Mathematics and Gender: Are Boys Really Better than Girls - Research Paper Example

Mathematics and Gender: Are Boys really better than Girls? Introduction Gender specialization appears to be evident in intellectual abilities (Kiplinger, 1981). Research on both sexes neuroscience that targets brain functioning properties as well as some related hormonal discrepancies reveals that while males tend to have a greater spatial thinking capacity, females on the other hand possess stronger capacity in verbal expression. Julian Stanley and Camilla Benbow used the famous Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), which detects disparities in ability instead of knowledge to show that sex plays some roles in the said disparity. However, there is huge notion among many people including teachers and parents that mathematical knowledge favors males, contrary to these research findings. Until adolescence, the apparent disparity in math knowledge remains asymptomatic. Whereas relative verbal skill and inferiority is not a hindrance to male success rates, the relative math ability inferiority in females stands in their way to achieve such subject areas as engineering, technology as well as science. Primary school level of education seems to display boys as better performers in math than girls, the same being observed in high schools where more males are likely to tackle advanced math such as like calculus. History grants all time achievers in math preferably to males as Klein (2007) observes. Several data results using the SAT technique in the 1990s attests to these views: males achievement in math abilities showed a significant advantage compared to their female counterparts in solving complex math problems across the general population. It is a common feeling among girls that they are not good at math, and echo their feelings of hate on the subject. Since the performance in class shows a relatively balanced result distribution, it is a disturbing trend that girls could be adopting this notion. During subject selection in high school, more girls are likely to drop advanced math and science subjects than boys would. Theories behind Differences in Mathematics Performance across Gender A hypothesis on sociological argument was postulated by Baker and Jones (1993) that stated that traditional cultural practices contribute to girls’ poor math achievement coupled with the negative attitudes towards math mainly dye to societal gender stratification. The hypothesis linked the relative better male performance in math to available opportunities and possible outcomes that lie ahead in the future. This gender stratification hypothesis further provides argument that due to the relative fewer opportunities accorded to females in the society, girls are not in a position to pursue such disciplines as they would perceive it to be useless in the unfair opportunity endowment. The hypothesis in a broader approach further argues that societal stratification results in more inequality biased towards the males, therefore the girls adopt a negative attitude. Girls are likely to give a poorer performance in math tests in comparison to their male counterparts. Performance results are however improved in an equitable society, where a more similar or balanced opportunity level is available. Satisfactory insights to the gender stratification hypothesis have been found in the analysis provided by three theories that attempt to unravel the disparity. In no order of importance or merit, the theories are discussed next in brief highlights. Expectancy-Value: this model is also commonly referred to as the Eccles theory. Individuals are likely to tackle a particular challenge mainly driven by the value that they attach to the final result of their struggle to quell the challenge. This means that they would only attach a success expectation to a challenge before they embark on the solution mission, where the opposite is true. The theory outlines the underlying prejudgement involved and the labelling of success on possible challenges on a cost – benefit analysis regarding options adopted and suggests that individuals will not engage in challenges that appear less valuable. In order to make that judgement on whether to embark on a particular challenge, certain perception issues guided by one’s cultural setting as well as their goals, both short term and long term. Success expectations adopted by an individual are pegged on their aptitude, historical events and the consecutive interpretations adopted by an individual as well as their self concept capability. There are other socio-cultural forces which influence one’s self concept and attitudes on a topic and include; one’s thoughts and anticipations by people such as parents, teachers and stereotypes. Experimental back up of this observation is availed by Aronson & McGlone, (2008) and Pinel, (1999) who point out effects of stereotype negativity. Expectancy-value model also provides insights to the effect that a girl’s belief in the notion that women career opportunities do not necessarily require math skills, they subsequently would be reluctant to embrace math as they deem it irrelevant. Though of being incapable of mathematical incapability worsen any hope of rising too the occasion when called upon to do that. Cognitive social learning theory: this model supports the insights of the social stratification theory as suggested by Bandura, (1986) and Bussey & Bandura, (1999), giving emphasis that social processes have a direct and influential impact on growth of gender-type activities, and the necessary cognitive processes, including self-efficacy. Copying of what special people do as a Role model, others as social agents, social correct gender behaviour notions determine the academic preference made by an individual. In support of Eccles model, this theory highlights the importance of self efficacy and the influence it has on the gender related behaviours likely to be adopted as common practices by girls. Girls tend to copy what older women do in their cultural setting, thereby creating a feeling of self efficacy when one adopts these practices. Observation is key in the learning process of the girls as endear the social practices thereby highlighting the importance of cognitive social learning theory. This explains the reason why girls academic preferences tend to be a replica of what other female scholar appear to engage in throughout their social and cultural setting. According to the social structural theory, psychological differences with respect to gender are founded on social and cultural factors (Eagly, 1987). For example, a society’s way of assigning roles based on gender makes people to develop behaviour that is shaped by their social roles. In this respect, when a girl is required to prepare food for the family and care for her younger siblings, as opposed to learning mathematics, her access to formal education becomes restricted. If the cultural duties that females are expected to perform do not include doing calculations, girls will probably face both social and structural obstacles that will hinder their development in handling math problems. The social structural theory therefore emphasizes that Employment opportunities and educational equity and ought to be linked with gender similarities in attitudes and math achievement. Assessment: Mathematics Achievement, Attitudes, and Affect Internationally Persistence of the apparent gender biased mathematical preference is only in some countries, as opposed to an expected equal distribution if the society had gender equity. More equitable countries have better math performance than those with gender bias favouring one sex. Research is currently being emphasised to boost and understand female numbers in science, mathematics and engineering, due to the unfavourable under-representation in these areas of interest. Further insights by the gender stratification hypothesis reveal that that the gender differences attributed to cultural variations for the available opportunity structures especially for girls and women in general. The burden that women bore centuries ago as some stereotypes branded them inferior species in the society is fast disappearing to relieve women of unnecessary torture. Great strides are being experienced in almost every aspect of society as women also take up math duties and engagements as good challenges. Just as boys do in undergraduate courses, as many girls are graduating with math degrees in developed world. This is a great departure to what stereotypes brand women, as research evidently reveals (Nicole & Hyde). Attempts to measure attitude, achievement and affect across international arena has given two main approaches that deal with large-scale recurrent assessments. These assessments are the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and PISA. TIMSS is basically a method of international assessment tackling mathematics as well as science for students on their eighth grade. This assessment is usually carried out on a four year cycle by the International Association for the Evaluation of International Achievement (IEA), assisted by the Canadian Educational Testing Service and Statistics. PISA attempts to perform assessments in the international arena for math, science, reading, as well as performance of literacy of problem solving capabilities. The said assessment targets school going individuals in of up to15 years of age and the assessment is repeated every three years usually by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Research to date relies on data obtained in the year 2003 assessment using TIMSS (Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski 2004) and PISA. These two methods of assessment for has been branded as the best that experts can use to perform their assessments in terms of conducting complex methods measurement, sampling as well as the analysis of student performance in math and the said subjects (Porter & Gamoran 2002). It is imperative to highlight the differences and the applications of the two data assessment methods as well as point the limitations involved in each of them. From the beginning, a mention of the fact that the goals of TIMSS and PISA are explicitly variable is worth to be made. On one hand, TIMSS goal is the attained curriculum analysis and assessment or by large tries to establish the content of what the students have actually learnt in class and tries to outline the relevant involved variables such as the teacher and school factors. On the other hand, assessment using the OECD dwells much on the fact that PISA method tests mathematics literacy. This model can be defined a “the ability to comprehend and point out the role played by the subject of mathematics in the world, in order to try to formulate judgement based on truthful insight on math as well as to use and apply mathematics in such ways that would meet country’s need for an all round individual in the citizen” (Shen, & Tam, 2008, 26). TIMSS relies heavily on the type of curriculum while PISA involves the application of mathematics in he general life of the individual. This implies that PISA is generally a more involving and challenging form of assessment and subsequently requires a more comprehension of the trickling effect of mathematics. TIMSS has been categorised by the International Association for the Evaluation of International Achievement (IEA) into three basic domains or items “cognitive domains,” in an attempt to highlight how complex the items involved are. 33.5% of the TIMSS items in the assessment is composed of establishment of the fact and which require knowledge of all facts at hand. Important also in the process is the requirement of recognising as well as identifying the underlying equivalence in math values, including the use of procedures and measuring instruments (Shen, & Tam, 2008). The application of the required knowledge and its principles as well as understanding a particular boundary or domain makes up the biggest chunk of the assessment which is at 43.9% of the items. It mainly incorporates the usage and application of the involved mathematical knowledge and facts, skills, procedures, and the underlying concepts in order to formulate representations used in solving all routine problems. Reasoning domain remains the most important level and involves 18.6% of the underlying items. It mainly involves such issues as logic, systematic ability of thinking, for instance analysis ability, evaluation, ability to formulate hypotheses, generalization, ability to synthesize and proving facts, as well less routine problem solving. TIMSS importance is apparently based on the domain that dwells much on the realization of basic knowledge and the ability of solving routine problems as noticed by Shen & Tam, (2008). Conclusion There is a considerable positive attitude advantage in males as compared to their female counterparts, but relative performance achievement difference among the sexes is minimally advantageous to either. Educational systems portray disparities in schools as well as learning halls which bear a direct influence on the nature of the student achievement. The statistics of the subsequent gender disparity in performance is also dependent on the method of analysis of the achievement and education system availed to the students. Where the assessment method adopted to analyse the mathematical ability of the students includes such abilities not present in the curriculum, the deception thereon is likely to affect the perception including informal learning encounters trickling down to the general achievement of individuals. There are factors that play a direct role in the child’s abilities and achievement such as curriculum and instruction systems and these should be used to correct the negative effects of gender inequality in terms of performance in math. There is need to redefine the value that the society attaches to a girl’s education with much focus in the future to achieve improvements in this area. Encouragement to girls serves as a performance booster in conjunction with provision of necessary tools and availability of mathematical role models in the older womenfolk supports the gender stratification hypothesis findings. Interconnectivity between the math excellence issues with attitude has a striking feature. While the two aspects seem to appear as positive relatives in an individual, they appear to be in conflict at the national level as Shen & Tam, (2008) observed. Students in Nations with high math achievement tend to have less positive math attitudes. An analysis on the nation level of mathematical achievement by women display that role played by cultural standards in the subject achievement; in those countries that highly value mathematical achievement and subsequently resources deployed for advanced math classes accessibility, female students have the negative feeling that math is boring and equally difficult. As a general observation, the issues pertaining to the whole gender equity agenda on the global arena substantially contribute to the explanation of performance disparities in achievement, perceptions as well as affect. The apparent gender based disparity in performance in math would thereby predict the nature of position distribution to research positions, up to the discovery that such countries having a considerable greater female contribution and participation in research and science evidently have slender gender disparities. In terms of self-confidence, high value attachment to math and science, reduced subject anxiety towards math, self-concept as well as improved self-efficacy there has been improvements in the said countries having a better gender balance. The general observation holds true that while there may be considerable disparity in math ability between men and women, but the positions held by the individuals perform fairly well above average. Strikingly, men appear to give the best performers as well as the worst performers in math by appearing on both extreme ends of the bell-curve of the analysis. This means men lay at both extreme ends of the studies conducted. The upper extreme performance makes men dominance in areas of advanced math careers and it appear that men have better knowledge than women in the subject, which is a deception if we reflect on the lower extreme which also has men. Research conforming to findings of gender stratification hypothesis has found out that the attempts to raise girls academic achievement is vital in not only for career purposes but also for raising self-confidence and the positive value for mathematics as well. Girl child education and opportunity improvement would be made available for the eventual realization and recognition that hard work and investment of effort in education and math in particular is worth and appropriate. This would bring equity to the society that has been insensitive to the girl child. On the other hand, if the society remains insensitive to the plight o f the girl child’s education, it the follows that girls will not find sense in valuing their own education, thereby withdrawing any willingness to up their effort in realization of the same. It is therefore clear that the gender stratification hypothesis finely outlines the connectivity between the gender equity status of a society and math achievement, attitude and affect. Lower social status that women occupy may appear inconsequential but in reality, it affects girls who take these women as their role models. Lack of proper modelling duties by the women towards the girls is a huge influence in the manner with which they take their studies. An explanation on this can be sought from the apparent fewer numbers of women in research positions contributed largely by the poor math performance that disqualifies them form taking up such positions. However, their few numbers in such positions cannot be explained in this manner in international sense, since not all countries are victims of unfavourable gender difference. Math skills when possessed by either of the sexes are fairly similar but boys display a better measure of confidence and motivation in their math abilities than are girls. Conclusions has therefore been drawn that this is the cause of the inherently superior achievement and thinking ability in boys as opposed to that in girls. Boys can be said to possess spatial thinking skill, which has been identified as important as reading skill is, that is lacking considerably in their female counterparts. Computer interventions have been launched where special software that imparts spatial skills in girls is being generated towards attempts to raise not only spatial skills, but also develop a liking for math and science courses. As observed in the research findings, sex cannot be relied as a good predictor of one’s academic skills, concentrations or emotional attributes. Even if girls have dramatically improved at math, a discipline many believed had reservations for the male counterpart, a considerable percentage of the general population still believe that women are not likely to take up eminent jobs eminence dealing in math, engineering or physics which are dominated by males. Male engineers in their lonely job positions will certainly find company in female colleagues soon. Research findings suggest that, consistent with the gender stratification hypothesis, gender equity in education is crucial not only for girls’ math achievement but for girls’ self-confidence and valuing of mathematics as well. If girls have the same rights to formal education as their male peers do, they may recognize that it is appropriate to work hard and invest well in their education. Alternatively, if it is appears that the education of girls is not highly valued in a community, it is apparent that girls will not value their educational achievements and will withdraw from achievement opportunities. The gender stratification hypothesis confirms that indicators of societal gender equity predict gender differences in achievement, attitudes, and affect. Women have lower social status due to gender differences in math achievement, attitudes, and affect. For example, the under representation of women in research jobs might be, a result of poorer performance in math by girls relative to boys; however, this does not explain why girls perform poorly than boys in some nations and not in others. References Baker, D P, & Jones, D P (1993) “Creating gender equality: Cross national gender stratification and mathematical performance”, Sociology of Education, 66(1):91–103. Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara G V, & Pastorelli C, (2001) “Self-efficacy Beliefs As Shapers of Children’s Aspirations and Career Trajectories”, Child Development, 72(1):187-206. Eagly A H, (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale. Eccles J S, (1994) “Understanding Women’s Educational And Occupational Choices: Applying the Eccles et al Model of Achievement-Related Choices”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(1):585–610. Kiplinger A, (1981) “Kiplingers Personal Finance”, Kipleinger’s Magazine, 35(12):11-96. Mullis I V, Martin M O, Gonzalez E J, & Chrostowski S J, (2004) TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report, International Study Center, Washington Quest N E, & Hyde J, (2010) “Cross-National Patterns of Gender Differences in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis”, American Psychological Association, 136(1):103–127. Porter A C, & Gamoran A, (2002) Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement, National Academy Press, Washington DC Lerner R M, Steinberg L D, (2009) Handbook of adolescent psychology: Individual bases of adolescent development, John Wiley and Sons Publications, New Jersey. Shen C, & Tam H P, (2008) “The paradoxical relationship between student achievement and self-perception: A cross-national analysis based on three waves of TIMSS data”, Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 87–100 Spelke E S, (2005) “Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science: A critical review”, American Psychologist, 60(1) 950–958. Retrieved from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/sexsci/ Klein S S, (2007) Handbook for achieving gender equity through education, Lawrence Eribaum Associates Inc, New Jersey. Read More