Transcript Critical Role of Girls` Implicit Attitudes

STEMing the tide:
Female experts and peers enhance young women's interest
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
Nilanjana Dasgupta
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Setting the stage
• Many people believe that if middle-school and high-school girls show no
interest in science or math, there's little anyone can do about it.
• Interest is not fixed but dynamic. Related to confidence. If students feel
confident, it feeds interest. If they lack confidence, it kills interest. Gender
disparity in STEM has more to do with confidence than ability.
• Gender gap in math test performance has shrunk and, in some cases
completely disappeared (Dutton et al., 2002; Hyde et al., 2008; Hyde & Mertz, 2009).
• Yet, female students lag behind male peers in confidence in STEM, attitudes,
motivation to pursue STEM (Hargreaves et al., 2008; Hyde,et al., 1990; Schmader, et al., 2004;
Mendez, et al., 2006).
• What accounts for discrepancy between performance vs. self-concept in
STEM? What factors increase confidence and motivation to pursue classes,
majors, and careers in STEM?
Stereotype inoculation model
Student sex
(moderator)
Identification
with STEM
experts
(moderator)
STEM
attitudes
Gender composition
of STEM environment
Professors
Other
experts
Peers
STEM
identification
Future
career
intentions
about
STEM
Self-efficacy,
behaviors
show interest
Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate
women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 100, 255-270
Does contact with female (vs. male) math
professors enhance women’s confidence in math,
attitudes, performance, engagement in class?
Study 1
• Recruited female and male undergrads from an introductory calculus class
(N = 96). All students were beginners in college. This course was a
prerequisite for all STEM majors
• Multiple sections. Recruited students from some sections taught by female
professors and others taught by male professors. All sections used same
syllabus, same exams, blind grading.
• Tracked students from beginning of semester (Time 1) to end (Time 2). At
both Time 1 & Time 2 we measured:
• Attitudes toward math (implicit and explicit)
• Identification with math (implicit and explicit)
• How well they expected to do in class (confidence)
• How much they identified with their math professor
• Classroom dynamics
• Final grade
Results
• Women developed more positive implicit attitudes toward math if they
happened to be in sections taught by female vs. male professors. Men liked
math equally regardless of professor’s gender
• Women implicitly identified with math more if they were in sections taught
by female vs. male professors. Men identified with math equally regardless
of professor’s gender.
• Women developed more confidence in their math performance if they took
the class with female vs. male professors. Men were equally confident
regardless of professor’s gender.
• Interestingly, women got higher grades in math than men regardless of
professor gender. Yet their confidence fluctuated significantly depending on
their professor’s gender.
Results (cont’d)
• Women identified more with female vs. male professors. The more they
identified with her, the more confident they felt about their own ability.
• Male students identified equally with male and female professors.
Identification with professors had no effect on their self-confidence.
• Early in the semester, women participated in class equally regardless of
professor. But by the end, they were more active in sections taught by female
professors and more likely to seek help from her than him.
If contact with same-sex experts has a positive
effect on female students, will contact with samesex peers produce the same benefit?
Study 2: Effect of peers
What gender composition of peers in academic settings is most beneficial for
female students? Do women do better in learning environments with gender
parity (50% female peers) or female majorities (75% females)?
Created 3 types of engineering peer groups that varied in gender. Assigned
female engineering students (N = 96) to one of these groups
•Female majority (3 women, 1 man)
•Female parity (2 women, 2 men)
•Female minority (1 woman, 3 men)
Variables measured:
•Feelings about upcoming group activity: Feeling challenged vs. threatened
•Students’ behavior in group: Interest, confidence, generate solutions?
•How accurate was her knowledge of engineering concepts?
•Post-group: Motivation to pursue engineering career
Results
Women did best when assigned to groups with mostly female peers (female
majority groups) compared to other two groups
•Most challenged; least threatened
•Participated more actively in the problem-solving task
•Students who demonstrated knowledge of engineering during group task
subsequently expressed more interest in pursuing engineering careers
Women did worst when assigned to groups with mostly male peers (female
minority groups) compared to other two groups
•Least challenged; most threatened
•Least likely to participate in problem-solving task
•Even women who demonstrated knowledge of engineering during group task did
not uniformly express interest in pursuing engineering careers
Groups with gender parity fell in the middle; less beneficial than groups with
female majorities—at least for beginning students in engineering.
Translating results into concrete interventions for
schools, colleges, and universities
1.
Have more female instructors teach foundational courses in STEM
2.
Introduce students to female scientists and innovators in other ways through
special projects, internships, etc.
3.
Personalize female scientists, mathematicians, and engineers by telling
students how they got interested in their fields
4. For beginning students in STEM, create study groups of mostly female
students to encourage students to develop mastery through group work with
similar others
5. Finally, consider the timing of interventions: Most important in early
transitional years; e.g., middle school, transition to high school, college, grad
school.
Collaborators and Funding
Graduate students
Jane Stout
Matthew Hunsinger
Melissa McManus
Math Department Colleagues
Professors George Avrunin & Arline Norkin
Undergraduate Research Assistants
Elizabeth Baker, Joseph Bove, Dante Ciliberti, Tori Dennis, Gavin Desmond, Diana Fiore, Jessica
Gorman, Alexandra Hamill, Thomas Holubiak, Sarah Krieger, Jody Pangburn, David Satin,
Priya Senecal, Nicole Stewart, Patricia Torgerson, Gwendolyn Vincent, Octavia Willard,
Michael Chapin, William Shattuck, Ryan Piers, Ada Aimua, Patrick Lowry, Andrew Boissonault, Julie
Stiver, Matt Leonard, Ruta Kulkarni, Alicia McDermott, Anna Vacha, Sergio Sian, Gary Saldago
National Science Foundation CAREER award (BCS 0547967)
Thanks!