This study investigated whether female gifted students viewed the quality and importance of their work, effort, and ability differently than male gifted students. The study also investigated whether teachers perceived male and female students differently with respect to these areas in mathematics, language arts, social studies, and science. The sample included 5,385 fourth through eighth grade students who were identified as gifted and talented by their teachers. Teachers consistently rated females higher than males on effort and the quality of their work. Teachers rated males and females similarly on all abilities except language arts in which they rated females higher. Female students rated their language arts ability higher than males while the males rated their mathematics, science, and social studies abilities higher. The correlation between ratings of students' ability and quality of work and ratings of students' effort and quality of work were significantly different for students and teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achenbach, T.M. (1970). Standardization of a research instrument for identifying associative responding in children. Developmental Psychology , 2, 283-291.
2.
American College Testing Program. (1989). State and national trend data for students who take the ACT Assessment. Iowa City: Author.
3.
Arnold, K.D. (1993). Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In K. Hulbert & D. Schuster (Eds.), Women's lives through time: Educated American women of the Twentieth Century (pp. 393-414). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boyer, E.L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Buescher, T.M., Olszewski, P., & Higham, S.J. (1987). Influences on strategies adolescents use to cope with their own recognized talents. (Report No. EC 200 755). Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.
6.
Callahan, C.M., Cunningham, C.M., & Plucker, J.A. (1994). Foundations for the future: The socio-emotional development of gifted, adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17, 99-105.
7.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press.
9.
Davis, J.A. (1964). Great aspirations: The school plans of Ameriea's college seniors. Chicago: Aldine .
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T.F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 3, pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R.D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children's self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.
13.
Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing . American Psychologist, 43, 95-103.
14.
Felton, G.S., & Biggs, B.E. (1977). Up from underachievement. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
15.
Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L., Carpenter, T.P., & Lubinski, C.A. (1990). Teachers' attributions and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 55-69.
16.
Franken, R.E. (1988). Human motivation (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks /Cole Publishing.
17.
Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1986). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
18.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47-56.
19.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N.E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261-273.
20.
Hyde, J.S., & Fennema, E. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance and affect: Results of two meta-analyses. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association , Boston.
Kramer, L.R. (1991). The social construction of ability perceptions: An ethnographic study of gifted adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 340-362.
25.
Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., & Bieschke, K.J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognition model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 223-236.
26.
Licht, B.G., & Shapiro, S.H. (1982, August). Sex differences in attributions among high achievers. Paper presented at the meeting of American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.
27.
Linn, M.C., & Hyde, J.S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Research, 14, 51-71.
28.
Luginbuhl, J.E.R., Crowe, D.H., & Kahan, J.P. (1975). Causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 86-93.
29.
Marsh, H.W., & Yeung, A.S. (1997). Coursework selection: Relations to academic self-concept and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 691-720.
30.
Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology , 80, 514-523.
31.
Multon, K.D., Brown, S.D., & Lent, R.W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
32.
Nicholls, J.G. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement-related cognitions: Effects of task outcome, attainment value, and sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 379-389.
33.
Nicholls, J.G. (1976). Effort is virtuous, but it's better to have ability: Evaluative responses to perceptions of effort and ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 306-315.
34.
Nicholls, J.G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.
35.
Nicholls, J.G. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal attributions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 94-99.
36.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-579.
37.
Pintrich, P.R., & Blumenfeld, P.C. (1985). Classroom experience and children's self-perceptions of ability, effort, and conduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 646-657.
38.
Plucker, J.A., & MeIntire, J. (1996). Academic survivability in high-potential, middle school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 7-14.
39.
Reis, S.M. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly , 31, 83-89.
40.
Reis, S.M. (1991). The need for clarification in research designed to examine gender differences in achievement and accomplishment. Roeper Review, 1, 193-198.
41.
Reis, S.M., Callahan, C.M., & Goldsmith, D. (1996). Attitudes of adolescent gifted girls and boys toward education, achievement, and future. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble., & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 209-224). Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press.
42.
Reis, S.M., Westberg, K.L., Kulikowich, J., Caillard, F., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J.H., Rogers, J.B., & Smist, J.M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curriculum compacting study. Storrs, CT : The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented .
43.
Rimm, S.B. (1991). Underachievement and superachievement: Flip sides of the same psychological coin. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 328-343). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
44.
Rosser, P. (1989). Sex bias in college admissions tests: Why women lose out. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair and Open Testing.
45.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
46.
Schunk, D.H. (1984). Sequential attributional feedback and children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 511-518.
47.
Siegle, D.L. (1995). Effects of teacher training in student self-efficacy on student mathematics self-efficacy and student mathematics achievement. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut , Storrs.
48.
Siegle, D.L., & Reis, S.M. (1993). Academic achievement survey. Unpublished survey instrument, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
49.
Silverman, L.K. (1993). Social development, leadership, and gender issues . In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted & talented (pp. 291-327). Denver: Love Publishing.
Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J.C. (1996). Gender-related differences on the College Board's Advanced Placement and Achievement tests, 1982-1992. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 353-364.
52.
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. ( 1992). TheAAUW report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
53.
Westberg, K.L., Archambault, F.X., Jr., Dobyns, S.M., & Salvin, T.J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
54.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1994). Children's competence beliefs, achievement values, and general self-esteem change across elementary and middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 107-138.
55.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51-59.
