Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Role Attitudes of Female Students in Single-Sex and Coeducational High Schools in Istanbul

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between school type and gender role attitudes among 295 female high school seniors attending four high schools, two single-sex and two coeducational. The schools are located in Istanbul, Turkey, where a recent proposal to establish a system of girls’ schools has sparked a lively public debate about the advantages of single-sex schooling as a means of addressing the problem of lower female educational attainment. The main research question is whether the gender composition of schools has an impact on gender role attitudes, which we operationalize as attitudes toward gender roles in three domains: Family life, work life, and social life. Statistical analysis based on multiple regression show that, net of family background characteristics, students attending single-sex schools have more egalitarian attitudes toward family life roles than coeducational students, but school type does not matter for work and social life role attitudes. The socioeconomic composition of schools is also important, with students attending schools in the high socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhood having more egalitarian views on gender roles in family and social life.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acar, F., & Ayata, A. (2002). Discipline, success and stability: The reproduction of gender and class in Turkish secondary education. In D. Kandiyoti & A. Sektanber (Eds.), Fragments of culture: The everyday of modern Turkey (pp. 90–111). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acar, F., Ayata A., & Varoglu D. (1999). Cinsiyete dayalı ayrımcılık: Türkiye'de eğitim sektörü örneği: Cinsiyete dayalı ayrımcılık ve kadın çalışanlara karşı tutumlar: Türkiye'de eğitim sektörü örneği. [Gender-based discrimination: An education sector example from Turkey: Gender-based discrimination and attitudes toward working women: Education sector example from Turkey]. Ankara: TC Başbakanlık Kadının Statüsü ve Sorunları Genel Müdürlüğü.

  • Altunisik, M. B., & Tur, O. (2005). Turkey: Challenges of continuity and change. London: Routledge Curzon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alwin, D., & Otto, L. B. (1977). High school context effects on aspirations. Sociology of Education, 50, 259–273. doi:10.2307/2112499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amato, P. R. (1988). Parental divorce and attitudes toward marriage and family life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 453–461. doi:10.2307/352010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antill, J. K., Cunningham, J. D., & Cotton, S. (2003). Gender-role attitudes in middle childhood: In what ways do parents influence their children? Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 148–153. doi:10.1080/0004953042000298602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arditti, J., Godwin, D., & Scanzoni, J. (1991). Perceptions of parenting behavior and young women’s gender role traits and preferences. Sex Roles, 25, 195–211. doi:10.1007/BF00289854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baber, K. M., & Tucker, C. J. (2006). The social roles questionnaire: A new approach to measuring attitudes toward gender. Sex Roles, 54, 459–467. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9018-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/s11199-011-0046-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjarnason, T., & Hjalmsdottir, A. (2008). Egalitarian attitudes towards the division of household labor among adolescents in Iceland. Sex Roles, 59, 49–60. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9428-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Klebanov, P., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 353–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutsaert, H. (1999). Coeducation and gender identity formation: A comparative analysis of secondary schools in Belgium. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 343–355. doi:10.1080/01425699995308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutsaert, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2002). Girls’ and boys’ sense of belonging in single-sex versus co-educational schools. Research in Education, 68, 48–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health Education and Welfare Office of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W. (1994). Gender regimes and the general order. In Polity (Ed.), The polity reader in gender studies (pp. 29–40). Oxford: Polity Press & Blackwell Publishers.

  • Corder, J., & Stephan, C. (1984). Females’ combination of work and family roles: Adolescent aspiration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 391–402. doi:10.2307/352471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F., Allen, B., Culbertson, T., Wally, C., Morith, J., Hall, R., et al. (1994). Taking selectivity into account, how much does gender composition matter? A reanalysis of M.E. Tidball’s research. NWSA Journal, 6, 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, R. R. (1971). Mixed or single-sex school? Some social aspects. Vol II. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delamont, S. (1990). Sex roles and the school. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dokmen, Z. Y. (2004). Toplumsal cinsiyet: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar. [Gender: Social psychological explanations]. Istanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J., Jacobs, J., & Harold, R. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183–201. doi:10.2307/352471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermis, A. (2009). The incompatibility of Turkish women’s educational attainment and occupational participation. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyolojik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1–25.

  • Esmer, Y. (2011). Summary findings of the World Values Survey: Turkey. Retrieved from http://smgconnected.com/2011-turkiye-degerler-arastirmasi

  • Francis, B., Hutchings, M., Aarcher, L., & Melling, L. (2003). Subject choice and occupational aspirations among pupils at girls’ schools. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(3), 425–442. doi:10.1080/14681360300200182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government Planning Institute & World Bank Report. (2009). Female labor force participation in Turkey: Trends, determinants and policy framework. (Report No. 48508). Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/TURKEYEXTN/Resources/361711-1268839345767/Female_LFP-en.pdf

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, K. (2010). The advantages of single-sex vs. coeducational environments for high school girls. Social Work Student Papers, 63, 1–38. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/socialwrk_students/63.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, A. R., & Bachman, J. G. (1981). Sex-role attitudes among high school seniors: Views about work and family roles. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. A. (2006). The advantages of single-sex education. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 23(2), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurriyet. (2004, March 12). Eğitim-Bir-Sen: Kız erkek ayrı okutulmalı [Educators Association Union: Girls and boys should be educated separately]. Retrieved from http://webarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/2004/03/12/426890.asp

  • Hurriyet. (2010, August 6). Milli Eğitim’den bir tuhaf öneri [A weird suggestion from the Ministry of Education]. Retrieved from http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=15495780&tarih=2010-08-06

  • Jackson, D. W., & Tein, J. (1998). Adolescents’ conceptualization of adult roles: Relationships with age, gender, work goal, and maternal employment. Sex Roles, 38, 987–1008. doi:10.1023/A:1018826626335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jan, C. T. G. M. E., & Janssens, M. A. M. (1998). Maternal influences on daughters’ gender role attitudes. Sex Roles, 38, 171–186. doi:10.1023/A:1018776931419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, D., & Piccoli, W. (2001). Turkey at the crossroads. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagitcibasi, C. (1998). Türkiye’de kadının statüsü: Kültürlerarası perspektifler [Women’s status in Turkey: Cross-cultural perspectives]. In A. Berktay (Ed.), 75 Yılda Kadınlar ve Erkekler (pp. 143–154). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpiak, C. P., Buchanan, J. P., Hosey, M., & Smith, A. (2007). University students from single-sex and coeducational schools: Differences in majors and attitudes at a Catholic university. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 282–289. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00371.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsurada, E., & Sugihara, Y. (2002). Gender-role identity, attitudes toward marriage, and gender-segregated school backgrounds. Sex Roles, 47, 249–258. doi:10.1023/A:1021334710431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiecolt, J. K., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The long-term effects of family structure on gender-role attitudes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 709–717. doi:10.2307/352640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirrane, M., & Monks, K. (2008). Attitudes towards managing the work-family interface: The role of gender and social background. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies, 8(1), 70–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiziltas, E. (2012, March 23). Kız ve erkek liseleri; neden olmasın? [Girls’ and boys’ schools; why not?] Retrieved from http://www.haber7.com/haber/20120323/Kiz-ve-erkek-liseleri-neden-olmasin.php

  • Koca, C., Asci, F. H., & Demirhan, G. (2005). Attitudes toward physical education and class preferences of Turkish adolescents in terms of school gender composition. Adolescence, 40, 365–375.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krivickas, K. M., & Sanches, L. A. (2008). Taking a covenant to pick up his socks: Gender-traditional marriage and depression among newlywed wives and husbands. The Center for Family and Demographic Research Working Paper Series. Retrieved from http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2011-010/PWP-BGSU-2011-010.pdf

  • Kulik, L. (2002). The impact of social background on gender-role ideology: Parents’ versus children’s attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 53–73. doi:10.1177/0192513X02023001003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19, 1–12. doi:10.1007/BF00292459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–385. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.5.381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 578–592. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, L. L. (1994). Gender roles: A sociological perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. (2007). The social construction of gender. In D. Grusky & S. Szelenyi (Eds.), The inequality reader (pp. 276–283). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montt, G. (2012). Socioeconomic school composition effects on student outcomes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Notre Dame, Indiana.

  • Ntvmsnbc. (2009, May 7). Kız okulu cinsiyetçi düzeni pekiştirir. [Girls’ schools reinforce gender order]. Retrieved from http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/24964484/

  • Phinney, J. S., & Flores, J. (2002). “Unpackaging” acculturation: Aspects of acculturation as predictors of traditional sex role attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 320–331. doi:10.1177/0022022102033003007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, C. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 10–30). New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls? New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sara-Lafosse, V. (1992). Coeducational settings and educational and social outcomes in Peru. In N. P. Stromquist (Ed.), Women and education in Latin America: Knowledge, power, and change (pp. 87–105). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L., Arms, E., Woodruff, M., Riggers, T., & Eagan K. (2009). Women graduates of single-sex and coeducational high schools: Differences in their characteristics and the transition to college. UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, 1–99. Retrieved from http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Sax_FINAL%20REPORT_Sing_1F02B4.pdf.

  • Signorella, M. L., Frieze, I. H., & Hershey, S. W. (1996). Single-sex versus mixed-sex classes and gender schemata in children and adolescents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 599–607. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00325.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithers, A., & Robinson, P. (2006). The paradox of single-sex and co-educational schooling. Retrieved from http://wordpress.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hmcsscd.pdf

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17–34. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00098.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterrett, J. E., & Bollman, S. R. (1970). Factors related to adolescents’ expectations of marital roles. The Family Coordinator, 19, 353–356. doi:10.2307/582320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, A. (1991). Egalitarian sex role attitudes: Scale development and comparison of American and Japanese women. Sex Roles, 24, 245–259. doi:10.1007/BF00288300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, M. G. (2007). Women, education and development in Turkey. In M. Carlson, A. Rabo, & F. Gok (Eds.), Education in ‘multicultural’ societies—Turkish and Swedish perspectives (Vol. 18, pp. 107–122). Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Corporate Gender Gap Report. (2010). Retrieved from https://members.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/corporate2010.pdf

  • Turkish Statistical Institute. (2011). Labor force participation statistics April 2011. Retrieved from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr

  • UNDP Human Development Report (2011). Sustainability and equity: A better future for all. Retrieved from http://hdrstats.undp.org/images/explanations/TUR.pdf

  • Vail, K. (2002). Same-sex schools may still get a chance. American School Board Journal, 189, 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatan. (2011, January 10). Lisede 45 cm yasağı! [45 cm ban in high school]. Retrieved from http://haber.gazetevatan.com/lisede-45-cm-yasagi/351939/1/Haber

  • Vefikulucay, D., Zeyneloglu, S., Eroglu, K., & Taskin, L. (2007). Kafkas Üniversitesi son sınıf öğrencilerinin toplumsal cinsiyet rollerine ilişkin bakış açıları [Perceptions of and views on gender roles of senior students enrolled at Kafkas University]. Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 26–38.

  • Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, D. V., Zeyneloglu, S., Kocaoz, S., Kisa, S., Taskin, L., & Eroglu, K. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin toplumsal cinsiyet rollerine ilişkin görüşleri [Views on gender roles of university students]. Uluslararasi Insan Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 775–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, D. (1981). Family background‚ sex role attitudes‚ and life goals of technical college and university students. Sex Roles, 7, 1109–1126. doi:10.1007/BF00287588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, Sariyer, Istanbul, 34450, Turkey

    Ayse Burcin Erarslan

  2. Department of Sociology, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Bruce Rankin

Authors
  1. Ayse Burcin Erarslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce Rankin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayse Burcin Erarslan.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 4 Gender role indices
Full size table

Appendix B

Aile hayatı (α = .76) (1 = çok katılıyorum, 2 = katılıyorum 3 = katılmıyorum, 4 = hiç katılmıyorum)

  1. 1.

    Ailenin reisi erkek olmalıdır.

  2. 2.

    Bebekli ve çocuklu anneler günün büyük bir kısmında evde olmalıdır.

  3. 3.

    Erkeğin eve para getirmesi, kadının ev işleri ve çocuk bakımıyla ilgilenmesi herkes için en iyisidir.

  4. 4.

    Bir kadının hayattaki en önemli görevi anne olmaktır.

  5. 5.

    Yaradılıştan, ev işlerini yapmakta ve çocuk bakmakta kadınlar erkeklerden daha iyidir.

  6. 6.

    Çalışan bir anne olmak okul öncesi yaştaki çocuğu için zararlıdır.

  7. 7.

    Bir erkek karısından daha fazla para kazanmalıdır.

  8. 8.

    Eğer erkek karısına bakabilecek maddi güce sahipse kadının çalışmasına gerek yoktur.

  9. 9.

    Kadın tam zamanlı bir işte çalışırsa aile hayatı zarar görür.

İş hayatı (α = .76) (1 = çok katılıyorum, 2 = katılıyorum 3 = katılmıyorum, 4 = hiç katılmıyorum)

  1. 1.

    Bir erkeğin karısı tam zamanlı çalışıyor ise erkek ev işlerinde yardım etmelidir.

  2. 2.

    Ev işleri karı koca arasında paylaşılmalıdır.

  3. 3.

    Ev kadını olmak ve çocuk büyütmek ideal olan tek annelik tipi değildir.

  4. 4.

    Bebeği ve çocuğu olan annelerin tam zamanlı bir kariyeri olabilir.

  5. 5.

    Çalışan bir annenin de çalışmayan anne kadar çocuklarıyla sıcak ve güvenli bir ilişkisi olabilir.

  6. 6.

    Aynı anda hem çalışmak hem eve bakmak bir kadını daha çok tatmin eder.

  7. 7.

    Bir iş sahibi olmak erkek için olduğu kadar kadın için de önemlidir.

  8. 8.

    Bir kadın için zorlu ve fırsatlarla dolu bir işte çalışmak, eş ve anne olmak kadar önemlidir.

  9. 9.

    Maddi gereksinimleri olmasa dahi kadınlar çalışmalı ve para kazanmalıdırlar.

  10. 10.

    Evli olsa da olmasa da bir kadın özgürlüğü için çalışmalıdır.

Sosyal hayat (α = .71) (1 = çok katılıyorum, 2 = katılıyorum 3 = katılmıyorum, 4 = hiç katılmıyorum)

  1. 1.

    Bir kadın geceleri tek başına sokakta yürümemelidir.

  2. 2.

    Boşanmış veya dul kalmış bir kadın yalnız başına yaşamamalıdır.

  3. 3.

    Tek ebeveyn olmak (tek anne/tek baba) toplumca yadırganan bir durumdur.

  4. 4.

    Bir erkeğin evleneceği kadın mutlaka bakire olmalıdır.

  5. 5.

    Bir kadının evleneceği erkek mutlaka bakir olmalıdır.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Erarslan, A.B., Rankin, B. Gender Role Attitudes of Female Students in Single-Sex and Coeducational High Schools in Istanbul. Sex Roles 69, 455–468 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0277-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0277-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation