Online Math Instruction Can Close the Gender Gap in Mathematical Equivalence Understanding

• In Event: Poster Session 01
  In Poster Session: PS 01 Topic - Sex, Gender

Abstract

Many children struggle with learning math and hold misconceptions about mathematical concepts and procedures (McNeil et al., 2019). One common misconception in elementary-school-aged children is that the equal sign is an operational symbol meaning “add up the numbers” rather than a relational symbol meaning “the same amount”. Research shows that a formal relational understanding of the equal sign is a predictor of later math achievement (McNeil et al., 2019). Prior research has found that boys and girls show similar conceptual understanding of the equal sign when asked to provide an explicit definition, however boys are more likely than girls to correctly solve so-called mathematical equivalence problems with operations on both sides of the equal sign (e.g., 2 + 4 + 7 = __ + 6; Hornburg et al., 2017). Much research has shown that instruction can improve children’s understanding of mathematical equivalence (e.g., Cook et al., 2012; Koumoutsakis et al., 2016; McNeil et al., 2019), but less research has not considered whether such instruction differentially benefits boys and girls and/or whether it may reduce gender differences. Thus, the goal of our study was to explore gender differences in mathematical equivalence learning. We ask our question in the context of an online learning paradigm in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.

We conducted an online pretest-instruction-posttest protocol with 53 7-11 year-olds (27 boys; 26 girls). Videotaped instruction (from Koumoutsakis et al., 2016) emphasized the principle of equalizing both sides of mathematical equivalence problems (e.g., 3 + 4 + 5 =__ + 5). To measure mathematical equivalence understanding, children solved 12 mathematical equivalence problems and defined the equal sign (i.e., answered “What does this symbol mean?”) before and after instruction. Figure 1 presents the equivalence problem solving outcome. Boys were better than girls at solving problems prior to instruction (M = 6.26 vs. M = 1.88, p < .001), but no better after instruction (M = 8.43 vs. M = 7.37, p = .408; Test X Gender Interaction, p = .004). For the conceptual definition outcome, boys and girls were similarly likely to provide correct relational definitions of the equal sign both prior to instruction (26% of boys vs. 39% of girls, p = .328) and after instruction (63% of boys vs. 58% of girls, p = .695).

These results replicate prior work (Hornburg et al., 2017) suggesting boys and girls have similar conceptual knowledge of mathematical equivalence, but differ in their ability to solve mathematical equivalence problems prior to instruction. However, our findings critically suggest a brief conceptual online lesson can close the equivalence problem solving gender gap. More broadly, our data suggest boys and girls learn similarly from mathematical equivalence instruction. Ongoing research examines the possibility that girls’ difficulty with calculations at pretest may be due to math anxiety and/or stereotyped beliefs rather than differential mathematical equivalence understanding (e.g., Primi et al., 2018). This research furthers our understanding of instruction as a tool to improve math learning and support gender equality in math achievement.

Authors

• Dominique Giambalvo, Northeastern Illinois University
  Presenting Author

• Princess Maleeha Chughtai, Northeastern Illinois University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kimberly P Bruckman, Northeastern Illinois University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Usaid Mahmud, Northeastern Illinois University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Ruth Breckinridge Church, Northeastern Illinois University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Andrew Young, Northeastern Illinois University
  Non-Presenting Author