University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

(USC Thesis Other)

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

1

HIGH SCHOOL SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS,
MINORITY FEMALES, AND PERCEPTIONS OF SELF-EFFICACY

by

Sunita S. Sinor

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2018

2018 Sunita S. Sinor

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

2
Dedication

I dedicate this work to my family. To my beautiful girls, Sophie and Evie – while you
may not understand why I spent so much time away in class and at the library, I hope that I have
shown you the importance of education and the importance of learning in order to better
yourself. You can do and be anything you want to be with determination and persistence.
Mommy will always be there to support you in anything and everything.
To my husband, Jim – thank you for supporting me through this experience. Even
knowing that I probably would not do much with this degree, you continued to cheer me on.
Thank you for being proud of me.
To my mom, sister, and brother – even though you sometimes forgot that I was even in a
degree program and could never remember what type of degree it was, I know that you are
always supportive and proud.
I also dedicate this to my father. He always instilled in me the importance of education.
While he may not have understood why I chose this degree, I know he still would have bragged
to all his friends that his daughter completed a doctorate program (and thanks, Mom, for doing it
for him!). He is no longer here for me to share this accomplishment with him, but he is forever in
my heart.

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
– Nelson Mandela
Learning is not attained by chance; it must be sought for with ardor and attended to with
diligence.
– Abigail Adams

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

3
Acknowledgements
To my lovely cohort, it was a great honor and privilege to meet all of you and share this
amazing experience with you. We truly had great camaraderie, support, and the best Saturdays
possible for sitting in a classroom all day. I cannot wait to see what you all accomplish!
Thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Patricia Tobey, and committee members, Dr.
Patrick Crispen, and Dr. Wayne Combs for their support, advisement, and feedback. I appreciate
you taking me late in the dissertation process and helping me stay on schedule. I also thank Dr.
Lawrence Picus for agreeing to sit on my committee at the last minute.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

4
Table of Contents

List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY .................................................................... 9
Background of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 9
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 12
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................... 12
Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 13
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................... 13
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................ 14
Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 14
Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 15
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................................. 15
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 17
Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................... 18
The Evolution of the Gap ........................................................................................................ 21
Elementary School ................................................................................................................. 21
Middle School ....................................................................................................................... 22
High School ........................................................................................................................... 24
Causes of STEM Gender Gap ................................................................................................ 25
Psychological Factors ............................................................................................................ 25
Sociological Factors .............................................................................................................. 29
STEM Gender Gap Among Minorities ................................................................................. 32
Interventions ............................................................................................................................ 34
Single-Gender Education ....................................................................................................... 36
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 40
Why Qualitative Methods? ..................................................................................................... 41
Sample and Population ........................................................................................................... 42
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................................... 44
Interview Protocol ................................................................................................................. 44
Observation Protocol ............................................................................................................. 45
Documentation ...................................................................................................................... 46
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................................ 47
Ethics ........................................................................................................................................ 48
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ................................................................................................... 50
Interviewee Backgrounds ....................................................................................................... 51
Single-Gender Science Experience ......................................................................................... 52
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

5
Comfort and Acceptance ....................................................................................................... 52
Participation and Engagement ............................................................................................... 55
Friendships ............................................................................................................................ 55
Support .................................................................................................................................. 56
Negative Aspects ................................................................................................................... 58
Return to Co-ed Science Classroom ...................................................................................... 60
Positive Reflections ............................................................................................................... 60
Negative Reflections ............................................................................................................. 61
Choosing Co-ed or Single-Gender? ....................................................................................... 63
Perceptions of Self-Efficacy .................................................................................................... 65
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 68
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 69
Research Question One ......................................................................................................... 69
Research Question Two ......................................................................................................... 70
Research Question Three ....................................................................................................... 71
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 72
Recommendations for Research ............................................................................................. 74
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 75
References 77
Appendix A: IRB Approval Letter 86
Appendix B: Interview Protocol for Students 87
Appendix C: Observation Protocol for the Science Classroom 89
Appendix D: Informed Consent 90
Appendix E: Qualitative Codesheet 93

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

6
List of Tables
Table 1: Intentions of female freshmen to major in Science & Engineering fields, by race or
ethnicity, 2014 32

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Bandura’s self-efficacy framework 20

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

8
Abstract

This qualitative study investigated the experiences of female high school seniors at a
coeducational private high school in a large, urban city that conducts freshman and sophomore
math and science classes in single-gender classrooms. Six interviews of female high school
seniors and four observations of co-ed and single-gender classes took place to explore the
females’ perceptions of science self-efficacy during and after their single-gender experience. It
also examined their overall single-gender classroom experience and the differences they felt
upon returning to a coeducational science classroom. As a foundation, psychological and
sociological factors of the STEM gender gap are explored, including stereotype threat, gender
bias in the classroom, and role models. An overview of interventions is included, with a focus on
single-gender instruction. The position of minorities within the STEM gender gap issue is also
discussed. Bandura’s (1977, 1986) self-efficacy framework is included as a backdrop for the
study. The findings of the study show that females viewed their single-gender science experience
positively, citing comfort and support as the main contributors to that positive experience. They
felt more confident while in those classes; however, the self-efficacy did not remain high after
the return to a co-ed science classroom. The findings confirm some benefits of single-gender
instruction as an intervention, but question the lasting effects of them.

Keywords: STEM, gender gap, self-efficacy, single-gender classroom, stereotype threat

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
It is no secret that a gender gap exists in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) careers in the United States. It has existed for quite some time and while it
shows some signs of closing, it continues to be a conundrum for the United States. The dizzying
array of factors contributing to this problem includes psychological, sociological, and
pedagogical fields. The problem begins as early as the elementary school years. There is much
research showing that males and females have similar abilities throughout the elementary and
secondary schooling years, yet there is a significant drop in the number of females interested in
pursuing STEM careers as they enter college (Dabney et al., 2012; Duckworth & Seligman,
2006). A key component affecting females’ desire and willingness to persist in STEM is self-
efficacy (Blickenstaff, 2005; Britner, 2008; Hall, Dickerson, Batts, Kauffmann, & Bosse, 2011);
this will be the focus of this study. Numerous interventions have been attempted to support
females throughout STEM studies and careers. This study examined the effects of an
intervention – a high school single-gender classroom instruction program for math and science –
on minority females’ perceptions of self-efficacy.
Background of the Problem
The capacity of the United States to remain innovative and have a competitive advantage
depends heavily on its STEM workforce. In 2012, there were 7.4 million STEM jobs in the U.S.
with the expectation that the number of jobs will grow to 8.65 million in 2018 (Wang & Degol,
2013). Unfortunately, STEM employers report a worker shortage that can be attributed to the
lack of female workers in these fields (Beede et al., 2011; Wang & Degol, 2013). Women
represent almost half of the workforce in the United States; yet, they only hold twenty-four
percent of STEM jobs. Women also represent a disproportionately low share of STEM
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

10
undergraduate degrees, especially in engineering. In the last decade, the share of women with
college degrees increased; however, the share of women in the STEM workforce remained
constant at twenty-four percent (Beede et al., 2011).
A vast amount of research has been conducted on the causes of this gender gap. While
early research often examined biological differences with a focus on ability, this has since been
determined to not be a factor and rather, has shown to be a much more complex problem,
involving psychological and sociological factors (Blickenstaff, 2005; Duckworth & Seligman,
2006; Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010; Kanny, Sax, & Riggers-Piehl, 2014). According to Hill,
Corbett, and St. Rose (2010), 30 years ago there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above
700 on the SAT math exam at age 13; today that ratio is only three to one. Additionally, the U.S.
Department of Education (2012) showed an equal number of adolescent females and males take
math and science classes. Duckworth and Seligman (2006) found that adolescent females
outperformed males in math and science courses; however, upon enrolling in colleges and
universities, males were four and a half times more likely than females to report an interest in
STEM-related careers (Dabney et al., 2012).
Psychological factors affecting females include stereotype threat, self-efficacy, as well as
factors such as interest and motivation (Britner, 2008; Britner & Pajares, 2006; Spencer, Steele,
& Quinn, 1999; Steele, 1997). Sociological factors include gender bias in the classroom, STEM
career awareness, female role models, and societal gender roles (Aschbacher, Ing, & Tsai, 2014;
Brown & Leaper, 2010; Leaper & Brown, 2008). The literature review will cover details of some
of these factors in the context of self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy, the belief that a person can accomplish a task, plays an important role in
the study of the STEM gender gap and in the development of females’ STEM interests and
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

11
motivations. While self-efficacy is one of the psychological factors affecting females in their
persistence of STEM, it is also a construct from which persistence can be changed. In other
words, it is a two way street. The psychological and sociological factors can affect self-efficacy
negatively, but changing self-efficacy either through interventions or from foundational levels,
can combat the negative affects (Britner, 2008; Britner & Pajares, 2006). The level of self-
efficacy influences behavioral and psychological processes and, thereby, affects academic
performance (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Students who believe strongly that they can succeed in
science tasks and activities will be more likely to choose to do those tasks, will work hard to
complete them, and will persist through difficulties. Among high school students, science self-
efficacy correlated with science achievement; among middle school students, science self-
efficacy predicted science achievement (Britner & Pajares, 2001; Kupermintz, 2002).
Building females’ science self-efficacy is attempted through various interventions.
Summer camps, mentoring programs, single-gender education, among others have all been
offered as ways to improve the gender gap situation. Many of the interventions tend to focus on
single-gender programs. It is difficult to find interventions that are homogenous as many
different elements are included in these interventions, but overall there are positive results seen
from them (Shapiro et al., 2015; Shapka & Keating, 2003; Stoeger, Duan, Schirner, Greindl, &
Ziegler, 2013).
Race also needs to be considered in the STEM gap. Blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans are also underrepresented in STEM majors and careers (NSB, 2014).
Underrepresented minorities represented approximately 36% of the population in 2011, yet the
share of science and engineering degrees for these minorities was only 20% in 2011 (NSB,
2014). Comparative science test scores for Black to White and Hispanic to White showed large
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

12
gaps for kids in grades 3 to 8 (Quinn & Cooc, 2015). The Black to White gap remained fairly
constant over time and the Hispanic to White gap narrowed slightly over time. Black and
Hispanic students are placed in remedial and low-track math and science classes at significantly
higher rates, which results in fewer minorities in advanced math and science classes, thus
lowering the participation in STEM majors and careers (Xie, Fang, & Shauman, 2015). What is
interesting to note is that while the participation rates and achievement were disproportionately
low among minorities, their levels of self-confidence and enjoyment of math and science were
disproportionately high (Riegle-Crumb, Moore, & Ramos-Wada, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
The gender gap in STEM is clear and, thus, interventions are needed to address the gap.
While numerous types of interventions have attempted to close the gap, there is one type that has
not been thoroughly explored. Much of the literature surrounding research on single-gender
instruction centers on single-gender schools versus single-gender classrooms within a
coeducational environment. Single-gender classrooms within a coeducational environment have
had a small number of studies completed; therefore, more are needed.
Additionally, most of the studies have had a majority of White participants. Other races
need to be taken into consideration as well. Most studies have also been quantitative in nature.
Through qualitative methodologies, this study examined high school minority females’ perceived
effects of single-gender science classroom instruction on their self-efficacy in science.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative research with minority high school
females who experienced single-gender STEM classrooms in their early high school years. The
uniqueness of a single-gender classroom experience within the setting of a coeducational campus
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

13
offered additional insights into another intervention option. The research centered on learning
about the females’ perceptions of science self-efficacy after experiencing single-gender science
classrooms, as well as offered rich descriptions of the perceived benefits and perceived negative
aspects of the single-gender classroom experience. These females, now in coeducational science
classrooms, were able to reflect back on their time in single-gender classrooms and offered
descriptions of both positive and negative aspects of their experiences through qualitative
interviews. Observations of both single-gender and co-ed science classrooms were also
conducted. Triangulation was achieved through detailed and in-depth interviews and
observations.
Research Questions
1. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their experience in a single-
gender science classroom?
2. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their return to a co-ed high
school science classroom after experiencing single-gender science classrooms?
3. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females perceive their science self-efficacy
after experiencing single-gender high school science classrooms?
Significance of the Study
This study focused on females’ perceptions of their science self-efficacy after
experiencing single-gender science classrooms, descriptions of their experiences in a single-
gender science classroom, and their experiences upon returning to coeducational science
classrooms. This qualitative study sheds light on how females perceive the single-gender
classroom experience and whether they find it beneficial or not. The school administration can
use the results of this study to make determinations on the continuation and/or expansion of the
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

14
program in the future. Parents will also be interested in the results of the study to feel confident
in the curriculum being delivered to their children.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Some limitations have been identified for this study. First, participation in this study was
voluntary and relied on teenage students providing rich and honest descriptions about their
experiences. Second, this study also asked the participants about experiences they had one to
three years ago and thus relied on their ability to remember details. This type of retrospective
study is also open to internal validity threats due to the maturation of the female participants.
Third, selection was also an issue as the students self-selected based on interest in participating
in the research study as well as on the basic ability to have the consent form signed by their
parents. Fourth, the students could have been affected by the researcher being in the classroom,
causing them to behave differently than when under normal circumstances. It is unknown to the
researcher whether the behavior and their responses to the questions were genuine and normal or
not. Patton (2002) indicates that multiple observations offer a more comprehensive picture for
the study. This study only included a few observations, so it was difficult to obtain a complete
picture of their typical classroom engagement behavior. Fifth, the researcher also did not have
the experience of observing the same female students in their single-gender classrooms, so could
not draw any first-hand comparisons to whether or not the engagement level of these students
changed. Finally, the researcher’s bias to believe that single-gender instruction is beneficial can
play a limiting role. Creswell (2014) noted that inferences and interpretations made by the
researcher might not align with the research participants and their meaning in responses.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

15
Delimitations
This study was limited in the number of interviews and observations that took place.
With one single researcher and a condensed period of time in which to conduct the study, the
number of interviews and observations were not ideal. This study occurred at one single high
school site and its uniqueness does not allow for the results to be generalizable to other single-
gender programs as it is not representative of single-gender instruction used in other private
schools. The site was chosen due to easy access through a personal connection of the researcher.
Public schools are not allowed to segregate classes by gender, so the results of this study cannot
be generalized to the larger education community. The participants in the study self-selected so
they may be unique as they were showing an interest in the study and willingness to spend time
talking to a researcher. The results of these participants cannot be generalized to all students who
have gone through the same experience as they may all experience it in different ways.
Definition of Terms
Gender gap – the proportional difference between males and females participating in an activity,
in this case certain majors and careers
STEM – Science, technology, engineering, mathematics
Self-efficacy – the belief that one can produce certain desired outcomes; created through four
primary sources (Bandura, 1977, 1985, 1997)
• mastery experience – previous performance outcomes
• vicarious experience – observing others’ experiences
• social persuasion – verbal or non-verbal feedback/appraisal from parents, teachers, peers
• physiological state – arousal, anxiety, mood from certain experiences
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

16
Stereotype threat – the feeling that a negative stereotype about an individual’s racial,
ethnic/cultural group, or gender will be confirmed (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele,
1997)
Underrepresented minorities – in this study refers to Black and Hispanic minorities
Organization of the Study
The study is organized in a traditional five-chapter dissertation. The literature review
covers the self-efficacy theoretical framework to set the stage for the review of research. The
review covers various psychological and sociological causes of the STEM gender gap that all
have an effect on self-efficacy. It continues on to offer some insight into the gap among
minorities and finally reviews several interventions that have been implemented, focusing on
single-gender instruction. The qualitative methodology approach will then be discussed in
Chapter Three before moving into the data collection, results, and analysis.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The future workforce of the United States depends on women entering fields of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As already noted, women make up almost
half of the workforce in the United States, but only hold twenty-four percent of STEM jobs
(Beede et al., 2011). While the gap has gotten smaller over the last two decades, there are
ongoing issues with STEM fields attracting and retaining women. In adolescence, boys and girls
start out equally when it comes to math and science (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2012). Females
performed equal to or better than the males on state and national assessments of math and at the
middle and high school levels (Duckworth & Seligman, 2006; Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, &
Williams, 2008; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007, 2010); however, upon
enrolling in colleges and universities, males were four and a half times more likely than females
to report an interest in STEM-related careers (Dabney et al., 2012). STEM employers throughout
the United States indicate there is a shortage of skilled workers in these areas driving the concern
that there will not be a large enough workforce in the future to fill these positions (Wang &
Degol, 2013). This problem is important to address because females are needed to grow the
STEM workforce needed for the future.
Research is abundant on the many possible causes of this gender gap and has evolved
over the years. Psychological, sociological, and even biological factors have been studied.
Biological factors were researched initially with the underpinning idea that females did not have
the ability to achieve in STEM subjects; however, this has been refuted in subsequent research
and, thus will not be included as part of this literature review (Blickenstaff, 2005). The
psychological and sociological factors will be the focus. In addition to the research on the causes
of this gender gap, solutions and interventions have also been examined over the years. Some
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

18
interventions have been implemented and studied, including summer camps, mentoring
programs, out of school activities, and single-gender instruction. Single-gender instruction is the
focus of this particular study.
Self-efficacy is one of the key aspects affecting students’ choices of what fields to study.
This theoretical framework will be used for the study and will be discussed first to provide
greater context to the review of literature.
Theoretical Framework
Bandura’s (1977, 1986) self-efficacy theory says that if people do not believe that they
can produce certain desired outcomes, then they do not have reason to act or persist. Self-
efficacy develops as a result of emotional, cognitive, or motivational processes or the social
environments in which people live and work. Bandura (1997) hypothesized that students form
their self-efficacy through four primary sources.
The first source of self-efficacy is mastery experience. This is the result of one’s own
previous performance, which guides students to develop beliefs about their capability to further
engage in those activities. Successful experiences generally raise self-efficacy and confidence
while negative experiences decrease it. Caprara, Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli
(2011) found that the academic performance at the end of junior high school had a significant
contribution to perceived academic self-efficacy, which, in turn, contributed to high school
academic achievement.
Vicarious experience, the observation of others’ actions is the second source of self-
efficacy. Students use this information as a way to gauge their own likelihood of success at the
same tasks. Examples of topics that affect the vicarious experience include gender bias in the
classroom, gender roles, and role models. Middle school students, for example, have already
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

19
formed gendered role stereotypes. Shapiro et al. (2015) surveyed 1,200 middle school students in
grades 6 to 8 and found 73% of boys and 55.4% of girls believed that there are jobs at which
boys are better than girls. Thirty-five percent of boys and 32.7% of girls agreed with the
statement that boys have more career opportunities than girls. Through their observations of their
families and the world around them, adolescents quickly formed gendered stereotypes.
Social persuasion is the verbal and/or non-verbal evaluative feedback, judgments, and
appraisals received from others such as parents, teachers, and peers. Social persuasion works
with other sources of self-efficacy to affect self-confidence. Gender bias in the classroom is a
cause of the STEM gender gap that can affect the social persuasion input to self-efficacy (Brown
& Leaper, 2010; Leaper & Brown, 2008).
Lastly, emotional and physiological states such as arousal, anxiety, mood, and fatigue
also affect students’ evaluation of their level of confidence. Stereotype threat has been shown to
contribute to this emotional and physiological arousal (Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005). Both
men and women were apprehensive when the researcher explained that their performance would
be evaluated in relation to their gender identity, but only the performance of women was affected
under the condition (Schmader & Johns, 2003).
Self-efficacy has been shown to influence students’ choices of science-related activities,
the effort they put into those activities, their persistence through difficulties in science, and their
ultimate success experienced in science (Bandura, 1997; Britner 2008; Zeldin, Britner, &
Pajares, 2008). In women, it was found that social persuasions and vicarious experiences were
the primary sources of their self-efficacy beliefs (Zeldin, Britner, & Pajares, 2008). Increasing
girls’ self-efficacy helps them to persevere and be resilient in pursuing careers in science-related
fields (Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). This makes self-efficacy an important focus for science
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

20
educators who want to increase achievement and engagement in science.
In the following literature review, a brief evolution of the gap will be reviewed as it
changes from elementary through high school and the psychological and sociological causes of
the STEM gender gap will be reviewed along with how each one plays a role in the four sources
of self-efficacy and ultimately on the choice and desire to pursue a major and a career in STEM
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1. STEM gender gap self-efficacy framework

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

21
The Evolution of the Gap
The STEM gender gap does not reveal itself in children right away at the start of their
educational career, but rather takes time evolving over the years (Huguet & Regner, 2007;
McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Riegle-Crumb, King, Grodsky, & Muller, 2012; Pajares, 2005).
The following sections describe aspects of the gender gap in each stage of K-12 traditional
schooling: elementary school, middle school, and high school.
Elementary School
In elementary school, girls and boys tend to be on more equal footing when it comes to
math and science interest levels (Greenfield, 1997). At the same time, girls have some
advantages over boys in both social and academic areas (DiPrete & Jennings, 2012; Duckworth
& Seligman, 2006). DiPrete and Jennings (2012) evaluated data from the Early Child
Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) and found that social and behavioral skills
predicted academic achievement in early elementary school and that girls were more advanced in
these social and behavioral skills. Girls also performed better on standardized tests from the
beginning of kindergarten before biases played a role. Additional studies have shown that boys
have higher rates of attention disorders, reading disabilities, and are more disruptive in the
classroom and less engaged in learning (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2005; Ready, LoGerfo,
Brukam, & Lee, 2005; Rutter et al., 2004). Voyer and Voyer (2014) conducted a meta-analysis
of K-16 studies that included an examination of gender differences in teacher-assigned school
grades. They also found a small but significant female advantage across subjects, with the largest
advantage in language courses and the smallest in math courses. Ability and successful prior
achievement have been ruled out as causes of the gender gap (Hyde et al., 2008; Riegle-Crumb,
King, Grodsky, & Muller, 2012). It is the sociological and psychological factors, such as
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

22
stereotype threat, that begin to affect adolescent girls in the late elementary grades (Huguet &
Regner, 2007; McKown & Weinstein, 2003). These are discussed in more detail in the
Stereotype Threat section.
Middle School
As adolescents move into middle school, girls continue to have a slight advantage in
achievement, though some may attribute this to better self-discipline in girls (Duckworth &
Seligman, 2006). In Duckworth and Seligman’s (2006) study, they found that eighth-grade girls
outperformed boys in every subject; however, the eighth-grade girls neither performed as well on
a standard achievement test nor on an IQ test. The researchers attributed the higher grades in part
to the girls’ higher self-discipline, as they were more diligent about turning in assignments and
studying for tests.
Even while Duckworth and Seligman (2006) found that eighth-grade girls outperformed
boys in all subjects, other research shows that confidence levels of middle school females starts
to decline in middle school, which in turn affects achievement (Britner & Pajares, 2001; Britner
& Pajares, 2006; Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010; Pajares, 2005). Pajares (2005) found that self-
confidence in STEM subjects begins to differ between the genders in middle school and
continues to increase in high school and college. Girls reported having less confidence in math
and science, as compared to boys. Even girls identified as gifted displayed lower confidence
levels although they had higher performance levels. Britner and Pajares (2001) set out to
examine if students’ science self-efficacy made an independent contribution to the prediction of
science achievement when other motivation variables are controlled. In this study, Britner and
Pajares (2001) administered scales on self-efficacy, self-concept, science anxiety and more to
262 seventh grade students (127 male, 135 female; 119 White, 143 African American) from four
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

23
public schools in the Southeast. The researchers found that, among middle school students,
science self-efficacy did predict science achievement. As confidence lowered, so did grades.
There were race differences as well; for White students science self-efficacy was the only
motivation variable that predicted science achievement, but for Black students, science self-
concept also predicted science achievement. Additionally, Black students still had strong self-
efficacy beliefs even when they had lower achievement. Socioeconomic status was not captured
in this study.
Britner and Pajares (2006) conducted a study to determine whether the four sources of
self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (1997) predicted science self-efficacy beliefs of middle
school students. They found significant correlations between all four sources and self-efficacy.
They also found that only mastery experiences significantly predicted science self-efficacy. It is
also interesting to note that, in this study, girls reported stronger self-efficacy than boys.
Middle school adolescents are already building gendered viewpoints about careers they
believe are meant for boys versus girls (Shapiro et al., 2015). Archer et al., (2012) found that
adolescents begin to define their identity options more narrowly and thus lose interest in science
in middle school. This has been found to be disproportionate by gender with a greater number of
girls starting to lose interest in science at a higher rate than boys (Aschbacher, Ing, & Tsai,
2014).
Louis and Mistele (2012) examined eighth-grade math and science achievement scores
from 2007. When controlling for self-efficacy, there were statistically significant differences in
the achievement scores between males and females by subject. While females scored higher in
Algebra, males scored higher in other math subjects as well as all the science subjects. With the
results of other studies that self-efficacy predicts science achievement and the sources of self-
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

24
efficacy, there is a vicious circle that is created with lower achievement among females
perpetuating the lower self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1986) determined that students’ self-
efficacy beliefs predicted students’ success in academics better than other assessments that focus
on the students’ abilities. Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, and Pastorelli (2001) explained that to
produce desired outcomes, people must have positive perceived self-efficacy. With these mixed
results from various middle school studies, looking at high school studies may help create a
clearer picture of the female gender gap in STEM.
High School
The US Department of Education (2012) provided statistics indicating that girls were
equally represented in math and science classes in high school, even in rigorous high school
math classes. Girls outnumbered boys in Advanced Placement (AP) science and AP foreign
languages, but were outnumbered by boys in AP math classes, such as calculus and statistics. On
the other hand, when it came to the AP tests, boys took AP tests and passed them at a higher rate
than girls.
Even though females are achieving in the math and science classes in high school, this is
also when a decrease in interest in STEM subjects and careers continues following the start in
middle school. Sadler, Sonnert, Hazari, and Tai (2012) used a representative sample of 6,000
beginning college students from a retrospective cohort study to examine how interest in STEM
careers changed during high school. Overall, males showed more interest in engineering, while
females were more interested in careers in health and medicine in the high school years. Those
who were interested in STEM careers at the beginning of high school were more likely to be
interested at the end of high school; however, the percentage of males interested in STEM
careers remained stable going from 39.5% to 39.7% whereas for females it declined going from
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

25
15.7% to 12.7%.
Miller, Blessing, and Schwartz (2006) conducted a small study with 79 high school
students about their attitudes toward their science classes. Females tended to be more interested
in people-oriented aspects of science, such as biology, but also seemed to generally find science
uninteresting. They also perceived the lifestyle of a scientist to be unattractive.
Causes of STEM Gender Gap
Psychological factors contributing to the lack of females in STEM-related careers
covered here include stereotype threat, self-efficacy, and interest. Sociological factors covered
are gender bias in the classroom, lack of STEM career awareness, and lack of role models.
Psychological Factors
Many experiences contribute to the psychological factors that affect females’ desires and
interests to continue into STEM fields. Three key topics are reviewed here including stereotype
threat, self-efficacy, and interest.
Stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is a psychological factor contributing to the lack of
females in STEM-related careers (Shapiro & Williams, 2012; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999;
Steele, 1997). Stereotype threat is the idea that people feel they are at risk of confirming negative
stereotypes about their social group. Stereotype threat negatively affects females as they often
underperform on standardized tests (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). The three-part study
performed by Spencer et al. (1999) showed that when university females were told a math test
had previously shown gender differences, they significantly underperformed as compared to the
males in the group. Another group of females in this study were told the test never had gender
differences and they performed equally well to their male counterparts.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

26
Stereotype threat begins to affect adolescents as early as age 11 or 12 (Huguet & Régner,
2007; McKown & Weinstein, 2003). McKown and Weinstein (2003) discovered that by the age
of 10, children’s ability to infer stereotypes increased dramatically and those within stigmatized
groups, such as females, were affected by stereotype threat in diagnostic testing conditions. In a
French study, 11-13-year olds were given the task of drawing a figure from memory. Half the
children were told it was a geometry exercise while the other half were told it was a memory
exercise. The females in the geometry-assigned group underperformed at a statistically
significant level as compared to the males; however, in the memory-assigned group, it was the
exact opposite (Huguet & Régner, 2007).
Stereotype threat also reduces an individual’s working memory capacity, which is the
ability to focus one’s attention on a given task while keeping task-irrelevant thoughts at bay, as
shown by the Schmader and Johns study (2003). In their stereotype threat condition, both women
and men were apprehensive when they were told that the researcher would evaluate their
performance in relation to their gender identity, but only women’s performance suffered under
this condition. From adolescents to college students, stereotype threat affects females’ test results
and working memory capacity thereby contributing to a decline in self-efficacy and lack of
interest in STEM subjects. This loss of working memory capacity and apprehension affect the
emotional and physiological arousal source of self-efficacy, and stereotype threat as a whole can
affect all four sources of self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy. Reinforcing the theoretical framework, self-efficacy plays a dual role in a
vicious circle. Self-efficacy predicts science achievement; however, achievement and the four
sources affect self-efficacy. Huang (2013) conducted a meta-analysis of 187 studies with 247
independent studies on gender differences in academic self-efficacy. Males showed higher
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

27
computer, mathematics, and social sciences self-efficacy than females, while females had higher
language and arts self-efficacy than males. Pajares (2005) synthesized research on gender
differences in math self-efficacy and found that gender differences in math self-efficacy
developed during middle school and increased as students got older. Pajares (2005) also found
that female students have lower math self-efficacy even when females have comparable or
outperforming achievement as compared to males. Interestingly, for math self-efficacy, there did
not seem to be any evidence that self-efficacy changed significantly from childhood to early
adolescence. Females had slightly higher math achievement than males in elementary and middle
school. Males had higher math achievement than females during high school.
Shaw and Barbuti (2010) examined students’ science self-efficacy ratings as they related
to switching or persisting in STEM majors. Results showed that students who persisted in
biology and biomedical sciences, engineering, technology, physical sciences, and mathematics
all had substantially higher science self-efficacy beliefs than students who switched out of these
majors. Heilbronner (2013) also found that reported self-efficacy in STEM was significantly
higher for men than for women. Men believed they could achieve in STEM coursework, that
they were good in specific subdomains (i.e., physics, computer science, engineering and
technology), and that they were talented in STEM.
Britner (2008) looked deeper into each sub-set of STEM subjects and evaluated whether
Bandura’s four inputs of self-efficacy correlated with science self-efficacy. She surveyed 502
students (269 female, 233 male; 92% White, 4% Hispanic, 3% other; free/reduced lunch rate of
16.3%) from a public high school in a small Midwestern city, about their opinions and feelings
about science class and about themselves as science students. Overall results showed that girls
had higher science grades than boys and reported equal self-efficacy and self-concept; however,
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

28
they reported higher science anxiety. Those girls with higher levels of science anxiety reported
lower self-efficacy and vice versa. Bandura’s four factors of self-efficacy correlated with science
self-efficacy, correlated with each other, and with science grades. Even though the girls earned
equal grades to boys, they were more strongly influenced by concerns with being perceived as
competent, also known as stereotype threat, and with feelings of anxiety, which may be a factor
in girls’ lack of persistence in science-related courses and careers. Due to low minority
participation in this study, it should not be generalized beyond similar student populations.
Interest. Sadler et al., (2012) examined how STEM career intentions evolved during the
high school years. They found that students’ career interest when entering high school was the
strongest predictor of their career interest at the end of high school. This supports the importance
of nurturing interest in STEM areas of study early in a child’s education. In their study using a
stratified national random sample of 6,860 undergraduate students, they found that at the
beginning of high school, a total of 39.5% of the males and 15.7% of the females reported career
interests in STEM fields. At the end of high school, the percentage of those still selecting STEM
careers was 39.7% of the males compared with 12.7% of the females. More females became less
interested in pursuing a STEM career by the end of high school. Heilbronner (2013) also found
interest to be very influential on study participants’ early experiences and career selection. Males
and females rated interest as the most influential factor in their decision to participate in a
science competition, and all groups of participants rated interest as the most influential factor in
their selection of a career.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

29
Sociological Factors
Females are also affected by sociological factors and experiences that produce negative
results. Three key topics are reviewed here including gender bias in the classroom, STEM career
awareness, and role models.
Gender bias in the classroom. Turning to sociological factors, gender bias in the
classroom is another factor that impacts adolescent females’ desire to enter STEM subjects and
careers. Many teachers, while they do not intend to, often treat boys and girls differently in the
classroom (Dee, 2007). Teachers may even have different expectations for boys versus girls
regarding their ability to learn math or science (Dee, 2007; McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Riegle-
Crumb & Humphries, 2012; Spear, 1984). Margaret Spear (1984) performed a study where she
gave teachers identical samples of students’ science work and found that they marked the work
higher if it appeared to come from a male student. Dee (2007) found that the gendered
interactions between teachers and students had statistically significant effects on student test
scores, teacher perceptions of student performance, and engagement of students with academic
subjects. It was also found that elementary school teachers’ misconceptions of students’ math
abilities versus their scores on achievement tests were greater for girls than for boys (McKown &
Weinstein, 2003). Riegle-Crumb and Humphries (2012) used nationally representative data from
the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 and found evidence of a consistent bias against white
females as compared to white males, but that differences in teachers’ perceptions of ability of
minorities was explained by test scores and grades, meaning that minority test scores and grades
were in fact lower.
Gender bias also occurs in the form of sexist comments from both teachers and peers
(Brown & Leaper, 2010; Leaper & Brown, 2008). Over half of middle school and high school
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

30
girls reported hearing sexist comments about their abilities in science, computers, or mathematics
(Leaper & Brown, 2008). In fact, in their study of 600 girls ages 12 to 18, 90% reported sexual
harassment, 52% reported academic sexism, and 76% reported athletic sexism at least once. Girls
heard these comments most often from male peers, followed by teachers, and then female peers
(Brown & Leaper, 2010). Results also indicated that girls who reported more academic sexism
had lower self-efficacy and perceived value of math. This study of girls ages 12 to 18 found that
reported experiences with academic sexism were negatively associated with girls’ academic self-
concepts.
STEM career awareness. Another sociological factor is the lack of awareness among
teachers, parents, and students of real-world applications of STEM-related careers. One study
showed that parents and teachers had a large influence on high school students’ thoughts on
future career options (Hall et al., 2011). Unfortunately, parents and teachers self-reported, in the
same study, that they did not feel knowledgeable about STEM-related career options. Fifty-three
percent of parents felt they had little to no knowledge of STEM fields, while 32% of teachers
said they were not knowledgeable about scientific career options. Even larger percentages were
not knowledgeable specifically about information technology and engineering career options.
Adults and children alike were also uncertain, specifically, of what engineers do
(Lachapelle, Phadnis, Hertel, & Cunningham, 2012). When asked, young children thought of
train engineers and older students thought engineers were car mechanics, technicians, or large
machine operators. A Harris Poll found that more than 60% of adults polled felt they were not
well informed about engineering or the functions of an engineer. Schoolteachers were also
unaware of what engineers’ work entails; they were more likely to believe that engineers build
rather than supervise the construction of buildings (Cunningham, Lachapelle, & Lindgren-
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

31
Streicher, 2005). Curriculum needs to be designed that can address students’ misconceptions and
can help them gain a more informed understanding of engineering.
Cantrell and Ewing-Taylor (2009) found that females were more likely to switch their
career interest to engineering when provided realistic and detailed information about those
careers. Kelly, Dampier, and Carr (2013) evaluated the “Women in Cyber Security” residential
camp for girls in Mississippi. By the end of the camp, the girls all indicated they now knew
enough about the field to make a more informed career choice later on. Finally, in another study,
Miller, Blessing, and Schwartz (2006) studied career choices of middle school students. While
many girls showed an interest in medicine, the researchers found that the girls did not seem to be
aware of the science and mathematics requirements for the career. It is clear the lack of
awareness is a problem also contributing to the lack of females in STEM. This lack of awareness
affects the social persuasion aspect of Bandura’s self-efficacy framework.
Role models. There are two ways to look at role models. There is the idea of societal
gendered role models as discussed in the Theoretical Framework section above. There is also the
idea that girls need other females to view as role models to assist in the vicarious experience of
Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy. Girls often have negative views of scientists, have few
positive science-related female role models, and perceive science as a career that is not suited to
raising a family (Miller, Blessing, & Schwartz, 2006). Having a relative who is an engineer has
been shown to be a predictor of whether females choose a science or engineering major.
All of these causes of the STEM gender gap affect the four sources of self-efficacy.
Stereotype threat affects mastery experiences and emotional and physiological states. Interest can
be driven by social persuasion and vicarious experiences as well as mastery experiences. Gender
bias in the classroom can affect all four sources of self-efficacy; awareness of STEM careers
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

32
affects vicarious experiences and social persuasion, as does the existence of appropriate role
models. In concluding the section of causes of the STEM gender gap, it is important to note that
a majority of the studies are skewed towards White sample populations. The next section takes
underrepresented minorities into account and discusses some important factors to consider.
STEM Gender Gap Among Minorities
Minorities have been underrepresented in higher education and thus in STEM fields. Data
from the NSF’s 2010 dataset showed that even though Blacks made up nearly 11% of the total
2010 workforce in the United States, only 5.5% of STEM jobs were held by Blacks and only
2.4% were held by Black women. Minority groups have been closing the gap since then (NSF,
2017). In fact, in 2014, the percentage of Black and Latina first year female undergraduate
students intending to major in a STEM subject was greater than for White female students (see
Table 1).
Table 1: Intentions of female freshmen to major in Science & Engineering fields,
by race or ethnicity, 2014

Field Total Black % Latino/a % Asian % White %
All 37.5 39.8 41.6 47.3 35.3
Biological and agricultural
sciences 15.8 16.6 15.4 22.3 14.6
Engineering 5.8 5.0 5.2 8.4 5.6
Mathematics, statistics, and
computer sciences 2.1 2.0 2.3 4.4 2.3
Physical sciences 2.1 2.0 1.5 2.4 2.3
Social and behavioral sciences 11.7 14.2 17.2 9.8 10.5
Source: NSF (2017)

While numerous studies examine the gender gap from many different angles, few take
race/ethnicity into account. Those that do take race/ethnicity into account also show
contradicting results (Brown & Leaper, 2010; Charleston, Adserias, Lang, & Jackson, 2014;
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

33
Else-Quest, Mineo, & Higgins 2013; O’Brien, Blodorn, Adams, Garcia, & Hammer, 2015). This
intersectionality of race and gender puts minority females into a double-bind situation, hindered
by both their gender and their race. Brown and Leaper (2010) conducted a study of adolescent
Latina and White females. The researchers examined several factors with the most relevant being
perceived competence in math and science. Their study consisted of 345 girls between the ages
of 13 and 18, 73% of which were Latina and the remainder was White. The White girls had more
perceived competence of math and science than Latina girls.
Charleston et al., (2014) noted that Black girls were less likely to be exposed to
computers and technology at a young age and were less likely to succeed in the areas of math
and science throughout their education, thus underpreparing them to study in those fields. Their
study used a qualitative, focus group approach with fifteen Black women between the ages of 18
and 35 in STEM fields or majors, specifically in computer science. These women described
isolating and challenging environments as well as stereotype threat in their progress towards
STEM majors and careers.
Interestingly, in a study conducted by O'Brien et al., (2015) consisting of 153 college
women (43 Black, 110 White, age 18-29), Black women had weaker implicit gender STEM
stereotypes than the White women, but the two ethnicities did not differ in their perceptions of
the gendered nature of STEM fields meaning both groups perceived STEM fields to be more
masculine than liberal arts. Black women were more likely than White women to indicate they
were majoring in a STEM field. Fifty-six percent of Black women stated they were majoring in
STEM versus 15.5% of White women. In a second study to help validate the first one, the
researchers were able to replicate the results.
On the other hand, Else-Quest, Mineo, and Higgins (2013) conducted a study in an urban
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

34
public high school that examined math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection
of gender and ethnicity across four major ethnic groups. The researchers evaluated 367 White,
Black, Latino/a, and Asian American tenth-grade students in public high schools in a large
northeastern city. Males and females earned similar year-end grades in math and science with
Asian American students outperforming other ethnic groups in both subjects. In a self-reported
survey, males reported greater math self-concept and expectations of success; however, females
reported greater science value. In this case, the study did not show gender differences across
ethnic groups. With these mixed results, it is unclear if the gender gap among minority females is
the same or different from the White female gender gap.
Interventions
Numerous interventions have been tried among all age levels from elementary through
higher education to increase girls’ interest and self-efficacy in STEM. Role modeling, summer
camps, Girl Scouts, single-gender instruction, after-school classes, university residential support
programs, and more have been used to try to decrease the STEM gender gap (Hill, Corbett, & St.
Rose, 2010; Plant, Baylor, Doerr, & Rosenberg-Kima, 2009; Shapiro et al., 2015). One study by
Plant et al. (2009) used a computer-generated female character to deliver a 20-minute narrative
about the lives of female engineers and the benefits of engineering careers to middle school
females. They reported an increase in their interest in engineering following this experience. The
narrative description counteracted stereotypes of engineering as an unusual career for women
and reinforcing the people-oriented aspects of engineering.
Shapiro et al. (2015) surveyed 1,200 middle school students from two groups – Girl
Scout members and other adolescents in grades 6 to 8. The total sample consisted of 414 boys,
475 self-identified Girl Scouts, and 299 non-Girl Scouts. The two different girl groups gave the
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

35
researchers the ability to test the impact of participation in a single-sex organization that focuses
on leadership development. In choosing career options, 26% of boys chose STEM careers and
only 12.4% of girls chose STEM careers; however, a third more Girl Scout girls (13.5%) chose a
STEM career as compared to non-Girl Scout girls (10.7%). In studying confidence, the
researchers found that boys scored lowest, the non-Girl Scout girls scored in the middle, and the
Girl Scouts scored highest. The Girl Scouts were less likely to believe that there are more career
opportunities for boys than girls and also believed that anything can be achieved if one works
hard at it. The researchers concluded that participating in Girl Scouting broadened girls’ career
aspirations to more fully embrace STEM careers.
In a study on mentoring, girls who participated in an online mentoring program, as well
as those who were on a waiting list for the program, were surveyed (Stoeger et al., 2013). The
study assessed a variety of factors including the participants’ levels of STEM activities,
knowledge of STEM topics, knowledge of university majors and careers in STEM, interest in
STEM topics, confidence in one’s own STEM abilities, STEM competencies, and academic
elective intentions over the course of the program. Self-assessments took place at the beginning,
middle, and end of the program. Those in the treatment group had increased knowledge of
university majors and careers in STEM, but no change in confidence in one’s own STEM
abilities. This sampling of interventions shows there are benefits, but there are other
interventions that have not had concrete results. One of the interventions that had not shown
concretely positive results is single-gender education; there are two types – single-gender schools
and single-gender classrooms. The following section will delve into this topic.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

36
Single-Gender Education
While single-gender education has existed for quite some time with all-female and all-
male schools, the specific idea of creating single-gender instruction classrooms within a
coeducational environment has become more prevalent in the last ten years (Hoffman, Badgett,
& Parker, 2008). Single-gender instruction (SGI) classrooms have been studied in the last decade
in different ways. In one mixed-methods study at a large, urban, at-risk high school, researchers
gathered quantitative data on student performance in SGI classrooms and coed classrooms,
qualitative data from teacher interviews, and classroom observations of teachers and students.
All data were collected over a two-year period. This study resulted in contradicting quantitative
results whereby achievement measures indicated better performance in the coeducational
classrooms (Hoffman et al., 2008). Some significant achievement occurred in year one but did
not occur in year two, so did not result in positive overall results. Students’ attitudes toward SGI
were extremely negative on all accounts. However, classroom observations showed that the SGI
classroom culture was extremely different from the coed classes. It was found that girls in SGI
classrooms engaged in more academic risk-taking and participated more than girls in coed
settings. Girls in SGI classrooms worked together, were actively engaged in classroom
discussions, encouraged each other, and asked and answered questions more often (Hoffman et
al., 2008). In contrast, girls in coed classes interacted with teachers less than boys and were often
ignored when they tried.
One longitudinal study explored the benefits of girls-only classroom instruction in math
and science in grades nine and ten in a public coeducational high school (Shapka & Keating,
2003). The results of this study were also mixed showing a positive effect on girls’ math and
science performance and persistence, but no influence on their attitudes toward math. The girls in
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

37
the program had reported significantly higher levels of math anxiety than the coeducational boys
did and similar levels to those of the coeducational girls, suggesting that the program did not
help to reduce levels of math anxiety. The researchers explained that some of the girls only took
one math or science class in an all-girl setting, so this may have affected the attitude results due
to a short exposure to the intervention. This study also did not include any qualitative data so
teacher instructional styles were not viewed nor were classroom-based factors taken into account
(Shapka & Keating, 2003).
Pahlke, Hyde, and Allison (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of 184 single-gender
education studies that tested the effects of single-gender education on students as compared with
coeducational education. Uncontrolled studies showed some slight advantages for single-gender
education for boys and girls, for math, but not science. Controlled studies offered only very
trivial differences for math and science and even showed differences favoring co-ed education,
continuing the trend of mixed results for single-gender instruction.
A third study by Baker (2002) evaluated the effects of single-gender instruction in middle
school science and math classrooms with high-minority enrollment. The study examined
achievement, affect, peer interactions, and teacher-student interactions. Math grades for all
students were higher than their science grades. The higher grades of girls could not be attributed
to the single-gender instruction, but did contribute to girls’ feelings of empowerment, peer
support, and positive self-concept. Baker found that girls were helpful to one another in
understanding and completing group work, they worked well in cooperative groups, and Baker
attributed their better grades to these factors, but not completely to the single-gender
environment. The girls in this study preferred their all-female classes due to the supportive
nature of them. Girls reported losing the feeling of support and leadership opportunities when
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

38
boys were in the class. This previous research shows that single-gender instruction has some
sociological and psychological benefits, though it is unclear if it can all be attributed specifically
to the single-gender classroom. The results lead back to Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy;
feelings of empowerment, peer support, anxiety, and more have influence over mastery
experiences, social persuasion, vicarious experiences, and arousal.
Summary
The abundant amount of research covering the STEM gender gap is overwhelming and
unwieldy and offers many differing results in certain topics; however, there are core topics that
appear time and time again in the research. The causes of the STEM gender gap as covered
above, do represent the core areas researched in the literature. Stereotype threat, interest, gender
bias in the classroom, lack of STEM career awareness, and lack of role models all contribute to
the lack of females in STEM fields. The four sources of self-efficacy are affected by these
situations (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997, 2001). Mastery experience is affected by stereotype
threat; if females underperform simply due to the idea that perhaps females are not as good at
math and science as males, then they lose out on that mastery experience due to low
performance. Vicarious experiences are lost due to gender bias in the classroom and the lack of
female scientist role models that are aspirational. Social persuasion is affected by gender bias in
the classroom and lack of role models, as well. Arousal is also affected by stereotype threat.
There are physical reactions and anxiety caused by these experiences.
This chapter provided an overview of the literature that examines self-efficacy theory and
some causes of the STEM gender gap. A review of the STEM gender gap among minorities was
also reviewed. Interventions then were covered as a way to respond to these causes. There are
positive results that some interventions can help alleviate some of the causes of the gender gap
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

39
(Shapiro et al, 2015; Stoeger et al., 2013). Single-gender instruction is an interesting intervention
that can be accomplished in unique ways other than whole single-gender schools. Further
research is needed on unique interventions. Qualitative studies are also missing from the
literature. To explore single-gender classroom instruction on a coeducational high school
campus, a qualitative case study was undertaken to study high school minority females’
perceptions of self-efficacy after experiencing single-gender science classes in the first two years
of high school. The following chapter will delve into the methodology for this study.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The United States needs a larger workforce to continue to maintain a competitive
advantage in STEM fields. Females are underrepresented and need to be encouraged to continue
their interest and maintain their achievement in STEM subjects to persist into STEM majors and
careers (Beede et al., 2011; Wang & Degol, 2013). The many causes and factors that play a role
in this problem have had a plethora of research conducted on them over the years. Both
psychological and sociological factors, among others, play a role in the lack of females persisting
in STEM careers. Some interventions have been attempted and researched to generally positive
results; however, there have been few qualitative studies (Baker, 2002; Hoffman et al., 2008;
Shapka & Keating, 2003). Additionally, there are few studies examining single-gender science
classrooms in a coeducational setting.
The primary purpose of this study was to discover how minority female students describe
the single-gender science classroom experience and how they perceive their science self-efficacy
after experiencing the single-gender science classroom. This study utilized interviews of female
high school seniors who experienced single-gender science classes for their freshman and
sophomore years. For their junior year, they returned to a co-ed science class and are continuing
in co-ed science in their senior year. Observations of the females in their current co-ed science
classes took place, as well as observations of single-gender classes, including one all male class
for further context and comparison. For triangulation purposes, documentation such as course
evaluations and/or previous survey data was desired; however, this was unavailable. The goal of
the study was to understand the females’ perception of their own science self-efficacy and to
explore how they described their experiences in a single-gender classroom and their return to a
co-ed science classroom. The driving research questions were:
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

41
1. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their experience in a single-
gender science classroom?
2. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their return to a co-ed high
school science classroom after experiencing single-gender science classrooms?
3. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females perceive their science self-efficacy
after experiencing single-gender high school science classrooms?
Why Qualitative Methods?
Qualitative research provides an advantage in addressing the practical goal of conducting
research that is intended to improve existing practices or programs or providing a formative
evaluation (Maxwell, 2013). Examining the single-gender science classroom through a basic
qualitative research case study helps to provide the meaning of the experience for those involved
and helps evaluate the benefits and/or challenges of the program. In order to improve STEM
education for females, specifically in science, it is important to understand the meaning of the
experience and any changes that may occur upon experiencing single-gender science education.
Interviews and observations provide rich and detailed description that is useful in
understanding the experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviewing is needed for those things
that cannot be observed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews gathered rich and detailed
descriptions the female students offered about their single-gender classroom experiences as well
as their experiences of returning to co-ed science classrooms. The interviews also explored the
female students’ perceptions of their science self-efficacy after experiencing single-gender
science classes. Using interviews to gather this detailed information helped answer the research
questions. This study used an inductive emergent design, which, according to Patton (2002),
allows for flexibility and openness and the ability to adapt interview questions as needed.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

42
Observations provide information about a setting, about people, or an environment in its
natural form (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observing the interviewees in the co-ed science
classrooms offered the researcher a view into how they engage in the classroom. This helped the
researcher gain perspective into if what the interviewees said in the interviews matched with how
they conducted themselves in the classroom. Documentation such as course evaluations and/or
previous survey data was desired for triangulation purposes, but the school site lacked this type
of documentation.
Sample and Population
The school site was chosen for its unique program. It is a small private coeducational
high school (260 total students in Grades 9-12) in a large, urban city that created a single-gender
classroom program for math and science for the freshman and sophomore years. The students
then return to co-ed math and science classes in the junior and senior years. There are instances
when students are only in single-gender classes for one year if they are more advanced in those
areas. Much of the research on single-gender education relates to entire single-gender schools.
This research examined female students’ perceived advantages and disadvantages of single-
gender classrooms for math and science and perceived self-efficacy upon completion of the
single-gender science classroom experience. The program has been in place for three years. The
unit of analysis was female high school seniors who experienced single-gender science classes
for their freshman and sophomore years and returned to the coeducational science classroom in
their junior year and are in a coeducational science class for their senior year. Students taking
four years of science classes tend to be the higher achievers, which is another limiter of the
research. These seniors interviewed represent the first cohort that experienced the program and
therefore, the first seniors that returned to the co-ed classes, as well.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

43
Prior to collecting data, all the IRB requirements for the USC – University Park Internal
Review Board were completed in October 2017 [Appendix A]. Additionally, because the school
site is a Catholic high school, the research plan was submitted to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
for approval for the research to be conducted on one of its campuses. Once all approvals were
received, permission from the school site principal was granted for interviews and observations
to be conducted. Interviews were conducted in December 2017 and observations were conducted
in February 2018. Interviews were conducted with six senior year females who experienced two
years of single-gender science classes and are currently in co-ed science classes. Two of these
students (sisters) attended a different, but all-girls school, for their freshman year.
The school student body is 151 males, 109 females and is 48% Black, 26%
Hispanic/Latino(a), 16.5% Multiracial, 3.5% White/Other, 2% Asian and Filipino. Sixty-six
percent of the students receive some form of need-based financial aid. With the majority of the
population at the school representing minorities, the study was forced to focus on minority
females’ perceptions of self-efficacy. It should be noted that there are differences between Black
and Latina STEM gender gap results; however, for the purposes of this study, they were
considered as a single group of underrepresented minorities. The sample size is not large enough
to make distinctions between them. It is also important to note that this study did not take
socioeconomic status into account and is outside the scope of this study.
Maxwell (2013) noted that one of the most important reasons for purposeful sampling is
to achieve a representativeness of the individuals selected. Purposeful sampling was used in this
study to specifically speak with females who participated in two full years of single-gender
science. The sampling was also one of convenience based on students who were willing to be
interviewed and who returned a signed consent/assent form. The researcher had no prior
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

44
relationship with any students at the school. Interviews were digitally recorded and were
transcribed by a transcription service. Each interview ranged from twenty to thirty minutes each.
Observations of the females in their current co-ed science classes also took place. The
researcher observed and took notes on how the females engaged in the classroom, as well as
observed details of the classrooms themselves that might impact the minority females’ science
self-efficacy. Observations allowed the researcher to view how these females interacted and
engaged in the classroom. There were some limitations in regards to the researcher not knowing
if students were behaving differently simply due to the presence of an observer. This and other
limitations were discussed in the Limitations section in Chapter One.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation of the interviews, observations, and documentation will be outlined in
this section. Protocols are included in the Appendices.
Interview Protocol
The interview protocol [Appendix B] was inspired by sets of interview questions from
Usher (2009) and Baker (2002). Usher (2009) had conducted a mixed methods study of middle
school mathematics students that also explored self-efficacy. Baker (2002) examined single-
gender science classrooms in middle school. Questions were altered to focus on science and
additional and/or some different questions were asked. The interviews took place on the school
campus in a private area. The interviews were semi-structured and open-ended and asked female
students to describe their science class experiences and their perceptions of self-efficacy. With a
standard list of questions for all the female participants, the interview allowed for probing and
follow-up questions as needed. On occasion, some questions were skipped if the female had
answered it as part of another question. The order of the questions was generally the same, but
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

45
not strictly adhered to. Each female student’s perceptions of self-efficacy was different, so
having the flexibility of adding follow-up probing questions was necessary to explore areas more
deeply (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The questions explored aspects of their background, what
brought them to the private high school, whether the STEM program played a role, their
descriptions of being in single-gender science classes, their descriptions of their current co-ed
science class, and their descriptions of themselves as science students. These questions helped
form a picture about their confidence and self-efficacy levels as well as offered rich explanations
and descriptions about the program and their feelings about it. Each interview lasted
approximately 20 to 30 minutes, was conducted face-to-face, was audio-recorded, and was
transcribed by a professional transcription service.
Observation Protocol
The observation protocol [Appendix C] called for the researcher to act as a complete
observer by sitting through the entirety of both co-ed and single-gender science classes where
some of the interviewed females were present. Single-gender classes were also observed,
including a male single-gender class to add further context to the male and female co-ed
observations. Rich and descriptive field notes were taken by the researcher and included as many
details as possible about the environment and the students. The researcher also took note of how
females engaged in the classroom and participated in any discussions and activities or group
projects. The researcher included reflections throughout the observations. The observations
allowed the researcher to see how these females engaged in the co-ed science classroom and
helped connect back to the four sources of self-efficacy.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

46
Documentation
In order to provide validity to a study, triangulation is recommended (Creswell, 2014). In
addition to interviews and observations, documentation analysis of course evaluations and/or
previous survey data was desired, but unavailable. Other validity strategies may be incorporated
including using rich, thick description, clarifying the bias of the researcher, and presenting
negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes (Creswell, 2014). Using these
strategies allowed for validity with the lack of documentation. Focusing on using extremely rich
detail in the observations took the place of documentation.
Data Collection
Data collection was arranged as soon as IRB was completed. The researcher was in
contact with the school in Spring 2017 to ensure access to the school site. Once IRB was
completed in September 2017, the school was contacted once again to determine the possible
participants, plan for consent and assent forms to be distributed to the desired participants, and
interviews and observations were scheduled. It was discovered at this time that documentation
was not available.
Potential appropriate interview participants were identified by the administration based
on those students who met the sampling requirements and were willing to participate. Consent
and assent forms were provided to those students to be interviewed. Students were contacted by
the school administration and approached to be part of the study. Upon confirmation and
acceptance of students to participate in the study, the researcher then scheduled interviews with
the help of the school administration. The researcher conducted six interviews in December 2017
on the high school campus. All interviewees were senior year female students who were in
single-gender science classes for their freshman and sophomore years and then in co-ed science
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

47
classes in their junior and now senior years. The researcher used a transcription service to
transcribe the interviews.
Opt-out forms were created for observation purposes to allow students who did not want
to be observed to opt-out during the time the researcher was in the classroom. No opt-out forms
were returned. The researcher observed three co-ed science classes attended by some of the
interviewees, as well as one single-gender male science class for a point of comparison.
Data Analysis
Creswell’s Six-Step Plan (2014) was used to analyze the data. These six steps are as
follows: 1) organize and prepare the data, 2) review the data looking for depth and meaning, 3)
code the data, 4) code the data again to generate a description and identify themes, 5) finalize
identified themes to create a descriptive narrative to convey the findings, and 6) interpret the
findings.
A constant comparative method of data analysis was employed with segments of data
being compared as interviews were conducted. Open and axial coding was used in order to create
categories and group the codes to refine those categories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher used hand coding for both the interview and observation data [Appendix E]. Common
themes were easily found throughout the interview responses. The observation data were coded
to align with the themes found in the interviews.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To avoid the validity threat of researcher bias, the researcher kept the wording of
interview questions neutral and not leading as recommended by Maxwell (2013). There was a
bias on the part of the researcher to believe the single-gender classroom experience is beneficial
to the female students; however, there was openness to hear otherwise and learn from the
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

48
students. Having trustworthy research results is based on having some rigor in carrying out the
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Strategies for promoting validity and reliability as described by Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) include triangulation, member checks/respondent validation, adequate engagement in data
collection, researcher’s position/reflexivity, peer review/examination, audit trail, rich
descriptions, and maximum variation. This study used triangulation, engagement in data
collection, reflexivity, an audit trail, and rich descriptions. Triangulation is said to have two or
three measurement points (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), so in this study, triangulation was obtained
through interviews of female high school students and rich observations of their classes.
Reflexivity is the critical self-reflection by the researcher regarding assumptions and biases
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), as already described above. The audit trail describes in detail how
data were collected, how categories were derived, and how decisions were made. Rich
descriptions were used to contextualize the study and explain the results of the research.
Ethics
Ethical considerations in a qualitative research study include basics such as
confidentiality and informed consent to details such as explaining the purpose of the inquiry,
methods to be used, and knowing what to do if there are discrepancies in what people are saying
as compared to other documentation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study followed ethical
guidelines such as providing Opt-Out forms for observations, getting permission from the site
and teachers, and having informed consent forms and assent forms signed by students and
parents. Permission to audio record the interviews was requested and granted. No names were
used and the school site name was not used. The study has followed all the necessary
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

49
requirements to be an ethical study with integrity, credibility, and trustworthiness. Results are
discussed in the next chapter.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Many interventions have been explored in an attempt to narrow the STEM gender gap.
Summer camps, single-gender programs, Girl Scouts, after-school programs, and many more
have been implemented and studied. There is a lesser-used intervention that has not been studied
as much – the single-gender classroom within a co-ed school setting. The studies completed for
this type of intervention have been quantitative in nature. This study examined such a program
from a qualitative perspective.
The primary purpose of this study was threefold: 1) to discover how high school female
students described the single-gender science classroom experience, 2) to explore their
experiences upon returning to a co-ed science classroom, and 3) to explore their science self-
efficacy after these experiences. Specifically, the research questions were as follows:
1. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their experience in a single-
gender science classroom?
2. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their return to a co-ed high
school science classroom after experiencing single-gender science classrooms?
3. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females perceive their science self-efficacy
after experiencing single-gender high school science classrooms?
This study took a qualitative approach involving interviews of six high school seniors
who had all experienced the single-gender female science classes in their freshman and
sophomore years and then had returned to co-ed science classes for the junior year and now their
senior year. Three of the females self-described themselves as Latina and the other three as
Black. In order to answer the research questions, the findings will be presented as follows: first
the descriptive data about the single-gender experience will be presented, second, the females’
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

51
descriptions of returning to the co-ed science class will be discussed, and finally, their
perceptions of overall science self-efficacy will be covered. Interwoven throughout will be
details from the observations as appropriate. Before answering the research questions, some
background on the interviewees as it relates to Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy will be
provided for contextual purposes.
Interviewee Backgrounds
The students interviewed were all ambitious students indicating that they have good
grades – mostly As and Bs. They all indicated intentions to go to college and all had some idea
of what they wanted to study. Only one mentioned wanting to enter a STEM-related field and
that was physical therapy. The others had career aspirations of business and marketing,
psychology, criminal justice, and architecture. The backgrounds of their families were touched
on and it was discovered that none of the students had STEM careers in their immediate families.
Some had extended family in STEM fields. For example, Interviewee A mentioned a cousin
getting a doctorate in chemistry, but she stated she does not interact with him much. Interviewees
B and C mentioned their grandfather is an optometrist and their aunt and uncle sell medical
devices. Interviewee N said her sister is going to school to become an engineer; this is the closest
any of them had to a STEM career in their families. Seeing family members in STEM fields
assists the vicarious experience source of self-efficacy. In this research study, most of these
students were not receiving that source from their families.
Two of the students mentioned participating in an event called the STEM Summit when
they were freshmen. When asked further about this event, they described it as a weekend day at
school where both male and female students worked with real engineers from nearby companies
to build a model bridge. After they worked with the engineers and built their own bridge, the
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

52
students then, in turn, worked with eighth grade middle school students to lead them through
building a bridge. This gave the students both mastery experience, as they learn and then teach
others, and also the vicarious experience of seeing what real engineers can do. The STEM
Summit is an interesting program that would lend itself to further research as it relates to sources
of and perceptions of self-efficacy. In the following sections, the interview and observation data
are discussed to answer the research questions.
Single-Gender Science Experience
The females described their single-gender science classroom experience in mostly
positive ways. Four positive themes recurred throughout the interviews: 1) comfort and
acceptance, 2) participation and engagement in the classroom, 3) friendships, and 4) support
from peers and teachers. These positive themes relate back to Bandura’s psychological and
sociological factors that feed into self-efficacy. These themes will be discussed here.
Comfort and Acceptance
When asked if the students came to the school for the single-gender classroom program
or even knew about the program, not a single one had known that the school had a single-gender
STEM classroom program. In fact, the school had decided on this teaching approach in the
summer prior to the start of these students’ freshman year. Students found out when they arrived
for orientation. All the interviewees indicated that they were hesitant about a single-gender
STEM classroom. They did not quite understand the purpose of it. It is unclear how the program
was presented to them at the time. Their hesitation about the program makes it all the more
interesting that now, three years later, they all described the program fondly.
All the interviewees expressed that they felt very comfortable in the single-gender
classrooms. They explained that they did not feel judged. This feeling of being comfortable and
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

53
not being judged were far and away the most mentioned positive aspects in the single-gender
classrooms by all six interviewees. Comfort was described in a number of ways from physicality
to making mistakes in class. Interviewee A covered both of these topics in her responses:
I just felt like I wasn’t hesitant to make a mistake in class. And if I did, I wouldn’t
feel bad about it. I would just move on because it’s a bunch of girls. Yeah,
because boys, I feel like I would be too shy to get the wrong answer and doubt it
and not answer at all, but in this class I felt like I could give my answer and my
opinion… I feel like they wouldn't have to worry about, oh, about if somebody's
judging you for that wrong answer or having to come to class looking decent. I
just feel like a lot of the girls are comfortable coming in with messy hair and like,
stuff like that.
Interviewee B described comfort as being relaxed and creative:
I felt more comfortable, more relaxed. I didn’t feel like I had to keep up with
anybody…I enjoyed it a lot. I felt more creative…I felt…that I could be more
creative and share my ideas more.
Interviewee C also described the experience as comfortable and casual with no feeling of
embarrassment or feeling judged if getting something wrong:
I enjoyed the single-gender experiences because it was comfortable for me
then…I feel like the single-gender was more casual since it was a bunch of people
we were kinda comfortable with, we would laugh and if you got something
wrong, you didn’t feel embarrassed, it was just, you got it wrong and you just
keep it moving.
Interviewee K described the single-gender classroom experience as one of openness:
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

54
In the single-gender class, I felt like people could be more themselves and express
how they behaved, how they normally behave, compared to the co-ed where
everyone’s like more to themselves…I felt more confident in asking questions I
didn’t understand, and that none of the people in the class were judging if I got it
wrong. Because boys, they, yeah…I think that like they judge you if you get the
answer wrong or they make a joke out of it.
Interviewee N reinforced the idea of a comfortable environment and no feeling of being judged:
It was a very comfortable environment. That’s for sure… Anyone, if they thought
of an answer, even if they didn’t think it was right, they would just say the answer
and know there was no judgments… I felt comfortable not getting an answer
wrong. I wouldn’t get any judgments.
Finally, Interviewee S also discussed the feeling of not worrying about being judged and said:
I liked being in the class with just girls because I was able to ask questions and
not feel like it was a dumb question because there was guys in the room.
Feeling comfortable and feeling no judgment in this space of a single-gender classroom
feeds into all the sources of self-efficacy including mastery experience by offering these female
students a positive classroom experience, vicarious experience of seeing their peers enjoy the
class and not feeling judgment, social persuasion of the other females, and a tempering of any
physiological arousal that might occur in students when feeling judged. This idea of being
uncomfortable in co-ed classes, but comfortable in single-gender classes relates back to the issue
of stereotype threat. The females seem to feel a stigma of “looking dumb” in front of male
students. Feeling comfort and acceptance in the single-gender classes was the positive aspect
mentioned across all six interviewees.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

55
Participation and Engagement
Observing differences in the environment of a single-gender male classroom versus a
single-gender female classroom was quite eye opening. The single-gender male class was
extremely loud and all the students jumped at the opportunity to respond to questions. When
viewing the stark contrast, it is easy to understand why females may tend to shrink away from
engaging in the classroom.
While not as prevalent in the interviews, but very important, increased participation and
engagement in the classroom was mentioned by some of the interviewees. The interviewees
indicated they felt more confident in raising their hand in class and engaged more in the single-
gender classroom. In addition to some of the quotes above that refer to the females asking and
answering more questions because there was no judgment, two interviewees spoke more
specifically to engaging in the classroom. Interviewee A clearly stated that she raised her hand
more in a classroom with all females, “I never had confidence, but being in a classroom with all
girls, I felt like I wasn't shy to raise my hand and do my work.” Interviewee K also described
being more confident to answer questions in class, “I felt more confident in answering questions
in class…In the single-gender class, all the girls they would try to participate compared to the co-
ed.” Participation in the classroom is a positive outcome that can feed several of Bandura’s
sources of self-efficacy. Engagement in the classroom can build mastery experience allowing the
females to be successful in the classroom. It can also build both vicarious experiences and social
persuasion as the students experience their peers’ success.
Friendships
Having good friends is important for female high school students. If they can have
support from each other in academic classes such as math and science, then they will have better
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

56
and more positive experiences. Friendships can affect sources of self-efficacy such as vicarious
experiences and social persuasion. Having good feedback from friends and other peers within the
classroom can be beneficial.
Five of the interviewees mentioned that friends were important in the single-gender
classes. Interviewee A noted, “I found myself making more friends.” Interviewee B reflected on
the single-gender classroom with this, “It was a really good experience. We all lifted each other
up in a way that I didn’t think was going to happen.” Three other interviewees also mentioned
friends and the support they felt. Interviewee C said, “…it helped me meet a lot of my girlfriends
and just doing projects with them, it allowed me to get closer with them and the teachers.”
Interviewee K also noted, “Girls, they’re able to like, if you don’t understand it they’ll help you
work to get the right answer.” Additionally, Interviewee N said, “Often times, since it’s a room
full of girls, we’re all friends, we’re all just talking…” From making new friends to being
supported by existing friends, this aspect of single-gender classrooms can offer positive impacts
on the sources of self-efficacy.
Support
Another positive aspect of the single-gender classrooms expressed in the interviews
related to the idea of peer and teacher support. This support was felt in the single-gender
classroom in several ways, from working at the pace needed by each individual student to
helping each other understand the subject material. There was no pressure felt to leave behind a
topic if everyone did not have a clear understanding of it. Interviewee B said clearly, “I could
kind of go at my own pace. I noticed that with girls, if we got a question wrong, it was more like
us helping each other.” Interviewee K’s comment noted in the section above also supports this
topic, “Girls, they’re able to like, if you don’t understand it, they’ll help you work to get the right
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

57
answer…” Interviewee S agreed that the single-gender female classes allowed for asking
questions more freely, “With the girls, I feel like we always have like a same thought, so if I ask
a question, there’s probably other people wondering the same thing.” Interviewee C elaborated
further on the subject, mentioned support from the teachers, and also compared it to her current
co-ed class:
Typically, with the girls, if you didn’t understand something then we would all
kind of stop and make sure the person knew…I liked how we would kind of wait
and be at a pace that everyone was comfortable with…the teachers, if you got
something right, I feel like they would applaud you for it and really let you know
that was correct and worked hard for it and stuff…but with co-ed I feel like it’s a
lot more serious, especially since we’ve gotten older, everyone is really focused
on their grade and college so if you get something wrong, it feels as if you’re
holding up the class even if not everyone else may feel that way.
The support of the teacher is an interesting aspect to take note of. While out of the scope
of this study, interesting interactions occurred during an observation session that should be
noted. In the observation of a co-ed Physics class, several interesting interactions occurred
between the teacher and a few students. In the first ten minutes of the class, a male student made
a comment and the male teacher told him to go into the hallway. The observer did not hear the
comment made by the student, but the student seemed extremely surprised by the teacher’s
reaction, so it is possible that what was said did not warrant the exile to the hallway.
Approximately ten minutes later, a female student asked for help to understand the topic from
another female student sitting in front of her. The female student being asked for help was one of
the students interviewed for this study, Interviewee S. The female student asked for an
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

58
explanation about the subject matter and Interviewee S explained it to her. The teacher asked
Interviewee S to move to the empty desk in front of her current desk so that the two students
would not talk to each other anymore. The student explained that Interviewee S was helping to
explain the subject matter to her, but the teacher did not want to hear any explanations.
Interviewee S moved to the empty desk and the other female student also moved up one desk to
once again be behind Interviewee S. The teacher got quite upset about this and physically picked
up a desk and moved it to the front of the room. He then told Interviewee S to sit in the desk now
in the front of the room. Interviewee S looked aghast and defended herself by saying, “I can’t
help if she followed me!” The other female also got quite upset and said, “this is my education,
she is helping me!” Interviewee S complied and sat at the desk at the front of the room and the
other female got up to get a tissue and left the classroom looking quite upset. She returned to the
classroom approximately five minutes later. This student-teacher exchange surely made a
negative impression on these females and all the other students as well. These two female
students have now had a negative experience in a co-ed science class that showed a lack of
support from their male teacher, thereby affecting the sources of self-efficacy for these students.
Peer and teacher support feed into the sources of self-efficacy in both positive and
negative ways depending on the experience. The hope is that peers and teachers will always be
supportive of all students, but from the observation described above, it is clear that those
interactions are not always positive.
Negative Aspects
It should be noted that some negative comments were made about the single-gender
classroom by two of the interviewees. These two females happen to be twin sisters and made
very similar comments. The comments related to the idea that perhaps the female students were
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

59
missing out on hearing and learning about different perspectives by not being in class with male
students:
Interviewee B expressed it as follows:
I didn’t get to hear other perspectives. In boys’ [co-ed] classes, some of them had
a different way of figuring out problems, which sometimes helped me. In my
class, we didn’t all have the same way, but it was kind of around the same way of
learning.
Interviewee C talked about it in this way:
…but what I probably didn’t like was the fact that I felt like I was missing out on
a part of like high school, since I was at a co-ed school, I felt that I should’ve been
in a room that was co-ed to get me used to it, but another thing I probably didn’t
like was the fact that we were kinda being compared. Like some points when I
would be frustrated, I feel as if it was a science experiment, like girls tend to study
like this, and boys tend to study like this, and I felt like I was missing out on a
learning style that maybe the boys were understanding that I could be
understanding but they just weren’t trying it because we were kind of stuck at our
pace that we were at.
Even though these negative points were mentioned, in other parts of the interview, there was an
acknowledgement that since all their other classes were co-ed, they were not missing out on
much, as expressed by another interviewee, “I was actually pretty comfortable with it because of
my other classes not being single gender.”
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

60
The discussion of positives and negatives of the single-gender classroom offers insights
into the success of the single-gender program at this school site. Overall, it is quite encouraging
to hear the positive feelings these female students have about the program.
Return to Co-ed Science Classroom
The perspectives of the female students on returning to a co-ed science classroom were
very mixed. Some expressed that they held on to the confidence they gained in the single-gender
program and others expressed the opposite. Another perspective shared was that the boys are
distracting because they joke around a lot in the classroom. There were also comments about
feeling the pace of the classes was faster in the co-ed classes, as well as the feeling that the
students cannot stop the co-ed class to ask questions because other students may not appreciate
slowing down.
Positive Reflections
The most positive comment one would hope for in this qualitative study is that
confidence was built up in the single-gender class and then carried through and maintained in a
co-ed classroom. Several interviewees shared just such a reaction. Their reflections noted that
confidence was built in the single-gender classes and maintained in the co-ed classrooms.
Interviewee A shared her positive perspective:
…now I’m back in the co-ed, I feel like I’ve built that confidence in like, raising
my hand now. If there’s boys or not, I feel like I can do it because of the single-
gender program.
Interviewee K reinforced a positive outlook and extended it to the other girls in the co-ed classes:
I feel that since I was in the single gender classes, that my confidence has built up
to now in the co-ed, and that I’m more confident. I feel like the girls lead the class
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

61
more than the boys do… In the single-gender class, all the girls they would try to
participate compared to the co-ed, where most of the girls participate now, and the
boys like they joke around or play around.
Interviewee B had a mixed reaction, but the positive aspect of her comments aligned with her
peers:
I kind of kept the confidence, I guess, that I had from the single-gender classes.
I’m taking more charge, especially in group projects and what not. Especially
since most of the girls, the girls that I took the class with are taking classes with
me now, we kind of all kept that confidence. We’re not really letting the boys take
over the groups, which is what would happen before at my middle school.
These reflections are what one would hope for after an intervention. That is, confidence was built
up during the intervention and then maintained after returning to the traditional, co-ed classroom.
Negative Reflections
Some interviewees expressed mixed and/or negative experiences about returning to the
co-ed science classroom. While Interviewee B had a positive comment as noted above, she also
shared a mixed reaction about returning to a co-ed science classroom:
It was definitely different. I didn’t realize how different it would be. Having math
and science classes with boys, it was just, I didn’t realize the competitiveness that
boys have when it comes to math and sciences, I guess. I noticed that with girls, if
we got a question wrong, it was more like us helping each other. With boys, it
was like they needed to be right. It was just different. Easy adjustment, but
definitely an adjustment…
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

62
Interviewee C described her return to the co-ed classroom as one that was not hard to do, but
reflected that there was some discomfort in the pace of the class and a decline in confidence:
I was actually pretty comfortable with it [going back to co-ed] because of my
other classes not being single gender, but when I would start to struggle in a class,
I typically noticed it more because the class tended to go faster and if I felt like I
was behind, I really had to go get the teacher after school because I just wouldn’t
be able to keep up during the class…typically, with the girls, if you didn’t
understand something then we would all kind of stop and make sure the person
knew, but with co-ed, the teacher would say like, “Any questions?” The boys
would say, “no” and then you just keep on going…I’m kind of getting more
comfortable with asking help from my guy friends along with the teacher because
I am learning their learning styles and how they understand stuff since their minds
work differently, but I don’t like, sometimes the speed of the class... I don't know,
I just feel as if I was way more confident back then and now I'm just trying to get
to college.
Interviewee N also expressed that she felt more confidence in a “room full of girls” and is
worried about being judged by the boys:
I’m not distracted because there’s boys in the room. It’s just more the material
itself is hard to understand. Yeah, I would rather have a single-gender classroom
just because sometimes boys can distract you. I just felt more confident in
answering questions when it was a room full of girls. Now I have a tendency not
to answer because I’m like, ‘what if I get it wrong and then there’s people here,
they’re going to laugh.’
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

63
Interviewee S shared similar feelings about feeling judged in co-ed classes:
It was really difficult because my teacher couldn’t continue to teach because
people were talking and it was mainly guys. I mean I liked it though, because
some guys, they also understand math so if I had a problem, they would help
me…I did notice that being in a class with girls, it was easier because like last
year [in co-ed class] I would hesitate to ask a question because I didn’t want to
sound dumb. With the girls, I feel like we always have like a same thought, so if I
ask a question, there’s probably other people wondering the same thing.
These mixed perspectives on returning to co-ed science classrooms are only slightly
discouraging. The positive reflections certainly outweigh the negative ones overall. Of course,
the ultimate hope is that the confidence gained in a single-gender classroom would carry through
to the co-ed classes.
Choosing Co-ed or Single-Gender?
All the interviewees were asked if they would choose single-gender classes or co-ed
classes for science. Only one of the respondents said she would choose a co-ed classroom. The
reasons for choosing single-gender classes ranged from specifying a boost of confidence to
having a more relaxed environment to having a feeling of community. Interviewee A preferred
single-gender because of the boost in confidence and the comfortable environment:
All girls. Because I feel like it would boost a lot of girls’ confidence and they
would learn more and be in a better environment for them to really get the full
experience of a class and make it fun…I feel like they wouldn’t have to worry
about, oh, about if somebody’s judging you for that wrong answer or having to
come to class looking decent. I just feel like a lot of the girls are comfortable
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

64
coming in with messy hair and like, stuff like that. I feel like it would be safer for
them.
Interviewee B explained that boys are distracting sometimes:
For science, I would choose single-gender. Just because I find boys can be
distracting sometimes in my learning environment with comments and joking
around… I definitely enjoyed the single-gender class. I had fun. It was relaxed. I
felt more at home in single-gender classes.
This distraction was also noted in the class observations. In the first co-ed science class of
the day, AP Environmental Science, one female and male were talking to each other throughout
the entire class time. The female was missing work and was confused about what was needed.
The teacher asked the female student to come see her at lunch to clear up her confusion. While it
was unclear who was initiating the interactions, the male student was distracting this female. The
observation of the single-gender male class noted a number of times that the teacher had to re-
focus the class – more often than the co-ed classes observed.
Interviewee K said she would choose a single-gender classroom because they are more of
a community:
I would choose an all girls class, because I feel like if you’re in an all girl class,
you’re a community and you all work together to complete the work and try to
make each other better.
Interviewee N related the single-gender environment back to confidence, “I would say all girls.
Just because that environment, out of all my four years here, I felt most confident when it was all
girls.” Interviewee S described the aspect of friendship when choosing single-gender classes over
co-ed:
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

65
I kind of liked the single-gender more, only because I felt like I could get closer to
some of the girls. I was more outgoing in those classes than I am now, because
I’m more calm because there’s boys in the class now.
Interviewee C is the only student to say she would choose a co-ed class over single-gender and
her reasoning related to learning styles, “I would choose co-ed – since my guy friends would
help me with their learning styles, I feel like I’m learning new ways to learn, if that makes
sense.”
The positive aspects mentioned by the female subjects in regards to single-gender
classrooms again, connect back to Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy including social
persuasion and physiological arousal.
Perceptions of Self-Efficacy
In addition to the detailed responses the female students gave in their reflections of the
single-gender science classroom experience, they were asked to give themselves a score on a
scale of one to ten on both science ability and science confidence. They were asked to give
themselves a score for their confidence level for when they were in the single-gender class as
well as for now in their current co-ed class. They were then asked to agree or disagree with three
statements about their perceptions of their own science ability.
For science ability, all the students gave themselves a score of seven. They were all very
humble and added comments such as, “everybody makes mistakes,” “if I don’t know it well
enough to teach it, then it can’t be a ten,” and “there’s always somebody better than me.” Most
interviewees neither agreed nor disagreed with the idea that science was easy for them. They
stated that it fell somewhere in the middle. In a separate question, they all agreed with the
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

66
statement that they had the ability to earn a grade of A in science. These females know they have
the ability, but are also modest in their responses.
For science confidence, the females gave their confidence levels higher scores for when
they were in the single-gender classes. All respondents, except for one, scored their confidence
levels lower for their current co-ed science situation. Their comments explained further, “boys
will judge me,” and “the teachers were more supportive in the single-gender.”
Given the descriptions offered about the return to a co-ed science classroom, it appears
that while there is confidence during the single-gender classes, there is a distinct change when
returning to the co-ed science classes. It appears that the confidence is somewhat lost upon
returning to a co-ed science classroom; however, given that all the interviewees still agree with
the statement that they have the ability to earn a grade of “A” in science, there is still some
confidence remaining. While the confidence levels do not seem to be as strong as when the
females were in the single-gender classroom, they do seem to be hanging on to some confidence
levels.
Summary
The females interviewed at this school site for this study certainly appreciated having the
single-gender science classroom experience. They described it positively and fondly. Almost all
agreed that they would choose the single-gender science classroom experience again. As
ambitious students who all plan to go to college, they are intelligent and spoke about feeling
comfortable, forming friendships, and having supportive teachers in the single-gender classroom
experience. On the other hand, they also described the negative aspects of a co-ed classroom
including feeling judged, losing confidence, and feeling distracted in a classroom with boys.
Their perceptions of self-efficacy varied and unfortunately, they did not all maintain the self-
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

67
confidence gained in the single-gender classroom after returning to co-ed science classrooms.
Moving into Chapter Five, the literature will be reviewed in the context of the findings, the
implications for practice will be presented, and recommendations for future research will also be
covered.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

68
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The STEM gender gap in the work force is an ongoing problem in the United States.
Even though males and females have similar abilities in the elementary and secondary schooling
years, there is a significant drop in the number of females pursuing STEM careers in college and
beyond (Dabney et al., 2012; Duckworth & Seligman, 2006). Many interventions have been
attempted and studied, but it is still unclear which interventions have positive and long-lasting
effects to help close the gap.
Although there are a myriad of factors that affect a female’s career aspirations, self-
efficacy is a key component affecting females’ desire and willingness to persist in STEM
(Blickenstaff, 2005; Britner, 2008; Hall, Dickerson, Batts, Kauffmann, & Bosse, 2011).
Understanding perceptions of self-efficacy after experiencing an intervention was the goal of this
study. Specifically, the study examined females’ self-efficacy perceptions after experiencing a
single-gender science classroom within a co-ed school setting. Three research questions drove
the study. Two questions sought to understand how the females describe both their single-gender
science classroom experience and their experience in returning to a co-ed science classroom. The
third question explored their perceptions of self-efficacy after experiencing the intervention.
A qualitative study was conducted via interviews of high school senior females who had
experienced single-gender classrooms in their freshman and sophomore years and returned to co-
ed science classrooms in their junior and now senior years. Observations of both single-gender
and co-ed science classrooms were also conducted. This chapter summarizes the findings of this
study, the implications for practice, and future research recommendations.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

69
Summary of Findings
Grounded in Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, the study examined the classroom
experiences of the high school female participants. The classroom experience affects the four
sources of self-efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and
physiological arousal. The study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their experience in a single-
gender science classroom?
2. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their return to a co-ed high
school science classroom after experiencing single-gender science classrooms?
3. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females perceive their science self-efficacy
after experiencing single-gender high school science classrooms?
Research Question One
The findings for the first research question showed that females described their single-
gender science classroom experience positively. The participants described feeling comfortable,
feeling acceptance, feeling no judgment, feeling supported, and participating more in class.
Slight negative experiences related to the idea that perhaps the females were missing out on other
learning styles and experiences. These findings are in alignment with the Hoffman, et al. (2008)
study that observed that females in single-gender instruction classrooms engaged in more
academic risk-taking and participated more than females in co-ed settings. Females in single-
gender instruction classrooms worked together, were actively engaged in classroom discussions,
encouraged each other, and asked and answered questions more often (Hoffman et al., 2008).
The positive results are also in line with what Baker (2002) found in a study that
examined achievement, affect, peer interactions, and teacher-student interactions. Girls’ feelings
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

70
of empowerment, peer support, and positive self-concept were attributed to single-gender
instruction. Baker also found that girls were helpful to one another in understanding and
completing group work and they worked well in cooperative groups. The girls in Baker’s study
also preferred their all-female classes due to the supportive nature of them. The alignment of
findings offers some proof that single-gender instruction has some sociological and
psychological benefits. These positive feelings help to influence Bandura’s four sources of self-
efficacy of mastery experiences, social persuasion, vicarious experiences, and physiological
arousal.
In women, it was found that social persuasions and vicarious experiences were the
primary sources of their self-efficacy beliefs (Zeldin, Britner, & Pajares, 2008). These positive
classroom experiences are critical to supporting those sources of self-efficacy. Increasing girls’
self-efficacy helps them to persevere and be resilient in pursuing careers in science-related fields
(Zeldin & Pajares, 2000). While the students in this study did not have science career aspirations,
they did have the desire to do well in their science classes before graduating and the single-
gender science classroom experience helped to support them to that result.
Research Question Two
The findings of the second research question showed mixed results. Some of the females
claimed to maintain their confidence in the co-ed classroom and others felt their confidence
declined when back in the co-ed science classroom. There were discussions of competitiveness,
faster pace, distractions, and feelings of being judged by the males in the class. Less teacher
support was also cited as a problem when back in the co-ed classes. This was also noted in the
observations. Again, there is alignment with the Hoffman et al. (2008) study that found that girls
in co-ed classes interacted with teachers less than boys and were often ignored when they tried.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

71
Baker (2002) also found that girls reported losing the feeling of support and leadership
opportunities when boys were in the class. It has also been shown that females are strongly
influenced by concerns with being perceived as competent and with feelings of anxiety (Britner,
2008). These negative feelings also influence Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy, especially
physiological arousal, vicarious experiences, and social persuasion.
Research Question Three
The findings for the third research question were determined through asking the
participants to score themselves on science ability and science confidence while in the single-
gender classroom and while in the co-ed classroom. As noted in the Results chapter above, most
of them scored their confidence levels as higher when in the single-gender classroom versus
when in the co-ed classroom. For single-gender classroom instruction to be a successful
intervention the hope would be for the confidence to be maintained when returning to a co-ed
situation; unfortunately, this was not the case. Feelings of judgment and lack of support from
peers and teachers returned to affect the students negatively. It should be noted, though, that all
the females agreed that they had the ability to earn an “A” grade in science, so there is still an
overall perceived self-efficacy to be successful in the class. Britner (2008) found that Bandura’s
four sources of self-efficacy correlated with science self-efficacy and correlated with each other.
It is logical for the self-efficacy ratings to go down if the female students are feeling negative
aspects of co-ed classrooms.
Overall, the single-gender classroom instruction was a positive experience for these
females, but it did not provide long-lasting effects. Given the benefits, this type of intervention
can be considered in determining possible interventions at other school campuses. It could
potentially be useful as another approach to alleviating the STEM gender gap. The study adds to
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

72
the limited literature on the outcomes of single-gender classroom instruction and adds a level of
rich and thick qualitative description that is currently lacking in the research.
The data obtained in this study is beneficial to the school administration in regards to the
results of the program and whether or not the program should continue and be expanded.
Teachers and parents will also be interested to know the results of this study to help them feel
confident in their pedagogy and their school choice. Taking these broad results into account, the
next section will discuss the implications for practice.
Implications for Practice
This study examined the experience of high school females who had single-gender math
and science classrooms in their freshman and sophomore years and then returned to co-ed math
and science classrooms in their junior and senior years. Using Bandura’s four sources of self-
efficacy as a way to frame their experiences, the study aligned with some previous findings about
the social and emotional benefits of a single-gender classroom environment (Baker, 2002;
Britner, 2008; Hoffman, 2008). Interventions with positive outcomes are needed in order to help
support and encourage females entering STEM college majors and careers in the future.
Four implications for future practice, specifically at this school site, are recommended:
1. Extend the single-gender science classroom program to all four years of high school
science.
2. Provide professional development that focuses on offering support and recognizing
the different needs of females in the classroom.
3. Add curriculum to all single-gender classrooms providing guidance on how peers
should interact with each other in the classroom.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

73
4. Offer additional support programs for females outside of school hours such as after-
school peer groups.
The study participants spoke so positively about the single-gender classroom, but the
experience did not seem to have long-lasting effects. Offering the experience for a longer period
of time may help to solidify the confidence they gain. With additional years of classroom
support, the female students will build the four sources of self-efficacy with positive social
persuasion and vicarious experiences. Considering that most of the participants said they would
prefer a single-gender classroom it is a logical step to extend the program through the senior
year. This particular school site has indicated that it is not large enough to offer the single-gender
program for all four years, but it would be in the best interest of the female students to explore
creative solutions to extend the program.
The second recommendation is to provide professional development for all teachers that
focuses on ways to support females in the classroom. The female participants highlighted some
issues that can be addressed in the co-ed classroom as well. These issues include the pacing of
the class and the lower desire of females to participate in the co-ed classroom. The female
interviewees felt that the pacing of the co-ed classes was faster, and that due to the feeling of
being judged, they could not ask for it to be slowed down. If teachers are taught to recognize this
issue, they can ask pointed questions to find out if all the students are keeping up with the
content throughout the class. Additionally, they can encourage the females to participate more if
they are both aware of this problem and versed in attending to it.
The third recommendation is to add curriculum to all the single-gender classrooms, both
male and female classes, that offers guidance on ways peers should interact with each other. This
curriculum could include modeling behavior to show students how to work together and support
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

74
each other. Given the negative feedback from the interviewees about their experiences in the co-
ed classroom, this type of curriculum can be very beneficial to all students.
Finally, additional support programs could be offered outside of school hours for females
to reinforce the single-gender experience. Similar to the extension of the program to all four
years of high school, this additional time in single-gender environments may be helpful to
reinforce and lengthen the increased self-efficacy and confidence. This could also be an option in
the case that extending the program is not possible.
Recommendations for Research
While there is an overwhelming amount of research on the causes and interventions of
the STEM gender gap, the data on single-gender classrooms in a co-ed environment is not as
extensive. This study added qualitative data, from the student perspective, to the existing studies.
The plethora of research on interventions for females persisting in STEM-related majors and
careers is still not enough. While single-gender classroom instruction shows promise in offering
positive sources of self-efficacy to high school females, additional research is needed.
In the case of this specific school site, there are a number of future studies that could be
undertaken. The school site ultimately wants to know if it should continue the single-gender
instructional program and even expand it, if possible. It wants to know if the program is
successful. Success can manifest itself in many different ways. Success could be defined as
better grades, deeper classroom engagement, females persisting into STEM majors in college,
females persisting into STEM careers, and much more. The school site can undertake research to
examine any of these definitions of success. First, this study had a small number of respondents,
so including a larger number of respondents would offer a deeper look at the program. Second, a
more comprehensive mixed methods study could be undertaken to collect quantitative and
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

75
qualitative data on the factors affecting the STEM gender gap and the four sources of self-
efficacy. This data could be correlated to student learning outcomes, grades, and interest levels
of persisting in STEM majors and careers in the future. This study would be similar to the
Hoffman, et al. (2008) study, but would include interviews with students as well as teachers.
Third, a longitudinal study could be undertaken to collect data over a longer period of time with
those females who participated in the single-gender classrooms and who expressed an interest to
persist in STEM majors and careers to track the levels and factors of persistence. Fourth, a study
on gender bias in the classroom could also be done looking at similarities and differences in how
male and female teachers treat male and female students. Fifth, each of Bandura’s sources of
efficacy could be examined together or separately as well as correlated to other factors such as
grades and learning outcomes. All of these types of research could also be conducted from the
male perspective to examine the advantages and disadvantages of single-gender classrooms for
them as well. These recommendations can offer insights into the program specifically at this
school site and can also contribute to the larger library of research that exists on single-gender
instruction.
Conclusions
This study examined a high school math and science single-gender classroom program
within a co-educational setting. This is one of many interventions that have been used to try to
close the STEM gender gap. It is important to close this gap not only to heighten the United
States as an innovative and competitive country, but also to address the inequalities between men
and women. Researching and collecting data on the reasons for the gap as well as interventions
to help close the gap will continue to be important for teachers, educational institutions, and for
the government to understand ways education can be evolved to support all students as best it
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

76
can. The U.S. workforce is in need of more STEM workers and the recommended research can
help continue to find solutions to this problem.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

77
References
Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Balancing acts:
Elementary school girls' negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science
Education, 96(6), 967-989.
Aschbacher, P. R., Ing, M., & Tsai, S. M. (2014). Is science me? Exploring middle school
students’ STEM career aspirations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6),
735-743.
Baker, D. (2002). Good intentions: An experiment in middle school single-sex science and
mathematics classrooms with high minority enrollment. Journal of Women and Minorities
in Science and Engineering, 8, 1–23.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V. & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as
shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187–
206.
Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011).
Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration
Issue Brief 04–11. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.
Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. (2005). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 174-181.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

78
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender
and Education, 17(4), 369–386.
Britner, S. L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender
differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(8), 955-970.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle
school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(4).
Britner, S. L. & Pajares, F., (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499.
Brown, C.S., & Leaper, C. (2010). Latina and European American girls’ experiences with
academic sexism and their self-concepts in mathematics and science during adolescence.
Sex Roles, 63(11), 860-870.
Cantrell, P., & Ewing‐Taylor, J. (2009). Exploring STEM career options through collaborative
high school seminars. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 295-303
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The
contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A
longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 78-96.
Charleston, L., Adserias, R. P., Lang, N. M., & Jackson, J. F. (2014). Intersectionality and
STEM: The role of race and gender in the academic pursuits of African American women
in STEM. Journal of Progressive Policy & Practice, 2(3), 273-293.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

79
Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2005). Assessing elementary
school students’ conceptions of engineering and technology. American Society of
Engineering Education, Portland, OR.
Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., &
Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career
interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 63-79.
Dee, T. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human
Resources, 42(3), 528-554.
DiPrete, T. A., & Jennings, J. L. (2012). Social and behavioral skills and the gender gap in early
educational achievement. Social Science Research, 41(1), 1-15.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in
self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98, 198–208.
Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and
achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
37(3), 293-309.
Entwisle, D.R., Alexander, K.L. & Oson, L.S. (2005). First grade and educational attainment by
age 22: A new story.” American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1458–1502.
Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender and grade level differences in science interest and participation.
Science Education, 81(3), 259-276.
Hall, C., Dickerson, J., Batts, D., Kauffmann, P., & Bosse, M. (2011). Are we missing
opportunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? Journal of Technology Education,
23(1).
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

80
Heilbronner, N. (2013). The STEM pathway for women: What has changed? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 57(1), 39-55.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women. 1111
Sixteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Hoffman, B., Badgett, B., & Parker, R. (2008). The effect of single-sex instruction in a large,
urban, at-risk high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 15-35.
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1-35.
Huguet, P., & Régner, I. (2007). Stereotype threat among school girls in quasi-ordinary
classroom circumstances. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 545–560.
DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.545
Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender
similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494-495.
Kanny, M. A., Sax, L. J., & Riggers-Piehl, T. A. (2014). Investigating forty years of STEM
research: How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time. Journal of Women
and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2).
Kelly, K., Dampier, D., & Carr, K. (2013). Willing, able, and unwanted: High school girls’
potential selves in computing. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 19(1), 67–85.
Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and cognitive factors as aptitude resources in high school
science achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 123-137.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

81
Lachapelle, C. P., Phadnis, P., Hertel, J., & Cunningham, C. M. (2012). What is engineering? A
survey of elementary students. 2nd P-12 Engineering and Design Education Research
Summit, Washington, DC.
Leaper, C. & Brown, C. (2008). Perceived experiences with sexism among adolescent girls.
Child Development, 79(3), 685 – 704
Louis, R. A., & Mistele, J. M. (2012). The differences in scores and self-efficacy by student
gender in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 10(5), 1163-1190.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype
consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74(2), 498-515.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, P., Blessing, J. & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high school students’ views
about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363-381.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). National assessment of educational progress
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of educational statistics
2009.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2017).
Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2017.
Special Report NSF 17-310. Arlington, VA. Available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

82
NSB. 2014. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: Natl. Cent. Sci. Eng. Stat.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/
O'Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., & Hammer, E. (2015). Ethnic variation in
gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 169.
Pahlke, E., Hyde, J., & Allison, C. (2014). The effects of single-sex compared with
coeducational schooling on students’ performance and attitudes: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1042–1072.
Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. M. Gallagher &
J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological
approach, (pp. 294–315). Boston: Cambridge University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry a personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.
Plant, E. A., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2009). Changing middle
school students’ attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based
social models. Computers and Education, 53(2), 209–15.
Quinn, D. M., & Cooc, N. (2015). Science achievement gaps by gender and race/ethnicity in
elementary and middle school: Trends and predictors. Educational Researcher, 44(6), 336-
346.
Ready, D.D., LoGerfo, L.F. Brukam, D.T., & Lee, V.E. (2005). Explaining girls’ advantage in
kindergarten literacy learning: Do classroom behaviors make a difference? The Elementary
School Journal 106, 21–38.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

83
Riegle-Crumb, C. & Humphries, M. (2012). Exploring bias in math teachers’ perceptions of
students’ ability by gender and race/ethnicity. Gender & Society, (26)2, 290-322.
Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., Grodsky, E. & Muller, C. (2012). The more things change, the more
they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into
STEM college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1048-
1073.
Riegle-Crumb C., Moore C., & Ramos-Wada A. (2011) Who wants to have a career in science or
math? Exploring adolescents' future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science
Education, 95, 458–76
Rutter, M., Caspi, A., Fergusson, D., Horwood, L.J., Goodman, R., Maughan, B., Moffitt, T.E.,
Meltzer, H., & Carroll, J. (2004). Sex differences in developmental reading disability new
findings from 4 epidemiological studies. Journal of the American Medical Association,
291, 2007–2012.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career
interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411-427.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working
memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440.
Shapiro, M., Grossman, D., Carter, S., Martin, K., Deyton, P., & Hammer, D. (2015). Middle
school girls and the “Leaky Pipeline” to leadership: An examination of how socialized
gendered roles influences the college and career aspirations of girls is shared as well as the
role of middle level professionals in disrupting the influence of social gendered messages
and stigmas. Middle School Journal, 46(5), 3-13.
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

84
Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’
and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3-4), 175-183.
Shapka, J. & Keating, D. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescence:
Performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 929-960.
Shaw, E. J., & Barbuti, S. (2010). Patterns of persistence in intended college major with a focus
on STEM majors. NACADA Journal, 30(2), 19-34.
Spear, M. G. (1984). The biasing influence of pupil sex in a science marking exercise. Research
in Science & Technological Education, 2(1), 55-60.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613.
Stoeger, H., Duan, X., Schirner, S., Greindl, T., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-
year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408-418.
U.S. Department of Education (2012). Gender equity in education: A data snapshot. Civil Rights
Data Collection
Usher, E. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematics: A
qualitative investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 275-314.
Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174.
Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using
expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

85
fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304-340.
Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology, 41,
331-357.
Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L. & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs
of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058.
Zeldin, A.L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in
mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research
Journal, 37, 215–246.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

86
Appendix A
IRB Approval Letter

University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board
3720 South Flower Street Credit Union Building (CUB) #301
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702
Phone: 213-821-5272
Fax: 213-821-5276
upirb@usc.edu
Date: Sep 26, 2017, 11:51am
Action Taken: Approve
Principal
Investigator:
Sunita Sabharwal Sinor
ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Faculty
Advisor:
Patricia Tobey
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
Co-
Investigator(s):

Project Title: SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY
Study ID: UP-17-00609
Funding
Types:
No Funding

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee determined that your project
qualifies for exemption from IRB review under the USC Human Research Protection Program
Flexibility Policy. The study was approved on 09/26/2017 and is not subject to 45 CFR 46
regulations, including informed consent requirements or further IRB review.

If there are modifications that increase risk to subjects or if the funding status of this
research is to change, you are required to submit an amendment to the IRB for review and
approval.

Study personnel are reminded to obtain site permission and any applicable ethics board
review from the participating sites prior to beginning study procedures.
Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register with
clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The ICMJE will not accept
studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to enrollment, despite the fact that
these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as defined by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). For support with registration, go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan
(jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-2825).
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

87
Appendix B
Interview Protocol for Students

Research Questions:
1. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females perceive their science self-
efficacy after experiencing single-gender high school science classrooms?
2. How do high school minority (Black and Latina) females describe their return to a co-ed
high school science classroom after experiencing single-gender science classrooms?

Interventions to solve the STEM gender gap
You are invited to participate in a dissertation research study conducted by Sunita Sinor, a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California. This study is being conducted as part
of the dissertation process. Your participation is completely voluntary. All responses are
confidential.

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to examine an intervention being used to solve the STEM gender
gap, specifically, the single-gender science classes at St. Bernard.

Introduction
Hi – nice to meet you! My name is Sunita Sinor and I’m a doctoral student at USC studying
education. This research is being conducted to fulfill the requirements of the dissertation process.
I’ve been very interested in the gender gap in STEM and have written some papers on the topic.
This is completely voluntary, feel free to ask any questions, and the interview should take no
more than an hour.

Interview Questions
1. What brought you to St. Bernard High School?
2. Did you/your family know about the single-gender math and science program? Was it a
factor in your family’s decision to attend this school?
3. Where did you go to middle school?
4. Tell me a little bit about your family – parents, siblings
5. Tell me about yourself
a. Personality
b. Hobbies
c. Friends
d. People you admire
6. How would you describe yourself as a student?
a. Best subject and why?
b. Favorite subject and why?
c. Weakest subject and why?
d. Least favorite subject and why?
e. Grades?
7. Now, let’s turn to science. How would you describe yourself as a science student?
SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

88
8. If you were asked to rate your ability in science on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest),
where would you be? Why?
9. What do you like to do related to science outside of school? [relates to mastery
experiences]
10. Tell me about any science projects/experiences you’ve had
11. Tell me about the all girl science classes you took a couple years ago
12. Tell me about the science class you are in now
13. How would you describe what it was like in the all girls classes versus the co-ed classes
now?
14. What did you like/dislike about being in an all girls class?
15. How did you feel about science in the all girls classes?
16. What was your level of confidence in science when you were in an all girls class? (scale
of 1 to 10)
17. What do you like/dislike about being in a co-ed class?
18. How do you feel about science in the co-ed class?
19. What is your level of confidence in science now? (scale of 1 to 10)
20. How would you say you compare to the rest of your classmates in your science abilities?
How about the rest of the students in your grade?
21. Under what conditions do you perform well in science? Under what conditions do you
perform less well? Why?
22. Tell me about your family and science. [vicarious experience]
a. What do members of your family do that involves science?
b. What do your parents tell you about science?
c. How are your siblings in science?
d. What would your parents tell your teachers about you as a science student?
23. Tell me about your friends (not necessarily classmates) and science. [social persuasion]
a. Describe how most of your friends do in science.
b. What do your friends say about science? What do they say about those who do
well?
c. How do you think your friends would describe you in science?
24. How does science make you feel? I know it’s a strange question, and you may not have
thought about it before. When you are given a science test, how does that make you feel?
How do you feel when you are given a science assignment?
25. Earlier you rated your science confidence on a scale of 1 to 10. Why? What could make
you feel more confident about yourself in science?
26. Agree or Disagree:
a. Science is easy for me
b. I learn new ideas in science quickly
c. I’m capable of earning an A in science
27. Is it important to you to continue taking science classes?
28. Is it important to your parents that you continue taking science classes?
29. If you could choose to have an all girls class or co-ed class, which would you choose and
why?

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

89
Appendix C
Observation Protocol for the Science Classroom

Science Subject: _____________________________

Date of Observation: __________________________

Time of Observation: __________________________

Description of the Classroom:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Field Notes:

Classroom Experience Researcher’s Reflections

# of times females speak in class:

# of times males speak in class:

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

90
Appendix D
Informed Consent

University of Southern California
USC Rossier School of Education

1. YOUTH ASSENT-PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
This form will also serve as the “Youth Assent” and “Consent/Permission form for the
Youth to Participate in Research.” In this case, “You” refers to “your child.”

Study of Single-Gender High School Science Classes

Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Sunita Sinor, a doctoral
student under the advisement of Dr. Patricia Tobey, from the University of Southern
California. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything you do not understand before deciding whether to participate.

Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will also be asked
his/her permission. Your child can decline to participate, even if you agree to allow participation.
You and/or your child may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you and/or
your child decide to participate, you will both be asked to sign this form. You will be given a
copy of this form. All responses are confidential.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a single-gender science classroom program
and also the return to a co-ed science classroom as an intervention to help solve the STEM
gender gap.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to answer a series of interview questions to last
approximately 45-60 minutes. These interviews may take place during the school day or after
school hours on the school campus. For ease of data analysis, interviews will be audio recorded.
If necessary, the researcher may need to do a follow-up interview if clarity is needed. This will
be on a case-by-case basis.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks or discomforts to your participation.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no anticipated benefits to your participation. We hope that this study will help
researchers learn more about single-gender education. This research may help advance
knowledge in the field; however there is no direct benefit to you for participating in this study.

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

91
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. The data will be
stored on a password-protected computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Sunita Sinor
at ssinor@usc.edu or 408-786-6534.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

2. SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT (If the participant is 14 years or
older)

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

92
SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)/LEGALLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to allow my child participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO
□ I agree to be audio-recorded

□ I do not want to be audio-recorded

Name of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative (1)

Signature of Parent/Legally Authorized Representative (1) Date

3. SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s)/Legally Authorized
Representative, and answered all of their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

SINGLE-GENDER SCIENCE CLASSROOMS & SELF-EFFICACY

93
Appendix E
Qualitative Codesheet

SINGLE-GENDER CLASSROOM
Comfort
Comfort.acceptance
Comfort.judging
Comfort.looks
Comfort.creative

Confidence
Confidence. Participation

Making Friends
Making Friends.Community

Support.Peers
Support.Teacher
Support.Pace

Negative.Learning Style
Negative.Perspective

CO-ED CLASSROOM
Positive.Maintained confidence
Negative.Judgment
Negative.Lack of confidence
Negative.Distraction

PERCEPTIONS OF SELF-EFFICACY
Science ability scores
Science confidence scores in single-gender
Science confidence scores in co-ed

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

Examining the impact of continuation high schools on students' self-efficacy

PDF

Women in STEM: self-efficacy and its contributors in women in engineering within community college

PDF

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

Using mastery learning to address gender inequities in the self-efficacy of high school students in math-intensive STEM subjects: an evaluation study

PDF

Latinas’ self-efficacy in computer science and potential factors undergirding their perspective

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates

PDF

Women of color: self-efficacy and sustainability as administrators in education

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...

PDF

Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school

PDF

The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

Struggles build character: the impact of developmental math and the psychological, social and cultural factors that influence Latino males' persistence in STEM

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

PDF

Women, gaming and STEM majors: interest and motivation

Asset Metadata

Creator Sinor, Sunita Sabharwal (author)

Core Title High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/15/2018

Defense Date 07/11/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag gender gap,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-efficacy,single-gender classroom,STEM,stereotype threat

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Crispen, Patrick (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email ssinor@usc.edu,sunitasinor@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-89059

Unique identifier UC11676903

Identifier etd-SinorSunit-6825.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-89059 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SinorSunit-6825.pdf

Dmrecord 89059

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sinor, Sunita Sabharwal

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA