The spatial pathway to mathematical competence is relatively more important for boys and the in-class attention pathway for girls, confirming the differential contributions hypothesis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Model 4 fitted paths from sex to Spatial (β = 0.35) and In-Class Attention (β = −0.21), both significant, confirming boys' spatial advantage and girls' attention advantage feed into mathematics. → Geary David C. 2023

Evidence¶

Geary David C. 2023¶

Geary David C., Hoard Mary K., Nugent Lara, Ünal Zehra E. (2023). Sex Differences in Developmental Pathways to Mathematical Competence. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000763

q3 · i? · associational · r2

SEM Model 4 in the longitudinal sample, the model testing the study's main hypothesis, with significant improvement in fit (Δχ2(2) = 78.17, p < .001). The article prints "β = −0.21" and "β = 0.35" for the sex paths.

"The path from sex to In-Class Attention, β = −0.21, t = −4.43, p < .001, confirmed lower engagement of boys relative to girls in classrooms. The path from sex to Spatial, β = 0.35, t = 7.23, p < .001, confirmed better developed spatial abilities in boys relative to girls."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — predictor: outcomes differ by group: a gap reflecting circumstances and treatment, not a cause
• Spatial Ability — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Boys hold advantages on all spatial measures while girls are more attentive in classroom settings — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Spatial abilities and in-class attention each uniquely predict mathematical competence from 6th to 9th grade, controlling general ability — related
• Girls show significantly higher task orientation than boys in preschool — related