Selected evolving literature on female achievement and new data on high ability females is presented in an overview of the existing situation for gifted young women. Data on current achievement and aspirations as well as background and environmental factors influencing that achievement are presented as the background to a discussion of needed research and understanding. Specific performance data on aptitude and achievement tests are presented in contrast to data on grades. Career plans and aspirations are discussed in light of attitudes toward mathematics and science; beliefs and behaviors of parents and teachers; and past performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American College Testing Program. (1989). State and national trend data for students who take the ACT Assessment. Iowa City: American College Testing Program.
2.
ArmstrongJ. (1981). Achievement and participation of women in mathematics: Results of two national surveys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 356–372.
3.
ArnoldJ. (1979). A national assessment of achievement and participation of women in mathematics. Denver: Education Commission of the States (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187656).
4.
ArnoldK.DennyT. (1985). The lives of academic achievers: The career aspirations of male and female valedictorians and salutatorians. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
5.
BeckerJ. (1981). Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics and Education, 12, 356–372.
6.
BeckerD.ForsythR. (1990 April). Gender differences in grades 3 through 12: A longitudinal analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
7.
BenbowC.StanleyJ. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact. Science, 210, 1262–1264.
8.
BenbowC.StanleyJ. (1983). Differential course-taking hypothesis revisited. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 469–473.
9.
BoyerE. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row.
10.
BrophyJ. (1985). Interactions of male and female students with male and female teachers. In WilkinsonL. C.MarretC. B. (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 115–142). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
11.
BrophyJ. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: Where research should be going. Journal for Research in Mathematics, 17, 323–346.
12.
CallahanC. (1986). The special needs of gifted girls. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18, 105–117.
13.
CampbellP. (1988). Who's better? Who's worse? Research and the search for differences. Groton, MA.
14.
ChipmanS.BrushL.WilsonD. (Eds.) (1985). Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation. New York: Erlbaum Associates.
15.
ChipmanS.WilsonD. (1985). Understanding course enrollment and mathematics achievement. In ChipmanS. F.BrushL. R.WilsonD. M. (Eds.), Women and Mathematics: Balancing the equation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
ConroyM. (1989 April). Where have all the smart girls gone? Psychology Today, 20.
17.
DickensM. (1990). Parental influences on the mathematics self-concept of high achieving adolescent girls. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
18.
DweckC.DavisonW.NelsonS.EnnaB. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and III. An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268–276.
19.
EcclesJ.BlumfieldP. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are there differences and do they matter? In WilkinsonL. C.MarretC. B. (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 79–114). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
20.
EcclesJ.JacobsJ. (1986). Social forces shape math perception. Signs, 11, 368–380.
21.
Educational Testing Service. (1989a). 1989 profile of SAT and achievement test takers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
EntwisleD. R.BakerD. P. (1983). Gender and young children's expectations for performance in arithmetic. Developmental Psychology, 19, 200–209.
24.
FeingoldA. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103.
25.
FennamaE. (1990). Justice, equity, and mathematics education. In FennamaE.LederG. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 1–9). New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
FennamaE. (1990). Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In FennamaE.LederG. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169–187). New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
FennamaE.LederG. (1990). Mathematics and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
FennamaE.PetersonP. L. (1985). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gender-related differences in mathematics. In WilkinsonL. C.MarretC. B. (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 79–114). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
29.
FennamaE.PetersonP. (1987). Effective teaching for girls and boys: The same or different? In BerlinerD. C.RosenshineB. V. (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 11–125). New York: Random House.
30.
FennamaE.Sherman, (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics and achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51–71.
31.
FennamaE.TartareL. (1985). The use of spatial visualization in mathematics by girls and boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 184–206.
32.
FinklesteinM. (1984). The American academic profession. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
33.
FloresP. (1990 April). How Dick and Jane perform differently in geometry: Test results on reasoning, visualization, transformation, applications and coordinates. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
34.
FriedmanL. (1989). Mathematics and the gender gap: A meta-analysis of recent studies on sex differences in mathematical tasks. Review of Educational Research, 59, 185–213.
35.
GearyD. (1989). A model for representing gender differences in the pattern of cognitive abilities. American Psychologist, 44, 1155–1157.
36.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
GoertzM. (1989). Course taking patterns in the 1980's. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
38.
GradyJ. (1987). Trends in the selection of science, mathematics, or engineering as major fields of study among top scoring SAT takers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
39.
GreenbergS. (1990). Sex equity from early through postsecondary education. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
40.
HallinanM.SorensenA. (1987). Ability grouping and sex differences in mathematics achievement. Sociology of Education, 60, 63–72.
41.
HalpernD. (1989). The disappearance of cognitive gender differences: What you see depends on where you look. American Psychologist, 44, 1156–1158.
42.
MustinHare R.MarecekJ. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, post-modernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455–464.
43.
HornL. (1990 April). Trends in high school math and science course taking: Effects of gender and ethnicity. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
44.
HydeJ.FennamaE. (1990 April). Gender differences in mathematics performance and affect: Results of two meta-analyses. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
45.
JacklinC. (1989). Females and males: Issues of gender. American Psychologist, 44, 127–133.
46.
JacobsJ.EcclesJ. (1985). Gender differences in math ability: The impact of media reports on parents. Educational Researcher, 14(3), 20–25.
47.
JohnsonL.LewmanB. (1990). Parent perceptions of the talents of young gifted boys and girls. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 176–188.
48.
KachuckB. (1990 April). Assumptions about the nature and value of sex equity. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
49.
BenjaminKelly K. (1990 April). Performance differences on SAT math questions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
KimballM. (1989) A new perspective on women's math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198–214.
52.
KissaneB. (1986). Selection of mathematically talented students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 221–241.
53.
KoehlerM. (1990). Classrooms, teachers, and gender differences in mathematics. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 149–168). New York: Teachers College Press.
54.
LangermanD. (1990). Books & boys: Gender preferences and book selection. School Library Journal, 36, 132–136.
55.
LederG. (1987). Teacher student interaction: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 255–271.
56.
LeinhardtG.SeewaldA.EngleM. (1979). Learning what's taught: Sex differences in instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 432–439.
57.
LevineG. (1990 April). Arithmetic development: Where are the gender differences? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
58.
LinnM.HydeJ. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 14, 51–71.
59.
LinnM.PetersenA. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.
60.
LinnM.PetersenA. (1986). A meta-analysis of gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science achievement. In HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 67–101). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
61.
MartinD.HooverH. (1987). Sex differences in educational achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 65–83.
62.
McBrideM. (1990 April). Gender and the discourse of mathematics education: A study of the effects of the consequences of socialization. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
63.
MednickM. (1989). On the politics of psychological constructs: Stop the bandwagon, I want to get off. American Psychologist, 44, 1118–1123.
64.
MeehanA. (1984). A meta-analysis of sex differences in formal operational thought. Child Development, 55, 1110–1124.
65.
MullisI.JenkinsL. (1988). The science report card: Elements of risk and recovery. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
66.
NilsenA. (September, 1987). Three decades of sexism in school science materials. School Library Journal, 117–122.
67.
National Science Foundation. (1990). Women and minorities in science and engineering. Washington, DC: author.
68.
National Center for Fair and Open Testing. (1990 Summer). The ACT bias, imprecision and misuse. FairTest EXAMINER, 4(3), 3–5.
69.
PallasA.AlexanderK. (1983). Sex differences in quantitative SAT performance: New evidence on the differential coursework hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 165–182.
70.
ParsonsJ.AdlerT.KaczalaC. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321.
71.
PetersonP.FennamaE. (1985). Effective teaching, student engagement in classroom activities, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 309–335.
72.
PhillipsD. (1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among highly competent children. Child Development, 58, 1308–1320.
73.
RamistL.ArbeiterS. (1986). Profiles, college-bound seniors, 1985. New York: College Board Publications.
74.
ReisS. (1989). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 83–88.
75.
ReisS.CallahanC. (1989). Gifted females: They've come a long way—or have they? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(2), 99–117.
76.
RiordanC. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College.
77.
RosserP. (1989). Sex bias in college and admissions tests: Why women lose out. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair and Open Testing.
ScarrS. (1988). Race and gender as psychological variables: Social and political issues. American Psychologist, 43, 56–59.
80.
ShapiroL. (1990 May 26). Guns and dolls. Newsweek, 56–59, 61–62, 65.
81.
ShermanJ. (1977). Predicting mathematics performance in high school girls and boys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 242–249.
82.
SmartJ. (1990 April). Sex equity in academic rank and salary. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
83.
StageE.KreinbergN.EcclesJ.BeckerJ. (1985). Increasing the participation and achievement of girls and women in mathematics, science, and engineering. In KleinS. S. (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education (pp. 237–268). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
84.
SubotnikR.StraussS. (1990 April). Gender differences in achievement and classroom participation: An experiment involving advanced placement calculus classes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
85.
TidballE. (1986). Baccalaureate origins of recent natural science doctorates. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 606–620.
86.
TimmJ. (1988). Cultural bias in children's storybooks: Implications for education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
87.
WebbN. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 33–44.
88.
WebbN.KenderskiC. (1985). Gender differences in small group interaction and achievement in high- and low-achieving classes. In WilkinsonL. C.MarrettC. B. (Eds.), Gender differences in classroom interaction (pp. 209–236). New York: Academic Press.
89.
WeinerB. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
90.
WhiteH. (1986). Damsels in distress: Dependency themes in fiction for children and adolescents. Adolescence, 21, 251–225.
91.
WhitleyB.McHughM.FriezeI. (1986). Assessing the theoretical models for sex differences in causal attribution. In HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (Eds.). The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 102–135). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
