Mathematics Learning and the Sexes: A Review

It has long been accepted as true that boys learn mathematics better than girls do. To determine the validity of this belief, 36 studies concerned basically or tangentially with sex differences in mathematics achievement were reviewed and two others were analyzed in depth. The data from one study (Parsley, et al., 1964), which often has been quoted as supportive of boys' mathematics superiority, was reevaluated with the conclusion that the data from this study do not support the idea that boys are superior to girls in mathematics achievement. Data concerned with sex differences in achievement from the National Longitudinal Study of Mathematics Achievement were also presented.No significant differences between boys' and girls' mathematics achievement were found before boys and girls entered elementary school or during early elementary years. In upper elementary and early high school years significant differences were not always apparent. However, when significant differences did appear they were more apt to be in the boys' favor when higher-level cognitive tasks were being measured and in the girls' favor when lower-level cognitive tasks were being measured. No conclusion can be reached concerning high school learners.</jats:p

A Forum for Researchers: Women and Mathematics: Does Research Matter?

On Monday, March 23, I was in a somewhat unusual and comfortable situation for a university professor. (Perhaps one should really substitute the word lazy for comfortable.) I had written a chapter for the 1982 NCTM Yearbook on the middle school, and it could serve as my NCTM speech at St. Louis. True, I had not said anything very new, innovative, or controversial; but after all, this was the third year in a row that I had talked about sex-related differences at NCTM, so no one could expect me to have much new information or insight. Then, as I was reading the newspaper and having a leisurely cup of tea before going to school, I read the following: “ Due to evolutionary factors, males are also better at doing math problems … ” (Wisconsin State Journal, March 23, 198 1).</jats:p

Gender and Mathematics: What is Known and What do I Wish was Known?

This 20-page paper from Elizabeth Fennema examines the topic of gender differences in learning mathematics. This paper examines changing beliefs about how women learn math, such as a preference for learning cooperatively, and reviews intervention programs for girls and women. Feminist perspectives of the issue are also included.Â

Teachers and Sex Bias in Mathematics

A look at some ways that teachers can improve the mathematics education of girls, as well as that of boys.</jats:p

Mathematics education research : implications for the 80s

x, 174 p.; 23 cm

Manipulatives in the classroom

Statements concerning the efficacy of manipulative materials in facilitating the learning of mathematical ideas abound in current mathematics education literature. Partly in response to such statements, mathematics laboratories, or activity-based curricula that include a heavy reliance on the use of such materials, are becoming more and more prevalent. This belief that manipulative materials do indeed enhance the learning of mathematics has gained much validity from learning theories such as those suggested by Bruner, Dienes, and Piaget. These theories strongly support the idea that children need physical involvement, such as might be provided by hands-on experiences with manipulative materials, in order to add new ideas to their cognitive structure. However, attempts to translate such theories into classroom practice and to empirically measure the results have not provided evidence that the use of such materials by teachers does indeed result in better learning than the use of symbols alone (Suydam and Weaver 1970; Kieren 1971; Fennema 1972). This difference between theory and research findings indicates that manipulative materials are no panacea; the use of materials does not automatically ensure that mathematics learning will follow. However, even without strong empirical support, a strong case can be built for the inclusion of manipulative materials in an elementary school mathematics program.</jats:p