Making Theory Relevant

Approaches to Teaching about Gender and Theory

Examining the available sociological texts about gender illustrates the variety of approaches instructors may take to teaching this topic. Some texts focus on theory, such as Lorber’s (2010) Gender Inequality, which contains many types of feminism. Others discuss them in the opening chapters, such as Lindsey (2011) in Gender Roles, or in chapters specifically on theory, such as Ryle (2011) in Questioning Gender and Andersen (2011) in Thinking about Women. Other texts do not explicitly discuss theory.

Articles published in Teaching Sociology on teaching about gender reflect this range of approaches. Scholars have shared, for example, tools for teaching about specific topics like the wage gap and other occupational inequalities (Giuffre, Anderson, and Bird 2008; Petrzelka 2005; Sweet and Baker 2011) and classroom strategies for dealing with student resistance (Kleinman, Copp, and Sandstrom 2006). Very few of them, however, explicitly include theory. If they do, they tend to discuss one theory, such as Friedman and Rosenberg’s (2007) application of Judith Butler’s postmodern feminist theory of “performativity” to teaching Jewish Women’s Studies. One exception is Blee’s (1986) plea for more theory-based sociology of gender courses. However, rather than developing a tool to facilitate this theory-based approach, Blee (1986) laid the foundation by justifying its usefulness and theories instructors might use, including structural functionalism and feminist theories. My gender course’s design, which includes a substantial focus on theory, resonates with Blee’s (1986) advice. Taking a theoretical approach to the sociology of gender, however, raises challenges related to teaching theory.

Instructors often lament that students perceive sociological theory as abstract and disconnected from everyday life (e.g., Holtzman 2005; Hoop 2012; Lowney 1998). Many tools for teaching theory seek to overcome this challenge by connecting theory to students’ experiences. Examples include activities challenging students to avoid cell phones and Facebook to facilitate discussions of Comte’s ideas (Hoop 2012), build an irrigation canal to illustrate functionalism and conflict theory (Holtzman 2005), and complete puzzles to link theory to puzzle-working strategies (Lowney 1998). Like these innovative tools, the GABI uses active learning to connect theory to students’ everyday lives. The GABI, however, is unique in that it focuses on multiple theories and directly allows students to see connections between their own views and that of 11 specific theories by indicating how strongly their own views align with each theory.

The Gender Attitude and Belief Inventory

Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University, and I developed the GABI while teaching an upper-level undergraduate sociology of gender course. We noticed resistance to learning about feminism. Echoing research findings, students told us that feminism was irrelevant to their lives (e.g., Misciagno 1997; Peltola, Milkie, and Presser 2004) or “radical” or “militant” (e.g., Misciagno 1997; Weiss 1998), and they expressed confusion surrounding what it means to be a feminist (e.g., McCabe 2005; Misciagno 1997). Underlying this student resistance were media stereotypes of man-hating, lesbian femi-nazis (Hall and Rodriguez 2003; Kleinman et al. 2006).

In order to help students overcome resistance, better understand sociological approaches to gender—including feminist ones—and to see how their own views connect to the theories discussed in class and in the readings, I wanted to develop an inventory that would be the type of quiz one encounters in a magazine. Using existing scales, such as Henley et al.’s (1998) Feminist Perspective Scale and Morgan’s (1996) Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale, and theoretical publications on gender (e.g., Lorber 2010; Lorde 1984; Tong 1998), Brian Powell and I crafted statements to represent 11 commonly discussed gender theories: physiological, sociobiological, and structural functionalism—which are all functionalist theories—and 8 strands of feminist theory that are all conflict theories—liberal, socialist, Marxist, radical, separatist, cultural, multicultural/black, and postmodern feminism. A description of each theory can be found at www.janicemccabe.net/gabi. The GABI represents each theory by four different statements. The remaining item (No. 45) taps feminist self-labeling: “I consider myself a feminist.” I revised and refined the statements based on student feedback and comments from colleagues. Response categories for all 45 items range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). The appendix includes the GABI and answer sheet.

Instructors using GABI should be aware of three issues. First, providing a wide range of theories, even if we may not particularly like a theory because it is inherently conservative, for example, offers theories with which nearly every student can both agree and disagree. Presenting a range of theories also probably increases students’ faith in us as fair instructors (Dixon and McCabe 2006). Second, we chose to include these 11 theories in the GABI because they are commonly discussed in sociology of gender texts, and collectively, they represent a range of views about gender. These 11, however, do not represent all possible theoretical perspectives. As discussed at the end of this article, instructors can easily adapt the GABI to include or exclude theories of interest. Third, some of the statements’ phrasing may seem too cursory to reflect a theory, but phrasing statements in this way helps to provide core ideas and distinguish between theories. The GABI can be used as an introduction to these theories at the beginning of the semester—or in more introductory courses—and as a tool to discuss complexities later in the semester—or in more advanced courses.

Data and Methods

I assessed the GABI’s usefulness in the classroom in two ways: (1) students’ perceptions of the GABI’s effectiveness and of their learning and (2) direct measures of student learning via pretests and posttests. Assessments are from 14 sections of an upper-division undergraduate course on the sociology of gender at two universities. I taught 10 of these sections, and another instructor taught the other 4. We covered similar topics and both taught at Indiana University. I also include 9 sections that I taught at Florida State University. Class sizes range from 12 to 68 students, with smaller sections occurring in the summer terms. I obtained Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at both universities for classroom assessments of the GABI.

First, in all 14 sections, at the end of the semester, students were given six questions focusing on whether the GABI was interesting, useful, and enjoyable. Using a 4-point Likert scale, students responded to three close-ended questions: “To what extent did you find the exercise regarding the theoretical perspectives to be interesting?” “To what degree did it help or not help you understand the theoretical perspectives discussed in class?” and “Overall, how enjoyable was the exercise?” Lower scores indicate that students found the GABI to be more interesting, helpful, and enjoyable. Students wrote responses ranging from one word to a short paragraph to each of three open-ended questions: “What, if anything, do you feel you learned from the exercise?” “Do you think participating in this exercise helped to clarify your views regarding gender and gender theories? If so, how?” and “Do you think participating in the exercise changed your views regarding gender and gender theories? If so, how?” I chose specific quotations to include in this article based on their representativeness and the clarity with which the student expresses his or her ideas. In other words, quotes presented represent common sentiments that are expressed in a particularly clear manner. From 2002 to 2010, 603 students completed this assessment. Table 1 presents information about the sample.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Summary of Sample and Student Assessments of the Gender Attitude and Belief Inventory (GABI).

	Mean (SD) or percentage	Range	N
Institution	35% Indiana University, 65% Florida State University	1–2	603
Semester	41% fall, 41% spring, 18% summer	1–3	603
Section	2% to 10% per section	1–14	603
Percentage my students	67%	1–2	603
Year	6% to 19% per year	1–7	603
Student assessments of the GABI a
Interesting	2.01 (0.767)	1–4	601
Helpful	1.73 (0.815)	1–4	602
Enjoyable	1.37 (0.735)	1–4	596

a

Lower scores indicate that the exercise was more interesting, helpful, and enjoyable.

Second, I measured the GABI’s effectiveness by using pretests and posttests in the four most recent sections of the course. In two sections, I used one posttest (posttest 1), which I gave to students immediately after we discussed the GABI. In the other two sections, I gave an additional posttest (posttest 2) at the end of the semester. When talking to the students, I referred to the pre- and posttests as ungraded “quizzes.” Each “quiz” had 15 statements selected from the first 44 on the GABI. Students’ scores ranged from 0 to 15, indicating the number of statements where students wrote the correct theoretical perspective. Students graded their own quizzes so they would be aware of their scores. After the posttest, I made each quiz available on our course Blackboard Web site. One hundred ninety students completed at least one pretest or posttest, with 161 completing a pretest and posttest 1 that could be linked. In the sections where I used two posttests, 70 students took the pretest, 71 took the first posttest, and 45 took the second posttest; 33 students had matched pre- and posttests at all three points in time. Table 2 presents information about pre- and posttests.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Summary of Pretest and Posttest Responses Measuring Student Learning.

	Mean a (SD)	Range	N
Pretest	9.25 (3.13)	0–15	170
Posttest 1	12.11 (2.93)	0–15	170
Posttest 2	13.13 (2.89)	0–15	45

a

Pre- and posttest scores indicate the number of statements that students correctly identify by their theoretical perspective.

The Gabi’s Usefulness in the Classroom

The first type of assessment taps the extent to which students found the GABI to be interesting, useful, and enjoyable. As shown in Table 1, most students responded positively to the GABI on all three dimensions. There are no significant differences in any of the measures by university, semester, section, instructor, or year.

One close-ended question tapped students’ interest in the GABI: “To what extent did you find the exercise regarding the theoretical perspectives to be interesting?” Almost three-quarters of students (72 percent) found the GABI to be “very interesting” or “interesting” while only 1 percent found it to be “not at all interesting.” These results suggest that the GABI piqued students’ curiosity, and the qualitative responses indicate the dimensions on which students found it to be thought-provoking.

Responses to the question, “What, if anything, do you feel you learned from the exercise?” revealed that students recognized multiple benefits to the GABI. One theme that emerged was that the GABI helped them to understand or differentiate between theories. For example, one student wrote, “It definitely gave me a better idea of all the perspectives and what they all stand for. It made it much easier to distinguish them from one another.” Relatedly, another student noted, “I learned that feminist has broad meaning. It’s no longer are you feminist or not, but what type of feminist are you.”

Second, students expressed several instrumental benefits of the exercise, including that it helped them participate in class discussion and prepare for exams. Students wrote, “It gave me things to talk about in class” and “it helped the most when studying.” Third, the GABI facilitated students’ reflections on their own views and identity. One student wrote, “Not only did I find the exercise to be a helpful tool, but it was interesting learning where my own views lie in respect to the theoretical perspectives.” Another wrote, “I learned a lot about my beliefs and the results surprised me somewhat and really made me think.” Reflecting one such surprise, a peer wrote, “I’m not as sexist as I thought.” Fourth, the GABI helped students see that “real life” and theory connect. For example, one student wrote that he or she learned “how to apply theories to real life beliefs and ideas,” while another wrote, “It showed me the theories that I was most affiliated with which was pretty interesting therefore making the theories more relatable.” Some students indicated that seeing connections between theory and practice helped them learn, as one student wrote, “I was better able to study the material because I saw how it related to actual belief statements.” Rather than abstract arguments, the beliefs we discussed in class underlying each theory became claims the students could make, reject, debate, and discuss in relation to their own lives and experiences. In sum, students reported that the GABI helped them understand the theories, prepare for the exams, learn about themselves, and apply the theories to their own lives.

In response to the close-ended question, “To what degree did it help or not help you understand the theoretical perspectives discussed in class?” four-fifths of students (80 percent) found the GABI “very helpful” or “helpful” while only 2 percent found it “not at all helpful.” These responses, therefore, reinforce the qualitative finding that the GABI helped students understand gender theory.

The second open-ended question asked students “Do you think participating in this exercise helped to clarify your views regarding gender and gender theories? If so, how?” Most responses focused on how the GABI provided examples that helped students better understand the theories. Students noted, “Yes. I was struggling with how each perspective differed and this helped clarify” and “yes because it gave you a chance to see different examples of each.” Another student provided more detail on this point: “Yes, it helped with some of the theories that I did not understand because I am definitely someone that needs examples.” The GABI’s design, which includes four statements for each theory, provided multiple examples and applications of each theory that students viewed as useful resources. Second, the GABI clarified students’ views through facilitating personal reflection on the theories. One student wrote, “Yes, it challenges you to think about each theory,” while a peer similarly noted, “Yes, because it caused you to think deeply about the subject matter.” In other words, the GABI promoted active learning. Third, the exercise corrected misperceptions they held. One student wrote, “Yes because before I didn’t consider myself a feminist but now I know their [sic] is a view that I believe in that I didn’t know was a feminist view before.” Another student noted, “It made my understandings and perspectives more clear so I could better voice my opinion.” This student’s comment reflects that better understanding theory may enable students to share these understandings with others. Fourth, it clarified students’ views through providing a label for their personal views. One student noted, “Before this class I never really had a name/label for my views about gender. After learning the perspectives, I could correctly label my views.” Expressing surprise at the label provided, one student wrote, “I didn’t realize how many feminist views I believed in before doing this survey.” Fifth, the GABI clarified their views through connecting the theories to students’ own beliefs. One student wrote, “Yes, because it allowed us to actively use the theories, and make us interpret it.” Another student noted that the GABI allowed him or her “to better relate the theoretical perspectives to everyday ideas,” and several applauded its “real world application.” In sum, students noted the GABI’s role in aiding their understanding, encouraging personal reflection, and correcting misperceptions of the theories along with providing labels for their views and directly connecting their views to the theories.

Responses to the last open-ended question, “Do you think participating in the exercise changed your views regarding gender and gender theories? If so, how?” indicate that most students felt that it did not alter their views. A common response was that the GABI “didn’t change my views but helped me to reorganize my thoughts.” A similar sentiment was “No, I find it hard to believe an exercise this simple could change someones [sic] views.” Students’ responses to this question instead focused on how the exercise made them reflect on their own views and those of others. One student wrote, “The exercise definitely made me think about my views and be more open to other views.” Other students conveyed how the GABI helped to reinforce their views and mark them with a recognized theoretical term. One student wrote, “No—if anything, it grounded me more in my views after looking at other options.” A peer noted, “No; I’m pretty strong about how I feel and it just helped me define what I am.” Similarly, another wrote that the GABI “kind of put a label on how I felt about gender.” Most students did not believe the GABI changed their theoretical views, but helped them clarify their views and how to label their views.

A minority of students, however, did express ways that the exercise changed their opinions. Some students emphasized that the GABI facilitated critical thinking. For example, one student wrote, “Yes, made me think twice about what I really believe in, not just what I have always been told.” Other students noted that the GABI helped them move beyond avoidance of the feminist label or of specific feminist perspectives. One wrote, “Somewhat. It did make me realize the negative connotation that the idea of a ‘feminist’ has.” A second noted, “Yes. I really didn’t think I would relate to feminist views but I learned I do.” Relatedly, another student wrote, “Yes. I was kind of making fun of the post modern feminism ideas and found out through taking the GABI that I pretty closely identified with their ideals.” In understanding the different feminist theories from the survey, students came to appreciate that although they are not, in their words, an “extreme” feminist, they are “just a liberal feminist.” As with the previous question, students’ responses point to the GABI’s usefulness for discussing media framing and recognizing how media claims may shape personal beliefs. Students’ responses to all qualitative items demonstrate how the GABI connects theory to their everyday lives.

In response to the final question, “Overall, how enjoyable was the exercise?” 86 percent of students rated it as “enjoyable”—77 percent that it was “enjoyable and helped me understand theoretical perspectives” and 9 percent that it was “enjoyable, but it did not increase my understanding of theoretical perspectives.” Thirteen percent said that it was “useful for understanding theoretical perspectives, but not enjoyable; I would rather just take notes on lecture material,” and fewer than 1 percent said that it was a “waste of time; it was not enjoyable and added nothing to my understanding of theoretical perspectives.” Most students expressed that the GABI was fun to complete and helpful in spurring their learning of gender theory.

Direct Measures of Students’ Learning

The second gauge of the GABI’s effectiveness comes from direct measures of students’ learning. Table 2 shows assessment scores ranging from 0 to 15 to indicate the number of statements students correctly identified by their theoretical perspective. Scores increased from an average of 9 on the pretest to 12 on posttest 1 to 13 on posttest 2.

I conducted analysis of mean differences between assessments using paired t tests, an analytical strategy used to compare means from the same groups. As shown in Table 3, all differences are statistically significant. To be included in the analysis, students needed valid responses for each test being compared. The 161 students completing both the pretest and the posttest immediately following discussion of the GABI (posttest 1) increased their score by 3 points (from 9.3 vs. 12.3, p < .001). The 33 students for whom I have data at all three points in time scored slightly higher than average, but they exhibited the same improvement over time, from 10 on the pretest to 13 on the first posttest (p < .001, not presented in table) to 14 on the second posttest (p = .040). The continued improvement from posttest 1 to posttest 2 suggests that the gains of the GABI are not just temporary, but that they stick with students throughout the course. Without a comparison group, I am unable to determine how much of this learning occurred because of the GABI. Students’ qualitative and quantitative assessments of the activity (discussed earlier), however, suggest that the GABI is the cause of at least some of students’ increased understanding of these theories.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Mean Difference in Matched Pretest and Posttest Responses Measuring Student Learning.

	Mean difference	t test of difference	N
Pretest to Posttest 1	2.96	t = 13.90, p < .001	161
Posttest 1 to Posttest 2	0.79	t = 2.14, p = .040	33

Adapting the Gabi for Use in Other Courses

This article highlights one way to use the GABI in the college classroom. However, I see a variety of ways that the inventory could be modified and adapted for other uses. The GABI could be shortened to include fewer theories and tailored to an instructor’s specific needs. Instructors can revise the GABI to include statements reflecting fewer than the full 11 theories. For example, instructors using Kramer’s (2010) The Sociology of Gender or Andersen’s (2011) Thinking about Women may want to include only the items from liberal, socialist, radical, postmodern, and multiracial feminism to match theories in these texts. Theories could also be merged, such as socialist and Marxist feminism, when they are discussed together, as is done by Lindsey’s (2011) Gender Roles. Theories could be reconfigured into other categories, such as sameness and difference feminisms or conflict and functional perspectives. And instructors could add statements to the GABI when their courses include other theories, such as psychoanalytic or standpoint feminism, as in Lorber’s (2010) Gender Inequality. One strength of the GABI is its ability to be adapted to meet individual instructors’ needs.

I also have used the GABI in graduate courses on contemporary theory and gender theory. Although I did not use the formal evaluation tool, students commented that the GABI helped them understand distinctions between these theoretical approaches and understand the connections between their personal views and the theories covered in class. Many of these students have then used the GABI in the courses they teach, which is another indication that they found the tool useful.

Colleagues have used the GABI in social psychology, social problems, and sociological theory courses. One social problems instructor assigned an extra credit paper after completing the GABI in class. The assignment asked students to write about the GABI questions they experienced strong reactions to (both positive and negative), how their social location and personal relationships with women (mothers, sisters, coworkers, teachers, etc.) might have influenced their views, and why they would or would not classify themselves as a feminist after completing the GABI. This instructor reports that 90 percent of students typically opt to do this assignment, even though it is not required. Another instructor used the GABI in a unit on social movements and noted that the GABI allowed his students to situate themselves in relation to course concepts, theories, movement activities, and historical transformations. Such applications show that the GABI can be used in different ways to teach a variety of substantive topics.

The design of the GABI also could be useful to spur active learning about theories not related to gender by using this framework to create an inventory tailored to perspectives used in other courses. For example, instructors teaching about race might create items reflecting critical race theory, “old-fashioned” racism, and color-blind racism or nationalism and assimilationism (see, e.g., Delgado and Stefancic [2012] for descriptions of these perspectives). Instructors would craft several statements characterizing each perspective’s central ideas. I advise four statements for each perspective so the answer to one item does not skew the results. I also suggest wording statements in an extreme manner and not including a “neutral” (neither agree nor disagree) category on the answer sheet. Although having no neutral category may frustrate students, forcing students to reflect on and indicate whether they are more likely to agree or disagree with the statement helps students distinguish between perspectives. Phrasing statements in an extreme manner also helps students to recognize differences between perspectives and can later help provide a platform on which to discuss the nuances of the theory.

Conclusion

Evaluations of the GABI’s effectiveness show that it increases students’ understanding of the theoretical perspectives on gender and students found it to be interesting, useful, and enjoyable. The design could be modified and serve as a model for instructors addressing other topics, such as race. Direct measures of learning show that students better understood the theories immediately after the exercise and even more clearly at the end of the semester. The GABI enables students to reflect on and recognize media influences on their personal beliefs. It also might encourage students to self-identify as feminists through facilitating accurate information, which is one road to feminism (Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2010). Although most students felt the GABI did not alter their beliefs, those who did pointed to it spurring their critical thinking and correcting misperceptions, often stereotypes of feminists. Most importantly, the GABI is an innovative way for students to see how we are all theoreticians, countering views of theory as abstract notions disconnected from real life. In the words of one student, “[The] most interesting part was seeing how my personal perspectives lined up into these theories.”