Despite improvement in mathematics achievement test scores for females in general, there persists a gender gap in the achievement test scores among the gifted. “Old” perspectives on the problem, including biological or psychological differences and a broad problem definition, are no longer helpful or supported by the research data. The Autonomous Learning Behavior (ALB) model is presented as an alternative model to explain the continued presence of the gap and as a basis for finding effective solutions. Ideas for change and some new avenues for research are proposed, consistent with the ALB framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvinoJ. (1981). The devil's advocate: An interview with Julian Stanley and Camilla Benbow. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 4(3), 169–176.
2.
AtwehB.CooperT.BleicherR. E. (1995, April). Social context in mathematics classrooms: Social, critical and sociolinguistic perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
3.
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.
4.
BernS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
5.
BenbowC.StanleyJ. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?. Science, 210, 1262–1264.
6.
BenbowC.StanleyJ. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031.
7.
BerlinerD. (1989). Furthering out understanding of motivation and environments. In AmersC.AmesR. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education. Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 317–342). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
BerryJ. W. (1966). Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 15–32.
9.
BruerJ. T. (1993). The mind's journey from novice to expert. American Educator, 17(2), 6–15, 38–46.
10.
BuerkD. (1985). The voices of women making meaning in mathematics. Journal of Education, 167(3), 59–70.
11.
CallahanC. M. (1991). An update on gifted females. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 284–311.
12.
CampbellP. B. (1995). “Redefining the “girl problem in mathematics.” In SecadaW. G.FennemaE.AdajianL. B. (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 225–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CasserlyP. L. (1975). An assessment of factors affecting female participation in advanced placement programs in mathematics, chemistry, and physics (Grant No. GY-11325). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
14.
ColangeloN. (1988). Discussant reaction: Bright girls in mathematics and engineering. In DreydenJ. I.GallagherS. A.StanleyG. E.SawyerR. N. (Eds.), The proceedings of the Talent Identification Program/National Science Foundation conference on academic talent (pp. 235–241). National Science Foundation (No. MDR-8751410).
15.
ConnollyP.VilardiT. (Eds.). (1989). Writing to learn mathematics and science. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
16.
DawsonJ. L. (1967). Cultural and physiological influence upon spatial-perceptual processes in West Africa. Parts I and II. International Journal of Psychology, 2, 115–118, 171–185.
17.
DeauxK. (1984). From individual differences to social categories-analysis of a decade's research on gender. American Psychologist, 39(2), 105–116.
18.
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(1), 53–73.
19.
DreydenJ. I.GallagherS. A. (1989). The effect of time and direction changes on the SAT. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 8(3), 187–204.
20.
EalesA. (1986). Girls and mathematics at Oadby Beauchamp College. In BurtonL. (Ed.), Girls into math can go (pp. 163–186). London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
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. 251–300). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22.
EcclesJ. S.HaroldR. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbrosonD. L. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 2–30). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.
23.
ParsonsJ. Eccles (1984). Sex differences in mathematics participation. In SteinkampM.MaehrM. (Eds.), Women in science (pp. 93–138). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
24.
FeingoldA. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103.
25.
FennemaE. (1990). Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169–185). New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
FennemaE.PetersonP. K.CarpenterT. P.LubinskiC. (1990). Teachers' attributions and beliefs about girls, boys and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(55), 55–67.
27.
FennemaE.ReyesL. H. (1981, October). Teacher/peer influences on sex difference in mathematics confidence (Final report of the National Institute of Education grant NIE-G-79–0112). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Curriculum and Instruction.
28.
FennemaE.ShermanJ. (1977). Distribution of spatial and visualization and mathematical problem solving scores: A test of Stafford's X-linked hypothesis. Psychology of Woman Quarterly, 3(2), 157–167.
29.
FennemaE.ShermanJ. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and socio-cultural factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14(1), 51–71.
30.
FoxL. H.BrodyL.TobinD. (1980). Women and the mathematical mystique. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
GallagherA.De LisiR. (1994). Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test-Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 204–211.
32.
GallagherJ. J.AschnerM. J.JenneW. (1967). Productive thinking of gifted children in classroom interaction. (CEC Research Monograph Series B5). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
33.
GallagherS. A. (1989). Predictors of SAT-Mathematics scores of gifted male and gifted female adolescents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(2), 191–204.
34.
GallagherS. A.JohnsonE. S. (1992). The effect of time limits on performance of mental rotations by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 19–22.
35.
GilliganC. I. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
GoughH. G. (1960). The Adjective Check List as a personality assessment research technique. Psychological Reports, 6, 107–122.
37.
HorowitzF. D.O'BrienM. (1985). Perspectives on research and development. In HorowitzF. D.O'BrienM. (Eds.). The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 437–454). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38.
HydeJ. S.FennemaE.LamonS. J. (1990) Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139.
39.
JohnstonW. B.PackerA. H. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
40.
JungeM. E.DretzkeB. J. (1995). Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 22–28.
41.
KindfieldA. C. H. (1994). Understanding basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis. Science Education, 78(3), 255–283.
42.
KnightS. L.WaxmanH. C. (1991). Students' cognition and classroom instruction. In WaxmanH. C.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 239–256). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
43.
KoehlerM. S. (1990). Classrooms, teachers, & gender differences in mathematics. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 128–148). New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
KramerL. R. (1991). The social construction of ability perceptions: An ethnographic study of gifted adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(3), 340–362.
45.
KrutetskiiV. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. (TellerJ., Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
LederG. C. (1990a). Gender differences in mathematics: An overview. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 10–25). New York: Teachers College Press.
47.
LederG. C. (1990b). Teacher/student interactions in the mathematics classroom: A different perspective. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 149–167). New York: Teachers College Press.
48.
LeeV. E. (1992). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary school classrooms. Education and Sociology, 67(2), 92–120.
49.
LeeV. E.MarksH. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors and values in college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 578–592.
50.
MalcolmS. (1988). Brilliant women for science, mathematics and engineering: Getting more than we deserve? In DreydenJ. I.GallagherS. A.StanleyG. E.SawyerR. N. (Eds.), The proceedings of the Talent Identification Program/National Science Foundation conference on academic talent (pp. 215–229). National Science Foundation (No. MDR-8751410).
51.
MaslowA. H. (1942). Self-esteem (dominance feeling) and sexuality in women. Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 259–294.
52.
McCoyL. P. (1994). Mathematical problem-solving processes of elementary male and female students. School Science and Mathematics, 94(5), 266–270.
53.
MeyerM. R.KoehlerM. S. (1990). Internal influences on gender differences in mathematics. In FennemaE.LederG. C. (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 60–95). New York: Teachers College Press.
54.
MullisI. V. M.DosseyJ. A.OwenE. H.PhillipsG. W. (1993). NAEP 1992 mathematics report card for the nation and the states: Data from the national and trial state assessments (Report No. 23-STO2). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
55.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
56.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
57.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.KuliekeM. J.ShawB.WillisG. B. (1990). Predictors of achievement in mathematics for gifted males and females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(2), 64–71.
58.
PetersonA. C. (1979). Hormones and cognitive functioning in normal development. In WittigM. A.PetersonA. C. (Eds.), Sex related differences in cognitive functioning. New York: Academic Press.
59.
ReisS.CallahanC. M. (1989). Gifted females: They've come a long way-or have they?. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(2), 99–117.
60.
RiordanC. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate?New York: Teachers College.
61.
RobertsJ. (1972). Intellectual development of children by demographic and socioeconomic factors (DHEW Publication No. [HSM] 72–1012, Series 11, No. 110). Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.
62.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
63.
SelkowP. (1985). Male/female differences in mathematical ability: A function of biological sex or perceived gender role?. Psychological Reports, 57, 551–557.
64.
ShavelsonR. J.SternP. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455–498.
65.
ShermanJ. (1982). Continuing in mathematics: A longitudinal study of the attitudes of high school girls. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7(2), 132–140.
66.
ShermanJ.FennemaE. (1977). The study of mathematics by high school girls and boys: Related variables. American Educational Research Journal, 14(2), 159–168.
67.
SilvermanL. K. (1995). Why are there so few eminent women?. Roeper Review, 18(1), 5–13.
68.
SkolnickJ.LangbartC.DayL. (1982). How to encourage girls in math and science. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymore.
69.
SolarC. (1995). An inclusive pedagogy in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(3), (pp. 311–333).
70.
SpiroR.VispoelW.SchmitzJ.SamarapungavanA.BoergerA. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive application for transfer in complex content domains. In BrittonB. (Ed.), Executive control processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
71.
StanleyJ. C.BenbowC. P.BrodyL. E.DauberS.LupkowskiA. E. (1992). Gender differences on eighty-six nationally standardized achievement and aptitude tests. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbrosonD. L. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 31–41). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.
72.
SteinbackM.GwizdalaJ. (1995). Gender differences in mathematics attitudes of secondary students. School Science and Mathematics, 95(1), 36–41.
73.
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, MA.
74.
TartreL. A. (1990). Spatial orientation skill and mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 216–229.
75.
TartreL. A.FennemaE. (1995). Mathematics achievement and gender: A longitudinal study of selected cognitive and affective variables (grades 6–12). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(3), 199–217.
76.
TerwilligerJ. S.TitusJ. C. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(1), 29–35.
77.
TudorM. T. (1992). Expert and novice differences in strategies to problem solve and environment issue. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(4), 329–339.
78.
ThorsenC. (1995). Systemic change is underway InGEAR: Integrating gender equity and reform. Education Equity Report, 4(1), 1–4.
79.
WebbN. M.KenderskiC. M. (1985). Mathematics small group interactions among high ability learners. Gender differences in small group interaction and achievement in high- and low-achieving classes. In WilkinsonL. C.MarrettC. B. (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction (pp. 209–236). New York: Academic Press.
