Relation between Mathematics and Gender - Literature review Example

Mathematics and gender: Literature Review (Institution) (Name) (Course) (Module) (Prof) 15th June 2009 Introduction Conventional wisdom dictates that boys are better than girls in science subjects and mathematics. While no scientific prove is available to verify this claim, empirical evidence sways between approving this claim and at the same time disapproving it by showing that there is no difference in performance across the gender divide. In following this belief, girls have been relegated to certain careers that are assumed to be feminine and more befitting their status in the society while reserving some for men. However, lifestyle and cultural changes among other influences have seen that the aforementioned perceptions being done away with. However, this is being challenged by existing paradigms in education. Many specialists in this discussion agree that the benefits are monumental when considered on a global scale. The role of women in the society is changing and hence they need to take up more responsibility whose prerequisite is good education without gender bias. In looking at the role of gender in the performance of mathematics, various scholars and experts in the field of education have performed various studies and test to investigate the matter. In writing this paper, I have divided it into two sections. In the first section, I shall review four main articles in which I seek to evaluate the different authors’ position and views on the subject. The first article is titled “Different, not better: Gender differences in mathematics learning and achievement” by Eugene Geist and Margaret King. This article seeks to enlighten the reader that the learning environment is responsible for differences in learning and performance in mathematics in boys and girls. The article seeks to proof that existing teaching practices in mathematics are responsible for creating the difference. To eliminate the difference, they offer a number of strategies that I will discuss later. The second article is “Girls, boys, and computers for mathematics learning” by Helen Forgasz. This article is assumes the same perspective as the first in that it addresses the use of computers and computer applications in the teaching of mathematics. Conventionally, boys are said to be more attracted to technological gadgets such as computers than girls. Given that predisposition, the article seeks to find out whether the use of computers will widen the gap in performance in mathematics between boys and girls or will be useful in bridging the gap in performance or even in the harmonization of attitude towards mathematics both by the teachers and students. The third article is called “Gender and mathematics: An issue in the 21st century” by Joan Rossi Becker. The article addresses the modern relevant issues presented by inequality in mathematics learning between boys and girls. She addresses how the issue has escalated from the classroom level to societal level. In the article she looks at the problems that have led to the status quo where in more than one way appreciates the fact that the learning environment and the learning models are responsible for creating the difference and gap in mathematics preference and learning between boys and girls. The fourth article is “Gender equity in mathematics education” by Linda Levi. The article is an analysis of teachers’ views on the performance of boys and girls in mathematics. The author has conducted tests on the adoption of her recommended methods of ensuring equity in mathematics performance across the gender. This further enlightens this study in pinpointing clearly as to how teachers play an active in determining how girls and boys perform in the subject. In the second part of this paper, I will address an alternative approach to the problem as presented by Lynn Fox and Janet Soller in the article “Psychosocial Dimensions of Gender Differences in Mathematics.” Previous articles have given weight on the teaching methods while Soller and Fox give more to social factors that facilitate the gap in performance across the gender divide. As such, I will critically analyze this article from a perspective presented in the first section of this paper where the authors of the various articles seem to be in agreement in that the teaching methods contribute most to the difference in performance other than social influences. This paper will thus seek to answer the following questions which will guide the study. Is there any difference in the performance of boys and girls in mathematics? If so what are the causes? What are the conventional perceptions in performance in mathematics and gender? What are the suggested methods of alleviating the causes and facilitating equality in performance? Discussion PART A Becker (2003) says that although there has been considerable progress in gender equity in the mathematics classroom, inequities still exist. She gives an example in that only 15% of women constitute mathematics oriented professions such as geology, agricultural science and engineering among others. Again, women have been scoring an average of 30 points lower than their male counterparts in SAT tests. Levi (2000) supports this observation in part. She says that in the early stages of learning in the elementary classes, performance in mathematics for males and females is uniform. However, a smaller number of females participate in mathematics after elementary levels. This is explained by the social stigma that tends to look down upon women taking up “masculine subjects.” King and Geist (2008) on the other hand say that boys and girls are entirely different biologically and hence have different learning requirements. However, the present traditional modes of teaching mathematics do not meet the learning needs of both genders according to them. Could this therefore mean that boys are better at coping with the present inefficient modes of learning than girls are? According to King and Geist (2008) differences in performances between boys and girls in mathematics is a recent phenomenon as the 70s were characterized by girls out performing boys. The issue of gender in performance and attitude in mathematics pertains to the natural differences between boys and girls which directly influences how each sex understands and perceives mathematics as a subject (Levi, 2000). Becker (2000) on the other hand says that feminist models in investigating gender and mathematics performance stress that gender is socially constructed rather than biological and hence should be sued to acknowledge difference other than try to change one gender in order to improve performance in mathematics. Geist and King (2008) also say that the difference in gender should be appreciated in the classroom in the modern era. The authors add that “while their ability and potential to understand higher level mathematics is equal, their brains are different and more importantly, their approach to learning may be different” (p 44). However, society has shown that boys are expected to be better in mathematics than girls (Levi, 2000: Becker, 2003). Levi (2000) says that even teachers are more aware of gender in mathematics as a major issue. She summarizes three roles that teachers according to her study show in addressing the issue of gender in learning and teaching of mathematics. They are; providing equal opportunities and respecting differences, ensuring that girls and boys have the same experiences and attempting to compensate for the gender differences in society. The social perception of mathematics has had an impact on the enrolment and attitude towards the subject. Forgasz (n.d.) writes that males are more likely to stereotype mathematics as a male domain as compared to women. She says that the same applies to use of computers though parental encouragement is has seen girls using computers outside school or even own one thereby diluting the fear of computers as a males’ domain. Unfortunately, the use of computers in teaching mathematics might be exaggerating an already bad situation. Forgasz (n.d.) says that quotes Loyd, Loyd and Gressard (1987) who say that use of computers in teaching mathematics in the middle school level may contribute towards a less positive attitude towards mathematics by females. In this therefore, mathematics should be taught in the traditional system devoid of computers. But is this view consistent with modernization and development? No. empirical evidence as highlighted by Forgasz (n.d.) shows that there is wide optimism that use of comports like in the case of Australia strongly supports use of such technologic devices in teaching and learning. She says that computers present more room for creative teaching among other benefits. Computers have on the other hand increased the reach of the classroom from the physical to the virtual world in that, students and teachers are in constant communication through the internet and even follow up is enabled. Unfortunately, the adoption rate is not very fast. According to Forgasz, (n.d.), only 39% of teachers interviewed in a study in Australia use computers as a teaching aid in mathematics for one topic. More worrying is the fact that a relatively higher number of students do no believe that computers use helps in learning mathematics. The figures presented by Fogasz (n.d.) show that a student survey of 145 year 10 students in 2002 indicate that 37% of them are of the view that computers do not aide in learning mathematics while 25% believed it did and 38% were unsure. Furthermore, it can be argued the negative perception in computer aided mathematics leaning is losing popularity as compared to the data on the previous year where 27% of the interviewed 522 believed that computers aided in learning mathematics. Research according to Geist and King (2008) has shown that girls tend to feel less confident in a mathematics classroom than their male counterparts. Bevan (2001) is also quoted claiming that enjoyment levels in mathematics in girls drops at a higher rate than it is in boys (Geist and King, 2008). This would seemingly led to an expectation of girls moving away from mathematics as a subject as their progress in their education. However, Geist and King (2008) disapprove this expectation by showing the figure presented by National Assessment of educational Progress (NAEP) that shows that the number of girls taking up higher-level mathematics is identical to that of boys. Unfortunately, these figures only point to the fact that girls are not afraid of taking up mathematics due too it traditional stereotyping as a males domain. Geist and King however quote a number of authors, Bevan (2001), Tiedmann, 2000, Wilson, Snapp, (1992), who believe that there are very apparent differences between the boys and girls learning of mathematics. As such it would mean that teacher and tutors are responsible for changing the learning experience in boys and girls to make it sensitive to the differences in gender and improve performance on both sides since their ability and potential in mathematics is equal but brains are different biologically. This directly answers one of the questions that this paper seeks to answer: whether there is a difference in performance in mathematics between boys and girls and why it is so; difference in brain functioning. With the acceptance of a difference in the perception of knowledge specifically in mathematics, Becker (2003) sets out to proof how relevant and true is this argument in the understanding of mathematics. She (Becker) writes about a model presented by Belenky (1997) called Women’s ways of Knowing in which she theorizes five perspectives of knowing in females. These are silence, received knowing, subjective knowing, and procedural knowing and constructed knowing. In the first perspective, the learner does not posses the knowledge but relies on the knowledge of the source. In the received knowledge case, the girl learner obtains knowledge by listening and echoing the words of the teacher. In subjective knowing perspective, the girl learner uses judgment according to past experience to develop knowledge. In procedural knowledge, the leaner uses the voice of reason. This perspective presents the biggest difference in boys and girls as men tend to be more oriented to logic and arguments to assess validity while women tend to rely more on experience and conjecture. This model according to Becker (2003) is helpful in classroom application. First she identifies the need to stress of voice element in the classroom to assist girls in gaining knowledge. This is supported by the findings of a research by American Association of University Women which showed that girls are more of listeners in the calls and play a passive role more than boys. As such, their chances of developing their own knowledge are limited as they more often than not they only echo what they have heard from the teacher. To help them gain a voice of their own, Becker advices that girls should be assisted to develop their own voice and authority in the classroom through written exercises on what has been learned. PART B The article on Psychosocial Dimensions of Gender Differences in Mathematics by Fox and Soller (2001) offers an alternate perspective in addressing the gender difference in mathematics. Sally and Fox (2001) dwell on the psychosocial factors that have led the difference in mathematics performance along gender lines in their paper psychosocial dimensions of gender differences in mathematics. This article introduces a relatively new perspective in addressing the issue of gender and mathematics. It enriches the study in that the articles covered in the first section seem to have a narrow view while this paper addresses the problem from various angles. According Soller and Fox (2001) variability in the differences is mainly brought about by the inconsistency in the method and type of tests. The most common they have identified are career outcomes, number of degrees earned and course taking. Going by the NAEP tests conducted between 1995 and 1997, gender differences in mathematics performance in favor of the boys was highest in the lower grades while the difference narrowed as one moved to the higher grades. However, the NAEP only tests 8-year olds, 13-year olds and 17-year olds. The Scholastic Assessment Achievement Tests for Mathematics (SAT-M) for Math I and math II and graduate Record Examination (GRE) capture another age group in mathematics performance and difference between the genders among college students. Contrarily to the observation in the NAEP tests, the SAT tests indicate that there are wide gaps in performance with a record of 40 points in the mid 70’s. This is against the trend observed in the NAEP tests where gender differences in mathematics tend to narrow with age and supposed complexity in mathematics. However, the SAT also shows that there has been increased performance in girls who by 1995 had reduced the gap to only ten points. Unfortunately, the closing of the gap cannot be exclusively relayed to improved performance in girls but can also be argued that the drop has resulted from a decrease in performance by boys. The GRE tests according to Fox and Soller (2001) have indicated consistence in difference in performance between the genders. The significance of these tests is felt by ladies as colleges sue them for admission proving to be so costly to the girls. Away from the tests, course taking shows that the gap is closing. Soller and Fox (2001) quote Fennema and Sherman (1977) who say that boys are more likely than girls to advance a course in mathematics. However, this is contradicted by the rising number of girls taking calculus and other mathematics courses in the intensity as boys. On the other hand the girls are avoiding mathematic related courses such as physics and computers according to Stumpf and Stanley (1996) (Soller and Fox, 2001). This has let to a near balance in the number of women in non technical careers such as law and medicine while the technical applied fields remain highly dominated by males. This is definitely a carry over of what Stumpf and Stanley (1996) observe in choosing of courses. While there seems to be remote inconsistency in that boys are more interested in mathematics and other related subjects, it is obvious that change has taken place; girls are catching up with the boys. What has facilitated this change into bringing more girls in to mathematics classrooms and even leading to their improved performance? Soller and Fox believe that social factors have played a significant role that has seen girls taking ore mathematics classes in school and ending up in technical and applied fields career wise. In the first section of the paper, we saw that the various authors agree on a change in teaching methods as the ultimate solution into attracting girls into mathematics classroom through a better more inclusive method. According to the authors the new methods of teaching would eventually improve girls’ performance in mathematics in order to catch up with boys and thus build up confidence levels that would ensure that they take up advanced mathematics courses and careers. Soller and Fox’s approach on the issue of changing attitude towards mathematics is on a social basis. In fact achievement in mathematics determines attitude to some extent as a research by Tobias (1976) shows. Self confidence level in mathematics is another issue that Soller and Fox address as being responsible for causing a gender difference in mathematics. They say that self esteem and confidence levels in both sexes reduce over school years. However, the drop in girls is more acute than in boys. This as a result affects course taking behavior where girls will steer off mathematics oriented careers as they have little confidence in that area. In fact, Tartre and Fennama found out those mathematically gifted girls showed lower levels of self confidence than gifted boys. Could this be a result of societal beliefs in girls and mathematics? Unfortunately, Soller and Fox (2001) do not link the conventional wisdom that shows that he societal expects boys to be better than girls in mathematics that could led up to the lower levels of confidence. Pursuing this direction in this research would provide a hint as to the significance and the role of the social environment in shaping girls’ and boys’ confidence levels in mathematics. The authors only recognize that mathematics is regarded by society as a males’ domain but do not exclusively link confidence levels in mathematics to this belief. It would be expected that running against the grain or popular perception, being the popular perception in girls and mathematics has an impact on the confidence levels an actual performance. Sousa (2005) concurs with the view of Soller and Fox (2001) on social contribution to mathematics performance in girls which he calls “social stereotyping” (p 65). He says that difference in career choices is not merely determined by mathematical ability but cultural factors. This goes on despite the fact both sexes are aware of the usefulness attached to mathematics. Soller and Fox present mixed findings from various authors on the perceived usefulness of mathematics by both sexes. Tartre and Fennema (1995) reported no difference in ratings of mathematics usefulness while Cohen and Kosler (1991) in a study of all high school students found out that boys regarded mathematics as more useful in daily life than girls. Unfortunately, comparisons between these two findings is inappropriate since a different ample was used two studies. While Cohen and Kosler (1991) sampled a cross section of high school student in Texas, Tartre and Fennema (1995) sampled students between 6th and 12th grade. Soller and Fox (2001) address the learning environment as psychosocial factor. Earlier articles had addressed heavily the teacher learner interaction through teaching methods. Soller and Fox (2001) corroborate the earlier views that the present conventional methods of relaying information and knowledge to students largely favor the boys. This again drives us back to the cognitive abilities and difference in the genders. Sousa says that male brains are larger than girls’ by around 6-8%, a theory drive from the fact that males are on average taller than females by the same percentage. This aspect is not accorded enough relevance by the Soller and Fox (2001) article. The authors go along way in explaining how role models should be introduced to girls in order to encourage more of them take up mathematics and technical courses. However, more of the girls taking up mathematics will not ensure that their performance and confidence levels in mathematics will improve something that Soller and Fox (2001) fail to acknowledge. The basic idea which they attempt to implement is that performance first be improved in order to create role models. As the authors have shown as aforementioned earlier, performance and confidence levels are related and hence one can argue that improved performance will lead to higher confidence levels that will see increased participation in classrooms by girls thereby serving as role models to others. References Geist, E. and King, M. (2008) “Different, not better: Gender differences in mathematics learning and Achievement”, Journal of Instructional Psychology, Proquest Journals, Vol, 35, No 1 Forgasz, H. Girls, boys, and computers for mathematics learning, Monash University Rossi, J. Gender and mathematics: An issue in the 21st century, Reseacrh, Reflection and Practice Levi, L. (2000), Gender equity in mathematics education, Research into Practice Fox, L. and Soller, J., (2001) Psychosocial Dimensions of Gender Differences in Mathematics, Perspectives on Gender, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Bibliography Asaro, K (2007), Gender Discrepancies in Mathematics, Connecticut: Central Connecticut State University Atweh, B., Forgasz, H., and Nebres, B., (2001), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: an international perspective, London: Routledge, 2001 Blakemore, J. E., Berenbaum, S. and Liben, L. (2008), Gender Development, New Jersey: CRC Press, 2008 Cooper, J. and Weaver, K. (2003) Gender and computers: understanding the digital divide, Boston: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Gage, N. and Berliner, D. (1998) Educational psychology, 6th ed Michigan: Houghton Mifflin Gallagher, A and Kaufman, J. (2005) Gender differences in mathematics: an integrative psychological approach, Chicago: Cambridge University Press Hanna, G., and International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (1996), Towards gender equity in mathematics education: an ICMI study, New York: Springer. Kaput, J., Schoenfeld, A., Dubinsky, E., and Dick, T. (1996) Research in collegiate mathematics education, London: AMS Bookstore, Mary Crawford, Margaret Gentry (1989) Gender and thought: psychological perspectives, University of Michigan National Academy of Science, Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (U.S.), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.) (2007) Beyond bias and barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering, New York: National Academies Press Parker, L., Rennie, L., and Fraser, J., (1996), Gender, Science and Mathematics: Shortening the Shadow, New York: Published by Springer. Richardson, J., Caplan, P., and Crawford, M. (1997) Gender differences in human cognition, Chicago: Oxford University Press US Sax, L. (2006), Why gender matters: what parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences, Los Angeles: Broadway Books Secada, W., (1989) Equity in education, Sydney: Falmer Press Smith, C. (1998), Literacy for the twenty-first century: research, policy, practices, and the National Adult Literacy Survey, New York: Greenwood Publishing Group Sousa, D. (2007) How the Brain Learns Mathematics, New York: Corwin Press Stephens, M. and Moskowitz, J. (2004), Comparing learning outcomes: international assessment and education policy, London: Published by Routledge. Voyer, D. and April, S. “The relation between spatial and mathematical abilities: Potential factors underlying suppression”, International Journal of Psychology 2003, Vol 38, No1 Vrugt, A., Ort, F. and Waardenburg, K. (2008) “Motivation f men and women in mathematics and language”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol, 40, No 6 Wringley, J., (1992) Education and gender equality, New York: Routledge Read More

The fourth article is “Gender equity in mathematics education” by Linda Levi. The article is an analysis of teachers’ views on the performance of boys and girls in mathematics. The author has conducted tests on the adoption of her recommended methods of ensuring equity in mathematics performance across the gender. This further enlightens this study in pinpointing clearly as to how teachers play an active in determining how girls and boys perform in the subject. In the second part of this paper, I will address an alternative approach to the problem as presented by Lynn Fox and Janet Soller in the article “Psychosocial Dimensions of Gender Differences in Mathematics.

” Previous articles have given weight on the teaching methods while Soller and Fox give more to social factors that facilitate the gap in performance across the gender divide. As such, I will critically analyze this article from a perspective presented in the first section of this paper where the authors of the various articles seem to be in agreement in that the teaching methods contribute most to the difference in performance other than social influences. This paper will thus seek to answer the following questions which will guide the study.

Is there any difference in the performance of boys and girls in mathematics? If so what are the causes? What are the conventional perceptions in performance in mathematics and gender? What are the suggested methods of alleviating the causes and facilitating equality in performance? Discussion PART A Becker (2003) says that although there has been considerable progress in gender equity in the mathematics classroom, inequities still exist. She gives an example in that only 15% of women constitute mathematics oriented professions such as geology, agricultural science and engineering among others.

Again, women have been scoring an average of 30 points lower than their male counterparts in SAT tests. Levi (2000) supports this observation in part. She says that in the early stages of learning in the elementary classes, performance in mathematics for males and females is uniform. However, a smaller number of females participate in mathematics after elementary levels. This is explained by the social stigma that tends to look down upon women taking up “masculine subjects.” King and Geist (2008) on the other hand say that boys and girls are entirely different biologically and hence have different learning requirements.

However, the present traditional modes of teaching mathematics do not meet the learning needs of both genders according to them. Could this therefore mean that boys are better at coping with the present inefficient modes of learning than girls are? According to King and Geist (2008) differences in performances between boys and girls in mathematics is a recent phenomenon as the 70s were characterized by girls out performing boys. The issue of gender in performance and attitude in mathematics pertains to the natural differences between boys and girls which directly influences how each sex understands and perceives mathematics as a subject (Levi, 2000).

Becker (2000) on the other hand says that feminist models in investigating gender and mathematics performance stress that gender is socially constructed rather than biological and hence should be sued to acknowledge difference other than try to change one gender in order to improve performance in mathematics. Geist and King (2008) also say that the difference in gender should be appreciated in the classroom in the modern era. The authors add that “while their ability and potential to understand higher level mathematics is equal, their brains are different and more importantly, their approach to learning may be different” (p 44).

However, society has shown that boys are expected to be better in mathematics than girls (Levi, 2000: Becker, 2003). Levi (2000) says that even teachers are more aware of gender in mathematics as a major issue. She summarizes three roles that teachers according to her study show in addressing the issue of gender in learning and teaching of mathematics.

Read More