"girls just cannot compete here": Hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity in Sport education
Abstract
90% of females in secondary school prefer to participate in single sex sports education if given the opportunity, which is on a large part a result of hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity influencing the ‘accepted’ behaviors or traits for your gender. Even more surprising is the idea that through the medium of sports education, educators are re-enforcing this inequality, where as the core underpinning of this model is to promote participation in physical activity regardless of gender or ability. However by splitting both genders, at least most of the barriers to participation can be removed and even increase the learning efficiency of the participants without causing an internal conflict of values; for if girls are choosing not to be active in co-education classes because of the environment, are we then truly able to meet the goals of educating physically active young adults?
Rationale
The rationale behind this study is to build on existing studies of gender stereotyping in traditional physical education and progress the theories into the more modern model of sport education, with the major focus surrounding the question of “How does hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity influence participation in sports education? However during the research process and discussion with colleagues, little evidence of any work can be attributed to viewing the effectiveness of sport education in tackling hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity on a community level.
Literature review
Hegemonic masculinity and the contrasting emphasized femininity, which is more commonly known as gender stereotypes (i.e. the macho man and the compliant woman) permeate the much of western society, from vocational pursuits and leisure practices which dictate socially accepted practices (Donaldson, 1993, Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005 & Kelly, Pomerantz & Currie, 2005) Connecting with this is a study on middle childhood physical activities by Evaldsson (2003) found that although children were being physically active, each gender prefers to engage in ‘play’ (that being semi-structured without a defined end product or goal) though different means; with boys conducting overly physical and competitive activities, such as football or play fighting and girls engaging in more controlled turn taking body movements.
Evaldsson (2003) then progresses to suggest the play of ‘two or four square’ as a cross gender medium for physical activity, consisting of both the competitive and turn taking attributes. However the games tended to breakdown down because the girls started “challenging and parodying gender stereotypes; and they assumed varied stances such as girls slamming and boys failing (Evaldsson, 2003: pp. 477)” This breakdown is evident that hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity is established very early in a child life as the boys were the ones who discontinued participation on the grounds of the girls playing.
Progressing to the second aspect, the ‘sports education’ model was first coined by Siedentop over 30 years ago, as a counter model to the traditional physical education models of the day with the main ideal to increase participation rates and to effectively create physically literate citizens by focusing in depth on one or two sports (Siedentop 2002). The structure being that:
“Sport Education strives to contribute to a sport culture that maximizes opportunities for participation in a "sane," "sound," and "humane" manner; to ensure that all levels of sport involvement are designed to benefit the participants involved; and to ensure that opportunities for sport participation are not limited by race, gender, socioeconomic status, age, or disability” (Siedentop 1994, pp. 5 as cited in Brock & Hastie 2007, pp.11 Siedentop 2002)
This is in contrast to ‘physical education’, where the main objective was to expose students to a multitude of sports at a surface level in an attempt to spark interest for students to engage in out of school hours physical activity, however this approach tends to be inefficient(Siedentop 2002; Luke & Sinclair 1991); as physical activity participation rates drop off in middle adolescence perhaps due to students lacking class time self exploration and meaning making through movement (Brown, 2008)
In retrospect the sports education has been hailed by many researchers as a more effective model to address the multiple issues which plague traditional physical education, due to the emphasis on students focusing on group learning and performing functional roles such as coaching/officiating & analyzing etc. Researchers such as Brown, 2008; Brock & Hastie 2007; Kirk 2006; Siedentop 2002 & Kinchin 2001 all advocate for physical education to be overhauled, replaced instead with a more learner central curricula such as the sport education model to address growing social problems, however disparity would still exist between the educational goals and educational outcomes as long as gender roles are emphasised by society.
Unfortunately more research is in order to bring together the concept of hegemonic masculinity and the emphasised femininity with modern forms of the Sport Education model as ethnographic studies are yet to be published in the academic community.
The study approach
A total of 120 students individually completed the questionnaire, 90 in single-sex physical education classes and 30 in coeducation classes. Students in this study were limited to grade 9 through 10, and ranged in ages from 14 to 16 years. Each volunteer student was asked a series of likert scales, multiple choice and semi-structured, open-ended questions about their personal experiences in physical education classes through a questionnaire(see Appendices, attachment two). This double sided questionnaire was conducted prior and after exposure to the opposing grouping in physical education. Also observations were taken during the sessions by both the researcher and the supervising teacher as to ascertain underlying key themes with inhabit the learning environment. Two single sex sport education classes were trialed as Co-ed and one Co-ed sports education class was trialed as single sex for a period of Five days, with 3 schools being used in this study, as to try to gain comparison data.
School Comparisons
All three schools are situated in leafy surrounds of the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne within a radius of approximately 15 km, drawing on a relative proportion of girls/boys in their student populations.
For the purposes of analysis, all questionnaires were coded after collection with their gender (Male/Female), original gender grouping (Single/Mixed) with the questionnaire number (i.e. FS12 means female, single sex, number 12). At no time were names collected in order to identify individual students.
Results & Discussion
After analyzing all the questionnaires and observations, three key themes emerge:
1. Girls prefer single sex sport education classes
Firstly female students in all schools showed increased preference for single sex classes (see appendices, attachment 1), which can be attributed to these concepts of effects of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ and ‘emphasized femininity’. This is based around results gathered from returned questionnaires, with the greatest indication being that males dominate to lesson. For example SF15 comments that “boys tend to pass to boys, as they think girls aren’t good at sport and stuff” also MM13 comments that “if you pass to a girl and they stuff up, it looks bad on you because it’s your fault and the guys go off at you!” Both suggest that the dominant culture expressed during sports education is remarkably similar to traditional physical education.
Various respondents comment on females and ‘fat kids’ being intimidated by the more athletic boys’ physical size and strength, paired with a competitive and aggressive playing style in both mixed and single sex groupings. A key response from MF5, where she comments that “The boys just dominate the ball, they are too aggressive when playing with their friends, they just need to back off a bit, you know?”
Another key reason why females have a preference for single sex sport education is the impact of "looking good". Numerous girls reported that they do not like being looked at by boys during physical activity and consequentially in their sports attire, with the main complaint being of feeling “hot and sweaty, I just feel disgusting because sometimes my face is a total mess!” Upon conferring with the supervising educators, all three agreed there is far too much emphasis on girls to look neat and presented, as in to avoid embarrassment for the opposite sex. The education staff also suggested that a major contributor to this is the rapid psychological and physiological changes during this stage of life, with the most significant being the onset of menstruation.
After presenting the follow up questionnaire, with the added short answer question asking participants to provide the number one reason for not participating, 53% of females stated that they would withdraw from co-ed sport education for the above reason if given the choice. Many girls mentioned that co-ed physical education was fine in primary school, as both the boys and girls developed the same but now that they are older and their bodies are developing, many would prefer a more comfortable environment to learn and engage in physical activity.
It is necessary to address again the variables that students are facing during their middle school years and because of these factors, most girls would rather be in classes that do not include boys. Teachers also mentioned they were able to teach more to students when their classes were separated and that girls' levels of participation were higher. Comments concerning single-sex environments made by female students stressed the importance of an environment that was more conducive to their immediate learning styles and needs. The students and teachers alluded to an environment where female students felt safe, in terms of their physicality and body image
Impact of single sex sport education
Many girls commented that they were engaged in game play more when just playing with girls rather than with the boys. The girls were able to challenge themselves both physically and mentally, as the lesson became less competitive and more about learning the game play skills. This may be attributed to the females increased self reporting of enjoyment and self esteem by playing to their ability rather than merely “keeping up”. Also by utilising the sport education model, girls were able to take leadership roles which were normally dominated by the boys, also the girls were able to utilise their existing supportive networks to provide support rather than criticism; which also adds to their perceived sporting competence (Schippers, 2007),
However the same could not be reported with the boys, as the previous dominant players were pooled with dominant players from the other class, recreating a similar environment of the athletic ethic but the target of criticism shifted towards the expanded pool of less athletic opponents, suggesting that the problem in this use of the sport education model was the competitive ethic rather than the overall ability levels of the group.
Impact of co-educational sport education
The impact of this use of gender grouping was immediate and swift, within the first hour of the lesson, the females had already limited their participation in roles and the direct game plays if a male was there, even though boys did not intentionally attempt to intimidate girls within the sport education classes, they actually did, through their interaction and play styles as well as their open displays of strength and power. These displays caused many girls to gradually withdraw from the activities complaining of “injury or a special reasons”, which in both the female supervisors and the researcher minds to be highly questionable due to 65% of female participants to withdraw during the first 75 minute class, in fact, some girls chose not to participate fully in the four sequential lessons.
Perhaps this could be attributed to on average girls do not engage in out of school hours physical activity and therefore need time to learn and experience physical activity to match the males. Many commented on the playing styles of boys, mentioning that boys play a "different type of game." Girls seemed to be interested in learning the correct way to play, including skill development and game strategy, whereas boys did not want to practice skills or lead-up activities prior to playing games.
2. Gender roles influence student participation
Hegemonic Masculinity and emphasised femininity double edged sword, the idea of “playing like a girl” stems from gender exclusion by the institution in early childhood which is perpetuated by the social conditioning of teachers, parents and peers. (Evaldsson, 2003) which is only perpetuated in middle schooling physical education (Kelly Pomerantz & Currie 2005 & Gabbei, 2004) This was observed even during single sex sports education, where a group of more athletic boys discriminated against a potential teammate by commenting that “he is better playing with the girls, he’s slow and fat; he doesn’t even play like a girl, he’s worse”
“Slow” “fat” “he’s worse” indicate a key failure in what the sports education model aimed to achieve, that being and to ensure that opportunities for sport participation are not limited by race, gender, socioeconomic status, age, or disability” (Siedentop 2002, Siedentop, 1994, pp. 5 as cited in Brock & Hastie 2007, pp.11) This is based around the concept of disability meaning “A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.”(American Heritage Dictionary, 2011) However vital insights into comments made to the other female participants were constant through both mixed and single sex classes, including critical remarks made by boys. SF3 expressed her displeasure with boys' verbal comments during her sports education class: "I hate P.E, a lot of times we are running around doing sports, we are not as strong or fast as them but it’s the put downs that really get to me, like the boys’ letting us have free shots because they know we would miss”.
However approximately ten percent of female students opted towards co-education in sports education, with the boys seen as more of a challenge for their level of aggression and athleticism. Coincidently the majority of these females also rated self perceptions of their athletic ability, expressing confidence in their abilities. Strangely not one of these students returned any mention of being discriminated or teased about their playing ability, but one did mention the comment from a male participant “why don’t you play like a girl?” to which she responded “I am!” This coincides with Brock & Hastie (2007) and Kinchin (2001) whom all highlight the importance of females challenging egotistical preconceptions in sport in order to enact social change.
3. The teacher’s approach to an activity influences participation
Thirdly and most surprising is that through observations and respondent results is that the educator also perpetuates hegemonic masculinity by “giving free passes to girls” if a male was contesting the ball, introducing “special rules such as double points for girls” or “boys can’t challenge girls for possession, but girls can challenge guys”. This approach is problematic to female participation, undermining their self perceptions by creating a self fulfilling prophesy (Schippers, 2007 & Kelly, Pomerantz & Currie 2005). This in itself proposes another avenue for the concept of males being too good for girls!
Conclusion
In conclusion it is apparent from this study, that many girls do not find co-educational sport education classes appealing to their learning styles or immediate needs. Many, in fact, find it to be a very unpleasant experience, which prompts the need for further research into teacher effectiveness and the promotion of unisex sporting ethics and values.
References
Brock, S. and Hastie, P.A. (2007) Student conceptions of fair play in sport education, ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, Vol.54, No.1, pp.11-16
Brown, T. D.(2008), Movement and meaning making in physical education, ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal Vol.55, No.3, pp. 5 -8
Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt J.W. (2005) Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept, Journal of Gender and Society, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 829-859
Donaldson, M, (1993), What Is Hegemonic Masculinity?, Theory and Society, Special Issue: Masculinities, Vol.22, No.5, pp.643-657.
Evaldsson A.C (2003). Throwing Like A Girl: Situating gender differences in physicality across game contexts, Childhood, Vol. 10, No.4, pp. 475–497
Gabbei, R. (2004), Achieving Balance: Secondary Physical Education Gender-Grouping Options Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol.75, No.3, pg. 33-39
Hannon, J. C. & Ratliffe, T. (2005) Physical Activity Levels in Coeducational and Single Gender High School Physical Education Settings, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol.24, pp.149-164
Hannon, J. C. & Williams, S. M. (2008) Should Secondary Physical Education Be Coeducational or Single-Sex?, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 6 - 55
Kelly, D. M. Pomerantz, S. & Currie, D. (2005) Skater girlhood and emphasized femininity: ‘you can’t land an Ollie properly in heels’ Gender and Education, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.129–148
Kinchin, G.D. (2001) A High Skilled Pupil’s Experiences with Sport Education. The ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, Vol. 48 No.3, pp.5-9.
Kirk, D. (2006) Sport Education, Critical Pedagogy and Learning Theory: Toward an Intrinsic Justification for Physical Education and Youth Sport, Quest, Vol. 58, pp. 255-264
Luke M. D. & Sinclair G D. (1991) Gender Differences in Adolescents' Attitudes Toward School Physical Education, Journal Of Teaching In Physical Education, Vol.11, pp.31-46
Schippers, M (2007), Recovering the feminine other: masculinity, femininity and gender hegemony, Journal of Theory and Society, Vol. 36, pp.85–102
Siedentop, D. (2002), Sport Education: A Retrospective, Journal of teaching in Physical Education, Vol. 21, pp. 409-419
Appendices
Attachment 1 – Individual Survey
(The following is a summarised version of the survey conducted during the research process)
Thank you for participating, the information contained in this document is vital into the studying of participation trends in secondary education. The data is to be used in formulating a minor research study for my 3rd year level inquiry topic for EDF3008-Educational Research at Monash University; focusing on the question of “How does hegemonic masculinity and emphasised femininity influence participation in sports education?”
At no time are you to record your name or any details in which you can be identified and you are welcome to view the completed research document before submission. Also the collected questionnaires will be destroyed after submission of the research. Have a nice day!
Gender M/F Survey No.___
The following is a set of likert scales (Key: 1-strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3-Im in the middle, 4-Agree & 5 –Strongly agree)
I enjoy P.E
1 2 3 4 5
I feel good when participating in P.E
1 2 3 4 5
P.E is important in keeping fit
1 2 3 4 5
I want to play sport or do physical activity outside of class
1 2 3 4 5
I want to participate in P.E when asked
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
Co-education classes are important for P.E
1 2 3 4 5
I treat the opposite sex fairly in P.E
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
I feel valued in P.E
1 2 3 4 5
The teacher encourages my participation in class
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
The teacher treats everyone equally (such as rules, game play, and class time)
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
Thank you for completing this survey
90% of females in secondary school prefer to participate in single sex sports education if given the opportunity, which is on a large part a result of hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity influencing the ‘accepted’ behaviors or traits for your gender. Even more surprising is the idea that through the medium of sports education, educators are re-enforcing this inequality, where as the core underpinning of this model is to promote participation in physical activity regardless of gender or ability. However by splitting both genders, at least most of the barriers to participation can be removed and even increase the learning efficiency of the participants without causing an internal conflict of values; for if girls are choosing not to be active in co-education classes because of the environment, are we then truly able to meet the goals of educating physically active young adults?
Rationale
The rationale behind this study is to build on existing studies of gender stereotyping in traditional physical education and progress the theories into the more modern model of sport education, with the major focus surrounding the question of “How does hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity influence participation in sports education? However during the research process and discussion with colleagues, little evidence of any work can be attributed to viewing the effectiveness of sport education in tackling hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity on a community level.
Literature review
Hegemonic masculinity and the contrasting emphasized femininity, which is more commonly known as gender stereotypes (i.e. the macho man and the compliant woman) permeate the much of western society, from vocational pursuits and leisure practices which dictate socially accepted practices (Donaldson, 1993, Connell & Messerschmitt, 2005 & Kelly, Pomerantz & Currie, 2005) Connecting with this is a study on middle childhood physical activities by Evaldsson (2003) found that although children were being physically active, each gender prefers to engage in ‘play’ (that being semi-structured without a defined end product or goal) though different means; with boys conducting overly physical and competitive activities, such as football or play fighting and girls engaging in more controlled turn taking body movements.
Evaldsson (2003) then progresses to suggest the play of ‘two or four square’ as a cross gender medium for physical activity, consisting of both the competitive and turn taking attributes. However the games tended to breakdown down because the girls started “challenging and parodying gender stereotypes; and they assumed varied stances such as girls slamming and boys failing (Evaldsson, 2003: pp. 477)” This breakdown is evident that hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity is established very early in a child life as the boys were the ones who discontinued participation on the grounds of the girls playing.
Progressing to the second aspect, the ‘sports education’ model was first coined by Siedentop over 30 years ago, as a counter model to the traditional physical education models of the day with the main ideal to increase participation rates and to effectively create physically literate citizens by focusing in depth on one or two sports (Siedentop 2002). The structure being that:
“Sport Education strives to contribute to a sport culture that maximizes opportunities for participation in a "sane," "sound," and "humane" manner; to ensure that all levels of sport involvement are designed to benefit the participants involved; and to ensure that opportunities for sport participation are not limited by race, gender, socioeconomic status, age, or disability” (Siedentop 1994, pp. 5 as cited in Brock & Hastie 2007, pp.11 Siedentop 2002)
This is in contrast to ‘physical education’, where the main objective was to expose students to a multitude of sports at a surface level in an attempt to spark interest for students to engage in out of school hours physical activity, however this approach tends to be inefficient(Siedentop 2002; Luke & Sinclair 1991); as physical activity participation rates drop off in middle adolescence perhaps due to students lacking class time self exploration and meaning making through movement (Brown, 2008)
In retrospect the sports education has been hailed by many researchers as a more effective model to address the multiple issues which plague traditional physical education, due to the emphasis on students focusing on group learning and performing functional roles such as coaching/officiating & analyzing etc. Researchers such as Brown, 2008; Brock & Hastie 2007; Kirk 2006; Siedentop 2002 & Kinchin 2001 all advocate for physical education to be overhauled, replaced instead with a more learner central curricula such as the sport education model to address growing social problems, however disparity would still exist between the educational goals and educational outcomes as long as gender roles are emphasised by society.
Unfortunately more research is in order to bring together the concept of hegemonic masculinity and the emphasised femininity with modern forms of the Sport Education model as ethnographic studies are yet to be published in the academic community.
The study approach
A total of 120 students individually completed the questionnaire, 90 in single-sex physical education classes and 30 in coeducation classes. Students in this study were limited to grade 9 through 10, and ranged in ages from 14 to 16 years. Each volunteer student was asked a series of likert scales, multiple choice and semi-structured, open-ended questions about their personal experiences in physical education classes through a questionnaire(see Appendices, attachment two). This double sided questionnaire was conducted prior and after exposure to the opposing grouping in physical education. Also observations were taken during the sessions by both the researcher and the supervising teacher as to ascertain underlying key themes with inhabit the learning environment. Two single sex sport education classes were trialed as Co-ed and one Co-ed sports education class was trialed as single sex for a period of Five days, with 3 schools being used in this study, as to try to gain comparison data.
School Comparisons
All three schools are situated in leafy surrounds of the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne within a radius of approximately 15 km, drawing on a relative proportion of girls/boys in their student populations.
- Fairview high, a large non-government co-educational secondary school which offers single sex sports education classes, with over 1100 students currently enrolled (486 Girls/646 Boys)
- Eden Secondary is a large co-educational government school with over 2000 students currently enrolled (922 girls/1024 boys) which offers single sex sports education classes
- Navaro College is a large co-educational government school consisting of 1291 students (619 girls/ 672 boys) which offers Co-ed sports education.
For the purposes of analysis, all questionnaires were coded after collection with their gender (Male/Female), original gender grouping (Single/Mixed) with the questionnaire number (i.e. FS12 means female, single sex, number 12). At no time were names collected in order to identify individual students.
Results & Discussion
After analyzing all the questionnaires and observations, three key themes emerge:
1. Girls prefer single sex sport education classes
Firstly female students in all schools showed increased preference for single sex classes (see appendices, attachment 1), which can be attributed to these concepts of effects of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ and ‘emphasized femininity’. This is based around results gathered from returned questionnaires, with the greatest indication being that males dominate to lesson. For example SF15 comments that “boys tend to pass to boys, as they think girls aren’t good at sport and stuff” also MM13 comments that “if you pass to a girl and they stuff up, it looks bad on you because it’s your fault and the guys go off at you!” Both suggest that the dominant culture expressed during sports education is remarkably similar to traditional physical education.
Various respondents comment on females and ‘fat kids’ being intimidated by the more athletic boys’ physical size and strength, paired with a competitive and aggressive playing style in both mixed and single sex groupings. A key response from MF5, where she comments that “The boys just dominate the ball, they are too aggressive when playing with their friends, they just need to back off a bit, you know?”
Another key reason why females have a preference for single sex sport education is the impact of "looking good". Numerous girls reported that they do not like being looked at by boys during physical activity and consequentially in their sports attire, with the main complaint being of feeling “hot and sweaty, I just feel disgusting because sometimes my face is a total mess!” Upon conferring with the supervising educators, all three agreed there is far too much emphasis on girls to look neat and presented, as in to avoid embarrassment for the opposite sex. The education staff also suggested that a major contributor to this is the rapid psychological and physiological changes during this stage of life, with the most significant being the onset of menstruation.
After presenting the follow up questionnaire, with the added short answer question asking participants to provide the number one reason for not participating, 53% of females stated that they would withdraw from co-ed sport education for the above reason if given the choice. Many girls mentioned that co-ed physical education was fine in primary school, as both the boys and girls developed the same but now that they are older and their bodies are developing, many would prefer a more comfortable environment to learn and engage in physical activity.
It is necessary to address again the variables that students are facing during their middle school years and because of these factors, most girls would rather be in classes that do not include boys. Teachers also mentioned they were able to teach more to students when their classes were separated and that girls' levels of participation were higher. Comments concerning single-sex environments made by female students stressed the importance of an environment that was more conducive to their immediate learning styles and needs. The students and teachers alluded to an environment where female students felt safe, in terms of their physicality and body image
Impact of single sex sport education
Many girls commented that they were engaged in game play more when just playing with girls rather than with the boys. The girls were able to challenge themselves both physically and mentally, as the lesson became less competitive and more about learning the game play skills. This may be attributed to the females increased self reporting of enjoyment and self esteem by playing to their ability rather than merely “keeping up”. Also by utilising the sport education model, girls were able to take leadership roles which were normally dominated by the boys, also the girls were able to utilise their existing supportive networks to provide support rather than criticism; which also adds to their perceived sporting competence (Schippers, 2007),
However the same could not be reported with the boys, as the previous dominant players were pooled with dominant players from the other class, recreating a similar environment of the athletic ethic but the target of criticism shifted towards the expanded pool of less athletic opponents, suggesting that the problem in this use of the sport education model was the competitive ethic rather than the overall ability levels of the group.
Impact of co-educational sport education
The impact of this use of gender grouping was immediate and swift, within the first hour of the lesson, the females had already limited their participation in roles and the direct game plays if a male was there, even though boys did not intentionally attempt to intimidate girls within the sport education classes, they actually did, through their interaction and play styles as well as their open displays of strength and power. These displays caused many girls to gradually withdraw from the activities complaining of “injury or a special reasons”, which in both the female supervisors and the researcher minds to be highly questionable due to 65% of female participants to withdraw during the first 75 minute class, in fact, some girls chose not to participate fully in the four sequential lessons.
Perhaps this could be attributed to on average girls do not engage in out of school hours physical activity and therefore need time to learn and experience physical activity to match the males. Many commented on the playing styles of boys, mentioning that boys play a "different type of game." Girls seemed to be interested in learning the correct way to play, including skill development and game strategy, whereas boys did not want to practice skills or lead-up activities prior to playing games.
2. Gender roles influence student participation
Hegemonic Masculinity and emphasised femininity double edged sword, the idea of “playing like a girl” stems from gender exclusion by the institution in early childhood which is perpetuated by the social conditioning of teachers, parents and peers. (Evaldsson, 2003) which is only perpetuated in middle schooling physical education (Kelly Pomerantz & Currie 2005 & Gabbei, 2004) This was observed even during single sex sports education, where a group of more athletic boys discriminated against a potential teammate by commenting that “he is better playing with the girls, he’s slow and fat; he doesn’t even play like a girl, he’s worse”
“Slow” “fat” “he’s worse” indicate a key failure in what the sports education model aimed to achieve, that being and to ensure that opportunities for sport participation are not limited by race, gender, socioeconomic status, age, or disability” (Siedentop 2002, Siedentop, 1994, pp. 5 as cited in Brock & Hastie 2007, pp.11) This is based around the concept of disability meaning “A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.”(American Heritage Dictionary, 2011) However vital insights into comments made to the other female participants were constant through both mixed and single sex classes, including critical remarks made by boys. SF3 expressed her displeasure with boys' verbal comments during her sports education class: "I hate P.E, a lot of times we are running around doing sports, we are not as strong or fast as them but it’s the put downs that really get to me, like the boys’ letting us have free shots because they know we would miss”.
However approximately ten percent of female students opted towards co-education in sports education, with the boys seen as more of a challenge for their level of aggression and athleticism. Coincidently the majority of these females also rated self perceptions of their athletic ability, expressing confidence in their abilities. Strangely not one of these students returned any mention of being discriminated or teased about their playing ability, but one did mention the comment from a male participant “why don’t you play like a girl?” to which she responded “I am!” This coincides with Brock & Hastie (2007) and Kinchin (2001) whom all highlight the importance of females challenging egotistical preconceptions in sport in order to enact social change.
3. The teacher’s approach to an activity influences participation
Thirdly and most surprising is that through observations and respondent results is that the educator also perpetuates hegemonic masculinity by “giving free passes to girls” if a male was contesting the ball, introducing “special rules such as double points for girls” or “boys can’t challenge girls for possession, but girls can challenge guys”. This approach is problematic to female participation, undermining their self perceptions by creating a self fulfilling prophesy (Schippers, 2007 & Kelly, Pomerantz & Currie 2005). This in itself proposes another avenue for the concept of males being too good for girls!
Conclusion
In conclusion it is apparent from this study, that many girls do not find co-educational sport education classes appealing to their learning styles or immediate needs. Many, in fact, find it to be a very unpleasant experience, which prompts the need for further research into teacher effectiveness and the promotion of unisex sporting ethics and values.
References
Brock, S. and Hastie, P.A. (2007) Student conceptions of fair play in sport education, ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, Vol.54, No.1, pp.11-16
Brown, T. D.(2008), Movement and meaning making in physical education, ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal Vol.55, No.3, pp. 5 -8
Connell, R. W. & Messerschmidt J.W. (2005) Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept, Journal of Gender and Society, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 829-859
Donaldson, M, (1993), What Is Hegemonic Masculinity?, Theory and Society, Special Issue: Masculinities, Vol.22, No.5, pp.643-657.
Evaldsson A.C (2003). Throwing Like A Girl: Situating gender differences in physicality across game contexts, Childhood, Vol. 10, No.4, pp. 475–497
Gabbei, R. (2004), Achieving Balance: Secondary Physical Education Gender-Grouping Options Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol.75, No.3, pg. 33-39
Hannon, J. C. & Ratliffe, T. (2005) Physical Activity Levels in Coeducational and Single Gender High School Physical Education Settings, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol.24, pp.149-164
Hannon, J. C. & Williams, S. M. (2008) Should Secondary Physical Education Be Coeducational or Single-Sex?, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 6 - 55
Kelly, D. M. Pomerantz, S. & Currie, D. (2005) Skater girlhood and emphasized femininity: ‘you can’t land an Ollie properly in heels’ Gender and Education, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.129–148
Kinchin, G.D. (2001) A High Skilled Pupil’s Experiences with Sport Education. The ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, Vol. 48 No.3, pp.5-9.
Kirk, D. (2006) Sport Education, Critical Pedagogy and Learning Theory: Toward an Intrinsic Justification for Physical Education and Youth Sport, Quest, Vol. 58, pp. 255-264
Luke M. D. & Sinclair G D. (1991) Gender Differences in Adolescents' Attitudes Toward School Physical Education, Journal Of Teaching In Physical Education, Vol.11, pp.31-46
Schippers, M (2007), Recovering the feminine other: masculinity, femininity and gender hegemony, Journal of Theory and Society, Vol. 36, pp.85–102
Siedentop, D. (2002), Sport Education: A Retrospective, Journal of teaching in Physical Education, Vol. 21, pp. 409-419
Appendices
Attachment 1 – Individual Survey
(The following is a summarised version of the survey conducted during the research process)
Thank you for participating, the information contained in this document is vital into the studying of participation trends in secondary education. The data is to be used in formulating a minor research study for my 3rd year level inquiry topic for EDF3008-Educational Research at Monash University; focusing on the question of “How does hegemonic masculinity and emphasised femininity influence participation in sports education?”
At no time are you to record your name or any details in which you can be identified and you are welcome to view the completed research document before submission. Also the collected questionnaires will be destroyed after submission of the research. Have a nice day!
Gender M/F Survey No.___
The following is a set of likert scales (Key: 1-strongly disagree, 2- Disagree, 3-Im in the middle, 4-Agree & 5 –Strongly agree)
I enjoy P.E
1 2 3 4 5
I feel good when participating in P.E
1 2 3 4 5
P.E is important in keeping fit
1 2 3 4 5
I want to play sport or do physical activity outside of class
1 2 3 4 5
I want to participate in P.E when asked
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
Co-education classes are important for P.E
1 2 3 4 5
I treat the opposite sex fairly in P.E
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
I feel valued in P.E
1 2 3 4 5
The teacher encourages my participation in class
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
The teacher treats everyone equally (such as rules, game play, and class time)
1 2 3 4 5
Extension question- Why do you feel this way?
Thank you for completing this survey