You are on page 1of 28

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Constructing Gender in an English Dominant Kindergarten: Implications for Second Language


Learners
Author(s): Barbara L. Hruska
Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3, Gender and Language Education (Autumn, 2004), pp.
459-485
Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3588349 .
Accessed: 04/10/2011 02:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
ConstructingGenderin an English
Dominant Kindergarten:Implications
for SecondLanguageLearners
BARBARA L. HRUSKA
The Universityof Tampa
Tampa,Florida,UnitedStates

This article is part of a year-long ethnographic study conducted in an


English dominant kindergarten in the United States. The classroom
comprised 6 Spanish-bilingualEnglish language learners and 17 native
English speakers. The study was based on a theoretical frameworkthat
views language as the site for constructing social meaning and negotiat-
ing power. Such theory provides the foundation for asking questions
about interaction that move beyond a strictlylinguisticfocus (Fairclough,
1989). The study demonstrated how relationships and interaction
mediated through local gender constructions support and constrain
English language learners' classroom participation. Based on these
results, I argue that local gender ideologies operating in second
language (L2) learning contexts affect students' access to the interac-
tions that they need to develop a second language. TESOLprofession-
als cannot treat gender simply as a fixed independent variable with
universal outcomes. Gender meanings shift and change in subtle and
not so subtle ways, requiring that researchers attend to local contexts
and to consequences for local participants.

Language educators (Pennycook, 1990; Sunderland, 1994; Tannen,


1996; Vandrick, 1999; Willett, 1996) have called for TESOL profes-
sionals both to expand the way they conceptualize gender and to include
gender in TESOL theory, research, and practice. Accordingly, research-
ers adopting a feminist perspective focus on the relationship between
gender and language in L2 learning contexts by moving beyond the
traditional focus on gender differences and gender as a unitary trait
(Kitetu & Sunderland, 2002; Litosseliti & Sunderland, 2002; Losey, 1995;
Norton, 2000; Pavlenko, Blackledge, Piller, & Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001;
Toohey & Scholefield, 1994; Willett, 1995). These scholars see gender
meanings as permeating interaction and reflecting hegemonic social
interests, including sexist practices. From this perspective, so-called

TESOLQUARTERLY
Vol.38, No. 3, Autumn2004 459
normal or natural gender behavior differs across contexts (Wodak, 1997)
and cultures (Kitetu & Sunderland) and changes over time (Connell,
1987; Flax, 1987).
Like many of the theorists concerned with gender issues (Connell,
1987; Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992; West & Zimmerman, 1991), this
study looks at the macro- and micronuances of institutionalized social
and political allocations of power and resources. In this case, the
institution is the kindergarten classroom in the United States and the
resources are opportunities for interaction in English. Rather than
assuming that interaction is a source of linguistic input and output
available to all participants, I conceived participants as using language to
negotiate ideologies, identities, and relationships at local levels (Bloome
& Willett, 1991; Duranti & Goodwin, 1992; Rodby, 1992). This perspec-
tive of language and interaction motivated the study, which sought to
discover the complex interplay among gender, relationships, and second
language learners' access to opportunities for interaction in English.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Fairclough's (1989) view of language as dialectically related to society


has helped me to articulate this study's perspective on language and
gender. Fairclough is particularly interested in the relationship between
language, ideology, and power. He defines ideology as an "implicit
common sense assumption" that is shaped by power relations and
governs practice (Fairclough, 1989, pp. 2, 33, 91, 92). According to
Fairclough, considering ideologies and related interactional routines as
common sense legitimizes them as accepted modes of conduct, and
those who exercise power in large part determine this process of
naturalization. As a result, meanings, which most benefit dominant
populations, can become invisible through being defined as common-
sense practices. Thus, acceptable beliefs and related behaviors are
endorsed and perpetuated by those who hold power.
Fairclough points out that, at the same time, although "there is a
constant endeavor on the part of those who have power to try [to]
impose an ideological common sense which holds true for everyone ...
there is always some degree of ideological diversity, and indeed, conflict
and struggle so that ideological uniformity is never completely achieved"
(Fairclough, 1989, p. 86). He argues that this ideological diversity results
not from individuals, but from the differences in positioning and
interests among various social groups who enter into power relationships
with each other. The nondominant ideological perspectives and prac-
tices often challenge the naturalized dominant discourses, and it is at

460 TESOL QUARTERLY


these interfaces that creativity and change are most likely to flourish,
though not necessarily without resistance. Fairclough (1989, chapter 9)
contends that researchers can facilitate social change by identifying how
ideology shapes commonsense assumptions and how language enables
some people to dominate others. Researchers must consider how these
power relations obtain at various levels of social interaction: societal,
institutional, classroom, and situational. These levels are not separate,
but interrelated. Interactions at microlevels influence those at macrolevels
and vice versa.
Fairclough (1989) further suggests that these struggles take place in
language and are about the meanings of language. Language is both the
site of the struggle and the focus of the struggle. Individuals use
language to implicate and position others in their relationships and
identities. Norton (2000) suggests that relationships, positioning, and
identity construction can determine who has access to language interac-
tion in a given context. English language learners' intrinsic motivation
alone does not ensure that they will have opportunities to use a second
language or to interact with native speakers. Such opportunities are
shaped by social relations of power.
Fairclough's socially oriented theory of language enables researchers
to move beyond strictly linguistic questions about interaction in second
language contexts to questions about contextual features. Using this
conceptual framework, I intended to observe second language learners'
interaction, participation, and language use in their mainstream grade-
level classrooms, where they could interact with native English speakers.
Although I did not initially focus on gender, it was so prominent in the
data concerning access to local interaction that I used questions of
gender to guide the data analysis: How do gender and bilingualism
influence the relationships that provide access to interaction in English?
How do classroom interactions enact gender ideologies? This study
addressed these questions with particular attention to their implications
for English as a second language (ESL) students in the mainstream
kindergarten classroom.

STUDY DESIGN

This study combined an ethnographic approach with discourse analy-


sis from a teacher-researcher's perspective. Qualitative approaches, which
have been underrepresented in TESOL research, provide contextual
and interpretive accounts of English language learners and learning
environments that add to the corpus of quantitative studies (Chapelle &
Duff, 2003; Pennycook, 1994). As qualitative research practices have

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 461


evolved in TESOL, researchers have acknowledged and explored the
complexities of local contexts and their relationship to broader sociocul-
tural and sociopolitical contexts. Although this study was initially ori-
ented toward description and interpretation, the significance of the
gender data moved the analysis in a critical direction (Anderson, 1989;
Gordon, Holland, & Lahelma, 2001; Pennycook). Gender ideologies,
gender constructions, and related behaviors described in the study
sometimes interacted with bilingualism, ethnicity, and friendships in
ways that emphasized unequal power relations or shaped participation in
classroom events.
Assuming the role of teacher researcher in this study gave me an emic
perspective that forced me, sometimes painfully, to recognize previously
unnoticed interactions and meanings. As the ESL teacher at this site for
several years (and previously as a student), I was familiar with the school's
population, culture, and history. I gained a new perspective, however,
because I purposely conducted research in non-ESL classroom contexts,
which were less well known to me. Thus, I had the benefits of both
familiarity and newness as I engaged in the research. However, I was not
prepared for the degree of newness that I would encounter. Observing
my students in their grade-level classrooms was startling. I had not been
aware that the children's social interactions had such a significant impact
on their access to language. I had been so focused on supporting my
students in developing academic English that I was more or less oblivious
to their experiences outside of my classroom. Despite my feminist
orientation, I was also unprepared for the extent to which the children's
gender ideologies and practices influenced their social interactions.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) highlight the significance of teacher
research by acknowledging both local (classroom and school) and public
(the larger community of educators) contributions to the emic view.
They argue that this emic view and the intentionality of analyzing local
practices are a powerful combination that can be a catalyst for creating
social change and critical pedagogy. Rather than being handed down
from a university researcher, teacher research allows the practitioner to
take a critical view of his or her own practice or local setting by choice.
Data collection followed standard ethnographic procedures, includ-
ing prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation to
ensure the credibility of interpretations. Observations for the study
spanned a period of one year, excluding the previous pilot study year. I
typically conducted one to three 20- to 45-minute observations daily and
videotaped at least two observations per week. Data sources used in this
study were 830 pages of handwritten field notes, 40 hours of videotape,
4 hours of audiotaped teacher interviews, 113 seating charts, and 17
classroom documents.
Having a variety of data allowed me to triangulate my findings by

462 TESOL QUARTERLY


identifying repeated themes, confirming or negating hypotheses, and
searching for negative cases across data sources. In addition to triangu-
lating sources, I also triangulated roles. Because I approached the setting
both as teacher and researcher, I was able to shift from being an
observer, to a participant observer, to a complete participant. These
varying roles afforded me a variety of perspectives from which to collect
data, some fully involved, others more removed. In my case, I often
became aware of classroom interactions and meanings when I was the
most removed, as an observer. These multiple data sources and re-
searcher roles brought a depth to data collection and analysis that
enriched the interpretive process and ensured credibility.
Data collection, management, and analysis began on the first day of
school and continued throughout the study. Data were reviewed regu-
larly using ethnographic analytic techniques (Goetz & Le Compte, 1984;
Patton, 1990; Spradley, 1980). Analytic memos were composed weekly
and were reviewed at several points during the study. These memos
served to identify patterns, themes, questions, and hypotheses. Initial
analyses involved scanning and indexing the entire corpus of data several
times. Data were organized according to their relevance to the research
questions. Selective coding was conducted on field notes, interviews, and
videotaped data.
For the purposes of microanalysis, 25 classroom events representing
whole-class, small-group, and free-play activities were selected and tran-
scribed (Erickson, 1992) according to their relevance to the broad
research questions and the theoretical framework. Half of these tran-
scripts were analyzed to identify patterns and exceptions. From this
group, 7 were selected and analyzed in greater depth. The resulting
microanalysis took the form of a list of answers to questions concerning
the events, which served as the basis for interpretations. Cross transcript
comparison, second opinions, and cultural informants were used in the
interpretive process.

STUDY SITE AND POPULATION

The setting for this study was a public elementary school in a New
England college town in the United States. Access and consent to
conduct the study were obtained without difficulty. Except for my own
name, I have used pseudonyms for the school, teachers, students, and
the local newspaper.
At the time of the study, the school, River Valley Elementary, had 380
students Grades K-6 in 18 self-contained classrooms. Approximately 35
students at the school were dominant in a language other than English.
All 35 received pull-out ESL instruction, and 25 received pull-out

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 463


Spanish transitional bilingual education (TBE) instruction for part of
the day. These students were also assigned to a mainstream English
dominant grade-level classroom, where they spent the remainder of their
day (3-4 hours). The kindergarten had 23 children, 9 girls and 14 boys.
The ethnicity of the students in the class was 70% European descent,
26% Hispanic, and 4% Native American. There were 17 native English
speakers and 6 Spanish-dominant students. Four of the Spanish-speaking
students were from Puerto Rico, one was from El Salvador, and one was
from Mexico. The English proficiency of these 6 ranged from beginners
to those who were nearly fluent (as determined by English proficiency
assessments administered at the beginning of the year). By midyear, all 6
could understand and participate at some level in most classroom lessons
and activities in English. These students will be referred to as Spanish-
bilingual to distinguish them from native English speakers and other
bilingual students. Although they showed various levels of English
proficiency and bilingualism, this term is chosen for its emphasis on
their linguistic abilities rather than their deficiencies in English.
Mrs. Ryan, the kindergarten teacher, is a skilled and respected
African-American educator with more than 20 years of experience at the
primary level, She has a master's degree in multicultural education and
is committed to social justice. She adhered to the principle of "unity
through diversity" and was sensitive to separation or segregation, includ-
ing the removal of students to attend ESL and TBE classes. She worked
consistently toward creating a welcoming environment for all of her
students. She is a native English speaker and had attended a French
language immersion program as a child. She was learning basic Spanish
vocabulary, but she relied on her bilingual paraprofessional for Spanish
language support in the classroom.
As the ESL teacher, I worked with the children for 45 minutes each
day, usually in the ESL classroom. I am certified and experienced in both
elementary education and English as a second language, with a master's
degree in ESL. When I began at River Valley Elementary, I had 6 years of
experience as an elementary classroom teacher and 6 years of experi-
ence as an English language teacher. I am a Caucasian, native English
speaker. I speak Spanish, French, and Danish at an intermediate level of
proficiency.

CHILDREN'S GENDER IDEOLOGIES


A key construct in the study was the ideology about gender that the
children brought to the classroom. I inferred their ideologies from the
verbal discourse they engaged in both within and outside the classroom.
Although the girls' and boys' talk overlapped, some areas were distinct.

464 TESOL QUARTERLY


The girls, for example, would discuss and accuse each other of romantic
liaisons. They seemed fascinated by conversations about who was going
to marry whom, even though teachers discouraged this talk. The boys
were much more likely to construct a competitive discourse-who could
kick the highest goal, had the coolest dinosaur book, or had the most
racing cars. Claims such as, "I know! I know!" and "I knew it before you
even said it!" reflected knowledge. "I can read an eighth-grader book"
demonstrated ability, whether accurate or not. Statements of ownership
and quantity, "I have 10 of those at home," were also popular among the
boys. Although many U.S. classrooms exhibit this discourse pattern
among boys (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 1992,
1995, 1996, 1998; Sadker & Sadker, 1994), it may have been accentuated
in this classroom because it had more boys than girls.
The boys' competitive discourse, unlike the girls' romantic discourse,
was not limited to private conversation but permeated whole-class
discussions, where status could be established and heard by all. Boys also
demonstrated competition when they participated more frequently in
whole-class discussions in general, both through calling out and being
recognized by the teacher (Hruska, 1999). Sometimes the children
appeared to engage in cross-gender interaction to construct and high-
light gender identities. Often the boys initiated these interactions
because they were intent on constructing themselves as superior to the
girls. One such interaction occurred during the second week of school,
while the children were in the hallway coloring large murals of whales.
Kenny, who was working with a small group of boys, walked over to a
mural nearby being completed by a group of girls:

1 Kenny: This is uglier than ours. [He walkson topof thegirls'whalein his
sockfeet.] Dumb whale. Do you know what our whale is?A killer
whale.
2 Jenny: This is a baby beluga.
3 John: We don't make baby whales.
4 Jenny: It's a mama whale.
5 Alan: Ours is definitely better. I know where spouts go and all these
things are used to kill with. That's why we call it a killer whale.
[Kennycontinues to walkbackandforthacrossthegirls'picturethenreturnsto
his own.]

In Turn 1, Kenny initiated the cross-gender interaction with competi-


tive discourse in which he compared the boys' whale to the girls' whale,
claiming that the boys' was better. What's more, it was "a killer whale," a
powerful whale. WhenJenny replied in Turn 2 that the girls' whale was "a
baby beluga," one type of whale they had been studying, John supported
Kenny's comment in Turn 3 that the boys' whale was superior by
implying that they would never even consider making a baby whale,

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 465


presumably because babies are associated with girls and inferiority. In
response,Jenny changed the identity of the whale in Turn 4 to "a mama,"
perhaps because she believed a mama whale had more status. This failed
to impress Alan, who in Turn 5 managed in three sentences to (a)
further construct the boys' whale, and the boys, as superior, "Ours is
definitely better"; (b) display the boys and their whale as powerful, "all
these things are used to kill with. That's why we call it a killer whale"; and
(c) display his personal competence and knowledge about whales, "I
know where the spouts go." All three-superiority, power, and ability-
were components of the boys' gender ideology and related discourse.
After only a few days into the school year, these boys were able to
jointly construct themselves as more knowledgeable and more powerful
than the girls. They also constructed their whale as superior to the girls'
whale, not because it was artistically more pleasing, but because it, too,
was more powerful. They equated better with power and control. Given
that they were able to construct this discourse so effectively after only a
short time together in kindergarten, these boys were likely drawing on
the dominant male discourse that existed outside the classroom.
The girls, too, were behaving in ways they perceived as appropriate for
females. The boys' form of competition was not a common feature of the
girls' discourse. Jenny did briefly engage with the boys and change the
girls' whale from a baby to a mama, but she did not continue to partici-
pate. The girls may have felt they had nothing to gain by contributing to
it, or they chose to resist the boys' negative constructions of them by
disengaging from the conversation. When the girls elected not to
participate in the boys' game of one-upmanship in larger classroom
settings, they contributed to the pattern of male dominance in public
settings by forfeiting the topics and discussions to the boys.
Girls often have to choose either to engage in the boys' discourse and
interaction style or not to participate. Research dealing with classroom
climate and interaction shows that to succeed in the traditional class-
room structure, girls must adopt boys' behavior. Foster (1995) notes that
traditional classrooms tend to encourage students to compete with one
another (p. 577). And the AAUW reports that

attempts to treat girls the same as other individuals places them at an


educational disadvantage if their school values a competitive ethos and if
these girls have internalized the idea that girls shouldn't demonstrate
competitive or aggressive behavior. Although the classroom status quo
doesn't embody an intentional bias against girls, it nevertheless prizes values
that conflict with many girls' perceptions of appropriate feminine behavior.
(AAUW,1998, p. 65)
Research about girls in school (AAUW, 1992, 1998; Brown & Gilligan,
1992; Orenstein, 1994; Sadker & Sadker, 1994) indicates that boys'

466 TESOL QUARTERLY


competitive discourse can eventually undermine girls' self-esteem, re-
duce their willingness to participate in public cross-gender interaction,
mute their collective voice, and reduce their access to leadership
positions. Boys' discourse compares the girls to boys and finds them
lacking instead of looking at the strengths and skills that they bring to
school. Because it damages girls' self-esteem, it also causes girls to set
limited goals for themselves and to see fewer available options well
beyond their school years. Boys' competitive discourse, along with the
typically low status of linguistic and ethnic minority girls (Lee & Sing,
1994), has a significant impact on girls' investment in school. In 2001,
22.1% of Hispanic girls ages 16 to 24 dropped out of school, compared
to 9% of Black girls and 6.7% of White girls (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2002).
I do not intend to claim, however, that girls are always the victims of
inequitable gender practices. Gender privilege is not so clear-cut. The
boys' competitive emphasis may also have negative consequences for
them, especially those who cannot compete or maintain high positions
in this hierarchy. Male language learners whose race, ethnicity, class, and
language differ from the classroom norm may be especially vulnerable
because the established hierarchy sometimes forces them to operate
from lower status positions. In addition, ample evidence shows that boys
receive lower grades, have lower literacy rates, and receive more disci-
plinary action in U.S. schools than girls do (Flood, 2003). Boys may have
negative views of literacy, which they associate with femininity (Maynard,
2002; Newkirk, 2002). The high percentage of female teachers may very
well privilege girls and work against boys (Millard, 1997). The point is
not that girls always suffer; it is that in some contexts, gender operates in
ways that privilege some participants over others. When these patterns of
gendered interaction are frequently repeated, they can have significant
consequences for both girls and boys. In the current study, I focused on
mixed gender public interactions, which, as the transcripts demonstrate,
often resulted in boys participating in this context more frequently than
girls.

GENDERED RELATIONSHIPS

When children entered the classroom on the first day of school and
sat down on the floor, they arranged themselves in a neatly divided circle,
with girls seated in one half and boys in the other. With very few
exceptions the children repeated this pattern whenever they were
allowed to self-select seating. The children also segregated themselves by
gender when they were allowed to choose what to do and where to go
during indoor and outdoor free play, a pattern observed in other

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 467


elementary settings (Thorne, 1993). Only a few activities were strongly
gender associated: building blocks, soccer, and climbing trees for the
boys, housekeeping and fantasy play for the girls. But because the
children tended to make selections with their same-gender friends, they
also tended to congregate in same-gender groups during free choice
times, which resulted in primarily same-gender interaction.
Gender was also highly significant in children's relationship choices.
They overwhelmingly chose same-gender friends within the classroom
setting. Though several same-gender friendships persisted throughout
the year, none of the cross-gender relationships endured. In all three
cases the boys discontinued the relationships despite the girls' efforts to
sustain them. Developmental theories of gender identity might explain
the children's interest in same-gender peers at this age. It could also
result from the boys' co-constructed gender ideology that often empha-
sized distancing themselves from whatever they defined as female. The
boys' ideology, which was dominant, did not value long-term, cross-
gender liaisons in the classroom. Girls, in contrast, were more open to
these types of relationships.
This same-gender constraint on friendships automatically reduced the
number of children available for long-term stable relationships, which
was significant in this kindergarten because having a publicly recognized
friend was a high-status identity (Hruska, 1999). The children's interest
in initiating, maintaining, and displaying their friendships permeated
daily routines, activities, and discussions. And because several friendship
pairs remained stable throughout the year, access to available children
was at a premium. Gendered constraints only reduced the possible
choices.
These gender segregated practices and relationships in the classroom
sometimes became problematic for the Spanish-bilingual students be-
cause they often worked and played in multiage, cross-gender groupings
in the TBE room. The TBE teacher, who met with students K-6
throughout the day, cultivated a familial atmosphere in her classroom.
The six Spanish-bilingual kindergarten children were accustomed to
working together as a group and relying on each other for cultural and
linguistic support, a cultural value emphasized in the TBE classroom.
Although this context did not eliminate gender as a mediating factor, it
did diminish the constraint of same-gender peers. When the Spanish-
bilingual students returned to the kindergarten classroom, they had to
renegotiate their relationships. They had to decide whether to acknowl-
edge their cross-gender bilingual friendships in the classroom (this was a
more significant problem for some of the boys than the girls). If they did,
they would identify their cross-gender bilingual peer as a friend, but
doing so would challenge the classroom's dominant same-gender friend
practice. They could acknowledge their same-gender bilingual friends,

468 TESOL QUARTERLY


which they often did, but their choices were limited. Susana and Claudia,
the two Spanish-bilingual girls, for example, had a stormy relationship
that often sent them seeking other companions. Alternative friends were
in limited supply because three of the native-English-speaking girls
formed a stable and fairly insular trio, making them less available to
others.
The bilingual children often made overtures to native English speak-
ers, but native speakers did not always respond because they did not
consider being bilingual as a high-status identity, even though the
teacher, the paraprofessional, and I strongly promoted it. Unlike contexts
where newly arrived English language learners are coveted as friends
(Willett, 1987), the Spanish-bilingual children in this kindergarten class
were not particularly sought after. Thus, they had to renegotiate their
identities as friends and their cultural and linguistic identities when they
returned to the classroom from the TBE setting. The bilingual children's
access to relationships with native English speakers for friends and the
status and language these relationships provided was further restricted
by the same-gender practice that shaped all student relationships.
An exception to this pattern involved Francisco, one of the Spanish-
bilingual boys. During the course of the year, Francisco formed friend-
ships with three different girls. Several factors may have encouraged this
unusual crossover. Francisco was much smaller than his classmates. The
teachers I interviewed referred to his doll-like appearance. During the
first few weeks of school, teachers (myself included) commented in class
on how tiny and cute he was and exchanged looks over his head, some of
which were intercepted by the other children. Adults throughout the
school (mostly women) gave him diminutive nicknames such as "Little
Pumpkin" and altered their voices in ways typically associated with
speaking to young children. The other children adopted this interactive
style, and they began caring for him at the beginning of the year. Girls
would help him put on his coat and boots and assist him in completing
various routines. During whole-class meetings, the children, both boys
and girls, would point out new English words he was using in much the
same way that a family would attend to the first words of a toddler. They
were much less likely to do this with the other bilingual students.
Francisco was willing to be the object of their caregiving, something
the other boys would not tolerate. This may be partially a result of
Francisco's cultural background and home environment. At home he
had a nanny who dressed and undressed him, for example, so he was
accustomed to having help. Because he was willing to be directed,
Francisco was an attractive playmate to the girls. However, he also
learned and participated in much of the male public discourse in the
classroom. At times these gendered discourses came into conflict, as
demonstrated in the following interchange that occurred while the ESL

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 469


class was making popcorn. Five Spanish-bilingual children were present:
Dalbert, Francisco, Claudia, Hector, and Susana. Hector initiated a
discussion, which I did not hear because I was suddenly preoccupied
with the popcorn, but it was recorded on the videotape:

1 Ms. Hruska: Everybodyhere likes popcorn?


2 Children: Yah, yah!
3 Ms. Hruska: Yeah! Finally a snack that you like!
[I turn to attend to the popper,which has begun to explode.]
4 Hector: Raiseyou hand if you like popcorn. Raiseyou hand if you
like popcorn. Raise you hand if you like popcorn.
[All five children raise their hands.]

In Turn 4 Hector initiated a survey, a genre that was popular with the
children. He began by incorporating the theme of liking, which I had
introduced in Turn 1. Another boy, Dalbert, extended this theme, using
it as an opportunity to construct gender categories:

5 Dalbert: Raise your hand if you like racing cars.


[All raise hands.]
6 Dalbert: I said racing cars. I didn't say dolls. [Looking at the two girls.]
Does anybody like dolls? If you like dolls, raise your hands.
[The girls' hands go up.]
Dolls.
[He appears to approveof this response.]
If you like cars, raise your hand.

Everyone could respond to Hector's query that they liked popcorn


without challenge because popcorn had no apparent gender salience to
the children. When Dalbert asked about racing cars in Turn 5, however,
he clearly felt that racing cars were not gender neutral, and when the
girls claimed to like racing cars he rebuked them in Turn 6, "I said racing
cars. I didn't say dolls." The survey continued moving, from dolls in
general to Barbie dolls:
7 Hector: Raise you hand if you like Barbies.
[The two girls and Francisco raise their hands. Then Francisco looks around
and quickly lowershis.]

Hector's statement in Turn 7 served to further clarify the gendered toy


domains. In response, the two girls and Francisco raised their hands. It is
unclear whether Francisco understood that "Barbies" were dolls, but
when he looked around and saw that the other boys had not raised their
hands, he lowered his. He may have had female friends, he may have
enjoyed playing with Barbies, but in this discussion he did not want to be

470 TESOL QUARTERLY


identified with girls, perhaps sensing that the other boys would not see
this as a positive identity. The girls, on the other hand, did not resist
being categorized as girls. They were girls; they did play with Barbies.
The boys constructed themselves as powerful not only by associating
themselves with powerful things like racing cars, but also by insinuating
that the girls were not powerful because they associated themselves with
dolls. Because the boys conducted the surveys and chose the survey
questions, they also controlled the discussion.
In the following sequence, Francisco takes up the male discourse and
participates in the boys' competitive interchange:
8 Dalbert: Raise your hand if you like cars.
9 Hector: Raise you hand if you like racecars.
10 I have a racecar.
Francisco:
11 Dalbert: I have a racecar, too. I have a real racing car. I got a real
one.
12 Francisco: And I got a real one.
13 Dalbert: And I got 10 million real ones.

In this interaction, Francisco engaged in the boys' competitive dis-


course by aligning himself with them and their gender constructions
regarding male appropriate toys. Not only did he gain access to interac-
tion and language use, but he negotiated a positive identity for himself
within the context of this conversation. In contrast, the girls chose not to
make similar claims, which effectively cut them out of this conversation.
By maintaining both same-gender and cross-gender friendships within
the kindergarten classroom, Francisco increased his options for relation-
ships, his status as a friend, and his access to English language and
interaction. These options were not as readily available to the other
Spanish-bilingual children, even though three of them had more ad-
vanced English proficiency at the beginning of the year. In this setting,
English proficiency did not increase access to relationships, a finding
that contrasts with previous studies (e.g., Tabors, 1987). Gender flexibil-
ity, on the other hand, did increase opportunities for relationships. The
more people available for relationships, the more possibilities for
interaction, and the more access to language. At the beginning of the
year, Francisco had the lowest English-language proficiency, but by the
end he was the most socially and linguistically successful Spanish-
bilingual child. I do not claim that Francisco's success resulted only from
his ability to adopt both male and female friends but to demonstrate that
classroom ideologies, such as gender, can shape who has access to whom,
which in turn can affect second language learners' access to language
and high status identities like friends, which provide yet more access to
English use.

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 471


It is interesting to note, however, that Francisco's classroom teacher
reported during an interview that she saw him more strongly associated
with girls than boys. Although his cross-gender interactions with girls
may have been advantageous in the short term, it is possible that over
time, or in another context, he would have been less successful at
maintaining relationships with both boys and girls. If he continued to
interact with girls, the boys may eventually have ostracized him from
their network. Francisco returned to Mexico at the end of his kindergar-
ten year, so no follow-up in this context was possible.

GENDER IDEOLOGIES IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION

Like the children, the classroom teacher operated from a set of


ideological beliefs that she articulated in interviews and demonstrated
through action. Mrs. Ryan stated that she believed in equality between
men and women. She believed that gender stereotypes negatively
affected all the children and worked at cross purposes to her humanistic
approach to multiculturalism (Grant & Sleeter, 1993) by restricting
people's options and positioning both boys and girls in limiting ways. She
also believed that she could broaden the children's often restricted views
of gender by addressing them and felt that teachers had a responsibility
to do so:

You know, I had a kid come over to the teachers at recess yesterday and he
said, um, "There are kids playing over on the hill, and they say the boys can't
play. They're all girls, and they say the boys can't play."
And so the teacher said, "Well,what do you think?"And he said, "I don't
know."And she [the teacher] said, "Well,do you think the boys can play?"
And he said, 'Yes."And she said, "Okay,then the boys can play."We can fill
them with more garbage. We can fill them with more stereotypes.We can not
fill them with anything, or we can take the opportunity to say here's where we
want them, so here's what I'm going to teach them. Here's what I'm going to
tell them. And they take that and it becomes part of themselves. (Interview,
October 6, 1994)

Although Mrs. Ryan's recounting of the recess event was intended to


demonstrate that teachers should not ignore the opportunity to address
gender-related inequalities and issues, the children were not easily
convinced to abandon their practices. Their ideology was often more
conservative and stereotypical than hers. And, unlike the child in the
recess scenario, they often did not respond with, "Okay."Mrs. Ryan often
found herself trying to convince the children to embrace a wider variety
of relationships and display less gender segregation, but they responded
with their own beliefs and practices. For example, one day during the

472 TESOL QUARTERLY


first month of school she wanted to draw the children's attention to their
gender-segregated seating arrangements. She opened the morning meet-
ing with the following comment:
1 Mrs. Ryan: Look at the circle to notice something. Raise your hand if
you notice something.
2 Boy: Those two girls aren't touching knees.
3 Mrs. Ryan: Who notices something strange?
4 Boy: There's spaces around.
5 Boy: Somebody's missing.
6 Girl: Those two boys aren't touching knees.

In Turn 1, Mrs. Ryan was referring to the gender segregation in the


circle. Because none of the children mentioned gender segregation, the
children apparently did not find the seating arrangement strange or
unusual. Rather, they tried to relate her question to rules that they had
been told about how to sit during the morning meeting, which included
sitting with crossed legs and knees touching to keep the formation
circular and tight.
The first three responses in Turns 2, 4, and 5 came from boys, which
was congruent with their gender discourse. Typically, when the teacher
directed a question to the entire class and the students were free to call
out, the boys took the opportunity to respond quickly and display their
knowledge. In addition to his dominant participation, the boy in Turn 2
found fault with how two of the girls were sitting. Building on this
precedent, a girl in Turn 6 found the same fault with two boys. Both
comments highlight gender, but not in the ways that Mrs. Ryan had
intended. Gender discourse manifested both in how the students seated
themselves and in how they participated in the event but in ways that the
students' themselves did not always perceive.
Another morning, Mrs. Ryan tried again. She wanted to say that the
only place where she condoned gender segregation was the bathrooms,
which were clearly marked "Girls" and "Boys":

11 Mrs. Ryan: Who knows one place that girls go, and boys go to another
place?
12 Kenny: They [girls] can't climb trees.

Kenny's response in Turn 12 was not what Mrs. Ryan had hoped to
elicit; it displayed the boys' gender ideology and named one of the
gender segregated recess activities. Mrs. Ryan could not control com-
ments like these when she invited children's responses. Although she
countered this remark below, all the children had heard it, and it may
have merely confirmed their beliefs rather than challenged them. She
continued:

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 473


13 Mrs. Ryan: Are there any girls that can climb trees?
[Girls raise their hands.]
14 Mrs. Ryan: I guess girls can climb trees. Think of something else.
15 Alan: The bathrooms.
16 Mrs. Ryan: Only the bathrooms. When you hear someone say, "Girls
can't do this! Boys can't do this!"say,'Yes, we can!" Every
morning we are going to check the circle. It's good when
different people sit next to each other.

Fortunately, when Mrs. Ryan asked the girls if they could climb trees,
they responded positively. The girls provided support for a counter
discourse in this discussion. Counter discourse is not always possible,
however, as the following transcript from a whole-class discussion demon-
strates. It reveals how ideologies, including gender, can shape interaction
in ways that position students differently and affect their participation. In
this example, though Mrs. Ryan worked toward including all the
students, the children highlighted their gender practices and friendship
affiliations. This event began during morning meeting when all of the
children were sitting on the floor in a circle with Mrs. Ryan and Ms. Diaz,
the Spanish-bilingual kindergarten paraprofessional. Mike raised his
hand and Mrs. Ryan recognized him:

1 Mrs. Ryan: Mike, what would you like to say?


2 Mike: Well, um, tomorrowis my lucky day 'cause tomorrow is my
first day of soccer practice.

Mrs. Ryan had the option of supporting continued discussion of this


student-initiated topic or redirecting the conversation. In this case she
chose to support Mike's topic. She often used student-initiated topics or
concerns to discuss events that occurred inside and outside of school.
Seven or eight boys in the class participated in the fall and spring
community soccer program. Although the boys did not obsessively talk
about soccer, their public references to it reflected the prestige of being
on a soccer team. In small groups before morning meeting, they had
discussed which teams they were on. They had also brought their medals
to show the class and shared pictures of themselves at soccer. Mike
probably initiated this discussion about soccer because he perceived it as
a high status topic among the boys, who were his probable target
audience. Mike was on the periphery of the soccer group and may have
hoped to align himself with them in a public arena.
Participating in soccer had gender, relationship, and status implica-
tions. All of the students who participated in after-school soccer were
native English speakers from middle-class families. None of the Spanish-
bilingual children participated in the community soccer program, how-
ever, and that limited their access to the discussion.

474 TESOL QUARTERLY


Mrs. Ryan responded to Mike's announcement about soccer practice
and encouraged him to continue by asking him a question:

3 Mrs. Ryan: Tomorrowis, wooow. After school?


4 Mike: Mmmm...
[udd has his hand up. He is looking at Mrs. Ryan, puts his hand down, up,
down then calls out when she doesn't look at him or call on him.]
5 Judd: And today's myfirst day.
6 Mike [continuing]: ... Yup, I'm only gonna go for a little while ...
7 Mrs. Ryan: Excellent.
8 Mark [calling out, overlapping]: I can't be at my first soccer practice
because I ... [unintelligible].
9 Mike [overlapsand repeats]: I'm, I'm only gonna go for a little while in
after-school care.
10 Mrs. Ryan: And then a little, oh, in after-schoolcare, and then you're
gonna go to the soccer practice? Is your soccer practice
here? Are you on the team that practices here at River
Valley?
11 Jim [answeringforMike]: Yup.
12 Mrs. Ryan: How many people, what team are you on?
13 Mike: White team.
14 Mrs. Ryan: Anybody else here playing soccer this season?

Mrs. Ryan and Mike attempted to continue their one-on-one conversa-


tion, but other soccer-playing boys began calling out. This calling out was
typical among boys across the school (Hruska, 1995). In Turn 14, Mrs.
Ryan officially opened up the conversation to the rest of the class,
increasing access to other participants even though the boys who had
been calling out had already done so unofficially. As soon as she did this,
hands flew up and other boys who were on teams began to call out and
converse among themselves. This discussion continued from Turns 15-
33 focusing primarily on who was on which team and the names of the
teams.
The conversation began with one child sharing about an after-school
activity. But because a large group of boys in this class saw this as a
prestigious activity, they immediately took it up. Mrs. Ryan then formal-
ized their participation by asking who else was on teams. The conversa-
tion evolved into an opportunity for the boys to publicly display and
affirm their identities as soccer players, establish soccer as a prestigious
activity, and claim their membership in an exclusive group.
The discussion to this point had included only the boys who played
soccer, but because the teams were co-ed, Mrs. Ryan attempted to shift
the conversation to include the girls. This required a direct invitation.
Even though three girls in the class had played soccer, they had not
called out. Sarah had raised then lowered her hand when Mrs. Ryan had

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 475


asked in Turn 14 who else was playing soccer, and when Mrs. Ryan
invited the girls to participate, Sarah's hand shot back into the air:

33 Mrs. Ryan: We have any girls playing here, I hope?


34 Mrs. Ryan [calling on Sarah whose hand was raised]: Sarah.
35 Sarah: I used to play at fall.
36 Mrs. Ryan: You used to play?
37 Sarah: With Laura.
38 Mrs. Ryan: With Laura?
39 Laura: I used to play.
40 Sarah: We both played.
41 Laura: Jenny used to play but she quit.
42 Sarah: The first time.
43 Laura: She quit.
44 Mrs. Ryan [laughing a little, me in the background laughing]: Well, she
had other things to do.

By inviting the girls, Mrs. Ryan made a space for Sarah to contribute,
which then encouraged Laura to speak up. But what happened next is
probably not what Mrs. Ryan intended. Instead of broadening gender
norms by affirming that girls play soccer, the girls contributed in Turns
35, 39, and 41 to the notion that girls do not like soccer. They no longer
played, and Jenny had quit after the first practice. Both Mrs. Ryan and I
laughed because we realized that the girls' comments had backfired and
only reaffirmed the children's gender stereotypes. However, Mrs. Ryan
did not want to convey these stereotypes to the group and quickly
reframed Jenny's situation by providing an alternative explanation in
Turn 44, "Well, she had other things to do."
Jenny, the girl who had quit soccer, was present in the circle during
this discussion but did not contribute. The fact thatJenny was mentioned
and aligned with Laura and Sarah affirmed the girls' close and publicly
acknowledged friendship. They chose to emphasize their relationship
with each other rather than align themselves with any of the boys who
played soccer. In this case, the high status of the girl's group in the
classroom, coupled with the fact that they had all played soccer and quit,
sent a strong message about girls and soccer to the rest of the class. In
spite of her attempts to reconstruct soccer as a co-ed activity, Mrs. Ryan
discovered that none of the girls in the class was currently playing soccer.
The fact that the girls were not playing soccer constrained both the
possible gender constructions in this event and girls' access to the
discussion. Unlike earlier interchanges, none of the boys interrupted to
build on Sarah's interaction. They were also in no hurry to mention that
they had been on the same team with the girls or had played against the
girls, though they had quickly affiliated themselves with each other.

476 TESOL QUARTERLY


After more boy talk about teams, colors, and shirts in Turns 44-70,Jim
announced that his mother was the coach:

71 Jim: My mom's the coach.


72 Mrs. Ryan: Your mom is the coach? Was your mom the coach last
year?
73 Jim: Yeah.
74 Mrs. Ryan: And you were undefeated?
75 Boy: We'll probably be undefeated this year.
76 Mrs. Ryan: Well, you really have to work to be undefeated, don't you?
You really have to work.

Jim's comment about his mom being the coach could have opened a
discussion relating females to soccer, but the introduction of a parent
and Mrs. Ryan's reference to "hard work" shifted the topic enough so
that Susana, one of the Spanish-bilingual girls, seized the opportunity to
enter the conversation. Not having been on one of the community
soccer teams, she had not had an opening until now. Maintaining the
topic of soccer, Susana linked her comment both to parents and work:
77 Susana: My dad used to work in soccer ball in the summer.
78 Mrs. Ryan: Does he like to play soccer, too?
79 Susana: Yeah.
80 Mrs. Ryan: Do you like to play soccer, Susana?
81 Susana: Ohhhhhhh.... [Her intonationis noncommittal.]
82 Mrs. Ryan: Have you ever played it?
[Susana nodsyes.]
83 Mrs. Ryan: And you like it? Soccer is a great game to play.

Susana was the first Spanish-bilingual child to participate in the


conversation. By strategically linking her comment to three previous
themes-soccer, parents, and work-she was able to enter the discussion,
which indicates that she had been closely attending to what was going on
and understood the rules for staying on, or near, the topic in school
conversations (Green & Harker, 1982). Because she had not been on a
soccer team and because she was not nominated to speak by anyone else,
her opportunities to participate were constrained but, as she demon-
strated, not precluded. Soccer in Latin American countries is dominated
by males, so it was not surprising that Susana had connected her father to
soccer rather than herself. Plus, within the context of this conversation,
soccer continued to be identified as a male-related activity. Mrs. Ryan
responded to Susana's overture and again tried to construct soccer as a
sport that girls like to play, but she encountered Susana's lukewarm
response in Turn 81. That left Mrs. Ryan, not Susana, stating that Susana
liked to play soccer.

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 477


Susana's entrance into the discussion may have alerted Mrs. Ryan to
the fact that the Spanish-bilingual children had not been participating.
Dalbert and Felix were absent, but she called on Hector and Francisco:

84 Mrs. Ryan: What about you, Francisco?


85 Susana: I played a...
86 Francisco: [Unintelligible on tape.]
87 Mrs. Ryan:You've never played, Francisco, soccer?
88 Francisco:Yes, at the school one day.
89 Mrs. Ryan:One day at school? Yes, that's good.
90 Susana: I alwayssaw my daddy to play w ... I alwayssaw my daddy
to play...
91 Mrs. Ryan [to Susana]: In El Salvador,did you play soccer?
92 Susana: Uh-huh.

By stressing in Turn 90 that not only did her father play soccer, but
that it occurred frequently and she "always saw" her daddy play, she may
have been trying to increase her father's status as a soccer player and
legitimize her continued participation in the interaction. This did not
result in further elaboration. Instead, Mrs. Ryan asked Francisco about
his affiliations with soccer:

93 Mrs. Ryan [to Francisco]: And in Mexico do they play soccer?


94 Francisco: I don't know.
95 Mrs. Ryan: You don't know?And how about in ...
96 Ms. Diaz [interrupts to clarify question to Francisco]: Fuitbol, juegan al
fiutbol?They call soccer the football.
97 Mrs. Ryan: Yeah, yeah. [Pause.] And how about in Puerto Rico,
Hector? Do they play football there and soccer? Yeah,
Hector plays really good soccer.

Mrs. Ryan was probably aware that soccer is a popular Latin American
sport and was attempting to use that to draw the Latino students into the
conversation. Mrs. Ryan was also trying to increase Hector's status with
the other boys by constructing him as an accomplished soccer player.
Ms. Diaz's interruption in Turn 96 served to hold Francisco's place in
the conversation. As Mrs. Ryan was moving onto the next child, Ms. Diaz
interrupted to make sure that Francisco understood the question, but
her role as an aide restricted her from elaborating in ways that might
have supported the Spanish-bilingual children's participation. She could
have, for example, introduced additional information about soccer in
Latin American countries, although she might have had gender-con-
strained knowledge and soccer experiences herself.
At this point the discussion shifted to the upcoming open house.
John, who had gone on an errand earlier, returned. The soccer boys

478 TESOL QUARTERLY


reintroduced the soccer discussion. As John entered the room, a boy
called out:

98 Boy: AskJohn what soccer team he's on.


99 Mrs. Ryan: John, are you playing soccer this year?
100 Boy: He's on the red, he's on the Red Rockets with me.

The boy who initiated the interaction in Turn 98 wanted to identify


John as one of the soccer group. Comments such as these drew attention
to certain friendships and alliances and were rarely extended to children
outside the referenced network. These relationships were not always
reciprocal, but naming and nominating certain children over others in a
public arena demonstrated the significance of these relationships to the
children and sometimes provided openings for them to participate.
This whole-class event demonstrates how access to interaction and
language use were not equal for all children, even though they were all
sitting in the same classroom at the same time (Bloome & Willett, 1991).
Who spoke, what they said and did, when, and to whom were significant.
What was not said or done and who did not speak or was not named were
equally significant. During this discussion, Mrs. Ryan honored a student-
initiated topic and tried to include as many children as possible. At the
same time, the children tried to associate themselves with specific peers
and construct positive identities for themselves limiting who was nomi-
nated or recognized. The gendered topic, soccer, also constrained
participation. A boy had initiated the topic and mostly boys took it up
and elaborated on it. More boys in the class participated in soccer than
girls, thus boys were more likely to speak. The boys' greater participation
in large group classroom talk and their willingness to raise their hands
and call out made the interaction more difficult for girls to access.
The first two-thirds of the soccer discussion involved children who
were on the community soccer teams. This restricted some of the native
English speakers and all of the Spanish-bilingual children from accessing
the interaction because they were not enrolled in the soccer program.
The Spanish-bilingual children had limited contact with the mainstream
children outside of school. They lived in different neighborhoods and
were bused to River Valley School to attend the TBE program. So when
native English speakers initiated classroom discussions of after-school
events, which held interest and potential status for them, the Spanish-
bilingual children were at a disadvantage. Not only did the topic
constrain their opportunities to use English, but they could not easily use
the discussions of these events to affirm and display relationships or gain
status in the eyes of the other children. Unlike Mrs. Ryan, the soccer
players did not try to draw non-soccer players into the conversation.
It would seem that Mrs. Ryan, because of her status as the teacher,

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 479


would have had significant control and influence on what transpired in
class discussions, and she was clearly able to draw girls and the bilingual
students into the conversation, but she could not control what happened
outside of school. She could not control the children's interests or
ideologies, and she could not control everything they said and did. The
children based what they said and did in part on what they considered
prestigious and important, often drawing on discourses operating in the
broader community. As a result, Mrs. Ryan had to be constantly aware of
how classroom topics affected all the students. Whom did they favor?
Who was participating? Who was not? How might she create openings for
those who could not access the topic being discussed? How could she
invite the bilingual students into these discussions and support their
participation and English language use? Or how could she introduce
topics to which they could easily contribute? What meanings were being
constructed during these discussions and what were their implications
for the participants? For example, when Susanajoined the discussion by
associating her father with soccer, Mrs. Ryan assisted her in elaborating
on the topic. Susana's bid may also have cued Mrs. Ryan to the fact that
the bilingual children had not been participating, although they had
sufficient English to do so. Mrs. Ryan then elicited their participation,
aware that such discussions provided access not only to English language
use, but also to positive identities and potential relationships, which
could in turn lead to greater access to English.

IMPLICATIONS

In this kindergarten classroom, students enacted gender in ways that


they perceived to be beneficial to themselves, sometimes in traditional
ways, sometimes not. Although gender will not be salient in the same way
in all settings nor interact with other local discourses in the way that it
did in this study, it is likely to operate in ways that shape interaction for
other second language learners. Although dominant or common pat-
terns of gender interaction may exist across sites, configurations specific
to local sites may also exist that have equal significance for learners.
Events where gender interacts with race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic
status may be particularly challenging for second language learners as
they negotiate complex microcontexts. Second language acquisition
theory and research must consider contextual features of language
learning. The settings in which language learners operate affect their
access to relationships and interaction in ways that can support or
constrain second language use and development. Thus, focusing on
gender as an independent variable or on best instructional practices

480 TESOL QUARTERLY


does not provide an adequate understanding of how local environments
influence language learners' access and use of language.
The notion that gender is not fixed but can change over time and
from event to event (Connell, 1987; Flax, 1987; Wodak, 1997) is
encouraging for addressing inequalities and limitations that result from
sexist or limiting gender practices. Rather than accepting inequities as
inevitable, TESOL professionals can transform sexist practices using
alternative discourses. At the same time, Mrs. Ryan's efforts demonstrate
how difficult changing inequitable beliefs and practices can be, espe-
cially when classrooms are situated within broader sociopolitical and
sociocultural contexts that influence what occurs in schools. As Mrs.
Ryan discovered, initial attempts to directly address prevailing ideologies
and practices or to impose a counter perspective in classrooms can
magnify those very practices. Substantive change, therefore, requires a
critically oriented pedagogy in which students help to identify discrimi-
natory or limiting practices within the classroom and help to change
them (see Wilson-Keenan, Solsken, & Willett, 1998).
This study suggests that teacher researchers need to consider how
beliefs and practices interact at local sites and how they affect learners
and teachers (Wilson-Keenan, Solsken, & Willett, 1998). Teacher re-
search on classroom interactions in second-language-teaching environ-
ments around the world would help researchers understand the com-
plexity of these environments and would show how second language
learners negotiate that complexity. Teacher researchers should also
continue to explore non-Western contexts and theoretical paradigms to
more fully understand how gender and other dominant ideologies and
discourses produce meanings and how these meanings affect language
learners across cultural contexts (Kitetu & Sunderland, 2000).
Teacher researchers are often more willing to engage in research and
to accept findings that emerge from analyzing their own local contexts
and configurations (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). For example, in her
study of talking circles, Ernst (1994) concluded that the teachers' role in
second language classrooms can greatly influence student participation.
The current study demonstrated that although Ernst's conclusion may
be true, teachers do not have total control of this process. What students
believe, say, and do can have equal and sometimes greater influence on
their participation than teacher contributions, and students' beliefs and
practices can conflict with teachers' ideologies and goals. These conflicts
become visible through classroom interaction when students and teach-
ers work at competing agendas (Bloome & Willett, 1991). Teachers may
find themselves negotiating with students on a wide array of beliefs and
practices, including but not limited to gender. Practitioners could
explore how these negotiations occur in classrooms and how they

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 481


influence student participation, relationship building, and language
acquisition.
Educators who are aware of how discourses such as gender shape
classroom interaction are better able to help language learners participate
in class. Individual learner traits such as social skills, personality, or
second language proficiency do not fully account for who participates
and why. Educators need to consider not only who is talking, but also
who has the opportunity to talk, and how these patterns develop and
repeat over time. Even when language learners are surrounded by native
speakers and have multiple opportunities to develop receptive language,
they may have few opportunities to develop expressive language. To
provide these opportunities, the teacher might have to intervene,
leading whole-class discussions or integrating native speakers and lan-
guage learners for specific activities or in specific seating arrangements.
In contexts that mix native and nonnative speakers, the English speakers
might not engage with language learners without help. The teacher
might have to orchestrate and support opportunities by restructuring
program models (Hruska, 2000, 2001).
This study highlights the need to examine the local sociocultural and
sociopolitical contexts for second language teaching. To consider these
contexts' complexity and dynamics, theories of second language acquisi-
tion and future research need to move beyond a focus on the individual
and beyond an essentialist view of gender as a static, inherent trait.
Rather than making universal claims about the meanings and effects of
gender within or across contexts, researchers must consider the shifting
and changing meanings of gender, who benefits from these meanings,
and how they influence second language learners.

THE AUTHOR
BarbaraHruskais an assistantprofessor of ESOL education at The Universityof
Tampa,where she providesESOLtrainingto preserviceelementaryand secondary
classroomteachers.Her researchinterestsinclude bilingual education, social rela-
tionshipsof second language learners,gender issues, and teacher supervision.She
has intermediateproficiencyin Spanish,French,and Danish.

REFERENCES
American Association of UniversityWomen. (1992). How schoolsshortchange girls:
Actionguidefor improvinggenderequityin schools.Washington,DC:AAUWEduca-
tional Foundation.
AmericanAssociationof UniversityWomen. (1995). Growing smart:What'sworkingfor
girlsin schools.Washington,DC:AAUWEducationalFoundation.
AmericanAssociationof UniversityWomen. (1996). Girlsin the middle:Working to
succeedin school.Washington,DC:AAUWEducationalFoundation.

482 TESOL QUARTERLY


American Association of University Women. (1998). Gendergaps: Whereschoolsstillfail
our children.Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
Anderson, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and
new directions. Reviewof EducationalResearch,59, 249-270.
Bloome, D., & Willett, J. (1991). Toward a micropolitics of classroom interaction. In
J. Blase (Ed.), Thepolitics of life in schools:Power,conflict,and cooperation(pp. 207-
235). Newbury, CA: Sage Focus.
Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meetingat the crossroads.New York: Ballantine.
Chapelle, C. A., & Duff, P. A. (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative
and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOLQuarterly,37, 157-178.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside:Teacherresearchand knowledge.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Genderand power:Society,theperson,and sexualpolitics.Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context:Language as an interactive
phenomenon.New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally:
Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Reviewof Anthropology,
21, 461-490.
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. LeCompte,
W. Millroy, &J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbookof qualitativeresearchin education(pp.
201-225). Boston: Academic.
Ernst, G. (1994). "Talking circle": Conversation and negotiation in the ESL class-
room. TESOLQuarterly,28, 293-322.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power.New York: Longman.
Fine, M., Weis, L., & Powell, L. C. (1997). Communities of difference: A critical look
at desegregated spaces created for and by youth. Harvard Education Review, 67,
247-284.
Flax, J. (1987). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. SIGNS:
Journal of Womenin Cultureand Society,12, 621-643.
Flood, C. P. (2003, March). Wheretheboysare: What'sthe difference? Paper presented at
the Kentucky Teaching and Learning Conference, Louisville.
Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In
J. Banks & C. Banks (Eds.), The handbookof researchon multiculturaleducation(pp.
570-581). New York: Macmillan.
Goddard, A., & Patterson, L. M. (2000). Language and gender.London: Routledge.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnographyand qualitative design in
educationalresearch.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Gordon, T., Holland,J., & Lahelma, E. (2001). Ethnographic research in educational
settings. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland,
Handbookof ethnography(188-203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1993). Race, class, gender, and disability in the
classroom. InJ. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Multiculturaleducation:Issues and
perspectives(pp. 48-67). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Green, J. L., & Harker, J. 0. (1982). Gaining access to learning: Conversational,
social, and cognitive demands of group participation. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.),
Communicatingin the classroom(pp. 183-221). New York: Academic.
Hruska, B. (1995). ESL student participation during morning meeting. Unpublished
manuscript.
Hruska, B. (1999). Bilingualism, gender, and friendship: Constructingsecond language
learnersin a mainstreamkindergarten.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.

GENDERIN AN ENGLISHDOMINANTKINDERGARTEN 483


Hruska, B. (2000, October). Prioritizingneeds/negotiatingpractices:Studentplacementat
River ValleyElementary.Paper presented at the Puerto Rican Studies Association
Conference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hruska, B. (2001). Ideologies,programs,and practices:Implicationsfor second language
learners.Unpublished manuscript.
Kitetu, C., & Sunderland, J. (2002, August). Gendered discourses in the classroom:
The importance of cultural diversity [special issue]. Temple UniversityJapan
WorkingPapersin AppliedLinguistics, 17, 26-40.
Lee, V. W., & Sing, R. N. (1994, February). Gender equity in schools for immigrant
girls: Issues to consider. MABENewsletter,pp. 6-7.
Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J. (2002). Gender identities and discourse analysis.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Losey, K. M. (1995). Gender and ethnicity as factors in the development of verbal
skills in bilingual Mexican American women. TESOLQuarterly,29, 635-661.
Maynard, T. (2002). Boysand literacy:Exploringtheissues.New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Millard, E. (1997). Differentlyliterate:Boys,girls, and the schoolingof literacy.New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Table 108: Percent of high school
dropouts(status dropouts)among persons 16 to 24 years old, by sex and race/ethnicity:
April 1960-October 2001. Retrieved July 7, 2003 from http://nces.ed.gov/pro-
grams/digest/d02/tables/dt108.asp
Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity:Boys, literacy,and popular culture. Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender,ethnicity, and educational
change.New York: Longman.
Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Youngwomen,self-esteem,and the confidencegap. New
York: Doubleday.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitativeevaluation and researchmethods.Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I., & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (2001). Multilingualism,
secondlanguage learning, and gender.New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in
AppliedLinguistics, 1, 8-28.
Pennycook, A. (1994). Critical pedagogical approaches to research. TESOLQuarterly,
28, 690-693.
Rodby, J. (1992). Appropriatingliteracy.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America'sschoolscheatgirls.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Spradley, J. J. (1980). Participantobservation.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sunderland, J. (1992). Gender in the EFL classroom. ELTJournal, 46, 81-91.
Sunderland, J. (1994). Differential teacher treatment-by-gender in the EFL class-
room: Using ex-participants' perspectives. InJ. Sunderland (Ed.), Exploringgender:
Questionsand implicationsfor English language education (pp. 148-154). New York:
Prentice Hall.
Sunderland, J. (Ed.). (1994). Exploringgender: Questionsand implicationsfor English
language education.New York: Prentice Hall.
Sunderland,J. (2000). New understandings of gender and language research: Texts,
teacher talk, and student talk. Language TeachingResearch,4, 149-173.
Tabors, P. 0. (1987). The developmentof communicativecompetenceby second language
learnersin a nurseryschoolclassroom:An ethnolinguisticstudy.Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Tannen, D. (1996). Researching gender-related patterns in classroom discourse.
TESOLQuarterly,30, 341-344.

484 TESOL QUARTERLY


Thorne, B. (1993). Genderplay: Girls and boysin school.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Toohey, K., & Scholefield, A. (1994). "Her mouth windful of speech": Gender and
the English as a second language classroom. TESLCanadaJournal/RevueTESLdu
Canada, 12(1), 1-14.
Vandrick, S. (1999). The case for more research on female students in the ESL/EFL
classroom. TESOLMatters9(2), 1-3.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell
(Eds.), The social constructionof gender(pp. 13-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Willett, J. (1987). A socio-ecologicalstudy of childrenacquiring a second language in an
academiccontext.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford,
CA.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2
socialization. TESOLQuarterly,29, 473-503.
Willett, J. (1996). Research as a gendered practice. TESOLQuarterly,30, 344-347.
Wilson-Keenan, J., Solsken, J., & Willett, J. (1998). "Only boys can jump high":
Reconstructing gender relations in a first/second grade classroom. In B. Kamler
(Ed.), Constructinggenderand difference:Criticalresearchperspectiveson earlychildhood
(pp. 33-70). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Wodak, R. (1997). Genderand discourse.London: Sage.

GENDER IN AN ENGLISH DOMINANT KINDERGARTEN 485

You might also like