This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]On: 10 October 2014, At: 09:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Reaching Gender Equity inMathematics EducationDr. Gila HannaPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Dr. Gila Hanna (2003) Reaching Gender Equity in Mathematics Education,The Educational Forum, 67:3, 204-214, DOI: 10.1080/00131720309335034

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720309335034

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reaching Gender Equityin Mathematics Education

by Gila Hanna

As Fennema (1990) and the AmericanAssociation of University Women (AAUW)Educational Foundation (1992; 1998) havenoted, equity in mathematics education iscomprised of several elements. One of theseelements is equity of educational outcome.Though they may vary from individual toindividual, these outcomes are not corre­lated with gender, race, class, or ethnicity.For reasons of space, I will in this paperaddress the factor of gender alone, andfrom that point of view I will consider twoaspects of educational outcome. First, I willdiscuss the relative mathematics achieve­ment (student performance) of boys andgirls at the elementary and secondary lev­els . Second, I will discuss the relative rep­resentation of males and females at all lev­els of education in general and in themathematical sciences in particular.

RESEARCH IN GENDER DIFFERENCES

Equality for women-and in educationin particular-has been a concern of manyfor a long time; but, until the Sixties, theposition of women in mathematics and sci­ence did not figure prominently in the sci­entific literature. In the course of that de­cade, however, equality of access toeducation in mathematics and science forwomen became one of the predominantaims of the feminist movement, and re­searchers increasingly turned their atten­tion to this issue.

As feminists and others argued, equityrequired the creation of conditions thatwould ensure equal representation of malesand females in mathematics and sciencecourses in high school, including the ad ­vanced courses, as well as in universitymathematics and science programs. Thefull participation of women in society re­quired, in this view, that they have equalopportunities to take up careers in scienceand technology. Unequal representation atany level, it was reasoned, would perpetu­ate unequal representation at higher levelsof education and ultimately an existingpattern of gender segregation across theworkforce.

Much of the research on equality ofoutcome published up to the early Seven­ties, the so-called "first generation of re­search" summarized by Fennema (1974)and Leder (1992), attempted to explain thelow participation and achievement ofwomen in mathematics and science by de­ficient spatial ability and by other cogni­tive disadvantages. Many researchers sug­gested that their allegedly inferior abilityin mathematics was due to innate biologi­cal factors.

This first wave of research into genderdifferences also looked at other factors in­hibiting females' pursuit of the study ofmathematics. Among them were the gen­erally held beliefs that mathematics andscience are male domains, that only people

The E.ducational Forum' Volume 67' Spring 2003204

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

ISSUESFORUM

with "mathematical minds," mostly men,can do mathematics, and that one cannotbe good in both language arts and math­ematics (with the corollary that women,held to be good in language arts, cannotalso be good in mathematics).

Another factor explored wa s disablingbehaviors among female students, such asthe lack of confidence they often displayedeven when successful. Females were foundto be likely to attribute success to sheer luckand failure to poor ability, whereas malestudents tended to attribute success to highability and failure to external factors suchas bad teaching or lack of effort. Such be­liefs and behaviors were seen as a serioushindrance to the learning of mathematics,but they too reflected a perception rootedin biology.

From the early Seventies, however, so­ciologists, ps ychologists, and educationalresearchers have moved to a "second gen­eration of research," turning away fromthe assumption that innate biological fac­tors and their derivate beliefs and behav­iors dictate the observed gender differ­en ces in participation and achievement.Most modern educational research on gen­der similarities and differences suggestsno physical or intellectual barrier to theparticipation of women in mathematics,science, or technology. Indeed, it is nowgenerally accepted that women have beenand continue to be underrepresented inthese fields mainly because of social andcultural barriers that did not and still maynot accord them equal opportunities. For

Gila Hanna is Professor Emeritus at theOntario Institute for Studies in Education ofthe University ofToronto. Her researchinterests include gender issues and therole ofproof in mathematics education.Dr. Hanna is a former president of theInternational Organisation of Women andMathematics Education.

the most part, these barriers were notraised intentionally; the y formed an inte­gral part of a social order that reflected anoften-unconscious gender discrimination.Thus, the second wave of educationalresearch focused on social and culturalfactors-stereotypical sex-role identifica­tions, the curriculum, the learning situa­tion, and differential treatment by teach­ers and parents.

Such social and cultural factors playacrucial role in both the low achievementand the low participation of women inmathematics and science. Researchers ofthis second generation identified, for ex­ample, a "chilly climate" for females in theclassroom, finding that boys tended to getmore attention than girls, and that bo yswere channeled into advanced courses inmathematics and science even when theirgrades in these subjects were lower thanthose of girls. Burton (1990), Fennema andLeder (1990), Grevholm and Hanna (1995),Hanna (1996), and Rogers and Kaiser (1995)described the important role that teachers,administrators, school board members, andparents can play at the local level in pro­moting gender equality in both achieve­ment and representation.

EQUITY OF OUTCOME AS EQUALITY

IN EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

In looking at educational achievementby gender, it is helpful to consult the threestudies conducted by the International As­sociation for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement (IEA) in 1964, 1980-82, and1994-97. The First , Second, and Third In­ternational Mathematics Studies have cometo be known as FIMS, SIMS, and TIMSSrespectivel y (the additional S in TIMSSstands for Science) . It was never a declaredaim of the IEA to investigate gender differ­ences in achievement or in attitudes towardmathematics, but its studies ha ve in factbeen particularly important to our under-

The Educational Forum· Volume 67 • Spring 2003205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

HANNA

standing of gender differences, mainly be­cause they have made it possible to con­duct reliable cross-cultural investigations.

The lEA studies provided convincingevidence that gender differences in achieve­ment vary widely from country to country,with the degree and direction of variationdepending greatly on topic and grade level.In some countries, the studies revealedmarked gender differences favoring malesin some topics. In other countries, no gen­der differences were found; and, in a fewcountries, the studies showed gender dif­ferences that favored females. These find­ings are potentially of major importance.They indicate, first of all, that some educa­tional systems do provide, wittingly orunwittingly, educational conditions thatwork to prevent an achievement gap be­tween males and females in mathematics.Second, in showing that gender differencesin mathematics achievement vary in mag­nitude and direction from country to coun­try, the lEA findings call into question thevalidity of the claim made by a number ofresearchers that there are innate differencesbetween males and females in mathemati­cal ability.

The lEA studies also provided a wealthof information about the degree and direc­tion of gender differences as they relate toother variables, such as the curriculum, theorganization of the classroom, and attitudestoward mathematics. In so doing, theyopened the door to a much more detailedunderstanding of gender differences inachievement.

More than 30 years elapsed betweenthe first and third lEA studies. Over thisinterval, from 1964 to 1995, gender issuesassumed a much higher profile amongeducators, as in society as a whole, andsubstantial changes were made in themathematics curricula and the classroompractices of most of the participating coun­tries in response to the demand for edu-

cational equity. In addition, the presenceof women in mathematics and science in­creased dramatically during this period,partly as a result of intervention programsaimed at encouraging their participationand of policies based on considerations ofgender equity.

FIMSKeeves (1973) found that boys per­

formed better than girls in overall math­ematics achievement at the 13-year-oldlevel (Population I) in all 10 original FIMScountries. He also found some variationamong countries in the size of the genderdifferences at this level, with the smallestgender difference in the United States andthe largest in Belgium and the Netherlands.

When Steinkamp, Harnisch, Walberg,and Tsai (1985) reanalyzed the 1964 and1970 FIMS data for Population I (13-year­olds), using the data from 12 countries, theyfound that boys outperformed girls in 10out of 12 in overall mathematical achieve­ment, with eight of these differences reach­ing statistical significance; the range of ef­fect was quite small, accounting for only1-9 percent of population variance.

Steinkamp and her colleagues alsoidentified a number of important contex­tual variables for gender differences inmathematics subjects, such as student atti­tude, opportunity to learn, and the amountof homework. Regarding overall math­ematical achievement, they concluded:

• gender differences are small;• it is impossible to know whether or

not initial potential is equal;• psychosocial factors playa role in

creating or reducing differences;• in light of the pervasiveness of dif­

ferences, biology may well playa role; and• the differences in school achievement

are not large enough in themselves to pro­duce the huge differences that exist incourse selection, occupational choice, and

The Educational Forum' Volume 67' Spring 2003206

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

ISSUES

FORUM

professional status.Comparisons between sexes were more

complex at the pre-university level (Popu­lation II), because of the large differencesin the participation rates of the sexes.Keeves (1973) concluded that the differ­ences in achievement between the sexeswere even greater in Population II than inPopulation I.

Harnisch, Steinkamp, Tsai, andWalberg (1986), in a reanalysis of the FIMSdata, determined the magnitude, direction,and nature of gender differences among 17­year-olds in 10 countries. They concludedthat achievement differences were smallbut pervasive across cultures. Males scoredhigher on overall achievement in all 10countries. In all but one of these countries,differences, though small, were statisticallysignificant (possibly as a result of the largesample size). Percentages of variance ac­counted for by gender as measured by thew2 index were rather small (0-12 percent).

Nonetheless, as Harnisch et al. (1986,236) added, "The pattern of differences­which are pervasive, always favor males,and persist across cultures-are not incon­sistent with a biological etiology." Still, asHarnisch et al. (1986,241} concluded, "Pat­terns emerging in the data suggest that dif­ferences between the sexes are not immu­table, however, and provide empiricalevidence that non-biological factors playarole in determining the magnitude of gen­der differences."

SIMSThe Second International Mathematics

Study (SIMS)investigated two groups: stu­dents aged 13 (Population A) and studentsin the last year of secondary school (Popu­lation B). Twenty countries were repre­sented in Population A and 15 in Popula­tion B.

Analysis of the SIMS data on math­ematics achievement collected in 1981-82

for Population A showed that gender dif­ferences vary widely from country to coun­try and tha t they are smaller than differ­ences among countries (Hanna 1989; 1994).Test items were grouped into five subtests:Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Measure­ment, and Descriptive Statistics. In five ofthe 20 participating countries, girls did aswell as boys or outperformed boys in oneor two of the five subtests. In five othercountries, no gender-related differenceswere observed in any subtest, while in theremaining 10countries it was boys who didas well as girls or better on one to five ofthe subtests.

In Population B(last year of secondaryschool), the results of the seven subtests(Sets, Number Systems, Algebra, Geometry,Finite Mathematics, Analysis, and Probabil­ity) for the 15 participating countriesshowed an overall increase in the gendergap as compared with Population A, withgirls clearly less successful than boys. In nocountry did girls perform better than boyson any of the seven subtests, and only intwo countries did girls perform about thesame as boys in most of the subtests. Inthree of the 15 countries, there were gen­der differences in the boys' favor in up tothree of the sub tests, whi le in all the remain­ing 10 countries boys performed better onfour to six of the seven subtests.

TIM SS

The Third International Mathematicsand Science Study (TIMSS) surpassed itstwo predecessors in the number of coun­tries participating, in the number of popu­lations tested, and in the types of tes ts in­cluded. More than 40 countries took part,and three populations were tested. Popu­lation 1 consisted of students in the adja­cent grades 3 or 4 (where most of the stu­dents were 9-year-olds), and Population 2of students in the adjacent grades 7 or 8(where most of the students were 13-year-

The Educational Forum' Volume 67' Spring 2003207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

HANNA

Participating Countries (25)·7 '----- - - ------ - - -

••1I'.

~.2 •••~ I·~

'"

'"::~ 3 f---- - - - ---- - - - --.-

a

FIGURE 2

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCEON SEVEN CONTENT AREAS, GRADE 4

In Population 2 (Grades 7 and 8), mostcountries showed no gender differences,but the few statistica lly significant differ­ences again tended to favor boys. For thesetwo grades, the content areas were:

• mathematics overall;• fractions and number sense;• geometry;• algebra;• data representation, analysis, and

probability;• measurement; and• proportionality.In Grade 8, girls did better than boys

in algebra in most countries, though thedifferences were no t statistically significant.There were no statistically significant dif-

higher scores than girls in one content areain six countries, in two content areas inthree countries, and in three to five contentareas in five of the 24 countries. Girls hadhigher scores than bo ys more rarely, in onecontent area in one country and in two con­tent areas in two countries.

In Grade 4, as shown in Figure 2 be­low, the situation was a bit more equitable.In 11of the 25 participating countries, therewere no gender differences at all; and, inthree countries, there were differences inthe girls' favor for one or th ree of the sevencontent areas . In seven of the other 11coun­tries, boys did better only in one contentarea, while in the remaining four countriesboys did better in two to four content areas.

Participating Countries (24)

FIGU RE I

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCEON SEVEN CONTENT AREAS, GRADE 3

olds). Population 3 comprised students intheir final year of secondary school, as wellas other students who were taking an ad­vanced mathematics course con taining cal­culus. Unlike FIMS and SIMS, where testsconsisted sole ly of multiple-choice items,the TIMSS tests also included open- andextended-response items.

The findings presented here are basedon initial TIMSS reports (Mullis, Martin,Beaton, Gonzalez, Kelly, and Smith 1997;1998; Beaton, Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez,Kell y, and Smith 1996; and Beaton andRobitaille 1999). Gender-difference analy­ses of the data by other researchers havenot yet been published.

For Population 1, according to Beatonand Robitaille (1999), gender differenceswere small or essentia lly nonexistent inmost countries. The few gender differencesthat did exis t tended to favor boys, how­ever, in both Grades 3 and 4. These testscovered the following content areas:

• ma thematics overall;• whole numbers;• fractions and proportionality;• measurement, estimation, and

number sense;• data representation and probability;• geometry; and• patterns, relations, and functions.In Grade 3, as shown in Figure 1 above,

there were no gender differences in eightof the 24 participating countries in any ofthese seven content areas. Boys did have

.7 L.- _

~il ·2 II-If+H...JL..IL.A.--- - - - - - ---CD..i;'

CD

~::~ 3 f---------------- --

a

The Educational Forum · Volume 67 · Spring 2003208

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

IISSUES

FORUM

Partlcipallng Countries (16)

FIGURE 3

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN ENROLLMENT BYCOUNTRY (TIMSS, POPULATION 3)

tively, as Figure 3 below shows.In sum, the results of the TIMSS cross­

national study, encompassing more than 40countries and about half a million boys andgirls, indicate that up to Grade 8 there arefew significant gender differences inachievement. The results also show that atthe level of advanced mathematics (in thelast grade of secondary school), five out ofthe 16 participating countries provide con­ditions that have led to an almost total dis­a ppearance of gender differences inachievement.

A comparison of the results of the threelEA studies (see Figure 4 on page 210) givesa clear indication that gender differencesin mathematics achievement at age 13 havedecreased dramatically and all but disap­peared in all the participating countries. Ineffect, gender equity has been reached forthis age group. At age 17, on the other hand,boys are still doing better than girls in someareas of mathematics, though the gendergap has considerably decreased over theyears 1964 to 1995.

THE END OF GENDER DIFFERENCES

Gender differences in mathematics de­creased considerably over the 30 years orso covered by these studies and indeed areon the way to disappearing. Perhaps themost significant contribution of these inter­national comparisons, in the context of gen­der studies, is to have revealed that severalcountries have in effect achieved gender

.. 30r--------------­a 20 f-----------------;;;-+~ 10 f--------------II--I-+IE- Ol-r1rrl-.--r-.--r-.--r-.--r...-r......,.,..,..,...,..,.........,.....,~ .10 1+-........-...-..-..-__"-- _

CD

l!l ·20 f-L------------------------­~ ·30 '--------,-----,-----,-----,--------

ferences between boys and girls in propor­tionality either. Out of the 41 countries thatparticipated in the testing, there were sig­nificant differences favoring boys in onlyone country for geometry, fractions, anddata representation, in two countries formathematics overall, and in four countriesfor measurement.

The results for Grade 7 were quite simi­lar. With the exception of algebra, wheregirls did better, the few differences that didexist were in the boys' favor.

In Population 3, the final year of sec­ondary school, gender differences in meanachievement on the test as a whole, for stu­dents who had taken advanced mathemat­ics, were statistically significant in 11 of the16 participating countries. Here there werethree content areas: numbers and equa­tions, calculus, and geometry. The resultsby content area showed that in five coun­tries there were no statistically significantdifferences between boys and girls in anycontent area, and that in four countriesthere were no significant differences in oneor two of the areas. In the remaining sevencountries, however, there were significantdifferences in all three content areas, withall of the differences favoring males.

Population 3 also showed considerablevariation in the relative number of maleand female students taking advancedmathematics courses. In nine of the 16countries, there were more males than fe­males in these courses-in six of these nine,the proportion of males was 20 percentagepoints higher than that of females, while,in three, this difference in favor of males wassmaller (6-10 percentage points). In four ofthe 16 countries, males and females werealmost equally represented. In the remain­ing three countries (Germany, the CzechRepublic, and Austria), more females thanmales were taking advanced mathematics,and their proportion exceeded that of malesby 14, 18, and 24 percentage points, respec-

The Educational Forum' Volume 67' Spring 2003209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

HANNAFIGURE 4

DECREASING GENDER GAP IN MATHEMATICS

Age13 Ages 17-18

FIMS(1964)

SIMS(1980-82)

TIMSS(1995)

1. Differences in boys' favo r in 10 out 1. Differences in boys' favor in all 10of 12 countries . countries.

2. Consid erable va riation between 2. Considerable va riation be tweencountries in the extent of gende r cou ntries in the exten t of gende rd ifferences. differences.

1. No differences in 5 out of 20 1. No differences in 3 out of 15countries on all subjects. coun tries on 6 out of 7 subtests.

2. Differences in boys favor in 10 2. Differences in boys' favor in 12countries, in up to 2 out of 5 subtests. countries on 2 to 6 subtes ts.

3. Differences in girls' favo r in 5countries in up to 2 out of 5 subtests.

1. No differences in overall achievement 1. No differences in 5 out of 16in 37 out of 39 countries. countries.

2. Slight differences in girls' favor in 2. Differences in boys' favor in 4Algebra in 12 countries (in Grade 8). countries on up to 2 content area s

and in 7 countries on each of the 3content areas .

equity in mathematics. This fact presents acha llenge to those countries that ha ve notye t d on e so . These coun tries shou ld at ­tempt to find out wha t specifi c educationa lpractices were successful in bringing aboutgender equity elsewhere and implementthese strategies in their own ed ucationalse ttings.

EQUITY OF OUTCOME AS

EQUALITY IN REPRESENTATION

In terms of representation, full genderequity has not been reached, despite nu­merous po licies and legal measures pu t inplace to encou rag e it. Women haveachi eved a considerable presence at all lev­els of education over the pa st few decadesand indeed ha ve made a subs tantial ad­vance in the sciences. In certain scientificdisciplines, however, notably mathematics,physics, and engineering, their presencestill lags behind that of men.

Yet, increasing ly,wo men are participat­ing in undergraduate programs. Using datapublished in the UNESCO Statistical Year­books of 1972, 1988, and 1998 for a numberof countries that pa rt icipated in IEA stud­ies, I w ill d iscuss th e participation ofwomen in undergraduate and grad uate

science and engineering programs in theUnited States and Canada and their repre­sen tation in professional scientific and en­gineering occupa tions in the United States.

Women in Universit y ProgramsOver the last few decades, the partici­

pation of wome n in higher educat ion hasincreased dramat ically across the board.For ease of presentation, this topic is dis­cussed here for three groups of countries:

• four non-European English-speakingcountries;

• a selection of European countries; and• a selection of other countries.

In all cases, the participation of women ismeasured relative to the proportion of theentire student body that the y constitute.

In Canada, Australia, the United States,and New Zealand, as shown in Figure 5 onpa ge 211, wome n made up well ove r halfof all university stude nts in 1994-95. Theirrepresentation had increased stea di ly tothi s level from a low of well under 30 pe r­cent of all university students in Au st raliain 1960.

European countries ha ve widely differ­ing proportions of women among univer­sity studen ts . Though their participation

The Educational Forum · Volume 67 • Spring 2003210

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

IISSUES

FORUM

FIGURE 5

PERCENT OF WOMENENROLLED IN UNIVERSITIES

(the last year for which we ha ve data), thelowest participation rate for that year of thefive countries discussed here.

FIGURE 6

20 f--r"7........--- - ---=--=-----­

10 '---j-- -i-- +---+--+--+----t- -+----1

PERCENT OF WOMENENROLLED IN UNIVERSITIES

1994195198519751967/68

--+-Egypt--- S. Africa--..- Japan--*- Jordan--*- Cyprus

1960

60

50 I--'===~:-----------:::"....-::~----=-­

40 1---'''-7--/--- - - ----==--'''7'''''''----- - -.,,::7'""''=--c.,~ 30 r--:~~~~~~~=..:.::::,~r:~--

Participat ion in North AmericanScience and Engineering Courses

In her report to the U.S. National Sci­ence Foundation, Olson (1999) concludedtha t women were still underrepresented inundergraduate and graduate science andengineering. Though in 1995 women were50 percent of the US. 18-30 population andtheir share of total undergraduate enroll-

ment was 56 percent, they received only 46percent of the bachelors' degrees in themathematical sciences. Even this was a con­siderable improvement, however, over theirparticipation in undergraduate science andengineering in earlier years. The number ofwomen receiving bachelor's degrees in sci­ence and engineering was 128,871 in 1985and 175,931 in 1995, an increase of 36 per­cent. During the same period, the numberof men receiving bachelor 's degrees in thesetwo areas flu ctuated somewhat, but re­mained close to 200,000.

The proportion of women in graduatescience and engineering programs grewmuch faster than the proportion in under­graduate programs over the same decade(45percent). By the end of the decade, how­ever, women were still only 41 percent of

over the last four decades has increasedoverall, the ra te of increase was far fromuniform. In Switzerland, for example, therewas actually a brief decline in universityenrollment, from 17 percent of the studentbody in 1960 to 10 percent in 1965. This wasfollowed, however, by a consistent increasefrom 1965 to 1995, reaching a high of 38percent of all students in Swiss universi­ties in 1995. In Norway, on the other hand,the proportion of women increased steadilyover the entire period, from 21 percent in1960 to 55 percent in 1995.

In 1960, Finland was ahead of the othernine countries, with the highest proportionof women among university students (46percent). By 1975, Finland had been over­taken by France and Hungary, wherewomen made up 48 percent of enrollments,and by 1990 by Norway as well. Unfortu­nately, data for Finland was not availablebeyond 1990. The countries where womenhad become 50 percent or more of all uni­versity students by 1995 were Finland (52),France (54),Greece (50),Hungary (52), Italy(53), and Norway (55).

An upward trend can be seen in manyother countries as well. In Cyprus, in fact,women made up more than half of all uni­versity students in 1995, as shown in Fig­ure 6 at right. Their participation levelshave reached 48 percent in South Africa, 47percent in Jordan, and 42 percent in Egypt.In Japan, however, women still representedless than 30 percent of all students in 1990

--+-Australia

60 --- Canada--..- USA -""

50 --*- N. ZealandC

~ 40l1. x,

30

201960 1967/68 1975 1985 1994195

The Educational Forum · Volume 67 · Spring 2003211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

HANNA

all science and engineering gradua te stu­de nts. A simi lar pattern presents itself atthe doctora l level. The proportion ofwomen in doctoral programs increased byan impressive 65 percen t between 1985 and1995, but at the end of tha t pe riod wo menstill received only 10 percen t of the doctor­ates in engineering and 40 percent of thosein the biological sciences.

In Can ada, as shown in Figure 7 to theright, the proportion of women among stu ­dents of mathematics rose from 30 percentin 1973 to 40 percent in 1995 at the under­gradua te level, from 22 pe rcent to 31 per­cent at the ma ster 's level, and from 8 per­cent to 22 percent at the doctoral level. Theincrease in the propor tion of wo men study­ing engi neering was more dramatic , ris ingfro m 3 percen t to 18 percen t a t thebachelor 's and master 's levels, an d from 4percent to 10 percent at the doctoral level(Statistics Can ad a 1996).

Women in th e Profession sWome n also increase their presence at

the ter tiary level, and in great numbers. Themost recent U'S, data indicate that wo menwere the recip ients of 41.8 percent of alldoctoral degrees in 1998, up from 40.6 per­cent in 1997 and continuing a 30-year up­ward trend (Sanderson, Dugoni, Hoffer,and Selfa 1999).

As Doyle (2000) rep orted in the "by thenumbers" section of Scient ific A merican, theproportion of women in the professions hassteadily increased in the United States sincethe 1950s, but their level of part icipationvaries widely from p rofession to profes­sion. In 1998, wome n held 53 percent of allu.s. professiona l jobs, including teachingand nursing, but only 28 pe rcent of the jobsin the six better-paying profess ions (engi­neering, law, medicine, natural science,comp uter science, and college an d univer­sity teaching). In add itio n, those wome nwho did have jobs in these professions we re

FIGURE 7

PERCENT OF WOMENENROLLED IN UNIVERSITIES

50~40 . 1973 f-------

j :: . 1995 _

10 1--1--.,--- -o .~

BA MA PhD BA MA PhDMathematics Engineering

paid less. In 1998, women held 10-42 per­cent of the jobs in these six better-payingprofessional jobs, but their earni ngs wereonl y 70- 87 percent of those of men.

Boys: A NEW EQUITY CONCERN

As we begin the new millennium, gen­der equity has not yet been achi eved , buten ormou s str ides have been mad e in thatdirection. Several organizations were activein bringin g abo u t the ch an ges th at havebeen mad e, no tably AAUW. In recent yea rs,AAUW has published two influe ntia l re­ports analyz ing the situation and offeringpolicies and programs: How Schools Short­change Girls (1992) and Gender Gaps: WhereSchools Still Fail Our Children (1998) .

What seems to have made the difference,in particular over the two decades, is the at­tention paid to social and political factors.This attention owed much to the extensiveresearch carried out on barriers to the equa lparticipation of girls in school mathematics,such as inadequate parental support, inequi ­table treatment in the classroom (in particu­lar inequitable interaction between teacherand student), and the preconceptions thatmathematics is a male domain and in anycase is useful in later life only to men.

In Canad a and the Uni ted States, therewas a wide adoption over the last two de­cades of policies aimed at fostering equitabletreatment of boys and girls, and in line withthese policies man y educational authoritiesha ve taken important steps to correct ineq­uities. One such step was the introduction

The Educational Forum ' Volume 67' Spring 2003212

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

IISSUES

FORUM

of fema le-friend ly teach in g techniques(which were found to help both men andwo men). Many of these interventions re­qu ired specia l effort and political will, be­cause they were designed to provide activeand targeted encouragement and assis tanceto women in pursuing the study of math ­ematics and science. It is perhaps not sur­prising that such active gender-equity pro­grams have spawned considerable criticism.

These intervention programs seem tohave been successful indeed . Some mightthink them too successful, judgin g by re­cent statistics showing that girls are begin­ning to outnumber boys in most second­ary mathem atics and science courses. Datapublished by the U'S. Dep artment of Edu­ca tio n on the 1990 and 1994 secondaryschool gradua tio n classes revealed thatthere were more girls than boys in both bi­ology and chemistry, for example, and thatphysics was the only subjec t in which ma leenrollme n t was still significan tly high erthan that of fema les (with a ra tio of ma lesto females of about 1.2). In every other sci­ence and mathemati cs course, the differ­ence between boys and girls was eithersligh t or favored gi rls . The figures alsoshowed that 43 percent of the girls gradu­ating from high school in 1994 had takencollege-prepa ra tory programs, comparedwith 35 percent of the boys.

The recent relatively low enro llment ofboys in mathematics and science has becomea subject of public discussion, notably in TheWall Street Journal (Ravitch 1998). There isnow, in fact, a spate of books and articles onthe plight of boys. Among the books arePollack and Shuster's Real Boys' Voices (2000)and Sommers's The Waragainst Boys (2000) .

Judith Kleinfe ld 's provoca tive ly titled"The My th Tha t Schools Shortcha ngeGir ls" (1998), prep ared for the Women'sFreedom Ne two rk, claims tha t boys are thegroup shor tc hanged in sc hoo ls . AsKleinfe ld stated, it is the girls who regu-

larly obtain high gra des in schoo ls in read­ing and writing and who graduate fromcolleges in the greatest nu mber. In addition,Kleinfeld (1998,3) claimed, "There is strongevi de nce of bias against boys." She pre­sented research data to support her conten­tion that boys are more likely than girls tobe labeled as educa tionally impa ired andass igned to special educa tion classes.

Klei nfe ld d isagreed as well wi thAAUW's (1992; 1998) claim that "males re­ceive more teacher attention than do fe­males." The studies she cited indicate thatgender differences in teacher attention followan inconsistent pattern, with some teacherspaying more attention to girls and othersmore to boys. Recognizing the success of thespecial p rogram s introd uced to improvemathem atics and science teaching for fe­males, Kleinfeld deplored the lack of suchprograms in areas where boys have done andcontinue to do poorly, mainly the languagearts. In her conclusion, Kleinfeld (1998, 25)declared, "The charge that the schools short­change girls is false political propaganda."

It is perhaps ironic that the concern ofeduca tors has now turned to the low par­ticipa tion of males in science and math­ema tics co u rses. As d iscussed , theunderrepresentat ion of fema les in thesesubjects up to the Seventies had been as­cribed by man y to biological di fferences. Itwas suggested, in particul ar, that math­ematics is inherently foreign to the fem alemind . Interest in gly eno ug h, th e under­representatio n of men in science and math­ema tics tod ay does not seem to have givenrise to similar biologica l explanations . In­stead, and rightly so, researchers havetended to invoke socia l influe nces . To mo­tivate young men to p ursue stu dies inma thematics and science, researchers andadvocates of ed ucational equi ty have thuscome to propose the use of in terventionprograms of the sort that have proved sosuccessful with wo men.

The Educational Forum ' Volume 67' Spring 2003213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

HANNA

Preparation of this paper was supported in part by the Ontario In­stitutefor Studies in Education and by the Social Sciences and Hu­manities Research Council of Canada. The author wishes to thankQing Li, Ebby Madera, and Dragana Martinouic for theirassistance.

REFERENCESAm erica n Associatio n of University Wome n Ed uca tio na l

Foundatio n. 1992. How schools shortchangegirls. Wash­ing ton , D.C: AA UW.

Ame rican Associatio n of University Wom en Ed uc atio na lFoundation. 1998. Gendergaps: Where schools still failour children. Wash ing to n, D.C: AA UW.

Beat on , A. E., and D. F. Robitaill e. 1999. An overview of th eThird Internati onal Mat hem at ics and Science Study. InInternational comparisons i'l mathematics education, ed .G. Kaiser, E. Lun a, and I. Huntley, 30--47. Philadelphia :Falmer.

Beaton, A. E., I. V. Mulli s, M. O. Martin, E. J. Go nza lez , D. L.Kelly, an d T. A. Smi th. 1996. Mathematics achievementin the middleschool years: lEA's Third blternational Math­ematics and Science Study. Boston : TIMSS In ternationa lStudy Cen ter, Boston Co llege.

Bu rto n, L., ed . 1990. Genderand mathematics:An internationalperspective. Londo n, Eng land : Cassell.

Doyle, R. 2000. By the numbers: Wome n and th e profess ions .Scientific Americml 282(4): 30.

Fennema, E. 1974. Ma thematics learn ing and th e sex es: Arevi ew. Jou rnal for Research in Mathematics Education5(3) : 126-39.

Fen nema, E. 1990. Just ice, equ ity, and mathematics ed uca ­tion . In Mathematics and gender: Influences on teachersand students. ed . E. Fenne ma and G. Led er, 1-9. Ne wYork: Teacher s Colle ge Press.

Fennema, E., and G. Leder, eds . 1990. Mathematics and gen­der:Influences on teachers andstudents. New York : Teach­ers Co llege Press.

Grev ho lm, B., and G. Hanna, eds . 1995. Genderand mathemat­ics education:An ICMI study. Lund, Swede n : Lund Uni­ve rsi ty Pres s.

Hanna, G. 1989. Mathem ati cs achieveme n t of girls and boysin gra de eigh t: Results from tw enty cou ntries . Educa­tional Studies in Mathematics 20(2): 225-32.

Hanna, G. 1994. Cross-cu ltura l gender d ifferenc es in math­ema tics achieve me nt. InternationalJournalof EducationalResearch 21(4): 417-26.

Han na, G., ed . 1996. Towardsgenderequity in mathematics edu­cation. Dordrecht, Holl and: Klu wer.

Harnisch, D. L., M. W. Ste in ka mp, S. Tsai, and H . J. Walb erg.1986. Cross-nati on al differen ces in mathematics a tt i­tude and ach ievem en t amo ng seventeen-ye ar-o lds .International Journal of Educational Development 6(4):233--44.

Keeves, J. 1973. Differen ces between the sexes in mathem at­ics and scie nce cou rses . International Review of Educa­tion 19(1): 47--<i2.

Kleinfeld, J. 1998. Th e myth th at schools sho rtcha nge gi rls :Social scie nce in th e service of decep tion . Washin gton,

D.C : Wom en 's Freed om Network . ERIC ED 423 210.Led er, G. 1992. Mathem atics and ge nd er: Ch an gin g per sp ec­

tives. In Handbook of researchin mathematics teaching andlearning: A project of tile National Council of Teachers ofMathematics, ed . D. A. Grows, 597-622 . New York:Macmillan.

Mullis, I. V., M. O . Martin, A. E. Beat on , E. J. Go nzalez, D. L.Kelly, and T. A. Sm ith. 1997. Mathematics and scienceachievement in the primary school years:lEA's Third Inter­national Mathematics and Science Study. Boston : Centerfor the Study of Testing, Eva lua tio n, and Educa tionalPolic y, Boston College.

Mullis, I. V., M. O. Martin, A. E. Beaton , E. J. Go nza lez , D. L.Kelly, and T. A. Sm ith . 1998. Mathematics and scienceachievement in the fi nal year of secondary school: lEA'sThird International Mathematics and Science Study. Bos­ton : Cen ter for th e Study of Testing, Eva lua tio n, andEd uca tio nal Policy, Bost on Co lleg e.

Olson , K. 1999. Despite increases, wo me n and min or ities stillunderrepresented in undergraduate and gradua te S&Eed uc ation. Wash in gt on , D.C : Na tional Science Foun­d at ion . ERIC ED 427 958 .

Pollack, W. S., and T. Shus te r. 2000. Real boys' voices. NewYork: Sim on & Schus ter.

Ravitch, D. 1998. Girl s are beneficiaries of gende r gap. TileWall Street Journal, 17 December, A22 .

Rogers, P., and G. Kaiser, eds, 1995. Equity ill mathematicsedu­cation: Influences of feminism and culture. Wash ingt on,D.C : Falmer .

Sander son , A., B. Du goni , T. Hoffer, and L. Selfa . 1999. Doc­torate recipientsf rom United States universities:Summaryreport1998. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

Somm ers, C H . 2000. The war against boys: How misguidedfeminism is harming our young men. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Stat ist ics Canad a. 1996. Annual demographic statistics, 1995.Catalogue no. 91-213. O ttowa , Ontario : Sta tis tical Ref­erence Centre.

Steinka mp , M. W., D. L. Harnisch , H. J. Walberg, and S. Tsai.1985. Cr oss-nat ion al gende r differ en ces in mathem at­ics attitude and achieveme nt amo ng 13 year-olds, TileJournal of Mathematical Behaviour 4(3): 259-77.

United Nations Educati onal, Scien tific and Cultural Orga­n ization. 1972. Statisticalyearbook, 1972. Pari s, France:UN ESCO .

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orga­ni zation . 1988 . Statistical yearbook, 1988. Paris, Fran ce:UNESCO.

United Nation s Educati on al, Scientific and Cultu ra l Orga­nization . 1998. Statistical yearbook, 1998. Pari s, Fran ce:UNESCO.

© Kappa Delta Pi

The Educational Forum ' Volume 67' Spring 2003214

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 09:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014