(Re)Conceptualizing Sex and Gender in Physical Education through Social Role Theory

Abstract

The line between gender and sex has become increasingly muddled in recent scientific literature, including within physical education. Tensions surrounding this topic are ever-increasing and definitions of the two are rarely consistent. For improving conceptual clarity for research, we adopted the Social Role Theory to offer spaces for researchers to explore how these two terms differ and relate by laying out a cyclical framework of biological, sociological, and psychological components. Herein, we discuss the origins of the binary sex construct, anatomical brain/ cognition differences, and sex/gender role implications for education and physical education. In this conceptual paper, we confront the controversial topic in a content area that continues to be masculine-oriented with the purpose to conceptualize sex/gender in physical education research through clarifying the evolutionary bio-social spectrum. Offering a reconceptualization of gender as a multi-dimensional construct in physical education could inspire further curricular reform for the content to be more inclusive of all participants, learnable by all students regardless of sex and gender, and beneficial both mentally and physically to all learners.

Performance differences between males and females have been studied extensively. Numerous studies have been devoted to the topic and documented the gender gap between male and female students in education (for a review see Meinck & Brese, 2019) as well as in physical education (PE) (e.g., Telford et al., 2016). Although the female/male binary construct has been questioned in scholarly PE literature (Azzarito & Katzew, 2010; Lee & Azzarito, 2020), it is still the barometer of the general inequality in K-12 learners especially in PE and physical activity studies.

The binary construct has two theoretical dimensions. One is biological where human beings are mostly labeled as sex of either male or female in terms of the evolutionary sexual characteristics (Archer, 2019; Buss, 1995; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). The other is sociological where humans, because of socialization, can identify beyond the binary biological construct with more gender identities (Eagly et al., 2020; West & Zimmerman, 1987; Wood & Eagly, 2012). Enhancing the understanding about the way sex/gender is constructed in these different dimensions would no doubt improve research efficiency in addressing the learning gaps among learners. The purpose of this conceptual article is to conceptualize sex/gender in PE research through clarifying the evolutionary bio-social spectrum.

The article is guided by the Social Role Theory (SRT) (Eagly & Wood, 1999), which we will discuss first. We will then examine the biological binary construct and its evolution based on SRT. These discussions help set a stage on which we will further explore the sex/gender issues associated with learning from the biological and social role perspectives. Lastly, we will attempt to interpret their relationship from a psychosocial perspective and discuss the implications to PE.

Social Role Theory

SRT (Eagly & Wood, 1999) was developed to explain the intersects of sex (a biological concept) and gender (a sociological concept) in creating sex/gender related dispositions and stereotypes as the product of gendered responsibilities in society. SRT stipulates that gender role beliefs act as a mediator between evolutionary biology and its effects on psychological phenomena. Gender role beliefs refer to societal expectations of behavior and characteristics based on stereotypes of what tasks are perceived to be relevant for each sex to perform. These sex stereotypical behaviors and characteristics are socially perceived as desirable for people identified with the sex to demonstrate in completing these tasks and are often used to gauge success in completing the tasks. SRT is an origin theory where the variables (biological, psychological identities, and social gender roles) of sex and gender have been studied with biological or environmental factors (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Recent development in sociology, psychology, and, perhaps, biology, however, seems to imply that the simplistic, binary conception of sex/gender does not allow for interaction among the variables of educational research and is therefore too narrow a scope to view the differences across genders. Clearly, recent research in education and PE has begun to incorporate a broad conceptualization of sex/gender identity in studying issues associated with student learning and behavior.

Origin of the Binary Construct

The binary construct of sex/gender has derived from the anatomical and physiological characteristics (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Because biological traits enable men and women to become specialized in particular activities, the social roles have evolved or have been assigned. It is apparent that these roles have been socially constructed but contextually bound. Over time, these roles have further evolved to become ingrained in the foundations of society in which males and females both adopted sex/gender-relevant strategies to survive and reproduce the socially constructed roles (Eagly & Wood, 1999). The division of labor has formed expectations for gender-appropriate roles and, consequently, has led to inequities and disparities. The gender roles, therefore, indicate social patterns of human interactions that are expected to be consistent with and/or conform to what it is believed are masculine or feminine traits associated with the sex assignment or identification. Therefore, the most common gender construct has also been binary.

Once the sex was socialized with assigned social roles, the social value of the roles emerged to be the gauge of judging individuals’ role in given contexts. Because of impact by psychological factors including expectations, stereotypes, reinforcement, interests, and self-concepts, the binary gender construct and roles continue to be reinforced. However, the same force from the factors also helps diversify the roles so that the gender roles evolve beyond the binary biological structure. The development in biology in recent decades has extended the binary construct from its reproductive basis to other areas of human body. Most noticeable and most meaningful to education and perhaps to PE are the studies on male and female brains and neural differences. Understanding the development in biological science within the SRT framework would allow educators and physical educators to explore the connection between the biological and sociological dimensions of the gender concept. The enhanced understanding would certainly benefit researchers in PE by allowing them to better explain gendered differences in performance, behavior, motivation, and achievement in both teachers as well as students.

The Levy’s Hypothesis and Its Tenability

One of the most noticeable developments regards the Levy’s Hypothesis. The Levy’s hypothesis (1978) is rooted in the concept of hemispheric asymmetry. It postulates that the male brain is more asymmetric than the female brain. The male brain’s left hemisphere is specialized to perform verbal processing and the right is specialized to perform spatial processing. The female brain is more bilateral where both hemispheres of the brain are equipped for verbal processing. Therefore, the typical, asymmetric, male brain allows males to have enhanced spatial cognition while the bilateral female brain allows females to excel at verbal cognition. The Levy’s hypothesis suggests that males excel at tasks involving mental rotation (i.e., using a mental visualization of a physical object or action to predict how it would look from a different perspective), resulting in advantages in completing physical movement tasks. This spatial skill advantage has been supported by research on spatial perception (i.e., observing differences in horizontal or vertical space) (Benton et al., 1978; Vasta & Liben, 1996), spatial visualization (i.e., mentally picturing objects or actions) (Harshman et al., 1983; Witkin et al., 1971), and mechanical reasoning (i.e., predicting gear or pulley behavior) (Feingold, 1988). In a meta-synthesis study, which is a meta-analysis on the findings of multiple meta-analyses, Hirnstein et al. (2018) summarized findings of sex-based cognitive differences over the past 40 years and concluded that overall male advantage in mental rotation typically resides between Cohen’s d = 0.56 (Voyer et al., 1995; Zell et al., 2015) and d = 0.73 (Linn & Petersen, 1985). In the same meta-synthesis, Hirnstein et al. (2018) confirmed female advantages in verbal skills. The advantage has been displayed in tests of verbal memory (i.e., recalling lists of words) (Cohen’s d = .30, Herlitz et al., 2013), verbal fluency (i.e., retrieving specific words that fulfill certain criterion) (d = 0.33, Hyde & Linn, 1988), and reading achievement (d = 0.44, Reilly, 2012). With these pieces of evidence, Hirnstein et al. (2018) confidently concludes that although sex differences in mental skills may depend on many external variables such as task format, culture, age, and contextual factors, the brain asymmetry structural and neural differences may play a pivotal role in performance/functional difference observed on life. Emerging evidence (e.g., Boles et al., 2008), however, has begun to suggest that these performance differences may likely be task dependent. In other words, the “other factors” may also be responsible for the observed sex advantages in performance/functions along with the asymmetry. The notion that asymmetrical brain organization is the sole factor influencing spatial reasoning and verbal processing is still questionable and should not be a foundation on which educational decisions should be made. This last point is especially relevant and important to education because educational decisions would impact the future of all children regardless of sex or gender. In this regard, it becomes necessary to examine the research in youth.

Studies in Youth

Given the prevalence of the sex/gender issue in education and its direct relation to student achievement, research on either or both biological and social perspectives have drawn great empirical interests. Satterthwaite et al.’s large-scale fMRI study (2015) on a representative sample including 312 males and 362 females of nine to 22 years of age appeared to show convincing evidence that sexes are correlated to patterns of brain activity. The cognitive functions included a full skill set of tests on abstraction/flexibility, attention, working memory, verbal memory, face memory, spatial memory, language reasoning, spatial ability, emotion, identification, emotion differentiation, age differentiation, sensorimotor speed, and motor control.

The results were strikingly similar to studies on adults, showing that males performed motor skills faster and spatial tasks more accurately (Q < 0.05)¹. Females responded faster for emotion identification and nonverbal reasoning skills (Q < 0.05). The findings suggest that biological sex differences may exist to some extent at the neural level, as manifested in fMRI data in real time of performing the cognitive skill tests (Satterthwaite et al., 2015).

Kurth et al. (2020) also examined sex differences in the brain, but from a developmental perspective. A total of 347 participants (162 boys and 185 girls) ages 5 to 18 (M = 11.2 years) were imaged of their brain using MRI. An algorithm, called “The Spider”, was used to estimate voxel-wise intensities of gray and white matter in the MRI images. The resultant Brain Sex classifier appeared to present an average prediction accuracy rate of 80.4% in reference to biological sex across all age groups. From age 6 to 17, the difference between male and female brains accelerated during the pre- and adolescent years. There was a significant age by sex interaction (Cohen d = 0.289, t = 1.703, p = 0.045). Brain Sex identification accuracy increased from age 6 (accuracy = 79.1%) to age 17 (accuracy = 84.6%). Sex differentiation demonstrated an effect size of Cohen’s d of 1.2 at age 6, then it grew to 1.6 at age 17. These findings suggest that sex differences in brain structure (a) are not fixed in terms of male or female, (b) tend to be dynamic over time, and (c) demonstrate more pronounced sex differences with age increase (Kurth et al., 2020). The above evidence appears to suggest that males and females access different parts of their brains when performing physical and cognitive tasks and may process information differently even at a young age, which indicate a degree of biological influences.

Similar to research in adults, discrepancies were reported in the studies on youth. It is possible that the observed performance differences due to the brain structural differences are smaller than those due to learning and practice opportunities. In other words, it is possible that the observed discrepancies may be also more based on past skill development rather than simply being a biological male or female. Floridou et al. (2022) argue that the performance differences due to the biological factors can be neglectable and lack practical meaning for educators. In short, the findings in youth are inconclusive at best and more studies are needed.

Summary

Taken together, this research evidence seems to suggest limited but assured biological explanations for performance differences between males and females. However, emerging evidence also defy the hemispheric-asymmetry single factor theory by the Levy Hypothesis. Rather, the performance and function differences by sex could be resulted from the social environmental factors and the biological structure based on which the social roles of sexes have been evolved through the history of human evolution. During this evolution, performance differences have been solely attributed to observable biological sex differences and have been manifested and acknowledged as natural ability. This attribution has led to the social division of work, which has led to a gendered division of labor or “appropriate” gender role in a binary sense (Eagly & Wood, 2012). Through the social evolution, the observed biological sex differences were attached with shared psychosocial beliefs or stereotypes of sex, and quickly become social expectations, per cultural norms of behaviors, for men and women to follow (Eagly & Wood, 2012). These shared thoughts implicitly or explicitly highlight the social roles of the biological characteristics in each sex and promote the social roles each sex is expected to perform in life. In other words, the assigned social roles that mirror biological sex characteristics position males and females into separate social activity categories. The assigned social roles, therefore, continuously reinforce the legitimacy of the beliefs integrating gendered social roles consistent with the biological sexes. The rigid binary social structure of sex-gender consistency excludes non-binary activity participations by regarding them as abnormal social/behavioral problems. The stereotypical binary conception has become culturally engrained through the process of socialization where society perpetuates the cycle of legitimizing gendered behaviors (Eagly & Wood, 2012).

Within institutionalized schooling, classroom learning is very much cognition based while PE is physical movement based. Because of this, it would be meaningful to further explore the bio-social, or binary and multi-dimensional conception of sex and gender as contextually constructed from the extension of social construction. Again, this exploration exercise is consistent with the SRT tenets.

Sex Implications in Education and Physical Education

Sex-based social roles have dominated society and created stereotypical expectations in education and PE. For centuries, the stereotypes specify how we are supposed to behave, dress, speak, perceive the world, and express ourselves (Eagly & Wood, 2012). The binary social sex/gender roles are well established within the education/school culture, albeit with varied names and definitions of the roles depending on the research. It is commonly believed (Martin & Slepian, 2020), despite the inconclusive nature of research evidence, that differences in biological brain structure and function could lead to differences in academic ability and achievement in education. The belief has led to the “Big Two” schemata (Martin & Slepian, 2020, p. 1146) that form and define roles of people to which the genders typically conform. The Big Two schemata, or frameworks, describe how people view/ explore the world and process information based on their social-role gender conceptions. Martin and Slepian (2020) argue that although many subtle gender subgroups can be identified, these groups “converge on their gendered content” (Martin & Slepian, 2020, p. 1153). Regarding schemata, the first category is associated with masculinity that features with human agency and competence but does not have to entail only males. Members of this category value aspects such as independence, goal pursuit, and achievement. The second category, characterized by communion/warmth, is typically associated with femininity; those identified with this category value community with others, connection, and social status. These constructs, as socially constructed, on the one hand, attempt to acknowledge the subtle subgroups, and yet, conceptually become social labels in replace of the biological descriptors.

Research and Implications in Education

Each of the “Big Two” brings into education necessary traits that have helped human learners endure with their gender-role associated characteristics or competence (Martin & Slepian, 2020). The characteristics vary based on physiological sex differences that have helped engrain social roles into the society and manifested throughout schooling. Martin and Slepian (2020) further argued, importantly, that males and females can fall within either of the masculinity or femininity roles that are implicitly defined as sex-determined roles. Perceptions of material or tasks in education may be biased based on typical feminine or masculine goals and interests for either side of the Big Two schemata. The possibilities of defying the stereotypical social roles of one side and assuming roles of the other side bring about further issues about gendered educations: (a) educators and students (and their families) may focus on “gender appropriateness” based on sex characteristics and/or (b) they may construct educational goals consistent with “gender appropriate” learning outcomes as socially defined based on the Big Two conceptions. Conforming with or addressing these issues may lead to other concerns about whether content itself or the curriculum that is constructed and delivered can be gendered or favor one gender over others. In educational research, efforts have been made to address these issues with significant research questions such as: Are there curricula/tasks/learning activities and behaviors that are gender/sex neutral? Are non-physical tasks like cognition likely to be biased toward a gender?

Lee et al. (2018), for example, examined the effects of same-gender and opposite-gender teachers (in respect to student gender) on academic achievement. Students in elementary schools (n=1,800) and middle schools (n=31,000, 6th grade) from 10 francophone (French-speaking) Western and Central African countries provided academic achievement data. Findings showed that female students who were taught by a female teacher obtained higher math (M= 546.34, SD= 0.46) and reading (M= 528.30, SD= 0.28) scores than females taught by male teachers (math M= 490.16, SD= −0.10, reading M= 504.04, SD= 0.04, p < 0.01). Male students did not show any significant differences between teacher genders. Lee et al. (2018) noted that the finding defied the belief held by the teachers of both genders that the males would outperform the females in their math classes. These results suggest that learning from female teachers benefits female students while not negatively affecting male students. They also dictate the need for further teacher education to address sensitive topics such as gender and culture without biases/stereotypes (Lee et al., 2018).

Taking SRT into consideration, the findings raise a question, should the job of teaching be a solely female career? However, gender specialization of occupations is not consistent with democratic values or equal access to employment here in the United States of America. All genders should be allowed and encouraged to teach and to succeed in teaching. If female teachers are found to be consistently better than their male counterparts, this does not necessitate a failure on the account of the male teacher. On the contrary, it may support the stance that the social role bias has also impacted the curriculum and accessibility to teacher education and development. The findings may also imply a history of stereotypical social roles in education.

The findings illustrated in a single study above are among the many research outcomes as manifested in Voyer and Voyer’s (2014) meta-analysis on differences of learner grades between the sexes based on over 502 effect sizes derived from 369 student samples of elementary, middle/junior high, high schools, and universities from 1914 to 2011. These grades were taken from a variety of different subjects including mathematics, social and physical science, language, and overall grade-point-average (GPA). Using a multilevel meta-analysis model, Voyer and Voyer (2014) found that females yielded small, but significantly greater GPA scores than males (mean d = 0.225, 95% CI [0.201, 0.249]). Female advantage over males was greatest in language (mean Cohen’s d = 0.374, 95% CI [0.316, 0.432]) and smallest in mathematics (mean Cohen’s d = 0.069, 95% CI [0.014, 0.124]). Although several moderating variables such as school type (private, public), grading scale (point scale, percent, letter, standardized, others/not reported), and year of publication were included in the model, gender emerged as the sole significant moderator (p<0.05). The findings obviously counter the current notion that male students have suddenly started falling behind the girls in academics as a crisis only springing up in recent decades (Tyre, 2006). Voyer and Voyer (2014), based on the data over a period of 100 years, argued there is no sudden “boy crisis” in academic achievement. Girls have outperformed boys all along over the 100 years, while time (defined as the publication dates of the studies) was not found to be a moderating variable affecting the female gender advantage (p > 0.05).

Furthering the understanding with an educational focus of physical differences based on biological traits such as those of the Big Two, Zayed & Jansen (2018) incorporated motor competence in the examination of sex differences in 95 Omani third graders to demonstrate the potentially integrated relationship between the cognitive and physical developments. Students were given four working memory tests (cognitive), a general motor test (motor), and a sixteen-task mental rotation test (academic). On the working memory test (the Digit span forward test), the girls performed better (M = 7.12, SD = 0.96) than boys (M = 6.42, SD = 1.21; F_(1,93) = 11.167, p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.107). Boys outperformed (M = 99.708, SD = 9.67) girls (M = 94.89, SD = 10.14) in the coordination motor test (the castle-boomerang test, F_(1,93) = 5.605, p = 0.02, partial η² = 0.057). Cognitive variables displayed significant correlations to academic performance variables. For instance, the Digit Span forward test was weakly correlated to grades in Arabic (r = 0.366, p < 0.004). The Digit Span Backward test was weakly correlated to grades in Arabic (r = 0.350, p < 0.004), Math (r = 0.328, p < 0.004), and Science (r = 0.376, p < 0.004). In the physical dimension, the Corsi block-tapping test scores were weakly correlated to grades in Science (r = 0.304, p < 0.004). The Corsi block-tapping test backward was weakly correlated with grades in Arabic (r = 0.309, p < 0.004), Math (r = 0.291, p < 0.004), and Science (r = 0.323, p < 0.004).

These findings seem to confirm the line of distinction between the physical and cognitive with sex as the mediator in between. Nevertheless, researchers, for example Voyer and Voyer (2014), did not specify “physical education” as a subject matter in the broad education. They tend to declare that PE “reflects physical rather than intellectual achievement” (Voyer & Voyer, 2014, p. 1187), thus reiterating the physical vs. cognitive dualist philosophical grounds as a foundation of education. This philosophical position is widely and readily accepted by educators (including physical educators) and has been reinforced in educational policies. In the United States, public policies like the “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2001, “Race to the Top” initiative of 2009, and others rendered PE less important as other subjects by initiating incentives to cut funding for PE in favor of meeting standards for other content areas (US Department of Education, 2002).

One can argue that Voyer & Voyer’s (2014) exclusion of PE as an academic content was well-founded in this general policy and curricular environment. The measurement of academic achievement in PE appears extraordinarily ambiguous due to the vast inconsistency of expected student learning outcomes in the subject. Therefore, it becomes exceedingly difficult to extrapolate sex/gender differences from learning outcomes in PE beyond actual physical performance because few K-12 PE programs teach and assess kinesiology concepts such as knowledge of active living. Needless to say, the physical-centered motor performance tests give males the advantage and the perception that all PE content reflects masculinity (Gibbons & Humbert, 2008). Many students in the United States, especially girls, expect to learn little in PE (Cothran & Ennis, 2001). Below, we will dissect sex/gender effects through the diverse curricular approaches to PE that do teach toward content areas such as sport, health, and science, but separately with little content standardization.

Research and Implications in Physical Education

The ambiguous attribution of PE as part of education is an issue in modern primary and secondary school curricula. As shown above, Voyer and Voyer (2014) included motor skill measures in their study, but they excluded “physical education” as a subject matter from their broad education meta-analysis based on the dualist philosophy that PE “reflects physical rather than intellectual achievement” (Voyer & Voyer, 2014, p. 1187). There should be no surprise that school administrations, teachers, parents, and students feel pressured to lean away from PE in favor of content that is directly tied to funding opportunities via student achievement on standardized tests in subjects such as mathematics, reading, and science. Modern PE in the United States lacks a standardized content structure that balances cognitive knowledge and physical development (Chen, 2023b). Having a strong association with sports, PE content often neglects important kinesiological concepts, such as caloric balanced living, that have been acknowledged by the public as vital to health and longevity (Corbin, 2021). Most curriculum goals are recreational rather than academic, where teachers attempt to appease students’ feelings of fun by finding novel games for them to play (Ennis, 2017). In this type of PE, little to no academic content is covered. But worse still, some PE teachers in the United States describe a typical PE class as being taught by a sport coach that rolls out a ball with little instruction, allows students to shoot basketball for the duration of class, and uses the time to plan out their extracurricular sport team practices instead of teaching (Morgan, 2019). It is not uncommon for some PE teachers to even give grades based solely on whether students change clothing into attire appropriate for physical activity (Feith, 2018). The Society of Health and Physical Educators, or SHAPE America (2014), does provide appropriate but optional guidelines for academic and physical performance standards to be met. But those standards, while well-intentioned and expertly crafted, lack any form of accountability. Policing of these standards falls to individual school administrations. This is virtually ineffective due to the extreme shortage of PE teachers in the United States (Ward, 2019). Schools cannot replace PE teachers even if they do not meet standards because the vacancies are used to fulfill the teaching positions of academic content areas. It is estimated that less than half of all students participating in PE are meeting these standards (Hastie, 2017).

It is a common recognition that PE has been a masculinity dictated content area with a strong and overt male perspective for curriculum and instruction with the same expectation for physical performance (Parri & Ceciliani, 2019). The stereotypical, male gender roles can be affirmed through inadvertent reinforcement by PE teachers’ content choices and by physical performance behaviors students display to reinforce male superiority rather than cognitive learning where females may have an upper hand. The societal gender roles are affecting and being affected by, in a cyclical fashion, the curriculum. The male-gender roles may alter teacher decisions toward assessment, evaluation, and treatment of students; therefore, potentially perpetuating the students toward producing gender stereotypes of their own (Parri & Ceciliani, 2019).

In PE, the content of fitness, sport, and, in general, physical activities may be considered gender biased in the first place. For instance, many girls do not enjoy competitive team sports (e.g., basketball and American football) and see them as having little relevance, and boys typically do not enjoy activities like figure skating or dance for fear of looking feminine and resort to negative behavior tactics to avoid them (Gibbons & Humbert, 2008). The biases are reinforced mainly by the way the content is delivered due to the use of gender biased instructional languages by the teacher (Wright & King, 1991) and other communication means such as demonstrations (Valley & Graber, 2017). For instance, many perceive American football as a masculine sport because it requires brute strength and violent hits. Others perceive dance as a more feminine activity because it focuses on beauty, elegance, and grace. From early ages, these gender biases start to form the concept of “gender appropriateness” as a constant label attached to physical activities to steer PE students’ gendered perceptions of activities (Solmon et al., 2003) and their competence development (Lee et al., 1999).

While most evidence of gender bias in PE can be attributed to the social role or socially constructed conception of gender, a few studies did focus on innate psychological traits as related factors to physical performances. These studies connect some dots between the cognitive and the physical as they both are associated with the gender and gender bias.

One such study examined the coupling between cognitive and physical in performing physical tasks as associated with sex/gender. Ennis and Lazarus (1990) offered a unique perspective by breaking cognitive style into two groups called field-dependent and field-independent. Students with a field-independent style were theorized to have better working memory capacity and memory retrieval capability, ability to decipher ambiguous information, and ability to organize new and old information, thus able to focus independently on the problem and solution. Students with a field-dependent style tended to take in and process information globally with little attention to analytical tasks needed to form an effective solution to a problem. Ennis and Lazarus (1990) attempted in this study to determine the role of cognitive styles, as associated with sex, in solving a movement problem. A sample of 2nd grade students (n=254, age seven) in four elementary schools were classified into the field-independent or -dependent groups using the Children’s Embedded Figures Test (Witkin et al., 1971). Then, the students were instructed to solve the problem of intercepting a ball as quickly as possible that was rolled down from the top of a slide ramp positioned at the end of a triangle diagonally in relation to the child. Their performance was rated on a 0–4-point scale based on “initial angle of approach, adjusted angle of approach, grasping pattern, foot position, and body position” (Ennis & Lazarus, 1990, p. 38). Results revealed that the children with a field-independent cognitive style were able to intercept the ball faster by running along a straighter and sharper angle of approach (62.2^○) to the optimal person-ball meeting location to scoop the rolling ball than those of the field-dependent cognitive style (78.2^○, F_{(1, 51)} = 9.38, p < .0035). Additionally, it was found that males used a sharper angle of approach (59.4^○) and more efficient scooping patterns than females (80.2^○, F_{(1, 51)} = 13.11, p < .0007) to complete the task faster (F_{(1, 51} = 8.20, p < .0061). Ennis and Lazarus (1990) suggested that differences in cognitive style often coincide with sex differences because this field-dependence construct relies heavily on spatial awareness which favors, physically, the male sex. But they also speculated that the female students might worry more about doing the task correctly to please the authority figure/test administrator (the teacher), a social role phenomenon, rather than the competition against the time to be the fastest. This social role interpretation is rather consistent with the notion that females might have been socialized to become social-focused while males were more individually and independently oriented (Martin & Slepian, 2020).

Effort to Address Gender Role in Physical Education

The above evidence suggests, consistent with SRT, that the sex-based social roles and their socialization exacerbate the gender conception especially at the level of gender identity in terms of sport and physical activity performance (Katz & Luckinbill, 2017). The global-level gender role certainly affects student social and psychological, especially cognitive, involvement in physical activity participation (Eagly & Wood, 2013). At the curricular level, however, limited evidence suggests that the impact of the gender role may be mitigated, at least temporarily, when the instructor deliberately designs learning tasks to address the issue with specific focus on learning rather than the socially constructed gender role (Solmon et al., 2003). For example, Belcher et al. (2003) reported that although college students in both genders considered hockey as a male sport, they did not see learning the wrist-shot skill to be attached to any gender and enjoyed learning the skill. Scholarly effort to address the gender issue in PE is reflected in (a) a critical theory perspective focusing on the social construction of the content and learning experiences and (b) a psycho-social perspective with a focus on learner perceived competence and motivation.

Critical Perspective

Based on this perspective, gender is a socially constructed concept that societal norms and expectations shape individuals’ behaviors. Therefore, PE is viewed as an environment in which gender biases are developed and reinforced along with race and social class that are equally conceptualized as socially constructed concepts. A pioneering research in this regard is Azzarito and Solomon (2005) study on the intersectionality of these factors and how they impact individuals’ experiences in PE. The authors revealed that traditional, sport-based curriculum funnels students into perceived gender appropriate activities and teachers into perceived gender appropriate ways of teaching (Azzarito & Solomon, 2005). This indicates a perpetuation of gender roles through socialization of gender role beliefs, which SRT thoroughly describes. Azzarito (Azzarito & Solomon, 2005, Azzarito & Solmon, 2009; Azzarito & Katzew, 2010) and others (e.g., Brown & Rich, 2002; Brown & Evans, 2005; Scraton, 2018) continue to study the gender construct with other influential social factors such as race and class (Azzarito & Solomon, 2005), physical capital and value dispositions (Brown, 2005), and intersectionality between gender, class, race, ability, sexuality and social justice (Scraton, 2018).

A number of studies in the critical perspective devote their focus on the gender construct only. Stride et al. (2020) examined secondary school physical education departments in England with a focus on gender dynamics. Their analysis revealed entrenched gendered power dynamics within these departments in terms of curricular choice. While the curriculum encouraged female students to participate in ‘boy sports’ like football and cricket, it did not encourage male students to participate in ‘girl sports’ like dance. Although the department offered females and males equal access to different sports, the curriculum offering itself was heavily tipping toward those perceived as male sport, which created a gender imbalance in content. Stride et al. (2020) reported, as a curriculum consequence, males were oriented toward fitness development and females toward appearance. The departments endorsed the gender-aligned instruction where male and female teachers were assigned to teach students of same gender (sex) to “ensure gender is embodied in appropriate ways” (Stride et al., 2020, p. 254). Stride et al. (2020) concluded, “Thus, it is through physical power (of gender structure, author added) that social power is realized” (Stride et al., 2020, p. 251). Brown & Rich (2002) followed Connell’s (1995) Gender Order hierarchy model and critically analyzed PE pedagogical practice. They concluded that masculine power dynamic created and reinforced a patriarchy that controlled content and pedagogy. Brown’s follow-up study (Brown & Evans, 2004) further demonstrated a strong indication that the binary gendered culture, especially the male gendered culture, continued to be reproduced in PE. In addition, Stride et al. (2020), based on 80 hours of observing and conducting interviews with eight PE teachers, passionately pointed out that through a masculine/performance-based curriculum, PE teachers may reinforce a gendered power dynamic where both female and male students are encouraged and disciplined differently to maintain the gendered dynamic.

The above studies illustrate two characteristics. First, they all describe a dire context that is very much gendered, and this gendered culture is “alive and kicking” (Stride et al., 2020, p.244). Second, most importantly, they all adopt or are based on the binary conception of gender without acknowledging the biological root of the socially constructed concept of “gender.” Implicitly, the studies embrace the Big-Two theory and consequently, in our opinion, limit the significance of the findings because the practical solutions to address the issue within the binary construct can be limited, as illustrated in Vertinsky and Gils’s (2017) study on male dancers and Scraton’s study (2018) on female soccer players. A reflection on these studies can lead us to deeper thoughts of questioning the meaning of the “socially constructed gender” concept. Accepting the concept and applying it in research and scholarship without analyzing its biological root and its role in creating the binary construct can severely limit the significance of the findings in that the differences and consequences could be easily dismissed. For practice, it is difficult to entice meaningful reform beyond co-ed PE vs. single sex PE.

In the realm of the critical theory perspective, a number of recent studies have been emerging to break the binary construct limitations. These studies focus on the experiences, issues, challenges, and prospects of sexuality, LGBTQ, and transgender students (Devis-Devis et al., 2022; Devís-Devís et al., 2023; Fitzpatrick & McGlashan, 2016; Fuentes-Miguel et al., 2022; Landi et al., 2020; López-Cañada et al., 2020; McGlashan & Fitzpatrick, 2017, 2018). These studies tend to examine the gender issue beyond the binary construct and review the gender as part of the personal and social journey. Although small in quantity, these studies imply a possibility and potential to break away from the binary construct of gender and study gender as a personally and socially constructed concept in PE.

Psycho-Social Perspective

In PE, perceived competence and enjoyment are perhaps among the most studied psychological variables (Lee et al., 1999). It seems that there is a hidden hypothesis that children perceive their physical competence and anticipate enjoyment in PE based on their conception of gender as related to a given sport or activity. Cairney et al. (2012) examined interactions of gender and duration of participation in terms of the relationship between perceived athletic competence and enjoyment over time. Longitudinal data were collected five times over two years from a sample of 2,262 students ages 9 or 10. The variables included: a multi-item measure of perceived enjoyment in PE, a Perceived Athletic Competence subscale of the Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children, and a 63-item Participation Questionnaire. Results indicated that girls’ enjoyment of PE declined over time greater than the decline of boys (b = 6.50 × 10⁴, p < 0.001). There was a 3-way interaction between gender, time, and perceived competence (b = −1.00 × 10⁴, p < 0.001) where gender-induced change rate of enjoyment accelerated in girls with low perceived competence when compared to girls with higher perceived competence. The findings suggest that the root of gender role bias may be embedded with the way children perceive their competence as reinforced in PE, which further influences the perception of enjoyment (Cairney et al., 2012).

Wang et al. (2021) tracked longitudinal individual interest in physical activity (PA) knowledge for middle schoolers and examined the potential interaction effects of gender and the knowledge. Data from 522 middle school students revealed that all students from 6^th to 8^th grade lost their interest in learning PA knowledge. But girls’ interest in PA knowledge decreased faster than boys before 8^th grade. Interestingly, the reverse was true at the end of 8^th grade with boys’ interest declining at an accelerated rate faster than that of the girls. Even more intriguing is that girls’ and boys’ actual level of PA knowledge did not significantly differ over this period. The researchers speculated that the interest-knowledge dissociation between the genders was due to weak knowledge in the first place (average 46% of correct answer rate), which was maintained while the interest in learning more continued to decline (Wang et al., 2021). The finding clearly demonstrates that gender effects can extend to the psychological domain in the form of individual interest, perceived competence, and self-efficacy, suggesting a strong support to the framework that gender differences may stem from socialization and gender-role stereotype about masculine and feminine judgments of sport and physical activity types.

In summary, studies on the gender role issue in PE have rendered a complex picture. These studies were conceptualized using various theoretical frameworks where the clarity of sex (a biological perspective) and gender (a sociological perspective) often blurred. One definitive finding, nevertheless, is that gender roles are socially constructed and reinforced, and the roles assumed by students and teachers have consequences on student perceptions of physical competence, enjoyment, and learning outcomes. One common characteristic across these studies, except for a small group, is that they implicitly acknowledge the legitimacy of the Big-Two conception of gender while also leaving the biological root and its relationship with the social and educational factors unaddressed. This practice in research and teaching, as Brown (Brown & Evans, 2004; Brown & Rich, 2002) illustrated, continues to reproduce and reinforce the gender dynamics (Stride et al., 2020). Continuing to operate with the binary conception of gender, it is rather difficult to form a unified platform to address the curricular issues around the gender roles and gender stereotypes. One salient scholarly quest that we propose is to adopt SRT as an umbrella platform in future examinations of the gender issues and shift the focus of the gender research from the physical or social alone to the psychological formulation and construction of gender roles in the PE setting.

Reconceptualizing Gender Roles in PE

It is very important to notice that although SRT is a theory applying to the social setting about gender conception, it acknowledges the root of the issue to be biological. The socialized biological conception, with the development of the society, has become central in daily life in various contexts including education and PE. Reconceptualizing sex and gender through SRT within the context of PE may offer insights into curricular development to serve the physical, social, and psychological needs of students.

Over the years in the United States, PE as a school subject has been marginalized (Richards, et al., 2013). With no or little resources, PE has taken a recreational approach where learning and understanding the science of how the body works and functions for a healthy life are sidelined or diminished all together (Ennis, 2017). The risks of misconceptions about the benefits of physical activity are rarely addressed as viable content (Chen, 2023b), which further contributes to the physical activity disparity among children and adolescents. Many students leave secondary education without a healthy relationship with or working knowledge of physical activity (Werner & Betz, 2022). Thus, learning cognitive knowledge about exercise science has been proposed to be a paramount priority of PE for inspiring out-of-school and future physical activity into adulthood (Chen 2023a; Corbin, 2021).

The disparity has been documented around student sex and gender with most evidence suggesting that the masculinity conception of PE has not served both girls and boys well. Reconceptualizing the issues about sex and gender in PE using SRT offers several avenues that extend from the normal biological, binary construct which, arguably represents the most salient characteristics of sex/gender regardless of the many conceptions espoused from the binary root. SRT acknowledges that gender should be considered beyond the dichotomous demarcation of male versus female sex. Males can have varied amounts of cognitive and behavioral traits in comparison with females and vice versa because of the interactions between biological traits, social roles, and psychological variables. The conceptions should be treated in practice and research not as occurring in separate realms, but as conjoined factors sharing a cyclical, perpetuating relationship which could produce a more accurate representation of gendered being in relation to the context. The conceptions need also to be treated in reference to the root sex with recognition of its biological impact. The multi-dimensional, non-binary conceptions of sex/gender will leave room in curriculum design of content beyond the sex/gender labels for involving most learners regardless of gender identities.

In the context of research, the binary conception of sex/gender has been a prevalent construct based on which research on sex/gender is conceptualized and operationally implemented. But the concepts are starting to branch out and take form as separate entities now. Still, researchers use the two terms interchangeably, which continues to blur the clarity of either. Reconceptualizing gender using the SRT conceptions helps classify the terminologies as separate but interrelated concepts with the biological sex being a component that goes into the formation of gender that is socially constructed and reinforced. The biological-informed SRT gender conception recognizes the term’s social role nature as derived from the biological characteristics, which will render important insights of findings that enhance the understanding of the socially constructed gender conceptions in relation to the biological characteristics. This conception is particularly important in studying PE because PA involves both biological and socio-psychological ramifications for a person.

Despite the theoretical potential of the reconceptualized sex/gender conceptions, the binary conceptualization may continue to facilitate us in expanding our school of thought about gender as a multi-dimensional construct. In this regard, gender can be understood as (a) consistent with the binary construct with multi-dimensions some of which are inconsistent with the construct’s biological roots to include multiple variations as manifested in self-identified categories; or (b) inconsistent with the binary construct as expressed by those who do not identify with either biological male or female traits (e.g., gender queer) (Landi et al., 2020) or those that whose identification may change over time (e.g., gender fluid) (Katz & Luckinbill, 2017). In either case, the physical performance characteristics may still be consistent or stamped with the biological characteristics, which requires the multi-dimensional conceptions to understand. This might be an important topic in PE when addressing gender equity issues. It may be assumed that the reconceptualization could have useful implications for PE content design and task choices, especially when performance differences between sexes must be addressed to enhance learning.

Specific practical implications of SRT in PE could evolve from explicit exposure of the social role beliefs surrounding the occupational role of PE teacher in the eyes of students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Both teachers and students can be informed about several social roles that are deeply gendered in the content and the occupation demands. For teachers, professional development opportunities can be developed to allow open discussions and reflections about the conflicting roles of sport coach and academic teacher. For students, the curriculum should be clear about ramifications of the social roles in the evolution of the existing PE content and the ways it is taught. It is hoped that the professional development would encourage teachers to create more inclusive environments that promote equal opportunities for all students. Through learning in a curriculum sensitive about the inequality and inequity of social role in sport and physical activity, it can be expected that students would appreciate a content with little preconceived social role bias to enjoy learning in PE. It is also hoped that through interventions on teachers and the curriculum, the perpetuating cycle of reinforcing the adversarial social roles can be disrupted in PE.

This reconceptualization effort provides theoretical and conceptual arguments to support adoption of the SRT based sex/gender conceptions that is beyond the binary construct but with a recognition of the binary sex biology. The multi-dimensional conception of the sex/gender concepts may offer a renewed consideration for studying gender issues in PE. Gender studies in PE are mostly based on the binary conception which is heavily rooted in the biological perspective regardless of the descriptors the researchers have used to identify sex/gender. Also, most studies measure gender using psychological based self-report identification which is often single-dimensional. Rarely were the biological traits considered in the data collection. Yet, when the findings related to performance differences between genders, interpretations often omit the biological roots. The single-dimension interpretation, when applied to guide curriculum or task design, may be difficult to convince the learner about performance differences.

Placing these limitations in the context of this reconceptualization effort, we feel compelled to argue that it is because of these limitations in PE gender research that we think a different conceptual approach to be necessary. SRT can account for a wide array of sex/gender differences with regards to the physical through biological differences and the cognitive through social and psychological factors. It should be noted that the effects of sex and gender roles may differ according to the ecology, economy, culture, and education systems of different nations and communities. The works depicted in this manuscript are predominantly US-based in nature. Other manuscripts should seek to conceptualize sex and gender in PE through SRT considering their unique cultures and governmental systems to examine what differences may arise.

The broader conceptualization in the understanding of the sexes and genders will allow researchers to encompass both anatomical sex characteristics (Eagly & Wood, 1999), physiological brain functioning (Kurth et al., 2020; Satterthwaite et al., 2015), and their social role ramifications. To this end, SRT will serve and contribute to future research through addressing issues that are not only present in PE but also unknown to us today.