style="font-size:15px;"> There is more research that speaks to the matter of the mathematics gender achievement gap. For instance, Sean F. Reardon, Erin M. Fahle, Demetra Kalogrides, Anne Podolsky, and Rosalía C. Zárate (2018) report on a study (“Gender Achievement Gaps in U.S. School Districts”) of students in grades 3–8 across ten thousand U.S. school districts:
Both math and ELA gender achievement gaps vary among school districts and are positively correlated—some districts have more male-favoring gaps and some more female-favoring gaps. We find that math gaps tend to favor males more in socioeconomically advantaged school districts. (p. 2)
More specifically, among Reardon, Fahle, et al.’s (2018) findings, the distribution of mathematics gaps “implies that 95% of districts have math gaps that are between -0.07 and +0.13 standard deviations, favoring males in 72% of school districts and females in 28%” (p. 21). Additionally, this research finds that in wealthier districts and districts with more economic inequality among adult men and women, mathematics gaps favored boys on average. These analyses show that the mathematics gender achievement gap is not necessarily across the board or applicable for all students.
When considering the research presenting differences in mathematics achievement scores between boys and girls, we find that if there are differences, they are often small and are typically evident among higher-performing students (Lindberg, Hyde, Petersen, & Linn, 2010; Reardon, Fahle, et al., 2018).
Differences in Student Responses Regarding Self-Concept in Mathematics
In addition to achievement data, NAEP (NCES, 2017) reports data based on students’ questionnaire responses about their beliefs about mathematics and themselves as learners. For example, when asked to consider the statement “I am good at mathematics,” students could choose the answers “A lot like me,” “A little like me,” or “Not like me.” Among fourth-grade students, boys were significantly more likely than girls to identify the following statements as being a lot like themselves: “I like mathematics” (50 percent boy, 43 percent girl), “I am good at mathematics” (56 percent boy, 43 percent girl), and “I understand most of what goes on in mathematics class” (58 percent boy, 55 percent girl).
Additional data from the Education Quality and Accountability Office (Casey, 2017) support the idea that gaps in students’ self-concept may not be limited to the United States. For example, although girls and boys earned similar grades during the 2016 to 2017 academic year:
Only 49 percent of Grade 3 girls in Ontario agreed that they were good at math compared to 62 percent of boys. The difference widens in Grade 6, where 46 percent of girls said they were good at math compared to 61 percent of boys. (Casey, 2017)
Differences in Problem-Solving Approaches Among Boys and Girls
In 1980, Problem Solving in School Mathematics (Krulik & Reys, 1980) initiated a shift in mathematics education that proposed problem solving to be central to mathematics instruction and across mathematics curriculum. Along with this notion, the discussion of methods, strategies, and heuristics for problem solving abound in mathematics publications and conference presentations. In addition, starting from this point, research on problem solving became more visible in the discipline. For example, Elizabeth Fennema, Thomas P. Carpenter, Victoria R. Jacobs, Megan L. Franke, and Linda W. Levi (1998) find that boys were more likely than girls to use novel or invented problem-solving approaches when given mathematics tasks. Comparison observations find that girls were more inclined to use the specific procedures that the teacher taught in previous instruction for a given problem type. The researchers further explain that the use of invented algorithms appeared to be important for students to develop key concepts in mathematics, such as place value and number sense, and for students to be flexible in new situations, such as extensions of learned mathematics. Ana Villalobos (2009) offers additional research findings that explore “strategy socialization” with regard to risk-taking and rule-following, and suggests that girls are disproportionally represented in the development of “algorithmic strategies” and boys in “problem solving strategies” (p. 27). In this study, the author suggests that over-rewarding a single strategy, especially when the strategy yields accurate solutions, can lead to difficulties in switching strategies, which is necessary when “solving unfamiliar problems that require new approaches later in the curriculum” (Villalobos, 2009, p. 27).
Although this research took place prior to specific curriculum standards that advocate for multistrategy instruction and problem-solving experiences, it suggests that additional research is warranted to determine if girls are unintentionally limiting their own explorations in problem solving in the classroom with their inclination to follow taught procedures. The different ways that boys and girls engage in problem solving may affect how they use problem solving to learn mathematics.
It is also important to consider the role of the teacher in girls’ engagement with problem solving. Education Week reporter Sarah Schwartz (2018) challenges us to consider this:
Students in classes where teachers have a “multi-dimensional” approach to problem solving that allows for multiple strategies are more likely to have a growth mindset at the end of the course than students of teachers who value speed or memorization. This effect can be more pronounced for some students than others. For example, separate research found that when female teachers had more anxiety around doing math, the girls in their classes had lower achievement. The boys in their classes did not see these same negative effects.
Sian L. Beilock, Elizabeth A. Gunderson, Gerardo Ramirez, and Susan C. Levine (2010) also note this correlation between a woman teacher’s confidence with mathematics and her students’ confidence. Given that most elementary teachers in the United States and Canada are women (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2016), we can say with certainty that women teachers have a great reach in their access and interactions with learners. Therefore, it is important to consider this research that suggests that how a teacher responds to mathematics is an issue that can impact how certain populations of students, such as girls, will respond to mathematics.
Differences in Spatial Skills Among Boys and Girls
Some research suggests that boys demonstrate more sophisticated spatial skills than girls (Klein, Adi-Japha, & Hakak-Benizri, 2010). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) calls for instructional programs from prekindergarten through twelfth grade to enable each and every student to “use visualization, spatial reasoning, and geometric reasoning to solve problems.” A gender gap in this area is noteworthy because in addition to being a part of content standards at all grade levels, research shows that greater spatial skills are a predictor of higher mathematics performance in later years of schooling and that they also positively impact the selection of STEM-related careers (Tzuriel & Egozi, 2010). Despite this reported gender imbalance, much of this same research suggests targeted intervention can improve girls’ deficits in spatial skills, even to the extent that it eliminates gender discrepancy. There is an impact on girls’ exposure to the instructional experiences that have the potential to positively impact the development of students’ spatial skills. To foster these experiences, teachers can:
■ Explain to young people that spatial skills are not innate but developed.
■ Encourage children and students to play with construction toys, take things apart and put them back together again, play games that involve fitting objects into different places, draw, and work with their hands.
■ Use handheld models when possible (rather than computer models) to help students visualize what they see on paper in front of them. (Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010, p. 56)
Use figure 1.5 to reflect on why the gender achievement gap
