Premium
Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: Are girls rote learners?
Author(s) -
Meece Judith L.,
Jones M. Gail
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of research in science teaching
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.067
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1098-2736
pISSN - 0022-4308
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199604)33:4<393::aid-tea3>3.0.co;2-n
Subject(s) - rote learning , psychology , class (philosophy) , developmental psychology , mastery learning , self confidence , mathematics education , science education , social psychology , cooperative learning , teaching method , artificial intelligence , computer science
This study explored Ridley and Novak's (1983) hypothesis that gender differences in science achievement are due to differences in rote and meaningful learning modes. To test this hypothesis, we examined gender differences in fifth‐ and sixth‐grade students' ( N = 213) self‐reports of confidence, motivation goals (task mastery, ego, and work avoidance), and learning strategies (active and superficial) in whole‐class and small‐group science lessons. Overall, the results revealed few gender differences. Compared with girls, boys reported greater confidence in their science abilities. Average‐achieving girls reported greater use of meaningful learning strategies than did their male counterparts, whereas low‐ability boys reported a stronger mastery orientation than did low‐ability girls. The results further showed that students report greater confidence and mastery motivation in small‐group than whole‐class lessons. In contrast, students reported greater work avoidance in whole‐class than small‐group lessons. In general, the findings provide little support for Ridley and Novak's hypothesis that girls tend to engage in rote‐level learning in science classes. Differences in self‐reports of motivation and strategy‐use patterns were more strongly related to the student's ability level and to the structure of learning activities (small group vs. whole class) than to gender. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.