Exam characteristics exacerbate performance gaps between male and female students

Are Money And Gender Predictive Of Success In Biology Courses?
Christian Wright from Arizona State University presented on his work assessing the differences in performance between males and females, and students from high and low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. Students who were compared were grouped based on their GPA prior to taking courses in a biology sequence with additional built-in controls for time, difficulty and blooms level of questions on an assessment, and instructors of each biology course. The questions from his assessment were written in two flavors: constructed (where students had to provide a response; can be harder) and restricted (where students had to select a response; can be easier). Wright is interested in promoting increased use of higher Blooms questions (an agenda that is supported by national calls for education reform). What he found when comparing students is that increasing the Bloom's level of a question on his assessment and using constructed-response questions favors male over female performance, and high over low SES background performance. His concern is that if too many courses and assessments were designed to challenge students by demanding higher order cognition, that the performance gap between males and females, and high and low SES backgrounds would grow. Wright also provided some possible explanations for why the gap exists:

-stereotype threat
-theories of intelligence
-active learning closes gaps but is unavailable at schools in areas of low SES due to lack of resources

These explanations warrant future study, and I look forward to his findings in future SABER meetings.

Limitations
Students were matched for comparison based on cumulative GPA as a metric, yet there was no evidence of looking at the courses that were taken prior to the bio courses. These courses taken prior could either have been preparative for these bio courses (i.e., test preparation courses, other science courses) or what the high school experience of each student looked like (i.e., AP courses). It is possible that higher GPAs could be artifacts of easier courses having been taken, where more ambitious students could end up being compared to less ambitious students and vice versa.

My opinion
Gender and SES background are two possible explanations for the gap in courses that are more potentially demanding (higher Blooms tasks/requiring higher cognition), but these are not the only explanations. Colleges and universities sponsor programs that are dedicated to closing the gap (i.e., BRIDGE programs) and equipping students with skills (i.e., study skills) that they may be lacking due to poor prior training. Although these are great, they are retroactive to some degree. It may be worthwhile for colleges and universities to be proactive and have a greater presence in struggling middle and high schools in their communities, assisting educators with resources and training to more effectively prepare students for matriculation. Regardless if a student is male, female, rich or poor, he/she has the possibility of becoming a statistic in the gap. The fault does not rest in gender or money though, it is with training and poor training does not have selector bias. This is why it is incredibly important to use effective techniques for education and adequate preparation, especially during the formative years.