Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Gender differences in social studies skills: A Texas, multiyear study

Article Sidebar

TAKS Social Studies Objective 1
Download PDF
Submitted   Nov 22, 2019
Published   Feb 18, 2020
Issue    Vol 1 No 1 (2020)
DOI   10.25082/AERE.2020.01.007

Views

3206

Downloads

1587

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Mary Kristy Dietrich
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA
John R Slate corresponding author
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA
George W Moore
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA
Frederick C. Lunenburg
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA

Abstract

In this investigation, the degree to which boys and girls differed in their social studies skills in Texas was addressed.  Data were obtained from the Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System for all Texas high school students for the 2004-2005 to the 2011-2012 school years.  Inferential statistical analyses revealed the presence of statistically significant differences in social studies skills between boys and girls.  Girls had statistically lower average raw scores in all five social studies skills objectives than boys.  Implications for policy and for practice were made, along with recommendations for future research.

Keywords
gender, TAKS, social studies, social studies skills

Article Details

How to Cite
Dietrich, M., Slate, J., Moore, G., & Lunenburg, F. (2020). Gender differences in social studies skills: A Texas, multiyear study. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2020.01.007
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Whitmire R. Why boys fail: Saving our sons from an educational system that’s leaving them behind. New York, NY: AMACON. 2010.
  2. Whitmire R and Bailey SW. Gender gap: Are boys being shortchanged in K-12 schooling? Education Next, 2010, 10(2): 53-61.
  3. National Student Clearinghouse. 2015. Snapshot report: Degree obtainment. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SnapshotReport15-DegreeAttainment.pdf
  4. Moller S, Stearns E, Southworth S, et al. Changing course: The gender gap in college selectivity and opportunities to learn in the high school curriculum. Gender and Education, 2013, 25: 851-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.853028
  5. Moore GW, Combs JP and Slate JR. Advanced Placement exams participation and performance: A national study of gender differences. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 20012, 3(3): 18-32.
  6. Mo L, Yang F, Hu X, Calaway F, et al. ACT test performance by Advanced Placement students in Memphis city schools. Journal of Educational Research, 2011, 104: 354- 359.
  7. Kurtz-Costes B, Copping K, Rowley S, et al. Gender and age differences in awareness and endorsement of gender stereotypes about academic abilities. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2014, 29(4): 603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0216-7
  8. Kurtz-Costes B, Rowley SJ, Harris-Britt A, et al. Gender stereotypes about mathematics and science and selfperceptions of ability in late childhood and early adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2008, 54: 386-409. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0001
  9. Dania PO. Effect of gender on student academic achievement in secondary school social studies. Journal of Education and Practice, 2014, 5(21): 78-84.
  10. Voyer D and Voyer S. Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2014, 4: 1174.
  11. Duckworth AL and Seligman ME. Self-discipline gives girls the edge: Gender in self-discipline, grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2006, 98: 198-208.
  12. Ganzert B. Dual enrollment credit and college readiness. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 2012, 38: 783-793. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.719483
  13. Moore GW and Slate JR. Who’s taking the Advanced Placement courses and how are they doing: A statewide two-year study. The High School Journal, 2008, 92(1): 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.0.0013
  14. Chapin JR. The achievement gap in social studies and science starts early: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Studies, 2006, 97(6): 231-238. https://doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.97.6.231-238
  15. Bein FL, Hayes JJ and Jones TG. Fifteen year follow-up geography skills test administered in Indiana, 1987-2002. Journal of Geography, 2009, 108: 30-36.
  16. Weiss AD, Lutkus AD, Hildebrant BS, et al. The nations report card: Geography 2001 (The National Assessment of Educational Progress Report). 2002. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2001/2002484.pdf
  17. Heafner TL and Fitchett PG. An opportunity to learn US History: What NAEP data suggest regarding the opportunity gap. The High School Journal, 2015, 98(3): 226-249.
  18. Morgan SL, Gelbgiser D and Weeden KA. Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science Research, 2013, 42: 989-1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.008
  19. Emerson TN, McGoldrick KM and Mumford KJ. Women and the choice to study economics. Journal of Economic Education, 2012, 43(4): 349-362.
  20. Crocco MS, Cramer J and Meier EB. (Never) mind the gap! Gender equity in social studies research on technology in the twenty-first century. Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, 2008, 2(1): 19-36.
  21. Engebretson KE. Another missed opportunity: Gender in the National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2014, 9(3): 21-34.
  22. Heafner TL and Fitchett PG. US history knowledge and associated effects of race, gender, wealth, and urbanity: Item response theory (IRT) modeling of NAEP-USH achievement. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 2018, 42: 11- 25.
  23. Leaper C, Farkas T and Brown C. Adolescent girls’ experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/science and English. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 2012, 41(3): 268-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9693-z
  24. United States Department of Education. The condition of education: 2006. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006071.pdf
  25. Clark C. Testing, testing: Texas scandalized exam moves from TAKS to STAAR. Texas Lone Star, 2011, 18-21. https://www.mytexaspublicschool.org/Documents/april-may2012-testing.aspx
  26. Zabala D, Minnici A, McMurrer J, et al. State high school exit exams 2008 annual report: Moving toward end-of-course exams (Center on Education Policy Report). 2008. https://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Texas%2DHSEE2008%2Epdf
  27. Johnson RB and Christensen L. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2012.
  28. Public Education Information Management System. 2009. PEIMS data standards: Appendix F. http://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id2w=2147493801
  29. Wright LA. Differences in reading skills of Texas high school students as a function of economic status, gender, and ethnicity/race: A Texas statewide study. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University. 2015.
  30. Alford-Stephens T. Differences in mathematics skills of Texas high school boys as a function of ethnicity/race and economic status: A multiyear statewide study. Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 2016.
  31. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2009.
  32. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1988.