If you reply to this long (11 kB) post please don't hit the reply button unless you prune copy of this post that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
********************************* ABSTRACT: In a "Science" article titled "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance," Hyde et al. (2008)] reported their analysis of scores for over 7 million students in state NCLB math assessments, thereby stimulating four news reports. Two of them [Lewin (2008) and Seattle Times (2008] focus on the near equality of the *averages* for males and females and carry headings to the effect that girls and boys perform equally well in math. One of them [Mac Donald (2008)] focuses on the larger *variance* of male over female scores, carries a heading with the opposite message "Math IS Harder for Girls," and contains several misleading statements. A fourth [Winstein (2008)] reports both the average and variance aspects of the Hyde et al. report and carries a more neutral heading "Boys' Math Scores Hit Highs and Lows." To dig deeper see the annotated references given in Part 2 of Hake & Mallow (2008): 50 references to "Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability: Fact or Artifact?" and 12 references to "Harvard President Summers' Speculation on Innate Gender Differences in Science and Math." ********************************* Among news reports stimulated by a recent "Science" article "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance [Hyde et al. (2008)] are: (a) "Math Scores Show No Gap for Girls, Study Finds" [Lewin (2008)], (b "In math, girls and boys are equal" [Seattle Times News Service (2008)], (c) "Math IS Harder for Girls" [Mac Donald (2008)], (d) "Boys' Math Scores Hit Highs and Lows" [Winstein (2008)]. Why do the headings of reports "a" and "b" appear to be diametrically opposite that in report "c' by Mac Donald? The reason is that reports "a" and "b" focus on the Hyde et al. statement that ". . . .[Cohen (1988) effect sizes "d"] . . . . for gender differences, representing the testing of over 7 million students in state assessments, are uniformly <0.10, representing trivial differences." On the other hand report "c" by Mac Donald emphasizes the Hyde et al. statements: A. "All . . .[male to female variance ratios]. . . . by state and grade, are >1.0 [range 1.11 to 1.2]. Thus, our analyses show greater male variability," and B. "The bottom table on p. 494 shows data for grade 11 for the state of Minnesota. For whites, the ratios of boys:girls scoring above the 95th percentile and 99th percentile are 1.45 and 2.06, respectively." But Mac Donald deceptively generalizes "B" to "Among white 11th-graders, there were twice as many boys as girls above the 99th percentile-that is, at the very top of the curve." Among the caveats of Hyde et al. (2008) are: (1) "the discrepancy in variances is not large," (2) "gender differences in math performance, even among high scorers . . . .[found in this study]. . ., are insufficient to explain lopsided gender patterns in participation in some STEM fields," (3) "an unexpected finding was that state assessments designed to meet NCLB requirements fail to test complex problem-solving of the kind needed for success in STEM careers, a lacuna that should be fixed." Mac Donald correctly points out that "3" diminishes the significance of "2," but comments incorrectly on "3," stating: "That a gender difference at the highest percentiles shows up on tests pitched to such an elementary level of knowledge and skill suggests that on truly challenging tests, the gender difference at the top end of the distribution will be even greater. Indeed, between five and ten times as many boys as girls have been found to receive near-perfect scores on the math SATs among mathematically gifted adolescents, for example." Mac Donald is evidently referring to the widely cited work of Benbow and her colleagues [see e.g. Benbow (1988)], but Rich Monastersky (2005) pointed out that: "Data from [Julian Stanley's] program, at Johns Hopkins, shows just how strong the cultural factors are in determining math achievement. In the early 1980s, he and [Camilla Benbow] reported. . . [Benbow & Stanley (1980)]. . . . a whopping disparity in the numbers of mathematically gifted boys and girls who scored 700 on the math section of the SAT at the age of 13, a distinction achieved by one in 10,000 students. A quarter-century ago, there were 13 boys for every girl at level. NOW THE RATIO IS ONLY 2.8 TO 1, A PRECIPITOUS DROP THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE NEWS MEDIA. [Our CAPS.] 'It's gone way down as women have had an opportunity to take their math earlier,' says Mr. Stanley." To dig deeper see the annotated references given in Part 2 of Hake & Mallow (2008): 50 references to "Sex Differences in Mathematical Ability: Fact or Artifact?" and 12 references to "Harvard President Summers' Speculation on Innate Gender Differences in Science and Math." Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University 24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/> REFERENCES Benbow, C.P. & J. Stanley. 1980. "Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?" Science 210: 1262-1264; online at <http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/ScienceFactOrArtifact pdf> (1.1MB): Benbow, C.P. 1988. "Sex Differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes," Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11:169-232; online at <http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/BBSBenbow.pdf> (33 MB). Benbow's 15-page article, pp. 169-183, is followed by (a) 35 pages of "Open Peer Commentary," pp. 183-217; (b) 9 pages of Benbow's response, pp. 217-225; and (c) 8 pages of References, pp. 225-232. Cohen, J. 1988. "Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences." Lawrence Erlbaum, 2nd ed. Amazon.com information at <http://tinyurl.com/2sjldk>. Hake, R.R. & J.V. Mallow. 2008. Gender Issues in Science/Math Education (GISME): Over 700 Annotated References & 1000 URL's: *Part 1 - All References in Alphabetical Order <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GISME-5t-Part1.pdf> (8.5 MB); *Part 2 - Some References in Subject Order <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/GISME-5t-Part2.pdf> (4.8 MB). Because periodic updates of GISME necessitate changing the URL's, an address that will always work is "Reference 55 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>." Part 2 subjects are: (a) Affirmative Action; (b) Constructivism: Educational and Social; (c) Drivers Of Education Reform and Gender Equity: Economic Competitiveness and Preservation of Life on Planet Earth; (d) Education and the Brain; (e) Gender & Spatial Visualization; (f) HARVARD PRESIDENT SUMMERS' SPECULATION ON INNATE GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCE AND MATH ; (g) Hollywood Actress Danica McKellar's book "Math Doesn't Suck"; (h) Interactive Engagement; (i) International Comparisons; (j) Introductory Physics "Curriculum S" (for Synthesis); (k) Is There a Female Science? - Pro & Con; (l) Schools Shortchange Girls (or is it Boys)?; (m) SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL ABILITY: FACT OR ARTIFACT?; (n) Status of Women Faculty at MIT. Hyde, J.S., S.M. Lindberg, M.C. Linn, A.B. Ellis, & C.C. Williams. 2008. "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance," Science 321: 494-495, 25 July; a free summary is online at <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5888/494>. Supporting material is free online at <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/321/5888/494/DC1/1>. Lewin, T. 2008. "Math Scores Show No Gap for Girls, Study Finds," New York Times, 25 July; online at <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/education/25math.html?_r=1&oref=slogin>. Mac Donald, H. 2008. "Math IS Harder for Girls . . . and also, it seems, for the New York Times.." City Journal; online at <http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0728hm.html>. City Journal is published by the Manhatten Institute <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/>. Monastersky, R. 2005. 'Women and Science: The Debate Goes On: Primed for Numbers - Are boys better at math? Experts try to divide the influences of nature and nurture." Chronicle of Higher Education 51(26): A1, 4 March; online at <http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i26/26a00102.htm>. Seattle Times News Service. 2008. "In math, girls and boys are equal: Sixteen years after Barbie dolls declared, 'Math class is tough!' girls are proving that when it comes to math, they are just as tough. . . . " online at <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008071972_math250.html>. Winstein, K.J. 2008. "Boys' Math Scores Hit Highs and Lows," Wall Street Journal 25 July; online at <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html?mod=2_1559_leftbox>. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
