EVALUATING HOMOGENEOUS VS. HETEROGENEOUS GROUPINGS IN A
K-12 SETTING: DO SAME-SEX CLASSROOMS AFFECT END-OF-GRADE
EXAMS?
by
Matthew J. Slota
JACKSON “SKOT” BEAZLEY, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
IRENE SINGLETARY, Ph.D., Committee Member
LINDA DUNLAP, Ph.D., Committee Member
Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
August 2011
© Matthew Slota, 2011
Abstract
In education today, there have been several deliberations regarding student
success and achievement. Among these serious discussions regarding student success
research has found itself discussing which allows students to achieve at a higher level,
homogeneous classrooms or heterogeneous classrooms? Which works best for student
growth and achievement? Throughout time schooling has evolved and has gone from
homogeneous classrooms to heterogeneous classrooms and it once again considering
homogeneous classrooms. According to research, there are positives and negatives to
shifting back toward homogeneous classrooms. There are a number of public schools that
offer single-gender classes, although with the potential violations of gender-bias
legislation, if boys and girls are not provided with an equal educational experience.
The research design that was used in this study was a non-experimental case study
that examines the relationship between the dependent variable, student achievement in
math, and the independent variable, the type of classroom, homogeneous or
heterogeneous. The instrument that was used to measure student achievement is the
North Carolina End-of-Grade Exam, a customized, criterion-referenced test aligned with
the North Carolina Standard Course of Study. It was designed specifically for North
Carolina students in grades three through eight. The purpose of the North Carolina Endof-Grade score is for students to demonstrate their ability in mathematics,
reading/language arts, and science, in North Carolina. For the purpose of this study, the
mathematics scale scores were used (North Carolina Department of Instruction, 2009).
i
After analyzing the data from the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination it was
concluded that there is not a significant difference in student achievement when
comparing both the students in the homogeneous classrooms to the students in the
heterogeneous classroom. When observing the achievement levels from the North
Carolina End-of-Grade results, it was difficult to determine if there were areas in which
the students did and did not improve. With just comparing data from one year, the
difficulty was measuring how much these students grew. Just based on achievement level
of students in the fifth grade, the achievement level was lower than the state of North
Carolina’s expectation for students in the fifth grade.
ii
Dedication
I want to dedicate my dissertation to my family and friends. Thanks to my mom and dad, Debbie
and John Slota, who constantly reminded me that I should continue my education and to make a
difference in the lives of the people I teach and work with. Thank you to my brother Andrew and
my sister Brandi for the constant reminders and help throughout this process. I would also like to
thank my fantastic wife Dana. I am very thankful that you were so flexible, understanding, and
supportive during this entire process. Thank You and I Love You!! And my son Nathan, I love
you and wish you the best in all you do!!
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge and thank my professors who helped me through the entire
experience. Thank you for your giving me your precious time and expertise during this entire
process. It is greatly appreciated.
Dr. Dunlap, thank you for the excitement you’ve given to me during our conversations
and discussions on all topics. Thank you for always being available and keeping me motivated to
complete this project. You’re not only a friend, but a role model.
Thank you to Dr. Beazley for being supportive and keeping me on track throughout. A
fantastic leader and mentor that believed I could finish this idea and would not let me doubt
myself when I thought I wouldn’t or couldn’t complete the process.
Thank you to Dr. Singletary for your help, comments, and suggestions during this
process.
I would like to acknowledge and thank my friends, administrators, teachers, and students
who made this research possible. Without you, this would not have been possible.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
iv
List of Tables
vii
List of Figures
viii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
1
Background of the Study
6
Statement of the Problem
14
Purpose of the Study
15
Research Questions
15
Significance of the Study
15
Definition of Terms
16
Assumptions
20
Limitations
20
Nature of the Study
20
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
21
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
22
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
43
Statement of the Problem
44
Research Questions
44
Research Methodology
44
v
Research Design
45
Population and Sampling Procedures
48
Instrumentation
50
Validity
51
Reliability
51
Data Collection Procedures
52
Ethical Considerations
52
Limitations
53
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
54
Descriptive Data
54
Data Analysis
55
Research Questions and Results
57
Mathematics Results
58
Summary
81
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
90
Summary of the Study
91
Recommendations
92
Implications
94
REFERENCES.
95
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. North Carolina EOG results in traditional classes
80
Table 2. North Carolina EOG results in homogeneous classes
87
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Combined number of student’s
48
Figure 1.2 Number of students in fifth grade
58
Figure 1.3Percentage of students in fifth grade
58
Figure 1.4 Fifth grade students in homogenous classes
59
Figure 1.5 Percentage of fifth grade students in homogenous classes
60
Figure 1.6 Number of fifth grade male students in traditional classes
62
Figure 1.7 Percentage of fifth grade students in traditional classes
62
Figure 1.8 Number of female students achievement levels in traditional classes
64
Figure 1.9 Percentage of female achievement levels in traditional classes
64
Figure 1.10 Male and female student’s achievement levels in traditional classes
64
Figure 1.11 Number of students in fifth grade
64
Figure 1.12 Percentage of male and female student’s achievement in
traditional classes
58
Figure 1.13Percentage of male students in homogeneous classes
58
Figure 1.14 Number of female student achievement level in homogeneous classes
59
Figure 1.15 Percentage of female student achievement level in homogenous classes
60
Figure 1.16 Male and female student achievement levels in homogeneous classes
62
Figure 1.17 Percentage of male and female student achievement levels
in homogeneous classes
58
Figure 1.18 Male students in heterogeneous
59
Figure 1.19 Percentage of male students heterogeneous
60
Figure 1.20 Male and female student’s achievement levels homo and hetero
62
viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
In the United States, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was designed to
eliminate sex discrimination in public schools (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Title IX reads, “A
recipient shall not provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education programs or
activity separately on the basis of sex,” (Streitmatter, 1999). Private schools were not held to
Title IX. Private schools could choose not to receive government funding, and, they would not
have to uphold Title IX, which explained why most of the research done on single-sex schools
had taken place in the private school setting.
Title IX does made allowances for single-sex classes in public schooling under some
circumstances. If a course offered in public school involved physical contact such as in physical
education classes or discussed human sexuality in any way, single-sex classes were permissible
(Department of Education, 1972).
Title IX defines remedial action as, “if a recipient has discriminated against a person on
the basis of sex in an educational program or activity, such recipient shall take such remedial
action as the Assistant Secretary deems necessary to overcome the effects of discrimination.”
Title IX went on to define affirmative action as, “a recipient may take affirmative action to
overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation of a particular sex,”
(AAUW, 2002). These allowances opened the door to single-sex schools or homogeneous
classes in the public school.
The concept of homogeneous education received an important boost in 2002, when
President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107-110),
1
which overturned a 1972 law that made coeducation in public schools mandatory. The No Child
Left Behind Act not only provided parents a broader choice of schools, but also gave school
districts an incentive to experiment with single-sex education with federal funding.
According to Dr. Leonard Sax (2008), 366 public schools in the United States offered
either homogeneous classrooms or entirely gender separated schools as of November 2007. That
number of schools was up from four in 1998.
With encouragement from the federal government, single-sex classes that have long been
a hallmark of private schools continued to multiply in public schools. By fall of 2009, about 500
public schools nationwide offered single-sex classes, according to the National Association for
Single-Sex Public Education. The approach was especially attractive to some struggling schools
in the market for low-cost reform.
Researching homogeneous classrooms versus heterogeneous classrooms provided
educators with information to add to the existing body of knowledge concerning homogeneous
groupings and how this instructional setting benefited future students in all schools, private and
public, especially in mathematics.
There were several researchers who felt that single-sex schools and homogeneous
instruction were good for both boys and girls and their education (Sadker & Sadker, 1994;
Tschumy, 1995; AAUW, 1996). According to these proponents, in single gender schools, girls’
self-esteem increased. Girls became more interested in nontraditional subjects like mathematics;
they were less likely to stereotype jobs and careers, and they became more intellectually curious
and serious about their studies. Together these caused boys to achieve more than girls in
coeducational institutions (Sadker & Sadker 1994).
2
Historical Background
According to research conducted by Sharpe (2000), homogeneous classrooms have been
utilized as an effective instructional setting continuously since the early 1700’s. Homogeneous
classrooms consisted of either male or female students and heterogeneous classrooms consisted
of both male and female students. Instruction has evolved since the times mentioned. Education
has gone from homogeneous instruction to heterogeneous instruction and now, there was
discussion about the return (Sharpe, 2000).
Research has shown that there are both positives and negatives to homogeneous and
heterogeneous classes. A homogeneous classroom placed students of similar abilities into one
classroom, although there could have been a range of abilities in the homogenous classroom.
One positive of the grouping of homogenous students in a classroom was when the homogeneous
class was composed of gifted students it allowed the instructors to cover the necessary
information at a faster pace. The homogenous grouping allowed these high achieving students
the setting to excel and raised their academic achievement. Teaching a group of students with
similar abilities allowed instructors to adjust the pace of instruction to best reach students' needs.
A teacher would instruct at a slower pace which provided more repetition and reinforcement with
a group of low achieving students than they would have with a group of high achievers.
One negative of the homogeneous classrooms was the groupings did not allow the lower
achieving students to experience the success like the higher performing students because the
material was constantly being drilled instead of applied through project based learning. The pace
of the class slowed down and the lower achieving students felt defeated.
3
A heterogeneous classroom was a type of distribution of students among various
classrooms of a certain grade within a school. In the heterogeneous classroom, children of
approximately the same age were placed in different classrooms in order to create a relatively
even distribution of students of different abilities.
One positive for the heterogeneous grouping was the grouping across all achievement
levels. The lower achieving students had the opportunity to work with the higher achieving
students and learned from them as well as being taught from the instructor.
One challenge that surfaced with the homogeneous group was that the higher-achieving
students did not show as much growth as anticipated on the standardized tests. The teacher in
this setting must be creative in relooping the lower-achieving students as well as extending the
curriculum for those achieving at higher levels.
According to Cooper et al. (1990), the research suggested that isolating women can in
fact be detrimental to the academic success of these individuals because they became
marginalized, or placed in stereotypical roles and not permitted to flourish. Cooper states (1990),
“They caution that even though small "collaborative" learning groups are formed, basic issues of
power and dominance within these groups may still exist. For instance, given the roles of
recorder and presenter in a group, will women tend to be "driven" into the less demanding role of
recorder?” (Cooper, 1990) Likewise, would an African-American student in a group with four
Caucasian students have felt more comfortable had he or she been placed in a group with two
other African-American students and two Caucasian students? In so doing, does this now create
wholly Caucasian groups with minimal diversity? These are difficult questions to confront when
grouping students. Instructors may feel uncomfortable if they "isolate" ethnic groups even
4
though these groups may flourish more because they have a common component: ethnicity.
There is no clear way to maximize group diversity and prevent individual isolation. A commonsense compromise would be to cluster at least two women or two students of common ethnicity
in each group. Though this does not maximize diversity, it still permits some diversity while
attempting to prevent the spotlighting of these individuals in the groups.” In a homogeneous
classroom, there were some who agreed and or disagreed on why students in homogeneous
classrooms would or would have outperformed students in heterogeneous classrooms. The key
concept in being successful in one classroom compared to the other was the demographics and
design of each learning environment. Sharpe (2000) stated that males and/or females in
homogenous classrooms performed better then heterogeneous classes because the students felt
more comfortable in a class with the same sex, and they did not have to impress one another. The
district had compared cumulative grade point averages (GPAs) to current GPAs for all students
who attended Jefferson Leadership Academies. According to Sharpe (2000), the grade point
averages for students who had previously attended Jefferson in either grade 6 or 7 increased for
all students, male and female, in both grades 7 and 8 under the homogeneous academy
configuration. Sharpe (2000) also stated the increase was statistically significant for both genders
at grade 7 and for males at grade 8.
According to Fraser, (2001) the first education-related legislation passed the
Massachusetts legislature in 1642. It required that the head of every household teach every child
in that household. In 1647 more detailed legislation also required the creation of schools. Neither
of the laws required students to attend the school. Instead, parents were expected to ensure that
their children would learn, and the community had to ensure that schools were available. Fraser
5
(2001) stated that the schools did not have to be the vehicle of learning and for many they were
not, especially for many girls. Girls were taught at home. Spring (2005) pointed out that many
parents were educating their daughters at home while their sons attended school. Spring found
that in some cases, girls were smuggled into schoolhouses to learn before school, after school,
and during the boys’ lunches.
Background of Study
Colonial Education for Boys and Girls in the United States
The primary education of upper class children in colonial days (1492-1763) included
reading, writing, simple mathematics, poetry, and prayers. In the 1640’s several laws were
passed that forced towns that had 50 or more families to have a teacher who taught reading and
writing.
Some felt that the Law of 1642 did not go far enough to assure that children receive a
proper education; therefore in 1647 a new law was passed, which came to be known as the Old
Deluder Satan Act.
The Old Deluder Satan Act was passed in Massachusetts in 1647. It was a follow-up to
the Parental Neglect Law of 1642. The Parental Neglect Law of 1642 charged parents or the
masters of children who were apprenticed to ensure that the children knew both the principles of
religion and the most critical the capital laws of the Commonwealth.
According to Spring (2005) The Old Deluder Satan Act was one of America's first
education acts. It required that all towns of 50 or more families provide an elementary school,
where teachers were required to teach, not only reading and writing, but the bible as well. Towns
6
that had 100 or more families were required to have grammar schools. This was a school where
students focused mostly on Latin and Greek (p. 14). The puritans believed that if their children
read and studied the Bible enough, then they would be able to resist evil temptations, and avoid
sinners. This act was a way for the local community to ensure that education was passed from
one generation to the next. Puritans, also, wanted to avoid having a generation of poor and
unintelligent people, and in order to keep that from happening, they made sure that every citizen
got enough education to read so that they could understand the laws and read the bible. Life in
the 1600's was based on religion and their laws came from the Bible. (Spring, 2005, p. 14)
Paper and textbooks were scarce so boys and girls recited their lessons until they
memorized them. The three most commonly used books were the Bible, a primer, which was
used to teach students to read, and a hornbook, which was a leaf or page containing the alphabet
and religious materials, covered with a sheet of transparent horn and fixed in a frame with a
handle, formerly used in teaching children to read.
Stock (2006) stated: As children grew older, their schooling was designed to prepare
them for their eventual roles in plantation life. While boys studied more advanced
academic subjects, the girls learned to assume the duties of the mistress of a
plantation. Education was provided for white students only and was privately taught
(Education for boys and girls section, para. 1).
Farmers taught the basics to their sons at home. A typical school day for the male
students started at around 7 a.m. with their tutor, who was a male. The male students studied a
more rigorous curriculum such as Greek, Latin, history, geography, higher mathematics,
plantation management, and much more. If the students’ parents were wealthy, they were often
7
sent to boarding school for a higher education. This usually occurred in England and the students
would study law or medicine for their continued education. If they chose not to continue their
education, they would return home and help their fathers run the plantation. (Stock 2006).
When discussing the daily activities for girls Stock (2006) explained:
Girls learned enough reading, writing, and arithmetic to read their Bibles and be able
to record household expenses. They were taught by a governess, who was usually
from England and somewhat educated. They studied art, music, French, social
etiquette, needlework, spinning, weaving, cooking, and nursing. The girls did not
have the opportunity to go to England for higher education because this was not
considered important for them (Education for boys and girls section, para. 3).
Children from families, who were not wealthy, did not receive an education to the
standards of that of the upper class. Instead, these children took apprenticeships to give them a
skill that would allow them the opportunity to survive living in the colonies. Many parents taught
their children to read and write at home using a Bible and a hornbook, which is a leaf or page
containing the alphabet with a handle (Stock, 2006).
Stock (2006) stated: A lesson sheet of the ABCs in small and capital letters, some
series of syllables and often, the Lord's Prayer, were attached to the board and
protected by a thin layer of cow's horn. People who wrote the early primers and
readers used pictures of animals learning to read and write to show that reading
and writing were natural and fairly an easy process (Early national education
section, para. 2).
8
Most of the children wrote in a copybook because paper was so expensive. Wealthy
families could afford to hire a tutor for the boys to teach them privately. The tutor was often a
male. Some boys attended grammar school and sometimes college, but girls never had that
opportunity. The responsibility of the girls was to learn the necessary lessons on how to run a
home. The girls learned how to run the household by learning the necessary lessons such as
cooking, sewing, and many other necessities from their mothers. When the boys were old enough
they were able to become apprentices to become shopkeepers or craftsman by watching an adult
(Stock, 2006).
19th Century Education in the United States
When the Constitution was written by our forefathers, it was stated that anything not
addressed in the Constitution, which education was not, the primary authority over public
education was given to the individual states rather than the federal government of the United
States.
When discussing the development of each state educational system Thattai (2001) stated:
Every state developed a department of education and enacted laws regulating finance,
the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and curriculum. In general, local
districts oversee the administration of schools, with the exception of licensing
requirements and general rules concerning health and safety. Public schools had also
relied heavily on local property taxes to meet the vast majority of school expenses.
Therefore, American schools tended to reflect the educational values and financial
9
capabilities of the communities in which they were located (Involvement at the Local
and Federal Levels section, para. 1).
Not until the 1840’s did an organized system exist like the Common School. A common
school was a public school in the United States in the nineteenth century. The term “common
school” was invented by Horace Mann, and refers to the fact that they were meant to serve
individuals of all social classes and religions. According to Carl Kaestle, (1983), the duration of
the school year was often dictated by the agricultural needs of particular communities, with
children being off when they would be needed on the family farm.
Common schools were funded by local taxes, did not charge tuition, and were open to all
children. Each district was controlled by an elected local school board. Traditionally, a county
school superintendent or regional director was elected to supervise day-to-day activities of
several common school districts (Fraser, 2001).
The Common School allowed increased opportunities for all children and created
common bonds among an increasingly diverse population. It was also argued that this style of
education could preserve social stability and prevent crime and poverty. These Common Schools
were held accountable by local school boards and state governments. They also helped establish
required school attendance laws for elementary-age children (Fraser, 2001).
According to Mondale (2002):
The public school as we know it was born in the mid-nineteenth century. Its
founders called it the common school. Common schools were funded by local
property taxes, charged no tuition, were open to all white children, were governed
10
by local school committees, and were subject to a modest amount of state
regulation. (p. 1)
Fraser (2001) stated that after two decades of debate, the common school movement
started in the Northeast and Midwest part of the United States in the mid nineteenth century and
continued in the South and West in the late nineteenth century.
During the 18th Century in America, the schools closest to the public school system were
short-term schools. The short-term schools gained support by towns in the northern colonies.
Ten to twelve week sessions for the elementary schools were determined at the town meeting
(Mondale, 2002). The common schools often favored boys over girls and charged parental fees
to supplement the town’s support. Families carried most of the responsibility for children’s
learning, along with churches, neighbors, and peers.
According to Fraser (2001) schooling was a relatively small part of early English
education. Family, church, and community all ranked far above formal schooling as a means to
gain a good and useful education. With schooling not being as important and not being free,
family wealth, race, and gender determined the amount of formal education each child received.
20th Century Education in the United States
According to Fraser, (2001), during this time we came to believe that education was for
every citizen and that knowledge needed to be actively pursued and useful in furthering the
goals of the nation. During the final years of the 19th Century and the early years of the 20th
Century, we saw the birth of many higher educational universities. This was because the United
States began shifting from an agrarian economy, which is an economy that relied on farming.
11
Most agrarian economies had disappeared during the Industrial Revolution which saw the shift
from agrarian economies to the mass industrial economy. They were connected because of the
movement of millions of families and citizens from the farm to the city. Fraser (2001) also said
in 1909 we saw the first junior high school in California become a major part of the educational
system in the United States. Junior high schools were for grades 7-9 and it was to better prepare
these students for high school.
Fraser (2001) states the first middle school was opened in 1950. Middle schools are still a
major part of the educational system, bringing 6th-8th graders under one roof to meet the needs of
preadolescents.
By the middle of the 20th century, most states took a more active regulatory role than in
the past. Each state was responsible for consolidating school districts into larger units with
common procedures. Each school district was funded by property tax in the local districts as well
as the state contributing to the funding of school revenues (Thattai, 2001).
During the 1980s and 1990s, virtually all states gave unprecedented attention to their role
in raising education standards. A federal report published in 1983 indicated very low academic
achievement in public schools. This resulted in states becoming more responsible and involved.
This report, “A Nation at Risk”, suggested that American students were outperformed on
international academic tests by students from other industrial societies. Statistics also suggested
that American test scores were declining over time. As a result, most states implemented reform
strategies that emphasize more frequent testing conducted by states, more effective state testing,
and more state-mandated curriculum requirements.
12
The United States’ Supreme Court ruled on single-sex public education in the 1996 case
of United States v. Virginia. The ruling concluded that single-sex education in the public sector
was constitutional only if comparable courses, services, and facilities were made available to
both sexes.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Pub.L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20
U.S.C. ch.70), is a United States federal statute enacted April 11, 1965. The Act is an extensive
statute which funds primary and secondary education. As mandated in the Act, the funds were
authorized for professional development, instructional materials, educational programs, and
parental involvement. The Act was originally authorized through 1970, but the government
reauthorized the Act every five years since its enactment. The current reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act was the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
During 2001, The No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107-110), was signed into law
to support higher student achievement, stronger public schools and a better-prepared teacher
workforce. NCLB was also presented to make sure that we were producing educated and
competitive scholars that would be able to compete locally and internationally.
The No Child Left Behind Act contains provisions designed by their authors to facilitate
single-sex education in public schools. These provisions led to the publication of new federal
rules in October 2006 which allowed districts to create single-sex schools and classes provided
that enrollment is voluntary, they offered comparable courses, services, and facilities were
available to both sexes. The number of public schools offering single-sex classrooms rose from
11 in 2002 to 514 in 2008, according to the web site of the National Association for Single Sex
Public Education.
13
The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act cited single-gender classes as one innovative tool to
boost achievement. But anti-discrimination laws banned widespread use of such classes,
allowing them only in certain instances, such as sex education lessons. A change in federal
regulations in 2006 gave schools more flexibility, allowing boys and girls to be separated as long
as classes are voluntary and substantially equal coeducational classes were offered.
Education Continuing to Evolve
Constant struggles in education with student achievement putting students in single-sex
classrooms at various grade levels in the hopes of augmenting academic performance, was being
discussed more frequently. All-female or all-male schools have been part of private and
parochial school systems for decades. This shift toward single-sex education in public schools
was the result of parents wanting more options in their children's education and concern for their
children's mental and social development. The shift was also a result of federal and state laws
that passed holding stakeholders more accountable in regards to student achievement in the
educational institutions today (Fraser, 2001).
Statement of the Problem
It was not known how and to what extent homogenous or heterogeneous classrooms’
instructional settings impacted academic achievement in mathematics, as measured by the state
mathematics examination, in the fifth grade.
14
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose for this study was to examine homogeneous and heterogeneous
instructional settings to determine whether one was more influential than the other impacting
academic achievement in mathematics, as measured by the state mathematics examination, at
fifth grade. This research expanded any previous research done comparing homogeneous classes
in the public school setting versus heterogeneous classes by having assessed any impact, positive
or negative, on the state math examination.
Research Questions
The following research question was considered in this research study: Did students in
homogeneous classes perform better on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Test in mathematics
than students who have been placed in heterogeneous classes? To answer this question, the
research painted a clear picture as to whether there was a relationship between these grouping
practices and academic performance, given the same methods and materials.
Significance of Study
This research study was conducted to better understand the positives and negatives
between homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms and what effect the setting positively or
negatively impacted student achievement. The research contributed to the field of education
since it could be used for any school across the country that may have been considering
implementing homogenous classrooms. Schools throughout the country also benefited because
the research study gives an overview of whether these classrooms had a positive or negative
15
impact on student achievement on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination. It allowed the
field of education to see what exactly were the positives and negatives for homogeneous or
heterogeneous classes. The school system has the completed research available to determine if
the research could be used as a guide for a similar setting in the district.
Definition of Terms
Single-sex or homogeneous classrooms offer unique educational opportunities for girls
and boys. These classrooms separated the students by gender. Girls and boys had different
learning styles and grouping these students by gender can better address those differences.
Homogeneous classrooms allowed students’ grades and test scores to soar, disciplinary
problems to vanish, and everybody’s attitude improved because they were in a comfortable
learning environment and did not have to impress the opposite sex. Changing from
heterogeneous classrooms to homogenous classrooms allowed students to improve their
achievement level.
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, defined heterogeneous as "consisting
of dissimilar ingredients or constituents: mixed." A heterogeneous classroom is a learning
environment, where students with different educational maturity and development levels were in
the same classroom.
A heterogeneous classroom is one that reflects the rich diversity of students. Rather than
grouping children based on their ability or achievement, a heterogeneous classroom encompasses
students with differences in age, sex, race, ability, and achievement. In the heterogeneous
classroom, the perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds of all students were valued as
16
important for enriching learning. As students collaborated, each individual had the opportunity to
make a contribution. Everyone learned from everyone else.
Gender equality is a social order in which women and men shared the same opportunities
and the same constraints on full participation in both the economic and the domestic realm.
The North Carolina End-of-Grade is an examination that was designed to measure
student performance on the goals, objectives, and grade-level competencies specified in the
North Carolina Standard Course of Study.
Levels of Student Achievement on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination
∙Achievement Level I: Students performing at this level did not have sufficient
mastery of knowledge and skills in this subject area to be successful at the next grade
level. Students performing at Level I showed minimal understanding and computational
accuracy. The students often responded with inappropriate answers or procedures. They
rarely used problem-solving strategies.
∙Achievement Level II: Students performing at this level demonstrated
inconsistent mastery of knowledge and skills in this subject area and were minimally
prepared to be successful at the next grade level. Students performing at Level II
typically show some evidence of understanding and computational accuracy. The
students sometimes responded with appropriate answers or procedures. They
demonstrated limited use of problem-solving strategies.
∙Achievement Level III: Students performing at this level consistently
demonstrated mastery of grade level subject matter and skills and were well prepared for
the next grade level. Students performing at Level III generally show understanding,
17
compute accurately. The students consistently responded with appropriate answers or
procedures. They used a variety of problem-solving strategies.
∙Achievement level IV: Students performing at this level consistently performed
in a superior manner clearly beyond that required to be proficient at grade level work.
Students performing at Level IV commonly showed a high level of understanding,
computed accurately. The students were very consistent responding with appropriate
answers or procedures. They demonstrated flexibility by using a variety of problemsolving strategies.
The No Child Left Behind Act assesses schools primarily on the percentage of students
who perform at the set level on state tests.
Adequate Yearly Progress, part of the No Child Left Behind legislation, measures the
yearly progress toward achieving grade level performance in reading and mathematics. Schools
tested at least 95 percent of students in each group and each group met the targeted goal in
reading and mathematics in order to have made Adequate Yearly Progress. If just one student
group in one subject at a school did not meet the targeted goal, then the school did not make
Adequate Yearly Progress for that year.
The Standard Course of Study provides every content area a set of competencies for each
grade and course. Its intent was to ensure rigorous student academic performance standards that
were standardized across the state.
Title I which is a part of The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to guarantee that all
children had a fair and equal opportunity to obtain a fine education. Title I is a federal program
that provided resources to schools in areas of economic need. No Child Left Behind focused on
18
Title I. Under No Child Left Behind, every school receiving Title I money is required to notify
parents of their rights to request and receive information regarding the qualification of their
child’s teachers. This also applied to all instructional staff in the school, not just those paid with
Title I funds.
Title IX is a United States government legislation that mandated that no school receiving
any federal funds would provide any course or otherwise would carry out any of its education
program or activity separately on the basis of sex.
Highly qualified teachers are teachers who have met state certification requirements and
had been deemed highly qualified by having obtained at least a bachelor’s degree, met all testing
requirements and have demonstrated expertise in the subjects they taught. Highly qualified
elementary teachers were qualified to teach the basic elementary school curriculum. The junior
high and secondary school teachers are highly qualified to teach core academic subjects. A
highly qualified teacher is one who had fulfilled the state's certification and licensing
requirements, obtained at least a bachelor's degree, and had demonstrated expertise in a subject
or subject through an exam.
Independent Variables are variables that (probably) caused, influenced, or affected
outcomes. An independent variable was a factor that could be varied or manipulated in an
experiment
Dependent Variables are variables that depended on the independent variables; they were
the outcomes or results of the influence of the independent variables. A dependent variable was
what you measure in the experiment and what was affected during the experiment. The
19
dependent variable responded to the independent variable. It was called dependent because it
"depended" on the independent variable.
Assumptions and Limitations
Assumptions
This research expanded on the existing knowledge concerning homogeneous groupings and how
it/they could have benefited future students in the district.
Limitations
This study contributed to the field, but did not solve the problem of knowing that homogeneous
classes were a better fit then a heterogeneous class. Research had been done to support both
styles.
Nature of the Study
Quantitative Research is a methodology that “aimed to determine the relationship
between one thing (an independent variable) and another (a dependent variable) in a population”
(Hopkins, 2000).
This case study was focused on two fifth grade male homogeneous classrooms in an
inner-city school district versus a female homogeneous classroom and four traditional
classrooms in the same school. The study compared all the classes’ End-of-Grade exam scores
determined if the homogenous classes yielded different test scores in mathematics then the
traditional classrooms. The results also were reviewed to determine if the male or female class
yields different results. Data was collected from historical data bases containing students’
previous EOG scores, scores on mini-assessments, and quarterly examinations. As stated
20
previously, there were several researchers whom feel that single-sex schools and single-sex
instruction were good for both boys and girls and their education (Sadker & Sadker, 1994;
Tschumy, 1995; AAUW, 1996).
The study’s main purpose was to expand on this research of homogeneous instruction in
public schools by assessing the impact of gender grouping on state examinations vs.
heterogeneous classes. This study helped determine if homogeneous classrooms improved
students’ End-of-Grade Examination scores verse heterogeneous classes.
It was not known whether homogenous classes yielded better results on the North
Carolina End-of-Grade Math Exam versus heterogeneous classes when taught with the same
methods, strategies, and materials. Therefore, we completed a study of the homogeneous and
heterogeneous fifth grade classrooms in an inner-city school. Taking the results if the students’
previous EOG scores, scores on mini-assessments, and quarterly exams helped us better
understand if in fact homogeneous classrooms or heterogeneous classrooms were better fit then
the other.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of this study was presented as follows: Chapter 2 was a literature review
of the history of comparing homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms as well as current
research related to homogeneous classrooms and heterogeneous classrooms. Chapter 3 included
the data collected and provided a design of the study.
Chapter 4 presented and analyzed the data collected. Chapter 5 provided a summary of
the research as well as recommendations for further research.
21
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Sax (2005) stated there were approximately 300 single sex private schools in the U.S. as
well as hundreds more in England and Canada. The practice of same gender classes was a fairly
new idea that was implemented into public school systems across the country.
Baker and Jacobs’ (1999) study was to investigate what happened during a school year in
homogeneous science and math classes. Approximately 120 male and female middle school
students were studied. There were approximately 55 students who use English as a second
language. There were also approximately 40 African American students. According to Baker
and Jacobs it was very difficult to arrive at specific numbers because of absenteeism and
transience. The majority of the students studied were gang affiliates. The teachers were female
and spoke fluent Spanish. The school was located in an underprivileged inner city district with a
large absentee rate and a highly transient population. The researchers collected data, conducted
interviews, and conducted classroom observations. The data allowed the researchers to keep a
journal of the data that they had collected.
The students’ parents were not consulted about whether their children would be in the
homogeneous classroom. The students received a grade as a result of the tasks they completed.
The researchers interviewed the teachers and students several times throughout the study. Math
was observed 25 times and science 22 times from August through April.
The study was conducted for three years. Day one consisted of all males coming to
school, and day two consisted of all females. During years two and three, the institution had
alternating periods of girls and boys in the same day.
22
The results proved that there were no winners between the girls and boys. The
researchers thought, for the boys to be successful they would have to have responsibilities that
reflected their interests. The research showed that the males needed more structure than females.
Males needed their tasks to be broken into smaller parts, and for males to have exceled in class
they needed more technology. The researchers assumed if this had been done for the males, they
would have been successful. Boys have a tendency to lighten their competitive edge and become
more collaborative in a homogeneous setting. They can just be themselves and not worry about
what everyone might think. Females also needed tasks that reflected their interests for them to
have success. In homogeneous classrooms, girls dropped their shyness and began to take risks in
that setting. The females became more competitive. They embraced sports like field hockey and
soccer without worrying about what people thought.
This research was useful for administrators considering the use of homogeneous
classrooms in their school or school district. Administrators used the results gained from this
study because they gave ideas that may or may not help homogeneous classrooms be a success.
Lee and Lockheed's (1990) study of 1,014 students in an eighth-grade Nigerian public
school evaluated their achievement in mathematics. The information was investigated from the
Second International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The
mathematics scores that Lee and Lockheed investigated did not show a large gender gap of
Nigerian males and females. Girls in homogeneous classrooms scored higher on standardized
tests than other girls in mathematics, while boys in homogeneous classrooms did the exact
opposite. The females in homogeneous classrooms had a lower stereotypical view of math. The
males in homogeneous classrooms had extravagant stereotypes of the subject.
23
Mallam (1993) found that Nigerian females in homogenous schools favored math more
than females in heterogeneous Nigerian public boarding schools. This especially was true when
female teachers taught mathematics.
Woods and Dylinski (2002) explained the evidence is not certain that homogeneous
classrooms work better than heterogeneous classrooms for either gender when trying to succeed
in school. A number of studies found that homogeneous schools seemed to have had a positive
effect on females' achievement compared to heterogeneous schools.
Woods and Dylinski’s closer examination revealed a more complex picture: Which
schools and which students? Once the results were adjusted for student socioeconomic status,
pre-enrollment ability, and other variables, the differences were reduced or disappeared. Their
research showed that smaller class size, a rigorous curriculum, parental involvement, discipline,
higher standards, and good teachers and concentrating on eliminating gender bias had made a
difference. Comparing a small homogeneous school with 20 students per class to a large
heterogeneous school with 40 or 45 students in each class, it was clear that the homogeneous
school had advantages in helping both males and females learned better.
Woods and Dylinski (2002) said, “In education landscape marked by problems of
violence, low achievement, poverty, racial, sexism and ethnic tensions, single-sex education
didn't cure our nation's education ills.” Single-sex education experiments did produce some
positive results for some students in some cases. There was no proof that focusing on
homogeneous education would improve the value of public education. Critics also acknowledge
that there were several good homogeneous schools.
24
Lee and Marks (1990) researched the effects of single-sex schools on attitudes, values,
and behaviors. They discovered that women who attended homogeneous schools had higher
educational goals and were more likely to attend a four-year college. After the females started
attending the college they selected, effects on the young female's objectives disappeared. This
led the researchers to believe that single-sex education may be an indirect influence that
facilitates entry into a select college in the first place.
Logsdon (2003) explained why homogeneous classrooms were the preferred educational
models for public school. This study revealed that females educated in homogeneous
environments were more likely to pursue education and less likely to stereotype their classmates.
Gender gaps in math and science seemed to narrow when girls were educated in a homogeneous
environment. The research showed that girls enrolled in homogeneous schools were more likely
to pursue advanced degrees, avoid stereotypes, and participate in politics. It was pointed out that
single-sex public education provided families with lower incomes the chance to have seen their
children excel in homogeneous classrooms. This option was only available to families who were
able to pay tuition for private schooling.
Dantow’s et al. (2001) research took place in California and was trying to reach a verdict
on why there was such a great push for single gender public schools. This was the first state to
experiment with single-gender education on a large scale. The article stated its research had
taken place in parochial and private schools, but not in public schools. Dantow’s studies
suggested that homogeneous classrooms provided a stronger educational environment for the
students and less distractions (Finn, 1980). This experiment was largely considered to be
25
unsuccessful. After just three years, five of the six districts had closed their academies and at the
time of their report in 2001, only one district had single-gender academies still in operation.
The authors concluded that the academies were not sustainable under the state’s policy
framework. They found that single-gender schooling was primarily used as a means to meet the
needs of at-risk students with most educators seeing the grant monies as a way to address the
educational and social problems of low achieving students and not as an opportunity to address
gender inequity. In fact, the researchers discovered that traditional stereotypes were often
reinforced in the academies. They found that even though educators ensured equal resourcing to
the boys’ and girls’ academies, they failed to address gender bias in their practices. Although the
separation created some positive outcomes, such as reduced classroom distractions, girls still
experienced unwanted attention in coeducational spaces, and both sexes endured teasing from
other students for being enrolled in the academies.
In other studies it suggested that homogeneous classrooms promote stereotypes against
the other gender. Homogeneous settings still existed primarily in the private and parochial
schools in the United States. In the last couple of years several public schools have experimented
with homogeneous classes or homogeneous programs.
Results showed that educators who had minimal resources had an opportunity to secure
large grants and do whatever necessary to meet the needs of their students. A method to the
entire process of learning for children regardless of gender or economic means was the
persistence of the teacher. Meaning a teacher who was very dedicated will encounter the best
results from his or her students.
26
This research also helped a district or school that was looking to implement
homogeneous schooling by observing the demographics of the California district. The
researchers compared what will work for them and what similarities the district or school had to
California’s.
Shapka and Keating (2003) investigated benefits of females in girl-only classrooms in
math and science. The students were in a public school in Ontario, Canada and were in grades 9,
10, and 11. There were 789 students: 86 females in all girl classes, and 320 females and 383
males in heterogeneous classrooms. The enrollment was voluntary and influenced by a number
of issues that included scheduling conflicts or expectations from parents. Although the
participation was voluntary, girls needed to maintain a 75% average in their seventh and eighth
grade math courses to have participated in the program. In the school targeted, all the students
were taught from the same curriculum, with the same teachers, and all the classes were similar in
size (20-25 per class). At the time of the first study (1993), all students were in grades 9-11. At
the time of study two (1995), all of the students were in grades 11, 12, and 13. Grade 13 is a
required year of study for students who were planning to continue their education at the college
level.
Shapka and Keating (2003) examined seven outcomes in their study. “Encompassing
math and science achievement, persistence in math and science (math course enrollment and
science course enrollment), and engagement, or self-reported attitudes toward math (perceived
math anxiety, perceived math competence, and effort expanded on math). After the intervention
had ended math and science achievement were determined by averaging the grades received in
all math and science classes. Achievement measures for students who did not continue taking
27
these classes in these disciplines were determined from their last two math and/or science
classes.
In addition to the present study, the females in the homogeneous math and science classes
have scored much higher on the outcomes than the females in the heterogeneous classes. The
evidence shows that females who were taught math and science in homogeneous classrooms
excelled at a higher level in succeeding math and science courses. This resulted in their having
taken more courses in math and science.
Derry (2004) investigated teacher and student variables and compared the differences
between the variables for female students and female teachers in heterogeneous and
homogeneous physical education classes. Eighteen female teachers and their classes were
selected for this study. There were nine teachers from heterogeneous classes and nine teachers
from homogeneous physical education classes. With the developmental differences in juvenile
girls and boys, one might have asked; why had they decided to place the students in a
heterogeneous physical education environment? A heterogeneous physical education
environment for girls and low-skilled boys, were not great atmospheres for learning. Physical
education allowed girls and boys the chance to have developed high levels of competence and
self-esteem. This was done through an assortment of physical activities and sports. It was
important to have examined which physical education environment, homogeneous or
heterogeneous, benefited adolescent girls' learning the most.
The study was voluntary and consisted of 18 female physical education teachers and their
classes. The physical education teaching experience for the single-sex teachers was an average of
14.22 years, and the average of the coeducation teachers experience being 13.22 years. Nine
28
female teachers were videotaped teaching in a heterogeneous physical education class and nine
female teachers were video- and audio-taped teaching in a homogeneous physical education
class. The participants videotaped in this study were limited to female physical education
teachers and female students in single-sex and coeducation physical education classes in grades
seven through nine. Two-hundred and ninety female students were the participants of this study.
There were 110 females from heterogeneous physical education classes and 180 females from
homogeneous physical education classes.
There were several student behavior variables measured in this study and they included:
Engaged Skill Learning Time (ESLT), Physical Activity Enjoyment, Global Self-Worth,
Perceived Athletic Competence, and Student-Initiated Interaction. Teacher behavior variables
measured in this study included: Teacher Management Time (TMT), Teacher-Initiated
Interaction, and Performance and Motivation Feedback. Student Behaviors Engaged Skill
Learning Time, Physical Activity Enjoyment, and The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale were
used to measure enjoyment of physical activity by female students within their physical
education classes (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991).
The Physical Education Teacher Assessment Instrument (PETAI) (Phillips et al., 1992)
was used in the study to measure teacher management time (TMT). Eighteen female physical
education teachers and their classes were selected for the study. Nine female teachers in
coeducation physical education classes and nine female teachers in homogeneous physical
education classes met the necessary criteria for this study and were incorporated in the final
investigation. The heterogeneous classes had a smaller amount of female students per class than
the homogeneous classes, and as a result, there was a difference in the number of female students
29
involved in the study between the heterogeneous and homogeneous classes. Results showed
evidence that female students in homogeneous physical education classes were receiving a better
overall learning experience as compared to those in a heterogeneous physical education classes.
The two student variables that were found to make students in favor of homogeneous physical
education classes were engaged learning time and student initiated interactions.
Female students in homogeneous physical education classes spent more time engaged in
learning skills or actively participating than did girls in heterogeneous physical education
environments. This study showed female students in homogeneous classes talked with their
female teacher and initiated interactions more often than girls in heterogeneous physical
education classes. One reason that homogeneous physical education classes were able to provide
these results is because of the increased participation of female students in homogeneous
physical education classes.
In the study, boys were unable to dictate the physical education classes. The boys were
also unable to dictate the teachers’ time in the homogeneous physical education classes. In this
study, the experiences of the adolescent females in homogeneous and heterogeneous physical
education classes were not different in three of the five student variables. Teachers in
homogeneous physical education classes used minimal time on management and they provided
more engaged skill learning time (ESLT) for their female students than in heterogeneous
classrooms. Teachers in homogeneous physical education classes allowed more time for
instruction for their female students because they spent less time on management issues.
Teachers in the heterogeneous physical education classes reported that the majority of their time
was spent on management.
30
Their study provided some confirmation that female teachers in homogeneous physical
education classes offer a successful learning environment for the female students compared to
female teachers in heterogeneous physical education classes. Teacher management time was one
important teacher variable found that supported teachers in homogeneous physical education
classes. This allowed the female students to become further engaged in their learning. Results on
the student and teacher variables measured for this study were in favor of homogeneous physical
education classrooms.
According to Sadker and Sadker (1994) one possible reason for the success of the female
students was the openness and availability of female role models in the homogenous setting. This
compared to the traditional setting where female role models were not as available. Another
reason for the success females reach in single-gender schools could be due to the female students
being actively involved in the lessons and were not left watching the male students dominate the
lesson which was usually the case in heterogeneous settings.
Datnow, Hubbard, and Woody (2001) examine whether homogeneous classrooms were a
viable option in public schools. There have been several schools and districts that adopted these
reforms to increase student academic achievement. Homogeneous schools have been a success in
private schools and have been considered as one possible solution to increase student academic
achievement in public schools. There have been experiments taking place across the country in
regards to homogeneous classrooms. This current experiment took place in California in 1997.
California was the first state to experiment with homogeneous classrooms on a large scale. Six
school districts opened homogeneous academies for females and males. These academies were a
result of federal funding for homogeneous academies pilot program in California’s public school
31
system. The schools were located across California in a variety of rural, suburban, and urban
areas. There were over three hundred interviews conducted with educators, students, parents, and
policy makers. The researchers visited several of the districts for two days at a time on five or six
different occasions.
The study was to assess the consequences of homogeneous schooling in the public area.
Administrators who were interviewed throughout the study thought homogeneous schooling was
a way to meet at- risk students. With the funding from this grant, the educators were able to
develop academic and social support structures for the students so their needs could be
addressed. Some of the needs that were discussed in the research were poverty, violence,
truancy, and low achievement. Most of the educators also agreed that homogeneous schooling
was a great way to have decreased distractions among male and female students and also to have
improved their self-esteem. The pilot program in California had several challenges due to
implementation. When the academies were operational, they continued to suffer from
implementation difficulties such as staff and administrator turnover, lack of political support, and
funding.
A majority of the homogeneous academies were targeting “at-risk” students to help
improve their academics. The homogeneous academies gave students an opportunity to benefit
from special resources and reduce distractions from the opposite sex. The smaller class sizes,
extra computers, field trips attracted the students’ parents, and special opportunities offered. The
educators thought that both the males and females had equal opportunity and were not concerned
with gender bias.
32
Boys were taught in a more traditional classroom and girls in a more nurturing and open
classroom. Educators adjusted their instructional methods according to the students’ needs. Boys
were perceived to be active and talkative, they were taught in a classroom environment that had a
stricter discipline policy, a competitive atmosphere, and more physical activities. Girls were
taught in an environment that was much kinder and gentler. The characteristics in this classroom
setting were offered because girls were perceived as well behaved, collaborative, and more
studious. With the students being separated they had perceptions of one another. The girls were
seen as good and the boys were seen as bad. This often happened when the academy had both
girls and boys on the same campus. Of the six districts used in the study, four operated boys and
girls academies as schools within a school and two districts offered self-contained academies on
same campus.
The educators found that the separation of boys and girls reduced classroom distractions.
Students were still having difficulties when transitioning through coeducational spaces of the
homogeneous academy. Homogeneous classrooms also offered teachers the opportunity to cover
important life messages with their classes. This setting allowed the teachers to offer social
guidance to their students.
Public homogeneous academies were not sustainable under California’s policy
framework. Two years into the project, four of the six districts closed their academies. A fifth
district closed its academies after their third year of operation. There was one district that
continued to operate homogeneous academies. Most administrators in the districts were
concerned about improving literacy and Title IX threats and quickly terminated their support for
homogeneous schools.
33
There were many researchers who agreed with Professor Elizabeth Fennema’s definition
of gender equity, but believed gender equity was not consistently observed in our schools. With
gender equity not happening consistently, researchers pointed to the lack of gender equity as the
prime reason for the current gap in mathematics. The majority of the sources in this study agreed
that there was a male and female gender gap in math. The debate pertained to the many different
pieces of the gap. There were several questions being asked and discussed; who, what, when,
where, why, and how.
According to Myra Sadker and David Sadker female students were ahead of or equal to
male students in every aspect of their academic achievement in early grades (Sadker & Sadker,
1994). Throughout school female students earned higher grades than male students, however the
female students standardized test scores decreased as they get older.
Females passed males on standardized math tests in their early years of school, but their
scores declined when they reached middle school. Males passed female students on math
standardized tests because of their decline in middle school.
Sadker and Sadker claim that achievement tests were favorable to males. Sadker and
Sadker studied fourteen different achievement assessments and determined that make students’
scores were higher in eleven of the assessments in the mathematics sections compared to female
students. On the Math I Assessment the results showed the achievement levels for male students
to be 37 points higher than female students. On the Math II Assessment the results showed the
levels of achievement for male students were 38 points higher than female students.
Wiest (2007) agreed with Sadker and Sadker that male students were ahead of female
students in mathematics. Wiest said that female achievement in math was good until the middle
34
school grades when they started to see a decline in the female students test scores on the
achievement assessments. Schwartz and Hanson (1992) also agreed and stated the female
students’ achievement was very good in the early elementary years, but once female students
began middle school the results of their math achievement on assessments showed a decline
compared to male students. Sadker and Sadker (1994) have determined the longer females stayed
in school, the further behind they fell in mathematics. Sadker and Sadker write, “Females are the
only group in America to begin school ahead and leave having fallen behind,” (M. Sadker & D.
Sader, 136, 1994).
Sadker and Sadker (1994) believed one of the reasons why male students outperformed
female students on standardized exams was simply the way each gender took the exam. Male
students typically performed better on tests like the SAT as female students performed better on
non-timed exams. Another possible cause of the gender gap on mathematics was related to the
instruction received in school by the students. In 1992 The American Association of University
Women, published a study; How Schools Shortchange Girls. This student revealed very
noticeable differences in classroom instruction. The study stated that female students received
much less attention than male students in class. It also stated that male students were challenged
and had more interaction, as well as received more constructive feedback compared to the female
students in the report. The AAUW also stated that the students teachers gave the male students a
longer opportunity to answer questions compared to the time female students were given to
answer their questions. The study also stated that a gender bias had occurred in all classes
regarding teacher and student interaction, but found in the Math and Science classrooms had the
greatest bias.
35
According to Myra and David Sadker, (1994), girls earned better grades than boys
throughout school, yet their standardized test scores decreased as they got older. In the primary
grades girls were ahead of or equal to boys on every standard measurement of academic
achievement and psychological well-being (Sadker & Sadker, 1994)
Early in their education, girls improved their standardized test scores when compared to
boys on standardized math tests, but by middle school their scores began to decline steadily.
Female students standardized math test scores began to drop in middle school. Myra and
David Sadker (1994), both of the American University, claim that achievement tests were a
“male landslide” (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
Sadker and Sadker agreed with the AAUW report. The report stated that teachers
interacted more frequently, asked better questions, and gave positive and constructive feedback
to the male students. Sadker and Sadker believe females are invisible members of the classrooms
(Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Sadker and Sadker (1994) stated that male students call out
significantly more often than female students. Even though the comments being yelled out by
male students had little to nothing to do with the lesson at that particular time. Even so, teachers
continued to respond to these students.
Wait time for students is usually one second. A report conducted by the American
Association of University Women, AAUM (1999), showed teachers giving male students more
wait time compared to female students. Female students typically took more time to respond
because they were concerned with getting the correct answer. This caused female students to
become discouraged, but also allowed male students to disregard their self-control in the
classroom. Teachers who did not give the proper wait time were not only discouraging their
36
female students, but were also discouraging their male students to have had self-control, and
respect for their classmates. If the unbalance continued, both male students and female students
were going to struggle during classroom instruction.
Sadker and Sadker note, “Girls did not think adults expect them to be able to do things
because throughout school they are interrupted in attempts to accomplish things on their own,”
(M. Sadker & D. Sadker, 186, 1994). According to Sadker and Sadker (1994), female students
eventually learned to hang back and let the male students take over.
According to Matthews, Brinkley, Crisp, and Gregg (1998) teachers called on their male
students more often than their female students. During their study in a fifth grade classroom, they
noted that the teacher gave better feedback to male students compared to female students. Male
students were also redirected and had greater consequences than female students for the same
infractions. It was also noted, that the male students in the heterogeneous classes took the
leadership roles and female students went along with the male students decision. In the same
heterogeneous class, they observed a lesson where students created a project. Throughout the
lesson discussion, the teacher called on male students more than three times the female students.
Other observations throughout the lesson showed male students calling out answers/questions
more often than female students. It was also noted the male students had their names on the
behavior chart more often compared to the female students in the class.
Sadker and Sadker (1994) believed teachers spent more time redirecting, helping, and
observing male students rather than female students because of the time it took to manage the
behavior of male students. Teachers spent less time redirecting, helping, and observing female
students because they were less challenging and could often manage themselves.
37
Sadker and Sadker (1994) felt that both parents and teachers underestimated female
student’s intelligence levels. Sadker and Sadker suggested that teachers believed that male
students were smarter in mathematics. They believed this even though both male students and
female students received similar scores on math assessments. Sadker and Sadker wrote that many
adults believed male students had natural connection to math, and that female students did not. It
was believed that female students must have worked extra hard to have success in math. Parents
and teachers also had an influence on the female students. With the teachers and parents
believing in the male students when it came to mathematical achievement, female students got
the wrong impression about their mathematical abilities.
The Council for School Performance (2001) performed a study that had similar results to
the findings of the AAUM, Sadker and Sadker, Mathews, Brinkley, Crisp, and Gregg. It showed
that teachers gave more attention to male students compared to the female students. In the study
the researchers found teachers called on males more frequently and helped them more often than
the female students. Similar to the previous research, their study felt the male students dominated
the class during the lessons.
According to Sadker and Sadker male students received praise for the creativity of their
ideas, while female students were praised for simply meeting the classroom expectations. Karp
and Shakeshaft (1997) agreed that there was an unbalance in classroom instruction and had a
lasting negative effect on the mathematical achievement of female students. Kemp and
Shakeshaft also feel that classroom communication was dominated by male students in all grade
levels, in every type of classroom, in every type of community, and in all subject areas. Kemp
and Shakeshaft also believed that male students interacted with their teachers more often. The
38
male students also received more complex and open-ended questions because of their
dialogue/communication with their teachers. With the female students not being as interactive as
the male students were with their teachers, the teachers were more likely to be asked basic recall
questions. If the female students did not answer the question quickly, they were often given the
answers.
Researchers have identified other effects that could have played a major role in the
gender gap in mathematics. One reason was the effect that the mathematics gender gap had on
females and their self-esteem and self-confidence. Female students in elementary school had
strong self-esteem which results in high academic achievement. Sadker and Sadker (1994) felt
that strong self-esteem was directly connected to academic achievement.
Sadker and Sadker (1994) believed that a gap in self-esteem separates male students and
female students as they entered their teenager years. This was also about the same time the
gender gap in mathematics occurred. Not only did the mathematics gender gap increase with age,
but also how the students felt about themselves (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
Karp and Shakeshaft (1997) believe there was a strong connection between a student’s
confidence in math and the students’ math achievement. Males typically exhibited greater
confidence in their abilities to learn math than females. Karp and Shakeshaft believed there may
be a link between how male and female students viewed their successes and failures. Male
students normally believed their failures were due to a lack of effort while their successes were
due to their own talents and skill. Female students believed that their failures were due to a lack
of ability and their successes are due to other factors.
39
Karp and Shakeshaft (1997) also identified how males and females viewed their
standardized scores as a possible link to levels of confidence. Female students were quick to
accept scores from standardized tests as a precise measure of their intelligence. Females did not
score as high on the mathematics sections of these tests so they believed they were not as smart
in mathematics as they believed.
Sadker and Sadker (1994) agreed that female students rejected the legitimacy of their
grades and believed the test scores were a true measure of their intelligence. Sadker and Sadker
(1994) stated that the disinterest displayed by female students in the classroom was directly
related to their lack of confidence in their ability. As female students matured, they become
quieter in the classroom and were less likely to participate in classroom discussions.
Sadker and Sadker (1994) also visited several all-female institutions and observed classes
and conducted interviews with students and teachers. What they determined was the girls
attending these institutions were more aggressive in asking questions, were not afraid to openly
admit when they did not understand something or were confused, and did not worry about things
like popularity or being embarrassed. The teachers who had previously taught in coeducational
schools readily admitted that they preferred teaching in the all-female setting. Some of the
teachers commented that males were far too demanding and required too much of their attention.
In a coeducational setting the teachers felt that they had to first develop a personal relationship
with the females before the females started to open up. It was different in the all-female
institution, where the teachers felt the females took more chances during the lessons.
Although coeducation had been the norm within private and public schools since the
1970’s, single-sex education had staged a comeback in recent years as a means of addressing the
40
academic and social problems faced by some students. Single-sex education raised controversy
on ideological grounds, and in 1996 the Supreme Court struck down the all-male admissions
policy at the Virginia Military Institute in a decision that had cast a legal cloud over public
initiatives.
In Same, Different, Equal (2005) by Rosemary Salomone, she shared a reasoned
educational and legal argument supporting single-sex education as an alternative to coeducation,
particularly in the case of disadvantaged minority students. Salomone’s review of the research
included the findings from both peer-review journals and anecdotal reports published since 1980.
This allowed Salomone the opportunity to capture a current view on sex roles. The literature
includes research on women’s colleges, institutional environments, single-sex schools in the
United States and abroad, and the current debate on the education of boys.
Salomone finds “no clear indication that single-sex schooling harms students
academically” (Salomone p. 235, 2006) during her review of the research. Salomone found
evidence that single-sex schools developed more positive attitudes toward certain traditional
male or female subjects in students of the opposite gender, and that disadvantaged minority
student’s benefited both academically and socially from such schools. These findings have been
attributed to the emphasis of single-sex schools in the promotion of leadership opportunities, the
reduction of risk factors and access to courses often gendered in coeducational schools, among
other factors. Given that the majority of research focused on higher education, Salomone
suggested that future research examine the “effects of single-sex schooling and classes for boys
and girls at the elementary, middle school, and high school level in rural, suburban, and rural
contexts” (Salomone p. 236, 2006).
41
Salomone also examined the history of women's education and exclusion, philosophical
and psychological theories of sameness and difference, findings on educational achievement and
performance, the research evidenced on single-sex schooling, and the legal questions that had
arisen. Correcting many of the current misconceptions about single-sex education, she argued
that it was a viable option and that the road to gender equality should be paved with diverse
educational opportunities for all students; regardless of race, class, or gender. Salomone advised
educators and organizers of single-sex schooling to be mindful of the educational effects and of
the questions of legality, especially with regard to public schools. She stated that, “at its best,
single-sex education can be an effective tool of empowerment and self-realization for some boys
and girls,” and at its worst it could have been “a tool of gender polarization and oppression”
(Salomone, p. 243, 2006).
The School in the United States: A Documentary History, by James Fraser (2001) gives
information on all areas of American Education and how it was shaped to what we know
education to be today. The text contained historical documents, organized by time period and
topic, giving information on all sections of schools and education over time.
Joel Spring's historical accounts of education in The American School (2004) portray an
uncommon, historical portrayal of schooling in the United States. Spring's book illustrated many
of the injustices that conservative frameworks manifested, ranging from colonial times to the
present.
42
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests were used to sample a student’s knowledge of
subject-related concepts as specified in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study and
provided a global estimate of the student’s mastery of the material in a particular content area.
The North Carolina End-of-Grade tests were initiated in response to legislation passed by the
North Carolina General Assembly; the North Carolina Elementary and Secondary Reform Act of
1984.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was a United States federal statute
enacted April 11, 1965. The Act was an extensive statute which funded primary and secondary
education. As mandated in the Act, the funds were authorized for professional development,
instructional materials, and resources to support educational programs, and parental involvement
promotion. The Act was originally authorized through 1970, but the government had
reauthorized the Act every five years since its enactment. The current reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
During 2001, The No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107-110), was signed into law
supported higher student achievement, stronger public schools and a better-prepared teacher
workforce and ensured that schools were producing educated and competitive scholars who were
able to complete locally and internationally.
The No Child Left Behind Act contained provisions designed by their authors have
facilitated single-sex education in public schools. These provisions led to the publication of new
federal rules in October 2006 to allow districts to create single-sex schools and classes provided
that enrollment was voluntary, they offered comparable courses, services, and facilities were
43
available to both sexes. The number of public schools offering single-sex classrooms rose from
11 in 2002 to 514 in 2008, according to the web site of the National Association for Single Sex
Public Education.
Statement of the Problem
It was not known how and to what extent homogenous or heterogeneous classrooms
instructional settings impacted academic achievement in math, as measured by the state math
exam, in the fifth grade.
Research Questions or Hypothesis
The following research question was considered in this research: Do students in
homogeneous classes perform better on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination in
mathematics than students who have been placed in heterogeneous classes? To answer this
question, the research looked at whether there is a relationship between these grouping practices
and academic performance, given the same methods and materials.
Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine elementary student achievement in
homogeneous classrooms and heterogeneous classrooms. The purpose of this chapter was to
describe the population and sample, the research design, the data collection procedures, and the
statistical methods used for data analysis.
44
Research Design
The research design that was used in this study is a non-experimental case study that
examines the relationship between the dependent variable, student achievement in math, and the
independent variable, the type of classroom, homogeneous or heterogeneous. The instrument that
was used to measure student achievement was the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination, a
customized, criterion- referenced test aligned with the North Carolina Standard Course of Study
(NCSCOS). The NCSCOS was designed specifically for North Carolina students in grades three
through eight. The purpose of the North Carolina End-of- Grade score was for students to
demonstrate their ability in mathematics, reading/language arts, and science, in North Carolina.
For the purpose of this study, the mathematics scale scores were used (North Carolina
Department of Instruction, 2009).
Background of the North Carolina End-of-Grade Exam
North Carolina tests are curriculum-based tests designed to measure the objectives found
in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study. The responsibility of updating the Standard
Course of Study falls to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of
Instructional Services. Curriculum specialists, teachers, administrators, university professors, and
others assist in the process of updating curricula. Once curricula were adopted or tested
objectives were approved by the North Carolina State Board of Education, in areas where
statewide tests were required, the test development process begins (NCDPI, 2009). The Standard
Course of Study was reviewed for possible revisions every five years; however, test development
was continuous. The North Carolina Department of Instruction Accountability Services/Testing
Section test development staff members began developing operational test forms for the North
45
Carolina Testing Program when the State Board of Education determined that such tests were
needed. The need for new tests resulted from mandates from the federal government or the North
Carolina General Assembly. New tests were also developed if the Board determined that the
development of a new test would enhance the education of North Carolina students (e.g. NC
Tests of Computer Skills). The test development process consisted of six phases and takes
approximately four years. The phases began with the development of test specifications and
ended with the reporting of operational test results (NCDPI, 2009).
In North Carolina, standardized testing was an integral part of the educational experience
of all students. When properly administered and interpreted, test results provided an independent,
uniform source of reliable and valid information, which enables:
• students to know the extent to which they had mastered expected knowledge and skills
and how they compared to others;
• parents to know if their children were acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to
succeed in a highly competitive job market;
• teachers to know if their students had mastered grade-level knowledge and skills in the
curriculum and, if not, what weaknesses needed to be addressed;
• community leaders and lawmakers to know if students in North Carolina schools were
improving their performance over time and how the students compared with students
from other states or the nation; and
• citizens to assess the performance of the public schools.
46
Testing should have been conducted in a fair and ethical manner, which includes:
Security
• having assured adequate security of the testing materials before, during, and after
testing and during scoring
• having assured student confidentiality
Preparation
• having taught the tested curriculum and test-preparation skills
• having trained staff in appropriate testing practices and procedures
• having provided an appropriate atmosphere
Administration
• having developed a local policy for the implementation of fair and ethical testing
practices and for having resolved questions concerning those practices
• having assured that all students who should be tested are tested
• having utilized tests which are developmentally appropriate
• having utilized tests only for the purposes for which they were designed
Scoring, Analysis and Reporting
• having interpreted test results to the appropriate audience
• having provided adequate data analyses to guide curriculum implementation and
improvement
(NCDPI, 2009)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
47
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) was defined as a series of performance targets that
states, school districts, and specific subgroups within their schools achieved each year to meet
the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In each public school and Local Education
Agency (LEA) in North Carolina, the ten student subgroups were:
1. School as a whole (all students); 2. American Indian; 3. Asian; 4. Black; 5. Hispanic; 6. Multiracial; 7. White; 8. Economically Disadvantaged 9. Limited English Proficient (LEP) and, 10.
Students with Disabilities (SWD)
In order for elementary and middle schools (including grades in the 3 to 8 grade range) to
have made AYP, each student subgroup in tested grades must meet the following targets:
1. 95% participation rate in reading/language arts assessment
2. 95% participation rate in mathematics assessment
3. Met or exceeded the state’s annual measurable objective (AMO) for proficiency in
reading/language arts
4. Met or exceeded the state’s annual measurable objective (AMO) for proficiency in
mathematics
5. The school as a whole must have shown progress on the other academic indicator (OAI):
attendance for schools in grades 3 to 8 (NCDPI, 2009).
Population and Sampling Procedure
Seven fifth grade classrooms at elementary school were used for the study. The
population studied consists of the students in the fifth grade at an elementary school in North
Carolina. The school enrollment was approximately 1200 students, 70 percent of whom were on
48
free or reduced lunch, 30 percent were in special education, and 70 percent were minority,
primarily black. The enrollment of the fifth grade at the elementary school was approximately
170 students in seven classrooms. Approximately 45% were females and 55% were males in the
fifth grade class.
From this group, a list of fifth grade students were randomly selected by the school
administrative team to have been in the homogeneous male and female classrooms. Another list
of students were identified as all students in the fifth grade.
The Combined Group sample included all students who were on both lists, which is a
total of 170 students. Below the chart that presented the amount of students who were used in the
research.
Figure 1.1- Combined number of students
As shown above in the flow chart, group one (students who are fifth graders in
homogeneous classrooms) consisted of 57 total students. In this group 32 students were male and
49
25 students female. Group Two (students who are fifth graders in heterogeneous classrooms)
consisted of 112 total students.
Instrumentation
Mathematics
The math instrument used during this study was Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley
Mathematics. Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics is the curriculum text used by the
school district in Kindergarten through the fifth grade. Each Foresman edition was aligned with
the North Carolina Standard Course of Study (NCSCOS). Being aligned to the North Carolina
Standard Course of Study allowed the students the opportunity to prepare for the North Carolina
End-of-Grade Examination for their appropriate grade level.
Each Foresman edition provided each grade level with a corresponding text with age and
skill appropriate standards based activities. The text taught students important mathematical
concepts and skills that prepare them for their next grade level(s).
Foresman Mathematics is a research-based Pre-K-6 curriculum that focused on
developing students’ conceptual understanding and skills through step-by-step instruction. The
focus was on key ideas in mathematics, rich problem-solving lessons that build the reading and
writing skills necessary for powerful problem solving, and differentiated instructional options to
have met the needs of varied learners. (Pearson, 2009)
Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics incorporated multiple elements of learning
to produce a curriculum that enabled children to have succeeded in math. Each chapter begins
with the Instant Check System: Diagnosing Readiness section that determined the student's
readiness for the material introduced, and several Diagnostic Checkpoints throughout the chapter
50
gauged your student's progress. Cumulative Reviews and Test Prep ensured that each child had
fully grasped the material. Reading practice was also incorporated with math lessons through
problem solving (Pearson, 2009).
The instrument for the study was selected from standardized assessments provided by the
state of North Carolina. Although tests and quarterly assessments were available at the end of
each unit, the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination, the standardized assessment used for
the study included a variety of skills students were required to know in their specific grade level.
The assessment was given in May to each student in the fifth grade in their regular
scheduled homeroom class, unless otherwise noted in their Individualized Educational Plan
(IEP). Students were given the Calculator Active part of the exam one day and the Calculator
Inactive exam another day. The Calculator Active part of the exam has 54 questions and the
students were allowed a maximum amount of test time as 240 minutes. The calculator Inactive
exam had 28 items and students were allowed a maximum of 150 minutes. According to the
North Carolina Department of Instruction, students were not tested Calculator Active and
Inactive on the same day (NCDPI, 2009). Calculators were only provided during the North
Carolina End of Grade Examination for Calculator Active.
Reliability and Validity
To ensure reliability in this study, the researcher used data collection and analysis
reported in detail to provide a clear and accurate image of the process used throughout the study.
51
Using state-wide assessments for quantitative data sources were valid and reliable and
have been established and provided by the state of North Carolina, the publisher of the
assessment.
Data Collection Procedures
The student North Carolina End of Grade data collected and compared from the school
year 2007-2008. Each individual student’s scores from the 2007-2008 school year (when the
student was either a fifth grade student in a heterogeneous classroom or a fifth grade student in a
homogeneous classroom) were compared to the student’s scores in the heterogeneous classes and
homogeneous classes from the 2007-2008 school year in the area of mathematics.
The school district assigned each school a Testing Coordinator. Each Testing Coordinator
was responsible for testing all required students as well as having brought student tests to the
Office of Accountability to have been scored and published. The Office of Accountability
provided school-level personnel with relevant, timely and accurate information, while building
the capacity to have used the information to have improved student performance and enhance
instructional leadership.
Ethical Considerations
This study maintained basic ethical principles, which were respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice. There were no physical, emotional, or mental risks associated with
participation in this study by students, teachers, or staff. The students’ North Carolina End-ofGrade Examination results remained confidential. Although the students’ North Carolina End of
Grade Mathematics exam included the student name, identification number, and teacher’s name,
52
the administration and fifth grade teachers reflected on the development and conclusion of the
study.
The expectation for this study was that student achievement increased in upcoming
school years. With the fifth grade staff at the elementary school having had the opportunity to
have experienced the argument of homogeneous classrooms versus heterogeneous classrooms,
they had the necessary knowledge regarding the development of a successful gender based
classroom.
Limitations
This study contributed to the field, but had not solved the problem of knowing whether
students achieved more in either gender distribution. Research had been done to support both
groups.
There were many other factors that may have impacted student test scores in this study
beyond the gender composition of the classroom. Classrooms compared were not comprised of
students with the same ability levels. Ethnicity, Free and Reduced Lunch Status-(FRL status),
and ethnic composition may have differed across classrooms. Each class was taught by a
different teacher, so the effectiveness of each teacher could have impacted the End-of-Grade
exam score.
53
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the findings and analysis of the data to address the research
question and the hypothesis. The primary purpose of this study was to examine homogenous and
heterogeneous instructional settings to have determined how and to what extent academic in fifth
grade mathematics was influenced by classroom makeup. Was there a significant difference in
achievement between single-sex classrooms and traditional classrooms?
The following research question was considered in this research study and was answered
during this chapter: Did students in homogeneous classes perform better on the North Carolina
End-of-Grade Examination in mathematics than students who had been placed in heterogeneous
classes? To have answered this question, the research painted a clear picture as to whether there
was a relationship between these grouping practices and academic performance, given the same
methods and materials. The data analyzed were (1) student achievement data in homogenous
classrooms and (2) student achievement data in heterogeneous classrooms. The data analysis
determined whether student achievement was impacted based on how they were grouped in
classrooms. The statistics were disaggregated and compiled, and presented in several graphs.
Descriptive Data
The student achievement data on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination was in
the form of raw and standard scores in mathematics. The developmental scale score shows the
students’ developmental scale score in reading, mathematics, and science. The number of
questions the students answered correctly was called a raw score. The raw score was converted
to a developmental scale score.
54
The developmental scale score depicted growth in reading and mathematics achievement
from year to year. Teachers and parents compared the developmental scale scores on the end-ofgrade examination from year to year in determining their student’s growth in reading or
mathematics.
Student performance was assessed by using a part of the North Carolina End-of-Grade
Examination only the mathematics section of North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination and
compared the scores of students in the traditional heterogeneous classroom to the students in the
homogeneous classes. Students were expected to show academic growth over time due to
maturation alone which was due to the additional content covered over time and/or due to the
experiences of the students. Therefore, it was difficult to have determined how much of the
student’s growth was a result of the homogeneous or heterogeneous classroom.
Data Analysis
The research design that was used in this study was a non-experimental case study that
examined the relationship between the dependent variable, student achievement in math, and the
independent variable, the type of classroom, homogeneous or heterogeneous. The instrument that
was used to measure student achievement was the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination
(NCEOG), a customized, criterion-referenced test aligned with the North Carolina Standard
Course of Study (NCSCOS). It was designed specifically for North Carolina students in grades
three through eight. The purpose of the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination score was for
students to have demonstrated their ability in mathematics, reading/language arts, and science, in
North Carolina. For the purpose of this study, the mathematics scale scores were used (North
Carolina Department of Instruction, 2009).
55
The North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination scores were gathered from the school
district for the examination in May of 2007. The information from this examination was
disaggregated from the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination Mathematics section for the
fifth grade classrooms at elementary school. Seven fifth grade classrooms at the elementary
school was used for the study.
The population studied consists of the students in the fifth grade at an elementary school
in North Carolina. The school enrollment was approximately 1200 students. The enrollment of
the fifth grade at the elementary school was approximately 170 students in seven classrooms.
Approximately 45% were females and 55% males. Seventy percent of the students were on free
or reduced lunch; thirty percent were in special education, and seventy percent were minority,
primarily black.
From this group, a list of fifth grade students were randomly selected by the school
administrative team to be in the homogeneous male and female classrooms. Another list of
students was identified as all students in the fifth grade. The combined group sample was
included all students who were on both lists, which were a total of 170 students.

Group one consisted of 57 fifth grade students in homogeneous classrooms. Of
the 57 students, 32 students were male and 25 students female.

Group Two was made of all fifth grade students who were enrolled in the
elementary school, a total of 112 students.
56
Research Questions and Results
Research Question
1. Did students in homogeneous classes perform better on the North Carolina End-ofGrade Examination in mathematics than students who have been placed in
heterogeneous classes?
This question dealt with the effect of gender-based classrooms in a public elementary
school compared to traditional classrooms in the same elementary school setting regarding
student achievement in mathematics on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination. The
disaggregation of the data collected was determined if there were significant differences in
student achievement between the homogeneous setting and heterogeneous setting on the
standardized mathematics examination.
Levels of Student Achievement on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination
∙Achievement level I Students performed at this level did not have sufficient
mastery of knowledge and skills in this subject area to have been successful at the next
grade level. Students performing at Level I showed minimal understanding and
computational accuracy. The students often responded with inappropriate answers or
procedures. They rarely used problem-solving strategies.
∙Achievement level II Students performed at this level demonstrate inconsistent
mastery of knowledge and skills in this subject area and were minimally prepared to be
successful at the next grade level. Students performed at Level II typically showed some
evidence of understanding and computational accuracy. The students sometimes
57
responded with appropriate answers or procedures. They demonstrated limited use of
problem-solving strategies.
∙Achievement level III Students performed at this level consistently
demonstrated mastery of grade level subject matter and skills and were well prepared for
the next grade level. Students performed at Level III generally showed understanding,
computed accurately. The students consistently responded with appropriate answers or
procedures. They used a variety of problem-solving strategies.
∙Achievement level IV Students who performed at this level consistently
performed in a superior manner clearly beyond that required to be proficient at grade
level work. Students performed at Level IV commonly showed a high level of
understanding, computed accurately. The students were very consistent responded with
appropriate answers or procedures. They demonstrated flexibility by using a variety of
problem-solving strategies.
Mathematics Results
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 below presented the student
population of all fifth grade students involved in the research from the elementary school. There
were a total of 169 students who participated. Figure 1.2 shows the number of students. Figure
1.3 shows the percentage of students involved in the research.
58
Figure 1.2. Fifth Grade Students
77
Female
92
Male
Figure 1.2. Number of students in the fifth grade
Figure 1.3. Percentage of Fifth Grade Students
54.44%
Female
45.56%
Male
Figure 1.3. Percentage of students in the fifth grade
 Figure 1.2 is represented by 77 female students and 92 male students who were
apart of the study at the elementary school.
 Figure 1.3 breaks down the percentage of male and female students who were
apart of the study at the elementary school.
The information in figures 1.2 and figure 1.3 broke down the total number of students in
the fifth grade at the elementary school studied. Seventy-seven female students or 45.56% and
ninety-two male students or 54.44% were examined to determine student achievement in the
homogeneous setting as compared to the heterogeneous setting.
59
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5 below presents the student
population of the fifth grade students in the homogeneous classes involved in the research from
the elementary school studied. There are a total of 25 female students who participated and a
total of 32 male students.
Figure 1.4. Fifth Grade Students in
Homogeneous Classes
25
Female
32
Male
Figure 1.4. Fifth grade students in homogeneous classes
Figure 1.5. Percentage of Fifth Grade Students
in Homogenous Classes
43.86%
Female
56.14%
Male
Figure 1.5. Percentage of fifth grade students in homogeneous classes
 Figure 1.4 represents the 25 female and 32 male students in the homogeneous
classes.
 Figure 1.5 represents the percentage of female and male students in the
homogeneous classes.
60
In Figure 1.4 the graph confirmed the number of students in each male and female
homogeneous classroom during the study. There was one homogeneous female class with 25
students and a homogeneous male class with 32 students. The percentages of students in the two
homogeneous classrooms that were represented in Figure 1.5 are female students 43.86% and
male students 56.14%.
Of the fifth grade students in the heterogeneous classes involved in the research, there are
four levels of achievement in which each student could have represented.
∙Achievement level I Students performed at this level did not have sufficient
mastery of knowledge and skills in this subject area to be successful at the next grade
level.
∙Achievement level II Students performed at this level demonstrated inconsistent
mastery of knowledge and skills in this subject area and were minimally prepared to be
successful at the next grade level.
∙Achievement level III Students performed at this level consistently
demonstrated mastery of grade level subject matter and skills and were well prepared for
the next grade level.
∙Achievement level IV Students performed at this level consistently perform in a
superior manner clearly beyond that required to be proficient at grade level work.
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.6 and Figure 1.7 below presented the achievement
level of male students in heterogeneous classrooms. Statistics in figure 1.6 had the number of
61
students who participated in the study. Statistics in figure 1.7 represented the percentage of
students in each achievement level from the traditional classes.
Figure 1.6. Fifth Grade Math Students in
Traditional Classes
5
11
Achivement Level I
Achievement Level II
Achievement Level III
24
Achievement Level IV
20
Figure 1.6. Number of fifth grade make students in traditional classes
Figure 1.7. Percentage of Fifth Grade Math
Students in Traditional Classes
8.33%
18.33%
Achivement Level I
Achievement Level II
40%
Achievement Level III
33.33%
Achievement Level IV
Figure 1.7. Percentage of fifth grade male students in traditional classes
 Figure 1.6 shows the ahcievement levels for male students in the tradtional
classrooms.
o 11 students scored in achievement level I.
62
o 20 students who scored in achievement level II.
o 24 students who scored in achievement level III
o 5 students scoring in achievement level IV.
 Figure 1.7 shows the percentage of male students scoring in the four achievement
levels in the traditional classes.
o Achievement level I had 18.33% of the male students.
o Achievement level II had 33.33% of the male students.
o Achievement level III 40% of the male students.
o Achievement level IV had 8.33% of the male students.
The results in student achievement in the traditional classes showed the achievement
level of the male students to be much higher in achievement Level III and IV, similar to the
female distribution of scores. The majority of the distribution of scores among male students in
the heterogeneous classes was also found in the middle part of the achievement levels,
achievement level II and III, rather than the bottom part of the achievement level I and II. The
data in both the male and female heterogeneous classrooms were similar when comparing
achievement levels with the amount of students
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.8 and Figure 1.9 below presented the achievement
level of female students in heterogeneous classrooms. Statistics in Figure 1.8 had the number of
63
students who participated in the study. Statistics in Figure 1.9 is the percentage of students in
each achievement level from the heterogeneous classes who participated in study.
Figure 1.8. Fifth Grade Female Students
Achievement Level in Traditional Classes
6
9
Achivement Level I
Achievement Level II
Achievement Level III
18
19
Achievement Level IV
Figure 1.8. Number of female students achievement levels in traditional classes
Figure 1.9. Percentage of Fifth Grade Female
Students in Traditional Classes
8.33%
18.33%
Achivement Level I
Achievement Level II
40%
33.33%
Achievement Level III
Achievement Level IV
Figure 1.9. Percentage of female student’s achievement levels in traditional classes
 Figure 1.8 shows the achievement levels of the female students in the traditional
classes during the study.
o 9 students fell into achievement level I.
o 19 students fell into achievement level II.
64
o 18 students fell into achievement level III.
o 6 students fell into achievement level IV.
In Figures 1.8 and 1.9 results in student achievement in the traditional classes showed the
achievement level of the female students to be similar to the male distribution of scores having
had the majority of the distribution of scores having fallen between Achievement Level II and
III. The majority of the distribution of scores among female students in the heterogeneous classes
was also found in the middle part of achievement level, II and III, rather than the upper part of
the achievement levels III and IV and the bottom part of the achievement level I and II. The data
in both the male and female heterogeneous classrooms had a similar relationship when compared
achievement levels and the amount of students.
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.10 and Figure 1.11 below presented the achievement
level of male and female students in heterogeneous classrooms. Statistics in Figure 1.10 had the
exact number of male and female students who fell into the specific achievement levels.
Statistics in Figure 1.11 showed the percentage of male and female students in each achievement
level from the heterogeneous classes.
65
Figure 1.10. Fifth Grade Male and Female
Students in Traditional Classes
Female Achievement Level I
6
9
Female Achievement Level II
24
Female Achievement Level III
19
Female Achievement Level IV
Male Achievement Level I
18
20
11
Male Achievement Level II
Male Achievement Level III
6
Male Achievement Level IV
Figure1.10. Male and female student’s achievement level in traditional classes
Figure 1.11. Percentage of Fifth Grade Male
and Female Students in Traditional Classes
4.46%
Female Achievement Level I
8.04%
21.43%
Female Achievement Level II
Female Achievement Level III
16.96%
Female Achievement Level IV
Male Achievement Level I
16.07%
17.86%
Male Achievement Level II
Male Achievement Level III
9.82%
Male Achievement Level IV
5.36%
Figure 1.11. Percentage of male and female student’s achievement level in traditional classes
 Figure 1.10 shows the achievement levels of male and female students in the
tradtional classrooms.
o Female students performing in each achievement level.
66
o

Achievement level I had 9 female students.

Achievement level II had 19 female students.

Achievement level III had 18 female students.

Achievement level IV had 6 female students.
Male students performing in each achievement level.

Achievement level I had 11 male students.

Achievement level II had 20 male students.

Achievement level III had 24 male students.

Achievement level IV had 5 male students.
 Figure 1.11 represented the achievement level of male and female students by
percentages.
o Female students by percentage performed in each achievement level.

Achievement level I was represented by 8.04% of the female
students.

Achievement level II was represented by 16.96% of the female
students.
67

Achievement level III was represented by 16.07% of the female
students.

Achievement level IV was represented by 5.36% of the female
students.
o
Male students by percentage performed in each achievement level.

Achievement level I was represented by 9.82% of the male
students.

Achievement level II was represented by 17.86% of the male
students.

Achievement level III was represented by 21.43% of the male
students.

Achievement level IV was represented by 4.46% of the male
students.
In Figures 1.10 and 1.11 the Achievement Levels in both the males and female tradtional
classrooms are very similar comparing the percentages of students achieveing in each of the
levels.
The achievement levels showed majority of the students fell into Achievement Level(s) II
and III. With the major difference in the traditional classrooms being there were almost double
68
the amount of male students (11) scoring in the lowest achievement level, achievement level I,
versus the female students (6).
Comparing achievement levels, II, III, and IV the students in both the heterogeneous
male classrooms and heterogenous female classrooms showed results that were very similar.
Male scoring in achivement level II (20) was very close to females (19) scoring in the same
level. However, the study indicated that in the heterogeneous classes there were more male
students involved in the study compared to female students, so the percentages while close, show
male students scored at level II (17.86%) as opposed to the female students in the heterogeneous
classes scoring at achievement level III (16.96%).
The male students in the heterogeneous classroom scored higher in achievement level III
on the End-of-Grade Examination compared to the female students. Male students scored in this
acievement level (24) compared to female students (18). Similar to stduent scores in achievement
level II, male students again scored higher (21.43%) compared to the female students (16.07%).
The scores were within five percentage points and it was suggested that they lean towards the
male students because there are more male students in the study.
In achivement level IV the male and female students scored in this level were very close.
Of the students in the heterogeneous classes to score in acievement level IV were 6 female
students or 5.36% and 5 male students or 4.46%. These numbers were much lower compared to
the other three achievement levels and this may have been because of the difficultly in reaching
the higher achievement levels.
69
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.12 and Figure 1.13 below presented the achievement
levels of male students in homogenous classrooms. Statistics in Figure 1.12 had the exact
number of male students who fell into the specific achievement levels. Statistics in Figure 1.13
showed the percentage of male students in each achievement level from the homogenous classes.
Figure 1.12. Fifth Grade Male Students in
Homogeneous Classes
3
3
Achievement Level I
Achievement Level II
11
Achievement Level III
15
Achievement Level IV
Figure 1.12. Number of male students in homogeneous classes
Figure 1.13. Percentage of Fifth Grade Male
Students in Homogeneous Classes
9.38%
9.38%
Achievement Level I
Achievement Level II
46.88%
34.38%
Achievement Level III
Achievement Level IV
Figure 1.13. Percentage of male students in homogeneous classes
 Figure 1.12 showed the male students represented in the homogeneous classroom during
the study.
70
o Achievement level I had 3 male students.
o Achievement level II had 11 male students.
o Achievement level III had 15 male students.
o Achievement level IV had 3 male students.
 Figure 1.13 showed the amount of male students in percentages in the homogenous
classroom during the study.
o Achievement level I was represented by 9.38% of the male students.
o Achievement level II was represented by 34.38% of the male students.
o Achievement level III was represented by 46.88% of the male students.
o Achievement level IV was represented by 9.38% of the male students.
In Figures 1.12 and 1.13 the Achievement Levels in the male homogeneous classroom
were very similar when compared to the percentages of students who achieved in each of the
four levels.
The achievement levels in these figures, showed the majority of the students fell into
Achievement Level(s) II and III similar to the male and female students in the heterogeneous
classrooms as mentioned prior in this study. The difference in the male homogenous classroom
was that there were exactly 3 male students scored the lowest achievement level, achievement
level I, versus 3 male students who scored the highest achievement level IV. The lower number
of students who scored in the lowest achivement level was a positive because the students were
71
measured on their achievement on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination. With more
students scoring in the upper achievement level, the achievement gap in mathematics was
decreased.
Comparing achievement levels, II and III, the students in the male homogeneous
classroom showed results that had a larger gap between each. Males scoring in achievement level
II (11) were less than students scoring in achievement level III (15). The study indicated that in
the homogeneous class there were a total of 32 students with male students who scored in
achievement level II was relatively lower (34.38%) as opposed to the students in the
homogeneous class who scored in achievement level III (46.88%).
In achievement level IV the males (3) in the homogeneous class scored (9.38%) which
was considered low for the amount of students in the class. These numbers were much lower
compared to the other achievement levels and this may have been because of difficultly in
reaching this achievement level. However, achievement level IV was the level at which
educators in the state of North Carolina would have liked the majority of their students to
perform.
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.14 and Figure 1.15 below presents the achievement
level of female students in homogeneous classrooms. Statistics in Figure 1.14 had the exact
number of female students who fell into the specific achievement levels. Statistics in Figure 1.15
showed the percentage of female students in each achievement level from the homogeneous
classes.
72
Figure 1.14. Fifth Grade Female Students in
Homogeneous Classes
1 2
Achievement Level I
Achievement Level II
11
Achievement Level III
11
Achievement Level IV
Figure 1.14. Number of female student achievement levels in homogeneous classes
Figure 1.15. Percentage of Fifth Grade Female
Students in Homogeneous Classes
4% 8%
Achievement Level I
Achievement Level II
44%
Achievement Level III
44%
Achievement Level IV
Figure 1.15. Percentage of female student achievement levels in homogeneous classes
 Figure 1.14 showed the female students represented in the homogeneous classroom
during the study.
o Achievement level I had 2 female students.
o Achievement level II had 11 female students.
o Achievement level III had 11 female students.
o Achievement level IV had 1 female students.
73
 Figure 1.15 showed the amount of female students in percentages in the homogenous
classroom during the study.
o Achievement level I was represented by 8% of the female students.
o Achievement level II was represented by 44% of the female students.
o Achievement level III was represented by 44% of the female students.
o Achievement level IV was represented by 4% of the female students.
In Figures 1.14 and 1.15 the Achievement Levels in the female homogeneous classroom
were very similar when compared the percentages of students in the homogenous male class and
the seven heterogeneous classes.
Achievement Level I showed (2) of the students in the female homogeneous classroom
performed at the lowest level. The 2 students (or 8%) was considered a low total for this level
because it was shown that majority of the class was performing above this lower level and falling
into one of the higher three zones.
The achievement levels in Figure 1.14 and 1.15 showed a majority of the students fell
into Achievement Levels II and III similar to the male and female students in the heterogeneous
classrooms and the male homogeneous classroom as mentioned prior in this study. The
difference in the female homogenous classroom was there was exactly the amount of eleven
female students scoring in achievement level II versus the eleven female students scoring in
achievement level III. This showed that 88% of the students in the female homogeneous
classroom scored in achievement level II or achievement level III.
74
The lower number of students scored in the lowest achivement level was a positive
because the students were measured on their achievement on the North Carolina End-of-Grade
Examination. Students who were not achieveing in the upper achievement levels were given
many opportunities through tutorials and remediation to have improved their achievement level
on the End-of-Grade retake. The more students that scored in the upper levels of achievement,
closed the achievement in mathematics gap and allowed the students more opportunity. The
achievement gap in mathematics reduced due to the students who have not achieved at the
highest level. If the students had not achieved the gap continued to grow.
In achivement level IV the females (1) in the homogeneous class scored (4%) which was
considered low for the amount of students in the class. These numbers were much lower
compared to the other achievement levels and this may have been because of difficultly in
reaching this achievement level. As stated earlier in the study, achievement level IV was the
level that educators in the state of North Carolina would have liked to see the majority of its
students perform.
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.16 and Figure 1.17 below presented the achievement
level of both male and female students in homogeneous classrooms. Statistics in Figure 1.16 had
the number of male and female students who fell into each achievement level. Statistics in Figure
1.17 showed the percentage of male and female students in each achievement level from the
homogeneous classes.
75
Figure 1.16. Fifth Grade Male and Female
Students in Homogeneous Classes
Female Achievement Level I
3 2
Female Achievement Level II
11
Female Achievement Level III
15
Female Achievement Level IV
Male Achievement Level I
11
11
Male Achievement Level II
Male Achievement Level III
3
Male Achievement Level IV
1
Figure 1.16. Male and female student achievement levels in homogenous classes
Figure 1.17. Percentage of Fifth Grade Male
and Female Students in Homogeneous Classes
5.26%
3.51%
Female Achievement Level I
Female Achievement Level II
19.3%
Female Achievement Level III
26.32%
Female Achievement Level IV
Male Achievement Level I
19.3%
Male Achievement Level II
19.3%
Male Achievement Level III
5.26%
Male Achievement Level IV
1.75%
Figure 1.17. Percentage of Male and female student achievement levels in homogenous classes
 Figure 1.16 showed the female students represented in the homogeneous classroom
during the study.
76
o Achievement level I had 2 female students.
o Achievement level II had 11 female students.
o Achievement level III had 11 female students.
o Achievement level IV had 1 female student.
 Figure 1.16 showed the male students represented in the homogeneous classroom during
the study.
o Achievement level I had 3 male students.
o Achievement level II had 11 male students.
o Achievement level III had 15 male students.
o Achievement level IV had 3 male students.
 Figure 1.17 showed the female students represented by percentages in the homogeneous
classroom during the study.
o Achievement level I was represented by 3.51% of female students.
o Achievement level II was represented by 19.3% of female students.
o Achievement level III was represented by 19.3% of female students.
o Achievement level IV was represented by 1.75% female student.
77
 Figure 1.17 showed the male students represented by percentages in the homogeneous
classroom during the study.
o Achievement level I was represented by 5.26% of male students.
o Achievement level II was represented by 19.3% of male students.
o Achievement level III was represented by 26.32% of female students.
o Achievement level IV was represented by 5.26% female student.
Figures 1.16 and 1.17 showed male and female students’ achievement levels in the
homogeneous classes. These graphs indicated that student achievement levels were very similar
at every achievement level. Although there were more male students in their homogeneous class
(32) compared to female students in their homogeneous class (25) the scores from the
examination showed that both classes have the majority of their students scored in achievement
level II and achievement level III.
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.18 and Figure 1.19 below presented the comparison
of achievement levels of male students in the heterogeneous and homogeneous classrooms. The
statistics in Figure 1.18 showed the amount of male students and the percentage of male students
in each achievement level from heterogeneous classrooms. Statistics in Figure 1.19 showed the
amount of male students and the percentage of male students in each achievement level from the
homogeneous classes. The information was presented in a side by side pie graph for easy
comparison.
78
Males Students in
Heterogeneous
Classrooms
Achievement
Level I
8%
18%
40%
Males Students in
Homogeneous
Classrooms
10%
Achievement
Level II
34%
Achievement
Level I
9%
47%
Achievement
Level III
Achievement
Level II
34%
Achievement
Level IV
Figure 1.18. Male students in heterogeneous
Achievement
Level III
Achievement
Level IV
Figure 1.19. Percentage of male students in homogeneous
Figure 1.18 showed that the homogeneous classrooms had a higher achievement
percentage in achievement level III. The male students in the heterogenous classrooms had
scores that were comparable to those of the males in the homogeneous classroom.
 Eightteen percentage points of male students in the heterogenous classes scored in
achievement level I compared to ten percentage points in the homogeneous class
scoring at the same level.
 Thirty-four percentage points of male students in the heterogenous classes scored
in achievement level II as well as the male students in the homogeneous class.
 Forty percentage points of male students in the heterogenous classes scored in
achievement level III compared to Forty-seven percentage points in the
homogeneous class.
79
 Eight percentage points of male students in the heterogenous classes scored in
achievement level IV compared to nine percentage points in the homogeneous
class.
There were just a few minor differences when the male students in the heterogeneous
classrooms and males in the homogeneous class were compared. This difference may have been
caused by the number of students that were involved in each class during the study. The
difference showed in Figure 1.18 and Figure 1.19 was by seven percentage points in achievement
level III favoring the homogeneous classroom. It was also noted that the heterogeneous
classroom had eight percentage points more of its stduents fell into achievement level I.
The descriptive statistics of Figure 1.20 below presented the comparison of achievement
levels of male and female students in the heterogeneous and homogeneous classrooms. The
statistics in Figure 1.20 showed the amount of male and female students each achievement level
from the heterogeneous and homogeneous classrooms.
Homogenous vs. Heterogenous
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Female Homo
Male Homo
Level 1
Female Hetero
Level 2
Level 3
Male Hetero
Level 4
Figure 1.20. Male and female student’s achievement levels in homogeneous and heterogeneous classes
80
Figure 1.20 showed the number of students and at what level they achieved on the North
Carolina End-of-Grade Examination. The information in the graph depicted the students’
achievement level in each of the classes, with the majority of the scores in between the
achievement levels II and III. It should have been noted that in the heterogeneous classes there
were more students testing into achievement level I and IV. The students in level I were
considered to be underachieving and the number of students who achieved in level IV was
considered a success. This could also have been contributed to a greater number of students for
comparison in the homogeneous classes.
Summary
The data in the graphs above revealed several key factors. In comparing the achievement
of students in heterogeneous classes with comparable students in homogeneous classes, few
differences in achievement were found.
Seventy-seven female students or 45.56% and ninety-two male students or 54.44% were
being used to determine student achievement in the homogeneous setting or heterogeneous
setting. There were one homogeneous female class of 25 and a homogeneous male class of 32.
The results in student achievement in the traditional classes showed the achievement level of the
male students to be much higher in achievement Level III and IV, similar to the female
distribution of scores. The majority of the distribution of scores among male students in the
heterogeneous classes was also found in the middle part of achievement level, achievement level
II and III, rather than the bottom part of the achievement level I and II. The data in both the male
81
and female heterogeneous classrooms were similar when achievement levels and the amount of
students were compared.
Student achievement in the traditional classes showed the achievement level of the
female students to be similar to the male distribution of scores having had the majority of the
distribution of scores falling between Achievement Level II and III. The majority of the
distribution of scores among female students in the heterogeneous classes were also found in the
middle part of achievement level, II and III, rather than the upper part of the achievement levels
III and IV and the bottom part of the achievement level I and II. The data in both the male and
female tradtional classrooms were similar when achievement levels and the amount of students
were compared.
Achievement levels in both the male and female traditonal classrooms were very similar
when comparing the percentages of students in each of the four achievement levels. The
Achievement levels showed majority of the students fell into Achievement Level(s) II and III.
With the major difference in the traditional classrooms there were almost double the amount of
male students (11) scoring in the lowest achievement level, achievement level I, versus the
female students (6).
Comparing achievement levels, II, III, and IV the students in both the heterogeneous
male classrooms and hetergenouse female classrooms showed results that were very similar.
Male scoring in achivement level II (20) was very close to females (19) scoring in the same
level. However, the study indicated that in the heterogeneous classes there were more male
students involved in the study compared to female students, so the percentages while close,
82
showed male students scoring at level II (17.86%) as opposed to the female students in the
heterogeneous classes scoring at achievement level III (16.96%).
The male students in the heterogeneous classroom scored higher in acievement level III
on the End of Grade Examination compared to the female students. Male students scoring in this
acievement level (24) compared to female students (18). Similar to student scores in achievement
level II, male students again scored higher (21.43%) compared to the female students (16.07%).
The scores were within a few percentage points and it was suggested that they lean towards the
male students because there were more male students in the study.
In achievement level IV the male and female students scored in this level were very
close. Of the students in the heterogeneous classes to score in achievement level IV were 6
female students or 5.36% and 5 male students or 4.46%. These numbers were much lower
compared to the other three achievement levels and this may have been because of difficultly in
reaching this achievement level. Achievement Levels in the male homogeneous classroom were
very similar comparing the percentages of students achieveing in each of the levels.
The achievement levels showed majority of the students fell into Achievement Level(s) II
and III similar to the male and female students in the heterogeneous classrooms as mentioned
prior in this study. The difference in the male homogenous classroom was there was exactly the
amount of male students (3) scoring in the lowest achievement level, achievement level I, versus
the male students (3) scored in the highest achievement level IV. The lower amount of students
scored in the lowest achivement level was a positive because the students were measured on their
achievement on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination. The more students that score in
83
the upper levels of achievement, closed the achievement gap and allowed the students more
opportunity.
Comparing achievement levels, II and III, the students in the male homogeneous
classroom showed results that had a larger gap between each. Male scoring in achivement level
II (11) was less than students scoring in achievement level III (15). The study indicates that in
the homogeneous class there were a total of 32 students in the study and the graph above showed
the male students scoring in achievement level II is relatively lower (34.38%) as apposed to the
students in the homogeneous class who scored in achievement level III (46.88%).
In achivement level IV the males (3) in the homogeneous class scored (9.38%) which
was considered low for the amount of students in the class. These numbers were much lower
compared to the other achievement levels and this may have been because of the difficultly in
reaching this achievement level. However, achievement level IV was the level that educators in
the state of North Carolina would have liked the majority of their students to perform.
Achievement levels in the female homogeneous classroom were very similar when
comparing the percentages of students in the homogenous male class and the seven
heterogeneous classes.
Achievement level I showed (2) of the students in the female homogeneous classroom
performed at the lowest level. The 2 students (or 8%) were considered a low total for this level
because it was shown that majority of the class was performing above this lower level and falling
into one of the higher three zones.
The achievement levels in Figure 1.13 and 1.14 showed majority of the students fall into
Achievement Level(s) II and III similar to the male and female students in the heterogeneous
84
classrooms and the male homogeneous classroom as mentioned prior in this study. The
difference in the female homogenous classroom was there was exactly the amount of female
students (11) who scored in achievement level II versus the female students (11) who scored in
achievement level III. This showed that 88% of the students in the female homogeneous
classroom scored in achievement level II or achievement level III.
The lower number of students scoring in the lowest achivement level was a positive
because the students were measured on their achievement on the North Carolina End-of-Grade
Examination. The more students that score in the upper levels of achievement, closed the
achievement gap and allowed the students more opportunity.
In achivement level IV the females (1) in the homogeneous class scored (4%) which was
considered low for the amount of students in the class. These numbers were much lower
compared to the other achievement levels and this may have been because of difficultly in
reaching this achievement level. As stated earlier in the study, achievement level IV was the
level that educators in the state of North Carolina would have liked to see the majority of its
students perform.
Like it was stated earlier the student achievement levels were very similar in every
achievement level. Although there were more male students in their homogeneous class (32)
compared to female students in their homogeneous class (25) the scores from the examination
showed that both classes had the majority of their students who scored in achievement level II
and achievement level III.
The homogeneous classrooms had a higher achievement percentage in achievement level
III. The male students in the heterogenous classrooms had scores that were comparable to those
85
of the males in the homogeneous classroom. There were just a few differences and this may have
been caused by the number of students that were involved in each class during the study. One of
the differences were by a few percentage points in achievement level IV had favored the
homogeneous classroom. However, level I and IV percentagages favored the males in the
homogeneous classrooms.
The student achievement level in each of the classes had the majority of the scores in
between the II and III achievement levels. In the heterogeneous classes it was noted that there
were more students falling into achievement level I and IV. The students falling into level I was
considered to be underachieving and the number of students achieving in level IV is considered a
success. This could also have been contributed to a greater number of students for comparison in
the homogeneous classes.
To truly be able to have determined if the achievement level for the students in either the
homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms more data may have needed to be collected over a
longer period of time in order to measure the true effects, if any, of the achievement level of the
specified students. Also, it was possible that the full effects of homogeneous classrooms in the
public setting could not have been measured until a greater amount of information was gathered
regarding the students in the study.
Table 1 below showed the North Carolina End-of Grade Examination results for students
who were in the traditional classes during the study. The table shows the gender, male and
female, the school year the results were used, the student’s achievement level, and the scale
score.
86
Table 1. North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination Student Results in Traditional Classes in
School Year 2007-2008
Gender
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Score
340
337
334
336
338
141
339
335
338
337
338
349
341
347
349
350
348
350
348
348
350
344
346
344
345
344
348
341
346
348
344
351
351
359
357
353
358
362
354
357
356
357
Achievement
level
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Gender
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Score
Achievement
level
340
340
335
339
337
337
336
340
334
346
343
350
341
343
344
156
342
349
349
347
348
350
347
349
350
349
350
349
351
351
359
355
355
351
352
356
355
358
358
352
362
358
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
87
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
362
361
360
354
354
352
356
353
361
354
351
360
360
363
363
371
368
365
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
352
351
357
357
363
364
373
363
375
369
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Table 2 below showed the North Carolina End-of Grade Examination results for students
who were in the homogeneous classes during the study. The table shows the gender, male and
female, the school year the results were used, the student’s achievement level, and the scale
score.
Table 2: North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination Student Results in Homogeneous Classes
Gender
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Score
337
337
335
342
341
345
346
341
349
347
346
342
Achievement
level
Gender
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Score
337
337
348
347
345
346
348
350
344
343
345
341
88
Achievement
level
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
350
349
354
356
355
362
356
351
356
351
358
359
362
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
M
359
III
M
362
III
M
361
III
M
360
III
M
364
IV
M
367
IV
M
365
IV
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
348
356
355
360
359
352
355
353
357
360
354
353
363
89
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
IV
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the study were presented in three
sections. The initial sections consisted of the summary of the purpose of this study and the
methodology used. The second section discussed the conclusions reached for the research
questions. This section also presented implications for the future development of homogeneous
classrooms in schools across the country. Finally, recommendations for further research were
proposed.
The primary purpose for this study was to examine homogeneous and heterogeneous
instructional settings to determine how they both influenced academic achievement in
mathematics, as measured by the state mathematics examination, at fifth grade. The research was
to have determined whether homogenous instruction affected academic achievement in
mathematics in grade five as well as having expanded previous research on homogeneous classes
in public schools by assessed the impact of gender grouping on the state math exam verse
traditional classes. The particular interest of this part of the overall study was to consider the
variable of single-gender classrooms and its effect on student achievement.
The primary research question for this study was: Did students in homogeneous classes
perform better on the North Carolina End-of-Grade Exam in mathematics than students who
have been placed in heterogeneous classes? The intent of the research was to identify where
these was an impact in students achievement using single-gender classrooms in a North Carolina
public school district. To have answered this question, the research painted a clear picture at
whether there was a relationship between these grouping practices and academic
performance, given the same methods and materials.
90
The study analyzed data obtained from the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination by
fifth grade students in an urban school district in North Carolina. The data was used as the basis
and support for the achievement of single-gender classrooms, determining if the school district
should implement the single-gender classroom in this district or continue with the traditional or
heterogeneous classroom.
The researcher began with the historical perspective of the academic achievement of
students in the school district and looked to determine if the homogeneous classroom was the
best situation for students to have achieved at the highest level.
Summary of the Study
Summary of Findings and Conclusion
Had students in homogeneous classes performed better on the North Carolina End-ofGrade Examination in mathematics than students who had been placed in heterogeneous
classes?
After analyzing the data from the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination it was
concluded that there was not a significant difference in student achievement when compared
both the students in the homogeneous classrooms to the students in the heterogeneous classroom.
When achievement levels from the North Carolina End-of-Grade Examination results were
observed, it was difficult to have determined if there were areas in which the students had and
had not improve. With comparing data from one year, the difficulty was in measuring how much
these students had grown. Just based on achievement level of students in the fifth grade, the
91
achievement level was lower than the state of North Carolina’s expectation for students in the
fifth grade.
The study called for additional research in the area of single-gender classrooms. It was
recommended that the study was implemented over a longer period of time in order to determine
long-term effectiveness of single-gender classrooms and whether instruction in these types of
settings could substantially, have raised student achievement when compared to traditional
classroom settings.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Future Reference
The applicable recommendations for future study include:
1. Evaluate the perception of homogeneous groupings from administrators, teachers,
parents, and students. Is there buy-in for the homogeneous classroom or is there ongoing
debate between the homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms?
2. Examine the homogeneous classrooms of students who have a teacher of the opposite
gender. What is the effect, if any, on student achievement?
3. Examine the attendance rate of students who are participating in a homogenous
classroom compared to the traditional classroom.
4. Examine the behavior of the students participating in the homogeneous model to
determine how discipline in the classroom has affected student achievement.
92
5. Standardized assessments should be used for additional research in this area that is
conducted annually. Additional research should be done in this area comparing annual
scores for an extended period of time for students in the homogeneous model.
6. Maintain the single-gender program throughout the entire building. Data collection could
include students for three-five consecutive years to show program effectiveness.
7. Data collection on included one elementary school in this study. Additional data from
schools with similar demographics participating in single-gender programs should be
evaluated for comparison.
8. Pre-assessments to determine growth. Pre-assessment allows the teacher and student to
discover what is already known in a specific topic or subject. It is critical to recognize
prior knowledge so students can engage in questioning, formulating, thinking and
theorizing in order to construct new knowledge appropriate to their level.
9. Continue to further study in the same school setting in the future.
93
Implications
The importance of the study was determining whether single-gender as compared to
heterogeneous classrooms had a more positive impact on student achievement and determined if
the achievement increased in the area of mathematics.
The implications identified the impact that could be achieved regarding increasing
student achievement in mathematics. Had the increase in student achievement stemmed from the
homogeneous classrooms or from the heterogeneous classrooms?
The implications were listed below:
1. Teacher competencies/conceptual framework could be created to have identified a
core set of virtual knowledge and skills and tasks required for teachers who worked in
a homogeneous classroom.
2. Planned professional development sessions for teachers, parents, staff, and
administrators. Each stakeholder needs to feel a part of the buy-in process.
3. Awareness was built among staff to help with the development of needs for students
in homogeneous classrooms.
4. Classroom environments were assessed for effectiveness. There was a need for
assessment of curriculum modifications and educational materials to eliminate a bias
towards homogeneous groupings.
5. Finally, the data collection included one elementary school in the study. There were
no neighboring schools with similar demographics participating in homogeneous
settings for contrast at the onset of this research study.
94
REFERENCES
American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: A study of
major findings on girls and education. Washington, DC.
American Association of University Women. (1996, February). Smart efforts for girls in school.
The Education Digest, 21-24.
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (1998). Separated by Sex:
A critical look at single sex education for girls. Washington, D.C.
American Association of University Women. (1999). Gender gaps: where schools still
fail our children. New York: Marlowe.
Baker, D., & Jacobs, K. (1999). Winners and losers in single-sex science and mathematics
classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication, Curriculum and Instruction, Arizona
State University, Tempe, Arizona. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED445900.pdf
Cooper, J., Prescott, S., Cook, L., Smith, L., Mueck, R., & Cuseo, J. (1990). Cooperative
learning and college instruction: Effective use of student learning teams. Long Beach,
CA., California State University Foundation.
Council for School Performance. (2001). Gender differences in K-12 education: What
indicators are important? Retrieved March 24, 2007, from
http://www.arc.gsu.edu/csp/csp_gender.htm
Datnow, A. (2001) The gender politics of educational change. London: Falmer Press
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Woody, E. (2001). Is single gender schooling viable in
the public sector? Lessons from California’s pilot program. Retrieved March 19, 2007,
from www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/tps/adatnow/final
Department of Education, Health, and Welfare, (1972). Title ix statue of the educational
amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 - 1688). Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/crt/cor/coord/titleixstat.php#%28c%29%22Educational%20institu
tion%22%20defined
Derry, J. A. (2004, Winter). Comparisons of selected student and teacher variables in all-girls
and coeducational physical education environments. Physical Educator, 61(1) 23-34.
95
Finn, J. (1980). Sex differences in educational outcomes: A cross-national study. Sex Roles, 6(1),
9-25.
Fraser, J.W. (2001). The school in the United States. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hopkins, W. (2000). Quantitative research design. Sportscience, 4(1), 2-5.
Kaestle, C. (1983). Pillars of the republic: common schools and American society, 1780-1860.
New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Karp, K. & Shakeshaft, C. (1997, February). Restructuring schools to be math friendly to
females. Bulletin, 84-93.
Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K.J. (1991). Physical activity enjoyment scale: two validation
studies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology (JSEP), 13(1), 50-64.
Lee, V. E., & Lockheed, M. M. (1990). The effects of single-sex schooling on achievement and
attitudes in Nigeria. Comparative educational review, 34(2), 209-231. EJ 412 239.
Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school
experience on attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal of educational
psychology, 82(3), 588
Logsdon, E.C. (2003). “No child left behind” and the promotion of single-sex public education in
primary and secondary schools: shattering the glass ceilings perpetuated by coeducation.
Journal of Law & Education, 32(2), 291-296.
Mallam, W. A. (1993). Impact of school-type and sex of the teacher on female students' attitudes
toward mathematics in Nigerian secondary schools. Educational studies in mathematics,
24(2), 223-229.
Matthews, C., Binkley, W., Crisp, L. & Gregg, K. (1998). Challenging gender bias in
fifth grade. Educational Leadership, 1998, 54-57.
Mondale, S. (2002). School: the story of American public education. Boston, MA: Beacon.
National Association for Single-Sex Public Education. (2002, March). Single-sex schools /
schools with single-sex classrooms / what’s the difference. Retrieved from
http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-classrooms.htm
No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. (2001) 107-110. http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
North Carolina Department of Education (2009). http://www.ncpublicschools.org/
96
Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/docs/DeluderSatan.pdf
On Purpose Associates (1998). How do people learn? Piaget’s developmental theory.
http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_theory_how3.html
Phillips, D. A., Carlisle, C., Steffen, J, & Stroot, S. (1992). The physical education teacher
assessment instruction- computerized version. Greeley, CO: School of Kinesiology and
Physical Education, University of Northern Colorado. USA
Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: how our schools cheat girls. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Salomone, R. (2005). Same, different, equal: rethinking single-sex schooling. New York, NY:
Yale University Press.
Sax, L. (2005). The promise and peril of single-sex public education. Education Week, 48(5),
Retrieved from http://www.saskdebate.com/media/2013/singlegenderclassroomsfinal.pdf
Sax, L. (2008). Why gender matters?. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Schwartz, W. & Hanson, K. (1992). Equal mathematics education for female students.
New York, NY: Institute for Urban Minority
Education.
Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics: Grade 5. (2003) Coppell, TX: Scott Foresman.
Shapka, J., & Keating, D. (2003). Effects of a girls-only curriculum during adolescents:
performance, persistence, and engagement in mathematics and science. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 929-960.
Sharpe, W. Ed.D. (2000). Single gender classes. Are they Better? Education World. Retrieved
October 1, 2004.
Spring, J. (2005). The American school 1642-2004. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Stock, D. (2006, January 12). History of education in America. Retrieved from
http://www.chesapeake.edu/Library/EDU_101/eduhist.asp
Streitmatter J. (1999). For girls only: making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany:
State University of New York.
97
Thattai, D. (2001, November). A history of public education in the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/200111/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html
Tschumy, R. (1995, November). What do we know about girls? Ensuring gender equity in the
classroom. Bulletin, 58-61.
Wiest, L. (2001). Selected resources for encouraging females in mathematics. The
Mathematics Teacher, 94, 14-18.
Woods, J., & Dylinski, S. (2002). Is single-sex education a proven strategy? American Teacher,
87
98