Gender STEM and Women´s education, Linda Sax

Gender Equity, STEM, and Women’s Education

Professor Linda J. Sax

UCLA

What Environments are Best for Female Students?

Overview of Current Research Projects

The Gender Gap in STEM

Women in Computer Science

The Role of Single-sex Education

The Gender Gap in U.S. College Enrollments

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

Women

Men

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2012

Women Overrepresented Across All Fields, but

Underrepresented in STEM

All Bachelor's Degree Recipients STEM Bachelor's Degree Recipients0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5735

4365

Proportions of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients in the U.S., by Gender

Women Men Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2011

Women’s Underrepresentation in STEM:

Why Does it Matter?

Women’s economic independence

US global competitiveness

Inclusion of diverse perspectives in STEM

Explanations for the Gender Gap in STEM

Educational Settings

Forces Beyond the Classroom

Educational Settings

Women begin to opt out of STEM courses in middle and high school Women underrepresented in AP courses in STEM

(Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science)

Unwelcome climate in many college STEM majors Large lecture halls, grading on a curve Underrepresentation of women = Less opportunity for

female friendship groups in STEM

Teachers/Faculty More traditional teaching practices (emphasis on lecturing,

not student-centered methods) Faculty seen as intimidating (more impactful for female

students) Lack of female role models and mentors in STEM

Forces Beyond the Classroom

Sense of belonging in STEM Science perceived as masculine domain by students and

parents Science careers perceived as competitive, unwelcoming

and difficult to balance work-family Societal benefits matter, but not clearly understood

Women’s Lower Self-confidence (% rating “above average” or “highest 10%” in 2011):

Computer abilities (47.4% of men, 30.3% of women) Math abilities (55.6% of men, 36.1% of women)

Enduring Gender Gap in Self-Rated Mathematical Ability

(% Above Average or Highest 10%)

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Men

Women

Source: Cooperative Institutional Research Program Freshman Survey, Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA

How Has the Gender Gap in STEM Changed Over Time?

1976 1986 1996 2006 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

31.929.1

32.6

28.0

36.6

12.711.0

15.814.4

20.0

Proportion of Students Intending to Major in STEM, by Gender

Men Women


Gender Gap Narrows…Then Widens

1976 1986 1996 2006 2011

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

-19.2-18.1

-16.8

-13.6

-16.6

Difference in Men’s and Women’s Intention to Major in STEM

Proportion of Women-Men


Need to Consider Differences Across STEM Fields

Computer

Science

Biological

Sciences

Math

Engineering

Physical

Sciences

Women’s Relative Representation in STEM Varies by Field

Engineering Computer Science

Physical Sciences

Mathematics/Statistics

Biological Sciences

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

17 1841 43

58

83 8259 57

42

Proportions of Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, by Gender

Women Men

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2011

Plans to Major in Biological Sciences, by Gender (1971-2011)

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

Men

Women


Plans to Major in Math/Statistics, by Gender

(1971-2011)19

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

11

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

Men

Women


Plans to Major in Physical Sciences, by Gender (1971-2011)

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

Men

Women


Plans to Major in Engineering, by Gender (1971-2011)

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Men

Women


Proportion of Entering Students Who Plan to Major in Computer Science, by Gender

(1971-2011)19

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

11

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

Men

Women


In order to attract more women to engineering and computer science, we need to better understand women who majors in these fields

How do they differ from men in those majors?

How do they differ from women in other STEM fields?

How have they changed over the past four decades?

How Can the Research Help?

Data Source: CIRP Freshman Survey Over 8 million students entering over 1,000

baccalaureate institutions

Focuses on 5 STEM fields: Biological sciences, Computer Science, Engineering, Math/statistics, Physical Sciences

Analyzes female and male STEM majors over the past 40 years (1971-2011)

Results will be available in 2015

NSF-Funded Research(HRD #1135727)

Women Graduates of Single-Sex High Schools

and STEM Outcomes

Research supported by the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools

Growth of Single-Sex Schooling in the U.S.

Single-sex schools viewed by many as possible antidote to gender inequities in co-ed settings How Schools Shortchange Girls (AAUW, 1992) Failing at Fairness: How Schools Cheat Girls (Sadker and

Sadker, 1994) Private single-sex schooling grows in the 1990s In 2006, U.S. Department of Education authorizes single-sex

classes in public schools Between 2007 and 2010, more than 1,000 of the nation’s

98,000 public secondary schools report having single-sex academic classes

Single-Sex Education and STEM

Can single-sex education encourage more young women to consider STEM fields?

Does an all-female learning environment enable young women to be more confident in the classroom? To take more advanced classes? To consider a STEM career?

Research Questions

1. How do female graduates of private single-sex and coeducational high schools differ from each other at the point of college entry? Career aspirations and major field Academic and social self-confidence Reasons for attending college Expectations for college Life goals Attitudes on political and social issues STEM Outcomes (e.g., Math confidence, STEM career aspirations)

2. What are the “net effects” of single-sex secondary schooling after controlling for students’ demographic background and other high school characteristics?

Data Sources

2005 “Freshman Survey” conducted by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute

Four-page questionnaire administered at beginning of first year in college

Measures students’ academic and family backgrounds, reasons for college, goals, major and career orientations, etc.

Chief comparison groups: Women from private single-sex high schools (n=825 students) Women from private coeducational high schools (n=5,587 students) Women from public coeducational high schools (over 300,000)

STEM-Related Outcomes

Mean SAT Scores

Independent Single-Sex

IndependentCoed

Public

SAT Math 650** 628 586

SAT Verbal 660** 639 587

Self-rating: Mathematical Ability(% above average or highest 10%)

48

37 39

0

20

40

60

80

100

Independent Single-Sex** Independent Co-ed Women from Public Schools

Self-rating: Computer Skills (% above average or highest 10%)

36

26 28

0

20

40

60

80

100


Engineering Career Aspirations

4.4

1.4

2.6

0

2

4

6

8

10


Research Question #2

What are the “net effects” of single-sex secondary schooling after controlling for students’ demographic background and

other high school characteristics?

“Net Effects” of Single Sex Education

Differences between single-sex and coeducational graduates after accounting for:

Students demographic backgrounds, including: Race/ethnicity Family income Parental Education

High school characteristics, including: Enrollment Selectivity Curriculum Location

“Net Effects” of Single-Sex Education

Single-sex education positively predicts…

Academic engagement (especially studying) Interest in politics Propensity to participate in student government in college Self-ratings of math ability Self-ratings of computer skills Interest in pursuing engineering careers

Thank you!

The Full Report is available at:

http://www.ncgs.org/Pdfs/FINAL-REPORT.pdf


