Young Women Face Disadvantage to Enrollment in University STEM Coursework Regardless of Prior Achievement and Attitudes

Abstract

We evaluated STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) coursework selection by women and men (representative longitudinal sample, 10,370 Australians) in senior high school and university, controlling achievement and expectancy-value variables. A near-zero total effect of gender on high school STEM enrollment reflected pathways favoring boys through achievement and expectancy-value variables, but a counteracting direct effect of gender favoring girls. In contrast, subsequent university STEM enrollment favored boys. In both high school and university, enrollments favored girls in life sciences and boys in physical sciences, but at university there was a leaky pipeline in which girls who qualified to pursue physical sciences opted for non-STEM subjects. Qualitative analysis not only supported quantitative results but also highlighted alternative mechanisms of STEM engagement/disengagement, and mostly supported gender similarities rather than differences.

Keywords

educational attainment expectancy value theory gender science education STEM enrollment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G. V.

Pastorelli

(1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222. doi:10.2307/1131888

Bieri Buschor

Berweger

Keck Frei

Kappler

. (2014). Majoring in STEM what accounts for women’s career decision making? A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Research, 107, 167–176. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013 .788989

Buss

D. M.

(1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459–491. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331

Ceci

S. J.

(2018). Women in academic science: Experimental findings from hiring studies. Educational Psychologist, 53, 22–44.

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

Barnett

S. M.

(2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218. doi:10.1037/a0014412

Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

Kahn

(Eds.). (2018). Underrepresentation of women in science: International and cross-disciplinary evidence and debate. Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers Media. doi:10.3389/978-2-88945-434-1. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/2794/underrepresentation-of-women-in-science-international-and-cross-disciplinary-evidence-and-debate

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Crisp

Nora

Taggart

(2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 924–942. doi:10.3102/0002831 209349460

11.

Devine

Fawcett

Szűcs

Dowker

(2012). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while controlling for test anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8(1), 33. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-8-33

12.

Diekman

A. B.

Brown

E. R.

Johnston

A. M.

Clark

E. K.

(2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles a new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057.

13.

Downe-Wamboldt

(1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13, 313–321. doi:10.1080/07399339 209516006

14.

Dweck

(2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In Ceci

S. J.

Williams

W. M.

(Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–55). Washington, CA: APA Press. doi:10.1037/11546-004

15.

Eccles

J. S.

(1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585–609. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x

16.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225. doi:10.1177/0146167295213003

17.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

18.

Falch

Naper

L. R.

(2013). Educational evaluation schemes and gender gaps in student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36, 12–25. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.05.002

19.

Fouad

N. A.

Hackett

Smith

P. L.

Kantamneni

Fitzpatrick

Haag

Spencer

(2010). Barriers and supports for continuing in mathematics and science: Gender and educational level differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 361–373. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.06.004

20.

Guo

Marsh

H. W.

Parker

P. D.

Morin

A. J. S.

Dicke

(2017). Extending expectancy-value theory predictions of achievement and aspirations in science: Dimensional comparison processes and expectancy-by-value interactions. Learning and Instruction, 49, 81–91.

21.

Guo

Nagengast

Marsh

H. W.

Kelava

Gaspard

Brandt

. . . Trautwein

(2016). Probing the unique contributions of self-concept, task values, and their interactions using multiple value facets and multiple academic outcomes. AERA Open, 2(1). doi:10.1177/2332858415626884. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2332858415626884

22.

Guthrie

Petty

Yongvanich

Ricceri

(2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5, 282–293. doi:10.1108/14691930410533704

23.

Hyde

J. S.

(2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581

24.

Jaccard

(2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression (Series No. 07–135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Kraha

Turner

Nimon

Zientek

L. R.

Henson

R. K.

(2012). Tools to support interpreting multiple regression in the face of multicollinearity. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 44. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00044

26.

Liben

L. S.

Coyle

E. F.

(2014). Chapter three-developmental interventions to address the STEM gender gap: Exploring intended and unintended consequences. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 47, 77–115.

27.

Lietz

(2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 317–344. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.10.002

28.

Lumley

(2010). Complex surveys: A guide to analysis using R. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

29.

Machin

McNally

(2005). Gender and student achievement in English schools. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21, 357–372. doi:10.1093/oxrep/gri021

30.

Machin

Pekkarinen

(2008). Global sex differences in test score variability. Science, 322, 1331–1332. doi:10.1126/science.1162573

31.

Maltese

A. V.

Tai

R. H.

(2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95, 877–907. doi:10.1002/sce.20441

32.

Marsh

H. W.

(1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/00028312023001129

33.

Marsh

H. W.

(1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172. doi:10.1007/BF01322177

34.

Marsh

H. W.

(1991). Failure of high ability schools to deliver academic benefits commensurate with their students’ ability levels. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 445–480. doi:10.3102/00028312028002445

35.

Marsh

H. W.

(2016). Cross-cultural generalizability of year in school effects: Negative effects of acceleration and positive effects of retention on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 256–273.

36.

Marsh

H. W.

Pekrun

Ciarrochi

Parker

P. D.

Abduljabbar

A. S.

(2014). Juxtaposing math self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of long-term achievement outcomes. Educational Psychology, 34, 29–48. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.797339

37.

Marsh

H. W.

Pekrun

Murayama

Arens

A. K.

Parker

P. D.

Guo

Dicke

(2018). An integrated model of academic self-concept development: Academic self-concept, grades, test scores, and tracking over 6 years. Developmental Psychology, 54, 263–280. doi:10.1037/dev0000393

38.

Marsh

H. W.

Pekrun

Parker

P. D.

Murayama

Guo

Dicke

(2018). The murky distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy: Beware of lurking jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/edu0000281

39.

Möller

Köller

(2001). Dimensional comparisons: An experimental approach to the internal/external frame of reference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 826–835. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.826

40.

Möller

Marsh

H. W.

(2013). Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review, 120, 544-560. doi:10.1037/a0032459

41.

Mood

A. M.

(1971). Partitioning variance in multiple regression analyses as a tool for developing learning models. American Educational Research Journal, 8, 191–202.

42.

Nagy

Trautwein

Baumert

Köller

Garrett

(2006). Gender and course selection in upper secondary education: Effects of academic self-concept and intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 323–345. doi:10.1080/13803610600765687

43.

Nathans

L. L.

Oswald

F. L.

Nimon

(2012). Interpreting multiple linear regression: A guidebook of variable importance. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(9). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1911/71096

44.

National Centre for Vocational Education Research. (2017). Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth. Retrieved from https://www.lsay.edu.au/

45.

National Innovation and Science Agenda, Australian Government. (2017). National innovation and science agenda. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/agenda

46.

OECD. (2005). PISA 2003 Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/35188570.pdf

47.

O’Mara

A. J.

Marsh

H. W.

Craven

R. G.

Debus

(2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41, 181–206.

48.

Parker

P. D.

Nagy

Trautwein

Lüdtke

(2014). Predicting career aspirations and university majors from academic ability and self-concept: A longitudinal application of the internal–external frame of reference model. In Schoon

Eccles

J. S.

(Eds.), Gender differences in aspirations and attainment: A life course perspective (pp. 224–246). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Parker

P. D.

Schoon

Tsai

Nagy

Trautwein

Eccles

(2012). Achievement, agency, gender, and socioeconomic background as predictors of postschool choices: A multi-context study. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1629–1642. doi:10.1037/a0029167

50.

Parker

P. D.

van Zanden

Parker

R. B.

(2018). Girls get smart, boys get smug: Historical changes in gender differences math, English, and academic social comparison and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 54, 125–137.

51.

Pedhazur

E. J.

(1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). Singapore: Wadsworth.

52.

Perez

Cromley

J. G.

Kaplan

(2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 305–329. doi:10.1037/a0034027

53.

Pohlmann

Möller

(2009). On the benefit of dimensional comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 248–258. doi:10.1037/a0013151

54.

Preckel

Goetz

Pekrun

Kleine

(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

55.

Rubin

D. B.

(1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.

56.

Schoon

(2010). Planning for the future: Changing education expectations for three British cohorts, Historical Social Research, 35(2), 99–119. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20762452

57.

Sells

L. W.

(1980). Mathematics: The invisible filter. Engineering Education, 70, 340–341.

58.

Skaalvik

E. M.

(2004). Gender differences in math and verbal self-concept, performance expectations, and motivation. Sex Roles, 50, 241–252. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000015555.40976.e6

59.

Tesch

(1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York, NY: Falmer Press.

60.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Science, technology, engineering, and math: Education for global leadership. Washington, DC: Author.

61.

U.S. National Science and Technology Council, Office of Science Technology Policy. (2013). Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 5-year strategic plan. A report from the Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technology Council. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf

62.

Voyer

S. D.

(2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1174. doi:10.1037/a0036620

63.

Wang

M.-T.

Degol

J. L.

(2017a). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 119–140. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x

64.

Wang

M.-T.

Degol

J. L.

(2017b). Who chooses stem careers? Using a relative cognitive strength and interest model to predict careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 46, 1805–1820. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0618-8

65.

Wang

M.-T.

Eccles

Kenny

(2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 24, 770–775. doi: 10.1177/0956797612458937

66.

Watt

H. M.

Eccles

J. S.

(2008). Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

67.

Watt

H. M.

Eccles

J. S.

Durik

A. M.

(2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A motivational analysis of high school enrollments in Australia and the USA. Equal Opportunities International, 25, 642–659. doi:10.1108/026101506 10719119

68.

Wigfield

Cambria

(2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1–35. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001

69.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

Yoon

K. S.

Harold

R. D.

Arbreton

A. J. A.

Freedman-Doan

Blumenfeld

P. C.

(1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.451

70.

Wigfield

Meece

J. L.

(1988). Math anxiety in elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 210. doi:10.1037/00220 663.80.2.210

71.

Wilkinson

(2000). Women with breast cancer talking causes: Comparing content, biographical and discursive analyses. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 431–460. doi:10.1177/0959353500010004003

72.

Zafar

(2013). College major choice and the gender gap. Journal of Human Resources, 48, 545–595.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB