SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3

The Effect of Gender on Algebra Achievement: The Meta-Analysis of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

S. Koza Çiftçi(AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY)
Pınar Yıldız(CANAKKALE ONSEKIZ MART UNIVERSITY)
Pages
617–627
Publication Date
2019-12-13
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, the national culture, and the year of the study variables play moderator role regarding the effect of gender on achievement.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this meta-analysis study; the effect of gender on algebra achievement was tested in the context of TIMSS.
📊
Key Findings & Data:TIMSS 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 were combined and a sample of 1.202.847 people was obtained.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, the national culture, and the year of the study variables play moderator role regarding the effect of gender on achievement.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Gender · algebra · algebra achievement

Abstract

In this meta-analysis study; the effect of gender on algebra achievement was tested in the context of TIMSS. The study was carried out in two stages: ( i ) finding out the average effect size of gender on algebra achievement, and ( ii ) determining the moderators that may affect the average effect size. TIMSS 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015 were combined and a sample of 1.202.847 people was obtained. In the study, the average effect size was calculated using the differences between means (Cohen d ) based on the random effect model, whereas the significance of the moderator variables was calculated using Q statistic. The results of the study showed that gender had a low effect on achievement. In addition, the national culture, and the year of the study variables play moderator role regarding the effect of gender on achievement.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çiftçi, S. K., Yıldız, P. (2019). The Effect of Gender on Algebra Achievement: The Meta-Analysis of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 617–627. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.568545

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Akkan, Y., Baki, A., & Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2012). 5-8. sınıf öğrencilerinin aritmetikten cebire geçiş süreçlerinin problem çözme bağlamında incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 1-13.
  2. Asquith, P., Stephens, A. C., Knuth, E. J., & Alibali, M. W. (2007). Middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students’ understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equal sign and variable. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 249-272.
  3. Attorps, I. (2003). Teachers’ images of the ‘equation’ concept. European Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 1-8.
  4. Black, D. J. W. (2007). The relationship of teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in algebra, and changes in both types of knowledge as a professional development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Auburn University, USA.
  5. Booth, L. (1988). Children’s difficulties in beginning algebra. In A. F. Coxford, & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K-12 (pp. 20-32). Reston: VA.
  6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakan, M., Tan, Ş., & Atar, H. Y. (2014). TIMSS 2011 ulusal matematik ve fen raporu 8. sınıflar. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  7. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebra reasoning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 699-705). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  9. Caswell, L. M. (2009). The algebra content knowledge of beginning teachers in California (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, USA.
  10. Christou, K. P., Vosniadou, S., & Vamvakoussi, X. (2007). Students’ interpretations of literal symbols in algebra. In S. Vosniadou, A Naltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 283-297). London: Elsevier.
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Çoğaltay, N., & Karadağ, E. (2015). Introduction to meta-analysis. In E. Karadağ (Ed.), Leadership and organizational outcomes (pp. 19-28). Switzerland: Springer.
  13. Dede, Y., & Argün, Z. (2003). Cebir, öğrencilere niçin zor gelmektedir? Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 180-185.
  14. Dugdale, S., DeKoven, E., & Ju, M. K. (1998). Computer course enrollment, home computer access, and gender: Relationships to high school students’ success with computer spreadsheet use for problem solving in pre-algebra. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18(1), 49-62.
  15. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103-127.
  16. Fennema, E., Sowder, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Creating classrooms that promote understanding. In E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 185-199). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Fennema, E., & Sherman J. (1977) Sex-related difference in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14(1), 51-71.
  18. Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press, New York.
  19. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(1), 59-78.
  20. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139-155.
  21. Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(22), 8801-8807.
  22. Kaput, J. (1998, May). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum. Paper presented at the Algebra Symposium, Washington, DC.
  23. Kenney-Benson, G. A., Pomerantz, E. M., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2006). Sex differences in math performance: The role of children’s approach to schoolwork. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 11-26.
  24. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390-419). New York: Macmillan.
  25. Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317-326.
  26. Kuchemann, D. (1978). Children’s understanding of numerical variables. Mathematics in School, 7(4), 23-26.
  27. Li, X. (2007). An investigation of secondary school algebra teachers’ mathematical knowledfe for teaching algebraic equation solving (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas, USA.
  28. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation: 11–16. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 1–19.
  29. McCoy, L. P. (2005). Effect of demographic and personal variables on achievement in eighth-grade algebra. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 131-135.
  30. Penner, A. M., & Paret, M. (2008). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: Exploring the early grades and the extremes. Social Science Research, 37(1), 239-253.
  31. Rosnick, P. (1981). Some misconceptions concerning the concept of variable. Are you careful about defining your variables? Mathematics Teacher, 74(6), 418–420.
  32. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  33. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21.
  34. Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: A critical review. American Psychologist, 60(9), 950-958.
  35. Stephens, A. C. (2006). Equivalence and relational thinking: Preservice elementary teachers’ awareness of opportunities and misconceptions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 249-278.
  36. Stephens, A. C. (2008). What “counts” as algebra in the eyes of preservice elementary teachers? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 33-47.
  37. Stump, S. L., & Bishop, J. (2002). Preservice elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of algebra revealed through the use of exemplary curriculum materials. In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 1903-1914). Columbus, OH: ERIC.
  38. Şişman, M., Acat, M. B., Aypay, A., & Karadağ, E. (2011). TIMSS 2007 ulusal matematik ve fen raporu: 8. sınıflar. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  39. Tirosh, D., Even, R., & Robinson, N. (1998). Simplifying algebraic expressions: Teacher awareness and teaching approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35(1), 51-64.
  40. Usiskin, Z. (1999). Conceptions of school algebra and uses variables. In B. Moses (Ed.), Allgebraic thinking, grades K-12: Readings from NCTM’s school-based journals and other publications (pp. 7-13). Reston, VA: Natinoal Council of Teachers Mathematics.
  41. Vance, J. (1988). Number operations from an algebraic perspective. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 282–285.
  42. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2014). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  43. Yıldız, P., Çiftçi, Ş. K., Şengil-Akar, Ş. ve Sezer, E. (2015). Ortaokul 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin cebirsel ifadeleri ve değişkenleri yorumlama sürecinde yaptıkları hatalar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 18-31.