Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Differences in Science: An Expertise Perspective

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach to research on gender differences in science that uses the work on expertise in science as a framework for understanding gender differences. Because gender differences in achievement and participation in the sciences are largest in physics, the focus of this review is on physics. The nature of expertise is first discussed and a framework that focuses on factors that influence the emergence of expertise in physics is presented. This is used to interpret what is known about gender differences in science, particularly physics. Next, the potential contributions of the research on gender differences to our understanding of expertise are discussed. Using what is learned from these two areas of research, recommendations are made for future research examining gender differences in physics. It is suggested that such an approach be used for other areas of science, such as chemistry, where large gender differences in achievement and participation also exist.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). The artistic personality: A systems approach. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 31–42). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtysomething. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2003). Can we get there from here? Educational Researcher, 32, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. A. Anders, & J. Smith (Eds.) Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 64–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, J. A. (1977). An information processing model of learning and problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D., & Leary, R. (2003). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 176–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A. E., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E., & Logel, C. E. R. (2003). Stereotype threat and women’s performance in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92, 307–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beller, M., & Gafni, N. (1996). The 1991 international assessment of educational progress in mathematics and sciences: The gender differences perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 365–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1984). Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boster, J. S., & Johnson, J. C. (1989). Form or function: A comparison of expert and novice judgments of similarity among fish. American Anthropologist, 91, 866–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 369–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. N., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2004). Students’ learning approaches, reasoning abilities, motivational goals, and epistemological beliefs in differing science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-a-Scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self- explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12, 258–261.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. (1989). Expert systems: How far can they go? AI Magazine, 10, 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M. (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type, and ability. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J. H. (1986). Novice strategies for processing scientific texts. Discourse Processes, 9, 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desouza, J. M. S., & Czemiak, C. M. (2002). Social implications and gender differences among preschoolers: Implications for science activities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16, 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon, A. S. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics. Science Education, 82, 379–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L., & Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does research say about assessment? pp. 1–18. Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Mestre, J. P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expert-like problem analysis: Effects on schema acquisition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 307–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enman, M., & Lupart, J. (2000). Talented female students’ resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11, 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.) The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. (2006a). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative task. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. (2006b). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 685–706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., Felder, G., Mauney, M., Hamrin, C., & Dietz, J. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention: gender differences in student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 151–163. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western University.

  • Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 348–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finegold, M., & Mass, R. (1985). Differences in the processes of solving physics problems between good physics problem solvers and poor physics problem solvers. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3, 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foote, C. J. (1996). Attribution feedback in the elementary classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fort, D. C., & Varney, H. L. (1989). How students see scientists: Mostly male, mostly white, and mostly benevolent. Science and Children, 26, 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1088–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. A., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). Goal and orientations toward the future: Links to Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 91–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81, 259–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32, 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors pp. 1–30. Wiley, NY: Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, R. D., Hollowly, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G. (1984). Maternal variables as predictors of children’s school readiness and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade. Child Development, 55, 1902–1912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, N. M., & Seymour, E. (1991). The problems of women in science, mathematics, an engineering. Retrieved April 12, 2004 from The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western University.

  • Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 195–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Hong, N. (2000). Computer-based science inquiry: How components of metacognitive self-regulation affect problem- solving. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from: http://www.cet.edu/research/papers/CPhoward01.html (April).

  • Huber, R. A., & Burton, G. M. (1995). What do students think scientists look like? School Science & Mathematics, 95, 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ivie, R., Cuzjko, R., & Stowe, K. (2001). Women physicists speak: The 2001 International Study of Women in Physics. American Institute of Physics Report. Retrieved from http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/gendertrends.html.

  • Jones, G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. R., Mullis, I. V. S., Raizen, S. A., Weiss, I. R., & Weston, E. A. (1992). The 1990 science report card: NAEP’s assessment of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G., & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher–student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, J. B., & Lakes, M. K. (1983). The myth of equality in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 131–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardash, C. M. (2000). Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardash, C. M., & Wallace, M. L. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaschalk, R. (2002). Physics- why bother?..that’s why!. Contextual Teaching Exchange, 1, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, S., Allbritton, D., Aronis, J., Wilson, C., & Soffa, M. L. (2006). Gender, achievement, and persistence in an undergraduate computer science program. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 37, 42–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinfeld, J. (1998). The myth that schools shortchange girls: Social science in the service of deception. U.S. News and World Report, pp. 1–5.

  • Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Utah. Retrieved from: http://asee.org/acPapers/2004–1188_Final.pdf. (June).

  • Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85, 758–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representations in physics. In D. Gentner, & A.L. Stevens (Eds.) Mental Models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H. (1985). Understanding problem representations and skill in physics. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking and learning skills: Vol 2. Research and open questions (pp. 141–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., Heller, J., & Greeno, G. (1980). Instructional implications of research in problem solving. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2, 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980a). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980b). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larose, S., Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Harvey, M. (2006). Trajectories of science self-efficacy and academic and vocational adjustment in science and technology programs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 373–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W., & Hunt, E. B. (1993). Comparing the tortoise and the hare: Gender differences and experience in dynamic spatial reasoning tasks. Psychological Science, 4, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. L., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational secondary classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67, 92–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and categorization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lupart, J. L., Cannon, E., & Telfer, J. A. (2004). Gender differences in adolescent academic achievement, interests, values, and life-role expectations. High Ability Studies, 15, 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannis, J. D., Thomas, N. G., Sloat, B. F., & Davis, C. (1989). An analysis of factors affecting choices of majors in science, mathematics, and engineering at the University of Michigan (Research Report No. 23). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Education of Women.

  • Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002). Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 324–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIver, L. (2000). The effect of programming language on error rates of novice programmers. Paper presented at the twelfth annual meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Corigliano Calabro, Italy (April).

  • Meece, J. L., & Jones, G. M. (1996). Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: Are girls rote learners? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 393–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high school students’ views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 363–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls and physics: continuing barriers to belonging. The Curriculum Journal, 17, 281–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress (2005). Results of the 2005 science trial urban district assessment. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission on Excellence in Education (2000). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2001). Assessment in practice. Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2004. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/nsf04317.pdf.

  • National Science Foundation. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006: Elementary and secondary education. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c1/c1h.htm.

  • Neto, A. J., & Valente, M. O. (1997). Problem solving in physics: Towards a synergetic metacognitively developed approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/59/d1.pdf. (March)

  • Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posnick-Goodwin, S. (2005). In the march toward gender equity, girls surge forward, but boys fall back. California Editor, pp. 1–3.

  • Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. The British Psychological Society, 83, 389–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif, F., & Heller, J. I. (1982). Knowledge structures and problem solving in physics. Educational Psychologist, 17, 102–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, D. R., & Novak, J. D. (1983). Sex-related differences in high school science and mathematics enrollments: Do they give males a critical headstart toward science and math-related careers? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29, 308–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, S. (2005). K-12 programs draw girls to science. EE Times, pp. 1–3.

  • Roe, A. (1956). Psychology of occupations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V. (2003). Sociology of science: Testing theories for the gender difference. Science, 302, 1506–1507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, P. A. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 205–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A. (1998). Why don’t women publish as much as men? Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1–5.

  • Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: determinants of exceptional performance. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.) International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 311–324). United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E. (1992a). “The problem iceberg” in science, mathematics, and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 230–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E. (1992b). The problem iceberg in science, mathematics, and engineering education: Student explanations for high attrition rates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 230–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E. (1995). The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79, 437–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • She, H. C. (2001). Different gender students’ participation in the high and low-achieving middle school questioning-oriented biology classrooms in Taiwan. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19, 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson, D. P., & Pizzini, E. L. (1992). Gender bias in female elementary teachers’ perceptions of the scientific ability of students. Science Education, 76, 147–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill- structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 6–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, N., & McGee, S. (2002). The influence of inquiry-based multimedia learning environment on specific problem-solving skills among ninth grade students across gender differences. Paper Presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from: http://www.cet.edu/research/papers/CPshin02.html. (November).

  • Siebert, E. D. (2001). Science education program standards. In E. D. Siebert, & W. J. McIntosh (Eds.) College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 115–138). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1997). Girls’ science education: choice, solidarity and culture. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 407–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, J. E. (2006). The critical mediating role of social encouragement for science motivation and confidence among high school girls and boys. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1017–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strenta, A. C., Elliott, R., Adair, R., Matier, M., & Scott, J. (1994). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 35, 513–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. (1996). Gender related differences on the College Board’s Advanced Placement and Achievement tests, 1982–1992. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 353–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2001). Gender differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance: University physics versus college physics in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1017–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2003). Parent-child conversations about science: The socialization of gender inequities? Developmental Psychology, 39, 34–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, H. R., Snow, C. E., Roach, K. A., & Kurland, B. (2005). Talking and reading science: Longitudinal data on sex differences in mother-child conversations in low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1989). Another look at research on the adaptation of instruction to student characteristics. Educational Psychologist, 24, 213–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2000). Cognition and metacognition. Issues in Education, 6, 167–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuminaro, J., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games. Physics Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview, case-study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59, 898–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, A. T. S., Baaquie, B. E., & Huan, A. C. H. (1993). Gender differences in undergraduate physics examination performance and learning strategies in Singapore. Physics Education, 28, 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willingham, W. W., & Johnson, L. M. (1997). Supplement to gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, V. L., Ackerman, C., & Malave, C. (2000). Cross-time attitudes, concept formation, and achievement in college freshman physics. Journal of Research on College Teaching, 37, 1112–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, N., & Tsarna, H. (1987). Teachers’ reported practices toward girls and boys in science and languages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 300–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajchowski, R., & Martin, J. (1993). Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge strategies, or knowledge structure. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 459–470.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful and important suggestions throughout the review process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Gita Taasoobshirazi

  2. Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Martha Carr

Authors
  1. Gita Taasoobshirazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martha Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gita Taasoobshirazi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taasoobshirazi, G., Carr, M. Gender Differences in Science: An Expertise Perspective. Educ Psychol Rev 20, 149–169 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9067-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9067-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation