|
|
Single-sex teaching
The evidence on the benefits of single sex classrooms is inconsistent and inconclusive, especially in showing any impact on attainment. Single sex classrooms have often been introduced for a number of different reasons and so it is difficult to reach an overall conclusion on their merits.
Purposes of Single Sex Teaching
Warrington and Younger (2004) described the reasons why single sex teaching can be adopted:
- To encourage able girls to become more involved in lessons and to boost confidence in scientific abilities (i.e. an equal opportunities strategy).
- To encourage boys to work more collaboratively and to develop the social skills necessary for working in mixed groups in subsequent years.
- To address the underachievement of boys, and specifically in some schools, the gender gap in English and/or modern languages.
- To limit the effect of boys' bad behaviour and lessen boys' need to be 'laddish'.
Measuring Impact
As a result of the diverse reasons for implementing this strategy, researchers have measured a number of outcomes. In addition, as the strategies have often been measured after only a short implementation period, it is difficult to measure impact especially in terms of improvements in attainment. Often it is teachers' and pupils' perceptions that are measured.
Pupils' Responses to Single Sex Grouping
The evidence on pupils' responses to single sex grouping is mixed. Younger et al. (2005) found that boys and girls may feel more at ease in single sex classes, feel more able to interact with learning and feel free to show interest in the lesson without inhibition. It was felt that there can be positive effects on achievement for boys in modern languages and girls in science and maths.
However, Sukhanandan et al. (2000) (who conducted 8 case studies) found that boys and girls responded differently. Boys (and teachers) felt that the use of fast paced, highly structured lessons with short-term tasks made lessons more enjoyable and interesting. In addition, boys' levels of distraction were reduced and there was greater self-confidence in lessons. Male role models helped to challenge boys' stereotypical perception of the 'feminine' nature of language subjects.
Girls, on the other hand, accrued less benefit from the arrangements, and this may reflect the observation in other research in this area, that boys' single sex lessons are adapted and tailored more than girls' single sex lessons.
Indeed, Younger et al. (2005) argued that the issue of effective teaching styles for boys were "simply discussion about the essence of high quality teaching" (p.86) and that there is no "evidence... that such strategies support the learning of boys more than girls... we do not accept the claim that girls' classes require a less active, less structured, less interactive, less varied pedagogy than boys' classes" (p.86).
Disadvantages of Single Sex Teaching
Researchers have also noted some disadvantages of single sex teaching. Sukhnandan et al. (2000) argue that tailoring lessons to the different learning styles of boys and girls can be problematic:
" ...'matching' the learning styles of boys and girls can be perceived as an approach that simply reinforces the different learning styles of boys and girls by exploiting the areas where they are strong and by ignoring their areas of weakness. Although this may lead to increased pupil achievement in terms of examination performance, it may have detrimental effects on pupil achievement at a broader level." (p.28).
Additionally, Younger et al. (2005) found that some boys-only classes became challenging to teach, with boys' behaviour worsening and laddish behaviour increasing:
"...in some schools, boys-only classes have become very challenging to teach, or stereotyping of expectation has established a macho regime which has alienated some boys." (p.7).
Summary on Single Sex Teaching
There are some perceived advantages to teaching boys and girls separately, but the evidence is mixed and the impact on attainment is not known. Riordan (2002 cited by Smithers and Robinson, 2006) argued that the academic culture and ethos of the school is the key to success and that it is doubtful whether single sex classes within a co-educational school could be expected to have a major impact, especially as mixing or separating the sexes in schools does not appear to have any consistent effects.
|
