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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ABS. (1997). Australian social trends cat. no. 4102: Participation in education-government and non-government schools. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
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.
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.
Asparouhov, T. (2004). Weighting for unequal probability of selection in multilevel modeling. Mplus Web Notes. Retrieved from http://statmodel2.com/download/webnotes/MplusNote81.pdf
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.
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.
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.
Campbell, C., Proctor, H., & Sherington, G. (Eds.). (2009). School choice: How parents negotiate the new school market in Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
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.
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.
Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (Eds.). (2002). Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling. New York: Routledge Falmer.
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.
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.
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/
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.1205031
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.
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
Ivinson, G., & Murphy, P. (2007). Rethinking single-sex teaching: Gender school subjects and learning. Maidenhead: Mc-Graw-Hill Education.
Kalkus, O. A. (2012). Single-sex education: Results one-sided. Science, 335, 165. doi: 10.1126/science.335.6065.165-a
Kelley, J., & Evans, M. (1999). Non-catholic private schools and educational success. Australian Social Monitor, 2(1), 1–4.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
OECD. (2012b). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2009/50036771.pdf.
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.
Park, H., Behrman J. R., & Choi, J. (2011). Single-sex education: Positive effects Science, 335, 165–166. doi: 10.1126/science.1205031
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4, 227–241.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.pdf
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.
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.
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”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendixes
Appendixes
Appendix 1 Coding of occupations and subjects
Science subjects listed below have been coded based on their content rather than titles. Online documentation for each subject available from state boards of secondary study has been used.
Physical Science Subjects
Chemistry, Earth and Environmental Science, Earth Science, Geology, Physical Sciences, Physics.
Life Science Subjects
Agricultural Science, Agriculture and Horticulture, Applied Science, Biological Science, Biology, Contemporary Issues and Science, Environmental Science, Geography, Human Biological Science, Life Science, Marine and Aquatic Practices, Marine Studies, Multi-Strand Science, Psychology, Science Life Skills, Science 21, Scientific Studies, Senior Science, Tasmanian Natural Resources.
Physical Science Occupations
These are occupations related to computing, engineering, mathematics or physical sciences. The numerics are the Australian Bureau of Statistics codes (ABS 2006).
1351 information and communication technology managers
2232 information and communication technology trainers
2241 actuaries, mathematicians and statisticians
2300 design, engineering, science and transport professionals
2310 air and marine transport professionals
2311 air transport professionals
2312 marine transport professionals
2320 architects, designers, planners and surveyors
2321 architects and landscape architects
2322 cartographers and surveyors
2326 urban and regional planners
2330 engineering professionals
2331 chemical and materials engineers
2332 civil engineering professionals
2333 electrical engineers
2334 electronics engineers
2335 industrial, mechanical and production engineers
2336 mining engineers
2339 other engineering professionals
2340 natural and physical science professionals
2344 geologists and geophysicists
2349 other natural and physical science professionals
2600 information and communication technology professionals
2610 business and systems analysts, and programmers
2611 information and communication technology business and systems analysts
2612 multimedia specialists and web developers
2613 software and applications programmers
2621 database and systems administrators, information and communication technology security specialists
2630 information and communication technology network and support professionals
2631 computer network professionals
2632 information and communication technology support and test engineers
2633 telecommunications engineering professionals
Life Science Occupations
2341 agricultural and forestry scientists
2343 environmental scientists
2345 life scientists
2346 medical laboratory scientists
2347 veterinarians
2500 health professionals
2510 health diagnostic and promotion professionals
2511 dieticians
2512 medical imaging professionals
2513 occupational and environmental health professionals
2514 optometrists and orthoptists
2515 pharmacists
2519 other health diagnostic and promotion professionals
2520 health therapy professionals
2521 chiropractors and osteopaths
2522 complementary health therapists
2523 dental practitioners
2524 occupational therapists
2525 physiotherapists
2526 podiatrists
2527 speech professionals and audiologists
2530 medical practitioners
2531 generalist medical practitioners
2532 anesthetists
2533 internal medicine specialists
2534 psychiatrists
2535 surgeons
2539 other medical practitioners
2540 midwifery and nursing professionals
2541 midwives
2542 nurse educators and researchers
2543 nurse managers
2544 registered nurses
Appendix 2 Details of measurement and methodology
Independent Variables
Student characteristics
Dummy (zero–one) variables
-
1.
Female: coded 1 for females and 0 for males.
-
2.
English spoken at home: coded 1 for students who spoke English at home and 0 for everyone else.
-
3.
Australian born to Australian parents: coded 1 for students who were born in Australia and whose both parents were Australian born.
-
4.
Foreign born student: coded 1 for students born overseas with both parents also born overseas.
-
5.
Parent foreign born-coded 1 for students born in Australia with at least one parent born overseas.
-
6.
Urban versus rural residence is denoted by a series of dummy variables: small town is up to 15, 000 inhabitants, town is up to 100,000 inhabitants, city-is up to 1 million, and large city denotes locations with over the population of over 1 million.
-
7.
Aboriginal student is a self-report coded 1 for all Aboriginal students and 0 for everyone else.
Other variables
-
1.
Economic & cultural status of family is the PISA Index of Educational, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS) (OECD 2012b). This composite construct comprises the International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI); the highest level of education of the student’s parents, converted into years of schooling; the PISA index of family wealth, which denotes the availability of own room, internet and other possessions in the household; the PISA index of home educational resources which include textbooks, computer and educational software ownership; and the PISA index of cultural possessions including assets such as books of poetry or works of art in the family home (OECD 2012b). This index is standardised to the mean of 0 and the standard deviation of 1, across the OECD countries. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of this index in 2009 for Australia was 0.59. ESCS is a conceptually strong measure of student socio-economic advantage as it includes a broad range of cultural resources pertinent to student educational outcomes.
-
2.
Academic performance in science is measured by PISA’s five plausible values (OECD 2009) which indicate students’ ability to use science-related concepts in adult life. More detail on plausible value methodologies and the use of Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) weights with Fay’s adjustment (OECD 2009) is in Methods of Estimation below, but for a comprehensive explanation of these methodologies the reader is referred to the PISA Data Analysis Manual (OECD 2009).
-
3.
Minutes per week study science is science learning time at school computed by the OECD by multiplying the number of minutes on average in each science class by number of class periods per week (OECD 2012b). It was divided by 100 to facilitate the presentation of coefficients.
-
4.
Self-confidence in science skills is a single question indicator of how well the student thought they did in science. Five answer categories ranged from ‘very poorly’ denoted by 0 to ‘very well’ denoted by 1.
School characteristics
Dummy (zero–one) variables
-
1.
Boys-only school and Girls-only school are indicators identifying schools with 0 and 100 % of female students.
-
2.
Government school, Independent school, Catholic school.
-
3.
State or territory: New South Wales, Queensland, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Western Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania.
Other variables
-
1.
Selective admission to school is a three category question ‘How often student’s record of academic performance (including placement tests) is considered when students are admitted to your school?‘which was converted to two answer categories: ‘0’ Never and ‘1’ which combines Sometimes + Always.
-
2.
Shortage of teachers is the OECD Index on Teacher Shortage constructed from four questions measuring the principal’s perceptions of potential factors hindering instruction at school: ‘Is your school’s capacity to provide instruction hindered by any of the following issues? A lack of qualified science teachers? A lack of qualified mathematics teachers? A lack of qualified English teachers? A lack of qualified teachers of other subjects? The Cronbach alpha for this index in Australia in 2009 was 0.84 (OECD 2012b).
Methods of Estimation
Multivariate analyses in this paper are two-level hierarchical logit models with school-level and student-level covariates (OECD 2012b; Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). The dependent variables denote the chances of studying 1) one or more life science subjects in Year 12) one or more physical science subjects in Year 12, 3) expectation at age 15 of a career related to life science, 4) expectation at age 15 of a career related to physical science. The two-level logit model, best suited to such variables, has the following functional form:
where Yij denotes the dependent variable for student i in school j and γ 00 is the average intercept across schools. X is a vector of student-level explanatory variables and β is a vector of regression coefficients corresponding to variables in vector X. Z is a vector of school‐level covariates corresponding to the vector of regression coefficients η. The error component u0j varies between schools. In multilevel logit models, the individual error term, denoted by eij, is omitted due to identification problems (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002).
To measure student achievement Y09 uses PISA’s plausible value methodologies and an incomplete balanced matrix design, which means that students answer a sample of, rather than all science test questions. This is why descriptive estimates of student achievement in science in this paper are based on five plausible values for each student and computed by the OECD-recommended methods, including balanced-repeated replicate weights with Fay adjustment (OECD 2009).
Because of the use of plausible values and imputations of missing values (Mislevy et al. 1992), all estimates in multivariate analyses have been obtained using multiple imputation methodology. This involves fitting five sets of models, each with one plausible value, and then combining these values using the Rubin rule (Little and Rubin 1987) as per OECD recommendations (OECD 2012b). For estimations of multilevel models MPlus version 7 was used because of its ability to handle complex weights in hierarchical estimations.
The Y09 sample is representative of 15 years old, not of students in any particular grade. All analyses of career plans in this paper have been weighted back to the original PISA/Y09 population, while all analyses of subject choices have been weighted to such subpopulation of students, as remained after 1) those who failed to participate in the survey's subsequent waves and 2) who changed schools after 2009, or 3) who did not answer the question about changing school since 2009, were excluded from the analysis. Only student level weights have been used, as Y09 data have been collected with a sampling mechanism that is invariant across the sample clusters, so school weights are not necessary (Asparouhov 2004).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sikora, J. Gender Gap in School Science: Are Single-Sex Schools Important?. Sex Roles 70, 400–415 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0372-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0372-x