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.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
2.
BanduraA.BarbaranelliC.CapraraG. V.PastorelliC. (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222. doi:10.2307/1131888
3.
Bieri BuschorC.BerwegerS.Keck FreiA.KapplerC. (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
4.
BussD. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459–491. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331
5.
CeciS. J. (2018). Women in academic science: Experimental findings from hiring studies. Educational Psychologist, 53, 22–44.
6.
CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M.BarnettS. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218. doi:10.1037/a0014412
CohenJ.CohenP. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
CrispG.NoraA.TaggartA. (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.
DevineA.FawcettK.SzűcsD.DowkerA. (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.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. 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-WamboldtB. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13, 313–321. doi:10.1080/07399339 209516006
14.
DweckC. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. 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.
EcclesJ. 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.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (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.
EloS.KyngäsH. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
18.
FalchT.NaperL. 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.
FouadN. A.HackettG.SmithP. L.KantamneniN.FitzpatrickM.HaagS.SpencerD. (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.
GuoJ.MarshH. W.ParkerP. D.MorinA. J. S.DickeT. (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.
GuoJ.NagengastB.MarshH. W.KelavaA.GaspardH.BrandtH.. . . TrautweinU. (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.
GuthrieJ.PettyR.YongvanichK.RicceriF. (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.
HydeJ. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
KrahaA.TurnerH.NimonK.ZientekL. R.HensonR. 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.
LibenL. S.CoyleE. 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.
LietzP. (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.
LumleyT. (2010). Complex surveys: A guide to analysis using R. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
29.
MachinS.McNallyS. (2005). Gender and student achievement in English schools. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21, 357–372. doi:10.1093/oxrep/gri021
30.
MachinS.PekkarinenT. (2008). Global sex differences in test score variability. Science, 322, 1331–1332. doi:10.1126/science.1162573
31.
MalteseA. V.TaiR. 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
MarshH. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172. doi:10.1007/BF01322177
34.
MarshH. 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.
MarshH. 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.
MarshH. W.PekrunR.CiarrochiJ.ParkerP. D.AbduljabbarA. 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.
MarshH. W.PekrunR.MurayamaK.ArensA. K.ParkerP. D.GuoJ.DickeT. (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.
MarshH. W.PekrunR.ParkerP. D.MurayamaK.GuoJ.DickeT. (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.
MöllerJ.KöllerO. (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
MoodA. M. (1971). Partitioning variance in multiple regression analyses as a tool for developing learning models. American Educational Research Journal, 8, 191–202.
42.
NagyG.TrautweinU.BaumertJ.KöllerO.GarrettJ. (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.
NathansL. L.OswaldF. L.NimonK. (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
O’MaraA. J.MarshH. W.CravenR. G.DebusR. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41, 181–206.
48.
ParkerP. D.NagyG.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO. (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 SchoonI.EcclesJ. S. (Eds.), Gender differences in aspirations and attainment: A life course perspective (pp. 224–246). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ParkerP. D.SchoonI.TsaiY.NagyG.TrautweinU.EcclesJ. (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.
ParkerP. D.van ZandenB.ParkerR. 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.
PedhazurE. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). Singapore: Wadsworth.
52.
PerezT.CromleyJ. G.KaplanA. (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.
PohlmannB.MöllerJ. (2009). On the benefit of dimensional comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 248–258. doi:10.1037/a0013151
54.
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
55.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.
56.
SchoonI. (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.
SellsL. W. (1980). Mathematics: The invisible filter. Engineering Education, 70, 340–341.
58.
SkaalvikS.SkaalvikE. 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.
TeschR. (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.
VoyerD.VoyerS. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1174. doi:10.1037/a0036620
63.
WangM.-T.DegolJ. 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.
WangM.-T.DegolJ. 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.
WangM.-T.EcclesJ.KennyS. (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.
WattH. M.EcclesJ. S. (2008). Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
67.
WattH. M.EcclesJ. S.DurikA. 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.
WigfieldA.CambriaJ. (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.
WigfieldA.EcclesJ. S.YoonK. S.HaroldR. D.ArbretonA. J. A.Freedman-DoanC.BlumenfeldP. 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.
WigfieldA.MeeceJ. 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.
WilkinsonS. (2000). Women with breast cancer talking causes: Comparing content, biographical and discursive analyses. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 431–460. doi:10.1177/0959353500010004003
72.
ZafarB. (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.
