Over the last few decades, researchers have studied the issue of gender differences in math achievement, especially among highly able females. The Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), the most widely used instrument in the screening of college applicants, continues to show large and consistent differences among high-ability males and females, with profound implications for the educational opportunities and life choices of females. This research study, using qualitative research methods, examined the psychosocial, home, and school characteristics of female seniors in high school who achieved above the 95th percentile on the quantitative section of the SAT. The findings suggest that educators and parents can promote the strengths of mathematically talented females resulting in a number of positive psychosocial factors such as: a view of math as positive and useful, a style that encourages the attribution of success to talent, and confidence and persistence in tasks. In addition, educators who model a passion for mathematics, provide challenging learning activities, and occasionally enable their female students to work cooperatively may encourage these students’ talents. Parents who maintain high expectations for mathematics achievement, who are willing to donate their own time to work with their children on mathematics, and who seem excited and interested in the domain themselves may help their children to achieve at higher levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongJ. M.PriceR. A. (1982). Correlates and predictors of women's mathematics participation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 99–109.
2.
ArnoldK. (1992). Undergraduate aspirations and career outcomes of academically talented women: A discriminate analysis. Roeper Review, 15, 169–175.
3.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.IhrigD.ForstadtL. (2006). Attributional choices for academic success and failure by intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 283–294.
4.
BeckerB. J. (1990). Item characteristics and gender differences on the SAT-M for mathematically able youths. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 65–87.
5.
BelenkyM. F.ClinchyB. M.GoldbergerN. R.TaruleJ. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
6.
BenbowC. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–183.
7.
BleekerM.JacobsJ. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers' beliefs matter 12 years later?Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 97–109.
8.
CallahanC. M. (1979). The gifted and talented woman. In PassowA. H. (Ed.), The gifted and talented (pp. 401–423). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
9.
CallahanC. M. (2001). Beyond the gifted stereotype. Educational Leadership, 59, 42–46.
10.
ChipmanS. F.KrantzD. H.SilverR. (1992). Mathematics anxiety and science careers among able college women. Psychological Science, 3, 292–295.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
College Board. (2006). Total group profile report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
DickensM. N.CornellD. G. (1993). Parent influences on the mathematics self-concept of high ability adolescent girls. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 53–73.
16.
DrysdaleM.MilneS. (2004). Gender differences in math and verbal self-concept and the impact on academic achievement (Online Submission). Waterloo, ON, Canada: Department of Psychology. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (Ed490612)
17.
DweckC. S. (1999) Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis Group.
18.
DweckC. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? (pp. 47–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19.
EcclesJ. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women's Quarterly, 18, 585–609.
20.
EcclesJ.AdlerT. F.FuttermanR.GoffS. B.KaczalaC. M.MeeceJ. L.MidgleyC. (1985). Self-perceptions, task perceptions, socializing influences, and the decision to enroll in mathematics. In ChipmanS. F.BurshI. R.WilsonD. M. (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation (pp. 95–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
EcclesJ. S.JacobsJ. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11, 367–380.
22.
EnmanM.LupartJ. (2000). Talented female students' resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11, 161–178.
23.
ErlandsonD. A.HarrisE. L.SkipperB. L.AllenS. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
FeistG. (2006). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Journal of Adult Development, 13, 23–35.
25.
FennemaE. (1990). Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169–187). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
FennemaE.KoehlerM. (1982, March). The affective variable: Confidence in learning mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
27.
FennemaE.PetersonP. L. (1986). Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of gender-related differences in mathematics. In WilkinsonL. C.MarrettC. B. (Eds.), Gender-related differences in classroom interactions (pp. 17–35). New York, NY: Academic Press.
28.
FettermanD. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Forrest CataldiE.FahimiM.BradburnE. M. (2005). 2004 national study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF: 04): Report on faculty and instructional staff in fall 2003 (NCES2005-172). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
30.
FromeP.EcclesJ. (1998). Parents' influence on children's achievement related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 435–452.
31.
GallM. D.BorgW. R.GallJ. P. (1989). Educational research, introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
32.
GallagherS. A.JohnsonE. A. (1992). The effect of time limits on performance of mental rotations by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 19–22.
33.
GavinM. K. (1996). The development of math talent: Influences on students at a women's college. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 476–485.
34.
GavinM. K. (1997). A gender study of students with high mathematics ability: Personological, educational, and parent variables related to the intent to pursue quantitative fields of study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
35.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
GjertsenA. (1999). Where have all the girls gone? A study of females' perceptions of math success for female high school students and implications for leadership, policy, and practice (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4), 954.
37.
HalpernD.AronsonJ.ReimerN.SimpkinsS.StarJ.WentzelK. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science (NCER 20072003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov
38.
HeilmanM.WallenA. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.
39.
HerbertJ.StipekD. (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children's perceptions of their academic competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 276–295.
40.
HydeJ.FennemaE.RyanM.FrostL.HoppC. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299–324.
41.
JacobsJ.EcclesE. (1993). The impact of mothers' gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers' and children's ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932–944.
42.
JonesS.DindiaK. (2004). A meta-analytic perspective on sex equity in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 74, 443–471.
43.
KellyA. (1986). Gender roles at home and school. In BurgonL. (Ed.), Girls into math can go (pp. 90–109). London, England: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
44.
KimuraD. (2007). “Underrepresentation” or misrepresentation? In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? (pp. 27–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
45.
KleinS. (Ed.). (1985). Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46.
KloostermanP. (1990). Attributions, performance following failure and motivation in mathematics. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 96–127). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47.
LantzA. E.SmithG. P. (1981). Factors influencing the choice of non-required mathematics courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 825–837.
48.
LederG. C. (1988). Teacher-student interactions: The mathematics classroom. Unicorn, 14, 161–166.
49.
LederG. C.FennemaE. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics: A synthesis. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 149–168). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
50.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Research, evaluation, and policy analysis: Heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (Ed252966)
51.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 61–66.
52.
LubinskiD.BenbowD. (2001). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Association for Psychological Science, 1, 316–344.
53.
LubinskiD.BenbowC.WebbR.Bleske-RechekA. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194–199.
54.
McDanielT. (1994). The education of Alice and Dorothy: Helping girls to thrive in school. Clearing House, 68, 43–45.
55.
MerriamS. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
MeyerM. R.KoehlerM. S. (1990). Internal influences on gender differences in mathematics. In FennemaE.LederC. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 60–95). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
57.
MuellerC. M.DweckC. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52.
National Science Foundation. (2006a). Bachelor's degrees awarded in S&E and non-S&E fields, by sex: 1966-2004. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/figc-1.htm
60.
National Science Foundation. (2006b). Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2004. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics
NewcombeN. (2007). Taking science seriously: Straight thinking about spatial sex differences. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? (pp. 27–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
63.
NortonM.VandelloJ.DarleyJ. (2004). Causitry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 817–831.
64.
PallasA. M.AlexanderD. L. (1983). Sex differences in quantitative SAT performance: New evidence on the differential coursework hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 165–182.
65.
ParsonsJ. E.MeeceJ. L.AdlerU. F.KaczalaC. M. (1982). Sex differences in attributions and learned helplessness. Sex Roles, 8, 421–432.
66.
PedroJ. C.WolleatP.FennemaE.BeckerA. D. (1981). Election of high school mathematics by females and males: Attributions and attitudes. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 207–218.
67.
ReisS. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented females. Storrs, CT: Creative Learning Press.
68.
ReisS. M.CallahanC. M.GoldsmithD. (1994). Attitudes of adolescent gifted girls and boys toward education, achievement, and the future. In ArnoldK. D.NobleK. D.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 209–224). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
69.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7–20.
70.
ReyesL. H. (1984). Affective variables and mathematics education. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 558–581.
71.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
72.
ScarrS. (1996). How people make their own environments: Implications for parents and policy makers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 204–228.
73.
SeligmanM. (1991). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Knopf.
74.
SteeleJ.JamesJ.BarnettR. C. (2002). Learning in a man's world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46–50.
75.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
76.
SubotnikR.StoneK. M.SteinerC. (2001). Lost generation of elite talent in science. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 33–43.
77.
TillbergH.CohoonJ. M. (2005). Attracting women to the CS major. Frontiers, 26, 126–140.
78.
TocciC.EngelhardG. (1991). Achievement, parental support, and gender differences in attitudes towards mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 280–287.
79.
ToutkoushianR.BellasM. (2005). The effects of part-time employment and gender on faculty earnings and satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 172–195.
WolleatP. L.PedroJ. D.BeckerA. D.FennemaE. (1980). Sex differences in high school students' causal attributions of performance in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 356–366.
83.
YinR. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
XieY.ShaumanK. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
