Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring who counts: gender and mathematics assessment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessment in mathematics is assumed to provide credible and important information about what students know and can do. In this paper we focus on large scale tests and question whether mathematics assessment is essentially gender neutral. We consider aspects of test validity and discuss issues of terminology related to gender and mathematics. In particular, we highlight examples of the ways that test content, response processes, and interactions with other variables such as socio-economic status and beliefs/attitudes can distort students’ results and affect the interpretation of achievement outcomes. Where appropriate, we highlight findings from our own research

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It should be noted that the term mathematical literacy is not used universally. Numeracy, quantitative literacy, and mathemacy are among the range of terms used—for further detail, see Vacher (2014).

References

  • Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Oxford: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2017). Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/mathematics/curriculum/f-10?layout=1.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2016). National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy Achievement in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2016. http://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2016-naplan-national-report.pdf.

  • Barrington, F., & Brown, T. (2014). AMSI monitoring of participation in Year 12 mathematics. Gazette of the Australian Mathematical Society, 41(4), 221–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbow, C. P. (1992). Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Facto or artefact? Science, 210, 1262–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (2011). The context for interpreting the PISA results in the U.S.A.: Negativism, chauvinism, misunderstanding, and the potential to distort the educational systems of nations. In M. A. Pereyra, H. G. Korthoff & R. Cowen (Eds.), PISA under examination. Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools (pp. 77–96). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, N., & Kellaghan, T. (1990). Method of measurement and gender differences in scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contini, D., Di Tommaso, M. L., & Mendolia, S. (2017). The gender gap in mathematics achievement: Evidence from Italian data. Economics of Education Review, 58, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, P. J., Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2004). The Victorian certificate of education—mathematics, science and gender. Australian Journal of Education, 48(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L. (1997). Editorial: The great validity debate. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education and Training. (2017). Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education Students. Canberra: Australian government. https://www.education.gov.au/literacy-and-numeracy-test-initial-teacher-education-students.

  • Dowling, P., & Burke, J. (2012). Shall we do politics or learn some maths today? Representing and interrogating social inequality. In H. Forgasz & F. Rivera (Eds.), Towards equity in mathematics education. Gender, culture, and diversity (pp. 87–103). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L. (1961). Must all tests be valid? American Psychologist, 16(10), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethington, C. A., & Wolfle, L. M. (1984). Sex differences in a causal model of mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(5), 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E. (1974). Mathematics learning and the sexes: A review. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5(3), 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. I., & Levi, L. W. (1998). A longitudinal study of gender differences in young children’s mathematical thinking. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figel, J. (2009). Preface. National testing of pupils in Europe: Objectives, organisation and use of results. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency-Eurydice. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/109EN.pdf.

  • Finkel, A. (2017). Measuring up. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia 40th Anniversary Conference … Opening Address. http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/MERGA-speech.pdf.

  • Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Journal of School Psychology, 53, 25–44.

  • Forgasz, H., & Hill, J. (2013). Gender, school settings, and high achievers in mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgasz, H., Leder, G., & Tan, H. (2014). Public views on the gendering of mathematics and related careers: International comparisons. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgasz, H., & Tan, H. (2010). Does CAS use disadvantage girls in VCE mathematics? Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2011). Equity and quality of mathematics education: Research and media portrayals. In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W. Secada & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 205–222). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullarton, S. (2010). Mathematics learning: What TIMSS and PISA can tell us about what counts for all Australian students. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=research_conference.

  • Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P. C., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Morely, M., & Cahalan, C. (2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75(3), 165–190. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research. Competencies for analysis and applications (9th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, G., Kündiger, E., & Larouche, C. (1990). Mathematical achievement of grade 12 girls in fifteen countries. In L. Burton (Ed.), Gender and mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 87–97). London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high—scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7604277.

  • Henrion, C. (1997). Women in mathematics. The addition of difference. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW. http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/ whysofew.pdf.

  • Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L. A., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(22), 8801–8807. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901265106 (Gender, culture, and mathematics performance).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA]. (2015). About TIMSS 2015. http://timss2015.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/full%20pdfs/T15-About-TIMSS-2015.pdf.

  • Kane, M. T. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 23(2), 198–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, C. (2016). Efforts to Increase Students’ Interest in Pursuing Mathematics, Science and Technology Studies and Careers. National Measures taken by 30 Countries—2015 Report, European Schoolnet, Brussels. http://www.dzs.cz/file/3669/kearney-2016-nationalmeasures-30-countries-2015-report-28002-29-pdf/.

  • Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women’s math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 198–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology and measurement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, G. C. (2015). Mathematics for all? The case for and against national testing. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The proceedings of the 12th Internal Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 189–208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_14.

  • Levine, F. J. (2016). From the Desk of the Executive Director—AERA to Further Refine Gender Demographic Categories. http://www.aera.net/Newsroom/AERA-Highlights-E-newsletter/AERA-Highlights-May-2016/From-the-Desk-of-the-Executive-DirectorAERA-to-Further-Refine-Gender-Demographic-Categories.

  • Merten, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology. Integrating diversity with quantitative & qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Validity and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. D., Linn, R., & Gronlund, N. (2009). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. Upper Saddle River: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, J. D. (1982). Towards equality: Progress in mathematics in Australian secondary schools (Occasional paper No. 16). Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/.

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Loveless, T. (2016). 20 Years of TIMSS. International trends in mathematics and science achievement, curriculum, and instruction. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/timss2015/wp-content/uploads/2016/T15-20-years-of-TIMSS.pdf.

  • National Assessment Program (NAP). (2016). Numeracy. https://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/numeracy.

  • Newton, P. E., & Shaw, S. D. (2016). Disagreement over the best way to use the word ‘validity’ and options for reaching consensus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 23(2), 178–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage. How high stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). Equally prepared for life? How 15-year-old boys and girls perform in school OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/42843625.pdf.

  • OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 results: Ready to learn: Students’ engagement, drive and self-beliefs (Volume III). PISA, OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-volume-III.pdf.

  • OECD. (2013b). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en.

  • OECD (2014), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do—Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014), PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en.

  • OECD. (2016). PISA 2015. Results in focus. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf.

  • Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern—wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postlethwaite, T. N., & Kellaghan, T. (2009). National assessment of educational achievement. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Info_Services_Publications/pdf /2009/EdPol9.pdf.

  • Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2015). Sex differences in mathematics and science achievement: A meta-analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress assessments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 645–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, S. K. &. Kauffman, S. H. (1980). Teaching mathematics to children with special needs. Columbus: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robitaille, D., & Travers, K. (1992). International studies of achievement in mathematics. In: Grouws D. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics education (pp. 687–709). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAT (2016). College-bound seniors. Total group profile report. https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/total-group-2016.pdf.

  • Schildkamp-Kundiger, E. (Ed.). (1982). International review on gender and mathematics. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. [ERIC Document No. 222326].

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (2002). Assessing six assumptions in assessment. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 255–275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. E., & Walker, W. J. (1988). Sex differences on New York state Regents examinations: Support for the differential course-taking hypothesis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.

  • Steen, L. A. (2004). Achieving quantitative literacy: An urgent challenge for higher education (No. 62). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarampi, M. R., Heydari, N., & Hegarti, M. (2016). A tale of two types of perspective taking: Sex differences in spatial ability. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1507–1516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616667459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vacher, H. L. (2014). Looking at the multiple meanings of numeracy, quantitative literacy, and quantitative reasoning. Numeracy. https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.7.2.1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA]. (2013). Mathematics 2006–2009. Frequently asked questions. http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/vce/studies/mathematics/mathsfaqs.aspx.

  • Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2009). Research methods in education. An introduction (9th edn.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Gershikov, A. (2008). Gender and performance in mathematical tasks: Does the context make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(4), 677–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M. (2016). Bringing consequences and side effects of testing and assessment to the foreground. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 23(2), 299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Gilah C. Leder & Helen J. Forgasz

Authors
  1. Gilah C. Leder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen J. Forgasz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilah C. Leder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leder, G.C., Forgasz, H.J. Measuring who counts: gender and mathematics assessment. ZDM Mathematics Education 50, 687–697 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0939-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0939-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation