Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice and Deborah Tannen's You Just Don't Understand would be good comparisons to Eliot. If boys and girls relate and communicate differently (possibly hard-wired to do so?), then it makes sense that different types of pedagogical structures might appeal to different genders.

Walk into a good all-male 10th grade history class an observe the way it's taught, then do the same in a comparable all-girl class. The differences are apparent.

I haven't read the book.

I am an experienced elementary school teacher and mother of two (a boy and a girl). I have been a Girl Scout leader and a Cub Scout den mother. I have worked extensively with preschool children as well.

I don't know about measurable differences in achievement. But I have seen a difference in what boys versus girls respond to. I know that boys will pay attention better to certain things (in general) and girls will prefer other types of activities. Is this a result of environmental programming? Perhaps... but it has been so consistent throughout my experience that I can't believe that's all there is to it.

MOST boys, by no means all, seem to prefer competition and action and straightforward information. MOST girls, by no means all, seem to prefer cooperative, noncompetitive work and discussion about feelings and social interactions and more nuanced information.

A book mostly about friendships and talking and feelings will DIE as as a book group choice for boys. Girls will love it.

A book with tons of action? Girls are OK but most boys will love it.

"Her implicit point is that to the extent there are differences between girls and boys, those differences are largely driven by how parents and society treat girls and boys differently (consciously and unconsciously)."

I read her book and it didn't offend me, but in my view this conclusion is b.s. Try as I may, I can't get my son interested in much verbal communication or discussion of emotions, etc. And though we were very strict about gender neutral toys the first few years, he still was absolutely pulled towards cars/trains/other vehicles as well as toys that emphasized spacial skills (puzzles, legos, etc.).

Not bothering wth this article, but all the stuff on boys v girls generally overlooks the following truth:

any statistically meaningful difference between boys and girls at the mean is DWARFED by the variance within each gender. Different kids are different, and when you try to summarize these differences by one small thing (in terms of learning) you do most of the kids a disservice.

I have taught preschool for many years. The main difference to me is that boys NEED more physical activity, however, girls also benifit from this, as well. In other words, physical activity/lessons with movement involed/recess are key for both boys/girls, but especially apparent for boys.

I'm sharing a good article I read recently: "Single-Sec Education and the Brain" by Lise Eliot. Eliot wrote the excellent book "Pink Brain, Blue Brain" about brain and development difference between girls and boys. This article includes many of the same themes. Its basic argument is that although there are some differences between how female and male brains develop in infants and children, the neurological sex differences are actually fairly small. Her implicit point is that to the extent there are differences between girls and boys, those differences are largely driven by how parents and society treat girls and boys differently (consciously and unconsciously). Accordingly, Eliot seems to be an opponent of sex-segregation in the classroom.

To the extent there are some measurable average differences across large populations of girls vs. boys, those average differences are especially insignificant in light of the large variation among individual children within each population. In other words, if you are measuring some characteristic on a 1-100 point scale, and you find that the average girl scores 2 points higher than the average boy, that average difference is actually very minor in context when you discover that normal scores for each sex are spread fairly evenly over a 40-point range.

Eliot is particularly blunt in her criticism of Gurian & Sax, two popular writers who have written books claiming significant differences in how boys and girls learn (although she criticizes several others as well). Eliot dissects and debunks their claims about sex differences by pointing out where these popular writers lack any scientific basis at all for various claims, where they have misinterpreted scientific research, and where the weight of more recent scientific research has undermined their arguments.

Below is a link to the article itself, which is about 20-25 pages long and only moderately dense from a science perspective. Also below are links to a couple summaries of the article, for those who might not be inclined to read the whole thing.

Full article: https://docs.google.com/open?id=1q3oKOfhAFPnpoh3Ya0hRO-tEuxC7id9kCnd8J3NncPVIg_v9IUi_4yB_ToJc
Summaries: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110818101653.htm and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201109/pseudoscience-in-sax-sex
A full Eliot bibliography, which suggests she feels pretty strongly about this issue: http://66.99.255.20/DNN/home/CMS/Neuroscience/Faculty/Eliot/Publications/tabid/998/Default.aspx