Where Are All the Talented Girls? How Can We Help Them Achieve in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics?

Abstract

Women’s participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) courses and careers lags behind that of men. Multiple factors contribute to the underrepresentation of women and girls in STEM. Academic research suggests three areas, which account for the under representation of girls in STEM: social and environmental factors, the school climate and the influence of bias. In order to engage and to retain girls in STEM, educators need to: eliminate bias in the classroom, change school culture, introduce female role models, help girls assess their abilities accurately and develop talent in areas related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Educators should encourage young girls to ask questions about the world, to problem solve, and to develop creativity through play and experimentation. Women have made impressive gains in science and engineering but remain a distinct minority in many science and engineering fields. Creating environments that support girls’ and women’s achievements and interests in science and engineering will encourage more girls and women to pursue careers in these vital fields.

Keywords

• girls,science,technology,engineering,mathematics,gifted,underachievement

References

1. AAUW, American Association of University Women (2010). Improve girls’ and women’s opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and math .Washington DC: AAUW Educational Foundation. www.aauw.org.
2. Adams, C., Chamberlin, S., Gavin, M., Schultz, C., Sheffield, L., & Subotnik, R. (2008). The STEM promise: Recognizing and developing talent and expanding opportunities for promising students of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.nagc.org/
3. Ainley, J., Kos, J., & Nicholas, M. (2008). Participation in science, mathematics and technology in Australian education. http://research.acer.edu.au/acer_monographs/4
4. Aronson, J., Steele, C.M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of human competence, motivation, and self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113-125.
5. Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/women-stem-gender-gap-innovation
6. Ceci, S., Williams, W., & Barnett, S. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 218-261.
7. College Board. (2014). “The 10th annual AP report to the nation.” New York, NY. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/rtn/10th-annual/10th-annual-ap-report-to-the-nation-single-page.pdf
8. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of bias and self-assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691-1730.

9. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
10. Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets and malleable minds: Implications for giftedness and talent. In Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs, Conn: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
11. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., and B. Uzzi. (2000). Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051
12. Freeman, J. (2003). Gender difference in gifted achievement in Britain and the U.S.. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 202-211. doi: 10.1177/001698620304700304
13. Ganley, C. M., Vasilyeva, M., & Dulaney, A. (2014). Spatial Ability Mediates the Gender Difference in Middle School Students' Science Performance. Child Development, 85(4), 1419-1432.
14. Good, C. (2012). Reformulating the talent equation: Implications for gifted students’ sense of belonging and achievement. In Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs, Conn: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
15. Hall, R. M., Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women. Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
16. Halpern, D., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., Star, J., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Encouraging girls in math and science: IES practice guide (NCER 2007-2003). Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/20072003.pdf
17. Harackiewicz, J. M., Hulleman, C. S., Hyde, J. S., Rozek, C. S. & Svoboda, R. C., (2014). Gender differences in the effects of a utility-value intervention to help parents motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, Jun. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036981
18. Heilbronner, N. N. (2012). The STEM pathway for women: What has changed?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 39-55. doi: 10.1177/0016986212460085
19. Heller, K. A., & Ziedler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and science: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200-210. doi:10.1177/0016986208315834
20. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
21. Howard-Brown, B., & Martinez, D. (2012). Briefing Papers. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://secc.sedl.org/resources/briefs/diverse_learners_STEM/
22. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412
23. Jansen, N., & Joukes, G. (2012). Long term, interrelated interventions to increase women’s participation in STEM in the Netherlands. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 5(3), 305-316.
24. Jolly, J. L. (2009). The national defense education act, current STEM initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50-53.
25. Kane, J., & Mertz, J. (2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf/.
26. Kekelis, L., Ancheta, R. W., & Heber, A. E. (2005). Hurdles in the pipeline: Girls and technology careers. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), 106-107.
27. Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2013). Spatial ability: A neglected talent in educational and occupational settings.Roeper Review, 35, 219-230.
28. Lavy, V. (2008). Do gender stereotypes reduce girls' or boys' human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 922083-2105. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.02.009
29. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344-351.
30. Maltese, A., & Tai, R. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 877-907.
31. Marra, R. M., Rodgers, K. A., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2009). Women engineering students and self-efficacy: A multi-year, multi-institutional study of women engineering student self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, Jan., 27-38.
32. Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234–1237
33. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879-885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
34. National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of stem innovators: Identifying and developing our nation's human capital. Nsb-10-33. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf
35. National Science Foundation. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011. Arlington, VA: Author http://www. nsf.gov/statistics/wmpdNational Science Foundation. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
36. Nosek, B. et al. (1999). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106(26), 10593–97.
37. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011), “How do girls compare to boys in mathematics skills?”, in PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095250-8-en
38. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I), OECD Publishing.
39. Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. (2012). It's ok — Not everyone can be good at math: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 731-737.
40. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The reform movement and the quiet crisis in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 26-35. doi: 10.1177/001698629103500104
41. Schweingruber, H., Brandenburg, C., & Miller, L. (2001). Middle school students’ technology practices and preferences: Re-examining gender differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125-140.
42. Southeast Comprehensive Center (2012). Engaging Diverse Learners Through the Provision of STEM Education Opportunities. http://secc.sedl.org/resources/briefs/diverse_learners_STEM/Diverse_Learners_through_STEM.pdf
43. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
44. STEMConnector. (2014). Million women mentors. http://www.millionwomenmentors.org/Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement?. Educational Psychology Review, doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9304-8
45. Subotnik, R. (2012). Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education. Storrs, Conn.: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
46. Subotnik, R., Edmiston, A., & Rayhack, K. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent development: Obstacles and opportunities. In Science Education: Models and Networking of Student Research Training Under 21 (pp. 28-38). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
47. Walton, G., & Cohen, G. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82-96.
48. Walton, G., & Cohen, G. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447-1451.
49. Walton, G., Spencer, S., & Erman, S. (2013). Affirmative meritocracy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7: 1–35.
50. Watt, H. M., Richardson, P. W., & Devos, C. (2013). How does gender matter in the choice of a STEM teaching career and later teaching behaviors?. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 5(3), 187-206.
51. Webb, R. M., Lubinski D. & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial Ability: A Neglected Dimension in Talent Searches for Intellectually Precocious Youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397–420.
52. Yau, H. K., & Cheng, A. L. F. (2012). Gender difference of confidence in using technology for learning. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(2).