Gender differences in math-related professional achievements have been identified as a worldwide problem. Academic achievement assessments, however, have repeatedly revealed gender similarities. The observed gender similarity might be due to biased assessments that heavily rely on reading skills, which favors girls. The current study analyzed 29 international and within-country datasets representing a total of 9,471,692 students from 1,456 regions through four typical, large-scale student academic achievement assessments. The results showed a gender difference in mathematics achievements of greater than 0.76 (Cohen's d), favoring boys for each dataset after controlling for general reading achievements. The gender difference in mathematics achievements favoring boys exceeded 0.35 in each region, with a mean of 0.70 for 79 countries or jurisdictions in the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA 2018) after controlling for general reading achievements. Dataset- and region-level gender differences are robust, suggesting that there is a clear gender difference in mathematics achievements that previous analyses have not identified due to the effect of reading achievements differences.
AppelM.KronbergerN. (2012). Stereotypes and the achievement gap: Stereotype threat prior to test taking. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 609–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9200-4
2.
BerkowitzR.MooreH.AstorR. A.BenbenishtyR. (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 425–469. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669821
BredaT.NappC. (2019). Girls’ comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in math-related fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(31), 15435–15440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905779116
5.
CohenJ. (1977). CHAPTER 2 – The t test for means. In CohenJ. (Ed.), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 19–74). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-179060-8.50007-4
6.
DowkerA.BalaS.LloydD. (2008). Linguistic influences on mathematical development: How important is the transparency of the counting system?Philosophical Psychology, 21(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080802285511
7.
DunlapW. P.CortinaJ. M.VaslowJ. B.BurkeM. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.170
8.
Else-QuestN. M.HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053
9.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
10.
FryerR. G.LevittS. D. (2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. American Economic Journal-Applied Economics, 2(2), 210–240. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.2.210
11.
FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.FuchsD.SeethalerP. M.MartinB. N. (2018). Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word-problem solving: Insights into word-problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259
12.
FuchsL. S.PowellS. R.FallA.-M.RobertsG.CirinoP.FuchsD.GilbertJ. K. (2020). Do the processes engaged during mathematical word-problem solving differ along the distribution of word-problem competence?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101811
13.
GhasemiA.ZahediaslS. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486–489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
HechtS. A.TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2001). The relations between phonological processing abilities and emerging individual differences in mathematical computation skills: A longitudinal study from second to fifth grades. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(2), 192–227. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2586
HydeJ. S.LindbergS. M.LinnM. C.EllisA. B.WilliamsC. C. (2008). Diversity. Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364
19.
HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (2006). Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314(5799), 599–600. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132154
20.
HydeJ. S.PlantE. A. (1995). Magnitude of psychological gender differences. Another side to the story. American Psychologist, 50(3), 159–161. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.50.3.159
21.
ImboI.Vanden BulckeC.De BrauwerJ.FiasW. (2014). Sixty-four or four-and-sixty? The influence of language and working memory on children’s number transcoding. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00313
22.
KellerJ. (2007). Stereotype threat in classroom settings: The interactive effect of domain identification, task difficulty and stereotype threat on female students’ maths performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906x113662
23.
Kenney-BensonG. A.PomerantzE. M.RyanA. M.PatrickH. (2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of children’s approach to schoolwork. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.11
KoponenT.AunolaK.AhonenT.NurmiJ. E. (2007). Cognitive predictors of single-digit and procedural calculation skills and their covariation with reading skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97(3), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.03.001
26.
KriegbaumK.BeckerN.SpinathB. (2018). The relative importance of intelligence and motivation as predictors of school achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 25, 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.10.001
27.
LiM. Y.TanY. X.CuiJ. X.ChenC. S.DongQ.ZhouX. L. (2019). The semantic network supports approximate computation. Neuropsychology, 33(6), 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000548
28.
LindbergS. M.HydeJ. S.PetersenJ. L.LinnM. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276
29.
LiuJ.YuanL.ChenC. S.CuiJ. X.ZhangH.ZhouX. L. (2019). The semantic system supports the processing of mathematical principles. Neuroscience, 404, 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.01.043
OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. I). PISA, OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en
PengP.WangT. F.WangC. C.LinX. (2019). A meta-analysis on the relation between fluid intelligence and reading/mathematics: Effects of tasks, age, and social economics status. Psychological Bulletin, 145(2), 189–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000182
38.
PurpuraD. J.GanleyC. M. (2014). Working memory and language: Skill-specific or domain-general relations to mathematics?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122, 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.12.009
39.
ReynoldsM. R.ScheiberC.HajovskyD. B.SchwartzB.KaufmanA. S. (2015). Gender differences in academic achievement: Is writing an exception to the gender similarities hypothesis?Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176(3-4), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1036833
40.
RitchieS. J.BatesT. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268
41.
Robinson-CimpianJ. P.LubienskiS. T.GanleyC. M.Copur-GencturkY. (2014). Are schools shortchanging boys or girls? The answer rests on methods and assumptions: Reply to Card (2014) and Penner (2014). Developmental Psychology, 50(6), 1840–1844. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036693
42.
RydellR. J.RydellM. T.BoucherK. L. (2010). The effect of negative performance stereotypes on learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 883–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021139
43.
SastryN.PebleyA. R. (2010). Family and neighborhood sources of socioeconomic inequality in children’s achievement. Demography, 47(3), 777–800. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0114
44.
StockardJ.RohlfingC. M.RichmondG. L. (2021). Equity for women and underrepresented minorities in STEM: Graduate experiences and career plans in chemistry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(4), e2020508118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020508118
45.
StoetG.GearyD. C. (2013). Sex differences in mathematics and reading achievement are inversely related: Within- and across-nation assessment of 10 years of PISA data. Plos One, 8(3), e57988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057988
46.
VukovicR. K.LesauxN. K. (2013). The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways language counts for children’s mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.002
47.
WeiW.LuH.ZhaoH.ChenC.DongQ.ZhouX. (2012). Gender differences in children’s arithmetic performance are accounted for by gender differences in language abilities. Psychological Science, 23(3), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427168
48.
YangX.MengX. (2016). Dissociation between exact and approximate addition in developmental dyslexia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 56, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.05.018
49.
ZhangX.HuB. Y.RenL. X.FanX. T. (2018). Sources of individual differences in young Chinese children’s reading and mathematics skill: A longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.008
50.
ZhouX.ZengJ. (2022). Three-component mathematics for students. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2283. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2283
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
