jurang pendidikan 5

LEARNING

www.Learning-Journal.com

JOURNALTHE INTERNAT IONAL

of

Volume 17, Number 4

Exploring the Gender Gap in Achievement inMalaysia: A Case for Learning Styles

Nadia Ainuddin Dahlan, Nor Azian Md Noor,Sharifah Muzlia Syed Mustafa, Khadijah Said Hashim

and Voviana Zulkifli

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING http://www.Learning-Journal.com First published in 2010 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2010 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2010 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <[email protected]>. ISSN: 1447-9494 Publisher Site: http://www.Learning-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

Exploring the Gender Gap in Achievement in Malaysia:A Case for Learning StylesNadia Ainuddin Dahlan, MARA University of Technology, Selangor,MalaysiaNor Azian Md Noor, International Islamic University Malaysia, MalaysiaSharifah Muzlia Syed Mustafa, MARA University of Technology,MalaysiaKhadijah Said Hashim, MARA University of Technology, MalaysiaVoviana Zulkifli, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia

Abstract: A common problem shared by many institutions of higher learning around the world todayis the wide discrepancy in the enrollment of males and females. Although the gender gap inpublicuniversities has been widely highlighted in Malaysia, it is believed this problem may be inextricablylinked to gender differences in achievement at the school level. It has been suggested that accommod-ating gender differences in learning styles in schools could help bridge the gender gap. Therefore,this study attempted to identify the extent of the gender gap by comparing the self-reported results ofa national standardized test, the Lower Secondary Examination or PenilaianMenengah Rendah (PMR),of 411 Form Four students from four secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur. Respiondents also completedthe Felder and Soloman (1991) Index of Learning Styles (ILS), which determined their learning styleson four subscales: Active-Reflective, Sensing-Intuitive, Visual-Verbal and Sequential-Global. Thestudy found a significant gender difference in achievement but not for learning styles. The majority ofrespondents were Active, Visual and Sequential. However, a binary logistic regression model foundgender, Sensing and Visual learning styles to be significant predictors of achievement. Therefore, ac-commodating these learning styles in particular, may promote the academic achievement of students.Future teachers should consequently be equipped with practical knowledge of learning styles in thehope of increasing achievement across genders, thus narrowing the gender gap in schools and leadto more gender-balanced university classrooms capable of nurturing quality human capital amongstboth women and men.

Keywords: Gender Gap, Achievement, Learning Styles, Human Capital, Gender Differences, University,Index of Learning Styles, Future Teachers

Introduction

Gender Gap in Academic Achievement: A Global Phenomenon

AUNIVERSAL PROBLEM shared by institutions of higher learning around theworld today is the wide discrepancy in the enrolment of males and females. Overthe last decade, female enrolment has outnumbered that of males’ and this phe-nomenon has been attributed to the ‘new’ gender gap. The gender gap refers to the

underachievement of males compared to females in schools and has been debated since at

The International Journal of LearningVolume 17, Number 4, 2010, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494© Common Ground, Nadia Ainuddin Dahlan, Nor Azian Md Noor, Sharifah Muzlia Syed Mustafa,Khadijah Said Hashim, Voviana Zulkifli, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]

least the 1990s (Head, 1999). It has since become an issue of great public and political concernin many countries though most notably in the UK, US and Australia (Rowan, Knobel, Bigum& Lankshear, 2002). In fact, recent reports assert that females are still leading in universityenrolment in these countries (Henry, 2009; Strauss, 2010).

Indications of a gender gap in Malaysia can be inferred from the stark imbalance in publicuniversity enrolment and high dropout rates of boys from school. However, unlike in theWest where the gender gap has generated much debate, similar discussion is lacking whilstthe literature available are few and far in between although the consequences of such genderdisparities in achievement are certainly no less serious. Among the few studies that attemptedto address the gender gap in Malaysia is the government-initiated study by Zalizan, KhatijahRohani, Hazadiah and Ma’arof (2001). They observed that female enrolment in public uni-versities have exceeded those of males since at least 1996 with a majority of 51%. The mostrecent data available shows that in 2009, females’ percentage of majority has risen wellbeyond 60% (Ministry of Higher Education [MOHE], 2010).

Table 1: Percentage of Students Enrolled in Public Universities by Gender

20092006200019901980Gender

32.836.942.154.364.5Male67.263.157.945.735.5Female100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0Total

Note: Adapted from Aminah (1994), MOE (2006a) & MOHE (2010)

As noted by Zalizan et al. (2001), gender differences in university enrolment and dropoutrates are symptomatic of gender disparities in achievement in schools. Thus far however,the literature as well as educational policies in Malaysia including the National EducationBlueprint 2006-2010 (PIPP 2006-2010) (MOE, 2006b) and more recently, the National KeyResult Areas for Education (Education NKRA) (MOE, 2009b), have largely focused on ad-dressing disparities in achievement related to race and socioeconomic status (urban versusrural schools).

Hence, gender has not been seriously studied as a variable leading to disparities in aca-demic achievement except in the context of equal attainment to education, where researchhas shown it to be equitable (i.e. United Nations Children’s Education Fund [UNICEF],2005). However, some have argued that gender may be a more viable way of improvingachievement. Noble, Brown and Murphy (2001) explained that it is more pragmatic to devisestrategies that targets improvement among genders rather than race and class, two variableswhich are no less important but which are nonetheless more complex and sensitive in natureand hence are more difficult to work around.

The Need for Addressing the Gender GapWith the increasing global emphasis on credentialism, males need to perform well at theschool level in order to compete for places in university. If the gender gap in schools is notquickly addressed, gender discrepancies in university enrolment will continue to widen even

16

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

further. As a result, fewer high-paying jobs would be available to men leading to changesin future workforce composition. Importantly as well, this would challenge traditional so-ciocultural conventions as men may no longer be the main breadwinners of the family. Inaddition, it may be harder for women to find spouses of similar education background shouldthis trend continue.

This is a concern even in the West, as Conlin (2003) points out, if men continue to fallbehind in education, they would be more likely to marry women who “outlearn” them. Suchsociocultural dictations are also prevalent in Malaysian society where even academicianshave voiced their concerns on this issue (Farabi, 2007):

One day professional working women will eventually marry men including those whoare not employed. Eventually, this will give rise to the phenomenon of men stayinghome to take care of the children and home while the women go out to work. Thisphenomenon is already happening now although this is contrary to our culture.

Nevertheless, concern over the gender gap should not be misconstrued as championing onegender or the other. Female achievement should continue to be encouraged as well as thatof males’. More importantly, it must be recognised that any kind of gender gap would leadto a loss of potential human capital. This is in direct contrast to Malaysia’s National EducationPhilosophy declared in 1987, which states that an important goal of education is to producemodal insan or quality human capital capable of driving the nation’s development (Rosnani,2004). This idea continues to be strongly emphasised today and is among the main thrustsof the PIPP 2006-2010 and Education NKRA. Therefore, the gender gap in Malaysia isviewed as a serious threat that stands to deprive the nation of valuable human capital.

Gender Differences in Achievement: Standardised Tests andGender-Stereotyped SubjectsThe two most apparent areas where gender differences in achievement can be seen are instandardised tests and gender-stereotyped subjects. Studies in various countries (Smith, 2005;Gillborn & Mirza, 2000) have reported that females generally outperformed males in testssuch as the GCSE and SAT. Similarly, nationwide results for the three compulsory standard-ised tests in Malaysia, SPM (Malaysian Certificate of Examination), PMR (Lower SecondaryAssessment) and UPSR (Primary School Assessment) for 1996 to 2000 showed that femalesscored better than males overall (Zalizan et al., 2001).

Research abroad has also shown that females have narrowed the gap in traditionallymasculine subjects such as mathematics and science but the gap in feminine subjects suchas languages, reading and writing (Conlin, 2003; Rowan et al., 2002) continues to widen(Head, 1999; Maynard, 2002). Concurring with this, Malaysian females performed betterthan males in science and mathematics in the SPM, PMR and UPSR (Zalizan et al., 2001)and in the international 2003 Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) (NoorAzina & Halimah (2009). However, males scored better than females in technical-basedsubjects in the SPM (Zalizan et al., 2001). Hence, it would be inaccurate to say that femalesare outperforming males in every aspect although research has shown the gender gap to bemost evident in standardised tests and gender-stereotyped subjects where females generallyperform better than males.

17

AINUDDIN DAHLAN, MD NOOR, SYED MUSTAFA, SAID HASHIM, ZULKIFLI

Causes of the Gender Gap: Sociocultural and Biological ArgumentsThe causes for the gender gap have been discussed extensively in the West. Some researchersattribute this to sociocultural factors while others allay this to biological factors. Briefly, thesociocultural view underlines such factors as the feminization of schools (Francis, 2000;Maynard, 2002) which alludes to external faults for males’ underachievement such as thelack of male teachers in schools, promoting a biased curriculum and instruction as well asassessment methods that favour females’ learning styles more than males’.

Moreover, achievement motivation may also differ between genders resulting from social-isation into traditional gender identities. Many cultures generally raise females to be moreobedient, responsible and take schoolwork seriously whereas males are given a higher degreeof autonomy, freedom to do as they like and view schoolwork as a generally feminine ratherthan masculine pursuit (Maynard, 2002; Francis, 2000). A local study reported that boysfrom less fortunate families helped their parents earn a living and this affected their schoolattendance (Zainah, 2007). They were also reinforced into traditional gender roles wheretheir parents are less restrictive of them compared to their female siblings. Hence, thesefactors may influence their attitudes towards schooling.

Technological advances in neuroscience has made it possible to consider a biological ex-planation for gender differences in achievement. Researchers have discovered that male andfemale brains are not only structured differently but also function differently, thereforemaking them inherently more proficient in certain tasks, such as females’ advantage in verbalabilities and males’ in spatial and mathematical abilities (Havers, 1995; Noble et al, 2001;Gurian & Stevens, 2004). Hence from the biological viewpoint, males and females are seenas being innately “wired” to process the world and behave differently whereas differencesin testosterone levels may also make males more aggressive and impulsive (Gurian, 2002).Thus for example, lengthy lectures may not engage males well and while females may alsonot favour this, their lower levels of testosterone enable them to better tolerate this mode ofinstruction.

Learning Styles: Accommodating Gender DifferencesAs discussed, socioculturally and biologically, males and females not only behave differentlybut also approach learning in different ways. Consequently, efforts should be made to meetboth genders’ learning needs. Thus the premise of this study is that the gender gap can benarrowed by meeting the learning needs of both genders and one way to do this is by consid-ering students’ learning styles. The literature on the effects of matching learning styles andachievement have indeed been inconclusive. However, several studies have found that mis-matching may result in low grades, disinterest in learning and could even lead to studentsgiving up and dropping out of school (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Godleski 1984; Oxford etal. 1991; Smith & Renzulli 1984 as cited in Felder & Henriques, 1995).

Moreover, some studies have also found that learning styles differ according to gender(Bolliger & Supanakorn, 2010; Isman & Gundogan, 2009; Wehrwein, Lujan & DiCarlo,2007; Zalizan et al., 2001). Educators therefore anticipate positive outcomes in matchinggender differences in learning styles (Grossman & Grossman, 1994). In addition, awarenessof their own learning styles may allow students to be more actively engaged in their learning(Pritchard, 2005). In addition, an appealing attribute of learning styles theory is that it assumes

18


regardless of innate intelligence, that almost anyone can learn provided that instruction cor-responds to their preferred way of learning.

In Malaysia, Robiah (1996, as cited in Asiah, 1999) notes that although accounting fordifferent learning styles in the planning of teaching is encouraged locally, it is only in principleas in reality, teachers’ understanding of learning styles is very poor. Zalizan et al. (2001)reported similar findings whereby teachers surveyed said they did not consciously take stu-dents’ learning styles differences into consideration when teaching.

Research QuestionsThe following are this study’s research questions:

1. Is there a difference in academic achievement between genders?2. Is there a difference in male and female achievement in traditionally gender-stereotyped

subjects (Malay Language, English, mathematics and science)?3. Is there a difference in learning styles between genders?4. To what extent can gender and learning styles predict achievement?

Method

RespondentsThe respondents for this study were 411 randomly selected Form Four students (average 16years of age) from four government secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur. Overall, there were186 males (45%) and 225 female (55%) respondents, from both Arts and Science streamclasses. In terms of ethnicity, the majority of respondents were Malays at 77% (317), followedby Chinese at 16% (66), Indians at 5% (19) and ‘Others’ at 2% (9).

Measure of Academic AchievementRespondents’ self-reported PMR results were obtained to determine gender differences inachievement. Since PMR results are represented by letter grades, it is the norm to consideronly the total number of As obtained as a benchmark of excellent achievement. The numberof subjects taken in the PMR usually range from 8 to 9, thus respondents were categorizedinto two categories: high achievers (those who obtained 6 As and above) and low achievers(5 As and below).

InstrumentRespondents’ learning styles were assessed using Felder and Soloman’s (1991) 44-item Indexof Learning Styles (ILS), which the researcher adapted into a bilingual version (MalayLanguage and English). The instrument and scoring key were obtained from the developer’swebsite after declaring its non-commercial use. Each subscale: Active-Reflective, Sensing-Intuitive, Visual-Verbal and Sequential-Global were represented by 11 dichotomous items.Two pilot tests were conducted to assess the reliability of the subscales and overall instrument.

19


As with previous studies (Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Litzinger, Lee, Wise & Felder., 2007), a= 0.5 or greater was used as the level of acceptability.

After the second pilot study, the instruments’ overall reliability improved to α = 0.56where all scales except the Sequential-Global subscale exceeded the 0.5 acceptability limit.This is consistent with the findings of other studies where this subscale is always reportedto be lower than the others (Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Litzinger et al., 2007). In fact, the alphavalue obtained for the Sequential-Global subscale in this study was higher than the valuereported by Van Zwanenberg et al. (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). Hence, there was an acceptabledegree of confidence in adapting this version of the instrument for the study.

Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients from Two Pilot Studies

SourceNSeq-GloVis-VerSen-IntAct-RefPilot study 2330.460.500.670.70Pilot study 140-.0460.420.560.45

Felder and Soloman’s Learning Styles ModelFelder and Soloman (1993) assume that students vary in terms of the learning styles andlearning strategies that they use. All learners are thought to have some degree of each of thefour dimensions present within them and thus, knowledge of these learning styles andstrategies are important for students and teachers alike in order to maximize the teachingand learning process.

Processing: Active and Reflective LearnersThis subscale refers to students’ preferred degree of involvement in dealing with learningtasks. Active learners prefer being actively engaged in the learning task such as throughpractical application of what has been learnt, through group discussions etc. whereas Reflect-ive learners like to think things through first before jumping into any practical applicationand prefer to work alone rather than in groups (Felder and Soloman, 1993).

Perception: Sensing and Intuitive LearnersThis subscale refers to students’ approaches to problem-solving and their tolerance for fac-tual learning. Sensors enjoy learning facts and are better at memorizing them. They alsoprefer using well-established methods to solve problems and dislike complications and sur-prises. Thus, they are not big risk takers. Conversely, Intuitors are less tolerant of learningthat requires repetition, routine and memorization of facts. However, they are innovativeand better able to grasp new concepts, discovering possibilities and relationships (Felderand Soloman, 1993).

Input: Visual and Verbal LearnersThe ability for students to retain information is influenced by the way the information ispresented. Thus, this subscale purports that some learners prefer more visual modes of in-

20


formation intake such as through charts and diagrams etc. whereas others appreciate moreverbal explanations (Felder and Soloman, 1993).

Understanding: Sequential and Global LearnersThis subscale is concerned with the ways learners organize or comprehend information.Sequentials learn by establishing logical connections from one piece of information to anotherwhereas Global learners do not immediately see the relationships between materials. Globalsput pieces together randomly and will suddenly “get it”. Thus, Global learners are able toconnect things in novel ways whereas Sequential learners are more methodological in theirapproach (Felder and Soloman, 1993).

AnalysisThe data was analysed using SPSS. Gender differences in achievement was examined viacrosstabulation (high vs. low achievers) and t-test (mean number of As), whereas genderdifferences in the four selected subjects and learning styles were assessed using crosstabula-tion. Binary logistic regression was conducted to determine the predictive effects of genderand learning styles on achievement.

Results and Discussion

Gender Differences in Academic AchievementWhen high achievers were compared to non-high achievers by gender, the chi-square obtainedwas significant χ2 (1,N=411) = 6.25, p =.015. Among the high achievers, a larger percentagewere female (11.2%) compared to male (5.1%). However, this was also true for lowachievers where 40.1% were male and 43.6% female. Consequently, further analysis wascarried out where based on total number of As, the t-test found there was a significant differ-ence in achievement between genders, t(409)=-2.05, p =.040 where females (M=2.63) hada higher mean than males (M=2.11). These findings concur with that of Aminah (1994) andZalizan et al. (2001), and hence supports the notion that a gender gap does exist.

21


Table 3: Gender differences in total number of As obtained in the PMR

Gender Differences in Malay Language, English, Mathematics and ScienceFemale respondents obtained the majority of As in all the four subjects although significantgender differences were observed in Malay Language achievement only, χ2 (1, N=411) =13.12, p =.000. Out of the total respondents, 37.5% managed to obtain an A in this subjectwith the majority being female (24.8%). Although females also obtained most of the As inEnglish, mathematics and science, these differences were not statistically significant.

This implies that generally, male and female achievement are similar in these subjects. Itsupports the notion that females are narrowing the gap in subjects traditionally regarded asmale fortes (i.e. science and mathematics), where they perform as well as or even better thantheir male counterparts (Head, 1999; Gaine & George, 1999; Gillborn & Mirza, 2000). Inthis study, females obtained the majority of As in both these subjects.

The findings are also in agreement with previous literature (Head, 1999; Conlin, 2003;Rowan et al., 2002; PIRLS, 2006) that state while the gap in traditionally male subjects arenarrowing, there continues to be a wide discrepancy in traditionally female subjects such aslanguages. Not only did females obtain more As than males in English and English Languagein this study, but for the latter, the difference was statistically significant. The differencewas not as pronounced for English perhaps because Malaysian students in general have notmastered the language well (Nor Hashimah, Norsimah & Kesumawati, 2008).

Gender Differences in Learning StylesNo significant differences in learning styles were found between genders. Overall, the ma-jority of respondents preferred Active (79%), Visual (77%) and Sequential (73%) learningstyles. This is consistent with Boondao, Hurst and Sheard (2008) who found that both easternand western students in an Australian university also preferred Active, Visual and Sequentialstyles. Therefore, most students preferred an active rather than passive learning environment.Importantly, this suggests a mismatch between students’ preferences and the way lessons

22


are carried out in Malaysian schools, which has been criticised for being passive, promotingmemorisation and rote learning as the result of an exam-oriented system (Wong, 2004;Collin, 2008).

Students’ preference for visual material could be partly attributed to the fact that studentstoday have contact with technology such as television, mobile phones and computers at anearlier age. Roslinda (2006) found that computer use (for studying and leisure activities)among Malaysian students has increased with the development of technology today. Thus,these factors could influence students’ visual inclinations.

In terms of Sequential learning style, Felder (1998) explains that learning by sequence,in logical linear steps and mastering the material as is (i.e. without much interpretation ordeep understanding) is common in formal education systems. Thus, students may be encour-aged to adopt this approach in exam-oriented cultures such as Malaysia. Boondao et al.(2008) also reported that while both eastern and western students were Sequential, however,eastern students had a higher degree of surface and achievement approaches as well as mo-tivation.

However, the percentages were less defined for the Sensing-Intuitive subscale where 51%were Sensing (25% male and 26% female) while 49% were Intuitive (20% male and 29%female). These results are only partially supported by the biological view (Gurian et al.,2001; Gurian, 2002; Gurian & Stevens, 2004). This is because while Sensors prefer realworld problems and lab work, they are also described as preferring to memorize facts besideshaving a high tolerance for repetitive work and details, which according to the biologicalviewpoint are characteristic of girls. Similarly, that more girls are Intuitors contradicts thebiological viewpoint as girls are said to be more tolerant of memorizing and routine ratherthan less tolerant of these modes of learning.

Extent to which Academic Achievement is Predicted by Gender andLearning StylesTable 4 shows that only 8.5% of the variation in achievement is explained by the variablesentered in the model. While this finding is significant, it suggests that other factors not ac-counted for in the model may contribute to achievement. Nevertheless, in testing lack of fit,the p-value of .947 (Table 5) showed that the logistic model fits the data well and probabilityof correct classification is 83.5%, thus generating an error rate of 16.5%.

Table 4: Model Summary

Nagelkerke R SquareCox & Snell R Square-2 log likelihoodStep.085.050343.1851

Table 5: Hosmer and Lemeshow test

Sig.dfChi-squareStep.94782.7891

23


Three of the five variables entered into the model were found to be significant predictors ofachievement. The dependent variable was coded 1 for low achievers and 2 for high achievers(Garson, 2009) whereas gender was coded 1 for male and 2 for female. Each learning stylesubscale was also recoded. For example, in the Active-Reflective subscale, 1 representedreflective and 2 for active.As illustrated in Table 6, the model showed that the likelihood of becoming a high achieveris increased 2.329 times by being female rather than male, 1.988 times more by beingSensing rather than Intuitive and 2.482 times more by being Visual rather than Verbal.

Table 6: Variables in the Equation

Exp(B)Sig.dfWaldSEB2.329.00418.343.293.845GenderStep 1 (a).605.10912.575.313-.502AR1.988.01615.851.284.687SI2.482.01915.527.387.909VV.904.7421.108.307-.101SQ.061.000126.063.549-2.801Constant

Conclusion and RecommendationsFirstly, this study found the majority of high achievers to be females, hence concurring withprevious research (Aminah, 1994; Zalizan et al., 2001). Females also obtained a significantlyhigher mean than males in terms of total number of As in the PMR, supporting the notionthat a gender gap does exist in schools. Secondly, the results were in agreement with existingliterature where it was found that females performed better than males in all the four subjects.This suggests that while females are catching up in traditionally male associated subjects(science and mathematics), males however are not showing similar progress in female relatedsubjects (English and Malay Language).

These two findings suggests that gender differences in achievement at the school levelmay be among the factors leading to the gender imbalance in university enrolment. Therefore,in order to increase the numbers of males entering universities, steps must be taken to ensurethat they are performing on par with females in schools and especially in national standardisedtests such as the SPM which is the main criteria for entry into university. In particular,measures should be introduced to increase males’ performance in female-related subjects,perhaps by incorporating more reading materials that appeal to males.

Third, although no gender differences were found in learning styles, where the majorityof students were Active, Visual and Sequential learners, it appears that there is a mismatchbetween students’ preferences for learning and how they are being taught in schools, at leastin terms of promoting an active learning environment. Finally, it was observed that beingfemale, Sensing and Visual increased the likelihood of achievement.

Hence, not only could accommodation of certain learning styles enhance learning but alsoincrease achievement. This requires the serious attention of teachers, especially traineeteachers because as discussed, learning styles is not consciously practised in classroomstoday (Robiah, 1996 as cited in Asiah, 1999; Zalizan et al., 2001). Thus, teacher training

24


colleges and university education faculties need to incorporate learning styles as a core partof their syllabus. For example, the use of learning styles in lessons could be included as akey component in the evaluation of trainee teachers when they are undergoing their practicumtraining in schools.

In conclusion, the evidence of a gender gap in Malaysian schools as suggested by thisstudy calls for the swift attention and action of educators. It is hoped that accommodatingcertain learning styles that have been found to increase the likelihood of academic achievement(in this case, Sensing and Visual), would be one of the ways to help bridge the gender gapand subsequently create more gender-balanced classrooms, thereby ensuring that the educationsystem meets its goal of nurturing quality human capital among both males and femaleswhich will ensure the nation’s continued development.

ReferencesAminah Ahmad (1994). Education of women in Malaysia : Gender disparities, issues and strategies.

Paper presented at the Seminar on the Education of Women in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,12-30 May.

Asiah binti Pariekutty (1999). Gaya pembelajaran dan pencapaian akademik di kalangan pelajar-pelajar tingkatan 4 Sekolah Menengah Teknik Juasseh, Kuala Pilah, Negeri Sembilan.Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya. Unpublished Masters’ dissertation.

Bolliger, D.U. & Supanakorn, S. (February 2010). Learning styles and student perceptions of the useof interactive online tutorials. British Journal of Educational Technology (Online).RetrievedApril 28, 2010 from 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01037.x

Boondao, R., Hurst, A.J. & Sheard, J.I. (2008). Understanding cultural influences: Principles for per-sonalized e-learning systems. International Journal of Behavioral, Cognitive, Educationaland Psychological Sciences 1(1), 66-70.

Collin, S. (May 23, 2010). Revamp exam-oriented education system. Borneo Post Online. RetrievedApril 22, 2010 from http://www.theborneopost.com/?p=31941

Conlin, M. (May 26, 2003). The new gender gap. Business Week Online. Retrieved October 11, 2009from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm?chan=search

Farabi Sheikh Said Al Jabri. (August 22, 2007). Lelaki ke dapur jika wanita kuasai universiti. RetrievedJuly 20, 2009 from http://www.utusan.com.my

Felder, R.M. & Henriques, E.R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second languageeducation. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.

Felder, R.M. & Silverman, L.K. (1998). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engr.Education, 78(7), 674-681. Retrieved June 19, 2009 from:http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-1988.pdf

Felder, R.M. & Soloman, B.A. (1991). The Index of Learning Styles. Retrieved June 22, 2009 fromhttp://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html

Felder, R.M. & Spurlin, J.E. (2005). Applications, reliability, and validity of the Index of LearningStyles. Intl. Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.

Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls and achievement: Addressing the classroom issues. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Gaine, C. & George, R. (1999). Gender, ‘race’ and class in schooling: A new introduction. London:Falmer Press.

Garson, G.D. (2009). Logistic regression. Retrieved January 16, 2010 from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/logistic.htm.

Gillborn, D. & Mirza, H. S. (November 2000). Educational inequality: mapping race, class and gender:A synthesis of research evidence. London: Office for Standards in Education.

25


Grossman, H & Grossman, S.H. (1994). Gender issues in education. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.Gurian, M., Henly, P. & Trueman, T. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently! : A guide for teachers

and parents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gurian, M. (2002). Where it all begins: The biology of boyhood. In the Jossey-Bass reader on gender

in education. California: Jossey-Bass.Gurian, M. & Stevens, K. (2004). With boys and girls in mind. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 21-26.Havers, F. (1995). Rhyming tasks male and female brains differently. The Yale Herald.Head, J. (1999).Understanding the boys: Issues of behaviour and achievement. London: Falmer Press.Henry, J. (June 9, 2009). Girls will take up 70 percent of university places, says new study. The Tele-

graph. Retrieved June 16, 2010 from http://www.telegraph.co.ukHuman Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) (2006). The human rights approach to millen-

nium development goal 2: Achieve universal primary education. Ampang: Perkasa NilamSdn. Bhd.

Isman, C.A. & Gundogan, N.U. (2009). The influence of digit ratio on the gender difference in learningstyle preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 46 (4), 424-427.

Litzinger, T.A., Lee, SH, Wise, J.C. & Felder, R.M. (2007). A psychometric study of the Index ofLearning Styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309-319.

Maynard. T. (2002). Boys and literacy: Exploring the issues. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Ministry of Education. (2006a).Quickfacts 2006: Malaysian educational statistics. Retrieved February

10, 2010 from http://www.moe.gov.myMinistry of Education. (2006b).National Education Blueprint 2006-2010 (PIPP 2006-2010).Retrieved

February 20, 2010 from http://www.moe.gov.myMinistry of Education. (2009a). Malaysia educational statistics 2009. Retrieved February 20, 2010

from http://www.moe.gov.myMinistry of Education. (2009b). National Key Results Area for Education (NKRA 2010). Retrieved

February 20, 2010 from http://www.moe.gov.myMinistry of Higher Education. (2010). Perangkaan pengajian tinggi Malaysia 2009. Retrieved June

18, 2010 from http://www.mohe.gov.myNoble, C., Brown, J.. & Murphy, J. (2001). How to raise boys’ achievement. London: David Fulton

Publishers.Noor Azina Ismail & Halimah Awang (Febuary 2009). Mathematics achievement among Malaysian

students: What can they learn from Singapore?. International Education Studies, 2(1), 9-17.Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin, Norsimah Mat Awal & Kesumawati Abu Bakar. (2008). The mastery of

English language among lower secondary school students in Malaysia: A linguistic analysis.European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 106-119.

Pritchard, A. (2005).Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. London:David Fulton Publishers.

Robiah bt. Hamid. (1996). Stail belajar: Satu kajian di kalangan pelajar sekolah menengah. KualaLumpur: Universiti Malaya: Unpublished Masters’ thesis.

Roslinda bt. Alias. (2006).Human Sciences students’ attitudes computers and their use: An exploratorystudy at the Matriculation Centre, International Islamic University Malaysia . Gombak:International Islamic University Malaysia. Unpublished Master’s dissertation.

Rowan, L., Knobel, M., Bigum, C., Lankshear, C. (2002).Boys, literacies and schooling: The dangerousterritories of gender-based literacy reform. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Smith, E. (2005). Analysing underachievement in schools. London: Continuum.Strauss, V. (May 29, 2010). Gender gap in higher education growing – report. The Washington Post.

Retrieved June 28, 2010 from http://washingtonpost.comUnited Nations Children’s Education Fund (UNICEF). (April 28, 2005). Early investments in education

pay off for Malaysian girls today.UNICEFMalaysia media centre .Retrieved June 28, 2010from http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/gift_4948.html

26


Wehren, E.A., Lujan, H.L & DiCarlo, S.E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferencesamong undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education 31, 153-157.Retrieved February 10, 2009 from http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/31/2/153

Wong, Kee-Kuok, J. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or con-textually based? International Education Journal, 4 (4), 154-166. Retrieved July 10, 2009.http://iej.cjb.net

Zainah Anwar. (July 13, 2007). Why boys are lagging behind girls. New Straits Times.Zalizan Mohd Jelas, Khatijah Rohani Mohd Yunus, Hazadiah Mohd Dahan & Ma’arof Redzuan.

(2001).Kajian prestasi pelajar lelaki dan perempuan dalam sistem pendidikan negara. Finalreport by Biro Rundingan dan Inovasi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

About the AuthorsNadia Ainuddin DahlanNadia Ainuddin Dahlan is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, MARA University ofTechnology, Malaysia. Courses she has taught at the faculty include Educational Psychology,Educational Sociology, Educational Testing and Assessment as well as Professional Devel-opment. She received her undergraduate degree in Psychology (Industrial and Organisational)and masters degree in Educational Psychology from the International Islamic UniversityMalaysia. Among her interested research areas include Educational Psychology, SocialPsychology, Early Childhood Education, Inclusive Education, Gender Studies and Educa-tional Testing.

Dr. Nor Azian Md NoorNor Azian is an assistant professor at the Institute of Education, International Islamic Uni-versity Malaysia. She has vast experience teaching in the field of educational psychology atboth the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Sharifah Muzlia Syed MustafaIn the field of teaching for more than 10 years, Sharifah Muzlia is currently a lecturer at theFaculty of Education, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia where she teaches courseson psychology, sociology and counselling. Among her research interests include the fieldsof motivation and stress.

Khadijah Said HashimKhadijah is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, MARA University of Technology,Malaysia. Courses she has taught include educational psychology and educational sociologywhereas for graduating students, she has taught professional development and current issuesin education. Her areas of interest include educational psychology, special education andgender studies.

Voviana ZulkifliVoviana has more than 5 years' teaching experience in Teaching English as a Second Lan-guage (TESL). A lecturer at the Faculty of Education, MARA University of Technology,Malaysia, her fields of interest include second language acquisition (SLA), writing, listeningand speaking.

27


EDITORS Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Michael Apple, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. David Barton, Lancaster University, Milton Keynes, UK. Mario Bello, University of Science, Cuba. Manuela du Bois-Reymond, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands. Robert Devillar, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, USA. Daniel Madrid Fernandez, University of Granada, Spain. Ruth Finnegan, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. James Paul Gee, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. Juana M. Sancho Gil, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Kris Gutierrez, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Anne Hickling-Hudson, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia. Roz Ivanic, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Carey Jewitt, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK. Andeas Kazamias, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. Peter Kell, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, Montclair, USA. Gunther Kress, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK. Colin Lankshear, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia. Kimberly Lawless, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA. Sarah Michaels, Clark University, Worcester, USA. Jeffrey Mok, Miyazaki International College, Miyazaki, Japan. Denise Newfield, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Ernest O’Neil, Ministry of Education, Sana’a, Yemen. José-Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. Francisco Fernandez Palomares, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. Ambigapathy Pandian, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. Miguel A. Pereyra, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. Scott Poynting, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. Angela Samuels, Montego Bay Community College, Montego Bay, Jamaica. Michel Singh, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Helen Smith, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Richard Sohmer, Clark University, Worcester, USA. Brian Street, University of London, London, UK. Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. Salim Vally, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Gella Varnava-Skoura, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Cecile Walden, Sam Sharpe Teachers College, Montego Bay, Jamaica. Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Wang Yingjie, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. Zhou Zuoyu, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Learning-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

www.Arts-Journal.com

www.Book-Journal.com

www.Climate-Journal.com

www.ConstructedEnvironment.com

www.Design-Journal.com

www.Diversity-Journal.com

www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com

www.Humanities-Journal.com

www.OnTheImage.com

www.Learning-Journal.com

www.Management-Journal.com

www.Museum-Journal.com

www.ReligionInSociety.com

www.Science-Society.com

http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

www.SpacesAndFlows.com

www.SportAndSociety.com

www.Sustainability-Journal.com

www.Technology-Journal.com

www.ULJournal.com

www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

[email protected]