Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Adolescence is a chapter in our life that we all have to go through. We are not allowed to skip and we are not allowed to fast forward to the end because this is the most defining period of our lives. The choices that we make during this turbulent time craft the foundation for our future. We are social creatures in nature and the need for companionship is most prominent among, us, young people.
There are certain characteristics of humans that are hereditary and there are some that are developed as influenced by his or her environment. Whether these characteristics are by nature or nurtured, these are factors that will influence “each child’s learning profile and preferences” (Greatschools Staff, 2010). Factors that fall under the “nature” category are the following: gender, which is often mistaken as a term similar to sex, temperament, abilities which also include disabilities and also intelligence.
Buss et al., as cited in Evolutionary Theory of Sex by Geodakian (2009) theorized that humans at present have inherited natural traits that were used to adapt to the environment during the prehistoric times. These natural traits have attached benefits for males and are less advantageous for females. This is further explained in Charles Darwin’s Sexual Selection stating that sexual selection is the effects of the “struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of other sex”. Evolutionary theory of sex views gender differences as outcome of distinct specialization of the sexes. Initiating relationship with earlier generations or as what we refer to as inheritance affects the environments and the variability if the traits.
This theory was tested by Gopinhathan et al. from the University of the Philippines Cebu College in 2010. Their study aimed to “prove the evolution-based hypotheses about sex differences in perceived benefits and costs of opposite-sex and same-sex friendships and content of their interactions”. The respondents were 66 undergraduate college students composed of 34 males and 32 females, all coming from the same university. The researchers surveyed and interviewed the students to determine the advantages and disadvantages they get from their friends of the same sex and from friends from the opposite sex. Other variables such as level of self-esteem and perceived level of attractiveness were studied to know whether they affect the students’ number of friends. The results showed that gender is a valuable factor in relation to the advantages and disadvantages the students get from the same-sex and opposite-sex friendships. Girls, when they talk with their girl buddies, share topics that involve emotions and feelings while boys are more into sharing light discussions like their favourite kinds of music, sports and movies.
Armstrong and Sarafino (1986), in their book Child and Adolescent Development stated that the transition from childhood to adulthood is marked by physical and social changes. Teenagers tend to draw away from their parents and develop an increasing reliance on their peers. These changes can be so frustrating to them that they often feel that they can’t talk to their parents about their problems. Instead, they turn to their friends who they think will understand and will know how they feel. Teenage social relationships involve bigger groups; crowds and cliques. Crowds are formed based on common interests, abilities and ideals. Cliques, however, are smaller and more intimate groups. “There is also a distinct difference between boys’ cliques and girls’ cliques. Boys’ cliques are broader because boys value athletic skills more than class statuses” (Armstrong & Sarafino, p. 529). Girls’ cliques are different. They tend to be more intimate and more exclusive to outsiders.
There are various environments in which young people can interact with each other and create their social circles. But much of the teenage social life gets played out in school. In an article Gender Roles and Schools, Campbell (2010) stated that the school offers a place for the development of gender roles in society. According to Alindajao (2008), gender roles besiege people from the moment of birth. Wood (2001), contrary to Campbell, expressed that what sex means and what it implies for participation in life are matters of social convention that are communicated to us. Wood (2001) said that various societies attach different meanings to masculinity and femininity, so what gender means depends on the society in which one lives and the particular position one occupies in that society.
Rossides as cited by Alindajao (2008) pointed out that in almost all societies; women and men perform different activities. Women are typically responsible for children and household work while men are typically responsible for meeting the household’s need for food and resources.
Furthermore, Kinicki and Kreitner (1997) as restated by Alindajao (2008) cited that several resources have shown that male dominance exists in our cultural system, in everyday interactions, and in social institutions and rules. Even in the same organizations, the activities of males and females tend to be separate, and what males do is more highly valued that what females do. In general, domestic roles for women and public roles for men are emphasized in all societies.
Society teaches us the fulfillment of roles and being in a society involves socialization. Socialization is the process in which we become part of society and learn attributes and behaviours from it. Among the four major agents of socialization, school is basically one of the most influential. We spend a considerable amount of time in our life going to school. We are greatly influenced by our teachers, classmates and curriculum that is why it has been considered as our second home. Lupdag (1984) stated that socialization process in school could either be a key or an obstruction to students’ social growth and development. Methods of upbringing the child, birth order, and sex are also other factors that affect social growth and development. Our social behaviour as adults is generally affected by our early childhood training according to the child-rearing studies here in the Philippines. (Lupdag, p. 89)
One of the perks of being a teenager is coming face to face with the beauty that is the bond made with other people for the first time. The point of our lives where we actually get to have a little bit of everything: pain, hurt, joy, hope, faith, etc. This is where good friends and good wine come in handy when relationships, intimate or filial or peer, terribly end. A journal article, Same Sex and Opposite Sex Best Friend Interactions among High School Juniors and Seniors, from Lundy et al. (1998) stated that being in a relationship, whether intimate or pure camaraderie is considered to be vital among teenagers than in any other stage of a person’s life. A comparative study made by Buhrmester (1990) as cited by Lundy et al. (1998) proved that adolescents find intimate relationships very important than preadolescents do.
In the Gender Socialization Process in Schools: A Cross-National Comparison by Nelly P. Stromquist (2007), exclusive schools are promoted to improve the academic performance of boys and girls from different parts of the world to gain self-confidence. Although having different levels of economic development and modernization, the results showed no major differences across world borders. However, it has been found out that the research promoted stereotypical mindsets toward the opposite sex. Majority of girls from a prominent exclusive high school in the U.S said that they would prefer to be stay-at-home mothers but that doesn’t mean that they completely disagree with gender equality. Proweller (1998) as cited by Stromquist (2007) said that this school “supports tamed and depoliticized feminism.” Another study by Datnow et al. (2001) as cited by Stromquist (2007) examined twelve exclusive schools for three years and found out that some of the twelve schools are for gender equity while others are endorsing gender stereotypes. Their conclusion was that gender equity must be carried on by intellectual practice by the teachers and school staff. Lee and Lockheed (1998) as cited again by Stromquist (2007) compared single-sex education and Coeducational schools in Nigeria using the conceptual framework “opportunity structure” – which argues that before social goals can be realized, a process must be in place favouring these goals.
In line with the aforementioned concepts above, Wood (2001) emphasized in her book Gendered Lives that educational institutions reflect the gender stratification of the culture at large and encourages us to see the unequal status assigned to women and men as normal. The actual organization of schools communicates strong messages about relationships among gender identity, value and opportunities.
Alindajao (2008) also stressed out that gender discrimination remains the largest obstacle to quality education and the realization of the vision of Education for All. In some developing countries, giving birth to a girl would basically entail dowry or another expense. Giving birth to a boy, however, creates the completely opposite reaction. In these countries, women constitute the majority of the out of school youth population making Education for All seem like a joke.
Alegado (2010) noted in his thesis paper the perception of public elementary pupils of maleness and femaleness. Their understanding, according to Alegado, are limited to the differences between the two’s private parts. However, there was a considerable number of students who mentioned the difference of the gender roles and behaviors society expects from them. When they were asked to write down words that are usually associated to describe man and woman, the pupils’ answers were: boys (strong, handsome, brave and dominant) and girls (modest, beautiful, kind, easily gets nervous and inferior).
In the middle of 17th Century, schools solely for one specific gender are popular. But over the next decades, many schools have converted themselves in offering education for both sexes. Reeves (undated) in an article entitled Single Sex Schools concurs to this saying that, “Social and racial integration was thought to be beneficial to everyone in all walks of life.” But some are saying now that the past school organizations might be right in separating boys from girls.
According to The New York Times (2008), segregating boys from girls has become a trend all over America. But this was looked as a solution in poor academic performance among public school students. Girls and boys do learn at a different pace. A study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health supports this claim by saying that girls do have bigger brains than boys. To keep boys interested, one needs to keep them up and about. One attempt on solving this issue was to make boys behave like girls. But this only led to the worsening of the situation. Gender segregation seemed to be the answer to everything. By separating boys from girls, school authorities can create teaching techniques that can cater better the learning needs of both sexes. Students also inherit a sense of freedom without having to worry about what the opposite thinks. Boys can be the rowdy creature that they are and girls can be as girly as they want to be.
Single sex education refers to the learning of students in which they are being clustered with other students of the same gender. In an online article called Do Children Learn Better in Single Sex Schools? by Helium (2007), the debate between the level of intelligence and performance of mixed-gender and exclusive schools can be viewed on two different perspectives. In 2001, a study conducted by The Australian Council for Educational Research showed that students taught in a co-ed classroom scored an average of 15 to 22 percentile ranks lower than students taught in a single sex classroom. Single sex students learn better, according to Kate MB (2007), because they remain untouched by the distractions caused by “gender stereotypes” and “rising hormones”. The students are free from the intimidations brought by the opposite sex and thus, they can concentrate more on their lessons and freely participate on class discussions. K. Russell (2007), on the other hand, considers the social skills lost inside the walls of exclusive schools due to their mini isolation from the rest of the world. Of all the agents of socialization, the school is the youth’s only chance to interact and better understand the opposite sex. K. Russell said:
We cannot expect our children to learn to be competent members of society if they have been denied access to half the population, especially one so fundamentally different. The social skills acquired in school carry a student through their lives more surely than any math or history lesson. We cannot expect students to learn how to handle differing views or perspectives if they are never exposed to them.
Mixed-gender schools for K. Russell prepare the students for the bigger world where both sexes exist.
In a mixed-gender high school in Washington D.C. named St. John’s College, the administration conducted a comprehensive study led by Haag (undated) focusing on the students’ views and thought on the co-educational system in their school. The survey was responded by 85% of the students in a class during the school year 2005-2006. One of the elements considered in the study was the development of the students’ respect for the opposite sex. The results showed that 93% of girls and 92% of boys agreed that attending a mixed-gender high school increased their respect for persons of the opposite sex. The students participating in the survey attested that they had developed positive behavior from their co-educational, Catholic secondary school. 94% of boys and girls agreed. St. John’s College then claimed that they help their students behave like ladies and gentlemen basing from the students’ assessment on behavior and development of respect for the opposite sex. In contrast to studies saying that mixed-gender schools make female conscious of themselves when reciting in class, the students in the survey indicated that neither the female nor the male students become less confident in participating in class activities. In fact, 84% of both boys and girls disagreed with the statement that they are reluctant to speak up in class because of the presence of students of the opposite sex.
The founder of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, Leonard Sax (2005) said that when both of the sexes are exposed to each other, chances are they will “reflect the larger society in which they live.” Interpretations of this statement may lead to arguments that can be positive or negative towards singe sex education.
A student from an all girl school said that the advantages of being enrolled in an exclusive school gave them ease and confidence in reciting during classes. The “boy-free environment” also made them concentrate more on their studies and allowed them to build strong friendships with their classmates. The drawbacks of being enrolled in such school of all girls could be at times “socially competitive and bitchy.” Meanwhile, a male student said that he finds his exclusive boy school “socially unhealthy” because it is a place where women are turned into sex symbols. Another guy from a different exclusive school said that his settling was “harsh and aggressive for boys who didn’t know how to play football.”
Formals and joint school musical production conducted by these schools are two of the few chances “for the sexes to mix.” These schools create pressure for their students since they had become uneasy towards the opposite sex.
Although mixed-gender schools “may lack in academic benefits”, they expose the students to a world where both male and female co-exist. They will need this experience when they have to work with the opposite sex in the future.
The following were accounts that demonstrate exclusive schools’ “significant impact on both boys and girls in the secondary level.” First, single sex schools “are frequently considered to be more prestigious than co-educational schools. The pride of the school gives students confidence that they can succeed anywhere he or she goes. Excelling in such prestigious institutions gives them the thinking that if they can make it there, probably they can make it anywhere else. Moreover, researchers Dhindsa and Chung (2003) as cited by Sax (2005) reported that the setting of their educational system makes the students more confident, aggravated, and motivated to learn (p. 917).
Exclusive schools also have a great impact on the students’ course selection when they go to college. The study conducted by Jackson and Smith (2000) as cited by Sax (2005) showed that there are more students from exclusive boys schools who choose courses that are considered to be “gender inappropriate” like drama or arts. Unlike co-educational schools whose boy students choose courses that are likely referred to as “macho” such as engineering (p. 412). Students from mixed schools tend to follow the “boy code”, as what Logsdon (2003) as cited by Sax (2005) stated in his study (p. 22).
There are several studies citing drawbacks of enrolling children to exclusive schools. Jackson and Smith (2000) as cited by Sax (2005) made a research and interviewed exclusive school students on how they felt being in such an environment. They reported that 33% of male students felt “less confident in boys only groups and 31% of the boys cited fighting and roughness as two of the worst features in boys’ classes” (p. 416).
Another drawback is the students’ exposure to the opposite sex. Logsdon (2003) restated statements originally from National Organization for Women and American Civil Liberties Union saying that exclusive schools “deny girls and boys interpersonal skills to interact with one another. This type of education is a mechanism for reinforcing persistent gender stereotypes” (p. 292). Robinson and Smithers (1999) as cited by Sax (2005) agreed to the previous statements in his argument that boys are no “distractions” for girls in their studies, in fact “it was good for them to grow up together and get to know each other” (p. 40).
A study conducted by Harry and Margaret Harlow (1963) as cited in the book Child, Family, Community by Berns (1985) showed the connection between peer relations and behavioral development. Harry and Margaret Harlow raised some infant monkeys with surrogate mothers. Some were raised in groups and others were raised in total isolation from other monkeys. The monkeys raised in isolation never learned to play the usual monkey games. After six to twelve months of isolation, they tended to remain isolated when introduced to a group of monkeys. When they became sexually mature, they did not know how to behave toward the opposite sex. The males did not know how to approach females and the females did not know how to entice and yield to the males. According to Berns (1985), those who do not have normal peer relations are affected in their later emotional and social development. This might be the situation students from exclusive schools face (p. 222).
A study cited in the report entitled Girls Who Go to Single Sex Schools Find “Girly” Guys More Attractive from a Chinese news channel showed that the students’ high school curricula have affected the type of persons they become attracted with. Students from an all-girl school tend to be more attracted to boys who look like girls or as what Asian News International (ANI) described as “girly guys”. This holds true to students in all-boys school who are drawn to girls who look masculine. Lead researcher, Tamsin Saxton (2009) as cited in the Asian News International said “visual diet” or the type of faces you are associated with everyday influences your preferences on what is attractive but if a boy student has a girl sibling/s or a girl student having a boy sibling/s at home, it will lessen the effect. Saxton and his co-researchers asked 240 students at mixed gender schools and exclusive schools to rate people for attractiveness. These students range from 11 to 15 years of age. Asian News International (2009) mentioned, “The researchers digitally manipulated the faces to look subtly more masculine or feminine.” The results proved that the judgements of boys from exclusive schools were the most diverse. Researchers supposed that the factors like femininity as society’s mindset of beauty also affect their judgements or their association with their female siblings and also their everyday meetings with their female teachers. Faces are important to our daily social interactions. “The brain has specialized areas dedicated to dealing with faces and this study understands how the brain processes faces,” mentioned by Dr. Little (2009) from Stirling University.
In the National Association for Single Sex Public Education’s 6th International Conference (2010), the issue on the effectiveness of exclusive schools was raised. The report of the conference pointed out that “the single sex format creates opportunities that do not exist in the co-ed classrooms.” Educators can generate certain techniques that can better cater the gender of students involved. A three-year research from Stetson University in Florida in 2005 gave interesting results. The project compared single sex and co-ed classrooms at Woodward Avenue Elementary School. The procedure was to assign 4th grade students to either a single sex or a co-ed classroom. All relevant parameters like class sizes, demographics and teachers’ training were closely matched. Later on, they were all made to take FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test). 37% of boys and 59% of girls in co-ed classroom scored proficiently while 86% of boys and 75% of girls in single sex classes scored proficiently.
Stables (1990) said in his book Difference between Pupils from Mixed and Single Sex Schools in Their Enjoyment of School Subjects and in Their Attitudes to Science and School that single sex schools give their students benefits other than good academic performances. He also said, “Single sex education has been shown to broaden students’ horizons, to allow them to feel free to explore their own strengths and interests, not constrained by gender stereotypes” (p. 221).
Putting everything mentioned into consideration, exclusive schools clearly have effects on their students. Whether these effects are beneficial or not is still debatable. Learning comes in two ways: academically and socially. In order to be a productive member of society, one needs to be fairly knowledgeable on both terms. That is why it is important that we expose children to real-life scenarios in a constructive environment to prepare them for the bigger world. This led to the conception of our study. We would like to know if exclusive schools are giving their students enough exposure to mold them into confident and prolific individuals. Our study aims to focus if exclusive school students in Cebu City have more difficulty in socializing because of their peer groups and their total isolation from the opposite sex in school by comparing their level of socialization with the students from a mixed-gender school’s level of socialization.
