23 views

Uploaded by Anecito Cruzada Tanzon

gender differences in mathematics

save

- 239a6b7cb4dcf62e5519d309d13d2d1e
- Counter Game
- Style Lesson5Exercises
- Preparing Junior High School Students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Track Using Journal Writing in Mathematics
- Project Work for Additional
- 8 Mathematical Practices
- Research
- Analytic Framework for Students’
- gender studies paper and presentation
- v56n1a4
- Fundamentals of Data Sufficiency
- projectguideline and lessonplan
- Facilitating Problem Solving Classes
- weeklyclinicalreflectionsentry128
- Student Guide to Research
- sppu syllabus latest
- grade 2- how do plants grow science
- Teaching Values Through a Problem Solving Approach to Mathematics
- habits of mind self assessment
- 1
- graphing- problem solving unit plan
- B1SUP-A3_AddSubNumLn_0709
- What is Mathematics (Seminar Content)
- 1-s2.0-S2212827116000238-main.pdf
- minilesson
- contemporary issues in science personal eval
- Theoretical Framework
- readtheoryintrolesson
- solo2day4-dja
- The Art of Questioning in Math Class - Copy
- Blimbing Study Course
- Circular Grupo de 3
- PERTAMA….HP/WA 0811-291-4187, kacamata terapi vision, kacamata kesehatan satu untuk semua,Jawa Barat
- Marion Zimmer-Bardley - Sanctuarul
- kriteria gawat
- DISFEMIA.pdf
- Sejarah Konsep Imunologi 4peb2015
- Informe N_ 1 (1)
- Matematica Aplicada a Elaboracion de Controles Zapateros
- Kumpulan Shortcut EXCEL Terlengkap 2018.pdf
- Daftar_pd-smks Yasiha Gubug-2018!10!31 11-42-08
- Dibujo Para Diseño de Ingenieria Ii_pa3
- mood board
- Spec Sheet CAT 3406
- Diseño de Arquitectura Con Tierra.H.gallardo J.márquez a. Ferreiro
- Commissioning Concept
- 63095453-PROYECTO-DE-CIENCIA-6°-primaria.docx
- manualdeanatomiahumana.pdf
- Modelo Guía de Facilitación Semilla
- Bagian Awal
- Revista Konexión J.indd
- 10 strana.pdf
- Valdson de Oliveira Cassiano
- Surat Pernyataan Penggunaan Akses Jalan
- Piping and Instrumentation CONTROLS
- 50239218_Luria_Alexander___El_Cerebro_En_Accion.pdf
- contoh4
- Kode Program Java
- Coleccion de Sopas Matematicas Orientacion Andujar
- Reaktor Kolom Gelembung
- Triangle Congruence
- 8-90.pdf
- Inverse
- Anecito Detailed
- d2
- Anecito Detailed
- Table of Specification
- rr554
- psgenderpaperSW-Sept27
- litreview905.doc
- Frequencies
- Anecito Detailed ( MAthematics)
- 127331010-Field-Study-4
- Sa Labing Siyam Na Aking Nasarbey
- Tawog Day Care Center

You are on page 1of 8

1. CP Benbow,

2. JC Stanley

ABSTRACT

Almost 40,000 selected seventh-grade students from the Middle Atlantic region of the United States took the College

Board Scholastic Aptitude Test as part of the Johns Hopkins regional talent search in 1980, 1981, and 1982. A separate

nationwide talent search was conducted in which any student under age 13 who was willing to take the test was eligible.

The results obtained by both procedures establish that by age 13 a large sex difference in mathematical reasoning ability

exists and that it is especially pronounced at the high end of the distribution: among students who scored greater than or

equal to 700, boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1. Some hypothesized explanations of such differences were not supported by

the data.

http://cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/cognition/files/2013/01/Ganley-Vasilyeva-2011-JADP.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/222/4627/1029.abstract

http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC/IRC_2008/Papers/IRC2008_Kiamanesh_Mahdavi-

Hezaveh.pdf

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/smpy/files/2013/01/SexDiffs.pdf

http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol212007/adeleke.pdf

Stereotypes about Gender and Mathematics

Mathematics and science are stereotyped as male domains (Fennema & Sherman,

1977; Hyde, Fennema, Ryan, Frost, & Hopp, 1990b, Nosek, et al, 2009). Stereotypes about

female inferiority in mathematics are prominent among children and adolescents, parents,

and teachers. Although children may view boys and girls as being equal in mathematical

ability, they nonetheless view adult men as being better at mathematics than adult women

(Steele, 2003). Implicit attitudes that link males and mathematics have been demonstrated

repeatedly in studies of college students (e.g., Kiefer & Sekaquaptewa, 2007; Nosek, Banaji,

& Greenwald, 2002).

Parents believe that their sons' mathematical ability is higher than their daughters'. In one

study, fathers estimated their sons' mathematical “IQ” at 110 on average, and their

daughters' at 98; mothers estimated 110 for sons and 104 for daughters (Furnham et al.,

2002; see also Frome & Eccles, 1998). Teachers, too, tend to stereotype mathematics as a

male domain. In particular, they overrate boys' ability relative to girls' (Li, 1999; but

see Helwig, Anderson, & Tindal, 2001).

These stereotypes are of concern for several reasons. First, in the language of cognitive

social learning theory, stereotypes can influence competency beliefs or self-efficacy;

correlational research does indeed show that parents' and teachers' stereotypes about

gender and mathematics predict children's perceptions of their own abilities, even with

actual mathematics performance controlled (Bouchey & Harter, 2005; Frome & Eccles,

1998; Keller, 2001; Tiedemann, 2000). Competency beliefs are important because of their

profound effect on individuals' selection of activities and environments (Bandura,

1997; Bussey & Bandura, 1999). According to an earlier meta-analysis, girls report lower

mathematics competence than boys do, although the difference is not large (d = +.16, Hyde

et al., 1990b). In recent studies, elementary-school boys still report significantly higher

mathematics competency beliefs than girls do (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010; Fredrick &

Eccles, 2002; Lindberg, Hyde, & Hirsch, 2008; Watt, 2004).

A second concern is that stereotypes can have a deleterious effect on actual performance.

Stereotype threat effects (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995) have been found for women

in mathematics. In the standard paradigm, half the participants (talented college students)

are told that the math test they are about to take typically shows gender differences (threat

condition), and the other half is told that the math test is gender fair and does not show

gender differences (control). Studies find that college women underperform compared with

men in the threat condition but perform equal to men in the control condition, indicating

that priming for gender differences in mathematics indeed impairs girls' math performance

(e.g.,Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005; Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005;Johns,

Schmader, & Martens, 2005; Quinn & Spencer, 2001; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999).

Stereotype threat effects have been found in children as early as kindergarten (Ambady,

Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001). Other research, measuring implicit stereotypes about gender

and math, has found that these implicit stereotypes predict performance in a calculus course

(Kiefer & Sekaquaptewa, 2007).

Stereotypes play a role in policy decisions as well as personal decision-making. For example,

schools and states may base decisions to offer single-sex mathematics classes on the belief

that these gender differences exist (Arms, 2007).

Gender and Mathematics Performance

The stereotypes about female inferiority in mathematics stand in distinct contrast to the

scientific data on actual performance. A 1990 meta-analysis found an effect size ofd = 0.15,

males scoring higher, for gender differences in mathematics performance averaged over all

samples; however, in samples of the general population (i.e. national samples, classrooms –

as opposed to exceptionally precocious or low ability samples), females scored higher but by

a negligible amount (d = −0.05; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990a). Hedges and Nowell

(1995), using data sets representing large probability samples of American adolescents,

found d = 0.03 to 0.26 across the different data sets. Moreover, girls earn better grades in

mathematics courses than boys through the end of high school (Dwyer & Johnson,

1997; Kenney-Benson et al., 2006; Kimball, 1989). In short, previous research showed that

gender differences in mathematics performance were very small and, depending on the

sample and outcome measure, sometimes favored boys and sometimes favored girls.

Several features of the 1990 meta-analysis (Hyde et al., 1990a) warrant more detailed

description. Using computerized literature searches, the researchers identified 100 useable

studies, which yielded 254 independent effect sizes representing the testing of more than 3

million persons. One key moderator analysis examined the magnitude of gender differences

as a function of age and cognitive level of the test (computation was considered the lowest

level, understanding of concepts was considered intermediate, and complex problem-

solving was considered the highest level). Girls performed better than boys at computation

in elementary school and middle school but the differences were small (d = −0.20 and

−0.22, respectively) and there was no gender difference in high school. There was no gender

difference in understanding of mathematical concepts at any age. For complex problem

solving, there was no gender difference in elementary or middle school, but a gender

difference favoring males emerged in high school (d = 0.29). This last gender difference,

although small, is of concern because complex problem solving is crucial for STEM careers.

A second moderator analysis examined the magnitude of gender differences in mathematics

performance as a function of the ethnicity of the sample (Hyde et al., 1990a). The striking

finding was that the small gender difference favoring males was found for Whites (d = 0.13),

but not for Blacks (−0.02) or Latinos (0.00).

Depth of Knowledge

Traditionally, researchers maintained that girls might do as well as, or even better than boys

on tests of computation, which require relatively simple cognitive processes (e.g., Anastasi,

1958). These same researchers concluded that male superiority emerged for tests requiring

more advanced cognitive processing, such as complex problem solving. The 1990 meta-

analysis by Hyde and colleagues provided some support for these ideas, although the gender

difference in complex problem solving did not appear until the high school years and was

not large even then.

Current mathematics education researchers conceptualize this issue of complexity of

cognitive processes as a question of item demand and the depth of knowledge required to

solve a particular problem. Webb (1999) developed a 4-level Depth of Knowledge

framework to identify the cognitive difficulty of mathematics items on standardized

assessments. In this framework, Level 1 (Recall) includes the recall of information such as

facts or definitions, as well as performing simple algorithms. Level 2 (Skill/Concept)

includes items that require students to make decisions about how to approach a problem.

These items typically ask students to classify, organize, estimate, or compare information.

Level 3 (Strategic Thinking) includes complex and abstract cognitive demands that require

students to reason, plan, and use evidence. Level 4 (Extended Thinking) requires complex

reasoning, planning, developing, and thinking over an extended period of time. Items at

Level 4 require students to connect ideas within the content area or among content areas as

they develop one problem-solving approach from many alternatives. This depth of

knowledge framework was used to rate the cognitive demands of the tests that assess

mathematics performance in the studies reviewed here.

New Trends

Cultural shifts have occurred since the 1980s that call for the reexamination of gender

differences in mathematics. In the 1980s, a prominent explanation of male superiority in

complex problem solving beginning in high school was gender differences in course choice

(Meece, Eccles-Parsons, et al, 1982). Girls were less likely than boys to take advanced

mathematics courses and advanced science courses. Because mathematical problem solving

is an important component of chemistry and physics courses, students may learn those

skills in science courses as much as in mathematics courses. Today, however, the gender gap

in course taking has disappeared in all areas except physics. For the high school graduating

class of 2005, 7.7% of boys and 7.8% of girls took calculus; 57.8% of girls and 50.6% of boys

took chemistry; and 32.8% of girls and 36.8% of boys took physics (NSF, 2008c). Insofar as

courses taken by students influence their mathematics performance, we would expect that

the gender difference in complex problem solving in high school would have narrowed.

In addition, cross-national data show that the gender gap in mathematics performance

narrows or even reverses in societies with more gender equality (e.g., Sweden and Iceland),

compared with those with more gender inequality (e.g., Turkey) (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn,

2010; Guiso, Monte, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2008). Insofar as the United States has moved

toward gender equality over the past 30 to 40 years, the gender gap in mathematics

performance should have narrowed.

Findings from a recent analysis of data from state assessments of mathematics performance

provide evidence that the gender gap in mathematics performance in the U.S. has indeed

diminished or even vanished (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008). Those data

had several limitations and raised some questions that deserve analysis in a larger study.

First, they were based just on tests administered by the states to satisfy the requirements of

No Child Left Behind Legislation. Items tapping Levels 3 or 4 depth of knowledge were

notably absent. Second, the data were derived only from students in grades 2 through 11;

trends in gender differences beyond grade 11 (age 17) could therefore not be assessed. Third,

the distributions of male and female performance were available for only part of the sample.

The available results raised intriguing questions about gender differences in complex

problem solving since in some subgroups females outperformed males at the high end of the

distribution.

Abstract

Several hundred thousand intellectually talented 12-to 13-year-olds have been tested nationwide over the past 16

years with the mathematics and verbal sections of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Although no sex differences in

verbal ability have been found, there have been consistent sex differences favoring males in mathematical reasoning

ability, as measured by the mathematics section of the SAT (SAT-M). These differences are most pronounced at the

highest levels of mathematical reasoning, they are stable over time, and they are observed in other countries as well.

The sex difference in mathematical reasoning ability can predict subsequent sex differences in achievement in

mathematics and science and is therefore of practical importance. To date a primarily environmental explanation for

the difference in ability has not received support from the numerous studies conducted over many years by the staff

of Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) and others. We have studied some of the classical

environmental hypotheses: attitudes toward mathematics, perceived usefulness of mathematics, confidence,

expectations/ encouragement from parents and others, sex-typing, and differential course-taking. In addition, several

physiological correlates of extremely high mathematical reasoning ability have been identified (left-handedness,

allergies, myopia, and perhaps bilateral representation of cognitive functions and prenatal hormonal exposure). It is

therefore proposed that the sex difference in SAT-M scores among intellectually talented students, which may be

related to greater male variability, results from both environmental and biological factors.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6723388

Most studies show that, on average, girls do better in school than boys. Girls get higher

grades and complete high school at a higher rate compared to boys (Jacobs, 2002).

Standardized achievement tests also show that females are better at spelling and

perform better on tests of literacy, writing, and general knowledge (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003). An international aptitude test administered to fourth

graders in 35 countries, for example, showed that females outscored males on reading

literacy in every country. Although there were no differences between boys and girls in

fourth grade on mathematics, boys began to perform better than girls on science tests

in fourth grade (International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement,

n.d.). Girls continue to exhibit higher verbal ability throughout high school, but they

begin to lose ground to boys after fourth grade on tests of both mathematical and

science ability. These gender differences in math and science achievement have

implications for girls’ future careers and have been a source of concern for educators

everywhere.

During the past decade, there has been a concerted effort to find out why there is a

shortage of women in the science, math, engineering, and technical fields (AAUW,

1992). In 1995, 22% of America’s scientists and engineers were women, compared to

half of the social scientists. Women who do pursue careers in science, engineering, and

mathematics most often choose fields in the biological sciences, where they represent

40% of the workforce, with smaller percentages found in mathematics or computer

science (33%), the physical sciences (22%), and engineering (9%) (National Science

Board, 1998).

Part of the explanation can be traced to gender differences in the cognitive abilities of

middle-school students. In late elementary school, females outperform males on

several verbal skills tasks: verbal reasoning, verbal fluency, comprehension, and

understanding logical relations (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). Males, on the other hand,

outperform females on spatial skills tasks such as mental rotation, spatial perception,

and spatial visualization (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995). Males also perform better on

mathematical achievement tests than females. However, gender differences do not

apply to all aspects of mathematical skill. Males and females do equally well in basic

math knowledge, and girls actually have better computational skills. Performance in

mathematical reasoning and geometry shows the greatest difference (Fennema,

Sowder, & Carpenter, 1999). Males also display greater confidence in their math skills,

which is a strong predictor of math performance (Casey, Nuttall, & Pezaris, 2001).

The poorer mathematical reasoning skills exhibited by many female adolescents have

several educational implications. Beginning at age 12, girls begin to like math and

science less and to like language arts and social studies more than do boys (Kahle &

Lakes, 2003; Sadker & Sadker, 1994). They also do not expect to do as well in these

subjects and attribute their failures to lack of ability (Eccles, Barber, Jozefowicz,

Malenchuk, & Vida, 1999). By high school, girls self-select out of higher-level,

“academic-track” math and science courses, such as calculus and chemistry. One of the

long-term consequences of these choices is that girls lack the prerequisite high school

math and science courses necessary to pursue certain majors in college (e.g.,

engineering, computer science). Consequently, the number of women who pursue

advanced degrees in these fields is significantly reduced (Halpern, 2004).

Some researchers, on the one hand, argue that the gender gap in mathematics is

biologically driven. Selected research shows that prenatal hormones circulating in the

brain encourage differential development in the hemispheres of male and female

fetuses (Berenbaum, Korman, & Leveroni, 1995). Others believe intelligence has its

roots in genetics (Plomin, 2000). There is evidence, however, that sociocultural factors

may influence girls’ attitudes toward math and science. For example, parents tend to

view math as more important for sons and language arts and social studies as more

important for daughters (Andre, Whigham, Hendrickson, & Chambers, 1999). Parents

are more likely to encourage their sons to take advanced high school courses in

chemistry, mathematics, and physics and have higher expectations for their success

(Wigfield, Battle, Keller, & Eccles, 2002).

Teacher characteristics and the classroom environment also have been identified as

contributors to this gender gap. Seventh and eighth graders attending math and

science camps identified a math or science teacher as “a person who has made math,

science, or engineering interesting” for them (Gilbert, 1996, p. 491). Unfortunately,

many females report being passed over in classroom discussions, not encouraged by

the teacher, and made to feel stupid (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). Classroom environments

can be made to feel more “girl-friendly” by incorporating

Low levels of competition, public drill, and practice

High levels of teacher attention

Hands-on activities

Female role models

Same-sex cooperative learning communities

Nonsexist books and materials (Evans, Whigham, & Wang, 1995)

Fortunately, sex differences in mathematical reasoning have begun to decline, and

females’ enrollments are up in math and science courses (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo,

2000; Freeman, 2004). Programs designed to interest girls in math and science and

that demonstrate how this knowledge will allow them to help others appear to be

working.

So, why are males superior at math? Let's be more specific, since the reality is a bit

mixed:

In late elementary school, females outperform males on several verbal skills tasks:

verbal reasoning, verbal fluency, comprehension, and understanding logical

relations (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). Males, on the other hand, outperform females on

spatial skills tasks such as mental rotation, spatial perception, and spatial

visualization (Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995). Males also perform better on

mathematical achievement tests than females. However, gender differences do not

apply to all aspects of mathematical skill. Males and females do equally well in basic

math knowledge, and girls actually have better computational [arithmetic _ ed.]

skills. Performance in mathematical reasoning and geometry shows the

greatest difference (Fennema, Sowder, & Carpenter, 1999). _Education

In fact, recent research shows that males begin to take a qualitatively different approach

to math thinking from an early age:

In a University of Missouri study, girls and boys started grade school with different

approaches to solving arithmetic problems, with girls favoring a slow and accurate

approach and boys a faster but more error prone approach. Girls‟ approach gave them

an early advantage, but by the end of sixth grade boys had surpassed the girls....

“Developing mathematical skill may be part „practice makes perfect‟ and part „perfect

makes practice,‟” Bailey said. “Attempting more answers from memory gives risk-takers

more practice, which may eventually lead to improvements in accuracy. It also is

possible that children who are skilled at certain strategies are more likely to use them

and therefore acquire more practice.” _MU News

The greater boldness exhibited by boys in math class is likely a testosterone effect, which

is exhibited in so many other behavioural differences between males and females in

childhood, adolescence, and early to middle adulthood.

The male superiority in spacial skills tasks and advanced math reasoning is likely to

derive from far more subtle changes in the brain than those that lead to greater male

boldness. But those more subtle changes are also largely due to testosterone effect.

These brain changes occur over time -- slowly in childhood, and at a faster rate in

adolescence. All levels of brain activity -- from gene expression to physiological

parameters to brain structure to cognitive function -- are involved.

Recent feminist-inspired studies which compare male : female math skills in childhood

or very early in adolescence are unable to detect the most significant brain

transformations, and are thus likely to fail to detect very real differences. Likewise,

studies which focus upon comparisons of basic arithmetic skills, fail to detect the male

advantages in spatial skills and in advanced mathematical reasoning.

Fortunately, better tools for detecting brain activity and differences at all levels -- from

gene expression to fine brain structure to the neurological correlates of cognition -- are

all in development.

A fascinating new brain imager which combines MEG (magnetoencephalography) with

MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) will allow an unprecedented degree of simultaneous

spatial and temporal imaging of brain structure and activity.

Functional brain imaging has already developed to the point where it can be used as an

objective, culture-free test for cognitive function and speed. It is only a matter of time

before such crude objective measures of cognition can be fine-tuned to look at distinct

types of cognition, including mathematical and spatial reasoning.

When it comes to brain, cognition, and behaviour, hormones have consequences. The

sooner human academics can grow beyond their political correctness to look at these

issues objectively and honestly, the sooner we can find ways for all of us to move ahead.

- 239a6b7cb4dcf62e5519d309d13d2d1eUploaded byAgung Juma
- Counter GameUploaded bySidney Graham
- Style Lesson5ExercisesUploaded byAziz Malik
- Preparing Junior High School Students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Track Using Journal Writing in MathematicsUploaded byIjaems Journal
- Project Work for AdditionalUploaded byChocolate's Mummy
- 8 Mathematical PracticesUploaded byLAUSDCCSS
- ResearchUploaded byRose Poh
- Analytic Framework for Students’Uploaded byEmiDestianingsihII
- gender studies paper and presentationUploaded byapi-266798103
- v56n1a4Uploaded byOsman Syarif
- Fundamentals of Data SufficiencyUploaded bykishore
- projectguideline and lessonplanUploaded byapi-262901509
- Facilitating Problem Solving ClassesUploaded byAgaHuong
- weeklyclinicalreflectionsentry128Uploaded byapi-312802743
- Student Guide to ResearchUploaded byvinoja
- sppu syllabus latestUploaded byYourfriend 2113
- grade 2- how do plants grow scienceUploaded byapi-408283130
- Teaching Values Through a Problem Solving Approach to MathematicsUploaded byazieta7072
- habits of mind self assessmentUploaded byapi-267925334
- 1Uploaded byDivaviya
- graphing- problem solving unit planUploaded byapi-272231577
- B1SUP-A3_AddSubNumLn_0709Uploaded byVimala Elumalai
- What is Mathematics (Seminar Content)Uploaded byKerr Dwight Durano
- 1-s2.0-S2212827116000238-main.pdfUploaded byHuda Yudistira
- minilessonUploaded byapi-252466047
- contemporary issues in science personal evalUploaded byapi-225897298
- Theoretical FrameworkUploaded byJohn Rafael Atienza
- readtheoryintrolessonUploaded byapi-259336684
- solo2day4-djaUploaded byapi-233435703
- The Art of Questioning in Math Class - CopyUploaded byNadia Sofwan

- Triangle CongruenceUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- 8-90.pdfUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- InverseUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- Anecito DetailedUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- d2Uploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- Anecito DetailedUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- Table of SpecificationUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- rr554Uploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- psgenderpaperSW-Sept27Uploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- litreview905.docUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- FrequenciesUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- Anecito Detailed ( MAthematics)Uploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- 127331010-Field-Study-4Uploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- Sa Labing Siyam Na Aking NasarbeyUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon
- Tawog Day Care CenterUploaded byAnecito Cruzada Tanzon