CHAP ER 12 The Female “Confidence Gap” and Feminist Pedagogy: Gender Dynamics in the Active, Engaged Classroom Amanda L. Irvin In 1995, Robert Barr and John Tagg called for a revolution in higher education, insisting educators move from a “instruction” paradigm to a “learning” paradigm.”! ‘Twenty years later, after much national, institu- tional, and individual change, the active, engaged classroom has taken center stage, As active-learning pedagogies are becoming more popu- lar—the “flipped” classroom, team-based learning, and problem-based learning, just to name a few—instructors are expecting more engage- ment from students, The actual classrooms and learning spaces, too, are evolving across campuses to become interactive studio spaces rather than traditional, “passive” lecture halls. But pedagogies and classrooms are not the only clements of higher education currently undergoing a shift; the student body is changing as well. There are more female students in college classrooms than ever before. Indeed, as the editors of this volume have noted, women are often the “new majority” on campuses, While the presence of more female students is certainly progress in terms of gender equity, the changing student body on college campuses also highlights Invin (£2) aching Initiatives and Programs, Center for Teaching and Learning, Columbia University in the City of New York, New York, NY, USA © The Author(s) 2017 259 PLL. Eddy et al. (eds.), Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher Education, DOL 10.1057 /978-1-137-59285-9_12260 ALIRVIN the need for a greater attention to gender as socially constructed, fluid, and non-binary (for more information about these ideas, see Lorber? and Butler’). When faculty members employ active learning techniques like the ones listed above, gender scripts influence the ways students can and will engage, and since student engagement with course content and class- room community is one of the great strengths of active learning methods, an attention to gender identities of students is paramount. Instructors face myriad challenges in terms of student engagement, often resulting in questions: how does one keep track of all the comments, questions, and discussions that take place in an active, engaged class period? How does one distinguish quality from quantity? And moreover, how can ‘one be sure to acknowledge the student with the best contribution instead of the one who speaks first or loudest during class discussion? Many of these questions are not new, but given the shifting gendered makeup of our classrooms and the emphasis these emerging pedagogies place on engagement and participation, the answers are more important than ever. Likewise, students are also navigating new territory, reluctant to partici- pate, fearing failure, judgment, or ridicule. While a student’s willingness to engage and participate in a classroom environment can be driven by per- sonality, faculty members must also take factors like gender identity, race, class, and culture into consideration. The importance of who students are and how they approach learning cannot be understated. Gender identity, in particular, influences student engagement in the classroom environ- ment and that active, engaged learning hinges on both instructor and student awareness of the gender dynamics at play. Attention to the gender dynamics in an active-learning environment is important for many reasons, but one of the most important is the reliance on students taking more responsibility through self-reporting and peer- assessment. In an active-learning classroom, students may be responsible for evaluating their peers’ contributions to whole class discussion; they may be asked to rate the other students in their team or group; and they may even be required to evaluate their own participation or prepared- ness—sometimes daily. These methods are often met with great success, especially as students intentionally reflect on their own contributions to the classroom community as well as those of their peers. But what these methods fail to consider are the very real differences between the ways male and female students rate their own performances, contributions, and abilitics in relation to those of their peers. In Lean In, Sheryl Sandberg* shares an illuminating story about her own college experience at Harvard,‘THE FEMALE {ONFIDENCE GAP” AND FEMINIST PEDAGOGY: NDER... 261 in particular a course she and her roommate took with Sandberg’s brother. They were all enrolled in the same European intellectual history class. Sandberg’s roommate, Carrie, went to all the lectures and read all the books—in the original languages. Sandberg went to most of the lectures and read all the books in English. Sandberg’s brother, David, went to two lectures, read one book, and then “marched himself up to our room to get tutored for the final exam.”* After the final exam, the three were decom- pressing, sharing how well (or poorly) they thought they did. Sandberg and Carrie were sure they had missed the finer nuances of theories, tain they had not done well. David, on the other hand, was sure he had aced the test. Sandberg shares the conclusion saying, “Actually, we all got flat A’s on the exam. My brother was not overconfident. Carrie and I were overly insecure.” Sandberg’s story sheds light on the ways male and female students interpret their performances differently. While I will explore this idea in more detail later in the chapter, I share her story now as a way of illustrating that self and peer-evaluation methods, though strong in many ways in an active-learning environment, may not take into consideration that our students are whole human beings navigating com- plex gender-based social scripts on a daily basis—and that does not stop when they walk into our classrooms. When faculty development and how-to texts offer recommendations to instructors wishing to create an active, engaged classroom—and evaluate and grade the students participating therein—they usually approach stu- dents (and faculty) as gender-neutral. These texts often refer to students as one, homogenous group, often glossing over differences of gender, race, class, ability, and so forth. In many ways, this can be intentional and appro- priate; the texts offer a range of strategies and methods to implement the flipped classroom or active learning or team-based learning, and authors make it clear that the instructor is responsible for choosing methods and making judgment calls based on their student population. Even though this can usually work quite well, many instructors are unaware of the ways active, engaged learning can intersect with gender dynamics. Moreover, even when an instructor is aware that gender dynamics may influence the success of a strategy, they may not have the heuristics to adapt or revise the learning moment to address the diversity of gender identities and perfor- mances that show up in their classrooms on a daily basis. In any discussion of gender and education, classroom contexts are important, so in this chapter I discuss how gender dynamics may influ- ence student engagement and performance in active-learning settings and262 AL. IRVIN -xplain how educators might employ feminist pedagogy to more fully con- sider the role gender plays in an active-learning environment. I begin by discussing common practices and benefits of active, engaged learning. It bears mentioning that, for the purposes of this discussion, I am using the terms “active” and “engaged” learning to mean a variety of pedagogies and methods that focus more on application of information than the delivery of content; methods like the “flipped” classroom, active learning, cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and team-based learning fall into these categories. Other experiential pedagogies, like study abroad and service- learning, share a commitment to application and engagement, but they take place outside the confines of a classroom atmosphere and are not the focus of this conversation. Online learning, too, can certainly employ these application-based methods, but web based classes can mask gender differ- ently and therefore is outside the parameters of this particular discussion. Once I establish a context for our active, engaged learning discus- sion, I then turn to relevant research and faculty development materials that investigate gender dynamics in the college classroom, exploring in particular how male and female students regard their own abilities and performances. Given that women often outnumber men on many cam- puses, it can be easy to overlook the importance of gender in classroom contexts, but socially constructed gender roles influence student perfor- mance, regardless of the percentage of men or women in the room. The general consensus is that female students consistently underrate their abili- ties while male students consistently overrate their abilities; male students attribute their successes to innate ability, while female students attribute successes to luck, effort, or support from others. This information can provide context and perspective for those considering (or already imple- menting) active, engaged pedagogies in their classes. Next, I turn to some methods instructors have employed in active, engaged classrooms and investigate how these practices may be revised, drawing heavily on femi- nist pedagogy, to offer solutions to help students of all genders succeed in these high-impact environments. Active, ENGAGED LEARNING: BENEFITS AND GENDER- BasED CHALLENGES Students learn best by doing. If one wants to learn to play tennis, for example, then one should get out on the court with a racket and ball. Why, then, is it so hard to get students to “do” literature or philoso-‘THE FEMALE “CONFIDENCE GAP” AND FEMINIST PEDAGOGY: GENDER... 263 phy or economics? Elizabeth Barkley opens the first chapter to Student Engagement Techniques by asking a similar question, extending her inquiry to the entire idea of student engagement: “Why is it sometimes so hard to get students to think... to care... to engage?” She argues that this ques- tion is at the heart of the national and international dialogue about active, engaged learning in higher education. But what is active, engaged learn- ing? And what does it look like in practice? The answers are numerous, as one may imagine. Even though the definitions and efficacy of active, engaged learning are not the primary focus of this discussion, I offer some examples to provide context. These are by no means exhaustive; rather, this coalescence of narratives serves as a jumping-off point for the rest of the conversation regarding engagement methods and gender dynamics in our classrooms. In one of the earliest definitions, Chet Meyers and Thomas Jones explained that “active learning is usually understood to stand in con- trast to traditional classroom styles where teachers do most of the work and students remain passive.”* Terry Doyle has more recently offered a similar definition that hinges on student ownership and con- trol saying, [Active learning] requires students to take on new learning roles and respon- sibilities that go far beyond taking notes and passing tests. It’s an environ- ment that allows students to take some real control over their educational experience and encourages them to make important choices about what and how they will learn? While Doyle’s emphasis is on the changing role of the student in the active, engaged classroom, other researches have focused on the role of the instructor. In Leaving the Lectern, for example, Dean McManus'° makes clear that for students to learn actively, educators must decrease the amount of time they spend in lecture or direct teaching mode. The research on teaching and learning makes it clear that active, engaged learn- ing developed on the basis that students will learn best when they do the work of a discipline, which requires students to claim some responsibility and agency in the learning process. The shift to engaged learning also requires educators to relinquish some of the control in their classrooms— to involve students in the production of knowledge, which is sometimes messy, instead of showing them the finished product in a neat, orderly slide deck.264 ALIRVIN Even though many of these ideas about active learning and student engagement are not new, per se, there has been a recent uptick in the num- ber of books, journal articles, op-eds, and conference sessions focusing on the “flipped” classroom, active learning, cooperative learning, problem- based learning, and team-based learning. Each of these methods has its own lexicon of research, methods, and texts—and the scholars of each would likely bristle at being lumped together here—but they share, at their core, a commitment to active, engaged learning. As these methods continue to rise in popularity and adoption, the question of how one enacts these evidence-based methods in a diverse classroom becomes more important. As Maryellen Weimer puts it, active, engaged learning is “trendy now and along with that come the proverbial blessings and curses.”!! The “blessings” of active, engaged learning are numerous. When students claim responsibility for their learning, their buy-in to the pro- cess increases, and they learn in a more intentional way when they apply this new knowledge. Students view concepts from different perspectives when they collaborate with their peers, and intentional reflection about their own learning processes encourages them to evaluate their prepared- ness and participation (or that of their peers; for more information, see Bergman and Sams!2; Michaelson, Knight and Fink'*; Barell'*; Doyle and Zakrajsek'* among others). Of course, there are also challenges (see Petersen and Gorman'®), Students do not always want to claim respon- sibility for their learning, for a variety of reasons. Passive “sit and get” classes are easier for students versus actively participating. Moreover, by actively participating, students must also claim responsibility for their failures. Application, though valuable and necessary for deep, intentional learning, can also be messy and challenging, which can turn off instructors and students alike. Facilitating an application exercise often entails lots of moving parts; the classroom will likely be louder, student groups will be talking and working at the same time, and it is possible that not all students will be working on the same piece of the exercise at the same moment. It can be a lot for students and instructors to manage in a given class period. And last but certainly not least: active, engaged learning can be challenging to grade. From the students’ perspective, grading course elements like participa- tion, preparedness, teamwork, and professionalism can seem subjective. From the perspective of an instructor, grading these same elements can be overwhelming, distracting, and yes, potentially subjective. But assessing,‘THE FEMALE “CONFIDENCE GAP” AND FEMINIST PEDAGOGY: GENDER... 265, evaluating, and grading these components of an active, engaged classroom is often necessary if instructors want students to value the process. In Teaching for Learning, Major, Harris, and Zakrajsck addressed the ques- tion of grading participation and preparedness, One question instructors often have is whether to grade or score class dis- cussions. The idea is that it could potentially have a stifling effect on the discussion. On the other hand, not grading participation could lead to a lack of investment in the activity. The research seems to point to the latter.” While the evaluation and grading of participation and discussion is a “best practice” in terms of getting students to invest in the process, it is also hard. At the outset of this discussion, I included some questions active learning practitioners often ask themselves regarding grading: how does ‘one keep track of all the comments? How does one distinguish quality from quantity? How can one be sure to acknowledge the student with the best contribution instead of the one who speaks first or loudest? The com- plexity of answers to these questions is heightened when also considering gender dynamics of our class community. A few years ago, I decided to revise some of my courses to have a stron- ger focus on active, engaged learning. I had prided myself on facilitating a welcoming, engaged classroom community from the outset, so I did not anticipate that the shift would require much revision. (I was only half- right.) While I knew my daily classroom practices would become more interactive, and had armed myself with lots of active learning strategies, my main concern was the grading scheme. Would I grade participation? Early in my teaching career, I had been coached to keep the portion of my grading scheme allocated to participation below 10 % of the final grade. The rationale was that participation is difficult to assess, and if students were to challenge a grade at the end of the semester, that is the first place they would start. Students expect, I was told, that if they show up, do the work, and not make any trouble, they will earn the full amount of participation points. In my previous experience, I had found this to be true. Admittedly, to that point in time, I had not tried any other methods. As I made revisions to my course, I was holding previous coaching and experience in tension with the knowledge that student engagement was valuable for learning. I finally decided that if I wanted students to share my philosophy (at least for the semester) about the value of engaged learning, I would need to use a system they valued as well: grades.266 AL.IRVIN T eventually settled on a “Participation and Preparedness” assignment that counted for 30 % of the final grade. This change in contribution to the final grade made participation worth more than any other graded component, therefore, I needed a good system to keep track of and grade their active participation. I had tried writing down the name of every student who spoke during class, making a small note about what that student contributed, but I often could not keep up with students’ comments and the note-taking distracted me from teaching and focusing on what students were actually saying. I had heard of instructors passing Popsicle sticks and notecards to students who shared in discussion, but I felt like I needed something more robust to account for quality as well as quantity. Finally, a colleague suggested I ask students to self-assess their participation and preparedness. I loved this idea. I developed a rubric students used on a daily basis (see Table 12.1); they kept it in front of them during every class as a reminder for what level of engagement was expected, and at the end of each class session scored themselves and provided a rationale for the score they earned. I was delighted by this system. The development of a self-assessment rubric not only provided evaluation struc ture that supported my grading policy but also put the grading in students? hands, which is an clement of education where students often feel a lack of control or agency. Students knew that I always reserved the right to inerease or lower scores based on my obscrvations. The rubric required students to reflect intentionally on their preparation, participation, and engagement in the class y. We normed for a few weeks, and after that point I thought the system was working perfectly, until I started noticing an unsettling trend. Female students were consistently underrating their performance and often including disparaging comments about their own understanding of the material and ability to add value to the classroom community. Male students, on the other hand, were overrating their performances, often awarding themselves full credit for material it was obvious they had not read before class. As someone who teaches in the field of Women and Gender Studies, I should have scen this coming, communit GENDER DynaMICcs IN THE ACTIVE, ENGAGED CLASSROOM ‘My students’ self-assessments are directly in line with what researchers know about how men and women rate their own work; women consis- tently underrate and downplay their work while men consistently over- rate their contributions and abilities (for more information see ClanceTHE FEMALE “CONFIDENCE GAP” AND FEMINIST PEDAGOGY: GENDER... 267, Table 12.1 Participation and preparedness rubric Participation and preparedness rubric 9-10 Arrives on time or class session; bin early for class; reads and takes notes on ALL materials for the s class materials avd notes to class to help generate conversation; participates actively and contributes meaningfilly to class discussion. by asking thoughtful questions; fully invests in all class discussions; encourages classmates to participate; demonstrates respect and understanding for classmates during conversation; does not become distracted by technology 7-8 Arrives on time or early for class; reads MOST ofthe materials for the class session; brings class materials but isn’t necessarily prepared with notes to generate conversation; participates in class discussion by asking questions, but they"re mostly opinion-based and may not move the class forward in a meaningful ways ate; det respect and understanding for classmates during conversation; does not become distracted by technology yonstrates invests in all class discussions; encourages classmates to partici 5-6 Arrives om time or a litte late for class; reads SOME of the class materials brings class materials but isn't necessarily prepared with notes to generate conversation; ); might ask questions; partially invests in all elass discussions; demonstrates resp understanding for classmates during conversation; may be distracted by technology 1-8 Arrives late to cass (more than 3 minutes); reads fitle of the materials ancl is als (books/handouts) for class; participates when called on to do so (but does not volunteer); minimally participates when called on to do so (but does not voluntee once or twice unprepared with notes or may not have mate vests in all class discussions; may be disrespectfial ofa classmate; may seem distracted or dazed; may be distracted by technology once or twice and Imes" and Kay and Shipman"), For instructors who are employing active, engaged pedagogies, knowing how these gender-based behaviors may play out in the classroom is crucial. Many of the evaluation methods I discuss above—rating group or team members’ contributions in appli- cation exercises, evaluating group members’ engagement in relation to their own engagement, self-assessing performance in class discussion—ask students to assess their own skills, performances, and preparations. Even when they are working from the same rubric, and even when they were present in the same class sessions, the reality is that on the whole, female and male students evaluate their performances differently,2° ‘The obvious first question to ask is why, Why do female students under- rate their performance? The question is complicated, and there is a long, established history of answers, I will offer some of the highlights here; in the space allowed I cannot do justice to the rich body of work addressing268 AL. IRVIN this issue. Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes asked a similar question in 1978 as they interviewed and studied 150 high-achieving women: “Why do so many bright women, despite consistent and impressive evidence to the contrary, continue to see themselves as imposters who pretend to be bright but who really are not?” Their inquiry was part of their intro- duction to the “imposter phenomenon,” as they shared groundbreaking research that found women lack confidence in their abilities and have low expectations of themselves when compared to men, “Women tend to attri- bute their s s to temporary causes, such as luck or effort,” Clance and Imes explained, coe in contrast with men who are much more likely to attribute their successes to the internal, stable factor of ability. Conversely, women tend to exph failure with lack of ability, whereas men more often attribute failure to luck or task difficulty. Given the lower expectancies women have for their own (and other women’s) performances, they have apparently internalized into a self:stercotype that they are not considered competent.” Since 1978, scholars have been replicating these results and trying to make ense of the information, The research has led some to consider “confi- dence” as an operative factor in the equation regarding self-assessment of success. In fact, Katy Kay and Claire Shipman found that “success cor- relates more closely with confidence than it does with competence. Yes, there is evidence that confidence is more important than ability when it comes to getting ahead.” If confidence is key when it comes to success— and women lack confidence overall, when compared to men—there are huge implications for classroom practices, especially those that hinge on engagement, participation, and peer- or self-assessment. There are a vari- ety of ways this may play out on a daily basis, but considering classroom discussions as an example, it is often likely that the student who speaks first and most confidently (regardless of the substance of the comment) receives greater validation than the student who takes her time, considers her words, and then shares (perhaps tentatively) a comment that moves the entire class community to a higher order of thinking. Unfortunately, it may be equally likely that she never shares her carefully crafted comment atall. Many researchers have attributed the gender differences regarding con- fidence to the scripts inherent in the social construction of gender (for more information, see Clance and Imes** and Shipman and Kay"*). Some‘THE FEMALE “CONFIDENCE GAP” AND FEMINIST PEDAGOGY: GENDER... 269 scholars have argued that it is simply a matter of girls and women believing in themselves—that girls and women can potentially counteract the impos- ter phenomenon by believing in their own worth (see Kay and Shipman”; Sandberg”). Even though healthy self-esteem is always a good trait, the “imposter phenomenon” and “confidence gap” are deeply rooted gender scripts. Addressing and potentially counteracting these gender dynamics is a matter of systemic and systematic social change rather than positive self-talk. Jessica Valenti’ for example, has recently offered a critical take on the confidence disparity between male and female students. Valenti argues that gender scripts begin in childhood when toy aisles suggest pos- sible futures, with girls being pushed toward a Barbie Dream House ideal and boys seeing toys geared toward electronics, science, and engineering. These gender scripts move to the classroom as well. “Adolescent girl— especially girls of color—are given less teacher attention in the classroom than their male peers. A full 56% of female students report being sexually harassed.” The news is replete with incidents of sexual assault on college campuses, which go largely unreported and unpunished. Valenti highlights gender inequality and harassment in American culture as the primary rea- son female students underrate their abilities. She closes by explaining that the “confidence gap” or “imposter phenomenon” is not a personal defect so much as “a reflection of a culture that gives women no reason to feel self-assured.” Students—the ones who show up in our classrooms on a daily basis—are products of this culture, and the gender scripts they have learned have great implications in an active, engaged learning environ- ment.*! When faculty members ask students to participate meaningfully in classroom discussion, they may find that even the brightest female stu- dents falter, questioning their abilities and attributing previous academic successes to “luck.” Or, if faculty members ask students to self-assess their participation in class discussions or teamwork exercises, hardworking and competent students may underrate their performances and impede their own academic success. This outcome was true in my own classroom. There is a wealth of information about how female and male students may engage differently in a classroom setting, and while it can be useful to review this advice as faculty members prepare to enter the classroom each semester, it is important not to make sweeping generalizations based on gender identity. Teaching centers offer resources to faculty regarding gendered performance in the classroom, which acknowledges that female students may interact differently than male students. Columbia University’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences notes for faculty that even when270 AL.IRVIN female students participate in class, “these students are more likely to [1] be interrupted before they complete their response (sometimes by other female students); [2] make their statements less loudly and at less length; and [3] express their ideas in a more hesitant, tentative, indirect, less asser- tive, or more polite manner.”*? Likewise, the University of Virginia’s Center for Teaching Excellence has a Teaching a Diverse Student Body** handbook that directly notes the confidence disparity between male and female stu- dents, and argues that this behavior may result in differential treatment by faculty. Different treatment may include faculty providing less mentoring, less encouragement to stay in certain majors or disciplines, less selection for research projects, and less recommendations for other opportunities.* These examples offer snapshots that highlight how gender dynamics may play out in the collegiate classroom. But both texts offer this advice with the caveat that even though this information is evidence-based, instructors must be careful to avoid generalizing students based on a performance of gender ora student’s self-disclosed gender identity (for more information regarding gender performance, sce Lorber’ and Butler). For example, not all men speak up in class or dominate conversations, and not all women are silent. As argued in the University of Virginia handbook, “Assuming all members of a group think alike robs people of their individuality.” Instructors should be careful not to generalize male and female student experiences; not all men. and women approach classroom communities in the same way. As the above sources illustrate, instructors should not essentialize stu- dents based on gender; gender identity and performance are complex and deeply individual, so making assumptions or generalizations can be poten- tially damaging to a classroom dynamic. It is particularly important to Pay attention to gender patterns of participation in the classroom, espe- cially when the majority of classrooms are often comprised of women. When women are the majority, it might be easy to overlook the nuances of participation. But the knowledge that, as a group, male and female stu- dents rate their performances differently, respond differently in class cussion, and interact differently in group settings will be beneficial when planning active, engaged classroom exercises. Instructors may employ this knowledge when they design assignments, and this information may help them approach classroom interactions with a greater awareness of gender dynamics. How, then, can instructors intentionally consider the gender dynamics that influence how male and female students respond differently to the active, engaged pedagogies they are employing on a daily basis? For answers, I turn to the tenets of feminist pedagogy. As a pedagogical‘THE FEMALE “CONFIDENCE GAP” AND FEMINIST PEDAGOGY: GENDER... 271 method that shares with feminism a commitment to equality and challeng- ing the status quo of gender dynamics in society, the practices of feminist pedagogy may offer some answers. Feminist Pepacocy A definition of feminist pedagogy can be hard to nail down, perhaps in part because it is hard to get agreement on a definition of “feminism.” Many practitioners of feminist pedagogy prefer inclusive, pluralistic terms like “pedagogies” or “feminisms.” These terms highlight the multiple voices, diverse narratives, and cultural differences that come together in the name of equality. It is not uncommon, in fact, to find scholars who resist the very act of defining feminist pedagogy. For example, in A Room of Whose Own? Lessons from Feminist Classroom Narratives, Paula Treichler resists defining feminist pedagogy for her own audience: “I am not sure that there is or should be such a thing as ‘feminist peda- gogy” as constituted by a set of practices: chairs in a circle, first names, collaborative agenda setting, and (as much as literature puts it) collec- tive revisioning of the production of knowledge... many feminists are not comfortable with these practices.” Treichler simultancously confirms the moves many feminist instructors make and contests them as inherently “femi ” Perhaps more accurately, she contests that every instructor who self-identifies as feminist would feel comfortable with these practices. Still, though, a “collective revisoning of the production of knowledge,”” as Treichler puts it, seems to dominate definitions of feminist pedagogy. In Feminist Sophistics: Teaching with an Attitude, Dale Bauer and Susan Jarratt posited that what feminist instructors do is “offer counter hegemonic explanations of the way things are.”* Bauer and Jarratt are less focused on how one might go about enacting feminist pedagogy than Treichler; but the focus on a collect inclusive community of knowledge remains. Jarratt has argued elsewhere that there are some things all feminist pedago- gies seem to share: “the decentering or sharing of authority, the recogni- tion of students as sources of knowledge, and a focus on processes over products. But as a colleague of mine asked recently, “Isn’t that just good teaching?” And she has a point—Jarratt’s description of student agency, responsibility, and application sounds a lot like research-based teaching methods. The difference is that feminist pedagogy not only recognizes these methods as beneficial to student learning but also sees them as a way to challenge the status quo by privileging different ways of knowing.It may be obvious by now that I am assuming a direct connection between feminism and feminist pedagogy. But must educators self-identify as feminist to borrow strategies from feminist pedagogy? Not necessarily. Feminist pedagogy was born out of personal and political commitment to equality and focuses on structures of individual identity and social privi- lege—at its heart, feminist pedagogy merges the personal, political, and professional—but to borrow a phrase from bell hooks: feminism is for everybody. I extend this inclusion to feminist pedagogy. The personal politics of the instructor may be irrelevant, but I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that, as a method secking to enact a commitment to equality in the classroom, individuals who share one out- side of it may be most comfortable with feminist pedagogy practices. The methods Treicher** and Bauer and Jarratt share above are fairly com- mon: sitting in circles, decentering authority, helping students find agency in classroom practices. In fact, they sound a lot like the active, engaged methods included in flipped, team-based, problem-based, and collabora- tive pedagogies. There are two practices inherent in feminist pedagogy, however that are not discussed as often or widely: transparency and a heu- ristics of inclusivity. In the final portion of this chapter, I discuss these two elements and explore some ways in which they may help empower and engage both male and female students in an active, engaged classroom. In terms of student learning, transparency can be key. Explaining to students why they have been asked to do something—how it will help them learn or succeed in later assignments or positions—can go a long way in terms of promoting student buy-in to projects or classroom exer- cises. Transparency is also a key element in feminist pedagogy, though practitioners may interpret it a little differently. For the feminist pedagogy practitioner, transparency can also mean a series of personal disclosures. T have a colleague, for example, who relishes “coming out” to her stu- dents as feminist. She makes her personal politics plain. Other instructors, myself included, may not be so comfortable laying bare the intricacies of their personal and political leanings. But there may be a middle ground, which entails disclosing personal commitments to equality and social jus- tice as they relate to classroom practices. Transparency in terms of our methods and their intersections with gender dynamics may be a useful strategy to enable students of all genders to succeed in an active, engaged classroom. So, for example, when I implemented my Participation and Preparedness self-assessment practice and noticed the disparity between the self-assessments of male and female students, I decided to take the rel-