Sex Roles

, Volume 55, Issue 5–6, pp 397–408 | Cite as

The Gender Gap in Language Achievement: The Role of School-Related Attitudes of Class Groups

  • Eva Van de gaer
  • Heidi Pustjens
  • Jan Van Damme
  • Agnes De Munter
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The present study was designed to examine how the attitudinal composition of class groups is related to the gender gap in language achievement at the end of secondary education. Data were drawn from the LOSO project and multilevel analyses were used. The results showed that the attitudes of the class groups, and, more specifically, the attitudes of same-sex classmates, had a stronger impact on the language achievement of boys than on the language achievement of girls. No gender differences were found in classes where students had good relationships with teachers, were motivated, and where students felt integrated, whereas boys performed less well than girls in classes where students did not have good relationship with teachers, were not very motivated, and felt poorly integrated.

Keywords

Gender difference Language achievement School-related attitudes Class groups 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arnot, M., David, M., & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing the gender gap: Postwar education and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, J. M., Dunlap, S. T., Dane, H., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). Classroom environment influences on aggression, peer relations, and academic focus. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berndt, T. (1999). Friends’ influence on students’ adjustment to school. Educational Psychologist, 34, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess, S., McConnell, B., Propper, C., & Wilson, D. (2004). Girls rock, boys roll: An analysis of the age 14–16 gender gap in English schools. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51, 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, R. B., & Mason, D. A. (2002). Class composition and student achievement in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 207–233.Google Scholar
  6. Caldas, S., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 269–277.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, X. (1997). Students’ peer groups in high school: The pattern and relationship to educational outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A., & Trafford, J. (1995). Boys into modern languages: An investigation of the discrepancy in attitudes and performance between boys and girls in modern languages. Gender and Education, 7, 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in educational settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., & Weifeld, F., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  12. Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, J., & Brember, I. (2001). The closing gender gap in attitudes between boys and girls: A 5 year longitudinal study. Educational Psychology, 21, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engels, N., Aelterman, A., Van Petegem, K., & Schepens, A. (2004). Factors which influence the well-being of pupils in Flemish secondary schools. Educational Studies, 30, 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Firebaugh, G. (1980). Groups as contexts and frog ponds. In K. H. Roberts & L. Burstein (Eds.), Issues in aggregation (pp. 43–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls, and achievement: Addressing the classroom issues. London: Routledge/Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 687–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, R., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Masculinity goes to school. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gorard, S., Rees, G., & Salisbury, J. (2001). Investigating the patterns of differential attainment of boys and girls at school. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., Markman, J., & Rivkin, S. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harker, R., & Tymms, P. (2004). The effects of student composition on school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauser, R. M. (1970). Context and consex: A cautionary tale. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 645–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Hack, S., Clark, H., & Plewis, I. (2002). Ability grouping in English secondary schools: Effects on attainment in English, mathematics, and science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, C. (2003). Motives for ‘ladishness’ at school: Fear of failure and fear of the ‘feminine’. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson, C. (2004). ‘Wild’ girls. An exploration of the ‘ladette’ cultures in secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Manchester, UK (September).Google Scholar
  27. Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools. American Sociological Review, 51, 842–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kleinfeld, J. (1999). Student performance: Males versus females. Public Interest, 134, 3–16.Google Scholar
  29. Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Lamb, S. (1997). Gender differences in mathematics participation: An Australian perspective. Educational Studies, 23, 105–126.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, V. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case for school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martino, W. (1999). ‘Cool boys’, ‘party animals’, ‘squids’, and ‘poofters’: Interrogating the dynamics and politics of adolescent masculinities in school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paechter, C. (1998). Educating the other: Gender, power, and schooling. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., & Healy, M., et al. (2000). A user’s guide to MlwiN. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  35. Renold, E. (2001). Learning the ‘hard’ way: Boys, hegemonic masculinity, and the negotiation of learner identities in the primary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135–1150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Safford, K., O’Sullivan, O., & Barrs, M. (2004). Boys on the margin: Promoting boys’ literacy and learning at key stage 2. London: Centre for Literacy in Primary Education.Google Scholar
  38. Salisbury, J., & Rees, G. (1999). Accounting for the different attainment of boys and girls at school. School Leadership and Management, 19, 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwalbe, M. L., & Staples, C. L. (1991). Gender differences in sources of self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced modelling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Sutherland, M. B. (1999). Gender equity in success at school. International Review of Education, 45, 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Damme, J., De Fraine, B., Van Landeghem, G., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Onghena, P. (2002). A new study on educational differences in secondary schools in Flanders: An introduction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (Eds.). (2002). Educational effectiveness in secondary schools in Flanders [Special issue]. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(4).Google Scholar
  44. van den Oord, E., & Van Rossem, R. (2002). Differences in first graders’ school adjustment: The role of classroom characteristics and social structure of the group. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walsh, M., Hickey, C., & Duffy, J. (1999). Influence of item content and stereotype situation on gender differences in mathematical problem solving. Sex Roles, 41, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warrington, M., Younger, M., & Williams, J. (2000). Students’ attitudes, image, and the gender gap. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Whitelaw, S., Milosevic, L., & Daniels, S. (2000). Gender, behavior, and achievement: A preliminary study of pupil perceptions and attitudes. Gender and Education, 12, 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkinson, I., Hattie, J. A., Judy, M., Townsend, M. A. R., Fung, I., Ussher, C., et al. (2000). Influence of peer effects on learning outcomes: A review of the literature. Auckland: Auckland UniservicesGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, T., Williams, K., Kastberg, D., & Jocelyn, L. (2005). Achievement and affect in OECD nations. Oxford Review of Education, 31, 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yates, L. (1997). Gender equity and the boys’ debate: What sort of challenge is it? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17, 299–314.Google Scholar
  51. Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (1996). Differential achievement of girls and boys at GCSE: Some observations from the perspective of one school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17, 299–314.Google Scholar
  52. Zimowski, M. F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R. J. & Bock, R. D. (1994). BIMAIN™2: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary outcomes. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Van de gaer
    • 1
  • Heidi Pustjens
    • 1
  • Jan Van Damme
    • 1
  • Agnes De Munter
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Educational Effectiveness and EvaluationK.U.Leuven, CO&ELouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Research Centre Women and EducationK.U.LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations