CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
When Grades Are High but Self-Efficacy Is Low : Unpacking the Confidence Gap Between Girls and Boys in Mathematics
Authors
Sophie Harms
Matthew J. Hornsey
+3 more
Elisabeth Höhne
Maximilian Pfost
Lysann Zander
Publication date
1 January 2020
Publisher
Lausanne : Frontiers Media
Doi
Cite
Abstract
Girls have much lower mathematics self-efficacy than boys, a likely contributor to the under-representation of women in STEM. To help explain this gender confidence gap, we examined predictors of mathematics self-efficacy in a sample of 1,007 9th graders aged 13–18 years (54.2% girls). Participants completed a standardized math test, after which they rated three indices of mastery: an affective component (state self-esteem), a meta-cognitive component (self-enhancement), and their prior math grade. Despite having similar grades, girls reported lower mathematics self-efficacy and state self-esteem, and were less likely than boys to self-enhance in terms of performance. Multilevel multiple-group regression analyses showed that the affective mastery component explained girls’ self-efficacy while cognitive self-enhancement explained boys’. Yet, a chi-square test showed that both constructs were equally relevant in the prediction of girls’ and boys’ self-efficacy. Measures of interpersonal sources of self-efficacy were not predictive of self-efficacy after taking the other dimensions into account. Results suggest that boys are advantaged in their development of mathematics self-efficacy beliefs, partly due to more positive feelings and more cognitive self-enhancement following test situations. © Copyright © 2020 Zander, Höhne, Harms, Pfost and Hornsey
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Institutionelles Repositorium der Leibniz Universität Hannover
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:www.repo.uni-hannover.de:1...
Last time updated on 11/04/2021
Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:refubium.fu-berlin.de:fub1...
Last time updated on 22/11/2020