Gender and Learner Characteristics

Abstract

It is well established that girls and boys perform differently in traditional examinations in most countries. This study looks at a sample of 754 school students in Kuwait (aged about 13) and explores how boys and girls differ in the performance in a range of tests related to learner characteristics. The fundamental question is how boys and girls differ in these learner characteristics and do any of the differences relate to examination performance. If the development of such learner characteristic is open to experiences in the formal learning situations, then this opens the door to possible ways to encourage the development of such characteristics, with possible concomitant en- hancement of academic performance. The importance of this cannot be underestimated for it gives curriculum planners, textbook writers teachers and examiners potential tools for enhanced learning. In terms of gender, it may well offer some ways forward to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in achieving high academic perfor- mance. It is found that girls outperform the boys in tests which measure extent of field dependency, extent of divergency and skills with the visual-spatial (all at p < 0.001). Confirming previous studies, the girls markedly outperform the boys in all school subject examinations but there are no differences in their measured working memory capacities. In looking at the relationships between various combinations of the measurements made, it is found that boys are much more dependent on working memory than girls in performing in examinations, and the boys are also much more dependent on employing skills related to divergent thought in achieving success in ex- aminations. These observations are interpreted in terms of the way boys and girls learn, with girls being more conscientious and willing to memorise than the boys who, in turn, have to rely on working things out for success: girls tend to memorise; boys tend to try to work it out. This may offer an explanation of the greater success of girls in typical examinations where the accurate recall of information is so often the key to success.

Keywords

• high ability, gender, learner characteristics, working memory

Kaynakça

1. Al-Ahmadi, F. and Oraif, F. (2009). Working memory capacity, confidence and scientific thinking, Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(2), 225-243.
2. Aldous, Carol, (2007). Creativity, problem solving and innovative science: insights from history, cognitive psychology and neuroscience, International Education Journal, 8(2), 176-186.
3. Ali, A.A. and Reid (2011). Understanding Mathematics: Some Key Factors, European Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 283-299.
4. Al-Qasmi, S. (2006). Problem solving in biology at university level, PhD Thesis, Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
5. Al-Naeme, F. and Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Room for Scientific Thought?, International Journal of Science Education, 13 (2), 187-192.
6. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7. Baddeley, A.D. (2002). Is Working Memory Still Working, European Psychologist, 7(2), 85-97.
8. Bahar, M. (1999). Investigation of biology students' cognitive structure through word association tests, mind maps and structural communication grids, PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

9. Bahar, M. and Hansell, M.H. (2000). The Relationship Between Some Psychological Factors and their Effect on the Performance of Grid Questions and Word Association Tests, Educational Psychology, 20(3), 349-364.
10. Bahar, M. Johnstone, A.H. and Sutcliffe, R.G. (1999). Investigation of Students Cognitive Structure in Elementary Genetics Through Word Association Tests, Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 134-142.
11. Broverman, D. Vogel, W. Klaiber, E. Majcher, D. Shead, D. and Paul, V. (1968). Roles of activation and inhibition in sex differences in cognitive abilities. Psychological Review, 48, 328-331.
12. Chen, W-C. and Whithead, R. (2009). The Understanding of Physics in Relation to Working Memory, Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(2), 151-160.
13. Danili, E. and Reid, N. (2004). Some Strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two cognitive factors, Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(2), 203-226.
14. Danili, E. and Reid, N. (2005). Assessment Formats: do they make a difference? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(4), 198-206.
15. Frey, D. (1991). Psychosocial Needs of the Gifted Adolescent. In: Bireley, M. and Genshaft, J. (Eds) Understanding the Gifted Adolescent: Educational, Developmental, and Multicultural Issues. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.
16. Golon, A. (2004). Raising Topsy-turvy kids: Successfully Parenting Your Visual-Spatial Child, Denver: Deleon Publishing.
17. Harris, L. (1978). Sex Differences in Spatial Ability. In: Kinsbourne, M. (Ed.), Asymmetrical Function of the Brain. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Hindal, H.S. (2007). Cognitive characteristics of students in middle schools in State of Kuwait, with emphasis on high achievement, PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
19. Hindall, H., Reid, N, and Badgaish, M. (2009). Working Memory, Performance and Learner Characteristics, Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(2), 187-204.
20. Hindal, H., Reid, N. and Whitehead, R. (2013). A Fresh look at High Ability, International Journal of Instruction. 6(1), 59-76.
21. Hudson, L (1962). Intelligence, Divergence and Potential originality, Nature, 601-2.
22. Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary Imaginations: A Psychological Study of the English Schoolboy, London: Penguin Books.
23. Hudson, L. (1968). Frames of Mind: Ability, Perception and Self-Perception in the Arts and Science, New York: Norton.
24. Johnson, N. (1996). Look Closer: Visual Thinking Skills and Activities, Ohio: Pieces of Learning
25. Johnstone, A.H. (1997). Chemistry Teaching-Science or Alchemy?. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262-268.
26. Johnstone, A.H. (2000). Teaching of Chemistry – Logical or Psychological? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 9-15.
27. Johnstone, A.H., El-Banna, H. (1986). Capacities, Demands and Processes: a Predictive Model for Science Education, Education in Chemistry, 23(3), 80-84.
28. Johnstone, A.H. and El-Banna, H. (1989). Understanding Learning Difficulties - A Predictive Research Model, Studies in Higher Education, 14(2), 159-68.
29. Johnstone, A.H. and Wham, A.J.B. (1982). Demands of Practical Work, Education in Chemistry, 19(3), 71-73.
30. Johnstone, A.H. Watt, A. and Zaman, T. (1998).The Students’ Attitude and Cognition Change to a Physics Laboratory. Physics Education, 33(1), 22-29.
31. Joseph, R. (2000). The Evolution of Sex Differences in Language, Sexuality, and Visual-Spatial Skills. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(1), 35.
32. Kimura, D. (1993). Neuromotor Mechanisms in Human Communication. New York: Oxford University Press.
33. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Learning, Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
34. Linn, M. and Petersen, A. (1985). Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
35. Mead, S. (2006). The Evidence Suggest Otherwise, The Truth about Boys and Girls, www.educationsector.org
36. Pascual-Leone, J (1970). A Mathematical Model for the Transition Rule in Piaget’s Developmental Stages, Acta Psychologica, 32, 301-345.
37. Pomerantz, Eva M.; Altermatt, Ellen Rydell; Saxon, Jill L. (2002). Making the grade but feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal distress, Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 396-404.
38. Reid, N. (2009a). The Concept of Working Memory, Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(2), 131-138.
39. Reid, N. (2009b). Working Memory and Science Education, Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(2), 245-250.
40. Reid, N. and Yang, M-J. (2002). The Solving of Problems in Chemistry: The More Open-ended Problems, Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(1), 83-98.
41. Robinson, K., (2011). Out of Our Minds: learning to be Creative, Capstone Publishing Ltd, Chichester.
42. Silverman, L. (1989). The Visual-Spatial Learner, Preventing School Failure, 34, 15-20.
43. Silverman, L. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The Visual-Spatial Learner, Under the Title, “Making Quick Work of Math Facts,” 302-305. Denver: DeLeon.
44. Silverman, L. (2003). The visual-spatial learner: An introduction, Soundview School Dolphin News. 6-7.
45. SQA (2010) Statistics (2010), Scottish Qualifications Authority, accessed at: http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/42887.html
46. Steinberg, L. (2005). Adolescence. (7th Edn) Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc. (check date?)
47. Thomas, H. Jamison, W. and Hummel, D. (1973). Observation is Insufficient for Discovering that the Surface of Still Water is Invariantly Horizontal, Science 181, 173-174
48. Tinajero, C.and Paramo, M. (1997). Field Dependence-Independence and Academic Achievement: A re-examination of their Relationship British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 199-212.
49. Tsaparlis, G. (2005). Non-algorithmic quantitative problem solving in university physical chemistry: a correlation study of the role of selective cognitive factors, Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(2), 125-148.
50. Witkin, H. (1949). The nature and Importance of Individual Differences in Perception, Journal of Personality, 18, 145-170.
51. Witkin, H.A. Goodenough, D.R. and Karp, S.A. (1967). Stability of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(3), 291-300.
52. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P., Raskin, E. and Karp, S. (1971). Group embedded figures test manual, Palo Alto, USA: CP. Press.
53. Witkin, H., A., Dyk, R. B., Paterson, H. F., Goodehough, D. R., and Karp, S. A. (1974). Psychological Differentiation - Studies of Development, New York: Wiley.
54. Witkin, H. Moore, C. Goodenough, D. and Cox, P. (1977). Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications, Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
55. Witkin, H. A. and Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles - essence and origins: Field dependence and field independence (New York, International Universities).