Educational Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 2004
Why boys achieve less at school than girls:
the difference between boys’ and girls’
academic culture
Mieke Van Houtte*
M.Van HoutteDepartment of SociologyGhent UniversityUniversiteitstraat 4Ghent9000BelgiumMieke.VanHoutte@UGhent.be
Ghent University, Belgium
Recently, research into gender differences in achievement has mainly concentrated on the
underperformance of boys in comparison with girls. Qualitative research in particular points to the
importance of the gender-specific cultures adolescents experience. The purpose of this article is
to test quantitatively the explanatory value of academic culture with respect to the stated gender
differences in achievement. Use is made of data of 3760 pupils in the third and the fourth year
of secondary education in a sample of 34 schools in Flanders (Belgium). A distinction is made
between general schools preparing students for higher education and schools offering technical
and vocational education. It is demonstrated that boys’ culture is less study oriented than girls’
culture and that this difference can be held responsible for the gender differences in achievement,
at least in general schools. In technical/vocational schools, boys seem to oppose the study culture.
Introduction
In recent years, in many countries, increasing attention has been paid to the
underachievement of boys in comparison with girls. Actually, the last few decades
have displayed a shift in attention: whereas in the mid-1970s it was girls’ underperformance that was identified as problematic, in the 1990s boys’ underachievement
became the focal point (Epstein et al., 1998; Frosh et al., 2002). The question of
whether this increasing attention is pertinent or not (see different contributions in
Epstein et al., 1998; Frosh et al., 2002) will not be under discussion in this article.
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that in general girls outperform boys (e.g.
Jackson, 1998). Starting from this plain fact, this article focuses on secondary
education and aims to advance and to test quantitatively the study orientation of
girls’ and boys’ adolescent culture as an explanation for the differing achievement
levels of boys and girls.
Girls’ and boys’ study culture
Researchers and other persons involved have suggested various possible explanations
for the underperformance of boys. A common explanation points at the difference
*Corresponding author: Department of Sociology. Ghent University. Universiteitstraat 4, 9000
Gent, Belgium. Email: Mieke.VanHoutte@UGent.be
ISSN 0305-5698 (print)/ISSN 1465-3500 (online)/04/020159-15
 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10/1080.0305569032000159804
160 M. Van Houtte
in school attitudes between boys and girls. Various studies have shown that boys are
less motivated than girls and have less positive attitudes toward school (Davies,
1984; Darom & Rich, 1988; Cox, 2000; Francis, 2000; Warrington et al., 2000),
although the difference is not always that big (Keys & Fernandes, 1993; Blatchford,
1996). In general, it is recorded that girls spend more time doing homework, display
less disturbing behaviour in the classroom and play truant less often. Girls have
higher expectations of themselves and are more enthusiastic about continuing their
studies. Boys take it easier, work less hard and are distracted more quickly (Barber,
1996; Warrington et al., 2000). Obviously, these kinds of explanations present the
stated differences in achievement as something bio-psychological, thus a personal
given. By nature, girls would be more persevering, while boys would need more
encouragement. Boys would be more inclined to risky behaviour, with as a consequence more whiz-kids but, equally, more failures (Barber, 1996).
Other, more sociologically inspired explanations focus on girls and boys as
members of a group and reason in terms of popularity. In this argument, boys more
than girls consider educational achievement as not ‘cool’ (Francis, 2000; Warrington et al., 2000; Whitelaw et al., 2000). Here attention is paid to the effect of the
group one belongs to, independently of the individual’s beliefs. A boy possibly could
be personally convinced of the importance of studying and achieving but not act
accordingly for fear of becoming a pariah (Warrington et al., 2000; Whitelaw et al.,
2000).
As far back as the early 1960s, James Coleman (1961) demonstrated that
educational achievement does not make adolescents more popular with peers. The
numerous replications of Coleman’s research supported this finding time and again
(e.g. Sebald, 1981; Williams & White, 1983; Thirer & Wright, 1985; Suitor &
Reavis, 1995; Landsheer et al., 1998). This does not mean that adolescents consider
educational achievement as not important at all, but in comparison to other things,
such as sports (boys) and physical appearance (girls), educational achievement
comes off worst (Coleman, 1961; Suitor & Reavis, 1995). For both boys and girls,
being popular is exactly what counts in adolescence, but with respect to boys it can
be stated that achievement does not at all suit their image. Girls, on the other hand,
seem permitted to combine two images: as long as they come across as ‘cool’ outside
school, it is acceptable that they work hard at school (Francis, 2000; Warrington et
al., 2000). There seems to be an incongruity between the manifestation of masculine
behaviour on the one hand and educational effort and achievement on the other
hand. Educational achievement or displaying other school attitudes is antithetical to
typical masculine—that is, macho—behaviour, which is a condition of popularity for
boys. Educational effort and achievement is typified as feminine behaviour (Epstein,
1998; Power et al., 1998; Frosh et al., 2002).
All this can be placed within the broader frame of the existence of gender-specific
youth cultures. In adolescence peers become more and more the main source of
approval, admiration and respect. In alliance with this evolution, adolescents define
their own status criteria. They develop their own youth culture with a particular
language, particular symbols and a particular value system (Coleman, 1961). What
is more, girls and boys tend to seek the company of youngsters of the same gender,
Why boys achieve less at school than girls
161
even in a gender-mixed environment. Girls and boys do associate with each other,
but they identify chiefly with people of the same gender and prefer friends of the
same gender (Kandel, 1978; Karweit & Hansell, 1983; Dornbush, 1989; Warrington et al., 2000; Gurian, 2001). As such, one can expect a distinction between girls’
culture and boys’ culture, and given the difference in school attitudes between boys
and girls, one can expect the boys’ culture to be less study oriented than the girls’
culture. A first hypothesis that can be derived, then, is that boys’ culture is less study
oriented than girls’ culture.
Study culture and achievement
There are two ways in which culture may influence behaviour, in casu achievement.
In the first instance, there is of course the process of socialization, or the process by
which an individual acquires the habits, values and norms of a group in order to be
able to function within that group (Schein, 1984; Owens & Steinhoff, 1989;
Stockard & Mayberry, 1992). Secondly, groups tend to exert pressure on their
members to adapt, signalling that nonconformity is not tolerated and would be
penalized by, for example, exclusion (Owens, 1987; Owens & Steinhoff, 1989;
Stockard & Mayberry, 1992).
Of course, individuals will not blindly accept the normative pressure and social
control of a group. This happens only when the individual attaches importance to
the acceptance and approval of the members of the group—in other words, when the
group is a reference group (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980;
Owens, 1987). The reference group theory teaches that usually individuals attach
the greatest importance to those groups they belong to themselves (Shibutani,
1955). As for adolescents, it is a fact that acceptance by peers is primary (Coleman,
1961). Peers in general and companions in particular—for example, fellow pupils—
form the main reference group for adolescents (Sherif & Sherif, 1964). As such,
there is a big chance that fellow pupils at school will function as a normative
reference group. Coleman (1961; Coleman et al., 1966) showed that the prominent
pupils at school determine the academic aspirations of youngsters in the first place.
The relationship between pupils exerts more influence on pupils’ achievement than
any other factor (Johnson, 1980). It can be expected that boys will be directed by
their male schoolmates, whereas girls will look to their female schoolmates, because,
as said before, adolescents identify mainly with peers of their own gender (Warrington et al., 2000; Gurian, 2001).
Furthermore, boys seem to attach more importance to how they are seen by the
group, while girls consider interpersonal, intimate relationships more important
(Davies, 1984; Francis, 2000; Warrington et al., 2000). Accordingly, boys are more
concerned about their image than girls are: boys want to look ‘cool’ and want to
behave in a ‘cool’ manner. Demonstrating good school attitudes has no part in that.
On the basis of ethnographic research Francis (2000) concludes that this difference
in what concerns boys and girls could be the source of the difference in achievement
between boys and girls.
On the basis of all this, a second hypothesis can be derived, namely that the
162 M. Van Houtte
gender-specific study cultures influence the academic achievement of both boys and
girls and that this influence is stronger with respect to boys. Ultimately, given the
two derived hypotheses, the final question is then whether the boys’ and girls’ study
cultures might be responsible for the differential achievement of boys and girls. It is
this question that the present article seeks to answer.
Research design
As a preamble to the actual aim of this article, we need to examine first whether the
boys and girls under research display a difference in academic achievement. We will
concentrate on the second grade of secondary education—that is, the third and the
fourth year (see ‘Data’). All analyses (performed using SPSS11, unless stated
otherwise) will be carried out separately for two types of schools, namely schools
offering general education in preparation for higher education and schools offering
technical and vocational education. This separation is made to rule out possible
effects of streaming. The effect of gender on achievement will be examined by means
of a t-test and by means of a multiple regression analysis comprising several control
variables, namely ability, socio-economic status (SES), parental involvement, times
retained in primary education, and whether a pupil’s selected curriculum is the
result of a positive choice or not. Only when we find a gender difference in
achievement can we proceed with testing the previously generated hypotheses.
To test the first hypothesis—that boys’ culture is less study oriented than girls’
culture—it is necessary to develop a measure of study culture first (see ‘Variables’).
Since it is demonstrated that schoolmates of the same gender influence adolescents
the most, we will measure boys’ and girls’ study cultures for each school. After this
is accomplished, we will compare the cultures boys and girls experience by means of
a t-test to discover whether they are different and which of the two is more study
oriented.
The first part of the second hypothesis—stating that the gender-specific study
culture influences the academic achievement of both boys and girls—will be tested
by means of a multiple regression analysis carried out separately for boys and girls,
including the same control variables as the preceding regression analysis. To test the
second part of the hypothesis—that the influence of study culture is stronger for
boys—we will carry out additional tests of interaction effects.
Only once it can be confirmed that boys’ and girls’ study cultures are different,
and that boys’ and girls’ achievement is affected by their gender-specific study
culture, does it make sense to examine if the gender-specific study culture can be
held responsible for the difference in achievement between boys and girls. We will
answer this question by means of a multiple regression analysis controlling the
relation between gender and achievement for gender-specific study culture, holding
constant the previously mentioned control variables (ability, SES, and so forth). If
the relation between gender and achievement does not hold when controlling for
gender-specific study culture, the role of study culture as an intermediating variable
in the relation between gender and achievement will be demonstrated.
Why boys achieve less at school than girls
163
Data
The analyses in this article are based on retrospective data gathered in the school
year 1999–2000 in a sample of 34 secondary schools—15 general schools preparing
students for higher education and 19 technical/vocational schools—in the Flemishspeaking part of Belgium. A total of 3760 fifth-year pupils (generally speaking,
16–17 years old)—1591 in general schools and 2169 in technical/vocational
schools—filled out a written questionnaire in class in the presence of a teacher and
the researcher. Since the data are retrospective in nature, we know the achievement
scores of the years preceding the fifth year but not of the fifth year. Under study here
then is the second grade of secondary education—containing the third and the
fourth year.
Variables
Academic achievement is represented by the grade point average at the end of the
school year. In general schools we find a mean grade point average of 72.44%
(st.dev. ⫽ 7.03, N ⫽ 1572) in the third year and a mean of 69.90% (st. dev. ⫽ 7.42,
N ⫽ 1496) in the fourth year. In technical/vocational schools we find a mean grade
point average of 68.89% (st. dev. 7.25, N ⫽ 1635) in the third year and a mean of
68.31% (st. dev. 7.15, N ⫽ 1811) in the fourth year.
As for the main determinant gender, being a boy is coded 0 and being a girl is
coded 1. Sixty-five per cent of the respondents are male. In the schools for general
education 55.1% are male, in the technical/vocational schools 71.2%.
The measurement of the explaining variable gender-specific study culture needs a
more thorough description. In order to conceptualize the study culture, the study
involvement of the pupils is questioned by means of a five-point scale consisting of
11 items (Brutsaert & Bracke, 1994; Brutsaert, 2001), assessing the general feeling
of study involvement and learning motivation—for example, ‘I don’t like to study’
or ‘I don’t understand the importance of studying’. This instrument measures how
concerned pupils are about going to school and studying in general. After substituting the missing values (for each item only one is missing, except for items three and
four with two missing) by means of ‘item correlation substitution’ (ICS) (Huisman,
1999), a confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL 8.12 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993)
produces for each item a significant loading higher than 0.40, so all items can be
retained to form one scale (2 ⫽ 27.99; df ⫽ 21, p ⫽ 0.14, RMSEA ⫽ 0.0094,
AGFI ⫽ 1.00; Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ 0.82).
At this point, we have a reliable measure of study involvement at the individual
pupil level, but since it is the purpose to measure culture, and since culture is a
group feature usually defined as ‘shared assumptions’, ‘shared beliefs’ or ‘shared
cognitions’ (e.g. Schein, 1984; Rousseau, 1990), the aggregation of the obtained
measure is a necessary next step. A customary aggregation strategy is to calculate the
mean of the scores of the individual members of the group or organization (e.g.
Stern, 1970; Trickett et al., 1982; Hofstede et al., 1990). In doing this, one has to
be sure this aggregation is permitted. In other words, one must examine whether the
164 M. Van Houtte
aggregated measure is reliable and represents something actually shared at the group
or organization level (Glick, 1985). A useful measure is the ‘mean rater reliability’
(Glick, 1985), calculated by means of the Spearman-Brown formula based on the
intraclass correlation of a one-way analysis of variance: ICC(1, k) ⫽ (BMS-WMS)/
BMS (with k ⫽ number of raters in each group or organization) (Shrout & Fleiss,
1979; Glick, 1985). The result must be at minimum 0.60 to permit an aggregation
at the group or organization level (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979; Glick, 1985).
Concerning study involvement, aggregation is permitted at the school level per
gender category by calculating the mean per school for boys and girls separately (for
boys ICC ⫽ 0.68 and for girls ICC ⫽ 0.67). Study involvement is clearly something
shared by the pupils of the same gender in the same school, so it is legitimate to
speak of a ‘study culture’. The oneway analyses of variance show that the genderspecific mean study involvement of the pupils differs significantly between the
schools (p ⫽ 0.000). Given these differences between schools, one can say that the
gender-specific pupil culture is more study oriented in some schools than in others.
A pertinent question here is whether the culture of the fifth-year pupils of a school
forms a good representation of the pupil culture of the whole school. There are good
reasons to think it does. It is known that organizational culture—and, specifically,
pupil culture—is passed on from one generation to another (Bidwell, 1965; Hughes
et al., 1968). In each group or organization, newcomers are socialized. In other
words, newcomers adopt the dominant beliefs and assumptions. These and other
factors make culture a very stable organizational feature that almost never changes,
except very slowly (Schein, 1984). So it should be acceptable to use the pupil culture
of the fifth-year pupils as a representation of the pupil culture of the whole school.
Finally, for reasons of practicability, the obtained measure of gender-specific
study culture is disaggregated to the individual pupil level: each respondent receives
the value of his or her gender group at school. As such, the measure can be
interpreted as the study culture a pupil deals with. Since culture is a supra-individual
feature, it would be more correct not to disaggregate the measure and to perform a
multilevel analysis, the proper method when dealing with cases that are not independent from each other. But given the reasoning followed, highlighting gender-specific
culture, girls and boys are subdivided into different groups, which precludes a
comparison by means of multilevel analysis.
The gender-specific study culture, as expected, correlates with the study involvement of the pupil (Pearsons r ⫽ 0.279, p ⫽ 0.000), but there is no question of
exchangeable measures. ‘Study culture’ definitely measures something different
from ‘study involvement’. The gender-specific study culture strongly correlates with
gender (Pearsons r ⫽ 0.650, p ⫽ 0.000).
The pupil’s ability is measured by means of the grade point average (GPA) at the
end of primary education. Neither in general schools nor in technical/vocational
schools can a difference be discerned in the mean ability between boys and girls
(general schools: mean boys ⫽ 83.65, mean girls ⫽ 83.36, t ⫽ 0.951, p ⫽ 0.342; technical/vocational schools: mean boys ⫽ 70.85, mean girls ⫽ 70.39, t ⫽ 1.134,
p ⫽ 0.257). Because pupils are grouped in streams by ability and because the
dependent variable is achievement, we calculate and work with the pupil’s deviance
Why boys achieve less at school than girls
165
from the mean of his or her stream in the year being considered. After all, we must
take into account the possibility that a pupil with high ability achieves less in a higher
stream than a pupil with low ability in a lower stream. As such, the relative ability
is more relevant than the absolute ability.
The pupil’s socio-economic background (SES) is measured by means of the occupational prestige of father and mother (Erikson et al., 1979)—the highest of both is
used as an indicator of the SES of the family (cf. Forehand et al., 1987). On average,
in schools for general education boys (mean ⫽ 6.27) have a significantly (t ⫽ 4.699,
p ⫽ 0.000) higher SES than girls (mean ⫽ 5.86). In technical/vocational schools no
difference can be found between the SES of boys (mean ⫽ 4.46) and girls
(mean ⫽ 4.35, t ⫽ 1.235, p ⫽ 0.217).
The parental school involvement is measured by means of an index consisting of
nine questions (inspired by Muller, 1995, 1998; and Rumberger, 1995), like ‘Do
your parents take part in certain school activities?’ or ‘Do your parents keep an eye
on your homework?’, which the respondents could answer with five answering
categories from ‘never’ to ‘always’ (range 0–4). The total score on these questions
defines the general school involvement of the parents. On average, with respect to
parental involvement there is no difference between boys (general schools:
mean ⫽ 19.71, technical/vocational schools: mean ⫽ 19.26) and girls (general
schools: mean ⫽ 20.11, t ⫽ ⫺ 1.49, p ⫽ 0.136; technical/vocational schools:
mean ⫽ 18.93, t ⫽ 1.177, p ⫽ 0.239).
On average, there is no significant difference in the number of times a year was
repeated in primary education between boys and girls in general schools (t ⫽ ⫺ 1.69,
p ⫽ 0.091) and in technical/vocational schools (t ⫽ 1.61, p ⫽ 0.107).
Finally, for the third year—the year in which pupils must make an explicit stream
choice—the pupils were asked why they chose their stream. A distinction is made
between ‘positive’ reasons (code 1), such as ‘It is interesting’ or ‘I have the capacity
to do it’, and rather ‘negative’ reasons (code 0), such as ‘I follow the choice of my
friends’ or ‘I want to aim as high as possible’. In general schools 83.2% of the girls
gave a positive reason, as did 76.4% of the boys, and in technical/vocational schools
80.9% of the girls gave a positive reason, as did 77.5% of the boys.
Analysis
To start with, a t-test is performed comparing the achievement scores of boys and
girls in the third and the fourth year of secondary education in general schools and
technical/vocational schools. On average, in each year boys obtain a significantly (see
Table 1) lower achievement score than girls.
A regression analysis relating achievement to gender confirms this finding. Furthermore, the significant relation between gender and achievement holds when
controlling for the pupil characteristics of ability, SES, parental involvement, times
retained in primary school and, for the third year, reason of stream choice (see
Table 2).
To test the first hypothesis—that girls’ culture is more study oriented than boys’
culture—a t-test compares the study cultures boys and girls deal with. On average,
166 M. Van Houtte
Table 1. Achievement by gender in the third and fourth year of secondary education, general
schools and technical/vocational schools. Means (with standard deviations) and results of the t-test
General schools
Achievement
third year
Achievement
fourth year
Boys
71.71
(7.22)
N ⫽ 881
69.01
(7.55)
N ⫽ 841
Girls
73.37
(6.67)
N ⫽ 691
71.05
(7.09)
N ⫽ 655
Technical/vocational schools
t
⫺ 4.70***
⫺ 5.33***
Boys
68.09
(7.20)
N ⫽ 1177
67.47
(7.15)
N ⫽ 1291
Girls
70.96
(6.98)
N ⫽ 458
70.38
(6.72)
N ⫽ 520
t
⫺ 7.31***
⫺ 7.98***
***p ⬍ 0.001
the culture girls experience is significantly more study oriented than the culture boys
experience, in general schools as well as in technical/vocational schools (see Table
3). This finding permits a confirmation of the first hypothesis.
The second hypothesis—that the achievement of boys and girls is influenced by
the gender-specific study culture and that this influence is stronger for boys—is
tested by means of a multiple regression analysis carried out separately for boys and
girls with controls for several pupil characteristics. The hypothesis cannot be
confirmed entirely (see Table 4). In general schools the study culture a pupil
experiences obviously exerts an influence on the pupil’s achievement, and this is true
for boys and girls equally. In technical/vocational schools, on the other hand, the
achievement of boys is not influenced significantly by study culture in the third year.
The effect of study culture on achievement for girls in the third year can be accepted
as borderline significant (p ⫽ 0.052). In the fourth year a significant effect is found
for boys and girls, but the direction of the effect for boys is very surprising. The
negative coefficient indicates that the more study oriented the culture is, the less the
boys achieve. This could mean that boys in technical/vocational education tend to
react against the study culture rather than comply with it. This does not apply for
girls, and the interaction effect measuring the difference between girls and boys in
this respect is significant (p ⫽ 0.013). Otherwise no other significant interaction
effects are found, so the second part of the hypothesis—stating that the influence of
study culture is stronger for boys—cannot be confirmed.
Finally, the central question of this article, namely whether the gender-specific
study culture may be responsible for the differential achievement of boys and girls,
can be answered. On the basis of the multiple regression analysis, we can tell that in
general schools in the third and fourth year the effect of gender disappears when
holding study culture constant (see Table 5), indicating that study culture may be
held responsible for the gender differences in achievement. In technical/vocational
schools when controlling for study culture, the effect of gender on achievement
slightly diminishes but remains highly significant in the third year. In the fourth year,
controlling for gender-specific study culture engenders an increase of the effect (see
Table 5). Obviously this has everything to do with the fact that study culture does
0.013***
0.115***
*p ⬍ 0.05 **p ⬍ 0.01 ***p ⬍ 0.001
Gender
Ability
SES
Parental
Involvement
Retention
Prim. Educ.
Choice
Stream
R2
Third year
Third year
Fourth year
Technical/vocational schools
0.115*** 0.019***
⫺ 0.002
⫺ 0.053*
0.092*** 0.033***
/
⫺ 0.030
0.081*** 0.036***
0.007
0.061*
0.068***
/
0.054*
0.127*** 0.137***
0.150*** 0.182***
0.186*** 0.189***
0.194***
0.279***
0.230***
0.211***
0.167***
0.151***
0.149***
⫺ 0.015
⫺ 0.055*
⫺ 0.040
⫺ 0.012
0.036
0.002
Fourth year
General schools
Table 2. The relation between gender and achievement in the third and fourth year of secondary education in general and
technical/vocational schools, without and with controls for several pupil characteristics. Results of the regression analysis
(beta coefficients and explained variance R2)
Why boys achieve less at school than girls
167
168 M. Van Houtte
Table 3. Study culture by gender. Means (and standard deviations) and results of the t-test
General schools
Study culture
third year
Study culture
fourth year
Technical/vocational schools
Boys
Girls
t
Boys
Girls
t
21.91
(1.05)
N ⫽ 883
21.82
(0.99)
N ⫽ 842
24.17
(1.48)
N ⫽ 692
23.92
(1.23)
N ⫽ 662
–33.88***
20.19
(1.01)
N ⫽ 1213
20.20
(1.06)
N ⫽ 1310
22.45
(1.25)
N ⫽ 482
22.50
(1.23)
N ⫽ 538
–35.29***
–35.74***
–37.89***
***p ⬍ 0.001
not influence the achievement of boys in the third year and negatively influences
their achievement in the fourth year.
Discussion and conclusion
The international, consistent finding that boys achieve less than girls at school calls
for an explanation. In this article an attempt has been made to deliver a part of this
explanation by focusing on the study culture boys and girls experience at school. It
has been argued that boys and girls deal with their own gender-specific study
cultures. Step by step it has been shown then that boys’ culture is less study oriented
than girls’ culture and that this study culture influences boys’ and girls’ academic
achievement. It should be noted, though, that the analyses make a distinction
between schools offering general education and schools offering technical/vocational
education, in order to exclude streaming effects. This distinction offers some
interesting findings. As such it can be stated that in technical/vocational schools
study culture does not exert any significant influence on the achievement of boys in
the third year. In the fourth year the effect of study culture is significant but,
contrary to what would be expected, negative! This means that the more study
oriented their experienced culture is, the less the boys achieve. I suggested already
that this could mean that boys in technical/vocational schools react against the
existing study culture. An additional analysis shows that this negative effect of study
culture occurs only in boys scoring below the mean, that is, in low-achieving boys,
which can perhaps be seen as a confirmation that it is a matter of opposing. Chiefly
poorly performing boys would go through a kind of identity crisis because of the
growing importance of knowledge in society (Jackson, 1998), where stress is laid on
cognitive ability, a criterion they do not and cannot fulfil. This stress especially
affects boys in vocational curricula since these, more than general curricula, train the
boys for specific, men’s work. Pupils in general education, even when performing
poorly, feel quite certain of getting a job, but boys in vocational curricula are being
trained for the very work whose existence is threatened, which explains their
opposition toward study culture. Their former securities—in the first instance,
getting a job—reassure then no longer, especially considering the feminization of
society (Jackson, 1998). On the shop-floor, for example, automation means that
0.111***
0.001
⫺ 0.011
0.115***
⫺ 0.085*
⫺ 0.026
0.072***
/
⫺ 0.026
0.105***
/
⫺ 0.043
0.240***
0.183***
0.011
0.306*** 0.249*** 0.234***
0.140*** 0.169*** 0.120***
⫺ 0.046
⫺ 0.047
⫺ 0.029
Girls
0.135***
0.097**
Boys
Fourth year
0.092**
0.086**
Girls
°p ⫽ 0.052 *p ⬍ 0.05 **p ⬍ 0.01 ***p ⬍ 0.001
Study
culture
Ability
SES
Parental
Involvement
Retention
prim. educ.
Choice
stream
R2
Boys
Third year
General schools
0.089°
Girls
Girls
0.085*
Boys
⫺ .062*
Fourth year
0.050***
0.045
0.082***
⫺ 0.093
0.085** ⫺ 0.011
0.033***
/
0.075***
/
0.079** ⫺ 0.020
0.203*** 0.251*** 0.142*** 0.244***
0.001
⫺ 0.040
⫺ 0.061
⫺ 0.023
0.044
0.003
0.036
⫺ 0.088*
0.018
Boys
Third year
Technical/vocational schools
Table 4. The relation between study culture and achievement for boys and girls in the third and fourth year of secondary
education in general and technical/vocational schools, with controls for several pupil characteristics. Results of the multiple
regression analysis (beta coefficients and explained variance R2)
Why boys achieve less at school than girls
169
Fourth year
Third year
Fourth year
Technical/vocational schools
0.117***
0.123***
⫺ 0.006
⫺ 0.002
0.115***
⫺ 0.056*
⫺ 0.053*
0.092***
/
⫺ 0.030
0.150***
0.104***
/
⫺ 0.034
0.081***
0.007
0.061*
0.056°
0.082***
0.008
0.060*
0.068***
/
0.054*
⫺ 0.026
0.068***
/
0.055*
0.127*** 0.050
0.150*** 0.047
0.186*** 0.147*** 0.194*** 0.212***
0.279*** 0.279*** 0.230*** 0.235*** 0.211*** 0.214*** 0.167*** 0.166***
0.151*** 0.151*** 0.149*** 0.147*** ⫺ 0.015
⫺ 0.015
⫺ 0.055* ⫺ 0.055*
⫺ 0.040
⫺ 0.046
⫺ 0.012
⫺ 0.011
0.036
0.035
0.002
0.003
°p ⬍ 0.10 *p ⬍ 0.05 **p ⬍ 0.01 ***p ⬍ 0.001
Gender
Ability
SES
Parental
Involvement
Retention
prim. educ.
Choice
stream
Study culture
R2
Third year
General schools
Table 5. Intermediating role of gender-specific study culture in the relation between gender and achievement in the third
and fourth year of secondary education, general and technical/vocational schools. Results of the multiple regression
analysis (beta-coefficients and explained variance R2)
170 M. Van Houtte
Why boys achieve less at school than girls
171
fewer jobs are reserved strictly for men, so women push out men more and more
(Power et al., 1998). As a consequence, boys in this situation, feeling threatened, are
inclined to overdo their masculinity (Jackson, 1998), for example by opposing
school (cf. Willis, 1977).
Finally, it is demonstrated statistically that the effect of gender on achievement
can be explained by the gender-specific study cultures, at least in general schools.
The research presented here, and especially the results obtained for general schools,
indicates that an explanation in terms of the adolescent study culture and the
difference between boys’ and girls’ study cultures might be a good direction to go in.
Future research should take into account other measures of culture, for example
measures that concretely assess different forms of opposition toward school, which
could perhaps yield better results, especially for technical/vocational schools. If it
can be shown that the source of boys’ underachievement must be sought in their
group functioning, we would then know where to intervene if necessary.
Acknowledgements
A previous version of this article was presented at the 4th NSV/VVS Market Day
Sociology in Nijmegen (the Netherlands) at the 22nd of May 2003. I would like to
thank Peter Mascini and Rene Veenstra for their valuable comments.
References
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall).
Barber, M. (1996) The learning game: arguments for an education revolution (London, Victor
Gollancz).
Bidwell, C. (1965) The school as a formal organization, in: J. March (Ed.) Handbook of
organization (Chicago, IL, Rand McNally).
Blatchford, P. (1996) Pupils’ views on school work and school from 7 to 16 years, Research Papers
in Education, 11(3), 263–288.
Brutsaert, H. (2001) Co-educatie. Studiekansen en kwaliteit van het schoolleven (Leuven/Apeldoorn,
Garant).
Brutsaert, H. & Bracke, P. (1994) Gender context of the elementary school: sex differences in
affective outcomes, Educational Studies, 20(1), 3–11.
Coleman, J. (1961) The adolescent society. The social life of the teenager and its impact on education
(New York, Free Press).
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F. & York, R.
(1966) Equality of educational opportunity (Washington DC, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, United States Government Printing Office).
Cox, T. (2000) Pupils’ perspectives on their education, in: T. Cox (Ed.) Combating educational
disadvantage. Meeting the needs of vulnerable children (London & New York, Falmer Press).
Darom, E. & Rich, Y. (1988) Sex-differences in attitudes toward school: student self-reports and
teacher perceptions, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 350–355.
Davies, L. (1984) Pupil power. Deviance and gender in school (London, Falmer Press).
Dornbusch, S. (1989) The sociology of adolescence, Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 233–259.
Epstein, D. (1998) Real boys don’t work: ‘underachievement’, masculinity and the harassment of
the ‘sissies’, in: D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey & J. Maw (Eds) Failing boys? Issues in gender
and achievement (Buckingham/Philadelphia, PA, Open University Press).
172 M. Van Houtte
Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V. & Maw, J. (Eds) (1998)Failing boys? Issues in gender and
achievement (Buckingham/Philadelphia, PA, Open University Press).
Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J. & Portocarero, L. (1979) Intergenerational class mobility in three
West European countries: England, France and Sweden, British Journal of Sociology, 10,
415–441.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and
research (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley).
Forehand, R., Middleton, K. & Long, N. (1987) Adolescent functioning as a consequence of
recent parental divorce and the parental-adolescent relationship, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8(3), 305–315.
Francis, B. (2000) Boys, girls and achievement. Addressing the classroom issues (London & New York,
Routledge/Falmer).
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A. & Pattman, R. (2002) Young masculinities. Understanding boys in contemporary society (New York, Palgrave).
Glick, W. (1985) Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate:
pitfalls in multilevel research, Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601–616.
Gurian, M. (2001) Boys and girls learn differently! A guide for teachers and parents (San Francisco,
CA, Jossey-Bass).
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. & Sanders, G. (1990) Measuring organizational cultures:
a qualitative and quantitative study accross twenty cases, Administrative Science Quarterly,
35, 286–316.
Hughes, E., Becker, H. & Geer, B. (1968) Student culture and academic effort, in: R. Bell & H.
Stub (Eds) The sociology of education. A sourcebook (revised edition) (Homewood, IL, The
Dorsey Press).
Huisman, M. (1999) Imputation of missing item responses: some simple techniques, in: M.
Huisman (Ed.) Item nonresponse: occurence, causes, and imputation of missing answers to test
itmes (Leiden, DSWO Press, Leiden University).
Jackson, D. (1998) Breaking out of the binary trap: boys’ underachievement, schooling and
gender relations, in: D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey & J. Maw (Eds) Failing boys? Issues in
gender and achievement (Buckingham/Philadelphia, PA, Open University Press).
Johnson, D. (1980) Group processes: influences of student-student interaction on school outcomes, in: J. McMillan (Ed.) The social psychology of school learning (New York, Academic
Press).
Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1993) Lisrel 8: structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
language (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers).
Kandel, D. (1978) Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36(3), 306–312.
Karweit, N. & Hansell, S. (1983) Sex differences in adolescent relationships: friendship and
status, in: J. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds) Friends in school. Patterns of selection and influence
in secondary schools (New York, Academic Press).
Keys, W. & Fernandes, C. (1993) What do students think about school? Research into the factors
associated with positive and negative attitudes towards school and education (Slough, National
Foundation for Educational Research).
Landsheer, H., Maassen, G., Bisschop, P. & Adema, L. (1998) Can higher grades result in fewer
friends? A reexamination of the relation between academic and social competence, Adolescence, 33(129), 185–191.
Muller, C. (1995) Maternal employment, parent involvement, and mathematics achievement
among adolescents, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 85–100.
Muller, C. (1998) Gender differences in parental involvement and adolescents’ mathematics
achievement, Sociology of Education, 71, 336–356.
Owens, R. (1987) Organizational behavior in education (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall).
Owens, R. & Steinhoff, C. (1989) Towards a theory of organisational culture, Journal of
Educational Administration, 27(3), 6–16.
Why boys achieve less at school than girls
173
Power, S., Whitty, G., Edwards, T. & Wigfall, V. (1998) Schoolboys and schoolwork: gender
identification and academic achievement, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(2),
135–153.
Rousseau, D. (1990) Assessing organizational culture: the case for multiple methods, in: B.
Schneider (Ed.) Organizational climate and culture (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass Publishers).
Rumberger, R. (1995) Dropping out of middle school: a multilevel analysis of students and
schools, American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583–625.
Schein, E. (1984) Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture, Sloan Management
Review, 3–16.
Sebald, H. (1981) Adolescents’ concept of popularity and unpopularity, comparing 1960 with
1976, Adolescence, 16(61), 187–193.
Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. (1964) Acceptable and unacceptable behavior defined by group norms, in:
M. Sherif & C. Sherif (Eds) Reference groups. Exploration into conformity and deviation of
adolescents (New York, Harper and Row).
Shibutani, T. (1955) Reference groups as perspectives, American Journal of Sociology, 60, 562–
569.
Shrout, P. & Fleiss, J. (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability, Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Stern, G. (1970) People in context: measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry
(New York, Wiley).
Stockard, J. & Mayberry, M. (1992) Effective educational environments (Newbury Park, CA,
Corwin Press).
Suitor, J. & Reavis, R. (1995) Football, fast cars, and cheerleading: adolescent gender norms,
1978–1989, Adolescence, 30(118), 265–272.
Thirer, J. & Wright, S. (1985) Sport and social status for adolescent males and females, Sociology
of Sport Journal, 2, 164–171.
Trickett, E., Castro, J., Trickett, P. & Shaffner, P. (1982) The independent school experience:
aspects of the normative environments of single-sex and coed secondary schools, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74(3), 374–381.
Warrington, M., Younger, M. & Williams, J. (2000) Student attitudes, image and the gender gap,
British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 393–407.
Whitelaw, S., Milosevic, L. & Daniels, S. (2000) Gender, behaviour and achievement: a
preliminary study of pupil perceptions and attitudes, Gender and Education, 12(1), 87–113.
Williams, J. & White, K. (1983) Adolescent status systems for males and females at three age
levels, Adolescence, 18(70), 381–389.
Willis, P. (1977) Learning to labour. How working class kids get working class jobs (Aldershot,
Gower).