Gender Gap and Gendered Education: Myth or Reality? Tatyana Sumner Fall 2012 ED.7202.T Action Research Final Presentation
Jan 04, 2016
Gender Gap and Gendered Education: Myth or Reality?
Tatyana SumnerFall 2012ED.7202.T
Action Research Final Presentation
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
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
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).
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
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.
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
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
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
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)
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
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
.
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
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%
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
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
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
The End