Much of the research in higher education has treated student bodies as homogeneous groups with a consequent neglect of any consideration of gender differences. To test the validity of such research a questionnaire was administered to 255 psychology students. The results showed some important differences in responses between the genders. In particular, the female students reported attaching more importance than males to pre-course aims, rated various learning activities as more valuable and interesting than males and reported more improvement in nine of the 12 skills surveyed than the males. The males rated experiencing less difficulty for various aspects of the course than anticipated than did the females for 11 of 12 potential difficulties listed. As a consequence, it is suggested that researchers ought to be wary of conducting research into various aspects of higher education without considering potential gender differences.In recent years, there has been considerable research into the motivations and expectations of students in higher education, and the ways in which they develop their skills and cope with the course demands. Most of this research has been concerned with groups of students, undifferentiated by gender-e.g. Jacobs and Newstead (2000) and Dornyei (2000) on student motivation; Rae and Baillie (2005) on peer tutoring; and Sutton and Henry (2005) on student approaches to learning. Moreover, academic institutions tend to conduct their course evaluations without regard to gender differences. The implication is that gender differences are unimportant and/ or negligible. It is as if gender doesn't matter in higher education.In the UK, the academic performance of females has been consistently higher than that of males at GCSE and A-level for a number of years. For the 2004/05 academic year, for example, female A-level students scored an average of 282.4 UCAS points compared to 263.6 for males (source: National Statistics, SRF45/2005). At degree level, while there is little difference between the genders on average, there has been a

No abstract

A questionnaire was administered to part and full-time students of psychology at Liverpool John Moores University in order to determine the extent to which the part-time students appreciated the course. The results showed the part-time students reported themselves as having gained more from the programme than the full-time students, in terms of support and relationship with tutors, satisfaction with teaching and interest in various aspects of the programme. In terms of perceived changes in skill levels, however, there were no large differences between the two groups.Part-time study, an important feature of university education, has been the subject of a number of investigations in recent years, much of it focusing on sources of support, levels of satisfaction and the development of skills. Schuller et al. (1999), for example, in four Scottish Universities and the Open University found the main reported source of support came from students' spouse or partner (45%), followed by academic sources (19%) and other students (14%). Bourner et al. (1991) surveyed some 4,000 undergraduates on Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) programmes noting, amongst other findings, that examination stress and developing appropriate study skills were both rated as more difficult than expected by a large proportion of students. They also noted high levels of satisfaction with various features of their learning experience, for example, course content and the relationship between staff and students. Less satisfaction was noted for feedback on performance.Other studies have made use of comparisons between part-time and full-time students. In one, Callender (1997) surveyed 697 full-time and 573 part-time students in Britain asking, amongst other questions, the extent to which the students felt various skills had improved, deteriorated or stayed the same throughout the course. For part-time students skill levels tended to be assessed as staying the same across a range of aspects. A higher proportion of full-time students than part-time students felt the following skills had improved: analytic skills, absorbing information, computing, using initiative, working independently, self-confidence, communication skills and team working. For numeracy, writing, selfmotivation and planning time and work, a higher proportion of full-time rather than part-time students felt they had deteriorated.In another such comparison, Kember and Leung (2005), in Hong Kong, found that part-time students rated their capability development higher than those of full-time students on all scales except communication skills. In discussing their results, Kember and Leung point to the fact that the part-time and full-time students were taught separately, the former group in three-hour blocks after a day's work and the latter in traditional 50 minute university lectures. To aid attention in the three-hour blocks, the teaching for the part-time students was more varied than for the full-time students, leading to increased interaction between students and staff. This te...

No abstract