girls’ interest in mathematics.
As you read the girls’ perspectives of learning mathematics, you heard ideas of positivity and promise that these girls will continue to pursue opportunities for mathematics in their schooling and beyond. However, whether or not these girls will continue to achieve and believe in themselves as mathematics learners in the pivotal years to come is unknown because it is a continuous process that will take time. The key is exposing girls to opportunities; however, ultimately it is their decision whether to pursue the opportunity. We have hope! Their early experiences are already impacting the likelihood that they will pursue coursework and careers in the field of mathematics, even in implicit ways that these girls may not yet realize. We want these girls and all other girls to realize their potential in mathematics.
Exploring the Mathematics Gender Achievement Gap
Gender differences in mathematics achievement in North America have been widely discussed and studied (Cheema & Galluzzo, 2013; Damarin & Erchick, 2010; Fryer & Levitt, 2010; Leyva, 2017; Lubienski, Robinson, Crane, & Ganley, 2013; Marks, 2008; Penner & Paret, 2008; Riegle-Crumb & Humphries, 2012; Robinson & Lubienski, 2011). However, differences in population, test formats, content assessed, and other variables yield results that are not necessarily generalizable and at times even offer mixed results, thus complicating the discussion and making implications fuzzy. In the sections that follow, we will explore both sides of the issue—data that say there is a mathematics gender achievement gap and data that contend there is not a mathematics gender achievement gap. While the primary focus of this book is on girls in grades K–5, it is important to understand the broader discussion on the mathematics gender achievement gap in the context of gender differences that appear in college and career settings.
Evidence Pointing to a Gender Gap in Mathematics
In this section, we’ll dive deeper into the research that shows there is a mathematics gender achievement gap. We’ll explore the representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields; differences in mathematics achievement scores; differences in student responses regarding self-concept in mathematics; differences in problem-solving approaches among boys and girls; and differences in spatial skills among boys and girls.
Representation of Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields
The representation of women in college programs and career pathways related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is societal evidence of a mathematics gender gap. Catherine Riegle-Crumb and Barbara King (2010) and many other researchers suggest that there is a disproportionally low number of women (compared to men) in both STEM programs in colleges and universities and in STEM careers (Lubienski et al., 2013; Mendick, 2005; Riegle-Crumb & Humphries, 2012; Snyder & Dillow, 2011).
In regard to STEM college programs, Ryan Noonan (2017) reports that “while nearly as many women hold undergraduate degrees as men overall, they [women] make up only about 30 percent of all STEM degree holders” (p. 1). In order for any student to pursue a STEM degree in college, he or she benefits from having a good school background in STEM subjects, mathematics being one such subject.
In this same report, “Women in STEM: 2017 Update,” Noonan (2017) also addresses the presence of women in STEM careers:
Women filled 47 percent of all US jobs in 2015 but held only 24 percent of STEM jobs. Likewise, women constitute slightly more than half of college educated workers but make up only 25 percent of college educated STEM workers. (p. 1)
Hence, the gender imbalance among STEM degrees is reflected in the gender imbalance in STEM careers. Every opportunity to encourage girls to have interest in and study fields in STEM, specifically mathematics, provides an opportunity to increase the representation of women in STEM. As it relates to representation, the quote by Marian Wright Edelman (2015), “It’s hard to be what you can’t see,” comes to mind. Therefore, it is important that girls have positive role models in their respective fields who they can look up to and follow.
You may ask why this is happening. Why are there more men than women studying in STEM programs, such as mathematics? Why are there more men than women employed in STEM fields? Economist and statistician David Beede and colleagues (2011) suggest that “there are many possible factors contributing to the discrepancy of women and men in STEM jobs, including: a lack of female role models, gender stereotyping, and less family-friendly flexibility in the STEM fields” (p. 1). While the key factor (or possible intersection of multiple factors) cannot be confirmed, we believe that continuing the dialogue and inquiry around the representation of women in STEM is warranted.
Use figure 1.4 to brainstorm other factors that influence the number of women in STEM fields.
Figure 1.4: Reflections on the factors that impact the number of women in STEM.
Differences in Mathematics Achievement Scores
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which assesses students in grades 4, 8, and 12, is the most commonly cited U.S. assessment in mathematics. NAEP has been administered approximately every four years since 1973; however, there have been changes in test administration since its inception that impact statistical comparisons. For example, since 1990, students have been assessed by grade rather than by age, and there was variation in the allowance of accommodations at some testing sites in 1996 and 2000.
From 2003 to 2017, there has been a slight gender difference based on the average fourth-grade mathematics assessment scores, with boys scoring significantly higher than girls during each assessment administration (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017). For example, in 2003, boys scored higher (with statistical significance) when scores were analyzed by average scale score, percentile, and proficiency level. There were significant differences that favored the performance of boys at the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, and the gap between boys’ and girls’ scores increased as the scores increased (with a five-point difference at the 90th percentile). According to the NAEP proficiency data from 2003, boys also outperformed girls in the categories of advanced (5 percent compared to 3 percent), at or above proficient (35 percent compared to 30 percent), and at or above basic (78 percent compared to 76 percent; NCES, 2017). For example, the average scale score of fourth-grade boys was 236 compared to the average scale score of 233 for fourth-grade girls, a seemingly small but statistically significant difference. Additionally, according to the proficiency data from 2003, fourth-grade boys outperformed girls in four of the five content strands: number and operations, data analysis, algebra and functions, and measurement, with the discrepancy in measurement being the largest (NCES, 2017). This is consistent with gaps in the measurement strand from the 1996 administration of the NAEP, which Ellen Ansell and Helen M. Doerr (2000) analyze to reveal that fourth-grade boys were more accurately able to choose appropriate units or read and use a measuring instrument (such as a speedometer, thermometer, or ruler). When Ansell and Doerr (2000) further analyze the gender gaps within racial groups and across content strands, they find significant differences that still favored boys for white and Hispanic groups in number operations and measurement and Asian and Pacific islanders in measurement. This analysis also reveals, however, that African American girls outperformed African American boys in geometry and data analysis at the fourth-grade level.
While NCES (2017) documents that fourth-grade boys achieve higher scores in mathematics than girls, the achievement gap between boys and girls has not widened between 2003 and 2017, with the most recent 2017 data revealing an average scale score of 241 among boys and 239 among girls. This means that the mathematics achievement gap between
