Literature DB >> 29442575

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.

Gijsbert Stoet1, David C Geary2.   

Abstract

The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading ( N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys' science achievement and girls' reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls' and women's engagement with STEM subjects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cognitive ability; cross-cultural differences; educational psychology; open materials; science education; sex differences

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29442575     DOI: 10.1177/0956797617741719

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  32 in total

1.  Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox.

Authors:  Thomas Breda; Elyès Jouini; Clotilde Napp; Georgia Thebault
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Girls' comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in math-related fields.

Authors:  Thomas Breda; Clotilde Napp
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students.

Authors:  Kira O McCabe; David Lubinski; Camilla P Benbow
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2019-03-14

4.  Using social media advertisement data to monitor the gender gap in STEM: opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Reham Al Tamime; Ingmar Weber
Journal:  PeerJ Comput Sci       Date:  2022-06-21

5.  Understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes requires assessing intraindividual differences in abilities and interests.

Authors:  David Lubinski
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Men are less religious in more gender-equal countries.

Authors:  Jordan W Moon; Adam E Tratner; Melissa M McDonald
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Emerging neurodevelopmental perspectives on mathematical learning.

Authors:  Vinod Menon; Hyesang Chang
Journal:  Dev Rev       Date:  2021-05-03

8.  Algorithms as discrimination detectors.

Authors:  Jon Kleinberg; Jens Ludwig; Sendhil Mullainathan; Cass R Sunstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 12.779

9.  Cross-national comparison of gender differences in the enrollment in and completion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics Massive Open Online Courses.

Authors:  Suhang Jiang; Katerina Schenke; Jacquelynne Sue Eccles; Di Xu; Mark Warschauer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash.

Authors:  Lea Skewes; Cordelia Fine; Nick Haslam
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.