Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Differential Course-taking Hypothesis Revisited:

Differential Course-taking Hypothesis Revisited: American Educational Research Journal Winter 1983, Vol. 20, No. 4, Pp. 469-573 CAMILLA PERSSON BENBOW and JULIAN C. STANLEY The Johns Hopkins University In 1980 we published a report in Science which showed that differential course-taking does not account for the large sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability found among intellectually talented seventh graders. Pallas and Alexander (1983) have recently claimed that our original paper did not make clear our intention to focus on mathematical reasoning ability rather than other features of quantitative ability. We wish to point out that the abstract ("A substantial difference in mathematical reasoning ability .. . in favor of boys was found"), the first paragraph (three times), the methods section ("the mathematical section [of the SAT-M] is partic­ ularly designed to measure mathematical reasoning ability"), the main conclusion ("Moreover, the greatest disparity between the boys and girls is in the upper ranges of mathematical reasoning ability"), the lead paragraph of the discussion ("It is notable that we observed sizable sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in seventh grade students"), and numerous places elsewhere throughout the paper explicitly employ the phrase math­ ematical reasoning ability. It is, therefore, understandable that we are puzzled by how http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Educational Research Journal SAGE

Differential Course-taking Hypothesis Revisited:

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/differential-course-taking-hypothesis-revisited-oH5iTP0jHM

References (26)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by American Educational Research Association
ISSN
0002-8312
eISSN
1935-1011
DOI
10.3102/00028312020004469
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

American Educational Research Journal Winter 1983, Vol. 20, No. 4, Pp. 469-573 CAMILLA PERSSON BENBOW and JULIAN C. STANLEY The Johns Hopkins University In 1980 we published a report in Science which showed that differential course-taking does not account for the large sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability found among intellectually talented seventh graders. Pallas and Alexander (1983) have recently claimed that our original paper did not make clear our intention to focus on mathematical reasoning ability rather than other features of quantitative ability. We wish to point out that the abstract ("A substantial difference in mathematical reasoning ability .. . in favor of boys was found"), the first paragraph (three times), the methods section ("the mathematical section [of the SAT-M] is partic­ ularly designed to measure mathematical reasoning ability"), the main conclusion ("Moreover, the greatest disparity between the boys and girls is in the upper ranges of mathematical reasoning ability"), the lead paragraph of the discussion ("It is notable that we observed sizable sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in seventh grade students"), and numerous places elsewhere throughout the paper explicitly employ the phrase math­ ematical reasoning ability. It is, therefore, understandable that we are puzzled by how

Journal

American Educational Research JournalSAGE

Published: Jun 24, 2016

There are no references for this article.