全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2013 

Sex Differences in Mathematics and Reading Achievement Are Inversely Related: Within- and Across-Nation Assessment of 10 Years of PISA Data

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057988

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

We analyzed one decade of data collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), including the mathematics and reading performance of nearly 1.5 million 15 year olds in 75 countries. Across nations, boys scored higher than girls in mathematics, but lower than girls in reading. The sex difference in reading was three times as large as in mathematics. There was considerable variation in the extent of the sex differences between nations. There are countries without a sex difference in mathematics performance, and in some countries girls scored higher than boys. Boys scored lower in reading in all nations in all four PISA assessments (2000, 2003, 2006, 2009). Contrary to several previous studies, we found no evidence that the sex differences were related to nations’ gender equality indicators. Further, paradoxically, sex differences in mathematics were consistently and strongly inversely correlated with sex differences in reading: Countries with a smaller sex difference in mathematics had a larger sex difference in reading and vice versa. We demonstrate that this was not merely a between-nation, but also a within-nation effect. This effect is related to relative changes in these sex differences across the performance continuum: We did not find a sex difference in mathematics among the lowest performing students, but this is where the sex difference in reading was largest. In contrast, the sex difference in mathematics was largest among the higher performing students, and this is where the sex difference in reading was smallest. The implication is that if policy makers decide that changes in these sex differences are desired, different approaches will be needed to achieve this for reading and mathematics. Interventions that focus on high-achieving girls in mathematics and on low achieving boys in reading are likely to yield the strongest educational benefits.

References

[1]  Benbow CP, Stanley JC (1980) Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science 210: 1262–1264.
[2]  Benbow CP, Stanley JC (1983) Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science 222: 1029–1031.
[3]  Wai J, Lubinski D, Benbow CP, Steiger JH (2010) Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 102: 860–871.
[4]  Geary DC (1996) Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19: 229–247.
[5]  Eagly AH, Wood W (1999) The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist 54: 408–423.
[6]  Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM (1999) Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35: 4–28.
[7]  Hyde JS, Lindberg SM, Linn MC, Ellis AB, Williams CC (2008) Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science 321: 494–495.
[8]  Spelke ES (2005) Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science. American Psychologist 60: 950–958.
[9]  Stoet G, Geary DC (2012) Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology 16: 93–102.
[10]  Geary DC (2010) Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[11]  Halpern DF (2012) Sex differences in cognitive abilities, 4th edition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
[12]  Baker DP, Perkins Jones D (1993) Creating gender equality: Cross-national gender stratification and mathematical performance. Sociology of Education 66: 91–103.
[13]  Guiso L, Monte F, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2008) Culture, gender, and math. Science 320: 1164–1165.
[14]  Else-Quest NM, Hyde JS, Linn MC (2010) Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 136: 103–127.
[15]  Marks GN (2008) Accounting for the gender gaps in student performance in reading and mathematics: evidence from 31 countries. Oxford Review of Education 34: 89–109.
[16]  Kane JM, Mertz JE (2012) Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 59: 10–21.
[17]  Fryer RG Jr, Levitt SD (2010) An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2: 210–240.
[18]  Hunt E, Wittmann W (2008) National intelligence and national prosperity. Intelligence 36: 1–9.
[19]  Lubinski D, Benbow CP (2006) Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on psychological science 1: 316–345.
[20]  Reilly D (2012) Gender, culture, and sex-typed cognitive abilities. PLoS ONE 7: e39904.
[21]  Hedges LV, Nowell A (1995) Sex differences in mental scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science 269: 41–45.
[22]  Humphreys LG (1988) Sex-differences in variability may be more important than sex-differences in means. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11: 195–196.
[23]  Lippa RA, Collaer ML, Peters M (2010) Sex differences in mental rotation and line angle judgments are positively associated with gender equality and economic development across 53 nations. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39: 990–997.
[24]  Ceci SJ, Papierno PB (2005) The rhetoric and reality of gap closing - when the “Have-Nots” gain but the “Haves” gain even more. American Psychologist 60: 149–160.
[25]  Ceci SJ, Williams WM (2011) Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 108: 3157–3162.
[26]  Wai J, Cacchio M, Putallaz M, Makel MC (2010) Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30 year examination. Intelligence 38: 412–423.
[27]  Hyde JS, Mertz JE (2009) Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 106: 8801–8807.
[28]  Lippa RA (1998) Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 996–1009.
[29]  Lubinski D (2000) Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points”. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 405–444.
[30]  Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI (2009) Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin 135: 859–884.
[31]  Gottfredson LS (2003) The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment 11: 115–135.
[32]  Lubinski D (2010) Neglected aspects and truncated appraisals in vocational counseling: Interpreting the interest efficacy association from a broader perspective: Comment on Armstrong and Vogel (2009). Journal of Counseling Psychology 57: 226–238.
[33]  Bosacki S, Astington JW (1999) Theory of mind in preadolescence: Relations between social understanding and social competence. Social Development 8: 237–255.
[34]  Hatcher R, Hatcher S, Berlin M, Okla K, Richards J (1990) Psychological mindedness and abstract reasoning in late childhood and adolescence - an exploration using new instruments. Journal of Youth And Adolescence 19: 307–326.
[35]  Freeman CE (2004) Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
[36]  Taylor M (2005) University gender gap widens as women increase their lead. The Guardian [British newspaper] 27th January.
[37]  OECD PISA 2003 data analysis manual. Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/51/35004?299.pdf. Accessed 2013 Feb 2.
[38]  Wu M (2004) Plausible values. Rasch Measurement Transactions 18: 976–978.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133