• Dr. Muhabat Khan
  • Nosheen Kanwal
  • Dr. Maroof Bin Rauf
Keywords: Concept, Conventional Parents, Co-Education, University Level


The purpose of this study was to analyze the concept of conventional parents about co-education at a university level in the Loralai District, Balochistan. The sample size was consisted of 100 male and 60 female parents (N=160) and 130 male and 70 female students (N=200) from the Loralai District. The convenience sample design was adopted. A self- administered questionnaire and interview protocol were used for the collection of data. The quantitative data was analyzed through ‘t’ test and information obtained from interviews were presented in the discussion. The findings of the study were the low socio-economic status of parents, customs, ritual and traditions as well as the opposition of coeducation. Both male and female parents demanded separate universities for boys and girls in their district.

Author Biographies

Dr. Muhabat Khan
Dr. Muhabat khan is currently serving as Assistant Professor, in the Department of Education, University of Loralai, Balochistan. He also served as Registrar at the said university. His research areas include Psychology, Curriculum Development, Pedagogy, and Assessment. His Email address is
Nosheen Kanwal
Nosheen kanwal is associated with the University of Loralai, Balochistan as Lecturer in the Department of Education. She is currently pursuing her Ph.D. (Education) from the Department of Educational Research and Assessment, University of Okara. Her email address is
Dr. Maroof Bin Rauf
Dr. Maroof Bin rauf is Assistant Professor in the Education Department, University of Karachi. Registered External Evaluator of National Accreditation Council for Teacher Education Exposure of international training for teachers and youth.


Asi, X. (2002). Gender differences in growth in mathematics achievement: three-level longitudinal and multilevel analyses of individual, home and school influences. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(1), 1–10.
Barro, R. J. (1999). Determinants of democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 107(6): 158 183.
Cleveland, K. P. (2011). Teaching boys who struggle in school: Strategies that turn underachievers into successful learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dale, R. (1969). “Mixed or single-sex school” Routledge and Paul, in Jaks, M.L., Total Education, London, P 10.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children. Rev. ed. New York: New Press.
DFID (Department for International Development). 2005. Girls’ education: towards a better future for all. UK Government.
Githua, B. N., & Mwangi, J. G. (2003). Students’ mathematics selfconcept and motivation to learn mathematics: relationship and gender differences among Kenya’s secondary- schools students in Nairobi and Rift Valley provinces. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 487–499.
Gokhan (2016). Understanding Gender and Race Difference in High School Achievement in the United States. American Journal of Educational Research, Vol.4 No.6 pp 427-438.
Granström, K. (2006). Group phenomena and classroom management. A Swedish perspective. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook for classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1141–1160). New York: Erlbaum.
Gurian, M. & Stevens, K. (2005). The minds of boys: Saving our sons from falling behind in school and life. San Francisco: Jossey Bass A Wiley Imprint.
Gurian, M., Stevens, K., & Daniels, P. (2009). Successful single-sex classrooms: A practical guide to teaching boys and girls. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gurian, M., Stevens, K., & King, K. (2008). Strategies for teaching boys and girls. San Francisco, CA:
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Chard, D. J. & Fien, H. (2008). Making connections in mathematics: Conceptual mathematics intervention for low-performing students. Journal of Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 33–45.
Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., and Cheng, J. H. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and environment: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 78–95.
McNeil, M. (2008). Single-sex schooling gets a new showcase. Education Week, 27, 20–22.
Murphy, P. (1996). Equity in the classroom: Towards effective pedagogy for girls and boys. New York, NY: Routledge.
Noguera, P.A. (2008). The trouble with black boys…and other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rex, J., & Chadwell, D. (2009). Single-gender classrooms. School Administrator, 66(8), 28– 33.
Riordan, D. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In Datnow, A. & Hubbard, L. (eds.) Gender in Policy and Practice, 10–30. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Sax, L. (2010). Sex differences in hearing. Advances in Gender and Education, 2, 13–21.
Swaleha S. Pathan (2011). A Comparative Study of Students’ Attitude Towards Co-education from Single-sex and Co-educational Junior College from Pune City. Journal of Arts Science & Commerce. International Refereed Research Journal. Vol.– II, Issue –1
Valentine, C.W. (1965). Psychology and its Bearing on Education. London: Allen and Unwin. P115.
Younger, M. R., & Warrington, M. (2006). Would Harry and Hermione have done better in single-sex classes? A review of single-sex teaching in coeducational secondary schools in the United Kingdom. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 579– 620.