An Advantage of Teaching a Specific Gender - Research Paper Example

Boys and Girls should be in a Separate es The idea that boys should attend to and be taught separately from girls has been a topic of concern for some time now and is raising an alarm in many societies. The question might never disappear due to the many diverse arguments put across by psychologists and other scholars. Currently, there are schools where learners are taught as per their gender, though it is not a very common phenomenon. This topic is debatable, given the advantages and disadvantages that accrue to this method of learning. However, the disadvantages of teaching boys and girls separately tend to be more than the advantages associated with the same. Arguments in favour of the method One of the major benefits of separating the two genders is that students get to receive better education as per their personalities. It is well understood that girls are often more silent than boys, a factor that favours the good development of the learning environment. At times, girls also seem to be talkative than boys and this may require a new type of education (Weil 56). Psychology puts across the main stages of development among individuals. Learners in both primary and secondary level are at a crucial age of development which can be characterized by several activities amongst themselves. An advantage of teaching a specific gender with respect to this issue is that their future learning would be enhanced, considering the diversity in their growing ways. Boys get older in sexual matters and this could have an effect on girls who may concentrate more on the boys’ attention and thus interfere with the normal learning activities. Many religions perceive that boys and girls ought not to attend classes together, particularly during the age of adolescence when such children are curious and have-not yet acquired discipline in the body and mind. The religions with this perspective fear that children may engage themselves in sinful occasions in intimate quarters for the time allocated in school. They suggest that children should not be exposed to this “risky” situation till when they mature up and get ready to involve in legal circumstances. Above all, separating them keeps their minds focused on studies rather than on each other in the class (Leinhardt432). Other proponents suggest that single-sex education is the best because it is believed that children achieve higher results when taught separately than in unison. Boys’ and girls’ intelligence differs significantly, so their learning pace differs as well. Girls are more passive learners and perform well when it comes to classroom discussions and drawings or diagrams. Their visual ability is also high and are believed to be auditory learners. On the other hand, boys learn more kinetically and like practical learning. This assumption means that by teaching gender-based classes, different learning styles can be catered for and thus teaching them together will mean interfering with their potentials. Boys and girls are engaged by dissimilar stimuli, proving that if a teacher caters the class to the interests of girls, he might lose the boys and vice versa. Boys are sometimes intimidated by the superior verbal abilities in some subjects such as English, but can score far better if girls are not in their midst. The same applies for girls in science subjects, P.E, and woodwork. According to one American psychologist, who is also a family doctor, Dr. Leonard Sax, girls ought to learn on their own. He states, “The best possible thing you can do to help your daughter is to get her into a girls’ school.” His main argument is that the single-sex schools are a good way to eliminate the gender stereotypes in the society. To him, girls in schools with specified gender are more likely to study subjects that are perceived to be masculine. They can pursue engineering, technology, computer science, and physics and be more active in competitive sports compared to girls in co-educational schools setups. Further, he argues that the focus in co-educational schools is on one’s appearance, especially for girls, but in single sex schools, learners concentrate more on who they really are. It therefore prepares them appropriately for the real world (Jackson 40). Arguments against single-sex schools Opposers of the single-school method of learning argue that having subjects taught this way does not guarantee diminishing of the ability of students to get along with dissimilar genders. It is more probable that there will be still chances to associate with the opposite sex and nurture relationships that set up a foundation for a successful life. It is also logical to argue that teaching students separately is a waste of resources. For example if one teacher is supposed to teach a class of 30 students in a co-educational system, then it requires two teachers to teach the students in separate classes. Te government as well as the school has to undergo extra costs to pay the teacher, provide resources such as teaching aids, and learning materials. Moreover, teachers would be forced to train twice for the teaching techniques according to each gender, thus wasting time. A better way of doing this may be through setting up classes depending on the mental abilities as opposed to gender-based. Gollnick (46) argues that teaching both genders ahs more advantages because the learners get more social experience apart from the educational ones that could have otherwise lacked in single sex schools. Such experiences are helpful especially when learners get out of school and mingle with adults of both genders and of all ages. They therefore need good cooperation and communication skills to help them grow socially and professionally in the new places. Learning in different schools or classes means that girls and boys would not have the ability to introduce their views and differences to each other. For example, girls often have knowledge about women experiences and boys similarly know what it means to be a man. They can help each other to understand the challenges of the opposite sex and thus learn in a natural environment instead of being so preserved. It is true that boys and girls in a mixed environment of learning would be more motivated to learn if they have someone around to impress. They would try to look their best always and would have a higher self-esteem especially when they realize that they are well-dressed. In connection to this also is the research that has shown co-educational schools having high performance as compared to single-sex schools. This is because the co-educational framework seems to favour students’ social skills among themselves and reduce shyness. Conclusion Even though there might be many conflicting views about this kind of teaching, I think the view about reducing stereotypes can apply in both of them. Girls in single sex schools would be encouraged to take up “masculine” courses because they know they have to fill the gap. On the other hand, gender stereotyping in co-educational systems are reduced because the learners interact and learn that they share a lot in common with the other sex members. In conclusion, even though single-sex schools may most likely teach their students with specific considerations, it is better for the knowledge to be delivered in the same environment so that learners can get used to the problems they might find in their future life. It is important as well to mix the gender so as to minimize conflicts especially among girls. Boys also do not find it very comfortable to be around fellow boys for so long. The experience together makes them view the opposite sex like positively and prepare them for real life situations. Works Cited Gollnick, Donna M., et al. Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Vol. 90. Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1998. Jackson, Carolyn. "Can single?sex classes in co?educational schools enhance the learning experiences of girls and/or boys? An exploration of pupils' perceptions." British Educational Research Journal 28.1 (2002): 37-48. Kagan, Jerome. "Acquisition and significance of sex typing and sex role identity." Review of child development research 1 (1964): 137-167. Leinhardt, Gaea, Andrea M. Seewald, and Mary Engel. "Learning what's taught: Sex differences in instruction." Journal of Educational Psychology 71.4 (1979): 432. Weil, Elizabeth. "Teaching boys and girls separately." New York Times. http://nytimes. com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t. html (2008). Read More