Constructed gender, approach to learning and academic performance

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between constructed gender, approach to learning and academic performance for 121 final year students at the Robert Gordon University in Scotland. Data was collected from two cohorts of students, namely Accounting and Finance students and Business students. Constructed gender (gender identity) was measured using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), pp. 155-162) and approach to learning was measured using the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle and Tait, 1995, The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory, Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh). The results found that neither biological gender nor constructed gender was related to academic performance. In respect of approaches to learning, the findings were similar for biological gender and constructed gender. Female students scored highly on the surface approach and this was the case for students with a feminine constructed gender. Statistically significant differences in academic performance were found for students who scored higher on the deep approach, strategic approach, academic self confidence dimension and metacognitive awareness dimension, although there was no significant negative correlation identified between adopting a surface approach and academic performance. Thus, approaches to learning would appear to explain more in terms of differences in academic performance than either constructed or biological gender.Biological gender, constructed gender, approaches to learning, academic performance,

Examining the relationships among background variables and academic performance of first year accounting students at an Irish University

“…It is clear from Table 3 As shown in Table 3, that gender (GEN) is not significantly related to associated with any of the three measures of performance and, consequently, Hypothesis 3 is fully supported. This concurs with the findings from two recent UK studies (Duff, 2004;Paver & Gammie, 2005). Perhaps, these recent results indicate that gender differences are no longer an issue in today's more gender-balanced world of accounting education.…”

Are assessment environments gendered? An analysis of the learning responses of male and female students to different assessment environments

“…The fact that female and male perceptions of the appropriateness of assessment remained consistent across the different dominant types of assessment at each university is suggestive of female students neither being advantaged by nor particularly favouring coursework over exams (supporting the findings of Woodfield, Earl-Novell, and Solomon 2005, but contrary to those of Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic 2005). And that neither males nor females prefer to adopt one learning approach over another is contrary to much of the recent literature in this area (Severiens and Ten Dam 1994;Duff 1999;Paver and Gammie 2005).…”

“…This can be seen in the following examples. In support of an interaction between gender and assessment, males have been found to consider that the primary role of assessment is to provide a unit mark representing their capabilities whilst females consider giving students feedback on progress to be most important (Adams, Thomas, and King 2000); female students have been found to work harder than their male counterparts (Smith 2004); males have more favourable attitudes towards multi-choice assessments than females (Birenbaum and Feldman 1998); females have been noted to have more negative attitudes towards exams than males whilst males tend to have more negative attitudes towards continuous assessment (Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic 2005); males have been found to adopt a bolder essay writing style than females (Francis, Robson, and Read 2001); more frequent assessment benefits females more than males (Myers and Myers 2007); females are more likely to adopt a surface approach to learning than males (Severiens and Ten Dam 1994;Duff 1999;Paver and Gammie 2005) whilst males are more likely to adopt a deep approach to learning than females (Severiens and Ten Dam 1994); and females are perceived to be more conscientious, articulate and concerned with aesthetics than males whilst males are considered to be more selfconfident, bold, logical and focused yet displaying more haste and carelessness (Francis, Read, and Melling 2003). Against the notion of an interaction between gender and assessment male and female attitudes towards open ended (essay-type) assessment format were no different (Birenbaum and Feldman 1998); women were not found to be advantaged by coursework (Woodfield, Earl-Novell, and Solomon 2005); both males and females expressed a preference for coursework (Woodfield, Earl-Novell, and Solomon 2005); male and female students do not differ in their approaches to learning (Byrne, Flood, and Willis 1999) and gender was not found to impact on students' performance in either coursework (extended essay) or exams, regardless of whether their attitude towards learning took a deep or surface approach (Tian 2007).…”

Towards an Understanding of Predictors of Academic Performance

“…Moreover, choice of learning approaches was widely documented to be important to academic performance. The deep approach is associated with, higher academic performance, whereas the surface approach with lower performance Booth, et al, 1999;Paver & Gammie, 2005).…”