The Role of Single-Sex Education in the Academic Engagement of College-Bound Women: A Multilevel Analysis

Abstract

Background/Context

As opportunities for public and private single-sex education have expanded, the debate surrounding this issue has become more heated. Recent reviews of research on single-sex education have concluded that the evidence is mixed, due in large part to the difficulty of attributing differences between single-sex and coeducational students specifically to the single-sex nature of their experience, as opposed to other differences between single-sex and coeducational schools and their attendees. This study comes at a time of renewed national interest in the value and appropriateness of single-sex education, especially as changes to Title IX have expanded the opportunities to establish single-sex classes and activities, and contributes new data with a focus exclusively on the academic engagement of female students from single-sex and coeducational high schools.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This study addresses whether levels of academic engagement differ between single-sex and coeducational settings.

Research Design

The study uses self-reported survey data and multilevel modeling to address secondary school-level effects in a national sample of women entering college.

Findings/Results

The analyses suggest that attendance at a single-sex high school remains a significant predictor of academic engagement even after controlling for the confounding role of student background characteristics, school-level features, and peer contexts within each school. Specifically, women attending all-girls high schools report higher levels of academic engagement across numerous fronts: studying individually or in groups, interacting with teachers, tutoring other students, and getting involved in student organizations. However, these results may also be attributed to other features that differentiate single-sex from coeducational schools, such as smaller enrollments and racial/ethnic diversity of the schools in this study.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Although the results of this study support the claims that all-female environments provide a unique opportunity for young women to thrive, these results should be interpreted with some caution. Because of the limitations of the study, it is difficult to make definitive inferences about the relationship between single-sex education and academic engagement, and we cannot assert with confidence that school gender alone is responsible for higher academic engagement. The study points the way for future research that further distinguishes the role of individual and school-level attributes and ideally examines this issue using longitudinal data. Finally, given the current expansion of single-sex education in the public schools, future research ought to employ these methodological advances in studies on single-sex public education and should consider the consequences of single-sex settings for both female and male students.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: A study of major findings on girls and education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Arms

(2007). Gender equity in coeducational and single-sex environments. In Klein

S. S.

, Richardson

, Grayson

D. A.

, Fox

L. H.

, Kramarae

, Pollard

D. S.

, (Eds.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (2nd ed., pp. 171–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bryk

A. S.

, Lee

V. E.

, & Holland

P. B.

(1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buchmann

, DiPrete

T.A.

, & McDaniel

(2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 319–337.

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.

Chouinard

, Vezeau

, & Bouffard

(2008). Coeducational or single-sex: Does it make a difference on high school girls’ academic motivation? Education Studies, 34(2), 129–144.

Cole

J. S.

, & Gonyea

R. M.

(2008, June). Differences in high school engagement and college expectations between underachieving and overachieving students. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Seattle, WA.

Cole

J. S.

, & McCormick

(2009, June). High school and expected first-year engagement. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Atlanta, GA.

Conway

K. E.

(1996). Differential effects of single-sex versus coed education on the mathematical reasoning ability, verbal reasoning ability, and self-concept of high school girls. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(12) 5047A.

10.

Datnow

, & Hubbard

(Eds.). (2002). Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single sex and coeducational schooling. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

11.

Gonyea

R. M.

(2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 127, 73–89.

12.

Haag

(1998). Single-sex education in grades K–12: What does the research tell us? In Morse

(Ed.), Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls (pp. 13–38). Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

13.

Harker

, & Nash

(1997, March). School type and the education of girls: Co-ed or girls only? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410633)

14.

Hubbard

, & Datnow

(2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low income and minority students? An investigation of California's public single-gender academies. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 36(2), 115–131.

15.

Karpiak

C. P.

, Buchanan

J. P.

, Hosey

, & Smith

(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.

16.

King

(2006). Gender equity in higher education: 2006. Washington, DC: American Council of Education.

17.

Lee

V. E.

(2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 125–141.

18.

Lee

V. E.

, & Bryk

A.S.

(1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 381–385.

19.

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(3), 578–592.

20.

Mael

F. A.

(1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 101–129.

21.

Marks

H. M.

(2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153–184.

22.

Marsh

H. W.

(1991). Public, Catholic single-sex, and Catholic coeducational high schools: Their effects on achievement, affect, and behaviors. American Journal of Education, 99(3), 320–356.

23.

McMillan

J. H.

, & Schumacher

(2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. New York, NY: Longman.

24.

Meece

J. L.

, Bower Glienke

, & Burg

(2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 351–373.

25.

Monaco

N. M.

, & Gaier

E. L.

(1992). Single-sex versus coeducational environment and achievement in adolescent females. Adolescence, 27, 579–594.

26.

Morse

(Ed.) (1998). Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

27.

Pedhazur

E. J.

, & Schmelkin

(1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

28.

Pike

G. R.

, & Kuh

G.D.

(2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76(3), 276–300.

29.

Pryor

J. H.

, Hurtado

, Saenz

V. B.

, Lindholm

J. A.

, Korn

W. S.

, & Mahoney

K. M.

(2006). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2005. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

30.

Raudenbush

S. W.

, & Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Heirarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

31.

Reason

R. D.

, Terenzini

P. T.

, & Domingo

R. J.

(2006). First things first: Developing academic confidence in the first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 149–175.

32.

Riordan

(1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

33.

Riordan

(1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10, 177–205.

34.

Riordan

(2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In Datnow

& Hubbard

(Eds.), Gender in policy and practice (pp. 10–30). New York: Routledge Falmer.

35.

Sadker

, & Sadker

(1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

36.

Sadker

, & Sadker

, Zittleman

K. R.

(2009). Still failing at fairness: How gender bias cheats girls and boys in school and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

37.

Salomone

R. C.

(2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

38.

Salomone

R. C.

(2006). Single-sex programs: Resolving the research conundrum. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 778–802.

39.

Sax

L. J.

(2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental potential of women and men. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

40.

Sax

L. J.

, Arms

, Woodruff

, Riggers

, & Eagan

(2009). Women graduates of single-sex and coeducational high schools: Differences in their characteristics and the transition to college. Los Angeles, CA: Sudikoff Family Institute for Education & New Media.

41.

Sharfman

M. P.

, & Dean

J.W.

Jr . (1991). Dimensions and constructs: a response to Dess and Rasheed. Journal of Management, 17(4), 711–715.

42.

Shmurak

C. B.

(1998). Voices of hope: Adolescent girls at single-sex and coeducational schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

43.

Smithers

, & Robinson

(2006) The paradox of single-sex and co-educational schooling Buckingham, England: Centre for Education and Employment Research, University of Buckingham.

44.

Sullivan

(2009). Academic self-concept, gender and single-sex schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 259–288.

45.

Sullivan

, Joshi

, & Leonard

(2010). Single-sex schooling and academic attainment at school and through the lifecourse. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 6–36.

46.

Thompson

J. S.

(2003). The effect of single-sex secondary schooling on women's choice of college major. Sociological Perspectives, 46(2), 257–278.

47.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

48.

Yazzie-Mintz

(2009). Engaging the voices of students: A report on the 2007 & 2008 High School Survey of Engagement. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.

49.

Yonezawa

, Jones

, & Joselowsky

(2009). Youth engagement in high schools: Developing a multidimensional, critical approach to improving engagement for all students. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 191–209.