logo
Study confirms there's no innate difference in aptitude between boys and girls in math

Study confirms there's no innate difference in aptitude between boys and girls in math

Yahoo18-07-2025
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Classroom teaching may be driving a gender gap in math performance, and the effect starts from the moment children begin school, a new study finds.
The study, published July 11 in the journal Nature, included data on the math skills of more than 2.5 million first-grade children in France. It revealed that, while girls and boys started school with a similar level of math skills, within four months, boys performed significantly better than girls. That gap quadrupled in size by the end of the first year of formal education.
Gender gaps in math performance have been documented the world over, and the origin of this disparity has long been blamed on supposedly inherent differences between the genders — "boys are better at math" and "girls are better at language" — that are actually just stereotypes without scientific backing.
But the new study — and previous studies conducted in the U.S. — throw a wrench in those ideas, and instead suggest that something about formal math education spurs the gap to form.
"I was very surprised, not by the fact that there was a gender gap, but that it emerges at the time when formal math instruction in school begins," study coauthor Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, told Live Science.
Formal education widens gaps
The new study leveraged an initiative by the French Ministry of Education to boost national math standards, which was launched after several years of disappointing performances in international assessments and uncovered the disturbing extent of the math skills gender gap in the country.
Related: Is there really a difference between male and female brains? Emerging science is revealing the answer.
With the aid of cognitive scientists and educators, the French government implemented a universal program of testing for all French children to help teachers better understand the needs of each class and inform updated national standards. Since 2018, every child's math and language skills have been assessed upon entry into first grade, the first mandatory year of schooling in France. They were tested again after four months of formal education and then after one complete year of learning.
These tests revealed no notable differences between girls' and boys' mathematical ability when starting school. However, within four months, a sizable gap opened up between them, placing boys ahead, and that gap only grew as schooling progressed, suggesting that classroom activities had created the disparity, the study authors proposed.
Spelke and her team's analysis covered four national cohorts whose data were collected between 2018 and 2022, and included demographic data to probe the role of external social factors — such as family structure and socioeconomic status (SES) — on school performance. But they found that the emergence of the math gender gap was universal and transcended every parameter investigated: regardless of SES, family structure or type of school, on average, boys performed substantially better in the third assessment than did girls.
This bolstered the hypothesis that an aspect of the schooling itself was to blame. And that idea was further supported by data from the cohort impacted by COVID-related school closures, Spelke added.
"When schools were closed during the pandemic, the gender gap got narrower and then they reopened and it got bigger again," she said. "So there are lots of reasons to think that the gender gap is linked in some way that we don't understand to the onset and progress of formal math instruction."
Causes of the math performance gap
For Jenefer Golding, a pedagogy specialist at University College London who was not involved in the study, the research raises worrying questions about attitudes or behaviors in the classroom that could be creating this disparity.
"Gendered patterns are widespread but they're not inevitable," Golding told Live Science. "It's about equity of opportunity. We need to be quite sure that we're not putting avoidable obstacles in the way of young people who might thrive in these fields." However, separating these educational factors from possible social or biological contributors remains a complex issue, she said.
As a purely observational study, the research does not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about why this gender gap becomes so pronounced upon starting school. But the alarming findings are already prompting discussion among educational experts.
Educational analyst Sabine Meinck of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement drew on her own research, noting that "our data suggest early gendered patterns in parental engagement, [so] gender stereotypes may begin to take root through early childhood play."
RELATED STORIES
—'Let's just study males and keep it simple': How excluding female animals from research held neuroscience back, and could do so again
—When was math invented?
—Parents who have this gene may be more likely to have a girl
For example, "parents report engaging girls significantly more in early literacy activities, while boys are more often involved with building blocks and construction toys," she told Live Science in an email. That may be laying a foundation for how kids engage with reading and math learning in school. These differences in early childhood play have previously correlated with differing levels of scholastic achievement down the line.
The next step requires more research in classrooms, Spelke said, where researchers should gather data to develop interventions that could be useful to students, then test them. "And when we find that something is working, then it can be implemented across the board."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The nerve-zapping device that ‘could help improve your fitness'
The nerve-zapping device that ‘could help improve your fitness'

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

The nerve-zapping device that ‘could help improve your fitness'

A small device that zaps a major nerve connecting the heart and brain could help improve fitness, an early trial suggests. The device, clipped to the outer ear, sends gentle electrical pulses to increase the activity of the vagus nerve, which plays a key role in regulating heart function. Wearing the stimulator for just 30 minutes a day increased oxygen intake during exercise, according to researchers, who hope it could one day be used to help people who are not very active. The study, led by researchers at University College London and Queen Mary University of London, involved 28 healthy volunteers. Half were given the nerve stimulator to wear for 30 minutes every day for a week, while the other half were given a dummy device. Following a two-week break, the groups swapped devices. All of those taking part in the trial had an exercise test at the beginning and end of the week they wore the stimulator. The trial, published in the European Heart Journal, found those wearing the nerve stimulator were able to exercise more intensely than when wearing the dummy device. After a week, the stimulator increased oxygen intake during exercise by 4 per cent. It also boosted maximum breathing rate by an average of four breaths per minute, and maximum heart rate by four beats per minute during exercise. Gareth Ackland, a professor of perioperative medicine at Queen Mary University of London School of Medicine, said: 'Maintaining physical activity is essential for every aspect of cardiovascular, emotional, and cognitive health. 'The outcome of the trial is consistent with the significant body of evidence pointing to an important role of the brain in optimising exercise performance and regulating the activity of the immune system, helped by the vagus nerve'. Blood samples were also take from five people, with researchers suggesting wearing the nerve stimulator for a week helped reduce inflammation. Prof Ackland added: 'We will need to carry out larger trials to confirm our findings, but the results of this study in healthy volunteers suggest that increasing vagus nerve activity can improve fitness and reduce inflammation, potentially offering new approaches to improve heart health.' Professor Bryan Williams, chief scientific and medical officer at the British Heart Foundation, which funded the study, said: 'This early study suggests that a simple technology, which harnesses the connection between the heart and the brain, can lead to improvements in fitness and exercise tolerance. 'While more research is needed involving people with cardiovascular disease, this could one day be used as a tool to improve wellbeing and quality of life for people with heart failure.'

To stay sharper while aging, get active, challenge your brain, and eat healthy
To stay sharper while aging, get active, challenge your brain, and eat healthy

Washington Post

time3 hours ago

  • Washington Post

To stay sharper while aging, get active, challenge your brain, and eat healthy

WASHINGTON — It's official: Older Americans worried about cognitive decline can stay sharper for longer by exercising both their bodies and their brains and eating healthier. That's according to initial results released Monday from a rigorous U.S. study of lifestyle changes in seniors at risk of developing dementia . People following a combination of healthier habits slowed typical age-related cognitive decline — achieving scores on brain tests as if they were a year or two younger, researchers reported in JAMA and at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference. It's not too late to get started -- study participants were in their 60s and 70s -- and it doesn't require becoming a pickleball champ or swearing off ice cream. 'It was the first time I felt like I was doing something proactive to protect my brain,' said Phyllis Jones, 66, of Aurora, Illinois, who joined the study after caring for her mother with dementia and struggling with her own health problems. It's too soon to know if stalling age-related decline also could reduce the risk of later Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. But Jones and other study participants underwent brain scans and blood tests that researchers now are analyzing for clues – such as whether people also saw a reduction in Alzheimer's-related protein buildup. 'We're all on a cognitive aging clock and anything we can do to slow that clock down, to me, that is a significant benefit,' said Laura Baker of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who led the study. Doctors have long encouraged physical activity and a healthy diet for brain fitness. Those steps fight high blood pressure and cholesterol, heart disease and diabetes, factors that increase the risk of dementia. But until now the strongest evidence that specific lifestyle changes later in life could improve how people perform on brain tests came from a study in Finland. Would it work for a more sedentary and culturally diverse U.S. population? With funding from the Alzheimer's Association and the National Institute on Aging, Baker's team tested the strategy for two years in 2,100 adults ages 60 to 79. Half of participants were randomly assigned to group classes for exercise and dietary changes plus brain-challenging homework – with peer support and coaches tracking their progress. They did a half-hour of moderately intense exercise four times a week -- plus twice a week, they added 10 to 15 minutes of stretching and 15 to 20 minutes of resistance training. They followed the 'MIND diet' that stresses lots of leafy greens and berries plus whole grains, poultry and fish. Nothing is banned but it urges limiting red meat, fried or 'fast food' and sweets, and substituting olive oil for butter and margarine. They also had to meet someone or try something new weekly and do brain 'exercises' using an online program called Brain HQ. Other study participants, the control group, received brain-healthy advice and minimal coaching — they chose what steps to follow. Both improved but the groups fared significantly better. Combining social engagement with exercise and dietary steps may be key, said Jessica Langbaum of the Banner Alzheimer's Institute, who wasn't involved with the study. 'Americans want to have that one easy thing – 'If I just eat my blueberries,'' Langbaum said. 'There is no one magic bullet. It is a whole lifestyle.' Moderately intense physical activity means raising your heart rate and panting a bit yet still able to talk, said Wake Forest's Baker. Pick something safe for your physical capability and start slowly, just 10 minutes at a time until you can handle more, she cautioned. Make it something you enjoy so you stick with it. Likewise there are many options for brain exercise, Baker said – puzzles, joining a book club, learning an instrument or a new language. Jones, a software engineer-turned-tester, learned she loves blueberry-spinach smoothies. Her favorite exercise uses an at-home virtual reality program that lets her work up a sweat while appearing to be in another country and communicating with other online users. Researchers will track study participants' health for four more years and the Alzheimer's Association is preparing to translate the findings into local community programs. Will people with stick with their new habits? Jones lost 30 pounds, saw her heart health improve and feels sharper especially when multitasking. But she hadn't realized her diet slipped when study coaching ended until a checkup spotted rising blood sugar. Now she and an 81-year-old friend from the study are helping keep each other on track. The lifestyle change 'did not just affect me physically, it also affected me mentally and emotionally. It brought me to a much better place,' Jones said. —- The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Concerned About Aluminum in Vaccines? Here's What the Research Shows
Concerned About Aluminum in Vaccines? Here's What the Research Shows

Yahoo

time9 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Concerned About Aluminum in Vaccines? Here's What the Research Shows

Real-world data from 1.2 million children offers strong reassurance. If you've ever paused at a vaccine ingredient list or felt confused while reading a vaccine insert, you're not alone. One ingredient that often sparks questions is aluminum, specifically aluminum salts used in some vaccines to help the immune system respond more effectively. But does the aluminum in vaccines pose a real risk to children's health? A new study out of Denmark, which tracked more than 1.2 million children over 24 years, offers strong reassurance: aluminum exposure from routine childhood vaccines was not linked to higher rates of autism, ADHD, asthma, or autoimmune disease. What is aluminum doing in vaccines? Aluminum salts aren't preservatives. They're adjuvants, something that helps certain vaccines work better by boosting the immune response. They've been used safely in childhood vaccines for decades. A real-world study with real-world relevance The concern about aluminum in vaccines isn't new. It's been used safely for decades in many non-live vaccines, like DTaP and Hib, to help the immune system respond better. The amount a child gets can vary a bit depending on which brand and version of a vaccine is used. That natural variation is actually what made this study possible. Researchers followed over 1.2 million children, tracking how much aluminum each child received from vaccines by age 2 (ranging from 0 to 4.5 mg total). Then, they followed up through age 5, and for some age 8, to see whether aluminum exposure was linked to (50 different conditions): Autoimmune disorders like type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and celiac disease Allergic conditions like asthma and eczema Neurodevelopmental diagnoses like autism and ADHD So, what did they find? Even when kids received more aluminum, their rates of these conditions didn't go up. In fact, kids who received more aluminum had slightly lower rates of some diagnoses, like autism and ADHD. That doesn't mean aluminum protects against anything. It just that it's not harmful at the levels used in childhood vaccines. And here's a key point: for many of the outcomes studied, the data was strong enough to rule out even small or moderate increases in risk. What about concerns or limitations? Some people will likely still have concerns about the study, and it's worth being transparent about the questions that come up, even when the data is strong. No study is perfect or 100% generalizable. Here's what critics might argue, and some thoughts on rationale. It's not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). True, it's an observational study, not the 'gold standard' for proving causality. But an RCT would mean intentionally withholding vaccines from children, which would be unethical. This study used naturally occurring differences in vaccine aluminum exposure, which is the next best, and most ethical, option. Some confounders might have been missed. Always a possibility. But, the study controlled for a lot: income, preterm birth, birthweight, maternal conditions, and more. But no study can control for everything. Still, the patterns were consistent across subgroups and time periods, which helps strengthen confidence in the results. Diagnoses came from health registries, not medical record review. That's true, but Denmark's health registries are considered high quality, and any misdiagnoses or under-reporting would likely be spread evenly across all groups, meaning it wouldn't skew the results. Denmark isn't the U.S. That's fair. But both countries vaccinate against the same diseases, using many of the same vaccine components, just with slightly different schedules and formulations. The underlying science and biologic principles are the same. What this study actually adds This study doesn't tell us that aluminum is good. It doesn't claim to end the conversation forever. But here's what it does offer: Reassurance grounded in data, not dismissal. Parents have asked smart questions for years. This isn't about 'just trust us,' it's about finally having large-scale, high-quality data to help answer those questions with clarity and care. Real-world relevance. This isn't a theoretical model or a lab experiment. It's 1.2 million real children, followed over 24 years, across a variety of vaccine exposures, and the results were consistent. Stronger evidence than ever before. While past studies raised concerns based on small samples or extreme exposures, this one helps fill a major gap: what happens when kids get routine aluminum-containing vaccines, as recommended, in actual pediatric care settings? The answer: no increased risk for autism, ADHD, allergies, or autoimmune conditions. Here's what's key to understand: This is exactly why large, real-world cohort studies, like the new Danish one, matter so much. They track actual vaccine use, actual outcomes, and actual kids. Bottom line And maybe most importantly? This keeps the focus where it belongs: informed, compassionate decision-making. Not panic. Not pressure. Not shame. If you've ever paused at a vaccine ingredient list, wondered about aluminum, or felt caught between headlines and your instincts, this study is for you. It doesn't shut the door on questions. But it opens the door wider for answers that are actually backed by evidence. Looking for more details on the study, concerns about past research, and how aluminum in vaccines differs from other exposures? You'll find it all in this PedsDocTalk Newsletter.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store