Boys and girls learn differently?

The article you admit you haven't read? What?!

Do you understand what the overlapping distribution curves are showing,Scott?

There were no overlapping distribution curves in the article I posted.

One of the problems with research is that projects that find a difference however slight are published. Many more find no significant difference and are therefore not published. So it isn't accurate to talk about overwhelming evidence.

Do you understand what the overlapping distribution curves are showing, Scott? Yes, the differences in the mean values are significant, but not everyone is average (obviously).

In the diagram I'm posting here, if we go back to Fermat's example, all the girls who are in the pink shaded area of the graph have scores which are below the mean boys' score, and the boys in the blue area have scores which are above the girls' mean score. (Ignore the numbers, it's just a graph I found on some website.)

So yes, there may be a significant difference in mathematical terms. But there is so much overlap, that you can't separate out what is typically 'male' or 'female', whether it's the number of words in their vocabulary or any other attribute. So a child with a vocabulary of 2300 words is slightly more likely to be female, but could easily be male.

Scott, you haven't given any evidence. You've copied something from Google, then posted a link to a paper you admit you haven't read.
women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs
This doesn't say anything about learning styles. As it relates to androgens it might account for a higher rate of aggression in some females who are exposed to a higher level in the womb. Which would proved the point, actually, that there are FEWER rather than more clear cut sex differences between men and women, because it's indicating a variation of androgens amongst females.

I think the one take home lesson we can all glean from this thread is that maths is not Scott's strong subject.

Ad hominem attacks when the evidence inconveniently threatens your world view?

If the differences are insignificant, why are so many experts stating that we need to take them into consideration in regard to education? 🤔

Young animals don't learn differently based on sex; they learn differently based on temperament. Their focus of attention shifts after puberty and their behaviour becomes more strongly influenced by sex and reproduction.
I don't see any evidence to support humans being very different.

Where there are different attitudes towards education and the subjects girls and boys are supposed to be good at, there is a greater level of equality. In China, you are expected to work hard at anything you don't excel at to improve your grades, there isn't such an expectation of boy and girl subjects, so there is a more equal level of girls going into STEM.

I wasn't positing an argument, Scott, I was explaining basic statistics to you. Maths doesn't work on a "some people think this, while other people disagree" basis.

(Whether or not there are significant differences between the male and female populations aside, I think the one take home lesson we can all glean from this thread is that maths is not Scott's strong subject.)

I usually reject any suggestion of gender stereotypes but I do find this topic challenging. I attended a conference last year in Geneva with speakers from CERN, the university of Geneva, EPFL and some Swiss organisations for gender equality. They were involved in a study on behaviours in education and their outcomes and impact on girls. They reiterated the socialisation impact and classroom the behaviours that disadvantage girls but they also concluded the need to further interrogate whether the education system, the curriculum, delivery, testing and analysis disadvantages girls, implying that there is a difference in learning between the sexes.

There were lots of gender stereotypes thrown around which may reflect what was observed in the research but they mentioned that boys were more likely to get help with literacy while it was accepted that girls might struggle with numeracy and instead of receiving the corresponding levels of support, they were left to find their own level. So.. yes... socialised. .. girls read and and less strong in maths. But is this really just socialisation or is there a hormonal element to it.

I would love to read credible research which explored this more.

IIRC, there might be a stronger relationship between cognitive learning styles and the ratio of the length of your index finger to your ring finger than there is to sex.

I have noticed that my girls school has as of yet only done pe topics trandionally thought of a the boys ones -football, basketball, athletics etc. I want to see netball, hockey, dance, gynastics and so on. Mainly because girls taking part in the trandtionally thought of as boys sports creates the idea the boys ones are better, and that the girls ones are lesser

Interestingly, for the first two terms of secondary school the only subject dd failed was PE. Not just a b or a c, a failing grade.

Then she was absent for a full week, and the PE teacher bothered to ask where she was.

In the US competing (and medalling) for Team GB. Her sport is one that isn’t covered in school and is probably more “girly”, in that it is a judged sport not a ball or racing sport.

The PE teacher hadn’t looked past the fact she had never done hockey/netball/high jump/rugby/football to see that ahe’s probably one of the physically fittist kids in the school.

"They do learn differently" yes, children do all learn differently. It is not helpful to impose simplistic generic sex-stereotyped ideas about how to teach girls/boys, which is what often happens when this kind of thing is brought up in schools.

Yes I like that idea visa.

(Martial arts should be on the curriculum too imo.)

There's an issue with engaging boys in art too; I know of an art educator who regularly runs workshops on this. She wasn't interested in the reasons why; my feeling is that it's predominantly social conditioning / how art is taught in primary schools and by who but also brings me back to why the OT we have at work has always mostly worked with young boys ok fine motor skill difficulties.

Interesting study on effects of stress in early childhood www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3415764-interesting-study-on-effects-of-stress-in-early-childhood

I posted this last week cba to bump it but I think shows that there can be some sex based differences but I believe it's more to do with how external conditioning affects the sexes to a greater or lesser extent if that makes sense. This is relevant as behaviour translates to how easily a child accesses learning at school.

Aspie - splitting boys & girls in class for learning would be an advantage to girls in the same way single sex schools have better academic records for girls in trandionally thought of as male subjects- as in even little nursery age boys put themselves forward first, shout out more, take up more of teachers attention etc

I agree that’s due to socialisation like everyone says but that doesn’t mean giving girls the space to shout loudest when not drowned out by boys who are used to being the only ones heard.

I’m actually inclined to agree with the inclusion of traditionally thought of girly subjects like ballet also (despite my hatred of it also). I have noticed that my girls school has as of yet only done pe topics trandionally thought of a the boys ones -football, basketball, athletics etc. I want to see netball, hockey, dance, gynastics and so on. Mainly because girls taking part in the trandtionally thought of as boys sports creates the idea the boys ones are better, and that the girls ones are lesser. The same way tomboy is a cool thing for girl to be but girl is an insult for a boy.

Scott, you are still not grasping the concept of statistical differences.

If there’s a sex-correlated statistical difference in the understanding of statistical differences then your lack of understanding is proof that these differences are statistical.

You have a true aspie brain aspie! I love that post.

There are so many different aspects to this area, both how education works and how biology/ neurology works, cause and effect, causation / correlation etc, it's extremely difficult to define exactly.

It's like the nature nurture debate, but really we know nature comes first (ie we are born with dna which affects brain structures), then nurture. Nurture can make or break nature because the brain is very plastic.

I recently found out that most people can see things in their heads - their "minds eye". I had no idea this was literal

For me it was the other way around. I literally can’t imagine what it would be like not to see picture something in my head. Yet I have terrible difficulty remembering faces. I have to bluff my way through conversations sometimes until I recognise who I am talking to. I could never draw a face or describe somebody in detail. It’s not complete prosopagnosia but I know it’s down to my brain simply not processing faces in the same way I would process a piece of Ikea furniture I could assemble without even glancing at the instructions.

I've not read that article (just remembered I'd bookmarked it) but it has some pretty controversial statements in it.

Confidence has increased that early androgens affect gender development, in light of recent studies that confirm, extend, and clarify previous findings. Activity interests and participation – from childhood toy preferences to adult hobbies and occupations – continue to be strongly linked to prenatal androgen exposure.

Androgen effects on interest and engagement in male-typed occupations was seen to have economic consequences: women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs (despite having lower education, and more psychosocial problems).

My name sake (I'm not her!)

www.southbankcentre.co.uk/blog/fighting-neurotrash%E2%80%A6-professor-gina-rippon-fake-news-sex-differences-neuroscience

They do learn differently.
The reason why shouldn't prevent this from being recognised in the classroom.

Interestingly, the neuroscientist Valerie Thompson who criticised Cordelia Fine for "failing to provide a balanced presentation of the role of hormones in sex-related behavior" due to "not discussing methodologically rigorous studies of organizational effects, which have shown that exposure to androgens during prenatal development has clear effects on sex-related behavior, including interests and abilities" links to the following article which is somewhat relevant to this thread and many previous ones.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26688827/