The Advantages of the Mixed Gender among the Single Gender Universities in the United Arab Emirates

The Advantages of the Mixed Gender among the Single Gender Universities in the United Arab Emirates

Mohamed Khalid Mohamed
American University of Sharjah

The Advantages of the Mixed Gender among the Single Gender Universities in the United Arab Emirates
Introduction
Coeducation has been the subject of debate in many platforms in the UAE. While it is considered illegal in Saudi Arabian Schools and Universities, the trend is changing with the institution of programs geared to promoting mixed-gender schooling. While the trend has garnered acclaim from many liberals, it has also been criticized, especially by clerics. These scholars opine that the trend is an attempt to change the Saudi Arabian culture (Gazette, 2010). Academics have also posited evidence that alludes to the single-sex environment being better for both the female and male genders. The claims have gone as far as to accuse newspapers controlled by liberal-minded intellectuals of being partisan to the whole education issue. Widespread research has been conducted on the issue of single-sex schooling versus coeducation. Findings from the research lead to three main opinions, the first being that mixed-sex education environments lead to happier, friendlier, and more gregarious learning that has an enormous impact on the lives of the students(Pahlke, 2014). There are, however, great contradictions on whether these positive aspects are achieved at the expense of academic performance. The second assertion is that mixed-sex schools are overtaken by single-sex schools when it comes to academic performance. Researchers in this school of thought enounce that the best option to have is to incorporate single-sex classes within mixed-sex institutions. Finally, the third group opines that there are negligible differences between the two settings. With these conflicting sides to the debate, there is a need to articulate solid scientific and academic grounds on which to base the argument. This paper will thus use data from independent researches done on the effects of collaborative coeducation on students derived from different sources. It will also use observational data derived from the opinions of Saudi Arabian students who have had a chance to interact with the two programs.
Historical Background Coeducation is a system where the erudition of boys and girls is integrated and conducted using the same facilities (Miller-Bernal, 2000). The system has been around for ages, with it being more prevalent in Sparta and Greece. In these ancient civilizations, there was no discrimination between boys and girls as academic education as well as physical training were given to both sexes. World history, however, exhibits a clear preference for the erudition of boys over girls. Where girl-child education existed, it was done informally and usually at home. This created the single-sex schools where only boys were educated. With changing global conditions and calls for gender equality, there has been an upsurge in education for women, but this has been done primarily in single-sex institutions. In the UAE religion, culture, politics, course offerings, and the preferences of both the parents and students have contributed to the growth of single-sex institutions (Wright & Bennett, 2008). While the education of women has been embraced, strict adherence to traditions ensures that schools are single-sex only. This hasbeen attributed to the continuous inequality and oppression of women in both the societal and the workplace setting despite the increase in the uptake of females into institutions of higher education and the job market.
It is manifest that there has been a proliferation in female workforce participation in the UAE. In many cases, females are rising to positions of leadership in all the sectors of employment. Furthermore, with initiatives such as the “Emiratization” program and an increased investment in female education the trend is destined to grow (Culture, 2005). There is thus the increased interaction of females and males in a workforce that was predominantly male. The growth in the number of Emirati nationals in the workforce also helps augment the increased cases of interaction with people from diverse communities. Research, however, shows that these Emirati nationals and especially females have a problem associating with people from diverse backgrounds (Gallant & Pounder, 2008). In order to suitablyassimilate into the corporate world, these students will have to inculcate skills of socialization with others. Establishments of higher learning are the preeminent places to reinforce these skills, but this cannot be achieved if interaction with diverse people and genders is avoided.
Discussion
Many reasons have been proffered as to why there is a need to integrate coeducation in institutions of higher learning. The articulated reasons can be stratified into three; an improvement in educational performance; improvement in the social life; and career benefit.
Educational Performance Proponents of coeducation over single-sex schooling opine that mixed sex learning improves the academic performance of students. One of the reasons offered for this occurrence is that coeducation promotes healthy competition. Researchers state that people are competitive, and this is augmented when there is competition between the sexes. When boys and girls learn together, they are afraid of the other sex performing better than them. This healthy competition can only improve the academic performance of such students. Studies have also shown that when girls and boys interact together in a classroom situation, they tend to behave better. In institutions of higher learning, this effect is even more profound. It has been shown that coeducation in classes restrains boys from indulging in unruly behavior that ultimately improves their academic performance. Infact, a higher percentage of ladies in a classroom not only lowers the amount of distraction but also nurtures a healthier relationship between teachers and students (Naaj, Nachouki, & Ankit, 2012). In the study, it was found that in classes where girls accounted for more than 55% of the student body, such classes exhibited better exam results and less violent outbursts. Mixed sex learning also improves the enrollment rates in classes. In the preceding study, it was found that boys who had more female peers in their classes showed greater enrollment rates in classes and for courses relating to mathematics and science. The girls in these classes also took more challenging courses than their counterparts in single-sex schools. The investigatorsestablished that this effect was due to the positive influence the girls added to the classroom environment (Miller-Bernal, 2000). Incorporating mixed learning in classes thus leads to students being stimulated to take courses that are more challenging. This trend has the added benefit of improving the quality of learning for the employees that enter the job market. Another reason offered for why coeducation should be supported to reduce the differences in course offerings that students choose. In single-sex schools, boys are directed towards traditionally masculine subjects while females are directed towards traditionally feminine subjects. This leads to gender stereotyping of subjects where certain genders tend to cluster within particular areas (Miller-Bernal, 2000). There thus is a lack of diversity in the choice of subjects that students in single-sex schools choose. This stereotyping is, however, less evident in mixed-sex institutions. In the modern world, restrictions due to gender roles are waning, and coeducation institutions seem to be at the forefront of eradicating this gender stereotyping. The belief that single-sex education accentuates gender-based educational limitations, and discrimination is thus one of the reasons why coeducation should be promoted.
Socio-Cultural Improvement Throughout the history of erudition and gender, institutions of higher learning have been cited as essential sites for social change and places where the development of more egalitarian societies with less oppressive social conditions for females is fostered. Institutions of higher learning should be places that foster equality and provide young adults with early experiences on gender equality. When that fails to be done, the unequal gender experiences encountered in the outside world will be reproduced in their later lives. Co-educational schooling is an essential route towards achieving greater gender equity. Coeducation also enables boys and girls to intermingle and comprehend each other well. It has been shown that when boys and girls live together in a society, they build stronger relationships with one another. They also develop a feeling of friendship and companionship that enables them relate well with one another. In single-sex schools, these genders are restricted in the amount of exposure that they have of the other gender. When entering the job market and in later life, they will not have yet learned how the other gender operates. Shyness, which is a key hindrance to the better interrelationship of boys and girls, and especially in the conservative Emirati culture, is eliminated. In a study done on the effect of coeducation in schools, many students stated that before they enrolled in the mixed-sex schools, they were very shy and did not know how to talk to members of the opposite sex(Alsaif, 2015). This shyness was, however, eliminated with continued interaction in these mixed schools. Coeducation also mitigates gender bias in society. It spawns a sentiment of equality between both sexes. The feeling of male superiority that is prevalent in society may be wiped out when coeducation is given prominence. In the previous study, most of the male students in single-sex schools who were quizzeddid not commend the presence of females on campus, including female lecturers. Such feelings of male dominance will only continue to be propagated in the single-sex schools. The students from mixed-sex institutions were more approving of the other gender. In the study, females also felt that mixed-gender erudition helps the sexes achieve gender equality, especially for females. A strong and pleasant relationship between boys and girls is essential for cultural development. Coeducation aids in this endeavor by causing students to be more broad-minded and tolerating towards the opposite sex. Students in these institutions interact freely and are afforded opportunities for socialization. This socialization leads to respectful and productive interface between the genders, just as it should be in the outside world. Mixed-sex erudition is thus essential for creating a healthy and harmonious relationship between the genders. It is also a common experience that when in the company of females, the male gender tends to behave decently. Males do not use rough and abrasive language while in the presence of girls. They also talk mannerly and dress properly. Similarly, when females are taught in the presence of males, they lose their fear of boys. On the other hand, single-sex schooling only results in dissociative behavior where due to the curiosity about the opposite gender, both genders tend to misbehave. In mixed-sex institutions, however, this curiosity is satisfied, and they stop considering members of the opposite gender as strange creatures (Shah & Conchar, 2009). Coeducation also contributes to the balanced development of the personality of boys and girls. When boys and girls study together, they develop a spirit of camaraderie and comprehend each other better. The boys stop eve teasing the girls and the girls cease being afraid of their male counterparts (Miller-Bernal, 2000). With segregation, however, erupts abnormal behavior where students find it difficult to interact with the opposite gender on a social level. Coeducation is thus essential for the balanced development of their personality.
Transitioning into the workplace In the current Emirati workplace, there are increased interactions between males and females. As employers seek to employ the most competent and productive personnel, they go for employees who can excel better in collaborative groups and interact well with both the clientele and fellow workers. In this section, therefore, reasons for why coeducation helps students transition better into the workplace will be proffered.
Becky Kilsby, a development manager at Middlesex University, Dubai opines that coeducation prepares graduates for the realities of the workplace. She states that in a coeducational environment, learners exchange views and cooperate on group projects with a diverse range of peers (Wright & Bennett, 2008)(Bennett H. a., 2009). This enables them become more comfortable working with members of the opposite gender. Such interactions are important in the workplace where these students will be necessitated to interact with individuals of different genders and diverse cultures. When students learn to be comfortable around people of diversity from an early age, they will find it easier to settle in the job environment.
When working in multicultural and mixed-gender teams, there is a need to develop team working and workplace management skills particularly in the areas of selection and placement, training, socialization, and employee recruitment(Bennett & Norman S. Wright, 2010).There have, however, been observable differences in team behaviors and attitudes when these teams are comprised of females and males. Where members of these teams have had little previous interactions with members of the opposite gender, the productivity of such groups has been minimal. Many proponents thus feel that coeducation will help in improving these teams in diverse ways.
Conflict. Coeducation helps reduce diversity and the opportunity for conflict. Many authors have noted that there is an inherent potential for conflict with diverse teams. Higher levels of heterogeneity lead to higher levels of conflict in groups. Stahle opines that single-sex education helps promote diversity by depriving students the opportunity to develop skills for interaction with their peers of different genders (Staehle, 1999). Students from these schools find it difficult to comprehend the opposite gender, which creates more opportunities for conflict. When this diversity is eradicated by encouraging collaborative learning in coeducational institutions, the opportunity for conflict in the job environment will be mitigated.
Cohesion. Critics of single-sex schooling argue that such erudition reduces cohesion thatis also transferred to the workplace. Students from single-sex institutions exhibit lower levels of interaction with the opposite gender as well as ignorance and prejudice towards the other gender. Research has, however, shown that individuals are more attracted to, more trustful of and more positively inclined towards others who are perceived as similar to self(Jehn, 2004). Coeducational classes promote inter-member attraction, a common understanding, and higher levels of agreement that improve cohesion. Coeducation should thus be incorporated in learning institutions so that graduates can develop skills that will enable them have more cohesion in the workplace.
Communication. With coeducation arises effective communication skills for both genders. When boys and girls learn together, they develop an understanding of both verbal and non-verbal communication with members of the opposite sex. They are also comfy with each other and spend more time in information-sharing and actively discussing ideas for decisions under consideration. These values are essential for effective team performance (Cooper, 2005). Research also shows that graduates from coeducational institutions tend to be more sensitive to team harmony in diverse groups that have members of the opposite sex(Bennett H. a., 2009). Some may even go as far as not voicing their divergent opinions for the benefit of the team. Coeducational institutions thus instill effective communication skills in graduates that are important to the team.
Team development. Coeducation also helps in successful and fast development of teams. Kurtzberg (2000) articulates five phases of team development- forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. The levels of conflict exhibited during the first two stages and the time taken to complete all the phases increases when there is more diversity in the team since the patterns of interpersonal behavior and perspectives to be reconciled are greater(Roosevelt, 2001). When these team members have interacted before and thus have similar experiences and perspectives, team development is faster and harmonious. Students in coeducational institutions learn from an early age to engage in diverse groups and thus exhibit minimal problems settling in workplace teams. Coeducation thus aids in the effective and timely development of teams.
It is thus clear that coeducation creates a learning environment representative of the workplace environment. It has been shown that members of mixed-gender groups excel the most and have a significant improvement in their engagement, focus and work quality as compared to same-gender groups. Homogeneity thus leads to higher overall team performance (Jehn, 2004). There are thus synergies and efficiencies of interactive learning when students of mixed genders learn together, and these synergies are essential for better workplace performance.
Counter-Argument
Many arguments have been expressed for why coeducation should be discouraged. One argument implied by conservatives is that the system is against tradition and culture. They also argue that coeducation will develop immoral relationships between boys and girls. These two arguments, however, do not hold much water. Firstly, males and females will have to coexist later in society. Instead of separating them in schools, it is better to give them an opportunity to interact and understand each other thoroughly. In a fast changing world, believing in the morality of the medieval ages where males are given prominence over females is retrogressive thinking. Today’s world demands gender equality, and this equality can only be realized when males and females interact and reconcile their differences. Some critics also state that mixing of the sexes especially with young adults creates distractions, an increase in cases of sexual harassment, and teenage pregnancies. These occurrences have the consequence of interfering with academic performance. Moreover, in the coeducational system there is a tendency to put more focus on males than females. Examination, however, demonstrates that this is not the case. When students of the same gender learn together, they become more accommodating and understanding of the opposite gender. Boys behave better towards girls with continued interaction. With teachings of gender equality incorporated in the curriculum, the instances of teachers favoring males over females in the classroom are eradicated. These inequalities can only be challenged if students are presented with an opportunity to do so. Single-sex institutes encourage the subversion of gender roles, which aids in augmenting the perceived differences between males and females, leading to more inequality. Infact, the developmental intergroup theory posits that single-sex schooling helps in making gender salient, in turn leading to greater gender stereotyping (Pahlke, 2014).
Conclusion
In today’s fast changing society, it should be acknowledged that mixed-sex learning has become necessary and is the order of the day. With the institution of policies such as the “Emiratization” of jobs in the UAE, more Emirati citizens are bound to join the workforce. The professional world dictates that employees interact with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Employers are also looking for employees who can fit into any working environment and deliver. Coeducation is beneficial in the inculcation of communication and team-building skills when it relates to working with members of the opposite gender. As such, coeducation is essential for making sure that the graduates who are engaged in the workplace are capable of effective interaction with other people. Today’s children are tomorrow’s citizens. There is thus a need to encourage them develop their personality in a free healthy atmosphere. Today’s culture dictates that the traditional gender roles are being slowly subverted. Girls are entering all professions in large numbers and account for a larger percentage of the Emirati workforce. Coeducation institutions offer a great platform for both sexes to learn about each other and build stronger relationships with each other. These institutions enable students interact better with each other and be able to manage their interrelationships in the diverse culture that is the latter-day UAE. Lastly, the upsurge in the number of workers available in the job market brings about competition for places. Employers will thus be looking to hire people who have greater skills and higher academic performance. Coeducational institutions stimulate learners to take on greater challenges with regards to the courses they are taking and the outcome of exams. Research shows that mixed-sex schools exhibit a better academic performance than single-sex learning institutions. For the progress of the UAE, there needs to be concerted efforts to better the workforce, and coeducation offers the best platform to do so. Critics and conservatives must cognize this eventuality and accept that the world is changing, and with it is the mode of erudition in schools. Coeducation is not geared to challenging the traditional way of life; rather cope with the changing economic, social and political situation.

References
Alsaif, O. A. (2015). Saudi Arabian Students ' Opinions About Co-Education While Studying Abroad. ProQuest.
Bennett, H. a. (2009). Moderating influences of team member heterogeneity on patterns of participation and voice: a comparison across individualist and collectivist cultures. Academy of Management, 223-260.
Bennett, H., & Norman S. Wright. (2010). Female Emirati graduates and the multicultural, mixed gender workplace.Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 16(5/6), 267 - 288. doi:10.1108/13527591011071340
Cooper, D. a. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. The American Economic Review, 95(3), 477-510.
Culture, U. M. (2005). UAE Yearbook, 2005. Trident: Abu Dhabi.
Gallant, M., & Pounder, J. (2008). The employment of female nationals in the United Arab Emirates (UAE): an analysis of opportunities and barriers. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(1), 26-33.
Gazette, S. (2010, February 25). Death fatwa ' result of 'natural differences '. Retrieved from Saudi Gazette newspaper: http://www. saudigazette.com. sa /index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=20100
Jehn, K. a. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 703-29.
Miller-Bernal, L. (2000). Separate by Degree: Women Students ' Experiences in Single-Sex and Coeducational Colleges. Berne and Pieterlen: Peter Lang Publishing.
Naaj, M., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating Student Satisfaction with Blended Learning in a Gender-Segregated Environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11(1), 185-200.
Pahlke, E. (2014). The Effects of Single-Sex Compared With Coeducational Schooling on Students’ Performance and Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1042–1072.
Roosevelt, T. R. (2001). Management of Diversity. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Shah, S., & Conchar, C. (2009). Why Single-Sex Schools? Discourses of culture/faith and achievement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(2), 191-204.
Staehle, W. (1999). Management (8th ed.). Munich: Verlag Vahlen.
Wright, N., & Bennett, H. (2008). Harmony and participation in Arab and Western teams. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(4), 230-43.

References: Alsaif, O. A. (2015). Saudi Arabian Students ' Opinions About Co-Education While Studying Abroad. ProQuest. Bennett, H. a. (2009). Moderating influences of team member heterogeneity on patterns of participation and voice: a comparison across individualist and collectivist cultures. Academy of Management, 223-260. Bennett, H., & Norman S. Wright. (2010). Female Emirati graduates and the multicultural, mixed gender workplace.Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 16(5/6), 267 - 288. doi:10.1108/13527591011071340 Cooper, D Culture, U. M. (2005). UAE Yearbook, 2005. Trident: Abu Dhabi. Gallant, M., & Pounder, J. (2008). The employment of female nationals in the United Arab Emirates (UAE): an analysis of opportunities and barriers. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(1), 26-33. Gazette, S. (2010, February 25). Death fatwa ' result of 'natural differences '. Retrieved from Saudi Gazette newspaper: http://www. saudigazette.com. sa /index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=20100 Jehn, K Miller-Bernal, L. (2000). Separate by Degree: Women Students ' Experiences in Single-Sex and Coeducational Colleges. Berne and Pieterlen: Peter Lang Publishing. Naaj, M., Nachouki, M., & Ankit, A. (2012). Evaluating Student Satisfaction with Blended Learning in a Gender-Segregated Environment. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11(1), 185-200. Pahlke, E. (2014). The Effects of Single-Sex Compared With Coeducational Schooling on Students’ Performance and Attitudes: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1042–1072. Roosevelt, T. R. (2001). Management of Diversity. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Shah, S., & Conchar, C. (2009). Why Single-Sex Schools? Discourses of culture/faith and achievement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(2), 191-204. Staehle, W. (1999). Management (8th ed.). Munich: Verlag Vahlen. Wright, N., & Bennett, H. (2008). Harmony and participation in Arab and Western teams. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(4), 230-43.