JOURNAL

T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

of LEARNING
Volume 17, Number 4

Exploring the Gender Gap in Achievement in Malaysia: A Case for Learning Styles
Nadia Ainuddin Dahlan, Nor Azian Md Noor, Sharifah Muzlia Syed Mustafa, Khadijah Said Hashim and Voviana Zulkifli

www.Learning-Journal.com

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 <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. 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 Styles
Nadia Ainuddin Dahlan, MARA University of Technology, Selangor, Malaysia Nor Azian Md Noor, International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia Sharifah Muzlia Syed Mustafa, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia Khadijah Said Hashim, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia Voviana Zulkifli, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia
Abstract: A common problem shared by many institutions of higher learning around the world today is the wide discrepancy in the enrollment of males and females. Although the gender gap inpublic universities has been widely highlighted in Malaysia, it is believed this problem may be inextricably linked to gender differences in achievement at the school level. It has been suggested that accommodating 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 of a national standardized test, the Lower Secondary Examination or Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR), of 411 Form Four students from four secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur. Respiondents also completed the Felder and Soloman (1991) Index of Learning Styles (ILS), which determined their learning styles on four subscales: Active-Reflective, Sensing-Intuitive, Visual-Verbal and Sequential-Global. The study found a significant gender difference in achievement but not for learning styles. The majority of respondents were Active, Visual and Sequential. However, a binary logistic regression model found gender, Sensing and Visual learning styles to be significant predictors of achievement. Therefore, accommodating 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 the hope of increasing achievement across genders, thus narrowing the gender gap in schools and lead to more gender-balanced university classrooms capable of nurturing quality human capital amongst both 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

UNIVERSAL PROBLEM shared by institutions of higher learning around the world today is the wide discrepancy in the enrolment of males and females. Over the last decade, female enrolment has outnumbered that of males and this phenomenon 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 Learning Volume 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: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

least the 1990s (Head, 1999). It has since become an issue of great public and political concern in 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 university enrolment in these countries (Henry, 2009; Strauss, 2010). Indications of a gender gap in Malaysia can be inferred from the stark imbalance in public university enrolment and high dropout rates of boys from school. However, unlike in the West where the gender gap has generated much debate, similar discussion is lacking whilst the literature available are few and far in between although the consequences of such gender disparities in achievement are certainly no less serious. Among the few studies that attempted to address the gender gap in Malaysia is the government-initiated study by Zalizan, Khatijah Rohani, Hazadiah and Maarof (2001). They observed that female enrolment in public universities have exceeded those of males since at least 1996 with a majority of 51%. The most recent data available shows that in 2009, females percentage of majority has risen well beyond 60% (Ministry of Higher Education [MOHE], 2010). Table 1: Percentage of Students Enrolled in Public Universities by Gender 1980 Gender Male Female Total 64.5 35.5 100.0 54.3 45.7 100.0 42.1 57.9 100.0 36.9 63.1 100.0 32.8 67.2 100.0 1990 2000 2006 2009

Note: Adapted from Aminah (1994), MOE (2006a) & MOHE (2010) As noted by Zalizan et al. (2001), gender differences in university enrolment and dropout rates are symptomatic of gender disparities in achievement in schools. Thus far however, the literature as well as educational policies in Malaysia including the National Education Blueprint 2006-2010 (PIPP 2006-2010) (MOE, 2006b) and more recently, the National Key Result Areas for Education (Education NKRA) (MOE, 2009b), have largely focused on addressing disparities in achievement related to race and socioeconomic status (urban versus rural schools). Hence, gender has not been seriously studied as a variable leading to disparities in academic achievement except in the context of equal attainment to education, where research has shown it to be equitable (i.e. United Nations Childrens Education Fund [UNICEF], 2005). However, some have argued that gender may be a more viable way of improving achievement. Noble, Brown and Murphy (2001) explained that it is more pragmatic to devise strategies that targets improvement among genders rather than race and class, two variables which are no less important but which are nonetheless more complex and sensitive in nature and hence are more difficult to work around.

The Need for Addressing the Gender Gap

With the increasing global emphasis on credentialism, males need to perform well at the school level in order to compete for places in university. If the gender gap in schools is not quickly addressed, gender discrepancies in university enrolment will continue to widen even 16

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

further. As a result, fewer high-paying jobs would be available to men leading to changes in future workforce composition. Importantly as well, this would challenge traditional sociocultural conventions as men may no longer be the main breadwinners of the family. In addition, it may be harder for women to find spouses of similar education background should this trend continue. This is a concern even in the West, as Conlin (2003) points out, if men continue to fall behind in education, they would be more likely to marry women who outlearn them. Such sociocultural dictations are also prevalent in Malaysian society where even academicians have voiced their concerns on this issue (Farabi, 2007): One day professional working women will eventually marry men including those who are not employed. Eventually, this will give rise to the phenomenon of men staying home to take care of the children and home while the women go out to work. This phenomenon is already happening now although this is contrary to our culture. Nevertheless, concern over the gender gap should not be misconstrued as championing one gender or the other. Female achievement should continue to be encouraged as well as that of males. More importantly, it must be recognised that any kind of gender gap would lead to a loss of potential human capital. This is in direct contrast to Malaysias National Education Philosophy declared in 1987, which states that an important goal of education is to produce modal insan or quality human capital capable of driving the nations development (Rosnani, 2004). This idea continues to be strongly emphasised today and is among the main thrusts of the PIPP 2006-2010 and Education NKRA. Therefore, the gender gap in Malaysia is viewed as a serious threat that stands to deprive the nation of valuable human capital.

Gender Differences in Achievement: Standardised Tests and Gender-Stereotyped Subjects

The two most apparent areas where gender differences in achievement can be seen are in standardised tests and gender-stereotyped subjects. Studies in various countries (Smith, 2005; Gillborn & Mirza, 2000) have reported that females generally outperformed males in tests such as the GCSE and SAT. Similarly, nationwide results for the three compulsory standardised tests in Malaysia, SPM (Malaysian Certificate of Examination), PMR (Lower Secondary Assessment) and UPSR (Primary School Assessment) for 1996 to 2000 showed that females scored better than males overall (Zalizan et al., 2001). Research abroad has also shown that females have narrowed the gap in traditionally masculine subjects such as mathematics and science but the gap in feminine subjects such as languages, reading and writing (Conlin, 2003; Rowan et al., 2002) continues to widen (Head, 1999; Maynard, 2002). Concurring with this, Malaysian females performed better than 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) (Noor Azina & Halimah (2009). However, males scored better than females in technical-based subjects in the SPM (Zalizan et al., 2001). Hence, it would be inaccurate to say that females are outperforming males in every aspect although research has shown the gender gap to be most evident in standardised tests and gender-stereotyped subjects where females generally perform better than males.

17

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Causes of the Gender Gap: Sociocultural and Biological Arguments

The causes for the gender gap have been discussed extensively in the West. Some researchers attribute this to sociocultural factors while others allay this to biological factors. Briefly, the sociocultural view underlines such factors as the feminization of schools (Francis, 2000; Maynard, 2002) which alludes to external faults for males underachievement such as the lack of male teachers in schools, promoting a biased curriculum and instruction as well as assessment methods that favour females learning styles more than males. Moreover, achievement motivation may also differ between genders resulting from socialisation into traditional gender identities. Many cultures generally raise females to be more obedient, responsible and take schoolwork seriously whereas males are given a higher degree of autonomy, freedom to do as they like and view schoolwork as a generally feminine rather than masculine pursuit (Maynard, 2002; Francis, 2000). A local study reported that boys from less fortunate families helped their parents earn a living and this affected their school attendance (Zainah, 2007). They were also reinforced into traditional gender roles where their parents are less restrictive of them compared to their female siblings. Hence, these factors may influence their attitudes towards schooling. Technological advances in neuroscience has made it possible to consider a biological explanation for gender differences in achievement. Researchers have discovered that male and female brains are not only structured differently but also function differently, therefore making them inherently more proficient in certain tasks, such as females advantage in verbal abilities 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 seen as being innately wired to process the world and behave differently whereas differences in 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 also not favour this, their lower levels of testosterone enable them to better tolerate this mode of instruction.

Learning Styles: Accommodating Gender Differences

As discussed, socioculturally and biologically, males and females not only behave differently but also approach learning in different ways. Consequently, efforts should be made to meet both genders learning needs. Thus the premise of this study is that the gender gap can be narrowed by meeting the learning needs of both genders and one way to do this is by considering students learning styles. The literature on the effects of matching learning styles and achievement have indeed been inconclusive. However, several studies have found that mismatching may result in low grades, disinterest in learning and could even lead to students giving up and dropping out of school (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Godleski 1984; Oxford et al. 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 matching gender differences in learning styles (Grossman & Grossman, 1994). In addition, awareness of 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

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

regardless of innate intelligence, that almost anyone can learn provided that instruction corresponds to their preferred way of learning. In Malaysia, Robiah (1996, as cited in Asiah, 1999) notes that although accounting for different learning styles in the planning of teaching is encouraged locally, it is only in principle as 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 students learning styles differences into consideration when teaching.

Research Questions
The following are this studys research questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Is there a difference in academic achievement between genders? Is there a difference in male and female achievement in traditionally gender-stereotyped subjects (Malay Language, English, mathematics and science)? Is there a difference in learning styles between genders? To what extent can gender and learning styles predict achievement?

Method
Respondents
The respondents for this study were 411 randomly selected Form Four students (average 16 years of age) from four government secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur. Overall, there were 186 males (45%) and 225 female (55%) respondents, from both Arts and Science stream classes. In terms of ethnicity, the majority of respondents were Malays at 77% (317), followed by Chinese at 16% (66), Indians at 5% (19) and Others at 2% (9).

Measure of Academic Achievement

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

Instrument
Respondents learning styles were assessed using Felder and Solomans (1991) 44-item Index of Learning Styles (ILS), which the researcher adapted into a bilingual version (Malay Language and English). The instrument and scoring key were obtained from the developers website after declaring its non-commercial use. Each subscale: Active-Reflective, SensingIntuitive, 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

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

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 = 0.56 where 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 reported to be lower than the others (Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Litzinger et al., 2007). In fact, the alpha value obtained for the Sequential-Global subscale in this study was higher than the value reported by Van Zwanenberg et al. (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). Hence, there was an acceptable degree of confidence in adapting this version of the instrument for the study. Table 2: Cronbachs Alpha Coefficients from Two Pilot Studies Act-Ref 0.70 0.45 Sen-Int 0.67 0.56 Vis-Ver 0.50 0.42 Seq-Glo 0.46 -.046 N 33 40 Source Pilot study 2 Pilot study 1

Felder and Solomans Learning Styles Model

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

Processing: Active and Reflective Learners

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

Perception: Sensing and Intuitive Learners

This subscale refers to students approaches to problem-solving and their tolerance for factual learning. Sensors enjoy learning facts and are better at memorizing them. They also prefer using well-established methods to solve problems and dislike complications and surprises. Thus, they are not big risk takers. Conversely, Intuitors are less tolerant of learning that requires repetition, routine and memorization of facts. However, they are innovative and better able to grasp new concepts, discovering possibilities and relationships (Felder and Soloman, 1993).

Input: Visual and Verbal Learners

The ability for students to retain information is influenced by the way the information is presented. Thus, this subscale purports that some learners prefer more visual modes of in-

20

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

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

Understanding: Sequential and Global Learners

This subscale is concerned with the ways learners organize or comprehend information. Sequentials learn by establishing logical connections from one piece of information to another whereas Global learners do not immediately see the relationships between materials. Globals put pieces together randomly and will suddenly get it. Thus, Global learners are able to connect things in novel ways whereas Sequential learners are more methodological in their approach (Felder and Soloman, 1993).

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

Results and Discussion

Gender Differences in Academic Achievement
When high achievers were compared to non-high achievers by gender, the chi-square obtained was significant 2 (1, N=411) = 6.25, p =.015. Among the high achievers, a larger percentage were female (11.2%) compared to male (5.1%). However, this was also true for low achievers where 40.1% were male and 43.6% female. Consequently, further analysis was carried out where based on total number of As, the t-test found there was a significant difference in achievement between genders, t(409)=-2.05, p =.040 where females (M=2.63) had a higher mean than males (M=2.11). These findings concur with that of Aminah (1994) and Zalizan et al. (2001), and hence supports the notion that a gender gap does exist.

21

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

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

Gender Differences in Malay Language, English, Mathematics and Science

Female respondents obtained the majority of As in all the four subjects although significant gender differences were observed in Malay Language achievement only, 2 (1, N=411) = 13.12, p =.000. Out of the total respondents, 37.5% managed to obtain an A in this subject with the majority being female (24.8%). Although females also obtained most of the As in English, mathematics and science, these differences were not statistically significant. This implies that generally, male and female achievement are similar in these subjects. It supports the notion that females are narrowing the gap in subjects traditionally regarded as male fortes (i.e. science and mathematics), where they perform as well as or even better than their male counterparts (Head, 1999; Gaine & George, 1999; Gillborn & Mirza, 2000). In this 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 are narrowing, there continues to be a wide discrepancy in traditionally female subjects such as languages. Not only did females obtain more As than males in English and English Language in this study, but for the latter, the difference was statistically significant. The difference was not as pronounced for English perhaps because Malaysian students in general have not mastered the language well (Nor Hashimah, Norsimah & Kesumawati, 2008).

Gender Differences in Learning Styles

No significant differences in learning styles were found between genders. Overall, the majority of respondents preferred Active (79%), Visual (77%) and Sequential (73%) learning styles. This is consistent with Boondao, Hurst and Sheard (2008) who found that both eastern and western students in an Australian university also preferred Active, Visual and Sequential styles. Therefore, most students preferred an active rather than passive learning environment. Importantly, this suggests a mismatch between students preferences and the way lessons

22

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

are carried out in Malaysian schools, which has been criticised for being passive, promoting memorisation 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 students today have contact with technology such as television, mobile phones and computers at an earlier 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 or deep understanding) is common in formal education systems. Thus, students may be encouraged 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 motivation. 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 real world problems and lab work, they are also described as preferring to memorize facts besides having a high tolerance for repetitive work and details, which according to the biological viewpoint are characteristic of girls. Similarly, that more girls are Intuitors contradicts the biological viewpoint as girls are said to be more tolerant of memorizing and routine rather than less tolerant of these modes of learning.

Extent to which Academic Achievement is Predicted by Gender and Learning Styles

Table 4 shows that only 8.5% of the variation in achievement is explained by the variables entered in the model. While this finding is significant, it suggests that other factors not accounted 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 probability of correct classification is 83.5%, thus generating an error rate of 16.5%. Table 4: Model Summary Step 1 -2 log likelihood 343.185 Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square .050 .085

Table 5: Hosmer and Lemeshow test Step 1 Chi-square 2.789 df 8 Sig. .947

23

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Three of the five variables entered into the model were found to be significant predictors of achievement. 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 style subscale was also recoded. For example, in the Active-Reflective subscale, 1 represented reflective and 2 for active. As illustrated in Table 6, the model showed that the likelihood of becoming a high achiever is increased 2.329 times by being female rather than male, 1.988 times more by being Sensing rather than Intuitive and 2.482 times more by being Visual rather than Verbal. Table 6: Variables in the Equation B Step 1 (a) Gender AR SI VV SQ Constant .845 -.502 .687 .909 -.101 -2.801 SE .293 .313 .284 .387 .307 .549 Wald 8.343 2.575 5.851 5.527 .108 26.063 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .004 .109 .016 .019 .742 .000 Exp(B) 2.329 .605 1.988 2.482 .904 .061

Conclusion and Recommendations

Firstly, this study found the majority of high achievers to be females, hence concurring with previous research (Aminah, 1994; Zalizan et al., 2001). Females also obtained a significantly higher mean than males in terms of total number of As in the PMR, supporting the notion that a gender gap does exist in schools. Secondly, the results were in agreement with existing literature 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 related subjects (English and Malay Language). These two findings suggests that gender differences in achievement at the school level may 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 ensure that they are performing on par with females in schools and especially in national standardised tests 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 majority of students were Active, Visual and Sequential learners, it appears that there is a mismatch between students preferences for learning and how they are being taught in schools, at least in terms of promoting an active learning environment. Finally, it was observed that being female, Sensing and Visual increased the likelihood of achievement. Hence, not only could accommodation of certain learning styles enhance learning but also increase achievement. This requires the serious attention of teachers, especially trainee teachers because as discussed, learning styles is not consciously practised in classrooms today (Robiah, 1996 as cited in Asiah, 1999; Zalizan et al., 2001). Thus, teacher training 24

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

colleges and university education faculties need to incorporate learning styles as a core part of their syllabus. For example, the use of learning styles in lessons could be included as a key component in the evaluation of trainee teachers when they are undergoing their practicum training in schools. In conclusion, the evidence of a gender gap in Malaysian schools as suggested by this study calls for the swift attention and action of educators. It is hoped that accommodating certain 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 gap and subsequently create more gender-balanced classrooms, thereby ensuring that the education system meets its goal of nurturing quality human capital among both males and females which will ensure the nations continued development.

References
Aminah 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 pelajarpelajar 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 use of interactive online tutorials. British Journal of Educational Technology (Online). Retrieved April 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 personalized e-learning systems. International Journal of Behavioral, Cognitive, Educational and Psychological Sciences 1(1), 66-70. Collin, S. (May 23, 2010). Revamp exam-oriented education system. Borneo Post Online. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.theborneopost.com/?p=31941 Conlin, M. (May 26, 2003). The new gender gap. Business Week Online. Retrieved October 11, 2009 from: 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. Retrieved July 20, 2009 from http://www.utusan.com.my Felder, R.M. & Henriques, E.R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. 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 from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html Felder, R.M. & Spurlin, J.E. (2005). Applications, reliability, and validity of the Index of Learning Styles. Intl. Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112. Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls and achievement: Addressing the classroom issues. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 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

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

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 Telegraph. Retrieved June 16, 2010 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) (2006). The human rights approach to millennium development goal 2: Achieve universal primary education. Ampang: Perkasa Nilam Sdn. Bhd. Isman, C.A. & Gundogan, N.U. (2009). The influence of digit ratio on the gender difference in learning style 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 of Learning 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.my Ministry of Education. (2006b). National Education Blueprint 2006-2010 (PIPP 2006-2010). Retrieved February 20, 2010 from http://www.moe.gov.my Ministry of Education. (2009a). Malaysia educational statistics 2009. Retrieved February 20, 2010 from http://www.moe.gov.my Ministry of Education. (2009b). National Key Results Area for Education (NKRA 2010). Retrieved February 20, 2010 from http://www.moe.gov.my Ministry of Higher Education. (2010). Perangkaan pengajian tinggi Malaysia 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2010 from http://www.mohe.gov.my Noble, 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. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya: Unpublished Masters thesis. Roslinda bt. Alias. (2006). Human Sciences students attitudes computers and their use: An exploratory study at the Matriculation Centre, International Islamic University Malaysia . Gombak: International Islamic University Malaysia. Unpublished Masters dissertation. Rowan, L., Knobel, M., Bigum, C., Lankshear, C. (2002). Boys, literacies and schooling: The dangerous territories 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.com United Nations Childrens Education Fund (UNICEF). (April 28, 2005). Early investments in education pay off for Malaysian girls today. UNICEF Malaysia media centre .Retrieved June 28, 2010 from http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/gift_4948.html

26

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

Wehren, E.A., Lujan, H.L & DiCarlo, S.E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among 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 contextually 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 & Maarof Redzuan. (2001). Kajian prestasi pelajar lelaki dan perempuan dalam sistem pendidikan negara. Final report by Biro Rundingan dan Inovasi, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

About the Authors

Nadia Ainuddin Dahlan Nadia Ainuddin Dahlan is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia. Courses she has taught at the faculty include Educational Psychology, Educational Sociology, Educational Testing and Assessment as well as Professional Development. She received her undergraduate degree in Psychology (Industrial and Organisational) and masters degree in Educational Psychology from the International Islamic University Malaysia. Among her interested research areas include Educational Psychology, Social Psychology, Early Childhood Education, Inclusive Education, Gender Studies and Educational Testing. Dr. Nor Azian Md Noor Nor Azian is an assistant professor at the Institute of Education, International Islamic University Malaysia. She has vast experience teaching in the field of educational psychology at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Sharifah Muzlia Syed Mustafa In the field of teaching for more than 10 years, Sharifah Muzlia is currently a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia where she teaches courses on psychology, sociology and counselling. Among her research interests include the fields of motivation and stress. Khadijah Said Hashim Khadijah is a lecturer at the Faculty of Education, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia. Courses she has taught include educational psychology and educational sociology whereas for graduating students, she has taught professional development and current issues in education. Her areas of interest include educational psychology, special education and gender studies. Voviana Zulkifli Voviana has more than 5 years' teaching experience in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL). A lecturer at the Faculty of Education, MARA University of Technology, Malaysia, her fields of interest include second language acquisition (SLA), writing, listening and 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 ONeil, Ministry of Education, Sanaa, Yemen. Jos-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 subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com