Single sex education miolo

SINGLE SEX EDUCATION
AN OPTION IN THE FOREFRONT
OF EDUCATION
IV Internacional Congress
of Single-sex Education

© 2013
Todos os direitos de publicação reservados em Portugal por EASSE
Não é permitida a reproduçâo total ou parcial deste livro, nem o seu tratamento informático nem a transmissão de nenhuma forma ou por qualquer meio, quer seja mecânico, electrónico por fotocópia, por registo ou outros métodos, sem a autorização prévia e por escrito dos titulares do copyright
Edição – EASSE – Portugal
Capa: José Vasconcelos
Paginação: Hugo Neves
ISBN: 978-989-691-152-2
Depósito Legal: 357488/13
Data da 1ª edição Abril de 2013

3
INDEX
Abigail James, Boys and Girls in the Classroom:
What teachers need to know 7
Jaume Camps i Bansell, Single-sex eduction in the
XXI century 19
Teresa Artola, Boys and Girls Creativity: Qualitative
Differences in Divergent Thinking 43
Gloria Gallego Jiménez, Tutorial praxis in
single-sex education 63
Isidre Cheto Farré, “Gender matters” , A practical
approach to Single-sex education 79
Paloma Alonso Stuyck e Juan José Zacarés González,
Behavioral and emotional autonomy in adolescence
Different meanings as a function of gender and age 85
Francisco Javier Vázquez de Prada Palencia,
MEDES Project: Implementation of single-sex
education in a coeducational school 103
Teresa Artola, Santiago Sastre, Gloria Gratacós
e Jorge Barraca, Differences in Boys and Girls
Attitudes toward Reading, a Comparison between
Single sex and Coeducation Schools 113
Céline Guerin, Survey: coeducation in everyday life 129
Chiara Ferotti, The survey of gender differences in
high schools of Palermo 145
Rossana Sicurello, Observing male and female in
classrooms: a behavioural and learning observation
schedule for use in primary schools 157

4
Index
Luis Brusa, Leader100, Skills and Habits Development
Program, Boys Vs. Girls Personal Development Needs
Comparison Study 179
Ana Lorena Assam Karam, Single-sex education: historical
regression or betterment in the education system? 183
Ramón Ignacio Atehortúa Cruz, Single-sex education:
the case of santa librada school, An experience that
merits reflection 201
Eduardo Nogueira da Gama, The Incredible World of
Books Educating Readers in Primary Education 213
João Eduardo Bastos Malheiro de Oliveira e Adrianna
Andrade Abreu, The need for male teachers,
Some thoughts from Brazil 225
Maria Amélia Barreiros Lopes de Freitas, Between
Taboo and Success, Single-sex education from the
point of view of its actors 239
Nuno Miguel Gaspar da Silva Francisco, Inquiry
Modules: a single-sex science methodology 249
João António Monteiro Feijão, Schooling trajectories
through single-sex education: Discussions regarding
the choice of Fomento Schools in Portugal 267

5
PRESENTATION
EASSE (European Association of Single-Sex Education) is a non-profit organisation, headquartered in London, that brings together people and educational institutions of more than sixteen European countries interested in the development and promotion of single-sex education, a style of school organisation that is present in almost all countries of the world. Currently, EASSE has 432 associated schools in different countries of the E.U., which educate more than 200,000 students.
EASSE defends the rights of families and schools that have chosen or want to choose single-sex education as a model of school organisation. Among other activities, EASSE emphasies:
• The promotion of studies and scientific research on education;
• The implementation of projects and programmes aimed at promoting among the agents of the educational community knowledge and dissemination of the principles

6
Presentation
of single-sex education and effective equality between men and women;
• The creation of networks and meetings for the exchange of educational experiences on single-sex education;
• Teacher training (both in single-sex and co-ed schools) on teaching and learning strategies that contribute to a greater and more effective development of students’ skills;
• Legal advice and promotion of the rights and interests of single-sex schools and families who have chosen or want to be able to choose a single-sex model of education for their children.
Single-Sex Education – An Option In The Forefront Of Education
The IV International Congress of Single-Sex Education organised by EASSE took place in Lisbon, on April 19th and 20th, 2013. There, specialists coming from many different countries presented studies and reflections on experiences developed in extremely varied school contexts.
The different conferences and reports underlined the way in which single-sex education fully explores the capacities of both boys and girls, as it adapts itself to their different rhythms of development and learning, enabling personalised teaching in the classroom. For these reasons, it is considered a model in the forefront of education, facilitating a substantial improvement of academic results.
This book sums up the most relevant aspects of the reflection developed throughout the Congress and it wants to be a tool that helps parents and teachers in their educational tasks.

7
BOYS AND GIRLS IN THE
CLASSROOM: WHAT TEACHERS NEED TO KNOW
Author:
Abigail James
Brain Differences
Male and female brains do not develop in the same way and those differences are most apparent at birth (Cahill, 2006). For boys, the right side of the brain develops early; for girls, the left side of the brain develops first (Shucard & Shucard, 1990). Differential development in the right and left hemispheres continues at least until adolescence (Schmithorst, Holland, & Dardzinski, 2008). The language centre begins in the left portion of the cerebral cortex; this developmental difference is cited as the reason that girls, on average, have stronger verbal skills than do boys (Halpern, 2000; Kimura, 2000). The average girl reads better than the average boy and this continues at least into early secondary school (Halpern, 2004).
Moreover, when learning takes place, the structure of the brain changes (Giedd, 2004; Schmithorst, et al., 2008) as a result of brain plasticity responding to environmental pressures. By adulthood, there are no apparent gender differences in verbal intelligence (Halpern, 2000) even though in childhood, girls have significantly larger vocabularies than boys (Morisset, Bar

8
A
bigail James
nard, & Booth, 1995). The belief is that while girls may have an advantage in verbal skills early on due to their more developed left brain hemisphere, over time boys catch up as their brain matures and the hope is that exposure to verbal girls will expand their vocabularies. The problem is that boys may see their relative verbal shortcomings as permanent and either not try to improve their verbal skills, or decide that verbal skills are not important. Additionally the tests which indicate that the verbal differences have been resolved are designed to be gender neutral.
The hippocampus is a brain structure involved in memory, specifically in turning short term memories into long term memories. It has been noted that the hippocampus enlarges first in girls (Giedd, Castellanos, Rajapakse, Vaituzis, & Rapoport, 1997; Yurgelun-Todd, Killgore, & Cintron, 2003). Further, imaging research reveals that when asked to remember something, males tended to use the right side of the hippocampus with visual strategies, while females tended to use the left side of that same structure with verbal strategies (Frings et al., 2006). This observation may provide some explanation for the finding that females are better at verbal and episodic memory, based on some form of verbal recall, whereas males are better at memory tasks involving spatial or directional memory (Andreano & Cahill, 2009).
The amygdala has been linked to the excitatory portions of human behaviour (Gur, Gunning-Dixon, Bilker, & Gur, 2002) as well as processing and recognizing emotions. This node enlarges first in boys (Giedd, et al., 1997; Yurgelun-Todd, et al., 2003) and gender differences in structure are found at all ages (Gur, et al., 2002; Whittle et al., 2008). It is thought that the enlarged amygdala may be the basis for the observation that boys do better when they like the subject or the teacher (Freudenthaler, Spinath, & Neubauer, 2008).
The prefrontal lobes of the brain begin to mature first in girls and the slower development in boys may be a contribu

9
S
i
ngle sex education
A
n option in forefront of education
tor to the impulsive behaviour which is a hallmark of young males (Baron-Cohen, 2003; Giedd et al., 1999). In females, this portion will have completed development by ages 18 to 20, whereas some males may not have completed development of this area until age 25 or perhaps even later (De Bellis et al., 2001; Njemanze, 2007).
The effect of differences
The observation is that boys tend to learn best when they can see the information depicted pictorially – what is known as iconic learning – and when they can interact with the information – what is known as kinaesthetic learning (Honigsfeld & Dunn, 2003). Results from a study of memory and verbal skills indicated that boys had more difficulty remembering information which was spoken. Speeding up the presentation of the information benefited girls but did not help boys, even those who were good at remembering verbal information from an auditory source (Grimley, 2007). Teachers and boys report that boys learn best when they are able to interact with the lesson (Vallance, 2002; Weaver-Hightower, 2003). A recent report indicates that for most boys, movement of hands or bodies may be a way for them to facilitate memory (Rapport et al., 2009)
Sensory Differences
Hearing – A test for hearing in newborns indicate that the ears of girls are more sensitive than the ears of boys, especially for high frequencies (Cassidy & Ditty, 2001). Other research indicates that girls’ ears are more sensitive for soft sounds as well (McFadden, 1998). Additionally, little boys are more likely to suffer inner ear infections (Stenström & Ingvarsson, 1997) which means that while they have an infection, what they hear

10
A
bigail James
may be muffled and indistinct. The important factor here is that the young boy with an ear infection may not be able to hear distinctly at the very time when he should be acquiring phonemic awareness. The problem is that understanding of the basic sounds of language is necessary for the beginning of reading skills (Wolf, 2007).
Vision –When we focus on something, whether words on a page or the scene around us, our eyes are constantly moving around, enabling us to focus on different parts of our field of vision. These movements are called saccades and are larger and more rapid in dyslexics and in boys (Bednarek, Tarnowski, & Grabowska, 2006). Probably related to this eye movement is the finding that girls are better than boys at perceptual speed (Kimura, 2000). This is the skill that allows us to locate similar objects in a field of many other objects or determine which figure is different among several
Touch – While girls may have a greater sensitivity to touch than do boys (Velle, 1987), the observation of teachers is that boys learn best when they can physically interact with materials. A study of effective pedagogical approaches in boys’ schools indicated that boys learn better when the lesson involves hands- on activities (Reichert & Hawley, 2010).
Emotional Differences
Traditionally, the human response to stress has been described as fight-or-flight. Under the influence of adrenalin, the body pumps blood, oxygen, and sugar to the muscles and brain to allow the individual to respond quickly to a threat. The original research only used male subjects and all individuals showed the same response. Recently, it has been discovered that many females do not respond in that way and the female response is called tend-and-befriend (Taylor et al., 2000). Under the influence of oxytocin, the female responds by pumping blood

11
S i n g l e s e x e d u c a t i o n
A n o p t i o n i n f o r e f r o n t o f e d u c a t i o n
into the center of the body and the result is that the individual may find it difficult to move, think, or respond and needs affiliation from friends to help cope (Turton & Campbell, 2005).
Praise and discipline of children will evoke the stress response in them and consequently, teachers need to be aware of the difference in how children react to such situations. Referring to specific behaviors rather than using global terms such as “good” or “bad” will enable children to respond constructively.
L
earnin
g
Differences
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is diagnosed in boys with much greater frequency than in girls, reported frequently at the rate of 9:1 (Gaub & Carlson, 1997). There is little consensus as to the cause of this disorder as well as for treatment. Lately, the validity of these diagnoses and, in fact of the condition itself, has come into question. It has been suggested that female teachers misunderstand boys’ behaviour and use of language identifying normative male behaviour as abnormal (McIntyre & Tong, 1998).
Dyslexia, the inability to understand information when presented verbally, may be related to slower left temporal lobe development and slower maturation of the brain, both of which are seen in males (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008; Wolf, 2007). However, there are many different forms of dyslexia and neuroscience is discovering many different sites in the brain may be responsible. One concern is that boys may be identified with dyslexia when they are simply later to develop reading skills.
Dyspraxia is identified in boys more often than in girls and is a problem with writing, but is far more complicated and affects many areas of learning. Individuals with this disorder have problems with production of coordinated hand movements and find it difficult to translate thoughts into writing (Berninger

12
A
bigail James
& Fuller, 1992; Vlachos & Bonoti, 2003). Poor handwriting skills have been found to contribute to language deficits especially spelling and literacy development (Montgomery, 2008).
Dyscalculia is the learning disability with maths, and is found equally in boys and girls. It was once thought to be a problem with spatial skills, but is now thought to be a problem with memory for numbers and with understanding mathematical processes (Shalev, 2004).
G
ir
l
s
and School
Girls believe that success is due to the amount of effort that they put forth in preparing their work (Flammer & Schmid, 2003) and not just effort, but persistent effort. Teachers agree, pointing out that the girl who succeeds works hard in school (Jones & Myhill, 2004). Additionally, girls believe that they are more likely to succeed in language based classes and in writing (Meece, Glienke, & Burg, 2006). This emphasis on effort together with the tend-and-befriend stress response may be responsible for the academic anxiety which is found more in girls than in boys.
How to prepare girls for math and science – Give scientific explanations, praise content not cover, support successes and do not let failures overwhelm them, provide role models
Boys and School
Boys, on the other hand, believe that success is due to their ability to focus on a topic as well as their inherent ability in the subject (Flammer & Schmid, 2003). Additionally, boys believe that they are more likely to succeed in mathematics and science than in language based courses (Meece, et al., 2006). Stress for boys will improve their performance as will any situation which will link their emotions to the learning experience. For

13
example, boys can have very good memories, but usually for subjects in which they are very interested and invested (Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001) indicating a connection between memory and emotions. An important motivating factor for boys was whether or not they liked the activity or not (Freudenthaler, et al., 2008) as well as how well they liked the teacher (Koepke & Harkins, 2008; Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van Damme, & De Munter, 2007)
Classroom strategies for boys: get them writing early using technology , use visual sources of information, train their ears, use curiosity and competitiveness.
C
on
c
lusion
Cognitive differences do exist. They may be brain based or as the result of interaction between brain and environment. Understanding the differences helps teachers provide a positive and encouraging environment for students.
Sources
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 797-825.
Andreano, J. M., & Cahill, L. (2009). Sex influences on the neurobiology of learning and memory. Learning & Memory, 16(4), 248-266.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bednarek, D., Tarnowski, A., & Grabowska, A. (2006). Latencies of stimulus-driven eye movements are shorter in dyslexic subjects. Brain and Cognition, 60, 64-69.

14
A
bigail James
Berninger, V. W., & Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional writing: Implications for assessing writing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 363-382.
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 151-172.
Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(6), 477-484.
Cassidy, J. W., & Ditty, K. M. (2001). Gender Differences among newborns on a transient otoacoustic emissions test for hearing. Journal of Music Therapy, 38(1), 28-35.
De Bellis, M. D., Keshavan, M. S., Beers, S. R., Hall, J., Frustaci, K., Masalehdan, A., . . . Boring, A. M. (2001). Sex differences in brain maturation during childhood and adolescence. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 552-557.
Flammer, A., & Schmid, D. (2003). Attribution of conditions for school performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(4), 337-355.
Freudenthaler, H. H., Spinath, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2008). Predicting school achievement in boys and girls. European Journal of Personality, 22, 231-245.
Frings, L., Wagner, K., Uterrainer, J., Spreer, J., Halsband, U., & Schulze-Bonhage, A. (2006). Gender-related differences in lateralization of hippocampal activation and cognitive strategy. NeuroReport, 17(4), 417-421.
Gaub, M., & Carlson, C. (1997). Gender differences in ADHD: a meta-analysis and critical review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(8), 1036-1045.
Giedd, J. N. (2004). Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, 77-85.
Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., . . . Raporport, J. L. (1999). Brain de

15
velopment during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861-863.
Giedd, J. N., Castellanos, F. X., Rajapakse, J. C., Vaituzis, A. C., & Rapoport, J. L. (1997). Sexual dimorphism of the developing human brain. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 21(1185-1201).
Grimley, M. (2007). An exploration of the interaction between speech rate, gender, and cognitive style in their effect on recall. Educational Psychology, 27(3), 401-417.
Gur, R. C., Gunning-Dixon, F., Bilker, W., & Gur, R. E. (2002). Sex differences in temporo-limbic and frontal brain volumes of healthy adults. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 998-1003.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Halpern, D. F. (2004). A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 135-139.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2003). High school male and female learning-style similarities and differences in diverse nations. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 195-207.
Jones, S., & Myhill, D. (2004). Seeing things differently: teachers’ constructions of underachievemenet. Gender and Education, 16(4), 531-546.
Kimura, D. (2000). Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book/The MIT Press.
Koepke, M. F., & Harkins, D. A. (2008). Conflict in the classroom: gender differences in the teacher-child relationship. Early Education and Development, 19(6), 843-864.
McFadden, D. (1998). Sex Differences in the auditory system. Developmental Neuropsychology, 14(2/3), 261-298.
McIntyre, T., & Tong, V. (1998). Where the boys are: Do cross- gender misunderstandings of language use and behavior patterns contribute to the overrepresentation of males in programs for students with emotional and behavioral disorders? Education and Treatment of Children, 21(3), 321-332.

16
A
bigail James
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351-373.
Montgomery, D. (2008). Cohort analysis of writing in year 7 following two, four, and seven years of the National Literacy Strategy. Support for Learning, 23(1), 3-11.
Morisset, C. E., Barnard, K. E., & Booth, C. L. (1995). Toddlers’ language development: Sex differences within social risk. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 851-865.
Njemanze, P. C. (2007). Cerebral lateralisation for facial processing: gender-related cognitive styles determined using Fourier analysis of mean cerebral blood flow velocity in the middle cerebral arteries. Laterality, 12(1), 31-49.
Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Raiker, J. S., & Alderson, R. M. (2009). Hyperactivity in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a ubiquitous core symptom or manifestation of working memory deficits? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(4), 521-534.
Reichert, M., & Hawley, R. (2010). Reaching Boys, Teaching Boys: Strategies That Work - and Why. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Schmithorst, V. J., Holland, S. K., & Dardzinski, B. J. (2008). Developmental differences in white matter architecture between boys and girls. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 696-710.
Shalev, R. S. (2004). Developmental Dyscalculia. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 765-770.
Shucard, J. L., & Shucard, D. W. (1990). Auditory evoked potentials and hand preference in 6-month-old infants: possible gender-related differences in cerebral organization. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 923-930.
Stenström, C., & Ingvarsson, L. (1997). Otitis-prone children and controls: a study of possible predisposing factors. Acta Oto-Laryngologcia, 117(1), 87-93.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral re

17
sponses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight- or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-429.
Turton, S., & Campbell, C. (2005). Gender differences in behavioral response to stress among university students. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 10(4), 209-232.
Vallance, R. (2002, 1st - 5th December). Empirical Study of a Boys’ School and Boys’ Motivation. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane.
Van de gaer, E., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J., & De Munter, A. (2007). Impact of attitudes of peers on language achievement: gender differences. Journal of Educational Research, 101(2), 78-92.
Velle, W. (1987). Sex differences in sensory functions. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 30(4), 490-522.
Vlachos, F., & Bonoti, F. (2003). Explaining age and sex differences in children’s handwriting: a neurobiological approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(2), 113-123.
Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2003). Crossing the divide: bridging the disjunctures between theoretically oriented and practice- oriented literature about masculinity and boys at school. Gender and Education, 15(4), 408-423.
Whittle, S., Yap, M. B. H., Yücel, M., Fornito, A., Simmons, J. G., Barrett, A., . . . Allen, N. B. (2008). Prefrontal and amygdala volumes are related to adolescents’ affective behaviors during parent-adolescent interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(9), 3652-3657.
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Yurgelun-Todd, D. A., Killgore, W. D. S., & Cintron, C. B. (2003). Cognitive correlates of medial temporal lobe development across adolescence: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 3-17.

19
SINGLE-SEX EDUCTION IN THE
XXI CENTURY
Author:
Jaume Camps i Bansell
Summary:
After centuries of segregation of the sexes in schools, followed by decades of mixed classes, single-sex education is presented as a modern treatment of the gender question, with proved outcomes and naturally in-tune with the trend toward individualized education. Such education grows in strength through the separation of the sexes, given that one thus eliminates gender pressures that are anti-academic and outside the scope of schooling, thus facilitating the personal development of each student.
The objective of teaching is to prune, through imposition, the latent freedom of the neophyte in order that he or she may come to full flower.
Fernando Savater
In April 2007, EASSE organized in Barcelona the First International Congress of Same-Sex Education. Subsequent events were held in Rome and in Warsaw. And now we are here in Portugal for the fourth such meeting.

20
The question that all of us ask is the following: why is it, just at this particular time in history, that a movement of this kind has appeared? After all, isn’t the separation of the sexes a thing of the past? Isn’t it a barrier that has been overcome? Could it be that the separation of the sexes within schools is really important? I intend to respond to these questions in what follows.
Same-sex schools: an emerging
modality
The theme of the congress did not come about by chance; problems related to gender in education have been treated with insistence during the last decades1. Currently there is the debate over same-sex education, presented as modern educational practice.
For centuries, education discriminated against girls and reproduced gender stereotypes. Some decades ago, co-education was seen as a move toward equality. The inclusion of girls in the same classes as boys – together with the obligatory nature of education – appeared to insure equality of opportunities through the use of a uniform curriculum and identical educational quality. There is no doubt that thanks to education policy, this was a step forward toward equality for women.
But today, years later, we can see that, in spite of everything, gender “integration” in schools is not a definitive solution for inequalities that stubbornly persist.2
1 Perhaps the awakening of interest may be placed in the year 1982, when Carol Gilligan published In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, which rapidly became a best-seller, and has been translated into 9 languages.
2 «The sexist stereotypes, persistently used for such a long time, would not automatically disappear merely be placing boys and girls in the same classroom and having them receive the same content. On the contrary; without denying the advance that this change portends, coeducational schools reproduced the same stereotypes behind much more subtle forms of discrimination.» Dolors Vallejo contributed many years of experience to coeducation in Cataluna (1989-1999). Research on equal opportunities of boys and girls, 1999.

21
In the face of this new discovery, recognized by education professionals and proven by education statistics, new proposals for change appear. These we may summarize, grouping them into two broad trends:
A. First, there are the trends that see gender “integration” “ as a victory not to be given up, and as such, a value linked to democracy and equality. Perception of the difficulties lead the proposals adopting this perspective to argue for the retention of both genders in the classroom and propose as a solution to the problems cited of so-called “coeducation”.3 This would suppose recognizing a “hidden curriculum” that maintains sexist stereotypes, and with them, the subordination of women and of actions aimed at eliminating this educational distortion.
B. Second, another trend argues that the separation of boys and girls in school, maintaining an identical curriculum and identical educational infrastructure represents progress for aspects such as the creation of a pro-academic and respectful school climate, the elimination of gender stereotypes and attention to the specific characteristics of each gender. This, in fact, could be the very definition of a same-sex school that constitutes, in my opinion, the most recent contribution to the gender perspective in school organization and practices, and that should not be confused with the segregated education that was dominant until the XX century.
Often, in the face of these two organizational possibilities, the question is asked in regard to which is the most efficient.
First, I would underline the need to avoid simplifications. I refer to the fact that education research is among the most complex fields of study. Any education scenario carries with it an unlimited number of variables, many of which are dif3
In the United States, the term used is “curricular transformation”.

22
ficult to quantify. In this sense, I believe that, without being very specific as to the meaning and circumstances under which such a statement is made, no one is able to say that one of the models presented is better than the other,.
My considerations do not pretend to represent more than a line of thinking toward a better understanding of same-sex education within an individualized model. As Ms. Lerner, a teacher in a boy’s school said, surprised, “I’m not sure what is more important: the absence of the other sex or the gender of the students.”.4 In this sense, the words of Altarejos are of great interest: “the goodness and efficacy of same- sex education cannot be demonstrated; it can only be shown argumentatively”.5
Furthermore, we cannot underestimate the recent meta- analyses that have taken place, and that seek to bring together all of the existing research on this subject. This synthesis was meticulously analyzed by Riordan6, who compared -outcomes between coeducational and same-sex schools for each of the variables analyzed in the research: the same-sex schools showed greater efficacy, small but significant, on several variables. On others the outcomes were equal. On none of the variables studied did coeducational schools significantly outperform same-sex schools.
As will be understood from all that has been said here, for practical effects, this doesn’t mean that a coeducational school can have a very low level of education. In any case, the same- sex school model presents itself as a innovative form of organization that came upon the scene during the beginning of
4 Nancy Lerner, Women teaching boys: the confessions of Nancy Lerner, University School Press, Ohio, 1995, p. 6.
5 Francisco Altarejos em: Enric Vidal (coord.), Diferentes, iguales, juntos? Educación diferenciada, Ariel, Barcelona, 2006, p. 228.
6 Cornelius Riordan, The Effects of Single-Sex Schools, in: II Latin-American Congress of Same-
Sex Education: New scenarios for the education of boys and girls. Buenos Aires: ALCED Argentina, 2009.

23
the XXI century and that offers a facilitating approach in some important areas of education research.
Individualized education
However, before beginning to expound upon the potential benefits of same-sex education, it would appear useful to speak briefly of so-called “individualized education”. In many countries there is indeed a link between same-sex education and acceptance of this pedagogical trend. But in the presentations of these schools (in their educational programs and on their web sites) we do not usually find a connection between individualization and separation of the sexes. In fact, in the reference work on individualized education7 few considerations appear in regard to gender. From a simplistic point of view, there would even seem to be a contradiction: if one achieves individualization, what need is there to separate the sexes? If one wishes to respect a person in terms of his or her singularity, why do many of these schools require that their students wear a uniform?
In what follows I will attempt to explore these connections. I believe that this is something worth investigating, given that schools that adopt individualized and same-sex education are producing impressive results at all levels, although perhaps without knowing for certain the reason for their success.8
7 Victor García Hoz, La educación personalizada, Miñón, Valladolid, 1997.
8 “No one in the world knows with a reasonable degree of certainty, either empirical, theoretical, or philosophical, if the choices of single-sex education are more or less effective; or in what subjects or in what area of personal development they can be more or less effective. No one knows if they would or would not be more effective for certain types of students, such as those at-risk, whether female or male. Due in great part to political opposition, research on single-sex schools is still in its infancy. Better days are yet to come. (...) We need to provide some foundation so that a sufficient number of single-sex public schools can be opened in order that, at least for a reasonable period of time, we can obtain anwers to questions that I have presented above.” Cornelius Riordan, The Effects of Single

24
In this sense, what I am going to say should be seen as an attempt to bring us closer to education and to suggest research paths and education practices in order to improve individualized teaching.
As we know, education has two sides:
A. First, it is a process of assimilation on the part of students (assimilation of adult culture, incorporation into the adult world, to be similar to the teacher ...)
B. Second, it is a process of “individual separation” of each student (to make effective one’s own possibilities, to decide, to make use of freedom, to seek one’s own identity...).9
Individualized education consists in the attempt to stimulate the student to direct his or her own life; to develop the ability to make effective personal freedom, participating with his or her particular characteristics, in community life. It is based on the supposition that within a group of the same age there will be a notable variety, and on the need to pay attention to Sex Schools: What Do We Know? Note at the I International Congress of Single-sex Education (EASSE), Barcelona, April, 2007. Dr. Riordan is Professor of Education at Providence College, and has dedicated a great part of his life to the study of single-sex education. An appropriate eading of the above quote demands a close reading of the entire document.
9 Abbagnano, summarizing the thought of Dewey, says: “The educational process has two aspects: one that is psychological and involves the interiorization and amplification of individual potential; and another that is social and consists of preparing and adapting the individual for the tasks that he or she will carry out in society. Frequently, these two aspects are in serious opposition, but this opposition is lessened and can disappear if processo we remember that the potentialities of the developing individual lack meaning outside the social environment, and that on the other hand, the only possible “adaptation” is, under current circumstances, that which is produced when the individual takes full possession of all of his or her faculties. (...) With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, writes Dewey, it becomes impossible to predict with precision what civilization will be like in twenty years. Consequently, it is impossible to prepare children to confront specific conditions. Preparing them for the future means making them owners of themselves. It means educating them so they may rapidly acquire complete control over all of their capacities.” N. Abbagnano, A. Visalberghi, História da Pedagogia, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, 1964, p. 641.

25
these differences. It is also part of an approach that sees the child as a person; as a being who explores and modifies the environment of which he or she is a part, and not merely as an organism that reacts to stimuli. Individualization seeks to set each person apart from the whole, so that he or she is no longer one among many”.
Thus, personal characteristics include:
A. Singularity. Each girl or boy is different from the others, with her or his own possibilities and limitations, self- knowledge, originality ... In this sense, “the cultivation of creativity is the singular and most specific activity of the child and the most complete activity of individualized education”.10
B. Autonomy. We are dealing with free beings who are self- determining. Their acts, therefore, carry with them personal responsibility and the capacity to modify the environment within which they act through their own ideas and potential.
C. Openness. Human beings have the need and capacity for communication with others, with the society around them. In fact, every human relation is one of communication. All communications require expression and understanding on the part of the communicator. In this sense, living together is enriched with personal development, since through development the person will have more to communicate and be able to express better. Consideration of others as persons facilitates understanding and, in the end, facilitates living together.
As can be readily seen, an essential element in all of this is the respect for freedom, and as a consequence, this leads to a pedagogy that facilitates the possibilities of choice of students.
10 Víctor García Hoz, Educación personalizada, Valladolid, Ed. Miñon, 1977, p. 25.

26
These possibilities increase with the ability for reflection, the acceptance of responsibility, the will to undertake difficult tasks, creativity, and initiative. All of these characteristics are inherent to free choice. Individualized education believes, therefore, that freedom is the basis of all human activity.
It is well to also state what individualized education is not:
A. It is not one that considers children as subject to “training”, in the sense of “programing” or conditioning the child toward correct behaviors through stimulus-response.
B. It does not see the individual as so immersed in a social torrent replete with pressures that there are no truly personal decisions, nor possibilities to influence the surrounding environment.
C. With very few exceptions, students are not beings so marked by biology that they cannot extract themselves from their backgrounds.
Moreover: acceptance of any of the above leads to the depersonalization the student, contributing to his or her “vulnerability” as a human being and badly serving both the person and society. One recognizes that social and biological pressures exist – it would make no sense to oppose them in schools – but I refer to the possibility of the person lessening them.11 Individualized education can, in this sense, carry out an important task.
Once again quoting García Hoz: the most profound reason for individualized education comes from the consideration of the human being as a person, with his or her character as an active subject facing a world of objective realities, in relation to which the person occupies a higher level of dignity
11 It seems to me appropriate to mention here the first pages of the book: Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate, The Penguin Group, New York, 2002.

27
and whose life is fully human and authentic, but only through the exercise of freedom”.12
C
on
c
ept
of the school
If we now focus our attention on the question of gender, we can enter more deeply into the meaning that what we say has for the education of people, both men and women. It is a question of seeking teaching practices that strengthen the dimensions of a free person.
We spoke earlier of social and cultural pressures on the one hand, and biological and innate factors on the other. Individualized education should make it possible for these two forces not to impede the development of our students.
First of all, we should consider that a student in the obligatory years of schooling is prepared neither for life nor even for adolescence.13 Rather, it is the education that he or she receives that has the responsibility locating the person within society, granting the skills that the person will need in order to develop as a person and as a citizen. In this sense, schools cannot be seen as reflections of society or as societies in miniature. Education is aimed at improving society, and not to be a reflection of it. They should, therefore, avoid reproducing the inequalities, the violence, etc., of the streets. If it were not thus, schools would soon become emergency rooms for problems of the neighborhood, city, and country. Rather, they should be “artificial” environments that generate opportunities that would otherwise be impossible. This requires the creation of a specifically school type of environment, distant from the values of youth culture that, especially in adolescence, are fre12
Víctor García Hoz, La educación personalizada, p. 36.
13 In regard to this stage, it is worthwhile recalling the point of view (to which I subscibe) of Patrice Huerre, “L ‘histoire de l’adolescence: rôles et fonctions d’un artifice”, Journal Français de Psychiatrie, núm. 14, 2001, 3.

28
quently at odds with academic values. Salamone, citing Coleman, states that “juvenile culture” in secondary schools exercises a negative influence on academic and intellectual objectives. Coeducational schools contribute to a system of adolescent values that give priority to popularity rather than to academic development. School “integration” facilitates popularity based on physical attractiveness in the case of girls, and on skills in sports in the case of the boys.14 Without doubt, the models and referents that the students adopt are frequently in agreement with these kinds of values.
Second, schools cannot be ivory towers that hide from students the problems that they will have to face, or that they already face in society. The artificiality mentioned here means the creation of conditions that make it possible for students to exercise their freedom without the pressures that we as adults are able to face, thanks to maturity in the exercise of freedom and possession of a critical spirit.
Many authors15 are currently proposing a new kind of school the specifically includes this distancing from ordinary circumstances in order to produce a protected environment that makes it possible to explore terrain unthinkable in other venues; that makes very clear the difference between areas of leisure and areas of work, etc. Single-sex education finds itself precisely in this will to create environments free from pressures that students habitually confront outside of school and that impede their education and their personal development.
14 Rosemary Salomone, Same, Different, Equal. Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling, Yale University Press, 2003, p. 198-199. Recently, numerous works have called attention to infant and adolescent “culture” – it’s creation and problems. Among those of special mention are: John R. Gillis, Youth and History. Tradition and Change in European Age Relations, 1770-Present, Academic Press, New York, 1981, Patrice Huerre, “L’histoire de l’adolesceance: rôles et fonctions d’un artifice”, Journal Français de Psychiatrie, núm. 14, 2001,3; Adolfo Perinat (coord.), Los adolescentes en el siglo XXI. Un enfoque psicosocial, Editorial UOC, Barcelona, 2003.
15 Particularly important due, to the ideas and the profundity with which they are presented, is the recent work of de Gregoitrio Luri, Per una educació republicana; escola i valors, Barcelona, Ed. Barcino, 2012.

29
Single-sex education as a social
environment within the school
In the above-cited treatise on individualized education by García Hoz, there is a sentence that I consider to be essential: “The multiple possibilities of relations between students condition learning situations, in that learning takes place through communication. The way of being of students constitutes the principal factor in school learning situations. And since the way of being depends primarily on social factors, learning situations are conditioned, above all, by the way that students are grouped”.16
In my opinion, this statement illuminates one of the most enriching areas of single-sex education: the analysis of in- school gender relations through the use of social psychology. As this known, this discipline studies the psychology of groups in their creation, norms, development, the socialization of their members, identities, intra and inter-group relations, stereotypes, and prejudices. It thus offers us various clues to understanding of some reasons for the success of school grouping by sex.
First, it is important to consider the fact of the tendency in children – beginning at approximately four years of age – to prefer interacting with members of their own sex. This tendency increases with age and that emerges as a “robust” and universal phenomenon.17 This tendency persists, even after
16 Víctor García Hoz, La educación personalizada, p. 96.
17 “There is a substantial degree of sex segregation among children of pre- school age, and this tendancy can be seen in diverse cultural environments. The anthropologists Whiting and Edwards (1988) presented observations of small societies in very dispersed locations (including villages or suburbs in Africa, India, the Philippines, Mexico, and the United States). They are of the opinion that, in these cultures, children of 4-5 years of age play most of the time with other children of their own age. In the cases only considering the interactions with children who were not siblings, the playmates chosen during the ages of 3 and 6 were of the same sex approximately two-thirds of the time. From six to ten years of age, this rate of same sex playmates increased to three-quarters of the time.”. Eleanor Maccoby, the Two Sexes. Growing up Apart, Coming Together, Harvard University Press, 2003, p. 21.

30
activities and programs designed to diminish it. Moreover, there are studies that show that this “forced” integration carried out by educators contributes toward increasing in boys and girls prejudices toward the opposite sex, and which manifest themselves least strongly at the beginning of academic studies, after a vacation period.18 For example, there is an obvious self-segregation of the within schools in which students have the freedom to interact with whom they feel most at ease. It is not the case, therefore, of fighting against a universal tendency that is in itself engrained in boys and girls. Nor can one generalize the ideological interpretation that asserts that this segregation is merely a question of culture learned from its opposite: that segregation occurs entirely due to natural differences of birth.
On the other hand, we also know that school organization always presupposes a certain artificiality in the ‘way of being grouped’. Particularly patent is the rigidly determined segregation of students by age (except in case of grade repetition), as is single-sex schooling as well. In any case, any school will have an obligatory concentration of the child population, ruled by norms that we rarely find in other environments.19 To me, of particular relevance is understanding groups that are created within this environment and that perhaps will begin to awaken greater interest when they manifest lamentable cases bullying.
Before beginning the next section, we will direct ourselves to the question of the importance of having mixed or single- sex classes. The fact that gender is a key element in the manifestation of many attitudes and social behaviors in schools is unquestionable. Maccoby20 recognized that, in spite of the dominance of gender mixture in schools, the lines of sepa18
Eleanor Maccoby, The Two Sexes. Growing up Apart, Coming Together, Harvard University Press, 2003, p. 24.
19 Michael Thompson e Teresa Barrer, The pressured Child: Helping Your Child Find Success in School and Life, Random House, Toronto, 2004.
20 Eleanor E. Maccoby, The Two Sexes. Growing up Apart, Coming Together, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

31
ration between the sexes are stronger than the lines of race. Harris21 writes that, during infancy, the most important group categorization is that of gender. Similarly, Páez22, when enumerating the most important categories in social perceptions sites sex in first place, and states that “the gender categories are more important than other social categories”. Some authors such as Grant23 note how the socialization experiences of children in classes vary, above all in terms of race and sex. Baron and Byrnesay24 note the same from the perspective of identity. Fagot and Leinbach25 recognize gender as the principal parameter of social categorization of boys and girls.
Psychosocial effects of gender
in school environments
One of the concepts of social psychology that is of most interest to education is so-called “Code Switching”. This expression refers to socialization within specific contexts, and has as a key characteristic the fact that human behaviors frequently adapt themselves to each concrete environment. Teachers are well aware of the difficulty experienced by the children of foreign born parents to speak in their native language to the teacher, even when the teacher knows the native language. At the same time, these students have difficulty expressing themselves at home in the language of the school.26 This is a sim21
Judith R. Harris, Where is the Child’s Environment? A Group Socialization Theory of Development, Psychological Review, 102(3), 1995, p. 458-489.
22 Darío Páez, et al. (coord.), Psicología social, cultura y educación, Madrid:Pearson Educación, 2004, p. 208.
23 Robert A. Baron e Donn Byrne, Psicologia social. Madrid: Prentice Hall, 1998.
24 Beverly I. Fagot e Mary D. Leinbach, Gender-Role Development in Young Children: From Discrimination to Labeling. Developmental Review, 13 (2), 1993, p. 205-224.
25 Judith R. Harris, The Nurture Assumption, The Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 63.
26 “Com efeito, os homens e as mulheres diferem. E fazem-no em âmbitos e estilos que se encontram relacionados tanto com a natureza como com a educação. Diferenças que todos deveríamos saber valorizar e respeitar”. David C. Geary, La

32
plified example of how Code Switching works. Similarly, boys and girls adopt specific codes for the school that involve concrete behaviors and values that are greatly determined by the existing school social environment. As Rich Harris has emphasized, this is not a new phenomenon. 27
It is important that we ask ourselves how schools can organize this environment so that boys and girls can enjoy this freedom of which we have spoken, and with equal opportunities. A common problem that one encounters in coeducational schools is the appearance of one “culture” for boys and of another for girls. Both sexes tend to adopt implicit roles and norms that identify them as members of their gender group, creating styles of behavior that are far from academic and loaded with the baggage of sexist stereotypes that they bring with them from outside the school.
There is no doubt that differentiating psycho-biological aspects between boys and girls are at the basis of these attitudes. 28 Nevertheless, it is worthwhile asking the question “to what extent can the absence of the other sex facilitate in boys the most frequent virtues of girls: cooperation, empathy, dialogue, a pro-academic attitude, the disappearance of group norms that lead to sexism .. and on the other hand, how can we encourage in girls participation in classes and leadership, the option for typically masculine professions, 29 the lessening of stereotypes of their own image30, the elimination of fear and Vanguardia, 20 de junho de 2004. Geary é catedrático de psicologia na Universidade de Missouri-Columbia.
27 Num estudo recente, Cussó propõe aulas separadas por sexo como prática favorecedora do acesso das raparigas às carreiras técnicas: Roser Cussó, Tecnologia: gènere i professió, Llicéncies d’estudis retribuides, curs 2005-2006, Butlletí La Recerca, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut de Ciències de l’Educació, Núm. 8, junho de 2007.
28 American Psychological Association, “Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls”, Washington, 2007.
29 Veja-se, por exemplo: Alexandra Frean, “Why a fear of failure hits brightest girls the hardest”, The Times, 10 de março de 2008.
30 John C. Turner, Rediscovering the Social Group. A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1987, p. 142 e ss.

33
personal intolerance of school failure, the non-dependence on praise for their own self-esteem .... 31 The self-categorization of boys and girls within groups of their own sex undoubtedly acts strongly on what is considered as “correct” for each group. Social psychology uses the expression “Group Polarization” 32 in which “the mere perception of belonging to two distinct groups is sufficient to unleash inter-group discrimination in favor of the endogroup. In other words, the simple fact of recognizing the presence of an exogroup is sufficient to provoke competitive or discriminatory inter-group responses on the part of the endogroup” 33.
In this sense, it is important to pay attention to the experiences and testimonies of teachers.34 Single-sex education shows itself to be effective for personal freedom in terms of the acceptance of roles considered to be characteristic of the other sex, of personal freedom in the exploration of new scenarios. Suffice it to imagine the preparation of a
31 Henri Tajfel e John C. Turner, em J. F. Morales e C. Huici (eds), Lecturas de Psicología Social, UNED, Madrid, 1989, p. 235, p. 85, citado por Francisco Gil, Introducción a la psicología de los grupos, Pirámide, Madrid, 2007, p. 85.
32 For example, Margrét Pála Ólafsdóttir – a teacher from Iceland – introduced single-sex pre-school education in 1989. Currently, there are various single- sex preschools in Ireland, and the model has begun to be applied in other Nordic countries. Ólafsdóttir states: “Both sexes seek to carry out tasks that they know. They select the behavior that they know and that the consider appropriate for the gender to which they belong. In coeducational schools, each gender monopolizes its stereotyped tasks and behaviors. For this reason, the gender that really needs to practice new things never has the opportunity to do so. Therefore, coeducational schools support and increase the old traditional roles.” Margrét Pála Ólafsdóttir, “Kids are both girls and boys in Iceland”, Women’s Studies International Forum, volume 19, Number 4, pp. 357-369, 1996.
33 Enric Vidal, Retos y perspectivas del tratamiento de género en la escuela, Presentation at the Ist International Congress of Single-Sex Education (EASSE), Barcelona, April, 2007.
34 “When the borders of gender are activated, the weak aggregation of ‘boys and girls’ consolidates itself into the group formation ‘The Boys’ and ‘The Girls’ as separate and more consistent groups. During this process, identity categories that on other occasions have minimal relevance for interaction become the basis of separate collectivities” Barrie Thorne, Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School, Rutgers, University Press, New Brunswick, NJ., 1993, p. 64.

34
theater piece in order to understand what this means. In a single-sex environment it is easier, for example, for any boy to prepare the costumes, to hang decorations on the stage, climbing a ladder to do so, with total freedom. In the presence of girls, the search for affirmation of sexual identity and self-affirmation within the group, social comparisons ... all contribute to the polarization of stereotypes. The same can be said in regard to girls.
According to Professor Vidal, “in a school of boys, when it is well administered, many ways of “being a boy” are permitted. In a school of girls, each student may express her femininity in a much broader fashion, without complexes. In single- sex schools, masculinity and femininity are much broader and contain many more subtleties, and they are much richer concepts”. 35
In this sense, single-sex schools are based on a particular structure, certainly much distant from the everyday life of men and women in the street, but which offers greater facility for the creation of a pro-academic and pro-socializing school culture that, in my opinion, currently is not available. There is no doubt that education has an impact on the disappearance of sexists differences and attitudes. One should be aware of the limited possibilities presented to a teacher who is faced with the group dynamics that are in place between boys and girls, which result in rivalries, comparisons, and polarization of attitudes. It may be that we have underestimated the importance of peer pressure in the adoption of certain styles of behavior in order to maintain one’s membership within the group or to improve one’s status within the group. As we have said, from a young age these groups have a marked single-sex character that increases from grade to grade.
During the first years of life, boys and girls attentively record the various categories of persons: adults and children,
35 Eleanor Maccoby, The Two Sexes. Growing up Apart, Coming Together, Harvard University Press, 2003, p. 52.

35
women and men, boys and girls … Socialization occurs in single-sex groups, creating diverse social structures for each. Barrie Thorne, in her well-known work, recognizes the activation of these structures and their power for increasing opposition and exaggeration of the differences between groups of boys and girls. 36
The case of boys merits specific consideration. For them, masculinity is especially linked to non-femininity. This probably results in a greater difficulty in relieving oneself of gender pressures within the group, which may easily lead to less academic attitudes, due to considering these to be “less feminine”. Girls have more freedom of action. “Clearly, an essential element for being masculine is being non-feminine, while girls can be feminine without the need to demonstrate that they are not masculine”37
Thus, in a coeducational environment, we note the presence of two social categories that, substantially, are created based on “the other”. At the same time, a single-sex school perhaps has more possibilities to create a school culture with values and attitudes that are less dependent on the interaction between groups of boys and girls, and in this way allowing students to be more independent of these group processes that normatize the behaviors of boys and girls in coeducational institutions. As Rich Harris states, “what reduces the preeminence of gender categories is the total absence of interaction: the absence of the other sex. When only one group is present, group conditioners are weakened, and self-characterization moves from us to I.”38
It has been observed, for example, that without the presence of boys, girls adopt less “feminine” attitudes, improving
36 Judith Rich Harris, The Nurture Assumption, The Free Press, New York, 1998, p. 234.
37 Claude M. Steele, A Threat in the Air. How Stereotyper Shapes Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psychologist, 52 (6), 1997, p. 613-629.
38 Eleanor Maccoby, The Two Sexes. Growing up Apart, Coming Together, Harvard University Press, 2003. p. 28.

36
their performance in sporting events. The emphasis goes from group stereotypes toward the possibilities of people in their individuality, creativity, freedom, and responsibility.
We find another example in the celebrated article of Claude Steele,39 in which he analyzes the different outcomes of girls in math exams, in terms of pressures of gender and the environment on their lesser ability in this subject.
Probably, the creation, within a coeducational school of an environment in which other kinds of groups are established - for example groups of various ages – would decrease the importance of the division into two sexes. Naturally, this would create organizational and pedagogical problems that would be difficult to manage. Single-sex schools, in any case, adopts the gender perspective as a very important aspect of school organization – to the point of opting for the kind of organization that at times limits by one-half the potential “clients”. One should note that we are referring to the school environment; in environments with a reduced number of girls and boys, as in a family or a neighborhood, there are fewer opportunities to form groups by sex, which leads in turn to greater and better interaction between boys and girls. 40
The social psychology concept of group space 41 offers us an idea of what the constant presence of another sex within the same space means.
39 Veja-se, por exemplo, o magnífico capítulo de Gil em: Francisco Gil e Carlos Maria Alcover, Introducción a la psicología de los grupos, Ediciones Pirámede, Madrid, 2007, cap. 4.
40 Veja-se, por exemplo: Xavier Bonal, Las actitudes del profesorado ante la coeducación. Propuestas de intervención, Graó, Col. “biblioteca d’aula”, núm. 114, Barcelona , 1997; Myra Sadker e David Sadker, Failing at Fairness, Touchstone Books, New York, 1995; Cornelius Riordan, Girls and boys in school. Together or separate? Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1990, p. 54.
41 Eva Pomerantz, et al., “Making the Grade but Feeling Distressed: Gender Differences in Academic Performance and Internal Distress”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 2002, p. 402, citado por Leonard Sax, Why Gender Matters, Doubleday, New York, 2005.

37
Single-sex schools: gender
stereot
ypes and other aspects
Up to this point, all of the gender pressures described have referred to students. But we should also ask about teachers, who are not beyond the reach of social, media, and education influences, etc. In Western countries, teachers are increasingly aware of the need to educate while taking the gender perspective into account. In spite of progress in terms of equality, there is still a concern in regard to certain inequalities that continue to be pertinent, even with coeducation that supposedly was able to reduce gender differences in schools. This gender bias in teaching practice has been described through the analysis of the behavior of teachers who, unconsciously, treat boys and girls differently.42 Besides noting this bias, one should also recognize the peculiarities – statistically speaking – of each sex have a powerful influence in relation to the teacher and to the school as an institution. For example: “girls generalize the meaning of their mistakes, interpreting them as indicators that they have disappointed adults. Boys, in contrast, see their mistakes as relevant only in the specific field in which they occur. This is perhaps due to the small importance that boys give to the desire to please adults.” 43
Another aspect to highlight is the gender of teachers, and in what way this can be a factor to be taken into account in individualized education. Teachers are more than suppliers of information; they are counselors who should facilitate students to “look toward their future adult world”44 and thus facilitate their proper integration into society. For this reason, it is important to consider as well the facility that women and men
42 José María Barrio, “La coeducación. Un acercamiento desde la antropología pedagógica”, Persona y Derecho, Núm. 50, 2004, p. 349.
43 Michelle Stanworth, Gender and Schooling, Hutchinson, 1981, cited by Sue Askew and Carol Ross, Los chicos no lloran. El sexismo en educación, Paidós, 1991, p. 66.
44 Thomas S. Dee, “The Why Chromosome. How a teacher’s gender affects boys and girls”, Education Next, Fall 2006, p. 68-75.

38
may have in preparing and guiding girls and boys, especially when the personal dimension of education is demanded as a pedagogical principle.
Preliminary research describes possible benefits of the coincidence of gender of pupil and teacher: “Both boys and girls feel more at ease, pay more attention, and participate more in classroom activities when their teachers are of the same sex”45 and which may manifest itself, for example, in better academic outcomes for boys and for girls. 46
Certain ideologies see schools as places that reproduce social inequalities. Without doubt, this is in part verified by the current numerical inequality between male and female teachers. The percentage increase of the latter and the decrease of male teachers is patent. Perhaps the fact that our girls and boys witness this inequality daily in their schools facilitates the reproduction of these professional stereotypes.47
45 Pilar Ballarín, La educación de las mujeres en la España contemporánea, Síntesis, Madrid, 2001, p. 155.
46 See, for example : Von Steffen Kröhnert and Reiner Klingholz, Not am Mann. Von Helden der Arbeit zur neuen Unterschicht?, Berlin-Institut, 2007. The study demonstrates that many pedagogues are of the opinion that, in the growth of boys, examples of male roles are of primary importance. Fathers, as well as male educators and teachers should guarantee the guidance of boys for their own development. The concern stems from the fact that increasingly, boys grow up without male role models. In 2005 in Germany there were 2.6 million single parents. , and of these, 2.2 million were women. When their children reach kindergarden and primary school, they encounter practically no male personnel, and for this reason, one reads of the “feminization”of the education system. Americans define the problem by using the adjetive “fatherless”. Also in: Antonia Loick, “German Boys: Problem Children?” Goethe-Institut, maio de 2004, “Waltraud Cornelissen of the German Youth Institute in Munich also suggests considering the importance of images of masculinity defined at the cultural level, and perhaps even at the local or sub cultural level, as an explanation for the failure of boys in school”.
47 Leonard Sax, Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men, Basic Books, New York, 2007; Michael Gurian, Boys and Girls Learn Differently! Jossey-Bass, 2002, p. 57, 65: Christina Hoff Sommers, La guerra contra los chicos. Cómo un feminismo mal entendido está dañando a los chicos jóvenes. Palabra, Madrid, 2006, p. 12-13; Dan Kindlon e Michael Thompson, Educando a Caín. Cómo proteger la vida emocional del varón, Atlándida, Buenos Aires, 2000, p. 61, 69.

39
Moreover, various writers have called attention to other problems: recently, some studies in Germany have examined school problems of boys, demanding an education better adapted to their needs. Among the proposal presented is an increase in male teachers.48 In the United States as well, voices have been raised that speak of the need to study the consequences of the feminization of the teaching profession. This may lead to childhood education that is adapted to girls and to their learning rates that are more advanced than those of boys. School dropout rates, which are much higher for boys, may be related to all of this. 49
Similarly, the reactions and attitudes that boys generally demonstrate – greater motor activity, the interpretation of risk as challenge, less maturity in speaking, etc. – could be interpreted as anti-academic or as disobedience or as a threat to he climate sought in the classroom, and not understood by teachers who do not have sufficient knowledge of these differences, which are frequently ignored in teacher training courses within Schools of Education.
In regard to gender stereotypes, in a school for girls with female teachers, the latter serve as feminine models that include such activities as technology or competitive sports. In a school of boys with male teachers, the latter can be models of expressive possibilities in areas such as poetry, singing, etc. “”Boys benefit from the presence of male teachers and male authority figures that serve tem as models for academic study, professional commitment, moral and athletic leadership, and the ability to express emotion. The presence of a man can have an extremely tranquilizing effect over a group of boys. When a boy feels totally accepted – when he feels that his developmental capacities and his behavior are normal and that others recognize them as such
48 Dan Kindlon e Michael Thompson, Educando a Caín. Cómo proteger la vida emocional del varón, Atlántida, Buenos Aires, 2000, p. 82.
49 Cornelius Riordan, Girls and boys in school. Together or separate? Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1990, p. 49

40
– he becomes much more deeply and meaningfully committed to the learning experience. These are the qualities that make some schools for boys – with a teaching faculty that is mostly male and a learning program designed for the needs of boys – learning environments that are particularly effective for boys.”50 Riordan arrives at a similar conclusion: “The primary aspect of single-sex schools to be considered is the fact that they supply girls and boys with better models of professional success for each sex. Teachers, counselors, and colleagues present gender models with appropriate attitudes for students from infancy onward. Single-sex schools can be particularly beneficial for girls, given that the best students in all academic years are girls, and therefore appropriate to serve as models. Furthermore, the teaching faculties of schools for girls are usually female. Something similar may be said about schools for boys. In them, we find more pro-academic male gender models, legitimizing the fact of being a good student, although male.”51
Individualized education, that seeks to stimulate the student to direct his or her life, has developed some pedagogical peculiarities that prove its efficacy. One of them is individual tutoring that, more than group tutoring, provides this stimulus to the individuality of the person to seek the path that the student defines. As we have said, the experience has been extremely positive. Perhaps one should explore what role is played by the fact that the tutor is of the same gender as the student. 52
50 There is little written on this subject; of interest are the thoughts of Xavier Serra, Qué será mejor: profesores o profesoras? Análisis de la diferenciación sexual en los claustros educativos, in Por la diferencia hacia la igualdad, Granada, EASSE, 2008.
51 Susan S. Klein, Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1985, p. 189-217.
52 Fred A. Mael, “Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development”, Review of Educational Research, 68:2, 1998, p. 101-129; Nancy M. Monaco e Eugene Gaier, “Single-sex versus coeducational environment and achievement in adolescent females”, Adolescence, 1992, p. 27; A. W. Astin, “On the failure of educational policy”, Change, 1977, p. 40-45; D. G. Smith, “Women´s colleges and coed colleges: Is there a difference for women?”, Journal of Higher Education, 1990, p. 61.

41
It is important to look at what type of teachers will most benefit boys and girl, taking into account s the added factor of personal tutoring. If the lesson principally involves teacher/ student communication, personal tutoring implies the possibility of “you – I ” communication that enriches personalization. No one doubts the possibility of good inter-sexual counselor/ student communication. Nevertheless, to what extent, in this case, is there possibility for openness and trust and action by the counselor as a living model, from a gender perspective? Can it be that the social conditioners that we have witnessed and described for groups of students do not apply to the student/ teacher relationship? As Klein states, “the gender inequalities present in society are found in abundance in coeducational classes; the most common inequalities are segregation by sex, interaction between student and teacher loaded with gender stereotypes …”53 Other research has shown, for example, improvements in leadership ability and in self-confidence of girls in exclusively female schools. These studies also call attention to the quality of relations with female teachers.54
In individualized education, these issues are of no less importance, given that they have an impact on the heart of its proposal. An education that seeks to open up to the student a maximum number of personal and social possibilities, and free the student of the limits imposed by the environment cannot disregard the question of gender. The persistent inequalities between the sexes from school age onward justify committed actions in the sphere of education. In this sense, single-sex schools can contribute to education a decided gender perspec53
Susan S. Klein, Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1985, p. 189-217.
54 Fred A. Mael, “Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development”, Review of Educational Research, 68:2, 1998, p. 101-129; Nancy M. Monaco e Eugene Gaier, “Single-sex versus coeducational environment and achievement in adolescent females”, Adolescence, 1992, p. 27; A. W. Astin, “On the failure of educational policy”, Change, 1977, p. 40-45; D. G. Smith, “Women´s colleges and coed colleges: Is there a difference for women?”, Journal of Higher Education, 1990, p. 61

42
tive that justifies substantive organizational measures. For the case of individualized education, I consider these measures to be of special educational coherence and importance.
From what has been presented here, one can understand that in itself, the mere establishment of a single-sex school environment provides benefits. Maximum effectiveness is provided, however, involves the intent of the school community to take advantage of this potential the necessary training of teachers in subjects related to gender and education.

43
BOYS AND GIRLS CREATIVITY:
QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN
DIVERGENT THINKING
Autor:
Teresa Artola
Abstract:
In this paper, we explore if differences can be found between males and females in the way they use their imagination when solving new or divergent thinking problems. The investigation was conducted with a sample of 1377 subjects, 790 males and 587 females: 697 elementary students, 579 secondary and high school students and 100 adults. Our results indicate that in divergent thinking tests girls and female adolescents obtained better results in almost all scores, particularly when divergent thinking was assessed through verbal tasks. Differences were greater in younger children, while in adults no significant gender differences were found between males and females. From the results obtained we can conclude that boys and girls solve divergent thinking problems in a different way. These qualitative differences should be taken into account when promoting creativity in schools and imply that we must be careful when using the same identification procedures for identifying high ability boys and girls.

44
T
eresa Artola
Introduction
In this paper we investigate sex differences in the use of imagination and in the solving of divergent thinking problems, and their importance for the development of creativity in schools and the identification of high ability students. We will try to find some answers to the following questions:
– Are there differences in the divergent thinking scores of men and women?
– Can we identify qualitative differences in the way males and females use their imagination in creativity tasks?
– Can gender differences be observed at every age level?
– Are these differences important enough in order to be taken into account when identifying gifted children?
– Are these differences important enough to be considered when promoting creativity through education?
D
e
velopment
As the result of more than ten years of experience, devoted to the study of creativity, we believe that probably there are no large quantitative differences between sexes in creativity, but we hypothesize that significant qualitative differences can be found between males and females, and that these qualitative differences should be considered when promoting creativity in schools and when using creativity tests to identify high ability students for special enrichment programs.
Several studies have found differences in the factor’s that motivate girls and boys. Therefore, we hypothesize that, when confronted to tasks that require the use of imagination, boys and girls react in a different way. Boys usually focus on action while girls focus on feelings and emotions and also their responses are much more descriptive and include many more details. As Leonard Sax says (Sax 2004) “For boys or men it’s just not

45
cool to describe”. Therefore, we expect girls to give more responses that refer to feelings, emotions, thoughts and desires as well as descriptions of characters and objects, while boys will give more responses related with action and fantasy or imagination.
Likewise, we expect that girls and boys will be different in some of the variables implicated in divergent thinking: fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration and details.
We also sustain that creativity is probably domain specific therefore we expect that girls may be better in certain domains, while boys may be better in other domains.
Participants
A total of 1377 subjects participated in this study (790 males and 587 females). The total sample was composed of 697 elementary students, 8 to 12 years of age, (498 boys and 199 girls) .579 secondary and high school students, 12-18 years of age, (256 boys and 323 girls). Finally a small sample of 100 university students and adults also participated, 36 men and 64 women.
M
eas
ures
For the assessment of creativity, the PIC (“Prueba de Imaginación Creativa”), a test specifically designed for Spanish population, was employed. The PIC evaluates creativity by examining how subjects use their imagination in four different tasks, The first three tasks or games assess verbal creativity; the fourth graphical or figural creativity.
In the first task subjects must look at a drawing and indicate all possible things that might be happening in the scene presented. Subject’s responses are classified, depending on their nature, in different categories. The second task is similar to Guilford’s “possible uses of objects”. The third task evaluates

46
T
eresa Artola
fantasy and imagination by presenting the subject with an unusual or fantastic situation and the subject has to judge what could happen in this situation. Finally in the fourth task the subject has to make an original drawing given a few lines to complete. Measures of fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, and specific details can be obtained.
The PIC has three different versions, one version for each age group. The PIC-N (Artola, Ancillo, Mosteiro & Barraca, 2004) was employed for evaluating elementary students (8-12 years of age). The PIC-J (Artola, Barraca, Mosteiro, Martín, Ancillo & Poveda, 2008) was used for assessing secondary and high school students. Finally the PIC-A (Artola, Barraca, Mosteiro, Ancillo, Sánchez & Poveda, 2012) was used for evaluating university students and adults.
Verbal and graphical creativity scores were obtained for elementary, secondary and high school students, and university students and adults, by considering subject’s responses to the four tasks. Likewise, fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, title and special details scores were calculated. Finally, a qualitative examination of subject’s responses was conducted.
For this last analysis, subject’s responses to the first task of the PIC were qualitatively analyzed. In this task subjects must look at a scene and indicate all possible things that might be happening. Subject’s responses to this scene were classified according to the following categories:
1) Responses that refer to some type of action: The boy is opening the chest, the monkey is going to attack the boy, the girl is pushing the boy into the water, the man is playing the guitar, etc.
2) Responses related with the description of the scene, the characters, the situation…: The boy is poorly dressed, the lake is very dirty, the houses are very tall, it’s hot, etc..
3) Responses which refer to emotions, moods, feelings, desires… The boy is very angry, the girl loves the boy very much, the man playing the guitar is feeling very sad, the music he is playing is very romantic, etc.

47
4) Responses which refer to imagination: references to characters, animals or objects that don’t appear explicitly in the scene as well as references related with mystery, fantasy… .A big monster is going to jump out of the lake, the boy is trying to look for a corpse in the water, “a big rat is going to come out, etc..
5) Extension: responses that include references to past or future events related with the scene.
Results
Global creativity scores.
When the data of the whole sample, children, adolescents and adults, were considered, significant gender differences were found in total creativity scores, indicating that females obtained better scores in creativity than men. Likewise, females obtained significant better means in verbal creativity while men obtained significant better means in graphic creativity (see table 1).
These global results can be clarified by considering separately the results obtained in each group of age.
In the case of elementary students (PIC-N), and also in high school students (PIC-J), significant differences were found in global creativity as well as in verbal creativity, in both measures girls outscored boys. No significant differences were found in graphic creativity. In adult population, results were quite different. Differences between men and women didn’t result significant (see tables, 2,3,4).
Divergent thinking factors.
In second place, we searched for differences between sexes in the different factors considered when evaluating divergent thinking. When the total sample was considered, females generally over scored men in most divergent thinking factors: fluency, flexibility and originality (see table 5).

48
T
eresa Artola
If we examine the results obtained by each age group, results are as follows:
In elementary students (ages 9 to 12) significant differences were found in almost all factors: fluency, flexibility and originality, indicating that girls obtained significantly higher scores than boys in all these factors. But in special details, boys obtained significant better scores than girls. Likewise, significant differences were found between secondary and high school boys and girls in some factors of divergent thinking: such as fluency and flexibility. No significant differences were found in originality and special details. In adults, no significant gender differences were found in any of the divergent thinking factors considered.(see tables 6,7,8).
Scores in different games or tasks
We also conducted an additional analysis considering the scores obtained separately in each of the four tasks involved in the PIC:
In elementary students, the results obtained in the PIC-N were as follows: girls scored significantly higher than boys in all factors of the first task which requires subject’s to describe everything that could be happening in a scene: both fluency and flexibility. In the second task or game, which requires that subjects think about possible uses of objects, results obtained were similar, since girls over scored boys in all factors considered: fluency, flexibility and originality. The same results were found in the third task, which requires the use of fantasy or imagination. Girls obtained significantly better results in fluency, flexibility and originality.
In the fourth task, which assesses graphic creativity, results were quite different. Boys obtained significantly better results in elaboration and special details, while girls obtained better results in the use of shadows and color. No significant differences were found in originality in this task.
In secondary and high school students, (12 to 18 years) differences between boys and girls were not so obvious. Girls ob

49
tained significantly better results than boys only in fluency and flexibility of the first two games or tasks. But no significant differences were found between girls and boys in originality of the second task, nor in any of the factors of the third task. In the graphical task no significant differences were found between sexes in none of the factors considered. Slight differences were found, favoring girls in Title (assigning a creative title to their drawings).
In university students and adults, results obtained showed no significant differences between males and females in none of the games included in the PIC-A (see tables, 9,10, 11).
Categories of responses.
Also we conducted a new analysis aimed towards the possibility of finding qualitative differences in the type of categories chosen by males and females in the first task of the PIC of all groups.
In elementary students, girls obtained significantly higher means than boys in those categories that refer to actions, descriptions and emotions. Boys obtained significantly higher scores in “extension”. No significant sex differences emerged in those categories referring to fantasy.
When considering secondary and high school students, we obtained somewhat different results. Significant differences were found in categories referring to fantasy, emotions, and extension In these three categories, girls obtained higher scores than boys. No significant differences were found in action and description.
In the sample of university students and adults, no significant differences were found in any of the groups of categories considered (see tables 12,13,14).

50
T
eresa Artola
C
on
c
lusions
The results obtained don’t agree totally with our first hypothesis, since we expected no large inter sex quantitative differences in creativity. Our results indicate that in the total sample studied, females outscore males in global and verbal creativity. Differences decrease and become non-significant in adult population. In graphic creativity males obtain significantly better results than females.
We did expect to find differences between males and females in the different factors usually evaluated by divergent thinking tests. This hypothesis was confirmed since, when the total sample was considered, females obtained better scores than males in fluency, flexibility, and in some groups, also in originality. These differences were more intense in younger students, and disappeared in university students and adults.
Likewise these results were confirmed in elementary students independently of the type of response required (description, action or fantasy), as long as it was a verbal task. In graphical or figural tasks differences between elementary boys and girl reversed: boys obtained better results in the graphic task, especially in elaboration and special details.
In secondary and high school students differences between boys and girls were less notorious. Girls still over scored boys in fluency and flexibility of the first two games (which imply description and action) but no differences were observed neither in the third game (which required fantasy) nor in the graphic task for boys. Therefore it seems that sex differences in divergent thinking are more intense in younger children and as they approach adolescence these differences decrease and finally disappear in adulthood.
Several previous investigations (Hanlon, Tatcher & Cline, 1999, Sax, 2005, 2007) sustain that possibly boys and girls have a different sequence of development of the various brain regions, and that the areas of brain involved in language, spatial

51
memory and social development develop in a different order, time and rate in boys and girls. These differences in development might be responsible of the differences found in divergent thinking of elementary and secondary students.
Likewise other studies point out that boys and girls process information in a different way (Razumnikova & Bryzgalov, 2006). These differences in perception and processing might also account for the differences observed in our study.
The analysis of the categories of responses used more frequently by males and females in the first game, indicates that males and females style of responses differ depending of the age of the population studied. In children girls stand out in those categories that refer to actions, descriptions and emotions. Boys stand out in extension. In adolescents, girls outstand in fantasy, emotions and extension. In adults no differences were found in the type of responses produced.
These results, though slightly confusing, probably indicate that both in children and in adolescents, boys and girls have different interests and motivations, as several investigators reviewed affirm (Matud et al., 2006, Razummnikova, 2006, Rhoads, 2004), and therefore their responses differ qualitatively in their content. As they grow up, differences in the categories chosen diminish.
As a general conclusion of the investigation conducted, we have to affirm that there are quite many differences in the way males and females use their imagination in creativity tasks. These differences indicate that most divergent thinking tests, since they favor fluidity, flexibility or elaboration, instead of novelty, activity or originality might be biased towards girls or might not be equally valid for males and females. Likewise most creativity tests stress verbal tasks and therefore might not be adequate for boys. Likewise we must question if the same identification procedures can be used for girls and boys when identifying high ability and creative students.
Also our results demonstrate that, since creativity is probably domain specific, if divergent thinking tests evalu

52
T
eresa Artola
ate creativity only through verbal tasks boys and men will probably be underestimated. Likewise, if creativity is promoted in schools only through verbal tasks such as oral expositions or writing, boys will probably not be interested in showing creativity.
Likewise boys should be encouraged to give more responses and explore different perspectives when solving problems, since they tend to stick to their first answer and show less fluency and flexibility when confronted with new problems and situations. Girls should be encouraged to take more risks and dare to give responses which might be considered out of place by others.
References
T. Artola, I. Ancillo, P. Mosteiro, & J. Barraca, (2004). PIC- N: Prueba de Imaginación Creativa: Test Psicométrico. TEA Ediciones (Madrid).
T. Artola, J. Barraca, P. Mosteiro, C. Martín, I. Ancillo & B. Poveda (2008).
PICJ: Prueba de Imaginación Creativa para adolescentes y jóvenes: Test Psicométrico., TEA Ediciones (Madrid).
T. Artola, J. Barraca, P. Mosteiro, I. Ancillo, B. Poveda & N. Sánchez (2012). La PIC- A: Prueba de Imaginación Creativa para Adultos. TEA Ediciones (Madrid), pp. 1-135.
J. Baer, (2008). Evidence of gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behaviour. 42(2), pp. 78-105.
H. Hanlon, R. Tatcher, & Cline (1999). Gender differences in the development of
EEG coherence in normal children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 16(3). Pp. 479-506.
P. Matud, C. Rodriguez, & J. Grande, (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 (5). Pp. 1137-1147.

53
O.M. Razumnikova, (2006). Manifestations of gender differences in creative activity.
Voprosy Psichologii, nº 1, pp. 105-112.
O.M. Razumnikova, & A.O. Bryzgalov (2006). Frequency spatial organization of
brain electrical activity in creative verbal thought: The role of the gender factor. Neuroscience and Behavioural Psychology, 36(6). Pp. 645-653.
S. Rhoads (2004). “Taking sex differences seriously”. Encounter Books. (San Francisco).
L. Sax, L. (2005). “Why gender matters”. Crown Publishing Group, pp. 336.
L. Sax (2007): “Boys adrift”. NY Basic Books.

54
T
eresa Artola
Annex
Table 1
Mean, standard deviation, standard error and significance for verbal creativity, graphic creativity and global creativity in the complete sample.
Sex
N
Mean
SD
SE of M
t
Verbal
Creativity
Males
790
75,62
42,70
1,51
‑
9,60***
Females
587
96,44
37,48
1,54
Graphic Creativity
Males
791
13,27
7,88
0,28
3,98***
Females
586
11,83
5,54
0,22
Total Creativity
Males
790
88,91
43,54
1,54
‑
8,77***
Females
586
108,34
38,27
1,58
P<0,05*
P<0,01**
P<0,001***
Table 2
Mean, standard deviation, standard error and significance for verbal creativity, graphic creativity and global creativity in elementary students.
Sex
N
Mean
SD
SE of M
t
Verbal
Creativity
Males
498
64,84
41,57
1,86
‑
6,70***
Females
199
88,11
41,00
2,91
Graphic
Creativity
Males
499
15,23
8,68
0,39
0,46
Females
199
14,96
6,22
0,44
Total
Creativity
Males
498
80,09
43,44
1,95
‑
6,36***
Females
199
103,07
42,12
2,99
P<0,05*
P<0,01**
P<0,001***

55
Table 3
Mean, standard deviation, standard error and significance for verbal creativity, graphic creativity and global creativity in secondary and high school students.
Sex
N
Mean
SD
SE of M
t
Verbal
Creativity
Males
256
92,27
37,73
2,36
‑
2,48*
Females
324
99,91
35,99
2,00
Graphic
Creativity
Males
256
9,68
4,55
0,29
‑
0,91
Females
323
10,02
4,36
0,24
Global
Creativity
Males
256
101,94
39,07
2,44
‑
2,52*
Females
323
109,95
37,01
2,06
P<0,05*
P<0,01**
P<0,001***
Table 4
Mean, standard deviation, standard error and significance for verbal creativity, graphic creativity and global creativity in adults.
Sex
N
Mean
SD
SE of M
t
Verbal
Creativity
Males
36
106,52
39,43
6,57
0,22
Females
64
104,84
28,16
3,52
Graphic
Creativity
Males
36
11,80
5,44
0,90
0,51
Females
64
11,29
4,28
0,53
Total
Creativity
Males
36
118,33
39,77
6,62
0,22
Females
64
116,62
29,24
3,65
P<0,05*
P<0,01**
P<0,001***

56
T
eresa Artola
Table 5
Mean, standard deviation, standard error and significance for verbal creativity, graphic creativity and global creativity in elementary students.
Sex
N
Mean
SD
SE of M
t
Fluency
Males
791
38,82
21,64
0,76
‑
8,77***
Females
587
48,43
19,50
0,80
Flexibility
Males
791
20,85
9,77
0,34
‑
8,62***
Females
587
27,45
8,40
0,34
Originality
Males
791
21,16
14,44
0,51
‑
13,43***
Females
586
25,16
13,43
0,55
P<0,05*
P<0,01**
P<0,001***
Table 6
Mean, standard deviation, standard error and significance for fluency, flexibility, originality and special details in elementary students
Sex
N
Mean
SD
SE of M
t
Fluency
Boys
499
35,00
21,92
0,98
‑
6,59***
Girls
199
47,08
21,63
1,53
Flexibility
Boys
499
16,25
7,32
0,33
‑
9,08***
Girls
199
21,73
6,90
0,49
Originality
Boys
499
19,99
15,48
0,69
‑
5,24***
Girls
199
26,93
16,56
1,17
Special
Details
Boys
499
0,37
0,83
0,04
2,57**
Girls
199
0,23
0,56
0,04
P<0,05*
P<0,01**
P<0,001***

Single sex education miolo

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Single sex education miolo

Similar to Single sex education miolo (20)

More from Elisabeth Vierheller

More from Elisabeth Vierheller (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Single sex education miolo