truppin n - eps part b report

Nathan Truppin

1133571

Citizenship

St Joseph’s Catholic College, Swindon

Spring Term EPS Part B Assignment – Area 2

‘How does single-sex grouping affect attitudes to English amongst underachieving white British

boys? – An exploratory study’

Word Count: 2743

(Excluding Bibliography, references and Appendices)

Plagiarism Declaration

I confirm that this assignment is my own work, and that the work of other persons has been fully acknowledged.

Signed: Nathan Truppin Date: 10th April 2012

Nathan Truppin - 11335714

Introduction

OFSTED states: “There can be no more important subject than English in the school

curriculum.” Indeed, as a: “... world language, it is at the heart of our culture and it is the

language medium in which most of our pupils think and communicate.” (2012: 4). Moreover:

“Literacy is acknowledged as key to educational achievement... and is crucially important to

the social and economic life of the nation.” (Shilvock: 2004a: 200). With this in mind,

discourse also exists on the: “Current national anxiety in England about the

underachievement of boys.” (Myhill: 2002: 339). Therefore, this research aims to investigate

male underachievement in relation to the subject of English given this clear significance.

To expand, boys’ underachievement is often measured in relation to that of their female

counterparts, described as the ‘gender gap’: “Available data does point to significant gender

differences... especially in English where the performance gap... is widest.” (Lucey &

Walkerdine: 2000: 37). For example, of boys only: “43% gain a grade C or above in

English... compared with 51% of girls.” and furthermore: “Only 39% of boys gain 5 good

GCSEs including English... compared with 48% of girls.” (Skidmore: 2006: 2). Further still,

this has led to media ‘moral panics’ declaring such things as: “... British boys (are) falling

behind everyone else at school.” (Kershaw: 2008: Online). In addition to: “Boys at every

stage of education are showing ‘shocking’ levels of underachievement.” (Wooding: 2011:

Online). However, this is not to suggest that gender alone can explain this; thus, it is noted

that: “... ethnicity and particularly social class continue to have a greater bearing than gender

as predictors of educational achievement.” (Francis: 2006: 188).

Hence, if: “Those most likely to underachieve are white.” (Myers & Burnett: 2004: 237).

which, when considered alongside: “... the processes through which some, mainly working-

class boys continue to fail.” (Lucey & Walkerdine: 2000: 37), this research has subsequently

focused upon said ethnic group, and, where possible, on those within said social category.

Moreover, it would seem that such students: “... have become the ‘unwitting casualties’ of

2


the testing regime... drilling students for the exams to meet the targets.” (Coultas: 2009: 118:

my italics). Thus, if: “The way education systems are designed can exacerbate initial

inequalities and have a negative impact on student motivation and engagement, eventually

leading to dropout” (OECD: 2012: 2), then, furthermore, it is also necessary to direct

attention toward the processes and apparatus which are the cause of such exacerbation and

eventual ‘failure’. In this instance, the focus has been placed on concepts of ‘ability’

grouping.

Education in the UK has: “... a long tradition of grouping by ‘ability’ – a practice founded upon

the idea that students have relatively fixed levels of ability and need to be taught

accordingly.” (Boaler et al: 2000: 631). This notion is not without its critics, indeed: “Schools

are still pretty much organised on factory lines... We still educate children by batches... this

is deep in the gene pool of public education. (that) There are really two types of people,

academic and non academic.” (Robinson: ND: Online). Therefore, for some, this process of

categorising students: “... strips young people of their sense of being worthy, competent,

creative, inventive, critical human beings, and encourages them to find other ways of

achieving dignity, often through oppositional means.” (Hart et al: 2004: 23). Whilst conceding

elements of the suggested ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, again, it is too simplistic to explain

underachievement and disaffection according to just one factor. However, because there is

a: “... presumption that setting be the norm in schools” (DfEE: 1997: 1), it is thus not the

place of this research to conceive alternatives but to investigate the effects of what is already

in place.

One such an alternative is to set students into classes according to gender. Seen as: “... a

potential solution to the current ‘crisis’ caused by ‘underachieving’ boys.” (Jackson: 2002:

38). The primary advantage being that: “... teachers can modify their teaching methods and

curriculum material to suit the different learning styles and preferences.” (Van de gaer et al:

2004: 308). Nevertheless, there exists a “... danger of modifying pedagogical practices within

single-sex classrooms on the basis of treating boys and girls as simply homogenous groups

3


who perform certain gender stereotypic behaviours.” (Martino et al: 2005: 238). That is, to

radically reform the way in which these single-sex classes are delivered may somehow

diminish the validity of the lesson and assist in the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ concept. Yet still,

there is: “... little firm evidence about the value of single-sex teaching in a mixed-sex

comprehensive.” (Shilvock: 2004b: 291). Therefore, this study focuses very much upon the

perception of students within just such an arrangement and is particularly concerned with

their experiences of it.

Research Questions

The research was carried out within a mixed comprehensive school in which the school’s

English Department had arranged the current year 10 cohort into that of mixed gender top

sets, mixed ‘ability’ and gender sets, and single-sex sets for both males and females. This

arrangement had been in place since the beginning of the spring-term and for almost 12

weeks during the data collection process. Therefore, this research hypothesises the

following:

1) Boys will feel more able to participate within the single-sex classes

2) Boys’ responses in the mixed classes will starkly oppose those from the single-sex

classes demonstrating improved attitudes in the latter

3) Underachieving white British boys’ responses within single-sex classes will highlight

positive changes in approach to pedagogy, teacher interactions, and peer-

interactions

4


Methodology

The research was undertaken using a ‘mixed method design’ which employs: “… qualitative

and quantitative data collection and analysis techniques in either parallel or sequential

phases.” (Tashakkori & Teddlie: 2003: 11). It is widely received that such: “… mixed-method

and mixed-model studies are useful both as empirical research, and as demonstrations of

the wisdom of respecting and using the strengths of different methods.” (Shaffer & Serlin:

2004: 14). Thus, I concur that: “Research which uses complementary forms of data…

possesses an extra dimension.” (Pole & Lampard: 2002: 31). Of which, this research utilises

to further deepen its exploration into the research questions.

Initially, 93 ‘self-administered’ questionnaires were completed (figure 1). Due to constraints,

the approach to ‘sampling’ meant that these were administered to one half of the year 10

cohort in order to be representative of its whole. For the most part this was chosen because:

“This method of data collection ensures a high response rate, accurate sampling and a

minimum of interviewer bias.” Moreover, the ‘closed’ questions were designed specifically:

“… as measures; each question has a job to do, and that job is the measurement of a

particular variable.” (Oppenheim: 1992: 103-144). Therefore, the results have been

assembled in chart form and are employed as ‘descriptive’ or ‘inferential’ statistics to equate

with those collated during the next phase.

This second ‘thick description’ phase was conducted using ‘semi-structured interviews’,

which: “... aside from having a long pedigree.” this type of data gathering technique: “…

encourages the discussion to go beyond the priorities of the interviewer, thereby maximising

the opportunity of obtaining information that the interviewee regards as important.”

(Stephens et al: 1998: 91). Hence, given the research questions, this method is particularly

valid for providing direct responses to them whilst eliciting additional or supplementary

avenues to explore. However, great care and emphasis was placed on the ‘structured’ side

5


of the questioning in order for the route to remain professional and appropriate (figure 2 &

14). Consequently, it can be said that: “The interview itself is the site of far more activity than

simply the collection of verbal data. It is a reflexive process and one in which a relationship is

established.” (Nicolson: 2003: 138).

To accomplish this, a focus group of 5 underachieving, white British, male students within

the same cohort were identified for the interviews using the schools current

underachievement report (figure 3). They were selected according to the biggest gap in

terms of their spring predicted and end target grade in English whilst additionally being

recognised as underachieving in other areas of the curriculum. Moreover, data from the

school’s ‘Pupil Attitudes to Self and School’ scheme (figures 4-8) serves to flesh out some of

the narrative behind this underachievement and to gauge their responses during the

interview process. In the interests of participation and welfare their anonymity was assured

through the allocation of pseudonyms, which as a: “… basic ethical rule.” means that: “…

response rates are higher… when strong assurances of confidentiality are given.”

(Weisberg: 2005: 313).

Analysis

From the outset, it is clear that the single-sex class is popular amongst the focus group

students:

S1: “It’s much better than with the girls. There’s a good atmosphere now.”

S2: “It’s more of a laugh, there’s less arguments, I feel like I’m learning more than before.”

S3: “We get more work done. I’m not told that I can’t do certain things. I can join in with

everything.”

Nonetheless, the questionnaires revealed that the vast majority of students within the single-

sex class would not want all their classes to be organised in this way unlike their

6


counterparts in the mixed class (figure 9). Therefore, what should also be made clear is that

there is a multiplicity of student experiences occurring at classroom level of which only a

selection can be explored here.

To expand, with the focus group in mind, during lessons: “... it is clear that underachievers

are the least likely to join in.” (Myhill: 2002: 343). Which can be attributed to ‘underachievers’

inventing: “... a whole range of coping strategies that can directly inhibit their learning in

order to avoid looking stupid in front of their teachers and peers.” (Hart et al: 2004: 27). In

fact, consider the steady decline in ‘learner confidence’ and ‘feelings about school’ within the

PASS data for students 1 and 5 (figure 4 & 8). However, within the context of the single-sex

class these students report to the contrary:

S1: “They all know me so won’t take the ‘mick’ if I get it wrong. I’m more motivated to give it

a go because it doesn’t matter as much; I can say something without looking like an idiot.”

S5: “I think it is easier to ask for help without looking like I’m dumb.”

Moreover, supported by the relative increase amongst the male single-sex class to put up

their hands (figure 9), this therefore demonstrates an overall increase in participation and

feelings of confidence or acceptance. Yet still, this cannot be concluded with a ‘one size fits

all’ claim:

S4: “I don’t feel confident; I’d rather make a mistake in my old class as I won’t be made fun

of in front of everyone.”

Thus, whilst the single-sex class offers: “... a strong emphasis on establishing a clear sense

of community where everyone felt ‘accepted’.” there is also the need to offer: “... a good

range of emotional support for boys... (to) enable them to manage anxieties.” (OFSTED:

2008: 6-11). As such, the impetus for establishing this falls mainly upon the teacher and

specifically the relationship with each pupil, stressing: “... noticeable differences in academic

7


and other behaviour depending on whether pupils thought that their teacher liked them or

not.” (Hart et al: 2004: 22). The focus group exemplifies this well:

S1: “She tells it like it is, no messing. If I do something wrong she will have a go, but, if I do

something good you can tell by the way she acts with you so I want to get it right.”

S2: “It’s good because Miss stands by the door and welcomes you into the class; I feel like I

can get on with it.”

S5: “My teacher is legendary; she knows how each of us are and treats us all differently. It

just kind of works.”

Supported by the questionnaire, enjoyment of lessons occurs more frequently amongst the

single-sex male classes than their mixed counterparts (figure 11). This serves not to call into

question the aptitudes of any colleagues but to demonstrate that: “... boys have different

specific developmental needs and interests and... some teaching styles are more

appropriate for boys than for girls.” (Van de gaer et al: 2004: 320). Therefore: “The task is to

develop a pedagogy which creates educationally productive connections with students’

diverse experiential backgrounds.” (Hart: 1998: 163). Consider some further responses from

the focus group:

S2: “Miss doesn’t have to explain things two ways for the girls and then for us so I don’t lose

patience – I can understand things easier.”

S3: “When the girls answer a question it’s hard to understand what they are on about. When

it’s the boys I know what they mean. Girls take it too seriously”

S4: “They treat the girls better and let them get away with stuff. Now we are treated more

equally. They talk to us and make jokes with us.”

Therefore, it would appear that with the absence of girls these ‘connections’ are easier to

establish, whilst at the same time, teachers are simultaneously able to offer one or more

8


alternative tactics to classroom climate and pupil relationships. Again, consider the rapid

decline in the focus group’s ‘attitudes to teachers’ within the PASS data (figures 4-8). This

opposes that which was collected during the interview process and further suggests that “...

the success of single-sex strategies... appears to be attributable to the significant impact of

the teacher and not the strategy per se.” (Martino et al: 2005: 241).

In regards to classroom climate, single-sex arrangements are: “... thought to provide a

better... climate because pupils are better able to concentrate on learning tasks and have

less non-academic distractions.” (Van de gaer et al: 2004: 309). This notion is supported by

the results of the questionnaire which demonstrate that when compared to their mixed

counterparts, the single-sex class students felt considerably more able to concentrate whilst

concurrently less likely to be distracted by others (figures 12 & 13). However, responses

amongst the focus group reveal a disparity:

S1: “I get distracted by my friends all the time.”

S4: “I thought that I did more in the other class. My friends are in there so I sit around and

talk.”

Then again, this reveals a mere snapshot as others responded:

S3: “I still talk to my mates but now we want to get it right between us, it’s like a competition.”

S5: “You can make jokes and still get on with the work but I do a load more than I would

before.”

Hence, if: “Building a culture where achievement in all forms is valued and celebrated is

crucial to raising standards.” (Shilvock: 2004b: 288), then it is similarly necessary to

understand that: “... individuals have different strengths and weaknesses and... it is helpful to

learn from each other and learn to be supportive of each other.” (Boaler et al: 2000: 643).

Although in ‘competition’ with one another what appears to be happening is more ‘team

spirited’ than pure machismo, and furthermore, where there is an element of boys being: “...

9


distracted more by each other than they are with the girls.” (Jackson: 2002: 46). Then there

is a clear opportunity to harness this in order to achieve positive outcomes within the lesson.

Conclusion

In conclusion, hypothesis 1 can be sustained, that boys in the focus group felt more able to

participate in the single-sex class, via their responses and the results of the questionnaire

particularly given the previous data demonstrating poor ‘learner confidence’ and ‘feelings

about school’. Hypothesis 2 can only be sustained in part. Whilst the questionnaire results

do show opposing responses, these alone cannot demonstrate improved attitudes to English

amongst the single-sex class. Hypothesis 3 can, in the main, be sustained and holds the

biggest implications for my own teaching practice.

Thus, an emphasis should be placed on building and sustaining productive and purposeful

relationships with all members of a class through our interactions and getting to know their

individual learning characteristics. Moreover, it is apparent that boys’ own interactions

between themselves are just as, if not more so, important than those between girls. That is,

whilst there may exist a male ‘competitiveness’, this should not be rejected but utilised as a

tool. Finally, within a mixed class setting, instructions should be carefully communicated in a

way that ensures accessibility to all, and furthermore, equal value placed on the participation

of both sexes within a classroom culture where they feel safe and encouraged to take

responsibility for their own learning.

10


Bibliography

Boaler, J. & Wiliam, D. & Brown, M. (2000) ‘Students’ Experiences of Ability Grouping – Disaffection, Polarisation and the Construction of Failure’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 25, pp. 631-648

Boaler, J. (2005) ‘The ‘Psychological Prisons’ From Which They Never Escaped: The Role of Ability Grouping in Reproducing Social Class Inequalities’, Forum, Vol. 47, No. 2&3, pp. 135-144

Coultas, V. (2009) ‘English’ in Cole, M. (ed) Equality in the Secondary School, London: Continuum

DfEE (1997) Excellence in schools, London: The Stationery Office

DfES (2003) Using the National Healthy School Standard to Raise Boys’ Achievement, Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/nhss_boys_achievement.pdf Accessed: 9th April 2012

Francis, B. (2006) ‘Heroes or Zeroes?: The Discursive Positioning of ‘Underachieving Boys’ in English Neo-liberal Education Policy’, The Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 187-200

Hart, S. (1998) ‘A Sorry Tail: Ability, Pedagogy and Educational Reform’, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 153-168

Hart, S. & Dixon, A. & Drummond, M.J. & McIntyre, D. (2004) Learning Without Limits, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Jackson, C. (2002) ‘Can Single-sex Classes in Co-educational Schools Enhance the Learning Experiences of Girls and/or Boys? An Exploration of Pupils’ Perceptions’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 37-48

Kershaw, A. (2008) Poor White Boys Falling ‘Further Behind’, Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/poor-white-boys-falling-further-behind-1823588.html (Accessed 15th March 2012)

Lucey, H. & Walkerdine, V. (2000) ‘Boys’ Underachievement: Social Class and Changing Masculinities’. In Cox, T. Combating Educational Disadvantage: Meeting the Needs of Vulnerable Children, London: Falmer Press

Martino, W. & Mills, M. & Lingard, B. (2005) ‘Interrogating Single-sex Classes as a Strategy for Addressing Boys’ Educational and Social Needs’, Oxford Review of Education, Vol.31, No. 2, pp. 237-254

Myers, J. & Burnett, K. (2004) Teaching English 3-11, London: Continuum

Myhill, D. (2002) ‘Bad Boys and Good Girls? Patterns of Interaction and Response in Whole Class Teaching’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 339-352

Nicolson, P. (2003) ‘Reflexivity, ‘bias’ and the in-depth interview: developing shared meanings’, in Finlay, L. & Gough, B., (eds.) Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

11

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/poor-white-boys-falling-further-behind-1823588.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/poor-white-boys-falling-further-behind-1823588.html

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/nhss_boys_achievement.pdf


OECD (2012) ‘Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools’, Equity and Quality in Education, OECD Publishing

OFSTED (2008) White Boys from Low-income Backgrounds: Good Practice in Schools, London: OFSTED Publications

OFSTED (2012) Moving English Forward: Action to raise standards in English, London: OFSTED Publications

Oppenheim, A.N. (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, New Edition, London: Pinter Publishers Ltd

Pole, C. & Lampard, R. (2002) Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd

Robinson, K. (ND) Changing Paradigms Speech, available from: http://lybio.net/ken-robinson-changing-paradigms/people/ (Accessed 7th April 2012)

Shaffer, D.W. & Serlin, R.C. (2004) ‘What Good are Statistics that Don’t Generalize?’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp. 14-25Shilvock, K. (2004a) ‘The National Literacy Strategy’, in Brooks, V. & Abbott, I. & Bills, L. (eds) Preparing to Teach in Secondary Schools, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Shilvock, K. (2004b) ‘Schooling and Gender’, in Brooks, V. & Abbott, I. & Bills, L. (eds) Preparing to Teach in Secondary Schools, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Skidmore, C. (2006) Boys: A School Report, London: The Bow Group Publishing

Stephens, P. & Leach, A. & Jones, H. & Taggart, L., (1998) Think Sociology, Bath: Nelson Thornes

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioural Research, London: Sage Publications

Van de gaer, E. & Pustjens, H. & Van Damme, J. & De Munter, A. (2004) ‘Effects of Single-sex Versus Co-educational Classes and Schools on Gender Differences in Progress in Language and Mathematics Achievement’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 307-322

Weisberg, H.F. (2005) The Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science of Survey Research, Chicago: University Press

Wooding, D. (2011) School’s are failing the poor, Available from: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/357287/Schools-are-failing-poor-Ofsted-report-Ms-Gilbert.html (Accessed 15th March 2012)

12

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/357287/Schools-are-failing-poor-Ofsted-report-Ms-Gilbert.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/357287/Schools-are-failing-poor-Ofsted-report-Ms-Gilbert.html

http://lybio.net/ken-robinson-changing-paradigms/people/

http://lybio.net/ken-robinson-changing-paradigms/people/


List of Appendices

Figure 1 – English questionnaire completed by students

13


Figure 2 – Focus Group Interview Structured Questions

14


Figure 3 – Focus Group Spring Underachievement Report

Figure 4 – Student 1 PASS Data

Feelings about school

Perceived Learning

Capability

Self-regard Preparedness for learning

Attitudes to teachers

General Work Ethic

Learner Con-fidence

Attendance At-titudes

Response to Curriculum

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Question Asked

Perc

ent (

%)

15




Perceived Learning Ca-

pability



General Work Ethic

Learner Con-fidence

Attendance Atti-tudes


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Question Asked

Perc

ent (

%)




pability



General Work Ethic

Learner Con-fidence



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Questions Asked

Perc

ent (

%)

16




Perceived Learning

Capability



General Work Ethic

Learner Con-fidence

Attendance At-titudes


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Questions Asked

Perc

ent (

%)




pability



General Work Ethic

Learner Con-fidence



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0


Questions Asked

Perc

ent (

%)

17


Figure 9 – Results from question 3 of questionnaire

All Male All Female Mixed Males02468

101214161820

Would you like all your other classes to be grouped this way?

YesNo

English Group


Often Sometimes Rarely Never0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

How often do you put your hand up?

All MaleAll FemaleMixed Males

18



Never Rarely Sometimes Often All the time0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

How much do you enjoy your English class since you changed groups?


Figure 12 – Results from questions 5 against 7 of questionnaire for single-sex male class

Very Easy Easy OK Hard Very Hard0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How easy do you find it to concentrate in your English class against how often you get distracted by others?

NeverRarelySometimes

19


Figure 13 – Results from questions 5 against 7 of questionnaire for males in mixed class

Very Easy Easy OK Hard Very Hard0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How easy do you find it to concentrate in your English class against how often you get distracted by others?

NeverRarelySometimesOften

20


Figure 14 – GSoE Research Ethics Form

21


Figure 15 – Unused data from questionnaires

Yes No Sometimes0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Does the work challenge you?


Never Rarely Sometimes Often All the time0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How much do you enjoy your English class against if you want all your other classes to be

grouped this way? (All Male Class)

NoYes

22


Never Rarely Sometimes Often All the time0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How much do you enjoy your English class against if you want all your other classes to be

grouped this way? (Mixed Class Males)

NoYes

Often Sometimes Rarely Never0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How often do you put your hand up against does the work challenge you? (All Male Class)

SometimesNoYes

23


Often Sometimes Rarely Never0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

How often do you put your hand up against does the work challenge you? (Mixed Class

Males)

SometimesNoYes

Very Easy Easy Ok Hard Very Hard0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

How easy do you find it to concentrate?


24


Often Sometimes Rarely Never0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

How often do you get distracted by other people in the class?


All Male27%

All Female23%

Mixed51%

Is your English class?

Male55%

Female45%

Are you?

25

truppin n - eps part b report

Documents