Women and Mathematics

  • Elizabeth K. Stage
  • Elizabeth Fennema
  • Kay Gilliland
  • Nancy Kreinberg
  • Kristina Leeb-Lundberg
  • Marjorie Carrs
  • Eileen L. Poiani
  • Nancy Shelley
  • Dora Helen Skypek
  • Erika Schildkamp-Kundiger


An evaluator always faces the problem that program planners are interested in information that will help them to imprové the program (formative evaluation), while program funders are interested in information that will help them to measure the impact of the program (summative evaluation). In the case of programs of the Math/Science Network that aim to increase women’s participation in mathematics, the complex origins of the under participation problem and the multifaceted nature of the programs combine to challenge the evaluator. Finally, the grass roots, volunteer character of many activities leads one to hesitate to spend large sums of money on data gathering when more people could be served if the same resources were allocated to staff or materials. Our resolution of this system of constraints is a flexible approach to evaluation that employs activities that provide formative and summative data, are targeted at specific and diverse goals, serve some programmatic use in addition to their assessment purpose, and are inexpensive. Examples from the evaluations of a variety of Network programs will illustrate these points and show that the planners and the funders can be equally satisfied.


Mathematics Education Cognitive Style Junior High School Mathematics Achievement Achievement Motivation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Sarason, S.B., and Lorentz, E. The Challenge of the Resource Exchange Network. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979, pp. 227–271.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, Jane M.: Achievement and Participation of Women in Mathemics: An Overview. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, March 1980.Google Scholar
  3. Fox, Lynn H., Fennema, E., and Sherman, J.: Women and Mathematics: Research Perspectives for Change. Washington, D.C., National Institute of Education, November 1977.Google Scholar
  4. Fennema, Elizabeth, and Sherman, A.: Sexual Stereotyping and Mathematics Learning. Arithmetic Teacher, May 1977.Google Scholar
  5. Poole, Millicent E.: La Trobe 15 to 18 Year Old Project: Sex Differences in the Response of a Sample of Melbourne Adolescents. Melbourne, VIER Bullentin, No. 42, June 1979.Google Scholar
  6. Carss, Marjorie C.: Sex Bias in Junior High School Mathematics Texts. Report to the Schools Commission, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Carss, Marjorie C., and Barnes, E.: Some Perspectives on Sex Differences in the Language and Learning of Mathematics in Early Secondary School. Report to the Schools Commission, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. Myra and David Sadker. Beyond Pictures and Pronouns: Sexism in Teacher Education. Published and disseminated by the Women’s Educational Equity Act Program, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Available from Education Development Center, 55 Chapel Street, Newton, Massachusetts 02160.Google Scholar
  9. Carol Dweck, William Davidson, Sharon Nelson and Bradley Enna. Sex Differences in Learned Helplessness: II. The Contingencies of Evaluative Feedback in the Classroom, and Ill. An Experimental Analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14, no. 3 (1978): 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carol Jacklin, In keynote address at the annual meeting of the Research Council on the Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching of Mathematics, Tampa, Florida, April 1979.Google Scholar
  11. Non-Sexist Teacher Education Project Materials. For information on availablility of the modules, write: Drs. David and Myra Sadker, School of Education, The American University, Washington, D.C. 20016. The titles of the modules are: Sexism in American Education; The Impact of Women on American Education; Boys and Girls in School: A Psychological Perspective; Between Teacher and Student: Overcoming Sex Bias in the Classroom; Beyond the Dick and Jane Syndrome: Confronting Sex Bias in Instructional Materials; and Promoting Sex Equity in School Organizations.Google Scholar


  1. Aiken, L.R.: Intellective variables and mathematics achievement: Directions for research. Journal of School Psychology, 1971, 9, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L.R.: Update on attitudes and other affective learning in mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 293–311.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J.R.: Factors in intelligence which may account for differences in mathematics performance between the sexes. In E. Fennema (Ed.): Mathematics learning: What research says about sex differences. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Astin, H.S.: Sex differences in mathematics and scientific precocity. In Stanley, J.C., Keating, D.P., and Fox, L.H. (Eds.), 1974, 70–86.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, J.B.: A study of differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes. Dissertation, University of Maryland, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy, J.E. and Good, T.L.: Teacher’s communication of differential expectations of children’s classroom performance: some behaviorial data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casserly, P.L.: An assessment of factors affecting female participation in advanced placement programs in mathematics, chemistry, and physics. National Science Foundation Grant G 11325, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Casserly, P.L.: Helping young women take math and science seriously in school. In ColangeloZaffrann: New voices in counseling gifted, 1979a.Google Scholar
  9. Casserly, P.L.: Factors related to young women’s persistence and achievement in Advanced Placement Mathematics. Paper presented at AERA, 1979b.Google Scholar
  10. Casserly, P.L.: Factors leading to success–present and future. In Jacobs, J.E. (Ed.): Perspectives on women and mathematics. ERIC/SMEAC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Eduction, 1978, 119–124.Google Scholar
  11. Deaux, K.: Ahh, she was just lucky. Psychology Today, 1976, 10 (6), 70–75.Google Scholar
  12. Dreger, R.M. and Aiken, L.R.: The identification of number anxiety in a college population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1957, 48, 344–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dwyer, C.A.: Influence of children’s sex role standards on reading and arithmetic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 811–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ernest, J.: Mathematics and sex. American Mathematical Monthly, 1976, 83, 595–614.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fennema, E.: Influence of selected cognitive, affective, and educational variables on sex-related differences in mathematics learning and studying. In Fox, L.H., Fennema, E., and Sherman, J. (Eds.), 1977, 79–135.Google Scholar
  16. Fennema, E. and Sherman, J.A.: Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 1977, 57, 51–71.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, L.H.: Sex differences in mathematical precocity: Bridging the gap. In Keating, D.P. (Ed.): Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore, Maryland, 1976, 183–214.Google Scholar
  18. Fox, L.H.: The effects of sex role socialization on mathematics participation and achievement. In Fox, L.H., Fennema, E. and Sherman, J. (Eds.), 1977, 1–77.Google Scholar
  19. Fox, L.H., Fennema, E., and Sherman, J. (Eds.): Women and mathematics: Research perspectives for change (NIE papers in education and work, No. 8). National Institute of Education., U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 20208, 1977.Google Scholar
  20. Fuchs, R.: Lehrziele und Lernziele als Determinanten des Lehrer und Lernerverhaltens. In Kornadt, H.-J., 1975, 162–176.Google Scholar
  21. Glotzer, J.: Rollenfixierung. In: Kritische Stichwortere zum Mathematikunterricht, 1979, 234–249.Google Scholar
  22. Gorlitz, D., Meyer, W.-U., and Weiner, B. (Eds.): Bielefeldr Symposium uber Attribution. Stuttgart, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. Haven, E.W.: Factors associated with the selection of advanced academics courses by girls in high school (Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1971, RB-72–12). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  24. Heckhause, H.: Motive and ihre Entstehung. In Weinert, F.E. et al. (Eds.): Padagogische Psychologie I. Frankfurt, 1974, 135–171.Google Scholar
  25. Heilbrun, A.B.: Sex role identify and achievement motivation. Psychological Reports, 1963, 12, 483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hilton, T.L., Berglund, G.W.: Sex differences in mathematics achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, 1974, 67, 231–237.Google Scholar
  27. Husen, T. (Ed.): International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries, Vol. I and II. New York 1967.Google Scholar
  28. Keeves, J.: Differences between the sexes in mathematics and sciences courses. International Review of Education, 1973, 19 (1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kornadt, H.-J.: Lehrziele, Schulleistung und Attribuierungen im Mathematikunterricht. Dissertation. Bielefeld, 1979.Google Scholar
  30. Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.: The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, 1974.Google Scholar
  31. NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress. The first assessment of mathematics: An overview (Mathematics Report No. 04-MA-00). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.Google Scholar
  32. Perl, T.: The Ladies Diary. Historia Mathematica, 1979, 6, 36–53.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Radatz, H.: Individuum und Mathematikunterricht. Hannover, 1976.Google Scholar
  34. Raynor, J.O.: Future orientation in the study of achievement motivation. In Atkinson, J.W. and Raynor, J.O. (Eds.): Motivation and achievement. Washington, 1974, 121–153.Google Scholar
  35. Richardson, F.C. and Suinn, R.M.: The mathematics anxiety rating scale: Psychometric data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19 (6), 551–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson, J.W. and Gray, J.L.: Cognitive style as a variable in school learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 793–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robitaille, D.F.: A comparison of boys’ and girls’ feelings of self-confidence in arithmetic computation. Canadian Journal of Education, 1977 2 (2), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robitaille, D.F. and Sherrill, J.M.: Achievement results from the B.C. mathematics assessment. Canadian Journal of Education, 1979, 4 (1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rogers, M.A.: A different look at word problems. Mathematic Teacher, 1975, 68, 285–288.Google Scholar
  40. Schildkamp-Kundiger, E.: Geschlechtsrollenvorstellungen and Mathematikleistunq bei Madchen. Dissertation. Saarbrucken, 1973.Google Scholar
  41. Schildkamp-Kundinger, E.: Mathematics and gender. In: Steiner, H.-G. (Ed.): Comparitive studies of mathematics curricula-change and stability 1960–1980. Proceedings of a conference jointly organzed by the IDM and the IMC of the 2nd International Mathematics Study of the IEA, Osnabruck FRG, Jan 7–11, 1980. Materialien und Studien Bd 19 Institut fur Didaktik der Mathematik, Unversitat Bielefeld FRG, 1980, 601–622.Google Scholar
  42. Sells, L.W.: The mathematics filter and the education of women and minorities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, Mass., Feb. 1976.Google Scholar
  43. Senechal, B.: A woman or a mathematician? In: La Gazette SMF, 1974.Google Scholar
  44. Shapiro, E.W.: Attitudes towards arithmetic among public school children in the intermediate grades. Dissertation Abstracts 1962, 22, 39–27.Google Scholar
  45. Sherman, J.: Effects of biological factors on sex-related differences in mathematics achievement. In: Fox, L.H., Fennema, E., Sherman, J. (Eds.), 1977, 136–221.Google Scholar
  46. Sikes, J.W.: Differential behavior of male and female teachers with male and female students. Dissertational Abstracts International, 1972, 33, 217A, (University Microfilms No. 72–19670).Google Scholar
  47. Smith, I.M.: Spatial ability. San Diego, 1964.Google Scholar
  48. Stamp, P.: Girls and mathematics: Parental variables. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 49, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stockard, J. and Johnson, M.: Sex roles: Sex inequality and sex role development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1980.Google Scholar
  50. Stanlay, J.C., Keating, D.P. and Fox, L.H.: The socialization of achievement orientiation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suydam, M.N.: Research on some key non-cognitive variables in mathematics education. In: Schriftenreihe des Instituts fur Didaktik der Mathematik. Bielefeld, 4/1975, 105–135.Google Scholar
  52. Tobias, S.: Counseling the math anxious. In: Zentralblatt fur Didaktik der Mathematik, 1977, 3.Google Scholar
  53. Tobias, S.: Overcoming math anxiety, W.W. Norton, 1978.Google Scholar
  54. Tobias, S.: The problem: Math anxiety and math avoidance; the solution: reentry mathematics. In: Information of the Institute for the Study of Anxiety in Learning 1980.Google Scholar
  55. Travers, R.M.: An introduction to educational research. New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  56. Treumann, K.: Dimensionen der Schulleistung. Teil 2: Leistungsdimensionen im Mathematikunterricht. Stuttgart, 1974.Google Scholar
  57. Very, P.S.: Differential factor structures in mathematical ability. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 75, 169–207.Google Scholar
  58. Westoff, L.A.: Woman in search of equality. Focus (Educational Testing Service) Whole No. 6, 1979.Google Scholar
  59. Wendelin, I.: The mathematical ability: Experimental and factorial studies. Lund, 1958.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Boston, Inc. 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth K. Stage
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Fennema
    • 1
  • Kay Gilliland
    • 2
  • Nancy Kreinberg
    • 3
  • Kristina Leeb-Lundberg
    • 4
  • Marjorie Carrs
    • 5
  • Eileen L. Poiani
    • 6
  • Nancy Shelley
    • 7
  • Dora Helen Skypek
    • 8
  • Erika Schildkamp-Kundiger
    • 9
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Emeryville Unified School DistrictEmeryvilleUSA
  3. 3.University of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  4. 4.City College of the City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.University of QueenslandAustralia
  6. 6.Saint Peter’s CollegeUSA
  7. 7.Canberra College of T.A.F.E.Australia
  8. 8.Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  9. 9.University of SaarbruckenWest Germany

Personalised recommendations