Assessing gender difference in mathematics achievement

Abstract

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.

Keywords

gender difference mathematics ability reading ability gender similarity.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appel

Kronberger

(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

Berkowitz

Moore

Astor

R. A.

Benbenishty

(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

Breda

Jouini

Napp

(2018). Societal inequalities amplify gender gaps in math. Science, 359(6381), 1219–1220. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar2307

Breda

Napp

(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

Cohen

(1977). CHAPTER 2 – The t test for means. In Cohen

(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

Dowker

Bala

Lloyd

(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

Dunlap

W. P.

Cortina

J. M.

Vaslow

J. B.

Burke

M. 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

Else-Quest

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

Linn

M. 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

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.

Fryer

R. G.

Levitt

S. 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.

Fuchs

L. S.

Gilbert

J. K.

Fuchs

Seethaler

P. M.

Martin

B. 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.

Fuchs

L. S.

Powell

S. R.

Fall

A.-M.

Roberts

Cirino

Fuchs

Gilbert

J. 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.

Ghasemi

Zahediasl

(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

14.

Guiso

Monte

Sapienza

Zingales

(2008). Diversity, culture, gender, and math. Science, 320(5880), 1164–1165. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154094

15.

Hecht

S. A.

Torgesen

J. K.

Wagner

R. K.

Rashotte

C. 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

16.

Hyde

J. S.

(2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.60.6.581

17.

Hyde

J. S.

(2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057

18.

Hyde

J. S.

Lindberg

S. M.

Linn

M. C.

Ellis

A. B.

Williams

C. C.

(2008). Diversity. Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364

19.

Hyde

J. S.

Linn

M. C.

(2006). Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314(5799), 599–600. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132154

20.

Hyde

J. S.

Plant

E. 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.

Imbo

Vanden Bulcke

De Brauwer

Fias

(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.

Keller

(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-Benson

G. A.

Pomerantz

E. M.

Ryan

A. M.

Patrick

(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

24.

Kimball

M. M.

(1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.198

25.

Koponen

Aunola

Ahonen

Nurmi

J. 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.

Kriegbaum

Becker

Spinath

(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.

M. Y.

Tan

Y. X.

Cui

J. X.

Chen

C. S.

Dong

Zhou

X. L.

(2019). The semantic network supports approximate computation. Neuropsychology, 33(6), 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000548

28.

Lindberg

S. M.

Hyde

J. S.

Petersen

J. L.

Linn

M. 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.

Liu

Yuan

Chen

C. S.

Cui

J. X.

Zhang

Zhou

X. 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

30.

National Center for Education Statistics (1992–2019). NAEP Data [Data set]. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE.

31.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011a). PIRLS 2011 International Dataset. [Data set].http://nces.ed.gov/timss/idetimss/ http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/idepirls/.

32.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011b). TIMSS 2011 International Dataset [Data set]. http://nces.ed.gov/timss/idetimss/.

33.

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

34.

OECD (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behaviour, confidence. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en

35.

OECD (2000–2018). PISA Data 2000–2018 [Data set]. https://pisadataexplorer.oecd.org/ide/idepisa/.

36.

OECD (2020). PISA 2018 Database [Data set]. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.

37.

Peng

Wang

T. F.

Wang

C. C.

Lin

(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.

Purpura

D. J.

Ganley

C. 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.

Reynolds

M. R.

Scheiber

Hajovsky

D. B.

Schwartz

Kaufman

A. 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.

Ritchie

S. J.

Bates

T. 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-Cimpian

J. P.

Lubienski

S. T.

Ganley

C. M.

Copur-Gencturk

(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.

Rydell

R. J.

Rydell

M. T.

Boucher

K. 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.

Sastry

Pebley

A. 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.

Stockard

Rohlfing

C. M.

Richmond

G. 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.

Stoet

Geary

D. 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.

Vukovic

R. K.

Lesaux

N. 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.

Wei

Zhao

Chen

Dong

Zhou

(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.

Yang

Meng

(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.

Zhang

B. Y.

Ren

L. X.

Fan

X. 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.

Zhou

Zeng

(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.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB