User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 25 |  Issue 1 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1991). Shortchanging girls, shortchanging America: A call to action. Washington, DC: The American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
  • Ajzenberg-Selove, F. (1994). A matter of choices: Memoirs of a female physicist. Brunswich, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  • Arnold, K. D. (1995). Lives of promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Baker, G. F. (1986). An alternative approach to teaching chemistry to allied health students: Factors that contribute to success. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(3A), 851–852.
  • Becker, D. F., & Forsyth, R. A. (1990, April). Gender differences in grades 3–12: A longitudinal analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
  • 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., & Minor, L. L. (1986). Mathematically talented males and females and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 425–436.
  • Byrnes, J. P., & Takahira, S. (1993). Explaining gender differences on SAT math items. Developmental Psychology, 29, 805–810.
  • Callahan, C. M. (1979). The gifted and talented woman. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented (pp. 401–423). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
  • Callahan, C. M., Cunningham, C. M., & Plucker, J. A. (1994). Foundations for the future: The socioemotional development of gifted, adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17, 99–105.
  • Campbell, G., Jr. (1996). Bridging the ethnic and gender gaps in engineering. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering Research Letter, 6, 1.
  • Chamberlain, M. K. (Ed.). (1988). Women in academe: Progress and prospects. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Chipman, S. F., Brush, L., & Wilson, D. (Eds.). (1985). Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation. New York: Erlbaum.
  • Dickens, M. N. (1990). Parental influence on the mathematics self-concept of high-achieving adolescent girls. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
  • Dreyden, J. I., & Gallagher, S. A. (1989). The effects of time and direction changes on the SAT performance of academically talented adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 187–204.
  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivation processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
  • Eccles, K. (1987). Understanding motivation: Achievement beliefs, gender roles, and changing educational environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.
  • Educational Testing Service. (1996). 1996 college-bound seniors: A profile of SAT program test takers. Princeton, NJ: Author.
  • Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103.
  • Fennema, E. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 1–9). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinski, C. A. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 55–69.
  • Gallagher, S. A. (1996). A new look (again) at gifted girls and mathematics achievement. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 459–475.
  • Gallagher, S. A., & DeLisi, R. (1994). Gender differences in scholastic aptitude test: Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 204–211.
  • Gavin, M. K. (1996). The development of math talent: Influences on students at a women’s college. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 476–485.
  • Gavin, M. K. (1997). A gender study of students with high mathematics ability: Personological, educational, and parent variables related to the intent to pursue quantitative fields of study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  • Glaser, R. D., & Thorpe, J. S. (1986). Unethical intimacy: A survey of sexual contact and advances between psychology educators and female graduate students. American Psychologist, 40, 43–51.
  • Grant, L. (1988). The gender climate of medical schools: Perspectives of women and men students. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 43, 109–110, 115–119.
  • Hackett, G. (1985). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47–56.
  • Hall, R., & Sandler, B. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
  • Handley, H. M., & Morse, L. W. (1984). Two-year study relating adolescents’ self-concept and gender role perceptions to achievement attitudes toward science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 599–607.
  • Hernandez Garduno, E. L. (1997). Effects of teaching problem solving through cooperative-learning methods on student mathematics achievement, attitudes toward mathematics, mathematics self-efficacy, and metacognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  • Hess, R. D., Hollowly, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G. (1984). Maternal variables as predictors of children’s school readiness and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade. Child Development, 55, 1902–1912.
  • Hyde, J. S., & Fennema, E. (1990, April). Gender differences in mathematics performance and affect: Results of two meta-analyses. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
  • Jones, M. G. (1989). Gender issues in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 33–38.
  • Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861–874.
  • Junge, M. E., & Dretzke, B. J. (1995). Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 22–28.
  • Keith, T. Z., & Benson, M. J. (1992). Effects of manipulable influences on high school grades across five ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 85–93.
  • Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198–214.
  • Kissane, B. V. (1986). Selection of mathematically talented students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 221–241.
  • Krupnick, C. G. (1984). Sex differences in college teachers’ classroom talk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
  • Lee, V. E., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary school classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 92–120.
  • Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 424–430.
  • Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 223–236.
  • Leroux, J. A., & Ho, C. (1994). Success and mathematically gifted-female students: The challenge continues. Feminist Teacher, 7(2), 42–48.
  • Linn, M. C., & Kessle, C. (1995, April). Participation in mathematics courses and careers: Climate, grades, and entrance examination scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V. (1985). The relationship between parental beliefs and children’s cognitive level. In R. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems (pp. 7–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). National education longitudinal study of 1988: Second follow-up: Student component data file user’s manual. Washington, DC: Author.
  • National Science Foundation. (1992). Undergraduate origins of recent science and engineering doctorate recipient. Principal author: S. T. Hill. Washington, DC: Author.
  • National Science Foundation. (1996, September). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Arlington, VA: Author.
  • 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.
  • O’Shea, M. M. (1998). Characteristics of high-ability women who achieve in the 95th percentile on the quantitative section of the Scholastic Achievement Test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
  • Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
  • Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321.
  • Peterson, P. L., & Fennema, E. (1985). Effective teaching, student enjoyment in classroom activities, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 309–335.
  • Phillips, D. A. (1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among highly competent children. Child Development, 58, 1308–1320.
  • Reis, S. M. (1987). We can’t change what we don’t recognize: Understanding the special needs of females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 83–89.
  • Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Reis. S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). Gifted females: They’ve come a long way—or have they? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 99–117.
  • Rogers, P. (1990). Thoughts on power and pedagogy. In L. Burton (Ed.), Gender and mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 38–46). London: Cassell.
  • Rossi-Becker, J. (1994, April). Research on gender and mathematics: Perspectives and new directions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Rubin, L. J., & Borgers, S. B. (1990). Sexual harassment in universities during the 1980s. Sex Roles, 23, 397–411.
  • Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1985). Sexism in the schoolroom of the ‘80s. Psychology Today, 19(3), 54–57.
  • Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  • Siegle, D. L., & Reis, S. M. (1994). Gender differences in teacher and student perceptions of student ability and effort. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6, 86–92.
  • SPSS, Inc. (1997). SPSS (Version 7.0) [Computer software]. Chicago: Author.
  • Stevenson, H. W., & Newman, R. S. (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement in mathematics and reading. Child Development, 57, 646–659.
  • Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Gender-related differences on the College Board’s advanced placement and achievement tests, 1982–1992. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 353–364.
  • Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2000). Gender differences in academic attitudes among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 360–377.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
  • Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. (1992). The AAUW report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
  • Yee, D., & Eccles, J. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achievement. Sex Roles, 19, 317–334.
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 25
  •  Issue 1
  • Publication Date: Fall 2001



Gender Differences in High-Achieving Students in Math and Science

Sally M. Reis & Sunghee Park

The research described in this article examined gender differences between highachieving students in math and science with respect to their achievement, self-concept, locus of control, number of math and science courses taken, and the important people who contributed to their decisions to enroll in advanced courses in high school. The study utilized data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88; National Center for Education Statistics, 1994), with two subsamples selected that represent the highest achieving students in math and in science. The results of this study indicated that there were more males than females in both subsamples of high-achieving students in math and science. The results also suggested that the best predictor for distinguishing between mathematically highachieving males and females was locus of control. High-achieving males had both higher self-concept and higher standardized math test scores than high-achieving females.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.