Cross-Cultural Patterns of Gender Differences in STEM: Gender Stratification, Gender Equality and Gender-Equality Paradoxes

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Jiesi Guo, Herbert W. Marsh, Philip D. Parker, Xiang Hu
{"title":"Cross-Cultural Patterns of Gender Differences in STEM: Gender Stratification, Gender Equality and Gender-Equality Paradoxes","authors":"Jiesi Guo, Herbert W. Marsh, Philip D. Parker, Xiang Hu","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09872-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Our study is among the first to provide a comprehensive review of cross-national patterns of gender differences in various STEM-related constructs—achievement, beliefs, attitudes, aspirations, and participation, concerning country-level gender equality. We complement our review with empirical analyses utilizing rigorous methodologies and richer datasets from individual and country levels. Specifically, we examine gender differences in relative strength measures (e.g., strength in science relative to math and reading) and STEM aspirations and graduation, using PISA 2015 and PISA 2018 data from 78 countries/regions (<i>N</i> = 941,475). Our analysis corroborates our literature review, indicating that support for both the gender stratification hypothesis and the gender equality paradox (i.e., whether gender gaps favoring male students are smaller or larger in more gender-equal countries) is generally inconsistent and weak. Various factors contribute to this inconsistency, including specific outlier countries, different years of data collection, diverse data sources, a range of composite and domain-specific measures of gender equality, and statistical models. Our study also introduces a robust statistical model to compare performances in three subjects and evaluate the predictive power of relative strength measures for STEM aspirations at the student level. Our analyses reveal that general academic achievement and math achievement relative to reading are key predictors of STEM aspirations, compared with science achievement relative to math and reading. By juxtaposing both levels of analysis, our findings offer a more nuanced understanding of gender differences in decision-making processes that lead to careers in STEM-related fields.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"141 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09872-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our study is among the first to provide a comprehensive review of cross-national patterns of gender differences in various STEM-related constructs—achievement, beliefs, attitudes, aspirations, and participation, concerning country-level gender equality. We complement our review with empirical analyses utilizing rigorous methodologies and richer datasets from individual and country levels. Specifically, we examine gender differences in relative strength measures (e.g., strength in science relative to math and reading) and STEM aspirations and graduation, using PISA 2015 and PISA 2018 data from 78 countries/regions (N = 941,475). Our analysis corroborates our literature review, indicating that support for both the gender stratification hypothesis and the gender equality paradox (i.e., whether gender gaps favoring male students are smaller or larger in more gender-equal countries) is generally inconsistent and weak. Various factors contribute to this inconsistency, including specific outlier countries, different years of data collection, diverse data sources, a range of composite and domain-specific measures of gender equality, and statistical models. Our study also introduces a robust statistical model to compare performances in three subjects and evaluate the predictive power of relative strength measures for STEM aspirations at the student level. Our analyses reveal that general academic achievement and math achievement relative to reading are key predictors of STEM aspirations, compared with science achievement relative to math and reading. By juxtaposing both levels of analysis, our findings offer a more nuanced understanding of gender differences in decision-making processes that lead to careers in STEM-related fields.

Abstract Image

科学、技术、工程和数学领域性别差异的跨文化模式:性别分层、性别平等和性别平等悖论
我们的研究是首次全面回顾与 STEM 相关的各种构建(成就、信念、态度、愿望和参与)中性别差异的跨国模式,涉及国家层面的性别平等。我们利用严谨的方法和更丰富的个人及国家数据集进行了实证分析,对我们的综述进行了补充。具体而言,我们利用来自 78 个国家/地区(N = 941 475)的 2015 年国际学生评估项目(PISA)和 2018 年国际学生评估项目(PISA)数据,研究了相对优势衡量(例如,科学相对于数学和阅读的优势)以及 STEM 抱负和毕业方面的性别差异。我们的分析证实了我们的文献综述,表明对性别分层假说和性别平等悖论(即在性别更平等的国家,有利于男生的性别差距是更小还是更大)的支持普遍不一致且薄弱。造成这种不一致的因素有很多,包括特定的离群国家、不同的数据收集年份、不同的数据来源、一系列综合的和特定领域的性别平等衡量标准以及统计模型。我们的研究还引入了一个稳健的统计模型来比较三个学科的表现,并评估相对优势测量在学生层面对 STEM 抱负的预测能力。我们的分析表明,与相对于数学和阅读的科学成绩相比,一般学业成绩和相对于阅读的数学成绩是预测 STEM 抱负的关键因素。通过将这两个层面的分析并列起来,我们的研究结果为我们提供了一个更加细致入微的理解,即在通往 STEM 相关领域职业生涯的决策过程中存在的性别差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信