Girls’ comparative advantage in language arts explains little of the gender gap in math-related fields: A replication and extension

Abstract

Women remain underrepresented in most math-intensive fields. [Breda and Napp, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 , 15435 (2019)] reported that girls’ comparative advantage in reading over math (i.e., the intraindividual differences between girls’ reading vs. math performance, compared to such differences for boys) could explain up to 80% of the gender gap in students’ intentions to pursue math-intensive studies and careers, in conflict with findings from previous research. We conducted a conceptual replication and expanded upon Breda and Napp’s study by using new global data (PISA2018, N = 466,165) and a recent US nationally representative longitudinal study (High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, N = 6,560). We coded students’ intended majors and careers and their actual college majors. The difference between a student’s math vs. reading performance explained only small proportions of the gender gap in students’ intentions to pursue math-intensive fields (0.4 to 10.2%) and in their enrollment in math-intensive college majors (12.3%). Consistent with previous studies, our findings suggest girls’ comparative advantage in reading explains a minority of the gender gap in math-related majors and occupational intentions and choices. Potential reasons for differences in the estimated effect sizes include differences in the operationalization of math-related choices, the operationalization of math and reading performance, and possibly the timing of measuring intentions and choices. Therefore, it seems premature to conclude that girls’ comparative advantage in reading, rather than the cumulative effects of other structural and/or psychological factors, can largely explain the persistent gender gap in math-intensive educational and career choices.

The role of comparative processes in shaping the effects of between-class ability grouping on students’ math ability self-concept.

“…Similarly, Breda and Napp (2019) found that in education systems with a higher level of horizontal stratification (e.g., more educational tracks, students being sorted into different education programs at an earlier age), 15-year-old girls showed a larger comparative advantage in reading over math than boys (i.e., a larger difference between math and reading ability). This observation supports the idea that in countries with early tracking practices, students may strive to identify their relative strengths earlier (e.g., girls identify reading as their strength) and specialize in their relative strength area more (also see Wan et al, 2023b). Thus, ability grouping may increase students’ use of dimensional comparisons in forming their academic self-concept.…”