The issues I will address will be:
1) There has been much said in the British and American press about the poor academic performance of boys and girls. The following is from an American Journal:
"For the past two years, British newspapers and academic journals have been reporting that boys are on the weak side of the gender gap. The Times of London announced that on national-curriculum tests 14-year-old British boys are "on average, more than three years behind girls in English," and warned of the prospect of "an underclass of permanently unemployed, unskilled men." According to the journal New Scientist, "Girls are racing ahead in Britain's schools ... boys are being left behind." A growing body of evidence suggests that American boys may be in similar straits. The National Assessment of Educational Progress is considered one of the more reliable measures of academic proficiency. In 1992, 17-year-old boys outperformed girls by 4 points in mathematics and 10 points in science, while girls outperformed boys by 12 points in reading and 17 points in writing. Girls are catching up in math and science; boys continue to lag far behind in reading and writing. The U.S. Department of Education's Condition of Education 1995 estimates that "the gap in reading proficiency between males and females [favouring girls] is roughly equivalent to about one and a half years of school." In the July 7, 1995 issue of Science, University of Chicago researchers Larry V. Hedges and Amy Nowell report that girls' deficits in math, while small, are of concern and should be addressed. Of boys' writing skills, they say: "The large sex differences in writing ... are alarming. The data imply that males are, on average, at a rather profound disadvantage in the performance of this basic skill." So far, however, only girls are treated as a problem group. There are calls for special math classes for girls, but the idea of special reading and writing classes for boys rarely surfaces.
By most reasonable measures, girls are faring better than boys. Boys get lower grades. More often than girls, they drop out and are held back. Far more boys than girls suffer from learning disabilities. (In 1990, three times as many boys as girls were enrolled in special education programs.) Of the 1.3 million American children taking Ritalin, the drug commonly prescribed for attention-deficit disorder, three-fourths are boys. More boys than girls are involved in crime and with alcohol and drugs. Significantly fewer boys than girls are going on to college".
2) The interaction between boys and girls within the classroom is not necessarily a cause of girls becoming less interested in maths and science. Further, the presence of boys and girls within a classroom can be conducive to both sexes becoming more motivated.
The interaction between boys and girls could be because of the way in which the teacher conducts the class:
"Helga Jungwirth points out, in line with French, that although there has been a lot of research into interaction in the maths classroom the focus tends to be the teacher and the comparison of the quantity of interaction with male and female students. It has been shown that in nearly all observations boys receive more teacher attention than girls. She uses the research by Becker as an example, here it was found in the analysis of ten high school geometry courses that teachers asked males more questions, gave them more feedback and directed about two thirds of their encouraging comments to males. Nearly all of the discouraging or non-encouraging remarks were aimed at female students. These findings are consistent with most other studies of the same nature".
Jungwirth has identified 5 situations in teacher-student interaction that disadvantage the girls:
Below are the details of an experiment that illustrates the benefits of mixed-sex classes. Such classes engender healthy attitudes in boys towards girls.
"Greenhough, Hughes and Laing carried out research involving primary school children working in same-sex and mixed-sex pairs on simple Logo commands with a floor turtle, (Micromath, 1992). It was found that from the point of view of learning outcomes, the research did not favour any particular form of pairing. They did find, contradictory to other research findings (Sheingold et al, 1984), that the boys did not dominate the girls in the mixed-sex pairs but that the work was carried out collaboratively. The most significant results lay in the change of attitude of some of the boys. At the start of one study half the boys in each group (same-sex and mixed -sex) rated the girls equally with the boys and the other half believed that the boys were more competent than the girls. At the end of the study the views of the same-sex pairs remained unchanged, but all the boys who had worked with girls now rated girls as equally competent. As many of the problems regarding differences between the genders with respect to learning is firmly embedded in social attitude then such effective ways of changing these attitudes ought to be taken full advantage of. This study also focused on the assumption that talk is desirable for learning. The amount and nature of children's talk during the sessions was analysed and related to learning outcomes. No positive correlation was found and in some cases negative correlation appeared as also found by Webb (1984). So, even though children are participating in a lot of on-task discussion this does not necessarily mean that they are learning more than those who contribute little. Greenhough, Hughes and Laing point out that their findings are not conclusive, nor do they prove that mixed-sex pairing is the best method or that talk is irrelevant to learning. 'What our findings show is that some of the assumptions frequently made in discussions of' equal opportunities may not necessarily stand up to careful examination. Children's learning is a complex business, to which simplistic solutions may fail to do adequate justice"!
Beth Reinhard suggests that a mixed-sex class can be successful if the following strategy is adopted: "(1) Place less emphasis on competition and speed, and more emphasis on co-operative group work; and (2) increase the focus on practical, real-life applications of mathematics and science.". Her Arguments are given below:
At a time when single-sex education is gaining momentum both in public and private schools nation-wide, a report says there is insufficient evidence that all-girls schools work.
The report issued last week is also noteworthy considering its source: the American Association of University Women, which has generated widespread interest in single-sex schools over the past several years.
The Washington-based advocacy group first made headlines in the K-12 field in 1991, when it released a study tying what it described as gender bias in schools to low self-esteem among adolescent girls. The next year, the association released a report concluding that women were underrepresented in history and science lessons, that teachers and tests favoured boys, and that girls lagged behind boys in math and science.
Interest in single-sex schools has grown in recent years, and several states and districts have begun experiments with the idea.
The latest AAUW report concludes, however, that single-sex education is not necessarily better than coeducation. What matters, the report says, is small classes and schools, unbiased teaching, and a focused curriculum.
"We need to look at the conditions of a good education, rather than whether students are separated by sex," said Janice Weinman, the association's executive director.
Ms. Weinman denied that the report contradicted earlier assertions by the association, though in 1995 the AAUW supported experiments in separate schools. She said the report affirmed the association's long-held belief that educators must create conditions under which girls and boys can compete academically.
"We continue to be extremely committed to gender equity," she said. "While single-sex schools may be good for some, we feel it's not the solution. "
Jeffrey Weld suggests that the problem of girls not being so interested in pursuing science can be resolved by a change in teachers' attitudes and practices. The suggestion is here that single-sex classes are a sign of weakness in a school; an inability to motivate girls successfully in a mixed sex setting.
The problem is a curricular and behavioural deficiency in the way science and math are taught. Professional women scientists and engineers are outnumbered 6-to-1 by their male colleagues. Of the college degrees awarded for these fields, women earn only 30 percent of the bachelor's degrees and 21 percent of the doctorates. In high school, females constitute 39 percent of calculus students, and only 15 percent complete a physics course. According to a National Science Foundation study, the science achievement-test scores of college-bound females are consistently lower than the scores for males.
Yet, throughout the primary grades, math and science test scores for girls and boys do not differ significantly. This leads to the obvious question: What happens to create a gender gap in science beginning around age 13, and what can be done to narrow or eliminate it?
Have science educators been guilty of gender bias in the presentation of science and math coursework? Yes. Will separate-sex science and math classes ameliorate the imbalance? No. Segregating students on the basis of sex in order to close this chasm is a simplistic and dangerous Band-Aid approach. Learning research supports an integrated education in math and science.
An instructional strategy persists in too many science and math classrooms that allows for subtle gender bias, which is a disservice to female students. Boys have been found to dominate classroom discussion in these courses, garner the majority of teacher praise, and be subjected to higher performance expectations than girls (see Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, MacMillan Publishing, 1994). Moreover, the science role models depicted in textbooks, or invited to class as guest speakers--in fact, the very teachers themselves--are predominantly male.
But it hardly makes sense to segregate girls from boys in these courses, rather than attacking the problem at its core. That problem is a curricular and behavioural deficiency in the way science and math are taught. We'd do well to encourage enlightenment through workshops, conferences, and college courses that emphasise proactive gender-equity techniques for all teachers. It's a safer and longer-term solution that places responsibility for inequity on the deserving shoulders of teachers, administrators, and parents, rather than on those of uprooted students.
Teacher enlightenment on the subtle behaviours that perpetuate gender bias in science is but one step toward closing the gap in science performance among boys and girls. Perhaps an even greater need is for teachers and parents to recognise that boys and girls learn in different ways, necessitating an appropriate overhaul of the curriculum.
The onus for closing the gender gap in math and science is placed upon kids by advocates of separate-sex classes, when the onus should be borne by teachers, administrators, and parents. Doreen Kimura, a Canadian neuropsychologist considered to be a leading authority on comparative studies of neural processes in males and females, says that "women and men differ not only in physical attributes and reproductive function, but also in the way in which they solve intellectual problems." Unfortunately, the idea of "different" connotes "deficiency" in the minds of many, and valuable insight into how we might more effectively teach young men and women gets buried under an avalanche of political correctness. Ms. Kimura's findings on the powerful influences of sex hormones on brain function, coupled with behavioural research into instructional strategies that benefit girls as much as boys, point toward the need for dramatic change in how science and math are predominantly taught in American schools.
Susan McGee Bailey, the executive director of Wellesley College's Centre for Research on Women and the principal author of the American Association of University Women's landmark study, "How Schools Short-change Girls," points to specific remedies for a gender-neutral classroom that are consistent with Ms. Kimura's brain research and do not require segregating students. Two of those recommendations are fairly simple: (1) Place less emphasis on competition and speed, and more emphasis on co-operative group work; and (2) increase the focus on practical, real-life applications of mathematics and science. These and other interventions that focus on problem-solving in a social context are more than just gender-neutralizing techniques in science; they are sound methods that work for all learners and mirror the recommendations of the recently released National Science Education Standards.
It hardly makes sense to segregate males and females in science and math courses when a better way is to restructure the curriculum to reflect the research. In a sense, the onus for closing the gender gap in math and science is placed upon kids by advocates of separate-sex classes, when the onus should be borne by teachers, administrators, and parents, who can and should see to it that science is portrayed as equally accessible to all.
As imperfect as coeducational classes may be, they represent real life. The children in those classes rise to a level of expectation we hold for them. So it's vital that the message they get is one of high expectations, without contrived settings and regardless of sex.
Jeffrey Weld, a biology teacher for 11 years in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, suburban St. Louis, and rural Iowa, is now pursuing a Ph.D. in science education at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.
Finally some comments from an American school that has single-sex classes. It would seem that the girls fair well, but the discipline problems increase with all-boy's classes.
"I think it's fantastic that I have the girls," said Wanda Warren, a 7th-grade social-studies teacher. On a recent visit, her class, like Ms. Knutsen's, was attentive and involved.
She said, though, that some teachers assigned to boys' classes have struggled. Ultimately, she said, "you have to be a really, really strong person when you have the boys."
Ms. Warren's colleagues agree, and some say a few teachers have not been up to the challenge.
In one recent language-arts class, students interrupted frequently and the teacher seemed to have little control over the boys. Most looked bored, or talked during the lesson.
But down the hall in Michael Dixon's math class, the boys worked quietly at their desks, while the teacher moved about the room offering help. The second-year teacher is a straight-shooter when it comes to misbehaving. He said he makes it clear, right away, that he will not tolerate it.
Mr. Dixon added later that some teachers may not have what it takes to handle a class full of teenage boys".
From this one can conclude that if the boys are behaving in a single-sex class this is because a very strict teacher is in charge. I think you can see that disaster strikes as soon as a less strict teacher takes over.
Return to Gary Sturt's Home Page
Copyright © 1998 Gary Sturt
This Home Page was created by WebEdit,15 July 1998
Most recent revision 4th March 2001