Current research and practice as well as media attention seem to indicate that opportunities for gifted females have increased while barriers to their achievement have decreased. However, before we become enthusiastic about these developments, a closer review of the implications and potential dangers of this attention must be conducted. This article will review recent research studies and analysis regarding gender and sex differences, point out promising research directions, and suggest future research needed to answer relevant questions. Sex bias in both programs and curriculum used in programs for the gifted will also be discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchenbachT. (1970). Standardization of a research instrument for identifying associative responding in children. Developmental Psychology, 2, 283–291.
2.
ArnoldK., & DennyT. (1985). The lives of academic achievers: The career aspirations of male and female high school valedictorians and salutatorians. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
3.
AxelrodT. (1988). Patently successful. Ms., XVI (10), 44–45.
4.
BayleyN., & OdenM. (1955). The maintenance of intellectual ability in gifted adults. Journal of Gerontology, 10, 91–107.
5.
BeckerB. (1986). Influence again: An examination of reviews and studies of gender differences in social influence. & LinnM. (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
6.
BegleyS. (1988, April 11). Closing the gender gap. Newsweek, 73.
7.
BelenkyM., ClinchyB., GoldbergerN., & TaruleJ. (1986). Women's ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
8.
BettsG. & NeihartM. (1986). Implementing self-directed learning models for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30 (4), 174–177.
9.
BrandonP., NewtonB., & HammondO. (1987). Children's mathematics achievement in Hawaii: Sex differences favoring girls. American Educational Research Journal, 24 (3), 437–461.
10.
CallahanC. (1979). The gifted and talented women. The gifted and talented (pp. 401–423). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
11.
ChipmanS. (1988). Far too sexy a topic. Educational Researcher, 17 (3), 46–49.
12.
ColeJ., & ZuckermanH. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256 (2), 119–125.
13.
ColemanJ. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press.
14.
DavisJ. (1964). Great aspirations: The school plans of America's college seniors. Chicago: Aldine.
15.
EcclesJ. (1984). Sex differences in mathematics participation. & MaehrM. (Eds.), Women in Science. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
16.
EcclesJ. (1987). Understanding motivation: Achievement beliefs, gender roles and changing educational environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY.
17.
EcclesJ., & JacobsJ. (1986). Social forces shape math participation. Signs, 11, 368–380.
18.
FarmerH. (1985). Model of career and achievement motivation for women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 363–390.
19.
FeingoldA. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43 (2), 95–103.
20.
FlaniganN. (1988, April 24). Sex and sabotoge. Detroit Free Press, pp. M1, M4–5.
21.
FoxL. (1977). Sex differences: Implications for program planning for the academically gifted. GeorgeW., & SolanoC. (Eds.), The Gifted and the creative: A fifty year perspective (pp. 113–138). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
23.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
GoldbergK. (1988). Among girls, ‘ethic of caring’ may stifle classroom competitiveness, study shows. Education Week, VII (31), 1, 24.
25.
HollingerC., & FlemingE. (1984). Internal barriers to the realization of potential correlates and interrelationships among gifted and talented female adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 135–139.
26.
HydeJ. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences? American Psychologist, 36, 892–901.
27.
HydeJ., & LinnM. (1986). The Psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
28.
JacobH., & BorlandJ. (1986). The interdisciplinary concept model: Theory and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30 (4), 159–163.
29.
KramerL. (1985). Social interaction and perceptions of ability: A study of gifted adolescent females. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
30.
LeeV., & BrykA. (1986). Effects of single sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 381–395.
31.
LerouxJ. (1985). Gender differences influencing gifted adolescents: An ethnographic study of cultural expectations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
32.
LerouxJ. (1988). Voices from the classroom: Academic and social self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 (3), 3–18.
33.
LinnM., & PetersonA. (1986). A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. & LinnM. (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
34.
LyonsN., HanmerT., & GilliganC.(in press). Making connections: The interpersonal world of Emma Williard Gif's.
35.
MaccobyE., & JacklinC. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
MakerC. (1986). Developing scope and sequence in curriculum. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30 (4), 151–158.
37.
OrdovenskyP. (1988, April 13). Test bias aids boys in scholarships. U.S.A. Today, 10.
38.
PallasA., & AlexanderK. (1983). Sex differences in quantitative SAT performance: New evidence on the differential coursework hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 165–182.
39.
ParsonsJ., AdlerT., & KaczalaC. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53 (4), 310–321.
40.
ReisS.(in press). A longitudinal study of gifted females.
41.
ReisS. (1981). An analysis of the productivity of gifted students participating in programs using the revolving door identification model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
42.
ReisS. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (2), 83–88.
43.
RenzulliJ. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
44.
SadkerM., & D. (1985). Sexism in the schoolroom of the '80s. Psychology Today, 19 (3), 54–57.
45.
SandersJ., & StoneA. (1986). The neuter computer. New York: Neal-Schuman.
46.
SchrageM. (1986, December 1). The story of my fair (nonpersonal computing) lady. Washington Post, p. 15, (business section).
47.
Study finds female superiority in verbal ability ‘no longer exists.’ (1988). Education Week, VII (31), 3.
48.
SubotnikR. (1988). The motivation to experiment: A study of gifted adolescents' attitudes toward scientific research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 (3), 19–35.
49.
TermanL. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Genetic studies of genius (vol. I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
50.
TermanL., & OdenM. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
51.
TermanL., & OdenM. (1947). The genetic study of genius: The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
52.
TermanL., & OdenM. (1959). The gifted child grows up. Genetic studies of genius (vol. IV). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
53.
TermanL., & OdenM. (1959). The gifted child grows up. Genetic studies of genius (vol. V). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
54.
& PassowA. (Eds.). (1986). Special focus on curriculum [Special issue]. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30 (4).
55.
WardV. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach. Westerville, OH: Merrill.
56.
WhitleyB., McHughM., & FreizeI. (1986). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attribution of success and failure. & LinnM. (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
57.
ZigliB. (1985, April 2). College hurts self-esteem of bright women. U.S.A. Today, sec. D, p. 1.
