Abstract
The current study involved multilevel analysis of high-stakes examination results (i.e., GCSE) in Northern Ireland to investigate gender differentials in mathematical achievement, whereas most previous research in the area used results from low-stakes tests (i.e., PISA, TIMSS). The analysis supported the gender similarities hypothesis with respect to both overall and content domain-specific mathematical attainment. Similar conclusions were drawn from the current study as have been reported in studies into gender differentials using data from low-stakes assessments in the respective jurisdiction. This suggests that previously expressed concerns in the literature about the viability of using data derived from low-stakes assessments to accurately assess gender differentials in achievement may be unfounded. Furthermore, the context for the current study permitted an investigation into the effects of school type (grammar versus non-grammar) and gender on overall and domain-specific mathematical achievement, an area that has received scant attention in the literature. School type was not found to have an effect on the applicability of the gender similarities hypothesis with respect to mathematical achievement. The study findings are likely to prove useful to researchers and policymakers who are interested in gender equity issues in mathematics.
Highlights
Background and Study ContextTo further illuminate the gaps in existing work, this article reports on an analysis of a sample of high-stakes public examination results in mathematics from General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) mathematics examinations, which are taken at the end of compulsory post-primary education in Northern Ireland, and have a pivotal role in determining students’ future educational and vocational pathways
Foundation tier examinations tend to be taken by lower-ability students who do not pursue STEM-related courses after GCSE, while higher tier examinations are taken by higher-ability students who may pursue STEM-related courses beyond GCSE
The current study offers some useful insights into the appropriateness of using data from low-stakes assessments, such as Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), rather than high-stakes assessments, to assess gender differentials in mathematical achievement
Summary
Background and Study ContextTo further illuminate the gaps in existing work, this article reports on an analysis of a sample of high-stakes public examination results in mathematics from General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) mathematics examinations, which are taken at the end of compulsory post-primary education in Northern Ireland, and have a pivotal role in determining students’ future educational and vocational pathways. The analysis has been undertaken for both lowerability and higher-ability students, who sit GCSE mathematics at foundation tier and higher tier respectively. Foundation tier examinations tend to be taken by lower-ability students who do not pursue STEM-related courses after GCSE, while higher tier examinations are taken by higher-ability students who may pursue STEM-related courses beyond GCSE. Limited attention has been paid to variation in gendered achievement by mathematical content domain (i.e., in number work, algebra, geometry and measures, and statistics and probability) in the existing literature, which places considerable emphasis on overall mathematical achievement This is an important area for investigation since mathematical performance has a tendency to be viewed as a monolith (Miner, 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
