Gender Bias and Critique of Student Writing

Assessing Writing

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 31-83

  Haswell, Richard H ^a   Haswell, Janis Tedesco ^b  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039334653     PISSN: 10752935     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1075-2935(96)90004-5     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Anastasi, A. (1984). Reciprocal relations between cognitive and affective development - with implications for sex differences. In T.B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1984 (pp. 1-35). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
2. Aries, E. (1987). Gender and communication. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds), Sex and gender. Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 7 (pp. 149-176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Barnes, L.L. (1990). Gender bias in teachers' written comments. In S.L. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy (pp. 140-159). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
4. Bate, B. (1979). Nonsexist language in transition. Journal of Communication, 28, 139-149.
5. Bem, S.L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-363.
6. Bem, S.L. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1984 (pp. 179-226). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
7. Bem, S.L. (1987). Gender schema theory and the romantic tradition. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender. Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 7 (pp. 251-271). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8. Biernant, M. (1991). A multicomponent, developmental analysis of sex typing. Sex Roles, 24, 567-586.
9. Black, L., Daiker, D.A., Sommers, J., & Stygall, G. (1994). Writing like a woman and being rewarded for it: Gender, assessment, and reflective letters from Miami University's student portfolios. In L. Black, D. A. Daiker, J. Sommers, & G. Sommers (Eds.), New Directions in Portfolio Assessment (pp. 235-247). Portsmouth. NH: Boynton/Cook.
10. Bock, R.D. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentricism in prescriptive grammar: Singular "they," sex-indefinite "he," and "he or she." Language in Society, 4, 129-146.
12. Broverman, J.K., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., & Rosenkrantz, P.S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
13. Brodkey, L. (1989). On the subject of class and gender. College English, 51(2), 125-141.
14. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
15. Cameron, D.J. (1985). Feminism and linguistic theory. New York: Macmillan.
16. Cameron, D.J., & Coates, J. (1988). Women in their speech communities: New perspectives on language and sex. New York: Longman Group.
17. Cavanaugh, J.C., Kramer, D.A., Sinnott, J.D., Camp, C.J., & Markley, R.P. (1985). On missing links and such: Interface between cognitive research and everyday problem-solving. Human Development, 28, 146-168.
18. Cayton, M.K. (1990). What happens when things go wrong: Women and writing blocks. Journal of Advanced Composition, 10, 321-337.
19. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20. Connors, J., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teachers' rhetorical comments on student papers: Ma and Pa Kettle visit the tropics of commentary. College Composition and Communication, 44, 200-223.
21. de Klerk, V. (1991). Expletives: Men only? Communication Monographs, 58, 156-159.
22. Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. (NCTE Research Report No. 13.) Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
23. Engelhard, G., Jr., Gordon, B., & Gabrielson, S. (1991). The influence of mode of discourse, experiential demand, and gender on the quality of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 315-336.
24. Etaugh, C.B., Houtler, D., & Ptasnik, P. (1988). Evaluating competence of women and men: Effects of experimenter gender and group gender composition. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 191-200.
25. Fulkerson, R. (1979). Four philosophies of composition. College Composition and Communication, 30, 343-343.
26. Fulkerson, R. (1990). Composition theory in the eighties: Axiological consensus and paradigmatic diversity. College Composition and Communication, 41, 409-429.
27. Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5(5), 28-30.
28. Green, L. (1990). Gender-based role perceptions in conference settings. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Boston.
29. Guilford, J.P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
30. Haas, C. (1994). Learning to read biology: One student's rhetorical development in college. Written Communication, 11, 43-84.
31. Haas, C., & Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39, 167-183.
32. Hall, J.A. (1987). On explaining gender differences: The case of nonverbal communication. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender. Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 7 (pp. 177-200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
34. Hare-Mustin, R.T., & Marccek, J. (1990). Gender and the meaning of difference: Postmodernism and psychology. In R.T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 22-64). New Haven: Yale University Press.
35. Harris, W.H. (1977). Teacher response to student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 175-185.
36. Hartman, S.J., Griffith, R.W., Crino, M.D., & Harris, J. (1991). Gender based influences: The promotion recommendation. Sex Roles, 25, 285-300.
37. Haswell, J.E. [Tedesco]. (1990). Applying the Perry and Belenky developmental schemes to English 101 students. Paper presented at the Wyoming Conference on English, Laramie.
38. Haswell, J.E. [Tedesco]. (1991). Ascribing gender to anonymous student writing. Unpublished paper.
39. Haswell, J.E. [Tedesco]. (1992). Read-aloud protocols and gender markers. Unpublished paper.
40. Haswell, J.E., & Haswell, R.H. (1995). Gendership and the miswriting of students. College Composition and Communication, 46, 223-254.
41. Haswell, R.H. (1986). Change in undergraduate and post-graduate writing performance (part I): Quantified findings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 269 780.)
42. Haswell, R.H. (1991). Gaining ground in college writing: Tales of development and interpretation. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.
43. Haswell, R.H., & Haswell, J.E. [Tedesco]. (1991). Gender and the evaluation of writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 141.) Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council of Teachers of English, Seattle, WA.
44. Hiatt, M. (1977). The way women write. New York: Teachers College Press.
45. Holland, D., & Skinner, D. (1987). Prestige and intimacy: The cultural models behind Americans' talk about gender types. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 78-111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Hunter, P., Pearce, N., Lee, S., Goldsmith, S., Feldman, P., & Weaver, H. (1988). Competing epistemologies and female basic writers. Journal of Basic Writing, 7, 73-81.
47. Illich, I. (1982). Gender. New York: Pantheon.
48. Isaacs, M.B. (1981). Sex role stereotyping and the evaluation of performance of women: Changing trends. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 187-195.
49. Johnson, D.M., & Roen, D.H. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: Gender variation. Language in Society, 21, 27-57.
50. Keene, N.A. (1986). Male/female language: A stylistic analysis of freshman compositions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 09A.
51. Keroes, J. (1990). But what do they say? Gender and the content of student writing. Discourse Processes, 13, 243-257.
52. Key, M.R. (1975). Male/female language. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
53. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E.E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
54. Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking: Frameworks for analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
55. Kramarae, C., & Treichler, P.A. W. (1990). Power relationships in the classroom. In S.L. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy (pp. 41-59). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
56. Kucer, S.B. (1989). Reading a text: Does the author make a difference? In B. Lawson, S.S. Ryan, & W.R. Winterowd (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in reading student writing (pp. 159-168). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
57. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1984). Culture, language, and mature rationality. In K.A. McCluskey & H.W. Reese, Life-span developmental psychology: Historical and generational effects (pp. 109-128). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
58. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper and Row.
59. McConnell-Ginet, S. (1985). Language and gender. In F.J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Language: The socio-cultural context. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, Vol. 4: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. McMahan, C.R. (1991). Evaluation and reinforcement: What do males and females really want to hear? Sex Roles, 24, 711-783.
61. Meyer, P.R. (1982). A study of sex differences in the freshman composition course at the University of Texas at Austin. (EDRS No. ED214167.)
62. Meyers, M.W. (1990). Current generic pronoun usage: An empirical study. American Speech, 65, 228-235.
63. Mulac, A., & Lundell, R. (1980). Differences in perception created by syntactic-sematic productions of male and female speakers. Communication Monographs, 47, 111-118.
64. Mulac, A., Incontro, C., & James, M. (1985). Comparison of the gender-linked effect and sex role stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1098-1109.
65. Mulac, A., Studley, L., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students' impromptu essays. Sex Roles, 23, 439-469.
66. Newcomb, T. (1931). An experiment designed to test the validity of a rating technique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 279-289.
67. Newkirk, T. (1984). How students read student papers. Written Communication, 1, 283-305.
68. O'Barr, W., & Atkins, B.K. (1980). "Women's language" or "powerless language?" In R. Borker, N. Furman, & S. McConnell-Ginel (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 93-110). New York: Praeger.
69. Ochs, E. (1993). "Indexing Gender." In B.D. Miller (Ed.), Sex and gender hierarchies (pp. 146-169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Olian, J.D., Schwab, D.P., & Haberfeld, Y. (1988). The impact of applicant gender compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 180-195.
71. Ortner, S.B., & Whitehead, H. (1981). Introduction: Accounting for sexual meanings. In S.B. Ortner & H. Whitehead (Eds.), Sexual meanings: The cultural construction of gender and sexuality (pp. 1-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Paludi, M.A., & Bauer, W.D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What's in an author's name? Sex Roles, 9, 387-390.
73. Paludi, M.A., & Strayer, L.A. (1985). What's in an author's name: Differential evaluations of performance as a function of author's name. Sex Roles, 12, 353-361.
74. Pearson, J.C. (1985). Gender and communication. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
75. Penelope, J. (1990). Speaking freely: Unlearning the lies of the fathers' tongues. New York: Pergamon.
76. Peterson, S.L. (1986). Sex-based differences in English argumentative writing: A tagmemic sociolinguistic approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2146-A.
77. Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
78. Purves, A.C. (1992). Reflections on research and assessment in written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 108-122.
79. Rajecki, D.W., de Graaf-Kaser, R., & Rasmussen, J.L. (1992). New impressions and more discriminations: Effects of individuation on gender-label stereotypes. Sex Roles, 27, 171-185.
80. Rasmussen, J.L., & Moely, B.E. (1986). Impression formation as a function of the sex role appropriateness of linguistic behavior. Sex Roles, 14, 149-161.
81. Roen, D.H. (1992). Gender and teacher response to student writing. In N. McCracken & B. Appleby (Eds.), Gender issues in the teaching of writing. (pp. 126-141). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
82. Roen, D.H., & Johnson, D.M. (1992). Perceiving the effectiveness of written discourse through gender lenses: The contribution of complimenting. Written Communication, 9, 435-464.
83. Rose, S.K. (1991). Developing literacy/developing gender: Constructing college freshmen. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of English annual convention, Seattle.
84. Roulis, E. (1990). The relative effect of a gender-linked language effect and a sex role stereotype effect on readers' responses to male and female argumentative-persuasive writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
85. Rubin, D.L., & Greene, K. (1991). Effects of biological and psychological gender, age cohort, and interviewer gender on attitudes toward gender inclusive/exclusive language. Sex Roles, 24, 391-412.
86. Rubin, D.L., & Greene, K. (1992). Gender-typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 7-20.
87. Rubin, D. (1993). Gender influences: Reading student texts, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
88. Ruble, D.N., & Ruble, T.L. (1982). Sex stereotypes. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), In the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping (pp. 188-253). New York: Praeger.
89. Russ, J. (1983). How to suppress women's writing. Austin: University of Texas Press.
90. Shields, S. (1987). Women, men, and the dilemma of emotion. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender. Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 7 (pp. 229-250). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
91. Showalter, E. (1982). Feminist criticism in the wilderness. In E. Abel (Ed.), Writing and sexual difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
92. Sirc, G. (1989). Gender and "writing formations" in first-year narratives. Freshman English News, 18, 4-11.
93. Six, B., & Eckes, T. (1991). A closer look at the complex structure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 57-71.
94. Spence, J.T. (1984). Gender identity and its implications for the concepts of masculinity and femininity. In T.B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1984 (pp. 59-95). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
95. Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. (1987). A good girl writes like a good girl: Written responses to student writing. Written Communication, 4, 343-369.
96. Stanley [Penelope], J.P. (1975). Passive motivation. Foundations of Language, 13, 25-39.
97. Starer, R., & Denmark, F. (1974). Discrimination against aspiring women. International Journal of Group Tensions, 4, 65-70.
98. Stygall, G., Black, L., Daiker, D.A., & Sommers, J. (1994). Gendered lextuality: Assigning gender to portfolios. In L. Black. D. A. Daiker, J., Sommers, & G. Sommers (Eds.), New directions in portfolio assessment (pp. 248-262). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
99. Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D.G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409-429.
100. Switzer, J.Y. (1990). The impact of generic word choices; An empirical investigation of age-and sex related differences. Sex Roles, 22, 69-82.
101. Top, J.T. (1991). Sex bias in the evaluation of performance in the scientific, artistic, and literary professions: A review. Sex Roles, 24, 73-106.
102. Unger, R.K. (1988). Psychological, feminist, and personal epistemology: Transcending contradiction. In M.M. Gergen (Ed.), Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge (pp. 124-141). New York: New York University Press.
103. Unger, R.K. (1990). Imperfect reflections of reality: Psychology constructs gender. In R.T. Hare-Mustin and J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender (pp. 102-149). New Haven: Yale University Press.
104. Wallston, B.S., & O'Leary, V.E. (1987). Sex makes a difference: Differential perceptions of women and men. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and gender. Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 7 (pp. 9-41). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
105. Wanzenried, J., Franks, L.J., & Powell, F.C. (1989). He speaks, she writes: An experimental study of gender and choice of communication mode. Paper presented at the Conference of the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender, Cincinnati.
106. Ware, A.E. (1991). A discourse analysis of gender differences in the persuasive wriling of eleventh graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 10A.
107. Warshay, D.W. (1972), Sex differences in language style. In C. Safilios-Rothschild (Ed.), Toward a sociology of women (pp. 3-9). Lexington, MA: Xerox.
108. Wolff, J.M. (1991). Writing passionately: Student resistance to feminist readings. College Composition and Communication, 42, 484-492.
109. Zak, F. (1990). Exclusively positive responses to student writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 9, 40-53.