Claire Lenehan - Final Honours Thesis PDF

IMPLICIT MATH-GENDER STEREOTYPE IN PROCEDURAL AND CONCEPTUAL
FRACTION LEARNERS
BY
CLAIRE A. LENEHAN
A Thesis submitted to the Psychology Department

In partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Honours
Degree, Faculty of Arts
Department of Psychology
Memorial University of Newfoundland
April 2014
MATH-GENDER STEREOTYPE
i
Abstract
Recent research suggests that students can be classified as either conceptual or procedural
fractions learners, and that these two groups differ on several motivational variables (Bakhtiar,
2013). This follow-up study examined potential relationships between conceptual vs. procedural
learners, motivation, and gender, by introducing an IAT of math-gender stereotype. Contrary to
Bakhtiar (2013), a number of three-way interactions between motivation, cluster membership
and gender were discovered. These findings suggest that there are some differences between
conceptual and procedural learners with regard to motivational variables, but more research must
be conducted to determine the nature and extent of these differences.
Keywords: conceptual and procedural knowledge; academic motivation; math-gender stereotype;

IAT
ii
Acknowledgements
This project would not have been possible without the unwavering support of my
supervisor, Dr. Darcy Hallett, who provided excellent guidance and assistance. Deep gratitude is
also due to Kyle Morrissey for his patience and mentorship. I thank you both for your time and
commitment. Thank you also to the members of the Research Centre for the Development of
Mathematical Cognition. Finally, sincere thanks to the teachers, and students who participated in
this research and made the study possible.
iii
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract... i
Acknowledgements ii
Table of Contentsiii
List of Tables...... iv
List of Figures. v
Introduction.. 1
Individual Differences between Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge 2
Motivational Differences ..3
Implicit Gender Associations With Math.. 5
The Current Study..6
Method. 7
Participants.... 7
Measure..7
Procedure... 10
Results 12
Discussion..32
References. 37
Appendices.40
iv
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Each Scale.....15
Table 2. Inter-correlation Matrix......16
Table 3. Language and Math IAT Correlations for Males and Females...17
Table 4. Regression Analyses Predicting Conceptual Scores.......19
Table 5. Regression Analyses Predicting Conceptual Scores (With IAT).....24
Table 6. Regression Analyses Predicting Procedural Scores....26
Table 7. Regression Analyses Predicting Procedural Scores (With IAT).30
v
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Cluster solution for residualized conceptual and procedural scores..13

Figure 2. Three-way interaction between verbal self-concept, cluster membership and gender,
with conceptual scores as the dependent variable..20
Figure 3. Three-way interaction between external attribution for math success, cluster
membership and gender, with conceptual scores as the dependent variable.21
Figure 4. Three-way interaction between performance avoidance orientation, cluster membership
and gender with conceptual scores as the independent variable22
Figure 5. Two-way interaction between performance orientation and gender, with conceptual
scores as the dependent variable25
with procedural scores as the dependent variable..27
and gender, with procedural scores as the dependent variable. 28
Figure 8. Three-way interaction between external attribution of math success, cluster
membership and gender, with procedural scores as the dependent variable.....31
Implicit Math-Gender Stereotype in Procedural and Conceptual Fraction Learners

Mathematical cognition researchers have described two types of mathematical knowledge:
conceptual and procedural (Hiebert and LeFevre, 1986). Conceptual knowledge refers to
understandings of how pieces of knowledge or entities relate to one another. True conceptual
knowledge requires the ability to see interconnections between separate units of information. This
knowledge is developed through constructing an understanding of the relationships between
different types information (Hiebert & LeFevre, 1986). In contrast, procedural knowledge consists
of knowing how to follow a sequence of actions in order to achieve a goal. In mathematics,
procedural knowledge presents as the ability to follow mathematical algorithms and rules to arrive
at the correct answer to a problem (Hallett, Nunes, & Bryant, 2010). The ability to perform
procedures does not depend on a complete conceptual understanding of a given mathematical
problem, but instead only the steps necessary in order to complete or solve a problem. For
example, a student could memorize the procedural steps required for multiplying fractions, without
necessarily understanding what the fractions represent. As described by Hiebert and LeFevre
(1986), these procedural steps may be executed linearly and independent of meaning.
Early research on conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics investigated the
developmental order in which these two types of knowledge emerge, with contradictory findings.
Some researchers have suggested that conceptual knowledge emerges before procedural
knowledge (Byrnes & Wasik, 1991), while others have suggested that children either learn
procedures first (Peck & Jencks, 1981), or that both types of knowledge develop in tandem and
serve to reinforce each other in the process of learning (Rittle-Johnson, Siegler, & Alibali, 1998).
More recent research (Hallett et al., 2010, Hallett, Nunes, Bryant & Thorpe, 2012, Hecht &
Vagi, 2012) has suggested instead that there may be individual differences in how students
combine these two types of mathematical knowledge. In other words, there are some children who
rely more on conceptual knowledge and some children who rely more on procedural knowledge.
Although the existence of these different groups of children may explain some of the earlier
contradictions of previous research, it has also opened up new questions. If there are children who
differ on their relative reliance on conceptual and procedural knowledge, how else do they differ?
Is the conceptual-procedural profile the only thing that differentiates these children from each
other?
The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether more conceptual children differ from
more procedural children on a set of motivational variables and gender associations. Bakhtiar
(2013) has already begun to ask some of these questions in regards to motivational questions, but
her results included some interesting interactions with gender. For this reason, the research
reported here will extend her work by considering how implicit gender associations about math
(i.e., boys are good at math, girls are good at language) may also differ between these groups.
First, it is necessary to more thoroughly review the previous research in this field.
Individual Differences in Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge
Hallett et al. (2010) were the first researchers to investigate individual differences in how
children combine conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions. Their study investigated the
hypothesis that there are individual differences in the way that children combine conceptual and
procedural knowledge of fractions. The participants in their study, Grade 4 and 5 students,
completed a test of fractions understanding, which included both procedural and conceptual
fractions questions. A cluster analysis was performed using the students residualized scores and it
was determined that the children fell into one of 5 clusters lower procedural, lower conceptual,
higher procedural-lower conceptual, higher conceptual-lower procedural and higher.
Hecht and Vagis (2012) follow-up study also tested students in Grade 4 and 5 and had
similar results. They found that a 5-cluster solution was most appropriate for Grade 4 students,
while a 7-cluster solution was best for Grade 5 students. They also discovered that the highestperforming group was the cluster with higher conceptual and higher procedural scores, followed
by the cluster with higher conceptual and lower procedural scores, the cluster with higher
procedural and lower conceptual scores, and lastly, the cluster with both lower conceptual and
procedural math scores.
Hallett and colleagues (2012) tested students in Grade 6 and 8 using measures of
conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions, general fraction knowledge, general conceptual
ability and general procedural math ability. Among Grade 6 students, four distinct clusters were
identified: students who were strong in both procedural and conceptual knowledge, students who
were weak in both procedural and conceptual knowledge, students who were stronger in
procedural knowledge, and students who were stronger in conceptual knowledge. This Grade 6
cluster pattern was similar to what was found with Grade 4 and 5 students by both Hallett and his
colleagues (2010) and Hecht and Vagi (2012). The cluster pattern with Grade 8 students, however,
was much different, as only two clusters of Grade 8 students were identified: students who were
stronger in conceptual knowledge and those who were stronger in procedural knowledge. Hallett
and his colleagues were unable to say why Grade 8s exhibited this simpler cluster pattern.
Nevertheless, it provided an opportunity to explore how children who differ in their relative
strength in conceptual versus procedural knowledge may also differ in other ways.
Motivational Differences
In a follow-up to Hallett and colleagues (2012), Bakhtiar (2013) conducted the first study
to examine whether conceptual and procedural learners differ in terms of their academic
motivation. Students in Grade 8 were tested using Hallett and his colleagues (2012) measure of
procedural and conceptual fraction knowledge. Students were separated into clusters that were
either stronger in conceptual knowledge or stronger in procedural knowledge, as performed in
Hallett and colleagues (2012), and results were examined in relation to motivation. Motivation was
examined through three constructs that help to form academic motivation self-concept, selfattribution and goal orientation.
Self-concept was examined in broad terms as the perception of oneself, as defined by
Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976). Self-concept is formed through ones experiences and can
change over time. It can explain and/or predict how a person may act in a given situation. Bakhtiar
(2013) tested both math and verbal self-concept. Bakhtiar (2013) was interested in whether
students perceived the causes for their success and failure in mathematics to be related to ability,
effort, or external factors. Bakhtiar (2013) defined goal orientation as an individuals purposes or
aims with respect to developing competence at an activity or set of activities. An individuals
achievement goals can be categorized as either mastery or performance oriented (Ames, 1992).
Bakhtiar (2013) performed regression analyses to determine whether there is a relationship
between the grouping of individuals as either conceptual or procedural learners and motivation.
Several motivational characteristic differences were discovered between the two groups.
Procedural and conceptual learners differed in how they perceive their math ability. The two
groups were also different in the way they attribute their math failure.
Of particular interest to the current study, Bakhtiar (2013) found that the relationships
between motivation and cluster assignment interacted with gender; whether motivation was related
to conceptual and procedural knowledge depended on participant gender. Due to the scope of her
study, the issue of gender was not explored or tested specifically. Bakhtiar called for further
research into how gender, procedural vs. conceptual math orientation, and math-gender stereotype
may influence attitudes towards math fractions performance.
Implicit Gender Associations with Math
In our society, math is associated more strongly with boys than with girls (Cvencek,
Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011). This stereotype can sometimes be detected through explicit
measures, such as questionnaires, but individuals do not always accurately report their own
feelings on socially sensitive topics, and are sometimes unaware of their own biases (Greenwald &
Banaji, 1995). To measure these unconscious aspects of stereotyping, implicit math-gender
stereotype is typically measured through the use of a computer-based Implicit Association Test
(IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). IATs were designed to measure the strength of
associations between two pairs of concepts. For example, in the current study the associations
between male/female and math/language are examined. Specifically, IATs are designed to measure
how quickly these associations are made in comparison with one another.
The endorsement of math-gender stereotype appears to vary depending on factors such as
age, gender and environment. Nosek, Banaji, and Greenwald (2002) found that both male and
female university students endorsed implicit math-gender stereotypes equally. Cvencek et al.
(2011) tested children between 6 and 10 years of age using measures of both implicit and explicit
math-gender stereotype. They found that even the youngest children demonstrated an endorsement
of math-gender stereotype on both measures. However, Muzzati and Agnoli (2007) found that
explicit gender stereotyping of mathematics was present in Grade 4 students, but disappeared by
Grade 8. The researchers speculated that older children had internalized stereotypes and that the
stereotypes were still present implicitly.
Steffens, Jelenec and Noack (2010) tested students in Grade 4, 7 and 9 and identified
implicit math-gender stereotype in female students, and explicit math-gender stereotype in both
male and female students. They found that the endorsement of math-gender stereotype is related to
poorer math achievement in girls and better math achievement in boys. Additionally, girls implicit
stereotypes uniquely predicted math self-concepts (Steffens et al., 2010).
These studies are important to the current study as we expect to find evidence of mathgender stereotype which may enable further understandings of the relationships between individual
differences in fractions learning, motivation and gender.
The Current Study
Building on Bakhtiar (2013), this study examines potential relationships between
individual differences in fractions knowledge (conceptual vs. procedural learners), motivation and
gender. Specifically, this study will explore the potential effect of math-gender stereotype on these
relationships.
All four measures used in Bakhtiar (2013) are replicated in this current study. These
measures are the Procedural and Conceptual Fraction Measure (Hallett et al., 2010), Math and
Verbal Self-Concept Subscales (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985), Sydney Attribution Scale (Marsh &
Parker, 1984), and Personal Achievement Goal Orientation Subscale (Midgley et al., 2000). The
results of these four measures will contribute to furthering her findings regarding the relationships
between individual differences in fractions learners and motivation.
In addition to these four measures, an additional measure pertaining to implicit mathgender stereotype is being evaluated as a possible adjunct to this study. This measure is the
Implicit Association Test (IAT) of Math-Gender Stereotype. This test was constructed specifically
for this current study. The IAT is used to as a measure of the degree to which ideas are
unconsciously associated with one another. In the context of math-gender stereotypes, this will be
a measure of how much more difficult it is to match math-related words with girls names versus
boys names, and reading-related words with boys names versus girls names. The purpose of this
test is to gain a better understanding of any potential effects of gender as it relates to motivation
and individual differences in fractions learning.
Method
Participants
The participant sample for this study consisted of 73 Grade 8 students from a single school
in the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District. Seven students were excluded from
the original sample due to incomplete data. The final sample of 66 students (39 males and 27
females) had a mean age of 13.74 years. This grade level was chosen because the procedural and
conceptual measure used in this study is appropriate for clustering Grade 8 students into two
groups distinct groups more procedural and more conceptual learners (Hallett et al., 2012). This
is also an appropriate age for identifying implicit math-gender stereotype, as this stereotype
appears to peak in early adolescence (Steffens et al., 2010).
Measures
Procedural and Conceptual Fraction Measure (Hallett et al., 2010). This measure was
presented as a written task containing 24 items. The measure was designed to assess students
procedural and conceptual knowledge of fractions. The conceptual items in this measure assess the
participants understanding of equivalency, ability to judge whether one fraction is larger than
another, and knowledge of other characteristics associated with understanding the concepts of
fractions and their relationships. The procedural items require students to solve a problem by
following a series of computational steps they have previously been taught in school (Bakhtiar,
2013).
Implicit Association Test (IAT) of Math-Gender Stereotype. This measure of implicit
math-gender stereotype is a computer-based test that consists of a set of four blocks of trials. In
each trial, a participant is asked to classify a given word as either male or female, or to classify
them as relating to either math or language. Blocks one and two are for practice and include an
error-feedback prompt to help participants learn the rules of the test. The first block includes a set
of eight male names and eight female names presented on the screen one at a time in random
order. Participants are asked to classify them as either male or female using assigned keys on the
keyboard. This was followed by a second block with eight math words and eight language words,
which participants were asked to classify as either Math or Language. In block three, the congruent
trial, participants are randomly shown the 32 stimuli from blocks one and two, and one-by-one
they classify them as either male or female if one of the first block words appears on the screen
and as either Math or Language if one of the second block words appears on the screen. On the left
side of the screen, categories are labeled as math and male, with language and female on
the right hand side. This means that if a participant wants to say that a word is male or math,
he or she would use the assigned key on the left side of the keyboard. If a participant wants to say
that a word is either female or language, then he or she would use the assigned key on the
right side of the keyboard. For block four, the incongruent trial, the same method as block three
applies; only now the categories language and math have switched sides so that the left key
indicates is now used to indicate either male or language while the right key indicates either
female or math.
In total, there are 64 observations recorded in the experimental trials (i.e., the trials from
Blocks 3 and 4). Incorrect trials are replaced with the block mean plus a 600ms error penalty as
described in Greenwald, Nosek and Banaji (2003). Of these, a difference score is calculated with
reaction times of math and language words in the congruent trial being subtracted from the
incongruent trial. This yields a language word difference score and a math word difference score
for each participant. These difference scores are each divided by their respective participants
overall standard deviation of their reaction time. The resulting outcome of the test is a language
and a math IAT Cohens d effect size measure for each participant. Outlier treatment is adapted
from Greenwald et al. (2003). Participants are excluded if they respond in less than 300ms for
more than 10% of total responses. In addition, individual reaction times longer than 9.5 seconds
are also excluded. This task includes no further outlier treatment and only one participant was
excluded on this basis.
Math and Verbal Self-Concept Subscales (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985). The math and
verbal self-concept subscales are a paper and pencil measure designed to be appropriate for
students from Grade 7 to Grade 12. The full measure has 102 items measuring 11 different factors
of self-description, but for the purpose of this research, only students verbal and math selfconcept were tested. For each of 20 items (10 math and 10 verbal), participants were required to
respond on a six-point Likert scale, with 1 being False and 6 being True. The items were both
positively and negatively worded, and negatively worded items were reversed scored during data
analysis. A high score on this scale reflected a more positive self-concept, while a low score
reflected a more negative self-concept (Bakhtiar, 2013).
Sydney Attribution Scale (Marsh & Parker, 1984). This written measure evaluated
students perception of the causes of their academic success and failure. It included 24 items with
10
three possible responses for each item. The three responses were designed to reflect causal
attributions that are loaded on ability, effort or some external factor, which meant that there were
three separate subscales for each one of these outcomes: math-failure, math-success, readingfailure, and reading-success. The scale on this measure ranged from 1 = False, to 5 = True.
Although the measure includes both reading and math attribution scales, the scores on the reading
scores were not included in the data analyses (Bakhtiar, 2013).
Personal Achievement Goal Orientation Subscale (Midgley et al., 2000). This subscale
was adopted from the original Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). The complete version
of PALS could be broken down into two scales: one for students and the other for teachers. In this
study, the items were rephrased to reflect goals that were specific to the math domain. These tests
were administered in accordance with the most recent test manual provided by the scale
developers (Midgly et al., 2000). A five-point Likert scale was used to collect responses for each
item on the measure, with responses ranging from 1 = Not at all true to 5 = Very true. The
order of the items was randomized without identification of a specific goal orientation, which
resulted in three separate subscales indicating the level of agreement for each individual with each
goal orientation (Bakhtiar, 2013).
Procedure
A total of 12 junior high schools in the St. Johns Metropolitan Area were contacted by
mail and telephone and invited to participate in this study. Upon approval from the school
principal, teachers were asked to distribute information and consent forms to parents/guardians for
their review and signature. Parents/guardians were assured that their childs identifying data would
remain anonymous and confidential during reporting and dissemination of study results.
11
Data was collected in two testing sessions. In the first session, the Procedural and
Conceptual Fraction Measure (Hallett et al., 2010) was administered. This written measure was
administered as a group during a regular class period. Students were told that the researcher was
interested in knowing how comfortable the students were with fractions, and that they therefore
were not permitted to use calculators. Students were reminded also that they would not be graded
on this test, and that they should try to do the best that they could. This first data collection session
took approximately 25 minutes.
For the second session, students were tested in smaller groups of approximately 6 students.
This grouping allowed for ease of movement between the written and computer-based portions of
this testing session. This session consisted of two parts one written and one computer-based. In
the first written part, students were positioned physically so that they were not sitting in close
proximity to each other. This physical configuration was organized as such because some of the
questions included in this session were sensitive to social comparisons (e.g. seeing and comparing
responses and peer influences). Students were asked to complete all three written motivational
measures: Math and Verbal Self-Concept Subscales (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985), Sydney
Attribution Scale (Marsh & Parker, 1984), and Personal Achievement Goal Orientation Subscale
(Midgley et al., 2000). The order of the three written motivational measures was counterbalanced
across participants, using a Latin-Square ordering, to account for order effects. On these written
measures, students were encouraged to be honest with their answers, and they were reassured that
their responses would remain anonymous and that no questions had right or wrong answers.
In the second part of this session, the IAT of Math-Gender Stereotype (computer-based)
was administered. Students were given verbal instructions and encouraged to ask questions if they
did not understand. Including both the written and computer-based parts, this second data
12
collection session took approximately 30 minutes. At the end of the second session, each student
participant was given $10 in cash for their participation in this study.
Results
Cluster Analysis
Using a similar procedure as Hallett and his colleagues (2012), students conceptual and
procedural scores were regressed against one another, and the standardized residual scores were
saved in each case. These residual scores were generated in order to remove variability due to
overall math performance. Residualized procedural scores reflect the extent to which procedural
performance deviated from what their conceptual performance would predict, rather than simply
overall procedural ability. The same idea applies to residualized conceptual scores. This allowed
the clustering to use scores that reflect participants relative strength in conceptual or procedural
knowledge.
A k-means cluster analysis was performed using these residualized scores in order to sort
participants into two clusters. A two-cluster solution was used, as Hallett et al. (2012)
demonstrated that this solution is most appropriate for Grade 8 students, and the solution is
presented in Figure 1. As this figure indicates, the first cluster can be considered the more
conceptual cluster and the second cluster can be considered the more procedural cluster. Of the 66
students included in this study, 45 students (30 males and 15 females) were classified as more
conceptual learners, and 21 students (9 males and 12 females) were classified as more procedural
learners. A goodness of fit chi-square analysis determined that the assignment of clusters was not
even, with twice as many in the conceptual group, 2(1) = 8.73, p = .0031.
13
Figure 1. Cluster solution for residualized conceptual and procedural scores. Error bars represent
standard error of the mean.
Math-Gender Stereotype Implicit Association Test (IAT)
The purpose of using the IAT in the current study was to measure the existence and the strength of
math-gender stereotype. Students who take significantly longer to respond to Math-Female and
Language- Male associations than Math-Male and Language-Female associations are said to
exhibit math-gender stereotype. In the current study, students took, on average, approximately
277.13ms longer in the incongruent condition when sorting math related words to the same side as
girls names, which indicates that these Grade 8 students endorse math-gender stereotype (Cohens
d = 0.49). For language and reading words, participants took an average of 157.54ms longer in the
incongruent condition, where participants were required to sort these words in the same column as
boys names (Cohens d = .28). Given that the congruent condition came first, any practice effects
would be expected to result in faster performance in the incongruent condition, which makes it
14
notable that participants actually took longer in the incongruent condition.. The longer response
times in the incongruent condition were therefore more likely due to stereotype interference. Male
participants exhibited a somewhat larger stereotype effect on average, however this did not
approach significance for either the math words, nor for the language words. Participants varied in
how much math-gender stereotype caused interference. Students ranged from being about .78 SD
faster for the incongruent condition, to being as much as 1.1 SD slower for the incongruent
condition. This range of scores provides a good basis for later analyses included in this study.
Regression Analyses
Description information about the variables are first presented below. Table 1 presents the
means and standard deviations for all variables. Table 2 presents the zero-order correlations
between the motivational variables and the procedural and conceptual scores. Table 3 presents the
correlations between gender, IAT scales, and motivational variables.
Similar to Bakhtiar (2013), group differences were investigated using relational analyses
rather than mean-difference analyses. It is expected that the various motivational variables would
be related to both conceptual and procedural knowledge. The purpose of the regressions, however,
was to explore whether the relation between the motivational variables interacted with cluster
when predicting either conceptual or procedural knowledge. The regressions described in more
detail below are meant to ask this question.
15
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Each Scale

Scale
Mean
Standard Deviation
1. Total Conceptual (scored out of 24)
66
16.42
4.58
2. Total Procedural (out of 14)
69
5.04
3.53
3. Total Fraction (out of 38)
69
20.75
8.36
4. Math Self-Concept (out of 60)
69
40.07
11.06
5. Verbal Self-Concept (out of 60)
69
45.22
8.32
6. Math Success Ability (out of 30)
69
19.80
5.14
7. Math Success Effort (out of 30)
69
22.01
4.67
8. Math Success External (out of 30)
69
17.91
5.35
9. Math Failure Ability (out of 30)
69
14.46
5.37
10. Math Failure Effort (out of 30)
69
17.30
4.23
11. Math Failure External (out of 30)
69
17.00
3.48
12. Mastery Goal (out of 25)
69
18.71
3.96
13. Performance Approach (out of 25)
69
12.64
4.78
14. Performance Avoidance (out of 20)
69
11.01
4.05
15. Math IAT
69
.49
.56
16. Language IAT
69
.28
.57
16
Table 2. Inter-correlation Matrix

1. Concept
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
- .62** .93** .43** .09
6.
7.
.31** .11
8.
-.04
9.
-.34**
10.
-.08
11.
.19
12.
.06
13.
.11
14.
.23
15.
-.12
16.
.11
2. Proced
.33** .13
-.23
-.44**
-.15
-.37**
.10
-.13
-.15
.01
.13
3. OFraction
.31** .09
-.30*
-.35**
-.13
-.36**
.17
.02
.04
-.03
.14
4. Math SC
.43** .56** .35** -.27*
-.71**
-.16
-.33**
.28*
.18
-.03
.14
.15
5. Verbal SC
-.22
.05
-.21
.17
.04
-.03
.13
.09
6. MSuccA
-.38**
.12
-.15
.34** .06
.02
.05
.15
7. MSuccEff
-.16
-.09
.08
-.37**
.45** -.02
.03
.16
.12
8. MSuccExt
.22
.07
.43**
-.14
.10
.07
-.03
-.10
9. MFailA
-.12
-.08
.05
-.24
-.05
10. MFailEff
.17
.06
-.05
.02
-.21
-.22
11. MFailExt
-.25*
.25*
.16
-.15
-.22
12. Mastery
.20
.16
.23
.26*
13. PerApp
14. PerAvoid
.03
-.21
15. MathIAT
.22
16. LangIAT
.86** .48** .16*

.43** .12*
.31** .27** -.03

.49** -.34**
.46** .24*
.65** -.05
-.12
Notes: * p < .05. ** p <.01. Concept is Conceptual Fractions Score, Proced is Procedural Fraction Score, OFraction is Overall
Fraction Score, Math SC is Math Self-Concept, Verbal SC is Verbal Self-Concept, MSuccA is Ability Attribution for Math Success,
MSuccEff is Effort Attribution for Math Success, MSuccExt is External Attribution for Math Success, MFailA is Ability Attribution
for Math Failure, MFailEff is Effort Attribution for Math Failure, MFailExt is External Attribution for Math Failure, PerApp is
Performance Approach, PerAvoid is Performance Avoidance, MathIAT is Math IAT Score and LangIAT is Language IAT Score
Table 3. Language and Math IAT Correlations for Males and Females
Male
Female
Language IAT
Math IAT
Language IAT
Math IAT
Concept
.13
-.07
.09
-.22
Proced
.28
.08
-.09
-.10
Math SC
.20
.22
.11
.08
Verbal SC
-.02
.14
.24
.12
RSuccA
.11
.25
.16
.20
RSuccEff
.16
.13
.32
.20
RSuccExt
-.34*
-.26
-.08
-.06
RFailA
-.23
-.29
-.14
-.13
RFailEff
-.20
-.416**
-.39*
-.17
RFailExt
.08
.14
-.20
-.27
MSuccA
.18
.08
.13
.03
MSuccEff
.08
.18
.19
.15
MSuccExt
-.31*
.08
.08
-.15
MFailA
-.09
-.33*
-.01
-.13
MFailEff
-.25
-.26
-.17
-.10
MFailExt
-.19
-.12
-.27
-.20
Mastery
.13
.28
.45*
.22
PerApp
-.10
-.08
-.14
-.01
PerAvoid
-.19
.09
-.26
-.05
LangIAT
.19
.28
Notes: * p < .05. ** p <.01. Concept is Conceptual Fractions Score, Proced is Procedural
Fraction Score, Math SC is Math Self-Concept, Verbal SC is Verbal Self-Concept, MSuccA is
Ability Attribution for Math Success, MSuccEff is Effort Attribution for Math Success, MSuccEx
External Attribution for Math Success, MFailA is Ability Attribution for Math Failure, MFailEff
Effort Attribution for Math Failure, MFailExt is External Attribution for Math Failure, PerApp
Performance Approach, PerAvoid is Performance Avoidance, MathIAT is Math IAT Score and
LangIAT is Language IAT Score
18
Predicting conceptual scores. Regression analyses were used to examine possible

interactions between motivation, cluster and gender. Each variable was tested for a three-way
interaction. If the three-way interaction was significant, the full model was retained. If the threeway interaction was not significant, separate regressions were carried out for each possible twoway interaction. Each regression model was subject to separate outlier treatment, and participants
who had a Mahalanobis distance greater that the chi-square value at p = .001 were eliminated
from that particular analysis. Table 4 reports the final models involving each of the motivational
variables. Three significant three-way interactions were identified between motivational scores,
cluster membership and gender when predicting conceptual scores. The first of these three-way
interactions occurs between verbal self-concept, cluster membership and gender. Verbal selfconcept is a highly significant predictor of conceptual fractions scores for male students in the
procedural cluster. This interaction is shown in Figure 2.
Another significant three-way interaction occurs between external attribution of math
success, cluster membership and gender. For those in the procedural cluster, external attribution
of math success is negatively associated with conceptual fractions scores for males and
somewhat positively for females. For those in the conceptual cluster, there is no relation between
external attribution of math success and conceptual fraction scores. This interaction is shown in
Figure 3.
In addition, a significant three-way interaction was identified between performance
avoidance orientation, cluster membership and gender. Performance avoidance orientation is
positively associated with conceptual math scores in conceptual females and, to a lesser extent,
in procedural males. Performance avoidance orientation is negatively associated with conceptual
math scores in procedural females. This three-way interaction is depicted in Figure 4.
19
Table 4: Regression Analyses Predicting Conceptual Scores

Mot
Cluster
Gender
Mot x
Cluster
Cluster x
Gender
Mot x
Gender
Mot x Cluster x
Gender
Math Self-Concept
.533**
.481**
-.085
Verbal Self-Concept a
1.082*
.638**
.413
-.890
-.350
-1.781*
1.711*
Ability Attribution for Math Success
.349**
.398**
-.022
Effort Attribution for Math Success
.180
.392**
.016
External Attribution for Math Success b
.196
.251
.093
-.150
-.025
-1.007**
.889*
Ability Attribution for Math Failure
-.439**
.464**
-.030
Effort Attribution for Math Failure
-.129
.369**
.053
External Attribution for Math Failure
-.242*
.399**
.023
Mastery Orientation
.085
.366**
.169
Performance Approach Orientation
.033
.348**
.044
Performance Avoidance Orientation c
-.316
.374
.123
.715*
.028
.632
-.894*
Motivation (Mot) Scale
*p<.05, **p<.01
a. Participants 10 and 67 excluded as outliers
b. Participants 13 and 28 excluded as outliers
c. Participants 10 and 13 excluded as outliers
Male+
Conceptual+Scores+
25"
20"
15"
10"
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual"Group"
5"
Procedural"Group"
Procedural"Group"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
Verbal+Self+Concept+
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual+Scores+
25"
50"
60"
Female+
Procedural"Group"
20"
Procedural"Group"
15"
10"
5"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
with conceptual scores as the dependent variable.
Male+
Conceptual+Scores+
25"
20"
15"
10"
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual"Group"
5"
Procedural"Group"
Procedural"Group"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual+Scores+
25"
50"
60"
Female+
Procedural"Group"
20"
Procedural"Group"
15"
10"
5"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
with conceptual scores as the dependent variable.
22
Male+
Conceptual+Scores+
25"
20"
15"
Conceptual"Group"
10"
Conceptual"Group"
5"
Procedural"Group"
Procedural"Group"
0"
0"
5"
10"
15"
20"
Performance+Avoidance+Orientation+
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual"Group"
Female+
Procedural"Group"
25"
Conceptual+Scores+
25"
Procedural"Group"
20"
15"
10"
5"
0"
0"
5"
10"
15"
20"
Performance+Avoidance+Orientation
25"

and gender with conceptual scores as the independent variable.
23
IAT influence in predicting conceptual scores. The previous analyses mirror what was
done by Bakhtiar (2013) to analyze the effects of gender and cluster in the relation between the
motivation variables and conceptual scores. For the next set of analyses, Math and Language
IAT were added to the regressions to see if they changed the results of the regressions. Table 5
illustrates the interactions that occur when the math and language IAT entered into the regression
with the main effects, before the interactions. All three significant three-way interactions found
in the previous regression retain their significance with the introduction of the IAT scores.
Higher Math IAT scores appear to predict lower conceptual math scores when included with the
main effect of ability attribution for math failure. As depicted in Figure 5, a significant two-way
interaction between performance approach orientation and gender also occurs.
24
Table 5: Regression Analyses Predicting Conceptual Scores (With IAT)

Mot
Cluster
Gender
Math
IAT
Language
IAT
Mot x
Cluster
Cluster x
Gender
Mot x
Gender
Mot x Cluster x
Gender
Math Self-Concept
.547**
.479**
-.096
-.192
.872
1.001*
-.615**
.354
-.092
.154
-.815
-.285
-1.668*
1.616*
.336**
.396**
-.027
-.138
.108
.186
.395**
.005
-.158
.149
.211
.241
.033
-.104
.130
-.160
.042
-939**
.869*
-.491**
.474**
-.050
-.250*
.155
-.131
.371**
.043
-.153
.149
-.242*
.398**
.015
-.153
.124
Mastery Orientation
.079
.369**
.013
-.146
.152
Performance Approach Orientation c
.365
-.242
.041
-.142
.168
-.391*
Performance Avoidance Orientation d
.570*
-.374
.151
-.104
.213
.715*
-.028
-.632
-.894*
*p<.05, **p<.01
b. Participant 13 excluded as an outlier
c. Participant 46 excluded as an outlier
d. Participants 10 and 13 excluded as outliers
Boys
Conceptual Scorese
25
Girls
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
Figure 5. Two-way interaction between performance orientation and gender, with conceptual
scores as the dependent variable.
Predicting procedural scores. Table 6 illustrates the interactions between motivationa
scores, cluster membership and gender when predicting procedural fractions scores. As shown
Figure 6, a significant three-way interaction was found between verbal self-concept, cluster
membership and gender. For females in the procedural cluster, verbal self-concept is a highly
significant predictor of procedural fractions scores in a positive direction while procedural ma

have a negative relation between these two variables. In Figure 7, the significant three-way
interaction between performance avoidance orientation, cluster membership and gender is
apparent. Performance avoidance was negatively associated with math scores in procedural
females, but positively associated in conceptual females. Among males, however, this pattern
reversed..
26
Table 6: Regression Analyses Predicting Procedural Scores

Mot
Cluster
Gender
Mot x
Cluster
Cluster x
Gender
Mot x
Gender
Mot x Cluster x
Gender
Math Self-Concept
.498**
-.235*
-.129
1.491**
-.072
.295
-1.374**
-.186
-1.671*
1.667*
.339**
-.311**
-.073
.100
-.333**
-.024
External Attribution for Math Success
-.086
-.342**
-.005
-.445**
-.242*
-.083
-.095
-.343**
-.001
-.268*
-.305*
-.031
Mastery Orientation
.006
-.353**
-.009
-.084
-.338**
-.004
Performance Avoidance Orientation b
-.482
.348
-.009
.676
.181
.489
-.834*
*p<.05, **p<.01
b. Participants 10 and 13 excluded as outliers
Conceptual"Group"
12"
Male*
Procedural*Scores*
Conceptual"Group"
10"
Procedural"Group"
8"
Procedural"Group"
6"
4"
2"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
Verbal*Self*Concept*
50"
60"
Procedural*Scores*
Female*
12"
Conceptual"Group"
10"
Conceptual"Group"
Procedural"Group"
8"
Procedural"Group"
6"
4"
2"
0"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
Verbal*Self*Concept*
with procedural scores as the dependent variable.
28
Conceptual"Group"
Procedural*Scores*
Male*
Conceptual"Group"
12"
Procedural"Group"
10"
Procedural"Group"
8"
6"
4"
2"
0"
0"
5"
10"
15"
20"
25"
Performance*Avoidance*Orientation*
Female*
Procedural*Scores*
12"
Conceptual"Group"
Conceptual"Group"
Procedural"Group"
10"
Procedural"Group"
8"
6"
4"
2"
0"
0"
5"
10"
15"
20"
Performance*Avoidance*Orientation*
25"

and gender, with procedural scores as the dependent variable.
29
IAT influence in predicting procedural scores. Table 7 depicts the interactions when
math and language IAT scores are included in the regression analyses. The three-way interaction
between performance avoidance orientation, cluster membership and gender loses its
significance when IAT scores are introduced. However, a significant three-way interaction
between external attribution for math success, cluster membership and gender becomes
significant when IAT scores are included in the analyses. As shown in Figure 8, external
attribution of math success is negatively associated with procedural fractions scores for males
and somewhat positively correlated for females.
30
Table 7: Regression Analyses Predicting Procedural Scores (With IAT)

Mot
Cluster
Gender
Math
IAT
Language
IAT
Mot x
Cluster
Cluster x
Gender
Mot x
Gender
Mot x Cluster x
Gender
Math Self-Concept
.510**
-.238*
-.136
-.117
.034
1.452
-.082
.254
.000
.113
-1.348**
-.458
-2.326*
2.301*
.334**
-.313*
-.075
-.066
.048
.098
-.330*
-.029
-.074
.098
.365
-.633**
-.273
-.012
.104
-.300
.394
-.890*
.817*
-.483**
-.237*
-.097
-.176
.095
-.092
-.340**
-.007
-.075
.095
-.266*
-.306*
-.035
-.084
.060
Mastery Orientation
-.010
-.350**
-.011
-.058
.111
-.075
-.335*
-.010
-.061
.101
Performance Avoidance Orientation
-.050
-.339**
-.011
-.055
.098
*p<.05, **p<.01
b. Participant 13 excluded as an outlier
Male*
Procedural*Scores*
12"
Conceptual"Group"
10"
Conceptual"Group"
8"
Procedural"Group"
Procedural"Group"
6"
4"
2"
0"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
60"
External*Attribution*of*Math*Success*
Female*
Procedural*Scores*
12"
Conceptual"Group"
10"
Conceptual"Group"
Procedural"Group"
8"
Procedural"Group"
6"
4"
2"
0"
0"
10"
20"
30"
40"
50"
External*Attribution*of*Math*Success*
60"
Figure 8. Three-way interaction between external attribution of math success, cluster

membership and gender, with procedural scores as the dependent variable.
32
Discussion
As the data suggest, the introduction of the math-gender stereotype IAT provides some
insight into the relationships between individual differences in fractions learning, motivation and
gender. When participants are separated by gender, IAT scores are significant predictors of
several motivational variables, as shown in Table 3. In male students, Language IAT
significantly predicts external attribution of reading and math success in boys, but it is the Math
IAT that predicts ability and effort for reading and math success. For female students, Language
IAT predicts effort attribution for reading failure. Language IAT is also a significant predictor of
mastery for female students, while Math IAT is a better predictor of mastery than Language IAT
for male students.
The math and language IAT scores seemed to predict attribution of both reading and
math success, as well as attribution of math ability, but this prediction interacted somewhat with
gender. These data exhibited a trend that suggests the IAT measures utility is not only related to
the strength of implicit stereotypical beliefs, but whether or not those beliefs apply to the gender
of the person who holds them. These correlations between the results of the IAT and
motivational variables suggest that the IAT is a valuable tool for gaining an understanding of
math-gender stereotype and how it relates to different types of math learning and academic
motivation. In general, the results suggest that we must take the gender of the participant into
account when we are investigating the influence of math-gender implicit associations.
When examining how cluster and gender may interact with motivation variables in
predicting conceptual and procedural knowledge, the results are more mixed. Bakhtiar (2013)
found that procedural and conceptual learners differ based on several, but not all, motivational
factors investigated. However in this study the interactions of motivation, procedural/conceptual
33
cluster and gender, as predictors of procedural and conceptual scores, were not the same factors
identified by Bakhtiar. Contrary to Bakhtiars findings that conceptual and procedural learners
differ in terms of their math self-concept and how they attribute math failure, the current study
determined that the two groups of learners differ in their verbal self-concept and how they
attribute math success. While Bakhtiar identified a number of two-way interactions between
cluster membership and gender, those findings were not replicated in the current study. Instead,
in this study, three-way interactions occurred between motivation and gender, and motivation
and cluster membership. Additionally, this study revealed a number of three-way interactions
between motivation, cluster membership and gender, whereas only one three-way interaction
between these variables was noted in Bakhtiars (2013) study. Bakhtiars study revealed a threeway interaction between math self-concept, cluster membership and gender, but this interaction
was not present in the current study. Instead, when predicting conceptual fractions scores three
three-way interactions occurred: verbal self-concept, cluster membership and gender; external
attribution for math success, cluster membership and gender; and performance avoidance, cluster
membership and gender. When predicting procedural fractions scores, three-way interactions
occurred between verbal self-concept, cluster membership and gender, and performance
avoidance, cluster membership and gender. Additionally, when math and language IAT scores
are entered into the regression, the three-way interaction between external attribution for math
success, cluster membership and gender achieves significance.
There are several potential explanations for the discrepancies between the findings of the
current study and those of Bakhtiar (2013). The sample used in the current study was slightly
larger than that of Bakhtiar. The current study included 66 participants (39 males and 27
females), while Bakhtiar included 58 participants (33 males and 25 females). While both studies
34
involved Grade 8 students from the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District, the
current sample is more homogenous, as all students were from the same school. In particular, the
students in the current sample demonstrated much higher conceptual scores than the participants
in Bakhtiars study. Most boys in the current study (30 out of 39) were classified as conceptual
learners, while the students in Bakhtiars were split nearly evenly between the conceptual and
procedural groups. Because all the participants in the current study attend the same junior high
school, this phenomenon could be due to factors such as specific teaching methods used at that
school or at its feeder elementary school.
Although the current study had a larger sample size than Bakhtiar (2013), the difference
in group composition could be a factor in the discrepant findings. Whereas each of Bakhtiars
four groups (male conceptual, male procedural, female conceptual, female procedural) included
between 12 and 17 participants, the same groups in the current study had between 9 and 30
participants respectively. To account for the possibility of disparities in group sizes, it will be
important in further research to utilize an overall larger participant sample. A larger sample
would provide for more consistency and generalizability of results.
The results of the current study in comparison with those of Bakhtiar (2013) demonstrate
the possible influence of socioeconomic factors on the findings. Bakhtiars sample mostly came
from one school that is known to have low SES students (Bakhtiar, personal communication),
while the sample reported here came from a higher SES school. Further research could include
the study of relationships between socioeconomic factors and individual differences in fractions
learning, academic motivation and/or math-gender stereotype.
Despite these contradictory and sometimes confusing results, the data below offer some
qualified support for the main hypothesis of this paper conceptual and procedural learners do
35
differ on motivational variables. The analysis here suggests that conceptual learners and
procedural learners do vary in the strength and direction of the relation between motivational
variables and conceptual and procedural knowledge, even if this is only true for one gender and
not the other.
Finally, it is worth noting that one of the outcomes of the current study is the
development of an IAT that seems to capture some aspects of implicit math-gender stereotypes.
Math-gender stereotype was found in both male and female students. This result is not
unexpected, as similar results were found by Nosek et al. (2002), who tested adults, and Cvencek
et al. (2011), whose sample consisted of 6- to 10-year-old children. However, in contrast to the
findings of this study, Steffens et al. (2010) found that German girls in grades 4, 7 and 9 endorse
math-gender stereotype, but that boys do not. This may suggest that there may be cultural
differences in the development of math-gender stereotype. As an aside, Cvencek et al. (2011)
suggested that math-gender stereotype develops very early and influences the emergence of math
self-concept, but the current study did not find any direct correlation between math-gender
stereotype and our measure of math self-concept.
In conclusion, this study offers tentative and qualified support for the contention that
conceptual and procedural learners differ in terms of various motivational variables. Although
differences were found on some of these variables, these relations always interacted with gender,
and were not consistent with the findings of Bakhtiar (2013). Adding the IAT to the regressions,
which had the effect of controlling for implicit math-gender stereotype, resulted in some
additional effects, but only a few, and gender continued to be involved in the interactions.
Overall, the data suggest that there are some differences between conceptual and procedural
36
learners with regard to motivational variables, but more research must be conducted to determine
the nature and extent of these differences.
37
References
Bakhtiar, A. (2013). Motivational characteristic differences between procedural and

conceptual fraction learners. (Unpublished Masters thesis). Memorial University of
Newfoundland, St. Johns.
Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural
learning. Developmental Psychology, 27, 777786.
Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math-Gender Stereotypes in
Elementary School Children. Child Development, 82(3), 766-779.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4 27.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 14641480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit
Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 197216.
Hallett, D., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2010). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural
knowledge when learning fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 395-406.
Hallett, D., Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Thorpe, C. M. (2012). Individual differences in
conceptual and procedural fraction understanding: The role of abilities and school
experience. Journal Of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(4), 469-486.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.07.009
38
Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2012). Patterns of strengths and weaknesses in childrens knowledge
about fractions. Journal Of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(2), 212-229.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.012
Hiebert, J., & LeFevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An
introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert, J. Hiebert (Eds.), Conceptual and procedural
knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Marsh, H. W., & Parker, J. W. (1984). Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a
relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well? Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 47(1), 213-231. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.213
Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure.
Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 107-123. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1
Midgley, C. et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (PALS).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Muzzati, B., & Agnoli, F. (2007). Gender and mathematics: Attitudes and stereotype
threat susceptibility in Italian children. Developmental Psychology, 43, 747-759.
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002b). Math = male, me = female,
therefore math not me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 4459.
Peck, D. M., & Jencks, S. M. (1981). Conceptual issues in the teaching and learning of
fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 339348.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual
understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 346362.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of
construct interpretations. Review Of Educational Research, 46(3), 407-441.
doi:10.2307/1170010
Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing
implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male
children and adolescents. Journal Of Educational Psychology,
doi:10.1037/a0019920
39
40
Appendices
Appendix A
Procedural and Conceptual Fraction Measure Sample
Example of a conceptual item:

1. Shade in two-thirds of each of these shapes:
(a)
(b)
Example of a procedural item:

2. Please solve this and show your workings:
4
9
+
=
7 14
(c)
34567%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%4867%
54@6%?%A654@6%%9*,+*'&%/0&;%%BCD8C457%
%
%
!
9:&2+);%
9<.=);%% "4>67%%%%%%%?%%%%%%%%?%
8CDEB7%
678"98!:8";!<=898!>?9<:@A<>B?9!C>:9<!!
41
>=,)%,)%0/.%2%.&).!D!+E/(/!*(/!%'!($FE+!'(!1('%F!*%,1/(,G!!!
!
<E$,!$,!*!4E*%4/!&'(!5'-!+'!#''3!*+!E'1!5'-!+E$%3!*%0!&//#!*2'-+!5'-(,/#&G!>+!$,!$).'(+*%+!+E*+!5'-H!
Appendix B
! *(/!E'%/,+!
! F$I/!5'-(!'1%!I$/1,!*2'-+!5'-(,/#&J!1$+E'-+!+*#3$%F!+'!'+E/(,!
! (/.'(+! E'1! 5'-! &//#!
?BK! L%'+! E'1!Measure
5'-! &/#+! *+!Sample
*%'+E/(! +$)/! $%! 5'-(! #$&/J! '(! E'1! 5'-!
Self-Concept
)$FE+!&//#!+')'(('1M!
!
N'-(!*%,1/(,!*(/!4'%&$0/%+$*#!*%0!1$##!'%#5!2/!-,/0!&'(!(/,/*(4E!'(!.('F(*)!0/I/#'.)/%+G!!N'-(!*%,1/(,!
1$##!%'+!2/!-,/0!$%!*%5!1*5!+'!(/&/(!+'!5'-!*,!*%!$%0$I$0-*#G!
!
Likert@,/!+E/!,$OD.'$%+!,4*#/!+'!$%0$4*+/!E'1!+(-/!L#$3/!5'-M!'(!E'1!&*#,/!L-%#$3/!5'-MJ!/*4E!,+*+/)/%+!'I/(!+E/!
scale used for all items on the Math and Verbal Self-Concept scales:
.*F/!$,!*,!*!0/,4($.+$'%!'&!5'-G!!6#/*,/!0'!%'+!#/*I/!*%5!,+*+/)/%+,!2#*%3G!
!
!
P!
Q!
R!
S!
T!
U!
X',+#5!&*#,/!
X'(/!&*#,/!+E*%! X'(/!+(-/!+E*%!
X',+#5!+(-/!
<(-/!
C*#,/!
+(-/!
&*#,/!
<E$,!,+*+/)/%+!
?'+!#$3/!)/!*+!
0/,4($2/,!)/!
*##V!$+!$,%W+!#$3/!
1/##V!$+!$,!I/(5!
)/!*+!*##!
)-4E!#$3/!)/!
!
Example
of Math Self-Concept question:
!
!
1. I have always done well in Mathematics

!
9+*+/)/%+!
YPG! 54>F654>$G!%$,!'%/!'&!)5!2/,+!,-2Z/4+,!
YQG! ?'2'05!+E$%3,!+E*+!>!*)!F''0!#''3$%F!
YRG! BI/(*##J!>!E*I/!*!#'+!+'!2/!.('-0!'&!
Example
of Verbal Self-Concept question:
YSG! >!,')/+$)/,!+*3/!+E$%F,!+E*+!2/#'%F!+'!'+E/(!./'.#/!
YTG! >!/%Z'5!+E$%F,!#$3/!,.'(+,J!F5)J!*%0!0*%4/!
YUG! >!*)!E'./#/,,!$%!638@$!F%4#*,,/,!
2. I do badly on test that needs a lot or reading ability
Y[G! >!*)!-,-*##5!(/#*O/0!
Y\G! X5!.*(/%+,!*(/!-,-*##5!-%E*..5!'(!0$,*..'$%+/0!1$+E!1E*+!>!0'!
Y]G! 6/'.#/!4')/!+'!)/!&'(!E/#.!$%!)',+!!GFDD@%!EHI6G>!%
PYG! >+!$,!0$&&$4-#+!+'!)*3/!&($/%0,!1$+E!)/)2/(,!'&!)5!'1%!,/O!
PPG! 6/'.#/!'&!+E/!'..',$+/!,/O!1E')!>!#$3/J!0'%W+!#$3/!)/!
PQG! >!'&+/%!%//0!E/#.!$%!54>F654>$G!!
PRG! >!E*I/!*!%$4/!#''3$%F!&*4/!
PSG! BI/(*##J!>!*)!%'!F''0!
PTG! >!*)!E'%/,+!
PUG! >!*)!#*^5!1E/%!$+!4')/,!+'!+E$%F,!#$3/!,.'(+,!*%0!E*(0!.E5,$4*#!/O/(4$,/!
P[G! >!#''3!&'(1*(0!+'!638@$!F%4#*,,/,!
P\G! >!1'((5!)'(/!+E*%!>!%//0!+'!
C*#,/!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
P! Q!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
R!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
S!
=/(2!X*(,EJ!987C!:/,/*(4E!A/%+(/!L_*%3,+'1%!A*).-,M!@%$I/(,$+5!'&!K/,+/(%!950%/5J!"-,+(*#$*!QQPSG!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
T!
<(-/
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
U!
P%
42
Appendix C
Sydney Attribution Scale Sample
Example question for math failure outcome:
1. Suppose you get a maths question wrong in

class. It is probably because:
False
Mostly
False
Sometimes
False,
Sometimes
True
Mostly
True
True
! ! ! ! !
b) the question was hard ...............................................
! ! ! ! !
c) you never pay any attention in maths ! ! ! ! !
lessons
a) you often have trouble in maths ...............................
Example question for math success outcome:

2. Suppose you are chosen from your
school to take part in a state maths
competition. This is probably because:
! ! ! ! !
b) you were lucky ........................................................
! ! ! ! !
c) you are good at maths .............................................
! ! ! ! !
a) you will try your best ..............................................
43
Appendix D
Personal Achievement Goal Orientation Sample
Num. Items
1.
Mastery-Oriented
Learning a lot of new things is what is
important to me in math.
One of my main goals in math is to improve my
skills.
My main goal in math is to learn as much as I
can.
Really understanding my math work is
important to me.
Not at
all True
Somewh
at True
Very
True
Learning new skills in math is one of my goals.

Performance-Approach
In math, doing better than other students is
important to me.
My goal in math is to look smarter than other

students.
One of my goals is to show others that math is
easy for me.
4.
It is important to me that others think I am good

at math.
5.
My goal in math is to do better than other

students.
Performance-Avoidant
It is important to me that I dont look stupid in
math class.
One of my goals is to keep others from thinking
I am not smart in math.
3.
I do my math work so that my teacher doesnt

think I know less than others.
4.
My goal in math is to avoid looking like I cant

do my work.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
44
Appendix E
Implicit Association Test of Math-Gender Stereotype Word List

Male
Female
Math
Language
Jessica
Joshua
Literature
Equation
Madison
Matthew
Reading
Addition
Ashley
Jacob
Story
Subtraction
Megan
Ryan
Poem
Numbers
Olivia
Jessica
Books
Division
Emily
Ethan
Writing
Multiplication
Sarah
Michael
Grammar
Fractions
Hannah
Benjamin
Spelling
Decimals

Claire Lenehan - Final Honours Thesis PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Claire Lenehan - Final Honours Thesis PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

IMPLICIT MATH-GENDER STEREOTYPE IN PROCEDURAL AND CONCEPTUAL

A Thesis submitted to the Psychology Department

Keywords: conceptual and procedural knowledge; academic motivation; math-gender stereotype;

Figure 1. Cluster solution for residualized conceptual and procedural scores..13

Implicit Math-Gender Stereotype in Procedural and Conceptual Fraction Learners

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Each Scale

1. Total Conceptual (scored out of 24)

2. Total Procedural (out of 14)

3. Total Fraction (out of 38)

4. Math Self-Concept (out of 60)

5. Verbal Self-Concept (out of 60)

6. Math Success Ability (out of 30)

7. Math Success Effort (out of 30)

8. Math Success External (out of 30)

9. Math Failure Ability (out of 30)

10. Math Failure Effort (out of 30)

11. Math Failure External (out of 30)

12. Mastery Goal (out of 25)

13. Performance Approach (out of 25)

14. Performance Avoidance (out of 20)

15. Math IAT

16. Language IAT

Table 2. Inter-correlation Matrix

.43** .56** .35** -.27*

.86** .48** .16*

.31** .27** -.03

Predicting conceptual scores. Regression analyses were used to examine possible

Table 4: Regression Analyses Predicting Conceptual Scores

Ability Attribution for Math Success

Effort Attribution for Math Success

External Attribution for Math Success b

Ability Attribution for Math Failure

Effort Attribution for Math Failure

External Attribution for Math Failure

Performance Approach Orientation

Performance Avoidance Orientation c

Motivation (Mot) Scale

Figure 4. Three-way interaction between performance avoidance orientation, cluster membership

Table 5: Regression Analyses Predicting Conceptual Scores (With IAT)

Ability Attribution for Math Success

Effort Attribution for Math Success

External Attribution for Math Success b

Ability Attribution for Math Failure

Effort Attribution for Math Failure

External Attribution for Math Failure

Performance Approach Orientation c

Performance Avoidance Orientation d

Motivation (Mot) Scale

Predicting procedural scores. Table 6 illustrates the interactions between motivationa

significant predictor of procedural fractions scores in a positive direction while procedural ma

Table 6: Regression Analyses Predicting Procedural Scores

Ability Attribution for Math Success

Effort Attribution for Math Success

External Attribution for Math Success

Ability Attribution for Math Failure

Effort Attribution for Math Failure

External Attribution for Math Failure

Performance Approach Orientation

Performance Avoidance Orientation b

Motivation (Mot) Scale

Figure 7. Three-way interaction between performance avoidance orientation, cluster membership

Table 7: Regression Analyses Predicting Procedural Scores (With IAT)

.43 .56 .35** -.27*

.86 .48 .16*

.31 .27 -.03