The Learning and Educational Capital of Male and Female Students in STEM Magnet Schools and in Extracurricular STEM Programs: A Study in High-Achiever-Track Secondary Schools in Germany
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2017
The Learning and Educational Capital of Male and Female Students in STEM Magnet Schools and in Extracurricular STEM Programs: A Study in High-Achiever-Track Secondary Schools in Germany
Magnet schools focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as well as extracurricular programs in STEM support talented students and help increase their participation rates in those domains. We examined whether and the extent to which the learning and educational capital of male and female students (N = 801) enrolled in high-achiever-track secondary schools in Germany with and without a STEM focus differed. We found both school and gender differences for some types of learning and educational capital but no interaction effect of type of school and gender. We also assessed the relationship between school status as a STEM magnet school, students’ gender, and students’ learning and educational capital, on the one hand, and registration for a 1-year extracurricular program in STEM, on the other hand. Students enrolled in high-achiever-track STEM magnet schools, as well as male students, were more likely to register for the extracurricular program. Some types of learning and educational capital also predicted registration in a regression analysis.
AltermattE.JovanovicJ.PerryM. (1998). Bias or responsivity? Sex and achievement-level effects on teachers’ classroom questioning practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 516–527. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.516
BackhausK.ErichsonB.PlinkeW.WeiberR. (2013). Multivariate analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Multivariate analysis methods: An application-oriented introduction]. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
4.
BaumertJ.CortinaK.LeschinskyA. (2008). Grundlegende Entwicklungen und Strukturprobleme im allgemeinbildenden Schulwesen [Fundamental developments and structural problems in primary and secondary education]. In CortinaK.BaumertJ.LeschinskyA.MayerK. U.TrommerL. (Eds.), Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Strukturen und Entwicklungen im Überblick (pp. 53–130). Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt.
5.
BianL.LeslieS.-J.CimpianA. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355, 389–391. doi:10.1126/science.aah6524
6.
BlickenstaffJ. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?Gender and Education, 17, 369–386. doi:10.1080/09540250500145072
7.
BlossfeldH.-P.BosW.HannoverB.LenzenD.Müller-BölingD.PrenzelM.WößmannL. (2009). Geschlechterdifferenzen im Bildungssystem: Jahresgutachten 2009 des Aktionsrats Bildung [Gender differences in the education system: 2009 annual report of the Education Action Commission]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
8.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 275–279. doi:10.1177/0963721410383241
9.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M.BarnettS. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261. doi:10.1037/a0014412
10.
DeauxK.LaFranceM. (1998). Gender. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 788–827). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
11.
DowneyD. B.Vogt YuanA. S. (2005). Sex differences in school performance during high school: Puzzling patterns and possible explanations. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 299–321. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00014.x
12.
DuBoisD. L.HollowayB. E.ValentineJ. C.CooperH. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197. doi:10.1023/A:1014628810714
13.
EcclesJ. S. (2007). Families, schools, and developing achievement-related motivations and engagement. In GrusecJ. E.HastingsP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 665–691). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
14.
Else-QuestN. M.HydeJ. S.LinnM. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
15.
HarderB.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.). (2013). Bildungs- und lernkapitel [Education and learning capital] [Special issue]. Journal für Begabtenförderung, 13(2).
16.
HarderB.TrottlerS.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2015). Diagnosing resources for effective learning via teacher and parent checklists. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 57, 201–221.
17.
HellerK. A.LengfelderA. (2006). Evaluation study of the international academic Olympiads: Three decades of cross-cultural and gender findings from North-American, European and East-Asian Olympians. In HelfrichH.ZillekensM.HölterE. (Eds.), Culture and development in Japan and Germany (pp. 155–170). Muenster, Germany: Daedalus.
KiteM. E.DeauxK.HainesE. (2008). Gender stereotypes. In DenmarkF. L.PaludiM. A. (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (2nd ed., pp. 205–236). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
LeeS.-Y.MatthewsM. S.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2008). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 55–69. doi:10.1177/0016986207311152
23.
LengfelderA.HellerK. A. (2002). German Olympiad studies: Findings from a retrospective evaluation and from in-depth interviews: Where have all the gifted females gone?Journal of Research in Education, 12, 86–92.
MillerH. M.GriffithsM. D. (2005). E-mentoring. In DuBoisD. L.KarcherM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 300–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
MoffatS. D.HampsonE. (1996). A curvilinear relationship between testosterone and spatial cognition in humans: Possible influence of hand preference. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 21, 323–337.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2009). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32, 61–70. doi:10.1080/02783190903386892
30.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behaviour, confidence. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en
31.
PreckelF.GoetzT.PekrunR.KleineM. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 146–159. doi:10.1177/0016986208315834
32.
Quaiser-PohlC.GeiserC.LehmannW. (2006). The relationship between computer-game preference, gender, and mental-rotation ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 609–619. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.015
33.
ReisS. M.ParkS. (2001). Gender differences in high-achieving students in math and science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 52–73. doi:10.1177/016235320102500104
34.
RetelsdorfJ.MöllerJ. (2008). Familiäre bedingungen und individuelle prädiktoren der lesekompetenz von schülerinnen und schülern [Family conditions and individual predictors of students’ reading skills]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 55, 227–237.
35.
Riegle-CrumbC.MooreC.Ramos-WadaA. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95, 458–476. doi:10.1002/sce.20431
36.
RoosJ.SchölerH. (2013). Transitionen in der Bildungsbiographie: Der Übergang vom Primar- zum Sekundarbereich [Transitions in the educational biography: The transition from primary to secondary education]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
SchneiderT. (2004). Der Einfluss des Einkommens der Eltern auf die Schulwahl [The influence of parental income on school choice]. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 33, 471–492.
StoegerH. (2007). Berufskarrieren begabter Frauen [Careers of gifted women]. In HellerK. A.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Begabt sein in Deutschland (pp. 266–290). Berlin, Germany: LIT Verlag.
41.
StoegerH.DuanX.SchirnerS.GreindlT.ZieglerA. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-year mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408–418. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032
42.
StoegerH.ZieglerA.BuschhausF.GreindlT.GroßC.HeilemannM.. . .ZsakN. (2014). Von CyberMentor zu CyberMINT-Communities: Acht Jahre erfolgreiche MINT-Mädchenförderung [From CyberMentor to CyberMINT Communities: Eight years of successful gifted education provision for girls in STEM]. Regensburg, Germany: Druck Team.
43.
StoegerH.ZieglerA.GreindlT.HeilemannM.NeubauerT.ReutlingerM.. . .SturmK. (2012). Erfolgreich in MINT: Mentoring für Mädchen und Frauen [Successful in STEM: Mentoring for girls and women]. Cologne, Germany: Haeuser.
44.
SubotnikR.KolarC.Olszewski-KubiliusP.CrossT. L. (2009). Specialized science high schools: Exploring contributions of the model to adolescent talent development. Roeper Review, 32, 5–6. doi:10.1080/02783190903388849
45.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
46.
VladutA.LiuQ.Leana-TascilaM. Z.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2013). A cross-cultural validation study of the Questionnaire of Educational and Learning Capital (QELC) in China, Germany, and Turkey. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55, 462–478.
47.
VladutA.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2016). Two studies of the empirical basis of two learning resource-oriented motivational strategies for gifted educators. High Ability Studies, 27, 39–60. doi:10.1080/13598139.2016.1212702
48.
WangX. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 1081–1121. doi:10.3102/0002831213488622
49.
WeishauptH.BaethgeM.DöbertH.FüsselH.-P.HetmeierH. W.RauschenbachT.KailisE. (2010). Bildung in Deutschland 2010: Ein indikationsgestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Perspektiven des Bildungswesens im demografischen Wandel [Education in Germany 2010: An indicator-based report with an analysis of perspectives for the education sector in demographic change]. Bielefeld, Germany: Bertelsmann. Retrieved from https://www.bildungsbericht.de/de/bildungsberichte-seit-2006/bildungsbericht-2010/pdf-bildungsbericht-2010/bb-2010.pdf
50.
WieczerkowskiW.CropleyA. J.PradoT. M. (2000). Nurturing talents/gifts in mathematics. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent education (2nd ed., pp. 413–425). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
YoungerM.WarringtonM.WilliamsJ. (1999). The gender gap and classroom interactions: Reality and rhetoric?British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20, 325–341. doi:10.1080/01425699995290
53.
ZieglerA. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In SternbergR.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 411–434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
ZieglerA.BakerJ. (2013). Talent development as adaption: The role of educational and learning capital. In PhillipsonS.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), Exceptionality in East-Asia: Explorations in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness (pp. 18–39). London, England: Routledge.
55.
ZieglerA.ChandlerK.VialleW.StoegerH. (2017). Exogenous and endogenous learning resources in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness and its significance for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40 (4): 310–333.
56.
ZieglerA.HoppM.LinnerM.SchöferleT.ThomasN.SchieleinT.. . . GötzfriedW. (2011). Bildungs- und Lernkapitalarmut von Hauptschülern: Ergebnisse einer explorativen Befragungsstudie mit Lehrkräften [The paucity of educational and learning capital of middle-school students: Results of an exploratory study with teachers]. Schulpädagogik Heute, 5, 1–10.
57.
ZieglerA.StoegerH. (2011). Actiotope Model and self-regulated learning. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53, 161–179.
58.
ZurbriggenC. (2016). Schulklasseneffekte: Schülerinnen und Schüler zwischen komparativen und normativen Einflüssen [Classroom effects: Students between comparative and normative influences]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS.
