Regarding gender and education, probably one of the most studied issues is the performance and achievement gap between girls and boys. One of the reasons girls overall outperform boys is that girls tend to put forth greater effort than boys (Heyder and Kessels, 2016). Boys are less motivated than girls and have less positive attitudes toward school (Francis 2000; Warrington, Younger and Williams 2000). Girls spend more time doing homework, display less disturbing behavior and play truant less often. Boys take it easier, work less hard and are distracted more easily (Heyder and Kessels, 2016; Warrington et al. 2000). Boys are more likely to reject school values, to trespass school rules, and to be more laid back at school (Demanet et al., 2013), which can be seen as one of three interdependent components of student disengagement (Fredricks et al., 2004), namely behavioral disengagement, next to cognitive disengagement (students’ unwillingness to invest time and effort in mastering the subject matters), and emotional disengagement (involving students’ well-being).Research has pointed to the repercussions of these three sub-dimensions of disengagement. Behavioral, emotional (Janosz et al., 2008), and cognitive (Steinmayr and Spinath, 2009) disengagement are related to lower grades and a higher likelihood of dropping out, which emphasizes the need to gain insight into the determinants of the different aspects of (dis)engagement.

To understand gender and gendered outcomes, Risman (2004) has proposed to conceptualize gender as a social structure and to classify the mechanisms that help produce gendered outcomes within each dimension of this gender structure, namely (1) the individual level or the development of gendered selves; (2) the interactional level or the gendered expectations during daily interactions, and (3) the institutional level or the regulations regarding resource distribution and role expectations at the cultural level. Following Risman (2004), this study aims to understand gender differences in behavioral engagement in class by examining the three dimensions of the gender structure at the same time. In explaining the gender gap in school performance and achievement, some studies indeed focus on the individual level, putting masculine and feminine gender identity to the fore (e.g., Leaper and Van, 2008). Others stress the interactional level of students exerting pressure to act in a certain, more masculine/feminine way (e.g., Jackson, 2006). Still other research takes this further by looking at the development of certain student cultures in specific school contexts (e.g., Van Houtte, 2004). As far as we know, with respect to school performance, and class engagement in particular, no research has studied the gender structure, taking into account the three dimensions at the same time. Still, high academic effort or displaying other school attitudes, like being engaged in class activities, appears antithetical to typical masculine behavior, which is a condition of popularity for boys (Heyder and Kessels 2016; Jackson 2002, 2003). This is attributed to the existence of a ‘laddish’ culture, in which the image prevails that valuing studying is typical for a feminine role set (Jackson 2002, 2003; Warrington et al., 2000). School characteristics may impact the conception of masculinity in the school culture (Swain, 2006). Hence, for example the gender-role-culture prevailing at a school (more or less traditional) might impact the gender differences in class engagement (institutional dimension). Boys might be ridiculed when working hard at school, and feel pressured to conform to these macho images to remain popular (Jackson 2003; Warrington et al. 2000) – that is expectations during daily interactions, or the interactional dimension. Consequently, it can be expected that boys characterizing themselves as more gender-typical, that is more masculine, are less engaged in class and display more disruptive behavior (individual dimension).

Investigating the gender structure of the difference between boys and girls in behavioral engagement leads to the research question what is the impact of resp. school culture, pressure for gender conformity and gender-typicality on the association between sex and behavioral engagement? This question is responded by means of stepwise multilevel analyses (HLM7) of data of 5162 students (2719 boys and 2443 girls) in 57 Flemish secondary schools (schools’ response rate 45,96 percent), gathered at the end of school-year 2013/14 (April–May 2014). Students in the second grade (7th grade in the UK) were asked to complete a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, in the presence of the researchers. The sample design guaranteed data from students from various backgrounds, and from several regions, making these data representative for the 13- to 14-year-olds in Flanders (the northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium). In order to examine the gender structure of the gender gap in behavioral engagement in school, two parallel multilevel analyses are carried out, one with the students’ class engagement as outcome, and one with the students’ disruptive behavior as outcome. As common in multilevel analyses, first a null-model is estimated to partition the variance of the outcomes between the school-level and the student-level. In a first model, the focus is on the association between sex and the outcomes, controlling for the student’s socioeconomic status and the educational track a student is in (arts, technical or vocational, with academic track as reference category). In a second model, to ascertain the impact of the school’s gender composition and gender-role-culture on the respective outcomes and on the association between sex and the outcomes, at the school level gender composition (proportion of girls) and gender-role-culture are added, controlling for the student’s gender-role-attitudes, together with a cross-level interaction between sex and resp. gender composition and gender-role-culture. In a third model the student’s felt pressure for gender conformity (Egan and Perry, 2001) and the interaction between sex and pressure for gender conformity are added to grasp the interactional dimension. In a fourth and final model, the student’s gender-typicality (Egan and Perry, 2001) and the interaction between sex and gender-typicality are added to grasp the individual dimension.

The results regarding the first outcome show that girls are more engaged in class activities than boys. The school’s gender composition does not impact the class engagement, nor the association between sex and class engagement. Class engagement is associated with a more traditional gender-role-culture, although at the student level more traditional attitudes coincide with less engagement. The association between sex and class engagement is not impacted by the school’s gender-role-culture. Pressure for gender conformity has a positive impact on class engagement, and no impact on the association between sex and engagement. Gender-typicality is positively related to class engagement, and has an impact on the association between sex and class engagement: The gender gap gets significantly larger with higher levels of gender-typicality as typical girls score higher on engagement and typical boys lower. Secondly, boys display significantly more disruptive behavior. Disruptive behavior is not associated with the school’s gender composition or gender-role-culture. Gender pressure is negatively related to disruptive behavior and impacts the association between sex and disruptions: The gender gap gets larger with higher levels of conformity pressure since girls with stronger felt pressure for conformity score lower and boys with stronger felt pressure score higher on disruptions. Gender-typicality is negatively related to disruptive behavior and has an impact on the association between sex and disruptive behavior: Typical girls score lower on disruptions, while typical boys score higher. Throughout all models the effect of sex on class engagement and disruptive behavior remains stable, so none of the considered gender dimensions explains the difference between boys and girls. Gender-typicality enlarges the difference between girls and boys in class engagement and disruptive behavior, while the difference in disruptive behavior is enlarged by felt pressure for gender conformity too. Remarkably, the effects of typicality and pressure are stronger for girls than for boys.

Demanet, J., Vanderwegen, P., Vermeersch, H. and M. Van Houtte (2013) Unraveling gender composition effects on rule-breaking at school: A focus on study attitudes. Gender and Education 25(4): 466-485. Egan, S.K. and D.G. Perry (2001) Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology 37: 451–463. Francis, B. (2000) Boys, girls and achievement. Addressing the classroom issues. London & New York: Routledge/Falmer. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. and A.H. Paris (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1): 59–109. Heyder, A. and U. Kessels (2017) Boys don’t work? On the psychological benefits of showing low effort in high school. Sex Roles 77(1-2):72-85. Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J. and L.S. Pagani (2008) School engagement trajectories and their differential predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues 64(1): 21-40. Jackson, C. (2002) 'Laddishness' as a self-worth protection strategy. Gender and Education 14: 37-51. Jackson, C. (2003) Motives for 'laddishness' at school: Fear of failure and fear of the 'feminine'. British Educational Research Journal 29: 583-598. Jackson, C. (2006) Lads and Ladettes in School: Gender and a Fear of Failure. Berkshire: Open University Press. Leaper, C. and Van, S. R. (2008) Masculinity ideology, covert sexism, and perceived gender typicality in relation to young men’s academic motivation and choices in college. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 9(3): 139–153. Risman, B.J. (2004) Gender as a social structure. Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society 18(4): 429-450. Steinmayr, R. and B. Spinath (2009) The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences 19(1) 80-90. Swain, J. (2006) Reflections on patterns of masculinity in school settings. Men and Masculinities 8(3): 331-349. Van Houtte, M. (2004) Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys’ and girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies 30(2): 159-173. Warrington, M., Younger, M. and J. Williams (2000) Student attitudes, image and the gender gap. British Educational Research Journal 26(3): 393–407.