No merit in Single-sex learning: Study

Segregation 'reinforces sex stereotypes and is misguided'



NEW YORK: Single-sex education is ineffective, misguided and may actually increase gender stereotyping, according to a team of psychologists in a new report.

The report, The Pseudoscience Of Single Sex Schooling, is likely to ignite a new round of debates and legal wrangling about the effects of single-sex education.

Due to be published in the latest edition of Science magazine by eight social scientists who are founders of the non-profit American Council for CoEducational Schooling, it asserts that 'sex-segregated education is deeply misguided and often justified by weak, cherry-picked or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence'.

But the strongest argument against single-sex education, the article said, is that it reduces boys' and girls' opportunities to work together, and reinforces sex stereotypes.

'Boys who spend more time with other boys become increasingly aggressive,' the article said. 'Similarly, girls who spend more time with other girls become more sex-typed.'

Lead author Diane F. Halpern is a past president of the American Psychological Association and holds a named chair in psychology at Claremont McKenna College in California. She is an expert witness in litigation in which the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging single-sex classes - which have been suspended - at a school in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.

Arguing that no scientific evidence supports the idea that single-sex schooling results in better academic outcomes, the article calls on the United States Education Department to rescind its 2006 regulations weakening the Title IX prohibition against sex discrimination in education.

Under those rules, single-sex schooling was permitted as long as it was voluntary, students were provided a substantially equal co-educational option and the separation of the sexes substantially furthered an important governmental objective.

Ms Russlyn H. Ali, the assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, said it was reviewing the research in the area.

'There are case studies that have been done that show some benefit of single-sex, but like lots of other educational research, it's mixed,' she said.

The article comes at a time when single-sex education is on the rise. There were only two single- sex public schools in the US in the mid-1990s; today, there are more than 500 public schools in 40 states that are either entirely for one sex or offer some single-sex academic classes.

Many of them did so because of a belief that boys and girls should be taught differently, which grew out of popular books, speeches and workshops by Mr Michael Gurian, author of The Minds Of Boys and Boys And Girls Learn Differently, and Dr Leonard Sax, who wrote Why Gender Matters.

Dr Sax, executive director of the National Association of Single Sex Public Education, was singled out for criticism in the article, for his teachings that boys respond better to loud, energetic, confrontational classrooms while girls need a gentler touch.

'A loud, cold classroom where you toss balls around, like Sax thinks boys should have, might be great for some boys, and for some girls, but for some boys, it would be living hell,' Ms Halpern said in an interview.

She said that while girls are better readers and get better grades in school, and boys are more likely to have reading disabilities, that does not mean that educators should use the group average to design different classrooms for the two sexes.

'It's simply not true that boys and girls learn differently,' she said. 'Advocates for single-sex education don't like the parallel with racial segregation, but the parallels are there. We used to believe that the races learnt differently, too.'

Dr Sax criticised the article on many counts, and said it did not fairly reflect his views. He vehemently rejected the comparison to racial segregation, and the use of the term 'sex segregation'. Legally, he said, race is a suspect category, while sex is not.

'We are not asserting that every child should be in a single-sex classroom; we are simply saying that there should be a choice,' Dr Sax said.

The authors of the article, though, say that because there is no good scientific research backing such a choice, the government cannot lawfully offer single-sex education in public schools.

NEW YORK TIMES

Reading With Expression

The Importance of Punctuation

Many of my pupils are reading too fast in such a way that fluency and expression literally fly out the window.

I chanced upon this website that enlightens us about what we all know about punctuations. They are important to control the pace of reading

Teach children to read punctuation marks and practice with non-words to improve reading inflection, increase fluency and improve comprehension.



Teaching a child to read aloud well can be difficult. They must read smoothly, while deciphering each word, comprehend what they are reading, and look ahead to know what emotion to put into their voice while reading. Many children simply focus on sounding out the words and comprehending what they are reading while leaving inflection or expression out.


Teach Punctuation Marks

When teaching a child to read with proper expression, you must first teach them the meanings behind the punctuation marks. A common way to teach this is to explain what your voice does at each punctuation mark.

A comma means to pause while reading. Use a short easy sentence to illustrate and have the child practice. For example: “Sam, come here.”


A period means to come to a full stop. When students have trouble with this, have them stop and take a breath at each period. Many students will read through the period until they run out of air, and then stop for a breath. Instead teach them to stop at the period and then continue on.

A question mark means the speaker is asking something, so read it in a questioning voice. Have them practice this by asking a question and listening to what their voice does. Usually you will have your voice go up at the end of the question, indicating that you are asking something: “Mom, can I have a cookie please?” Then have them practice reading simple questions. Remind students that they are asking a question and to use a questioning voice when they forget.

An exclamation mark means that you should use a surprised or excited voice. Have the child practice this voice by saying something exciting: “we are going to the beach!” Then have them read a simple sentence for practice, reminding them to sound excited or surprised.


Use Non-Words to Practice

One great way to teach children how to speak with inflection is to eliminate the words, and focus completely on the punctuation marks. Although circling the punctuation marks may help remind students while reading a story, try this conversation, or make your own up when you need to focus on expression.

Mm mm mm, mm mm.

Mmmmm!

Mm.

Mm, mm mm, mm mm!

Mm mm?

Mm mm.

Mm mm mm, mm mm? Mm!

Mm mm mm? Mm, mm mm.

Mm?

Mm!

Mm, mm mm!

Mm mm?

Mm mm!

Teaching children to read with expression is important. Make sure that the children who struggle with this spend a lot of time reading, as this will enable them to feel more comfortable with the words and be able to spend more energy paying attention to the punctuation marks. This will help to increase their fluency, which will in turn improve their comprehension.

Fish and chips loved here, as are french fries

Geraint Wong
The Straits Times
Publication Date : 19-09-2011


Mr Lee Kuan Yew's pronouncement this month that the American version of English would probably prevail over other forms must have jarred with some.

He was, after all, addressing an audience made up largely of local English language teachers, who were attending the launch of the English Language Institute of Singapore.

Also, this country, in keeping with its colonial past, has an education system that teaches British English and discourages the American variety.

Yet what Mr Lee said was not new. The Oxford Guide To World English, published in 2003, made a similar observation: "American English has a global role at the beginning of the 21st century comparable to that of British English at the start of the 20th."

This development was inevitable, given the global success of Hollywood and the fact that Silicon Valley is located in California in the United States, not England.

And with the political and economic might of the US, it is not surprising that the variety of English being learnt in countries such as China and Japan is often the American one.

Moreover, while both systems of spelling continue to exist side by side, the British form for some words has given way to the American one in all regions. Such is the case with "computer programs" and "hard disks", as well as "sulfur" and "fetus" among the respective international scientific communities.

Not everyone is happy, of course. Understandably, many people in Britain are indignant - as is evident from blog posts and newspaper columns.

In a BBC Radio 4 broadcast in July, British journalist and author Matthew Engel shared his alarm at the extent to which American usages - which are swimming to British shores "in battalions" - have affected the quality of British English.

Mr Engel clarified that he was "all for a living, breathing language that evolves with the times". He also accepted that "sometimes American phrases have a vigour and vivacity".

But he added: "What I hate is the sloppy loss of our own distinctive phraseology through sheer idleness, lack of self-awareness and our attitude of cultural cringe."

If the people in the land where English was born can be guilty of these faults, Singaporeans stand no chance of being acquitted.

No doubt the education system here insists on British English and public institutions use it quite faithfully. Yet the brand of English used daily by Singaporeans is really a mishmash of styles from both sides of the Atlantic - with local concoctions added into the mix for good measure.

For instance, the Americanisms "movie", "elevator" and "truck" are increasingly used here, alongside their British equivalents "film", "lift" and "lorry".

Local office-talk regularly features nouns such as "leverage", "pressure" and "transition" used as verbs - quite the American penchant. But it also includes British idioms such as "a new lease of life", "on the cards" and "teething problems".

Fish and chips is well loved here, but so are french fries.

Then of course there is the issue of spelling. It is widely held that about 65 per cent of all people are visual learners. Singaporeans are exposed to American spelling on their computers and mobile phones day in and day out. So guess which spelling style is looking increasingly right and "normal" to them?

Add to that the fact that many probably don't bother (or don't know how) to change the default language of their word processing software to British English - and end up obediently complying when asked to "correct" their spellings to the American forms.

Why, the very venue at which Mr Lee was giving his speech is named the Sands Expo and Convention Center (not Centre). So much for doing as the Romans do.

This combination of factors means that spelling is probably the area in which American English has its greatest influence here. In my years as an English teacher, I often had to remind students to be consistent in the way they spell words - examiners do not penalise Americanisms, provided there is consistency in their usage.

Does all this mean that American English will "prevail over other forms", as Mr Lee said? Not quite.

One reason: the Commonwealth of Nations accounts for almost a third of the world's population. In these countries, a lexicon comprising British terms and indigenous additions would have taken root over decades and centuries and won't be easy to change. For instance, no Singaporean would be likely to refer to his car as an automobile any time soon, if ever.

True, more American terms will make their way into vocabularies everywhere. But English has always been very accommodating of new words from a wide range of sources - to the extent of being "anarchic, even", as Mr Engel put it.

This is a happy situation, really, for it means we have a greater variety of expressions at our disposal. After all, how many of us actually consider the origin of a word when we use it? We use it if it's a good word - just because it's there.

So, as Speak Good English Movement chairman Goh Eck Kheng advises: "Let's keep what Mr Lee said in perspective."

We don't need to start building our American vocabulary or pronouncing our post-vocalic Rs.

But what teachers need to do is expose students to a wide range of English usage from all over the world to broaden their linguistic repertoire, and train them to communicate in an internationally intelligible variety of English (some call it Globish).

The tension should not be between the two sides of the Atlantic, but between what can be understood in a global context (good English) and what cannot (Singlish).

As for spelling, well, it will continue to be a thorn in the flesh, but then again it has been an issue plaguing the English language all through its history.