Single-Sex Education versus Coeducational Education - Literature review Example

Running Head: SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS VERSUS CO-ED SCHOOLS Single-Sex Education versus Coeducational Education Student’s Name Course Title Instructor’s Name 25th October 2012 Introduction Traditionally, co-ed schools were the basic systems of education but in the recent past, single sex education schools have emerged creating some tension on the structure of education that is best for students. Education is one of the most significant phases of growth in a student development. A learning institution is a place where a student is trained to absorb fundamental knowledge and plan for the future. Owing to the emergence of single sex education school, there has sprung considerable debate on the advantages and disadvantages of single sex schools against co-ed schools. Researchers taking opinionated positions have put several explanations forward, but like any other argument, no convincing justifications have been offered. Often times, these justifications have been a result of speculation, bias or efforts to support certain hypotheses. Single-sex schools can be defined as learning institutions where boys and girls go schooling according to their own sex. Co-ed schooling refers to having both boys and girls learning in one classroom. Some of the points raised by the supporters of single-sex education include the claim that single-sex schools perform better that co-ed schools, reduces gender stereotype, boys and girls have different learning styles, and that single-sex systems reduces distraction from the opposite sex. Supporters of co-ed systems, on the other hand, debate that co-ed schools prepares the students to face the real world in the future, encourages social interaction which is vital for learning, and builds the students confidence. Therefore, it is the responsibility of a parent to decide the type of school to take their children. Owing to introduction of private schools, single-sex education has greatly expanded, and so has the debate concerning this issue, which has become more heated. This essay will evaluate these two types of instructive approaches to establish the type of system that is most convenient form of education. The Main Points of Tension in the Debate Supporters of co-ed base their argument on the fact that, students that go to single-sex schools do not prepared for future challenges and are more prone to failure in life. Gill argues that much of the dispute of secluded single-sex education is obsolete. Her point is that whether from a single school, the work environment is mixed and the graduate may find himself or herself being headed by a member of the opposite sex whom they did not get the chance to interact with while in school. Education should therefore, prepare a student for a world that is not divided in lines of gender but rather a sociable world where gender is not an issue. Gill further adds that having separate classes for girls and boys in elementary school is not necessary. This, he explains seems to be a means of dealing with a society who may be a bit wary of the transformations and so the action is lessened by holding it up in the middle school. This is markedly quite common with some parents and school communities although there is not enough study confirmation to support this argument (Gill, 2004). Differently, in Why Gender Matters, Leonard Sax disagrees that boys and girls have dissimilar behaviors and learning techniques. While the males tend to require more guidance, females work better in groups; therefore, single sex schools are better for students as their classes can be tailored to fit their varying requirements accordingly. This argument is based on the supposition that the brains of boys and girls are wired differently and therefore need different instruction approaches to get the most out of their education, and this is what single-sex schools offer. Advocates of the single-sex schooling point out provincial, national and international assessment outcomes indicative of the fact that learners from single-sex schools perform better as compared to students from co-ed schools (Sax, 2006). Supporters of single sex education further support their argument by citing that boys and girls respond differently in different subjects. Thompson an Ungerlaider give an example of math and science subjects, that in coeducational schools boys perform better in these subjects than girls owing to the fact that boys are faster in expressing themselves and girls are more heedful and measured. For example, when a question that involves some thinking is posed, boys are quite likely to extemporize, to take a chance and guess or elaborate it, whereas girls will think about the question and attempt to find an excellent solution (Thompson & Ungerleider, 2004). The outcome in co-educational classes is that boys will constantly displace the girls, and this will affect the girls in that they will be played. Evidently, single-sex schools can eliminate this problem by having girls learn the subject without the interference of boys but except for elementary and middle schools this is not likely for classes involving science subjects. Single-sex schools ensure that girls are encouraged in their technical ventures by being able to take control of their conduct tests in an environment that boys’ skills previously prevailed (Ryan, 2010). Spielhagen argues that, in the single-sex system, girls are more likely to explore subjects that were traditionally associated with boys, since all-girls classroom promotes girls’ confidence, thus they venture into learning activities that they might have otherwise not tried. In addition, the girls will be free to choose whatever subjects, and since there is no competition from the opposite sex for teacher’s attention, these students are more likely to perform better (Spielhagen, 2008). However, the co-ed supporters debate that, this form of education assists students to develop fundamental life-skills. They further argue that although single-sex schools might be viewed as better for the reason that it offers a learner a sense of confidence, this kind of confidence might not last. In contrast, the co-education system represents an absolute social setting and hence, students from this education system have greater opportunity of learning how to tackle their social issues such as cross-gender pressure and gender stereotype, once they complete their studies. This kind of confidence is what is required of students (Park, Behrman, & Jaesung, 2012). In addition, unlike their opposite numbers from single-sex schools, graduates from coeducation institutions will have known how to conduct themselves in front of the opposite sex. They will also have learnt how to relate at work, date and form friendships as well as intercommunicate in an up to standard manner. The world is coed. Therefore, coeducational systems are a more ordinary method for students to learn and interrelate as it normalizes all kinds of relationships (Bonner & Hollinhworth, 2012). Co-education institutions are likely to give the students more in the manner of student mixture. Having both boys and girls in the same class permit students of both genders to interrelate with a wider diversity of the community and learn how to study with and converse with individuals of the opposite sex (Shah & Conchar, 2008). In park et al, it has been argued that single-sex education enhances student education and participation in classroom activities since there will be no social distraction from the opposite sex. Many learners find it more comfortable to centre on their studies when there is no distraction from members of the opposite sex. In fact, most of them find it easier to take part actively in lessons where everybody is of the same gender. Others take pleasure in the comradeship that usually bonds schoolmates at single-sex environment (Park, Behrman, & Jaesung, 2012). In contrast, supporters of coeducational schools challenge this debate citing that, there exists plentiful evidence that students perform better both academically and socially if they are schooled together as girls and boys. The interaction that transpires between boys and girls during lessons in coeducational schools is very important as they learn from each other. For instance, in literature classes in is very useful to have both girls and boys perspectives pertaining to set books. Girls get to know how boys perceive poems, dramas and works of fiction, and boys on the other hand, understand the varied interpretations that girls frequently present (Sullivan, 2009). The students learn to appreciate and regard different horizons and judgments. Consequently, what takes place in learning sessions in terms of learning from each other is essential (Ivinson & Murphy, 2007). However, supporters of single-sex system have differently argued that patterns of classroom interaction is discriminatory against girls, in that, girls are oftentimes demoted to more quiet, less active responsibilities when it comes to working in groups or contributing to discussions in class. They further argue that, in co-ed classes female students hardly interacted with their instructors during discussion sessions with boys being given a great deal of opportunity in terms of quality and quantity in these discussions. Glasser points out that, boys are usually given more opportunities to practice especially in science classes with instructors calling out on them more than their female counterparts and a result gender inequality in participation is experienced (Glasser, 2006) . Moreover, Sullivan, a supporter of single-sex education debates that an all-girls or an-all boys schools helps eliminate gender stereotypes (Sullivan, 2009). In single-sex schools, girls are able to pursue successfully subjects that are male related such as math and physics and boys are able to do the same in female related subjects as languages. In addition, boys and girls have different levels of maturity and interest, and as such, they should be educated differently (Bonner & Hollinhworth, 2012). The Different Methodological Approaches Used When Addressing the Issue Arguments on the achievements of single-sex and co-ed schools tend to make comparisons of the standardized test performance, which is an evidence based. This kind of approach gives a clear confirmation on the argument being raised. On the other hand, the arguments raised on the choice of subjects of boys and girls is based on gender stereotypes whereas that of class participation is based on assumptions which clearly do not form any substantial proof for the matter. Regarding the social and emotional influences on boys and girls that might lower their performance in mixed schools, it is factual. This argument is based on facts as observed in daily life, and amounts to an acceptable claim based on evidence (Thompson & Ungerleider, 2004). The Accounts you Judge to be Good Educational Research Based on the literatures discussed above, it is evident that single sex education is the most beneficial system of education. In general, most of the literatures presented positive effects for single-sex schools than co-ed schools, especially regarding to the achievement of students, which is based on evidence. There is sufficient evidence based on test score suggesting that students in single-sex schools perform better compared to their co-ed counterparts (Mael, Alonso, Dough, Rodgers, & Smith, 2005). Moreover, it is evident in the real world that students who attended single-sex schools are seen to be having high paying jobs than the students who attended co-ed schools. Studies investigating performance on science, mathematics, social studies and English have found that students in single-sex institutions perform better in these subjects than those students in co-ed schools. This shows that these students have eliminated gender stereotypes in which boys were supposed to be pursuing courses such as engineering and medicine whereas girls were supposed to choose the less demanding courses involving languages (Sax L. , 2009). Nowadays, women can be seen in engineering and medicine careers and men in female related careers, and is attributed to single-sex schooling, which encourages students to pursue whatever subjects they select (Sullivan, 2009). It is evident that, students who learn in single-sex institutions will have no adolescent influences on their activities, a minor issue, and therefore focus more on the academic work, which a key factor for a student going to school in the first place, and also for a better life in the future. Co-ed schools in most cases are day and public, and single-sex schools are on the other hand mostly boarding, and private schools, which leads to single-sex schools performing very well as there is no interruption and they maximize their time in school (NASSPE, 2011). Conclusion It is evident from the discussion that single-sex type of education is the most appropriate if one aims to achieve high scores and excel in life. This system breaks down gender stereotypes and allows students to pursue their life objectives. On top of that, it also produces the best social outcomes. Contenders of single-sex schools have argued that these schools have more resources and facilities, which contribute to their high performances. Therefore, essential curriculum facilities should be provided to co-ed schools to ensure that the research findings give results that are more accurate in their findings. Nevertheless, many of the research findings have concluded that single-sex environments add to students’ comfort and participation in school because of diminished emotions of intimidation by boys on the part of girls, and improved attention from educators. References Bonner, J., & Hollinhworth, H. (2012, July 8). Single Sex Classes Popular As More Public Schools Split Up Boys And Girls. TheHuffingtonPost , p. 1. Gill, J. (2004). Beyond the Great Divide: Coeducation or Single-Sex? Sydney: NewSouth Publishing. Glasser, H. (2006). Arguing Separate but Equal: A Study of argumentation in public single-sex Science classes in the United State. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology , 71-92. Ivinson, G., & Murphy, P. (2007). Rethinking single-sex teaching. Open University Press. Mael, F., Alonso, A., Dough, G., Rodgers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review. U.S Department of Education. NASSPE. (2011). Single-Sex vs. Coed: The Evidence . Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html Park, H., Behrman, J., & Jaesung, C. (2012). Do Single Sex Enhance Students' STEM Outcomes? Philadelphia: Penn Institute for Economic Research. Ryan, D. (2010, August 27). Single sex of coed? The gender agenda. The Age , p. 1. Sax, L. (2006). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. New York: Crown Publishing Group. Sax, L. (2009). Women Graduates of Single-Sex and Coeducational High Schools: Differences in their Characteristics and Transition to College. Los Angeles: The Sudikoff Family Institute for Education and New Media. Shah, S., & Conchar, C. (2008). Why Single-sex Schools? Discouse of Culture/ Faith and Achievement. Cambridge Journal of Education , 191-204. Spielhagen, F. (2008). Single-sex Education: Policy, Practice, and Pitfalls. Teachers College Record , 1-3. Sullivan, A. (2009). Academic Self-concept, Gender and Single-sex Schooling. British Education Research Journal , 259-288. Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2004). Single-Sex Schooling, Final Report. Canadian Centre for Knoeledge Mobilisation. Tsolidis, G., & Dobson, I. (2006). Single-sex Schooling: Is it Simply a class ac? Gender and Education , 213-228. Read More