Communicating Gender

Volumes Menu
QUARTERLY
Founded 1966 CONTENTS
Special Issue: Gender and Language Education
ARTICLES
Looking Back, Taking Stock, Moving Forward:
Investigating Gender in TESOL 381
Kathryn A. Davis and Ellen Skilton-Sylvester
The Complex Construction of Professional Identities:
Female EFL Educators in Japan Speak Out 405
Andrea Simon-Maeda
“I’m Tired. You Clean and Cook.” Shifting Gender Identities
and Second Language Socialization 437
Daryl Gordon
Constructing Gender in an English Dominant Kindergarten:
Implications for Second Language Learners 459
Barbara L. Hruska
FORUM
Women Faculty of Color in TESOL:
Theorizing Our Lived Experiences 487
Angel Lin, Rachel Grant, Ryuko Kubota, Suhanthie Motha,
Gertrude Tinker Sachs, Stephanie Vandrick, and Shelley Wong
Addressing Gender in the ESL/EFL Classroom 504
Bonny Norton and Aneta Pavlenko
Language Learning: A Feminine Domain? The Role of Stereotyping in
Constructing Gendered Learner Identities 514
Barbara Schmenk
“The Devil Is in the Detail”: Researching Gender Issues
in Language Assessment 524
Annie Brown and Tim McNamara
ccclxxiv TESOL QUARTERLY

Volume 38, Number 3 䊐 Autumn 2004
BOOK REVIEW
A Comparative Review of Four Books on Language and Gender 539
Stephanie Vandrick
Gender in the Language Classroom
Monika Chavez
Language and Gender
Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet
Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis
Lita Litosseliti and Jane Sunderland, Eds.
Communicating Gender
Suzanne Romaine
Information for Contributors 545
REVIEWS ccclxxv
QUARTERLY Volume 38, Number 3 䊐 Autumn 2004
A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

Founded 1966
and of Standard English as a Second Dialect
Editor
CAROL A. CHAPELLE, Iowa State University
Guest Editors
KATHRYN A. DAVIS, University of Hawai‘i
ELLEN SKILTON-SYLVESTER, Arcadia University
Associate Editor
A. SURESH CANAGARAJAH, Baruch College, City University of New York
Teaching Issues Editor
BONNY NORTON, University of British Columbia
Brief Reports and Summaries Editors
CATHIE ELDER, Monash University
PAULA GOLOMBEK, Pennsylvania State University
Assistant Editor
CRAIG A. TRIPLETT, TESOL Central Office
Assistant to the Editor
LILY COMPTON, Iowa State University
Editorial Advisory Board
Alister Cumming, James E. Purpura,
University of Toronto Teachers College, Columbia University
Pauline Gibbons, Peter Robinson,
University of Technology, Sydney Aoyama Gakuin University
Greta Gorsuch, Miyuki Sasaki,
Texas Tech University Nagoya Gakuin University
Constant Leung, Norbert Schmitt,
Kings College London University of Nottingham
John Levis, Ali Shehadeh,
Iowa State University King Saud University
Jo A. Lewkowicz, Mack Shelley,
University of Hong Kong Iowa State University
Patsy Lightbown, Elaine Tarone,
Harwich, MA University of Minnesota
Brian Lynch, Kelleen Toohey,
Portland State University Simon Fraser University
Paul Kei Matsuda, Jessica Williams,
University of New Hampshire University of Illinois at Chicago
Lourdes Ortega,
University of Hawai‘i at Manoa
Charlene Polio,
Michigan State University
Additional Readers
Theresa Austin; Christine Casanave; Patsy Duff; Margaret Gebhard; Angel Lin; Sandra McKay;
Suhanthie Motha; Bonny Norton; Aneta Pavlenko; Lucinda Pease-Alvarez; Sandra R. Schecter;
Jane Sunderland; Kelleen Toohey; Stephanie Vandrick; Karen Watson-Gegeo; Shelley Wong
Credits
Advertising arranged by Sherry Harding, TESOL Central Office, Alexandria, Virginia U.S.A.
Typesetting by Capitol Communication Systems, Inc., Crofton, Maryland U.S.A.
Printing and binding by Pantagraph Printing, Bloomington, Illinois U.S.A.
Copies of articles that appear in the TESOL Quarterly are available through ISI Document Solution, 3501 Market Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 U.S.A.
Copyright © 2004
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
REVIEWS ccclxxiii
US ISSN 0039-8322 (print), ISSN 1545-7249 (online)
is an international professional organization for those concerned
with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and of
standard English as a second dialect. TESOL’s mission is to ensure
excellence in English language teaching to speakers of other languages. TESOL
encourages professionalism in language education; individual language rights;
accessible, high quality education; collaboration in a global community; and interac-
tion of research and reflective practice for educational improvement.
Information about membership and other TESOL services is available from TESOL
Central Office at the address below.
TESOL Quarterly is published in Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. Contributions should
be sent to the Editor or the appropriate Section Editors at the addresses listed in the
Information for Contributors section. Publishers’ representative is Paul Gibbs, Director of
Publications. All material in TESOL Quarterly is copyrighted. Copying without the permission of
TESOL, beyond the exemptions specified by law, is an infringement involving liability for
damages.
Reader Response You can respond to the ideas expressed in TESOL Quarterly by writing directly
to editors and staff at tq@tesol.org. This will be a read-only service, but your opinions and ideas
will be read regularly. You may comment on the topics raised in The Forum on an interactive
bulletin board at http://communities.tesol.org/⬃tq.
TESOL Home Page You can find out more about TESOL services and publications by accessing
the TESOL home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.tesol.org/.
Advertising in all TESOL publications is arranged by Sherry Harding, TESOL Central Office,
700 South Washington Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA, Tel. 703-836-0774.
Fax 703-836-7864. E-mail tesol@tesol.org.
OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2004–2005

President Mary Ann Boyd Aileen Gum
MICHELE J. SABINO Illinois State University City College
University of Houston– (Emerita) San Diego, CA USA
Downtown Towanda, IL USA Lía D. Kamhi-Stein
Houston, TX USA Christine Coombe California State University
Dubai Men’s College Los Angeles, CA USA
President-Elect Dubai, United Arab Emirates
ELLIOT JUDD Anne V. Martin
University of Illinois Ays*egül Dalog¨lu ESL Consultant/Instructor
at Chicago Middle East Technical Syracuse, NY USA
Chicago, IL USA University
Mary Lou McCloskey
Ankara, Turkey
Atlanta, GA USA
Past President Eric Dwyer
AMY SCHLESSMAN JoAnn Miller
Florida International EFL Consultant
Evaluation, Instruction, Design University
Tucson, AZ USA Mexico City, Mexico
Miami, FL USA
Northern Arizona University Suchada Nimmannit
Flagstaff, AZ USA Bill Eggington Chulalangkorn University
Brigham Young University Language Institute
Provo, UT USA Bangkok, Thailand
Treasurer
MARTHA EDMONDSON Liz England
Washington, DC USA American University in Cairo Executive Director/Secretary
Cairo, Egypt CHARLES S.
Mabel Gallo AMOROSINO, JR.
Instituto Cultural Argentino Alexandria, VA USA
Norteamericano
Buenos Aires, Argentina
ccclxxvi TESOL QUARTERLY

QUARTERLY
Founded 1966
Editor’s Note
■ I would like to thank Kathryn A. Davis and Ellen Skilton-Sylvester for

editing this special issue of TESOL Quarterly, which explores the issues
concerning gender in language education and charts directions for future
research in this area. Readers will benefit from their skillful selection and
editing of articles that express a range of research results and perspectives.
In anticipation of completing my term as editor of TESOL Quarterly with the
next issue, I direct contributors to submit manuscripts to the new editor,
A. Suresh Canagarajah, at
Box B6–247
Baruch College of the City University of New York
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010
At the same time, Roberta Vann will be ending her term as reviews editor.
Book reviews should be sent to the new reviews editor, Adrian Holliday, at
Department of Language Studies
Canterbury Christ Church University College
Canterbury CT1 1QU, UK
Carol A. Chapelle
In This Issue
■ We would like to thank the authors and reviewers of this special issue on
gender and language education for their intellectual insight, collegiality,
and efficiency. We especially thank Amy Yamashiro for her thoughtful
contributions in conceptualizing the issue and reviewing the initial submis-
sions. Our appreciation goes to Leonor Briscoe who tirelessly kept multiple
drafts of manuscripts and reviewer comments organized and who gently
reminded us all when deadlines were approaching. The overview article
IN THIS
TESOL ISSUE Vol. 38, No. 3, Autumn 2004
QUARTERLY 377
greatly benefited from comments from Thea Abu El-Haj, Andrea Maeda, Su
Motha, Bonny Norton, Aneta Pavlenko, Kathy Schultz, Steven Talmy, and
Stephanie Vandrick. It has been a pleasure to work on this issue of TESOL
Quarterly, and we hope that the writing here will spark many valuable
conversations, ideas for research and teaching, and visions for linking theory
and practice in meaningful and powerful ways.
The issue begins with our overview on gender research and pedagogical
approaches that inform TESOL. We then introduce contributions to the
volume by indicating how they represent broader dialogues about directions
in second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and TESOL.
The articles report on research that explores gender in three quite
different language teaching and learning contexts: a diverse set of universi-
ties in Japan; the homes, classrooms, and workplaces of Laotian adult
immigrants in the United States and Laos; and a kindergarten classroom in
the United States that includes Spanish-speaking bilingual children.
• Andrea Simon-Maeda argues that gender cannot be viewed as a free-
floating attribute of individual subjectivities but rather must be exam-
ined as one of many components in an ever-evolving network of
personal, social, and cultural circumstances. Based on life history
narratives of EFL teachers in Japan, her article presents a complex
representation of female teachers’ lives and in so doing, challenges
and expands prevalent TESOL education theories about career trajec-
tories in the field. This study also highlights how the participants
engage with sociocultural circumstances in the face of ideological con-
straints, construct their educator identities accordingly, and mobilize
available resources to contest oppressive forces in their professional
lives.
• Drawing on a multisite ethnographic study that spans educational,
domestic, and workplace contexts in the United States and Laos, Daryl
Gordon investigates the interplay between gender identity shifts and
second language socialization, documenting the process by which
working class Lao women and men redefine gender identities in the
United States. She convincingly documents theoretical, empirical, and
practical reasons why the study of gender and language teaching and
learning must be more than the study of women and must move
beyond the classroom. Gordon also offers suggestions for reimagining
adult ESL teaching practices in light of her findings.
• Barbara Hruska investigates the ways that relationships and interaction
are mediated through gender and shape language learning opportuni-
ties for English language learners. Through a microanalysis of the
interactions, relationships, and ideologies operating in a kindergarten
classroom, Hruska’s study shows how understanding the gendered
nature of the language learning process requires attending to critical
factors beyond language. She argues that TESOL instructors and
researchers cannot treat gender simply as a fixed, independent vari-
378 TESOL QUARTERLY

able with universal outcomes; rather, they must pay attention to local
contexts and the language learning consequences for local participants.
Also in this issue:
• The Forum: This special issue has an expanded Forum section with
four substantial pieces that focus on the complexity of theorizing
gender in TESOL as well as understanding gendered teaching and
research practices in the field. Angel Lin, Rachel Grant, Ryuko Kubota,
Suhanthie Motha, Gertrude Tinker Sachs, Stephanie Vandrick, and
Shelley Wong use personal narrative and theoretical insights to high-
light some of the gendered, raced, and classed hierarchies that women
faculty of color in TESOL have encountered and to suggest how these
hierarchies might be dismantled for the benefit of individual faculty
and the future of the field. Bonny Norton and Aneta Pavlenko discuss
a variety of innovative, gendered teaching practices found in ESL and
EFL classrooms, focusing on the diversity of classroom contexts and
approaches as well as on the emancipatory potential of the work that
these teachers and learners produced. Barbara Schmenk takes on the
widespread assumption that women are inherently better language
learners than men, debunking this stereotypical view that reinforces
essentialist gender positions and limits our understanding of how
gendered identities affect language learning. Annie Brown and Tim
McNamara discuss the impact of gender in language assessment,
highlighting the methodological history of this research. They discuss
the need for a range of quantitative and qualitative methods that allow
for complex understandings of gender in test discourse and suggest
how these multiple methods can contribute to knowledge that ad-
dresses the complex, socially constructed and locally contingent char-
acter of gendered language use in face-to-face interaction.
• Reviews and Book Notices: Stephanie Vandrick reviews and compares
four books on language and gender: Gender in the Language Classroom
(Monika Chavez), Language and Gender (Penelope Eckert and Sally
McConnell-Ginet), Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis (Lita Litosseliti
and Jane Sunderland, Eds.), and Communicating Gender (Suzanne
Romaine).
Kathryn A. Davis and Ellen Skilton-Sylvester
IN THIS ISSUE 379

Looking Back, Taking Stock,
Moving Forward: Investigating
Gender in TESOL
KATHRYN A. DAVIS
University of Hawai‘i
Honolulu, Hawai‘i, United States
ELLEN SKILTON-SYLVESTER
Arcadia University
Glenside, Pennsylvania, United States
This article offers a historical overview, explores current trends, and

suggests future directions of gender research and pedagogical ap-
proaches that inform TESOL. It highlights key theories, research
paradigms, and subjects of study that contribute to SLA knowledge
while addressing inequitable gendered social, pedagogical, and linguis-
tic relationships in and out of ESL and EFL classrooms. The article also
introduces the contributions to this volume by indicating how they
represent broader dialogues about directions in second language
acquisition, applied linguistics, and TESOL.
I n 1996, Willett posed the question in TESOL Quarterly, “Why has the
TESOL profession taken so long to examine gender?” (p. 344). Since
Willett’s challenge, scholars concerned with English language teaching
have explored a broad range of topics and issues related to gender,
including the relationship between gender and language or discourse
(Goddard & Patterson, 2000; Litosseliti & Sunderland, 2002); the special
concerns and issues of immigrant women (Frye, 1999; Goldstein, 1995,
2001; Kouritzin, 2000; Norton, 2000; Rivera, 1999); and women’s needs
and voices in EFL situations (Lin et al., this issue; McMahill, 1997, 2001;
Saft & Ohara, 2004; Simon-Maeda, this issue). Gender studies during the
past decade have reflected a trend in TESOL and its parent disciplines,
applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA), toward
embracing social and cultural perspectives in understanding language
learning and teaching. This shift in second language research from the
positivistic conceptualization of gender as an individual variable to a
constructivist view of gender as social relations operating within complex
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 38, No. 3, Autumn 2004 381

systems has led to richer understandings of the relations between gender
and language learning across societies, communities, and classrooms
(see Norton & Pavlenko, 2004). Yet although the state of the art presents
changing research philosophies and practices, traditional gender per-
spectives, such as the superiority of female language learners, persist
among TESOL educators (Sunderland, 2000). To travel the distance
between research on gender and the possibilities and practicalities of
gender in language education, we have mapped the terrain of past and
current inquiries while envisioning future directions.
LOOKING BACK
Research on language and gender and theoretical shifts in the field

result from real-world changes brought about by political movements
and therefore represent not only differences in academic perspectives
on gender and language, but also changes across time in how gender
and language are perceived to work in the world (Cameron, 2004). In
the early 1970s, the feminist political movement that brought widespread
attention to inequitable power relations among men and women also
inspired gender studies in applied linguistics. Most subsequent applied
linguistics research on language and gender focused on three major
theories: deficit theory, the dominance framework, and the difference
framework. The deficit theory reflects Lakoff’s (1973) work on language
and women’s place. These studies emphasized the perceived negative
aspects of women’s speech in contrast to the perceived normative
language of men. In her analysis of verbal hygiene, Cameron (1995)
reviews a history of pressure exerted on women to monitor and clean up
their deficient language practice.
In the mid 1970s, researchers adopted a dominance framework and
began linking negative evaluations of women’s language to their social
domination by men (Bergvall, 1999). Studies of gendered language
structures and language use (Coates & Cameron, 1988; Philips, 1980;
Philips, Steele, & Tanz, 1987; Tannen, 1996; Thorne, Kramarae, &
Henley, 1983) suggested that men gain and maintain power over women
in social interaction, for example, by interrupting and overlapping
women’s speech, using a high volume of words, or by denigrating
women. Research and activism in this area led to widespread adoption of
guidelines for nonsexist English language usage (Cooper, 1989; Nichols,
1999).
In the early 1980s, the difference framework, also known as the dual-
culture model, emerged as an alternative to the dominance model. The
difference framework suggests that girls and boys are socialized into
different ways of relating to one another in their predominately same-sex
382 TESOL QUARTERLY

interactions and, thus, acquire different communicative styles. Accord-
ing to this model, if communication breaks down between men and
women, it’s a matter of misinterpreting the other’s form of interaction
(Tannen, 1993, 1996). By the mid to late 1980s, the difference model
had come to include a celebrating-difference component that valued the
positive aspects of women’s unique communicative styles. SLA studies
specifically focused on gender differences in conversational style (Gass &
Veronis, 1986; Losey, 1995; Pica, Holliday, Lewis, Berducci, & Newman,
1992), quantity of talk (Sunderland, 1992), and learning styles and
strategies (Oxford, 1993; Willing, 1988).
Although gender researchers and theorists (e.g., Cameron, 1990;
Coates, 1993; Freed, 1995; Holmes, 1991; McElhinny, 1993) acknowl-
edge earlier contributions, they have recently argued that gender
behaviors are neither predictable nor universal. Studies subsequently
began to shift from viewing gender as an individual and generalizable
trait to viewing gender as a social construction within specific cultural
and situational contexts (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992; Measor &
Sikes, 1992; Sunderland, 1994; Thorne, 1993; Toohey & Scholefield,
1994; Willett, 1995; Wilson-Keenan, Solsken, & Willett, 1998). For
example, in her study of a kindergarten classroom, Willett (1995) found
that a male student’s locally mediated social isolation limited his lan-
guage development and academic success, whereas the friendship and
shared resources of three female students led to positive learning
outcomes. The constructivist position views gender as a joint process
among participants who create or reproduce social hierarchies through
everyday interaction (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet). Theorists such as
Connell (1987), Simon-Maeda (this issue), and Wodak (1997) also
suggest that although gender behaviors change over time and are shaped
by political and economic forces, sexist practices may persist and become
institutionalized because they benefit those who hold power.
Most feminist theorists and researchers now recognize that the
difference, dominance, and dual-culture models are insufficient and, in
some cases, damaging to emancipatory practices. Although SLA re-
searchers and English language teachers still use these models to
understand how gender affects language teaching and learning, this
special issue represents a general shift in SLA from essentialist, positivist
research on language learning to constructivist studies that acknowledge
the historical, political, social, and cultural aspects of language learning.
As we highlight this significant paradigm shift in taking stock of gender
and language education, we want to echo Cameron’s (2004) point that
there is no universal agreement on the conceptualization and investiga-
tion of language and gender and that multiple, often conflicting
orientations overlap and intersect in the field.
LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 383

TAKING STOCK
Although the current literature on gender and language education

covers a broad range of topics, theories, practices, research approaches,
and epistemological positions, these issues can be represented by three
themes: (a) shifting conceptual frameworks and research paradigms, (b)
expanding research purposes and tools, and (c) promoting praxis.
Shifting Conceptual Frameworks and Research Paradigms
SLA research and practice still perpetuate notions that gender differ-
ences can be reified, known once and for all, and are uniform across
language learning contexts. For example, a number of theorists and
researchers (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Ellis, 1994; Oxford, 1993) con-
tinue to assume female superiority in development. In a textbook on
SLA research, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) report the generally
accepted belief that females display a rate advantage, at least in the
beginning stages of first language acquisition, and they cite two studies
(Eisenstein, 1982; Farhady, 1982) showing female superiority in some
aspects of SLA.
Essentializing notions of language and gender have been the subject
of numerous critiques. Ehrlich (1997), for example, argues that the
biological and dualistic conceptions of gender that underlie much (past)
work in second language acquisition exaggerate and overgeneralize
differences between women and men, in addition to ignoring the social,
cultural, and situational forces that shape gender categories, relations,
and learner outcomes (p. 426). Schmenk (this issue) suggests that
Instead of looking at what males are like and what females are like and
constructing generalized images of male and female language learners as
groups accordingly, critical voices note that language learners are themselves
constantly engaged in constructing and reconstructing their identities in
specific contexts and communities. (p. 513)
Research on complex, multiple, and co-constructed identities operat-

ing in research studies and classrooms can reveal, for example, patterns
that have been ascribed to women also appearing in the speech of men
(and vice versa). In other words, many of the assumptions about who
uses what forms have little to do with gender.
The persistence of essentializing and dichotomizing gender research,
despite theoretical critiques and evidence to the contrary, is most likely
due to scholars’ underlying ontological and epistemological positions.
SLA scholars who adhere to a positivist or postpositivist research tradi-
384 TESOL QUARTERLY

tion that values the search for reality (or an approximation of reality1)
and the belief that findings can be generalized may reject constructivist,
critical-feminist, and poststructuralist research paradigms as unscientific.2
Lin et al. (this issue) suggest that positivistic philosophy was born from
Enlightenment assumptions that “the ideal agent of knowledge, the ideal
scientist, is a transhistorical, unitary, individual and a disembodied mind,
whose scientific endeavors are not supposed to be in any significant ways
shaped or constituted by their historical, social, cultural, and institu-
tional contexts and locations” (p. 495). Lin et al. go on to describe SLA
research’s common concern with how to “operationalize and quantify
(i.e., define and measure in numerals) human and social phenomena
(e.g., language learning and teaching) in terms of variables and to verify
hypotheses about the relationships (e.g., causal or correlational relation-
ships) among different variables” (p. 495). Yet applied linguists, SLA
scholars, and the gender specialists represented or cited in this special
issue are increasingly moving away from Modernist research frameworks
toward richer understandings of the relationships between gender and
language learning across societies, communities, and classrooms.3
Watson-Gegeo (2001) claims that a paradigm shift from positivism to
constructivism, critical-feminism, and poststructuralism has already oc-
curred in SLA. This shift is not only reflected in current mainstream
research taking place in Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and
Australia (e.g., Cameron, Frazer, Harvey, Rampton, & Richardson, 1992;
Crookes & Lehner, 1998; Duff, 2002; McKay & Wong, 1996; Norton,
2000), but also on the periphery of teaching and learning English as a
foreign language in non-Western settings (Canagarajah, 2002; Pavlenko,
Blackledge, Piller, & Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001). As scholars such as Freed
(1995) and Kitetu and Sunderland (2002) note, Western theory and
research focused on adult, middle class, and white populations that have
dominated SLA literature are biased in failing to represent other social
and cultural contexts. Non-Western SLA scholars (e.g., Canagarajah
1999; Lin et al., this volume) along with those interested in immigrant,
refugee, indigenous, and K–12 populations (e.g., Duff, 2002; Duff,
1
According to Hatch (2002), postpositivist qualitative researchers “are critical realists who
subject truth claims to close critical scrutiny in order to maximize chances of apprehending
reality as closely as possible” (p. 14).
2
The division and defining characteristics of paradigms are in many ways problematic; e.g.,
they may overlap to a great extent and researchers may draw on characteristics and methods
from several paradigms. Yet we have decided to use positivist, postpositivist, constructivist,
critical-feminist, and poststructuralist frameworks to promote discussion of the use of these
paradigms in applied linguistics, SLA, and TESOL.
3
The paradigm shift occurring in gender and language studies and, more generally, in SLA
has certainly been influenced by earlier postmodern and feminist work in fields such as
education, sociology, anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and women’s studies.

Wong, & Early, 2002; Harklau, 1994; McKay & Wong, 1996; Valdés, 1998)
are increasingly criticizing studies that ignore situated values and practices.
The shift toward constructivist and feminist-critical paradigms is
evident in recent emphasis on the centrality of social relationships in
gender theorizing and research. As Connell (2002) suggests:
The key is to move from a focus on difference to a focus on relations. Gender

is, above all, a matter of the social relations within which groups and
individuals act. . . . Gender relations do include difference and dichotomy,
but also include many other patterns. . . . Gender must be understood as a
social structure. It is not an expression of biology, nor a fixed dichotomy in
human life or character. It is a pattern in our social arrangements and in
everyday activities or practices which those arrangements govern. (p. 9)
There are several examples of SLA research that have moved beyond
the traditional dichotomies by examining social relations. Goldstein’s
(1995) ethnographic study of Portuguese immigrant women in Toronto
illustrates the complex relationships among language acquisition, gen-
der, and social context. These Portuguese women’s gendered roles
within their community constrained opportunities to develop English
proficiency, which, in turn, restricted their participation in the labor
market. The factory jobs they were able to obtain further discouraged
the use and acquisition of English. Norton (1997, 2000; Norton Peirce,
1995) shows how unequal power relationships inherent in ethnic,
gender, and class differences limited the opportunities for five immi-
grant women to practice English. Cumming and Gill (1991) demonstrate
social, cultural, and political reasons that twice as many immigrant
women as men fail to acquire Canada’s official languages, English and
French. Skilton-Sylvester (2002) illustrates the ways that Cambodian
women’s relationships—as workers, mothers, and spouses—fundamen-
tally influence their participation in adult ESL programs and conse-
quently their language learning opportunities. Gordon (this issue) and
Hruska (this issue) consider how gender operates in relations between
spouses, among students, and between teachers and students within
community and school contexts to shape English language learning.
Constructivist, critical-feminist, and poststructuralist research para-
digms now dominate studies of language and gender education. These
paradigms suggest that specific language forms convey different mean-
ings and accomplish diverse communicative functions depending on the
speaker, the setting, the cultural context, and the interactions of ethnicity,
class, gender, power, sexual orientation, and a wide array of other social
phenomena (Freed, 1995). Gordon (this issue) reflects a profound shift
in thinking about SLA by using the terms second language socialization and
second language acquisition interchangeably. Specialists in the field (e.g.,
386 TESOL QUARTERLY

Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992) argue that research on language and
gender should
• explain how social practices relate to linguistic structures and
systems
• describe the social construction of gender categories
• examine how gender relations and privilege are constructed
• consider theories and approaches from other communities of schol-
arly practice, especially those specifically concerned with gender
• focus on the particular rather than (over) generalize.
Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1998) specifically call for research that
takes into account the complexity of the intersection of identity (includ-
ing gender), power relations, and linguistic practices:
In the course of engaging with others, . . . people collaboratively construct a

sense of themselves and of others as certain kinds of persons, as members of
various communities with various forms of membership, authority, and
privilege in those communities. In all of these, language interacts with other
symbolic systems—dress, body adornment, ways of moving, gaze, touch,
handwriting style, locales for hanging out, and so on. And the selves
constructed are not simply (or even primarily) gendered selves: they are
unemployed, Asian American, lesbian, college-educated, post-menopausal
selves in a variety of relations to other people. Language is never encountered
without other symbol systems, and gender is always joined with real people’s
complex forms of participation in the communities to which they belong (or
have belonged or expect to join). Individuals may experience the language
and gender interface differently in the different communities in which they
participate at a given time or at different stages of their lives. (p. 486)
Freed (1995, p. 3) suggests that this recognition of the complex,

interactive, and socioculturally specific nature of language and gender
indicates the need for language studies within genuine communicative
contexts and increased collaboration among linguists, sociologists, psy-
chologists, anthropologists, philosophers, communication specialists,
educators, and feminists.
Among feminist-critical and poststructuralist scholars’ most important
contributions to gender and language education is their focus on the
effects of power relations. Research on power relations can reveal real or
perceived strategic appeals to differences and document ways in which
gender differences are constructed in interaction. Hruska (this issue)
draws on Fairclough (1989, 1992) to understand the ideological conflict
that may arise when various social groups enter into power relations with
each other. She points out that analysis of power and identity dynamics
can create conscious awareness of these dynamics and help teachers

move toward curricular and pedagogical choices that transform unjust
practices.
Constructivist, feminist, and critical research paradigms have not only
influenced what is studied and how the relationship between gender and
TESOL is conceptualized, but also the purposes of research and the
methods used to collect and analyze data.
Expanding Research Purposes and Tools
Gender and language education research has moved from focusing

on research that is valued within the SLA field to studies that value
teachers and learners. For some time, many SLA scholars respected only
studies based on positivist or postpositivist assumptions. Real science for
these researchers comprises experimental or quasiexperimental design,
surveys, and postpositivist qualitative studies. Setting up such a hierarchy,
however, ignores the wide-range of contributions made through other
paradigms and excludes research participants’ diverse experiences,
thereby creating conditions for inaccurate, inequitable, and discrimina-
tory outcomes. For example, Brown and McNamara (this issue) point
out technical problems of ignoring variation in the realm of assessment
and suggest “the potential for the differential and unequal treatment of
candidates in language tests on the basis of gender” (p. 523). Those who
have investigated standardized testing bias have long acknowledged the
political nature and ethical problems inherent in judging those who
differ from mainstream social, cultural, ethnic, and class backgrounds
(Gee, 1996; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). Testing specialists and a growing
number of others associated with TESOL studies (e.g., Shohamy, 2001)
now commonly acknowledge the need for multiple research approaches.
A hierarchy of preferred research approaches, topics, and participants
can also result in discrimination against educational practitioners. Markee
(1994) and Lin et al. (this issue) describe how SLA professionals experi-
ence “systematic, institutional suppression of research and teaching on
minority and diversity issues” (p. 497). For example, they reveal that
senior staff identified research by minority scholars on marginalized
groups—as opposed to the adult, middle-class, and White populations
that have dominated SLA literature—as “repetitive” and “trivial” (p.
497). This hierarchical tendency extends to TESOL professionals’ jobs.
Lin et al. (this issue) identify a “gendered and racialized division of
labor” in TESOL. “Those who teach future ESOL professors and
researchers are at the top, those who teach future ESOL teachers come
next, and those who teach ESOL are at the bottom” (p. 496).
388 TESOL QUARTERLY

Applied linguistics, SLA, and by association, TESOL, have begun to
value learners and educators by recognizing the theoretical and ethical
contributions of naturalistic and transformative methods with marginal-
ized and EFL populations. Many scholars (e.g., Olesen, 2000) also
advocate studies for, with, or by rather than about, participants. Hruska
(this issue), for example, who investigates second language development
among minority students while practicing as an ESL kindergarten
teacher, both contributes to SLA theory and draws on findings to initiate
a transformative agenda. Her ethnographic study describes how “gender
ideologies, gender constructions, and related behaviors . . . interacted
with bilingualism, ethnicity, and friendships in ways that emphasized
unequal power relations or shaped participation in classroom events,”
which, in turn, affected the students’ second language development (p.
462). Hruska calls for teacher research on classroom interaction in
English language teaching contexts around the world and observes that
“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).”
Postmodern paradigms have additionally promoted the use of multi-
ple and alternative methods leading to more complex SLA theory,
situated instructional practices, and transformative education. For ex-
ample, using such quantitative methods as surveys, statistical analyses,
and document analyses from a poststructuralist position can show how
political, economic, and other social factors affect language develop-
ment across classrooms and communities (e.g., Thomas & Collier, 2002).
Postmodern research designs have also generated innovative methods
such as life history and other forms of narrative inquiry that inform
language and identity theories (e.g., Simon-Maeda, this issue; Lin et al.,
this issue). In addition, language researchers commonly combine meth-
ods, such as ethnography and discourse analysis (e.g., Hruska, this issue),
and explore the complex language and identity constructions operating
through participation in multiple sites and across issues and situations
(e.g., Gordon, this issue). Gordon not only conducted research at work,
classroom, and community sites in the United States, but also traveled to
Laos to better understand the cultural traditions and, thus, the identity
changes that occurred among male and female Lao participants after
they arrived in the United States. A constructionist approach in gender
and language research additionally enables researchers to combine quan-
titative and qualitative methods. For example, McNamara (1999) consid-
ers validity in language assessment using Butler’s (1990, 1993) notions of
gender as social construct and performativity. Olesen (2000) summarizes
changes in feminist studies brought about by postmodernism as

[an] increasing complexity in the feminist research enterprise: the nature of
research, the definition of and relationship with those with whom research is
done, the characteristics and location of the researcher, and the very creation
and presentation of knowledge created in the research. (p. 217)4
The paradigmatic shifts and research forms described here and modeled
in this issue’s contributions suggest exciting new directions not only for
gender studies but also for second language studies as a whole. TESOL,
applied linguistics, and SLA scholars are more frequently conducting
research that is valued by teachers and learners across populations and
situations rather than research that is respected only by some academics.
One of the most promising avenues of research from this grassroots
perspective combines the study of social, political, and linguistic phe-
nomena with educational and social transformation.
Promoting Praxis
TESOL professionals and researchers from SLA and applied linguis-

tics have sought the most effective practices for teaching English to
speakers of other languages. Yet Lin et al. (this issue) point out that
a more urgent task seems to be finding situated, dialogic ways of teaching and
learning English . . . for relatively constraint-free understanding and commu-
nication among people coming from very different locations (geographical
and/or social) and with very different sociocultural experiences (see Wong,
forthcoming; Lin & Luk, forthcoming). (p. 501)
This call for praxis, what Freire (1970) has described as the critical
combination of both action and reflection in transformative education,
suggests the need to expand SLA to include research on language and
cultural diversity and to promote social justice (Lin et al., this issue).
Norton and Pavlenko (this issue) provide an excellent overview of
how educators have critically addressed gender in the English language
teaching classroom, including the following:
flexible curricula that recognize the diversity of the students’ needs; shared
decision-making in the classroom; teaching and learning that incorporate
4
Much that has been written about how to conduct postmodern research can also be
applied to research on gender and language education and other SLA studies. For example,
Hatch (2002) provides an excellent overview of designing, carrying out, and reporting
qualitative research in education settings from postpositivist, constructivist, feminist-critical,
and poststructural paradigms. In addition, Denzin and Lincoln’s (2000) handbook explores
postmodern qualitative research issues, methods, and future directions.
390 TESOL QUARTERLY

students’ life trajectories; pedagogy that locates student experiences and
beliefs within larger social contexts; and practices that encourage students to
imagine alternative ways of being in the world. (p. 508)
In addition to curricular and pedagogical changes, Gordon (this

issue) calls for ESL texts that meet the real needs of immigrants and their
families, such as those by Auerbach (1992, 1995) and Weinstein (1992,
1999), which offer language learners guidance in negotiating compli-
cated social systems and assistance in acquiring relevant literacy practices.
Hruska (this issue) directly addresses inequalities that result from
sexist or limiting gender practices. She observes that because gender is
not “fixed and can change over time . . . (Connell, 1987; Flax, 1987;
Wodak, 1997)” (p. 481), discriminatory constructions are transformable.
Acknowledging the work of Wilson-Keenan et al. (1998), Hruska recom-
mends a critically oriented pedagogy in which students identify and
change discriminatory or limiting practices (see also Benesch, 2001;
Morgan, 1998).
Simon-Maeda (this issue) discusses efforts to transform sexist and
discriminatory conditions outside English language classrooms. She
notes that her Japan study participants stand up against racist practices
by recruiting non-White, nonnative EFL teachers and by developing
cultural studies and EFL programs that raise awareness of gendered,
sexual, classed, linguistic, and sociocultural identities and associated
discriminatory practices. Lin et al. (this issue) point out the need to
address TESOL’s complicity in contributing to the hegemonic spread of
English in different parts of the world (see also Canagarajah, 1999;
Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992).
Yet, although many researchers, theorists, and educators have become
comfortable with the postmethods era and the need for English teaching
to be about much more than language, teachers are still often in
situations that privilege test driven achievement in English and provide
little time for reflective practice. The realities of teaching often require
yes or no answers that support essentialist gender paradigms. “Are girls
better than boys at x?” is not so different from “Is x method better than
another?” In addition to encouraging teachers to move beyond these
dichotomies, teacher educators are responsible for being aware of the
constraints that future teachers will face.
The notion of critical pragmatism (Benesch, 2001; Cherryholmes, 1988)
addresses the need to acknowledge teacher constraints while moving
toward transformative agendas. Benesch suggests that although decisions
in TESOL are often made on a completely practical basis, teachers,
researchers, and students need to engage in a critical pragmatism that
addresses inequity while teaching and learning within contexts that

ignore that inequity.5 Transformative education also means moving
beyond the usual relationship between theory and practice, where
theory drives practice. Critically pragmatic practices demand a practice-
theory relationship where practice also drives theory, or as Dewey
suggests, where ises (the realities of classroom practice) turn into oughts
(as cited in Doll, 1993, p. 162).
MOVING FORWARD
Future directions in gender and language education involve pushing

the boundaries of both research and pedagogy while seeking ways to
reimagine knowledge creation in the field and build and sustain innova-
tive practices.
Pushing the Boundaries
Although developments beyond positivist research and teaching ap-

pear in the literature in many ways, three prominent trends provide the
basis for future inquiry: (a) moving out of classrooms, (b) investigating
English language learning within the context of multilingualism, and (c)
looking beyond language.
It is not surprising that TESOL has focused on classrooms. After all,
the very name of the field emphasizes teaching, and the most common
home of teaching is the classroom. Yet the need for alternative perspec-
tives is evident in, for example, Pavlenko and Piller’s (2001) review of
gender and multilingualism, which emphasizes learning. A learning
focus requires investigating contexts both inside and outside of class-
rooms and considering what the New London group (1996) calls
students’ lifeworlds —ways of being in the world. Skilton-Sylvester (2002),
for example, points out in her study of the adult Cambodians the need
for teachers to know how students’ gendered identities outside of school
often determined their engagement with classroom learning and even
their ability to come to class. Recent scholarship in literacy (e.g., Hull &
Schultz, 2002) also shows that the active, literate lives of learners are
often invisible inside classrooms. The New Literacy studies theorists
5
It is important to note here that critical pragmatism does not mean treating “power as
property . . . something the teacher has and can give to students” (Gore, 1992, p. 57), which,
thus, ignores student agency. Ellsworth (1989) also cautions against imposing a critical agenda
on unwilling participants, resulting in a form of oppression. Critical theorists such as Ellsworth
(1989), Gore (1993), and Weiler (1996) call for researchers and teacher educators to reflect on
critical pedagogical practices that might silence rather than raise consciousness.
392 TESOL QUARTERLY

(e.g., Street, 1995) advocate looking at language and literacy practices
outside of classrooms as a way of developing pedagogical practices
relevant to student experience. These studies suggest the need for
critical and feminist pedagogical approaches that connect curriculum
with the literate and gendered lives of students.
TESOL can also push the boundaries of gender and English teaching
and learning by exploring multilingual perspectives. As with teaching,
although English defines the field, looking multilingually sheds new
light on the complexity of what Skilton-Sylvester (2000) has called
ethnigendered language practices (see also Pavlenko & Piller, 2001). Past
ethnographic studies that explored the relationship between gender and
multiple language use suggest possible implications for English teaching
and learning. In an early study, Gal (1978) described the Hungarian-
Austrian women she studied as language innovators because they sym-
bolically escaped their social position as peasants by relinquishing
Hungarian in favor of German. Hill (1987) provides a detailed account
of gender differences in using Spanish and the indigenous language
Mexicano in central Mexico. She found that the women in the study did
not speak Spanish as well as men because they lacked access to wage
labor, a context where Spanish is spoken. Yet women’s Mexicano had
more Spanish characteristics (e.g., stress patterns) than men’s because
they had less solidarity with their Mexicano identity than males. Working
in Peru, Harvey (1994) found similarly complex patterns of gender
differentiated acquisition of Spanish over Quechua. These studies suggest
how the complex intersection of gender, identity, and language access
impacts the acquisition of particular languages or language varieties.
SLA research on multilingualism has been limited even though
TESOL scholars (e.g. Auerbach, 1992, 1995; Thomas & Collier, 2002),
bilingual educators (e.g., Nieto, 2000), and the TESOL’s ESL in Bilin-
gual Education Interest Section have long advocated bi- and multilin-
gualism in schools and classrooms. Recent studies that address the
interconnections among gender, culture, schooling, and English lan-
guage teaching and learning include Willett’s (1995) study of boys’ and
girls’ language learning in an international school, Walker-Moffat’s
(1995) research on Hmong girls, Skilton-Sylvester’s (1997) exploration
of the school experiences of Cambodian girls, Valdés’s (1998) research
on immigrant girls, and Hruska’s (this issue) examination of English/
Spanish bilingual kindergarteners. In addition, studies of hybridity by
applied linguists promise to inform gender and language education
research and practice. For example, Willett, Solsken, and Wilson-Keenan
(1999) found that bilingual elementary school students were able to
utilize their hybrid discourses and social identities in complex ways to
foster effective interaction among students, teachers, and parents. Davis
et al. (in press) describes how teachers avoided exclusionary practices

and identity conflict among Hawai‘i high school students by valuing
their hybrid use of English, Hawai‘i Creole English, and one or more
heritage languages in both oral and written activities. Studies are clearly
needed of the complex ways in which identity constructions, including
gender, interconnect with dominant discourse practices to support or
hinder English language learning.
In addition to moving SLA research and ESOL pedagogy beyond the
classroom and English language learning, pushing the boundaries in
TESOL also means addressing power relations across societal contexts.
For example, Polanyi (1995) documents how the sexual harassment that
female students experienced in a study-abroad program in Russia
crucially affected the foreign language input that they received and the
types of output they learned to produce (p. 288). Polanyi points out that
although a woman will be treated as a gendered individual in a language
learning situation, proficiency examinations will test her listening and
speaking as an ungendered person (p. 281). Kline’s (1993) ethno-
graphic study of women in a French study-abroad program confirms the
negative effects of sexual harassment (9 of the 19 participants were
physically attacked) on second language oral development, bringing into
question both the efficacy and the ethics of study-abroad programs for
women in some contexts. Although, to our knowledge, studies of the
impact of sexual harassment on English language acquisition have not
been pursued, there is clearly a need for examining language learning in
the context of discriminatory gendered relations.
Examining gender discrimination also means refusing to tolerate
inequitable practices operating within educational institutions and pro-
fessional organizations. As described so cogently by Lin et al. (this issue)
and Simon-Maeda (this issue), language scholars need to examine the
explicit and implicit practices across a complex range of issues, ethnicities,
and topics that negatively affect professional women in TESOL and
related fields. Examining unequal power dynamics among second lan-
guage educators also demands transformative attitudinal and policy
changes to bring about respectful and just practices.
Reimagining Knowledge Creation
In her discussion of feminisms and qualitative research, Olesen

(2000) talks about the centrality of voice and highlights key questions
about how knowledge is constructed through research by asking: “Whose
knowledges? Where and how obtained and by whom, for whom and for
what purposes?” (emphasis in original; p. 217). Moving forward in
understanding gender and TESOL will require looking at these ques-
394 TESOL QUARTERLY

tions about knowledge construction while (a) expanding the voices that
contribute to what we know and (b) analyzing the gendered social,
rhetorical, and analytical structures that shape how and if new voices are
heard.
For example, the knowledge being created about gender and TESOL
often does not reflect students’ own gendered representations of lan-
guage teaching and learning. Although student perspectives are in-
cluded in this volume and in the field at large, these student voices are
typically seen through the researchers’ lens. In a provocative series of
essays in which young women of color discuss third-wave feminism
(Rehman & Hernandez, 2002), one contributor (Hurdis, 2002) discusses
how her femaleness is connected to many different aspects of her
evolving self. As a Korean woman adopted by a white American family,
she explores ways in which she is profoundly affected by the differences
between how she and others perceive her. She discusses the pain caused
by the invisibility of her complex identity and suggests that to see her at
all, others, including peers and adults, must embrace that complexity.
The Rehman and Hernandez (2002) volume shows why TESOL profes-
sionals must include students’ perspectives as they seek to create an
expanding base of knowledge about gender and English language
teaching and learning. In much the same way that recent collections of
essays by applied linguists of color (see Belcher & Connor , 2001; Braine,
1999; Canagarajah, 2002; Lin et al., this issue) have expanded ways of
thinking about TESOL research, theory, and practice, gender-oriented
essays written by students from different backgrounds and experiences
could also reshape what counts in discussions of gender and TESOL.
Yet simplistic notions of including voices can mask more subtle and
powerful hierarchies and even reinforce them. At a time when gender
and education researchers are being urged to include the experiences of
boys and men as well as or instead of girls and women (Yates, 2000),
structural analyses of gendered relations are needed to counter essential-
izing and discriminatory practices. Kuzmic (2000) illustrates how includ-
ing women in social studies textbooks has merely reinforced traditional
gender hierarchies that privilege maleness:
The extensive coverage given to individual men provides a norm for thinking
about history as the action of individuals, but not about masculinity. That
their significance, their importance, and, indeed, their power as historical
actors is somehow embedded in and connected to their gendered identity as
men is made invisible through the focus on individual men rather than on
the privileged position that men as men occupy. . . . By making women visible,
men are made even less visible, but more central. It is precisely this invisibility
of men and masculinity that serves to perpetuate ideological messages and
perspectives that mask patriarchy. (pp. 111–112)

Kuzmic further shows how indexes of history texts illustrate male
invisibility when they list women as a category but not men.
Other scholars (e.g., Hanke, 1992; Stoltenberg, 2000) have compared
gender’s role in perpetuating inequality to the role of whiteness in
maintaining the status quo in discussions of race. Cameron (2004) has
suggested that this same tendency toward dominant invisibility has
allowed heterosexual norms to remain unmarked, thus leaving unexam-
ined the ways that heteronormativity influences our understandings of
gender and language and reinforces unequal power relations.
Yates (2000) argues that the primary and often exclusive focus on
women and girls in qualitative educational research has further limited
understanding of gender and schooling:
A consideration of gender, by its nature, has involved the development of

theories and frameworks for investigating how women and men and how
femininity and masculinity work: their discursive construction, their patterns
of achievement and life patterns, the meanings and implications of “gendered
subjectivity” and so on. . . . Yet it is also true that the great bulk of empirical
qualitative work on gender, pedagogy, subjectivity and schooling in the past
two decades has studied girls rather than boys. Frameworks and theories
might have been concerned with both, but the substantive “findings” and
insights were not equally spread. . . . Much of the feminist literature on
schools with which we were familiar (particularly the literature directed to
school-based action) did treat girls in sensitive detail, while leaving boys as a
more shadowy “other”; and treated masculinity as a more crudely sketched
out discourse against which femininities were examined. (emphasis in
original; pp. 316–317)
Education researchers call for examining both masculinities and

femininities while acknowledging, as Stoltenberg (2000) suggests, that
“there cannot be both gender polarity and justice on earth. They cannot
coexist” (pp. xiv). This inclusive and social equity position suggests that
future research in SLA and applied linguistics needs to show how the
gendered subjectivities of men and women are not polar opposites, but
complex, multiple, interconnected, locally defined,6 and intrinsically
connected to unequal power structures. Alongside gender, as Simon-
Maeda (this issue) points out, SLA researchers must consider hetero-
normative as well as gay, lesbian, and transgendered identities (Cameron
& Kulick 2003; Eckert, 1994; Livia & Hall, 1997). Yet researchers need to
do more than be inclusive in the populations they study; they need to see
how their written representations of students and teachers may reinforce
6
As Cameron (2004) notes, “Masculinities and femininities are produced in specific
contexts or ‘communities of practice,’ in relation to local social arrangements. No assumption
[can be made] that the same patterns will be found universally” (from handout).
396 TESOL QUARTERLY

and/or contest inequality and work toward creating and sustaining
innovative practices that question the status quo.
Creating and Sustaining Innovative Practices
TESOL and other education scholars continue to discuss how critical

and feminist pedagogies might build and sustain innovative practices
(Norton & Toohey 2004; Pavlenko et al., 2001; Vandrick, 1994, 1995).
Critical pedagogy has been criticized for not focusing on real classrooms
but rather on imagined, ideal classrooms. Once again, critical pragma-
tism becomes salient in examining how TESOL professionals travel the
distance between the possibilities and practicalities of teaching English
as we think about gender and social justice.
The language and education literature is increasingly providing
models of critical and feminist pedagogical approaches. McMahill (2001),
for instance, describes how her students’ lives and social change became
central in her adult feminist English class in Japan. In a forthcoming
edited volume, Pease-Alvarez and Schecter expand the range of visionary
work on situated learning in various formal and informal settings,
including schools, homes, workplaces, and peer and community net-
works, by providing models of education reform and community en-
hancement. One contribution to the Pease-Alvarez and Schecter volume
(Davis, Cho, Ishida, Soria, & Bazzi, in press) describes how high school
language minority students engaged in critical participatory investiga-
tions of social issues within their own communities. Students explored
issues such as ethnicity, gender, and academic discrimination by conduct-
ing research and creating documentary films, which also enabled them
to acquire the academic English skills they needed to succeed in school.
A critical teacher education program must not only include models of
critical-feminist approaches to teaching, but also engage preservice
teachers in imagining a critical pragmatism that will enable them to
address the gatekeeping hurdles, such as testing, that their students will
face. Skilton-Sylvester recently received an e-mail from a former TESOL
masters-level student in Korea who said, “I’m doing well, but I haven’t
found a way to use the theories I learned in the U.S. to teach here”
(personal communication, February 16, 2003). This lament among many
graduates of SLA, applied linguistics, and TESOL programs suggests that
TESOL professionals have much to do in addressing the social, political,
and educational contexts in which new graduates will teach and helping
preservice teachers translate critical and feminist theories into pedagogy
for their own lived realities.
Positioning teachers as creators rather than consumers of knowledge
about language teaching is one way to remedy the mismatch between

theories and situated practices. Teacher research as a form of profes-
sional development allows instructors to work out complex understand-
ings of how gender, language, and education work in their own class-
rooms. Sustaining teacher research, however, takes significant time,
energy, and support (Burns, 1999; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Free-
man, 1998; Sunderland, 2000). Educational administrators and policy
makers must allow time for teacher reflection and discussion of how
multiple identities, including gender, affect language learning.
As portrayed in this issue’s contributions, moving forward calls for
engaged research and practice that is more closely aligned with the lives
of real teachers and students across diverse settings and situations. It will
entail critique of the status quo and reflection from all corners of the
field to keep SLA researchers and TESOL professionals engaged in
sustained dialogue about how gendered practices shape language teach-
ing and learning. The recent research paradigm shift from positivist to
constructivist and critical-feminist approaches challenge SLA to explore
the situated and political nature of language learning. Teacher educators
are correspondingly called to find new avenues for moving not from
theory to practice but from practice to theory. And finally, moving
forward will require SLA scholars, applied linguists, and TESOL profes-
sionals to expose and transform social injustice through research and
pedagogical practices within classrooms, schools, communities, and
society at large.
THE AUTHORS
Kathryn A. Davis is associate professor in the Department of Second Language
Studies and director of the Center for Second Language Research at the University
of Hawai‘i. She specializes in qualitative research, bilingualism, biliteracy, and
language/educational policy and planning.
Ellen Skilton-Sylvester is associate professor in the Education Department at Arcadia

University. In addition to gender and TESOL, her interests include (bi)literacy
education for children and adults in the United States, ethnographic methods,
teacher research, and service-learning in teacher education.
REFERENCES
Auerbach, E. (1992). Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculum develop-
ment for adult ESL literacy. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Auerbach, E. (1995). From deficit to strength: Changing perspectives on family
literacy. In G. Weinstein-Shr & E. Quintero (Eds.), Immigrant learners and their
families (pp. 63–76). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Belcher, D., & Connor, U. (Eds.). (2001). Reflections on multiliterate lives. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
398 TESOL QUARTERLY

Bergvall, V. (1999). Toward a comprehensive theory of language and gender.
Language in Society, 28, 273–293.
Braine, G. (1999). (Ed.). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1990). Feminism and linguistic theory (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (2004, May). Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new
directions. Plenary address presented at the meeting of the American Association
for Applied Linguistics, Portland, OR.
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Harvey, P., Rampton, M. B. H., & Richardson, K. (1992).
Researching language: Issues of power and method. New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. & Kulick, D. (2003) Language and sexuality. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructuralist investigations in education.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, men, and language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Coates, J., & Cameron, D. (1988). Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on
language and sex. New York: Longman.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Crookes, G., & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process in an ESL critical pedagogy
teacher education course. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 319–328.
Cumming, A., & Gill, J. (1991). Motivation or accessibility? Factors permitting Indo-
Canadian women to pursue ESL literacy instruction. In B. Burnaby & A. Cumming
(Eds.), Sociopolitical aspects of ESL education in Canada (pp. 241–252). Toronto,
Canada: OISE.
Davis, K. A., Cho, H., Ishida, M., Soria, J., & Toohey, S. (in press). “It’s our kuleana”:
A critical participatory approach to language minority education. In L. Pease-
Alvarez & S. R. Schecter (Eds.), Learning, teaching, and community: Contributions of
situated and participatory approaches to educational innovation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 215–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doll, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and differ-
ence: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied
Linguistics, 23, 289–322.
Duff, P. A., Wong, P., & Early, M. (2002). Learning language for work and life: The

linguistic socialization of immigrant Canadians seeking careers in healthcare.
Modern Language Journal 86(3), 397–422.
Eckert, P. (1994). Entering the heterosexual marketplace: Identities of subordination as a
developmental imperative. (Working Papers on Learning and Identity No. 2). Palo
Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally:
Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology,
21, 461–490.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1998). Communities of practice: Where language,
gender, and power all live. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp.
484–494). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Ehrlich, S. (1997). Gender as social practice: Implications for second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 421–446.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult learning styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1–13.
Eisenstein, M. (1982). A study of social variation in adult second language acquisi-
tion. Language Learning, 32, 367–392.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the
repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Farhady, H. (1982). Measures of language proficiency from the learner’s perspective.
TESOL Quarterly, 16, 43–59.
Flax, J. (1987). Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. SIGNS:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12, 621–643.
Freed, A. F. (1995). Language and gender. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 3–22.
Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Toronto,
Canada: Heinle & Heinle.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Frye, D. (1999). Participatory education as a critical framework for immigrant
women’s ESL class. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 501–513.
Gal, S. (1978). Peasant men can’t get wives: Language change and sex roles in a
bilingual community. Language in Society, 7, 1–16.
Gass, S. M., & Veronis, E. M. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. In
R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.
327–351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Philadelphia:
Falmer.
Goddard, A., & Patterson, L. M. (2000). Language and gender. London: Routledge.
Goldstein, T. (1995). “Nobody is talking bad”: Creating community and claiming
power on the production lines. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated:
Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 375–400). New York: Routledge.
Goldstein, T. (2001). Researching women’s language practices in multilingual
workplaces. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, & M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.),
Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 77–102). New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Gore, J. (1992). What we can do for you! What can “we” do for “you”? Struggling over
empowerment in critical and feminist pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.),
Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 54–73). New York: Routledge.
400 TESOL QUARTERLY

Gore, J. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as regimes of
truth. New York: Routledge.
Gore, J. (1998). On the limits to empowerment through critical and feminist pedagogies. In
D. Carlson & M. W. Apple (Eds.), Power/knowledge/pedagogy: The meaning of
democratic education in unsettling times. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hanke, R. (1992). Redesigning men: Hegemonic masculinity in transition. In
S. Craig (Ed.), Men, masculinity, and the media (pp. 185–198). London: Sage.
Harklau, L.A. (1994). ESL and mainstream classes: Contrasting second language
learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 241–272.
Harvey, P. (1994). The presence and absence of speech in the communication of
gender. In P. Burton, K. Dyson, & S. Ardener (Eds.), Bilingual women: Anthropologi-
cal approaches to second language use (pp. 44–64). Oxford, England: Berg.
Hatch, J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Hill, J. (1987). Women’s speech in modern Mexicano. In S. Philips, S. Steele, &
C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 121–160).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. (1991). State of the art: Language and gender. Language Teaching 24, 207–
220.
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2002). School’s out! Briding out-of-school literacies with classroom
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hurdis, R. (2002). Heartbroken: Women of color feminism and the third wave. In
B. Rehman & D. Hernandez (Eds.), Colonize this: Young women of color on today’s
feminism. New York: Seal.
Kitetu, C., & Sunderland, J. (2002). Gendered discourses in the classroom: The
importance of cultural diversity. Temple University Japan Working Papers in Applied
Linguistics, 17, 26–40.
Kline, R. (1993). The social practice of literacy in a program of study abroad. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Kouritzin, S. (2000). Immigrant mothers redefine access to ESL classes: Contradiction
and ambivalence. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21, 14–32.
Kuzmic, J. J. (2000). Textbooks, knowledge, and masculinity. In N. Lesko (Ed.),
Masculinities in school. (pp 105-225). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–80.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.
Lin, A. & Luk, J. (in press). Local creativity in the face of global domination: Insights
of Bakhtin for teaching English for dialogic communication. In J. K. Hall,
G. Vitanova, & L. Marchenkova (Eds.), Contributions of Mikhail Bakhtin to under-
standing second and foreign language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J. (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis. Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Livia, A., & Hall, K. (Eds.). (1997). Queerly phrased: Language, gender, and sexuality.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Losey, K. M. (1995). Gender and ethnicity as factors in the development of verbal
skills in bilingual Mexican American women. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 635–661.
Mansfield, N. (2000). Subjectivity: Theories of the self from Freud to Hathaway. New York:
New York University Press.
Markee, N. P. P. (1994). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of SLA
studies. In A. Cohen, S. Gass, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Research methodology in second
language acquisition (pp. 89–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McElhinny, B. (1993). We all wear the blue: Language, gender, and police work.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S.-L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities:
Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent
immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577–608.
McMahill, C. (1997). Communities of resistance: A case study of two feminist English
classes in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 612–622.
McMahill, C. (2001). Self-expression, gender, and community: A Japanese feminist
English class. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, & M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.),
Mouton de Gruyter.
McNamara, T. F. (1997). What do we mean by social identity? Competing frame-
works, competing discourses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 561–567.
McNamara, T. F. (1999, July). Validity in language testing: The challenge of Sam Messick’s
legacy. Messick Memorial Lecture presented at the Language Testing Research
Colloquium, Tsukuba, Japan.
Measor, L., & Sikes, P. (1992). Gender and schools. New York: Cassell.
Morgan, B. (1998). The ESL classroom: Teaching, critical practice, and community
development. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60–92.
Nichols, P. C. (1999). The role of social networks and the strength of weak ties in
changing language policy: Gender neutralization in American English. In T. Hueb-
ner & K. A. Davis (Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in
the USA (pp. 67–98). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nieto, S. (Ed.) (2000). Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 409–430.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational
change. London: Longman.
Norton, B., & Pavlenko, A. (Eds.). (2004). Gender and English language learners.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 9–31.
Olesen, V. (2000). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.
215–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oxford, R. (1993). Gender differences in styles and strategies for language learning:
What do they mean? Should we pay attention? In J. Alatis (Ed.), Strategic interaction
and language acquisition: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 541–557). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Pavlenko, A., & Piller, I. (2001). New directions in the study of multilingualism,
second language learning, and gender. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, &
M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.), Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp.
17–52). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I., & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Multilin-
gualism, second language learning, and gender. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pease-Alvarez, L., & Schecter, S. R. (Eds.). (In press). Learning, teaching, and
community: Contributions of situated and participatory approaches to educational innova-
tion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
402 TESOL QUARTERLY

Pennycook, A. (1994). Critical pedagogical approaches to research. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 690–693.
Philips, S. U. (1980). Sex differences and language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9,
523–544.
Philips, S. U., Steele, S., & Tanz, C. (Eds.). (1987). Language, gender, and sex in
comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., & Newman, J. (1992). Language
learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 13, 343–376.
Pierce, B. N., (1995). The theory of methodology in qualitative research. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 569–576.
Polanyi, L. (1995). Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the field. In
B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 271–291).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rehman, B., & Hernandez, D. (Eds.) (2002). Colonize this: Young women of color on
today’s feminism. New York: Seal.
Rivera, K. M. (1999). From developing one’s voice to making oneself heard:
Affecting language policy from the bottom up. In T. Huebner & K. A. Davis
(Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 333–
346). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Saft, S., & Ohara, Y. (2004). Promoting critical reflection about gender in EFL classes
at a Japanese university. In B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English
language learners (pp. 143–154). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests.
New York: Longman.
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (1997). Inside, outside, and in-between: Identities, literacies, and
educational policies in the lives of Cambodian women and girls in Philadelphia. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2000, March). Getting framed: How home and educational
contexts shape the identity options and (bi)literate development of Cambodian
refugee women and girls. In A. Yamashiro (Chair), Gender and language: Bridging
theoretical approaches, pedagogical implications, and professional development. Sympo-
sium conducted at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference,
Vancouver, Canada.
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2002). Should I stay or should I go?: Investigating Cambodian
women’s participation and investment in adult ESL programs. Adult Education
Stoltenberg, J. (2000). Refusing to be a man: Essays on sex and justice. London: UCL.
Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development,
ethnography and education. London: Longman.
Sunderland, J. (1992). Gender in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 81–91.
Sunderland, J. (1994). Exploring gender: Implications for English language education. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Sunderland, J. (1995). “We’re boys, Miss!”: Finding gendered identities and looking
for gendering of identities in the foreign language classroom. In S. Mills (Ed.),
Language and gender: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 160–178). London: Longman.
Sunderland, J. (2000). Issues of language and gender in second and foreign
language education. Language Teaching 33, 203–223.
Tannen, D. (1996). Researching gender-related patterns in classroom discourse.
Tannen, D. (1993). Introduction. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational
interaction (pp. 3–13). New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language
minority students’ long-term academic achievement: Final report. Santa Cruz, CA: Center
for Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (Eds.). (1983). Language, gender, and society.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Toohey, K., & Scholefield, A. (1994). “Her mouth windful of speech”: Gender and
the English as a second language classroom. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du
Canada, 12, 1–14.
Valdés, G. (1998). The world inside and outside schools: Language and immigrant
children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4–18.
Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vandrick, S. (1994). Feminist pedagogy and ESL. College ESL, 4(2), 69–92.
Vandrick, S. (1995). Teaching and practicing feminism in the university ESL class.
TESOL Journal, 4(3), 4–6.
Walker-Moffat, W. (1995). The other side of the Asian American success story. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2001, October). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a
language socialization paradigm for SLA. Plenary talk presented at the 4th Pacific
Language Research Forum (PacSLRF), University of Hawai‘i, Manoa.
Weiler, K. (1996). Myths of Paulo Freire. Educational Theory, 46, 353–371.
Weinstein, G. (1992). Stories to tell our children. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Weinstein, G. (1999). Learners’ lives as curriculum: Six journeys to immigrant literacy.
McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2
socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473–503.
Willett, J. (1996). Research as a gendered practice. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 344–347.
Willett, J., Solsken, J., & Wilson-Keenan, J. (1999). The (im)possibilities of construct-
ing multicultural language practices in research and pedagogy. Linguistics and
Education, 10(2), 165–218.
Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide, Australia:
National Curriculum Research Council.
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.), Constructing gender and difference: Critical research perspectives on early childhood
(pp. 33–70). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Wodak, R. (1997). Gender and discourse. London: Sage.
Wong, S. (in press). Dialogic approaches to teaching English to speakers of other languages:
Where the gingko tree grows. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yates, L. (2000). The “facts of the case”: Gender equity for boys as a public policy
issue. In N. Lesko (Ed.), Masculinities in school (pp. 305–322). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
404 TESOL QUARTERLY

The Complex Construction of
Professional Identities: Female EFL
Educators in Japan Speak Out
ANDREA SIMON-MAEDA
Nagoya Keizai University, Japan
This article reports on the life history narratives of nine female EFL
teachers working in higher education in Japan. An interpretive qualita-
tive analysis of the stories suggested that gender cannot be viewed as a
free-floating attribute of individual subjectivities but rather must be
seen as one of many components in an ever-evolving network of
personal, social, and cultural circumstances. Consequently, this study
does not provide a unitary description of how gender intersects with
English language teaching and learning. It offers a more complicated
version of female teachers’ lives, and in so doing, it challenges and
expands prevalent TESOL education theories that do not fully address
the confusions and transitions in teachers’ career trajectories. I was
especially interested in how, in the face of ideological constraints, the
participants engaged with sociocultural circumstances, constructed
their identities as educators, and mobilized available resources to
contest oppressive forces in their professional lives. The in-depth, open-
ended life history interviews enabled me to write and to understand
work identities dialogically. Using local social actors’ narratives to
foreground how their interpretations of work contexts interrelate with
hegemonic ideologies provides access points that will help the field
reconceptualize TESOL’s goals.
INTRODUCTION
I teach English at a conservative Japanese university in Osaka. I’m full-time
and have tenure, and after 12 years, I’ve been promoted to full professor. I’m
already known as a feminist, a union-member, and a troublemaker, and for
that reason some faculty like me and some don’t, so I have nothing to lose
now, right? During the last couple of years at the university, I have come out
to selected professors and students. So far it hasn’t caused any problems, and
it’s made me feel much closer to those I’ve come out to. They seem to find it
interesting and admire my courage in telling them, but I haven’t come out to
those people I dislike or those with whom I’ve been in conflict. I’ll probably

continue slowly coming out to students and teachers when I’m in the mood
and the right occasion arises. My goal is that everyone at the school knows,
though I’m still afraid of the school big shots hearing that I’ve actually said
“I’m a lesbian” in the classroom. (Message posted to Nihon Dykenet, 2002)
T he stories in this study provided a rich site for examining the striking
range of possibilities and constraints in the careers of female EFL
educators in Japan. Although employed near the top of Japan’s educa-
tional hierarchy, Western and non-Western participants spoke out about
serious encounters with professional discrimination. Gendered discrep-
ancies are most visible in Japanese politics and education, where men
hold most of the top posts in national and local government, school
administrations, and academic departments, and women remain under-
represented as political leaders, ministry officials, and university students
and professors ( Japan Almanac, 2001). Female educators in Japan
encounter a variety of work circumstances that differ from and at times
overlap with those of their male counterparts. In their work lives, they
must engage with local contextual factors, such as classroom culture,
curriculum, and job conditions, as well as more comprehensive factors,
such as sociocultural ideologies, and institutional and national policies.
As the participants recount constructing their individual, multifaceted
identities, their stories intricately involve the conflict between women’s
professional and personal lives, gendered and racial inequalities, sexual
orientation, ageism, cross-cultural norms, and socioeconomic background.
They tell their stories from myriad standpoints, but taken together the
stories have commonalities that TESOL education programs have not
sufficiently addressed. Teacher training has traditionally emphasized
instructional methods and proficiency measures while ignoring the
realities of teachers’ lives both inside and outside of the classroom (see
Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Johnson & Golombek, 2002). To address this
problem, teacher preparation programs must consider actual work
contexts situated within broader sociopolitical circumstances. Beyond
the practical implications for teacher education, female EFL educators’
stories can reveal how hegemonic ideologies operate in the lives of
marginalized individuals attempting to change the educational status
quo through local teaching practices.
NARRATIVE INQUIRY AND THE

CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITIES
Since the interpretive turn in the social sciences (Bruner, 1990;

Geertz, 1973), analyses of storytelling have been used to observe how
speakers use narratives to display a particular version of self and to
406 TESOL QUARTERLY

understand their everyday worlds. The value of life history interviews as
an investigative procedure in feminist research projects has been well
documented (e.g., Gluck & Patai, 1991; Olesen, 2000; Reinharz, 1992).
The education field especially has gained insight from teachers’ personal
narratives of schooling processes (e.g., Clandinin & Connelly, 1987;
Connelly & Clandinin, 1995). Postmodern feminist educationists (e.g.,
Britzman, 2000; Davies, 1993; Lather, 1991; Weiler, 1988) have used
narrative methodology to “deliver voices that have been previously shut
out of normative educational research” (Britzman, p. 35) and to high-
light the ways that female teachers negotiate subjectivities with/in the
dominant discourses of gender and education.
TESOL researchers are increasingly recognizing narrative inquiry as a
viable strategy for investigating how students experience language learn-
ing (e.g., Bell, 2002; Harklau, 2000; Kanno, 2000; Pavlenko, 1998) and
how teachers construct their professional identities (e.g., Casanave &
Schecter, 1997; Freeman, 1996; Johnson & Golombek, 2002; Johnston,
1997). Because narratives enable researchers to explore teachers’ knowl-
edge base from the bottom up, they are particularly attractive to critical
researchers who want to include the voices of women and other
marginalized groups in academic discussions of teacher practice (e.g.,
Canagarajah, 1996; Pennycook, 1989, 1999). Although still relatively few
in number, some notable examples of narrative analysis include Duff and
Uchida’s (1997) ethnographic study of teachers’ sociocultural identity
formations, Johnston’s (1997) study of teacher careers in Poland, and a
handful of edited collections (e.g., Belcher & Connor, 2001; Braine,
1999; Casanave & Schecter, 1997; and Johnson & Golombek, 2002).
For the current study, I adopted Polkinghorne’s (1988) concept of
narrative as “a scheme by means of which human beings give meaning to
their experience of temporality and personal actions” (p. 11) and, more
specifically, Ochs and Capps’ (2001) notion of storytelling as “social
exchanges in which interlocutors build accounts of life events. . . . a tool
for collaboratively reflecting upon specific situations and their place in
the general scheme of life” (p. 2). Using a narrative-analytic approach,
this study contributes to recent trends in teacher-directed professional
development by showing how educators’ identities are shaped at the
nexus of local practices and larger ideological influences.
METHOD
To gain insight into the special circumstances of female EFL educators

working in Japanese higher education contexts, I interviewed them to
collect their life histories. I anticipated that my interviewees’ experiences
would be comparable not only to male EFL educators’ experiences in
CONSTRUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES 407

Japanese colleges (see, e.g., Haig, 1999, McVeigh, 2002) but also to
women’s experiences working in different high-status educational posi-
tions elsewhere (see, e.g., Skrla, 2000; Smulyan, 2000; see also Chase,
1995, for life history approaches to examining the complex role of gender
in male-dominated school leadership positions in the United States).
Not adhering to a strict interview protocol with standardized ques-
tions, I instead used a more open-ended style (cf. Atkinson, 1998;
Holstein & Gubrium, 1995) to maximize opportunities for dialogical
authoring (Bakhtin, 1981) and co-constructed understanding of work
identities. Initial interviews conducted with individual participants at
coffee shops, school offices, and private homes lasted approximately 21/2
hours and generally covered family and academic background, entry
into the EFL teaching profession, work environments, and pedagogical
practices. During follow-up interviews, which provided a fuller view of
the participants’ multiple identities, I clarified and expanded prelimi-
nary insights. To code the oral data transcripts and other textual material
(researcher memos, e-mail messages), I used a qualitative data analysis
software program called NVivo and noted recurring patterns, thereby
establishing key links between conceptual categories that became the
thematic strands in the interpretive commentary.
Participants
To enhance the findings’ transferability, I interviewed women of
various ethnic, racial, religious, national, socioeconomic, cultural, and
family backgrounds, and with diverse levels of EFL teaching expertise in
different geographical areas and tertiary-level institutions in Japan. One
of the participants was a close friend who introduced me to two other
participants, and the rest I knew casually through various academic and
teacher networks. The interviewees represented a diverse range of
personal attributes (see Appendix A for participant profiles). Of the nine
participants, one was Japanese and one a second-generation Korean
born in Japan. The other female educators were not from Japan—
another important aspect of their outsider identities that I will elaborate
on in later sections. As a long-term resident of Japan and an American
expatriate with a Japanese husband, I could not help but reflect on my
own life and EFL teaching experiences while interviewing the participants;
thus my life history became part of the research’s negotiated reality.
In this study, identity is conceptualized as “emerging from an
individual’s different sorts of relationships with others” (Litosseliti &
Sunderland, 2002, p. 15), which accords with current language and
gender theories that emphasize the dialectical relationship between
identity formations and social interactions. Consequently, this study must
408 TESOL QUARTERLY

now briefly address from its feminist stance those hegemonic contexts in
Japan that delimit women’s accounts of their work experiences.
Sociocultural Context of EFL Women Educators in Japan
Extensive research literature exists on the general situation of working

women in Japan. For example, Fujimura-Fanselow and Kameda’s (1995)
collection of essays by female Japanese scholars presents a comprehen-
sive picture of professional Japanese women’s status within the confines
of traditional educational, economic, cultural, and political norms. In
their case study investigating 120 professional Japanese women, Liddle
and Nakajima (2000) conclude that Japanese societal ideologies define
women “primarily by their relationship to domesticity, reproduction and
the family” (p. 317), roles that they have not been allowed to move
beyond. To my knowledge, however, no feminist qualitative studies have
been published focusing specifically on female EFL educators’ lives in
Japan or, for that matter, in other countries. The paucity of such
information suggests that the field is still preoccupied with investigating
educational contexts using mainstream “phallocentric knowledge sys-
tems which militate against women in the academy” (Luke & Gore, 1992,
p. 193).
Teachers’ professional identities develop within a network involving
macrolevel sociocultural circumstances and ongoing microlevel private
and public interactions inside and outside of the classroom. The
ramifications of this last point are crucial for female educators, who, like
their male counterparts, must contend with conflicts between their own
idiosyncratic backgrounds and local conditions, but who must also
grapple with prevailing institutional ideologies and practices that do not
allow women to participate fully in higher education teaching contexts.
This situation was brought to the fore in 1995 when a professional
support network was established in Japan, Women Educators and Lan-
guage Learners (WELL), to help Japanese and non-Japanese female
language educators “cope with the isolation and sexism they personally
experience or are personally sensitive to as women” (McMahill, 1998, p.
41). At the university and junior college levels in Japan, women still make
up only 13.5% of full-time faculty positions (Monbusho, 2000), and the
following comments from an opinion survey (McMahill, p. 42) adminis-
tered to WELL’s membership depict what many women experience in a
male-dominated work situation:
I don’t have a voice.

I feel like a symbol or decoration.

I was sexually harassed at my former university and realized that I had few
people to turn to for support. The colleagues whom I approached about the
sexual harassment generally treated it as a joke or refused to talk about it.
I feel I have to work three times more than male teachers to be recognized
that I am working.
At my university, women have no positions of power. . . . A feminist proposed
a women’s studies course the year before I arrived. It was refused as irrelevant
to language learning.
At my former university, I was only one of two full-time women and the only
non-Japanese instructor out of some 35 faculty members.
These quotes show that women educators remain in disadvantaged

positions within Japanese higher education contexts and not simply
because they share the biological attribute, female. Women’s everyday
interactions occur within an elaborate network of power relations
(Foucault, 1980), of which gender is only one component. Although
feminist activism seeks to eliminate sex discrimination in the workplace,
the reaction to hegemonic forces is not homogeneous. In other words,
each woman’s particular experiences of oppression intersect with her
class, ethnicity, nationality, and innumerable other variables, which
precludes applying essentialist notions of “woman” or “women’s oppres-
sion.” As Haraway (1990) states, “There is nothing about being ‘female’
that naturally binds women. There is not even such a state as ‘being’
female, itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual
discourses and other social practices” (p. 197). The stories of this study’s
participants demonstrate that identity categories such as race, ableism,
class, age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation may at different times
become as important as the category of female because human ways of
being in the world are transitory and unpredictable. Therefore, it is
important to examine the microdynamics of the myriad meaning-
making and coping strategies that women of various backgrounds
employ when confronted with professional disempowerment. For this
purpose, life history narratives served as a window into the multidimen-
sional lives of women who use the linguistic, sociocultural, and personal
tools at hand to construct their teacher identities within and against
prevailing hegemonic ideologies in Japanese society.
INSIGHTS FROM THE LIFE HISTORY NARRATIVES

Analysis of the life history narratives revealed numerous themes that
indicated the participants’ understandings of what it means to be an EFL
educator in higher education in Japan; because space is limited, how-
410 TESOL QUARTERLY

ever, I will focus on only three aspects that seemed particularly salient in
constructing teacher identities. I should reiterate that gender was only
one of several dynamics, albeit a powerful one, that played a part in the
discursive fashioning of professional lives. More specifically, it was the
interface of gender and the following themes that contributed to
narrativized perceptions of becoming and being a female teacher in a
sometimes hostile traditional environment:
• personal biographies (sociocultural and family background, previ-
ous teaching and learning experiences)
• ways of dealing with (cross-cultural) conflicts in work environments
• attitudes toward students and professional practices
Personal Biographies
At the beginning of each interview,1 I asked the interviewee to talk

about her family background, past and present, and the influences, if
any, on her career trajectory. Across the interviews, a clear pattern
emerged of participants quickly pinpointing a specific juncture or state
of affairs in their early years that they felt had affected their evolving self-
definitions in relation to the EFL teaching profession.
I Always Pushed Myself Forward
Consider the following account from Celine, a 30-year-old White

American with a serious visual impairment who was upgrading her
educational qualifications to obtain a full-time, college-level teaching
position:
Andrea: So, you told me before that you wanted to continue on to the
doctoral program.
Celine: Right now it’s a completely greedy situation. I want the most money
possible, so give me my Ph.D.; yeah, I would like to be called doctor,
but I mostly want to go back to Montana and show all those people
that said I would not graduate from university. People flat out told
my folks, “Your daughter will not graduate from university, she
won’t be able to get a bachelor’s,” because I couldn’t read. Because
1
In interview data, except for the researcher, the names of participants and places are
pseudonyms. The following transcription conventions are used: italics (English) = emphasis
marking via raised voice pitch, quality, and/or volume; a short overlapping utterance is
indicated within the embedding utterance, enclosed by slashes. For easier readability, punctua-
tion marks have been added and speech dysfluencies removed or restored. Brackets are used to
enclose laughter and other noises, nonverbal actions, or any explanatory material.

in elementary school they told me I would fail, even teachers,
halfway through elementary school they said, “Your daughter’s not
going to finish,” or the percentage of students that went to that
elementary school didn’t graduate, and I was going to be one of
them, kind of thing. So I kind of want my Ph.D. to go back and say,
“Excuse me, [chuckle] I did it [said in a sarcastic voice].” Yeah, I just
want to show off and punch them in the nose, but even my
mother’s aunt and uncle said I would never graduate, our own
family said I wouldn’t.
Being a recent doctoral graduate myself, I admired Celine’s determi-

nation to pursue a long, arduous academic journey that, in light of
Japan’s current sluggish economy, will not necessarily lead to a lucrative
job but is nevertheless required to move up the ranks of the teaching
hierarchy. The idea of wanting to show off or prove one’s worth through
academic or professional achievement appeared throughout other par-
ticipants’ stories as well but with a kaleidoscopic array of different
motivating forces. Julia, a White, 48-year-old American expatriate fluent
in Japanese, spoke about trying to overcome her feelings of academic
inadequacy:
Julia: So, as I got into this then about writing and politics, and then my
own experience, how marginal or how I feel in Japan as an
academic, I always feel that I’m not, I don’t measure up to the
standards, the Western standards. I had a Scottish professor at
[name of university in Japan] who said because I was an American,
I didn’t know how to write. I didn’t have my last year of high school
English in the States because I came to Japan, and I haven’t gone
to, you know, a Western academic university, so right along the way
I feel like I never measure up to what the Western academic
standard is. So when I started writing my master’s thesis for a British
university, I kept coming up against this. I felt that I had to prove
myself academically, I want to prove that I can do what an academic
is expected to do and do it well and to really prove myself.
A 48-year-old, second-generation Korean born in Japan, Se-ri told her

story of racial discrimination and then added how she specifically chose
a career as an English teacher as a means to “fight back”:
Se-ri: You know, my father, he wanted to send me to a private women’s

junior high and high school, pretty famous one, and he went to one
of the teachers at the school he had consulted about his daughter’s
future and told the teacher the plan that, “I’m gonna have my
daughter challenge taking the entrance examination to the school.”
And that teacher said, “No, she can’t because she’s Korean and that
school will not accept Korean students’ applications.” And my
father got really pissed and he just told her that, “No matter what
412 TESOL QUARTERLY

you say, I’m gonna have her take the entrance examination.” So I
couldn’t get a recommendation from her and I passed it, and when
I got news from the school, many of my classmates came to me and
said, “We heard that your father paid money to the school.” And I
said, “What the hell, who is spreading that kind of stupid rumor?”
And they said, “The teacher.” My father said that in order to survive
in society and also in order to fight back against Japanese discrimi-
nation, education is the key. If I were an ordinary Korean, just living
like an ordinary Korean housewife they [Japanese] don’t respect
me. But if I say, “I speak English fluently and I was in the States for
6 years,” then their way of looking at me is completely different. My
motivation was exclusively instrumental, if I master the language of
the people [Westerners] who Japanese admire, then I can be equal
to their [Japanese] rank, and they eventually have to respect me
because I will be speaking their [Westerners’] language, that was the
only reason I became an English teacher.
Mariko, a 45-year-old Japanese EFL teacher educator, also expressed

the idea of attaining the prestige that she felt she had been deprived of
as a child because of her family background:
Mariko: So, I was a kind of good student since maybe fifth or sixth grade. I
had a consciousness I want to be good especially after that bullying
incident [Mariko had previously related how she had been bullied
in elementary school by students who wouldn’t talk to her because
her father “works at night”]. I decided, I told myself, “Well, I’ll
never be beaten by those regular girls,” you know, normally
brought up girls, so that was a kind of competition I wanted to win
over. If I could speak good English I thought I could get some jobs.
So, then I decided to get a degree, so I have to be the same with
other women, to be prepared for the real job which will give me
lifetime assuredness. I started kind of organizing my life a lot and
then that was the first time I thought about being an English
teacher because I thought about my background and then being a
Japanese woman in Japan, what job can give me good enough
money with some social respect, that’s a teacher. I always pushed
myself forward and forward just because I don’t want to be
defeated.
Likewise, Diana, a 40-year-old Black South African, juxtaposed an

account of being ostracized at an English boarding school with her
current educational philosophy:
Diana: And there were lots of girls who had never seen a Black person. So
for them it was a different sort of racism, it wasn’t racism, but it was,
I was really something that they had never seen, they had seen on
TV, but never had they been up close. So it was ignorance rather, so

that, “When you would have a shower does your skin rub off?” and
when they looked at the palms of my hands, they couldn’t believe
that they were white. I was 16 years old and I go there, they had
their own little cliques, so here I came in the middle of the term,
and it was very difficult to make friends and I was trying to please.
So suddenly in this group I was really the outsider and I was Black
and I mean just all these things, and the nuns had this thing that I
was from Africa and so I was dumb, and they would say to me, “But
you’re from Africa, and you know how you are, so you won’t pass
the exam.” They would say things like that to me, can you imagine?
So it was very hurtful and I cried a lot. People try to pull you down,
I found that in life, but I never listen to them and that’s always my
message to my students: Whatever you want to be, you can be if you
believe in yourselves. Why do we always assume like teachers at
Japanese high schools or universities that these kids are incapable,
you know, because they aren’t; you’ve got to push them to do it.
Janet, a White, 50-year-old British woman brought up in various ex-

colonies, linked her awareness of the ethnocentric tendencies of EFL
education to her opinion of her father’s racism:
Janet: I later discovered that my father was very racially prejudiced, and
that continued until he popped off. So that’s certainly probably a
part of the consciousness that has made me a little doubtful about
what ESL does. I mean how much of EFL outside of English-
speaking metropolitan centers and ESL inside, how much of it is
colonial intent, not intent necessarily, not conscious intent very
often, but in effect. I have to say I don’t think I consciously
theorized about it at all until, oh, probably my 30s. I was already in
Japan by then, I was aware of it; of course I was irritated by it, I
mean every time my father said something racist it irritated me. So
it wasn’t really until I got into Afro-American studies, cultural
studies, postcolonial studies that I could reflect on this part of my
background.
In diverse ways, participants recounted how family or previous school-

ing experiences intertwined in a complex set of relationships with their
views on education, teaching, and self-identity. These women drew on
multiple subject positions as daughters, expatriates, racial minorities, or
socioeconomically disadvantaged as they worked out how their personal
backgrounds affected their own learning contexts and how they experi-
enced the EFL teaching profession.
414 TESOL QUARTERLY

I’m The Man In The Family
Six of the nine participants were married, and they had various
perceptions of the spouse’s role in their career paths. Conventional
gender ideologies in Japan are such that married women with profes-
sional employment aspirations may be, as Liddle and Nakajima (2000)
contend, “required to bring with them higher levels of economic, social
and cultural capital than comparable men if they are to convert these
capitals into symbolic power in the form of recognition and respect as
legitimate players in the field” (p. 222). Thus, sociocultural priority is
given to male professionals who are expected to be the main breadwin-
ners with supportive wives who adhere to a ryousaikenbo (good wife, wise
mother) norm at the expense of their careers or juggling career and
domestic duties. For Julia, whose Japanese husband was unemployed,
her professional EFL teaching identity evolved from a different set of
circumstances that did not follow the cultural mandate for working
women in Japan but yet were in conflict with Julia’s personal ideals
concerning married life:
Andrea: And after you got married, I know this is a sensitive issue.
Julia: I have been the breadwinner from day one. So, when I was working
part-time I became pregnant and I had six classes so that was a
really solid, stable income. But it wasn’t solid, stable as far as long
term, and especially having a child and a husband who didn’t look
like he was going to be working. And there’s a problem with me
because, my hope, my ideal I think was to be a support to a man
who had a career. Not that I wouldn’t have my own but I see myself,
my makeup, as I have a very strong desire, it almost feels innate to
be supportive, to be helpful, I like doing it, I mean, being
supportive. Like doing housework, if my husband were out working
all day, then it would be a delight to be the head of the house so
that he comes home and feels he can relax, but maybe now because
I understand what it’s like to be outside, working and coming home
to a house that’s dirty and dinner isn’t ready, just makes life
unpleasant. So I understand the value of housewife duties.
Andrea: So you understand both, being professional and coming home, but
also being at home and being supportive for someone who’s out
working.
Julia: Right, but I like to stay home and bake cakes and clean and do the
stuff, the kind of traditional women’s stuff.
Japan’s economic recession and high unemployment rate (“5.4%

jobless rate,” 2003) made Julia’s concern with having a “solid stable
income” quite understandable. Despite her own ideal of being a support-
ive wife at home, Julia was pursuing a professional EFL career by
upgrading her teaching credentials so that she could maintain her

college teaching position and support her family, but not without
considerable ambivalence:
Andrea: So you made the decision to do the master’s and you did it. // Julia:
Desired results but . . . // Andrea: Can we talk about that? // Julia:
Ah, gee, depress me. It’s just that I’m not good at doing two things
at once, and I like to do what I do well, so it was a very frustrating
experience for me. And I still feel a kind of bitter taste in my mouth
because I don’t feel that I did, I mean, it was a good experience and
I’m so glad I did it and I learned a tremendous amount; the
difficulty was that I expect myself to do well, and I want to do well
and I couldn’t do well because I had priorities and it wasn’t my first
priority. I couldn’t make it my first priority; my family was my first
priority, my job was my second priority, and the master’s was my
third, and I couldn’t change that, and it was tremendously frustrat-
ing. My whole master’s thesis was trying to come to grips with my
own identity in Japan, and my whole identity in Japan, trying to be
a professional is that I feel like a fake because I don’t have the . . .
here you’re getting the self-confidence stuff, boy you’ve got one big
lack of it right here.
In contrast to Julia’s ambivalent attitude, Celine elaborated rather

straightforwardly in an e-mail correspondence on her views concerning
the domestic and career expectations of husbands and wives vis-à-vis the
opinions of her female Japanese friends:
I remember writing that I was the “man” in the family. [Laughter.] Many of my
Japanese friends say so because [my husband] does all the shopping and
holds the money, “purse strings,” takes out the garbage and hangs the
laundry, so they say I’m the man in the family. This has made some of my
friends uncomfortable, and as I mentioned, they have criticized me. When we
went into our relationship I made sure I was clear about who I was. Of course
I didn’t know I was going to further my education, but my goals and dreams,
no one could stop. In fact, I’m probably the “man” in my marriage because we
live by my standard.
For unmarried female teachers as well, traditional societal ideologies

served to constrain professional discourses:
Andrea: Tell me what it’s been like for you as a single woman.
Janet: Well, in fact our present dean still says, “Janet, kawaikattan dayo ne.”
[You used to be cute]. So there’s that. There’s a very fatherly older
teacher who’s now retired who used to make a great effort to find a
husband for me. We’ve done that. I think we’ve probably all passed
it now because I mean obviously, at this point, as one of my
Japanese male friends tends to say, “Mou uren yo omae.” [You can’t
be sold anymore.] [Laughter.] So in that sense, I’m sort of over that
416 TESOL QUARTERLY

hill. Most of my female colleagues in my department are indeed
married, . . . there’s one exception.
Before getting married, Celine was also subjected to sexist remarks

when her contract at her previous job ended:
Celine: They don’t care where you go or what you do; in fact, everyone
thought I was going back to the States to get married, it was so
funny, ughh. This Japanese guy, he was young, he had perfect,
beautiful English, native-speaker level of English, right down to the
idioms and everything, even cultural understanding, really good
grasp of everything. And when I left, and it was at my sayonara party
that my school had given me, he said, “So Celine, you’re going back
to get married, right?” I was like, “The contract’s making me go
back”; I was like “Whoa guy, we’ve been teaching together for 2
years now and I can’t believe you’re asking me this question.” I just
wanted to smack him, “What the hell’s wrong with you! Of course
not.” And I told him that flat out, and he’s like, “But you’re 24
now.” And I’m like, “Yeah so, what’s your point.”
Participants’ presentations of themselves were thus inscribed by

normative Japanese expectations regarding a woman’s personal circum-
stances. Similarly, in her report on female teachers in the United
Kingdom, Tamboukou (2000) comments on the frustrating dilemmas
that professional women face:
The ambivalent persona of the female educator is invested by the accumula-
tion of a series of layers that emerge from the gaps, rupture, and interstices
women have slipped into, as they have tried to avoid being positioned in the
social structuring of a world that recognizes them only as belonging subjects,
usually wives, mothers, daughters or sisters of enclosed spaces, like those of
their families. (p. 470)
In sum, the EFL teachers in this study have struggled to resolve

conflicts inherent in the (re)negotiation of their subject positions,
forged from personal backgrounds, within work environments that were
not always conducive to enhancing their professional identities.
Dealing With Conflicts in Work Environments

Along with the ongoing career obstacles that all the participants
confronted, the non-Japanese educators encountered additional cross-
cultural complications in their host country. In the interviews, they often
described disempowering experiences as women or a sense of alienation
as gaijin (foreigners), but they struggled to transform these problems
into stories of individual solutions. As Chase (1995) puts it:

Stories about power and accomplishment through professional work have
been the prerogative of middle-class, or upwardly mobile, White men. . . .
Women—particularly women of color and women raised in working-class
families—have not had access to well-paid, prestigious, professional jobs and
so have not had access to discourse that is culturally intelligible within that
realm. (p. 48)
In other words, as women in a male-dominated work environment in

Japan, our accounts of successful careers inevitably contain stories of
inequity, disjunctions that force interlocutors to work harder to create
narratives that construct viable professional identities.
I’ve Felt Like a Second-Class Citizen
McKay (1992) advises expatriate teachers that their role in their host
country “is not to effect change in its social and educational structure but
rather to attempt to increase their students’ proficiency in English as
best they can within the existing structure” (pp. ix–x). Teachers in
undesirable EFL teaching situations may leave the country, change
institutions, or negotiate with the administration and students over
matters such as language policies and curriculum. As more and more
foreigners intermarry with Japanese ( Japan Almanac, 2001), many educa-
tors want long-term employment and/or permanent residency in Japan,
so McKay’s first two alternatives do not seem practical. Additionally, in
the case of non-Japanese couples, if career-oriented wives do not
proactively maintain their jobs, they not only risk being excluded from
the dwindling pool of EFL teaching positions but also might have more
difficulty entering Japanese society. Celine elaborated on how establish-
ing a professional identity as a college EFL instructor helped her to
become a respected member of Japanese society:
Celine: So within [the private language school where I was previously
employed] I did see that there were limitations, that in a sense no
matter what I make of myself I was still being labeled as just an
eikaiwa [English conversation] person and that it wasn’t taken too
seriously in the community. And when people would ask me,
“Oshigoto wa?” [What do you do?], if I wanted to tell them I would,
but they always assumed that I was an eigo no sensei [English
teacher]. That didn’t bother me, I happily admitted I was an eikaiwa
teacher. But when I went to immigration, and would go, “Well, I
would like permanent residence,” and you need permanent resi-
dence to get the bank loan to buy a house, that we would like to live
here forever like the house that Jack built, he [immigration officer]
basically told me to go out the door.
There was nothing sound or substantial or serious that he was
going to take from me when I said I was a [private language school]
418 TESOL QUARTERLY

teacher, like, “We know the eikaiwa turnover rate. We’re not going
to accept your application for permanent residence. Come back
when you’ve got something more secure.” If I can show them I have
a salaried contract, tenure preferably, I have the greater chance of
getting it. So in that respect, yeah I get a lot of respect.
To make her point concerning her determination to become a

professional higher-education teacher and achieve the attendant sym-
bolic capital, Celine embedded within the central narrative a comple-
mentary story concerning an interaction with an immigration officer. A
foreign instructor’s work status is highly contingent on larger socioeco-
nomic factors as well as different educational institutions’ employment
policies, some of which do not favor foreign instructors, as Janet
explained:
Andrea: You’ve been here for how many years?

Janet: Twenty-three, this will be my 23rd year as a full-timer plus 2 years
part-time.
Andrea: And always on this kind of renewable contract.
Janet: Absolutely.
Andrea: What are you on now?
Janet: One year.
Andrea: Gee, I just assumed because you’ve been here so long that you had
a very secure job.
Janet: Well no, like I said, there was this big brouhaha about “Oh, you’re
gonna stay forever.” And I even got, “Rokujugousai made kanou” [It’s
possible for you to stay until you’re 65]. The idea was that, “You’re
tenured and we will keep you until you’re 65,” and also the pension
thing is tied up in this. And then suddenly at the end of 1995 it was,
“All foreigners will now have the same length of contract, it will be
6 years and we can’t make an exception of you so understand the
economic situation is such that we don’t want to hire any foreigners
over the age of 35 because they’re too expensive, and therefore you
and your aged colleagues will go at the end of 6 years like every-
body else.”
Andrea: This is just for the gaijin [foreigners]?
Janet: Yeah. And I don’t want to end up so bitter about this; I mean Japan
has been a home for, really, I’ve lived here longer than I’ve lived in
any country, and to end up feeling bitter is not what I want.
In addition to unfair work-related conditions, which are a concern for

many teachers worldwide, a different yet related set of issues restrain
non-Japanese college educators from developing a sense of professional-
ism on a par with their Japanese colleagues. In Japan, EFL teachers from
Western countries are commonly perceived as a privileged group en-
trusted with teaching subject matter of considerable sociopolitical value.
Notwithstanding the high prestige Japanese society places on being able

to speak English (see, e.g., Crystal, 1997; Kachru, 1989; Phillipson, 1992),
teachers’ work experiences reveal a complex transformation of global
factors. Julia explained the difference between the sense of “community”
she felt with the Japanese staff at her former college as opposed to the
atmosphere at her present job:
Julia: At [my former school] they had really accepted me as part, I mean,
I didn’t feel any sabetsu [discrimination] in the sense of, um, I really
felt a part of the community, a part of the staff; we were treated
equally. But when I came to [my present college] I have felt like a
second-class citizen.
Andrea: Why? Even after getting the degree [master’s]?
Julia: Yeah, probably it’s more of the academia, probably if I had come in
with a Ph.D. or something, you know, “Wow!” There’s that kind of
attitude at [my school]. And also English teachers, I think they have
a low evaluation, you know, anybody can teach English. The
Japanese faculty in the English department think that anybody,
foreigners, native speakers, that, you know, teaching English, is, you
know, you’ve got to have an M.A., but basically when it comes right
down to it, anybody can teach as long as they’ve got an M.A. We all
feel that the Japanese feel that way.
Janet interpreted Japanese administrator and faculty views of the

foreign EFL teacher’ role in a similar way:
Janet: When I was first hired, I taught the seminar in education in English
for the juniors and seniors who were going to be teachers. Now
there is no gaijin [foreigner] teaching any seminar class because
that’s not what we’re here for; we’re supposed to be teaching
English and, you know, we’re not up to that academic shit.
In most Japanese colleges and universities, Japanese professors usually

teach the seminar class, and it is accorded more academic prestige than
courses like English Communication, which are reserved for the foreign
instructors. In light of this situation, Janet later expressed the sentiments
of many non-Japanese EFL teachers who feel that “we are only there to
be parrots, walking tape recorders.” This one-dimensional view of the
foreign teacher’s role also surfaced in Julia’s account of her college
teaching job interview:
Julia: “Well, we expect you to be 100% American when you come here.”
[Laughter.] And I just remember I didn’t say anything, I just said
wakarimashita [I understand] or something, because to me it was
such an affront to my whole experience. And what does it mean to
be a 100% American? In fact, what they did, something they liked
[ Julia’s Japanese fluency], but they didn’t want to face that up
front, that, yes they knew that my Japanese would be a real
420 TESOL QUARTERLY

advantage, but they didn’t want that up front at all, like, “On the
surface we want you to be 100% American.”
From her unique insider-outsider position as a second-generation

Korean born in Japan, Se-ri talked about the discrimination she saw in
her college English department:
Se-ri: They [college administrators] want to have fresh faces because they
only look at you as an object, like a kazari [ornament], akusesarii
mitai nee [like an accessory, right]; native speakers, White Cauca-
sian, with blonde hair, blue eyes is the symbol of internationaliza-
tion. So once [the teachers] become older [laughter] they want to
switch. That kind of attitude should be really changed. That’s like,
you know, I keep calling these Japanese, many of the Japanese
English teachers are racist.
Just as Janet alluded to job discrimination on the basis of age, Se-ri

mentioned how the work status of foreign instructors depends on
criteria that do not apply to her Japanese colleagues. Se-ri insisted later
during the interview that a person’s English teaching capabilities should
not be judged according to ethnic or racial background and that “one
day we really should erase the categorical names like native or nonna-
tive.” In the same vein, Mariah recounted an experience with racial
discrimination in Japan, where Filipinas must contend with the negative
stereotypes ascribed to japayuki (Filipina entertainers and sex workers):
Andrea: Tell me about when you were hired. I guess you went for an inter-
view, or how did you find out about the job? What was that like?
Mariah: Maybe I could start by not directly answering that one. I have
another experience when I first came to Japan. Because I’m very
active in the Philippines and I want to work right away, I tried
calling a school. But that man, I never met him, I think he’s biased.
Andrea: What happened?
Mariah: Because the announcement said “native speaker,” but I tried. I
mean, in the Philippines, English is our official language, so
everything is in English, policies, newspapers, etcetera, and they
don’t particularize native speakers.
Andrea: So, in Japan you’re not considered a native speaker?
Mariah: Uh-uh, as capable of teaching English, I don’t know, this is my
judgment. And I was thinking it’s not a matter of color or race or
religion; it’s a matter of how effective you are as a teacher. If you are
Black, Brown, or White, small eyes, big eyes, it doesn’t matter.
Andrea: Is there anything that you can remember specifically about what
that man said that made you feel that there was a kind of bias about
native or nonnative?
Mariah: So, in the hiring announcement itself, I already felt there is a bias.
And when he asked me over the phone, asking me about my

country’s name, so there I remembered the announcement, what
was written there. Though I wanted to tell him that, “Why don’t you
just give me a chance to show if I’m capable or not? And if you
think I’m not, then I’ll give up.”
Although born in a former British colony and educated in a boarding

school in England, Diana nevertheless faced a problem similar to
Mariah’s when she decided to pursue a professional EFL teaching career:
Andrea: Do you feel when you apply for a job that there’s some sort of
competition with the White male or female Westerner?
Diana: I don’t feel competition. What I feel is the Japanese are going to
look at me, and I have to send a photo, and they’ll just chuck it to
the side when they see, first, South African; she can’t speak English.
Yet English is my first language and—I mean it is my first it’s not my
native—but it’s my first language, you know what I’m saying?
Andrea: I know exactly what you’re saying.
Diana: So it’s not so much that I feel competition; I feel they are going to
look, they already have their stereotypical, you know, this teacher
should be Australian or American or New Zealander or British or
Canadian and then, you know, “You can’t teach,” or “What are you
doing applying?”
The participants’ sentiments echo current discussions on “the profes-

sional hegemony of center-based ELT institutions” (Canagarajah, 1999,
p. 127), where native speakers of English are considered to be the sacred
dispensers of standard English. Women of color from outer circle
countries like Mariah and Diana therefore have an additional hurdle to
leap in establishing their professional EFL teaching identities in Japan,
not only because of their non-White status but also because of the native
speaker fallacy (see Phillipson, 1992), which privileges speakers and
teachers of center-based Englishes. At every educational level from
private language schools to junior and 4-year colleges in Japan, native
speakers of English are preferred, as gleaned from a survey of 50 EFL job
advertisements in The Asahi Shimbun newspaper over an 11-month period
(February–December, 2002). Of the 50 positions advertised, only 10 did
not specify “native speaker” as part of the necessary qualifications,
whereas the majority explicitly stated a preference for “native English
speakers,” “British nationals,” or “North American English instructors.”
These ethnocentric attitudes toward English education severely limit job
opportunities in Japan for EFL teachers from noncenter countries.
422 TESOL QUARTERLY

What Am I Afraid Of?
For lesbian educators, the homophobic atmosphere prevailing in

Japan (see Summerhawk, McMahill, & McDonald, 1998) also constitutes
a major obstacle to obtaining and maintaining a job as an EFL instructor.
Because of this situation, Nicole, a lesbian educator, expressed her fears
of being identified and requested that I use only the following quotation
from her narrative:
Nicole: I mean, I don’t, professionally knowing that I’m here in Japan, I’d
rather not slit my throat. I’ve never had any problem, but I know
my days are limited here [at my present college]. But I’d still like to
make it a pleasant experience, and also thinking about the future,
I don’t want to have any problem here that might continue
someplace else.
Recognizing the importance of my research and wanting to help out, she

later suggested that I post a message on the Nihon Dykenet asking
lesbian and queer EFL educators to share some of their work stories, and
the following is a composite summary of their responses:
Since coming to Japan, I am not out in my daily life, and it’s pretty strange for
me. There are a few teachers that I’m friends with, but beyond them, I just
don’t have much interest in revealing a lot about myself. Maybe my shyness
and reluctance to talk about my personal life is related to my having been a
lesbian all my adult life. Maybe I hate hearing people talk about their
personal lives at work because I know that, even if I do, it won’t be received in
the same way. Why am I so closeted? That is a question I sometimes ask myself
because in theory I think it would be better if more and more lesbians and
other sexual minorities were out. What am I afraid of? That people’s attitudes
toward me might change. That my contract might not be renewed. That I
might be laughed at. That I might become a more public figure. That I might
always be viewed only as “the lesbian” rather than the multifaceted person I
am. That I might be seen as a controversial person. I think it is much more
difficult to come out as a university professor or teacher in elementary
through high school, especially in a Christian school. Among my foreigner
friends and in the EFL teaching community in general, I am very out. I think
that being out among the foreigners here does make it easier to be closeted
at work, even if nearly everyone around here is het. We’ll see if things change,
but because I’ll only be here another year or so, I may keep the status quo.
To keep the status quo, educators with different sexual identities need
to adjust their personal and professional interactions according to
Japanese heteronormative behavior. These educators might have to
divorce their pedagogical ideals and practices from their lesbian, queer,
or bisexual subjectivities, thereby isolating themselves and depriving

students of the opportunity to reflect on sexuality issues, an opportunity
that, as Vandrick (2001) says, “could make an enormous difference in
the academic atmosphere for all teachers and students, homosexual and
heterosexual” (p. 31).
The participants in this study are struggling against the grain as
women in a male-dominant society and, at the same time, straddling
multiple and shifting realities of cultured, classed, raced, and sexually
oriented borderlands (Anzaldúa, 1987) in which we all live. In a positive
light, this border crossing or sense of hybridity (Bhabha, 1985) can be an
empowering force not only for an individual woman’s consciousness but
also across diverse communities of marginalized people reinterpreting a
world where difference is respected and not relegated to the borders.
Attitudes Toward Students and Professional Practices
The third aspect of the participants’ self-definitions as educators has

direct implications for EFL teacher education. That is to say, biographi-
cal and sociocultural factors, together with ways of interpreting and
dealing with career obstacles, profoundly influence pedagogical practices
and perceptions of the female EFL educators’ role in Japan. Johnston’s
(2003) view of language education emphasizes the moral dimensions of
teaching contexts. His analysis of teacher-student relationships and the
legitimization of teachers’ knowledge bases in discussions of teacher
education are particularly germane. The “value-laden nature of our
work” (p. 5) manifests in the philosophical attitude toward students and
the act of teaching itself that educators adopt when describing their
professional practices. Across all the life stories in this study, participants
repeatedly framed the mundane aspects of teaching (choice of textbook,
curriculum, teaching methods, etc.) within an overarching moralistic
stance toward EFL education vis-à-vis the students’ personal, holistic
needs. Norah, a single, 35-year-old White American, explained it this way:
Norah: I think English takes a second, a back seat, I think it’s really second
place in my goals. They’re just opening up, just beginning to realize
that there’s a world out there, and to offer them other viewpoints,
to let them see that there are other people, other cultures, other
ways of doing things, other ways of thinking that they haven’t
experienced before, that’s more important to me than English. If I
can do that through English, terrific. Then they get two for the price
of one.
In addition to her teaching job, Norah was an AIDS activist and educator
in Japan concerned with choosing textbooks that would create a more
meaningful EFL curriculum:
424 TESOL QUARTERLY

Norah: Most textbooks that you find on the market paint a rosy picture of
life and don’t deal with any issues at all, and really, in life the
number one thing you deal with is problems and it could be as
simple as, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying,” or you
could take it up to the level of “I really don’t understand where
you’re coming from,” or “Why is this problem happening in the
world?” It’s just different degrees of it, so yeah, I think using social
issues is a really good way to think in English and honestly discuss
things with people rather than just practicing a dialogue. How do
we light that fire under the students to take the responsibility to do
something about it, not that we have the solutions because we are
not Japanese, we’re not in this culture, we don’t have their
experience, but what is it to motivate them to make change? And
it’s nice to see people think about things, and I know Afghanistan
had an effect on them, well, New York, the terrorism, and the
aftermath of that. To know that these are people who someday
might be in the UN representing Japan, or in some capacity, I don’t
know, but it’s just so nice to see them being concerned about other
people, it’s great.
As an Asian teacher of English in Japan, Se-ri also viewed the EFL

classroom as a site for students to explore issues beyond their immediate
language learning needs:
Se-ri: So, even though I’m an English teacher, I am very much interested
in sociology, and I don’t think I can avoid the Korean issues. Since
they’ve been talking about internationalization a lot in Japan, I
think they should internationalize internally, to focus on the
foreigners living in Japan first.
Andrea: Is there a large Korean student population here [at Se-ri’s university]?
Se-ri: Yeah, of course they are using their Japanese names, and they are a
very invisible group. But once they have a Korean teacher, they
might get encouraged, and the Japanese students, they will change
their views about Koreans. So I really owe something to this school
[for hiring me] and I can make a big contribution to this university.
Se-ri’s concern with making a comfortable learning environment for

Korean students evolved from her own schooling experiences:
Se-ri: At the age of 18, I disclosed myself as a Korean. At the graduation

ceremony, I asked the teacher to call me by my real name. At that
time at our high school, there were 20 Korean girls, but I was the
only one who took the choice, the other Korean students said, “No
way”; they didn’t want to lose their friends or something. And I
went to [a prestigious college in Japan], and my GPA was very high,
and I was the top student, but the teacher told me that “I cannot
introduce you to a bank because the Japanese municipal banks

don’t hire Koreans.” So that was the first blow at my face of social
discrimination. I was experiencing some kind of discrimination at
the individual level; neighbors were giving us cold language like
“dirty Korean.” That kind of thing is more on an individual level,
but my job-hunting experience was the first time for me to
experience social discrimination.
Until elementary school teachers and family members surmised that

Celine’s academic underachievement was caused by a visual disability,
she was, as she said, “shuffled off with the mentally handicapped group
into a special education class.” This experience of having been mislabeled
as a child with a learning difficulty resurfaced in Celine’s approach to
understanding students’ different learning styles:
Celine: But when I look at that [slow learners], I think okay they could have
had some kind of disability, so there’s all these different things out
there that I’m aware of now, knowing mine, and just even the way
someone learns a language; we have different ways of learning:
Some people learn by reading, some people learn by listening,
some by taking notes. So I’m aware if a student’s not, it drove me
nuts when I would hear other teachers say, “Well you better write
this down.” “No, I don’t have to write this down. Just don’t bug me
about it.” So, yeah, I don’t want to put that onto someone else. If
they don’t take notes, great, that means they’re a listener. If they’re
looking down, fine, that means they’re a listener; if they’re looking
up at me, okay, then they’re a visual. So I know there’s different
learning techniques, and hopefully I accept all of them or at least
acknowledge them.
Julia, who was in charge of hiring EFL instructors at her college,

explained her reasons for explicitly seeking non-Western teachers of
English:
Julia: I felt for our students, it’s risky, I know, I’ve taken a big risk and I
don’t know how it’s going to go, a teacher from Afghanistan. I want
the students, this is where I get idealistic, naïve probably, to see a
model. I’d like to have a Japanese actually teaching listening,
speaking. It’s ingrained in the Japanese students I think, that
Japanese don’t speak English. What I want to do is break that; I
want them to feel that whatever English they’ve got, they can use
and to feel good about it and to work from there, to go from there.
I feel that really strongly; they don’t have to sound like a Brit or an
American. I’m trying to get them to use the English they have in
order to communicate, and the people they’re going to be commu-
nicating with in most instances are going to be nonnative speakers.
426 TESOL QUARTERLY

Julia then linked her “idealistic” views on students’ making English their
own with her resistance or “writing back” (see Pennycook, 1994) to
Western academia:
Julia: But when I was doing my thesis, at the same time I had this real
personal reaction of wanting to write back, I guess from my own
experience. And then I realized that, as a woman, I started writing
about the politics of writing, you know, some of the things that have
just come out about gender in academics, especially in academic
writing. And my own feeling, of reacting against the West, reacting
against Western male academics that I was going to have to follow in
order to get this thesis accepted, and it was a protest in a sense; I
couldn’t write the thesis as an academic like I knew I should write it,
I couldn’t do it, so I didn’t.
Mariko elaborated on being “bullied” by male professors in her

department, her reason for getting a doctorate, and the position she
took in a teacher-student sexual harassment case at her college. Her
account also portrayed the interconnectedness of the ideological and
professional aspects of work contexts:
Mariko: Getting the doctorate was a way to establish myself, an indirect way
of fighting against those guys [her male superiors in her depart-
ment]. Because those teachers who taught before me, they were the
ones who taught communicative English; that was their territory. So
looking at me talking better than they could with native speakers,
they felt jealous. And one day, one of those teachers told me, “Your
English is so vulgar.” And so I was careful not to speak [English] in
front of him, even up to now. So, getting my doctorate changed me
as a whole person, I think. Just a kind of, um, it’s hard to put in
language, but I feel if something wrong happens, if something gets
on my moral code, I’ll stand up and fight, like during the sexual
harassment case involving a student. I had to do something, this is
again a moral code; if I just go straight and ignore it, do nothing,
that hurts me as a person. So I became the head of the sexual
harassment committee, and we succeeded in having the male
teacher who was harassing students fired.
Andrea: Great. Why do you think you became the leader of that group?
Mariko: Yeah, why? I’m different, you know.
Andrea: What do you mean? Are you older than the other teachers [on the
committee]?
Mariko: No, I think I’m the youngest in a way. Actually, status-wise and
seniority-wise I was the youngest and the lowest and, more than
that, I was working in a different department. So whenever I talked
to the teachers, “I feel kind of strange to be here and talking to you,
but I can’t take it any longer.” Ah, because I’m the liaison person,
that’s one thing, because those students trust me and disclose their

bad experiences to me so I thought I had to stand up for them. But
more than that, I don’t want to let it go; mou yurusenai [I can’t
tolerate it any longer].
A teacher’s personal set of values, an integral part of her or his identity

forged from a lifetime of social interactions, shape educational beliefs
and professional practices that in turn affect students’ learning contexts.
This finding is not new in the TESOL field (see, e.g., Hall & Eggington,
2000); however, what was compelling about the stories in this study was
how participants articulated the different dimensions of their gendered,
raced, classed, disabled subjectivities at the same time that they were
dialectically engaged in redefining constraining discourses, both in their
own lives and in the lives of their students. Mariah eloquently expressed
what I am attempting to develop:
Andrea: So you feel that teaching English is one way of helping Japanese
people?
Mariah: Yeah, it’s very important for me. It’s an entry point. If my students
will be very capable in using English in communicating with many
nationalities or colors, they can come to be more open and flexible
in any situation. They can also improve their image in society. I
don’t know if this is a universal perspective, but in the Philippines,
we have this perception of Japanese people, they are so closed, they
don’t want to welcome other countries’ peoples. So maybe by
learning the English language, maybe that will help them open
their shell, because they can communicate, so it will lead to many
positive things. I think I have the ability to share something; I hope
they can get something. I ask my students, try to think about
something you did that you feel very proud of and maybe that will
be the beginning of your feeling proud of yourself; this kind of
feeling would help you in learning to speak English and expressing
yourselves. And maybe I can help them express themselves by also
expressing myself first. So I try to tell them, uh, the things that I did
which I felt very proud of and made me feel happy, and it built my
confidence.
For Janet, her experiences of having been raised in a British,

postcolonial family in India and then later on coming to grips with the
ethnocentric tendencies of EFL education played a part in shaping her
pedagogical choices. She infuses a strong cultural studies component
into the curriculum to encourage students to rethink, as she herself has,
culturally embedded influences on identity formations:
Janet: You’re born into a historical time and that is going to influence all
kinds of expectations you have, and you’re also born into a gender,
and you’re born into a family and your sibling rank is going to
428 TESOL QUARTERLY

influence things. Your specific culture influences family and rela-
tions; you’re born into a region, and so on, the concentric circles
go out. And I use that model with the freshmen as a way of looking
at identity because of the whole business of “we Japanese are all the
same.” Because what you end up with is, okay, you’ve got all these
concentric circles but . . . and these things are all like influences or
onion skins around you but affect the identity you have. But none
of those skins is going to have a uniform effect on you and that’s
what allows individuality to appear, to whatever extent it does. And
so we go through this thing step by step and, um, “Okay, so you
were born into what historical time, what have been the key
influences, what expectations do you have?” I mean I usually have
to get it started by saying, “You know, when I was born we didn’t
have refrigerators.” [Laughter.]
Andrea: Really?
Janet: Really. Listen, I was born in the third world, that was Britain, you
know, we didn’t have fridges, we had this little box. I remember
punching my hand through it to get at the cheese, and we were still
on rations when I was born you know, so I do that. Of course the
students all go, “Oh my God, she’s even older than we thought she
was!” Or, even the expectations of going to college and careers and
that sort of thing. And then we get to gender and what kind of
expectations that have been placed on them, and they’re not always
aware of it, but with a little bit of thinking they get there.
Particularly as we’ve had people with slightly different identities
appearing here recently.
Mariah and Janet’s descriptions of their teaching practices reflect

postmodern feminist educationists’ theories concerning deconstructive
(Lather, 1991) or engaged (hooks, 1994) pedagogies. Both teacher and
student subjectivities become transformed when personal histories are
used as teaching tools to explore both how prevailing discourses shape
our identities and what alternative discourses are available to reinvent
ourselves in more empowering ways.
Ultimately, in constructing their EFL educator identities the partici-
pants drew on personal experiences that have mediated the reciprocal
relationship between interpretations of self and pedagogical practices.
Put differently, the stories that teachers tell and live by are discursive
displays of professional and personal beliefs situated in specific social
worlds and realized through interactions with others.
CONCLUSION
A close look at teacher narratives can enhance an understanding of
membership in a TESOL culture (Edge, 1996) wherein the sole aim is

not to discover the most effective techniques but rather to explore how
“the theoretical, the professional, and the personal intermingle” (p. 25).
More specifically, by examining their own and other female EFL educa-
tors’ lived experiences, teachers and teacher educators can begin to
realize how female teacher identities are discursively constructed, why
professional discourses and identity formations are inscribed by gendered
and sociocultural inequities, and how these discourses and identity
formations need to be transformed to allow alternative, empowering
discourses to become a part of female educators’ professional knowledge
landscapes (Clandinin & Connolly, 1995).
These results are directly relevant to administrative decisions concern-
ing EFL/ESL teacher education policies and goals, which have histori-
cally depended on (mostly male) theorists’ interpretations of (mostly
female) practitioners’ experiences (Pennycook, 1989). This situation
calls for more than a “just add a feminist perspective and stir” approach;
rather, it requires reconceptualizing from the bottom up how best to
prepare prospective (male and female) teachers to address restrictive or
inequitable societal conditions in their teaching contexts.
Along with the implications for teacher education, the stories in this
study reflect the need for TESOL professionals to better understand how
ideologies of marginalization and discrimination work and how to
confront them using professional practices. The stories both include and
go beyond gender issues by examining the complex interaction of
hegemonic ideologies, identity constructions, and ways of being in the
world. For example, Diana and Mariah have struggled, with varying levels
of success, against White native speakerism and ethnocentric protection-
ism in Japan. Se-ri has managed, after considerable perseverance in the
face of ethnic discrimination, to use her prestigious position as a college
professor to fight back on both an individual and institutional level.
Having experienced marginalization in their professional and personal
lives because of their skin color and racial or ethnic origins, these
educators have challenged the system in their own unique ways. Diana
and Mariah encourage students to expand their self-images beyond the
confines of conservative cultural values and practices. Se-ri has extended
her personal battle against discrimination in the EFL workplace by
speaking out in both local and international professional forums on
behalf of outsiders in the Japanese higher education system.
The situations of White educators reveal a more subtle and complex
interaction of ideological forces and teacher identities. For a variety of
reasons, White native speakerism is valued by educational institutions;
however, many educators who fit the preferred, stereotypical young,
White, blue-eyed, 100% American category are often prevented from
participating fully in Japanese academic and social spheres. This convo-
430 TESOL QUARTERLY

luted inclusion-exclusion mechanism has resulted in EFL employment
policies that reproduce ethnocentric attitudes and sustain a myopic
vision of intercultural dialogue that seeks to maintain rather than cross
boundaries. Reacting to this stifling condition, the participants in this
study have attempted to change the ideological status quo by exposing
their students to alternative perspectives on global and social concerns.
Julia has taken a proactive stance against racist hiring practices by
recruiting non-White, nonnative EFL teachers. In so doing, she has
elevated the status of educators in disadvantaged positions in Japan and
has provided Japanese students with nonnative-English-speaking models
who more accurately represent English language use throughout the
world. Janet’s cultural studies program aims to show how a homoge-
neous version of “we Japanese” leaves little room for students to explore
the multiple layers of their own unique identities. Norah has combined
AIDS education and EFL instruction in her classroom to show students
that English language learning is useful for more than going abroad to
buy a pair of designer shoes. In Japan, individuals with HIV or AIDS and
people who identify as gay or lesbian are highly stigmatized groups
whose only chance for legitimate recognition and understanding lie in
socially aware educational policies aimed at replacing curricula that
overemphasize decontextualized subject matter with curricula more
attuned to the concerns of society’s marginalized members. By discussing
these issues, foreign and indigenous educators together can contest
oppressive ideologies in their own lives and in the lives of students, as the
female educators in this study are attempting to do through their EFL
teaching goals and philosophies.
This study contributes to a small but growing body of TESOL research
projects that use narrative inquiry to “present experience holistically in
all its complexity and richness” (Bell, 2002, p. 209). The dialogically
constructed nature of a life history narrative moves it far beyond the
realm of narcissistic navel-gazing to a theoretically informed approach
that allows the researcher to “better understand how the stories are
being told, why they are being told in a particular way, and whose stories
remain untold—or, for that matter, not heard—for a variety of reasons”
(Pavlenko, 2002, p. 217). Closely examining teachers’ stories enables
TESOL professionals to uncover the field’s political and ideological
underpinnings and rework them toward more progressive ends, as
Lawrence-Lightfoot (1994) explained in her plenary address:
We will only begin to recognize the limitations and distortions of narrowly

constructed analyses and policies when we begin to accumulate rich and
various stories, and when because of their increasing number and power they
begin to shape a new public discourse.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I sincerely thank my participants for allowing me a window into their complex lives.
I also thank the special issue editors, Kathryn Davis in particular, and two anonymous
reviewers for their insightful comments. Christine Pearson Casanave and Stephanie
Vandrick provided encouragement on early versions of this article. Conversations
with Dwight Atkinson about postmodernism and narrative inquiry helped me design
the study’s conceptual framework.
THE AUTHOR
Andrea Simon-Maeda is an associate professor in the Communication Studies
Department at Nagoya Keizai University ( Junior College Division) in Japan. She is a
White, middle-aged American who has been teaching college-level EFL in Japan for
the past 29 years and a fluent Japanese speaker married to a Japanese. She recently
completed a doctoral program in Japan, and her research interests include critical
ethnography in educational contexts and postmodern feminism.
REFERENCES
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt
Lute.
Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson and
Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Belcher, D., & Connor, U. (2001). Reflections on multiliterate lives. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Bell, J. S. (2002). Narrative inquiry: More than just telling stories. TESOL Quarterly,
36, 207–212.
Bhabha, H. K. (1985). Signs taken for wonders: Questions of ambivalence and
authority under a tree outside Delhi, May 1817. In H. L. Gates, Jr. (Ed.), “Race,”
writing and difference (pp. 163–184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Britzman, D. (2000). “The question of belief”: Writing poststructural ethnography.
In E. St. Pierre & W. Pillow (Eds.), Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory
and methods in education (pp. 27–40). New York: Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). From critical research practice to critical research
reporting. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 321–331.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Casanave, C. P., & Schecter, S. (Eds.). (1997). On becoming a language educator:
Personal essays on professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chase, S. (1995). Ambiguous empowerment: The work narratives of women school superinten-
dents. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge
landscapes: Secret, sacred, and cover stories. In F. M. Connelly & D. J. Clandinin
(Eds.), Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes (pp. 1–15). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1987). On narrative method, biography and
432 TESOL QUARTERLY

narrative unities in the study of teaching. Journal of Educational Thought, 21, 130–
139.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Davies, B. (1993). Shards of glass: Children reading and writing beyond gendered identities.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities
and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 451–486.
Edge, J. (1996). Cross-cultural paradoxes in a profession of values. TESOL Quarterly,
30, 9–30.
5.4% jobless rate for 2002 is highest in a half-century. (2003, February 2). The Asahi
Shimbun, p. 19.
Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected
interviews and other writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what
teachers know. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language
classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp. 88–115). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of
language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397–418.
Fujimura-Fanselow, K., & Kameda, A. (Eds.). (1995). Japanese women: New feminist
perspectives on the past, present, and future. New York: Feminist Press at The City
University of New York.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gluck, P., & Patai, D. (Eds.). (1991). Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history.
New York: Routledge.
Haig, E. (1999). Do foreign EFL teachers at Japanese universities have careers?
Unpublished master’s thesis, Aston University, Birmingham, England.
Hall, J. K., & Eggington, W. (2000). The sociopolitics of English language teaching.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Haraway, D. (1997). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist
feminism in the 1980s. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism (pp. 190–
233). New York: Routledge.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English
language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35–68.
Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York:
Routledge.
Japan Almanac. (2001). Asahi shimbun Japan almanac 2001. Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun.
Johnson, K., & Golombek, P. (Eds.). (2002). Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional
development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, B. (1997). Do EFL teachers have careers? TESOL Quarterly, 31, 681–712.
Johnston, B. (2003). Values in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kachru, B. B. (1989). Teaching world Englishes. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
15, 85–95.
Kanno, Y. (2000). Bilingualism and identity: The stories of Japanese returnees.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3, 1–18.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern.
London: Routledge.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1994, March). Plenary address at the 28th Annual TESOL
Convention, Baltimore, Maryland.

Liddle, J., & Nakajima, S. (2000). Rising suns, rising daughters: Gender, class, and power
in Japan. London: Zed Books.
Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J. (Eds.). (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Luke, C., & Gore, J. (1992). Women in the academy: Strategy, struggle, survival. In
C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 192–210). New York:
Routledge.
McKay, S. (1992). Teaching English overseas: An introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
McMahill, C. (1998). A look at Women in Education and Language Learning
(WELL). The Language Teacher, 22, 40–43.
McVeigh, B. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Monbusho (Ministry of Education). (2000). School basic survey. Tokyo: Author.
Nihon Dykenet. (2002, May 1). “How out or closeted are you at Japanese work-
places?” Message posted to nihon-dykenet@ml.gl.gol.com
NVivo. (2002). QSR International Pty. Melbourne, Australia.
Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Olesen, V. (2000). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edition (pp.
215–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pavlenko, A. (1998). Second language learning by adults: Testimonies of bilingual
writers. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 9, 3–19.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Narrative study: Whose story is it, anyway? TESOL Quarterly, 36,
213–218.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the
politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589–618.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language.
London: Longman.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
33, 329–348.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Skrla, L. (2000). Mourning silence: Women superintendents (and a researcher)
rethink speaking up and speaking out. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 13, 611–628.
Smulyan, L. (2000). Feminist cases of nonfeminist subjects: Case studies of women
principals. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13, 589–611.
Summerhawk, B., McMahill, C., & McDonald, D. (Eds. & Trans.). (1998). Queer
Japan: Personal stories of Japanese lesbians, gays, transsexuals, and bisexuals. Norwich,
VT: New Victoria.
Tamboukou, M. (2000). The paradox of being a woman teacher. Gender and
Education, 12, 463–478.
Vandrick, S. (2001). Teachers’ cultures, teachers’ stories. Journal of Engaged Pedagogy,
1, 19–39.
Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change: Gender, class, and power. Westport, CT:
Bergin & Garvey.
434 TESOL QUARTERLY

Appendix A
Participant Profiles
Celine
Celine is 30 years old, White, and has worked her way up the EFL teaching hierarchy—private
English conversation school, high school, part-time college instructor. Presently teaching full-
time college EFL, both Celine and her husband, also an EFL instructor, are from the United
States. Celine has developed various reading and writing strategies in her academic and
personal life to compensate for her visual disability and feels that this has made her more aware
of students’ different learning styles.
Diana
Diana is a 40-year-old Black South African who, in addition to her part-time college EFL job,
works part-time as a singer in a hotel. Married to a Japanese businessman, Diana previously
worked at the local United Nations development office and taught high school English. Having
lived in Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, Diana has a very
cosmopolitan view of life and has decided to send her son to an international school in Japan
to avoid what she perceives to be a stifling Japanese educational system.
Janet
Janet is a single, White, 50-year-old British woman whose mother’s family lived in colonial India
from 1800 to 1947. Janet was brought up partly in various ex-colonies and then educated at U.K.
and U.S. institutions. She has taught EFL in Japanese universities for 25 years and has led
teacher training workshops in Japan, the United States, and Thailand. Because of her age, Janet
is worried about finding an equivalent job when her current contract expires. To encourage
students to reflect on their own culture and identities, she incorporates cultural studies material
in her EFL classes.
Julia
Julia, a 48-year-old expatriate White American, is married to an unemployed Japanese man, and
they have one child. Having lived in Japan for 29 years and having received her undergraduate
degree from a Japanese university, her Japanese fluency is highly valued by her employer
because it enables her to help out with administrative duties. However, Julia feels that the
school has placed more emphasis on her being, as she described, “100% American.”
Mariah
Mariah and her husband are both Filipino, and they came to Japan with their two children 5
years ago because of her husband’s research. An active nongovernmental organization worker
while in the Philippines, Mariah, 33, is now a part-time college teacher. Although hoping to find
a full-time EFL teaching job, she is unsure of her prospects because Filipinas have such a
negative image in Japan and because she is a nonnative-English speaker. She and her family
have decided to return to the Philippines in the near future.
Mariko
Mariko, a Japanese woman from a lower socioeconomic background, is both a full-time EFL
college teacher and teacher-educator married to an American. At 45 years old, Mariko is a full
professor, but she maintains that the sexual harassment in her department has constrained her
professional life. She earned a doctorate to realign the power asymmetries that she sees between
the male and female teaching staff in her department.
Nicole and the Composite Participant

A 28-year old White lesbian educator working at a well-known university, Nicole chose to
withdraw from the research so as not to jeopardize her chances for future employment. From

the information Nicole gave me during our interview and from several messages received on the
Nihon Dykenet from lesbian EFL educators, it is clear that Japan’s homophobic atmosphere
forces these women to guard their sexual identities while teaching and job hunting.
Norah
Norah is White, American, 35 years old, single, and an AIDS activist and educator who includes
a social issues component in her college EFL curriculum. Having recently received her master’s
degree through a long-distance course, Norah would like to earn a doctorate to secure her
college teaching position. However, because she is on a nonrenewable, 2-year contract at her
college and supporting her mother who lives in the United States, Norah feels that pursuing
another costly degree is not financially possible at this point.
Se-ri
Se-ri is a second-generation, 48-year-old Korean married to an Iranian. She received a master’s
degree and a doctorate in education from U.S. institutions and is active in TESOL’s Nonnative
English Speakers Caucus. She openly criticizes the Japanese’s racist treatment of Koreans living
in Japan after World War II and the discriminatory practices that continue today in Japanese
society. She feels that her own experiences have made her more aware of the unfair treatment
of foreigners living and working in Japan.
436 TESOL QUARTERLY

“I’m Tired. You Clean and Cook.”
Shifting Gender Identities and
Second Language Socialization
DARYL GORDON
Temple University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Drawing on a multisite ethnographic study that spans educational,

domestic, and workplace contexts in the United States and Laos, this
article investigates the interplay between gender identity shifts and
second language socialization, documenting the process by which
working-class Lao women and men redefine gender identities in the
United States. Lao women in the United States experience increased
opportunities for enacting their gender identities through expanded
leadership roles and wage labor, but Lao men experience a narrowing
of opportunities because they have lost access to traditional sources of
power. Language learning both influences and is influenced by these
changing identities. The author considers the impact of gender identity
shifts on access to second language resources, with particular focus on
workplace and domestic language events as venues for second language
socialization, and discusses implications for ethnographic research on
gendered second language socialization. This study highlights the need
for ESL practitioners to investigate and address the complexity of the
everyday language events in which adult ESL learners are engaged and
raises questions regarding how adult ESL classrooms can become
spaces for discussing, interpreting, and responding to gendered lives in
a new land and a new language.
S hifts in gendered cultural practices within the Lao-American commu-

nity were a familiar topic in the ESL class I taught at the Lao
Assistance Center. In a discussion about the gendered division of
household tasks, a female student remarked that in the United States,
when a Lao wife returns from a long day at the factory, she might tell her
husband, “I’m tired. You clean and cook.” She perceived this comment
as customary in the United States but unthinkable within a Lao cultural
context. The tone of this conversation was light and humorous, with
laughter from both male and female students. The deeply divisive nature

of these changes in gendered cultural practice would become apparent
to me later, however, when a male student described how he experienced
them. His wife now went out at night and had begun openly dating an
American-born coworker. Although she told him that she was only
following the “American way,” he mourned the loss of the relationship
that he and his wife had in Laos, and he was frustrated and bewildered
about the conduct of Lao women in the United States. He told me, “She
says she’s independent. She’s American now. She can do what she wants.
I say I don’t like that.”
Sociological research on migration and gender (Foner, 1998, 1999;
Haddad & Lam, 1994; Zhou & Nordquist, 1994) has documented
similarly dramatic gender identity shifts within many immigrant and
refugee communities. Pessar’s (1984) research with Dominican women
in the United States illustrates that the shift to wage labor has resulted in
women’s greater autonomy and equality within the household (p. 44).
Kibria’s (1990) study demonstrates the effects of migration on gender
identity and power in Vietnamese-American communities, revealing how
the relative economic resources of men and women have shifted in the
family. Because women in these communities earn money through wage
labor and men’s jobs are less stable and lower paid in the United States
than they were in Vietnam, men cannot support the family with their
wages alone, as they had in Vietnam. Ui (1991) calls attention to the
Cambodian men’s loss of traditional gender roles in the United States,
demonstrating that although many tasks traditionally performed by
women, such as housework and childcare, have endured in a new setting,
Cambodian men have lost many of the traditional status markers. In the
United States, they own no land, experience high rates of unemploy-
ment, and have no traditional leadership office to aspire to.
Though one might expect such changes in gender identity to pro-
foundly affect women’s access to second language resources, research in
TESOL and sociolinguistics has paid little attention to this connection.
In fact, many studies have underscored the limitations that women
encounter when accessing second language resources, and they have
neglected the sociocultural changes that could expand immigrant
women’s opportunities for second language socialization. Rockhill (1993)
offers a case in point. In that study, she documents how acquiring
English literacy becomes “caught up in the power dynamic between men
and women” (p. 156) and threatens gendered cultural practices in a
Latino immigrant community. Rockhill shows that when women attempt
to enter literacy classes, men respond with violence, and she explores
how Latina’s “confinement to the domestic sphere” (p. 166) limits their
opportunities to learn English. Although Rockhill calls attention to the
social context of acquiring literacy in English and highlights the chal-
lenges faced by immigrant women, the Latinas in her study seem to
438 TESOL QUARTERLY

experience none of the emancipation discussed in other accounts of
immigrant women. Tran and Nguyen (1994) conducted similar research
within the Southeast Asian refugee community, and they echo Rockhill’s
finding that women often have few opportunities to learn English. They
show that women are less invested in acquiring English because their
work is centered in the home, while men consider English necessary for
their primary role as economic providers.
Though they carefully document the social context of immigrant
women’s second language literacy, Rockhill (1993) and Tran and Nguyen
(1994) neglect the dramatic changes in gender identity that the socio-
logical research highlights. Additionally, these studies portray immigrant
women inaccurately as oppressed and confined to the domestic sphere.
This notion that immigrant women are oppressed became apparent to
me when I mentioned my research topic to ESL teachers, who re-
sponded with stories of controlling husbands or boyfriends forcefully
preventing women from studying English. Male violence and control do
sometimes limit women’s access to educational and linguistic resources,
and such distressing cases deserve both activist and scholarly attention.
TESOL professionals should not assume, however, that these cases
reflect the experience of all women hoping to acquire English. Such an
assumption erases immigrant women’s agency by failing to acknowledge
their role in changing, modifying, and choosing to accept traditional
gender identities in different contexts and by ignoring simultaneous
shifts experienced by immigrant men (Bhachu, 1993). Husbands often
undergo dramatic identity shifts as their wives enter the wage labor force
or receive welfare benefits that change the balance of power in the
family. In addition to erasing immigrant women’s agency, the ESL
teachers’ assumptions promote the inaccurate belief that immigrant
women need English language skills only for domestic settings.
The study reported here investigated the interplay between gender
identity shifts and second language socialization, showing how Lao
women and men redefine and restructure gender identities in the
United States and how language learning both influences and is influ-
enced by these changing identities. Watson-Gegeo (1988) suggests that
ethnographic work in ESL has redefined language learning as language
socialization rather than language acquisition. This perspective implies
that language is learned through social interaction and refocuses the
researcher’s attention not only on how discrete language skills are
acquired, but also on how the larger framework of identity and context
enables or limits access to second language resources.
My analytical framework is founded on poststructuralist theory, which
conceptualizes identity as multiply constructed, contradictory, and fluid
and posits a mutually constitutive relationship between language and
identity (Hall, 1996). This theoretical frame acknowledges that gender is
GENDER IDENTITIES AND SECOND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION 439

constructed along with other identity categories such as class, race, and
linguistic and cultural background (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992). I
therefore employ the term gender identity rather than the more static
gender role because it conveys the dynamic potential for identity to shift
according to context (Davies & Harre, 1990). This ethnographic study of
gender identity demonstrates that some Lao women have gained greater
economic independence and decision-making power within the family
through their access to wage labor and their knowledge of American
cultural attitudes, laws, and public benefits that allow them to leave
abusive or unsatisfactory marriages. English language gives these women
access to information about American culture and available resources.
METHODOLOGY
I entered the Lao community in 1994, when I conducted a family-

school discussion group in Philadelphia’s Southeast Asian community.
Pha,1 one of the two Lao women profiled in this article, participated in
that discussion group. After I assisted Pha with an English language task,
she invited me to her home and over baskets of steaming kau niau (sticky
rice) and tam mak hung (green papaya salad), she told me stories about
her homeland and her dreams and disappointments in the United
States. Pha also introduced me to other Lao families, which made me a
more familiar presence in the Lao-American community. My own female
gender identity also became a salient issue: Because Lao culture frowns
on unrelated men and women socializing together, my initial contacts
through Pha were Lao women. When I later taught classes at the Lao
Temple and a Lao cultural organization, my new identity as a teacher
made it more acceptable for me to approach Lao men and talk with
them about their experiences in the United States.
Formal data collection took place between 1997 and 2000 in an urban,
working-class, Lao-American community and in Laos. Ethnographic data
collection took place in five distinct phases. During the first phase
(November 1997–May 1998), I observed and interviewed participants at
the Lao Temple, a religious and cultural center in the Lao-American
community. During the second phase ( June 1998–August 1998), I
intensively studied Lao language and literacy at the Southeast Asian
Summer Studies Institute. Phase 3 (September 1998–May 1999) involved
practitioner research in an ESL/citizenship class for Lao adults. Midway
through this course, I selected five principal participants. Identifying the
1
Names of persons and organizations are pseudonyms. All quoted material is used with
permission of research participants.
440 TESOL QUARTERLY

principal participants began Phase 4 (December 1998–September 1999),
during which I conducted focused participant observations and inter-
views in the participants’ homes, workplaces, and religious institutions.
Over the next year, the fifth phase (October 1999–October 2000), I
conducted research in Laos, which allowed me to visit the families of two
of the principal participants and to learn more about the cultural
differences between Laos and the United States. I conducted audiotaped
interviews with research participants in English or with the assistance of
a bilingual Lao-English translator, which I translated and transcribed
myself.
These data collection methods provided a broad and wide-ranging
data corpus that enabled me to triangulate data sources. The data corpus
contained 35 interview transcripts (15 from the initial interviews with
Lao community members and 20 interviews with principal participants);
field notes from participant observation in the Lao Temple, the ESL/
citizenship class, research in Laos, and in the principal participants’
homes, workplaces, and gathering places; documents from the ESL/
citizenship class, including class lists, lesson plans, student information
sheets, student writings, needs assessments, student progress notes, and
language use sheets; documents from the research sites, including
Temple newsletters and mailings, pamphlets and memos from the
Indochinese Assistance Association and the Lao Assistance Center, and
letters received by principal participants from the welfare office, utility
companies, children’s schools, and other institutions.
I began the data analysis by searching the data corpus to identify
emergent themes and generate empirical assertions and analytical
categories (Erickson, 1986). Data were manually coded using colored
labels. A written record was kept for each analytic category noting the
dates of field notes or interview transcripts along with a brief description
or comment on the event.
BACKGROUND ON LAO MIGRATION
Lao refugees were among the nearly one million Southeast Asians
from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos who sought refuge in the United
States after the Vietnam War ended in 1975. Because of its strategic
border with Vietnam, Laos was bombed relentlessly by the United States
between 1964 and 1973. The United States dropped a staggering
2,092,900 tons of bombs on Laos during this period, approximately two-
thirds of a ton for every, man, woman, and child in Laos (Tollefson, 1989,
p. 25). Bombing effectively destroyed village life in Laos. The people fled
their villages and the farms that had provided their livelihoods to seek
refuge in caves or the jungle (Evans, 1998; Stuart-Fox, 1997; Takaki

1989). During this period, approximately 25% of the population became
refugees within Laos (Savada, 1994).
When the Pathet Lao took power after the war, many Laotians left the
country. By the end of the refugee exodus in the 1990s, approximately
305,000 Laotians, more than 10% of the population, had emigrated
(Guttal, 1993, p. 3). The refugee exodus has three main waves. The first
and second waves comprised highly educated elites from urban areas
who had often worked closely with the U.S. military. Third-wave refugees,
the focus of this study, were the largest group. These individuals came
from rural areas; they had little money and almost no formal education
(Kelly, 1986). Though all refugees experienced the trauma of leaving
their homeland, third-wave refugees experienced the greatest hardships
because they were the least familiar with Western culture, and their lives
as subsistence farmers did not prepare them to live in the urban areas
where they relocated. Third-wave immigrants to the United States
comprised several ethnic groups, including the Hmong, from the
highlands, and the Lowland Lao, the largest population in Laos. This
study focuses on the Lowland Lao, whom I refer to as Lao.
Third-wave refugees spent many years in Thai refugee camps before
entering the United States. The participants in this study spent between
2 and 5 years in refugee camps. Although both men’s and women’s
normal lives were disrupted in the refugee camps, men’s roles shifted
most dramatically. Women’s traditional domestic labor continued in the
camps because children needed care, food needed cooking, and clothes
needed washing. Lao men, however, who had been subsistence farmers
or soldiers, lacked any access to the traditional gender identities that had
provided the framework for their lives (Hitchcox, 1993).
When they entered the United States, Lao refugees attempted to
adjust to an urban landscape that differed radically from the rural
villages and rice farms in Laos. To complicate matters, Lao refugees
entering Philadelphia encountered a grim labor market. During the
1970s, Philadelphia had lost 11.9% of its jobs. The manufacturing sector
was hit hardest, losing 75% of jobs between 1955 and 1975. Like many
northeastern cities, Philadelphia lost most of its industry after World
War II, and with the loss of industry went stable, unionized jobs. Lao
refugees entering the city in the 1980s found employment mainly in
metalworking, woodworking, and garment production, nonunion jobs
that pay piecework rates and provide no worker benefits (Goode, 1994).
The tenuous nature of employment for most Lao refugees is reflected
by their income levels. The median income for Lao households in 1990
was $19,671, well below both the national average and the average for
immigrant groups. At that time, more than 40% of Lao households fell
below the poverty line, and 44% of Lao households received public
assistance (Portes & Rumbaut, 1990).
442 TESOL QUARTERLY

PARTICIPANTS
This article focuses on two principal participants, Pha and Viseth.

When Pha entered the United States in 1986, she was 20 years old with a
husband and three young children. Pha had received 6 years of formal
education in her northern Lao village. During the course of this
research, Pha received public assistance. Viseth was 21 when she entered
the United States in 1982 and had received 2 years of formal education
in Laos. She married a Lao man during her first year in the United States
and later had two children. Viseth worked full-time at Empire Foam, a
factory that is profiled later in this article.
Both women were vibrant and active participants in the ESL class that
I taught at the Lao Assistance Center. Pha, who had greater English
proficiency than her husband, took responsibility for English interac-
tions on behalf of their household. Though Pha did not work outside the
home, her interactions with social institutions, related to care for her
children and the household, provided her with many opportunities to
acquire natural English. Viseth could speak and understand very little
English, and we communicated mostly in Lao. Her husband took
responsibility for tasks requiring English use because he was more
proficient. Although Viseth worked full-time, she worked alongside
other Lao immigrants and had few opportunities to acquire English.
Several researchers (e.g., Goldstein, 2001; Holmes, 1993; & Rockhill,
1993) have examined the workplace as a venue for acquiring English
naturalistically and have found that participating in the workforce
affords immigrant men more opportunities to acquire English than it
does immigrant women. In the working-class Lao-American community
that I studied, however, neither men nor women reported a significant
need for English in their agricultural and nonunion factory jobs, where
their coworkers are primarily other Southeast Asian refugees. Domestic
tasks related to household maintenance and childrearing, tasks more
frequently performed by women, often required more contact with
native-English speakers and greater proficiency in spoken and written
English. To discover the gendered opportunities for language socializa-
tion, I interviewed Lao women and men in Philadelphia and found that
they experienced radically shifting gender identities when they arrived in
the United States. I also observed how they used language in the
workplace and in the home. These data show that gendered opportuni-
ties for language socialization in this working-class Lao community differ
in fundamental ways from such opportunities in other immigrant
groups, demonstrating the importance of closely examining second
language use in specific communities of practice.

SHIFTING GENDER IDENTITIES IN MIGRATION
Both men and women in this urban Lao community agreed that
gender identities have shifted dramatically. As Lao women have acquired
English and access to wage work, they have gained greater economic
independence and authority in the family. However, although women
perceived their access to American gendered cultural practices as
enabling them to enact less restrictive gender identities, Lao men
experienced these same changes as a loss of authority. Lao women’s
growing English proficiency further erodes male authority because it
facilitates women’s interactions outside of the Lao community.
In the following interview excerpt, Pha talks about how material and
cultural resources in the United States make Lao women “stronger”:
D: How do women change so much [in the United States]? It doesn’t

make sense to me.
Pha: Um, because in here, is have police, have friends, have, uh, communi-
ties, help them about make the, make the woman stronger.
D: Huh, that’s interesting.
Pha: But in Laos, nothing to help them about make them stronger. Only
tell her, patient and patient, you is a woman, you is a mother. You have
to patient. You cannot do anything except patient. But in here . . .
husband work, don’t give me money, I can work, too. The companies
want me to work, too, right?
(Interview 4/21/95)2
Here Pha clarifies how access to material resources affects women’s lives
and their ability to refuse the positioning of traditional gender identities.
She mentions the importance of police, referring to her previous
comment that Lao women learn that they can call the police if they are
being beaten by their husbands or boyfriends, a resource not available to
women in Laos. She also stresses the importance of friends, communi-
ties, and paid work that support women and “make them stronger,”
enabling them to make new choices about how they realize their
identities as women in the United States.
Pha also describes how Lao women have actively changed Lao
gendered cultural practices in the United States using their awareness of
American law and their ability to leave a husband and support them-
selves. In the following quotation, she describes that although Lao men
in the United States wanted to continue the Lao practice of polygamy, or
taking a “second wife,” Lao women introduced changes:
2
Interviews were conducted in English. When an interviewee experienced difficulty explain-
ing a concept in English, I occasionally translated into Lao for clarification or sought the aid of
a translator, often an interviewee’s friend or family member.
444 TESOL QUARTERLY

Pha: In heres, um, Laos, Laos people, is uh, man, right? Man is, uh, they
want to do the same thing, but the woman who’s live here long, about
2, 3 years, they know about Americans’ law. And if husbands go out,
have girlfriend or have second wife, something like that, and the wife’s
at home, they know about husband do like that. They impatient, they
go out, too. They have boyfriend, too. If husband say get divorced,
they don’t care. They get divorced.
(Interview 4/21/95)
Lao women in the United States resist the traditional practice of

polygamy not only through their awareness of American laws, but also
through U.S. culture’s less restrictive gender identities. Pha suggests that
women might resist polygamy by having an extramarital affair or getting
a divorce, options not easily available to women in Laos because of the
traditional economic and cultural constraints. Although many Lao
women appreciated the expanded gender identities available to them in
the United States, they expressed concern about the increasing divorce
rates within their community.
When Lao men addressed gender shifts in the United States, they also
attributed women’s greater independence to women’s wage labor and
their access to American laws and cultural attitudes, but Lao men
experienced this shift as a loss of authority within their families and
community. In this interview with Nongsay and Sampeth, two Lao men
who attended the Lao Temple, they discuss how Lao families and
especially Lao women change after they have emigrated to the United
States. Nongsay begins by stating his perception of gender identities in
Laos: Women come second to men, and wives should listen to their
husbands. However, as these men explain, and as they themselves have
experienced, Lao women in the United States begin to question these
identities:
Nongsay: Girls gotta be second, man be number one. Whatever man say,
girl gotta do. Girl over there [in Laos] listen, like a wife.
Sampeth: That’s why when they come here, they say, “Why?”
Nongsay: “Why, why, I have to listen to husband?” Whatever husband say,
wife gotta listen and do.
Sampeth: Most of Lao people want their wife to stay home.
Nongsay: Yeah, like wife always raise the kids and cook.
Sampeth: But when they come here, they complain a lot.
Nongsay: They come here, they be like a boss.
Sampeth: Equality, supposed to be like that.
Nongsay: No, they want to be on the top, that’s why.
Sampeth [laughing]: Women want to be top.
Nongsay: Yeah!
(Interview 5/31/98)

As Nongsay and Sampeth discuss the changes that occur as Lao men and
women transition to new identities, they both emphasize men’s ability to
control women’s actions in Laos and women’s acceptance of that control
(“girl over there listen”). Lao women in the United States resist this
control and not only wish to be equal to men, but want “to be top” or to
take the position of control from men.
English represents both the language of the United States and the
medium for accessing U.S. resources and institutions. English is the
language Lao women might use to contact the police about an incident
of domestic violence or to learn about American laws. The role that
English plays in the gender identity shifts experienced in Lao families
and the perception of English use by Lao men and women are important
to explore. Women’s acquisition of English is a complex process because
it can erode men’s sense of their own authority and change gender
identities within the family.
MAKING A LIVING
The workplace and domestic spheres in the United States offer Lao
women opportunities for second language socialization. Lao women’s
transition to wage labor in the United States has rendered their contribu-
tions to the family economy more visible and changed family decision-
making practices. Although women’s labor in Laos was similarly essential
to the family economy, their work planting rice seedlings, hulling rice,
and tending kitchen gardens was traditionally considered part of the
family income. In the United States, however, Lao women receive income
separately from the family in the form of a paycheck or welfare benefit.
Women’s access to wages, either through welfare benefits or wage work,
changes the gender roles within the Lao family, as Pha’s earlier com-
ments demonstrate. She describes how a woman’s access to material
resources influences the degree to which she can assert her influence
within a marriage: Women can leave an abusive marriage and resist the
practice of polygamy because they can support themselves independently.
Though Lao women have traditionally engaged in domestic labor, Lao
women in the United States often negotiate with social institutions on
the family’s behalf, as these data show, and this advocacy represents a
new context for these women. In Laos, especially in the rural areas, men
would negotiate for the family with village and provincial authorities.
Although the workplace has been heralded as a key site for second
language acquisition, these data demonstrate that Lao women negotiat-
ing domestic events must use more complex English more frequently
than they do in the workplace.
Most working-class Lao men and women compete for a fairly small
446 TESOL QUARTERLY

pool of jobs, almost exclusively unskilled labor in warehouses, factories,
and agriculture. The blue-collar jobs available to this study’s participants
did not require workers to speak or write English. Employers structured
the jobs to obviate the need for English language skills, thereby enabling
them to employ low-paid immigrant workers. Employers of Lao refugees
noted in interviews that they valued job traits such as dependability,
regular attendance, punctuality, and ability to perform a repetitive task
with continued attention. Lao men and women often worked alongside
other Southeast Asian refugees and Spanish-speaking immigrants, and a
number of participants reported that they had learned Khmer, Vietnam-
ese, or Spanish on the job to communicate with other workers. Acquiring
these languages clearly indicates that they had limited contact with
native speakers of English and that they did not see learning English as
a useful or acknowledged job skill. For blue-collar Lao workers, English
proficiency was extraneous to their unskilled jobs but lack of it was a
barrier to gaining better-paid employment.
EMPIRE FOAM
Empire Foam, a factory where Viseth, a principal participant in my

research, worked for 4 years, illustrates how superfluous English profi-
ciency was in doing factory work. Empire employs approximately 100
workers; about half are Spanish speakers, from Puerto Rico and the
Dominican Republic, and half are Lao workers, but the workforce also
includes a few immigrant workers from other countries and a few native-
English speakers. The factory has capitalized on the workers’ native
languages by creating separate work environments for Spanish and Lao
speakers. Spanish speakers work on the upper floor, and Lao speakers
work on the lower floor. Each floor has a bilingual supervisor who also
acts as a translator for the office staff, exclusively U.S.-born native-English
speakers, and the factory line workers.
Approximately 70% of the workers are women and 30% are men. Men
usually operate the forklifts and large machines that cut or punch out
sponges, or they do heavy lifting and transporting. Although a few
women workers operate smaller machines, most work separating newly
cut sponges from a large piece of foam and packing them into boxes.
Employees who operate machines are paid a higher wage, and those who
operate larger, more complicated machines received the highest wages;
workers who do heavy labor are also paid more than those who do
packing. Because men generally operate the machines, they are paid
higher wages; women, who almost without exception packed the boxes,
are shunted into lower paying jobs. Factory supervisors clearly conceptu-
alize the jobs as gendered.

In the factory, Spanish-speaking and Lao-speaking employees work on
different floors, an arrangement that actively encourages and supports
native language use. The largest number of workers (exclusively women)
separate individual sponges from the long pieces of foam. They work at
very long tables: Six to eight women stand facing each other across the
table. This physical layout encourages social interaction. When I partici-
pated in one women’s work group, they spoke exclusively in Lao, chatting
about family and events in the neighborhood and at the Lao Temple.
When I interviewed Bill, the floor supervisor, he echoed my own
observations that workers spoke only in their native languages. He
described the English proficiency of Lao workers as “about 10 to 20%
have good English” (this group includes mostly second generation
immigrants), “10 to 20% have okay English, and the rest, [their] English
is pretty poor.” Workers who do not share the same language may
communicate using gestures (e.g., gesturing or pointing to a box) or
limited English vocabulary focused on work needs (e.g., saying the one
word box). Bill also mentioned that a few Lao women had learned some
vocabulary words in Spanish because they frequently interacted with
Spanish speakers. To communicate with a monolingual English-speaking
supervisor, Lao speakers can easily find a bilingual translator. When one
Lao worker needed to communicate with her supervisor but was unable
to express herself in English, her son, who also worked at Empire,
translated her message.
From the employer’s perspective, the work did not require English
language proficiency. Although supervisors may have criticized workers
for their lack of English proficiency, management did not see it as an
important issue. Management seemed to conceptualize language diver-
sity as a problem to be solved and once they found the right organization
(e.g., native-speaking work groups), they did not consider it an impedi-
ment to work.
Work at this factory also required minimal English literacy skills. For
the groups of women filling boxes, one woman in each six to eight
person crew must count the sponges, record the number on the box, and
write her initials. Because only one woman within a crew is responsible
for this task, a woman who cannot perform it can easily avoid it. Though
workers do not need English literacy to work in the factory, they do need
it to access information on safety or workers’ rights information. Safety
signs in Spanish and English were posted throughout the factory, but
there were no signs in Lao. Workers’ rights information in Spanish and
English was posted on a bulletin board, but it was not translated for Lao
workers. English is perhaps most useful for advocating for oneself in the
factory. Viseth told me that she used her English skills to request a lifting
belt, a wide leather belt that supports the back when doing heavy lifting,
448 TESOL QUARTERLY

when she began having back pain from lifting large pieces of foam. She
communicated her request to her employer, who issued her a lifting belt.
Empire Foam comprises a number of separate worlds: one for native-
English-speaking workers in the office, one for bilingual or monolingual
immigrants, one for Puerto Ricans, and one for Lao; one for women and
one for men. Neither male nor female immigrant workers at Empire had
access to naturalistic English acquisition, and they had few opportunities
for advancement or promotion. Female workers were particularly disad-
vantaged because they earned the lowest salaries.
Holmes (1993), Rockhill (1987; 1993), and other researchers have
indicated that immigrant men have more opportunities to acquire a
second language through their everyday interactions in the workplace,
while immigrant women have fewer opportunities because they more
often work in the home. Goldstein (1995, 2001) demonstrated that
Portuguese men entering Canada with some proficiency in English more
easily obtained relatively high-paying jobs working with other English
speakers, which helped them to acquire English naturally. Portuguese
women had fewer opportunities to acquire English naturally because
they worked primarily with other monolingual Portuguese speakers. For
members of the working-class Lao community employed at Empire
Foam, however, access to English language socialization in the workplace
was limited for both female and male workers. Instead, domestic language
events, defined as interactions with social institutions connected to care
for children and the home, emerged as the most frequent opportunity
for second language socialization.
DOMESTIC LANGUAGE EVENTS
Pha took responsibility for English domestic language events on

behalf of her family, including interacting with school personnel, dealing
with bills, and negotiating with the English-speaking landlord. Because
Pha did not work outside the home and took responsibility for childcare,
she had more opportunities to speak English than her husband, who
worked full-time at a clam processing plant with other Southeast Asian
refugees.
Throughout the years that I knew Pha, she most frequently used
English in interactions involving her sons’ welfare. I accompanied her to
a number of her son’s court hearings and visits to her son at the youth
detention center, where he was placed after having been convicted of a
crime. Pha’s interactions in these situations required her to understand
many different varieties and registers of English. For example, going to
court required her to talk with a lawyer, to understand the intricacies of

her son’s case, to understand questions from the judge about the boy’s
character and attendance at school, and to understand the frequent
court delays in his case. Communicating with the guards and visitors at
the youth detention center, most of whom were African American and
many of whom spoke African-American Vernacular English, required
Pha to understand a very different register.
Pha and the other women were also more willing than men to ask a
native-English speaker for help, another important factor that contrib-
uted to women’s greater access to acquiring natural language. During
this study, Pha asked me to help her complete a task that was beyond her
level of English proficiency. Asking for help can threaten face, so for a
Lao woman to request help may be more culturally appropriate than for
a Lao man. Günthner’s (1992) study of Chinese students’ German
acquisition substantiates this notion. Her study demonstrated that women
were far more likely than men to ask native speakers for help on a
language task; to save face, the men attempted to cope with these
language problems themselves. For a Lao man to ask for help with
language in a domestic matter would suggest that he cannot handle
family affairs independently. Moreover, those most readily available to
help him, such as ESL teachers or social workers, would likely be women
and that would only increase the request’s threat to face, making him
even less likely to ask for assistance.
Two domestic language events demonstrated Pha’s responsibility for
English language interactions on behalf of her family. The first is selling
the family car, which required Pha to receive phone calls and negotiate
with native-English speakers. When Pha’s husband decided to sell his car
and posted an ad in the paper, Pha, who knows little about cars and
cannot drive, assumed the responsibility for receiving the many phone
calls in response to the ad because she was home during the day while
her husband worked. To prepare for these calls, she studied the
vocabulary about cars that she might use by looking up the words in a
picture dictionary.
Although Pha had studied the vocabulary, she had difficulty with the
idioms and phrases necessary to communicate effectively and sell the car.
After class one evening, she asked me whether she could use the phrase,
“What do you bid?,” which I had used in class the previous week, to begin
negotiating the price with a potential buyer. When I explained that this
phrase would imply that the car did not have a set price, she asked for a
list of common phrases used in negotiation. As we made a list including,
“What are you asking for the car?” “The price is negotiable.” “The price
is not firm.” “I’m willing to take a little off the price,” I realized the
difficulty of this exchange and the extent to which it challenged her
English ability. Pha had taken on this task not because of her English
proficiency but because she did not work outside the home and was at
450 TESOL QUARTERLY

home during the day caring for her child. Although she might have
preferred that her son or husband handle these calls, their work
obligations precluded them from doing so. Hence, Pha’s presence at
home did not limit her second language socialization but in fact
increased it because she was the only person available during the day to
perform English communication tasks.
The second incident involved her efforts to retain the family apart-
ment after the landlord declared bankruptcy. In October 1998 Pha told
me that she had received a notice from her landlord’s lawyer that she did
not fully understand. The letter notified her that her landlord had
declared bankruptcy. Because the family had a month-to-month lease,
the landlord’s bankruptcy meant that they might have to move out with
only a month’s notice. Pha was worried about having to move because
the rent was very inexpensive and her husband had done many repairs to
improve the apartment. She had talked with the other tenants in her
building, all Cambodian and Lao families, who indicated that they were
planning to vacate their apartments immediately. Anticipating the need
to move quickly, Pha had spent many days searching for another
apartment but found them all too expensive. She asked me to contact
the landlord’s lawyer to inquire whether she and the other tenants could
stay in the apartment. The following excerpt from my field notes
describes the information I gathered in these calls:
I called the lawyer and Community Legal Services to inquire about her rights
in this situation. Then I called to tell Pha of my conversation with Community
Legal Services and to tell her that I had found out that she may not need to
move at all and if she does, she could petition the court for more time. I
talked with the landlord’s lawyer and found that a trustee had been appointed
and he would soon be making an inspection of the house in order to assess
the property’s value. After this assessment, he would decide a course of
action: keep with present landlord, sell it, or abandon the property. When I
told him that I was calling on behalf of a Lao family who didn’t speak English
well, he said he understood that was true of all families in house and that
perhaps if they spoke more English, they could have negotiated a longer lease
which would have provided them with more protection in this situation.
(Gordon, field notes, 10/27/98)
When I called Pha to tell her about these developments, our conversa-
tion demonstrated the complexity of the language necessary to convey
this information. The situation required an understanding of complex
sentences, hypotheticals, and specific vocabulary. For example, Pha had
difficulty understanding such complex sentences as “The person at
Community Legal Services said you may not have to move, and if you do,
you could petition the court to stay longer.” and “The lawyer told me that
the trustee will inspect the property and decide whether the landlord will

keep it, the trustee will keep it, or it will be abandoned.” The lawyer’s
comment that the families might have been able to negotiate a longer
lease had they been able to speak English, though perhaps accurate,
ignores the complex demands of this language situation, the time and
effort necessary for successful second language acquisition, and the fact
that a lease is an unfamiliar notion in rural Lao culture. This incident
demonstrates Pha’s responsibility for dealing with this English language
task as a result of her greater English proficiency, her having the time to
devote to this task, and her willingness to ask for help from a native-
English speaker. This situation also indicates how the family’s well-being
depends on at least one family member’s ability to communicate in
English or to obtain help from someone who can.
The incidents involving selling the car and dealing with the bankrupt
landlord demonstrate that some domestic tasks require English use and
that these tasks increased Pha’s opportunity for second language social-
ization. These data contradict researchers’ assertions that women’s
presence in the home limits their ability to acquire English (Goldstein,
2001; Holmes, 1993; Rockhill, 1993). Pha’s responsibility for tasks related
to the domestic sphere required her to use much more complex English
than Viseth’s interactions did at Empire Foam. Though increased
opportunity for second language socialization may not directly lead to
greater second language proficiency, examination of interview excerpts
collected during 2 years of interviewing and closely observing the two
women indicate that Pha’s language developed both syntactically and
pragmatically while Viseth’s language demonstrated little change. Pierce’s
(1995) work with immigrant women in Canada underscores the impor-
tance of considering both the language learner’s exposure to the target
language and his or her investment in using these opportunities to
communicate using the target language. The findings reported in this
article suggest the need for further study into how shifts in gender
identity influence second language socialization, especially for working-
class immigrants and refugees, groups that have received little attention
in the field of language and gender.
CONCLUSION
The findings in this study have implications for research on gendered

second language socialization within and outside ESL classrooms and on
gendered topics and issues in ESL text and curriculum choices. Second
language acquisition research does not typically examine language
acquisition as a social phenomenon influenced by men’s and women’s
different positions vis-à-vis social, economic, and political changes.
452 TESOL QUARTERLY

Ethnography can augment research on learning a second language by
providing holistic and detailed descriptions of the gendered social
context.
Closely exploring gendered language use in the home and the
workplace provided complementary data for each context. Findings
showed that domestic language events required more complex patterns
of English use than the workplace did. Investigating the home context
yielded insight into how English proficiency and English use altered the
gender roles within families and how men and women perceived these
changes. Because identity is multiply constructed and fluid, ethnographers
and ESL practitioners need to investigate multiple contexts to gain a
richer picture of second language socialization.
Although this study focused on women, the research also demon-
strated that Lao refugee men’s gender identities shift dramatically
during migration. Identity theorists have begun to investigate masculinity
itself as a constructed identity category rather than as an accepted norm
against which to analyze femininity. However, few studies have explored
the connections between masculine identity and language use, and
further research is needed in this area, particularly concerning men of
diverse ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic levels (Pujolar i Cos,
1997; Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001).
This study suggests that both researchers and ESL practitioners
should explore multiple language needs, purposes, contexts, and topics
among participants and language learners. ESL textbooks do not com-
monly cover the contexts in which this study’s participants often re-
quired English, such as the legal system. On the other hand, ESL
textbooks commonly cover contexts in which the participants more often
communicated in their first language, such as the workplace. This
disconnect between language learners’ actual goals and the goals that
textbook authors ascribe to them indicates that learners’ goals need to
be assessed locally because these goals may differ between communities
with differing socioeconomic backgrounds and bilingual support. This
study’s principal participants used English primarily to negotiate within
social institutions. Pha’s experience using English to negotiate a new
apartment and guide her son through the court system indicate how
crucial these interactions are to a family’s well-being. The complexity of
these interactions suggests that these agencies need to provide bilingual
support. The prevalence of these interactions indicates that ESL texts
need to address not only the interactions’ language-learning aspect, but
also to provide guidance for immigrants negotiating these complicated,
and often confusing, systems. ESL textbooks (Wallerstein & Auerbach,
1987; Weinstein-Shr, 1992) and frameworks for curriculum development
(Auerbach, 1992; 1995; Nash, Cason, Rhum, McGrail, & Gomez-Sanford,

1992; Weinstein, 1999), which focus on participatory activities and
problem-posing methods, are a resource for ESL practitioners who wish
to center classroom activities on the lives of their learners.
In addition to addressing the real language needs and purposes of
immigrants, the findings regarding the dramatic changes occurring
within immigrant families and communities present a challenge to ESL
teachers and administrators: How can ESL classes become venues where
immigrants and refugees can consider the shifts in gendered cultural
practices that they experience in their families and communities?
Norton (1997) discusses the tendency of many ESL teachers to perceive
learners’ ethnic identity as predominant while ignoring the new cultural
milieu’s influence on their identity. She writes, “Whereas immigrant
learners’ experiences in their native country may be a significant part of
their identity, these experiences are constantly being mediated by their
experiences in the new country, across multiple sites in the home,
workplace, and community” (p. 413). As this study shows, although Lao
traditional gendered cultural practices are an important part of Lao
women’s identities, so too are these women’s active negotiation and
creation of identities through their experiences during migration, and in
their workplaces, homes, and religious institutions in the United States.
Many ESL texts consider the experiences of new immigrants and may
discuss reactions to new foods and new settings. Yet ESL materials and
classroom practices often fail to address the deeply felt cultural adjust-
ments that long-term immigrants experience. ESL learners who attend
classes for many years after having come to the United States are often
experiencing cultural change on a very different level than those who are
newly arrived.
This article has closely examined the interplay between second
language socialization and shifts in gender identity within a specific
community of practice, a group of working-class Lao refugee women.
Previous research in language and gender has demonstrated the impor-
tance of investigating the local construction of gender identities rather
than generalizing across communities and contexts. Although one must
use caution in extending the results of this research to other immigrant
or refugee communities, this study raises questions and possibilities for
future research in other communities and ESL classrooms: How do shifts
in gender identities create new opportunities for women and men to
access second language resources? How does second language socializa-
tion affect the formation of gender identity? How can ESL practitioners
investigate cultural notions of masculinity and femininity in their class-
rooms? How can ESL learners document the process of shifting gender
identities that affects their families and communities? I trust that future
studies will investigate specific, local forms of gender, offering insight
into how second language socialization influences gender identities and
454 TESOL QUARTERLY

ideologies, thereby contributing to “the undoing of a single unified tale
of language and gender”(Bucholtz, 1999, p. viii).
THE AUTHOR
Daryl Gordon has worked with adult ESL learners since 1988, teaching in Laos,
Mexico, and the United States. She is assistant director of Project SHINE at Temple
University’s Center for Intergenerational Learning and an adjunct professor in
Temple University’s TESOL program. She completed her doctoral work in educa-
tional linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania.
REFERENCES
Auerbach, E. (1992). Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculum develop-
ment for adult ESL literacy. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Auerbach, E. (1995). From deficit to strength: Changing perspectives on family
literacy. In G. Weinstein-Shr & E. Quintero (Eds.), Immigrant learners and their
families (pp. 63–76). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Auerbach, E., & Wallerstein, N. (1987). ESL for action: Problem posing at work. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bhachu, P. (1993). Identities constructed and reconstructed: Representations of
Asian women in Britain. In G. Buijs (Ed.), Migrant women: Crossing boundaries and
changing identities (pp. 99–117). Oxford, England: Berg.
Bucholtz, M. (1999). Introduction. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang, & C. A. Sutton
(Eds.), Reinventing identities: The gendered self in discourse. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Davies, B., & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 43–63.
21, 461–490.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed., pp. 77–195). New York: Macmillan.
Evans, G. (1998). The Politics of ritual and remembrance: Lao since 1975. Chiang Mai,
Thailand: Silkworm Books.
Foner, N. (1997). The immigrant family: cultural legacies and cultural changes.
International Migration Review, 31(4), 961–975.
Foner, N. (1998). Benefits and burdens: Immigrant women and work in New York
City. Gender Issues, 16(4), 5–40.
Foner, N. (1999). Immigrant women and work in New York City, then and now.
Journal of American Ethnic History, 18(3), 95–113.
power on the production lines. In M. Bucholtz & K. Hall (Eds.), Gender articulated:
Arrangements of language and the socially constructed self (pp. 375–400). New York:
Routledge.
Goldstein, T. (1997). Two languages at work: Bilingual life on the production floor. New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mouton de Gruyter.

Goode, J. (1994). Polishing the rustbelt: Immigrants enter a restructuring Philadel-
phia. In L. Lamphere, A. Stepick, & G. Grenier (Eds.), Newcomers in the workplace:
Immigrants and the restructuring of the U.S. economy (pp. 199–230). Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Günthner, S. (1992). The construction of gendered discourse in Chinese-German
interactions. Discourse and Society, 3, 167–191.
Haddad, T., & Lam, L. (1994). The impact of migration on the sexual division of
family work: A study of Italian immigrant couples. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies, 25(2), 167–186.
Hall, S. (1996). Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of
cultural identity (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.
Hitchcox, L. (1993). Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong: Behaviour and control. In
G. Buijs (Ed.), Migrant women: Crossing boundaries and changing identities. Oxford,
England: Berg.
Holmes, J. (1993). Immigrant women and language maintenance in Australia.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 159–179.
Kelly, G. (1986). Southeast Asians in the United States. In H. Kim (Ed.), Dictionary of
Asian-American history (pp. 39–49). New York: Greenwood.
Kibria, N. (1990). Power, patriarchy, and gender conflict in the Vietnamese
immigrant community. Gender & Society, 4(1), 9–24.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Nash, A., Cason, A., Rhum, M., McGrail, L., & Gomez-Sanford, R. (1992). Talking
shop: A curriculum sourcebook for participatory adult ESL. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 409–429.
Pavlenko, A. (2001). “How am I to become a woman in an American vein?”:
Transformations of gender performance in second language learning. In A. Pav-
lenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.), Multilingualism, second
language learning, and gender (pp. 133–174). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pessar, P. (1984). The linkage between the household and workplace of Dominican
women in the U.S. International Migration Review, 18(4), 1188–1211.
Pierce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (1990). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Pujolar i Cos, J. (1997). Masculinities in a multilingual setting. In S. Johnson & U. H.
Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 86–106). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Rockhill, K. (1987). Literacy as threat/desire: Longing to be somebody. In J. Gaskell
& A. McLauren (Eds.), Women and education: A Canadian perspective (pp. 315–331).
Calgary, Canada: Detselig.
Rockhill, K. (1993). Gender, language, and the politics of literacy. In B. Street (Ed.),
Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 156–175). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Savada, A. M. (1994). Laos: A country study. In Library of Congress, Federal Research
Division, Country Studies On-Line. Available from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs
/cshome.html
Stuart-Fox, M. (1997). A history of Laos. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Takaki, R. (1989). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian-Americans. New York:
Penguin.
Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (2001). (Re)constructing masculinity in a new linguistic reality. In
A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, M. Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.), Multilingualism,
second language learning, and gender (pp. 175–198). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
456 TESOL QUARTERLY

Tollefson, J. (1989). Alien winds: The reeducation of America’s Indochinese refugees. New
York: Praeger.
Tran, T., & Nguyen, T. (1994). Gender and satisfaction with the host society among
Indochinese refugees. International Migration Review, 28(2), 323–337.
Ui, S. (1991). “Unlikely heroes”: The evolution of female leadership in a Cambodian
ethnic enclave. In M. Buraway (Ed.), Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in
the modern metropolis (pp. 161–177). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL
Quarterly, 22, 575–592.
Weinstein, G. (Ed.). (1999). Learners’ lives as curriculum: Six journeys to immigrant
literacy. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.
Weinstein-Shr, G. (1992). Stories to tell our children. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Zhou, M., & Norquist, R. (1994). Work and its place in the lives of immigrant women:
Garment workers in New York City’s Chinatown. Applied Behavioral Science Review,
2, 187–211.

Constructing Gender in an English
Dominant Kindergarten: Implications
for Second Language Learners
BARBARA L. HRUSKA
The University of Tampa
Tampa, Florida, United States
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-bilingual English language learners and 17 native
English speakers. The study was based on a theoretical framework that
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 strictly linguistic focus (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. TESOL profession-
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.
L anguage 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

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

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 walks on top of the girls’ whale in his
sock feet.] 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.
[Kenny continues to walk back and forth across the girls’ picture then returns to
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. When Jenny 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,

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

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

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: Everybody here 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: Raise you hand if you like popcorn. Raise you 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 approve of 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 lowers his.]
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 Francisco:
I have a racecar.
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.

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:

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. Díaz,
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, tomorrow is 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: Tomorrow is, wooow. After school?

4 Mike: Mmmm . . .
[Judd 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 my first 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 [overlaps and 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-school care, 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 [answering for Mike]: 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

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 that Jenny 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 intonation is noncommittal.]
82 Mrs. Ryan: Have you ever played it?
[Susana nods yes.]
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.

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 always saw my daddy to play w . . . I always saw 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. Díaz [interrupts to clarify question to Francisco]: ¿Fútbol, juegan al
fútbol? 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. Díaz’s interruption in Turn 96 served to hold Francisco’s place in
the conversation. As Mrs. Ryan was moving onto the next child, Ms. Díaz
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: Ask John 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,

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 Susana joined 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

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
Barbara Hruska is an assistant professor of ESOL education at The University of
Tampa, where she provides ESOL training to preservice elementary and secondary
classroom teachers. Her research interests include bilingual education, social rela-
tionships of second language learners, gender issues, and teacher supervision. She
has intermediate proficiency in Spanish, French, and Danish.
REFERENCES
American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls:
Action guide for improving gender equity in schools. Washington, DC: AAUW Educa-
tional Foundation.
American Association of University Women. (1995). Growing smart: What’s working for
girls in schools. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
American Association of University Women. (1996). Girls in the middle: Working to
succeed in school. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
482 TESOL QUARTERLY

American Association of University Women. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail
our children. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.
Anderson, G. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and
new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59, 249–270.
Bloome, D., & Willett, J. (1991). Toward a micropolitics of classroom interaction. In
J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 207–
235). Newbury, CA: Sage Focus.
Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads. New York: Ballantine.
Chapelle, C. A., & Duff, P. A. (2003). Some guidelines for conducting quantitative
and qualitative research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 157–178.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive
phenomenon. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21, 461–490.
Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. LeCompte,
W. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp.
201–225). Boston: Academic.
Ernst, G. (1994). “Talking circle”: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL class-
room. TESOL Quarterly, 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 Women in Culture and Society, 12, 621–643.
Flood, C. P. (2003, March). Where the boys are: What’s the 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 handbook of research on multicultural education (pp.
570–581). New York: Macmillan.
Goddard, A., & Patterson, L. M. (2000). Language and gender. London: Routledge.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. 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,
Handbook of ethnography (188–203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1993). Race, class, gender, and disability in the
classroom. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and
perspectives (pp. 48–67). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Green, J. L., & Harker, J. O. (1982). Gaining access to learning: Conversational,
social, and cognitive demands of group participation. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.),
Communicating in 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: Constructing second language
learners in a mainstream kindergarten. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Hruska, B. (2000, October). Prioritizing needs/negotiating practices: Student placement at
River Valley Elementary. Paper presented at the Puerto Rican Studies Association
Conference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Hruska, B. (2001). Ideologies, programs, and practices: Implications for second language
learners. Unpublished manuscript.
Kitetu, C., & Sunderland, J. (2002, August). Gendered discourses in the classroom:
The importance of cultural diversity [special issue]. Temple University Japan
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 17, 26–40.
Lee, V. W., & Sing, R. N. (1994, February). Gender equity in schools for immigrant
girls: Issues to consider. MABE Newsletter, 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. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 635–661.
Maynard, T. (2002). Boys and literacy: Exploring the issues. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Millard, E. (1997). Differently literate: Boys, girls, and the schooling of 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.
change. New York: Longman.
Orenstein, P. (1994). School girls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New
York: Doubleday.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I., & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (2001). Multilingualism,
second language learning, and gender. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in
Applied Linguistics, 1, 8–28.
Pennycook, A. (1994). Critical pedagogical approaches to research. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 690–693.
Rodby, J. (1992). Appropriating literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Spradley, J. J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sunderland, J. (1992). Gender in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 46, 81–91.
Sunderland, J. (1994). Differential teacher treatment-by-gender in the EFL class-
room: Using ex-participants’ perspectives. In J. Sunderland (Ed.), Exploring gender:
Questions and implications for English language education (pp. 148–154). New York:
Prentice Hall.
Sunderland, J. (Ed.). (1994). Exploring gender: Questions and implications for English
language education. New York: Prentice Hall.
Sunderland, J. (2000). New understandings of gender and language research: Texts,
teacher talk, and student talk. Language Teaching Research, 4, 149–173.
Tabors, P. O. (1987). The development of communicative competence by second language
learners in a nursery school classroom: An ethnolinguistic study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Tannen, D. (1996). Researching gender-related patterns in classroom discourse.
484 TESOL QUARTERLY

Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in 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. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du
Canada, 12(1), 1–14.
Vandrick, S. (1999). The case for more research on female students in the ESL/EFL
classroom. TESOL Matters 9(2), 1–3.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell
(Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13–37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Willett, J. (1987). A socio-ecological study of children acquiring a second language in an
academic context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford,
CA.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2
socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473–503.
Willett, J. (1996). Research as a gendered practice. TESOL Quarterly, 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.), Constructing gender and difference: Critical research perspectives on early childhood
(pp. 33–70). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Wodak, R. (1997). Gender and discourse. London: Sage.

THE FORUM
TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOL
profession. It also welcomes responses or rebuttals to any articles or remarks
published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.
Women Faculty of Color in TESOL:

Theorizing Our Lived Experiences
ANGEL LIN GERTRUDE TINKER SACHS
City University of Hong Kong Georgia State University
Hong Kong SAR, China Atlanta, Georgia, United States
RACHEL GRANT STEPHANIE VANDRICK

The Pennsyvania State University— University of San Francisco
Harrisburg San Francisco, California, United States
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, United States
SHELLEY WONG
RYUKO KUBOTA George Mason University
The University of North Carolina Fairfax, Virginia, United States
at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
SUHANTHIE MOTHA
University of Maryland, College Park
College Park, Maryland, United States
Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary
armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not
mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences
do not exist. (Lorde, 1984a, p. 112)
■ This collective writing project originated from our participation

(including African-American, Asian, and White scholars) in the gender
in TESOL colloquium at the 37th Annual TESOL Convention and
Exhibit in 2003. Although researchers have shown an increasing interest
in analyzing how gender affects second and foreign language education

(e.g., Pavlenko, Blackledge, & Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001; Sunderland, Cowley,
Rahim, Leontzakou, & Shattuck, 2002) and how colleges and universities
have marginalized women (e.g., Bagilhole, 2002; Halvorsen, 2002; Hornig,
2003; Jackson, 2002; Luke, 2001; Morley & Walsh, 1995, 1996; Walsh,
2002), they have shown little interest in analyzing how institutions have
marginalized women faculty of color working in TESOL and related
literacy education fields. The dearth of published research on women
faculty of color suggests that the field has largely ignored us. However,
our sharing of experiences reveals consistent hierarchical patterns across
different institutional contexts that require feminist theorizing to attend
to issues not only of gender but also of race and social class. Additionally,
in the fields of TESOL and literacy education, issues of nonnative-
English-speaking professionals, speakers of World Englishes, African-
American English and various pidgin and creole speakers must be
addressed. Discursive practices of gender, class, and race must be
connected to histories of conquest, slavery, and colonialism.
THEORIZING AS DIALOGIC, POLITICAL PRACTICE

We feel a strong need to make deeper sense of our lived experiences
by understanding and theorizing about the special ideological and
institutional conditions underlying our lived experiences of marginali-
zation and discrimination. This theorizing is, however, not meant to be
merely private academic work but a dialogic, public, political practice.
Although it starts as a textual practice (i.e., in the act of producing a
textual product—an article), it is not meant to end there. As Hall puts it:
I come back to the critical distinction between intellectual work and academic
work: they overlap . . . but they are not the same thing. . . . I come back to
theory and politics, the politics of theory. Not theory as the will to truth, but
theory as a set of contested, localized, conjunctual knowledges, which have to
be debated in a dialogical way. But also as a practice which always thinks about
its intervention in a world in which it would make some difference, in which
it would have some effect. (Hall, 1992, p. 286)
By engaging in this collective, dialogic writing project, we hope to

draw attention to the situation of women faculty of color in TESOL and
literacy education and to help build a wider community of TESOL and
literacy education scholars and researchers (women and men, and both
women of color and White women) that will continuously engage issues
of marginalization, discrimination, social justice, and togetherness-in-
difference (Ang, 2001) as part of our dialogic, critical practice and
political intervention. As feminist standpoint theorist Hartsock wrote:
488 TESOL QUARTERLY

Women’s lives, like men’s, are structured by social relations which manifest
the experiences of the dominant gender and class. The ability to go beneath
the surface of appearances to reveal the real but concealed social relations
requires both theoretical and political activity. Feminist theorists must de-
mand that feminist theorizing be grounded in women’s material activity and
must as well be part of the political struggle necessary to develop areas of
social life modeled on this activity. (Hartsock, 1983, p. 304)
Following Hartsock, we are going to ground our theorizing in our

lived experiences. We wrote our narratives and circulated them via e-mail
so that we could respond to the emerging themes in one another’s
writings. Using excerpts from our narratives, we summarize some emerg-
ing patterns and issues and analyze their underlying ideological and
institutional conditions. With this analysis of our lived experience in
mind, we suggest how TESOL professionals need to re-vision and
reshape TESOL as a discipline.
OUR LIVED EXPERIENCES IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS

Because space is limited, we provide only key excerpts from our
narratives. We hope to give readers a feel for how we experience the
different institutional contexts where we work. We are from diverse racial
and ethnic backgrounds: African American, Bahamian of African de-
scent, Chinese American, Chinese, Japanese, Sri Lankan Australian, and
European American; pseudonyms are used.
Anne’s Story: The Paradox of (Hypo)Critical Pedagogy

I am often positioned as an illegitimate faculty member in my
department. In working with White women colleagues and administra-
tors who project public images of being progressive, promoting ethics
and social justice, endorsing critical pedagogies, and advocating for
diversity, I have had the following disturbing experiences: being ex-
cluded from communication related to important decisions about the
program that I work in, forced to do a large amount of work beyond my
assigned duties, treated as if I were a teaching assistant by being deprived
of decision-making power, blamed for students’ complaints about a
program for which I am not primarily responsible, expected to do
student-teacher supervision rather than teaching a graduate course, and
given the lowest salary at my rank. Even worse, I was insulted by having
my cultural and linguistic heritage devalued by a senior White female
administrator: “I want you to do ESL [teacher education]; XXX [my
native language] isn’t important” (even though I was originally hired to
create a teacher education program for that language). The same
THE FORUM 489

woman criticized me as being “sulky” and flippantly advised me to say
“Fuck you” [sic] to another White woman colleague who had mistreated
me; she said this would improve the situation for me.
The paradox of (hypo)critical pedagogy seems to lie in some White
women colleagues’ struggle to maintain their status in the racial hierar-
chy of power while claiming their role as advocates for the colonized/
marginalized and promoting postmodern decentering of power as
colonizers who refuse (Collins, 1998; Memmi, 1965). How can women
faculty of color cope with this hypocrisy? How can they have a diplomatic
relationship with professed progressive White women faculty who
marginalize them?
Bertha’s Story: Exclusion of Women Faculty of Color From Tenure

University X had been a segregated university until the 1960s. In the
1940s, Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to be
appointed to the United States Supreme Court, applied to and was
denied entrance to University X’s law school. In the entire history of my
former department, only two African Americans and one Hispanic have
been granted tenure. To this day, my former department has never
granted tenure to an African-American woman. At the time I was denied
tenure in my department, the last five men who had gone up for
associate professor with tenure or full professor had all been promoted,
and the last five women who had gone up for associate professor with
tenure or full professor were all denied.
I had the equivalent number of publications as a White male who had
been promoted the year before. But although I had been supported by
my department (19 for, 2 opposed) and the college (5 to 0), the
university promotion and tenure committee voted 4 against, 1 for, with 2
abstentions. Though the committee deemed my teaching and service
sufficient, they questioned the quality of my scholarship. The committee
wanted to know why I had not published in linguistics journals and why
they had never heard of the journals in which I had published. They
considered my work to be “too applied.” In addition, they pointed out
that letters from external reviewers came from institutions that were not
among the top ten research institutions, although the reviewers are all
prominent figures in applied linguistics and TESOL, and they did not
understand why the letters came from different departments, such as
English, linguistics, and education.
Catherine’s Story: The Great Divide in Asia

I have spent more years of my professional life in Asia than in any
other place. Although I received my professional credentials in North
490 TESOL QUARTERLY

America, my only experience working in a university has been within the
Asian context. As an assistant professor, I have developed preservice and
in-service teachers in our bachelor of arts and postgraduate programs in
TESOL. This work, for me, meant spending vast amounts of time in
schools and working with teachers on a professional and personal basis.
But working this way contravenes conventional university practice and
standard assessment criteria, which require most professors to work in a
laboratory or go into the field, collect and analyze quantifiable data, and
then write a conventional report over a relatively short period of time.
Academe still ascribes a very low status to the type of field-centered work
that I do.
I recall my profound happiness when a senior member of our faculty
attended a conference session at which I, along with several teachers
from my action research project, was presenting. The presentations by
these busy teachers at an international conference validated my pro-
longed investment in supporting their professional development through
action research. But at the end of the 90-minute session, the senior
faculty member left without a question or an acknowledgment, and this
faculty member has offered none since then. In a later meeting with
TESOL colleagues and me, however, our senior faculty member, a
linguist, mentioned “the trashy work we do in TESOL” when discussing
our research publications and agenda.
Denise’s Story: A Local Classroom Person

Since I was hired I have been constituted as a local classroom person
and designated to do the labor-intensive work of supervising the stu-
dents’ practicum and coordinating school placement. Although I have
extensive training in research methodology, including qualitative, ethno-
graphic methods and sophisticated statistics and measurement theories
and techniques, my employer focused on me as a local classroom person,
which has provided my superiors a rationale for assigning me to the
labor-intensive, administrative-heavy workload that the senior White
members avoid. They also rationalize my position by arguing that they
need someone who speaks the local language (and preferably a woman—
isn’t a woman traditionally most suitable for a PR job?) to solicit
practicum positions from the schools for our students. Whenever I
counterargued that the local school personnel did indeed speak English,
my superiors would respond that it was better to have a local person who
is “more familiar” with the local schooling system when liaising with
school personnel. This argument assumes that first, senior faculty
members from overseas do not need to learn at least some local
language, and second, they do not need to become more acquainted
with the local educational issues and schooling system.
THE FORUM 491

Ellen’s Story: Establish Yourself as a Scholar,
Not a Minority Scholar
The memberships I hold in two historically oppressed and disem-
powered groups, African American and female, has clearly been a critical
factor in my emerging voice as a teacher educator. Race and gender have
influenced my interest, my perspective, my experience, and my struggle.
My experience as a literacy teacher educator has been that the silenced
voice of Black females and other marginalized groups has been amplified.
The policy has been, “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t deal with it.” I recall
occasions early in my career when the well-meaning White females told
me that I should “work to establish myself as a scholar, not a minority
scholar.” For a time, I took this advice to heart, and I took great pains to
mirror in my writing and teaching the objective (i.e., indifferent,
disinterested, dispassionate, and value-neutral) stance (Ladner, 1987).
For me, this approach meant that in the academy I was a singular,
voiceless individual.
It is within the context of a profession composed overwhelmingly of
White, middle-class teachers and teacher educators that I have struggled
against the value-neutral, color-blind, objective implementation of lit-
eracy used to prepare teachers and to teach children. The challenge for
me has been to find opportunities to include my voice and the voices of
marginalized groups by incorporating linguistic and cultural diversity
into conceptions of literacy.
Frances’s Story: Silencing Discourses

We need to problematize the discourses of risk, safety, and vulnerability
that surround discussions about diversity. I hear constant reminders
about the comfort levels and safety of students from dominant groups. I
hear that talking about oppression means taking a risk and therefore
making students feel vulnerable. These warnings privilege the interests
of dominant groups over the project of social justice. I challenge this
construction of unsafe. Classroom discussions about race do not make
students from dominant groups unsafe. Do they increase the likelihood
of their being sent to jail, put to death, denied employment or housing?
These are the consequences for minority children when discrimination
is not challenged. Using the language of safety and vulnerability in
discussions of diversity, the same language that is used to challenge
discrimination, minimizes the experience of discrimination—the experi-
ence of truly being unsafe—and redirects our focus from subjugated
groups, who have historically been left out, back to dominant groups. I
do not discount the importance of creating appropriate spaces where
members of all groups, including dominant groups, can safely deconstruct
492 TESOL QUARTERLY

their biases; I simply suggest that concerns for safety must not disrupt
work against oppression.
In one assignment for a diversity class, I tried to problematize the
notion of privilege by asking students to read Peggy MacIntosh’s essay,
“Unpacking the Knapsack of White Privilege,” and to then unpack their
own invisible knapsacks containing any facet of their identities that they
believed afforded them privilege. White, male, able-bodied, Christian,
heterosexual Wayne turned in a paper about how he did not have
privilege because he considered himself to be poor. He embraced
meritocratic ideologies that coupled work ethic and race, and he implied
that I had been hired on the basis of my skin color and regardless of my
qualifications. I was terrified that if I showed anger or impatience, I
would alienate him and lose any opportunity to be heard. Between
conversations with Wayne, I sought the advice of the other faculty
teaching the cohort (all White), who were caring and supportive. But I
noticed that that the overwhelming focus was reaching Wayne: “If your
intention is transformation, you shouldn’t let him turn you off because
then he’ll never hear what you have to say.” I have become increasingly
troubled by discourses that feed the fear of disturbing dominant groups
and by practices that charge minority groups with responsibility for
reaching and raising the consciousness of members of dominant groups.
Genevieve’s Story: Privileged Majority Member?

Much of my published writing has been on issues of gender, race,
social class, and sexual identity as they relate to ESL pedagogy. Through
writing about these subjects, I am able to bring together my teaching, my
scholarship, and my social and political beliefs. As a middle-class,
heterosexual, White woman, however, I experience marginalization due
to gender but not marginalization due to race, ethnicity, class, or sexual
identity. For some others, such as women of color in TESOL, writing
about these topics entails the possibility of negative consequences. For
me, such writing is much less dangerous; in fact, to choose to write about
such topics with little or no risk is a kind of luxury.
If I have any personal knowledge of marginalization, it comes from
being female. In addition, and closely related, however, it comes from
being a member of a low-status discipline: ESL. Further, the marginali-
zation of the discipline interacts with other forms of marginalization
based on race, gender, class, and sexual identity, with a multiplying
effect.
So, given my protected position, is it my responsibility to speak out on
racism, classism, and homophobia? Or is it presumptuous of me to do
so? All I have to guide me is my belief that it cannot be wrong to speak
out against prejudice and discrimination. But it is my responsibility to
THE FORUM 493

educate myself, to listen to people of various backgrounds, to be
reflective, to work collaboratively when possible, and to accept construc-
tive criticism. It is my responsibility to keep trying to understand how
various forms of privilege and oppression intersect and interact and to
support TESOL colleagues of all identities.
EMERGING PATTERNS OF SYSTEMATIC MARGINALIZATION

It is important to note that gender and race are relational and not
categorical, and that they do not invariably determine types of social
experiences for persons to whom they apply; moreover, race and gender
can sometimes be negotiated (Ng, 1995). Thus, we will refrain from
essentializing our experiences. Nevertheless, although our narratives
show a diverse range of experiences, some clear, common patterns of
systematic marginalization and silencing emerge, indicating that these
experiences are not isolated, random, individual happenings. As we
analyze these structures, we will refer to some additional experiences
that we have not yet mentioned.
Gendered and Racialized Task-Labor Segregation

Almost all of our lived experiences point to a common pattern of
gendered and racialized task and labor segregation; that is, women
faculty of color are often assigned to labor-intensive administrative and
teaching duties. For instance, Denise was consistently asked to do the
heavy administrative work of liaising with schools for students’ teaching
practicum. Bertha and Ellen were asked to do the paperwork and revise
the syllabi for the accreditation review. Anne was consistently excluded
from communication related to important program decisions and was
assigned a large amount of work beyond the assigned responsibilities.
Feminist standpoint theorists pointed out 2 decades ago that modern
academia segregates labor based on gender. For instance, Smith (1974,
1987) argued that the notion of women’s work frees men from everyday,
practical chores, enabling them to immerse themselves in abstract
concepts and theories. Moreover, the more successfully women perform
their work, the more invisible it becomes to men. Denise’s experience
supports Smith’s point. Without Denise’s heavy administrative work to
secure places for students’ practicum every year, her department’s TESOL
program would not be viable. The male faculty enjoys the benefits of her
labor: They can teach the privileged theoretical courses and write
research papers or take up departmental leadership roles. Anne was
likewise excluded and exploited by her senior colleagues, White female
faculty. Similarly, until Ellen left the university without receiving tenure,
she had been shouldering a labor-intensive reading clinic.
494 TESOL QUARTERLY

Given the experiences of these women faculty of color, we want to
extend the feminist standpoint theorists’ model to recognize that
academia very often segregates labor based not only on gender but also
on race. Task segregation in modern academia parallels the well-
documented racialized task and labor segregation in the United States
during the nineteenth century (Liu, 2000). We argue that such an
invisible internal colonial model also operates in today’s academia,
especially in TESOL, which seems to have a pecking order of tasks. This
task hierarchy and task segregation has epistemological and political
consequences.
The Great Theory-Practice Divide

As an applied discipline, TESOL has borrowed extensively from the
theories and research methodologies of other pure disciplines such as
psychology, cognitive science, and Chomskyan linguistics. Although the
discipline’s top journals have more recently become receptive to re-
search done using postpositivist, sociocultural, or critical paradigms,
mainstream TESOL theoretical and research canons still follow the
parent disciplines, which were established in the tradition of Enlighten-
ment rationality and philosophy. Modern disciplines born of the Enlight-
enment subscribe to specific sets of ontological and epistemological
assumptions. Under Enlightenment assumptions, the ideal agent of
knowledge, the ideal scientist, is a transhistorical, unitary, individual, and
disembodied mind whose scientific endeavours are not shaped or
constituted by their historical, social, cultural, and institutional contexts.
Their discoveries, their theories and findings are likewise eligible to
claim the status of transhistorical, universal truths. (For a summary of
feminist standpoint critiques of Enlightenment epistemology, see Harding,
1996.) In practice, mainstream TESOL research largely follows the
paradigm of positivism and physicalism. Researchers using this paradigm
seek to operationalize and quantify (i.e., define and measure in numerals)
human and social phenomena (e.g., language learning and teaching) in
terms of variables and to verify hypotheses about the relationships (e.g.,
causal or correlational relationships) among different variables. (For a
theoretical alternative to physicalism and positivism in understanding
human actions, see Taylor, 1985.)
It is not trivial to note that the Enlightenment philosophers were men
who occupied privileged social and economic positions at a time when
slaves and serfs attended to their everyday practical needs, thus freeing
them to do their theoretical work. The shadows of this gendered and
racialized division of labor appear in academic disciplines such as
TESOL, a discipline that models itself on applied linguistics and second
language acquisition. In TESOL, those who teach future ESOL professors
THE FORUM 495

and researchers are at the top, those who teach future ESOL teachers
come next, and those who teach ESOL are at the bottom. Furthermore,
ESOL teachers are disproportionately part-time, adjunct, or temporary,
and females (and among whom many women of color) typically fill the
bottom ranks.
Feminist standpoint theorists have shown the unfortunate epistemo-
logical consequences of segregating labor based on gender. They hold
that movements for social liberation advance the growth of knowledge:
[Feminist standpoint theorists] explicitly call for women of color, working-

class women, and lesbians to be present among the women whose experi-
ences generate inquiry. They all discuss the limitations of sciences emerging
only from white, western, homophobic, academic feminism. (Harding, 1996,
p. 311)
It is precisely this gendered and racialized theory-practice divide in

our discipline that has generated inadequate theories of practical
knowledge concerning the work of frontline TESOL practitioners.
Frontline TESOL workers (typically female classroom teachers) do not
have a chance to incorporate their experiences and activities into
prestigious mainstream theories and research because they are rarely
given the institutional resources and time to theorize, share, and publish
their experiences in the discipline’s prestigious journals. And when
frontline TESOL professionals do engage in research, mainstream
researchers often criticize their research agendas and projects as soft
ethnographic work that does not qualify as hard science. For instance,
Catherine’s 2-year, labor-intensive, action-research project with frontline
EFL teachers participating as the key researchers culminated in present-
ing their research findings during an academic conference session, but
Catherine’s senior faculty member criticized and dismissed their re-
search efforts as “trashy work.” The senior faculty member, a Chomskyan
theoretical linguist, could not see the value of teachers’ action research
nor the theoretical value of knowledge generated by that research.
Apart from the silencing effect of this kind of derision and the
negative epistemological consequences of devaluing teachers’ knowl-
edge embedded in teachers’ practice, this gendered and racialized
theory-practice divide has grave political consequences. Because the
knowledge created from the experiences and practices of female re-
searchers and teachers, women of color, and women from different
social classes and sexualities is not allowed to contribute to the discipline’s
knowledge base or its curricula, students from these excluded groups are
consistently denied knowledge and theories that speak to and value their
own lived experiences. For instance, Bertha and Ellen were both silenced
when they carried out research on minority groups; Bertha’s superiors
496 TESOL QUARTERLY

discounted her research on multiculturalism and minority issues as
“repetitive” in her work appraisal, and Ellen’s superiors saw her research
as “trivial” when it focused on issues pertaining to marginalized groups.
As junior faculty, Ellen was in fact often pressured not to pursue those
issues (“Establish yourself as a scholar, not a minority scholar”). This kind
of systematic, institutional suppression of research and teaching on
minority and diversity issues has dangerous implications not only for the
education of minority students but also for the education of White
students:
The result will be students who are cultured to hate; yet who still think of
themselves as very, very good people; who will be deeply offended, and
personally hurt, if anyone tries to tell them otherwise. I think this sort of
teaching, rampant throughout the education system, is why racism and
sexism remain so routine, so habitually dismissed, as to be largely invisible.
(Williams, 1991, p. 87)
Williams’s observation brings us to a recurrent theme in our experi-

ences that requires analysis: We are often seen as angry women of color
who make our White colleagues and students uncomfortable.
Relations With White Faculty and Students: Problematizing the

Angry, Sulky Image of Women Faculty of Color
In “The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism,” Lord writes:
“Every woman has a well-stocked arsenal of anger potentially useful
against those oppressions, personal and institutional, which brought that
anger into being. Focused with precision it can become a powerful
source of energy serving progress and change” (Lorde, 1984b, p. 127).
Frances’s being advised by her well-intentioned colleagues to avoid
looking like an angry woman of color shows how difficult it is for a
woman of color to protest her marginalization without being seen as
incessantly narrating her suffering. Anne’s White female colleagues have
called her “sulky.” When someone perceives that he or she has been
treated unfairly, anger (or indignation) is an understandable response in
many cultures. When women faculty of color express this feeling, it is
often seen as evidence of their emotional instability, their lack of reason,
or their inability to enjoy themselves or engage in fruitful argumenta-
tion. Invoking the unsmiling, angry woman of color stereotype is a
discursive ploy that silences and subordinates these women’s voices. For
instance, when Denise protested against unfair work arrangements to
her Chinese male superior and gave a well-grounded reason—his act
reinforced the dominant perception that native speakers are more
capable than nonnative speakers—he accused her of starting a “nonfruitful
argument” and implied that she was not willing to sacrifice for the good
THE FORUM 497

of the program. Women of color are frequently expected to sacrifice for
the larger good, and when they protest against being treated unfairly,
they are frequently accused of being unreasonable or emotional, and
thus they are pushed to the margins and silenced.
We are also painfully aware, however, that expressing anger can close
down communication between people in very different social and
political positions. Answering anger with anger only ensures that com-
munication will breakdown. For instance, some colleagues have con-
cluded that women faculty of color have unfairly taken jobs that should
belong to them and that they are victims of universities’ unfair affirma-
tive action policies. One of us saw this attitude played out after a
conference presentation relating to race, when a White woman ap-
proached to express her anger that a woman of color had been given a
faculty position for which she had applied. The White woman believed
that the university had not considered her application seriously because
she is White. How to respond to her anger raises the issue of how to
communicate an ethic of togetherness-in-difference (Ang, 2001). Does a
radical relativist version of postmodern discourse offer any common
ethical grounds for discussing social justice, diversity, and mutual respect
when everyone claims to be a victim based on his or her own experiences?
TOWARD A COMMUNICATIVE ETHIC

OF TOGETHERNESS-IN-DIFFERENCE
How can we achieve a constraint-free understanding between differ-
ently positioned subjects, between colleagues who feel that affirmative
action is an unfair policy and colleagues of color who think that it is a
small step toward redressing the serious ethnic, racial, and gender
imbalance in U.S. higher education faculties, especially in light of
increasingly diversified student populations? Although we have not
found a perfect solution, we believe that alternatives exist between the
dichotic poles of Enlightenment transhistorical rationality and radical
relativist forms of postmodernism. These alternatives can provide com-
mon ethical grounds for communicating between subject positions and
cultures, for understanding social justice, minority, and diversity, and for
recognizing and respecting difference.
A Communicative Ethic of Risk

Welch (2000) attempts to overcome the limitations of both Enlighten-
ment universality and postmodernist fragmentation by proposing a
communicative ethic of risk. Drawing on Foucault, she argues that
dialogue across difference should be achieved not by searching for
objective consensus but by “recognizing the differences by which we
498 TESOL QUARTERLY

ourselves are constituted and . . . by actively seeking to be partially
constituted by work with different groups” (Welch, 2000, p. 151).
We add that the dialogue must continue even though successful
communication is never guaranteed. A communicative ethic of risk
demands that participants commit to the risk involved in communicating
across different social positions even if that means making someone
uncomfortable (e.g., by challenging one to rethink deep-rooted, taken-
for-granted beliefs or one’s implication in social injustice). Welch (2000)
points out that our society operates on “an ethic of control” (p. 23) that
seeks to protect people from any risk or discomfort resulting from
uncertainty or ambivalence when they interact with others who are
different from them. Frances analyzed this point insightfully when she
noted in her story that trying to make students “safely uncomfortable”
might work against encouraging them to become aware of issues of
privilege and power:
I once heard a professor from another institution say: “We must talk about this
[issues of diversity and social justice]. I want my students to be uncomfort-
able.” To which another educator replied: “Safely uncomfortable.” The
problem is that adding “safely” to “uncomfortable” runs the danger of not
only mitigating the point, but nullifying it.
A communicative ethic of risk challenges people to enter into an often

unsafe, uncomfortable dialogue, to open themselves up to different
ideas and values of others, to make themselves vulnerable by engaging in
the dialogic process of mutual challenge and mutual transformation. It is
only through such a risky, dialogic communicative process that students
and teachers can expand their knowledge, transcend their location- and
privilege-induced blind spots, and become enriched both culturally and
ethically. Welch (2000) points out the deep satisfaction and liberation
that comes from saying no to the ethic of control and refusing to hold on
to privilege or to allow privilege to become one’s sole identity, blinding
one to social injustice. We add that middle-class women of color need to
listen to working-class women (of color), and straight women of color
need to listen to lesbian women (of color). Under the communicative
ethic of risk, no one is exempt from the obligation to dialogue with
others to discover and transcend the blind spots inherent in their
respective subject positions. But this process must go beyond mere
words; otherwise, it will degenerate into (hypo)critical pedagogy, as
Anne’s story illustrated. The communicative ethic is also an ethic of
accountability and respect. It demands that participants commit to
accountability and give up privilege when they realize that their privilege
perpetuates social injustice: “Accountability entails recognition of wrong-
doing and imbalances of power and leads to self-critical attempts to use
THE FORUM 499

power justly. Respect is not primarily sympathy for the other, but
acknowledgement of the equality, dignity, and independence of others”
(Welch, 2000, p. 15).
Policies and Practices

We call for comparative analysis of the different sociopolitical contexts
(Wiley, 1999) in which women of color practice and the policies that
support their continued oppression. The many overlapping dimensions
of difference mean that being hired as a teacher in higher education and
being selected for promotion and tenure is a complex and life-long
struggle. Although academia seems to be recruiting more women of
color into entry-level positions, certain institutional policies (awaiting
further research and comparative analysis) seem to obstruct these
women’s long-term success. We therefore advise the following policy-
based strategies.
• Educational and administrative leadership should vigilantly support
individual minority women’s research agendas by instituting policies
that grant these women at least as much release time and graduate
student support as their male and White counterparts.
• Leadership should also monitor minority women’s advising, teaching,
and practicum supervision loads to protect them from serving on too
many committees.
• Because scholars of color are often not privy to information that
dominant groups consider common knowledge (e.g., Bertha was not
afforded the same informal guidance about the academic publishing
process as her White male peers), they need support to redress
discriminatory and exclusionary practices, whether these be con-
scious or unintentional. They need thoughtful and supportive senior
colleagues to help them negotiate the gap in cultural capital as well
as guide them toward appropriate publishing forums.
• They should also be paid as much as their male and White counter-
parts for equal work. Most of us have been paid less and for heavier
workloads than other members of our departments.
• In addition to the sexual harassment workshops that are raising the
consciousness of academicians, universities need workshops to ad-
dress other forms of discrimination, including harassment on the
basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, immigration status, and
language minority status.
• Hiring and retention policies should ensure that more than one
person of color is recruited within each department because the
pressure of being singular marks scholars of color and subjects them
to higher scrutiny.
500 TESOL QUARTERLY

• Within each institution, the processes whereby policies become
accepted practices and are adopted by those in the next tier of
leadership should be examined critically to ensure that the policies
are carried out as defined.
Re-visioning TESOL’s Disciplinary Goals

The TESOL discipline likewise needs to be re-visioned and reshaped
to fit an increasingly globalized world. Instead of looking for certain (as
opposed to situated, uncertain) knowledge of the most effective technol-
ogy to teach English to speakers of other languages, our disciplinary goal
should be the more urgent task of finding situated, dialogic ways of
teaching and learning English (or literacies in the field of literacy
education) for relatively constraint-free understanding and communica-
tion among people coming from very different locations (both geo-
graphical and social) and with very different sociocultural experiences
(see Wong, in press; Lin & Luk, in press). The discipline needs to expand
its traditional technicalized goals to include equally important concerns
about how to value linguistic and cultural diversity and promote social
justice as English spreads (often as the dominant language) to different
parts of the world.
In embarking on this collective, dialogic writing project, we are not
aiming at “narrating our suffering” nor are we “invested in rewards”
(Velez, 2000, p. 325). This project has given us a sense of community, and
in this community we have drawn strength for healing and transforma-
tion. We are not alone in this world. What gives meaning to this job and
profession of ours as we continue to work as women faculty of color in
TESOL and literacy education? It is the hope that our work will
contribute to a world with greater intercultural understanding and social
justice, a world in which education affirms minority children’s and
students’ races, ethnicities, classes, genders, and sexualities, values their
experiences, and develops their potential.
THE AUTHORS
Angel Lin is an associate professor in the Department of English and Communica-
tion, City University of Hong Kong. With a background in ethnomethodology,
conversation analysis, and social theory, her theoretical orientations are phenomeno-
logical, sociocultural, and critical. She serves on the editorial advisory boards of
Linguistics and Education, Critical Discourse Studies, and Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies.
Rachel Grant teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in literacy education at

Pennsylvania State University–Harrisburg. Her research focuses on critical interpre-
tations for second language reading, urban education, and multiculturalism within
teacher education.
THE FORUM 501

Ryuko Kubota is an associate professor in the School of Education and the
Department of Asian Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She
is involved in foreign language teaching and second language teacher education.
Her research interests include second language writing, culture and politics in
second language education, and critical pedagogies.
Suhanthie Motha’s research explores the complexity of identity, power, language,

and pedagogy in second language learning. Her work has been published in TESL
Canada Journal and Educational Practice and Theory, and she serves on the editorial
review board of TESL Canada Journal. She also teaches in the TESOL and the teacher
education graduate programs at the University of Maryland–College Park.
Gertrude Tinker Sachs teaches in the language and literacy unit of the Middle
Secondary Education and Instructional Technology Department at Georgia State
University. Her research interests include ESOL, and language and literacy develop-
ment. She has investigated and published research on cooperative learning, literature-
based approaches in teaching ESL/EFL, and inquiry-oriented teacher development
in EFL/ESL contexts.
Stephanie Vandrick is a professor in the Communication Studies Department at the

University of San Francisco. Her research areas include ESL writing and critical and
feminist pedagogies. She is co-author of Ethical Issues for ESL Faculty: Social Justice in
Practice; co-editor of Writing for Scholarly Publication: Behind the Scenes in Language
Education; and author of several articles and book chapters.
Shelley Wong is an associate professor in the College of Education and Human

Development at George Mason University. She has taught ESOL in secondary, adult,
and university settings in Los Angeles, New York, and the Washington, D.C., area.
Her research interests include critical and dialogic approaches to teaching English to
speakers of other languages, emergent literacy, and multilingual and multicultural
education.
REFERENCES
Ang, I. (2001). On not speaking Chinese: Living between Asia and the West. London:
Routledge.
Bagilhole, B. (2002). Against all odds: Women academics’ research opportunities. In
G. Howe & A. Tauchert (Eds.), Gender, teaching and research in higher education (pp.
46–56). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Collins, P. H. (1998). Fighting words: Black women and the search for justice. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Hall, S. (1992). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In L. Grossberg,
C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 277–294). New York:
Routledge.
Halvorsen, E. (2002). Gender audit. In G. Howe & A. Tauchert (Eds.), Gender,
teaching and research in higher education (pp. 9–19). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Harding, S. (1996). Feminism, science, and the anti-Englightenment critiques. In
A. Gary & M. Pearsall (Eds.), Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist
philosophy (pp. 298–320). New York: Routledge.
Hartsock, N. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifi-
cally feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (Eds.),
502 TESOL QUARTERLY

Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and
philosophy of science (pp. 283–310). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
Hornig, L. S. (Ed.). (2003). Equal rites, unequal outcomes: Women in American research
universities. New York: Kluwer.
Jackson, S. (2002). Transcending boundaries: Women, research and teaching in the
academy. In G. Howe & A. Tauchert (Eds.), Gender, teaching and research in higher
education (pp. 20–32). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Ladner, J. A. (1987). Introduction to Tomorrow’s tomorrow: The black woman. In
S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 72–83). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Lin, A., & Luk, J. (in press). Local creativity in the face of global domination: Insights
of Bakhtin for teaching English for dialogic communication. In J. K. Hall,
G. Vitanova, & L. Marchenkova (Eds.), Contributions of Mikhail Bakhtin to under-
standing second and foreign language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liu, J. (2000). Towards an understanding of the internal colonial model. In
D. Brydon (Ed.), Postcolonialism: Critical concepts in literary and cultural studies, Vol. 4
(pp. 1347–1364). London: Routledge.
Lorde, A. (1984a). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. In
Sister outsider: Essays and speeches (pp. 110–113). Freedom, CA: Crossing.
Lorde, A. (1984b). The uses of anger: Women responding to racism. In Sister outsider:
Essays and speeches (pp. 124–133). Freedom, CA: Crossing.
Luke, C. (2001). Globalization and women in academia. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Memmi, A. (1965). The colonizer and the colonized. Boston: Beacon.
Morley, L., & Walsh, V. (Eds.). (1995). Feminist academics: Creative agents for change.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Morley, L., & Walsh, V. (Eds.). (1996). Breaking boundaries: Women in higher education.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Ng, R. (1995). Teaching against the grain: Contradictions and possibilities. In R. Ng,
P. Staton, & J. Scane (Eds.), Anti-racism, feminism, and critical approaches to education
(pp. 129–155). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., & Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (2001). Multilingualism, second
language learning and gender. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Smith, D. (1974). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological
Inquiry, 44, 7–13.
Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Sunderland, J., Cowley, M., Rahim, F., Leontzakou, C., & Shattuck, J. (2002). From
representation to discursive practices: Gender in the foreign language textbook
revisited. In J. Sunderland & L. Litosseliti (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse
analysis (pp. 223–255). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taylor, C. (1985). Human agency and language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Velez, D. L. (2000). Anger, resentment, and the place of mind in academia. In The
Social Justice Group at the Centre for Advanced Feminist Studies, University of
Minnesota (Ed.), Is academic feminism dead? Theory in practice (pp. 311–326). New
York: New York University Press.
Walsh, V. (2002). Equal opportunities without “equality”: Redeeming the irredeem-
able. In G. Howe & A. Tauchert (Eds.), Gender, teaching and research in higher
education (pp. 33–45). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Welch, S. D. (2000). A feminist ethic of risk. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Wiley, T. G. (1999). Comparative historical analysis of U.S. language policy and
THE FORUM 503

language planning: Extending the foundations. In K. A. Davis & T. Huebner
(Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 18–
37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Williams, P. J. (1991). The alchemy of race and rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wong, S. (in press). Dialogic approaches to teaching English to speakers of other languages:
Where the gingko tree grows. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Addressing Gender in the ESL/EFL Classroom

BONNY NORTON
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
ANETA PAVLENKO
Temple University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
■ During the past 2 years, while coediting a Case Studies in TESOL

Practice book titled Gender and English Language Learners (Norton &
Pavlenko, 2004), we have had the welcome opportunity to consider the
diverse ways in which TESOL colleagues worldwide are addressing
gender issues in their language classrooms. In this article, we share the
insights we have gained not only from the contributors to the case study
collection, but also from our engagement with the broader literature
(e.g., Casanave & Yamashiro, 1996; Norton & Toohey, 2004; Pavlenko,
Blackledge, Piller, & Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001).
Rather than seeing gender as an individual variable, we see it as a
complex system of social relations and discursive practices, differentially
constructed in local contexts. This approach, situated within a post-
structuralist framework, foregrounds sociohistoric, cross-cultural, and
cross-linguistic differences in constructing gender. We do not assume, for
example, that all women—or all men—have much in common with each
other just because of their biological makeup or their elusive social roles,
nor do we assume that gender is always relevant to understanding
language learning outcomes. Instead, we recognize that gender, as one
of many important facets of social identity, interacts with race, ethnicity,
class, sexuality, (dis)ability, age, and social status in framing students’
language learning experiences, trajectories, and outcomes.
In this article, we discuss how English language teachers worldwide
address gender in the classroom in four ways: curricular innovation, that
is, creating new programs and classes that address the needs of particular
504 TESOL QUARTERLY

learners; feminist teaching practices, materials, and activities; topic
management, that is, how teachers can engage learners in critical
reflection by incorporating gender issues into already existing classes;
and classroom management and decision-making practices. We draw
ESL examples from a variety of contexts in Canada and the United
States. We draw EFL examples predominantly from Japan, where grassroots
EFL feminist pedagogy first took shape in the 1970s. Feminist pedagogy
has been documented there to some extent, and we hope it will continue
to be documented in future research and feminist teaching practices
elsewhere in the world.
DEVELOPING A LIVED CURRICULUM

Curricular innovation in teaching practices involves creating new
programs, revising existing ones, and introducing new classes and
modules, all aiming to better address learners’ needs. In ESL education,
curricular changes often aim to accommodate the needs of immigrant
women. The plight of immigrant women in English-speaking contexts is
well documented. Their access to ESL classrooms can be constrained by
numerous factors, such as their domestic responsibilities as wives,
mothers, housekeepers, and caretakers (Frye, 1999; Kouritzin, 2000;
Norton, 2000; Rivera, 1999), by transportation and safety concerns,
especially when taking evening classes (Frye, 1999; Goldstein, 1995,
2001; Kouritzin, 2000), and by the need to prioritize immediate employ-
ment over educational opportunities (Goldstein,1995, 2001). Addressing
these multiple concerns within a single curriculum can be a daunting
task.
Rivera’s (1999) case study of the El Barrio Popular Education Program
shows how one program serves immigrant women’s needs. El Barrio is a
community-based adult education program in New York City, where
Latinas come to learn English, acquire literacy skills, improve their basic
education, and prepare for the high school equivalency exam. Most
participants are mothers with children attending public schools; many
are unemployed workers. The program addresses their needs in a variety
of ways: by scheduling meetings during the day when the children are in
school, by choosing class locations in the neighborhood and thus not
forcing the women to commute, and most important, by offering a
bilingual Spanish-English curriculum that incorporates the women’s
knowledge and experiences. The women also conduct research in their
communities on a variety of topics, from housing issues and trash
collection to the uses of English and Spanish.
In contexts where creating new programs is impossible, curricula may
be revised to include classes that target certain participants. Frye (1999)
developed an ESL class for immigrant women in a community education
THE FORUM 505

program in Washington, D.C., which otherwise focused on its male
students’ needs. The new class used a problem-posing approach to teach
language, literacy, and critical reflection skills, and it highlighted issues
that the Latinas defined as central to their lives. Frye involved the
participants in designing all aspects of the class, from child care and
scheduling to deciding which topics to cover. In class, the teacher served
as a guide, collaborator, and facilitator, while the participants generated
themes for discussion such as employment practices, school policies,
interaction with native English speakers, racial prejudice, and gender
equity.
Yet immigrant women are not the only ones who can slip through
educational cracks. In EFL education, women’s needs and concerns may
also go unacknowledged unless special efforts are made to incorporate
their voices. Case studies from Japan offer an array of approaches to
feminist language education (Cohen, 2004; McMahill, 1997, 2001; Saft &
Ohara, 2004; Simon-Maeda, 2004).
Simon-Maeda (in press) describes a feminist course she has developed
in a women’s junior college. The course introduced a variety of topics:
sexual harassment in the school and workplace, domestic violence,
sexism in textbooks and the media, and sexuality. Throughout the
course, the students examined gender inequality from a linguistic
perspective that highlighted the discursive practices that construct
gender. Further, the teacher did not expect the students to passively
accept her Western feminist notions. Rather, she encouraged them to
consider on their own terms why they might hold certain views and how
women have come to be positioned in a given context.
Simon-Maeda works with college students. Also working in Japan,
McMahill (1997, 2001) facilitates feminist English classes for adults,
which she has done for more than 20 years. The participants, Japanese
women of various ages, manage the classes by deciding which foreign
instructors to hire or to invite and by negotiating the class content with
these instructors. The classes typically combine linguistic goals (improv-
ing one’s English) with feminist goals (presenting at international
women’s conferences or translating feminist books).
Yet gender issues can be productively discussed in places other than
women’s groups. Saft and Ohara (2004) developed a 4-day module on
gender to encourage both male and female Japanese university students
to consider the dynamic quality of gender and to think critically about
women’s position in Japanese society. During the module, Saft and
Ohara examined the gendered use of language in English and Japanese,
assigned reading on the position of women in Japan, and discussed the
practice of onna rashii hanashikata (a womanly way of speaking in
Japanese). Although both male and female students discussed the topic,
some male students resisted the idea that Japanese women experienced
506 TESOL QUARTERLY

discrimination, and female students recognized that if women are to
have more options, men as well as women must be committed to gender
equality.
Our perspective emphasizes sensitivity to local contexts. We do not
proscribe all-women’s classes nor do we exclusively focus on women’s
needs. Rather, a feminist critical approach urges continuous needs
analysis and reflection that examine the situation of all learners.
Govindasamy and David (2004) describe a needs analysis study con-
ducted in the International Islamic University Malaysia, where almost
two thirds of the student population is female. The study determined
that although male students do not feel intimidated in the classroom,
they are less invested in language education, which does not adequately
prepare them for the business world. As a result of the study, the
department created a new course, Language for Occupational Purposes,
which aimed to meet the needs of male students.
To sum up, we emphasize that feminist curricular innovation is not
equivalent to traditional “thinking up” of new programs and classes.
Rather than working with a fully predetermined and decontextualized
curriculum, critical TESOL educators organize and reorganize the
curriculum around the needs and lived experiences of particular popu-
lations, be they young Japanese women, unemployed Latina immigrants,
or male college students in Malaysia. Despite their diversity and ever-
changing shape, these curricula have much in common. All incorporate
the participants’ experiences because feminist teaching practice gener-
ally recognizes that students are more engaged in their learning if they
have an investment in the curriculum, and if they can relate their
learning to the challenges they experience in life outside the classroom.
The participants’ languages and cultures also become a meaningful
aspect of the curriculum, whereby Latinas in El Barrio programs are
learning literacy and critical reflection skills in English and Spanish, and
Japanese college women compare linguistic constructions of gender in
English and Japanese.
IMAGINING ALTERNATIVE WORLDS

The second area that deserves closer consideration is the practices
common in feminist classrooms and the rich range of materials and
activities they incorporate. We consider one advanced-level ESL writing
class in Toronto, Canada, where students—predominantly female—
expressed an interest in soap operas (Schenke, 1996). The teacher used
this interest as an opportunity to explore with the students the personal
histories evoked while watching soap operas, and how feminist analysis
can frame such reminiscences. To do so, students read excerpts, some-
times paraphrased by Schenke, from Radway’s (1984) Reading the Romance;
THE FORUM 507

Coward’s (1985) Female Desires: How They Are Sought, Bought, and Packaged;
Hall’s (1990) “The Whites of Their Eyes: Racist Ideologies and the
Media”; and Simson’s (1989) Adrift in a World Not of My Own Making:
Feminism and the Melodramatic Text. They were asked to reflect on their
own formations of femininity and, in the one case, masculinity. The
vibrant oral discussions were complemented by written papers linking
personal histories and critical analysis. Schenke suggests that “feminism,
like antiracism, is thus not simply one more social issue in ESL but a way
of thinking, a way of teaching, and, most importantly, a way of learning”
(p. 158).
In turn, Cohen (2004) describes an advanced EFL undergraduate
course in a private university in Japan. Her textbook selections also had
a feminist focus: Chaika’s (1994) Language: The Social Mirror ; Skuttnabb-
Kangas’s (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education; Cherry’s (1987)
Womansword: What Japanese Words Say About Women; Nilsen’s (1999) Living
Language ; and Walker’s (1983) The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and
Secrets. These texts were complemented by teaching sequences that
helped students engage dialogically with the texts. One particularly
effective teaching sequence used a Japanese TV news report delivered by
a demure young woman and a confident older man. Cohen invited
interested students to write up their translations of the presentations,
which she then compiled for distribution, discussion, and analysis.
Questions for class discussion included, “What accounts for the failure of
two of the four student-interpreters to acknowledge the very presence of
the female commentator?” Thus, using both provocative texts and
innovative teaching sequences, Cohen drew on students’ lived experi-
ences, encouraging students to develop oral, interpretive, and writing
skills, while simultaneously gaining greater insight into gendered dimen-
sions of language learning and use.
Toff (2002), also teaching in Japan, describes how she uses life writing
in English to help her female junior college students straddle “the
language of experience with the language of narration” (p. 22). The use
of life writing, she argues, enables her students to write with great depth
and imagination, addressing topics that might otherwise have been
deemed too controversial. She begins the course by giving students
models of life writing such as “My Place” by Morgan (1987) and “Dakara
Anatamo Ininuite” by Mitsuyo (2000), which inspire students to reflect
on their own histories and experiences. She also uses Mah’s (1998)
Falling Leaves to help students incorporate historical perspective in their
writing, and McCourt’s (1996) Angela’s Ashes to learn about the centrality
of voice in writing. By drawing a distinction between the “I” perspective
of writing, which is grounded in personal experience, and the “eye”
perspective, which provides an analytic framework, Toff encourages her
students to develop greater awareness of how the reader and writer
508 TESOL QUARTERLY

interact in constructing meaning. In this way, students learn to address
personal and sometimes controversial topics, while gaining greater
control over the writing process.
All in all, we see that transformative practices, which include but are
not limited to reading and reflection, personal storytelling, journal
writing, and discussions of scenarios, incorporate students’ lived experi-
ences and then locate their experiences and beliefs within larger social
contexts. Such practices encourage students to imagine alternative ways
of being in the world and to consider a range of life trajectories.
TACKLING CHALLENGING TOPICS

Regardless of which particular class one is teaching, be it language
and gender, or simply English grammar, at some point every teacher is
faced with a controversial question, comment, or topic. We firmly believe
that teachers need to be well-prepared to handle such topics, while
maintaining a positive dynamic in the classroom. In fact, they may do
best by being proactive, as EFL and ESL classrooms represent unique
spaces where different linguistic and cultural worlds come into contact.
Such classrooms offer unparalleled opportunities for teachers to engage
with cross-cultural differences and the social construction of gender and
sexuality, and thus to help students develop linguistic and intercultural
competence, or multivoiced consciousness (Kramsch & von Hoene,
2001). This approach respectfully acknowledges students’ and teachers’
own diverse backgrounds, while engaging them with alternative systems
of knowledge, values, beliefs, and modes of gender performance. The
way in which debates are framed, questions are asked, and responses are
evaluated, is crucial in this regard.
Nelson (2004) examines how one teacher, Roxanne, used lesbian and
gay themes to explore cultural meanings in her grammar-based ESL class
in a community college in the United States. In a lesson on modal
auxiliaries, the students, hailing from 13 different countries and ranging
in age from early 20s to 70s, were asked to provide a number of
possibilities to explain the scenario, “These two women are walking arm
in arm” (one of several ambiguous scenarios on a class worksheet). In the
ensuing discussion, Roxanne coordinated a productive debate on les-
bian and gay cultural practices by framing questions in a highly skilled
manner. Instead of asking, for example, “Do you think lesbians should
hold hands in public?” she asked, “How did you learn to interpret public
displays of affection between two women in the United States?” This line
of questioning enabled her to focus on the extent to which sexual
identities are culturally situated and to demonstrate that what counts as
normal is not inherent but socially constructed. The discussion also
provided students with great insight into the ways in which modal
THE FORUM 509

auxiliaries are used for acts of speculation. Blending grammar teaching
with exploring gay and lesbian issues, Nelson powerfully demonstrates
that topics previously seen as taboo have great potential for teaching
both linguistic and intercultural competence.
Morgan (1997) provides an example of how students’ experiences can
be incorporated into a lesson on intonation. Drawing on a text called
“Decisions, Decisions” (Bowers & Godfrey, 1985), he presented the
predominantly Chinese students with a description of a scenario that
addressed gender roles in a Chinese family. He then asked students what
advice they would give to the female protagonist, Yuen-Li, who wished to
learn English but felt constrained by family obligations. The class
considered a number of options available to Yuen-Li, which were then
incorporated into a scripted dialogue that Morgan brought into class the
next day. The scripted dialogue was particularly helpful for students who
had difficulty producing their own work but wished to participate actively
in the discussion. It also provided students with the opportunity to read
English dialogue, which in turn allowed Morgan to explore the politics
of intonation. As students debated the multiple meanings of Oh in
diverse intonation contexts, they drew on a range of experiences that
might otherwise have remained unspoken.
Although the case studies just discussed are situated in college-level
and adult education classrooms, challenging topics can also be produc-
tively introduced in teacher-training programs. A case study by Boxer
and Tyler (2004) explores how different international teaching assistants
(ITAs) perceive scenarios that, in the view of U.S. undergraduates,
involve sexual harassment. The authors found that in some cases,
understandings of appropriate verbal and nonverbal behavior differed
not only between undergraduates and ITAs but also between Chinese-
and Spanish-speaking ITAs and between men and women. Because what
is considered sexual harassment differs from one context to another and
one culture to the next, the authors recommend a scenario-based
consciousness-raising approach for all ITA training programs.
Our analysis shows that to recognize diversity and achieve parity and
inclusiveness, teachers may introduce controversial topics that students
have not raised. In doing so, they often opt for a problem-solving
approach that invites students to respond to particular scenarios and
discuss ways in which specific situations would be treated across lan-
guages and cultures. Ensuing discussions raise students’ familiarity with
alternative discourses of gender and sexuality and enhance their ability
to reflect critically, to interpret verbal and nonverbal behaviors in
context, and to perform gender in context-appropriate ways.
510 TESOL QUARTERLY

SHARING POWER
Empowerment in the classroom may take place not only through
explicit discussion of gender inequities but also through negotiation of
power and control between teachers and students. As seen in the
preceding discussion, the trademark of feminist critical pedagogies is a
decentering of the teacher’s position, while students gain greater control
of the classroom. This control means involving students in making
decisions on meeting times, locations, child-care arrangements, and
choosing and managing discussion topics (Frye, 1999; McMahill, 2001;
Rivera, 1999).
The research of Fujimura-Fanselow (1996) in Japan provides much
insight into the ways in which unequal relations of power between
teachers and students can limit classroom participation, particularly for
women and girls. She makes a convincing case that the relative silence of
young Japanese girls in not unique to the Japanese educational system
but is characteristic of most societies in which women have unequal
access to power (see also Julé, 2004). To address these power inequities,
Fujimura-Fanselow structures her women’s studies classes in a way that
requires active participation for teaching and learning. She achieves this
by negotiating a curriculum that includes mini–research projects and
makes them integral to the course rather than an adjunct to it. She
suggests that by ensuring that both teacher and students serve as the
audience for these projects, power relations in the classroom become
less rigid and hierarchical.
Another convincing example of power sharing, according to Jordan
(2004), can be found in college-based writing centers. Working within
the U.S. college system, Jordan explores the extent to which feminist
composition pedagogy, which has tended to focus on native English
speakers, can be applied to the ESL tutoring that takes place in college-
based writing centers. His work seeks to raise awareness of institutional
and gender-related politics in and around these centers, and to show
how these politics can be harnessed for the benefit of students in general
and ESL students in particular. A writing center, Jordan argues, is an
ideal place for the practice of feminist composition pedagogy because it
is an educational site that views students as a source of knowledge,
focuses on both process and product in writing, and seeks to decenter
authority, particularly with reference to gendered inequities. Findings
from his research suggest that a writing center can be a safe place that
does not look or feel like a classroom, where teachers can exercise
flexibility in engaging students’ native rhetorical abilities while address-
ing demands for standardized English expression.
THE FORUM 511

CONCLUSION
We have discussed a variety of transformative classroom practices
common in feminist pedagogy: flexible curricula that recognize the
diversity of the students’ needs, shared decision making in the class-
room, teaching and learning that incorporate students’ life trajectories,
pedagogy that locates student experiences and beliefs within larger
social contexts, and practices that encourage students to imagine alter-
native ways of being in the world. We are grateful to the editors of the
special issue for an opportunity to express our views on the topic, and
look forward to future research that will deepen and expand the
perspectives presented here.
THE AUTHORS
Bonny Norton is an associate professor in the Department of Language and Literacy
Education at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Her research,
supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
addresses the relationship between identity, language learning, and social change.
Aneta Pavlenko is an associate professor in the Department of Curriculum, Instruc-

tion, and Technology in Education at Temple University, Philadelphia, United
States. Her research addresses the relationship between multilingualism, identity,
and gender as a system of social relations.
REFERENCES
Boxer, D., & Tyler, A. (2004). Gender, sexual harassment, and the international
teaching assistant. In B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.) Gender and English language
learners (pp. 29–42). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Casanave, C. P., & Yamashiro, A. (Eds.). (1996). Gender issues in language education.
Fujisawa City, Japan: Keio University Shonan Fujisawa Campus.
Chaika, E. (1994). Language: The social mirror. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cherry, K. (1987). Womansword: What Japanese words say about women. Tokyo: Kodansha
International.
Cohen, T. (2004). Critical feminist engagement in the EFL classroom: From
supplement to staple. In B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English
Coward, R. Female desires: How they are sought, bought, and packaged. New York: Grove.
Frye, D. (1999). Participatory education as a critical framework for immigrant
women’s ESL class. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 501–513.
Fujimura-Fanselow, K. (1996). Transforming teaching: Strategies for engaging
female learners. In C. P. Casanave & A. Yamashiro (Eds.), Gender issues in language
education (pp. 31–46). Fujisawa City, Japan: Keio University Shonan Fujisawa
Campus.
power on the production lines. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated:
Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 375–400). New York: Routledge.
512 TESOL QUARTERLY

Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 77–101). Berlin, Ger-
many: Mouton de Gruyter.
Govindasamy, S., & David, M. K. (2004). Investigating the male voice in a Malaysian
ESL classroom. In B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English language
Hall, S. The whites of their eyes: Racist ideologies and the media. In M. Alvarado &
J. Thompson (Eds.), The media reader (pp. 7–23). London: British Film Institute.
Jordan, J. (2004). Feminist composition pedagogies in ESL tutoring. In B. Norton &
A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English language learners (pp. 43–56). Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Julé, A. (2004). Speaking in silence: A case study of a Canadian Punjabi girl. In
B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English language learners (pp. 69–78).
Kouritzin, S. (2000). Immigrant mothers redefine access to ESL classes: Contradiction
and ambivalence. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21, 14–32.
Kramsch, C., & Von Hoene, L. (2001). Cross-cultural excursions: Foreign language
study and feminist discourses of travel. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, &
283–306). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mah, A. Y. (1998). Falling leaves: The true story of an unwanted Chinese daughter.
Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
McCourt, F. (1996). Angela’s ashes: A memoir. New York: Simon & Schuster.
McMahill, C. (1997). Communities of resistance: A case study of two feminist English
classes in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 612–622.
Multilingualism, second language learning, and gender (pp. 307–344). Berlin, Ger-
many: Mouton de Gruyter.
Morgan, B. (1997) Identity and intonation: Linking dynamic processes in an ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 431–450.
Nelson, C. (2004). Beyond straight grammar: Using lesbian/gay themes to explore
cultural meanings. In B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English language
Nilsen, A. P. (1999). Living language: Reading, thinking, and writing. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Norton, B., & Pavlenko, A. (Eds.). (2004). Gender and English language learners.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning.
gualism, second language learning, and gender. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Radway, J. A. (1984). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Rivera, K. (1999). Popular research and social transformation: A community-based
approach to critical pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 485–500.
Saft, S., & Ohara, Y. (2004). Promoting critical reflection about gender in EFL classes
at a Japanese university. In B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English
Schenke, A. (1996). Not just a “social issue”: Teaching feminist in ESL. TESOL
Quarterly, 30, 155–159.
Simon-Maeda, A. (2004). Transforming emerging feminist identities: A course on
THE FORUM 513

gender and language issues. In B. Norton & A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English
Simson, H. Adrift in a world not of my own making: Feminism and the melodramatic text.
Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Department
of Adult Education.
Skuttnab-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and
human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Toff, M. (2002). A language of their own: Young Japanese women writing their life in
English. The Japan Association for Language Teachers, 26(6), 22–26.
Walker, B. G. (1983). The woman’s encyclopedia of myths and secrets. New York: Harper &
Row.
Language Learning: A Feminine Domain?

The Role of Stereotyping in Constructing
Gendered Learner Identities
BARBARA SCHMENK
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Bochum, Germany
■ The study of gender and its significance in language learning environ-

ments has for a long time focused on difference. Critical views of the
difference approach to understanding gender and language learning have
emerged only recently (e.g. Ehrlich, 1997; Pavlenko & Piller, 2001).
These critiques point out that difference approaches are inherently
context- and culture-blind because they regard gender as a static,
context-free category (e.g., Ehrlich, 1997; Schmenk, 2002; Sunderland,
2000). Based on poststructuralist premises, the critiques conceive of
language learners’ identities as contested sites and argue for developing
an enhanced framework for studying gender and its meanings within
particular communities of practice (e.g., Norton, 2000; Pavlenko, 2001;
Pavlenko & Piller, 2001; Peirce, 1995; Pennycook, 2001; Schmenk, 2002).
Instead of looking at what males are like and what females are like and
constructing generalized images of male and female language learners
accordingly, critical voices note that language learners are themselves
constantly constructing and reconstructing their identities in specific
contexts and communities. To understand these processes and reflect on
their possible implications for language learning and teaching, English
language teachers, researchers, and teacher educators need to take into
account individual learners and their respective positioning in particular
social and cultural contexts.
The present article aims to add to these recent views by focusing on a
widely held assumption in many language learning environments, namely,
514 TESOL QUARTERLY

the belief that language learning is a feminine domain. Generalist
assumptions such as “languages are girls’ subjects,” “girls generally have
more positive attitudes than boys toward language learning,” “girls are
better at language learning than boys” are widespread (even though they
have not remained uncontested1), and they can influence language
learning environments in multiple ways.2 I would suggest that such
beliefs are to a large extent based on commonsense conceptions of
gender and of language learning resulting from particular instances of
stereotyping. My aim is therefore to introduce a conceptual framework
within which I can theorize gender stereotyping and its role in discourses
of language learning as a feminine domain3 and disentangle some of the
complex relationships between stereotypes, gender, and language learn-
ing. Understanding processes of stereotyping is crucial for researchers
who want to overcome essentialist conceptions of the sexes4 both inside
the language classroom and beyond. After all, if TESOL professionals
want to conceptualize gender as a socially and culturally constructed
dynamic category, one of the key questions that emerges is how to deal
with commonsense notions of masculinity and femininity in language
learning environments.
GENDER STEREOTYPING
According to social psychological views, stereotypes are “shared beliefs
about personality traits and behaviors of group members. By stereotyp-
ing we overlook individuality” (Fiedler & Bless, 2001, p. 123). Stereotypes
can thus be described as social hypotheses or beliefs because they are
1
Sunderland (2000) points out that many of the available research findings refer to North
American, Australian, and British contexts, fewer to Continental European and Asian contexts,
and fewer still to other regions, most notably Africa, where many people are multilingual. This
point is particularly salient with respect to TESOL and gender because the belief that language
learning is a feminine domain is likely to be confined to specific, socioculturally bounded
images of femininity, masculinity, and language learning.
2
See Headway Advanced (Soars & Soars, 1989), a popular textbook used in many EFL
classrooms around the globe. Its introductory unit confronts teachers and learners with the
statement that “females are better at languages” (p. 6), prompting students to ask why (not if)
this might be the case. It is very likely that such suggestive phrasing influences learners’ as well
as teachers’ perception of language learning and gender.
3
I use the term discourse in a sense derived from Foucault (1972), who argues that discourses
consist of a group of statements, which provide a language for talking about specific topics at a
particular historical moment. Hence, knowledge is discursively constructed and reflects specific
orders of discourse within particular sociocultural contexts.
4
A straightforward distinction between sex and gender is probably impossible (Bergvall,
1999; Butler, 1990), particularly in the case of stereotypes. Stereotypical views of males and
females (often pertaining to the dimension of sex, i.e., biology) usually link social aspects of
gender (e.g., assumptions about personality traits or social roles associated with femininity and
masculinity) to a biological given. As a result, stereotypes are a blend of biological, social, and
psychological dimensions.
THE FORUM 515

often learned from others and do not reflect only an individual’s
perception. The process of stereotyping results from social categoriza-
tion, that is, classifying people into groups according to their presumed
common attributes (Franzoi, 2000). In the case of gender, stereotyping
results from the classification of people into two groups, men and
women, whose members are considered to differ according to divergent
personality traits, abilities, and motives (according to what is commonly
believed to be typically feminine and typically masculine). Stereotypes
are fixed ways of thinking about people grouped into a social category, so
gender stereotypes comprise static notions about feminine and mascu-
line traits, regardless of social, cultural, or historical variations in the lives
of women and men.
Commonly held beliefs about the traditional man and the traditional
woman center on the competency-independence pole and the warmth-
expressive pole (Breakwell, 1988; Jordan & Weedon, 1995). Women are
considered characteristically expressive, and men are considered charac-
teristically competent. Stereotypical beliefs such as these are widespread
and familiar in many cultural contexts throughout the world, although
actual perceived differences are likely to vary considerably in different
sociocultural contexts.5 Nevertheless, generalist assumptions about gen-
der often claim to reflect universal phenomena about men and women
prior to social, cultural, or historical contexts. Hence, it is not surprising
that much commonsense knowledge of gender is based on stereotypes
(Franzoi, 2000). Such knowledge in turn primes common perceptions of
women and men, thus forming powerful gender lenses (Bem, 1993) that
help to maintain ideologies about an essential, primordial difference
between the sexes.
This social-psychological framework suggests that stereotyping is inte-
gral to the discursive construction of knowledge about gender. Instead of
asking whether or not gender stereotypes have a kernel of truth or
otherwise assigning an immediate truth value to stereotypical knowledge
about the sexes, this framework enables thinking about stereotyping as a
process that may occur in various social contexts and conceiving stereo-
types as powerful resources in constructing gendered images of language
learning and language learners. It may help therefore to explain the view
of language learning as a feminine domain without reifying generalist
assumptions about women and men.
5
Researchers have shown repeatedly that stereotypical beliefs about gender are largely
identical in many different cultures (Breakwell, 1988; Franzoi, 2000). Although gender and its
meanings vary considerably across cultures, time, and different communities of practice,
gender stereotypes are remarkably invariant in many different cultures and across generations.
This does not mean, however, that gender stereotypes are assigned similar functions and values
in different communities, nor does it suggest that processes of stereotyping take similar forms
regardless of cultural contexts.
516 TESOL QUARTERLY

GENDER STEREOTYPING IN CONSTRUCTIONS OF
LANGUAGE LEARNING AS A FEMININE DOMAIN
Gender stereotypes and stereotyping are well known in many cultures,
so we can assume that a variety of social beliefs about gender help to
shape and are shaped by conceptions of gender and language learning
and teaching. Examining stereotypes more closely might help to more
fully explain their role in maintaining dominant beliefs about the sexes
in language learning. Concerning the belief that language learning is a
feminine domain, at least three aspects could be related to stereotyping:
(a) the claim that gender is a differentiating variable, (b) the claim that
language learning success is causally linked to a person’s gender, and (c)
the observation that girls and women worldwide tend to study languages
more often than boys and men do.
Gender as a Differentiating Variable

The notion of difference generally characterizes commonsense con-
ceptions of gender, which are reinforced by many scholars’ continuous
search for differences between males and females and by the popular
media’s frequently featuring the research results. It is important, how-
ever, to realize that this research tradition, the difference approach to
studying gender, is itself inherently stereotyped. The difference ap-
proach treats gender as a social category. It begins with the assumption
that men and women form comparable groups and that comparing them
will bring about meaningful results, thus drawing on conceptions of
gender as a dichotomous category. The difference approach and beliefs
about the sexes as incommensurable opposites derive their power from
the assumption that male and female are two fundamentally different,
monolithic entities (Bergvall, 1999; Weedon, 1997). Essentialist views of
gender look for specific traits inside the person, neglecting the socially,
historically, and culturally constructed dimensions of gender in social
communities.
Even the argument that gender differences are socially constructed
does not escape the fundamental binary because the difference ap-
proach has to assume that the social somehow causes the emergence of
two largely divergent patterns of socialization. This epistemology of
fundamental difference makes distinguishing between innate and so-
cially constructed aspects impossible (Bergvall, 1999; Schmenk, 2002).
Therefore, the difference approach to conceptions of gender implicitly
reifies essentialist assumptions about women and men because it takes
for granted that individuals who belong to the group of males differ from
those who belong to females. This is why any difference approach to
understanding gender necessarily widens the perceived gulf between
female and male learners, and the difference approach underlies the
THE FORUM 517

belief that language learning is a feminine domain because it is inti-
mately tied to gender as a differentiating variable.6 Apart from assuming
that gender is a binary category, the belief that language learning is
feminine is related to other beliefs around language learning and
gender, most notably the belief that females have superior linguistic
ability.
Explaining Female Superiority

The question about which sex is better at language learning has for a
long time dominated the study of gender and language education (see,
e.g., Ehrlich, 1997; Sunderland, 2000). Based on the notion of gender as
a differentiating variable, such quests to find differences between male
and female learners have not shown clear-cut patterns of differential
achievement—yet the belief in female superiority in language learning is
more widespread than attempts to argue for male superiority in accom-
plishing the same task.7 In addition to relying on conceptions of gender
as a fixed learner variable, arguments in favor of female superiority also
rely on other instances of stereotyping. Consider, for example, the
following explanations:
[Example 1.] Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) work on sex differences suggests
that females are superior to, or at least very different from, males in many
social skills, with females showing a greater social orientation. . . . We think
that social orientation is highly related to communication in both first and
second languages. . . . Because social learning strategies have been found to
be particularly important for exposing the learner to the target language,
increasing the amount of interaction with native speakers, and enhancing
motivation . . . , it is reasonable to anticipate that they will enhance verbal
learning. (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990, p. 1)
[Example 2.] Girls are more likely to stress co-operation and . . . learn to deal
sensitively with relationships, whereas boys emphasize establishing and main-
taining hierarchical relations and asserting their identity. The female “cul-
ture” seems to lend itself more readily to dealing with the inherent threat
imposed to identity by L2 learning. (Ellis, 1994, p. 204)
6
This argument could of course be applied to other gendered domains as well. For
example, some communities might consider language learning (or other fields of study) a male
domain (see, e.g., Bügel & Buunk, 1996, on male superiority in EFL reading comprehension in
the Netherlands).
7
For an overview of studies and their conflicting results, see, e.g., Ehrlich (1997), Schmenk
(2002), and Sunderland (2000). It is worth noting that some researchers have constructed
arguments in favor of clear-cut sex differences despite the research evidence available. Ellis
(1994), for example, lists inconsistent results from empirical research, yet remains convinced
that “female learners generally do better than male” (p. 202).
518 TESOL QUARTERLY

Both examples refer to potential differences between male and female
language learners, and they both establish or imply specific arguments in
favor of female superiority or specifically feminine ways of learning
language. In Example 1, Ehrman and Oxford speculate on females’
greater success in language learning, presenting a chain of hypotheses
about female learners that result from their presumed greater social
orientation.8 The authors thus conceive female superiority as an effect of
a particular female trait that causes the female learner to use particular
learning strategies that, in turn, cause successful language learning.
In Example 2, Ellis also speculates about female superiority based on
specifically feminine attributes. In this instance, Ellis presumes that
female culture, characterized by cooperative behavior and sensitivity in
dealing with relationships, causes successful language learning. Yet, the
theory of language learning implied in Example 2 is quite different from
the theory implied in the first example. Ehrman and Oxford’s theoreti-
cal explanation centralizes the role of social interaction, assuming that
“social orientation” might facilitate communication with native speakers,
which in turn may lead to high language learning achievement. Ellis, on
the other hand, constructs quite a different theory. His reasoning
assumes that L2 learning poses a threat to learner identities. Conse-
quently, he speculates that females can cope with such a threat “more
readily” than males.
In both attempts to explain female superiority in language learning,
the authors fail to escape stereotypical, generalist assumptions. Their
failure shows that any attempt to hypothesize about female superiority
remains confined to dichotomous thinking and infers prior knowledge
about the sexes (which is itself a product of binary thinking). The result
continually reproduces and reinterprets prior beliefs. At the same time,
the theories of successful language learning that Examples 1 and 2 imply
have little in common except their focus on difference and the shared
belief that females are somehow better at learning language. Whether
through a particularly strong social orientation or a specific sensitivity
toward others, arguments in favor of female superiority often associate
stereotypically feminine attributes and language learning success. Be-
cause the underlying difference approach requires discourses on female
superiority to conceptualize successful language learning as a matter of
typically feminine characteristics and behaviors, they bring about inher-
ently feminized images of language learning. As a result, language
learning itself appears to be gendered; it is feminized. These attempts to
explain female superiority, however, rarely ask whether these feminized
8
This assertion of females’ greater social orientation pertains to a widespread stereotype
(e.g., Breakwell, 1988; Jordan & Weedon, 1995). Yet Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) in their
overview of studies into sex differences note that this belief is “unfounded” (p. 349).
THE FORUM 519

images adequately reflect the behaviors of actual male or female learners
and whether successful language learning does indeed require character-
istics from the stereotypically feminine warmth-expressive pole. Rather,
these explanations begin with the belief in gender as a variable that
brings about dualistic patterns of behavior. This conclusion confirms
what Cameron (1996) has observed in the field of gender and language:
My research suggests that the single most important factor . . . is people’s

eagerness to believe certain commonsense propositions about gender. Their
desire to believe that “women are thus and men are so” is strong enough to
compensate for what, from a purely academic standpoint, are obvious short-
comings or contradictions in the evidence presented. And indeed, academic
discourse itself is not immune from a milder form of this tendency to
interpret all evidence in accordance with certain forgone conclusions. (p. 49)
Binary thinking and stereotypical views of women as cooperative, sensi-

tive, and social persons inform discourses of female superiority and,
consequently, of language learning as a feminine domain. Although this
is not to say that researchers, textbook authors, and others intentionally
embark on stereotyping, I would argue that it is indeed important to
reflect on the fact that commonly held beliefs influence the world both
outside and inside the language classroom. Therefore, it is crucial that
social beliefs about the sexes be brought to the surface and be made
visible—the only way to resist stereotyping lies in establishing a critical
awareness of gender stereotypes and their role in social and cultural
belief systems.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE: FACTS AND STEREOTYPES ABOUT

LANGUAGE LEARNING AS A FEMININE DOMAIN
The numbers of female students in foreign language courses world-
wide are exceptionally high. Yet these figures do not mean that women
have specifically female or other common abilities, interests, or motives
to study languages. The fact that they are women does not automatically
explain their choice of study. But why so many women opt for language
study is worth investigating. Instead of looking for reasons inside the
woman (which can only reproduce generalist assumptions and hege-
monic, essentialist beliefs about the sexes), researchers should explore
individual persons’ choices in the light of gender stereotyping:
• Which forms of gender stereotyping occur in particular communities
of practice? Is it possible that learners ascribe stereotypes to them-
selves and act accordingly? Is it possible that others ascribe stereo-
types to women and men in language learning contexts and thus
influence individual decisions (and maybe achievement)?
520 TESOL QUARTERLY

• Does the phenomenon called stereotype threat in social psychology
(Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001; Steele, 1997), the tendency to
confirm gender stereotypes when they are explicitly activated, occur
in language learning contexts as well? What role do stereotyping and
so-called self-fulfilling prophecies play in sustaining the belief in
language learning as a feminine domain? Might women act in
accordance with the belief that language learning is a feminine
domain because they can profit from it?
These questions address issues of stereotyping, power, and investment
(McMahill, 2001; Peirce, 1995) and point to new directions of study.
Investigating language learning as a feminine domain might reveal a very
interesting and complex relationship between gender and power. The
question of gender stereotyping and power is especially intriguing in this
context because traditional stereotypes about men, women, and their
respective roles and positions in many societies appear to be confused.
The widespread belief in female superiority is extraordinary in some
respects, given that cognitive abilities and achievements are stereotypically
higher in men. Female superiority in language learning is therefore at
odds with other beliefs about gender and cognitive abilities.9
Stereotypically feminine attributes, which are usually claimed to legiti-
mize women’s subordinate positions in many societies, are reevaluated in
the language learning context. Arguments in favor of female superiority
assume that feminine characteristics facilitate language learning and
stereotypically masculine attributes inhibit language learning. Thus, the
language learning context seems to reverse traditional power structures
and patterns of domination and subordination, which tends to confuse
the overall picture of gender, language learning, and stereotypes. Whether
this particular system of power and gender stereotyping plays a role in
deciding to study languages remains to be seen; individuals could realize
that language study offers many women positive self-concepts, self-
confidence, superiority, or other advantages. Hence, the choice to study
a typically feminine subject would—ironically—enable women to escape
traditional gender stereotypes. Confirming stereotypes could thus mean
resisting stereotyping.
9
The most prominent example is the discussion about male superiority in mathematics (see,
e.g., Li, 1999). Although this issue lies beyond the scope of the present article, it is worth
pointing out that languages and mathematics are often viewed to form opposites themselves.
Thus, being good at languages contrasts with being good at mathematics, which neatly fits the
belief that women and men form two distinct social groups whose members have distinctly
different strengths and weaknesses—that also happen to be differentially valued.
THE FORUM 521

CONCLUSION: GENDER STEREOTYPING
AND THE LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
Gender stereotyping is widespread and very often occurs unintention-
ally and goes unnoticed. In everyday life, various sources continuously
reproduce stereotypical views of gender and difference. Conceiving of
gender as a fundamental, binary opposition fuels the idea that stereo-
types would indeed mirror what male and female persons, as groups, are
like. Therefore, understanding gender stereotyping in language class-
rooms must begin by recognizing that learners (as well as teachers) come
with prior knowledge and experience and are actively constructing
identities. Yet, although gender is likely to be constructed within particu-
lar communities such as language classrooms, understanding gender
stereotyping cannot be confined to specific community practices only.
The belief that language learning is a feminine domain, for example,
very likely derives from sources outside actual language classrooms,
though it is reproduced inside classrooms as well. At the moment,
further research is needed to determine how gender ideology is adopted
and reproduced.
Assuming that stereotypes somehow reflect what learners are like is
misleading. Rather, stereotyping is best conceived as a discursive con-
struction ascribed to persons and to language learning. This view is in
line with the notion that gender and identity are not fixed but constantly
constructed, reconstructed, and deconstructed in learning environ-
ments. Individuals might ascribe stereotypes, such as the belief that
language learning is a feminine domain, to others or to themselves, but
they can also reject stereotypes. In either case, teachers must adopt a
critical stance toward generalist statements about male and female
learners and develop a heightened awareness of gender stereotyping.
Doing so will enable them to focus on individual learners as persons
rather than as group members and encourage others to take off their
gender lenses in the language classroom and beyond.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the editors of this special issue, the anonymous reviewers, and Kristy Surak
for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
THE AUTHOR
Barbara Schmenk is an assistant professor of applied linguistics at the Seminar für
Sprachlehrforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, in Germany. Her research interests
include gender and language learning, intercultural learning, and learner autonomy.
522 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bergvall, V. L. (1999). Toward a comprehensive theory of language and gender.
Language in Society, 28, 273–293.
Breakwell, G. (1988). Social beliefs about gender differences. In C. Fraser &
G. Gaskell (Eds.), Psychological studies of widespread beliefs (pp. 210–225). Oxford,
England: Clarendon.
Bügel, K., & Buunk, B. P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text compre-
hension: The role of interest and prior knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 80,
15–31.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1996). The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation. In
V. L. Bergvall, J. M. Bing, & A. F. Freed (Eds.), Rethinking language and gender
research: Theory and practice (pp. 31–52). New York: Longman.
Ehrlich, S. (1997). Gender as social practice. Implications for second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 421–446.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult learning styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1–13.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Fiedler, K., & Bless, H. (2001). Social cognition. In M. Hewstone & W. Stroebe
(Eds.), Introduction to social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 115–149). Oxford, England:
Basil Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New
York: Pantheon.
Franzoi, S. (2000). Social psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Jordan, G., & Weedon, C. (1995). Cultural politics: Class, gender, race, and the postmodern
world. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. D. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender
stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 942–958.
Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review.
Educational Research, 41, 63–76.
Maccobi, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Mouton de Gruyter.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational
change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Oxford, R. L. (1995). Gender differences in learning styles: What do they mean? In
J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 34–46). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Pavlenko, A. (2001). Bilingualism, gender, and ideology. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 5, 117–151.
Pavlenko, A., & Piller, I. (2001). New directions in the study of multilingualism,
second language learning, and gender. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, &
17–52). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
THE FORUM 523

Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmenk, B. (2002). Geschlechtsspezifisches Fremdsprachenlernen? Zur Konstruktion
geschlechtstypischer Lerner- und Lernbilder in der Fremdsprachenforschung. Tübingen,
Germany: Stauffenburg.
Soars, J., & Soars, L. (1989). Headway advanced. Students’ book. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Sunderland, J. (2000). Issues of language and gender in second and foreign
language education. Language Teaching, 33, 203–223.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford,
England: Basil Blackwell.
“The Devil Is in the Detail”: Researching

Gender Issues in Language Assessment
ANNIE BROWN
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, Australia
TIM MCNAMARA
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, Australia
■ The relationship of language tests to gender identity represents the

intersection of two sites of social power and control. Increasingly,
language tests are being understood in terms of their political functions
and social consequences (McNamara, 1998; Shohamy, 2001). The domi-
nant paradigm for investigating validity (Messick, 1989) emphasizes that
language-testing researchers are responsible for investigating the extent
to which the inferences made about individuals based on language test
results are defensible, and for revealing sources of bias and error. But it
also emphasizes the contestable values embodied in test constructs and
the need to investigate the social consequences, intended and unin-
tended, of language-testing practice. Language testers’ responsibility
thus has an ethical dimension (Davies, 1997): Responsible professional
practice in language testing involves care for the rights and interests of
particular social groups who may be at risk from biased language
assessments. The question of differential and unequal treatment of
candidates in language tests based on gender is thus both a technical and
an ethical/political issue.
524 TESOL QUARTERLY

In this article we examine research to date on the relationship
between candidates’ and testers’ gender identity and score inferences,
focusing in particular on face-to-face spoken-language testing. We discuss
the complexity of factors involved and the lack of consistent findings,
and we contrast traditional psychometric and more recent discourse-
based research methods in unravelling this complexity. We argue that
research on this topic can illuminate the broader issue of how macrosocial
categories such as gender operate in the microsocial environment of
face-to-face interaction.
PSYCHOMETRIC RESEARCH ON
GENDER IN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT
The issue of gender-related effects in educational tests has long been
a concern of psychometrics. Operational test developers try to ensure
that test items are not biased against particular subsets of the testing
population because of their gender, ethnicity, or age, inter alia. To root
out bias, test developers might elicit feedback from specialists on draft
test items or conduct complex statistical analysis of candidate perform-
ance on pilot tests. For example, at Educational Testing Service in the
United States, specially trained reviewers examine TOEFL, TOEIC, and
other language test questions and materials for bias prior to test trialling.
The recently updated ETS Fairness Review Guidelines (Educational Testing
Service, 2003) documents the mandated subjective fairness review proce-
dures. These procedures are not foolproof, however. In their study of
bias in a reading comprehension test, Ross and Okabe (2002) found that
reviewers tended to see bias as affecting whole passages rather than
individual questions. Their study suggests that subjective rating tends to
overestimate the extent of gender bias, which means that developers
could omit sound items from operational tests.
Psychometrics has developed sophisticated statistical methods for
detecting bias. These methods typically involve analysing response data,
often summarised as scores. Thurstone (Thurstone & Chave, 1929) and
Glaser (1949, 1952) were among the first researchers to study response
inconsistency between subgroups of test takers (defined by gender, age,
language background, and so on), which involves looking for quantita-
tive evidence of item bias or differential item functioning (DIF) in
responses to test items. Masters (1988) defines item bias as follows: “If an
item’s estimated difficulty is significantly greater when calibrated on one
subgroup than when calibrated on the other, the item is considered
‘biased’ with respect to those two” (p. 17). Smith (1992) defines bias
operationally as “statistically different item difficulty estimates for the
same item in subpopulations of interest” (p. 89).
THE FORUM 525

By the early 1980s, Kunnan (1990) and others had applied sophisti-
cated methods for detecting DIF for multiple choice tests of reading and
writing and of grammar and vocabulary. Using Rasch item response
modelling, Kunnan (1990) analysed a university ESL placement test and
found that 20% of the reading, listening, and grammar/vocabulary items
favoured males. Lumley and O’Sullivan (2001) investigated gender bias
in topics chosen for a tape-mediated speaking test given to graduates in
Hong Kong. They found small and hard-to-predict effects for topic: One
topic (horse-racing) favoured males, but another (soccer), which might
have shown the same effect, provided no advantage for males.
Detecting bias in speaking and writing tests has required analytic
techniques for detecting bias in rating scale data, but this is not the only
added complexity. Writers on performance assessment have stressed the
complexity of the performance’s context and have suggested a systematic
research program for estimating the effects of relevant variables
(McNamara, 1996). In speaking tests, gender-related effects may be
associated with the gender of the test taker, the interviewer, or the rater,
and interaction among any of these three variables can produce further
effect. Other factors can also have an impact, for example, the test
takers’ cultural background or the degree of familiarity between test
taker and interviewer. The mode of rating—from audiotape or from
videotape—also seems to have an effect (Carroll, 1991). In fact, current
research on gender and language testing often analyses the gender
variable in isolation, without considering a range of other possible social
identity variables.
Initial psychometric studies of social identity variables within language
testing were small scale and exploratory, looking at a single factor at a
time, with inevitably conflicting results. For example, in a small study,
Locke (1984) found that the gender of the interviewer had a significant
effect for young Arab male students in a United Kingdom setting: The
students received higher scores from a male independent rater (not the
interviewer) than from a female rater. Porter and Shen (1991), however,
using a similar design but with students of mixed nationality, found that
candidates received higher scores when interviewed by a woman. In
discussing the Porter and Shen study, O’Sullivan (2000) speculates that
either cultural background or rater factors could explain these conflict-
ing results. O’Sullivan’s (2000) own study involving Japanese students
confirmed Porter and Shen’s findings. Buckingham (1997) further
complicates the picture: In a study of Japanese learners of English, she
found that female interviewees performed better when interviewed by a
woman, and male interviewees performed better when interviewed by a
man. In yet another small study, this one on the impact of raters, Carroll
(1991) found that male raters gave candidates higher scores than female
raters did; and both male and female raters gave male candidates higher
526 TESOL QUARTERLY

scores than they did female candidates. Though Carroll does not report
clearly on how the interviewer’s gender affects scoring, his study suggests
that the rater’s gender has a greater impact.
In paired or group oral speaking tests, the interlocutor factor is
potentially more complex. In these tasks, candidates work together in
pairs or small groups while a rater observes directly or via audio- or
videotape. Again, the results are mixed. Berry (1997) found that gender
influenced the discourse produced in dyads that included every gender
combination. In contrast, O’Sullivan (2002) reported only limited effects
for interlocutor’s gender in a paired oral task.
Given the complexity of the context introduced in paired oral tests
and in all direct tests of speaking, psychometric research needs to
control for intervening variables and interaction effects. More sophisti-
cated analytic tools will permit better and more complex designs, and
some evidence suggests that this new research has begun. Lumley and
O’Sullivan (2001) and O’Loughlin (2002) used Rasch bias analysis
(McNamara, 1996) to study gender-based bias in speaking-test scores.
Elder, McNamara, and Congdon (2003) used a variety of even more
recent Rasch-based techniques for detecting bias in performance test
data, although to date no studies of gender-related bias using these
techniques have been reported. Using purely technical means for
detecting bias, however, evades or even obscures the question raised by
Sunderland (1995): Where does the true ability lie? Gender-related bias
can cancel out or exaggerate any true differences in ability, thus masking
them.
DISCOURSE-BASED RESEARCH ON
GENDER IN SPEAKING TESTS
An alternative to studying gender effects in language test scores or

item responses has been to study the spoken discourse produced in
speaking tests. In a recent survey of the literature on discourse analysis
and language assessment, McNamara, Hill, and May (2002) frame the
remarkable growth of language-testing research based on discourse
analysis in the following terms: “If structuralist linguistics was the source
of the views on language of the formative period of postwar language
testing, best represented in the work of Lado (1961), then discourse
analysis has taken its place in the assessment of oral language” (p. 221).
Their survey discusses a wide range of approaches, including conversa-
tion analysis (sometimes supported by microethnographies: see espe-
cially Jacoby, 1998; see also O’Loughlin, 2001, chapter 6), think-aloud
protocols, and activity theory.
Researchers have investigated gender effects in speaking tests by
THE FORUM 527

analysing discourse data in differing ways. Some studies have focused on
discourse products, often using counts of discourse features, which are
then analysed statistically; others focus on the process of interaction. In
either case, to explain observed score differences, researchers might
relate the discourse-based findings to score patterns. Before looking at
discourse-based studies in detail, it is worth noting that most of the
studies do not consider variables such as participants’ ethnicity, class, or
age, and gender is treated as “a static, context-free category” (Schmenk,
this issue, p. 513) rather than as something constructed locally and
contextually. We examine this issue at the microlevel of interaction later
in this article.
In an important discourse-based study, O’Sullivan (2002) analysed the
discourse of paired oral interactions using measures derived from
Skehan’s (1998) work on task design. He counted discourse features
(syntax, morphology, and lexis) of candidate speech to yield measures of
accuracy and complexity and then analysed them statistically. O’Sullivan
found that candidate speech was more accurate when the interlocutor
was female, but he found no gender effect for complexity; overall,
gender did not have a strong impact on candidate speech.
O’Loughlin (2002) used rather different measures in his study of
discourse produced in the International English Language Testing
System (IELTS) interview, where the variables were the candidate’s and
the interlocutor’s gender. O’Loughlin based his discourse-analytic cat-
egories on features that the feminist linguist Coates (1993) claimed were
typical of female and male conversation. One such feature is overlaps,
that is, “instances of slight over-anticipation by the next speaker: instead
of beginning to speak immediately following the current speaker’s turn,
the next speaker begins to speak at the very end of the current speaker’s
turn, overlapping the last word (or part of it)” (Coates, 1993, p. 109).
Coates claims that male speakers are more likely to overlap than female
speakers in mixed pair conversations because female speakers are
reluctant to interrupt male speakers’ talk. O’Loughlin also counted the
features analysed, and used raw score totals to conclude that the inter-
viewer’s and candidate’s gender appeared to have little impact on the
IELTS interviews studied. For example, minimal responses such as
“yeah” and “mhm,” which Coates sees as supportive and finds more
commonly in the females’ talk, showed no gendered pattern of distribu-
tion in O’Loughlin’s data.
But what exactly did O’Loughlin count? O’Loughlin himself raises
this issue. He found not only little evidence that using overlaps is
gendered, but also that many of the overlaps actually facilitated talk.
O’Sullivan (2000) elaborated this issue. He found almost twice as many
minimal responses in male interviewers’ speech as in female interview-
ers’ speech (this finding contradicted Porter and Shen’s 1991 findings).
528 TESOL QUARTERLY

But how the interviewers produced these minimal responses was appar-
ently important: Men tended to produce monotonal responses delivered
in a lower pitch; women more frequently produced bitonal or multitonal
responses. Using minimal responses as the unit of analysis, however, did
not enable O’Loughlin to capture how these responses affected per-
ceived support.
What, then, are researchers to do? Young and Milanovic (1992)
suggest another avenue. In their study of discourse variation in oral
proficiency interviews, they speculate that gender might account for the
tendency of topics to persist when females interviewed female candi-
dates, who tended to ratify examiner-introduced topics more frequently
than male candidates did. Despite this finding, Young and Milanovic
(1992) argue that researchers need to go beyond counting interactional
features (i.e., examining discourse products) to consider the interac-
tional process because counts of interactional features do not
reveal the process by which the discourse is created through interaction but
only gives us a snapshot of the product of that process. To understand how
discourse is created we need to go into much greater detail in describing the
nature of contingency as it exists between each set of turns. (pp. 420–421)
An approach that analyses interaction turn-by-turn, as Young and

Milanovic suggest, is conversation analysis (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984;
Psathas, 1995; Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, Koshik, Jacoby, & Olsher, 2002).
Although conversation analysis (CA) was originally applied to natural
(i.e., nontest) conversational interaction, it is now also widely used to
analyse institutional interaction, providing useful perspectives on how
participants understand and carry out their roles within closely associ-
ated specific contexts (see Drew & Heritage, 1992). Supporters and
critics of CA (Cicourel, 1992; Roberts & Sarangi, 1999; Sarangi &
Roberts, 1999; Schegloff, 1992) and of other discourse-based methods
such as critical discourse analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 2000; Weiss &
Wodak, 2003) disagree about the relationship between the macro- and
the microlevels of interaction. CDA would map the macrosocial category
of gender directly onto the discourse analysis; although CA recognises
the potential impact of macrolevel categories, it posits a microlevel of
sociality (the apparatus of turn-taking, preference organization, and the
like) that is in principle independent of the macrolevel and through
which macrolevel categories must be articulated. In other words, if the
impact of macrolevel categories are to be demonstrated in discourse,
they must be relevant on the microlevel of interaction. In this way, CA
challenges the top-down determinacy of macrosocial categories and
complicates their potential impact at the microlevel of interaction.
In the context of the oral interview, CA can help researchers to
THE FORUM 529

describe and understand how interviewers and candidates interact.
Brown (2003a, 2003b, 2004) offers the most fully developed example to
date of such an approach. Brown’s work illustrates the complexity of the
interactional context from which test scores are derived and shows that
when investigating the impact of gender in testing contexts, the devil is
in the details.
Brown’s (2003b) study of the IELTS interview examined the interac-
tional styles of two interviewers, one male and one female. Both were
middle-aged, middle-class, university graduates, but the male was from
the United States and the female was from Australia. The interviewers
had rated candidates at significantly different levels. As one might
expect, given the general belief that females are interactionally more
supportive, candidates tended to receive higher ratings with the female
interviewer than with the male (for the analysis of score data, see Brown
& Hill, 1998). To explore why this might be the case, Brown undertook
a detailed analysis of a pair of interviews involving the same female
candidate, Esther, with each of the two interviewers, Pam and Ian.
The two interviewers differed in a number of respects, including their
questions’ topical focus and functional pitch, their questioning tech-
niques (the use of open and closed questions and indirect elicitation
strategies), the type of feedback they provided, and their speech styles.
As expected, Pam’s strategies were generally more supportive than Ian’s
were. She selected familiar and personal topics and elicited mainly
description, which lowered the challenge so that one might expect
Esther to perform better. Pam introduced her topical sequences with
one or two closed questions that elicited background information, which
she then followed with explicit requests for elaborated responses (“Tell
me about . . .”). Pam also provided newsmarkers, echoes, assessments,
and formulations, forms of feedback that indicate interest and under-
standing. She spoke slowly and clearly with little reformulation, using
exaggerated pitch and intonation reminiscent of caretaker talk.
In contrast to Pam, Ian chose less personal topics, and he posed
greater functional challenges; along with description, he elicited specu-
lation, argument, and opinion from Esther. Ian’s questioning technique
was less explicit than Pam’s; he tended to use closed questions, state-
ments, echoes, and tokens such as “Yeah?” to elicit talk from Esther even
though this strategy often failed to elicit more than a minimal response.
He was also much less likely to acknowledge or otherwise respond to
Esther’s talk. Because of these differences, it is not surprising that Esther
achieved a higher score with Pam, the more supportive and “teacherly”
(Brown, 2003b, p. 17) female interviewer than with Ian. Researchers
generally perceive her strategies as likely to enhance candidate perform-
ance. (For examples of Pam’s and Ian’s interactional styles with Esther,
see Appendix.)
530 TESOL QUARTERLY

However, all is not quite as it seems. In this study, the ratings were not
given by interviewers (as they are in operational IELTS) but by indepen-
dent raters, who also provided verbal reports justifying their ratings.
Analysing these verbal reports revealed a more complex picture. Rather
than rating Esther’s performance as reflecting her competence, the
raters saw her performance as part of her interaction with the inter-
viewer. Paradoxically, they saw Pam’s strategies as inhibiting Esther’s
performance rather than supporting it. They perceived Pam’s lowering
of the functional and topical challenge as preventing Esther from
demonstrating what she could do (Extract 1), and they perceived Pam’s
frequent expressions of interest and her tone of voice, which she
presumably intended to set apparently young Esther at ease, as exagger-
ated, condescending, and, hence, inhibiting (Extract 2):
Extract 1
I don’t think this interviewer challenges very much. She’s asking for a lot of
description. She doesn’t ask for much speculation, so the girl doesn’t even
have the chance to try and speculate.
Extract 2
I found it, her tone, extremely condescending, like she was talking to a small
child. . . . You know how it is with people if you sort of strike a rapport, you can
jabber away, and with other people you just don’t want to talk to them. . . . My
feeling is she’s a bit of a chatterbox, just gut feeling is that she’s a lively person
and a bit of a chatterbox, and this didn’t bring it out of her.
In contrast, the raters essentially ignored Ian’s role in eliciting Esther’s

performance or they perceived it as uncontroversial, and they marked
Esther down based solely on what they perceived as the quality of her
performance.
Thus, Esther scored higher with the female interviewer, Pam, not
because Pam’s interview style enabled her to perform better but because
the raters score compensated her for aspects of Pam’s style that they did
not like. Although they rated Esther somewhere between 5 and 6 on the
rating scale in both interviews, their negative perceptions of Pam led
them to give Esther the benefit of the doubt and award her the higher
score in that interview. This result confirms McNamara and Lumley’s
(1997) quantitative finding that raters sometimes compensate for per-
ceived features of the interaction when they score the candidate.
Although gendered interviewer behaviour makes the candidate rating
more than a simple reflection of the candidate’s performance, the data
so far might still support the accepted wisdom that males and females
provide differing degrees of support to candidates. However, Brown
(2003a, 2004) reveals that the picture is yet more complex. In further
THE FORUM 531

studies Brown found that two female interviewers, Cath and Jean,
presented different challenge levels and employed distinct interviewing
styles. Candidates tended to score higher with Cath, who demonstrated
supportive behaviours similar to Pam’s. Jean, the more challenging
interviewer, used a strategy more typically associated with male interac-
tional behaviour, namely, interrupting and talking over the candidate, a
strategy that, whatever its motivation, not surprisingly appeared to
inhibit the candidate. She also asked closed questions so rapidly that the
candidate had little time to respond (Extract 3, Appendix).
As in the previous example, the raters’ perceptions acted as a kind of
filter, mediating the impact of the interviewers’ behaviour on scores, but
the raters in this study scored the candidate differently. One rater, for
example, noticed Jean’s more challenging behaviour and evaluated it
negatively (Extract 3), but, unlike the previous example, the rater chose
not to compensate and simply scored the candidate’s performance.
Another rater, in contrast, interpreted Jean’s behaviour as supportive
(Extract 4).
Extract 3
We didn’t really get a chance to find out what that guy could do on that
interview . . . maybe he was difficult, but she dominated the interview
absolutely and, you know, my gut feeling was that he could have been a 6,
actually, if he’d had a chance to do a bit more talking, but on what I got out
of him there I gave him 5.
Extract 4
He wasn’t coming out with enough, and I think that’s why she’s saying so
much because she’s not getting him to talk. He’s just, he’s just not making
generalisations and then moving into more specific information or anything,
he’s just answering her questions. It’s like an interrogation almost, and so
she’s working hard. You can hear she’s not finding this interview easy. She’s
asking some really offbeat questions because she’s getting desperate for
something to say to him. It’s not flowing at all.
Overall, Brown’s data reveal that expecting stereotypical behaviours

from males and females is too simplistic. Her study presents four distinct
interviewers with distinctive styles, and both males and females exhibit
features typically ascribed to the other gender. Her study also challenges
assumptions about how to characterise the impact of these styles:
Supposedly masculine behaviours such as interruption or domination,
for example, need not be interpreted negatively because interviewers
can use them supportively, as Jean did to encourage the candidate to
speak, a point that also emerges in O’Loughlin’s (2002) analysis of
similar moves.
532 TESOL QUARTERLY

It is interesting that if we read Jean’s behaviour in this way, then these
data show that all three females behave supportively but in different
ways. Ian, the male, is the only one who does not behave supportively.
Does this finding reflect the elusive gender effect? Obviously, a single
swallow does not a summer make; before reaching any firm conclusion,
another study would have to observe more male raters to find the range
of variation in the support they offer.
Finally, to whatever degree that gender and other interactional
features affect the interviewers’ supportive behaviour, raters mediate the
impact of such features because they often compensate for those
behaviours in the scores they give. Although raters clearly orient to
features of the interviewers’ interactional style, however, they do not
agree on which features are helpful or not. Thus, raters might not agree
with researchers who label certain strategies supportive in the conven-
tional literature on gendered communication. Moreover, raters do not
always use the score to compensate for interlocutor behaviour that they
read as unhelpful; though they note such behaviour, they might simply
ignore it.
CONCLUSION
Current research on how gender influences language assessment is

both frustrating and exciting. Although analysing score data can help
test developers identify and remove biased items in multiple choice tests,
researchers who have attempted to detect systematic gender effects in
performance assessment contexts have found mixed and even contradic-
tory results. More finely grained statistical analyses, involving, for ex-
ample, Rasch-based bias analysis, have helped to illustrate the complexity
of the issues involved, but it is also fair to say that discourse-based studies
have proved as, if not more, revealing. The most productive discourse-
based approaches have been in-depth qualitative studies of the test
discourse processes, complemented by introspective accounts from
raters. These studies often produce an extremely complex description of
the assessment process. Certainly, they do not support any simple,
deterministic idea that gender categories will have a direct and predict-
able impact on test processes and test outcomes, especially given the
rater’s (potentially gendered) mediating influence on test scores.
O’Loughlin (2002) provides one possible explanation for the com-
plexity in the data. The finding that “gendered differences are not
inevitable in the testing context,” he notes, is “consistent with recent
thinking in the field of gender studies . . . suggesting that [in particular
contexts] gender competes with other aspects of an individual’s social
identity” (p. 190). He refers to more recent communication studies of
THE FORUM 533

gender effects that emphasize the “shifting, unstable nature of gender in
spoken interaction” (p. 171). Oral proficiency interviewers, including
those discussed in this article, are typically ESL teachers, whose profes-
sional identity may be more salient in the proficiency interview than
their gender. Such teachers’ experience communicating with second
language speakers might lead them to readily adopt a facilitative,
supportive role that could override potential gender differences. Mul-
tiple social factors, many of them more important than gender in certain
contexts, can also affect assessment outcomes. Certainly, current think-
ing on social identity and subjectivity emphasises the plural and context-
sensitive nature of social identity (Hall, 1996; Mansfield, 2000; McNamara,
1997). Such thinking should inform future work on gender issues in
language assessment.
Methodologically, newer, discourse-based methods have complemented
traditional psychometric methods. We support Young and Milanovic’s
(1992) call for attention to the unfolding process of interaction, for
which CA techniques in particular, when supported by microethnography
and other qualitative research approaches, are ideally suited. Qualitative
approaches are also attractive from an epistemological point of view: The
hypothesised effects of gender as a macrocategory have so far eluded
researchers; microanalysis, however, investigates the contingent and
immediate face-to-face context within which gender and other overlap-
ping and competing social categories are deployed. Thus, research on
the apparently rather limited issue of gender in language assessment
might, in fact, have a broader relevance: It is a potentially important site
for applied linguists to investigate how the macro and the micro function
in discourse.
THE AUTHORS
Annie Brown is a senior research fellow and deputy director in the Language Testing
Research Centre at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include the
assessment of second language oral proficiency, language testing for specific pur-
poses, and research methods in language testing research. She is coauthor of the
Dictionary of Language Testing.
Tim McNamara holds a personal chair in applied linguistics at the University of

Melbourne, where he has taught since 1987. His research interests include language
testing, language and identity, and the history of applied linguistics. He is the author
of Language Testing and co-editor of the Routledge Applied Linguistics Reader (in press).
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
534 TESOL QUARTERLY

Berry, V. (1997, March). Gender and personality as factors of interlocutor variability in oral
performance tests. Paper presented at the 19th Language Testing Research Collo-
quium, Orlando, Florida.
Brown, A. (2003a). Discourse analysis in language testing. In D. Boxer & A. Cohen
(Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 340–381). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Brown, A. (2003b). Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking pro-
ficiency. Language Testing 20, 1–25.
Brown, A. (2004). Interviewer variation in oral proficiency interviews. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Brown, A., & Hill, K. (1998). Interviewer style and candidate performance in the
IELTS oral interview. In S. Woods (Ed.), IELTS Research Reports 1997, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–
19). Sydney, Australia: ELICOS.
Buckingham, A. (1997). Oral language testing: Do the age, status, and gender of the
interlocutor make a difference? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Reading,
Reading, England.
Carroll, B. J. (1991). Response to Don Porter’s paper: “Affective factors in language
testing.” In J. C. Alderson & B. North (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s: The
communicative legacy (pp. 41–45). London: Modern English Publications/British
Council.
Cicourel, A. (1992). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples
from medical encounters. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context:
Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 291–310). Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Coates, J. (1993). Women, men, and language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Davies, A. (Ed.). (1997). Ethics in language testing [Special issue]. Language Testing,
14(3).
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings.
Educational Testing Service. (2003). ETS fairness review guidelines 2003. Princeton, NJ:
Author.
Elder, C., McNamara, T. F., & Congdon, P. (2003). Rasch techniques for detecting
bias in performance assessments: An example comparing the performance of
native and nonnative speakers on a test of academic English. Journal of Applied
Measurement, 4(2), 181–197.
Fairclough, N. (2000). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Glaser, R. (1949). A methodological analysis of the inconsistency of response to test
items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 9, 721–739.
Glaser, R. (1952). The reliability of inconsistency. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 12, 60–64.
Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs “identity”? In S. Hall & P. du Gay, Questions
of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.
Jacoby, S. (1998). Science as performance: Socializing scientific discourse through conference
talk rehearsals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Kunnan, A. (1990). DIF in native language and gender groups in an ESL placement
test. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 741–746.
Locke, C. (1984). The influence of the interviewer on student performance in tests of foreign
language oral/aural skills. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Reading,
Reading, England.
Lumley, T., & O’Sullivan, B. (2001). The effect of test-taker sex, audience, and topic
on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking. Melbourne Papers in
Language Testing, 10(2), 59–74.
THE FORUM 535

Mansfield, N. (2000). Subjectivity: Theories of the self from Freud to Hathaway. St
Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Masters, G. N. (1988). Item discrimination: when more is worse. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 24, 15–29.
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
McNamara, T. F. (1997). What do we mean by social identity? Competing frame-
works, competing discourses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 561–567.
McNamara, T. F. (1998). Policy and social considerations in language assessment.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 304–319.
McNamara, T. F., Hill, K., & May, L. (2002). Discourse and assessment. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 22, 221–242.
McNamara, T. F., & Lumley, T. (1997). The effect of interlocutor and assessment
mode variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings.
Language Testing, 14, 140–156.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp.
13–103). New York: Macmillan.
O’Loughlin, K. (2001). The equivalence of direct and semi-direct speaking tests (Studies in
Language Testing No. 13). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
O’Loughlin, K. (2002). The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language
Testing, 19, 169–192.
O’Sullivan, B. (2000). Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance.
System, 28, 373–386.
O’Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task
performance. Language Testing, 19, 277–295.
Porter, D. (1991a). Affective factors in language testing. In J. C. Alderson & B. North
(Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s: The communicative legacy (pp. 32–40). London:
Modern English Publications/British Council.
Porter, D. (1991b). Affective factors in the assessment of oral interaction: Gender
and status. In S. Anivan (Ed.), Current developments in language testing (Anthology
Series No. 25, pp. 92–102). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Porter, D., & Shen, S. H. (1991). Sex, status, and style in the interview. The Dolphin,
21, 117–128.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roberts, C., & Sarangi, S. (1999). Introduction: Revisiting different analytic frame-
works. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work, and institutional order (pp.
389–400). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ross, S., & Okabe, J. (2002, December). The subjective and objective interface of item bias
diagnosis on language tests. Paper presented at the 24th Language Testing Research
Colloquium, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1–2). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). The dynamics of interactional and institutional
orders in work-related settings. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work, and
institutional order (pp. 1–57). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.),
Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Koshik, I., Jacoby, S., & Olsher, D. (2002). Conversation analysis and
applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 3–31.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests.
London: Pearson.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
536 TESOL QUARTERLY

Smith, R. M. (1992). Applications of Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA.
Sunderland, J. (1995). Gender and language testing. Language Testing Update, 17, 24–
35.
Thurstone, L. L., & Chave, E. J. (1929). Measurement of attitude. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and disciplinarity. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Young, R., & Milanovic, M. (1992). Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 403–424.
Appendix
Extract 1. Pam and Esther
P ... do you live in a fla:t?
E er no hostel
P in a hostel.
E Carlton College.
P is it? [(.) tell me about the hostel, (.) I haven’t seen that one.
E [°mm°
(1.6)
E oh um: it’s aum: international college, =
P = mm,
(0.8)
E er >I mean a hostel,< er: (1.0) and I knew- (.) I- (1.0) knew: that (.) hostel: by: (0.9) a
counselling centre, (1.2) and: (1.9) and it’s: (0.5) er: quite good for: (0.8) u:m: (.)
>suitable for me;< [to live there.
P [is it?
P what do you like about it Esther?
E um: (3.0) er >the food< (0.8) yeah is: >quite good< er: but it’s (.) everyday f- western
food.
P is it? [(.) what do they give you: to eat.
E [yeah
E er (.) potatoes,
P oh yes.
E yeah (.) everday potatoes, er: a:nd (0.6) sometimes got er:(.) beef (0.8) lamb chops (.)
and: (.) others (.) like noodles ...
Extract 2. Ian and Esther
I ... >in Kelang is it- is it many Malay or there a lot of Chinese or (.) or what is it (.) in
Kelang (.) [the population.<
E [yeah more Malay.
I >more Malay is it.<
E °°mm°°
I °right.° (1.2) erm (.) >what about the< foods there.
(1.2)
E er: they are Indian food (.) Chinese food (.) a:nd Malay food [(.) th]ey are a:ll (0.8)
mix.
I [ mhm]
(1.0)
I they’re mixed are they.
E yea:h (0.4) all mix (0.6) e:verything (xxxxx) hhnhhn
I yeah? (.) >is it good that way is it.<
E yeah hhh.
(1.2)
I ah- which is the spiciest food.
THE FORUM 537

Extract 3. Jean and Lim
J wha- what’s the distribution of income what I mean by that is that .hh are there some
very poor people and some very rich or a lot of middle class people (.) how- how is it
based.
L e:r middle class (.) I think middle class er
J a lot of [middle class?
L [a lot of middle class.
J okay are there some very poor? (.) or [m-
L [poor erm [I (.) I don’t think so
it [just (.) a small [amount (.) of them very poor
J [no [oh right .hh and what about very rich (.) are
there some very rich people?
L yah [>quite a lot of very<
J [yeah so: SO: quite a big middle class (.) [mainly. (.) probably a =
L [yeah middle (.) °middle =
J = [bit like Australia? [you know a large middle [class? .hhh okay =
L = [class° [yeah [middle class
J = .hh [(.) ^what about if somebody erm (1.0) somebody <is poor and =
538 TESOL QUARTERLY

REVIEWS
TESOL Quarterly welcomes evaluative reviews of publications relevant to TESOL
professionals.
Edited by KATHRYN A. DAVIS

University of Hawai‘i
ELLEN SKILTON-SYLVESTER
Arcadia University
A Comparative Review of Four Books on

Language and Gender
Gender in the Language Classroom.

Monika Chavez. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Pp. xviii + 243.
Language and Gender.

Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pp. xi + 366.
Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis.

Lita Litosseliti and Jane Sunderland (Eds.). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 2002. Pp. vii + 335.
Communicating Gender.
Suzanne Romaine. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
Pp. xiv + 406.
■ In recent years, the (overlapping) fields of linguistics, applied linguis-

tics, second language learning, and TESOL have begun paying more
attention to gender, as well as to social aspects of gender such as the role
of power and power relations. This attention to gender began sooner in
linguistics than in TESOL, and there are more publications on gender in
the field of linguistics than in TESOL specifically, a fact that is reflected
in the books that I review here. Three of the four books fall mainly under
the tent of linguistics, with some attention to language learning, but less
attention to second language learning. Chavez’s Gender in the Language
Classroom is the only one of the four that focuses on second language

learning and second language pedagogy, but even this volume does not
focus on TESOL. Although it is unfortunate that more volumes do not
focus specifically on gender and second language learning, and even
more specifically on TESOL, it is important for TESOL professionals to
be aware of the more general literature on gender and language. Thus,
I welcome this opportunity to bring these four volumes to the attention
of TESOL Quarterly readers, whether they teach and do research in
applied linguistics, teacher education, or English language learning.
My choice of volumes to review does not imply that others books on
gender and second language learning, or even gender and ESL, do not
exist. Three that I do not consider here because they have already been
reviewed in the pages of TESOL Quarterly are Sunderland (1994), Norton
(2000), and Pavlenko, Blackledge, Piller, and Teutsch-Dwyer (2001). I
briefly describe them here to provide a wider context of gender and
language. The first book to focus specifically on gender and TESOL to
my knowledge, Sunderland’s pioneering edited collection, Exploring
Gender: Questions and Implications for English Language Education (reviewed
by Vandrick, 1994) addressed such salient issues as female learners,
female teachers, teaching materials, and classroom processes. Norton’s
volume, Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational
Change (reviewed by Yim, 2001) describes her in-depth study of five
immigrant women in Canada and focuses on gender as it interacts with
ethnicity and class, with particular attention to power relations and how
they affect these women’s attitudes, others’ perceptions of them, and
their progress in learning English. Pavlenko et al.’s Multilingualism,
Second Language Learning, and Gender (reviewed by Vandrick, 2003), in
the editors’ words, investigates “the relationship between gender, ideol-
ogy, and linguistic practices in bi- and multilingual communities” (p. 2);
the book provides a very useful theoretical context, grounded in
poststructuralist and feminist theory, and includes several innovative
research studies. A fourth volume, Norton and Pavlenko’s co-edited
Gender and English Language Learners, which has just been published, will
appeal to those interested in gender and language learning, particularly
ESL. Very few books beyond these four address gender and ESL.
Of the books reviewed here, the broadest in scope are Eckert and
McConnell-Ginet’s Language and Gender and Romaine’s Communicating
Gender. Both of these books provide excellent overviews of language and
gender. Both would serve well as introductions to the topic for under-
graduate or graduate students or practicing professionals interested in
exploring the subject, and they will likely become standard textbooks.
Romaine’s book is explicitly constructed for classroom use, containing
such apparatuses as exercises and annotated resource lists. Scholars
doing research on language and gender will also read and use these
books.
540 TESOL QUARTERLY

Although the Romaine and the Eckert and McConnell-Ginet books
both offer comprehensive overviews and cover most of the standard
bases, they differ in focus. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet’s subject matter
is explicitly linguistic; Romaine sets her analysis in the broader field of
communication. However, both books examine gender and language
through a social lens. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet organize their book
around social concepts and, for example, draw on Lave and Wenger’s
(1991) notion of community of practice. Romaine also subdivides her book
using social concepts. The authors of both books are laudably careful to
move beyond English and the West to include analysis of, and examples
from, various languages and national settings.
Eckert and McConnell-Ginet’s division headings in Language and
Gender show the topics that they cover: Constructing, Deconstructing,
and Reconstructing Gender; Linking the Linguistic to the Social; Orga-
nizing Talk; Making Social Moves; Positioning Ideas and Subjects; Saying
and Implying; Mapping the World; Working the Market: Use of Varieties;
and Fashioning Selves. Each topic provides good coverage of the
necessary theoretical context, some historical background, and very
specific real world examples that both instruct and draw the reader’s
interest. The authors take care to explain linguistic and other terminol-
ogy, seldom assuming readers’ prior knowledge (though not diluting the
subject matter). The last chapter—Fashioning Selves—brings together
many of the strands in the book by examining style and performativity
(building on Judith Butler’s work), including examples of some gender
performances that challenge the traditional and would be considered
transgressive by many. The authors show how the concept of style reveals
the interconnections between social/ideological and individual factors
as language and gender play out in real people’s lives.
In comparison, Romaine’s Communicating Gender covers an overlap-
ping but broader range of topics, which is reflected in her use of the
word communicating rather than language in the title. The author draws
on research in linguistics and various other fields, including anthropol-
ogy, psychology, sociology, education, history, and literature. Topics
include doing and displaying gender, sex and gender and the implica-
tions of the two, the different upbringing and education that boys and
girls receive, gender and grammar, sexism in language, the significance
of names, gossip, silence, language in work and social settings, language
in advertising, and the question of language reform. The book concludes
with an intriguing chapter on science fiction and feminist utopias.
Romaine, like Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, provides a wealth of useful
and often vividly described examples from extensive research studies, as
well as from more anecdotal sources and from literature.
Litosseliti and Sunderland’s Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis is also
not about language learning specifically, but it differs from the Eckert
REVIEWS 541
and McConnell-Ginet and the Romaine volumes in that its focus is
narrower and it is the only edited collection among the four books
reviewed. Although the other books attend to discourse, this volume
focuses on it, with an emphasis on critical discourse analysis. This book
also requires the most prior knowledge among the four of the subject
matter and the current research and debates about language and
gender. As a collection, it reports on specific research studies set in
theoretical contexts, rather than attempting comprehensive coverage of
a broad field, as do the two previously mentioned books. Like those two,
this volume moves beyond Western contexts. And like Communicating
Gender (and to a lesser extent Language and Gender), it draws on several
disciplines, such as education, media studies, and psychology.
After an excellent introduction to theoretical and empirical consider-
ations regarding gender identity and discourse analysis, Litosseliti and
Sunderland organize the other 12 chapters into five categories: Theoriz-
ing Gender and Discourse; Discourse and Gendered Identities in the
Media; Discourse, Sexuality, and Gender Identities; Discourse and Gen-
der Identities in Education; and Gendered Discourses of Parenthood.
Although the contributions cover a wide variety of thought-provoking
and well-explicated research, TESOL Quarterly readers will likely be most
interested in the section on education. Of particular interest is the
chapter “From Representation Towards Discursive Practices: Gender in
the Foreign Language Textbook Revisited,” where Sunderland, Cowley,
Rahim, Leontzakou, and Shattuck address the topic of language text-
books. Sunderland has for the past decade been a leading scholar in
gender and language education, and her research and publications are
indispensable to any scholar in this area. Her work is notable for
frequently questioning and challenging received notions, even at times
her own earlier work. In this chapter, she and her coauthors argue that
although it is laudable that language textbooks have become less sexist in
recent years, the more important factor may be how teachers actually use
textbooks. The authors provide examples of teachers who employ sexist
passages as opportunities to teach nonsexism, either explicitly or not.
They also provide examples of teachers who, consciously or not, use
textbooks in a way that undercuts their carefully prepared gender
equality.
Chavez’s Gender in the Language Classroom speaks most directly to the
work of ESL teachers, future teachers, and teacher educators. As part of
the McGraw-Hill Second Language Professional Series, it is listed as
“primarily for students of second language acquisition and teaching,
curriculum developers, and teacher educators” (p. ii). The author
touches on many of the same topics as the other three books, but in less
detail and with more attention to how the topics play out in the second
language classroom. Although Chavez herself teaches German and draws
542 TESOL QUARTERLY

most of her research and examples from the literature on teaching
foreign languages (i.e., languages other than English), she does discuss
the work of several ESL-related and/or SLA scholars who have written on
gender, including such pioneers as Ehrlich, Judd, Kerekes, Losey,
Oxford, Pica, Porreca, Sunderland, and Willett. A slim volume with a
welcoming, accessible format, this book is clearly intended for classroom
use, with substantial prereading and postreading activities and discussion
questions provided for each chapter, as well as such useful features as
chapter summaries. In a welcome emphasis, the author encourages
readers—teachers in particular—to carry out their own classroom re-
search on some of the gender issues discussed, and she provides
suggestions and advice that will assist them in doing so.
All four of these books have, to a greater or lesser extent, and with
greater or lesser explicitness, an ideological leaning toward feminist
theory. This leaning is almost inevitable because the recent rise of the
gender study was largely inspired by the rise of feminism and feminist
scholarship and because the very assertion that gender makes a differ-
ence is ideological. Probably the most explicitly feminist among these
four books is the Sunderland and Litosseliti collection. Although
Sunderland pointedly challenges earlier feminist ideas about language
teaching, she points out that her challenges build on that earlier work, to
which she gives much credit. Probably the least obviously feminist is the
Chavez volume; Chavez clearly supports feminist research, and she
herself has done such research, but in this book she reports on theories
and research studies rather straightforwardly and neutrally. This less
explicitly feminist approach may result partly from the book’s intended
use as a textbook. In all four cases, though, the books have the “dual
functions” that good textbooks should have, according to McElhinny
and her coauthors (McElhinny, Hols, Holtzkener, Unger, & Hicks, 2003):
“describing the field and also directing it” (p. 316).
At recent TESOL, AAAL, and other conferences and professional
meetings, increasing numbers of panels and papers have focused on
gender and ESL. Professional journals have also been publishing more
gender-related articles. Beyond the actual numbers of papers and
articles, scholars working in the area are developing a sense of a core
(and expanding) community. The TESOL 2003 convention in Balti-
more, for example, hosted at least three well-attended, informal gather-
ings of gender researchers. A still larger group of classroom teachers are
very interested in such research, even though they may not publish, and
they provide an eager audience for relevant papers and publications.
Especially needed are books on gender and language pedagogy. Class-
room teachers need books and articles that give them not only the social
and theoretical contexts of language and gender, but also accessible
discussion of how gender makes a difference in the classroom and how
REVIEWS 543
they can use this knowledge in their own teaching. I hope that this
supportive community of researchers and classroom teachers will en-
courage further research on gender and language learning and, in
particular, on gender and ESL, and that soon, many new volumes will
arrive to expand this still too small shelf of gender-related books.
REFERENCES
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
McElhinny, B., Hols, M., Holtzkener, J., Unger, S., & Hicks, H. (2003). Gender,
publication and citation in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology: The
construction of a scholarly canon. Language in Society, 32, 299–328.
change. Harlow, England: Longman/Pearson.
Norton, B., & Pavlenko, A. (Eds). (2004). Gender and English language learners.
gualism, second language learning, and gender. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sunderland, J. (Ed.). (1994). Exploring gender: Questions and implications for English
language education. New York: Prentice Hall.
Vandrick, S. (1994). [Review of the book Exploring gender: Questions and implications for
English language education]. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 825–826.
Vandrick, S. (2003). [Review of the book Multilingualism, second language learning, and
gender]. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 366–367.
Yim, Y. K. (2001). [Review of the book Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity,
and educational change]. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 504–505.
STEPHANIE VANDRICK
University of San Francisco
San Francisco, California, United States
544 TESOL QUARTERLY

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL POLICY
TESOL Quarterly, a professional, refereed journal, encourages submission of
previously unpublished articles on topics of significance to individuals
concerned with the teaching of English as a second or foreign language and
of standard English as a second dialect. As a publication that represents a
variety of cross-disciplinary interests, both theoretical and practical, the
Quarterly invites manuscripts on a wide range of topics, especially in the
following areas:
1. psychology and sociology of language 3. testing and evaluation
learning and teaching; issues in research 4. professional
and research methodology preparation
2. curriculum design and development; 5. language planning
instructional methods, materials, and 6. professional standards
techniques
Because the Quarterly is committed to publishing manuscripts that contrib-
ute to bridging theory and practice in our profession, it particularly
welcomes submissions drawing on relevant research (e.g., in anthropology,
applied and theoretical linguistics, communication, education, English
education [including reading and writing theory], psycholinguistics, psy-
chology, first and second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, and sociol-
ogy) and addressing implications and applications of this research to issues
in our profession. The Quarterly prefers that all submissions be written so
that their content is accessible to a broad readership, including those
individuals who may not have familiarity with the subject matter addressed.
TESOL Quarterly is an international journal. It welcomes submissions from
English language contexts around the world.
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS

Submission Categories
TESOL Quarterly invites submissions in five categories:
Full-length articles. Contributors are strongly encouraged to submit manu-
scripts of no more than 20–25 double-spaced pages or 8,500 words (includ-
ing references, notes, and tables). Submit three copies plus three copies of
an informative abstract of not more than 200 words. If possible, indicate the
number of words at the end of the article. To facilitate the blind review
process, authors’ names should appear only on a cover sheet, not on the title
page; do not use running heads. Submit manuscripts to the Editor of TESOL
Quarterly:
INFORMATION FOR
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. CONTRIBUTORS
38, No. 3, Autumn 2004 545
A. Suresh Canagarajah
Editor, TESOL Quarterly
Box B6–247
Baruch College of the City University of New York
One Bernard Baruch Way
New York, NY 10010 USA
The following factors are considered when evaluating the suitability of a
manuscript for publication in TESOL Quarterly:
• The manuscript appeals to the general interests of TESOL Quarterly’s
readership.
• The manuscript strengthens the relationship between theory and prac-
tice: Practical articles must be anchored in theory, and theoretical articles
and reports of research must contain a discussion of implications or
applications for practice.
• The content of the manuscript is accessible to the broad readership of the
Quarterly, not only to specialists in the area addressed.
• The manuscript offers a new, original insight or interpretation and not
just a restatement of others’ ideas and views.
• The manuscript makes a significant (practical, useful, plausible) contri-
bution to the field.
• The manuscript is likely to arouse readers’ interest.
• The manuscript reflects sound scholarship and research design with
appropriate, correctly interpreted references to other authors and works.
• The manuscript is well written and organized and conforms to the
specifications of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Associ-
ation (4th ed.).
Reviews. TESOL Quarterly invites succinct, evaluative reviews of professional
books. Reviews should provide a descriptive and evaluative summary and a
brief discussion of the work’s significance in the context of current theory
and practice. Reviewers are encouraged to query the Reviews Editor con-
cerning their book of interest before writing the review. Submissions should
comprise no more than 1,000 words. Send one copy by e-mail to the Reviews
Editor:
Dr. Adrian Holliday
Professor of Applied Linguistics
Department of Language Studies
Canterbury Christ Church University College
Canterbury CT1 1QU, UK
Phone: 00 44 1227 782700
E-mail: arh1@canterbury.ac.uk
Review Articles. TESOL Quarterly also welcomes review articles, that is,
comparative discussions of several publications that fall into a topical
category (e.g., pronunciation, literacy training, teaching methodology).
546 TESOL QUARTERLY

Review articles should provide a description and evaluative comparison of
the materials and discuss the relative significance of the works in the context
of current theory and practice. Reviewers are encouraged to query the
Reviews Editor, Adrian Holliday, concerning their books of interest before
writing the review. Submissions should comprise no more than 2,500 words.
Submit two copies of the review article to the Reviews Editor at the address
given above.
Brief Reports and Summaries. TESOL Quarterly also invites short reports on
any aspect of theory and practice in our profession. We encourage manu-
scripts that either present preliminary findings or focus on some aspect of a
larger study. In all cases, the discussion of issues should be supported by
empirical evidence, collected through qualitative or quantitative investiga-
tions. Reports or summaries should present key concepts and results in a
manner that will make the research accessible to our diverse readership.
Submissions to this section should be 7–10 double-spaced pages, or 3,400
words (including references, notes, and tables). If possible, indicate the
number of words at the end of the report. Longer articles do not appear in this
section and should be submitted to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly for review. Send
one copy of the manuscript each to:
Catherine Elder Paula Golombek
Faculty of Education 305 Sparks Building
P.O. Box 6 Pennsylvania State University
Monash University University Park, PA 16802 USA
Victoria 3800 Australia
The Forum. TESOL Quarterly welcomes comments and reactions from
readers regarding specific aspects or practices of our profession. Responses
to published articles and reviews are also welcome; unfortunately, we are not
able to publish responses to previous exchanges. Contributions to The
Forum should generally be no longer than 7–10 double-spaced pages or
3,400 words. If possible, indicate the number of words at the end of the
contribution. Submit three copies to the Editor of TESOL Quarterly at the
address given above.
Brief discussions of qualitative and quantitative Research Issues and of
Teaching Issues are also published in The Forum. Although these contri-
butions are typically solicited, readers may send topic suggestions or make
known their availability as contributors by writing directly to the Editors of
these subsections.
Research Issues: Teaching Issues:
Patricia A. Duff Bonny Norton
Department of Language Department of Language
and Literacy Education and Literacy Education
University of British Columbia University of British Columbia
2125 Main Mall 2125 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
Canada Canada
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 547

Special-Topic Issues. Typically, one issue per volume will be devoted to a
special topic. Topics are approved by the Editorial Advisory Board of the
Quarterly. Those wishing to suggest topics or make known their availability as
guest editors should contact the Editor of TESOL Quarterly. Issues will
generally contain both invited articles designed to survey and illuminate
central themes as well as articles solicited through a call for papers.
General Submission Guidelines

1. All submissions to the Quarterly should conform to the requirements of
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.),
which can be obtained from the American Psychological Association,
Book Order Department, Dept. KK, P.O. Box 92984, Washington, DC
20090-2984 USA. Orders from the United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, or
the Middle East should be sent to American Psychological Association,
Dept. KK, 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2E 8LU,
England. For more information, e-mail order@apa.org or consult http://
www.apa.org/books/ordering.html.
2. All submissions to TESOL Quarterly should be accompanied by a cover
letter that includes a full mailing address and both a daytime and an
evening telephone number. Where available, authors should include an
electronic mail address and fax number.
3. Authors of full-length articles, Brief Reports and Summaries, and Forum
contributions should include two copies of a very brief biographical
statement (in sentence form, maximum 50 words), plus any special
notations or acknowledgments that they would like to have included.
Double spacing should be used throughout.
4. TESOL Quarterly provides 25 free reprints of published full-length
articles and 10 reprints of material published in the Reviews, Brief
Reports and Summaries, and The Forum sections.
5. Manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly cannot be returned to
authors. Authors should be sure to keep a copy for themselves.
6. It is understood that manuscripts submitted to TESOL Quarterly have not
been previously published and are not under consideration for publica-
tion elsewhere.
7. It is the responsibility of the author(s) of a manuscript submitted to
TESOL Quarterly to indicate to the Editor the existence of any work
already published (or under consideration for publication elsewhere)
by the author(s) that is similar in content to that of the manuscript.
8. The Editor of TESOL Quarterly reserves the right to make editorial
changes in any manuscript accepted for publication to enhance clarity
or style. The author will be consulted only if the editing has been
substantial.
9. The Editor’s decisions are final.
548 TESOL QUARTERLY

10. The views expressed by contributors to TESOL Quarterly do not necessar-
ily reflect those of the Editor, the Editorial Advisory Board, or TESOL.
Material published in the Quarterly should not be construed to have the
endorsement of TESOL.
Informed Consent Guidelines

TESOL Quarterly expects authors to adhere to ethical and legal standards for
work with human subjects. Although we are aware that such standards vary
among institutions and countries, we require authors and contributors to
meet, as a minimum, the conditions detailed below before submitting a
manuscript for review. TESOL recognizes that some institutions may require
research proposals to satisfy additional requirements. If you wish to discuss
whether or how your study met these guidelines, you may e-mail the
managing editor of TESOL publications at tq@tesol.org or call 703-535-7852.
As an author, you will be asked to sign a statement indicating that you have
complied with Option A or Option B before TESOL will publish your work.
A. You have followed the human subjects review procedure established by
your institution.
B. If you are not bound by an institutional review process, or if it does not
meet the requirements outlined below, you have complied with the
following conditions.
Participation in the Research
1. You have informed participants in your study, sample, class, group, or
program that you will be conducting research in which they will be the
participants or that you would like to write about them for publication.
2. You have given each participant a clear statement of the purpose of your
research or the basic outline of what you would like to explore in
writing, making it clear that research and writing are dynamic activities
that may shift in focus as they occur.
3. You have explained the procedure you will follow in the research project
or the types of information you will be collecting for your writing.
4. You have explained that participation is voluntary, that there is no
penalty for refusing to participate, and that the participants may
withdraw at any time without penalty.
5. You have explained to participants if and how their confidentiality will
be protected.
6. You have given participants sufficient contact information that they can
reach you for answers to questions regarding the research.
7. You have explained to participants any foreseeable risks and discomforts
involved in agreeing to cooperate (e.g., seeing work with errors in
print).
INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 549

8. You have explained to participants any possible direct benefits of
participating (e.g., receiving a copy of the article or chapter).
9. You have obtained from each participant (or from the participant’s
parent or guardian) a signed consent form that sets out the terms of
your agreement with the participants and have kept these forms on file
(TESOL will not ask to see them).
Consent to Publish Student Work
10. If you will be collecting samples of student work with the intention of
publishing them, either anonymously or with attribution, you have
made that clear to the participants in writing.
11. If the sample of student work (e.g., a signed drawing or signed piece of
writing) will be published with the student’s real name visible, you have
obtained a signed consent form and will include that form when you
submit your manuscript for review and editing (see http://www.tesol.org
/pubs/author/consent.html for samples).
12. If your research or writing involves minors (persons under age 18), you
have supplied and obtained signed separate informed consent forms
from the parent or guardian and from the minor, if he or she is old
enough to read, understand, and sign the form.
13. If you are working with participants who do not speak English well or are
intellectually disabled, you have written the consent forms in a language
that the participant or the participant’s guardian can understand.
GUIDELINES FOR QUANTITATIVE AND

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Because of the importance of substantive findings reported in TESOL
Quarterly, in addition to the role that the Quarterly plays in modeling research
in the field, articles must meet high standards in reporting research. To
support this goal, the Spring 2003 issue of TESOL Quarterly (Vol. 37, No. 1)
contains guidelines for reporting quantitative research and three types of
qualitative research: case studies, conversation analysis, and (critical) eth-
nography. Each set of guidelines contains an explanation of the expectations
for research articles within a particular tradition and provides references for
additional guidance. The guidelines are also published on TESOL’s Web site
(http://www.tesol.org/pubs/author/serials/tqguides.html).
550 TESOL QUARTERLY

Communicating Gender

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicating Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volumes Menu

Special Issue: Gender and Language Education

ccclxxiv TESOL QUARTERLY

Information for Contributors 545

A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2004–2005

ccclxxvi TESOL QUARTERLY

■ I would like to thank Kathryn A. Davis and Ellen Skilton-Sylvester for

378 TESOL QUARTERLY

IN THIS ISSUE 379

This article offers a historical overview, explores current trends, and

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 38, No. 3, Autumn 2004 381

Research on language and gender and theoretical shifts in the ﬁeld

382 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 383

Although the current literature on gender and language education

Shifting Conceptual Frameworks and Research Paradigms

Research on complex, multiple, and co-constructed identities operat-

384 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 385

The key is to move from a focus on difference to a focus on relations. Gender

386 TESOL QUARTERLY

In the course of engaging with others, . . . people collaboratively construct a

Freed (1995, p. 3) suggests that this recognition of the complex,

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 387

Expanding Research Purposes and Tools

Gender and language education research has moved from focusing

388 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 389

TESOL professionals and researchers from SLA and applied linguis-

390 TESOL QUARTERLY

In addition to curricular and pedagogical changes, Gordon (this

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 391

Future directions in gender and language education involve pushing

Pushing the Boundaries

Although developments beyond positivist research and teaching ap-

392 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 393

Reimagining Knowledge Creation

In her discussion of feminisms and qualitative research, Olesen

394 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 395

A consideration of gender, by its nature, has involved the development of

Education researchers call for examining both masculinities and

396 TESOL QUARTERLY

Creating and Sustaining Innovative Practices

TESOL and other education scholars continue to discuss how critical

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 397

Ellen Skilton-Sylvester is associate professor in the Education Department at Arcadia

398 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 399

400 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 401

402 TESOL QUARTERLY

LOOKING BACK, TAKING STOCK, MOVING FORWARD 403

404 TESOL QUARTERLY

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 38, No. 3, Autumn 2004 405

NARRATIVE INQUIRY AND THE

Since the interpretive turn in the social sciences (Bruner, 1990;

406 TESOL QUARTERLY

To gain insight into the special circumstances of female EFL educators

CONSTRUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES 407

408 TESOL QUARTERLY