According
to Gurian et al (2009), single sex schools have been the focus of many
educational policy makers and tutors in the United States of America in the
last couple of years, and for a variety of reasons. Single gender classes or
schools refer to learning institutions where there exist students of a single sex,
either boys or girls. These schools are also referred to as single gender
institutions. It is mostly common in the secondary and tertiary stages of
education. In single sex learning institutions the different genders of
students attend detached classrooms or go to class in different structures.
Mixed schools, on the other hand, are schools with a combination of both girls
and boys as students who attend the same classes in the same buildings without
any form of separation, as happens with single gender learning institutions.
Over the years, there have been different reasons for the existence of single
sex schools that have been put forward. The most significant reason however, is
to improve the academic performance of either the boys or girls through the
improvement of the educational occurrences they go through. The big question
about these single sex schools has, for the longest time, been whether or not
such schools enhance learning. Although it has been argued, and correctly so,
that such sex segregated schools enhance learning for girls, little has been
said about boys. Though many people are ignorant of this fact, such schools
actually tend to enhance learning for boys. Of particular interest in the last
couple of years has been the variance in the academic performance of boys in
the subject of mathematics as compared to the girls’. After long periods of
boys performing way better in mathematic than girls, many studies have been
conducted to ascertain whether there would be a change in the trend if the
different genders attended different mathematics classes. In most schools all
over the world, the inclusion of Mathematics in the curricula is of utmost
importance, for more or less the same reasons. The main objective of the
subject is to foster clearness and perspicuity of the learners thinking
patterns; mathematics is aimed at assisting the learners, both in their school
life and existence outside the school, in the following up of postulation and
suppositions to a rational end result, through the integration of everything
they have learnt.
Studies
conducted in the elementary and middle school stages of learning in the U.S.
about Algebra and the distinct variance in performance between boys and girls
implied that the boys and girls had different attitudes, (Kaiser & Rogers,
1995), towards mathematics which were accordingly being displayed in their
varying performances. The attitudes may have their roots back in the ancient
and medieval periods of history when there existed different subjects and curricula
for sons and daughters; it was in such periods that the boys were encouraged to
learn arithmetic’s- addition, multiplying, subtraction and division- while the
girls were encouraged to learn sewing, cooking and other home related tasks. This
was because of the fact that Math was perceived as being too difficult for
women and only the men could handle it competently. According to Klein (2007),
learning and doing extremely well in arithmetic was a proof of the young men’s
nobleness and gallantry. It is most probably for this reason, that many
psychiatrists and academicians claim that the girls have higher frequencies of negative
mind-sets and anxieties towards mathematics as compared to boys. This anxiety
has been described as a feeling of nervousness, dread or trepidation that obstructs
good performance in arithmetic. It is asserted that when a student gets
apprehensive about arithmetic, they have a propensity for evading circumstances
that might necessitate their performing math related equations; this evasion,
in turn, causes lack of practice which is crucial if a student is to perform
well in the subject (Gurian, Steven & Daniel, 2009). It then leads to lower
and lower proficiency and the student continues to perform badly if not worse. The
fact that there exist very few or no records or mentioning of female mathematicians
or printed editions of books about mathematics by women only servers to
strengthen the misplaced attitude that math is a boy’s subject. This difference
in levels of confidence and motivation towards mathematics is what has
necessitated different math instructions for the two groups. It has also been
posited that the gender disparities in performance in mathematics vary with
age. This is because in the very early stages of their education, between ages
6 and 10 years, the difference between boys and girls in regards to scores in
arithmetic is very slim or non-existent. As they grow older and join high
school, however, the gap widens. The gap becomes even wider when the students
join college because the boys show a higher inclination than girls in the
enrollment to mathematic related careers, (Klein, 2007).
Another
area of great contention, according to Gurian, Steven and Daniel 2009, which has
played a chief role in the setting up of different mathematics instruction for
boys and girls, is the fact that the instructional procedures and teaching
methodologies that have been applied for a long time now in the teaching of
arithmetic in mixed classes are gender prejudiced and put the girl students at
a demerit. This in turn, serves to erode the girls’ buoyancy and assurance in
tackling the subject; their interest in the subject is also smothered. The set
of courses and program of study for mathematics is a very sensitive issue, more
so due to the fact that this is an unavoidable and obligatory subject of all
schools in America. The teaching methodologies that are practiced in an
arithmetic class should therefore be those that encourage the enjoyment and participation
of both the boy and girl child in the learning process; they should also be
methodologies that cater for the probability of the presence a few very gifted
students in math and a vast group that lacks the enthusiasm or competence
required to score well in the subject.
The
single gender math instruction for boys has been very successful since its
commencement in America. From the early stages of their lives, boys are
socialized very differently from girls- both at home and in most social
settings. Many times the girls, due to being conceived as delicate, receive
help and assistance whenever they go through any difficulties, a thing which
cannot be said to be true for boys. It is only natural then that the boys learn
to work hard at solving their problems and being relentless until they get
solutions; these are the very same qualities that are vital in any mathematics
class. Although they were not performing as badly as girls to begin with, the
performance of the boys tends to be better and they score higher as contrasted
to when they receive instruction in mixed classrooms. There have been several
reasons for this dramatic improvement. Firstly, in many American schools the
girls view the subject mathematic as being “gross”. Boys who perform very well
in mathematics and science related subjects are referred to as “nerds” or
“geeks” and have to undergo persistent teasing and sometimes avoidance by the
girls who don’t want to be associated with nerds. To be able to gain acceptance
the boys put up shows and pretend not be so interested in math; in single
instruction classes, however, the boys do not have to put up any shows and they
have no need to impress anybody. This enables them to relax and learn which in
turn causes the better performance (Gurian, Steven & Daniel, 2009). Another
obvious reason as why the boys in single gender math instruction classes have
seen a rise in their mathematic scores is because in a single gender class,
there are sexual distractions. It is to be noted that while in elementary and
high school the learners undergo different developmental changes in different
areas of their lives; they go through emotional, mental, psychological and most
significantly, physical transformations which affect their feelings and the way
they view members of the opposite sex. When in their own classrooms, the boys
have little or no such distractions, (Gurian et al, 2009); if they do have
them, they quickly get over it by focusing all their energies into their
studies- particularly- mathematics and the other mathematics related science
subjects (Glasser & Michigan State University, 2008).
Klein
2007, also asserts that this improved performance of the boys could also be due
to the fact that in a boys’ only class, the boys are listened to and their
needs are effectively taken care of by their tutors as opposed to when they are
in a mixed class. In mixed classes the teachers tend to give preeminence and be
more inclined to the needs of the girls who are, as earlier stated, perceived
to be more delicate and fragile while the boys are sidelined. These two
different genders also tend to have different perspectives and view points on
similar topics and events. In a boy class it would be easier to develop and
retain the interest of the learners if the teacher maintains a loud and
interactive atmosphere since boys are generally more energetic than girls,
especially during adolescence. The girls on the other hand, are perceived to be
more sensitive prefer quieter discussions. Topics that the girls would find
dangerous, geeky or disgusting have been proved to be the same topics that boys
like most and find very interesting. As opposed to girls, boys tend to work
better under pressure and the confrontational approach towards them in the
teaching and learning environment tends to yield better results than the softer
and gentler approach preferred by girls. In a boys’ only class, therefore, the
teacher has the leeway of formulating the teaching methodologies into those
that fit the boy child most and consequently ensuring that the boys find the
arithmetic classes entertaining, challenging and educative at the same time.
All these factors when put together, have a propensity for making the boys love
the subject, work hard at it and consequently perform much better than when in
a mixed class.
Despite
the advantages that are clearly seen when the boys and girls learn in different
classes, particularly in the subject of math, there are several disadvantages
that have been posited by those who argue that the single sex classes are
actually detrimental to the lives of both boys and girls, both in the school
and in the outside life thereafter. Firstly, the full responsibility of
American education to its citizens lies squarely on the shoulders of the
government and the distinct districts. Since the early nineteenth century the
major objective of American public education has been to provide all its
citizens with learning regardless of their color, religion, race, economic
status or gender. For a very long time in history girls have been discriminated
against education wise and it is only recently that they have been considered
for admission to certain schools to do certain courses. The issue of educating
boys and girls in different classrooms whether it is for math or any other subject
comes in bad taste to several women and girls’ rights activists and is perceived
as intended to continue discriminating against the girls in the quality and
quantity of education that they get; this is regardless of the fact that there
are also gender distinctive classes and schools for girls as well. Another
disadvantage of the single gender math instruction is the fact that sometimes
the schools that want to implement this kind of learning do not have the
required number of students needed for such instruction to be effective; this
has in fact been an impediment for the implementation of such techniques in the
teaching of math. The running of single sex schools or establishment of single
gender instruction for the different subjects in the American curriculum for
public schools is a very expensive endeavor and the government and districts
are under pressure with the financial plan limitations. These constraints, in turn
tend to be a great disadvantage to the learners since they cannot be provided
with the necessary resources they need for effective learning and consequently
academic excellence.
It has also been asserted by Blakemore et al
(2008) that such kind of instruction for the males or boys has had several
negative effects on their perspective of girls and women in general. It is
argued that as compared to boys who attend mixed schools where there are common
interactions and even friendships with girls, boys in single sex class schools
and classes have certain stereotypes towards girls and they find it very
difficult to establish relationships with them. Although there have been
counter arguments saying the exact opposite of this is true, Glasser, 2008,
argues that the socialization process for boys and girls takes place better
when they are put together but under the supervision of professional and/ or experienced
tutors and counselors.
Conclusively,
as Hoy & Hoy (2006) assert, at the end of the day, whether the girls and
boys receive mathematic instructions in the same class or not, is not really
the main issue here. Putting them in different classes with dissimilar tutoring
may have its advantages and disadvantages for the learners, especially in the
mathematic subject, but this only presents interim solutions to the real problem.
The real problem in the American educational system, as with many others in the
world, is for the policy makers and producers of the curricula to come up with
educational policies that indeed serve the responsibility of socially, mentally
and morally transforming the learners into responsible and self reliant
citizens even after school. It then becomes necessary to recommend reforms both
in the teaching methodologies and environments that surround the learning of
mathematics. There needs to be a greater investment of time, money and
resources to ensure that mathematic teachers are efficiently trained to handle
the subject proficiently, with the needs of both boys and girls being put into
deliberation. The mathematic curriculum should also be revised. Instead of just
being structured in a way that suggests it is only training the learners in
elementary school to be able to fit well in the later stages of education, the
American mathematic curriculum from an early age should be one that is
determined to enable the learners to handle the variety of problems they will
encounter in life more proficiently; this is bearing in mind that a majority of
learners in America drop out or leave school during or just after their
elementary stage of education ( Bleche & southern Illinois University at
Carbondale). The concerned boards of examinations should also go back to the
drawing table and investigate why there is a high population of students
performing poorly in the subject as compared to others; it could be the skills
being tested that do not correlate to the subject matter taught in class or
vice versa. If that is the case, there needs to be a paradigm shift in setting
of the evaluation test to those that actually test what is expected to have
been learnt.
References
Blakemore, J. E. O., Berenbaum,
S. A., Lynn & Liben, S.: Gender development Psychology
Press,
2008
Blechle, N. M. & Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale: Curriculum and
Instruction
Attitudes toward mathematics and mathematical
performance: A comparison of single-sex and mixed-sex mathematics classrooms in
a mixed-sex United States public school. ProQuest, 2007
Datnow, A, & Hubbard,
L.: Gender in policy and practice:
perspectives on single-sex and
coeducational schooling. Routledge,
2002
Diop, M.: Single-Gender Schools and the Inner-City;
Can They Work? Mateen Diop, 2010
Glasser, H. M. & Michigan
State University: Single-sex middle
school science classrooms:
Separate and equal? ProQuest,
2008
Gurian, M., Stevens, K.
& Daniels, P.: Successful single-sex
classrooms: a practical guide to
teaching boys and girls separately.
John
Wiley and Sons, 2009
Hoy, A. W. & Hoy,
W. K.: Instructional leadership: a
learning-centered guide. Pearson/A
and
B, 2006
Klein, S. S.: Handbook for achieving gender equity through
education. Routledge,
2007
Pajares, F. & Urdan,
T. C.: Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents. IAP, 2006
Programme for
International Student Assessment & Organization for Economic Co-operation
and
Development: Equally prepared for life:
how 15-year-old boys and girls perform in school. OECD Publishing, 2009
Rogers, P. & Kaiser,
G.: Equity in mathematics education:
influences of feminism and culture
Taylor
& Francis, 1995
Slavin, R. E.:
Educational psychology: theory and
practice Pearson/Allyn
& Bacon, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment