Single-Sex Education - Literature review Example

Single-Sex Education Education refers to a form of learning in which the skills, Knowledge and habits of people are transferred from one generation to the other through training, research and teaching under the guidance of others. It is therefore important to note that education is not just mere academics but broad and any experience that formatively impacts on the way individuals think, acts or feel is considered educational (Mingol, 457). Single sex education refers to the practice of carrying out educational activities in which female and male students normally attend separate classes within different buildings or separate schools. This system was very common in the period before nineteenth century; however, educational research has raised more questions than answers on the effectiveness of this system in education. Proponents of single sex education believe that teaching or learning in environment fostered by one gender is more conducive for learning than those in co-educational systems. However, opponents of single sex education argue that co-educational schools exposes learners not only to academics but also to other important experiences that are important for them to succeeded in life. This has raised great controversy and debate among educational policy makers. Research has shown that boys perform better academically when they are taught in co-educational schools while girls gain more and are likely to improve their performances in segregated schools. However, it is important to note that education success is not only measured on the basis of academic success. According to Kessels and Bettina (284), the schools play vital roles as an agency in social construction of gender, yet the curriculum of many schools has been criticized for perpetuating gender stereotyped behavior. The evidence from research and empirical data show that single sex education is beneficial to the girls’ performance while male students perform better in coeducation system. This paper provides a review of research that support this point of argument and shows that coeducation system help achieve high grades and prepares male students better for real world challenges while their female counterparts record higher academic achievements in single sex schools. Current studies have broadened this debate to include other aspects of education rather than academic achievements. Many studies have supported the argument that single sex education results into higher grades for girls in higher institutions of learning as well as in low elementary education. However, other studies argue that these benefits are none existence or trivial. Strange, Ann, and Simon (203), examined the views of young learners on sex education and how they feel about being in single or coeducational system. This study focused on the young people of the age between 15 and sixteen in thirteen co-educational English secondary schools showed that majority of the boys support the co-education as the preferred system for delivering sex education to them (Strange, Ann, and Simon, 2013). These results show how the interaction in sexual health issues with respect to sex education. The evidence from current research on neuropsychological research does not support the idea that girls and boys learn differently. Psychologists argue that the brain mechanisms through which learners acquire math, language, and physics in their experiences in education do not differ between boys and girls. Analysis of U.S. coeducation schools and single sex schools showed that there are no significant differences or benefits that are gained by girls or boys in these cases. While there is evidence I support of opposite sex serving as a distraction for students within the classroom, current evidence shows that segregating students in terms of gender differences results into great loss of true education for young learners. As stated by Mingol (568), diverse classrooms provide platforms for different perspectives, countless questions, a variety of interests and constructive interaction which do not only add to excitement in learning but also provide opportunity for gender identity. Educational professionals in support of coeducation have also argued that students of the opposite sex contribute a lot to each other thus both boys and girls benefit from one another in the company of the opposite sexes. As stated by Mingol (Mingol, 568), education must incorporate real world experiences and not just mere academic excellence. They also argued that we need coeducation since we have to prepare students for future families, workplaces interactions, homes and interaction within the societies. In this respect, constructive interaction can only be achieved well by ensuring that young girls and boys are exposed to the opposite sex thus they learn to solve their problems and appreciate their differences. For instance, how can we expect the young learners to appreciate and respect gender differences as adults if they are not taught to form healthy relationships as well as have appropriate dialogues and positive interactions? It is therefore important to note that coeducation promote healthy relationships among learners which is vital for future success in families, workplaces and the society in general. Blue et al (79) surveyed 88 students studying in four colleges as follows, two women’s colleges, one men’s college and one coeducational college. The surveys main question was about participation within class particularly in calc based physics class, their self efficacy as well as their attitudes towards the class. The results of this study were pretty interesting with all students from different colleges showing different achievements. However, the scores of male students in coeducation was the highest followed by those at single schooled women while the students in men’s college were the least. These results are consistent with other results that showed that female learners benefit more than their male counterparts in single sex educational system. According to Jackson (228), the arguments supporting single sex education are merely recognizes the notion of fundamental sex differences between male and female but fails to interrogate whether such differences are social , biological or individually constructed. The overall results of this study shows that female students still benefit from attending single sex schools than men. However, this is also an indication that there could be something that is happening in women’s college that is not at the coeducation school that makes female students feel that they can achieve higher marks or motivated. The other perspective is that female students who choose to attend single sex schools could be different in one way hence making them more self-efficacious (Jackson, 236). The other perspective of the results of this study is that there could be something going on at the male student’s school that could be affecting them negatively. It is however important to acknowledge that a lot of research has recorded similar results for men in single sex education as well as those in coeducation. Single sex or coeducation has also generated a lot of debate with respect to special education and overrepresentation of males and minority. Several studies in the early 90s had concluded that there is overrepresentation of minorities and males in special education. Single gender education for people with special needs is based on the argument that there are inherent biological differences between females and males and that these differences are likely to manifest within the classroom behavior. This would have serious implications on pedagogical practices. Piechura-Couture et al (235), examined whether different educational systems like single-gender education can mould the behavior of boys and reduce the number of special education referrals. In view of this, they examined the perception of students, teachers and parents with respect to the impact of single gendered classrooms on males. The results of the above study showed that single gender format is an alternative that should be explored to reduce the overrepresentation of minorities and males in special education system. This contradicts the evidence that supports coeducation as beneficial for male students. It is however important to note that this study focused on the behavior and note educational achievement. According to Piechura-Couture et al (242), behavioral as well as the outcomes of academics can be shaped to a greater extend when teachers carefully shape instructions to meet the needs of the students. This study also suggests that in a single-gender learning environment in which the teachers have developed boy-friendly lessons that give rooms for direct talk with the teacher, physical movement and elevated noise levels is likely to result into a positive outcome (Piechura-Couture et al, 243). Referral issues to special education are typically due to delayed academic progress and behavioral issues thus single-gendered can be adopted to get positive outcome. These findings were also supported by the empirical data from Carolina’s single-gendered elementary school particularly in the fourth and fifth grade which shows a staggering reduction rates in male students compared to their colleagues in coeducational classes. The results of this study and supported by the empirical data shows that behavior is highly improved in single gender schools. Some analysts have recently linked single sex education and coeducation with performance and success in the labor market after graduating from college or schools. Although there is very little evidence on the question of whether single sex education is related to success and participation in the labor market, certain findings have either supported or disapproved the notion. Sullivan et al (313), examined the single sex schooling and coeducation graduates with respect to occupational attainment, labor market participation as well as hourly wages that they are paid. This study involved several controls with respected to factors before enrolling, childhood circumstances and the attained qualifications after graduating from high school. The findings of this study showed that there is no evidence linking educational system whether mixed or single sex schools to the performance of males in the labor market while girls who attended single sexed schools were successful (Sullivan et al, 330). Moreover, the results also show that women who had attended single sex schools earned more than their counterparts who attended coeducation schools. However, males who attended private schools showed high level excellence in the labor market as compared to their female counterparts. These studies support the arguments for single sex education for girls and are consistence with other results from previous studies. Conclusions Results from many studies shows that girls studying in single sex-schools perform better than their male counterparts studying in single-sex boy’s school. However, boys performance was seen to be better in coeducational institutions than single sex schools. It is however important to note that behavior management within single and coeducation schools show different results. Analysis of literature above shows single gender format is an alternative that should be explored to reduce the overrepresentation of minorities and males in special education system. While there is little research linking single sex and coeducation system to the success in the labor market, current findings show that women who had attended single sex schools earned more than their counterparts who attended coeducation schools. Keen examination of all the studies in coeducation and single sex education are also complex with one major limitation. The major limitation is that it is always difficult to and impossible to control other factors that are likely to contribute to students’ success. It is also important to note that education does not only entail mere academic success, but also other aspects of life and we need to prepare them to face real world issues such as relationship within future families, workplaces interactions, homes and develop good relationship with opposite sex within the societies. Works Cited Blue, Jennifer, Mary Elizabeth Mills, and Ellen Yezierski. "Self-Efficacy In Introductory Physics In Students At Single-Sex And Coeducational Colleges." AIP Conference Proceedings 1513.1 (2013): 78-81 Jackson, Janna. "Dangerous Presumptions: How Single-Sex Schooling Reifies False Notions Of Sex, Gender, And Sexuality." Gender & Education 22.2 (2010): 227-238. Kessels, Ursula, and Bettina Hannover. "When Being A Girl Matters Less: Accessibility Of Gender-Related Self-Knowledge In Single-Sex And Coeducational Classes And Its Impact On Students Physics-Related Self-Concept Of Ability." British Journal Of Educational Psychology 78.2 (2008): 273-289. Mingol, Irene Comins. "Coeducation: Teaching Peace From A Gender Perspective." Peace & Change 34.4 (2009): 456-470 Piechura-Couture, Kathy, Elizabeth Heins, and Mercedes Tichenor. "The Boy Factor: Can Single-Gender Classes Reduce The Over-Representation Of Boys In Special Education?." College Student Journal 47.2 (2013): 235-243. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 May 2014. Strange, Vicki, Ann Oakley, and Simon Forrest. "Mixed-Sex Or Single-Sex Sex Education: How Would Young People Like Their Sex Education And Why?." Gender & Education 15.2 (2003): 201 Sullivan, Alice, Heather Joshi, and Diana Leonard. "Single-Sex Schooling and Labour Market Outcomes." Oxford Review Of Education 37.3 (2011): 311-332. Read More