Gender differences in gifted achievement in Britain and the U.S.

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 202-211

  Freeman, Joan ^a  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142704092     PISSN: 00169862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001698620304700304     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Adkins, L. & Leonard, D. (1996). The families of young people, their education and post-16 careers (ESRC End of Award Report R000221179). London: The Stationery Office.
2. Arnot, M., Gray, J., & Rudduck, J. (with Duveen, G.). (1998). Recent research on gender and educational performance. London: The Stationery Office.
3. Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1993). Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented: Some sex differences and evidence supporting their biological basis. In G. R. Bock. & K. A. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 44-66). Chichester, England: Wiley.
4. Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students' experiences of ability grouping - disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Education Research Journal, 26, 631-648.
5. Colley, A., Comber, C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1994). Gender effects in school subject preferences: A research note. Educational Studies, 20, 13-18.
6. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Department for Education and Skills. (2000). The Standards Site: Gender and achievement. Retrieved December 20, 2002, from http://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk.
8. Department for Education and Skills. (2002, May). GCSE/GNVQ and GCE A/AS/VCE/Advanced GNVQ examination results 2000/2001. Retrieved January 28, 2003, from http://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk.
9. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.
10. Dweck, C. S., & Licht, B. (1980). Learned helplessness and intellectual achievement. In J. Gather & M. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theory and applications (pp. 197-221). New York: Academic Press.
11. Dworkin, R. W. (2001). Why doctors are down. Commentary, 3, 43-47.
12. Equal Opportunities Commission. (2001). Facts about women and men in Great Britain 2001. Retrieved December 20, 2002, from http://www.eoc.org.uk.
13. Flynn, J. R. (1991). Asian Americans: Achievement beyond IQ. London: Erlbaum.
14. Fox, L. H., Engle, J. L., & Paek, P. (2001). An exploratory study of social factors and mathematics achievement among high-scoring students: Cross-cultural perspectives from TIMSS. Gifted and Talented International, 16, 7-15.
15. Freeman, J. (1996). Highly able girls and boys. London: Department for Education and Employment.
16. Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the very able: Current international research. London: The Stationery Office.
17. Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up. London: Fulton.
18. Freeman, J. (2003). The international program perspective: A sporting chance. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 98-99.
19. Golombok, S., & Fivush, R. (1994). Gender development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gurian, M. (2001). Boys and girls learn differently. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41-45.
22. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and natural sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 200-210.
23. Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2001). Qualifications obtained by and examination results of higher education students at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom for the academic year 1999/2000. Cheltenham: Statistics Agency.
24. Hoff Summers, C. (2000). The war against boys. New York: Simon and Shuster.
25. Jacobs, J. E., & Weisz, V. (1994). Gender stereotypes: Implications for gifted education, Roeper Review, 16, 152-155.
26. Kerr, B. (2000). Guiding gifted girls and young women. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 649-657). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
27. Office for National Statistics. (2000, Spring). Labour force survey. London: The Stationery Office.
28. Li, A. K. F., & Adamson, G. (1995). Motivational patterns related to gifted students' learning of mathematics, science, and English: An examination of gender differences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284-297.
29. Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Morelock, M. J. (2000), Gender differences in engineering and the physical sciences among the gifted: An inorganic-organic distinction. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 203-212). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
30. Lucey, H., & Walkerdine, V. (1996). Transitions to womanhood: Constructions of success and failure for middle and working class young women. Paper presented at a meeting of British Youth Research, Glasgow University.
31. Luthar, S. S., Zigler, E., & Goldstein, D. (1992). Psychosocial adjustment among intellectually gifted adolescents: The role of cognitive-developmental and experiential factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 361-373.
32. McCracken, D. M. (2000) Winning the talent war for women: Sometimes it takes a revolution. Harvard Business Review, 78, 159-167.
33. Mellanby, J., Martin, M., & O'Doherty, J. (2000). The gender gap in final examination results at Oxford University. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 377-390.
34. Moon, S. M., Feldhusen, J. F., & Dillon, D. R. (1994). Long-term effects of an enrichment program based on the Purdue Three-stage model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 38-48.
35. Morrison, A. M., White, R., & Van Velso, E. (1992). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can women reach the top of America's largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2000). National mathematics achievement-level results for males: 1990-2000. Retrieved December 15, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/results/natachieve-male .asp.
37. Noble, K. D, Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. D. (1999). To thine own self be true: A new model of female talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 140-149.
38. Office for Standards in Education/Equal Opportunities Commission. (1996). The gender divide: Performance differences between boys and girls at school. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO).
39. Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York: Ballantine Books.
40. Plummer, G. (2000). Failing working-class girls. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentham Books.
41. Power, S., Whitty, G., Edwards, T., & Wigfall, V. (1998). Schoolboys and schoolwork: Gender identification and academic achievement. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2, 135-153.
42. Sharp, C., Hutchison, D., Davis, C., & Keys, W. (1996). The take-up of advanced science and mathematics courses: Summary report. London: Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
43. Sheffield, L. J. (2002). Using assessment to facilitate the development of mathematically promising students. In C. Richardson (Ed.), Assessing gifted and talented children (pp. 83-92). London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
44. Stetsenko, A., Little, T. D., Gordeeva, T., Grasshof, K., & Oettingen, G. (2000). Gender effects in children's beliefs about school performance: A cross-cultural study. Child Development, 71, 517-527.
45. Stobart, G., Elwood, J., & Quinlan, M. (1992). Gender bias in examinations: How equal are the opportunities? British Educational Research Journal, 18, 261-76.
46. Terry, J. M., & Baird, W. E. (1997). What factors affect attitudes toward women in science held by high school biology students? School Science and Mathematics, 97, 78-86.
47. Thompson, T., & Richardson, A. (2001). Self-handicapping status, claimed self-handicaps and reduced practice effect following success and failure feedback. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 151-170.
48. Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (n.d.). 1999 international mathematics report: Findings from the IEA's repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Retrieved on July 14, 2002, from http://isc.bc.edu/tmss1999i/math_achievement_report.html.
49. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
50. Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387-398.
51. Wilgosh, L. (2001). Enhancing gifts and talents of women and girls. High Ability Studies, 12, 45-59.
52. Wilson, J. S., Stocking, V. B., & Goldstein, D. (1994). Gender differences in motivations for course selection: Academically talented students in an intensive summer program. Sex Roles, 3, 349-367.
53. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York: BasicBooks.
54. Yewchuk, C., Seija A., & Schlosser, G. (2001). Attribution of career facilitators by eminent women from Canada and Finland. High Ability Studies, 12, 89-112.