A recent wave of research suggests that teachers overrate the performance of girls relative to boys and hold more positive attitudes toward girls' mathematics abilities. However, these prior estimates of teachers' supposed female bias are potentially misleading because these estimates (and teachers themselves) confound achievement with teachers' perceptions of behavior and effort. Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K), Study 1 demonstrates that teachers actually rate boys' mathematics proficiency higher than that of girls when conditioning on both teachers' ratings of behavior and approaches to learning as well as past and current test scores. In other words, on average girls are only perceived to be as mathematically competent as similarly achieving boys when the girls are also seen as working harder, behaving better, and being more eager to learn. Study 2 uses mediation analysis with an instrumental-variables approach, as well as a matching strategy, to explore the extent to which this conditional underrating of girls may explain the widening gender gap in mathematics in early elementary school. We find robust evidence suggesting that underrating girls' mathematics proficiency accounts for a substantial portion of the development of the mathematics achievement gap between similarly performing and behaving boys and girls in the early grades.

Researchers have long endeavored to understand whether teachers’ evaluations of their students’ mathematical ability or performance are accurate or whether their evaluations reveal implicit biases. To disentangle these factors, in a randomized controlled study (N = 390), we examined teachers’ evaluations of 18 mathematical solutions to which gender- and race-specific names had been randomly assigned. Teachers displayed no detectable bias when assessing the correctness of students’ solutions; however, when assessing students’ mathematical ability, biases against Black, Hispanic, and female students were revealed, with biases largest against Black and Hispanic girls. Specifically, non-White teachers’ estimations of students’ mathematical ability favored White students (both boys and girls) over students of color, whereas (primarily female) White teachers’ estimations of students’ mathematical ability favored boys over girls. Results indicate that teachers are not free of bias, and that teachers from marginalized groups may be susceptible to bias that favors stereotype-advantaged groups.

In this study, I examined the relationship between teachers' mathematical knowledge and instruction. Twenty-one K—8 teachers who were enrolled in a master's program were followed for 3 years to study how their mathematical knowledge and teaching changed over time. The results of multilevel growth models indicated that gains in teachers' mathematical knowledge predicted changes in the quality of their lesson design, their mathematical agenda, and the classroom climate. Analyses of interviews and classroom observation data conducted with a subgroup of teachers revealed that in addition to the gains teachers made in their mathematical knowledge, their exit level of knowledge played a significant role in the quality of the changes in their practices.

No abstract

Teachers’ understanding of the concepts they teach affects the quality of instruction and students’ learning. This study used a sample of 303 teachers from across the USA to examine elementary school mathematics teachers’ knowledge of key concepts underlying fraction arithmetic. Teachers’ explanations were coded based on the accuracy of their explanations and the kinds of concepts and representations they used in their responses. The results showed that teachers’ understanding of fraction arithmetic was limited, especially for fraction division, yet a moderate relationship was found between teachers’ understanding of fraction addition and division. Furthermore, more experienced teachers seemed to have a deeper understanding of fraction arithmetic, whereas special education teachers had a substantially limited understanding.