Uniwersyteckie Czasopisma NaukoweFactors influencing subject selection in upper secondary education (Key Stage 4) for males and females in England
Słowa kluczowe:
school subject selection, upper secondary education, Key Stage 4, genderAbstrakt
Background
Research to date has investigated the potential factors that influence students’ decisions in opting to study certain subjects during their upper secondary education. Trends in subject selection at this level (Key Stage 4) have been maintained over time and have consistently displayed comparable differences for males and females. It is recognised that males typically opt for subjects such as physical education and science, while females are traditionally noted as favouring the arts and humanities. These educational decisions may impact on future occupational directions. In light of recent initiatives, such as the English Baccalaureate, it is of interest to explore whether such measures have had an influence on this noted gender gap.
Participants and procedure
The present study investigates the potential predictors of subject selection, while controlling for gender, offering a specific focus on the education system in England. Attention is given to students’ perceived academic ability and attitude toward school, and how such factors may guide subject choice. Participants (N = 276) were students currently in the process of selecting optional modules for Key Stage 4 study.
Results
The findings demonstrate that female students are less likely than their male counterparts to opt for physical education (PE) and business studies/information and communication technology (ICT) as preferred modules, in comparison to ‘creative and performance’ subjects (reference category). Higher levels of reported masculinity were also shown to relate to the up-take of PE at Key Stage 4.
Conclusions
The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to existing research and practical contributions to the educational arena.
Downloads
Bibliografia
Adey, K., & Biddulph, M. (2001). The influence of pupil perceptions on subject choice at 14+ in geography and history. Educational Studies, 27, 439-450.
Ashworth, J., & Evans, J. L. (2001). Modelling student subject choice at secondary and tertiary level: a cross-section study. Economic Education, 32, 311-320.
Atkinson, C. (2006). Key Stage 3 pupils views about reading. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22, 321-336.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory (2nd ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 155-162.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17, 369-386.
Boldizar, J. P. (1991). Assessing sex typing and androgyny in children: the Children’s Sex Role Inventory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 505-515.
Brown, C. A. (2010). Can legislation reduce gender differences in subject choice? A survey of GCSE and A level entries between 1970 and 1995. Educational Studies, 27, 173-186.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colley, A., Comber, C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1994). Gender Effects in School Subject Preferences: a research note. Educational Studies, 20, 13-18.
Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). School Subject Preferences: Age and gender differences revisited. Educational Studies, 29, 59-67.
Crombie, G., Sinclair, N., Silverthorn, N., Byrne, B. M., DuBois, D. L., & Trinneer, A. (2005). Predictors of young adolescents’ math grades and course enrollment intentions: Gender similarities and differences. Sex Roles, 52, 351-367.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 22, 297-334.
Davies, P., Telhaj, S., Hutton, D., Adnett, N., & Coe, R. (2008). Socioeconomic background, gender and subject choice in secondary schooling. Educational Psychology, 5, 235-248.
DfE. (2013). English Baccalaureate. Available at: http:// www.education.gov.uk [Accessed 20th July 2013].
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls and achievement. Addressing the classroom issues. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Francis, B. (2002). Is the future really female? The impact and implications of gender for 14-16 year olds career choices. Education and Work, 15, 166-220.
Francis, J., Khurana, I., & Pereira, R. (2003). The role of accounting and auditing in corporate governance and the development of financial markets around the world. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 10, 1-30.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Hurley, C. (2001). Ability grouping in the secondary school: Effects at Key Stage 4. Final Report to the Nutfield Foundation. London: University of London, Institution of Education.
Lightbody, P., Siann, G., Stocks, R., & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and Attribution at Secondary School: the role of gender. Educational Studies, 22, 13-25.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137.
Lord, P., & Harland, J. (2000). Pupils’ Experiences and Perspectives of the National Curriculum: Research Review [online]. Available: http://www.qca.org. uk/254_1956.html [7 January, 2005].
McCoach, D. B. (2002). A validation study of the School Attitude Assessment Survey. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 35, 66-77.
McCrone, T., Morris, M., & Walker, M. (2005). Pupil Choices at Key Stage 3 – Literature Review. London: DfES.
Moon, S., Lilley, R., Morgan, S., Gray, S., & Krechowiecka, I. (2004). A systematic review of recent research into the impact of careers education and guidance on transitions from Key Stage 3 to Key Stage 4 (1988-2003). In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Muzzatti, B., & Agnoli, F. (2007). Gender and mathematics: Attitudes and stereotype threat susceptibility in Italian children. Developmental Psychology, 43, 747.
Reiss, M. J. (2001). How to ensure that pupil’s don’t lose interest in science. Education Today, 51, 34-40.
Rice, L., Barth, J. M., Guadagno, R. E., Smith, G. P. A., & McCallum, D. M. (2013). The role of social support in students’ perceived abilities and attitudes toward math and science. Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1028-1040.
Ryan, A. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135-1150.
Sinnes, A. T. (2006). Approaches to gender equity in science education. Two initiatives in sub-Saharan African seen through a lens derived from feminist critique of science. Oslo: Unipub. http://www.ils. u10.no/forskninig/palidrgrad/doktorarhandlinger/ docs/AstridSinnes Avhandlingfeminist critque of science.oslo.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviourism. New York: Alfred Knopf. Thomas, W., & Webber, D. J. (2009). Choice at 16: school, parental and peer group effects. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 14, 119-141.
Wetherell, M. (1996). Defining social psychology. In: R. Sapsford (ed.), Issues for social psychology (pp. 5-18). London: Sage.
