“If female underachievement is best measured by the many talented women in our society who look back at their lives with feelings of regret, it then becomes our responsibility to help future generations of gifted and talented females before they, too, underachieve.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BelenskyM. F. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. Learning and Instruction, 2, 199–213.
2.
BrownL. M.GilliganC. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. New York: Ballantine Books.
3.
Educational Testing Services. (2004). 2004 college-bound seniors: A profile of SAT program test takers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4.
FlindersC. L. (1998). At the root of this longing. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
5.
GavinM. K. (1996). The development of math talent: Influences on students at a women's college. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 476–485.
6.
GreenM. Y. (2000). Why aren't girls more tech savvy?NEA Today, 19(3), 31.
7.
JukesI. (1997). It's not the Internet, it's the information. Communicator, 28(2), 16–17, 46–47.
8.
KarpK. S.NiemiR. C. (2000). The math club for girls and other problem solvers. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5, 426–432.
9.
KerrB. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness (Rev. ed.) Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
10.
KramerP.LehmanS. (1990). Mismeasuring women: A critique of research on computer ability and avoidance. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 158–172.
11.
LeppienJ. H. (1995, Spring). Underachievement of gifted females. Montana Association for Gifted and Talented Education Newsletter.
12.
MackerethM.AndersonJ. (2000). Computers, video games, and literacy: What do girls think?Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 23, 184–196.
13.
MarkJ. (1992, June). Beyond equal access: Gender equity in learning with computers. Women's Educational Equity Act Publishing Center Digest, 1–8.
14.
MilneH.ReisS. M. (2000). Using videotherapy to address the social and emotional needs of gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 23(1), 24–29.
15.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
16.
National Science Foundation. (1996, September). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author.
17.
National Science Foundation. (2000). Shaping the future. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
NelsonC.WatsonJ. A. (1991). The computer gender gap: Children's attitudes, performance, and socialization. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 19, 343–353.
19.
NugentS. A. (2001). Technology and the gifted: Focus, facets, and the future. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 38–45.
20.
ReisS. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices & compromises of talented females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
21.
ReisS. M. (2002). Gifted females in elementary and secondary school. In NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 125–135). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
22.
RenzulliJ. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
23.
RogersP. (1990). Thoughts on power and pedagogy. In BurtonLeone (Ed.), Gender and mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 38–46). London: Cassell.
24.
RosserS. V. (1989). Teaching techniques to attract women to science: Applications of feminist theories and methodologies. Women's Studies International Forum, 12, 363–377.
25.
Vernon-GerstenfeldS. (1989). Serendipity? Are there gender differences in the adoption of computers? A case study. Sex Roles, 21, 161–173.
26.
VolmanM. (1997). Gender-related effects of computer and information literacy education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 315–328.
27.
VolmanM.van EckE. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71, 613–634.
28.
VolpeB. J. (1999). A girls' Math Olympiad team. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4, 290–293.
29.
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. (1998). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
30.
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women (2000). Techsavvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
