The Place of Gender Stereotypes in the Network of Cognitive Abilities, Self-Perceived Ability and Intrinsic Value of School in School Children Depending on Sex and Preferences in STEM
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- mathematical achievement in high school;
- engagement with STEM disciplines at school;
- mathematical self-efficacy (one’s beliefs about their ability to solve mathematical problems), supported by previous achievement and attitude towards mathematics;
- intention to specialize in STEM, including extracurricular activities and outcome expectations.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Cognitive Abilities
2.2.2. Self-Perceived Ability and Intrinsic Value
2.2.3. Career Preferences
2.2.4. Gender Stereotypes and Incremental Beliefs about STEM
2.3. Data Analysis
2.3.1. Descriptive Statistics and ANCOVA
2.3.2. Network Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics for Sample
3.2. ANCOVA Test Results for Groups
3.2.1. Cognitive Abilities
3.2.2. Intrinsic Motivation and Ability Self-Perceptions in Math and Science
3.2.3. Gender Stereotypes and Incremental Beliefs about STEM
3.3. Network Analysis Results for Groups
3.3.1. STEM and No-STEM Group Networks
3.3.2. Male and Female Networks
4. Discussion
4.1. Group Differences in STEM-Related Chacteristics
4.2. The Network Structure and the Role of Gender Stereotypes
5. Conclusions
6. Limitation
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable Name (Code) | Number of Items | Chronbach’s Alpha | Items |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived difficulty of math | 4 | 0.8 | I usually do well in math (reverse-coded). Math is harder for me than for many of my classmates. Studying math gives me anxiety. Math is harder for me than other subjects. |
STEM-related gender stereotypes | 4 | 0.74 | Overall, girls are less interested in a STEM career than boys. Girls usually have less knowledge and skills that are necessary for STEM disciplines. In order to succeed in STEM, girls need to be more like boys. Teachers usually support boys’ interest in STEM more than they do for girls. |
Educational aspirations in math | 6 | 0.75 | I must study math since it will help me get a job. If I try hard enough, I can succeed in math. My success in math is due to myself and nobody else. If I wanted, I could be good at math. My parents think that… … studying math is interesting. … studying math is important for a future career. |
Friends’ attitudes towards math | 3 | 0.76 | Most of my friends… … are good at math. … study math hard. … are interested in math. |
All | Boys | Girls | STEM | No-STEM | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | M(SD) | N | M(SD) | N | M(SD) | N | M(SD) | N | M(SD) | |
Non-verbal intelligence | 414 | 44.6 (9.09) | 211 | 44 (9.59) | 203 | 45.2 (8.51) | 248 | 45.2 (8.9) | 166 | 43.6 (9.31) |
Spatial ability | 369 | 16.7 (9.75) | 185 | 16.5 (10.4) | 183 | 16.7 (9.04) | 216 | 18.5 (9.98) | 153 | 14.1 (8.82) |
Self-perception of academic ability | 546 | 3.84 (0.53) | 273 | 3.89 (0.55) | 273 | 3.79 (0.5) | 331 | 3.83 (0.53) | 215 | 3.86 (0.54) |
Intrinsic values (motivation) | 546 | 3.61 (9.62) | 273 | 3.68 (0.62) | 273 | 3.54 (0.6) | 331 | 3.62 (0.6) | 215 | 3.59 (0.64) |
Intrinsic motivation for math | 546 | 3.6 (0.86) | 273 | 3.76 (0.82) | 273 | 3.44 (0.88) | 331 | 3.69 (0.8) | 215 | 3.46 (0.94) |
Ability self-perceptions in math | 546 | 3.61 (0.85) | 273 | 4.14 (0.65) | 273 | 3.98 (0.62) | 331 | 4.11 (0.6) | 215 | 3.98 (0.67) |
Ability self-perceptions in science | 546 | 4.06 (0.64) | 273 | 3.73 (0.75) | 273 | 3.63 (0.7) | 331 | 3.69 (0.74) | 215 | 3.65 (0.7) |
Intrinsic motivation for science | 546 | 3.67 (0.73) | 273 | 3.66 (0.84) | 273 | 3.55 (0.86) | 331 | 3.67 (0.85) | 215 | 3.5 (0.84) |
Perceived difficulty of math | 546 | 2.40 (0.47) | 273 | 2.31 (0.47) | 273 | 2.49 (0.45) | 273 | 2.51 (0.45) | 273 | 2.33 (0.47) |
STEM-related gender stereotype | 546 | 2.02 (0.63) | 273 | 2.18 (0.65) | 273 | 1.87 (0.57) | 331 | 2.02 (0.63) | 215 | 2.02 (0.63) |
Educational aspirations in math | 546 | 2.96 (0.43) | 273 | 3 (0.45) | 273 | 2.93 (0.40) | 331 | 2.89 (0.45) | 215 | 3.01 (0.40) |
Friends’ attitudes towards math | 546 | 2.44 (0.58) | 273 | 2.46 (0.60) | 273 | 2.41 (0.57) | 331 | 2.40 (0.58) | 215 | 2.46 (0.58) |
Sum Sq | Df | F Value | Pr (>F) | Levene Test | Eta2 Partial | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-verbal intelligence | Int | 773,446.4 | 1 | 9619.711 | 0 | 0.623 | NA |
Age | 574.063 | 1 | 7.14 | 0.008 | 0.623 | 0.017 | |
Sex | 157.616 | 1 | 1.96 | 0.162 | 0.623 | 0.005 | |
STEM | 373.445 | 1 | 4.645 | 0.032 | 0.623 | 0.011 | |
Sex–STEM | 0.949 | 1 | 0.012 | 0.914 | 0.623 | 0 | |
Residuals | 33,125.72 | 412 | NA | NA | 0.623 | NA | |
Spatial ability | Int | 88,870.01 | 1 | 982.838 | 0 | 0.007 | NA |
Age | 223.722 | 1 | 2.474 | 0.117 | 0.007 | 0.007 | |
Sex | 60.356 | 1 | 0.667 | 0.414 | 0.007 | 0.002 | |
STEM | 1794.16 | 1 | 19.842 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.051 | |
Sex–STEM | 9.873 | 1 | 0.109 | 0.741 | 0.007 | 0 | |
Residuals | 33,094.38 | 366 | NA | NA | 0.007 | NA | |
Self-perception of academic ability | Int | 7497.614 | 1 | 27,090.49 | 0 | 0.412 | NA |
Age | 0.963 | 1 | 3.481 | 0.063 | 0.412 | 0.006 | |
Sex | 1.143 | 1 | 4.129 | 0.043 | 0.412 | 0.008 | |
STEM | 0.148 | 1 | 0.534 | 0.465 | 0.412 | 0.001 | |
Sex–STEM | 1.119 | 1 | 4.044 | 0.045 | 0.412 | 0.007 | |
Residuals | 150.558 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.412 | NA | |
Intrinsic values (motivation) | Int | 6608.46 | 1 | 17,653.65 | 0 | 0.953 | NA |
Age | 0.676 | 1 | 1.805 | 0.18 | 0.953 | 0.003 | |
Sex | 2.557 | 1 | 6.831 | 0.009 | 0.953 | 0.012 | |
STEM | 0.008 | 1 | 0.02 | 0.887 | 0.953 | 0 | |
Sex–STEM | 0.314 | 1 | 0.84 | 0.36 | 0.953 | 0.002 | |
Residuals | 203.641 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.953 | NA | |
Intrinsic motivation for math | Int | 6522.011 | 1 | 9102.192 | 0 | 0.006 | NA |
Age | 0.294 | 1 | 0.411 | 0.522 | 0.006 | 0.001 | |
Sex | 10.663 | 1 | 14.881 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.027 | |
STEM | 3.369 | 1 | 4.702 | 0.031 | 0.006 | 0.009 | |
Sex–STEM | 0.021 | 1 | 0.029 | 0.865 | 0.006 | 0 | |
Residuals | 389.793 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.006 | NA | |
Intrinsic motivation for science | Int | 6522.374 | 1 | 9095.095 | 0 | 0.895 | NA |
Age | 0.597 | 1 | 0.832 | 0.362 | 0.895 | 0.002 | |
Sex | 0.549 | 1 | 0.765 | 0.382 | 0.895 | 0.001 | |
STEM | 3.628 | 1 | 5.059 | 0.025 | 0.895 | 0.009 | |
Sex–STEM | 1.22 | 1 | 1.702 | 0.193 | 0.895 | 0.003 | |
Residuals | 390.119 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.895 | NA | |
Ability self-perceptions in math | Int | 8312.319 | 1 | 20,918.59 | 0 | 0.365 | NA |
Age | 0.253 | 1 | 0.637 | 0.425 | 0.365 | 0.001 | |
Sex | 2.259 | 1 | 5.684 | 0.017 | 0.365 | 0.01 | |
STEM | 1.548 | 1 | 3.896 | 0.049 | 0.365 | 0.007 | |
Sex–STEM | 1.364 | 1 | 3.434 | 0.064 | 0.365 | 0.006 | |
Residuals | 216.167 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.365 | NA | |
Ability self-perceptions in science | Int | 6803.189 | 1 | 13,052.64 | 0 | 0.775 | NA |
Age | 1.42 | 1 | 2.725 | 0.099 | 0.775 | 0.005 | |
Sex | 0.483 | 1 | 0.927 | 0.336 | 0.775 | 0.002 | |
STEM | 0.221 | 1 | 0.424 | 0.515 | 0.775 | 0.001 | |
Sex–STEM | 3.031 | 1 | 5.816 | 0.016 | 0.775 | 0.011 | |
Residuals | 283.539 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.775 | NA | |
Perceived difficulty of math | Int | 1.603 | 1 | 1.732 | 0.189 | 0.275 | NA |
Age | 4.082 | 1 | 4.409 | 0.036 | 0.275 | 0.008 | |
Sex | 5.3 | 1 | 5.725 | 0.017 | 0.275 | 0.01 | |
STEM | 25.12 | 1 | 27.133 | 0 | 0.275 | 0.048 | |
Sex–STEM | 1.76 | 1 | 1.901 | 0.168 | 0.275 | 0.003 | |
Residuals | 503.646 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.275 | NA | |
STEM-related gender stereotype | Int | 0.012 | 1 | 0.013 | 0.909 | 0.323 | NA |
Age | 0.843 | 1 | 0.908 | 0.341 | 0.323 | 0.002 | |
Sex | 39.575 | 1 | 42.626 | 0 | 0.323 | 0.073 | |
STEM | 0.305 | 1 | 0.329 | 0.567 | 0.323 | 0.001 | |
Sex–STEM | 0.001 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.973 | 0.323 | 0 | |
Residuals | 505.063 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.323 | NA | |
Educational aspirations in math | Int | 0.408 | 1 | 0.423 | 0.516 | 0.287 | NA |
Age | 7.227 | 1 | 7.504 | 0.006 | 0.287 | 0.014 | |
Sex | 5.467 | 1 | 5.677 | 0.018 | 0.287 | 0.01 | |
STEM | 6.121 | 1 | 6.356 | 0.012 | 0.287 | 0.012 | |
Sex–STEM | 0.526 | 1 | 0.546 | 0.46 | 0.287 | 0.001 | |
Residuals | 523.914 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.287 | NA | |
Friends’ attitudes towards math | Int | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.699 | 0.8 | NA |
Age | 0.005 | 1 | 0.005 | 0.944 | 0.8 | 0 | |
Sex | 0.562 | 1 | 0.562 | 0.454 | 0.8 | 0.001 | |
STEM | 3.216 | 1 | 3.218 | 0.073 | 0.8 | 0.006 | |
Sex–STEM | 0.003 | 1 | 0.003 | 0.954 | 0.8 | 0 | |
Residuals | 543.562 | 544 | NA | NA | 0.8 | NA |
Variable | Group 1 | Group 2 | Diff | Adjusted p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ability self-perceptions in math | Female STEM | Female No-STEM | 0 | 1 |
Male No-STEM | Female No-STEM | 0.01 | 1 | |
Male No-STEM | Female STEM | 0.01 | 1 | |
Male STEM | Female No-STEM | 0.24 | >0.01 ** | |
Male STEM | Female STEM | 0.24 | >0.01 ** | |
Male STEM | Male No-STEM | 0.23 | 0.03 * | |
Ability self-perceptions in science | Female STEM | Female No-STEM | −0.12 | 0.53 |
Male No-STEM | Female No-STEM | −0.09 | 0.82 | |
Male No-STEM | Female STEM | 0.03 | 0.99 | |
Male STEM | Female No-STEM | 0.09 | 0.66 | |
Male STEM | Female STEM | 0.21 | 0.04 * | |
Male STEM | Male No-STEM | 0.18 | 0.22 | |
Self-perception of academic ability | Female STEM | Female No-STEM | −0.13 | 0.17 |
Male No-STEM | Female No-STEM | −0.01 | 1 | |
Male No-STEM | Female STEM | 0.12 | 0.32 | |
Male STEM | Female No-STEM | 0.05 | 0.81 | |
Male STEM | Female STEM | 0.18 | >0.01 ** | |
Male STEM | Male No-STEM | 0.06 | 0.81 |
Variable | Degree | Strength | Betweeness Centrality | Clustering Coefficient | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
STEM group | Spatial ability | 4 | 0.15 | 0 | 0.33 |
Self-perception of academic ability | 5 | 1.17 | 0.35 | 0.3 | |
Intrinsic values (motivation) | 6 | 1.2 | 0.27 | 0.33 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for math | 6 | 0.88 | 0 | 0.4 | |
Ability self-perceptions in math | 5 | 1.06 | 0.18 | 0.4 | |
Ability self-perceptions in science | 3 | 0.93 | 0.29 | 0 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for science | 4 | 1 | 0.35 | 0 | |
Non-verbal intelligence | 4 | 0.24 | 0 | 0.17 | |
Perceived difficulty of math | 4 | 0.68 | 0.13 | 0.5 | |
STEM-related gender stereotype | 3 | 0.19 | 0 | 0.33 | |
Educational aspirations in math | 6 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.53 | |
Friends’ attitudes towards math | 4 | 0.21 | 0 | 0.5 | |
No-STEM group | Spatial ability | 4 | 0.33 | 0.04 | 0.67 |
Self-perception of academic ability | 3 | 1.16 | 0.2 | 0 | |
Intrinsic values (motivation) | 5 | 1.32 | 0.15 | 0.3 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for math | 7 | 1.11 | 0.13 | 0.38 | |
Ability self-perceptions in math | 4 | 0.98 | 0.09 | 0.17 | |
Ability self-perceptions in science | 5 | 0.96 | 0.18 | 0.3 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for science | 4 | 0.87 | 0 | 0.17 | |
Non-verbal intelligence | 3 | 0.21 | 0 | 1 | |
Perceived difficulty of math | 6 | 0.62 | 0.07 | 0.4 | |
STEM-related gender stereotype | 7 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 0.38 | |
Educational aspirations in math | 4 | 0.46 | 0.02 | 0.67 | |
Friends’ attitudes towards math | 4 | 0.27 | 0 | 0.67 | |
Female group | Spatial ability | 7 | 0.35 | 0.04 | 0.48 |
Self-perception of academic ability | 5 | 1.32 | 0.18 | 0.5 | |
Intrinsic values (motivation) | 5 | 1.27 | 0.05 | 0.5 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for math | 8 | 1.19 | 0.2 | 0.43 | |
Ability self-perceptions in math | 6 | 1.07 | 0.22 | 0.53 | |
Ability self-perceptions in science | 7 | 1.12 | 0.15 | 0.52 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for science | 6 | 1.06 | 0.07 | 0.47 | |
Non-verbal intelligence | 4 | 0.32 | 0 | 0.83 | |
Perceived difficulty of math | 7 | 0.79 | 0.05 | 0.57 | |
STEM-related gender stereotype | 7 | 0.33 | 0 | 0.62 | |
Educational aspirations in math | 4 | 0.54 | 0.02 | 0.67 | |
Friends’ attitudes towards math | 6 | 0.32 | 0 | 0.47 | |
Male group | Spatial ability | 7 | 0.39 | 0 | 0.29 |
Self-perception of academic ability | 4 | 1.2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | |
Intrinsic values (motivation) | 6 | 1.25 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for math | 6 | 1.04 | 0.13 | 0.2 | |
Ability self-perceptions in math | 6 | 1.2 | 0.13 | 0.27 | |
Ability self-perceptions in science | 4 | 0.99 | 0.29 | 0.17 | |
Intrinsic Motivation for science | 5 | 1.06 | 0.33 | 0.1 | |
Non-verbal intelligence | 6 | 0.31 | 0 | 0.33 | |
Perceived difficulty of math | 5 | 0.65 | 0.02 | 0.6 | |
STEM-related gender stereotype | 4 | 0.29 | 0.04 | 0.33 | |
Educational aspirations in math | 5 | 0.35 | 0.02 | 0.3 | |
Friends’ attitudes towards math | 4 | 0.26 | 0.02 | 0.33 |
References
- Jones, G.; Taylor, A.; Forrester, J.H. Developing a Scientist: A retrospective look. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2011, 33, 1653–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eccles, J.S.; Vida, M.N.; Barber, B. The Relation of Early Adolescents’ College Plans and Both Academic Ability and Task-Value Beliefs to Subsequent College Enrollment. J. Early Adolesc. 2004, 24, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X. Why Students Choose STEM Majors: Motivation, High School Learning, and Postsecondary Context of Support. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2013, 50, 1081–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savostina, E.A.; Smirnova, I.N.; Khasbulatova, O.A. STEM: Professional trajections of the youth (Gender aspect). Woman Russ. Soc. 2017, 3, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D. On Conceptualizing and Assessing Social Cognitive Constructs in Career Research: A Measurement Guide. J. Career Assess. 2006, 14, 12–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rottinghaus, P.J.; Falk, N.A.; Park, C.J. Career Assessment and Counseling for STEM: A Critical Review. Career Dev. Q. 2018, 66, 2–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wai, J.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C.P.; Steiger, J.H. Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 102, 860–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esipenko, E.A.; Maslennikova, E.P.; Budakova, A.V.; Sharafieva, K.R.; Ismatullina, V.I.; Feklicheva, I.V.; Chipeeva, N.A.; Soldatova, E.L.; Borodaeva, Z.E.; Rimfeld, K. Comparing spatial ability of male and female students completing Humanities vs. technical degrees. Psychol. Russ. State Art 2018, 11, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eccles, J. Who Am I and What Am I Going to Do with My Life? Personal and Collective Identities as Motivators of Action. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 44, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shea, D.L.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C.P. Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001, 93, 604–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neisser, U.; Boodoo, G.; Bouchard, T.J., Jr.; Boykin, A.W.; Brody, N.; Ceci, S.J.; Halpern, D.F.; Loehlin, J.C.; Perloff, R.; Sternberg, R.J.; et al. Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. Am. Psychol. 1996, 51, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuncel, N.R.; Hezlett, S.A.; Ones, D.S. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127, 162–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Deary, I.J.; Strand, S.; Smith, P.; Fernandes, C. Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence 2007, 35, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taub, G.; Keith, T.; Floyd, R.; McGrew, K. Effects of General and Broad Cognitive Abilities on Mathematics Achievement. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2008, 23, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benito-Ostolaza, J.M.; Hernández, P.; Sanchis-Llopis, J.A. Do individuals with higher cognitive ability play more strategically? J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2016, 64, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cawley, J.; Heckman, J.; Vytlacil, E. Three observations on wages and measured cognitive ability. Labour Econ. 2001, 8, 419–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, F.L.; Hunter, J. General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 86, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Byington, E.; Felps, W. Why do IQ scores predict job performance?: An alternative, sociological explanation. Res. Organ. Behav. 2010, 30, 175–202. [Google Scholar]
- Quaiser-Pohl, C.; Lehmann, W. Girls’ spatial abilities: Charting the contributions of experiences and attitudes in different academic groups. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 72, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fennema, E.; Sherman, J. Sex-Related Differences in Mathematics Achievement, Spatial Visualization and Affective Factors. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1977, 14, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sander, E.; Quaiser-Pohl, C.; Stigler, C. Factors Influencing the Development of Mental-Rotation Ability The Role of Socio-Cultural Background. Int. J. Dev. Sci. 2010, 4, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazarides, R.; Lauermann, F. Gendered Paths Into STEM-Related and Language-Related Careers: Girls’ and Boys’ Motivational Beliefs and Career Plans in Math and Language Arts. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eccles, J.; Barber, B.; Jozefowicz, D.; Malenchuk, O.; Vida, M. Self-evaluations of competence, task values, and self-esteem. In Beyond Appearance: A New Look at Adolescent Girls; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 53–83. [Google Scholar]
- Wigfield, A.; Eccles, J.; Davis-Kean, P.; Roeser, R.; Scheifele, U. Motivation to succeed. Handb. Child Psychol. Soc. Emot. Personal. Dev. 2006, 3, 933–1002. [Google Scholar]
- Eccles, J.S.; Barber, B.L.; Updegraff, K.; O’Brien, K.M. An expectancy–value model of achievement choices: The role of ability self-concepts, perceived task utility and interest in predicting activity choice and course enrollment. In Interest and Learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender; Hoffman, L., Krapp, A., Renninger, K.A., Baumert, J., Eds.; IPN: Kiel, Germany, 1998; pp. 267–280. [Google Scholar]
- Dweck, C. Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement; Prepared for the Carnegie Corporation of New York-Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education; Carnegie Corporation of New York: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Available online: https://belmontteach.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/mindsets-and-maths_science-achievement.pdf (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- Correll, S.J. Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-Assessments. Am. J. Sociol. 2001, 106, 1691–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Joyce, B.A.; Farenga, S.J. Young girls in science: Academic ability, perceptions and future participation in science. Roeper Rev. 2000, 22, 261–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapka, J.D. Trajectories of math achievement and perceived math competence over high school and postsecondary education: Effects of an all-girl curriculum in high school. Educ. Res. Eval. 2009, 15, 527–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Updegraff, K.; Eccles, I.; Barber, B.S.; O’Brien, K.M. Course Enroll. Self—regulatory Behav. Who Takes Optional High School math courses. Learn. Individ. Differ. 1996, 1000, 5–1248. [Google Scholar]
- Maltese, A.V.; Tai, R.H. Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95, 877–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council (US); Committee on Physical Activity; Land Use, Transportation Research Board; Institute of Medicine. Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence–Special Report 282; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 282, ISBN 0-309-09498-4. [Google Scholar]
- Pike, G.R. Students’ Personality Types, Intended Majors, and College Expectations: Further Evidence Concerning Psychological and Sociological Interpretations of Holland’s Theory. Res. High. Educ. 2006, 47, 801–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, S.R.; Umbach, P.D. COLLEGE MAJOR CHOICE: An Analysis of Person–Environment Fit. Res. High. Educ. 2006, 47, 429–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shernoff, D.J.; Hoogstra, L. Continuing motivation beyond the high school classroom. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2001, 2001, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leaper, C.; Farkas, T.; Brown, C.S. Adolescent Girls’ Experiences and Gender-Related Beliefs in Relation to Their Motivation in Math/Science and English. J. Youth Adolesc. 2012, 41, 268–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Briggs, S. An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: The case of higher education in Scotland. Stud. High. Educ. 2006, 31, 705–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, T. Stereotyped at seven? Biases in teacher judgement of pupils’ ability and attainment. J. Soc. Policy 2015, 44, 517–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subotnik, R.; Orland, M.; Rayhack, K.; Schuck, J.; Edmiston, A.; Earle, J.; Crowe, E.; Johnson, P.; Carroll, T.; Berch, D.; et al. Identifying and Developing Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice. In International Handbook on Giftedness; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1313–1326. ISBN 978-1-4020-6161-5. [Google Scholar]
- Dasgupta, N.; Stout, J.G. Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2014, 1, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hango, D. Ability in Mathematics and Science at Age 15 and Program Choice in University: Differences by Gender; Statistics Canada, Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics Division: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2013; ISBN 1-100-22843-8. Available online: https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/454650/publication.html (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- Sassler, S.; Michelmore, K.; Smith, K. A Tale of Two Majors: Explaining the Gender Gap in STEM Employment among Computer Science and Engineering Degree Holders. Soc. Sci. 2017, 6, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amon, M.J. Looking through the Glass Ceiling: A Qualitative Study of STEM Women’s Career Narratives. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalabikhina, I. New Approaches to the Measurement of Women’s Representation in STEM-Education and STEM-Employment. Woman Russ. Soc. 2017, 82, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beede, D.N.; Julian, T.A.; Langdon, D.; McKittrick, G.; Khan, B.; Doms, M.E. Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation; Social Science Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Riegle-Crumb, C.; Moore, C.; Ramos-Wada, A. Who wants to have a career in science or math? exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Sci. Educ. 2011, 95, 458–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heilbronner, N.N. Stepping Onto the STEM Pathway: Factors Affecting Talented Students’ Declaration of STEM Majors in College. J. Educ. Gift. 2011, 34, 876–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Else-Quest, N.M.; Hyde, J.S.; Linn, M.C. Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136, 103–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirnstein, M.; Coloma Andrews, L.; Hausmann, M. Gender-Stereotyping and Cognitive Sex Differences in Mixed- and Same-Sex Groups. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2014, 43, 1663–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Catsambis, S. The Path to Math: Gender and Racial-Ethnic Differences in Mathematics Participation from Middle School to High School. Sociol. Educ. 1994, 67, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frenzel, A.C.; Goetz, T.; Pekrun, R.; Watt, H.M.G. Development of Mathematics Interest in Adolescence: Influences of Gender, Family, and School Context. J. Res. Adolesc. 2010, 20, 507–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preckel, F.; Goetz, T.; Pekrun, R.; Kleine, M. Gender Differences in Gifted and Average-Ability Students: Comparing Girls’ and Boys’ Achievement, Self-Concept, Interest, and Motivation in Mathematics. Gift. Child Q. 2008, 52, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sáinz, M.; Eccles, J. Self-concept of computer and math ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 486–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkhateeb, H.M. Elementary Education Student Attitudes to Teaching Mathematics. Compr. Psychol. 2014, 3, 10.IT.3.6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaalvik, S.; Skaalvik, E.M. Gender Differences in Math and Verbal Self-Concept, Performance Expectations, and Motivation. Sex Roles 2004, 50, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Köller, O.; Baumert, J.; Schnabel, K. Does Interest Matter? The Relationship Between Academic Interest and Achievement in Mathematics. J. Res. Math. Educ. 2001, 32, 448–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jacobs, J.E. Twenty-five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career choices: What have we learned? New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2005, 2005, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lent, R.W.; Lopez, F.G.; Brown, S.D.; Gore, P.A., Jr. Latent structure of the sources of mathematics self-efficacy. J. Vocat. Behav. 1996, 49, 292–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zeldin, A.L.; Pajares, F. Against the Odds: Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Women in Mathematical, Scientific, and Technological Careers. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2000, 37, 215–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomerantz, E.M.; Altermatt, E.R.; Saxon, J.L. Making the grade but feeling distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal distress. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 94, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Aalderen-Smeets, S.I.; Walma van der Molen, J.H.; Asma, L.J. Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Sci. Educ. 2012, 96, 158–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appleton, K.; Kindt, I. Why teach primary science? Influences on beginning teachers’ practices. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1999, 21, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harlen, W.; Holroyd, C. Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact on confidence and teaching. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1997, 19, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malanchini, M. Non-Cognitive Factors of Educational Achievement: Motivation and Anxiety. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Moè, A.; Hausmann, M.; Hirnstein, M. Gender stereotypes and incremental beliefs in STEM and non-STEM students in three countries: Relationships with performance in cognitive tasks. Psychol. Res. 2021, 85, 554–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinery, K.; Casey, R.J. Archivists at Work: Stress and Mood Effects in a Gendered Profession. Am. Arch. 2021, 84, 445–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomasetto, C.; Alparone, F.R.; Cadinu, M. Girls’ math performance under stereotype threat: The moderating role of mothers’ gender stereotypes. Dev. Psychol. 2011, 47, 943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Ferber, C.; Holovatch, T.; Holovatch, Y.; Palchykov, V. Public transport networks: Empirical analysis and modeling. Eur. Phys. J. B 2009, 68, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Otte, E.; Rousseau, R. Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J. Inf. Sci. 2002, 28, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barabási, A.-L. The network takeover. Nat. Phys. 2012, 8, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costantini, G.; Richetin, J.; Preti, E.; Casini, E.; Epskamp, S.; Perugini, M. Stability and variability of personality networks. A tutorial on recent developments in network psychometrics. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019, 136, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burger, J.; Isvoranu, A.-M.; Lunansky, G.; Haslbeck, J.M.B.; Epskamp, S.; Hoekstra, R.H.A.; Fried, E.I.; Borsboom, D.; Blanken, T. Reporting Standards for Psychological Network Analyses in Cross-sectional Data. Available online: psyarxiv.com/4y9nz (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- Jones, P.J.; Heeren, A.; McNally, R.J. Commentary: A network theory of mental disorders. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Raven, J. The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time. Cognit. Psychol. 2000, 41, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rimfeld, K.; Shakeshaft, N.G.; Malanchini, M.; Rodic, M.; Selzam, S.; Schofield, K.; Dale, P.S.; Kovas, Y.; Plomin, R. Phenotypic and genetic evidence for a unifactorial structure of spatial abilities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 2777–2782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Likhanov, M.V.; Ismatullina, V.I.; Fenin, A.Y.; Wei, W.; Rimfeld, K.; Maslennikova, E.P.; Esipenko, E.A.; Sharafieva, K.R.; Feklicheva, I.V.; Chipeeva, N.A. The factorial structure of spatial abilities in Russian and Chinese students. Psychol. Russ. State Art 2018, 11, 96–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinath, B.; Spinath, F.M.; Harlaar, N.; Plomin, R. Predicting school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence 2006, 34, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epskamp, S.; Borsboom, D.; Fried, E.I. Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behav. Res. Methods 2018, 50, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Csardi, G.; Nepusz, T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJ. Complex Syst. 2006, 1695, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Epskamp, S.; Cramer, A.; Waldorp, L.; Schmittmann, V.; Borsboom, D. qgraph: Network Visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costantini, G.; Epskamp, S.; Borsboom, D.; Perugini, M.; Mõttus, R.; Waldorp, L.J.; Cramer, A.O.J. State of the aRt personality research: A tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. J. Res. Personal. 2015, 54, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, W.; Wong, K.-F.; Xia, Y.; Xu, R. Clique Percolation Method for Finding Naturally Cohesive and Overlapping Document Clusters. In Proceedings of the Computer Processing of Oriental Languages. Beyond the Orient: The Research Challenges Ahead, Singapore, 17–19 December 2006; pp. 97–108. [Google Scholar]
- Wai, J.; Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C.P. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 101, 817–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannini, E. Book review: The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries Edited by Candace Jones, Mark Lorenzen and Jonathan Sapsed. Available online: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/ (accessed on 23 November 2021).
- Geiser, C.; Lehmann, W.; Eid, M. A note on sex differences in mental rotation in different age groups. Intelligence 2008, 36, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyde, J.S. Gender Similarities and Differences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 373–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindberg, S.M.; Hyde, J.S.; Petersen, J.L.; Linn, M.C. New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136, 1123–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceci, S.J.; Williams, W.M. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 3157–3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellis, J.; Fosdick, B.K.; Rasmussen, C. Women 1.5 Times More Likely to Leave STEM Pipeline after Calculus Compared to Men: Lack of Mathematical Confidence a Potential Culprit. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0157447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, L.M.; Pesch, K.M.; Surapaneni, S.; Bonitz, V.S.; Wu, T.-F.; Werbel, J.D. Predicting Graduation: The Role of Mathematics/Science Self-Efficacy. J. Career Assess. 2015, 23, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blair, I.V. The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2002, 6, 242–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudman, L.A.; Greenwald, A.G.; McGhee, D.E. Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 27, 1164–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carnes, M.; Devine, P.G.; Isaac, C.; Manwell, L.B.; Ford, C.E.; Byars-Winston, A.; Fine, E.; Sheridan, J. Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. J. Divers. High. Educ. 2012, 5, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Sex (N) | STEM (N) | No-STEM (N) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | All | Boys | Girls | All | Boys | Girls | All | Boys | Girls |
12 | 24 | 12 | 12 | 18 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
13 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 65 | 38 | 27 | 35 | 12 | 23 |
14 | 151 | 81 | 70 | 91 | 52 | 39 | 60 | 29 | 31 |
15 | 96 | 49 | 47 | 54 | 32 | 22 | 42 | 17 | 25 |
16 | 143 | 67 | 76 | 83 | 46 | 37 | 60 | 21 | 39 |
17 | 32 | 14 | 18 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 4 | 8 |
Total | 546 | 273 | 273 | 331 | 188 | 143 | 215 | 85 | 130 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ismatullina, V.; Adamovich, T.; Zakharov, I.; Vasin, G.; Voronin, I. The Place of Gender Stereotypes in the Network of Cognitive Abilities, Self-Perceived Ability and Intrinsic Value of School in School Children Depending on Sex and Preferences in STEM. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12030075
Ismatullina V, Adamovich T, Zakharov I, Vasin G, Voronin I. The Place of Gender Stereotypes in the Network of Cognitive Abilities, Self-Perceived Ability and Intrinsic Value of School in School Children Depending on Sex and Preferences in STEM. Behavioral Sciences. 2022; 12(3):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12030075
Chicago/Turabian StyleIsmatullina, Victoria, Timofey Adamovich, Ilya Zakharov, Georgy Vasin, and Ivan Voronin. 2022. "The Place of Gender Stereotypes in the Network of Cognitive Abilities, Self-Perceived Ability and Intrinsic Value of School in School Children Depending on Sex and Preferences in STEM" Behavioral Sciences 12, no. 3: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12030075
APA StyleIsmatullina, V., Adamovich, T., Zakharov, I., Vasin, G., & Voronin, I. (2022). The Place of Gender Stereotypes in the Network of Cognitive Abilities, Self-Perceived Ability and Intrinsic Value of School in School Children Depending on Sex and Preferences in STEM. Behavioral Sciences, 12(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12030075