Sex Differences In Mathematical Ability Research Articles

Sex Differences in 32,347 Jordanian 4th Graders on the National Exam of Mathematics

Abstract. Sex differences in mathematical ability were examined in a nation-wide sample of 32,346 Jordanian 4th graders (age 9–10 year) on a 40-item mathematics test. Overall, boys were found to perform slightly worse ( d = −0.12) but had slightly more variation in scores ( SD = 1.02 and SD = 0.98 for boys and girls, respectively). However, when results were disaggregated by school type, single-sex versus coed (i.e., coeducational), boys were found to perform better than girls in coed schools ( d = 0.27) but worse across single-sex schools ( d = −0.37). Two-parameter item response theory analysis showed that item difficulty was similar across sexes in the full sample. Item loadings exhibited substantial departure from measurement invariance with respect to boys and girls at single-sex schools, though. For boys and girls at coed schools, both the item difficulty and item loading correlations were highly similar, evincing that measurement invariance largely held in this case. Partially consistent with findings from other countries, a correlation between item difficulty and male advantage was observed, r = .57, such that the relative male advantage increased with increased item difficulty. Complicating interpretation, this association did not replicate within coed schools. Item content, Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy category, and item position showed no relation to sex differences.

Mathematics and the Flight from the Feminine: The Discursive Construction of Gendered Subjectivity in Mathematics Textbooks

There is a widespread awareness in our culture that women do not pursue careers in mathematics-related fields in equal numbers to men. Efforts to address this disparity by reforming mathematics education have met with some success; recent research shows that girls’ achievements in mathematics stay on par with those of boys through secondary school. There still remains, however, a significant disparity between young men and young women’s participation and success in mathematics at the postsecondary level, leading to what many now call the leaky mathematics pipeline (Oakes; Watt, Eccles, and Durik). While some still argue that women and men have different aptitudes for mathematics, many researchers have concluded that sex differences in aptitude and achievement in mathematics are minimal. In a 2005 critical review of such studies, Jeremy Caplan and Paula Caplan argue that meaningful sex differences in mathematical ability have never been found, and that when such differences are found they are “massively confounded with factors related to individual experience” (Caplan and Caplan 42). If differences in aptitude and ability do not necessarily force women out of mathematics, then what experiences do young women have within the field that cause them to leave mathematics at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels? Researchers have examined women’s experiences within the classroom and in professional settings in an effort to understand why and how young women become alienated from mathematics. The most recent manifestation of this work looks specifically at how our culture constructs both gender and mathematics in ways that ensure that girls and women have a difficult time understanding themselves as mathematicians (Walkerdine; Mendick, “Beautiful”; Mendick, “Mathematical”; Rodd and Bartholomew). Valerie Walkerdine, one of the first to make this argument, states:

Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities

AbstractThe principles of sexual selection were used as an organizing framework for interpreting cross-national patterns of sex differences in mathematical abilities. Cross-national studies suggest that there are no sex differences in biologically primary mathematical abilities, that is, for those mathematical abilities that are found in all cultures as well as in nonhuman primates, and show moderate heritability estimates. Sex differences in several biologically secondary mathematical domains (i.e., those that emerge primarily in school) are found throughout the industrialized world. In particular, males consistently outperform females in the solving of mathematical word problems and geometry. Sexual selection and any associated proximate mechanisms (e.g., sex hormones) influence these sex differences in mathematical performance indirectly. First, sexual selection resulted in greater elaboration in males than in females of the neurocognitive systems that support navigation in three-dimensional space. Knowledge implicit in these systems reflects an understanding of basic Euclidean geometry, and may thus be one source of the male advantage in geometry. Males also use more readily than females these spatial systems in problem-solving situations, which provides them with an advantage in solving word problems and geometry. In addition, sex differences in social styles and interests, which also appear to be related in part to sexual selection, result in sex differences in engagement iii mathematics-related activities, thus further increasing the male advantage in certain mathematical domains. A model that integrates these biological influences with sociocultural influences on the sex differences in mathematical performance is presented in this article.

The logic of the sociobiological model Geary-style

AbstractGeary's is the traditional view of the sexes. Yet each part of his argument – the move from sex differences in spatial ability and social preferences to a sex difference in mathematical ability, the claim that the former are biologically primary, and the sociobiological explanation of these differences – requires considerable further work. The notion of a biologically secondary ability is itself problematic.

Sex, handedness, mathematical ability, and biological causation.

An important part of Benbow's (1988) assertion that sex differences in mathematical ability are primarily due to biological factors is the link between a trait that is assumed to reflect differences in brain organization (left-handedness) and mathematical giftedness. It is shown that the link between mathematical giftedness and an increased prevalence of left-handedness is not convincing. However, Benbow's (1986) data do show a convincing link between strong right-handedness and the lack of mathematical giftedness, in agreement with Annett and Manning's (1990a, 1990b) recent work.

Brief Report: Sex Differences in Rote-Counting Ability on Entry to First Grade: Some Observations

Currently, the issue of sex differences in mathematical abilities is of great concern. This article focuses on one early number skill: rote counting. Almost a century of research has produced equivocal results. These discrepancies might be accounted for by differences in methodology and data analysis. This report presents data on sex differences in rote-counting ability and illustrates how different data-gathering methods and different statistical treatments of the data can yield different results.

Sex Differences in Rote-Counting Ability on Entry to First Grade: Some Observations

Currently, the issue of sex differences in mathematical abilities is of great concern. This article focuses on one early number skill: rote counting. Almost a century of research has produced equivocal results. These discrepancies might be accounted for by differences in methodology and data analysis. This report presents data on sex differences in rote-counting ability and illustrates how different data-gathering methods and different statistical treatments of the data can yield different results. Almost a century ago G. Stanley Hall (1891) included specific number skills in his survey of the content of children's minds on entering school and concluded: girls excel in space concepts and boys in numbers (p. 143). Illustrative of the findings on which this observation was based are the data on 660 boys and 652 girls entering schools in Annaberg, Germany, between 1881 and 1884. There, 69% of the boys and 62% of the girls could count by rote to 10 on entry to first grade. These were hardly grounds for an unequivocal generalization about boys being superior to girls in number abilities, but a slight trend appeared discernible. Nearly 50 years later, Buckingham and MacLatchy (1930) surveyed the number abilities of children entering Grade 1. They concluded that the 6-year-old girls consistently surpassed the 6-year-old boys in counting abilities. However, a higher percentage of boys than girls counted to 100. Recent research on similarities and differences between boys and girls on early counting has been inconclusive and inconsistent in its findings. No differences during the preschool or early school years have been reported in a number of reports and reviews (e.g., Brace & Nelson, 1965; Fuson, Richards, & Briars, 1982; Maccoby, 1966; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Mitchell, 1981; Tavris & Offir, 1977). Performance differences favoring girls have been reported by Aiken (1971) and Rea and Reys (1970). The Gesell Institute's position remains that differences between boys and girls do exist during early school years and that girls' performance tends to be more advanced (Ames, Gillespie, Haines, & Ilg, 1976). Although data on similarities and differences between boys and girls on

Women and Mathematics: Does Research Matter?

On Monday, March 23, I was in a somewhat unusual and comfortable situation for a university professor. (Perhaps one should really substitute the w6rd lazy for comfortable.) I had written a chapter for the 1982 NCTM Yearbook on the middle school, and it could serve as my NCTM speech at St. Louis. True, I had not said anything very new, innovative, or controversial; but after all, this was the third year in a row that I had talked about sex-related differences at NCTM, so no one could expect me to have much new information or insight. Then, as I was reading the newspaper and having a leisurely cup of tea before going to school, I read the following: Due to evolutionary factors, males are also better at doing math problems . (Wisconsin State Journal, March 23, 1981). Almost immediately, my feeling of comfort fled, and I was made aware once again of how research, used well or misused effectively, can affect the lives of many. This quote is a direct result of research and its reporting, which I believe will have a deleterious effect on the learning of mathematics by girls. It is a result of an article published in Science in December 1980, entitled Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability: Fact of Artifact? (Benbow & Stanley, 1980).' In this article, data were presented from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth that show sex-related differences on the Scholastic Aptitude Test-Mathematics (SAT-M) in several large samples of highly gifted seventhand eighth-grade students. In each of six testings done from March 1972 to January 1979, boys had higher scores than girls, and a larger percentage of boys than girls scored above 600, This is not a new finding. What is new in the Benbow and Stanley article is how they attributed causation of the differences they found. According to Benbow and Stanley, since boys and girls have received the same mathematical education, the environmental factors are equivalent. Therefore, Benbow and Stanley conclude inherent factors must be responsible for the differences.

Spatial visualization and sex differences in quantitative ability

The hypothesis that sex differences in spatial visualization ability might account for sex differences in mathematical ability was supported for a group of 183 male and 81 female college students. With spatial visualization statistically controlled, no significant sex differences in Quantitative Scholastic Aptitude Test (QSAT) scores was found; including sex as a predictor variable increased the variance explained by less than 1%. Although the slope of the regression of mathematics on spatial visualization did not differ as a function of sex, males were somewhat more predictable than females. As the OSAT of both males and females high on spatial visualization was more predictable than the QSAT of those scoring less well, it appears that the sex difference in predictability is due to males having higher spatial ability than females.