Top Banner
Gender Gap and Gendered Education: Myth or Reality? Tatyana Sumner Fall 2012 ED.7202.T Action Research Final Presentation
18

Statement of Problem – Slide 3 Research Design – Slide 4 Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5 Threats to External Validity – Slide 6 Proposed.

Jan 04, 2016

Download

Documents

Giles Clark
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Gender Gap and Gendered Education: Myth or Reality?

Tatyana SumnerFall 2012ED.7202.T

Action Research Final Presentation

Page 2: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Statement of Problem – Slide 3 Research Design – Slide 4 Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5 Threats to External Validity – Slide 6 Proposed Data – Slide 7 Proposed Correlations (Graphs) – Slide 8 – 9 Sample Survey Questions – Slide 10 References – Slide 11

Table of Contents

Page 3: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

This research will focus on possible differences in math attitudes between female and male students.

Living in a gendered society (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Risman,2004).

Socially constructed stereotypes “girls are not good at math,” (Guderson et al., 2012; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002; Tomasetto, Alparone, & Cadinu, 2011; Tracy & Lane, 2006).

Gross underrepresentation of women in math-related fields (Brandell & Staberg 2008; Leaper et al., 2012; Steffens, Jelenec, & Noack, 2010).

Statement of the Problem

Page 4: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Literature ReviewMath Attitudes

Girls are less likely to pursue math-

related careers (Brandell &

Staberg, 2008; Steffens et al.,

2010; James 2007).

Math = Male, Me = Female,

Therefore Math ≠ Me (Leaper et

al., 2012; Norsek et al., 2002;

Steffens et al., 2010).

Girls attribute success to luck or

hard work rather than talent

(Steffens et al., 2010; Stetsenko, et

al., 2000).

Proposed Solutions

Educating teachers about gender bias

(Tracy & Lane, 1999).

Students should be taught to work

together in peer-assisted and

cooperative learning environments

(Kroeger & Kouche, 2006; Kuntz et al.,

2001; Sparks, 2012; Tournaki &

Crischitello, 2003)

Provide girls with female role-models,

support against stereotype threat and

encouragement in their abilities (Gool

et al., 2007; Shapiro & Williams,

2012).

Page 5: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

By implementing a dual-gender peer-assisted learning environment during math instruction for 18 students (9 girls and 9 boys) in an urban Elementary School X in Brooklyn, for the period of 4 weeks, 3 times a week, will improve student’s attitudes toward mathematics.

Hypothesis Statement

HR1

Page 6: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Participants and Instruments

Participants

Sample of convenience = 18

students from various

schools throughout New York

and northern New Jersey

area.

o 9 girls – age range 9-15

o 9 boys – age range 9-15

Instruments

Pre / Post Test

o Math attitude survey

(devised by the researcher)

Team Randomization

An excel file to randomize

pairs without bias.

Page 7: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Quasi-Experimental Design Nonequivalent Control Group Design

Symbolic Design Representation: O X1 O O X2 O

Research Design and Threats to Validity

Threats to Internal Validity

History Maturations Instrumentation Mortality Statistical Regression Differential Selection of Subject

Threats to External Validity

Ecological Validity Selection-Treatment Interaction Specificity of Variables

Page 8: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Pre-test – Students of both groups will be given a survey measuring gauging their initial attitude toward mathematics.

Treatment – Hypothetical treatment will be introduced to all participants.

Post-test – A survey, identical to pre-test survey will be given to the group gauging any change in attitude toward mathematics

Procedures

Page 9: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Data Analysis: Math Attitudes

Stud

ent 1

Stud

ent 2

Stud

ent 3

Stud

ent 4

Stud

ent 5

Stud

ent 6

Stud

ent 7

Stud

ent 8

Stud

ent 9

- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Group 1: Attitudes Toward Math (Based Questions 2, 3 and 9)

Pre-Test Mean

Post-Test Mean

Female Students

Lik

ert

Sca

le

Stud

ent 1

Stud

ent 2

Stud

ent 3

Stud

ent 4

Stud

ent 5

Stud

ent 6

Stud

ent 7

Stud

ent 8

Stud

ent 9

- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Group 2: Attitudes Toward Math(Based on Questions 2, 3 and 9)

Pre-Test Mean

Post-Test Mean

Male Students

Lik

ert

Sca

lePre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean Change

Group 1 Mean 2.22 2.81 0.59 Group 1 Mean % 56% 70% 15%

Pre-Test Mean

Post-Test Mean Change

Group 2 Mean 2.67 3.04 0.37 Group 2 Mean % 67% 76% 9%

Composite Predictive Variables

Page 10: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Data Analysis: Math Skill ConfidenceComposite Predictive Variables

Pre-Test Mean

Post-TestMean Change

Group 1 Mean 2.11 2.50 0.39 Group 1 Mean % 53% 63% 10%

Pre-Test Mean

Post-TestMean Change

Group 2 Mean 2.56 3.00 0.44 Group 2 Mean % 64% 75% 11%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Group 1: Math skill confi-dence

(Based on Questions 6 and 8)

Pre-TestPost Test

Female Students

Math

skill co

nfi

cen

(Lik

ert

Sca

le)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Group 2: Math skill confi-dence

(Based on Questions 6 and 8)

Pre-TestPost-Test

Male Students

Math

skill co

nfi

cen

(Lik

ert

Sca

le)

Page 11: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Correlations: Math AttitudesBrief Analysis: A fair, positive correlation (.326rxy) suggests that the more students prefer to work in parirs or groups when doing math problems, the more positive their attitudes toward math are.

Correlation Coefficient = 0.326rxy

Post-Survey Correlation

Q.5 Preferences X-Axis

Mean of Q.2, Q.3 and Q.9. Preferences Y-Axis

2 2.67 2 2.67 4 2.67 3 3.33 3 2.67 3 3.00 3 2.00 2 3.67 2 2.67 2 3.33 3 3.00 3 3.67 3 3.33 2 3.00 2 2.672 2.33 4 4.00 2 2.00

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 -

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Post-Test Preferences: Working in Pairs and Attitudes toward Math

Post-Test Preferences: Working in Pairs and Attitudes toward Math Linear (Post-Test Preferences: Working in Pairs and Attitudes toward Math )

Preferences of working on math problems in pairs/groups

Att

itu

de

to

wa

rd M

ath

em

ati

cs

Page 12: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Correlations: Parent Assistance and Math confidence

Brief Analysis: A fair, negative correlation (-.35rxy) suggests that the less parents spend time helping students with math, the more confident the students in working on math independently.

Correlation Coefficient = -0.35rxy

Post-Survey Correlation

Q.4 Frequencies X-Axis

Q.6 Preferences Y-Axis

2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 4 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Post-Test: Parental Assitance with Math and Math Independance Con-

fidence

Post-Test: Parental Assi-tance with Math and Math Independance ConfidenceLinear (Post-Test: Parental Assitance with Math and Math Independance Confi-dence)

Frequency: Parents helping with math homeworkPre

fere

nce

s:

Stu

dent'

s c

onfi

dence

in

independent

math

work

.

Page 13: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Bell Curve Distribution

• Mean = 2.44• Mode = 2.67• Median = 2.83• SD = 0.7

• 83% within +/- 1SD

• Negative Skew – More higher scores few to none lower

scores beyond 1SD

Page 14: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Discussion Even the hypothetical implementation of treatment produced

a change of perception in students attitudes toward math.

By attempting to eliminate gender-based competition in the classroom, and by creating peer-assisted learning environment, raises students’ confidence in and enjoyment of mathematics.

Implications Further research using a randomly selected and larger

sample. Further research with actual implementation of treatment.

Discussion/Implications

Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean ChangeGroup 1 Mean (Female) 2.09 2.37 15%Group 2 Mean (Male) 2.67 3.04 9%

Page 15: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Brandell, G., & Staberg, E. (2008). Mathematics: A female, male or gender-neutral domain? A study of attitudes among students at secondary level. Gender and Education, 20(5), 495-509. doi:10.1080/09540250701805771

Gool, J., Carpenter, J., Davies, S., Ligos, T., MacKenzie, L., Schilp, R., & Schips, J. (2006). Teacher bias of gender in the elementary classroom. Education Today, (5), 27-30. Retrieved from Education Research Complete Database

Gunderson, E., Ramirez, G., Levine, S., & Beilock, S. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3/4), 153-166. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2

Kroeger, S. D., & Kouche, B. (2006). Using peer- assisted learning strategies to increase response to intervention in inclusive middle math settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(5), 6-13. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete Database

Kuntz, K. J., McLaughlin, T. F., & Howard, V. F. (2001). A comparison of cooperative learning and small group individualized instruction for math in a self contained classroom for elementary students with disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 24(3), 41-56. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete Database

Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. (2012). Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 268-282. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9693-z

References

Page 16: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83(1), 44-59. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83(1), 44-59. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510-531. doi:10:1177/0891243204265269

Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429-450. doi:10.1177/0891243204265349

Shapiro, J., & Willaims, A. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3/4), 175-183. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0

Sparks, S. D. (2012). Researchers cite social benefits in coed classes. Education Week, 31(30), 1-15. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete Database

References

Page 17: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., &Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 947-963. doi:10.1037/a0019920

Stetsenko, A., Little, T. D., Gordeeva, T., Grasshof, M., & Oettingen, G. (2000). Gender effects in children’s beliefs about school performance: A cross-cultural study. Child Development, 71(2), 517-527. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00161

Tomasetto, C., Alparone, F., & Cadinu, M. (2011). Girls’ math performance under stereotype threat: The moderating role of mothers’ gender stereotypes. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 943-949. doi:10.1037/a0024047

Tournaki, N., & Criscitiello, E. (2003). Using peer tutoring as a successful part of behavior management. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(2), 22-29. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications2/TEACHINGExceptionalChildren/default.htm

Tracy, D. M., & Lane, M. B. (1999). Gender-equitable teaching behaviors: Preservice teachers’ awareness and implementation. Equity & Excellence in Education, 32(3), 93-104. doi:10.1080/1066568990320311

References

Page 18: Statement of Problem – Slide 3  Research Design – Slide 4  Threats to Internal Validity – Slide 5  Threats to External Validity – Slide 6  Proposed.

The End