International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 3, 15 April 2012, 303313

Visual thinking and gender differences in high school calculus

Erhan Selcuk Haciomeroglua* and Eric Chickenb
a

School of Teaching, Learning, and Leadership, University of Central Florida,

4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816-1250, USA; bDepartment of
Statistics, Florida State University, 117 North Woodward Avenue, Tallahassee,
FL 32306-4330, USA
(Received 24 January 2011)
This study sought to examine calculus students mathematical performances and preferences for visual or analytic thinking regarding derivative
and antiderivative tasks presented graphically. It extends previous studies
by investigating factors mediating calculus students mathematical performances and their preferred modes of thinking. Data were collected from
183 Advanced Placement calculus students in five high schools. Students
visual preferences were not influenced by gender. Statistically significant
differences in visual preference scores were found among high- and lowperforming students. Thus, the results suggest that stronger preference for
visual thinking was associated with higher mathematical performances.
Keywords: calculus; derivative; antiderivative; gender difference; visual
thinking; analytic thinking; high school

1. Introduction
Past studies analysing factors of differences in mathematical performance have
generated inconclusive findings. We hypothesized that preference for visual or
analytic thinking might underlie differences in mathematics learning and designed
tasks to determine students mathematical performances and preferred mode of
thinking regarding derivative and antiderivative tasks presented graphically. This
study sought to investigate factors mediating calculus students mathematical
performances and preferences for visual thinking.
Interest in the relationships between gender and mathematical performance has
existed for decades, and there is extensive research relating to differences in
mathematical performance to solution strategies. Halpern and Collaers [1] extensive
literature in this field suggests that gender differences in mathematical performance
may be related to strategies males and females use to solve visual or spatial tasks.
Carr et al. [2], with 242 second grade students, found significant gender differences in
cognitive strategy use, which affected their mathematics competency in favour of
boys. In a study of the relationship between learning styles and mathematics
achievement with 73 college mathematics majors, Orhun [3] noted that males and
females differed in learning styles but not in mathematics achievement between
groups of students defined by gender and learning styles. Having measured 54 college
*Corresponding author. Email: erhansh@mail.ucf.edu
ISSN 0020739X print/ISSN 14645211 online
2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2011.618550
http://www.tandfonline.com

304

E.S. Haciomeroglu and E. Chicken

students knowledge of integral, sequence and series using six tasks, Ubuz [4] found
significant gender differences in calculus performance on two tasks related to
Riemann sums and integration. In an attempt to investigate the diagram use and its
relationship with gender differences in AP calculus performance, Bremigan [5]
analysed 600 students written solutions to free response problems on the Advanced
Placement (AP) Calculus Examination. The results indicated that males who used
fewer diagrams achieved significantly higher AP scores. Males produced simpler
diagrams than did females, suggesting that females may be more dependent on the
use of drawing strategies, whereas high-scoring males might have used visualization
without modifying or constructing a diagram. This is consonant with Battistas [6]
observation that low-achieving geometry students used more visual solutions (i.e.
drawing strategies without visualization) than analytic. In investigating the role of
spatial visualization in mathematical thinking and its relationship to gender
differences in geometry, Battista [6], with 145 high school geometry students, also
identified significant differences in geometry achievement and geometric problem
solving in favour of males. Although there was no significant difference between the
two sexes in their use of geometric problem-solving strategies, the results indicated
that males tended to use visualization rather than a drawing strategy, whereas the
reverse was true for females.
Linn and Petersen [7] attributed gender differences on spatial tasks to the
selection of efficient strategies: The pattern of sex differences could result from a
propensity of females to select and consistently use less efficient or less accurate
strategies for these tasks. (p. 1492). Fennema and Tartre [8] conducted a
longitudinal study to investigate mathematical problem-solving performance of
students with discrepant spatial visualization and verbal skills in grades 6, 7 and 8.
Boys solved significantly more problems than girls, and boys with low spatial
visualization and high verbal skills had the highest mathematics achievement scores
compared to boys with high spatial and high verbal, girls with low spatial and high
verbal, or girls with high spatial and high verbal. There was no difference between
students with low or high spatial visualization skills in mathematical problem
solving. They concluded that students with discrepant spatial and verbal skills
differed in their strategies, but not in their ability to solve problems. Similarly, in a
longitudinal study with 82 elementary students, Fennema et al. [9] concluded that
there were no gender differences in solving problems but strategies used to solve
problems were different throughout the study. That is, girls tended to use concrete
strategies and boys tended to use abstract strategies. Gallagher and De Lisi [10]
examined solution strategies of high-ability students with high mathematics scores
on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SATM) on routine and non-routine SATM
problems and found differences in performances on routine problems favouring
females and non-routine problems the males. Gallagher and De Lisi [10] attributed
the results to gender differences in solution strategies, suggesting that the use of
conventional and unconventional strategies were significantly high for female and
male students, respectively. On the other hand, in a study of 112 sixth grade students,
Lowrie and Kay [11] found that although students used more visual methods as
difficulty of algebra word problems increased, there was no significant difference
between boys and girls regarding their preference for visual and analytic methods.
Krutetskii [12] identified types of mathematical giftedness based on students
preferences for analytic (or verballogical) or visual (visualpictorial) thinking.
According to Krutetskii [12], the level of mathematical abilities is determined by the

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 305

strength of the analytic component of thinking, and the visual component, which is
not considered to be of the components of mathematical giftedness, determined the
type (though not the extent) of mathematical giftedness. Lean and Clements [13]
reported a similar finding from a study with 112 engineering students: spatial ability
and knowledge of spatial conventions were not factors significantly affecting
mathematical performance of engineering students, and that the students who
preferred analytic thinking outperformed those who preferred visual thinking on
both spatial and mathematical tests. Using a sample of elementary and middle school
students, Moses [14] and Suwarsono [15] analysed solution strategies to determine
their visuality and concluded that visuality and problem-solving performance did not
correlate significantly. Galindo-Morales [16] observed similar findings from a study
of the relationship between visuality and calculus performance with 139 college
students enrolled in calculus classes. On the other hand, Ferrini-Mundy [17] and
Ubuz [18] found a strong relationship between visualization and calculus and
reinforced the roles of visual thinking in learning calculus.
The research studies [1016] stand apart from other research on students
cognitive processes because they determined students visuality based on their
preferences for visual or analytic solutions and compared their mathematical
performance in their preferred mode of thinking. We have seen a relationship
between visuality and mathematics learning, and preference for visual thinking might
underlie differences in mathematics learning. In our review of existing literature, we
have found a dearth of research studies examining mathematical performances of
students with different preferences. Our students have developed preferences to think
visually or analytically and their preferences can be different from their abilities to
think visually and analytically. Differences in students mathematical performances
may arise from their preferences and not necessarily from their abilities. We believe
this suggests research studies focusing on students preferences and that a distinction
has to be made between studies focusing on mathematical ability testing and studies
focusing on students preferences for visual or analytic thinking. In this study, the
following research questions were investigated in high schools:
(1) Differences in performance. Are there differences among students mathematical performances that can be attributed to gender or preference for visual
thinking?
(2) Differences in visual preference. Are there differences among students
preferences for visual thinking that can be attributed to gender or
performance?

2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
The participants were 12th grade students (1718 years of age), who were enrolled in
AP calculus courses at five high schools in two school districts in Northwest Central
Florida in the United States at the time of the study. AP calculus courses are
designed for students who prepare for college-level mathematics and plan to take the
AP Calculus Examination to earn college credit and AP. Thus, overall, the
participants in this study were high achieving and motivated students. All 188
students agreed to participate in the study. Five students who failed to take both
derivative and antiderivative tests were excluded from the data. There were 99 male

306

E.S. Haciomeroglu and E. Chicken

and 84 female students. The students ethnicity was as follows: 153 white, 4 AfricanAmerican, 3 Hispanic, 19 Asian and 4 multi-racial. Of the 183, we were able to
collect 174 students scores on AP calculus test at the end of the year. Therefore,
results are based on the most available data in this study.

2.2. Procedure
All students received standardized instructions and were tested in groups of 922 in
their classrooms. All participating students gave their informed consent and were
debriefed at the end of the study. Two school visits were made during the semester to
administer the derivative and the antiderivative tests. Upon completion of the
derivative or the antiderivative test, students were given a questionnaire consisting of
a visual and an analytic solution method for each task and were asked to choose a
method of solution that most closely described how they sketched their graphs. At
the end of study, 174 students scores on the AP Calculus Examination were collected
from the teachers.

2.3. Derivative and antiderivative tests

In this study, we have administered derivative and antiderivative tasks. The internal
reliability of the derivative and the antiderivative tests were 0.86 and 0.84,
respectively, for the students in this study. The tests are designed to determine the
students calculus performances and visual preferences as they attempt to sketch
derivative and antiderivative graphs. Although a typical calculus covers various
topics including limits, functions, sequences and series, there are two fundamental
concepts of calculus: differentiation and integration. Moreover, applied calculus
problems are often complex mathematical tasks with various mathematical terms,
symbols and diagrams and this makes it difficult to examine the thinking modes (i.e.
visual or analytic) students prefer to use when attempting to solve such problems.
Thus, we decided to design derivative and antiderivative (or integral) tasks for which
we could identify students visual or analytic solutions. The tests consist of graphical
tasks because studies [19] have shown that most calculus students tend to use analytic
strategies to compute derivatives and integrals and this tendency makes it more
difficult to infer students visual strategies when they are solving procedural tasks.
Each test consists of five graphical tasks requiring students to draw derivative
(Figure 1) or antiderivative graphs (Figure 2) of basic functions. Every graphical task
has at least two possible ways of obtaining a solution because we think that visual
students prefer to work directly from graphical information and analytic students to
translate to an algebraic representation when this option is available. We use the
terms visual and analytic to mean graphical and algebraic solutions, respectively.
Graphical solutions such as estimating slopes are considered visual solutions.
We considered a solution to be visual if the student estimated the slopes of tangent
lines at various points on the graph of the function and used this to draw the graph
of the derivative or antiderivative. Algebraic solutions such as estimating equations
are considered to be analytic solutions. We considered a solution to be analytic if the
student estimated and integrated the equation of the graph to draw its derivative or
antiderivative graph. One task from each test is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 307

Figure 1. Derivative task.

Figure 2. Antiderivative task.

2.4. Variables
Two measures of calculus performance and a measure of visual preference were
included in the analyses. The AP Calculus Examination is an important standardized
test. High school students who perform well can earn college credit and AP.

308

E.S. Haciomeroglu and E. Chicken

It covers differential and integral calculus topics, and scores are reported on a fivepoint scale (5 is the highest and 1 the lowest).
The calculus derivative and antiderivative tests yielded two scores for each
student: (1) a score of mathematical performance determined by the number of
correct responses and (2) a score of visual preference.
In assessing the students performance on the calculus derivative and antiderivative graphs derivative (D), antiderivative (A) and a combined score, derivative/
antiderivative (AD), they were given a score of 0 for each incorrect answer and 1 for
the correct one. In assessing the students performance on the calculus derivative (D)
and antiderivative (A) tasks, they were given a score of 0 for each incorrect answer
and 1 for the correct one. Thus, for each of the two tests, the total possible score was
5 points. A combined score, AD, was also given to each student. To determine the
students visual preference scores for the derivative and antiderivative tasks
presented graphically derivative (Vd), antiderivative (Va), and the average of the
derivative/antiderivative measures (VdVa), they were given a score of 0 for each
analytic solution and 1 for each visual solution regardless of whether their answers
were correct or incorrect. The average of the five scores was then used for Va and Vd.
When determining preference for the derivative and antiderivative tasks, the primary
goal was to identify the students methods as visual or analytic; whether their
answers were correct or incorrect mattered less than their method(s) in determining
preference. Thus, for each of the two sections, the maximum possible score was 1
point. For instance, in the derivative section consisting of five tasks, for a visual
preference score of 0 (Vd) and a derivative score of 1 (D), we can say that the student
solves all the tasks correctly and has a strong preference for analytic thinking. In the
antiderivative section consisting of five tasks, a visual preference score of 1 (Va) and
an antiderivative score of 0 (A) indicate a strong preference for visual thinking
and an incomplete understanding of the antiderivative graphs.
In our analyses, we made use of V, an optimal weighted combination of the
visual preference scores: V 0.23Va 0.77Vd. The measure V is optimal in the
sense that it provides the best separation of visual and analytic students based on
combinations Va (1  )Vd for 0    1. This separation is quantified by the
predicted probability of being visual or analytic given a students score on the
derivative and antiderivative tests. Figure 3 gives the probabilities that a students
solution will be 0 (analytic preference) or 1 (visual preference) given a visual
preference score of the student. Since it is lowest on the left, highest on the right and
steepest in the middle, V is the preferred measure. The curves in Figure 3 were
estimated using logistic regression. In terms of goodness-of-fit for these regression
curves, V fits the data best when compared with all other weighted combinations of
Va and Vd. For comparison purposes, Figure 3 displays a curve labelled Vd (all
weight to Vd, none to Va), Va (all weight to Va, none to Vd) and VdVa (equal weight
to Va and Vd).
To compare performances of visual and analytic students, we used their visual
preference scores, V, to distinguish between visual and analytic preferences. If a
student has a V score greater than 0.5, then the student has a visual preference,
Vis 1. If the student has a V score less than 0.5, then the student has an analytic
preference, Vis 0. All students could be classified as visual or analytic in
preference since no student had a V score of 0.5. We created a performance factor
based on AP scores. The students with AP scores of 4 or 5 were considered as high
performing and those with AP scores of 1 or 2 as low performing.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 309

Figure 3. Logistic regression.

Table 1. MANOVA of AP and AD on student factors (N 174).

Factor
Gender
Vis
Gender  Vis

Pillais statistic

p-Value

0.03
0.03
0.01

2.87
2.83
0.60

0.06
0.06
0.55

3. Results
3.1. Differences in performance
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tested for differences in performance on the AP calculus test and the derivative and antiderivative (AD) tests. The
factors considered were student gender and visual preference scores Vis. Although
the MANOVA did not show either of these factors or their interaction term to be
significant at level  0.05, the small p-values provided in Table 1 led us to consider
some follow-up tests on AD and AP separately.
For follow up tests, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to
investigate differences in mean AP scores based on visuality and gender. An
ANOVA was also performed on AD with the same factors. These individual
ANOVA provided mixed results: gender significant for AD ( p 0.02) and visuality
near significant for AP ( p 0.06). Males had a significantly higher mean AD score
(0.71) than females (0.63). Breaking this down further, Tukeys HSD test on the AD
means of the four subgroups of students defined by gender and Vis revealed that
there was a significant difference between visual-males and analytic-females in the
AD scores, but the other pairwise comparisons were not significant. Visual students
had a mean AP score of 3.37 while the analytic students AP mean was 3.01.

310

E.S. Haciomeroglu and E. Chicken

Table 2. Means and SDs of performance on AD and AP.

AD

Analytic female
Visual female
Analytic male
Visual male

AP

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

37
45
52
49

0.62
0.64
0.67
0.74

0.22
0.20
0.23
0.20

37
42
48
47

3.00
3.17
3.02
3.55

1.05
1.32
1.36
1.21

Table 3. Three-way ANOVA of V on student factors

(N 123).
Factor
Gender
AP
Gender  AP

p-Value

3.68
4.54
0.08

0.058
0.035
0.773

This difference was not significant at an  0.05 level comparison, though the
p-value is small, p 0.06. None of the AP means were different over the four
subgroups. A close examination of the AD and AP means, however, shows that
males had a higher (though not necessarily significantly higher) mean AD scores
than females and, within the visuality factor, males had a higher mean AP than
females (Table 2). This led us to run ANOVA for males and females separately.
When considering only male students, there were significant differences in the
mean AP scores between visual and analytic males ( p 0.047) but not AD
( p 0.094) scores. For visual and analytic males, mean AP scores were 3.55
(SD 1.21, n 47; SD, standard deviation) and 3.02 (SD 1.36, n 48), and mean
AD scores were 0.74 (SD 0.20, n 49) and 0.67 (SD 0.23, n 52), respectively.
Visual and analytic females, on the other hand, did not differ in AD ( p 0.65) or
AP ( p 0.54) scores. Visual females had a mean AP score of 3.17 (SD 1.32, n 42)
and AD score of 0.64 (SD 0.20, n 45) while analytic females had a mean AP score
of 3.00 (SD 1.05, n 37) and AD score of 0.62 (SD 0.22, n 37).

3.2. Differences in visual preference

A two-way ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact of gender and AP
performance on visual preference, as measured by V, the continuous measure of
student visual preference. There was a significant effect on V due to the AP score
factor ( p 0.035), but no significant effects due to gender or the interaction of gender
and AP score factor (Table 3). However, the p-value for gender is quite low, p 0.057.
Removing the interaction term has little impact on these results. The high-performing
students had a mean V score of 0.59 (SD 0.33, n 71) while the mean V score for
low-performing students was 0.46 (SD 0.39, n 52). Male students had a mean V
score of 0.49 (SD 0.35, n 73) while for females this was 0.60 (SD 0.36, n 50).

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 311

Table 4. Means and SDs of visual preference scores.

Lowperforming
male
M (SD)

28

0.413 (0.368)

Lowperforming
female
M (SD)

24

0.515 (0.405)

Highperforming
male
M (SD)

Highperforming
female
M (SD)

45

0.534 (0.329)

26

0.674 (0.309)

The mean visual preference scores broken over the four groups defined by gender and
AP performance are presented in Table 4. Thus, the high-performing students tended
to be more visual, on average, than the low-performing ones.

4. Conclusions
In this study, we investigated contributing factors to calculus students mathematical
performances and preferences for visual thinking. Our results suggest that preference
for visual thinking is a significant factor influencing male students performances on
the AP test, but not for female students. In particular, visual males scored
significantly higher than analytic males on the AP test. On the derivative and
antiderivative tasks (AD), visual males scored higher than analytic females.
It is important to note that this study does not attempt to draw conclusions
beyond the scope of its limitations, many of which are to be located within the
comparison of performance scores from the derivative and antiderivative tasks with
students AP calculus scores. Obvious issues include the fact that students might have
used strategies on the AP test that differ from those used on the derivative and
antiderivative tests. All derivative and antiderivative tasks were presented graphically, whereas all problems on the AP calculus test were not. That said, the derivative
and antiderivative tasks are not intended to be an accurate predictor of AP test
scores. Rather, it is designed to measure ones preferences for visual or analytic
thinking for the derivative and antiderivative tasks presented graphically and
correlate preference to performance in order to provide mathematics educators with
a better understanding of students preferences.
Although the p-value for gender was quite low, students gender did not have a
significant influence on their preferences for visual or analytic thinking, which is in
agreement with the findings reported by Lowrie and Kay [11]. Statistically significant
differences in visual preference scores were found among high- and low-performing
AP students. Thus, the results suggest that stronger preference for visual thinking
was associated with higher mathematical performances. The result is not consistent
with the results of the studies by Lean and Clements [13], Moses [14] and Suwarsono
[15]. We think that this result may be due to characteristics that distinguish calculus
students from others [17]. Galindo-Morales [16] reported that preference for visual
did not correlate with calculus performance. We believe that lack of correlation
might be because visual methods (e.g. visualizing slopes of tangent lines to sketch
derivative) used by calculus students might not be captured by the algebra tasks
Galindo-Morales [16] used to measure visual preference. Differences in mathematical
performance associated with solution methods or modes of thinking were also noted
by other researchers. Battista [6] and Bremigan [5] explained why strategies

312

E.S. Haciomeroglu and E. Chicken

(i.e. visualization and drawing strategies) used by low- and high-achieving students
led to differences in their performances in geometry and calculus. They found that
high-performing students tend to use visualization more than analytic or drawing
strategies. Results of this study were consistent with these previous findings.
Our study with AP calculus students has generated new information about
calculus students mathematical performances and preferred mode of thinking.
Considering students differing and idiosyncratic methods, we suggest that differences in mathematics learning can be explained by students preferences to think
visually or analytically, but not necessarily by their ability to think visually or
analytically. We think these are topics worthy of continued study and additional
research cycles in calculus classrooms.
There were some limitations that need to be acknowledged and addressed
regarding this study. First, the sample was relatively small and consisted of similaraged students. Second, the students were not randomly selected. Third, the students,
representing various social and economic levels, were volunteers enrolled in AP
calculus classes at the time of the study.

References
[1] D.F. Halpern and M.L. Collaer, Sex differences in visuospatial abilities: More than meets
the eye, in The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking, P. Shah and A. Miyake,
eds., Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 170212.
[2] M. Carr, H.H. Steiner, B. Kyser, and B. Biddlecomb, A comparison of predictors of early
emerging gender differences in mathematics competency, Learn. Indiv. Differ. 18 (2008),
pp. 6175.
[3] N. Orhun, An investigation into the mathematics achievement and attitude towards
mathematics with respect to learning style according to gender, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci.
Technol. 38 (2007), pp. 321333.
[4] B. Ubuz, Factors associated with success in a calculus course: An examination of personal
variables, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2011), pp. 112.
[5] E.G. Bremigan, An analysis of diagram modification and construction in students solutions
to applied calculus problems, J. Res. Math. Educ. 36 (2005), pp. 248277.
[6] M.T. Battista, Spatial visualization and gender differences in high school geometry, J. Res.
Math. Educ. 21 (1990), pp. 4760.
[7] M.C. Linn and A.C. Petersen, Emergence and characterization of gender differences in
spatial ability: A meta-analysis, Child Dev. 56 (1985), pp. 14791498.
[8] E. Fennema and L.A. Tartre, The use of spatial visualization in mathematics by girls and
boys, J. Res. Math. Educ. 16 (1985), pp. 184206.
[9] E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter, V.R. Jacobs, M.L. Franke, and L.W. Levi, A longitudinal
study of gender differences in young childrens mathematical thinking, Educ. Res. 27 (1998),
pp. 611.
[10] A.M. Gallagher and R. De Lisi, Gender differences in scholastic aptitude test-mathematics
problem solving among high-ability students, J. Educ. Psychol. 86 (1994), pp. 204211.
[11] T. Lowrie and R. Kay, Relationship between visual and nonvisual solution methods and
difficulty in elementary mathematics, J. Educ. Res. 94 (2001), pp. 248255.
[12] V.A. Krutetskii, The Psychology of Mathematical Abilities in Schoolchildren, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976.
[13] G. Lean and M.A. Clements, Spatial ability, visual imagery, and mathematical
performance, Educ. Stud. Math. 12 (1981), pp. 267299.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 313

[14] B.E. Moses, The nature of spatial ability and its relationship to mathematical problem
solving, Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University, 1977.
[15] S. Suwarsono, Visual imagery in the mathematical thinking of seventh grade students,
Ph.D. diss., Monash University, 1982.
[16] E. Galindo-Morales, Visualization in the calculus class: Relationship between cognitive
style, gender, and use of technology, Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University, 1994.
[17] J. Ferrini-Mundy, Spatial training for calculus students: Sex differences in achievement in
visualization ability, J. Res. Math. Educ. 18 (1987), pp. 126140.
[18] B. Ubuz, Interpreting a graph and constructing its derivative graph: Stability and change in
students conceptions, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 38 (2007), pp. 609637.
[19] T. Eisenberg and T. Dreyfus, On the reluctance to visualize in mathematics,
in Visualization in Teaching and Learning Mathematics, W. Zimmermann and
S. Cunningham, eds., Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1996,
pp. 127138.

Copyright of International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology is the property of
Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.