User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 25 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797–825.
  • Arnold, K. (1994). Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In K. D. Hulbert & D. T. Schuster (Eds.), Women’s lives through time: Educated women in the twentieth century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Arnold, K. D., Noble, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. E. (1996). Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Bae, Y., & Smith, T. M. (1997). Women in mathematics and science. In National Center for Educational Statistics, The condition of education, 1997 (pp. 14–21). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement.
  • Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25–31.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: BasicBooks.
  • 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.
  • Bem, S. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
  • Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474–480.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262–1264.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Wolins, L. (1996). The utility of out-of-level testing for gifted seventh and eighth graders using SAT-M. In C. P. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 333–346). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Betz, N., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematical self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329–345.
  • Beyer, S., & Bowden, E. M. (1997). Gender differences in self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 157–172.
  • Bogie, C. E., & Buckhalt, J. A. (1987). Reactions to failure and success among gifted, average, and EMR students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 70–74.
  • Buss, A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1378–1388.
  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.
  • Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differetiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713.
  • Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383.
  • Callahan, C. M. (1979). The gifted and talented women. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their development and education. The 78th Yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education: Part I (pp. 401–423). Chicago: University of Chicago.
  • Callahan, C. M., Cunningham, C. M., & Plucker, J. A. (1994). Foundations for the future: The socio-emotional development of gifted, adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17, 99–105.
  • Callahan, C. M., & Reis, S. M. (1996). Gifted girls, remarkable women. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 171–192). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Carpenter, C. J., Huston, A. C., & Holt, W. (1986). Modification of preschool sex-typed behaviors by participation in adult-structured activities. Sex Roles, 14, 603–615.
  • Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Clinkenbeard, P. R. (1989). The motivation to win: Negative aspects of success at competition. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 293–305.
  • Cramer, J., & Oshima, T. C. (1992). Do gifted females attribute their math performance differently than other students? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 18–35.
  • Crandall, V. J., Dewey, R., Katkovsky, W., & Preston, A. (1960). Parents ‘ attitudes and behaviors and grade school children’s academic achievement. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 104, 53–66.
  • Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
  • Dai, D. Y. (2000). To be or not to be (challenged), that is the question: Task and ego orientations among high-ability, high-achieving adolescents. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 247–251.
  • 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. (in press). Incorporating parent perceptions: A replication and extension study of the internal/external frame of reference model of self-concept development. Journal of Adolescent Research.
  • Dai, D. Y., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Goal orientations of gifted students. Gifted and Talented International, 11, 84–88.
  • Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63.
  • Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2000). Dissociation and integration of talent development and personal growth: Comments and suggestions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 247–251.
  • Darwin, C. (1972). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. New York: Appleton. (Original work published 1896).
  • Daubman, K. A., Heatherington, L., & Ahn, A. (1992). Gender and the self-presentation of academic achievement. Sex Roles, 27, 187–204.
  • Dickens, M. N., & Cornell, D. G. (1993). Parent influences on the mathematics self-concept of high-ability adolescent girls. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 53–73.
  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
  • Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and child development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
  • Dweck, C. S., & Bush, E. S. (1976). Sex differences in learned helplessness: I. Differential debilitation with peer and adult evaluators. Developmental Psychology, 2, 147–156.
  • Dweck, C. S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: II. The contigencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and III. An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, 268–276.
  • Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
  • Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50, 145–158.
  • 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 (Parsons), J., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310–321.
  • Eccles (Parsons), J., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26–43.
  • Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D. A., & Yee, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310.
  • Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
  • Ewers, C. A., & Wood, N. L. (1993). Sex and ability differences in children’s math self-efficacy and prediction accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 259–267.
  • Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 307–337.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes and perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and peer relations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 15–20.
  • Feldhusen, J. F., Dai, D. Y., & Clinkenbeard, P. R. (2000). Dimensions of competitive and cooperative learning among gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 328–342.
  • Fogel, R., & Paludi, M. A. (1984). Fear of success and failure or norms for achievement? Sex Roles, 10, 431–434.
  • Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 435–452.
  • Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W. (1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects: The Fullerton Longitudinal Study. New York: Plenum.
  • Grant, B. A., & Piechowski, M. M. (1999). Theories and the good: Toward child-centered gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 4–12.
  • Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mawhaw, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455–464.
  • Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford.
  • Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1988). Gifted and talented young women: Antecedents and correlates of life satisfaction. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 254–259.
  • Horner, M. S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157–175.
  • Hsueh, W. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of gifted children’s theories of intelligence, goal orientations, and response to challenge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
  • Junge, M. E., & Dretzke, B. J. (1995). Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 22–26.
  • Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1992). Teacher expectations II: Construction and reflection of student achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 947–961.
  • Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus: Ohio Psychology Press.
  • Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls two. Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
  • Kerr, B. A. (1997). Developing talents in girls and young women. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 483–497). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198–214.
  • Kitano, M. K., & Perkins, C. O. (2000). Gifted European American women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 287–313.
  • Kleinfeld, J. (2000). Why smart people believe that schools shortchange girls: What you see when you live in a tail. In D. M. Podell (Ed.), Educational Psychology: Contending ideas and opnions (pp. 72–80). St. Paul, MN: Coursewise.
  • Kline, B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent females. Roeper Review, 13, 118–121.
  • Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-develpmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Kramer, L. R. (1991). The social construction of ability perceptions: An ethnographic study of gifted adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 340–362.
  • Lewis, J. D., & Knight, H. V. (2000). Self-concept in gifted youth: An investigation employing the Piers-Harris subscales. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 45–53.
  • Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1992). Gifted secondary students’ preferred learning style: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 46–54.
  • Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1995). Motivational patterns related to gifted students’ learning of mathematics, science, and English: An examination of gender differences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284–297.
  • Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interaction of children’s achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20, 628–636.
  • Licht, B. G., & Shapiro, S. H. (1982). Sex differences in attributions among high achievers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
  • Lohman, D. F. (1994). Spatially gifted, verbally inconvenienced. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Vol. II (pp. 251–263). Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
  • Lovecky, D. V. (1999). Creative connections: Perspectives on female giftedness. Advanced Development, Special Issue, 95–106.
  • Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61–66.
  • Lundeberg, M. A., Paul, W. F., & Puncochar, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 114–121.
  • Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls. Psychological Bulletin, 46, 267–296.
  • Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Marecek, J. (1995). Gender, politics, and psychology’s ways of knowing. American Psychologist, 50, 162–163.
  • Marsh, H. W. (1990). Influences of internal and external frames of reference on the formation of math and English self-concepts: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 107–116.
  • Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285–319.
  • McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Meece, J. L., Parsons, J. E., Kaczala, C. M., Goff, S. B., & Futterman, R. (1982). Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a model of academic choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 324–348.
  • Mendez, L. M. R. (2000). Gender roles and achievement-related choices: A comparison of early adolescent girls in gifted and general education programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 149–169.
  • Miller, A. (1986). Performance impairment after failure: Mechanism and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 486–491.
  • Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.
  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). Student effort and academic progress. Retrived from http://nces.ed.gov/ programs/coe/2001/section3/indicator30.html.
  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Digest of educational statistics 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, NCES, No. 130.
  • Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experiences, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
  • Noble, K. D. (1989). Living out the promise of high potential: Perceptions of 100 gifted women. Advanced Development, 1, 57–75.
  • Noble, K. D. (1996). Resilience, resistence, and responsibility: Resolving the dilemma of the gifted woman. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 413–423). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325–344.
  • Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
  • Paludi, M. (1979). Horner revisited: How successful must Anne and John be before fear of success sets in? Psychological Reports, 44, 1319–1322.
  • Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Pyryt, M. C., & Mendaglio, S. (1994). The multidimensional self-concept: A comparison of gifted and average-ability adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 299–305.
  • Pyryt, M. C., & Richwein, M. (2000, May). Self-concept comparisons between gifted males and females: A meta-analysis review. Paper presented at the fifth annual Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, Iowa City, IA.
  • Reis, S. M. (1996). Older women’s reflections on eminence: Obstacles and opportunities. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 149–168). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • 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.
  • Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1996). My boyfriend, my girlfriend, or me: The dilemma of talented teenaged girls. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 434–446.
  • Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Renzulli, J. S., & Dai, D. Y. (in press). Education of the gifted and talented. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference.
  • Roberts, S., & Lovett, S. (1994). Examing the “F” in gifted: Academically gifted adolescents’ physiological and affective responses to scholastic failure. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 241–259.
  • Roberts, T. -A. (1991). Gender and influence of others’ evaluations on self-assessments in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 297–308.
  • Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  • Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.
  • Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 37–40.
  • Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
  • Shucard, S. B., & Hillman, S. B. (1990, August). Feedback and goal conditions: Effects on attributions of gifted adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston.
  • Silverman, L. K. (1996). Giftedness and gender in historical context. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 23–48). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Solmon, M. A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students’ behaviors and perceptions in a physical education setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 731–738.
  • Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 624–635.
  • Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
  • Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1191–1197.
  • Stanley, J. C. (1990, January). We need to know why women falter in math. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B4.
  • Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
  • Steinkamp, M. W. (1984). Motivational style as a mediator of adult achievement in science. In M. W. Steinkamp & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Women in science (pp. 281–317). New York: JAI Press.
  • Sternberg, R. J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1998). Personal navigation. In M. Ferrari & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Self-awareness: Its nature and development (pp. 219–245). New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Subotnik, R. F. (1988). The motivation to experiment: A study of gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward scientific research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 19–35.
  • Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1996). Success and sacrifice: The costs of talent fulfillment for women in science. In K. D. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 263–280). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  • Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High-IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1997). Restructuring special programs to reflect distinctions between children’s and adults’ experiences with giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 101–116.
  • Swiatek, M. A., Lupkowski, S. A., & O’Donoghue, C. C. (2000). Gender differences in above-level EXPLORE scores of gifted third through sixth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 718–723.
  • Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of women: Why women are not the better sex, the inferior sex, or the opposite sex. New York: BasicBooks.
  • Taylor, C. W., & Barron, F. A. (1963). A look ahead. In C. W. Taylor & F. A. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: Wiley.
  • Terwilliger, J. S., & Titus, J. C. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 29–35.
  • Vermeer, H. J., Boekaerts, M., & Seegers, G. (2000). Motivational and gender differences: Sixth-grade students’ mathematical problem-solving behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 308–315.
  • Walberg, H. J. (1969). Physics, femininity, and creativity. Developmental Psychology, 1, 47–54.
  • Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. New York: BasicBooks.
  • Woolf, V. (1989). A room of one’s own. San Diego, CA: Harvest Book/Harcourt. (Original work published 1929).
  • Yee, D. K., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achievement. Sex Roles, 19, 317–333.
  • Zeldin, A. Y., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 215–246.
  • Ziegler, A., Heller, K. A., & Broome, P. (1996). Motivational preconditions for girls gifted and highly gifted in physics. High-Ability Studies, 7, 129–143.
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 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2002



Are Gifted Girls Motivationally Disadvantaged? Review, Reflection, and Redirection

David Yun Dai

Over the past 2 decades, much research on gifted girls has revolved around the issue of whether they, compared to gifted boys, are motivationally disadvantaged in achievement settings. While research and anecdotal evidence seems to support this hypothesis, most recent educational statistics show the closing of the gender gap. In this article, the literature is reviewed and critiqued as to the existence of alleged gender differences, as well as task and social conditions, and putative internal motivational processes that potentially explain these differences. Then, several possible explanations for the apparently conflicting evidence are discussed, and a feminist critique of the gender-differences research and inherent biases and hidden assumptions is presented. In light of emergent evidence and new insights, several research strategies are suggested that can potentially address and redress some of the problems in research efforts to understand what are the motivational issues concerning gifted girls and how to help them achieve their potential in their educational and career development.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.