A new perspective on women's math achievement.

Abstract

This article presents an examination of the little noted sex-related difference in classroom grades. In contrast to standardized measures of mathematics achievement, girls receive better math grades than do boys. Three hypotheses are proposed to account for this difference. The first hypothesis proposes that boys' greater math experience facilitates their performance on standardized tests. The second hypothesis proposes that math learning styles account for the observed differences. Autonomous learning behavior is presumed to facilitate performance on standardized tests, whereas rote learning is presumed to facilitate performance on classroom exams. The third hypothesis proposes that boys and girls respond differently to novel and familiar achievement situations. It is hypothesized that girls do better when dealing with familiar situations such as classroom exams, whereas boys do better when dealing with novel situations such as standardized tests. Theoretical and empirical evidence consistent with each hypothesis is reviewed, and directions for further research are explored.The traditional view of sex-related differences in mathematics achievement has focused on nonclassroom measures of mathematics achievement, usually a standardized test. The conclusions from this literature are reasonably consistent. Sexrelated differences do not reliably appear until the junior high school years; when they appear, they almost always favor boys, and differences are greater for very bright adolescents.One question has been thoroughly explored in the literature: When do sex-related differences favoring boys appear? Up until junior high school, sex-related differences are rare. The most common finding is that sex-related differences do not occur (

How parents influence school grades: Hints from a sample of adoptive and biological families

“…In general, girls receive higher grades than boys and score more highly on achievement tests, from elementary school through college (e.g., Kimball, 1989;Mau & Lynn, 2001). This is in spite of the fact that boys tend to score slightly higher than girls on college and other aptitude tests (Mau & Lynn, 2001).…”

Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations.

“…Aspects of modality also matter: Stumpf and Stanley (1996) and others have found that boys do better than girls on multiple-choice measures but not on free response measures in some subjects. Thus, sex differences may be greater on the SATs than on AP exams because SATs are composed of multiple-choice items, whereas AP exams are only half multiple choice (see also Kimball, 1989).…”

“…1 Finally, Arden and Plomin (2006) reported that on an index of general intelligence, boys were overrepresented in the top and bottom 10% and had greater variance at ages 3, 4, 7, and 10 years. Such findings track with national mathematics achievement test data, including representative samples of British 11-to 12-year-olds in which boys' variability exceeds girls ' (Strand et al, 2006) as well as U.S. samples across a wide age range (Lohman & Lakin, in press).Notwithstanding these findings, there are no longer gender differences in the number of demanding mathematics courses taken in high school, and girls get better grades in such courses than boys (Gallagher & Kaufman, 2005;Kimball, 1989;Mau & Lynn, 2000;Xie & Shauman, 2003). Moreover, in the United Kingdom, the proportion of 16-year-old girls achieving A to C grades in mathematics exceeds the proportion for boys.…”

Sex differences in math performance: The role of children's approach to schoolwork.

“…tions to the contrary, girls also receive equal or higher grades than do boys in stereotypically masculine subject areas, such as math and science (e.g., American College Testing Program, 1997;Jacobs, 1991;Pomerantz et al, 2002; for reviews, see American Association of University Women, 1999;Dwyer & Johnson, 1997;Kimball, 1989). Hence, in terms of grades, girls outperform boys in both stereotypically feminine and masculine areas.…”