Gender Issues in Math Education

by April Doerr, M.Ed.

May 2011

Gender is a complex, dynamic force that affects every social interaction, including
interactions in educational settings. Its effects are woven into educational outcomes, and at times
contribute to complicated disparities, specifically in the field of mathematics education. Three
examples illustrate this point. First, in the United States, females earn better mathematics grades
in high school than males do (p. 211), yet both domestically and abroad, females are more likely
than males to have lower self-confidence, lower interest, higher anxiety, and more negative
attitudes towards mathematics (pp. 56, 293). Second, females grow up getting less support and
encouragement in mathematics from parents and teachers, yet they don’t seem to notice this lack
of attention (pp. 162, 279). Third, women choose careers in mathematics-related fields in lower
proportions than do males, even if they are equally qualified (pp. 89, 150).
Much research has been done on the possible sources of these intriguing gender issues.
The book International Perspectives on Gender Issues in Mathematics Education (Forgasz,
Becker, Lee, & Steinthorsdottir, 2010) is a compilation of such research. The goal of this paper is
to highlight several recurring and overarching themes across the chapters in this book. Themes of
focus are those that have practical implications for students, parents, teachers, administrators,
and policy makers.

The Gender Gap in Math Achievement and Attitudes

Most current research is in agreement about the existence of a gap between males and
females in the areas of math achievement and attitudes towards mathematics. Early research
cited biological differences as the reason for the gender gap, but since the 1970s, the research has
generally attributed the disparity to societal and cultural forces that affect females’ belief
systems, confidence levels, and desire to learn math (pp. 264, 292, 367, 393). Internationally and
domestically, gender gaps in math achievement are getting smaller, but they are still widespread
(pp. 226, 244). In addition to lower achievement, females have significantly lower self-
confidence in math and often tend to hold negative attitudes toward the subject (pp. 56, 155,
368).
Historically, math has been a male-dominated field. Formal math education began
spreading when the work of the world began requiring math skills (p. 3). For example,
developing navigational instruments was essential for furthering the trade industry, and these
technological developments required more than a basic set of mathematical skills (p. 21). Since
math education began as a tool for doing work, and it was the men who worked, it was only the
men who needed to learn and understand math at a deep level (p. 26). Perl (2010) states that “as
mathematics became more complex and the efforts to spread mathematical literacy merged with
the call to train young men for jobs in the growing technological society, women, not part of this
need, were left behind” (p. 27). At this time in history, women were only educated so that they
could better serve their husbands, since people believed that “educated men would prefer
educated wives,” and developing a woman’s mind would increase her attractiveness (pp. 23, 26).
Women in the 1700s only received a “slight and superficial” education at best, while at the same
Doerr (2011) 2

time men were increasing their math knowledge in order to make a living (p. 23). This brief
window into the history of mathematics education shows that the gender achievement gap is due
to the social constructions of gender roles in society, not because women were unwilling or
unable to learn math (p. 26).
Today, most researchers agree that math is still a male-dominated subject (p. 264). Two
pieces of evidence support this claim. First, females are still underrepresented in upper-level
math classes and careers (p. 264). For example, female undergraduates in Canada who major in
mathematics and mathematics-related fields represent only one percent of all undergraduates
(pp. 366, 380). Women are not only underrepresented in post-secondary mathematics, but also in
the workforce. In the U.S., only one-quarter of all workers in Computer and Mathematical
Occupations are females (p. 56). The second piece of evidence is that males score higher on
national and international standardized math tests such as the NAEP and the TIMSS in geometry,
estimation, and visual-spatial tasks (pp. 70, 174, 175, 206, 316). For example, males scored
significantly better than females on the 2006 PISA in thirty-five of fifty-seven countries (p. 55).
On the 2003 PISA, Iceland was the only country in which females outperformed males (p. 152).
In Australia, “Since the turn of the century… gender differences are persistent and even
widening in affect, participation, and achievement for some grade levels and domains in
mathematics” (p. 111). These domestic and international gender gaps in standardized test scores
are even more prominent at the highest achievement levels (p. 55).

At the Student Level

We have seen so far that gender gaps in relation to achievement and attitudes existed in
the past and still exist in the present. But why are these gender gaps so prevalent across so many
countries? And what causes these recurring patterns of inequality? To address these questions,
we must look at the student level and examine both negative and positive student attitudes, as
well as possible sources of these attitudes.
Females and males have different experiences in school, and this is one possible
explanation for the gender gap in mathematics. Walls (2010) says, “A significant number of
children experience discomfort, alienation, and disengagement from mathematics from very
early in their schooling,” and “Girls are more likely to be produced as disaffected and
marginalized learners in this process,” losing interest, confidence, and achieving less in
mathematics (p. 88). Girls may be more likely to experience alienation in relation to mathematics
because of personal characteristics and beliefs such as viewing math as a male-dominated
subject, being less competitive, and/or being more sensitive (pp. 35, 51, 264).
Females’ self-confidence in mathematics is one of the strongest predictors of their
success in mathematics (pp. 101, 126, 293). However, research shows that female students
commonly attribute their mathematical successes to character traits such as effort, dedication,
and obedience, while they tend to attribute their failures to internal factors that are out of their
control, such as lack of intelligence or a lack of understanding of the subject matter (pp. 157,
166, 355). This system of blaming success solely on work ethic and failure on internal, innate
sources prevents females from gaining self-confidence in math. In one study, only one out of
eighty-six girls described herself as “smart” when asked about positive attributes she could bring
to the workplace (p. 345). Male students, on the other hand, tend to blame their failures on
external sources such as the teacher or a lack of support, while they attribute their successes to
internal factors such as intelligence, knowledge, ability, and interest (p. 157). Males tend to
shake off their failures and bask in the glory of their successes. In short, females believe that
Doerr (2011) 3

their successes are a result of simple hard work and their failures a result of their own lack of
intelligence. Males attribute their successes to their own mathematical intelligence, and their
failures to outside influences. Both extremes are inaccurate representations of the truth since a
person’s success or failure involves both external and internal factors.
Some attitudes hinder mathematical success for females, while others facilitate success.
An eight-year longitudinal study by Lambertus, Bracken, and Berenson (2010) showed that girls
who were successful in math tended to share the following: strong academic support from their
families, the desire to understand math concepts at more than a superficial level, assertiveness,
and a belief in hard work (p. 343). Another study found the additional common characteristics of
stubbornness, determination, organization, and an aptitude and love for mathematics (p. 375).
Students who liked mathematics were also successful in math and found it fun, challenging, and
interesting (p. 349). These students viewed math as a tool for problem solving, thinking about
and connecting to real-world contexts, building confidence, and pursuing careers in math and
science (p. 349). Successful females often desire to discuss their future career options and other
dreams (p. 308). All of these personal characteristics are common among girls who are
successful in mathematics.

The Influence of Parent Beliefs

Mathematical success or failure is tied to student attitudes, and family beliefs are one
possible source of student attitudes. Children tend to form their self-perceptions through
interactions with more senior members of their community; therefore, parents greatly influence
their children’s belief systems and can contribute to their children’s positive or negative self-
image (pp. 34, 51). Knowles (2010) states, “To develop a healthy self, the child must experience
mirroring: unqualified recognition, delight, and admiration from a parent or primary caretaker”
(p. 424). Specifically in relation to mathematics, children’s self-perceptions are influenced more
by their parents’ beliefs in them than by their own grades and test scores (pp. 35, 294).
Parents can positively affect their children’s educational attitudes (pp. 51, 307). Parents
who take the time to explain concepts to their children and ask thought-provoking questions help
them gain mathematical knowledge. In one study, Hall (2010) interviewed successful female
students about their parents, and all of the students reported that their parents valued education,
supported the girls’ educational choices, and wanted them to have successful careers (pp. 368,
373).
Unfortunately, parents can also contribute to negative student attitudes by perpetuating
negative stereotypes. Several research studies included in the book focus on how both males and
females (including parents and teachers) tend to assume that males are more naturally gifted in
mathematics than females and that females must work harder be successful in math (pp. 176,
264, 294). One study showed that parents of sons believed that their sons had higher
mathematical ability than did parents of daughters, even when the daughters earned higher
grades (p. 35). Another study found that parents tend to underestimate their daughters’ abilities
and overestimate their sons’ abilities (p. 294). In Korea, some parents “were not receptive to the
notion that girls could learn mathematics and science sufficiently well to continue into careers in
the fields of science or engineering” (p. 309). These types of negative parental beliefs may
contribute to females receiving less parental support and encouragement in mathematics, which
in turn may cause females to internalize the belief that they are inferior to males (p. 279).
The implications of negative stereotypes are vast and cyclical, because many female
students grow up to become mothers who raise children. The one person who has the greatest
Doerr (2011) 4

impact on her daughter’s attitudes towards mathematics is the mother (pp. 35, 304). Imagine a
mother who consistently consults only males for help with mathematics, never consulting other
capable women and not believing she is capable of doing mathematics herself. This mother was
the subject of a case study that examined mother-daughter relationships (p. 98). She exemplifies
how mothers may have low expectations for their daughters’ math performance because of their
own mathematical concerns or failures (pp. 294, 308). Mothers also tend to believe that girls
need to try harder to be as good in mathematics as boys, so they teach their daughters that they
need to constantly practice with mathematics problems in order to overcome their innate
inferiority (p. 306). This kind of self-underselling by adult females contributes to a
generationally repeating confidence problem for females in relation to mathematics.

Recommendations for Parents

The book contains many suggestions for parents on how to help their daughters be
successful in mathematics. Many of the suggestions are to be implemented in the home
environment. Research shows that young girls have fewer opportunities to develop their
mathematical thinking than young boys do (p. 264). Girls need to be exposed to toys that help
them develop logical and spatial thinking, such as remote controlled cars, Legos, and toys with
moving parts, even though these toys may traditionally be thought of more as “boys’ toys”
(p. 92). Girls tend to only be given toys that focus on grooming and caring, which do not help
develop their early mathematics skills (p. 92). At all ages, girls benefit from consistent parental
encouragement; without it, their “confidence may be eroded” (p. 51). Along with
encouragement, girls benefit from quality explanations. One study that focused on what parents
said to their children at a science museum showed that parents explain things to sons three times
more often than they do to daughters, regardless of their age (p. 35). Of those explanations, sons
received explanations about cause-effect relationships eight times more often than did daughters
(p. 35). This shows that parents have room for improvement in the informal teaching of
daughters. Lastly, parents should be careful not to be overbearing about their children’s
homework. Children of parents who gave uninvited help and monitoring with homework felt less
competent in their abilities, and girls may be more sensitive to this specific parental behavior
than boys (p. 35).
Some suggestions indicate what parents can do to help their daughters in the school
environment. Parents have some control over what kind of schooling their daughters receive, and
therefore they should know what types of schooling may be helpful for their daughters’
advancement in mathematics. For example, parents should consider single-sex classrooms, if
available. Research shows that girls tend to “show better attitudes, focus, leadership, and
academics gains” in an all-female classroom (p. 62). Another suggestion for parents is to send
their daughters to quality summer camps and after-school programs. Students with lower
socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds and students whose first language is different from the
language of instruction are less likely to be enrolled in such programs (pp. 56, 68). Yet these
students may benefit from these programs more than students from higher SES backgrounds in
terms of minimizing summer learning loss and improving attitudes (pp. 56, 78). Quality summer
camps and after-school programs increase students’ mathematical knowledge, which in turn
increases achievement, confidence, interest, and engagement, and also improves behavior,
attendance, and graduation rates (pp. 6, 67).

The Influence of Teacher Beliefs

Doerr (2011) 5

Unless they homeschool their children, parents cannot control every aspect of their
child’s education. Many of the daily educational decisions that take place in school are made by
teachers. But just like students and parents, teachers are not immune to holding negative
stereotypes about girls in mathematics. In one study, twelve out of fourteen teachers considered
math a male domain (p. 161). Teachers overrate boys’ mathematical capability, have more
positive attitudes towards boys, and have higher expectations of boys (p. 264). Research shows
that teachers believe boys to be “‘naturally’ better than girls at mathematics and that girls have to
work harder and make a greater effort in order to be successful in this subject” (p. 176).
Although this belief is no longer socially acceptable, “The belief is pervasive even among
teachers who consciously repudiate such a claim” (p. 429).
These beliefs affect teacher-student interactions, “limiting females’ mathematical
learning while enhancing that of males” (p. 167). Research shows that teachers select girls to
answer questions less frequently than they select boys (p. 161). Even when girls are selected,
teachers systematically pose lower-level questions to them compared with boys (p. 162). In one
study of seven calculus teachers from four different universities, Ursini, Ramirez, Rodriguez,
Trigueros, and Lozano (2010) noticed that if a female student was chosen to answer a question
and she hesitated, the teacher would not wait for her, but rather chose a male student to answer
the same question (p. 162). These behaviors reflect lower expectations of female students and
result in less attention being given to female students. Females report feeling overlooked,
neglected, and unsupported by teachers more often than males (p. 394).
The ironic part is that nobody involved seems to notice these inequitable behaviors. In the
same classrooms that these behaviors were observed, all of the teachers believed they were
giving the same amount of attention to students of both genders, and no students perceived any
difference in the treatment of males and females (pp. 162, 163). Biased behaviors and beliefs that
go unnoticed “could be one of the variables that slowly, systematically, and progressively
contribute to the construction of gender differences related to mathematics” (p. 162).
Another interesting trend that may influence gender differences is that in general,
elementary-aged children are taught by female teachers (p. 429). As they develop their identity,
young boys must differentiate themselves from their female teachers, while young girls can
continue to identify with them (p. 429). This, coupled with the fact that elementary teachers tend
to have low self-confidence in math, might explain why girls as young as third grade begin rating
their mathematics abilities lower than their male peers who are at the same achievement levels
(pp. 161, 430). Boys, who are trying to differentiate themselves as being male, “may internalize a
‘capable but lazy’ mathematics self as a part of that effort” (p. 429). Socialization in elementary
school may be the beginning of an “active-independent” personality for boys and a “passive-
dependent” personality for girls (pp. 162, 430). Girls tend to display stereotypically feminine
learned helplessness, while boys tend to express “grandiosity and overconfidence” in relation to
their mathematics ability (pp. 439, 441). These gender-related displays hinder teachers from
recognizing the true abilities of their students, both male and female. Teachers must learn “to
recognize and accept students with their well-constructed defenses; to believe unequivocally in
their ability to understand the mathematics and to find ways to help them let down their
defenses” (pp. 445).

Recommendations for Teachers

The book provides many recommendations for teachers regarding how they can help their
female students succeed in mathematics. Research shows that teachers can make a difference,
Doerr (2011) 6

that quality teaching and support contribute to female perseverance in mathematics, and that
there are many things teachers can learn to do to better serve their female students (p. 368). For
example, one recurring topic is that girls may be disadvantaged by certain types of tests and test
items. Gender differences on mathematics tests may be related to the type of assessment
instrument used (p. 151). For example, girls tend to score lower than boys on timed tests but may
perform better than boys on untimed tests (pp. 215, 294). Research shows that on tests, girls
more often use rote skills rather than creative techniques, take more time solving each problem,
feel the need to verify their answers before going on, take fewer risks (such as guessing on
multiple choice problems), and leave more problems blank than boys (pp. 175, 215, 218, 294).
Because of these actions, timed tests appear to under-predict girls’ mathematical abilities (pp. 6,
219, 294). This research shows that giving extra time on tests, as well as using a variety of
assessment methods, may help females’ achievement in mathematics.
Another recurring theme is that mathematics classes tend to have a competitive
atmosphere, which may not be as conducive to girls’ learning as it is to boys’ (p. 94). The
competitive atmosphere comes from when teachers and students “judge” other students’ answers,
and it has dissimilar effects on boys and girls because boys play more competitive sports (p. 92).
Students who are not competitive find the competition to be “severely alienating,” and females
tend to lose interest in math because of the pressure (pp. 92, 306). Additionally, non-competitive
students may feel like they don’t fit in, and studies show that feelings of alienation are linked to
dropping out of math (pp. 368, 394). Therefore, teachers who want to support females in
mathematics should limit the degree and frequency of competition in their classrooms.
Rather than relying on competitive or individual activities, teachers can incorporate
pedagogical practices that girls more often prefer, such as hands-on, inquiry-based learning in
cooperative groups (pp. 70, 293, 308). Mathematics classrooms that investigate real-world
problems and value a variety of solutions “allow female students’ voices to be heard” (pp. 117,
367, 378). Rather than focusing on memorization and continuous practice, instruction for
females should focus on conceptual understanding and solving challenging problems (pp. 309,
367). This shift in focus, along with consistent support, will give girls a chance to build their
confidence in mathematics and may also help to interest more women in mathematics (pp. 308,
384).
Although the above suggestions for teachers may help females achieve more success in
mathematics, research shows that these changes alone are insufficient (p. 117). The problem
“appears to lie not with girls’ differing mathematical abilities or learning styles, nor with
pedagogies of mathematics that do not cater to girls’ cognitive needs, but with something much
more deep-seated and therefore difficult to address- the entrenched alignment of masculinity and
mathematics” (p. 109). It is not just what teachers do that will cause positive change, it is also
how they feel (p. 117).
Stereotypes about mathematics are pervasive. Students, parents, teachers, and many
others have a certain belief system about mathematics in relation to women. For example, female
math students state that mathematics lacks variation, stimulation, choice, and relevance (p. 101).
They also feel that there is little human interaction in the field of mathematics, that
mathematicians don’t have friends, are obsessed with numbers, and are generally a “white,
middle aged, balding, or wild-haired man” (pp. 320, 368). One study showed that women in
higher-level math classes at the university level viewed other women in their math classes as
“very serious, shy, not very social, driven, and overly focused on mathematics,” and felt that they
Doerr (2011) 7

did not fit into the wider social scene well (pp. 320, 374, 383). All of these stereotypes may
discourage females from pursuing mathematics (p. 368).
One strategy for fighting such stereotypes is to provide role models for females in
mathematics. Since the international community has generally adopted mathematics curricula
that stem from the work of males only, role models for females in mathematics are especially
important (p. 107). Even male teachers can provide their students with a more balanced view of
mathematicians by teaching about current or historical female mathematicians or by bringing in
female guest speakers who work in the field of mathematics (p. 58). Implementation of these
techniques has the power to break up “sex-role congruity,” which involves whether or not girls
perceive careers in mathematics as an appropriate career for females (p. 320).

Recommendations for Administrators and Policy Makers

The book also offers implications for decision makers in education, such as
administrators and policy makers. It says that those who make decisions for the middle school
level are especially influential because the middle grades are a crucial time for addressing
females’ achievement, attitudes, and participation in mathematics (p. 58). Many studies show
that positive attitudes diminish and self-confidence decreases for girls at the middle school level
(pp. 156, 177, 227, 238). One suggestion is that administrators, especially at the middle school
level, should support after-school and summer programs for girls. Funds for these programs
could help address the gender gap in achievement, because effective out-of-school-time
programs can improve students’ confidence, interest, and enthusiasm toward mathematics
(p. 66). Decision makers should also support use of technology in learning. Research shows that
females score lower on tests involving graphing calculators, possibly because females tend to
have limited and shallow interactions with computerized technology (pp. 80, 133). Limited use
of technology correlates with negative attitudes towards mathematics (p. 156). Further, gender
discrepancies may widen as the complexity of the technology students are expected to use
increases (p. 336). Therefore, females at every level need to have access to, and support for,
using technology to learn mathematics.
It is important for administrators and policy makers at higher levels, such as high school
and college, to know that more disparate gender gaps exist when students are given the option to
opt out of math (pp. 131, 278). When given the option, females tend to self-select away from
math, especially higher levels (pp. 278, 290, 342). Decision makers should consider making
mathematics mandatory up to a certain level in order to avoid this detrimental self-selection.
Career centers in the upper grades are also recommended so that students can learn about the
formal education required for certain careers and make sure they enroll in those classes (p. 64).
Policy makers at the national level should begin or continue to have their countries participate in
international assessments in order to regularly monitor gender differences in mathematics
achievement and collaborate with other countries to improve all education systems (pp. 238,
246).

Conclusion
Even though the book International Perspectives on Gender Issues in Mathematics
Education is a compilation of research papers about many different topics from many different
countries, overarching themes emerge across the chapters. The main idea that appears is that
while girls tend to score lower on standardized tests in mathematics than boys, the gap is not due
to biological differences but to socially constructed factors such as gender roles. These gender
Doerr (2011) 8

roles are perpetuated through social interaction, and every person plays a part in constructing
them. Both positive and negative gender stereotypes can affect people’s beliefs, values, and
attitudes, which in turn can positively or negatively affect achievement. As students, parents,
teachers, administrators, or policy makers, “We must recognize and shed fixed mindsets about
their and our mathematics abilities based on gender, and replace them with our beliefs in the
continuing growth and development of the mathematics ability of all” (p. 446).

Overview
April Doerr wrote this paper as part of an independent study she completed in 2011. The paper is
based on her complete reading of the following book:
• Forgasz, H. J., Becker, J. R., Lee, K.-H., & Steinthorsdottir, O. B. (Eds.). (2010). International
perspectives on gender and mathematics education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
In the paper, April focuses on math-gender themes that have practical implications for students,
parents, teachers, administrators, and policy makers. She lists page numbers where the
information can be found but not the individual chapter authors.