Affective Domain Progression in Single-Sex and Coeducational Schools

  • Harkirat S. DhindsaEmail author
  • Siti-Zahrani Binti Haji Md Salleh


Students who study science in single-sex and coeducational schools have attracted lots of attention from the education community. However, changes to students’ attitudes toward science as they progress to higher grades in these schools are not clearly understood. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in attitudes toward science among lower secondary students (Grade 7 to Grade 9) in single-sex and coeducational schools in Brunei. A cross-sectional survey design was used to collect data from 1,034 students. Despite a significant nonlinear decline in attitudes toward science from Grade 7 to Grade 9, the attitudes remained positive. This decline in attitudes toward science was at a minimum for students in the coeducational school, and it followed the following order: single-sex boys > single-sex girls > coeducational students. The decline was independent of the initial perceived values of the students’ attitudes, and it followed different trends when the data of the same-sex students from single-sex and coeducational schools were compared. Male students from the SSB school had more chances for significant decline as they progressed from Year 7 to Year 9. Brunei and countries with similar intentions to expand single-sex and coeducation school systems can target communication between single-sex and coeducation schools so they may learn from each other to improve the effectiveness of science teaching and learning processes. We expect that academics and administrators can benefit from the results of this study to guide their secondary science education policies, curriculum reforms, and teaching practices.


Attitudes Gender education Science Secondary single-sex education 

Supplementary material

10763_2015_9692_MOESM1_ESM.doc (299 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 299 kb)


  1. Aiken, L. R. (1979). Update on attitudes and other affective variable in leaning mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 46, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akpınara, E., Yıldıza, E., Tatarb, N. & Ergina, O. (2009). Students’ attitudes toward science and technology: an investigation of gender, grade level, and academic achievement. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2804–2808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barmby, P., Kind, P. & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1075–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, M. W. (2008). Social influence by artefacts. Diogenes, 55, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Crites, S. L., Jr. (1994). Attitude change. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of human behaviour (pp. 261–270). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cheung, D. (2009). Developing a scale to measure students’ attitudes toward chemistry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2185–2203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for behavioural sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Curebal, F. (2004). Gifted students’ attitudes towards science and classroom environment based on gender and grade level (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  11. Demers, S., & Bennett, C. (2007). Single-sex classrooms. What Works? Research into Practice, 4. Retrieved from
  12. Dhindsa, H. S. & Chung, G. (2003). Attitudes and achievement of Bruneian science students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 907–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhindsa, H.S. (2005). Cultural learning environment of upper secondary science students. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 575–592.Google Scholar
  14. Dhindsa, H. S. & Fraser, B. J. (2011). Culturally-sensitive factors in the learning environment of science classrooms in Brunei Darussalam. Open Education Journal, 4, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dhindsa, H. S. & Khadijah-Mohd-Salleh, H. (2006). Attitudes of Bruneian secondary science students in non-government schools. In H. S. Dhindsa, I. J. Kyeleve, O. Chukwu & J. S. H. Q. Perera (Eds.), Shaping the future of science, mathematics and technical education (pp. 42–51). Gadong: Universiti Brunei Darussalam.Google Scholar
  16. Dhindsa, H. S., & Shahrizal-Emran (2007). Using constructivist-informed and technology-rich learning environment to minimize gender differences in students’ achievement. Paper presented at Fulbrighters in Science Conference, Panama City, Panama..Google Scholar
  17. Diaconu, D. (2010). Learning More Science in Single-Sex Schools? Findings from Hong Kong, SAR and New Zealand from TIMSS 1995, 1999, and 2003. Paper presented at the 4th IEA international research conference held at University of Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  18. Dwyer, C. A. & Johnson, L. M. (1997). Grades, accomplishments, and correlates. In W. W. Willingham & N. S. Cole (Eds.), Gender and fair assessment (pp. 127–156). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Dzulkifli, M. A. & Alias, I. A. (2012). Students of low academic achievement—their personality, mental abilities and academic performance: How counsellor can help? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2, 220–225.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, G. & Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ewing-Cooper, A. R. & Parker, M. V. (2013). Student perceptions of preparedness for academic success: The impact of an advisor taught orientation course in family and consumer sciences. NACTA, 57, 2–5.Google Scholar
  22. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Gable, R. K. (1986). Instrument development in affective domain. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. George, R. (2000). Measuring change in students attitudes to science over time: An application of latent variable growth modelling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. George, R. (2006). A cross-domain analysis of change in students’ attitudes towards science and attitudes about the utility of science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 571–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hadden, R. A. & Johnstone, A. H. (1983). Secondary school pupils’ attitudes to science: The year of erosion. European Journal of Science Education, 5, 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of the values and beliefs in relation to science and technology amongst 11–21 year olds. London, England: Nestle Social Research Programme.Google Scholar
  29. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heppner, F. H., Heppner, M. C. & Leong, Y. P. (1997). Teachers’ estimates of and measurements of students’ reading ability, and readability of text materials in English as a second language secondary biology course. Journal of Applied Research in Education, 1, 31–39.Google Scholar
  31. Hovland, C. I. & Sherif, M. (1980). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  32. Jegede, O. J. & Fraser, B. (1989). Influence of socio-cultural factors in secondary school students’ attitudes towards science. Research in Science Education, 19, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jelas, Z. M. & Dahan, H.M. (2010) Gender and educational performance: The Malaysian Perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 7, 720–727.Google Scholar
  34. Kaplan, D. (2009). Latent growth curve modelling. In Structural modelling: Foundation and extension (2nd ed., pp. 155–181). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Lim, P. S. & Abdullah, L. Y. M. N. (2012). Relationship between Big-Five personality domains and students’ academic achievement. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 20, 973–988.Google Scholar
  36. National Foundation of Education Research. (2011). Exploring young people’s views on science education. London, England: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  37. Orbay, M., Gokdere, M., Tereci, H. & Aydin, M. (2010). Attitudes of gifted students towards science depending on some variables: A Turkish sample. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 693–699.Google Scholar
  38. Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Osman, K. & Halim, L. (2004). Anchoring science education towards scientifically literate Malaysian society: An experience of children affective site. In S. Begum (Ed.), epiSTEME-1 (pp. 36–38). Goa: Citeseer.Google Scholar
  40. Patterson, M. M. & Pahlke, E. (2011). Student characteristics associate with girls’ success in single-sex schools. Sex Roles, 65, 737–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pell, T. & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal in Science Education, 23, 847–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reiss, M. (2004). Students’ attitudes towards science: A long term perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 4, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Russell, S. (2007). Benefits and disadvantages of single-sex education. Retrieved on May 18, 2015, from
  44. Salomone, R. C. (2006). Single-sex programs: resolving the research conundrum. Teachers College Record, 108, 778–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scantlebury, K. & Baker, D. (2007). Gender issues in science education research: Remembering where the difference lies. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 257–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Sorge, C. (2007). What happens? Relationship of age and gender with science attitudes from elementary to middle school. Science Educator, 16, 33–37.Google Scholar
  47. Yasushi, O. (2009). Comparison of attitudes towards science between grades 9 and 10 Japanese students using PISA questions and its implications on science teaching in Japan. Paper presented at the PISA research conference in Kiel, Germany.Google Scholar
  48. Younger, M. & Warrington, M. (2002). Single-sex teaching in co-educational comprehensive schools in England: An evaluation based upon students’ performance and classroom interactions. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harkirat S. Dhindsa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Siti-Zahrani Binti Haji Md Salleh
    • 2
  1. 1.MESH, Office of the Pro Vice Chancellor (Education)Western Sydney UniversityPenrithAustralia
  2. 2.Rimba II Model SchoolMinistry of EducationBandar Seri BegawanBrunei

Personalised recommendations