Student Perceptions of Gender Equity

in High School Coeducational and Single-Sex

Physical Education Classes

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
W PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS, PHYSICAL EDUCATION

McGîil University, Montreai

May, 1999

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Margaret Downey

O VirginiaArmeni .
 National Library Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington
OttawaON K1AON4 Ottawa O N K1A ON4
Canada Canada

The author has granted a non-
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies of this thesis in microfoxm,
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive permettant à la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfiche/- de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts frorn it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantie1s-
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits saus son
autorisation.
 This thesis could not have k e n written without the help o f so many people- 1 would Like
to thank my advisor, Dr. Margaret Downey, for her patience and insight throughout this
process. Your understanding nature often helped to keep me calm and focused.

1 would ako Iike to thank the students and teacher at Riverview High School. I t was a
pleasure to have the chance to talk with you and hear your views. Your eagerness to
participate and interest in the study was invaluable to the success of this endeavour,

To rny parents - your continued love and support through the good and the bad times is
always something 1 can believe in. It is by both your examples that 1 have learned the
vdue of hard work and perseverance, and for that, 1 thank you, 1 would also Like to thank
my three sisters. Elizabeth, for your words of encouragement and insight that kept me
going during some of the hardest times. Christina, for keeping me laughing - particularly
this Iast year. Patricia, for not oniy listening, but for asking me how 1 was doing.

Thank you, Christha and F, my "editing cornmittee", for your hard work through the
boring details, JF, what do 1 iror thank you for'! You have helped with a h o s t every
detaii of this thesis f?om beginning to end -- without you it wouid not have existed.
Thank you also for inspiring me to grow both spirituaily and emotionaily. We have both
- Iearned a lot and 1know we wiil continue to do so. together.

My fiends have d s o lent their support through this aii. Pnya, you are a very special
person and a true fiiend. MG, your support and understanding through it ail, has shown
me that 1can ulwuys count on you. Dave, thank you for keeping me grounded and not
Ietting me quit. Susan. here's to aU the hours spent on the phone, but especiaily to a new
fnendship.

FinaUy, 1 would Iike to thank Tom for his love and understandin2 this last year. You
always knew when 1 needed the extra Little push to get going, when I needed to do
something fun, and when I sirnply needed to focus and '&getto work". Most irnportantly,
though, you have helped me see the true significance of the "little" things in Me, and for
that 1 wiil dways be gratefuI. 1 love you!
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TARE .................................................................................... iv

Part 1: Review of Related Literature.......................................................... ..I

FEXVinVrsT RESEARCH EDUCATION. PE-IYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT ........................1
THEEMERGENCE OF FEMNST THOUGHT INMm's STUDIES.................... . . . ............. -7
HETORY OF BOYS' AND GIRLS' EXPERIENCES IN PHYSICAL EDUCATIONAND SPORT .....3
COEDUCA~ON .............................................................................................................. 6
Positive Aspects of Cocdrtcation ................................................................................ 7
Negatiw Aspecrs of Cocdrrcurion .............................................................................. 8
TKECURRICULUM ....................................................................................................... 10
The Hidden Crin-iculwn.......................................................................................... / /
GENDER ROLESIN PHYSICAL EDUCATION .....................~.............................................. 12
GENDERE Q INPHYSICAL
~ EDUCATION ....................... . . . ......*........*.................14
STUDENTS IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION ........................................................................... 17
Srztdmlt Voices in Physiccd Edrmrtiotr ...................................................................... 17
Srrr&izt AUiiity ......................................................................................................... 18
S~ ~ I A R ..................................................................................................................
Y 19
Part IT: Student Perceptions of Gender Equity in High School Coeducational and
Single-Sex Physical Educatiun Classes ....................................................................... 22
THEEVOLLTTIQN OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION .................................................................. 23
COEDUCATI~NAL PKYSICAL EDUCATION ..................................................................... 24
The Srrengths of Cocditctltioir...................... .......,....... ............................................. 35
The Weaki~essesof Coedrrcutio1i .................... . . . . ............................................-35
Sii lgie.Se . Ciasses .................................................................................................. 27
E Q VERSUS~ EQUAW. ......................................................................................... 27
RECENT RESEARCH INPHYSICALEDUCATION ..............................................................30
Smdet zt Perspectives ............................................................................................ 3 0
Teuchers' Rule ....................................................................................................... - 3 2
Resmr~hNeeds ....................................................................................................... 33
PURPOSE OF THE S ~ .........................................................
Y , . . . . 34
Methodology ....................................................~........................................................... 36
CAUTIONS FOR ïïiE ADER ........................................................................................37
MYSELFAS THE RESEARCHER ..................................................................................... 37
S m m .....................................................................................................................
~ 38
PARTICIPANTS ........................................... . ..........40
Focus CROUPS............................................................................................................ 41
PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................. 42
 Nurzpartr0cipantObservatiorzs ................................................................................. 4 2
Ct-in'calIncidents .................................................................................................... 43
Fucus Gi-orrps ..................... .................................................................................... 43
ïrldiviciual Inter-views............................................................................................. -44
Teacher Itztetviews .................................................................................................. 44
Wtittetz Ducrrme~zts ................................................................................................. 4 5
DATA ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 45
Research Findings: The Students' and Teacher's Perceptions .................................. 47
TEACHER'S ROLE........................................................................................................ 49
Q u i 0 Sirategies ..................................................................................................... 49
Teacher Treatmerzt of Stttdertrs ................................................................................ 53
summary .................................................. , ., ...............*........................................... 55
COEDUCA~ONAL VERSUS SINGLE-SEX CLASSES .................................. ,.,,..................... 55
Peer IitteractiorL ..................................... , . - ....- 5 5
CCass A m s p hei-e.- ...............- .-.. - . . ........- .- - . 57
Feeling Cornfortable- ...-...-. ....-.-..-.-. ....-..-.-- . - - ....................................
- . .. 58
Feeling Challenged .................................... . . - . . ...........................................
. 61
Cornpetition in the Class........--...........-....-.--.-.----.-.---.------...-..+..........-..-.--.--..- 63
S~trnrnary,..................................................................................................... - 65
HOW ARE STEREOTYPES PERPWATED OR REJECTED?--- .-.-. ,..,......- - - ..- .- ..- -- ....- ....- . . .67

Boys as the Norm .-...............- ....--.-.---- ...--- ----- ................................- - 6 7

Natirr-e vei-srtsNrtr-trrr-e.-*. --.-. .--............... -- ......-.......*. -- .- ...--- ........................,......- ..- 6 9
Environmental Effects. ..-..-....-..-....-....---.-..*-----....-.----. ..----.----.. - - ...........- - 69
Competition and Aggession ..-..--..-...-----.-.-- .......+.---~~..----...-......-.-..-........ - - 71
Boys Don?inatfizgthe Class ..-- ...- ....*-.-.-.-----.--- ........................................... -- 73
ControI of the Bali......-..-.-........--.. - --.-
- .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 ....
Team Formation. ,. . . . . . ~ . . . . . - . . . . - ~ . ~ ~ . - ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ .-~7X -~-..........
Participation of Boys and Girls. .......................................................... 83
Wornerl as Sexzral Objccts....-..- ..- - .-..-.-.--.. - - .-- - .--- *......... . ... 86
Girls' Conformity to the "Feminine Ideal" ......................................... X8
Srrntnla~y-.-.,,,,. ....,-,,.....--.-
.....-......-.... ..-....--.-. ...--.. --- ...---........ ...-.....,.........,...........,..90
GeneraI Discussion ...................................................................................................... 93
. .
Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................... 102

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................
109
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. I 15
APPENDIXB .............................................................................................................. 1 17
C.............................................................................................................. 129
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................. 132
P E .............................................................................................................. 138
APPENDIXF .....................-.......................................................................................... 150

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Distribution of participating students by grade and sex .........-.........- -..

*-.- 40
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to e ~ c Our

h understanding of gender equity issues in
coeducational and single-sex p hysicaI education classes. Student and teacher perceptions
were examuied through interviews, written descriptions of criticai incidents, field
observations and document anaIysis. The participants included 65 students in
coeducational grade eight classes, 84 students in single-sex grade nine classes, and the
physical educatio n teacher ftom a suburban high school. Thro ugh inductive anaiysis and
constant cornparison, themes emerged regarding the teacher's equity strategies,
advantages and disadvantages of coeducational and singie-sex classes, and students' r d e s
in perpetuating and rejecting gender stereotypes. Aware of gender issues, the teacher
generally rnaintained an equitable atmosphere, but he also played a role in perpetuating
gender stereotypes. Students identified peer interaction, increased competition, and
challenge as positive aspects of coeducational classes. Girls often favored the atmosphere
of girls' classes, and hi& ability boys preferred the competition in boys' classes. Classes
were seen as based on a male norm and boys ofien dorninated. Student beliefs and
behaviors indicated that they both rejected and perpetuated gender stereotypes. Ability
leveIs appeared to play an important role in student perceptions. This research illustrates
the need for a continued emphasis on gender sensitive physical education programs to
enhance bo th girls' and boysTexperiences.
L'objet d e cette étude était d ' e ~ c h i rnotre compréhension sur les questions d'équité
entre les sexes dans les cours d'éducation physique mixtes et non mixtes. Les
perceptions d'étudiants et d'un professeur ont été examinées dans le cadre d'entrevues,
d e descriptions écrites d'incidents critiques, d'observations éffectuées sur place et
d'andyse de documents. Parmi les participants on comptait 65 étudiants du deuxième
secondaire en classe mixte, 84 étudiants du troisième secondaire en classe non mixte et
un professeur d'éducation physique d'une école secondaire de banlieue. A force
d'approche inductive et de comparaison systémiques, des thèmes sont ressortis quant aux
stratégies d'équité du professeur, aux avantages et inconvénients des classes mixtes et
non mixtes, e t aux rôles des étudiants dans la perpétuation et le rejet des stéréotypes.
Conscient des questions d'équité entre les sexes, le professeur maintenait généraiiement
une c b t de justice, mais jouait aussi un rôle de perpétuation de ces stéréotypes. Les
étudiants ont identifié l'interaction entre pairs, l'augmentation de Ia compétition, et Ie
défi comme étant des aspects positifs des cours mixtes- Les filles privilésiaient souvent
I'atrnosphère des classes de m e s et Ies gaqons très doués, favorisaient la compétition
des classes de garçons. On a remarqué que les cours étaient basés sur des standards
maes, et que les garçons dominaient souvent la scène. Les croyances et comportements
des étudiants démontraient qu'ils rejetaient et perpétuaient les stéréotypes des sexes. Les
niveaux de capacités semblaient jouer un rôle important dans la perception des étudiants.
Cette recherche montre le besoin d'avoir des programmes d'éducation physique qui
tiennent compte des sexes a f k d'améliorer les expériences des filles et des garçons.
 Part 1:
Review of Related Litei-ature

Feminist Research in Education. Phvsical Education and Sport

Througho ut history men and women have had distinctly different experiences in

sport. Though in the Iast haff of this century many developments in the world of sport

and physicai education have lead to a closer existence between the two sexes,

discrepancies continue to exist-

Delamont (1990) noted that throughout the last two decades there has k e n a large

increase in the arnount of research in education done fiorn a feminist perspective. In

I 98 I , Dale Spender introduced the concept of a fe~ninistmode1 in education and

dkcusszd how up to this point the patriarchal paradigin which dotninated educational

theory and practice had excluded women. She discussed how women were still king left

out of decision making and policy making, and were generaLiy overlooked in the rea11n of

education- Feminists brought about a new educational model, one which ernphasized

"personal experience and validation" (Spender, 198 1a, p. 167).

The feminist perspective also became prominent in the area of sport and physical

education. Nevertheless, Scraton (1992) argues that there is s t U a lack of feminist

research in this area. Boutilier and San Giovanni (1983) w u e d that "sports are by

definition activities that promulgate and proclaiin power, strength, viriiity, endurance,

courage, and Wtually every characteristic which is soIeIy attributed to the masculine
,
pnder" (p. 18). They contended thar sport perpetuates peoples' ideas and actions in ways

that are suited to the dominant cultural demands. Dewar (1987) reiterated this position

and argued that the components deemed important in sport (strength, cornpetition, and
 2

power) legitu-nize paûiarchal ideology. As recently as 1990, Whitson argued that sport

continues to be "a powerful source for the reproduction of male hegemony" (p, 2 1),

The majority of the work in ferninist literature has concentrated on the experiences

of girls and women, both past and present. However, during the last decade, an upsurge

of femuiist researchers have also begun applying their theones in the area of men's

studies (Conneil, 1996; Messner & Sabo, t 990).

This review of iiterature wiIl look at research on maIes' and fernales' histories in

sport, gender equity issues, gender roles, the hidden curriculum, and coeducation versus

single-sex physicai education.

The Emerrence of Feminist Thoiirht in Men's Stiidies

Most research in physical education has historicalIy focused on the experience of

males. However, this reality diminished as fecninist research in sport and physical

education becarne a predominant force. Conneli (1996) asserts that long standing notions

about men and tnasculinity have now k g u n to be questioned as a result of the influence

of second-wave femninisrn Although initiaiiy ferninist research focused solely on the

experiences of women and girls, in the last decade social-science men's studies using

ferninist theory have becorne prominent (ConnelI, 1996; Crosset, I W O ) - Some

researchers now believe that to truly attain sender equity both males and fernales must be

taken into account (Baïiey, 1996; Chepyator-Thomson & Ennis, 1997). Accorciing to

Messner and Sabo (1990), men's studies based in feminist theory have "the potential of

liberating men as weii as women fiom the limitations of sexism" (p. 13).

Whitson (1990) contends that, although research in sport was originaLly

predominantly about men, studies looking at nztrk gende~-rckrriotis

and how sport affects

the sociul co~rsimctiotrof niuscrtlirtity remain few and far between. The ernerging
recognition of a diversity of rnasculinities within groups of men (Connell, 1996), requires

an understanding of these different rnasculinities, their needs, vaiues and beliefs, just as

has k e n essentid in woinen's studies-

Feminist men's studies in physical education and sport have taken on a variet). of

forms. Topics include historical accounts of males* experiences in physical education

(Crosset, 1990; Kimnel: 1990; White & Vagi, 1990), gender role construction in contexts

such as professional and amateur sports (Mesmer, 1990; Sabo & Panepinto, 1990;

C o ~ e l l 1, WO), boys' experiences in present day p hysical educatio n program (Bailey,

1996; Chepyator-Thomson & Ennis, 1997; Connell, 1996; Humberstone, 19YO), male

participation in traditionaily fernafe dominated sports (Davis, 1990), and the experiences

of rninority male groups such as black men and Say men (Griffin & Genasci, 1990;

Majors, 1990; Pronger, 1990).

Historv of Rovs' and Girls' Experiences in Phvsical Edrrcation and Sport

In Western society, the curriculum and ideology of physical education have been

based on those of white, rniddle-class, inale ideals and norrns (Crosset, 1990; Kirrunel,

1990; Knoppers, 1988; Scraton. 1992; Vertinsky, 1992). Sport in its present form

originated during the 19"' century when it was not only based on male nomm and values.

but also served to uphold the notion of a biological superiority of males over females

(Crosset, 1990). The gro wth of boys' p hysical educatio n throughout the nineteenth

century was based on developing the qualities and characteristics that were deerned

important to rnanliness and removing the threat of becornhg effemùiate (Crosset, 1990;

Kunrnel, 1990; Wright, 1996). Boys were taught the value of "being a man," k i n g

aggressive and cornpetitive, and using their bodies in order to dorninate others (Whitson,

1990). Accordhg to Kirnme1(1990), boys' participation in sports, and particularly

 4

basebail reinforced a msculinity based on O bedience to authority, discipline and a rigid

hierarchy - aii qualities necessary for successful integratio n into industria1 capitriiisn

This, however, was not just any masculinity that was reinforced, but a white and rniddIe

cIass masculinity (Kunmel, 1990). Crosset (1990) argues that in England and the United

States, "1 91h-century spon gained meanhg and support f?om the expancihg discourse

around sexuality, which in turn justified male dominance over women" (p. 46).

Initially, a girls' physical education did not exist (Hutchinson, 1995). However,

changes in the lgthcentury in North America and Brïtain aiiowed fernales the opportunity

to begin participating (Hutchinson, 1995; Scraton i 992; Vertinsky, 1Y W ) . Vertinsky

(1992) states that during this tirne there was a continued coinparison ktween maies'

"natural" physical abilities and fernales' "innate" weaknesses, S he also contends that

girls participateci in activit ies t hat "emp hasized cooperation over co ~npetition,restricted

their sprice, reduced their speed, and constrained their bodies" (p. 375) whiie boys

activities emphasized such qualities as speed and po wer. Hutchinson ( 1995) reports that

girls' activities evolved from calkthenics. dance-like steps, and gardening in the earIy

1X00s, to sports such as tennis. riding and gynnastics in the rnid- 1)SOOs. While the

growth of feinale physical education was at soine tùnes liberating for wotnen and girls,

S ~ r a t o n(1992) asserts that it continued to be restrained in patriarchal ideologies of

"appropriate" female behaviour and attitudes to wards fernininity, ino therhood and

sexuality. Claims f?o m the "increasing Iy influenti d medical establishment" (Griffin,

1992, p. 25 l), during the 19 I h and early 20Ihcenturies, of the detrimental effects of

physicril activity to the fernale body, particularly the reproductive organs, also inhibited

women's participation in sport (Griffin. 1992; Hutchinson, 1995; Scraton, 1 W2).

 In the early 20" century, &Is' participation in physical education c o n ~ u e dto be

stunted by concems t hat p hysical activity did no t embody appropriate ferninine behavio u r
0

(Scraton, 1992). Crosset (1990) contends that the notion of female sexual inferiority was

coupled with an idea of male bioIogica1 superionty. During this t h e girls' physical

education, in the United States, was mostly restricted to activities such as caiiisthenics,

dance and gymnastics (Hutchinson, 1995). However, a g o wing number of girls began

participating in both basketbali and field hockey in various parts of the United States

(Hutchinson, 1995). Physicd education prograrns for girls continued to flourish

throughout the 1950's as activities such as individual and team sports were added

(Hutchinson, 1995)-

Females made great strides in the realrn of physicai education and sport during the

19Ihand early 2othcenturies, from not k i n g able to participate at all, to having physical

education prograrns included in their schools. to participating in a variety of sports.

Ho wever, the physical education programs that evohed continued to be based on the

interests, values, beliefs and norrns of the dominant culture (Knoppers, 1988). In spite of

the advances, there was a continued emphasis on the f e m l e body, its natural, biological

function, and its inabilities (Hutchinson, 1995, Scraton, 1992, Vertinsky, 1992).

In surrunary, the dichotomy between men and women has existed throughout the

history of physical education. Boys have been encouraged to participate and excel in

sport and physical education, while girls have not always been. They have not fit into the

male structure - its values, norms and sports - of physical education. Sport and physical

education develops in inost boys the characteristics needed to succeed in a male

dominated society. Girls have also learned to experïence many positive aspects of

physical activity and sport. On the other hand, they have also ofien been taught to view
themselves as weaker and leam "to experience the5 bodies as fiapile, as objects and

burdens, rather than as iivuig manifestations of action and intention" (Vertinsky, 1992, p.

375)-

As the feminist movernent of the 1960's worked its way into the realm of physical

education and sport, the liberal notion of equality of opportunity for girls and boys was

emphasized (Vertinsky, 1992). As a result of this new awareness, the notion of

coeducation d physical education rnoved to the forefiont.

Coed iicat ion

The 1970s and 1980s brought about changes in the r e a h of physicai education

and sport in both the United States and Canada when TitIe TX of the 1972 Higher

Eciucation Act Amendment, the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter

of Kghts and Freedoms in 1982 were passed (Lenskyj, 1993; Vertinsky, 1992). As a

result discrimination based on gender became iUegal (Lenskyj. 1993: Vertinsky, 1 992). It

was then that the concept of coeducational physical education gaineci prominence. By

integrating physical education classes, it was believed that a more gender fair

environment would be achieved (JOhns. 1993: Vertinsky, 1YW). However. as

coeducationa1 settings becaine more widespread, it was soon noted that truly equitable

settings do not sùnply occur by cotnbining the two sexes in one class (Bailey, 1996:

Wright, 1996).

The strengths and wedcnesses of coeducational programs have been hotly

debated. Eyre (1991). in a related study about a coeducational home economics setting,

concluded that ''coeducation does not fulfùl its promise as a solution to gender inequaiity

in schools" (p. 193) and instead gives students an education based on a male standard.

According to Vertinsky (1 WS), initial discussions in this debate focused on the

appropriateness of mixhg boys and guls in the sarne class. A review of the current

iiterature in physical education seerns to indicate that discussions have dtered their focus,

revolving primariiy on the advantages and disadvantages of coeducation and whether or

not a gender equitable environment can ultimately be achieved in this setting (e-g.

Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996; Knoppers, 1988; Lirgg, 1993, 1994; Williamson, 1993).

Although the issues have been discussed repeatedly by a variety of individuals, the debate

continues, as arguments for both the positive and negative aspects have been put forth.

Positive Aspects of Coeducation

Properly implemented coeducational physical education can have positive aspects

for the students. When a positive environment is in place, students can experience such

things as the developinent of social relations and opportunities to practice leadership roles

with the opposite gender (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 19'36; Macdonald, 1990; Wright, 1993).

Both female and male students have a greater opportunity to Iearn respect and alceptance

for the other (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996). Additionally, ifcare is taken to prornote a n

equitable environment in which the needs of all students are addressed, students may be

exposed to a greater variety of physical activities (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996).

A study by Rauschenbach and Sinith ( 1 9%) assessed 258 teachers' opinions on

coeducational physical education. Teachers felt that hishly skilied girls' needs are more

easily met, there are greater opportunities for students to work together and to gain

mutual respect, and both boys and girls are abIe to participate together in Iifetime sports,

thus increasing the chance of continueci participation in -physical activity throughout Me.

Each of the foilowing elements have k e n found in successfuI, gender equitable

coeducational progratns: administrative support, teacher's belief in the program,

teacher7s use of equitable Ianguage (Le., fair play vs. sportsmanship), a varied curriculum
inc!uding both cornpetitive and non-cornpetitive activities, and teacher training (Gibbons

& Van Gyn, 1996; G&, 1984; Hutchinson, 1995; ffioppers, 192%; WiUiainson. 1993).

The advantages of coeducational physical education may be enough for some to

implement it whoIe-heartedIy. Nevertheless, the disadvantages must also be discussed in

order to get the hlipicture.

Aspects of Coeducation
Ne~ative

While some coeducational programs have succeeded, O thers have no t. A variety

of difficulties have been identified that have hindered the success of sorne pro,Tarn!!.

Several disadvantages were pointed out by the teachers in Rauschenbach and Smith's

(1998) study. Teachers observeci that most girIs and low skilled students (both girls and

boys) feel embarrassed and intimidated to participate, boys dominate class activities, and

there is an increase in behaviour problem in coeducational settings, % d e y (1996)

asserts that whiIe boys and girls ~ m be

y mked together they inay not be "receivhg the

saine quality or quantity of education - nor rire they genuinely Iearning frorn and about

each other" (p. 76). Wright (1993) reports that coeducational classes have not helped in

increasing the adherence rate of girls in some physical education prograrns.

In a study by Griffi ( 19851, teachers expressed their concern about not having

had the chance to give their opinions about how coeducation should be irnpIemented.

Furthemore some teachers have received tninimal training and access to resources that

would help in the irnplementation and eventual success of coeducatio na1 prograrns

(CAHPER, 1993: Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996; Griffin, 1984). Without needed support,

sorne teachers have becorne fnistrated and dissatisfied (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996;

Griffin, 1985). Faced with these negritive feeiings and a variety of other factors such as

behaviour problerns, Iarge classes, budget cutbacks, inadequate facilities and a Iack of
administrative and community support (Griffin, 1984), many teachers have not

implemented revised teaching practices that could benefit both girls and boys. They have

contùlued to use teaching methods and strategies that are both famillx and cotnfortable,

but which rnay have an unintentiond bias (Cooney, 1993)-

Other difficulties with coeducation are evident in teachers' behaviours and their

feelings toward their students. Both Cooney (1993) and h d i n g s reported by the

Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (CAHPER; 1993)

assert that more attention is given to boys than girls- It has also k e n noted that teachers

may have lower expectations for girls in miued-sex classes than for those in single-sex

classes (CAHPER, 1993; Macdonald, 1 990). Additionaiiy, Macdonald (1990) found that

in single-sex classes there may be Iess evidence of teacher behaviours that reinforce

stereotypical views about girls' submissive roles.

Teachers also stated that they enjoy teaching single-sex classes more (Macdonald,

1990)- As stated previousIy, many teachers have not been given proper training and

support in the implementation of coeducational programs (CAHPER, 1993; Gibbons &r

Van Gyn, 1996; Griffin, 1984). Perhaps this phenornenon has played a roIe in the

negative responses given by teachers toward the teaching of rnked-sex classes.

Ano t her difficulty that exists with the implementation of coeducational classes is

the choice of content to be taught, Should the curriculum be changed or stay the same?

Are there some activities that should be intentionally excluded or included? M a t should

be the base of the coeducational prograis, recreationavlife-long activities or cornpetitive

tearn sports? These are ali questions that deal with the curriculum and the choices that

teachers face.
 The Curriculum

In physical education the content of the currîculurn is one area that may stïU be

iduenced by gender biases (Delamont, 1990; Do wney, 1997; Wright. 1996) and is, as

both Fernandez-Balboa (1993) and Wright (1996) state, for the most part based on a tnale

structure. This is not to say that di schook' curricula are constmcted in a discrixninatory

marner- However, understanding how they may be is important-

Although progams have changed over the years, Smeal, Carpenter and Tait

(1994) contend that most current physical education cumcula are still based on the

traditional views of a cornpetitive sports-based rnodel, As Wright (1996) explains

the curriculum is the ou tcoine of struggles and nego tiations between particular
interests with their own investrnents in having theu version of physical education
recognized as the one legitirnate version. Such a stnrggle is never an equal one,
but is itselfembedded in the distribution of power in a society where certain social
groups have more power than others at particular times (or can align their
arguments in accordance with wider dominant interests at a particular historical
moment). (p. 332)

A curricuIum based prïrnarily on the needs and values of males may cause fernales to feel

that the content lacks relevance to t heir future (Bennett, 199 1; Knoppers. 19x8 ). Girls

may wonder why they should put effort into something thrit lacks any connection to their

lives and may, as Browne's (1992) results indicate, choose to opt out of physical

education. Wright (1996) argues that fernales' interests and needs wiii remriin

rnarginalized if the basis of physical education curriculum re~nriùisthat of team sports.

Including activities that are relevant and interesthg to both genders tnay help to

demonstrate that physical education is valuable to everyone and not only to one group of

individuals. Both girls and boys will benefit fkom content that goes beyond the liberal

notion of 'equal opportunity' and is instead varied in activities, non-gender stereotyped

and presented in a fair and open enviromnent (Williainson, 1993; Wright, 1996).
The Hidden Curriculum

Another aspect of the curriculum that maintains and reinforces the values and

beliefs of the dominant class of society is the "hidden curriculum" (Chepyator-Thomson

& Ennis, 1997; Fernandez-Balboa, 1993). I t is defined by Chepyator-Thomson & Ennis

those aspects of curriculum and pedagogy that are not taught consciously in
school or planned for students' education but nevertheless learned by students as a
result of the social practices of schoohg. EssentiaIly, the hidden cuniculiirn
consists of dominant discourses in society rit Iarge that are embedded in the school
curriculum (p. 89)

This hidden cur~culumexists at ail levels of education. According to Fernandez-

Balboa (1 993), education does no t attempt to foster individual differences, but instead

rewards those who best fit h t o the prevailùig structure or xnould of the institution.

As Fernandez-Balboa (1 993) States, "by unconsciously teaching certain beliefi,

omittïng others, and fostering certain modes of practice, educators help officia1 groups in

society to do what they want to do" (p. 236). Connell (1993) contends that "the hidden

curricuIuin in sexual politics is more powerful than the explicit cumculum" (p. 204).

Unfortunately, the hidden curriculum is always in existence in physical education and the

physical educators who play a key role in fostering it inay not even be aware that they are

doing so. The hidden curriculum not only defines what and how students will learn but

also defines what and ho w teachers will teach (Fernandez-Balboa, 1993). Stereotypical

views about gender "appropriate" behavio ur, in p hysical education, are subtly learned by

the students and reinforced by the teacher. Lenskyj (1993) argues that the school's

hidden curriculum relays the notion of the fernale role as domestic and subordhate to

boys and men, and is, therefore, not conducive to girls' participation in sport-

Cheypyator-Thomson & Ennis (1997) examined both the hidden and overt curricula in
physical education classes and found that students conformed to the dominant culture's

ideals of rnasculinity and femininity. These views become so ingained in individuals,

that students and teachers may not even realize the extent of their own gender

stereotyping because they themselves are seeing society through biased eyes (Fernandez-

Balboa, 1993)- Wright (1995) argues that while some students may Ieam and

unknowingly accept the stereotypical views apparent in the hidden curriculum as weU as

the overt cUITiculum, others knowingly reject the stereot-*es.

Gender Roles in Phvsical Education

Are gender roles genetically pre-determined o r are they a rnatter of Iearned

behaviour? Two views have generally dorninated the debate: a) a sociobiological view, in

which gender roles are said to be genetically pre-determined, and b) sex-role theory in

which gender roles are said to be Iearned behaviour. Connell(1996) argues that there are

weaknesses in both these theories- While he feels that the sociobiological view does not

present evidence that demonstrates a "standard pattern of mascuhity that biology couId

have produced" (p. 21 l), he also feels that "role theory is notonously unable to grasp

issues of power, o r to g a s p the diversity of race and class" (p. 212). For the most part,

feminist literature contends that gender roles and behaviour are a rnatter of sociülization

Poutilier & SanGiovanni, 1983; Delamont, 1990; GrïEn, 1992: Hubbarci, 1995;

Lindsey, 1995; Scraton, 1992; Whitson, 1990).

Stereotypical views of rnasculinity and femininity allege that males are arnbitious,

agressive, strong, unemo tional, Iogical, competitive, self-reliant and dominant, whife

females may be seen as affectionate, compassionate, loyal, shy, ernotional, submissive,

caring, gentle, passive, and yielding (Miller, 1992; Walker, 1981). Boutilier &

SanGiovanni (1983) maintain that while women often assume "male" characteristics, it is
Iess acceptable for men to assume those c haracteristics deemed "ferninine*'. Griffin

(1992) furthers this argument by assertine that although it may be appropriate for women

to take on more "masculine" traits, this is only a matter of degree. In order to uphold both

homophobic and sexist ideals of femininity and to be accepted, women in .sport must also

rnaintain a 'Yeminuie" image, & both appearance and behaviour.

Several studies have reviewed how traditional gender roIes are perpetuated in

schools and in physical education. Archer & McDonald (1991) sought to determine how

adolescent girls' choice of subject was stereot)~icalof gender "appropriateness". While

girls' personal choice of subjects indicated a lack of stereotyping (math, science and

physical education were well iiked) there seemed to be evidence that girls held more

stereotypical beliefs about their female peers and what subjects they enjoyed (including

home economics and English in addition to math and physical education).

Hopwood & Carrington (1 994) found evidence to suggest that adolescent girls and

boys are beghnuig to refute stereotypical notions of girls' and boys' roles in physical

education. Although physical education was stilI generaliy viewed by the boys as a

mascuiine domain, 40% of the male participants disagreed with the statement that 'Boys

have inore "natural" ability in PE than girls'. Sixty-eight percent of girk disagreed with

the sentence. The perception that physical education is a masculine subject was stronger

with boys than girls- Nonetheless, 56% of the boys disagreed with this idea. The notion

that girls who take part in physical education are not ferninine was refbted by

approxlrnately three-quarters of the girls, However, it seerns that boys continue to

perpetuate this stereotype. Additionaiiy, while the cornpetitive aspect of physical

education was sLightiy more important to boys than girls, this difference was sLight. Girls
seemed more willing to question gender labels than boys. Nevertheless, there seems to be

evidence that this is shifiing for the boys.

Chepyator-Thomson and Ennis (1997) found that female and d e high schooI

students demonsuated, through their activity choices as weIi as their participation

patterns, stereotypicd patterns of fernininity and mascuiinity. For example boys, for the

most part, avoided taking aerobics classes whiie girlstended to avoid the weight training

classes, each of these classes k i n g viewed by the students as "fe~ninine"and

"masculine", respectively. Additionaliy, when forming teams, girls and boys selected

same-sex teams, Fernale students were also excluded frotn team sports in class.

Chepyator-Thomson and E M noted

~ this when boys told girls "not to swing the bat" (p.
94) during softbail games, as weli as when they did not pass the bali to girls in other team

sports. They also found, however, that boys and girls agreed that each tender, and in

particular girls, were able to play well and succeed in physical education.

Gender Equity in Phvsical Education

To increase wornen's and girls' opportunities, the content of their physical

education currictiIurn was sirnply altered to coincide with that of the boys'. It was soon

argued that, while opportunities for ~ i r and

k women were increased, they were based on

the notion of equaiity. Mate nonns and standards were used as a benchrnark (Smeal,

Carpenter & Tait, 1994; Whitson, 1WO). Boutilier and SanGiovanni (1 9x3) argued that it

had become more acceptabIe for fernales to take on "qualities and skilis previously

thought to be the exclusive domain of males" but there was "virtuaIiy no complementary

chalIenses to the accepted definitions of either men or sport, both rernaining the measure

by which women should be evaluated" (p. 18).

 The notion of equity, rather than equality, is important to understand. Equity is

defined by Wfiamson (1993) "as creating a supportive atmosphere where students have

the opportunity for successful participation and exposure to instruction regardles of

gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, social class or motor ability" (p- 15).

Cooney (1993), quoting fiom The CAHPER Equity Schools Project uses this definition:

"equity is not just the perception of fahess, but it ïs the reality of acting on a daily basis

in a fair and unbiased way" (p.5). Equity is attained. according to Bailey (1 996), when

"the achievements, perspectives, and expenences of both girk and boys, women and men,

are e q u d y recognized and rewarded whether or not they fali into traditional categories"

(p. 76). Milier's (1992) notion of equaIity is more one of equity than the traditional form

of equaiity. She states that "the feminist version of equal opportunities in P.E. necessarily

concludes that girls' capabilities and activities in which girls participate are to be valued

for their own sake, in their own right, ~ithorrrreference to male P.E." (p. 32).

mat no individual be considered inferior or superior is the underlying notion

within the definition of equality. Yet, ferninist critiques of this notion argue that the

emphasis in the idea of equality is that women and men should be treated the scirne - with

the 'same' meaning 'as men are treated' (Miller, 1992; Smeal, Carpenter, & Tait, 1994)

and that "within such an understanding of equality, any gains inacie by womeri wiil

ultirnately be counterproductive because such an equality is based upon an

unackno wledged male norm" (Smeal, Carpenter, & Tait, 1 994, p.4 10). According to

Cooney (1993), the notion of equality is not tha: woinen and men should participate in the

same activities but that a fair and unbiased environment shouId prevail no matter what

activity is chosen. Mile Cooney's (1993) definition seems to relate more to the concept
of equity, he explains fürther that the notion of equality does not take into account the

d i f f e ~ abilities,
g interests, resources and previous expenence of each student,

Some studies indicate that there is an increased awareness of gender equity issues

in physical education, and thus some hprovements in this area, while others indicate that

inequities continue to exist. Griffin (1985) found that teachers' sense of power to change

inequitable student behaviour as well as their own strategies to enhance equity differed

for a variety of reasons. These included years of experience teaching, participation or

nonparticipation in equity education progran=, experience with single-sex classes and

teachers' negative feelings about teaching co-educational classes- She also found that the

use of successful equitable strategies increased with a greater awareness and knowledge

of how to deal with equity issues, Similar results were noted by Dunbar & O'Sullivan

(1986)- They found that the teachers in theü study initiaiiy interacted more often with

boys than with girls. Ho wever, after receiving feedback about their inequities, the

teachers increased their interactions with the girls, resulting in more equitable treatxnent

of the girls. In McBride's study (1 WO), it was found that boys did not necessarily receive

more attention from teachers than giris. On the other hand, Macdonald (1990) found that

teachers interacted more often with boys than girls in mixed-sex classes.

While originally girls and women were the main focus of any gender equity issue,

these issues have k e n furthered even more in recent years to include the values and

beliefs of the various groups of inasculinities within the male gender (Bailey, 1996;

ConneIl, 1996).
 Students in Phvsical Ediication

Student Voices i n Phvsical Education

Dyson (1995) contends that "understanding students' opinions about ho w they

experience the curriculum can provide insight into how the curriculum is received" (p.

395). The inclusion of student perceptions in physicd education research has increased

.
during the last decade, however, there is stid a need for more (Dyson, 1995; McBnde,

1990). Questionnaires, surveys and interviews have k e n the most prominent ways of

assessing student perceptions (Browne, 1992; Dyson, 1995; Lirgg, 1Y 93, 1994;

Macdonald, 1990; McBride, 1990).

Macdonald (1990)' using a 35-item questionnaire, found that more boys than girls

thought that physical education should be made more important, Additionaily, it was

found that girls in single-sex classes supported the importance of physical education more

strongly than those in mixed-sex classes. Girls generally perceived t hat boys received

preferentiai treatment from their teachers. Finally, girls in mked-sex classes perceived

their teachers' skili expectations of them tc be higher than those girIs in singie-sex

classes.

Using the Student Perception Inventory (McBride, 199O), McBride soupht to

determine the extent to which students perceived daerential teacher treatment. He found

that, overd, students in elementary, junior high and high school did not perceive

inequitable treatment. Dyson (1995) found, through interviews, that the students' goals

of CO-operatingwith others, challenging thernselves, taking risks, having fun, and

learning new inotor skiils were closely related to their teachers' goals. Ligg (1993;

1994) compared boys' and girls' perceptions of physical education in single-sex as well
as mixed-sex cIasses and concluded that girls perceived single-sex classes more

posihvely, white boys preferred the mixed-sex classes.

Browne (1992)- using a questionnaire, looked into the reasons why adolescent

girls choose to take physical education or opt out of it. She found that girls selecting

p hysical educatio n felt more confident with their abzties, enjoyed the p hysicd activity

and sports offered as weil as the coeducational approach. Reasons given by girls for not

taking physical education included such things as a lack of connection between physical

education and their future careers, inability to fit it into their timetable, disliking the

amount of cornpetition, disinterest/dislike of physical education/activity, 10 w perceived

competence, and a belief that taking physical education would lower their average

academic mark.

Strident Abilitv

Student ability is another area to consider when looking at gender relations in

physicai education. The ternis self-confidence, self-efficacy, perceived ability, and

perceived competence have k e n used interchangeably as they are ali concerned with

perceptions of physical ability (Lirgg, 1992). Student perceptions about their O wn ability

affect a variety of different aspects of physical education including motivation (Fox,

Goudas, Biddle, Duda, 6r Armstrong, 1994; Duda & Nicholis, 1992; Kavussanu &

Roberts, 19961, participation versus non-participation (Browne, 1992). enjoyrnent,

feelings of self-efficacy, adherence levels to physicaI activity (Kavussanu & Roberts,

1996), and attitudes toward gender equity in their classes (Wright, 1995)

Through interview sessions with high school students, Wright (1995) questioned

girls about their perceptions of ability and ho w it related to their feelings to ward the

stereotypes evident in their physical education classes. She noted that girls with greater
feelings of cornpetence and success in physical education rejected "masculùllst

definitions of femaIe inferiority" (p, 16). Wright asserts, however, that girls Iess

confident about their abilities are more likely to accept the m s c u h e notion of f e d e

inferiority.

Kavussanu & Roberts (1996) found that even when femles perceived that they

tried harder, d e s stilI had a higher perceived abiiity than females. Duda & NicholIs

(1992) found that perceived ability was highly related to satisfaction/enjoyment and

boredorn in sport. Findhgs fiom a study by Fox, Goudas, Biddle, Duda, & Armstrong

(1994) show that chiidren with a higher perceived ability have greater motivation to

participate in sport, while those with low perceived ability are more likely to drop out af

physical activity and sport. Browne (1992) also found that girls with a higher perceived

ability were more likely to choose physical education in theK senior year of high school,

Lirgg and Feltz (1 989) in their discussion on girls and self-confidence in sport,

notes that individuals whose espectations are of a poor performance wiiI react in one of

three ways. They wiU either refuse to participate, choose an easier task, or become

discourageci and quit, Additionaily, they contend that competitive situations may do more

harm than good for individuaIs with low self-confidence. While Lirgg and Feltz (1989)

assert that the higher confidence Ievel of males has been weU documented, Macdonald

(1990) notes in her study that the majority of girls also had positive attitudes toward

physicd education and were confident in their physical SU.

Summarv

Feminist research and practice has helped to provide a suonger voice for women

and girls. Its application in men's studies is now also demonstrating that not o d y females

but rnales can benefit £rom an increased awareness of gender relations in sport and
physical education. A ferninist analysis of the constnrction of both femininity and

msculinity within the realm of physicd education rnay help to fbrther our knowledge of

how to combat stereotypes within a patnarchal paradigm

A closer existence between the two sexes in physical education has be,oun to

emerge; ho wever this was not aIways the case- Physical education and sport developed

throughout a t h e when the dominant discourse was (and is) one of patriarchal beliefs,

d u e s and norms, A historical review of girls' physical education shows that throushout

the 1 9 I h and 2othcenturies, participation and opportunities were continuously stunted by a)

the belief that women were the weaker sex and b) a continuous cornparison to a biased

(male) n o m Boys' physical education experience was also formed withii a structure

that perpetuated the stereotypes of the dominant male hegernony of the tirne. This

structure did not take into account the varying forxns of rnascuhity. The ùnplementation

of coeducational physical education was seen as a possible solution to the inequities that

were present. Whether or not this type of setting has succeeded in doing so remains

unclear. Both disadvantages and advantages have been put forth, and neither side

outweighs the other.

The curriculum, both the overt and the hidden, rnust be assessed when

irnplementing a gender equitable class. Ali students' beliefs and values need to addressed

in order to achieve a truly equitable environment. I t is argued that, thus far, the hidden

cuniculum in di levels of education reinforces the stereo typical beliefs and values of the

do~ninantculture. Special attention needs to be taken to address these issues in physical

education classes in order to remove the perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Several

studies indicate that while stereotypical beliefs and behaviours about gender roles

continue to be evident in physical education settings, they seem to be diminishing, both in

terms of student beliefs and actions, as well as teacher-student interactions. However,

they do continue to exist, thus there are stiii irnprovements to be made.

A tmly equitable environment in.which ail students' needs are valued xnay be

easier to achieve when students' voices are better understood, Some studies have

induded student perceptions of theu classes and have broadened Our understanding of

physical education students. To increase our knowledge of gender relations in physical

education, students' thoughts on a variety of topics and how these topics affect their

feelings toward sport are needed. One area that has been researched is students'

perceived ability and its effect on their motivation, enjoyment, participation and attitudes

toward gender equity issues in physicaI education,

This review of Literature demonstrates that present-day physical education has

k e n reshaped in a nurnber of ways which have enhanced girls' participation and

opportunities. At the same time, the patriarchd ideologies in which physical education

has k e n built and thrives continues to affect a variety of issues for both boys and girls.
 Part II: Student Perceptions of Gender Equity in High School
Coeducational and Single-Sex Physical Education Classes

Discussing gender equity issues is important, particularIy within the realrn of

education- Inequities are perpetuated through Our cuIturels gender stereotypes, and

students' acceptance or rejection of these stereotypes m y determine who will or will not

achieve. Educational environments in which gender equity has not yet k e n achieved

rnay make it d f i c u l t for some to excel, Gender equity in an educational contest can be

defined as a "supportive atmosphere where students have the opportunity for successful

participation and exposure to instruction regardless of gender" (Williamson, 1093, p. 15;

Appendix A),

Historicaily, gender inequities have existed in physical education programs.

Girls' participation has k e n restricted by "ideas and comrnon-sense assumptions about

women's 'natural' ancl desirable characteristics" (Scraton, 1992, p. 22). Although today's

physical education offers girls rnany more opportunities than in the p s t , their

participation, in rnany cases, continues to be fraught with inequîty,

Coeducational physical education has been a major force in the attempt to reach

gender equity. M i l e some prograins have succeeded, inany have faltered due to factors

such as Iack of administrative support, inadequate teücher training, and vaned beliefs

the systein (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996; Griffi, 1984). Additionaily, while some

coeducational physical education programs may offer a fair environment to girls and

boys, others continue to base themselves on the ide& and values of Western, male

hegernony (Knoppers, 1988) and on the notion of cqrrcdio instead of eqrtity. Girls'

attitudes toward participation in physical activity have ofien k e n less than positive,

especialiy as they reach adolescence when their participation rates begin to decline
(Wright, 1996; Browne, 1992)- One potential cause of this dedine m y be the value

stnicture on which physicai education prograrns tend to be based.

Few researchers have considered why students feel the way they do about physical

education. Although societal views about femuiinity and physicd activity have changed,

there is s t i l much discrepancy in society's messages that @risand boys receive about

appropriate behaviour in sport and physicd education. Since coeducational physical

education has k e n one solution put forward to enhance equity in physical education, this

study included physicai education students in coeducational as well as single-sex settings

to compare and contrast results. The focus for this study was not so much whether or not

equitable strategies were being used in these particular physicd education classes, but

instead how the students perceived their cIass environment and each other.

This section briefly describes the evolution of physical education and

coeducational program. The concepts of 'qrrtdiry and c.yuity are described and

compared, and a synopsis of recent research concludes with the reasons and significance

for pursuing this stucly.

The Evolution o f Phvsical Ediication

Throughout the lgthand 2omcenturies, the values, ideology and curriculum of

sport and physical education as we no w know it, established its roots (Crosset, I W O ) .

Initialiy boys were the sole participants in sport and physical education in Western

societies, but girls were soon offered a program of their own (Hutchinson, 1995; Scraton,

1992; Vertinsky, 1992). Though it was girls and women who were participating. their

programs were based on the dominant discourse of the tirne: the ideals and vaIues of

white, middle-cIass men (Crosset, 1990; Kimn~el,1990; Knoppers, 1988; Scraton, 1992;

Vertinsky, 1992; Wright, 1996).

 Boys &O received a sport pro- that consisted of the dominant ide&, values

and n o m of the t h e (Crosset, 1990; Kunmel, 2990). Physical education programs for

boys were based in the belief that males were biologicdly superior to fernales (Crosset,

1990) and were designed to uphold competitive and aggressive qualities deemed

necessary to "manliness" (Whitson, 2990). The wide range of masculinities withh the

male gender were not recognized in this structure (ConneU, 1996), mrikulg it difficult for

some boys to succeed.

In the early to late 1 9 ' ~century, giris' program included activities such as

gardening, calisthenics, gymnastics, and tennis (Hutchinson, 1995). During the eÿrly 2oth

century in North America, t h e types of activities and opportunities for girls were

expanded to include sports such as basketball and field hockey (Hutchinson, 1995)-

However, there was a continued ernphasis on the fernale body, its "natural" biological

function, and its inabilities in coinparison to the idea of male biological superiority

(Crosset, 1990; Hutchinson, 1995; Scraton, 1992; Vertinsky, 1992).

Changes to reduce inequities in the latter half of the 20'" century came about

partialiy through the introduction of Title D( of the 1972 Higher Education Act

Amendment in the United States, and the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Canadian

Charter of Rïghts and Freedoins in 1982, in Canada (LensSj, 1993; Vertinsky, 1992).

By making discrimination based on gender Uegal, it was assumed that girls' and boysT

opportunities would becoine equal.

Coeducational Phvsical Education

- Coeducational physical education classes were irnplernented with the assumption

that the problem of unequal access to facilities, t h e and other resources would be

elùninated (Bailey, 1996) and as a result girls and boys would receive equal
opportunities, Whether or not coeducation is the best soIution for equity to be achieved

has k e n continuously debated since its inception.

The Strenahs of Coeducation

In order for coeducational physical education classes to succeed, several factors

have k e n deemed necessary- These include ad~nhistrativesupport, teacher's belief in

the program, teacher's use of equitable Ianguale, a varïed c u ~ u l u m

including both

cornpetitive and non-competitive activities, and teacher training (Gibbons & Van Gyn,

1996; Hutchinson, 1995; Williamson, 1993; Knoppers, 1988; Griffin, 1984).

When these factors are in place, a successful program rnay be more easily

implemented. The advantages of coeducational physical education range from hunediate

benefits for girls and boys to advantages that span the lifetime- Such things as the

development of social relations, opportunities to practice leadership roles with the

opposite gender, increased opportunity to learn respect and acceptance of their peers a s

well as exposure to a greater variety of physical activities have all k e n cited as d i r e c ~

advantages to the students (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996; Macdonald, 1990; Rauschenbach

& Smith, 1998; Wright, 1993). Additionally, the needs of highly skilied girls rnay be

more easily met in this type of setting (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996; Rauschenbach &

Smith, 1998).

The Weaknesses of Coeducation

Teachers play an important role in whether or no t their physical education classes

succeed. Several teacher factors have k e n found that may make it difficult for the

benefits of coeducation to occur- For example, teachers' interactions with students in

coeducational classes have k e n found to perpetuate stereotypical notions of gender roIes

in p hysical activity (Macdonaki, 1990). Implementing successful program rnay be

difficult for some teachers because they have minimal training in conducting

coeducational classes and they Iack resources necessary for leamhg new strategies

(CAHPER, 1993; Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996; Griffin, 1984). Additionally, their personal

concerns and opinions about coeducational prognms have not always been taken into

account, leading to teacher frustration and dissatisfaction (Gibbons & Van Gyn, 1996;

Griffin, 1985)- Teachers' frustration with coeducational classes, coupled with factors

such as behaviour problems, large classes, budget cutbacks, inadequate facilities and a

lack of administrative and cornrnunity support (Griffin, 1984), may result in a persistence

of unintentionaliy gender-biased teaching methods and strategies (Cooney, 1993).

Boys tend t o receive more attention fkom teachers than girls (Cooney, 1993;

CAHPER, 1993). Additionally, teachers' expectations are lower for girls in mixed-sex

classes than for those in single-sex cIasses, and some teachers have stated that they enjoy

teaching single-sex classes rnGre than coeducational classes (CAHPER, 1993;

Macdonald, 1990)- If the teacher does not enjoy teaching a coeducational class, it tnight

be ascumed that the students wiil have a less positive experience.

Simply mixing students in a-coeducational setting does not ensure that students

receive the sarne benefits fi-otn their class (Bailey. 1996: McBride, 1990). M e n a

coeducational class setting is not irnplemented properIy disadvantages for the students

rnay result. Many girls and low skilled students (both girls and boys) feel embarrasseci

and intimidated in mixed-sex classes, boys tend to dominate class activities, and

behavioural pro blems may increase (Rauschenbach & Smith, 1998). Fmaily, Wright

(1993) reports that coeducational classes have not increased the adherence rate of girls in

some physical education pro,mu-ns.

Sinele-Sex Classes

Research on single-sex physical education classes indicates that girls tend to

interact more often with the teacher than girls in mixed-sex classes. though this finduig

was not statisticaiiy signifïcant (Macdonald. 1990). Additiondy, Macdonald (1990)

asserts that teachers rnay behave in ways that are less likely to reinforce girls'

submissiveness in a single-sex setting. While a single-sex setting rnay provide an arena

where girls can participate fiee from stereotypes and negative gender labels, it may also

send messages that perpetuate negative stereotypes (Bailey, 1996).

Eauitv versus Eaualitv

Underlyinç assumptions that gender equity is a female issue only, and that while

creating a better physical education environment for girls, boys' leaming expenence will

suffer. create dficulties when attempting to implement gender-fair prograins (Bailey.

1996). However, equity is by no means solely a female topic. Eyre (199 1) asserts that

gender equity involves more than questions of access, sex stereotyping, and
gender bias in student-teacher interactions .... It means understanding the
hequities that result when traditional power relations enter into our daiiy lives in
classrooms. lt means examinhg the taken-for-granted experiences we have as
women and men, girls and boys. It means recognizing the diversity of human
expenence, revaluinp women's knowledge and women's work, and changing
traditional ways of relating It means placing gender relations on the agenda in
the cIassroom (p. 2 17)

An understanding of this essence of equity is nccessary to fuily grasp how ail

students' needs can be met in physical education settings. A truly equitable environment

strives to recognize students' expenences and perspectives, address their needs and

values, and allow for successful participation of aU those involved, regardIess of who they

may be (Bailey. 1996; Cooney, 1993: Williamson, 1993; Miller, 1992).

 An inequitable environment &es it dLfficult for many to succeed, but for those

individuals whose values and beliefs are also those of the mainstream, the current

physical education structure inay not convey any difnculties. For example, it has k e n

found that while girls rnay succeed in the male dominated field of physical education,

they may experience negative repercussions because they challenge pender-role

stereotypes, and what may, or m y not, be considered "appropriate" ferninine behaviour

(Williamson, 1993). Furthermore, Wright (1996) contends that while it is not impossible

for girls ta thrive in an inequitable environment by ignoring the biases and stereotypical

views of female inferiority and suprernacy, it is more dficult for those who are less

confident in their abilities. Becoming aware of how stereotypes limit both girls' and

boys' participation is essential when reinforcing an equitabIe environment (Bailey, I996).

On the surfrice. the concept of ~iyricr[izy in which no individual is judged superior

or inferior to another, seems to be a fair notion on which to base discussions about

gender. However, the notion of equality emphasizes the use of zt male norm or standard,

to which everyone's participation, experiences and opportunities are compared (Smeal,

Carpenter, & Tait, 1994; Cooney, 1993). This understanding of equaiïty does not take

into account the ciifferhg abilities, interests, resources and previous experience of each

individual (Cooney, 1993). Smeal, Carpenter and Tait (1994) note that feminist critiques

of the notion of equality have argued that "within such an understanding of equality, any

gains made by women will ultirnately be counterproductive because such an equality is

based upon an unacknowledged male nom7' (p. 410).

This notion is not only lirnited to physical education but to other areas of

education as weU. Eyre (1991) found in her study about coeducational home economics

classes that whiIe the students rnay have k e n treated the same, this treatment was based
on the "perceived interests and experiences of boys" (p. 225) and that the cumculum was

dominated by a 4cparticularkirzd of rnascullluty, one hterested in authority, technology.

and control" (p. 215).

Some physical education studies have pointed to the fact that there seems to be a

decrease in the amount of gender inequity in this area (McBride, 1990). Others, however.

suggest the continued existence of inequity in p hysical education (Macdonald, 1990).

With increased awareness of possible inequities and concrete strategies to use against

them, it seems that there is a greater amount of effort on the part of teachers to create an

increasingly gender-fair environment (Dunbar & O' Sufivan, 1986; Griffîm, 1985).

McBnde (1990) found that boys did not necessady receive more attention fiom

teachers than girls and concluded that sex-role stereotyping in physical education is

perhaps not as evident as generally assumed. Macdonald (1 990)' on the other hand,

found that teachers interacted more often with boys than girls in mixed-sex classes.

Dunbar & O'Sullivan (1986) found that the teachers in their study initially interacted

more often with boys than with girIs. However, afier receiving feedback about their

inequities, the teachers increased their interactions with the girls, resulthg in more

equitable treatment of the girls. Griffin (1 985) found that teachers' sense of power to

change inequitable student behaviour and their own strategies to enhance equity differed

for a variety of reasons. These included years of experience teaching, participation in

equity education programs, experience with single-sex classes and teachers' negative

feelings about teaching coeducational classes. Similar to Dunbar & 0 ' s uliivan's (1986)

kdings, Griffin found that the teachers' use of successful equitable strategies increased

with a greater awareness and knowledge of how to deal with equity issues.
 Recent Researcli in Phvsicaf Education

Student Perspectives

The coeducation debate has k e n pursued by feminists, educators, administrators.

parents and others. However, rarely have students' thoughts on this topic been addressed.

Although some researchers are beginning to include student voices, improvements are

still needed (Dyson, 1995). What better way is there to know whether or not

coeducational versus single-sex physical education is beneficiaI for students, than to ask

those individuals who are Living it? Of the studies looking at gender equity, coeducation,

student perceptions, and any combination thereof, few have looked at student perceptions

of gender equity in any kind of setting. This is unfortunate, as students can provide a

clear understanding of ho w they perceive their classes. Students are active leamers with

their own biases and beliefs who choose what and how they wilI learn (Chepyator-

Thomson, 1997; Dewar, 1987; Scraton, 1996)-

Recently four researchers have begun to explore student opinions about

coeducational physical education. First, Browne (1 992) reviewed, through a

questionnaire, the reasons for the selection or non-selection of physical education by

adolescent girls. S he found that girls who chose to take physical education had higher

perceived competence in physical education and enjoyed the physical activity and sports

of3ered as weU as the coeducational approach. Girls who opted out of physical education

gave reasons such as a lack of connection between physical education and their future

careers, inability to fit physical education into their thnetable, objection to the amount of

cornpetition, disinterest/dislike of physical education/activity, 1ow perceived competence

in theù physical education skills, and the belief that taking physical education would

lower their average academic marks.

 En McBride's (1990) study, student perceptions of dBerentïaI teacher treatment

were analyzed through the use of a questionnaire. Results indicated that students of both

genders did not perceive any differentid treatment by their teachers.

Ako through a questionnaire, Macdonald (1990) assessed students' perceptions of

their physical education class, their peers and their teachers. More boys than girls thought

physical education should be made more important: more @ls in single-sex classes than

in coeducational classes felt this way. While girls perceived their teachers' ski11

expectations to be cher in coeducational cIasses than in single-sex classes, there were

still a significant number of girls (43%) that felt that their teachers expected boys to

perform skik better than girls. Girls aL~operceived that their teachers did not favour

interactions with thein Finally, Lirgg (1 993; 1994) compared boys' and girls'

perceptions in single-sex classes and boys7and girls' perceptions in mked-sex classes.

While girls perceived single-sex classes more positively, boys prefemed the mised-sex

classes,

The results of these four studies indicate that even arnongst students the debate

about coeducation is unresolved. While the above h d i n g s are interesting, the data

collection rnethods used in al1 of the studies did not allow for a full understanding of the

student perceptions, due to the limitations of a questionnaire. Questionnaires did not

d o w the researchers to determine fuliy why the students felt the way they did. Students

were limited to the answers provided by the questionnaires instead of k i n g able to

answer questions in their own words and explain their perceptions.

Other researchers have commented on coeducatio na1 physical education.

Macdonald (1990) notes that bo th single-sex and coeducatio na1 settings in physical

education have positive aspects for smdents and concluded fiom her study that "no clear-
cut answer emerged to as& in the organization and ïmplementation of more effective

strategies for the teaching of physical education in schools" (p. 160). Lirgg (1 992)

concluded that there is a need to i d e n t e the best environment, whether coeducational or

single-sex, in wkch girls compete. BaiIey (1996) suggested that

rather than assuming that we must isolate girls in order to protect them f?om boys'
boisterous, competitive behaviour - or that boys w u be unduly feminized in
settings where girls are valued and cornfortable - we must look carefuliy at why
some students and teachers prefer single-sex settings for girls. We must
understand the positive aspects of these classroorns in order to begin the difficult
task of bringing these positive factors into mixed-sex classes. (p. 76)

I t is ciear fiom each of these researchers' comments, that there are still questions to be

asked about coeducational and single-sex physical education. Investigating these

questions fkom the students' perspectives will help to expand the debate already in

prolress and provide new and interesthg answers.

Teachers' Role

Gender equity studies in physical education have also concentrated on student-

teacher interactions and/or on teacher behaviour (Dunbar & O'Suiiivan, 1986;

Macdonald, 1990; McBride, 1990). Dunbar and O'SuUivan (1986) examined the effects

of verbal and graphic feedback on the distribution of teacher verbal behaviour (positive

and corrective feedback, praise, desist, and questioning) and the use of demonstrators in

an elementary coeducational physical education class. Prior to receiving the feedback,

teachers were found to have hequitable interactions with boys and girls in each of the .

areas stated above. However, irnprovements in teacher-student interactions were noted

after teachers received feedback on the initial resuits. No significant gender dBerences

were found by McBride (1990) in the area

however, to c d boys by their narnes more ofien than girls. Macdonald (1990) found

boys had a sigficantly greater proportion of interactions, particularly positive ones, with

teachers than did girls in mixed-sex classes, While interestins results have k e n found

which can immediately irnprove teachers' performance, these studies do not answer any

questions as to why the interactions occurred or ltow the students perceived them

Although some studies have taken into account the teachers' perspectives (e-g.

Griffiin, 1985; Macdonald, 1990), not many have k e n conducted, Griffin (1985) found

that while sorne teachers may profess to k i n g fair and equitable, their actions ofien

demonstrate a different story. Macdonald (1990) found that teachers tended to believe

single-sex classes were more beneficial to girls than the mùted-sex classes, and many

preferred teaching boys' or girls' single-sex classes. Nevertheless, they recognized the

benefits of the increased social interaction between girls and boys in the coeducational

classes. Additionally, they believed that teaching approaches could be different in boys'

and girls' classes, with boys receiving a stncter and harder approach and girls receiving a

fi-iendlier approach. Rauschenbach and S mith ( 1998) also addressed teac hers'

perspectives about coeducational physical education. They concluded that teachers felt

the following :a) the needs of highly skilled girls are more easily met, b) there are more

opportunities for students to work together and thus gain mutual respect, and c)

participation together in Wetime sports may promote continued participation in physical

activity.

Research Needs

Addressing the issue of coeducational and single-sex physicd education Fom

teachers' and students' perspectives is an important aspect in determining the strengths

and weaknesses of these programs. Discussions of content choice, views on the

disadvantages and advantages of coeducation, and opinions about girls' and boys'

abilities should ail be included.

Gender equity studies specific to the area of physical education and sport have

used both qualitative and quantitative methods (Irwin, 1992), although there seems to

have k e n more emphasis on the latter. Qualitative methods can help to increase

knowIedge of how to make physical education classes more open to différent ability

levels and interests (Graham, 1995). They may dso provide a greater awareness of gender

relations than other methods frequently used (Eyre, 1991).

Gaskell & McLaren (1991) contend that it is important to recognize how Our

understanding "of t h e world-has k e n shaped by gender, and more particularly, by male

domination" (p. 8). Cheypyator-Thomson & Ennis (1997) also highlight the need to

assess how student perceptions and experiences are affected by gender and a patriarchal

society. Furthemore, Delamont (1992) asserts that a ferninist perspective can heIp to

rectify bias in the literature. However, Delamont (l990), Gaskell & McLaren (l99I) and

Messner & Sabo (1990) contend that in taking on a feminist perspective one must not

only take into consideration women's voices and issues, but also those of men.

Purpose of the Studv

The purpose of this study was to gain a richer understanding of gender equity

issues in coeducational and single-sex physical education class settings by exarnining

student and teacher perceptions through interviews, written descriptions of criticai

incidents, non-participant observations and document analysis. Specifically, how and

why students feel about and react to gender equity issues in physical education was

explored. It is only through interactive methods that enable the researcher to question the

reasons why an individual @es a particular answer that a m e sense of the individual
and/or situation can be captured. Interviews with students allow for a broader

understanding of student and teacher reactions and thoughts about physical education

than questionnaires alone (Dyson, 1995).

Since student voices have, at times, k e n left out of the physical education

coeducational debate, there was a need to delve into this issue ftom a qualitative

approach, incorporating both boys' and girls' voices. By including both genders'

perceptions in this study, it was hoped that a better understanding of their experiences and

views on coeducation versus single-sex classes would be made clear. It may also help

teachers to design better progarns in terms of cumculum choice. A better understanding

of students' perceptions may also help administrators in the decision of no t only whether

or not to implernent coeducational classes, but 1 1 0 ~to irnpIement them in the2 particular

schooIs. Most importantly, increased attention to the perceptions and needs of those

individuak who do not participate fully in physical education due to disinterest and lack

of enjoyment may give greater insight into how to irnprove physical education to cater to

the needs of a wider array of students. In doing so, perhaps these individuals will learn to

enjoy, and participate more fully in physical education. This may not only help to

improve physical education for girls but for ail students who may not conform to the

patriarchal ideals of present day physical education.

The decision to consider student ability in the study was predicated on several

factors- To begin with two studies demonstrated that students of suniiar abilities may

have similar attitudes toward physical education. Fox, Goudas, Biddle, Duda, and

Armstrong (1994) found that chiIdren with a higher perceived ability had greater

motivation to participate in sport while those with low perceived ability were more iikely

to drop out of physical activity and sport. Browne (1 992) noted that girls with a higher
perceived ability were more mely to choose physicd education in their senior year of

high school than those with lower perceived ability. Whether or not students of sirmlar

abilities in the present study had concordant attitudes towards physicd education as well

was questioned-

Furthemore, Wright (1 995) found that girls more confident in their abilities

seemed to disregard stereotyped views of girls' abilities and pIace in physical education

more easily than girls' of low ability, but boys' perceptions were not considered-

Therefore, it was important to determine if boys' views were also affected by their ability

Ievel. Fialiy, Lugg (1993) recomrnended that future research in the area of

coeducational versus single-sex p hysical education shouId take into account the

relationship of student ability with chss type and gender.

Met liodology

Qualitative ~nethodswere used to gather data related to student and teacher

perceptions about their coeducational and single-sex physical education classes

(Delainont, 1992). Informa1 nonparticipant observations were conducted to allow the

researcher to get an understanding of the class setting. Ali students described in writing

critical incidents in which they discussed positive and negative events they had

experienced in their physical education class. Focus group interviews with a sample of

the students were used to create a cornfortable atmosphere where they would feel fiee to

express their opinions. After reviewing the focus group interviews, it was determined

that individual interviews were needed to delve further into issues that were mentioned in

the focus groups but were not discussed thoroughly. Finally, the physicd education
teacher was &O interviewed, bot h infomially and forrna.lIyYThe following sections

elaborate on this methodology-

Cautions for the Reader

The inclusion of both girls'and boys' voices in this study was an attempt to

further expand the knowledge base available about student perceptions in physical

education, Throughout the data collection process, more girls than boys volunteered, and

therefore a heavier emphasis on girls' perceptions resulted- In addition to this, the range

in ability levels was not as great as hoped, Onginaliy, the range in ability was intended to

include students of all abilities - from very Iow to high abïiity, However, of the students

volunteering to participate, there were very few that were of very Iow ability and most feu

in the range of medium to high ability.

Mvself as t h e Researcher

In designing the research questions and methodology, 1 have done so from a

particular perspective. As a feminist, 1 feeI strongly about particular issues in the area of

physical education and sport. The reader wiil h d that 1 consistently subscribe to the

view point that "equity" and not "equality" should be the h a 1 goal in d e a h g with gender

issues in educational settings.

Having corne from a marginaiized and very "ferninine" background in physical

education and sport - that of dance (Wright, 1995) - and then suddenly switchinç gears

and participating in what many consider a very "masculine" sport - rugby, 1 feeI that 1

have had a unique expenence in this field. 1feel it important to further femlnist research

in the area of physical education to enable girls' voices not just to be heard but Kstened to

and actcd upon, As in any qualitative research study, it must be the reader that

determines the validity of this research. As Bali (1993) States "the presence, the effect,
and the b i e s and selections of the researcher cannot be removed fiom qualitative

research" (p. 43). However, knowing and understanding my perspective and biases as a

researcher wiiI enable readers to take what they want fiom the study and relate my

findings to their own personal expenences.

As a developing feminist, 1 do not pretend to foliow any particular ferninist

theory. Accordhg to Scraton (1992)

there is a recognition that feminist theory cannot be categorized neatIy into the
sections Iabeled liberal, radical, Mamïst and socialist. Relations hips,
interconnections and the need to explain the expenences of al! women suggest a
cornplex overlapping of positions in many instances. Theory is fluid and
changing and theory develops from previous ideas and knowledge. Thus the
categorïzation used is convenient for explanation but should not be considered
rigid and inflexible. (p, 18)

My views, therefore, may at some times seem conuadictory and may not pIease all those

who read this. Nonetheless, 1 feel that, having completed this research 1 have begun to

understand not only myseifas a fetninist better but also the role that ferninism must play

in research and specificaily research in physical education and sport.

Settirtg

The research was conducted at Riverview High School [names of school and

participants are pseudonyms (Delamont, 1992)], a small, anglophone school of 356

students in a suburb of MontreaI, Quebec. It is the only Engiish higb school in the city

where it is located. The mjority of the student population cornes f?om the local area;

however, there are others who corne in fiorn surrounding ~nunicipalities.

There is one g ~ ' ~ m a s i situated

u~n directly across fiom both the principal's and

vice-principal's offices. In addition to physical education, t h e gytnnasium is used for

assemblies, va.riety/talent shows, school dances, drama shows, provincial exarns and any
other event that requires the use of the stage (situated at the rear of the gyrn) or a large

area. At times, these events take precedence over the physicaI education classes,

"bumping" the classes either outdoors (weather perrnitting) or into a classroom where

theory is covered. On some occasions the students help in the set-up of chairs for the

ensuing event, rather than taking part in a physical education class. While Mr.

McCormack, the physical education teacher, may understand the necessity of this, he also

feels that this occurs too often and is unfair to the students,

The gymnasium is fairly smaU, which is sornetirnes seen by bo th the teacher and

students as a hindrance to effective activity. NevertheIess, everyone seems accustomed to

the available resources and are more positive than negative about it. The school also has

a large outdoor soccer field as well as additional surroundhg land, which are used ofien

during the warmer months.

There is a strong interscholastic and ïntramural program within the school

(Appendix B). Students of aU abilities are encouraged to join the intrarnural program

where t hey can participate in a recreational format, Medals are awarded to bot h the top

fernale and male intrarnural athlete, which is decided upon by a point-based system The

interscholastic program encompasses a variety of different sports including cross-country

running, field hockey, soccer, badminton, golf, ice hockey, volieyball and track and field.

Medals are also awarded to the top feinale and male athlete at the end of each scholastic

year.

This school was selected for study because the grade eight and nine students

participated in coeducational and single-sex physical education classes, respectively.

Since the grade nine students had had the chance to experience both coeducational (in

grade eight) and single-sex (at the time of the study) classes and the grade eight students
had ody had expenence in coeducational classes, it was felt that these students could give

an important perspective in the debate on coeducation versus single-sex classes and

gender equity. Proximity and easy access to this particular school allowed the researc her

to visit the school easily and regularly.

Participan ts

The participants consisted of grade eight and nine girls and boys. They ranged in

age from 14 years to 15 years. The total number of students was 65 in grade eight and 84

in grade nine. See Table 1 for a distribution of students by gender.

Table 1
Distribution of participatine students bv made and sex

Grade X Grade 9
- - - --

Girls Boys G ùls Boys

Total # 43 22 35 49

Cntical
Incidents 43 18 30 47

Interviews 19 6 14 Y

Of the total number of students, 6 1 in grade 8 and 77 in grade nine were present to

describe their thoughts about the critical incidents. Nineteen girls fiom grade eight and

14 girls from grade nine volunteered to participate in the interviews, whiIe 6 and 9 boys

fiorn grade eight and nine, respectively, volunteered. lnfomed consent was ensured
through a permission Ietter signed by both the student and his/her parent(s). (See

Appendix C),

The other participant was Mr. McCormack, a 30 year old teacher, who is the sole

physical education specialist at this school. Although he has taught physical education at

this particular school for six years, this was his first year teaching it full time. Pnor to

this he taught in both the classroorn and the gyrnnasium, as he and a female teacher

shared the available physical education classes- He has had experience teaching bo th

coeducational and single-sex (male and fernale) classes. Informed consent was also

obtained f?om the teacher (Appendix C).

Mr. McCormack has an open door poLicy and enjoys the relationship h e has with

rnany of his students. There is much interaction between the students and teacher both

during and outside of class (recess, lunch hour and after school). Students often corne

into the gyrn to chat and joke around with Mr. McCorrnack, as weii as to use his office

phone. According to Mr. McCorrnack, a large component of his teaching phiiosophy for

physicd education is to have the students be as active as possible through a variety of

recreational activities and team sports.

Focus rrroups

Forty eight volunteers fiom six physical education cIasses in the two grades were

interviewed (see Table 1). Whire it was onginaliy proposed to randornly seIect students

fkom those volunteering, there were not enough student voIunteers to do this, and

therefore aIi of the students who returned a signed consent f o m were included.

It was noted during the nonparticipant observations prior to the study that students

often arranged thernselves into groups of high and low ability without k i n g requested to

do so by the teacher. Therefore, it was feit that separating focus groups based on ability
would help in creating a cornfortable atmosphere for the students, one in which they

would feel open to express the5 opinions.

Purposehl sampiing (Patton, 1990) was used to form focus g o u p s of either high

or Iow ability students. In this method, pnor to the commencement of the interviews, the

teacher was asked to group ail of the students into high and low ability categories.

Finding this slightIy difficult, he returned with a iist of three groups that he named weak,

average and skiüed, When asked to specw further, he pointed out students he would

consider of higher ability and of Io wer ability in the middle (average) group. Same

gender focus groups were then formed with either a mixture of "skilled" and high

"average" students (medium-high ability) or "weak" and low "average" students

(medium-low ability). Only two groups were mked with low and high ability students: a

çroup of three boys in grade eight and a group of four girls from grade nine, In the boys'

case, only those three particular boys volunteered out of their entire class. In the case of

the girls, o d y those four had volunteered at the thne of the interview.

In the initial focus group interviews, groups generally consisted of three to five

students. OccasionaUy, students were interviewed individually or in pairs if they were

absent when their assigned group met or they returned their consent form late. Because

the researcher wanted to include as m n y student perspectives as possible, it was decided

that those students who had missed the two-week deadline for handing in the^ consent

forms would stiU be allowed to participate if they handed them in at a later date.

Procedures

Non participant Observations

Nonparticipant observations of classes were conducted and field notes coliected

over the course of four weeks pnor to the interview sessions. This enabled the researcher
to get an understanding of the physical education classes and allowed both the researcher

and the participants to become farniliar and cornfortable with each other. These

observations also aided in the development of interview topics and questions.

Critical Incidents

All students in each of the physical education classes were asked to describe two

critical incidents that they had experienced within their present physical education class:

one positive and one negative event (Appendix D). I t was felt that a large number of

individuals could be reached in a short period of t h e throuph the reporting of critical

incidents, allowing for a richer accumulation of data. Approximately ten minutes were

taken at the beginning of one period per class to complete this task. Students were asked

to do this on a volunteer basis, and consent was assumed with the coinpletion of the task.

Focus Groups

Semi-structured focus group interviews of approxinately thirty to forty-five

minutes were conducted during p hysical education class tirne. Questions were develo ped

fiom field notes collected during nonparticipant observations as well as fiom the

interview questions used by Chep yator-Thomson and Ennis (1997). To pics included

students' perceptions of the teacher's treatment of boys and girls, their likes and disiikes

of their physical education program and of physical education in general, and their views

about the advantages and disadvantages of coeducation and same-sex classes. For a

complete review of the interview guide used, see Appendix D.

As the intemiewer, I was present to help guide the conversation; however, I also

let the conversation create itself amongst the students. Interviews were conducted in one

of two places. For the most part, when the teacher taught h i . classes outdoors, interviews

were conducted on the stage in the gymnasium When the weather did not permit classes
to be held outdoors, a classroom was used. AU interviews were audio-taped and later

transcribed for analysis,

Individual ]Cntervïews

The need for individuai i n t e ~ e w was

s assessed throughout and fouowing the

administration of the focus group interviews. Students who participated in the individual

interviews were selected based on one or more of several reasons. Kit was feIt that a

student was answering questions based on how others in her/his focus group were

responding, he/she was interviewed again- If a student did not seem to have much

opportunity to express her/his views because one or several individuals dorninated the

p o u p discussions, she/he was interviewed again. If a student brought up topics, thoughts,

or feelings that seemed different or uncomrnon, she/he was interviewed again. The

individual interviews were used by the researcher to check previous opinions and ideas

that arose in the focus groups as weli as to delve more deeply into the students' opinions

and thoughts.

individual interviews took place either in a cIassroom or in the teachers' office

(situated adjacent to the gyrnnasium). Again the classroom was used when the weather

did not perinit outdoor activities, while the office was used when the classes were brought

outdoors. These interviews were also audio-taped.

Teacher Interviews

After the completion of di the student group and individual interviews a forma1

semi-structured interview was held with the teacher. This audio-taped interview, lasting

approximately one hour, took place at tus home for his convenience. Topics that were

discussed included the advantages and disadvantages of coeducational and same-sex

p hysical education classes, likes and dislikes abo ut teaching coeducatio na1 and same-sex
classes, content choice, and general vievrs and beliefs about physical education, its

importance and its role in the life of adolescents, For a complete version of the interview

guide, see Appendix D.

Additio naliy, informa1 interviews occurred t hroughout the study. These

conversations were either prompted by the researcher when a specific question was asked,

or came about n a t u d y with no specific question or issue as the main focus of the

conversation.

Written Documents

Additional written materials were reviewed as a complement to other data. These

included school documents such as cumcuium and course outlines, athletic policies for

interscholastic and intramural teams, and physical education rules and regulations

(Appendix B). These documents were used to provide additional background information

about the schooI and, similarly to the nonparticipant observations, to give the researcher a

better understanding of the setting. Articles from mass media sources were also used as a

cornplernent to the data which gave the researcher a better sense of gender equity issues

in society (Appendix E).

Data AnaIvsis

Bliss, Monk & Ogburn (1983) contend that qualitative data analysis must capture

the "complexity, subtlety and detail" (p. 3) that is evident in h u m n transactions. To

enhance the credibility of the data anaIysis, rigorous data collection procedures, a detaiied

representation of the researcher's perspective as weU as triangulation techniques were all

applied in this study (Delamont, 1992; Patton, 1990). The two triangulation techniques

used were:
 1) TrianNation of sources: Multiple data sources were used (students,

teacher, written documents)-

2) MethodoIogical trianguIation: Several data collection rnethods were

used (group and individual interviews, wrttten expressions of critical

incidents, and nonparticipant observations).

(Patton, 1990)

Additiondly, by including detailed descriptions of the context, techniques used

and the researcher's perspective, the generalizabllity of the results can be decided by the

reader (SchofieId, 1993)

Analysis of the interview data, fieId notes, and documents occurred throughout

and afier the data coiiection process. Ali audiotaped i n t e ~ e w were

s transcribed

foilowing each interview. As the tapes were transcribed, notes were taken on emerging

thernes and categories (Delarnont, 1992). Constant comparison of the data was cond ucted

as the written transcriptions of the interviews, the critical incidents and field notes were

inductively anaiyzed (Siedman, 1991; Patton, 1990) through the process of c o d i n ~and

çategorizing the data into various themes and categories (Delamont, 1992; Siedinan.

199 1; Patton, 1990)- As Delarnont (1992) suggests, a large number of themes and

categones - over sixty - were originaliy coded. These were re-analyzed, re-coded and re-

sorted until the final themes emerged.

Peer debriefing occurred throughout the data anaiysis and reporting of findings

procedure. This occurred through discussions with Mx. McCormack, the university

advisory, feiiow graduate students, fiiends and family members. Mr. McCormack was

asked to v e w the accuracy of the interpretation of the data, in order to ensure that the

findings represented a true description of the classes (Patton, 1990). Discussions with
peers, farnily rnernbers and the McGill University advisory aiiowed for a variety of

interpretations of the data to be discussed. The multipIe perspectives garnered through

these discussions helped in red ucing the researcher's bias.

Research Findings:
The Students' and Tacher's Perceptions

Girls and boys continue to be socialized into traditional gender roles in t e m s of

how to behave in society as a whoIe and more specifîcally in the realm of physical

education and sport (Chepyator-Thomson & Ennis, 1997)- However, these roles are

becoming less and less ngid. Girls in particular now d e d with many different and

sometimes confiicting messages of how they sho uid behave and how they want to behave.

Scraton (1992) argues that

it should not be assumed that the esistence of gender stereotypes is aii-

determining, resuIting in the conformity of ail girls and boys to expected roles,
behaviour and attitudes. Clearly, m n y individuals chalIenge the process of
gender stereotyping - not aIways consciously - and as a consequence the
transmission of stereotypes is by no means shplistic, absolute or uncontested. (p.
9

Chepyator-Thomson and Ennis (1997) and Dewar (1987) also assert that the patriarchal

ideology present in t h e educational system may be accepted and reproduced or challengeci

and rejected by students.

The present study used qualitative methods to gather and analyze data about the

students' and teacher's perceptions about gender equity issues in their physical education

classes. In order to represent the participants' opinions and beliefs properly, direct quotes

were used as often as possible. The girls', boys', and teacher's perceptions about the

positive and negative aspects of coeducational versus single-sex physical education in this

study concurred with what has been previously established. Gender related student
behaviour patterns in coeducational physical education classes included: a) boys

domùiating team games, b) girls hanging back in team games, c) girls lacking ski11 in

team games, and d) boys k i n g overly agressive (Griflin, 1985). Traditional gender

roles continued to exist and continued to affect both girls' and boys' attitudes toward

participation in sport, physical education and physical activity in generat Although it

was also clear that some girls and boys rejected stereotypical beiiefs about thernselves

and their peers, others played a role in the perpetuation of stereotypical beliefs - even

within an environment where the teacher attempted to create gender-fairness (Appendix

A) -

This section begins with a review of the teacher7steaching strategies and

treat~nentof students. FoUowing this, students' perceptions of coeducational versus

single-sex classes are reviewed. The focus of this section then shifts to how, within these

coeducational and single-sex classes, students both reinforce and refute traditional gender

stereotypes within different gender equity issues.

As the section develops, the reader may note a heavier emphasis on the

perceptions of the female students than those of the male students. The reader will be

correct in her or his assessment, and while this was not the original intention of the

researcher, it can be linIced to the fewer number of boys volunteerhg for participation

compared to the girls. In an attempt to rectify this, written descriptions of critical

incidents were completed by students on a voluntary basis. W e this increased the

number of rriiile participants, and added a richer source of data fkom thein, the amount of

data gathered fkom the fernales stiU remained Iarger.

Addition-, among those students v o l u n t e e ~ gto participate, the range in ability

level was not as strong as ori&@nailyhoped. While some of the students participated less
than others, there were none that did not participate at all or who expressed a deep dklike

of the class. Fmhermore, very few of the students rated as "weak" by the teacher

volunteered. Of the boys who volunteered only one (7%) was nted as "weak," and only

five girls (15%) who volunteered were rated as "weak." Ten girls (308) and seven boys

(47%) were rated as "skilled," and, finally, eighteen girls (54%)and seven boys (47%)

were rated as "average." Consequently the results found in this research rnay be more

representative of average to higher ability boys and slightly more diverse for girls. Future

research in this area should atternpt to include more boys, as well as a more diverse range

of abilities.

Teacher's Rofe

Equitv Stratepies

While this study was not prirnarily concerned with the kinds of gender equity

saategies being applied in the classes, it was noted through observations and discussions

with the teacher, that Mr. McCormack was aware of equity issues and tried to make his

classes as equitable as he could. When discussing different aspects of teaching

coeducational versus single-sex classes, he often stressed the importance of assessing

students based on abiIity levels rather than on gender. When asked about his thoughts on

coeducational classes, Mr. McCorxnack responded, "It works. At f i s t 1 was scared of it

and then 1 realized that it's just like any other class where you have strong athletes and

weaker athletes .... And it [doesn't] realIy matter if they're a girl or a boy" (Mr.

McCorrnack, I#16, p. 4). Another example of how Mr. McCormack sees the importance

of working with students' ability levels rather than gender cornes across when asked

about his teaching strategies in coeducational versus single-sex classes. He responded, "1

don't know if 1 do anything really different whether or not it's a coed class or a single-sex
class You always have to watch out for the weaker students" (M.r-M c C o m c k , I#16, p.

Mr. McCormack noted the importance of k i n g aware and irnplementing

strategies that WUhelp the students:

I'm more aware [that] ...there may be problems if 1 separate them just because ...
[ofl s k d l .... For example if ... I'm pIaying football with them, on average ...
there's going to be more boys who are stronger in football then there are girls
stronger in football. 'Cause they just haven't playéd it enough and they never
have the opportunity. So 1 have to watch myselfto [not] separate the teams in
strong against weak ....Because then ... with football or something you have
more of the guls that are weaker [and] t!le boys are playing. Then they [the girls]
start saying 'oh you're not letting us pIay against the boys' .... And 1 think it's
important that they play against boys and that the ... boys play against the girls
.... It's just, the stronger person helps out the weaker person in a game like that.
(Mr, McCormack, I#I 6 , p. 4)

Essentidy, Mr. McCormack is tx-yingto maintain tearns that are mixed by gender as weii

as abïiity levels so as to create fair tearns where everyone wiIi have the opportunity to

participate and potentially succeed together.

Another example of his awareness of students' needs occurred during a girls'

intrarnural session. The girls expressed feeling uncornfortable because of the boys

watching and requested that the doors be locked. Mr. McCormack responded to their

request, which aUowed the girls to participate in an environment where they felt

cornfortable and a t ease. They were able to maintain their participation whkh may have

otherwise decreased or perhaps ceased completely. Additionally when he noted that

girls' intramurals were not as successful as the boys', he sent femaIe sports

representatives out into the school to determine what types of activities they would enjoy

participating in and included those in his intramural program. While these are not

specific exampks of strategies used in the physicd education classes, they demonstrate
Mr. McComck's awareness and s actions to maintain gender equity within the school

setting.

Not every teaching strategy used by Mr. McComiack was truly equitable. When

discussing his approach to teaching coeducational classes he acknowledged that he "must

slip s o m e t i w " (Mr. McCormack, 1#16, p. 4). While he expressed his beiiefs, on several

occasions, about the importance of maintainhg gender fiurness in his classes he may have

played a role in the perpetuation of gender inequity by allowing sex-segregated teams in

his class. He sometimes ailowed for student formed, sex-segregated teams, and also

grouped them this way himself at times:

... the boys playing on one side of the gym and the girls playing on the other side
of the gym You do that once in a while just because they might ask for it. Or ...
when you ask them to rnake up their own teams, the girls go with the gûls and the
guys go with the guys. And then instead of making a big hassle. you let thein play
that way.
(Mr, M c C o m c k , I#I6, p. 4)

While Mr. McCormack may have k e n responding to the students' requests, sex-

segregated teams in a coeducational class may reinforce the notion that girls and boys

cannot perfom together. Both the students and the teacher play a role in maintainmg

certain gender inequities in the class. The students do so by groupinp themselves in this

way and the teacher does so, by either forming these types of teams hirnself, or not takinp

action and i m p l e m e n ~ gstratepies that would inhibit these types of student formed

teaim. There are always unprovcments to be made in maintainhg an equitable class

atmosphere. However. Mr. McCormck, demonstrated that he was aware of the gender

issues in his class, and attempted to uphold equitable teaching strategies.

Suzanne, a grade nine student, explained how she perceived Mr. McCormack's

attempts to inake fair teams:

 Somet-imes Mr. McCormack will ,,,rnake two t e a m of the stronger players so
that they can have more cornpetition and he'U make two teams of the Iower
pIayers- And then other days he'U switch them around so that everybody's
pIaying ....1 see why he does it too, and it &es sense to me ..-.The pIayers that
have played more, get to play and ... get to actualiy set sometirnes or spike, and
they don? end up hurting someone who ...stilI is not sure ho w [to burnp] a baiI.
(Suzanne, 1#28, p. 3, F9)

However, students may be receiving mixed signals about participating with each

O ther when team formation strategies are inconsistent, as demonstrated by cornrnents

fiom two grade nine boys. John described his positive expenences with mixed-gender

It made the t e a m a bit more fair because ... although there'd be all the great male
players pIaying on one team, W. McCormck would incorporate ... not always
the sporty girls, but some of the other people. So it would just even it out.
(John, 1#5, p. 5, Mg)

However, he and Tim, in their group interview, also noted that:

J: In sorne ways it's better that there's only rnaIes in one class. Because Iast year
you'd end up having an aii girl terim versus the aii male team .... And then there'd
be a lot of cornplaining. The males would say 'oh it's fair' and the girls would be
saying 'oh it's not fair'.
T: Same thing with the guys though ...-There's ... one strong team of guys [and]
the weak guys are saying 'oh it's not fair' and they'li just Ieave and they'ii just go
and sit on the bench.
J: But Mr. McCorrnack watches that, He makes fair teams.
( T h & John, I#5, p. 5, M9)

The inconsistencies in team formation described by the students may make it

difficult for soine to decide whether or not they shouId reinforce traditional stereotypes by

formïng same-sex teams or refute them by forming niixed-sex teams. Mr. McCormackYs

awareness of gender issues as weil as the positive strategies he did use maintained an

overall feeling of gender equity within the classes. AIthough he was aware of gender

equity issues and took action in rnaintafning and irnprovhg it, he also played a role in the
perpetuation of gender stereotypes. This becomes evident in the students' varied

perceptions of how they were treated by their teacher-

Tacher Treatment o f Students

Student perceptions of their teacher's treatment varied amongst the students fiom

feelings of fair treatment to feelings of differential treatment. Perceived differential

treatment was sornetirnes based on gender and other times based on ski11 level (weaker

versus strong students). T'heu opinions about teacher treatment seem to point out that,

although Mr. McCormack was aware of gender equity issues and used strategies to

maintain an equitable environment, he ako, at tbnes, played a role in the perpetuation of

gender stereotypes.

Two grade nine boys, both high ability, perceived a very fair treatment from Mr.

McCorrnack. Jason explained, "Mr. McCormack's a good teacher. [He] treats everyone

fairly" (Jason, I#17, p. 3, Mg). James concurred and explaineci further:

Mr. McCormack doesn7treally judge the people by how good they are ... but by
how much effort they [put in]- And he really shows it in outside sports. For
example cross-country. You can come in last place but as long as you gave it
[your] di ... he'U corne up to yo u and tell you, you did a really good race.
(James, 1#17, p. 3-4, Mg)

On the other hand, one student wrote:

I've afso noticed that the marks aren't as equal either (higher marks are given to
those who are expected to have high marks). 1 reaUy noticed this when Mr.
McCormack marked the kin ball [a cooperative b d i game] team.. .the "good" vs
"not as good", .. there were faults in both tearns, but they were only taken down
fiom the "not as good" team (F9, neg., d 14)

The above quotes deal directly with differential treatment based on ability levels,

while the next few pertain to treatment based on gender. One grade eight girl wrote, "1

felt that guys were k i n g picked to do more things" (F8,neg., c10). Amanda said, "1

think he takes more of the boys' side" (Arnanda, I#4, p. I, F8). However, another girl
wrote that "there was only one class where 1 found that ML McCormack was favoring the

guys"(F8, neg., c 13).

While a group of grade eight boys felt students were treated "very weil" (Dan,

Rob, lan, I#8, p. 4, M8) by their teacher, they also came to a consensus on discrepancies

in what was expected fiom boys and girls in terrns of disciphe:

1: UsuaIiy he picks on guys ,... When people go outside [to the principal's office]
it's dways guys.
D: It's 'cause we talk back all the tirne.
Researcher-: 1s rhar valid? Do you rhink that it shortCd always De gnys?
R: No, because 1 find the girls are always t a m g ,-.-But ... he only notices the
WYS-
Rmal-cher: Su does MI-, McCornzuck rrcor rhe boys and girls diffec.r-etztly?
1: Well to the girls he just t e k them 'stop taking', o r separates them But usualiy
when the boys talk it's 'go outside in £kont of the office', and then he'il caU you
back in five minutes.
R: Double standard.
@an, Rob, Ian, 1#8, p- 4-5, M8)

Observations of the classes seem to, at tirnes, concur with this. In one instance,

during a coeducational class, the boys were told to stop taking while the girls continued

giggling and chatting (April7, 1998: FN#l). Ho wever, there were ais0 instances d u ~ g

the observation period where unbiased treatrnent of girls and boys was noted. For

example, during one class it was noted that Mr. McCormack included both boys and girls

evenly in a cIass discussion (Apnl 16, 1998: FN#4).

Generally, the students interviewed expressed f e e h g treated fairly by Mr.

McCormack, However, not all students felt this way. The fact that rnany students

expressed feelings of fair treatment demonstrates that Mr. McCormack may indeed be, for

the most part, successful in maintainhg an atmosphere of equity in his class.

Nevertheless, the fact that other students continued to express unfair treatment points out

that perhaps a true state of gender equity has not yet been reached.
Summaw

Mr. McCormack was aware of gender equity issues in his class, and demonsuated

ways in w hich he maintained a gender-fair environment. Ho wever, there were also

teaching strategies he used that played a role in perpetuating gender inequities. There

was no clear difference in opinions between boys and girls, or abirity IeveIs about teacher

treatment of students. Some students perceived differential treatment based on either

gender or ability IeveL Others feit Mr. McCormack treated aU the students fairly-

Coeducational versus Sinele-Sex Classes

Peer Interaction

Being able to socialize and build positive, healthy relationships with the opposite

sex was one aspect of coeducational classes that was ofien mentioned as a worthwhile

experience. When asked about the advantages of mixing boys and girls, Mr. McCormack

It allows the groups to mi.., like they're gonna mix in society .... I think 1 reaUy
iike the social thing 'cause ... 1 have conversations with some kids that are
treating the opposite sex in the wrong way, and you're not going to get that if I
only have a single-sex cfass.
(Mr, McCormack, I#16,p- 6)

In this type of s e t ~ g he
. feit there was a greater opportunity to address issues that would

heip nurture healthier relationships between his students, that he may otherwise not be

able to in a single-sex chss.

SociaLizing and having fun with the opposite sex was seen as a definite advantage

of the coeducationd classes. James and Jason, two grade nine boys, discussed what they

enjoyed about their coeducational expenence:

 Jason: Last year we were mixed ,.. with a lot more £i-iends. So 1 guess it makes
the gym class a lot ,,,fumer when you have a lot more fi-iends in the class,
James: 1guess gym cIass is one of the classes that you can ... rnake fkiends .,,so
there's not a Line between girls and guys. So you ,,. can have girl fkiends [and]
guy fnends.
(James & Jason, I#17,p- 5, Mg)

Boys in both grades feIt that the increased social interaction would help builci

positive relationships with girls. Learning how to uiteract positively with girls in a

coeducational class wo uld eventuaily lead to better CO-operationbetween the sexes,

enhance future relations, teach girls and boys how to work together, and help change

sexist views about each other. One grade nine boy, Tim, said:

It'd be better if.. . everybody was together .... It'd teach [guys] how to CO-operate
with the girls and the girls to CO-operatewith the guys. Because in life you have
to work together. It's not the two sexes -.,divided- It's everybody working
together .,.. It's good to work together in sports too.
(Tirn, I#29, p. 3-4, Mg)

Patrick, also in grade nine felt that:

in the long run it7sa lot better .... Fust of au, it teaches CO-operationbetween the
two sexes, So some people who are reaUy sexist or whatever, it'U slowly change
their views. 'Cause they're gonna end up having to ... l e m 'weii if 1 wanna win
... then I'm gonna have to work with [these] girIs to end up winning the game'.
(Patrick, Ilf5, p. 12, M9)

Girls also talked about this topic, however, they tended to emphasize the

importance of the social interaction in a coeducational class and did not necessarily

connect that to irnproving future relations between the sexes. For example, Nathalie said

about coeducational physical education classes: "In gyrn it's easier to talk to your eiends

.... It's probably a bit more fun to be in gyrn with mked so that you can talk to guys and
the girls" (Nathalie, I#6, p. 3-4, F9).
 Many of the students, particularly the boys, acknowledged the importance of

working together, and noted the importance of learnîng to do so early on so as to enhance

future relations,

Class Atmos~here

Mr. McCormack explauied that his grade nine girls' classes were ones in which he

emphasized a more relaxed atmosphere, one in which he could "fool around with them a

Little bit more" (Mr, McConnack, 1#16, p. 4-5). This was observed on several occasions.

For example, music was often played in classes during the observation period (April 9,

1998: FN#2; April23, 1998: FN#14 May22, 1998: FN#35). It was also noted that girls

did indeed seem more relaxed (April9, 19%: FN#2) and comfortable with their peers in

single-sex classes (April 16, !998: mT#7).

Perhaps most suiking was Mr. McCorrnack7sserious attitude when it came to

teaching the au-boys classes. In cornparison to bath the coeducational and the single-sex

girls' classes Mr. McCormack was noted as k i n g "very serious" (May 15, 1998: FN#32)

and that he did not "joke around" as much (May 15, 1998: FN#32: May 25, 1901(:

FN#38). He explained that "the rnaterial's the same" (Mr. McCormack, I#16, p. 4) in

both girls' and boys' classes, however, the m n n e r in which he r u s the classes may be

slightty different:

For some reason, grade nine girls are much more mature -... 1 can fool around
with thern a little bit more, and then 1 can bring them back on task a lot easier than
the guys. So it rnay seem like I'm a lot harder with the guys [but] it's just that I
can't get off task with them because they don't get back on tasks.
(Mr. McCorrnack, I# 16, p. 4-5)

Many girls, regardless of their ability level, expressed their feelings about the

relaxed atmosphere they perceived in their present or future single-sex cIasses. Sheiia,

reflected on the atmosphere of her single-sex class and called it '%arefreen (Sheila, [#Il,
p. 5, F9). One grade eight girl anticipated king "able to cheer each other on" and

thought that "it'll be a happier class type" (Cathy, I#9, p. 11, Fa).

Girls ofien taIked about the 'fun" they had king in an all-girls class, In this

environment they described doing things that they otherwise would have felt

uncomfortabIe doing in fiont of the boys. For example, one girl,writing about her

positive experience in the single-sex class, remembered:

Me and ali my girlfiiends, one gym class, were redly hyper and we [started
singing] like crazy at the top of our lungs and didn't stop 'till the end of the
period- We sang different songs and had a lot of fun. 1 know that's one thing we
wouldn't have the guts to do in fkont of the guys.
(F9, pos., b8)

Fcelirz~Conrfor-tahie.

In cornparison to the coeducational classes, girls tended to feel more comfonable

in the grade nine classes. When asked to recoiiect a negative experience in her single-sex

class, one girl wrote, ''1 can't think of a negative aspect to king ali girls. Generaily I feel

more at ease'' (F9, neg., d2).

One of the reasons for these increased feelings of ease was feeling less shy and

intimidated by the boys, particularly for the Io wer ability girls, Some of the girls in grade

eight spoke about their feelings towards the boys. For exampIe, Amanda who spoke

openly about her f e e h g s of low self-confidence, said, "1 feel so vulnerable, around them

..., Next year it's not going to be CO-ed- I'm happy. I can't wait. 'Cause I feel very
intimidated in front of the guys" (Arnanda, 1#4, p. 2, F8).

Cormnents fi-om the grade nine girls indicated that they no longer had to worry

about such feelings. Several wrote comments sirnilar to the following: "1 like the lack of

inhibitions that tends to corne about when there are only girls" (F9, pos., d2) and, "what I
like about this class is that every one participates and no one is 'Uitimidated' by the boys"

These feelings of intimidation seem to have played a role in the participation rates

of girls, Mr. M c C o m c k noted that in the coeducationai classes "the girls tend to ... be a

Iittle bit more shy and withdrawn and you have to sort of dis them out of the corners to

get them doing stuff' ( M i McCormack, I#16, p. 3). He noted, however, a shift in

behaviour in the grade nine ail girls class:

You see a Iot more girls coming out in grade nine .... When they're alone just
with girls, then they start pedorrning. And they start having srniles on their face
and you're not digging them out of the corners ,...The girls sort of corne back
into it.
(Mr. McCormack, I#16, p. 5)

He explained that the increased participation he noted in grade nine girls may occur

because, "they're not getting pressure from the boys ....They don't have to worry about

the guys taking their spots ... They're getthg away fiom the boys and they feel i f s their

class" (Mr. McCormack, H16, p. 5).

Lower ability girls' perceptions supported Mr, McCormack's observations. These

girls talked about how their level of participation increased because of their decreased

feelings of shyness, increased feelings of ease, and increased support fiom their peers in

the single-sex class. When asked what she enjoyed about k i n g in a single-sex class,

Nathalie, a sofi-spoken girl in grade nine, rated as "weak" by Mr. McComack, described

her expenence:

Maybe it's just that I was more shy last year 'cause 1 fmd that I'rn not as shy
doing sports this year. It's easier to just go and try it. Even if 1 fail it doesn't
matter, they won't tease me about it .... 1 think it might have ... to do with that
there's no guys, that I'rn less shy.
(Nathdie, I#6, p. 3, F9)
 Another reason girls expressed they felt more at ease was because they did not

have to worry about what the boys would think about them in terms of their physicaI

I'm not as shy or embarrassed, I'rn more comfortable with girls so 1 try more and
1 don't care as much how 1 look --.. If there are guys around I'm more afiaiaid to
mess up so I don't Like participating. 1 just do it 'cause 1 have to.
(F9, pos., b9)

Another girl wrote, "you don't feel as nervous doing certain t h e s in gym class. When

you have gym with boys you feel a lot more stressed. It's fumer having just girls in a

gym class because i f s just more relaxed" (F9, pos., bl 1) . This was aIso noted by the

researcher through the field notes: "the girls . .. seern more concentrated on the task and
less concerned about 'Iooking bad' or making mistakes (April 16, 1998 - FN#7). As a

result of these increased feelings of ease, girls ofien describeci how they were less tirnid to

try new tasks and more apt to increase their participation. This ofien Ied to feelings of

skill irnprovernent and greater enjoyrnent- For example, one girl wrote, "by participating

more 1 practice more so 1 irnprove .,.. 1 didn't look forward to gym or Like it last year

with guys- Now 1 have more fun and I look forward to gyrn ciass during the day" (F9,

pos., b9).

Some of the higher ability girls feh that there stili was not enough participation in

an all-girls class: "weil 1 found that there wasn't a great participation because a lot of the

girls would just sit on the stage and ..- there'd ... end [up] k i n g Like five people on eaçh

team playing. And it ... was no fun" (Cindy, I#3, p. 1, F9). MeIanie, another high ability

grade nine girl, said that in a single-sex class, "most of the girls just sit out" (Melanie,
 Boys also expressed feeling more comfortable in their single-sex classes because,

as Ben said, in the coeducational classes "you feel as if you're king watched. You have

to Mpress people or something" (Ben, I#2, p. 5, M9). Other boys d s o expressed feeling

less comfortable around the girls and therefore preferred the di-boys classes. Brian, for

example, explained that "1 kinda like the single-sex class 'cause you're not self-conscious

about ... what you're doing" (Brian, I#2, p. 4, Mg).

In terms of feeling comfortable in gyrn class, both boys and girls mention that in a

same-sex class they felt most comfortabIe and a t ease. While this does not suggest that

girls and boys enjoyed the coeducational setting less, it is clear that for the most part they

felt less pressure to impress the opposite sex in single-sex classes and, therefore, could

concentrate more on themselves and their own performance. The next section WU

illustrate that tho se who expressed greater enjoyment in the coeducationai setting were

rnostly girIs who enjoyed greater competitio n, chatlenge and participation, and boys who

enjoyed Iess aggression and cornpetition.

Fec-dirle Challen wd.

Feeling challenged and iinproving their skiU were conducive to students'

enjoyment of class. Higher ability girls, for the most part, feIt this occurred in their

coeducational class most ofien, and, therefore, stated their preference for this type of

setting over the single-sex classes- One grade eight girl wrote, "1 like coed class because

it offers a higher challenge for me. Let's say I've completed something with the girls and

it was easy, 1 could go play against the boys for a bit of a challenge" (F8, pos., c23).
 In single-sex classes, higher ability girls often did not feel challenged. When

asked about benefits to king all-girls, Marie and AngeIa asserted that they did not feel

there were any. They explallied:

A: 'Cause you don't increase your skilh.

M: Yeah. If we were given more challenging skills to practice in ail-girls class
maybe we'd think differently. But we all have to stay at the same, not stay at the
same Ievel, but we have to integrate the other people.
A: Yeah, sometimes we go below our ievel,
(Marie & Angela, I#3, p. 7-8,F9)

Cindy, another high ability girl, expIained in her individuaI interview that she would

actualiy prefer a single-sex class over a coeducational class, if she felt challenged enough:

1 think I'd choose the boys-girls class .... But a c t u d y that's not true. Becriuse if 1
was in the other girls' cIass with dl my friends that reaiiy tried hard I'd be happy,
and I'd actually prefer all-girls class 'cause [it'd] be more fun.
(Cindy, I#23, p. 3, F9)

Boys varied in their opinions on which type of class setting they enjoyed most.

Some of the boys expressed greater enjoyment in a coeducationaI setting. In these classes

they felt that everyone was able to participate and that the activities were less violent.

easier and more fun- One boy wrote, "1 don't iike it when girls are not there because if

they were, the activities we do would be a lot easier on u s guys" (M9, neg., e14). Richard

felt sùnilarly about his p hysical education classes and said, "Well Iast year it was more

fun and not as violent and everyone had a chance to participate" (Richard, 1#2, p. 4, Mc)).

Higher ability boys, however, felt more challenged in the ali-boys classes and less

held back by the girls. One boy, writing about a positive expenence playing badminton

said, "it was more fun in a boys' class because it was more chailenging" (M9, pos., fl6).

Another boy wrote, "1 was playing a sport that I like and girIs weren't holding us back"

(Mg,pos., e2).
 The competitive level was also discussed by both girls and boys in ternis of how

chdenged they felt. This topic played a role in students' overail preference of

coeducational versus single-sex classes.

Cornpetition Nz the Class.

The increased competition that some girls felt they had in a coeducational class

settïng was seen as a positive aspect because the class was more challenging. One grade

nine girl remembered, "when there are guys in class (Like last year) there is a lot more

[competition] and often [it is] more chdienging" (F9, neg., b7).

Girls in grade eight had sùnilar perceptions: "1 Wte coed because .+. the girls who

are up for better competition obtain it playing against guys" (F8,pos., c16). While tnany

girls attributed the increased cornpetition in coeducational classes to the presence of the

boys, the boys attributed decreased competition and enjoyment to the presence of girls.

Jeff, a very athletic boy in grade eight, explained his reasoning behind why he did

not enjoy coeducational class very much: "if we're playing basketbali, soccer, anything

reaily competitive. 1 just reaiiy can't stand soinetùiles playing with girls, because it kinda

holds back the game. It's not as upbeat" (Jeff, [#34, p. 1, Mg).

Some girls in grade eight anticipated having less fun or k i n g bored in an aii-girls

class. For example two highly skilled girls explained:

G: Next year it's going to be just girls. We [won't] have fun, 'cause it's just us
that really know how to play.
L: We'll have no competition.
(Gracelyn and Lisa, I#9, p. 10, F8)
Several girls in the grade nine singIe-sex classes reiterated this position. One

grade nine girl, retlecring upon her negative experience, wrote about a touch football

class where "inost of the girls didn't want to play .... It's not that fun because when
you're a good athlete you don't have much competition and it gets boMg at times" (F9.

neg., b8).

WhiIe it seerns that girIs of hïgher ability do enjoy the competitive aspect of

physical education, particularly in the coeducationd setting, m n y of the same girls also

explained that when the cornpetition l e t s too intense and/or aggessive, they no longer

enjoy it. Gracelyn explained, "1 Like competition 'cause it's more fun. But the unly thing

is they &etout of hand after awhiie. They just go crazy and they just play stupid .... So 1

just stop playing with them" (GraceIyn, 1#25, p. I, F8). A grade nine hîgh ability student,

Sheila, explained that "sometimes it's fun to play with the guys to be competitive and

other tirnes it's realiy annoying 'cause they ...take it too far" (Sheila, 1#19, p. 1, F9).

These perceptions support Lenskyj (1 993) who contends that if the "current tendencies

towards agression and the win-at-aiI costs rnentality were modified" (p. 277), perhaps

more women and girls would be attracted to team sports.

Some of the boys in the singIe-sex classes, also expressed a dislike of the

competitive aspect. Discussin~his experience in grade nine, Richard (a small boy in

stature) explained:

1 t W it's a littIe more cornpetitive, and harder to play. The guys don? give you
much of a chance 'cause my height and everything, Girls will let you have a
chance at it and m k e your Life easier.
(Richard, 1#2, p. 1, Mg)

Another boy u m t e about what he did not like in his grade nine class: "it was boring,

because with no girls the competition was too hard" (Mg, neg., a l ) .

Generally, the girIs who talked about their preference for a non-competitive

atmosphere, seemed to be of lower abiiity. For example, Susie remarked that "when it's

not competitive 1 £ind it a lot more fun" (Susie, I#I, p. 1, F9). There were, however,
examples of higher ability girls who clairned that they preferred playhg for fun and

enjoyed "fkiendly cornpetition" (Sarah, I#I 1, p. 5, F9) rather than winning. Nathalie

explained how a non-cornpetitive atmosphere affects her own w f i g n e s s to participate:

1 f k d it's easier on you to not be competitive, because that way sometimes you try
a bit harder. 'Cause when you're competitive you thhk 'well why am I doing
this? 1 can't do it as well as everyone else' so I'll just stop aying. But ifyou're
not in a competitive atmosphere and people are helpinp you then you will try
harder.
(Nathdie, I#6, p. 4, F9)

Sunamarv

Boys, girls and Mr. MeCormack noted the importance cf k i n g able to interact

with peers of the opposite sex in physical education classes. The perceived benefits

included better CO-operationbetween the sexes in the present as well as in the future,

improved ability to work together, and perhaps most irnportantly. the possibility of

changing sexist views about each other.

The class atmosphere, as described by the above sections, played a role in how

girls feel about the+ physical education class as weU as their participation rates. In these

coeducational classes, some girls continued to feel intirnidated by the boys, and as a result

did not participate to their full extent or king. Rather than resist these feelings of

inferionty around the boys, they seerned to internalize them, which offset a do wnward

trend in participation rates. Girls who were more confident in their abilities continued to

participate in both the coeducational settings and the single-sex settings.

It is clear that in these classes they were no t k i n g overtly told that girls were

incapable of participating due to their pender. Nevertheless, these messages continue to

be filtered through in Our society and in schools via the hidden cumculurn Even within
the politically correct society of the go's, pamarchai ideology continues to dorninate and

be accepted,

Some girls o d y felt comfortable enough to begin p a r t i c i p a ~ gwhen they were in

an ail-girl environment- However, many &Is felt more chdenged in a coeducational

setting because the level of cornpetition was greater and they were better able to improve

their skih,

Lower ability boys tended to feel more comfortable Ï n the coeducational setting

because they felt chahnged enough, the activities were easier and not as competitive,

and they had more fun. Higher ability boys were more challengeci in the dl-boys setting

where they felt they were not held back by girls and the competitive level was higher.

On many occasions girls emphasized the importance of k i n g reIaxed and having

fun. Mr. McCormack explaineci that ofien this was the approach he took when teaching

his grade nine girls' classes. As a resuIt he may be reaching more girls because thek

values and beliefs are k i n g taken into account. The class atmosp here seems conducive

to the successful participation of many girls who, in the presence of boys, would

otherwise not participate at all. M i l e this seems a positive factor in light of the fact that

many girls claimed that they just wanted to have fun and be reIaxed in gym class, is this

not also perhaps reinforcing the message that physical education and sport are less senous

for girls? This type of relaxed atmos~herecompared to the more senous atmosphere

noted in the ali-boys classes may be playing a role in the perpetuation of stereotypical

beliefs that physical education and sport is an arena that girls do not take seriously but

boys do. In addition to this it rnay accentuate the notion that girk cannot be taken

seriously in this context, w M e boys can. Perhaps, ho wever, it truly is a more gender
equitable situation, because Mr. M c C o m c k is s h p l y responding to what the girls are

voicing as their preference for the class atmasphere-

Another possibility is that this type of atrnosphere rnay s h p l y be a naturd

response to what Mr. M c C o m c k felt was the higher maturity level of the girls. If too

much freedom were given to the boys, diffculties would arise because, as Mr.

McCormack explained, they may Set off task too easily. Girls, he explained, can handle

Iess structure and continue to be productive, while this may not be the case for boys.

How are Stereotv~esPer~etuatedor Reiected?

Rovs as t h e Norm

Boys were often used as the reference point in students' discussions about their

physical abilities and particularly girls' abilities. One example of many of the girls'

perceptions is the foliowing quote, when Cathy said, "1 thhk that it's better to have guys

in your class 'cause ...you can compare yourself" (I#9, p. 11, F8).

Some girls used the male norm as a justification for their perceived lower ability.

Julie used the boys' ability levels as a standard that she cannot meet and explained that

even "if 1 tried harder ... 1 won't be as good as they are1'(Julie, I#10, p. 3, F8). Helen felt

sunilarly to Julie explaining further how, as a result of this standard, her participation was

inhibited: "weli sometirnes 1 don't want the baLl 'cause I know I can't play as weU as a

guy could" (Helen, I#22, p. 1, Fa).

Not all girls used the standards set by the boys as something they felt they could

not achieve. Cindy, a high ability girl, also used the boys' abilities as a benchmark, but

u&e Julie and Helen, she felt that she and her friends couId meet it: "1 think basically

aii of our abilities [referring to the two other girls in her focus group] are just as good as

the guys' abilities. Like some of the stronger ggus' abilities too" (Cindy, 1#3, p. 4, F9).
One can see from Cindy7scomment that she perceived herseIf just as able as the boys in

her class. What becomes evident, however, is that the gkk in this study did not feel that

they could rate their ability in their own right, but only as compared to the boys.

Boys &O used the male norm as a reference point when discusshg girls' abilities.

Ross, a low ability grade eight boy, stated, "1 kno w one o r two girls that play sports ike

anyone else. You know like any other guy" (Ross, I#7, p. 1, Mg). His choice of words

ailudes to the stereotypical belief that males dominate in this area and are the standard to

which O t hers must conforn

It is evidsnt that alrhough both gkls and boys, on the surface, accept the

participation of girls - that they have a right to participate, that they can participate and

that they can succeed - the belief that boys are the norm in physical education and sport

continues to be reproduced. Anything that does not fit into this patriarchal ideology is

seen in a negative light. As one can see from the following exchange between a group of

lower ability grade eight girls, this type of thinking affects even how girls feel about the2

own fernininity:

C: [Girls] have to keep up the picture of k i n g ferninine.

Resc.ai-chc.r:Atrd do yort agr-ee ~ i t that?
h
C: WeU, not when you play sports .... I f you're ferninine while playing foo tbali or
sornething it makes you look stupid.
Reseur-cher: Su spoi-tsisr r 't fenziizirrc?
C: WeU, some sports you can play being feminine but then there's others where
you just can't be ferninine while playing it.
Researclzer-: Su what du yotc huve ru be?
C : Just be yourself.
J: What if your self is ferninine'!
C: Weli then don't try to be yourself.
(Carolyn & Julie, I#10,p. 8, F8)

Higher ability güls felt similarly. Not wanting to be IabeLled "a girl," they suive to

behave as the boys do:

 Sh: When you're around the guys you s t m k i n g more cornpetitive because thac's
how they are.
L: You're trying to show thern that you're just as good as they are.
S: Yeah, you're not 'a girl'.
(Leah, Sarah, Sheila, M 1 1 , p- 6, F9)

The pervasiveness of these beliefs demonstrates how girls and boys are king

tau@ to perceive king a female and anything related to feminuiity as a hindrance to

their athletic success, as well as to view the male norm as the standard by which to judge

thernselves. It is Little wonder that so m n y girls demonstrate a lack of confidence with

themseives and their abilities.

Nat u re versus Nu rt u re

E~zviro~tntental
Effects,

Chepyator-Thomson and Ennis (1997) argue that high school students are

influenced not only by the school environment but also by familial and societal practices

and structures. Many students, particuIarly boys, in the present study, discussed how both

parental and societal influences affected the participation of girls and boys.

For some boys, societal influence came across in discussions about professional

sports figures and teams. Often through this medium boys are taught that to participate

successfully, one must demonstrate particular chmcteristics, includuig competitiveness

and aggessiveness. The following quote demonstrates how Dan, through the images he

has seen k o m professional sports, had been influenced:

When you watch basketball or hockey you always see puys jumping over other
guys and leaning on them to go up and ... they don't get fouls for it .... And m.
M c C o m c k ' s ] saying if you touch a guy you get a foul. But it's really not very
me.
(Dan, I#8, p. 9, M8)
 Cornpetitive and aggressive irnages of sports figures f?om the media affected the

way Dan, and other boys, viewed participation in sports. ML McCormack's expIanation

of what a "'foul" is became untrue in Dan's eyes and did not aUow him to participate in the

manner which has k e n perpetrated as normal thro ugh professional sports.

Parental influence also played a key roIe in students' perceptions about their own

and their peers' participation. This influence, rather than affecting the nratrner in which

boys and girls participated, was discussed in more general terrns as to whether or not it

affected students to participate ut ull. When girls were seen as successful in the sporting

domain, ofien it was justified by having had an earIy introduction to it as a child. Tim

explained, "1 think if the girls started off at the same age that most of the guys did they

could be at the same b e l " (Tim, I#5, p. 4, Mg). Edward expIained this concept in

relation to both boys' and girls' participation and said that, "it's probably because most of

the guys are brought up playing sports al1 their Lives. Girls haven't. You know when

people say 'you throw Iike a girl' it's because most girls [fiave] never thrown a basebaii

before, practicdiy" (Edward, 187, p. 2, Mg).

Parental influence and beliefs were seen as the dominating factor in either

dkecting the child into sport and successfui participation or not. One grade nine boy

explained, "yeah, it's basicaily the parents that influence the kids' decision on sport"

(Patrick, I#5, p. 7, Mg). Students also explained that many parents still had stereotypical

concepts about girls' participation in sport. For example, John concluded that "some

parents just think 'oh, girls shouldn't play the sport"' (John, I#5, p. 4, Mg).

Stereotypical notions of how one rnust participate successfully in sport and

physicd education continued to be reproduced through boys' acceptance of the images

they saw through professional sports. Many of these adolescents express the view that
participation in sports for boys and girls depends on M u e n c e fiom parents, though many

still see their parents positively influencing the boys and negatively influencing the girls.

The students' beliefs that parental influence phyed an important role in theu own and

their peers' sports participation indicates a shift in traditio nally stereotypical beliefs that

accentuate boys as the "natural" participants in physical activity and sport due to their

genetic rnake-up. Nevertheless, indications that these types of beiiefs still influence

students' perceptions about d e s and females will be discussed in the next section.

Discussions of boys' "natural" qualities in sport and physical education often

revolved around traits such as competitiveness and aggressiveness. Explainmg why she

felt boys are more competitive, Lisa said, "1 thïdc they're just born like that" (Lisa, 1#9, p.

2, Fa). Madyn, a lower abïiity grade nine girl, explained, "most guys are competitive.

You can't say anything, they are .,..They're made Like that .... It's true. In everything

they do they're competitive .... 1 guess it's the male character" (Marilyn, I#37, p. 1, FY).

This type of thinking was also noted with the boys. When asked why he felt girls

were Iess able to play fuil contact sports, Jeff responded with:

I'tn ... k i n g stereotyping [Mbut it's pretty rnuch not in women's nature [laughs
Uncomfortably] .... 1 guess it's that men are more competitive. 1 find that when
you play, you have a desire to play to your IÙU capacity and ... you want to win
just from pure instinct. You don't think .... Girls play just to pass tirne sometimes
.... T h d that guys are a little bit stronger. Everybody knows it but it's hard to
say because you know society today it's a big thing .... 1 find it's more natural
even though we are ...civilized no W. But even if you look at ... monkeys or
something like that ... the males are always practicing beating each other .... It's
just through evolution that ... it's k e n like that for ail the t h e .
(Jeff, 1#7, p. 1-2, M8)

What is important to note here is the emphasis throuehout all these quotes on

boys' ùinate characteristics. Qualities that are uaditionaiiy seen as essential to successful
participation in sport continue to be associated with "the male character" and as part of

"evo lution."

Most of the students claimed, in blanket statements, that boys were too

competitive. Patrick, a grade nine medium-high ability boy said, "Boys can be a little too

competitive when it cornes to different sports. Like contact sports, they'll be reaiiy

cornpetitive" (Patrick, M35, p. 1, Mg). Another grade eight girl wrote, "Some, not ail,

guys are too competitive and take the game too seriously" (F8,neg,, a24). When boys did

not demonstrate these behaviours, girls thought this mange and sometirnes funny. For

example, these girls discussed their reaction to an episode they describeci fiom their class

when one Iower ability boy complained about the other boys' aggressive behaviour:

C: It makes you Iaugh.

G: It's funny seeing a guy iike that.
(Cathy & Gracelyn, I#9, p. 10, F8)

However, many of the boys esplained that they did not enjoy their classes when

they became too competitive and aggressive. John, rated as "average" by Mr.

McCormack, clairneci that the increased competition in an ail-boys class was "not that

bad, but it can let annoying sometimes" (John, I#5, p. 12, Mg). Richard explained that

"when they l e t rough on me i f s no use playing. It's no challenge. It's no fun" (Richard,

Most students perceived boys as a homogeneous group of individuals

d e m o n s t r a ~ gtraditionally gender specific behaviours. It is thus evident that the notion

of competitive and a g ~ e s s i v emales k i n g the n o m c o n ~ u e dto be perpetuated. Girls'

behaviour, however, was perceived as more heterogeneous. For example, rnany

individuals of both genders comrnented that girls were generaliy not as competitive. One

girl wrote, "there s e e m to be Iess competition within aii girls" (F9, pos., dl). Jeff also
thought that "less girls are as competitive as guys" (Jeff, 1#34, p. 1, Mg). However,

others refuted this notion. Jason, when asked his opinion on the comment made by some

students that girls were not very competitive, responded with, "you can't reaUy say that

about every girl, 'cause 1 know there [are] some girls in the other class that are very

cornpetitive" (Jason, 1#3 1, p. 1, Mg)- Helen felt that in certain situations girls are

competitive, wMe in O thers they may not be. She explained that "maybe when they play

with boys, they're not as cornpetitive because the guys are way too competitive and

they're not having fun. But when girls play with girls it can get really cornpetitive too"

(Helen, I#22, p. 1, F8). Emily, had a unique perspective of girls and their level of

competitiveness:

Girls are competitive with everybody. They're competitive with the girIs and
they're competitive with the guys because that's what they've been taught, to De
competitive against those you think are your opponents. But guys don't see girls
as opponents.
(Emily, I#24, p. 2, F9)

It seerns that though the notion of girls being non-coinpetitive continued to be

perpetuated, there were also some incidents of this king rejected, Nevertheless,

stereotypical notions of boys king naturaily competitive and agressive continue to be

reproduced. Boys' level of competitiveness is often used as the n o m . The use of the

fiagrnent "as competitive as boys" by several of the students points to the importance they

place on boys' qualities in physical education as the standard by which others are judged.

Rovs Dominatinr t h e Class

Students seemed to think that males were the dominant force in physical education

and sport. Male behaviours and characterktics, which were seen as the reference point in

these classes, were also seen as inherent. girhile on the one hand it is clear that students

played a role in perpetuating this notion, seudents also expressed a dislike of some of the
dominant behaviours demonstrated by the boys. The following quotes are just two

examples of what some of the students thought. Marie said about the boys, "they think

that they can be the heads of the gyrn class ... and 1 don't hcithat appropriate" (Marie,

I#3, p- 1, F9). Two grade eight girls talked about boys' dominant behaviour as w e k

N: If they could play with the real rules we'd probably l e t somewhere.
C: Yeah, exactly 'cause they want to foilow their rules, rules they make-
N: It's iike the guys' rules of gym They're like 'this is how we play and if you
don? want to play you go with somebody else.'
(Naorni & Cathy, I#9, p. 12-13, F8)

Examples of girls and boys both perpetuating and rejecting the notion of dominant

boys and submissive girls were evident in this study and occurred through a variety of

avenues in the classes where boys held decision making positions. Whether or not

students accepted or rejected stereotypes seemed to have an effect on who controiled the

ball during lame play, team structure, and boys' and girls' participation,

Coi~ti-olqf the Bnll.

One way in which boys dominated the class activities was in the control of the bail

- who was passed to and when. Girls had conficting ideas about why the boys did not
pass the bal1 to the girls. Some girls felt it was because the boys assumed that girls were

not good enough. One girl wrote, 'The boys do not pass the baU to the girls. The boys

think (1 guess) that girls can't play sports. When the girls are 'open' the guys on Our team

[look] for a guy to pass to" (F8,neg., a7).

Some expressed that it was a result of what they perceived as the boys' superior

abilities. One girl wrote, "It is kind of obvious that rnost of.. . the guys play better sports

than most of the girls and when 1 am in a team with the guys, 1 never get a hold of the

bali" (F8,neg., c22).

 Others felt that it was because the girls did indeed demonstrate inferior abilities.

One girl, describing her negative experïence in her coeducational class, wrote, " We

[were] pIaying basketball. The boys won't pass the ball [to] Just because we are

not good" (FS,neg., c2).

The students' reactions to this occurrence demonstrated how this behaviour is

mostly rnaintained in the coeducational classes, Sorne students o bjected to boys' control

of the b d and actively ensured that they were passed the bali, while others accepted it.

Rania, a low ability girl expressed her feelings quite poignantIy about how she reacted:

R: 1 want to play for fun, and I'm not that good at some sports. So ... whenever
they're that cornpetitive, they dways take the b a l or always do somethùig, so 1
don't really get a chance to play.
Resear-cher: Ok. So how do yort r-eactto that? What happelu their?
R: 1 d o n t really do anything and I never really Say anything, 1just stand there or 1
feel a bit disappointed [that] I didn't get a chance. But 1 never go ... tell the
teacher or anything. I don't really t e l anybody that,
Resear-cher-:Why rrot?
R: It is, in a way, a big deal for me but ... I don't think a lot of people would
thhk it would be that important and they wouldn't r e d y Iisten.
Researchcr: WJzy M'OLIZ~ you flzirlk thut if'stzot thut inzpop-ta~it?
R: 'Cause probably if 1 told somebody they would just say 'oh it's just a game'.
Nobody would reaUy listen- They would just think that, it's just not reaLly that
important, 'cuz it's just a game and nobody really cares. But 1 never r e d y asked
the teacher .... 1 donTtreaily react in an anzry way. 1 don't yell at anybody, or at
any of the guys.
(Rania, I#2 1, p. 1, F8).

One can sense fiom this exchange between the interviewer and Rania, the helplessness

and disappointnient felt in this situation. Rania would like to participate, yet she is not

king allowed to do so by those students who are in control of the bali. Nevertheless,

rather than stand up for herself, Rania, feeling as though no one would listen or care,

quietly stands back, and allows for this to recur. Rania's acceptance of the boys'

dominance and control played a role in the perpetuation of this stereotype in boys'

behavio ur.
 Similarly to Rania, Manlyn (I#37,p. 2, F9) also accepted the boys' control of the

garne. She noted that although this behaviour is "discnminatory" and made her feel

"rejected," she &O thought that it really was not "that bad" and chose to "ignore it."

Marilyn continuously downplayed the occurrence and significance of boys not passing to

@ls, and did not take action to prevent it £tom happening, thereby playhg a in the

reproduction of these types of incidents.

S heila looked at the issue of controlling the ball in a siightly different light. Her

perspective demonsuated how higher abiiity girls tended to deal with this type of

situation. She discussed her experience whie playing coeducational ïntrarnural

S: Most of the people that participate in intramurals are guys and then there's only
a few girls. So O bviously you're gonna get the bail less because they don't really
realize they spike it at each other,
Reseal-clzer: Hus it e w -lzuppend tu yozr thut y o d rYebcm pIuyit~gm d the buIl
hasn't bmrr passed to you? Or tltut you felt thut y011 ~ w - m g' it w n tlzc~chunce?
S : Yeah, But then you just go take the ball and then you show them that you want
to be in it, If you just sit there and you cornplain they're just gonna ignore you.
But if you show that you want to participate by going and taking the bali and
servùig ... then they'il inciude you in the game.
(Sheila, I#l9, p. 2, F9)

Sheila's confidence in her athletic abilities played a role in the asseniveness that she took

when not passed the b d . In this sense, she rejected the stereotypical beiief of girls not

behg 'gooà enough' to play with boys, and assumed an active roIe in the game. Her

response was indicative of many of the higher ability girls' perceptions.

While 'hogging the bail', as many girls called it, was perceived by sorne of the

girls as standard behaviour by the boys, other girls noted that it did not occur that often,

Additionally, sotne girls noted that as the boys matured and learned to play alongside

girls, the occurrence of this event diminished or disappeared altogether. One girl wrote,
 "at first, the guys hogged, but when they lemed to pas, it was great. Guys are fun to be

with, but not'when they are chauvinistic and hog the baii" (Fa,pos., a16). Jeff, also

talked about this in ternis of how he changed his behaviour as he became more

accustomed to p1aying in a coeducational setîing:

Last year 1just totaily did not pass it. I just hated it .... Now I'U tale it l e s
competitively ....I won't be like 'ok soccer game, I reaiiy want to play my
hardest'. Now I'ii just have the bail for a couple of seconds and I'U pass to the
girk and let them have fun .... 1 find it's not as fun as it would lx, but you know,
they have to have their fun too.
(Jeff, I#34, p. 1-2, M8)

It would seem, frorn this quote, that Jeff had rejected the notion of not passing to girls.

However, in the s a m e interview he ais0 explained why he often did not pass the baii to

s o k of the girls:

Mr. McCormack rnakes us pass to them -.. but 1 kinda sometÏmes instïnctively try
not to pass to them Sometims 1 avoid passing [to] them, because I know that
*;
they'li lose the baU. But there're occasionai tiines where I did p a s to them and
they did pretty weU .... Some girls are good at certain games, and I know that, but
there's SOI& that you just know right away that they're not gonna do weU.
(Jeff, 1#34, p. 1, M8)

Whiie Jeff on the one hand rejected stereotypical ûeliefs about control of the ball,

he ais0 maintaineci them This type of thinking is reflective of how many of the boys feIt.

Boys acknowledged girls' abilities and their desire to play alongside the girls, however

they becarne fnrstrated when girls dernonstrated behaviours that made it difficult-for a

game to be played. W e boys m y have often controlled the baii during garne play, girls

pIayed a role in perpetuating this occurrence. Girls' lack of participation during a game

may have been at times a resuIt of boys controlling the ball, however, it was aiso a result

of their inaction when the opportunity to participate arose. Kevin, a grade nine boy,

expressed his frustration with sorne of the gir1.s who did not attempt to try to get the baU.

He expiained, ''We're]phying vdeyball and they're standing in the corner and it cornes
and they don't even move ....It hits the floor and the other tearn gets a point and it gets
g awhile7'(Kevin, I#2, p. 5, M9)-
h s t r a ~ after

n i e above quotations suggest that girls considered the boys to be in charge and

controiled the games played. Students' choice of words when describing how boys

control the baIl and the^ reaction to it illustrated this point. For example, Sheila said that

girls have to "show them" that they want the baL Can it not be assumed that if an

individual signs up to play intramurals, it is because they do indeed want to play? Why

then do girls continue to feel as though they have to prove thernselves and show the boys

that they can and want to play'! Sports in this sense continue to be seen as a male domain

and girls must prove thernselves in order to be uicluded. While they may not always feel

this acceptable or fair, girls look upon this behaviour by some of the boys as normal and

expected. Sheila noted that "they7U include you," pohting out again that boys continue to

be given the role of deciding who WU and will not play. She even goes so far as to say

"they don't really realize." painting to the notion that boys are not reaUy çonscious of

their behaviour and, therefore, cannot truly be held responsible for it.

Girls also played a role, ho wever, in the perpetuation of these stereotypes because

of their inaction when faced with a situation of boys "hogging the baii." Rather than

assert themselves by actively participating in the game, rnany girls accepted this

behaviour and shied away from the game. As a result, girls and boys who are actively

playing l e m to ignore those girls and not pass them the bail.

Tetlm Folrnatimt.

One of the purposes of a coeducational class is to enhance the interaction of the

two sexes in a sporthg type setting, on t e a m and in different roles on the teams. It may
seem, on the surface that the students are g e t ~ agrnixed-sex experience, however, upon

deeper analysis it becomes evident that this may not be the case (Baiiey, 1996). The

division of tearns in these coeducationai classes is an interesthg aspect of how both the

boys and girIs viewed each others' roles and abilities in the physical education class and

how they either reinforced or refuted the notion of separathg the sexes. Additionaily, the

notion of boys king in charge and in control rnay have for some of the students, k e n

reinforced, as it was noted that ofien the way teams were divided and the roles students

played on the team, was a function of the boys' decision making.

Observations of this were noted on several occasions. For example, in one

instance two boys on a team with three girls discussed which girls would start the game

and which would sit on the side and wait for a turn to play. This occurred while the girls

waited and then responded bydoing as the boys said (Aprii 28, 1998: FN#lt3). A sirnilar

occurrence was noted in one of the single-sex boys' classes where three higher ability

boys were hem3 t e h g the other two boys on their team (who were of lower abüity)

where to stand, who to pass to and who to defend against (May 25, 1998: FN#39). In

both of these instances a few boys were seen dominating and c o n t r o h g the flow of the

game. Rather than stand up for thernselves and make their own decisions, both the girIs

and the two lower ability boys in each of the classes, allowed for this to occur.

Similarly to Chepyator-Thomson and Ennis' (1 997) fmdings, a discrepancy

between the manner in which students expressed how they felt about mixed versus

segregated teaxns and how they actuaiiy behaved in fomring them was noted. When

given the choice, many students selected their teams dong gender Enes, however, both

boys and girls also felt that there should be more of an effort to divide the tearns equaily

among genders and abiIity levels. Playing on a mked team was ofien noted as a positive
event by both boys and girls. For exampIe, one k y wrote, "1 like it when we play muted

sports, Mixed teams give good variety, and w e get to be wit h our fnends of either sex"

(Ma, pos., a20). Patrick, a grade nine boy, also enjoyed mixed teams because he felt that

"when there's girls it's more mixed so you don't have one team that's suong and the

other team that's weak" (Patrick, I#35, p- 2, Mg)-

AIthough many students enjoyed working together on a team and expressed the

importance of rnïxing together, their actions, when given the responsibility to form their

own groups, demonstrated that there rernaïned a strong undercurrent of beliefs upholciing

the notion of segegating @ls and boys. While on a very few occasions it was noted that

students of both genders formed goups together (Apri129: 1998, EN#2 l), observations of

teams king formed aIong gender h e s were noted most often. For example, during a

cIass heid outdoors, students were told to practice their football throws. The students in

this class separated themselves along the field. Boys placed thernselves on the right side

of the field, passing the baU between thetn, whiie the girls too k up the lefi side of the

field. During the same class, students were asked to find panners and everyone chose a

same-sex partrier (April23, 1998: FN#13). This is only one example of what occurred

whenever students were asked to form their own groups.

When asked why girls and boys often rernained separate when requested to form

teams, Helen responded, "cause you go with your fiends most of the time" (Helen, I#15,

p. 14, F8). Many of the girls made sirnilar comments. Maintaining groups based on

same-sex fiends was important for some of the students, however, for others this was not

so. When questioned why the boys and girls forrned gender-separate teams, many of the

girls explained that they would not have minded forrning a team with the boys (some
would have even enjoyed it more). They continued explainuig, however, that the boys

did not want to go with the girls:

C: We try to mix a Iot of the tirne. We're like 'k let's be together', and they'll
[the boys] be Uce 'are you crazy'?
N: When there's barely anybody there, they'li be Zike 'ok', but when their fiiends
corne it's Eke 'ok, weli we're going to play, you guys go over there.'
(Naomi & Cathy, I#9, p. 12 , F8)

Another group of grade eight girls, this tirne of lower ability, expressed a similar view:

F: Sometimes we're like 'oh, can we be on your reüm?' and they're [the boys] like
'ugh, oh my gosh' [in an exasperated tone].
A: 'No t you again' .- . that's what they Say.
(Amanda & Felicia, 1#4, p. 6, F8)

From the above two exchanges between the two groups of grade eight girls one can see

that girls of both high and Iow ability wouId enjoy and perhaps even prefer to be on a

mixeci team They claÏrned though that it is only when the boys allowed this to occur that

it did. It seeins that boys continued to play the decision making role and, with at least one

aspect of the class, team formation, did not aliow for some of the girls' needs and wants.

While the boys' actions demonstrated that they play a role in perpetuating

stereotypical beiiefs of girIs' abilities as well as their own domination in the realrn of

physical education, girls' acceptance of it and inaction towards changing the decision-

nak king position points to the role they played in the reproduction of these stereotypes.

The girls, rather than standing up for themselves and deciding to rnix with the boys,

perpetuated a stereotflicai view of submissive girls. Another way in which girls played a

role in perpetuating the notion of dominant boys was by choosing not to f o m a rnixed

team when the opportunity arose:

 1 was with a group of fitends and there was two people at a cone, when you were
supposed to be six or sometlÜng. And it was two guys that were very competirive
and they [sorne girls] didn't want to go 'cause they were &aid that t hey [the
boys] would be watching them and judaging them
(Carolyn, I#IO, p. 9, F8)

Examples of boys playing a role in the perpetuation of stereotypes was also

evident. The reasons given by some boys for not wanting to team up with girls,

demonstrated the stereotypical beliefs they sometirnes had about girls in .sport. Their

biased beliefs about girls maintained segregation between the sexes, even while many

girls expressed a desire to participate alongside the boys:

1: They don't want to break their nails or something, or get d

l sweaty.
[Boys Iaugh]
D: Yeah, that's it- S o ... then you go with the guys 'cause you know they'll end
up playing the sport you want to do, 'cause they're guys. You're a guy, so ...
[you] wanna do the same thing ... you have stuff in cornmon.
(Dan & lan, I#8, p. 6, M8)

Dan and Ian's reasoning behind not forming a team with @ls was based in stereotypical

beliefs about the girls. Conversely, other boys expressed opinions that reflected a desire

to form tearns with girls. However, many boys became frustrated with mixed tearns

because of what they perceived to be behaviour typical of girls. John, a gracie nine boy,

expressed his perceptions about this type of situation:

Last year there'd be girls that ... just didn't want to do anything. So if you were
on a voUeybaU team and Mr. McCormack had already formed the tearns, you'd
be standing there and then two girls would Say 'oh 1 don't want to play' and
they'd go sit on the side -... When [the tearns are] aiready formed and the t w o
girls Say 'to heli with this' then you're left with a short team
(JOhn, I#5, p. I ,M9)

In this light it seerns that inixed teams were often tzot being formed in the

coeducational classes as a result of some of the girls' behaviour and decisions to not go

on a team with boys or to sirnply not participate when the opportunity arose. Students

who would have liked to participate on a rnixed team rnay not have k e n getting a fair
chance to do so because of this- Girls' reactions to forming &ed-sex tearns, like those

described by Carolyn and John, maintained f e e h g s of frustration between boys and girls

and rnay have played a role in encouraging sex-segregated teams. Thus stereotypes in

regards to participation with one another continued to be perpetuated.

James, a grade nine boy, noted the negative repercussions of maintaining sex-

segregated teams, for both girls and boys of d i f f e ~ gability levels. He remarked that

during his grade eizht experience, teams would often end up separated dong gender h e s

and, as a result, some of the students may have k e n losing out:

1: Let's say if we were to play ... basketbail or something. It wouldn't be mixed.

You'd have the girls' line and then the guys' Line-
Rescar-cher:Do you thirrk rhaf'sfair- that yorr're srîpposed tu be in a cocd cluss bru
rhen r-ighr thet-eyou 're separ-atirzg girls aïrd boys?
1: It's not really fair because chen ... there's a super good girl and she7splaying
with ... lesser ability than she should play with. She should be playing with better
people. Or if there's a guy that is super good and he wants to play with the good
team and the good tearns on t h e girls' .... 1 think it should be judged on putting
everybody on the same ability, so there should be a strong line and a weak line.
(James, I#17,p. 5-6, Mg)

Both boys and girls expressed frustration with each other when discussing the

topic of team formation, This occurred when girls' desires to mix with the boys were

hindered by stereotypical beliefs about fernales. However, behaviours demonstrated by

some girls occasionally promoted the perpetuation of these beliefs - sitting out of games,

accepting boys' decision making and hangÏng back when the opportunity arose to form

gender-mixed tearns. These behaviours were often the impetus for boys' fmstration,

Pnrticipntion o f Bovs aiid Girls.

Students' participation was affected by some of the boys' more dominant

behaviour including those discussed in the previous two sections, as weU as through

teasing, buliying and intimidation. M e n girls and boys demonstrated behaviours or

beiiefs that pomayed a rejection of stereotypical behaviours, their participation was less

iikely to be negatively Hected. For example, higher ability girls, as weli as some of the

boys, expressed feelings of hcreased self-coniïdence and a more assertive response to the

behavioiir demonstrated by sorne of the boys. As a result their Ievel of participation was

no t necei;sariIy negatively affected. Other researchers have found a positive relationship

between ferndes' self-confidence and participation in physical activity (Lirgg, 1992).

Cindy, a high abiiity girl in grade nine, felt that her "selfconfidence" and "not realIy

caring what other people think of me" (Cindy, 1#23, p. 1, F9) helped her to participate

fully, regardles of what the boys did. Cindy's opinion reflected a more confident

reaction to participating alongside boys and was indicative of how some of the higher

ability girls felt in a coeducationd setting.

Richard, a smaiier grade nine boy rated "average" by Mr. McCormack, discussing

bis response to king teased and intimidated by the higher abïLity boys said, "Sornetünes

it doesn't bother me. I just forget about it, and keep continuing playing, but sornetirnes it

does. Whenever they get reaUy rough and they start hurting me bad, that's when I Cet

mad and stuff' (Richard, I# 18, p. 2, Mg). Richard was observed in an incident in which

he was being teased and "pushed around" by some of the higher abiiity boys (May 25,

1998: FN#38). His response was one of frustration and determination to continue playing

and succeed over those particular boys. M i l e he may have felt intimidated as a result of

the "bullying," rather than reduce his participation, he responded by increasing it and

playing harder. He did, however, begin to tum his frustration onto his teammates,

through y e h g a t them Therefore, wMe his participation remained high, one could see

that, with his growing fnistration, h e was not necessady having a positive experience.

Laurie, a 10wer-ability grade eight girl said:

 L: WeU 1 uy to get into the game. It's tnie that [some guys] don? give us a
chance ...but if you try to get into the game, it'ii work out sorta-
Researcher: So you feel you are givetz enongh of a chance?
L: Not enough but you get some, It depends on who you're pIaying with.
Sometimes you do get a chance but sometimes you don't.
(Laurie, 1#14, p. 3, F8)

Laurie seemed to demonstrate a more assertive response by trying to "get into the game."

Nevertheless, what came across as an easy-going response to boys not giving her a

chance, seems to indicate that she does not see this as a significant event- In this sense

she accepted the boys' behaviour, thereby perpetuating, rather than refuting, male

domination in her class environment.

A belief and reproduction of stereotypes such as an acceptance of male

domination in physical education led to a decrease in participation for m n y girls- Both

boys and girls in grade eight expressed their feelings about why some girls dernonstrrited

Iower participation rates, particularly in the coeducational classes.

When asked what would make her want to participate more, Carolyn explaineci,

"if the guys were more CO-operative. [IfJ aIl of them wouId actually give everybody a ...
fair chance ... to play*' (Carolyn, M O , p. 2, F8). Many girls expressed s i d a r feelings,

particularly in discussions with or about lower-ability girls. Julie opined that "maybe the

girls are a h i d [of getting the bail] because the suys never gave thern a chance" (Julie,

I#10, p. 2, FS). Students often perceived that as a result of boys' behaviour, girls had Iess

of a chance to participate in physical education. Ross explained, "the majonty of them

are probably intermediate but maybe they don't try as hard ... because of the guys ... not

letting them take the chances [to] explore their capabilities" (Ross, I#33, p. 1, M8).

He acknowIedged boys' control and domination in his class when they did not let

"them take the chances [to] explore their capabilities," further inhibithg the girls'
participation. He felt that girls' lower participation is not necessarily because of lower

skili levels, rather it rnay have been a result of boys' behaviour. Another boy aIso

recognized this occurrence:

Resear-cher-:How do yori sec. the strtderzts tr-earitrg each orher-Nr p r r r - class?

J: I find the guys are kind of like ...pushing away the females when they're
playing. It's kind of like 'ugh 1 don't want to play with them' because a lot of
them are just not good-
(Jeff, 1#7, p- 9,Mg)

The participation levels of Iower ability girls seem to have been more negatively affected

in a coeducational setting than those of higher ability girls. This was due in large part to

the different reactions these two groups of girls had towards the d o m i n e e ~ gbehaviour

demonstrated by the boys.

Support for this argument cornes from grade nine girls' perceptions that in a

single-sex class. girls' participation became more involved. The following written

recoilection of a positive experience reflects what many girk felt:

When you're all girls, f fmd it more Likely that you become active and try to
participate in aU activities. In voUeybaU, there are no guys to spend the whole
class spiking the bali at each other, so that we girls never touch the b a l In
basketbali, girls actually get to score and pass the baU to each other, whereas with
guys we never touch it.
(F9, pos., d12)

Women as Sexual Ob iects

Perhaps one of the most pointed reminciers that gender equity in physical

education has not yet been attained is the sexualized manner in which girls are viewed by

boys, While not all boys expressed this view, it is cIear that girIs in the realm of physical

education and sport are not always viewed as equal participants, but as sexud objects to

be looked at and judged by their appearance. Evidence of this was seen through the
students' behaviour towards each other, as well as through the opinions voiced by both

the girls and the boys.

During an interview with Dan, Rob and Ian, when asked if they anticipated any

negative aspects to k i n g all boys they responded:

1: There's no Nls.
R: Yeah, exactly.
Rcse~rche~-: That's the o d y 1-easotz? Thar ther-e' ci bë tio girls?
R: Uh yeah
[Dan Iaughsf
Resear-cher: Ok, brtt they'r-e out ther-e in the lrull~~uyut i r c c x ~right
, afrct- su.. .
R: Yeah, but they're wearing short shorts in gym class.
[Dan laughs]
R: 1 rnean short shorts.
Resear-cher: So that' s whut yorr like about Deijig nriewd uith girls?
R: Not completely, but that's part of it,
(Dan, Rob, Ian, I#8, p. 8, M8)

This h e of thinking was expressed by several of the boys in both grade eight and

nine. One grade nine boy wrote about his negative expenlence in an all-boys class: "You

can't see girls in short shorts .-..There are never any girls to stare at" (Mg, neg., e 1).

Again taking about girls, one boy wrote, "they were fun to stare at" (Mg, neg., fl).

Another boy in grade nine wrote, "there were never any girls to stare at in skimpy

u n i f o ~ "(Mg, neg., e2). Yet again, "the worst part is that there7s no good-Iooking

chicks in here" (M9, neg, f7), and "1 waked into class and didn't see girls to look at"

(Mg, net., f l l), and "there were no chicks to look at" (Mg, neg., f13). JeE, who had

previously stated that he did not like participating with girls, when asked if there was

anything he liked about k i n g mixed with girls, laughed and said, "they're pretty, that's

good" (Jeff, I#7, p. 1O, Mg). Finally, another boy wro te, "there [are] no girls!!

[underlined twice] No pune!" (Mg, neg., e18). The use of the word "pune," a slang word
used to describe the female genitai area, accentuates the derogatory fashion in which

these boys viewed the girls,

While girls did not corne nght out and Say that they felt they were king viewed as

sexud objects, they were certainly king affected by the boys' perceptions of them This

c m be seen in the way they described dBerent experiences within their classes. For

example, one girl wrote about a negative experience she had in her coeducational class: "1

was sitting crossed legs and you were able to see my underwear, ail the guys [were]

watching" (F8,neg, c28)-

Often girls discussed wonying about their physical appearance in physical

education class, particularly in the coeducational classes. Many girls expressed this

concern by brinçing up the issue of shaving their legs. For example Anne, a grade eight

girl discussinp this issue said, "1 guess it just adds to your appearance. It makes it better"

(Anne, I#13, p. 6 , F8).

Girls noted that in a single-sex class, these worries are tess, because other girls

understand and do not reaiiy care about how others look. One group of grade nine girls,

when asked what they enjoyed about k i n g in a single-sex çlass Unmediately answered:

S : You don? have to shave your legs.

E: Yeah, you don7thave too feel bad about it.
S: You don't have to be ashamed of your legs. Like hiding or anything.
(Errdy & Suzanne, I#12, p. 5, F9)

A grade nine girl wrote, "another thing 1 like about all girls is we don't have to shave. No

one cares" (F9,pos., b3). Girls discussed this topic, repeatedly in both grade eight and
 Girls explahed the reasons why they felt it was important to shave and maintain a

particular appearance. Many attributed the necessity for it to what the boys would think if

they did not. Sunita said she worried about shavuig "only because you know the boys are

going to see if we didn't shave. They're going to be like 'oh you have such hairy legs .,..

You have such ugly ... legs"' (Sunita, I#4, p. 2, F8).

Girls described a need to conforrn to what they felt were the boys' expectations of

them in their coeducational classes. If they did not IÜEl these expectations the gkIs

feared k i n g thought of as "dirty and nastf* (Isabelle, I#9. p- 6, F8), "'a butch" (Gracelyn,

I#9, p. 6, F8), and "barbaric and goriila-ike" (F8, neg., a8). HeIen and Krista had similar

thoughts:

H: Maybe we don't want to look, 1 don't know, not clean.

K: Yeah .., the guys don't like that,
(Helen, Krista, I#15, p. 14, FX)

The extent to which some girls are affected by this pressure to uphold a particuIar

'feminine' appearance is noted fkom this next quote:

H: 1 know some people who haven't done sym because of it.

Reseut-cher: Beccmse of if?
K: Oh yeah. Or they wear track pants, and you lose marks for not w e a ~ your
g
uniform
0: 1 have.
(Helen, Krista, Olivia, I#lS, p. 14, F8)

In order to uphold the stereotypical version of a 'feminine' individuai, some girls are

willing to inhibit their participation, t hus CO mprornising their grades. These girIs, rat her

than reject the stereotypes, continued to accept them and buy into a feminine role and

appearance that they did not necessarily agree with.

A few girls seemed to be Iess affected by this issue. When asked if they have ever

not changed for gym as a result of unshaven legs, these girls responded:
 G: No, T've never done that, It's just I don't care.
C.I don't care, it's not lïke I'rn [trying to] ùnpress someone.
N: 1 don't care who sees me,
G: There's no one ....I want to impress.
(Gracelyn, Cathy, & Naorni, 1#9, p. 6 , F8)

Girls continuously emphasized the importance of the boys' opinions when

discussing their feelings about this issue and the decision to shave or no t shave was based

on whether or not they felt the boys would care:

F 1 kno w the guys pretty much and I don't think they really care if yo ur legs are
shaved or not.
S : Weli that's only certain boys.
(Felicia & Sunita, I#4, p. 2, F8)

Emily described a very mature point of view as to how soine girls reacted to what

she perceived as what the boys wanted:

And that's ... their subrnissiveness. They're playing the roIes that the guys want
at this age. Maybe fater on in life they'il find a guy that wants them to be mature.
But right now the guys in our grade and high school want a girl who will just sit
around, and flirt, and look nice.
( E d y , I#24, p. 3, F9)

Summarv

Througho ut many of the discussions there remained an underlying assumption that

boys were the natural participants in physical education. This beiief may have played a

role in maintaining the stereotype that sport and physical education is a male domain,

While there does seern to be a shift in thinking, the stereotypes continued to exist and

influence these adolescents' participation. Although both the girls and boys in this study

acknowledged that physical education and sport is an area in which all could and should

participate, there remained an underlying assumption amongst some of the students that

boys have innate characteristics that enhanced their participation and success in physical

education. Some students even felt that boys' competitive and aggressive nature, as weU
as their participation in sport, was a result of evolution and biology- Others, however,

noted the importance of early socialization and adult influences in participation rates.

Through societal influence, boys receive one dominant form of masculinity - that of the

cornpetitive and aggressive male - without being given other options. Rather than reject

these notions, the boys in this study demonstrated an acceptance of traditionally

stereotypical notions of d e s in sports.

Students demonstrated contradictions between what they say and what they do iin

many of the discussion on team formation in coeducational classes,- On the one hand,

inany of the students talked positively about the increased social interaction and fun they

experienced in coeducational classes and particularly in mked teams. However, when

they were given the opportunity to form their own teamî. sex-segregated t e a m were

formed most often. When mixed team were formed, they usuaily consisted of one

tender in ~najorityand two or three of the opposite sex.

Girls were said to hold back or sitnply sit out d u ~ _rames-

g As a result of this

behaviour, many boys as weii as girls expressed frustration with not being able to

participate fuiiy. Boys were said to be unfair as well as exclusive (in terrns of who was

passed to or included on the tearn). Some of the lower ability girls became frustrated with

this behaviour and responded with the type of behaviour that frustrated the boys - sitting

out or not participathg fuiIy. Higher ability girls, however, continued participating and

emphasized that they had to show the boys they could play, and when this was

accompiished they were able to participate fully. It seems that both boys and girls play a

role in the perpetuation of gender-stereotypical behaviour.

Soine boys expected girls to be of lower ability and therefore did not pass ta or

include them Soine girls, rather than stand up for themselves, accepted this and did not
attempt to participate M y , thereby reinforcing the notion of girls' iderior ability and that

of boys' dominance in physicai education and sport.

Nevertheless, evidence that girls and boys also rejected traditional stereotypes was

clear. Many boys and girls expressed enjoyment and enthusiasm about participating with

each Other. AdditionaUy, when girls demonstrated their abilities by ruking cicrion they

were included. The simple fact that both boys and girls expressed positive notions about

each other points, perhaps, to a shift in thinking, which hopefully may lead to less

stereotypical actions. However, a pull in the opposite direction remains strong, as there

was evidence of student perceptions and actions that play a role in maintainhg current

stereotypes.

Ideals and beliefs that tend to reinforce traditional notions of femininity, while

stiii clearIy evident, may be more easily refuted as a result of femïnism's influence during

the last century, and particularly since the inception of second-wave feminism. Ho wever,

only recently has there k e n a concentrated effort in both theory and practice working

towards breaking down stereotypical notions of traditional rnascuiinity. The students'

perceptions and behaviours in this study have been influenced in some ways to reject

stereotypical notions of fernales, but less so in terms of males.

Feimies continue to be seen as sexual objects - things to look pretty and be stared

at. This notion is reproduced by the boys through the mnner in which they perceived

and described girls. Griffin (1992) has argued that woinen in sport who do not depict an

image of femininity, are discriminated against and, as a result, ferninine behaviour and

appearance are emphasized. Girls, in the present study, maintained the ferninine ideal by

accepting it and making an effort to conform to it. Girls described ho w they maintained a

particular appearance that they felt was important to the boys. As a resuk they have
chosen to perpetuate stereotypical views about women and to judge themselves on their

appearance.

General Discussion

In this study, qualitative rnethods allowed for an ifi-depth look into the

participants' perceptions, bringing about a rich understanding of ho w bo th the students

and teacher felt about gender equity issues in relation to their classes, each other, p h y s i d

education in general and the role mdes and fernales play in it. Participants' perceptions

were represented through direct quotes as often as possible, in order to support the

researcher's inferences about them, and to aNow for many voices to be heard.

The students' perceptions of gender equity in their physical education classes

demonstrated that adolescents' attitudes are shiftuig towards a more positive, gender-fair

thinking. At the same tirne, stereotypical assumptions and beliefs about themselves and

the5 peers continue to be perpetuated- Mr. McCormack also demonstrated ways in which

he both rejected and perpetuated stereotypical beliefs about males and fernales in physical

education.

Cheypyator-Thomson & Ennis ( I 997) assert that:

what is observed in an educational environment such as a physical education

class, is a student's interpretation of human reality outside and inside the school.
This interpretation may include a reproduction of gender relations or a defiance of
these relations. (p. 89)

The findings fiom the present study are indicative of how society's attitudes are changing

as weil. The continued relevance of this issue can be seen in recent articles fkom The

Montreal Gazette and the National Post (Appendix E). The articles and comic suips

about girls in sports, as well as the article about the problems boys face in Our society,
iilustrate society's current societal attitudes that, sidarly to those of the participants in

this study, play a role in reproducing and rejecting stereotypical beliefs and values.

As in Chepyator-Thomson & Ennis' (1997) study, the students in this study

tended to conform to society's ideals of femininity and masculinity. What became clear

throughout the study was that there rernains a strong, underlying bias in these physical

education classes that a pamcular mascuhity dominates this area and is seen as the

standard to which aIi individuals must conform (or at the very least, agree with), This

rnasculinity is one in which competition and aggession are key. WhÏie these qualities

were not promoted by the teacher, the students themselves expected boys to demonstrate

them These behaviours were descnbed as necessary for greater enjoyment and for

participation to one's "full capacity."

Macdonald ( 1990) fo und examples of teacher-student interactions that were

compatibIe with the perpetuation of sex-role stereotyping. Findings fiom the present

study concur wïth this as it was noted that the students and physical education teacher

pIayed a role in ~naintainingtraditional gender stereotypes within their physical education

classes, There were, however, also examples of the rejection of stereotypes.

Both the students and teacher discussed Mr, McCormack's teaching strategies and

treatment of students, the advantages and disadvantages of coeducational and single-sex

physicd education, including the benefits of peer interaction and the class atmosphere.

Additionally, there were particular topics in which students tended to eit her dernonstrate

their rejection or perpetuation of stereotypical beliefs about males and femaies. These

incIuded the emphasis on the male n o m in discussions about girls' physical abilities,

references to males' natural abilities versus the effects of experience in sports, the

competitiveness and aggressiveness of gù% and boys, and the rnanner in which male
domination in the classés was accepted or refuted. Fmally, how girls continued to be

viewed by boys as sexual objects in addition to how they, themselves, play a role in this,

was discussed-

Throughout rnany of the discussions, Mr. M c C o m c k emphasized the importance

of teaching students based on their ability levels and not their gender- He demonstrated

an awareness and sensitivity to gender issues in both types of classes, stating, for

example, the importance of teaching students how to Uiteract with each other in ways that

maintain respect for the opposite sex. Though he attempted to uphold a gender equitable

atmosphere in his classes, h e also sometimes demonstrated ways in which he played a

role in the perpetuation of gender stereotypes, For example, occassionally he forrned

tearns that were mixed by gender and ability, at other times he allowed for student-forrned

sex-segregated teams or fonned these himself. Some students felt there was unfair

teacher treatment of students based on either gender or ability level, while many students

also expressed their feelings of fair and unbiased treatment- Macdonald (1990) found that

the rnajority of teachers in her study preferred teaching single-sex classes over the

coeducational classes, however, in the present study, Mr. McComack spoke of how h e

enjoyed teaching both types of classes. He demonstrated, however, different approaches

to teaching the all-girls and au-boys classes. Sin-darly to the teachers in Macdonald's

study, Mr. McCormack taught the au-boys classes with a more strict approach and the aii-

girls with a fiendlier and more relaxed tone.

Again in accordance with Macdonald's (1990) findings, the students ais0

comrnented on the benefits of the increased social interaction in the coeducational classes.

They enjoyed this aspect because they felt it helped improve relations between the sexes,

both irnrnediately and in the future, The coeducational setting was also referenced in a
positive Zight by boys who enjoyed what they felt was a chalienging, yet less competitive

and agpessive atmosphere. Higher ability girls also enjoyed the coeducational classes

because in this setting they fiAt there was more participation, they were challenged more,

in part by the increased competition, and therefore enjoyed thernselves more- Lower

ability girls tended to have less oppoaunity to participate and, as a result, they often felt

they were unable to irnprove their sk2.l. These girls also tended to dislike the competitive

aspect of the coeducational classes and stressed the importance of sirnply playing for fun.

Dyson (1995) noted that students in his study also believed that a heavy emphasis on

competition could lower their participation and enjoyment in physical education class.

Coeducation has k e n proposed as a solution to attain gender equitable physical

education. It is evident, f?om this study, that there are benefits for ail groups of

individuals. There are also many disadvantages- Many of the higher ability girls, who

demonstrated more confidence in their abilities, rejected the notion of boys dominating

the game and took active measures to ensure their o w n participation. Lower ability girls

were more likely to demonstrate beliefs and behaviour that submitted to this domination.

The difference between these two groups of girls seerns to rest in whether or not they

accepted stereotypical beliefs about themselves and the boys or rejected them. These

findings concur with those of Wright (1995) who found that girls more confident in their

abilîties disregard stereo typed views of girls' abilities and place in physical educatio n

more easily than girls of low ability.

It was Iess evident as to how the boys' perceptions of their abilities affected their

rejection or reproduction of gender-biased beliefs. However, boys did v q in their

opinions of their coeducational classes. Grade eight boys anticipated a much better

experience in a single-sex class. Boys in grade nine, w M e they stiU expressed similar
ideas as the grade eight boys, did not always perceive their coeducational experience

quite as negatively, Once removed fiom it they were able to see the benefits of k i n g

mixed and generaily felt that both types of classes had positive and negative aspects-

Many times these grade nine boys felt that neither class environment was better or worse

than the other, and instead saw the strengths and weaknesses in both. This difference in

attitude in the oIder boys demonstrates that their coeducational experience may have

increased their awareness and sensitivity towards their opposite sex peers and rnay have

helped to break down stereotypical notions about them

Students in the present study also had reasons for enjoying the single-sex classes.

Whrit came across most strongly was that many girls and boys feIt most cornfortable in a

same-sex class. Boys of al1 abilities discussed how they no Ionger felt "watched" by the

girls, and as a result, the pressure of trying to Ùnpress thern was gone. Higher ability boys

also enjoyed the increased cornpetition and intensity in the au-boys classes. Girls

described feeling more at ease because they felt Iess intimidrited due to the absence of the

boys. They were also less &aid to try new tasks because of the greater support froin

their female peers. Lower ability girls, in particular, expressed how, because of these

increased feelings of ease, they began participating more. leading to greater enjoyxnent of

physical education, These findings are sirdar to those of Dyson (1995) in whkh he

found that students were more likely to take emotiond or physical risks in an

environment where the teacher and feliow students were supportive, Kavussanu &

Robert (1996) also found that the class chnate affected students' participation. They

noted that students perceiving an environment in which social cornparison and

cornpetition were emphasized, felt more pressure during class activities. Meanwhile,

students in an environment that stressed the importance of personal irnprovement and

skill rnastery were more likeIy to enjoy participating more, exert more effort and have a

higher perceived cornpetence, This is quite sunilar to what the lower abZty girls

described in the present study-

Kavussanu & Roberts (1996) also found that males rnay place less importance on

their class environment because, they argue, boys tend to have higher beiiefs regarding

their physical competence. Therefore, their participation rnay be affected Iess. These

hdings can be loosely interpreted fiom the present study as weil. The same boys who

preferred the coeducational setting more than the singIe-sex setting, because they felt

there was less emphasis on cornpetition and aggression, generaiiy did not tak about a

decrease in their participation rates when they reached grade nine and switched into a

single-sex class. The boys may have k e n able to maintain their participation rates

because of their higher beiiefs about their physical skiiis. However, perhaps these results

wouid not have supported Kavussanu & Roberts, had more boys who were rated as

"weak" by Mr. McCormack, and who had Iess confidence in their abilities, volunteered

for the study.

Students' perceptions reflected a variety of ways in which they either perpetuated

or rejected stereotypical beliefs about males and feinales in physical education, This is

not surprising, suice students are inundated with both gender-biased as well as unbiased

experiences, in school and society (Grossrnan & Grossmn, 1994). As a resuIt, some

students may accept stereotypicd beiiefs while "others actively resist the biased

education they receive and the inferior position it threatens to place them in" (Grossmn

& Grossman, 1994, p. 7 1).

One way in which stereotypicd kliefs about males and females in physical

education was maintained, was the continuous use of boys' abilities as the reference point
to which everyone else was compared, Both boys and girls compared girls' abilities to

those of the boys', a cornparison which determined whether or not girls were competent

in the chss. Some girls felt that in cornparison to the boys their abiiity level was not at a

high enough standard to participate successfully, or even at ail. Other girls, however, felt

that they were ablc to attain the same level of ability as the boys and were able to

participate alongside them The beiief that males are the dominant force in physical

education is pervasive throughout most of the actions and beliefs taken by the girls and

the boys. Girls portrayed negative feelings about their O wn femininity and a desire to be

more like the boys.

Students' beliefs reflected the notion that boys' competitive and aggressive nature

were bioIogically pre-determineci and a result of evolution. Nevertheless, students also

felt that environmental influences played a role. Particularly in discussions about girls'

participation, parental influence became prominent. Whiie some students demonstrated a

perpetuation of the stereotypical belief that partïcular "male" quaiities are innate, others

demonstrated a rejection of this by accepting that early socialization ïnto sport plays a

role in both boys' and girls' participation and success in sport and physical education.

Ofien, they explained that due to parental beliefs, girls m y not have k e n given m n y

opportunities at a young age, while most boys had.

Professionai sports and society's portrayal of what characteristics are needed to

succeed in this r e a h were referred to by boys when discussing their aggressive and

competitive nature. Thus boys seem to sirnply be reproducing the stereotypicd masculine

behaviours that they are king taught through societal n o m and values. Boys are rarely

given other examples of masculinity within society that may be viewed as alternatives to

the "typical male" so ofien seen in sports.

 In discussions about cornpetition and agression, students referred to the boys as

k i n g naturdy competitive. At the same time that some boys claimed theû dislike of

their classes when they got too cornpetitive and agpessive, students cIairned that "boys

are competitive" and "they're just bom Like that-" It is not only clear that boys are seen as

naturaily competitive and agpessive, but that they are e-~pectedto pornay these

characteristics, even as m n y boys e,xplained the2 discornfort with these behaviours.

The stereotypical belief that girls do not like the competitive aspect of sport and

p hysical educatio n was occassiondy maintained, however, at O ther tirnes refuted.

Students seemed to have a more heterogeneous concept of girls' competitiveness in theïr

classes. Girls were not seen as unable to participate o r succeed, however, the simple fact

that boys' mode of participation was seen as part of "evoIution" and biology, points out

the biases that remain in many students' perceptions,

Boys continued to be seen as the dominant forces in the physical education classes

studied. Students of both genders described events that maintained male dominance and

female submissiveness in the coeducational physical education classes. For the most part.

boys maintaineci control of the baU during game play. AIthough lower ability girls felt

this was unfair, they tended to accept this behaviour by hanging back in gaines and not

actively pursuing the ball when they had the chance. Higher ability girls also discussed

their hstration with boys "hogging" the b d , however, they took a more active role

during games, thereby ensuring that they would Set the baii passed to them Both boys

and girls acknowledged boys' control of the ball, however, growing maturity in boys was

perceived to play a role in decreasing this event.

The manner in which teams were formed was another facet of boys' domination in

the coeducational classes. Whiie Chepyator-Thomson and Ennis (1 997) found that on
most occasions it was both girk and boys who did not want to mix with the opposite sex

when given the choice, this was not always the case with the adolescents in this study.

Girls and boys expressed their enjoyment of mixed-sex teams, however, when given the

choice, they formed gender-segregated teams. While girls explained that this was

because boys would not make teams with them, it was also sornetimes, a result of girls

not taking the opportunity to form mked teairis, or simply because both boys and girls

preferred going with their same-sex fnends. Eyre (199 1) also found that girls and boys

renmhed separate when forming their own groups in home econornics cIasses. These

students also explained that sarne-sex groups were forrned because they felt more

cornfortable, more confident, less embarrassed, and they wanted to be with their friends.

Students, in the present study, demonstrated through their actions (not forrning mixed

teams) a perpetuation of the belief that girls and boys cannot participate together-

However, they also spoke positively about their mked-tearn experiences. This tnay point

to a shift in beiiefs about participating with the opposite sex and a rejection of

stereotypical beliefs about mked teamî. Perhaps, a positive change in beiiefs may

eventualiy Iead to fewer stereotypical behaviours and a rise in student-formed rniced

tearns.

Students perceived that boys' d o m i n e e ~ gbehaviour played a role in the

participation rates of girls. Boys dominating other boys was also evident. Eyre (199 1)

noted that although boys in the classroom generaUy held more power, some boys had

more than others. Boys dominating through the control and intimidation of girIs and

other boys was evident in her study. In the present study, when students refused to accept

these behaviours and too k an active role to ensure their participation, they were less likely

to be negatively affected. However, when students submitted to the domination, by

accepting it or not taking action to prevent it, their level of participation was decreased.

Lo wer ability girIs were more Iikely to maintain stereotypical beliefs about t hemselves

and their peers of both sexes. While they may have wanted to participate more, they felt

they were not given the chance to do so. Rather than stand up for themselves - they often

did not have the self-confidence to do so - they accepted the behaviour as sornething they

could not change-

Finfly, one other important aspect was discussed that detnonsuated a

perpetuation of stereotypical beliefs about women. Some boys perceived the girls in their

classes as sexual objects. They described girls as objects to be "stared at," particularly

when they wore "short shorts." Girls also played a role in the reproduction of this beiief.

They repeatedly emphasized the importance of upholding a particular "ferninine

appearance" that they perceived was what the boys wanted. Conneil (1996) notes that

"with the approach of adolescence, interactions between boys and girls are liable to be

sexuaiized, by flirting innuendo, and teasing" (p. 2 19). Delamont ( 1990) aIso asserts that

as individuals reach adolescence their stereotypical notions of their peers become

intricately woven with thek "developing sense of sexuaiity, the heightened importance of

peer group pressures. and acute self-consciousness" (p- 65). Many of the interactions

noted during the present study concur with this notion.

Implications and Recommendations

Perhaps as a result of ferninisa and society becoming more aware of the social

injustices women endure, boys and girls are also more conscious of the stereotypical

views of rnales and femfes. The ferninine role in sport has k e n chdenged, however,

the male role has not. There has not been a strong emphasis on balancing both the notion

of fetninuiity and masculinity in sport, but instead there has k e n an emphasis for
everyone who participates in sport to move toward the more "masculuie" ideals (Bo utilier

& SanGiovanni, 1983). It is important to note here, that dthough on the surface the

classes seem equitable in terms of teacher behaviour and attitude, there rernains an

underlying belief that boys are dominant, This may be m e in physical education in

general, even as more girls are participating and enjoying themselves, and as

opportunities for dl students are increased. Outwardly, a greater acceptance of women

and girls in this realm is evident. Nevertheless, there rernains a strong undertone, that is

yet to be siienced, pervading physical education, sport and society- As rnuch as the

students rnay feel they are getting a fair treatment and as much as they see thernselves

participating with their peers of both genders, there stili rernain biases trom society that

students uphold.

Not only are girls k i n g socialized into what can be construed as constricting

roles, but so are boys. Particularly in the realm of p hysical education and sport where

"masculine" characteristics are emphasized as essential to success, boys are cond itio ned

to fit into one particular role. When boys conform to the "~nasculine"tender role, they

are often described as macho, agressive, mean and u n c a ~ g .Whiie these characteristics

are considered negative by many, it s e e m also that if boys do not demonstrate thein, they

are looked down upon. If they do not f a within the traditional male mode1 they may be

then labelled as strange or unusual. Many of the students interviewed were

unappreciative when boys becaine too aggressive and competitive, however, they d s o

expected it, looked up to it, and in some f o m , were driven to be that way too.

Even as boys and girls dernonstrated unbiased and nonsexist perceptions about

themselves, their peers, and males and females in general, their actions and words

occasiondly demonstrated Otherwise. Perhaps 'political correctness" has taught these

students what to Say (and not to say), however, they have yet to nansfer these beliefs into

actions. They are becoming more aware and sensitive to each others' needs, but there are

s a assumptions that boys are naturaUy stronger and better, that girls have to be shown

and taught how to be athletic, and that physical education is stiil a male domain,

WMe a state of gender equity seerns to be approaching, it is clear that within the

redm of physical education and sport many stereotypes continue to be maintained.

However, it appears that coeducational experiences help to increase awareness of both

boys and girls and of the different qualities of each of these Croups- Through this

increased awareness the stereotypical beliefs of both males and females can be more

easiiy disrnantled.

This study has found that at this point in t h e , only a select group of girls feels

comfortable enough to reject gender-biased beliefs and, therefore, succeed in this realm,

UntiI all girls can do so, it may rernain dificult for physical education to be seen as both a

fernale and male do~nain. Additionaily, unless stereotypical beliefs about boys beco~ne

less prominent, it wiü continue to be difficuk for ali boys to feel comfortable,

Nevertheless, until the patriarchal ideology that holds together the fabric of physical

education is replaced by another that takes into account the values and beliefs of all

students, this may remain dificult.

Recommendations

Throughout this study, 1 have been asked on several occasions which class setting

1 would recornrnend- I have never k e n able to give a clear-cut and defhite answer, as I

feel there are too many variables playing a role in the success or failure of physicai

education progams. The most dficult task that cornes about in a coeducational class, or

in any class for that matter, is d e a h g with the past experiences of each of the students,
that have lead thern to feel however they do about their physical abilities. This is

particularly diff?cult for lower ability girls who have most likely had negative experiences

throughout These past experiences, that have led them to have low self-confidence about

their abilities, may play a role in ho w students react to each O ther, the curriculum and the

teacher in their class as welI as whether or not they accept or reject stereotypes. M e r

andyzhg the data and listening to the voices of the students, it is evident that in this

particular school, coeducational classes are working and benefiting most, but not ail,

students, Lower ability girls continue to lose out in these classes, even as some express

the desire to participate more hiiy. It also became evident that not everyone benefits in

the same way. Some girls and boys expressed greater enjoyrnent in these classes because

the intensity and challenge of the classes met their needs. Others feIt they benefited, both

presently and in the? future, from the increased social interaction between boys and girls.

1 believe that if equity is to be truly attained, we rnust proceed to work as we have

been by continuously bringing to the forefront inequities that have occurred and that

continue to occur. However, more work has to be done to address stereotypical beliefs

about boys and men. The notion of male domination over women wiil only be broken

when boys are offered other alternatives. Boys and men need to be able to express their

rnasculinity in a variety of ways and not only within the traditional, stereotypical manner.

Emily sums it up best:

A lot of girls are striving to be more like men. To be equal to them Or even
above thexn .... But guys don't feel the need to match up to anything .... 1 think
it's good that girls are striving to be a lot better at a lot of things, but 1 think it's
stupid that guys just expect that what they're doing is fine, where they are is f i e ,
everything that they're doing is fine, that 'I'm tough, that's ali 1 need to do'. That
rnaybe they don? need to be more caring and nicer to people ....They should
strive to be nicer, like we're striving to be tougher ... Since we're striving toward
each other, we'u meet in the middle somewhere,
(Emily, I#24, p. 5-6, F9)
 At this point, single-sex classes seem to be most beneficial for Iower ability girls

at Riverview High School- However, there are a few changes that could be made to

benefit aii students in the coeducational classes. These changes wouId make equity more

easily attahed and allow more students to participate successfuliy.

To begin with cIass sizes need to be srnalier. This w2i aUow the teaçher to k t t e r

address inequities between the students as they occur. Reducing class sizes is particularly

important at this school due to the small size of the gymnasium There would be Iess

opportunity for students to sit out while waiting for a tum to play. Often, those students

sitting out were girls- If the cIass size were srnalier, aIl students would be able to

participate at the same tirne, thereby increasing the interaction between students and the

opportunity to improve their skilis.

Addressing inequities as they occur is vital for the success of coeducational

physical education as well as the irnprovement of relations between males and fernales.

Mr. McCormack feIt this was one of the benefits to having a coeducational class. He

discussed the significance of addressing student behaviour that was unfair or

inappropriate as it occurred and saw this as a very important opportunity in a mired ciass

to teach students about each other. However, there were also other inequities that he

played a role in perpetuating. Two topics were discussed profusely by the students: that

of team formation and control of the bail, Mr. McCormack must be careful to address

sex-segregated teams and to ensure that students in a coeducationd setting are uuly

experiencing participation with girls and boys. Furthermore, strategies must be

implemented to ensure that everyone is getting a fair chance to participate and that the

control of the bail is not reserved for a few individuals. In addition, the teaching

approach to the all-girls, coeducational and all-boys classes should be assessed. What
messages are k i n g sent to the students when dBerent styles are used to teach boys and

girls? Are these messages harmful, beneficial o r inconsequential to the students? The

purpose of this study was not to focus on the teaching strategies of Mr. McCormack, and

therefore, I feel limited in my own perceptions about them However, it is important that

ML M c C o m c k , and other teachers, address these issues himseif and understand why
and how students are k i n g affected.

Student perceptions demonstrated a shift in attitude and an increased awareness

about each other that pointed to more gender sensitive beliefs. This is not only indicative

of society's influence but more specificaily, I feel, indicative of the benefits of

coeducational physical education. However, more of an effort needs to take place to

change boys' (and girls') stereotypicd attitudes about themsdves and other rnales.

Increasing awareness of how girls may be Iosinp out and hplementing suategies to

overcome this need to continue. Additionaliy, a better understandhl of wltci-c

stereotypical beliefs corne fiom and ulizy both girls m d boys are losing out, is needed.

Then equity wiU be achieved.

Future research in th& area should continue to listen to girls7 voices but also strive

to include more boys' voices- A greater range in ability levels, including those students

who choose not to participate in physical education and/or sport at ali, should also be

included. While this was the original intent of the research, more girls than boys

volunteered. Additionally, no students who dici not participate at ali volunteered for the

study. It is of great importance to understand why some students respond negatively to

their p hysical education expenence.

It s e e m that an individual's self-confidence played a role in whether or not they

accepted or rejected stereotypes. However, it is unclear- as to whether or not this was a

 -
result of a global self-confidence, or specifkally related to their cofidence about their

physical ability. Future research should attempt to cl- this by incorporating self-

confidence measures. FînaUy, variables such as age of the students and teacher and sex

of the teacher rnay al1 gïve a better hsight into how and why stereotypes are rnaintained

or rejected,

ln order for changes to occur, existing inequities must continuously be brought to

the forefiont of discussions about physicai education and education in general. Many

studies have found similar results to those of the present study. Most of these studies

were done fiom a quantitative approach and did not always include student voices. When

sirnilar results continue to be found through a variety of methodologies and fiom a variety

of perspectives (students, teachers, administrators, ferninist researchers, etc.) the

significance of the results are strengthened. A h o s t two decades have passed since the

introduction of legïslation in Canada and the United States making discrimination based

on gender illegai. Studies assessing the strengths and weaknesses of coeducational

physical education during this period have consistently fo und similar results. In I 985.

Griffin found that boys dominated team Eames and were overly agpessive, girls hung

back and lacked skill during team garnes- Alrnost fifteen years later, the sarne results are

king found. However, this study also demonstrated that while there remain student and

teacher beliefs and perceptions based in traditional gender-stereotyped values and ideals,

there is also evidence of a shift towards a less gender-biased and more open-minded type

of thinking. As ideals and beliefs slowly change, so too will the actions of students,

thereby reinforcing an environment in which ail students can and will enjoy participating

in p hysical education.
 REFERENCES

Archer, J., & McDonald, M. (1991) . Gender roles and school subjects in
adolescent girk Educational Research. 33(1), 55-64.

Bailey, S. (1996) . ShortchangÏng girls and boys. Educational Leadership. 53(8),

75-79.

Ba& S. 5. (1993) . Self-doubt and soft data: Social and technical trajectones in
ethnographie fieldwork. In M. Hamrnersley (Ed.), Educational research: Current issues
(pp. 32-48). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Bennett, R, S. (1991) . Empowerrnent = work over tirne: Can there be ferninist

pedagogy in the sport sciences'? Journal of Phvsical Education Recreation and Dance.
-
62(6), 62-75.

Bliss, J., Monk, M., and Ogburn, J, (1983) - Qualitative data analvsis for
educational research: A -ruide to uses of svstemic networks. London: Croom Helm

Boutilier, M. A., & SanGiovanni, L. (1983) . Alternative approaches to sport

sociology and feminism. In M. A. Boutilier, & L. SanGiovanni (Eds). The s ~ o r t i n r
woman (pp- 5-22). Champaign, IL: H u m n Kinetics Publishers.

Browne, J. (1992) . Reasons for the selection or nonselection of physical

education studies by year 12 giris. Journal of Teachinc in Phvsical Education. 1 1,402-
410,

CAHPER (1 993) . What practitioners and researchers tell u s about gender equity
in physical education. In S. Gibbons & G.Van Gyn (Eds.) Gender equity in physical
education workshop. (pp. B7[a]). CAHPER.

Chepyator-Thomson, J. R., & Ennis, C. D. (1997) . Reproduction and resistance

to the culture of femùùnity and masculinity in secondary school physical education.
Research Ouarterly for Exercise and Sport. 68. 89-99.

ConneIl, R. W. (1 990) . An iron man: The body and some contradictions of

hegemonic msculinity. In M. A. Messner, & D. F. Snbo (Eds.), Sport. men. and the
gender order: Critical ferninist ~erspectives(pp. 83-95). Champaign, IU: Human
Kinetics Books.

Connell, R. W. (1993) . Disruptions: Improper rnasculliities and schooling. In

L. Weiss, & M. Fine (Eds.), Bevond silenced voices: Class. race. and gender in United
States schools (pp. 191-208). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Connell, R. W. (1996) . Teaching the boys: New research on mascuhity and

gender strategies for schools. Teachers Coileoe Record. 98(2), 206-235.
 Cooney, D. (1993) . Ladies and gentlemen, are your classes equitable?
CAFPER Journal, 59(3), 5.

Crosset, T. (1990) . Masculinity, sexuality, and the development of early modem

sport. In M. A. Messner, & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport. men. and the gender order: Critical
feminist ~ermectives(pp. 45-54). Champaign, Ili: Human Kinetics Books,

Davis, L. R. (1990) . Male cheerleaders and the naturalization of gender. In M.

A. Messner, & D. F-Sabo (Eds.), Sport. men. and the gender order: Critical feminist
perspectives (pp. 153- 161). Champaign, 1i.l: Hurnan Kinetics Books.

Delamont, S. (1990) . Sex roles and the School (2nded.). London, England:
Routledge.

Delamont, S. (1992) . Fieldwork in educational settinrs: Methods. pitfaUs and

perspectives. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Dewar, A. (1 987) . Knowledge and gender in physical education. In J. Gaskell,

& A. McLaren (Eds.), Women and education: A Canadian pers~ective(pp. 265-289).
Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.

Downey, M. (1997) . Promote equity - lnclude dance. CAHPERD Journal.

-
63(2), 12-16.

Duda, J. L, Lk Nicholls, J. G. (1992) . Dimensions of achievement motivation in

schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psvcholo.~v.84,290-299,

Dunbar, R, R., & O'Sullivan, M. M. (1986) . Effects of intervention on

differential treattnent of boys and girls in elementary physical education lessons. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education. 5, 166- 175.

Dyson, B. P. (1995) . Students' voices in two alternative elementary physical

education program. Journal of Teachinc in Phvsical Education. 14, 394-407.

Eyre, L. (199 I ) . Gender relations in the classroom: A fresh look at coeducation,

in J. Gaskeil, & A. McLaren (Eds). Women and education (2nded.) (pp. 193-2 19j.
Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises Limiteci-

Fernandez-Balboa, J-M. (1 993) . Sociocultural characteristics of the hidden

cumculum in physical education. Ouest. 45, 230-254.

Fox, K., Goudas, M., Biddle, S.. Duda, J., &Armstrong, N. (1994) . Children's
task and ego goal profiles in sport. British Journal of Educational Psycholog- 64, 253-
261.
 Gaskell, J., & McLaren, A. (1991) . introduction. In J- GaskelJ, & A. McLaren
(Eds), Women and education (2"d ed.) (pp. 1-18). Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises
Limited.

Gibbons, S. L., & Van Gyn, G. H. (1996) . It's more complex than coed vs. non
coed: The British Columbia project on gender equitable coed physical education.
CAHPERD Journal, 62(3), 4- 10.

Graham, G. (1995) . Physical education through students' eyes and students'

voices: Implications for teachers and researchers. Journal of Teachino in Phvsical
Education, 14,478-482.

Griffin, P. S. (1984) . Coed pe: Problerns and promises. Journal of Phvsical

Education, Recreation and Dance. 55(6), 36-37.

Griffin, P. S. (1985) . Teachers' perceptions of and responses to sex equity

problems in a middle schooI physical education program Research Ouarterlv for
Exercise and S ~ o r t56,
, 103- 110.

GrifEin, P. (1992) . Changing the game: Homophobia, sexkm, and lesbians in

sport. Ouest, 44(22), 25 1-265.

Griffin, P., & Genasci, J. (1990) . Addressing homo pho bia in physical education:
Responsibilities for teachers and researchers. In M. A. Messner, & D. F-Sabo (Eds.),
S ~ o r t men.
. and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives (pp. 2 11-221).
Champaign, iil: Human Kinetics Books-

Grossinan H., & Grossman. S. (1994) , Gender issues in education- Boston,

USA: AUyn and Bacon.

Hopwood, T.,& Carrington, B. (1994) . Physical education and fe~nïninity.

Educational Research. 36(3), 237-246.

Hubbard, R. (1995) . Biology does no t determine gender rotes. In J. Petrikin

(Ed.), MaIe/femaIe roles: Opposin? viewoints (pp. 40-47). San Diego, CA:
Greenhaven Press.

Humberstone, B. (1990) . Waniors or wimps? Creating dternative forms of

physical education. In IV. A. Messner, & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men. and the eender
order: Critical feminist ~ermectives(pp. 201-210). Champaign, LU: Human Kinetics
Books.

Hutchinson, G . E. (1995) . Gender-faû teaching in physical education. Journal

of Phvsical Educatio n, Recreatio n and Dance, 66(1), 42-47.

Irwin, C. C. (1992) , Research methodolo~iesused in women's en der-eauitv

studies, EDRS Availability: Microfiche [ 1 card(s) ), ED343957.
 Johns, D. (1993) , Equity: Overcoming the obstacles. CAHPER JOurnal. 59(3),
18-21.

Kawssanu, M., & Roberts, G.C . (2996) . Motivation in physical activity

contexts: The relationship of perceived motivational clirnate to intrinsic motivation and
self-efficacy. Journal of S ~ o rand
t Exercise Psycho1og~-18,264-280.

Kirnmel, M. S. (1990) . Basebali and the reconstitution of Amencan masculuiity,

1880-1920. In M. A. Messner, & D,F, Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men. and the pender order:
Critical feminist uers~ectives(pp. 55-65). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics Books.

Knoppers, A. (1988) . Equity for excellence in physical education- Journal of

Phvsical Education. Recreation and Dance. 59(6), 54-58,

Lenskyj, J, (1993) . Jocks and Jills: Women's expenence in sport and physicaI
activity. In G.F i n (Ed.), Voices of Women, Voices of Femùlisrn (pp. 266-285).
Halif': Fernwood, Publishing.

Lindsey, L. (1995) . Culture detennines gender roles. In J- Petnkin (Ed.),

Male/female ro les: Opposino viewoints (pp. 74-8 1). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven
Press.

Lirgg, C. D. (1993) . Girls and wornen, sport, and self-confidence. Ouest. 44,
158-178.

Lirgg, C. D. (1993) . Effects of same-sex vs. coeducational physical education on

the self-perceptions of middle and high school students, Research QuarterIv for Exercise
and Sport, 64,324334-

Lirgg, C. D. (1994) . Environmental perceptions of students in same-sex and

coeducational physical education cIasses. Journal of Educational Psvchologv, 86, 183-
192,

Lirgg, C , D., & Feltz, D. L. (1989) . Fernale self-confidence in sport. Journa1 of

Phvsical Education, Recreation and Dance, 60(3), 49-54,

Macdonald, D. (1990) . The relationship between the sex composition of

p hysical education classes and teacher/pupil verbal interaction. Journal of Teachino in
Phvsical Education. 9, 152- 163.
-
Majors, R. (1990) . Cool pose: BIack masculùuty and sports. In M. A, Messner,
& D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the eender order: Critical feminist perspectives
(pp. 109-1 14). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics Books.
 McBride, R. E. (1990) . Sex-role stereotyping behaviors among elementary,
junior, and senior high school physical education specialists. Journal of Teachinc in
Phvsical Education, 9, 249-26 1-

Messner, M- A. (1990) . Maculinities and athletic careers: Bonding and status

differences. In M. A, Messner, & D. F. Sabo (Eds,), Sport. men. and the eender order:
Cntical ferninist ~erspectives(pp. 97-108). Champaign, LU: Hurnan Kinetics Books.

Messner, A., & Sabo, D. F. (1990). Introduction: To ward a cnticd ferninist

reappraisal of sport, men, and the gender order. In M. A. Messner, & D. F. Sabo (Eds.),
Suort. men. and the rrender order: Critical feminist pers~ectives(pp. 1-15). Champaign,
111: Humn Kinetics Books.

Miller, B. (1992) . The national physicd education curriculum and feminuùty: -

Breakiig the mould or continuinp the trend'? Bntish Journal of Physical Education.
23(1), 3 1-32.
-
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2" ed.).
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Pronger, B. (1990) . Gay jocks: A phenomenology of gay men in athletics. In

M. A. Messner, & D.F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport. men. and the en der order: Critical feminist
perspectives (pp. 141- 152). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics Books.

Rauschenbach, J., & Smith, C. (1998). Attitudes and opinions of middle school
phvsical educarors regarding the effectiveness of coeducational middle school phvsical
education. Paper presented at the conference of the Amencan Association of Health
Physicd Education, Recreation and Dance, Reno, Nevada.

Sabo, D. F., & Panepinto, J. (1990). Football ritual and the social reproduction of
masculinity. In M. A. Messner, & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport. men. and the eender order:
Cntical femlliist oers~ectives(pp. 115-126). Champaign, IU: Human Kinetics Books.

Schofield, .J. W. (1993) . tncreasing the generalizability of qualitative reserurh.

In M. Harnmersley (Ed.), Educational research: Current issues (pp. 9 1- 113). London:
Paul Chaprnan Publishing Ltd.

Scraton, S. (1992) . Shapinrr u~ to womanhood: Gender and girls in phvsicaI

education. Philadelphia: Open University Press

Siedman, T. E. (199 1) . I n t e ~ e w i n gas aualitative research. NY:Teachers

College Press.

Smeal, G., Carpenter, B., & Tait, G. (1994) . Ideals and realities: Articulating
feminist perspectives in p hysical education. Ouest. 46.4 10-424.
 Spender, D. (198 1) . Introduction. Ln D. Spender (Ed.), Men's studies modified:
t feminism on the academic d k c i ~ h e s(pp. 1-91. Oxford, England:
The i m ~ a c of
Pergamon Press.

Spender, D. (1981a) . Education: The patriarchal paradigrn and the response to

feminisrn In D. Spender (Ed.), Men's studies modified: The imDact of feminism o n the
academic disci~lines(pp. 155-173). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Vertinsky, P. A. (1992) . Reclaimùig space, revisioning the body: The quest for
gender-sensitive physicaI education. Ouest 44, 373-396-

Waiker, B. M. (198 1) . Psychology and feminism - If you can't k a t the- join

them In D. Spender (Ed.), Men's studies modified: The impact of feminism on the
academic d i s c i ~ h e s(pp. 112- 124). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

White, P. G., & Vagi, A. B. (1990) . Rugby in the 19"-century British boarding-
school system: A feminist psychoanalytic perspective. In M. A. Messner, & D. F. Sabo
(Eds.), S ~ o r tmen.
, and the en der orcier: Critical feminist ~erspectives(pp. 1-15).
Champaign, Ili: Hurnan Kinetics Books.

W t s o n , D. (1990) . Sport in the social construction of masculinity. In M. A.

Messner, & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men, and the render order: Critical feminist
perspectives (pp. 19-29}. Champaign, Iil: Hurnan Kinetics Books,

Wiiliamson, K. M. (1993). 1s your inequity showing'! Ideas and suategies for

creating a more equitable learning environment. Journal of Phvsical Education.
Recreation and Dance. 64(8), 15-23.

Wright, B. (1993) . Co-ed physical education and gender equity - po litics or

pedagogy? CAHPER Journal. 59, 13, 15.

Wright, J. (1995) . A feininist poststructuralist methodology for the study of

gender construction in physical education: Description of a study. Journal of Teachinc in
Phvsical Education, 15, 1-24.

Wright, J. (2996) - Mapping the discourses of physical education: Articulating a

fernale tradition, Journal of Cumculum Studies. 28(3), 33 1-35 1.
 A p ~ e n d i xA:
Operational Definitions
 O~erationalDefinitions

Equity: A "supportive atmosphere where students have the opportunity for

successful participation and esposure to instruction regardless of

gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sesual orientation, social class or

motor ability." (Williamson, 1993, p. 15)

Gender Equity: A "supportive atmosphere vihere students have the opportunit); for

successful participation and eqosure to instruction regardless of

-oendei' (Wif liamson, 1993, p. 15)

Perpetuation of
Stereotypes: When perceptions and actions indicate "any cornpliance with

traditionally dominant gender constructions of behavior .... that

provide individuals with cultural forms of existence that support

the status quo" (Chepyator-Thomson & Ennis, 1997, p. 92)

Rejection of
Stereotypes: When perceptions and actions indicate an opposition to the

traditional gender constructs of behaviour which "[contest] the

status quo" (Chepyator-Thomson & Ennis, 1997, p. 92)

 A ~ p e n d i xR:
Schooi Documents
TERM 3 TERM 4

A i Y
D i' M
M 1 N
i ........'..A.
1 .............i..... " .............

N ;
S
T j T
O i I
1
i
C
S

................ /.?,_CK&.~~W?,.,..
. Relay( ) ....
1 SS()
\ i Zones()
; : Prov ( )
.,..
................1. ........................ i ..............................
 RIVERVIEW HlGH SCHOOL

Main objective - That no team be penalized for the sake of another.

Season ends for a sport when the lass SSIAA game is played.

Categones should favor a strong juvenile team-

An athletic fee of 15$ per SSIAA athlete will be charged (30$ per family max)

Acadernics:
i List of players will be posted in staffroom for the teachers to
consult.

I Phys. Ed. staff would like to be advised if a student is slipping

acadernically-

Coaches' meeting before each season to discuss:

Studentsr roles and conduct as ambassadors of RHS.

Procedure for handing out and collecting uniforms.
15$ SSIAA fee.
Responsibilities, Le. - storing equipment
- attendance at practices
- behaviour at practices and in hallways
- tournaments
- $ available
-- school rules
-- registration forms
- medical forms
- transportation
Pre-season and Season-end.
Early dismissal times and posting procedure.
Dates of games and tournaments.
Coaching styles.
1. Students MUST be in locker room bv the second bell.

2. ABSOLUTELY FOOD, DRlNK OR CHEWING GUM in the gymnasium.

3. Proper Phys. Ed. attire ($20 uniform) and footwear required.

4. Courteous behaviour expected at ail times, i.e., NO yelling, swearing, stray

bails, rough play, pulling down on Basketball hoops or mesh, etc. .... A
positive attitude is expected and graded under EFFORT.

5. Quiet and speedy movement from gymnasium to lockers without running

or loitering in the hallways.

6, All jewellery, money, bus passes, etc. MUST remain in SCHOOL

LOCKER. Phys. Ed. lockers may only be locked during class time.

7. If not taking part in Phys. Ed. class for any reason, you must report to the
gymnasium bv the bell. Written work will be assigned. If work is not
completed, detention will be served after schoof on that day.

8. EXCUSES for not participating in Phys. Ed. classes are

UNACCEPTABLE. (only a medical form signed by a physician may
excuse you from Phys. Ed.)

9. BE PREPARED at al1 times to have classes held outdoors.

1o. INITIAL your shorts and T-shirt visibly with permanent marker.

II. LATES will be penalized by 2% and unexcused absences by 5% under

"Participation, Effort. Attendance." Five (5) minutes are allotted after
starting bel1 and before the end of class for changing.

12- Gymnasiurn is NOT a hallway and is OFF LIMITS during recess.

Evaluation
GRADE PARTICIPATION, EFFORT SKILLS FITNESS QUI2
ATTEhrnANCE

Sec. I 50%
Sec. II 40%
Sec. 1Il 30%
Sec, IV & V 20%
Parent or Guardian's Signature:
 COURSE OUTLINE

Subject: Physical Education 112,212,31 a412 (Boys and Girls)

Teacher: Mr. R McCormack

The objectives of the physical education program are to develop usefùl physical skills,
develop a practical understanding of deveIoprnent and maintenance in physical fitness
and health and to provide a wide variety of activities in order to expand recreational
interests and knowledge.

The following activities are part of the Secondary 1, II, and Iil programs:

Speedball Touch Football

Soccer Rugby
Basketball Volleyball
Badminton Dance
Field Hockey Fitness
Gymnastics Handball
Orienteering Track and Field
Lacrosse Softbal1
Wrestling Recreational Unit
Outdoor Winter Activities Cross Country Running

Practical and written skifl tests, subjective evaluations of effort and knowledge
and one written assignment.

TEXTS AND WORKBOOKS

NiA
 COURSE OUTLIhT

Subject: Physical Education 512 (Co-Ed)

Teacher: Mr. R NIcCorniack

This Secondary V course is offered to both Secondary IV and V students. It will

examine both the theoretical and phvsical aspects of Physical Education.

The course covers such topics as leadership; the practical understanding of

development and maintenance of physical fitness and health; nutrition; anatomy
and the care of prevention of athletic injuries; the administration of sports and
recreation and a selected field of sports and activities.

The following activities will be covered:

Badminton
Flag Football
Field hockey
Gymnastics and Recreational Activities
Lacrosse
Outdoor Winter Activities
Softball
Volleyball
Cross Country Running
Dance

METHOD OF EVALUATION

Practical and written skill tests, subjective evaluations of effort and knowledge
and one written assignment and one project per semester.
 February 17, 1998

Congratuiations! made the VOLLEYBALL team.

Dear Parents,

In order to ensure that Our students' Athletic Programme maintains

the high caliber of past years, we are calling upon parents of those involved to help us
cover high costs of transportation, equipment, uniforms, referees, awards and Sports
Banquet.

For al1 sports, except Hockey, there will be an annual fee of $1 5,

with a maximum of jO$ per family, regardless of the number or interscholastic sports in
which students participate. Unfomuiately, because of the high cost of running the
Hockey Programme, players will have an additional cost of 15s (for a total of XI$).
Coaches will co1lect this money when students are first selected for a school team.

1 thank you for your support and rernain truly yours,

ATHLETIC FEE

NAME OF STUDENT(S)

AMOUNT PAID CASH CHEQUE

ATHLETIC FEE RECEIPT

NAME OF STUDENT(S)

AMOUNT PAID CASH CHEQUE

Date Signature
 Code of Ethics
For the Riverview High Schoot Athlete

The Riverview High School philosuphy is that academiw must take pnority over
sports.

It is, therefore, expected of a Riverview student athlete -.-..

to accept and abide by al1 school rules and regulations at al1 times,

to strive to maintain an academic record that reflects their ability or risk not
being released for earIy dismissals,

to show respect for administrators, teachers, coaches, offÏcials, classmates

and other athletes,

to demonstrate sportsmanship in victory or defeat, before, during and

following competition,

to follow the instructions of the coach and to accept the decision of an officiai
without question,

to dress in a neat and clean manner, according to the aress code stipulated
by the coach when leaving the school for competition,

to recognize and applaud efforts of teammates or members of an opposing

team

to strive for excellence through resolve, dedication and hard work,

to lead a life style conducive to high level of academic achievernent ,

10.tu recognize that a student-athlete is a source of pride to the tearn and the
school,

11.to check with teachers of classes to be missed before taking advantage of an

early dismissal.

Participation on any interscholastic team requires the agreement with these

regulations. This is indicated by the signature as indicated on the next page.
Dear student and parent,
We that staff of Riverview High School feel that the Code of Ethics is very
important to the total development of the student athlete. It is for this reason we
ask you to read over the first page with your son or daughter, then sign below to
indicctte that you understand and agree with the conditions as outlined.

Student Parent

Adrninistrator
INTRAMURAL PROGRAM:

The intramural program is an extension of the dass program. Students,

regardless of ability, are strongly encouraged to participate in this program.

Obiectives:

+ To encourage maximum participation

To encourage !eadership qualities

To encourage the kirther developrnent of the physical skills taught in the

required program

To encourage a healthy but Iow key cornpetitive nature

+ To enhance self-concept

To have fun

a To encourage CO-operativegroup action

Range of Activities:

Soccer Hockey
Badminton KinbalI
Basketbali Low organizational games
Vdleybai( Gymnastics
Ultimate Frisbee

Awards aiven each year:

+ lntramural Athlete of the Year

+ awarded to the male and femaie student with the most intramural
points in the year

+ points are obtained by refereeing, swiing, participating, and winning

INTERSCHOLASTICS:

Objectives:

TOprovide an avenue in which the more highly skilled individual may excel.

To develop a greater understanding of rules and individual or team strategies.

To enhance social maturity and consciousness-

Riverview High School Teams:

Soccer
Field Hockey
Cross Country Running
Golf
Badminton
Volleyball
Hockey
Curling
Track and Field

Awards criven each vear:

Medals +Athlete involvement (lntramurals and Interscholastic)

MIP and MVP 3 For each team
Athletic Distinction i Male and Female (sports participation and leadership)
Male and Female lntramural Athlete of the Year + lntramurals involvement
 Appendix C :
Consent Forms
Dear Physical Education Teacher,

This letter is requesting y o w consent to participate in a study conducted by

myself, a graduate student at McGiI1 University. ï h e goal of this research project is to
hrther the knowledge w e have about how çtudents' feel about their present day physical
education classes and to help in the improvement of fùture physical education classes.
Zn consenting to participate in this study, you agree to the following:
1) 1will observe both the grade eight and grade nine leveI physical education
classes over the course of several weeks in order to gain a better understanding
of the structure and content of the physical education classes
2) Several groups o f your students from each grade eight and grade nine classes
will be permitted to Ieave their physical education or study period class for
approximately 20-30 minutes to participate in group interviews. These
i n t e ~ e w will
s include discussions on the students' perceptions and feelings
about their physical education class.
3) Finally, an interview session will be set up between the researcher and
yourself, at your convenience, to discuss your views about the grade eight and
nine physical education classes. The interview wiIl be audiotaped, and will
remain confidential.
Please be assured that al1 information given will remain confidential. Any
information gathered will be analyzed by myself only, and will not be shared with anyone
else.
If at any tirne you wish to cease participation in this study, you may freely
withdraw at your o\vn discretion and for any reason, without penalty-
Finally, please be assured that pseudonyms will be used in al1 written documents
and at no time will your name appear.
If at any point you are interested in the study's findings, a copy wilI be made
avaiiable.
If you have any questions about this research project you can contact me at 671 -
1042 or by email at vma@cam.org. You may 'also contact Prof. M. Downey at McGill
University by phone at 398-41 84 ext. 0541.

Sincerely,

1, consent to participate in this study.

(Full Name - please print)

1, do not consent to participate in this study.

(Full Name - please print)

- -

(Signature)
 This Ietter is requesting permission for your child to participate in a study
conducted by myself, a graduate student at McGill University. The goal ofthis research
project is to finher the knowledge we have about how students' feel about their present
day physical education classes and to help in the hprovement of future physical
education classes.
If permission is granted your child will be asked to participate in a group
interview. Interviews will include discussions on the students' perceptions and feelings
about their physical education class. These will also occur during physical education
classes or during study periods and will last approximately 20-30 minutes each.
Responses will be audiotaped and will remain confidential.
Additionally I will be observing physical education classes over the course of
several days. This wiIl allow me to gain a better understanding of the structure and
content of the physical education classes
your child participates in.
PIease be assured that d l information given will remain confidential. Any
information gathered will be analyzed by myself only, and will not be shared with the
physical education teacher or anyone else. Also note that participation or non-
participation in this study will in no way affect your child7sevaluation or participation in
their physical education dass-
If at any time you or your child wishes to cease participation in this study, your
child may fieely withdraw at their own discretion and for any reason, without penalty.
Finally, please be assured that pseudonyrns will be used in al1 written documents
and at no time wil1 your child7sname appear.
If a any point you are interested in the study7sfindings, a copy will be made
available.
If you have any questions about this research project you c m contact me at 671-
1042 or by email at vma@cam.orq. You may also contact Prof. M. Downey at McGill
University by phone at 398-4 184 ext. 0541. Please retum this letter by April 17, 1998.

Sincerely,

Virginia Armeni

n 1 g a n t permission for my child, to participate in this study.

(Full Name - please print)

a 1do not grant permission for my child, tu participate in this

study. (Fu11 Name - please print)

(Parent's signature) (Date)

(Student's signature) (Date)

 Appendix D:
Data Collection Instruments
Critical Incident Date: Sex: 1 F
1) Give a specific example that show sornething you like about coeducational physical
education (mixed girls and boys):

2) Give a specific example that show something you do riot like about coeducational
physical education (mixed girls and boys):
Critical Incident Date: Sex: M F

1) Give a specific example that show somethins you Like about sin~le-sexphysical
education (girls only):

2) Give a specific example that show something you do not like about single-se~
physicaI education (girls only):
CriticaI Incident Date: Sex: RI F
1) Give a specific example that show something you like about single-sex physical
education (boys only):

Give a specific esample that show something you do not like about single-se~
physical education (boys only):
Students' Interview Questions:

1) Describe your experiences in physical education class.

2) Describe some o f the t h i n g that woufd make you more/less willing to participate in
class? What would make your physical education class more/less enjoyable?

3) What ability level would you consider yourself in physical education? How do you -
feel about your abilities in physical education?

4) Describe how the girls/boys students are treated in your class? Wliat about yourself?
a) The sameldifferent?
b) Are they treated fairly?

5) For students in coed classes (grade 8 students):

What do you like/distike about being mixed with students of the opposite gender
in physical education?
What d o you think would be some positivelnegative aspects about being in a
single-sex physical education class?
1 have noticed that often girls and boys group themselves together by gender.
Why do you think this happens? How do you feel about this?

For students in single-sex classes (grade 9 students):

What do you like/disIike about being in a single-sex physical education class?
Thini; about your experience last year with coeducational classes. What are the
advantageddisadvantages with coeducational classes? What about single-sex
classes?

6) Are there things that 1 have not asked you that you think that 1 should know, about
your physical education class?
Teacher Interview Questions

1) What are your goals for students in physical education? Why do you feel physical
education is important for adoIescent girlshoys?

2) How is your approach to teaching physical education differendsame:

a In coeducational cIasses versus single-sex classes'?
b) With girls versus boys?
c) With high ability students versus low ability students?

3) What are some of the advantages/disadvantages of:

a) coeducational physical education?
b) single-sex physical education?
How do you feel boydgirls benefit fiom each type of class?

4) What type of activities do you feel important to include in physical education classes?
Why these activities and not others?

5) How do you feel about teaching:

a) coeducational physicaI educat ion?
b) single-sex physical education?

6 ) Do you feel there is a difference in girls' attitudes toward physical education in

coeducationaI versus single-sex classes? What about boys?

7) How would you irnprove your physical education program to rnake more girls
interested in participating?

8) How do you deal with the issue of gender equity in al1 of your physical education
classes?
Media Articles
Acnirding ui pnrholo* and .uthor\\illiim Pollaclc+anr rre theonc mi in rhich man! oT106ccy'srndition.l .tn'aum.bout mrrculiniC?ucoRcn 1-
mcd. rllmbing b a p ui cxpenrnrr p-5 oithrmuhcr ch- n r c l r orpcricnre el- hcre:
I

Boys have bccn paintcd ,asthe bnd gu'.s in t h c p i i s l i to encourage girls to succecd, l e a ~ i n gt i i a n y
Young men fceling confiiscd and alicnatcd. wondering what they did w o n g

Whv bovs are in trouble

~erigncdu,~ & i u i nt h u r feelings
about impcndingaddthoob the t a t
m m r n d bo)s -fur. mccnPns; Tee c r i t M used todiaporc deprrrPon u Gnde 8 uc n o w ' N i a u likely to u-
ingsoflonelincss, and n e c d ; h c u y s vcighted huvüy cornrd rymptom. pire to a u r c c r in nunagement. the
71'hiIe ur may jokc about howidult (suchu wccpincrt)thitrnareap~~~ professions. o r business- than a r t
m i l a won1 rrk for directions when tiucadultfdu-inmnrnsrnretï- h
thcy'rc l o r t it ù no kughing m n e r cent young mil& a k liGy - dir- -1; reccnt years. m i n y enlightened
h t i o nunyofourboylfed I h c y m i p h . sehoal dirtricu hnrr eompelled thBr
ruchoutforthccmoriod~~moass- H e further c h m e s h t bovr en- s u f i m d e ecnder mdw courses
t h y s o d a p n c l yn d ' counter i n du&on.l cyst& b a t with the ra&. sayr b o l h . t b t
He hrr no q u a m l uirh dl IheaUen- fawuri i l e a m ï n ~sryle doccrto Ic- tachm hmTtccmue cspuidbwd-
y ~ & 6ut &book uguathiiomety ta fmm -nÏ&untriÜ indi& nm-rh.t r h e w i c u ofgidsrLirchd
lus failcd to d i a fraction o f h a t chat icl b y s , not ip'rls. r t i o arc DOW inciuirdirmxJmr B u t i n i h e p l ~ ~

i t a desk wtule &ing 4 t h a neutri?

osrisrion a t a photo of. wmuinith commit suicide i b o u s~ u bna u of- icy torr.
ten u their femalecounterpuu U of
huge concem. 50 is the faet chat the
I p r t ~ d the
. mxwhelmïnr maioriw
dm0 out o f w h w l rooner.
because thcvdon't sit rr quictlyor be-
pin hn-.the num&rofçhilbm
diaporcdwith aamo'on defiat disor-
der in the United S o t c s h u doublcd.
n i e facc that nine out of IO of t h e

A place of their own chûdrcn uc boys h u led Pollack and

The argument aikal&y~orru& rliot boys

forsin le- ender a r r x I / ~ B u t ~ ~ ~ p in c~l a s s a intendrd for l u m -
&l acd n

$ %
SC 00
ircllarliiJhYys&m~i
w.ap4.kkriuy-m
amunmnguù-wu&&
ingdhbled chiidmi or un: rrpu*riy
to a deencion m m vtierc he nu un-
anendrd for ~ v e r a periods.
l losing
53rwL a.. a forurdingmernbcr ofLe
for boys Tlicfeuris char an d-&yenmhm- viluableclrumorn d m e . ..this m i y
mmr brings our rhe wrsr in boys I r the kginning of i life relcgated
briryr out &r bnuol& IO -d& carnomicand intellce
Sure- And that a n h a o ~ If
~ you
~ . NJcitimuhip-
Pollack r c w n r that he has bcrn in

ad.ofÏhelodi&&.~y>r.*r~ue &wbcannnuiboya l i & d u c thci- i n d k u i c hnÏdpdoi ii d p h e e t ' i f t h e y i g & nottobothn

d m n g b y a w h o are &id t o u k for f i b q n ~ b c d 6 ~ & ? t h a e t h i n g ~ o n g ~ k d b y hr -h e t u c h a ~ ~ g t h N h u r d -
~ furofbcinriudrcd insuffi- ALwlutek h m 8 d - e n s ~ m
h e l for nud- erat i n'nde-wrrhool chinnt L ooad &in once a el- 'lmniully. thcfre
 Let them be many things that a n m m d [ital-
ics a d d a peson muiddo that
you are not allowed o r urpected
their tme feelings. it S o casti-
gates them for not being 6-
cientlysensitive, unpathetiç and
tado-- communicativein their relations
According to Pollack dl thii d t h women,
BOYS presrure ocacts a heavy toiion the 'Tt's as ifoursons are unwitting-
Conrinucdfrom Page BI average male. The straitjacket ly mirroring back to u s Our own
'drains boys' energy because it adult ambivalence about mas-
The mere presence of bojs can caUs upan th- to perfom a mn- culinityand t q i n g in vain ta ac-
also be viewed with suspicion. stant'actingjob: 'he says Males cept and internaiiie hvo diamet-
since societytends, says Po&& m u t 'pretend to be confident rically opposed vieux of man-
'to believe îhat there is something whentheymqfeelahi&shlrdy hooà,-sa>s Pollack
inherently dangernus o r toxic when they feel shaky, indepen- 'In short, we want our boys to
about boss.* Linden School. the dent d e n they may be desperate be sensitive Kew Age guys and
pre!stigioÜs all-giri~orontoM- for love.attention, andsupport.' stiU be cool dudes- Is it anywon-
tution thata d v a tlxat its stu- Adding innilt to injury.even der chat a lot of bo)s areainfllsed
dents. startïng at Grade 4. 'go to though Our society sein pressures by this double standard?'
school mafiaid of senial harass- the-voungest of boys into burying ~ V u t i o n a Posr
f
ment." % a aseh popoint
7 V e are ail t m ready ta offer ad-
vice to girls and to blamc boys:
sa- Pollack Girls *are legiti-
rnately encouraged to explore
their feelings and to cornmuni-
cate assertively. Boys. however,
.
are lectured at . .The attitude
seerns to be chat boys don't have
theirown confusi-ans.-
IYhile girls who -joke about the
'bulge' in football players*pants
are unlikely to be branded as sex-
ual harasses,"he says. when the
offenderisapursg d e % seem
LO forget his need to p h 5 experi-
ment, and f%i inordertogmw. in-
stead. we respond as though he is
a full-fledgedagpssoS
IVhile the past 30 years have
freed girls h m m-
centuryattitudes about what con-
stitutes p e m i s i i l e feminine k
haviour. Poliacksaysboys are stïii
trapped in their own gender
straightjackn
He t a k about fBle-yeardldsbe-
iag shamed and compared to
girls b u s e they aron't as pm6-
cient as other boys a t sports. He
wrïtes about Grade 4 boys king
disciplineclby their principal for
'inappropriate touching and sex-
ual expression' after hugging
each other on the Lrst &y of
school. He quotes a 15-year-old
i malewho saysr-1 guessit's h d
beingiguybecausethereareso

Laframboise, D. (1999, January 5 ) . Why boys are in trouble. National Post, BI

 JOKU u u~unr~>unoitu~
Blakcy(ccnhc) surroundcd by Upper CuirdrCdlcge stridentsOeR to right) Ravi Sain, Stevui Bfungowm,
Thabcy Campion,ïhomas Kalvik, a d ChnsB u J d c

spend hours putting on makeup ing and wrieing. It was amibuteci

Be aware of the and caring about fashion. Boys
piay football. a a macho, and beat
to the currïcuIum and the fact
that the boys were not competing
people up. Whereas a t a boys' with girls who were more mature
Lordof the Flies schwl, ifyou are in the choir, or
the theatre, o r the fwtbaii team.
and more naturally able- Girls
tend to be more diügent They're
that's just who p u are. And you more willing to take direction.
factor assume gïris are the same It's not
as if the boys never have to be
with girls or women, but we pro-
Young boys get up and move
around. They're a b tx-0years to
18 months l e s mature. Thatdif-
\*de them with a t h e when they ferencestays withk& thraugh to
SCHOOLS dont havetobt highschml. ifyou have that dif-
Continuedfiorn Page BI If a single-gendrr eàucah*onis ference - a two-year gap
so supcrior,why amnP naaie in-
Who would h u e tiiougiit thzt stitutions haver ab&
-
throughout that presents a sig-
bbcing nificant cbùienge for the teacher.
thcadwntageofa boys'sch~~lü w ~ t h e y a f e ? Where do you pitch theciass?
boys can befne tofind Ciicir That's a very goodpoint About Should puàlik sclrwk think
Jeminineside? eight years ago 1 got iavolved rlbour~saigIc-çer~?
1know. but ifs me. with a group of heads of boys' In Canada thereVsa p~liticai~eq-
*~crb4urrircsocirJiring&ed sch&Andwewyefetlingvery
of girls? Boys wunt to imprcss nikierable thatwe were adying
-
uity agenda you have to have
boys and girls together beyuse
girls so they tame tiuïr brute in- b d And we talktd'alot about that'sppvaytheyddid . -
snncrs Take thut awjl and +?y being prouder of what we are. ~cmrnrrtîwodi~~xpcr-
areficc to compere ttke kil w t ~ h What came out of that meeting rarionranrZdmum~tFccboys
cadr o t k was that we should do what the are faoourcd Tliey'd get more.
1just don't see that happening. girW çchoois have &ne and initi- 813 w?u#'sfunny is thnt you're
At a good school you have to be ate our own researchabout how trjrirrgtoctuztcm~~~~-nmmcRt
aware of the Lord ofthe Flicspo- bestto educztebys wh?n=bqys-kccpuP
tential. If you are aware of that, H m do yw mzh boys da#ii- 1t.binteresling. Among thesta-
you deal ulth it, obuntenct it ~ Y P tistics that ï've seen consistently
Dont chiiàren who s p d thir In languages it's a question of h m the U.L are the league a-
mtire sdiool carcm in a cinglt- selecting mat& that are more bles where schools are rated for
s a mvironmenr md up viewing appealùig to boys. In England academic achievement For five
the qpposite ser as alim and they set up a study with middle- ycars stdght, 48 of the top 50
bimrrc? school-aged boys. They gave schools have been single-sex
The view of the opposite sex them a curriculumthat was more schools. ALmost evenly distrib-
tends to be muchmore positive at interesringto boys, th;nm iike the uted between boys' and girls'
single-sex schools than CO-ed O d . , M ~ * . . schwls. It's a pretty dramatic
schools. At co-ed schools there's Scarra~Iotsof~ demonssation of the d u e ofsin-
much more pressure to conform And war, And there was a dra- gie-gendu education.
to gender stereotypes. Guls matic impmnmeat in boyd mad= National Post

Frum, L. (1999,January 5) . A place of their own: The argument for single-

gender schools for boys. National Post, B 1432.
 Women in a man!worl
- as thBettysprove
Rugby .isnotjust a mn721'sgame C

- SMITH
BY ALISA

ï,isa Stnarr, a wyear~ld acn>uriîantrndfor-

merfigures k a t a d o nwpkys pmp, isrmong
&e dbut ntmiber ofwomen ataaa-
ed to the sport. EIu ail-
lug~eakyatobt Untii recently. giris
eonvatedto the notori- were steereà toward
O
* violfmtgrme. T m more sedatep- To-
certainly the only one day, bnüses and gashes
whowmcstoworkwitha are badges ofhonour for
blackdshesays. yonnga womeuraised on
a diet ofextreme sports.
It is no longer unusual to
overhear teenage girls
sharizlg war stories of

Smith, A. (1999, January 16) . Women in a man's world: Rugby is not just a
man's game - as the Betty's prove. National Post. Weekend Post Insen, p. 23
snowboardhg and mountain-biking injmMes, in-
duding tales ofbroken bones and flesh ripped
wide open
Evenin prïm V ictoria,the landof teaand c m -
pets.Wngs are chauging-When J d V m c e n t
movedtothisatyasavetemnnationalreamphyer
in the eariy1990s -she played girls' rugbyat her
-
Quebec bigh schooI she was surprisedby how
h w o m e n piéged ~ g b y .
T o r the men, rugbywas werythîng. Butthere
vare fewwomen's teamsw h I amved,-she says.
Rom on@six teamsin B.C in '1990, the sportbas
gmwn to-28 teams in four leagues, she says.
Though only 29 years 0'14 Vmcept is a rugby pi*
neez As a yotmgster she played for the women's
national team in its fustyear(S87).
'1 was a punkthen, only17t she says. -Aton of
people did a lot ofwork to niakeithap~err.~Naw,
the worKs on her shoulders.On top ofherjob as a
senior systems axdyst, she d e s the University
of Xctoria women's rugby team, which was
awardd0fS:cÏaivaxsifys~atus thisyeac
Another formernationaI teammembanowsta-
tionedinvictoria is 30-year-a1dlai Ross. who c
tirmiden shegavebirthto twins 18months ago.
m a t neaving rugby] was hard it was a-
World CupyearFshe says over ooffee. Just to tub it
in, that Wodd Cup was thef k t everwith offiaal
sponsorship, and allthe bendits thatentaik
%en 1went to Scotiand [for an international
championship] we hadto pay $1.000 to go,The
team h m Kazahstan got off the plane with
nothing - n o m , no h d ' Rosssays
'Nowteams get theirway paid and everything
issuppliecl, even shoes,justIike the men"
Women's rugby may now have nationai recog-
nition, but the benefits are only slowlytrickiing
down to the locaileagues. 'Ii4pica.lof u n d e h d e d
women's sports,there are no scorekeeperswhen
the Be- play, no officiais but a solitary grey-
baired male- and fewspectaton
Despite di that, theBettys are f i e d y devoteci
to rugby- Midway through the game, kblond
player runs offthe fidd,j-eiiingat her tea~nmates
on the sidelines: 'Get m e some gauze! Get me
same water!"
She tries franticaüy to wipe the blood offher
ficsso the reféreewon't keep her out ofthegame.
'Is it my tooth?'she asks. omng her mouth
for a qui&sidelineinspection. Satisfiedit isoniy
her lip, she giabs a water bottle, s q h off the
blood, andjogs backinto play
One red-haired player sitswoefidly on the side-
Iines.herf w t and ankle banàaged in impregmble
wisite t a p e 7 couidn't evenwalk on ityesterday-
I was dreamingto think 1could run on it todayr
shesays in herstmngAush *' accent l t ' s tor-
tureto havetosithere,justwatdiiag--
At a Iater p d c e session a t the ffoodlit Beacon
EEQfield, a few hardy playersjog aroundin the
dark. It is 6 p a ~and , the temperature is set to
drop belowzero forthefkttime in this rugbysea-
e son. Most of the Be- have gone away for the
Christmas and New Year holidays; perhaps a
@tyfewarenursing an eggnogùyt h e k
These brave remaining players d e the m-
thmugh with spartan fortitude. Agangly young
player catches passes thrown by a former B.C
team member, here to d y the troops...4nother
player, Wendy Stone, often brïngs her young
daughter, MoIIy, along.The giri's blond ciidswùip
against her facein the wind, and she mns tireles-
Iy tùne and tune again after the b d , byingto be
part ofan the ach'on and excitement
Afterall. she'sthe futureof the wornen's game
 Barker, J. (1998, May 25) . Boys are boys; girIs Iose out: Does CO-edphysical
education offer gender equity and equal opportunity? It doesn't look like it. The
Montreal Gazette, p- F7.
 :Agdii, the sklll nnd strciigth of the Iiidcctl, II siutly It's 111)to thc ~eiidici'sio coiitpl the Gow iald that in the older grades, m
bpys ~s sliowctisi!d by numerous tillotl A t v Girls lcvclof coiii~ieliiio~iriiitl the equallty of ed c î a m r m m to work butter. S t U he
I I U I ~ tLiiti3,
I ~ wliil~i tic ~ l r l roullncly
s Loslng Util'! 'l'lie
lilt Io Illu Inllckl iiiitl woro tlirown out
nl firsl L:isc.l'lic ylrls wciu full of eri-
Efïccts of hllscd
Sox Croupliir: oii
pnrtlclputloii in gyiii cliiss. While moat
tcnchcrs ntiiiiit t1ici.c nre problems
with cou! cliisscs, thcy are no1 dways
1 prcfcn to teach segreguted ciasses, '

' T h e n b lsss distraction of girlatru.

ine to m r e e s boys, and boys îrying to
c6riib~i~ci~icril lor euch otlioi: 'l'lie Iioys, Girls' I~crforinnnca nwnre of tlic Iiiipllcnlions of male.
in Physicnl I~iluca. Impms girh." , ,
I

Iil1wuv6i; wcrc cotiscrvntlve 111 llio1i.
lit:dac! 01' Ihc girls tirid c ~ i s l v iii
c tlidr
~rcilsclbrcncholl~ct:
!AfiuiaIlic gatiic, t h clnss wns nskcd
Io coiiiiiicnt on CO-cdclnsscs. Tho boys
iiiid glrls both cxprcssctl frustrallon
tv.illi cncli ot1ici~'sslylu of plny. l'lic
Iioys fcll 111~'girl!: ?Idiilt ciire ebout Iho
~tiiiie:I h girls fvll lho hoys took tlio
giiriic! ~tKI scrl~isly,
Oiie boy riccirsctl Ille girls of h g h -
iiig whrn Ilicy iiilsscrl Ilic bnll. Tlic
uii'ls lricd to oxplnlii thnt thclr lnugh*
Iai~covcirtlcnib;ii~rriss~nctit.
"Ws Iiilliiiidnthig to bu wltli Ilic
boys," suld Aiiiic Tournas, lG, "They
cnll tnestiipld."
Ttiougli thc boys denlcd talklng to
hcr In thls wny, the girls wcrc ln ngm.
inont, cvcn If those cxacl words wcrc
lion, wriltcii by
Mnnltobn pliysical
utliicatlon tcachcrs Julie Turvcy iind
Chrls Laws observcd n disparlty and
iiicqunllty or plny durlng co-edclassas.
Iluriiig inlxeii~tcain gnincs, boys
inada more contnct with thc kill tlinn
girls.
"Lrist yenr, al1 the girls in iny clnss
wcn t oii strlkc. Tho boys woultlii't pnss
to tlicglrls, WciilI snt downniitl rcliiscû
lo play," suicl Ktithryn Trlckelt or St,
Tlioiiias,
Tlic tcachcrs Intervlcwcd ngrccd
thut team sports seem to brlng out Iho
worst in tlio battic of tlic scxes.
Unskctbull und toucli football were
oftcn niciitloncd as opportunltlos for
boys Lo donilnate the play. Equdtty b
tweeii sexes 1s somewhat mstorcd d w
Iiig nctivitles llke badminton and vol-
lcybail, where'the'sport altows less o p
tloinini~lctlpliysicul cdiicatlon. In fact, ,At St, Thomas Hlgh School, w h b h
the tcachcrs cun bc part of the prob. hns no lemale physical education
lem, Gendcr bins 1s dimcult to contrtln,
eiplally wheii the skUl and cornpetla
tion levé1 1s so markcdly different b e
twwn sexes.
"The tcachcrs 9ay thlnga llke 'good
job' when the boys mako a good play,''
sald Senlk from John Rennie. "But for
girls, thcy alwnys mako statemente of
hprovemcnt Ilkc, 'Corne on, 60 @!$-
or 'Jump hlghcr."'
Some of the g l d i int6rvliwed1&w,
thelr teachcrs routinely use boyr k,
dumonstrete sklUs. The girls sny Uiem.
small blases further relnforcü thelr
feelîngsof physicd Morlorlt$ ',
Most of tho tcachers lntowlewed
found subtlc ways to get q w . ~4
or the amruitics of coca P h ~ e B r i.i ~ ,
ucation.
. . a .

iicvcr spoken, the boys' nctloiis nnd
coiiiiiicnls Id Ihc girls to bclicvc boys
thlnk tlicy arc bcttcr thon girls.
Thls prcvalliiig fccllng of Inailequa.
ph~nltyforboYst o c o n h l the turne,'
Whon asked, thc boys In al1 tliroe
schools fdled to admit, at least Initial+
Ly, thnt thcrc is aiiy dlsparlty in prirtlcl+
At John Rcnnle, somc mcmberi of
the phys.ed staff combinc Iwo clasiee
and team.Ieuch, separating the boys'
andgirls for ccrtaln activltles.
1

cy on tlic part of tlic glrls ls pcrhaps
lliu mosl dis turbin^ aspect of inlxcd-
sex dnsscs. Ncgativc pcrccptloiis of
Iiow boys vlow the ~ i r l subiiitlcs
' coitio
ucims ln n mrloty of wnys,
"lt's iiot just whnt ihcy sny. It'v tlic fa-
clnlcxprcssloiis, ltkc iLoUiiigUiclrcycs,
tlinl tiiakc ils fccl hitl," srilri Julie
Scnlk, a Grnclc 8 stiidciit ut Joliii Rcn-
tiioIll~liSchwl,
It's iiol jiist IIic boys' nlliludc tliat
cniises lho girls Io lia hcsllriiit 111 yyni
cliiss, slutllcs sliowv, It's tlic lack of
eqiitillty in pnrllcl~~nlloii that lcatls
glrlx iaqucstioii Ilicirnbllltics,
"C;Ii-lsiicvci*gctlu toiicli tlic bail, WC
~)iirticlpnlciiioir! whcii tlie boys iiiw't
Ilicw," ~nitlCliloiii;~bVosii, 14, of Joliii
I~t~tililc.
~wlion.
Whcn confronted wlth thc glrls'com
mqk,the bpys fclt the girls were "tao
busy Mklng'i or "didii't bothcr c d l n g
for tlio bniî," Wlieii hrllicr questloncd
oii thc glrls' riglit to play, tho boys snld
thcy arc willliil: to plriy with vlrls who
want the ball, but
arc! frustrated wlth
whrit thoy Iiitcrpret
a s t lie glrls' lnck of
dcslre Io win,
facrliaps thls de.
slre to wln is the
@ defliiliig düfcrence
bctwecn thescxes.
Sludles donc by
pliysical educntora
Iinvcshown t1i:it glrls wnnt to beactlvc,
liiit thuy p w k r activltlcs that focuvon
fuii aiitl ~i:ii'tfcipatioti,1101winnlnt.
When Intcrvicwcd, Iwo classei.!oi:
Grade 9 studcnts who normally p.tic-,
lpate in gym togcthcr, were divlded bt
gender for the nrst tlme this l e i & The,
glrls playcd basketball Jn the gym
whUe the boys wcre downstnirs in the
welght rwiii,
Teachcrs Janet Evans a n d ~ n r r y ' ~ a *
ley felt both sexes would beneflt fkom.
bclngseparutcdduring theso twoactiv-. .
itles,
"In somc (CO-cd)sltustlons they aU
galn," snld Cow of Royai West Acade-
my, "Girls cnii icnrn fLom boys and
boys cari lenrn from glrls, There are
other tinies, Iiowovcr, when the chem-1 8
istry doesn't work.
"In the youngcr grndcs especlally,
thc glrls n i t {tihlhitcd.Tlicy don't work
to thelr full potontid."
te&e&; 0rade 10ducathn phye
Ical~eiluqationciass was LnteSvtewed In
n cIa8sroprn outslde of the gym. hwni
th0 beginnlng, the boys trled to domi-
îhey juaf \oseIt,'!sni+mother. .Y,;. *.
Thelr rernarkswere unlnhibitedand
: onen offenslve as they mmarksd on the
'glrld poof. performance ln gym: The
a girls maintalnet! a stony silence,*"j":":
Evcn when repeawly noket(oc01i
trlbute to the dlscussloii, the 8. 1s *etc
rcluctant toreibte tho boys'comments.
Only tvhen offcred a sale haven in Oie
stupl1l."
"1 tloii'l wnnt to trikc n shot I f t l i c
liiys iire Ilicrc," ciililcd tiann Nul-,
IJiw\i'i1.
W i o y dorniniile 11s iii clnss. Yoti
Iie~irdIIicIr ctjiiiiricnts," Inincnted
Slciihiiiil~iItob~mk, '
Exlicr\ciiccs siicli ns thcse cnusc
~ l r llooliî
s out of gytii class. Accorillng
Io t111~sti1ilcnts, girls si1out of the class
iiiowoncii h n boys.
At i r i i r i ~ whcknio~~fotin~girlsnru'
e
siiiokitig, tlevelopitig critiiig disordcrs'
niiil tiucoiiiliis cliroiiici~llyscrlcntnry,
Il's liiiprirl:iiit for gii41sIo ~ l i i i i nboul
k
pllyslail ncllvlty 111r i ~iositivcway
'I'liv Iicrillh bciierlls or ait nctlve'
4IPsiylc iiucd to bc rolnforcarl ~ iull t
;agu.
I)y \lie iigc or 12. the iwmbcr or girls
iwlio nre iict Ive IIIsporl niid physlcal nc.
4t l v h tlcclltics stcntlil~,wlillc the actlv-.
I l y k v c l of boys III dl agc yroups ree
niniiisntmilt thcsniiic.
Exlierls bcllcvc fcmnfcs, boglnning
n l lin carly ngc, uiiilcrvnltic mliinder*
cstlnintc tliolr cnpncity und potentlal
for pliyslciil compcluiicy,As n result, a
glii's proriclciicy fiills furtlier beliind
b
iicr iiirile !teers. .o. .A .,
OIrls iii;iy ihcn sclccloiiiy ~ctivitios
Ilial iiio Ir;iilltioiinlly f'uninlc oi; woise,
Iw t t t r i l ~ON
l of pliyslc~lncllvity dl to-
~cLliW, )\kt
1
Fi40mthe iriturvlows with girls iit
r\ccueditig 10 Ule Drtylitoil Dccliirna Morilrcnl higli schools, L I is tlcbnii~ble
Iluii oii Woiiicn niid Sport, tlevelopcd iit whcuicr girls ore nchlevlng thcse goals
ilic first iii~crnntlotirr~ coiilcrenco on hi co.ed~cntiondphyslcul etluetrtion
uiiiiicii iiiitl sporl fil IiJD4, woiiicii and classes.
girls slioiiltl Iiuvc tliv op~~oi'luiilly to A qunlity physlcal educatlon pro-
pcirllclpiw I n sport iiiiisnli'andsup- grniii nllows girls lo associnle tlielr
~toi'tlvc~iivlroniiicntIlint proserves pnrtictpatlon In sporls wltli fuii,
IlruIr rlglils,tllgnity niirlwspcct, Frleiidsandfitness,
Il iiirilior sintcs l h t rescnrch Tlicy should beconie incrcasiiigly
tlriiionstidntcstlint girls niid boys rip confident In tbelr sport skills niid
~ii*o;iclislioi't froiti iiinrkctlly diïibreiit Icnrii the conneaion bctwwn physicnl
pci'spccilvils. Tliosc rtspoiisllilc roc actlvlty and hedlh, .
s1mrt, etliicnllon, irciwtlon aiid physi. The gonl is to bulld sclf~cslcctiii n
c:il cilucntloii of yoiiiig pcoplo should girls who are unsure about thclr iihysi.
L ' H S ~ 1liii1
~ ~ Vnn cqiiltnble rniigc! of 01).
ciil skllls. "Wlicii girls plny wllli girls,
~iorlii~iilics iind Ionriiliig cslicrlciiccs, thcy sooii iriilizc gyiii ciiii bc N!iiii,"
wld
wlilcli 'nccuinniodiitu Oie vtilucs of McClciiiriiis of laierrefondsCutiilire.
~ l r l sIs
, iiicorporntcd 111progrnins to Iicnslvc 1liyh Sctiool.
IIWCIO~ IIW III~YSIC~II ~ ~ It111d I ~~C I I S ~S
C S
sklllsof yoriiig pcolili~,
 _ ____- want
Girls __ _ to be team players, ____
Fernale athletes have been left on the sidëliëGf team sports far too long
T h e increased i n r e m r ln wamen's
FlTNESS
-
hockey and the doielopmenl oc m e
Women's National Ekskethll AItoci.
atian <mm) have Ied many m bc JlLL BARKER
Iieve that womer. have nnally round
Iheir rightful place in sport- YCCo n e
Onls has 10 pcek under the suface O: Evcnin~k.ruu.ihkiersmnot
t h e u achievemenU Io r e a l k e t h s t Ucheyshaildbc8coiuuoTilackor
mosl girls SUI don? havc Lhe oppartu. playen in tbe femaie drvislon of t h e
nttyor support Io bccomeas su-- &kenb u X r t W league m LSe West
fut as sports s o n byte>.HlckenheLr- lrland. O y t u ~ l d are
s playhg with
Cr<CanldrTwmcn's hockey tmm) o r glrîs t u g and t h m yean older The
She-1 Snmpr-s (Houston Cornets OC s u e dIiïerenœ. not Io mentlon the en-
<hrWSBA>. hnced cairdliutlonand m t u r l t y of
Ten.gcarold Rachel Clancy L a I h e o l d e r g i r k m i l a It raiphCorsame
prime example She's a talentcd bas- a t h e y n t n R r p h w r s r o k e p u p A n d
LnIIlUplayerwha Kforord toplayona whiie theorLinizen arepleased with
boy's tram. She coud have played m e s u c e s o r a e laeue. w h k h ~r m
house leawe with rhe r a t or the gvfs iuïrsycar;theyneedmoreoirLroïaü
hcr ape. but tlancy ranted the c m - i g e s t o make the leaeue more qui-
lcncrol a m n r e m r n w t l ~ 1agu.z table
- W u w l d p d * r s n e play wtth girls Avprrrntly lttrir and thcw pxrenrs
k t L w w r c nur enough gwb to f u m haven't conen the message mat sports
I ~ I Iiniercriyl team. sa we had n o az-egxYdfotwk~bomavm-
c ~ u ~ ~ c c - &chersmo<her.shc(k
s~id CN or souzrœs suggeslr 1iu1 girls who
i<.xhel u wC 10 phyuiguirh boys. pirapace m s w v s u e l a r l & e I y ihui
E ~ S Sher mozher She had a s i m k ex. thetr x d e n q p c e n to g a u i w ~ r r d
wrrence in soccer a feu. y e a n ago. with drues o r have a n unwmted DRP.
Tnerewas no m t e r c i c y 1eim.m ~
she pla* si* the boys StU. Rachel
w s n e r m i a about bemg Uie only euf
a n a ba?s*team.
-I u u mm& rhcy unu~dn'tp a s the
b d t o me.-uid RxheL II maka w h i k
for her teammatcr IO giv;he;qtij JiM b o h ? - i i & i t n ~ 1; riii Kecping r h e l r e ) a o n rhe b;rll.Lisa llumsy So. 4.and Dmnna J d n . II.
Wz mith Lic aiillbui m w mondo. A m e n a - b a s c d Women's Spon Wun-
Thcm are a couvle of boys holvewr dation. t h m is no msearh IO suggest 'Hewzsa grutplyfordoinclf u II
n ho never pars her the baU and ac- that boys ue amre m t c m e d m s p a n r n-asn'i Lq fashion a l the Ilme.- s a s s
cordinp IO Rachel. prlr YnuiC B m n . r h o a1 32 is stffl a memter o r
R e s e o r c h mgguis that Kirb are JUSas canada3 nadonai eaxn'He went out
~ " ~ ~ L r~r n m ~ L l y s r w~s ef his v i v tar arnmlzc the w u n And
teammates rau m gids who p o d d p d e in s u t a m b h t t ~ n
-1 WuMlquaL sports hava batter self- f-opponunl-
Girls Wh0 love IO Sports t a c h a them IO d u e t h c t
compete shouldn.t estaem and s u f f s r lass
d e p r e s s i o n thon *air
=",,,",% notrnwriiaeur-
bodyandbenlopawrrpor~bodg
10 P I ~ Y imam. They iLlo develop lesdeohlp roodequipmii1~1r~hherpamO.itme
boys SIstLnta show aeement auses sLiUs and l e u n the imporunce of h c r ro ud Imm n n c t f a u i d mrLc
most <irisenter or- 'ede"mr>r P w a elrts u > ~ o u t o ~ icunuorkButmonof~theV~-
canlxed sporrs two ~pomataraurtut
y c a n h i e r than boys. This dela# ksixttmrs~ùannboyr
s m n m r k e s iheLskiU< s e m Werlor HlLhQut h a hl&-schcaIteacher~s sporuatanearly age is r k k y Inkec- inta a Iilelong eommtmrent ro ameu
r h e n wmpared s i t a boys t h e k m d e d l c a u o q ' r ü é r b e Brisson. a mem- ingher a& as r h e gcLtO1der.A Uni- and bmcr healIh. -
w m e n athletn. coaches. o I 5 1
am. ber of canada3 1998 Olympic suver venity of Vüginla n u d s by Unda Fenaicmlemodelr bel? encourage
AcmrdLio Io the Caiudlan Amd.. md&rlnnlnn hockey have Bunker r u t e s chat K a S i d does no1 rtlrls IO smy i ~ l vThe e baom in KI*
rlon for the Advancement o r Women k e n one o r o éariy ~ d m ~ u r s
and Sport and Physlal Accivity Frank MUlerCormed a glrW team a t
KAAWS). pliying on an aii~femaie Plerrefonds Comprehenslw High
team o K e n l o r b b e n e r o v p o m n l t l n Schaol when r h e o p p o ~ n l c yforguis < i n inrm vacarions and u r e k a ô
CXCU~SION
roreiendsiuusuemrandgosi(t~xu mpbhoduy wu-
Stone Saup

Eliot, J- (1999, January 13). Stone Soup. The Montreal Gazette, p. B8

Eliot, J- (1999, J m q 15). Stone Soup- The Montreal Gazette, p. E7

Eliot, J. (1999, January 16). Stone Soup. The Montreal Gazette, p. K5

Eliot, J. (1999, January 21). Stone Soup. The Montreal Gazette, p. Dg

StaneSoup ByJon Eliot

Eliot, J. (1999, January 22). Stone Soup. The Montreal Gazette, p. B6

Eliot, J. (1999, January 23). Stone Soup. The Montreal Gazette, p. L5

Appendix F:
 MCGlLL UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATlON
:.ssoc. han's îMim
CERTlFlCATE OF ETHIOqL ACCEPTABILITY FOR RESEARCH
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS .+

A review cornmittee consisting of:

1- Prof, Eveiyn. Lusthaus 4. Prof, Mary Maguire

and Counselling
Department of €ducational Department of Second Language Education

2,Prof. John Leide 5. Prof. Claudia Mitchell

Graduate School of Library and Information Studies Department of Educational Studies

3,Prof. Margaret Downey 6,Prof. Kevin McDonougb

Department of Physical Education Department of Culture and Values in Education

has examined the application for certification of the ethical acceptability of the project taled:

as proposed by:

Applicant's Name 1 6 k e ~ Supervisor's

l Name f l .3 . -D
Applicant's Signature Supervisofs Signature A)

Degree Program ranting Agency

The review cornmittee considers the research procedures, as explained by the applicant in this
application, to be acceptable on ethical grounds-

(Signed)

a) G~L
Y/ ~ a
b)

cl / w

Associate Dean (Academic)