Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:56:46.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

31 - Gender Effects

from Part VIII - Individual Differences, Tasks, and Other Language- and Learner-Related Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

A strong role for gendered differences in communication has long been substantiated by sociolinguistic research. It is thus likely that gender also plays a role in how second language feedback is given by teachers and peers and how it is received by language learners. We provide an overview of the limited body of research examining the impact of gender on second language feedback. While several studies have shown differences in how learners receive oral feedback from male and female teachers and peers, conflicting results have been found, and little research has considered the role of gender in written corrective feedback. Further research is needed to clarify the role of gender on feedback, which cannot be understood without consideration of the complex interplay among learner gender, interlocutor gender, culture, task, and context. We call for (1) increased research in diverse educational and cultural contexts, (2) research that considers the role of gender in feedback provided in written as well as oral language use, (3) developmental studies investigating whether descriptive differences impact learning, and (4) consideration of the role of gender that goes beyond binary divisions, adopting qualitative and critical discourse analysis perspectives to understand how gendered language socializations impact second language feedback.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 2951). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcón, E. & Codina, V. (1996). The impact of gender on negotiation and vocabulary learning in a situation of interaction. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 12(1), 2135.Google Scholar
Aries, E. J. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7(1), 718.Google Scholar
Aries, E. J. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A. (2015). Males and females in EFL task-based interactions: Does gender have an impact on LREs? Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 935.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A. & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). Does gender influence task performance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language related episodes. In Soler, E. Alcón & Safont–Jordá, M. P. (eds.),Language learners’ discourse across L2 instructional settings(pp. 249278). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2003). The effects of individual learner factors and task type on negotiation: A study of advanced Japanese and Korean ESL learners. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 6383.Google Scholar
Buckingham, A. (1997). Oral language testing: Do the age, status and gender of the interlocutor make a difference? Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2003). Gender and language ideologies. In Holmes, J. & Meyerhoff, M. (eds.), Handbook of language and gender (pp. 447467). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, J. & Szymanski, M. (2001). Classroom “families”: Cooperating or competing – Girls’ and boys’ interactional styles in a bilingual classroom. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(1), 107130.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1998). Gender and sociolinguistic variation. In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 6475). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 113.Google Scholar
Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 8296.Google Scholar
Fishman, P. M. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25(4), 397406.Google Scholar
Foote, C. (2002). Gender differences in attribution feedback in the elementary classroom. Research in the Schools, 9(1), 18.Google Scholar
Freed, A. F. & Greenwood, A. (1996). Women, men, and type of talk: What makes the difference? Language in Society, 25(1), 126.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In Day, R. R. (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 327351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Tactical uses of stories: Participation frameworks within girls’ and boys’ disputes. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 3371.Google Scholar
Green, J. & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, K., Zimman, L. & Davis, J. (2009). Gender, sexuality, and the “third sex.” In Llamas, C. & Watt, D. (eds.), Language and Identities (pp. 166–78). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K. & Ullman, M. T. (2006). Why girls say “holded” more than boys. Developmental Science, 9(1), 2132.Google Scholar
Haswell, R. H. & Haswell, J. T. (1996). Gender bias and critique of student writing. Assessing Writing, 3(1), 3183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1998). Complimenting: A positive politeness strategy. In Coates, J. (ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 100120). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Itakura, H. (2001). Conversational dominance and gender: A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kasanga, L. A. (1996). Effect of gender on the rate of interaction: Some implications for second language acquisition and classroom practice. I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 111112, 155192.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. II: Second language acquisition (pp. 413468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clement, R. & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mady, C. & Seiling, A. (2017). The coupling of second language learning and achievement according to gender. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(12), 11491159.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. (2014). Variation and gender. In Ehrlich, S., Meyerhoff, M. & Holmes, J. (eds.), The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 85102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2017). Gender and recasts. In Gurzynski–Weiss, L. (ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors (pp. 100119). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Loughlin, K. (2002). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing, 19(2), 169192.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, B. (2000). Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance. System, 28(1), 114.Google Scholar
Ohara, Y. (2001). Finding one’s voice in Japanese: A study of the pitch levels of L2 users. In Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I. & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 231254). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97111.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. & Piller, I. (2001). New directions in the study of multilingualism, second language learning, and gender. In Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I. & Teutsch–Dwyer, M. (eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 1752). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. E., Berducci, D. & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(3), 343376.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N. E. & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 6390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, D. (1991). Affective factors in the assessment of oral interaction: Gender and status. In Arnivan, S. (ed.), Current developments in language testing (pp. 92102). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.Google Scholar
Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness–Practice–Feedback sequence. In DeKeyser, R. (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rassaei, E. & Tavakoli, M. (2012). Corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: Matched-gender and mixed-gender dyads in focus. Iranian EFL Journal, 52(1), 157166.Google Scholar
Read, B., Francis, B. & Robson, J. (2005). Gender, “bias,” assessment and feedback: Analyzing the written assessment of undergraduate history essays. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 241260.Google Scholar
Reiterer, S. M., Hu, X., Erb, M., Rota, G., Nardo, D., Grodd, W., Winkler, S. & Ackermann, H. (2011). Individual differences in audio–vocal speech imitation aptitude in late bilinguals: Functional neuro-imaging and brain morphology. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 271. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00271.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners: Exploring the role of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In Mackey, A. (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 5277). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sadeghi, K. & Sagedi, S. P. (2013). Modified output in task-based EFL classes across gender. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(2), 113135.Google Scholar
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (1994). Gender differences and second language acquisition. Research Journal of Aleppo University (Arts and Humanities Series), 26(2), 7398.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, I.–R. & Huang, C.–N. (2013). The influence of gender on task-based conversational interactions in a foreign language. English Teaching and Learning, 37(4), 154.Google Scholar
Sunderland, J. (1995). Gender and language testing. Language Testing Update, 17, 2435.Google Scholar
Susanti, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions towards the effective feedback practices in the large EFL writing class based on participants, gender, and English proficiency level. Unpublished MA thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990). Gender differences in topical coherence: Creating involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 7390.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
West, C. & García, A. (1988). Conversational shift work: A study of topical transition between women and men. Social Problems, 35(5), 551575.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. & Wang, H. (1993). Gender and communication strategy use. Paper presented at the Xth International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×