Ma.

Jessica Santos EDRE 201, Assignment 2

A Critique about Classroom Gender Segregation and Social Development

My critique is based on a journal article that shows the implications of same-sex classrooms to
children’s social development. This article is written by Benjamin Barton of University of
Alabama at Birmingham and Robert Cohen of University of Memphis entitled “Classroom
Gender Composition and Children’s Peer Relations”.
Summary
The introduction of the article talks about gender segregation in classroom and it being the topic
of a number of educational research and how it has proven to be academically beneficial
particularly for girls. But Barton and Cohen would like to study the implications of a gender-
segregated classroom in children’s social development. Given that being in a same-sex
classroom is academically beneficial, what would be the effects of it in children’s social
development? Would it likely to increase aggressive behavior, create rejection or create
friendships?
The research background was presented in three parts. The first is about the gender and
children’s social development saying that aggression and friendship are related to behavioral
differences between genders. Boys show overt aggression (verbal or physical threats and
intimidation) because of their direct behavior style and larger peer networks while girls are most
likely to show relational aggression (intentional manipulation and damage of peer relations)
because of the importance given to social groups among girls and because of tight friendship
network.
This study also gave a short discussion on the aspect of victimization. Victimization is associated
with poor competence and low global self-worth; it is positively related to loneliness, submissive
behaviors and reactive aggression.
Peer rejection is being identified by a significant number of classmates as disliked. Links
between rejection and same-sex classroom environment are unclear.
Generally, children exhibit powerful same-sex friendship. It also shows that gender composition
of a child’s friendship is important. Having both genders as friends means more friends overall.
The next part of the background presented was about gender and groups. It states that gender
composition of a group likely influences children’s behavior. An example would be girls’ high
assertiveness when the group is all girls. When the group is added with boys as the minority,
girls’ assertiveness decreases while if the boys are the majority, girls’ assertiveness increases.
And lastly, the aspect of gender composition in the classroom was discussed. It states that both
gender benefits academically in same-sex educational environment but the social implication of
this remain unknown.
This present research would like to explore what are still unknown from the other previous
studies stated above, which is the implication of gender segregated educational setting in
children’s social development.

1
Ma. Jessica Santos EDRE 201, Assignment 2

The researcher gathered 3 groups as participants for this study. The first group was an all-boys
class. The second group was an all-girls class. And the third group was a mixed-sex class. All
groups are 5th grade students. They were tested again a year after, which is their 6th grade. They
became their own control group through gathered data collection when they were in mixed-sex
4th grade classrooms.
According to Barton & Cohen, several measures were used to comprehensively assess social
relations following the transition to same-sex classrooms. The Harter Self-Perception Profile for
Children (Harter, 1985), the Asher, Hymel, and Renshaw (1984) loneliness questionnaire, and a
measure of optimism about peer relations, the Peer Life Orientation Test (Deptula, 1998) were
used to assess children's self-evaluations of their social functioning. Friendship nominations, a
friendship quality questionnaire (Parker & Asher, 1993), sociometric nominations and ratings,
and peer behavior nominations (Masten, Morison, & Pellegrini, 1985) were used as peer
measures of social functioning. These commonly used assessments of social functioning
provided self, relationship, and group information, three levels of social complexity identified
and considered important by Rubin, Bukowski, and Parker (1998).
Researchers assessed the immediate and long-term impact of classroom gender composition on
children's peer relations by assessing the same-sex class in 5th Grade and doing follow-up
assessment a year after in their 6th Grade. Data was also gathered from their mixed-sex 4th Grade
class. Generally, this study was the product of assessment over three school years– Grades 4, 5
and 6.
Tests were given in two sessions per school year for every class. Half of the total number of
instruments that was enumerated above was given on the first session and the other half on the
second. Instructions were given clearly and two examiners were readily available inside the
classroom when help is needed.
The initial assessment showed that the change to same-sex classrooms resulted in an increase in
proportion of mutual same-sex friendships for boys but not for girls. The change to same-sex
classrooms resulted in a higher proportion of peer nominations for overt aggression, relational
aggression, victimization, and rejection behaviors for girls and not for boys. In short, 5 th grade
boys benefit from same-sex class but not the girls.
The one year follow-up showed that boys in same-sex class increased more in mutual friendship
nominations but they also increased in overt and relational aggression while the girls remained
the same with regards to mutual friendship nominations but there was also no increase in the
negative behaviors when they reached the 6th Grade.
It was discussed that reasons for these results are because generally boys have larger friendship
networks than girls. On the other hand, girls are more into intimate and fewer friends that they
could keep over time thus girls have smaller network groups than boys.
The negative behavior that increased in 5th Grade girls can be explained as previously noted that
girls become more assertive when they are in an all-girls class and recipients of this nominate it
as an aggressive or negative behavior. But it was good to know that being friendly, cooperative,
and generally prosocial would appear to be context-free and gender-free behaviors for children
(Stormshak et al., 1999).

2
Ma. Jessica Santos EDRE 201, Assignment 2

This research concluded that even though placing children in same-sex classrooms is
academically beneficial for both gender as proven by previous research, different social
outcomes for boys and girls should also be given great consideration.

CRITIQUE
The journal article is about classroom gender composition and peer relations. The authors work
in universities that gave them the advantage because they have access to student data that are
useful in the study. It also calls for a classroom setting where gender can be segregated which is
obviously available for them. As educators themselves, they are knowledgeable about the topic
and they have the skill to carry out the research.
The problem was stated. It is researchable because there are instruments to measure social
behaviors and natural observation could be done in their classrooms. The authors presented the
background information of the problem by stating the previous research about classroom gender
segregation and the benefits of it in children’s academic achievement and the lack of focus on
research about this with regards to children’s social development. The review of the background
is comprehensive but most of the sources are secondary. I think the topic was well investigated
though before the research started and there were enough references in it, which are also cited
accurately. The review was well organized because it first cited the boy and girl individuality in
their social development, second is how they are in a group. Lastly and most importantly, it cited
how they are in same-sex classrooms. Unfortunately, the review of the background focused
heavily on academic implication rather on the social development or peer relations. It could also
be helpful if there are more primary sources on children’s social development. The review
concluded with a summary and theoretical rationale for the hypothesis that should follow.
Unfortunately, hypotheses to be tested are not listed clearly. It could have been clear if the
researchers state what relationship or difference they want to be answered. As a reader, it made
me overwhelm with all the review of related literature. It could have been better to state the
hypotheses to bring the reader back to the main topic and purpose.
After the review of background, the article discussed the methods by describing the participants
first. Selecting the sample participants were clearly described - grade level, gender and number
of participants for each group. But what I see was lacking was how they grouped the class
according to their present social behavior. Did they group all friendly boys in one class or all shy
girls in one class? They can collect this data from the children’s teachers. It is important to know
the characteristics of the participants in each group because this could affect the result.
Nevertheless, the researchers were successful in balancing the gender segregation for all boys
and all girls classes. The mixed class was unbalanced because the distribution of the number of
participants in boys are higher than in girls and I commend the researchers for not including the
mixed class in the analysis because it would make the study invalid.
The research used quantitative data collection methods by using the Harter Self-Perception
Profile for Children, the Asher, Hymel, and Renshawloneliness questionnaire, the Peer Life
Orientation Test to assess children’s evaluations of their social functioning. Also used as peer
measures of social functioning are friendship nominations, friendship quality questionnaire,

3
Ma. Jessica Santos EDRE 201, Assignment 2

sociometric nominations and ratings, and peer behavior nominations. Each of these tests was
briefly discussed and how it is related to the study. It also discussed the content, validity and
reliability of the tests.
The procedure was lacking in discussion about the time frame of answering the tests. It could
have been useful if they stated if the tests are timed and would it affect results if a participant
was not able to answer all items. The researchers weren’t able to discuss or account any
confounding variables that they were unable to control.
The instructions were given before the beginning of each task which was ideal because children
were the participants and everything should be clear. In case there were still unclear instructions
or items, examiners were available to provide help.
The quantitative data analysis of the research results was done in depth. It was clearly described
with narrative and table reports of scores for each behaviors tested in the tests. The tables were
well organized and easy to understand because note was provided at the bottom of the table on
which are the means and standard deviations. But it would also help if another column was
inserted to label which instrument was used for the behaviors indicated.
The researchers also provided explanation on how they came up with the results for each
instrument used. The readers were informed on how analyses were conducted in the Plan of
Analyses. The analyses were conducted in two stages. First was the initial impact of same-sex
classrooms on children’s peer relations. The second stage was a one-year follow-up assessment.
The longitudinal study was appropriate because it focuses on the significance of Gender x Year
interactions. The narrative summary for each stage is very useful for the reader because it
validates understanding of statistical results. Readers who are also confused with the result
figures can still understand the findings by looking into the summary of the initial stage and the
one-year follow-up assessment.
The discussion gave good conclusions about the results. The researchers cannot give any
agreements and disagreements with previous results in other studies because there were no
studies about this topic as previously stated in review of related literature. The researchers’
generalizations are consistent with results like when they generalized that boys increased score in
mutual friendship because boys generally have larger friendship networks than girls. Only
conclusions were stated in the discussion and there was no recommendation for future action.
The problem was restated in the first sentence of the conclusions. They also mentioned that
there was a broad range of measures of peer relations used that provided social developments
data that cannot be found in other research literature. The kind of design of the study was
described as preventing determination of causality. Major results and conclusions were restated
when it was discussed that classroom gender composition is important in children’s social
development. It also made a recommendation that children’s social development should also be
considered in addition to academic benefits when they are placed in same-sex classrooms.
The researchers’ citations are accurate and complete. They conformed to the APA style of citing
references.
Overall, the journal article is very informative. It gave the readers insight on how classroom
gender segregation became the topic of many educational research and how the results are
4
Ma. Jessica Santos EDRE 201, Assignment 2

focused on its academic benefits and not the implication on children’s social development. The
researchers made the initiative to develop research on this topic. They selected the classes with
balanced distribution and they made a longitudinal study of it by assessing them once more after
a year. They have used instruments that are valid and related to the problem of the study. The
results were presented in tables and narrative summary of it was also provided. There should just
have more discussion on the practical implications of the findings. There should also be
recommendations about how schools, parents and individuals may benefit from this study.

Reference:
Barton B., & Cohen, R. (2004). CLASSROOM GENDER COMPOSITION AND CHILDREN’S
PEER RELATIONS. Child Study Journal, 34 (1), 29-45. Retrieved from Professional
Development Collection database.