Girls and Mathematics and Science. An annotated bibliography of British Work (1970–1981)

References

• Aldrich , Michele L. and Paula , Quick Hall . 1980 . Programs in Science, Mathematics and Engineering for Women in the United States,1966-1978 , Washington, D.C. : Am. Assoc. for the Adv. of Science .
   Google Scholar
• Brush , Lorelei . 1980 . Encouraging Girls in Mathematics , Cambridge : Abt Books .
   Google Scholar
• Chinn , Phyllis Zweig . 1980 . Women in Science and Mathematics Bibliography , Areata, Cal. : Math Dept., Humbold State Univ .
   Google Scholar
• Ernest , John . 1976 . Mathematics and Sex , Santa Barbara : Math Dept., Univ. of California .
   Google Scholar
• Fennema , Elizabeth . 1976 . Influences of Selected Cognitive, Affective and Educational Variables on Sex-Related Differences in Mathematics Learning and Studying , Washington, D.C. : Nat. Inst. of Educ. .
   Google Scholar
• Fox , Lynn . 1976 . The Effects of Sex Role Socialization on Mathematics Participant Achievement , Washington, D.C. : Nat. Inst. of Educ. .
   Google Scholar
• Fox Lynn Linda Brody Dianne Tobin Women and the Mathematical Mystique John Hopkins Univ. Press Baltimore 1981
   Google Scholar
• Kaminski , Donna . 1975 . ‘The Effects of Perceived Parental Evaluations on Skills Development in Mathematics’ , Kalamazoo, Mich. : Western Michigan Univ. . MA thesis
   Google Scholar
• Kaminski , Donna . 1978 . ‘Entry into Science: The Effect of Parental Evaluations on Sons and Daughters’ , Kalamazoo, Mich. : Western Michigan Univ. . PhD dissertation
   Google Scholar
• Rossi , Alice . 1965 . ‘Women in Science: Why So Few?’ . Science , 148 : 1196 – 1208 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sells , Lucy . 1973 . ‘High School Mathematics as a Critical Filter in the Job Market’ , ERIC . ED 081051
   Google Scholar
• Sherman , Julia . 1976 . Effects of Biological Factors on Sex-Related Differences in Mathematics Achievement , Washington, D.C. : Nat. Inst. of Educ. .
   Google Scholar
• Tobias , Sheila . 1978 . Overcoming Math Anxiety , New York : Norton .
   Google Scholar
• Tobin , Dianne , Linda , Brody and Lynn , H. Fox . 1976 . The Effects of Sex Role Socialization on Mathematics Participation and Achievement — Annotation , Washington, D.C. : Nat Inst. of Educ. .
   Google Scholar
• White , Martha S. 1970 . ‘Women in the Professions: Psychological and Social Barriers to Women in Science’ . Science , 170 : 413 – 416 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackstone , Tessa and Weinreich-Haste , Helen . 1980 . ‘Why Are There So Few Women Scientists and Engineers?’ . New Society , 51 ( 907 ) 21 Feb. : 383 – 385 . The article briefly reviews the general topic. With respect to general educational impediments, girls set their sights lower, take easier courses in further education, take fewer A-levels for higher education and are less likely to go on to higher education (of the 1974–75 school leavers headed for degree courses only 1/3 were female). Psychological factors also hinder girls' later academic success — girls tend to attribute their success to luck and external factors, but attribute their failure to lack of ability — boys tend to be the opposite. This results in patterns of helplessness, avoidance of challenges and lack of self-confidence in girls — factors particularly antithetical to learning subjects perceived as difficult such as maths/science. Girls are much less likely than boys to take A-level maths (15% vs. 41%) or physics (9% vs. 41%), and instead are more likely than boys to take biology (21% vs. 16%) or English literature (53% vs. 23%). These traditional sex role patterns of subject choice are polarized in mixed-sex schools as compared with single-sex schools (i.e. in mixed-sex schools boys are even more likely and girls even less likely to take maths/physics, while the reverse is true for literature). This sex difference in maths/physics is attributed to factors such as perception of the subjects as masculine (hard, intellectual, complex and concerned with things not people), lack of role models (textbooks, parents, school structure), and teacher expectations. It is suggested that the forced choice between science and the arts be removed.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley , J. 1981 . “ ‘Predicting Specialisation in Science’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. ed . 150 – 163 . This longitudinal study compared 1925 science and non-science students from 15 mixed-sex schools at 2 important decision points with respect to science subject choice — 3rd and 5th forms. It was found that science students had an early and enduring interest in science and that few students reversed their decision once opting out of science in the 3rd form. As to intelligence, science girls scored higher than arts girls, with boys and girls in science doing about equally well. On personality variables, science and arts girls differed much more than the 2 male groups did, with increasing polarisation with age only for girls. Science girls showed close correspondence with the stereotypic scientist personality (emotionally stable, dominant, conscientious, individualistic, confident) with self-sufficiency being the characteristic which most distinguished the science girls from both the arts girls and the science boys. The high intelligence and personality profile of girls taking science suggests why they were undeterred by social pressures toward sex role conformity. But many students — especially girls — with early science interests opt out in the middle school years, suggesting the importance of early intervention strategies to counteract science's masculine image and the social pressures deterring capable students from science entry.
   Google Scholar
• Clements , M. A. 1979 . ‘Sex Differences in Mathematics Performance — An Historical Perspective’ . Educational Studies in Mathematics , 10 : 305 – 322 . The author presents a brief look at girls' under-representation in mathematics in recent history in Britain. Until 1862 women were not allowed to sit Cambridge local exams — prior to that girls were rarely exposed to any maths beyond simple arithmetic. In 1912 four papers commemorating the 50th anniversary of admitting women commented on why girls were still not involved in mathematics and should not be. For example, it was too difficult a subject for girls, low expectations, uninteresting, little untilitarian value, wrong presentation of topics in texts, the strains of mathematics study were out of proportion to its gains, and few girls' secondary school teachers were trained in mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Cornelius , M. L. and Cockburn , D. 1978 . ‘Influences on Pupil Performance’ . Educational Research , 21 ( 1 ) Nov. : 48 – 53 . The 1976 O-level performances of 1152 students in one district were examined. The average grade of boys was significantly better than that of the girls in the math/science subjects (e.g. 2.77 vs. 2.34 for those taking the math exam.) as well as in history and geography. Girls were superior in English, religion, languages and commercial subjects. There was no difference for art and music.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curran , Libby . 1980 . “ ‘Science Education: Did She Drop Out Or Was She Pushed?’ ” . In Alice Through the Microscope: The Power of Science over Women's Lives , Edited by: Birke , L. 22 – 41 . London : Virago . (Brighton Women and Science Group), After documenting the under-representation of women in the physical sciences (which increases at each level), the article explores 3 possible reasons why — 1) they can't, 2) they aren't allowed to, and/or 3) they don't want to. Firstly, there's the biological explanation — a popular view among the general public as well as a small number of researchers. Yet the 'innate sex difference in spatial ability' argument ignores many factors. Is there adequate empirical evidence? Is it necessarily innate? Is it an integral part of science? Can this single variable explain much variance in science ability/achievement? Is ability a main/sole predictor of achievement? Would evidence for this argument be used for positive discrimination towards girls or merely justifying the current situation? Secondly, girls don't take science because they aren't allowed to — but today this is generally more covert than overt. Certainly some differences still exist between girls' and boys' schools' course offerings/facilities/resources; and mixed-sex schools offer different options/packages to different students. However, girls are generally 'pushed out' by more subtle discrimination while still appearing to have free choice. Girls learn early that science is a boys' subject (e.g. sex-typing of toys/activities) resulting in girls having less science/mechanical experience. Positive discrimination which favours boys is often not seen as such (e.g. lower 11+ pass marks for grammar school entry), and boys' poorer performance is more likely to be seen as temporary and/or attributable to non-ability factors (e.g. laziness or late development as opposed to innate inadequacy). At the secondary level, pre-emptive patterns in the curriculum along with premature specialisation encourages students to close off future course options at a relatively early age. Girls later face further obstacles at university entry (e.g. less desirable A-levels), gaining technical apprenticeships (lacking earlier appropriate practical experience), and applying for jobs in general (e.g. dual role demands, lack of child care facilities and part time work). Thirdly, girls don't take science because they don't want to — but the Western cultures socialise them to ‘not want to’. Science is seen as a male subject. Girls are constrained by images of femininity which don't value abstract thinking, self-confidence, high intelligence, or independence important for science. Being in the minority (as a woman scientist would be) also has many negative aspects (e.g. informal/social exclusion, assumptions of incompetence, must push harder to be heard). Furthermore, the image of science appears negative to many girls — impersonal, abstract, inhuman, misused, divorced from the social context, and attempting to control, subdue and exploit.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Education and Science . 1980 . Girls and Science , London : HMSO . HMI Series: Matters for Discussion 13 Three-day visits were made to 15 co-ed comprehensive schools with higher than average ratios of girls to boys on physical science courses. Several science specialists carried out informal observations and discussions with students and staff. There was considerable variability among schools with school differences actually greater than sex differences. The girls in some schools did better than the boys in others in terms of performance and proportion taking science. The following factors were seen to help/hinder girls' entry into physical science. The negative aspects suggest other strategic changes which should be made. Positive environmental influences included the impact of local science-related industry on parents (many had science qualifications, saw the value of science, held higher expectations) and on the girls themselves (models, information and impression of science), and the general support of a critical mass of girls in science. Career guidance efforts began early, involved parents, discussed available career opportunities, their requirements and how students preliminary subject choices fit, had in-service teacher programmes on the topic, and had specific materials/programmes on females and science, (outside speakers, focused teacher/student discussions). On the negative side, science was seen as masculine, not useful, difficult and limiting on their other subject choices. Girls lacked confidence in their ability and potential, and took physics/chemistry because of career relevance or ability, not pleasure. As far as actual class factors, girls liked practical work (but lacked experience and confidence in it), were more detailed and attentive to writing assignments than boys without necessarily liking it more), found security in textbooks (but they rarely showed aspects girls found relevant, e.g. social implications, practical relevance and human involvement). On the other hand, girls were reluctant to participate in discussions (not called on by teachers, feared wrong answers and mocking from boys), had difficulty understanding science (lacked confidence even if they had the ability, lacked math skills) and didn't think science was relevant (to themselves, people, everyday life or girls' experiences). Successful science programmes used more concrete examples and domestic applications, and showed practical aspects of science to everyday life. Science in later years necessarily becomes more abstract to prepare for O-level exams, but this change from interest-based to exam-based should be gradual. Perhaps exam boards should re-examine syllabi and incorporate more young people's (and girls') concerns. (Physical science should be seen as general education and not solely in vocational terms). Science teachers in the early years should be especially well-qualified and experienced (i.e. before student decision time), sympathetic (taking time to explain), try to actively involve girls, be involved in extra activities and have industrial experience and/or knowledge of industrial opportunities in science.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Education and Science . 1980 . Mathematical Development , London : HSMO . A national (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) representative sample of 14,000 15 year olds from nearly 600 schools was tested by the Assessment of Performance Unit. Fifteen skills were tested in the areas of numbers, measures, algebra, geometry and probability/statistics - these were examined for their relationship to 5 school characteristics and the variable sex. Boys had higher scores in all 15 subcategories - the sex difference was significant in 11. Boys' score averaged 3.5% higher than girls. Boys were furthest ahead in geometry (7%) and 2 measurement subcategories. Boys were considerably more likely to score in the high performance band than girls (2:1 for the top 10%), while there was virtually no difference between the proportions of boys and girls in the lowest band. A comparison of these results with a separate national survey of 11 year olds, showed an increasing sex difference with age. Earlier on, boys scored higher than girls on 10 of 13 sub-categories (1-2% differences only) while girls were ahead in 3 categories of computation (4% ahead).
   Google Scholar
• Dobson , Clifford B. 1979 . ‘Study Inventory Responses and ‘A’ Level Grades’ . Educational Studies , 5 ( 2 ) June : 127 – 134 . Arts and science students were compared as to whether study habits (i.e. delay, avoidance and work methods) and study attitudes (i.e. teachers' approval and educational acceptance) were related to A-level achievement (better grades). High correlations between each scale and performance were found for the 290 6th form students (grammar and comprehensive). For science students, study attitudes were better predictors of performances, for arts students study habits were better predictors. All 4 study orientations were strongly associated with achievement for females but had little overall relationship for males (except work methods). Educational acceptance was the most important for females in general. Teacher approval was particularly important for female science students.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doe , Bob . 1980 . ‘Winners and Losers in the Numbers Game’ . Times Educational Supplement , 3321 1 Feb. : 6 – 7 . In 1978 13,000 11 year olds from 1,000 schools took the Government Assessment of Performance Unit test in maths. Boys' performance was slightly superior to girls' in all categories except computation with whole numbers and decimals where girls were markedly better.
   Google Scholar
• Driver , Geoffrey . 1980 . ‘How West Indians Do Better at School (Especially the Girls)’ . New Society , 51 ( 902 ) 17 Jan. : 111 – 114 . This study looked at the 16+ exam results of 2300 intercity school leavers from 5 multiracial schools. Girls and boys from West Indian, Asian and English backgrounds were compared on achievement in maths, science and English language. West Indian girls and boys outperformed English students in all 3 areas, with Asian students doing the best (except in English language). Although English boys did better than English girls overall, the reverse was true for West Indian pupils — resulting in an overall ranking of West Indian girls, English boys, West Indian Boys then English girls. Because of differential drop out rates (higher for English students and for girls), the results were weighted by the '% of course enrollment in the last compulsory year appearing on the 16+ exam' — the superiority of West Indians, particularly the girls, remained. Explanations for the different directions of the 2 groups' sex differences focused on the impact of family structure on aspirations for females and employment patterns. For example, English working class families are less likely to encourage their daughters in school, while West Indian women must often be the family provider (due to discrimination against West Indian males and family structure).
   Google Scholar
• Duckworth , D. and Entwistle , N. J. 1974 . ‘The Swing From Science: A Perspective from Hindsight’ . Educational Research , 17 ( 1 ) Nov. : 48 – 53 . Part of the study examined the attitudes towards maths and the sciences of 600 2nd and 5th form grammar school students. Four dimensions were considered: interests, easiness, freedom (e.g. to use own ideas), and social benefit (e.g. solve world problems, useful in everyday life). Overall female-male comparisons found fairly similar ratings though boys gave chemistry a better rating and girls gave biology a somewhat better rating. Boys and girls held similar attitudes towards physics except that 5th year boys saw more social benefits in it and 2nd year boys felt more freedom in it and found it more interesting. Maths attitudes differed by age — in the 2nd year girls were more favourable to it than boys, by the 5th year boys found it more interesting and felt more freedom. Few sex differences were detected on attitudes when arts, science and mixed choice (based on 5th year plans) students were examined separately (although considerable attitude differences were found across area-specialties).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebbutt , Dave . 1981 . “ ‘Science Options in a Girls’ Grammar School' ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 113 – 122 . A case study was conducted on 3rd year girls as to factors related to science subject choices for subsequent years. Seven science teachers were also interviewed as to their theories of why girls took biology as the compulsory science rather than physics or chemistry. Many mentioned biology's relative easiness — it was predictable, straightforward, less quantitative, less cumulative and required learning/memorizing rather than understanding. Teacher also thought biology was more interesting to girls (e.g. the study of human anatomy suited girls' development stage), more career relevant (e.g. nursing), and received more positive press from parents, friends and teachers. Also cited was girls' passion for horses at this age. The girl students agreed with all these factors except the ‘friend influence’ and the ‘love horses’ theories. An additional push towards biology was the negative image held of women scientists vs. the positive one for women in biology (e.g. nurses as glamorous). Using student essays on the topic, it was found that girls attributed negative stereotypic physical characteristics to women scientists. Yet other ‘positive’ traits were also listed — e.g. sensible, capable, reliable, calm, logical, orderly, dedicated. However, these traits are probably much opposed to the self-images of most 13 year old girls. Hence, images of women scientists may deter girls from choosing physical science courses.
   Google Scholar
• Ebbutt , Dave . 1981 . “ ‘Girl's Science — Boy's Science Revisited’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 205 – 215 . Through use of questionnaires and informal classroom discussions, junior form students from a rural comprehensive school (1975-76) developed lists of science activities/topics which were characterized as being either ‘for girls’ or ‘for boys’. ‘Girls topics’ included making crystals, extracting plant scents, tie-dying from plant extracts and making chromatograms from felt nib pens. ‘Boy topics’ included cells ' batteries, electrical circuits, elements (metals), air pressure, energy, and break-strain of copper wire. Some of these activities were clearly within sex role stereotypes. But additionally, girls' science seemed to have tangible end products which fulfilled some functional/ decorative role — nearer craft type activities rather than understanding/controlling types of science. Girls were also more concerned with producing neat work books (again, an end product) often at the expense of involvement in practical work and/or concept development. Might this help explain girls' greater preference for biology with its heavy reliance on neat drawing skills?
   Google Scholar
• Finn , Jeremy D. 1980 . ‘Sex Differences in Educational Outcomes: A Cross-National Study’ . Sex Roles , 6 ( 1 ) : 9 – 26 . The study used IEA data collected in 1970 from nationwide samples of 14 year olds from England, Sweden and the U.S. to examine sex differences in science/reading achievement/attitudes. Although the sex differences were fairly consistent in the 3 countries, only the findings on science from the 2777 English pupils are discussed here. Female/male comparisons were made for single-sex (47) and mixed-sex (88) schools separately and for both 2nd and 3rd form students. Overall, boys outperformed girls on physics, chemistry and practical applications with virtually no difference in biology. However, girls from girls' schools surpassed boys from boys' schools in biology and chemistry. Boys' science attitudes also surpassed girls' on liking science, participating in elective science activities and perceived easiness of science — though girls were slightly higher than boys on perceived importance of science to society. Single-sex school students outperformed mixed-sex students. (Students in single-sex schools did, however, come from higher SES backgrounds, had higher educational expectations, more same-sex teachers, more years of compulsory science, and more science teachers with university degrees). Sex differences in achievement and attitude were considerably larger in mixed-sex than in single-sex male-female comparisons, owing mostly to girls in girls' schools' better science performance. The sex difference within co-ed schools (but not for single-sex schools) increased with age. School variables differed between all-girl and all-boy schools. 63% of the boys' schools vs. 41% of the girls' schools had compulsory science until the 4th form or later — though girls' schools were superior in having 59% of their science teachers with university degrees vs. 45% for boys' schools. Were girls in all-girl schools benefitting from the higher proportion of women teachers (87% vs. 41% in co-ed schools), the higher proportion of science teachers with university degrees (59% vs. 41%), higher social class backgrounds, higher educational aspirations, the role models of more successful teachers and peers and/or the absence of social pressure from boys' presence?
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galton , Maurice . 1981 . “ ‘Differential Treatment of Boy and Girl Pupils During Science Lessons’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 180 – 191 . The teaching styles of 94 science teachers (from a sample of 94 city secondary schools) were observed for 23 different classroom behaviours. Cluster analysis gave 3 distinct styles. The Problem Solvers — teacher initiates/dominates/states problem, little pupil initiated/maintained activity, speculative/problem solving process rather than informational. The Informers — states facts, asks questions demanding recall of facts/their application/principles to solve problems with one right answer, little concern with data interpretation. The Enquirers (most closely identified with the Nuffield approach) — pupil initiated/maintained, students design experiments involving hypothesis testing/inference, practical work, demonstrations. Half the teachers were PS's while only a fifth were E's despite its association with curriculum reform. As to their effect on student attainment, for both girls and boys, PS was best in physics, the 3 were equal for chemistry, and PS was best for recall in biology though E was best for data manipulation and problem solving in biology. Overall no style was best for student attitude. However, E was the only effective style for improving poor initial attitude in physics. The differences in teaching styles actually used in biology (predominantly Inf) and the physical sciences (predominantly PS) may help explain differences in boys' and girls' attraction to the 2 areas (girls preferring facts to the insecurity of problem solving). If changes were made to optimize effectiveness — in physics, PS for attainment, E for attitude — the new styles would appear to be girls' least favourite. For biology, E was most effective, yet changes towards greater use of E in this ‘girls’ science' would go against girls' preferred style. Men teachers were also more likely to use PS — is this detrimental to increasing the proportions of girls in science?
   Google Scholar
• Gannon , Catherine . 1980 . ‘Girls' Underachievement in Science’ . CORE , 4 ( 1 ) March Fiche 17, The article reviews reasons why girls underachieve in science due to intellectual abilities, personality, socialisation, education practices, science options and career guidance. This is supplemented with a 1978 study of 100 5th and 6th form girls focusing on why they chose biology over physics and chemistry. Note, for example that national figures on 16+ exam entries show boys outnumber girls in physics (4:1 O-level, 8:1 CSE) and chemistry (2:1) though girls outnumber boys in biology (2:1). As to intellectual differences, there is evidence of boys' superiority in numerical ability, problem solving and spatial ability — but their genetic basis and link with science achievement are tenuous. The personality of scientists (school children, university students and adults in science) are not those girls are socialized to. Also, girls' greater cooperativeness, docility, desire to please, and dependency makes them easily reinforceable, whether by mild approval/disapproval or their own minor successes/failures. Socialisation factors as toys, tasks and textbooks do not encourage girls' development of science/technical skills. The instructional methods and learning skills girls prefer and feel most secure with are those generally less used/required in science. Career guidance is often inadequate in science/engineering and sex stereotyping of occupations continues. The general image of science is also not very inviting to girls (e.g. masculine, absent-minded, ignorant of outside activities). In the study, time-tabling and the ‘1 compulsory science’ requirement led most girls to biology rather than physical science. They also chose biology because of its relation to human affairs — and not choosing physical science because it was too difficult, they disliked it, it wasn't necessary for a job and they would have felt different from other girls. Although they thought men teachers treated girls different than boys (ignored them or had low expectations), 3/4 still preferred men to women teachers.
   Google Scholar
• Gray , J. A. 1981 . “ ‘A Biological Basis for the Sex Differences in Achievement in Science?’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 42 – 58 . The focus is on the possible evidence showing that the well-documented sex difference in spatial ability is genetically based. Three types of arguments would be supportive: a sex difference in other species, a sex difference which began at an early age and evidence showing spatial ability to be a genetic characteristic. There is minor evidence of the first type — male rats are consistently superior to females in solving complex mazes, and male chimpanzees (but not females) practised aimed throwing of objects. Reviews of research showing an early sex difference reach divergent conclusions (however, sex differences emerging at a later age may still be biological — e.g. height differences). Much of the article is spent discussing evidence in the third category, (particularly the X-linked recessive gene hypothesis) and possible reasons for the contradictory results. The author concludes that sex differences in science achievement, (presumably biologically-based) are not harmful and are indeed to be welcomed. Being poorer at spatial tasks does not lead to poor social or economic prospects for women. Note that society systematically rewards ‘female’ skills — verbal ability — more highly than ‘male’ skills — spatial ability — (e.g. compare pay levels of science administrators vs. actual scientists). And society does recognise individual women of outstanding spatial talents.
   Google Scholar
• Harding , Jan . 1977 . ‘Sex Differences in Examination Performance at 16+’ . Physics Education , 4 ( 5 ) July : 280 – 288 . Sex differences in entry to and performance in 16+ exams (1974-76) were examined with comparisons made among school contexts and modes of assessment More boys than girls took maths, chemistry and physics, while more girls than boys took biology. And while the proportion of boys taking biology is increasing, this is not so for girls and the physical sciences. Somewhat more boys than girls passed in maths and the sciences, while considerably more girls than boys passed English Language. However, boys' lower performance in language does not appear to constrain future achievement nor is it attributed to lesser ability, while girls' under-representation and poorer performance in maths and science is often accepted as demonstrating lower ability and is seen to account for their low involvement in the sciences later. Maths/science exam performances differed by type of school and method of assessment. Boys surpassed girls in mixed-sex, comprehensive and grammar schools. Girls surpassed boys in single-sex schools (weakly supported). While boys from mixed-sex schools did better than boys from single-sex schools (weakly supported), girls did better in single-sex than in mixed-sex schools. As to mode of assessment, boys did better than girls on multiple choice questions, girls were superior to boys on essay questions, and no sex differences were found on structured papers. These contextual differences in exam performance suggest that female-male achievement differences do not reflect sex differences in ability. But will girls be even more disadvantaged in maths/science as we move towards more mixed-sex, comprehensive schools and multiple choice (‘objective?’) testing?
   Google Scholar
• Harding , Jan . 1980 . “ ‘Sex Differences in Performance in Science Examinations’ ” . In Schooling for Women's Work , Edited by: Rosemary , Deem . 86 – 97 . London : Routledge and Kegan Paul . The 1974 GCE exam scores for a stratified sample of 1000 students were used to compare girls' and boys' performance in the sciences for Nuffield vs. conventional approaches, mixed vs. single-sex schools, and grammar vs. comprehensive schools. While no overall sex difference in pass rates was found, differences emerged for various school types (controlling for selectivity and sex-composition of school). In mixed-sex schools, boys clearly outperformed girls, while in single-sex schools girls outperformed boys slightly. Boys also clearly outperformed girls in comprehensive schools, but not in grammar schools, with girls actually being superior in direct-grant and independent schools. Girls pass rates were extremely high in these two. Girls clearly did better in girls' schools than in co-ed schools while the reverse was somewhat true for boys. Comparison between Nuffield and conventional approaches yielded mixed results. Girls studying science seem to be most disadvantaged in mixed-sex, comprehensive schools — the dominant trend today. Do teacher and student expectations for all students become more traditional because of greater proportions of working class students and less academically able students (for whom the traditional sex role ideology is perhaps more relevant)? Overall, fewer girls than boys select science courses (e.g. 4:1 for O-level physics, 8:1 for CSE) and careers. Two important factors seem to influence girls' choice of school subjects and their performance in them: the masculme/feminine image of the area and the level of commitment to a career outside the home. The masculine image of science can be clearly observed in the relative numbers of each sex represented in science courses, teaching staffs, scientists shown in the media, and textbooks and in the masculine examples used.
   Google Scholar
• Harding , Jan . 1981 . “ ‘Sex Differences in Science Examinations’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 192 – 204 . National figures for boys' and girls' entry and pass rates were examined for the 1974 CSE and O-level exams. Although maths is a compulsory subject, fewer girls than boys attempted O-levels in maths, instead doing a CSE (actually more girls took O-levels in biology than in maths). Physics was the 3rd most popular subject boys attempted (after English and maths) — with boy/girl ratios of 4:1 and 8:1 for O-level and CSE exams. Pass rates for the 3 sciences for both Nuffield and conventional syllabi across types of schools were compared. There was no overall support for boys' superiority in science. (However, since there were generally more boy than girl entries, the latter was a more select group). Boys surpassed girls in mixed-sex and comprehensive schools, while girls were superior to boys in single-sex, maintained, grammar, direct grant and independent schools. Girls in girls' schools did better than those in co-ed schools while the opposite was true for boys. (Note, however, that the trend is towards more co-ed comprehensive schools). Girls' selection of science is discussed in the context of a 2-dimensional model for subject choice — the perceived masculinity/femininity of the subject/occupation and the degree of commitment to a career outside the home. 1) Feminine activity/low career commitment (overrun with women, e.g. secretaries, hairdressers). 2) Feminine activity/ high career commitment (e.g. teaching and nursing for women; music, dance, haute cuisine for men — acceptable for males if they assume a leadership role within the activity). 3) Masculine activity/high career commitment (expected for males — e.g. physical science). 4) Masculine activity/low career commitment (no place for males, i.e. ‘lacks ambition’). A female interested in or good at physics, but not committed to a career in it is not catered to, however, since the physical sciences generally assume a vocational role in school curriculum rather than being part of a general liberal education. To become a physical scientist/engineer/mathematician, females must defy convention on both dimensions.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey , T. J. 1979 . ‘Mixed Ability Teaching in Physical Science’ . Educational Research , 22 ( 1 ) Nov. : 60 – 61 . Verbal reasoning test scores were compared with science attainment (on 4 objective tests) for 240 first year comprehensive students in mixed ability classes. Of the more able students, boys did significantly better than girls while the reverse was true for the less able students. However, both boys and girls underperformed with able girls seriously underperforming.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hearn , Michael . 1979 . ‘Girls for Physical Science: a School-Based Strategy for Encouraging Girls to Opt for the Physical Sciences’ . Education in Science , 82 April : 14 – 16 . A comprehensive school teacher briefly discusses this school's strategies used to promote the physical sciences for girls — constant concern rather than extensive time input was the emphasis. Pupil-based efforts included in-class discussions (with third year students) on the paucity of girls in physical science classes, the increasing numbers of women choosing careers, and the importance of the physical sciences even if studying biology. Strategies for dealing with parents included a special evening programme for third year pupils' parents to discuss issues as the selection of subjects, their influence on career prospects (and specifically on girls and science), and a demonstration of facilities and types of work in various subjects. Non-science staff such as the careers officer, the director of studies and third year personal tutors were involved and specifically discussed with students topics such as criteria to use for subject choices, their influence on career possibilities, and girls' restricted range of choices. Exhibits/films were shown to pupils and parents (using female scientists/demonstrators) focusing on sex equality in science ability, possible science careers and the necessity of physical science courses for a variety of careers, even in biology. Science teachers in particular watched for girls' understanding of the material and keeping up with the work.
   Google Scholar
• Corinne , Hutt . 1979 . ‘Why Do Girls Underachieve?’ . Trends in Education , 4 ( Winter ) : 24 – 28 . A survey of the sex role attitudes of 200 13-16 year olds was conducted, comparing students in single-sex and mixed-sex schools. Several findings directly concerned maths and science. Both sexes thought maths was an important subject for boys, but not for girls. The reported ‘worst’ vs. ‘best’ subject were maths vs. English for girls in co-ed schools, foreign language vs. history for girls in girls' schools as well as boys in co-ed schools, and the natural sciences (both worst and best) for boys in boys' schools. This supports other studies which find that mixed-sex schools polarise students' performance and subject preference along sex role lines, particularly for girls. Sex-stereotyping of jobs, roles and abilities in general was more evident in mixed-sex than single-sex schools.
   Google Scholar
• Jahoda , Gustav . 1979 . ‘On the Nature of Difficulties in Spatial-Perceptual Tasks: Ethnic and Sex Differences’ . British Journal of Psychology , 70 ( 3 ) Aug. : 351 – 363 . Primary school children aged 7, 9 and 11 were tested on 3 Piagetian tasks to compare Scottish and Ghanaian children's spatial abilities. For the 72 Scottish children (from semi/unskilled occupation families) boys were superior to girls on block construction, but no sex differences were found for mental rotation and shape assembly tasks.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins , E. W. 1974 . ‘The Scientific Education of Girls since 1902’ . The Durham Research Review , 5 ( Spring ) : 873 – 886 . In the early part of the century sex differentiation was seen as desirable and was built into the curriculum. In girls' schools practical instruction in the domestic subjects was compulsory; physics, chemistry and manual instruction were often replaced by botany and general science; and mathematics/science instruction was offered only a few hours per week. In the post-war period as the importance of science was clearly being emphasized, scientific/technological ‘manpower’ was in great demand and an increasing emphasis was placed on science education for girls. Girls flocked to biology and general science, though not the physical sciences (such courses were not even offered in the 1960's). Explanation for girls' alleged aversion to study science have been offered since the turn of the century but most lack solid research information. Staffing/facility deficits in girls' schools was commonly cited as a prime problem — yet mixed sex schools did not seem to alleviate the problem. The lack of economic/career incentive for girls in the physical sciences seems plausible (‘women's’ fields as nursing may explain the popularity of biology). Other explanations discussed include possible sex differences in mathematics ability, beliefs about the female role and the image of science, parental expectations of marriage, and the flexibility of a particular career.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1975 . ‘Why Do Girls Study Biology?’ . School Science Review , 56 ( 196 ) March : 628 – 632 . Up to A-levels more girls than boys take biology. And girls are much more likely to take biology than the physical sciences. Why? Is it because biology is nurturative and concerned with people? To test this a sample of 1970 Scottish university entrants rated the importance of various aspects of their ideal job including ‘working with people rather than things’. Though women and arts/social science students thought it somewhat more important than men and biology/physical science students, there was no difference between those women in biology and those in the physical sciences. Though this data did not support the traditional hypothesis, perhaps girls are drawn to biology because they wish to be concerned with people not necessarily work with people. Other explanations for biology's popularity are considered. Is biology a compromise with society's expectations for women (physical science is prohibited, social science is respectable and biology falls in between)? Do girls have inadequate opportunities to study other sciences (e.g. a shortage of physical science facilities/teachers channels girls where the openings are)? Is biology seen as more relevant to the average girls' life (motherhood, nursing)? Are girls less confident of their ability and thus choose biology before they realize their future educational and occupational possibilities? Is it because biology is introduced in primary school (nature study) while physical science is new (especially to girls who lack early non-school experience in the area)? Students see biology as less difficult/abstract/theoretical and more descriptive than physical science. Does this make it more attractive to girls; (being more reinforcable by good marks and more discouraged by difficulties and bad marks)?
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1976 . ‘Women in Science: A Bibliographic Review’ . Durham Research Review , 7 ( Spring ) : 1092 – 1108 . This is an extensive review of British, American and Australian research concerned with explaining the paucity of women in science in the western countries. The highlights: considering intellectual ability, spatial ability differences appear to be the most substantiated sex difference — though if this were the only explanatory factor we should see 2 females for every 3 males in the sciences. The personality characteristics of scientists are more closely paralleled by males (and the prescribed male role) than by females; however, female scientists (and girls with high spatial ability) tend to have the ‘typical scientist's personality’ (due to socialisation?). From family and occupational characteristics of women scientists, it appears that ‘women still have to choose, if not between marriage and a career, then between children and a career’. Women scientists also appear to face difficulties and discrimination on the job — being in lower ranked jobs, fearing the competitiveness of promotions, lacking colleagial encouragement, facing overt discrimination as well as informal exclusions and being expected to fit into male work/career patterns.—Science career interest emerges early and girls are not as drawn to it as boys. Girls are less drawn to careers in general (boys are even more conservative toward women in careers) and tend to avoid those with long training and those that don't deal with people. Choice of school subjects also often has to be made early and girls are less likely than boys to select physics and chemistry at O-level — falling proportionately further behind through the educational system in all the science/technology fields. Factors affecting their subject choice include the stereotype of science as ‘male’ (textbooks, staff and student opinion, actual numbers in science), a shortage of qualified teachers, forced choice of subjects at puberty, unwillingness to compete with boys, the difficulty of science as a subject (amount of work, severity of grading, high conceptual level), the teaching style (favouring boys), the absence of stress on the social implications of science, the absence of interest (independent of ability) and mixed-sex schools.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly Alison The Missing Half: Girls and Science Education Manchester Manchester University Press This book is a diverse collection of 20 original papers, both theoretical and empirical, addressing such issues as biological vs. socialisation vs. socio-political explanations for sex differences, attitudinal factors in subject choice, choice versus channelling out of science, teacher treatment, differences in science examination results, girls' versus boys' science classwork, the image of science, sex-typing in schools, and student and teacher personal viewpoints on the topic. Both the origins of girls' under-achievement in science and proposed solutions are explored. (The articles are all annotated separately here).
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1981 . “ ‘Girls and Science Education: Is there a problem?’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 1 – 19 . The introduction to the book presents current data to demonstrate the under-representation of females in science at all levels of education. This is particularly true in physics and chemistry, though not so in biology until beyond O-level. Although there are some formal barriers to girls' entry to science, the informal barriers are considerably more extensive. The crucial period for intervention to alleviate ‘the problem’ (getting/keeping women in science) is in the middle school years; beyond that the strategy is a more general one of keeping women in the educational system. International comparisons demonstrated that although women's under-representation in science education was extensive, it was by no means universal, and the range was considerable (e.g. women were 5% of science students in Saudi Arabia, but over 60% in Poland). But unlike other regions, West Europe and Africa's lack of women in science was not directly due to women's under-representation in education overall.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1981 . “ ‘Sex Differences in Science Achievement: Some Results and Hypotheses’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 20 – 41 . The 1970 IEA Science Survey found that boys scored considerably higher than girls in all 19 countries. This study reanalysed the data from the 14 year olds in 14 developed countries including England and Scotland. Three widely-discussed non-biological explanations were examined: the culture/socialisation hypothesis (i.e. girls' science achievement is not socially expected or encouraged), the school hypothesis (i.e. science is taught in a way more suited to boys than girls), and the attitude hypothesis (i.e. girls have less favourable attitudes towards science). Using various proxy measures to test these, only the attitude hypothesis was partly supported by the data. For the first hypothesis comparisons of girls and boys across cultures and classes found that girls in some countries/classes did considerably better than the boys in others and/or better than the overall male-average. Yet within each subject the sex differences were fairly uniform across cultures/classes (smallest in biology, largest in physics) and did not seem to be influenced by the proportion of women science students (13% to 54%). Several school organizational factors and teacher characteristics (e.g. sex of teacher) were examined to test the 2nd hypothesis, but no variable explained the sex difference in achievement consistently across countries. On the third hypothesis, science attitudes (liking science-based activities, expectations of success, and effect of science on the world) were correlated with achievement in science (controlling for ability), and girls did have less favourable attitudes towards science than boys. Also the variation among countries of both attitude and the sex difference in attitude suggests the possibility of improvement. However, boys' science achievement was better than girls' with equally favourable attitudes.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1981 . “ ‘Science Achievement as an Aspect of Sex Roles’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 73 – 84 . The main theories of socialisation are discussed as they apply to sex differences in science achievement. Social learning theories (reinforcement and observation/imitation/ role modelling) see the child as basically passive, being moulded by external forces (e.g. ‘pressured’ to conform to an image). Cognitive development theories see the child as actively trying to make sense of the world (e.g. developing categorization rules such as the sex roles), motivated to achieve competence rather than reward. Each suggests different strategies for change. The latter appears more plausible. The reinforcement/imitation theories — more popular in the sex role literature — would explain girls' lower achievement in science by such factors as the absence of role models to imitate (textbooks, scientists, science teachers, parents), differential approval/ disapproval for ‘sex-appropriate’ mechanical/scientific toys, hobbies, and household tasks, and differential reward/punishment for success/failure in science. In many ways these theories are not sufficient to account for observed sex differences in science (such as the consistent sex difference cross-culturally in spite of cultural variation). The cognitive development theory explains the sex differences as primarily due to science achievement being seen as masculine (e.g. due to textbooks, media presentations of scientists as male). Girls do not see success in science as compatible with their definition of femininity (rather exaggerated and over-simplified at early ages) and are thus less motivated in science. This theory helps explain, for example, why sex-typing can occur in spite of non-sexist upbringing, or how sex-stereotypes can be maintained in spite of exceptions. The increasing sex gap in science from 10-14 can be attributed to both a resurgence of interest in (and conformity to) sex role categories at puberty as well as a feedback loop due to the cumulative nature of science (boys are initially more comfortable with science, develop better attitudes, achieve in it and get positive feedback, and are thus more motivated for further achievement and have developed a better foundation for later science). Change strategies should include changing the masculine image of science, and convincing young girls that ‘cross-sex’ behaviour (and science in particular) is not only pleasing to adults but demonstrates competence in the female role.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1981 . “ ‘Choosing or Channelling?’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 123 – 138 . Using the 1975-76 Scottish Data Archive survey of school leavers, the article examines sex differences in science subject choice and student reported reasons for this. The Scottish educational system traditionally values a broad education and delayed specialisation. However, comparison with English data revealed similar patterns of sex differences in taking science. More boys than girls continued in science at all levels (up to and including FE). Of those leaving with any H grades, ½ of the girls but only ¼ of the boys had no science since 14. Of those with H grades, ¼ of the girls but only 7% of the boys had no science since 14, and 2/3 of the girls with minimum university entrance qualifications had had only 1 science O-grade. Higher ability boys took physics and chemistry, while the girls took biology. In investigating reasons students gave for subject choices, girls and boys were similar in most often mentioning liking/not liking science. Other influencing factors mentioned: perceived usefulness for jobs and FE, time-tabling conflicts (noted especially by girls), not being allowed to drop science (noted especially by boys) and being good at it or finding it easy (particularly boys). Boys were more likely to see science as useful for a job and necessary for a balanced education — girls were obviously already limited by looking towards traditional jobs/roles. Comparing students' occupational choices with their perceptions of science's usefulness, boys tended to over-estimate its value, girls underestimated.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1981 . “ ‘The Pupils' Viewpoint’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 232 – 245 . The article summarizes and excerpts from 300 women students descriptions of their experiences concerning science (in response to notices in women's and science educators' newsletters). A number of common situations were reported. Girls felt isolated and ignored or held up as different in science classes (being 1 of a few girls in a class/ group, segregated, not expected to understand) and therefore felt self-conscious. Science was felt to be a boy's subject. Much ‘fighting back’ was necessary to get into and stay in science (e.g. teachers, parents, self). During puberty it became especially difficult to do well and talk in science classes when boys were around, or sometimes even with male teachers (e.g. interest in boys more than class, concern with ‘his’ opinion, fear of being seen as a brain). Biology seemed a better subject choice than physics/chemistry (more interesting, understandable, relevant and concerned with people; less masculine, mathematical, tedious and anxiety-producing; and concerned with learning facts vs. understanding principles). Girls reported feeling squeamish about aspects of science (the smells of chemistry, cutting up animals). Some teacher behaviours were discouraging (even bright girls were't taken seriously, male teachers talked ‘male’ talk). Timetabling caused difficulties (conflicts, forced choices, too many other choices). Girls also reported that the career relevance of physics/chemistry should be stressed (even for traditional female fields).
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1981 . “ ‘The Teachers' Viewpoint’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 246 – 263 . Teachers responded to an ad in the Association of Science Educators newsletter asking for their opinions as to why girls underachieved in the physical sciences and what could be done. They gave little support to innate differences, but sex differences in intellectual style was frequently mentioned. Popular explanations also included poorer facilities in girls' schools, few role models for girls in science, little encouragement from home, the masculine image/bias of science and girls' greater need for reassurance and encouragement in general. For example, girls feared and hesitated working with unfamiliar objects and needed to be shown, watched and encouraged. (However is it actual or perceived lack of familiarity, e.g. isn't the bunsen burner really a type of cooker?). Girls are also likely to answer only when they have the right answer or a factual answer, while boys are more willing to guess or give opinions. Girls were more likely to see physics and chemistry as irrelevant to future careers (e.g. traditional family/career roles and/or lack of career opportunities in science for themselves). Respondents also noted the detrimental effect of the shortage of women science teachers — not solely for their importance as role models — but because male teachers are less likely to place value on girls' greater neatness of work or to use ‘female’ or neutral examples. Science lessons could also be broadened to include things girls do best (as opposed to things boys do best as is currently the practice) such as library research, essay writing and clear instructions (vs. discovery methods).
   Google Scholar
• Kelly , Alison . 1981 . “ ‘Retrieving the Missing Half’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 276 – 297 . The article concludes the book of readings drawing from the ideas and research in it to suggest school policy changes aimed at increasing the proportion of girls in the physical sciences. Schools do make a difference — the proportions of girls in the physical sciences varies from 2% to 66% across the country. Within the classroom girls and boys need not be treated identically — by secondary school they are different (personality, background experience, place in society — whether biological or social in origin). Equal emphasis should be placed on aspects/approaches to science where girls do well. Girls are neater, more conscientious and tolerant of routine, like groupwork, are interested in people, have higher verbal ability and are less self-confident. Hence they could use greater attention and reassurance, more specific direction and greater linking of the abstract to the real world. Examples should also be drawn equally from their world of experience (e.g. a tin opener vs. a car jack). School efforts should include examining possible sex bias in general and specifically in science staffing, textbooks, careers advice, exam questions (examples and essay vs. multiple choice), packaging of courses together, and teaching styles. Schools should also try to combat the masculine image of science and teach domestic science truly as a science (also changing its image). Student freedom to drop science should be postponed until after puberty. Timetabling, remedial science classes (leisure, no-pressure classes), early unbiased careers advice (pointing out long-term implications and the importance of science even for ‘female’ jobs), contact with women scientists (visits and in career material to show they exist and are ‘normal’), crafts/technical job opportunity exposure for girls as well, general sex-stereotyping, and discrimination in single-sex schools are all issues that should be addressed. Wider relevant societal issues include changing both sex roles and science. Notions of fernininity (e.g. dependence, no career) and masculinity (e.g. not helping with housework and child-care) should be altered and expanded. Images of science as masculine and impersonal are not intrinsic to sciences — the physical sciences can become more humanistic, and inviting to females
   Google Scholar
• Keys , Wendy and Ormerod , M. B. 1976 . ‘A Comparison of the Pattern of Science Subject Choices for Boys and Girls in Light of Pupils' Own Expressed Subject Preferences’ . School Science Review , 58 ( 203 ) Dec. : 348 – 350 . The science subject choices of 1373 3rd year students from 28 schools (1972-74) were examined in relation to subject preference and sex. Overall, considerably more boys than girls took physics, somewhat more boys than girls took chemistry and considerably more girls than boys took biology at O-level. However, when students were divided in ‘liking’ and ‘disliking’ a subject (i.e. above and below the median on the Brunei Subject Preference Grid) and compared for subject choice, several patterns emerged. Not surprisingly students who ‘liked’ a subject were much more likely to take further courses in it than those who didn't — but the sex stereotype of subjects intruded. (For example, of those who liked physics, 95% of the boys but only 69% of the girls took physics later). Of those who disliked a subject, a significant proportion still took further courses in it if it fitted with the sex stereotype (e.g. of those who disliked biology, 62% of the girls but only 24% of the boys took biology). Thus factors other than personal preferences influenced students' subject choices, e.g. a significant number of boys who dislike physics take it, while a significant number of girls who like it don't take it (and vice versa for biology).
   Google Scholar
• Keys , Wendy and Ormerod , M. B. 1976 . ‘Some Factors Affecting Pupils’ . Durham Research Review , 7 ( 36 ) Spring : 1109 – 1115 . A sample of 348 GCE-stream 14 year olds from 9 grammar and 2 comprehensive schools was used to examine subject preferences, perceived subject easiness and subject choice in the 4th year. The focus was on maths, biology, chemistry and physics. Achievement (much more so than ability), subject preferences and perceived easiness were all correlated for each of the 4 areas (e.g. those who did well on the end of year maths exam like it relative to other subjects and thought it was relatively easy). Students were also likely to prefer a subject if they like the subject teacher. Girls and boys differed in their preference for each of 15 subjects. Boys ranked physics 3rd, maths 4th, biology 9th and chemistry 10th, while girls ranked biology 6th, maths 8th and chemistry and physics 14th and 15th. They also differed on their easiness ratings — girls gave biology 8th, maths 11th, and physics and chemistry 14th and 15th. It was also found that those subjects considered most difficult and least popular (e.g. chemistry) were those where preference was most strongly influenced by student's earlier achievement.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keys , Wendy and Ormerod , M. B. 1977 . ‘Some Sex-Related Differences in the Correlates of Subject Preference in the Middle Years of Secondary Education’ . Educational Studies , 3 ( 2 ) June : 111 – 116 . The sex differences in subject areas seen at O-level go back at least as far as middle school where subject choices are made. This study looked at the subject preferences of 348 14 year olds in GCE streams (from grammar and comprehensive, co-ed and single sex schools) as they related to perceptions of subject easiness, relative attainment (exam marks), and ‘gender’ of subject. While girls and boys generally agreed on the rank ordering of easiness of the 13 subjects, they disagreed on the ordering of subject preference. Overall, perceived easiness and preference were closely related for girls but not for boys. However, looking at subjects separately, easiness did affect preference for the maths/science subjects (.5 to .7) equally for boys and girls in biology and physics, though more so for girls than boys in chemistry and maths. While subject attainment did affect preference in the 4 science areas (.2 for biology to .4 for chemistry), it had less impact than perceived easiness; and no sex difference was found. The ‘gender’ of subjects (developed from sex differences in subject preference) showed physics, chemistry and maths to be the most masculine (1st, 3rd and 4th) with biology being neutral (7th out of 13). This gender hierarchy was highly correlated (.77) with actual ‘gender spectrum’ (i.e. the proportion of boys in each O-level exam subject). Gender hierarchy was even more highly correlated with perceived easiness (—.8 8 for girls' easiness ranking, —.6 2 for boys'). That is, ‘male’ subjects are considered difficult, ‘female’ subject are easy. Perceived easiness thus appears to be a key factor in girls not taking physical sciences.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leverett , S. M. 1979 . ‘Observed Sex Differences in Attainment in a Computer Studies Examination’ . Computer Education , 32 June : 31 CSE examination results in computer studies were compared for 500 girls and boys from 35 schools across the country. Of the 49 items, boys scored significantly better than girls on 16 items (some had quite large differences) with no significant differences on the others. Of these 33 non-significant differences girls were marginally superior on 6 items (such as doing flowcharts and stock control techniques), and boys were marginally superior on 25 items.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy , Roger J. L. 1978 . ‘Sex Differences in Examination Performance: Do These Reflect Differences in Ability or Sex Role Stereotyping?’ . Educational Review , 30 ( 3 ) : 259 – 263 . The 1976 O-level, examination entries and pass rates were compared for girls and boys. Girls made up a higher proportion of the entrants and had higher pass rates in non-science subjects such as literature, religion and foreign language. In maths, chemistry and physics, however, girls made up only 43%, 33% and 23% of the entrants, respectively — and boys had only slightly higher pass rates (i.e. 60% vs. 56%, 61% vs. 60% and 59% vs. 58% respectively). In biology girls were 59% of the entrants, but boys surpassed them in performance — 61% vs. 56% had passes. Does this male superiority in maths/science reflect real sex differences in ability (innate or learned) or instead, the way examinations are set. Is it question wording (e.g. examples used)? ‘Objective’ multiple choice testing favours boys and essay questions favour girls' verbal ability is this difference a factor? Are there a greater proportion of spatial ability questions (favouring boys) as opposed to computation questions (favouring girls)?
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton , Peggy . 1981 . “ ‘Who Says Girls Can't Be Engineers?’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 139 – 149 . In 1977-78 the Engineering Industrial Training Board set up an experimental program to recruit/sponsor engineering students. Of the 3 background areas important to entry into engineering, (maths, physics and crafts/technical), girls were considerably behind boys in having experience in the latter two. Reasons found for girls not taking physics, woodwork, metalwork and technical drawing included not being allowed to, lack of or shortage of facilities/staff, social pressure (e.g. having to put up afight, being the only girl choosing the class) and traditional career guidance. Girls also reported not being exposed to engineering careers until it was too late for appropriate subject choice.
   Google Scholar
• Ormerod , M. B. 1971 . ‘The Social Implications' Factor in Attitudes to Science’ . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 41 ( 3 ) Nov. : 335 – 338 . A national representative sample of entire 3rd year groups from 17 schools was examined as to attitudes to science (having two factors: science as a school subject and the social implications of science) and subject preference. It was found that the social implications of science factor had a stronger relationship with choice for/against a science option for girls than for boys. The implications for increasing the number of girls continuing in science would be to include more ‘social’/real world topics in the science curriculum (currently thought to be unimportant at the secondary level).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod , M. B. 1973 . ‘Social and Subject Factors in Attitudes to Science’ . School Science Review , 54 ( 189 ) June : 645 – 660 . A two-part science attitude scale was developed — a general school science component and a social implication component. It was administered to 500 3rd year students from 14 schools of varying types in 1969-70. It was found that the first component (e.g. science is/is not useful, exciting, interesting) was correlated with students electing optional science courses for both girls and boys. The second component (e.g. science makes life easier, costs too much for society, is man's worst enemy) was related to selection of science courses only for girls. Might this suggest that more girls would take science courses if positive societal implications of science were emphasised in earlier secondary school?
   Google Scholar
• Ormerod , M. B. 1975 . ‘Subject Preference and Choice in Co-Educational and Single-Sex Secondary Schools’ . British Journal-of Educational Psychology , 45 ( 3 ) Nov. : 257 – 267 . The subject preferences and subject choices of a national sample of 1204 pupils in 19 secondary schools were examined as to the effect of sex-stereotyping, attitude toward teacher and single/mixed-sex school organisation. Based on students' subject preferences and choices, maths, physics, chemistry and geography were ‘male’ subjects while biology, languages and arts were ‘female’ subjects. There was an even greater sexpolarisation of subject preference/choice in mixed-sex schools as compared with singlesex schools. However, since subject preference was highly correlated with teacher popularity, the polarisation of subjects choice when other sex students are present may not be explained solely as a reaffirming of one's sex role and making relative comparisons across sex in co-ed situations (as Dale suggests). Relevant intervening factors may include teaching style and the neglect/emphasis of certain topics which may vary between type of school (i.e. co-ed vs. single-sex). Much research in science education suggests a sex difference in learning styles and response to various teaching strategies and teacher behaviour. Thus teaching boys and girls side by side may elicit teaching styles and selection of topics which may encourage boys but discourage girls, where as teaching in single-sex schools may cater to the sex of the pupils.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod , M. B. 1981 . “ ‘Factors Affecting the Science Subject Preferences, Choices and Attitudes of Girls and Boys’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 100 – 112 . The article summarizes the findings from many of his other studies on science which focus on 14 year olds — the age when crucial decisions of subject choices are made. Many variables influence subject preference/choice, often subtle, unstable and interacting together. Students in co-ed (vs. single-sex) schools made more sex-polarised subject preferences/choices (especially in maths/science) perhaps as a means of asserting their sex roles at puberty. Girls were less likely to match their choice to preference (i.e. liked physics/chemistry but dropped it, didn't like biology but took it), perhaps due to their insecurity at entry into the male preserve, anxiety about the perceived difficulty of physical science, advice from others or hidden selection due to staff/facilities shortage. Perceived difficulty of a subject was correlated with girls' subject preference (but not boys') even more so than past attainment — and chemistry/physics were generally rated as relatively difficult. Views of the social implications of science affected choice of physics/chemistry but not biology. The practical, personal payoff was important for boys while the humanitarian payoff was important for girls. Middle school science experiences influenced later subject choices — e.g. girls nurturing animals had a positive effect while working with other than domestic animals had a negative effect. Early practical work was helpful to boys but hindered girls who preferred to watch. Early liking of maths and perceived difficulty of science were important predicators of girls' preference for physics later. Early parent interest had a negative effect on boys' liking of physical science (perhaps pressure from parents' transferring their own ambitions to sons?). Boys' and girls' interests in science were already differentiated in primary school — girls liked nature study, boys liked space study. Suggestions for change include postponing subject choice (since at puberty especially, many non-academic factors — as gender — predominate) and balancing biology and physical science up to age 16; revise the syllabus to reduce the level of difficulty of physics/chemistry in line with other subjects; and emphasize the importance of science to society, improving its tarnished image as menace to society/humans/nature.
   Google Scholar
• Ormerod , M. B. , Bottomley , Jennifer M. , Keys , Wendy P. and Wood , Charles . 1979 . ‘Girls and Physics Education’ . Physics Education , 14 : 271 – 277 . This article summarizes the findings of the authors' other work. 1) Biology differs from physics and chemistry (more girls, less difficult, less undesirable social implications). 2) Career decisions are made at an earlier age in science than other areas. 3) By 14, the social implications of science may already influence science choice. 4) Teacher-pupil interaction appears to be a powerful yet unstudied influence. 5) The strongest and best documented factor influencing subject choice — especially for girls — is the perceived difficulty of the subject. The female/male biology/physical science dichotomy is already suggested in primary school preferences — girls for nature study, boys for space study. Co-ed (as compared with single-sex) schools further polarise students' subject preferences along ‘sex-appropriate’ lines. Although correlated, subject preference and actual subject choice often diverge (especially for girls) when ‘sex-appropriateness’ is considered, (e.g. many girls who disliked biology take it, and/or liked physics but drop it). However, girls expressing an early preference for biology and boys for physics virtually always later took the class - less so for the opposite case — and least so for students preferring chemistry. Actual subject choice also correlated with the perceived social implications of science (value to self and community, effects on the environment/human race), — much more so for physics and chemistry than biology, however. Physics and chemistry are rated as the most difficult of 15 subjects by both sexes. And perceived easiness was strongly related to subject preference for girls (.77), less so for boys (.32). It was also considerably more important than past attainment in predicting subject preference. Physics students of both sexes are more spatially intelligent and verbally accurate though less verbally fluent than non-physics students. Girls in physics tend to be introverts, have an early liking of maths and have much greater educational ambitions than either boys in physics (who tend to be extroverts) or other girls. In conclusion, it is recommended that such early science specialization not be allowed. Even without this change, more girls might be led to physical science by early emphasis on the positive implications of science for society, attempts to alter girls' perceptions as to the difficulty of physics/chemistry; reconsideration of teaching and learning styles in physical science (which now favour boys), and consideration of how the beneficial aspects of single-sex schooling for girls might be used.
   Google Scholar
• Ormerod , M. B. and Duckworth , D. 1975 . Pupils' Attitudes to Science: A Review of Research , Slough : NFER . This book reviews British, American and Commonwealth literature on science attitudes (including a 30+ page bibliography) much of which is relevant to sex differences in science. The biology/physical science dichotomy for girls and boys is attributed to various factors: girls, preference for living matter, boys for things; biology as a compromise (with sex role expectations) for those girls interested in science; different personality types drawn to biology (more ‘feminine’, as with arts) vs. physics (more ‘masculine’, like maths); the physical sciences are seen as masculine and a male preserve; physics involves too much maths; biology is more nurturative, humanitarian and focused on people; and biology is seen as more beneficial/less harmful to society than physical science. Further, girls are more easily influenced by perceived difficulty of a subject and the physical sciences are rated as the most difficult, taken by the most intelligent pupils, have an overloaded syllabus and the hardest grading. Different teaching/learning styles are favoured by boys and girls (e.g. discovery vs. demonstrations, rote learning, practical work, pupil-centred, projects, case studies) due to a variety of factors including differing cognitive styles. Whether innate or acquired, girls' and boys' cognitive styles differ by middle school (e.g. spatial/quantitative vs. verbal bias), which may affect preference for and performance in different sciences. For example, girls tend to want to memorize difficult material while boys try to master the underlying principles. And girls' lower curiosity and lack of confidence makes them less favourably disposed to discovery learning. Thus biology may seem more attractive to them than physics or chemistry. Science interest is aroused at an earlier age than other areas. Since few primary teachers (mainly women) have much maths/science, out-of-school science experiences (which girls often lack) may contribute greatly. The sex-structure of the school is also important — being educated with the other sex further polarises subject choice (girls to biology, boys to physical science) and performance (girls do better in all-girls' schools, boys do better in co-ed schools somewhat). This could be attributed to co-ed girls using subject choice as a way of asserting their sex roles, their greater likelihood of seeing physical science as a male preserve, their concern for what others think (i.e. male classmates), their fear of feeling odd (e.g. being in the definite minority in physics class) or to teachers in girls' schools catering to girls' preferred teaching/learning styles (biased toward boys in mixed-sex schools).
   Google Scholar
• Preece , Muriel . 1979 . ‘Mathematics: The Unpredictability of Girls’ . Mathematics Teaching , 87 June : 27 – 29 . As part of a 5-ycar project, a sample of 1250 2nd year students from 5 comprehensive schools was used to study whether changes in teaching behaviours would improve maths skills and attitudes (interest, anxiety, perceived usefulness, perceptions of parent attitudes and perceived sex appropriateness). Teachers in some classes were to show positive attitudes towards the girls, use non-stereotypic examples, encourage girls to participate along with the boys in practical exercises and use specially designed materials. It was found that, overall, girls and boys did not differ significantly in computation at either testing time, though boys were superior on problem solving, especially at year's end. A notable exception was on ‘domestic’ problems which favoured girls — girls' performance especially was strongly influenced by the context of the problem. There were no overall sex differences in maths attitude at the beginning - boys were more self-confident and had higher expectations of success — girls were more conscientious, had a greater intrinsic interest in maths and a greater need for teacher support — both rated maths as important and neither saw it as a male preserve. By the end of the year, however, boys' attitudes improved while girls' dropped. Boys no longer felt maths was easy, but as a challenge they could tackle. Girls thought themselves hopeless in maths, didn't expect to succeed, nor felt anyone else did either. For the boys, problem solving, computation and maths attitudes were all correlated, especially the 2 maths skills. For girls, however, computation and problem solving were only moderately correlated, but maths attitude was not related to either — i.e. girls' liking (confidence, anxiety, etc.) of maths cannot be predicted by their success in it. Clearly there is a need to begin work on the problem at a much earlier age.
   Google Scholar
• Saraga , Esther and Griffiths , Dorothy . 1981 . “ ‘Biological Inevitabilities or Political Choices? The Future for Girls in Science’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 85 – 97 . Biological and socialisation theories explaining females' underachievement in science are criticized in favour of more macro political/structural/cultural explanations — i.e. women's position in society and the status and nature of science itself. The biological determinist position is not adequately substantiated, draws too heavily from inferences from animals, narrowly focuses on spatial ability while ignoring its possible social basis, ignores the importance of more general maths skills and non-ability components of achievement (e.g. motivation, anxiety). Socialisation theories, while not unimportant, may easily lead to false optimism (i.e. socialisation can easily be altered) or false pessimism (i.e. failure to achieve significant changes quickly leads to a conclusion of biological determinism). Until the structural basis of women's oppression is challenged/changed, they will be unable to (and/or feel the pressure to) take advantage of ‘equal’ academic/occupational opportunities (e.g. dual role demands, the sexual division in the family and labour force). Science is a male domain — e.g. the majority of scientists are male, personality traits of scientists are stereotypically male, by today's definition the nature of the physical sciences is ‘masculine’ (e.g. impersonal, inanimate), and post-hoc definitions of various activities are biased (e.g. working with sewing machines is not seen as evidence of girls' mechanical aptitude but as merely an aid to achieving ‘person’ goals). This male bias is especially harmful to girls since science subject choices are generally made at an age when students are particularly conscious of gender and are anxious to conform. Examining the socio-historic context, the social role of science has focused on 2 major concerns — increasing the efficiency of production and social control. Might science be redefined to include more ‘feminine’ concerns (besides the industrial/military focus) to draw more females to it? And is the increasing interest in attracting more women to science motivated by concern for equality for women or by todays' shortage of scientists/engineers?
   Google Scholar
• Sharma , Shiam and Meigham , Rolan . 1980 . ‘Schooling and Sex Roles: the Case of GCE ‘O’ level Mathematics’ . British Journal of Sociology of Education , 1 ( 2 ) : 193 – 205 . This study demonstrates that sex differences in maths performance on O-level exams largely disappears when the variable ‘other mathematics-related courses taken’ (i.e. physics, geometrical drawing) is controlled for. Girls' and boys' average scores, pass rates and high pass rates were compared for the 12,459 maths exam entrants in 1977 (53% male). Overall boys surpassed girls on all three criteria (e.g. 29% of the girls but 47% of the boys had upper grade passes). However, of those maths students who also took physics (1/3 of the boys, 1/4 of the girls), girls were superior to boys on all three counts (e.g. 54% vs. 46% high pass rate). Boys and girls had similar maths results for students also taking geometrical drawing (with 30 times more males than females doing so). Thus when a stratified sample was examined (equal numbers of boys and girls with only maths, maths plus physics and maths plus geometrical drawing) sex differences largely disappeared (girls had better average scores, 5.5 vs. 5.2, and more high passes, 36% vs. 27%, while boys had more passes, 63% vs. 67%). The comparisons of the three categories of students within each sex was striking — maths students who also took physics were markedly superior to those who only took maths (e.g. for girls, average scores were 4.1 vs. 6.0, 52% vs. 20% high pass and 80% vs. 48% pass rate — with similar figures for boys) — maths students who also took geometrical drawing fell in between. Within-sex differences were clearly greater than between-sex differences. Thus boys' superior performance on GCE O-levels in maths seems to be attributable to boys' greater maths-related experiences in other non-maths courses.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith , Pat . 1980 . ‘Alice and Her Receding Vision of a Perch in the Success Tree’ . Times Higher Educational Supplement , 409 5 Sept. : 7 The author reviews material from the book Alice Through the Microscope (Birke et al., 1980) which demonstrates the decreasing participation of females in maths/ science at each level. In 1977 girls had 39.9% of the O-level maths passes and 27.7% of those in physics; by A-level they gained only 22.9% and 17.9% of the maths and physics passes respectively. In higher education, women earned 3% of the engineering/ technology degrees and 18% to 29% of the science degrees (at university and polytechnic). By employment time, women make up only 10% of the scientists and less than 2% of the managers and practicing researchers in science/technology. Is specialisation for GCE coming precisely-at the time of puberty when sex role/ academic priorities are questioned with respect to maths/science in particular and career choice/commitment in general? (And in maths/science, there is ‘no turning back’). Is the image of science too abstract, academic, impersonal, divorced from social context and requiring high intelligence? Do boys more than girls stick to it anyway because of career pressure, and greater confidence in their abilities? And in employment do women experience greater difficulties such as prejudice, proving oneself, a hostile environment, child-rearing demands in a competitive, time-consuming field?
   Google Scholar
• Smith , Stuart . 1980 . ‘Should They be Kept Apart?’ . Times Educational Supplement , 18 July : 36 A secondary school in Stamford set up maths classes so as to compare girls' performances in single-sex vs. mixed-sex classes (using the same teacher in both settings). The situation prior to the experiment was typical: first year girls were initially equal to boys on maths ability tests, but fell considerably behind in maths by the end of the first year on ability tests, asking/answering questions and demonstration of interest in class. This sex difference increased such that by the fourth year boys outnumbered girls by 4 or 5 to 1 in the top 2 maths sets (which prepare students for O-level maths examinations). The few girls in these sets reported feeling uncomfortable in the masculine environment, adopted a deliberately passive role in class, and feared ridicule for wrong answers or ‘foolish’ questions (no difference was found under female or male teachers). For the experiment, the top level maths students were assigned to single or mixed-sex classes in the first year. Testing in November of the second year showed single-sex girls' performance was equal to mixed-sex boys' and clearly superior to mixed-sex girls' - this gap increased by February testing. Teacher reports also found girls in single-sex maths classes were livelier, more boisterous, more co-operative and the class had a better working atmosphere.
   Google Scholar
• Smithers , Alan and Collings , John . 1981 . “ ‘Girls Studying Science in the Sixth Form’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 164 – 179 . This study looked at the relatively few girls who studied physical science (including maths) in the 6th form to examine whether they had distinctive characteristics which might reveal something about the dynamics of science choice. 1900 students from 20 schools in north England were compared — science girls, non-science girls and science boys. The science girls were intellectually and academically superior to other girls as well as science boys on all measures. In temperament, science girls were very similar to science boys (and scientists in general) though different from other girls (e.g. conscientious, tough-minded, controlled). Science and arts students of both sexes agreed that science 6th formers were more intelligent and hardworking, but each group of boys thought their group to be more exciting and attractive. Science girls, however, agreed with arts girls in thinking arts girls were more socially attractive. Nearly all science students planned on going on to degree courses vs. only ½ the other girls — with few planning on teaching. On the positive side then, girls taking physical sciences were highly intelligent and knew it, had good academic records (in general and in science), and were stable and toughminded. However, unlike boys in science, the girls were somewhat introverted, saw themselves as less feminine/attractive/popular/sociable, and reported more social difficulties. Is this the price they have to pay or is science a refuge for girls who want to be judged on their intellectual rather than social qualities? Does their keen awareness of their high ability over-ride the social pressures against science entry as inappropriate for girls? Or does the rejection of the ‘feminine’ by choosing science lead them to see themselves as different in other ways as well?
   Google Scholar
• Stamp , Peggy . 1979 . ‘Girls and Mathematics: Parental Variables‘ . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 49 ( 1 ) Feb. : 39 – 50 . Girls taking A-level mathematics were compared with girls taking A-level French on personality measures (including niasculinity/femininity), parental identification, attitudes, and influence, and attitude toward their subject. 299 subjects (and their parents) from 14 schools (single and mixed-sex, comprehensive and grammar) were tested in 1975-76. The mathematics girls were found to be more ‘masculine’ intellectually (more reserved, emotionally stable, tough-minded, thing-orientated, experimenting and radical) and career-wise (more definite career plans and of a less conventional nature), but more ‘ferninine’ socially (more nurturing, home-related, traditional interests and activities as well as more group dependent) as compared with girls taking French. Contrary to the assumption that girls in general identify with mothers and girls in maths/science with fathers, no difference between maths and ‘French’ girls were found; for both groups more girls identified with fathers than mothers. Subject choice was most influenced by ‘sex-appropriate’ parent (fathers for maths, mothers for French) though over half of each group reported no parental influence. Parental attitudes and ability also affected subject choice — girls were likely to take a foreign language if their mother liked it — girls were likely to take maths if both mother and father liked it and father was good at it. Girls' attitudes towards their respective subjects, however, were most related to their mothers' attitudes to the subjects. Hence, females' positive maths attitudes are important, even if not relevant to their career, for the part they play in influencing their daughters' attitudes and subject choices in the future.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner , R. and Trown , Anne . 1979 . ‘Cultural Change and Mathematical Thought’ . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 49 ( 3 ) Nov. : 239 – 248 . The mathematical thinking ability (i.e. relational thinking, patterns, generalisations) of three groups of 60 10-13 year olds were compared: Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi recent arrivals, those Asian-origin children who had lived in England since birth and white British children. No significant ethnic differences were found. However Asian-origin girls in England since birth were markedly superior to their male counterparts at age 10/11 and marginally superior at 12/13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor , J. 1970 . ‘Sexist Bias in Physics Textbooks’ . Physics Education , 4 ( 5 ) July : 277 – 280 . Three typical physics texts were examined — a Nuffield O-level, a CSE textbook and a general textbook (from 1967, 1970 and 1975). A definite sexist bias was found in the illustrations, diagrams and written texts of all three books on all criteria: disproportionate use of males (including the term ‘he’), sex stereotyping (including male-active, female-passive), and the use of ‘male’ objects/experiences for examples. ‘References to females were few (even when the sex of the person was immaterial), references to active females were even fewer and references to females in scientific activities were virtually non-existent’. Besides an overt sex bias, another aspect of the texts which may put girls at a disadvantage is the paucity of references to any person at all (an interest of girls).
   Google Scholar
• Thompson , N. 1979 . ‘Sex Differentials in Physics Education’ . Physics Education , 14 : 285 – 288 . This article examines the sex imbalance in physics for 16+ exams through higher degrees in 1975-76. Two important decision points — middle school subject selection and university entry — are examined using a 1973 DES study and university applications data. Overall about equal numbers of girls and boys take O-level exams, but in physics about 4 times as many boys as girls apply. This is a more extreme sex ratio than any regular (non-craft) subject, and, unlike other science areas, is not becoming more balanced in recent years (maths 1.4, chemistry 2.1, biology 0.6). The same picture is true for CSE. (The CSE figure may more accurately reflect the position in the schools since O-levels draw 20-25% FE candidates). At A-level the sex imbalance on physics entrants increases to 5:1, though again girls have a slightly higher pass rate than boys. And just as girls have a higher dropout rate from O-level to A-level physics, so too do they in applying to university in physics (a sex ratio of about 8). Beyond that the sex ratios are 6.7 for obtaining a degree in physics, 7.8 for higher degrees and about 20 for doctors degrees. The sex imbalance is obvious from the first selection of science subjects in middle school. The DES data for science showed that the bias in school course offerings (more pronounced in single-sex schools) correlated with the bias in students' subject choice (worse in mixed-sex schools). However, actual course-taking seemed to result more from student choice than school facilities. However, the choice may not be entirely ‘free’ - e.g. parent/teacher pressure, restricted earlier specialisation, timetabling and packaging of programmes. Why do proportionately fewer girls with A-level physics continue in physics at university - where do they go? Dramatic increases in female applicants in medicine and dentistry suggest that these may be their destination. Speculation as to why this occurs questions whether physics (and science in general) is increasingly moving toward the inclusion of technology which may be inimical to feminine interests.
   Google Scholar
• Weiner , Gaby . 1980 . “ ‘Sex Differences in Mathematical Performance: A Review of Research and Possible Action’ ” . In Schooling for Women's Work , Edited by: Rosemary , Deem . 76 – 86 . London : Routledge and Kegan Paul . The author reviews British and American research on cognitive, socialisation, schooling and attitudinal influences on sex differences in maths. (Only British studies are discussed here). Many general studies on sex bias in education have implications for maths. ‘Sex’ is used to separate children for purely organisational reasons, e.g. on the register, when lining up, for quizzes and games, on assigned tasks. Staffing patterns usually reflect traditional sex roles — primary school teachers are women, later secondary teachers are about equally male and female, head teachers and head masters are overwhelmingly male, support staff are nearly all female. Primary teachers are likely to perceive girls more favourably than boys — more sensible, obedient, hard-working, co-operative, quiet, mature, bright and likeable as opposed to boys being more excitable, talkative, and in need of more supervision and attention. And the sexism in textbooks is well-documented. On maths in particular, boys report liking it because it's difficult, girls dislike it for the same reason. Maths textbooks exhibit sexism — e.g. the numbers of each sex shown, the types of activities, characteristics and occupations. Prior to the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act there was considerable sex segregation in subjects (by choice, discrimination, channelling) into traditional areas (cooking vs. woodwork, biology vs. physics) as well as unequal allocation of resources to all-girls' and all-boys' schools (e.g. adequate science laboratories). Suggestions include special encouragement of girls by maths/science teachers, drawing sample problems equally from females' experiences, dissemination of information encouraging girls to go into the field, and an active effort to include girls in class.
   Google Scholar
• Weinreich-Haste , Helen . 1981 . “ ‘The Image of Science’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 216 – 229 . Students' images of science and the scientist are examined. Does the image deter girls from entering science? Does the stereotype fit with reality? The general cultural view is that science is a rational activity where the human/social component is underplayed, aimed at obtaining knowledge to gain control of the environment. Children's view includes both the ‘stage scientist’ (the mad professor — old, eccentric, physically unattractive) and the ‘modern scientist’ (what they might grow up to be — pre-occupied with work, lacking social contact). Both have elements of abnormality — very intelligent, socially isolated, lacking social graces. Hence, science is more than a job, it's being a type of person and adopting a lifestyle. For girls, also relevant is the strong masculine image which, when taken with the above, does not fit with female roles expectations (predominantly males, preoccupied with work, not physically attractive, socially isolated, unfeminine). Hence, for girls to aspire to a science career requires strong motivation, independence, a non-traditional attitude towards sex roles and an internal criteria for self judgement. A study of 13-14 year olds and university students asked them to give their image of the scientist, rate subjects as masculine/feminine, and state why they would/wouldn't want to be/marry a scientist. The stereotypes discussed above were borne out in their responses. Studies of real scientists and their jobs suggest a gap between the stereotype and the scientist on some dimensions of personality, social/family life and work experience. Also contrary to the stereotype, the process of science is often not objective, detached, purely rational and an individual activity. No doubt there is also a difference between the gifted, elite scientist (which may be closer to what students imagine) and the average scientist (which most aspiring science students will become) in terms of job, time, commitment, need for imagination, etc. In terms of drawing more girls into science, there is a need to convey a more accurate picture of the real scientist/the average scientist and dispel the negative, masculine, abnormal image so prevalent.
   Google Scholar
• Whyte , Judith . 1981 . “ ‘Sex Typing in Schools’ ” . In The Missing Half Edited by: Kelly , A. 264 – 275 . Sex bias in the schools is discussed in general as well as with respect to science in particular concerning hidden curriculum, teacher bias, school/class structure, facilities, careers advice and crafts classes. Specific areas include the following. Introduce teachers to compensatory teaching strategies for encouraging girls in science classrooms (those currently used are biased towards boys). Discourage sex segregation (of duties, lines, seating, play, etc.) which encourages categorisation of science (as male) as well. Actively encourage girls in science classrooms (where they appear to require and get less attention). Eliminate biased channelling of girls into biology rather than physics/chemistry due to lack of facilities, course packaging, careers advice, scheduling. Begin unbiased careers advice early (before course choices are made), exposing students to a variety of science/technical jobs, pointing out the relevance of science for keeping future opportunities open as well as for even traditional female jobs, and not overemphasizing the difficulty/demands of science/engineering courses/jobs. Girls need to be allowed to and encouraged to take more crafts courses — and a new concept of home crafts is needed to broaden it into a science area.
   Google Scholar
• Wood , Robert . 1976 . ‘Sex Differences in Mathematics Attainment at GCE Ordinary Level’ . Educational Studies , 2 ( 2 ) June : 141 – 160 . Not only do more boys than girls take O-level maths, but they tend to do better on the whole and on certain types of questions. This study looks at individual items of the 1973 and 1974 O-level maths exam for a total of 1884 London students from mixed-sex schools. (A sample of 418 girls from girls' schools was also used for separate comparison since they generally do better than girls from co-ed schools). Boys surpassed girls particularly on items involving scaling, which is in essence proportionality (important in probabilities). These sex differences persisted when comparison was made with girls from single sex schools. Girls outperformed boys on modern maths items (e.g. sets, matrices, number lines). Individual schools were examined to see if sex differences persisted across schools — in some cases the difference vanished and even reversed. But even taking school into account, boys still surpassed girls on scaling/measurement problems, probability and space-time relationships. On the free response questions where some choice of questions was allowed, sex differences in preference and performance were also found. Girls chose more modern maths questions (though they did not do better than boys on these), and boys were much more likely to choose probability and geometry questions. Various theories for these differences were discussed. The motivation hypothesis suggests that girls don't like certain types of topics (male-oriented, un-interesting) so spend less time studying them, resulting in poorer performance. The female dependency hypothesis suggests girls will stick to secure, teacher-approved methods resulting in their doing well on rote learning, but not on problem solving questions. The stage vs. holistic approach hypothesis suggests that girls break problems into multiple stages resulting in a greater number of places for failure especially under time limits (with less time for plausibility check). The spatial visualization hypothesis (with a genetic basis) cannot be ruled out. The female menstruation hypothesis was ruled out as unlikely. Lastly, the development theory was considered — girls may take longer than boys to attain the formal operations stage (dependent on available structures and experiences).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood , Robert . 1977 . ‘Cable's Comparison Factor: Is This Where Girls' Trouble Starts?’ . Maths in School , 6 ( 4 ) Sept. : 18 – 21 . The maths O-level exams (1973-74) of 1884 London students were examined for sex differences in the 60 multiple choice items. Boys outperformed girls on all but 7 of the items - all 7 being modern maths (e.g. Venn diagrams, matrices). The areas with the largest sex difference favouring boys involved aspects of scaling/proportionality. In an earlier article the author hypothesized that this may be due to girls lagging behind boys in reaching Piaget's formal operation state (e.g. abstract thinking). He now attributes this to girls' greater difficulty with the ‘comparison factor’ (pointed out by Mr. Cable i.e. being able to see how one quality compares with another, as with fractions and proportions). A second area where girls don't do as well is solid geometry which requires spatial visualization. Might the two be connected? Is dealing with fractions and proportions - the comparison factor - really part of spatial ability, i.e. being able to perceive, recognise and assimilate patterns (also called for in problem solving)? On the other hand, girls do better in recognition and classification problems (supplying definitions, applying techniques) - things most susceptible to drilling (rote learning). Girls' greater conformity and dependence perhaps encourages them to keep to methods they're confident in, be cautious, avoid being wrong, reproduce techniques they're taught and use teacher approved methods.
   Google Scholar