Professor, Call on Me!!

I always felt ripped off as a political science major because I didn't need to take American Heritage. Out of all of the hundreds of (mostly) freshman at BYU enrolled in such a course, I would have actually liked the class. For this project, I was finally able to realize my dream and attend several lectures of American Heritage to determine whether there is an inequality between the genders for class participation. The results are interesting and yet, unsettled.

The setup:

For a total of 9 different class periods, I observed the classes of professors X and Y. Each time students raised their hands to comment, I did my best to write down who was raising their hands (the mixture of men and women) and who actually got called on to participate. For those who are familiar with American Heritage, the enormous class size can seem pretty daunting to all who might participate. However, according to the discussions I had with random, individual students, the class size is not the biggest deterrent for participation.

Reasons and limitations:

I chose to observe American Heritage for some distinctive reasons (besides my own latent desire to join such a class). Firstly, the American Heritage credit required by BYU is most easily fulfilled by taking the American Heritage class (otherwise, combinations of Econ, History, and/or Political Science classes are the necessary substitute). This means that a large group of students mostly the same age are taking the class—meaning that the students should be as statistically representative of any group of BYU freshmen as can feasibly be. It is also worth mentioning that there should be an equal representation of both men and women in American Heritage classes. 

Because of scheduling, I was able to observe nine different class periods of one hour each. Unfortunately, I was able to observe X’s class only twice—he canceled once and subsequently sent his students to Y’s class.

Although I did my best, I am sure that I missed seeing some students raise hands in an attempt to participate. Therefore, I generally did not write down the specific number of hands raised at each instance, but I tried to generally see if there was a mix of both men and women raising hands and which gender was called upon to answer.

Observations:

Though in classes of approximately 150 (X’s class) or 400 students (Y’s classes), I was impressed by the professors attempts to have students participate at all. Those are big classes and logistically, participation is not easy. However, I think a desirable outcome of American Heritage classes in general should be students who are comfortable with participation—especially regarding government and politics.

Though I only observed two classes that were taught by X, the difference in participation between his classes and Y’s classes are noteworthy enough to examine further.

These are the participant ratios of women vs. men in X’s two class periods I observed:

Table 1

	Female	Male	Female participation%
Day 2:	6	4	60%
Day 3:	8	1	89%
Total	14	5	74%

Notice that when combined, the female:male ratio is 14:5—or that women participated 74% of the time in X’s class. With an essentially equal distribution of men and women in the class, men and women should be participating equally as well. In both of these class periods, women’s participation is over 50%.

Compare now to the participation ratios of students in Y’s classes:

Table 2

	Female	Male	Female participation%
Day 1: Class 2	1	4	20%
Day 2: Class 1	0	2	0%
Day 2: Class 2	3	2	60%*
Day 3: Class 1	5	6	45%
Day 3: Class 2	3	7	30%
Day 4: Class 1	1	3	25%
Day 4: Class 2	3	2	60%
Total	16	26	38%

When looking at Table 2 as a whole, the female:male ratio is 16:26, with 38% of participation coming from women. As with X’s class, there are an equal number of male and female students in Y’s classes, yet 71% of the time (in 5/7 classes) the women participate less than the men.

*It is interesting to mention that in this particular class period all three of the instances of female participation were questions those women asked about the upcoming test, not a response or question relating to class discussion.

After combining all of the data from both professors, whatever gender gap that may have been there, vanishes. Combined female:male participation ratio is 30:31, meaning women participated 49% of the time.

Delving deeper:

Though not perfect, my written observations provide some more details that make the question of participation more interesting. We know from Tables 1 and 2 who is being called on, but who is raising their hands in the first place? From the 31 instances of participation in general, in 19 of those times, both men and women raise their hands. The ratio is as follows for females:males 8:11. Therefore, when both men and women raised their hands simultaneously, 58% of the time, men were called upon first.

Both professors tried hard to call upon each student that raised their hands to participate. Obviously this is not possible all of the time, but there were a couple of instances when I saw women raising their hands seemingly unnoticed by the professor, and therefore ignored and not called upon.

It appeared to me that women who raised their hands often did so timidly. In a class that large, bold hand raising is necessary for a professor to notice. Even women who were bold enough to offer their hand seemed to be overshadowed by some of the other male participants.

Professors X and Y have different classes and different methods. X’s advantage in a relatively smaller class than Y is that no microphone is necessary for students to make comments and be heard by everyone. In Y’s classes, his TA's are sent around with a microphone at specific times when Prof. Y is seeking the participation of students. This is not only more difficult logistically (to run mics around), but it does not foster much random participation from students.

Remarks by students:

I tried to talk to one random student as they walked out of class each time I observed. I would ask them the same question and each gave the same response:

                “Have you ever commented in this class?”

                “No.”

I asked each of them why and what would encourage them to do so in the future. Most insisted that the class size is not what hindered their participation. These are some of their responses summarized:

·         I mostly agree with what is said in the discussion. If I were to disagree strongly, I would comment.

·         My comments aren’t good enough.

·         I’m just here to observe and learn.

·         I don’t feel very strongly about what we discuss in class.

·         The professor shoots down everyone’s comments by contradicting them and making them look stupid. The professor is intimidating, not the class size.

Conclusion:

Limitations aside, this research experiment sheds some light about gender and participation in class settings at BYU. I feel confident that a more comprehensive study would provide more understanding about the way men and women participate. As far as the American Heritage classes taught by Professors X and Y are concerned—there is not much cause for alarm when results are pooled together. However, a less intimidating approach to seeking participation would likely encourage more women to speak up—especially if they don’t fear the condemnation of their peers and/or professor.

If nothing else, I sure got a kick out of finally being a student in American Heritage.