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.
