ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
(submitted by Ah Young Chi)
“The rationale and value of single-sex colleges in today’s world”
Fernandez, G. (n.d.). Don’t forget the advantages of a single-sex education. Retrieved May 24, 2006, from
http://www.collegenews.org/x5381.xml
At the time of publication, Gwen Fernandez was a senior at Hollins University in Roanoke, Virginia, which is Virginia’s oldest chartered women’s college. In her testimony, Fernandez shares about her college selection process that did not include any women’s colleges but due to a series of coincidences, she ended up visiting Hollins University which quickly changed her attitude towards attending a women’s college. Although only an undergraduate student, Fernandez grounds her testimony with findings from published research and personal research that state that women educated at women’s colleges graduate with higher self-esteem and a greater sense of purpose than women who graduate from coeducational institutions. She also shares about her experience at Hollins University and all the benefits she received like being able to participate in student government without the social and political barriers and becoming an avid rock climber. Fernandez’s testimonial article is short but informative, and I would distribute it to female students who are considering attending a women’s college.
Kennedy, R. (n.d.). Single sex schools – Why attend a single sex private school? Retrieved May 24, 2006,
from http://privateschool.about.com/cs/choosingaschool/a/singlesex.htm
Robert Kennedy is a writer for About.com specializing in private school education out of his experience in and love for private school education. As a former parent, teacher, and administrator of a private school, he has personal experience to draw from. However, formal research to validate his writing does not exist, which may lead readers to question his authority. In Why attend a single sex private school? he offers several reasons for parents to consider single sex education, claiming that boys and girls will thrive academically and socially in single-sex environments because they learn differently. Educators in single-sex schools know the difference in how boys and girls learn, and they will enhance the learning environment to accommodate to the different styles.
Kennedy’s article addresses primary and secondary education but can apply to post-secondary education as well. For example, his explanation for why boys and girls are not the same and that they have different learning styles can and must be applied to single-sex colleges; it is one of the strongest reasons why single-sex colleges still exist today. Also, Kennedy points out that girls will be encouraged to pursue studies in non-traditional subjects like math and science and gain leadership skills significantly more in an all-female learning environment, which is evident not only in secondary education but also in post-secondary education. About.com is not the first reference source that I would offer to a parent seeking information on any subject, but I may refer to this particular article knowing that Kennedy has extensive experience in the private schools and his claims mirror that of formal research papers.
Kim, M. & Alvarez, R. (1995, November/December). Women-only colleges: Some unanticipated
consequences. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(6), 641-648.
How effective are women-only colleges? That is the question that Mikyong Kim, a doctoral candidate at UCLA’s Division of Higher Education and Organizational Change, and Rodolfo Alvarez, a professor of sociology at UCLA, set out to answer with their research. Specifically, they look at three dimensions of educational efficacy – academic development, social skill development, and career preparation – to determine the organizational effectiveness of women-only colleges. Through a well-researched review of literature, the authors show that students at women-only colleges feel free to excel in their work without the distraction of males and that the high percentage of women faculty serving as positive role models attributes to the effectiveness of women’s colleges. Kim and Alvarez obtained 1987 and 1991 data sets from Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) to conduct their study, which were self-reports from the sample population. They hypothesized that there would be no difference between students at women-only colleges and women students at coeducational institutions of 1) academic ability, 2) social self-confidence, and 3) career preparation.
Results from this study show that women’s colleges affect female students in both academic ability and social self-confidence more positively than the coeducational institutions, whereas the level of career preparation was similar in both learning environments. They go on to offer possible explanations for the outcome of their research. One interesting argument that Kim and Alvarez makes is that contrary to Tidball’s previous extensive research on this topic, the presence of positive role models through the women faculty did not directly contribute to the students’ academic ability and social self-confidence at women-only colleges. Considering that the majority of other related research supports Tidball’s claims regarding the effect of women faculty, it is difficult to determine whether Kim and Alvarez’s study is valid or reliable. There are, however, limitations to their study, and they propose that future research should pursue whether the presence of female faculty indirectly affects student development.
Although this research was conducted more than 10 years ago, most of the findings remain valid as supported by more recent research from the same author as well as many other authors. This article provides a helpful starting point for anyone interested in studying the rationale of single-sex colleges from an academic perspective, especially because one of the authors contributes extensively to this topic with continued publications. This article is also helpful in that it provides solid empirical data for why single-sex colleges must be supported by college administrators and public policy makers.
Kim, M. M. (2001, May/June). Institutional effectiveness of women-only colleges: Cultivating
students’ desire to influence social conditions. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 287-322.
Mikyong Kim’s study of women’s colleges continues with a new question. Fascinated by the high number of alumnae of women-only colleges among high achievers listed in Who’s Who, congresswomen, and among women college presidents, Kim poses two questions: 1) Why are graduates from women-only colleges so visible among politicians, influential leaders, and achievers in spite of the small proportion of women attending women-only colleges in the U.S.? and 2) Is it possible that women-only colleges cultivate students’ desire to influence social conditions differently than coeducational colleges? Utilizing data sets from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), Kim conducted a study that strongly suggests that women-only colleges do promote a desire in their students to influence social conditions more so than their coeducational counterparts. Kim points out that the student and faculty climate at women-only colleges seems to be more socially active, altruistic, and community oriented than at coeducational colleges, which may contribute to a special and unique socialization effect.
Kim is now and at the time of this study an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Missouri-Columbia’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis. Her research method appears valid and reliable when comparing her methodology and results with her other works and works of other researchers, but considering my lack of experience in national survey research, I may not have the authority to comment on Kim’s authority. Personally and as a College Counselor, I found this particular study to be very helpful because it paints a picture of the kind of supportive environment that women-only colleges offer, and it also provides empirical data to support the picture it paints.
Kim, M. M. (2002, August). Cultivating intellectual development: Comparing women-only colleges
and coeducational colleges for educational effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 447-481.
In my limited research of single-sex colleges and their rationale in today’s world, I came across several studies belonging to Mikyong Kim, all filled with extensive review of literature and solid methodology. Kim is a proponent of single-sex education, particularly women-only colleges, and her research supports her claims. In this study, Kim seeks to add to the knowledge of the effectiveness of women’s colleges. She defines effectiveness as “the degree to which an organization fulfills its intended outcomes,” which she assesses by evaluating the cultivation of students’ intellectuality. Specifically, Kim compares how women’s colleges and coeducational institutions affect three criteria of intellectual development: 1) intellectual self-confidence, 2) critical thinking ability, and 3) analytical and problem-solving skills. To do this, Kim modified Astin’s input-environment-outcome (I-E-O) model utilizing two student survey data sets from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). Kim found that students from women’s colleges held higher intellectual self-confidence than the women from coeducational institutions whereas students from both single-sex and coeducational colleges showed similar level of critical thinking and analytical and problem-solving skills. As evidenced in Kim’s previous works, women’s colleges promote supportive learning environments that positively impact the students’ self-confidence.
Interestingly, Kim continues to find the lack of direct affect of women faculty presence as positive role models on student development at women-only colleges. This is significant because, as mentioned already, many other authors of the same topic support Tidball’s correlation; whether it is a direct or indirect correlation is yet to be studied. In this particular research, Kim found that as opposed to a positive women faculty presence, it is the college student peer climate that more directly influences students’ intellectual development. Whatever the factor, Kim’s findings repeatedly indicate that women students tend to have more intellectually stimulating experiences at women-only colleges than at coeducational institutions.
Langdon, E. A. (2001). Women’s colleges then and now: Access then, equity now. Peabody Journal of
Education, 76(1), 5-30.
In this thorough review of literature, Emily Langdon presents an accurate context of the struggles and hopes facing women’s colleges today. A history of women’s colleges tells the story of women’s exclusion from higher education and the establishment of women’s colleges as a response to provide educational opportunities for women who were denied access to higher education. A closer examination of how women’s colleges have changed over the decades show that as access to higher education became wider for women by means of coeducational institutions, women-only colleges were forced to move to coeducation not because of the opportunity to provide educational equity but due to falling enrollment. Despite low enrollment and struggles, many single-sex institutions remained true to their mission, which is to provide higher education for women. Langdon tells the readers that supporters of women’s colleges are certain that positive, women-centered, and supportive climates do not exist anywhere else. The author claims that in these environments, women are allowed to flourish in non-traditional subjects like math and sciences and obtain leadership skills that they cannot otherwise practice in coeducational institutions. Students from women’s colleges have higher self-confidence and higher satisfaction with their overall educational environment. Langdon also points out that women’s college students are less likely to participate in binge drinking and report less alcohol-related problems like drunk-driving.
Langdon makes a solid argument for the existence of women’s colleges in today’s world. Consistent with contemporary dialogue, Langdon identifies the factors that contribute to a positive learning environment for women, which include: “providing successful role models for female students and an emphasis on mentoring, fostering diverse and challenging leadership opportunities for women, expanding the curricular opportunities for women by encouraging participation in male-dominated fields such as math, sciences, and engineering, and recognizing gender differences in learning so that the pedagogy strives to serve women as learners.” Langdon closes her article by going into details of each factor and giving examples specific campuses that promote the stated factors. Overall, Langdon’s work is comprehensive and very informative. Although lengthy, it is well organized and fairly easy to read. It is definitely an article that I would keep in my resource binder.
Leger-Hornby, T. (1997). Gender schema and computer attitudes of female college students at
single-sex and coeducational colleges [Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International A, 58(06), 2104. (UMI No. 9735240)
Tracey Leger-Hornby, a doctoral candidate at the time of this dissertation, offers a perspective that is especially relevant to today’s world: computer attitudes of female college students. Computers dominate the current work-force, and it is projected that computer use will only grow. Hence, it is imperative that educational institutions effectively train students on computers and that students not only learn to use computers on a regular basis but not feel anxious to work with computers. Recognizing the influence of traditional sex-role stereotypes, Leger-Hornby attempts to compare the attitudes held by female students at single-sex and coeducational colleges. She found that students from single-sex colleges had positive computer attitudes compared to female students from coeducational institutions. She concludes that educational environments supportive of women’s learning styles can improve computer attitudes and that computer instruction must be incorporated into the curriculum in order to encourage women’s achievement. Leger-Hornby’s study is interesting because it is very specific; moreover, it is a very important study because it adds to the argument that women’s colleges are beneficial for the full development of women.
Palmer, K. S. (2003, March/April). Weight in the balance: Co-ed settings skew women’s views.
Psychology Today, 36(2), 14.
Kimberly Palmer’s article talks of the negative consequences of men’s presence when it comes to women’s judgment of their weight. Palmer reports from a small survey of 101 female college students but the findings are enormous because they suggest that women feel heavier than other women when men are around. These women have a higher tendency of engaging in eating disorders, which implies that students at women-only colleges are less likely to engage in eating disorders than female students from coeducational institutions. This article is short and non-academic but the same implications can be found in scholarly publications, validating the fact that negative social pressure exists for females in coeducational institutions that does not exist in single-sex colleges. I think this a critical factor to consider for students looking at single-sex institutions, especially for women who are easily influenced and distracted by the presence of men.
Perry, P. (2000, April). Culture at the crossroads: The education of women. Is there a future for
women’s colleges in the new millennium? Proceedings of the Technological Education and National Development (TEND) Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Pauline Perry is the President of Lucy Cavendish College, an all-women’s college, of Cambridge University, and she delivers this powerful message about the importance of educating women in today’s changing world. She believes that single-sex women’s colleges have a particularly significant contribution to make by recognizing the distinct pattern of women’s lives and offering role-models of success to give confidence and self-esteem to women. She clearly states that women perform better in math, sciences, and technology when they study alongside other women, and if women are to take their place in the economy, they must be given the opportunity to experience and train under the best circumstances. She argues, also, that men have their place in single-sex male colleges as well. Just as women tend not to engage in male-dominated subjects like math and sciences, men tend not to pursue linguistic studies, which are typically female-dominated. In a supportive environment that fosters the different learning styles of men and women, they will reach their full potential and will be able to contribute more strongly to their communities.
Perry approaches this topic from a global perspective as was necessary for the type of conference she was presenting at, but her global perspective is helpful in assessing the rationale of single-sex colleges in today’s world. Perry guides American readers to look at the story from a bigger point of view and to consider women for how different they inherently are from men. And when you recognize this inherent difference, it almost makes you question why we have moved so far away from single-sex education in this country.
Renn, K. A. (2004, January/February). Review of the book Contradictions in women’s education:
Traditionalism, careerism, and community at a single-sex college. Journal of College Student Development, 45(1), 103-105.
In this supportive review of the book titled Contradictions in Women’s Education: Traditionalism, Careerism, and Community at a Single-Sex College, Kristen Renn discusses the value of the book that identifies several major factors that capture women’s experiences at the particular college. The author of the book suggests that women from this non-elite institution experience a struggle between gender traditionalism and emancipation. Many students enter college with traditional values and many enter with values that emphasize gender equality. Thus, for the latter students, this particular college provided a supportive environment that did not challenge their values. The author of the book also addressed issues that concern historically single-sex organizations like sororities on a campus that is already single sex and how these organizations influence the school culture. But whether it was sororities or athletic teams or extracurricular communities, the same source that brought people together and connected were the same sources that motivated others to disconnect and eventually leave the school.
The author of the book seems to make a crucial point that many authors of the same topic neglect to address: even though single-sex colleges have their many benefits for women’s education, all students must select the school that best matches who they are who they wish to become. In light of this, the author of the book identifies the greatest shortcoming of the particular college she studied – that it never asked its students to take themselves seriously as women and that it never required its students to learn about the history and legacy of women’s colleges. Doing this may lead students to identify with and connect to their school; it may also lead students to be proud of who they are and where they are at.
Renn’s review is thorough and informative. For those who have not read the book, the review will make them want to read it; for those who have read the book, the review appears neutral enough that they may agree with Renn’s report.