Girls More afraid of Maths than Boys.

[Unity+]

 

The effect was measurable, so in that sense it was significant.

What effect was measurable? Teacher or student bias?

 

 

 

There's no data at all to suggest that this was due to biological differences. When you do a blind test and it differs from the non-blind one, that's evidence of bias. Not a difference in the subjects.

What data? The only data that the article contains is the bias of students towards certain fields.

[studiot]

Welcome back Unity+, long time no see.

 

 

I believe these were mixed gender.

 

 

I think this is a good time to set out a couple of observations, additional to the studies linked.

 

1) The difference seems to repeat across societies with quite different educational paths.

 

2) The difference seems to repeat when a society radically changes its educational paths.

 

I started UK secondary education in an all boys grammar school with all male teaching staff.

Before my first national exam we had moved to a different area of the country, where mixed schools were the norm.

In those days the national exams were GCE Ordinary level, followed BY GCE Advanced level.

Then as now, all (grammar) pupils had to take the lower Ordinary level maths exam, but were allowed subject choice in the Advanced exams.

 

So gender comparison at that level is on a pretty sound basis, whether the classes were mixed or not.

 

In my day the norm was to take three subjects at advanced level.

Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology could all have been studied at ordinary level so one would have to be dropped.

At this point then, as now, girls tended to drop maths, boys to drop biology, if they were intending to pursue a science based career.

So there were roughly 50% girls in my Ordinary class and 10% in my Advanced class.

By University the percentage had plummeted further.

 

Today these exams have been replaced with broader based ones, but I think the pattern still persists.

[Unity+]

Welcome back Unity+, long time no see.

 

 

I think this is a good time to set out a couple of observations, additional to the studies linked.

 

1) The difference seems to repeat across societies with quite different educational paths.

 

2) The difference seems to repeat when a society radically changes its educational paths.

 

I started UK secondary education in an all boys grammar school with all male teaching staff.

Before my first national exam we had moved to a different area of the country, where mixed schools were the norm.

In those days the national exams were GCE Ordinary level, followed BY GCE Advanced level.

Then as now, all (grammar) pupils had to take the lower Ordinary level maths exam, but were allowed subject choice in the Advanced exams.

 

So gender comparison at that level is on a pretty sound basis, whether the classes were mixed or not.

 

In my day the norm was to take three subjects at advanced level.

Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology could all have been studied at ordinary level so one would have to be dropped.

At this point then, as now, girls tended to drop maths, boys to drop biology, if they were intending to pursue a science based career.

So there were roughly 50% girls in my Ordinary class and 10% in my Advanced class.

By University the percentage had plummeted further.

 

Today these exams have been replaced with broader based ones, but I think the pattern still persists.

The drop rate at my University in sciences is equal among males and females. I guess it just depends on the area.

 

I would agree with your other two points. However, even if a gender comparison has a basis, it could be linked on a biological/psychological level or a societal level, and there is no conclusive evidence of the latter.

 

EDIT: And thanks for the welcome back. University has been taking much of my time, especially now.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Unity+

[swansont]

What effect was measurable? Teacher or student bias?

 

What data? The only data that the article contains is the bias of students towards certain fields.

Did you read the article? The students' answers were graded by two teachers. There is no bias toward any field in the study. It only measured the difference in how identical answers were graded.

Perhaps you can explain further, Swansnot. I am genuinely interested in possible teacher bias in math purely based on test scores. I will attempt to explain my concern, however do keep in mind my understanding of math is limited to senior high school and therefore I am not arguing or confident in my explanation, I am merely seeking further elaboration. Based on our math exams, there is only a very slight opportunity for teachers to be biased. For example, if you are asked to prove something; you need to start with a premises. Let's say in the geometry section of the exam, you're asked to prove that two triangles are congruent. The student could leave a gap in their proof, or a more complicated proof may be required, or the teacher may expect it to be done a particular way (I have had this problem and needed to argue for an extra mark). Or, the question could ask you to estimate the number of cars in Sydney and provide some methodology and your reasoning; your reasoning can be objective. I suppose the subjectivity comes into effect most when the student has the wrong answer but good reasoning; how do you allocate partial marks in this case and is that where the possible gender bias can come from? How many marks could they lose potentially if the teacher for arguments sake was biased?

It must have been point allocation somehow. If that were completely objective then two different teachers could not have given different point values. But that didn't happen.

[Unity+]

Did you read the article? The students' answers were graded by two teachers. There is no bias toward any field in the study. It only measured the difference in how identical answers were graded.

 

It must have been point allocation somehow. If that were completely objective then two different teachers could not have given different point values. But that didn't happen.

Are you referring to the article located in the first post? Because there isn't anything talking about two teachers grading students' answers.

[Sirona]

It must have been point allocation somehow. If that were completely objective then two different teachers could not have given different point values. But that didn't happen.

It's not that I am skeptical that gender bias exists, I am more interested in attempting to quantify how much of the gap is due to gender bias purely on different point values allocated by teachers. Interestingly, in the NSW HSC and Victorian VCE exams, students don't use their names on any of the exams and are identified only by a student number. The exams are graded externally and therefore, it's very unlikely that the examiners are aware of the students gender; they could of course make assumptions based on the handwriting but it's not likely. However, in specialist mathematics, 76 percent of top achievers were boys and males represented 63 percent of enrollments. There is a pattern of male dominance among the Victorian students who achieved the top 2 per cent of the study score results in each of the maths subjects between 2007 and 2009.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/girls-still-lag-boys-in-maths-20101114-17seu.html

In this case, it's unlikely that there is a gender bias in the grading, however, it seems to be suggesting that the gender bias is a result of lower expectations and confidence in girls in these subject areas. I'm more willing to except this as a more significant impact in girls performing worse. Though, I'm not arguing with you either because even though this might be apart of the problem in Australia, it's not necessarily the same issue somewhere else.

[swansont]

Are you referring to the article located in the first post? Because there isn't anything talking about two teachers grading students' answers.

No, the article I linked to.

It's not that I am skeptical that gender bias exists, I am more interested in attempting to quantify how much of the gap is due to gender bias purely on different point values allocated by teachers. Interestingly, in the NSW HSC and Victorian VCE exams, students don't use their names on any of the exams and are identified only by a student number. The exams are graded externally and therefore, it's very unlikely that the examiners are aware of the students gender; they could of course make assumptions based on the handwriting but it's not likely. However, in specialist mathematics, 76 percent of top achievers were boys and males represented 63 percent of enrollments. There is a pattern of male dominance among the Victorian students who achieved the top 2 per cent of the study score results in each of the maths subjects between 2007 and 2009.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/girls-still-lag-boys-in-maths-20101114-17seu.html

 

In this case, it's unlikely that there is a gender bias in the grading, however, it seems to be suggesting that the gender bias is a result of lower expectations and confidence in girls in these subject areas. I'm more willing to except this as a more significant impact in girls performing worse. Though, I'm not arguing with you either because even though this might be apart of the problem in Australia, it's not necessarily the same issue somewhere else.

You're right — if the exams are anonymized, there would seem to be no gender bias in grading (those in the study were not, for one group of teachers). But bias can manifest itself in different ways. The question would be how to test for that on other circumstances.

 

The study I cited is simply a confirmation that bias has been found to exist.

[Sirona]

You're right — if the exams are anonymized, there would seem to be no gender bias in grading (those in the study were not, for one group of teachers). But bias can manifest itself in different ways. The question would be how to test for that on other circumstances.

 

The study I cited is simply a confirmation that bias has been found to exist.

I understand that, and it's likely that it does exist to some degree and I'd be particularly interested in quantifying it.

 

What about gender bias towards boys? The Australian studies I've read have similar trends; boys perform worse than girls in reading. I'm interested in your perspectives, would you say that English teachers are biased towards boys and perceive them to be less capable compared with their female counterparts? I'm merely playing devils advocate, but do you think it's possible that it's not about gender at all and that people have difficulty in separating preconceived ideas and opinions without looking purely at the evidence in front of them (in this case, when grading exams). It's just another possibility.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Sirona

[swansont]

I understand that, and it's likely that it does exist to some degree and I'd be particularly interested in quantifying it.

 

What about gender bias towards boys? The Australian studies I've read have similar trends; boys perform worse than girls in reading. I'm interested in your perspectives, would you say that English teachers are biased towards boys and perceive them to be less capable compared with their female counterparts? I'm merely playing devils advocate, but do you think it's possible that it's not about gender at all and that people have difficulty in separating preconceived ideas and opinions without looking purely at the evidence in front of them (in this case, when grading exams). It's just another possibility.

 

 

I'm not aware if any studies that found bias against boys. But that doesn't mean such results don't exist. You'd have to search for them.

[Sirona]

 

I'm not aware if any studies that found bias against boys. But that doesn't mean such results don't exist. You'd have to search for them.

I've not considered it before, but it's an interesting thought. I ran a quick search and found a few articles, this one http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/ attempts to use some data from various studies. However, upon researching the writer, it seems she is quite conservative and criticizes modern feminism frequently and with a title such as, 'War against boys' it's obvious her stance is an emotional one and most likely not too reliable. Here is another article: http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

 

There are several articles and studies around suggesting that there could be bias against boys. I've not yet found a particularly good one, but it does seem like some data does exist.

[CharonY]

As a general precaution I would like to add that depending on study size, significant difference can exist on negligible effect sizes, which is the case in some studies. That being said OECD-wide studies indicate often varying differences (both, between countries, as well as within countries overt time) in the gender differences in mathematical scores.

In contrast, in reading performance in all countries girls outperform boys, with some of the smallest differences found e.g. Columbia, Chile, UK, USA, Netherlands. Australia with a gap slightly below OECD average and Germany above. Some of the largest were found in Finland, Jordan and Slovenia.

There actually have been a number of investigations to figure out why it is the case. One analysis for example looked at enjoyment of reading and try to figure out if an increase in boy's enjoyment of reading also improves scores. While it seems to work for some countries (including Germany), reading scores increased in others without increase in enjoyment (e.g. USA) or actually decreased (France). OVerall, no positive correlation was found (OECD PISA data 2000-2009).

 

Yet, in newer studies (OECD data 2012) in which the media usage (including video games) was taking into consideration it was consistently found that girls enjoy reading more (and boys played more video games). When talking about bias it may be due to the fact that the form of literature most enjoyed by boys, comics, may be discouraged by parents (girls prefer fiction). It has been noted that even comics is better than no reading at all for reading comprehension tests and that this may be part of why boys enjoy reading less.

Independent of reading,another element that was found is that boys spend less time on homework, which explains a further gap in overall test scores. Likewise, attitude to school questions indicate that overall boys had a more negative attitude to school than girls which is also associated with a motivational gap.

 

Overall, due to the universality and robustness of reading scores, it has been suggested that it may have a development sources, especially as the difference vanishes in adulthood and despite the fact that women remain the more avid readers. On the other hand, while the gap has been persistent, it has also diminished over time, indicating that a number of other effects play a role.

Edited April 30, 2016 by CharonY

[studiot]

 

Yet, in newer studies (OECD data 2012) in which the media usage (including video games) was taking into consideration it was consistently found that girls enjoy reading more (and boys played more video games). When talking about bias it may be due to the fact that the form of literature most enjoyed by boys, comics, may be discouraged by parents (girsl prefer fiction). It has been noted that even comics is better than no reading at all for reading comprehension tests and that this may be part of why boys enjoy reading less.

 

Yet if you go into any UK newsagents and look at the teenage section.

 

How many comics for boys are there and how many for girls?

 

Further how many girls carry this on to to later life, only the comics are now called magazines?

Edited April 28, 2016 by studiot

[CharonY]

I am not sure about the relevance of the comment. The kids were questioned regarding their preferred type of reading. In the adult studies/polls the reading was limited to books or types of books. There are many statistics out there, but a Pew poll from 2013 showed that 69% of all males have read at least one book in 2013, whereas it was 82% for females.

[studiot]

 

I am not sure about the relevance of the comment................................................................................The kids were questioned regarding their preferred type of reading

 

That doesn't prove they read anything at all.

 

The comment was specifically about UK teenagers, what relevence is the Pell Institute of Washington DC?

 

Of course it was relevent.

 

You claimed or inferred that boys preferred comics and girls preferred more meaty text.

Yes boys like comics, but that does not mean boys don't like more substantial text.

Perhaps boys write a greater quantity of substantial text, we have just had the 400 anniversary of Shakespeare; Shakespeare was a boy.

 

The relevence is that I suggested that (in the UK at least) publishers under considerable commercial pressures disagree in that they off rather more girl's comics than boy's and extend this into adulthood.

 

I would agree it is a commonly held perception, but is it true?

[CharonY]

The study on children is based on OECD/PISA reports that includes UK children. But, if you think thatUK specific is more relevant, I direct you to the results of the National Literacy Trust data. Also, take a look at the articles published by the UK Department of Education which summarizes these findings.

 

It is actually your interpretation that girls like meatier texts. What is a fact is that a) more boys declare that they do not enjoy reading than girls and b) comics are one area where boys have much higher preference than girls. As we were discussing bias, comics are one of the reading forms that are frowned upon and could therefore be a bias against reading by boys. It should be noted that the only other category where boys read more are newspapers (a 6% gap). However as it is generally seen as a positive thing, there is unlikely to be any repercussion.

 

The bigger take-home-message is that boys are less likely to read than girls outside of school and generally seem to enjoy reading less. In fact accounting for reading enjoyment may explain as much as 50% of the observed gap. Which still means there is a sizeable portion due to other reasons.

 

What I would like to stress is that a discussion should be rooted on data on not on assumptions based on what you see on newsstands, or individuals unless, of course, you actually have relevant data to present. And no, Shakespeare is not a good argument at all. Almost around the same time there was the celebration of 200th birthday of Charlotte Bronte, Which tells us basically nothing.

[studiot]

 

It is actually your interpretation that girls like meatier texts. What is a fact is that a) more boys declare that they do not enjoy reading than girls and b) comics are one area where boys have much higher preference than girls. As we were discussing bias, comics are one of the reading forms that are frowned upon and could therefore be a bias against reading by boys. It should be noted that the only other category where boys read more are newspapers (a 6% gap). However as it is generally seen as a positive thing, there is unlikely to be any repercussion.

 

The bigger take-home-message is that boys are less likely to read than girls outside of school and generally seem to enjoy reading less. In fact accounting for reading enjoyment may explain as much as 50% of the observed gap. Which still means there is a sizeable portion due to other reasons.

 

What I would like to stress is that a discussion should be rooted on data on not on assumptions based on what you see on newsstands, or individuals unless, of course, you actually have relevant data to present. And no, Shakespeare is not a good argument at all. Almost around the same time there was the celebration of 200th birthday of Charlotte Bronte, Which tells us basically nothing.

 

 

Far too prescriptive.

 

No it is not my interpretation , I attributed it to your own goodself.

 

 

You claimed or inferred that boys preferred comics and girls preferred more meaty text.

 

No it does not follow that what people (of any age or gender including children) do is the same as what they say the would prefer to do in a survey.

 

This was my principal point.

 

I do not have total circulation figures for comics for boys or men comics v those for girls or women, I did however observe that there is a greater selection of girls and womens which, being subject to extreme commercial pressures, would suggest that girls and women buy more comic reading material and men and boys.

That too is data.

You cannot pick and choose which data you like and which data you don't, but you can try to understand the data you have and its progeny, before drawing invalid or unwarranted conclusions.

 

How does that play with a survey of 'preferences'?

[CharonY]

So you are putting your own observations over multi-nation surveys?

 

 

 

That too is data.

 

You misspelled "anecdote".

[studiot]

 

So you are putting your own observations over multi-nation surveys?

 

That is not a justifiable conclusion.

 

I have not disputed the data collected by the surveys.

However I am fully entitled to dispute any subsequent, analysis, interpretation or explanation.

 

It is for the surveyors to show that that any other explanation is invalid, I merely have to find one, I don't have to prove it as I am not offering it as gospel.

[Velocity_Boy]

Ya know, when I first read the title of this debate topic my immediate gut reaction was to say something along the lines of blaming the nurture aspect in that whole nature vs nurture argument.

 

That is to say, girls are bad at math, or rather, not as likely to be as adept at it as males, only because they're taught by society to be that way.

 

But then I recalled that with brain imagery technology we have learned over the past couple decades that the female brain actually DOES work differently, that is, processes input data differently than does a male brain.

 

It also causes women to convey and communicate that data to others in different ways.

 

As the old adage about how women will tell driving directions much differently than a man.

 

They tend to think in non linear ways. They multi task better, which probably means they might not be as proficient focusing on only one task....o r equation?...as are males.

 

If this were indeed true, I believe it would pose a significant detriment to being a math wiz.

[swansont]

If this were indeed true

 

And that is part of the issue: establishing that things are in fact true, rather than the result of handwaving, or citing anecdotes, or cherry-picking results to affirm a pre-existing viepoint.

[CharonY]

 

 

It is for the surveyors to show that that any other explanation is invalid, I merely have to find one, I don't have to prove it as I am not offering it as gospel.

 

In case you have missed it, the only conclusion that I have drawn is that potential bias against boys could be raised on the comics part. That part is pure speculation. The surveys are descriptive and as such do not need to rule out things. In fact, you are arguing your own strawman (girls like meatier literature) which is not part of the conclusion of the study, nor a claim that I made.

 

They did observe that girls, on average, declared that they enjoyed reading more than boys. This is a data point that cannot be refuted by the anecdotes you present. As far as I can see you have not presented an alternative counterpoint to these observations.

 

 

 

I have not disputed the data collected by the surveys.

 

 

Yes you did, implicitly, how else is can you interpret:

 

 

How many comics for boys are there and how many for girls?

 

Other than claiming that girls actually prefer comics or are at least equally like it. Yet the data suggests otherwise. Your only counterpoint is so far your own observations.

Of course, you could argue that girls are more likely to misrepresent their preferences than boys, but then you have no evidence to the contrary, either.

 

As whole, this is a minor point and you have entirely missed the context in which it was presented (and instead went on arguing a point that seems to be quite prevalent in your mind).

 

And that is part of the issue: establishing that things are in fact true, rather than the result of handwaving, or citing anecdotes, or cherry-picking results to affirm a pre-existing viepoint.

 

That is the big challenge. In many areas the data is not terribly conclusive and are highly dependent on study design (obviously). A main issue is of course that there is generally a large overlap and the difference may be just found in the outlier in each gender group.The effects are often not terribly large in actual measurements and can be skewed (for example gender gap in maths varies between -15 to +32 points, reading somewhere between +10 and +72 points).

Learning has a huge effect on all aspects, making it even more difficult to spot potential biological gender effects and are then covered on top with cultural aspects.

I do find it weird that in such a complex area where clearly much more research is needed people have such strong opinions.

[studiot]

 

studiot

I have not disputed the data collected by the surveys.

Charon Y.

 

 

Yes you did, implicitly, how else is can you interpret:

 

 

Not so.

I did not originally offer comment on the data but summarised the survey conclusions for others to comment.

 

studiot

The conclusion is that efforts to attract girls to science, techniology and maths have largely failed and that girls are more likely to suffer 'Maths Anxiety' than boys.

 

 

The thread was later widened by others to include reading and I do not object to this. In fact I welcome it as a natural extension to other observed gender differences.

 

 

Other than claiming that girls actually prefer comics or are at least equally like it. Yet the data suggests otherwise. Your only counterpoint is so far your own observations.

 

This is the second time to have serouiusly misquoted my statements. I did not claim this at all.

Strictly I claimed that girls appear to buy more comics than boys. Nothing at all was said about their preferences.

 

 

studiot

I do not have total circulation figures for comics for boys or men comics v those for girls or women, I did however observe that there is a greater selection of girls and womens which, being subject to extreme commercial pressures, would suggest that girls and women buy more comic reading material and men and boys.

That too is data

 

 

CharonY

In case you have missed it, the only conclusion that I have drawn is that potential bias against boys could be raised on the comics part.

 

In my turn perhaps I did misunderstand some of what you wrote.

I apologise for any of this.

 

 

Data should be tested not only against the original collection but also against other known or observed data or theory. If a conflict is found the proper conclusion may well be that further observation is necessary to answer the discrepancy.

 

Data, after all can be sometimes misleading and sometimes actually false.

[Velocity_Boy]

 

And that is part of the issue: establishing that things are in fact true, rather than the result of handwaving, or citing anecdotes, or cherry-picking results to affirm a pre-existing viepoint.

 

 

So OK, if you're gotta get snarky about it than I WILL say that as a Biologist and Psych devotee, I DO think that the female brain is "wired" a bit differently than the male's. We have actually viewed various images from brainscan tech like PETs and fMRIs that shows this. The females utilize different neural pathways in deducing answers to questions and in problem solving methodologies. They also use a larger and less concentrated portion of the brain. Their thinking tends to be a bit more tangential and abstract and less linear.

 

Ergo....these differences would certainly be non-advantageous at the least and at most downright detrimental insofar as working in the discipline of mathematics.

 

Ergo.....society still does tend to view females as being less Math savvy then their male counterparts.

 

Summation....The answer as to why females are often less adept at Math is due to BOTH nature and nurture. But in fact is due more to Nature than previously thought.

 

And there is this..............

 

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

 

 

Or are you gonna call this cherry picking?

 

Let me know if you need more help on this matter. It's what I do, smart guy.

 

Thanks.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Velocity_Boy

[swansont]

So OK, if you're gotta get snarky about it

While I freely admit that I am a lover of snark, there is nothing snarky about that post. In this very thread we have seen responses that were completely devoid of any reference to scientific studies, but instead relied on one or more of the pitfalls I mentioned.

 

I apologize if you got the impression that my objections were directed at you. While my post quoted you, the response was intended to be more general. The pitfalls of a forum format.

 

than I WILL say that as a Biologist and Psych devotee, I DO think that the female brain is "wired" a bit differently than the male's. We have actually viewed various images from brainscan tech like PETs and fMRIs that shows this. The females utilize different neural pathways in deducing answers to questions and in problem solving methodologies. They also use a larger and less concentrated portion of the brain. Their thinking tends to be a bit more tangential and abstract and less linear.

Ergo....these differences would certainly be non-advantageous at the least and at most downright detrimental insofar as working in the discipline of mathematics.

 

Ergo.....society still does tend to view females as being less Math savvy then their male counterparts.

 

Summation....The answer as to why females are often less adept at Math is due to BOTH nature and nurture. But in fact is due more to Nature than previously thought.

And there is this..............

 

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

 

 

Or are you gonna call this cherry picking?

 

Let me know if you need more help on this matter. It's what I do, smart guy.

 

Thanks.

Since as I explained above I did not accuse you of cherry picking, this is moot, but I'm a little disappointed in WebMD's habit of saying "a study has shown" without citing the study. But at least you provided a link, which is a step better than what we've seen in much of this thread.

[CharonY]

Actually the differences in brain functions and anatomy are not a terribly good explanation as a whole when it comes specifically to maths tasks. There are tasks which show strong gender differences, such as memory recall (stronger in girls/women) or spatial tasks (stronger in boys/men). With Maths an interesting issue is that the gap in testing scores in children is very small (and in some countries and certain years girls outperform boys; again, based on PISA data). At least based on older US data the gap seems also to be present in college, though the gap is still fairly small. The major difference seems to be that more males are at the right (high) end of the distribution (see Xie and Shauman 2003, Harvard Univ. Press). I.e. while there is a broad overlap the highest performers seem to be males. Now while this points at some biological source, it is not that universal, after all the vast majority actually overlaps. So it is not that the male brain as a whole is better at performing these types of tasks, but that a subgroup among the male group may be. That is what I meant with outliers earlier.

 

Is there a reference with regard to abstract and linear thinking? I imagine that a proper test system would be rather difficult and I cannot think of a study off-hand that tested it (but then obviously it is not field). It is curious that traditionally it was believed that women are actually incapable of abstract thought, for example.