×

Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. (English) Zbl 1203.00010

Summary: Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations.

MSC:

00A35 Methodology of mathematics
91D10 Models of societies, social and urban evolution
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] AMER PSYCHOL 30 pp 739– (1975) · doi:10.1037/h0076948
[2] NINETEENTH CENTURY 21 pp 654– (1887)
[3] AMER PSYCHOL 60 pp 950– (2005) · doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950
[4] Hyde, Psychological bulletin 107 (2) pp 139– (1990) · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139
[5] Hedges, Science 269 (5220) pp 41– (1995) · Zbl 1225.97008 · doi:10.1126/science.7604277
[6] Psychological bulletin 91 pp 324– (1982) · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.324
[7] PSYCHOL WOMEN QUART 18 pp 585– (1994) · doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x
[8] Hyde, Science 321 (5888) pp 494– (2008) · doi:10.1126/science.1160364
[9] REV EDUC RES 63 pp 94– (1993) · doi:10.3102/00346543063001094
[10] Guiso, Science 320 (5880) pp 1164– (2008) · doi:10.1126/science.1154094
[11] Machin, Science 322 (5906) pp 1331– (2008) · doi:10.1126/science.1162573
[12] AM J SOCIOLOGY 114 pp 138S– (2008) · doi:10.1086/589252
[13] Benbow, Science 222 (4627) pp 1029– (1983) · doi:10.1126/science.6648516
[14] HIGH ABILITY STUD 16 pp 97– (2005) · doi:10.1080/13598130500115320
[15] CHRONICLE HIGHER EDUCAT 51 pp A1– (2005)
[16] NOTICES AMS 56 pp 257– (2009)
[17] NOTICES AMS 55 pp 1248– (2008)
[18] Sociology of Education 66 pp 91– (1993) · Zbl 02306394 · doi:10.2307/2112795
[19] EDUC RES 36 pp 258– (2007) · doi:10.3102/0013189X07306523
[20] EDUC LEADERSHIP 64 pp 16– (2006)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.