Norway’s gender gap: classroom participation in undergraduate introductory science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5324/njsteme.v1i1.2325Abstract
ABSTRACT: To assess the extent that gender disparities exist at the undergraduate level in STEM, we analyzed participation in three large introductory biology classes in Norway, a country with one of the highest ratings of gender equality in the world. Biology 100 is a traditionally taught lecture course for first year students that has one instructor, and employs diverse pedagogical techniques to increase engagement. Biology 102A and 102B are two immersive field courses for second year students; classes often take place in atypical teaching venues both indoors and outside. In Biology 100 and Biology 102B, we discovered that women participate less than would be expected given their numerical dominance, matching results from similar research conducted in the United States. In Biology 102A women participate the amount that would be expected given their numbers, and in no instances did we observe women speaking significantly more than would be expected. We discuss our results in the context of female success in STEM. If gender gaps in participation and performance are mutually reinforcing, educators seeking to promote women should address both factors simultaneously to maximize student achievement. Effective interventions are of critical importance for women in science, and have strong implications for the achievement of equity in STEM disciplines.
Downloads
References
[1] Hedges, LV, and Nowell, A (1995), Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals, Science, Vol. 269, No. 5220, pp. 41.
[2] Kimura, D (2000), Sex and cognition, (MIT press). 230 pp.
[3] Hall, RM, and Sandler, BR (1982) The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? in Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
[4] Guiso, L, Monte, F, Sapienza, P, and Zingales, L (2008), Culture, gender, and math, Science, Vol. 320, No. 5880, pp. 1164.
[5] Córdova, FA (2016), Intentional equity, Science, Vol. 353, No. 6298, pp. 427.
[6] Nosek, BA, et al. (2009), National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, No. 26, pp. 10593-10597.
[7] Cotner, S, Ballen, C, Brooks, DC, and Moore, R (2011), Instructor gender and student confidence in the sciences: a need for more role models, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 96-101.
[8] Johnson, DR (2012), Campus racial climate perceptions and overall sense of belonging among racially diverse women in STEM majors, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 336-346.
[9] Espinosa, L (2011), Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 209-241.
[10] Fennema, E, and Peterson, PL (1985), Autonomous learning behavior: A possible explanation of sex-related differences in mathematics, Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 309-311.
[11] Clance, PR (1985), The impostor phenomenon: Overcoming the fear that haunts your success, (Peachtree Pub Ltd).
[12] Newsome, JL (2008), The chemistry PhD: The impact on women’s retention, A report for the UK Resource Centre for Women in SET and the Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 1-38.
[13] Beede, D, et al. (2011), Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation, Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, Vol. 4, No. 11, pp. 1-11.
[14] Larivière, V, Chaoqun Ni, YG, Cronin, B, and Sugimoto, CR (2013), Global gender disparities in science, Nature, Vol. 504, No. 7479, pp. 211-213.
[15] Grunspan, DZ, et al. (2016), Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms, PLoS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 1-16.
[16] Moss-Racusin, CA, Dovidio, JF, Brescoll, VL, Graham, MJ, and Handelsman, J (2012), Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, No. 41, pp. 16474-16479.
[17] Greenwald, AG, and Krieger, LH (2006), Implicit bias: scientific foundations, California Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 945-967.
[18] Ceci, SJ, Ginther, DK, Kahn, S, and Williams, WM (2014), Women in academic science A changing landscape, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 75-141.
[19] Sheltzer, JM, and Smith, JC (2014), Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111, No. 28, pp. 10107-10112.
[20] Young, DM, Rudman, LA, Buettner, HM, and McLean, MC (2013), The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 283-292.
[21] Haley, MR, Johnson, MF, and Kuennen, EW (2007), Student and professor gender effects in introductory business statistics, Journal of Statistics Education, Vol. 15, No. pp. 1-19.
[22] Hoffmann, F, and Oreopoulos, P (2009), A professor like me: the influence of instructor gender on college achievement, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 479-494.
[23] Carrell, SE, Page, ME, and West, JE (2009) Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 14959.
[24] Eddy, SL, Brownell, SE, and Wenderoth, MP (2014), Gender gaps in achievement and participation in multiple introductory biology classrooms, CBE-Life Sciences Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 478-492.
[25] Griffith, AL (2010), Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters?, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 911-922.
[26] Luckenbill-Edds, L (2002), The educational pipeline for women in biology: No longer leaking?, Bioscience, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 513-521.
[27] Amelink, C (2009), Literature overview: Gender differences in science achievement, Society of Women Engineers - Assessing Women & Men in Engineering Center for Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education Overviews, pp 1-22.
[28] Handelsman, J, et al. (2005), More women in science, Science, Vol. 309, No. 5738, pp. 1190-1191.
[29] Beede, DN, et al. (2011), Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation, Economics and Statistics Administration Issue Brief, No. 04-11, pp. 1-11.
[30] Hole, TN, et al. (2016) bioCEED Survey 2015 (Retrieved from University of Bergen, Bora - Bergen Open Research Archive: http://hdl.handle.net/1956/11952).
[31] Crombie, G, Pyke, SW, Silverthorn, N, Jones, A, and Piccinin, S (2003), Students' perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and context, The journal of higher education, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 51-76.
[32] Howard, JR, and Henney, AL (1998), Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. No. pp. 384-405.
[33] Cornelius, RR, Gray, JM, and Constantinople, AP (1990), Student-faculty interaction in the college classroom, Journal of Research & Development in Education.
[34] Shackelford, J (1992), Feminist pedagogy: A means for bringing critical thinking and creativity to the economics classroom, The American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, pp. 570-576.
[35] Rodriguez, I, Potvin, G, and Kramer, LH (2016), How gender and reformed introductory physics impacts student success in advanced physics courses and continuation in the physics major, Physical Review Physics Education Research, Vol.
12, No. 2, pp. 020118.
[36] Cheryan, S, Ziegler, SA, Montoya, AK, and Jiang, L (2016), Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 143, No. 1, pp. 1-35.
[37] Lemoine, GJ, Aggarwal, I, and Steed, LB (2016), When women emerge as leaders: Effects of extraversion and gender composition in groups, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 470-486.
[38] West, TV, Heilman, ME, Gullett, L, Moss-Racusin, CA, and Magee, JC (2012), Building blocks of bias: Gender composition predicts male and female group members’ evaluations of each other and the group, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 1209-1212.
[39] Lauer, S, et al. (2013), Stereotyped: investigating gender in introductory science courses, CBE-Life Sciences Education, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 30-38.
[40] McGlone, MS, Aronson, J, and Kobrynowicz, D (2006), Stereotype threat and the gender gap in political knowledge, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 392-398.
[41] Schmader, T (2002), Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women's math performance, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 194-201.
[42] Correll, SJ (2004), Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations, American sociological review, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 93-113.
[43] Stricker, LJ, and Ward, WC (2004), Stereotype Threat,
inquiring about test takers' ethnicity and gender, and standardized test performance, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 665-693.
[44] Stricker, LJ, and Ward, WC (2008), Stereotype threat in applied settings re‐examined: a reply, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 1656-1663.
[45] Cheryan, S, Plaut, VC, Davies, PG, and Steele, CM (2009), Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 97, No. 6, pp. 1045.
[46] Danaher, K, and Crandall, CS (2008), Stereotype threat in applied settings re‐examined, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 1639-1655.
[47] Steele, CM, and Aronson, J (1995), Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 797-811.
[48] Marx, DM, and Goff, PA (2005), Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target's test performance and subjective experience, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 645-657.
[49] Marx, DM, and Roman, JS (2002), Female role models: Protecting women’s math test performance, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 9, pp. 1183-1193.
[50] McIntyre, RB, Paulson, RM, and Lord, CG (2003), Alleviating women’s mathematics stereotype threat through salience of group achievements, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 83-90.
[51] Cohen, GL, Garcia, J, Apfel, N, and Master, A (2006), Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention, Science, Vol. 313, No. 5791, pp. 1307-1310.
[52] Cohen, GL, Garcia, J, Purdie-Vaughns, V, Apfel, N, and Brzustoski, P (2009), Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap, Science, Vol. 324, No. 5925, pp. 400-403.
[53] Martens, A, Johns, M, Greenberg, J, and Schimel, J (2006), Combating stereotype threat: The effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 236-243.
[54] Miyake, A, et al. (2010), Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation, Science, Vol. 330, No. 6008, pp. 1234-1237.
[55] Yeager, DS, and Dweck, CS (2012), Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 302-314.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The Nordic Journal of STEM Education licenses all content of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence. This means, among other things, that anyone is free to copy and distribute the content, as long as they give proper credit to the author(s) and the journal. For further information, see Creative Commons website for human readable or lawyer readable versions.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access
