Quantitative Study of Verbal Communication of the Teacher toward Girls and Boys


This study aims to observe the activity of teachers with girls and boys with respect to an object of teaching: the Handstand in gymnastics in college. Many studies have allowed us to see that the school participates in the construction of an “educational inequality” between girls and boys (Vigneron, 2006; Cogérino, 2007). Our study population is composed of 8 teachers of EPS (4 men and 4 women) and 176 eighth-grade students. The analysis of the content of communications (organization, incentives, discipline and teaching content) shows us that there is a significant difference between the gender of teachers and the nature of the communications. So the role of context appears to act at both poles of the didactic interaction (teacher profile and solicitations of students). These two factors combine to determine the interactions of the teacher in learning situations.

Share and Cite:

Dammak, M. , Azaiez, F. and Bahloul, M. (2015) Quantitative Study of Verbal Communication of the Teacher toward Girls and Boys. Creative Education, 6, 1336-1341. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.612134.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Bardin, L. (2013). The Content Analysis, Collection Quadrige. Paris: PUF.
[2] Baudelot, C. & Establet, R. (2007). What’s New in Girls? Between Stereotypes and Freedoms. Paris: Nathan.
[3] Benaiges, O. (2000). Verbal Communication and Integration of the Teacher to the Class of 6th, Memory Professional, IUFM of the Academy of Montpellier.
[4] Bouchard, P., Saint-Amant, J. C., & Gagnon, C. (2001). Sex Practices in Québec Schools. Canadian Journal of Education, 25, 73-87.
[5] Cogérino, G., & Lechelard, F. (2003). Social Categorization of Students and Gender Stereotypes in EP? Communication to Study Days of the French Society of Sport Psychology, Paris: Charléty.
[6] Cogérino, G. (2007). About PE Teachers Facing the Mix. Staps1, No. 75, 25-42.
[7] Cogérino, G., & Trottin, B. (2009). Girls and Boys in EPS: Descriptive Approach of Verbal Interactions between Teachers and Students. STAPS Review, No. 83, 70-83.
[8] Combaz, G. (1992). Sociology of Physical Education. Evaluation and Inequalities of Success. Paris: PUF.
[9] Couchot-Schiex, S. (2000). Curricula and Sexual Identity in Physical and Sports Education.DEA in Sciences of Education. Lyon: University of Lyon II.
[10] Couchot-Schiex, S., & Trottin, B. (2005). Interactions Teachers/Pupils EPS: Variations by Gender and Gender. In G. Cogérino (Ed.), Girls and Boys in EPS (pp. 163-179). Paris: Editions of the Revue EPS.
[11] Davisse, A., & Volondat, M. (1987). Mix, Pedagogy and Educational Differences. EPS Review, No. 206, 53-56.
[12] Davisse, A. (2004). The Mix in Question: Review against Foot # 15. EPS and Society Centre, SNEP, 28-31.
[13] De Voe, D. E. (1991). Teacher Behavior Directed toward Individual Students in Elementary Physical Education. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 26, 9-14.
[14] Dubet, D., Duru-Bellat, M., & Vérétout, A. (2010). Companies and Their School. Grasp diplômeet Social Cohesion, Seuil, Paris.
[15] Dunbar, R. R., & O’Sullivan, M. M. (1986). Effects of Intervention on Differential Treatment of Boys and Girls in Elementary Physical Education Lessons. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 166-175.
[16] Duru-Bellat, M. (1995). Girls and Boys in School, Sociological and Psychosocial Approaches: School Construction Differences. French Review of Education, 110, 75-110.
[17] Falzon, P. (1989). Cognitive Ergonomics of the Dialogue. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
[18] Felouzis, G. (1997). The Effectiveness of Teachers. Paris: PUF.
[19] Hill, J. D., & Kathleen, M. F. (2006). Classroom Instruction That Works with English Language Learners. Alexandria (Virginie), états-Unis: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[20] Lebrun, M. (2007). Technologies for Teaching and Learning. Brussels: De Boeck.
[21] Loisier, J. (2009). Educational Communication Guide and Technology Choices in Distance Education. Paper Prepared for the Francophone Education Network Remote Canada (REFAD), Department of Canadian Heritage.
[22] MacDonald, D. (1990). The Relationship between the Sex Composition of Physical Education Classes and Teacher-Pupil Verbal Interaction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 152-163.
[23] MacDonald, D. (2001). Extending Agendas: Physical Culture Research for the 21th Century. In D. Penney (Ed.), Gender and Physical Education: Contemporary Issues and Future Directions. London and New York: Routledge.
[24] Marro, C. (2012). Dependence/Independence from the Genre: A Relevant Dimension for Thinking Gender Equality beyond Differences. Le Mirail: University of Toulouse.
[25] Marsenach, J., & Merand, R. (1987). Formative Assessment in Colleges. Coll. Research Report NPRI # 2, Paris: NPRI.
[26] McBride, R. E. (1990). Sex-Role Stereotyping Behaviors among Elementary, Junior, and Senior High School Physical Education Specialist. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 249-261.
[27] Merle, P. (2000). The Concept of Democratization of the School Institution: A Typology and Its Testing Period. Population, 55, 15-50.
[28] Merle, P. (2009). The Democratization of Teaching. Paris: La Découverte.
[29] Miyata, C. (2004). The Art of Oral Communication. Montreal: The McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
[30] Moreno, C. (2006). Mixed Forms and EPS Inequalities in Achievement between Girls and Boys. In G. Cogérino (Ed.), The Diversity in Physical Education and Sports. Lyrics, Successes, Differentiations (pp. 40-54). Paris: Editions of the Revue EPS.
[31] Mosconi, N. (1989). The Diversity in Secondary Education: A False Pretense? Paris: PUF.
[32] Mosconi, N. (2001). How Do They Make the Teaching Practices of Gender Inequality? Records of Sciences of Education, 5, 97-109.
[33] Mosconi, N. (2004). Effects and Limits of Co-Education. Work, Gender and Societies, 11, 165-174.
[34] Mosconi, N., & Loudet-Verdier, J. (1997). Unequal Treatment of Girls and Boys. In C. Blanchard-Laville (Ed.), Variations on a Math Lesson (pp. 127-150). Paris: l’Harmattan.
[35] Parker, A. (1996). The Construction of Masculinity within Boy’s Physical Education. Gender and Education, 8, 141-157.
[36] Ritter, D. (2004). Gender Role Orientation and Performance on Stereotypically Feminine and Masculine Cognitive Tasks. Sex Roles, 50, 583-591.
[37] Simpson, A. W., & Erickson, M. T. (1983). Teachers’ Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Patterns as a Function of Teacher Race, Student Gender, and Student Race. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 183-198.
[38] Skelton, C. (2002). Constructing Dominant Masculinity and Negotiating the Male Gaze. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6, 17-31.
[39] Terret, T. (2004). Sport and Masculinity: A Review of Questions. STAPS Journal, 66, 209.
[40] Vigneron, C. (2006). Inequality of Success in EPS between Boys and Girls: Biological Determinism or School French Manufacturing. Review of Education, 154, 11-124.
[41] Vinson, M. (2013). Under the Dynamic Teaching Nonverbal Interactions, Gender: Analysis of the Joint Action of the Teacher and Students: EPS Two Case Studies. Ph.D. Thesis, Le Mirail: University of Toulouse 2.
[42] Weiller, K. H., & Doyle, E. J. (2000). Teacher-Student Interaction: An Exploration of Gender Differences in Elementary Physical Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 71, 43-45.
[43] Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Fungi, I. Y. (2002). Small-Group Composition and Peer Effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 425-447.
[44] Wright, J. (1997). The Construction of Gendered Contexts in Single Sex and Co-Educational Physical Education Lessons. Sport, Education and Society, 2, 55-72.
[45] Wright, J. (1999). Changing Gendered Practices in Physical Education: Working with Teachers. European Physical Education Review, 5, 181-197.
[46] Wright, J. (2000). Revisiting Gender Equity in Physical Education. Proceedings of the AERA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 24-28 April 2000, 24-28.

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.