4.2 Article

An integrative data analysis of gender differences in children's understanding of mathematical equivalence

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 163, Issue -, Pages 140-150

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.06.002

Keywords

Elementary mathematics; Gender differences; Individual differences; Mathematical equivalence; Problem solving; Integrative data analysis

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences [R305B070297, R305A110198]
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DRL-1054467]
  3. NSF [DGE-1313583]
  4. Notre Dame Institute
  5. Graduate Student Research Award
  6. Psi Chi Graduate Research Grant
  7. Society for Research in Child Development Dissertation Funding Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined gender as a potential source of variation in children's formal understanding of mathematical equivalence. The hypothesis was that girls would perform more poorly than boys. An integrative data analysis was conducted with 960 second and third graders across 14 previously conducted studies of children's understanding of mathematical equivalence. Measures included problem solving, problem encoding, and equal sign definition. Overall, children performed poorly on all measures. As predicted, girls were less likely than boys to solve mathematical equivalence problems correctly, even though there were no gender differences in calculation accuracy. In addition, girls were more likely than boys to use the add-all strategy, an incorrect strategy that has been shown to be more resistant to change than other incorrect strategies. There were not statistically significant differences for encoding or defining the equal sign, suggesting that deficits may reflect girls' tendency to follow taught algorithms. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available