Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 261–282 | Cite as

Persistent gender inequities in mathematics achievement and expectations in Australia, Canada and the UK

  • Helen J. Forgasz
  • Gilah C. Leder
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

We report the general public’s perceptions and those of 15-year-old school students, about aspects of mathematics learning. For the adult sample, survey data were gathered from pedestrians and Facebook users in Australia, Canada and the UK—countries in which English is the dominant language spoken. Participants responded to items about the teaching and learning of mathematics, the gender stereotyping of mathematics and the perceived importance of studying mathematics for future careers. Collection of the data from the pedestrian samples partially overlapped with the period of data gathering via Facebook and coincided loosely with the administration of the Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] 2012 in the three countries of interest. We examined participants’ views/beliefs by country and by respondent age. We also compared the results of the adult samples with student responses to four PISA 2012 attitudinal items for which the foci were comparable to items administered to the general public. Thus, we were able to compare the responses of three different age groups. While participants considered mathematics to be important for everyone to study, and important for employment, vestiges of traditional gender stereotyped beliefs and expectations were evident, more so among the younger than older respondents.

Keywords

Gender stereotyping Beliefs about mathematics Surveys Age groups International comparisons Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Karen Skilling (UK) and Jennifer Hall (Canada) for gathering the pedestrian survey data in the UK and Canada, and Natalie Kalkhoven for assisting with the production of the graphs and data analyses. Funding to support the conduct of this study was received from the Faculty of Education, Monash University.

References

  1. Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Balancing acts: elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2007). Life matters. Gender equity in Australia: All for nothing? Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/gender-equity-in-australiaall-for-nothing/3395734.
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012). 3235.0—Population by age and sex, regions of Australia, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3235.0∼2012∼Main+Features
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). 3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2016 Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/1CD2B1952AFC5E7ACA257298000F2E76?OpenDocum
  5. Australian Human Rights Commission (2014). Face the facts. Retrieved from http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications
  6. Bank, B. J. (2007). Gender and education: an encyclopedia. Westport, CN: Praeger.Google Scholar
  7. Buschor, C. B., Kappler, C., Frei, A. K., & Berweger, S. (2014). I want to be a scientist/a teacher: students’ perceptions of career decision-making in gender-typed, non-traditional areas of work. Gender and Education, 26(7), 743–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gómez-Chacón, I., Leder, G., & Forgasz, H. (2014). Personal beliefs and gender gaps in mathematics. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 3, pp. 193–200). Vancouver, Canada: The International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: a step-by-step approach. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2012). CCF gender revolution symposium: is the gender revolution over? Retrieved from https://contemporaryfamilies.org/is-the-gender-revolution-over/
  12. Damarin, S. K. (2000). The mathematically able as a marked category. Gender and Education, 12(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of Labour and Mattingly Advertising. (1989). Summary of two stage campaign evaluation study. Girls’ career and subject choice. Melbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature-nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 340–357. doi: 10.1177/1745691613484767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. S. (1986). Gender-roles and women’s achievement. Educational Researcher, 15(6), 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eccles (Parsons) J., Adler T. F., Futterman R., Goff S. B., Kaczala C. M., Meece J. L., & Midgley C. (1983). Expectations, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  18. EFA global monitoring report team. (2015). Gender and the EFA 2000–2015: achievements and challenges. Paris, France: UNESCO Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/2015-efa-gender-report.Google Scholar
  19. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farley, R., & Haaga, J. (2005). The American people: census 2000. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forgasz, H. J., Leder, G. C., & Tan, H. (2014). Public views on the gendering of mathematics and related careers: international comparisons. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Francis, B. (2010). Girls’ achievement: contesting the positioning of girls as the relational ‘achievers’ to ‘boys’ underachievement’. In C. Jackson, C. F. Paechter, & E. Renold (Eds.), Girls and education 3–16: continuing concerns, new agendas (pp. 21–37). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Francis, B., & Skelton, C. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement. Questioning contemporary key debates. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall, J. (2014). Gender-neutral, yet gendered: exploring the Canadian general public’s views of mathematics. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 3, pp. 225–232). Vancouver, Canada: The International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  27. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, S. H., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henrion, C. (1997). Women in mathematics. The addition of difference. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hyde, J. S., & Meertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 106, 8801–8807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leder, G. C. (1992). Mathematics and gender: changing perspectives. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 597–622). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2010). I liked it till Pythagoras: the public’s views of mathematics. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 328–335). Fremantle, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  32. Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2011). The public’s views on gender and the learning of mathematics: does age matter? In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: traditions and [new] practices (pp. 446–454). Adelaide: AAMT and MERGA.Google Scholar
  33. Leder, G. C., Forgasz, H. J., & Jackson, G. (2014). Mathematics, English and gender issues: do teachers count? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9).Google Scholar
  34. Leder, G. C., Forgasz, H. J., & Solar, C. (1996). Research and intervention programs in mathematics education: a gendered issue. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education, part 2 (pp. 945–985). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Marginson, S, Tytler, R, Freeman, B and Roberts, K (2013). STEM: country comparisons. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Retrieved from www.acola.org.au
  36. McAnalley, K. (1991). Encouraging parents to stop pigeon-holing their daughters: the “Maths Multiplies Your Choices” campaign. Victorian Institute of Educational Research Bulletin, 66, 29–38.Google Scholar
  37. McHugh, M. L. (2013). The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2), 143–149 Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900058/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow. Further results from PISA 2000. OECD/UNESCO-UIS 2003. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/2960581.pdf
  39. OECD. (2013a). OECD skills outlook 2013: first results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Retrieved from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en
  40. OECD. (2013b). PISA 2012 results in focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm
  41. OECD. (2013c). PISA 2012 results: ready to learn. Volume III. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm
  42. OECD. (2014). PISA. Are boys and girls equally prepared for life? Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PIF-2014-gender-international-version.pdf
  43. OECD. (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education: aptitude, behaviour, confidence. PISA: OECD Publishing Retrieved from  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. OECD. (n.d.) About PISA. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa
  45. Powlishta, K. K. (2002). Measures and models of gender differentiation. The developmental course of gender differentiation: conceptuality, measuring and evaluating constructs and pathways. In L. S. Liben & R. Bigler (Eds.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(2), 167–178.Google Scholar
  46. Survation charities & campaign groups (2016). Attitudes to gender in 2016 Britain—8,000 sample study for Fawcett Society. Retrieved from survation.com/uk-attitudes-to-gender-in-2016-survation-for-fawcett-society/
  47. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: how Australia measures up. Camberwell, Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER].Google Scholar
  48. van Egmond, M., Baxter, J., Buchler, S., & Western, M. (2010). A stalled revolution. Gender role attitudes in Australia, 1986-2005. Journal of Population Research. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/83t4k56g58866h43/fulltext.pdf
  49. Wiersma, W. (1995). Research methods in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options