Boys and girls learn differently?

Suppose (made up example because my copy of Elliott is on loan to a friend at the mo.) that by age 5 girls have on average a vocab of 2200 words, and boys have on average a vocab of 2100 words. This means diddly squat in terms of how one would set about teaching a class of 15 girls and 15 boys if, for e.g., 45% of the boys know more than 2200 words, and 45% of the girls know less than 2100 words. The large variations in performance in each of the sexes considered separately swamps the tiny difference in means between the two populations.

This reminds me of how Brexit was reported. To listen to the news you’d think that everyone over 40 voted Leave and everyone under 40 voted Remain. To listen to ‘comedians’ like Frankie Boyle ‘one good winter’ (haha) would have swung the vote the other way.

The same with the North and South, everyone north of the Watford gap being supposedly opposed to Europe because reasons.

But as soon as you look at the actual statistics you can see what bullshit this was. It wasn’t two distinct groups separated by age or geography, it was a close run contest where age and geography overlapped.

No, not exceptions. As FermatsTheorem has explained, the majority of all boys and girls will be in the same overlap area of distribution. Meaning their sex tells you nothing useful about them, as per Aspie's analogy.

Those are still statistical differences, not absolutes. It’s still ‘in general’ this, and ‘tends to’ that.

Well, of course there will always be exceptions to the rule.

A quick Google search seems to suggest there may be differences.

Those are still statistical differences, not absolutes. It’s still ‘in general’ this, and ‘tends to’ that.

It's all about the overlap of the distributions, Scott.

Such cognitive differences as have been measured tend to have d-values less than 0.5 (see neuroscientist Lise Elliott's Pink Brain, Blue Brain for details).

Suppose (made up example because my copy of Elliott is on loan to a friend at the mo.) that by age 5 girls have on average a vocab of 2200 words, and boys have on average a vocab of 2100 words. This means diddly squat in terms of how one would set about teaching a class of 15 girls and 15 boys if, for e.g., 45% of the boys know more than 2200 words, and 45% of the girls know less than 2100 words. The large variations in performance in each of the sexes considered separately swamps the tiny difference in means between the two populations.

That's why blanket statements about means, without any information about variances, are sod-all use to anyone, especially to the people drawing up educational policy.

This is also quite interesting although I've only skim read it. Surprised it's not been posted before the.

Researchers have discovered almost 100 major differences between male and female brains.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders%3famp

When I was training to coach a sport, we were told that if you are showing something, think "lift your leg like this," and you lift your right leg, that girls will tend to mirror you by lifting their left and boys will copy and lift their right.

This had no value judgement, nobody saying that one way was better, just something to bear in mind. Obviously it wasn't 100% applicable either, just a trend but I would say, as a coach, it's around 80-90 per cent true and we have similar numbers m/f in this sport. I have tried to think about the socialisation in this instance and I'm not sure how it factors in. I have noticed that in a mixed group, the girls are more likely to modify their behaviour and change leg in line with the boys, but the mirror/copy first response thing I just find interesting.

I’ll throw in an analogy I’ve made before. You are picking a basketball team and you know that there’s a statistical correlation between height and ability. Asians are statistically shorter than Europeans. What do you do? Do you only pick Europeans for your team? Do you pick all the tall kids irrespective of their ethnicity? Or do you hold a tryout and pick the kids who are actually good at basketball? Height is a better predictor of ability than race but you might still end up with a team full of lanky incompetents. You have to test individual abilities.

When it comes to learning styles, I learn better if I can picture something in my head. I can’t listen to someone drowning on and I can’t remember lists. I can’t remember formulae. But give me a model or a diagram and I get it.

I understand that there are people who can absorb verbal information or mathematical formula and they don’t need to be able to ‘see’ something in their head.

Maybe this correlates with sex differences but it’s two overlapping distributions, not two distinct groups. Separate the sexes and you disadvantage the girls who think visually and the boys who learn verbally.

Oh goodness, you can't just dump a random google extract with no source as "evidence".

A quick Google search seems to suggest there may be differences.

Studies show that boys learn differently than girls. Brainscans tell part of the story. In general, more areas of girls' brains, including the cerebral cortex (responsible for memory, attention, thought, and language) are dedicated to verbal functions. The hippocampus a region of the brain critical to verbal memory storage develops earlier for girls and is larger in women than in men. This has a profound effect on vocabulary and writing.

In boys' brains, a greater part of the cerebral cortex is dedicated to spatial and mechanical functioning. So boys tend to learn better with movement and pictures rather than just words. There are also biochemical differences. Boys have less serotonin and oxytocin hormones that play a role in promoting a sense of calm than girls. That's why it's more likely that young boys will fidget and act impulsively.

One of the problems with "Girls learn this way and boys learn that way" thinking is that if you happen to be a girl or boy who learns the "wrong" way you can end up marginalised and excluded from being acheive your potential. I know I do much better at exams than coursework and in retrospect I am really pissed off that my school did an experimental split of girls and boys for English GCSE and put us on a different pathway. I only achieved a C in English whereas I know I'm capable of much better than that.

That a very one dimensional view of teenage boys. In my experience they are as varied as you like, because, you know, they're all individuals. And parenting that excuses bad behaviour from teenage boys on the grounds of "testosterone" is poor parenting.

I don't ultimately profess to know the answer, but surely teenage boys are much more distractable/disruptive with all the testosterone surging around - it certainly seemed this way at school. Might this not require a different approach to keep them engaged?

It's not been debunked. But the degree to which there are differences in learning between the sexes, and the degree to which sociological factor and physical factors play very contentious and hard to study empirically. Many psychologists think that there are genuine physical differences between "male" and "female" brains, but it's also true that brains are very flexible and versatile -- so it doesn't necessarily immediately follow that these differences are responsible for differences in abilities or intelligence.

Cordelia Fine's books are accessible and contain interesting 'debunkings' of a number of 'arguments' that try to show psychological differences are due to biology. But it's still a matter of debate whether her arguments are conclusive.

On average there are differences but like many things there's a lot of variation and some girls learn more like boys and vice versa. My DD2 is happiest in male dominated environments whereas dd1 found the super competitive male classes really off putting and consequently quit science and maths (despite maths being her number one subject by far)

Well, given that we don't typically educate dogs, cats, lions, harris hawks, emperor penguins and praying mantises in our schools, I'm not sure how relevant other species are to this debate.

Moving back to the actual question - rather than trying to dig out references yourself, OP, I'd ask them for their references - from the peer reviewed literature, with summaries of sample sizes, significance tests (which pertain to how representative of the whole population their experimental sample was) and d-values (which pertain to how different the male and female populations were to each other relative to the spread within each population).

Then I'd follow up with "What difference would it make in practice to your teaching methods?" and "How would you make sure that you weren't crudely stereotyping and thus running the risk of failing boys who learned in a stereotypically 'feminine' way (if there is such a thing), or girls who learned in a stereotypically 'masculine' way (if there is such a thing)?"

Put the onus on them to defend their position and walk you through the practical consequence it is likely to have for your child.

I'd go along and severely question any nonsense about there being significant differences between boys and girls, to the point where totally different learning approaches are needed. I'd also be asking how they ensure that such sex based stereotypes do not get passed across to the children. I'd also want to know how they address the individual and don't let these stereotyped ideas dominate and override individual teaching. If I was feeling particularly challenging I'd also ask for evidence that using male/female learning styles actually benefits any of the children.

I would have been beyond irritated if anyone had tried to teach me in some stereotyped idea of what a "feminine" girl should have been taught like. My "learning style" fell into what would be considered a stereotypical male style. Of course it isn't, it's just my personality.

@Thingybob I would imagine differences in other animals are because they are different species...

Learning styles seem to be (at least partly) personality based. It makes sense to offer different learning styles to all children. A stereotyped 'boy' learning style is likely to be appropriate for very many girls too.

I was told that while the girls would pay attention/put up with and work on any topic or book, the boys were too difficult to engage if it wasn't very typically 'boy' based.

All the more reason for the boys to learn to deal with not being the centre of the universe, surely??

I would be suspicious about the training event OP.

For all those who say there is no difference (on average) between male and female brains and that any observed differences in behaviour are due to socialisation, how do you explain the differences observed in other animals? For instance, in so many species males tend to be the more aggressive and dominant ones.

Education is as susceptible to fads as anything else, with the added pressure of personal hobby-horses dictated by whichever Education Secretary is shoving their way to the top of the party this year. Learning styles were debunked ages ago but the myth persists, for example.

There's so much going on for kids that pointing to sex alone is beyond ridiculous, especially if you don't consider socialisation as part of that. Class and poverty, parental education and attitude to education, and access to books are far more important indicators of how the majority of ordinary mainstream kids will do.

That is utterly unacceptable and I would complain to the school. There are some very dodgy old-fashioned trainers out there and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it (if it’s the same man who trained me he is just AWFUL). So many assumptions, stereotypes and made up statements without evidence.

Completely agree with you there

I don’t think I a lack of understanding of statistics is confined to the education system. It’s endemic.

Aspieandproud - I think the misunderstanding of statistics is quite prevalent in the education system

It's down to socialisation.