FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W128513612> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W128513612 startingPage "436" @default.
• W128513612 abstract "Introduction and Background The negative effects of gender bias can be manifested in many ways. Biases present in instruction can inhibit academic achievement by not recognizing and taking into account individual differences in the ways males and females learn. Prejudices concerning the proper roles for females in our society can discourage women from participation in various careers. Additionally, biased methods in the measuring of academic achievement can also distort the picture of what someone knows about mathematics, and create feelings of personal failure. It was the purpose of the study reported in this manuscript to explore the effects of the factor of time on the performance of male and female algebra II and pre-calculus students on SAT-type (Scholastic Aptitude Test) practice exams. According to Rosser (1989) the SAT exam results are often used to measure a student's knowledge of mathematics and predict the student's success in his/her first year of college. These results are also used by many institutions as part of their admission standards, and in their decisions to award scholarships. It is therefore of crucial importance that a person's score accurately measure the person's knowledge and is not systematically biased against special groups. Yet, Rosser notes that although females have higher grade point averages than males in both high school and college, females score considerably lower than males on the SAT exam. One explanation for the paradox of females having higher high school grades yet lower SAT scores than males could be due to gender biases present in the administration of the exam. Prior research investigations have begun to form a clearer picture of the differences in the ways males and females solve mathematics items. Some of these studies have also helped explain why the differences exist. For instance, teachers provide males with more freedom to deviate from algorithmic procedures, while females are expected to closely follow the rules (Fennema and Peterson, 1985). Fennema and Tartre (1985) concluded that girls tend to draw pictures more frequently than boys. Females are more inclined to place an emphasis upon neatness when responding to an item (Macoby and Jacklin, 1974; Bridgeman and Wendler, 1991), and are more inclined to prefer a slower, more exacting approach (Macoby and Jacklin, 1974). Becker (1990) suggested that boys may be more inclined to attempt an unfamiliar item than girls, and more inclined than girls to guess at a solution if difficulties arise (Hudson, 1986). The differences described above could serve to inhibit or distort the achievement scores of females on an exam in which working quickly and educated guessing is an important factor. In fact, some evidence based upon research with precocious adolescents did suggest that the time factor was one of the explanations for the differences between males and females in mathematics achievement as reflected by standardized scores (Gallagher, 1989). As suggested by the research, females are more inclined to be deliberate, and cautious problem solvers than males. Females are more inclined to use complicated algorithms rather than to quickly assess an item and estimate a solution. Finally females are more thoroughly conditioned by society to be neat and complete when responding to tasks. If so, then evaluations in which time is a factor in measuring achievement may result in a more serious distortion of a female's knowledge of mathematics than a male's. To begin with, females would have more difficulty in finishing the exam. Problem solving strategies which allow more exam items to be addressed, such as quickly estimating a solution or at least making an educated guess could be the most advantageous ones to use, especially if there is no correction factor for guessing. Additionally, most correction factors only address 'Wild guessing'. A student who makes a rough estimate which allows him/her to narrow the choices down to two possible answers will generally be rewarded for the effort in spite of the fact that the student may have absolutely no knowledge of an algorithm which could have been used to find the solution. …" @default.
• W128513612 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W128513612 creator A5005992118 @default.
• W128513612 creator A5042144266 @default.
• W128513612 creator A5060068632 @default.
• W128513612 date "1994-03-22" @default.
• W128513612 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W128513612 title "Evaluating Achievement in Mathematics: Exploring the Gender Biases of Timed Testing" @default.
• W128513612 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W128513612 type Work @default.
• W128513612 sameAs 128513612 @default.
• W128513612 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W128513612 countsByYear W1285136122015 @default.
• W128513612 countsByYear W1285136122016 @default.
• W128513612 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W128513612 hasAuthorship W128513612A5005992118 @default.
• W128513612 hasAuthorship W128513612A5042144266 @default.
• W128513612 hasAuthorship W128513612A5060068632 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C122980154 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C2781206393 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C28719098 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C48561166 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W128513612 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C122980154 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C138496976 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C145420912 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C151730666 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C15744967 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C2524010 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C2777267654 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C2781206393 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C28719098 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C33923547 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C48561166 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C77805123 @default.
• W128513612 hasConceptScore W128513612C86803240 @default.
• W128513612 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W128513612 hasLocation W1285136121 @default.
• W128513612 hasOpenAccess W128513612 @default.
• W128513612 hasPrimaryLocation W1285136121 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W1534689619 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W1557082365 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2001552685 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2014014457 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2026166245 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2059885216 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2120313965 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2128162179 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2166870754 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2291827122 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2331827448 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2332946495 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2617137840 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2617459018 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W2947498850 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W3031350059 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W3114584652 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W3123337616 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W346770797 @default.
• W128513612 hasRelatedWork W72503416 @default.
• W128513612 hasVolume "114" @default.
• W128513612 isParatext "false" @default.
• W128513612 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W128513612 magId "128513612" @default.
• W128513612 workType "article" @default.