Gender In The Classroom: Are We Meant to Learn Together

1. Gender In The Classroom: Are We Meant to Learn Together A study investigating the relationship of the different genders in a first grade classroom.

2. Purpose for Study • Purpose of this study • Francis M. Dwyer and David M. Moore • Gender as a factor in education • Andrew Sum and the gender • Girls mature sooner than boys

3. Purpose Cont. • My question then is, if the genders separated in schools, would it make a difference on boy’s attitude towards education and overall academic success?

4. Current Research on Gender Grouping • Research on the use of homogeneous groups versus heterogeneous groups has been the focus of recent studies including its use with group work and cooperative learning.

5. Research in favor of Gender Grouping • Joan Butler’s research • Research by Scott Watson and James Marshall

6. Research opposed to Gender Grouping • Research by Slavin and Oakes. • Feldnusen and Moons research

7. My Research • Research Question: • Does the academic achievement and behavior of children vary when grouped with their like gender compared to a mixed gender group?

8. Demographics of My Research • Urban elementary school • First grade • Title I school • Variety of diversity. • 21 students • Between the ages of six and eight. • Ethnicity: 11 Caucasian, 8 African American, 1 Russian, and 1 Hispanic • 8 girls, and 13 boys

9. Research Method • Four week time span • Two weeks homogeneous • Two weeks heterogeneous • Everyday I measured each student in three different areas: • Behavior • On/Off Task Behavior • Completion of Class work.

10. Method Within these three categories I gave each student a rating of one to three. 1= lowest 3= highest Behavior: 1= A note was being sent home to the parents. 2= Name was moved to the warning board. 3= No behavior problems for the day

11. Method • On/Off Task Behavior: • 1= The student could not stay on task at all and had to be called on at least twice to get back to work. • 2= The student had trouble staying on task and had to be reminded to get back to work. • 3= The student was able to stay on task for the majority of the day without having to be reminded to get back to work.

12. Method • Completion of Class work: • 1= The student did not finish any of their class work. • 2= The student finished some of their class work. • 3= The student finished all of their class work.

13. Results: Behavior

14. Results: On/Off Task Behavior

15. Results: Completion of Class Work

16. Analysis of Results • Overall there seemed to be no significant results of the data, although for each variable, week 2 (the homogeneous group) had a lower mean than week 1 (the heterogeneous group). • For further analysis I also compared girls and boys separately.

17. BehaviorGirls vs. Boys

18. On/Off Task BehaviorGirls vs. Boys

19. Completion of Class WorkGirls vs. Boys

20. Analysis of Results • The boys scored higher overall for both week 1 and week 2. • Though both groups scored lower the second two weeks, the boys scored higher during week 2 than the girls did. • The girls showed more variance while the boys had very little difference between the two time spans.

21. Conclusions • Does the academic achievement and behavior of students vary when grouped with their like gender compared to a mixed gender group? • As far as first grade is concerned, students did slightly worse when grouped with their like gender opposed to a mixed gender group.

22. Recommendations • Conduct the research over a longer time span. • Do a comparison research of the same design with 1st grade, 4th grade, 7th grade, and 10th grade. • Instead of separating the sexes in the same classroom, separate and observe them in completely separate classrooms.

23. Bibliography • Abrami, Phillip c., Chambers, Bette, Yiping, Lou, Poulsen, Catharine, Spence, • John. (2000). “Why Should Be Group Students Within-Class for Learning?” Educational Research and Evaluation V6, p158-179. • Adler, Patricia A., Peter Adler, and Steven J. Kless. (1992). “Socialization to • Gender Roles: Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls.” • Sociology of Education. V65, p169-87. • Baer, John. (2004). “Grouping and Achievement in Cooperative Learning.” • College Teaching, V51p169-174. • Ciscell, Robert E., (1991). “The Student Grouping Preference for Preservice • Teachers.” Illinois School Research and Development, V27. • Demmon-Berger, Debbie, (1985). “What are you Doing for the Gifted and • Talented.” Updating School Board Policies, V16. • Dwyer, Francis M., Moore, David M (2001). “The Effect of Gender, Field • Dependence and Color Coding on Student Achievement of Different • Educational Objectives” International Journal of Instructional Media v28. • Hersberger, Jim. (1995). “On My Mind: Cooperative Groups Can and Often • Should be Homogeneous.” Mathematics Teaching in the Middle Schools, • V1 p436-438. • Horch, Hadley Wilson, Wilson, Lucinda M. (2002). “Implications for Brain • Reserearch for teaching Young Adolescents.” Middle School Journal, V34. • Kibby, Michael W. (1977). “The Status and the Attitudes of Homogeneously • Grouped Second-Graders: An Exploratory Study.” Elementary School Journal V78. • Marshall, James E., Watson, Scott B. (1995). “”Heterogeneous Grouping as an • Element of Cooperative Learning in an Elementary Education Science • Course” School Science and Mathematics v95, p401.