| Literature DB >> 31120168 |
Nicola J Pitchford1, Antonie Chigeda2, Paula J Hubber1.
Abstract
Globally, gender differences are reported in the early acquisition of reading and mathematics as girls tend to outperform boys in reading, whereas boys tend to outperform girls in mathematics. This can have long-term impact resulting in an under-representation of girls in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics subjects. Recent research suggests that sociocultural factors account for differences across genders in the acquisition of these foundational skills. In this study, we investigated whether a new technology-based intervention, that included activities accessible to both boys and girls, can reduce gender differences from emerging during the early primary school years. The novel instructional method used in this study employed apps developed by onebillion© delivered individually through touch-screen tablets. Over a series of experiments conducted in Malawi, a low-income country in sub-Sahara Africa, we found that when children were exposed to standard pedagogical practice typical gender differences emerged over the first grade (Experiment 1). In contrast, boys and girls learnt equally well with the new interactive apps designed to support the learning of mathematics (Experiment 2) and reading (Experiment 3). When implemented at the start of primary education, before significant gender discrepancies become established, this novel technology-based intervention can prevent significant gender effects for mathematics. These results demonstrate that different instructional practices influence the emergence of gender disparities in early mathematics. Digital interventions can mitigate gender differences in countries where standard pedagogical instruction typically hinders girls from acquiring early mathematical skills at the same rate as boys. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55x-6hhAY9M&feature=youtu.be.Entities:
Keywords: education; gender inequity; mathematics; reading; tablet technology
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31120168 PMCID: PMC6771718 DOI: 10.1111/desc.12864
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dev Sci ISSN: 1363-755X
Topics/units covered in the interactive apps developed by onebillion© designed to support the development of early‐grade mathematics and reading
| Mathematics: 28 topics | Reading: 4 core units |
|---|---|
|
Sorting and Matching |
|
Figure 1Illustration of how the onebillion app intervention is implemented in Malawian primary schools. Photos courtesy of www.onebillion.org
Descriptive statistics for the sample of children participating in Experiment 1
| Measure | Sample ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 ( | Grade 2 ( | |||
| Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | |
|
| 294 | 314 | 306 | 303 |
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean ( | 6.66 (1.17) | 6.42 (1.07) | 8.43 (1.57) | 7.93 (1.33) |
| Median | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 |
| Min – Max | 5–12 | 4–11 | 6–15 | 6–12 |
| Reading | ||||
| EGRA % Mean ( | 0.94 (1.44) | 1.10 (1.78) | 3.48 (6.30) | 5.03 (8.74) |
| Mathematics | ||||
| EGMA % Mean ( | 9.22 (6.78) | 8.96 (6.58) | 27.72 (16.35) | 24.70 (16.20) |
Early‐grade reading and mathematics scores (per cent correct) at the start of the 2015–2016 school year.
Descriptive statistics for the final sample of children participating in Experiment 2
| Measure | Group Sample ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention ( | Control ( | |||
| Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | |
|
| 61 | 88 | 45 | 62 |
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean ( | 6.82 (1.13) | 6.58 (1.15) | 6.98 (1.16) | 6.65 (1.18) |
| Median | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Min–Max | 5–11 | 5–11 | 6–11 | 5–11 |
| Mathematics | ||||
| EGMA % Gain Mean ( | 19.95 (15.11) | 20.86 (16.14) | 17.05 (16.12) | 11.90 (12.61) |
| Between‐group effect size | ||||
|
(intervention vs. control) | Boys = 0.186 Girls = 0.619 | |||
Mathematics gains (per cent) and between‐group effect sizes by gender across the 14‐month intervention period reported.
CONSORT table describing composition of the sample at each stage of the pupil‐level randomized control trial for each of the three grades (G) that took part in Experiment 3
| Study phase | Number of children | |
|---|---|---|
| Enrolment | ||
|
Eligible |
850 | |
|
Randomized |
360 | |
|
Excluded |
490 | |
| Allocation | ||
| Group | Instruction with reading app | Instruction as usual |
| Randomized to group, pre‐tested and received intervention |
180 |
180 |
| Follow‐up | ||
| Post‐tested |
162 |
158 |
|
Lost to follow‐up |
18 (10%) |
22 (12.2%) |
| Analysed | ||
|
Final sample |
162 |
158 |
Descriptive statistics for the final sample of children participating in Experiment 3. Reading gains (per cent) and between‐group effect sizes by gender across the 14‐week intervention period reported
| Measure | Group Sample ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention ( | Control ( | |||
| Boys | Girls | Boys | Girls | |
|
| 75 | 87 | 84 | 74 |
| Age (years) | ||||
| Mean ( | 7.87 (1.55) | 7.43 (1.27) | 7.95 (1.49) | 7.57 (1.30) |
| Median | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 |
| Min–Max | 6–12 | 5–11 | 6–11 | 6–11 |
| Reading | ||||
| EGRA % Gain Mean ( | 8.32 (15.74) | 10.65 (15.11) | 4.29 (7.73) | 5.09 (7.33) |
| Between‐group effect size | ||||
|
(intervention vs. control) | Boys = 0.325 Girls = 0.460 | |||
Figure 2Attainment in mathematics (EGMA % correct, left panel) and reading (EGRA % correct, right panel) for boys and girls in grades 1 and 2 at baseline (November 2015) in Experiment 1. Error bars represent standard error of the mean
Figure 3Pre‐test (baseline) and post‐test attainment in mathematics (EGMA % correct) and reading (EGRA % correct) for boys and girls receiving the new digital technology intervention for mathematics (Experiment 2, left panel) and reading (Experiment 3, right panel) compared to control children receiving standard class‐based, teacher‐led, instruction only. Error bars represent standard error of the mean