.91 2.89 2.95
I feel more comfortable being a coach than an editor in class. 3.53 3.49 3.59
______________________________________________________________________________________
* Denotes significant differences (p < .05) between men and women.
The research of Lacey 20 et al. noted that a majority of women instructors (53%) preferred an Enabler style, defined by high inclusion and high sensitivity, illustrated by flexible teaching methods and an emphasis on empowering student learners. Based on the results of the current media writing faculty study, there was only modest evidence of this more inclusive, flexible teaching style on the part of women media writing instructors.
In addition to questions on editor v. coach teaching practices, media writing instructors were also asked to indicate what philosophical values they were passing on to students concerning the traditional v. civic journalism discussion, which has been discussed in the field during the past decade. The men’s average self-rating on the 10-point continuum was 4.46 (1 = traditional journalist; 10 = civic journalist), and it was significantly different from the average rating (M = 5.66) for women (t(371) = -4.684, p = .000). The average rating for the entire group of respondents was 4.91, which suggests that as a group media writing teachers didn’t express a strong opinion on the question of traditional v. civic journalism values.
DISCUSSION
The lack of a clear distinction in the teaching philosophies and practices between men and women media writing instructors in this national study arguably reflects several factors: first, the age of the average male (51.7) and female (46.5) respondent and their extensive professional writing experience (14.8 years for men, 12.2 years for women) indicate that these instructors are from an older generation reared on traditional journalistic (e.g., newsroom) beliefs and methods; second, their attitudes (e.g., supporting a teacher-as-coach style) toward instruction are not borne out in examining their pedagogical techniques; and third, although elements of feminist pedagogy exist in dealing with student writing problems (e.g., a higher percentage of writing-as-process approaches), there is not sufficient evidence of innovative, inclusive, and participatory teaching styles on the part of women media writing instructors that differ significantly from their male counterparts.
ENDNOTES
1 Candace H. Lacey, Amany Saleh, Reita Gorman, “Teaching Nine to Five: A Study of the Teaching Styles of Men and Women Professors,” (paper presented at the Women in Educational Leadership Annual Conference, Lincoln, NE, October 11-12, 1998).
2 Mark H. Massé and Mark N. Popovich, “The National Media Writing Faculty Study,” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59 (3) (autumn 2004): 214-238.
3 Lacey et al., “Teaching Nine to Five: A Study of the Teaching Styles of Men and
Women Professors.”
4 Esther Wong Oi May and Phillip Stimpson, “Teaching styles of Hong Kong’s environmental educators in secondary schools,” Research in Education, 52 (1), 1994: 1-12.
5 Joan H. Cohen and Edmund J. Amidon, “Reward and Punishment Histories: A Way of Predicting Teaching Style?,” Journal of Educational Research, 97 (5) (May/June 2004): 269-278.
6 Emily Isaacs, “Learning to Value Our Different Teaching Styles,” (paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington, D.C., March 23-25, 1995).
7 Gene H. Starbuck, “College Teaching Styles by Gender,” (paper presented at the Western Social Science Association Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., April 9-12, 2003).
8 Nigel Ford and Sherry Y. Chen, “Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles,” British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (1), 2001: 5-22.
9 Earl E. McDowell, “An exploratory study of GTA’s attitudes toward aspects of teaching and teaching style,” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. Miami Beach, FL., 1993) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 147).
10 Frances A. Maher, “Toward a Richer Theory of Feminist Pedagogy: A Comparison of ‘Liberation’ and ‘Gender’ Models for Teaching and Learning,” Journal of Education, 169 (3), 1987: 91-100.
11 Ruth Y. Jenkins, “The intersection of gender and culture in the teaching of writing,” College Teaching, 41 (1) (winter 93): 19-25.
12 Bernice Resnick Sandler, et al., The Chilly Classroom Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women (Washington, D.C.: The National Association for Women in Education, 1996).
13 Mark H. Massé and Mark N. Popovich, “The National Media Writing Faculty Study.”
14 Steven A. Ward and Rick Seifert. “The Importance of Mechanics in Journalistic Writing: A Study of Reporters and Editors,” Journalism Quarterly 67 (spring 1990): 104-113.
15 Mark H. Massé and Mark N. Popovich, “Answering the Challenge: How Media
Writing Instructors Compare at Accredited and Nonaccredited Journalism Programs,”
(paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication, Toronto, Canada, August 2004).
16 Rebecca Blevins Faery, “Teachers and Writers; The Faculty Writing Workshop and Writing Across the Curriculum,” WPA: Writing Program Administration 17 (fall-winter 1993): 31-42.
17 Boozer, R.W., Stacks, D.W. and Lally, T.D. 1983. “Writing Apprehension: Further Conceptualization and Refinement of Measurement,” in S. Bruno (Ed.), ABCA Proceedings: The Corporate Connection (pp. 27-47). Houston: American Business Communication Association.
18 Mark H. Massé and Mark N. Popovich, “Answering the Challenge: How Media Writing Instructors Compare at Accredited and Nonaccredited Journalism Programs.”
19 Mark H. Massé and Mark N. Popovich, “Answering the Challenge: How Media Writing Instructors Compare at Accredited and Nonaccredited Journalism Programs.”
20 Candace H. Lacey, Amany Saleh, Reita Gorman, “Teaching Nine to Five: A Study of the Teaching Styles of Men and Women Professors,” (paper presented at the Women in Educational Leadership Annual Conference, Lincoln, NE, October 11-12, 1998).