Student Name: Thomas Grove

I.D. Number: 22661727

Programme: PGCE (Primary)

With Reference To Social Constructivism: How Does

Grouping by Gender Influence Attainment within the
Mathematics Classroom?

‘Mathematics equips pupils with a uniquely powerful set of tools to understand and change
the world. These tools include logical reasoning, problem-solving skills, and the ability to
think in abstract ways. Mathematics is important in everyday life, many forms of
employment, science and technology, medicine, the economy, the environment and
development, and in public decision-making. Different cultures have contributed to the
development and application of mathematics. Today, the subject transcends cultural
boundaries and its importance is universally recognised. Mathematics is a creative
discipline. It can stimulate moments of pleasure and wonder when a pupil solves a problem
for the first time, discovers a more elegant solution to that problem, or suddenly sees
hidden connections.’
(DfEE, 1999: 60)

Student Name: Thomas Grove

Programme: 6270 PGCE (Primary)

Professional Tutor: Hilary Bowen

Assignment 1.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Introduction

Vygotsky (1978) believed that during the construction of knowledge two complementary
frameworks are in operation, a dual stage process of internalisation:

‘Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first on the social level,
and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological), and then inside
the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory
and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relations
between human individuals.’
(Vygotsky, 1978: 57)

This assignment will review the assessment data, literature, and research on grouping by gender
and how this influences attainment within the mathematics classroom, with specific reference to
social constructivism based on a Vygotskian theory of mind, however, I personally believe it would
be appropriate to initially review the extensive research on gender differences in mathematics
learning and achievement, and investigate the supposed existence of a ‘gender gap’. This critical
review will challenge the assumption that there is a difference between boys and girls that makes
boys predisposed to do better in mathematics; that there is an intrapsychological difference
between males and females that influences the construction of knowledge and cognitive
development in mathematics, as defined by Vygotsky (1978). This initial review will be constructed
in a clear and concise manner with relevant and appropriate research to provide a firm foundation
for, and consequently support, the critical review on grouping by gender and how this influences
attainment within the mathematics classroom.

At this point, the assignment will progress and review the assessment data, literature, and research
on grouping by gender and how this influences attainment within the mathematics classroom, with
specific reference to social constructivism from a Vygotskian theory of mind, and investigate the
supposed negative relationship between group size and mathematics learning and achievement.
This critical review will investigate the hypothesis that the difference in learning styles of boys and
girls influences mathematics learning and achievement in groups of different gender composition;
that the intrapsychological difference between males and females influences the interpsychological
construction of knowledge and cognitive development in mathematics, as defined by Vygotsky
(1978).

Assignment 1. 1.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Theoretical Framework

Constructivism

For the purpose of this assignment constructivism shall be regarded as a theory about knowledge
and learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) in which learning is an active process wherein learners
construct new concepts based upon their current and prior knowledge (Haylock with Thangata,
2007), however, Jaworski (1994) argues that constructivism should be regarded as a ‘philosophical
perspective on knowledge and learning’ (Jaworski, 1994: 14) since ‘neither its key terms, nor the
relationships between them are sufficiently well or uniformly defined for the term “theory” to be
strictly applicable’ (Ernest, 1991 quoted from Jaworski, 1994: 35).

Scott (1987), and Ollerenshaw and Ritchie (1995) provide an outline of the principles which
underpin the various aspects of constructivism as defined by Driver and Bell (1986). These
principles are:

what is already in the learner’s mind matters;

individuals construct their own meaning;
the construction of meaning is a continuous and active process;
learning may involve conceptual change;
the construction of meaning does not always lead to belief;
learners have the final responsibility for their learning;
some constructed meanings are shared.

Ollerenshaw and Ritchie (1995) argue that every child, independent of ability, background, and
gender, will have a diverse repertoire of ideas and concepts that to some degree will affect
subsequent learning. Constructivism identifies that as educators, with significant professional
expertise, it is important to bring child and personal, meaningful experience together and to ensure
that interaction between them ensues. This interaction results in the abandoning of individual ideas
and concepts, or the modification of them in the light of the new experience. In this sense the
teacher is of central importance and is seen to facilitate numerous roles within the mathematics
classroom environment such as the enabler, catalyst and challenger.

‘The teacher’s role is not merely to convey to students information about mathematics. One
of the teacher’s primary responsibilities is to facilitate profound cognitive restructuring and
conceptual reorganizations.’
(Cobb, 1988: 89)

Constructivism, as a theory about knowledge and learning, has been recognised as having much to
offer to mathematics education (Jaworski, 1994) and as such has relevance to what constitutes an

Assignment 1. 2.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

effectual mathematical classroom environment (Haylock with Thangata, 2007). Malone and Taylor
(1993) are amongst numerous educators that believe constructivism has significant implications for
mathematics teaching and learning. Ollerenshaw and Ritchie (1995) provide evidence in a clear and
concise manner to support the argument that children with evident behavioural and/or social
problems have, through implementation of constructivism within a practical situation, frequently
shown significant improvement in their individual behaviour.

Modern ideas and discussion about constructivism identify two separate components which need to
be considered; these being radical constructivism and social constructivism (Harries & Spooner,
2000). Jaworski (1994) indicates this movement from a radical to a social view of knowledge
construction ‘might be seen to parallel the move from a Piagetian to a Vygotskian view of learning’
(Jaworski, 1994: 25).

Radical Constructivism

‘Constructivism is a theory of knowledge with roots in philosophy, psychology, and

cybernetics. It asserts two main principles whose application has far reaching consequences
for the study of cognitive development and learning, as well as for the practice of teaching,
psychotherapy and interpersonal management in general. The two principles are:

knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognising subject;
the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organisation of the experimental
world, not the discovery of ontological reality.’
(von Glasersfeld, 1989 quoted from Jaworski, 1994: 15-16)

This constructivist theory about knowledge and learning, termed radical constructivism,
encapsulated by the principles stated above, has been developed from the Piagetian view of learning
that knowledge is purely subjective. von Glaserfeld (1989) argues that knowledge is constructed,
that learning takes place, during cognitive disturbance and the resultant adaptation through
processes, as defined by Piaget, of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration to fit the
learner’s experiences.

Not all of Piaget’s influences are regarded favourably however (Bruner, 1985), as much of his work
prioritises the individual aspect of learning. Radical constructivism thus ‘regards other aspects, such
as the social, to be merely a part of, or reducible to, the individual’ (Ernest, 1994: 62). Numerous
educators (Ernest, 1991, 1994; Merttens, 1996; Harries & Spooner, 2000) provide an excellent and
compelling argument that further empathise needs to be placed on the social influences of learning,
and the role of discussion and negotiation.

Assignment 1. 3.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Social Constructivism

Ernest (1993) provides an account of social constructivism as a theory about knowledge and
learning, identifying two central features:

‘First of all there is the active construction of knowledge, typically concepts and hypotheses,
on the basis of experiences and previous knowledge. These provide the basis for
understanding and serve the purpose of guiding future actions. Secondly there is the
essential role played by experience and interaction with the physical and social worlds, in
both physical action and speech modes.’
(Ernest, 1993 quoted from Jaworski, 1994: 24)

To summarise, Ernest argues that knowledge cannot purely be subjective, as developed within
radical constructivism, but that objective knowledge needs to be acknowledged, as determined by
its social acceptability.

Social constructivism continues to be underpinned by the principles that encapsulated radical

constructivism, however, emphasises is placed on the social influences of learning, and the role of
discussion and negotiation. Jaworski (1994), and Harries and Spooner (2000) acknowledge that,
while individuals will develop their own meaning to knowledge constructed, in a social environment
they will be engaged by other individuals. Interaction within this social environment results in the
abandoning of individual ideas and concepts, or the modification of them in the light of the new
experience. This social interaction and exchange develops an apparent common meaning shared by
the individual learners often referred to as ‘common’ or ‘intersubjective’ knowledge (Jaworski,
1994).

Ernest (1994), and Harries and Spooner (2000) suggest that while numerous educators attribute
differing characteristics to the term ‘social constructivism’, with many others developing theoretical
perspectives on knowledge and learning under alternative names which might be usefully
characterised as social constructivist, there are only two possible forms of social constructivism in
principle; these being a form of extension to radical constructivism that ‘adds’ a classroom-based
social dimension and a form which emanates from the work of Vygotsky which ‘views individual
subjects and the realm of the social as indissolubly interconnected, with human subjects formed
through their interactions with each other (as well as by their internal processes) in social contexts’
(Ernest, 1994: 69).

‘The construction of knowledge in the classroom goes beyond interaction between teacher
and students, to the wider interaction between students themselves in the social and
cultural environment of the classroom and beyond. It seems crucial for mathematics
teachers to be aware of how mathematical learning might be linked to language, social
interaction and cultural context.’

Assignment 1. 4.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

(Jaworski, 1994: 28)

For the purpose of this assignment social constructivism shall be regarded as a theory about
knowledge and learning based on a Vygotskian theory of mind.

Although chronologically Vygotsky’s work precedes that of Bruner, Vygotsky extended Bruner’s
concepts and ideas to develop an additional dimension. Vygotsky placed great emphasise on social
interaction and communication being perquisites for learning, and in particular on the role of the
teacher in the process:

‘From the very first days of the child’s development his activities acquire a meaning of their
own in a system of social behaviour and, being directed towards a definitive purpose, are
refracted through the prism of the child’s environment. The path from object to child and
from child to object passes through another person. This complex human structure is the
product of a developmental process deeply rooted in the links between individual and social
history.’
(Vygotsky, 1978: 30)

Vygotsky (1978) believed that during the construction of knowledge two complementary
frameworks are in operation, a dual stage process of internalisation:

‘Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first on the social level,
and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological), and then inside
the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory
and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relations
between human individuals.’
(Vygotsky, 1978: 57)

For the purpose of this assignment, although an extremely interesting concept within the
mathematical classroom environment, the zone of proximal development, as a measure of a
learner’s cognitive development related to ‘problem solving under adult guidance or collaboration
with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978: 86), shall be principally overlooked as the focus remains
that of grouping by gender and how that influences attainment within the mathematics classroom,
not that of grouping by ability. Consequently, as an extension of Vygotsky’s notion of a zone of
proximal development the concept of scaffolding shall also be largely overlooked, although reference
will be made within the concluding remarks of this assignment.

Assignment 1. 5.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Gender and Mathematics

The ‘gender gap’ in mathematics has been an issue of national and international concern since the
mid-1970s with numerous evaluations of the educational system (e.g. Cockcroft, 1982)
acknowledging the disadvantages encountered by girls in areas such as mathematics and science
(Leder, 1992). Considerable concern has been raised over ‘gender issues in the mathematics
education research community’ (Leder, 1992: 599). Reyes (1983) reported that during the two-year
period 1981-82 ‘the most common topics for manuscripts (submitted to the Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education) were problem solving, attitudes, student achievement, and sex differences
– with each accounting for 8%-10% of all manuscripts’ (Reyes, 1983: 146). Leder (1992) reveals
that the majority of articles submitted to the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
between 1978 and 1990 focused on the nature and extent of differences in the mathematics
achievement of males and females, with varying areas and contributing factors examined. Articles of
particular interest and relevance include those submitted by Fennema and Sherman (1978),
Armstrong (1981), Marshall (1983), and Hanna (1986), as these focus on a variety of measures to
explore a possible connection between gender and mathematics learning and achievement. Not all
studies submitted follow the general consensus of a statistically significant difference in
mathematics achievement between males and females (e.g. Callahan and Clements, 1984;
Ethington, 1990), however many of these studies have been discredited within recent studies
(Leder, 1992).

Thom (1987) argues that although initiatives had been introduced and developed, aimed at
achieving a more equitable education system, numerous political and educational pressure groups
had been principally concerned with class inequalities rather than gender inequalities however,
although Thom provides an excellent and compelling argument, the ideas and concepts presented
are now considered dated and largely irrelevant, and for the most part have been addressed by the
introduction, and consequent revisions, of the National Curriculum, which provides provision for
both class and gender equality.

Friedman (1989), and American Association of University Women (1998) argued that the gender
gap in mathematics achievement had been declining steadily since the mid-1970s and could be
considered negligible, or even non-existent, however numerous studies have reported that this is
simply not the case.

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

Assignment 1. 6.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Neuschmidt et al. (2008) investigated changes in gender differences evident in the performance of
pupils participating in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 1 between
1995 and 2003, focusing on 16 countries that ‘had non-annotated, fully approved data for all three
cycles’ (1995, 1999, and 2003) (Neuschmidt et al., 2008: 57). Neuschmidt et al. (2008) compares
gender specific results and patterns found in TIMSS 1995 with later assessment cycles in order to
‘address the question of how far the mathematics and science gender gap has narrowed over time’
(Neuschmidt et al., 2008: 56).

Neuschmidt et al. (2008) reveals that, as published in the TIMSS international reports (e.g. Beaton
et al., 1997a, 1997b; Mullis et al., 2000, 2004), ‘several countries showed significant gender
differences in mathematics and science achievement in each testing cycle’ (Neuschmidt et al., 2008:
56). Neuschmidt et al. (2008) provides interesting and compelling evidence that, using the
regression approach as defined by Gonzalez and Miles (2001), gender differences in achievement in
mathematics and science and the content areas2 within each are complex. Neuschmidt et al. (2008)
reports:

‘At the subject level, the results showed a relatively stable pattern in terms of the number
of gender differences across the three TIMSS cycles. A look at the content areas, however,
revealed marked changes in the patterns, especially for the current areas of chemistry and
physics in science and of measurement in mathematics. In all three areas, the dominance
of boys distinctly decreased over time.’
(Neuschmidt et al., 2008: 63)

Therefore, Neuschmidt et al. (2008) concludes that the significant gender differences in
mathematics achievement, as reported by Beaton et al. (1997a, 1997b), and Mullis et al. (2000,
2004), remain in all content areas other than that of measurement, where a noticeable reduction in
the advantage that boys held over girls can be seen. This article would seem to support the
assumption that there is a difference between boys and girls that makes boys predisposed to do
better in mathematics; that there is an intrapsychological difference between males and females
that influences the construction of knowledge and cognitive development in mathematics.

Hastedt (2004), and Hastedt and Sibberns (2005), referring to results in TIMSS 1995, reported that,
‘depending on the subject, boys outperformed girls in several countries, especially on multiple-
choice items’ (Neuschmidt et al., 2008: 1), however, Neuschmidt et al. (2008) reports that although
some difference in mathematics and science achievement was detected in relation to multiple-choice
items these differences were within the margins of standard errors. Therefore, Neuschmidt et al.
(2008) concludes that there is no noticeable support for the assumption that ‘gender differences

1
The TIMSS surveys are conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA) to measure trends in mathematics and science achievement
(Neuschmidt et al., 2008);
2
Although between the 1995, 1999, and 2003 assessments the definition of the content areas for
each subject changed, all three testing cycles had the following content areas in common for
mathematics: algebra, geometry, and measurement.

Assignment 1. 7.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

would have been affected by the different composition of the TIMSS assessment in terms of the
number of multiple-choice and of constructed-response questions’ (Neuschmidt et al., 2008: 72).
Neuschmidt et al. (2008) also found ‘no effect in relation to changes in the distributions of the
respective populations of students who participated in the three TIMSS cycles’ (Neuschmidt et al.,
2008: 72).

National Curriculum Assessments at Key Stage 2 in England, 2007 (Provisional)

This Statistical First Release (SFR) (DCSF, 2007a) provides assessment data on ‘the achievement of
eligible pupils (typically 11 year olds) in the 2007 National Curriculum assessments at Key Stage 2
(KS2)’ (DCSF, 2007a: 1).

The National Curriculum assessment tests measure pupils’ attainment in relation to the National
Curriculum programmes of study with pupils awarded levels in the National Curriculum scale to
reflect attainment (DCSF, 2007a). The National Curriculum standards have been carefully
constructed and developed so that most eligible pupils will progress by approximately one level
every two academic years, therefore, eligible pupils would be expected to achieve Level 4 (or
higher) by the end of Key Stage 2.

The statistics in this Statistical First Release (DCSF, 2007a) are based on the outcomes of the
National Curriculum assessments administered during May 2007, however, participation by
independent schools was voluntary, therefore data analysis only includes results from independent
schools which chose to contribute, consequently ‘data underpinning the figures for teacher
assessments3 are based on approximately 77% of 11 year olds nationally’ (DCSF, 2007a: 3).

The figures presented (Table 1) show that in 2005 76% of boys achieved Level 4 or above in
mathematics compared to 75% of girls. The figures identify progress for boys in 2006 with the level
of attainment in mathematics improving by 1% to 77%, however, girls failed to show any
improvement. The provisional figures identify progress in 2007 with the level of attainment in
mathematics improving by 1% for both boys and girls to 78% and 76% respectively.

The National Curriculum assessment test figures of pupils achieving Level 4 or above seem to
support the supposed existence of a gender gap in mathematics, however, the teacher assessment
figures seem to indicate that the difference between boys and girls could be considered negligible,
or even non-existent. This could indicate that the learning style of boys in relation to mathematics
and the method of assessment offered afford them a more advantageous position.

3
Teacher assessments (TA) provide complementary information about eligible pupils’ attainment in
relation to the National Curriculum programme of study and are ‘the teachers’ judgement of pupils’
performance in the whole subject over the whole academic year’ (DCSF, 2007b: 4).

Assignment 1. 8.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

In addition, the figures presented (Table 2) show that in 2005 33% of boys achieved Level 5 or
above in mathematics compared to 28% of girls. The figures identify progress in 2006 with the level
of attainment in mathematics improving by 3% for both boys and girls to 36% and 31%
respectively. However, in 2007, the provisional figures identify retreat with the level of attainment in
mathematics falling by 1% for both boys and girls to 35% and 30% respectively.

The National Curriculum assessment test figures of pupils achieving Level 5 or above again seem to
support the supposed existence of a gender gap in higher level mathematics, however, the
difference between boys and girls is significantly greater. The teacher assessment figures would
seem to support this argument, with a significant difference between the percentage of boys and
girls achieving Level 5 or above in mathematics noticeable. This again could indicate that the
learning style of boys in relation to higher order mathematics and the method of assessment offered
afford them a more advantageous position.

‘The Government has set itself the following Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets for the
achievement of 11 year olds:

To raise standards in KS2 English and mathematics tests so that, by 2006, 85%
achieve Level 4 or above, with this level of attainment sustained until 2008.’
(DCSF, 2007a: 2)

The figures presented (Table 1) show that this target was not met in 2006, with 79% of pupils
achieving Level 4 or above in English and only 76% in mathematics (77% for boys and 75% for
girls). The provisional figures identify progress in 2007 with the level of attainment in both English
and mathematics improving by 1% to 80% in English and 77% in mathematics (78% for boys and
76% for girls); however, this still falls below the PSA target.

Assignment 1. 9.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Table 1:
Percentages of pupils achieving Level 4 or above in Key Stage 2 tests and teacher assessments by
gender.

Percentage of pupils at Level 4 or above

Boys Girls
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
English Test 74 75 76 84 85 85
Reading Test 82 79 81 87 87 87
Writing Test 55 59 60 72 75 75
Mathematics Test 76 77 78 75 75 76
Science Test 86 86 87 87 87 88

English TA 70 72 73 81 82 83
Mathematics TA 76 78 78 76 78 78
Science TA 82 83 84 84 85 85

(DCSF, 2007a)

Table 2:
Percentages of pupils achieving Level 5* or above in Key Stage 2 tests and teacher assessments by
gender.

Percentage of pupils at Level 5 or above

Boys Girls
2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007
English Test 21 26 28 33 39 39
Reading Test 39 41 44 47 53 52
Writing Test 10 13 15 21 23 24
Mathematics Test 33 36 35 28 31 30
Science Test 48 45 47 46 46 46

English TA 21 23 24 32 34 35
Mathematics TA 32 34 35 28 30 30
Science TA 37 38 38 35 37 38

*
Level 5 or above means Level 5 in Key Stage 2 tests, and Level 5 or Level 6 in Key Stage 2 teacher
assessments. Level 6 cannot be attained in Key Stage 2 test.
(DCSF, 2007a)

Assignment 1. 10.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

The figures provided within this Statistical First Release (DCSF, 2007a) are based on provisional
National Curriculum assessment data provided to the Department for Children, Schools and Families
(DCSF) by the National Assessment Agency’s (NAA) contracted external data collection agency.
Amendments on the national results, that result from the checking exercise for the 2007 Primary
Achievement and Attainment Tables, is ‘typically of the order of plus or minus one percentage point,
although slightly bigger revisions may be seen for the TA figures’ (DCSF, 2007a: 5), however it is
recognised that some teacher assessment data has not been included due to technical issues during
file submission.

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) have responsibility for maintaining the high
professional standards set out in the National Statistics Code of Practice.

‘The rigour of QCA’s standards maintenance procedures has been endorsed by external
observers, including the independent Rose panel, which found that they bear comparison
with best practice in the world, and have not been subject to any political interference. The
processes rest on a range of evidence about test standard, brought to bear at the level
setting meeting. This evidence includes pre-test evidence from experienced markers on how
pupils performed in the live test and statistical evidence about that pupil performance.’
(DCSF, 2007a: 5)

Haylock with Thangata (2007) argue that it is important to understand that, ‘whereas statistical
trends may show some overall differences in achievement, individual pupils of both sexes are
positioned right across the range’ (Haylock with Thangata, 2007: 74).

This Statistical First Release would again seem to support the assumption that there is a difference
between boys and girls that makes boys predisposed to do better in mathematics; that there is an
intrapsychological difference between males and females that influences the construction of
knowledge and cognitive development in mathematics. However, this could also indicate that the
learning style of boys in relation to mathematics and the method of assessment offered afford them
a more advantageous position.

Boys, Girls, and Learning Styles

Geist and King (2008) present the argument that, in many mathematics classrooms, ‘the classroom
climate, learning style, instructional style, and experience offered to boys and girls may not address
the needs of either gender’ (Geist & King, 2008: 1), and that traditional methods of teaching the
mathematics curriculum based on the traditional skills model of memorisation and rote recitation
rather than open, problem solving environments is having a detrimental effect on both boys and
girls (Kindlon, 2000; Gurian, 2005). However, Boaler (1997) argues that although both boys and

Assignment 1. 11.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

girls are negatively affected by this, ‘the greatest disadvantages were experienced by the girls,
mainly because of their preferred learning styles and ways of working’ (Boaler, 1997: 110).

Belencky et al. (1986), and Becker (1995) suggest that boys tend to value a ‘separate’ concept of
knowledge construction and learning involving logic, rigour, and abstraction, whilst girls tend to
value a ‘connected’ concept of knowledge construction and learning involving intuition, creativity,
experience, and consequently understanding (Boaler, 1997). Becker (1995) claims that the
traditional methods of teaching the mathematics curriculum place emphasise on a ‘separate’ concept
of knowledge construction and learning, and thus girls are ‘denied access to success in mathematics
because they tend to be ‘connected’ thinkers’ (Boaler, 1997: 111). Head (1995) extended Belencky
et al. and Becker’s concepts and ideas to suggest boys prefer competitive, pressurised
environments, whilst girls prefer co-operative, supportive working environments. Boaler (1997),
however, argues that although boys actually prefer an open, problem solving environment, when
confronted with a traditional, closed approach of teaching the mathematics curriculum, they seem
able to ‘adapt’ with greater success than girls.

Geist and King (2008) acknowledge and support research which has shown that ‘girls tend to feel
less confident about their answers on tests and often express doubt about their performance. Boys,
however, tend to show more confidence and sometimes overconfidence’ (Geist & King, 2008: 1).
Bevan (2001), and Leedy et al. (2003) reveal that these differences between boys and girls extend
beyond the individual problem solving within the mathematics classroom into their general view of
mathematics, with girls enjoyment of mathematics deteriorating much more drastically than that of
boys. Geist and King (2008) report that although boys and girls are competing at a similar level,
there are significant differences in their experiences of learning mathematics (Bevan, 2001).

Haylock with Thangata (2007) reported that teachers, particularly male teachers, are:

‘sometimes observed to be more protective towards girls in the way they deal with pupils’
problems and errors in mathematics. Such behaviour by the teacher could serve to
reinforce a non-risk-taking approach to problem solving in girls, while giving the boys the
advantages of more opportunities to sort things out for themselves and thereby to construct
their own meaning more securely.’
(Haylock with Thangata, 2007: 78)

As a reflective practitioner implementation of the Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status
such as Q1, Q10, Q27, Q29, and Q31, for example, should address and resolve issues such as
those stated above.

Boaler (1997) presents compelling evidence that it is a ‘desire’ to understand and construct
meaning, rather than a difference in their ability or potential to understand mathematics, that
differentiates girls from boys, an argument supported by numerous educators, including D’Arcangelo

Assignment 1. 12.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

(2001), and Geist and King (2008), with the latter concluding that ‘while their (boys and girls)
ability and potential to understand higher level mathematics is equal, their brains are different and
more importantly, their approach to learning may be different’ (Geist & King, 2008: 2).

Linn and Peterson (1986), however, examined biological explanations for gender differences in
mathematics attainment and concluded:

‘Some have suggested that spatial ability difference might be biologically determined and
provide the mechanism for a biological influence on mathematics and science. No evidence
for that view can be found.’
(Linn & Peterson, 1986: 94)

The assessment data, literature, and research on gender differences in mathematics learning and
achievement supports the supposed existence of a ‘gender gap’. However, rather than a biological
difference in ability or potential to understand mathematics between boys and girls, that makes
boys predisposed to do better in mathematics, the extensive research indicates that the learning
style of boys in relation to mathematics and the method of assessment offered afford them a more
advantageous position, as boys seem able to ‘adapt’ to the traditional, closed approach of teaching
the mathematics curriculum with greater success than girls.

Therefore, rather than a difference in ability or potential to understand mathematics, their approach
to learning mathematics may be different; there is an intrapsychological difference between males
and females that influences the construction of knowledge and cognitive development in
mathematics. This intrapsychological difference, however, does not make boys predisposed to do
better in mathematics, nevertheless, boys seem able to adapt to the traditional curriculum and
pedagogy of schools with greater success than girls.

Assignment 1. 13.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Gender, Group Composition, and Mathematics

‘The benefits to learning of working in groups have been known for some time’ (Edwards & Jones,
2003: 135), with numerous educators (e.g. Koehler, 1990; Lou et al., 1996) acknowledging that
attainment within mathematics may be influenced by the classroom organisation. Lou et al. (1996)
reveals that the variety of students within the classroom ‘means that teachers face difficult
pedagogical decisions if students are to learn effectively and enjoyably’ (Lou et al., 1996: 423).

Peterson (1988) conducted a study into the development of higher-order mathematics, and
recommended ‘teaching approaches which analyse children’s thinking and place greater emphasis
on problem-solving and more active learning, including work in small cooperative peer groups’
(Jaworski, 1994: 9).

In addition, Peterson (1988) emphasised classroom processes such as:

a) a focus on meaning and understanding mathematics and on the learning task;

b) encouragement of student autonomy, independence, self-direction and persistence in
learning; and
c) teaching of higher-order cognitive processes and strategies.
(Peterson, 1988 quoted from Jaworski, 1994: 9)

Wilkinson and Fung (2002) examined ‘the extent to which the grouping of students within classes
affects their learning processes and outcomes’ (Wilkinson & Fung, 2002: 426), and presents the
argument that ‘learning is socially constructed during interaction and activity with others, so there is
interdependence of social and individual processes in the co-construction of knowledge’ (Wilkinson &
Fung, 2002: 426).

Group Size

Wilkinson and Fung (2002) reveal that few studies have ‘examined systematically the relationship
between group size and learning outcomes’ (Wilkinson & Fung, 2002: 436), however, although
individual study findings appear varied, there appears to be a negative correlation between group
size and learning outcomes. Levine and Moreland (1990) concluded that:

‘as a group grows larger, it also changes in other ways, generally for the worse. People who
belong to larger groups are less satisfied, participate less often, and are less likely to
cooperate with one another.’
(Levine & Moreland, 1990: 593)

Assignment 1. 14.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Vygotsky placed great emphasise on social interaction and communication being perquisites for
learning, with the ‘developmental process deeply rooted in the links between individual and social
history’ (Vygotsky, 1978: 30). Therefore, this relationship between group size and learning
outcomes seems to be of central importance in relation to the implementation of social
constructivism as a theory about knowledge and learning within the mathematics classroom.

Numerous educators (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Kagan, 1988; Cohen, 1994; Lou et al., 1996; Wilkinson
& Fung, 2002) report the optimal size group for learning and achievement consists of four members,
however, Wilkinson et al. (2002) acknowledge that ‘evidence on students’ interaction and learning in
groups of different sizes is equivocal’ (Wilkinson & Fung, 2002: 437). Lou et al. (1996) reports that
‘pairs achieved significantly more than students in ungrouped classes’ (Lou et al., 1996: 448), as
interaction was a perquisite for learning (Wilkinson & Fung, 2002), however, the limitation of pairs is
that ‘if the task is a challenging one requiring academic and other creative abilities, there is a strong
chance that some pairs will not have adequate resources to complete the task’ (Cohen, 1994: 73).
Cohen (1994), and Wilkinson et al. (2002) reveal that groups consisting of three members often
results in two members forming a ‘coalition’ and subsequently ignoring questions, concepts, and
ideas proposed by the third member. Barnes and Todd (1977), and Cohen (1994) report that groups
consisting of five members results in members remaining silent, rather than participating. Finally,
Lou et al. (1996) argues that groups of six to ten members ‘did not learn significantly more than
students from ungrouped classes’ (Lou et al., 1996: 448), thus negating the theoretically purposed
benefits of social constructivism.

Lou et al. (1996) meta-analysis concludes that:

‘there are small but positive effects of placing students in groups within the classroom for
learning. On average students placed in small groups achieved more, held more positive
attitudes, and reported higher general self-concept than students in nongrouped classes.’
(Lou et al., 1996: 446)

At this point, the assignment will progress and investigate the hypothesis that the difference in
learning styles of boys and girls influences mathematics learning and achievement in groups of
different gender composition; that the intrapsychological difference between males and females
influences the interpsychological construction of knowledge and cognitive development in
mathematics, as defined by Vygotsky (1978).

Grouping by Gender

‘Clearly, one issue underlying group composition is whether or not groups should be
heterogeneously composed according to ability, interests, liking, gender, ethnicity, and so

Assignment 1. 15.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

on. Unfortunately, a scant number of studies exist to integrate findings on group

composition criteria other than relative ability or prior achievement.’
(Lou et al., 1996: 426)

However, I personally believe the issue of group composition on the basis of gender provides an
extremely interesting field of research, particularly in relation to mathematics. Unfortunately,
research which has been conducted in this area has ‘partly yielded contradictory results’ (Busch,
1996: 125), however, ‘there are some insights to be gained that relate to gender differences’
(Koehler, 1990: 143).

Barnes and Todd (1977) suggest that homogenous gender groups are ‘slightly more comfortable,
and less challenging, because children at this age seem to define as ‘friends’ members of their own
sex only’ (Barnes & Todd, 1977: 86). In addition, Barnes and Todd (1977) report that where the
teacher defines heterogeneous gender groups the task ‘inevitably becomes that of coping with
working in this unaccustomed situation’ (Barnes & Todd, 1977: 86), with the possibility that the
gender groups form separate coalitions, thus encouraging a competitive rather than co-operative
environment. As previously reported, boys prefer competitive, pressurised environments, whilst girls
prefer co-operative, supportive working environment, therefore, formations of separate coalitions
within a teacher defined heterogeneous gender group would seem to afford boys a more
advantageous position in relation to mathematics learning and achievement.

Barnes and Todd (1977) conclude that:

‘where groups are making an initial exploration of difficult material, it would be wiser to
allow children to explore their half-intuited knowledge tentatively, and to reformulate as
they go along. But where the material is not so difficult, or where the children have got
beyond the initial, exploratory stage and the teacher wishes them to tighten up their
argument, and justify their thinking, then the mixed group will be more appropriate, as it is
here that arguments are more likely to be challenged, and justification required by group
members holding opposite views.’
(Barnes & Todd, 1977: 86)

Cohen (1994) extended Barnes and Todd’s concepts and ideas suggesting:

‘Mechanically insuring that each group has equal numbers of males and females or one or
two students of color has the disadvantage of making the basis of your decision clear to the
students. They will tend to focus on their fellow members as representatives of their race or
gender and are much less likely to respond to them as individual persons.’
(Cohen, 1994: 74)

Assignment 1. 16.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Dalton (1990), and Underwood et al. (1990) found that homogenous gender groups achieved
significantly more than heterogeneous gender groups, with the latter concluding that ‘only single
gender pairs improved their performance in comparison with individuals working alone’ (Busch,
1996: 125). This concluding statement by Busch, however, contradicts previously reported literature
and research that report the optimal size group for learning and achievement consists of four
members. Although Dalton, and Underwood et al. provide an excellent and compelling argument,
the ideas and concepts have been developed within a computer-based environment, and can
therefore be considered largely irrelevant within the mathematics classroom environment.

Webb (1984) found that ‘effects of gender might depend on the precise composition of mixed-
gender groups’ (Wilkinson & Fung, 2002: 435). Conducting the study within the mathematics
classroom environment, Webb compared the interaction and achievement of 77 students across ‘two
above-average eighth-grade mathematics classes and two below-average ninth-grade mathematics
classes’ (Koehler, 1990: 143). Students worked in co-operative, small mixed-gender groups for two
weeks that either had a male majority (three males and one female), a female majority (one male
and three females), or were gender balanced (two males and two females) (Koehler, 1990;
Wilkinson & Fung, 2002). Webb (1984) reports that within the above-average mathematics classes
males achieved significantly more than females. In addition, ‘girls and boys in the balanced-sex
group showed similar patterns of interaction and similar amounts of learning’ (Wilkinson & Fung,
2002: 435), whilst:

‘girls suffered in both the majority-girls and the majority-boys groups. In the majority-girls
groups, the girls directed most of their requests for help to the boy, but he tended not to
respond appropriately to their requests. In the majority-boys groups, the boys simply
ignored the girls. In both cases, the breakdown in interaction impeded the girls’ learning.’
(Wilkinson & Fung, 2002: 435)

In contrast, Webb (1984) reports that within the below-average mathematics classes ‘there was no
significant difference in achievement, nor was there a difference in the interaction patterns of males
and females’ (Koehler, 1990: 143). Webb and Kenderski (1985) argue that within the above-average
mathematics classes the males may have been exhibiting autonomous learning behaviours.

Busch (1996) concludes:

‘A general weakness of these studies is that only a few variables at the individual level are
considered in the analyses. Thus, it is difficult to ascertain whether there exist hidden
variables which would explain the documented differences between males and females and
between groups of various gender compositions.’
(Busch, 1996: 126)

Assignment 1. 17.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

The assessment data, literature, and research on grouping by gender, and how this influences
attainment within the mathematics classroom, supports the supposed negative relationship between
group size and mathematics learning and achievement. The existing research indicates that the
difference in learning styles of boys and girls influences mathematics learning and achievement in
groups of different gender composition; that the intrapsychological difference between males and
females influences the interpsychological construction of knowledge and cognitive development in
mathematics.

Therefore, the intrapsychological construction of knowledge and cognitive development is

‘indissolubly interconnected’ to, and therefore influences, the interpsychological construction of
knowledge and cognitive development.

Assignment 1. 18.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Conclusion

The assessment data, literature, and research on gender differences in mathematics learning and
achievement supports the supposed existence of a ‘gender gap’. However, rather than a biological
difference in ability or potential to understand mathematics between boys and girls, that makes
boys predisposed to do better in mathematics, the extensive research indicates that the learning
style of boys in relation to mathematics and the method of assessment offered afford them a more
advantageous position, as boys seem able to ‘adapt’ to the traditional, closed approach of teaching
the mathematics curriculum with greater success than girls.

Therefore, rather than a difference in ability or potential to understand mathematics, their approach
to learning mathematics may be different; there is an intrapsychological difference between males
and females that influences the construction of knowledge and cognitive development in
mathematics. This intrapsychological difference, however, does not make boys predisposed to do
better in mathematics, nevertheless, boys seem able to adapt to the traditional curriculum and
pedagogy of schools with greater success than girls.

The assessment data, literature, and research on grouping by gender, and how this influences
attainment within the mathematics classroom, supports the supposed negative relationship between
group size and mathematics learning and achievement. The existing research indicates that the
difference in learning styles of boys and girls influences mathematics learning and achievement in
groups of different gender composition; that the intrapsychological difference between males and
females influences the interpsychological construction of knowledge and cognitive development in
mathematics.

Therefore, the intrapsychological construction of knowledge and cognitive development is

‘indissolubly interconnected’ to, and therefore influences, the interpsychological construction of
knowledge and cognitive development.

The existing research conducted within the mathematics classroom environment seems to support
the use of co-operative, small gender balanced groups consisting of four members. However, as
previously reported, a scant number of studies exist to integrate findings on group composition
criteria other than relative ability or prior achievement, and research which has been conducted in
this area has partly yielded contradictory results. I personally believe there is a need for more
research that examines group composition in relation to gender within the mathematics classroom.

Therefore, this review of the assessment data, literature, and research on grouping by gender and
how this influences attainment within the mathematics classroom, constructed in a clear and concise
manner with relevant and appropriate research, will provide a firm foundation for, and consequently
support, a small-scale classroom-based research project. This small-scale classroom-based research

Assignment 1. 19.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

project will investigate how groups of different gender composition influence mathematics learning
and achievement.

Q3 a); Q6; Q7 a); Q8; Q9; Q10; Q13; Q15; Q18; Q21 a); Q324

Word Count

6,515

4
See ‘Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status’.

Assignment 1. 20.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

References

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION of UNIVERSITY WOMEN (1998) Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our
Children, Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation;
ARMSTRONG, J. M. (1981) Achievement and Participation of Women in Mathematics: Results of Two
National Surveys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 356-372;
BARNES, D. & TODD, F. (1977) Communication and Learning in Small Groups, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul Ltd;
BEATON, A. E., MULLIS, I. V. S., MARTIN, M. O., GONZALEZ, E. J., KELLY, D. L. & SMITH, T. A.
(1997a) Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA’s Third International
Mathematics and Science Report, Chestnut Hill: Boston College;
BEATON, A. E., MULLIS, I. V. S., MARTIN, M. O., GONZALEZ, E. J., KELLY, D. L. & SMITH, T. A.
(1997b) Science Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics
and Science Report, Chestnut Hill: Boston College;
BECKER, J. R. (1995) Women’s Ways of Knowing in Mathematics IN: ROGERS, P. & KAISER, G., eds.
Equity in Mathematics Education: Influences of Feminism and Culture, London: Falmer Press,
163-174;
BELENCKY, M. F., CLINCHY, B. M., GOLDBERGER, N. R. & TARULE, J. M. (1986) Women’s Ways of
Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind, New York: Basic Books;
BEVAN, R. (2001) Boys, Girls, and Mathematics: Beginning to Learn from the Gender Debate.
Mathematics in School, 30 (4), 2;
BOALER, J. (1997) Experiencing School Mathematics: Teaching Style, Sex and Setting, Buckingham:
Open University Press;
BROOKS, J. G. & BROOKS, M. G. (1993) In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist
Classrooms, Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development;
BRUNER, J. S. (1985) Vygotsky: A Historical and Conceptual Perspective IN: WERTSCH, J. V., ed.
Culture Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 21-34;
BUSCH, T. (1996) Gender, Group Composition, Cooperation, and Self-Efficacy in Computer Studies.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15 (2), 125-135;
CALLAHAN, L. G. & CLEMENTS, D. H. (1984) Sex Differences in Rote Counting Ability on Entry to
First Grade: Some Observations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 379-382;
COBB, P. (1988) The Tension between Theories of Learning and Instruction in Mathematics
Education. Educational Psychologist [online], 23 (2), 87-103.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2302_2;
COCKCROFT, W. H. (1982) Mathematics Counts, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office;
COHEN, E. G. (1994) Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom 3rd ed.,
New York: Teachers College Press;
DALTON, D. W. (1990) The Effects of Cooperative Learning Strategies on Achievement and Attitudes
during Interactive Video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 8-16;

Assignment 1. 21.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

D’ARCANGELO, M. (2001) Wired for Mathematics: A Conversation with Brain Butterworth.

Educational Leadership, 59 (3), 14;
DEPARTMENT for CHILDREN, SCHOOLS and FAMILIES (DCSF) (2007a) DCSF: National Curriculum
Assessments at Key Stage 2 in England, 2007 (Provisional) Department for Children, Schools and
Families [online], Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Available from: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000737/index.shtml;
DEPARTMENT for CHILDREN, SCHOOLS and FAMILIES (DCSF) (2007b) DCSF: National Curriculum
Assessments at Key Stage 1 in England, 2007 Department for Children, Schools and Families
[online], Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Available from: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000740/index.shtml;
DEPARTMENT for EDUCATION and EMPLOYMENT (DfEE) (1999) The National Curriculum: Handbook
for Primary Teachers in England: Key Stage 1 and 2, London: Department for Education and
Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority;
DRIVER, R. & BELL, B. (1986) Students’ Thinking and the Learning of Science: A Constructivist
View. School Science Review, 67 (240), 443-456;
EDWARDS, J. A. & JONES, K. (2003) Co-Learning in the Collaborative Mathematics Classroom IN:
PETER-KOOP, A., SANTOS-WAGNER, V., BREEN, C. & BEGG, A., eds. Collaboration in Teacher
Education: Examples from the Context of Mathematics Education, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 135-152;
ERNEST, P. (1991) The Philosophy of Mathematics Education, London: The Falmer Press;
ERNEST, P. (1993) Constructivism, the Psychology of Learning, and the Nature of Mathematics:
Some Critical Issues. Science and Education, 2 (1), 87-93;
ERNEST, P. (1994) Social Constructivism and the Psychology of Mathematics Education IN: ERNEST,
P., ed. Constructing Mathematical Knowledge: Epistemology and Mathematical Education,
London: The Falmer Press, 62-72;
ETHINGTON, C. A. (1990) Gender Differences in Mathematics: An International Perspective. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 74-80;
FENNEMA, E. & SHERMAN, J. A. (1978) Mathematics Achievement and Related Factors: A Further
Study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 189-203;
FRIEDMAN, L. (1989) Mathematics and the Gender Gap: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies of Sex
Differences in Mathematical Tasks. Review of Educational Research, 59 (2), 185-213;
GEIST, E. A. & KING, M. (2008) Different, Not Better: Gender Differences in Mathematics Learning
and Achievement BNET [online], Journal of Instructional Psychology.
Available from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_1_35/ai_n25374277/;
GONZALEZ, E. J. & MILES, J. A. (2001) TIMSS 1999 User Guide for the International Database,
Chestnut Hill: Boston College;
GURIAN, M. (2005) The Mind of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass;
HANNA, G. (1986) Sex Differences in Mathematics Achievement of Eighth Graders in Ontario.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education [online], 17, 231-237.
Available from: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.003

Assignment 1. 22.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

101;
HARRIES, T. & SPOONER, M. (2000) Mental Mathematics for the Numeracy Hour, London: David
Fulton Publishers Ltd;
HASTEDT, D. (2004) Differences Between Multiple Choice and Constructed Response Items in PIRLS
2001 IN: PAPANASTASIOU, C., ed. Proceedings of the IRC-2004 PIRLS (Vol. 3), Cyprus: Cyprus
University Press;
HASTEDT, D. & SIBBERNS, H. (2005) Differences between Multiple Choice Items and Constructed
Response Items in the IEA TIMSS Surveys. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 145-161;
HAYLOCK, D. with THANGATA, F. (2007) Key Concepts in Teaching Primary Mathematics, London:
SAGE Publications Ltd;
HEAD, J. (1995) Gender Identity and Cognitive Style, London: UNESCO;
JAWORSKI, B. (1994) Investigating Mathematics Teaching: A Constructivist Enquiry, London: The
Falmer Press;
KAGAN, S. (1988) Cooperative Learning: Resources for Teachers, Riverside: University of Califonia;
KINDLON, D. J. (2000) Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional Life of Boys, New York: Ballantine
Books;
KOEHLER, M. S. (1990) Classrooms, Teachers, and Gender Differences in Mathematics IN:
FENNEMA, E. & LEDER, G. C., eds. Mathematics and Gender, New York: Teachers College Press,
128-148;
LEDER, G. C. (1992) Mathematics and Gender: Changing Perspectives IN: GROUWS, D. A., ed.
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 597-622;
LEEDY, M. G., LaDONDE, D. & RUNK, K. (2003) Gender Equity in Mathematics: Beliefs of Students,
Parents, and Teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 103 (6), 285;
LEVINE, J. M. & MORELAND, R. L. (1990) Progress in Small Group Research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41 (1), 585-634;
LINN, M. C. & PETERSON, A. C. (1986) A Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Spatial Ability:
Implications for Mathematics and Science Achievement IN: HYDE, J. S. & LINN, M. C., eds. The
Psychology of Gender Advances through Meta-Analysis, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press, 67-101;
LOU, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J. C., POULSEN, C., CHAMBERS, B. & D’APOLLONIA, S. (1996)
Within-Class Grouping: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 459-506;
MARSHALL, S. P. (1983) Sex Differences in Mathematical Errors: An Analysis of Distractor Choices.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 325-336;
MALONE, J. A. & TAYLOR, P. C. S. (1993) Constructivist Interpretations of Teaching and Learning
Mathematics, Perth: Curtin University of Technology;
MERTTENS, R. (1996) Teaching Numeracy: Maths in the Primary Classroom, Leamington Spa:
Scholastic;
MULLIS, I. V. S., MARTIN, M. O., GONZALEZ, E. J. & CHROSTOWSKI, S. J. (2004) TIMSS 2003
International Mathematics Report: Findings from the IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades, Chestnut Hill: Boston College;

Assignment 1. 23.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

MULLIS, I. V. S., MARTIN, M. O., GONZALEZ, E. J., GREGORY, K. D., GARDEN, R. A., O’CONNOR, K.
M., et al. (2000) TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of
the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grade, Chestnut
Hill: Boston College;
NEUSCHMIDT, O., BARTH, J. & HASTEDT, D. (2008) Trends in Gender Differences in Mathematics
and Science (TIMSS 1995-2003). Studies in Educational Education [online], 34 (2), 56-72.
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9B-4SMF273-
1&_user=126770&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000010399&_versio
n=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=126770&md5=eec8e4b61e8bf6edb63d1d392da56a75;
OLLERENSHAW, C. & RITCHIE, R. (1995) Primary Science: Making it Work, London: David Fulton
Publishers Ltd;
PETERSON, P. L. (1988) Teaching for Higher-Order Thinking in Mathematics IN: GROUWS, D. A., ed.
Perspectives on Research on Effective Mathematics Teaching: Volume 1, Reston: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics, 2-26;
REYES, L. H. (1983) Editorial. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 146;
SCOTT, P. (1987) A Constructivist View of Learning and Teaching in Science, Leeds: University of
Leeds, Centre for the Study of Science and Mathematics;
THOM, D. (1987) Better a Teacher than a Hairdresser? ‘A Mad Passion for Equality’, or, Keeping Molly
and Betty Down IN: HUNT, F., ed. Lessons for Life. The Schooling of Girls and Women, 1850-
1950, Oxford: Blackwell, 124-146;
UNDERWOOD, G., McCAFFREY, M. & UNDERWOOD, J. (1990) Gender Differences in a Cooperative
Computer-Based Language Task. Educational Research, 13, 21-39;
von GLASERFELD, E. (1989) Constructivism in Education IN: HUSEN, T. & POSTLETHWAITE, T. N.,
eds. International Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 162-163;
VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press;
WEBB, N. M. (1984) Sex Differences in Interaction and Achievement in Cooperative Small Groups.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 33-34;
WEBB, N. M. & KENDERSKI, C. M. (1985) Gender Differences in Small-Group Interaction and
Achievement in High- and Low-Achieving Classes IN: WILKINSON, L. C. & MARRETT, C. B., eds.
Gender Differences in Classroom Interaction, New York: Academic Press, 209-236;
WILKINSON, I. A. G. & FUNG, I. Y. Y. (2002) Small-Group Composition and Peer Effects.
International Journal of Educational Research [online], 37 (5), 425-447.
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDF-499FDN0-
4&_user=126770&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000010399&_versio
n=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=126770&md5=e03afb06636a4db496d0e97cc4265024;
WOOD, D. J., BRUNER, J. S. & ROSS, G. (1976) The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17 (2), 89-100;

Assignment 1. 24.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status

Professional Attributes

Frameworks

Q3 a) Made aware of the professional duties of teachers and the statutory framework within
which they work;

Communicating and Working With Others

Q6 Have a commitment to collaboration and co-operative working;

Personal Professional Development

Q7 a) Reflected on and improved personal practice, and took responsibility for identifying and
meeting personal developing professional needs;

Q8 Have a creative and constructively critical approach towards innovation, being prepared
to adopt practice where benefits and improvements were identified;

Q9 Acted upon advice and feedback, both positive and negative, and was open to coaching
and mentoring;

Professional Knowledge and Understanding

Teaching and Learning

Q10 Gained a knowledge and understanding of a range of teaching, learning and behaviour
management strategies and how to use and adapt them, including how to personalise
learning and provide opportunities for all learners to achieve their potential;

Assessment and Monitoring

Q13 Gained knowledge on how to use local and national statistical information to evaluate
the effectiveness of teaching, to monitor the progress of those taught and to raise
levels of attainment;

Assignment 1. 25.
Student Name: Thomas Grove
I.D. Number: 22661727
Programme: PGCE (Primary)

Subjects and Curriculum

Q15 Understood the relevant statuary and non-statuary curricula, frameworks, including
those provided through the National Strategies, for subjects/curriculum areas, and
other relevant initiatives applicable to the age and ability range;

Achievement and Diversity

Q18 Understood how children and young people develop and that the progress and well-
being of learners is affected by a range of developmental, social, religious, ethnic,
cultural and linguistic influences;

Health and Well-being

Q21 a) Made aware of current legal requirements, national policies and guidance on the
safeguarding and promotion on the well-being of children and young people;

Professional Skills

Team Working and Collaboration

Q32 Worked as a team member and identified opportunities for working with colleagues,
sharing the development of effective practice with them.

Assignment 1. 26.