gender bias in efl textbook dialogues - malm¶ h¶gskola

Malmö högskola Lärarutbildningen

Kultur, språk, medier

Examensarbete 15 högskolepoäng

Gender Bias in EFL Textbook Dialogues

Könsfördelning i dialoger i engelska textböcker

Sara Johansson

Kim Bachelder Malmsjö

Lärarexamen 270hp Engelska med inriktning mot undervisning och lärande 2009-05-19

Examinator: Bo Lundahl Handledare: Björn Sundmark

3

Abstract

This degree project is a quantitative study of dialogues and speaking exercises in twelve EFL

textbooks used in secondary schools in Sweden. The chosen textbooks are from the four

textbook series Happy, Time, Whats’s Up? and Wings Base Book. The aim is to investigate if

there is any over-representation of female or male characters in the textbook dialogues. We

will be looking at four different typologies, namely the number of initiated dialogues, turns

taken, number of characters and words used. Previous research concerning classroom

interaction, scholastic performance, textbooks and textbook dialogues is included to provide

some background into this area. The findings show over-representation exists in all the

textbook series in various degrees of both female and male characters. This degree project

maps the over-representation of female and male characters both in the four textbook series

and the twelve individual textbooks. Our results will show that while a textbook series might

over-represent one gender it does not necessarily mean that the individual textbook within that

series over-represents the same gender. The findings make it clear that educators need to be

aware of gender-biased textbook dialogues in order to be better equipped to ensure equal

opportunities for all learners.

Keywords: Gender bias, equal learning opportunities, EFL textbook dialogues, speaking

practice exercises

5

List of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 7

1.1 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………7 1.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION ........................................................................................................ 8

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND RELEVANT THEORIES ............................................. 9

2.1 BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ PERFORMANCES IN SCHOOL ................................................................ 9 2.2 FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEXTBOOKS ................................................................................... 12 2.3 FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEXTBOOK DIALOGUES ................................................................. 15

3. METHOD ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.1 SELECTION OF TEXTBOOKS ............................................................................................. 19 3.2 PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................................... 19

4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 23

4.1 TEXTBOOK SERIES TIME .................................................................................................. 23 4.2 TEXTBOOK SERIES WINGS ................................................................................................ 25 4.3 TEXTBOOK SERIES HAPPY ............................................................................................... 28 4.4 TEXTBOOK SERIES WHAT’S UP? ...................................................................................... 30

5. ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 33

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 36

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 38

PRIMARY SOURCES ................................................................................................................ 38 SECONDARY SOURCES ........................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX 1: FIRST TIME ........................................................................................................ 41 APPENDIX 2: SECOND TIME .................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX 3: THIRD TIME....................................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX 4: FIRST TIME, SECOND TIME, THIRD TIME ............................................................ 46 APPENDIX 5: WINGS BASE BOOK 6 ......................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX 6: WINGS BASE BOOK 7 ......................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX 7: WINGS BASE BOOK 8 ......................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 8: WINGS 6, WINGS 7, WINGS 8 .............................................................................. 54 APPENDIX 9: HAPPY NO.1 ...................................................................................................... 55 APPENDIX 10: HAPPY NO.2 .................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX 11: HAPPY NO.3 .................................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX 12: HAPPY NO.1, HAPPY NO.2, HAPPY NO.3 ........................................................... 64 APPENDIX 13: WHAT’S UP? 7 ................................................................................................ 65 APPENDIX 14: WHAT’S UP? 8 ................................................................................................ 68 APPENDIX 15: WHAT’S UP? 9 ................................................................................................ 70 APPENDIX 16 – WHAT’S UP? 7, WHAT’S UP? 8, WHAT’S UP? 9 .............................................. 71

7

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

According to the curriculum for Swedish compulsory schools, one important mission of the

school system is to teach students the value of equality and for teachers to teach in a way that

supports equality (Skolverket, 1996a). The curriculum states that “[t]he school should actively

and consciously further equal rights and opportunities for men and women” and that “[t]he

school has a responsibility to counteract traditional gender roles” (Skolverket, 2006a, pp. 4-5).

While the national curriculum stresses the importance of providing equal learning

opportunities for both boys and girls, research shows that this is not always the case in the

classroom or in the teaching materials being used in the classroom (Mesthrie et al., 2000;

Bayyurt & Litosseliti, 2006). In fact, research conducted during the past four decades found

that texts and dialogues in English as a foreign language (EFL) textbooks showed an

imbalance in gender representation and traditional gender roles (Hartman & Judd, 1978; Jones

et al., 1995; Bayyurt & Litosseliti, 2006). On a positive note, some research showed that a

balanced representation of female and male characters in texts and textbook dialogues has

improved over the years (Jones, Kitetu & Sunderland, 1995; Poulou, 1997). However,

research done in 2002 showed that an unbalanced representation of gender still exists in

textbooks (McGrath, 2004). It seems relevant to reinvestigate gender bias in EFL textbook

dialogues currently being used in Swedish compulsory schools. It should be noted that while

gender representation refers to how genders are depicted, gender bias or unbalanced

representation refers to when one gender is treated unfairly or is under-represented compared

to another gender.

Why is this relevant? As future teachers, we need to know if the textbooks we are using are

gender biased and we need to be prepared to adjust our application of these textbook

dialogues to ensure we fulfil the national curriculum requirements of providing all our

students an equal opportunity for learning. If we are unaware of gender bias in dialogues, we

may inadvertently limit the speaking practice opportunities for the under-represented gender

as well as fail in fulfilling curriculum requirements of providing equal rights for all students.

8

1.2 Purpose

The aim of this degree project is to investigate if gender bias exists in EFL textbook dialogues

by taking a quantitative look at the number of times female and male characters speak in a

dialogue and the number of words allocated female and male characters in these dialogues.

1.3 Research Question

We will look at twelve EFL textbooks currently being used in secondary schools in Sweden

and investigate the following question:

• Do EFL textbook dialogues over-represent female characters or male characters?

9

2. Previous Research and Relevant Theories

2.1 Boys’ and Girls’ Performances in School

When discussing equal opportunities for boys and girls in schools, it is interesting to look at

the wider picture and not only textbooks and dialogues. Looking at the whole society,

research from the 1990’s, conducted in several countries in the Western world, has suggested

there has been a change in women’s and men’s conditions and attitudes since the 1970’s and

1980’s (Öhrn, 2002). Mats Björnsson (2005) pointed to the changes in women’s situations at

home and in the labor market, girls’ views of education and new aspirations in life as some of

the underlying reasons for the change in the gender patterns we see today. According to

Elisabet Öhrn (2002), who did an overview of research conducted mainly in Sweden and the

Nordic countries, girls seem to have become more visible in schools. Moreover, studies

showed a more varied picture of boys’ and girls’ behavior and of their general situation in

schools. Young women’s views of themselves have changed and girls have become more

confident and active in the classroom. Öhrn (2002) mentioned Fagrell and Weis who wrote

that girls have moved the boundaries and taken on new roles in traditionally male domains but

boys have not done the same in traditionally female domains. In other words, the girl’s

position has been challenged in different ways but not the boy’s (Björnsson, 2005; Öhrn,

2002). However, Öhrn (2002) also wrote that we have to be careful not to exaggerate these

trends because there are several studies from the Nordic countries suggesting that some

gender stereotypes among children have been stable over time and have not changed since the

1970’s. Furthermore, there have only been a limited number of studies in this area and this

new generation of girls is only referred to in a few of these studies.

A recurring topic in the gender debate during the 1990’s and the 2000’s has been how much

space and attention boys and girls receive and take in different pedagogical situations

(Einarsson, 2003). Several studies have suggested boys still dominate the classroom and

interactions with their teachers as they did in the 1970’s. Younger, Warrington and Williams

(1999) studied classroom interactions at four different schools in England and their research

showed that the boys dominated the teacher-student interactions at three of the schools, that

is, they received more questions from the teacher, they answered more questions directed to

the whole class and they received more disciplinary comments from the teacher. At the fourth

10

school girls and boys received an equal number of questions and the girls answered more of

the open questions directed to the whole class. Another interesting finding was that at three of

the four schools the girls asked for more help and support than boys but, as mentioned above,

the boys received more attention. Some teachers in the study commented that the fact that the

girls asked for more help was a reason for paying more attention to the boys. Several teachers

thought they treated boys and girls differently because they felt boys are not as prepared for

the school environment as girls. Also interesting was that only a minority of the teachers

thought they treated boys and girls equally (Younger, Warrington & Williams, 1999).

Research conducted in the Nordic countries indicated that the picture varied concerning how

much space and attention one group of students received (Öhrn, 2002). There was a big

variation between subjects, classes and schools whether girls or boys dominated the

classroom. In one study conducted by Öhrn (2002), either girls dominated the class

interactions or there was no difference between the sexes in social sciences and languages. In

another study Öhrn found there were differences between the two classes she followed. In one

class there were no differences regarding speaking time and in the other class the boys often

dominated (Öhrn, 2002). Looking at other studies we see that the picture is even more

complex (Einarsson, 2003; Lundgren, 2000). When the boys dominated the classroom, it did

not include all the boys and they did not dominate the interactions all the time. A large

number of boys never answered questions voluntarily and there were also some girls who

were active both verbally and physically. These findings suggest it is complicated to treat

boys and girls as two homogenous groups.

When discussing classroom interactions, it is also important to consider what type of attention

boys and girls receive. As we have seen, boys seemed to receive more disciplinary comments

which could mean that more attention in the classroom is not necessarily a positive thing.

Charlotta Einarsson (2003) also pointed out in her study of teacher-student classroom

interactions that teachers often used direct questions to boys in order to increase their on-task

behavior. Looking at it from that perspective, receiving more questions could also be seen as a

type of negative attention just as disciplinary comments. On the other hand, when learning

English as a Foreign Language (EFL), answering questions could also be seen as an

opportunity to use the target language and could therefore be considered as something

positive. In other words, the situation is very complex and it is difficult to say if any group is

at any advantage or disadvantage. The picture becomes even more complex when we look at

11

boys’ and girls’ performances, that is, their grades, test results and participation in higher

education. If boys receive more attention than the girls and if the attention is positive, one

could assume it would lead to differences in the results in the boys’ favor. However, reality

shows something different.

A commonly discussed topic during the past two decades has not only been differences in

classroom interactions but also the fact that girls outperform boys in school. Girls receive

higher grades and better test results compared to boys and a larger number of girls also

continue on to higher education (Björnsson, 2005; Öhrn, 2002). We can see the same pattern

in many other countries in Europe, North America and Australasia (Younger, Warrington &

Williams, 1999). Öhrn (2002) pointed out that girls achieving higher grades than boys is not a

new phenomenon in Sweden. This could be seen already in the 1980’s and in some subjects as

early as the 1960’s. In other countries the discussions have concerned whether it is time to

focus more on boys and if the work procedures used in schools benefit a girl’s way of

expressing herself (Öhrn, 2002). These types of discussions about boys being the losers of the

education system might imply that boys’ results have deteriorated. However, Younger,

Warrington and Williams (1999) pointed out that “the phenomenon is actually one of relative

rates of improvement for both sexes” (p. 326), which is also the case in Sweden (Öhrn, 2002).

Looking at the grades in year 9, girls usually perform better in languages while boys perform

better in natural sciences (Öhrn, 2002). In most subjects there are more girls than boys

receiving the higher grades Väl Godkänt (VG) and Mycket Väl Godkänt (MVG) and girls

have significantly higher grade point averages (Skolverket, 2008). Furthermore, more girls

(89,9 %) than boys (87,9 %) qualified for upper secondary school in 2008. In other words,

they achieved at least Godkänt (G) in English, Swedish and mathematics. According to Öhrn

(2002), girls perform somewhat better in verbal tests compared to boys while boys achieve

better results in tests in mathematics and natural sciences. Especially interesting to look at

considering the focus of this dissertation, are the results from the National test in English.

When the results from the three different parts of the 2008 National test in English were

compared, they showed that the students performed the best on the oral section (Skolverket,

2009). Only 3 % did not pass and an interesting fact is that there were about the same

percentage of girls as boys who failed. However, girls performed better than boys, that is,

more girls achieved the higher grades. According to Öhrn (2002), the gender patterns could

vary depending on the method of measurement.

12

As seen in the above discussion, girls have higher grades and perform better in languages and

more often better in verbal tests such as for example part A of the National test in English.

Boys usually perform better on tests in natural sciences and mathematics, even though the

differences between the sexes are decreasing in mathematics (Skolverket, 2009). Interesting to

see is that in the past there has only been a focus on girls’ underachievement in natural

sciences and mathematics but not on boys’ underachievement in languages and other subjects

(Öhrn, 2002). However, the interest in this area seems to be increasing considering the

volumes of published reports and articles focusing on this subject since the late 1990’s. It

should be noted that studies conducted in Sweden are limited. Another point to emphasize is

that it seems difficult to say if boys or girls are at any advantage or disadvantage when only

the classroom interaction, or speaking time, is analyzed. It is therefore important to consider

other factors that can explain the differences in the results on for example oral tests. Attitudes,

school culture, dialogues and other types of speaking exercises could be such factors.

2.2 Foreign Language Textbooks

Research shows that the scholastic performance of boys differs from the scholastic

performance of girls. As mentioned earlier, girls performed better than boys on the National

test in English (Skolverket, 2009). Factors that may contribute to performance differences

have been under scrutiny in hopes of narrowing the performance gap. One such factor that has

been under investigation is textbooks. This paper investigates gender bias in EFL textbook

dialogues. Before looking at dialogues, however, let us first look at gender bias in textbooks

in general. Studies conducted in the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000’s have found that gender

bias has often manifested itself with over-representation of male characters in textbook texts.

Studies conducted in Sweden on this topic were limited.

In the late 1970’s, Pat Hartman and Elliot Judd (1978) investigated gender bias in Teachers of

English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) textbooks. Their study included fifteen

TESOL textbooks which had been published in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and were

being used in the United States and Britain. The study showed that in these textbooks “women

are often less visible than men, are often the butt of many jokes and are often placed in

13

stereotypical roles and assigned stereotypical emotional reactions” (Hartman & Judd, 1978, p.

383). It is interesting to note that in 1975 the American organization National Council of

Teachers of English adopted a formal policy to encourage non-sexist language usage by

publishers. However, despite these efforts, gender bias was undeniable.

In the 1980’s, six years after Hartman and Judd’s ground-breaking study, Karen Porreca

(1984) conducted a similar study of English as a Second Language (ESL) textbooks. Porreca

selected fifteen ESL textbooks purchased in the largest quantities by twenty-seven ESL

locations in the USA. Porreca reinvestigated gender bias in EFL textbooks by looking at texts

and illustrations in a quantitative manner. Her findings supported the findings of Hartman and

Judd and she warned that there may be consequences with unrealistic depictions of females

and males. She found a large presence of the masculine generic construction where the

textbook characters first appeared to be neutral characters but were invariably male characters

rather than neutral or female characters. According to Sadker and Zittleman (2007), some

publishers and authors of textbooks try to create “an illusion of equality” (p. 273) and thus

might include pictures of women instead of revising the texts. While a neutral character might

create a sense of un-biased gender representation, a masculine generic construction might

perpetuate asymmetric gender representation.

One textbook in Porreca’s (1984) study, English Sentence Structure, used a repetitive pattern

drill which most often featured a male character ‘John’. Porreca noted that “this type of all-

male exercise (with five or more sentences) occurs 54 times throughout the book. The number

of instances of similar all-female exercises is 6” (p. 714). Porreca’s study did not discuss if

the drill excluded girls from being ‘John’ or the other males in the exercise but the message is

clear that ‘John’ and the other males dominated this type of exercise and therefore may have

given the impression that males rate higher than females. Freeman and McElhinny state that

“[e]ducational settings also give students an understanding of their social identity in relation

to each other and the institution” (as quoted in Bayyurt & Litosseliti, 2006, p. 73). A male-

dominated text might suggest that boys have a right to be verbally dominant in the classroom

and further that girls should say less in the classroom compared to boys. Porreca (1984)

warned that textbooks represent authority and that a gender-biased text could have

consequences for ESL learners, in particular “younger ESL learners, whose limited

experience gives them little basis for questioning what they read” (p. 723).

14

Results from a study published by Skolverket (2006b, p. 70), showed a majority of English

teachers in compulsory schools in Sweden use textbooks on a daily basis and make

assumptions about the authoritativeness of these textbooks. Eighty percent of the teachers

who participated in the study thought that textbooks were the most important teaching

material and a majority assumed that the use of textbooks guaranteed that they were working

in accordance with the goals in the curriculum. However, in the same study Skolverket

pointed out that the textbooks were not always in agreement with the fundamental values and

the goals in the curriculum and therefore the content of the textbooks needed to be questioned

by the teachers using them. Moira von Wright (1998) conducted a qualitative study of

textbooks used in Swedish secondary and upper secondary schools in physics and found that

what were traditionally considered to be male qualities were valued higher than qualities

traditionally considered female. Moreover, she found that the symbolism in the textbooks

reinforced the traditional gender roles instead of following the goals of the steering documents

concerning equality. Robin Richardson and Angela Wood (2000) felt that school curricula

should always include ways to consider the personal identities of students and include

“recognition of bias in literature and the media, and questioning of stereotypes” (p. 41). If

educators are aware of gender-biased texts, it may be that they are better equipped to create an

overall balance of gender representation in the material they use in their classroom.

Jane Sunderland (1998) looked at gender bias in textbook texts and classroom interaction and

supported the argument that gender bias existed in textbooks and in the classroom. This was

based on both her own observations and previous research done in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

While Sunderland recognized that gender bias existed, she questioned whether it was actually

important or not. Sunderland felt it was important to those who were concerned with gender

bias but felt it was not important to some teachers unless they saw that gender-biased texts

affected learning. She pointed out the impossibility of proving a correlation between biased

texts and learning stating we can never predict how a reader might respond to a text.

Sunderland (1998) further pointed out that gender-biased texts might affect readers in many

ways:

Some students may accept the bias and even enjoy it, others may be indeed

alienated by it, and still others may recognize it for what it is and become

‘resistant readers’, rejecting either the gender representation itself or the gendered

assumptions within the text. (p. 4)

15

Sunderland (1998) also observed that teachers played an important role in the discussion of

gender bias. She noted that a text which seemed un-biased could have been interpreted or

handled in a biased way by a teacher just as a biased text could have been interpreted or

handled in an un-biased way.

Research conducted in 2004 showed that gender bias was still present in EFL textbooks. Ian

McGrath (2004) cited a 2002 survey conducted by the Centre for English Language Education

and Communication Research in Hong Kong where 289 textbooks were reviewed for gender

bias. The study found that of “some 32,000 gender-specific references in the textbooks, 71%

were to males” (p. 354). The study also found that stereotypical attributes such as crying,

strange behaviour, overeating and weakness were assigned to female characters whereas

courageousness was assigned to male characters. McGrath pointed out that concern over

gender balance in EFL textbooks was still very relevant in 2004. He did, however, also show

reservation about the pedagogical importance of gender bias in textbooks and was not entirely

convinced there was a correlation between gender-biased textbooks and affected learning. He

warned that we could not assume there was a “link between identification with, say, images or

‘characters’ and learning” (pp. 352-353). In contrast to McGrath’s hesitation to link biased

texts to affected learning, Allyson Julé (2004) stated if “ESL girls are not given or do not

claim adequate access to classroom talk, this must impact on their learning of English” (p.

27). Yasemin Bayyurt and Lia Litosseliti (2006) felt there was a link between how learners

felt about teaching materials and activities and language acquisition. They stated

“[m]otivation for learning a foreign language, including learners’ attitudes towards the foreign

language, plays an important role in female and male students’ learning in L2 classrooms” (p.

85). Whether gender-biased texts affect learning seems nearly impossible to prove but

research during the past four decades continually finds evidence that gender bias still exists in

EFL textbooks.

2.3 Foreign Language Textbook Dialogues

How important is it to investigate gender bias in EFL textbook dialogues? Martha Jones,

Catherine Kitetu and Jane Sunderland (1995) stated “dialogues are of considerable potential

16

value in providing different types of language learning opportunities” (p. 4). Jones, Kitetu

and Sunderland further stated that dialogues served several purposes. Dialogues provided a

model of the target language in terms of language form and social context in which the target

language should be used. While some might question whether practice makes perfect, it is the

authors’ general belief that practice provides valuable opportunity to train pronunciation and

other pragmatic aspects of speaking the target language as well as provides social context in

how the language is to be used in conversations. Jones, Kitetu and Sunderland (1995) also

addressed the issue of inclusiveness versus exclusiveness in the classroom and its effect on

motivation and learning stating that “a negative cognitive influence . . . may be loss of interest

on the part of those who are discoursally marginalised” (p. 7).

Jones, Kitetu and Sunderland (1995) have analyzed three ESL textbooks which were

published between 1987 and 1994. They found that there was some gender bias in the

textbook dialogues but on the whole, the bias was not extreme. In the textbook published in

1987, female characters rated higher in words used (302 versus 248) and initiated

conversations more often than male characters (five versus four). Male characters however

had an average of 27.5 words spoken per male character whereas female characters averaged

23.2 words per female character. While the female characters were over-represented in two of

these three typologies, the differences were not great. In the 1993 textbook, the findings were

similar and did not show any significant gender bias. In the textbook published in 1994,

female characters once more used more words (632 versus 501) and initiated more

conversations (6 versus 3). Male characters however averaged 50.1 words spoken per male

character compared to an average of 31.6 words spoken by female characters and thus were

more “verbally visible” (p. 16). Jones, Kitetu and Sunderland (1995) concluded “gender

differences found are too small either way to be significant. This is encouraging – but it would

be interesting to establish why the differences were small” (p. 17). They further concluded

that a qualitative study might have revealed other researched areas of discourse roles such as

occupation and social roles which may have given another picture of gender bias.

As Sunderland had suggested (1998), it is impossible to predict how a biased text will affect

learning. She did however address the issue of how a biased textbook might provide an

unequal amount of speaking exercises for female and male characters. Sunderland (2000)

referred to a textbook from 1977, Functions of English, which featured a dialogue designed to

practice initiating a conversation. While the purpose of the exercise was to initiate

17

conversation, it was only a male character who initiated the conversations. Even though this

textbook is outdated, it is an example of how dialogues might exclude speaking practice

opportunities for girls or boys depending on how the dialogues are designed and whether girls

and boys are willing to “cross” gender and practice both dialogues for female and male

characters. In this particular example, if students were unwilling to take on the other gender’s

role in the speaking exercise, it would imply that boys would have the advantage of practicing

initiating conversations.

Sofia Poulou (1997) conducted a quantitative study of sexism looking at two Greek as a

foreign language textbooks for adults. She looked at the number of utterances and words used

by female characters and male characters. In one of the textbooks, the male characters were

allocated 914 utterances and words in the dialogues compared to 801 allocated to female

characters. In other words, the male characters accounted for 53% of the utterances and words

in the dialogues and female characters accounted for 47%. In the second textbook the male

character was allocated 49% of the utterances and words in the dialogues whereas the female

character was allocated 51%. The study also looked at the initiation and closing of dialogues

by female and male characters and the type of words used. The first textbook showed that

male characters initiated a dialogue 63% of the time compared to 37% of the time for the

female characters. Male characters finished 65% of the dialogues compared to 35% for the

female characters. There was little difference between female and male characters in the

second textbook. The third investigation was qualitative and looked at the types of words

being used and how they were used. Poulou (1997) noted that female characters often made

requests or asked for information whereas male characters often provided directives or

information. In a classroom situation where a teacher might be likely to ask boys to read male

parts and girls to read female parts, it may be that boys rarely practice the language function

of making requests and girls rarely practice the function of initiating a conversation or

providing information. Poulou (1997) warned that if both boys and girls “do not perform the

same language functions in similar contexts […] students will possibly be familiar only with

those functions and styles they come across while reading” (p. 72). Poulou (1997) concluded

her study stating:

It is surely worth making an attempt to ensure a decent representation of the two

sexes and not to allow language learners to be disadvantaged by discrepancies

in the verbal behaviour between female and male textbook characters. (p. 72)

18

If textbook dialogues have more male characters or more words allocated to male characters,

does this mean that boys will have more practice opportunities? While Poulou might support

this notion and argue that the marginalization of one gender in dialogues might have cognitive

consequences, a study conducted in a German classroom offers some interesting findings.

Sunderland (2000) found that girls could take on male character speaking exercises but boys

were unwilling to take on girl character speaking exercises. Sunderland observed that a

teacher during a German lesson asked for two male volunteers to read a dialogue featuring

two male characters. When no boys volunteered, two girls volunteered and read the male

character parts. In an interview with the boys after the lesson, it became evident that the boys

were not comfortable reading female character parts of a dialogue and said they would have

been laughed at if they had read the female parts. Sunderland (2000) noted that “girls can

‘cross’ gender boundaries with impunity, whereas boys cannot . . . it is most definitely not OK

for them to ‘become’ girls, even temporarily, strategically and jokily” (p. 168). This would

imply that girls had an advantage over boys in terms of practicing speaking via prescribed

speaking exercises as they appeared to be more willing to take on both gender roles during a

speaking exercise.

The research on textbook dialogues suggests that if there is gender bias, this may exclude

some learners. Research points to the importance of motivation and inclusiveness in terms of

language acquisition but whether gender-biased dialogues actually exclude some learners has

not been proven. Also, it is important to recognize that while a dialogue may over-represent

one gender in a quantitative analysis another gender may be over-represented when analysing

the results qualitatively.

19

3. Method

3.1 Selection of Textbooks

For this study the following four series of EFL textbooks for secondary school were chosen:

Happy, Time, What’s Up?, and Wings Base Book.

Time and Wings were chosen because they are currently being used at our partner schools.

Happy and What’s Up? were chosen because they are examples of textbooks published in the

2000’s and could be considered more progressive in terms of gender. Another important

factor in the choice of textbooks was that they represent a total of three different publishers

which we feel provides a broader sampling of textbook styles. Workbooks and teacher guides

related to the textbooks were not included in the analysis.

The textbook series Happy, Time and What’s Up? each consist of three books which cover

grades 7, 8 and 9. Wings, however, consists of four textbooks which means that there is also a

textbook for grade 6. Since there are no dialogues in Wings 9, it was excluded in favour of

Wings 6. In other words, a total of twelve textbooks were included in the study.

3.2 Procedure

In the choice of method, we looked at how earlier textbook studies have been conducted. As

mentioned earlier, Wright (1998) conducted a qualitative study of textbooks in physics used

in Sweden where she focused on language use, symbolism and several other aspects of gender

portrayal. Jones, Kitetu and Sunderland (1995) have also focused on gender bias and have

investigated textbooks using a different method. In their study of dialogues in ESL textbooks

in England they used a quantitative method where they counted the number of male and

female characters, the number of times they initiated dialogues, the number of turns taken,

and the number of words spoken by female and male characters. Porreca (1984) also used a

quantitative method in her study of gender in ESL textbooks. As Porreca (1984) and Jones,

Kitetu and Sunderland (1995), we also chose to use a quantitative method. We recognize that

20

a qualitative method could give a different picture of gender bias in textbooks compared to a

quantitative method. Several studies in fact have used both qualitative and quantitative

methods while looking at different aspects of gender bias in textbook dialogues. One example

is Poulou’s study from 1997. As mentioned earlier, Poulou found that in some cases female

characters were over-represented quantitatively at the same time as male characters dominated

qualitatively. In other words, female and male characters had different roles in the dialogues.

Another alternative could be to include assertiveness, that is, if there are any differences

between female and male characters in how they express themselves. The focus in this type of

study would then be about representation rather than over-representation. Representation in

this sense refers to how female and male characters are depicted in a textbook. Over-

representation refers to when one gender is treated unfairly compared to another gender.

Further investigations might include a qualitative method to gain further insight into gender

bias.

Furthermore, even though the quantitative method is limited in its capacity for exploration

and is not always preferable to use when the aim is to uncover the underlying reasons for an

existing phenomenon (Dörnyei, 2007), the quantitative method suited our purpose to map

gender bias in EFL textbooks. If the focus had been on the reasons for gender bias in EFL

textbooks, qualitative interviews with the authors and/or publishers would have been

preferable. However, our focus was to investigate if there is any over-representation of female

or male characters.

Creswell (2005) mentions that the focus of an investigation should not be too broad in order

to be feasible. We chose therefore to restrict our study to quantitative and nominal data.

Quantitative research is described by Creswell (2005) as a type of research in which specific

questions are used and numeric data is collected whereas qualitative research is based on

more broad and general questions. Moreover, the author writes that quantitative investigations

are conducted “in an unbiased, objective manner” (p. 39) while qualitative research is

conducted in a “subjective, biased manner” (p. 39). However, Dörnyei (2007) points out that

it is very problematic to separate the two approaches in that way since it is not possible to

completely exclude the basic sources of variation to which the individual researcher and the

respondents contribute. Irrespective of the chosen method, in all types of investigations the

researcher needs to be aware of the influence their own views, values and experiences have on

them.

21

The first step in the analysis was to identify the dialogues in the selected textbooks and to

choose what typologies to investigate. Four different typologies were chosen to illuminate

gender bias in the identified dialogues and they were based on Jones, Kitetu and Sunderland’s

(1995) study of ESL textbooks in England. Quantitative data was compiled in terms of the

verbal dominance by counting how many words were spoken by girls and how many words

were spoken by boys and by looking at the number of conversational turns each female and

male character had. The other two typologies were dialogue initiations and the number of

male and female characters in the texts. The data for each dialogue, textbook and textbook

series were thereafter summarized in tables in order to make the results clear for the reader.

Those tables are to be found in the appendices where each textbook is presented in its own

appendix. The analysis was not focused on in what way or to what extent the textbooks

contributed to the learning of English. The analysis was instead focused on the above-

mentioned aspects of gender bias.

For the purpose of counting the number of words used by female, male and neutral characters,

we made a few specifications of what was counted as one word. If a word was expressed as a

number such as 48, it was counted as one word. All contractions such as I’ve, don’t, we’ve

were counted as one word. If a number was expressed as one fifty, it was counted as two

words. Furthermore, if a word was hyphenated such as good-looking, it was counted as one

word.

The textbooks consist of different types of dialogues. There are mixed-gender and same-

gender dialogues as well as dialogues between a neutral character and a female or male

character. Mixed-gender dialogues include characters of more than one gender while same-

gender dialogues only include characters of one gender. The third type of dialogue which

includes a neutral character was counted as mixed-gender dialogues. The neutral character

will always represent something that is neither female nor male and could therefore be argued

to be another gender. In addition, the textbook series Wings has two different types of

dialogues: dialogues in English and practice speaking exercises in Swedish. The practice

speaking exercises are in Swedish with the intention that students will first translate the

dialogues and then practice speaking using their translations. We have used the Swedish

words in our data as it is not possible to anticipate how many words a student translation

would include.

22

In the tables the results are presented in both absolute terms and in percentage. It is important

to be aware of the fact that the numbers were small in certain cases so the percentages may

have given a false impression of the over-representation. In the analysis, absolute terms were

sometimes used instead of percentages when we felt this provided a truer picture of the over-

representation. We chose to round off the percentage using one or two decimal points since

there are a few times when there are small differences that would not be visible when using

integers. In some cases we rounded the numbers up or down to make the percentage 100 when

the sum was 99.9 or 100.1 percent.

23

4. Results

The findings for our research question “do EFL textbook dialogues over-represent female

characters or male characters” is discussed below. Time, Wings, Happy and What’s Up? are

discussed separately and findings include discussions about the following four typologies

within the textbook series and the individual textbooks:

• Initiating a dialogue

• Turns taken

• Number of characters

• Number of words used

All raw data can be found in the Appendices 1-16.

4.1 Textbook Series Time

The textbook series Time consists of a total of eight different dialogues of which five are

mixed-gendered dialogues and three are same-gendered. The results from the study of the

textbook series, which are summarized in Table 1 below, show that male characters are over-

represented in three of the four typologies whereas female and male characters are equal in

terms of the fourth typology. Since the male characters are over-represented in a majority of

the typologies, we define this textbook series as being biased in favour of male characters. In

addition to the summary of the results for the entire series, Table 1 also shows the results for

each individual textbook and typology. The findings from the individual textbooks show that

First Time is female dominated in three of the four typologies while Second Time is male

dominated in three of the four typologies. Third Time consists of only one dialogue which is

male and therefore over-represents male characters.

Beginning with initiation, female and male characters begin an equal number of dialogues

when all the dialogues from the series are summarized and there are no significant differences

between the individual textbooks. Looking at the second typology, male characters are over-

represented and have 26 (22.2%) more conversational turns than the female characters in the

24

entire series. In this typology however, there are differences between the three textbooks. In

First Time female characters are over-represented and have 62.6% of the turns taken

compared to 37.4% for male characters. In Second Time on the other hand, male characters

are over-represented accounting for 59.2% of the turns taken compared to 40.8% for female

characters. Moreover, in Third Time there is only one male dialogue which means there are no

conversational turns allocated to female characters.

As shown in Table 1, in the entire textbook series there are thirteen female characters

compared to sixteen male characters. Worth pointing out concerning this third typology is that

of a total of fifteen characters in First Time, 60% are female and 40% male. Second Time on

the other hand has the opposite numbers with almost 67% of the characters being male and

33% female. As mentioned before, in Third Time there is only one male same-gender

dialogue which includes two characters. Turning to the fourth and last typology, ‘words used’,

male characters are allocated more words than female characters (1566 words compared to

1117 words). As with ‘turns taken’ and ‘number of characters’, First Time over-represents

female characters whereas Second Time over-represents male characters.

Table 1 Total Time series

First Time Second Time Third Time Total Time series Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Initiate dialogue

2 50%

2 50%

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

- 1 100%

4 50%

4 50%

Turns taken

77 62.6%

46 37.4%

40 40.8%

58 59.2%

- 39 100%

117 45%

143 55%

Number of characters

9 60%

6 40%

4 33.3%

8 66.7%

- 2 100%

13 44.8%

16 55.2%

Words used

801 61.8%

496 38.2%

316 38.5%

504 61.5%

- 566 100%

1117 41.6%

1566 58.4%

It is also interesting to look at the results from the mixed-gender dialogues which are

summarized in Table 2. The mixed-gender dialogues include dialogues where female and

male characters are interacting with each other. In the entire textbook series, the absolute

terms show a rather balanced allocation of initiation, turns taken, characters and words used.

However, in three of the four typologies female characters are somewhat over-represented. It

is worth pointing out that the greatest differences were found in Second Time where the

female characters had about 60% of the turns taken and words used.

25

Table 2 Summary of mixed-gender dialogues in the Time series


1 33.3%

2 66.7%

2 100%

- - - 3 60%

2 40%

Turns taken

40 46.5%

46 53.5%

40 61.5%

25 38.5%

- - 80 53%

71 47%


5 45.5%

6 54.5%

4 44.4%

5 55.6%

- - 9 45%

11 55%

Words used

490 49.7%

496 50.3%

316 60.5%

206 39.5%

- - 806 53.4%

702 46.6%

In Table 3 the results from the three same-gender dialogues are shown. As presented, each

individual textbook consists of one same-gender dialogue of which one is between female

characters and two between male characters.

Table 3 Summary of same-gender dialogues in the Time series


1 100%

- - 1 100%

- 1 100%

1 33.3%

2 66.7%

Turns taken

37 100%

- - 33 100%

- 39 100%

37 33.9%

72 66.1%


4 100%

- - 3 100%

- 2 100%

4 44.4%

5 55.6%

Words used

311 100%

- - 298 100%

- 566 100%

311 26.5%

864 73.5%

In summary, in the entire Time series and when all the dialogues are summarized, male

characters are over-represented in the number of turns taken, number of characters and words

used while female and male characters are equal in terms of initiation.

4.2 Textbook Series Wings

Wings consists of a total of fourteen dialogues and speaking exercises of which eleven are

mixed-gendered dialogues and three are same-gendered. The results from the study of the

26

textbook series show that male characters are slightly over-represented in two of the four

typologies whereas female characters are over-represented in one typology (see Table 4). The

results from the study of the individual textbooks show that male characters are over-

represented in Wings 6 in three typologies and in Wings 8 in two typologies. Female

characters are over-represented in Wings 7 in all four typologies.

Looking closer at the different typologies, we see that the textbook series tends to use female

characters to initiate the textbook dialogues. As shown in Table 4 nine (64.3%) of the

conversations are initiated by female characters. Regarding the second typology ‘turn taking’

the textbook series shows no significant over-representation but Wings 6 shows that male

characters have more than twice as many conversational turns. Wings 7 shows the opposite

where female characters have twenty-one more turns than male characters. The third

typology, ‘number of characters’, shows no significant over-representation in the entire series

or in any of the individual textbooks. The last typology ‘words used’ shows a slight over-

representation in words allocated to male characters in the textbook series as a whole but in

the individual textbooks there is significant over-representation. In Wings 6 male characters

are allocated 634 words compared to 257 words allocated to female characters. In Wings 8

there are also more words allocated to male characters (81 words compared to 58 words). In

Wings 7, however, female characters are allocated 839 words whereas male characters are

only allocated 513.

Table 4 Total Wings series

Wings 6 Wings 7 Wings 8 Total Wings series F M N F M N F M N F M N Initiate dialogue

2 50%

2 50%

- 6 75%

2 25%

- 1 50%

1 50%

-

9 64.3%

5 35.7%

-

Turns taken

21 31.3%

46 68.7%

- 85 57%

64 43%

- 14 48.3%

14 48.3%

1 3.4%

120 49%

124 50.6%

1 0.4%


2 40%

3 60%

-

11 55%

9 45%

- 5 41.7%

6 50%

1 8.3%

18 48.65%

18 48.65%

1 2.7%

Words used

257 28.8%

634 71.2%

- 839 62.1%

513 37.9%

- 58 40.3%

81 56.2%

5 3.5%

1154 48.3%

1228 51.5%

5 0.2%

F = Female, M = Male, N = Neutral

The results from the mixed-gender dialogues are shown in Table 5. In both Wings 6 and

Wings 7 female characters are over-represented in all four typologies. In Wings 8 male

27

characters are over-represented in two typologies. The most significant over-representation

occurs in the typology ‘initiate dialogue’ whereby female characters begin eight of eleven

dialogues.

Table 5 Summary of mixed-gender dialogues in the Wings series

Wings 6 Wings 7 Wings 8 Total Wings series F M N F M N F M N F M N Initiate dialogue

2 100%

- - 5 71.4%

2 28.6%

- 1 50%

1 50%

-

8 72.7%

3 27.3%

-

Turns taken

21 51.2%

20 48.8%

- 70 52.2%

64 47.8%

- 14 48.3%

14 48.3%

1 3.4%

105 51.5%

98 48%

1 0.5%


2 66.7%

1 33.3%

-

10 52.6%

9 47.4%

- 5 41.7%

6 50%

1 8.3%

17 50%

16 47.1%

1 2.9%

Words used

257 50.5%

252 49.5%

- 547 51.6%

513 48.4%

- 58 40.3%

81 56.2%

5 3.5%

862 50.3%

846 49.4%

5 0.3%


The summary of the three same-gender dialogues is shown in Table 6 below. The Wings

series features two male same-gender dialogues in Wings 6 and one female same-gender

dialogue in Wings 7.

Table 6 Summary of same-gender dialogues in the Wings series

Wings 6 Wings 7 Wings 8 Total Wings series

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Initiate dialogue

- 2 100%

1 100%

- - - 1 33.3%

2 66.7%

Turns taken

- 26 100%

15 100%

- - - 15 36.6%

26 63.4%


- 3 100%

2 100%

- - - 2 40%

3 60%

Words used

- 382 100%

292 100%

- - - 292 43.3%

382 56.7%

In summary, the textbook series does not show any largely significant over-representation but

the individual textbooks do. Wings 6 and Wings 8 over-represent male characters whereas

Wings 7 over-represents female characters.

28

4.3 Textbook Series Happy

The textbook series Happy consists of a total of twenty-one dialogues of which seventeen are

mixed-gendered dialogues and four are same-gendered. In this textbook series there are not

only female and male characters but also a neutral character called ‘Happy’ who takes part in

eleven of the dialogues. The results from the study of the textbook series Happy are

summarized in Table 7. The table shows that in the entire Happy series female characters are

over-represented in all of the investigated typologies except for the number of characters. The

findings from the individual textbooks show that Happy no.1 over-represents female

characters in two typologies and male characters in one typology. The second textbook over-

represents female characters in three of the four typologies. The last textbook somewhat over-

represents female characters in two typologies.

Concerning the first typology, initiation, the neutral character ‘Happy’ begins almost half of

the dialogues (47.6%). There is no significant difference between female and male characters

in the textbook series as a whole or in any individual textbook. In the findings from the

second typology there are on the other hand significant differences in one of the books. In

Happy no.1, female characters are allocated 76 (41.1%) of the conversational turns whereas

male characters are only allocated 55 (29.7%). In the next textbook, Happy no.2, there is only

a slight difference but still in favor of the female characters (85 turns taken compared to 71

turns taken). In the third textbook the difference is insignificant. As illustrated in Table 7, in

the entire textbook series female characters are over-represented and account for 47.7% of the

conversational turns whereas male characters account for 38.2% of the conversational turns.

Turning to the number of characters, there is only a slight difference in favor of the boys (25

characters compared to 23) in the entire Happy series. Moreover, there are no significant

differences in any individual textbook. The fourth and last typology shows that female

characters are over-represented and account for almost half of the allocated words whereas

male characters account for 37.4% of the words used. The neutral character ‘Happy’

accounted for almost 13% of the words used. Looking at the individual textbooks, Happy no.1

shows the greatest difference where female characters are allocated almost double the amount

of words compared to male characters (1494 words compared to 781 words).

29

Table 7 Total Happy series

Happy no.1 Happy no.2 Happy no.3 Total Happy series F M N F M N F M N F M N Initiate dialogue

2 20%

2 20%

6 60%

3 33.3%

2 22.2%

4 44.5%

1 50%

1 50%

- 6 28.6%

5 23.8%

10 47.6%

Turns taken

76 41.1%

55 29.7%

54 29.2%

85 44.7%

71 37.4%

34 17.9%

21 50%

20 47.6%

1 2.4%

182 47.7%

146 38.2%

54 14.1%


9 42.9%

11 52.3%

1 4.8%

10 47.6%

10 47.6%

1 4.8%

4 44.5%

4 44.5%

1 11%

23 47%

25 51%

1 2%

Words used

1494 52.1%

781 27.3%

590 20.6%

1416 45.2%

1380 44%

339 10.8%

742 55.6%

579 43.4%

13 1%

3652 49.8%

2740 37.4%

942 12.8%


In Table 8 the results from the mixed-gender dialogues are presented. In three of the four

typologies, female characters are over-represented whereas male characters are over-

represented in the fourth. Noticeable is that the most significant differences are to be found in

Happy no.1 and in the typologies ‘turns taken’ and ‘words used’ where the female characters

are over-represented.

Table 8 Summary of mixed-gender dialogues in the Happy series

Happy no.1 Happy no.2 Happy no.3 Total Happy series F M N F M N F M N F M N Initiate dialogue

2 22.2%

1 11.1%

6 66.7%

1 16.7%

1 16.7%

4 66.6%

1 50%

1 50%

- 6 28.6%

5 23.8%

10 47.6%

Turns taken

76 44.4%

41 24%

54 31.6%

53 40.5%

44 33.6%

34 25.9%

21 50%

20 47.6%

1 2.4%

182 47.7%

146 38.2%

54 14.1%


9 50%

8 44.4%

1 5.6%

6 46.2%

6 46.2%

1 7.6%

4 44.5%

4 44.5%

1 11%

23 47%

25 51%

1 2%

Words used

1494 56.2%

573 21.6%

590 22.2%

935 42%

954 42.8%

339 15.2%

742 55.6%

579 43.4%

13 1%

3652 49.8%

2740 37.4%

942 12.8%


In Table 9 the results from the same-gender dialogues are illustrated. There are four same-

gender dialogues in total of which two are female and two male. Three of these dialogues are

found in Happy no.2. When the results from the same-gender dialogues are summarized, they

show an over-representation of male characters in terms of turns taken, number of characters

and words used.

30

Table 9 Summary of same-gender dialogues in the Happy series

Happy no.1 Happy no.2 Happy no.3 Total Happy series


- 1 100%

2 66.7%

1 33.3%

- - 2 50%

2 50%

Turns taken

- 14 100%

32 54.2%

27 45.8%

- - 32 43.8%

41 56.2%


- 3 100%

4 57.1%

3 42.9%

- - 4 40%

6 60%

Words used

- 208 100%

481 53%

426 47%

- - 481 43.1%

634 56.9%

To summarize, in the entire Happy series female characters are over-represented in the

number of dialogue initiations, turns taken and words used while male characters are over-

represented in the number of characters.

4.4 Textbook Series What’s Up?

What’s Up? consists of ten dialogues of which five are mixed-gendered dialogues and five are

same-gendered. The findings for the textbook series show that female characters are over-

represented in all four typologies (see Table 10). Findings from the individual textbooks show

that female characters are over-represented in What’s Up? 7 in three typologies and male

characters are over-represented in What’s Up? 8 in two typologies. In What’s Up 9, female

characters are over-represented in one typology as are male characters.

For the typology ‘initiate dialogue’, the textbook series shows no significant over-

representation. While What’s Up? 9 does show that female characters initiate 100 % of the

dialogues, there is only one dialogue in this textbook. Regarding how many turns female and

male characters take in the dialogues, there is some over-representation for both female and

male characters. In the entire textbook series, female characters account for 166 turns taken

whereas male characters account for 149 and neutral characters account for 14. In What’s Up?

7 female characters account for 59% of the turns taken as opposed to 30% for male characters.

In What’s Up? 8 however, female characters only account for 44.6% of the turns and male

characters for 55.4%.

31

Regarding the number of characters assigned to each gender, there are thirteen female

characters in the textbook series and ten male characters. In What’s Up? 7 there is the greatest

difference with female characters totaling six and male characters totaling three. When

looking at the word count, the entire series favors female characters and allots 2089 words to

female speaking roles compared to 1725 to male speaking roles. Looking closer at the

individual textbooks, the representation looks a bit different. What’s Up? 7 shows females

dominate by 72 % compared to 24% but What’s Up? 8 shows the opposite with male

characters accounting for 56.7% of the words compared to 43.3%. The difference is even

greater in What’s Up? 9 with male characters accounting for 80.7% of the words spoken in

dialogues compared to 19.3% for female characters.

Table 10 Total What’s Up? series

What’s Up? 7 What’s Up? 8 What’s Up? 9 Total What’s Up? series

F M N F M N F M N F M N Initiate dialogue

2 40%

2 40%

1 20%

2 50%

2 50%

- 1 100%

-

-

5 50%

4 40%

1 10%

Turns taken

76 59%

39 30%

14 11%

82 44.6%

102 55.4%

- 8 50%

8 50%

-

166 50.5%

149 45.2%

14 4.3%


6 55%

3 27%

2 18%

6 50%

6 50%

- 1 50%

1 50%

- 13 52%

10 40%

2 8%

Words used

1313 72%

444 24%

75 4%

684 43.3%

897 56.7%

- 92 19.3%

384 80.7%

- 2089 53.7%

1725 44.4%

75 1.9%


Table 11 shows that the presence of a neutral character does not affect the overall balance

between female and male characters in the textbook series. However, in What’s Up? 7 the

neutral character accounts for 23.3% of turns taken compared to 26.7% for male characters.

This contributes to the over-representation of female characters over male characters.

32

Table 11 Summary of mixed-gender dialogues in the What’s Up? series


F M N F M N F M N F M N Initiate dialogue

- 1 50%

1 50%

1 50%

1 50%

- 1 100%

-

-

2 40%

2 40%

1 20%

Turns taken

30 50%

16 26.7%

14 23.3%

48 42.9%

64 57.1%

- 8 50%

8 50%

-

86 45.7%

88 46.8%

14 7.5%


2 40%

1 20%

2 40%

3 42.9%

4 57.1%

- 1 50%

1 50%

- 6 42.85%

6 42.85%

2 14.3%

Words used

688 70.4%

214 21.9%

75 7.7%

291 36.5%

507 63.5%

- 92 19.3%

384 80.7%

- 1071 47.6%

1105 49.1%

75 3.3%


Same-gendered dialogues are summarized in Table 12. There is over-representation of female

characters in all four typologies. This may not be surprising as there are three same-gendered

dialogues featuring females compared to two same-gendered dialogues featuring males.

Table 12 Summary of same-gender dialogues in the What’s Up? series



2 66.7%

1 33.3%

1 50%

1 50%

- - 3 60%

2 40%

Turns taken

46 66.7%

23 33.3%

34 47.2%

38 52.8%

- - 80 56.7%

61 43.3%


4 66.7%

2 33.3%

3 60%

2 40%

- - 7 63.6%

4 36.4%

Words used

625 73.1%

230 26.9%

393 50.2%

390 49.8%

- - 1018 62.1%

620 37.9%

To summarize, the entire textbook series over-represents female characters. What’s Up? 7

over-represents female characters in three of the four typologies, What’s Up? 8 over-

represents male characters in two typologies and What’s Up? 9 shows very significant over-

representation of male characters in one typology.

33

5. Analysis

The analysis will address in what quantitative ways EFL textbook dialogues over-represent

female and male characters by looking at the four investigated typologies: initiating a

dialogue, turns taken, number of characters and words allocated to male and female

characters. It should be noted that we do not rank the four typologies in any order of

importance or significance and due to the quantitative nature of this study, treat them as

equally important. This analysis will also address a possible shift in gender-biased

representation in EFL textbook dialogues in textbooks published in the 1990’s compared to

EFL textbooks published in the 2000’s.

When looking at the first typology ‘initiating a dialogue’, over-representation of female

characters is significant in Wings but not significant in Time, Happy or What’s Up?. As

mentioned earlier, Sunderland (2000) noted that a 1977 textbook featured only one male

character in a speaking exercise for students to practice starting up a conversation. The

implications were that girls did not have the opportunity to practice this language function.

Today, it appears that the opposite is occurring with Wings 7 where 75% of the dialogues are

initiated by females and 25% of the dialogues are initiated by males. In Happy, the neutral

character ‘Happy’ accounts for ten out of twenty-one dialogue initiations. Depending on how

a teacher handles these dialogues in the EFL classroom determines if the Happy series could

be considered biased. In other words, in ten dialogues, the characters other than ‘Happy’ are

female in five of the dialogues, male in one dialogue and mixed in four. If ‘Happy’ takes on

the persona of the “other” gender, boys would gain five additional opportunities to practice

initiation and girls would gain only one additional chance. While the neutral character

‘Happy’ might appear to promote equal opportunities for all learners to practice, ‘Happy’

does not necessarily achieve this. As Sunderland (1998) noted, teachers can use un-biased

texts in biased ways and conversely use biased texts in un-biased ways.

Regarding the typology ‘turns taken’, Happy and What’s Up? allocate more conversational

turns to female characters. This is true for both the series and the individual textbooks. While

girls are given more opportunities to speak in the Happy series based on the number of female

character turns, boys are not necessarily excluded as they may be assigned a neutral role. As

34

mentioned before, it is up to the teacher to ensure that the steering documents are followed

and that equal opportunities to practice speaking are provided for all learners. In Time there is

an over-representation of male characters in terms of turns taken. In the entire textbook series

male characters have 26 more turns (22.2%) than female characters. However, it is worth

noting that in First Time, female characters account for 62.6% of turns taken. If First Time is

the only textbook within the series to be used, it could be important for educators to know that

this individual textbook over-represents female characters even though the entire series over-

represents male characters. As a textbook series, Wings shows little over-representation in

terms of conversational turns but educators should know that in Wings 6 male characters take

more than twice as many conversational turns as female characters. The reverse is true for

Wings 7 where female characters take 85 conversational turns compared to 64 for male

characters. This imbalance may imply that one gender is less important than the other (Sadker

& Zettleman, 2007).

Wings and Happy have succeeded in creating an equal balance in the number of female and

male characters. What’s Up? and Time show over-representation but it is not extreme. If we

look at the individual textbook What’s Up? 7 there are twice as many female characters as

male characters (6 versus 3). It is worth mentioning that in Third Time there is only one

dialogue which is between two men. The speaking opportunities for boys are limited to one

dialogue. The speaking opportunities for girls are only available if girls are willing to take on

a male role. One could wonder why the dialogue does not include a female role or a neutral

role particularly when this could have prevented an overall over-representation of male

characters in the textbook series.

When looking at words used, Wings allocates roughly the same amount of words to both

female and male characters. Time on the other hand allocates more words to male characters

than female characters (1566 words versus 1117 words). Happy and What’s Up? allocate

more words to female characters. If we look closer at Time, male characters are over-

represented by 449 words but again there was one male-only dialogue in Third Time which

accounted for 566 words. The over-representation could have been avoided with the

introduction of a mixed-gendered dialogue rather than a same-gendered dialogue in Third

Time. Whether a same-gendered dialogue excludes some learners in the classroom is not

known. However, as Sunderland (2000) pointed out in her study of a German class, girls were

35

more than willing to take on male character roles and boys were unwilling to take on female

character roles.

Even though the Wings series shows an equal allocation of words used, we see that Wings 6

allocates 71.2% of the words to male characters. If Sunderland’s findings hold true, this may

not be as detrimental to girl learners in terms of speaking practice as first appears. In other

words, if girls are willing to take on male character roles, the teacher can still assure equal

opportunities in the classroom. However, the curriculum for compulsory schools strives to

teach students the value of equality. This may be hard to achieve when teaching materials

show over-representation of one gender. Female over-representation is present in First Time,

Wings 7, Happy no.1, Happy no.3, and What’s Up? 7. If boys are unwilling to take on female

roles it may be hard to ensure equal speaking opportunities for boys. It could be worth

considering if this might also affect the scholastic performance of boys on tests such as the

oral part of the National test in English.

Research conducted during the past forty years showed male over-representation was

prevalent in foreign language textbooks. Looking at the results from this study, it appears that

male-dominated dialogues have been replaced by female-dominated dialogues. The oldest

textbook series in our study, Time (1996 – 1998) over-represents male characters in three of

the four typologies. The average over-representation in these three typologies is 28.5%. Wings

(2001-2003) over- represents male characters in two of the four typologies. The average over-

representation in these two typologies is 4.9%. Happy (2004 – 2006) over-represents female

characters in three of the four typologies. The average over-representation is 26%. What’s

Up? (2004 – 2007) over-represents female characters in all four typologies with an average

over-representation of 21.9%. In this limited study of four textbook series, we see that the

shift from male-dominated dialogues to more female-dominated dialogues is correlated to the

publication date. It is important to remember however that this study includes only four

textbook series and is quantitative. We do not take into account qualitative data which may

provide a different picture. In Poulou’s (1997) study where she investigated dialogues both

quantitatively and qualitatively, she found that male dominated dialogues still prevailed. In

other words, while females may have dominated quantitatively, males appeared to dominate

qualitatively. She found that the function of language showed that men were providers of

information and portrayed as knowledgeable whereas women were in need of information.

36

6. Conclusion

This study set out to investigate if EFL textbook dialogues over-represent female characters or

male characters. This is a complex question. Our findings showed that two of the textbook

series over-represented male characters and two of the textbook series over-represented

female characters. Furthermore, within a specific textbook series, we found variations in the

individual textbooks. One example is Wings, where the series over-represented male

characters but Wings 7 over-represented female characters. When we looked at one individual

textbook we also found variations. For example, in Happy no.1, male characters were over-

represented in the typology ‘number of characters’ but not in the other three typologies which

over-represented female characters or were balanced. The overall rating for this textbook was

that it favored female characters.

Interesting to highlight is that the series which over-represented male characters were

published earlier than the two series which over-represented female characters. One reason

may be overcompensation. Since the 1970’s research has shown that textbooks over-represent

males. Also, as Öhrn (2002) and Björnsson (2005) pointed out, much focus has been placed

on girls’ scholastic performance, level of participation in classroom interactions and

underachievement in mathematics and natural sciences. Perhaps this has contributed to an

environment where the female gender is promoted more in textbooks today.

One pedagogical implication of our findings is that educators need to recognize the

complexity of textbook dialogues in terms of gender in order to ensure equal opportunities for

both boys and girls to practice and learn English. Another implication is that educators need

to be more critical of EFL textbooks. Again, 80% of EFL teachers in a study (Skolverket,

2006b) found textbooks to be the most important teaching material and assumed the textbooks

upheld the goals in the curriculum. Our study, however, has shown that EFL textbooks do not

always fulfill the requirements of the steering documents.

As future teachers we need to be cognizant of gender-biased teaching materials. It is our

responsibility to ensure that all the teaching materials we use in the classroom provide an

equal opportunity for learning for all students. We decide if a biased text will be used in a

biased way or un-biased way. Another dimension of this is that we can determine which texts

37

are used and can, therefore, avoid texts which are not in accordance with the steering

documents. Even though we as teachers have an enormous responsibility for upholding

equality, authors and publishers also have a responsibility to ensure that textbooks also uphold

equality.

Further research in this area might include a qualitative study. One option is to expand the

research of textbook dialogues to include conversational styles, character occupation and

social status and language functions such as requesting information or providing information.

This might reveal gender biases and stereotypical gender representation which may not

necessarily show up in a quantitative study. Another area for future research might be

qualitative interviews with authors and publishers to investigate what guidelines, if any, they

follow in order to ensure that their EFL textbooks are not biased.

38

References

Primary sources

Bermheden, C., Winblad, M., Watcyn-Jones, P. & Wahlgren, S. (1996). First time: Engelska

för år 7. Textboken. Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning.

Bermheden, C., Winblad, M., Watcyn-Jones, P. & Wahlgren, S. (1997). Second time:

Engelska för år 8. Textboken. Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning.

Bermheden, C., Winblad, M., Watcyn-Jones, P. & Wahlgren, S. (1998). Third time:

Engelska för år 9. Textboken. Stockholm: Bonnier Utbildning.

Glover, M., Glover, R., Hedberg, B. & P. Malmberg, P. (2001). Wings 7. Uppsala: Natur och

kultur.

Glover, M., Glover, R., Hedberg, B. & P. Malmberg, P. (2002). Wings 8. Uppsala: Natur och

kultur.

Gustafsson, J. & Österberg, E. (2004). What’s up? 7, textbook. Stockholm: Bonnier

Utbildning.

Gustafsson, J., Österberg, E. & Cowle, A. (2006). What’s up? 8, textbook. Stockholm:

Bonnier Utbildning.

Gustafsson, J., Österberg, E. & Cowle, A. (2007). What’s up? 9, textbook. Stockholm:

Bonnier Utbildning.

Peterson, L., Sutcliffe, C., Johansson, K. & Bergman, K. (2004). Happy no.1 textbook.

Malmö: Gleerups.


Malmö: Gleerups.


Malmö: Gleerups.

Summerton, D. & Ström, E. (2003). Wings 6. Uppsala: Natur och kultur.

39

Secondary sources

Bayyurt, Y. & Litosseliti, L. (2006). Gender and language in education. In Litosseliti, L.

Gender and language: Theory and practice (pp. 73-89). London: Hodder Arnold.

Björnsson, M. (2005). Kön och skolframgång: Tolkningar och perspektiv. Stockholm: Liber

distribution.

Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2 ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Merrill

Prentice Hall.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Einarsson, C. (2003). Lärares och elevers interaktion i klassrummet. Linköping: Linköpings

universitet.

Hartman, P. & Judd, E. (1978, December). Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL

Quarterly, 12(4), 383-393.

Jones, M., Kitetu, C. & Sunderland, J. (1995). Discourse roles, gender and language

textbook dialogues: Who learns what from John and Sally? Working Paper Series.

Lancaster: Centre for Research in Language Education.

Julé, A. (2004). Gender, participation and silence in the language classroom. Hampshire:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Lundgren, A.S. (2000). Tre år i g: Perspektiv på kropp och kön i skolan. Stockholm/Stehag:

Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.

McGrath, I. (2004). The representation of people in educational materials. In RELC Journal,

35(3), 351-358. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from

http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/3/351.

Mesthrie, R., Svann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. (2000) Introducing sociolinguistics.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Poulou, S. (1997, March). Sexism in the discourse roles of textbook dialogues. Language

Learning Journal, No 15, 68-73.

Richardson, R., & Wood, A. (2000). Inclusive schools, inclusive society: Race and identity

on the agenda. London: Trentham Books Limited.

Sadker, D.M. & Zittleman, K. (2007). Practical strategies for detecting and

correcting gender bias in your classroom. In D.M. Sadker & E.S. Silber (Ed.), Gender

40

in the classroom: Foundations, skills, methods, and strategies across the curriculum.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skolverket (2006a). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and

the leisure-time centre. Lpo94. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from

http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1070.

Skolverket (2006b). Läromedlens roll i undervisningen: Grundskollärarens val, användning

och bedömning av läromedel i bild, engelska och samhällskunskap. Retrieved January 26,

2009, from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1640.

Skolverket (2008). En beskrivning av slutbetygen i grundskolan 2008. Retrieved April 17,

2009, from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2170.

Skolverket (2009). Ämnesproven 2008 i grundskolans åk 9 och specialskolans åk 10: En

resultatredovisning. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from


Sunderland, J. (1998). New dimensions in the study of language education and learner

gender. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from

http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile43sunderland.pdf.

Sunderland, J. (2000). New understandings of gender and language classroom research:

Texts, teacher talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research. Retrieved February

16, 2009, from http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/4/2/149.

Sunderland, J., Cowley, M., Rahim, F.A., Leontzakou, C., & Shattuck, J. (2002). From

representation towards discursive practices: Gender in the foreign language textbook

revisited. In L. Litosseliti & J. Sunderland (Ed.), Gender identity and discourse analysis.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Wright, M. (1998). Genus och text: När kan man tala om jämställdhet i fysikläromedel?

Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=590.

Younger, M., Warrington, M. and Williams, J. (1999). The gender gap and classroom

interactions: Reality and rhetoric? In British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(3),

325-341. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.support.mah.se/65808_910487917_713655320.pdf.

Öhrn, E. (2002). Könsmönster i förändring?: en kunskapsöversikt om unga i skolan.

Stockholm: Liber distribution. Retrieved 26 January, 2009, from


41

Appendix 1: First Time

Mixed-Gender Dialogues Looking for Mr. Stevens, pages 8-9

Speaker in order of appearance

Total conversational turns of 34 turns

% of conversational

turns

Total words used of 333 words

% of words used

Mrs. Turner 8 23.5 75 22.5 Simon 7 20.6 68 20.4 Miss Richards 6 17.6 51 15.3 Mr. Rawlings 5 14.7 57 17.1 Mrs. Clark 8 23.5 82 24.7 Female total 22 64.7 208 62.5 Male total 12 35.3 125 37.5

Hit the Road!, pages 26-27



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Male driver 9 40.9 128 36.5 George 6 27.3 70 19.9 Martha 7 31.8 153 43.6 Female total 7 31.8 153 43.6 Male total 15 68.2 198 56.4 What’s in a face?, pages 54-55



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jack 10 33.3 86 28.5 Sammy 9 30 87 28.8 Joanna 11 36.7 129 42.7 Female total 11 36.7 129 42.7 Male total 19 63.3 173 57.3

42

Summary of mixed-gender dialogues

Initiate dialogue

% of initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken

Total number of characters

% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 1 33.3 40 46.5 5 45.5 490 49.7 Male 2 66.7 46 53.5 6 54.5 496 50.3 Total 3 100 86 100 11 100 986 100

Same-Gender Dialogues The School Lunch, pages 44-45



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Paula 10 27 93 29.9 Cathy 12 32.5 81 26 Grace 9 24.3 72 23.2 Nancy 6 16.2 65 20.9 Female total 37 100 311 100

Summary of First Time Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 2 50 77 62.6 9 60 801 61.8 Male 2 50 46 37.4 6 40 496 38.2 Total 4 100 123 100 15 100 1297 100

43

Appendix 2: Second Time

Mixed-Gender Dialogues

Where’s your manner?, pages 6-7



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Joanna (mum) 8 22.86 94 28 Paul (dad) 8 22.86 85 25.4 Steve 9 25.71 75 22.4 Mandy 8 22.86 60 17.9 Granddad 2 5.71 21 6.3 Female total 16 45.7 154 46 Male total 19 54.3 181 54 Communication Problems, pages 62-63



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Polly 11 36.7 45 24.1 Mrs. Richards 13 43.3 117 62.6 Thurston 4 13.3 23 12.3 Manuel 2 6.7 2 1 Female total 24 80 162 86.6 Male total 6 20 25 13.4

Summary of mixed-gender dialogues

Initiate dialogue

% of initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 2 100 40 61.5 4 44.4 316 60.5 Male 0 0 25 38.5 5 55.6 206 39.5 Total 2 100 65 100 9 100 522 100

44

Same-Gender Dialogue

The Ad, pages 18-19



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jeff 16 48.5 123 41.3 Mark 13 39.4 135 45.3 Ken 4 12.1 40 13.4 Male total 33 100 298 100

Summary of Second Time Initiate

dialogue % of initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


45

Appendix 3: Third Time

Same-Gender Dialogue

Norwegian Blue, pages 74-75



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Customer (man) 20 51.3 379 67 Owner (man) 19 48.7 187 33 Male total 39 100 566 100

Summary of Third Time Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Male 1 100 39 100 2 100 566 100 Total 1 100 39 100 2 100 566 100

46

Appendix 4: First Time, Second Time, Third Time

Time series: Summary of same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


Time series: Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 3 60 80 53 9 45 806 53.4 Male 2 40 71 47 11 55 702 46.6 Total 5 100 151 100 20 100 1508 100

Time series: Summary of same-gender and mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 4 50 117 45 13 44.8 1117 41.6 Male 4 50 143 55 16 55.2 1566 58.4 Total 8 100 260 100 29 100 2683 100

47

Appendix 5: Wings Base Book 6


Simon meets Roz, page 32



% of

conversational turns


% of

words used

Roz 9 50 107 53.8 Simon 9 50 92 46.2 Female total 9 50 107 53.8 Male total 9 50 92 46.2 Jeannie and Simon get talking, pages 54-55



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jeannie 12 52.2 150 48.4 Simon 11 47.8 160 51.6 Female total 12 52.2 150 48.4 Male total 11 47.8 160 51.6 Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


Same-Gender Dialogues What have you got in your suitcase, Simon?, page 16



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Dad 3 50 20 20.6 Simon 3 50 77 79.4 Male total 6 100 97 100

48

Simon and Anthony get chatting, pages 74-75



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Anthony 10 50 174 61.1 Simon 10 50 111 38.9 Male total 20 100 285 100 Summary of same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Male 2 100 26 100 3 100 382 100 Total 2 100 26 100 3 100 382 100

Summary of mixed-gendered and same-gendered dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


49


Wings Base Book 7 contains dialogues and speaking practice exercises. First, the dialogues

are presented and thereafter the exercises.


Party talk, pages 10-11



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Pete 8 29.6 52 26.1 Kerrie 8 29.6 69 34.7 David 7 26 47 23.6 Lu 4 14.8 31 15.6 Female total 12 44.4 100 50.3 Male total 15 55.6 99 49.7 Can you describe them?, pages 32-33



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Policewoman 6 23.1 68 36.2 Mrs Martin 11 42.3 66 35.1 Mr Martin 9 34.6 54 28.7 Female total 17 65.4 134 71.3 Male total 9 34.6 54 28.7 I’m starving!, pages 56-57



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Craig 12 50 89 41.8 Kerrie 12 50 124 58.2 Female total 12 50 124 58.2 Male total 12 50 89 41.8

50

How stupid of me!, pages 102-103



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Kerrie 10 50 80 35.1 Man 10 50 148 64.9 Female total 10 50 80 35.1 Male total 10 50 148 64.9 Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


Same-Gender Dialogues Can you give me hand?, pages 78-79



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Kerrie 8 53 147 50.3 Mum 7 47 145 49.7 Female total 15 100 292 100 Summary of mixed-gendered and same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


51

Mixed-Gender Practice Speaking Exercises Practice Speaking, page 38



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Kate 2 28.6 11 22.4 Sue’s Pappa 2 28.6 14 28.6 Bill 2 28.6 14 28.6 Andy 1 14.3 10 20.4 Female total 2 28.6 11 22.4 Male total 5 71.4 38 77.6 Practice Speaking, page 60



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jennifer 2 16.7 13 17.8 Clare 1 8.3 8 11 Mark 5 41.7 25 34.2 Sandra 4 33.3 27 37 Female total 7 58.3 48 65.8 Male total 5 41.7 25 34.2

Practice Speaking, page 106



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Pam 3 16.7 15 13.6 Man 2 11.1 20 18.2 June 7 38.9 35 31.8 Mark 6 33.3 40 36.4 Female total 10 55.6 50 45.5 Male total 8 44.4 60 54.5 Summary of mixed-gender speaking practice exercises Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 3 100 19 51.4 6 54.5 109 47 Male 0 0 18 48.6 5 45.5 123 53 Total 3 100 37 100 11 100 232 100

52

Summary of mixed-gender dialogues and speaking practice exercises

Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


Summary of all dialogues and speaking practice exercises

Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


53


Mixed-Gender Practice Speaking Exercises

Practice speaking, page 26-27



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Martin 2 16.7 10 14.5 Woman 1 88.3 2 2.9 Austin 2 16.7 15 21.7 Assistant 1 8.3 5 7.2 David 4 33.4 24 34.8 Susan 1 8.3 5 7.2 Gary 1 8.3 8 11.6 Female total 2 16.7 7 10.1 Male total 9 75 57 82.6 Neutral total 1 8.3 5 7.3 Practice speaking, pages 88-89



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Mrs Grant 8 47 34 45.3 Claire 2 11.8 4 5.3 Pete 3 17.6 13 17.3 Gina 2 11.8 13 17.3 Gordon 2 11.8 11 14.3 Female total 12 70.6 51 68 Male total 5 29.4 24 32

Summary of Wings Base Book 8 Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 1 50 14 48.3 5 41.7 58 40.3 Male 1 50 14 48.3 6 50 81 56.2 Neutral 0 0 1 3.4 1 8.3 5 3.5 Total 2 100 29 100 12 100 144 100

54

Appendix 8: Wings 6, Wings 7, Wings 8

Wings series: Summary of same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 1 33.3 15 36.6 2 40 292 43.3 Male 2 66.7 26 63.4 3 60 382 56.7 Total 3 100 41 100 5 100 647 100 Wings series: Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 8 72.7 105 51.5 17 48.6 862 50.3 Male 3 27.3 98 48 17 48.6 846 49.4 Neutral 0 0 1 0.5 1 2.8 5 0.3 Total 11 100 204 100 35 100 1713 100 Wings series: Summary of same-gender and mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 9 64.3 120 49 18 48.65 1154 48.3 Male 5 35.7 124 50.6 18 48.65 1228 51.5 Neutral 0 0 1 0.4 1 2.7 5 0.2 Total 14 100 245 100 37 100 2387 100

55

Appendix 9: Happy no.1

Mixed-Gender Dialogues Let’s Talk Animals, pages 4-5



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy (neutral) 8 50 133 40.9 Emily 8 50 192 59.1 Female total 8 50 192 59.1 Neutral total 8 50 133 40.9

Let’s talk Sports, pages 18-19



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy (neutral) 12 50 94 32.1 Rebecca 12 50 199 67.9 Female total 12 50 199 67.9 Neutral total 12 50 94 32.1 Let’s Talk Mysteries, pages 34-35



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Tom 12 50 121 40.2 Kathy 12 50 180 59.8 Female total 12 50 180 59.8 Male total 12 50 121 40.2

56

Let’s Talk Festivals, pages 48-49



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 9 52.9 70 28.7 Tony 4 23.5 92 37.7 Melanie 4 23.5 82 33.6 Female total 4 23.5 82 33.6 Male total 4 23.5 92 37.7 Neutral total 9 52.9 70 28.7 Let’s Talk London, pages 62-63



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 8 50 152 41.3 Sam 3 18.8 126 34.2 John 1 6.3 13 3.5 Andrés 1 6.3 20 5.4 Stavros 1 6.3 17 4.6 Ingrid 2 12.5 40 10.9 Female total 2 12.5 40 10.9 Male total 6 37.5 176 47.8 Neutral total 8 50 152 41.3

Let’s Talk Food, pages 68-69



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 7 50 60 22.7 Gloria 7 50 204 77.3 Female total 7 50 204 77.3 Neutral total 7 50 60 22.7

57

Let’s Talk School, pages 82-83



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Helen 11 52.4 161 60.5 Derek 10 47.6 105 39.5 Female total 11 52.4 161 60.5 Male total 10 47.6 105 39.5 Let’s Talk Fashion, pages 96-97



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 10 50 81 25.1 Cherry 10 50 242 74.9 Female total 10 50 242 74.9 Neutral total 10 50 81 25.1 Let’s Talk Ireland, pages 108-109



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Liz 10 52.6 194 71.1 Stefan 9 47.4 79 29.9 Female total 10 52.6 194 71.1 Male total 9 47.4 79 29.9

Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 2 22.2 76 44.4 9 50 1494 56.2 Male 1 11.1 41 24 8 44.4 573 21.6 Neutral 6 66.7 54 31.6 1 5.6 590 22.2 Total 9 100 171 100 18 100 2657 100

58

Same-Gender Dialogue Let’s Talk Space, page 122



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Male teacher 7 50 162 77.9 Robert 6 42.9 36 17.3 Gary 1 7.1 10 4.8 Male total 14 100 208 100

Summary of Happy no.1 Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 2 20 76 41.1 9 42.9 1494 52.1 Male 2 20 55 29.7 11 52.3 781 27.3 Neutral 6 60 54 29.2 1 4.8 590 20.6 Total 10 100 185 100 21 100 2865 100

59


Mixed-Gender Dialogues My Parents Know What Is Best for Me!, pages 10-12



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 7 26.9 43 9.2 Shashi 9 34.6 220 47.2 Gita 10 38.5 203 43.6 Female total 19 73.1 423 90.8 Neutral total 7 26.9 43 9.2 Let’s Talk Incredible, pages 18-19



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 12 52.2 159 33.9 Tom 6 26.1 162 34.5 Eva 5 21.7 148 31.6 Female total 5 21.7 148 31.6 Male total 6 26.1 162 34.5 Neutral total 12 52.2 159 33.9 Let’s Talk Getting Around, pages 48-49



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 7 50 69 20.5 Colin 7 50 267 79.5 Male total 7 50 267 79.5 Neutral total 7 50 69 20.5

60

Let’s Talk History, pages 64-65



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Sarah 11 44 129 36.1 John 6 24 118 33.1 Fred 3 12 63 17.6 Peter 5 20 47 13.2 Female total 11 44 129 36.1 Male total 14 56 228 63.9

Let’s Talk Friends, pages 78-79



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Happy 8 40 68 23.5 Cathy 7 35 121 41.9 Barry 5 25 100 34.6 Female total 7 35 121 41.9 Male total 5 25 100 34.6 Neutral total 8 40 68 23.5 Let’s Talk Movies, pages 112-113



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Paul 12 52.2 197 63.3 Sally 11 47.8 114 36.7 Female total 11 47.8 114 36.7 Male total 12 52.2 197 63.3


dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 1 16.7 53 40.5 6 46.2 935 42 Male 1 16.7 44 33.6 6 46.2 954 42.8 Neutral 4 66.6 34 25.9 1 7.6 339 15.2 Total 6 100 131 100 13 100 2228 100

61

Same-Gender Dialogues

Let’s Talk Family, page 4



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jenny 7 53.8 73 46.2 Pam 6 46.2 85 53.8 Female total 13 100 158 100 Let’s Talk Australia, pages 32-33



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jenny 10 52.6 151 46.7 Emma 9 47.4 172 53.3 Female total 19 100 323 100 Let’s Talk New York, pages 96-97



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Pete 8 29.6 130 30.5 Dan 9 33.3 90 21.1 Jim 10 37 206 48.4 Male total 27 100 426 100

Summary of same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 2 66.7 32 54.2 4 57.1 481 53 Male 1 33.3 27 45.8 3 42.9 426 47 Total 3 100 59 100 7 100 907 100

62

Summary of Happy no.2 Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 3 33.3 85 44.7 10 47.6 1416 45.2 Male 2 22.2 71 37.4 10 47.6 1380 44 Neutral 4 44.5 34 17.9 1 4.8 339 10.8 Total 9 100 190 100 21 100 3135 100

63


Mixed-Gender Dialogues Live Aid and Live 8, pages 18-21



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Harry 10 34.5 327 35.7 Jane 7 24.1 334 36.5 Happy 1 3.5 13 1.4 Mike 7 24.1 139 15.2 Trisha 4 13.8 102 11.2 Female total 11 37.9 436 47.7 Male total 17 58.6 466 50.9 Neutral total 1 3.5 13 1.4

Let’s Talk Canada, pages 70-72



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

April 7 53.8 212 50.6 Tom 2 15.4 82 19.6 Tussy 3 23.1 94 22.4 Frank 1 7.7 31 7.4 Female total 10 76.9 306 73 Male total 3 23.1 113 27

Summary of Happy no.3 (and mixed-gender dialogues) Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 1 50 21 50 4 44.5 742 55.6 Male 1 50 20 47.6 4 44.5 579 43.4 Neutral 0 0 1 2.4 1 11 13 1 Total 2 100 42 100 9 100 1334 100

64

Appendix 12: Happy no.1, Happy no.2, Happy no.3

Happy series: Summary of same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


Happy series: Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 4 23.6 150 49 19 48.7 3171 51 Male 3 17.6 105 34.3 19 48.7 2106 33.9 Neutral 10 58.8 54 17.7 1 2.6 942 15.1 Total 17 100 306 100 39 100 6219 100

Happy series: Summary of same-gender and mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 6 28.6 182 47.7 23 47 3652 49.8 Male 5 23.8 146 38.2 25 51 2740 37.4 Neutral 10 47.6 54 14.1 1 2 942 12.8 Total 21 100 382 100 49 100 7334 100

65

Appendix 13: What’s Up? 7


FIGHT or flight, pages 32-33



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Tom 16 47.1 185 45.9 Mum 17 50 214 53.1 Ernie 1 2.9 4 1 Female total 17 47.1 185 45.9 Male total 16 50 214 53.1 Neutral total 1 2.9 4 1 SCARY moments, pages 70-71



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Interviewer 13 50 71 12.4 Rachel 13 50 503 87.6 Female total 13 50 503 87.6 Neutral total 13 50 71 12.4


dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 0 0 30 50 2 40 688 70.4 Male 1 50 16 26.7 1 20 214 21.9 Neutral 1 50 14 23.3 2 40 75 7.7 Total 2 100 60 100 5 100 977 100

66

Same-Gender Dialogues We’re all DIFFERENT, pages 18-19



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jenna 10 52.6 164 50.5 Kim 9 47.4 161 49.5 Female total 19 100 325 100 Male total 0 0 0 0 The PARTY, pages 84-85



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Karen 14 51.9 87 29 Chloe 13 48.1 213 71 Female total 27 100 300 100 Male total 0 0 0 0 The DISCOVERY, pages 98-99



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

John 12 52.2 81 35.2 Pete 11 47.8 149 64.8 Female total 0 0 0 0 Male total 23 100 230 100 Summary of same-gender dialogues

First turn occurrence

% Total conversational turns of 69 turns

% Total number of characters of 6

% Total words used of 855

%


67

Summary of What’s Up 7 Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 2 40 76 58.9 6 54.5 1313 71.7 Male 2 40 39 30.2 3 27.3 444 24.2 Neutral 1 20 14 10.9 2 18.2 75 4.1 Total 5 100 129 100 11 100 1832 100

68



Ask her OUT, pages 8-10



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Gary 15 18.75 152 32.8 Mark 35 43.75 157 33.9 Jess 30 37.5 154 33.3 Female total 30 37.5 154 33.3 Male total 50 62.5 309 66.7 Careers CHAT, pages 22-23



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Jen 12 37.5 95 28.4 Robbie 9 28.1 116 34.6 Mel 6 18.8 42 12.5 Dave 5 15.6 82 24.5 Female total 18 56.25 137 40.9 Male total 14 43.75 198 59.1 Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


69

Same-Gender Dialogues

HAIR today, GONE tomorrow, pages 72-73



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Sheena 12 27.3 59 15 Emma 21 47.7 296 75.3 Fiona 11 25 38 9.7 Female total 34 100 393 100 The NUTTY professor, pages 84-85



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Male interviewer 19 50 148 37.9 Male professor 19 50 242 62.1 Male total 38 100 390 100 Summary of same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used



dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


70


Mixed-Gender Dialogue

Want ot be a JOURNALIST?, pages 32-33



% of conversational

turns


% of words used

Joanna 8 50 92 19.3 David 8 50 384 80.7 Female total 8 50 92 19.3 Male total 8 50 384 80.7


dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used


71

Appendix 16 – What’s Up? 7, What’s Up? 8, What’s Up? 9

What’s Up? series: Summary of same-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 3 60 80 56.7 7 63.6 1018 62.1 Male 2 40 61 43.3 4 36.4 620 37.9 Total 5 100 141 100 11 100 1638 100 What’s Up? series: Summary of mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 2 40 86 45.7 6 42.85 1071 47.6 Male 2 40 88 46.8 6 42.85 1105 49.1 Neutral 1 20 14 7.5 2 14.3 75 3.3 Total 5 100 188 100 14 100 2251 100 What’s Up? series: Summary of same-gender and mixed-gender dialogues Initiate

dialogue % of

initiated dialogues

Total turns taken

% of turns taken


% of characters

Total words used

% of words used

Female 5 50 166 50.5 13 52 2089 53.7 Male 4 40 149 45.2 10 40 1725 44.4 Neutral 1 10 14 4.3 2 8 75 1.9 Total 10 100 330 100 25 100 3889 100

gender bias in efl textbook dialogues - malm¶ h¶gskola

Documents