Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Motivation and Engagement with Physics: a Comparative Study of Females in Single-Sex and Co-educational Classrooms

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been argued that the establishment of single-sex classes for females can increase their motivation and participation in physics. This paper reports on findings from a multi-occasional study among 90 female year 11 physics students across single-sex and co-educational high schools in Australia. The aim of this study was to identify the differences in motivation, engagement and sustained enrolment plans in relation to physics between female students in single-sex from those in co-educational settings. Fine-grained analyses at a physics topic-specific level indicated differences between these cohorts in their interest value, career value, gender-stereotyped attitudes, performance perceptions, sustained engagement and sustained enrolment intentions in relation with physics. Results revealed that both cohorts have high levels of achievement motivation in relation to physics irrespective of their classroom composition; however, females from single-sex schools showed higher values for some constructs across various physics topics. This paper highlights the scarcity of research into females’ sustained participation in physics, once they commence studying physics, and the difference class composition makes to females’ achievement motivation and future enrolment intentions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, J., & Barker, K. (2014). Sustaining young people’s enrolment intentions in relation to physics: Development and validation of a tool. The Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 14, 93–116.

  • Abraham, J., & Barker, K. (2015a) An expectancy-value model for sustained enrolment intentions of senior secondary physics students. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 509–526.

  • Abraham, J., & Barker, K. (2015b). Exploring gender difference in motivation, engagement and enrolment behaviour of senior secondary physics students in New South Wales. Research in Science Education, 45(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9413-2.

  • 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 & London: Routledge Falmer, New York & London, .

  • Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology in Australian education (Research Monograph No 63). Retrieved from Camberwell, Victoria, Australia:

  • Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching (Vol. 88).

  • Archer, L., Moote, J., Francis, B., DeWitt, J., & Yeomans, L. (2017). The “exceptional” physics girl: A sociological analysis of multimethod data from young women aged 10–16 to explore gendered patterns of post-16 participation. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 88–126. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216678379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2008). Girls’ biology, boys’ physics: Evidence from free-choice science learning settings. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701847538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barmby, P., & Defty, N. (2006). Secondary school pupils’ perceptions of physics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140600811585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, G. R. (1999). A motivational model of enrolment intentions in senior secondary science courses in New South Wales Schools. Macarthur: University of Western Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blue,Traxler & Cid (2018).Gender matters physics today 71, 40 ; https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3870

  • Blickenstaff, J. 2005. Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?. Gender and Education, 17(4): 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072.

  • Bodkin-Andrews, G., O’Rourke, V., Grant, R., Denson, N., & Craven, R. (2010). Validating racism and cultural respect: Testing the psychometric properties and educational impact of perceived discrimination and multiculturation for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(6), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2010.550497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. NJ: Erlbaum: Mahwah.

  • Carlone, H. B. (2003). (Re)producing good science students: girls’ participation in high school physics. 9(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v9.i1.20.

  • Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20006.

  • Cavas, B., Cavas, P., Yılmaz, H., & Kesercioglu, T. (2010). What I want to learn about physics topics: A general picture of Turkish Rose Survey. Paper presented at the XIV IOSTE Symposium, Socio-cultural and Human Values in Science and Technology Education, Bled.

  • Chapman, S., & Vivian, R. (2017). Engaging the future of STEM: A study of international best practice for promoting the participation of young people, particularly girls, in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). In. Sydney: Chief Executive Women.

  • Crossman, M. 1987. “Teachers’ interactions with girls and boys in science lessons’. In Science for girls?, Edited by: Kelly, A. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

  • Daly, P. (1995). Science course participation and science achievement in single sex and co-educational schools. Evaluation & Research in Education, 9(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500799509533376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W.H.: Freeman.

  • Eccles, J., O’Neill, S., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Ability self-perceptions and subjective task values in adolescents and children. In K. A. M. L. H. Lippman (Ed.), What Do Children Need to Flourish? (Vol. Vol. 3, pp. 237–249): Springer US.

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003.

  • Elwood, J., & Gipps, C. (1999). Review of recent research on the achievement of girls in single-sex schools. London: Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feniger, Y. (2011). The gender gap in advanced math and science course taking: Does same-sex education make a difference? Sex Roles, 65(9–10), 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9851-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls and achievement: Addressing the Classroom Issues. Routledge/Falmer: Routledge/Falmer.

  • Francis, B., Archer, L., Moote, J., DeWitt, J., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. (2017). The construction of physics as a quintessentially masculine subject: Young people’s perceptions of gender issues in access to physics. Sex Roles, 76(3), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0669-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullarton, S., & Ainley, J. (2000). Subject choice by students in year 12 in Australian secondary schools Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  • Gill, T., & Bell, J. F. (2013). What factors determine the uptake of A-level physics? International Journal of Science Education, 35(5), 753–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.577843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillibrand, E., Robinson, P., Brawn, R., & Osborn, A. (1999). Girls’ participation in physics in single sex classes in mixed schools in relation to confidence and achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonsalves, A. (2014). “Physics and the girly girl—There is a contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning around discourses of gender and competence in physics. Special issue on Gender and Science in Cultural Studies in Science Education, 9, 503–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Retrieved from Canberra

  • Haag, P. (2000). K-12 single-sex education [microform]: What does the research say?/Pamela Haag. [Washington, D.C.]: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.

  • Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., & Martin, C. L. (2011). Education. The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333(6050), 1706–1707. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C. (2002). Classroom composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(5), 449–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00015-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison with students’ interests, and impact on students’ achievement and self-concept. Science Education, 84(6), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<689::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Tai, R. H. (2008). Gender differences in the high school and affective experiences of introductory college physics students. The Physics Teacher, 46(7), 423–427. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2981292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls’ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00010-X.

  • Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11(5), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, F. L., & McMillan, J. (2001). Scoring occupational categories for social research: A review of current practice, with Australian examples. Work, Employment and Society, 15(3), 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170122119147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway, K. E. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modelling. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (1988). Option choice for girls and boys. Research in Science & Technological Education, 6(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514880060102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60(2), 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, U., & Hannover, B. (2008). 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), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X215938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, U., Rau, M., & Hannover, B. (2006). What goes well with physics? Measuring and altering the image of science. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(Pt 4), 761–780. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x59961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessels, U., & Taconis, R. (2012). Alien or alike? How the perceived similarity between the typical science teacher and a student’s self-image correlates with choosing science at school. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9230-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. E., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary school classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 92–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T. (2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments in physics and chemistry courses: Putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9008-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F. A. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J. (2003). The student motivation scale: Further testing of an instrument that measures school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410304700107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, V., & Toscano, M. (2006). Girls in physics. Australian School Innovation in Science,Technology and Mathematics (ASISTM) Project. Retrieved from http://www.vicphysics.org/documents/events/ stav2006/A2.ppt:

  • Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. J. (2013). Inequality in experiences of physics education: Secondary school girls’ and boys’ perceptions of their physics education and intentions to continue with physics after the age of 16. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1824–1845. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.762699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. (1990). Gender gap in the National Curriculum. Physics World, 3(1), 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls in the physics classroom: A review of the research on the participation of girls in physics (technical report). Retrieved from London:

  • O’Brien, J., & C. Porter, G. (1994). Girls and physical science: The impact of a scheme of intervention projects on girls’ attitudes to physics (Vol. 16), 327, 341.

  • Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2003). Gender and physics. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 509–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000017270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L., & Parker, L. (1996). Placing physics problems in real-life context: Students’ reactions and performance. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(1), 55–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrick, L. M., & Tracy, D. M. (2001). Gender cultures in a science classroom: Teaching that frees girls and boys to learn. Equity & Excellence in Education, 34(2), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568010340205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. M. (1994). Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher Education, 27(4), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01384906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 929–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, C., Hutchison, D., Davis, C., & Keys, W. (1996). The take-up of advanced mathematics and science courses. schools curriculum and assessment authority. Retrieved from The Take-Up of Advanced Mathematics and Science Courses. Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, London.:

  • Sikora, J. (2014). Gender gap in school science: Are single-sex schools important? Sex Roles, 70(9), 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0372-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. S., & Hung, L. (2008). Stereotype threat: Effects on education. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9053-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithers, A., & Robinson, P. (2006). Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. (2006). The paradox of single-sex and coeducational schooling centre for education and employment research. Buckingham: University of Buckingham.

  • Smyth, E. (2010). Single-sex education: What does research tell us? Revue Française de Pédagogie, (171), 47–55.

  • Spender, D. (1982). Invisible women: The schooling scandal. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielhofer, T., O’Donnell, L., Benton, T., Schagen, S., & Schagen, I. (2002). The impact of school size and single-sex education on performance. Retrieved from http://www.singlesexschools.org/NFER.pdf:

  • Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test-performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokking, K. M. (2000). Predicting the choice of physics in secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1261–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streitmatter, J. (1998). Single-sex classes: Female physics students state their case. School Science and Mathematics, 98(7), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17307.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taasoobshirazi, G., & Carr, M. (2008). Gender differences in science: An expertise perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9067-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (1992). Girls’ interactions with teachers in mixed physics classes: Results of classroom observation. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vockell, E. L., & Lobonc, S. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping by high school females in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitelegg, E., Murphy, P., & Hart, C. (2007). Girls and physics: Dilemmas and tensions. In R. Pintó & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 27–36). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Willms, J. (2003). Student engagement at school a sense of belonging and participation results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD

  • Yazilitas, D., Svensson, J., de Vries, G., & Saharso, S. (2013). Gendered study choice: A literature review. A review of theory and research into the unequal representation of male and female students in mathematics, science, and technology. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(6), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.803931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Z. (2007). Learning content, physics self-efficacy, and female students’ physics coursetaking. International Education Journal, 8(2), 204–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Bronshtein, B. (2005). Physics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding girls’ low participation rates in advanced physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000138798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia

    Jessy Abraham & Katrina Barker

Authors
  1. Jessy Abraham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrina Barker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessy Abraham.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abraham, J., Barker, K. Motivation and Engagement with Physics: a Comparative Study of Females in Single-Sex and Co-educational Classrooms. Res Sci Educ 50, 2227–2242 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9770-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9770-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation