User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 23 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • ACT. (1996). Evaluating the Appropriateness of EXPLORE for BESTS Participants. Iowa City, IA: Author.
  • ACT. (1997). EXPLORE technical manual. Iowa City, IA: Author.
  • American Association of University Women. (1991). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America: A call to action. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (1997). Talent searches: A model for the discovery and development of academic talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 170–179). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Bell, L. A. (1989). Something’s wrong here and it’s not me: Challenging the dilemmas that block girls’ success. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 118–130.
  • Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–232.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1993). Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented: Some sex differences and evidence supporting their biological basis. In G. R. Bock & K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 44–66). Chichester, England: Wiley.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (1986). Mathematically talented males and females and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 425–436.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982a). Intellectually talented boys and girls: Educational profiles. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 32–88.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982b). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598–622.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1984). Gender and the science major: A study of mathematically precocious youth. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, a research annual: Women in science (pp. 165–195). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
  • Carnegie Mellon Institute for Talented Elementary Students. (1998). Carnegie Mellon 1998 Elementary Student Talent Search: Registration information. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Lu, W-H. (1994). Using EXPLORE as an above-level instrument in the search for elementary student talent. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.). Talent development: Proceedings from the 1993 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 281–297). Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
  • Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 2–30). Unionville, NY: Trillium.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Willard-Holt, C. (1993). Gender differences in classroom interactions and career aspirations of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 355–362.
  • Grossman, H., & Grossman, S. H. (1994). Gender issues in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: developmental perspectives (pp. 149–195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Jensen, R. A., & McMullen, D. (1995). A study of gender differences in the math and science career interests of gifted fifth and sixth graders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 811).
  • Kelly, K. R. (1993). The relation of gender and academic achievement to career self-efficacy and interests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 59–64.
  • Kerr, B. (1997). Developing talents in girls and young women. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 483–497). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61–66.
  • Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., & Swiatek, M. A. (1999). Elementary student talent searches: Establishing appropriate guidelines for qualifying test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 265–272.
  • Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., & Assouline, S. G. (1993). Identifying mathematically talented elementary students: Using the lower level of the SSAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 118–123.
  • Middleton, J. A., Littlefield, J., & Lehrer, R. (1992). Gifted students’ conceptions of academic fun: An examination of a critical construct for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 38–44.
  • Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Yasumoto, J. (1995). Factors affecting the academic choices of academically talented middle school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 298–318.
  • Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  • Silverman, L. K. (1993). Social development, leadership, and gender issues. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 291–327). Denver: Love.
  • Stocking, V. B., & Goldstein, D. (1992). Course selection and performance of very high ability students: Is there a gender gap? Roeper Review, 15, 48–51.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
  • Terwilliger, J. S., & Titus, J. C. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 29–35.
  • Wilder, G., Mackie, D., & Cooper, J. (1985). Gender and computers: Two surveys of computer-related attitudes. Sex Roles, 13, 215–228.
  • Wilson, J. S., Stocking, V. B., & Goldstein, D. (1994). Gender differences in motivations for course selection: Academically talented students in an intensive summer program. Sex Roles, 31, 349–367.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 23
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2000



Gender Differences in Academic Attitudes Among Gifted Elementary School Students

Mary Ann Swiatek & Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik

A number of studies have documented gender differences in the academic attitudes of gifted adolescents, but few studies have investigated these differences among students younger than age 12. Very few studies explore the age at which the differences emerge. The present study investigated four questions: Are gender differences in attitudes toward academic subjects evident among gifted 3rd through 6th graders? Do the students’ attitudes toward school subjects vary according to grade level? Do gender differences become more or less pronounced from 3rd to 6th grade? Are attitudes toward academic areas related to students’ ability in those areas? To address these questions, 2,089 gifted 3rd- through 6th-grade children rated their liking for 11 academic areas. Observed gender differences were consistent with those found in research with older students participating in talent-search programs. Grade-level differences suggest that attitudes toward several academic areas become more negative with age. Attitudes were not related to tested academic ability.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.