Possible reasons for the underparticipation of gifted girls in science fields are discussed in terms of (a) disparity in cognitive abilities, (b) personality characteristics, (c) attitudes toward science, (d) differences between in-school and out-of-school learning experiences, (e) gender differences in mathematics preparation, and (f) socialization factors. Suggestions for encouraging gifted girls to keep their options open by continuing to pursue advanced coursework in the sciences are given for teachers and counselors who work with them.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Admissions Testing Program of the College Entrance Examination Board. (1991). College bound seniors, 1991 profile of SAT and achievement test takers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
2.
AlperJ. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all along the way. Science, 260, 409–411.
3.
American Association of University Women. (1991). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
American Association of University Women. (1995). Growing smart: What's working for girls in school. Washington, DC: Author.
5.
American College Testing Program. (1989). State and national trend data for students who take the ACT assessment. Iowa City: American College Testing.
6.
BarbaR.CardinaleL. (1991). Are females invisible students? An investigation of teacher-student questioning interactions. School Science and Mathematics, 91(7), 306–310.
7.
BelenkyM. F.ClinchyB. M.GoldbergerN. R.TaruleJ. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
8.
BenbowC. P.StanleyJ. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?. Science, 210, 1262–1264.
9.
BrandweinP. F. (1988). Science talent: In an ecology of achievement. In BrandweinP. F.PassowA. H. (Eds.), Gifted young in science: Potential through performance. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
10.
BuescherT.OlszewskiP.HighamS. J. (1987, April). Influences on strategies adolescents use to cope with their own recognized talents. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Baltimore, MD.
11.
CallahanC. M. (1986). The special needs of gifted girls. Journal of the Child in Contemporary Society, 18(3–4), 105–117.
12.
CallahanC. M.AdamsC. M.BlandL. C.MoonT. R.MooreS. D.PeriM.McIntireJ. A. (1996). Factors influencing recruitment, enrollment, and retention of students in special schools of mathematics, science, and technology. In ArnoldK.NobleK. D.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 243–260). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
13.
CampbellJ. R.ConnollyC. (1987). Deciphering the effects of socialization. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 7(3), 208–222.
14.
CannonR. K.SimpsonR. D. (1985). Relationship among attitude, motivation, and achievement of ability grouped, seventh-grade, life science students. Science Education, 69(2), 121–138.
15.
ConartonS.SilvermanL. K. (1989). Feminine development through the life cycle. In DouglasM. A.WlakerL. E. (Eds.), Feminist psychotherapies (pp. 37–67). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16.
CooleyD.ChauvinJ. C.KarnesF. (1984). Gifted females: A comparison of attitudes by male and female teachers. Roeper Review, 6(3), 164–167.
17.
CzujkoR.BernsteinD. (1989). Who takes science? A report on student coursework in high school science and mathematics. (AIP Publication No. R-345). New York: American Institute of Physics.
18.
DeboerG. E. (1986). Perceived science ability as a factor in the course selections of men and women in college. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 343–352.
19.
DickensM. N. (1990). Parental influences on the mathematics self-concept of high achieving adolescent girls. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
20.
EcclesJ. S. (1984). Sex differences in mathematics participation. In SteinkampM.MaehrM. (Eds.), Women in science. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
21.
EcclesJ. S. (1985). Why doesn't Jane run? Sex differences in educational and occupational patterns. In HorowitzF. D.O'BrienM. (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 251–295). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22.
EcclesJ. S. (1987). Gender roles and women's achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172.
23.
EcclesJ. S.BlumenfeldP. (1985). Classroom experiences and student gender: Are there differences and do they matter? In WilkinsonL. C.MarrettC. (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
Educational Testing Service. (1988). The mathematics report card: Are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based on the 1986 National Assessment (Report No. 17-M-01). Princeton, NJ: Author.
25.
ErbT. O.SmithW. S. (1984). Validation of the attitude toward women in science scale for early adolescents. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(4), 391–397.
26.
FennemaE. (1977). Influences of selected cognitive, affective, and educational variables on sex-related differences in mathematics learning and studying. In Women and mathematics: Research perspectives for change. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
FennemaE.ShermanJ. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51–71.
28.
FoxL. H.TobinD. (1988). Update: Broadening career horizons for gifted girls. Gifted Child Today, 11(1), 9–12.
29.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
GrauP. N. (1985). Counseling the gifted girl. Gifted Child Today, 9(8), 8–11.
31.
HallinanM. T.SorensonA. B. (1987). Ability grouping and sex differences in mathematics achievement. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 63–72.
32.
HansenR.NeujahrJ. (1974). Career development of males and females gifted in science. The Journal of Educational Research, 68, 43–45.
33.
HartyH.BeallD. (1984). Attitudes toward science of gifted and nongifted fifth graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(5), 483–488.
34.
HighamS. J.NavarreJ. (1984). Gifted adolescent females require differential treatment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 8(1) 43–58.
35.
HillO. W.PettusW. C.HedinB. A. (1990). Three studies of factors affecting the attitudes of blacks and females toward the pursuit of science and science-related careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(4), 289–314.
36.
HollingerC. L.FlemingE. S. (1993). Project CHOICE: The emerging roles and careers of gifted women. Roeper Review, 15(3), 156–160.
37.
HydeJ. S.FennemaE. (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, MA.
38.
HydeJ. S.FennemaE.LamonS. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
39.
JonesL. R.MullisI. V. S.RaizenS. A.WeissI.WestonE. (1992). The 1990 science report card. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
40.
KahleJ. B.LakesM. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(2), 209–219.
41.
KahleJ. B.MatyasM. L.ChoH. (1985). An assessment of the impact of science experiences on the career choices of male and female biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 385–394.
42.
KellyK. R. (1993). The relation of gender and academic achievement to career self-efficacy and interests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(2) 59–64.
43.
KellyK. R.CobbS. J. (1991). A profile of the career development characteristics of young gifted adolescents: Examining gender and multicultural differences. Roeper Review, 13(4), 202–206.
44.
KerrB. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus: Ohio Psychology.
45.
KerrB. A. (1991). Educating gifted girls. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 402–415). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
46.
KlineB. E.ShortE. B. (1991). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent females. Roeper Review, 13(3), 118–121.
47.
KoballaT. R. (1988). The determinants of female junior high school students' intentions to enroll in elective physical science courses in high school: Testing the applicability of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(6), 479–492.
48.
KramerL. R. (1991). The social construction of ability perceptions: An ethnographic study of gifted adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 340–362.
49.
LeverJ. (1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children's play and games. American Sociological Review, 43, 471–483.
50.
LinnM.HydeJ. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17–27.
51.
LoebR. C.JayG. (1987). Self-concept in gifted children: Differential impact in boys and girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 10–14.
52.
LuftigR. L.NicholsM. L. (1991). An assessment of the social status and perceived personality and school traits of gifted students by non-gifted peers. Roeper Review, 13(3), 148–153.
53.
MalcomS. M.GeorgeY. S.MatyasM. L. (1985). Summary of research studies on women and in science, mathematics, and technology: A report to the NSF Directorate for Science and Engineering Education, Office of Studies and Program Assessments, Studies and Analyses Section. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
54.
ManisJ. D.ThomasN. G.SloatB. F.DavisC. S. (1989). An analysis of factors affecting the choice of majors in science, mathematics, and engineering at the University of Michigan (CEW Research Rep. No. 23). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Continuing Education of Women, University of Michigan.
55.
MatyasM. L.DixL. S. (Eds.). (1992). Science and engineering programs: On target for women?Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
56.
MatyasM. L.MalcomS. M. (Eds.). (1991). Investing in human potential: Science and engineering at the crossroads (AAAS Publication No. 91–39S). Washington, DC: AAAS.
57.
MethaA. T.KinnierR. T.McWhirterE. (1989). A pilot study on the regrets and priorities of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 167–174.
58.
NobleK. D. (1987). The dilemma of the gifted woman. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(3), 367–378.
59.
OakesJ. (1990). Lost talent: The underparticipation of women, minorities, and disabled persons in science (R-3774-NSF/RC). Santa Monica: Rand.
60.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. M.KuliekeM. J. (1989). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 125–145). New York: Teachers College Press.
61.
OttoP. B. (1991). One science, one sex?. School Science and Mathematics, 91(8), 367–372.
62.
PedroJ.WolleatP.FennemaE.BeckerA. (1981). Election of high school mathematics by females and males: Attributions and attitudes. American Educational Research Journal, 18(2), 207–218.
63.
ReisS. M. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 83–89.
64.
ReisS. M. (1991). The need for clarification in research designed to examine gender differences in achievement and accomplishment. Roeper Review, 13(4), 193–198.
65.
Robison-AwanaP.KehleT.JensonW. (1986). But what about smart girls? Adolescent self-esteem and sex role perceptions as a function of academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 179–183.
66.
RoeA. (1963). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd Mead.
67.
RossiA. (1965). Women in science: Why so few?. Science, 148, 1196–1202.
68.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1982). Sex equity handbook for schools. New York: Longman.
69.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
70.
SchunkD. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In AmerC.AmesR. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (vol 3), 13–44. New York: Academic Press.
71.
SilvermanL. K. (1993). Social development, leadership, and gender. In SilvermanL. K. (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 291–327). Denver: Love.
72.
SimpsonR. D.OliverJ. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grades six through ten. Science Education, 69(4), 511–526.
73.
SimpsonR. D.OliverJ. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1–18.
74.
SmithW. H.ErbT. O. (1986). Effect of women science career models on early adolescent attitudes toward scientists and women in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 667–676.
75.
SteinkampM. W.MaehrM. L. (1983). Affect, ability, and science achievement: A quantitative synthesis of correlational research. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 369–396.
76.
SubotnikR. F.ArnoldK. A. (1995). Passing through the gates: Career establishments of talented women scientists. Roeper Review, 18(1), 55–61.
77.
TaltonE. L.SimpsonR. D. (1985). Relationships between peer and individual attitudes toward science among adolescent students. Science Education, 69, 19–24.
78.
ThomasG. (1986). Cultivating the interest of women and minorities in high school mathematics and science. Science Education, 70(1), 31–43.
79.
VandenbergB. (1978). Play and development from an ethological perspective. American Psychologist, 33, 333–342.
80.
WalkerB. A.MehrM. (1992). The courage to achieve: Why America's brightest women struggle to fulfill their promise. New York: Simon & Schuster.
81.
WellsM. R. (1985). Gifted females: An overview for parents, teachers, and counselors. Gifted Child Today, 8(3), 43–46.
82.
WetherallH. J. (1990). The context of science classrooms: Relationships among expectations, attitudes, student-teacher interactions and student gender. (Doctoral dissertation, Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 473.
83.
WhiteP. E. (1992). Women and minorities in science and engineering: An update. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
