A Meta-Analytic Critique of Mael et al.’s (2005) Review of Single-Sex Schooling

Signorella, Margaret L.; Hayes, Amy Roberson; Li, Yidi

doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0288-x

Cited by 31 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Part 2, Nagengast et al (2013) show that when propensity matching is used to control for preexisting differences between students enrolled in single-sex versus coeducational programs, the data show little evidence that single-sex schooling per se elicits better academic outcomes either during students' final 2 years of high school or in the 2 years that follow. Also in Part 2, Signorella et al (2013) report a meta-analysis that demonstrates that conclusions change dramatically when variables apart from (but often confounded with) gender composition are included. Specifically, when preexisting differences in students were taken into account, even the modest single-sex school advantages largely evaporated.…”

Section: Gender Perspectives: Essentialism Versus Constructivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of articles in the Sex Roles special issue raise similar points about advantaged demographic profiles of children who choose (or are selected) to attend single-sex public school options over children who remain in other publicschool settings (see, for example, Hayes et al 2011;Nagengast et al 2013;Signorella et al 2013). In addition to the within-student association between better entry academic skills and later achievement, these demographic differences also mean that there are different peer cultures.…”

Section: The Role Of Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Probability Values and Human Values in Evaluating Single-Sex Education

Liben

2015

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around the globe, educational opportunities and outcomes have long varied in relation to student gender. Within the United States, a particularly intense and growing controversy concerns whether education should be delivered in single-sex contexts. This paper offers a broad framework for approaching this controversy. I review arguments made by historical and contemporary proponents of genderdifferentiated education, concluding that these reveal a foundational commitment to gender essentialism (rather than to gender constructivism more commonly embraced by critics of single-sex schooling). I suggest that different gender conceptualizations and different professional traditions affect the kind of data one collects, weighs, and reports. Gender conceptualizations also affect the valence assigned to the amplification or attenuation of gender differences in educational, career, or personal student outcomes. I then propose that other kinds of human values are also relevant to the controversy. Given that in justifying their position, advocates of single-sex public education have recently been focusing less on gendered brain differences and more on the expansion of educational choice, I focus especially on the value of choice. Using arguments paralleling those found in critiques of the U.S. charter-school movement, I suggest that decisions about school choice necessarily entail judgments about a range of goals and human priorities. I close by suggesting that a resolution of the controversy about single-sex education cannot be reached through empirical data alone, but will require discussions of gender conceptualizations, what constitutes evidence, ideal educational outcomes, and broader human values.

show abstract

Section: Gender Perspectives: Essentialism Versus Constructivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Role Of Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability Values and Human Values in Evaluating Single-Sex Education

Liben

2015

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, although proponents of singlesex education argue that boys' and girls' brains are so different as to warrant different educational approaches (e.g., see Gurian et al 2009;Sax 2005), there is no scientific support for this claim (e.g., see Eliot 2013;Fine and Duke 2015). Second, on the basis of narrative reviews and meta-analyses of studies of single-sex versus coeducational classrooms Halpern et al 2011;Liben 2015;Signorella and Bigler 2013b;Signorella et al 2013;Pahlke, Hyde, and Allison 2014c), we conclude that gender segregation produces no academic advantages.…”

Section: Connecting Research Private Life and Public Policy: Feminimentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Undermining the Development of Gender Dichotomies: The Legacy of Sandra Lipsitz Bem

Liben

Bigler

2015

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sandra Bem has profoundly affected the ways that gender, gender roles, and gender development have been conceptualized and investigated by generations of scholars. Her legacy also offers an inspiring model of how academic scholarship can promote gender-egalitarian policy and practice. In our review, we identify four ways that Bem's work has shaped gender-development scholarship in general, and our individual and collaborative programs of research in particular. The empirical research and policy we discuss are drawn primarily from the United States, the context in which Bem worked and lived. We begin by describing Bem's analysis and critique of the societal practices that establish gender as a highly salient social category in the first place. We then outline her contributions to gender-schema approaches, including her conceptual work on gender-schema theories and her empirical work on the effects of gender schematicity on memory and selfsocialization. Next we review the parenting strategies Bem suggested and enacted as she attempted to raise gender aschematic, egalitarian children. In the closing section we reflect on Bem's lifelong commitment to connecting the spheres of social science research, personal life, and public policy. In addition to highlighting ways in which her work has already proven to be inspirational for our own and others' scholarship and action, we point to ways that it offers rich ideas for future research and action that may clarify gender-developmental processes and may further reduce the constraining effects of societal gender dichotomies on new generations of children.

show abstract

“…Our purpose was not to review the scientific literature related to the debate on the effectiveness of single-sex education (see Halpern et al, 2011; Klein, 2012; Signorella, Hayes, & Li, 2013 for examples of such reviews). Instead, our focus was on developing a better understanding as to how principals make decisions about whether or not to implement single-sex education and the roles that both scientific and unscientific factors have on these decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

US principals’ attitudes about and experiences with single-sex schooling

Fabes

Pahlke

Borders

et al. 2015

Educational Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting the use of single-sex education, the number of U.S. public schools offering single-sex education has increased. However, our understanding as to why decision-makers have implemented single-sex education is lacking. To address this gap, we surveyed U.S. public-school principals and assessed their attitudes about and experiences with single-sex schooling. Sixty-seven principals from single-sex schools and 193 from coeducational schools participated. The results indicated that principals who had experience with single-sex schooling tended to have more positive attitudes about single-sex schooling, viewed it as more effective, and more often evoked gender-essentialist rationales for the use of single-sex schooling than did coeducational principals. However, both single-sex and coeducational principals noted issues with single-sex schooling. It was concluded that single-sex schooling is not a silver bullet to educational reform and that when single-sex schooling is implemented, one set of issues and problems is substituted for another.

show abstract

A Meta-Analytic Critique of Mael et al.’s (2005) Review of Single-Sex Schooling

Cited by 31 publications

References 39 publications

Probability Values and Human Values in Evaluating Single-Sex Education

Probability Values and Human Values in Evaluating Single-Sex Education

Understanding and Undermining the Development of Gender Dichotomies: The Legacy of Sandra Lipsitz Bem

US principals’ attitudes about and experiences with single-sex schooling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About