Gender Differences in Gifted and

Average-Ability Students

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volume 52 Number 2
Spring 2008 146-159
2008 National Association for
Gifted Children
10.1177/0016986208315834
http://gcq.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Comparing Girls and Boys Achievement, Self-Concept,

Interest, and Motivation in Mathematics
Franzis Preckel
University of Trier, Germany

Thomas Goetz
University of Konstanz, Germany, and Thurgau University of Teacher Education, Kreuzlingen, Switzerland

Reinhard Pekrun
University of Munich, Germany

Michael Kleine
University of Regensburg, Germany
Abstract: This article investigates gender differences in 181 gifted and 181 average-ability sixth graders in achievement, academic self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Giftedness was conceptualized as nonverbal
reasoning ability and defined by a rank of at least 95% on a nonverbal reasoning subscale of the German Cognitive
Abilities Test. Mathematical achievement was measured by teacher-assigned grades and a standardized mathematics
test. Self-concept, interest, and motivation were assessed by questionnaire. In both ability groups, boys earned significantly higher test scores but there were no gender differences in grades. Girls scored lower on measures of academic self-concept, interest, and motivation. Gender differences were larger in gifted than in average-ability students.
Ability group differences for self-concept and interest were only found for boys in favor of the gifted. Results support the assumption that gender differences in self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics are more prevalent in gifted than in average-ability students.
Putting the Research to Use: What can educators do to increase the number of gifted females choosing academic
courses and careers in domains related to mathematics, the inorganic sciences, and engineering? First of all, they have
to know the reasons why gifted as well as nongifted females are underrepresented in these areas. Students choices of
mathematical careers largely depend on the way they react to statements like the following ones: It is easy for me to
solve mathematical problems (academic self-concept), I am interested in mathematics (interest), I want to learn as
much as possible from math class (motivation). However, in spite of earning equally good grades in mathematics as
boys, girls report lower mean levels of academic self-concept, interest, and motivation. This holds for gifted students
as well as for students of average ability. In samples of sixth-grade students, we found that this gender gap is even more
pronounced in gifted than in average-ability students. Thus, it seems very important to foster females, and particularly
gifted females, positive attitudes toward mathematics. One possibility for doing so would be to foster gifted female
students attributions to ability when they receive good grades. In addition, interventions should not only focus on the
girl herself but also on environmental factors including parents, teachers, the peer group, and administrative planning.
Keywords: mathematics; giftedness; gender differences; academic self-concept; interest; motivation

here are numerous studies on gender differences

in mathematics and related areas with samples
of intellectually gifted students (e.g., Gallagher &
Kaufmann, 2005; Heller & Ziegler, 1996; Lubinski,

Benbow, & Morelock, 2000; see also Ziegler, 2004).

However, because many of these studies have investigated participants of special programs for the gifted
these findings cannot be generalized to other groups

146
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

of gifted students. First, students in special programs are

aware of their ability because of their selection to the
program. This awareness, in turn, likely influences academic self-concept and motivation. Furthermore, in
most of the extant studies, suitable control groups were
lacking. Because it is a replicated finding that the intellectually gifted, on average, are from families with
higher socioeconomic status (SES; e.g., Roznowski,
Reith, & Hong, 2000), the lack of control groups
matched for SES makes it difficult to disentangle the
influence of SES. This study avoids these limitations by
sampling gifted students and a control groupboth
drawn from a large unselected sample. The sample comprised gifted and control students from regular mixedability classes of a large stratified random sample.
Recent research on gender differences in mathematics produced the paradoxical finding that girls still often
hold dysfunctional perceptions of themselves as learners
in mathematics (Leder, 2004) despite the fact that their
achievement has increased in past years. This also is true
for high-achieving girls and girls with high potential for
achievement in mathematics. Most studies on gender
differences in the intellectually gifted are, explicitly or
implicitly, concerned with what Enman and Lupart
(2000) called talented female students resistance to
science (p. 161). In the general population, fewer
women than men chose academic courses or careers in
mathematics, the inorganic sciences, and engineering.
This also holds true for women of high scientific ability.
Research has further documented that the underrepresentation of women in these fields grows with increasing scientific ability (Zorman & David, 2000).
One explanation for these gender differences is ability differences because there is a larger proportion of
males than females with very high ability in the inorganic sciences (Lubinski et al., 2000; Lubinski &
Humphreys, 1990; Stumpf & Stanley, 1998). Alternative explanations conceptualize gender differences
from a perspective that stresses social influences (e.g.,
socialization practices, gender roles) and related psychological factors (e.g., values and preferences, competence beliefs, interests). A popular model for the
analysis of educational and vocational choice in the

Authors Note: This study was supported by grants from the

German Research Foundation to the third author (DFG; PE 320/111, PE 320/11-2, PE 320/11-3, PE 320/11-4). Address correspondence to Franzis Preckel, University of Trier, Department of
Psychology, D-54286 Trier, Germany; phone: +49 651 201 4520;
fax: +49 651 201 4578; e-mail: preckel@uni-trier.de.
Note: This article was accepted under the editorship of Paula
Olszewski-Kubilius.

mathscience domain is Eccless (1983) model of

achievement-related choices, which has also been
applied to the gifted (Eccles & Harold, 1992). This is an
expectancy-value model of motivation for achievementrelated choices that addresses two critical variables: (a)
expectations for success and failure, which are affected
by an individuals specific beliefs and interpretations of
ability, aptitudes, tasks, and past events and (b) subjective task value, which is influenced by an individuals
affective memory of past events as well as the beliefs
and behavior of significant others (see also Pekrun,
1993). In particular, parents perceptions of their
childrens abilities are assumed to be major determinants of childrens competence beliefs and values (i.e.,
Eccles, 1993; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992). According to
Eccles and colleagues, lower participation rates of
females in the mathscience domain (courses and vocations) result from girls, as compared to boys, lower
rating of their abilities in math and science and from
girls lower rating of the value of participating in related
fields (Eccles, Adler, & Meece, 1984).
Another model that explains gender differences in
the gifted in mathematics and science was developed by
the researchers associated with the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (Lubinski et al., 2000) at Johns
Hopkins University. Based on the theory of work
adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984), this approach
stresses factors related to personal choice including
preferences and values as well as ability differences
(both as having some natural base) instead of viewing
culturally imposed internal and external barriers as the
primary cause of gender differences (Lubinski et al.,
2000). The authors argued that social influence alone
cannot be responsible for gender differences because
the male advantage is found only for specific mathematical tasks, whereas females do equally well or even
better on other mathematical tasks.

Gender Differences in Mathematics

Mathematical ability. Meta-analytic findings indicate
that gender differences in numerical and nonverbal reasoning, which are critical predictors of mathematical competence, are minimal in unselected samples
(Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). In a large normative
sample of 5th- to 10th-grade students (Jger et al.,
2006), gender differences in numerical and nonverbal
reasoning were found in favor of male participants, but
these differences explained no more than 0.3% to 1%
of the variance in Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores.
However, another picture emerges in samples of gifted
individuals. There is an overrepresentation of males

Preckel et al. / Gender Differences

147
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

among the mathematically gifted. This gender difference can be detected at a very young age (Halpern,
2000) and becomes more pronounced at higher levels
of education. For the top 5% of 7th- and 8th-grade
students in talent searches, a male-to-female ratio of
13:1 has been reported (Benbow & Stanley, 1983). In
a more recent publication, Brody, Barnett, and Mills
(1994) reported a male-to-female ratio of 6:1.
Looking at performance differencestypically
assessed with standardized mathematics testsmetaanalytic research indicates that most gender differences
are small and steadily declining in samples from the
general population (Hyde et al., 1990; Leahey & Guo,
2001). In their meta-analytic study, Hyde et al. (1990)
found a slight age trend implying performance differences in favor of males that start to occur after primary
school and become most pronounced at the high school
and university levels. However, findings were dependent
on the type of task: Males scored higher on problem
solving, females scored higher on mental arithmetic
tasks, and there were no gender differences found for
computational tasks (Educational Testing Service, 1987;
Hyde et al., 1990). Similar findings were reported for
mathematically gifted 12- to 13-year-old students
(Benbow & Lubinski, 1993).
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study (formally called Third International Mathematics
and Science Study) showed that gender differences for
eighth graders in mathematics, assessed between 1990
and 2003, were quite small (C. E. Freeman, 2004) and
declined over the years (Hanna, 2000). However, in the
2003 cycle of the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA), which investigates mathematical literacy in 15-year-old students, gender differences in mathematics in favor of males were found in almost all of the
participating countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2004).
For students school grades, it has been documented
that females, throughout their school careers, earn
higher grades than do males in most academic courses,
including advanced mathematics (i.e., J. Freeman, 2004;
Halpern, 2000; Hosenfeld, Kller, & Baumert, 1999).
For the intellectually gifted, results are less consistent.
Some studies documented higher grades in math and
science for gifted males (Colangelo et al., 1996),
some studies found no gender differences (for 10thgrade students: Schober, Reimann, & Wagner, 2004;
Roznowski et al., 2000), and others found that gifted
males had lower grades in math than did gifted females
(students between ages 7 and 18: J. Freeman, 2004;
Lubinski & Benbow, 1992; 5th- to 10th-grade students:

Jger et al., 2006). Thus, there are no consistent findings suggesting a male or female lead with respect to
grades in mathematics. In part, these inconsistent findings may be traced to cultural differences in administrative planning, style and content of school curriculum,
and teaching practices (J. Freeman, 2003, 2004).
In sum, in the general population, gender differences in numerical and nonverbal reasoning, which
are critical aptitudes for achievement in mathematics,
as well as gender differences in mathematics performance, including teacher-assigned school grades,
are minimal. The age trend of better performance of
males as compared to females reported by Hyde
et al. (1990) refers to specific tasks. In many countries,
males show better performance in tasks that call for
mathematical literacy. For the gifted, there is an overrepresentation of males within the group identified as
highly gifted. However, the disparities found for the
male-to-female ratio at high ability levels cannot
solely explain why females avoid careers in the inorganic sciences to such a large extent. In addition, even
those females who show extraordinary scientific ability are entering the mathscience pipeline less frequently than are their male counterparts (Kerr &
Robinson Kurpius, 2004; Lubinski & Benbow, 1992).
Thus, gender differences in career choice can hardly
be explained solely by ability differences.
In the following section, we describe findings for
gender differences in math-related competence beliefs,
interest, and motivational variables (i.e., goal orientation). First we report results for unselected samples for
each of these constructs. Then we report results found
for intellectually gifted students.
Competence beliefs in mathematics. Gender differences of academic self-concept in mathematics are consistent with traditional gender role expectations and
stereotypes, showing higher scores in mathematics selfconcepts for males (e.g., for elementary school students:
Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Marsh &
Yeung, 1997; see also the meta-analysis by Wilgenbusch
& Merrill, 1999) as well as higher scores in math selfefficacy for males (e.g., Pajares & Miller, 1994; for 15year-old students: OECD, 2004; Pekrun & Zirngibl,
2004). Gender differences in math-related competence
beliefs in favor of boys have been documented as early
as the first grade (Eccles et al., 1993; Wigfield et al.,
1997) and have been found to be relatively stable over
the school years (Marsh, 1993). Girls, more often than
boys, think they have to work harder to achieve good
results in mathematics (Lupart, Cannon, & Telfer, 2004)

148

Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

and show less self-confidence in their math ability

(students in the last stages of secondary education:
Baumert, Bos, & Lehmann, 2000).
In the PISA 2003 assessment of 15-year-old students
in countries of the OECD, effect sizes between .14 and
.72 were reported for gender difference in academic
self-concept in mathematics, in favor of boys (Pekrun
& Zirngibl, 2004). Higher self-perception of math ability in boys was found to be relatively independent of
performance history (e.g., Frome & Eccles, 1998),
achievement level, and ability (12th-grade students and
undergraduate university students: Holling & Preckel,
2005). Thus, in both gifted and nongifted groups, boys
have higher self-perceptions of their math abilities than
do girls (students in the last stages of secondary education: Fox, Engle, & Paek, 2001; Terwilliger & Titus,
1995; Ziegler, Heller, & Broome, 1996; Zorman &
David, 2000).
Mathematics interest. In the PISA 2003 assessment
of ninth graders, male students in all participating
countries reported higher interest in math than did
female students (although the mean effect size was
rather small; d = .21; Pekrun & Zirngibl, 2004; OECD,
2004). The Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study also found higher interest in math and
science for boys (students in the last grades of secondary
education: Baumert et al., 2000; see also Lupart et al.,
2004).
There are fewer gender-stereotyped interest patterns
found among the gifted as compared to average-ability
students in nonacademic domains (10th-grade students:
Lubinski & Humphreys, 1990). For academic domains,
however, gender differences are found to be similar to
those observed in unselected groups: Gifted males
show more interest in physics, whereas gifted females
show higher interests in social issues, literature, and the
arts (Lubinski & Humphreys, 1990). With respect to the
Holland model (Holland, 1997), the main interests of
mathematically talented adolescent males lie in the
investigative and realistic sectors. In contrast, mathematically talented adolescent females are socially and
aesthetically oriented and have interests that are more
evenly divided among investigative, social, and artistic
pursuits (Lubinski et al., 2000). Mathematically talented
females are attracted to social values (people dimension),
which are negatively correlated with interests in inorganic science, whereas mathematically talented males
are theoretically oriented in their study values (things
dimension) (Achter, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1996).
Motivation in mathematics. Throughout the entire
ability range, girls demonstrate lower levels of motivation

with respect to mathematics than do boys (students in 6th,

9th, and 11th grades: Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2004; Zorman
& David, 2000). Recent research on academic motivation
has focused on students academic goal orientations, distinguishing between mastery goals (pertaining to the
development of competence through task mastery) and
performance goals (pertaining to achieving more than
others or no less than others) (Elliot & Harackiewicz,
1996). Research has documented that male middle school
students tend to have higher performance goal orientations than do their female counterparts (Pajares, Britner,
& Valiante, 2000). In mathematics, it was found that
males have higher performance goals than do females
(15-year-old students: Pekrun & Zirngibl, 2004; students
in 6th, 9th, and 11th grades: Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2004).
In a meta-analytic study, Finsterwald and Ziegler (2002)
found higher performance goal orientation in intellectually gifted boys as compared with intellectually gifted
girls (d = .23), whereas no gender differences were found
for mastery goal orientation.
To summarize, mean gender differences in mathematical ability are of negligible size in unselected
student populations. However, for students with very
high levels of mathematical ability, there is an overrepresentation of males. In the general as well as the
gifted populations, gender-related differences in math
performance are task specific: Boys show better
mathematical problem-solving abilities than do girls,
whereas girls show a slight advantage in mental arithmetic. Females seem to get better grades at school,
but males outperform females on tasks that require
mathematical literacy. Furthermore, in the general as
well as the gifted populations, males show higher
mathematics-related competence beliefs, a stronger
interest in math, and a stronger performance goal orientation in mathematics than do females.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences in gifted students with respect to
achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation (i.e.,
mastery and performance goal orientation) in mathematics. Furthermore, we aimed to explore the extent
to which differences in these variables are specific
to gifted students. Therefore, gender differences in
gifted students were compared to gender differences in
average-ability students.
The study was designed to avoid the two drawbacks of previous research. One problem of prior
studies on the gifted, including studies on gender differences, was that samples were drawn from specialized programs for the gifted in which participants

Preckel et al. / Gender Differences

149
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

knew about their abilities and received specialized educational treatments such as accelerated instruction,
advanced math courses, or math enrichment options
(e.g., summer schools). Therefore, it is difficult to generalize findings to other groups of gifted individuals.
Second, most of the studies cited above lacked suitable
control groups. To avoid these problems, students in
this study were recruited from regular classrooms.
Furthermore, a sample of gifted students and a sample
of average-ability students were included. A large, representative sample of unselected classrooms was used
to recruit these two groups.
Our hypotheses on gender differences in achievement and affective variables were derived from the
extant research literature, as described above.
Succinctly stated, our hypotheses were as follows:
Hypothesis 1a: There are no gender differences in
grades in mathematics in gifted or in average-ability students.
Hypothesis 1b: Males show higher mathematical competences in terms of mathematical literacy than do
females among both gifted and average-ability
students.
Hypothesis 2: There are gender differences in academic
self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics
in both gifted and average-ability students. Males
have (a) a higher academic self-concept and (b) more
interest in mathematics. Males and females show (c)
similar levels of mastery goal orientation in mathematics but (d) males show a stronger performance
goal orientation in mathematics than do females.

Method
Definition of Giftedness
In this study, giftedness was conceptualized as an
ability that can manifest itself in extraordinary
achievement (performance) but does not necessarily
do so in all individuals at all points of time (Sternberg
& Davidson, 2005). Generally, the definition of giftedness used in empirical studies is not only a conceptual issue but can also be influenced by context of the
study. In many educational contexts where the selection of gifted students for special programs is a major
concern, a definition of giftedness from an aptitude
perspective that takes into account not only cognitive
abilities but also domain specific knowledge and academic accomplishments is useful (Lohman, 2005).
This study, however, does not aim to investigate the
selection of students for educational programs but

focuses on basic research questions pertaining to

math-related gender differences.
In accord with Preckel and Thiemann (2003), who
concluded that differences between average and high
intellectual ability students are best identified by use
of item material that shows high loadings on the gfactor or a factor of fluid intelligence (such as items
of reasoning tests), we chose a measure of nonverbal
reasoning that is an established marker of fluid intelligence (Carroll, 1993) and plays an important role
for learning in math and science comparable across
different school settings. We did not use measures of
verbal or quantitative reasoning because these measures reflect more crystallized intelligence (i.e., verbal and numerical knowledge) than figural measures
and are more closely aligned with type of schooling
(Jger et al., 2006).

Participants
The sample consisted of 181 gifted and 181
nongifted participants. Both groups were drawn from a
random stratified sample of 2,059 sixth-grade students
that is representative with respect to SES, school type,
rural versus urban population, and gender.1 This sample
of students (50.02% female) came from 81 classes in 42
schools from all tracks of the German three-track education system. In this school system, after fourth grade,
students are placed into one of three tracks (lower, middle, and top track) according to their level of achievement. Of note, top track does not refer to a track
reserved for gifted students because up to 50% of the
general student population attend this track.
The mean age of the sample was 12.77 years (SD =
0.52; range = 11.17 to 15.42). The gifted were drawn
from the random stratified sample in accordance to a
cut-off score on the nonverbal reasoning test above 95%.
The sample of average-ability students was recruited as
follows: For each gifted student, a nongifted student
(nonverbal IQ within the range of 1 SD from the mean
of IQ 100) was drawn who had the same gender as the
gifted student, came from the same school class, and
whose family had an equivalent SES.
The distribution of all participants (gifted and parallel) across school tracks was as follows: 56.4% attended
the top track, 33.1% the middle track, and 10.5% the
lower track. For the gifted students, there were no gender
differences as to school track attended (KolmogorovSmirnov Z = .92, p = .37). In Table 1, the distributions
of nonverbal reasoning scores and SES are described
for the two groups. SES was categorized in accordance
to the Erikson-Goldthorpe-Portocarero classification of

150

Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Nonverbal Reasoning and Socioeconomic Status (SES) for
Gifted and Average-Ability Students as Well as Results of Statistical Tests (t Test, Wilcoxon)
for the Equivalence of the Groups (N = 181 in each group; 49.2% female)
Nonverbal reasoning M (SD)

Gifted

Average Ability

127.10 (0.77)

103.56 (10.36)

t = 30.40, p < .01

SES %

1
2
3
4
5
6

9.5
19.0
23.2
8.9
21.4
17.9

7.5
20.8
27.7
4.0
23.7
16.2

Z = .39, p = .70

Note: Nonverbal reasoning scale of the KFT 4-12+R; Intelligence Quotient scale with M = 100 and SD = 15. SES 1 = higher-grade professionals, administrators, officials; managers in large industrial establishments; large proprietors. SES 2 = lower-grade professionals,
administrators, officials; higher-grade technicians; managers in small business and industrial establishments; supervisors of nonmanual
employees. SES 3 = routine nonmanual employees in administration and commerce, sales personnel, other rank-and-file service workers. SES 4 = small proprietors; artisans (etc.) without employees; farmers, smallholders; self-employed fishermen. SES 5 = lower grade
technicians, supervisors of manual workers, skilled manual workers. SES 6 = semiskilled and unskilled manual workers (not in agriculture), agricultural workers.

occupations (Erikson, Goldthorpe, & Portocarero,

1979), which takes into account title of occupation,
full- versus part-time occupation, and functions and
powers related to the occupation.
As defined by the sampling procedure, the gifted
and the parallel samples differed significantly in nonverbal reasoning ability but did not differ with respect
to SES. Compared with the total, unselected sample,
the gifted sample came from families with higher
SES (Z = 2.22, p = .03). There were no gender differences for the gifted in SES (Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Z = 1.30, p = .07).

Measures
Nonverbal reasoning ability. Nonverbal reasoning
ability was assessed with the respective scale of the
KFT 4-12+R (Heller & Perleth, 2000; M = 100; SD =
15). The KFT 4-12+R is a German adaptation of the
Cognitive Abilities Test developed by Thorndike and
Hagen (1971), last revision in 1996.2 In Germany, the
KFT 4-12+R is one of the most frequently used intelligence tests and also is widely used in research on giftedness and education. For the identification of high
potential in math and science, usually the nonverbal
reasoning scale is used (e.g., Ziegler et al., 1996). Both
in the standardization sample and in the sample of this
study, there were no gender differences on this scale of
the KFT 4-12+R, suggesting that nonverbal reasoning
as assessed by this scale is not confounded with spatial
abilities that have been found to be gender linked (with

higher scores for males). The scale contains 25 figural

analogy multiple-choice items that ask participants to
make inferences, deductions, and extrapolations pertaining to figural stimuli (inductive reasoning; Carroll,
1993). The test was presented in a paper-and-pencil format. Time limits were followed as outlined in the test
handbook. Testing took place under speeded power
conditions, which means that time limits applied were
generous (97% of the participants worked on the last
test item). Correlations with mathematics achievement
were r = .56 for teacher-assigned grades and r = .58
for scores on the mathematics achievement test
described below (N = 2,059). Sample alpha was .92.
Mathematics achievement. To assess students performance in mathematics, a 63-item test based on the
concept of mathematical literacy (OECD, 2003) was
developed as part of the PALMA study (vom Hofe,
Pekrun, Kleine, & Goetz, 2002). In line with the concept
of mathematical literacy, the test measures students ability to recognize and interpret mathematical problems
encountered in their world, translate these problems into
a mathematical context, use mathematical knowledge
and procedures to solve the problems, interpret the
results in terms of the original problem, reflect on the
methods applied, and communicate the outcomes.
Analyses were based on a total test score derived
from the subscales quantity, change and relationship,
shape and space, and computation. The test is presented
in paper-and-pencil format and scaled according to the
Rasch model (Likelihood Ratio Test: = 2.14 10-21,

Preckel et al. / Gender Differences

151
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

ns; cf. Anderson, 1973; Embretson & Reise, 2000). The

mean total score was set to 100 and the standard deviation to 10. Testing took place under speeded power conditions. Teacher-assigned school grades in mathematics
were used as a second indicator of achievement.
Academic self-concept in mathematics. Six items of
the German version of the Sears Self-Concept Inventory
(Ewert, 1979) were adapted for the assessment of academic self-concept in mathematics (e.g., It is easy for
me to solve mathematical problems). Participants
responded on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were summed and averaged by the number of items (M = 3.34; SD = .88).
Sample reliability was alpha = .90. In a preliminary
study (N = 505), we found a disattenuated correlation of
r = .91 between this scale and the German short version
of the mathematics-related academic self-concept scale
of the Self Description Questionnaire developed by
Marsh (1988; sample item: I get good marks in mathematics). This correlation with the Self Description
Questionnaire self-concept scale offers concurrent
validity evidence for the academic self-concept scale.
Interest in mathematics. Interest in mathematics was
assessed with a six-item scale addressing interest in
subject (I am interested in mathematics, I like dealing with books or teasers which are related to mathematics, Future math-related employment is something
that interests me), and classroom instruction (I often
think that what we are talking about in my math class is
really exciting, After math class I am often already
curious about the next math class, I would like to deal
more intensively with some topics discussed in my
math class) (vom Hofe et al., 2002). Respondents
answered on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Responses to items
were summed and averaged by total item number (M =
2.62; SD = .99), = .88. The disattenuated sample
correlation of the interest scale with the enjoyment
scale of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire
Mathematics (Pekrun, Goetz, & Frenzel, 2005) assessing enjoyment in math classes was r = .89, providing
concurrent validity evidence for the scale.
Motivation. For assessing mastery goals in mathematics, the two items from Elliot and McGregors
(2001) Achievement Goals Questionnaire were modified for the purposes of this study: I want to learn as
much as possible from my math class and In my
math class I make an effort because I would like to be

competent in this subject. Respondents responded

on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly disagree)
scale. Responses to items were summed and averaged
by total item number (M = 3.27; SD = .98). Sample
reliability was = .65.
The eight items assessing performance goals in mathematics were also constructed by modifying items from
Elliot and McGregors (2001) Achievement Goals
Questionnaire (sample items: It is important for me to
do well in math class compared to others, I work hard
in mathematics because I want to get good grades).
Respondents answered on the same Likert scale
described above. Responses to items were summed and
averaged by total item number (M = 3.22; SD = .84).
Sample reliability was = .85.

Procedure
Participants were recruited and data were collected
by the Data Processing Center of the International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Participants were tested in class and took part
on a voluntary basis. An experimenter was present
throughout the entire testing session, which lasted
approximately 180 minutes, including short breaks.
Instructions were given in print as well as verbally by
the experimenters. Students completed the intelligence
test, the mathematics achievement test, and a self-report
questionnaire including the scales described above, in
this order.

Data Analysis
Means and standard deviations for average-ability
girls and boys achievement (grades and test scores),
self-concept, interest, and motivation (mastery and
performance goal orientation) in mathematics were
calculated first. School grades were z standardized
within subsamples of participants attending the three
tracks of the German school system. In addition,
because German grades range from 1 (high achievement) to 6 (low achievement), scores were reversed
such that low values indicate low achievement and
high values high achievement.
Second, group and gender differences with respect
to grades, test scores, self-concept, interest, mastery
goal orientation, and performance goal orientation in
mathematics were analyzed by separate analyses of
variance with repeated measures. Repeated measures
analysis of variance was used because of the structure
of this data set (dependent data in the average-ability
sample due to the procedure of drawing this sample).

152

Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Effect Sizes for the Comparison of Achievement (Grades
and Test Scores), Self-Concept, Interest, Mastery Goal Orientation, and Performance
Goal Orientation in Mathematics Between Gifted and Average-Ability Girls and Boys
Gifted
Whole Group
Math-Related Measures
Gradea
Achievement testb
Academic self-conceptc
Interestd
Mastery goal orientatione
Performance goal orientationf

Average Ability

Female

Male

Whole Group

Female

Male

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

0.24
108.32
3.54
2.76
3.35
3.28

0.95
8.82
0.92
1.07
1.02
0.91

0.15
105.63
3.23
2.36
3.11
3.07

0.97
7.48
0.90
0.99
0.96
0.89

0.33
110.92
3.83
3.13
3.54
3.44

0.92
9.27
0.84
1.02
1.03
0.85

0.24
102.67
3.15
2.50
3.21
3.18

0.99
8.31
0.82
0.88
0.95
0.75

0.22
101.39
3.03
2.36
3.17
3.03

0.91
7.21
0.84
0.87
0.88
0.76

0.26
103.91
3.26
2.60
3.23
3.33

1.06
9.12
0.76
0.88
1.00
0.77

Note: Differences in n are due to missing data. Responses to Likert items for rows for academic self-concept, interest, mastery goal
orientation, and performance goal orientation were summed and averaged by number of items per scale.
a
Grades were z standardized within school types; higher values indicate better grades; n = 89 female, 92 male in each group.
b
n = 89 female, 91 male in each group.
c
n = 80 female, 82 male in each group.
d
n = 84 female, 87 male in each group.
e
n = 85 female, 88 male in each group.
f
n = 74 female, 79 male in each group.

Results
The gifted students showed higher achievement in
mathematics than did the average-ability students. In
line with Hypotheses 1a and 1b, there were no significant gender differences in mathematics grades, but
there were significant test score differences in favor
of the boys in both gifted and average-ability students
(d = .66; see Tables 2 and 3). In accordance with
Hypothesis 2, gifted girls as well as girls of average
ability showed lower levels of self-concept and interest in mathematics than did their male counterparts.
In addition, contrary to expectations, there also was a
significant main effect of gender for mastery goal orientation (lower scores for mastery orientation in
girls); however, this effect was small (d = .25).
Similarly, the scores for performance goal orientation
were lower for girls than for boys.
For all of the measures of self-concept, interest,
and motivation, gender differences were larger for
gifted than for average-ability students (see Table 2
and Figure 1). Gifted boys got higher scores for these
variables than did gifted girls but gender differences
in the group of average-ability students were small.
The interaction of ability and gender was significant
for all of these variables, with the exception of performance goal orientation (Table 3).
In addition, there were significant main effects of
ability group for self-concept and interest, with higher

values for the gifted group. However, these main effects

of ability group were primarily produced by the data of
the gifted boys, as indicated by the significant interaction of ability group and gender noted above (see Table
3 and Figure 1). Gifted boys got significantly higher
scores for self-concept and interest than did both boys
and girls of average ability (all p < .01). The scores for
gifted girls, on the other hand, were similar to the scores
for girls of average ability. Mastery goal orientation and
performance goal orientation did not differ significantly
between ability groups. As noted, gifted boys gave significantly higher ratings for mastery goal orientation
than did gifted girls but there were no gender differences
within the group of average ability. For performance
goal orientation, girls showed lower performance goal
orientation than did boys, independent of ability level.

Discussion
This study investigated gender differences in
gifted sixth graders, as compared with gender differences in a parallel sample of average-ability students,
with respect to achievement, self-concept, interest,
and motivation in mathematics. In contrast to many
previous studies on the gifted, the sample of gifted
students was drawn from an unselected student sample. It is reasonable to assume that most of these
gifted students were not identified as being gifted and

Preckel et al. / Gender Differences

153
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

Table 3
Results of the Analyses of Variance With Repeated Measures Testing the Effects of
Giftedness and Gender on Achievement (Grades and Test Scores), Self-Concept, Interest,
Mastery Goal Orientation, and Performance Goal Orientation in Mathematics

Grade
(n = 179)

Ability group
Gender
Ability Group Gender

Academic
Self-Concept
(n = 162)

Achievement
Test (n = 181)

Mastery
Goal
Orientation
(n = 174)

Interest
(n = 171)

Performance
Goal
Orientation
(n = 153)

24.88
0.42
1.35

<.001
.52
.25

53.20
14.98
3.91

<.001
<.001
.05

16.98
21.31
5.59

<.001
<.001
<.05

7.29
21.24
8.22

<.01
<.001
<.01

1.83
4.83
3.95

.18
<.05
<.05

1.34
9.35
0.43

.25
<.01
.51

Note: Differences in n are due to missing data.

Figure 1
Differences in Achievement, Self-Concept, Interest, and Motivation in Mathematics Between
Gifted and Average-Ability Girls and Boys

.24

110

3.8

.1 2
.0
.12

estimate mean

4.0

.24

10
106
104
102

.36
comparison

3.4
3.2

2.8
gifted

ability group

3.6

3.0

100
gifted

gifted

comparison

mastery goal orientation

performance goal orientation

3.8

3.2

3.6

3.6

2.8

estimate mean

3.8

estimate mean

3.4

3.0

3.4
3.2

3.4
3.2

2.6

3.0

3.0

2.4

2.8

2.8

2.2

2.6

2.6
gifted

comparison

ability group

comparison

ability group

ability group

interest

estimate mean

academic self-concept

achievement test
112

estimate mean

estimate mean

grade
.36

gifted

comparison

ability group
female

gifted

comparison

ability group
male

154

Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

did not receive specialized fostering options. This

assumption is supported by the finding that nearly
44% of the gifted students attended the mediumor low-level school tracks. In accordance with former studies (e.g., Roznowski et al., 2000), we found
that the gifted, on average, came from families with
higher than average SES.
On average, the gifted students clearly outperformed
their nongifted counterparts with respect to achievement in mathematics (i.e., grades and scores on a standardized mathematics test). In line with expectations,
gifted females and males had equally good grades in
math. However, as expected, gifted males performed
better on a test of mathematical literacy than did their
female counterparts. Thus, findings documented in
many Western countries for samples of the general population were confirmed here for the gifted. For averageability students as well, findings of this study are in line
with previous findings, showing comparable grades but
lower mathematical literacy scores for average-ability
female students as compared to average-ability male
students.
The higher scores of males on the test of mathematical literacy can be explained to some extent by the male
advantage in mathematical problem solving (Benbow &
Lubinski, 1993; Hyde et al., 1990; see also Nuttal,
Casey, & Pezaris, 2004, for a discussion of the influence
of spatial ability on mathematics performance).
However, gender differences in mathematical problemsolving show substantial cross-cultural variation.
Therefore, in accordance with theoretical approaches
such as the Eccles (1983) model, it is reasonable to
assume that achievement differences in mathematical
literacy are primarily caused by gender-role socialization practices as well as by teacher and parent expectations. These practices and expectations can be assumed
to shape the development of achievement-related motivational traits (such as academic self-concept, interest,
and goal orientations) that influence students development of mathematical competences.
Similarly, as to the development of gender differences in mathematics-related self-concept, interest,
and motivation, it can be assumed that socialization
practices relating to gender roles are more important
than cognitive ability. Our results are consistent with
this assumption. Girls in both ability groups showed
lower levels of self-concept, interest, and motivation
(mastery and performance goal orientation) in mathematics than did their male counterparts.
However, for all of these affective variables, gender
differences were larger in the sample of gifted students

than in the sample of average-ability students. The interactions between ability group and gender were significant for self-concept, interest, and mastery goal
orientation. These striking, unexpected interactions of
ability group and gender imply that gender differences
in attitudes toward mathematics are even stronger in
gifted students than in the general population. Using the
Eccles (1983) model of achievement-related socialization, this finding might be explained by assuming that
gender-linked socialization practices relating to academic domains are more powerful when applied to gifted
students as compared to average-ability students.
For example, it might be that gifted students are
more aware of their aptitudes, and of social expectations how to use these aptitudes, such that gender-role
stereotypes and the gender-linked development of
academic motivation become more pronounced in
this group of students. By implication, it may be that
gifted girls, more so than average-ability girls, tend to
develop and use their abilities only if type of ability
and gender-linked social expectations are congruent
to each other, which may contribute to explaining
why there is such a dramatic loss of female talent in
the domains of mathematics, the inorganic sciences,
and engineering.

Limitations
Study limitations can be used to derive suggestions
for future research. For reasons outlined in the
method section, this study used a narrow definition of
giftedness; that is, we chose nonverbal reasoning
ability as the single criterion for defining the samples
of gifted and average-ability students in our investigation. This should be kept in mind when comparing
our results with findings derived from other studies.
Also, our study focused exclusively on the domain of
mathematics. The gender differences as analyzed in
this study should be investigated in other domains
such as science or verbal subjects.
Furthermore, the self-concept, interest, and motivation measures employed in our study were self-report in
nature. Instead of actually experiencing different levels
of motivation, male and female students may differ in
their ability and willingness to express their motivational beliefs (see Grossman & Wood, 1993, for differences relating to affective experiences). By implication,
males and females self-reports might have been
influenced by factors such as social desirability and
stereotyping.

Preckel et al. / Gender Differences

155
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

Furthermore, when interpreting the findings of this

study, it should be taken into account that the sample
consisted of 6th-grade German students. Further studies are needed to investigate whether our findings can
be replicated in other cultures and in students of different ages. However, as noted, these results on differences
between gifted and average-ability students as well as
the findings on gender differences in average-ability
students are similar to those found in previous research
that used samples from different cultures and age
groups. Thus, it can reasonably be assumed that it
should prove possible to generalize the present findings
on gender differences in gifted students to other age
groups and types of students.

Conclusion
Gender differences in mathematics-related attitudes
(self-concept, interest, and motivation) in favor of male
students were substantially larger in gifted students as
compared to average-ability students. Also, mathematicsrelated self-concept and interest differed in male
students of different ability, whereas ability group did
not explain the variance of attitudes in female students.
For example, we found no differences in the mathrelated self-concepts of gifted and average-ability girls.
Females tend to estimate their mathematical competence lower than their male counterparts doand the
gifted females in our study were no exception, in spite
of the fact that they earned equally good math grades as
the gifted boys.
Recent research has investigated the linkages of
competence beliefs with interest development, motivation, and affect (e.g., Pekrun, 1993; Todt & Schreiber,
1998), and evidence is accumulating that the relationships between these constructs are reciprocal (e.g.,
Byrne & Gavin, 1996; Hannover, 1998; Pekrun, 1992),
thus sustaining converging developments over the
school years. In accordance with assumptions on convergence of different attitudinal variables, we found a
consistent pattern of unfavorable mathematics-related
attitudes in girls and a consistent pattern of more favorable attitudes in boys. The disadvantageous attitudes
found for girs, including gifted girls, likely reduce the
probability for high achievement and high participation
rates of girls in the domain of mathematics and related
fields (Eccles & Harold, 1992).
In a review of the literature on factors influencing
the realization of high mathematical abilities in girls,

Le Maistre and Kanevsky (1996) concluded that a

combination of interventions is required to foster
gifted girls development in mathematics. Gender differences in math-related competence beliefs in favor
of boys have been documented as early as in the first
grade. Therefore, early identification of abilities as
well as early intervention is crucial to reduce the likelihood that girls develop disadvantageous self-perceptions and negative attitudes toward mathematics.
Interventions should not only focus on the girl herself
but should also address environmental factors such as
parents, teachers, peer groups, and administrative planning (J. Freeman, 2004). Possible interventions include
programs for enhancing interest by single-sex education, changes of curricula and classroom instruction
(Baumert & Kller, 1998; J. Freeman, 2004), enhancing the number of math courses for female students
(Eccles, 1987; see also Kerr & Robinson Kurpius,
2004, who developed a 1-day intervention program for
mathematically and scientifically talented girls who are
at risk for dropping out of the mathscience field), attributional retraining (Heller & Ziegler, 1996), provision
of role models and mentoring (Le Maistre & Kanevsky,
1996), and teacher and parent counselling (Le Maistre &
Kanevsky, 1996). The findings of this study confirm the
need for such programs and interventions for girls, particularly girls of high ability.
Support should not pursue the goal of enforcing
equal representations of males and females in the
domains of mathematics, science, and engineering
but rather make it possible that the genders will be
more equally represented in these domains in the
future. Gifted females need better conditions that allow
them to develop more functional self-perceptions of
mathematical abilities and more interest in mathematics so that they can make well-advised decisions
for or against educational and occupational careers in
these domains.

Notes
1. This analysis is based on data from the Project for the
Analysis of Learning and Achievement in Mathematics (Pekrun
et al., 2004; Zirngibl, Pekrun, Goetz, & Perry, 2005), a longitudinal study analyzing the development of mathematics-related
competence and affect as well as instructional and family
antecedents of this development, in a representative sample of
Bavarian secondary school students.
2. For the revised version, item difficulty was increased. In this
version, item difficulty is determined by item complexity (complexity of relations between figural elements) instead of precision of perception or ability to discriminate between figural stimuli.

156

Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

References
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Multipotentiality among intellectually gifted: It was never there and already
its vanishing.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 65-76.
Anderson, E. B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the Raschmodel. Psychometrika, 38, 123-140.
Baumert, J., Bos, W., & Lehmann, R. (Eds.) (2000). TIMSS/III: Dritte
Internationale Mathematik- und Naturwissenschaftsstudie
Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der
Schullaufbahn [TIMSS/III: Third international mathematics and
science studyEducation in math and science at the end of school
training]. Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich.
Baumert, J., & Kller, O. (1998). Interest research in secondary level
I: An overview. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, &
J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the
Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender (pp. 241-256). Kiel,
Germany: Institut fr die Pdagogik der Naturwissenschaften an
der Universitt Kiel.
Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1993). Psychological profiles of the
mathematically talented: Some gender differences and evidence
supporting their biological basis. In K. Ackerill (Ed.), The origins
and development of high ability (pp. 44-59) [Ciba Foundation
Symposium No. 178]. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Academic precocity:
Aspects of its development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Brody, L. E., Barnett, L. B., & Mills, C. J. (1994). Gender differences
among talented adolescents: Research studies by SMPY and
CTY at the Johns Hopkins University. In K. A. Heller & E. A.
Hany (Eds.), Competence and responsibility: Proceedings of the
Third European Conference of the European Council for High
Ability (pp. 204-210). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Byrne, B. M., & Gavin, D. A. W. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for structure of academic self-concept across pre-,
early, and late adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 215-228.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor
analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Cole, V., Cutrona, C., & Maxey, J. E.
(1996). Exceptional academic performance: Perfect scores on the
PLAN. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 102-110.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of
work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors.
In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives
(pp. 75-146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and womens achievement-related
decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-172.
Eccles, J. S. (1993). Parents as gender-role socializers during
middle childhood and adolescence. New Orleans, LA: Society
for Research in Child Development.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in
achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26-43.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in
educational and occupational patterns among the gifted. In
N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Amronson (Eds.),
Talent development: Proceedings form the 1991 Henry B. and
Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent
Development (pp. 3-29). Unionville, NY: Trillium.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P.

(1993). Age and gender differences in childrens self- and task
perceptions during elementary school. Child Development,
64, 830-847.
Educational Testing Service. (1987). A summary of data collected
from Graduate Record Examinations test-takers during 198586. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance
achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 968-980.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
501-519.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for
psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Enman, M., & Lupart, J. (2000). Talented female students resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary
achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological
characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11, 161-178.
Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J., & Portocarero, L. (1979).
Intergenerational class mobility in three Western European
societies: England, France and Sweden. British Journal of
Sociology, 30, 415-441.
Ewert, O. (1979). Eine deutsche Version der Sears Self-concept
Inventory Scale [Sears self-concept inventory scaleGerman
version]. In S. H. Filipp (Ed.), Selbstkonzept-Forschung (pp.
191-202). Stuttgart, Germany: Klett.
Finsterwald, M., & Ziegler, A. (2002). Geschlechtsunterschiede in
der Motivation: Ist die Situation bei normal begabten und hoch
begabten Schler(inne)n gleich? [Gender differences in motivation: Is the situation comparable for gifted and nongifted female
students?]. In H. Wagner (Ed.), Hoch begabte Mdchen und
Frauen.Begabungsentwicklung und Geschlechtsunterschiede
(pp. 67-83). Bad Honnef, Germany: Bock.
Fox, L. H., Engle, J. L., & Paek, P. (2001). An exploratory study
of social factors and mathematics achievement among highscoring students: Cross-cultural perspective from TIMSS.
Gifted and Talented International, 16, 7-15.
Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls &
women: 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Freeman, J. (2003). Gender differences in gifted achievement in
Britain and the U.S. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 202-211.
Freeman, J. (2004). Cultural influences on gifted gender achievement. High Ability Studies, 15, 7-23.
Frome, P. M., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Parents influence on
childrens achievement-related perceptions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 435-452.
Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufmann, J. C. (2005). Gender differences in
mathematics: An integrative psychological approach.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity
of emotional experience: A social role interpretation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010-1022.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Hanna, G. (2000). Declining gender differences from FIMS to
TIMSS. International Reviews on Mathematical Education,
32, 11-17.
Hannover, B. (1998). The development of self-concept and interests.
In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.),

Preckel et al. / Gender Differences

157
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

Interest and learning. Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on

Interest and Gender (pp. 105-125). Kiel, Germany: Institut fr
die Pdagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universitt Kiel.
Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fhigkeitstest fr 4.
bis 12. Klassen, Revision (KFT 4-12+R) [Cognitive ability test
for class level 4 to 12, revised version]. Gttingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the natural sciences: Can attributional retraining
improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 40, 200-210.
Hofe, R. vom, Pekrun, R., Kleine, M., & Goetz, T. (2002). Projekt
zur Analyse der Leistungsentwicklung in Mathematik (PALMA).
Konstruktion des Regensburger Mathematikleistungstests fr 5.10 Klassen [Project for the analysis of achievement development
in mathematics: Construction of a mathematics achievement test
for grades 5 to 10]. Zeitschrift fr Pdagogik, 45. Beiheft.
Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of
vocational personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holling, H., & Preckel, F. (2005). Self-estimation of intelligence
Methodological approaches and gender differences. Personality
and Individual Differences, 38, 503-517.
Hosenfeld, I., Kller, O., & Baumert, J. (1999). Why sex differences
in mathematics achievement disappear in German secondary
schools: A reanalysis of the German TIMSS-data. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 25, 143-161.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences
in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers
gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers and childrens
ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 932-944.
Jger, A. O., Holling, H., Preckel, F., Schulze, R., Vock, M., S,
H.-M., et al. (2006). Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test fr
Jugendliche: Begabungs- und Hochbegabungsdiagnostik
(BIS-HB) [Berlin structure of intelligence test for youth:
Assessment of talent and giftedness]. Gttingen, Germany:
Hogrefe.
Kerr, B., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (2004). Encouraging talented
girls in math and science: Effects of a guidance intervention.
High Ability Studies, 15, 85-102.
Leahey, E., & Guo, G. (2001). Gender differences in mathematical trajectories. Social Forces, 80, 713-732.
Leder, G. (2004). Gender differences among gifted students:
Contemporary views. High Ability Studies, 15,103-108.
Le Maistre, C., & Kanevsky, L. (1996). Factors influencing the
realization of exceptional mathematical ability in girls: An
analysis of the research. High Ability Studies, 8, 31-46.
Lohman, D. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111-136.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the
math/science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 1, 61-66.
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Morelock, M. (2000). Gender differences in engineering and the physical sciences among the gifted:
An inorganic-organic distinction. In K. Heller, F. Mnks,

R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of

giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 633-648). Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Lubinski, D., & Humphreys, L. G. (1990). A broadly based analysis
of mathematical giftedness. Intelligence, 14, 327-355.
Lupart, J. L., Cannon, E., & Telfer, J. O. (2004). Gender differences in adolescent academic achievement, interests, values,
and life-role expectations. High Ability Studies, 15, 25-42.
Marsh, H. W. (1988). Self description questionnaire: A theoretical
and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions
of preadolescent self-concept: A test manual and a research
monograph. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 59-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Coursework selection:
Relations to academic self-concept and achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 34, 691-720.
Nuttal, R. L., Casey, M. B., & Pezaris, E. (2004). Spatial ability
as mediator of gender differences on mathematical tests: A
biological-environmental framework. In A. Gallager &
J. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp.121-142). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003).
PISA 2003 assessment frameworkMathematics, reading,
science, and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: Author.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(2004). Learning for tomorrows worldFirst results from
PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
Pajares, F., Britner, S., & Valiante, G. (2000). Writing and science
achievement goals of middle school students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 406-422.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and selfconcept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.
Pekrun, R. (1992). The expectancy-value theory of anxiety:
Overview and implications. In D. G. Forgays, T. Sosnowski,
& K. Wrzesniewski (Eds.), Anxiety: Recent developments in
self-appraisal, psychophysiological and health research (pp.
23-41). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of students academic motivation: A
longitudinal expectancy-value approach. In M. Maehr &
P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement
(Vol. 8, pp. 139-189). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2005). Achievement
Emotions QuestionnaireMathematics (AEQ-M)Users
manual. Munich, Germany: University of Munich.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., vom Hofe, R., Blum, W., Jullien, S.,
Zirngibl, A., et al.. (2004). Emotionen und Leistung im Fach
Mathematik: Ziele und erste Befunde aus dem Projekt zur
Analyse der Leistungsentwicklung in Mathematik (PALMA)
[Emotions and achievement in mathematics: Aims and first
results of the Project for the Analysis of Learning and
Achievement in Mathematics (PALMA)]. In J. Doll & M. Prenzel
(Eds.), Bildungsqualitt von Schule: Lehrerprofessionalisierung,
Unterrichtsentwicklung und Schlerfrderung als Strategien
der Qualittsverbesserung (pp. 345-363). Mnster, Germany:
Waxmann.
Pekrun, R., & Zirngibl, A. (2004). Schlermerkmale im Fach
Mathematik [Student characteristics in mathematics]. In

158

Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016

M. Prenzel, J. Baumert, W. Blum, R. Lehmann, D. Leutner,

M. Neubrand, R. Pekrun, H.-G. Rolff, J. Rost, & U. Schiefele
(Eds.), PISA 2003. Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in
DeutschlandErgebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs
(pp. 191-210). Mnster, Germany: Waxmann.
Preckel, F., & Thiemann, H. (2003). Online- versus paper-pencilversion of a high potential intelligence test. Swiss Journal of
Psychology, 62, 131-138.
Roznowski, M., Reith, J., & Hong, S. (2000). A further look at
youth intellectual giftedness and its correlates: Values, interests, performance, and behavior. Intelligence, 28, 87-113.
Schober, B., Reimann, R., & Wagner, P. (2004). Is research on
gender-specific underachievement in gifted girls an obsolete
topic? New findings on an often discussed issue. High Ability
Studies, 15, 43-62.
Skaalvik, S., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2004). Gender differences in
math and verbal self-concept, performance expectations, and
motivation. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 50, 241-252.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (1998). Stability and change in
gender-related differences on the college board advanced
placement and achievement tests. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 7, 192-196.
Terwilliger, J., & Titus, J. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes
and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 29-35.
Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. (1971). Cognitive abilities test.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Todt, E., & Schreiber, S. (1998). Development of interests. In
L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (1998),
Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on
Interest and Gender (pp. 25-40). Kiel, Germany: Institut fr die
Pdagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universitt Kiel.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Suk Yoon, K., Harold, R. D., Arbreton,
A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., et al. (1997). Change in
childrens competence beliefs and subjective task values
across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 451-469.
Wilgenbusch, T., & Merrill, K. W. (1999). Gender differences in
self-concept among children and adolescents: A meta-analysis

of multidimensional studies. School Psychology Quarterly,

14, 101-120.
Ziegler, A. (2004). Gifted females in mathematics, the natural
sciences and technology [Special Issue]. High Ability Studies, 15.
Ziegler, A., Heller, K. A., & Broome, P. (1996). Motivational preconditions for girls gifted and highly gifted in physics. High
Ability Studies, 7, 129-144.
Zirngibl, A., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005, April).
Girls and mathematicsA hopeless issue? An analysis of
girls and boys emotional experiences in mathematics. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Zorman, R., & David, H. (2000). Female achievement and challenges towards the third millenium. Jerusalem, Israel:
Henrietta Szold Institute Press.

Franzis Preckel is a full professor of psychology at the University

of Trier and is Chair of Giftedness Research and Education. Her
main research interests include intelligence, test development,
assessment of giftedness, and counseling in gifted education.
Thomas Goetz holds a full professorship in psychology and
teaches both at the University of Konstanz and the Thurgau
University of Teacher Education. His main research topics include
achievement emotions, self-concepts, and self-regulated learning.
Reinhard Pekrun is a full professor of psychology and is the
Vice President of Research at the University of Munich. He is a
member of the German consortium for the Programme for
International Student Assessment (2003 and 2006). His main
research interests pertain to achievement emotion and motivation,
students personality development, educational assessment, and
quality monitoring of educational systems.
Michael Kleine was a teacher of mathematics and physics, and he
has been working as an assistant professor for mathematics education at the University of Regensburg since 2000. His main research
interests include large-scale assessment, development of competencies in mathematics, and mental models in mathematics.

Preckel et al. / Gender Differences

159
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS on January 27, 2016