User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 25 |  Issue 3 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • American Association of University Women. (1992). The AAUW report: How schools shortchange girls. Washington DC: The American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
  • Arjmand, O., Benbow, C. P., & Lorenz, F. O. (n.d.). Attitude and parental encouragement patterns among intellectually talented males and females. Unpublished manuscript, Iowa State University, Ames.
  • Arnold, K. D. (1993). Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In K. Hulbert & D. Schuster (Eds.), Women’s lives through time: Educated American women of the twentieth century (pp. 393–414). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Becker, D. F., & Forsyth, R. A. (1990, April). Gender differences in grades 3 through 12: A longitudinal analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
  • 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. (1992). Mathematical talent: Its origins and consequences. 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. 95–124). New York: Trillium.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1993). Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented preadolescents: 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 students and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 425–436.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Education Research Journal, 19, 598–622.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1984). Gender and the science major. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 2. Women in science (pp. 165–198). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Byrne, B. M. (1996). Academic self-concept: Its structure, measurement, and relation to academic achievement. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 287–316). New York: Wiley.
  • Callahan, C. M., & Reis, S. M. (1996). Gifted girls, remarkable women. In Remarkable women: Perspectives on females’ talent development (pp. 171–192). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Crain, R. M. (1996). The influence of age, race, and gender on child and adolescent multidimensional self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 395–420). New York: Wiley.
  • Cramer, R. H. (1989). Attitudes of gifted boys and girls toward math: A qualitative study. Roeper Review, 11, 128–130.
  • Dai, D. Y. (2001). A comparison of gender differences in academic self-concept and motivation between high-ability and average Chinese adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 22–32.
  • Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63.
  • Eccles, J. S. (1985). Why doesn’t Jane run? Sex differences in educational and occupational patterns. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 251–295). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and achievement patterns: An expectancy value perspective. In J. M. Reinisch, L. A. Rosenbum, & S. A. Sanders (Eds.), Masculinity/femininity: Basic perspectives (pp. 240–280). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Eccles, J., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321.
  • Eccles, J., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Set differences in achievement: A test of alternative theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26–43.
  • Eccles, J., & Harold, R. (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). New York: Trillium.
  • Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95–103.
  • Halpern, D. (1989). The disappearance of cognitive gender differences: What you see depends on where you look. American Psychologist, 44, 1156–1158.
  • Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139–155.
  • Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198–214.
  • Kline, B. E., & Short, E. G. (1991). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent females. Roeper Review, 13, 118–121.
  • Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1995). Motivational patterns related to gifted student’s learning of mathematics, science, and English: An examination of gender differences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284–297.
  • Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Sanders, C. E. (1993). Reconceptualizing gender differences in achievement among the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 693–707). Oxford, England: Pergamon).
  • Lupkowski, A. E., & Schumaker, R. E. (1991). Mathematics anxiety among talented students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 563–572.
  • Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Sayler, M. F., & Assouline, S. G. (1994). Mathematics achievement of talented elementary students: Basic concepts versus computation. 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. 409–414). Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
  • Macoby, E. E. (1966). The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Longitudinal structural equation models of academic self-concept and achievement: Gender differences in the development of math and English constructs. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 705–738.
  • Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Stumpf, H. (1993). Gender differences in academically talented young students’ mathematical reasoning: Patterns across age and subskills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 340–346.
  • Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1993, November). Gender differences in course selection among gifted adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Gifted Children, Atlanta, GA.
  • 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.
  • Stanley, J., C., Benbow, C., P., Brody, L., E., Dauber, S., & Lupkowski, A. E. (1992). Gender differences on eighty-six nationally standardized aptitude and achievement tests. 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. 42–65). New York: Trillium Press.
  • Stipek, D., & MacIver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521–538.
  • 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.
  • Terwilliger, J. S., & Titus, J. C. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 29–35.
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 3
  • Publication Date: Spring 2002



Gender Differences Among Elementary School-Aged Gifted Students in Achievement, Perceptions of Ability, and Subject Preference

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius & Dana Turner

Previous research suggests that, while gender differences on standardized tests among high school-aged students have diminished, they persist among academically gifted students. This study examined patterns of gender differences for younger, elementary school-aged gifted students. Results showed that, on an off-level achievement test, males outperformed females in mathematics beginning in grade 3, although effect sizes were small. The ratio of males to females achieving very high scores on the mathematics subtest was 2:1, but this difference was only significant among 5th and 6th graders. Both males and females had a preference for mathematics over other subjects. More girls perceived their academic strengths to be in verbal areas, while most boys perceived theirs to be in mathematics and science. Girls’ and boys’ perceptions of their academic strengths corresponded to their actual performance on the off-level test. Tested abilities also corresponded to students’ choice of easiest and most challenging subject.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.