Single-Sex Education - Research Paper Example

Single Sex Education Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Abstract There are increased interests in single sex education the world over. Governments and policy makers in education are streamlining education systems to accommodate single-sex education. It is argued that single sex education is key in enhancing education performance in school going children. Consequently, the latter increases school attendance frequency while also integrating leadership opportunities to both sexes. However, advocates of coed class setting argue that single-sex education is destructive and detrimental to children. The model does not parallel education with real life, it installs stereotypes, and it is also responsible for grouping unruly boys together. This paper is an argumentative essay discussing the relevance of single sex education in the current world. The paper reveals different studies conducted on the topic with their findings. Introduction Across the globe, extensive reviews and discussions are being put forward advocating for single-sex education (Salomone, 2005). Many educationists are of the opinion that single-sex education is key for outstanding performance among school going children (Quinn & Lyons, 2011). Parents, guardians and other stakeholders are voicing the educational needs of their children urging educational policy formulators to come up with policies that enhance child’s learning processes (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). Advocates for single-sex education argue that it increases student’s educational achievement, increases attendance frequency, and also it integrates the child’s opportunities for leadership. Contrary to this, critiques have opposing opinions arguing that single sex education comes with detrimental issues that must be critically observed before zeroing on the later (Lakia, 2011). In this regard, they have raised the following issues; for instance, they argue that single-sex education leads to installing stereotypes, it does not parallel real life, and lastly, single education group unruly boys together. Following this observation, this paper critically analyses the credibility of single-sex education. The paper will extensively review various literatures that have been written regarding this matter, the methodology used to collect data will be discussed, and the findings presented accordingly. Literature Review In today’s world, gender equality has been advanced to greater lengths, all stumbling blocks including legal and social barriers that were oppressive to women have been removed. With regard to this, educationists the world over lauded the coeducation model as the best model to advance the equality agenda (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). Public and private schools alike embraced the coeducation model. Contrary to this, various studies conducted in the recent past suggest that girls and boys learn in different ways (Sullivan, 2009). Similarly, a girl’s brain differs from the boy’s brain. Following this revelation, accepting coeducation as the best model for learning will automatically produce unsatisfactory results (Lakia, 2011). It is also imperative to note that some children perform excellently in single sex schools. Similarly, others thrive in coeducation learning environment. Single sex education is regarded as the right setting for any schooling child; the social pressures do not directly influence the child’s development (Patterson, 2012). Accordingly, the child will grow at his own pace; boys mature slowly as compared to girls and hence placing them in an environment that favors their development will tremendously help them (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). Single sex schools require little effort in streamlining their student’s needs with the curriculum (Salomone, 2005). For instance, the teaching styles in single sex school setting are designed to address specific needs. Single sex schools are homogeneous and thus planning of school events and activities is much easier (Lakia, 2011). Single sex educational setting eliminates gender bias that is highly evident in coeducation classes. Some researchers established gender bias is exists in coed schools and thus the need for single sex schools (Quinn & Lyons, 2011). Coed classes shortchange girls, and concerned parents advocate for single sex schools as the only way forward. In the same line of argument, girls are not favored in the coed class environments and thus do not have equal opportunities as compared to boys (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). Research in this area has revealed that in a coed class setting girls are not called on as often as boys. Teachers and tutors pay more attention to boys because boys are considered aggressive and louder than girls (Patterson, 2012). The studies also exposed that in most cases teachers tolerate disruptive behaviors in boys while discourage the same in girls. The learning potentials of boys and girls are not excellently achieved when they are placed in the same teaching environment. Girls have been found to perform outstandingly in many subjects. Studies established that boys excel in mathematics and sciences while girls perform better in social sciences and languages (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). In accordance with this evidence, the teaching styles that boys and girls feel comfortable with are exceedingly different. Girls learning contexts that propagate their performance are based on socializing; for example girls like talking in small groups discussing about current issues (Lakia, 2011). Additionally, they are pretty good at hands on activities comparing things in real time situations. On the other hand boys are confrontational, they like challenges, any instructor who challenges them, motivates boys to become better students while enhancing their art of preparedness. Girls in most cases particularly in coed class setting are found to be reserved and modest hence do not like to be confronted by teachers who ask for immediate answers (Patterson, 2012). These differences may not be evidently noticed but they make substantial difference in reaching their highest learning potential. Coed classes cannot salvage the differences in learning styles. Parents and women across the US strongly believe that coed class does not meet the learning requirements of their daughters to achieve the highest potential (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). Feminist advocates claim that separating sexes in schools increases self-confidence and the want to get out of the male dominated class atmospheres. Separating girls from boys will prompt teachers to ask girls difficult and challenging questions thus integrating their chances to excel. In coed classes girls tend to have low self esteem (Lakia, 2011). The Harvard School of Education and the American Association of University Women observed that teachers give boys positive commends and praise while giving them reinforcement. On the other hand, teachers take note of the girl’s socialization skills. The low self-esteem in young women is attributed to the lack of chance to voice their opinions with regard to certain issues without being ridiculed by boys (Quinn & Lyons, 2011). The Myra and David Sadker research established that in coed classroom boys can respond to questions randomly without getting permission from the teacher while girls are not given the same opportunity (Patterson, 2012). Regardless of this observation, teachers are unaware of their discriminatory treatment and hence do not understand the academic and emotional burden imposed on women. Boys are also extensively affected by the coed class setting. In middle schools, boys are disrupted by girls; during this stage both sexes are entering puberty and bursting with new hormones. In some instances, boys are lowly graded as they are thought to be of low intellect and thus do not get enough respect needed to fully focus on their studies as compared to girls. During the adolescence stage boys are usually distracted by the other sex. Various governments and educational institutes are currently interested in establishing single sex schools. In the recent past, coed schools received controversy particularly from the American Association of University Women in their research titled Separated by Sex: A Critical look at Single-Sex Education for Girls (Quinn & Lyons, 2011). In this study, they established that bias against female students is often disregarded by teachers; girls’ self-esteem is lost during adolescence, and finally, female students fare worse in science and mathematics because of discrimination (Lakia, 2011). The research by the Australian Council for Education comparing coeducation and single-sex education concluded that girls and boys educated in a single-sex class environment scored higher than boys and girls in coeducation atmosphere (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). Accordingly, the research found out that students in single-sex educational environment are more likely to behave better, enjoy learning and the curriculum is more suitable to them than those who schooled in coed class settings (Salomone, 2005). Following these establishments, it was concluded that coed class setting are hampered and limited by their ability to accommodate the vast differences particularly in cognitive, social and development growth of school going girls and boys aged between 12 and 16. This is the biggest learning barrier in coeducation (Lakia, 2011). Contrary to the above evidence many people still hold that coeducation is the best model of education. For instance, they wholly believe that excellent children in single-sex class setting perform better because they come from affluent families (Lakia, 2011). Consequently, it is believed that these children are from higher-class families and thus are easily recruited to single-sex schools and thus they easily succeed in their academics (Quinn & Lyons, 2011). The British Office for Standards in Education carried out a research on these claims to establish whether socioeconomic variables make a difference. However, no concrete evidence was found to back the allegations (Patterson, 2012). Methodology The researcher used quantitative research approach. This is because quantitative is always associated with the positivist paradigm that is closely associated with objectivism while adopting a philosophical stance with regard to the real world. The researcher was not affected by his own beliefs and values. He was independent and was never affected by the research topic. The researcher employed a descriptive research procedure. Descriptive research procedure is based on in-depth investigation of human experience through surveys, case studies, and ethnographies that are aimed at ordering experience to formulate theory (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). The surveys were used in the study to collect data. The surveys were used to collect large amount of data from sizeable population using questionnaires that were distributed to the sampled population (Lakia, 2011). The survey provided information that was essential with possible reasons for a specific relationship between variables and thus producing models for these relationships (Patterson, 2012). Additionally, the survey generated findings which were a representative of the whole population. The descriptive procedure identified key concepts, advantages, and disadvantages related to single-sex education (Quinn & Lyons, 2011). A pilot survey data obtained was analyzed and compared on variables of interest carried out based on survey responses. The results obtained were used in revising questionnaires thus positioning to capture the information that was being sought (Lakia, 2011). The questionnaires were then distributed to the study participants in both single-sex schools and coeducation schools. The study population represented the whole population. The researcher used purposive sampling which was then followed by ratified sampling. This helped the researcher to access relevant information more easily (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). For this matter, the researcher sought teachers, students and other stakeholders in education both in single-sex schools and coeducation schools. The study population comprised 200 participants including teachers and students from both single-sex and coed schools. The researcher used questionnaires to collect data. The questionnaires were used to collect information about the importance of single-sex class setting and their disadvantages (Patterson, 2012). Ordinal scales were used to measure the respondents’ views with regard to single-sex class settings. Data analysis; the data obtained was analyzed quantitatively in three stages that included data preparation, data description and testing the hypotheses (Lakia, 2011). Data presentation involved logging in the data, entering the data into the computer, data transformation, development and documentation of databases was undertaken to integrate the various measures. Description of data involved the use of Analysis of Variance (NOVA) Findings Single-sex education increases student achievement. Through the study it was deduced that single-sex class settings increases student achievement in some subjects. It was established that female students perform better when they are separated from males (Salomone, 2005). In Coeducational classes it was found that girls feel pressured to act dumb. Consequently, boys in a single-sex class don’t pressured to impress females. In this regard it was concluded that greater attention is directed towards education in single-sex environment (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). Secondly, majority of the respondents said that single sex education increases school attendance frequency. The students in this setting enjoy learning and thus the want to attend school is high. In the same line of argument, it was found out that single-sex education increases leadership opportunities particularly in the all girls environment. Females are given opportunity to hold leadership positions that are mainly reserved for boys in coed environment. Similarly, in all boys environment, many boys assume leadership roles in the absence of girls (Patterson, 2012). However, some respondents had different opinions; for instance they argued that single sex education leads to installing stereotypes (Quinn & Lyons, 2011). The single-sex educational setting teaching instructions and techniques are based on one gender which assumes that single sex individuals are alike and their response is always similar (Spielhagen, 2008). For example, because one is a boy in the boys’ classroom it does not imply that he I interested in physical activities. Accordingly, all girls are not collaborative and thus not interested in collaborative activities used in girls’ class (Gibb, David & Horwood, 2008). The opponents of single sex education also alluded that the latter does not parallel real life. Educationists argue that education experience should parallel life. For this matter, real life involves interaction in a coed world (Lakia, 2011). In this regard, single-sex education prohibits students to nurture their social skills which are necessary and essential for a coed world (Patterson, 2012). The students should learn to work, think, and play together particularly during their formative years. Annotated Bibliography In analysing the influence of single sex education, the following references were utilised in completing this assignment: Patterson, G.A. (2012). Separating the boys from the girls. American Civil Liberties Union, 93(5), 37-41. The author of this article discusses issues associated with single sex education especially in black male schools. The author presents two arguments on success of some of these institution while at the same time states weaknesses associated with the approach. He present success stories such as Chicago Illinois’s Academies but also present threats such as gender stereotyping and difficulties in working relations with the opposite gender. Lakia, J. (2011). Single-Sex Impacts on Male Education. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 9(1), 1-8. The author champions the idea of single sex schooling. The author state that schooling usually favours the thought process and champions learning by girls but does not support the way boys learns. Lakia explains that factors such as social expectations, peer pressure makes boys not to learn as much as girls learn. Quinn, F., & Lyons, T. (2011). High school students' perceptions of school science and science careers: A critical look at a critical issue. Science Education International, 22(4), 225-238. The authors in their article states that girls and boys usually have different interests. This means that different genders require different schools to ensure that the interests of specific gender are championed. The authors presents example of preferences of boys in sciences and thus creating boys specific school will champion teaching of sciences. Sullivan, A. (2009). Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 259-288. The author discusses the influence of self-confidence ion learning and how confidence can be affected by gender prejudices. Sullivan presents examples in which girls excel in ‘feminine’ subjects such as English while boys succeed in ‘masculine’ subjects as math. According to the author, it is prudent to ensure that there are different schools for each gender. Gibb, S.F., David M., & Horwood, LJ. (2008). Effects of single-sex and coeducational schooling on the gender gap in educational achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 52(3), 301-317. The article analyses the performance of the two genders in single sex school and coeducational schools. The authors state that coeducational schools usually favours females, while males are favoured by single sex schools. This means that single sex schooling aids in improving education for male students. Spielhagen, F. (2008). Debating single-sex education: separate and equal? Michigan: Rowman & Littlefield Education The book provides a debating environment that ensures both policymakers and practitioners can utilise it in understanding issues surrounding single-sex education. The book provides both quantitative and qualitative studies to illustrate the effects of single sex education in advancing education for the student. Salomone, R. 2005. Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling. Yale: Yale University Press The author of the book offers a reasoned legal and educational argument that supports single-sex education. The author states that numerous challenges are associated with coeducation especially to disadvantaged and minority students. Conclusion Discussions on single sex education have been extensive. Different scholars and researchers have presented different views on the importance of single sex education. Some of them support single sex education because of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ subjects differences while others supporting the idea because of environmental requirements. Nevertheless, those against the idea of single sex education argue that its creates gender difference in future lives of the individuals. Generally, it is important to understand the requirements of the social environment before determining the appropriate strategy that should be embraced by the society in addressing educational requirements. References Gibb, S.F., David M., & Horwood, LJ. (2008). Effects of single-sex and coeducational schooling on the gender gap in educational achievement. Australian Journal of Education, 52(3), 301-317. Lakia, J. (2011). Single-Sex Impacts on Male Education. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 9(1), 1-8. Patterson, G.A. (2012). Separating the boys from the girls. American Civil Liberties Union, 93(5), 37-41. Quinn, F., & Lyons, T. (2011). High school students' perceptions of school science and science careers: A critical look at a critical issue. Science Education International, 22(4), 225-238. Salomone, R. 2005. Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling. Yale: Yale University Press Spielhagen, F. (2008). Debating single-sex education: separate and equal? Michigan: Rowman & Littlefield Education Sullivan, A. (2009). Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 259-288. Read More