The effects of single-sex compared with coeducational schooling on mathematics and science achievement: Data from Korea

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 105, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 444-452

  Pahlke, Erin ^a   Hyde, Janet Shibley ^b   Mertz, Janet E ^c  

^a WHITMAN COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Coeducation; Korea; Mathematics performance; Science achievement; Single sex schooling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881117447     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0031857     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. American Civil Liberties Union. (2012). Preliminary findings of ACLU "Teach kids, not stereotypes" campaign. New York, NY: Author.
2. Bracey, G. W. (2006). Separate but superior? A review of issues and data bearing on single-sex education. Tempe: Arizona State University, Education Policy Research Unit.
3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Eliot, L. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gaps, and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
5. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103-127.
6. Feminist Majority Foundation. (2011). State of public school sex segregation in the United States: Part 1. Patterns of K-12 single-sex public education in the U.S. (2007-10). Washington, DC: Author.
7. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001 Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
8. Gurian, M., Henley, P., & Trueman, T. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently! A guide for teachers and parents. New York, NY: Jossey- Bass.
9. Gurian, M., Stevens, K., & Daniels, P. (2009). Single-sex classrooms are succeeding. Educational Horizons, 87, 234-245.
10. Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J., Martin, C. L. (2011, September 23). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333, 1706-1707. doi:10.1126/science.1205031
11. Hayes, A. R., Pahlke, E., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). Testing the efficacy of single-sex education: An investigation of selection effects and school quality. Sex Roles, 65, 693-703. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9903-2
12. Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 60-87. doi:10.3102/0162373707299706
13. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
14. Jackson, C. K. (2012). Single-sex schools, student achievement, and course selection: Evidence from rule-based student assignments in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 173-187. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.09.002
15. Jackson, C., & Smith, I. D. (2000). Poles apart? An exploration of singlesex and mixed-sex educational environments in Australia and England. Educational Studies, 26, 409-422. doi:10.1080/03055690020003610
16. James, A. N. (2009). Teaching the female brain: How girls learn math and science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17. Kane, J. M., & Mertz, J. E. (2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. Notices of the AMS, 59, 10-21. doi:10.1090/noti790
18. Kessels, U., & Hannover, B. (2008). When being a girl matters less: Accessibility of gender-related self-knowledge in single-sex and coeducational classes and its impact on students' physics-related self-concept of ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 273-289. doi:10.1348/000709907X215938
19. Kim, D. H., & Law, H. (2012). Gender gap in maths test scores in South Korea and Hong Kong: Role of family background and single-sex schooling. International Journal of Educational Development, 32, 92-103. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.02.009
20. Kim, S., & Lee, J.-H. (2003). The secondary school equalization policy in South Korea (KDI School Working Paper No. 02-05). Retrieved from https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kim/www/papers/Equalization5.doc
21. Kim, T., Lee, J.-H., & Lee, Y. (2003). Mixing versus sorting in schooling: Evidence from the equalization policy in South Korea (KDI Working Paper 03-07). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract482962
22. Lee, V. E., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and co-educational independent secondary school classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67, 92-120. doi:10.2307/2112699
23. Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
24. Marsh, H. W. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high-schools on achievement, attitudes, behavior, and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 70-85. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.70
25. Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2001). The stability and consequences of same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 37, 431-446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.431
26. Melhuish, E. C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Phan, M. B., & Malin, A. (2008, August 29). Preschool influences on mathematics achievement. Science, 321, 1161-1162. doi:10.1126/science.1158808
27. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O'Sullivan, C. Y., Arora, A., & Erberber, E. (2005). TIMSS 2007 assessment frameworks. Boston, MA: Boston College, Lynch School of Education International Study Center.
28. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Smith, T. A., Garden, R. A., Gregory, K. D., Gonzalez, O'Connor, K. M. (2003). TIMSS Assessment frameworks and specifications 2003 (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Boston College, Lynch School of Education International Study Center.
29. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq (2001).
30. Novotney, A. (2011). Coed versus single-sex ed: Does separating boys and girls improve their education? Experts on both sides of the issue weigh in. Monitor on Psychology, 42, 58.
31. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/edu/pisa/2009
32. Olson, J. F., Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (Eds.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
33. Pahlke, E. E., Bigler, R. S., & Patterson, M. M. (2012). Reasoning about single-sex schooling for girls among students, parents, and teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
34. Park, H., & Behrman, J. (2010). Causal effects of single-sex schools on college attendance: Random assignment in Korean high schools (Population Studies Center Working Paper Series 10-01). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Population Studies Center.
35. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
36. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
37. Rustad, N., & Woods, J. (2004). Statement on the legality of single-sex education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/actionpages/upload/singlesex_comments.pdf
38. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
39. Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters. New York, NY: Doubleday.
40. Sax, L. (2010). Sex differences in hearing: Implications for best practice in the classroom. Advances in Gender and Education, 2, 13-21.
41. Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 929-960. doi:10.3102/00028312040004929
42. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/evidence_based/evidence_based.asp