St.

Johns University
Caitlin Fredricks
Kalina Kozarska
EDU 7297
Fall 2015
Literature Review
Gender Development in the STEM Subject Areas
Professor Jane B. Modell Rosen
November 17, 2015

In recent years, the development of students in what are termed the

STEM subjects has been a popular issue. STEM subjects include science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. With an increasing number of
jobs available in these areas, it is critical that educators prepare their
students to succeed in these fields. Traditionally, STEM subjects have been
dominated by males, both in the classroom and in the workforce. It is
important to explore why females are not as successful in these subjects and
participate at much lower rates than their male counterparts. The literature
review will begin by exploring research that studies how male and female
students develop differently in the STEM subject areas, and potential
strategies to level the playing field for both genders in these areas. A
common misconception is that single-sex schooling can increase
participation and interest in math and science. Therefore, this literature
review explores in depth the potential, or lack thereof, for single-sex schools
to mitigate the issue.
The article Mathematics Participation and Mathematics Achievement
Across Secondary School: The Role of Gender by Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van
Damme, and De Munter describes a longitudinal study that explores the
relationship between gender achievement and gender participation in
mathematics. Additionally, it seeks to add further research to the impacts of
comprehensive and differentiated education systems on mathematics
achievement. In making these insights, researchers analyze data of 1,495
Flemish students (583 male, 912 female) from the 2002 Longitudinal
2

Research in Secondary Education data collection. The students analyzed

range from grades 7-12. Data gathered includes student scores on
achievement tests given at regular intervals, as well as time spent on math
(math participation), in each of the test years (Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van
Damme, & De Munter, 2008).
Research findings indicate that while both boys and girls initially
spend similar amounts of time on mathematics, by 10th grade, boys more
frequently participate in mathematics. This finding is important with regard
to the issue of student choice in curriculum. Findings indicate that this shift
in male students spending more time on mathematics coincides with a more
differentiated curriculum, where students have greater choice as to which
subjects they take. Along with this increased participation by males in
mathematics, researchers find that by the time students are tested in 10th
and 12th grades, males outperform females on math achievement tests.
This finding indicates a positive correlation between math participation and
math achievement, and raises an important issue for schools regarding how
much student choice should be involved in class selection (Van de gaer et al.,
2008).
While mathematics achievement differs minimally in earlier test years,
students who achieve higher scores are more likely to continue to take more
hours of math in the future (Van de gaer et al, 2008). This means that a
small initial difference in the mathematics achievement of male and female
students in early grades has the potential to create an increasingly wide
3

achievement gap in future years. The researchers of this article briefly

allude to the potential for single sex schools to ameliorate these issues by
increasing both female participation and achievement in math, which will be
discussed at length in later articles.
The article Attributional Gender Bias: Teachers ability and effort
explanations for students math performance by Espinoza, da Luz Fontes,
and Arms-Chavez explores the issue of attributional gender bias.
Historically, with regard to math, teachers have attributed the success of
boys to ability, and the success of girls to effort. The article specifically
focuses on an experiment where the researchers attempt to reduce these
traditional biases in teachers over time by introducing incremental theories
of intelligence. Between the experimental and control groups, 64 teachers
in the southwest United States participate in the study. Examples of
incremental theories of intelligence that participants in the experimental
group are exposed to included various scientific articles describing case
studies and research supporting the effort theory and brain images
showing the positive impacts of increased effort. Individuals in the control
group are given more general information that does not specifically relate to
the topic of attributional gender bias. In order to gauge the attitudes of
teachers and the impact that these materials have on their attitudes,
researchers utilize attitude change exercises and develop a tool known as
the Attributional Bias Instrument (ABI) to determine whether teachers
believe student success is due to efforts or abilities (Espinoza, da Luz Fontes,
4

& Arms-Chavez, 2013).

The research indicates just how difficult it can be for teachers to
change their views with regard to gender biases of their students. Based on
the ABI, it appears that teachers are able to change their traditional
attributional gender biases, and interestingly enough, actually reverse them,
meaning they believe male achievement is due to effort and female
achievement is due to ability. However, by the end of the school year when
research concludes, teacher views revert to reflect the traditional
attributional gender biases (Espinoza et al., 2013). While it seems that there
is some potential to change teachers traditional attributional gender biases,
it is still unclear how to help teachers gain an effort positive attitude for
both male and female students, as well as how to do so with lasting effects.
Research indicates that students often perform in accordance with
the expectations of their teachers (Espinoza et al., 2013). Therefore, if a
students teacher instills that success is a result of effort, the student is
more likely to try harder, and therefore, perform better. However, if a
students teacher instills that success is simply the result of natural ability,
the student will become extremely discouraged if initial performance is poor.
This research on attributional gender bias provides a potential explanation
for the disparity between genders in math performance and participation
described in Mathematics Participation and Mathematics Achievement
Across Secondary School: The Role of Gender. Going forward, research
should be done to develop ways to eliminate attributional gender bias in
5

educators.
The article Review of Gender Differences in Learning Styles:
Suggestions for STEM Education by Kulturel-Konak, DAllegro, and Dickinson
explores the differences in learning styles in STEM subject areas, between
genders. This is a particularly important issue because, as one researcher
named Kolb notes, individuals often make a decision to pursue a particular
major based on how well their preferred styles of learning coincide with the
norms of that field (Kulturel-Konak, DAllegro, & Dickinson, 2011, pg. 10).
For this study, data is collected in the form of an online survey to measure
student learning styles. It was given at Penn State Berks in 2010, where 313
students participated. The survey questions seek to gather information
regarding the learning differences between males and females, as well as the
learning differences between STEM and non-STEM majors.
The research indicates alignment between the answers of females
and non-STEM majors and between those of males and STEM majors. For
example, both female and non-STEM students typically indicate a preference
for creative thinking materials and cite that they are better able to
remember material when they can connect it to other subjects. Both males
and STEM students typically indicate a preference for hands-on materials and
note that they are best able to remember material they have previously
learned (Kulturel-Konak et al., 2011).
Researchers of this article note that findings are not necessarily in
accordance with what was expected, as other researchers have found that
6

women prefer concrete learning experiences while men are attracted to

more abstract learning experiences. However, it is still clear that learning
preferences of males and females do in fact differ. This is a critical factor
that teachers should account for when developing lessons and learning
activities. The researchers make several suggestions for ways to improve
learning experience in STEM subjects for females: 1.) move away from
traditional lecture models and towards hands-on experiences, connecting
learned material to outside experiences, 2.) incorporate a multidisciplinary
approach, and 3.) choose collaborative learning environments over
competitive ones. Researchers argue that by implementing these
suggestions, teachers will be better able to meet the needs of female
students (Kulturel-Konak et al., 2011)..
This article provides another basis for the differing participation and
performance of the genders, similarly discussed in Mathematics
Participation and Mathematics Achievement Across Secondary School: The
Role of Gender. The findings of Kulturel-Konak, DAllegro, and Dickinson
clarify that males and females learn differently. If STEM classrooms cater to
male preferences and learning styles , females will be less likely to
participate and succeed in the STEM subjects. Future research might explore
how implementing more diverse learning strategies, such as those described
by Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van Damme, and De Munter, impacts female
participation and success in STEM courses.
In Adolescent Girls' Experiences and Gender-Related Beliefs in
7

Relation to Their Motivation in Math/Science and English, Leaper, Farkas,

and Spears Brown conduct research with the goal of measuring girls'
achievement motivation, academic success, ability beliefs, and
personal/academic values. The research is conducted through an extensive
questionnaire titled What it means to be a girl. The study sample comprises
of 579 girls, aged 13-18, from middle-schools, high schools, afterschool, and
summer-school programs. The study is conducted in Georgia as well as parts
of Southern and Northern California. Certain variables are taken into
consideration: parental education, parental support, age, and ethnicity. The
researchers control these variables in order to ensure accurate results.
The researchers conduct this study due to concern for low numbers of
female professionals in areas such as mathematics, engineering, computer
science, and physics; where physics contains the lowest percentage (15 %)
of female professionals. The research reveals that the most significant factor
affecting a girl's motivation in mathematics and science (M/S) is peer group.
Furthermore, the research states that The bivariate correlations revealed
that girls' M/S motivation was positively and significantly related to M/S
grade (average of math grade and science grade), English grade, parents'
education, parents' M/S support, gender-egalitarian attitudes, and exposure
to feminism (Leaper et al., 2012, p. 274) .The other articles reveal similar
findings; girls are more likely to find math and science enjoyable and to
pursue them as career choices, if they have prior academic success in those
subjects. Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van Damme, and De Munter, as well as
8

Murphy and Whitelegg, address this within their research.

In the article The Gender Gap in Advanced Math and Science Course
Taking: Does Same-Sex Education Make a Difference?, Feniger explores the
differences between co-education and single-sex education with regard to
advanced math and science courses. The STEM courses he studies include
math, physics, biology, and computer science. As hypothesized by other
researchers, such as Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van Damme, and De Munter from
an above article, Feniger believes that single-sex schools will have a positive
impact on the STEM education of female students. In conducting this study,
Feniger analyzes information of over 20,000 Israeli Jewish high school
students from the 1995 census and the Ministry of Education records.
Feniger then completes a logistic regression analysis with respect to
variables such as enrollment in STEM courses, fathers education level,
standard of living, origin, and single-sex or co-educational school
environment (Feniger, 2015).
The findings of this research do not indicate what Feniger anticipated.
Overall, he finds inconsistent patterns of gender differences in math and
science course taking. With regard to math, girls in single-sex and
coeducational schools often make similar choices, participating equally. In
other areas, such as physics, biology, and computer science, Feniger finds
that females in single-sex schools take these subjects at higher rates than
their counterparts at coeducational schools (although not on par with the
level of male participation at single-sex or coeducational schools). Feniger
9

notes potential factors that could impact female STEM participation

negatively as limited course offerings and cultural values (Feniger, 2010).
In the article Gender Gap in School Science: Are Single-Sex Schools
Important?, Sikora seeks to determine the impact of single-sex schools with
regard to the science subject area. This article contrasts nicely with the one
above, as the schools discussed here are more often private, while those
discussed above are mainly public. Sikora notes that traditionally, society
sees an overrepresentation of males in physical science courses and careers,
and an overrepresentation of females in life sciences courses and careers.
He hypothesizes that single-sex schools will, to a degree, mitigate these
over representations. With regard to the single-sex schools, Sikora seeks
to determine whether the outcomes of students who attend these schools
can be attributed to the gender composition of the school, or whether these
outcomes are due to other factors, such as the pre-existing student and
school characteristics. Sikora collects his data from a PISA survey given in
2009 to students ages 15-16. 7,626 students are surveyed. Students are
initially surveyed in school, and then longitudinal follow-up surveys are
conducted via telephone. Information collected by researchers includes the
following: students ethnic background, family economic status, academic
performance in science, weekly time devoted to science, and science selfconcept (Sikora, 2014).
The findings of this study reveal that life science subjects are less
popular among boys than girls and physical science subjects and careers are
10

less popular among girls than boys, as is typical of traditional educational

patterns. However, the research does indicate that this disparity is much
less visible in single-sex than co-educational schools. Additionally, girls in
single-sex schools indicate careers aspirations in the sciences at comparable
rates to males in coeducational schools, but still lower than their male
counterparts in single-sex schools. Both males and females of single-sex
schools perform better in math than their counterparts at coeducational
schools. Finally, girls in coeducational schools indicate that they have
weaker faith in their science skills than girls in single-sex schools. The faith
of females in single-sex schools is on par with those of males in
coeducational schools. With regard to demographic characteristics, students
of single-sex schools are more likely to come from multilingual homes than
their counterparts at coeducational schools, as well as come from families
with parents of higher socioeconomic status, often having parents who work
the science profession (Sikora, 2014).
While a surface-level evaluation of this research would indicate that
single-sex schools do positively impact female students with regard to
sciences, Sikora notes that these benefits are likely due to other factors
aside from the gender composition of a school. He argues that the
characteristics of students who attend single-sex schools, such as higher
socioeconomic status, make them more likely to be interested in the physical
science. Additionally, single-sex schools are often more strict, more
selective, and are filled with more educational resources than coeducational
11

schools (Sikora, 2014). These findings of Sikora are in accordance with the
research of Leaper, Farkas, and Spears Brown, who note that female success
in math and science is often related to factors such as the following:
parents education, parents support of math and science, and genderegalitarian attitudes (Leaper, 2012). Sikora notes the need for further
research in this area of single-sex education with regard to science subjects,
as the findings of this study cannot be generalized across cultures.
Additionally, he notes the need to further explore why the male/female
differences are more pronounced when it comes to careers in the physical
sciences, as opposed to course-taking (Sikora, 2014).
In the article Girls and physics: continuing barriers to belonging,
Patricia Murphy and Elizabeth Whitelegg analyze and discuss the previous
male domination within science. The article observes data from various
sources such as The Youth Cohort Study, and The National Assessment of
Educational Performance. Murphy and Whitelegg begin the article with a
brief introduction on the historical background of gendered subjects. The
masculinization of science and math has been an issue throughout
education's history. The article refers to math and science as thing oriented
subjects, where women are less likely to exhibit interest. This is similar to the
findings of Cherney and Campbell, to be discussed next. In Campbell and
Cherney's study, females tend to gravitate towards people centered
careers, whereas males tend to gravitate towards thing centered careers.
Although females are progressively expressing their interests in
12

science, professional and educational progress has been achieved at a

glacial rate. The article tells us that The National Assessment of Educational
Performance (NAEP) studies in the US revealed consistent declines in
attitudes toward science from earlier to later grades in school... increasing
alienation resulted from the growing abstraction and complexity of science
classes' (Murphy & Whitelegg, 2006, p.290). The NAEP studies show that
students must find material relatable to real-life events and personal
experiences. These findings are similar to those presented by Kulturel-Konak,
DAllegro, and Dickinson, who suggest that males are attracted to abstract
learning experiences whereas women are attracted to concrete/relatable
learning experiences.
Furthermore, the findings suggest that previous achievement in the
subject is highly significant. Van de gaer, Pustjens, Van Damme, and De
Munter relate that mathematics participation is increased with high scores.
That is, a student is more likely to take math courses and pursue a career in
math, with prior success in the subject. Research also shows that girls, more
so than boys, categorize personal enjoyment as a deciding factor in pursuing
physics.
In a A League of Their Own: Do Single-Sex Schools Increase Girls'
Participation in the Physical Sciences?, Cherney and Campbell conduct their
study through the analysis of 548 high school boys and girls from both
coeducational and single-sex settings within the United States (Midwest). The
main goal of the study is to determine the effects on mathematics test
13

performance with the inclusion of a stereotype threat (ST) variable. The

study seeks to understand how overt messages affect a student's academic
performance. The test design targets girls because females are more likely to
be affected by overt stereotype messages.
The research reveals that girls within single-sex settings tend to
demonstrate greater self-esteem and are more likely to participate in
elective STEM courses due to their perceived levels of capability and
confidence. The data is similar to Sikoras concept of faith, or a girls
confidence, in STEM pursuits. The data is collected through a mathematics
test comprised of 6 multiple choice questions and 4 open-ended questions.
Students are also asked to complete a variety of questionnaires within the
Science Career Choices (MSCC). The study reveals that although girls from
such institutions have higher levels of motivation and confidence, they are
not more likely to pursue STEM careers. The article states : women, as a
group, tend to prefer to learn about and work with people (communal goals),
whereas boys and men, as a group, tend to prefer to learn about and work
with things (agentic goals) (Cherney & Campbell, 2011, p.721). These
findings are in accordance with the findings of Kulturel-Konak, DAllegro, and
Dickinson, who find that males and females have different preferred learning
styles. However, where they feel that female learning styles can be
effectively incorporated into STEM classrooms, the researchers of this article
imply that female preference might not be compatible with STEM subjects.
Furthermore, the study reveals that girls outperform boys within a
14

coeducational setting. However, boys from single-sex schools outperform

girls from single-sex schools. Regarding the mathematics portion of the test,
boys and girls from single-sex settings significantly outperform their
coeducational counterparts. In addition, if a student pursues a STEM career,
this student is more likely to receive high scores on the mathematics test,
and vice-versa. This remains true, regardless of the school type. Regarding
the stereotype threat (ST), the study shows that most girls over performed
with the inclusion of an ST. This phenomenon is referred to as the stereotype
reactance effect; where the ST is perceived by test takers as a limit to their
freedom and ability to perform, thereby invoking behaviors that are
inconsistent with the stereotype (Cherney and Campbell, 2011).
Gender stereotyping has negative consequences for both genders. In
The tyranny of surveillance: male teachers and the policing of masculinities
in a single sex school by Martino and Frank, the issues of single-sex
schooling, gender role development, and masculine vs. feminine subjects are
addressed through a qualitative study that incorporates personal interviews
from two male teachers. The study takes place at an Australian, suburban
boys' school (The Grammar School). This private institution, primarily serves
students from middle and upper class backgrounds. It hosts 552 boys in the
senior school and 320 boys in the preparatory school. The primary drive for
this particular study is the concern for failing masculinities among male
youth.
The research points out the presence of gendered subjects as well as
15

gendered divisions within specific studies. For example, the interviewees

state that some subjects must be sold to the male students. Within the study
of science, chemistry and physics are considered masculine disciplines,
whereas biology and human biology as considered feminine disciplines. One
educator, Brad, depicts his struggle to sell the subject of art to his pupils. His
association with art leads to students perceiving him as gay. Brad reveals
that he takes on the role of a rugby coach in order to prove his masculinity
as an art teacher and gain the respect of his students.
Boys and educators interact through sports as a way of displaying their
masculinity. However, the researchers notice that even this scenario is not
devoid of stereotype binaries. They reveal that not all sport is received with
the same respect and admiration. Sports such as rugby and soccer are
valued as masculine disciplines, unlike volleyball. Furthermore, the research
indicates that not all agree with the prioritization of certain subjects and
extracurricular activities. The interviews reveal that the deputy principal, in
fact, expressed concern that only a very narrow version of masculinity was
offered at the school and that this was reflected primarily in the prioritizing
of sport over other cultural pursuits and life skills such as those taught in
home economics which was not offered as part of the school curriculum
(Martino & Frank, 2006, p.21). The research expresses a genuine concern
regarding the academic and social limitations within this school community.
In his article Achievement, Gender and the Single-sex/coed Debate,
Harker seeks to track achievements among the genders in both
16

coeducational and single-sex settings. The study takes place in New Zealand,
where research is conducted through the Progress at School project. This is
a longitudinal study that includes 5300 students from 37 schools. Harker also
addresses data from the Ministry of Education and the National Qualifications
Authority (NQUA). In order to address the control of variables such as
achievement, socioeconomic status, school type, and ethnicity, t-test as well
as HLM (hierarchical linear modeling) are used. Harker conducts this research
to investigate the common misconception that single-sex schools result in
more solid academic careers for all girls.
The study reveals similar findings to those mentioned in previous
articles. Sikora, as well as Martino and Frank, mention that the life sciences
are more popular among the female population whereas the physical
sciences are more popular among the male population. There is a tradeoff
between physics and biology, where boys enroll in physics courses with a
ratio of two to one. Furthermore, girls are enrolling into mathematics and
science courses at similar rates as their male peers. The difference between
these rates is insignificant. Harker points out that the yielded New Zealand
data is uniform with the data from other countries. He also notes that
although girls express interests in subjects previously regarded as masculine
(computer science, chemistry, engineering etc.), boys have not expressed
interests in subjects previously regarded as feminine. However, even with
increasing interest, girls are still not on par with boys in the STEM subjects.
The research suggests that single-sex schooling results in grades
17

insignificantly higher than those yielded through co-educational schooling.

However, Harker warns that this might be due to an oversampling bias. Two
of the 37 school samples are elite single-sex institutions for students with a
high socio-economic status. Furthermore, he states that the students
attending the single-sex schools were at a higher prior achievement level
than their coeducational peers, hence it is not surprising that their
achievement levels are somewhat higher (Harker, 2000, p.210). Perhaps
this is because many private, single-sex institutions are highly selective and
elite, just as Sikora points out in his article. However, the study shows that
when appropriate controls are exercised for socio-economic status, ethnicity,
school, and prior achievement, the differences between school types become
insignificant. Therefore, the data reveals that girls are not more likely to
succeed at single-sex institutions, contrary to popular belief.
The literature review examines traditional gender roles within STEM
and non-STEM subjects as well as how those gender roles create
discrepancies in academic participation and professional pursuit. Most of the
articles mentioned within this review contain similar threads. STEM career
pursuits are positively impacted by academic participation and prior
achievement. Furthermore, research shows that gender bias is still present
within our classrooms, stalling female interest and participation. Curriculum
and instructional strategies primarily cater to male abstract thinking. Studies
do recognize the differences in learning styles for both genders. Regarding
single-sex education, the articles suggest that some positive impact is clear.
18

For example, girls have higher perceived levels of confidence/self-esteem

and achieve higher marks than their coeducational peers. However, the
prestige of single-sex institutions could explain the high grades and
confidence levels. Further research needs to be conducted with differentiated
learning in the STEM subjects.

References
Campbell, K.L., Cherney, I.D. (2011). A League of Their Own: Do Single-Sex
Schools Increase
Girls' Participation in the Physical Sciences? Sex Roles, 65(9), 712-724.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-01119

0013-6
Espinoza, P., Aras Da Luz Fontes, Ana,B., & Arms-chavez, C. (2014).
Attributional gender bias:
Teachers' ability and effort explanations for students' math
performance. Social Psychology of Education : An International Journal,
17(1), 105-126.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1007/s11218-013-9226-6
Feniger, Y. (2011). The gender gap in advanced math and science course
taking: Does same-sex
education make a difference? Sex Roles, 65(9-10), 670-679.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1007/s11199-010-9851-x
Harker, P. (2000). Achievement, Gender and the Single-sex/coed Debate.
British Journal of
Sociology of Education. 21(2), 203-218. Retrieved from
https://subhashniappana.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/harker-r2000.pdf
Kulturel-Konak, S., D'Allegro, M. L., & Dickinson, S. (2011). Review of gender
differences in
learning styles: Suggestions for STEM education. Contemporary Issues
in Education Research, 4(3), 9-18. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/docview/865045345?
accountid=14068

Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Spears-Brown, C. (2011). Adolescent Girls'

20

Experiences and
Gender-Related Beliefs in Relation to Their Motivation in Math/Science
and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 268-82.
Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51502632_Adolescent_Girls'_E
xperiences_and_GenderRelated_Beliefs_in_Relation_to_Their_Motivation_in_MathScience_and_E
nglish
Martino, W., Frank, B. (2006). The tyranny of surveillance: male teachers and
the policing of
masculinities in a single sex school. Gender and Education 18(1), 1733. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.jerome.stjohns.edu
Murphy, P., Whitelegg, E.(2006). Girls and physics: continuing barriers to
belonging.
Curriculum Journal 17(3), 281-305. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.jerome.stjohns.edu

Sikora, J. (2014). Gender gap in school science: Are single-sex schools

important? Sex Roles,
70(9-10), 400-415.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1007/s11199-014-0372-x
Van, d. g., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J., & De Munter, A. (2008). Mathematics
participation and
mathematics achievement across secondary school: The role of
21

gender. Sex Roles, 59(7-8), 568-585.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1007/s11199-008-9455-x

22