Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 70, Issue 9–10, pp 400–415 | Cite as

Gender Gap in School Science: Are Single-Sex Schools Important?

  • Joanna SikoraEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This paper compares science subject choices and science-related career plans of Australian adolescents in single-sex and coeducational schools. Data from the nationally representative Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth collected from students who were 15 years of age in 2009 show that, in all schools, boys are overrepresented in physical science courses and careers, while girls are overrepresented in life science. It appears that students in all-girls schools are more likely to take physical science subjects and are keener on careers in physics, computing or engineering than their counterparts in coeducational schools. However, multi-level logit regressions reveal that most apparent differences between students in single-sex and coeducational schools are brought about by differentials in academic achievement, parental characteristics, student’s science self-concept, study time and availability of qualified teachers. The only differences remaining after introducing control variables are the higher propensity of boys in single-sex schools to plan a life science career and the marginally lower propensity of girls in girls-only schools to study life science subjects. Thus, single-sex schooling fosters few non-traditional choices of science specialization. The paper discusses the likely consequences of gender segregation in science and a limited potential of single-sex schools to reduce them. The results of the current analysis are contrasted with a comparable study conducted in Australia a decade ago to illustrate the persistence of the gender gap in science field choices.

Keywords

Single-sex schools Gender segregation in science Science and gender Australian education Occupational expectations of adolescents Science subject choice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

“Funding and support for this project was provided by the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations through the National VET Research and Evaluation Program managed by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government, State and Territory governments or NCVER”

References

  1. ABS. (1997). Australian social trends cat. no. 4102: Participation in education-government and non-government schools. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  2. ABS. (2006). ANZSCO-Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics 1st ed.). New Zealand: Statistics ICS. cat. no. 1220.Google Scholar
  3. Ainley, J., & Daly, P. (2002). Participation in science courses in the final year of high school in Australia: The influences of single-sex and coeducational schools. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 243–261). New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  4. Asparouhov, T. (2004). Weighting for unequal probability of selection in multilevel modeling. Mplus Web Notes. Retrieved from http://statmodel2.com/download/webnotes/MplusNote81.pdf
  5. Baker, D. P., Riordan, C., & Schaub, M. (1995). The effects of sex-grouped schooling on achievement: The role of national context. Comparative Education Review, 39, 468–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barone, C. (2011). Some things never change: Gender segregation in higher education across eight nations and three decades. Sociology of Education, 84, 157–176. doi: 10.1177/0038040711402099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bigler, R. S., & Signorella, M. L. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65, 659–669. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0288-x.
  8. Campbell, C., Proctor, H., & Sherington, G. (Eds.). (2009). School choice: How parents negotiate the new school market in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  9. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 924–976. doi: 10.1086/595942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherney, I. D., & Campbell, K. L. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools increase girls’ participation in the physical sciences? Sex Roles, 65, 712–724. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0013-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (Eds.). (2002). Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  12. Dawson, C., & O’Connor, P. (1991). Gender differences when choosing school subjects: Parental push and career pull. Some tentative hypotheses. Research in Science Education, 21, 55–64. doi: 10.1007/BF02360457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feniger, Y. (2011). The gender gap in advanced math and science course taking: Does same-sex education make a difference? Sex Roles, 65, 670–679. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9851-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fullarton, S., & Ainley, J. (2000). Subject choice by students in Year 12 in Australian secondary schools (LSAY research report no 15). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/lsay_research/13/
  15. Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., . . . Martin, C. L. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333, 1706–1707. doi: 10.1126/science.1205031Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, A. R., Pahlke, E. E., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). The efficacy of single-sex education: Testing for selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles, 65, 693–703. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9903-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ho, C. (2011). ‘My School’ and others: Segregation and white flight. Australian Review of Public Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2011/05/ho.html
  18. Ivinson, G., & Murphy, P. (2007). Rethinking single-sex teaching: Gender school subjects and learning. Maidenhead: Mc-Graw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  19. Kalkus, O. A. (2012). Single-sex education: Results one-sided. Science, 335, 165. doi: 10.1126/science.335.6065.165-aGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelley, J., & Evans, M. (1999). Non-catholic private schools and educational success. Australian Social Monitor, 2(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  21. Kelley, J., & Evans, M. (2004). Choice between government, Catholic and Independent schools: Culture and community rather than class. Australian Social Monitor, 7(2), 31–42.Google Scholar
  22. Kessel, C., & Nelson, D. J. (2011). Statistical trends in women’s participation in science: Commentary on Valla and Ceci. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 147–149. doi: 10.1177/1745691611400206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kjaernsli, M., & Lie, S. (2011). Students’ preference for science careers: International comparisons based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 121–144. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.518642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Law, H., & Kim, D. H. (2011). Single-sex schooling and mathematics performance: Comparison of sixteen countries in PISA 2006. Hong Kong Journal of Sociology, 7, 1–24.Google Scholar
  25. Lim, P. (2011). Weighting the LSAY programme of international student assessment cohorts National Centre for Vocational Education Research Technical Report 61. Retrieved from http://www.lsay.edu.au/publications/2429.html
  26. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Department, Policy and Program Studies Service.Google Scholar
  28. Marks, G. N. (2010). Socioeconomic and school sector inequalities in university entrance in australia: The role of the stratified curriculum. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16, 23–37. doi: 10.1080/13803611003711310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mislevy, R. J., Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of item responses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 133–161. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1992.tb00371.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. NCVER. (2012). Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) 2009 Cohort user guide, Technical paper no 74. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.lsay.edu.au/publications/2547.html
  31. OECD. (2009). PISA data analysis manual - SPSS version. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,3746,en_32252351_32236191_42609254_1_1_1_1,00.html
  32. OECD. (2012a). Education at a glance 2012, OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/oecd-eag-2012-en.pdf.
  33. OECD. (2012b). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2009/50036771.pdf.
  34. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1049–1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Park, H., Behrman J. R., & Choi, J. (2011). Single-sex education: Positive effects Science, 335, 165–166. doi:  10.1126/science.1205031
  36. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4, 227–241.Google Scholar
  38. Signorella, M. L., Hayes, A. R., & Li, Y. (2013). A meta-analytic critique of Mael et al’.s (2005) review of single-sex schooling. Sex Roles, 69, 423–441. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0288-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sikora, J. (2014). Gendered pathways into post-secondary study of science. National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/2714.html
  40. Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2011). Gendered career expectations of students: Perspectives from PISA 2006 OECD Education Working Paper No 57. Paris: OECD. doi: 10.1787/5kghw6891gms-en.
  41. Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50 countries. Science Education, 96, 234–264. doi: 10.1002/sce.20479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sikora, J., & Saha, L. J. (2011). Lost talent? The occupational expectations and attainments of young Australians Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth Research Report: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.lsay.edu.au/publications/2313.html.
  43. Smyth, E. (2010). Single-sex education: What does research tell us? Revue Française de Pédagogie, 171, 47–55. Retrieved from http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/revue-francaise-de-pedagogie/RF171-5.pdfGoogle Scholar
  44. van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2010). Cultural capital: Strengths, weaknesses and two advancements. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 157–169. doi: 10.1080/01425690903539065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiseman, A. W. (2008). A culture of (in) equality?: A cross-national study of gender parity and gender segregation in national school systems. Research in Comparative and International Education, 3, 179–201. doi: 10.2304/rcie.2008.3.2.179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations