Advertisement

Gender Differences in Graph Tasks - Do They Exist in High School Bebras Categories Too?

  • Lucia Budinská
  • Karolína Mayerová
  • Michal Winczer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11169)

Abstract

This paper explores gender differences across the abilities of Junior (15–17 year old) and Senior (17–19 year old) students in terms of solving graph problems. As a basis to our assessment, we look at the graph tasks from the Slovak Bebras competition in 2012 to 2017 across both Junior and Senior categories. In our earlier research on this topic, we introduced a new method of categorising graph problems. This was based on an in-depth analysis of the various problem types aimed at 8–15 year old students, whereby a set of indicators were defined to predict whether a task was more likely to be successfully solved by girls or boys. In this paper, we apply the new categorisation onto graph tasks aimed at Junior and Senior students with an aim to verify whether the same predictors of girls’ and boys’ success remain valid. A qualitative analysis indicates that our categorisation of graph tasks is suitable for Junior and Senior categories with minor adaptation only. As a result of a subsequent quantitative analysis, we find a significant difference in the solution success rates between girls and boys in 38 out of 65 analysed graph tasks. In 35 tasks boys were significantly more successful and these were tasks with an overall lower success rate. Furthermore, a few tasks with contradictory results concerning girls’ and boys’ solution success were identified. We selected one of these tasks where a higher error tendency in older students was apparent, and further analysed it together with the students themselves (15–19 years old) in order to better understand the methods used by them while solving this task. Our findings can be used to enable authors of task sets and lesson plans to define problems in a manner that will minimize gender success differences such as the ones described in this study.

Keywords

Bebras High school Graph tasks Gender differences 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank referees for their comments on this paper. This research was supported by the VEGA 1/0797/18 and the UK/249/2018 grants.

References

  1. 1.
    Budinská, L., Mayerová, K., Veselovská, M.: Bebras task analysis in category little beavers in Slovakia. In: Dagiene, V., Hellas, A. (eds.) ISSEP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10696, pp. 91–101. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71483-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Budinská, L., Mayerová, K.: Graph tasks in Bebras contest: what does it have to do with gender? In: Proceedings of the 6th Computer Science Education Research Conference, pp. 83–90. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hubwieser, P., Hubwieser, E., Graswald, D.: How to attract the girls: gender-specific performance and motivation in the Bebras challenge. In: Brodnik, A., Tort, F. (eds.) ISSEP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9973, pp. 40–52. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46747-4_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hubwieser, P., Mühling, A.: Playing PISA with Bebras. In: WiPSCE 2014. ACM, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dagien, V., Pelikis, E., Stupurien, G.: Introducing computational thinking through a contest on informatics: problem-solving and gender issues. Informacijos Mokslai/Inf. Sci. 73, 55–63 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vegt, W.: Predicting the difficulty level of a Bebras task. Olympiads Inf. 7, 132–139 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vaníček, J.: What makes situational informatics tasks difficult? In: Brodnik, A., Tort, F. (eds.) ISSEP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9973, pp. 90–101. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46747-4_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shibley Hyd, J.: The gender similarities hypothesis. Am. Psychol. 60(6), 581–592 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ilomaki, L.: The effects of ICT on school: teachers’ and students’ perspectives: Ph.D. thesis, University of Turku (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Švaříček, R., Šed’ová, K.: Kvalitativní výzkum v pedagogickéch vědách. Portál, Praha (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Creswell, J.W.: Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Enhanced Pearson eText with Loose-Leaf Version-Access Card Package (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chráska, M.: Metody pedagogického výzkumu. Grada (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agresti, A.: Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd edn. Willey (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wimmer, G.: Štatistické metódy v pedagogike. GAUDEAMUS, Hradec Králové (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boaler, J.: Paying the price for “Sugar and Spice”: shifting the analytical lens in equity research. Math. Thinking Learn. 4(2–3), 127–144 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boaler, J.: Mathematical Mindset – Unleashing Students’ Potential Through CreativeMath, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching. Jossey-Bass (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucia Budinská
    • 1
  • Karolína Mayerová
    • 1
  • Michal Winczer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Informatics EducationComenius University in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations