|
|
Introduction
The current media interest in the differential in examination performance of girls and boys suggest that Weiner (1990) was right in commenting that matters relating to equal opportunities ‘will re-emerge with some force as an educational policy issue for the 1990's'. However past policy initiatives and research have focused upon establishing equality of opportunity for all, which in terms of gender was seen as removing barriers to female access to, and participation in, the full curriculum. Whilst Arnot et al. (1996) suggest that this phenomenon tends to vanish post-GCSE) and to mainly concern white males, the Chief Inspector of schools in the U.K. has described the issue as ‘one of the most disturbing problems we face within the whole education system’ (cited in Pyke, 1996). Whilst it has attracted a large amount of media attention and is a very real issue for individual schools mindful of their position in the “league tables’., the question needs to be asked whether this apparent change in performance is purely attributable to gender differences or more easily explained by other factors.
Gipps and Murphy (1994) have drawn attention to the generally unsatisfactory nature of studies relating biological characteristics to exam performance, especially in relation to the gender of the individuals. Whilst it would be wrong to dismiss genetic arguments entirely (Turner 1996) the weight of evidence seems to suggest that environmental and social factors may have a greater role to play in setting differential patterns of achievement. Gipps and Murphy (op. cit.) compiled the following catalogue of interdependent ways in which boys and girls environmental and social experiences may differ:
Even from this list it can be seen that schools need to distinguish between those factors that can be considered internal to the school and those which are related to external influences. The first are those factors that relate directly to the school at an operational level and the second those which are related to more general changes in society. However we would also consider a third category of factors that relate directly to the school but are imposed by external agencies such as government and government controlled agencies.
Several authors have observed that the in-school experiences of boys and girls can be quite different. Askew and Ross (1988) noted that boys and girls may be involved in quite different learning processes, even when the activities they are involved in are identical and that these differences become embedded at an early age. Indeed, Delamont (1989) suggests that this is an important (although perhaps undesirable) aspect of the socialisation that occurs within schools. Specifically, it appears that boys demand and are given more attention and engage in activity related discussion to a greater extent than their female peers. although their is some debate as to whether this holds true for all subjects (Leindhart et al. 1979). Tizard et al. (1988) found some evidence of teachers having higher expectations of boys than of girls, whilst Evans (1982) noted that despite teachers perceiving themselves to be liberal with respect to gender issues, there was no evidence of any 'sustained effort by teachers to transmit anything other than the traditional sex-role stereotypes'. This array of influences may also have an impact on the subjects which pupils sees as being 'right' for them. Research shows that there are marked differences in girls’ and boys’ attitudes to some subjects (Cresswell and Gubb 1987; Gorman et al. 1982; Hendley et al. 1995). There is also evidence that girls and boys have differing attitudes to school in general (Keys et al. 1996; Stables and Stables 1995; Randall 1987; Stanworth 1987)
Current work of our own (Wikeley and Stables 1996) also shows differences in subject preference between boys and girls in Year 9 although these differences were not apparent when they were asked which subjects they regarded as important.
Whilst all these issues could affect examination performance, there are also internal school organisation factors that might have an influence. The evidence indicates that girls are participating in terms of GCSE entries to a much higher degree than in the past (Elwood (1995) and others (Lewis and Kellaghan 1993; Gipps 1995) have all drawn attention to the ‘maleness’ of the management of education: from assessment and curriculum construction to the place of female teachers in schools’ hierarchy.
The second set of factors, community factors, that can have considerable effect on pupils are those over which schools can exert little control. For example the changing role of women in society; the collapse of the male blue collar employment market and possible consequent loss of a male identities. Although much of this debate is still speculative there is significant evidence (Tolson, 1977; Willis, 1977) to suggest that many definitions of male identity are bound up with definitions of work. It is also clear that the world of youth employment has undergone dramatic changes in a relatively short time. Whether there is a connection between these changes and academic attainment at school is an interesting question. One possible line of argument is that with the collapse of the traditional male youth job market many boys have stopped trying hard at school. This is superficially an attractive explanation but it does ignore the fact that most of these lost blue collar jobs were not acquired on the basis of formal academic qualifications but via informal networks (Clarke, 1980). Of course what counts is whether boys in school now are aware of this fact.
The third set of factors , and ones in which schools are more involved although over which they still may have little control are what we term ‘national policy’ factors. The most obvious example of a national initiative is the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, which at least placed the notion of entitlement to equality of opportunity within the framework of national legislation. Whilst it made sexual discrimination in education unlawful, putting the Act into operation has proven to be difficult. The introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988 could be seen as a move to offer a core of education that is open to all, but Rudduck (1994) suggests that a more cynical view may prevail, and that this core may do more to reinforce white anglo-centric male perceptions of education. Arnot et al. (1996) suggest that most central government interventions have shifted attention away from a focus on equal opportunities onto educational administration, finance and organisation. On a more successful note, the TVEI appeared to have a measurable impact (Weston et al., 1992). Over seventy per cent of participating schools (secondary) had introduced an equal opportunities co-ordinator as a result of the initiative, and that in-roads had been made into equality of access with respect to IT. It is therefore unlikely, though possible, that such initiatives are now being seen to bear fruit and that the improved achievement of girls is an outcome. However this would not explain why there is so much variation between schools unless those where boys are still outperforming girls have been untouched by such initiatives. We believe the story is more complex than that.
Although gender issues are talked about in schools it would appear that little is actually done. It has been demonstrated that there are some academic benefits to be gained from single-sex schooling (Kelly, 1996), and some co-educational schools have begun to segregate boys and girls for parts of their academic life (Dunant, 1996). However, the evidence is far from clear cut and the evidence from both sides of the argument is plagued by 'idiosyncratic samples...and particularly the inadequate control or pre-existing differences' (Marsh 1989). It would seem that strategies are being tried without any real research evidence that they are likely to make a difference or explain why there has been a change in the pattern of results. It is clearly evident therefore that not only is the issue complex but that any school wishing to address the differential in their own examination performance needs to understand what particular factors are coming into play and how they interact. The ultimate aim of the larger research is to identify those school and community factors which are important in accounting for gender differences in academic achievement so that schools can address this issue on the basis of secure knowledge.
The sample school, a large comprehensive in a disadvantaged area on the edge of a large city, have been interested in examining their own results with a view to raising attainment. In particular the attainment of boys. At present 44% of their girls achieve 5 A - C grades at GCSE compared with only 22% of their boys. A group of staff are working with the research team to try and identify some of the causes of their low achievement and to develop strategies for redressing the balance. After some discussion as to the school context it was decided to investigate pupil perceptions of any differences in experience between boys and girls in the school. A questionnaire was developed which asked about their experience of the classroom; their own strategies for learning; how they saw themselves as students and how they thought they were perceived by others. The first section consisted of a set of statements which the pupils were asked to mark on a five point rating scale (strongly agree; agree; don’t know; disagree; the opposite is true). In the second section open-ended questions asked about their perceptions of the curriculum and ways of learning. A list of learning attributes was also given and the pupils asked to indicate which were important in striving for success in English, maths, science and P.E. The final section consisted of a list of personal characteristics from which the pupils were asked to indicate which they would use about themselves, they would like other students to use about them, teachers might use about them and their parents might use to describe them. The questionnaire was administered to all pupils in Year 7 and Year 10 at the end of the summer term. These two year groups were chosen as being at the beginning of Key Stages. As a way of analysing for ability the pupils were asked to give their Key Stage 2 or 3 assessment results for English, maths and science. The Year 10 pupils were also asked to estimate how many GCSEs they thought they would get and in what sort of grade range.
At the same time the possibility arose to explore the practice in another school which had a very different examination profile; the boys and girls were achieving at similar levels. This created an alternative framework within which to discuss the questionnaire findings with the staff of the school.
Findings
At the very beginning of the analysis it was found that, in common with other studies, boys and girls answered the questionnaire in different ways. The boys at both age levels were more likely to adopt extreme positions on any rating scale, whilst girls were much more circumspect, tending to agree, disagree or be non-committal. However there were real differences that could be broadly grouped into three areas: students’ self-concept in relation to their ‘pupil role’, teacher behaviour factors and issues relating to learning.
Pupil Role
There was some agreement between boys and girls that girls were better students than boys. When asked why girls got better marks than boys, both groups talked about girls caring more about school work, wanting to succeed more, working harder, studying more, trying harder, listening more in class and even being cleverer. Both boys and girls perceived that girls were more diligent about coursework than boys.
In the initial discussions with the staff group it had been hypothesised that there was an “anti-keener” culture in the school which predominated amongst the boys. In the open-ended questions there was also some indication that boys were more concerned with their image as ‘one of the lads’ than as good students. However, in the self-concept section of the questionnaire there was a significant difference in Year 7 between the number of boys and girls who would use the word ‘keener’ to describe themselves. (See Table 1). Although the difference was not significant in Year 10, there were still more boys than girls who would describe themselves as ‘keeners’. Although the numbers are small there is a mismatch which needs to be explored further, one possibility being that the real loss of motivation begins after year 7.
Table 1 Year 7
Described as ‘keener’ Boys Girls by: Self 13% 3% Friends 15% 6% Teachers 26% 6%
More in line with their responses to the open-ended questions in both age groups there was a similar difference between the number of girls and boys who thought they would be described as a good student or as a hard worker by teachers. Significantly more boys thought they would be described as disruptive by teachers (15%/30% in Year 10 and 14%/37% in Year 7). In all other categories the real differences were in personal characteristics rather than those that related to their pupil role.
Table 2
Described by Year 7 Boys Year 7 Girls Year 10 Boys year 10 Girls teacher as: good student 67% 78% 62% 78% hard worker 62% 66% 47% 63% disruptive 37% 14% 30% 15%
Teacher Behaviour
One issue raised in the initial discussions with the staff group was the difference in results by department. Some departments had very different staff profiles, being predominantly staffed by male or female teachers. They were concerned with the possibility that pupils were being treated differently in different departments and this might be one cause of differing examination outcomes. To explore this with the pupils a number of statements were included in the first section of the questionnaire which referred to how students perceived their treatment in the classroom. The results from these questions show a rather confused picture. In Year 7 boys preferred to be taught by a male teacher and girls did not; although neither preferred being taught by a female teacher. The teachers gender would appear to be more of an issue for the boys than the girls although by Year 10 neither group expressed any preference. In both age groups the boys thought female teachers preferred teaching girls but the girls disagreed.
Boys in both age groups felt that they were asked more questions by teachers than the girls, this was expressed more strongly by the Year 10 group. The girls in both age groups disagreed with that statement although not to the extent of thinking that the opposite was true. All four groups disagreed with the statement that female teachers are more likely than male teachers to treat students fairly although at both ages the boys felt that male teachers were harder on them than on the girls. The girls disagreed and in Year 10 felt the opposite was true. In Year 7 the girls felt that teachers spent more time with the boys and the boys felt they spent more time with the girls. The boys in Year 10 still felt teachers spent more time with the girls although the girls were more inclined to say they did not know.
In Year 10 teachers were seen as a factor in preventing pupils working hard. “Changing teachers”, “student teachers”, “teachers interrupting”, “teachers not explaining properly”, “teachers being late”, “teachers who can’t control the class” and teachers who do “not expect me to work well” were all cited as reasons for pupils not working hard in school.
Although presenting a rather confused picture, linked to the self-concept data there is a slight indication that the boys feel more oppressed than the girls.
Learning
Differing approaches to learning were investigated through a variety of questions. Following findings of other studies (Rudduck et al 1996) that pupils had little idea of what “working harder” meant these pupils were asked “in school working hard means ....” and were asked what prevented them working hard at school and at home. This data has yet to be analysed by gender but overall working hard was seen by both age groups to involve trying hard, concentrating, not messing about in class, paying attention, listening to the teacher and completing all the work set. Year 10 students also related it to having a positive attitude and to producing a lot of work.
The staff group were also keen to investigate what aspects of learning pupils felt were important. Their reasoning was that if boys were misunderstanding the attributes needed to be successful in certain subjects it could explain their lower attainment. An attempt was made to elicit this information by asking pupils to indicate which attributes were important to be successful in English, maths, science and P.E. (See Tables 3 and 4)
Table 3 Year 7
To be To be To be To be
successful in successful successful successful
English you in maths you in science in P.E. you
have to have to you have to have to
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
listen in class 98% 99% 98% 100% 95% 98% 92% 92%
write a lot 75% 72% 58% 54% 82% 73% 4% 4%
think a lot 90% 79% 97% 99% 94% 95% 82% 69%
read a lot 90% 81% 38% 13% 51% 36% 6% 2%
remember facts 68% 62% 87% 89% 92% 93% 72% 64%
work with others 79% 76% 57% 64% 88% 89% 96% 100%
be concerned with 83% 63% 85% 69% 86% 74% 56% 49%
detail
learn on your own 55% 57% 72% 79% 46% 50% 44% 38%
talk with others 83% 84% 69% 63% 89% 84% 86% 80%
work things out for 71% 68% 86% 88% 70% 73% 53% 59%
yourself
Table 4 Year 10
To be To be To be To be
successful in successful successful successful
English you in maths you in science in PE you
have to have to you have to have to
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
listen in class 99% 96% 97% 95% 97% 98% 68% 78%
write a lot 77% 82% 52% 48% 76% 80% 4% 5%
think a lot 82% 86% 100% 98% 94% 96% 34% 49%
read a lot 90% 87% 25% 28% 55% 51% 5% 5%
remember facts 54% 42% 94% 93% 99% 98% 39% 44%
work with others 69% 80% 53% 54% 77% 83% 91% 98%
be concerned with 77% 77% 73% 71% 78% 83% 26% 29%
detail
learn on your own 44% 64% 73% 77% 52% 62% 32% 30%
talk with others 88% 88% 55% 58% 80% 81% 84% 75%
work things out for 60% 68% 87% 93% 75% 87% 33% 37%
yourself
A first reading of these tables is difficult to interpret because there does not seem to be any clear pattern emerging of either agreement or disagreement between girls and boys. One suggestion is that pupils do not break down learning into constituent parts and find it extremely difficult to do so when asked in this way. The most common attribute to be associated with success was that of listening in class, which was used by over 90% of pupils in all categories apart from Year 10 P.E. There were also some differences that appeared to be counter to other research studies. For example boys attributing success in English to thinking a lot and reading a lot - not aspects of learning that usually associated with boys. However, on reflection if the question being responded to from a point of low self-esteem the differences could show the reasons why boys and girls feel they do not succeed in certain subjects. For example girls in Year 10 who see themselves as unsuccessful attributing success in English and Science to the need to work on your own as their preferred way of working is in collaboration with others. Unsuccessful Year 7 boys who prefer more active ways of learning seeing that in order to be successful in English you need to think and read a lot and be concerned with detail. The most likely explanation is that the question did not mean much to the pupils and any further exploration of this area would need to be addressed in a different way.
Although only a relatively small percentage of boys (26% in Year 7; 35% in Year 10) and girls (18% in Year 7; 23% in Year 10) felt there were boys and girls subjects the boys subjects tended to be centred on sport and technology whereas girls subjects were more wide ranging - English, maths, humanities, languages as well as sport and technology.
Conclusions
As suspected what these findings have done is confirm the complexity of the issue and the need not only to look at individual school factors but also at the interaction between the different factors in any one context. Although at an initial stage the findings have already been discussed with the staff group in the school. This was part of the original contract with the school, that they would be involved at every stage and would be supported in finding ways forward to develop strategies for raising achievement but it also served a useful purpose in the development of planning the next stage of the larger research project.
In some ways what did not come out of the pupil survey was as interesting as what did. Although the youth employment market in the area has collapsed there was no mention or indication that boys lack of attainment was influenced by their lack of job prospects. Although the overall curriculum has become less gender specific there are still perceived differences by these pupils which for the boys are in their preferred subject areas (Wikeley and Stables 1996). This may be related to another curriculum change which is also seen by some teachers to affect boys more than girls. The changes in technology, GCSE P.E. have meant that they have lost a practical bias and become more academic subjects. Many subjects have increased the amount of coursework to be done and the amount of practical work done in science are other examples. One school of thought would argue that the self-esteem gained in such subjects influenced their motivation in other subjects. is that these changes have led to a loss of subjects in which low achieving, particularly low achieving boys could be relatively successful and that they enjoyed. This is something the teacher group think they will pursue through more focused follow-up interviews with groups of students.
Another factor sometimes related to boys lack of motivation is imposition of more stringent discipline. The move by government to publish truancy rates and the media interest in violence in schools has lead to discipline procedures being increased rather than relaxed. The influence of market forces means schools are becoming increasingly aware of their image and wish to present themselves as producing well disciplined pupils. Strict behaviour codes have been shown to be being more of a constraint on boys than girls. In the comparative school in the pilot study there had been a explicit policy to address this issue and practices had been put in place to ensure that procedures did not discriminate against either sex even covertly. This was not the case in the original school. An implicit ‘girl friendliness’ of schools is something that has been noted by other studies. Girls are perceived to be less disruptive than boys even when this is not the case (Lodge and Pickering 1996) and are dealt with by teachers less harshly. They are generally seen to be better students, even by their peers, and therefore receive more positive feedback in a variety of ways. This was noted in the sample school in a tracking system that had been introduced for the early identification of children not working to their potential. Twice a year all teachers were asked to grade students as, causing concern(0), OK (1) or commendable (2) against a set of nine criteria. These criteria, including “you listen and do as you are told”, “your work is well presented” and “you respond positively to your work and you are well behaved”, had a tendency to favour those attributes more usually associated with girls. The teacher group are intending to follow up this finding through the development of an observation schedule to use in each other’s classrooms. One teacher suggested that she would also like feedback from pupils as to her own behaviour in this respect.
These initial findings of the pilot study would appear to indicate that gender difference in performance is an issue that can be affected by school internal policy and practice, but it is also undeniable that there are a complex range of environmental and other factors that also come into play. These need to be more fully explored with further research.
References
ARNOT, M., DAVID, M. and WEINER, G. (1996). Educational Reforms and Gender Equality in Schools (Research Discussion Series Number 17). Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.
ASKEW, S. and ROSS, C. (1988). Boys Don’t Cry: Boys and Sexism in Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
CLARKE, L. (1980) The Transition from School to Work: A Critical Review of research in the United Kingdom, London: HMSO
CRESSWELL, M. and GUBB, J. (1987). The Second International Mathematics Study in England and Wales. Slough: NFER.
DELAMONT, S. (1989). Knowledgeable women : structuralism and the reproduction of elites. London : Routledge
DUNANT, S. (1996). Clever girls and lost boys, BBC Radio 4, 11 January.
ELWOOD, J. (1995). Undermining gender stereotypes: examination and coursework performance in the UK at 16í, Assessment in Education, 2, 3, 283-303.
EVANS, T.D. (1982). Being and becoming: teachers’ perceptions of sex-roles and actions toward their male and female pupils’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 3, 2, 127-43.
GIPPS, C. and MURPHY, P. (1994). A Fair Test? Assessment, Achievement and Equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
GIPPS, C. (1995). What do we mean by equity in relation to assessment? Assessment in Education, 2, 3, 271-81.
GORMAN, T., WHITE, J. and BROOKS, G. (1982). Language Performance in Schools: 1982 Secondary Survey Report (APU Survey). London: DES.
HENDLEY, D., PARKINSON, J., STABLES, A. and TANNER, H. (1995). Gender differences in pupil attitudes to the National Curriculum foundation subjects of English, mathematics, science and technology in key stage 3 in South Wales, Educational Studies, 21, 1, 85-97.
KELLY, A. (1996). Comparing like with like, Education, 187, 1, 5 January, 14-15.
KEYS, W., HARRIS, S. and FERNANDES, C. (1996). Attitudes to School of Top Primary and First-year Secondary Pupils. Slough: NFER.
LEINDHART, G., SEEWALD, A.M. and ENGEL, M. (1979). 'Learning what's taught: sex differences in instruction', Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 4, 432-9.
LEWIS, M. and KELLAGHAN, T. (1993). Exploring the Gender Gap in Primary Schools. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.
LODGE, C. and PICKERING, J (1996) Boys’ Underachievement - challenging some assumptions about boys Paper presented to British Educational Research Association Conference, Lancaster, September 1996
MARSH, H.W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviours, and sex differences, Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 1, 70-85.
PYKE, N. (1996). ‘Girls excel despite the male culture’, Times Educ. Suppl., 4165, 26 April, 8.
RANDALL, J.G. (1987). ‘Gender differences in pupil-teacher interaction in workshops and laboratories’ In: WEINER, G. and ARNOT, M. (Eds) Gender Under Scrutiny: New Enquiries in Education. London: Hutchinson.
RUDDUCK, J. (1994). Developing a Gender Policy in Secondary Schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.
RUDDUCK, J., CHAPLAIN, R. and WALLACE, G. (1996). School Improvement: What Can Pupils Tell Us? Buckingham: Open University Press.
STABLES, A. and STABLES, S. (1995). Gender differences in students approaches to A-level subject choices and perceptions of A-level subjects: a study of first-year A-level students in a tertiary college, Educational Research, 37, 1, 39-51.
STANWORTH, M. (1987). ‘Girls on the margins: a study of gender divisions in the classroom’ In: WEINER, G. and ARNOT, M. (Eds) Gender Under Scrutiny: New Enquiries in Education. London: Hutchinson.
TANNEN, D. (1995). Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
TIZARD, B., BLATCHFORD, P., BURKE, J., FARQUHAR, C. and PLEWIS, I. (1988). Young Children at School in the Inner City. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
TOLSON, A. (1977) The Limits of Masculinity, London: Tavistock
Turner 1996)
WEINER, G. (Ed) (1990). The Primary School and Equal Opportunities: International Perspectives on Gender Issues. London: Cassell.
WESTON, P., DICKSON P. and HUTCHISON, D. (1992). Experiencing TVEI Extension 14-16. Overview Report. Sheffield: ED.
WIKELEY, F. and STABLES, A (1996) Pupil Approaches to Subject Option Choices Paper presented to British Educational research Association Conference, Lancaster September 1996
WILLIS, P. (1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs, Hants: Saxon House