Do Great Minds Think Alike? High-Ability Male and Female Students’ Perceptions of Mathematics

Abstract

Many researchers have debated potential differences between male and female students’ mathematical performance. One important factor that can impact performance is perception of the content. The purpose of the study is to investigate factors that impact high-ability male and female students’ perspectives of mathematics. Participants (n = 12; n_f = 5, n_m = 7) attended a 10-day residential summer camp during which the researchers conducted individual, semistructured interviews with each participant. Using a thematic analysis, the researchers examined the interview transcripts for themes by gender. Six common themes emerged between male and female students: perseverance, performance, self-efficacy, enjoyment of content, social component, and life relevance. Female students reported that adult influence was also a factor. Further examination showed that female students are more likely to report enjoyment of content as a factor, whereas males are more likely to report perseverance and performance.

Keywords

academic perceptions gender differences mathematics thematic analysis

The notion that a gender gap exists in mathematics achievement favoring male students has been a debated topic for years. Early efforts to refute this claim date back to the 1970s (Fennema & Sherman, 1977), yet academics have been continually studying aspects of this matter on both national (Fan et al., 1997; Reilly et al., 2015) and international (Else-Quest et al., 2010; Ethington, 1990) scales through various lenses, such as NAEP data (Reilly et al., 2015) and data from PISA and TIMMS (Else-Quest et al., 2010). Although the research is vast, there does not seem to be a universally accepted statement regarding the veracity, depth, or rationale for this potential gap. Despite this lack of consensus, some educators and policymakers have accepted the differences in achievement between the genders as common knowledge. This comparison between male and female students has created misconceptions surrounding female mathematic ability, viewing female achievement through a deficit focused lens. Deficit thinking is an overrepresentation of underperformance due to an internal factor, such as gender or ethnicity (Valencia, 1997). Once society accepted female students’ underperformance in mathematics as truth, reconstruction of the female reputation in mathematics and other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields became an uphill battle.

Discrepancies in Research

A key consideration when interpreting research is thorough analysis and consistent reporting of results over time. Generally, research earns higher credibility if repetition of the study reproduces the original results (Park, 2004). The power of replicable results is that there is a modicum assurance that a particular outcome occurs across different samples, different regions, different selection processes, and across various settings. One facet of the study of gender effects in mathematics education is that the results are inconsistent. In fact, depending on the country, the direction of the gender gap changes (e.g., Shafiq, 2013) or disappears altogether (e.g., Ghasemi & Burley, 2019; Scheiber et al., 2015; Shafiq, 2013). As far as mathematics performance is concerned, gender has been regarded as a weak predictor (Lindberg et al., 2010). Therefore, it is necessary to analyze research on the gender gap in its entirety and consider all causes for the discrepancy.

Standardized Testing

One source of data that has helped develop the idea of the gender gap is performance trends on standardized assessments. At the international level, researchers are primarily influenced by two tests: the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), administered to 15-year-old students every 3 years, and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), administered to fourth- and eighth-grade students every 4 years. At the national level, researchers reference the SAT and the ACT, which are typically administered to 11th- and 12th-grade students with college admission intentions. Researchers have utilized each of these tests to report statistically significant differences in mathematics achievement in favor of male students (e.g., Cheema & Galluzzo, 2013; Meinck & Brese, 2019; Nokes-Malach et al., 2019; Reilly et al., 2015; Rinn et al., 2008). However, the large sample sizes used when analyzing international and national mathematics skills increase the risk of a Type I Error (Kallus, 2018), or reporting statistical significance where there was no practical importance (Anderson et al., 2017). Therefore, it is necessary to take sample size into account when studies report small but significant differences, such as in large-scale studies on national and international assessments.

Labeling Proficiency or Ability

Measurement of students’ proficiency in mathematics or science is rife with controversy. First, when considering whether ability testing (or prediction testing) or standards-based testing is the correct choice when considering students labeled gifted or talented has created greater controversy and radicalized extremes. For example, in the late part of the 20th century, the idea of ability testing was the gold standard when working with gifted or talented students (Hodges et al., 2018; Wigdor, 1982). In the early 21st century, the term “ability testing” was replaced with “psychological testing,” and again it was touted to be preferable to other forms of evaluation when considering gifted and talented students (Hogan, 2019). However, gender, racial, equitable access, and socioeconomic status biases have recently been raised (Ford & Whiting, 2011; Hodges et al., 2018; Reynolds et al., 2021; Wai & Liang, 2023). Those biases are not new to the discourse surrounding testing or evaluation, regardless of the form. Biases can creep into every environment regardless of diligence, and it is important to be cognizant of the strengths and weaknesses of any assessment and work diligently to moderate the impact of well-known biases.

Within the realm of measuring proficiency or academic ability, there are several labels used for different purposes. Among these include giftedness and honors, and while there is often overlap in their populations, there are still distinctions (Kotinek, 2018). Even within a singular label, there may be distinctions based on locations. For example, in the United States, there is not one singular definition for the term “gifted” (Rinn et al., 2022). The National Association for Gifted Children’s (2019) position statement on defining giftedness noted that these students may perform “at higher levels compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains” (p. 1). For the purposes of the present study, the researchers have adopted the term “high ability” to encapsulate students who have either been labeled as gifted or advanced, or who have otherwise shown high levels of performance in one or more academic areas when compared to their peers.

Magnitude Versus Meaning

Too often statistical significance is taken at face value, resulting in inaccurate or misleading results. A recurring theme in prior research on gender and mathematics achievement is the reporting of significant differences in the form of a p value. However, effect sizes tend to give a clearer picture and are generally regarded as more robust. Researchers may report a statistically significant p value when the data correspond to a low, even negligible, effect size, especially when there is a large sample size (Capraro, 2004; Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). Several studies on gender and mathematics in which the effect size was included hint that the gender gap may be minimal (Hattie et al., 2016), if not nonexistent (Chamberlin, 2005; Fan et al., 1997; Hyde et al., 1990; Lindberg et al., 2010). Thus, it is important to consider the magnitude of the statistical significance being reported before determining how meaningful it is in the grand scheme of research and reporting.

Stereotype Threat

A major issue with deficit thinking is stereotype threat. The normalization of the belief that females perform at a lower ability than their male counterparts may lead to apprehension about performance, thus exaggerating underperformance (Good et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 1999) and confirming a negative stereotype as a self-characteristic (Steele & Aronson, 1995). As students age, their perception of STEM subjects shifts from gender-neutral to male dominant (Archer et al., 2010; Brandell & Staberg, 2008; Ghasemi & Burley, 2019). In terms of parental support, male students are typically held to higher mathematics performance expectations (Fryer & Levitt, 2010) and are more often encouraged to pursue careers involving mathematics (Mujtaba & Reiss, 2016) than their female counterparts. Moreover, even in countries where there is gender equity, there exists evidence of gender stereotyping in STEM fields. For instance, the Netherlands is widely considered as a country with gender equity; however, there is a four-to-one ratio of male to female scientists (Miller et al., 2015). Furthermore, female students who identify with the stereotypes of gender and mathematics performance tend to experience a greater level of mathematics anxiety than those who do not (Kapitanoff & Pandey, 2017). Even among students who claim high ambition in regard to continuing with mathematics after secondary schooling, those who are male report more positive perceptions and confidence in mathematics than those who are female (Mujtaba & Reiss, 2016). In a way, the continuation of the assumption that male students outperform female students could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

High-Ability Students

Students with strong academic or mathematical ability create an interesting cross section in the examination of the gender gap in mathematics. Multiple studies have suggested that the gender gap in favor of males not only exists among high-ability students, but it is even more exaggerated than in the general population (e.g., Li et al., 2017; Winkelmann et al., 2008). However, once again there are discrepancies, as other studies with high-ability students in more controlled settings reported no statistically significant differences between male and female students (e.g., Edmunds et al., 2020; Rinn et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2007). Regarding attitude in high-ability students, females were shown to have lower levels of self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics than males. In fact, these differences in attitude were stronger than those found when comparing the gender differences among average-ability students (Preckel et al., 2008). It is important to note, once again, that this may not hold in every case (e.g., Rinn et al., 2008). Thus, further exploration regarding the area of gender differences among high-ability students in mathematics is needed.

Perception and Performance

Aptitude and insight are two factors that may impact a person’s perception of a particular subject. For instance, prior research has shown that there are many factors regarding perception that can influence a student’s preference for or performance in mathematics courses (e.g., Winheller et al., 2013). More specifically, there is a strong, positive relationship between both mathematics self-concept and mathematics achievement and mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics achievement. In other words, students’ beliefs about their identities and abilities as mathematicians are positively linked to their achievement and mathematics (Kung, 2009). According to Bandura (1982), self-efficacy is tied to interest, perseverance, and even career pursuit. For example, if students do not feel like they belong as a member of the community, such as female students exposed to the belief that they are innately less skilled in mathematics, they are less likely to pursue a career in that area (Good, 2012). In that same regard, feeling anxiety in relation with mathematics has been negatively linked to mathematics achievement (e.g., Barroso et al., 2021), and female students tend to feel more anxiety in mathematics than male students (Devine et al., 2012). Additionally, students who initially experience success and later experience challenges may look to explanations such as biological (i.e., gender) limitations to explain their newfound struggle (Good, 2012). Furthermore, regardless of the increasing amount of high-ability female representation in traditionally male-dominated fields, issues such as stereotype threat still ultimately prevent many high-ability females from entering STEM fields (Kerr & Wright, 2016) as subjects such as science are socially constructed (Freeman & Garces-Bascal, 2021). Regardless of their achievement, high-ability females regard themselves as of greater ability in language arts and humanities in contrast to their male peers who regard themselves of greater ability in math and science (Rudasill & Callahan, 2010). Therefore, there is still a need for research on how high ability may impact perceptions and preferences for STEM fields in females. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following research question: What factors impact high-ability male and female students’ perceptions of mathematics?

Method

Setting

This study took place over a 2-week period at a competitive-admittance STEM summer camp at a large university in Texas. All students attending the camp paid an admission fee. The camp was residential, meaning that all students in attendance spent the entire 2 weeks at the camp facility, including mealtimes and rest. The camp was dedicated to high-ability students and had strict entrance requirements and rigorous curricular components.

Admissions Process

Prior to attending camp, each student had to submit an application packet that included an admissions exam, an essay, and letters of recommendation from a teacher and from a community member outside of the student’s family. Additionally, students had to have taken either a physics or Algebra II course prior to attending the camp.

The entrance exam used during the admissions process was the Honors Camp Instrument (Coalition of Honor Colleges, 2015). This exam was designed to measure students’ readiness for a rigorous science and mathematics immersive experience, such as a competitive-admittance STEM camp in the case of the present study. Questions from the exam consist of material from the following areas: Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, Physics, Genetics, Chemistry, and Natural Science. We pilot tested the instrument in a high school calculus class and high school physics class. In regard to validity, the correlations for the scores were .91 for calculus (with Calculus AB exam results) and .96 for physics (with the AP Physics exam results). Additionally, the internal consistency reliability was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha. The scores were .96 in mathematics and .93 in science.

In connection to the camp’s rigorous nature, only students who scored in the top 16% on the admissions exam were accepted to the camp. The instrument and a subsequent algorithm were used to set a cut score for that group of students. The cut score was established by the algorithm that makes use of the highest score attained, the reliability, and item difficulty scores. Therefore, if a student scored a perfect score on both instruments and the rest of the group scored more than one standard deviation (SD) below that score, it would likely result in an admission of exactly one student. The purpose of the algorithm is to ensure that students are similar across all tested components, which we consider foundational to the camp experiences.

Camp Atmosphere

Throughout the camp, students participated in various STEM courses and activities. During the day, students attended 90-minute courses in discrete mathematics, 3D design, smart systems structures, and virtual reality. Afterward, the students visited various labs and other STEM-related facilities around campus, such as a mechanical engineering lab and a veterinary school. Additionally, the students attended panel discussions with speakers who held careers in various STEM fields. By the end of camp, students developed skills such as flying drones and 3D printing and gained insight into various outlets for pursuing a STEM career.

Discrete Mathematics Course

This study takes place within the discrete mathematics course. In this course, students learned about various mathematical concepts they would not typically experience in their school curriculum. Each day, the students participated in group discussions on trigonometry and discrete mathematics. As part of the trigonometry portion, the students learned about angle of elevation and applied this knowledge to estimate the heights of various buildings on campus using angles measured with self-constructed astrolabes. For the discrete mathematics portion, students solved daily logic puzzles and learned about topics such as knot theory and logic proofs. Importantly, this course gave the students access to rigorous high school and college-level topics in an interactive setting. The researchers chose this course as the setting for this intervention based on its mathematical focus and designed the questions while considering its rigorous nature.

Researchers

A team of four researchers was responsible for the construction of this study. The discrete mathematics course was designed and taught by two of the primary researchers in the present study, Researchers A and B. Researcher A was the primary instructor for the course. She is a postdoctoral scholar and former middle and high school mathematics teacher with previous experience teaching the course. Researcher B aided in instructional activities and course design. At the time of the camp, she was an undergraduate student enrolled in an undergraduate program studying mathematics with a focus in education. Researcher C helped with the analysis but not the course development or instruction. She is a former high school mathematics teacher and current doctoral student. Researchers A, B, and C are all female. Researcher D is a male mathematics education professor. He oversaw the overall construction of the course and final development of the present study. However, he did not participate in the coding process.

Participants

A total of 20 students attended the competitive-admittance STEM camp. On the camp application, students supplied self-reported demographics. All participants of the present study were entering Grades 10–12 at the time of the camp. Eighty percent of the participants attended high school in Texas, and the remaining 20% attended high school in a different state or country. Eight of the students were female and 12 were male. The reported ethnicities of the entire competitive-admittance camp included 55% White, 20% Hispanic or Latino, 20% Asian, and 5% Black or African American.

For the purposes of this study, the researchers only included interviews from students who had previously taken a trigonometry or precalculus course (n = 12, n_f = 5, n_m = 7). This decision was based on a prior study (Edmunds et al., 2020) using the same group of participants. All students completed a pretest and posttest at the beginning and end of the camp, as well as single interviews during camp. The researchers found that the only significant predictor of student achievement on the posttest within the discrete mathematics course was previous knowledge (i.e., whether they had previously taken a trigonometry or precalculus course). Because there were statistically significant differences in the posttest scores between those who had previously taken trigonometry or precalculus and those who had not, the current researchers excluded the student interviews from those who had not previously taken trigonometry or precalculus. Furthermore, within the group of students who had previously taken trigonometry or calculus, there were no statistically significant differences between male and female participants. Thus, limiting the participants to students who had prior course experience provided a more homogeneous grouping to control for any differences other than the potential ones in perceptions to be revealed in the present data analysis. Self-reported demographic information for each of the participants can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Codes and Self-Reported Demographics.

Participant	Gender	Grade (Approaching)	Race/Ethnicity
1	Female	12	White
2	Female	12	Asian
3	Female	12	White
4	Female	12	White
5	Female	12	White
6	Male	11	White (Spanish speaking)
7	Male	11	Black
8	Male	12	White
9	Male	12	White
10	Male	12	Asian
11	Male	12	White
12	Male	11	Asian

Procedure

Researchers A and B constructed semistructured interview questions focused on the students’ perceptions of the camp and their high school mathematics courses. The interview questions are adapted from Pintrich and DeGroot’s (1990) Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. When selecting and redesigning the questions, the researchers considered the students’ highly abled nature and interest in a STEM summer camp. Students were encouraged to share stories about specific classes they had taken or experiences they had in prior mathematics courses. A list of the initial interview questions can be found in the Appendix.

Throughout the camp, Researcher B individually interviewed all of the students. During each interview, the researcher created an audio recording. From the recordings she transcribed the interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 20–30 minutes.

Analysis

Three researchers analyzed the interview transcripts: Researchers A and B as well as Researcher C, a mathematics teacher and doctoral student. Prior to analysis, Researcher A assigned dummy codes to each participant. Upon completion of the analysis, the dummy codes were reassigned to easily distinguish participants’ genders (i.e., 1–5 for female participants and 6–12 for male participants).

The researchers analyzed the data inductively using thematic analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Researcher A coded the interviews. Apart from two sample interviews, Researcher B coded only the male students’ interviews, and Researcher C coded only the female students’ interviews. Researchers B and C did not know that their interviews were all of one gender until after coding had been completed. First, the three researchers met and coded two interviews together to establish a coding system. More specifically, they coded the interviews for one female (Participant 1) and one male (Participant 6). Then, Researchers B and C coded two of their respective interviews each to compare with Researcher A. The researcher pairs (i.e., Researchers A and B and Researchers A and C) then met to compare the codes for the two interviews. At this time, any discrepancies in coding were discussed between the researchers until 100% agreement was reached between Researcher A and the respective other researcher. The process of coding two interviews at a time then comparing to agreement was repeated until all of the interviews were coded.

Once the researchers finished coding the interviews, the codes were combined into themes. Researchers B and C found themes for their respective subset, while Researcher A separated the interviews by gender and found themes for each. First, Researcher A compiled a list of all of the codes used to describe the female students’ interviews as well as a separate list for the male students’ interviews. Then, the researchers individually compared the codes for their respective subset and combined them into groups based on similarity. Once the codes were combined, the groups were labeled according to the overarching theme. The research pairs then compared their themes and code groups and discussed until 100% agreement was reached. Finally, the themes were compared across genders to find potential similarities and differences.

Results

In the interviews, the students were asked various questions regarding their perspectives on mathematics. Although the interviews were semistructured, all students were asked the same basic questions regarding their perceptions of their previous experiences in mathematics classes and to describe both positive and negative aspects in detail. The purpose of the present study was to determine if similar or different responses emerged between male and female students. Six themes emerged for male and female students alike: perseverance, performance, self-efficacy, enjoyment of content, social component, and life relevance. However, one additional theme emerged for the female students only: adult influence. Together, these themes provide insight into the areas that influence students’ perceptions of mathematics.

Perseverance

Nearly all of the students expressed a sense of persevering through their mathematics classes. In more than one instance, solving problems was likened to completing a puzzle. In these descriptions, students often expressed that the material posed a challenge, but not an impossible one. As perseverance may be associated with the notion of struggle or failure, these students indicated a preference for material that they had to wrestle with in comparison to material that they could process with minimal effort.

I’ll try to see, like, what I do know how to do and try to identify what I don’t know how to do. And then, if I can identify what I don’t know how to do, that’s a good first step in seeing how to do it. (Participant 9, Individual interview, June 27, 2019)

I like when there is a challenge because I’m pushing myself to do better. (Participant 1, Individual interview, June 17, 2019)

Performance

In both a positive and negative light, the students indicated that their performance was a major factor in their perceptions of mathematics. Although many students reported that they were extrinsically motivated in this regard, performance in mathematics was about personal improvement more than their grade point averages. Hence, most of the students appeared to be mastery-goal oriented (Dweck & Sorich, 1999). Many students expressed genuinely feeling excited about being able to complete tasks in their mathematics classes. However, some students expressed that if they were able to perform at the expected level without exerting a lot of effort, they would focus their effort elsewhere.

[I felt] very relieved and kind of excited. I get excited and like, “Oh my gosh, I solved it!” (Participant 2, Individual interview, June 18, 2019)

I just couldn’t get the motivation for it because I would never really get bad grades, so I gotta try and work on that. (Participant 8, Individual interview, June 26, 2019)

Self-Efficacy

How students felt about themselves as mathematics students was strongly tied to how they felt about their mathematics classes. In most instances, students expressed either a natural inclination for mathematics as a whole or reported success in their previous courses. There was still the occasional expression of low self-efficacy, but this was in the context of making smaller errors on information that the participant felt they should have known. One particular student saw room for personal growth through the potential for score improvement. In general, student responses indicated that there was a connection between their belief in their ability level and their outlook on the subject.

For the most part, I think I’ve done pretty well in my math courses. I haven’t had too much trouble with any. Usually math has been my stronger subject. (Participant 6, Individual interview, June 24, 2019)

I’m not really proud of how I perform because although I nail the concepts and ace it, I tend to make lots of mistakes, like small mistakes. (Participant 10, Individual interview, June 28, 2019)

Enjoyment of Content

Although mathematics is a required subject in school, many of the students reported a genuine interest in the subject even outside of the classroom. In fact, in many cases, students expressed an individual pursuit of mathematical content, such as recreational reading or creation of their own problems. Even if the relationship started as an academic obligation, these students expressed that it has grown to one of genuine interest.

Sometimes it’s just, it’s interesting. I really like it. I always liked math from back when I was in the third grade. (Participant 7, Individual interview, June 25, 2019)

We had this project in English where you had to read a nonfiction book… I picked a math book because I wanted to know more about that, and I fell in love with that book, and then I bought a whole bunch of other math books. (Participant 4, Individual interview, June 20, 2019)

Social Aspect

Like many aspects of adolescent life, peers played an important role in students’ perceptions of mathematics. This was expressed in many forms, such as peer tutoring or studying, competition for grades, or collaboration on assignments. The students indicated that regardless of whether their friends were in their classes, peers influenced their perspectives on mathematics. This social component impacted not only their motivational levels but also their genuine interest in the content.

I always help, like, my friends that are sitting around me in my math class. Freshman year was, like, Algebra II, and I had a couple friends that never really understood the topics… I’d like to go over there and eat pizza with them and help them with math. (Participant 11, Individual interview, June 17, 2019)

I do like to be competitive in math and show off, so that’s kind of fun. (Participant 4, Individual interview, June 20, 2019)

Relevance

Students commonly expressed that the mathematics they have learned will play an important role in their future. Some explicitly mentioned careers in mathematics, whereas others knew that success in mathematics was a pathway to another field. Some students also mentioned that mathematics played an important role in their general lives, such as in basic reasoning and problem-solving skills. Regardless of the context, mathematics is relevant to the students’ lives outside of high school.

Math is an important subject because it applies to a lot of things. (Participant 3, Individual interview, June 19, 2019)

I’m interested in engineering careers like chemical or electrical, so learning all this advanced math, like calculus, all that stuff, I think would be very helpful for understanding those engineering classes. (Participant 7, Individual interview, June 25, 2019)

Adult Influence

Female students stressed the impact that adults have in their lives, namely, their parents and teachers. From instructional approaches to forms of encouragement, how these influences interacted with their students greatly affected how the student felt about mathematics classes. In most cases, adult influence instilled in the student a desire to learn. However, there were also instances where poor instruction or attitudes negatively impacted students’ views as well. Therefore, as the female students received input from the important adults in their lives, their perspectives towards mathematics were altered.

My math teacher really helped me get interested in math and taught me how fun math could be. (Participant 5, Individual interview, June 21, 2019)

When I was struggling at the end of the year, my mom was keeping me—not motivated, because of course I wanted to do the work and improve my grade. She just gave me more inspiration and encouragement. (Participant 3, Individual interview, June 19, 2019)

Comparison of Theme Frequencies

In analyzing the important factors that influenced students’ perceptions of mathematics, there appeared to be only one notable difference between the male and female responses. Specifically, female students reported that there was a level of adult influence on their perspectives of mathematics, whereas the male students did not. However, to further compare the responses between genders, the researchers wanted to discern if there were any meaningful differences in the level of influence of the themes.

The researchers compared the frequency of the codes’ occurrences to the total number of lines coded to assess the proportional impact on each gender’s perceptions of mathematics (see Figure 1). In this instance, a line refers to a quote or complete thought, and a response to an interview question may or may not be multiple lines. There were 150 lines coded for the male students and 158 lines for the female students (see Table 2). Therefore, even though there were two additional male student interviews, there was a comparable amount of data between the genders. When comparing only the common themes, the differences in percent frequency ranged from .2% to 5.2%. The themes of life relevance (.2%) and self-efficacy (.9%) had the smallest differences between male and female students, meaning these themes were the most similar between the two genders. Social component was another theme that had a similar degree of influence between the two genders, with its difference being only 2.5%. The differences in reporting performance (5.2%) and enjoyment of content (4.2%) were more considerable. Perseverance, the most commonly reported theme for male students, had one of the highest differences between the two groups (5.1%). Although all of these differences may be considered small, it is important not to overlook them.

Figure 1.

Percent frequency of themes by gender.

Table 2.

Frequency of Response Themes by Gender.

Theme	Male Frequency	Female Frequency
Perseverance	40	34
Performance	24	17
Self-efficacy	30	33
Enjoyment of content	26	34
Social aspect	18	15
Relevance	12	13
Adult influence	0	12
Total responses	150	158

The combination of overlapping themes and small differences in impact levels show that there are many similarities between the factors that impact high-ability male and female students’ perceptions of mathematics. Apart from female students’ tendency to report influence from adult figures, both genders reported the same factors of influence. When comparing the degree to which the common factors may impact student perceptions, the levels were comparable in most cases. Male students were more likely to mention how their performance impacted their perceptions, while female students were more likely to mention whether they enjoyed the content. The largest difference between the male and female students’ perspectives of mathematics, aside from the female-only theme of adult influence, was in the theme of perseverance, which male students were more likely to report. Overall, the honor students’ perceptions of mathematics were influenced similarly by these themes regardless of gender.

Discussion

In this study, high-ability male and female students responded similarly when asked about factors that influenced their perceptions of mathematics. This may suggest that, in many ways, gender is not an important factor in how students view mathematics. However, there are key differences in the responses that are worth mentioning.

The most obvious difference is that adult influence appeared to only be a theme in the female students’ interviews. This is not to state that male students were never influenced by the adults in their lives but rather that female students were influenced to such a degree that they mentioned it continuously in their interviews. This is consistent with the findings of Tully and Jacobs (2010), who found that women were more likely than men to recall verbal encouragement from their teachers. However, Tully and Jacobs also reported that male students were more influenced by family members, which is contradictory to our findings. This could be connected to Mujtaba and Reiss’ (2016) finding that, in students who have high aspirations in mathematics, male students tend to be more intrinsically motivated than female students. In other words, female students may have been more willing to mention their family and teachers during interviews in the current study due to their underlying external motivation.

Female students were also more likely than their male counterparts to report that they genuinely enjoyed the content in their mathematics courses. Though this is an internal factor, this could also be linked to the importance of adult influence in the female students’ lives. Female students are more likely to choose a STEM career if they have been encouraged in their mathematics classes (Tully & Jacobs, 2010). Therefore, because these female students experienced support and influence in mathematics from adults, they probably enjoyed the content more.

Another key difference is the extent to which male students reflected perseverance in their perceptions. It is no secret that high-ability students prefer a challenge (Bailey, 2007; Chamberlin, 2005) and even set the bar higher for themselves than general population students (Bailey, 2007). However, high ability or not, female students tend to have higher mathematics anxiety (Devine et al., 2012). Interestingly, perseverance is connected to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), indicating that students who fail to persevere in the face of adversity may experience anxiety, particularly in high-valued situations (Bandura, 1982). It is possible that even though the female students still reported qualities of perseverance and self-efficacy, their high expectations combined with high levels of mathematics anxiety may make them less likely to report it than their male counterparts. This also would further highlight the importance of encouragement and inspiration from the important adults in their lives. High-ability male students may be able to persevere more naturally in light of these differences.

One final difference is the level of importance the students place on performance. Male students were more likely to mention things like grades, success, and overall confidence as important factors in their perceptions of their mathematics classes. This is consistent with the work of Mendick (2005), who stated that female students have more difficulty feeling comfortable with mathematics. However, Tully and Jacobs (2010) found that female students were more likely than male students to report their high mathematical ability as a reason for choosing an engineering path. Most of the students in the present study responded that they were choosing to pursue some type of STEM career, so the difference is surprising. Sex-related differences in perceptions of mathematical ability have been previously explained by the confidence-anxiety dimension (Devine et al., 2012; Fennema, 1979; Seo et al., 2019). Prior research by Devine et al. (2012) found higher mathematics anxiety among female students compared to male students. However, Seo et al. (2019) found differences in students’ confidence in mathematical abilities at the intersection of race and sex, more specifically for male and female Hispanic and White students. Although our study uses interviews to capture students’ perceptions of mathematics and their abilities, our findings from students’ verbal descriptions align with male students demonstrating a more confident perspective.

This group of students is interesting for two important factors. First, it is important to emphasize that all of the participants attended a rigorous and competitive-admittance STEM camp. Second, the fact that the students chose to spend two weeks of their summer vacation in an immersive and rigorous STEM experience further distinguishes them from their age-level peers. Some of these findings align with existing research for average populations of high school students. However, examining this subpopulation provides greater insight into what makes high-ability learners unique and fills a gap in the literature.

Conclusion

For a long time, research suggested that male students were more mathematically inclined than their female counterparts (e.g., Fryer & Levitt, 2010). Not surprisingly, there is a deficit in the number of females pursuing STEM fields (e.g., Joensen & Nielsen, 2014). However, in more recent years, there has been an increasing amount of research that argues that there is no biological reason why this should be the case (e.g., Lindberg et al., 2010). Our findings indicate that although female students may be more receptive to adult influences, high-ability students have primarily the same factors influencing their perceptions of mathematics regardless of gender. This further explicates that any differences in mathematical performance between male and female students may be, in part, explained by issues such as deficit thinking and stereotype threat.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is the impact of cost of attendance. As the camp does have an associated cost, there is no moderator to determine how economic status may have played a role in students’ prior experiences. Fortunately, there were both full and partial scholarships that made camp accessible to students from families of lower economic status (specifically, 21% of campers received scholarships). Although we have access to information on the intersectionality of biological sex and racial background, we cannot specifically examine the intersection of socioeconomic background. Further, with more scholarship opportunities, the STEM summer camps could serve a more reflective subgroup of the U.S. student population. Another limitation is that of bias. Qualitative research is left to the interpretation of the researchers. As all three of the researchers during the coding process are female, it is possible that some of the interpretation may have been impacted by their own experiences as females in STEM. However, as only one of the researchers was aware of the gender of each participant during the coding process, the researchers do not find this bias to be of heavy concern. On a similar note, as Researcher B was an undergraduate student partaking in the university’s Honors program, and Researchers A and C have graduate degrees, the same bias could be applied as far as interpreting data of high-ability students. However, as all of the participants partook in the competitive-admittance program, the researchers feel that this bias did not pose a threat to the credibility of the findings. Finally, the sample in this study contains 12 students. While this does not negate the specific experiences shared by these students, educators and researchers should consider the sample size before generalizing further to a larger population.

Further Research

In the present study, the researchers noted many similarities and differences between male and female high-ability students’ perceptions of their mathematics experience. Perhaps one of the most noteworthy differences is the overall mentioning of adult influence for female students only. While there is existing research noting the importance of adult influence in females’ pursuit of STEM careers (e.g., Mendick, 2005), it would be interesting to further pursue this for both males and females in the context of high-ability learners. Perhaps the direct exploration via surveys or interview questions with male and female students could further determine the importance of adult influence for both male and female learners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported in part by Aggie STEM. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and access to data given by the Aggie STEM Co-Directors: Drs Luciana Barroso, Mary Margaret Capraro, and Robert M. Capraro.

Correction (September 2024):

Article updated online; for further details please see .

ORCID iD

Julia E. Calabrese

Miriam M. Sanders

Appendix

Author Biographies

Julia E. Calabrese, PhD, is a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Utah. She received her PhD in curriculum and instruction with an emphasis in mathematics education from Texas A&M University. She is a former secondary mathematics teacher. Her main research interests include STEM education and mathematical problem posing.

McKennah Edmunds is a secondary mathematics teacher and a former undergraduate researcher in the Department of Mathematics at Texas A&M University and worked with Aggie STEM in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture. Her research interests include gifted education and women in STEM.

Miriam M. Sanders is a doctoral student at Texas A&M University studying curriculum and instruction with an emphasis in mathematics education. Ms. Sanders has directed STEM summer camps at Texas A&M University and is involved with STEM outreach. She is also a former high school mathematics teacher.

Robert M. Capraro, PhD, is an Emeritus Professor and former Co-Director of Aggie STEM, and Professor Mathematics Education in the Department of Teaching Learning and Culture at Texas A&M University. Dr Capraro’s expertise is applied research in school settings, program evaluation, the teacher as change agent for STEM school improvement, and STEM student achievement.

References

Anderson

S. F.

Kelley

Maxwell

S. E.

(2017). Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1547–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617723724

Archer

DeWitt

Osborne

Dillon

Willis

Wong

(2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11‐year‐old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20399

Bailey

C. L.

(2007, October 12–14). Social and emotional needs of gifted students: What school counselors need to know to most effectively serve this diverse student population [Paper presentation]. Association for Counselor Education and Supervision 2007 Conference, Columbus, OH.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura

(1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359

Barroso

Ganley

C. M.

McGraw

A. L.

Geer

E. A.

Hart

S. A.

Daucourt

M. C.

(2021). A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 147(2), 134.

Brandell

Staberg

(2008). Mathematics: A female, male or gender‐neutral domain? A study of attitudes among students at secondary level. Gender and Education, 20(5), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250701805771

Capraro

R. M.

(2004). Statistical significance, effect size reporting, and confidence intervals: Best reporting strategies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034803

Chamberlin

S. A.

(2005). Secondary mathematics for high-ability students. In Dixon

F. A.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 461–479). Prufrock Press.

10.

Cheema

J. R.

Galluzzo

(2013). Analyzing the gender gap in math achievement: Evidence from a large-scale US sample. Research in Education, 90(1), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.7227/rie.90.1.7

11.

Coalition of Honor Colleges . (2016). Cooperative high school admission test for competitive admissions to informal STEM Programs. Coalition of Honor Colleges. Unpublished and not publicly available.

12.

Devine

Fawcett

Szűcs

Dowker

(2012). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while controlling for test anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Functions: BBF, 8(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-8-33

13.

Dweck

C. S.

Sorich

L. A.

(1999). Mastery-oriented thinking. In Snyder

C. R.

(Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 232–251). Oxford University Press.

14.

Edmunds

Calabrese

J. E.

Capraro

R. M.

Kwon

(2020, March 5–7). Battle of the sexes: Female performance in competitive STEM camps [Conference session]. Research Council on Mathematics Learning Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2020, March 5–7.

15.

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

16.

Ethington

C. A.

(1990). Gender differences in mathematics: An international perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/749458

17.

Fan

Chen

Matsumoto

A. R.

(1997). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: Findings from the national education longitudinal study of 1988. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(3), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943456

18.

Fennema

(1979). Women and girls in mathematics—equity in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10(4), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00417086

19.

Fennema

Sherman

(1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312014001051

20.

Ford

D. Y.

Whiting

G. W.

(2011). Beyond testing: Social and psychological considerations in recruiting and retaining gifted black students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003400106

21.

Freeman

Garces-Bascal

R. M.

(2016). Gender differences in gifted children. In Neihart

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Cross

T. L.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 16–28). Routledge.

22.

Fryer

R. G.

Jr. 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

23.

Ghasemi

Burley

(2019). Gender, affect, and math: A cross-national meta-analysis of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 2015 outcomes. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 7(10), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0078-1

24.

Good

Aronson

Harder

J. A.

(2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women’s achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.004

25.

Hattie

Fisher

Frey

Gojak

L. M.

Moore

S. D.

Mellman

(2016). Visible learning for mathematics, grades K-12: What works best to optimize student learning. Corwin Press.

26.

Hodges

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107

27.

Hogan

T. P.

(2019). Psychological testing: A practical introduction. John Wiley and Sons.

28.

Hyde

J. S.

Fennema

Lamon

S. J.

(1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139

29.

Joensen

J. S.

Nielsen

H. S.

(2016). Mathematics and gender: Heterogeneity in causes and consequences. The Economic Journal, 126(593), 1129–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12191

30.

Kallus

(2018). Optimal a priori balance in the design of controlled experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series B: Statistical Methodology, 80(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12240

31.

Kapitanoff

Pandey

(2017). Stereotype threat, anxiety, instructor gender, and underperformance in women. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417715202

32.

Kerr

B. A.

Wright

J. D.

(2016). Neuroscience and gender issues in STEM education and among high ability learners. In MacFarlane

(Ed.), STEM education for high-ability learners (pp. 225–246). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238218

33.

Kotinek

J. D.

(2018). Are you gifted-friendly? Understanding how honors contexts (can) serve gifted young adults. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 19(2), 17–24.

34.

Kung

H. Y.

(2009). Perception or confidence? Self-concept, self-efficacy and achievement in mathematics: A longitudinal study. Policy Futures in Education, 7(4), 387–398. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2009.7.4.387

35.

Zhang

Wang

(2017). Gender gap in mathematics and physics in Chinese middle schools: A case study of a Beijing’s district. The Urban Review, 49(4), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0409-x

36.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

37.

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

38.

Meinck

Brese

(2019). Trends in gender gaps: Using 20 years of evidence from TIMSS. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 7(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0076-3

39.

Mendick

(2005). Mathematical stories: Why do more boys than girls choose to study mathematics at AS-level in England? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000294192

40.

Miller

D. I.

Eagly

A. H.

Linn

M. C.

(2015). Women’s representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005

41.

Mujtaba

Reiss

(2016). Girls in the UK have similar reasons to boys for intending to study mathematics post-16 thanks to the support and encouragement they receive. London Review of Education, 14(2), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.14.2.05

42.

National Association for Gifted Children . (2019). A definition of giftedness that guides best practice. National Association for Gifted Children. https://nagc.org/resource/resmgr/knowledge-center/position-statements/a_definition_of_giftedness_t.pdf

43.

Nokes-Malach

T. J.

Kalender

Z. Y.

Marshman

Schunn

C. D.

Singh

(2019). Prior preparation and motivational characteristics mediate relations between gender and learning outcomes in introductory physics. In Traxler

Cao

Wolf

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 physics education research conference (pp. 1–2). American Association of Physics Teachers.

44.

Park

C. L.

(2004). What is the value of replicating other studies? Research Evaluation, 13(3), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154404781776400

45.

Pintrich

P. R.

DeGroot

E. V.

(1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

46.

Preckel

Goetz

Pekrun

Kleine

(2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315834

47.

Reilly

Neumann

D. L.

Andrews

(2015). Sex differences in mathematics and science achievement: A meta-analysis of national assessment of educational progress assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000012

48.

Reynolds

C. R.

Altmann

R. A.

Allen

D. N.

(2021). Mastering modern psychological testing (2nd ed.). Springer.

49.

Rinn

A. N.

McQueen

K. S.

Clark

G. L.

Rumsey

J. L.

(2008). Gender differences in gifted adolescents’ math/verbal self-concepts and math/verbal achievement: Implications for the STEM fields. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-818

50.

Rinn

A. N.

Mun

R. U.

Hodges

(2022). 2020–2021 state of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted.

51.

Robinson

Shore

B. M.

Enersen

D. L.

(2007). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Routledge.

52.

Rudasill

K. M.

Callahan

C. M.

(2010). Academic self-perceptions of ability and course planning among academically advanced students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(2), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100206

53.

Scheiber

Reynolds

M. R.

Hajovsky

D. B.

Kaufman

A. S.

(2015). Gender differences in achievement in a large, nationally representative sample of children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 52(4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21827

54.

Seo

Shen

Alfaro

E. C.

(2019). Adolescents’ beliefs about math ability and their relations to STEM career attainment: Joint consideration of race/ethnicity and gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0911-9

55.

Shafiq

M. N.

(2013). Gender gaps in mathematics, science and reading achievements in Muslim countries: A quantile regression approach. Education Economics, 21(4), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2011.568694

56.

Spencer

S. J.

Steele

C. M.

Quinn

D. M.

(1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373

57.

Steele

C. M.

Aronson

(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.5.797

58.

Sullivan

G. M.

Feinn

(2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1

59.

Tully

Jacobs

(2010). Effects of single-gender mathematics classrooms on self-perception of mathematical ability and post-secondary engineering paths: An Australian case study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.489940

60.

Valencia

R. R.

(1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Routledge.

61.

Wai

Liang

(2023). Some knowns and unknowns about developing cognitive excellence: History, research methods, policy, and politics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532231180888

62.

Wigdor

A. K.

(1982). Ability testing: Uses, consequences, and controversies. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1(3), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1982.tb00659.x

63.

Winheller

Hattie

J. A.

Brown

G. T.

(2013). Factors influencing early adolescents’ mathematics achievement: High-quality teaching rather than relationships. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9106-6

64.

Winkelmann

Heuvel-Panhuizen

Robitzsch

(2008). Gender differences in the mathematics achievements of German primary school students: Results from a German large-scale study. ZDM, 40(4), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0124-x