!
1
!
Chapter 1
Introduction
In the recent decades, the differences in achievement for male and female students
has been the topic of much discussion and research. It is common belief that students
perceive each gender to have normative traits that equate to certain levels of success in
school; the prolonged reproduction of these set of standards form gender stereotypes
(Vernier, Martinot, 2015). According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), these
gender stereotypes are socially constructed beliefs that influence how students perform in
the educational setting (Vantieghem, Vermeersch, Van Houtte, 2014). Conflicting
outcomes of achievement for male and female students, known as the educational gender
gap, are a direct result of the enactment of these stereotypes. Legewie and DiPrete (2012)
argued, “Now that a growing gender gap in educational attainment has emerged, it is
important to extend this line of research and ask whether schools affect gender inequality,
and if so, what are the mechanisms by which this occurs” (p. 463). Understanding where
the behavioral constructs associated with male or female come from, who propagates
them, and how they influence a student’s success in school could provide educators with
the data needed to address the most influential factors leading to the widening gap in
achievement (Adams, Blumenfeld, Castaneda, Hackman, Peters, & Zuniga, 2000).
This chapter is arranged into the following sections: overview, problem statement,
purpose of the study, significance of the study, theoretical framework, definition of terms,
and summary. Together, these sections provide a brief overview of relevant literature
!
2
!
surrounding the topic, give insight into the formulation of the research topic and
questions, demonstrate how this study built upon prior research in the field, and
articulate how this study introduced meaningful information into the broad spectrum of
educational gender gap research and research on influential factors of gender stereotypes
for middle school students.
Overview
Gender identity and social identity link through a causational relationship. The
self-identity of gender plays a very important role in the formation of a social identity for
“without including the concept of interaction with society at large, the term has no
meaning” (Schramm-Pate, 2014). One builds upon the other. According to Albert
Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory, gender roles are socially learned constructs
and how a child perceives ways in which he or she should act come from observation of
others, imitation of gender specific attributes, and the reward or punishment that he or she
receives during his or her performance of gender specific behaviors. Through this, a
child’s perception of who he or she should become melds together with their expectation
of others.
Middle school students, in particular, are at a pivotal moment in their lives as they
learn to become more independent, self-aware, and cognizant of how they fit into the
world around them (Dougherty, 1997). Students in this age bracket can easily articulate
what they believe a male or female should do, how he or she should act, and even what
happens to him or her if they do not fit into what is accepted. According to Schramm-
Pate (2014), Vygotsky explains a child develops the rules of behavior “through social
interactions with significant people in a child’s life, particularly parents, but also other
!
!
3
adults” which calls to question the influence of the educational system on a child’s sense
of gender identity and social identity since a child spends the majority of his or her day,
once they reach school age, with teachers and in a school-based setting. However, even if
these adolescents can explain what they believe, not all adolescents are self-aware
enough to be able to describe, or even understand, where their ideas came from (Levykh,
2008).
In conjunction, the difference in how males and females perform in school has
been a topic for debate for years. In the seventies, the focus of this debate was on the lack
of achievement of females in the math and sciences. Through examination and research
into this focus on female achievement, several areas of concern where identified: a lack
of role models in science and math textbooks and resources for girls, a teacher’s attention
focused more often on the more active constituents in the classroom, i.e. the boys, and a
culture of pervasive gender stereotyping occurred which furthered female passiveness
and compliance in the learning environment (Byrne, 1978; Hodgetts, 2008; Vantieghem,
Vermeersch, & Van Houtte, 2013). In the early nineties, the focus shifted to the
disinterest and lack of motivation of males in the academic realm, not just in one or two
content areas but in the learning environment as a whole (Vantieghem, Vermeersch, Van
Houtte, 2013). Throughout all of the intensive studies on females’ and males’ lack of
achievement in schooling, the goal was to help all students become successful.
As an institution, education’s founding premise is everyone can learn regardless
of differences and that our differences should not hinder our ability to be successful in the
academic setting (Marzano, 2007). In turn, curriculum, as prescriptively defined by
Glatthorn (2006), was “all the learning experiences planned and directed by the school to
!
!
4
attain its educational goals” (p. 4) and it was also descriptively defined as “the
reconstruction of knowledge and experience that enables the learner to grow in exercising
intelligent control of subsequent knowledge and experience” (p. 5).
Therefore, curriculum, as a derivative of policy, practice, and theory, is the
avenue to which knowledge and understanding are dictated by the school and ultimately,
it is access to critical pathways of knowing gained by the student (Adams, 2000).
Sometimes, however, the two do not correlate, thus diminishing the ultimate goal of
curriculum and the institution of education. This is important when examining possible
causal factors into gender stereotyping in schools and elements that may be leading to the
current issue of the educational gender gap.
Problem Statement
Research has indicated that males generally underperform relative to their female
counterparts in most areas of the industrialized world (Legewie, & DiPrete, 2012).
Specifically, for Small-town Middle, the male students have consistently, over the last 4
testing cycles, had less of the population meet the state expectation for proficient in both
reading and math. The growth for this subset has also been minimal. In contrast, the
female population performs at or above the state’s cut score for proficient in both areas
and this group has also seen a steady increase in percent meeting or exceeding state
expectation over the last four years. As seen in Figure 1.1, the female population at
Small-town Middle has a proven record of outperforming the male population in both
reading and math.
!
!
5
When examining how this trend averaged out over the four-year period, 65.1% of
male eighth grade students passed the Reading portion SC PASS while 76.35% of
females at Small-town Middle passed; this is a difference of 11.25 %.
Figure 1.1 Percent proficient on SC PASS from 2011-2014
Similarly, in the Mathematics portion of SC READY, when looking at the
average over the four-year period, 66.65 percent of males passed while 76.5% of females
passed. This is a difference of 9.85%.
Similarly, enrollment in advanced coursework in the eighth grade, English I
Honors, has historically had more female students than male and the End of Course
(EOC) test given by the state has, on average, seen the female subset consecutively
produce a higher mean. This is a significant factor because it reproduces the staggering
difference in male and female performance for this school in a very different population:
gifted and talented versus regular education. In both tracks, the results are the same. The
females outperform the males.
This study sought to determine how these rural middle school students form their
ideas of what males and females can do in school. Explicitly, the study looked at three
65.1
68.9
67.1
72
61.9
65.7
66.3
60
79.4
80.8
75.6
78.7
78.3
73.9
72.1
72.6
READING
14
MATH 14 READING
13
MATH 13 READING
12
MATH 12 READING
11
MATH 11
PERCENT PROFICENT ON SC PASS
Males Females
!
!
6
possible areas of influence for the formation of gender stereotypes: school experience,
peer influences, and parental influences. Using Likert-type items, open response, and
checklist items, the survey sought to garner both a qualitative understanding of students’
perceptions as well as a quantitative measure of which factor was most influential.
Purpose of the Study
The context of this research study focused on how the middle school students in
one southern, rural, middle school, Small-town Middle, perceived gender roles and
stereotypes as an influence on their academic achievement. There were three contributing
factors examined: school experiences, social factors (i.e. peer influences), and parental
influences. Specifically, the goal of this study was to identify the degree to which these
factors played a role in the formation of gender stereotypes and how these roles created
gender norms and expectations that caused the students to have variations in attitude and
behaviors towards being academically successful.
The research questions that guided the study were as follows:
1. How do a small sample of rural eighth grade students perceive gender to
influence academic performance?
2. Which contextual factors including school experiences, peers, and
parental influence most directly contribute to the formation of gender roles in the
academic setting?
3. How do the contextual factors ofschool experiences, peers, and parental
influence effect beliefs about gender roles as they pertain to academic success?
4. Which academic traits are most often associated with which gender roles?
!
!
7
To address the research questions, the researcher developed an electronic survey that
included both Likert scale items and checklist items for quantitative review and a series
of open-ended items for qualitative review. Survey participants completed items in the
following areas in order to evaluate their personal experience with gender roles and
stereotypes in school: a) school-based experiences, b) social experiences (i.e. peer
relations), c) parental expectations for gender and academics, and d) gender traits in
academics. To deepen the understanding of a student’s authentic experience with these
factors, participants examined personal beliefs about gender roles and academics through
a series of open-ended sentence starters which allowed for individualized answers to be
produced. In the final portion of the survey, fourteen academic traits were identified and
participants had the option to determine if the academic trait was “masculine,”
“feminine,” or neutral in nature which was labelled “both.”
Significance of the Study
Educational gender gap research tries to explain why there are differing levels of
achievement between males and females. Often that research targets one population over
the other in order to “fix” the problems at hand (Vantieghem, Vermeersch, Van Houtte,
2013). In doing so, a one-sided picture is created. In contrast, this study sought to
examine the same core issue, the underperformance of the male eighth grade students at
Small-town Middle, from both the male and female perspective. Having an understanding
of what both subsets of the population believe to be contributing factors allowed for a
broader and more well-defined picture of the substantive factors involved in the disparate
academic performance. It also allowed the researcher to examine if gender stereotypes
!
!
8
were internalized in the same way by both genders or is one gender was internalizing a
different social message than the other group.
Because the study hinged on academic performance, specifically on proficiency
levels on the state test, examining the cultural context of the educational setting was
imperative. Adams (2000) argued that curriculum, because it is the traditional path to
learning and is implemented by an institution, can often be seen as a “dominant agent,”
one which often reproduces systems of social privilege and power (p. 6). In this same
vein, Joseph (2000), explained that we must “examine curriculum as a culture by taking
into account the histories, norms, beliefs, values, roles, patterns of behavior, and
environments of educational practices” (p. x). When applying the conceptual
ramifications of the culture of curriculum to the idea that such ingrained systems of
learning can indoctrinate students, one can begin to see why what is taught (policy), how
it is taught (practice) and why it is taught (theory) are paramount to the propagation of
our established society. In a perfect world, the curriculum as a development of aligned
policy, practice, and theory would provide every learner with the tools necessary to
critically assess the world around them and, in places where inequality or inequity was
present, be able to eradicate such disparities (Adams, 2000).
Determining the factors that create gender stereotypes for students will help
identify how these beliefs are formed. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) articulated
that we learn through a social context and our learning molds our behaviors and our sense
of self. It also bridged tenets of both behaviorism and cognitive learning theories and, in
doing so, explained that children imitate and replicate behaviors often associated with
gender norms because those norms have external reinforcement from the society in which
!
!
9
the child operates (McLeod, 2016). Furthermore, it explained that children adopt
behaviors and expectations that are reinforced extrinsically by our society and most often
through interactions they have with peers and adults (Bandura, 1977). It is this
confluence of factors that begged the question: are we, as a society, perpetuating gender
expectations in our schools which led to the separation of male and female academic
success? Therefore, it was this theory that helped to formulate the possible contextual
factors that might lead to the formation of gender stereotypes for students at Small-town
Middle.
Through this investigation, the researcher sought to examine how gender norms
and expectations were formulated for rural eighth grade students at Small-town Middle,
especially in regards to their influence on a student’s perception of the academic self. By
use of a mixed methods survey, in which item analysis, T –test data analysis, and In Vivo
coding were employed to obtain data, the researcher presented findings that elaborated
upon the contextual factors that most directly relate to students’ beliefs about gender
stereotypes and subsequently how those stereotypes played a role in academic
performance as encountered by the middle school students at Small-town Middle.
Finally, several findings from the research about stereotypes of gender in schooling were
explored, which provided possible direction for future research.
Theoretical Framework
The lens the researcher used to conduct, analyze, and draw conclusions about
this research was based on a sociological approach to education through a disciplinary
orientation. This study was a mixed methods ethnographic case study as it was rooted in
concern for the cultural context and since it examined a bound set of factors and elements
!
!
10
that were assessed through the research (Merriam, 1998). A disciplinary focus was
employed by the researcher due to involvement in the field of study. Furthermore, since a
disciplinary orientation situated the preliminary ideas for this study, the focus was more
finely tuned by examining how Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) interplayed with
constructs of curriculum in schools, the impact of peers on normative behaviors, and
parental influences that shape a student’s perception of gender stereotypes in relation to
academic performance.
According to Bandura (1977), gender roles were a socially learned construct and
how a child perceived that he or she should act comes from observation of others,
imitation of gender specific attributes, and the reward or punishment that he or she
received during his or her performance of gender specific behaviors. This study
examined how the specific social institution of education, because of the interchange of
social, parental, and school-based influences, may have had a major influence in the
continued practice of gender norming in the school setting, especially in regards to the
eighth grade students at Small-town Middle.
Definition of Terms
The following terms and phrases were defined according to their application in
this study.
Achievement. Achievement is defined as the level of expectation for students to
be considered grade-level proficient on state given assessments (Vantieghem,
Vermeersch, Van Houtte, 2013).
!
!
11
Attention. Attention is the initial phase in the social learning theory. During this
phase a child notices certain important behaviors in a model, most likely an adult of
influence (McLeod, 2016).
Contextual Factors. Contextual factors are the elements determined to have the
most possible influence on the given scenario. In this study the contextual factors are:
school experiences, peers, and parental influence.
Curriculum. Curriculum is the avenue of learning. It is broken into three pieces:
policy, practice, and theory. It is highly important because it can be a reproductive model
which causes certain beliefs to become ingrained in the system (Adams, 2000).
Educational Gender Gap. The educational gender gap refers to the differential
achievement of males and females in the academic setting (Vantieghem, Vermeersch,
Van Houtte, 2013).
Gender. Gender is often used interchangeably with sex but in the context of this
study gender refers to male or female, not biological sex (Freedman, 1993).
Gender Expectations. Gender expectations refers to the articulation of norms by
society, parents, peers, media, or other influential factors (Serbin, Powlishta, & Gulko,
1993).
Gender Identify. Gender identify is how an individual chooses to see him or
herself in regards to gender. A person may determine that they are male or female or in
some cases neither or both (Schramm-Pate, 2014).
Gender Norms. Gender norms refers to the socially prescribe ways of acting that
are appropriate for a person’s gender. It is the basic separation of individuals into
dichotomous and binary categories (Freedman, 1993).
!
!
12
Gender Roles. Gender roles are the enactment of gender norms and expectations
as dictated by the society in which one lives (Freedman, 1993).
Gender Socialization. Gender socialization is the way males and females are
often socialized differently. It deals with how each sex is conditioned to conform to the
norms associated with gender (Serbin, Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993).
Gender Stereotypes. Gender stereotypes are the expectations that a gender must
act and behave in a certain way. Many times, these stereotypes are false and cause
oppressive societal structures to be prolonged.
Heteronormative. Heteronormative structures support the idea that there are two
distinct complementary genders, male and female, and that people should enact behaviors
associated with their biological sex (Afshar, 2004).
Hidden Curriculum. Hidden Curriculum is the reproduction of societal
expectations that are supported in the curriculum and the culture of an educational
institution. These expectations can be detrimental as they can continue a culture of
oppression and repression (Sambell, & McDowell, 1998).
Meditational Process. This is the process of cognitively processing observed
behaviors and then determining what behaviors to repeat (McLeod, 2016).
Motivation. Motivation is the final phase in the social learning theory. During
this phase the child receives either positive or negative feedback based on their
replication of behaviors and is therefore condition to either accept or reject certain
behaviors based on extrinsic motivational factors (McLeod, 2016).
Nature vs. Nurture. “The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative
importance of an individual’s biology (i.e. genetically inherited DNA) (“nature”) versus
!
!
13
socialization (i.e. personal experiences in the social world) (“nurture”) in determining or
causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits” (Schramm-Pate, 2014).
Reproduction. This is the third phase in the social learning theory. During this
phase the child repeats or imitates the behaviors that were noticed and retained. It is
important to note that only behaviors that have made an impact on the child are
reproduced. (McLeod, 2016).
Retention. Retention is the second phase in social learning theory. During this
phase the behaviors that the child was exposed to and noticed are then retained in the
memory so that they can be cognitively processed (McLeod, 2016).
Sex. Sex is the medical term used to identify the biological construct of the
body’s genitalia, i.e. a penis or a vagina. Sex and gender are often used interchangeably
but for the purpose of this study sex refers solely to the biological construct. (Serbin,
Powlishta, & Gulko, 1993).
Sex Typing. Sex typing means to categorize objects, tasks, and even occupations
in order to assign them to a particular gender. Sex typing is done by society as a whole,
by individuals, i.e. parents, and is often seen depicted through media (Serbin, Powlishta,
& Gulko, 1993).
Social Learning Theory. Social learning theory is a theory originating from the
work of Albert Bandura (1977) which tries to explain the reproduction of behaviors
associated with gender identity. There are four steps in the process of social learning:
attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation (McLeod, 2016).
!
!
14
Social Identity. Social identity refers to how a person perceives himself or herself
in relation to the society in which he or she lives but it also refers to the way that a person
understands how others in their society perceive them (Schramm-Pate, 2014).
Limitations
Small-town Middle had approximately 400 eighth grade students separated onto 4
“teams.” Each team consisted of approximately 100 students with four core-content area
teachers. Teams were number: 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4. Each team had even numbers
Honors, as well as Regular Education students.
To eliminate possible repetition of the survey or possible repeat respondents, the
researcher asked only one content area of teachers if they would be willing to be part of
the study. If they had all said “yes” then the study could have included all four teams and
all approximate 400 eighth grade students at Small-town Middle. Of the 4 teachers the
researcher queried, only one teacher was willing to have her classes serve as the data set
for the study. Therefore, this study only surveyed approximately 25% of the total
possible data pool.
Also, the researcher had to rely on the lead teacher of team 8-3 to remind students
about consent forms, to let the researcher know if parents had made any contact with
concerns, and to collect the parental consent forms. The date for the study was also
determined by the lead teacher and the administrator for Small-town middle based on
their testing windows and calendar of school events at the end of the year. Neither the
lead teacher nor the principal wanted to miss instructional time that could be used in
preparation for the end of the year tests and so the study had to be conducted during the
very last week of school.
!
!
15
The researcher was also only allowed one day to conduct the survey; therefore,
any students who were permitted to take the survey but may have been absent or missed
that class period due to other circumstances, were not able to be part of the sample
population. Similarly, the researcher had no control over the school calendar for events
such as fire drills, lock downs drills, scheduled drug dog searches, or other common
school occurrences that could possibly occur during the research study.
Delimitations
The realm of gender roles and gender stereotypes is infinitely broad and has many
applications. However, for the purpose of this study, only those myths and stereotypes
about traditionally acceptable gender roles of male and female as they pertain to
education were explored in the literature review. Though there are a vast amount of
resources that delve deeply into the promulgation of gender norming in our society and in
our culture, only those myths that directly correlated to those roles in the educational
setting did the researcher deem pertinent.
Similarly, when examining the contextual factors of peer influence, the researcher
focused on how those influences are shaped directly through actions and words through
peer to peer interaction. Social factors such a social media, music and film, and news
media were not investigated even though those avenues can contribute to the formation
of certain believes and values.
Finally, the research into school experiences hinged on the students’ experiences
interacting with his or her teachers in the academic setting. It did not delve into
examining curricular resources, access to to adult advocates, the layout of the physical
environment, or even percentage of male and female adults in the building. Though
!
!
16
those are all very valuable pieces of data that could directly lead to possible formation of
beliefs for students, the most influential element was deemed to be the direct contact a
student had with the adults he or she encountered and therefore, the focus remained on
the student’s personal experiences with educators.
Summary
Understanding the relationship between the factors that led to the formation and
dissemination of gender stereotypes and norms in the academic setting and how a student
saw gender roles affecting his or her academic performance could lead to a raised
awareness of the major contributing factors of the educational gender gap. Examining the
possible contextual factors separately helped to pinpoint the extent to which these factors
could be the cause. Identifying where these norms proliferate may be vital in the efforts
to uproot the pervasive and systemic stereotypes about gender performance in relation to
how a student believes he or she should perform in school.
This study attempted to delineate where possible gender expectations came from,
how they were propagated, and how they affected a student’s academic success.!Using a
mixed methods approach, the researcher hoped to gain quantitative insight into
contextual factors that led to gender stereotypes in the educational setting that had the
strongest correlation to academic performance. Similarly, by giving students the
opportunity to relate their experiences in their own words, the researcher hoped to honor
the authentic voice of the students and provide qualitative data that represented their
lived experiences.
!
17
!
Chapter 2
Literature Review
This chapter is a review of the literature related to Albert Bandura’s (1977) social
learning theory, and to current trends and research on the educational gender gap.
Literature related to these topics is examined in this chapter to align the study with past
and current research, validate the research problem, and provide theoretical grounding to
the research questions. Relevant literature about the implications of the social learning
theory, and gender gaps in academics are the primary topics summarized in this chapter.
This section represents an analysis and interpretation of how the process of this research
study is consistent with the ideas presented within social learning theory literature and
research into how curriculum contributes to the educational gender gap.
The review of literature is divided into two major sections. The first section,
Social Learning Theory, is separated into 4 subtopics: (1) history of the theory, (2) social
factors, (3) parental influence, (4) school environment. The second section, Curriculum
and the Educational Gender Gap, is categorized into four subgroups as well: (1) history
of the educational gender gap, (2) the hidden curriculum, (3) dominant myths about
females, (4) dominant myths about males.
This chapter concludes with a summary section in which salient points from the
encompassing research are reviewed. Strategies for searching relevant literature to this
study included electronic databases such as ERIC (Education Resources Information),
EBSCOhost, Discus, dissertations, newspapers, books, and professional journals such as
!
18
!
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Electronic Magazine of Multicultural Education, WILLA – Women in
Literacy and Life Assembly, Social Psychology of Education and other prominent
academic journals.
Social Learning Theory
History of the theory. Albert Bandura (1977) was widely held to be the father of
social learning theory. In this theory, children process through observational learning.
This was commonly referred to as the “mediational process” as it focuses on how mental
factors are the catalyst for learned behaviors (McLeod, 2016). Bandura (1977) also
focused on the factors that caused repeated behaviors in children because it was his belief
that children had to process what was observed and then determine if they should imitate
that behavior based on the consequences that would arise if the behavior is repeated. He
broke the social learning theory down into four basic elements as shown in Figure 2.1.
The four components are as follows:
1. Attention: Attention is the initial phase in the social learning theory. During this
phase a child notices certain important behaviors in a model, most likely an adult
of influence.
2. Retention: Retention is the second phase in social learning theory. During this
phase the behaviors that the child was exposed to and noticed and then retained in
the memory so that they can be cognitively processed.
3. Reproduction: This is the third phase in the social learning theory. During this
phase the child repeats or imitates the behaviors that were noticed and retained. It
!
19
!
is important to note that only behaviors that have made an impact on the child are
reproduced.
4. Motivation: Motivation is the final phase in the social learning theory. During this
phase the child receives either positive or negative feedback based on their
replication of behaviors and is therefore condition to either accept or reject certain
behaviors based on extrinsic motivational factors (McLeod, 2016).
Through the process of repeated exposures, a child begins to determine how he or she
should act.
Figure 2.1 A Framework for the Social Learning Theory Model
As Freedman (1993) explained, the social learning theory “focuses on how gender
differences occur, stressing processes through which males and females may come to
adopt similar or dissimilar ways of being” (p. 5). It was not as concerned with the why of
the behaviors as it was with the avenue to which those behaviors become internalized and
• How does the
student perform
or imitate the
behavior?
• What positive
or negative
feedback does the
student receive?
• What
impression
does the
behavior
have on the
student?
• What behavior
does the student
observe?
Attention Retention
ReproductionMotivation
!
20
!
a repeated pattern of behavior for a child. Freedman (1993) went on to explain the
importance in this difference because, “They place a greater importance on the
individual’s subjective experience of gender identity than do either of the social structural
theories or the evolutionary theories of gender differences” (p. 8). McLeod (2016)
concured by stating, “As such, SLT [social learning theory] provides a more
comprehensive explanation of human learning by recognizing the role of the mediational
process.” Bandura’s (1977) work has become one of the founding theories regarding
how behaviors are adopted and implemented. As Grusec (1992) explained,
To begin with, he rescued the process of identification from the confusion of
hypothesized roots in dependency and acquired reinforcement and motivation,
directing the theoretical focus to a more fruitful basis in cognitive processes,
including attentional and memorial factors. Bandura's empirical contributions
during the 1960s and 1970s provided ample evidence of the central role of
observational learning in a diversity of areas, particularly aggression and self-
regulation. The research also highlighted the variety of mechanisms mediating the
acquisition of behavior through observational learning. It is doubtful that anyone
today would argue that modeling does not play a dominant role in socialization
(p. 784).
In other words, accounting for a child’s ability to recognize behavioral patterns, to
distinguish between who performs those patterns, and to determine the validity of
patterns suggest that the cognitive process was highly influential in a child’s reproduction
of behaviors, more so than perhaps other theories that focused on evolution or the
“nature” argument suggested.
!
21
!
Social factors. Adolescents’ perceptions of how they should act are often
reinforced by the gendered messages produced and delivered by the people they watch
and learn from. Vygotsky, in the Zone of Proximal Development theory, ascertained that
a child learns about what is acceptable in his or her culture through observations of the
world in which they live (Levykh, 2008). It stands to reason then that the formation of
gender expectations and gender norms are learned from the societal structures that a child
develops within and around. Baker (2013), argued, “the intersection of culture, politics,
and biology often decides how we behave. Our bodies, male and female, are the very
vehicles through which we perform our genders and how we perform our genders is so
often decided by social forces outside of us.” The world in which one lives has a
tremendous impact on beliefs about what is acceptable, what people of each gender are
capable of achieving, and in turn it can very often pigeon hole people into categories that
are based on false assumptions. Dyer (2000) cited Kimmel as stating:
Boys’ reluctance to pursue certain fields because of gender stereotyping, for
example, resonates with girls as well. Sexual bullying and teasing in schools
affects both boys and girls as victims and perpetrators. Boys may face
homophobic taunts while girls grapple with other forms of harassment, but a
hostile school culture of sexual harassment or bullying redounds on both sexes
deleteriously and academic achievement, notions of masculine and feminine
attitudes, choice, tendencies, or pursuits inhibit both sexes from exploring a range
of interests (p. 29)
This was a very poignant observation as it proved that when examining how gender
stereotypes present themselves, one cannot focus solely on either the male or female
!
22
!
perspective. it is the confluence of both viewpoints that brings to light the broader
spectrum of issues. For this research study, this point was paramount as the researcher did
not want to focus only on males nor only on females but on the perceptions of both
genders in the academic setting.
Gender is one of the broad categories used to created normative behaviors and
often it can be seen as the starting point for the promulgation of attitudes and beliefs, but
one must also take into consideration that there is a myriad of factors that intersect in
shaping these behaviors and beliefs. “Boys and girls share an increasingly complex,
multicultural community, both within and outside of school where either identity is
crucially mediated and shaped by other social characteristics such as a student’s
socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, linguistic status, immigration status, age, sexuality,
and region” (Dyer, 2000). Also, it is important to acknowledge that the variances in
gender stereotypes and sex typing from within these subgroups directly relates to the
home life in which a child is raised.
Parental influences. During the early stages of development, a child is dependent
on his or her parents to sustain life. As the child grows, develops, and begins to form
cultural knowledge, an impression of how each parent should act begins to take shape.
Early on, the child observes his or her parents, retains in his or her memory the patterns
observed, observes those patterns being reproduced or reproduces them himself or
herself, and is motivated by the parent to continue to reproduce the pattern or not. With
these impressions, the first categorical markers form. Serbin, Powlishta, and Gulko
(1993) described this process as the onset of sex typing:
!
23
!
One of the first dimensions that children notice is sex. “Male” and “Female” are
dichotomous, exhaustive, and perceptually salient “natural kind” categories that
are emphasized by adults and peers. Because there are usually observable
behavioral differences between the sexes within the child’s world, gender
category knowledge is often useful in making predictions about the behaviors of
males and females.
The researchers go on to explain that the attitudes of the parental figures largely
influence the degree to which the child will sex type items, toys, and even occupations.
How a child perceived the parent to react to behavioral differences becomes the patterns
that the child then repeats.
This is important when considering that the child who is brought up in a highly
sex typed environment with strict traditional dichotomous gender roles, may find certain
aspects of the educational environment to be inappropriate for their gender. “Children are
more likely to describe toys and occupations as appropriate for only one sex if their
parents espouse more traditional sex-typed personality characteristics” (Serbin,
Powlishta, Gulko, 1993). The child internalized what he or she believed their parents
value. Even when these values are not espoused outright, a child picks up on social
markers through interactions with the parent and it is the perception from the child that
reinforces the normative traits.
In contrast, if the parents are more open to non-normative gender roles, the child
has a less strict opinion of what he or she must perform. Serbin, Powlishta, and Gulko
(1993) found that this was particularly true in households where the mother worked
!
24
!
outside of the home or where the father took a large part in the child-rearing. This made
an interesting argument when examining different parenting structures.
Research has shown that parenting styles can have a tremendous impact on a
student’s academic success, regardless of gender. According to Khan, Ahmad, Hamdan,
and Mustaffa, (2014):
Present study focuses on parent’s contribution to their children’s success by
helping with homework, guiding students in their choice of courses, and
implicitly and explicitly encouraging school success by setting and maintaining
high standards. Parenting style plays an important role in the area of social and
educational development (Leung, 1988), it influences a child’s success in many
domains such as academic achievement (Darling, 1999).
When synthesizing what Serbin, Powlishta, and Gulko (1993) found in
conjunction with the information from Khan, Ahmad, Hamdan, and Mustaffa (2014), it
was evident that the attitudes and traits exhibited by the parents towards the child have a
lasting effect on not only the child’s reproduction of behaviors, but also on the future
academic success of the child far past the early childhood years. Similarly, Rivers (2012)
explained that parental expectation and the relations formed between parents of either sex
have a strong contribution to student success:
The quality of parent–child relations is often conceptualized within the parenting
styles framework and has been utilized as a basis for understanding differences in
child and adolescent outcomes. For example, previous research has established
relationships between parenting styles and the academic performance and
achievement of adolescent youth. A consistent finding from this research is that
!
25
!
authoritative parenting, defined as those who are demanding and responsive to
their children and have set clear rules and expectations for their children is
associated with positive gains in adolescents’ academic performance and
achievement (p.202).
Different parenting styles culminate in different outcomes for children and not all
sex-typed parenting styles will always reproduce child with strict sex typed notions, but
there is evidence to the fact that parents who believe their child capable of academic
success, regardless of gender, fare better than those children who have very restrictive
parental views on gender. It is also important to note that the child’s internalization of
these behaviors comes from their observation of their parents, motivational factors
received based on their reproduction of certain traits, and how the child processes that
information to come to a conclusion about how to act moving forward. Their perceptions
of their parents’ beliefs and expectations become their reality.
School environment. Schools systematically reinforce the ideologies of middle
class America with regards to gender identity and the heteronormative ideas of male and
female (Sambell &McDowell, 1998). There are certain roles and cultural assumptions
about males and females that are often imposed, which means boys act like boys
(masculine, heterosexual, dominate) and girls act like girls (feminine, heterosexual,
submissive) and if one does not fit nicely into one or the other category than the
perception is that there is something wrong. Farrell (2005) explains, “To describe a social
institution as heteronormative means that it has visible or hidden norms, some of which
are viewed as normal only for males/men and others which are seen as normal only for
females/women” (p. 3). In addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the American
!
26
!
educational system, in many cases, is indoctrinating children with the notion that anyone
who does not exactly fit into the mold of what is considered normal must therefore be
“abnormal” and needs to be corrected, dismissed, or, in extreme cases, punished (Pincus,
2000).
Schools are public places geared specifically toward the acquisition of knowledge
and to broaden the minds of American youth. According to Gratz (2000), the primary
purpose of standards is economic, meaning students must become globally competitive if
the economic structure in this country is to flourish, and it is to address the disparities
between affluent schools and high-poverty / minority schools, meaning everyone has the
right to a good education (p.681). More importantly, schools are in place to help children
grow into productive, rational, contributing members of society, no matter what their
gender identity may be. Therefore, when examining the many normative doctrines that
are in place in American schools, the point realized is that the approach towards gender is
skewed. A binary where the two genders are pitted against one another becomes the
norm. Dentith (2002) explains, “Gender is something we do and something we think
about. It is a particular set of practices and cultural meanings that organize people into
categories that are not based on biological truths.”
McCann (2013) uses the term gender to “refer to the process by which sex
differences are struggled over, enacted in cultural practices, and inscribed in and
deployed by social institutions (schools, courts, hospitals, and media)” (p. 17). This is the
take away idea. Gender roles are not necessarily based on biological truths; they are
imposed notions about how genders should behave and are not constituted on the
!
27
!
capabilities of the young men and women in the classrooms of today’s America. This is
of utmost importance for as Giroux (2013) explains,
Under a pedagogy of repression, students are conditioned to unlearn any respect
for democracy, justice, and what it might mean to connect earning to social
change. They are told that they have no rights and that rights are limited only to
those who have power. This is a pedagogy that kills the spirit, promotes
conformity, and is more suited to an authoritarian society than a democracy.
The idea that people of other gender role orientations are not included in the
educational pedagogy, and if they are, they often belittled, does nothing except to solidify
the notion that people who do not conform to heteronormative structures are outside the
realm of acceptable society. Education perpetuates the idea that not being part of the
heteronormative community makes that person abnormal and thus devalued. For females
this does not just mean sexual identity (i.e. lesbians) but also females who do not appear
overtly feminine or even females who have more aggressive or dominate personal
qualities like voice or tone, which are considered unladylike. For example, strong willed
boys are called “determined”; strong willed girls are called “bossy” (Gurina, 1996).
Males have it just as bad. Legewie and DiPrete (2012) explain, “Boys’ notorious
underperformance in school and their tendency to disrupt the learning process in
classrooms has sparked intense academic and public debates about the causes of what
many now call the ‘problem with boys’” (p. 463). The mere undertones in labels and
adages such as that suggest that there is only one set way to act in the school setting and
therefore, it reinforces the stereotypes of how males and females should perform in
schools.
!
28
!
It is these types of practices that constrict both subset of students by forcing unfair
societal expectations onto them. In turn, the prolonged exposure to these stereotypes
replicates the model implied in the social learning theory for what is seen is then retained
and then reenacted.
Curriculum and the Educational Gender Gap
History of the educational gender gap. There are many buzz words in education
today. One of the big ones is diversity. Students in many American classrooms can be
seen sitting and working in groups with other students who look very different from how
they do. The American classrooms are a melting pot of individuals from varying
experiences and it is through this diversity that the system is more accepting of people
from different backgrounds, socio-economic status, and religions. One key component
schools tend to believe they address is diverse learners. Diversity is a hot button topic in
today’s world of education and even institutions of higher learning are adding in diversity
components into their training for future educators (Farrell, Gupta, & Queen, 2004).
Joseph (2000) describe this reflection on how diversity is handled as follows:
When we think about a school or classroom culture, we must simultaneously
imagine not a state entity but an assemblage of individuals who have different
family cultures, different understandings and values influenced by race, gender,
sexual orientation, social class, and religion as well as their own creativity and
imagination (p. 27).
As McCarthy and Dimitriadis (2000) explained, “A recognition that our
differences of race, gender, and nation are merely a starting point for new solidarities and
new alliances, not the terminal stations for depositing our agency and identities” (p. 82).
!
29
!
However, the reality is that schools, though now more focused on diversity and beginning
to have the open conversation about acceptance and celebration, have not always found
the melding of different groups to be easy or successful. The national organization
American Associate of University Women (AAUW) conducted one of the very first
research initiatives into how women were treated differently from their male counterparts
in 1885 and found that, against popular belief, that pursuing higher education did not
injure women’s health (Dyer, 2000). From there forward, the discussion of how and why
men and women performed differently in academic settings was on for full debate. In the
early seventies, the focus was on the lack of female success in the math and sciences.
From there the pendulum swung full force in the other direction and by the nineties the
focus was on how boys were falling behind and what had the system done to cause it. As
Dyer (2000), explains, “Christine Hoff Sommer, charged that the research on girls
distorted evidence of girls’ success, distracted public attention from the ‘real’ victims in
schools- boys- and promulgated a bias against boys’ ‘natural’ behavior in the feminized
classroom” (p. 7). Modern research shows that as a results boys’ overall attitudes
towards school depict a very dark image indeed. They are less interested in the school
and in learning in general and the research chronicles a much lower rate of engagement in
classwork, less time spent on homework, and it reports that they find school less
meaningful and enjoyable (Kessels, Heyder, Latsch, & Hannover, 2014).
The educational gender gap is a perplexing issue that calls to question inherent
sources. Mead (2015) agreeed that the gap does not lend itself to an easy answer by
stating, “This leads to two possible lines of thinking about gender gaps: Either they
represent innate differences in boys’ and girls’ abilities, or they reflect biases in how
!
30
!
schools and families treat boys and girls that translate into differences in outcomes.” If
the latter is the root cause, then an examination of what we teach in schools and how the
culture of the school is formed needs to be scrutinized.
Hidden curriculum. Teachers teach more than the standards and objectives set
out by the state. They teach lessons, rules, and ways of interacting with the fellow man;
they teach children the norms of the society in which they live. Joseph, Mikel, and
Windschitl (2011) go further to explain that teachers can be so much more than the mere
transmitters of knowledge; in fact, they need to “envision progressive, humane, and
ethical curriculum and image themselves in new identities as powerful and dedicated
creators” (p. 65) to the art of the educational experience. Curriculum is the connection
between the learned and the learner. It is the bridge between what is done (i.e. practice),
how it is done (i.e. policy) and why it is done in such a way (i.e. theory) (Adams, 2000).
This is often known as the hidden curriculum. In America, the school system’s
hidden curriculum can often be described as a white, middle class, heterosexual agenda
as Alsubaie (2015) explained, “A hidden curriculum refers to the unspoken or implicit
values, behaviors, procedures, and norms that exist in the educational setting.” Certain
ways of speaking, listening, communicating and dealing with conflict are geared by the
norms of a nuclear middle-class family. The goal of the hidden curriculum is not
necessarily malicious; instead it is meant to help even the playing field and teach students
social norms so that they, too, can interact in the society in which they function (Sambell,
& McDowell, 1998).
However, it extends further and deeper than that. Most current curriculum does a
cursory job investigating the diversity of our society and the historical variety of
!
31
!
viewpoints (Alsubaie, 2015). Sometimes what is not taught is just as powerful and
memorable as what is taught. In the same vein, Afshar (2004) explained,
One reason there are so many misconceptions about sexuality is that it is not
talked about in U.S. educational systems. It is not generally included in primary
schools because, it is argued, it is too early for children to learn about sexuality
(Fine, 1988). It is often not included in high school curricula because, the
argument goes, adolescents are at a crucial age and should not be exposed to the
“promotion of sexuality,” especially non-heterosexuality. It is not included in
college since it is not ‘relevant’ to the subject matter in most courses. (p. 36)
The hidden curriculum has its negative side effects. It can often spur homophobia and put
into place gender boundaries. Instead of teaching students to accept diversity and work on
conflict resolution, student receive an inferential message about the necessity to “fit in” to
social norms. Different becomes synonymous with bad and children, very early on, do
not want to be seen as either.
Dominant myths about females. The blatant stereotype of female roles is known
as heterosexism. In his book, Sexual Orientation and School Policy, Ian Macgillivray
(2004) stated, “heterosexism of the larger society affects schools in that the diverse
people and perspectives are most often excluded from the curriculum and practices of the
school which results in physically, emotionally, and developmentally hostile
environments for many students.”
It was not so long ago that here, in South Carolina, one would see cars proudly
sporting a “Shave the Whale” sticker to refer to Shannon Faulkner, the first female cadet
at South Carolina’s very own Citadel University. The problem was that she was a
!
32
!
woman, and therefore she had no place in a place meant for men. She was stepping
outside the traditional role of a female and it caused intense and immediate backlash, not
just for her but for all women, especially in South Carolina. It was widely discussed
through media outlets and in households across this state that “girls should know their
place”, i.e. the Citadel not being one of them (Manegold, 1994).
Shannon Faulkner never graduated from the Citadel because she eventually was
so ostracized, so bullied, so harassed that she had to drop out (Manegold, 1994). And in
doing so, many of those who said a woman could not handle it in a man’s world took it as
proof they were right. It is this restrictive viewpoint that can be seen in regular public
school classrooms today. In his essay, “The Invisible Presence of Sexuality in the
Classroom”!Ahoura Afshar (2004) states, “Practices of regulation and restriction are
integral to creating and maintaining hierarchies of power, which in turn limit the kinds of
learning and teaching that can happen in our classrooms” (p. 34). When we tell a woman
she doesn’t belong in a particular institution of learning, the implication is much farther
reaching than just that one particular organization. It sends a cultural message about the
roles of females.
It is this hetero-centric idea that pervades the classrooms of modern America. If
material with a different take on gender roles is to be taught, it would need to be selected
by teachers, but that seldom, if almost never, occurs. Morris (2005) in the article “Queer
Life and School Culture: Troubling Genders,” found that teachers unconsciously made
things harder because they continued to teach curriculum that excluded instead of
accepted gender role diversity. She even said that such actions on the teacher’s part
project prejudgments and rigid expectations onto people who are different. Reluctance or
!
33
!
refusal to address gender identity issues produce the major problem for female students
because it only reinforces the masculine dominate role. In the article, “Teachers as
Products of Their Schoolings: Disrupting Gendered Positions,” Sanford (2002) found the
following:
Because teachers serve as role models, the attitudes that they present, both
implicit and explicit, affect the attitudes and values of the children they teach.
Teachers' selection of materials, responses to texts, and the ways that teachers
express ideas have a powerful impact on children. Their beliefs and actions
become inseparable from the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs of the students as
they develop in classrooms of individual teachers and in school more generally.
Teachers are the transmitters of knowledge and if all that is transmitted is the hetero-
viewpoint than the idea that anything slightly different (dress, attitude, posture, voice,
etc.) must therefore be wrong and the repercussion for students is that to be right, one
must adopt the set of heteronormative rules established in society for their designated
gender. Girls are better readers; boys are better in math. Girls are more linguistic; boys
are more physical. Girls are demure; boys are gregarious (Serbin, Powlishta, Gulko,
1993). All of these ideas are not only false but they also dictate ideas to students that they
should or should not have particular educational interests.
When the material taught within the classroom supports the heteronormative
stereotypes imposed by other social institutions, the solidifying notion of what genders
mean becomes ingrained in the students. The implications can bleed from the curriculum
to the school community and in turn, subsequently teach the students that those who are
not part of the “curriculum” are not to be valued. Dentith (2003) stated, “in a society such
!
34
!
as ours that values certain archetypes and specific forms of conformity, discrimination
and alienation become the norm for all who are different.” This is not a new fact.
America has dealt with issues regarding racism, nationalism, ability discrimination, and
ageism. Even homophobia is widely discussed in the political realm and on social
medias. However, it is how it is handled in schools that has the greatest impact and often
causes the greatest detriment to our society as a whole since children spend the greatest
amount of their day in the educational setting. Dentith (2003) further found that being
viewed as different from the norm or “other socially inscribed ways of being can lead to
social alienation through bullying and other forms of abuse or discrimination.”
Therefore, the reluctance or direct refusal to address gender identity issues in the
school setting can lead to not only a negative undertone towards those that are different
but also an outward violence towards those students who do not fit into the
heteronormative practices prescribed by the American school culture. Afshar (2004)
stated, “LGBT students (and teachers) ARE present in our classrooms—whether we
choose to see them or not—and it is their very invisible presence that demonstrates the
power of heteronormativity to mask that which does not conform, and to naturalize that
which does” (p. 33). Though he focuses on the implications for LGBT students, the idea
is the same for non-normative heterosexuals. If one is a heterosexual but does not “act it”
then this applies. This could mean females with larger builds or dominate personalities;
this could mean boys with a propensity for dress-up or who may not be athletic.
Most recently, Sunnie Kahle, an 8-year-old girl in Virginia was removed from her
school because she did not fit into the gender roles they found acceptable, namely her
short hair and desire to wear baggy t-shirts and shorts with sneakers. On March 27th,
!
35
!
2014, Good Morning America’s Sydney Lupkin reported, “a Virginia school has said it
will not allow her to return in the fall ‘unless Sunnie as well as her family clearly
understand that God has made her female and her dress and behavior need to follow suit
with her God-ordained identity.’” When questioned about her gender identity, the
grandmother said, “Sunnie always says she’s a girl, though she happens to like collecting
baseball cards and rocks, and practicing using her BB gun with her grandfather” (Lupkin,
2014). Though this particular case comes from an ultraconservative Christian school in
rural Virginia, it is a testament to the fact that gender role reinforcement is still alive and
well in the school systems of today.
Dominant myths about males. However, the argument is not one sided. Males
also face stereotypes about how they should or should not behave, especially in regards to
academic performance. Pollack (1998) described the 3 prevalent myths about boys in
“Real Boys: The Truths behind the Myths.” The 3 major falsehoods he presented are:
1. Boys will be boys;
2. Boys should be boys;
3. Boys are toxic (p. 88-97).
Under these three assumptions, there are damaging value judgments passed onto
boys at an early age that dictate what and who they should become as adult men.
The adage “boys will be boys” is the most crucial because it states
explicitly that it is part of who the male is biologically that makes him the way he is. The
verb “to be” means the subject was created that way and will always be that way; it is a
constant that has no hope of being reversed, modified, or corrected. This statement is
used to dismiss certain events in a boy’s life as mere play or boyish antics and in turn
!
36
!
places blame for any ill will or uncouth behavior on the hormone testosterone. Pollack
(1998) contendde that, “the idea that high levels of testosterone equate with high levels of
violence stems from the mistaken assumption that testosterone is the only force that
inclines boys towards both active, rough and tumble play and violent behavior” (p. 91).
However, what he goes on to examine is that, though testosterone is a factor in some
outward attributes of this behavior, it is in no way more determining than factors of how
a boy is raised and nurtured. “Boys will be boys” is not only a dismissive statement used
to placate crude and rough behavior, it also propagates the notion that boys cannot help
who they are and that the testosterone in their bodies has more control over who they are
than the families and households and environments in which they are raised and that idea
is categorically incorrect. We are who we are and we do what we do because of nature
and because of nurture in combination.
While nature is considered biological, nurture is considered environmental.
Testosterone is nature; home life is nurture. Leaving out such an important part of the
puzzle does not allow for a full picture of the underlining reasons for behavior. McCrae,
Costa et al (2000) in “Nature over Nurture: Temperament, Personality, and Life Span
Development” explained the role of nurture:
Environmental influences play crucial roles in the functioning of the personality
system in several different respects: They define the conditions under which
human personality evolved; they shape a vast array of skills, values, attitudes, and
identities; they provide the concrete forms in which personality traits are
expressed; and they supply the trait indicators from which personality traits are
inferred and trait levels are assessed (p. 175).
!
37
!
This notion combined with Pollack’s (1998) demonstrateed that the dismissive idea of
“boys will be boys” gives no credit to the home life or environment the boy is in day after
day and in fact, it is this environment that plays a major role in aggressive/ violent
behaviors as much as testosterone. Michael Gurian (1996) goes on to add, “it is more
accurate to say that much of who we are is determined by body chemicals, brain
differences, hormones, and by society’s efforts to honor this biology through its
socializing influences” (p. 102). So, it is the combination of elements that creates possible
aggressive or unwanted behaviors. Furthermore, what needs to be realized is that a ball
through a window or running full speed down the hallway in a school may not be
necessarily a “male” behavior. It may simply be a child who had aimed and released
incorrectly or who got caught up in a moment of excitement. That can happen to anyone,
not just boys.
The second myth that “boys should be boys” is where we begin to see ugly gender
expectations rear their head. This statement declares that there are certain ways boys
should act in relation to girls and if they do not act in these prescribed manners then they
are not adhering to the norms of their gender. Pollack (1998) refered to these norms as
the “gender straitjackets” (p. 94) and that these inhibitors do not allow males to live in
ways that are more natural to their inclinations. Then he references a hidden structure of
masculinity known as the “Boy Code” (Pollack, 1998, p. 94) which lays out particular
ways of behaving: 1) Be tough, 2) Demand respect, 3) Never act like a “girl”. The
stigmas attached to these hidden rules of behavior for males not only set up the hierarchy
of male dominance over female, they imply that to be male one must never show
tenderness, earn another’s respect, or allow oneself to share the qualities that make us all
!
38
!
human if they could even remotely be perceived as feminine. This “hardening process” is
seen almost as a rite of passage for boys entering into adulthood as a “man” but what it
also does is makes boys “cut off from their own feelings and their voices no longer fully
connect with their emotional selves” (Pollack, 1998, p. 95). In the end, this myth creates
boys who become men who no longer know how to behave in any other manner than the
one that was forced up on them as children and that is a travesty.
The third and final myth, “boys are toxic,” is even more devastating to the
creation of identity for young males. As Pollack (1998) described, this idea makes them
seem dangerous, and unstable like “unsocialized creatures” (p. 98) incapable of being
reasoned with. The sentiment also denotes the idea that if they are so dangerous then we
must protect the other gender, females, from them. In schools, this plays out through
disciplinary measures associated with labeling boys as dangerous, deviant, or delinquent.
Skiba, Michael, Nardo, and Peterson (2002) found, “A number of studies have found that
boys are four times as likely as girls to be referred to the office, suspended, or subjected
to corporal punishment” (p.321). This is the myth in manifestation. If boys are indeed
toxic, they must be whipped into shape and so wide sweeping disciplinary measures are a
result (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002, p.167). As Pollack (1998) stated, “It is as if we are in
the midst of an irrational society-wide backlash against boys and young men” (p. 98).
Often when an idea is repeated long enough by enough people, it gets incorrectly
assumed to be a truth. This holds true for the myths presented by Pollack (1998). As a
result, the sentiment that males are wild, uncontrollable, irresponsible, irrational creatures
makes the idea of educating them seem daunting and insurmountable. Kindlon and
Thompson’s (2002) poignant comparison of boys as thorns on roses is both timely and
!
39
!
perennial for a thorn is seen as a nuance, an item to be clipped or removed, or one that by
its mere presence is damaging. They explain that males in classrooms are labelled as
“different, lesser, and sometimes frowned upon presence and he [the male student] knows
it” (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002, p. 155). No educator intends to stigmatize his or her
student population; unfortunately, many educators do not have a full grasp of the
multifarious ways one’s presumptions can come through to the students. When
examining the facts such as “research indicates a boy is four times more likely to be
referred to a school psychologist” or that “60 to 80 percent of learning disabilities occur
in boys” (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002, p.163) the glaring indication is that, though a
teacher’s intent may not be to stereotype or brand male students, it is indeed occurring.
Throughout Kindlon and Thompson’s (2002) essay the major cord that resonated
was the notion that because of some of the possible biological tendencies of a child who
self-identities as male (i.e. running, climbing, physical play, or any perceived aggressive
action) that as a student he gets labelled as “wild” or “uncontrollable” and even “bad.”
These labels lead to disciplinary issues, obstinate behaviors, or a development of the
“hate” of school (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002, p.163).
Very similar to William Pollack’s (1998) notion of the 3 defining myths about
boyhood, Kindlon and Thompson (2002) examined the archetypes often thrust upon male
students: the wild beast or the entitled prince (p. 166). Such derogatory labels presume
that boys are both uncontrollable and incapable of responsible decision making or in the
case of the entitled prince, the male is allowed to function separate and above others and
as such normal rules do not apply to him. Kindlon and Thompson (2002) explained:
!
40
!
When our responses are distorted by these and other archetypal ideas, boys suffer
for it. If the school culture or teachers react to a boy in ways that suggest they are
fearful of him, baffled by or uncomfortable with him then he assumes he is
fearsome and somehow not quite right, even unlovable. If they excuse him for
reasonable childhood expectations because he is a man in the making and need
not be bothered, the lessons of empathy and accountability are replaced by a creed
of entitlement void of responsibility (p. 167).
Neither idea allows for male students to express themselves in other fashions.
When these labels are applied in the educational setting, it is no wonder that boys often
find school a source of frustration and resentment.
Summary
The educational gender gap has been an issue historically in our country for
decades (Legewie & DiPrete, 2012). Research surrounding the differences in academic
attainment between males and females began in the early seventies with a focus towards
increasing opportunities and achievement for females regarding the math and sciences
and by the nineties it had shifted to the decline of male academic success. Since then,
there has been an ever widening gap between male and female success with little to be
done to assuage the problems. One main cause may be that, while there are many factors
taken into consideration to address this growing concern, one of the most obvious, the
formation of gender identity, is not often researched. Vantieghem, Vermeersch, and Van
Houtte (2013) explained, “in the past decades too little research has attempted to
transcend the gender dichotomy and too many explanations have stayed firmly linked to
sex categorizations and distinctions thus ignoring the unifying mechanisms across sexes
and reducing intra-sex differences” (p. 358).
!
41
!
By continuing the previous research using Bandura’s (1977) social learning
theory as the foundation and examining possible sources of gender normative attitudes, a
more contemporary investigation can be made to determine if the perceptions of students
about the interplay of gender and academics lead to a perception of increased or
decreased academic success. Ascertaining the contextual factors that lead to the
internalization of sex typed patterns of behavior can also determine who and what are the
primary influences that affect students’ success in academic areas. Identifying current
perceptions that students hold about how their peers, parents, and school environment
formulate their beliefs will be helpful to educators to gauge ways to best address these
false stereotypes. It will also assist educators in developing programs that decrease
archaic beliefs about what our male and female students are equally capable of achieving.
Examining how these beliefs and attitudes occur in present-day curriculum through
policy, practice, and theory, will shed light on the ingrained and indoctrinated falsehoods
that are perpetuated in our current educational system. Therefore, building positive
attitudes for both genders will aid development of educational reform policies that in turn
will benefit the entire student population and may lead to the lessening of not only the
educational gender gap, but the educational gap that occurs between many demographics
of students.
!
42
!
Chapter 3
Methodology
The research at Small-town Middle was an ethnographic case study using a mixed
methods survey focusing on how rural eighth students perceive gender stereotypes as an
influence on academic performance. Concentrating on social learning theory, the
interplay between gender roles and academics, and the contextual factors that influence
middle school students to associate gender roles with particular academic traits, the study
examined how school experiences, peers, and parents influence the roles of gender in
regards to academic performance.
Small-town Middle, with 800 students and just under 60 staff, is the only middle
school in a historically rural and poor district. The district in which the school is located
takes up more than 70% of the land mass in the county but only constitutes a very small
portion of the tax base. The other districts in the county are much more affluent and, as
such, have been able to prioritize and support initiatives that Small-town Middle is
incapable of: one to one technology, MacBook distribution for students, class sets of
iPads, etc. The poverty index at Small-town Middle is at 74% and even though the school
would qualify, it is not a Title I institution. The demographic makeup of the school
consists of 70 % percent Caucasian- American, 20% African American, and 10%
consisting of a mix of Hispanic and other.
Students at Small-town middle are teamed, which means that of the 400 eighth
grade students roughly 100 are on each team. Each team consist of 4 teachers: one
!
43
!
English Language Arts (ELA), one math, one science, and one Social Studies. Of those
four, one teacher is selected to be the lead teacher. He or she is designated as the leader of
the team and traditionally acts as the liaison between the administration and the student
body, as well as the point of contact for all nonacademic activities for the students. The
“team” is a current common middle school practice that attempts to bridge an adolescent
from elementary to secondary schooling with a more individualized focus on student
development by way of a close knit community of students and educators.
Over the past four testing cycles, the school has maintained a “Good” rating on its
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), but it has not made gains in closing the achievement
gaps in many of its populations’ subsets. Most recently, it did not meet targets for 4 of its
subgroups: males, African Americans, Free and Reduced lunch, and Special Education
students. It did meet annual growth targets for the targeted groups of White, Female, and
Hispanic. Though the data from the Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (PASS) used
to inform this study was from several years prior, it was the only testing assessment that
had been consistent since 2013-2014. South Carolina administered the PASS assessment
for an eight-year cycle before the state adopted ACT Aspire in 2014-2015 and then
switched to SC READY in 2015-2016. Therefore, when examining trends in data, school
systems have adopted looking back several years to PASS as it provided the only
longitudinal data available for reading and mathematics. With the most current data
available through SC READY, even though it was a benchmark year for testing, the
school only has approximately 43% of student reading on-grade-level and only 36% of
student performing on-grade-level in mathematics. The data breakdown is not available
for subgroups at this time.
!
44
!
Statistically, the female student population at Small-town Middle continuously
makes growth and achieves on-grade-level status while year after year, the male
contingency stagnates with on-grade-level targets and the percent of males meeting
targeted growth has not made any substantial gains over the four-year time frame of data
that is consistent. In the data from the 2014 school year’s administration of the state
assessment, PASS, 79.4% of female students were considered on-grade-level while on
65.1% of males were considered on-grade-level for reading. In math, 80.8% of females
met the grade level requirement and males only had 68.9% meeting grade level targets.
For every year in the four year testing cycle, females outperformed males in both reading
and math.
Another important data source used to inform this study was school records of
enrollment into English I Honors coursework in eighth grade and the mean score on the
End of Course (EOC) assessment given by the state as seen in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1.
Table 3.1 Mean EOC Score for Males versus Females from 2011 to 2014
Testing Year
Males EOC sore
Females EOC Scores
2014
85.6
88.1
2013
85.5
86.8
2012
84.1
86.7
2011
87
85.7
!
45
!
Figure 3.1 Enrollment numbers for English I Honors in the eighth grade
Enrollment in English I Honors in eighth grade is determined by a student Gifted
and Talented status, his or her 7th grade ELA class average, and his or her performance
on the state adopted formative assessment, NWEA’s Measures of Annual Progress
known as MAP. These data coupled with the state assessment data trends for reading and
math for the same four-year cycle became the catalysts for the study as it attempted to
understand why females were considerably more successful on state given assessments
and in the school setting, and what factors caused the male population to fall further and
further behind academically.
Methodological Justification
Surveys have three general purposes: deciding policy, planning and evaluating
programs, and conducting research (Fink, 2013). The survey employed in this study,
entitled “Middle School Students' Perceptions of Gender Identity and Its Influence on
Academic Performance,” was designed to gather feedback from Small-town Middle
School’s eighth students to help identify what could be some possible contextual factors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2014 2013 2012 2011
Enrollment Numbers for English I Honors
Males Females
!
46
!
leading to the trend in data on state assessment measures and in school based coursework
that caused concern over the gender educational gap. Achievement, in this instance, is
defined as the level of expectation for students to be considered grade-level proficient
(Vantieghem, Vermeersch, & Van Houtte, 2013).
The information gained in this survey had three specific goals for the teachers and
administration at Small-town Middle to help them begin to analyze possible ways to
counteract any negative influential factors that might be a root cause for poor academic
performance for all of its students. Those goals were:
1. It will also allow the staff to determine if any changes need to be made to
either curriculum or articulation of expectations and, if so, what these specific
changes should entail.
2. If the survey determines that the influential factors creating negative gender
norms are from peers or from parents, then the school could consider
formulating parent sessions, workshops, or training to help educate
stakeholders about the detrimental effects of gender stereotyping.
3. If the stimulus seems to be most tightly tied to peer influence, then the
guidance department along with the school’s staff could begin to weave non-
normative education into the character education program currently in place in
the school.
Using research into motivational factors for students (Stipek & Seal, 2001) and
the social learning theory as a component (Bandura, 1977), there were three areas of
concentration that needed to be examined in the study: school influence, peer influence,
and parental influence. These were the areas that have been deemed to be most consistent
!
47
!
and most important in the child’s development of attitude towards school. Using these in
conjunction with the influences of gender norms and gender expectation, several
objectives were determined for the survey.
The objectives of the survey include:
• Determine what possible school experiences might influence a student’s belief
about how genders should perform in school
• Examine how peer interactions in the academic setting might influence a student’s
belief about gender roles and school success
• Evaluate parental influences on academic performance as such influences pertain
to a student’s gender expectations
• Determine which academic traits are most often associated with which gender
roles from a student’s perspective
The framework depicted in Figure 3.1 is intended to show a reciprocal relationship
between the factors of influence, gender identify, and then also academic performance.
Though gender identify is the result of influential factors, it can also be a catalyst for how
expectations are perceived from outside sources. In the same vein, academic performance
can be both a causal result as well as an instigating factor in gender identity. The result is
that one is developed from the other and vice versa.
In developing this conceptual framework, the researcher centralized the category
of gender identity since it is the fulcrum in the study. The influential factors that are
believed to lead to the formation of gender role expectations in academics are: a) school
based experiences, b) peer relations, and c) parental influence. These factors, though they
are separate categories, also influence one another as well thus the interim circles
!
48
!
between the categories in the conceptual framework. There is also an arrow between
gender identity and these factors that is shown to go both ways as each area is influenced
by the other and it is a continuously evolving process that is not necessarily one
directional in nature.
On the other side of gender identity, academic performance is shown to result
with a positive or negative influence. It, too, has a two directional arrow as how a student
performs academically in particular subject areas can also influence not only further
academic performance but also the development of gender roles and expectations.
Subsequently, these influences may lead to either positive or negative gender role
expectations associated with academic performance.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 3.2 Conceptual Framework for Gender and Academic Performance
Research questions. The framework represents the structure for what research
questions will be answered in the study as all research question focus on the three
influential factors, their relationship to the student’s gender identity, and how academic
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER IDENTITY
AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
Academic!Performance
Positive!
influence
Negative!
Influence
Parents
Friends
/!Social!
Teachers/!
School
Gender!
Identity
Influential!Factors
!
49
!
performance is effected as a result. The research questions that guided the study were as
follows:
1. How do a small sample of rural eighth grade students perceive gender to
influence academic performance?
2. Which contextual factors including school experiences, peers, and parental
influence most directly contribute to the formation of gender roles in the
academic setting?
3. How do the contextual factors of school experiences, peers, and parental
influence effect our beliefs about gender roles as they pertain to academic
success?
4. Which academic traits are most often associated with which gender roles?
To address the research questions, survey participants will complete items in the
following areas in order to evaluate personal experience with gender roles in school: a)
school-based experiences, b) social experiences, c) parental expectations for gender and
academics, and d) gender traits in academics. Participants will also examine personal
beliefs about gender roles and academics through a series of open-ended sentence starters
which allowed for individualized answers to be produced.
Data Source and Collection
Format of survey. The survey consisted of 17 items divided into 4 categories:
School-based experiences, Social Experiences (i.e. peers), Parental Expectations for
Gender in Academics, and Gender Traits in Academics. These items include questions
using a Likert-type scale, open response items, an extended personal response item, and
checklist questions. The items were also broken into subsets which examine specific
!
50
!
areas in more depth than a general question could ascertain. Classifying question stems
under item headings in order to minimize the visual appearance of the survey into
manageable chunks seemed prudent since the target audience were middle school
students and not adults. Had each item been set apart, the survey would have had 43 tasks
to be completed, instead of the 17 item survey formatted into subsets. Fowler (2014)
indicated that people are more apt to answer a survey that appears to have a smaller
number of tasks rather than a long list of items one after another. Each category had its
own page of items that once completed sent the participant on to the next page. In total,
the survey had 6 pages.
The researcher created the survey using Google Forms, a web-based survey
instrument. Using this service allowed the researcher to designate pages geared to
specific areas of focus and allowed for the survey to be drafted in such a way that all
changes were instantaneous and live on the web. It also allowed for the survey to use an
html link to be connected from an external website so that survey participants had access
to the survey from any computer with internet access. This was an important factor in the
design of this survey since it was given to students using one of the computer labs at
Small-town Middle and multiple sections of students were able to take the survey using
the same computers during one school day. It also allowed them to take the survey
without having to have a username and login, which the students do not have at Small-
town Middle, unlike many of the neighboring school districts.
The survey began with an introduction to the purpose of the survey which was
intended to reiterate why the students were answering the survey questions and to also
remind students that the survey, in no way, affected academic standing, both of which
!
51
!
were included on the letter that went home to the parents. The introduction to the survey
was as follows:
I am a researcher from the University of South Carolina. I am working on a study
about gender as an influence on academic performance and I would like your
help. I am interested in learning more about your experiences and how they have
shaped your thoughts and feelings about gender roles and their effects in school.
Your parent/guardian has already said it is okay for you to be in the study, but it
is up to you if you want to be in the study.
If you want to be in the study, you will be asked to do the following:
• Answer some written questions about your experiences with gender roles in
school, how your friends and peers respond to academic success for males and
females, and what you think your parents expect from you in regards to your
academics.
•Any information you share with me will be private. No one except me will know
what the answers to the questions were and because you will not be listing any
information other than your gender, I will not be able to tell who wrote what.
You do not have to help with this study. Being in the study is not related to your
regular class work and will not help or hurt your grades. You can also drop out of
the study at any time, for any reason, and you will not be in any trouble and no
one will be mad at you. Please ask any questions you would like to about the
study.
Since the targeted audience was determined by location and attendance, directly
thereafter occurred the only demographic question. It asked the student which gender he
!
52
!
or she identified with in his or her day-to-day life and the answer choices are male,
female, and I do not feel comfortable choosing at this time. The third option came out of
research provided by Letts (1999) suggesting that by only offering a dichotomous set of
gender roles, the norm that someone must only be male or female is propagated further
and, since the purpose of the survey was to allow for authentic voices about gender in
academics to be heard, it seemed necessary to offer a more open selection of choices for
gender. It was also intended to frame the participants’ lens of understanding going into
the survey.
Pages 2 through 4 of the survey consisted of a single set of Likert-type items (4-6
items in the set), and 3-4 open response items that began with sentence starter prompts.
The Likert-type items used a 4 option scale that includes strongly disagree, disagree,
agree, and strongly agree. Each of these pages followed the same pattern because these
were the pages that dealt with the conceptual framework’s influential factors: school-
based experiences, peer influences, and parental influences. Each page began with an
explanation. For example, on the Social Experiences page it said:
The following questions deal with ways your friends influence how you may see
gender playing a role in school. Some questions will have a scale you can use to
answer. Other questions will ask you to type in your thoughts. If it asks you to
type, do not worry about spelling; just try to give as much detail as you can for
each question.
It was necessary to try to maintain a consistent amount of items and format so that
the visual impact of the srvey did not inadvertently give more weight to one of the factors
over the others. The open response items also followed the same structure and were
!
53
!
altered only toward their given category. For example, one sentence starter in school
experiences said, “When it comes to school, males are good at…’” and the parental
influence equivalent was, “When it comes to school, my parents think males are good
at…”. It was also important since the researcher was surveying a less mature audience to
keep a consistent format to ensure ease of use and to help participants understand the
tasks they were given (Fink, 2013).
Table 3.2 Distribution of Item Types by Contextual Factors
Category of
Contextual
Factors
Likert Items
Open Response
Items
Checklist Items
School-based
Experiences
6
4
0
Social Experiences
6
4
0
Parental Influence
4
3
0
Gender Traits in
Academics
0
1
14
The fifth page of the survey used a checklist format. This page began by saying,
“Below you will see a list of academic traits. Please decide if you think these are
associated more with being masculine (male), feminine (female), or both.” Then the
survey participants were given a list of 14 academic traits. They were only to choose one
option per trait. The goal of this checklist was to see trends in what students deem
masculine, feminine, or gender-neutral academic qualities.
The final page provided the students with an opportunity to give an extended open
response. The instructions said, “Please give any personal thoughts or experiences you
believe might provide a better picture of how being male or female relates to academic
!
54
!
performance as you have experienced in your life.” Participants then had a text box that
allowed up to 1000 characters in which to formulate their response. The goal of this
question was to allow for authentic reflection on the part of the student so he or she was
able to elaborate on personal experiences that were not necessarily ascertained in the
questions prior. After the final open response was a brief statement of thanks from the
researcher to the participants expressing gratitude for their input.
Piloting of Survey Questions. To ensure that the survey would be clear to the
participants of the research study, the researcher enlisted the assistance of two former
students, one male and one female, to read the survey after it was designed. These
students were recent eighth grade graduates from Small-town Middle and therefore were
similar to the targeted population of the study. Both students were honors level students.
The male was Caucasian and the female was Hispanic.
Piloting the survey instrument was important in order to counteract any flaws in
the design of the instrument before the survey was operational. Fowler (2014)
recommended having a survey to be pretested by possible respondents to help address
three possible problems:
1. Are the directions clear?
2. Do the questions make sense to the respondents?
3. Were there any problems understanding what was expected? (p. 104)
To pilot the most authentic application as possible, the students took the survey
online using their laptops while in the presence of the researcher. After completing the
survey, the pilot participants and the researcher went through the survey question by
question and discussed any confusing wording or possible multiple interpretations.
!
55
!
Through the discussion, the pilot participants confirmed that authentic and individualized
answers could be given and that the survey seemed to measure what was intended.
The piloting of the survey and subsequent discussion took approximately an hour.
During that time, the researcher and pilot participants identified errors in usage, examined
the format and structure of questions, and discussed possible points of confusion. Each
pilot participant received a ten-dollar gift card to a local retailer as compensation for their
time and feedback.
Sampling frame. The sampling frame for this research survey consisted of 93 8th
grade middle school students who were all enrolled at Small-town Middle on team 8-3.
Because all available students in this demographic were included in the population of the
survey, this survey qualified as a census of a convenience population (Fink, 2013, p. 87).
A tally of students was compiled by the lead teacher on team 8-3 and she provided the
number of students in attendance to the researcher on the day the survey was
administered.
Due to the age of the participants, students and parents were given the opportunity
to opt out of the survey prior to the survey administration date. The survey administration
was given clearance in writing by the principal of Small-town Middle, but an informed
consent letter was also sent home with the students and an electronic copy of the letter
was made available to parents through the lead teacher’s website and was sent to those
parents who had an email on file with the lead teacher.
The actual population for the survey participants was less than the number of
available participants due to absenteeism, parent request, and school based disciplinary
measures (i.e. In-school suspension, out-of-school suspension). The team, 8-3, consisted
!
56
!
of a total of 104 students, but on the day of the survey only 93 students from team 8-3
took the survey as 1 student had opted out and 10 were absent or had been suspended
until the end of the year.
Procedure. Administration of the survey was assigned for May 23rd, 2017 as it
was a date deemed suitable by both the principal and lead teacher for team 8-3 at Small-
town Middle. Once the date had been determined, the lead teacher for team 8-3 sent
home the informed consent letters with students on May 8th, 2017 and also made a copy
of the letter available electronically to the parents through her website and through email
to those parents who had one on file with her on the same day.
Through conversations the researcher had with the lead teacher and due to the
sensitive nature of the topic of the survey, the researcher travelled to Small-town Middle
on May 12th, 2017 to attend the morning team meeting for team 8-3. At the meeting,
which last approximately 20 minutes, the researcher was introduced to the full population
of the students on the team, was able to go back over the informed consent letter with the
students to clarify any confusing points, and to answer any questions students may have
about the process for the researcher. The researcher also reiterated the purpose of the
survey, that students were not obligated in any way to take the survey, and that the
information that was gathered from the survey would be used solely for the researcher’s
own personal educational pursuits and would not affect them in any harmful way.
The researcher and lead teacher discussed with the students the logistics for the
day of the survey and what those who opted out would be doing instead: staying with the
lead teacher in her room, and we discussed what students would do if they did not finish
!
57
!
the survey in the time frame of the class period: go to their next block with a pre-made
team pass.
Students had until May 22nd, 2017 to return any opt out forms to the lead teacher.
Once all forms were collected, the survey was uploaded onto the website for team 8-3’s
lead teacher the morning the survey was administered using a shorten URL link
generated from Google forms.
The day of the survey administration, the lead teacher for team 8-3 escorted her
classes of students to the designated computer lab during each class period. There was
only 1 student who returned the opt out form who was in attendance that returned with
the lead teacher to her room during her fourth period class. Students used the shortened
html link from the teacher’s website to complete the survey.
After initially discussing the survey with the lead teacher and principal, it was
suggested that the researcher read the survey aloud for students who were struggling
readers, English Language Learners, or students who have testing accommodations that
allow for materials to be read to them. Those who participated in the survey remained in
the lab with the researcher and the researcher read the aloud the survey in its entirety.
Reading aloud to the entire group allowed for all participants to remain in the same
location to complete the survey. Students were allowed, however, to take the survey at
their own pace and they had the majority of the class period (58 minutes) in which to
complete the survey. Since the students were teamed, the whole team of teachers had
been made aware of the survey administration and had given consent for students to
finish if need be and come to their academic class a little late. This was unnecessary as all
students completed the survey within the time frame.
!
58
!
At the end of the given administration day, once all classes had the opportunity to
report to the lab, the survey link was removed from the lead teacher’s website and the
researcher closed the survey for responses so that data was able to begin to be analyzed.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the survey consisted of both quantitative and qualitative measures.
Quantitative analysis of the survey was conducted using IBM SPSS statistics 24. Items
from the Google from were exported into an excel document. Once in the Excel
document the quantifiable data was recoded into numbers for easy transfer into SPSS.
The first question asked students to identify their chosen gender. If a student selection
“male,” that was coded with a 2. If a student selected “female,” that was coded with a 1.
Students who selected not to identify were coded with a 0. The Likert-type items were
recoded into numeric form: 0= Strongly Disagree, 1= Disagree, 2= Agree, and 3=
Strongly Agree. For the fourteen item checklist for academic traits, respondents had three
options: masculine, feminine, and both. Similar to the original demographic question,
“masculine” received a code of 2, “feminine” received a code of 1, and “both” received a
code of 0.
Once items were imported into SPSS and numeric codes were labelled with
qualifiers, items from the Likert-type scale sets and from the checklist were analyzed for
central tendencies, and frequency. The researcher employed descriptive statistics to
determine the number, mean, and standard deviation for each item in each set of scales
for School Experiences, Social Influences (peers) and for Parental Influences. Items in
each set were them added into additional variables labelled School, Peers, and Parents for
!
59
!
easy reference in SPSS. The researcher then compared those means and standard
deviations of three domains using the Correlate function in SPSS.
For the items in the checklist of academic traits, descriptive statistics were
employed to determine the number, mean, and standard deviation for each item.
Qualitative items were also extrapolated from the Google form into the Excel
sheet and then were copied into a separate worksheet in order to be sorted and filtered
within the Excel program. The researcher examined the open response items using the
qualitative analysis process of structural coding. Structural-based coding is a question
based code that both codes and initially categorizes the responses to examine comparable
segments’ commonalities, differences, and relationships that appear across respondents
(Saldana, 2009).
The researcher used a combination of In-vivo and descriptive coding to develop
sub-codes under each structural code to look for trends, themes, and patterns. Descriptive
coding summarizes in short words or phrases the basic topic of a passage of qualitative
data while In-vivo coding draws from the respondent’s own language for codes to
prioritize and honor the respondent’s own voice (Glesne, 2011, Saldana, 2009). Initially
the researcher examined each sentence starter by the gender of the respondent and then
coded responses as positive or negative in nature. Then each response was examined
looking specifically for patterns of language or repetitive verbiage used by the students.
Afterwards, the researcher examined the comparison of positive and negative responses
given by both males and females and looked for trends in the patterns of answers from
the group as a whole.
!
60
!
Reliability and Validity
Making sure the survey was both reliable and valid was a key component of
creating a measure that would produce accurate results. Using internal consistency to
assess the quality of survey would ensure that the results were reliable. This was done by
using a Cronbach’s Alpha statistical analysis which calculated “how well different items
complement each other in their measurement of the same quality or dimension” (Fink,
2013, p. 66). Because the purpose of this survey was to measure personal attitudes and
beliefs about the educational experience, the internal consistency needed to be high for it
to prove reliable. The goal was to have the highest reliability coefficient possible, but a
standard coefficient of .70 was the minimum criterion for adequate reliability (Fink,
2013, p.67).
Validity measures how “trustworthy” the data gathered in the survey is and
through validity one can claim that the information is indeed accurate, credible, and
plausible (Glesne, 2011, p. 49). There are several methods to confirm a survey is valid
and the one that was employed in this particular research was content validity. Content
validity means that the items in the survey can be validated by making sure that the
questions accurately represent what is being measured (Fink, 2013, p. 67). This was done
by using theory as a basis for item formation and by having experts examine the survey
prior to its deployment. Using theory to create content validity meant that the survey used
words, phrases, or ideas associated with the theories used to create the survey (Fink,
2013, p. 67). The survey used in this research focused on the social learning theory by
Albert Bandura (1977) and in that theory children use observable data to determine how
they wish to behave. The survey was consistent with the ideas presented in his theory in
!
61
!
that it broke down students’ experiences and what they have observed into the categories
of school environment experiences, peer influences, and parental influences which
correlate to areas indicated by Bandura. Experts in the field of education and survey
design also examined the survey as well as experts in the specific population of the
survey participants as both the lead teacher and principal at Small-town middle were
given the survey and allowed to give feedback to the researcher prior to the researcher
submitting the survey for IRB approval.
Ethical Procedures
Due to the age of the participants, the researcher obtained administrative
permission to conduct research. All measures were also taken to make parents and
guardians fully aware of the purpose and reasons for the study. Parents were given the
information both electronically through access to the lead teacher’s website and through
email if they had an email on file, and through a hard copy. Also on the parent letter, the
contact information of the researcher was made available as well as the contact of the
principal and lead teacher from team 8-3 for any parents who wished to seek further
information about the survey instrument or procedure process.
Once data was gathered, it was stored at the researcher’s home in a secure
location. After three years, all data will be destroyed. Participants were protected from
harm by being informed of purpose for this research, by using an anonymous survey
method, and through the use of informed consent forms for parents and guardians.
Researcher Perspective
All data was collected solely by the researcher through the use of electronic
means. The researcher, a former ELA teacher, recently transferred to a district level
!
62
!
position from a teaching position at Small-town Middle. The students in this study were
never directly taught by the researcher; however, due to the nature of the locale and since
this is the only school serving this population for this district, it might very well be
possible that the researcher taught the participants’ siblings and may know the
participants beyond of the realm of the study. The researcher was directly involved in
introducing the study to the participants and was the one who read the survey aloud as the
participants took the survey. Since the lead teacher remained in her classroom with the
student who could participate, the researcher was the sole moderator during the duration
of the time it took for the students to complete the study.
Summary
This study sought to determine the contextual factors that influence the formation
of gender stereotypes in schools by using the Social Learning Theory’s model that
behaviors are internalized from what is observed, and are then reproduced when it is
deemed acceptable to perform in such a way (Bandura, 1977). In conjunction, the study
also sought to evaluate how gender stereotypes affect academic success. Research has
shown that the educational gender gap is an area of concern for most western
industrialized countries (Legewie, & DiPrete, 2012).
In order to best answer the research questions, a mixed methods survey design
was employed because this allowed for both quantitative and qualitative data to be
extrapolated. By breaking the survey into contextual factors that most likely contributed
to the formation of normed gender behaviors: school experiences, peers, and parental
!
63
!
influences, the researcher hoped to glean salient insight into how these gender stereotypes
were formed and propagated for the eighth grade students at Small-town Middle.
!
64
!
Chapter 4
Results
This study investigated the possible effect that the contextual factors of school
experiences, peers, and parental influence may have had on gender stereotypes for rural
eighth grade middle school students that led to differing academic outcomes for male and
female students. This chapter represents the results from data collected from a survey
that used both Likert-type items and checklist items for a quantitative review, and open
response items for a qualitative review to address the issue of the educational gender gap
at Small-town Middle.
Restatement of the Problem
Research has indicated that males generally underperform relative to their female
counterparts in most areas of the industrialized world (Legewie, & DiPrete, 2012).
Specifically, for Small-town Middle, the male students have consistently, over the last 4
testing cycles, had less of the population meet the state expectation for proficient in both
reading and math. The growth for this subset has also been minimal. In contrast, the
female population performs at or above the state’s cut score for proficient in both areas
and this group has also seen a steady increase in percent meeting or exceeding state
expectation over the last four years. As seen in Figure 1.1, the female population at
Small-town Middle has a proven record of outperforming the male population in both
reading and math.
!
65
!
Similarly, enrollment in advanced coursework in the eighth grade, English I Honors, has
historically had more female students than male and the End of Course (EOC) test given
by the state has, on average, seen the female subset consecutively produce a higher mean.
This is a significant factor because it reproduces the staggering difference in male and
female performance for this school in a very different population: gifted and talented
versus regular education. In both tracks, the results are the same. The females outperform
the males.
This study sought to determine how these rural middle school students form their
ideas of what males and females can do in school. Explicitly, the study looked at three
possible areas of influence for the formation of gender stereotypes for this subset of
students: school experience, social influences through peer interaction, and parental
influence. Using both open response and close-ended survey items, the survey sought to
garner both a qualitative understanding of students’ perceptions as well as a quantitative
measure of which factor was most influential.
Restatement of the Research Questions
The context of this research study focused on how the middle school students in
one southern rural middle school, Small-town Middle, perceive gender roles and
stereotypes as an influence on their academic achievement. There were three contributing
factors examined: school experiences, social factors (i.e. peer relations), and parental
influence. Specifically, the goal of this study was to identify the degree to which these
factors play a role in the formation of gender stereotypes and how these roles create
gender norms and expectations that cause the students to have variations in attitude and
behaviors towards being academically successful.
!
66
!
The research questions that guide the study are as follows:
1. How do a small sample of rural eighth grade students perceive gender to
influence academic performance?
2. Which contextual factors including school experiences, peers, and parental
influence most directly contribute to the formation of gender roles in the
academic setting?
3. How do the contextual factors of school experiences, peers, and parents
influence beliefs about gender roles as they pertain to academic success?
4. Which academic traits are most often associated with which gender roles?
Description of Research Sample
Students at Small-town middle are teamed which means that of the 400 eighth
grade students roughly 100 are on each team. The sampling frame for this research
survey consisted of 93 8th grade middle school students who were all enrolled at Small-
town Middle on team 8-3. The team, 8-3, consisted of a total of 104 students, but on the
day of the survey only 93 students from team 8-3 took the survey as 1 student had opted
out and 10 were absent or had been suspended until the end of the year.
Quantitative Results: Descriptive Statistics
The quantitative data from the survey was used to answer research question 2:
“Which contextual factors out of school experiences, peers, and parental influence most
directly contribute to the formation of gender roles in the academic setting?” and research
question 4: “Which academic traits are most often associated with which gender roles?”
!
67
!
Using SPSS, the researcher analyzed items from the Likert-type scale sets for
central tendencies, and frequency by employing descriptive statistics to determine the
number, mean, and standard deviation for each item in each set of scales for School
Experiences, Social Influences (Peers) and for Parental Influences. Items in each set were
the n added into additional variables labelled School, Peers, and Parents for easy
reference in SPSS. The researcher then compared those means and standard deviations of
the three scales using the Correlate function in SPSS. Reliability for each scale was also
derived using Cronbach’s Alpha to determine the reliability of overall scale and the items
within the scale. The researcher also examined the scale variances for each scale set to
determine the overall spread of student responses and compared that variance with the
frequencies of item statistics per scale. It was this overlay of the data that allowed for the
most accurate interpretations of the data to be extrapolated.
Research Question 2!Which contextual factors including school experiences,
peers, and parental influence most directly contribute to the formation of gender roles in
the academic setting?
Because the value of the reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s Alpha, is greater than
.70, the items within this survey are said to have a relatively high internal consistency and
is considered “acceptable” in terms of consistency. Of the three scales, Peers had the
highest reliability rating (.791) followed by School Experiences (.716), while Parental
Influences was the least reliable of the scales in the survey (.677), as shown in Table 4.1.
!
68
!
Table 4.1 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability per Scale
Scales
Cronbach’s Alpha
N of Items
School Experiences
.72
6
Peers
.80
6
Parental Influence
.68
4
!
As seen in Table 4.2, items from the School Experiences Scale were tested for
item reliability. The only improvement in the consistency of the survey would come
from deleting the “Males/ Females are equally successful academically” item from the
School Experience scale which, if deleted, would raise the Cronbach’s Alpha score to a
.743 versus the original .716 it received originally. The removal of any other items would
make the survey less consistent. The removal of the item “Males/ females get called on
equally” would have the most dramatic impact on reliability, dropping the overall
Cronbach’s Alpha score to .627 versus the original .716.
Table 4.2 School Experiences Reliability Item-Total Statistics
Scale Item
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Cronbach’s
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Teachers treat males/ females the same
8.68
.67
Teachers have the same expectations
8.31
.69
Teachers believe males/ females are equally smart
8.48
.68
Males/ females get called on equally
8.76
.63
Males/ females are equally comfortable sharing
9.05
.65
Males/ Females are equally successful academically
8.65
.74
!
69
!
Likewise, as seen in Table 4.3, items from the Peers Scale were tested for item
reliability. However, unlike the School Experiences Scale, removing any single item in
the Peers scale would result in a lower consistency. As indicated by the results, the
removal of all items in this scale dropped the overall Cronbach’s Alpha score of below
the original .791. The items that would have the most negative impact if removed were
“Academic success is socially acceptable for males” and “Academic success is socially
acceptable for females” which would cause the overall Cronbach’s Alpha score to drop to
a .732 versus the original score of a .791.
Table 4.3 Peer Reliability Item-Total Statistics
!
Scale Item
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Cronbach’s
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Males friends do well academically
11.13
.77
Female friends do well academically
10.75
.77
Academic success is socially acceptable for males
10.78
.73
Academic success is socially acceptable for females
10.51
.73
Males are proud of academic success
10.77
.77
Females are proud of academic success
10.41
.78
The final scale, Parental Influences, received a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .671
which is slightly lower than the target of the .70 mark to be considered “acceptable” in
terms of consistency. However, removal of any item within this scale would only further
decrease the consistency rating of the scale as seen in Table 4.4. This scale included less
items than the previous two scales and was also the only scale to contain reverse coded
items. Both “Parental expectation are linked to gender” and “Parental expectations
!
70
!
would change if gender were different” were the reverse coded items, meaning if a
student selected “Strongly Disagree” this was actually a more positive response unlike
every other item in the Likert-type scales. Though the Cronbach’s Alpha test was run
with the original data and not the recoded data, the lower reliability rating begs to
question the effects of the reverse coded items on the reliability rating of the scale.
Table 4.4 Parental Influence Reliability Item-Total Statistics
Scale Item
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
Cronbach’s
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
Parents believe males/ females have equally ability
6.58
.67
Parents have equal expectations for males/ females
6.75
.62
Parental expectations are linked to gender
7.12
.59
Parental expectations would change if gender were different
6.74
.54
When examining the central tendencies for each scale, mean, standard deviation,
median, and mode were calculated as seen in Table 4.5. Median and mode helped deepen
the understanding of the data for the researcher by showing other representations of how
students responded. It is important to note that the first two scales, School Experiences
and Peers had the same possible scale variance, 0-18. There were 6 items in the scale and
each item could receive a score as follows: Strongly Disagree = 0, Disagree = 1, Agree =
2, and Strongly Agree = 3. Therefore, the lowest a student might score would be 0 and
the highest score would be an 18. For the Parental Influence scale there were only 4
items. The scale variance was therefore 0-12 using the same Likert-type descriptors:
Strongly Disagree = 0, Disagree = 1, Agree = 2, and Strongly Agree = 3.
!
71
!
The variance of possible responses is important to note when comparing the mean
to the median and mode. For example, in the School Experience scale, the mean was
10.3871, the median was 10 and the mode was 8. Therefore, the data suggest that even
though the mode (the most recurring scale score) is lower than the mean, the median
supports the mean as the more accurate measure of student response.
For the Peers scale, mean was a 12.8710, the median score was a 13, and the
mode was a 14. In this scale, the mode was a more positive response scale score;
however, the median and mode are almost identical and therefore justify the mean as the
more accurate measure of student response.
Table 4.5 Central Tendencies per Scale
Scales
N
Mean
Std.
Deviations
Median
Mode
School Experiences
93
10.39
3.18
10
8
Peers
93
12.87
3.24
13
14
Parental Influence
93
6.53
1.98
6
6
For the Parental Influences scale, the mean was a 6.5269, the median was a 6, and
the mode was a 6. It is important to note that for the Parental Influence scale there were
two reverse coded items, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, whereas in the School
Experiences and Peers scales the data would suggest the higher the mean the more
positive the responses of the students, for this scale the researcher concluded the more
average the response the more positive the response if the item statistics supported that
the majority of students selected the following: Strongly Agree for items 1 and 2 in this
!
72
!
scale equaling a 6 and a Strongly Disagree for items 3 and 4 equaling a 0, thus resulting
in the most positive score: a 6 for the scale.
The researcher also deemed it necessary to examine the mean scores for each
scale by gender to see if possible disparities lie between groups of student respondents.
Of the total survey population, 45 student respondents identified as male, 45 identified as
female and 3 of the participants chose not to identify their gender. Due to the low number
in the latter group, the researcher chose to leave those three respondents out of the Group
Statistics by Gender per Scale analysis due to the statistically insignificant impact they
would have on the data. As shown in Table 4.6, female participants had a slightly higher
mean than the male respondents for each scale which would indicate their responses were
marginally more positive in nature. However, standard deviations for each group were
very close.
Table 4.6 Group Statistic by Gender per Scale
Scales
Gender
N
Mean
Std.
Deviations
School Experiences
Female
Male
45
45
10.98
9.93
3.21
3.06
Peers
Female
Male
45
45
13.27
12.38
3.08
3.39
Parental Influence
Female
Male
45
45
6.76
6.22
1.80
2.04
!
Examining the frequency of scale variance for each scale also helped the
researcher to determine where the majority of respondents fell in the spectrum of the
questioning. For example, when comparing the variance of responses for the School
Experiences scale to the Peers scale, since they both had a possible range of 0-18 as the
!
73
!
possible spectrum of scores, the data clearly showed that the majority of respondents had
a more positive response to the Likert-type items in the Peers scale than to those in the
School Experiences Scale, as shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.
!
Figure 4.1 Frequency of scale score variance for School Experiences
!
Figure 4.2 Frequency of scale score variance for Peers
1
1
2
2
5
16
12
12
12
12
4
5
2
2
1
4
0
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Frequency Of Scale Variance For School
Experiences
Scale Score 0-18
1
1
1
1
4
4
7
5
12
14
15
12
6
3
7
0
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Frequency Of Scale Variance For Peers
Scale Score
…
!
74
!
For the School Experiences scale, the majority of responses (64 of the total 93)
fell between the ranges of 8-12 on the 18- point scale with the highest number of
responses, 16 responses, falling on the scale score of 8. Conversely, in the Peers scale, the
majority of responses (64 of the total 93) feel between the 11 and 16 scale score mark
with the majority of students falling on the scale score of 14 out of the possible 18.
In Figure 4.3, the frequency of scale variance for the Parental Influence scale
depicted a stark contrast to the previous two scales. Though it was on a smaller scale, 0-
12 versus the 0-18 as was utilized in the School Experiences and Peers, and because of
the two reverse coded items, the majority of students fell in the 6-8 range (66 of the total
93).
!
Figure 4.3 Frequency of scale score variance for Parental Influences
While this would indicate that this was the most positive scale that the students
responded to, the researcher also had to examine frequency statistics for each item in the
scale because, while the 6 is the most positive scale score by virtue of the previously
1
1
10
6
39
12
15
2
1
3
3
0
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Frequency Of Scale Variance For Parental
Influence
Scale Score 0-12
!
75
!
stated scenario:
a Strongly Agree for items 1 and 2 in this scale would equal a 6 and a
Strongly Disagree for items 3 and 4 would equal a 0, thus resulting in the most positive
score: a 6 for the scale, the reverse is also possible in that a student may have selected
Strongly Disagree for items 1 and 2 which would have equaled 0 and then have selected
Strongly Agree for items 3 and 4 which would have equaled 6, totaling in a scale score of
6. Therefore, the researcher could not assume that because 39 of the 93 respondents had a
scale score of 6 that this was necessarily a positive rating. Further data analysis was
needed.
Table 4.7 Frequency Statistics by Item for Parental Influence
Items from Parental Expectations
Scale
Likert-type Scale
Frequency
Percent
Parents believe males/ females have
equal ability
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1
3
39
50
1.1
3.2
41.9
53.8
Parents have equal expectations for
males/ females
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
4
9
34
46
4.3
9.7
36.6
49.5
Parental expectations are linked to
gender
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
38
24
19
12
40.9
25.8
20.4
12.9
Parental expectations would change if
gender were different
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
53
24
9
7
57.0
25.8
9.7
7.5
Examining the frequency statistics per item in each scale allowed the researcher to
further determine if the modes in the scale score variances were accurate and if they
!
76
!
were, indeed, positive in nature. According to the item statistic for the Parental Influence
scale, as seen in Table 4.7, the scale score of 6 would indicate a positive response and the
majority of respondents (89 of the total 93) selected either Agree or Strongly Agree for
“Parents believe males/ females have equal ability.” Similarly, 80 of the total 93
respondents selected Agree or Strongly Agree for “Parents have equal expectations for
males/ females.” For the reverse item “Parental expectations are linked to gender,” 62 of
the respondents selected Disagree or Strongly Disagree. Similarly, for the final item in
the scale, which was also a reverse item, 77 of the participants selected Disagree or
Strongly Disagree for “Parents expectations would change is gender were different.”
While the item statistics helped to clarify questions about variance for the Parental
Influence scale, they are also important for the other scale to help identify possible areas
of influence by examining any high or low trends among the response.
As seen in Table 4.8 Frequency Statistics by Item for School Experiences, the
data shows that students participants had the most positive reaction to the item “Teachers
have the same expectations” with 72 of the respondents selecting Agree or Strongly
Agree. Comparably, 69 of the 93 respondents selected Agree or Strongly Agree to the
item “Teachers believe males/ females are equally smart.” However, in a shift toward the
negative, 41 respondents selected Disagree or Strongly Disagree for the item “Males/
females get called on equally” and a glaring 52 students selected Disagree or Strongly
Disagree when responding to the scale item “Males/ Females are equally comfortable
sharing.”
!
77
!
Table 4.8 Frequency Statistics by Item for School Experiences
Items from School Experiences
Scale
Likert-type Scale
Frequency
Percent
Teachers treat males/ females the
same
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
9
24
45
15
9.7
25.8
48.4
16.1
Teachers have the same expectations
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
2
17
46
28
2.2
18.3
49.5
30.1
Teachers believe males/ females are
equally smart
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
3
21
51
18
3.2
22.6
54.8
19.4
Males/ females get called on equally
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
7
34
39
13
7.5
36.6
41.9
14.0
Males/ females are equally
comfortable sharing
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
18
35
31
9
19.4
37.6
33.3
9.7
Males/ Females are equally successful
academically
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
8
25
43
17
8.6
26.9
46.2
18.3
! !
The items in the Peers scale, had to be examined a bit differently as each item was
set up in a pair. Statements were either about males or females in the school setting, how
they were perceived by others, and about how they may react to particular academic
situations. Therefore, it is important to note if the respondents replied in similar fashion
to the statements in the pair or if there was a discrepancy in how the respondents
answered as shown in Table 4.9.!
!
78
!
Table 4.9 Frequency Statistics by Item for Peers
!
Items from Social Experiences Scale
Likert-type Scale
Frequency
Percent
Males friends do well academically
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
4
30
45
14
4.3
32.3
48.4
15.1
Female friends do well academically
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
3
6
61
23
3.2
6.5
65.6
24.7
Academic success is socially
acceptable for males
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
4
15
43
31
4.3
16.1
46.2
33.3
Academic success is socially
acceptable for females
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
4
5
37
47
4.3
5.4
39.8
50.5
Males are proud of academic success
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
6
15
36
36
6.5
16.1
38.7
38.7
Females are proud of academic success
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
2
5
34
52
2.2
5.4
36.6
55.9
!
Of the three sets, the one with the largest discrepancy of answers was between the
items, “Male friends do well academically” and “Female friends do well academically.”
For the first item, the one referencing males, 34 of the 93 respondents selected Disagree
or Strongly Disagree, which is glaringly contrary to the 9 respondents who selected
Disagree or Strongly Disagree to the variation of that same statement about Females. Put
in different terms, 84 of the 93 respondents selected Agree or Strongly Agree to the item
!
79
!
“Females friends do well academically,” while only 59 said the same about their male
friends.
However, on the other end of the spectrum, the respondents had very similar
reactions to the set of items “Males are proud of academic success” and “Females are
proud of academic success.” The first in this set received 72 responses that were either
Agree or Strongly Agree while the second item in the set received 76 Agrees or Strongly
Agrees. This was the closest set of answers for any of the three sets in this scale.
Research Question 4 Which academic traits are most often associated with
which gender roles?
To answer this question, the survey had the students decide if 14 academic areas
were considered masculine, feminine, or both. Those areas included:
• Being a good reader
• Being good at mathematics
• Doing well in science
• Doing well in social studies
• Being artistically skilled
• Being musically talented
• Being mechanically inclined
• Working well in groups
• Working well with a single partner
• Working well individually
• Excelling with technology
!
80
!
• Being active in physical education
• Being a good writer
• Having neat hand writing
For the items in the checklist of academic traits, the researcher derived
frequencies and percentages using SPSS for each area and then the areas were
categorized into three major themes: Academic Subjects (Reading, Writing, Math,
Science, and Social Studies), Prime Work Scenarios (Individual, Partner, or Group) and
Academic Traits, (Physical Education, Technology, Art, Mechanically Inclined, Music,
and Neat Handwriting).
Figure 4.4 Frequency of gender selection by academic subjects
As shown in Figure 4.4 for academic subjects, the student respondents overall felt
that math, science, and social studies were areas where both males and females excelled
as each category had 66, 64, and 66 of the total number of respondents indicating that it
58
43
66 64 66
33
47
18 17 7
23912 20
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reading Writing Math Science Social Studies
Frequency of Selection by Academic Subjects
Both Feminine Masculine
!
81
!
was a “Both” area. The subject area that had the largest gender identified selection was
Writing with 47 of the respondents indicating it was an area which was considered more
“feminine;” likewise, reading had a large number of participants specifying it was an area
deemed more “feminine” in nature with 33 selecting it as a “feminine” area. Social
Studies received the most “masculine” responses with 20 respondents identifying it as a
masculine area. However, Reading and Social Studies each had a significant portion of
participants selecting them as areas where “Both” males and females excelled.
Figure 4.5 Frequency of gender selection for work scenarios
Similar to the subject areas results, student respondents indicated that most work
scenarios one might encounter in the academic setting are not typically perceived to be
gender specific in nature. As seen in Figure 4.5, both Partner and Group work had 63 of
the total 93 participants indicating that this was an area “Both” excelled in, while
individual work lagged behind with 55 responses. Individual work had the largest
55 63 63
25 20 21
13 10 9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Individual Partner Group
Frequency of Selection for Prime Work Scenarios
Both Feminine Masculine
!
82
!
selection of respondents designating one gender over the other with 25 indicating that it
may be considered a more “feminine” trait.
As shown in Figure 4.6 for academic traits, the student responses varied more
drastically than they had in regards to the subject areas. Most pointedly, 60 of the 93
respondents indicated that being mechanically inclined was a masculine trait while neat
handwriting had the most gendered identified responses with 71 students indicating that
that was a feminine trait. Being active in Physical Education was identified by 49
students as a masculine trait while on the other hand, being artistically skilled was
identified by 47 of the respondents as a feminine trait.
Figure 4.6 Frequency of gender selection by academic traits
Excelling in technology and being musically talented were the only academic
traits that had the majority of students indicate “Both.” However, even in these areas
39
55
40
26
54
21
5
947
1
35
71
49
29
6
60
41
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Physical
Education
Technology Art Mechinally
Inclined
Music Neat
Handwriting
Frequency of Selection byAcademic Traits
Both Feminine Masculine
!
83
!
there were still large pockets that classified these areas as masculine or feminine: 29
identified technology as a masculine trait and 35 identified music as a feminine trait.
Quantitative Results: Inferential Statistics
The researcher tested the assumption of normality by running the Shapiro-Wilk
test using SPSS. According to Laerd Statistics (n.d.), “if the Sig. value of the Shapiro-
Wilk Test is greater than 0.05, the data is normal. If it is below 0.05, the data significantly
deviate from a normal distribution.” The Sig. value for School Experiences was .010 for
females and .092 for males. For Sig value for Peers was .043 for females and .002 for
males. In the final scale, Parental Influences, the Sig. value was .000 for females and .001
for males.
Therefore, because the data in this survey was determined not to be normally
distributed, it was necessary for the researcher to employ a Mann-Whitney U test to
determine if there were any differences between the independent variable of gender upon
the dependent variables of School Experiences, Peers, and Parental Influence. Using the
null hypothesis that one’s own gender does not affect how he or she internalizes gender
stereotypes as they pertain to academic success, the results were then used to help the
researcher determine if this null hypothesis should be rejected in favor of an alternate
hypothesis that gender does affect how one internalizes gender stereotypes about
academic success.
!
84
!
Table 4.10 Test Statistics for Mann-Whitney U Test
Scales
Gender
N
Mean
Rank
Sum of
Ranks
Mann-
Whitney
U
Asymph.
Sig(2-tailed)
School Experiences
Female
Male
45
45
48.93
42.07
2202.00
1893.00
858.00
.21
Peers
Female
Male
45
45
48.52
42.48
2183.50
1911.50
876.50
.27
Parental Influence
Female
Male
45
45
48.94
42.06
2202.50
1892.50
857.50
.19
As shown in Table 4.10, the mean rank for females is higher than that of the male
respondents, however, for each of the three scales, the p-value (Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)) is
greater than the alpha level of 0.05 (95% confidence interval). This means that the
researcher could not reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis for
any of the three scales. In other words, the mean rankings of the two genders in this study
are not significantly statistically different from one another.
Qualitative Analysis
Overall, of the 93 respondents, there was an almost perfect split with 45
identifying as male and 45 identifying as female. However, three of the respondents
chose not to self-identify as either gender. Due to the low frequency of non-identifying
participants, the researcher chose to examine solely the male and female responses during
the qualitative analyses as it allowed for possible divergences to be examined in the data.
For this study, gender, acting as the independent variable, provided the lens in which the
contextual factors were examined. Once all qualitative data from the contextual factors in
the survey were divided, the researcher then devised a code that captured what she saw in
!
85
!
each segment. Data gathered from the survey was coded in each portion into positive and
negative responses. Afterwards, responses were then categorized into academic or non-
academic areas and traits.
The open response items were examined using the qualitative analysis process of
structural coding. Structural-based coding is a question based code that both codes and
initially categorizes the responses to examine comparable segments’ commonalities,
differences, and relationships that appear across respondents (Saldana, 2009). The
researcher then used a combination of In-vivo and descriptive coding to develop sub-
codes under each structural code to look for trends, themes, and patterns. Descriptive
coding summarizes in short words or phrases the basic topic of a passage of qualitative
data while In-vivo coding draws from the respondent’s own language for codes to
prioritize and honor the respondent’s own voice (Glesne, 2011, Saldana, 2009).
Research Question 1!How do a small sample of rural eighth grade students
perceive gender to influence academic performance?
The very last question on the survey allowed for students to provide an extended
response about their overall experience of gender stereotyping in school as it related to
academic success. The directions stated, “Please give any personal thoughts or
experiences you believe might provide a better picture of how being male or female
relates to academic performance as you have experienced in your life.” Directly
following was the sentence starter, “In my experience…” and a text box that allowed for
1000 characters. Many student participants wrote lengthy paragraphs. Some only wrote a
!
86
!
sentence or two. All students provided some sort of answer, even if it was to indicate that
they had not had any negative or life altering experience in this capacity.
Of the female respondents, 7 of the 45 indicated that they had never had any
experience dealing with gender stereotypes in the academic setting. Two females wrote
about how school was difficult for them, but did not mention if gender had a role in this
or not. Seventeen of the female respondents provided answers that were more generic in
nature in regards to how gender should not affect students or how all students have equal
abilities but success is a choice. Some of the points they made were:
Females 20: In my experience, I think males and females can do the same things
[sic] if they work hard and try. A girl should be able to play football if she wants
and is good at it. A boy should be able to cheer if he wants and is good at it. Gender
shouldn’t have anything to do with what you do in school or outside of school. If
you don’t study or anything in school and you’re a girl then you aren’t going to
make good grades, same goes for a meal [sic]. But if you study and put your mind
to it and you are a girl then you will make good grades, same for a male. It depends
on the person and how much they want to do that or how much they want good
grades. Gender does not matter. The person doing it has to decide to study and
play sports. Not the Gender!!!
Female 33: In my experience, I honestly don’t see any differences between male
and/ or female academically. Guys are capable of passing/ failing, girls are just
as capable of passing/ failing. A guy can shoot a basket, a girl can just as well
shoot a basket. Like, I don’t get why people are so sexist. Everyone can do what
!
87
!
they want, boy, girl, black, white, pink, or purple, anyone’s capable of whatever
no matter what their gender is.
In contrast to the previous responses, 10 female respondents gave details of
specific experiences related to gender stereotypes in school that left a strong impression
on them. Three of those female participants mentioned gym class or Physical Education
(PE) classes specifically as places where these experiences tended to take place. One
mentioned the participation in single gender classrooms. Some of those experiences were:
Female 12: In my experience, males are treated differently by PE teachers and
are usually made to be the team leader. Males are chosen to do heavy lifting for
any teacher and teachers never ask a female to do heavy lifting for them. They
usually ask females to be their personal helpers and run errands for the teacher
and nothing more.
Female 39: In my experience, my first quarter activity teacher would always talk
about how well the ladies did on things and how bad the males did. She would
make us write sentences and all the males had bad handwriting so she would
throw their papers out and give them zeros. As a female, I see the males go easy
on us in PE. When we play games, if a guy makes a shot it is only one point but if
a female makes it, it counts as two points. It makes me upset that they think
females can’t do as good as males in sports. Some females are actually better at
some sports than males, but we never get a chance to show it because they always
make it easy on the females.
!
88
!
Female 44:In my experience, take this example, in third grade, my dad thought
it would be a great idea to put me in an all-girls class (worst idea he could ever
come up with now that I think about it!) We went on a field trip with the all-boys
class to a mountain park, I remember both of the classes racing to the top, the
girls won and the fellow male members were pouting—given the nine-year-old
[sic] we were, we started shouting “Girls rule! Girls Rule!” over and over again. I
didn’t think much about it at the time [sic] but now I see we were driven by our
older peers to think one gender is better than the other when we really all [sic]
equal.
Unlike the female portion of participants, not a single male indicated that he had
never had experiences with gender stereotypes in school. Ten indicated that males and
females were equal in ability and should be treated as such, 7 expressed dissatisfactions
with school and with teachers in general, and 19 indicated that females are more
successful when it comes to school than males due to a variety of reasons. Some of the
points made they made were:
Male 4: In my experience males are treated like they aren’t as smart as girls bc
[sic] girls like school more bc [sic] they like to be teachers and stuff like that.
Boys like to be outside doing things and getting their hands dirty like they should
be bc [sic] I know there is a lot more ladies teaching school than there are boys
just like there are a lot more boys in the army than girls.
Male 10-: In my experience, females have always been more academically
inclined at homework and school in general. Males on the other hand are better at
!
89
!
sports and things outside of school such as baseball, basketball, and tennis. I
personally say men and females are totally different. I think all girls love school/
reading as men hate school and everything.
Male 39: In my experience, being a boy you get treated different. They treat you
more tough. They treat girls like they can’t take any hard feelings. Plus, they treat
girls more smart and treat us more dumb.
While many of the responses by the participants that indicated there was, in fact, a
difference in how males and females were treated in school were broad in nature, 3 of the
male contributors mentioned specific experiences they had with a teacher or in the
academic setting that dealt with gender stereotypes. All described experiences in the
elementary setting while one was specifically focused on an experience in the single-sex
classroom.
Male 15: In my experience, I have been in a only male class and it was a
nightmare. Now I am socially awkward and have a hard time with trust and with
people. I believe there should not be separate gender classes.
Male 16: In my experience, when I was in 3rd grade my teacher had us take a
vocab test. There was this really smart girl in my class who always made 100s on
these but this time she didn’t but I did. So when she was passing them out she
looked at Abby and said “What happened this time?” Abby couldn’t answer her.
So when she got to me she looked at me and said “Did you cheat?” She asked it in
the form of a joke but I could tell she didn’t think I was smart enough to make a
100 on the test. I think it was because of the color of my skin and the gender I am.
!
90
!
Male 45: In my experience, as I start getting older, I start realizing that some
things I thought were just odd behavior from a teacher in the past are actually a
breach of equality. For example, in 5th grade I had a teacher who was obviously
more appreciative towards female students. If a male student turned in a piece of
work, she would just take it. But if it were a female, even if they did just as good a
job, they would be congratulated and praised. I believe this may be because of the
fact that most teachers are female. And I’m positive there are male teachers that
appreciate male students more. The actual performance of male and females are
typically quite equal but sometimes views are skewed.
Like the final thought in the example above, many of the male respondents gave
a mixed response indicating that while females may be given an advantage, they believed
students should all be treated the same. In contrast, 10 respondents did not indicate any
difference in how males or females are treated and solely focused on the even playing
field both genders deserve and have access to in the school setting. Out of the 10
respondents who claimed that males and females were equal in nature, some of their
claims were:
Male 21: In my experience, I think that both males and females have the ability to
do well academically. The only reason people may not see that is that some
males/ females have the actual want to do well whereas others don’t really care
one way or another. Some students feel as if they should do well in school to do
well in life and that is basically the general idea of have [sic] school in the first
place- so that one day all the knowledge will help you do what you what you’ve
always wanted to, and that, my friends, requires more than just knowledge; that
!
91
!
requires the need to want to pursue that knowledge and goal. Whether you are a
male or female, it doesn’t matter because you still have the potential to do well
and that’s what really counts.
Male 35: In my experience, males and females have no difference academically.
The only difference is body parts, there is no real difference between genders.
Some women are academically failing, some men are academically failing. The
only difference is women are small and men are large.
While this question provided a much larger view of the issue, the survey also
contained several other sentence starters that were geared more specifically towards the
contextual factors of school experiences, peers, and parental influence.
Research Question 3!How do the contextual factors of school experiences, peers,
and parental influence effect beliefs about gender roles as they pertain to academic
success?
To best answer this question, each contextual factor was examined separately. In
the survey, School Experiences appeared first and offered student respondents four open
ended sentences starters that allowed for personalized and individualized answers to be
produced. Those sentences starters were:
Teachers think females are…
Teachers think males are…
When it comes to school, males are good at…
When it comes to school, females are good at…
!
92
!
From the first two open ended items, positive and negative responses were coded. The
second pair of open ended items were coded by academic and nonacademic traits. Tables
4.10 and 4.11 show the culminating tallies for each.
It is important to note that cumulatively, both males and females responded more
positively to the prompt, “Teachers think females are…” and they also cumulatively
responded more negatively to the prompt “Teachers think males are…”. Regardless of
the gender, the responses were strikingly similar in terms of verbiage to describe each
gender as a teacher might view them.
Table 4.11 Frequency of Positive Responses for School Experiences
Teachers
think
females
are…
Teachers
think
males
are…
When it comes to
school, males are
good at…
When it comes to
school, females are
good at…
Female
33
14
Math-6
Science- 3
SS- 2
Reading Aloud- 1
Answering Questions-
2
Academics- 19
Listening- 3
Being Helpful- 3
Being Organized- 3
ELA- 5
Math- 2
Science- 4
Male
38
17
Academics- 2
PE- 4
Math- 7
SS- 4
ELA- 3
Science- 4
Hands-on Learning- 3
Talking Aloud- 3
Academics- 19
Paying Attention- 4
Being Helpful- 2
Math- 6
SS- 5
ELA- 7
Science- 6
Arts Courses- 4
Total
71
31
In the positive responses for females, words such as “smart” appeared a total of
13 times from the females and a total of 15 times from the males. Females also used
!
93
!
responses like, “hard-working/ good grades” 14 times, and “know how to act right” 12
times, while males similarly used phrases and words such as “better” 7 times and “good”
13 times to describe how teachers perceive female students.
When examining the negative responses about how teachers might view a female
student, there were only 11 total negative responses from females and 7 from males.
These included 8 references to females causing “drama,” 2 responses to girls being
physically “weak,” and singular responses that described females as “dumb,” “boring,”
“never responsible,” and “easily distracted by boys.” Some salient answers from the
responses were:
Male 27: Teachers think females are always honest. They treat them like golden
kids.
Female 16: Teachers think females are smart, nice, honest, and quiet because we
don’t cause trouble or disrupt class. Females generally try to achieve their goals
in class and become academically successful.
On the other hand, when investigating the responses for how the respondents
perceived their teachers to view male students, the perception was overwhelmingly
negative. When answering the phrase, “Teachers think males are…”, the phrase “dumb,”
“stupid,” or “not smart” showed up a total of 13 times. The word “bad” was included 6
times and the phrase “behavior problem” showed up 14 times. Labels such as “class
clown” or “goof off” showed up 12 times while “loud” appeared 6 times, “irresponsible”
8, and the word “trouble” appeared 4 times.
!
94
!
Table 4.12 Frequency of Negative Responses for School Experiences
Teachers
think
females
are…
Teachers
think
males
are…
When it comes to
school, males are
good at…
When it comes to
school, females are good
at…
Female
11
29
Sports Not School- 25
Doing Nothing- 1
Running the Classroom- 1
Talking to Their Friends-
1
Seeing Their Boyfriend- 1
Male
7
24
Sports Not School- 24
Getting in Fights- 1
Getting Girls- 3
Causing Drama- 1
Watching the Boys- 1
Getting with the Boys- 1
Total
18
53
The minimal positive responses included 13 responses to males being perceived
as “smart” by their teachers, 5 responses for being “strong,” and 2 for being “brave.”
There were also 2 responses indicating teachers perceived males to be “athletic” in nature
and 2 for males being “outgoing.” There were 7 references to males and females being
“equal” or “just the same” which the researcher assumed was a positive response. Some
salient answers from the responses were:
Male 7: Teachers think males are childish, unfocused, and clowns. The reason I
say this is because when a girl gets off topic it is ok but when a male does, oh
god, we get wrote up and have silent lunch.
Female 31: Teachers think males are talkative and they keep their eye on them
so they don’t do anything and they think they are going to say something stupid
because they are around their friends.”
!
95
!
When inspecting the responses to the sentence starters about what males and
females are “good” at when it comes to school, the answers were also quite surprising.
There were 49 respondents who said males were good at sports, not academics. In direct
contrast, there were 38 respondents who claimed that females were “good” at academics.
Also, when examining the extents in which the respondents listed areas in which
males did excel in school, mostly subject areas were listed. There were only 4 areas that
were not subject specific: hands-on learning (mentioned 3 times), talking aloud
(mentioned 3 times), reading aloud (mentioned 1 time), and answering questions
(mentioned 2 times). In contrast, while females also had the specific subject areas listed
as strengths, there was a great quantity of areas outside of the academic disciplines
mentioned: paying attention (mentioned 4 times), listening (mentioned 3 times), being
organized (mentioned 3 times), being helpful (mentioned 5 times).
The section of the survey that analyzed the influence of peers appeared next and
offered student respondents four open ended sentences starters that allowed for
personalized and individualized answers to be produced. Those sentences starters were:
My friends think females who do well in school are…
My friends think males who do well in school are…
When I see a male who does well in school, I think he is…
When I see a female who does well in school, I think she is…
Due to the fact that all four open ended items dealt with the perception of male
and female students who are academically successful, positive and negative responses
were coded in order to glean if there were any major disparities between groups or
!
96
!
between how a student perceived his or her peers’ beliefs to differ from his or her own.
Tables 4.12 and 4.13 show the culminating tallies for each.
Table 4.13 Frequency of Positive Responses for Peer Influences
My friends
think females
who do well in
school are…
My friends
think males
who do well in
school are…
When I see a
male who does
well in school, I
think he is…
When I see a
female who does
well in school, I
think she is…
Female
31
26
43
43
Male
37
29
39
41
Total
68
55
82
84
Females fared better in this portion of the survey, as well, with the largest
proportion of participants responding positively about both peer perceptions and personal
perception of female academic success. Of the 90 participants who were coded from this
section, 68 believed their peers had positive reactions to female academic success and 84
had personal positive reactions to female academic success.
In the positive responses for females, words such as “smart” appeared a total of
21 times from the females and a total of 17 times from the males. Both female and male
respondents also used responses like, “successful” a total of 5 times, and “good” 8 times
to describe how their peers perceive female students who are successful in school. Other
positive phrasing included expressions such as “better,” “caring,” “works hard,” and
“going to college.”
When examining positive responses for males, females used “smart” a total of 14
times while males used the same word 8 times. The word “cool” appeared only once from
a female respondent, but appeared 8 times from male respondents in regards to how their
!
97
!
peers view males who are academically successful. Other positive phrasing included
sayings such as “hard workers,” “intelligent,” reliable,” and “trying to get a good job.”
Some salient statements from this section of the survey about peer influence that exuded
positive perceptions were:
Female 13: My friends think females who do well in school are expected to do
so. This is true because we hold high standards for ourselves.
Male 11: My friends think females who do well in school are someone who tries
hard and cares about school. They think they care about their future.
Female 39: My friends think males who do well in school are normally nice and
think about things some don’t and are more gown [sic] up rather than those who
play around.
Male 41: My friends think males who do well in school are cooler than the kids
who always get in trouble.
As a whole, female respondents had an overall more negative view in this
category of the survey than their male counterparts. When tallying the amount of positive
responses females gave about their peers’ views of male or female success in school,
there were 57 total positive responses. Males, on the other hand, had a total of 66 positive
responses about how peers’ view male and female academic success.
When examining the totals for negative responses, it is evident that the females
gave a sum of 38 negative responses for peers’ view of male or female academic success
!
98
!
while the males only had 24 total negative responses about how their peers view male or
female academic success.
Table 4.14 Frequency of Negative Responses for Peer Influences
My friends
think females
who do well in
school are…
My friends
think males who
do well in school
are…
When I see a
male who does
well in school, I
think he is…
When I see a
female who
does well in
school, I think
she is…
Female
16
22
2
2
Male
8
16
6
4
Total
24
38
8
6
As shown in Table 4.14, the negative responses were more varied and often had a
tendency to use qualifiers that would be considered to be part of a person’s outward
appearance, sexuality, or social status. Though there were several that repeated, the
majority of negative response were unique in nature and offered a more salient
perspective into emotional response the respondents believe their peers to have towards
those students who are academically successful.
It is also important to note that while each gender sect of respondents may have
differed in their total view of how peers perceived male and females who do well in
school, overwhelmingly, respondents gave a positive personal response to the sentences
starters a) When I see a male who does well in school, I think he is… and b) When I see a
female who does well in school I think she is…. Of the total 90 participants who were
coded, 82 had a positive personal reaction for male success in school and 84 had a
positive personal reaction to female success in school.
!
99
!
Table 4.15 List of Negative Responses for Peer Influences
My friends
think females
who do well in
school are…
My friends think
males who do
well in school
are…
When I see a
male who does
well in school,
I think he is…
When I see a
female who
does well in
school, I think
she is…
Female
Nerds
Stuck up
No social life
Ugly
Not cool
Socially
awkward
Show offs
Stuck up little
brats
Teachers pet
Geek
Nerds
Geek
Gay
Unattractive
Weird
Sissy
Punk
Not cool
Cheater
Dumb
Non-athletic
Not fun to hang
with
Nerd
A little sissy
Smarty pants
Stuck up
Male
Geeks
Nerds
Have no life
Very weird
Girls who sit
inside all day
Lonely
Only care about
grades
Not really cool
Stupid
Dorky
Geeks
Nerds
Know-it-alls
Wear glasses
Weak
Teachers pets
Nerd
Really sneaky
Not good at
sports
Cheaters
Someone who
might rat me
out to the
teacher
Not fun to hang
with
Not cool
Does nothing
but focus on
school
Lonely
The last scale set dealt with Parental Influences in Academic Performance and
students were asked to respond to three open ended sentence starters:
When it comes to school, my parents think males are good at…
When it comes to school, my parents think females are good at…
When it comes to school, because of my gender, my parents think I should…
!
100
!
The responses from these sentence starters were broken down originally by female and
male respondents and then coded for positive or negative answers similar to the previous
scale sets.
Surprisingly, most of the responses seemed to indicate that students interpreted
the sentence to read “When it comes to school, my parents think males/ females are…”
and the students seemed to have missed or overlooked the final portion of the sentence
that said “good at…”. For example, when examining the responses females made to the
first open ended response, the word “smart” appeared 7 times as the only answer to the
statement. Grammatically, that answer would not accurately complete that sentence as it
stands in the survey. However, if the “good at…” portion were removed, the word
“smart” would be a grammatically correct answer to complete the sentence.
There were also 12 responses that indicated that females perceived their parents to
believe that males were good at “the same things as females.” Though males did not have
the same amount of positive responses, 24 positive responses versus 28 positive female
responses, phrasing containing the word “equal” appeared 14 times.
Table 4.16 Frequency of Positive Responses for Parental Influences
When it comes to school, my
parents think males are good
at…
When it comes to school, my
parents think females are good
at…
Female
28
39
Male
24
40
Total
52
79
!
101
!
As depicted in Table 4.15, both males and females largely believed their parents
to hold positive views of females in school with a total of 79 out of the 90 respondents
having positive reactions to the statement, “When it comes to school, my parents think
females are good at…”. Eighteen females used the word “smart” to complete the
sentence while 11 males used the term “smart” to complete the phrasing. Other common
words and phrases included “good,” “try hard,” and “capable” and there was a combined
total of 24 occurrences of the term “equal” or “just as good as” appearing across both
male and female respondents.
Table 4.17 Frequency of Negative Responses for Parental Influences
When it comes to school, my
parents think males are good
at…
When it comes to school, my
parents think females are good
at…
Female
17
6
Male
19
3
Total
36
9
When examining the negative responses (Table 4.16), 17 females believed their
parents held negative perceptions of males in school versus 6 for females. Similarly, 19
males also believed their parents held negative perceptions of males in schools versus 3
for females.
Like with the Peer Influence category, the responses varied both by gender and in
terms of phrasing. However, unlike the peer responses, the responses trended more
towards phrases about behavior as shown in Table 4.17. Whereas with the Peers scale
responses, the trend lent itself more toward outward appearance, sexual orientation or
physical attributes, the responses in the Parental Influence section mimicked some of the
!
102
!
same language present in the School Experiences scale. Labels that included the word
“trouble” appeared in both sets as did reference to females instigating “drama.” This is
important to note as both scales dealt with students and their interactions with adults.
Table 4.18 List of Negative Responses for Parental Influences
When it comes to school, my
parents think males are good at…
When it comes to school, my
parents think females are good
at…
Female
Trouble makers
Lazy
Stubborn
Girl Crazy
Play around too much
Not good
Good at being disruptive
Don’t try
Good at getting in trouble
Play sports so school doesn’t matter
They don’t like them
Are childish
Are a bunch of punks
The majority of people who aren’t
successful
Social butterflies
Only there for friends
Afraid to talk out
Get distracted by boys and drama
BOY CRAZY!
Gonna cause drama
Male
Trouble starters
Trouble makers
Rare if they care about school
Not good listeners
Boring and stupid
Bad in school
Dumb
Don’t want to be anything
Misbehave
Sometimes bad
Like to play too much
Bad hand writing
Childish
Can only work with other guys
The understudy of guys
Are humans in jail for a # of hours
a day
Snotty
!
103
!
Summary
As evident by the Mann-Whitney U test, there does not seem to be a statistically
significant difference in how female and male participants answered items in the survey,
therefore, resulting in the researcher not rejecting the null hypothesis that one’s own
gender does not affect internalization of overall gender stereotypes as they pertain to
academic success. As demonstrated by the survey results, the contextual factor of
Parental Influence received the most positive responses within both the qualitative data
and the qualitative analyses. The contextual factors of School Experience and Peers
appear to have the most influence on the promulgation of negative gender stereotypes in
the academic setting, especially for male students. This was shown through the Likert-
type item analysis as well as through the qualitative data analysis. These conclusions are
explained in depth in Chapter 5.
!
104
!
Chapter 5
Discussion
Through this mixed methods ethnographic case study, the subject of gender
stereotypes for rural middle school students, and its relationship to academic performance
was investigated. The purpose of the study sought to examine how gender stereotypes
develop for students at Small-town Middle School, to describe what specific factors have
the strongest influence on how these students see themselves, and to examine the
relationship between these stereotypes and academic success in school. Specifically, the
research focused on Albert Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory, gender stereotypes,
and how educational institutions, parental influences, and peer relationships may dictate
gender norms as they relate to academic success. It also attempted to evaluate the
relationship between the issue of gender stereotypes and current experiences in a rural
American middle school that lead to the recurring issue of the educational gender gap and
the underperformance of male students.
Using a mixed methods survey design, the researcher gathered data from a cohort
of eighth grade students in order to examine the formation and propagation of gender
stereotypes that lead to differing academic outcomes for male and female students. Using
research into motivational factors for students (Stipek & Seal, 2001) and Albert
Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory as a component, there are three areas of
concentration that were examined in the study: school influence, peer influence, and
parental influence. These are the areas that have been deemed to be most consistent and
!
105
!
most important in the child’s development of attitude towards school. Using these in
conjunction with the influences of gender norms and gender expectation, the goal of this
study was to identify the degree to which these factors play a role in the formation of
gender stereotypes and how these roles create gender norms and expectations that cause
the students to have variations in attitude and behaviors towards being academically
successful.
The research questions that guided the study were as follows:
1. How do a small sample of rural eighth grade students perceive gender to
influence academic performance?
2. Which contextual factors including school experiences, peers, and parental
influence most directly contribute to the formation of gender roles in the
academic setting?
3. How do the contextual factors of school experiences, peers, and parents
influence beliefs about gender roles as they pertain to academic success?
4. Which academic traits are most often associated with which gender roles?
To answer the research questions, the researcher employed both quantitative and
qualitative measures to analyze the survey data. Research questions 2 and 4 were
inspected using SPSS statistical software by examining the descriptive statistical studies
of central tendencies, frequencies, variance of scale score, and item statistics. For
research questions 1 and 3, the researcher used structural coding systems found in
qualitative analyses to examine positive and negative trends in responses and then
categorized replies into academic traits and areas.
This chapter provides an interpretation of quantitative results pertaining to the
!
106
!
influence of the contextual factors examined: School Experiences, Peers, and Parental
Influence, an interpretation of qualitative results concerning how rural eighth grade
students internalize gender roles and stereotypes as they pertain to academic
achievement, as well as discusses limitations of the study’s findings, and provides
suggestions for future research.
Summary of Findings
Research Finding 1: Students have internalized the same ideas about how gender
roles should be enacted in school, regardless of their own gender identity. For males it is
overwhelmingly negative; for females, it is overwhelmingly positive.
As Dentith (2002) explained, “Gender is something we do and something we
think about. It is a particular set of practices and cultural meanings that organize people
into categories that are not based on biological truths” (p. 2) The participants in this study
responded in such a way that provided the researcher with evidence to support Denith’s
(2002) assertion, as well as the idea that, though there may be different norms for each
gender, each seems to internalize the overall culture of stereotypes as they relate to both
genders.
Specifically, for the Likert type items this can be seen when examining the Group
Statistics by Gender per Scales. The mean between each gender was marginally different.
The standard deviations were also very close. What this shows is that students who
identified as male and students who identified as female responded very similarly in
response to the statements offered in the scales. For the School Experiences scale the
difference between their mean scores was the largest of the three scales at a 1.0445. The
Peers scale had a mean difference of 0.8889 and the difference in means for the Parental
!
107
!
Influences group was the lowest of all at 0.5334. All of this supports what was seen in the
qualitative portion of the research study, as well.
Qualitative responses were coded for each scale as either a positive response or a
negative response. The data showed a mirroring trend between the genders. Generally, if
one gender had a positive response to a sentence starter, the opposite gender had a similar
response. For each scale, females received overwhelmingly more positive responses
from both genders than their male counterparts. Looking at the overall picture provides
an alarming depiction of the vast difference in positive stereotypes for female and male
students. Positive responses about females in school totaled 218 while positive response
for males in school came in at only 138. That is a difference of 80 more positive
responses for females than for males.
The closest scale happened to be in the Peers scale where females received 68
positive responses and males received 55, a difference of 13. In the Parental Influences
scale, females received 79 positive responses while males received 52, a difference of 27.
However, in the School Experiences scale, females received 71 positive responses while
males only received 31, a difference of 40.
Similarly, the negative responses were overwhelmingly skewed towards males in
school. When tallying the negative responses for males the total came in at 127 while
females received only 41 negative responses. That is a difference of 86 more negative
responses for males than for females. The closest scale, again, happened to be in the
Peers scale where females received 24 negative responses and males received 38 negative
responses, a difference of 14. In the Parental Influences scale, females received only 9
negative responses while males received 36, a difference of 25. Finally, in the School
!
108
!
Experiences scale, females received 18 negative responses while males received 53, a
difference of 35.
What these data support is the idea that the students who participated in this
survey have internalized a rigid set of positive and negative stereotypes about how males
and females are perceived in relation to their behaviors and their schooling. It is in direct
alignment with Kindlon and Thompson’s (2002) assertion that males in classrooms are
labelled as a “different, lesser, and sometimes frowned upon presence and he [the male
student] knows it” (p. 155). These data go a bit further to say the female students know
it, too. Regardless of which gender the students in this survey identified with personally,
both genders hold beliefs that seem to be systemic: that when it comes to all things
school, females are good and males are bad.
Research Finding 2: Students have conflicting views about what their peers
believe about gender roles in regards to academic success.
This entire study is founded on Albert Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory,
in which children, or in this study, students, learn and reproduce behaviors through a
mediational process that begins with observation, then reproduction of what is observed
and finally an internalization or discarding of behaviors based on motivational factors.
(Grusec, 1992). In Bandura’s (1977) theory along with Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of
Proximal Development, learning comes through observation from the society and societal
structures in which the child, or in this case, student, functions. Peers are a major
motivational factor for adolescents and peer interactions in the school setting are part of
those societal constructs a student would engage in repeatedly (Dougherty, 1997).
!
109
!
The data from this study showed mixed results about how males and females felt
their peers perceived gender as an influence on academic performance. When examining
the Frequency of Scale Variance for Peers (Figure 4.2) 69 of the 93 participants scored a
12 or higher out of the 0 to 18 scale. What this means is that 69 of the 93 respondents or
74%, responded in such a way that they fell on the positive side of the spectrum.
The biggest difference was, again, found in the pair of items about whether
females or males do well academically. For males, 36.6% of the respondents disagreed on
some level with that notion while only 9.7% of respondents held the same opinion for
females. Overall, the Likert-type items, seemed to produce positive results which, had
that been all the data available the researcher would have assumed that peers had a
positive influence on academic performance. However, the qualitative data provided a
more complex view of students’ perceptions of how their peers view gender roles in
academics.
The open-ended section of the Peers scale set two pairs of questions up against
each other. The first set of questions dealt with what the respondent perceived his or her
peers to believe and the second set of sentence starters asked about his or her own beliefs.
This is where the major disconnection was observed. When asked about females, 68 of
the participants said their peers held positive views, while 84 stated they, personally, held
positive views. This is significant because what it indicates is that 73% of the respondents
believe their peers hold positive views of females in education though 90% of those same
respondent claim to hold positive views. Likewise, only 55 respondents indicated their
peers held positive views of males in school while 82 indicated that they, personally, held
!
110
!
positive views of males in school. This means that 59% of the participants think their
peers have positive views of males but 88% personally claim to hold positive views.
Conversely, when examining the negative responses for these same sets, only 6
respondents claimed to have negative views of females in school while 24 thought their
peers held negative views of females in schools; that is a difference of 6% to 26%. For
males the increase was even more dramatic. Only 8 of the 93 respondents responded that
they held a negative view of a male who was academically successful, while 38 claimed
their peers did. This was an increase from 8% who personally held a negative view to
40% who believed their peers did.
These data are significant for several reasons which calls forth several points and
questions:
1. If students are internalizing and reproducing behaviors based on what they
perceive their peers to think, they are probably not reproducing the correct
behaviors.
2. There is obviously a disconnection or gap between how peers articulate what is
deemed acceptable. If 88-90 percent of respondents personally think it is a
positive thing to do well in school, then why do they also believe only 59-73% of
their peers hold the same beliefs?
3. Similarly, why is there such inflation in the perception that their peers view
academically successful males negatively?
What the data suggest is that these respondents hold overall positive views of
males and females who are academically successful but have trouble understanding if
their peers do as well. This may be an area for future research.
!
111
!
Research Finding 3: The contextual factor that had the most negative impact on
how students were internalizing gender roles and norms in the academic setting was
School Experience.
The purpose of this study was to examine possible causational factors that could
be contributing to the educational gender gap that is all too real at Small-town Middle.
Three possible contextual factors were extrapolated from the research for this study:
school experience, peer influence, and parental influence. One of the leading points in
this research supports the assertion of Mead (2015) regarding the formation of the
educational gender gap:
This leads to two possible lines of thinking about gender gaps: Either they
represent innate differences in boys’ and girls’ abilities, or they reflect biases in
how schools and families treat boys and girls that translate into differences in
outcomes (para. 6).
What the data from this study show are, for these respondents, the school has the
heavier hand in creating the negative stereotypes for males in the academic setting. When
examining the Frequency of Scale Variance for School Experiences (Figure 4.1) only 30
of the 93 participants scored a 12 or higher out of the 0 to 18 scale. What this means is
that only 30 of the 93 respondents, or 32%, responded in such a way that they fell on the
positive side of the spectrum; in contrast, 63 of the 93 respondents, or 67%, fell below the
12 on the variance scale meaning their mean placed their average response on the
negative side of the Likert-type item scale.
The data further supported this assertion as frequency statistics per item in the
School Experience scale were examined. When asked if males and females are called on
!
112
!
equally, 44% of the students indicated that they had a level of disagreement with that
statement and when asked if males and females felt equally comfortable sharing and
participating in class, 57% disagreed with 19.4% indicating that they “Strongly
Disagreed.” These two items are significant specifically because the classroom culture
and environment is a direct results of procedures put into place by the school and by the
teacher.
As stated earlier in this chapter, when the researcher examined the qualitative
data, the disparity between the School Experiences scale showed females received 71
positive responses while males only received 31, a difference of 40; meanwhile in the
School Experiences scale, females received 18 negative responses while males received
53, a difference of 35.
The most important distinction made by the researcher was the language
employed by the respondents when filling in the sentence starters. Only once out of all 93
responses did someone indicate teachers might think a female student to be “dumb” or
“stupid,” yet this same exact verbiage showed up 13 times for males. Not a single
response indicated that teachers think females are “bad” but the researcher identified
“bad,” “behavior problem,” or “trouble” a total of 24 times in the responses when
questioned about how teachers view males.
These data support the body of knowledge that suggests no educator intends to
stigmatize his or her student population; unfortunately, many educators do not have a full
grasp of the multifarious ways one’s presumptions can come through to the students. As
Kindlon and Thompson (2002) explained, “research indicates a boy is four times more
likely to be referred to a school psychologist” or that “60 to 80 percent of learning
!
113
!
disabilities occur in boys” (p.163). And so, the glaring indication from the research
presented in the Literature Review and from the data extrapolated from this survey, is
that, though a teacher’s intent may not be to stereotype or brand male students, it is
indeed occurring.
Research Finding 4: Most academic subjects are generally seen as gender
neutral, but being “good at school” is most often associated with females while being
“good at sports” is most often associated with males.
As seen in the Literature Review, Farrell (2005) explained, “To describe a social
institution as heteronormative means that it has visible or hidden norms, some of which
are viewed as normal only for males/men and others which are seen as normal only for
females/women” (p. 3). The fourth research question in this study aimed directly at
answering the point Farrell (2005) made: which academic traits are most engendered for
the students of Small-town Middle?
Surprisingly, when the researcher examined the frequency of gender selection by
academic subject, the majority of respondents determined that the four core subject areas:
reading, math, science, and social studies were gender neutral. All four had over 60% of
participants indicating “Both” while math and social studies had over 70% of respondents
indicating gender neutrality for those areas.
Likewise, all of the options for how students work best received majority neutral
ratings with Individual work coming in with 59% of students indicating neutrality and
both Partner and Group work having 67% of the students rating those areas as gender
neutral.
!
114
!
Differences did arise when specific academic traits were narrowed down more
specifically. When it came to the academic trait of “neat handwriting” and “being a good
writer,” the majority of participants indicated that they felt this was a feminine trait with
76% indicating it as solely feminine for neat handwriting and 51% indicating being good
at writing was a feminine trait. Conversely the academic trait of being mechanically
inclined had 65% of respondents indicating that as a masculine trait and 53% of
participants indicating P.E. was a masculine trait. This final point was significant as it
related directly to the qualitative responses given in the School Experiences scale.
Students were asked in that section to examine the areas males and females “were
good at in school.” Like the previous sections indicated, the researcher coded those
responses as positive or negative in nature, but some interesting data surfaced. Over 50%
of the respondents entered in “sports” or some athletic related statement when asked what
they believed males were good at when it came to school.
This is significant for several reasons:
1. Sports are not an academic subject area.
2. Just as many females as males indicated this the area of male success.
3. It indicates there is a disconnection between academics and school.
When coding, Physical Education responses for that sentence starter were
indicated as a positive response by the researcher since that is an academic area. It was
not clear from the respondents when they indicated “sports” if it was outside the realm of
Physical Education but since there were students who qualified their responses by listing
specific sports such as football or basketball it was assumed on the part of the researcher
that this response did not fall under the purview of an academic area.
!
115
!
In direct contrast, 38 responses indicated that females were good at “academics”
when it came to school. There were also responses such as “paying attention” and “being
organized” that the researcher deemed as positive since these are a few of the skills one
might need in order to be success in school. Neither “paying attention” nor “being
organized” were mentioned even once for the male contingency.
This calls into question student respondents’ understanding of the difference
between academic and non-academic related activities. If students do understand this
difference, why was sports mentioned so often for males? This may be an excellent area
for future research.
Examination of Data from Students Who Did Not Identify Gender
The respondents in the survey were given the option not to self-identify their
gender based on research by Letts (1999) that indicated only presenting the binary
options of male and female reproduces stereotypes and misconceptions about those who
do not feel comfortable with either label. There were three students who chose not to
identify and therefore did not get analyzed with the male and female data. However,
those responses were examined as a separate group, one which could provide a deeper
insight into the roles of gender in schooling as these students were willing to say they do
not fit into the “norm” of what typical society and institutions expect.
Some of the most salient points revoled around the notion that , to these
respondednts, gender does not have a role. All three respondents who chose not to self-
identify indicated that teachers think both males and females are smart and that their
parents think males and females are smart. The trend in their answers was that gender
does not matter. For example, when asked “When I see a female who does well in school,
!
116
!
I think she is…” Non-identifier 3 said, “…smart. Gender doesn’t carry to your brain. Its
just what you say you are. And if it did matter what would gender fluid people be, just
fluncuate (sic) depending on time, no because gender doesn’t matter.” Likewise, when
asked about their own experiences with gender in the academic setting, Non-identifier 1
and 2 both mentioned that it did matter because they are all “taught the same” and that
academic success is important for everyone. Non-identifier 3 had a more in-depth
response:
I have seen a lot of gender inequality. For one they don’t think all genders can
equal to the same amount. Also they don’t accept gender fluid, nonbinary, or
people who don’t identify with a certain gender academically acceptable (sic)
because they cant put them under a stereotype. And people are always like” girls
are smarter, you boys cant do anything” when in actuality it doesn’t matter.
Females are also expected to get better grades and to grow up to equal
something but not that much is expected of males.
What this data shows are that those who do not necessarily identify with a gender do not
believe gender should matter. They are still aware of the stereotypes that are presented
for males and females, but chose to disregard those ideas because, in their viewpoint,
those gender roles would most likely exclude them. This is an interesting finding as it
seems to indicate that those who do not fit within the stereotypes set forth by normative
culture are released from the obligation many students seem to feel about filling those
roles.
!
117
!
Implications for Practioners
The administrative team at Small-town middle and the stakeholders in this
community should use this information to guide discussions around how to combat the
prolonged negative stereotypes that appear to be held by its students regarding male
academic performance. It is imperative for the educational practitioners to focus on the
culture of the school and ways that it is leading to the recurrence of these beliefs. It may
begin with an examination of the transition to middle school from the elementary
environment.
The American Physiological Association (n.d.) indicates a “Middle School
Malaise” which is often associated with this age group in respond to their academic
environment. They indicated, “psychologists have discovered a ‘developmental
mismatch’ between the environment and philosophy of middle schools and the children
they attempt to teach” (“Middle School Malaise”, n.d.). Pinpointing areas of weakness in
the transition process may help the administrative, guidance, and teaching teams to
reframe the culture of negativity that envloves males in middle school.
Discussions of Limitations
Limitations of this study included a small sample size from only one middle
school in a rural area of South Carolina. Of the 400 possible eighth grade students, only
93 were able to be surveyed; therefore, the researcher was only able to glean a very
limited view of the overall picture of how rural eighth grade students perceive gender
roles to affect academic success. Results may have been different with a larger sample
size. Likewise, there are many rural middle schools in South Carolina. One cannot
!
118
!
assume just because the locations are similar that the students would internalize the same
beliefs about how gender roles influence academic achievement.
A second limitation of the study was that there were several areas not examined
by the researcher: how class make-up affects perceptions, how students perceive the
gender of the teacher to affect the message the students internalizes, or even how access
to adults of both genders affects the way gender roles are formed in schools. In discussion
with the lead teacher and the principal of Small-town Middle after results were in, one of
the most important comments made was,“Do you think their answers would have been
different if you had asked about the difference between what their male and female
teachers thought?” However, when the researcher was planning and preparing for the
survey, it could not be guaranteed that the students would have had access to a male
teacher which could have resulted in empty data sets. The researcher therefore, chose to
keep the questions about school experiences gender neutral.
Another limitation was that there was not a follow up portion to the qualitative
open-ended items. Because the students did not have to identify anything more than their
gender, it was impossible for the researcher to determine differences in regular students
versus Honors students. A focus group of students who could have come in for a round
table discussion after the survey could have clarified some misgivings the researcher had
about the data sets presented. For example, the Likert-type data for the Peers scale trends
towards a positive response; however, when examining the qualitative data from the
open-ended items in the sections, the researcher determined there were many negative
perceptions about how students believe their peers feel about males in school. This would
!
119
!
have been an excellent area to dig deeper with a focus group to clarify why there might
be a disparity between the numbers and the words.
Recommendations for Future Research
Research has shown that males in western, industrialized nations are falling
behind their female counterparts when it comes to academic achievement (Legewie, &
DiPrete, 2012). As Mead (2015) argued, the educational gap does not lend itself to an
easy or quick fix as the root cause is still unclear: “This leads to two possible lines of
thinking about gender gaps: Either they represent innate differences in boys’ and girls’
abilities, or they reflect biases in how schools and families treat boys and girls that
translate into differences in outcomes” (para. 6). In this study, the participants indicated
that of the contextual factors presented, their experiences in the school environment and
with their teachers had the most negative effects on their perceptions of how gender and
academic success relate. As discussed in the literature review, schools systematically
reinforce the ideologies of middle class America with regards to gender identity and the
heteronormative ideas of male and female (Sambell &McDowell, 1998). Farrell (2005)
explained, “To describe a social institution as heteronormative means that it has visible or
hidden norms, some of which are viewed as normal only for males/men and others which
are seen as normal only for females/women” (p. 3).
Future research could focus on more specific attributes of the educational setting
that may contribute to these norms such as the make-up of classes, the gender of the
educators, the position of males or females as authority figures in the school setting, and
even the curriculum employed by the teachers. Understanding the underlying factors, not
!
120
!
just a general picture, is important in helping educators determine what policies and
practices to keep in place and what policies and practices to eradicate.
This study focused specifically on the internalization of gender roles in relation to
academic success for eighth grade students. However, Albert Bandura’s (1977) Social
Learning Theory is applicable at all levels of a child’s educational development. As
explained in the Literature Review, this process of internalizing observed expectations is
commonly referred to as the “mediational process” as it focuses on how mental factors
are the catalyst for learned behaviors (McLeod, 2016). Bandura (1977) also focused on
the factors that caused repeated behaviors in children because it was his belief that
children had to process what was observed and then determine if they should imitate that
behavior based on the consequences that would arise if the behavior is repeated. Future
research could focus on the same contextual factors examined in this study but at
different intervals in a student’s educational lifespan. Has a first grader internalized any
stereotypes about gender roles in education? If so, what are those roles and where did
they come from? How does that change for a third grader or a fifth grader? Do the
gender role stereotypes presented in this study diminish for eleventh graders?
The process of observational learning and internalization of normed behaviors
does not start at adolescence nor does it end at 18, so future research could examine the
differences in what students internalize throughout their years in the institution of public
education. Understanding the possible ebb and flow of how gender roles and norms are
internalized will help educators and parents have impactful conversations with students
that could possibly counteract some of the negative beliefs that are being adopted by the
students.
!
121
!
There also was a large discrepancy in the data between what these respondents
indicated they believed about males and females who were successful academically and
what they perceived their peers believed. The gap in these two was wide enough to make
the researcher question where the inconsistency came from and how students could have
such an inaccurate perception of what their peers believed. A focus group could dig
deeper into how students form their ideas about what peers believe and if they are
internalizing societal expectation from areas from outside their physical environment and
then making inaccurate associations. It would be important to also understand if students
are not being forthcoming with their peers about their own belief resulting in an accurate
perception of what peers outwardly project but simultaneously resulting in an inaccurate
perception of true beliefs.
Another outcome noted in this study was the implication that, when it comes to
school, males are good at sports related activities and females are good at academic
related tasks. As noted in the Literature Review, there were several prevalent and
dominant myths that are perpetuated about males and females in school that support these
assertions (Macgillivray, 2004, Afshar, 2004, Serbin, Powlishta, Gulko, 1993). However,
this study did not determine the effects or role that competitive sports at the middle
school level contributed to these gender roles and stereotypes. Future research could
focus on whether schools that do not have competitive sports teams have the same issues
with the educational gender gap or with the negative stereotypes associated with being a
male student, as seen in this study. If, according to the participants in this study, males
are only “good at sports” what would happen if the sports were removed? Understanding
the effect that the insertion of competitive sports has on how students view school, is a
!
122
!
very interesting possibility for further research as it might indicate a variable that was not
examined in this study nor in the Literature Review.
Conclusion
This study has shown that gender roles are still alive and well for the eighth grade
students of Small-town Middle School. In fact, it has proven that of the possible
contextual factors investigated, School Experiences has the most contributory impact on
the formation and continuation of negative gender roles in the academic setting which has
led to the internalization for both male and female students that the male students cannot
be as successful. There is a great deal of potential for this study to produce further
research into what specific school factors most significantly create these stereotypes,
when they begin to form, when or if they possibly end, and how educators can help to
combat them. For the students and staff at Small-town Middle, the first step may be to
take a hard look at the policy and practices that are currently in place to see if the
educational gender gap they have observed is of their own doing.
