1

Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review
Jessica Branstetter
4/26/16
Teachers College of San Joaquin

2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Key Terms
Career and Technical Educaiton (CTE): Coursework high school students are able to take
which prepare for specific occupational fields, and in which they are able to have hands-on
experience in given fields.
Fixed mindset: The belief that one is born with a certain amount of intelligence that
cannot be expanded.
Growth mindset: The belief that intelligence is flexible and can grow with hard work.
K-12: The educational system from Kindergarten to 12th grade.
School aged: Children in kindergarten through 12th grade.
STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
STEM pipeline: The formal experiences one has in STEM education beginning in prekindergarten and through early professional experience.

Background
In my experience there is a trend for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
fields to be male dominated. I grew up thinking that there wasnt much of a reason to push
myself outside of my comfort zone in STEM related courses or activities because I was a girl,
and, therefore, I wasnt going to naturally excel. When faced with technical problems that
included any kind of engineering skills, it always just naturally fell to the men in my family and
in the families of my friends to conquer them. As a teacher, I see this mindset in many of my
young girls. I see mothers who dismiss math for their girls at a much higher rate than they do for
their boys. I hear mothers say that their kids will get math help when the father comes home, that
their child isnt a math person, or theyre not a math family. I see my third grade students
dive head first into math and engineering challenges, but I read studies of women making up a

3
LITERATURE REVIEW
much smaller percentage of STEM professionals than men. This makes me wonder when this
dislike of STEM subjects sets in.
In action research I completed earlier this year, I challenged my third grade students to
tackle different STEM challenges and noticed that there was no significant difference in the
engagement or interest between male and female students. There was also no significant
difference in perceived ability level, though male students were more likely to say that they
could hold a specific STEM career in the future even if they were unsure of their current
abilities. Female students, on the other hand, were less likely to respond positively about their
future abilities in a career that they were unsure about. This makes me wonder whether female
students are therefore less likely to take risks and pursue STEM topics that are unfamiliar to
them. If this is the case, I wonder when this mindset begins to affect their academic performance
and course choices.
In addition, I explored whether the implementation of various STEM activities in my
classroom would have a positive effect on students belief in their current and future abilities.
Also in this action research I explored whether the implementation of various STEM activities in
my classroom would have a positive effect on students belief in current and future abilities. My
data showed differences that were not significant, with minimal change in student self belief after
taking part in STEM activities. So, if taking a semester to expose students to a variety of STEM
activities doesnt have a strong effect on their beliefs, what can I do as an educator to help my
students have a stronger belief in themselves?
My research in this literature review aims to explore the trends and possible causes for
female student and professional attrition in the STEM pipeline. In addition, my research aims to

4
LITERATURE REVIEW
explore when girls tend to drop out of STEM courses and answer the question of what we can do
as educators to get and keep girls interested in STEM fields in order to have more women in
STEM professional careers.
The Problem
As I conducted this research I noticed that women are decreasingly represented in STEM
majors and professions as employment positions and coursework levels increase. For example,
there is a lower percentage of women CEO and board members than women employees in
STEM professions, a lower number of women in STEM careers than women who earn STEM
degrees, and a lower percentage of women who earn STEM degrees than who take advanced
STEM courses in high school (Cunningham & Sparks, 2015; Dolkas & Farrell, 2012; Landivar,
2013). Advanced placement high school STEM courses are taken by at least an equal number of
female and male students, yet only 11-12% of U.S. corporate board members in STEM
companies are women (Cunningham & Sparks, 2015; Dolkas & Farrell, 2012). Within K-12
education there is also a slow attrition of women taking STEM coursework, especially in
technology and higher level mathematics (Crawford, 2012; Ivie & Ephraim, 2011; Klein, 2014;
Reilly & Neumann, 2013; Teo, 2014; Weber, 2012). This makes me wonder what happens in the
educational and professional experiences to make these women drop out of STEM fields, and
what we can do as K-12 educators to help retain females in the STEM pipeline.
K-12 Education
Although some gender related performance differences are still apparent, the smallest
performance differences in the STEM pipeline are for school age children. According to
Beekman and Ober (2015), there is little to no gender gap with students in grades three to ten as

5
LITERATURE REVIEW
female students are currently performing just as well as their male counterparts. One way to
analyze data for K-12 students is to look at international assessments, such as the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA). The PISA is an assessment coordinated by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is given every 3 years,
and measures academic performance of school age students in 34 countries (Snyder & Dillow,
2015).
PISA scores for 15-year old students were published in the 2013 Digest of Educational
Statistics and showed that the average score in the United States for male students was five
points higher than that of female students, which is considered to be not statistically significant
(Liu & Wilson, 2009; Snyder & Dillow, 2015). Of the remaining 33 other OECD countries, 25
showed that males continued to significantly outperform females in mathematics literacy on this
same assessment (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). It is noteworthy, however, that students in the United
States scored lower than 21 other countries on the 2012 PISA (Snyder & Dillow, 2015).
PISA scores from 2000, 2003, and 2011 showed that males had significantly higher
scores in the domain of spatial ability not only in the United States but internationally (Liu &
Wilson, 2009; Snyder & Dillow, 2015). Males also performed better with traditional geometry,
tasks assessing reasoning and problem solving, and statistics, while females performed better
with computational skills, numerical patterns, memorization, and recollection of practical
knowledge (Liu & Wilson, 2009; Snyder & Dillow, 2015). Scores on multiple answer items
show no gender differences by 2003, which is stated to be due to female students guessing more
than they had previously (Liu & Wilson, 2009). In fact, in the (2003) assessment female students

6
LITERATURE REVIEW
actually guessed more than male students, which is noted to be a possible effect of teaching test
taking strategies (Liu & Wilson, 2009).
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is another
international assessment given to students in the fourth and eighth grade. Internationally, 59
countries take part in this assessment which has been given every four years since 1995 (Mullis,
Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012). In the 2011 assessment of students in the United States, fourth
grade boys showed significantly higher scores in math, while there was no significant difference
in the gender gap with male students only leading slightly more over female students (Mullis et
al., 2012). This data is inconsistent with the PISA scores, and may be attributed to the fact that
the PISA assessment assesses more applied skills than the TIMSS (U.S. Congress Joint
Economic Committee [USCJEC], 2012).
Another assessment that provides performance information for students in the United
States is the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is only given to
students within the United States (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). This assessment is administered to
students in grades four, eight, and twelve, and uses assessments that reflect curricula in those
grades (Snyder & Dillow 2015). In 2012, there was no significant difference between the math
scores of male and female students in the fourth or eighth grades, but twelfth grade male students
significantly outperformed their female counterparts (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). These scores
reflected no change in gender gap with fourth and eighth graders since 1973, but did show a
smaller gap with twelfth grade students since 1973 (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). NAEP scores for
science showed that males consistently outperformed females in science for grades four, eight,

7
LITERATURE REVIEW
and twelve, though the differences in scores were lowest in fourth grade and highest in twelfth
grade (Snyder & Dillow, 2015).
Since these test scores do not take a deeper look into the trends within the coursework
students are choosing at the high school level, its interesting to look at the trends within Career
and Technical Education (CTE) courses. Within CTE courses at the high school level, merely
15% of those enrolled in courses leading to nontraditional careers for women are girls. This is
compared to courses leading to careers traditionally held by women, which have 87% female
students enrolled (National Council for Women and Girls in Education [NCWGE], 2008). The
NCWGE defines nontraditional careers for women as those occupations in which women
represent less than 25% of employees, which would constitute most STEM careers (p. 22).
Some traditional careers are those such as cosmetology, childcare, and health-care, whereas
nontraditional careers are those such as automotive, electrical, plumbing, and welding (NCWGE,
2008).
Outside of CTE it is worth taking a look at students who are participating in Advanced
Placement (AP) courses, as well as their AP test results. Within the sciences, in the year 2000,
girls made up 47% of AP Chemistry classes, and 58% of AP Biology classes (NCWGE, 2008). In
2011 Girls made up nearly half (47%) of physics students, but only 41% of AP Physics B and
32% of AP Physics C students (American Physical Society [APS], 2011). In advanced math
courses, girls outnumbered boys until pre-calculus, a high level math course, when boys begin to
outnumber girls, with girls making up 48% of AP Calculus (NCWGE, 2008).
Even when enrolled in AP coursework, girls are less likely to take AP tests (APS, 2011).
According to the American Physical Society (2011), girls make up 54% of AP test takers in all

8
LITERATURE REVIEW
AP subjects, yet less than half of the AP tests they take are in calculus, chemistry, physics, and
computer science. Only 61% of girls take the test for AP Physics C with a passing rate of 36%,
compared to 77% of boys who have a passing rate of 56% (APS, 2011). The only subject with
fewer girls taking AP tests than physics is computer sciences (APS, 2011). Interestingly, there
was a lower percentage of girls who take the AP computer science tests in 2003 than in 1992
(Sanders & Nelson, 2004).
In a study of AP tests from Dallas, Texas, only 50% of girls with a score of 70 on their
PSAT passed their AP math test, compared to 100% of the boys who scored 70 on their PSAT
(Sanders & Nelson, 2004). In 2015, only 33% of students to reach the 99th percentile nationally
on the math portion of the SATs were girls, and only 41% of those reaching the 90th percentile
were girls (The College Board, 2015). This data shows that even though some testing may
present evenly for males and females there definitely is a gender disparity by the time students
reach and exit high school.
College
When looking deeply at data of college graduates, it is apparent that this gender disparity
continues on from high school into college. At a glance, however, it appears that women are
earning STEM degrees at a higher rate than men. As you can see in Figure 1, Snyder and Dillow
(2015) report the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2015) that the overall number
of women obtaining STEM degrees is two to four percent higher than that of men. This data,
which has been adapted from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Digest of
Education Statistics, takes into account all science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
degrees.

9
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 1. Degrees in STEM by gender. Adapted from the NCES Digest of Education
Statistics 2013 (Snyder & Dillow, 2015).

With women earning over half (57%) of all bachelors degrees as of 2009, there are still
some slight disparities even when looking at the data in Figure 1 at a glance (USCJEC, 2012).
Equal representation of male to female graduates in this data would show women earning
roughly 57% of bachelors degrees in a given area (USCJEC, 2012). We can see, therefore, that
there is still a 5% gap between female and male bachelors degree recipients in all STEM fields.
When we take a closer look and consider the data in Figure 2 the disparities become even
more apparent. Looking at the data categorically in Figure 2, you can see the breakdown of
degrees earned and how this aligns with the percentage of women represented in different STEM
careers. The majority of women in STEM careers are math professionals (47%) with a slightly
lower than average representation of women in life and physical sciences (41%) (Landivar,
2013). Similarly the majority of STEM degrees are awarded to women in the fields of math and
science.

Figure 2. Degrees in STEM by category and gender. Adapted from the Digest of Education

10
LITERATURE REVIEW
Statistics 2013 (Snyder & Dillow, 2015)

According to Figure 2, women are exceeding men when it comes to earning science
degrees with 68% of all bachelors, 73% of all masters, and 55% of all doctorate degrees.
Women make up 75% of bachelors, 78% of masters, and 57% of doctoral degree recipients in
biological and health sciences. In all other science disciplines (including agriculture, natural,

11
LITERATURE REVIEW
physical, technological, and other sciences) women hold a minority of bachelors (40%), and
masters (49%) degrees and an even larger minority of doctoral degrees (37%). It is apparent in
this data that the sciences, especially health and biological sciences, skew the overall STEM data
seen in Figure 1 to make it appear that women are nearly equally represented in STEM fields.
The disparities are even larger when looking at individual STEM fields. In mathematics
and statistics disciplines, for example, women hold 43% of bachelors degrees, 41% of masters
degrees, and a mere 28% of doctoral degrees. This corresponds to the low representation of
women in mathematics professions as reported by Landivar (2013) in the report for the U.S.
Census Bureau. This NCES data from the same year, however, shows a lower percentage of
female graduates than professionals, which may lead to a lower percentage of female math
professionals in the future (Snyder & Dillow, 2015).
As noted by Landivar (2013) and the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (2012),
the largest disparities between male and female degree earners are in the fields of computer
occupations (technology) and engineering. Both of these categories have only 19% of women
earning bachelors degrees. Within technology only 28% of masters degrees and 22% of
doctoral degrees, and in engineering only 26% of masters and 23% of doctoral degrees were
earned by women. With over half of all degrees being earned by women, this disparity is
immense (USCJEC, 2012). There is also a visible drop in the percentage of women continuing
on to get a doctoral degree, which is also seen in other disciplines.
While there are 22,025 women earning bachelor's degrees in engineering, only 2,126 go
on to earn their doctorate degree. Similarly, in technology there are 10,245 women earning
bachelors degrees but a mere 380 continuing on to earn their doctorate degree. Within both the

12
LITERATURE REVIEW
sciences and mathematics fields there were lower percentages of doctoral degrees earned by
women than bachelors degrees (13% and 15% respectively). Mathematics showed a decline in
the percentage of women earning higher degrees across the board, whereas in the sciences there
was a jump of 5% from bachelors to masters degrees followed by a drop of 18% from masters
to doctoral degrees. In all STEM disciplines there is a decreased percentage of women earning
doctoral degrees than bachelors degrees. Overall, there are 67,290 more male students who
continue on to get their doctorate than female students, which is an attrition of women not seen
in fields outside of STEM (Snyder & Dillow, 2015). On top of being less likely to persevere to
the doctoral level, women are also more likely to switch to other majors outside of STEM while
still in college (Crawford, 2012; NCWGE, 2008).
Career
Within STEM, women are less likely than men to continue on from getting a STEM
degree to a career in a STEM field (Landivar, 2013). Only 15% of women who earn a science or
engineering degree go on to have a career in their that field (Landivar, 2013). This is compared
to 31% of male science and engineering majors who continue to hold a career in their field
(Landivar, 2013). According to Landivar (2013), men [are] employed in a STEM occupation at
about twice the rate of women (p. 21).
Although women make up nearly half (48%) of the U.S. workforce, they are vastly
underrepresented in STEM careers (Landivar, 2013; Toglia, 2013). According to the U.S. Census
of 2013 women comprise 26% of all STEM careers (Landivar, 2013). This underrepresentation is
seen in varying degrees within STEM fields with women making up 13% of professional

13
LITERATURE REVIEW
engineers, 27% of computer professionals, 41% of life and physical scientists, and 47% of math
professionals (Landivar, 2013).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau the number of women in STEM careers has grown
in all areas from 1970 to 1990 except in computer occupations (Landivar, 2013). Similarly, there
has been a decline in the percentage of women getting bachelors degrees in computer science
since 1980, with a 10% decrease of women attaining these degrees just from 1993 to 2009
(Landivar, 2013; USCJEC, 2012). According to Landivar (2013), computer occupations make up
exactly half of all STEM careers, but women only make up 27% of the field.
Furthermore, despite increased numbers of women in the engineering field, it still holds
the lowest representation of women (13%) than any other STEM field (Landivar, 2013). This is a
marked increase over the last 25 years, however it is still 35% less than the overall representation
of women in the workforce (Crawford, 2012). This low number of girls and women in the
engineering and technology fields can be seen as early as high school, and persists through
college and chosen career paths (APS, 2016; Crawford, 2012; Landivar, 2013; NCWGE, 2008;
USCJE, 2012). With these apparent disparities throughout the STEM pipeline, its worth
wondering whether or not we, as educators and members of the global society, should consider
this a problem we need to address.
Why We Should Care
It is my assertion that we should consider the lack of representation of women in the
STEM pipeline a problem not only for students, but for our society. Being skilled in STEM
topics is a gateway to having success in the careers of the future, yet the U. S. is falling behind in
its ability to provide qualified STEM workers (Sanders & Nelson, 2004; USCJEC, 2012). It is

14
LITERATURE REVIEW
reported by industry professionals that there are not enough students with skills in critical
thinking and problem solving, which are necessary for being successful in STEM careers (King,
2014). According to the 2011 PISA scores, the United States ranks 25th in math and 17th in
science out of 34 countries (USCJEC, 2012). The World Economic Forum ranks the United
States 48th globally in math and science education (U.S. Congress Joint Economic CCommittee
[USCJEC], 2012). Within universities in the United States, only 54% of STEM degrees are given
to domestic students as of 2006, which is a decline from 74% in 1985 (USCJEC, 2012). This
means that students in the United States are not being properly prepared to take on STEM
careers.
Currently, there are 600,000 unfilled job openings for STEM positions nationwide, and a
projected shortage of nearly three-million skilled STEM workers by 2018 (Beekman & Ober,
2015; Xu, 2015). Even in times of high unemployment, STEM majors have lower unemployment
rates than any other set of fields in the labor force (Landivar, 2013). As you can see in Figure 3,
STEM occupations are projected to continue to grow and expand through 2020 (USCJEC, 2012).
If women continue to be underrepresented in these fields we will continue to see increased
shortages of skilled workers to fill these jobs.

15
LITERATURE REVIEW
Figure 3: Employment as a Percentage (y-axis) of 2006 Employment, by Occupation. From
STEM Education: Preparing for jobs of the future (USCJEC, 2012)

According to Kane and Mertz (2012) wealthy countries that fail to provide gender
equity in employment are at risk of producing too few citizens of either gender with the skills
necessary to compete successfully in a knowledge-based economy driven by science and
technology (p. 19). Studies show that children of highly paid, highly educated women are more
likely to have their educational needs met, which creates a new generation of students who are
more able to succeed and participate in these high skilled STEM careers (Kane & Mertz, 2012).
Not only is this good for the students who end up going into these careers, but provides diverse
viewpoints within STEM fields that will lead to more creativity in solving problems faced by our
society (Crawford, 2012). Women in STEM fields are also less likely to face effects of genderbased wage gaps, as these are the lowest in STEM fields (Xu, 2015).

16
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cause
Some say the low numbers of women in STEM fields are due to a lack of interest, where
others attribute this to innate differences in abilities (Nash, 1975; Summers, 2005; Weber, 2012).
It is a common sociocultural belief that women are emotional, articulate, and dependent whereas
men are more logical, rational, and independent which leads to men being naturally more adept
in STEM fields (Farinde & Lewis, 2012). In 1975 a study was done that found a link between
genetic and sociocultural factors that lead to girls and women having lower abilities in
mathematics (Farinde & Lewis, 2012; Nash, 1975; Weber 2012). It isnt uncommon to hear or
read about women and men having different innate abilities when it comes to academic areas
(Weber, 2012). In 2005, for example, the then-president of Harvard University, Lawrence
Summers, gave a speech in which he stated that women are innately not as good at math and
engineering as men (Summers, 2005). His reasoning was that for every two men who have a high
estimate of academic intelligence towards STEM fields, there is only one woman who has the
same academic intelligence for that those fields. (Summers, 2005). Summers (2005) also stated
that this innate aptitude was simply reinforced by lesser factors such as socialization and
discrimination, and not due to those factors.
More current research, however, proves that there is no innate difference between the
intelligence of men and women, but rather that these are factors of culturally acceptable gender
roles and a lack of adequate educational preparation and support (Crawford, 2002; Farinde &
Lewis, 2012; Hill, Corbett & Rose, 2010; Hyde & Mertz, 2009; Ivie & Ephraim, 2011; Klein,
2014; NCWGE, 2008; Reilly & Newmann, 2013; Tan, Barton, Kang, ONeil, 2013; Teo, 2014;
Toglia, 2013; Weber, 2012, Xu, 2008). The largest differences in performance seen between

17
LITERATURE REVIEW
males and females are in the domain of spatial awareness (Kane & Mertz, 2012; Liu & Wilson;
Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012; Reilly & Newmann, 2013). Reilly and Newmann (2013)
state that multiple forms of research have shown no overall difference in the intelligence of
males and females, but that there is a consistent difference when it comes to spatial awareness.
There is little progress in understanding the psychological processes that lead to females
performing lower on spatial awareness tasks, but it is important to address because these skills
form the foundation for the development of quantitative reasoning important to science and
mathematics (Reilly & Newmann, 2013).
Some theories state that this difference in spatial ability develops early and is an outcome
of gender specific toys and gender expectations (Weber, 2012). Weber (2012) states that males
have more experience with manipulative toys in early childhood, such as legos and blocks, which
help to form the foundation for spatial awareness. Spatial skills, however, are easily learned and
improved with training, which points to this disparity being more of an outcome of expected
gender role identities (Hill et al., 2010).
Reilly and Neumann (2013) state that gender role identity can either promote or inhibit
optimum development of cognitive ability in highly gender-typed domains (p. 522), and early
intervention can make a great difference in rectifying these differences. In fact, they state that
this disparity is a factor of gender identification over ones sex (Reilly & Newmann, 2013). This
means that if one identifies as masculine they will tend to cultivate spatial, mathematical, and
scientific skills, whereas one who identifies as feminine will cultivate more verbal and language
based abilities (Reilly & Newmann, 2013). This shows what Hyde and Mertz (2009) state as

18
LITERATURE REVIEW
changeable, sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between sexes
(p. 8801).
Unfortunately, children as young as six years old will start to eliminate possible careers
due to gender stereotypes (Toglia, 2013). In studies of school-age children it is found that
students tend to think theyre better at things that are gender acceptable for them, a trend that
continues through adulthood (Hill et al., 2010). For example, girls think they are better in
language and boys think they are better in math and science, which are both socioculturally
acceptable gender role identities (Hill et al., 2010). In one study, when women were told a task
was something that men were consistently better at they said that they would need to score an
89% to believe they were good at that task (Hill et al., 2010). That is compared to men who said
they would need to score 79% to believe they were good at the same gender typed task (Hill et
al., 2010). When men and women were told that a task was something men and women were
equally good with, both groups responded that they would have to score roughly 83% to believe
this was something they were excelled in (Hill et al., 2010).
Research found that males and females have similar levels of interest and received
similar grades in middle and high school science, yet female students were more likely to feel
less skilled than their male counterparts (Klein, 2014). One study showed that 44% of high
school girls and 38% of high school boys agreed that the smartest girls in their school were not
popular (NCWGE, 2008, p. 16). The same study showed that 17% of girls and 14% of boys
agreed that teachers didnt think it was important for girls to be good at math (NCWGE, 2008, p.
16). Women and girls are more likely to internalize criticism based on stereotypes than boys and
men. This kind of thinking can be potentially detrimental to female students continuing on in

19
LITERATURE REVIEW
STEM fields and can make females believe they dont belong within the STEM community.
(Ivie & Ephraim, 2011; Tan et al., 2013; Teo, 2014)
The idea of social mobility, which is the ability to move ahead and better ones position,
isnt as easy as it sounds for women in STEM because they face sociocultural factors which tell
them they are not innately as good at STEM as their male counterparts (Teo, 2014). In the high
school science environment, studies have shown that teachers spend 40% more time addressing
male students (Klein, 2014). Teachers have also been found to outwardly hold beliefs that males
have more of an innate talent towards math and science than females, which is a trend seen with
both male and female teachers (Klein, 2014). In fact, many times girls successes in STEM are
seen as anomalies (Tan et al., 2013). These factors contribute to a lack of confidence, and feeling
like female students dont belong in the scientific environment (Crawford, 2012; Tan et al.,
2013).
One thing that all school age children encounter is the standardized test. These tests can
be misleading, but are also seen as error proof in the way that they test all students on the same
abilities (Farinde & Lewis, 2012). Standardized tests are typically the main way to determine
student intelligence and future performance (Farinde & Lewis, 2012). Many times these
assessments can inadvertently show students what they should believe is easy or hard for them,
based on the results (Farinde & Lewis, 2012). One study found that when students have a
preconceived stereotype about what will be easy and what will be difficult for them, they will
receive lower scores on those tests or test sections; Hill, Corbett and Rose (2010) refer to this as
stereotype threat and state that this may contribute to girls performing lower in science and
math than boys.

20
LITERATURE REVIEW
A study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that women
who earned the same SAT scores as men were more likely to earn higher grades (NCWGE,
2008). Even when these scores were lower by 20-25 points, girls were more likely to have a
higher grade point average, and to maintain a higher grade point average at the college level
(NCWGE, 2008). This disparity between grades and standardized assessment scores can lead to
girls having lower self-belief even when they have high performance and ability levels (Hill et
al., 2010).
Even after female students and women professionals join STEM careers, it is common for
them to feel as if they dont belong (Crawford, 2012; Farinde & Lewis, 2012; Ivie & Ephraim,
2011; Weber, 2012; Tan et al., 2013; Teo, 2014). This feeling of not belonging has many names,
but the idea behind them is quite similar. One of these is the imposter syndrome which is
described by Ivie and Ephraim (2011) as:
The attribution of your own success to factors beyond your control, such as luck, while
attributing the success of others to skill or knowledge Discounting your success by attributing
it to hard work, while believing that others sail through based on natural talent [or feeling] that
you have in some way, probably not consciously, tricked or fooled your colleagues into believing
that you are much smarter than you are (p 4).
Another variation of this is referred to as the identity gap which states that female
students feel like they dont identify with STEM and feel like border members, or outsiders, of
the STEM community (Farinde & Lewis; Tan et al., 2013; Teo, 2014). However this idea is
referred to, the underlying theme is that many females feel like outsiders even when they are

21
LITERATURE REVIEW
within and excel in the STEM community (Farinde & Lewis; Ivie & Ephraim, 2011; Tan et al.,
2013; Teo, 2014).
Even when females persist through K-12 and university levels of the STEM pipeline,
they face yet more challenges when they enter STEM professions (Crawford, 2012; Hill et al.,
2010; Ivie & Ephraim, 2011; Landivar, 2013; Xu, 2008). Often people are shown to hold
negative feelings toward women in fields that are traditionally held by men (Hill et al., 2010).
Women in the role of university faculty are shown to have a higher turnover than their male
counterparts due to a lack of support (Xu, 2008). Although women in STEM careers are the least
likely have children at home than all other careers, with 62% of women in STEM careers not
having children at home, factors such as support, mentorship, and unequal opportunities for
advancement are stated to be equal if not larger factors toward women leaving STEM careers
(Landivar, 2013; Xu, 2008).
For female students who have the perception that they do not have innate abilities in
STEM or feel as if they are outsiders to the STEM community, it is less likely that they will
enroll in STEM courses in high school or college, or that they will take part in a stem career
(Crawford, 2012; Weber, 2012; Tan et al., 2013). This can lead to lower participation not only
within the K-12 school system, but also in higher education and STEM fields (Crawford, 2012;
Tan et al., 2013). It is stated that the perception that they are not good enough is largely due to
the lack of female STEM professional role models, a lack of adequate mentoring, and a sense of
mystery around what it is like to be part of a STEM profession (Crawford, 2012; Ivie &
Ephraim, 2011; King, 2014; Klein, 2014).

22
LITERATURE REVIEW
Implications for Educators
The differences between male and female performance and interest in STEM is lowest in
early childhood, yet there are still differences seen in the performances and choices of young
children. An early start in exposure to STEM is crucial to developing childrens STEM interest
and achievement (Reilly & Neumann, 2013). The biggest difference in early childhood is seen in
spatial awareness, which is the foundation for mathematics and engineering skills (Nash, 1975;
Reilly & Neumann, 2013). Since spatial skills are easily learned and improved, it is important to
address this disparity in early childhood (Hill, Corbett, & Rose, 2010). One fundamental way to
improve spatial skills, is to allow and encourage girls to play with manipulative toys, such as
legos and tinker toys (Reilly & Neumann, 2013). As parents and educators, we should also
encourage young children to ask questions about the world, be creative through play, and
problem solve (La Paz, 2012). These activities will lead children to be more creative,
independent thinkers.
Teachers need to be prepared not only to ask and answer complex questions about STEM
topics, but to also encourage students to have inquisitive, problem solving attitudes and nurture
student interest in STEM (Farinde & Lewis, 2012; Sanders & Nelson; Toglia, 2013). When
teachers are highly prepared, they are more likely to feel confidence and satisfaction in their
career, which is linked to higher achievement for their students (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora,
2012). This means that even after teacher preparation through a credential program, schools
should be willing to offer professional development to in-service teachers in order for them to be
up to date on STEM topics (NCWGE, 2008; Toglia, 2013; Watters & Diezmann, 2013). Not only
should professional development provide teachers with opportunities to expand their knowledge

23
LITERATURE REVIEW
of academic content, it should also provide opportunities to reflect on their teaching practice
(NCWGE, 2008; Sanders & Nelson, 2004; Toglia, 2013; Watters & Diezmann, 2013).
As stated previously, teachers have been reported to call on male students 40% more
often than they call on female students in the science classroom (Klein, 2014). Teachers may also
hold ideas that male students will be more STEM inclined than female students (Klein, 2014). In
order to break this cycle, it is helpful to videotape ones teaching of STEM lessons (Sanders &
Nelson, 2004). When reviewing recorded lessons in a safe environment, it is easier to spot
problems with ones teaching practice and find ways to address them (Sanders & Nelson, 2004).
It is vital, in order to attract and retain female students within STEM disciplines, to find ways to
lessen gender biases, even when they come from ourselves (NCWGE, 2008; Hill et al., 2010).
As teachers we need to not only push ourselves out of our comfort zones, but encourage
our students to do the same in order to experience concepts they may not perceive are right for
them (Sanders & Nelson, 2004; Tan, Barton, Kang, & ONeil, 2013). One of many successful
examples of teacher reflection took place in a high school physics class. After reviewing a taped
lesson in his classroom, one high school physics teacher noticed that male students were taking
the lead in setting up and running labs (Sanders & Nelson, 2004). This inspired him to assign
class roles in which the girls were responsible for setting up and running labs, while male
students recorded the information into their lab notes (Sanders & Nelson, 2004). At first the kids
pushed back against this idea; the girls didnt want to set up, and boys were all too eager to jump
in and take over (Sanders & Nelson, 2004). By the end of the year, however, as the teacher
continued to switch lab roles, there was no longer a visible stigma or difference in willingness to
set up and run, or record information for labs (Sanders & Nelson, 2004).

24
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teachers should also ensure that they are focusing on female students as much as they are
on male students, and are open to addressing issues that may be unique to female students while
not allowing them to serve a passive role within the classroom (Sanders & Nelson, 2004). Since
female students are more likely to internalize criticism based on gender stereotypes, it is
important that all teachers eliminate biases and stereotypes as much as possible within their
classroom and, to the extent to which they are able, their school (NCWGE, 2008). One important
way teachers can achieve this is to show female students that they believe in them, and, through
encouragement, that they expect female students to perform just as well as their male
counterparts (Crawford, 2012; Hill et al., 2010; La Paz, 2012; Toglia, 2013). Holding the same,
clear expectations and performance standards for male and female students shows that teachers
believe both genders are capable of performing at the same level (Farinde & Lewis, 2012; Hill et
al., 2012; Toglia, 2013).
Many times students of both genders will believe that if they are not good at something,
they will never be good at it; this is referred to as a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2010; Hill et al.,
2010). It is vital to show especially our female students that just because they may struggle a bit
in STEM that doesnt mean they dont have the potential to excel, which can be done in part by
teaching them about the growth mindset, or the idea that intelligence is not fixed and can expand
with hard work (Dweck, 2010; Hill et al., 2010). Having a growth mindset leads all to students
having a greater belief and ability to work harder and persevere (Hill et al., 2010). If students
have a fixed mindset and believe that they only have a fixed amount of intelligence, it will be
difficult for them to persevere and try harder. Another way to help female students have a higher

25
LITERATURE REVIEW
perception of their ability in STEM is to praise their efforts, instead of praising their end success
(Hill et al., 2010).
Female students at all levels should be introduced to women within STEM fields, and be
given realistic information to know what its like to be a STEM professional (Klein, 2014;
NCWGE, 2008; Watters & Diezmann, 2013; Xu, 2008). Partnering with industry professionals
who can give students real-life information into STEM professions can help to make these
careers less of a mystery and more of a real life goal (Watters & Diezmann, 2013). This gives
students real-world information about what is needed to be successful within the industry
(Watters & Diezmann, 2013). Specifically having female professionals in the forefront allows
female students to have role models within the industry and see that these are careers that are
attainable for their gender (Haynes & Sweedler, 2015; Hill et al., 2010; Ivie & Ephraim, 2011;
Klein, 2014; NCWGE, 2008; Watters & Diezmann, 2013; Weber, 2012; Xu, 2008).
Along with providing female students adequate role models, its important to provide
them with information about what is available to study within STEM fields (Hill et al., 2010).
Within the high school setting, it is likely that students are aware of most of the courses offered,
but even at the high school level students likely do not have a clear idea of what is taught in
many of these courses (Hill et al., 2010; Weber, 2012). Successful schools not only are well
resourced and emphasize academic success, but also provide resources for students to have a
clear understanding what STEM subjects are like (Mullis et al., 2011; Weber 2012).
The more knowledge female students have about STEM, the more likely they are to
become interested (Tan et al., 2013). Not only is the information important, having hands-on
experience is just as vital. Schools should also provide extracurricular STEM activities for

26
LITERATURE REVIEW
students and encourage girls to join (Tan et al., 2013). The more experiences female students
have with STEM content, the more likely they are to have a positive experience with the content
and continue on to take further coursework (Tan et al., 2013). One way schools can help to
attract female students to STEM courses and activities is to have informal activities, offer
mentoring and support, and specifically recruit female students to specific courses and activities
(Mullis et al., 2011; Weber 2012; Tan et al., 2013). It can also be helpful to inform parents and
other staff members, including guidance counselors, about STEM careers and the benefits of
entering the field (Weber, 2012).
Guidance counselors can have a major impact on informing students of their choices not
only in high school, but also in college coursework and career choices (Toglia, 2013). A school
counselor has the ability to point out careers that students didnt even know existed (Toglia,
2013). Unfortunately, many school counselors lack the knowledge and training about STEM
careers or biased-free counseling to make positive impacts towards attracting and keeping girls
in the STEM pipeline (Toglia, 2013). This can contribute to the underrepresentation of female
students within the STEM pipeline, even when a strong curriculum is in place (Toglia, 2013).
According to Legewie and DiPrete (2014) high school years can be more important when
it comes to retaining women within the STEM pipeline. The cornerstone of a successful high
school experience with STEM is strong curriculum. In order for curriculum to be fully
successful, it needs to appeal to multiple forms of student engagement (Weber, 2012). According
to Weber (2012) curriculum should be behaviorally engaging (appeal to social worth),
emotionally engaging (satisfying and interesting), and vocationally engaging (appeal to students
career goals). One main reason girls lose interest in STEM is that the goals are typically single-

27
LITERATURE REVIEW
task oriented; for example, build the tallest tower, create the strongest platform, or make a robot
move (Hsieh, 2015). In order for STEM curriculum to be engaging on multiple levels, it needs to
be hands-on and relate to real world problems (Hsieh, 2015; Weber, 2012).
Since women tend to gravitate towards careers with clear social impact and purpose,
STEM curriculum needs to relate to solving problems faced in society (Hsieh, 2015; La Paz,
2012; Mullis et al., 2011; Weber, 2012). All STEM curriculum should provide meaningful
opportunities which help students to gain new and useable skills (Mullis et al., 2011; Weber,
2012). This means that curriculum should focus less on memorization and more on hands-on
ways to solve problems that are relevant to the lives of students (NCWGE, 2008; Weber, 2012).
At every possible opportunity, teachers must incorporate culturally relevant strategies into their
curriculum in order to ensure students are engaged (Farinde & Lewis, 2012; Weber, 2012).
Many people believe that girls should be given support and opportunities within girl-only
environments in order to feel safe and included (Bystydzienski, Eisenhart & Bruning, 2015;
King, 2014; Levine, Serio, Radaram, Chaudhuri, & Talbert, 2015; Teo, 2014). One coed STEM
camp in Maryland had only five out of 60 students enrolled (King, 2014). These kinds of
experiences may lead female students to believe they are the minority, which might lead to
feeling like border members of STEM (Teo, 2014). To offset this, there have been many
examples of girls-only STEM clubs and camps that have popped up all over the country
(Bystydzienski et al., 2015; Levine et al., 2015).
One example of a girls only camp is an all girls chemistry summer camp (Levine et al.,
2015). This camp was two-weeks long and provided female middle school students with
opportunities to have positive interactions with chemistry content (Levine et al., 2015). The

28
LITERATURE REVIEW
camp brought female role models and provided hands-on immersive curriculum for the students
(Levine et al., 2015). The ultimate goal was for female students to become more interested in,
and have positive experiences with, chemistry within a supportive environment, and the results
were very positive (Levine et al., 2015). In results of a post-camp survey, not only did the female
students attitudes towards chemistry improve greatly, but they also showed a greater interest in
pursuing other STEM careers (Levine et al., 2015).
Others argue that all girl schools, camps, and clubs are not successful due to their all-girl
nature, but the fact that these environments are STEM focused (Bystydzienski et al., 2015). They
argue that the girls who take part in these activities do so because they have some sort of interest
towards STEM already and are more likely to have positive feelings in the end (Bystydzienski et
al., 2015). It is argued that STEM camps, clubs, and curriculum are successful when they take
into consideration strong educational theories behind the activities, and are even more successful
when they are not trying to appeal to a specific gender stereotype (Bystydzienski et al., 2015;
Sinnes & Loken, 2011; Tan et al., 2013). In fact, Bystydzienski, Eisenhart, and Bruning (2015)
argue that focus should be on efficacy of strategies and curriculum and not focus on learning as a
function of gender role, which can backfire and be more harmful as they are still perpetuating
stereotypical gender differences.
Whereas many believe STEM education needs to appeal to the interests of girls, others
believe that this thinking plays into gender stereotypes (Bystydzienski et al., 2015; Hsieh, 2015;
Sinnes & Loken, 2011; Tan et al., 2013). Many argue that there is a big difference between
appealing to real-world and hands-on problems, which tend to capture the attention of more
female students, and creating curriculum that is geared specifically towards female students (Tan

29
LITERATURE REVIEW
et al., 2013). It is possible for curriculum to insert subtle gender stereotypes when reform is seen
as girl friendly because that type of reform generally appeals to stereotypical interests and
viewpoints, instead of focusing on issues that are culturally relevant (Tan et al., 2013). In fact,
Tan, Barton, Kang, and ONeil (2013) and Sinnes and Loken (2011) both argue that reform based
solely on gender is not only sexist towards female students, but towards males as well in that it
can pin the genders to socioculturally acceptable gender roles. Instead, any reform needs to steer
clear of subtle stereotypes about ability and choices, and encourage students to make choices and
tackle problems that are not based in gender stereotypes (La Paz, 2012; Legewie & DiPrete,
2014; Sinnes & Loken, 2011; Tan et al., 2013).
It is important to remember, even as we are focusing on keeping girls within the STEM
pipeline, that we should not forget about the success of all of our students. As stated by Legewie
and DiPrete (2012), although girls are underperforming [in STEM], any solution needs to be
one that can work for all students (p. 463). Studies show that even as female students are not
persevering in STEM fields, male students are falling behind in other academic areas, and have
higher rates of dropping out of school altogether (Legewie & DiPrete, 2012). For this reason, it is
incredibly important that we not make our curriculum geared too much towards specific gender
stereotypes, which may inadvertently forget about other groups.
Conclusion
We can see that there is a significant attrition of women within the STEM pipeline, but
there are things we can do as educators to help address this issue. With STEM careers expected
to continue to expand through 2020, and the United States reportedly not providing enough
educated workers to take these positions, it is important that our female students are given the

30
LITERATURE REVIEW
opportunity to take part in these careers (Beekman & Ober, 2015; U.S. Congress Joint Economic
Committee, 2012). This is especially critical since STEM fields have an impact on the daily lives
of everyone in our society, so we all benefit from a more diverse STEM workforce (Crawford,
2012; Sanders & Nelson, 2004).
Although there are some who say our female students arent as interested in STEM fields,
and others who say females just arent naturally as good at STEM topics, it is important to
remember that neither of these viewpoints show the reality (Nash, 1975; Summers, 2005; Weber,
2012). The reality is that there is no difference in the intelligence of male and female students,
and our female students are often not given the same opportunities as males, even in early
childhood, because of gender stereotypes (Hyde & Mertz, 2009; Klein, 2014; Reilly &
Neumann, 2013; Teo, 2014). There is also a lack of understanding of what its like to be a
woman in STEM careers, which isnt helped by the lack of female role models and mentoring
provided for our female students (Crawford, 2012; King, 2014; Klein, 2014; Weber, 2012).
Gender stereotypes present within our culture and educational system, mixed with the
lack of female role models and clarity of what its like to be a STEM professional can lead to
female students feeling like they do not belong within STEM coursework (Crawford, 2012;
Farinde & Lewis, 2012; Hill, Corbett, & Rose, 2010; King, 2014; Klein, 2014; NCWGE, 2008;
Tan et al., 2013; Teo, 2014; Weber, 2012). These stereotypes can be harmful to all students who
will focus on the subjects they think they are supposed to excel in based on gender stereotypes
(Crawford, 2012; Hill et al., 2010). In order to combat this thinking, we should start preparing
our girls to think critically and develop spatial skills early (Chapko, 2015; Mullis et al., 2011).

31
LITERATURE REVIEW
By encouraging children to be inquisitive, ask questions about the world, and solve problems we
are helping to prepare them to be successful in STEM (La Paz, 2012).
While working to keep females within the STEM pipeline, we must make sure to address
gender stereotypes within curriculum as well as within ourselves (La Paz, 2012; Sinnes & Loken,
2014). We also need to make sure any changes in curriculum or teaching strategies appeal to all
students in a culturally relevant, real-world way in order to reach all students and help all
students succeed and persevere within the STEM pipeline (Farinde & Lewis, 2012; La Paz,
2012; Mullis et al., 2011; Weber, 2012).

32
LITERATURE REVIEW
References
American Physical Society. (2011). APS news: Women take less advanced physics in high
school,study finds (Volume 20 Number 8). Retrieved from American Physical Society
website: https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201108/womenhischoolph.cfm
Beekman, J. A., & Ober, D. (2015). Gender gap trends on mathematics exams position girls and
young women for STEM careers. School Science and Mathematics, 115(1), 35-50.
doi: 10.1111/s5m.12098
Bystydzienski, J. M., Eisenhart, M., & Bruning, M. (2015). High school is not too late:
Developing girls interest and engagement in engineering careers. The Career
Development Quarterly, 63(1), 88-95. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2015.00097.x
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2015). Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty
Hiring except when competing against more-accomplished me. Frontiers in Psychology,
61-10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532
Chapko, D. (2015, December 4). How your early childhood shapes your brain [Web log post].
Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/how-your-earlychildhood-shapes-your-brain/
The College Board. (2015). SAT percentile ranks for males, females, and total group. Report for
The College Board. Retrieved from: http://research.collegeboard.org/content/satdata-tables
Crawford, M. (2012). Engineering still needs more women. Retrieved from American Society of
Mechanical Engineers website: https://www.asme.org/career-education/articles/
undergraduate-students/engineering-still-needs-more-women

33
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cunningham, B. C., Sparks, K. M. H. D. (2015). Stats in brief: Gender differences in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) interest credits earned, and NAEP
performance in the 12th grade (NCES Report 2015-075). Retrieved from National Center
for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015075.pdf
Dolkas, J., & Farrell, N. (2012). Women in STEM: Progress and targets. Retrieved from Equal
Rights Advocates website: http://www.equalrights.org/wp-content/uploads/
2013/02/ERA-Women-In-STEM-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Farinde, A. A., & Lewis, C. W. (2012). The underrepresentation of African American female
Students in STEM fields: Implications for classroom teachers. US-China Education
Review, B(4), 421-430.
Haynes, C., & Sweedler, J. (2015). Are we there yet? Biases in hiring women faculty candidates.
Analytical Chemistry, 87(14), 6989. doi: 10.1021/aces.analchem.5b2454
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Washington DC: American Association for
University Women.
Hsieh, M. (2015, September 23). Girls against the world, scientifically speaking [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/girls-against-world-scientificallyspeaking-mei-hsieh
Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(22),
8801-8807. Doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901265106
Ivie, R., & Ephraim, A. (2011). A report on women in astronomy: Women and the imposter

34
LITERATURE REVIEW
syndrome in astronomy (January 2011). Retrieved from American Astronomical Society
website: https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/lsags/status-ivie-full.pdf
Kane, J. M., & Mertz, J. E. (2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics
Performance. Notices of the AMS, 59(1), 10-21.
King, D. (2014, July 25). Tech camps, other programs hope to keep girls interested in STEM
Fields. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/
bs-md-women-in-stem-20140725-story.html
Klein, R., (2014, April 29). Sexism is alive and well in high school science classes, study says.
Huffpost. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/sexist-high-schoolscience_n_5234915.html
La Paz, K. D. (2012, September). Girls in STEM: Unlocking potential. Technology &
Engineering Teacher. pp. 9-10.
Landivar, L. C. (2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and hispanic origin
(Report No. ACS-24). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2012). School context and the gender gap in educational
achievement. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 463-485. doi:
10.1177/0003122412440802
Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science
and engineering. Sociology of Education, 87(4), 259-280. doi:
10.1177/0038040714547770
Liu, O. L., & Wilson, M. (2009). Gender differences in large-scale math assessments: PISA
trend 2000 and 2003. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 164-184.

35
LITERATURE REVIEW
doi: 10.1080/08957340902754635
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in
Mathematics. Retrieved from International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_
Mathematics_FullBook.pdf
Nash, S. C. (1975). The relationship among sex-role stereotyping, sex-role preference,
and the sex difference in spatial visualization. Sex Roles, 1, 15-32. Doi:
10.1007/BF00287210
National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. (2008). Title IX at 35: Beyond the
headlines. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from http://www.ncwge.org/PDF/
TitleIXat35.pdf
Reilly, D. D., & Neumann, D. D. (2013). Gender-role differences in spatial ability: A
meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 68(9/10), 521-535. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0269-0
Sanders, J., & Nelson, S. C., (2004). Closing gender gaps in science. Educational Leadership,
62(3), 74-77.
Sinnes, A. A., & Loken, M. M. (2014). Gendered education in a gendered world: looking beyond
Cosmetic solutions to the gender gap in science. Cultural Studies of Science Education.
9(2), 343-364. doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9433-z
Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015011.pdf

36
LITERATURE REVIEW
Summers, L. H. (2005, January). Remarks at the NBER conference on diversifying the
Science & engineering workforce. In M. Feldstein (Chair), Diversifying the
science & engineering workforce: Women, underrepresented minorities, and their
S&E careers. Symposium conducted at the meeting of The Science and Engineering
Workforce Project of the National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, MA.
Talbert, M., Serio, N., Radaram, B., Chaudhuri, S., & Talbert, W. (2015). Addressing the STEM
gender gap by designing and implementing an educational outreach chemistry camp for
middle school girls. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(10), 1639-1644.
Doi: 10.1021/ed500945g
Tan, E., Barton, A. C., Kang, H., & ONeil, T. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields:
How middle school girls articulate and negotiate identities-in-practice in science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143-1179. doi: 10.1002/tea.21123
Teo, T. W. (2014). Hidden currents in the STEM pipeline: Insights from the dyschronous life
Episodes of a minority female STEM teacher. Theory Into Practice, 53(1), 48-54.
doi: 10.1080/00405841.2014.862122
Toglia, T. V. (2013). Gender Equity Issues in CTE and STEM Education. Tech Directions,
72(7), 14-17.
U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee. (2012). STEM education: Preparing for the jobs of
the future. Retrieved from http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/
6aaa7e1f-9586-47be-82e7-326f47658320/stem-education---preparing-for-the-jobs-of-thefuture-.pdf

37
LITERATURE REVIEW
Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2013). Community partnerships for fostering student interest
and engagement in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research 14(2),
47-55.
Weber, K. (2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity, and participation
in STEM-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 18-33.
Xu, Y. J. (2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover
intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 607-624. doi:
10.1007/s11162-00809097-4
Xu, Y. (2015). Focusing on women in STEM: A longitudinal examination of gender-based
Earning gap of college graduates. Journal of Higher Education, 86(4), 489-523.