Action Research Midterm

An Action Research Project
Andreali Dharampaul
EDU 7201
Fall 10’
Table of Contents
 Introduction
- Statement of the problem
- Review of related literature
* Practitioners
- Statement of the Hypothesis
 References
Statement of the Problem
 In early childhood, students tend to interact with same sex peers
when in a mixed gender classroom, where as in the upper grades
students tend to interact with both genders. A lot of research has
been done to show the positive and negative influence same sex
classrooms have over mixed gendered classrooms in childhood
education. Many researchers have concluded that sex composition
plays a role in the outcome of a student’s academic success and peer
relations in the classroom. Although there is research that concludes
the effect sex composition has on a childhood student’s academic
success and peer relations, not much research has been done in early
childhood education to support this theory. Is a student’s academic
success and peer relation influenced by their classroom sex
composition in early childhood or is it irrelevant during these early
stages in their education?
Review of Related Literature
 To ensure the success of single sex schooling:
 Single sex schooling must have an important objective
 Student enrollment must be made voluntary in such classroom setting.
(Jorgensen & Pfeiler, 2008; Okopny, 2008).
Review of Related Literature
Pros: Academic Success
 Female students profit less than male students in cooperative learning when
in a mixed gendered science classroom.
(Ding, Harskamp & Suhre, 2008).
 Students enrolled in a same sex science classroom demonstrated more
positive science achievement.
(Friend, 2006).
 Same sex classrooms have a positive outcome for both boys and girls
academic success, increased student commitment and fewer sexually
stereotyped behaviors.
(Forbes- Jones, Friedman, Hightower & Moller, 2008; Cohen & Barton, 2004;
Jorgensen & Pfeiler, 2008, Hutton, Kilpatrick & Wills, 2006).
Review of Related Literature
Pros: Academic Success
 Boys struggle academically because boys and girls are biologically and
developmentally different.
( Okopny, 2008; Hutton, Kilpatrick & Wills, 2006; Kommer, 2006, Laster,
2004, Whitehead, 2006).
Review of Related Literature
Cons: Peer Relations
 Sex accounts for less than 2% to 5% in most studies that focus on behavior,
spatial, language and/ or mathematical abilities. In contrast for choice of play
partners sex accounts for 70% to 80% in early childhood.
(Palmer, 2004).
 Children between the ages of three and five show evidence of stereotypical
gender cues & such segregation may lead to limited opportunities in their
education and careers in the future.
(Palmer, 2004; Okopny, 2008; Medina, 2009; Hutton, Kilpatrick & Wills. 2006).
 Boys form larger mutual friendships where as girls experience a negative
change in social behaviors.
(Cohen & Barton, 2004; Forbes- Jones, Friedman, Hightower & Moller, 2008).
Review of Related Literature
Cons: Peer relations
 Girls show greater academic competence when less time was spent with the
same sex, and boys showed less academic competence when more time was
spent with same sex peers in preschool.
(Fabes, Martin, Hanish, Anders & Madden- Derdich, 2003, Laster, 2004).
 Girls seek close proximity behaviors when boys are the majority.
(Fabes, Martin, Hanish, Anders & Madden- Derdich, 2003; Cohen & Barton,
2004; Forbes- Jones, Friedman, Hightower & Moller, 2008).
 Bem’s Gender Schema Theory:
- Gender schematic processing is a result of people’s gender typing. They
tend to process information, including information about themselves
according to the culture’s definitions of masculinity and femininity.
(Katsurada & Sugihara, 2002)
 Spence’s muti-factorial model of gender identity:
- Gender related personality, attitudes, and behaviors are relatively
independent. “At the level of the individual these different kinds of genderrelated attributes, attitudes, and behaviors do not necessarily have common
developmental histories”
(Katsurada & Sugihara, 2002)
Statement of the Hypothesis
 HR:
- During a one week instruction, Andreali Dharampaul
will implement theme related activities to her mixed
gender pre-k classroom in an urban private school located
in East Flatbush as a single sex classroom. Observing her
students during instruction she will record any changes in
her students peer relations and academic accomplishments
and compare her observations to a one week instruction in
her normal mixed gender classroom composition using the
same theme.
Anders, M. C., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Madden-Derdich, D. A., & Martin, C. L. (2003). Early school
competence : the roles of sex-segregated play and effortful control. Developmental Psychology, 39(5),
Cohen, R., & Barton, B. K. (2004). Classroom gender composition and children’s peer
relations. Child Study Journal, 34(1), 29-45.
Ding, N., Harskamp, E., & Suhre, C. (2008). Group composition and its effect on female and male
problem-solving in science education. Educational Research, 50(4), 307-318.
Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., & Martin, C. L. (2004). The next 50 years: considering gender as a context for
understanding young children’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(3), 260-273.
Friedman, R., Hightower, D. A, Jones, F. E., & Moller, A. C. (2008). The developmental influence of sex
composition in preschool classrooms: boys fare worse in preschool classrooms with more boys.
Early Childhood Quarterly, 23(3), 409-418.
Friend, J. (2006). Research on same-gender grouping in eighth grade science classrooms. Research in Middle
Level Education Online, 30(4), 1-15.
Hutton, B., Kilpatrick, S., & Wills, R. (2006). Single-sex classes in co-educational schools.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(3), 277-291.
Jorgensen, N. S., & Pfeiler, C. (2008). Successful single-sex offerings in the choral department.
Music Educators Journal, 95(5), 36-40.
Katsurada, E. & Sugihara, Y. (2002). Gender- role identity, attitudes toward marriage, and gendersegregated school backgrounds. Sex Roles, 47(5/6), 249-258.
Kommer, D. (2006, July/August). Boys and girls together: a case for creating gender-friendly middle
school classrooms. The Clearing House, 247-251.
Laster, C. (2004, September). Why we must try same sex instruction. Education Digest, 59-62.
Medina, J. (2009, March 11). Boys and girls together, taught separately in public school. The New York
Times. Retrieved from
Okopny, C. (2008). Why jimmy isn’t failing: the myth of the boy crisis. Feminist Teacher, 18(3), 216-228.
Whitehead, J. M. (2006). Starting school- why girls are already ahead of boys. Teacher Development,
10(2), 249-270.
 “Non- profit organization founded in 2002, dedicated to
the advancement of single-sex public education for both
boys and girls”
- Provide workshops
- Share latest research
- Provide information

similar documents