Sexism in the Schools: Implications for the Education of Gifted Girls

Gifted and Talented International

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 66-79

  Fox, Lynn H ^a   Sadker, David ^a   Engle, Jennifer L ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 53949083181     PISSN: 15332276     EISSN: 24709565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15332276.1999.11672911     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
2. Arnold, K. D., (1995) Lives of promise: What becomes of high school valedictorians: A fourteen-year study of achievement and life choices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Astin, H. S., & Sax, L. J., (1996). Developing scientific talent in undergraduate women. In C., Davis, A. B., Ginorio, C. S., Hollenshead, B. B., Lazarus, & P., Rayman (Eds.), The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering (pp. 96–121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Austin, S., (1998). Transactional writing: Empowering women and girls to win at mathematics. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
5. Bazler, J., & Simonis, D., (1990). Are women out of the picture? Science Teacher, 57 (9), 24–26.
6. Becker, B. J., (1990). Item characteristics and gender differences in the SAT-M for mathematically able youths. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 65–87.
7. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Turle, J., (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
8. Benbow, C. P., (1992). Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 51–61.
9. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C., (1982). Intelleaually talented boys and girls: Educational Profiles. Gifted Child CQuarterly, 26, 82–88.
10. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Sinai, Y., (1991). Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 23–35.
11. Blank, R., & Dalkilic, M., (1990). State indicators of science and math education 1990. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment Center.
12. Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C., (1992). Meeting at the crossroads. New York: Ballantine Books.
13. Caffarella, R. S., (1992). Psychosocial development of women: Linkages to teaching and leadership in adult education. [Information series No. 350]. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 386)
14. Casserley, P., (1981). Factors affecting female participation in advanced placement programs in mathematics, chemistry, and physics. In L. H., Fox, L., Brody, & D., Tobin (Eds.), Women and the mathematical mystique (pp. 138–163). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Cole, N., (1997, May). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in educational settings. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
16. Collard, S., & Stalker, J., (1991). Women’s trouble: Women, gender, and the learning-environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 50, 71–81.
17. College Entrance Examination Board. (1998). Profile of 1998 college bound seniors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18. Collis, B., (1987). Sex differences in the association between secondary school students’ attitudes toward mathematics and toward computers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 394–402.
19. Crombie, G., Bouffard-Bouchard, T., & Schneider, B. H., (1992). Gifted programs: Gender differences in referral and enrollment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 213–214.
20. Dillow, K., Flack, M., & Peterman, F., (1994). Cooperative learning and the achievement of female students. Middle School Journal, 26 (2), 48–51.
21. Dweck, C. S., (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
22. Ebmeier, H., & Schmulbach, S., (1989). An examination of the selected practices used in the talent search program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 134–141.
23. Eccles, J. S., (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–171.
24. Eccles, J. S., (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609.
25. Erickson, T., (1986). Off & running: The computer offline activity book. Berkeley, CA: EQUALS In Computer Technology.
26. Feldhusen, J. F., & Willard-Holt, C., (1993). Gender differences in classroom interactions and career aspirations of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 355–362.
27. Fox, L. H., (1976). The values of gifted youth. In D. P., Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. Fox, L. H., (1996). Linking reading to mathematics: Adventures on the Oregon trail. In K., Camperell, B. L., Hayes, & R., Telfer (Eds.), Literacy: The information superhighway to success. Logan, UT: The American Reading Forum.
29. Fox, L. H., Benbow, C. P., & Perkins, S., (1983). An accelerated mathematics program for girls: A longitudinal evaluation. In C. P., Benbow & J. C., Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity: Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. Fox, L. H., Brody, L., & Tobin, L., (1985). The impact of early intervention programs upon course-taking and attitudes in high school. In S. F., Chipman, L. R., Brush, & D. M., Wilson (Eds.), Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation (pp.249–274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Fox, L. H., & Tobin, D., (1988). Broadening career horizons for gifted girls. Gifted child Today, 11 (1), 9–13.
32. Fox, L. H., Tobin, D., & Brody, L., (1979). Sex role socialization and achievement in mathematics. In M. A., Wittig & A. C., Petersen (Eds.), Sex-related differences in cognitive functioning: Developmental issues (pp. 303–332). New York: Academic Press.
33. Fox, L. H., & Washington, J., (1986). Educating the gifted: Past, present, and future. In F. D., Horowitz & M., O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: A developmental perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Foundation.
34. Fredman, A., (Ed.). (1990). Yes, I can: Action projects to resolve equity issues in educational computing. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 995)
35. Gallagher, A. M., & DeLisi, R., (1994). Gender differences in Scholastic Aptitude Test - Mathematics problem solving among high-ability students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 204–211.
36. Gallos, J. V., (1992). Educating women and men in the 21st century: Gender diversity, leadership opportunities. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 40 (1), 2–8.
37. Gardner, H., (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
38. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T., (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18 (8), 4–9.
39. Grandy, J., (1994). Graduate Record Examination trends and profiles: Statistics about general test examinees by sex and ethnicity. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
40. Hanson, S. L., (1996). Lost Talent: Women in the sciences? Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
41. Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A., (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200–210.
42. Jones, M. G., (1990). Action zone theory, target students and science classroom interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 651–660.
43. Jones, M. G., & Wheatley, J., (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 861–874.
44. Junge, M. E., & Dretzke, B. J., (1995). Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 22–28.
45. Karnes, F., Riley, T., & McGinnis, J. C., (1996). Per-ceptions of great leaders held by gifted youth. Gifted Child Today, 19 (4), 14–15, 50.
46. Krupnick, C., (1985). Women and men in the classroom. On Teaching and Learning, 12, 18–25.
47. Linn, M. C., (1985). Gender equity in computer earning environments. Computers and the Social Sciences, 1 (1), 19–27.
48. Middleton, J. A., Littlefield, J., & Lehrer, R., (1992). Gifted students’ conceptions of academic fun: An examination of a critical construct for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 38–44.
49. Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Stumpf, H., (1993). Gender differences in academically talented young students’ mathematical reasoning: Patterns across age and subskills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 340–346.
50. National Center for Education Statistics (1997). Women in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
51. National Science Foundation (1996) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 1996. Arlington, VA: Author.
52. Orenstein, P., (1994). School girls. New York: Doubleday.
53. Pearson, C. S., (1992). Women as learners: Diversity and educational quality. Journal of Developmental Education, 16 (2), 2–10, 38-39.
54. Read, C. R., (1991). Gender distribution in programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 13, 188–193.
55. Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M., (1989). Gifted females: They’ve come a long way - or have they? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 99–117.
56. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D., (1985). Is the O.K. classroom O.K.? Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 358–361.
57. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D., (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 512.
58. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D., (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s.
59. Sadker, M., Sadker, D., & Klein, S., (1991). The issue of gender in elementary and secondary education. In G., Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 17, 269–334. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
60. Sanders, J. S., & Stone, A., (1986). The neuter computer: Computers for boys and girls. New York: Neal-Schuman.
61. Siegle, D., & Reis, S. M., (1995). Gender differences in teacher and student perceptions of gifted students’ ability and effort. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6, 86–92.
62. Slavin, R. E., (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
63. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A., (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46 (5), 4–13.
64. Smith, T. M., (1995). The educational progress of women: Findings from the condition of education, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
65. Stanley, J. C., (1988). Some characteristics of SMPY’s 700-800 on SAT-M before age 13 group: Youths who reason extremely well mathematically. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 205–209.
66. Stanley, J. C., & Benbow, C. P., (1981). Using the SAT to find intellectually talented seventh graders. College Board Review, 122, 2–7, 26-27.
67. Stocking, V. B., & Goldstein, D., (1992, April). Course selection and performance of very high ability students: Is there a gender gap?. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
68. Stricker, L. J., Rock, D. A., & Burton, N. W., (1993). Sex differences in predictions of college grades from scholastic aptitude test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 710–718.
69. Terwilliger, J. S., & Titus, J. C., (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 29–35.
70. Thorne, B., (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
71. Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J. J., (1987). The role of target students in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61–75.
72. Tobin, K., & Garnett, P., (1987). Gender related differences in science activities. Science Education, 71, 91–103.
73. Vare, E. A., & Ptacek, G., (1989). Mothers of invention. New York: Quill.
74. Vetter, B. M., (1995) Status of women scientists and engineers in the United States. Washington, D. C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
75. Vetter, B. M., (1996). Myths and realities of women’s progress in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. In C., Davis, A. B., Ginorio, C. S., Hollenshead, B. B., Lazarus, and P., Rayman (Eds.), The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering (pp. 29–56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
76. Wainer, H., & Steinberg, L. S., (1992). Sex differences in performance on the mathematics section of the scholastic aptitude test: A bi-directional validity study. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 323–336.
77. Watt, D., (1982). Education for citizenship in a computer-based society. In R., Siedel, R., Anderson, & B., Hunter (Eds.), Computer literacy. New York: Academic Press.
78. Wilkinson, L. C., Lindow, J., & Chiang, C. P., (1985). Sex differences and sex segregation in students’ small group communication. In L. C., Wilkinson & C. B., Marret (Eds.), Gender influences in classroom interaction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.